*.V:UVi*V,V,9*Vi,\f,\f9 [%. [t It ^ I, % f, I ft fc 1» J«

iv. i« , 0^ if . i* ;fe- J» j» , » , fe ji 3 ^ ^ > " -^ » 6 1* J F r I* r « , ife. {.», « . •(» , ^j-, fe, {•:, (f. !«■ t ^- f. ^ {f >'' ^*' |- ^' 1^ 6*' ir r r»

ii.{(6..i*JV^.S». ^..t« ^■'L* tl

?.■».!!».#

,Vf*>-^»^*

M*. v«..».'; ..... . - . l». »'. i». *. ». '»

*. ». »■•, » '^. *. . ». »• >- » .>

. Jl. [« ;♦ 'J .p- 'If ;« '^

», (», I* i«. (*,. * *. *. .«■

.»,. tjf.*. ». p. ». ••». *.-.... ...... . .. ^ ,.

■■#. >^i». •»«, -*. *, *. ». .». f. * V* -.t »■ » -t ji >■ ■$

>J^^A^- *v*^*.*^*wM. * J*. »■ # * > * * P 'j ,i», >.!»>, ?,^.^*^;».^*,*.)' i». * * » • > > ».;»'-■

. >. ?, •». ^. *, y. » .* ?f I* ■•]» y >■ » I .1 HP ;

^ # ^ .:§ '1 ■[»■ i«, » » * p p- 1|/%' ^'ji' te' ^-^

#.> ¥J»j$ » •> • 'JR^ 'ji -r »: 8i > ; ■, *, ^J^ ■>, * *.* I* ^'» * » i» * i

"(•*?► » V > :t * » * r - '■

^ -^ ^ ^

ji 51 ^n H j> ;*

^.v. ,.* j> (« i» It If # ^ [» [f :« 'ji,*^5i 'f

, M» » *,t» L» j» I» 1» {«. [# » i» >' 8fc >■ ;

I

0 0A^«-°^°'

pemnM,if6» pH8^

E 449 .B92

Copy 1

THE SLAVERY aCESTION.

NO. I.

Our readers are aware that for many years we have been engaged in a .sort oJ desuhory warfare with the fanatical abolitionists of the North. We have, liowever, never meddled with iSlavery as a poUtical qtiestion. What we have written upon the subject has been, mainly, designed to expose the fallacy of the f-chenies of aboli- tionists, the deleterious tendency of their principles and policy upon the religious organizations of the country, and the interests of religion in general; and, as far as • possible, to arrest its progress and counteract its pernicious effects upon the unity and fellowship of the churches, the harmouy of the people, and the stability of the government. But though we have written much in a desultory and controversial way upon the principles and policy of modem abolitionists, Ave have never given our views upon the question of slavery, abstractly, considered, either in a religious or political point of view^.

So long as the discussion of the question was confined to its ethical bearings, we regarded it as, peculiarly belonging to the religious press; and we therefore felt it our duty^fo speak Oiit whenever we thought the cause of truth would be s'iibsisrved by so doing. But since the question has been made a purely political one in this State, we resolved to surrender it, at least for the present, to the political press, and hence our silence, in regard to it, for months past.

We have been induced to adopt this course of leservedness, not from any un- willingness that our fiews should be known, but because, in the first place, we ^have an utter repugnance to introducing political matters into our columns in any shape or way; and in the second place, because, having hitherto exerted ad our influence to observe and perpetuate the peace of the Churches, by resisting the introduction and influence of abolitionism among them, we have felt resolved that, now that it has been thrust u[.on them as a poHtical question, if the peace and har- mony of the churqhes is disturbed thereby, the Banner shall not be charged as having contributed to a result so much to be deprecated.

While these motives have hitherto control ed us, and we trust will «;till control u.«, we candidly confess that we have not been able to satisfy our mind whether a -er- fect silence, upon our part, in regard to the matter, was either compatible with our duty, as editor gf the denominational paper of the State, or best calculated to pro- mote and preserve the unity and peace of the churches. Our brethren ever}' where, as members of the civil compact, will be called to act in reference to, and decide upon the question politically, and their views of it, in a religious point of light, will necessarily have paramount control over their action as members of the body politic. They must act, and the presumption is they will be somewhat divided upon the question; but we trust that no difference of opinion, as politicians, will be sufiered to disturb their relations as church members. The subject, as a controversial one, should not be introduced, either into the columns of your paper, the churches, or among church members, as such.

It is therefore, not a matter of question with us, whether the slavery question, as it is now before the people of Kentucky, should be discussed through the columns of the Banner or not; upon that point our mind is fully made up : but the question '

/

i> whether a brief statement of our viervs upon the subject, in its rehgious anil civil iispccts, abstractly considered, nii^ht not promote harmony and concord among the members of our churches; and whether, occupying the position, we do, it is our duty to lay our views before our brethren and tlie public, before they act finally upon this iinportaftt question.

The subject is one of great moment in its moral, social and political bearings, • nsidered either in reference to the slaves, their owners, or the country; and those who have the power and who are about to be called upon to decide upon this ques- tion, so far as the interests of the parties in this commonwealth are concerned, should calmly and dispassionately investigate it in all its bearings, so that when they come to act they may be prepared to act conscientiously and mtelligently, and have no. occasion to repent of their action wlien it is too late to undo it.

Now we apprehend that there are thousands, even among our church members in this commonwealth, who, while they have fixed in their minds ho'.vthey will vote upon the sul>ject, have never given it the calm and thorough investigation which it merits, and which it is necessary they should do in order to a faithful discharge of their duty as Christians and good citizens. I'heir present determinations may be honestly intended, but they may nevertheless result from political preferences, fr..>m early prejudices, or the local influences which persons and circumstances around them have exerted upon them, while the merits of the question have occu- pied no part of their thoughts.

Various persons have urged it upon us, as a duty which we owed to the public, to come out and let our views be known, but for the reasons above stated, we have declined doing .so. It has, however, occurred to us that a mere statement of our views, as the result of our investigations of the abstract question of slavery^ both in its religious and civil aspects; and a brief statement of the reasons which have and will govern us in the exercise of our civil franchise, in reference to the ques- tion, as ii is now presented to the people of Kentucky, would not necessarily open the columns of the Banner for the discussion of the subject; while such an expose of our views might do good by exciting others to a more thorough investigation of the subject than they otherwise would do.

Under the influence of these considerations, and in persuance of the advice and opinion of others, we have consented to prepare a series of articles, stating as briefly as possible, our views of the several matters involved in the question of slavery, as it is now before the people of this commonwealth; and we offer this as the first number of the series.

NO. II. The will of God, as revealed in the Scriptures of divine truth, is, with us, para mount law in matters of morals. What is proved as morally right, by this law, no tinitf; being should dare impeach. And on the other hand, that which is condemn ed by this law as morally wrong, no finite being should dare attempt to justify or defend. If, therefore, we would arrive at just conclusions in regard to the moral rjujil'tv of any action or thing, we must cnndidly and ingenuously .search the Scrip- tuns tor information ir regard for it; resolved to receive its instructions and abide its decisions, avoiding all attempts to pervet its language or to misconstrue its plain import. Nrj man can, in the irue sense of the term, believe the Scriptures to be the Word of (Jod who, to maintain his peculiar views, is driven to the necessity of (}uibbling upon its verbiage, with a view to force it from its obvious meaning to sub- .scrve his purptjse. Such a course of j)rocedure by whomsoever resorted to, we look upon as inli(klily, made more infidel by professing to believe what is at the same time denied.

With these views of the suflicioncy and authority of (lie .'-•liij.t.ir. - in d. ,v,. :,.. ingall questions of morahty, wc of course appeal to them as thf; only aflc(}uato rule by which we can arrive at just conclusions in regard to the moral cjuaiities of slavery.

Admitting, as we do, the imperfection of human uiiderptanding, wc readily admit. also, thrtt persons equally desirous to arrive at the truth, and equally candid and honest in the investigation of facts, reji-son?, &.c., involving any question, may come to very diflerent conclusions in regard lo it. All we ask, therefore, is that due cred- it be given us for candor and honesty, and that we be tolerated in the exercise of our opinions to the same generous extent that we recognise the right to exercise freedom of opinion in others.

As the first commandment in the first table of the Moral Law, as defined by Christ, is the '^cklef commandment" of the decalogue and pervades all the .est, so the first commandment of the second table is the "chief commandment" of that section of the decalogue, and pervades all the other commandments of that table. — While the obligation to love God supremely, prevads all our relations, both to God and men, the obligation to love our neighbor as ours .If prevades all the ralations Avhich we can possibly bear to one another in this life.

These great pervading principles of the mo al code, arc, however, to be so un- derstood, a,s not only to harmonize most perfectly with each other, but with each and every other precept of the moral law. No interpretation, therefore, of either of these first principles of the moral law, which would interfere with the relations among men recognized by any other commandment in the decalogue, can be admitted as warranted by divine authority, or as calculated to promote the happiness of men. — There must be the most perfect harmony throughout all the precepts of the Divine Lair,

Let this principle, therefore, be understood as pervading our whole theory, wheth-. er of domestic or national government: that God approves of that system of things which, under the circvmstances, is best calculated to promote the holiness and happi- ness of men; and that what God approves is morally right. . '

With this broad and comprehensive basis as a foundation, we proceed briefly to state our views; First: Of the nature and design of Human Governments.

Had sin never been introduced into our world., no other law or system of govern- ment would have been required but that law which was incorporated in the nature of the p ire-moral-man, as he came from the hands of his Maker, and which law we now have embodied in the deccdogue. But when man fetl from his primitive huli- ness, and, with sin, all its sad and blighting conco i itants were introduced into our Avorld, God in His infinite mercy authorized the institution of human governments for the conrrol of mankind, and the bettering of their condition upon the earth.

The great fundamental Principle which it was intended should pervade all human governments, in subordination to our obligations to the Divine Arbiter, was the mor- al/<«j9jy/«ess of ^Ae ^?//«au ybmiZy. In searching tlie divne record, therefore, we shall find that form of government which, imder the circumstances, was best calcu- lated to promote the moral and social haj)piness of the people, icas sanctioned and ap- proved by God.

The first form of Government which we have any record of, is that which grew out of the paternal relation, and is denominated Patriachal. This form of govern- ment, though imbued with the spirit of the paternal relation, was nevertheless an abso- lute despotism. The will of the Patriach was the absolute law of his tribe; life and death were in his hands, and from his decision there was no appeal. The Pa- triarch exercised authority- over his tiibe as long as he lived, whatever might be the ages or circumstances of his descendants; unless where a head of a branch of the family moved beyond the bounds of the original Patriarchy; and in that case he became the patriarch of his own tribe.

As tribes were multiplied upon the earth, a diversity of circumstances ensued. — Some grew more potent, some more feeble. A collision of interests, and conse- quently wars supervened. Tribes were broken up and families scattered, defence- less and exposed to the oppressions of the more powerful around them. In this con-

ditiou of human affairs, slavery seems to have been introduced, as a system of ame- lioration and proctection to the helpless and oppressed. We have not time here to enter into ininutias as to what were the circumstances under which the first con- tract for a slave was made, nor is such an inquiry material to our present purpose. It appears upon record that, m process of time, whether from wars or other control- injT events, others beside the descendannts of the Patriarchs Avere incorporated into these Partriarchates. In the first place purchased, and in the second place born in the family. These servants, or slaves, wcre.evidently the property of those who had bought them or in whose fomilies they were born. This relation God evidently sanctioned, and in the case of the family of Abraham, provided for, by. special en- actment and covenant. So that the servants of Abraham, bought with his money and born in his house, were as directly incorporated, though without any change in their condition as servants, into the Abrahamic family, and was as much under obligation to recieve circumcision as was Isaac or any of his lineal descendants. To this subject we shall recur again in its proper place.

A multitude of circumstances conspired to "introduce other systems of 'civil rule and authority, into which the various Patriarchates were ultimately \irgcd. The crude and unsystcmatised national organizations which immediately succeeded the Patriarchal age, were despotisms of the worst sort, being withont any other law than the will of a tyrant. Even these, however, j^fiforded an imperfect protection to their subjects, and especially where they were imbued with the paternal spirit of the Patriarchial form of Government. Almost any form of government, however, is preferable to a state of unbrieled anarchy.

The Paternal Government is the from of government which by the fiat of our Maker is stapmed upon our nature, and is therefore best adapted to the necessities and interests of mankind. ISTot, however, in the form in which we have found it to exist in the patriachal age ; but thus. By the law of nature every father is vested with the government of his OAvn house-hold ; and as a necessary qualification to fit him for this high oihce, has impressed upon his nature as a husband and father, to- wards those under his government, so much of the spirit of the first commandment in the second table of the law, that he is by the spontaneous impulses of his heart inclined to love his wife and children as himself, and to protect and provide for them accordingly. It is clearly assumed, however, by the law of nature, or rather by the Great Founder of nature's law, that no man is competent to govern a fiimily who is not capable of self-government. Hence, while the son is in non-age, or for other reas- ons being incapable of self-government, he remains under the government of his father, and difters nothing from a servant. When, however, he sliall have acquired the requisite capabilities, he may colonize a family of his o^vn and assume the gov- ernment of it, iudependant of the restraints of his father.

Now, we hold that whatever system of national government approaches nearest to the nature of the paternal government, (is best calculated to secure the great ends contemplated thereby,) is the best form of human government. That form of government is to be found in a National Compact of Fathers, morally and intel- lectually qualified for 'self -guvernment. Such a national compact of nature's sov- ereigns, controled by organic law, which they have all had a voice in establishing, whether in the form of a simple or representative democracy, is the most perfect sys- tem of national government known to enlightened man, and is best calculated to promote the great ends of his moral and social being. It must be understood, how- ever, tliai no individual, who from any cause is destitute of the requisite qvalificaiions fur self-government can, vpon any consideration of reason- or justice, claim a partici- yation in such a government. Such disqualified persons may be taken under the jn'oteclion of such a government, but cannot be made parties in it.

If we look into the history of the past, Ave shall certainly find that in proporition as intellectual culture and moral light were difi'used among the masses, despotisms were weakened; nnil, vicee versa. Despots havi- always found it indispensible to the safety of their thrones, to partition out their power among their subjects in the

emci proportion of their caiyahUUles for srlf-r/overnmenl. Hence, we find that as nations have advanced in moral and intellectual culture, the government of those nations have changed from absolute despotisms to monarchies, ragrc or less Jimited, and thence to Republics.

Now, we feel authorized, from the inspired history of the past, to say that God, in all ages of the world, has intimated his preference for that system of government, which, compared with its contemporaries, most nearly approached to the modle above described; and the reason, to us, is obvious — because, best calculated to pro- mote the beneficent ends contemplated in the second tafte of the decalogue, concern- ing the human family.

As a proof that the above is not mere theory or bare opinion, we beg leave to present a brief analysis of the first organized government m the world :

When God called Israel from the land of Egypt to the possession of the land given in covenant^ to them as the seed of Abraham; he assumed the paternal right to gov ern them himself, and appointed Moses to be his special minister of state. Through Moses he gave to Israel the first system of organic national law the world ever saw ; and constituted them into a government composed of twelve Patriarchates, with a representative assembly of seventy elders. Here we have not only the first model of an organized national assembly, but also the first model of a representative gov- ernment; and this organization was upon the paternal basis. It Avill be seen, how- ever, that the individual pnternity of Israel (i. e. the lathers of families as individuals) were not at this time, either intellectually or morally capable of S(.'lf-governmcnt, and hence God assumed the paternal right to . legislate for them Himself; hut at the same time He gave us a bright example of what a representative government, upon the paternal basis, should be, by partitioning out the administration of the law, which He had established, into the hands of seventy elders, chosen from among the people.

The Theocracy of Israel, as originally constituted, was, when viewed simply as a human organization, a Republic of Fathers. And it is remarkable, that so Igibly were the peculiarities of the paternal form of government impressed upon their pre- ceptions and national organtzation, that their rulers were distinguished by the title of "Elders of Israel-"

As a further proof that the principles which we have laid down is not unfounded speculation and mere theo'ry, by a further inquiry into the history of Israel, we shall find that Avhen subsequently the children of Israel had degenerated in their moral and intellectual capabilities, by contact with the surrounding idolitrous nations, and were less qualified for self-government, God instituted a monarchy, for the govern- ment of those who were not capable of governing themselves. The Israelitish mon- archy was, however, a limited one, not only because the law established by divinr authority was unalterable and governed the throne ilseif, but also because the orig- inal representative form, was preserved in the perpetuation of the shanhedrim.

From this brief and imperfect survey of the past, the reader may gather what our views are of the moral nature and design of human governments; or what the divine beneficence intended to promote by their organization. He will also perceive how, according to our views, the divine sanction could be given to certain forms of government which, as we suppose, were not so perfect as they might be, and which under other circumstances He would not have sanctioned: thus, had Israel been capable of self-government, it is evident from the history of the times, God would not have established a monarchy in Israel. But as to have left them to themselves in their then condition, would have been virtually to have shut them up to anarchv and ultimate destruction, a system of government, better suited to their then condi- tion and necessities, was instituted for their good, and special preservation.

In the kingdom of Israel, by special enactment of God, slavery was instituted and provided for ; which never could have been the case if it necessarily rendered the condition of the salvQ worse than it othen\'ise would have been, and still more

i'>ssibk' would it ha vo boon for God to have given his sanction to it, if it were sin in the abstracl.

We have deemQd the foregoing disquisition upon the nature and design of human governments, indispensable to an enliglitened and Scriptural enquiry into the moral nature of slavery; to the consideration of Avhich our next number will be • devoted.

We are aware that our views of the subject under consideration, are somewhat novel; or, rather, that we are presenting the subject in a new point of Hght; and it may be well for us to request our readers to suspend a decision upon the propriety and fitness of the positions t^en until we are fully heard.

/ NO. III.

h will be understood, from what we said in our former number upon the '•moral nature and design of Human Governments," that we assume that the following positions have been established:

First. That God has beneficient and gracious designs to be accomplished in behalf of the human family.

Seco7idIy. That in accomplishing these designs, God is pleased to employ human instrumentalities: and that Human Governments are among the instru- mentalities instituted and employed for this end.

Thirdly. That it is perfectly consistent wiih the infinite wisdom and purity of the Divine nature, and perfectly cotnpatible with the nature and aim of the Divine intention, not only to allow, but, by his immediate authority, to institute and establish such social and civil relations and such forms of government as, under the circumstances then existing, are best calculated, in the estimatian of infinite wisdom, to promote his beneficient and gracious designs in behalf of our lapsed and degenerate world.

Fourthly. That those forms of Government which are more pei-fect in their nature, and are the best calculated to promote the happiness of a morally refined and enlightened people, are far from being the bost adapted to subserve the benevolent ends of the Divine intention in all conditions of human society. But that an absolute despotism, in the hands of an enlightened and benevolent Prince, is altogether better adapted to meet the wants and secure the safety and happiness of unenlightened barbarians than are ihe most liberal and enlightened forms of government. And hence the reason, the benevolence and the moral justice of the Divine procedure in the premises.

We have seen also that the relations of master and slave were recognized and provided for in those forms of government which were, at that time, the most enlightened, liberal and best adapted to promote the happiness of men, and most favorable to the benevolent intentions of God towards them: and that God, by special covenant and enactment of law, ratified and sanctioned that re- lation. We now proceed to enquire more particularly into the details of that relation as recognized and tolerated by God, and to compare it and contrast it with the slavery of this country.

We commence the enquiry by a brief investigation of the facts developed is the history of the Abrahamic family touching the subject under consideration. Were we disposed to inquire into the probable circumstances under which the servants bought by Abraham were first brought into bondage, as hinted in our former number, the multiplication of tribes and their opposing interests giving rise to wars and conflicts among them, as in the case of the herdsmen of Abra- ham and Lot; the impoverished and unprotected condition of feeble tribes and issolated families, &c., &c., would afford an ample field for speculation; but there is no necessity for any speculation where we have facts altogether suffi. cient for our purpose.

The fact is fully confirmed lint Abraham owned servants, or slaves, (for they were slaves in lh>i full sense of the term) some of which were bought with his money and some were born in his h-mse. It must bo evident to every believer in the Scriptures, that a. man so pre eminent for pliJty, as was Abraham; a man so elevated in moral excellence and virtue, as to b^ called the Friend of God, and so pre-eminently distinguished by God as to be made the Covenantee in the great scheme of redemption, would not, in the first, place, have purchased a slave, had ihe act been sinful, much less would he have lived in tlie habitual practice of that sin for so long a time. It will not do to attempt lo escape from the admission that Abraham was a slaveholder by an infidel quibble upon the import of the -original term, rendered "servants" in our version, for the special- ities in the inspired record concerning them prove beyond nil possible refutation that they were verily slaves in the very sense in which that term is understood in our language. In addition to all the other conclusive proofs of this fiict, the peculiar relations which they are made to sustain, in the covenant which God made with him, places the matter beyond cavil. By that instrument, the lineal relation of the slave, is blotted out, and he is identified with the family of Abra- ham forever — hut as a slaee. The covenant binds Abraham to circumcise his ' slaves, whether bought with his money or born in his house, just as absolutely as it binds him to circumcise his own sons. Thus distinguishing between the hired servant and the bought slave so definitively that the distinction cannot be misunderstood.

Now we maintain that God appoved o?, and by solemn covenant and compact with Abraham, ratified and confirmed the relation of master and slave which subsisted between him and those servants, bought with his money and born in his house, forever; and in this posiiton we are amply sustained, not only by the covenant itself, but by the testimony of Abraham's fhief servant, who testified to Laban and Bethuel, that the "Lord had given to his master man-servants and maid-servants.^''

It seems to us, therefore, that it would be the height of impiety to challenge the Divine procedure in this transaction, or to institute a doubt that the relation subsisting between Abraham and his servants was not perfectly consistent with the moral perfections of the Deity.

But as a further manifestation of the Divine approbation of the relation refer- red to, we refer the reader to the case of the absconding Hagar. In this case God sent a special messenger from heaven to command Hagar to return to her mistress, and submit herself, unconditionally, "under her hand." This case of Hagar's does not only furnish unequivocal proof that God approved of the rela- tion that subsisted between Hagar and her mistress, but it also furnishes a beau- tiful and striking illustration of the principle laid down in our former article, "that good approves of that system of things which, under the circumstances, is best calculated to promote the holiness and happiness of man." For that the good of Hagar and her posterity was contemplated in the mission of the Angel, and not the profit or special happiness of either Abraham or Sarai, is most cer- tain from the declaration of the Angel, as well as from the subsequent history of Hagar and her son Ishmael.

The foregoing facts, it would seem, would be qnite sufiicient to satisfy the mind of any honest inquirer after truth, that God had approved of the relation of master and slave; but we have still another fact, if possible still more con- clusive, that God has affixed his seal to the relation as one founded upon prin- ciples which lie at the very foundation of his moral government.

The dec .logue is regarded, by all who recognise the Bible as the word of God, as the fundamental law of God's moral rule among men. Yea, divines have affirmed it to be "a transcript of the moral perfections of Deity." And yet it is true, that the relation subsisting between the master and the slave is not only

10

recognised, Lut interwoven into the very texture and nature of that fundamen- tal law — that moral transcript of the perfections of the Deity. We may endea- vor to escape from the force of this testimony by carping upon the translation of the word, but it can avail us nothing, for no quibble of this sort can turn aside or e\ adi the fact that the law itself places the man-servant and the maid- servant precisely \n the same relation to their master, as articles of property, that it does his ox, his ass and other possessions.

Here, then, we pause for a moment, that we may turn the attention of the reader back to what we said in the forepart of the preceding article, upon the unity of the precepts of the divine law; because we wish to lead him to such a conception of the moral nature of the slavery which God approves as will be understood by such an exposition of the tenth commandment in the decalogue, as we have just given, and such an exposition of what the Saviour denominates "the second'' groat commandment, i. e., "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," as that they shall appear to harmonize i.iost perfectly and absolutely. Let this be done and you have "slavery in the abstract" — the slavery recognized in the Abrahamic covenant, which was approved of God and incorporated in the dec- alogue.

Slavery, as thus defined, was incorporated into the Mosaic law, by divine authority, and recognised by our Saviour and his Apostles: and we now proceed to show by a brief examination of the Mosaic law, and the history of the times, that the slavery of the Scriptures was conceived in divine benevolence, and in- tended, mainly, to secure the happiness of the slave — to preserve life — to afford protection and to furnish the means of moral culture, to those who would other- wise have been destitute of one or all of these great blessings. Slavery was never intended by God to minister to the cupidity and luxury of the master with- out an adequate, and even more than an adequate return of good to the slave. Its principle design was., hentvohnce to the poor and defenceless, and religious in- struction to Idoliters, Sfc: and this we hope to moke appear.

For the proof of the position which we have assumed above, we shall confine ourselves to the divine record. The patriarchal age affords a vast field for con- jecture and theory in support of our position, and poets might revel in its fertili- ty of themes for the muses in our support, but we propose to deal in facts alone, and we shall refer to but one other fact, in the family of Abraham, in proof of our position, in additton to the Divine benevolence in behalf of Abraham's slaves in the covenant provisions made for them, and the obvious intentions of God in the case of Hagar. -For in both these cases it is obvious that God in- tended specially to benefit the slaves and not Abraham. The other case to which we allude is, (hat Abraham regarded it as a natural consequence of his dying childless that his slave (for such a result could not have occurred with the child of a hired man) born in his house should be his heir. This fact speaks vol- umes: for from whatever source the law eminated that governed Abraham, this declaration of his is a fair exposition of it.

We proceed, however, to examine the law of Moses, and the history of the times it cover??, for the proofs and illustrations of our position, as assumed above, in regard to slavery.

Our readfers are all aware that the land of Canaan was inhabited by a num- ber of Tribes, or petty Kingdoms, the descendants of Ham, who had snnken into the grossest Idolitry, and that it was surrounded by nations of a similar character. Those tribes inhabiting the promised land, God appointed to ex- termination, by the hands of Israel; not merely to make room for his chosen people, but as a judicial punishment for their Idolitry, (as in the cases of the antidcluvians and the cities of the Plain;) and to preserve Israel from the con- tamination of tlicir example and influence. And where remnants of these tribes were suffered to live, God assigned them to perpetual slavery in Israel.

That tlie reducing of the Gibionites to slavery in Israel was a moasure of Di- vine clemency, will appear from the following considerations. Though by cir- cumventing the Elders of Israel, they had escaped the death to which God had appointed them, yet the fact of their having deserted the common cause of the Idoliters around them, against Israel, those nations had resolved upon their ex- termination, so that no alternative was left, seeing that by the covenant with Abraham, they could not be free nor hold estates in Canaan, they must be slaves in Israel; or, being driven out, perish bv the hands of their enemies. More- over, as .slaves in the house of Lsrael, they were brought under the religion of the true God, and the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, as set forth above. Slavery, under such circumstances, instead of death, was mercy divine. In re- gard to the heathen nations roundabout, of whom the Israelites were authorizen to buy bond-men and bond-women, it is to be remarked that the heathen man or woman thus purchased, was not thereby made a slave; but being already a slave with the heathen, he or she might be purchased, as such, by an Israelite and retained in perpetual bondage. As to how they became slaves among the heathen it is no part of our business to settle. . The fact that they were slaves in the possession of cruel^ rapacious ajid blood-thirsty Idoliters, seems to have been a sufHcieut reason with the Divine law-giver, (at least we so understood it,) as lo authorize the children of Israel to rescue such slaves from a condition so deplorable in its social and moral tendencies and results, that they might be brought under the influence of the religion of the true God; controled, protect- ed and provided for by masters whose hearts and lives were swayed by the law of the living God; and who recognised their accountability to him for their con- duct to their fellow mei^. That such a change was unspeakably more beneficial to the slave than the master, it seems to us, no reasoniible person can doubt. Now, in addition to what we have said above, if this provision of the Mosaic law is understood as providing the means of propagating a knowledge of the true God and of arresting the progress of Idolitry, it seems to us that we must admit that such slavery is perfectly compatible with the moral law. We call the at- tention of our readers to the following passages of Scripture, not only as spe- cifically settinjT forth the benevolent spirit and intention of the Mosaic law, (and also of the Abrahamic covenant,) in reference to the institution of slavery; but also as marking a distinction between the hired servayits and the bond servants, which no sophistry can confound or pervert. Touching the Paschal Lamb, God says to Moses: Ex. xii: 44-45: "But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him. then shall he eat thereof .A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat tliereof."

Concerning eating of the Holy things in the Priest's house, God says to Closes: Leviticus xxii: 10-11: "There shall no stranger eat of the Holy things: a sojourner of the priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the Holy things. But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house; they shall eat of his meat."

We shall refer but to one other feature in the Masaic law, concerning slavery, in illustratton of the benevolence of its provisions, and then pass on. We mean that section of the law which provides for the enslaving of an Israelite, it is evident that the special benefit of the poor Israelite is the immediate object con- templated in this provision of the law. He that knows the hearts of all men, understood perfectly that there is such an utter deficiency of benevolence in the hearts of the rich, ordinarily, that the poor of his people would often suffer (as they do in this christian land) unless it was in some way made the interest of the rich to provide for them and to protect them against their oppressors. And hence he allowed the rich to buy the poor, that they might be provided for in a better way than they could do for themselves. An Israelite, however, if able to own it could hold estates in Canaan. There was no necessity of retaining

12

him in perpetual bondapre in order to bring^ hinn under the influence of the true rehgion. on the one hand, or to prevent him from returning to Idolitry on the other. Hence God limited his service to seven yearsj at the end of which time he rould claim his freedom in defi ince of his master.

But mnik, now, the peculiarities of the law. After the purchase has been made, nothing more is optional with the master. The slave can claim his free-" dom at the expiration of seven years, in defiance of the master. But if the slave at the expiration of the time should find himFclf unable, either from age, infirmities or anything else, to provide for himself, he has only to say: "I love my master," and am not willing to leave him; and the master has no choice left — he is bound {0 take him to the door-post, bore his ear with an awl and keep him, provide for him and protect him as his slave for life. All the provisions of this section of the Mosaic law, go to show that it was intended as a system of supply, comfort and protection to the poor in Israel by making it the interest of (he rich to become their benefactors for the time being.

From what we have seen, we may fairly conclude that slavery, as a system of sociiil and political relations between man and jnan, was intended for good, but like almost every other divine providence intended for the amelioration of the sin-mined race of Adam, it is liable to be perverted, and often has been and still is made the occasion of most flagrant and appaling violations of the Divine Lpw. Rut the consideration of this departnaent of our subject we must defer for our next.

NO. IV.

Having, as we think, clearly demonstrated, in our preceding article, that the relation between the master and the slave has received the Divine sanction and ratification, as a system of social benevolence, by which the master is secured in a reasonable reward for his trouble and outlay, and the s'ave delivered from abandonment and suffering — it may be proper for us to lay before the reader a hw facts and reasons to show that such a system of slavery, as we have shown that to be which God has approved, is calculated to work out in society the beneficial results which we have assumed God intended it should.

We wish our readers distinctly to understand that we admit that the institution of slavery, through the cupidity and rapaciousness of wicked men, has been awfully perverted and abused. That it has been the occasion of enormous and crying sins by both master and slave; and that we do not appear as the apologist, much less as the defender of any perversion or abuse of the institution — we de- fend it no farther than we believe God has approved it. We are, however, far from admitting that slavery is sin iti itself because wicked men have sinned, as masters and slaves. Subject any institution, even the most sacred, to such an ordeal, and it must inevitably fall. The institution of civil Government, of mar- riage, of the Gosp>?l ministry must all he condemned and abandoned if such a process of trial and judgement are to be adopted; and anarchy, and barbarism, and infidf'lity must reign over those fair portions of our earth where civil order, domesiio f. licity and the christian's hope conspire to alleviate the sorrows of life, and ji^rdi „p [\^q pilgrim's path to a better land. Sin has perverted every good, and it is not to be wondered at that the institution of slavery has sliared with the rest. It is true that the imperfect annals of the times of Abraham and of the nation of Israel, from the death of Joshua to the time of Jereboam, aflford us but imperfect data as to the practical operation of the system of slavery, as instituted among them. This we know, however — that no record of vioknce o- of destitution is found in the history of Abrahaios' family; nor have we ar

13

record of a poor-house, an alms-house, nor of a solitary heggar in the annuls of Israel, 'i'heir poor were all provided for by tlie institution of domestic servitude.

Even in the present day, where slavery prevails among enlightened nations, notwithstanding the gross perversion aTiid abuse of the institution, we shall find less destitution and suffering than in similar enlightened nations where slavery does not exist. As proof of this, let us, in the first place, compare the kingdom of Great Britain with the empire of Russia. Great Britain has the advantage of Russia in all the ordinary resources of human happiness. Her Goverimient is more liberal, her climate and soil are superior, her religious and literary institu- tions are also superior to those of Russia, and yet it will not be denied ihut the poor of England are more numerous and more abject than those of Russia; and that the amount of human suflering from poverty and oppression in England is immeasurably greater than it is in Russia.

And if we take our own country as an example, and compare the proportion- ate number and the comparative destitution of the poor in the non-slavelio Iding States with those of the slaveholding States, it will be found that the proportion of poor, to the general population, is much larger in the free than in the slave States; and that, there is a much greater amount of sulFering (rom poverty and destitution in the former than in the latter States.

Now the reasons for these results are, to our mind, perfectly obvious. In all ages and countries, those who are in affluence and power have oppressed the hapless and poor, and will continue to do so, so long as the selfishness of de- praved human nature remains what it is; unless, by some benevolent arravgeme?2(, the interests of the poor and helpless are indentified with the interests of the powerful and wealthy. And such an institution is slavery, based upon the principles which we find it to be in the Scriptures. If we suppose the master to be governed by those ennobling and benevolent principles which the law of the Lord inspires, then does the slave find in him such a IViend, guardian and defender as the poor and the destitute will find but seldom any where else. And if the slave is gov- erned by the same law, the confidence of the parties will be mutual, and recip- rocal benefits will result from the relation. Such we suppose to have been the moral character of slavery as ratified by the Abrahamic covenant, recognised in the Decalogue, and incorporated in the Law of Moses; and which, so far from being sinful, we can but regard as a wise provision of the Father of Mercies, to secure the poor against the rapacity and oppression of the rich.

Fallen as we are, and cursed as the earth is for our sakes, God has supplied every clime and country with abundant resources for the subsistence and happi- ness of its inhabitants. And the only reason why the poor in any country, are subjected to squalid wretchedness, misery and starvation, are the two following: First — the "chief commandment" of the second table of the Law has been so entirely effaced from our natures by the fall, that man has lost his sympathies for his fellow man, and instead of the law of love, all dominant selfishness rules in his heart. Hence, the rich are utterly incapable of sympathising with the poor. Secondly — no provisions are made in the civil institutions of those countries to recon- cile and harmonize the interests of the rich with the safety and happinesa of the poor; but on the contrary, their interests arc niadc antagonistic to each other. The rich have not only all the civil power in the land, and therefore nde the poor, but they have also all the means of comfort in their possession; and being inflaeuced by the law of selfishness, they oppress the poor, and grind them into the dust. The only means for subsistence which the poor have is tlieir labor ; but the rich have the control, not only of the amount of labor to be performed, but of the wages to be paid for it; and the result is, that such unreasonable exactions are made upon the time and energies of the poor, even in christian countries, that at the low wages afforded them, and the high prices which they are compelled to pay for food, thousands are starving for bread while there is an abundance around them; because, though they

14

labor sixteen hours out of the twenty-four, Ihey are not able to supply themselves with bread. This is true, not only in those old countries where despotisms reign, and the land seems to be overstocked with inhabitants but is true also in our own country, (^specially in the populous cities oTthe East.

Now we maintain that .such a system of servitude as that which was established in Israel, by which the health and hapjjiness of the servant was identitied with the hUn-csts of (he master, would obviate all this evil. Take Ireland for an example, and suppose the Government had so provided that, instead of an oppressed and im- poverished tenantry, subjected to the rapacity and heartless exactions of overgrown landlords, the poo/of the country could have' sold themselves for a given period to the wealthy, so as to make it theduty and the interest of the wealthy to provide for the health and subsistence of the slave; who does not see that the immense stores of provisions in the jiossession of the rich would have been every where unlocked, and the oppres.se d millions of that devoted land have been delivered from a slavery infi- nitely more degrading, and from wretchedness, starvation and death? As a further illusti-ation of what we mean, notwithstanding all that may be regarded as wrong in the slaverv of this country, let us suppose that famine should visit any portion of the South, even beyond what it is in Ireland — is there any individual, even the most violent opposer of slavery, who believes that there is a master in the land, who would not only share with his servants the last bushel of meal in his possession, but would not sell every thing lie owned, in order to buy food for them, rather than tlieir little ones .should cry for bread, much less that any should starve for the want o^it? Before we dismiss thispartof our subject, we beg leave to introduce a case which occurred not long'since in the city of New York, as a practical illustration of the views we have just given. The case is thus stated by Maj. Noah, in his New York Sunday Messenger:

' 'Here at the North the poor blacks are not permitted to work alongside the white man. Once they were permitted to follow the humble employment of carry- ing up bricks and mortar but they were kicked from the ladder by our white fellow- citizens. They clean boots, scour clothes, but are not permitted to sweep streets — and yet we, who persecute, neglect and repudiate the free black man here, are filled witli holy zeal to make the slave free at the South, and depriA^e him of a home, of food and of clothing, and of a kind, considerate master; and we struggle for that freedom even at the expense of breaking down, dividing and destroying our glorious Republic! Suppose all the slave States were to say to their free blacks — "My friends, we have given to you employment, but your abolition friends are anxious that you should come forth from the iniquity that surrounds you — go to them, and .see if they will do as much for you as we have done!'' What is to become of more than half a million of freed blacks driven forth to seek the cold charity of the North? They will starve!

Wherever we turn, we see nothing in the agitation of the slave question but ruin and distress to the colored race!

A circumstance accurred here last week, which has led to the foregoing reflec- tions. Passing down Nassau street, three or four persons were standing inside of a store talking to a black man, and they invited us to come in. "Here is a black man," said one of the gentlemen, "who wishes to sell himself as a slave for ^150."

We entered the .store, and saw a short stout fellow in rags, with good countenance, and no indication of vice.

"Wliere do you belong?"

"To Ni;w York; I was born there."

"Don't you know that you can't sell yourself as a slave in this State."

"What am I to do? I can get no work. I have had no breakfast; I am almost naked ; no one cares for me, and I have no friends. Is it not better to have a good master whom J can Avork for, and who Avill care for me?"

Here was an illustration of the practical benevolence of domestic African slavery, while it exhibited the rank hypocrisy of the Abolitionists. They would raise two

16

readers to a few prominent features in its history, in order to such an analysis of it as will enable us to compare and contrast it with the slavery of the Scriptures, that thereby we may be able to decide upon it as a question of causistry. In order to arrive at just conclusions in regard to the enslaved condition of Africans in this country, it is indispensibly necessary that we should ascertain what tlicir condition was in Africa, before they were brought here. And as our object is siinj)ly to give our views, eschewing controversy, we shall state only facts, as generaJly admitted. It is admitted on all hands, that Africa, from time inimemoiial, has hen inhabited by a population the most degraded, ignorant, barbarous and cruel of any other quarter of the world. That they were pagan idolators, enveloped in the thickest moral darkness with which sin had cursed the earth, and which hat! ellectually resisted all attempts to introduce the light of Truth into that benighted hind; that they were cut up into clans, factition and petty nations, headen by chiefs, the most rapacious and cruel, whose chief business was war, and who.se chief traflic censisted in their captives, who were destined for sale, for sacrifices to their idols, or to feast their own cannibal appetites upon. Such was the condition of Africa, before slavery was introduced into this country, and such is still the condition of those tribes, or clans, which supply the slave trade at present. No African is made a slave by coming to this country — they are slaves in their own country when purchased for market in ti'is; and it must not be overlooked that African slaves are made so by their own implied coftsent. For, according to ihe international laws by whic'i those clans are governed, every one who goes to war for reprisals, virtually consents to become a slave if conquered; so that they should not complain.

While it is true that slavery, such as alluded to above, existed in Africa long be fore it was introduced into this country, yet it is due to truth to say, that in all prob- abiltty, the extensive and ready sale for their captives to the traders from this coun- try, has greatly increased bloody and brutal wars amongst them. But with this admission, it cannot be denied that the condition of the African slaves in this country, both physically and morally, is an intinitely better one than is the condition of the free popula ion of their several tribes in Africa, to say nothing of the condition of their slaves. To say nothing of our hopes for them in the future, but considering ihem as they now are, and every enlightened and candid mind must perceive that they have been greatly benefitted by the change. If it be admitted, as we suppose it must be, that the African slaves in America, as a whole, are greatly better off than they could possibly be in their own degraded native State; then it must be admitted, also, that in one important feature, American slavery assimilates with what we have .seen to be an important constituent of the slavery recognized in the scriptures — effiecting the good of the enslaved.

Let it now be recollected what was said above of the seveaal constituents of every moral action, and in view of the rules there laid down, let us inquire inio the several motives which could possibly have influenced those who first purchased such an african slave, as we have found those to be in Africa, for service in this country; for the motive in the action, determines the moral quality of the act, so far as the actor is concerned. To state the question in as practical a shape as possible, we will sup- pose that there were three distinct classes of original purchasers, all influenced by different motives, and that these three classes of purchasers are the representatives of three distinct classes of slaveholders in this country at this time. These three classes of original purchasers, being in Africa, and beholding the physical, social and moral degradation of the native slaves, were all influenced, by what they saw, to purchase as many of these slavee as they possibly could, and transport them as slaves to this country for their own use. Though all were influenced by what they saw, to per- form the same act, abstractly cansidered, yet each class was influenced by distinptly different motives. For example —

The first class are men wholly uninfluenced by moral or religious impulses, and measurably void of the ordinary sympathies of cultivated human nature, see nothing in the scenes around them to awaken either emotions of philanthropy or

15

thousand dollars to purcliase the liberty of two mulatto ghls, and yet allow a poor black to offer himself iis a slave to save himself from starving in a free Northern State."

We have thus imperfectly sketched out what we conceive the slavery of the Bible to have been, morally and socially. We now propose to enquire into the constitu- ent elements of the slavery of this country and to compare it and contrast with that system of slavery which we conceive the scriptures to tolerate and warrant. Before we proceed, however, we lay down the following brief rules, as our guide in deter- mining the moral qualities of an action, and also in comparing one action with another:

1st. An act to be morally right must be in conformity to a Divine law, of either a general or special application. But that intinite wisdom never gave a special law to conflict with a general law, neither can a special law abrogate or in any way impair one of a general nature

2d. That all moral actions are constituted of three distinct, and, in some respects, separate specialities — the motive, the action itself, and the effect or tendency of the action. The motive determines the moral quality of the action so far as the actor is concerned; the abstract moral qimlity of the action is to be determined by specific moral law, or, in other Avords, the moral right of the actor to perform it, the moral effect or tendency of the action is to be judged of by its results, cither as good or evil. The motive may he good and approvable, and the action itself wrong, as in the inten- tion of Uzza to suppport the Ark; the motive may be wrong, and the action in itself a right one, as tn Isaac's blessing Jacob instead of his favorite son Esau. The motive and the action may both be wrong, and it may result in the greatest imagi- nable good, as ioithe selling of Joseph into Egypt by his brethren.

3d. In comparing different actions, or the actions of different actors with each other, with a view to determine their comparative moral qualities, we apply the fore- going tests and decide accordingly. But where an action, in all its constituents, is evidently decided to be in conformity to the moral law, if another action be com- pared with it, with a view to ascertain its moral quahties, we will be justified in approving or disapproving the latter action to the extent that it may be found to agree or disagree with the approved action. In deciding, therefore, upon the relative moral qualities of the slavery in this country when compared with the slavery of the Scriptures, we shall proceed according to the foregoing rules^

There is one feature in the Mosaic law which authorizes the enslavement of the Gibeonites and its confederate cities, to which Ave have barely alluded; nor do we intend now to do much more. It is evident, from the facts in the case, that their" enslavement was intended as punishment for their idolatries, God himself being the judge. The sentence of death had been pronounced upon them, but that sentence was commuted for slavery, in consequence of Ihe oath of the Elders of Israel. We name this fact, not only as forming an exception to the general view which we have given of the slavery of the- Scriptures, but also to call attention to the fact that, even under such circumstances, slavery was approved of God.

In regard to the slavery of the Scriptures, we think Ave have already shown that it was a merciful a?id benevolent inslliution, tolerated and sanctioned by God, for the amelioration of the condition of the poor and unprotected, by Avhich the interests of the rich are secured in protecting and providing for the necessitous.

That where the consent of the en.slaved has been, either directly or indirectly, given to his enslavement, he cannot complain of any injustice in his case; and that where his condition, physically and morrally, are bettered by it, he is the gainer by his enslavement; so that the master is guilty of no moral wrong, Avho makes the condilion of his slave better than it otherwise would have been. But, if he seeks to promote the happiness of his slaAC, and to advance him in moral and intellectual culture, he performs a charitable and belevolent act.

A brief inquiry into the history of American slavery is all we have room for; but it is not necessary to our object to do more than barely call the attention of our

17

christian benevolence towards the degraded and suffering human hcings which ihcy contcmjilate. They were not influenced in the least by any humane or christian feeling; but seeing an opportunity to enrich themselves by purchasing these slaves at a low price, and entirely without reference to the good of tlie slave, resolve to pur- chase all they can that by their labors they may enrich themselves. Now, admitting that the purchaser intended no injury to the slave, and that the act of purchasing a slave is, as an abstract act, allowable; and allowing also that the condition of the slave, by the force of surrounding circumstances, should be improved by the change; still as the act was superinduced by motives wholly selfish and sordid, in the absence of "the law of love" — love cither to God or man, the actor is justly chargeable with moral wrong. Should however the condition of the slave not be improved by the purchase, and especially if it should be made worse, by the rapacity, injustice or cruelty of his master, then is the moral turpitude of his act increased, in tlie ratio of his disregard of the chief command of the second table of the decalogue.

Now we maintain that that class of slaveholders, who are represented by the above class of purchasers, and who are influenced by similar motives, whether they have purchased or inherited their slaves, are in a like condemnation. They cannot plead the examples in the Scriptures in justification of their sordidness^ selfishness, injustice, cruelty and utter disregard of humanity and the law of God. God may, and we believe will, over-rule slavery, even in the hands of such moral monsters to his glory, in the social and moral elevation of the slaves, and the ultimate salvation of thousands, but his \rrath is kindled against the wicked and cruel masterj and he will be held strictly accountable for his disregard of his divine law.

The second class of purchasers, we will suppose, were affected at the degrada- tion and suffering of the human beings before them, and believing that they could materially better their condition by bringing them to America and employ- ing them as slaves, under their own watch, care and supervision, without loss to themselves, from mere impulses of humanity — love to their neighbors — resolved to purchase all they could; and, in pursuance of their original purpose, hare continued to seek the improvement and well-being of their slaves. Here we suppose the motive to be such an one as the second table of the law warrants. — It was dictated by love for man, and, therefore, thus far, approved of God. This example we suppose to be strictly analogous to that system of slavery in the Mosaic Law, which tolerated the purchase of slaves from among the Gentiles; and which God intended to over-rule to the subversion of idolatry, and the extension of the knowledge of himself among the nations of the earth, preparatory to the coming of Messiah; but we have no room to enlarge.

There is, we think, a large class of slaveholders in this country fitly repre- sented by the above example because similar motives influence them. It is not material how they come into possession of their slaves, whether by purchase or inheritance, if their conduct towards their slaves is dictated by a sense of humanity, Ymdness, and a desire to promote their social and moral improvement; though they may not be influenced by those higher motives which influence the Christian, still, so far from regarding them as sustaining a sinful relation to their slaves, we can but believe, and shall attempt to show, that God is using them as his instruments, to accomplish his gracious designs in regard to benighted Africa. The slaves of such owners will rapidly improve in civilization and the arts, and in despite of the opposing influences will soon acquire all the requisites for self- government; and the further important objects contemplated in the Divine mind concerning them, must ultimately follow, of which we shall say more in its place.

The third class of purchasers were Christians, who did not only feel all the sympathy and generous philanthropy which influenced the second c/ass, but look-

18

\ny beyond their temporal condition, miserable as that was, contemplated them as beino; without God and without hope iu the world, and sinking down to the death that never dies; and in addition to, and above, the impulses of philanthropy, their spirits were stirred within them for ihe salvation of their soids as well as their bodies; they therefore resolved to buy to the uttermost of their means. — They aim now, not merely to promote their temporal happiness — their intellectual and moral improvement, but especially to instruct them into the knowledge of salvation by Christ Jesus. This is their chief concern, and for its accomplish- ment they are found daily at a throne of grace. But they do not stop here; they aim. at more than the salvation of their slaves, Tiie millions of their be- nii'hted kindred in Africa, press heavily upon their hearts, and they hope the day will come, when they can send their enlightened and christianized slaves, as'Christ's freemen, to their Father Land, to teach their kindred the way of life and salvation; and to these great objects their energies and prayers are directed. Now in our judgement such a case presents one of the highest exhibitions of pure Christian benevolence the world ever saw. Such a benevolence as we have no example of in either the Abrahamic or Mosaic history, and is only exempli- fied, in the scriptures, in Paul's letter to Philemon. Now we affirm from our personal knowledge, that there are many, and we believe many thousands, of slaveholders in the South, who, though (hey never purchased a slave in Africa, are atlected precisely, in reference to their slaves, as in the example above given; and who hope for the time when the slaves in this country shall be so advanced in the arts, in science and religion, as to be perfectly capable of self-government — assured thatwke?i that is the case they will be useless as slaves, that their owners will cheerfully surrender them to be transplanted by the Government to their father, land, for membership in the great Jjfrican Republic.

NO. V.

We hope that the analysis of the slavery of this country, in our last number, was sufficiently explicit to be understood by our readers, and that so far as the effect of American slavery upon the relative condition of the slave, before and after his en- slavement, is concerned, that it was quite apparent that, in that particular at least, there was nothing necessarily in American slavery to make it less moral than the slavery which we have shown to be recognized in the covenant with Abraham, in the Mosaic law, and in the second table of the Decalogue.

We moreover think that so far as the motive in the action is concerned, we made it appear that so far as that class of slave-holders are concerned, whose motives and conduct, in reference to their slaves, are assimilated to those in the first example which we gave, that they can in no sense whatever appeal to the example in the vScripturcs for justiGcation or defence. That they have contracted guilt by their re- lations as masters, and thai their whole course of conduct, influenced by such mo- ivcs, is perpetualy aggravating the guilt contracted.

While we admit, however, that the above is too true of a large class of slavehol- ders in this country, we think that we have clearly shown that there is another class of slave-holders, as in the second example which we gave, whose motives seem to be as perfectly coincident with the requirements of the second table of the law, as we can pos-ibly imagine the motives which actuated either Abraham or Moses to have been; and whom we claim to be as sinless in the relation they sustain to their slaves, as were those who held slaves, either under the Abrahamic covenant or the Mosaic law— except a law can be found for those which will not apply to these — which wc shall ahow, in its place, cannot be done.

Wc have shown a third class, also, of modem slaveholders, who scorn to be in- fluenced by motives of still more elevated charaeter than a mere nesrative c nformi- ty to the, moral re<iuirement of the law. They aim not merely to promote the tem- poral welfare of their slaves, but also their eternal salvation, and through them the salvation of their countrynK'ii. These, therefore, we suppose to be, not merely un- ofFonding, as masters, but e-pecially approved as christians, being influenced by the spirit of the Gospel, to make sacrifices and perform services which the second talle of the law does not require.

We are inclined to think that there is an error somowhat prevalent, and not a lit- tle subversive of the truth, which we had just as well attempt to correct here as any where else. It consists in the assumption that the moral law requires all that the spirit of the Gospel can possibly incite to the performance of; and the deduction from this assumption is, that they who come short of performincj all the services, and making all the sacrifices which the most ardent zeal, enlarged benevolence and elevated faith of the christian would prompt him to do, is a* moral delinquent. Now although this is so evidently a mistake as that the bare statement of it would be sufticient for its refutation, still it may be necessary that we should do no more than merely pronounce it an error. A very few reasons and illustrations, however, will, we think, settle the question.

The erroneousness of the above assumption will appear, from contemplating the nature of the law itself; for the very nature and intention of the law, as a rule of moral action, is to require no more of the subject of it than is sufficient to avoid the penalty. It requires no acts of extra merit. Its entire requisitions are falfilled, by merely avoiding the penalty. The law, in its restrictive recjuirements, did not, and could not contemplate that class of moral actions which are induced by a grateful sense of the unmerited pardon of sins. It is impossible to conceive how the law could require such acts of one who had violated its precepts, except m answer to the pen- alty incurred, and this would be to dispense with the necessity of the atonement of Christ. We have not room to enlarge here upon this momentously interesting sub- ject. Our object is to show that the love of Christ shed ebroad in the heart of a renewed, repentant and pardoned sinner, prompts to deeds of benevolence, per- sonal toils and sacrifices which the law as a rule of moral right and wrong does not require, and that while the performance of such acts, as christian duties and privil- eges, entitles the performer to no essential or saving merit, (which they would certainly do, if required by the law of transgressors,) still that they may be omitted without the contraction of guilt. A few examples, by way of illustration, will show- more definitely our meaning, and we must there leave the subject for the present.

The law, for instance, does not require that a man should leave his father, moth- er, house and lands, &c., for the kingdom of God's sake, as a comphance with any of its precepts; but such an action, prompted by love and obedience to Christ, is an eminent trait in the christian, and is encouraged by special promises.

The law did not require that the poor widow should have thrown her whole living into the treasury, nor would she have incurred guilt if she had not done so; but hav- ing done so she gave evidence of her great devotion, and has secured the special approbation of Him who witnessed it.

The law did not require the woman to anoint the Saviour's head with the oinment of spikenard, nor to wash His fet^t with tears, and to wipe them with the hairs of her head; nor would she have contracted any more guilt by omitting it than John and others did ; but the deed was prompted by that love for the Redeemer which is found only in a penitent sinner's heart — she did it against His burial — and her Lord be- queathed her the honor, not only of his approbation, but, that she should have her deed mentioned in honor of her wherever the Gospel should be preached, in all lands, through all time to come.

Multiplied other examples could be given, but these may suffice to show that a man may not incur moral guilt, even though he should come short of performing some of the higher and more distinguished acts of eminent christian*. Hence we

20

liave assumed tliat the christian master, whose love to God and the souls of men prompt him to a course of action in reference to his slaves, which taxes his time, iiis personal labor and his estate, for their earthly happiness and eternal salvation, as in the third example given above, does not only avoid the contraction of moral iruilt. but performs a high and praiseworthy act of christian benevolence, of which we shall have more to say hereafter.

Having examined the moiive of a moral action, we come now to enquire into the aci. Forwliatever may be the character of the motive, if the act performed is in violation of law, or is not authorized by the law, then is the action morally wrong.

Those who maintain that the holding of a slave is, in itself, a sinful act, deny, not only that it is either authorised or tolerated by the moral law, but that it is, at least impliedly, forbidden. This objection, we think, we have fully met and refuted; and therefore submitting what we have said to the judgment and conscience of our read- ers, we pass on to examine the argument based upon the assumption that God may, and has, enacted special laws, in contravention of His universal moral code; and therefore; though a special law may be purely moral in its nature, it cannot be re- garded as expository of the Decalogue, nor as authorising the act provided for in the special law, by any but those to whom that special law was given. We think that the nature of those special laws, referred to, is not generally understood, and that material and dangerous mistakes are made by many who undertake to show their incompatibility with the great moral code given for the universal government of men.

Those who affirm that slavery is sin per see, are driven to the necessity of assuming the ci-round that all special laws are extra of the Decalogue, not authorised by it, and in no way expound its import; because such are the clear and unequivocal proofs that the Mosaic law recognised and provided for the institution of slavery among the Israelites, that they would be compelled.to abandon their ground, unless they could, in some way, invalidate this provision of the Mosaic law, as a Divine exposi- tion of the Decalogue. To do this, they have assumed that, because some special enactments of God are extra of the Decalogue — that is, are not directly recognised by that code — that therefore all special laws are extra of the moral code, and in no way expound its import, or warrant the performance of the acts provided for by those special laws. Hence they deduce, that as some of the provisions of the Mo- saic law were especially applicable to Israel, the whole law was of a special nature, and therefore none of its provisions are of a general application. Now we wish to show that this method of expounding moral law is essentially and dangerously erro- neous.

In the first place, this mode of construing special laws, assumes that the Decalo- o-ue, as a universal code of morals, is imperfect, and does not provide for all the rela- lations which subsist between God and His creatures, and between man and man ; and that therefore God has found it necessary to provide special laws for special cases of moral necessity ; Avhich is an absurdity so manifest as to require no argu- ment to prove it so.

In the .second place, this mode of interpretation assumes, not only that, the moral code is imperfect, but, that God can consistently with Himself and the code of His moral government, enact special laws, of a purely moral nature, not only extra of the moral code itself, but incontraventio7i of it; and that therefore it would be sinful in any one beside those to whom the special law was given, to perform the moral ac- tion therein prescribed.

The idea that God can, consistently with Himself and the nature of His moral government, enact special laws of a purely moral nature, extra of and in opposition to His universal moral code, so directly impeaches the Divine purity and the perfec- tion of His moral government, that we shall not waste time in attempting to show its falacy further than the mere statement of the hypothesis, as above made.

In order to lay before our readers, in as brief a manner as possible, the only just and consistent method of construing those special laws, referred to, we lay down the

21

following- rules, for expoundiiijij them. In the first place, we maintain that the Peca- \oguoconta\ns a perfect system of moral /«?<% to whirh nothing can be essentially, added; and in opposition to which, God cannot, consis tently -with His moral gov- ernment or llis own nature, institute any law, ^ther special or general.

Secoufll!/, thai all sp^-cial laws must accord perfectly with the great universal moral code, because it is impossible for God to establish antagonistic j)rinciples in His system of moral government.

Thirdly, that that class of special laws which may be considered cytra of the Decalogue, that is, not naturally proceeding from it or embraced in its provisions, such as the laws of the ceremonial .service, of the Priesthood, of circumrision, <kc.. and those which relate specially to persons under divine appointment, as to Moses, the Prophets, <fec., though either ceremonial or official and not strictly of a moral nature, are nevertheless in harmony with the Decalogue and not antagonistic to it. But that all special laws, strlcilij. of a moral nature, are necessarily based upon the Decalogue, and are to be understood as expositions or elaborations of its precepts. An action, in itself, morally wa-ong, as dclined by' the Decalogue, cannot be made morally right by special law, and ijice versa. All actions therefore of a purely mor- al nature, that is, such actions as are to be judged of by the moral law, which' are authorised and sanctioned by special law, mu.st of necessity be in conformity to the moral law, and therefore sanctiond by it. If a special law could be instituted, which would authorise a moral action in contravention of the moral law, then might the Infidel reason with propriety that the moral government of the world was founded on caprice and not on principle; and the strange and anomalous fact would be present ed to the moral Universe, of Gods having by special law, authori-sed the violation of His moral government. Such a special law, therefore, never existed.

If the foregoing reasons be founded in truth and the moral fitness of things, it necessaril)'- follows that while the moral law is the only rule by which a moral action is to be abjudicated upon and its merit or demerit determined, still that no action can be judicially tested by that law which is not recognised in its preceptive requirements. If these conclusions be justly and fiiirly drawn from the premises laid down, then it will further follow ; first, that if .slaveholding be an action coming within the judi- cial cognisance of the moral law, it must be because it is recognised in its preceptive requirements. And, secondly, if it is admitted, as it must be, that the Mosaic law, as a special law, has authorised the relation of master and slave, it follows from what we have demonstrated to be the nature of special law, involving moral action, that slavery cannot be sin j^er sec.

Thus have we shown, that slavery as a social, or civil institution was incorporated in the Abrahamic Covenant, recognised in the Decalogue, -and established as a civil or social institution in Israel by the law of Moses. We have also further shown, that if it be admitted that slavery was sanctioned by the law of Moses, admitting it to be a special law, still as a law involving mornl action, it is proven to be an emanation of the Decalogue, and therefore the act which is sanctioned by this special law is of course sanctioned by the moral code itself.

Thus have we shown that the abstract act of either buying or holding a slave is authorised by moral law, and therefore cannot be sin.

The next thing is for us to inquire into the effects of the slavery of this coimtry, both present and prospective; and then we shall be able to decide with greater safe- ty wdiat its moral results will be to the several varieties, or class of persons and in- terests involved in it. And al.«o what is the proper course to be pursued, under the circumsthnces, on the part of the Government, of christians and philanthropists, in reference to the African race in this country.

In order that we may arrive at just conclusions in regard to the elTects of slavery in this country, we must consider its effects upon the two races, the white and the black, seperate and apart from each other.

So far from considering African slavery as essential to the happiness and prosperi- ty of the white population of this country, we have always regarded them as being (

22

: linly the the injured parly by its introduction and perpetuity. It may have con- . ibiiicd in settling and developing the productive capabilities of those portions of the ^onih whose climatic and local peculiiriiies rendered them less favorable to the healtli i whitethanto black emigrants; i;hdl^e wialth of many individuals may have resulted iium slave labor: but these and all other advantages, in our opinion, have been more than -overbalanced, by the peculiar character of the system of slavery in this oouniry, and the pernicious influence which it has exerted upon the moral and social interests of many in the country.

Slavery in this country, as defined by a certain class of laws, and as carried out in the practice o( thou-^ands of slaveholders, is not the slavery of the Bible and can- not be defended by an appeal to its laws or examples, as we have briefly stated in unother pliu-e. That kind of slavery which makes no provision for the improvement and moral training of the slave, which disregards the marriage relation and the liJommon laws of haraanity and justice, is a perversion of slavery, and has no more aflinity J;o the slavery of the Scriptures than socialism or concubinage has fo the marriao^e relation as recognised by the law of God. Such a system of slavery may justly be denounced as sinful and only sinjul; and we doubt not that thous- ands are heaping to themselves wrath against the day of wrath, by such a system of slavoholding. But we no more condemn slavery in the abstract, because wicked men have ihus perverted and abused it than we condemn the marriage relation, be- cause wicked men have contemned and violated its solemn and holy obligations. — As we have elsewhere said, we feel confident that there are multiplied thousands of slaveholders in this country, who hold their slaves in the fear of God, and whose conduct in relation to them is regulated by the law of Christ, remembering thfit they have a master in Heaven, to whom they must render an account. Thousands make sacrifices and sustain discomforts for the good of their slaves as purely disinterested as any act of Christian benevolence can be, and certainly to as great an amount as in any other department of benevoleni effort. Hence the injustice and the impiety of the sweeping condemnation of Southern slaveholders by the Abolitionists of the North.

While therefore we are constrained, from the testimony of the Bible, to believe 'liat slavery as therein warranted and provided for was benevolently provided for the benefit of the poor, still in consequence of the extensive perversion, of it in this country, and its consequent evil influences upon the moral and social interests of the white populaton, we can but regard it as, at this time, a social and political evil which calls for appropriate remedies and correctives, of which we shall speak hereafter. We now pass on to enquire into its efi"ects upon the African race, and in order to do this we must contrast the condition of the native Africans, both at the time that slavery was introduced into this country and at the present time, with the present and prospective condition of the African race in tliis country. Of their condition in Africa, socially, civilly and morally, we have heretofore spoken, and as we aim to be as concise as possible, we beg the reader to refer to what we there said and to con- trast their condition, as there described, with what, from his own observation, he would •'Steem the condition of the blacks, as a whole, in this country, to be at the present time; and notwithstanding the cruelty and injustice which has been practised to- wards them, in too many instances, both in the slave and free States, siill every hon- est and candid man must, unhesitatingly, admit, to say nothing of the future, that their condition has been vastly improved by being brought as slaves to this country. They are in a great measure civilized. They have acquired an extensive practical knowledge of agriculture and the mechanical arts; and many of them have made considerable advances in literary and scientific acquirements. Besides all this, and still betur, many thousands of them have become joyfully and savingly interested in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Compared with the natives of Africa, the .\fricans in this country are a civilised and christianised people; and are rapidly ap- proaching thatstate of intellectual improvement and moral refinement which will fit them for self-government and national i7ulepe?idence.

23

But \vc must not limit our estimates of the effects of American slavery to what has been developed in reference to the African race in this cimntry, either in, the past or the present. We have suflicient data, we think, upon which tt» fyund calculations for the future, and to hope for and expect resulLs, in favor of that race, both to those in this country and in Alrica, still more beneficial and universal tlian have as yet appeared. We hope — a/i, we fjclievc, ihai CioA is preparing, by means of African slavery in this country, u na'ion of civilist'd and chrisli;mi~ed men and women, to ^ be transplanted to Africii, by whom to redeem that land from barbarism, anarchy and blood, and to shed upon il the flight and the blessedness of the {glorious Gospel of Christ. To us this is a subject of so much interest that we are desirous to pn;sent our views upon it in as connected a form as possible, and as this number is already as long as it should be, we shall defer what we have to say further upon this subject to our next.

NO. VI. ^

, We have assumed the position, as one of the benefits resulting to the African race from the institution of slavery in this country, that God was thereby preparing a nation of enliglitened and chriUtanised Africans for independence and self-govern- ment in their oion country. Some of our reasons for entertaining this opinion we wish now to state.

However repugnant the opinion abovo expressed may be to those who entertain ultra abolition views, we doubt not there are thousands w^ho accord in the senti- ments, who nevertheless regard slavery as a moral evil; because they hold, as we do, that God overrules evil for good. But as we have, as we think, clearly shown that slavery in the abstract is not a moral evil, we can but think that it is perfectly compatible with the purity and benevolence of God that from the beginning he should have ''intended it for good,'"' notwithstanding wicked men may. have origin- ated it and '-intended it for evil;" and in support of this hypothesis, we might refer to a number of analogous cases in the scriptures, but we shall detain the reader to display the analogy in a single case only, and then pass on.

The case Ave allude to is the bondage of Israel. in Fgypt. Of this event God ap- prised Abrahim long before it came to pass. That God intended it should be so for the special purpose of preserving the seed of Abraham from being destroyed by the Canaanites, while they were too few and feeble to defend themselves, no one who has read the scriptures Avith attention can possibly doubt; and yet mark the manner by which it is brought about. Josepk is taken by wicked hands and sold as a slave into Egypt. His brethren intended it for evil but God intended it for GOOD. Men may a-unie to be Avise above Avhat is written, and curl the lip and scoAvl contempt upon the idea that God can be the author of slavery ; but his dec- laration of the fact to Abraham, his intimating to Joseph, in dreams, his future destiny, the special direction Avhich'he gave to all the events of his life, and his tinaliy raising him to the highest honors in Egypt, furnish indubitable evidence that Joseph spoke by inspiration when he said to his brethren that though they intended the act of selling him into slavery for evd, God ime.\ded that very act for good. See also what God said to Jacob, Gen. 46 oh: 3d and llh verses.

The idea that all the terrible judgments which were indicted upon Pharaoh and his people, Avere intended as chastisements for having kept Israel in bond- age, we think is wholly erroneous. We doubt not tint God intended these judgments, in part, as chastisements upon Egypt for '"oppressing" his people; that is, making unreasonable exactions upon them and abusing their power over them; but the particular reason \vhy God "raised up" Pharaoh to the throne of Egypt was, we apprehend, to show forth his power in him, and thereby to con-

24

firm the faith of Moses and the children of Israel in hiir as their God, and of his intention to deliver and protect them. Had Pharaoh let the children of Is- rael go upon tlii; first application of Moses, we have no reason to believe that any punishment would have fallen u,.on him or his people for their past conduct to Israel; but God ''hardened his heart" that he might show forth his power in him. that thereby his people might be assured that he intended to bless them.

Without stopping to defend the facts and inspired declarations, recorded in the history of the foregoing case, from the cavil of men who are.determened not to believe what God has ordered to record concerning his own acts, we give it as our deliberate opinion that he who denies that the slavery of Joseph was hy Divine appointment, because the act on the part of his brethren was a wick- ed one, cannot believe that the Son of God died by Divine ap-p ointment^ because Judas, being "a devil" from the beginning, wickedly betrayed him; and the Jews witli wicked hands took him and crucified him.

Now the points of analogy in the case above referred to, and the slavery of this country are these. Admitting that the slavery of this country was brought about by wicked men, influenced by wicked motives; even so was the slavery of Joseph, and the consequent slavery of the children of Israel in Egypt. But we have seen that God intended the elavery of Joseph and of the seed of Abraham for their special good; and if God could consistently appoint slavery in the one case for such purposes of good, so he could consistently appoint it in the other; as we believe he nas.

In the next place we find that the severity of the service of the children of Israel, was just as necessary to secure their consent to leave the land of Gosh- en for the promised land, as were the judgments which befell Pharaoh necessa- ry to gain his consent to let them go: just so, we see, that if the blacks in this country had any hopes of being placed upon an equality with the whites, they never could be induced to go to Liberia, but as God intends them to return to their native country /or goo(Z, he is providentially increasing the difficulties to their equality with the whites in this.

As the miracles which God wrought in Egypt were not only manifestative of the good he intended to the Israelites, by their slavery in Egypt, but also pledges of his intention to put them in possession of the promised inheritance; so we think that the remarkable providence by which the colony of Liheria has been founded and rapidly advanced to a Republic; and the rapid improvement of the Africac race in this country, and the increasing zeal of Southern Christians, notwithstanding the embarrassments thrown in their way by the abolitionists of the North, to instruct and enlighten the slaves of the country, are providential manifestations as distinctly indicating the Divine intention to restore them to Africa, as soon as they are capable of self-government^ as did the wonders wrought in Egypt indicate his intention to put Israel in the possession of the land of promise.

As those who favored and labored to promote the Divine intention, with re- gard to Israel, were blessed and approved of God, and those who resisted his will, in this regard, were chastened with judgment, so, we have reason to ap- prehend, it will be in regard to the slavery of this country. If our deductions are logically drawn from the facts recorded in the Bible and the evident indica- tions of God's providence, in regard to the slavery in this country, then should every one be interested to determine for himself what duty requires he should do in the present case, lest haply he should be found fighting against God.

Let our readers recur now to what we said upon the subject of civil Institu- tions and (Governments, and iheir adaption to the various conditions and cir- cumstances of human society, and they will perceive tliat we have there ex- pressed it as our opinion that, while (Jod has sanctioned and approved of differ- ent forms of Government, as best adapted, under the circumstances, to promote

25

the moral and social improvement and happiness of tlie people, that he has manifested a decided preference for a Democratic form of government — A Gov- ernment OF Fathers. And that God has indicated tiiat it is his pleasure and purpose that there shall be a progressive tendency from the more imperfect to the more perfect forms of government, in the exact ratio that the mass of the people are advanced in intellectual and moral culture.

Let any man turn his attention to the study of this subject and he will find that in all ages and countries, there has been a tendency in governments to change from absolute despotisms to monarchies more or less limited and thence to Democracies, in the xact proportion to the moral and intellectual improve- ment of rhe people. If this fact be admitted, and it be admitted, as we have stated, that God approves of that form of government, and of that only, which under the circumstances is best calculated to promote the happiness and good of the people, then it will follow that the forms of government must so change in order to secure the Divine approbation, as to be most perfectly adapted to the intellectual and moral capabilities of the people. So irresistable is this principle in the moral constitution of human society that, as we stated in our second number. Kings and Rulers in all ages of the world have been compelled to conform to it, and to partition out the powers of government among the peo- ple in the exact proportion of their ability to exercise it.

Recognising slavery as a constituent of national organization, or a form of civil society, we hold that it is governed by the same law, to which we have re- ferred above, as so efTectually controling and determining the modes of action in other forms of human government. Hence while it is true that the intellec- tual improvement of a slave improves his capabilities to be useful to his master, it is no less true that he deteriorates in value, just in the ratio that, beyond a certain point, he advances in mental culture and moral worth. The above asser- tion is proven to be true by the experience of all masters, and hence the origin of those laws which are intended to inhibit the teaching of slaves to read and write. But the reason of this fact is not confined to the mere circumstance that the educated slave knows better than the uneducated how to escape from ser- vitude; this is true, but it is a truth of minor consequence. There is a princi- ple in this law of human society, upon which we have been descanting, incom- parably more powerful and operative than the sordid one recognised by the in- hibitive laws referred to; and it is to this feature of that law that we wish to call the special attention of our readers, Solomon says: ''lie that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length." Now the foregoing declaration of the, wise man involves the senti- ment to which we refer. No man can treat his equal, much less his superior, in intellectual and moral endowments, as a mere servitor. As the slave, there- fore, advances in mental and moral culture, he approaches to equality with his master, This claim the master, insensibly to himself and perforce of that prin- ciple in the laws of human society to which we refer, is hound to recognise, he cannot avoid it. He cannot resist the natural claims to respect which are set up in the behalf of a highly cultivated and enlightened mind; and he is a beast and no man, who could treat a slave thus mentally and morally elevated, as a mere menial. Hence slaves become less valuable, as they advance in mental improvement, beyond what is simply necessary to qualify them for the labor assigned them.

No observing individual can have overlooked the fact, that there has been a remarkable change wrought in the intellectual condition of the slaves of the South within the last thirty years, those inhibitive laws notwithstanding. We should, perhaps, be perfectly safe in saying that where there was one slave thirty years ago that could read there are scores; and it cannot be overlooked that in proportion as they have advanced in intellectual improvement, has society at

26

laroe accorded to them privileges and immunities, formerly unknown The cause of" this great change, in our opinion, is mainly to be ascribed to the in- crease of active christian benevolence, which has been in operation in this country since the rise of modern missions. But to whatever cause the preju- dice of individuals may ascribe it, the fact cannot be denied. .Now if our the- ory of human government and organized society be founded in true philosophy and is in accoidance with revealed truth; and if the fact above staled, in re- gard to the improved and improving condition of the slaves and its consequent eflects upon the whites, be admitted, then have we grounds to assume that the following positions hare been clearly made out: First, that the facts referred to, concerning the improved and improving condition of the slaves, and the growing sympathy and increasing benevolent efforts of the whites in theif be- lialf, are piovideniial developments of the Divine will and pleasure concerning slavery in this country; indicating clearly that its removal is to be efiected, not forcibly, as by military or staiutary power, but, by such benevolent or philanthrop- ic appliances as are best calculated, not only to remove the causes which led to their tnslavemevt. but which are also best calculated to elevate them in morals and intelli- gence, and Jit them for self government.

Secondly, that Mercy and Justice, alike remonstrate against any measures to emancipate that portion of the slave population who are disqualified to take care of and provide for themselves. But that the true policy to be pursued is, to follow the leadings of Divine Providence, by properly directing our philan- thropic and benevolent efforts to the intellectual and moral improvement of the slaves, and thus to qualify them for self-government and the enjoyment cf liber- ty, before they are thrown upon their own resources.

Thirdly, that, slavery being an organic constituen of the government, it is clearly understood, according to our view of the subject, that so soop as slaves are thus qualified for self-protection and self-control, it is incUxMBExNT upon the Government, and not the ijidiindual owner, to provide for their liberation and settlement. The Government has authorized and established the relation be- tween masters and slaves, and, therefore, we hold that it is bound in justice to the citizen slaveholders, if mercy or justice requires the liberation of the slaves, to recompense the owner for them; and if there is any constitutional impediment in the way of such provisions of Fovernment, such impediments should be imme- diately removed; and measures adopted for ihe gradual emancipation of all such slaves as are prepared for freedom, by paying to the owner, in Government lands, or some other way, a reasonable compensation for his slave, to be suitably provided for and sent to Liberi.a. The landed resources of the Government are more than sufficient to accomplish all this, and then have more than enough left for all the emigrants which may land upon our shores for the next fifty years.

We have thus given, as briefly as we could to be intellibible, our views of sla- very as a general question, and we now propose m a very brief way, to give our view of the subject as it is now presented and agitated in this State.

We are opposed to any interference with or alteration of the provisions of the present constitution upon that subject; because, it being a compromise measure, between the slavery and anti-slavery parties in this State at the time the consti- tution was adopted, when the subject was less imbittered by the influence of ultraism than it is now, we have no idea that it will be improved by any attempt to change it.

Besides we do not believe that it can be improved, because we do not only think its provisions perfectly liberal but perfectly ^m5^ It, in the first place, inhibits the Legislature from passsing any law which shall in any way deprive a slaveholder of the right to emancipate his slave or slaves just when he pleases; so that no slaveholder is forced to retain his slaves, even for a day, in violation of his conscience.

27

In the second place, it empowers the Legislaluaes, al any time, to emancipate every slave lathe Stale, hy pa i/i at/ lo the oicncr or owners a reasonable compcnsaiion for them. And this provision we conceive to be just, and no more than ju.st; for if slavery is a political evil, it is but just and fair that the poliiical compact, and not the individual should bear the price of its removal. JJy this provision then, slavery may be removed from Kentucky at any time ihe people wish it, upon principles of equity and justice; and we therefore think that the consiiiuiion can- not be improved on the subject of slavery; but if the attempt is made it may be greatly impaired.

We are opposed to the present movement upon the subject of slavery, in this State, not merely because we think the present constilutional provision in regard to it the best that c\n bj made; but because we have seen no plan of emancipa- tion suggested, that is not in our judgement, fraught with manifest injustice both to the slaveholder aud the slave; and our reasons for this opinion are the fol- lowing:

In regard to the slaveholder: No plan has been, as yet, suggested, for remu- nerating, the slaveholder for the loss of the estate which he holds in his slave property; but they all propose to take from him without recompense, all his estate HI slaves by force of arbitrary law, which estate he has either ecquired by his industry, under the encouragement and provisions of the laws of the land, or inherited, without'his privity, by its operations. Now, we look upon this as so obviously unjust, that we cannot give it our sanction or co operation. We maintain that as slavery has been introduced and established by the authority of gov- ernment, it should also sustain all the expsnse of its removal; and upon the plan we have suggested above. Let this plan be adopted and nine-tenths of the South will concur in it. *

In regard to the slave: We have shown above, that slavery has been less bene- ficial to the whites than to the blacks, in this country; and we are sustained in this opinion, by all the plans of emancipation hitherto suggested, and by all the reasons which have been offered in support of them. The plans for emancipa- tion, now before the people of this State, are merely measzires of policy, to rid the State of slavery for the benefit of the xchitcs; and the poor blacks are left, whether freed or in bondage, to bear all the pernicious effects of such systems of eman- cipation.

We have not room here to enter extensively into an analytical investigation of the several plans suggested, and to expose to the full all the injustice and cruelty which would be inflicted upon the slaves, were they adopted; our readers must therefore put up with a mere reference to the more prominent absurdities in the plans referred to, hoping that they will thereby be induced to examine them themselves in detail.

Some of those plans are, intentionally, so constructed, that the slaveholder may have it in his power to remove his slaves out of the State before the law can possibly affect his ownership in them. Now, no one need be told that such a system of emancipation is a lie-bell upon the import of the term; and so far from being dictated by feelings of benevolence for the slave, it is a deliberate scheme of the most unhallowed selfishness, to secure the interest and profit of the whites, by an an act as deliberately cruel to the blacks. The operation of such a system would be, to rid Kentucky of its slave population, by transplanting them to cotton and sugar farms in the South — owned by Kentucky masters and doom- to perpetual slavery. This would be emancipation with a vengeance. But we have seen no scheme as yet which provides against such a result. All of them seem to be studiously arranged so as to save the State from the expense of re- moving slavery, and yet, to gain the co-operation of slaveholders, they are so constructed, that the slaveholder may avoid a loss, by removing his slaves. All the facts and arguments in support of these plans, are intended to exhibit the

28

advantages which the whites are to derive from them; but no provision is made for the benefit of the blacks, and no impassioned speeches in their belialf. We can feel nothing less than sovereign contempt for such falsely styled benevolence.

Tiie readers of the Banner all know that we have, from the beginning, been an advocate for tiie colonization sciieme, and it might be supposed that we would of course approve of those schemes of gradual emancipation which contemplate the removal of the liberated slaves to Liberia; but we are under the necessity of saying that we do not. and for the following reasons:

First — Because in all of them, the slave is proposed to be liberated at the expense of the owner, alone; which we regard as most glaringly unjust.

Secorid/y — Because no provision is made by i;overnment to remove the libera- ted slaves from the country, but the country is to be infested with multitudes of lawless and irresponsible hirelings for a half a century to come. Besides all this the blacks are made slaves to the State, instead of individual owners, and required to labor for that which the government ought to supply; another act of injustice.

Thirdly — No provision is made to qualify these liberated slaves, either men- tally or morally, to exercise the right of self-government. They are to be taken, promiscuously, with all their ignorance, improvidence and lawlessness, and ship, ped off with six months provisions to Liberia. Let any reflecting mind contem- plate the scene which would be exhibited in Liberia after the landing of the lirf^t importation of our thousands oi liberated, ignorant slaves, and it can no longer doubt of the cruelty and impolicy of such a measure. Even our own beloved and wisely founded Republic, with twenty millions of freemen to sustain it, a few years ago trembled to its very foundations at the tread of a few thou- sands of ignorant foreigners upon our shores; and who does not see that the very first importation of such a horde of lawless and igjorant creatures, as either of the proposed plans would send to Liberia, would at once crush the young Republic into ruin, blight all our cherished hopes of its successful agency in the enlightenment and salvation of Africa, and roll back upon it all its primitive anarchy, darkness and moral death'? Verily, we are at war vi'ith all such heart- less schemes. If we mean to benefit the slaves, let us do it liberaUi/ and nobly — fit them for liberty, and then place them where they can enjoy it. Let ths Government adjust itself to the kequirements of the case and perform the deed, and all will concur.

While we recognise the right of the good people of this Commonwealth, to discuss the subject of slavery or any other subject that interests them, just when they i»lease, still as a citizen, holding interest in common with others, we claim the priv ilege of expressing our opinion upon the policy of any measure affecting those common interests. We should rejoice if every son and daughter of Africa in the United States, being sufficiently enlightened for self-government, was amply provided for and removed to Liberia, and would cherfully contribute, according to our ability, to bring about so desirable an end; yet we have been, and still are opposed to all this movement upon the subject of slavery, at this ^;>«e, because it has not originated with the citizens of the State, but has been foistered upon us by ihe intermeddling of ultra abolitionists of the North, for the purpose of gaining strength against the South, by detaching Kentucky from it, and adding its influence to the Norih. But the mere fact of Kentucky's becom- ing a free State, is not the grounds of our objection to the present movement. —

It is BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE MOVEMENT IS FRAUGHT AVITH THE ELEMENTS

OF DISUNION. The existence of this Government and the union of the States are in more danger from the slavery question at present than from any and all other opposing inlluences whatsoever. In our opinion, the salvation of the Union depends upon our preserving the present equally divided condition of the antag- onistic elements, until the excitement subsides, and reason and brotherhood resume their wonted control over the public mind. Let Kentucky and VVginia

29

be taken from the South and added to the North, while the North are influenced by the spirit they seem to be at present, and, in our opinion, civil war and disu- nion are inevitable.- To preserve the country from a catastrophe so inevitably destructive of our national existence, and the cause of civil and religious liberty throughout the world, we wish no changes to be made in the relative position of the iStates, North and South, until the present agitation subsides; then, when the national compact v/ill not be endangered by it, if the people of the Slate desire it, we shall not object to the discussion of the lubject to any extent.

Thus have we, in as brief a way as we possibly could, to bo intelligible, given our views of the subject of slavery, in the several aspects in which we proposed to consider it. The articles have been written, as all our articles are, in the press and hurry of our multiplied labors, without even a clerk to help us. While, therefore, they express our views of the subject, we are aware that a judi- cious revision would improve them both in forcibleness and appearance — but we are quite willing to let them pass for what they are worth.

We may, in a subsequent number, give our views of the proper plan of eman- cipation, and of disposing of the Africans in this country.

Copy Right Secured According to Law.

,xB«««^ °r ''"'"'-■

,^«»M^g99 010

ERRATUM.

We sincerely regret that so many typographical errors appear in this pam- phlet; it is to be accounted for from the fact that the Foreman of the office was attacked with Cholera before the proof was corrected. Many of these errors we suffer to pass uncorrected in this errata, because we think the intelligent reader will see the error and correct it as he reads. The following, however, we deem it necessary to correct:

Introductory, 12th line from the top, read equitable (or "equitabel." 1st page, 23 lines from the top, read preserve, for "observe." " '' merged, for "urged." " " stamped, for "stapmed" " " legibly, for "Igibly." " *' perceptions, for"preceptions." ' " *' slave, for "slaee."

" " God for "good." ' " " authorised, for "authorizpn."

" " supply the word who after the word "but" " " supply the word 2/ after the word "contrast." " " read several, for "seveaal."

6lh "	17
(t (1	25
7th "	29
44 a	30
9th "	' 18
9th '	' 41
11th •	' 12
14th "	' 21
l5ih "	6
16th "	' 31

y^

.\bbabv

OF CO'

:NGB£SS

0 01

1899 010 9

m ,^ ,* ,^1 ,i A A J J ."^Aj^J^ A ^J ^ ,^'i >^ -*> "<< *»■** •"»■* %.«r,*^ J ,4 ,«i^-^'^ ,^^«^'^^'iv< J ^'^ v'^ ,^.^ ,^*) .f "i '» »i •• 'I

,t ,4,,i i'i ,4 * ,i^4 .^ .^4 ,* A ^J>.X..^. ,4 « ^^ •- *- S' »! t 1 ,*4 ,4 ,4 ,:^ ,4 /4 ,<^<^'^ >4 »] ») ,*a ,,*! *1- :«; «] ;4 «•

' ,''3 .* ,'fi ,<1 ,*i- T*^ v^ i''' A .^ ^^ ^ ,*J -^ ,*i ,*^ ,*^ ,• *•

I *6 ifi t < <i- <«; C »] . '#

« «i <

^'^^•€

, i * ♦: •:-,. „ * 'M A A A ■ « «• t

:^:^.,^:*,

., .,., ,. 4. i < I. ..

li ■«■ -^'C 'J^ A: 4A.' ~

"-:a i A A *; «f: * 'r"*'

* «' «'

«■'*; ■«) ■# "ii ■<

'€'AAiA.

*s ■»T':«r*,

i 4 ^/»: *i *i € ^ »^ *1 4- *^ *^ *1 4 AA'*^A-A-^Ai -a *i *

.V:.J* l« 1« t»_P^» B [« l» » H I*. & ^ I* It 51. ^ S I ^ i« i*.

,ifc i.».«.4» (* & fe (*, t». 61 fiff E* {. rr I % I rri* r f«

,jn *. * 'A 31 * ■#. f * ^>

) Jl ,1 ^ ^

"I » !k %

* * # >

^■'■B

* * » ■*■ iT

» . I; .*. ». *.. iJ

. «, P. J*, t. '*:.i .

at (> !♦ 'Jl .,- ^ ,- .

Si it ^ ^ ?» ;« $ :.,

:>j^_:^ # .n. ;». #. ;».

y » ^^ii. # » » * » 'J > i» j» •» * > > t # ..

>.2».1« >,».*. >.^.» !►

I (t ^ :i s» > > > # jT' i

. -v Si '?> * fi» -f # *

:» •• * II. # '>» C» ■;! •;» <- .-- ,

/;».1>J». *.-v* S» i« i» jl i»'|»' ill" ii "[«";«■ X

• • f

■ f I .

• • •

: 1^ 1^ f» i(« i^ ^ ^ {fc fl J^ .[t r« D C^ fr 1^ » fr k -H > fl M^r

^* i^ I* ft ^ 01 ;* li If [n (* n 7* :¥ V r* f*^ ft^f*>r4 ;%^ .^.^«».;' ^^^

A A A. .

m .« .n. .^ « ,o « a ij ti

»1 M A A 4 .<S A A A A A A A A A «! *\ •

'><.<J^.< A ,^ A,'^J-J .^J S ^ .'^ ,* ,< ■• A A A/i ,^ ,<A AAA A A A A *^ * < « '■

,4 ,4- ,«! 4 ,<3 ,^ ,4.,«3 t) J < ^« ,»! ,< fl

«2 4> « > .ti A ,i3 X. « ,€ >1 A .•! *5 «; -f; % '<• '* ■«' '•)

*' .*> ,< ^A -^^AA .^AA' ♦• .^' ■* ,*' ^-A' *' '»^ * »■ •. * ■'

^4 «e < ^' «. € € t] Kg <» « «i * i: 4; t f ♦'• I, ■«; «: 'c ■■''

; '« A <

«;■«)*«■«■ ■'; ,

■ ,« .«^ /-

.i A A' t: A- ^- *

■«:"«,'«:

■tf.» I! «

* _*):*;

] .i	'■,*j^-	t if^ € 'Ml i
a*.'	*. * _ j^.	„5' . ??■■; ,3'-. .ifel. ■ij
HH
^■H ■■■
	■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
	■

:AA A

>1 *! >:>

. A A :

*. t *■

. ,-i .,•» ,^. .''! A A .-'-■ -. >.-kM-A A A A A \ A A

; « # # ^