"They were a comparatively innocent, unoffending, contented, happy race. It was not until slave-dealers introduced among them every thing that could please the fancy and awaken the cupidity of uncivilized men, that they were at all p.r.o.ne to interfere with each other's happiness. By the more than brutal cruelty of white men, quarrels were fomented, tribe was set against tribe, and each supplied with the means of mutual destruction."

"Then what is man? And what man, seeing this, And having human feelings, does not blush, And hang his head, to think himself a man?"

Besides all this, recollect that there are about FIFTY MILLIONS of Africans left exposed to the debasing influence of this h.e.l.lish practice. And if the Colonization Society did nothing more than stop or check this torrent of infernal iniquity, it ought to render its friends and advocates immortal, and make those blush (_if blush they could_) who vilify and slander them.

CHAPTER IV.

THE ERRORS OF THE QUARTERLY ANTI-SLAVERY MAGAZINE, FOR APRIL, 1837, RESPECTING THE SCRIPTURAL WORDS "_Servant_"--"_Property_"--"_Buy_," &C., BRIEFLY NOTICED.

There is no argument more frequently used by Abolitionists than that the Scriptures prohibit the purchase, or sale of men, or holding any man as property--and as the above Magazine has no doubt contributed much, by the talent, learning, and _ingenuity_, (I don't like to say sophistry) of its editor (Mr. Elizur Wright, jun.,) to build up this most preposterous a.s.sertion, I shall take leave to investigate a few of the arguments adopted therein.

There is a great difference between a man going to the Bible to find sanction for an opinion which he has _already_ formed, and a man going to the Bible, for its opinion. The one first forms his own ideas of things, of what is, and what is not, right or wrong, and then goes to the Scriptures to sanction or corroborate those ideas; the other forms no opinion whatever, until he searches the sacred oracles of truth to ascertain what _they_ say on the subject.

Now it appears to me evident that the editor of this periodical acted on the former principle--he first came to the conclusion, that "_to own_,"

"_to buy_," or "_to sell_," a human being, was wrong and unscriptural; and then went to the Bible to _make_ it prove that his opinions were correct. And so far has he been carried away with his preconceived opinions, and so much did he labour under the "_spell_" of Abolitionism, that he frequently confounds the act of purchasing a man, with the act of stealing a man! using synonymously the terms "purchasing" and "stealing!" Thus when he attempts to prove that purchasing a man is unscriptural, and that all slave-holders ought to be put to death, he refers to the twenty-first chapter of Exodus and sixteenth verse! (See said Magazine, page 247-249). But how does this read, "He that STEALETH a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." It does _not_ read, "he that stealeth, OR selleth:"

no, no! the whole and only crime condemned here was, "STEALING the man;"

but retaining or not retaining him, or selling him, did not exculpate the thief!

This is one of the most unhappy pa.s.sages in the whole Bible, the Abolitionists could have selected: for while it incontrovertibly sanctions "selling men," by making "the selling" no excuse for "the stealing," it condemns _to death_ the African traders, for their conduct, and the American Abolitionists, for theirs.[45:A]

The editor builds nearly the whole of his arguments, which occupy 126 pages, on TWO ERRONEOUS PRINCIPLES--which principles, if I prove to be really erroneous, I need not wade through his numerous conclusions to show the fallacy of each and every one of them; "for every argument built upon a false position necessarily ends in an absurd conclusion."

The two principles or pillars of his edifice are, 1st. That as the same word (both in Hebrew and in Greek) signifies both slave and servant, and as every slave is a servant, therefore, every servant, is a slave! This species of logic reminds me of the syllogism, that, "as, every man is an animal, and a horse is an animal, _therefore_, every man _is_ a horse!"

Is it necessary to spend time in exhibiting the folly and fallaciousness of this first principle? A child would laugh at it; yet this work is held up by Abolitionists, as of almost equal authority with the Bible itself!

One or two conclusions drawn from this first principle will, no doubt, be gratifying to the reader. In page 220, the editor proceeds thus:

"To keep the South in good spirits, we must believe not only that Abraham kept slaves, but that our _blessed Saviour was a slave-holder_! Of course _heaven must be_, on a larger scale, like one of those establishments which line the sh.o.r.es of the Mississippi. When they find a text which recognises _masters_ or _servants_, they consider it triumphant.

"_First._ It will prove that every country in Christendom is a slave region. On every farm in Great Britain there are _servants_. Every statute and every instrument of writing which obliges _tenants_, and _keepers of cattle_, &c., calls them _servants_, and their landlord or employer master. Is Great Britain a slave region? And in our own country every white apprentice is, in his indenture, called a _servant_. Is he a slave?

"_Second._ It will prove that slavery is the _only_ kind of servitude which the Scriptures approve. At one "fell swoop,"

it would unchurch the professors at Princeton, and every master and servant in our free states. If the term _servant_, of itself, and necessarily, signifies a _slave_, it follows not only that _the kingdom of G.o.d has always been like the kingdom of the devil_, in regard to servitude and personal rights, but that voluntary and requited servitude is a modern innovation, for which there is neither precedent nor example in Holy Writ; and therefore it is at least doubtful _whether a voluntary servant, and the master who pays him wages, ought to be received into the Church_! For if inspired men always pa.s.sed them by unnoticed--if those whom they instruct and recognise as believers were slaves and slavemasters exclusively, where shall we find example for admitting the voluntary servant and his master, till they qualify themselves by slavery? Thus the a.s.sumption in question leads to the conclusion, not that G.o.d tolerated slavery, _but that he tolerated nothing else_."!!!

The above paragraph furnishes an admirable specimen of the species of _reasoning_ by which Abolitionists are _deluded_!

The second principle, upon which the Editor builds his arguments, is that as the original word which signifies "_to buy_" sometimes signifies something else, therefore it _never_ signifies what we mean by _buying_ or _purchasing_! I am really astonished at this gentleman's forgetfulness, for to nothing else do I wish to attribute his reasoning on this subject. He will therefore pardon me in _reminding_ him that just in proportion to the poverty of any language, does each word in that language represent numerous ideas; in which case the real meaning intended by the writer can be ascertained, to a certainty, only by the concomitant circ.u.mstances, or adjoining expressions. If in our own language, which is so rich, we have numerous words, each representing many distinct ideas, is it at all surprising that such should be the case in ancient tongues? This, the Editor knows far better, in all probability, than myself; and is also aware that preconceived theories not only put _new_ ideas into our heads, but oftentimes eliminate correct ones! Now when we hear of an article being bought "_with money_," these two last words put, beyond all possibility of doubt, and beyond all the possibility of sophistry, the nature of the meaning of the word "_bought_"--viz. "_To acquire the property, right, or t.i.tle, to any thing, by paying a consideration, or an equivalent_--_to purchase; to acquire by paying a price_," &c. [See Webster's American Dictionary].

The various pa.s.sages of Scripture quoted by the Editor in page 259, in no way whatever militate against the meaning of the word "_buy_."

Now the following simple questions may be put: 1st. Did G.o.d in any one pa.s.sage in the whole Bible forbid or prohibit the _purchase_ of men? Not in a single instance! 2d. Did G.o.d ever give directions respecting the purchase of men, and the treatment of men so purchased? He unquestionably did. [See Gen. xvii. 13, 27. Exodus xxi. 2-7, 26, 27.]

3d. Did G.o.d recognize such as were thus purchased with money, as the _property_ of their masters? Most undoubtedly. [See Exod. xx. 17. xxi.

20, 21, where the servant is actually denominated, "HIS MONEY!"]

Having now proved the erroneousness of the two principles upon which the Editor of this Magazine built his arguments; and having demolished the two pillars which supported his whole edifice, the arguments and the edifice necessarily coming to naught, I shall end this chapter with a few remarks on a text of Scripture which Abolitionists adduce as a justification for encouraging, sheltering, and retaining, those who run away from their legal masters. This text is to be found in Deut. xxiii.

15, and reads thus, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." Did this verse stand totally unconnected with any other portion of the Scriptures; were it even completely isolated, I could not dare, in common justice, give it that interpretation which would render it in direct opposition to the whole tenor of Scripture; and which Abolitionists do, in order to shelter themselves from the condemnation justly attached to their principles. No marvel that there are thousands of men in the land who consider the Bible a ma.s.s of contradictions, when those who profess to believe in its Divine origin thus _make_ it, to promote their own views, contradict itself. Compare the meaning attached to this pa.s.sage by Abolitionists, with the first column on page 33 in this treatise, and then see if such meaning is not as directly opposed to the spirit and letter of the pa.s.sages of Scripture contained in that column, as any two things possibly can be!

But we need only look at the pa.s.sage alluded to, as it stands in the Bible, to see at once the true meaning of it; and that it, no more sanctions or authorises the conduct of Abolitionists, than the command of G.o.d to the Jews to extirpate the inhabitants of Canaan, authorises the Abolitionists to extirpate our Southern brethren! Much of this chapter (Deut. xxiii.) is taken up with directions to the Jews respecting their future conduct towards their heathen neighbours, the Ammonite, Moabite, &c., _from whom_, ("THINE ENEMIES,") if a servant escape, thou shalt not deliver him back. This command, be it observed, is not to _individuals_, but to the JEWISH NATION, which the sixteenth verse fully proves: for therein we find directions given, that the servant escaped from those heathen nations, may be permitted to dwell _among_ the Jews, and in whatever place he chooses. This could not, in the nature of things, be a command to one Jewish master, in respect to the treatment of a slave that had escaped from another Jewish master: the one expression "he may dwell _among_ you" (v. 16.) ends all dispute on this subject. The Abolitionists must now for ever more search for some other pa.s.sage of Scripture, to contradict that which directs us to "_do unto others as we would he done by_!"

CHAPTER V.

THE CONDUCT AND CHARACTER OF THE SOUTHERN SLAVE-HOLDER, VINDICATED.

One of the peculiar features in the practice of Abolition champions, is to discredit every statement proceeding from all others, except from themselves: and in this respect they resemble very much, as I stated in the preceding part of this pamphlet, the champions of Infidelity! If there be, therefore, any truth in the common adage, that "none are so suspicious as those who are conscious that their own statements ought not to be credited," there can be no difficulty in accounting for the unbelief of those gentlemen.

No one pretends to deny that there are in the South, _some_ cruel, irreligious--inhuman--slave-holders--and who will have the hardihood to deny that there are also in the North, _thousands_ of cruel, irreligious and inhuman, masters, husbands, and fathers! Would the latter fact be a justifiable reason for branding _all_ the masters, husbands, and fathers, in the North, as a set of cruel, irreligious, inhuman monsters?

Ah, but says the Abolitionist, they do not use the lash in the North.--Don't they? If not, it is only because many prefer the cudgel, which they use liberally on the head, back, and limbs of their unfortunate _white_ slaves! How many think you (in this religious city of Philadelphia) white masters, and white husbands, and white fathers, are annually bound over or punished for cruelty to their _white_ apprentices--white wives--and white children? And how many more are they, whose barbarity never comes to light, or whose wealth shelters them? Methinks the effects of the cruelty of a husband or of a father, would be just as sore on the back or head of a wife, or of a child, as if they were the effects of the cruelty of a slave-holder: a rose smells as sweet by any other name! You reply they cannot _sell_ them here; I answer, it would be far to the advantage of many if they could.

But now to the matter of this chapter: it is constantly published and circulated by Abolitionists that so hard-hearted, brutal, and inhuman are all the slave-holders in the South, that they all desire slavery, are all inimical to freedom, and revel in their iniquity. So far from this being the case, I reply that the vast majority of them, regret the necessity of holding slaves--are anxious to have them emanc.i.p.ated, and would hail with delight any plan by means of which they could emanc.i.p.ate them, with safety to themselves, and with safety to their slaves. Let us hear the testimony of a few of them on the subject, recollecting that according to the principles of common justice, as established in all civilized nations, _it is not lawful to consider a man unworthy of credit till he is first proved to be a liar_.

Patrick Henry says,--

"I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that _every one_ of my fellow beings was _emanc.i.p.ated_. As we ought with grat.i.tude to admire that decree of heaven which has numbered us among the _free_, we ought to _lament and deplore_ the necessity of holding our fellow men in bondage."--_Debates in Virginia Convention._

Zachariah Johnson says,--

"Slavery has been the foundation of that impiety and dissipation which have been so much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were _totally abolished_, it would do much good." _Ibid._

Judge Tucker says,--

"The introduction of slavery into this country, is, at this day, considered among its _greatest misfortunes_." And in 1803, he said, after p.r.o.nouncing slavery to be "a calamity, a reproach, and a curse,"--"those who wish to postpone emanc.i.p.ation, do not reflect that every day renders the task more arduous to be performed."

General Harper says,--

"It tends, and may powerfully tend, to rid us gradually and _entirely_ in the United States, _of slaves and slavery_, a great _moral and political evil, of increasing virulence and extent_, from which much mischief is now felt, and very great calamity in future, is justly apprehended. It speaks not only to our understandings, but to our senses; and however it may be derided by some, or overlooked by others, who have not the ability or time, or do not give themselves the trouble to reflect on, and estimate properly, the force and extent of those great moral and physical causes, which prepare gradually, and at length bring forth the most terrible convulsions in civil society; it will not be viewed without deep and awful apprehensions by any who shall bring sound minds, and some share of political knowledge and sagacity, to the serious consideration of the subject. Such persons will give their most serious attention to any proposition which has for its object, the eradication of this terrible mischief lurking in our vitals."--_Letter on Colonization Society._

Darby says,--

"Copying from Montesquieu, and not from observation of nature, climate has been called upon to account for stains on the human character, imprinted by the hand of political mistake.

No country where negro slavery is established, but must bear, in part, the wounds inflicted on nature and justice. Without pursuing a train of metaphysical reasoning, we may at once draw this induction, that if slavery, like pain, is one of the laws of existence, the latter does not more certainly produce physical weakness, debility, and death, than does the former lessen the purity of virtue in the human breast."--_History of Louisiana._

M'Call says,--

"It is shocking to human nature, that any race of mankind, and their posterity, should be sentenced to perpetual slavery."

_History of Georgia._

General Mercer says,--

"For, although it is believed, and is, indeed, too obvious to require proof, that the colonization of the free people of colour alone, would not only tend to civilize Africa; to abolish the slave-trade; and greatly to advance their own happiness; but to promote that also of the other cla.s.ses of society, the proprietors and slaves; yet the hope of the gradual and utter abolition of slavery, in a manner consistent with the rights, interests, and happiness of society, ought never to be abandoned."--_Report to Colonization Society._

F. S. Key, Esq. says,--