Chapter CXXI: Introduction (11)

1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind
the Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the
gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible,
from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke,"
they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity.
"If thou canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer
freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter
for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the
claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in
so doing? Their "brother" could _he_ be, who kept "the yoke" upon
their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible?
And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what
inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their
servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian
institution?--or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce
or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him
than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the
cause of freedom?

2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it,
they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to
ceaseless anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need
not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly
reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or
the light of his countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth
their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the
spirit of liberty. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a
servant, is the Lord's freeman." In _him_, therefore, should they
cheerfully confide.

3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile
relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations.
To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased.
It should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty
and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be,
to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "_Ye are
bought with a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN."

With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the Princeton professor asserts that "Paul represents this relation"--the relation of slavery--"as of comparatively little account."[66] And this he applies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to _American_ slavery. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic, grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, "the servant of men?" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently with the instructions of the apostle?

[Footnote 66: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.]

To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the bearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher [67] from any free State, can be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as much despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place, masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see and own that slavery is a Christian institution! With his Bible in his hand and his eye upon the passage in question, he addresses himself to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts, my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him "who is no respecter of persons." Freedom you ought, indeed, to prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke," throw it off. In the mean time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" that the gospel places slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with their master; so that every Christian is "the Lord's freeman." And, for your encouragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished both political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope. It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of men; it condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end." [68] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is entitled to your warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the servants of men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of the republic, and cement "the Union?"

[Footnote 67: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in the literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where the "peculiar institution" is cherished with great warmth and maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed most powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the persuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to which the Bible gives countenance and support_.

In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and, according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. "There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this subject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful, are clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, that whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others, _by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men_, contend that though slavery is sinful, _yet it may be allowed to exist until it shall he expedient to abolish it_; or, if, in many cases, this reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be, both in Church and State, _slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible allows no tampering with sin.

"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be found in both parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of gratitude to the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of that article is said, without contradiction, to be _Professor Hodge, of Princeton_--HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, _my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the_ ONLY ONE _who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious charge of living in the habitual transgression of God's holy law_."]

[Footnote 68: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.]

"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged, that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it around him_ IN JUDEA."[69] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found "_in_ Judea," which neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is not denied that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have had slaves; _but of the Jews this is denied_. How could the professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must have known they could not hold in the light of open day!

[Footnote 69: The same, p. 9]

We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or courage,[70] for refusing to "break down the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business then was with "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [71] The propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor and ourselves.

[Footnote 70: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.]

[Footnote 71: Matt. xv. 24.]

In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our Savior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest attention:--

1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the
proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more
or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded
to.[72] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of
life, the Jews, during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to
have been scrupulously observant of the institutions and usages of
the "Old Dispensation." They stood far aloof from whatever was
characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and
slaveholding--those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed
among the heathen--they seem at length, as the result of a most
painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced.

[Footnote 72: "The Bible against Slavery."]

2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and
great power, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found
no occasion to repeat and apply the language of his
predecessors,[73] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and
slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been
less effectually aroused by the presence of "the yoke," than was
Isaiah?--or less intrepid and decisive in exposing and denouncing
the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injurious forms?

[Footnote 73: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.]

3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly
and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews.
These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the
Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had
this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior's ministry, he could
not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose
and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics,
of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly
counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible
denunciations.[74] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the
presence of such tyranny, if _such tyranny had been within his
official sphere_, as should _have made widows_, by driving their
husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans,
_but cattle_?

[Footnote 74: Matt. xxiii; Mark, vii. 1-13.]

4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the _industry_,
which, _in the form of manual labor_, so generally prevailed among
the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are
informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul "found a certain
Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his
wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to
depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the
same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation
they were tent-makers.")[75] This passage has opened the way for
different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and
general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual
labor. According to _Lightfoot_, "it was their custom to bring up
their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or
estates." According to Rabbi Judah, "He that teaches not his son a
trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief."[76] It was, _Kuinoel_
affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor
(opificium) with the study of the law. This he confirms by the
highest Rabbinical authority.[77] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as
teaching, that no man should by any means neglect to train his son
to honest industry.[78] Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though
brought up at the "feet of Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of
a most illustrious teacher, practised the art of tent-making. His
own hands ministered to his necessities; and his example is so
doing, he commends to his Gentile brethren for their imitation.[79]
That Zebedee, the father of John the Evangelist, had wealth, various
hints in the New Testament render probable.[80] Yet how do we find
him and his sons, while prosecuting their appropriate business? In
the midst of the hired servants, "in the ship mending their
nets."[81]

[Footnote 75: Acts, xviii. 1-3.]

[Footnote 76: Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3.]

[Footnote 77: Kuinoel on Acts.]

[Footnote 78: Heinrichs on Acts.]

[Footnote 79: Acts, xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11.]

[Footnote 80: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.]

[Footnote 81: Mark, i. 19, 20.]

Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were
used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could
it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people
generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if
men of learning, wealth, and station, "labor, working with their
hands," such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish
maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the "peculiar
institution" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak.

5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished
in the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most
servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, _publicans_
were joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society
were described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a
place among Samaritans and publicans. They were "_hired servants_,"
whom Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a
wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The
prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described
their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change
which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and
penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them
all. But these--what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS.
"Make me as one of thy hired servants." Such he refers to as the
lowest menials known in Jewish life.

Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy; that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no reference "to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, "to labor, working with their hands;" and that where reference was had to the most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried on by hired servants; and the question of slavery "in Judea," so far as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. With every phase and form of society among them slavery was inconsistent.

The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper, the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to the law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior "in its worst forms"[82] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. "The sacred writers did not condemn it." [83] And why should they? By a definition[84] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the law of Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that American slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the slaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, as if a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[85]

[Footnote 82: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]

[Footnote 83: The same, p. 13.]

[Footnote 84: The same, p. 12.]

[Footnote 85: Supra, p. 58.]

A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate.

1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent
_the form_ witnessed by our Savior "in Judea?" That, _he_ will by
no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the "worst"
kind. _How then does he account for the alleged silence of the
Savior?--a silence covering the essence and the form--the
institution and its "worst" abuses_?

2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor,
Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so
earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see.

_Christianity in supporting Slavery, _The American system for
according to Professor Hodge_, supporting Slavery_,

"Enjoins a fair compensation for Makes compensation
labor" impossible by reducing the
laborer to a chattel.

"It insists on the moral and It sternly forbids its
intellectual improvement of all victim to learn to read
classes of men" even the name of his
Creator and Redeemer.

"It condemns all infractions of It outlaws the conjugal
marital or parental rights." and parental relations.

"It requires that free scope It forbids any effort, on
should be allowed to human the part of myriads of the
improvement." human family, to improve
their character,
condition, and prospects.

"It requires that all suitable It inflicts heavy
means should be employed to improve penalties for teaching
mankind" letters to the poorest of
the poor.

"Wherever it has had free scope, Wherever it has free
it has abolished domestic bondage." scope, it perpetuates
domestic bondage.

_Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the
abolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form
of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the
requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met
their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or
called forth their exertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the
censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around?
Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the man of
_straw_ he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business.
It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of
oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying
both Church and State;--it is this that they feel pledged to do
battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown,
dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss.

3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may
be thrown over_ SUCH SLAVERY, _as may be consistent with what the
Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity_?
Is _this_ THE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands
maintain? "Fair compensation for labor"--"marital and parental
rights"--"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement,
moral and intellectual, of all classes of men;"--are these,
according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of
slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such
requisitions and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly
subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton
professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the
"peculiar institution?" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and
complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their
"domestic system" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as
must at once crush its snaky head "and grind it to powder."

And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions, which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which he has elaborated? "All the ideas which necessarily enter into the definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the master."[86]

[Footnote 86: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.]

_According to Professor Hodge's _According to Professor Hodge's account of the definition of Slavery_, requisitions of Christianity_,

The spring of effort in the The laborer must serve at the laborer is a fair compensation. discretion of another.

Free scope must be given for He is deprived of personal his moral and intellectual liberty--the necessary condition, improvement. and living soul of improvement, without which he has no control of either intellect or morals.

His rights as a husband and The authority and claims of the
a father are to be protected. master may throw an ocean between
him and his family, and separate
them from each other's presence
at any moment and forever.

Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the peace of the respective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so far from _the requisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them into each other's presence, their natural and invincible antipathy to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as _wish_ to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger of rushing into the professor's dungeon. Those who, having something to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart's content. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the slaveholder.

But _Professor Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that "_Paul did not expect slavery to be ousted in a day_."[87] _Did not_ EXPECT! What then! Are the _requisitions_ of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human consciousness? And are we to interpret the _precepts_ of the gospel by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every where to repent, and this, though "Paul did not expect" that human wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community "be ousted in a day." Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite another.

[Footnote 87: Supra, p. 7.]

In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, "gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor." _That_ he did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor Stuart, "decides against the righteousness of slavery" even as a "theory." Accordingly, Christians were required, _without respect of persons_, to do each other justice--to maintain equality as common ground for all to stand upon--to cherish and express in all their intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one _brother_ naturally feels for another. These were the "ad interim precepts."[88] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, "root and branch," at once and forever.

[Footnote 88: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]

Professor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that "_Christianity will ultimately certainly destroy slavery_." Of this _we_ have not the feeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that "_slavery may exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE CHURCH?"[89] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient and cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor condition?[90] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful to her? This is to be _aggressive_ with a witness. Far be it from the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its inherent wickedness--its malignant temper--its deadly effects--its constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the authority of God and the welfare of man.

[Footnote 89: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]

[Footnote 90: Professor Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et salva ecclesia_.]

"Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery." "ULTIMATELY!" What meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have rolled over this world of wrong and outrage--and yet we tremble in the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but for a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen in such cold blood, to write that word "ultimately," how, under the sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the lamentable cry, "How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!" In the agony of beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet, quite at "ease in Zion," that "ULTIMATELY _Christianity would destroy slavery_." As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul, all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of _legalized_ debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry dies upon his lips, "_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG!"

"_Ultimately_!" In _what circumstances_ does Professor Stuart assure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts of this republic--as living members of this community, did we forfeit the prerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and act as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or statesman of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the freedom which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven and the Constitution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of slavery, what "_ultimately_" must Christianity here wait for before she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over slavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so widely spread through the "sacramental host" beneath her banners! Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the _ultimately_ of the "dark spirit of slavery" would at once give place to the _immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor.

No. 12.

THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

* * * * *

DISUNION.

ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY

AND

F. JACKSON'S LETTER ON THE PRO-SLAVERY CHARACTER OF THE CONSTITUTION

NEW YORK:

AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

142 NASSAU STREET.

1845.

BOSTON: PRINTED BY DAVID H. ELA, NO. 37, CORNHILL.

ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY TO Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States.

At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held in the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,--after grave deliberation, and a long and earnest discussion,--it was decided, by a vote of nearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the cause of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who are held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to God, require that the existing national compact should be instantly dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and political duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be, NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together for the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of Justice and Humanity.

A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the American Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This is due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world.

It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." It is further maintained by them, that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;" that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed with their blood. They would not brook even the menace of oppression. They held that there should be no delay in resisting, at whatever cost or peril, the first encroachments of power on their liberties. Appealing to the great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of their course, they pledged to each other "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor," to conquer or perish in their struggle to be free.

For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their deeds, and glory in their triumphs.

It is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of slavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or that it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the sacred rights of mankind.

We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every man sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment, invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the influence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are of--whether they have counted the cost of the warfare--what are the principles they advocate--and how they are to achieve their object--is the first duty of revolutionists.

But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it.

We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, and to this hour is cemented with human blood.

We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions, and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one portion of the people a prey to another.

We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all legal and constitutional restraints--equally indisposed and unable to protect the lives or liberties of the people--the prop and safeguard of American slavery.

These charges we proceed briefly to establish:

I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,--or if it be denied in any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question beyond doubt,--that the American Union was effected by a guilty compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words, by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive and pertinent language of scripture, it was "a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell"--null and void before God, from the first hour of its inception--the framers of which were recreant to duty, and the supporters of which are equally guilty.

It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that, without such a compromise there could have been no union; that, without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity, deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to the safety of the republic.

To this we reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical. It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its perpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and subversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our refuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape the overflowing scourge. "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the bail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place." Moreover, "because ye trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare."

This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said, "Let there by light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with injustice, and safety with blood guiltiness. A union of virtue with pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership between right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the principles of Justice, is the deification of crime.

Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its corruption?

The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union, rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to understand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the whole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just use of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham--an imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently sustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had not been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the colonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to crime,--to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,--to dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the rights of one human being,--could never have been subjugated by any mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England.

II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact. We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-Christian requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that, in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party contrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it may determine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted it meant_--NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, _as a matter of bargain and compromise_. Even if it can be construed to mean something else, without violence to its language, such construction is not to be tolerated _against the wishes of either party_. No just or honest use of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its framers, _except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to serve under it_.

To the argument, that the words "slaves" and "slavery" are not to be found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in good faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be effected_. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected, that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as they can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, it is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially as the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that this is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting parties, _whose co-operation was secured only by an express agreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the clauses alluded to_; and that such a construction, if enforced by pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed, and robbed of their constitutional rights.

Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and void--we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is also true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of which, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, _because they are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the Constitution.

Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity: and therefore, it is to be so construed as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that its language is _not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of the contracting parties understood_, and which would frustrate every design of their alliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the colored population of the country_. Moreover, nothing is more certain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the minds of those who framed it, _those who were then pining in bondage_--for, in that case, a general emancipation of the slaves would have instantly been proclaimed throughout the United States. The words, "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," assuredly meant only the white population. "To promote the general welfare," referred to their own welfare exclusively. "To establish justice," was understood to be for their sole benefit as slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument, and by their own practice under it.

We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is as reprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_, as it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; or that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to make it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly might it be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, and endowed with an inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing liberty _to themselves_, without being very scrupulous as to the means they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated by the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though _in words_ they recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in practice_ they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave a portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in the market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the mother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. Why, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses. _Why cling to the falsehood, that they were not respecters of persons in the formation of the government_?

Alas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in their hearts! "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not."

We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution, in its relations to slavery.

In ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared--"the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded as not to imply, _ex necessitate_, any criminal intent or inhuman arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to mean that there should be no interference with the African slave trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808. For twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in the prosecution of that infernal traffic--in sacking and burning the hamlets of Africa--in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave ships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and subjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated bondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, since its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American flag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given them the most ample protection.

The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by the Hon. Luther Martin,[91] who was a prominent member of that body:

"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!)
_were very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with
a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the
Southern States would, in the return, _gratify_ them by laying no
restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the
committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, _by which the
general government was to be prohibited from preventing the
importation of slaves_ for a limited time; and the restrictive
clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted."

Behold the iniquity of this agreement! How sordid were the motives which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity, on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth!

It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was not adopted "without considerable opposition." Alluding to it, Mr. Martin observes--

[Footnote 91: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]

"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us, not in _particular_, but in _common with all the rest of mankind_; that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its preservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only of putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that God whose protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by _national punishments_, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_![92]

[Footnote 92: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and the slave trade! Secret Proceedings, p. 64.]

"It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and disgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the exercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. That, on the contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States. That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by this system of government, every State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; and, from this consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have the power to restrain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as the number of slaves increased in any State, in the same proportion is the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and domestic insurrection: and by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a burden to, the Union.

"It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the general government power, under the idea of national character, or national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we prohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade, than which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest.

"These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes part of the system."[93]

[Footnote 93: Secret Proceedings, p. 64.]

Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may come, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did this deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all their heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of the overruling power of God. "The Eastern States were very willing to _indulge_ the Southern States" in the unrestricted prosecution of their piratical traffic, provided in return they could be _gratified_ by no restriction being laid on navigation acts!!--Had there been no other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one who partook of it.