Imágenes de páginas

as their

could, difficulties meet him on his arrival in Ohio. Will you denounce that man, because he continues to be a slaveholder, though contrary to his wish? Suppose him, sacredly, to regard the marriage relation, provide for them abundant food and raiment, and conscientiously to instruct them in the religion of Christ; is he a sinner?

Do you say, let him pay them wages? But it depends very much on circumstances, whether their support, the care taken of them in sickness and old age, will not be as much wages

would amount to. Dr. Cunningham states, that in Scotland many persons labor twenty hours out of the twenty-four, and yet cannot obtain a support. Circumstances must determine the amount of wages which a conscientious man would give.

It is in vain that we call upon abolitionists to tell us what is the duty of men, under existing circumstances. The truth is, there are insuperable difficulties in the way of those who would liberate the slaves. Admit, if you please, that Mississippi is bound, as a State, to liberate all her slaves without delay. Still the question returns: what is the duty of individuals living in Mississippi, so long as she refuses to do this?

You may appeal to the sympathies of men, talk of weeping women, and all that; but the question still returns, what are men to do under existing circumstances? Gladly would they place the slaves in a better condition ; but difficulties press upon them on every side. Yet abolitionism denounces them as upholding the vilest system of oppression, and seeks to exclude them from the church of Christ.

In all the cases I have presented, the relation continues; but the cruelty against which the gentleman declaims, is not found. Let him, if he can, point out one passage or one principle in the Bible, by which, under such circumstances, it is proved sinful. Such an argument would be worth more than all his declamation. Why does he hesitate to come to the source of all light, and from it establish his proposition ?

[ocr errors]

5. I now offer my fifth general argument against the doctrine of my opponent, that slave-holding is in itself sinful, viz: this doctrine leads its advocates to pursue a course of conduct widely different from that pursued by the inspired Apostles—a course of conduct deeply injurious to society, and especially to the slaves, whose happiness they professedly seek. They do not go, for example, into Kentucky, and calmly and kindly reason on this subject, with the slave-holders, who are supposed to be living in sin, out of that Book, which both parties acknowledge to be the only infallible rule of right. They remain at a distance, publish books, pamphlets and papers, like that of Duncan, in which slave-holders receive indiscriminate denunciation and indiscriminate slander. They get up meetings, make speeches, tell anecdotes of cruelty, and work themselves up into great excitement. The slave holder is slandered and denounced; but he is not kindly reasoned with. These zealous reformers venture not amongst the benighted people whom they would reform.

Did the Apostles of Christ assail sin in this way? Did Paul remain at Jerusalem, and write abusive letters against the Pagans? Far from it. Like a man and a Christian, he went and stood in the midst of Mars Hill, and said to the superstitious multitudes—“Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious; for as I passed by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription-To the unknown God," etc. If a neighbor of yours were acting very improperly, you would not expect to reform him by abusing him to another neighbor. The Apostles did not collect at Jerusalem, and form a society against Paganism. They went amongst them and reasoned with them, face to face.

[Time expired.

Thursday, Oct. 2, 1845. [MR. BLANCHARD'S FIFTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators, and Gentlemen and Ladies, Fel

low-Citizens :

At the close of last evening's debate, my brother Rice seemed still to complain, that I had not, as holding the affirmative in this discussion, taken the question directly to the words of Scripture. I must reply again to his difficulty, as I have done before: First-I advance no sentimients in this place which I do not hold myself ready to prove from the Word of God. All the principles upon which my arguments have been based, are written out in full in the sacred Scriptures. I rest my opposition to slavery upon the onebloodism of the New Testament. All men are equal, because they are of one equal blood. Secondly-I reply, that I have not come directly to the words of Scripture as yet, (though I am certainly disposed to accommodate my brother, because I supposed the interests of truth to require the course I take, so far at least as the value of this argument is concerned. And I confess it seems to me a novel thing in forensic argument for the negative to become the affirmative, and assume to dictate the line of discussion. I supposed that my brother would not give his time to complaining, but reply, or prove his own sentiments, if he has any. As he seemed at a loss for work to do, I playfully suggested to him to occupy his spare tine in the singing of anthems, until I came to the argument from the words of the Old Testament. It is not my purpose to consume this discussion in verbal criticisms and logical hair-splitting; quoting and re-quoling about a dozen lexicons, and as many commentaries, from the beginning of this debate to the end. But I would not have you suppose me anxious to decline such a discussion at the

I am determined that my friend shall have an opportunity to display all his learning and skill, and treat us to the sense of doulos and Ebedh, in the Hebrew and Greek lexicons, and in the commentators, as long, at least, as you

proper time.

will be disposed to listen. But let us possess our souls in patience!

My friend asks me for the evidence of the truth of Mr. Giddings' statement, that the slaves to the Seminole Indians preferred Indian slavery to slavery among the whites. I reply. The evidence of it is found in every shilling of the 40,000,000 of dollars paid by the people of the United States for the destruction of a few Seminole Indians for the breaking up of the haunts of runaway negroes who had taken refuge among them; and who lived with them as their slaves. The whole object of the war was to bring back those runaway negroes, who had taken refuge in the Indian country to escape slavery to their white owners in the southern States.

There is a large class of topics introduced by my friend, at different times, which I have purposely omitted to notice, but which I have not forgotten. Generally, when the objection is not a very large one, it is economy to wait and put several together-enough to make a mouthful--before undertaking to reply.

For example, he asserts, and repeats the assertion, that abolitionists have aggravated the condition of the slaves, and have rivetted their chains. Then, in another part of his argument, he stated that slavery is so much improved of late years,

that he would lead one to suppose they were virtually free, and almost ready to be actually so. I shall briefly sum up all he said on these points: first giving you a key of judgment by which you may always tell whether a man is uttering truth or error. If a man is defending truth, all the parts of his argument will commonly be consistent with each other. But if he is teaching error, one part of his argument will be sure to break its head against another.

Because, as was said by Mr. Webster, in the trial of the Knapps, “every truth in the universe is consistent with every other truth.' Let a man speak at length, and if he is defending error, you will see one part of his argument evermore running against the other, and breaking it in pieces.

In illustration of this truth, I will read several of my friend's propositions in the present debate. In the first place, he said, “ there never was so much money and time spent in the South, as at present, for the instruction and edu. cation of the slaves." In another part of his argument, he said that slavery was greatly “improved” of late years. In another part, that abolitionism had, within a few years, broken up all the schools for slaves, and had rivetted the chains closer upon their unhappy limbs, and was driving them in coffles to the South. In another part, he said that, in Virginia, the laws were disregarded, and the slaves were still taught to read. I might pursue this farther. But I do not wish to be or to seem unkind. I deplore his error. He probably thinks that I am in error. We can honestly hold these opinions of each other, and you are empannelled as an impartial jury, to try the question between us, who is right?

I will, however, just read a paragraph or two, bearing upon the question whether abolitionists have broken in the South : or, whether our agitation of the subject of slavery has produced all the evils attributed to it. I have here a recent pamphlet by Rev. Hugh S. Fullerton, a respectable minister of Chillicothe presbytery, belonging to the same General Assembly with Mr. Rice; which says:

6. The Assembly declare that the severity of the slave laws, and the sensitiveness of the slave-holders is mainly attributable to abolitionists. And yet it is a fact, that has been shown times without number, that the most of these laws are from fifty to one hundred and fifty years old. And that this sensitiveness has existed ever since slavery has existed. Rev. Dr. Hill, of Virginia, in the last N. S. Assembly, brought the same charges against abolitionists. And yet, before he finished his speech, he said,—That when he was a boy, but twelve years old, he was obliged to take his father's slaves to the woods, when he would teach them to read. This, I am told, is not less than sixty years ago

up schools

« AnteriorContinuar »