Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

And if my friend can now rise up and tell you, against authorities such as Dr. Robertson,-against the authoritative declaration of all the slave-codes ever enacted,-against history itself, and against what you know to be the uniform practice, heretofore and now,--that marriage exists among slaves, and that slavery is free from the sin of marriage-breaking, I feel certain that few will believe him.

I am aware that my friend calculates on the adherence of friends from Kentucky, of whom there are many present. But I trust that here even he will find himself mistaken. There is a force in truth to leave impressions which the mind cannot shake off, and especially in the truth that it is sinful to make merchandize of men. It will follow them to their homes, and live and burn in their consciences, when the prejudices of the hour are, with the circumstances of this debate, passed away.

A money-loving, hardened man, in southern Pennsylvania, told me that when he put his hand to paper to sign a bill of sale for the transfer of a human being, his arm trembled and shook to his shoulder-blade. There is not a power, principle, or faculty included in the awful circle of humanity but shudders at the motions of this horrid property-power, as the trees of Eden trembled at the movements of Satan in the fall of man.

You may go, Kentuckians, to your homes, but the truths to which you here listen, apart from any power of argument, by their own vital force, will abide with you as an omnipresent blaze, showing you everything about your negro-quarters in a light in which you never beheld them before, and making you one in understanding and heart with the promoters of liberty, and friends of the slave. For the truth is God's, and God's unseen power is in it.

I met Theodore F. Leftwick, a tobacco merchant, of Liberty, Va., upon a steamboat; told him I was an abolitionist, and, knowing him for a southern man, asked him of his slaves. “ Thank God, I have none,” was his prompt and warm reply. Though opposed to what he understood to be abolitionism, and pitying me because an abolitionist, he said that he had má fiat te er descon un discussing Eu I um shavng us that the can save-win-aising the infants inm ata janis na maung 101 saat s ad napping and harer an.

Bit te vile water vaaily jerm 27. supDose trase siano nizens al tie uier e a je sme sares

une hat I am the mm si a slaze-juer. imi i maza hat act a pretext o nout in slazert ne shiren i nose men Jeruang riom ng ather ensiaze? Lui Da I de their nant visprag as ast as om má recijn mi arser them among my care and sw'ne, as my property

W lere then wand be the east mocai diference berveen my mase and hat of the present Inercan slaze-couters! Can any one fal szeg, hat, it I am the cocoer ma piundera i ny species, he is 10 ess!

Tie wicie Caiter States or is But the han-ree mo which he slato-acider screws his slate, and a wică ae siate * is ked to service er acc. mi że Cati States facute a setter to find the hands and set of scse wie sie sacacity and ticience of ou meztos hate ansiktet sat eest in our p7, Satsetag. š therette er orbidden by God in the woris: - Tece scalt poc člow a moittade to do evl*

[Tinz zire

(HR. BICE'S EIGHTH SPEECE.) Gentlemen Moderators, and Fellore-Citizens :

In closing the discussion of this day, I confess that I have heen disappointed, and so, I presume, have the audience. They were informed by the gentleman, that they would hear the Bible argument in favor of his views this evening : You have heard what sort of a Bible argument it has been.

[Mr. BLANCHARD, interposing. I said I would come to the direct argument.]

Then the direct argument in favor of abolitionism is not a Bible argument, the gentleman himself being judge. [Great laughter.]

The gentleman is now through; we are closing a discussion of twelve hours ; he agrees with me, that the Bible is the only rule of right and wrong; yet, in the whole of that time he has brought but one solitary passage to show that his doctrine is true! The direct argument, it is evident, is not a Bible argument. This he has virtually admitted, and I thank him for the concession. The truth is, no abolitionist relies upon the Bible for proof of the doctrine, that slaveholding is in itself sinful; and I am glad my friend has come to the direct argument," and given us no Bible.

The gentleman is quite disturbed that I should so frequently tell the audience what he has not done. Well, I do not doubt that it is distressing: I hope he will be as comfortable as possible; but really I cannot help it. The fact is, that he has argued twelve hours, and has not only failed to support his doctrine by the Bible, but has scarcely touched one of the main arguments I have offered against it!

He has, indeed, placed before us in glowing colors, the cruelty which wicked men sometimes practice toward their slaves. And he asks whether there was anything about that slave coffle with which he opened his side of the debate, which I condemn? He knows that I condemn traffic in slaves as severely as he does; but does that prove the relation of master and slave to be in itself sinful ? I condemn the burning of Hindoo widows, but I do not on that account condemn the marriage relation as sinful. Does my opponent condemn the conjugal relation, because wicked men take advantage of it to treat females cruelly, as he does the relation of master and slave for the same reason? The sufferings of the slave-gang are not caused by the relation, but by the cruelty of slave-dealers. Does the fact, that Nero was a monster of cruelty, prove that the relation of ruler and ruled is sinful? Will my brother on this account denounce civil government? Yet the principle on which he reasons, requires that he should; for the cases, as to the principle involved, are the same.

But he asks, why I do not praise the Papists for the truth

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

by saying, that he does not approve every comma and semicolon in it!!! Are these sentiments commas and semicolons ? But Mr. Duncan has deceased; and he thinks, therefore, I ought not thus to comment on his sentiments. He could state facts injurious to the reputation of the venerable Dr. Baxter, without producing one particle of proof of their truth; but it is quite improper for me to say a word about Mr. Duncan's published sentiments! Ah, it is one thing for your ox to gore mine; quite another for my ox to gore yours.

But the gentleman is kind enough to offer me some of his publications, if I will only spare Mr. Duncan's. I am obliged to him; but I prefer Mr. Duncan's pamphlet, for the plain and important reason, that it has been endorsed by the Cincinnati Abolition Society,—an honor which, so far as I know, has not been conferred on any one of his. This pamphlet is now no longer Mr. Duncan's; it is the Cincinnati Abolition Society's work, and contains their sentiments—sentiments which every enlightened Christian and patriot must abhor, as adapted to excite servile insurrection, and deluge our land in blood. But the gentleman objects only to some of its commas and semicolons !!!

My opponent once more reiterates the assertion, that slaveholding destroys the marriage relation. Marriage is a divinely constituted relation, the validity of which depends simply upon the authority of God. Has he proved that slavery annuls it? What would have been the proper course for him to pursue in proving it? It would have been, first, to show, from the Bible, what marriage is, what is essential to the relation; and then show how slave-holding abolishes this. But did he take this course? Not at all. There was no reference to the Bible in his whole argument. I might meet his assertion by a simple denial ; but neither assertions nor denials will settle the point.

But I have proved that Constantine passed laws forbidding husbands and wives, parents and children, among slaves, to be separated. Will the gentleman assert that these laws abolished slavery!--that it no longer existed in the Roman

f

« AnteriorContinuar »