« AnteriorContinuar »
You know how anxious he has all along seemed, to put slave-holding upon a level with marriage. “Both," he argues are liable to abuses; but one is no more wrong than the other, nor is there more harm in the relation of master and slave, than in that of husband and wife. So I understand my friend, and if I state him wrong I hope he will put me right:
Mr. RicE. I have put the gentleman right more than once, but I have little hope that he will stay right. I said no such thing. I said that he has no right to urge arguments against the relation of master and slave which would do away the marriage relation.
MR. BLANCHARD. I thank him for his explanation but not for the sneer “that I will not stay right.”
Mr. Rice. It is the third time I have put you right upon this point.
MR. BLANCHARD. May be so. That is not according to my recollection of it, but if so, let my brother remember errare est humanum, ignoscere divinum."
I will take him where he now stands if I can get there. He holds that the same arguments which would prove slavery sinful, would also prove marriage sinful. No. I am wrong. • The arguments which I use would prove marriage sinful: That is, 1 appeal to you all, that, in point of not being sinful, the relation of slavery is on a level with marriage.”. Slavery, like marriage, is a non-sinful relation. To establish this, he says that the apostle did not denounce slavery but regulated it as he did marriage. Now to show you that this, which he and his friends rely upon as a chief point in their argument, is an utter fallacy, you have but to apply the advice of Paul respecting the slave relation to that of marriage. Thus, he
“ Art thou called being a servant care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” Now apply this to the marriage relation; “ Art thou called being a husband, care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." [Laughter.] Ecce humbug! No man on earth would ever have thought of comparing slavery with mar
riage if slavery had not first existed, an abuse requiring defence, and blinding with its rewards, the minds of the wise. I
say of the Mosaic bond service, which he adduces as a pattern and precedent for American slavery, in the words of a father now in my eye, (Dr. Beecher,)“ it was’nt slavery:"– "It is a mockery to call it so.”
And as to the ear-bored servant who was to remain with his master - forever:”—My friend seemed to rejoice as if he had found great spoil, when he quoted this case, which after all, is simply that of a man, who, after long acquaintance, wished to live with his master, and came voluntarily before the judges, and had his ear bored that he might remain till the next jubilee.
He cited also the case where the servant coming into service and going out at the end of six years, if he married while in service, his wife was not to go out with him. I looked narrowly here, and was glad to miss that cold corpselike smile; that fiend-like grin, which I saw on the lips of a minister of twenty years standing in his Presbytery, who brought up the case as one where God had sanctioned the separation of slave-husband and wife-a minister to whom brother Rice has seen fit to refer as a man persecuted by his synod, who are trying him for pro-slavery teaching. But at any rate Dr. Rice thinks this a case of a six years slave who went out while his wife, being a life-slave, stayed behind. Nevertheless, it is true that some servants were brought in from the heathen, and if they were not converted in one year they were sent back. If one of these had married a Hebrew wife, God would not let him take her back into idolatry.
This was a good reason, a merciful, missionary, and glorious reason: a reason as wide of the spirit of the slavecoffle relation as heaven is wide of hell. The law merely exempts a pious woman from the necessity of following a worthless husband into idolatry and want. If the woman wish to go with her husband, she had nothing to do but run
away with him and the law of God forbid the sending her back.
My friend must now consent to wait for my Bible argument, seeing I have given him a taste of it just by way of spice.
But he meets my argument showing that the principles of abolitionism have abolished slavery, by declaring that British emancipation was not immediate abolition, nor its authors modern abolitionists. So in his printed lectures, he tells us that." Wilberforce, Clarkson and others, were far from being abolitionists in the modern sense.”—Rice's Lectures, p. 67. His design is to prove that West India emancipation was not a triumph of the principle that immediate emancipation is a duty, and slave-holding a sin. I beg you will remember his printed statement that Clarkson and company were not abolitionists in the modern sense, for I wish to test this statement by facts. You will mark that the point between us is, whether the principles of abolitionists have, as he says, abolished slavery - nowhere on earth;" or "everywhere," where it has perished without bloodshed, as I say.
Let us now see whether the authors of the West Indian emancipation of August, 1834; were “far from being abolitionists in the modern sense.”
I hold in my hand an “Essay on Slavery, by Thomas Clarkson" who is still living, and well known on both sides of the Atlantic, to be, so far as one man can be, the
life and heart's blood of the English abolition movement. And where think you, was this book printed, when, and by whom? It was published in 1816, at Georgetown, Kentucky, by the Rev. David Barrow. So the doctrines of Clarkson, which I will read, were once popular in Kentucky, before the gold of her piety became dim, and her fine gold changed. Surely some must have favored his views to warrant the publication there of his book.
Now what are Clarkson's doctrines on slavery, laid down in this book, the writing of which led him, then a university
student, to resolve on devoting his life to the cause of humanity against slavery?
Before reading, I must remark that I never said, as brother R. stated, that the pamphlet called “. Immediate not gradual Abolition” changed the principles of English abolitionists, but that it contributed to change their mode of operationto produce a new application of their principles. Clarkson's principles were the principles of British abolition. This essay was written when he was a young man. He has now labored, as his last letter in my desk shows, more than fiftynine years, exclusively in this cause. He was the means of bringing to its aid the talents of Wilberforce, Pitt and Fox, and of organizing the committee of which Granville Sharp was chairman and Macauley an active member. He was, as I said, the soul of the English anti-slavery movement; and this essay, which he wrote at the instance of Dr. Peckard, and which gained the prize at Cambridge University, șixty-five years ago; was his first essay on the subject, and has been the chart of his principles ever since, and of those of the English abolitionists ;-and this is the summing up of his doctrines on the last page at the end of the book ;
“ But this is sufficient. For if liberty is only an advantitious right; if men are by no means superior to brutes; if every social duty is a curse; if cruelty is highly to be esteemed: if murder is strictly honorable; and Christianity is a lie; then it is evident that African slavery may be pursued without either remorse of conscience or the imputation of a crime.
But if the contrary of this is true, which reason must immediately evince, it is evident that no custom established among men was ever more impious; since it is contrary to reason, justice, nature, the principles of law and government, the whole doctrine, in short, of natural religion, and the revealed voice of God.”—Clarkson's Essay. Kentucky Ed. p. 175.
That was Clarkson's doctrine sixty-nine ago; and it was the doctrine which has wrought out the English abolition. What then becomes of Dr. Chalmers, and his declaration
that ours is a new dogma ? What of Dr. Rice and his published assertion that Clarkson is “far from being an abolitionist in the modern sense ?”
My brother, anxious to prove that abolitionists hold horrible doctrines, refers again to the book of Rev. James Duncan , and not to the book only but to the man, who, he says, “was as crazy as Foster."
Mr. Rice explained. That is a mistake. I said that Foster was not a whit more crazy than Duncan.
MR. BLANCHARD. I accept the correction. He did not say that “ Duncan was as crazy as Foster;" but that “ Foster was not more crazy than Duncan.” [A laugh.]
Now what is his chief accusation against this pious missionary and man of God, whose life was devoted to preaching Christ in the early log cabins of Kentucky, Ohio, Indidiana and Illinois; and who died on a missionary tour? The head and front of Duncan's offending in his book is, that he teaches that “slaves have a right to resist their enslavement by force.”
Now, in respect to this doctrine, though we, as abolitionists, do not undertake to disprove the right of force, commonly called the right of revolution; yet, we do not give such advice to the slaves, but the contrary. We tell them, as Paul told the Christian slaves of heathen masters, to submit cheerfully and patiently to their condition, but if they may be made free to it rather." To
6. Wait for the dawning of a brighter day,
"And snap the bond the moment when they may.” We have other motives beside our principles, in teaching slaves to endure their burdens, though heavy-never to rise in warfare, but to wait. Many of our parents, sons, brothers, sisters and other relatives, live in the South. Many have gone down and married plantations of slaves, particularly ministers' sons, and we do not wish to have these killed in a general massacre. We are moralists, and we leave politicians to regulate questions of force.