« AnteriorContinuar »
convicted of robbing the Almighty-that he may oppress his fellow man.
4. My opponent still reasons about “ Hagar," as though she was not only the bondwoman, or bound-woman of Abraham, but the actual slave or property of Abraham.
Answer. If Hagar was Abraham's property, and if she was sent back by the angel as Abraham's slave, then Dr. Rice is bound, by every principle of justice, and by this angel's example, to help to take and send back runaway slaves to their owners. But he has told us that he has seen slaves running away, but never would do any thing to send them back-thus showing, that he, in heart, does not believe in his own argument—that he knows that Hagar was not a slave, and that Kentucky slaves are not justly the property of their masters. For if they are the just property of their masters, then Dr. Rice is wicked to see them running off, without trying to send them back. For, “If thou seest thine enemy's ox, or his ass, going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.” Exod. xxiii, 40. He draws a distinction, however, between not preventing the escape of a slave, and aiding him to escape-condemning abolitionists for the latter, while he practices the former. But the distance between “not preventing," and actually aiding, escaping slaves is so short, that I commend my brother to the careful watching of the southern slave-holders, lest, in a little while, he be found actually helping slaves to run away. [A laugh.]
5. Again. A Massachusetts man went to South Carolina to live with certain slaves who fell to him, as the best plan he could devise to do them (the slaves) good. Was he a sinner ?
Answer. If he went there, and honestly told the negroes they were free, and avoided the appearance of evil, by letting his neighbors know that he was no slave-holder, but had simply come to help the negroes out of difficulty, he was no sinner ; but if not—if he simply set down among them as a slave-holder—he was a gross sinner. For he left a
free State, where he and his family were surrounded by the influences of freedom, for a slave land, and a practice of slavery and its corrupting influences. He made himself and family props to support the rotting fabric of slavery, to the injury of millions, with the precarious and uncertain hope of benefitting a few slaves.
6. He says Constantine made a law forbidding to separate husband and wife, and yet slavery still existed. He argues thence that separating husband and wife is not an ingredient part of slavery.
Answer. In forbidding the separation of families, Constantine was destroying slavery. He was driving his legislative axe into the very meat and bones of slavery. He was a wise legislator and knew what he was doing. He knew that a repeal of the family state was of the essence of slavery; and therefore began his work of destroying slavery by stopping family separation. If Constantine had added legal personality and wages, his law would have been an immediate abolition law. As it was it stabbed slavery to the heart.
“ Then,” replies he, “Kentucky Presbyterians do not hold slaves in full, for they do not separate families, and the law of the church forbids it."
Answer. Kentucky Presbyterians do hold slaves in full, for they hold them by a tenure which denies marriage and parentage to them, which Constantine did not. They hold them in a state of virtual and real separation, hourly ready for actual separation; and their slaves are constantly separated by sheriffs for debts and by administrators for a division, which division the heirs have a right to order, and Presbyterians, when dead, cannot prevent. Witness the slave cofiles or gangs annually driven from the upper slave States to the lower, and who pass by our city. They used to land here, but blessed be God, such is the state of feeling now, that they do this seldom or no more. The law of the church against it is but an inoperative conscience-plaster. Kentucky Presbyterians holding slaves, are slave-holders.
7. Again, he says.
" True moral principles strike every honest mind, as true, and, by their own force, command assent.” And he asks, “if the doctrine be true that slaveholding is sin, why does it not so strike every mind?"
Answer. It does strike every mind when themselves or their families are concerned. No sane man is willing that himself and posterity, in all time, should be slaves. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Let the slave law strike one of Dr. Rice's children, and the wickedness of it would certainly strike him.
8. He told you I was willing to keep the slaves from voting, after they are emancipated.” What I said upon that point was, that I leave their political rights to political men, to be determined by exact political justice. Abolition has done with them when they are free as unnaturalized foreigners, who are free, though they cannot vote.
Tell an Irishman, before he is entitled to vote, that he is a slave, and my word for it, Patrick will show that his fist is free, at least. (A laugh.]
If he made any other points whịch my present arguments do not answer, I am willing he should have all the benefit of their going unanswered, and that they may have, with you whatever weight they deserve. I hope now, that
brother will not continue to complain of me, as if I were unwilling to answer him to the best of my ability. Of course, it is not to be expected that I would set my ability in competition with so grave and learned a Doctor of Divinity, but I mean not to be outdone by him in candor, and an honest desire to vindicate the truth.
I must now be excused from noticing further his line of argument, and be permitted to go straight through with my Yet, if
my brother is very anxious that I should answer any questions I may possibly turn aside for a few minutes, to do so. I will notice briefly his "golden rule" argument, and then consider the Old Testament bond service. This argument of Dr. Rice may be found in his printed pamphlet, pages 39, and 41. He says of Christ's command re
quiring us to do to others as we would they should do to us ;— Evidently it requires us to treat others, as we would reasonably expect and desire them to treat us, IF WE WERE IN THEIR SITUATION.” (Lect. p. 39.)
That is, the “golden rule ” only requires the slave-holder to treat his slave as he might reasonably expect to be treated if he were in that slave's condition. The fact that the slave is a slave, is taken for granted to be right, so far as the owner is concerned. Then he says on page 41. That the golden rule requires a man to become a slave-holder, who buys a slave to keep him from suffering a worse fate. 66 The truth is in such cases THE GOLDEN RULE MAKES THE CHRISTIAN THE OWNER OF A SLAVE.” (Lect. p. 41.,
I think I shall be able to show you that this exposition, which deserves to be called the “slave-holder's golden rule," in the first place, proceeds upon a plain denial of God's gold
2nd, That it contains a logical error. 3d, That it contains a gross immorality.
The reason on which the rules rests, which requires men to do to others as they would have others do to them, is, that men are equal. But this slave-holder's rule contradicts this fundamental truth of God's word, that “God has made of one blood all the nations of men,” and if of one blood, they are of equal blood. This exposition of Dr. Rice, assumes that there is one blood of the slave-holder; another blood of the slave ; and they are of different conditions instead of being by nature on the same footing. It assumes the inequality of the human race to be right, which is the very question in dispute. It goes upon the supposition that one man is naturally a slave-holder, and another a slave. The question lies back of this. Abolitionists claim that injury is done in making a man a slave, or, in assuming towards a man the relation of his owNER, and keeping him a slave. Dr. Rice as sumes that men are by God's law divided into two classes, master and slave; and says that the whole duty required of the master class, by the golden rule is, to treat slaves “ we might reasonably expect to be treated, if we were slaves !
Suppose that my father, caught a boy and put him in a dungeon,
and gave me the key. I put the key in my pocket and keep the boy in the dungeon. My father in this case is the kidnapper and I am the slave-holder. Dr. Rice, we will say, is defining my duty under his golden rule towards that imprisoned boy. Doctor, I ask, “what, say you, is my duty to the boy imprisoned by my father?” He replies ;- :-“ Do unto others as you would have others do unto you if you were in their situation." .
Well, but, Doctor, how do you understand that rule? Shall I let him out ?” “By no means” says he ;—“All you are required to do, is to keep him there for life, and treat him just as kindly as you might reasonably expect to be treated if you were in his place. That is, as men who are shut up in dungeons may reasonably expect to be treated by those who keep them there."
Is there a man on earth capable of knowing right and wrong who would not instantly feel that such an exposition of the golden rule carries a monstrous fraud in it, if applied to himself. It denies that “God has made of one blood (and equal because one) all nations of men.” Dr. Rice's religion is the religion of a privileged class. And it is so with every religion which is based on radical error. Puseyism, and Popery, &c., withhold from the common mass in favor of their priesthood, rights which God has given alike to all men. Dr. Rice allows the slave-holders to hold the slaves, before he begins to apply the golden rule to them; and his exposition, like Puseyism, is based upon a denial of the law of human equality. It takes for granted that God has made it the destiny of one portion of his creatures to be slaves and another portion masters, and that masters fulfil their duty to. the slaves by treating them according to that destiny. And this monstrous perversion of this holy and beautiful law of Christ, is preached in nearly the same words by professed ministers of the gospel, throughout the South, perverting slaveholders' consciences, sinking the rights of the slaves—and dimming and diminishing the light of justice in the word of God.
2. In the second place, I observe, that my friend's exposi