Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tute—that the men were not made chattels. 2. The frequent and terrible prohibitions against oppression: “Wo to them who use their neighbor's service without wages," &c. Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, nor vex him. If thou afflict them in anywise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." And if my brother is famishing for more scripture, I give him Prov. xxxi, 8, Open thy mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." I give him Lam. iii, 35, 36, “ To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the Most High; to subert a man in his cause the LORD approveth not.” If he still wishes more scripture. I will quote it. The Word of God blazes from beginning to end with denunciations against those “ whose treading is upon the poor;" and who so destitute, who so poor, as the man who does not own his garments, his wife, his child, or even himself? It is worthy of the most careful notice, the access which the most indigent and lowest people had to the person, not only of the judges, but of the monarch himself. Witness the two harlots who appeared before Solomon to dispute their claim to an illegitimate child. The lowest and most wretched outcast thus had free access to their monarchs, who knew that God would judge them if they did not pronounce just judgments. There were no grand juries intervening between the wronged man and the judge, and no such thing as advocates known in that day; but justice was direct, and simple, and summary, without delay.

For these facts, I refer to “Jahn's Archaeology," and “ Horne's Introduction," both of which my opponent will acknowledge to be good authority. I refer also to the declaration of Job, himself a prince and a judge, "If I did despise the cause (suit) of my man-servant, or of

my

maid-servant, when they contended with me, what then shall I do when God riseth up ? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make him ?'' Job xxxi, 13—15. And I refer to the general denunciations of the Bible, against those judges who refused the suits of those of low condition, all of whom had free access to the courts of justice, and even to the ear of their monarchs. I have referred to 1 Kings iii, 16—the case of the two harlots before Solomon-and Deut. xvi, 18, “ Thou shalt not wrest judgment: thou shalt not respect persons: neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous.” In the same chapter it is provided, that judges shall daily sit in all the gates, and hear the complaints of all, without respect of person. There were six thousand of these judges in the time of David, the King. And this custom was adopted as the most certain to bring the judges near to the people; because, sleeping in the cities for safety at night, as they were an agricultural people, they passed through the gates in going and returning from their labor. They were nomades, or herdsmen, and in going to their flocks out of the city, they passed directly by the judges seated upon the judgment seat. They were, moreover, as a people, well instructed in the law, and would know whether the judge decided right or wrong; and the judges knew that if they judged unrighteously, the vengeance of God would overtake them. Such was the perfect civil liberty enjoyed by the Hebrew slaves. Slaves! That accursed system has so befouled language, that one can scarcely pick up a clean word !!—[A laugh.]

[Time expired.

[MR. RICE'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators, and Fellow-Citizens :

[We go for free discussion. We are neither afraid to discuss, or afraid to hear discussion. I observe that some are in the habit of leaving the house as soon as the individual with whom they agree has done speaking. I hope those friends who happen to agree with me in sentiment, will not

cause.

imitate the example, but will remain and listen to the brother opposed to me.)

I certainly have never thought of calling in question the splendid talents, or the eminent attainments of my friend and brother, the Rev. Mr. Blanchard. I have known, for some time how great a man he is. But it will sometimes happen that the greatest men will fail successfully to defend a weak

I did not intend to represent Mr. Blanchard as a weak man, but as a man laboring to uphold a weak cause. I did not come here to meet a weak man.

I desired our abolition friends to select the strongest man they had; for I felt confident in the strength of the doctrine I hold on the subject. The brother seems to think that I insinuated, because he had not, for nearly a week, replied to my arguments from the Bible, that he was an incompetent debater. I insinuated no such thing. I meant to say, what I believed to be true, that he was oppressed with the difficulties which ever attend the defence of serious error; and I believe it now.

I enquired not whether any particular church, calling itself Methodist, had ever excluded slave-holders, as such, but whether John Wesley, whose opinion of slavery the gentleman quoted, took such ground. I have just received a note from a Methodist minister, worthy of confidence, stating that Wesley instructed missionaries to the West Indies, to preach the Gospel, but to avoid all interference with the subject of slavery. If it is asserted, that he attempted to make slave-holding a bar to communion, let the documentary evidence be produced. I maintain, that the Methodist church never has excluded men from the church, simply because they were slave-holders. Although that church has been divided by the question of slavery, even the northern division of it has not yet made slave-holding a bar to Christian fellowship. And the same may be said of every denomination of Christians of respectable size in our country.

Some small churches have excluded slave-holders from their communion; but their numbers in the slave States, are extremely small. And this fact shows the tendency of aboli

tionism even in its mildest form to take the gospel from both masters and slaves. There are, at the present time, as I am informed by a Methodist minister who has made the calculation, near four hundred thousand negroes, (almost all of whom are slaves) members of different evangelical churches in the slave States—a number larger than all the churches that have made slave-holding a bar to communion !

The brother has at last approached my argument from the Old Testament; and he tells us that the bond-servants among the Jews were not slaves, but—what think you ?clansmen to a sheik! The Jews, he tells us, were sheiksa sort of petty princes—and the bond-servants were their clansmen!

[MR. BLANCHARD rose to explain. I said that each head of a family was a sheik. ]

It is notorious, that nothing of this kind ever existed among

the Jews. Who does not know that they were, and that God designed they should be, an agricultural peoplenot living like roaming tribes of Arabs, but each family having their farm, and their home, and their servants? The Jewish heads of families shieks, followed by clansmen! Such an idea, I verily believe, was never heard of, till the dire necessity of abolitionism suggested it, as a desperate means of escaping from the plain declarations of the Bible. It is purely a fabrication of a fact which never existed. No respectable author ever suggested it; and precisely the opposite is true, if we are to believe the Bible. But the truth is, abolitionism can sustain itself only by outraging all rules of language, and all historical truth. Be it so; the candid will judge correctly of its character.

The gentleman says, the Jewish bond-servants were not slaves, because there is no trace of laws to sustain and carry out slavery. I affirm, that there are laws, so plain that he who runs may read. The law expressly permits the Jews to buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen. Who ever heard of buying apprentices ? Moreover, the law permits the master not only to claim the services of the bondman, but to enforce obedience to his commands by chastisement. The Jews were permitted to buy bondmen, to hold them as a possession, to chastise them and thus enforce obedience, and to transmit them as an inheritance to children. What other laws were necessary?

Again, he argues, that the Jewish servants were not slaves, because, according to Jewish law, the man-stealer was to be put to death. Once more, I ask, is there no difference between stealing a freeman and forcing him into slavery, and purchasing a man already enslaved, so as really to improve his condition ? Is there no difference between these two things?

But again, the Hebrew servants, he says, were not slaves, because the three great rights, life, liberty and property were secured to them. And he quotes the law which makes murder to be punished capitally, because man was made in the image of God. But Christians in the slave States believe that their servants were made in the image of God, and that he who kills one of them designedly, is a murderer ; but this does not prevent them from claiming their obedience. Moreover, it is true, that the civil law protects the lives of slaves, about as well as did the law of Moses. The laws may not be always faithfully executed ; but this circumstance es not affect the argument. I have already stated, that in Alabama a man was, not long since, sent to the penitentiary for ten years, because he was convicted of having murdered one of his slaves. The gentleman's argument amounts to this : no man can be a slave, whose life is protected by the law, who cannot be killed with impunity. If this be true, I say, there is not a slave in Kentucky ; because the civil law does protect the life of the negroes. And with still greater propriety may affirm, that there are no slave-holders in the Presbyterian church; for, as I have proved, the law of our church forbids any member to treat his slaves cruelly in any way. Yet Mr. B. not only denounces Kentucky as a slave State, but condemns the Presbyterian church as a slave-holding church. Truly, this is hard! The gentleman con

« AnteriorContinuar »