Imágenes de páginas

erable: This I utterly deny. It is a fact, that in Kentucky the laws regulating slavery have been much improved within a few years; and the uniform testimony of those who go and see for themselves, is that the condition of the slaves is far better than it was several years ago. Dr. Drake, of Louisville, when recently on a tour through several of the southern States, made it his business to inquire particularly into the condition of the slaves; and his testimony is, that it has greatly improved, and is now improving. It is well known, that many of the planters in the South not only freely admit ministers of the gospel to preach to their slaves, but that they even pay them salaries to secure their services. Everywhere in the slave-holding States the gospel is working a change in public sentiment, modifying the laws, and greatly improving the condition of the slaves, just as it did, for example, in the State of New York. Time was, when the slave laws of that State were more oppressive and cruel, than they now are in any one of the southern States. But gradually, under the influence of the gospel, a happy change was effected; cruel laws were repealed; better laws were enacted; and finally slavery itself was abolished.

But, says the gentleman, the best masters hold thcir slaves by a legal tenure; and the law makes them mere property. And does not the husband hold his claim to his wife, according to his own doctrine, by a legal tenure ? Did he not assert, that the slaves are not married validly, because the civil law does not recognize their marriage ? But the civil laws by which the marriage relation is regulated, are in many countries most defective and unjust. The laws of India make the wife the slave of the husband; and, as already remarked, even in Ohio, a man may so treat his wife as to render her life a burden, without being in danger of the penalty of the law. Shall we then denounce the marriage relation as in itself sinful? I repeat, that I do not place the relation of master and slave upon an equality with that of husband and wife; but I do maintain, that the


gutleman has no right to urge against the former, arguments which will equally sweep away the latter. To

say, that we are opposed to the cruelties often practiced toward slaves, and yet deny that the relation is in itself sinful, is to insult the common sense of meni So said Mr. Blanchard; or he almost said it. Well, I suppose his common sense is not like the common sense of other men. The common sense of such men as Drs. Chalmers, Cunningham, Spring, Tyler, and a multitude of the wisest and best

has led them to make precisely the distinction between the relation and the cruelty of wicked men in the relation, which Mr. B. pronounces an insult to the common sense of men! I fear, his common sense is almost peculiar to himself; and certainly it is not safe to base a judgment concerning so grave a question upon the peculiar common sense of one man. He may pronounce the common sense of other men "stuff ;" but this proves nothing.

He denounces particularly that law-partus sequitur ventrem—the child follows the condition of the mother, and tells us, that slavery places human beings among the cattle. Well, if such be necessarily its character, why debate the question at all? Is discussion necessary in order to induce intelligent men to detest it? The gentleman constantly keeps out of view the real question at issue, viz: whether the relation itself is sinful, and dilates upon the cruel conduct of wicked men. He, as a minister of the gospel, professes to take the Bible as his only guide in faith and morals. He, of course, believes that nothing can be condemned as sinful, which is not contrary to the written word of God. And yet we have heard him, during one hour and a half, labor to prove his proposition, without quoting one passage of Scripture! Carefully avoiding to appeal to the rule of right, he attempts to carry his point by strong appeals to the sympathies of the audience. He tells us what Mr. Hammond said about the neglect of masters in Virginia to call their servants in to family worship. No doubt, there has been great and very culpable neglect of this duty, and I certainly cannot

excuse or palliate it. But I rejoice to know, that for some time past, there has been a growing interest in the religious instruction of the slaves. Never was there so large an amount of money and labor expended in this interesting cause, as now.

The Christians of the South are waking up to a sense of their obligation to have the gospel of Christ proclaimed to the slave, as well as to the master; and in this movement I do rejoice.

But since Mr. B. has appealed to the testimony of Mr. Hammond, I must also give you the testimony of a great and good man concerning the effect of the late abolitionist movement. Rev. Dr. Spring, of New York, say “The late Dr. Griffin, one of the most devoted friends of the colored race in this land, said to me a few months before his death, “I do not see that the efforts in favor of immediate emancipation, have effected any thing but to rivet the chains of the poor slave.? Is not this," adds Dr. S., “a lamentable fact ?" Obliga. of World, &c. p. 249. The dying testimony of such a man as Dr. Griffin, is surely worthy of grave consideration.

I suppose I ought not to be displeased with the gentleman for failing to offer arguments in support of his proposition. Yet I certainly desire, that he would do the best that can be done for his cause.

I shall continue to present such arguments as I think conclusive from the word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and life. The question before us is, whether the relation of master and slave, divested of all that is not essential to it, is sinful; and this question only will I discuss. We have now passed through near three hours of the discussion ;—and yet Mr. B., though a minister of the Gospel, engaged in the discussion of a great moral and religious question, has made no appeal to the law of God! Surely we could scarcely have anticipated such a course by a gentleman who has devoted so much time to the discussion of this subject.

But like the ancient painter, he is doing work, he tells us, for posterity. He expects his work to stand forever. The painter, however, though progressing slowly, was doubtless

putting on colors of some kind, adapted to the completion of the picture. But what argument has the gentleman offered in proof of his proposition? He has told of Aristotle's definition of slavery, of the supposed weeping woman upon whom a gross outrage has been committed, of the slave-gangs, &c. . &c.; but what argument has he offered ? I have some hope, that

my work will endure for a time; but nevertheless I choose to direct my arguments to the subject before us.

I have presented two distinct arguments, to neither of which he has attempted a reply, viz: 1. The great principles of morality do, when propounded, commend themselves to the understanding and the conscience of all men, unless we except the most degraded. The truth of this declaration will scarcely be called in question. But it is a fact that the principle for which Mr. B. is contending—that slave-holding is in itself a heinous and scandalous sin—has not thus commended itself to the great body even of the wise and good. Therefore it is not true. If it be, how shall we account for this singular fact ? 2. It is a fact that the history of the world affords not an example of a man or body of men heretical on one fundamental doctrine of Christian faith or of Christian morality, but sound on all others. On the contrary, one fundamental error necessarily leads to others. But it is admitted, that the ministers of the gospel and the laymen of churches in the slave-holding States, are as sound on all points of doctrine, as pure on all points of morality, as benevolent in all respects, as the abolitionists themselves, with the single exception of the question of slavery! They can see all the other great principles of morality ; but the greatest of all violations of the moral law, i. e. that of slave-holding, they cannot perceive to be necessarily sinful at all! Believe it who can.

3. My third argument is this: It is admitted even by many abolitionists that there are in the slave-holding States true Christians and Christian churches-churches accepted of God, and often blessed with powerful revivals of religion. If we are to judge of their piety by Scriptural marks,

they are not deficient in evidence; and their fruits surely prove them genuine. Professor Stowe, of Lane Seminary, though he is an abolitionist, and though he bitterly denounced the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church for its action upon the subject of slavery, says—“I know individuals who are slave-holders, and particular churches which include slave-holders, whom, according to all the evidence I can gather, Christ does accept—and those individuals, and those particular churches, on my principles, I cannot reject, and I will not.” Watchman of the Valley, Aug. 14. In these churches masters and slaves worship God together; and their prayers are heard, and a rich blessing granted. Mr. Duncan and “the Cincinnati Abolition Society" assert, that the slave-holder is guilty of the violation, in an aggravated degree, of every commandment in the decalogue; but Professor Stowe acknowledges many of them as true Christians ! Now it is certain, that if they are as wicked as Duncan accuses them of being, their prayers are an abomination to God. So that either those professing Christians and those churches are wretched hypocrites, and their revivals perfectly spurious; or abolitionism is false. I leave the audience to determine which is true.

[Time expired.

Wednesday Evening, 7 o'clock, P. M. [MR. BLANCHARD'S THIRD SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators and Gentlemen and Ladies, Fellow

Citizens :

There are some things which have fallen from my brother in his last remarks which demand a brief and respectful notice. You will recollect what I advanced showing that slaves are incapable of marriage by statute and by practice: that their children are illegitimate in law and in fact: incapable of taking by will, or by descent; and that they are held and regarded as illegitimate persons. I might have added that the great majority have not even the form of marriage, and

« AnteriorContinuar »