Imágenes de páginas

should like to have some proof of the truth of this story. I do not believe it; but if such a thing has occurred, and if the session of the church knew it, and neglected to call the master to account, let them be held responsible. It is admitted, that in many churches the discipline is far too lax; and that many cases of improper conduct pass unnoticed, because not brought before the church sessions.

As to the story related by the gentleman concerning the Rev. J. C. Stiles, thật on his way to the New-School General Assembly he sold cight slaves, and that so far from being disgraced by such conduct, he was appointed to ad. minister the Lord's supper to that assembly, I will sayfirst, that the gentleman pays a very poor compliment to his general assembly—that body which possesses abundantly “the New-England spirit,” which Professor Stowe says, we have driven from our church. Second, I know Mr. Stiles well enough to deny, that he ever sold slaves where they did not wish to live. It may be, that when he removed to Virginia, he sold some; but if he did, it was for the

purpose of leaving them with their families; and they were sold to masters of their own choosing. So I believe.

A precisely similar publication concerning the Rev. S. K. Snead, went the rounds of the abolitionist prints, some years since; though Mr. Snead was then an anti-slavery man, not an abolitionist. He was charged with the cruel treatment of certain slaves that fell into his hands. And a writer for a religious paper in Scotland, who professed to know what he asserted, published as a fact, that in the slave-holding States ministers could, and did, with credit to them elves, choose the Sabbath for inflicting punishment on their slaves, in order to save time; that they would leave their victims tied to the whipping-post, go to the house of God and preach, and administer the Lord's supper, then return and resume their fiendish work! A more outrageous slander never was published to the world. Such are the slanderous tales by which the claims of abolitionism are sought to be sustained.

The gentleman says, that the General Assembly of 1818 passed a law requiring the members of the churches under their care, to instruct their slaves and prepare them for freedom, as soon as prudence would permit their manumission; that Rev. J. D. Paxton, then of Virginia, in obedience to this order of the Assembly, instructed and finally liberated his slaves; and in consequence of this, he was abused and slandered, and was obliged to leave his church and go to a free State. The whole of this statement is untrue. In the first place, the General Assembly passed no law of the kind. That body recommended to their members to instruct their slaves with a view to their emancipation, so soon as providentially a door could be opened for their freedom; but they passed no law. In the next place, it is not true, that Mr. Paxton was slandered, abused, and compelled to leave his church because he instructed and liberated his slaves. He had some difficulty with his church, in consequence of some discourses on the subject of slavery, the precise character of which I do not recollect; and in consequence of difficulties growing out of those discourses, he left his church and removed to Kentucky. The gentleman says this was the only instance in which the law of the church was complied with. Now, the fact is notorious, that it is common for Presbyterians to give religious instruction to their slaves, and to emancipate them, and that no one objects to it.

But instead of the appeal to the word of God, which we had a right to expect from a minister of the gospel, discussing a great moral question, we are entertained by stories such as these, the only tendency of which is, by slandering and aggravating slave-holders, to rivet the chains upon the slaves, and, to aggravate all the evils of their condition! As if men were to be induced to free their slaves by being pelted with rotten eggs! If he is resolved to pursue such a course, it is to be hoped that he will, at least, prove the facts he asserts. I pledge myself to prove every fact I may have occasion to toto should he call any one of them in question.

Mr. Giddings, he says, produced documentary evidence, that the fugitive slaves in Florida preferred being slaves to the Indians to returning to their white masters. Thus he would prove that the condition of the slaves is growing worse. We should like to see this documentary evidence. I shall believe the assertion when I see it; not before. I protest against the attempt to prove facts by documentary evidence, which Mr. B. cannot produce; especially since it is the uniform testimony of all who have taken the pains to inform themselves, that the condition of the slaves has been greatly improved throughout the slave States within a few years, and that it is still being improved. One of the most humane laws relative to slavery was passed by the Kentucky Legislature, I think, not more than four or five years ago, viz. : that which takes a slave from a cruel master, and places him in better hands. Any individual, knowing that a master treats his slave cruelly, or fails to supply him with sufficient food and raiment, can bring suit against the master, who, if the charges be proved, is obliged to pay all the costs of the suit. Nor would any reproach attach to a person instituting suit in such a case. On the contrary, no man can treat his slaves cruelly in Kentucky, without being scorned by decent men. There are cruel masters, doubtless, in all the slave States; and so there are everywhere men who treat their wives and children cruelly. By the way, I wonder if this Mr. Giddings is the gentleman who, for improper conduct, was expelled from Congress.

The gentleman tells us, that, as civilization advances, the labors of the slaves are more oppressive. This is news to

I had supposed that the useful discoveries of the present age, were labor-saving machines. I did not know, that they tended only to increase the burdens of the laboring classes.

My friend does not like my speaking of his lack of arguments in support of his proposition. I should really be glad to hear him mention any one argument he has adduced to prove slave-holding in itself sinful. In what single instance has


he appealed to any rule acknowledged by us as authoritative, to prove this proposition?

But he contends that the relation between master and slave is the creature of law; and he calls on me to say what laws I consider cruel. I am prepared to do so, so soon as he will tell us what laws are essential to the relation. He has mentioned a number of oppressive laws, such as place slaves, as he thinks, on a level with brutes. Now will he have the goodness to tell us which of those laws are essential to the relation of master and slave? For we are discussing sim-, ply the morality of the relation in itself considered. Does he not know, that there are, and ever have been, cruel laws regulating other relations which in themselves are not sinful? Why does he distinguish between the relations and the particular laws in all other cases, except the one in hand ?

He has appealed strongly to the sympathies of the audience, by telling of the girl who was found weeping bitterly, because she saw slaves advertised in connection with swine. Wonder if she would not have wept as bitterly, had she read the following passage of Scripture, in which Abraham's pious servant gives to Laban an account of his master's wealth: “And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and camels and asses.Gen. xxiv. 35. Men-servants and maid-servants are found precisely in a similar connection in the first chapter of Job. If you say, these are hired servants, you prove that the patriarch placed even these amongst brutes! The best plan for the abolitionists would be to denounce the Bible at once, and declare in favor of infidelity!

But let me also appeal to your sympathies. Go to Hindostan, and see the wife made the degraded slave of the husband. She dares not sit in her husband's presence, but must rise and stand. She is considered as a creature without a soul; and the law forbids her to read the sacred books. Behold her fastened on the funeral pile of her deceased husband, to be con

sumed with his dead body! All these crueities grow out of her relation to her husband, as that relation is estabushed and rec. ognized by the law. Shall I stand up here, and assert, that all the oppression and cruelty practiced upon wives in Hindostan or elsewhere, are part and parcel of the conjugal relation, and that therefore it is in itself sinful! I might say so with as much truth and propriety, as my friend can sssert, that all the oppressive laws by which slavery is regulated, and all the cruel treatment of slaves, are part and parcel of the relation between master and slave, and that therefore it is in itself sinful. This mode of reasoning is perfectly absurd, and is never admitted in regard to any other relation. I ask the gentleman whether masters are obliged to treat their slaves as badly as the law permits? Is there a law in Mississippi or in any State, Tequiring the master to deny the slave sufficient food and raiment, or to separate husband and wife? But you say the law permits cruelty. So I say, the law permits the husband to maltreat his wife. Does it follow, that every husband is chargeable with all the cruelty towards his wife, which the law permits? It must be so upon the principle on which the gentleman argues, viz.: that the slave-holder is chargeable with all the cruelty, which the law permits him to exercise toward his slaves. Every one is obliged to see the absurdity of this principle. Hundreds and thousands of masters, guided by God's law, avoid all such cruelty, and treat their slaves with uniform kindness. Of course, if Mr. B.'s logic is worth any thing, they are not slaves. Will he please to inform us whether cruel treatment is essential to the relation of master and slavel If it is not, why do we hear so much from him on this subject? If cruelty is not essential to the relation, then the relation inay exist without it. Then why does he so constantly harp upon the cruelties practiced by wicked men, as if they were of the essence of the relation ? But if he asserts, that such cruelties are essential to the relation of master and slave; I reply, that the members of the Presbyterian church are forbidden by the law of the church to treat their servants cruelly; and therefore they, not being guilty, are not

« AnteriorContinuar »