DEBATE.

[MR. BLANCHARD'S OPENING ADDRESS.]

Wednesday, 2 o'clock, P. M. Gentlemen Moderators, Gentlemen and Ladies, Fellow Cit

izens:

The question which we are to-day met to discuss, to my own mind, borrows a melancholy interest from the slavecoffles which, in increasing numbers, are passing from the upper to the lower slave-country at this time. Three days since, sixty-four men chained together and separated from their wives and daughters, passed by our city on their way to the South.

While we are debating and you are listening, anxious to know the truth on this important practical question, the slave-pens of a sister city, Louisville, are increasing their number and enlarging their dimensions, to receive slaves brought in from the upper country to send to the lower states for sale. This infernal traffic has been stimulated by the late movements in Lexington against the property and person of Cassius M. Clay; and by the kidnapping of white men on the borders of the State of Ohio, and a practical refusal of bail; by which they now lie in prison in a sister State.

That human beings should be now suffering such inhuman usage in our midst, gives, in my mind, a painful interest to this debate; and must, I think, produce a tender and

melancholy sentiment in the breast of all who hear it, independent of the points in dispute.

The question, however, must be considered and decided upon general principles, independent of, though it cannot be separated from, contemporaneous events. It ought therefore to be set forth with great distinctness, to enable us to apprehend clearly and fully the bearings of the argument. It is this. "Is slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation?

To explain and set this question distinctly before you, I observe that, so far as I know, all well informed persons, believers in Christianity, hold, that there are two classes of human practices, as it respects church-discipline-one class, right, the other wrong: practices which ought, and practices which ought not to be received by the church into fellowship. We hold communion with persons engaged in the various vocations of life. If a man is a farmer and tills the soil, we commune with him. If he is a blacksmith, we commune with him. If he is engaged in trade, and conducts his business honestly and uprightly, we commune with him-because those vocations are good and right. But there are on the other hand, practices, such as smuggling, swindling, gambling, selling lottery tickets, &c., with which we hold no fellowship, but which ought to be met and questioned at the threshold of the church. Now the naked question before us to-day, and for the three following days, is, to which class of human practices does the holding of human beings as property belong? Ought the church to object to it?-is it wrong, or is it right?

Again, there are two classes of human relations; right relations, and wrong. Marriage, the Eden relation of life, we hold to be a right relation. It is the central source of light and warmth, intelligence and affection, to every branch and department of human affairs. It is a right institution— because it is God-appointed. It is universally recognized as right, and its solemnization every where marked by feasts and rejoicings. Over against this is another relation-the

relation of false marriage or concubinage. This is a wrong relation. It is forbidden by scripture, and justifies its condemnation by the common sense of mankind, by the evils which it brings in its train. So there are right and wrong business relations. The relation of partners in a legitimate trade is a just and useful relation-founded on a right principle, that of the mutual dependence of men.

"God builds on wants and on defects of mind,

The glory, peace and virtue of mankind."

But there is also a false relation in business-such as that between smugglers, or that of the anti-social conspiracy, formed by men who are banded together to burn our cities, and, by general disorganization, to bring down society to their own level.

I will not detain you by speciffying other human relations. The point before us is; Is the relation between the master and his slave, just or unjust? Is it a holy or a sinful relation?

Since this debate was announced, fears have been expresssed by certain public prints that no real issue will be made by the disputants, but that the whole question will be made to turn upon extreme cases:—for there are extreme cases, even in morals. But such fears may safely be dismissed. For by a glance at the printed pamphlet which I hold in my hand, and which has been issued by my respected friend, since this discussion was proposed,-and, being an argument on one side of the question, has thus become a part of the debate, you will see that the gentleman opposed to me has no disposition to skulk behind extreme cases. He, as Kentuckians are wont to do, will come square up to the point in discussion, whether slave-holding-American slaveholding or slave-holding in every nation, is sinful or not! From the free quotations, which, in this pamphlet, he makes from the actual slave code of the country, you will see that we have not invited you to a feast of moral principles to serve you with the scraps;-to consume your time and our strength, haggling supposed cases of slave-holding; and

amusing you with tricks of logic and special pleading-the mere gim-cracks of argument.

The question is whether slave-holding, as practiced by Americans, Englishmen, Romans or Greeks;-whether SLAVE-HOLDING! is sinful; and the relation which it creates and which exists between master and slave is a sinful relation? be a pure Chris

Gentlemen; every man wishes there may tianity. When Ethan Allen's daughter was dying, she asked her father whether she should believe what he had taught her, or believe her mother? Though a skeptic himself, he bade her believe her mother; and whether we are professors of religion or not, we all wish there may be on earth, one holy and unspotted shrine-a pure religion where the heart may worship while the mind approves.

Now, the question is, whether Humanity can look to Christianity and find protection? Whether the oppressed can flee to the sanctuary of the Gospel of Christ and find a refuge there or whether religion affords no protection to human rights? In other words, whether the religion we profess is a humane or an inhuman religion?

The number of persons now held as slaves under nominally Christian governments is not quite seven millions. This is exclusive of the serfs of Europe who have legal existence and some rights. And as long as a human creature has one human right legally made secure, he is not, he cannot be, a slave. These seven millions of human beings -these slaves, touching whom we are met to hold colloquy, are in the United States and in Texas: the South American States, and in French, Spanish, Danish, Swedish and Dutch colonies of the West Indies.

Our Southern States and the Brazils together, contain 5,000,000, more than five sevenths of all the slaves in Christendom. Now, these seven millions of human beings are citizens of no country. They are neither Americans, French, Danish, Dutch, Spaniards, or Swedes; neither are they found in families. I know that in the skirts of the system, i. e. in the slave-raising States, there exists a some

1

thing called families; but in the staple-growing plantations, for the supply of which slave-holding exists; and which are the market to which it tends; they are not in families; but they are illegitimate in their birth and in their death.Their children are born out of lawful wedlock, and, dying, they can make no wills. Nor can their children receive what is willed to them. It is common for them to have no patronymics, but, like dogs and horses, to be called by single

names.

Their condition is legally one and the same, with slight modifications, in all the countries where they are found; and it has remained the same from age to age. It is a condition clearly and well defined. They are held by individuals, as individual property, for individual uses. They are all held by one and the same property tenure, and ruled by the same property power-that is, (and there can be no worse word,) they are slaves!

Now, gentlemen, we are met upon the question, whether the holding of men and women, under this relation and in this condition, is a right or a wrong practice; whether the relation subsisting between the owner and the owned is right or wrong.

I propose here to advance certain considerations to show the vast personal interest which every one has in the subject under debate.

In the first place, it concerns seven millions of human creatures, born to all the hopes and fears to which we ourselves are born. It is precisely that class in whom Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did, while on earth, and does now, (for his disposition is unchanged,) take the deepest interest. For surely the lowest and most oppressed conditions of mankind received his most tender regards. For Christians, therefore, no question can be raised more fit to occupy their attention than this. But it equally concerns all others.

Every person, present and absent, has a personal and deep stake in the decision of this question. For all wish a pure Christianity; and all see that when they have convinced the