Mankind has ever been disposed to be carried away with names and words, with the representation of things, rather than with things themselves: and that portion of mankind thus apt to be deceived by mere sound, is generally the most innocent—the best—the most unsuspecting—the most charitable—these very qualities rendering them the easy victims of design and imprudence: the history of the world proves, not only this, but also that demagogues are the first to fly from the commotions, which they themselves create; and thus leave their poor innocent victims to suffer the vengeance of an outraged and insulted community! They stand their ground while the weapons used are merely words, and "rotten" eggs, &c.; but when recourse is had to leaden balls, and swords of steel, they generally take good care to make a quick retreat, leaving their deluded followers to have the glory of martyrdom!

Liberty is a glorious term—so is Christianity—but under the sacred garb of both one and the other, the foulest deeds have been, and may be, perpetrated! Under the name of Christianity, the holy crusades, in which thousands were slain, were instituted and carried on, by Englishmen! And under the name of Liberty, men, women, and children were, in 1793, slaughtered by Frenchmen! Be not therefore carried away by sounds—by mere words.

Slavery is a horrid term! But why? Not that bondage or slavery is uncommon, or rare; for there are few, very few men, white or black, on the face of the Earth who are not SLAVES! He who commits sin is the slave of lust—so says the Bible—Let God be true, and every man a liar. Who therefore is not a slave? Was not Buonaparte, while he was the Emperor of nearly all Europe, a slave to his god—ambition? And is not the covetous man a slave to his idol—gold?

The principal reason why we abhor so much the term slavery is, the base cruelty with which some tyrant slaveholders, for there are wicked slaveholders as well as wicked husbands and masters, have treated their slaves. Hence we are very apt to use as synonymous terms, slavery, cruelty, tyranny, and oppression. Moreover it is the interest of certain persons so to use these words, for the purpose of getting more ready access to the hearts of good-natured men and women. Does any one really believe that a man cannot treat his slaves kindly, tenderly, and affectionately? If any one thinks it possible, then let not, for the future, the terms slavery and cruelty be inseparably united. But if he thinks it impossible, then it is evident the testimony of some thousands of disinterested, good, and religious men, who have visited the South, and who have most solemnly borne testimony to the kind, tender, and Christian manner in which numerous slaveholders treat their slaves, must be rejected! If all this is to be rejected, then let the doubter, who is so charitable towards the coloured population, exercise a little of that charity, "which rejoiceth not in iniquity," and is "without partiality," towards his white fellow citizens, and ere he slanders them, or encourages those who bear false witness against them, pay the South a visit, and judge for himself, with his own eyes, and his own cars. Methinks he replies, "but I have it from those who themselves have witnessed it!" Witnessed what? Is it that all the slaveholders in the South treat their slaves with cruelty and barbarity? Oh no, perhaps he says, not all, but many of them! Many thanks! This is fully admitted, and much regretted; but this exception proves the very proposition with which we started, viz. "that slavery, and cruelty, ought not to be used as synonymous terms!" Again, fresh he is no doubt to the charge, with the thrust, "but this fact of many of the slaveholders treating their slaves with cruelty, shows there ought to be no slavery!" Avast, friend! is the abuse of a system a just cause of condemnation? Do you say it is: then the system of apprenticeship—of guardianship—of matrimony—Liberty—and Christianity themselves, ought to be condemned, for they all have been abused—all have had the most cruel—tyrannical—and Satanic acts, committed under their names! Therefore, according to the very argument by which you would have slavery condemned, you would also have liberty, matrimony, and Christianity, banished from the earth!—You cannot get out of the dilemma—there is no possible alternative—if slavery is to be condemned because it has been abused, so are Liberty and Christianity! Out of thine own mouth thou art condemned!

A total recklessness of truth is a remarkable feature in the arguments adopted by the advocates of Abolitionism; while they give no credit to the statements of those differing from them! they unblushingly assert that all slaveholders are tyrants and cruel! Does truth require falsehood to make it conquer? Ought not those preposterous misstatements open the eyes of the public to the real character, and motive, of those men?—The cause of God they cannot be advocating, for his cause requires not the weapons of Satan! Error invariably stands in need of lies for its support.

That there is great cruelty in the South, no one denies; but is there no cruelty in the North? Are there no cruel, tyrannical, husbands and masters in Philadelphia or in Boston? Are no acts of oppression committed north of the Chesapeake? These cannot be attributed to slavery! There is, rely on it, a deeper, a more concealed, a more galling slavery and bondage, to which these evils are attributable, even the slavery of the soul to sin and to Satan. To this one, and the same mental slavery, both cruelty and tyranny in the South, and in the North, are alike referable. Therefore attributing these detestable evils, cruelty, and tyranny, to corporeal slavery, is not only unphilosophical and unscriptural, but fatally erroneous; for it leads us to attack the effect, and not the cause.

The Author, while listening last week to the Abolition Champions in the late "Pennsylvania Hall," was forcibly struck with the strong similarity between the mode of argument adopted by them, and by the champions of Infidelity in the late public discussions, between them and him, in New York! They commenced their addresses with high-sounding words about liberty! oppression! tyranny, &c.! Having by this mode (and they know the value of it!) got ready access to the hearts of their audience, and made a favourable impression, so as to make the females whisper to each other, "Oh what a fine, good man, that must be," &c.(!) then they depicted, in the strongest colours, the horrors of slavery—next they issued forth a tirade of slander and abuse against all slaveholders; and lastly they proceeded to undermine the character of every man opposed to them—the credibility of every witness bearing testimony against them—and the motives of all men, except themselves! Moreover they invariably attacked the abuses of each system (as if a system were answerable for its abuse) holding up to public odium, what every good man from his heart must condemn, viz: oppression, tyranny, and cruelty; thus leaving the vast majority of the audience under the impression that it was the thing itself, and not the abuse of it, on which they were animadverting!

Liberty—there is scarcely a word in the English Vocabulary so often perverted as the term liberty.—A vast mass of mankind conceive that the meaning of the word is, a perfect privilege and license for each and every man to do as he pleases.—If this be the real and true meaning of liberty, and that where this is not, there is slavery, then there is no liberty in the United States, (and God forbid, say I, there ever should be here such liberty,) and every man, woman, and child in the Union, is a slave! I doubt not this is the kind of liberty at which some of the champions of Abolitionism, viz. Fanny Wright Darusmont—Owen—et hoc omne genus, are aiming! But is this the liberty sanctioned by God? No! Is this the liberty guaranteed by the declaration of Independence? No! Is this the liberty for which the Fathers of this Country fought and bled? No! No! Such liberty would be the most awful tyranny and oppression—The liberty authorised by God, and sanctioned by the laws of this Country, is, that no man shall do aught to the injury, prejudice, or hurt of his neighbour—This is the only true liberty granted by God to man; yet this is the very liberty, the advocates of Abolitionism turn into ridicule, and attempt to destroy, under the plausible plea of vindicating the rights of man! This was the plea of Thomas Paine—This was the plea of Robert Owen—this is the plea of Fanny Wright Darusmont—this is the plea of all the infidels on the face of the earth! But, say Abolitionists, the Bible commands us, to "do unto others as we would be done by." Admitted. This very passage was addressed by the Infidels in their discussion with me to show the absurdity of the Bible: and according to the use made of it by Abolitionists, the argument of Infidels would be unanswerable! But will Abolitionists stand by this rule? They will not: for if they did, they would instantly abandon their crusade against their southern fellow citizens: and if they will not, then let them no longer quote that as authority, by which they themselves will not be governed! [See this subject further illustrated in a subsequent chapter.]

Liberty then may be defined to be, the privilege of doing all that is good—and nothing that is evil—But who is to decide that which is good, and that which is evil? The Creator of the universe—Man unassisted by revelation never was, and never will be, able. The Bible which contains the revealed will of Omnipotence is that volume, and that only, which constitutes the umpire of good and evil[11:A]—The very fact of the existence of laws in the land, proves man is not at liberty to do as he pleases: for, "law is a rule of action:" actions therefore must be controlled—Society demands it—God has authorised it—And perfect Liberty maintains it.

The Pirate boasts of liberty—preaches liberty to his comrades—and condemns all law! Here is a specimen of perfect liberty! He may with equal propriety, when taken prisoner, urge the Abolition text, "do unto others, as you would be done by." Now, if you had been a pirate, (he would say) and had the misfortune of having been taken prisoner, would you not wish to be set at liberty? You reply, yes, certainly—then he says, the Bible commands you to do unto others as you would be done by; and, as you would wish to be set at liberty, were you in my situation, if you regard the authority of God you will set me free! The reader must perceive to what lengths this principle may be carried out—even to the utter destruction of all society!

Again; would opening the doors of a lunatic asylum, and letting free the patients thereof, be an act of kindness or friendship towards them? You reply, Certainly not! Yet this would be granting them immediate liberty—this would be pure abolitionism! But, you rejoin, the condition of the persons—their mental inabilities disqualify them for liberty till they are cured—till they can take care of themselves—till there is no danger of their doing violence to others; therefore, keeping them confined till then, is in fact an act of kindness towards them,—and the opposite course would be most injurious to them! Thank you, kind reader, these are identically the same reasons I give for not advocating the immediate emancipation of the slaves. I give you full credit for the wisdom and propriety of your reasons: be so liberal as to grant me the same indulgence—to give me the same credit for the sincerity of my actions. It is probable the Abolitionist will reply, that the condition of the slaves, and of the inmates of a lunatic asylum, is very different. I answer, without fear of contradiction, that, as far as mental incapability, the vast mass of the slaves are as incapable of taking care of themselves as the great proportion of lunatics; and this we shall fully demonstrate in a subsequent chapter. Again; do you think children ought to be freed from all parental control? You reply, certainly not; and you give the same reasons as you have just adduced for not setting lunatics free. Is not this, then, a case parallel with that of the slaves? And in both, I may as justly accuse you of oppression, of tyranny, of a hatred to liberty, because you will not emancipate lunatics, and all children, as you accuse me, for not advocating the immediate abolition of slavery.

Slavery is derived from slave; as servant comes from service. In the English language the two are distinct from one another; the former term being applied to involuntary, the latter to voluntary, servitude. But this is not the case in either the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin tongues; one and the same word, in each language, signifies both voluntary and involuntary service. Thus "obed," in Hebrew—"d?????," in Greek—and "servus," in Latin, signify what we mean by the terms, servant and slave. Hence in works written in any of these languages, we can never tell from the word itself whether the person to whom the term is applied was a slave, or a servant: it is therefore only by concomitant expressions or circumstances that we can come to a conclusion as to the actual nature of his situation. This is the case both in the Old and New Testament.

For instance, when we read of individuals having been sold, having been purchased, having been "bought with money" &c., we cannot doubt for a moment the propriety of applying to such persons the term slave: and that, no matter whether their servitude was temporary, or for ever—whether they had sold themselves, or were sold by others; they were slaves to all intents and purposes—from the moment they were sold they became subject to involuntary servitude.

Again, while it by no means follows that every servant ("obed"—"d?????"—"servus,") mentioned in the Bible, was a slave, it does follow that every slave was a servant!

Ere I make the next statement, I request it may be distinctly understood, 1st, that I consider the "Slave-trade," and "Slave-holding," two distinct things: 2d, that I do not consider "slave-holding," "cruelty," "oppression," and "tyranny," synonymous. While therefore I pronounce the former, that is the slave-trade, to be barbarous, iniquitous, and unscriptural, I cannot find a single passage in the whole word of God which either denounces slave-holding, or commands the owner to liberate instantaneously his slaves. And I fearlessly defy all the Abolitionists on earth to produce one such passage. If therefore the Bible is to be the umpire, and to its authority alone I ever consent to strike, that sacred book announces that "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION;" (Rom. iv. 14): and as there is no law prohibitory of slave-holding, it cannot be considered sin (for sin is the transgression of the law) by any, except those who aim at possessing a higher degree of moral worth and righteousness, than the Lord Jesus Christ himself; and, "who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

While I thus humbly vindicate the slandered slave-holder, I desire equally to denounce all cruelty—all inhumanity—all oppression—the same law of God which desires the slave to "be obedient to his master, with fear and trembling" (Eph. vi. 5-9) commands the Master, "to FORBEAR THREATENING"—(for "vengeance belongeth unto God") "to give that which is just, and equal to his slave; knowing that there is a Master in Heaven; who will render to every man, without respect of persons, according to his deeds." (Col. iv. 1.)

But so far from the Bible condemning slave-holding, I maintain it recognizes the practice by giving laws, and directions, both for Master and for slave—and so far from encouraging the slave to run away from his master, as the principles of Abolitionism teach, it unequivocally exhorts and commands "every man to ABIDE in the same calling wherein he is called"—"if called, being a slave, care not for it; but if thou mayest (i. e. if thou lawfully) be made (set) free, use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 20, 21.) This is my guide, this is my principle, this would be the foundation of my advice to all.—But how opposite are the principles, the advice, and the conduct of Abolitionists, to the inspired Apostle! Paul says to the slave, "be obedient to your Master—care not for being a slave"—abide in it, unless "lawfully you can be made free." The Abolitionist says to the slave: "your Master has no lawful control over you—run away from him the first opportunity—take with you whatever of his property you can, for it is yours not his!—and I will shelter you!" Thus it will easily be perceived, that a very different spirit actuated Paul, from that which now actuates the Abolitionist! More about this hereafter.

If it be now enquired whether I consider slave-holding a sin and an evil, I readily reply, I do consider it an evil; but I do not consider it a sin! I am aware Abolitionists confound the two terms together, some through design, and, no doubt, many through want of reflection or ignorance. Now although every sin is an evil, yet every evil is not a sin—I hesitate not to pronounce slavery one of the effects of sin—hence an evil: for all evil is the effect of sin. Disease, famine, poverty, &c., are all evils; but who will venture to affirm that they are therefore sins—I would use means to the best of my judgment to assuage those evils—yea to remove them; but I would not in order to remove suddenly a disease, adopt a remedy which if it would not instantly cure it, would in all human probability destroy the individual, or produce a greater disease—this would be Abolition practice! Nor would I desire the poor man, in order to get rich instantly, to go and plunder a bank—this would be Abolitionism! But I would in the former case, adopt such remedies as would, with the least possible danger to my patient's life, be calculated to assuage or remove the disease; and if it could not be removed, without having recourse to a measure which would put his life in jeopardy, I would not, provided life could be sustained at all, adopt any such measures; but use every means in my power, to mitigate his sufferings—allay all pain—and make his life as comfortable as possible. As to the latter case (the indigent person) while I would relieve him to the best of my ability, I would exhort him, not to have recourse to violent measures—not to commit evil; but to put his trust in an all-wise and benevolent Omnipotence, and by slow and sure means, by active industry, to endeavour to better his condition—the opposite course I leave to Abolitionists for adoption.

Upon the principles inculcated in the cases I have just related, would I act towards the slave, and the slave-holder; as more fully explained in another part of this treatise.