Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments Part 44

I have made a few plain reflections to aid the understanding of my reader. What I have written was designed for those who reverence the Bible as their counsellor--who take it for rules of conduct, and devotional sentiments.

I now commit it to G.o.d for his blessing, with a fervent desire, that if I have mistaken his will in any thing, he will not suffer my error to mislead another.

THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.

[The following letter, in substance, was written to a brother in Kentucky, who solicited a copy of my slavery pamphlet, as well as my opinion on the movement in that State, on the subject of emanc.i.p.ation.]

DEAR BROTHER:--

I received your letter, and the slavery pamphlet which you requested me to send you, I herewith inclose.

When I published the first essay in that pamphlet, I intended to invite a discussion with Elder Galusha, of New York; and when I received Mr.

Galusha's letter to Dr. Fuller, I still expected a discussion. But after manifesting, on his part, great pleasure in the outset, for the opportunity tendered him by a Southern man, to discuss this subject, he ultimately declined it. This being the case, I did not at that time present as full a view of the subject as the Scriptures furnish. I have since thought of supplying this deficiency; and the condition of things in Kentucky furnishes a fit opportunity for saying to you, what I said to a brother in Pennsylvania, who, like yourself, requested me to send him a copy of my pamphlet.

I do not know that I could add any thing, beyond what I said to him, that would be useful to you. To this brother I said, among other things, that Dr. Wayland (in his discussion with Dr. Fuller,) relied princ.i.p.ally upon _two arguments_, used by all the intelligent abolitionists, to overthrow the weight of Scriptural authority in support of slavery. The first of these arguments is designed to neutralize the sanction given to slavery by the law of Moses; and the second is designed to neutralize the sanction given to slavery by the New Testament.

The Dr. frankly admits, that the law of Moses did establish slavery in the Jewish commonwealth; and he admits with equal frankness, that it was incorporated as an element in the gospel church. For the purpose, however, of destroying the sanction thus given to the legality of the relation under the _law of Moses_, he a.s.sumes two things in relation to it, which are expressly contradicted by the law. He a.s.sumes, in the first place, that the Almighty, under the law, gave a _special permission_ to the Israelites to enslave the seven devoted nations, as a punishment for their sins. He then _a.s.sumes_, in the second place, that this _special permission_ to enslave the seven nations, prohibited, by _implication_, the enslaving of all other nations. The conclusion which the Dr. draws from the above a.s.sumptions is this--that a _special permission_ under the law, to enslave a particular people, as a punishment for their sins, is not a _general permission_ under the gospel, to enslave all, or any other people. The premises here a.s.sumed, and from which this conclusion is drawn, are precisely the reverse of what is recorded in the Bible.

The Bible statement is this: that the Israelites under the law, so far from being permitted or required to enslave the seven nations, as a punishment for their sins, were expressly commanded to _destroy them utterly_. Here is the proof--Deut. vii: 1 and 2: "When the Lord thy G.o.d shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hitt.i.ties, and the Girgas.h.i.+tes, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy G.o.d shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, _and utterly destroy them_, thou shalt make no covenant with then, nor show mercy unto them." And again, in Deut. xx: 16 and 17: "But the cities of these people, which the Lord thy G.o.d doth give thee for an inheritance, _thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth_. But thou shalt _utterly destroy them_, namely, the Hitt.i.ties, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, _as the Lord thy G.o.d hath commanded thee_."

This law was _delivered_ by Moses, and was _executed_ by Joshua some years afterward, to the letter.

Here is the proof of it, Josh. xi: 14 to 20 inclusive: "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; _but every man they smote with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe_."

"_As the Lord commanded Moses_ his servant; so did Moses command Joshua, and _so did Joshua_; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses. So Joshua took all that land, the hills and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same. Even from the mount Halak that goeth up to Sier, even unto Baalgad, in the valley of Lebanon, under mount Hermon, and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them. Joshua made war a long time with all these kings.

There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, _save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon_, all others they took in battle.

For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in the battle, _that he might destroy them utterly_, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, _as the Lord commanded Moses_." In this account of their _destruction_, the Gibeonites, who deceived Joshua, are excepted, and the reason given is, that Joshua in their case, failed to ask counsel at the mouth of the Lord. Here is the proof: "And the men took of them victuals, and asked not counsel of the mouth of the Lord."--Josh. ix: 14. This counsel Joshua was expressly commanded to ask, when he was ordained some time before, to be the _executor_ of G.o.d's _legislative will_, by Moses. Here is the proof--Numb. xxvii: 18-23: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thy hand upon him; and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight. And thou shalt put some of thine honor upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient. _And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him, after the judgment of Urim before the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word shall they come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation._ And Moses did as the Lord commanded him; and he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation. And he laid his hands upon him, _and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses_." These scriptures furnish a palpable contradiction of the first a.s.sumption, that is--that the Lord gave a _special permission to enslave_ the seven nations. The Lord ordered that they should be destroyed utterly.

As to the second a.s.sumption, so far from the Israelites being prohibited _by implication_, from enslaving the subjects of other nations, they were expressly authorized by the law _to make slaves by war, of any other nation_. Here is the proof--Deut. xx: 10 to 17 inclusive: "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein, shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy G.o.d hath delivered it into thy hands, then shalt thou smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. _But the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city_, even all the spoils thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy G.o.d hath given thee. _Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee which are not of the cities of these nations.

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy G.o.d doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hitt.i.tes, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy G.o.d hath commanded thee._" They were authorized also by the law, to purchase slaves with money of any nation except the seven. Here is the proof--Levit. xxv: 44, 45, and 46: "Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; (that is, round about the country given them of G.o.d, which was the country of the seven nations they were soon to occupy;) of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, (that is, the mixed mult.i.tude of strangers which come up with them from Egypt, mentioned in Exod. xii: 38,) of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-men forever."

Now, let it be noted that this first law, of Deut. xx: above referred to, which authorized them to make slaves by war of any other nation, was executed _for the first time_, under the direction of Moses himself, when thirty-two thousand of the Midianites were enslaved. These slaves were not of the seven nations.

And it is worthy of further remark, that of each half, into which the Lord had these slaves divided, he claimed for his portion, one slave of every five hundred for the priests, and one slave of every fifty for the Levites. These slaves he gave to the priests and Levites, who were his representatives to be their property forever.--Numb. x.x.xi. These scriptures palpably contradict the Dr.'s second a.s.sumption--that is, that they were _prohibited by implication_ from enslaving the subjects of any other nation. The Dr.'s a.s.sumptions being the antipodes of truth, they cannot furnish a conclusion that is warranted by the truth.

The conclusion authorized by the truth, is this: that the making of slaves by war, and the purchase of slaves with money, was legalized by the Almighty in the Jewish commonwealth, as regards the subject of _all nations except the seven_.

The second argument of the Dr.'s, as I remarked, is designed to neutralize the sanction given to slavery in the New Testament.

The Dr. frankly admits that slavery was sanctioned by the Apostles in the Apostolic churches. But to neutralize this sanction, he resorts to two more a.s.sumptions, not only without proof, but palpably contradicted by the Old and New Testament text. The first a.s.sumption is this--_that polygamy and divorce were both sins under the law of Moses, although sanctioned by the law_. And the second a.s.sumption is, that polygamy and divorce are _known to be sins under the gospel_, not by any gospel teaching or prohibition, but by the general principles of morality. From these premises the conclusion is drawn, that although slavery was sanctioned in the Apostolic church, yet it was a sin, because, like polygamy and divorce, it was contrary to the principles of the moral law. The premises from which this conclusion is drawn, are at issue with the word of G.o.d, and therefore the conclusion must be false. The first thing here a.s.sumed is, that polygamy and divorce, although sanctioned by the law of Moses, were both sins under that law. Now, so far from this being true, as to _polygamy_, it is a fact that polygamy was not only sanctioned, when men chose to practice it, but it was expressly enjoined by the law in certain cases, and a most humiliating penalty annexed to the breach of the command.--Deut. xxv: 5-9. As sin is defined by the Holy Ghost to be a transgression of the law, it is impossible that _polygamy_ could have been a sin under the law, unless it was a sin to obey the law, and an act of righteousness to transgress it. That _polygamy_ was a sin under the law, therefore, is palpably false.

As to _divorce_, the Almighty gave it the full and explicit sanction of his authority, in the law of Moses, for various causes.--Deut. xxiv: 1.

For those causes, therefore, divorce could not have been a sin under the law, unless human conduct, in exact accordance with the law of G.o.d, was sinful. The first thing a.s.sumed by the Dr., therefore, that polygamy and divorce were both sins, under the law, is proved to be false. They were lawful, and therefore, could not be sinful.

The Dr.'s second a.s.sumption (with respect to polygamy and divorce,) is this, that they are _known_ under the gospel to be sins, not by the prohibitory _precepts_ of the gospel, but by the general _principles_ of morality. This a.s.sumption is certainly a very astonis.h.i.+ng one--for Jesus Christ in one breath has uttered language as perfectly subversive of all authority for polygamy and divorce in his kingdom, as light is subversive of darkness. The Pharisees, ever desirous of exposing him to the prejudices and pa.s.sions of the people, "asked him in the presence of great mult.i.tudes, who came with him from Galilee into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan," whether he admitted, with Moses, the legality of divorce for every cause. Their object was to provoke him to the exercise of legislative authority; to whom he promptly replied, that G.o.d made man at the beginning, male and female, and ordained that the male and female by marriage, should be one flesh. And for satisfactory reasons, had sanctioned divorce among Abraham's seed; and then adds, as a law-giver, "But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, (except for fornication,) and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and if a woman put away her husband, and marry again, she committeth adultery."

Here polygamy and divorce die together. The law of Christ is, that _neither_ party shall put the other away--that _either_ party, taking another companion, while the first companion lives, is guilty of adultery--consequently, polygamy and divorce are prohibited forever, unless this law is violated--and that violation is declared to be adultery, which excludes from his kingdom.--1 Cor. vi: 9. After the church was organized, the Holy Ghost, by Paul, _commands_, let not the wife depart from her husband, but, and if she depart let her remain unmarried--and let not the husband put away his wife.--1 Cor. vii: 10.

Here _divorce_ is prohibited by _both parties_; a second marriage according to Christ, would be adultery, while the first companion lives; consequently, _polygamy_ is prohibited also.

This second a.s.sumption, therefore, that polygamy and divorce are known to be sins by _moral principles_ and _not by prohibitory precepts_, is swept away by the words of Christ, and the teaching of the Holy Ghost.

These unauthorized and dangerous a.s.sumptions are the foundation, upon which the abolition structure is made to rest by the distinguished Dr.

Wayland.

The facts with respect to polygamy and divorce, warrant precisely the opposite conclusion; that is, that if slavery under the gospel is sinful, then its sinfulness would have been made known by the gospel, as has been done with respect to polygamy and divorce. All three, polygamy, divorce and slavery, were _sanctioned_ by the law of Moses. But under the gospel, slavery has been _sanctioned_ in the church, while polygamy and divorce have been _excluded_ from the church. It is manifest, therefore, that under the gospel, polygamy and divorce have been made sins, _by prohibition_, while slavery remains lawful because _sanctioned_ and _continued_. The _lawfulness_ of slavery under the gospel, rests upon the sovereign pleasure of Christ, in _permitting it_; and the _sinfulness_ of polygamy and divorce, upon his sovereign pleasure in _prohibiting_ their continuance. The law of Christ gives to the relation of slavery its full sanction. _That law_ is to be found, first, in the _admission_, _by the apostles_, of slaveholders and their slaves into the gospel church; second, in the _positive injunction_ by the Holy Ghost, of obedience on the part of Christian slaves in this relation, to their believing masters; third, in the _absence_ of any injunction upon the believing master, under any circ.u.mstances, to dissolve this relation; fourth, in the _absence_ of any instruction from Christ or the apostles, that the relation is sinful; and lastly, in the _injunction_ of the Holy Ghost, delivered by Paul, _to withdraw_ from all such as teach that this relation is sinful. Human conduct in exact accordance with the law of Christ thus proclaimed, and thus expounded by the Holy Ghost, in the conduct and teaching of the apostles, cannot be sinful.

There are other portions of G.o.d's word, in the light of which we may add to our stock of knowledge on this subject. For instance, the Almighty by Moses legalized marriage between female slaves and Abraham's male descendants. But under this law the wife remained a slave still. If she belonged to the husband, then this law gave freedom to her children; but if she belonged to another man, then her children, though born in lawful wedlock, were hereditary slaves.--Exod. xxi: 4. Again, if a man marries his own slave, then he lost the right to sell her--if he divorced her, then she gained her freedom.--Deut. xxi: 10 to 14, inclusive. Again, there was a law from G.o.d which granted rights to Abraham's sons under a matrimonial contract; for a violation of the rights conferred by this law, a _free woman, and her seducer_, forfeited their lives, Deut. xxii: 23 and 24; also 13 to 21, inclusive. But for the same offense, _a slave_ only exposed herself to stripes, and her _seducer_ to the penalty of a sheep.--Levit. xix: 20 to 22, inclusive. Again, there was a law which guarded his people, whether free or bond, from personal violence. If in vindictiveness, a man with an unlawful weapon, maimed his own slave by knocking out his eye, or his tooth, the slave was to be free for this wanton act of personal violence, as a penalty upon the master.--Exod.

xxi: 26 to 27, inclusive. But for the same offense, committed against a free person, the offender had to pay an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, as the penalty.--Levit. xxiv: 19, 20, and Exod. xxi: 24 and 25, inclusive. Again, there was a law to guard the personal safety of the community against dangerous stock. If an ox, known to be dangerous, was suffered to run at large and kill a person, if the person so killed _was free_, then the owner forfeited his _life_ for his neglect,--Exod. xxi: 29. But if the person so killed _was a slave_, then the offender was fined thirty shekels of silver.--Exod. xxi: 32. In some things, slaves among the Israelites, as among us, were invested with privileges above hired servants--they were privileged to eat the Pa.s.sover, but hired servants were not, Exod. xii: 44, 45; and such as were owned by the priests and Levites were privileged to eat of the holy things of their masters, but hired servants dare not taste them.--Levit. xxii: 10, 11.

These are statutes from the Creator of man. They are certainly predicated upon a view of things, in the Divine mind, that is _somewhat different_ from that which makes an abolitionist; and, to say the least, they deserve consideration with all men who wors.h.i.+p the G.o.d of the Bible, and not the G.o.d of their own imagination. They show very clearly, that our Creator is the _author_ of social, moral, and political inequality among men. That so far from the Scriptures teaching, as abolitionists do, that all men have ever had a divine right to freedom and equality, they show, _in so many words_, that marriages were sanctioned of G.o.d as lawful, in which _he enacted_, that the children of free men should be born hereditary slaves. They show also, that he guarded the chast.i.ty of the free by the price of life, and the chast.i.ty of the slave by the rod. They show, that in the judgment of G.o.d, the life of a free man in the days of Moses, was too sacred for commutation, while a fine of thirty shekels of silver was sufficient to expiate for the death of a slave. As I said in my first essay, so I say now, this is a controversy between abolitionists and their Maker. I see not how, with their present views and in their present temper, they can stop short of blasphemy against that Being who enacted these laws.

Of late years, some obscure pa.s.sages (which have no allusion whatever to the subject) have been brought forward to show, that G.o.d _hated slavery_, although the work of his own hands. Once for all, I challenge proof, that in the Old Testament or the New, _any reproof was ever uttered against involuntary slavery, or against any abuse of its authority_. Upon abolition principles, this is perfectly unaccountable, and of itself, is an unanswerable argument that the _relation_ is not sinful.

The opinion has been announced also of late, that slavery among the Jews was felt to be an evil, and, by degrees, that they abolished it. To ascertain the correctness of this opinion, let the following consideration be weighed: After centuries of cruel _national bondage_ practiced upon Abraham's seed in Egypt, they were brought in G.o.dly contrition to pour out "the effectual fervent prayer" of a righteous people, to the Almighty for mercy, and were answered by a covenant G.o.d, who sent Moses to deliver them from their bondage--but let it be remembered, that when this deliverance from bondage to the nation of Egypt was vouchsafed to them, they were extensive domestic slave owners.

G.o.d had not by his providential dealings, nor in any other way, shown them the sin of domestic slavery--for they held on to their slaves, and brought them out as their property into the wilderness. And it is worthy of further remark, that the Lord, _before they left Egypt_, recognized these slaves _as property_, which they had bought with their money, and that he secured to these slaves privileges above hired servants, _simply because they were slaves_.--Exod. xii: 44, 45. And let it be noticed further, that the first law pa.s.sed by the Almighty after proclaiming the ten commandments or moral const.i.tution of the nation, was a law to regulate property rights in hereditary slaves, and to regulate property rights in Jewish hired servants for a term of years.--Exod. xxi: 1 to 6, inclusive. And let it be considered further, that when the Israelites were subjected to a cruel captivity in Babylon, more than eight hundred years after this, they were still extensive slave owners; that when humbled and brought to repentance for their sins, and the Lord restored them to their own land again, that he brought them back to their old homes as slave owners. Although greatly impoverished by a seventy years'

captivity in a foreign land, yet the slaves which they brought up from Babylon bore a proportion of nearly one slave for every five free persons that returned, or about one slave for every family.--Ezra ii: 64, 65. Now, can we, in the face of these facts, believe they were tired of slavery when they came out of Egypt? It had then existed five hundred years. Or can we believe they were tired of it when they came up from Babylon? It had then existed among them fourteen hundred years. Or can we believe that G.o.d put them into these schools of affliction in Egypt and Babylon to teach them, (and all others through them,) the sinfulness of slavery, and yet, that he brought them out without giving them the first hint that involuntary slavery was a sin? And let it be further considered, that it was the business of the prophets which the Lord raised up, _to make known to them the sins for which his judgments were sent upon them_. The sins which he charged upon them in all his visitation are upon record. Let any man find involuntary slavery in any of G.o.d's indictments against them, and I will retract all I have ever written.

In my original essay, I said nothing of Paul's letter to Philemon, concerning Onesimus, a run-away slave, converted by Paul's preaching at Rome; and who was returned by the Apostle, with a most affectionate letter to his master, entreating the master to receive him again, and to forgive him. O, how immeasurably different Paul's conduct to this slave and his master, from the conduct of our abolition brethren! Which are we to think is guided by the Spirit of G.o.d? It is _impossible_ that both can be guided by that Spirit, unless sweet water and bitter can come from the same fountain. This letter, itself, is sufficient to teach any man, capable of being taught in the ordinary way, that slavery is not, _in the sight of G.o.d, what it is in the sight of the abolitionists_.

I had prepared the argument furnished by this letter for my original essay; I afterward struck it out, because at that time, so little had the Bible been examined at the North in reference to slavery, that the abolitionists very generally thought that this was the only scripture which Southern slaveholders could find, giving any countenance to their views of slavery. To test the correctness of this opinion, therefore, I determined to make no allusion to it at that time.

Now, my dear sir, if from the evidence contained in the Bible to prove slavery a lawful relation among G.o.d's people under every dispensation, the a.s.sertion is still made, in the very face of this evidence, that slavery has _ever been_ the greatest sin--_everywhere, and under all circ.u.mstances_--can you, or can any sane man bring himself to believe, that the mind capable of such a decision, is not capable of trampling the word of G.o.d under foot upon any subject?

If it were not known to be the fact, we could not admit that a Bible-reading man could bring himself to believe, with Dr. Wayland, that a thing made lawful by the G.o.d of heaven, was, notwithstanding, the greatest sin--and that Moses under the law, and Jesus Christ under the gospel, had sanctioned and regulated in practice, the greatest known sin on earth--and that Jesus had left his church to find out as best they might, that the law of G.o.d which established slavery under the Old Testament, and the precepts of the Holy Ghost which regulate the mutual duty of master and slave under the New Testament, were laws and precepts, to sanction and regulate among the people of G.o.d the greatest sin which was ever perpetrated.

It is by no means strange that it should have taken seventeen centuries to make such discoveries as the above, and it is worthy of note, that these discoveries were made at last by men who did not appear to know, at the time they made them, what was in the Bible on the subject of slavery, and who now appear unwilling that the teachings of the Bible should be spread before the people--this last I take to be the case, because I have been unable to get the Northern press to give it publicity.

Many anti-slavery men into whose hands my essays chanced to fall, have frankly confessed to me, that in their Bible reading, they had overlooked the plain teaching of the Holy Ghost, by taking what they read in the Bible about masters and servants, to have reference to hired servants and their employers.

You ask me for my opinion about the emanc.i.p.ation movement in the State of Kentucky. I hold that the emanc.i.p.ation of hereditary slaves by a State is not commanded, or in any way required by the Bible. The Old Testament and the New, sanction slavery, but under no circ.u.mstances enjoin its abolition, even among saints. Now, if religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, was inconsistent with slavery, then this could not be so. If pure religion, therefore, did not require its abolition under the law of Moses, nor in the church of Christ--we may safely infer, that our political, moral and social relations do not require it in a State; unless a State requires higher moral, social, and religious qualities in its subjects, than a gospel church.

Masters have been left by the Almighty, both under the patriarchal, legal, and gospel dispensations, to their individual discretion on the subject of emanc.i.p.ation.

The principle of justice inculcated by the Bible, refuses to sanction, it seems to me, such an outrage upon the rights of men, as would be perpetrated by any sovereign State, which, to-day, makes a thing to be property, and to-morrow, takes it from the lawful owners, _without political necessity or pecuniary compensation_. Now, if it be morally right for a majority of the people (and that majority possibly a meagre one, who may not own a slave) to take, without necessity or compensation, the property in slaves held by a minority, (and that minority a large one,) then it would be morally right for a majority, without property, to take any thing else that may be lawfully owned by the prudent and care-taking portion of the citizens.

As for intelligent philanthropy, it shudders at the infliction of certain ruin upon a whole race of helpless beings. If emanc.i.p.ation by law is philanthropic in Kentucky, it is, for the same reasons, philanthropic in every State in the Union. But nothing in the future is more certain, than that such emanc.i.p.ation would begin to work the degradation and final ruin of the slave race, from the day of its consummation.

Break the master's sympathy, which is inseparably connected with his property right in his slave, and that moment the slave race is placed upon a common level with all other compet.i.tors for the rewards of merit; but as the slaves are inferior in the qualities which give success among compet.i.tors in our country, extreme poverty would be their lot; and for the want of means to rear families, they would multiply slowly, and die out by inches, degraded by vice and crime, unpitied by honest and virtuous men, and heart-broken by sufferings without a parallel.

So long as States let masters alone on this subject, good men among them, both in the church and out of it, will struggle on, as experience may dictate and justify, for the benefit of the slave race. And should the time ever come, when emanc.i.p.ation in its consequences, will comport with the moral, social, and political obligations of Christianity, then Christian masters will invest their slaves with freedom, and then will the good-will of those follow the descendants of Ham, who, without any agency of their own, have been made in this land of liberty, their providential guardians.

Yours, with affection, THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.

[It is or ought to be known to all men, that African slavery in the United States originated in, and is perpetuated by a social and political necessity, and that its continuance is demanded equally by the highest interests of both races.

All writers on public law, from Drs. Channing and Wayland, among the abolitionists, up to the highest authorities on national law, admit the necessity and propriety of slavery in a social body, whenever men will not provide for their own wants, and yield obedience to the law which guards the rights of others. The guardians.h.i.+p and control of the black race, by the white, in this Union, is an indispensable Christian duty, to which we must as yet look, if we would secure the well-being of both races.]

FOOTNOTE:

[230] These letters were first published in the _Religious Herald_, Richmond.