Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

ask was there ever a kingdom more palpably divided against itself, than that, which attempts to incorporate in its political fabric, the two discordant elements of freedom and bondage? It is plain, then, that free, unfettered discussion must go on, enlightening the public mind and arousing the public conscience, even if evils do attend it, or we must make up our minds for evils still more dreadful.

For one, however, I anticipate no danger whatever, from discussion. It will indeed create some excitement and call forth some hard speeches, and give occasion to some threatening. But all this will amount to little or nothing. The great source of danger, after all, is silence.

With these remarks, brethren and friends, I affectionately commend these lectures to your attentive perusal. Read them, for my sake, your fellow servant in the ministry of the gospel. Read them, for the sake of Jesus Christ, whose special errand to earth, was, among other things, 'to preach deliverance to the captives to set at liberty them that are bruised.' Read them for the sake of two millions of your fellow beings, pining in cruel bondage at your very door. Read them; then read something better on the subject; ponder, pray, act, plead the cause of the oppressed, and the blessing of him that is ready to perish shall come upon you.

Yours with great respect and affection,
AMOS A. PHELPS.

LECTURES ON SLAVERY.

LECTURE I.

DIRECT PROOF OF THE SIN OF SLAVERY.

MALACHI ii. 7.-The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

[ocr errors]

Some may, perhaps, be ready to ask, why I, a minister of the gospel, do not attend to my appropriate business, instead of entering upon a discussion of so perplexing and exciting a subject as that of slavery and its remedy; or they may be disposed to start the old inquiry, By what authority doest thou these things?' If so, they have my answer and my authority in the words of my text-The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they (the people) should seek the law at his mouth.' Of all men, it is most incumbent on the minister of Christ to see to it, that, as for him, the 'law of truth' be in his mouth; that 'iniquity' be not found in his lips, and that he be not 'partial in the law." On this authority, then, I claim that the discussion of the subject suggested is my appropriate business as a

C

minister of the gospel; and accordingly I proceed at once to an examination of these two inquiries :— I. IS SLAVERY, IN ALL CASES, A SIN?

II. WHAT IS ITS REMEDY?

I am aware that these inquiries, in their various ramifications, cover a wide field of remark. I am sensible, too, that the general subject involved in them is one of vast importance and magnitude; that the responsibilities under which I speak are therefore of corresponding magnitude; and that a decided expression of opinion in the case ought to be the result of a thorough, candid, and prayerful examination. It is therefore due to myself to say, that this subject has long been one of no ordinary interest to my mind. The time has been when my views of it were essentially different from what they are at present. In changing them, I have acted with deliberation. For months the subject has been one of careful, and I think, candid investigation. And the conclusions to which I have come, and which I am now to present, are, in my estimation, the only conclusions which are warranted either by the dictates of enlightened humanity or the word of God.

It is due to myself, also, to say, that these conclusions and this expression of them, are not the result of hostility of feeling towards the South. So far from it, the very reverse is the fact. I have no wish to say aught, unnecessarily, to injure the South. Whatever I may say; however great the charge of guilt which I may prefer; and however unsparing my condemnation; God is my witness, that I breathe not the spirit of unkindness. A sense of duty alone constrains me, and therefore, however plainly I speak, I do it, not for the sake of injuring or irritating, but because I honestly believe what

I say, and so believing, am constrained to act on the principle, that 'open rebuke is better than secret love.'

With these introductory remarks, I proceed to the examination of the first inquiry, viz.-IS SLAVERY, in ALL CASES, A SIN? And here we are met at the outset by the previous inquiry, What is slavery?

It is somewhat difficult to give a definition which shall be brief--cover the whole ground, and yet be free from all objection. The best as well as briefest that occurs to me, is this: Slavery is an assumed right of property in man; or, it is the principle, admitted in theory and acted on in practice, that in SOME cases, each individual being his own judge in the case, it is lawful to hold property in man.

To prevent misunderstanding, I will explain a little. I say, 'it is the principle,' &c. because the essence of all oppression lies in principles of oppression, rather than in their action. It is not this or that particular act of cruelty which constitutes oppression. Such particular acts become oppression only as they involve or are the acting out of some general principle, which, admitted as a principle of action, not only gives rise to these acts, in a given instance, but opens the door for their repetition, and also for the infliction of innumerable other similar cruelties, at the mere discretion or caprice of the oppressor. It is the principle involved in such particular acts of oppression, which is the 'very head and front of the offending,' and which mainly constitutes the oppression in the case. Whence arose the revolutionary war? It is true the three-penny tax on tea, and the stamp act, were the immediate occasions of it; but, after all, what was there in these worth contending for, aside from the principle involved in them? England claimed the right of taxing us at pleasure.

She adopted this as a lawful principle of action. This constituted the head and front of her offending, and fraught as it was with untold evils to the colonies, it was resisted unto blood. The war of the revolution was a contest for principle. Had the principle in question been yielded, who could have set limits to the acts of oppression growing out it? So also in our war for sailors' rights, the bone of contention was, the right of search and impressment. The mere fact that a few seamen had been injured and abused, was as nothing, aside from the principle involved. This, in common with that of the revolution, was a contest for principle, and the oppression resisted was the oppression of principle. And further, whence the utter odiousness and the cruel oppression of the far-famed 'black law' of Connecticut? Not that Miss Crandall and a few colored Misses are subjected by it to certain shameful acts of cruelty and oppression. These are as nothing, comparatively, except as they involve principle; and the law, which allows and sanctions them, is itself comparatively harmless and innocent, except as it involves principle-principle which puts in jeopardy the rights of thousands. So in the present case; it is not this or that act of cruelty to this or that slave, which constitutes slavery. The question is not a question of of treatment, one way or the other, kind or cruel. It is a question of principle. What if many masters do treat their slaves kindly? That is not the question. Do they not treat their horses and their hounds with greater kindness? What if many masters treat their slaves with cruelty? That is not the question, except as such cruelty involves the principle of property in man, which, admitted as a principle of action, wrests and withholds inalienable rights, and subjects its vic

« AnteriorContinuar »