And if the celestial hosts were then restrained from an universal clamour of disapprobation, by the consideration that such an exception was rendered necessary by the existing circumstances of the country, and the impossibility of emancipating 500,000 slaves while our shores were invaded by a foreign foe; could they have been persuaded to believe, that, after heaven had espoused the cause of America, and God himself had fought her battles, and victory had crowned her arms, the American people would permit almost half a century to roll away in the enjoyment of unexampled liberty, prosperity and happiness, while slavery would be permitted to increase with the increase of their wealth and population? Could they expect that this solemn declaration of Independence would be annually read the 50th time, accompanied with the roar of cannon, the display of banners, and shouts of joy, and that thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars would be expended on every return of this anniversary in feasting and dissipation and tumult, and yet no year of Jubilee be proclaimed to the oppressed sons of Africa?
But such is the fact. This day commences the 50th year of freedom to American white men, and yet a million and a half of our fellow men, within our own dwellings, are this moment groaning under the chains of bondage. Tell me not, as it is often told by the advocates of slavery, that they are incapable of providing for themselves; and are therefore happier in their present dependent condition, than if they were immediately emancipated. I cheerfully admit that the little feathered songster that was hatched in a cage or incarcerated before his wings were fledged, may be ignorant of most of the sweets of liberty; and after being long accustomed to have his food provided by his owner’s hand, might be incapable of finding it, in equal profusion, in the fields and forests; but does this prove that he has not a nature adapted to the enjoyment of liberty, and equally entitled to the privilege with other birds?
But on this point reasoning is needless. I appeal to my text. “All men are created equal,” said our forefathers, “and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.” For the space of fifty years we have been reiterating the same maxim and at the same time declaring that it is “a self-evident truth.” Now, I say, let us aim at consistency of character. Let us reduce the principle to practice, and prove to the world that we believe what we say, or blot it out from the declaration of our rights and privileges. We may abhor the tyranny of kings and emperors, and commiserate the degraded state of their oppressed subjects, but a greater incongruity cannot be found in any nation than that which exists in our own. In one hand we hold the protestation that all men are equal, and entitled to the enjoyment of life and liberty; and in the other, we firmly grasp the chains of slavery and wield the goads of correction. We proclaim to the world that we are the only nation of freemen on earth, and yet daily practise the most absolute despotism. It is frequently the case that the same publick newspaper which unblushingly asserts the equality of our rights, and the justice of our institutions, advertises a whole village of human beings for sale. Again I say, let us aim at CONSISTENCY: either acknowledge to the world that we are tyrants and despots, or act according to our professions.
That my text contains a correct assertion, I am not disposed for a moment to question: and I should surely be employed to no purpose in attempting to prove to others, what they have asserted for half a century, to be “a self-evident truth.” If then, all men are, by their birth, entitled to the same natural rights and privileges, they can be divested of them only by the authority of Him who has the power of life and death in his hands. The God of nature has a perfect right to authorize one nation to subjugate another, as he delivered the Canaanites into the hands of Israel. But surely this is no argument in favour of American slavery. When we have found a “Thus saith the Lord” for the subjugation of Africans, then, and not till then, shall we have a right to make them our slaves.
A man may also forfeit his liberty, and even his life, by the commission of crimes against the interests of society. And in all such cases, every nation on the globe has a charter from the King of heaven to inflict merited punishment. But surely no man of common sense will pretend that this authorizes any individual or commonwealth to reduce to perpetual bondage, and entail the same on their posterity, those who have never violated a single law of the land.
The time has been when the event of war has been supposed to confer on the victorious party the right of enslaving the vanquished. But this is now universally acknowledged to be a principle of barbarism, and is abandoned by the civilized world. Where then is our charter for the oppression of our fellow men?
Perhaps the most plausible argument in support of American slavery, (and it is one that has been newly discovered, for it was first introduced into Congress on the Missouri question,) is, that the New Testament distinctly recognises without any mark of disapprobation, the relation of masters and servants, and St. Paul in his Epistles explicitly enjoins on the latter the duty of respect, obedience and fidelity. This argument has been triumphantly urged as presenting Divine authority for slavery. But pray tell me, are there no servants but slaves? Is there no such thing as the relation of master and servant unless where slavery exists? If so, tell Great Britain to blot the word from her vocabulary, that it has no meaning in the English language, and is exclusively of American origin and use.
“But,” says the advocate of slavery, “this argument is not to be got rid of in this way. This is mere quibbling. St. Paul speaks not only of servants, but of bond-men; and he actually enjoins it on every man to abide in the same calling, or condition, wherein he is called. And he specifies particularly that if any one is called being a servant, he is to rest contented with the assurance that he is the Lord’s free man. 1 Cor. vii. 20-22. Nay, in his Epistle to Philemon, he had a fair opportunity to put this question at rest for ever; but instead of rebuking the master for holding slaves, he returned the runaway to his service.”[[1]] On this ground, it has been asserted, that those who hold slaves are more obedient to the Scriptures than those who do not.
[1]. This whole argument, in all its parts, was once urged with amazing zeal, on the floor of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.
If I am not greatly mistaken in regard to the nature of this argument, I could prove, in the same way, that tyranny and despotism are approved of God; and that those who submit to such a kind of government, live in greater conformity to the Scriptures than the citizens of a republick.