brethren! Much of this chapter (Deut. xxiii.) is taken up with directions to the Jews respecting their future conduct towards their heathen neighbours, the Ammonite, Moabite, &c., from whom, ("THINE ENEMIES,") if a servant escape, thou shalt not deliver him back. This command, be it observed, is not to individuals, but to the Jewish nation, which the sixteenth verse fully proves: for therein we find directions given, that the servant escaped from those heathen nations, may be permitted to dwell among the Jews, and in whatever place he chooses. This could not, in the nature of things, be a command to one Jewish master, in respect to the treatment of a slave that had escaped from another Jewish master: the one expression "he may dwell among you" (v. 16.) ends all dispute on this subject. The Abolitionists must now for ever more search for some other passage of Scripture, to contradict that which directs us to "do unto others as we would he done by!"
CHAPTER V.
THE CONDUCT AND CHARACTER OF THE SOUTHERN SLAVE-HOLDER, VINDICATED.
One of the peculiar features in the practice of Abolition champions, is to discredit every statement proceeding from all others, except from themselves: and in this respect they resemble very much, as I stated in the preceding part of this pamphlet, the champions of Infidelity! If there be, therefore, any truth in the common adage, that "none are so suspicious as those
who are conscious that their own statements ought not to be credited," there can be no difficulty in accounting for the unbelief of those gentlemen.
No one pretends to deny that there are in the South, some cruel, irreligious—inhuman—slave-holders—and who will have the hardihood to deny that there are also in the North, thousands of cruel, irreligious and inhuman, masters, husbands, and fathers! Would the latter fact be a justifiable reason for branding all the masters, husbands, and fathers, in the North, as a set of cruel, irreligious, inhuman monsters? Ah, but says the Abolitionist, they do not use the lash in the North.—Don't they? If not, it is only because many prefer the cudgel, which they use liberally on the head, back, and limbs of their unfortunate white slaves! How many think you (in this religious city of Philadelphia) white masters, and white husbands, and white fathers, are annually bound over or punished for cruelty to their white apprentices—white wives—and white children? And how many more are they, whose barbarity never comes to light, or whose wealth shelters them? Methinks the effects of the cruelty of a husband or of a father, would be just as sore on the back or head of a wife, or of a child, as if they were the effects of the cruelty of a slave-holder: a rose smells as sweet by any other name! You reply they cannot sell them here; I answer, it would be far to the advantage of many if they could.
But now to the matter of this chapter: it is constantly published and circulated by Abolitionists that so hard-hearted, brutal, and inhuman are all the slave-holders in the South, that they all desire slavery, are all inimical to freedom, and revel in their iniquity. So far from this being the case, I reply that the vast
majority of them, regret the necessity of holding slaves—are anxious to have them emancipated, and would hail with delight any plan by means of which they could emancipate them, with safety to themselves, and with safety to their slaves. Let us hear the testimony of a few of them on the subject, recollecting that according to the principles of common justice, as established in all civilized nations, it is not lawful to consider a man unworthy of credit till he is first proved to be a liar.
Patrick Henry says,—
"I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my fellow beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow men in bondage."—Debates in Virginia Convention.