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?
"He is a freeman whom the truth makes free,
And all are slaves beside. There's not a chain,
That hellish foes, confederate for his harm,
Can wind around him, but he casts it off,
With as much ease, as Samson his green withes."
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