tomed to yield prompt and even cheerful obe-
dience, is to assail the deeply-rooted preju-
dices of the people; and as its defenders pro-
tect themselves by seeking refuge behind the
bulwarks of popular prejudices, the attack
must be prompt and vigorous. The institu-
tion has many years since taken deep root in
the affections of the people, and if it now appears
to be an evil, and if it becomes necessary to
eradicate it, it will be necessary to strike at
the root of the evil. It will be of little avail
to cut. down the old Upas tree, around the
stump of which may spring up a thousand
shoots more hurtful to the health of the body
politic, more mischievous, more insalubrious,
more destructive of human progress and hu-
man happiness, emitting a more noisome ef-
fluvia, a more poisonous miasma, and be-
coming a more noxious pestilence, than any
which the people of our State, and indeed
the people of our whole country, have ever
yet been afflicted with. No, sir, it is my
humble judgement that the tree should be
taken up by its roots, and we ought no to
allow any time for the growth of offshoots ;
and after pulling it up by the roots from the
ground which it has so long cursed, it may
be well to sever the limbs from the body and
the body from the roots, and make a bonfire
of the whole thing. Then let gentlemen not
hesitate to strike at the very root of this
time-honored but accursed evil.
it is a question not yet solved to the entire
satisfaction of some individuals as to what
may be the root of this evil. Some think,
and perhaps correctly, that personal interest,
though antagonistic to public interest, is the
correct answer to the query. Others think.
that it is a firm and even honest conviction
on the part of the friends of the institution,
that the institution is of divine origin, and
has long centuries ago received the indorse-
ment and sanction of high Heaven itself, and
is in perfect agreement with the will of
Almighty God and the teachings of Jesus
Christ and his Apostles. Whichever solution
of the query as lo what may be the root of
the evil is correct, certain it is that to attack
the morality of slavery is to touch the tenderest
sensibilities of those who are friendly
either to its extension or simply its perpetuity
in those districts or States where it has or
may claim an existence.
I am of the opinion that if it shall appear
that slavery is a moral evil—that it is con-
trary to the letter or only the spirit of the
teachings of the moral law—whether it be a
public benefit or a public evil—we, as a Chris-
tian people, as a Bible-reading and Bible-be-
lieving people, are bound, as we expect to
meet the negro at the bar of Heaven's high
court—as we hope to be saved from the pains
and penalties beyond the portals of death,
consequent upon a failure on the part of men
in the performance of duties which they know
and understand to be duties imposed upon |
them, either of omission or commission—as we
hope for an unmixed and never-ending hap-
piness after we shall have put aside these mor-
tal bodies—are bound, by every feeling of
humanity, every sentiment of philanthropy,
every sense of justice and every principle of
light, to demolish the institution, and to do
so at as early a date as may be practicable.
Some of the best men who have ever lived
in modern ages, or in even more remote pe-
riods of the world's history—some of the
ablest philosophers and most learned divines
—some of whom were personally interested
in the institution and others of whom were
not—have believed, and many now living, be-
lieve that slavery is a moral evil; and I re-
gard their opinions as being entitled to great
weight and the most respectful consideration.
It is therefore perfectly proper, and right, and
competent for this Convention to make in-
quiry into this branch of the subject; and as
this Convention is composed of Christian
men, I deem it their duty to make the moral-
ity of slavery the subject of their first and
most scrutinous inquiry.
The friends of slavery argue that slavery
must be right, because it was an established
institution in the days of Abraham, and that
Abraham himself was a slaveholder; and
furthermore, that inasmuch as Abraham was
immediately taught the moral law by his
Almighty Maker, the great law giver of the
universe, slavery must necessarily be of divine
origin. They furthermore argue that inas-
much as slavery was a political institution
among the Jews, and regulated by the law of
Moses, as handed down to him directly from
Heaven itself, it has the sanction of Heaven
for its continuance. They further argue that
as the Saviour of the world was not an abo-
litionist, and did not say directly that slavery
was morally wrong, and because his great
I apostle, Paul, on one occasion addressed him-
self to slaves, and directed them to "obey
your masters in all things," &c., therefore
slavery is morally right, is of divine origin,
and ought to be perpetuated and extended.
Upon these three propositions is based all the
argument in favor of the morality, and in-
deed the divinity of slavery. I will proceed
to examine these propositions in detail.
First, then, as to Abrahamic slavery, if I
may be allowed to call it such.
Now, sir, I undertake to say that Abraham
was not a slaveholder, but little, if anything,
more or less than the chief of a tribe. He was
the master of his tribe as the Emperor of the
French is the master of the French people;
as Victoria is the mistress of Great Britain ;
and as the President of the United States is
muster of the great American nation. Abra-
ham was but the chief magistrate of his tribe
possessed of powers not without limitation
and was the chief of his tribe, very likely by
the consent of a large number of his people.
and only for the good of his people—not for his |
