that slavery was not an evil and a wrong
"per se," yet in the latter portion of his re-
marks labored very industriously by the ci-
tation of various passages from the Bible, to
prove that slavery not only had not the sanc-
tion of Divine authority, but was in entire
conflict with the teachings of the inspired
volume. How he reconciled the first with
the latter portion of his speech I was much
at a loss to perceive. But as the gentleman
is not now in his seat I will not pursue the
investigation further.
Nor do I mean to consume the brief period
of time allotted me by the rules of the Con-
vention in replying to the biblical arguments
that have been advanced against the institu-
tion of slavery. Suffice it to say, that the
candid inquirer after truth will find scattered
throughout the sacred pages not one but
many passages which stamp the system of
slavery with the seal of Divine approbation,
and that they who extract a verse here and
a line there, perverting them from their obvi-
ous meaning and true import, convey to the
impartial observer the highest evidence of the
inherent weakness of the cause they advocate.
To the gentleman from Talbot, (Mr Val-
liant, ) I have but a word to say on this point.
He who comes into this Hall to teach me
lessons on the subject of morals and the obli-
gations and injunctions of the Divine Law,
must come with hands undefiled with the
guilt of that which in others is a wrong and
an insult to the majesty of high Heaven,—
The gentleman undertakes to tell us that
in holding negroes in slavery we are daily
doing that which is clearly prohibited by
the law of God, That we who are slave-
holders daily and hourly transgress that law,
and therefore sin. Yet in the very same
speech the gentleman tells us that be is him-
self a slaveholder, and has long been of that
class whom he would now hold up to the
judgment and condemnation of mankind,
Does he not perceive in what an unenviable
position he places himself, and that his pro-
fessions of repentance now and his willingness
to give up his negroes without one cent of
compensation, and to make a free-will offer-
ing of them upon the altar of his suffering
country, does not relieve him from the em-
barrassments? Whence, let roe ask, did the
gentleman derive his title to the slaves now
held by him? Did he voluntarily go into the
market and purchase them? If so, these lec-
tures on the sin of slaveholding, permit me to
tell him, come with ill grace from him. Did
these slaves pass to him as an inheritance
from a devoted father or a dear mother, who
have passed from the scenes of earth and been
summoned to their final home. If so, I sin-
cerely regret, for the gentleman's own sake,
that in his over-abundant zeal to strike &
heavy blow at the sin of slaveholding, he
has not seen fit to spare from desecration the
memories of his own departed kindred. |
Next in the order of this discussion comes
the gentleman from Caroline (Mr. Todd), with
those far-famed words of the Declaration of In-
dependence that "all men are created equal."
Despite the earnest and labored argument of
the gentleman, I should not give this portion
of his remarks even a passing notice but for
the fact that this argument is a favorite, one
in the months of abolitionists, and I un-
derstand the gentleman from Baltimore city
(Mr. Abbott) has given notice of his inten-
tion to move the incorporation of an article
in the bill of rights of this State, embodying
substantially the language of the Declaration
of Independence.
Now, sir, in the sense in which the gentle-
man and his co-laborers in the abolition
cause construe these words, so far from the
views therein asserted being "self-evident
truths," I maintain that they are directly op-
posed to all truth. All men, I insist, are not
" created equal" but entirely unequal. This
inequality is manifested in their physical,
mental, social and political conditions. The
idea of equality is alike repudiated by reason
and discarded by common sense. You find
this endless variety and inequality existing
not alone in the human creation, but you find
it written on every leaf of that book of na-
ture from which the gentleman from Balti-
more city (Mr. Abbott) took his text a few
days since and which be seems to have stud-
ied so closely. You find it extending through-
out the animal, mineral and vegetable crea-
tions. The fishes sporting in the bosom of
the trackless ocean assert its existence. And
to-night from the heavens above ten thousand
stars in the infinite variety, splendor and in-
equality of their existences will look down in
confirmation of this truth.
But, Mr. President, in what sense did our
Revolutionary sires understand these oft-
quoted words of the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, now in my humble apprehension so un-
justifiably sought to be perverted from their
true and obvious meaning and import? The
occasion, the circumstances by which they
were surrounded, the whole section from
which these words are taken clearly indicate
to my mind that nothing more was intended
than a remonstrance against the right of the
King of England to rule them, an assertion
of their equality before the world as a people
and the right in themselves to self-govern-
ment.
Gentlemen upon the other side and all
those who have embarked in this abolition
crusade insist that they meant to assert the
equality of the negro, and that his right to
liberty was " inalienable." I deny that the
author of the Declaration of Independence,
that the illustrious band of men who signed
it, that the immortal patriot whose form now
looks down upon us (referring to the picture
of Washington) understood or designed that
these words should be understood in any such |
