from the moral point of view; the religions
argument. And this, I confess freely, in the
presence of the Convention, I have not fully
understood, as presented by the opponents of
this article. It is clear, however, that if they
do not make slaveholding a religious duty—
their arguments certainly approach that—
they do at least deny most strenuously that
it comes in conflict with any religious obli-
gation. Now, sir, I do not propose to go at
any length into the theological argument.
The Bible has been brought here; it has been
read at great length by my friends in various
parts of the house. If it be so, that slave-
holding is a duty; if it be so, that it be not
a sin even, I would be ready for myself to
abandon this question. I do not go to the
Bible—I may say I have not gone to it at all
as much as it was my privilege to have gone
—I do not go to the Bible to learn facts of
history, it is very condensed, and too mi-
nute, to give as any clear insight into the
course of any historic events. But I take the
Bible as unfaltering, unswerving in its decla-
ration of principles, the only infallible guide
to man upon this earth. And its principles
are so simple, so plain, that the wayfaring
man, though a fool, may learn them. I do
not examine into the very doubtful lights of
history there to learn what sort of slavery
existed among the Jews. But when I open
Moses' writings, and read, "thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself"—I think I have got
at a principle of universal application. And
when I turn on from that and read in the
Prophets: "Thus saith the Lord: ye have not
hearkened unto me in proclaiming every man
liberty to his neighbor; behold I proclaim a
liberty unto you, saith the Lord, to the sword,
to the famine, to the pestilence"—when, hav-
ing read this, and seeing what is the denun-
ciation of God, I look over this land at the
present day, I see no reason to suppose that
the Almighty One has changed. And when
I turn from the Old Testament to the New,
and read: '' Whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them,'' I
think again I have got at a great principle
which may control every question which may
arise between man and his fellow-man. And
when I turn forward again, I read: "Go to,
now, ye rich men, weep and howl, for your
miseries that shall come upon you; the hire
of your laborers which have reaped down
your fields, which is of you kept back by
fraud, crieth, and the cries of them that have
reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord
of Sabaoth," I think I hear again notes of
warning to our land; and when I look abroad
I see the comment upon the passage.
But we are told that the teachings of St.
Paul, in the great case of Philemon vs. Onesi-
mus, must control this question. Well, sir,
for the sake of compromise, I am perfectly
willing to compromise with gentlemen here
upon the doctrine of that case; and will say, |
carrying out precisely the doctrine there,
that the religious teachers may advise all
these servants, when they shall be freed, to
remain with their masters, "not now"—I
quote St. Paul—"not now, indeed, as ser-
vants, but above servants, as brothers be-
loved, partners "—only asking that it may
go upon the record that this thought of
equality is a proposition of the opponents of
emancipation. Do not charge it upon me; I
only accept it as a compromise.
The great philosopher, Montesquieu, a cen-
tury and a half ago, with a truer insight into
the thing than some I see around me, disposed
of the whole question. He found two facts;
first, the fact that slavery did exist; .second,
the fact that we are a Christian people. And
besaid: It cannot be that these things are
men, for if they be, the suspicion must come
that we are not Christians; Christians could
not hold men in slavery. And, therefore, he
takes the matter boldly in hand, and denies
the manhood of the negro, because of the in-
compatibility of slavery and Christianity,
and brings forward a long catalogue of good
reasons to show that they are not men. That
position I can easily understand. And if
Chief Justice Taney, when he announced the
atrocious doctrine, uttered by him in the Dred
Scott case, " that black men have no rights
which white men are bound to respect," had
started out with the idea that they were not
men, and followed Montesquieu, I could have
understood that also. But to recognize their
manhood, and then deprive them of all rights
as men, is a very different thing.
I say, then, that in sound reason, upon the
slightest examination of the doctrines of our
holy religion, when we come to conform our
laws to those laws, we must recognize their
rights as human beings. And among those
rights, our fathers said it was self-evident
were life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happi-
ness. I stand with the fathers. I will not
demonstrate axioms.
But if it were otherwise; suppose this
question came merely as one of policy, as an
economical question alone, upon that ground
we stand strong beyond all controversy.
Gentlemen have assumed here that negroes
will not work except in a state of slavery;
and from that necessarily follows along train
of deductions. It follows that as labor is,
after all, the grand source of national wealth,
if it be necessary for a nation to accumulate
wealth, there must be some source of labor
upon which reliance can be placed. Well,
sir, it has been discussed before to-day,
whether the hope of reward, or the fear of
punishment, were the greater incitement to
human effort. And I do not propose to go
into this old country-lyceum question. I
think there are facts enough on all sides
around us lo settle that question forever.
But I do not propose to wander abroad to
any great extent. I will remark, in passing, |
