"Think only what is noble; do only what is
right."
Now I intend to make that single line of
good old High Dutch poetry the rule of my
conduct here to-night, and so on all through
my share in this struggle for emancipation.
"Think only what is noble; do only what is
right." Do not tie yourselves down to the
mere dollar and cent consideration. Do not
stand here, as was said last night, to "make
a, bargain," while our good old ship of State
is rolling amid the terrible breakers of civil
war.
In discussing this subject, in order that we
may determine the very right or wrong of
the matter, I intend to ask this question
first—what is slavery? Now, in order that I
might not be discursive, I have written down
in two or three lines, what I consider it to
be. It is a, holding in bondage of a fellow
creature, without his consent and against his
will, and the appropriation of the products
of his labor to our own exclusive benefit.
That is slavery.
Then, having defined what it is, comes up
the question—is slavery as a system right?
For on the answer to this one single query
ought to depend our action here. Is slavery
right? If it is wrong, we cannot, we must
not, we dare not, dally with it. I listened to
a sentiment from the lips of my friend from
Somerset (Mr. Jones) the other day, which
has the strongest echo in my heart and in my
judgment. That sentiment was this: "No
people can violate the eternal principles of
justice without calling down upon their heads
the just condemnation and judgment of
heaven." That is true. it is exactly the
sentiment of good old George Mason, the
true and illustrious predecessor of the false
and traitorous Mason of to-day—when in
Independence Hall, in 1787, be warned his
countrymen against this very evil. Let me
detain you for a moment, while I read his
exact language. When in the Convention
which framed the Constitution of the United
States, this question of slavery was under
debate, George Mason said:
"Slavery discourages arts and manufac-
tures. The poor despise labor when per-
formed by slaves. They prevent the immi-
gration of whites, who really enrich and
strengthen a country. They produce a per-
nicious effect on manners. Every master of
a slave is born a petty tyrant. They bring
the judgment of heaven on a country."
Sir, if that good old man had been pos-
sessed of the spirit of inspiration, what more
absolute truth could be have uttered? " They
make labor despicable," says he. Look
around you. " They prevent, immigration."
Look at the statistics. "They bring the
curse of heaven upon a nation." God in
heaven! What evidence of this fact we have
just ait this hour. It is then true that no
people can violate the eternal principles of |
justice, and not call down upon their heads
the vengeance of God.
Now, I want to say just here to the friends
of slavery, and to my friends; many of them
I have the pleasure of knowing; my inter-
course with them is of the pleasantest kind.
I beg them to remember that whatever I say
is said of slavery, and not of them, and not
because I love them less, but because I love
my country more.
I now propose to consider as briefly as pos-
sible the arguments adduced here in favor of
slavery. The first as urged is the argument
of antiquity; it is so old ! Why, sir, every
crime in the criminal calendar, every offence
forbidden by the decalogue, is it not hoary
with age? Is not rebellion older than the
earth? Was it not born in heaven? And
every other species of crime, envy, hatred,
malice, uncharitableness, lust, murder, fra-
tricide, are they not all older than slavery ?
Then I say this argument of its antiquity is
worthless, because there is no other crime
that is not older.
Another argument urged is, that slavery is
recognized in the Bible. Now, I put it to my
friends, who know so much about the Bible,
and who quote it so freely, I put it to them,
if they are willing to accept other things
recognized in the Bible, and to incorporate
them into the organic law of this State, sim-
ply because they are set down in the Bible as
apart of the Jewish theology? Let them
come right fair and square up to the scratch,
or give up the argument. My friend from
Prince George's (Mr. Berry) in reading from
the Bible this morning passages in support of
slavery, necessarily bad to read passages that
seemed to indorse the most immoral of crimes
of which humanity knows, that of polygamy;
and worse than polygamy, the crime itself
without even the seeming sanction of mar-
riage. Then what becomes of the Bible ar-
gument?
And another thing. That very part of
this very same Bible indorses the doctrine of
imprisonment for debt. Sir, ten or twelve
years ago, this Hall was eloquent with de-
nunciations of that relic of barbarity, im-
prisonment for debt. And gentlemen have
their names here upon the record who, upon
their own showing, voted for what was right
and just and proper, against biblical author-
ity. And more: Does not this very theo-
cratic system taught in that part of the Bible
sanction and set up the doctrine that you
have not only the right to imprison a man
for debt, but you have the right to seize him
and sell him into slavery; and not him alone,
but his wife and his little ones. Now, if
gentlemen love slavery because it is in the
Bible, I want them to be consistent in their
biblical profession. Let them come up here
and propose to introduce a provision into the
Constitution restoring imprisonment for debt;
and set up for the first time in modern times |
