Notices of New Work [pp. 700-704]

Notices o,f New Works.
edly disapproved as "contra bonos mores;" and by the laws
of many Christian governments it is positively forbidden.
Nay, our author himself acknowledges the law of divorce,
as having been allowed to the Jews, only on account of the
hardness of their hearts: and in the same category he is disposed to include polygamy, while he admits that the Scriptares are silent as to its being in harmony, or in conflic(t,
with the Divine will. But all Christians (even the Catholics, by way of dispensation) allow of divorces, either by
ecclesiastical or municipal laws, whether out of tenderness
to) the hard hearts of the people, does not appear: and no
sect of Christians would for a moment entertain a question
as to the lawfulness of polygamy.
For these reasons, therefore, we differ with the author of
this pamphlet, in his position, that slavery is to be justified
or condemned, according to the result of the controversy
between hirmself, and those whose arguments he is combatting. Our own opinions have been formed upon what we
conceive to b)e broader and safer grounds: not upon labored and doubtful interpretations, which the theologian alone
can appreciate, but upon the great fulndamental truths of
the Christian system, which he who runs may read.
We do not propose to argue this matter, however, in any
shape. We know, that in the ferment of the unhappy disputes, which have for many years agitated the peace of the
Union, every shade of sentiment has risen to the surface,
and glittered before the public eye. We know that cotvictions, once so well settled, that no tongue challenged
their soundness, firom any quarter, have been, in many
minds, overthrown and demolished by the fury of debate;
and a large proportion of our people, South and North,
have receded, in opposite directions, from the ground they
were wont to occupy in common, and taken up positions,
equall,y distant from the field, on which they had formerly
stricken hands, in concord and amity.
For our own part, we abide by the deserted treaty
ground-by the ashes of the council-fire. We are content
to stand, where once stood Washington, Jefferson, Mar
shall, andl the othler great statesmen of Virginia, of their
day; and w.here they vwere met by the illustrious patriots
of lthle Mid('dle and Northern States, who had borne with
them,he toils and burdlens of the Revolution. We are
satisfied( to think as they thought-to follow the example
which they set-to adhere to the compromises which they
approved; and we trust that we shall yet see our country
nieni, the present excitement allayed and silernced, united
once trsoie upon a "platform," better foutided in wis lou
and justice,than the structures since erected by mnisguided
zeal or exasperated fe(ling.
We concede, then, in the outset, that slavery, in its in
ception, is a wrong inflicted by onte portion of mankind
tapon another. We hold, that if the question were present
e(il, whether a people now free, either wvvhiteor black, shoul
be reduced into servitude by another people, it would bh
prohibited( alike by the precepts of Christianity, and the
dictates of soirnd morals. We believe further, that it i
detrimental to the interests of the commurjtnity where it ex
isis, and retards our development and growth. And what
ever advantages it may be supposed to confer, it other res
peets, we (lo not think them an equivalent for the evil
which it occasions. We applaud the action of the Gener
al Government in prohibiting the African slave trade, ani
punishing as pirates, those l ho engage in its prosecution
We honor the Colonization Society for their laudable, ant
not unsuccessful, efforts, to proviude an abode for civilize(
blacks, which fidls fair, under thie providence of God, t{
herome a blessing to benighted Africa, as well as to ou
own favored and beloved land.
But we maintain, that the duty of abolishing this insti
tution does not necessarily follow from these premises.
It is intimately associateed and interwoven with our laws,
our political relations, and our social interests. It has de scended to us, through so many generations, that it is close ly, if not vitally, connectedl, w ith every fibre of our social
system. The condition of the slave poputlation, of itself
furnishes a strong argument against precipitate change.
For they are not fitted, either t)y education, by habit, by
natural intelligence, or by acquired knowledge, for the ra tional and wholesome enjoyment of freedom. They are,
taking them in the mass, equally incapable of providing for
their individual wants, and ot exercising the rights of citi zens. Dependent from their birth upon the care arid kind ness of a master, to abandon them to their own resources,
would be to consign them directly to want, misery, arind
crime. Ignorant of almnost every thing necessary for the
discharge of social aiid civ il duties, they would carry de struiction into all the concerns of the body politic, as the
foxes of Samson bore ti,e firebrands among the standing
corn. It is hard to say, whether the conisequiences of im mediate emancipation would be more pernicious, to the
master, or to the slave.
So far we are discussing this question, as sliveliolders ad dressing ourselves to slaveholders. We treat these topics as
they were treated in our local legislatures and our domestic
councils, before the fanaticism of the North awakened a
spirit of resistance in the South, to what we have always
deemed an unjust and unwise interference in affairs pecu liarly our own. Whatever it may be proper and necessary
for us to do: whether we are bound by the law of morals
to apply any remedy at all-andi if so, what that remedy
shall be —are problems, the solution of which rests exclu sively with ourselves. Nor have the confederate States,
or the people thereof, any more right, either by physical or
moral means, to compel us to this task, than they would
have to assume a similar control over the domestic policy
t of any nation in Europe.
The colonies, without regard to such differences in their
respective institutions, united in the struggle for their coem r mol independence of British rule. A slaveholder was
chosen to lead their armies, and fight their battles. When,
by the favor of heaven, he had been enabledl to conduct the
war to a glorious and happy issue, and when experience
had proved the necessity of a closer union between the
? States, our Federal Constitution was formed upon the same
basis of the inviolability of local institutions. Nay, the
apportionment of representation was made with a particu lar regard to this difference, anrl slaves, cosii(lereld as per.
sons, were entitled to a representation, iii the proportion of
three to five. Provision was made by law for their resto. ration, whenever they might escape from their mrasters, to
d seek a refuge in the non-slaveholding States. The same
- slaveholder, who had achieved their independence lmy arms,
d was selected by the unanimous voice of the nation to guide
e their destinies in peace. The offices of the governmeint
e were filled by men from every section of the Republic, irsrespective of distinctions derived from the existence of
- slavery: arnd, for more thatn forty years, no voice was raist- eel to question the wisdom, the justice, the morality, or the
i- binding obligation,-of the great national compact.
s We insist upon the principles of this all-important conmr- promise. We believe its preservation of vital consequence
d to the stability and integrity of the Union-as we be' hieve the continuance of that Union indispensable to the
d peace, the prosperity, the strength, and the true glory, of
d the States which compose it. We will not abandon the
;~ hope that our fellow-citizens, South and North, will yet
r dismiss from their hearts the bitter jealousy which has
alienated large portions of them from one another, and re.
i- new once more those relations of friendship and forbear,
1848.1
701