Slavery. By William E. Channing [pp. 268-306]

Slavery.
of property, it depends on the organization of society. In
England one man is born a peer, another a commoner; in
Russia one is born a noble, another a serf; here one is born a
free citizen, another a disfranchised out-east (the free coloured man), and a third a slave. These forms of society, as
before remarked, are not necessarily, or in themselves, either
just or unjust; but become the one or the other, according to
circumstances. Under a state of things in which the best
interests of the community would be promoted by the British
or Russian organization, they would be just and acceptable
to God; but under circumstances in which they would be
injurious, they would be unjust. It is absolutely necessary,
however, to discriminate between an organization essentially
vicious, and one which, being in itself indifferent, may be
right or wrong according to circumstances. On the same
principle, therefore, that a human being in England is deprived, by the mere accident of birth, of the right of suffrage;
and in Russia has the small portion of liberty which belongs
to a commoner, or the still smaller belonging to a serf, in
this country one class is by birth invested with all the rights
of citizenship, another (females) is deprived all political and
many personal rights, and a third of even their personal
liberty. Whether this organization be right or wrong is not
now the question. We are simply showing that the fact
that the children of slaves become by birth slaves, is not to
be referred to the idea of the master's property in the body
and soul of the parent, but results from the form of society,
and is analogous to other social institutions, as far as the
principle is Concerned, that children take the rank, or the
political or social condition of the parent.
We prefer being chargeable with the sin of wearisome repetition, to leaving any room for the misapprehension of our
meaning. We, therefore, again remark that we are dis cussing the mere abstract morality of these forms of social
organization, and not their expediency. We have in view
the vindication of the character of the inspired writings and
inspired men from the charge of having overlooked the
blackest of human crimes, and of having recognised the
worst of human beings as Christians. We say, therefore, that
an institution which deprives a certain portion of the com munity of their personal liberty, places them under obliga tion of service to another portion, is no more necessarily
sinful than one which invests an individual with despotic
power (such as Mr. Birney would consent to hold); or than
l -3 6. ]
295