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

Slavery.
ples of justice and mercy, and all the specific commands and
precepts of the scriptures. If any set of men have servants
bond or free, to whom they refuse a proper compensation for
their labour, they violate a moral duty and an express command of scripture. What that compensation should be, depends on a variety of circumstances. In some cases the slaveholder would be glad to compouhd for the support of his
slaves by giving the third or half of the proceeds of his
estate. Yet this at the north would be regarded as a full
remuneration for the mere labour of production. Under
other circumstances, however, a mere support, would be very
inadequate compensation; and when inadequate, it is unjust.
If the compensation be more than a support, the surplus is the
property of the labourer, and cannot morally, whatever the
laws may say, be taken from him. The right to accumulate
property is an incident to the right of reward for labour.
And we believe there are few slaveholding countries in which
the right is not practically acknowledged, since we hear so
frequently of slaves purchasing their own freedom. It is
very common for a certain moderate task* to be assigned as
a day's work, which may be regarded as the compensation
rendered by the slave for his support. The residue of the
day is at his own disposal, and may be employed for his own
profit. We are not now, however, concerned about- details.
The principle that "the labourer is worthy of his hire" and
should enjoy it, is a plain principle of morals and command
of the bible, and cannot be violated with impunity.
Again, if any man has servants or others whom he forbids
to marry, or whom he separates after marriage, he breaks as
clearly a revealed law as any written on the pages of inspiration, or on the human heart. If he interferes unnecessarily with the authority of parents over their children, he
again brings himself into collision with his Maker. If any
man has under his charge, children, apprentices, servants, or
slaves, and does not teach them, or cause them to be taught
the will of God; if he deliberately opposes their intellectual,
moral, or religious improvement, he makes himself a transgressor. That many of the laws of the slaveholding states
are opposed to these simple principles of morals, we fully
believe; and we do not doubt thatf they are sinful and ought
to be rescinded. If it be asked what would be the conse * }Ve heard the late Dr. Wisner, after his long visit to the south, say, that the
usual task of a slave, in South Carolina and Georgia, was about the third of a
day's work for a northern labourer.
1836.]
303