The Federal Union, The Abolition Falsehood which animates and cements the party of anarchy (Full Article, Transcribed)

The Federal Union, The Abolition Falsehood which
animates and cements the party of anarchy (Full Article)

The Federal Union, The Abolition Falsehood which
animates and cements the party of anarchy- Part 1.

We should perhaps apologize for any, however brief, discussion of this
question. As a national political question we have nothing to do with the
moral merits of slavery. The institutions of our country were established
by our forefathers when great men and true patriots controlled the nation.
State Constitutions fixed the condition of the negro, and the Federal
Constitution confirmed their adjustment by guaranteeing to the separate
States the exclusive control of their domestic affairs, and basing the
provisions of the Federal Constitution upon the pre-existing Constitutions
of the States, recognizing certain persons as being free and others as not
free. The condition of the white and black races being thus determined by
the State and Federal Constitutions—the former being a compact among the
people of each State, and the latter a compact between the people of the
different States—the people of each State were firmly bound and pledged
by official oaths, annually renewed, by a portion of their citizens
from that time to the present, to obey and support the established order
and vested rights under those Constitutions. When a citizen or officer
of a non-slaveholding State broaches this subject for discussion, it
is sufficient reply, to ask him whether he has any constitutional
right to meddle with the subject, and whether he advocates that
violation of constitutions which requires wholesale perjury, to
enable the people of one section of the country to meddle with the
local institutions of other sections. We discuss this question now,
merely because the proposition just quoted is the very back-bone
of the party of anarchy, without the support of which it would
be unable to hold up its head, and would be powerless for evil.
We would break the backbone first, that the body may lie still.
while we are leisurely cutting it to pieces. The subject is too
extensive for aught but the briefest notice. It is not necessary
that we should prove the absolute rectitude or faultless propriety
of slavery as an institution. We have to tolerate and defend every
imperfect institutions, not because they are satisfactory, but
because they are the best we can obtain. Our republican government
continually puts us to blush before the civilized world by its corruptions,
follies, and violations of republican principles. Still we have to maintain
and defend it. The religion of our various churches, if they are allowed
to testify against each other or to confess for themselves, is very far
from being satisfactory. Yet we uphold churches as the bulwarks of social
order. If abolitionists are to be received as authority, most of our churches
are festering masses of moral pollution, and the Bible itself is far more
unsound and imperfect as a standard of morals than W. L. Garrison, Wendell
Phillips, or any others of the band who have been for years yelling against
the Constitution, the Union, and the church, and striving for their overthrow.
Man is imperfect but progressive-society is imperfect but improving. God
tolerates imperfection as the basis of everlasting progress; and none but a
lunatic or an abolitionist would require social institutions to be faultless
anywhere this side of the millenium. It is merely necessary when slaveholding
and anti-slavery parties come into conflict, and the latter claim certain
rights or superiority on the ground that they are very just and pious people,
but that their opponents ar most wicked criminals, to show that this superiority
is not evidont to an impartial spectator, and that the so-called criminals have
so fair and plausible a justification to advance as to make it difficult to decide
which of the two is nearer right, and whether the defendants might not recover very
heavy damages in a suit for slander against their very pure and righteous assailants.
The assertion that John Wesley called slavery the “sum of all villainies” was launched
forth from the United States Senate chamber by that prince of all wholesale slanderers,
the sanctimonious Charles Sumner, who is never scrupulous in believing or repeating
a falsehood if it be well-seasoned with sectional malignity. Wesley never entertained
such a sentiment or applied any such language to African slavery; on the contrary,
he looked upon it with kind and Christian feelings, and formed intimate friendships
with men who were slaveholders. His denunciatory language applied to the African
slave-trade as practised in his day, and there are few slaveholders in the United
States who would not join with him in his denenciations of its barbarity. Whitfield,
the other great light of the Methodist church, regarded negro slavery about as it
is regarded by Southern slaveholders at the present time: as a fortunate opportunity
of procuring labor where it is urgently needed in climates uncongenial to the white
man-not sinful, but sanctioned by apostolic teaching and adapted to promoting greatly
the welfare and religious; salvation of the Ethiopian race. “It is plain to a denunciation,”
says Mr. Whitfield, in a letter published in his works, “that hot countries cannot be
cultivated without negroes. What a flourishing country Georgia might have been had
the use of them been permitted years ago? How many white people have been destroyed
for want of them? and how many thousands of pounds spent to no purpose at all? Had
Mr. Henry been in America, I believe he would have seen the lawfulness and necessity
of having negroes there.” Wesley and Whitfield did not consider slavery the sum of
all the villanies, but it is clear that if those devoted and pious men could have
seen such a document as the scurrilous speech of Mr. Sumner upon the barbarism
of slavery, they would have considered it, as we have had occasion to prove it,
the sum of all the calmnies that ever were uttered against worthy and religious
communities by a vindictive slanderer. That the maintenance of negro slavery
is not a crime is shown by the fact that it does not generally shock the moral
sense of good, pious, enlightened, and philanthropic men, hut, on the contrary,
often receives their approbation. The zeal with which men oppose slavery is
not proportioned to their general moral excellence, but rather to their uneasy
propensity to regulate the morals of their neighbors, to dictate, and to scold.
Slavery was never condemned by Christ and the Apostles; on the contrary it is
distinctly recognized in many plans in the Bible, and the duties of slaves to
their masters enforced, while masters are nowhere enjoined to free their slaves.

“Both thy bondman and bondmaids which then shalt have, shall be of the heathen
that are around about you; of them shall ye buy bond-men and bondmaids, moreover
of the children of the stranger that adjourn among you, of them ye shall buy
and they shall be your possession; and ye shell take them as an Inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall
be your bondmen forever.” Lav. xxv ch, vs. 44, 45, 46.

“Slaves (douloi) obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not
with eye service, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God.”
Coll, iii, 22; Eph, vi, 5; 1 Cor, vii, 21.

“Slaves (douloi) be obedient to your masters, according to the flesh, with fear
and trembling, in singleness of heart, as unto Christ” Eph, vi., 5

“Let as many slaves (douloi) as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of
all honor.” 1 Tim., vi, 1.

St. Paul, author of the first fugitive slave law, Sends back slave (douloi) Ouesimus
to his master, Philemon. Phil., x., 11, 16. Other texts also recognize slavery and
prescribe its regulations. Biblical opponents of slavery have nothing to stand on but
their mere assertion that the general spirit of the New Testament, as construed by them,
is contrary to the plain and positive language of many portions of the Bible. They fall
back upon the doctrine of loving our neighbors as ourselves, and say that this law
is incompatible with slavery. If so, then St. Paul did not understand Christianity,
and Christ himself did not explain it. if this can be incompatible with slavery, it
is still more incompatible with war and with military self-defence, and almost the
entire Christian world has been unanimously mistaken. If we err in such company,
we are certainly not to be pronounced barbarians or criminals for opinions so
well sustained by glorious and sacred authorities. They who claim to represent
in their own persons millennial holiness and lamb-like meekness, who indulge in
neither violence nor anger nor turbulent invective, might with some consistency
object to slavery-and war as belonging to a system of force, but such arguments do
not sound well in the mouths of abolitionists, whose whole policy has been turbulent,
incendiary, and Insurrectionary, and whose greatest hero was a cold, remorseless
homicide. St. Paul commands slaves to honor and obey their masters with fidelity.
Washington enforces obedience among Ws slaves; and now a class of men who compare
with Washington and St. Paul as the followers of Catiline cormpared with Cincinnatus,
or as the followers of Marat and Robespierre compared with Lafayette, assure us that
the morals of our honored fathers were all wrong; that they (the abolitionists) are
the only men of exalted virtue, and one of them, in Fanueuil Hall, to show his vast
moral superiority, exclaims: “That scoundrel, George Washington!” There is a cool and
saucy assumption of moral superiority by abolitionists which is positively sublime
in its pharisaic impudence. They are scarcely willing to admit that the propriety of
slavery is even a debatable question. They assume that they are right, and that all
who oppose them are knowingly and dishonestly sustaining the wrong. Tracy lay aside
argument, and say that the case requires nothing but stern denunciation of the slave-
holding crime. But the English language does not afford tlssm adequate terms with
which to express their abhorrence. To call a slaveholder a robber, a pirate, a thief,
or an assassin is not sufficient, because slavehohling is worse than all these crimes
combined, and the word slaveholder ought to be a far fouler and more infamous term;
but unfortunately the word has become so respectable that they cannot denounce the
slaveholder without using language which fails to crush with the requisite power.
If we grant that sleveholding is in the abstract wrong, as tried by the consciences
of wise and holy men, it does not follow that we can hold or treat men as guilty who
are unconscious of their guilt, and who are sustained by high authority and example.
But we de not concede that slaveholding is essentially or necessarily wrong, or that
property in man is an absurdity. The right to freedom is not an innate attribute of
life it belongs only to those free agents by whom it can or will be rightly exercised.
The tiger and the wolf are not entitled even to life. The laboring horse and ox are
entitled to life but not liberty. They are required to use their industrial energies
for the welfare of society. Nor does mere humanity constitute a right to life and
liberty. All human beings are classified by society according to their capacities,
and allowed just so much of liberty as is compatible with the general welfare.
Thus it always has been and ever will be while civilized society shall stand.
The wisest men whom we can find are made rulers over all. The worst are deprived
of liberty and life. Those who are greatly but not totally depraved are simply
deprived of liberty. Those who are incompetent to transact their own business
are placed under guardianship, even though they they have previously been among
the leaders of society. No man is born free. All are born in feebleness, ignorance,
dependence, and slavery. They owe their lives from day to day to loving care and
kindness. They do not own themselves they are owned by their parents, and the
ownership is protected by law. By ancient laws parents were even permitted to
take back or destroy the life they had given, and were not restrained in their
just power over their offspring even by the regulations of humanity. Modern
society recognises the absolute mastery and ownership of the parent over
offspring, but requires the parental master to be humane and benevolent.

The Federal Union, The Abolition Falsehood which
animates and cements the party of anarchy- Part 2.

We are all born without either rights, abilities, character, or
responsibility. Under a kind Providence our parents gave us life,
growth, and development. Our bodies are developed from their blood,
and from the food they furnish, and our minds are developed by their
care. When we have become by these gifts competent to the exercise
of liberty and responsibility, they give us our freedom, and thus we
acquire by the slow processes of benevolence our rights—not born with us,
but given to us. If in the progress of our development we fall short
of a proper manhood and intelligence, we remain under the guardianship
of infancy and imbecility, or if at any time in life we fall back,
a legal process remands us as non compos mentis to the necessary
control which is exercised over all who cannot take care of themselves.
That society has the absolute and unquestionable right thus to give
freedom to the competent and mastership to the incompetent—that
it is the imperative duty of society to protect the rights of its
fully developed and competent freemen, and to assign to absolute
but benevolent mastership all its incompetent members, no sane man
can deny; nor will any society where humane and Christian principles
prevail neglect this duty. Youth who have lost their parents are
supplied by society with masters, and the relation of master and
apprentice is regulated by law. Just in proportion as ability is
developed freedom is allowed—and just in proportion as ability
is deficient freedom is withheld. Society cannot, for want of
administrative wisdom, always act to justly in individual cases.
It acts mainly by general laws which bear upon classes, and often
fails to administer exact justice because individuals differ too
much from the classes whose fate they must share. The right
of curbing or restricting freedom, however, on account of any
deficiency of capacity is always maintained, however hardly it
may bear upon individuals. The youth who grow up to intelligence,
correct moral deportment, and full personal responsibility, without
however engaging in those active departments of life in which they
would acquire a knowledge of public business and dovelop their
own ragged independence of character, are nowhere in the world
allowed political liberty, nor are they left in full possession
of personal liberty. They are recognised as a distinct class; the
right of suffrage is withheld; many of their civil rights are
restricted, and although not absolutely enslaved they are certainly
far from being free and equal members of society. They may pay taxes
but they cannot participate in making or administering our laws
or exercising any political right, whatever may be their talents,
because they have grown up not to manhood but to womanhood.
They have not the rights of freemen although they may be more
worthy than many who exercise those rights—indeed we know they
are. With the exception of a few strong-minded rebels they are
generally content with their political slavery, and would not
be emancipated if they could, notwithstanding all the fiery
appeals of Lucy Stone and other agitators. So are the youth
who obey their parental or legal masters for twenty years,
though occasionally a youthful rebel or runaway disturbs the
peace of society or demands to be pacified by the rod. These
arrangements of society are not condemned by individual disorders
in their operation. If a wife whips or poisons her husband, a
son strikes or shoots his father, or an appractice attempts his
master’s life, such exceptional incidents do not overthrow the
laws of matrimony, paternity, or apprenticeship. (If a few thousand
apprentices were gathered in any locality it would not be difficult
for designing agitators to get up a row or a rebellion among them.)
Nor would a few similar incidents prove that domestic servitude is
a barbarous or unjustifiable institution. In every community thousands
voluntarily enter for a limited time upon the duties of servitude and
submit to the most exacting and imperious authority. Not only domestic
servants, but sailors, soldiers, and, in many instances, hired laborers,
assume positions and responsibilities similar in nature and often more
oppressive and irksome than those of the African slave. Menial tasks,
severe labor, arbitrary command, confinement, and corporal punishment,
are conditions to which millions of the humbler classes submit in the
armies and navies of Europe, in mines, ships, factories, shops, and
kitchens. The African is not more thoroughly a slave than the British
soldier or seaman. In reference to the African race, a barbarous,
indolent, and worthless people, thrown upon our shores against cur
protestations by the British government, society had just the same
right to determine their condition as to determine that of apprentices,
or of criminals, of drunkards, thieves, idiots, and orphans. Utterly
unfit for the rights of political freedmen—unfit to be members of
society in any prominent capacity, vagrants and barbarians, society
proceeded upon the same principle upon which it arrests the drunken
white vagabond, and assigns him a limited period of confinement,
slavery, and labor under the lash—the same principle upon which
it arrests the young vagrant of the streets and binds him as
apprentice till twenty-one years of age, believing that he will
by that time become fit for freedom. Upon the same principle,
by the old English laws of some of our States, the white
vagabond who becomes a nuisance, and engages in no visible
occupation for his support, is set up at auction and sold out
to the highest bidder as an absolute slave for a certain length
of time, and enters into all the renditions of chattel slavery,
which is so horrible to those who know it only through artistic
novels. If the African race are, as all history indicates, an
inferior race, puerile in intellect and achievements, comparing
with the Caucasian race as the boy compares with the man—utterly
unfit to elevate themselves into civilisation, or to maintain the
responsibilities of an independent career, which has certainly
been the case for many thousand of years, and bids fair to continue
for as many thousands more, what more natural than to treat them
as boys are treated, and assign them to the guardianship and mastery
of those who would train them up in industrial intelligence, and
restrain their vices and crimes. The same principles which consigned
the youth to apprenticeship, and the vagrant to a muter, consigned
the idle, drunken, ignorant, vagabond African to the care of a master,
under whose care his wants have been supplied, and the race saved from
extinction, to advance in intelligence, morals, religion, manhood,
and perhaps play an important part in the world’s hitory. instead
of perishing in the presence of a stronger race, as would have been
their fate but for the fostering care to which they were introduced
by servitude in America. These prepositions may be doubted by persons
who are not practically acquainted with the subject, but not by really
able men who have lived in the region of negro slavery. No truer patriot
has ever inspired the lore of all his countrymen than Henry Clay- none
more ardently devoted to human liberty. or more desirous of the judicious
emancipation and prosperity of the African race. His language on this
subject onght to be conclusive with all who followed his standard
in the path of American glory and prosperity. In his speech on the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, in the Senate,
Thursday, February 9, 1839, he said: “I am, Mr. President, no friend of
slavery. The searcher of ail hearts knows that every pulsation of mine
beats high and strong; in the cause of civil liberty. Wherever it is
safe and practicable I desire to see every portion of the human family
in the enjoyment of it. But I prefer the liberty of my own race to that
of any other race. The liberty of the descendants of Africa in the United
States is incompatible with the safety and liberty of the European descendants.
Their slavery forms an exception resulting from a stern and inexplorable necessity
to the general liberty in the United State. We did not originate, nor are
we responsible for, this necessity. Their liberty, If it were possible, could
only be established by violating the incontestable powers of the States,
and in subverting the Union. And beneath the ruins of the Union would be
burled, sooner or later, the liberty of both races.” The dread fulfilment
of this dark prophecy even now may be lying in the blackness of the storm-
clouds, coming as a blasting curse from on high to punish the domineering
arrogance and oath-breaking violence of our countrymen. Spare us Almighty
Father, and enlighten our rulers! Reader! if any vote of yours has strengthened
this terrible agitation, reflect that it cannot be a sin or a crime for society
to regulate the condition of its subordinate classes in accordance with its
own highest wisdom and strongest convictions—in accordance with the doctrines
of the Bible, in harmony with ancient and wide-spread customs, in accordance
with the opinions of many of the wise and pioua, even though many others,
especially of those least acquainted with the subject, may hold different
opinions. It is not a sin or a crime to rescue by the strong hand of the
law the grovelling classes of society from turbulence and drunkenness, theft,
vagrancy, disease, want, and final extinction, and to hold them bound up in
a higher condition, until they are entirely rescued from ruin. The propriety
of such a course of treatment is far more evident in reference to the African
than in reference to the white vagrant; for the vagrancy or idleness of the
latter is but an individual peculiarity, not necessarily inherent in
his blood. It is but a transient condition, as in the case of a well-known
prominent citizen of a Western city, who, after being sold as a vagrant,
roused himself to the necessity of exertion and soon became a man of
extensive possessions and consequential bearing. Not so with the African;
his peculiar nature has been moulded and established by thousands of years,
which have left him constitutionally an indolent barbarian, a victim
of poverty, ignorance, wantt, and disease. If African servitude were
a system of military despotism, maintained only by the bayonet, it
might perhaps justify the sympathetic tirades of foreigners against
such oppression; but if, on the other hand, like apprenticeship and
other institutions for social order, it is but the natural relation
of superior and inferior, a wise arrangement for securing the greatest
amount of industry, progress, good order, and morals, we cannot excuse
the meddlesome comments and interference of self-styled philanthropists
whose whole action heretofore has been disastrous to the slave and
destructive to all schemes for the improvement of his condition. Reader,
if you belong to that moderate class of Republicans content with affirming
that slavery is unjust and unfavorshle to progress, we would simply say
that you have been deceived in reference to facts. Wo propose to show
you that this supposed injustice has really been an incalculable benefit
to the Atrican race, and this supposed drawback upon prosperity has been
the meat efficient means of industrial progress and social advancement.

call to chat