The rightfull remedy. Addressed to the slaveholders of the South

Front matter

THE

Ur

RIGHTFUL EEMEDY.

Chapter I

It was once the favourite speculation of Statesmen and historians, how long the American Commonwealth would endure. It was on all sides predicted that its duration would be longer than any empire which has hitherto existed ; for it was a truth, universally admitted, that all the advantages which ever attended any of the monarchies of the old world, centered in the new ; together with many others, which they never enjoyed. The four great empires, and the dominions of Charlemaigne and the Turks, all rose by conquests ; none by the arts of peace. On the contrary, the United States of America have heen populated and increased by causes entirely natural. From this circumstance it was fondly argued that our government would last forever ; our own convictions, however, and the testimony of innumerable facts, tend to the reverse conclusion ; and render it probable, that as the increase of strength, vigour and capacity of the body politic, is owing, as in the human body, to internal and natural causes ; so is that body liable to the disease and corruption of its imperfect nature, and doomed to decay and dissolution. Man's allotted time, his three score years and ten, have scarcely passed since our national birth, yet do we hear the warning voice, and see the mouldering marks of time. Unalterable facts assure us how rapidly the body is sinking to decay ; how surely the soul, the immortal spirit of our Constitution, is pluming its wing for its everlasting flight; and how soon we may expect our final, unalterable, eternal dissolution.

At a time like this, when the whole country is agitated by one all absorbing question. When the government is perplexed, interrupted, and impeded in its operations by the power of this one overwhelming question. When sages are straining every nerve to quiet this agitation, by permanently obviating every difficulty involved in this one isolated question. When Statesmen are grappling, hand to hand, for the Avelfare of posterity. When old age sighs and youth frowns over the ti'oubled aspect of this convulsing question. When right and justice, peace and happiness, life and property are at stake. When the efficacy of law, the dignity of government, and the validity of constitutions, hang on the decision of this one question. When the tranquillity of a continent, the decencies of society, and the birth-right of a race depend on the arrangement of this distorted question. It may not perhaps be presumption on the part of an obscure individual to lay before the public the result of his search after facts which belong to the history of this question.

There is, perhaps, not a citizen of the United States who does not, from time to time, hear something, read something, or think something about this widespread question ; but there are, perhaps, comparatively few who have either time or inclination to forsake their daily avocations at the plough or the anvil, the loom or the desk, the store or the counting-room ; to pour over musty books and dry discussions in order to find a few historical facts which are interesting and valuable when obtained ; but tedious in obtaining. All are doubtless pleased to know and converse about any thing which has a bearing on this question ; but

4 THE DISUNIONIST ; OB,

few are willing ©r able to s|)end their time in collecting authentic infornnatiou from the variety of sources necessary to be resorted to. »

If, therefore, we ])resent any circumstance to the mind of the reader, with which lie is not already acquainted, or which may have escaped his recollection ; we will have done for him that which he could not conveniently have done for himself And it is in accordance witli the gratification experienced on the perusal of this brief essay that he would have it esteemed.

We claim to have suggested no new idea, nor do we set up any pretension to originality ; on the contrary. Me obtain every material part from the works of others whose information or judgment we deem s\jperior to our own. Every endeavour has been made to collect established facts from the best authority, and to please the reader by being brief

In Mur allusions to scripture, our object has not been to defend slavery, except, indeed it should be done incidentally— we believe tlie defence of shivery in a religious, moral and political jioint of view, to be a woi'k which has long since beeu thoroughly accomplished. But we refer to scripture with precisely the same object we have resorted to the Koran, or to the writings of Josephus ; purely with a view to the procurement of authenticated historical fiicts and dates wherewith to frame a brief historical sketch of the institution of slavery.

Our essay is addressed to the slaveholders of the South particularly, and the citizens of the slaveholding States at large. We would call iipon them for their united efforts, and would remind them of the absolute necessity of union for the sake of defence. Though our remarks are not addressed to Northern men, nor to abolitionists, wherever they may be ; yet we would feel great satisfaction to know that any of them have read these chapters and been benefitted by the truths they contain

For the sake of brevity we will denominate all the non-shueholding States the north, and all the Slaveholding States the South. And in conclusiun we would remark that if the South, in order to defend the oldest and most time-honoured institution extant, in order to defend the rights transmitted to us by our fathers, or to defend the |)ro]ierty we recoi\e from the great master of all things ; if to defend these the South is forced to cast off all connection with corrupt sovereignties, and to dissolve its union with the North, and set up its own government to suit itself and its peculiar institutions and pursuits ; we will endeavour to cotmect such ficts as may lead to the correct conclusion as to the probable advantages of suth a mea-iure.

With this slight apology then for the intrusion at this time of an essay emanating from one so httle known as we are, we would respectfully submit it to the citizens of the slaveholding States with the assurance that we are by birth, interest, and predilection one of them.

Chapter II

" I grant this argument is old, but truth No years impair ; and had uot this been true, Thou never hadst despised it for its age : Truth is immortal as tliy soul, and fable As fleeting as thy joys."

To appreciate the merits of an institution, and to compi-ehend tlie claims of any custom to the, resj)ect of society, it is essential that we should be well acquainted with the history and the object of them. Let us then distinctly underetand the nature of slavery, and for this purpose glance at its history, that we may become acquainted with it in all its bearings. The leading questions which would naturally occur to most minds would seem to be, when and where did slavery originate? What caused it, or how was it brought about? And what are the leading features of it?

It is impossible to determine positively, how and when slavery first occurred, there being no conc'iisive evidence to be had on the subject. But so far as human reasoning is to be relied on, it appears evident that it must have arisen out of the naltire <>f things. On the authority of Aristotle we can unhesitatingly ■ay, that " in the natural state of man, from tiie origin of things, a portion of the human family must command, and the remainder obey ; that the distinction •which exists between master and servants, is a distinction at once natural and indispensable ; and that when we find existing among men, freemen and slaves, it is not man, but nature herself, who has ordained the distinction." As to how this relation could have arisen out of the nature of things, it can easily be conceived. At the expulsion fi'om Paradise of our first parents, they and their descendants were ever condemned to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. That is to say, it was ordained, that man to live must labour. But as the family increased, we have evidence, there was a division of labour ; some tilling the earth, and others keeping flocks. Moreover, at this early period man had rt% instrument but his hand, and no science to guide him ; yet he was compelled to subject the earth to cultivation, and to labour industriously. Now this labour must have been, to a greater or less degree, shared by the whole family, and as the result of nature, the child must have been taught and compelled by the parent to labour as he increased in years. Thus every child, as he became older, was required by liis riatural siqyerior to labour according to the directions he received. The parent having supreme authority over his cliild, possessed in him a slave as imi)licitly obedient as any African slave of the present day ; and that the younger were not compelled to perform the more servile and menial offices for the older can hardly be sup])0sed.

But in order to come up to the more extended views of the present-day philanthropy, let us take a more enlarged view of primitive society, and see if reason does not bring us to the belief that slavery must have sprung from the very nature of things.

However thoroughly convinced the abolitionist or philanthropist of the present day may be, that the interests of the great mass of poor people, as well as the amelioration of their miserable condition, ought to be the care of the powerful and wealthy ; it is nevertheless an absolute truth, that such is not the state of affairs in any primitive condition of society. And no further evidence of the absolute necessity of slavery, in some form or other, for the comfort and well being of the human race, in its earlier stages of society, can be desired, than the well known universnlity of its existence in every nation of every climate since the world bearan.

But few words are sufficient to account for this truth. When man was in his primitive state he possessed no property except the few necessaries lie derived from the store of nature. Such a thing as capital, or a " value of exchange," was utterly unknown. Man's capital was his mind and body, his profession or occupation was that of appropriating to his use the few articles his body craved, and which nature supplied him with in return for his etlbrts ; and the only value these few articles could possibly bear was the " value of use." In the course of time, however, the race increased, and the habitations of man Avere gradually extended along the pleasant streams and valleys of the neighborhood, until a day's journey would perhaps intervene betAveen the abode of the nearest relations. '! he development of mind successively called for new exertions of the body ; space was passed over, new scenes became attractive, new fruits were plucked, new homes were made, and, apace with all, new men were born, who lived to extend the migrations their fathers had commenced. But Avhilst time served to dfevelop these circumstances, it served also to create many necessary accompanyments, conspicuous among which was the transfer of those articles which were originally appropriated from the bounty of nature, and which may be styled the transfer of property. Soon followed the exchange of these articles, or of this property, and then immediately springs up a new value in these articles, and that is the " value of exchange.''' Then comes the idea of traffic, and its result, a desire to accumulate these articles to an amount over and above the demands of the individual body ; this property brings influence, and this influence is a guarantee of power. But since property has thus become an object of life, the accumulation of these arlicles is the aim of all ; avarice and ambition germinate apace ; those that are honest adhere to the old custom of appropriation and industry, and those who are wicked steal. Some become rich, some remain poor. But the rich have influence, and they have the power to assist and protect the poor. Now the vicious poor do violence to their weaker neighbours, through envy, hatred or malice, or for the purpose of plundering their scanty stores. The rich are appealed to by the injured poor, or may be the helpless poor are rescued by the sympathising rich ; but however that may be, the rich and poor thus brought together, make common their cause ; the poor that they may be protected by the influence or the power of the rich, and the rich that they may derive new sources of wealth and new fountains of power, from the grateful hearts and willing hands of the relieved poor.

Property becomes more insecure, and violence more universal ; there is no safety for the weak and the poor, but with the rich and powerful. This lower class then glides surely into the power of the higher class, which is in such a state of things at least j)rac(icalli/ the superior of the two. What then must be the inevitable result ? Let the philanthropist look into the heart of man, and see whether this higher class will concern itself for the care and protection of the lower, without exacting at least what is deemed an egtdvalent for the security and comfort bestowed. Who will dictate terms. The high or the low ; the strong or the weak ; the rich or the poor; the secure or the insecure; the unruffled giant in his quiet abode, or the panic stricken wretch who pleads for life under his most redoubted protection ? What will the terms be ? And — what, according to modern philanthropy is worse than any terms of miserable dependence — what specious name will be given to the relation thus springing out of the course of these events. The answer is slavery. Slavery at least in fact, let it be what it may in iiamc.

Argument is not needed to convince the plainest intellect of this unavoidable result. It must be remembered that in the primitive times to which we allude, because "humanity, justice, and policy; so powerful in civihzed ages, are then unknov.ii, ;uul tlic sulil-rings of the destitute are as nmch disregarded as those of the lower animals ;" and because " compulsion is the only power which can ren- ^ der labour general in the many ages which must precede the influence of artificial wants, or a general taste for its fruits ;" it follows as the inevitable result, that supreme power over, or a clear right of property in " the person and labour of the poor is the only inducement which could be held out to the opulent to take them under their protection."

Now either of these relations of the person and labour of the poor is inseparabfti from the idea of slavery. In the first case where one man has supreme power over the person of another man, we would certainly say the one was the master and the other the slave. And likewise in the second case, where one man has the right of property in the person of another, he not only has supreme power over the person, but can transmit or resign that power to another at his discretion, and can set his value (of exchange) upon the property. This would assuredly be called slavery. If this then is slavery, and the conjectures we have laid down as to primitive society be correct ; we can feel no hesitation in saying that slavery originally sprung out of the circumstances of society, and was the un- ^ avoidable result of man's nature and relations. Nor are we, upon the whole, loath to extract from the works of a distinguished historian* who decries slavery, the following very comprehensive remarks. "The varieties of human character, the different degrees of intellectual or physical strength with which men are endowed, the consequences of accident, misfortune, or crime, the destitution and '^ helpless state of the poor in the infancy of civihzation, early introduce the distinction of ranks, and precipitate the lower orders into that state of dependance on their superiors which is known by the name of slavery. This institution, however odious its name has now justly become, is not an eril when it first arises ; it only becomes such by being continued in circumstances different from those in which it originated, and in times when the protection it affords to the poor is no longer required." And " how miserable soever the condition of slaves may be in those unruly times, they are incomparably better off than they would have been if they had incurred the destitution of freedom.

Let us return to the question, when and where did slavery originate ? Where shall we look for an answer but into history, and what history more ancient, or more to be relied on than the Pentateuch. There then let us search for any evidence on the subject of the origin of slavery. From the first chapter to the middle of the u-inth of Genesis, is the only history of the world, before the flood, now extant, and in it there is no mention of any thing like slavery. But immediately after the ebbing of the waters of this mighty deluge, we find a distinct and unequivocal creation of slavery ; a clear and comprehensive decree, ordination, and injunction of that relation of servant and master which we call slavery. It is in these words :f

" And the sons of Noali tliat went forth of tlie ark, were Shem, and Ham and Japheth : and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah ; and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he phxnted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken ; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Hail', the fother of Canaan, saw the nakedness of liis father, and told his brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father ; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness. And Noah awoke from Ids wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, cursed be Canaan ; a servant of servants shall he be unto his lirethren. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem ; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

Here is the earliest record of the institution of slavery that could possibly be * Allison's History of Europe, Vol. 2, No. 1. f Genesis, chap, ix, 18.

desired. For what wild dreamers has ever dreamt of going back into the anti-diluvian world to senrch fur the history or traditions ot society so primitive and remote, or in hopes of finding ought concerning a custom, which we may reasonably suppose was nut known by any distinct appellation, though universally existing.

Thouo-h there can be no doubt as to the existence of slavery before the flood, yet in the absence of any authority for a positive assertion on the subject, we will be content to confine ourselves to the post-diluvian world ; and with Moses as our venerable authority, we say, that Noah instituted, created, or ordained slavery : and Canaan the innocent oftspring of his own loins, was by him made a slave. All this was done by the delegated authority of God himself. We are then fully prepared to answer the question, when did slavery begin, by saying it began in the year 2348 befure Christ, which is the date of Canaans curse. Can any abolitionist deny this ?

It mav be urged here, by those disposed to be foolish, that the word servant does not imply involuntary servitude, or what we term slavery at the present day. It is true the word o^ itself does not always imply African slavery, or any other kind of bondage, but taken in the present connection it can imply nothing else than involuntary servitude. "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be etc.''^ There is no choice in this, there is no appeal from this severe mandate ; Canaan is cursed for his father's sin, and the nature of the curse is that he shall be a se.rva,nt, willing or not though he be.

Assuming this to be the beginning of slavery, let us follow up the records ; for it is important that every Southern man should be acquainted with the history of an institution of such vital consequence, and which bears so powerfully upon the very existance of his State, the peact of his family, and the dignity of his birthright. And we must not be astunished to find that the descendants of Canaan, for hundreds of years after the curse was pronounced by Noah, were the slaves of the descendants of Shem ; the very one in whose tent Canaan was condemned to be a slave. We must not be astonished to find that even as late as the time of Moses and Joshua — 1490 years B. C. — and nearly one thousand years afwr Canaan's curse, his descendants became the miserable slaves of the descendants of Shem. We say we must not be astonished, for it was the unalterable will of God ; and his will on this subject bar. never been disputed till the superb refinements of the nineteenth century sprTmg up to put it to the blush.

But to return to history. The next mention of the subject we meet with, of any material consequence in our present purpose, is the sale of Joseph by his brothers, in the year 1729 B. C. The aftair is thus related :

"And Judah said unto his brethren, what profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood i Come, let us sell him to the IshmeaUtes, and let not our hand be upon him ; for he is our brother, and our flesh ; and his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites, merchantmen ; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishniealites for twenty pieces of silver : and they brought Joseph into Egypt," and " the Midianites sold him into Egypt, unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah's, and captain of the guard."*

Thus it appears, at this early period it was not only customary to hold men in bondage, but also to buy and sell them as articles of traffic ; for it must be evident to all, that the idea suggested by Judah was no new thing ; on the contrary, we have every right to suppose that it was a common custom to buy and sell men the same as other kinds of property ; for if it were not then a common custom, would all of Joseph's brothers so readily have consented to the measure ? Would the merchantmen so readily have purchased him ? Or would

* Genesis, chap, xxxvii. 26.

SECESSION, THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY.

Pharoah's officer have dared to purchase him from the merchants, if it was not lawful to traffic in slaves. These conclusions are borne on the very face of the occurrence.

We hence date our first accounts of the slave traffic as far back as the year 1729 B. C. And though we have every reason to believe that this traffic was carried on long before this date, yet in the absence of positive evidence to that effect, we are willing to say, the slave trade existed in the year 1729 13. C, and has been carried on ever since.

This feature in slavery, that is the slave trade,* seems to have drawn down the especial indignation of present-day philanthropists. Indeed this is the principal objection urged against the system we practice at the South, and it is in fact the only material difference between African slavery at the South, and European slavery in Europe, or Northern slavery at the North. And though il is so much objected to, we find in the records of Moses that it is the oldest distinctive feature of slavery ; and, moreover, that one of the sublimest evidences of God's omnipotence, the conducting liis chosen [.)eople to the promised land, in connection with his curse on Canaan, the final realization of which took up a space of nearly one thousand years. All this we find, turns on the selling of Joseph, a slave, into Egypt. Joseph, a descendant of Shem, sold into bondage, that the curse of the Almighty upon certain of Hams descendants, might be fearfully executed four hundred years after, under the inspiration of Moses and the guidance of Joshua.

After experiencing various vicissitudes, we find him exalted to wealth and honor, and in the enjoyment of the confidence of the King himself. But every body knows how Jacob, his father, (also called Israel,) was induced to visit Egypt, and how Egypt became the abode of the Israelites for a few hundred years, and how they finally migrated to the promised land. And it must appear evident to every reader of the liistory of those remote ages, that even from the time of the dispersion of men after the flood — God had a peculiar regard for certain of Shem's descendants who were afterwards to be called his own ; and that he also directed the steps of Canaan's descendants, with a view to the fulfilment of the curse pronounced by Noah. He pointed out the country which the former were to inherit ; he caused to be possessed by another laborious nation, who applied themselves to cultivate and adorn it, and to improve, by all possible methods, the future inheritance of the Israelites. He then fixed, in that country, the like number of families, as were to be settled in it, when the sons of Israel should, at the appointed time take possession of it ; and did not suffer any of the nations, which ivere not s%ihject to the czirse pronounced by Noahayainst Canaan, to enter an inheritance that was to be yiven up entirely to the Israelites.^

And, in confirmation of all that has been said, it is remarked by an American writer.J whose work is compiled from those of the most eminent commentators of the Scriptures, that " Noah on a memorable occasion was inspired to declare the future condition of his sons, and of their posterity. Moved by the spirit of God to utter his holy oracle, Noah said, 'cursed be Canaan, etc.'" *****

Japheth was the eldest son of Noah, and his name signifies enlargement, and his posterity have been surprisingly extended ; for they have peopled Europe, Asia Minor, part of Armenia, the whole of the regions north of Mount Taurus, and probably of America. ||

* When we use the term " slave trade," we mean the legitimate trade, the bona fide exchange of a bona fide slave for a bona fide equivalent. The African slave trade, properly speaking, must of course be included in the general term " slave trade," but the thefts and abductions, frauds and violence, said by abolitionists to be practised in Africa, are of course unworthy of the term trade, and is, therefore, not alluded to when we speak of the slave trade.

f Rollins' Ancient History, vol. 1.

l Sears' Bible Biography. J Genesis, chap, x, 2-5.

Sbein signifies renown, and his feme has been truly great, both temporally and spiritually. His descendants occupied the finest regions of upper and central A^ia, particularly Armenia, Media, Persia. Syria, etc. Shems chief renown, however, consisted in his being the ancestor of Abraham, and the nation of Israel, and especially of the Messiah, the seed of the woman, to which it is thought that Noah might allude, when he exclaimed — " blessed be the Lord God of Shem!"

Ham or Cham, signifies black or bunft, perhaps indicating the sultry regions which his descendants should occupy, or the dark complexion they should possess, or both. ******, Canaan and his sons occupied Syria, Canaan and Palestine ; and the sons of Misraim* peopled Egypt, Lybia and Africa.f

Ham and his son had dishonored their venerable father, and upon them be pronounced the prophetical malediction : cursed be Canaan, etc. In accordance with this denunciation, the devoted nations which God destroyed before the Isrealites, were descended from Canaan : so were the Phoenicians and the Carthagenians, who were subjugated with the most terrible destruction by the Greeks and Romans. And the African nations, whose miseries have become proverbial through the world for the last three centuries, and even to our times, by the operations of the horrible slave trade, are also descended from Ham, the son of Noah."

The next feature we observe on this subject, is one which would naturally follow from the first ; for if we would sell a slave, it would be but a modification of the same act to sell his services for a given time, or in other words, to hire him to another. This custom of hiring slaves, we find recorded in a very early age. Let it however be distinctly borne in mind what a marked difference there is, between hiring one's self for one's own personal benefit, and being hired for the benefit of another. Thus, a freeman may hire his services to another, and receive the wages of his labor ; yet his freedom is not permanently effected, it is only conditionally qualified, he is only in part, and for a time a slave, and that too voluntarily, for it is a voluntary agreement, or, at least, is to be supposed so.