Review of the lectures of Wm. A. Smith, D.D., on the philosophy and practice of slavery

Front matter

-P

0-*. %

O

Preface

Rev. William A. Smith, D. D.

Bear Sir, — As, in reviewing your lectures on " The Philosophy and Practice of Slavery," I have addressed myself to the system of American slavery through you as one of its ablest advocates, I deem it due to myself — and others may feel some interest in the case — to say in this prefatory note, that, although I have discussed the subject with a pointedness which I believe its magnitude and character merit, I have not, knowingly or with intention, treated you personally with the least discourtesy whatever. I have found much in your book that has surprised me ; some things that might seem to impHcate your integrity or your intelligence, and some of them, as I conceive, incompatible with the moral principles of the Gospel; but in exhibiting their real or supposed character, errors, and consequences, I have not allowed

2 PREFACE.

myself to impute to you any other than sincere and honest motives and purposes. And while I am at issue with you on all the vital points in the system of slavery, and have discussed them with frankness, I have no other than feelings of Christian kindness and respect for you personally. If I have written any thing which may seem to be severe, I claim that it be understood as applying — not personally, but — to the system of slavery which I oppose. Were it not for the fact, that many have not yet learned to distinguish between an exposition of a man's real or supposed errors, and an attack upon the reputation or motives of the man himself, this notice and explanation would not be at all necessary. There is one thing, however, connected with this discussion I regret; namely, these letters, however harmless you may judge them to be, will not be permitted to circulate in the south, notwithstanding you have suggested that "the duty of thoroughly investigating the subject seems to be laid upon the country as a moral necessity."

The south generally are either not allowed, or are not disposed, to see but one side of this ques-

PREFACE. 3

tion. So true is this, that it would not be hazarding much pecuniarily to proffer a few thousand copies of these letters to the south simply on the terms that you should recommend the reading of them by slave-owners, and a promise on their part to read them. That class is not generally willing to look the system of slavery, with all its consequences here and hereafter, full in the face ; though in not a few instances, as they approach the future world, the system looks them in the face, and fearful of the results there of claiming the right of property in the persons of men, women, and children in this world, and of transmitting that claim to their posterity, in their ^' last will and testamenf'' they relinquish all such claim by emancipating their slaves, virtually saying, "/ dare not meet the consequences in eternity F^

Praying that the author of the lectures reviewed and the writer of the letters in which they are reviewed may yet "see eye to eye," in all things that will most glorify God and benefit man, I remain yours, most respectfully,

John H. Power.

Letter I . Introductory

The claims set up for slavery will awaken opposition to the system — Individuals not responsible for the system — DifiFerenco between the case of individuals and that of the system — If the principle of slavery being more firmly fixed in the south than ever before, is evidence of the purity of the system, th« fact of the increasing and settled opposition to it in the north is equally clear proof of its corruption — The fact that the influence of slavery has increased in despite of opposition, no more proves that it is morally right than the same thing proves that intemperance and profanity are morally right — Its progress is attributable alone to its commercial value, and not to its moral purity or worth Pages 11-27

Letter II. Errors In The Definition Of Slavery Exposed

Logic and ethics defective as to the relations and claims of justice and benevolence — Erroneous definition of slavery vitiates this whole scheme of philosophy — Unwarrantable use and abuse of terms — Control by the will of another not the principle, but a mere accident of the principle of slavery — Such defense of slavery will corrupt the public mind and depreciate self-respect — The defense contradicts itself in making government both master, owner, and agent of the governed — Radical error in assuming that servant and slave are convertible terms and mean the same thing — All slaves are servants, but all servants are not slaves 29-51

CONTENTS.

Letter III. The True Definition And Character Of Slavery

The true definition of slavery — American slavery — The right of property in the persons of men — The defense contradicts itself, unless it can separate the rami from the slave — The latter is impossible, the former is palpable — The history of slavery sustains the truth of our definition — Any other view makes slaveholders real barbarians — " The philosophy and practice of slavery " absohttely irreconcilable with the facts in the case Pages 52-70

'letter IV,

SUBORDINATES UNDER JUST GOVERN M.E NTS ARE NOT SLAVES .

The falsity of the philosophy of slavery demonstrated by the facts in the general government of the United States — And the state governments — Particularly that of the slaveholding states refutes the "philosophy" — God has excluded slavery from all the relations he has ordained, and the governments he has formed, for human society — Under just governments subordinates are parties in forming their relations — The system of slavery allows no such right — Just governments protect the reciprocal rights of subordinates and superiors — Slavery provides no such protection, but degrades the slave to a level with the beast — Just governments elevate their subjects — The system of slavery depresses and ruins its victims 71-105

Letter V. Erroneous Definition Of Natural Rights Exposed

Doctrine of natural rights — Men concede some rights, under legitimate governments, to secure protection in the use of others — Argument defective in changing the terms in the premises and the conclusion — Natural rights are the good — The good is natural EIGHTS — The will of God not the rule of right only as it conforms to what is right in itself independent of the Divine will — The fal-

CONTENTS. 7

sity and absurdity of these doctrines — The cause of slavery demands this denial of the sovereign will — "Extreme form of despotism the natural right of infants and slaves" — The whole position false Pagks 106-128

Letter VI. The True Character Of Natural Rights Opposed To Slavery

The intellectual and moral constitution of man opposed to the idea of property — God has not recognized him as property, nor authorized others to do so — The true relation and claims of justice and benevolence — The development, maturity, and use of man's natural powers, intellectual, moral, and physical, utterly incompatible with the claims and operations of slavery 129-147

Letter VII

FALSE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL R I GH T S A P PL I E D T O GOVERNMENT.

*^ The doctrines of natural rights applied to government" — The depravity of man is merely deprivation — Man's " lower physical nature " at war with his " pure intelligence " — According to this doctrine the work of conversion must be performed on the body, and not the soul — Slaves must be placed under an extreme despotism, to prevent the destruction of their liberty, by the law of habit — The remedy worse than the evil — The assumed analogy between the condition of infants and that of slaves false and absurd — The system of slavery makes '* savages " of slaves, and then, because they are such, claims the right to enslave them , 148-166

Letter VIII

THE ASSUMPTION THAT BECAUSE GOD SANC- TIONS CIVIL GOVERNMENT HE SANCTIONS SLAVERY, EXPOSED.

God sanctions human governments, and human governments sanction slavery ; therefore God sanctions slavery — The absurdity exposed — The true state of the case — Patriarchal slavery considered — Slavery among the Jews in the days of the Savior examined — The supposed allusions to slavery among the Jews in the parables and discourses of the Savior — Though slaves are not literally "brutes," the slave laws treat them all as property 167-186

CONTENTS.

Letter IX. Slavery Legalized By The Length Of Time

IT HAS EXISTED IN THE COUNTRY,

EXPOSED.

Slavery legalized and rendered morally right by the length of time which has elapsed since its introduction into this country — The utter falsity of the position exposed — No analogy between robbing others of their lands, and robbing men of their liberty — Time may legalize land titles, but can never give one man the right of property in another — The African slave-trade was originated and sustained by public opinion in Great Britain and America, therefore it was morally right — On this principle every practice, however vile and corrupt, that public opinion sustains is morally right — The idea that the African slave-trade was a " missionary Godsend" intensely absurd Pages 187-212

Letter X. Government Suited To The Slaves In This Country

The form of government suited to the slaves in this country — It must be either a military or patriarchal despotism — Slaveholders the only persons competent to judge — The right of property is the issue — Slaveholders being a party have no right to decide the question — " The necessity of the institution of domestic slavery " — As the north have not allowed the Africans among them political equality, the south have a right to enslave the Africans among them — The free people of color have not materially improved their condition — Slavery is the natural state of the Africans — The history of Liberia contradicts these positions 213-237

Letter XI. Emancipation And Education Doctrines Ofslavery Exposed

*' Emancipation doctrines discussed" — Emancipation in every form opposed — The domestic element in the system of slavery the agent in civilizing the slaves — Under this domestic element they were uncivilized two centuries ago, and they are yet uncivilized — How long will it take to civilize them under the same system ? — " Teach-

CONTENTS. 9

ing the slaves to read and -write " — The education of the slaves is incompatible with the "vigorous operation of the principle of slavery " — The slaves must not be taught to read — The means employed to strengthen and perpetuate slavery may in the end destroy it Pages 238-257

Letter XII

FRATERNAL SPIRIT OF ROMANISM AND SLAV- ERY — DUTIES OF MASTERS TO SLAVES.

'* The conservative influence of the African population on tho south " — The south may be called upon to protect the liberties of the north — The north will never be called on to protect the south — The probabilities reversed — The analogy and sympathy between Romanism and American slavery — In the event of revolu-" tion — The case of foreign-born citizens and that of the slaves contrasted — " The duties of masters to their slaves " — Some good advice — Will not be likely to be observed — Incongruities — Absurdities 258-278

Letter XIII. The Old Testament And Slavery

The system of American slavery examined in the light of the Old Testament Scriptures — Abraham and slavery — Slavery and the Decalogue — The Hebrew code and slavery — The twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus and slavery — If slavery existed among the Hebrews with the Divine approbation, it was either a part of their institutions, or it was not — If the latter, slavery is not honest in quoting it as a part of their code — If the former, it was abolished by Divine authority with their whole system, and can afford no support to slavery 279-309

Letter XIV. The New Testament And Slavery

Slavery examined by the New Testament — The doctrines and teaching of Christ — Condemned by both — The moral principles he established if obeyed would annihilate slavery — The doctrines and teachings of the apostles — The same result — Servitude among the Jews in the time of Christ and his apostles — Let as many servants as are under the yoke, examined 310-328

10 CONTENTS.

Letter XV. The Spirit And Design Of The Gospel And Slavery

Does the spirit and genius of the Gospel sustain slavery? — Men sustain individual relations, and owe individual duties to God which allow of no substitute — The Gospel recognizes these relations, and requires the discharge of the duties — The Gospel is opposed to every practice and institution, whatever may be its name or character, that impedes its progress, resists its influence, or hinders its intended results — Slavery is chargeable with resisting the Gospel in all these respects — It shuts out light from the minds of its subjects — Keeps them in ignorance — Desecrates all the domestic relations — Degrades men to the condition of brutes — The Gospel assails it in every element and from every point — The conflict is hastening to an issue — The system must perish, or Divine judgments visit the nation Pages 329-348

Letter XVI. Slavery A National Sin National Re- Sponsibility

Treatment of the system in the future — Must be confined to its present limits — Is a national sin — The free states have patronized and sustained it by consuming its products — Moral responsibilities of the free states — They can prevent its extension — The Christian and civilized world should protest against the desecration of the law of marriage among the slaves — No slaveholder should bo allowed membership in the Church, or Christian communion, till he denounces the desecration, and uses his influence to correct it — The slave children should be educated — The free states should aid in this work — All children born of slave parents should be free — The free states and general government should provide some compensation for those who arc willing to emancipate their slaves on reasonable terms — The nation through the general government should aid and colonize all who wish to go to Africa — This process would relieve this nation from the present evils and threatened calamities of slavery, and enlighten, redeem, and save Africa 349-369

REVIEW

OF THE

LECTURES OF DR. SMITH

Letter I. Introductory

The claims set up for slavery will awaken opposition to the system — Individuals not responsible for the system — Difference between the case of individuals and that of the system — If the principle of slavery being more firmly fixed in the south than ever before, is evidence of the purity of the system, the fact of the increasing and settled opposition to it in the north is equally clear proof of its corruption — The fact that the influence of slavery has increased in despite of opposition, no more proves that it is morally right than the same thing proves that intemperance and profanity are morally right — Its progress is attributable alone to its commercial value, and not to its moral purity or worth.

Rev. Dr. W. A. Smith, — I have just finished the third careful reading of your '^Philosophj and Practice of Slavery ;''* and as it is not always vanity in authors to desire to know something of the opinion of their readers, and presuming that you are not singular in that respect, I have concluded

to submit to you some of my views of your book;

and as you have given us your late work in the form of lectures, I have, in my strictures on it, chosen the epistolary form. I have long desired to see the subject of which you treat discussed by some one of the ablest Christian philosophers and scholars of the south, but have not been gratified till I obtained your work. And though I may differ from you on most of the material points discussed, I shall take pleasure in awarding to you full praise on all in which I may beheve your ingenious and learned labors may serve the cause of truth and righteousness. And I will here say, in general terms, if your book should be generally read by the American people, I think it will do much good. First It will correct the errors of those who suppose, and teach, that there are but few or no difficulties in the way of slavery emancipation. However your imagination may have led you astray on some features of the subject, you have furnished facts and reasons sufficient to convince reasonable men that there are real embarrassments in the case, which require the best judgment of the ablest and best men in the land to surmount. But the difficulties are not insuperable. Secondly. Your book will do good in another way. It will confirm the doubts of many of that numerous class in the south, of whom you speak, that the moral character of the system of slavery is questionable, if it does not convince them that the system is really indefensible on moral and Christian principles. Thirdly. It will also diminish the confidence of some of the friends of the system, when they see that a man of your talents, learning, and zeal has to leave the morality of the system so obscure, and the system itself so vulnerable to attack at all its vital points ; but, fourthly, your book will operate powerfully in another direction.

The character you give to slavery; the ^'despotism" you claim for the system; the demands set up for its unhmited extension; the ofiensive insinuations that where it does not exist civilization is defective; the invidious comparisons of the free white laboring classes with slaves; the superior intelligence and civilization claimed for owners — all this, and much more of similar character, in connection with your high position in the south, and the fact that the southern press, secular and religious, has indorsed your book as a fair exponent of the system and of southern views of the subject, will appeal to the moral sense, Christianity, patriotism, and self-respect of every friend of liberty, to resist such despotic claims and the system in which this "extreme despotism" is inherent. This spirit, when fully developed and organized — and your book will contribute no httle to its consummation — will say to the system, "Thus far shalfc thou come and no further," be the consequences what they may. I fully agree with you when you say, "The duty of thoroughly investigatmg it" — the system of American slavery — "seems to be laid upon the country as a moral necessity." (Page 29.) I have long entertained similar views, amounting almost to a conviction of duty, but from a love of peace, and because a suitable occasion did not present itself, I have deferred it till the present. When I read your " Philosophy and Practice of Slavery," and saw the high grounds taken, the enormous claims set up for the system, the fearless manner in which you had executed your work in condemning the pulpit, denouncing doctors, reproving statesmen, and "teaching senators wisdom," I felt that the occasion was such as to justify me in "showing my opinion." From my personal acquaintance with you, and knowing your firmness in maintaining what you believe to be right, and that you concede to an opponent all that you would claim for yourself, I had no fears that you would abandon the true issue, though your system might be sorely pressed, or that you would seek rehef in pubhc sympathy in a defeat, on the assumption that an antagonist was personal or severe. To these general remarks I will add, that while I entertain a high regard for you personally, I shall investigate the system of American slavery with a plainness, candor, and firmness; bearing, I hope, some proportion to the importance of the question. I may not, however, follow you in consecutive order through your lectures, as there is much in them that, whether true or false, does not affect the cardinal principles of the system. All that is important I design to examine.

Your first lecture, which is introductory to your main design, contains some things deserving of notice, though not essential to the real issue. To the inquiry, ^^Is the institution of domestic slavery sinful?" you answer: "The affirmative assumes that an immense community of southern people, of undoubted piety, are, nevertheless, involved in great moral deUnquency on the subject of slavery." (Page 12.) Many of your readers, less acquainted with you than myself, will suspect that you designed to prejudice the true issue by an appeal to the sympathies and prejudices of the south. While 1 do not charge you with any thing of the kind, I have no doubt that such appeals have done much to hinder an impartial investigation of the system of American slavery. The logic of this quotation is — if the system of slavery is sinful, then every one who holds a slave is a sinner; but many slaveholders in the south are pious, therefore it is absurd to suppose that slavery is morally wrong. Again, you claim in behalf of the piety of the south — you certainly mean the truly Christian part of community — that if they considered slavery to be wrong they could rid themselves of it. " If government be, as it undoubtedly is, the agent of the people, and the people choose, they are certainly competent by this agent to free themselves from this institution." (Page 13.) This reasoning is capitally defective on two main points ; and if it does not excite the prejudices of the south, neither will it relieve the scruples of the conscientious and candid, nor enlighten either the south or the north. 1. Your argument requires you to assume that the converted and Scripturally pious portion of the south have it in their power to "free themselves from the institution of slavery," by changing the laws and government. This is not true, and never was the fact. Then we can easily perceive that the system of slavery may be sinful, and Christian people be involved in the evil consequences without being sinners merely on that account; just as a government may engage in a system of sinful war, and thereby involve its innocent subjects in the evils, without those evils they, as individuals, may have to endure for a time constituting them sinners. Christians in the south, as is the fact elsewhere, as Christians^ have no control over the civil institutions of the state.

whether sinful or righteous. If sinful, they may have to suffer many evils under them before they are changed; but, as citkens, under free governments such as ours, they are, in proportion to their number and influence, in that degree responsible for the character of the civil institutions of the state ; and if they are involved in the sin of corrupt institutions, it is not for bearing with Christian patience the evils they, as individuals^ and as Christians, can not control, but for not exerting their influence as Christian citizens to correct the sinful institutions of the state.

What the responsibilities of Christian citizens in the south are in regard to the system of slavery I shall not stop now to inquire. But if you say your argument does not assume that the Christians — the truly pious — in the south have the power to free themselves from slavery by changing the government, then the piety of southern Christians is thrown out of the c^uestionj and the case fafls under the head of southern politics; and your reference to the piety of Christians in the south was not only irrelevant and altogether useless, but unfortunate, and may excite prejudices that will prevent, instead of aid, a sober judgment in the case. A second and stifl more serious defect in your position is, you wholly ignore the radical distinction between the system of slavery, as such, and the case of individuals holding slaves under the system, and treat the subject as if the individual case contained all that is embodied in the system. By this process it would seem to be your design to extort the concession that the system is morally rights or to require that each individual who holds slaves under the system should be denounced as a sinner; neither of which well-informed Christians will do. Your dilemma may embarrass some minds till the light of facts renders it harmless. That there is a plain distinction between the system of slavery and the case of individuals holding slaves under that system you will not deny; but as others less informed may deny it, I submit a few remarks on it here.

By the system, I mean that government in a state or community which authorizes the holding of slaves as property within the limits of such state. By the ease of individuals. I mean such persons as, in their individual character, hold slaves under the provisions of that system. From this view it is seen at once that the system, as such, and the case of an individual under the s}^tem are widely-different things. 1. The system must exist as a code before any one can become a slaveholder by its authority. 2. Individuals may change their relations to the system by being slaveholders to-day, and to-morrow disposing of them, thereby becoming non-slaveholders, while the system remains perfectly unchanged ; whereas, if the two were not entirely distinct, to change the one would equally change the other. 3. The system may contain principles and powers which individuals may never use or exercise. There are other points of difference between the system and individuals equally clear, but these are sufficient to remove all doubts of the fact. No right-minded man believes that the mere legal relation of owner and slave is, under all circumstances, in itself sinful ; for, if it were, as men are frequently brought into this legal relation by the '^operation of law" without their knowledge or consent, the absurdity would follow that the system could make men sinners whenever it pleased, without any action or will of their own ! In the light of these facts it can easily be seen, that although the system may be sinful^ men may be involved in the evil as individuals, without being sinners on that account merely, if they do not use its sinful powers, and if they sustain the legal relation, in the fear of God, as the best they can do for the slave and themselves for the time being, with a view to his ultimate freedom, and if they use their influence as citizens that all bad laws and systems may be corrected or substituted by those that are just and right. I can but regret that 3^ou thought it necessary to connect a defense of the purity and justice of the system of American slavery with the piety of southern Christians; for while, from my personal knowledge of both, I highly appreciate the piety of many in the south who sustain this relation, I am bound by the same principle of candor to oppose the system as corrupt and sinful.

Having shown that your appeal in behalf of the piety of Christians in the south was wholly unnecessary, and, also, that the merits of the question — whether the system of American slavery is sinful or not — has nothing to do with the piety or impiety of individuals, I proceed to notice some other matters on which you seem to rely with considerable confidence, before I come to examine your main positions in support of the system of slavery. I shall not notice here your charges against Jefferson and the Methodist Episcopal Churcli for their opposition to slavery, as the principles involved will be fully examined in another place. It is true, indeed, that the doctrines antagonistic to slavery, emanating from these and kindred sources, have been, and still are "inculcated from professors' chairs," as you say, and by a thousand other agencies, till the American mind is deeply imbued with them; and you have borne testimony that this feeling in favor of liberty and against slavery is not confined to "the north,"

but lias taken deep hold on the minds of many in the south. You appear, however, to comfort yourself and those of your school — I do not mean the literary institution over which you preside with so much ability, but fro'slavcry men both north and south — with the asBiimption that "slavery by reason of causes which are evidently, though mysteriously, at work, is this day more firmly grounded in the confidence of the great mass of the southern people, and more extensively ramified and interlocked with other civil institutions of the ivhoh country, than at any former period of its history!" (Page 23.) In this you evidently intend to implicate divine Providence in favor of the system of American slavery. Hence you add, " Truly this is a phenomenon for which the philosophy of the day will not account." And assuming also that the "fixed" fact of slavery, as now existing in the country, can not be accounted for on the supposition that the system is wrong — is sinful — you kindly furnish a key to unlock the mystery; namely, that the system of slavery, "so potent in practical results, and so heedless of the fierce war that is waged against it, is, after all, underlaid hj a vast mine of principle — pure, essential truthr (Page 28.)

Now, if the assumed or real prosperity of slavery can be clearly accounted for without any such mysterious interference of Providence, as you suppose, and if the system has no such foundation in either truth or righteousness as is claimed for it, to say the least, a beautiful conclusion will be totally spoiled! You have attempted to throw an awe and mystery around slavery that have no existence in fact. It is said an argument that proves too much proves nothing; your process of reasoning and assuming will prove almost all the wickedness in the world to be equally as pious as the system of slavery. For example, the manufacture, vending, and use of ardent spirits have been opposed by the best men and brightest talents of the nation; have been assailed from the pulpit, the bar, and the bench; by the press, secular and religious; by deliberative bodies, ecclesiastical and civil ; by prohibitory laws and heavy penalties, and still the business — "so potent in practical results, and so heedless of the fierce war waged against it" — has gone on with increasing velocity^ destroying domestic peace, making widows and orphans, producing poverty and ignorance, staining the land with tears and blood, and bearing its victims to eternity at the rate of fifty thousand a year, till it has slain its millions — still it "is a great practical truth, a fixed fact in the country 1" and "is this day more firmly grounded," . . . "ramiQed and interlocked with" the articles of trade, and used as a beverage in "the whole country, than at any former period of its history!"