THE
DISCUSSION
BETWEEN
REV. JOEL PARKER, AND REV. A. ROOD,
ON THE QUESTION
"TT'HAT ARE  THE  EVILS INSEPARABLE
FRAOf SLAVERY,"
WHICH WAS REFERRED TO BY MRS. STOWE, IN
"UNCLE TOM'S CABIN."
RPeprinted from the Philadelphia Christian Observer of 1846.
NEW YORK:.
S. W. BENEDICT, 16 SPRUCE ST,
PHILADELPHIA: JL HOOKER.
1852.  
7-",, - 4,/
i
b, 
I
IT is proposed in the publication of this pamphlet to
afford the public an opportunity of judging of the merits
of the unhappy controversy which has grown out of a paragraph from the pen of the Rev. JOEL PARKER, D.D., and
referred to by Mrs. Stowe on page 191 of " Uncle Tom's
Cabin." The facts, concisely stated, are the following. In
the autumn of 1846, the Rev. Mr. ROOD, in his weekly correspondence to the New York Evangelist, wrote an article
reviewing the action of the Synod of Virginia on the subject of Slavery.  The Synod saw fit to animadvert with
some severity upon the resolutions passed by the General
Assembly at their session in Philadelphia, May preceding,
reprobating the system of Slavery, and urging all those
connected with it to make prompt and strenuous efforts to
"unbind the heavy burdens" and to secure liberty to
"those who are bound." Mr. Rood, in a kind and temperate article, as will be seen by its perusal, defended the
course of the General Assembly, and used the following
language: "The mass of Northern Christians will sustain
the principles embodied in the Declaration of the last
Assembly on Slavery.  On this subject there is not the
slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and honesty to our 
INTRODUCTION.
Southern brethren to say so." Dr. Parker, in view of this
paragraph and some others which he regarded as exceptionable, shortly after addressed a communication to Mr.
Rood through the columns of the Phtladelphia Clristian
Observe', with the caption, "The Philadelphia Correspondent of the Evanyeli8t on the Synod of Virginia's resolutions
on Slavery."   This opened a discussion between these
gentlemen which ran through a period of sixteen weeks.
Dr. Parker took the signature, " O. R. Meridionus," and
Mr. Rood. "The Correspondent of the N.Y. Evangelist."
In Dr. Parker's second Number  is found the famous
paragraph which was copied in the public prints extensively in this country, and found its way to England, and
everywhere was subjected to severe criticism and unsparing censure.  The interpretation which Dr. Parker's respondent in the controversy put upon it will be abundantly
apparent to every reader. It will not be denied too that
Dr. Parker was fully aware that he was very extensively
understood  in that paragraph as uttering a sentiment
which grieved and offended a great multitude of good
people, and that he never took one step to modify or
explain his statement till eight weeks after the publication
of "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
The introduction of the paragraph embodied in Mrs.
Stowe's work was in good faith, and without the slightest
suspicion that they were not the exact words used by Dr.
Parker in his controversy.  I-ow, when, or where the alteration was made, we have no means of ascertaining. That
the public may understand the exact state of the case, we
put in parallel columns the language quoted by Mrs.
Stowe and the language really used by Dr. Parker.
iv 
INTRODUCTION.
UNCLE TOM'S CABIN.
Slavery  has  " no evils but
such as are inseparable from
any other relation in social and
domestic life."
DR. PARKER.
" What, then, are the evils inseparable from  Slavery?  There
is not one that is not equally inseparable from depraved human
nature in other lawful relations."
It is due to Dr. PARKER to state that he claims that the
language used by him is so modified and explained by its
connection that it does not convey the sentiment which has
been attributed to him. The correspondence now spread
before the public will enable them to form a correct judgment on the merits of the case.
THE PUBLISHER.
NEW YORK, Nov. 9,1852.
V 
I 
'n.eS~loR gl
[MR. ROOD TO THE NEW YORK EVANGELlST.]
SYNOD OF VIRGINIA ON SLAVERY.
PHILADELPHIA, NOV. 23, 1846.
MR. EDITOR:-It is a coincidence that cannot fail to attract observation, and furnish matter of grave reflection,
that the "friendly address fiom British Christians to the
ministers and elders of the American Presbyterian Church,
who bore a faithful testimony against slavery in the late
General Assembly at Philadelphia," should be spread before the public almost simultaneously with the "action of
the Synod of Virginia," in which the subject of slavery, as
treated and disposed of by the General Assembly, is pronounced "wrong in principle, wrong in measure, and violent
action upon a subject over-pressed."  Ill the "Address from
British Christians," it is said, "Ardently do we desire your
encouragement in your praiseworthy career; most silncerely do we appreciate your Christian testimony to the
essential sinfulness of slaveholding."  In another part, "We
beseech you, dear brethren, to persevere in your righteous
agitation, till the object be achieved. Cease not to expose
the enormity of the crime of buying and selling a fellowcreature; of reducing a human being endued with an immortal soul, to the level of an ox or an ass. Stand fast
by that clause of your declaration which asserts that Ame 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
rican slavery is intrinsically an unrighteous and oppressive
system, opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to
the spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and to the best interests of humanity."
In the action of the Synod of Virginia, it is said, " We
are sorry to be compelled to say, that in our judgment
no spirit of our day bears the stamp of fanaticism more
broad and deep, than does the abolitionism of our
times."  In another part, "In our judgment, our abolition
brethren should forthwith abandon their violent and dictatorial bearing.  They possess no moral right to teach us.
They have no moral power to carry out their counsels.
The efforts of the abolitionist will but blind and beat back
the mind he seeks to instruct and advance."
These paragraphs sufficiently indicate the whole tenor
aud spirit of the document sent forth by the Synod of Virginia. The fact that the late action of the General Assembly was the thing aimed at by the Synod, indicates, beyond mistake, their meaning of the term "abolitionism."
It is the testimony borne - against slavery as "an unright.
eous and oppressive system," against which they publish
their protest.  They say, "though much disputed, various
expressions in the resolutions of the Assembly clearly indicate the doctrine of the essential sinfulness of the relation
of master and servant, while the general bearing of the resolutions as clearly establishes this interpretation."  The
question is thus pressed to an issue, not whether the great
bodv of Christians at the North sanction the violent measures and vituperative denunciations of a few, who are represented as saying, "We  have exhausted the argument
with the slaveholder, and must now try the virtue of cold
steel!" On this point there can be no mistake. Our
Southern brethren must know that the great mass of Christians in the non-slaveholding States give no countenance to
the mad projects of a few who would "call down fire from
heaven" upon those who will not submit to their dicta
8 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
tion. Identity with them is not the question forced upon
us by the action of the Synod of Virginia. But it is thiswhether the mass of Northern Christians will sustain the
.rinciples embodied in the declaration of the last Assembly
on the subject of slavery. On this point there is not the
slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and honesty to our
Southern brethren explicitly to say so. The Assembly
would jeopard its existence if it should take one retrograde
step. They will never say less than that American slavery
is "opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to the
spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and to the best interests
of humanity."
Deeply do I regret the action of the Synod of Virginia.
I fear its stupefying influence upon the conscience of slaveholders. A body of Christian ministers and elders ought
not, by implication, to throw their influence into the scale
of oppression.  I know they intended no such thing, but
their earnest remonstrance against the action of the Assembly will, I fear, have this effect.  Those who are determin ed to maintain the system of slavery will be encouraged in
their efforts by what they will claim to be the support of our
good brethren of the Synod of Virginia. Apart from the
raving of mad fanatics, there is a deep and growing con viction of the unutterable abominations of slavery, and an
increasing determination not to rest until this foul blot is
wiped away from the church, and a jubilee is proclaimed
throughout the land. These are the views, the feelings,
and the purposes of a great majority of the wisest and best
men in the non-slaveholding States. Our brethren at the
South ought to be apprised of this as settled, unchanging
truth.
Yours,
9 
DISOUSSION ON SLAYERY.
[DR. PARKER'S FIRST LETTER.]
THE PlTILADELPHIA CORRESPONDENT OF " THE EVAN
GELIST" ON THE SYNOD OF VIRGINIA'S RESOLU   TIONS ON SLAVERY.
MR. EDITOR:-The correspondent referred to at
the head of this article, has assumed to speak for
" the mass of Northern Christians on the subject of
slavery."  He says that they "will sustain the principles embodied in the declaration of the last Assembly on the subject of slavery. On this subject there
is not the slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and
honesty to our Southern brethren to say so." Has
the Philadelphia correspondent counted the cost of
such a declaration as this?
By the principles referred to, I understand him to
mean all the principles embodied in the declaration
of the last Assembly. If he says that all he means
to allege is that Northern Christians will be content
to see a resolution passed declaring that " American
slavery is opposed to the prescriptions of the law of
God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and to
the best interests of humanity," for one, I shall not
dispute him.  But why are they content with this?
Because nothing more is meant by this wordy sentence, than to declare that slavery, as a political institute, is a bad thing, and that Christianity tends to
induce a better state of society than can consist with
slavery. The greater portion of thinking minds will
cheerfully admit this and more too. The gospel will
probably one day introduce such political and social
10 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
arrangements into existence, as would cause us to
look on every government now existing, as dark and
sinful-as very far gone from original righteousness.
But the correspondent means more than this. He
quotes from the paper issued by the Synod of Virginia, the clause in which they say, " Though much
disputed, various expressions in the resolutions of
the Assembly clearly indicate the doctrine of the
essential sinfulness of the relation of master and servant, while the general bearing of the resolution as
clearly establishes this interpretation." From the
connection in which the correspondent has quoted
this, and from the part which he has quoted in the
language of the Assembly itself, it is evident that he
means to assert that the mass of Northern Christians
will sustain this censure on slave-holdirig as being in it.
self a sin. There is an expression in the Assembly's
document which implies that the holding of a slave
is a sin.  It is this.  "We would not undertake to
determine the degree of moral turpitude on the part of
individuals involved by it," (slavery.)
This language implies that the Assembly  has
judged every man who holds a slave as being thereby
rendered culpable. So the Synod of Virginia understand this expression in connection with the statement quoted by the correspondent of the Evangelist,
and cited above.
The fact is, the Assembly both maintains and denies that slavery is a sin in itself. In the passages
above referred to, if taken together, it maintains it.
In the following passages it denies it. They say,
"We cannot pronounce a judgment of general and
promiscuous condemnation, implying that destitution of Christian principle and feeling which should
11 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
exclude from the table of the Lord, all who stand in
the legal relation of masters to slaves; or justify us
in withholding our ecclesiastical and Christian fellowship from them."  Again, "We have no right to
institute and prescribe tests of Christian character
and church membership, not recognized and sanctioned in the sacred Scriptures, and in our standards," &c. This language plainly implies that the
Scriptures and our standards do not treat the holding of slaves as a sin. Allow me, through your columns, to ask the correspondent of the Evatyelist one
or two plain questions:  1. Do you assert that the great mass of Northern
Christians hold that it is a sin for a man to own a
slave?  Please take notice that my question is not.
whether it be a sin to c(Juse a slave.  On that point,
you well kinow that there is no difference between
yourself and your Southern brethren. Nor is it a
question whether a master is bound benevolently to
seek the good of his poor slave, as truly as it is your
duty to seek the good of your poor neighbor. But
do Northern Christians hold, that it is a sin for a
man to own a slave?
2. Dare you, or any of your brethren, who agree
with you, in the city of Philadelphia, maintain in the
presence of "the mass of Northern Christians' in
your own churches, that " the owning of a slave is a
sin"?  I am sure you dare not.  You can talk about
"the abominations of slavery " —  that horrible system," &c., &e., because you know full well that no
Christian people, North or South, love slavery. But
"the great mass of Northern Christians" believe
that our Southern brethren are unjustly censured,
that while men like the correspondent of the Evan
12 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
gelist, do not descend to the billingsgate abuse of
Garrison, they cautiously and gently insinuate the
same doctrines, thus condemning the righteous and
justifying the wicked.  I assert, then, without the
least fear of contradiction by "the great mass of
Northern Christians," that while they would be glad,
almost as glad as their Southern brethren, to see
slavery removed from our land, yet they "will [not]
sustain the principles embodied in the declaration of
the last Assembly," so far as those pri;,zc2ples teach tibe
the holcieig of a slave is a sin, "and it is but kindness
and honesty to our Southern brethren to say so."
I1 am, AIr. Editor, your obedient servant,
0o R.t. MERIDIONUS.
13 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[MR. ROOD'S REPLY.]
REPLYF TO " O. R. MERIDIONUS."
MR. EDITOR,-The communication of your correspondent fell under my observation in good time.
I need make no apology in furnishing a reply. I
had a perfect right to review "the action of the
Synod of Virginia, on the subject of slavery," and
"Meridionus" had an equally perfect right to pen his
strictures, which you have published. I am a strong
advocate of the doctrine of free discussion; and if I
am unable to maintain my positions, I have no foolish
pride in abandoning them.
I said in my letter to the Evangelst, "the mass of
Northern Christians will sustain the prfnctples embodied in the declaration of the last Assembly on
slavery. On this subject there is not the slightest
doubt; and it is but kindness and honesty to our
Southern brethren to say so."  "Meridionus" asks,
"Has  the Philadelphia correspondent counted the
cost of such a declaration as this?" This much I
can say, that nothing has as yet appeared, which induces a suspicion of the correctness of the sentiment
I advanced.  I do not say that the mass of Northern
Christians will sustain the doctrine which "Meridionus" claims is taught in the action of the Assembly,
to wit: that "slave-holding is itself necessarily a sin."
He travels beyond the record, and draws unwarranted
inferences, and then endeavors to hold me responsible
for the creations of his own fancy. Hence, he says,
14 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
"-the great mass of Northern Christians believe that
our Southern brethren are unjustly censured-that
while men like the correspondent of the -Evangelist
do not descend to the billingsgate abuse of Garrison,
they cautiously and gently insinuate the same doc trines; thus condemning the righteous, and justifying
the wicked." I trust I shall be able to show, that
this is quite gratuitous, and without any just founda tion. Can nothing be said in opposition to slavery,
without incurring the charge of fanaticism, and
joining hands with reckless men, who glory most
when they are most abusive and denunciatory? Is
there no conservative ground on which the opposers
of slavery can stand, and fearlessly exhibit its enormities? Are Wilberforce and Clarkson to be identified with George Thompson, in England; or Dr.
Hawes and Mr. Barnes to be charged with the indiscretions and sins of Wm. L. Garrison, in this country?
Cannot men of prudence and piety bear their testimony against slavery, without being held responsible
for the fierce denunciations of those to whomn they
give no countenance, and with whom they have no
fellowship?  There is a foundation on which all good
men can stand, in their war against slavery, that is
entirely exempt from the charge of fanaticism, and
proscription, and denunciation.  These are not the
weapons which my views of the teaching and the
spirit of the gospel lead me to select. And yet, according to your correspondent, my principles would
place me in the same category with men who are distinguished chiefly for the use of vile epithets and billingsgate abuse. I protest against a representation
so unfounded and unjust.
I plant myself on the broad position of the General
15 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
Assembly, that the system of slavery as it exists in
this country, "is opposed to the prescriptions of the
law of God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel,
and to the best interests of humanity."   By  the
system of slavery, I mean an assemblage of things
pertaining to it, adjusted into a regular whole-or
the whole plan or scheme of human servitude, consisting of many parts, and connected in such a manner, as to create a chain of mutual dependencies.
The working of this system is proved, by an experience of more than half a century, to be fraught
with the most disastrous consequences —socially,
politically, and morally. If a tree is known by its
fruits, it is quite certain that this is a deadly Upas,
sending forth putrid and poisonous exhalations in
every direction. All good men ought to unite in
"hewing it down, and casting it into the fire."
But are there not good men so environed with the
difficulties which this system throws around them,
that they cannot, at once, extricate themselves from
its blighting influence? Are there not men, who
hold the legal relation of masters, in conformity with
the great law of love? I have no doubt of it; nor
have I ever said any thing to the contrary. The
General Assembly do not teach any doctrine at war
with this sentiment. The representation of your correspondent, that the " Assembly both mnain,tains and
denies that slavery is a sin in itself," is entirely erroneous.  Their action is consistent, and no mystification or special pleading can show it to be otherwise.
They did, indeed, intend to discriminate between the
system, and those Christian brethren who are, of niecessity, involved in its evil workings, and deplore its
bitter fruits, and are sincerely laboring and praying
16 
DiSCX5SiON ON SLaERY.
for its subversion.  In regard to these, they say in
the spirit of kindness and benevolence which the
gospel requires, "we cannot pronounce a judgment
of general and promiscuous condemnation, implying
that destitution of Christian principle and feeling
which should exclude from the table of the Lord all
who stand in the legal relation of masters to slaves;
or justify us in withholding our ecclesiastical and
Christian fellowship from them." This is perfectly
consistent with the declaration, that " American
slavery is opposed to the prescriptions of the law of
God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and to
the best interests  of humanity."  Good men are
placed by it in circumstances of great difficulty and
trial.  But if they hold the system in righteous abhorrence, and labor in the best way they can for its
subversion, I do not withhold from them Christian
sympathy and fellowship. I have never advocated
such a sentiment, nor " cautiously and gently insinuated doctrines which condemn the righteous and
justify the wicked."  The "one or two plain questions" of your correspondent are thus, I trust, answered to his satisfaction.  If there are those who
teach that " the holding of a slave is necessarily a
sin," I am not of the number. And yet I have no
doubt of the entire truth of my remark, on which
your correspondent joins issue, that "the mass of
Northern Christians will sustain the princi1es embodied in the declaration of the last Assembly, on the
subject of slavery."  Why should they not?  Every
new development of the system. fastens the stamp of
reprobation more deeply upon it. The more good
men see of it, the more settled and determined is
their opposition to it.
.17 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
And then, we have occasional testimony from the
South, confirming all our impressions of the mischief
and misery induced by its prevalence. In a recent
conversation with an intelligent educated gentleman
from a slave-holding State, whose permanent residence is there, he said, (I give his exact language,)
"The  system of slavery is most unquestionably  a
leaden weight upon all the institutions of the South,
political, civil, and religious. It is an incubus that
broods over, and to no inconsiderable extent, paralyzes the energies of both Church and State, and in
its domestic relations, it is a fearful evil." Testimony
like this, it will be very difficult to invalidate, for it
is given with a personal knowledge of the working
of the system,  and  under  strong motives to bear
counter testimony.
I was amused at the adroitness of the remark of
your correspondent, that the mnass of Northern
Christians would be glad, almost as glad as their
ASouthern brethren, to see slavery removed fromn our
land." I suppose he intended this as a playful,
ironical suggestion, in view of what he regards the
over-zealous efforts of some Northern Christians in
relation to this subject. I am well aware that our
Southern brethren are placed in exceedingly trying,
embarrassing circumstances. But they are not re lieved by such action as that taken by the Synod of
Virginia.  The aid proffered by your correspondent,
does not meet the emergency of the case. The diffi culty must be manfully met-not by checking and
removing the evils which are said to be incidental to
slavery, but by a resolute, united effort to subvert
the system itself. The incidental evils are part and
parcel of the thing, and can never be separated from it.
18 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
i admit this is the appropriate business of our
Southern brethren, and it was because, as it seemed
to me, they were diverting themselves from the grand
object which should engage their attention, and
urging a false issue, that I ventured to pen my strictures, of which "Meridionus" complains.
THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N.Y. EVANGELIST.
19 
!DI.Ct%IONI ON.SLAVERY.
LDR. PARKER.]
THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST
A GAIN.
MR. EDITOR -I am exceedingly gratified with the
reply of the Correspondent of the Evangei?st to my
communication. I think any one who will read
carefully his review of the action of the Synod of
Virginia, on slavery, and my former strictures on
that review, will clearly see that the Correspondent
did convey the idea that "slave-holding is itself necessarily a sin." But as he disclaims all intention of advancing such views, I am bound to receive his explanation. I thank him for so frank a statement of
a truth of such fundamental consequence. In a
more recent communication to the Evangelist, the
correspondent says,-" The abstract doctrine that
slavery is per se sinful, ought never to have been
broached. It is untrue, indefensible, and has done
no good, but a vast amount of mischief."
Let me say, then, to the "Correspondent," I congratulate you, my dear Sir, for the bold stand you
have taken for the truth. You will not maintain a
false principle even to emancipate slaves. That is
right. Truth is of more worth, than any thing that
can be gained by its perversion. But let me assure
you that you will be persecuted for this. You will
be called "an apologist for slavery." Still, I beg of
you to go right on, and concede every thing that is
true. If it seems to make against emancipation, still
remember that truth is better than victory. Yield
20 
DISCUSSIONS ONM SLAVERY
nothing to the charge that" you are the friend of op pression Assert your own freedom, at least, as be ing worth using when God has given it to you.  "If
thou mayest be free; use it rather."
In the last part of your reply to me, you say that
"The incidental evils [of slavery] are part and'parcel of the thing, and can never be separated from it."
Be so kind as to review this statement. I know that
the assertion makes against slavery with tremendous
power, if it be true. But, still, it is not worth maintaining, if it be not true.  What are these incidental
evils?  They are things like these.  Cruelty in punishing-insufficient provision of food and clothingseparating families by sale-neglect of instructiondisregard of marriage-and holding the relation for
the purpose of gain to the master without any respect to the interests of the slaves.
Now how does it appear that these things are inseparable from slavery? Slaves are punished by
their masters. Free blacks in Philadelphia are punished by the police. Take a thousand slaves in a
district containing that number in Virginia, and a
thousand free blacks in a district in Moyamensing,
and which suffer the greatest amount of penal evil in
a year? Look at both and then judge. Then, again,
I ask, are there not a great many humane masters
who never abuse their servants?  What is to prevent
others from doing the  same  thing?-Insufficient
food and clothing. What can prevent improvement
in this respect?  Many years ago, it was usual in
Louisiana to furnish slaves with a peck of corn a
week. It was poor fare, scarcely superior to the fare
of their ancestors in Africa, and their brethren there
to-day; and not much better than the living of our
21 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
American Indians. Now, probably there is not a
planter in Louisiana that does not furnish meat for
his servants. What is to hinder further improvements till they shall live as well as the Pennsylvania
farmers? Many do. It is in the power of masters
to promote the comfort of their slaves, and every
good man does it conscientiously.-And is separating
families by a sale a part and _parcel of the thing that
can never be separatedfroa slavery?  But it is separated from it just in proportion as men are disposed to
do their duty. A southern Christian no more thinks
of selling a slave without his consent, than a northern Christian does of failing in business as a means
of defrauding his creditors. Men that are wicked,
do wickedly in both cases. But, besides all this, a
change in the law itself is possible. Slavery has existed and does exist, where, while men have a right
to hold slaves, they have no power to sell them. This
is at least a possible amelioration of Southern slavery.
The domestic slave-trade is not inseparable from
slavery.-The disregard of the marriage relation is
not inseparable from slavery. The laws, it is true,
do not enforce matrimonial obligations, nor protect
the rights of the married. But there is nothing to hinder the religious celebration of marriage and a religious inculcation of conjugal duties. The slaves of the
South understand the relations and duties of husband
and wife, and are more strongly influenced by marriage vows, and their purity is better protected than
it was before they were in bondage among a civilized
and Christian people.   Thousands of families of
slaves are entirely secure in the enjoyment of all the
privileges of married persons, except there is a bare
possibility that through the insolvency of a master
22 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
they mnay be separated in the settlement of his estate.
Even, then, they will ordinarily be purchased by
family friends and removed by whole families.  Yet
this evil is not inseparable, for the law may be modifled.
Is neglect of instruction inseparable from slavery?
Whole  plantations are better taught,  more  thoroughly catechised in the elements of religious truth,
than an equal number of hired servants, taking a
street in course in the city of Philadelphia.  WVas
not a man bought out of bondage, and all his family,
in Alabama, a short time since, because he was a good
Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholar, and a well read
theologian?  Did not many Roman slaves become
the teachers of youth, and even authors of works,
whose classic beauties delight our Universities today?  The truth is, slaves can be taught to an indefinite extent in all those things that are of most consequence to a degraded people.  If the money that
has been expended in embittering the South by an
ill-timed and ill-natured and unjust censuring of honest men, had been employed in preaching the gospel
in the Southern country, there would have been no
complaint of the neglect of the instruction of slaves.
-But is it inseparab7,efrom slavery, that men hold the
relation for the purpose of gain to the master, without any respect to the interests of the slaves? You
have yourself conceded that it is not. You " grant
that some masters retain their slaves, not for the sake
of pecuniary gain, but from motives of benevolence"
-that "one man in a hundred or a thousand holds
slaves in harmony with the great law of love." Then,
certainly, a bad intention is not inseparable from slavery-.-a part and parcel of the thing itself  Every Chris
23 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
tian that holds a slave, holds him in harmony with
the great law of love. If you take all the rulers,
from Nimrod to Nicholas of Russia, that have governed without a written constitution, you will not
find more than one in a hundred or a thousand, that
have governed in harmony with the great law of
love. Still the holding of absolute power is not sinful in se, nor has Christianity ever aimed at the subversion of a despotic throne, as its direct object.  It
has aimed to enlighten, raise, and purify the people,
and left the improved mass of mind to assume a new
political form, corresponding with its improved character.
If we had aimed directly to change the external
structure of society in the Sandwich  Islands, we
should not have succeeded.  True, the people were
all enslaved. But their depravity, the intrinsic degradation of the race, had placed them there. They
and their despotic masters were sinners together.
We began to act on individual character.  Our
Christianity has wrought a change in individual
character.  This change is naturally expressing itself
in laws, and a written constitution, trial by jury,
&c. &c
What, then, are the evils that are inseparable from
slavery?  There is not one, that is not equally inseparable from depraved human nature in other lawful relations. It is possible for any other master to
treat his slaves as well as Abraham did his. It is
possible that a master and his slave may be both devout people.  It is possible that the one may be as
rich as Joseph of Ariniathea and as devout, and the
other may be as pious as Lazarus, and less poorly
24.-, 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
provided for, though as helpless and as full of sores,
and a slave.
Recollect, you have maintained that the subversion of the system is the only thing that can be done.
Then, is it nothing to convert and save a poor slave?
Is it nothing to instruct whole plantations in elementary religious truth?  Is it nothing to secure the
preaching of the gospel to the black population?
But you say,,c T/ie incidental evils arepaart and parcel
of the thiny itself, and can qzever be sepiarted jfi'omi it."
What vice is there that cannot be repented of and
abandoned-what virtue that cannot be cherished
and cultivated, both by slaves and their masters?
Not one.  I am sure you will recall this position, for
you love truth better than any wrong positien,
though it should seem to favor a good object.
Whether the Assembly's document has both maintained and denied that slavery is a sin in itself, I
leave to any unprejudiced reader. If the intimation,
that a "degree of moral turpitude" belongs to "the
individuals involved" in slavery is not a maintaining
that slavery is a sill in itself, then I confess I do not
understand plain English. That it is denied afterwards, is equally clear.
I am sure, it is not obvious to me why you were
amused with my  saying, that the mass of -A:orthern
Christians would be glad,, almost as glad as our Southerz brethren, to see slavery removed from our land.  I
meant it certainly as a very serious statement.; and
whatever those may think of it, who fancy they
have philanthropy to boast of, you, at least, are too
modest a man, to claim that you feel anything like
the degree of zeal for removing slavery, that the
Rev. Mfr. Stiles, of Richmnond, the Rev. Dr. Hill, of
25
2 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
Winchester, and their associates, feel in the same
work.
In conclusion, I have one word to say about "cautiously and gently insinuating the same doctrines."
I think, that the maintaining that slavery is a sin in
itself, which still appears to me to be implied in your
statement in the first article, you did maintain the
same doctrine-and if I understand the assertion,
that "The incidental evils are part and parcel of the
thing, and can never be separated from it," this is also
the same doctrine. It is a maintaining that slavery
is a complication of principles so combined, that no
moral chemistry can decompose it, and every man
that holds a bondman does, of necessity, while he
holds him, inflict an enormous wrong. This, I think,
is condemning the just. At any rate, it is so understood by Southern men.
0. R. MERIDIONUS.
26 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[MR. ROOD.]
REJOINDER TO " O. R. IERIDIONUS."
MR. EDITOR:-I have a natural aversion to controversy of any sort. My disposition, training, and
habits, make me shrink from a "war of words"
with any class of men. Phrenologists tell me that
the "bump of combativeness" is but feebly developed in my cranium. I think they must be right in
that, however defective and erroneous their general
theory may be.
Ill my review of the "action of the Synod of
Virginia on slavery," I had not the slightest anticipation of calling into the field an antagonist of so much
shrewdness and ability as "Meridionus" proves himself to be, nor indeed of provoking a reply from any
source. But I have no reason to complain of the
course of things thus far.  If I must engage in controversy, give nme for opponents such men as your
correspondent, who well understands the proprieties
of life, and is better pleased with hard arguments,
than the calling of hard names. I am fairly in for a
controversy, without suspecting it, and I shall sustain the positions I have taken, in the best way I can,
till I am convinced they are erroneous, and indefensible by sound reasoning, and the precepts and principles of the incorruptible Word.  Whenever this
conviction shall be fastened on my mind, they will
be abandoned without the slightest hesitation.   I
have no great respect for the intellect or the integrity
27 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
of a man who will maintain a position, which is
proved to be untenable, simply because he has planted himself upon it. Truth is the only thing worth an
effort to sustain and defend.  If "Meridionus" has
truth on his side, I can heartily say I wish him full
success, and a triumphant issue in this correspondence.  But if his reasoning is shrewd rather than
sound-if he teaches error, the more dangerous on
account of its plausibility; if 1he "gently and cautiously insinuates doctrines," whichl do violence to
the fundamental principles of Christian benevolence,
and nullify the golden rule laid down by our Savior,
as universal in its obligation and application-then
surely I do not wish him success, but better views on
the subject of human rights.
I have no disposition to recall, or to qualjfy my remark, that "the abstract doctrine that slavery is per
se sinful, ought never to have been broached. It is
untrue, indefensible, and has done no good, but a
vast amount of mischief."  if, as  " Meridionus"
thinks, I shall be persecuted for this, so be it. I will
not hold what I regard as a mere dogma, for the sake
of conciliating the good-will of any class of men,
however wise they may think themselves to be. I
have seen enough of certain self-styled reformners,
not to feel any apprehension that wisdom will die
with them. The world will stand, and its affairs be
very judiciously conducted, when their light shall
be put out.  "M eridionus" well understands, that I
care as little for the vituperative abuse of the class
to whom he alludes, as he does himself. But I will
not reject truth, because indiscreet and reckless men
hold it. The cause of emancipation has been sadly
retarded by the mad zeal of somne, who have forced
28 
DIOUSSION ON SLAYERY.
themselves before the public as its prominent advocates. What, then? Shall the cause be abandoned,
because it has fallen into unskillful, or, if you please,
into unscrupulous hands? Ought not greater efforts
to be made to separate truth from error, and to give
it that prominence before the Christian community,
which its intrinsic importance demands?
I come now to the main design of your correspondent, in his last communication.  It is to subvert and prove untrue the following statement of
mine, to wit, that " the Incidental evils of slavery, (,s
they are called, are part and parcel of the thing, and can
never be separated from it."  I-e says, "be so kind as
to review this statement." I have done so, with all
the caution and candor of which I am capable; but I
still believe that the statement, as I intended it should
be understood, is true, and can be successfully vindicated. I do not deny, that cruelty of treatment,
where it exists, may be corrected. Those poorly
clad and fed, may be comfortably supplied. There
are many modifications of slavery induced by humanity and the promptings of Christian kindness, while
the thing itself remains, in its withering, blighting
power. There is slavery, whenever a human being,
without crimne all7eged, is robbed of his inalienable
rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." A Southern planter, some time since, made
the following honest avowal. Hie was walking over
his grounds with a friend, and when they came in
sight of the huts occupied by his slaves, he stood
for a brief space gazing at them  in mute silence.
His friend supposed he was planning some alterations
or improvements.  At length he said with deep emotion, "I have no right to hold those human beings in
29 
DISCUSSION ON $LAVERY.
servitude.  I know it, Ifeel it-but what can I do "'
The plan which I advocate, the subversion of the system, will aid such men, who are struggling with difficulties which they are unable to surmount. It will
furnish them with an opportunity of practically exemplifying their abhorrence of oppression.
What is Slavery?  It is not merely "the subjection of one person to the will of another." My child
is thus under my control. Hie does my bidding. iHe
is in subjection to my will. But is this slavery? Is
it not rather a wise and wholesome restraint, to be exercised for the accomplishment of important and
benevolent ends? I define slavery to be this, to
wit, the right of property in a human being. I use this
phraseology in the largest and most comprehensive
sense. It is the leyal right of buying and selling men
and women, as horses and cattle are bought and sold.
This is a very different right from that which a master has over his apprentice, or the parent over his
child. It is bartering away rights, which the law of
God never gave to man. The will of the Jlaster, is
the iron rule by which the happiness and the destiny
of immortal beings are controlled. Grant as many
modifications as you choose, of the rigor of this system, prompted by Christian kindness and sympathy.
Its main features stand forth in all their frowning
and hateful aspect, so long as the right of property
in man is recognized and conceded. This right may
be exercised, at any time, in the violent disruption of
the conjugal relations, the sundering of family ties,
the wreck of hope, and the utter and the hopeless
misery of those, whose only crime consists in a dark
hue, which their Creator stamped upon them. Look
at some of the legitimate fruits of this fearful power,
30 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
lodged in the hands of man. It has produced unspeakable mischief and misery in the domestic relations. It has transferred parental authority to a
source which God never designed. It has deprived
the ignorant of knowledge, and taken from the defenceless the shield of their protection. It claims
the right of deciding how much of the will of God,
revealed to man, shall be communicated to the slave.
It cuts him off from the hope of redress, if he has
been wronged. It consigns him to toil as a beast of
burden, without any just and adequate remuneration.
The avails of his labor is the property of his master,
and cannot be made his own. Hie is himnself property,
and of course, can own none.
Now, as to the question whether "the incidental
evils of slavery as they are called, are part and parcel of the thing, and can never be separated from it."
I say  1st. The nature of the system proves the truth
of this assertion. Let the system be so modified and
changed that the evils which now adhere to it shall
1o longer exist, and you have another thing.  You
may call it slavery, but it is not such in fact.  Annihilate the right of property in man, and I ask Southern planters if they would feel any zeal in perpetuating slavery?
2d. As a matter of fact, the evils which are
charged on slavery, never have been separated from
the system.  How  was it in Greece  and Rome?
There was no recuperative energy in the system
there. What was bad to-day was worse to-morrow,
till the deteriorating process engulfed master and
slave in one common ruin. In the case of the Jews,
I admit there is an exception. But the entire Jewish
economy contemplated the gradual abolition of ser
31 
1)ISCUSSION oNT SLAVERY.
vitude, and universal emancipation.   The  year of
Jubilee at the latest, struck off the chains from every
man, and made him free as the air he breathed.  But
so far as I know, this is the only exception I need to
make, and the reason of this is abundantly obvious
from the nature of the Jewish economy. Is there
anything in American slavery that coitemplates the
extinction of the systemi!  Is there any year of Jubilee fixed upon or des?,red by the mass of those, who
claim property in their fellow-men?
Let the evils which "MAeridionus" himself suggests be thoroughly corrected, and it would amzount
to a subversion of the system of slavery. Let a law
be passed prohibiting the separation of families, and
the domestic slave-trade, and protecting inviolate the
marriage relation, and making it incumbent on masters thoroughly to instruct their slaves "in the elements of religious truth"; and slavery would as certainly wither and die as it now exists in its blighting,
demoralizing power. You cannot fairly and fully remove the odious features of slavery without striking
the axe at the root of the tree. I hold on to my position, therefore, without qualification, notwithstanding
the exceedingly shrewd, ingenious argument of your
correspondent. For popular effect, it is well adapted
to make a strong impression.  It will, I am aware,
exert an extensive influence at the South.   Thousands will rejoice in the comfort it affords to their
burdened consciences, and will persuade themselves
that they have been too scrupulous and concerned in
regard to the exercise of rights which, after all, are
clearly their own. Look at the following as an example. " What are the evils that are inseparable
from slavery? There is not one, that is not equally inseparable from                   nari)?ed hurncar nature?'n other 7!?.,il
3S 
DISCUSSION ON SL1A'ERY.
relations." Slave-holders under teaching like this,
may well resist all expostulations and appeals to
adopt a course of measures to subvert a system
which is brooding like a mighty incubus over them.
If I were a slave-holder, and believed this representation, I should make myself quite contented and let
slavery work out its own redemption.
One word in regard to " preaching the gospel in
the Southern country."  I have great confidence in
the power of truth. The gospel fearlessly and faithfully proclaimed, is my only hope in correcting the
evils, and exterminating the depravity which abound
in the world. But it must be preached in its fullness
and in its discriminating energy, or it will fail of accomplishing its glorious design. I do not say it is
not preached in this way by our Southern brethren.
But I will state a fact, and hold myself responsible
for the proof. A clergyman now in this city, was
travelling a few months since in Georgia. In an interview he had with a distinguished gentleman, the
president of a literary institution, he said to him,
There are many things in successful operation that
tend to the subversion of slavery, and among other
things, I rely on the increased diffusion of Bible
truth as the principal means." Now mark the reply.
"You are wrong, Sir," said he.  "The gospel will
never remove slavery, while ministers hold slaves,
and defend the system from the Bible.  I do this,
and my brethren do it, and we are honest and conscientious in our teaching." The reasoning of this
gentleman, I think, was logical and conclusive.  No,
no-the preaching of the gospel will never do away
with slavery, so long as such views are inculcated and
enforced from the pulpit.
THE COP.T,RESPOYD)EF.NT  OF TfiE N.Y. EYA.NgT$}I>' SL
'33 
DISOUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[DR. PARKER.]
REPLY TO THE REJOIiNDER
MR. EDITOR:-I confess myself disappointed in
the character of the rejoinder of the correspondent of
the Evangelist. I am not disappointed in the spirit
it breathes. The writer is incapable of departing
from the strictest Christian courtesy.  But I am  disappointed in witnessing the manner in which he has
treated my argument, which was designed to prove
that "the incidental evils of slavery are not inseparable from it."  He refers to it as "the exceedingly
shrewd, ingenious argument of your correspondent."
Allow me to say, that while I thank him for his intended compliment, I should have been much more
grateful for an attempt to answer my argument.
Courteous allusions to an opponent are indications
of a good heart, but it is anything else than sound
logic to pass over a strong point with complimenting
its ingenuity. I dare not say that such was the intention of the writer, but certainly, in its effect, it is exactly what, in those who contend for victory in debate, and nothing else, is. termed "throwing dust."
I am not aware of the least ingenuity in my argument. Its power lies in the simplest induction of
particulars.  I have merely asked, what  ONE incidental evil of slavery there is, that cannot be separated from it? I have specified such as occurred to
me as principal evils —such as insufficient provision,
severe chastisement, neglect of instruction, and most
;.-I4 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
of those forms of evil which a selfish and unprincipled man would be likely to inflict on one who is
entirely in his power. I have shown that every one
of these have been laid aside by good masters.
I also claimed that my opponent had conceded,
that some masters, "one in a hundred or a thousand,
hold slaves in harmony with the great law of love."
I suppose he will not insist on that exact ratio. It
may, peradventure, be one in fifty, and in some
neighborhoods, where the gospel has most effect,' it
may be one in five, or possibly every individual.
Yet he admits, that those who act in harmony with
the great law of love, are slave-holders. Of course,
slavery in these instances, is not "whenever a human
being, without crime alleged, is robbed of his inalienable rights-such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness;" and if all slave-holders came to possess
such a character, then they would all " hold slaves
in harmony with the great law of love."
He has made another beautiful concession, in his
last communication.  It is this: "Let the evils which
Meridionus himself suggests, be thoroughly corrected,
and it would amount to a subversion of the system of
slavery." Exactly so. It is a luminous statement
of the very truth for which I contend. 1t is like
this. Mehemet Ali, a few years since, was doing, as
it was said, many things for the improvement of his
people. Suppose he had gone on in the exercise of
his absolute power, removing one oppressive burden
after another. He opens the highways of commerce
by steam navigation, and the iron road. He promotes agriculture and manufactures. He encourages
the cultivation of the soil, and diminishes the crushing taxation under which industry is paralyzed.  He
$$ 
'ISCUSSTiO  OX SLARY.
erects institutions of learning, and adopts a liberaliz
ing system of common school instruction. Thus he
aims to remove those things which may be regarded
as the ills of a despotic government in wicked hands.
Under such a system, the people would be gradually
raised, and despotism itself would ultimately give
way, before those changes in the popular mind, that
should prepare it for the beneficent influences of constitutional government, and enlightened popular influence.
Yet the gospel and the principles of sound wisdom
do not allow me to condemn Mehemet Ali merely because he has absolute power, nor to insist upon the subversion of his government as the first step in the
process of elevating the people and securing for them
a higher ex(rcise of the blessings of freedom.  Yet
he was a great slave-holder, and his government was
analogous to that of a Southern planter, except that
it was more absolute, because over him there was no
governmental restraint whatever.
The Correspondent of the Evangelist has given a
singular definition of slavery. lie speaks of slavery
as a "right."  That is very strange.  Then he calls it
a " legal right."  Let me quote his language-" I define slavery (says he) to be this, to wit, the right of
property in a humann being.  I use this phraseology in
the largest and most comprehensive sense. It is the
legal right of buying and selling men and women as
cattle and horses are sold."  Why, Mr. Editor, slavery is not a right of any sort. The laws of the slaveholding states are statutes regulating the conduct of
masters towards each other, and in some respects
limiting the absolute power of masters over their
slaves.  Whether these  are in all respects the best
-6 
DISCUSSIO, -ON SLAVErY.
laws is a question by itself.  We are considering thio
subject ethically in its relation to individuals.  I suppose it would not be denied that if a Southern planter
and his three sons should take a hundred slaves and
remove with them to a territory where no human governmnent exists, and if they should stay there and(
treat their people just as they do now, they would be
still slave-holders.  Yet there could be no buying and
selling of men and women there, till a state should
be created.  Slave-holding is the exercising of a
power of one mind over another absolutely, and in
certain circumstances.
In the absoluteness of the power it differs not in
any respect from the power that parents exercise
over their children. In other respects it is certainly
different. A parent does not make his child a slave.
The parent's power, the master's power and the absolute civil ruler's power are all alike in this one
thing. They are all absolute. The parental power
is least liable to abuse, because it is softened continually by natural affection. In the master and the
civil despot there is less affection and greater liability
to abuse and absolute authority.
One word more. The Correspondent says: -"The
abstract doctrine that slavery is per se sinful ought
never to have been broached. It is untrue, indefensible, and has done no good, but a vast amount of
mischief."
What is a sin per se? It is something that is in
its own nature wrong something that is inseparable
from ill desert. Such a thing is blasphemy. Such
a thing is robbery, and such is murder.  Yet the Correspondent calls slavery something "where a human
being is robbed of his inalienable rights."  I aslk, is 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
not that a sin per se? And how much does it differ
from the doctrine of the Garrison school?-Except
one calmly states the principle, and the other carries
it out in denouncing our Southern brethren, as robbers and men-stealers.
In conclusion, I cannot but express my regret that
the Correspondent should intimate that he would do
nothing to remove slavery, if the evils that are incidental to the system can be removed.
I am certain that he cannot have considered fully
the import of such a remark. I know his heart too
well, to doubt that he would help to lift up the poor
slave from his condition if he had not permission to
blame any individual on earth for the existence of
slavery.
0. R. MERIDIONUS.
se 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[MR. ROOD.]
REPLICATION TO " O. R. MERIDIONUS."
MR. EDITOR:-It seems that I disappointed my
opponent, in my last communication. I regret this,
as I should greatly have preferred to convince him
that the ground he has taken in this discussion is untenable and false, and to have prevailed on him to
come out boldly in defence of the truth, and to throw
his influence into the scale of humanity, benevolence,
and mercy. But if his representations are well
founded, I have by honeyed phrases and a profusion
of compliments attempted to "throw dust," and thus
evade the strong arguments with which I was pressed.
I had no such intention assuredly. It will be recollected, that the main design of "Meridonius" in the
communication in which he intimates that his argumnents were met by flattery rather than sound logic,
was to subvert a position I had laid down, to wit,
that "the incidental evils of slavery, as they are
called, are part and parcel of the thing, and can
never be separated from it." It would not be quite
modest in me to insist that his arguments were fully
met. I shall cheerfully submit the decision of this
question to the judgment of our readers. But I did
triumphantly show, so far as any attempt has yet been
made to convict me of error-lst. That the nature of
the system proves the truth of my position; and 2d.
As a matter of fact, the evils which are charged on
slavery never have been separated from the system. Is
St 
'ISCUefION  ON'SLAVERY.
this nothing? On the ground that these positions
were sustained, (and "Meridionus" has not attempted to
overthrow t/em,) I ask in all candor, if the foundation
on which he has planted himself is not proved to be
as "baseless as the fabric of a vision?" Why did
not he manfully meet these positions, and show their
irrelevancy or inconclusiveness, instead of intimating
that I found it more convenient to pay a compliment,
than to grapple with his logic?  It is easy for a disputant to say, "You wander from the subject, and
'throw dust,' and urge false issues," when he is
pressed with facts and considerations, which hedge
up his path.  I think his argument was met as a
whole, if not in the order and the manner that he
anticipated. So much for this part of his communication.
Now for another point. The objection to my definition, that "slavery is the right of property in a
human being," I must regard as urged with the
design of "throwing dust," without any conviction
of its pertinence or force.  "M eridionlus," as well as
every one who took the pains to peruse my article,
must have known that I meant this and nothing
more  to wit, an assumed right, a claimed right, a
right which the statutes of slave-holding States
wrongfully give to masters.  Most cordially do I
respond to  the  statement of my  opponent, that
"slavery is not a right of any sort," in fact and in
truth.  It is for this reason that I object to efforts
which are confined to the removal of the "incidental
evils of slavery, as they are called," while the _princple, which lies at the foundation of this great system
of oppression and wrong, is recognized and defended.
I will go as far as "Meridionus'  in mitigating the
.,40 
D)ISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
rigors of this system-in alleviating the suffeings
and woes of those unhappy men and women, who
feel its ponderous, crushing weight, and a great deal
farther than he is at present disposed to go, in
drying up the fountain which sends forth these putrid
streams. It is obvious, that the main difference between "Meridionus" and myself, consists in a claim
on his part, and a denial on mine, that " t7ere are no
evils in slavery, that are not equally inseparable from
deporaved human nature in other lauwful relations."  The
system is well enough, in his judgment, if those who
sustain it cautiously guard against the evils which
ordinarily cluster around it. iHere we are wide
apart as the poles, and I pray heaven we may never
come any nearer together, till he abandons a position
which I deem so irreconcilable with the golden precept, "W hatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and
the prophets."
It will be borne in mind, that " Meridionus" has
not retracted or qualified the above statement, which
has filled so many with grief and surprise. I called
his particular attention to it, and yet he has made no
explanation and given no intimation that he is not
willing to be understood according to the natural interpretation which would be put upon his language.
I should hardly have believed there is a man north
of Mason's and Dixon's line, who would have ventured to put forth such a statement, much less to
manifest a determination to stand by it. I believe
that most Christian men at the South, who see slavery
as it is, would abjure the statement, as utterly unfounded and false.  If Northern men can take this
ground, and offer such palliations for the atrocities of
'41 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
slavery, the prospect is indeed dark and hopeless for
the poor slave.  If the children of "Meridionus"
were in bondage, subject to the brutality of ignorant
and merciless overseers; if he himself was liable to
be torn away from his wife and pleasant home, and
sold like a " brute beast" to the highest bidder, he
might seriously question whether the " LAWFUL
RELATIONS" of slavery are not very unlawful and oppressive. He might feel somewhat as a father and a
husband did, who was sometime since torn from his
family, and sold to the extreme Southera market.  He
was comparatively a young man, and was strongly
attached to his wife and children. The price paid
for him was nearly eight hundred dollars. A gentleman now in this city, happened to be in a town in
Georgia, through which this colored man, with others,
was driven. They arrived on Saturday night. The
slave-dealer got his "gang of human cattle" ready to
start early on Sabbath morning. The poor slave, of
whom I have spoken, was exceedingly dejected andl
distressed. HIe thought of his wife and children,
from whom he had been forced away by the merciless cupidity of his new master. At length he became desperate, and declared, "The wretch who has
bought me shall make no money by the purchase."
In leaving the place, they were obliged to pass a
ferry. Hie watched his opportunity, and plunged
into the river, and with a death-grasp seized whatever
he found at the bottom, and held on till life was
extinct. He choose "strangling and death, rather
than life," with the misery he endured, and a perpetual exile from those he loved.  "Meridionus," in
like circumstances, might exhibit an equal desperation. And yet slavery is a "LAWrFUL RELATION,"
42 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
and needs only to be guarded against the evils incidental to it, to be a fair system, not to be rudely
assailed, much less denounced as intrinsically wrong,
oppressive, and wicked.
Stop, stop, says " Meridionus," you are quite too
fast. The traffic in slaves is a feature of the system
I abhor, and it ought instantly to be corrected. So
is cruel treatment, insufficiency of food and clothing,
and the neglect to teach slaves their relations and
their duty to God. Well, correct these, and a long
catalogue of similar things, and render to servants,
as "Meridionus" insists should be done, " that which
is just and equal," and slavery no longer exists.
The system is prostrated and subverted, as I have
shown in my last communication, and you have an
entirely different thing.
The effort to convict me of inconsistency in saying
that "the abstract doctrine that slavery is per se
sinful, and ought never to have been broached," is,
in my judgment, an utter failure. By this, I meant,
as "Meridionus" well knows, that the laws of slaveholding States may force good men into a position
which they deplore and abhor. They hold slaves not
of choice, but by necessity. They are restrained
from acting out the promptings of their humane, benevolent feelings by unrighteous and oppressive legislation. Now, if they do the best they can, in their
circumstances; if they remonstrate and petition for a
change of those laws which environ them with diffculties; if they truly desire to give freedom to their bondsmen; then I say they are not chargeable with the
guilt of oppression.  Their condition is most unfortunate, but it is not one that deserves censure. How
many slave-holders there are, who have these feelings
43 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
and pursue this course, I know not.  But if there are
five hundred, or even fifty, the statement that slavery
is per se, or in all cases sinful, is without foundation.
But is this admitting that wrong, flagrant wrong does
not lie somewhere in perpetuating slavery? Is this
the abandonment of any position I have laid down?
I think not.
I will now, for a moment, contrast my definition of
slavery with that given by "Meridionus."  He says,
" Slave-holding is the exercising of a power of one
mind over another absolutely, and in certain circumstances. I think this is mere logomachy. There is
no such thing as an "'absolute power of one mind
over another."  " Meridionus" is too familiar with the
elaborate work of "Locke on the Human Understanding," and PReid's "Inquiry into the Human
Mind,"' and his " Essays on the Intellectual Powers
of Man," seriously to claim that this definition of
slavery can be defended. There is such a thing as
an "absolute power" over the body.  This may be
scourged and mutilated, and given as food to the
fowls of the air.  But the mind, thanks to Heaven,
is unfettered and free. Men with all their malignity
cannot reach it, or prevent those pious aspirations
which prove that we are allied to angels and bear the
impress of immortality. Look at my definition.
" Slavery is the r;ght of property in a human being."
I have sufficiently guarded the meaning which I
attach to " right" in this connection.  Here, you have
something tangible, something that every body can
understand, something which is not, at least, obnoxious to the charge of a contradiction and an
absurdity. You have more. You have demonstration perfect and complete, that the "right of property
44 
DISCUSSION ON SL. VERYP.,
in human beings" is the only thing about slavery
that makes its boldest champions zealous in perpetuating it. Hence, the cry all over the South against
abolitionists, "You would wrest from us our property
and take away our means of living." Hence, so
much is said about the five hundred millions invested
in slaves, which would be sacrificed by a universal
emancipation. I leave our readers to judge who is
right on this point.
In closing, will "Meridionus" please to state more
explicitly what course, in his judgment, true wisdom
demands in regard to this great subject?  I do not
refer to the action of Northern Christians, but especially to that action whichi our brethren at the South
ought to take.  Ought they not to do what they
can to form a public sentiment against slavery?
Ought they not to hold up the system as worthy
of universal  reprobation?   Ought  not  ministers
fearlessly to exhibit the wrongs of oppression, which
prevail according to your own showing to such an
alarming extent?  In a word, ought not the system of slavery to be represented  as "doomed of
Heaven," and worthy of the execration of all good
men? Ougliht not Christian men of every name to
unite in effecting its subversion?  Or is it true, that
"Ithere is not one evil of slavery that is not ecgually inseparable from depraved human nzature in other lawful
relations"?  "Meridionus" will excuse my seeming
pertinacity, but I am resolved that this sentiment
shall be retracted or re-affirmed.
THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST.
45, 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[DR. PARKER.]
REPLY TO THE REPLICA TION.
MR. EDITOR:-" The Replication" is to my mind
the most satisfactory of all the communications of
the Correspondent of the Evangelst, because it has
brought out more fully the views of the writer; and
I am satisfied that it is only necessary that they
should be understood, to be disapproved by all thinking minds, that have not committed themselves to
the doctrines of those technically called "abolitionists." He admits that "it would not be quite modest
for [him] to insist that [my] arguments were fully
met." This concession is very liable to mislead the
reader. One would think that the writer meant by
it, that he had attempted to meet the argument, but
that it would not be modest in him to say that he
hadfully met it. Whereas, it will be seen by any
one, who will be at the trouble to read the preceding
communications on both sides, that no attempt whatever has been made to answer the argument by which
I chiefly combated his position. I made an induction
of the evils incidental to slavery, and showed that
they could be, and that they were in many instances,
separated from slavery, and of course that they were
not a part and parcel of sl,avery, and inseparable from it.
This position, it is true, he has re-affirmed, and attempted to substantiate by an argument, but my argument he has, for some reason, not seen fit to meet
in any way. I mean, he has not attemnpted to meet it.
46,' 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
When he says afterwards, "I think his argument
was met as a whole," I do not suppose he intends any
misrepresentation of the facts. He probably meant
that he thinks he has overthrown the position which
I had attempted to maintain-for certainly he could
not meet my argument, without showing that the
wrong facts had been adduced, or a fallacious application of them had been made. The argument by
which he has attempted to maintain his position,
shall receive attention in another part of my communication.
I feel myself called upon to notice in this place a
mode of enforcing his views, which I am sure a man
of so much native kindness and Christian urbanity
as the Correspondent, will not approve in his cooler
moments.
I make a great allowance for the influence of the
cause which he has espoused upon his feelings. The
abolitionists, as a class, have evidently depended
greatly upon the influence of personal censure, to
carry their cause.-When their arguments are refuted, and their assumptions shown to be unsound,
they are very apt to satisfy themselves by charging
their opponents with "offering palliations for the
atrocities of slavery," and with entertaining the
" design of throwing dust without any conviction of
its pertinence or force."  I know,  Mr. Editor, that
the Correspondent is my personal friend, and, (his
doctrines and their influence apart,) one of the kindest men in the world-and I know he will regret the
attempt to exert the least influence against my reasonings, by intimating, that in taking  "this ground,"
which I have taken, I "offer palliations for the atrocities of slavery;" and that he will be particularly
47 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
dissatisfied with speaking in the manner he has done
of my motive in objecting to his definition of slavery,
where he says: "The objection to my definition,
that'slavery is the right of property in a human
being,' I must regard as urged with the desiyn of
'throwing dust,' without any conviction of its pertinency or force." The writer knows me too well
certainly, to think for one moment that I can be induced to waive my objiection to his definition, by a
remark of such a character.   I beg of the Correspondent to have patience with me, while I proceed
to renew and substantiate my objection to his definition. I repeat it, then. Slavery is not a right of
any sort. It is not an assumed right, nor a claimned
right. Slavery is a term, by which the relation of
two parties is indicated. The slaves are one party,
the masters are the other. The state is not a party
in the relation. A State may hold slaves, but in the
condition of things of which we speak, in this country, individual citizens hold slaves. But whoever
may hold slaves-slavery is neither a right, nor an
"asstumed right," nor a "a claimed right."  Slavery,
as expressive of the condition of the subordinate
party, is the absolute subjection of slaves to their
masters. Whether it is consistent with their rights,
that they should be under this subjection or not, is a
distinct question. Slaves are in absolute subjection
to their masters. Slavery, as expressive of the condition of the superior party, is the holding of slaves,
the exercising of the power that keeps slaves in absolute subjection.  Whether it be right for a master to
hold slaves, is a distinct question. If he exercises
the power of keeping slaves in subjection to the con:
trol of his will, he is one of the parties to the relation
48 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
which we call slavery. If the State aids him in exer cising this power, he is a slave-holder. If the State
does not aid him, he is still a slave-holder. If he
stands alone, where there is no State authority over
him, as long as he maintains this control, he is a
slave-holder. If you suppose it to be right for him
to hold them in subjection, he is a slave-holder. If
you suppose it to be wrong, he is equally a slave holder. If he assumes he has a right to hold them
in this subjection, he is a slave-holder; if he admits
that he has no right, and holds them in subjection,
even in violation of his own conscience, he is a slave holder.  If he acquires them by purchase, and holds
them in this subjection, he is a slave-holder; if he
inherits them, and holds them thus, he is a slave holder. If the government which the State extends
over the master, legislates with regard to slaves, and
calls them "chattels," the man that keeps them in
subjection is a slaveholder; and if the State should
amend  its code, and take away from masters the
power of selling their slaves-that is, if they were
not allowed to regard and treat them as propertyyet, as long as they hold them in this subjection, they
are slave-holders.   Slavery, then, as it respects the
superior party in the relation, is the possession and
exercise of a power. I have called it an absolute
power.  The Correspondent thinks my language too
strong, and refers to Locke and Reid, to show that
masters cannot exercise so high a power. I think he
is entirely right. I only intend by the "absolute
power of one mind over another," what is commonly
meant by absolute power in popular parlance-the
power of governing by the will of the ruler alone.
But the Correspondent has himself given up his
49 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
definition, and called "the right of property in human
beings, a thing about slavery, that makes its champions zealous in perpetuating it." His language is
very singular, after maintaining that the right, or the
assumed, or claimed right of property, is slavery itself. "You have (says he) a demonstration perfect
and complete, that the right of property in human
beings is the only thing about slavery that makes its
boldest champions zealous in perpetuating it." Take,
then, his defined use of the term slavery, and substitute for it the word itself and it reads thus, "Sla,very
is the only thing about slavery that makes its boldest
champions, &c." HIe certainly did not mean to say
this. He forgot that he had maintained that the
word slavery, andl the phrase't the right of property iv,
a human being," are synonymous. WNVell he might
forget it, for the phrase is no description of the force
of the term. He has admitted, then, the very distinction for which I contend. Slavery is one thing.
The right to buy and sell slaves, as a right sustained
by the State, is another.-They are as distinct from
one another as the power of a parent to control his
child, and the right to bind him out as an apprentice.
God has given parents an absolute control over their
children. The State has secured to a father a right
to bind out his son in an apprenticeship, till he is
twenty-one years of age, and to receive a consideration for the father's advantage, if he choose to do so.
There is no limitation in time for the continuance of
parental authority. So says Paley. A child is as
much bound by the fifth commandment at fifty years,
as at five years of age.
Suppose a large number of parents were to abuse
this power over their children, and suppose the most
50 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
selfish of them should defend their conduct by say ing, that the exercise of this power is profitable to
them, would that prove that the possession of abso lute power is "robbery?" and the truth of the doc trine of the Garrison School, that we "had better
emancipate our wvives and children, before we talk of
emancipating Southern slaves?"   What does  the
Correspondent mean by asking me if I am willing
that my children and mvself should be subjected to
the cruelties of severe masters?  No, certainly.  Let
me ask if he would like it for himself.  I presume he
will say-no. Very well, we are even on that score.
Does he wish to imply that I am  defending these
brutalities?  If lie does, I do not think myself called
upon for any defence against such a charge.  But I
cannot suppose that he does. And yet I am at a loss
to interpret his language.
One word in reply to the arguments of the Correspondent, by which he attempts to prove that " The
incidental evils of slavery are a part and parcel of thie
thing and can never be separatedfrom it.'"
1st. He alleges that he has proved it from "a,c e
iattre of thie system."  The argument is, if you take
away the evils you have another thing.  I deny this
and allege that if you take away unkind treatment
of every sort, you do not thereby take away slavery
so long as the master governs absolutely. If he rules
with the gentleness and benevolence of a perfectly
holy being, yet, if he rules absolutely over his servant, the essential elements of slavery, are still there.
2d. He maintains that the evils have never been
separated from the system. Does this prove that
these evils are necessary from the nature of the system?  Why, if this be logic, it proves that the mar
51 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
riage relation is an enormous wrong. Time would fail
us to recount the miseries of families. And they
never have been separated from the system.-W'hat
a sin, a constitutional monarchy like that of Great
Britain, must be according to this mode of reasoning! Read the extracts published il the Observer of
the 15th inst., from a Boston correspondent, describing the miseries of factory life in England,-read it,
and weep over poor down-trodden humanity. Then,
do not forget that such evils never have been, in fact,
separated from the system.  No, Mr. Editor, I cannot
allow my good friend, the Correspondent, to claim
all the sufferings of poor slaves, as arguments for a
theory by which he is, without intending it, binding
the heavy burdens upon the poor. The truth is,
there is no question whether we do not both, with
equal sincerity, deplore the sufferings of slaves, and,
though he may possess more philanthropy than his
friend, and may know that he possesses more, yet I
am not willing that any superiority over me, in this
moral respect, shall be weighed against proofs. I am
glad, if he loves the poor black man.  I thank him
on behalf of my Master, for his sympathy with the
poor. I will repay him with the same in kind. But
I am not willing to take his sympathy for suffering
slaves, and his glowing descriptions of the injustice
of oppressors, as proof that one cannot hold a slave,
without oppressing him.
The Correspondent wishes me to re-affirm my position.
I certainly have no objection to try to make my
meaning plain and to place my argument in a clearer
light.  From the fact that he had not noticed the argument, made no analysis of it, nor as much as at 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
tempted to point out any fallacy, I: was beginning to
think that it was too clear, and that, on that account,
he preferred not to notice it.  But it seems I am mistaken, and my opponent does not fully comprehend
it. The matter lies thus. The Correspondent of the
E'arngel'st had said in his communication in your
paper of Dec. 18th, that "The  incidental evils [of
slavery] are part and parcel of the thing and can never
be separatedjfion it."  I asserted that this proposition
is not true.  I attempted by an argument to prove
that it is not.
I first adduced a large number of these evils, such
as cruelty in punishing-insufficient food and clothing
-separating families by sale-neglect of instruction,
&c., &c.
It was not may object to point out all the methods
in which slaves suffer injurious treatment. But I
supposed then, and do now, that it was this sort of
evils that my opponent referred to in his proposition.
That I was right in that supposition is obvious from
the fact that he has not complained of being misunderstood in this respect, as well, as from his repeated
reference to this very class of evils as the things
which render the system odious.
Of course, there is no dispute between us as to the
question whether Southern men are sinners, or whether there, as elsewhere, there is a tendency in superiors to seek their own aggrandizement by unjustly
ltaking a gain  of the weak.  Masters have great
power over slaves-I have called it absolute powerthe phrase is probably understood. I maintained
that the possession of absolute power does not necessarily imply any wrong in the person that holds it.
The wrong, if there be wrong, lies in the abuse of
53 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
power. The fact that one man rules another with
absolute sway, does not prove that the master is acting wickedly.  If he has exercised that power unjulstly in inflicting those evils which are incidental to
slavery, yet he is under no necessity of doing so.  If
he has punished with cruelty, what can prevent the
possibility of his repentance and reformation? If
he has overworked his poor servant, or withheld
from him the comforts that he needs, cannot he cease
fromn this species of injustice? What vice is there
that cannot be repented of and abandoned-what
virtue that cannot be cherished and cultivated by
both slaves and their masters? What, then, are the
evils that are intseparable from slavery?  I wish the
Correspondent would answer this by pointing out
barely one. To express sentiments of grief for fear
that these questions will cause slave-holders to be
content to let slavery remain for ever, is not meeting
the question. If he is grieved with the tendency of
my views, I am equally grieved with the tendency
of his.  WAe will let the tears on both sides balance
each othier.  The truth is what we want.  He has
maintained that "slavery" is not a sin in itself-" and
yet that it is robbery;"-that "hundreds hold slaves
in harmony with the great law of love," and "the
relation is unlawful and oppressive," that "the relation ought to be denounced as intrinsically wrong, oppressive a,nd wicked?"
The Correspondent asks me to state what, in my
judgment, our Southern brethren ought to do in respect to slavery?  I can answer this to my  ownr
satisfaction.  I think their duty is clear.  But I have
not room in this communication.
0. R. IM,ERTDIONUS.
54 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[MR. ROOD.]
TO " O. R.  [ERIDIOQNUS."
MR. EDITOR: -AS  I anticipated,  "Meridionus"
apparently shrinks from the reiteration of the sentiment, that " t7ere is not one ei'l in slavery, that is not
equaily i,nseparable frown depraved humain nature in
other lawful relations)." He says. "I certainly have
no objection to try to make my meaning plain, and
to place my argument in a clearer light." I asked
for no such thing. I had no difficulty in apprehending the statement; but I did wish to know if that
position is one which, after due reflection, he is willing to endorse, and means to defend.  The answer is
somewhat doubtful.  Hle does not directly re-affirm
his statement, nor does he admit that it is erroneous.
The fair inference, however, from what he does say
is, that he still adheres to it. If so, it would have
been better frankly to avow it, and thus, at once, remove all doubt and debate.  "W What then," he asks,
"are the evils that are inseparable fromii slavery?  I
wish the Correspondent would answer this, by pointiug out barely one."  "Meridionus" shall be gratified
in his request.
One evil inseparable from slavery is, brutalizing the
mind, and s'oudi'~  t7he enslaved in ignorance.  I am
aware that many slaves are instructed in the precepts and principles of the gospel, and furnish evidence of piety.  But the great mass of them are not
instructedl-and these wiho are, for the most part re
55 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
ceive oral instruction. They are not taught to read
and examine the word of God for themselves.  The
plea is, if they are taught to read the Bible, they
will read " incendiary publications," which represent
themr as an iinjured and oppressed people, and they
will rise and revenge their supposed wrongs.  "Meridionus" will not deny, that a thorough system of
elementary education would subvert the system of
slavery. Everybody knows it would. So the subject is understood all over the South, as is proved
by the unrighteous statutes, making it a penal offence
to establish schools to educate slaves.  They  are
kept in ignorance, because it is urged they cannot
with safety be instructed.  The plea is unquestionably well founded. Give to slaves, as a body, half
the education that is obtained by the common classes
at the North, and there is no earthly power that
would prevent them from throwing off the yoke of
oppression, and claimnyg and gaining their freedom.
Southern people understand this full well, and if
"Meridionus" denies it, they will not.
Another evil inseparable from slavery, consists in
tIh6 z(, Zafu( control which slave-holders exercise over the
childclren of the enslaved.  The Apostle says, Col. iii.
20, " Children, obey your parents in all things, for
this is well pleasing unto the Lord."  Let me ask
i"Mteridionus"-I)o not masters nullify this divine
precept uniformly in the slave-holding states?  AWill
he pretend that children are permitted to obey their
parents, as God has enjoined it upon them? Is not
the law of the master, not the precept of the parent,
the rule by which they are governed? A child may
not minister to the parent in sickness, or wipe the
cold sweat of dcleath from his browv, if the master
D(; 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
chooses to forbid these last offices of sympathy and
affection.   A  mother may desire the soothing influence of a daughter's love, in her last hours, and
be refused, if the cupidity of the master chooses to
interpose, and drive her to the cotton-field.  Will
"Meridionus" please to inform me  in what other
I LAWFUL RELATIONS" such inhumanity can be practised with impunity?  The allusion to the evils incidental to the marriage relation, has not, I think,
any great force. There are many unhappy husbands
and wives, made such by their ill-temper, indiscretions, and sins, I admit.  But mark: all that is necessary to remove these evils, is to lead them to
embrace the gospel in its transforming and purifying
power. Chrysostom truly said-" Bring me a man
as ungovernable  as the storm, and sottish as the
swine, and with a few words of this divine gospel,
I will make him gentler than the zephyr, and purer
than the translucent stream." But there are slaveholders professing to be, and, I doubt not, are really
converted, who do not give to parents in bondage
that control of their children, to which they are entitled by the word of God. Bring to repentance an
intemperate husband or an irreligious wife, and you
remove their vices, and render them kind, affectionate, and happy. But in the case of the slave-holder,
you must do something more.  You must bring him
away from the influence of slavery, before he can fn
all respects, if I may so speak, fulfil the law of love.
There is another evil inseparable from slavery.
While the system is maintained, masters cannot render to their servants'" tizat vhwich is just and equal."
The nature of the system forbids this, on the broad
scale which Christianity requires.  It cannot be done,
57 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
without awarding to servants a just compensation for
their labor.  But as soon as this should become the
settled policy of the slave-holding States, there
would be no reluctance to adopt a course of judicious
measures, vlwhich would in a reasonable time result in
a universal emancipation.
There is still another evil, which, if not inseparable from slavery, uniformly attaches to it, and it is
one of no small magnitude. I refer to its blinding,
blunting, hardening influence upon those who live
in the midst of it.  There is something quite remarkable in this feature of slavery.  I have known Northern men go to reside in slave-holding States, with
clear viewvs of human rights, and a conscientious
purpose to exert what influence they could to subvert
the system.  But in a little time, they seemed to lose
their zeal and sympathy in behalf of the slave, and
to settle down in comparative indifference as to the
appalliong evils with which they were surrounded,
and sometimes they have gone so far as to palliate
and defend a system which they have always held in
abhorrence.  I cannot tell exactly how or why this
is, but I suppose the atmosphere is tainted, and they
look at things through a hazy, distorted medium,
and are insensibly led to a modification and change
of their views, and sometimes to the utter abandonment of long cherished principles. I could point to
some affecting examples, where this metamorphic as.
pect has been exhibited. If this is not an " iniquity"
to be punished by the judges, it is certainly an evil
greatly to be deplored! AWhen "Meridionus" shall
dispose of these things in due order, and by sound
logic, I will name some other things for his consideration.
58 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
I pass now to the main topic of his last -communication, which consists of a labored argumnent to
substantiate the truth of his position, that "slaveho]ding is the exercise of a power of one mind over
another, absolutely, and in certain circumstances."
It seems to me that this is "darkening counsel by
words without knowledge." It is, at best, a mnere
abstraction, as I hope to be able to show. According
to this doctrine, every popular, powerful preacher,
who has the esteem and confidence of his hearers, is
a slave-holder, and his people are slaves.   "Meridionus" admits that "absolute power of one mind
over another," is, in the nature of the case, impossible. Jie intended, "what is commonly meant by
absolute power in popular parlance." I know clergymen, who have what amounts to nearly this control
over a portion of their hearers; but they  would
think it very strange, if they should be represented
as slave-holders. There are parents who exert a still
more unlimited control over the minds of their children.  Are they slave-holders?  Mark especially the
following paragraph:  "If he [the master] rules with
the gentleness and benevolence of a perfectly holy
being, yet if he rules absolutely over his servant, the
essential elements of slavery are there."' Does " Meridionus" really suppose this statement will be received as truth? Is he willing to abide by it, and
commit himself to its defence? WThat being possesses such absolute control of mind, as the blessed
God!  "The king's heart is in the hand of the
Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will."'  Good men and angels are under
the absolute control of God; but according to this
doctrine, instead of being the "' freemen of the Lord,"
59 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
they are bond slaves. An argument that leads to
such revolting conclusions, is worse than a mere abstraction. I leave our readers to give it a name. In
this discussion, we are professedly looking at slavery
as it is,-not as it may possibly exist, in circumstances
unknown in real life.
Slavery is entirely different from the parental relation. There is scarcely a feature in it that bears a
resemblance to this relation. In all divinely established social relations there is a native element of
love, which softens authority, and cheers obedience.
But slavery is an unnatural, forced relation, where
the subject has no natural love to prompt cheerful
obedience, nor the master any parental feeling to
restrain wrath and tyranny.  Parents never speak of
their children as "chattels," or put them up in the
market to the highest bidder.
Slavery differs in all its essential elements fromn the
system of apprenticeship. So the planters of the West
Indies understood it; so it is universally conceded
except by those who have sonme favorite theory to
sustain. The master has the avails of the labor of
the apprentice, but he is supposed to render a full
equivalent in his care over him, and the schooling he
gives him, and his efforts to prepare him for future
respectability and happiness, and  usefulness.   In
every step taken, thie good of the apprentice is contemplated as well as the interests of the master.  It
is precisely the reverse in the case of the slave.  iHe
is a "chattel personal," a thing, the property of his
master to be disposed of as a horse or an ox. And
yet, we are gravely told that the essential element of
slavery is the control of one mind over another!
" It is not,;' says "M eridclionus,' " an assumed right, nor
60 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
a claimed right. It is a term by which the relation
of two parties is indicated." If this is all, what a
harmless thing slavery must be!  Who would ob ject to " a term" by which two parties choose to in dicate their relations? If this is slavery, it is won derful that the mass of men should not have made
the discovery at an earlier period.  Just see with
what severity of language Mr. Monroe speaks of "a
term." "WVe have found," says he in his speech in
the Virginia Convention, "that this evil has preyed
upon the very vitals of the Union, and has been
prejudicial to all the States in which it has existed."
Hear what Patrick Henry said in 1773.  "Is it not
amazing that at a time when the rights of humanity
are defined and understood with precision, in a country above all others fond of liberty, that in such an
age and country, we find men professing a religion
the most hunlane, mild, gentle firnd generous adopting a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty."
Listen to what  Jefferson said of1 a  tera,."  "I
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is
just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever.  The
Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with
us in such a contest."  Hear what WoT'. Pinknev said(
in the House of Delegates, Maryland, 1789.  "Iniiquitous and most dishonorable to Maryland  is that
dreary system of bondage,  which  her laws  have
hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of a
better object, and her citizens by their practice countenanced: founded on a disgraceful traffic to which
the parent country lent her fostering aid from motives of interest.-JIts continuance is as shameful as its
orfi'n.  Wherefore should we  confine the edge of
61 
DISCOUSSION ON SLAVEPY.
censure to our ancestors, or those fromni whom they
purchased!  Are not we  equally guilty?   They
strewed the seeds of slavery; we cherish and sustain
the growth. They introduced the system; we enlarge and invigorate and confirm it. For shame,
Sir! let us throw off the mask:'tis a cob-web one
at best, and the world will see through it. It will
not do thus to talk like philosophers, and act like
unrelenting tyrants." Read Mr. Swain's address of
North Carolina in 1830.  "Is it nothing to us that
seventeen hundred thousand of the people of our
country are doomed illegally to the most abject and
vile slavery that was ever tolerated on the face of the
earth? Are Carolinians deaf to the piercing cries of
humanity? Are they insensible to the demands of
justice? Let any man of spirit and feeling, for a
moment, cast his eye over the land of slavery.
Think of the nakedness of some, the hungry yearnings of others, the flowing tears and heaving sighs
of parting relatives; the wailings of lamentation and
woe; the bloody cut of the keen lash and the frightful scream that rends the very skies:-and all this
to gratify ambition, lust, pride, avarice, vanity, and
other depraved feelings of the human heart. Too
long has our country been unfortunately lulled to
sleep, feeding on the golden dreams of superficial
politicians, fanciful poets and anniversary orations.
The worst is not generally known.  Were all the miseries and horrors of slavery to burst at once into
view, a peal of seven-fold thunder could scarce strike
greater alarm."
What a pity these Southern men  had not been
taught that slavery is a mere "term by which the rela tion of two parties is indicated.'"  They might have
6II 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
spared a great deal of their burning indignation, and
severe reproof. They needed certainly the light of
later times to give them a fair and full understanding
of the subject.
I received the following note from a distinguished
gentleman in reply to one I addressed to him, which
will be pertinent in this place. IHe is known to the
public as holding conservative views on the subject
of slavery, and he is, by his own contribution, a lifemember of the Colonization Society.  Hle says,
"The position of  O. R. R eridionus'' that slave-holclding is the absolute control of one mind over another,'
of which you ask my opinion, is indeed singular.
That slavery includes what is expressed in this definition, is true enough. But does it include nothing
more? What would be said of this in the slaveStates? what would slave-owners say of it?  I apprehend there would be some demurring to this advocacy of their cause. It might be pleasant to them
to see the controversy in which they are engaged
with almost the whole world, reduced to so small a
compass and presented on their side in so compact
and defensible a form, but from what I know of
them, I am mistaken, if for their wives and children's
sake they would not ask to be excused from taking
the position which' Meridionus' has invented for them.
I say invented for them, for he is certainly entitled to
the honor of a new discovery. If the absolute control of one mind over another makes a state of slavery, then, according to the scriptural view of the subject, every man's wife is his slave, and every man's
child is his slave, and your hearers on the Sabbath
are very often, I presume, reduced to the condition
of slaves under you as their master.
63 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
" Now, unless'Meridionus' will take the ground
that our wives and children are slaves in the full and
proper sense of the term, hlie nmust add something to his
definition of slavery.  Hle must make it comprehend
some power or riht whichl the husband and the father do not possess.  What I suppose he must add is
the very thing which you have urged upon lhim; to
wit, the right of property with the I)owter to alienate
by selling.  The definition of'Me leridionus,' was evidently contrived by him to suit his dogma that' there
are no evils in slavery that are not equally inseparable
from depraved hu?man nature in other lawful relations."'
I have received another letter from a gentleman
who has been a slave-holder, and at a great pecuniary sacrifice liberated all his slaves.  Hte says,-" I
have some knowledge of slavery and slave-holders.
I never before heard such a definition as that given
by' MAeridionus.' But I do know that they consider
slaves as property-that they buy and sell them as
such, and at death, will their farms perhaps to their
elder children, and their slaves, Jenny, Roda, Dan,
Bob, Ellis, &c., to their minor children to be hired
out or sold for their special benefit. I think that
slave-holders as well as abolitionists will need a good
deal of instruction to understand the definition of
'Meridionus.'  It seems to put slave-holders largelyin
the majority, even making Wm. Penn, John IVesley,
and their numerous followers either slaves or slaveholders."
A word more in close. I think I have a right to
complain of the pertinacity of my opponent in striving to make me responsible for sentiments which he
knows I detest and abhor. Hlow many times must I
reiterate that I make a wide distinction between the
64 
DISCUSSION 0N SLAVERY.
system of slavery, and some, who are unfortunately involved in its evil workings!  How many times must I
repeat that the dogma that slavery is per se sinfji, is
not one justly chargeable upon me? I will make
one more effort to put "Meridionus" right in regard
to my views, and if I fail, I will give up the matter in despair.
I know a gentleman who resides in a slave-holding
State.  He owned a slave by the name of Tom.  He
saw the evil tendencies of the system, and resolved
to give this slave his freedom. He was coming
North, and he said to Tom that he should take him
to a free State and give him his liberty.  The slave
earnestly plead with him to abandon his purpose.
Said he, "Master, you know I have a wife owned by
MIr. -. I can't take her with me, and I can't
be separated from her.  Do this, master-retain your
present relation to mne for the sake of my protection,
and for the sake of my wife." The good man (I
wish I was at liberty to publish his name) felt the
force of the appeal.  He said, "Tom, make your own
arrangements, and receive all your wages for your
labor, and I will hold my present legal relation for
your good." Is that excellent man guilty of sin for
holding that slave? Ought hlie not to be commended
and honored by the wise and the good!  And yet,
the system which forces him into such a position, a
position which he deplores, is one which all good
men should condemn.  Is not " M[eridionus" capable
of seeing this? If he cannot, I am consoled with the
conviction that all our readers will.
THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST.
65 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[DR. PARKER.]
[WHAT EVILS ARE INSEPARABLE FROM SLA VERY?]
MR. EDITOR:-The Correspondent has my thanks,
for attempting to point out the evils that are " inseparable from slavery." There are a few other things
in his communication, that demand a passing notice.
I will advert to them in the order in which they
occur.
1. tHe intimates that it is an evil which "unijormly
attaches to [slavery,]" that those who live where it
exist, are blinded and hardened, so as to become indifferent to its appalling evils. I have lived where
it exists, and have not been blinded, nor hardened,
nor made indifierenlt to the appalling evils of slavery.
But let me remind the Correspondent again, that the
question is not which of us is morally or religiously
in the best state. I believe him to be an excellent
man, and I know myself to be a great sinner; but I
am not willing that the precious cause of truth should
be staked on my unworthiness.  Besides, the Correspondent ought to remember, that he is not willing to
be held responsible for "insinuating the same doctrines with the Garrison school."
2. He intimates, that if masters have "absolute
power," then ministers are slave-holders in respect to
their flocks. They must have more power, then, in
his location, than they have in mine. The clergymen in my neighborhood are as far, at least, from
having absolute power, as the government of the
66 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
United States is from being an absolute government,
and I guess farther.
3. He intimates, that if slave-holders have abso lute power, then God must be a slave-holder. It
seems to me a non sequitur-nevertheless, if the Cor respondent insists upon the inference, it is has, and not
mine; for no man can deny, with the least show of
plausibility, that slave-holders do exercise absolute
power.
5. He speaks of my definition of slavery in a very
extraordiniary manner.  I defined the word slavery,
by saying it is a term.
He had maintained that the word slavery meant a
right-then that it was not a real right, but "an as.sumed right, a claimed right."  I denied that the
term slavery had any such meaning, and alleged that
it was a term employed to indicate a certain relation
betwieen two parties, which relation I proceeded to
describe in the following language:   "The slaves are one party, the masters are the
other.  The state is not a party in the relation.  A
State rmay hold slaves, but in the condition of things
of whilh we speak, in this country, individual citizens hold slaves-but, whoever  may hold slaves,
slavery is neither a right, nor an'assumed right,'
nor'a claimed right.' Slavery, as expressive of
the condition of the subordinate party, is the absolute subjection of slaves to their masters. Whether it is consistent with  their rights, that they
should be under this subjection or not, is a distinet question.   Slaves are in absolute subjection
to their masters. Slavery, as expressive of the condition of the superior party, is the holding of slaves,
the exercising of the power that keeps slaves in abso
67 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
lute subjection. WVhether it be right for a master to
hold slaves, is a distinct question, &c."
Does the Correspondent think it fair in debate to
represent such a definition, as if it had been maintained that slavery was nothing but a term-a mere
word? Does he gain any thing for his argument by
it?  Is he willing that it should be published in a
permanent form, as a specimen of his character as an
inquirer for what is true and right? If such a form
should be given to these papers, I am sure he will
wish his pen drawn over all his allusions to "a
term."
6. ie quotes from Mr. Monroe and Mr. Jefferson
some eloquent passages against slavery.   I have
often quoted parts of the same myself They are
beautiful testimonies to the fact, that there is no
where such a strong sense of the evils-of slavery, as
among slave-holders themselves, notwithstanding the
Correspondent has maintained that slavery uniformly
blinds and hardens those that live in the midst of it,
and renders them indifferent to its appalling evils.
I know not what the Correspondent's object was, in
introducing these quotations, unless it was to suggest the idea that I did not think as badly of slavery
as these men.  Yet I can scarcely believe that this
was his object, because the Correspondent knows
that I am as much opposed to slavery as himself.
7. The letter to the Correspondent. It is sufficient
to say of it, that as far as it appears, the writer of
the letter never had seen my more full explanation
of the term slavery. In answer to the declaration of
the Correspondent, that slavery was "a right of
property," &c., I had alleged, that it was not a right,
but as far as the master was concerned, a power, a
68 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
control that one human being exercised over another,
&c. This was disputed. Then, in a subsequent
communication, I proceeded to define the term slavery more flly. I thus defined the use of the word
slavery: Slavery is a term by which the relation of
two parties is indicated.  The slaves are one party,
the masters are the other, &c.  See the beginning of
the second paragraph above. Why didl not the Correspondent show, that this definition, which was a
mere expansion of my denial that slavery  is " a
righ/t," and my assertion that it is an " absolute control," was an unsound definition?  I think it was
because he could not. I only ask the reader to peruse the definition again.  Meantime I have correspondents too. Several warm opposers of slavery
have volunteered their approbation. Here is an extract from one of their communications, a gentleman
known for his philanthropy and intelligence, a gentleman who has traveled in the South, without being
blinded or hardened. I will venture to stake the
good sense, and clearness, and urbanity of his cominunication, against the same qualities in the character of the letter of the correspondent of my opponent
in this debate.  He says as follows:
*  "Your articles may be of very great use to those
who speak and write of slavery, without having any distinct ideas of the condition of the slave. There has been a
remarklable confusion of words on the subject, the effect,
no doubt, of confused ideas. Some have confounded slavery with slcave-holdin?, in defiance of the King's English;
and others have imagined that'the property-power,' or
the laws  on the subject, constitute the very essence of
slaverv.
"In your definition of the word slave'y, as  I a term denoting the complete subjection of one party  to the au
69 
DISCUSSION Cl SLAVERY.
thority of another, in certain circumstances,' you have described the very thing. Your definition is a picture, a description-and  every reader may  see that you are not
speaking of the laws, or of the traffic, or any other abuses,
which are the accidents of slavery, but which are not essential to the relation between master and servant-but of
a condition between two parties, which may and does often
exist, amid all the evils incidental to the exercise of absolute power, without wrong to either party concerned.
Slave-holding, then, is one thing; and the traffice in slaves,
and other abuses which spring from avarice and cupidity,
are very different things; and there is surely no evidence
of remarkable perspicacity in the statements, which make
these evils a part and parcel of the thing.  If the power to
sell or barter away the servant, is essential to slaverymany Southern masters are not slave-holders-ior they do
not exercise the right of selling their faithful servants;
they do not even claim it as a right. Some of them would
about as soon think of selling their children.  If this' property power' be a part of the thing-maniy slave-holders
do not hold their servants in the state or condition of
slavery; that is-they are not slave-holders!"
8. I have myself no objection to the course pursued by the gentleman of the South referred to by
the Correspondent in respect to his slave Tom. I
presume he was actuated by philanthropic principles,
and I have no doubt that the political system that
sustains slavery is quite as bad; indeed, in my opinion, it is a great deal worse than the Correspondent,
or anly other man that has not lived under it, ever
dreamed of. But there are hundreds of good men
that hold slaves, and manage their plantations, without any such arrangements as were made in respect
to Tom, who are nevertheless not guilty of the sins
which the Correspondent charges upon them.
Now, Air. Editor, this matter must be understoodand no intimations that I have been blinded and
10
i 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
hardened, or that I think well of the system of slavery, or that I am apologizing for its evils, shall prevent my speaking the truth, in regard to the calumnies heaped upon our Southern brethren
A good lady who had never been at the South,
once said to me, that the slaves were all cruelly dealt
with, in thlat they were not well fed, and were never
treated kindly.  I replied, there are certainly some
exceptions. For instance: my friend, the Rev. J. L.
.Montgomery, of Bayou Sarah, but now, I trust, in
heaven, told me that he lIad all his slaves served
with good hot coffee, before going into the cotton field
in the morning; and I have often seen the late l-Ion.
Judge Harper, of New Orleans, take a little slave on
one knee, and the son of his niece on the other, and
delight himself in ministering to their common gratification.  Her reply was-" Are you not ashamed to
stand here and apologize for slavery?" I have often
been reminded of this, by the statements of the Correspondent. If some men do in fact hold slaves,
without brutalizing them-without shrouding their
slaves in ignorance-I have a right to say so. If I
have known masters that not only would not prevent
parents among their slaves from governing their children, but who even used their influence to make the
children respect and honor and obey their parentsI have a right to say it.
Now a few words in reply to the argumnent of the
Correspondent.
1. He maintains that it is an evil inseparable from
slavery, that it brutalizes the mind and shrouds the enslaved in q7norance.  To brutalize, is to make brutal.
That slavery has exerted such an influence, where
masters are cruel, or neglectful of the interests of
71 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
their servants, cannot be denied-but the Correspondent maintains that this influence is inseparable
from slavery; that is, that every Christian man that
holds slaves, brutalizes them-that he cannot hold
them in slavery without brutalizing them.  Why,
Mr. Editor, it is perfectly palpable to every body acquainted with the state of things in the South, that
those who have been in bondage longest, as a general
thing, are least brutal, and that those who have come
to the country most recently, are, in general, mnost
brutal.   The  Correspondent admits  that  "many
slaves are instructed in the precepts and principles
of the gospel, and furnish evidence of piety." Is
brutalizing inseparable from the influence exerted on
these many? I do not understand how a brutalizing,
and converting, and sanctifying process, can go on
together in the same persons. He admits that they
are taught orally, but then he maintains that they
are every one brutalized and enshrouded in ignorance. Suppose I should show the Correspondent a
slave that has more grace of manners than the majority of graduates of our colleges, a man that can
be trusted by his master to manage a great and complicated business, and to whose care he can safely confide the protection of his wife and daughters, both at
home or in journeys, will he say that slavery has
brutalized such a man? I can assure the Correspondent that I have had the happiness to know more
than one, who is as far from being brutalized, as
Joseph was in Egypt, or Daniel in Babylon, by their
bondage. And is shrouding the enslaved in ignorance, inseparable from slavery?  If this means any
thing, it means that a man cannot be in a state of
slavery, and be taught at the same time.
72 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
Shrouding in ignorance is inseparable from slavery!
Ignorance inseparable  from  slavery!   Were  the
literati among the Roman slaves ignorant? Was
the accomplished Terence made brutal and ignorant
by  slavery?  Yet his master  Terentius Lucanus,
(who had the power of life and death over him,)
gave Terence his elegant education. Plautus, too,
one of the purest among the early Latin classics, was
born and brought up in slavery. There are also
hundreds in the South, that can read, and write, and
cast interest. Is being enshrouded in ignorance inseparable from a state of bondage? Why, sir, the
Correspondent knows from the moment that he reflects on it, that he himself could advance a family
of slaves in knowledge every month of their lives, if
he held them, even under all the disadvantages of
our American slave code.
I deny that awy master, but a wicked and unprincipled one, brutalizes his servants, or enshrouds them
in ignorance. Every Christian man exerts an influence of an opposite character.   The assertion that
such an influence of brutalizing and enshrouding in
ignorance is inseparable from slavery, is a cruel accusation against hundreds of excellent Christian men,
that are toilfully and successfully, though slowly, I
admit, improving the intellectual and spiritual state
of their poor slaves.
Another evil which the Correspondent asserts to be
i7tnseparable from slavery, is the unlawful control which
slaveholders exercise over the children of the enslaved
Mr. Editor, I do feel deeply the cut, inflicted by this
paragraph of the Correspondent, upon thousands
who are unjustly accused by it.  If the Correspondent had said that slavery gives a man the power to
73 
DISCUSSION ON SLAvERY.
act thus towards his slaves, I would not have objected. But he maintains that all slaveholders exercise this cruelty- that it is inseparable from slavery.
The questions propounded are most extraordinary.
He refers to the Divine injunction to children to
obey their parents, and gravely asks me " if masters
do not nullify this command uniformly, in the slaveholding States?"  Why, he might with as much propriety ask me if masters do not unformly whip their
slaves to death in the Southern States.
He asks whether I "will pretend that children are
permitted to obey their parents as Gocd has enjoined it
upon them?" Why sir, the question is as insulting
to many of our excellent Christian friends at the
South, as it would be to the Correspondent to ask
him if he would pretend that he himself permits his
children to obey their mother.
There is nothing in slavery that can prevent a
Christian master from inculcating every precept of
the gospel upon his servants. Every precept is in culcated by the pious. Christian masters require it
of the children of their servants, to honour and
obey their parents.  They often require it of their
own children, to obey the servants that have the eare
of them.-I must here narrate a little incident illus trative of the feelings of many Southern Christians
in respect to the deference which they often demand
for worthy servants.  I procured for a New England
gentleman, a young man, the situation of family pre ceptor, in a respectable family in Louisiana. After a
time I inquired of the employer how he liked my
young friend.  He replied, "Very  well, except in
one thing; he seems to be a fine scholar, and the
children are fond of him."  But. in what particular,
4
i 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
asked I, does he not suit you?  "Well," said h
' he does not seem to understand our domestic feel ings; he is not exactly as kind as he should be to all
the family."  How is that? said I, he always seemed
to me a man of very bland and amiable manners.
"Well," said my friend, "so he is except in a single
case. Our servant, old aunt Polly, has grown grey
in the service of this family.  She has been the
mamma  [nurse] of all my children, and we never
allowed one of them to speak disrespectfully to her.
She is an old saint, and we can't bear to see her
abused."  But what has he done?  How does he
treat aunt Polly? Very bad? inquired I. "' Why,
yes," says he, "he orders her about like a child, and
asks her what she means by not having his room in
order  It grieves her.  We always say, please aunt
Polly."
Yet, this young man pocketed his $800 salary,
which he had received in addition to his board, and
returned to the North, and wrote back a letter to his
pastor containing "scorching rebukes" for his not
coming out and "reproving the sin of slavery," and
that too, when he had remained in the same place a
year without "reproving" it himself, or doing anything else bearing on the subject, except to grieve the
heart of a pious family by speaking disrespectfully
to a servant of excellent character! Do you wonder,
Sir, that such a man as that master should speak of
abolitionists as "northern fanatics," when he sees in
the paper, from the pen of a man of so much standing and character as "the Correspondent," a question
like this-" Will he pretend that children are pernitted to obey their parents as God has enjoined it
upon them?"  The insinuation that  "a child [in
75 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
bondage] is not permitted to minister to a parent in
sickness, or wipe the cold sweat of death from his
brow," is unworthy of the Correspondent.  I know
he does not say that this is inseparable from slaverybut why say, "If the naster chooses to forbid these
last offices of sympathy and affection."  Would "the
Correspondent" think it kind if one should say of a
servant woman in his own family, that a child might
not come and minister to her mother in sickness, or
wipe the cold sweat of death from her brow, if he
the Correspondent chooses to forbid these last offices
of sympathy and affection? And yet, he ought to
know that such an act is as likely to be perpetrated
by himself, as by our Christian brethren at the
South.
Mr. Editor, I do deeply regret that the Correspondent has not left some opportunity for modifying his
statements. But his declaration, that it is " inseparable" friom slavery, "that slave-holders exercise an
unlawful control over the children of the enslaved,"
and the question (one of the strongest modes of asserting a thing,) do not masters nullify this divine
precept uniformly in the slave-holding States?" have
put it out of his power to explain. He ought, in
my opinion, to retract the charge.  I know that the
Correspondent is kind and charitable in his general
character. He can doubtless say, that he has written hastily, that he has been imperceptibly drawn
into such modes of speaking by an honest zeal
against a hateful institution, but he will not abide by
positions of a calumnious character against his Christian brethren. A man may utter language that has
all the influence of the basest calumny, without involving himself in the guilt of calumny.  So I trust,
16 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
and believe it is with the Correspondent. There are
hundreds of men, in the South, some of them min.
isters of the gospel, and elders of our churches, who
hold slaves, of whom, I am sure, he will not say on
reflection, that it is insep2rable from their slave-hold ing that they brutalize their servants, enshroud them
in ignorance, or refuse "to permit their children to
obey their parents."  He  means it is inseparable
from the slave-holding of very bad men.
I do not allege that the Correspondent is culpable
for saying what he has said of Southern men here,
but I do say that he will be if he do not inform himself of the state of facts. If he fears being blinded
and hardened  by going and seeing for himself, let
him inquire of those who have as much character as
himself, and who have been eye witnesses, and he
will learn that the things which he has charged upon
all slaveholders as i)selgarable from slavery, and as
being uniorrmly practiced, are, like sin, everywhere
else, practiced only by wicked men. Slavery is a
great evil. Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Jefferson, and
thousands of others among slave-holders do not think
too badly of it. But, there are other evils. Among
them, there is perhaps none more dangerous than the
spirit of detraction. We look to good men like the
Correspondent to counteract its influence.
When the Correspondent brings forward one evil
that is inseparable firom slavery that is not equally
inseparable from depraved human nature in other
lawful relations, I will promise cheerfully to retract
my position.
O. R. MERIDIONUS.
77 
DISCUS$ION ON SLVERY.
[MR. ROOD.]
TO " O. R. HERIDIONUS."
MR. EDITOR -My opponent ought surely by this
time to be convinced, that I make a wide distinction
between the system of slavery, and those Christian
brethren who feel its ponderous weight, and are
struggling amidst the difficulties with which they are
environed, to do the best they can in their unfortunate position. I have not uttered an unkind word
in regard to them, but uniformly in this discussion
expressed the sympathy which I sincerely feel for
them, in their trying and difficult circumstances.
"Meridionus" might have saved much  time and
strength which he has expended in his last communication, in defence of brethren at the South, if he
had called into exercise a reasonable share of discrimination, so as to have gained a clear apprehension of the positions, which I endeavored to establish.
As it is, he has certainly missed the mark in most
that he has said. It will be recollected, that he called on me to specify "barely one" evil that is inseparable from slavery. I responded to this by saying, " one evil inseparable from slavery is brutalizing
the mind, and shrouding the enslaved in ignorance."  I
admitted "that many slaves are instructed in the
precepts and principles of the Gospel, and furnish
evidence of piety." I knew full well that many
Christian masters are careful and conscientious in imparting knowledge to their servants, and this is clear
7  
D11SCUSSION ON' SLAYERY.
ly implied in the remark,   that rnany slaves are in structed."  Who did "Meridionus" suppose I in tended as giving such instruction, but pious masters?
But such instances, and I rejoice there are so many,
are exceptons to the general rule.  Where there is
one master, who labors for the intellectual and moral
culture of his servants, are there not ten, fifteen, or
twenty, who are indifferent or hostile to their mental
improvement? Let us look at some facts, and see if
my position, which my opponent represents as untrue
and slanderous, is not fully sustained. 
"A law of South Carolina, passed in 1800, autho rizes the infliction of twenty lashes on any slave
found in an assembly conuvened for the purpose of
MIENTAL INSTRUCTIONX, held in a confined or secret
place, although in the presence of a white. Another
law imposes a fine of one hundred dollars on any
person who may teach a slave to write. An act of
Virginia, of 1829, declares every meeting of slaves,
at any school, by day or night, for instruction in
readi,g or uwriting, an unlawful assembly; and any
justice may inflict twenty lashes on each slave found
in such school."
Hiow slanderous it is, to say that slavery brutalizes
the mind, and keeps its victims in ignorance! But I
have not done yet.  In North Carolina, "to teach a
slave to read or write, or to sell or give him any book,
(the  Bible not excepted,) or pamphlet,  may  be
punished with thirty-nine lashes, or imnprisonment, if
the offender be a free negro; but if a white, then
with a fine of two hundred dollars." Would the
reader know why this severity for an act which would
be commended in a free State? The preamble to the
law assigns the reason.  Mark it, my  good friend,
'to
79 
D)ISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
Meridionus," ponder,  and  inwardly  digest it —
"Teaching slaves to read and write, tends to excite dissa
tisfactionr in their minds, and to produce insurrection and
rebellion." A law was enacted in Georgia, in 1829,
to wit, "If a white teach a free negro or slave to
read or write, he shall be fined five hundred dollars,
and imprisoned at the discretion of the court; if the
offender be a colored man, bond or free, he shall be
fined or whipped at the discretion of the court." In
Louisiana, the penalty on the statute book, if it has
not been recently repealed, for teaching slaves to read
or write, is one year's imprisonment.
I pass now to the testimony of ecclesiastical bodies.
The Synod of Kentucky have recorded their testimony as follows:   "Slavery dooms thousands of
human beings to hopeless ignorance. Throughout
the State, so far as we can learn, there is but one
school in which, during the week, slaves can be
taught. Here and there a family is found, where
humanity and religion impel the master, mistress, or
children, to the laborious task of private instruction.
But after all, what is the utmost amount of instruction given to slaves? Those who enjoy the most of
it, are fed but with the crumbs of knowledge which
fall fromn their master's table. The impression is almost universal," (mark it, my good friend,) "that
intellectual elevation unfits men for servitude, and
renders it imnpossible to retain them in this condition.
Ienlce, in some of our States, laws have been enacted, prohibiting, under severe penalties, the instruction of the blacks; and even where such laws do not
exist, there are formidable numbers, who oppose with
dep hostility every effort to enlighten the mind of the
t;(y 
. DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
negro." Had the Synod of Kentucky any doubt in
regard to the brutalizing influence of slavery?
The Rev. Dr. Nelson, born and educated in Ten,
nessee, and till forty years old a slaveholder, says;
"I have been asked concerning the religious instruction of slaves; and I feel safe in answering, that in
general it amounts to little or nothing. Hundreds
and thousands never heard of a Savior; and of those
who are familiar with his name, few have any conmprehension of its meaning. I remember one greyheaded negro, with whom I tried to talk concerning
his immortal soul. I pointed to the hills, and told
him God made them.  He said he did not believe
anybody made the hills. I asked another slave about
Jesus Christ. I found he had heard his name, but
he thought he was the son of the Governor of Kentucky."
The Rev. Charles C. Jones preached a sermon, in
1831, before two associations of planters in Georgia,
in which he says: "Generally speaking, the slaves
appear to us to be without God and without hope in
the world-A NATION OF HEATHENS in our very
midst. We cannot cry out against the Papists for
withholding the Scriptures from the common people,
and keeping them in ignorance of the way of life;
for we withhold the Bible from our servants, and keep
them in ignorance of it, while we will not use the means
to have it read and explained to them. The cry of
our perishing servants comes up to us from the sultry
plains, as they bend to their toil-it comes up to us
from their humble cottages, when they return at
evening to rest their weary limbs-it comes up to us
from the midst of their ignorance, and superstition,
aid adultery and lewdness."  And yet, "there is not
4*
81 
$i2CUSalON OX SLtv~ Y.
one evil in slavery, that is not equally insearable from
depraved human  nature  in  other LAWFUL  RELA TIONS."  " Meridionus" holds on to this, as if it were
his life.
In 1833, the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia
made the following record: "From long continued
and close observation, we believe that the moral and re ligious condition of slaves is such, that they may justly
be considered the heathen of this Christian country,
and will bear comparison with heathen in any country
in the world."  Why does not my opponent reprove
these Southern brethren for "detraction," which he
justly represents as a crying sin! I think if I am
arraigned on this charge, I shall be found in a very
numerous and respectable company.  A correspondenrt of the Church Advocate, published at the time in
Kentucky, says:  "The poor negroes are left in the
ways of spiritual darkness-no efforts are being
made for their enlightenment-no seed is being sown
in this portion of the Lord's vineyard-here nothing
but a moral wilderness is seen, over which the soul
sickens, and the heart of Christian sympathy bleeds.
Here nothing is presented but a moral waste, as extensive as our influence, as appalling as the valley of
death." If my limits would permit, I could furnish
a mass of additional testimony of the same general
bearing.
Now, my opponent is bound to do one of two
things: either to show that this testimony is irrelevant
or untrue, or admit that my position is fully sustained.
I shall not accept general statements of denial, or be
diverted from the point at issue by the charge of
detraction."  "M eridionus" must meet, and set aside
this testimony, or confess that he is wrong? and that I am
V2, 
DISCUSSIO-N ON SLAVERY.
right."  It is preposterous for a man who has resided
in Richmond, or Charleston, or New Orleans, and
mingled with refined and genteel circles, to pretend
that he has seen slavery as it is, and is qualified to
give a fair representation of its atrocities, as they are
generally exhibited.
A writer in the Charleston (S. C.) Observer said:
"Let us establish missionaries among our own negroes, who, in view of religious knowledge, are as
debasingly ignorant as any one on the coast of Africa;
for I hazard the assertion, that throughout the bounds
of our Synod, there are at least one hundred thousand
slaves, speaking the same language as ourselves, who
never heard of the plan of salvation by a Redeemer."
The Editor, instead of contradicting this broad assertion, adds: "We fully concur with what our correspondent has sai, respecting the benighted heathen
among ourselves."
With testimony like this, and a great amount of
similar character, the conviction is forced upon my
mind, that the knowledge of my opponent, of the
customs and usages of the South, is extremely limited and superficial. I do not believe that he intentionally misrepresents the state of things there.
Certainly not. lie is a man of character, and conscience, and truth. But he is mistaken, and does not
understand the things whereof he affirms. In his
zeal for the South, he has lost sight of his usual discretion, and committed himself to the defence of
positions, which every body must see are utterly untenable.
My  second specification of the evils inseparable
from slavery, respects the "unlawful control whieh
slave-holders exercise over the children of the en
83 
D'ICUSSION ON SLAVERY.
slaved."  My opponent professes to be deeply grieved
by this representation. He says, "I do feel deeply
the cut, inflicted by this paragraph of the Correspondent, upon thousands who are unjustly accused
by it."
The Rev. Mr. Barnes in his admirable work on slavery, sustains by a triumphant argument, the views
I have expressed. He says, "Slavery interferes
with the natural right which a father has over his
children. This results from the nature of property implied in the relation. The primary and the controlling
notion is, that the child is owned by the master, not
that he is placed under the control and authority of
his father. The master, not the father, is supreme.
.... The father is displaced from the position
where God has assigned him, and the master is substituted in his place.... Children, all children
are to honor their father and mother, are to obey
their parents in all things, Ex. 20:12, Col. 3: 20.
"Now it is impossible," says MAr. Barnes, "to secure
the discharge of these duties under the system of
slavery. The father's own time is not at his disposal;
he is at liberty to select and appoint no hours when
he will instruct his children; he has no right to designate any time when he will even pray with his
family; and the whole business of'providing for his
own,' is entirely taken out. of his hands.... The
law of God is perhaps still more entirely nullified in
regard to the duty which the child owes to its parent.
Here it is impossible for him to obey the command of
God requiring subjection to his parent, if the will of
the master comes in conflict with his.  It is not designed that the fatier shall be obeyed.  The master
has the absolute authority, and has the right to coun
84.!, 
DISCUSSION ON SIAVEi.
teract any of the requirements of the father.....
The spirit of the whole institution is, not that the
father is be obeyed, but the master; and if the father
is not obeyed, the law lends no help to secure the respect and obedience of the child. The law has dis
placed the father from the position which God gave
him, and has substituted the authority of another."
I asked a gentleman born and educated at the South
if my statement was not supported by facts? He replied, it could not be contradicted that masters have
the absolute control of the children of the enslaved
-that they could sell them, and in all respects, when
the wishes of the master and those of the parent
come in conflict, the will of the master is paramount.
I can produce any amount of testimony confirming
this statement.  "Meridionus" will not deny that theo
laws on this subject are decidedly wrong and shield
unprincipled masters in the practice of flagrant enormities.  I did not say that Christian masters used the
power lodged in their hands as they art authorized to
use it. I was speaking of the wrongfulness of THE
SYSTEM OF SLAVERY. I admit most freely, that there
are many kind, humane masters, who are striving to
do the best they can in the circumstances in which
they are placed. But the system in its spirit and general operation is hostile to the great principles of charity and Christian benevolence, and naturally and almost necessarily leads the masters to assume prerogatives in respect to the children of the enslaved, which
are the exclusive privilege of parents. I see no reason, therefore, to recall what I said on this point.
My language was sufficiently guarded. I spoke of
the uniform, not the universal practice of slave-holders.
The case of "aunt Polly" does not, in my judgment,
%:. 
DiIUSiltON ON BLIVERY
require any modification of my statement. She was
a very good woman, I have no doubt, and had a very
kind master, but this has very little to do with the
system of slavery in its general operation.
My third specification of the evils of slavery was
this, to wit: "While the system is maintained, masters cannot render to their servants that which is just and
equal. The nature of the system forbids this on the
broad scale which Christianity requires." Not a word
of reply is made to this position. I shall take it for
granted, therefore, that this point is conceded.  I rejoice in this fresh proof of the honesty and integrity
of my opponent. Hle is too conscientious to deny the
truth, although it bears with tremendous power against
himself. I am greatly encouraged by this feature of
the candor and self-sacrificing spirit which he  has
exhibited. He is determined to carry out the priilciple,
"Fiat justitia, ruat coelum,"
whatever may be the fate of his theories and positions. This is right, and it will command and secure
the respect of all intelligent, honorable men. Henceforth, it will be understood that all our discussions
will be conducted on the conceded point that " while
the system of slavery is maintained, masters cannot
render to their servants that which is just and equal."
I will notice one or two other points before I close.
"Meridionus" says, "Suppose I should show the Correspondent a slave that has more grace of manners
than the majority of graduates of our colleges, a man
that can be trusted by his master to manage a great
and complicated business, and to whose care he can
safely confide the protection of his wife and daugh.
84 
bISCUSSION ON SLAY   Y.
ters," &e. My opponent wishes to know if I regard
such a man as brutalized?  Perhaps not.  But this I
will say, to wit:-I think it is a burning shame to
hold such a man as a;' chattel personal," and put
him up in the market like a brute beast. I should
be ashamed to treat a man of such capabilities with
such indignity and glaring injustice.  "Meridionus"
endeavors to shift a fair inference from a position he
had laid down so as to make me responsible for it.
This is not exactly a just method of conducting an ar gument.  He said, "if he [the master] rules with the
gentleness and benevolence of a perfectly holy being,
yet if he rules absolutely over his servant, the essen tial elements of slavery are there."  I replied tothis,
that "good men and angels are under the absolute
control of God; but according to this doctrine, in
stead of being the' freemen of the Lord,' they are
bond-slaves. An argument that leads to such revolting conclusions is worse than a mere abstraction. I
leave our readers to give it a name." And now forsooth, he charges the abominable doctrine on me that
God must be a slave-holder, because he says, no
"man can deny, with the least show of plausibility,
that slave-holders do exercise absolute power." This
is going a little farther than I can patiently endure.
The statement of " Meridionus" that "if the master
rules with the gentleness and benevolence of a perfectly holy being, yet if he rules absolutely over his
servant, the essential elements of slavery are there,"
is preposterous and absurd. In showing its absurd(lity, it will not do for him to attempt to fasten an in- 
ference upon me which is chargeable exclusively upon
his own unwarranted position. I will, in a word,
place this matter in its true light.  Christ is "Head
,87 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
over all things to the Church." He is King in Zion,
and rules supremely and absolutely over his people.
But are the "essential elements of slavery" there?
No, verily, for " whom  the Son maketh free, he is
free indeed." The absolute control of Christ insures
perfect liberty. But there is another kind of absolute
control which comprises "-the elements of slavery"
in all their terrific forms. This is exercised by the
" Prince of the power of the air, the Spirit that now
worketh in the children of disobedience." He leads
his servants "captive at his will," and binds them
with chains of eternal fire. He is the great SLAVEHOLDER of the universe, and good men like " Meridionus" ought to be very cautious not to enlarge
his vast dominion, or increase his cruel power.
THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST.
88 
DISCUSSIOI ON SLAVER.
[DR. PARKER.]
ARE THE EVILS OF SLAVERY INSEPARABLE FROM IT?
MR. EDITOR:-It is not improbable that many of
your readers may be weary of the controversy between myself and " the Correspondent." It is but
right that my opponent should speak last in the debate. I will therefore take such a course in this
article asshall give him a fair opportunity to close
the discussion, on the following week. I shall not
reply again, unless strongly urged by the nature of
the Correspondent's next communication.
I consider that there are two questions of great
consequence, in respect to the moral right or wrong
of slavery. One is, Has a State a right to make and
sustain such a system of laws as exist in the Southern part of our confederacy? The other is, Is it
right for an individual to retain a human being in
bondage? With the first question, I have had
nothing to do in this discussion. I have raised no
inquiry with respect to the duty of any political organization as such.
I have spoken only on the question of the moral
character of the individual slave-holder. I have
maintained that a man's holding slaves does not imply that he is living in sin-that if he is guilty of
wrong towards his servants, he is not necessarily guilty
-that it is possible for him to discharge his duty
towards his servants in such a way that he shall have
as clear a conscience towards them and towards God,
89 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY~
as a good parent can have in respect to his children.
I admit that servants are more liable to be wronged
by their masters than children are by their parents,
but I maintain that the wronging of servants is not
inseparable from holding them in bondage.
This position the Correspondent has undertaken to
disprove. He allows, indeed, that a man may hold
the legal relation while rakiting arrangements to emrancipate, or at the request of his servants for protection,
and that in such a case he is not guilty, because he
is not a voluntary slave-holder.  I admit the justness
of his distinction here.
But on this point, (and this is the only point) he
joins issue with me. He maintains that one man's
holding another in bondage is prima facie evidence
that he is a wicked mnan-that a man cannot hold a
slave voluntarily (that is without any purpose of
emancipating him,) and not inflict upon his slave
grievous wrongs.
Now, let it be observed, that all that the Correspondent has said on the system and the laws has no
relevancy to the subject.
Nearly all his arguments have gone to prove either,
that the State has made laws that oppress the slave,
or that bad masters use their servants cruelly. In
his last communication but one, it is true, he came
to the point and met it fairly.-lHe undertook to
prove that the following evils were inseparabe from
holding slaves. That all real voluntary slave-holders
are guilty of these wrongs.
1. They are guilty of brutalizing their slaves, and
enshrouding them in ignorance.
2. They unformly exercise an unlawful control over
the children of the enslave.
90 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVETY.
3. That they are guilty of not rentdering to their slaves
that which isjzst and equal.
Let it be remembered,  that these statements are
made, not respecting men that are peculiarly cruel
and unprincipled. The question is not whether bad
men treat their slaves badly-these are the things
which he maintains are inseparable from slavery-the
things of which masters at the South are un-ormly
guilty. Now, I assert that there are many hundreds
of slave-holders-I mean  voluntary slave-holdersmen who have inherited plantations stocked with
slav who have no plan for emancipating, but who
expect to transmit them to their heirs, and yet they
are excellent Christian men, and are not guilty of
one of the sins specified. They do not brutalize one of
their servants. They do not enshroud one in ignorance.
They do not exercise an unlawfil  control over the
children of tlae slaves, or refuse to permit them to obey
their own parents.  They do not hesitate to obey the
Apostle's injunction, to render to them what is just
and equal.
I assert that the Correspondent has not substantiated these charges, and for proof, I refer the reader
to his communication of February 5th. He has made
the charges there, but without proof that can satisfv
any thinking mind. If he had said that unprincipled
men do these things, and that the State is culpable
for permitting it-for not restraining them-it would
be a different thing; but he maintains that these
things are inseparable from holding slaves-and that
Southern slave-masters are uniformly guilty of them.
Mr. Editor, I am glad that the views of the Correspondent are before the public. I only ask that his
arguments, so far as they relate to the subject, may
91 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
be looked at, and that our readers will remember,
that all he has said of slave laws, and of the cruelty
of cruel masters, has nothing to do with any question
between us; and that so far as such representations
have a tendency to draw men's minds away from the
point-as if he were opposing slavery, as a system,
and I were its advocate-they are palpably unjust.
The power of reproof is a mighty power, in removing great systems of wrong-but nothing is more
mischievous in its influence, than msplaced censure.
It is misplaced, in my opinion; and the bitterest
evils are inflicted, when all slave-holders are accused
of the three wrongs specified by the Correspondent.
The closing allusion, in the Correspondent's last
communication, to Satan as a slave-holder, if it were
of any consequence, might be retorted. Satan has
no involuntary servants.  He is an abolitionist, and
an " accuser of the brethren."
0. R. MERIDIONUS.
9'2 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[MR. ROOD.]
TO " O. R. MERIDIONUS."
MR. EDITOR:-There are but two or three points
in the last communication of my opponent, which require notice. I shall dispose of these with great
brevity. I am not surprised he should enter his
caveat against being regarded as the apologist and
defender of slavery. I have not charged this great
wrong upon him. I have examined the principles
and positions he has laid down, and left our readers
to draw their own inferences.  One thing is quite
certain, to wit, the subversion of the system of slavery
does not enter into his plan. IHear what he says:
"I assert that there are many hundreds of slaveholders, I mean voluntary'slave-holders, men who
have inherited plantations stocked with slaves, who
have no plan of emancipating, but who expect to
transmit them to their heirs; and yet they are excellent Christian men, and are not guilty of one of
the sins specified."'  Well, if this be so, the system
will be perpetuated without doubt. And if voluntary
slave-holders can be excellent Christian men, and
have no plan of emancipating, and no desire to emancipate, but continue to transmit their slaves to their
heirs-it is all the system needs, to defend it from
the assaults of its opponents.  Did  "Meridionus"
see the bearing of this paragraph, when he penned
it? Did he reflect on the necessary inference it suggests, in regard to his estimate of the svsterm of sla
98 
D-SCUSSION ON SLAVER,t.
very? My views of the system have been freely and
frankly expressed, and I cheerfully submit them to
the judgment of our readers. In respect to the retort, that "Satan has no involuntary servants; that
he is an abolitionist, and an accuser of the brethren"
— I have one or two inquiries to make. Abolitionists, whether their views are right or wrong, insist
upon emancipation, as a fundamental principle of
their creed. But when or where has Satan done
anything to strike off the chains of servitude, and
give liberty to his captives?  What continent, kingdom, island, or tribe, has been blest by his agency?
"An accuser of the brethren!"  True, indeed, he is.
But they are such men as Wilberforce and Clarkson,
and their co-adjutors, who have fought manfully the
battle of human rights. But I must not dwell on
these things. I have a more important object to accomplish in this communication.
My opponent has laid down two or three positions,
which are such precious specimens of logic and
learning, that I feel bound to invite the special attention of our readers to their consideration.  They are
the following: "Slavery is a term by which the relation
of two parties is indicated. The slaves are one party,
the masters are the other."  "Slave-holding is the exercising of a power of one mind over another absolutely,
and in certain circumstances."  " What are the evils of
slavery? There is not one that is not equally inseparable from depraved human nature in other awful relations." I have said something of these positions before, but they deserve a more distinct and formal
notice. If true, they throw a flood of light upon
the world, and ought to be proclaimed with trumpettongue to all the habitations of men.  If true, they
04 
:USSION ON SLAVERY.
amount to nothing less than a quick and easy method
of banishing all sin from the universe. We have all
been groping in the dark.  We  have been laboring
in the slow way which the Gospel points out, to get
rid of moral evil. Slavery has long been regarded
by multitudes as a great evil and a great sin, and
many prayers have been offered up for the subversion
of the system.   But if my opponent represents it
truly, it is far from being the hideous enormity which
men have supposed.  "It is a term by which the relation of two parties is indicated." Apply this to
other things, and how differently do they appear
from what we had vainly imagined! Idolatry, for
instance-what is that?  It is a term by which the
relation of two parties is indicated. The idolaters
are one party-the idols are the other. Our missionaries tell us of infanticide and patricide, and the
burning of widows, and the self-tortures of devotees.
But if "Meridionus" is right in his philosophy, these
are not "part and parcel of the thing."  They are
only "circumstances  that may  be separated from"
idolatry. Point out one that cannot. Cannot infanticide?-There  are thousands of heathen parents,
who do not mnurdertheirchildren. Canlnot patricide?
The Chinese are exceedingly kind to their parents.
Cannot the burning of widows? Are not the British abolishing this in India? Cannot the self-tortures
of devotees? Many of the heathen do not practice
them.
Take another example. What is drunkenness?
Much has been said about it, of late years, but with
how little relevancy, the definition of " Meridionus"
will show.  It would have saved Dr. Beecher a great
part of his labor, in writing his celebrated "Six Set
'05 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
mons," if he had- apprehended that drunkenness is
nothing more than "a term by which the relation of
two parties is indicated."  The drunkards  are one
party, the manufacturers and venders of intoxicating
drinks are the other. Let not Messrs. Barnes, and
Chambers, and Brainerd, and Thompson, publish addresses, and make speeches, about the evils of intemperance. Away, gentlemen, with your stories about
the crimes induced by intemperance; the misery and
pauperism, and orphans and widows, that follow in
its train.  These are not "part and parcel of the
thing."  They are only "circumstances which may
be separated from it." Which of them cannot?
Have not men been drunkards, without committing
robbery or murder? Have not men filled drunk..
ards' graves, who had no widows or orphans to leave
behind? And what is robbery? Mr. Webster defines it to be, "the forcible and felonious taking of
money, goods, &c." The law books speak of it in
the same way. But they have committed an egregious blunder.  "It is a term by which the relation
of two parties is indicated." The robber is one party,
the man robbed is the other. There are, it is true,
many circumstances connected with robbery, which
we may unite in deploring, and wishing they were
otherwise, " almost as much as the robbers do theinselves:" Such are, the forcible entrance into houses,
the alarming of families, the tying them in their
beds, or standing over them with loaded pistols, and
taking away from them their means of support. But
these are not " part and parcel of the thing." Which
of them cannot be separated from it? Cannot the
entering into houses? Certainly it can. A man
may be knocked down on the street, and robbed.
go 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
Cannot the tying them in bed, 6r standing over them
with loaded pistols?   Undoubtedly.   Cannot the
taking away the means of their support? Assuredly.
MAany a family has been robbed of much valuable
plate and jewelry, who still had enough to live
upon.*
The slave-trade, what is that? It has been prononnced piracy, and is punished as such. But after
all, if the position of Merid(lionus is sound, it is a
mere "term by which the relation of two parties is
indicated."   The captured Africans are one party,
the traders in human flesh are the other. It is not
denied that there are some unhappy circumstances
connected with this branch of business. Such is the
tearing asunder of family ties on the coast of Africa;
the confining them in the hold of the slave-ship in
such numbers; the want of pure air and wholesome
food, and of space to stand erect, or even to lie. But
these are not "part and parcel of the thing," as Wilberforce and Clarkson supposed. Is it not plain that
these circumstances may every one of them  be
separated from the trade? Cannot the sundering of
family bonds on the coast of Africa? Certainly, by
taking the whole family. Cannlot the crowded hold?
Yes: by simply carrying a smaller number. Cannot
the want of wholesome food?   No one will deny it.
Thus, by a stroke we get rid of most of the evils in
the world, and why not the whole? Cannot the
thing be exhibited to the universal conviction of
mankind by a series of syllogisms! Thus:
* Does liy opponent say that Idolatry, and Drunkenness, and
Robbery, are sins per se?  And is not the system of Slavery
one of fraud, injustice, and cruel oppression, abhorrent to God
and to all right-minded men?
5)
197 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
There is no sin in abstract terms.
Slavery is an abstract term;
Therefore there is no sin in slavery.
There is no sin in abstract terms.
Idolatry is an abstract term;
Therefore there is no sin in idolatry.
But it seems that 3lave-holdfig is not exactly the
same thing that slavery is. Still it is an abstraction,
and a very harmless one.-Hear Meridionus.  1" Slaveholding is the exercising of a power of one mind
over another absolutely, and in certain circurstances."-Such is the divine government, such is the
parental, and such are all human governments
There is nothing wrong in this surely. The views
of Wlashington and JeiTerson, and Patrick HIenry,
and John Jay, and WVm.l Pinkney, of the abominations of slave-holding are all exploded. It is clear
they did not understand the nature of the subject.
They only knew it in the concrete; we in the abstract.  They looked at it only in its actual workings;
we "treat it ethically."
But  query;-would not this definition apply to
the matters we have considered above, and thus
doubly fortify the position we have taken in regard
to them?   Wnould it not apply to the slave-trade?
Is not that the "exercising of a power of one mind
over another absolutely, and in certain circurnstances?"  Would it not apply to highway robbery?
Is not that the "exercising of a power of one mind
over  another  absolutely,  and  in certain circuImstances?"' WVould it not apply to murder? Is not
that the "exercising of a power of one mind over
another absolutely, and in certain circumstances?"
Now, let us frame another syllogism, and see how
the matter will stand.
98 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
The exercising of a power of one mind over another
absolutely,
And in certain circumstances, is not sin.
But the slave-trader, the robber, and the murderer
exercise such a power absolutely in certain
circumstances
Therefore, the slave-trade, robbery and murder are
not sins.
But it is acknowledged that there are some circnmstances connected with each of these things which
are evils, and which it would be desirable to get rid
of.  Well, so far as the evils of slavery are concerned, Meridionus finds but little difficulty. Hear him.
-" There is not one evil in slavery that is not equally
inseparablefiom depraved human nature in OTHER LAWFUL RELATIONS."  We have then but to look at other
lawful relations to see how little trouble any one need
give himself in regard to the continuance and extension of the systemi. The marriage relation, and the
parental, are lawful relations, but slavery is just as
innocent as they are, and there is not one evil connected with it that is not equally inseparable fromn
either of them.  How foolish and wicked it would be
to abolish the marriage relation on account of the
evils that are at present connected with it! And
equally foolish and wicked is it to wish to do away
with slavery, which is a lawful relation, and very
good with the exception of some circumstances which
are not "part and parcel of the thing."  So also,
partners in business sustain lawful relations, but according to the doctrine of Meridionus, there is "not
one evil in slavery that is not equally inseparable"
from all business partnerships. Pastors and their
churches sustain lawful relations, but according to my
.nnroncnt, "there is not one evil in slavery that is
99 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
not equally inseparable" from the relation of pastor
and people. The American Board unites many friends
of missions in lawful relations, but Meridionus stakes
his reputation as a logician and Christian plillosopher
on the asseveration that there is not one evil ill slavery
that is not equally inseparable from the American
Board.
His argument seems to be this:-there is nothing
wrong in slavery itself. It is, divested of a few circumstances, morally good and excellent. It is in
harmony with Christianity and the law of love; and
so it seems that the toiling captives are to breathe the
pure atmosphere of the millennial morning.  Let no
one say, these are unwarranted and unjust inferences.
I ask any man to look at the positions Meridionus
has laid down, especially the last, on which I have
commented, and pass judgment between us. I never
sought this controversy, or anticipated being drawn
into it, but forced to defend myself, I have done it
with what leisure from pressing duties I could command.
THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST.
100 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[DR. PARKER.]
REPLY TO THE " COIRPESPONDENT," &c.
MR. EDITOR:-I intimated to you in my last that
I should not reply to the Correspondent again, unless
strongly urged by the nature of his next communication.
The chief thing that induces me to take up my
pen again, is the fact that the Correspondent has
chosen to invite it by going back to a ground once
passed over in respect to the use of the term slavery.
It seems to trouble him very greatly that the word
should be regarded as expressive of any sort of relationship between two parties. I have replied to
his remarks about a "term" before, but it seems he
is not satisfied, though, I have no doubt, he was
completely satisfied at the time. Let it not be forgotten then that I defined the word slavery in the
following  language, viz.:-" Slavery is ca term by
which the relation of two parties is indicated. The
slaves are one party, the masters are the other.  The
State is not a party in the relation.  A  State may hold
slaves, but in the condition of things of which we speak,
in this country, individual citizens hold slaves. But,
whoever may hold slaves, slavery is neither'a right'
Tdor' an assumed right,' nor'a clainm,ed righet.'  Slavery as expressive of the condition of the subordinate party,
is the absolute subjection of slaves to their mnasters.
[Vfhether it is consistent with their rights that they should
be under this subjection or not is a distinct question.
101
Of 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
Slaves are in absolute subjection to their masters. Slavery as expessive of the condition) of the superior party, is
the holding of slaves, the exercisi,g of the power  that
keeps them  in absolute subjection.   Whether it be right
for a master to hold slaves in absolute subjection is a distinct question."
This is the question between us.  I maintain that
there may be —that there are many excellent Christian men that hold slaves, who yet are not guilty of
the sins which the Correspondent charges on all voluntary slaveholders.
Now, how has the Correspondent met this plain
account of slavery? Not by pointing out any one
thing left out of this description as a thing necessarily belonging to slavery.  Not by showing that anything is included in the definition that does not always belong to slavery? Nothing of the kind. iHe
has intimated that I have represented slavery as being
nothing but "a term."  Instead of showing that the
relation between the two parties is not fairly described, or that the relation implies injustice in one of the
parties, he affects to treat the whole matter as if a
relation between two parties could be of no sort of
consequence.  Why does he not show that every man
that holds slaves is guilty of a wrong?  Ile compares the holding of slaves with  "Idolatry," and
"Drunkenness" and " Robbery" and "Murder," and
maintains that the evils that belong to these are
"part and parcel of the thing," and that just so the
evils incidental to slavery are "part and parcel of
the thing."
ie then challenges me to point out one evil thiat
cannot be separated from "Idolatry."  So he asks of
Drunkenness and " Robbery," and "Murder."  Why,
102 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
Mr. Editor, what can the Correspondent intend by
such questions? I am afraid some of your readers
will think that I am writing in the name of the Correspondent, and asking thlese questions to bring his
cause into contempt. The inquiries so plainly deinand an answer directly over against the Correspondent's argument, that it reminds one of the parody
on Phillips.-" The Flagranlt and Chromatic tea, does
it not come from Africa?  And the coffee, does it
not comne from China?"  Let me assure you, Mr. Editor, that I have had nothing to do knowingly with
leading the Correspondent to place himself in such
an attitude before his readers.  What one sin cannot
be separated from idolatry?  This is his question in
effect.  Why the worshiping of false gods cannot be
separated from  it.  Does the Correspondent wish
proof that such worship is wicked?
V"rhat sin cannot be separated from drunkenness!
-why, the sin of drunkenness.  What from robbery
and murder!  Why the sin of robbing and murdering.  These are all crimes in themselves —always
crimes.
Idolatry is the violation of the first commandment
directly.   Drunkenness, we are expressly told by
revelation, excludes from heaven.  " Nor drunkards
shall enter into the kingdom of God." Rlobbery is
forbidden in the law which says, Thou shalt not steal;
and murder is opposed to the prohibition which says,
" Thou shalt do no murder."  There is no law, nor
precept, that prohibits the holding of a slave-yet
the Garrison  School put these things onl the same
footing.
In conclusion, I beg leave to call thle attention of
the Correspondent to a few of his positions.
103 
lDIStCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
He maintains that slavery is not a sin per se, and
yet that it is "intrinsically wrong."  He says, "The
doctrine that slavery is per se sinful, is untrue, and
has done a vast amount of mischief."  Yet he maintains, that "Slavery is, whenever a human being,
without crime alleged, is robbed of his inalienable
rights;" that it is "a bartering away righlts which the
law of God never gave to man," and that it ought to
be "denounced as iintrinsically wrong01, oppressive, and
wiicked." Whichl of thlese contradictory statements
would he have his readers believe?
He alleges that "some, perhaps one in a hundred,
or in a thousand, hold slaves in harmony with the
great law of love."  Yet "slavery is when a man is
robbed of his inalienable rights"-and that the relation of slavery is "unlawful and oppressive."  He
says, that "some hold slaves in harmony with the
law of love."  And yet, in the case of the slaveholder, "you must bring him away from the influence of slavery, before he can in all respects, if I may
so speak, fulfil the law of love."  May  so speak! 
He may speak in any language he chooses, but he
cannot require of his readers to be so stupid, as not
to see the contradiction of such statements.
He says, "I do not deny that cruelty of treatment,
where it exists, may be corrected."  Yet he maintains that all slave-holders are guilty of brutalizing
their slaves, and enshrouding them in ignorancethat they "uniformly" exercise an unlawful control
over the children of the enslaved, and that they are
guilty of cruelty, withholding from their poor slaves
"that which is just and equal."
These cruelties, he admits, may be corrected-yet he
avers that they are inuseparale from holding slaves,
104 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
and that Southern masters are "uniformly" guilty of
them.  He says that the doctrine that slavery is per
se sinful, is untrue but that " the system of slavery
is a sin per se."  What?  The holding of slaves is not
a sin per se, and the system of slavery is a sin per se.
The system of slavery is a sin per se!! Who perpetrates it? This is really one of the last discoveries that have been made. It is not the giving a local habitation or a name to a new planet but it is
discovering a new sin.  It ought to be put down in
the list of crimes, something like this-felony, arson,
murder, "the system of slavery," drunkenness, and
such like. But who commits this sin? For it is a
sin per se. Not the slave-holder, for the Correspondent informs us that holding slaves is not a sin per se.
Who is guilty of the system? Somebody must be
chargeable with it. Not one who defends a Christian slave-holder, with whom "cruelties are corrected." Not one who condemns such a man as is in an
"unlawful and oppressive relation."  IHe may be
"an accuser of the brethren," but he has not committed that great sin per se the system of slavery.
Who  has committed the system of slavery?  The
sinner ought to be known. The Correspondent will
do well to remember the predicament of a certain
judge who, when presiding  at a public Sunday
School meeting, and seeing a particular word, intended to guide him in respect to the order of the performances, called out with a very sonorous voice,
"Mr. ANTHEM will now favor us with an address."
Scholars ought not to make such a mistake, as to asscribe to an inanimate tMing, what belongs only to a
moral being.
0. R. MERIDIONUS,
105 
DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY.
[MR. ROOD.]
TO " O. R. fERIDIONUS."
MR. EDITOR:-My opponent in this discussion is
fally apprised that lie has laid down one position
especially, which I regard as most unwarranted, and
of injurious practical tendency. All his statements
and arguments, in support of his side of the question, are of very little importance, as I view the subject, compared with the repeated asseveration, that
" There is not one evil of slavery that is not equally inseparable from depraved human nature in other LAWFUL
RELATIONS."  In my last article, I resolved to bring
him to the defence of this position, or constrain him
to abandon it. It will be borne in mind by our
readers, that while he has reiterated this statement
directly and indirectly, in his communications, he has
not attempted to adduce the arguments which are indispensable to sustain it. I was anxious that this
thing should be met frankly and fearlessly, and prepared my last article with the design of compelling
him to defend his position, by all the arguments
within his power. I mustf beg the privilege of repeating what I said, that our readers may have a distinct
apprehension of my earnest endeavors to prevail upon
him to exhibit all his logic and ability in defending
a position, which I regard as untenable, and deeply
injurious to the rights of man.  I remarked as follows:
We have then but to look at other lawfil relatiois, to
106 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
see how little trouble any one need give himself, in regard
to the continuance and extension of the system.   The marriage relation, and the parental, are lawful relations, but
slavery is just as innocent as they are, and there is not one
evil connected with it, that is not equally inseparable from
either of them. HIow foolish and wicked it would be to
abolish the marriage relation, on account of the evils that
are at present connected with it! And equally foolish and
wicked is it, to wish to do away with slavery, which is a
lawful relation, and very good, with the exception of some
circumstances which are not'part and parcel of the thing.'
So also, partners in business sustain lawful relations, but
according to the doctrine of'Meridionius,' there is'not
one equally inseparable' from all business partnerships.
Pastors and their churches sustain lawful relations, but according to my opponent,'there is not one evil in slavery,
that is not equally inseparable' from the relation of pastor
and people. The Ameri(can Board unites many friends of
missions in lawful relations, but'Meridionus' stakes his
reputation as a logician and Christian philosopher, on the
asseveration, that' there is not one evil in slavery, that is
not equally inseparable' from the American Board."
Now, it is too much to suppose that these remarks
should have escaped the notice of my opponentand I presume they will not be regarded as so entirely
irrelevant, that they did not merit a reply.  And yet
there is no allusion to themn in the communication of
"Meridionus"; not (l word uttered in approbation or
condemination.  If he is satisfied with this course, it
does not become me to complain. If he is willing to
stand before the Christian community, as responsible
for such a position, without girding himself to its defence, he has a right to do so. I do not believe, however, he will find a very large number, either in the
free or the slave States, who will be willing to stand
by his side. In proof, I mention one fact among
many I might record. I asked a distinguished gentleman, who was born, bred, and still resides, in a
107 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
slave-holding community, his views of this position
of my opponent.  He promptly replied, "It is preposterous-there are none, save those who deal in
human flesh, who would defend such a statement."
"Let me assure you, Mr. Editor, that I have had
nothing to do, knowingly, with leading' Meridionus'
to place himself in such an attitude before his
readers."
I pass now to a brief consideration of my alleyed
inconsistencies and contradictions. I am represented,
in effect, as having thrown together a "jumble of
things," so that "confusion is worse confounded."
I hope to be able to show, in a few paragraphs, that
my contradictions are not so numerous or palpable as
"Meridionus" would have our readers believe.  In
speaking of the system of slavery, I have represented
it as one of fraud, oppression, and injustice. Nor
have I been "so stupid" as to suppose that this system
is sustained and perpetuated without the agency of
intelligent, responsible men.  "Who is guilty of the
system?" asks my opponent. I answer, the great
mass of those who advocate and sustain it. The sin
lies at their door-and the day of inquisition will
disclose the flagrant injustice and wrongs of which
they are chargeable.  But is every individual who is
involved in the evil workings of this system, worthy
of condemnation? I have answered this inquiry ill
language as explicit as follows: "The laws of slaveholding States force good men into a position which
they deplore and abhor. They are restrained from
acting out the promptings of their humane, benevolent feelings, by unrighteous and oppressive legislation. Now, if they do the best they can, in their
circumstances: if thev remonstrate and petition for
108 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
a change of those laws which environ them with difficulties; if they truly desire to give freedom to their
bondsmen; then I say they are not chargeable with
the guilt of oppression. Their condition is most unfortunate; but it is not one that deserves censure."
I have in the course of this discussion, again and
again, expressed similar views. The case of the slave
Tom, which I mentioned as an illustration of my
views, will be remembered. Hils master resolved to
bring him to a free State, and give him his liberty.
He remonstrated on account of his wife, who was
owned by another person, from whom he must
be separated. His master said to him, make your
own arrangements, then, and receive all your wages
for your labor, and I will hold my present legal relation for your good. In view of this case, I remarked,
" Is that excellent man guilty of sin, for holding that
slave? Ought he not to be commended and honored
by the wise and the good? And yet the system
which forces him into such a position, is one which
all good men should condemn."
Now, I ask my readers, if there is any glaring inconsistency or palpable contradiction, in this view of
the system of slavery, and particular cases of slaveholding? If I was accustomed to say severe things,
or deal in personalities, I should be strongly tempted
to open my battery, and give to my opponent a
scorching rebuke, for the injustice he has done me in
his last communication. But I am thankful that I
possess some power of self-control, and I mean to exhibit it on this occasion. I cannot omit to say, however, that I regret exceedingly the course which he
has seen fit to adopt.   Ie has attempted to convict
me of inconsistency and contradiction, and make me
109 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY
an object of ridicule, by means which I feel quite
sure I should not have adopted in reference to him.
The quotations he has given, are a word here, and
a phrase there, taken fiord the connection in which they
stand, and so jumbled together to effect the object he
had in view, that they would prove me, if received
in the manner he intended they should be, not only
destitute of logic, but of common sense.  "MelidioPnus" did not reflect in how ridiculous a light I could
place him by adopting the method he has pursued.
All I ask is, that what I have said shall be taken in
the connection in which it stands, and be fairly and
honestly interpreted, and then if it is pronounced inconclusive, or irrelevant, or contradictory, I will not
complain. But it is not right to place what I have
said of the system of slavery in juxtaposition with
what I have said of particular individuals, who feel,
and lament the bitter evils that cluster around it, and
are sighing for deliverance from their burdens, and
then raise a shout of triumph as if I had fallen into
irreconcilable contradictions. Such a course may
suit those, who are striving for the victory, but will
not, I think, be sanctioned by honest and earnest
inquirers after truth.
A word more in close. I have a strong desire that
Christian brethren at the South, will look at this great
subject divested of those biasses and prejudices which
have resulted from what they suppose to be an improper interference by brethren at the North, with
their domestic rights and privileges. That many
things have been said and done without the exercise
of that wisdom which is profitable to direct, I do
most freely admit. I have no hesitation in saying
farther, that there are men who have made themselves
110 
DI)SCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
prominent in denouncing slave-holding in all.possible
circunmstances, who possess as little of the confidence
of Northern, as they do of Southern Christians. The
mass of good people at the North have but little
respect for their judgment, and give no countenance
to their vituperation and indiscriminate denunciation.
I need not say that I refer to the Garrison school of
abolitionists. As A BODY, I believe they are the
worst enemies of the slaves, and would do twice as
much to secure their own aggrandizement and a personal triumph, as they would to burst the bands of
the enslaved. Their unmeasured abuse and railing
accusations are hurled at Christians at the North who
will not listen to their teaching, and submit to their
dictation, with as much bitterness as they are poured
upon the heads of the most determined defenders of
slavery. With large professions of philanthropy
and benevolence,- I fear the mass of them have yet to
learn the first principles of true Christian charity and
the gospel method of doing good.  They have yet
to learn that there is no argument in multiplying epithets of abuse, and that the meekness of Christ is
more powerful in reproving wrong-doers, than the
anathemas they have been accustomed to thunder
against those, whom they profess to be anxious to
reform.  But they have had their day, and will soon
pass into the obscurity to which their talents and
nmoral worth naturally consign them. There is, however, a very large class at the North, and their number is constantly augmenting, of an entirely different
character, who are the uncompromising enemies of
slavery. They look upon the system as mischievous
in all its workings; bad for the slave, bad for the
master, and bad for the country at large. Thev de
III 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
sire their brethren at the South, in concert with their
fellow-citizens, to adopt a course of measures which
shall, in a reasonable time, subvert the system, and
save them and their children from those evils which
naturally and necessarily cluster around it. They
have no desire to interfere, or meddle with things
which do not belong to them. All they ask, or
desire is, that something shall be done adequate to
the great emergency which slavery has brought upon
the country. Surely, our Southern brethren will not
say this is harsh, or officious, or unreasonable.  Let
them seek direction of Hilm, "who is wise in counsel
and mighty in working," and be willing to do what
His Spirit and Word shall dictate, and obstacles which
now seem insurmountable will vanish away, and the
captives will be set free, and a jubilee will be proclaimed, and our country be in truth, what it has
long been in song,
"The land of the free,
And the home of the brave."
Such a glorious consummation, I am sure, our
Southern brethren would hail with an ecstasy of joy.
0, may it speedily come; and we will at the North
unite with our brethren at the South in adoring that
mercy and grace which has brought us so great a
deliverance.
TiE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N.Y. EVANGELIST.
112 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[DR. PARKER.]
REPLY TO THE CORRESPONIDErNT
MR. EDITOR:  The  "Correspondent"  thinks he
can show that his "contradictions are not so numerous or _pa sable," as I would have my readers believe.  Why did he not, in making this concession,
tell us how much less numerous they are, and how
far they are wanting in _palpableness.  He then speaks
of there being no inconsistency between his holding
that the system of slavery is a bad thing, and his
maintaining that the slave-holder may  be a good
man. This was not one of the points of contradiction alleged; on the contrary, I entirely agree with
him thus far. But what does he mean by the following?  Speaking of my last article, he says:
"The quotations he has given, are a word here,
and a word there, taker from the connection in which
they stand, and so jumbled together, to effect the object he had in view, that they would prove me, if
received, in the manner in which he intended they
should be, not only destitute of logic, but of common
sense." This is a most extraordinary declaration.
You would think that the Correspondent would
bring forward one clear instance of my thus misrepresenting him.   Why did he not?  Because he
knows well that I have not, in a single case, quoted
him in a way to prevent him being fairly andcl
honestly interpreted. When he speaks of slaveholders imbruting, the minds of the enslaved, and of
113 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
their not allowing the children of slaves  to obey
their own parents, he is professedly pointing out tlhe
things that are inseparable from slave-holding-things
of which slave-holders are "uniformly" guilty.  It
is not my fault that his logic and common sense do
not appear to good advantage. I challenge any fair
minded man to go back and read the quotations of
the Correspondent's contradictions, without perceiving that they are made with the most perfect fairness.
lie represents slave-holding-not the system merely,
but slave-holding, wherever it exists, "as intrinsically wrong"-" as to be denounced, as robbing men
of their inalienable rights," &C., &e.  That he has
also spoken of the system of slavery as a sin per se, is
very true.  But how does that prove that he has not
elsewhere made all those strong statements about
slave-holders?
I care nothing, however, about lthe precise number
or palyableness of his contradictions.  They doubtless
all grow out of one vain endeavor. To maintain
some of his mistaken positions, the Correspondent
must play into the hands of the abolitionists, technically so called, by maintaining that the holding of a
slave voluntarily, is a crimne,-that the slave-holder,
just like the robber, the murderer and the drunkard,
ought to be called on to repent:  Then he wishes to
say that he does not hold that slavery is a sin per
se —that he is no Garrison man.  Now how does he
differ from the Garrison school?  WVhy in this way.
The Garrison man  says, The slaveholder is a robber
and a man-stealer, and as such he ought to be treated
like any other man guilty of the same crimnes.  That
ministers of the gospel and pious elders, who hold
slaves, are " Rev. Robbers and pious thieves," and
114 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
deserve to be put in the penitentiary. The Correspondent seems to agree with them entirely, with regard to the sin, but in courtesy he would talk to
slave-holders as his " Christian brethren at the
South."  Hie and the Garrison men agree with respect to the guilt of slave-holding. They only difier
about the punishment.   The Garrison men would
treat the criminals as they deserve; the Correspondent would shield them from deserved punishment.
Does the Correspondent protest again that he makes
exceptions in favor of those who are izvoluntai-ly
holding slaves? So do the Garrison school. They
allow a man time to carry home a stolen article.  If
their doctrines are right, their notions of deserved
punishment are right also.
The Correspondent says, he resolved to bring me
to the defence of my position.  Indeed!  Has he
forgotten that I have already answered his assertions,
in which he charges on every voluntary slave-holder
the guilt of imbruting the mind of his slaves-preventing children from obeying their parents-withholding what is justly their due, &c., &c.?  I cannot,
of course, prove a negative-but I fearlessly declare
that these statements are as gratuitous and calumnious, as it would be in me to say of the Correspondent,  that he  treats his domestic servants  in an
equally cruel and fraudulent manner. How can I
answer such calumnies, but to deny them, and to
warn my Southern brethren against being deceived
by terms of respect, uttered with one breath, when
the previous one had just characterized them as
"imbruting the minds of their slaves," and robbing
them "of their inalienable rights."
If the Correspondent thinks he can prove that the
115 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
holding of a man in involuntary bondage is wicked,
why does he not do it? Why is he forever quoting
somebody's opinion?  What has that to do with the
subject?  Why talk perpetually about the system of
slavery? Why insist upon it, that if one lawful
thing is abolished, then every other lawful thing
must be abolished?  Whv maintain that "slavery
is not the parental relation" —that "it is not apprenticeship?" What have such senseless truisms to do
with the subject? Why tell the story again about
Tom? Why show that the laws of slave-holding
States embarrass those who are endeavoring to free
their slaves?  We  have  no  dispute about  that.
Why does he not prove that every mnan who holds a
slave (except he be doing his best to emancipate
him,) is living in sin?  Because it cannot be done.
0. R. MEBIDIONUS.
116 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
[MR. ROOD.]
REPLY TO " O. R MERIDIONUS."
AIR. EDITOR:-I do not intend in this discussion,
to be "frightened from my propriety" by any
amount of provocation, or to say things which, on a
calm review, I shall have occasion to regret.  I shall
not characterize the arguments of my opponent as
"senseless truisms," but leave our readers to judge
of their relevancy and weight. Hie has doubtless
done the best he can in the defence of his positions,
and if the Christian community shall decide that he
has signally failed in sustaining his side of the question, he is still entitled to a respectful consideration
of all the arguments he has urged without an effort
on my part to weaken their force by holding them
up to ridicule and contempt. I shall not, therefore,
imitate Meridionus in his last communication. Nor
shall I say anything more in respect to my alleyed
inconsistencies and contradictions.  The public care
very little about that. What they are interested in,
is to know, whether it be true or false, that " there is
not one evil in selavery that is not equatly inseparable
fromn depraved human  nature in other LAWFUL RELATIONS." Here is a great, vital question, modifying
and changing the views of the civilized world in regard to the systemn of slavery according to the decision
which shall be passed upon it. If this be true, the
views of the great mass of intelligent, Christian men,
of the evils of slavery, are altogether erroneous and
117 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
unfounded. As I have before remarked, if I were
a slave-holder, and believed this representation, I
should make myself quite contented, and let slavery
work out its own redemption.
But let me remind my opponent that he is, at least,
fifty years behind the age. The dark and dreadful
evils of slavery are laid open to public inspection,
and influences and instrumentalities are in operation,
which must, at length, overthrow this mighty Dagon. The decree has gone forth from the throne of
heaven, as I believe, that slavery shall die, and it is
vain for any class of men to attempt to sustain the
tottering fabric.
Meridionus says, he would warn Southern brethren against being deceived by terms of respect, uttered with one breath, when the previous one had
just characterized them as imbruting the minds of
their slaves, and robbing them of their inalienable
rights." Let me tell him that Southern brethren see
and feet the evils of slavery, and that his most earnest
endeavors will never satisfy them, that it is a system
worthy of their countenance and support.   Time
will reveal who are the real friends of the South, and
how much brethren there are indebted to those, who
proclaim the doctrines of my opponent.
I have in the course of this discussion, exhibited
the evils of slavery as " brutalizing the mind, and
shrouding the enslaved in ignorance,"-as an "unlawful control which slave-holders exercise over the
children of the enslaved,"-as a system which "prevents masters from rendering to their servants that
which is just and equal,"-as a "right of property
in a human being"-as an "incubus that broods over,
and to no inconsiderable extent, paralyzes the ener
118
4*. 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
gies of both Church and State"-as an "absolute
control of one man over his fellow-men, which God
never delegated to him"-and as "bartering away
rights" which are personal and inalienable.  These
positions, I think, have been fully sustained by an
appeal to the laws of the slave-holding States, and
the full and explicit testimony of ecclesiastical bodies, and the published declarations of such men as
Mr. Jefferson, and Monroe, and Wm. Pinkney, and
Patrick HIenry, and Mr. Swain.  My proof in support of my positions, so far as written testimony is
concerned, has been derived fron  the South and front
Southern men, with the exception of an extract from
the Rev. MTir. Barnes' Book; "Scriptural Views of
Slavery."  I most cheerfully submit to the intelligence and judgment of our readers, the points which
have been controverted between myself and Meridionus.
In the close of his last communication, he says,
" why does not the Correspondent prove that every
man who holds a slave, except he be doing his best
to emancipate him, is living in sin?  Because it cannot be done." This is, in effect, a re-iteration of a
previous assertion, to wit: "I assert that there are
many hundreds of slave-holders-I mean voluntary
slave-holders-men who have inherited plantations
stocked with slaves, who have no plan of emancipating, but who expect to transmit them to their heirs;
and yet they are excellent Christian men, and are not
guilty of one of the sins specified." If I have
shown, as I have aimed to do, the wvrongfulness of the
system of slavery, I have proved that voluntary slaveholders, who have no plan of eianieipating, ancl no
desire to emancipate, but continue to transmit their
119 
DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY.
slaves to their heirs, are guilty of sin in the sight of
God and good men. I do not hesitate to make this
assertion, and am willing to be held responsible for
the proof. Here is a fair field of argument, if "M eridionus" chooses to enter it. I think it can be demonstrated, that such persons furnish palpable proof
that they are living in violation of the express and
implied commands of God. The younger Edwards
says of this class:" You  do wrong,  exceedingly
wrong-you do not as you would that men should
do to you.   You commit sin in the sigIht of God —you
daily violate the plain rights of mankind." Even
John Rando]ph, singular, eccentric, and reckless as
he was, in many respects, seems to have entertained
essentially the same view. In his Will, he says: "I,
John RIandolph, of Roanoke, in the county of Charlotte, do ordain this writing, written with my own
hand, this fourth day of May, one thousand eight
hundred and nineteen, to be my last Will and Testament, hereby revoking all others whatsoever.  I
give to my slaves their freedom, to wlich mTy conscience
tells me they are justly entitlecl."  It was Randolph, too,
who administered to the lIon. Edward Everett the
following scathing rebuke, in 1820-" Sir, I neither
envy the head or the heart of that man fiom the
North, who rises here to defend slavery upon principle."  But it may thus be defended, if "there is not
one evil in it, that i.s not equally insearaable from de)raved a human? nature in other LAWFIUL RELATIONS."
M,eridionus has signified his willingness to close this
discussion, with this position unsztstained ringing in
his ears. So IT SHALL BE.
TIlE CORRESPOL  NT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST.
120