A
DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA,
[AND THROUGH HER, OF THE SOUTH,]
RECENT AND PENDING CONTESTS AGAINST
THE SECTIONAL PARTY.
BY
PROF. ROBERT L.DABNEY, D. D.,
OF VIRGINIA,
LATE OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY.
NEW YORK:
E. J. HALE & SON, 16 MURRAY STREET.
1867.
5.-   j           f,a
IN
4k 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867,             *
BY E. J. HALE & SON,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern
District of New Yfk.
0
i} 
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER L
INTRODUCTORY............................................... 9
CHAPTER II.
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE................................... 27
CHAPTER IIL
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES...........
d4
CHAPTER IV.
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.................................. 79
CHAPTER V.
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.............................. 94
The Curse upon Canaan.................................... 101
Abraham a Slaveiholder...................................... 104
Hagar Remanded to Slavery by God........................ 110
Slavery in the Laws of Moses............................... 114
Slavery in the Decalogue.......................... 122
Objections to the Old Testament Argument...................124
61
f -
ll
tf 
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.............................. 146
Definition of Aovuog........................................ 146
Slavery often mentioned; yet not condemned................ 149
Christ Applauds a Slaveholder.............................. 153
The Apostles Separate Slavery and its Abuses................ 155
Slavery no Essential Religious Evil............................ 158
Slaveholders fully Admitted to Church-membership.......... 161
Relative Duties of Masters and Slaves Recognized............ 167
Philemon and Onesimus.................................... 176
St. Paul Reprobates Abolitionists............................ 185
The Golden Rule Compatible with Slavery................. 192
Was Christ Afraid to Condemn Slavery?.................... 198
CHAPTER VII.
1THiiE ETHICAL ARGUMENT...................................... 209
Misrepresentations Cleared.................................. 213
The Rights of Man and Slavery............................ 241
Abolitionism is Jacobinism................................ 262
Labour of Another may be Property........................ 271
The Slave Received due Wages............................ 273
Effects of Slavery on Moral Character...................... 276
Slavery and the African Slave Trade........................ 2
The Morality of Slavery Vindicated by its Results.......... 293
CHAPTER VIIL
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.............................. 295
Slavery and Republican Government........................ 297
Slavery and Malthlusianism................................ 303
Comparative Productiveness of Slave Labour...;............ 317
Effects of Slavery in the South, compared with thoseof Free
Labour in the North................................... 331
Effects of Slavery on Population, Disease, and Crime........ 340
CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUSION..................................................... 349
4 
P RE FA C E.
To the conquerors of my native State, and perhaps to
some of her sons, a large part of the following defence
will appear wholly unseasonable. A discussion of a social order totally overthrown, and never to be restored
here, will appear as completely out of date to them as
the ribs of Noah's ark, bleaching amidst the eternal
snows of Ararat, to his posterity, when engaged in
building the Tower of Babel. Let me distinctly premise,
that I do not dream of affecting the perverted judgments
of the great anti-slavery party which now rules the
hour.  Of course, a set of people who make success the
test of truth, as. they avowedly do in this matter, and
who have been busily and triumphantly engaged for so
many years in perfecting a plain injustice, to which
they had deliberately made  up their minds, are not
within the reach of reasoning. Nothing but the hand
of a retributive Providence can avail to reach them.
The few aliong them who do not pass me by with silent
neglect, I am well aware will content themselves with
scolding; they will not venture a rational reply.
But my purpose in the following pages is, first and
chiefly, to lay this pious and filial defence upon the tomb
of my murdered mother, Virginia. Her detractors, after
(5) 
PREFACE.
committing the crime of destroying a sovereign and coequal commonwealth, seek also to bury her memory
under a load of obloquy and falsehood. The last and
only office that remains to her sons is to leave their testimony for her righteous fame-feeble it may be now,
amidst the din of passion and material power, yet inextinguishable as Truth's own torch. History will some
day bring present events before'her impartial bar; and
then her ministers will recall my obscure little book, and
will recognize in it the words of truth and righteousness, attested by the signatures of time and events.
Again: if there is indeed any future for civilized government in what- were the United States, the refutation
of the abolitionist postulates must possess a living interest still. Men ask, "Is not the slavery question dead?
Why discuss it longer?" I reply: Would God it were
dead I Would that its mischievous principles were as
completely a thing of the past as our rights in the Union
in this particular are l  But in the Church, abolitionism
lives, and is more rampant and mischievous than ever,
as infidelity; for this is its true- nature. Therefore the
faithful servants of the Loa.d Jesus Christ dare not cease
to oppose and unmask it. - And in the State, abolitionism
still lives in its full activity, as Jacobinism; a fell spirit
which is the destroyer of every hope of just government
and Christian order.  Hence, the enlightened patriot
cannot cease to contend with it, until he ha-accepted,
in his hopelessness, the nefas de republica desperandi.
Whether wise and good men deem that this discussion
is antiquated, may be judged from the fact that Bishop
Hopkins (one of the most revered divines among Episcopalians) judged it proper, in 1864, and Dr. Stuart Rob
6 
PREFACE.
inson, of Louisville, (equally esteemed among Presby terians,) in 1865, to put forth new and able argumnents
upon this question.
It should be added, in explanation, that, as a son of
Virginia, I have naturally taken her, the oldest and
greatest of the slayeholding States, as a representative.
I was most familiar with her laws. In defending her, I
have Virtually defended the whole South, of which she
was the type; for the differences between her slave
institutions and theirs were in no respect essential.
The most fearful consequence of the despotic government to which the South is now subjected, is not the
plundering of our goods,? nor the abridgment of privileges, nor the death of innocent men, but the degrading
and debauching of the moral sensibilities and principles
of the helpless victims. The weapon of arbitrary rulers
is physical force; the shield of its victims is usually
evasion and duplicity.  Again: few minds and consciences have that stable independence which remains
erect and undebauched amidst the disappointments, anguish, and losses of defeat, and the desertion of numbers, and the obloquy of a lost cause. Hence it has
usually been found, in the history of subjugated nations,
that they receive at the hands of their conquerors this
crowning woe-a depraved, cringing, and cowardly
spirit. The wisest, kindest, most patriotic thing which
any man can dofor his country, amidst such calamities,
is to aid in preserving and reinstating the tottering
principles of his countrymen; to teach them, while they
give place to inexorable force, to abate nothing of
righteous convictions and of self-respect. And in this
work he is as really a benefactor of the conquerors as
7 
PREFACE.
of the conquered. For thus he aids in preserving that
precious seed of men, who are men of principle, and not
of expediency; who alone (if any can) are able to reconstruct society, after the tumult of faction shall have
spent its rage, upon the foundations of truth and justice.
The men at the North who have stood firmly aloof from
the errors and crimes of this revolution, and the men at
the South who have not been unmanned and debauched
by defeat-these are the men whom Providence will call
forth from their seclusion, when the fury of fanaticism
shall have done its worst, to repair its mischiefs, and
save-America from chronic anarchy and barbarism; if,
indeed, any rescue is designed for us. It is this andience, "few but fit," with which I would chiefly commune. They will appreciate this humble effort to justify
the history of our native States, and to sustain the
hearts of their sons in the hour of cruel reproach.
Halmpdn  idney, Virginia, June, 1867.
8.
4 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
To the rational historian who, two hundred years
hence, shall study the history of the nineteenth century,
it will appear one of the most curious vagaries of human opinion, that the Christianity and philanthropy of
,our day should have given so disproportionate an attention to the evils of African slavery. Such a dispassionate observer will perceive that, while many other
gigantic evils were rampant in this age, there prevailed
a sort of epidemic fashion of selecting this one upon
which to exhaust the virtuous'indignation and sympathies of the professed friends of human amelioration.
And he will probably see in this a proof that the
Christianity and benevolence of the nineteenth century
were not so superior, in wisdom and breadth, to those
of the seventeenth and eighteenth, as the busy actors
in them had persuaded themselves; but were, in fact,
conceited, overweening, and fantastic.
1* 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
It will appear to him a still stranger fact, that this
zeal against African slavery was so partial in its exhibition. Up to this day, not only the Southern States
of the late American Union, but the Brazilian, Turkish,
and Spanish empires, among civilized nations, and
many barbarous people, have continued the explicit
practice of slavery, in so stern a form, that the institution in the Confederate States was, by comparison, extremely mild. Yet, throughout the Northern States of
America and Europe, it is upon the devoted heads of
Southern masters almost exclusively that the vials of
holy wrath are poured out. Renascent,Spain is quite a
pet among Yankees and Europeans, though tenaciously
clinging, in her colonies, to a system of slavery at whose
barbarities the.public sentiment of these Southern States
would shudder, and though persistently winking at the
African Slave Trade in addition. Slaveholding Brazil
is on most pleasing terms with the United States and
the European governments, which vie in soliciting her
commercial intercourse and friendship with most amiable suavity. But when the sounding lash of the selfconstituted friend of man is raised to chastise "the
wickedness of slavery," all Yankeedom and all Europe
seem to think only of At sinners. And yet here, of
all places where it prevailed, African bondage was
most ameliorated and most justifiable I Indeed, not a
few of these consistent reformers have tenfold as much
patience with that demon of slaveholders, the King of
I)ahomey, as with the benignant Christian master in Yirginia; and go to that truculent savage to request him
not to cut the throats of another thousand of his inof
fensive slaves in a "grand custom," with far more of
,, I
10 
.INTRODUCTORY.
courtesy, forbearance, and amiability, than they can
exercise towards us, when they come to reason with us
touching the rights of our late peaceful and well-fed
domestics. We see no reason for this partiality, but
that the King of Dahomey is himself of that colour,
which seems to be the only one acceptable to the tastes
of this type of philanthropists. An Abolitionist poet
has sung of our oppressing our brother man, because
he was "guilty of a skin."  To give the contrast, these
persons act as though, in their view, the King of Dahomey's meritorious possession of the skin of approved
colour, were enough to cover his multitude of sins!
Now, if the rest of Christendom have determined to
take slaveholders for their pet objects of abuse, we
may justly demand of them, at least, to distribute their
hard words more generally, and give all a share.
This injustice is to be accounted for, in part, by the
greater prominence which the late United States held
before the world, making all their supposed sins more
prominent; and in part by the zeal of our late very
amiable and equitable partners, the Yankee people.
They reserved their abuse and venom on this subject
for their Southern fellow-citizens alone.  They made it
their business to direct the whole storm of odium, from
abroad and at home, on our heads. They, having the
manufacture of American books chiefly in their hands,
took pains to fill Europe and their own country with
industrious slanders against their own brethren: and
so occupied the ear of the world with abuse of us, as
to make men almost forget that there were any other
slaveholders. For this they had two motives, one calculated, and the other passionate and instinctive. The
0
11 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
latter was the sectional animosity which was bred by
the very intimacy of their association under one government, with rival  interests.  The  man who  has
learned to hate his brother, hates him, and can abuse
him, more heartily than any more distant enemy.  The
deliberative motive was, to reduce the South to a state
of colonial dependency upon themselves, and exclude all
other nations from the rich plunder which they were accustomed to draw from the oppressed section, by means
of the odium and misunderstanding which they created
concerning us. The South was their precious gold
mine, from which they had quarried, and hoped yet
again to quarry, hoards of wealth, by the instruments of
legislative and commercial jugglery. From this precious
mine, they wished to keep other adventurers away by
the customary expedient of spreading an odious character for moral malaria and pestilential vices around
it.  It did not suit their selfish purposes, that Europe
should know, that in this slaveholding South was the
true conservative power of the American Government,
the most solid type of old English character, the
greatest social stability and purity, and above all, the
very fountain of international commerce and wealth;
lest Europe should desire to visit and to trade with
this section for itself. And the readiest way to prevent
this, was to paint the South to all the rest of the world,
in -the blackest colours of misrepresentation, so as to
have us regarded as a semi-barbarous race of domestic
tyrants, whose chief occupations were chaining or
scourging  negroes, and  stabbing  each  other with
bowie-knives. The trick was a success. The Yankee
almost monopolized the advantages of Southern trade
and intercourse.
.
12 
INTRODUCTORY.
But the South should have been impelled by the
same facts to defend its institutions before the public
opinion of the civilized world; for opinion is always
omnipotent in the end, whatever prejudices and physical powers may oppose it.  If its current is allowed to
flow unchecked, its silent waters gradually undermine
the sternest obstacles. This great truth men of thought
are more apt to recognize than men of action.  While
the true statesman is fully awake to it, the mere politician is unconscious of its power; and when his expedients-his parties and his statutes-have all been silently -swept away by the diffusion of abstract principles opposed to them, he cannot understand his overthrow.  If the late Confederate States would have
gained that to which they aspired, the position of a
respectable and prosperous people among the nations
of the world, it was extremely important that they
should secure from their neighbours a more just appreciation of their institutions.  A respectful and powerful appeal in defence of those institutions was due to
our neighbours' opinions, unfair and unkind as they
have.been to us; and due to our own rights and selfrespect.
Our mere politicians committed an error in this particular, while we were still members of the United
States, by which we should now learn.  They failed
to meet the Abolitionists with sufficient persistence
and force on the radical question the righteousness
of African servitude as existing among us.  It is true
that this fundamental point has received a discussion
at the South, chiefly at the hands -of clergymen and
literary men, which has evoked a number of works of
13 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
the highest merit and power, constituting almost a
literature on the subject.  One valuable effect of this
literature was to enlighten and satisfy the Southern
mind, and to produce a settled unanimity of opinion,
even greater than that which existed against us in
other States. But such is the customary and overweening egotism of the Yankee mind, that none of
these works, whatever their merit, could ever obtain
general circulation or reading in the North. People
there were satisfied to read only their own shallow and
one-sided arguments, quietly treating us as though our
guilt was too clear to admit of any argument, or we
were too inferior to be capable of it. The consequence
was, that although the North has made the wrongs of
the African its own peculiar cause-its great masterquestion-it is pitiably ignorant of the facts and arguments of the case.  After twenty-five years of discussion, we find that the staple of the logic of their
writers is still the same set of miserable and shallow
sophisms, which Southern divines and statesmen have
threshed into dust, and driven away as the chaff before
the whirlwind, so long ago, and so often, that any intelligent man among us is almost ashamed to allude to
them as requiring an answer. When the polemic heat
of this quarrel shall have passed away, and the dispassionate antiquary shall compare the literature of the
two parties, he will be amazed to see that of the poptilar one so poor, beggarly, and false, and that of the
unpopular one so manly, philosophic, and powerful.
But at present, such is the clamour of prejudice, our
cause has not obtained a hearing from the world.
The North having arrogated to itself the name of
'14
4 
INTRODUCTORY.
chief manufacturer of literary material, and having
chief control of the channels of foreign intercourse, of
course our plea has been less listened to across the
Atlantic than in America. The South has been con demned unheard. Well-informed men in Great Britain,
we presume, are ignorant of the names and works of
the able and dignified advocates to whom  the South
confidently and proudly committed her justification;
and were willing to render their.verdict upon the mere
accusations of our interested slanderers. But while the
United States yet existed unbroken, there was oneforum,
where we could have demanded a hearing upon the fun damental question: the Federal Legislature.  From that
centre of universal attention, our defence of the righteousness of the relation of master and slave, as existing
among us, might have been spread before the public
mind; and the abstract question having been decided
by triumphant argument, the troubles of our Federal relations might possibly have been quieted.  There were
two courses, either of which might have been followed by  -
our politicians, in defending our Federal rights against
Abolitionism.  One plan would have been, to exclude the
whole question of slavery persistently from the national
councils, as extra-constitutional and dangerous, and to
assert this exclusion always, and at every risk, as the
essential condition of the continuance of the South in
those councils. The other plan was, to meet that abstract question from, the first, as underlying and determining the whole subject, and to debate it everywhere, until it was decided, and the verdict of the
national mind was passed upon it. Unfortunately, the
Southern men did neither persistently. After tempo
15 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
rary resistance, they permitted the debate; and then
failed to conduct it on fundamental principles.  With
the exception of Mr. Calhoun, (whom events have now
shown to have been the most far-seeing of our statesmen, notwithstanding the fashion of men to depreciate
him as an "abstractionist" while he —lived,) Southern
politicians usually satisfied themselves with saying,
that the whole matter was, according to the Constitution, one of State sovereignty; that Congress had no
right to legislate concerning its merits; and that therefore they would not seem to admit such a right, by condescending to argue the matter on its merits.  The
premise was true; but the inference was practically
most mischievous.  If the Congress had no right to
legislate about slavery, then it should not have been
permitted to debate it. And Southern men, if they intended to make their stand on that ground, should have
exacted the exclusion of all debate, at every cost. But
this was perhaps impossible.  The debate came; and,
of course, the principles agitated ran at once back of
the Constitution, to the abstract ethical question: "Is
the holding of an African slave in the South a moral
wrong in itself?" Southern men should have industriously followed them there; but they did not do it:
and soon the heat and animosity of an aggressive and
growing faction hurried the country beyond the point
of calm consideration.  A  moments reflection should
have shown that the decisive question-was the abstract
righteousness of the relation of master and slave. The
Constitution gave to the Federal Government no power
over that relation in- the States. True; but that Constitution was a compact between sovereign common
16 
INTRODUCTORY.
wealths: it certainly gave recognition and protection
to the relation of master and slave; and if that relation is intrinsically unrighteous, then it protected a
wrong. Then the sovereign States of the North were
found in the attitude of protecting a wrong by their
voluntary compact; and therefore it would have been
the duty of-all citizens of those States to seek, by all
righteous means, the amendment or repeal of that compact. They would not, indeed, have been justified to
claim all the benefits of the compact, and still agitate
under it a matter which the compact excluded. But
they would have been more than justified, they would
have been bound to clear their skirts of the wrong, by
surrendering the compact, if necessary. There was no
evasion from the duty, except by proving that the Constitution did nothing unrighteous by protecting the relation; in other words, that the relation was not unrighteous. Again, on the subject of the "Higher Law,"
our conservative statesmen and divines threw up a
vast amount of pious dust. This partially quieted the
country for a time; but, as might have been foreseen,
it was destined to be inevitably blown away. There is
a higher law, superior o constitutions and statutes; not,
indeed, the perjured and unprincipled cant which has no
conscience against swearing allegiance to a Constitution and laws which it declares sinful, in order to grasp
emoluments and advantages, and then pleads "conscience" for disobeying what it had voluntarily sworn
to obey; but the everlasting law of right in the word
of God.  Constitutions and laws which contravene this,
ought to be lawfully amended or repealed; and it is the
duty of all citizens to seek it.  Let this be applied to
I17
. 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
the Fugitive Slave Law.  If the bondage was intrinsically unrighteous, then the Federal law which aided
in remanding the fugitive to it, legalized a wrong. It
became, therefore, the duty of all United States officers,
who were required by statute to execute this law-not,
indeed, to hold their offices and emoluments, and swear
fidelity, and then plead conscientious scruples for the
neglect of these sworn functions, (for this is a detestable.union of theft and perjury with hypocrisy,)-but to
resign those offices wholly, with their profits and their
sinful functions. It would have become the duty of
any private citizen, who might have been summoned by
a United States officer, to act in a posse, guard, or any
other way in enforcing this law, to decline obedience;
and then, in accordance with Scripture, to submit
meekly to the legal penalty of such a refusal, until
the unrighteous law were repealed.  But, moreover, it
would have become the right and duty of these and all
other citizens to seek the repeal of that law, or, if
necessary, the abrogation of that Federal compact
which necessitated it.  But on the other hand, when
we proved that the relation of master and slave is not
unrighteous, and that therefore the Fugitive Slave Law
requiredtlie perpetration of no wrong, and was constitutional, it became the clear moral duty of every citizen
to concur in obeying it.
Once more: the true key of the more commanding
question of free soil was in the same abstract ethical
point.  If the relation of master and servant was unrighteous, and the institution a standing sin against
God and human rights, then it was not to be extended
at the mere dictate of convenience and gain. Although
l8 - 
INTRODUCTORY.
Northern men might be compelled to admit that, in the
States, it was subject to State control alone, and expressly exempted from. -all interference of the Federal
Government by. the Constitution; yet, outside of the
States, that Constitution and Government, representative as it was as a majority of free States, ought not to
have been prostituted to the extension of a great moral
wrong. Those free States ought, if their Southern partners would not consent to relinquish their right by a
peaceable amendment of the Constitution, to have retired from the odious compact, and to have surrendered
the advantages of the Union for conscience sake.  If,
on the contrary, African slavery in America was Ino
unrighteousness, no sin against human rights, and no
contradiction to the doctrines of the Constitution, then
the general teachings of that instrument concerning
the absolute equality of the States and their several
citizens under it, were too clear to leave a doubt, that
the letter and spirit of the document gave the slaveholder just the same right to carry his slaves into any
territory, with that of the Connecticut man to carry his
clock-factory. -Hence the ethical question, when once
the slavery agitation! became inevitable, should have
been made the great question by us.  The hallsof Congress should have rung with the arguments, the newspaper press should have teemed with them. But little
was done to purpose in this discussion, save by clergymen and literary men; and for reasons already indicated
they were practically unheard.  After it was too late
to stem the torrent of passion -and sectional ambition
pouring against us, politicians did indeed awake to a
tardy perception of these important views; but the
19 
A DEFENCE OF- VIRGINIA.
eyes of the Northern people were then obstinately
closed against them by a foregone conclusion.
We have cited these recent and striking illustrations
of the fundamental importance of the ethical discussion,
to justify the task we have undertaken. Some may
suppose that, as the United States are no more as they
were, and slaveholding is absolutely and finally ended,
the question is obsolete. This is a great mistake.
The status of the negro is just beginning to develop
itself as an agitating and potent element in the politics
of America. It will still continue the great ground of
contrast, and subject of moral strife, between the North
and the South.
We have attempted to indicate the potency of the
slow and silent but irresistible influence of opinion
over human affairs, Let our enemies claim the triumph without question in the field of opinion; let
them continue to persuade mankind successfully that
we were a people stained by a standing social crime;
and we shall be continually worsted by them. In order
to be free, we must be respected: and to this end we
must defend our good name. We need not urge that
instinctive desire for the good opinion of our fellowmen, and that sense of justice, which must ever render it painful to be the objects of undeserved odium.
Instead, therefore, of regarding the discussion of the
rightfulness of African slavery as henceforth  antiquated, we believe that it assumes, at this era, a new
and wider importance. While the swords of our people
were fighting the battles of a necessary self-defence,
the pens of our statesmen should have been no less
diligent in defending us against the adverse opinion of
20 
INTRODUCTORY.
a prejudiced world. Every opening should have been
seized to disabuse the minds of Europeans, a jury to
which we have hitherto had no access, although con demned by it. The discussion should everywhere have
been urged, until public opinion was effectually rectified and made just to the Confederate States.
At the first glance, it appears an arduous, if not a
hopeless undertaking, to address the minds of such nations as the North and Great Britain in defence of
Southern slavery. We have to contend against the
prescriptive opinions and prejudices of years' growth.
We assert a thesis which our adversaries have taken
pains to represent as an impossible absurdity, of which
the very assertion is an insult to the understanding and
heart of a freeman.  Ten thousand slanders have given
to the very name of Southern slaveholder a colouring,
which darkens every argument that can be advanced
in his favour. Yet the task of self-defence is not entirely
discouraging.  Our best hope is in the fact that the
cause of our defence is the cause of God's Word, and of
its supreme authority over the human conscience. / For,
as we shall evince, that Word is on our side, and the
teachings of Abolitionism are clearly of rationalistic
origin, of infidel tendency, and only sustained by reckless and licentious perversions of the meaning of the
Sacred text. It will in the end become apparent to the
world, not only that the conviction of the wickedness
of slaveholding was drawn wholly from sources foreign
to the Bible, but that it is a legitimate corollary from
that fantastic, atheistic, and radical theory of human
rights,.which' made the Reign of Terror in France, which
has threatened that country, and which now threatens
21 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
the United States, with the horrors of Red-Republicanism. Because we believe that God intends to vindicate
His Divine Word, and to make all nations honour it; because we confidently rely in the force of truth to explode
all dangerous error; therefore we confidently expect that
the world will yet do justice to Southern slaveholders.
The anti-scriptural, infidel, and radical grounds upon
which our assailants have placed themselves, make our
cause practically the cause of truth and order.  This is
already understood here by thinking men who have
seen Abolitionism bear its fruit unto perfection: and
the world will some day understand it.  We shall possess at. this time another advantage in defending our
good name, derived from our late effort for independence.
Hitherto we have been -little known  to — Europeans,
save through the very charitable representations of our
fraternal partners, the Yankees.  Foreigners visiting
the United States almost always assumed, that when
they had seen the North, they had seen the country,
(for Yankeedom always modestly represented itself as
constituting all of America that was worth looking at.)
Hlence the character of the South was not known, nor
its importance appreciated.  Its books and periodicals
were unread by Europeans. But now the very interest
excited by our struggle has caused other nations to observe for themselves, and to find that we are not Troglodytes nor.Anthropophagi.
Another introductory remark which should be made
is, that this discussion, to produce any good result,
must distinctly disclaim some extravagant and erroneous grounds which have sometimes been assumed.
It is not our purpose to rest our defence on an assump
22
0 
INTRODUCTORY.
tion of a diversity of race, which is contradicted both
by natural history and by the Scripture, declaring that
"God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to
dwell on all the face of the earth."  Nor does the
Southern cause demand such assertions as that the condition of master and slave is everywhere the normal
condition of human society, and preferable to all others
under all circumstances. The burden of odium which
the cause will then carry, abroad, will be immeasurably
increased by such positions.  Nor can a purpose be
ever subserved by arguing the question by a series of
comparisons of the relative advantages of slave and free
labour, laudatory to the one part and invidicas to the
other. There has been hitherto, on both sides of this
debate, a mischievous forgetfulness of the old adage,
"comparisons are odious!" When Southern men thus
argued, they assumed the disadvantage of appearing as 
the propagandists, instead of the peaceful defenders, of
an institution which immediately concerned nobody but
themselves; and they arrayed the Self-esteem of all
opponents against us by making our defence the necessary disparagement of the other parties.  True,
those parties have usually been but too zealous to
play at this invidious game, beginning it in advance.
We should not imitate them. It is time all parties had
learned that the lawfulness and policy of different social systems cannot be decided by painting the special
and exceptional features of hardship, abuse, or mismanagement, which either of the advocates may imagine
he sees in the system of his opponent. The course of
this great discussion has too often been this: Each
party has set up an easel, and spread a canvas upon it,
'23 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
and drawn the system of its adversary in contrast with
its own, in the blackest colours which a heated and angry fancy could discover amidst the evils and abuses
imputed to the rival institution. The only possible result was, that each should blacken his adversary more
and more; and consequently that both should grow
more and more enraged. And this result did not argue
the entire falsehood of either set of accusations. For,
unfortunately, the human race is a fallen race-depraved, selfish, unrighteous and oppressive, under all
institutions.  Out of the best social order, committed to
such hands, there still proceeds a hideous amount of
wrongs nd woe; and that, not because the order is
unrighteous, but because it is administered by depraved
man. For this reason, and for another equally conclusive, we assert that the lawfulness, and even the wisdom
or policy of social institutions affecting a great population, cannot be decided by these odious contrasts of
their special wrong results. That second reason is,
that the field of view is too vast and varied to be
brought fairly under comparison in all its details before
the limited eye of man. First, then, if we attempt to
settle the matter by endeavouring to find how much evil
can be discovered in the working of the opposite system, there will probably be no end at all to the melancholy discoveries which both parties will make against
each other, and so no end to the debate: for the guilty
passions of men are everywhere perpetual fountains of
wrong-doing. And second, the comparison of results
must be deceptive, because no finite mind can take in
all the details of both the wholes. Our wisdom, then,
will be to take no extreme positions, and to make no
24 
INTRODUCTORY.
invidious comparisons unnecessarily. It is enough for
us to place ourselves on this impregnable stand; that
the relation of master and slave is recognized as lawful
in itself by a sound philosophy, and above all, by the
Word of God. It is enough for us to say (what is
capable of overwhelming demonstration) that for the
African race, such as Providence has made it, and
where He has placed it in America, slavery was the
righteous, the best, yea, the only tolerable relation.
Whether it would be wise or just for other States to introduce it, we need not argue. 
And in conclusion, we would state that it is our purpose to argue this proposition chiefly on Bible grounds.
Our people and our national neighbours are professedly Christians; the vast majority of them profess to
get their ideas of morality, as all should, from the Sacred Scriptures. A few speculative minds may reason
out moral conclusions from ethical principles; but the
masses derive their ideas of right and wrong from a
"Thus saith the Lord." And it is a homage we owe to
the Bible, from whose principles we have derived so
much of social prosperity and blessing, to appeal to its
verdict on every subject upon which it has spoken. Indeed, when we remember how human reason and learning have blundered in their philosophizings; how great
parties have held for ages the doctrine of the divine
right of kings as a political axiom; how the whole civilized world held'to the righteousness of persecuting
errors in opinion, even for a century after the Reformation; we shall feel little confidence in mere human reasonings on political principles; we shall rejoice to follow
a steadier light. The scriptural argument for the
2
25 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
righteousness of slavery gives us, moreover, this great
advantage: If we urge it successfully, we compel the
Abolitionists either to submit, or else to declare their
true infidel character. We thrust them fairly to the
wall, by proving that the Bible is against them; and if
they declare themselves against the Bible (as the most
of them doubtless will) they lose the support of all
honest believers in God's Word.
This discussion will therefore be, in the main, a series
of expositions. The principles of scriptural exposition
are simply those of common sense; and it will be the
writer's aim so to explain them that they shall commend
themselves to every honest mind, and to rid them of
the sophisms of the Abolitionists.
But before we proceed to this discussion we propose
to devote a few pages to the exposition of the historical
facts which place the attitude of Virginia in the proper
light.
26 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
CHAPTER II.
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
THIS iniquitous traffick, beginning with the importa tion of negroes into Hispaniola in 1503, was first pur sued by the English in 1562, under Sir John Hawkins,
who sold a cargo at the same island that year. The
news of his success reaching Queen Elizabeth, she be came a partner with him in other voyages. Under the
Stuart kings, repeated charters were given to noblemen
and merchants, to form -companies for this trade, in one
of which, the Duke of York, afterwards James II., was
a partner.  The colony of Virginia was planted in 1607.
The first cargo of negroes,' only twenty in number,
arrived there in a Dutch vessel in 1620, and was bought
by the colonists. All the commercial nations of Europe were implicated in the trade; and all the colonies
in America were supplied, to a greater or less extent,
with slave labour from Africa, whether Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, or Dutch. But England became, on the whole, the leader in this trade, and was
unrivalled by any, save her daughter, New England.
The happy revolution of 1688, which placed William
and Mary on the throne, arrested for a time the activity
of the royal company for slave trading, by throwing the
business open to the whole nation. For one of the re
27
q 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
forms, stipulated with the new government, was the
abolition of all monopolies.  But the company did not
give up its operations; and it even succeeded in exacting from Parliament an indemnity of ~10,000 per annum
for the loss of its exclusive privilege. But the most
splendid triumph of British enterprise was that
achieved by the-treaty of Utrecht,,1712, between Queen
Anne and Spain. By a compact called the Asiento
treaty, the Spanish monarch resigned to the English
South Sea Company, the exclusive slave trade even between Africa and the Spanish colonies. Four thousand
eight hundred slaves were to be furnished to the Spanish colonies annually, for thirty years, paying to the.
King of Spain an impost of thirty-three and a third dollars per head; but the company had the privilege of
introducing as many more as they could sell, paying
half duty upon them. The citizens of every qther nation, even Spaniards themselves, were prohibited from
bringing a single slave. The British Queen and the
King of Spain became stockholders in the venture, to
the extent of one-fourth each; the remainder of the
stock was left to British citizens. And Anne, in her
speech from the throne, detailing to her Parliament the
provisions of the treaty of Utrecht, congratulated them
on this monopoly of slave trading, as the most splendid
triumph of her arms and diplomacy.* Meantime, the
African Company, with private adventurers at a later
day, plied the trade with equal activity, for furnishing
the British colonies. Finally, in 1749, every restriction
*Bancroft, Hist. U. S., vol. iii., p. 232. Com. Boutwell, Slave
Trade. Bancroft, vol. iii., p. 414.
2s, 
THiE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
e
upon private enterprise was removed; and the slave
trade was thrown open to all Englishmen; for, says
the statute: "the slave trade is very advantageous to
Great Britain."  But every resource of legislation, and
even of war, was employed during the eighteenth cen tury to secure the monopoly of the trade to British
subjects, and to enlarge the market for their commodity
in all the colonies. To this end, the royal government
of the plantations, which afterwards became the United
States, was perseveringly directed. The complaint of
Hugh Drysdale, Deputy Governor of Virginia, in 1126,
that when a tax was imposed to check the influx of
Africans, "the interfering interest of the African company has obtained the repeal of the law," * was common to him and all the patriotic rulers of the Southern
colonies.
Reynal estimates the whole number of negroes stolen
from Africa before 1776 at nine millions; Bancroft at
something more than six millions. Of these, Britsh
subjects carried at least half: and to the above numbers must be added a quarter of a million thrown by
Englishmen into the Atlantic on the voyage.t  As the
traffick continued in full activity until 1808, it is a safe
estimate that the number of victims to British cupidity
taken from Africa was increased to five millions.  The
profit made by Englishmen upon the three millions carried to America before 1776, could not have been less
than four hundred millions of dollars. The negroes
cost the traders nothing but worthless trinkets, damaged fire-arms, and New England rum: they were
t Ibid., vol. iii., pp. 411, 412.
29
* Bancroft, vol.!II., p.'415. 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
usually paid for in hard money at the place of sale.
This lucrative trade laid the foundation, to a great degree, for the commercial wealth of London, Bristol, and
Liverpool.  The capital which now makes England the
workshop and emporium of the world, was in large part
born of the African slave trade. Especially was this
the chief source of the riches which founded the British
empire in Hindostan. The South Sea and the African
Companies were the prototypes and pioneers of that
wonderful institution, the East India Company; and
the money by which the latter was set on foot was derived mainly from the profitable slave-catching of the
former. When the direct returns of the African trade
in the eighteenth century are remembered; when it is
noted how much colonial trade has contributed to British greatness, and when it is considered that England's
colonial system was wholly built upon African slavery,
the intelligent reader will be convinced that the slave
trade was the corner-stone of the present splendid prosperity of that Empire.
But after the nineteenth century had arrived, the
prospective impolicy of the trade,* the prevalence of
democratic and Jacobin opinions imported from France,
the shame inspired by the example of Virginia, with
(we would fain hope) some influences of the Christian
religion upon the better spirits, began to create a powerful party against the trade.  First, Clarkson published in Latin, and then in English, his work against
the slave trade, exposing its unutterable barbarities, as
practised by Englishmen, and arguing its intrinsic un
* Speeches of Pitt and Fox, in Clarkson's Hist., pp. 315, 339.
, i
30 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
righteousness. The powerful parliamentary influence
of Wilberforce was added, and afterwards that of the
younger Pitt. The commercial classes made a tremen
dous resistance for many years, sustained by many
noblemen and by the royal family; but at length the
Parliament, in 1808, declared the trade illicit, and-took
measures to suppress it.. Since that time, the British
Government, with a tardy zeal, but without disgorging
any of the gross spoils with which it is so plethoric,
wrung from the tears and blood of Africa, has arrogated to itself the special task of the catchpole of the
seas, to "police" the world against the continuance of
its once profitable sin. Its present attitude is in curious contrast with its recent position, as greedy monopolist, and queen of slave traders; and especially when
the observer adverts to her activity in the Coolie traffick, that new and more frightful form, under which the
Phariseeism of this age has restored the trade, he will
have little difficulty in deciding, whether the meddlesome activity of England is prompted by a-virtuous
repentance, or by a desire to replace the advantages of
the African commerce with other fruits of commercial
supremacy.
The share of the Colony of Virginia in the African
slave trade was that of an unwilling recipient; never
that of an active party. She had no ships engaged in
any foreign trade; for the strict obedience of her governors and citizens to the colonial laws of the mother
country prevented her trading to foreign ports, and
all the carrying trade to British ports and colonies
was in the hands of New Englanders and Englishmen.
In the replies submitted by Sir William Berkeley, Gov
31 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
ernor, 1671, to certain written inquiries of the "Lords
of Plantations," we find the following statement: "And
this is the cause why no great or small vessels are
built here; for we are most obedient to all laws, while
the men of New England break through, and trade to
any place that their interest leads them." * The same
facts, and the sense of grievance which the colonists
derived from them, are curiously attested by the party
of Nathaniel Bacon also, who opposed Sir William
Berkeley.  When they supposed that they had wrested
the government from his hands, Sarah Drummond, an
enthusiastic patriot, exclaimed:  "Now we can build
ships, and like New England, trade to any part of the
world." t But her hopes were not realized: Virginia
continued without ships. No vessel ever went from
her ports, or was ever manned by her citizens, to engage in the slave trade; and while her government can
claim the high and peculiar honour of having ever opposed the cruel traffick, her citizens have been precluded by Providence from the least participation in it.
The planting of the commercial States of North
America began with the colony of Puritan Independents at Plymouth, in 1620, which was subsequently
enlarged into the State of Massachusetts.  The other
trading colonies, Rhode Island and Connecticut, as well
as New Hampshire (which never had an extensive
shipping interest), were o'shoots of  Massachusetts.
They partook of the same characteristics and pursuits;
and hence, the example of the parent colony is taken
* Herring, Stat. at Large, vol. ii., p. 516.
f Campbell's Virginia, p. 304.
32 
THE AFERI(AN SLAVE TRADI)E.
here as a fair representation of them. The first ship
from America, which embarked in the African slave
trade, was the'Desire, Captain Pierce, of Salem; and
this was among the first vessels ever built in the colony.   The  promptitude  with  which  the  "Puritan
Fathers" embarked in this business may be comprehended, when it is stated that the Desire sailed upon
her voyage in June, 1637.* The first feeble and dubious foothold was gained by the white man at Plymouth less than seventeen years before; and as is
well known, many years were expended by the struggle of the handful of settlers for existence. So that it
may be correctly said, that the commerce of New England was born of the slave trade; as its subsequent
prosperity was largely founded upon it. The Desire,
proceeding to the Bahamas, with a cargo of "dry fish
and strong liquors, the only commodities  for those
parts," obtained the negroes from two British men-ofwar, which'had captured them from a Spanish slaver.
To understand the growth of the New England slave
trade, two connected topics must be a little illustrated.
The first of these is the enslaving of Indians.   The
pious "Puritan Fathers" found it convenient to assume
that they were God's chosen Israel, and the pagans
about them were Amalek and Amorites. They hence
deduced their righteous title to exterminate or enslave
the Indians, whenever they became troublesome. As
soon as the Indian wars began, we find the captives
enslaved.   The ministers and magistrates  solemnly
authorized the enslaving of the wives and posterity of
* Winthrop's Journal, i., 254. Moore's Slavery in Mass., pp. 5, 6.
2*
33 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
their enemies for the crimes of the fathers and husbands in daring to defend their own soil. In 1646, the
Commissioners of the United Colonies made an order,*
that upon complaint of a trespass by Indians, any of that
plantation of Indians that should entertain, protect, or
rescue the offender, might be seized by reprisal, and held
as hostages for the delivery of the culprits; in failure of
which, the innocent persons seized should be slaves, and
be exported for sale as such. In 1677, the General
Court of Massachusettst ordered the enslaving of the
Indian youths or girls " of such as had been in hostility
with the colony, or had lived among its enemies in the
time of the war." In the winter of 1675-6, Major Waldron, commissioner of the General Court for that territory now included in Maine, issued a general warrant
for seizing, enslaving, and exporting every Indian
"known to be a manslayer, traitor, or conspirator." t
The reader will not be surprised to hear, that so monstrous an order, committed for execution to any or
every man's irresponsible hands, was employed by
many shipmasters for the vilest purposes of kidnapping
and slave hunting.  But in addition, in numerws instances whole companies of peaceable and inoffensive
Indians, submitting to the colonial.authorities, were
seized and enslaved by publick order. In one case one
hundred and fifty of the Dartmouth tribe, including
their women and children, coming in by a voluntary
submission, and under a general pledge of amnesty,
and- in another instance, four hundred of a different
tribe, were shamelessly enslaved. By means of these
* Moore's Slavery in Mass., p. 32.    t Ibid., p. 38.   1: Ibid., p. 47.
34
0 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
proceedings, the numbers of Indian servants became sc
large, that they were regarded as dangerous to the
Colony.   They were, moreover, often  untamable  in
temper, prone to run away to their kinsmen in the
neighbouring wilderness, and much  less docile and
effective for labour than the "blackamoors." Hence
the prudent and thrifty saints saw the advantage of
exporting them to the Bermudas, Barbadoes, and other
islands, in exchange for negroes and merchandise; and
this traffick, being much encouraged, and finally enjoined, by the authorities, became so extensive as to
substitute negroes for Indian slaves, almost wholly in
the Colony.* Among the slaves thus deported were
the favourite wife and little son of the heroic King
Philip. The holy Independent Divines, Cotton, Arnold, and Increase Mather,- inclined to the opinion that
he should be slain for his father's sins, after the example of the children of Achan and Agag;t  but the
authorities probably concluded that his deportation
would be a more profitable, as well as a harsher punishment. These shocking incidents will no longer appear incredible to the reader, when he is informed that
the samne magistrates sold and transported into foreign
slavery two English children, one of them a girl, for
attending a Quaker meeting;: while the adult ladies
present were fined  10 each, and whipped.~
* On the whole of above, see Moore, pp. 33-46.
+ Moore, p. 45.                I                 Ibid., pp. 33, 34.
~ The following passage, from a late valuable letter of Thomas P.
Devereux, Esq., of Halifax County, North Carolina, to the Governor
of that State, gives us one item of evidence as to the extent of this
abominable usage of the "Pilgrim Fathers." See Raleigh Daily Sentinel, Dec. 12th, 1866: " It is worthy of note that, amongst my slaves,
35 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
In pleasing contrast with these enormities, stands
the contemporaneous legislation of the Colony of Virginia touching its Indian neighbours. By three acts,
1655 to 1657, the colonists were strictly forbidden to
trespass upon the lands of the Indians, or to dispossess
them of their homes even by purchase.  Slaying an
Indian for his trespass was prohibited.  The Indians,
provided they were not armed, were authorized to pass
w~~~~
freely through the several settlements, for trading, fishing, and gathering wild fruits. It was forbidden to enslave or deport any Indian, no matter under what circumstances he was captured; and Indian apprentices
or servants for a term of years could only be held as
such by authority of their parents, or if they had none,
of the magistrates.* Their careful training in Christianity was enjoined, and at the end of their terms,
their discharge, with wages, was secured by law.
The second, and more potent cause of development
of the New England slave trade, was the commerce between those colonies and the West Indies. Each of
the mother countries endeavoured to monopolize to herself all the trade and transportation of her own colonies.  But it was the perpetual policy of Great Britain
to intrude into this monopoly, which Spain preserved
between herself and her colonies, while she jealously
maintained her own intact. This motive prompted her
there was a large intermixture of Indian blood from the Pequots,
brought from' Massachusetts and sold in North Carolina, in the early
part of the 18th century, and, up to the act of emancipation, I could,
with tolerable certainty, detect the mixed race by their addiction to
liquor and its effects upon them."
* Herring, Stat. at Large, vol. i., pp. 395, 415, 456.
36
I 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
systematic connivance at every species of illicit navi gation and traffick of her subjects in those seas. The
New England colonies were not slow to imitate their
brethren at home; and although their maritime ven tures were as really violations of the colonial laws of
England, as of the rights of Spain, the mother country
easily connived at them for the sake of their direction.
The Spanish Main was consequently the scene of a
busy trade during the seventeenth century, which was
as unscrupulous and daring as the operations of the
Buccaneers of the previous age. The only difference
was, that the red-handed plunder was now perpetrated
on the African villages instead of the Spanish, and for
the joint advantage of the New England adventurers
and the Spanish and British planters. At length, the
treaty of Utrecht, in 1712, recognized this encroaching
trade, and provided for its extension throughout the
Indies.* New England adventure, as well as British,
thus received a new impetus.  The wine-staves of her,.
forests, the salt fish of her coasts, the tobacco and flour
of Virginia, were exchanged for sugar and molasses.
These were distilled into that famous New England
rum, which, as Dr. Jeremy Belknap, of Massachusetts,
declared, was the foundation of the African slave trade.t
The slave ships, freighted with this rum, proceeded to
the coast of Guinea, and, by a most gainful traffick,
exchanged it for negroes, leaving the savage communities behind them on fire with —barbarian excess, out of
which a new crop of petty wars, murders, enslavements,
* Bancroft, vol. iii., p. 231.
t Moore's Hist. of Slavery in Mass., p. 6.
37
. 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
and kidnappings grew, to furnish-future cargoes of
victims; while they wafted their human freight to the
Spanish and British Indies, Virginia, the Carolinas, and
their own colonies.' The larger number of their victims
were sold in these markets; the less saleable remnants
of cargoes were brought home, and sold in the New
England ports. But not seldom, whole cargoes were
brought thither directly.  Dr. Belknap remembered,
among many others, one which consisted almost wholly
of children.*
Thus, the trade of which the good ship Desire, of
Salem, was the harbinger, grew — into grand proportions; and for nearly two centuries poured a flood of
wealth into New England, as well as no inconsiderable
number of slaves. The General Court of Massachusetts
recognized the trade as legal, imposing a duty of ~4
per head on each negro sold in the province, with a
drawback for those resold out of it, or dying in twelve
months.t  The weight of this duty is only evidence of
a desire' to raise revenue, and to discourage the settlement of numbers of negroes in Massachusetts; not of
any disapproval of the traffick in itself, as a proper employment of New England enterprise. The government
of the province preferred -white servants, and was
already aware of the unprofitable nature of African
labour in their inhospitable climate; but the furnishing of otter colonies with, negroes was a favoured
branch of commerce. The increase of negro slaves in
Massachusetts during the seventeenth century was
slow. But the following century changed the record.
t Idem, pp. 59, 60.
38
40
* Moore, p. 68. 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
In 1720, Governor Shute states their numbers at two
thousand. In 1754, a census of negroes gave four
thousand five hundred; and the first United States census, in 1790, returned six thousand.*
Meantime, the other maritime colonies of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations, and Connecticut,
followed the example of their elder sister emulously;
and their commercial history is but a repetition of that
of Massachusetts. The towns of Providence, Newport,
and New Haven became famous slave trading ports.
The magnificent harbour of the second, especially, was
the favourite starting-place of the slave ships; and its
commerce rivalled, or even exceeded, that of the present commercial metropolis, New York. All the four
original States, of course, became slaveholding.t
No records exist, accessible to the historian, by
which the numbers of slaves brought to this country
by New England traders can be ascertained. Their
* Moore, pp. 50, 51.
t Bancroft, vol. iii., ch. 24, does justice to the crimes of England
against the Africans, and against her own colonies; but is absolutely
silent touching the complicity'of New England! And, as though this
suppre.ssio veri were not enough, he proceeds to a studious suggestio
falsi.  Page 405th he says: "Of a direct voyage from Guinea to the
coast of the United States, no journal is known to exist, though slave
ships from Africa entered nearly every considerable harbour south of
Newport." And, p. 410: "The English continental colonies, in the
aggregate, were always opposed to the African slave trade." We
have seen evidence, that Bancroft must have known that every American slaver which ever entered a port of the United States, was either
from this same Newport, or other ports north of it. We shall see
hereafter, that he must have known also, that Massachusetts was certainly not among that " aggregate" of the colonies which opposed the
African slave trade. Yet, in this chapter, he endeavours expressly to
produce that impression. See p. 408.
39 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
operations were mingled with those of Englishmen
from the mot-her country. While the total of the operations of the latter, including their importations into the
Spanish colonies, was greatly larger than that of the
New Englanders, the latter probably sustained at least
an equal share of the trade to the thirteen colonies, up
to the time of the Revolution; and thenceforward, to
the year 1808, when the importations were nominally
arrested, they carried on nearly the whole. So that the
presence of the major part of the four millions of Africans now in America, is due to New England. Some
further illustrations will be given of the method and
spirit in which that section conducted the trade. The
number of The Boston Post-Boy and Advertiser for
September 12th, 1763, contains the following:
"By a gentleman who arrived here a few days ago
from tle coast of Africa, we are informed of the arrivals of Captains Morris, Ferguson, and Wickham, of this
port, who write very discouraging accounts'of the
trade upon the coast; and that upwards of two hundred gallons of real rum had been given for slaves per
head, and scarcely to be got at any rate for that cornmodity. This must be sensibly felt by this poor and
distrssed Government, the inhabitants whereof being
very large adventurers in the trade, having sent and about
sending upwards of twenty sail of vessels, computed to
carry in the whole about nine thousand hogsheads of
rum, a quantity much too large for the places on the
coast, where that commodity has generally been vended.
We hear that many vessels are also gone and going from
te neighbouring Governments, likewise from Barbadoes, from which place a large cargo of rum had ar
I
40 
THE AFRICAN SLAYE TRADE.
rived before our informant left the coast, of which they
gave two hundred and seventy gallons for a prime
slave."
When it is remembered that the Massachusetts ports
were then small towns, the fact that they had more
than twenty ships simultaneously engaged in the trade
to the Guinea coast alone, clearly reveals that it was
the leading branch of their maritime adventure, and
main source of their wealth. The ingenuous lament of
the printer over the increasing cost of "a prime slave,"
gives us the correct clue to the change in their views
concerning the propriety of the trade. When the negro
rose in value to two hundred gallons "of real rum"
(the sable slave hunters were becoming as acute as
Brother Jonathan himself, touching the adulterated article), the conscience of the holy adventurer began to
be disturbed about the righteousness of the traffick.
When the slave cost two hundred and fifty gallons, the
scruples became troublesome; and when his price
mounted up towards three hundred, by reason of the
imprudence of the naughty man with- his large cargo,
from Barbadoes, the stings of conscience became intolerable. By the principles of that religion which "supposeth that gain is godliness,"* the trade was now
become clearly wrong.
The following extracts are from the letter of instructions given by a leading Salem firm to the captain of their ship, upon its clearing for the African
coast:t
* St. Paul's description of Abolitionists, 1 Tim., vi., 1-5.
+ Felt's Salem, ii., 289, 290.
41
10 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
"CAPTAIN: Our brig, of which you have the
command, being cleared at the office, and being in
every other respect complete for sea, our orders are,
that you embrace the first fair wind, and make the best
of your way to the coast of Africa, and there invest
your cargo in slaves. As slaves, when brought to'market, like other articles, generally appear to the best advantage; therefore too critical an inspection cannot be
paid to them before purchase, to see that no dangerous
distemper is lurking about them, to attend particularly
to their age, to their countenances, to the straightness
of their limbs, and, as far as possible, to the goodness or
badness of their constitution, etc., etc., will be very considerable objects. Male or female slaves, whether full
grown or not, we cannot particularly instruct you
about; and on this head shall only observe that prime
male slaves generally sell best in any market."
*       *       *       *       *       *
"Upon your return, you will touch at St. Pierre's,
Martinico, and call on Mr. John Mounreau for your
further advice and destination. We submit the conducting of the voyage to your good judgment and prudent management, not doubting of your best endeavours
to serve our interest in all cases; and conclude with committing you to the almighty Disposer of all events."
The present commercial and manufacturing wealth of
New England is to be traced, even more than that of
Old England, to the proceeds of the slave trade, and
slave labour. The capital of the former was derived
mainly from the profits of the Guinea trade. The shipping which first earned wealth for its owners in carrying the bodies of the slaves, was next employed in
42 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
transporting the cotton, tobacco, and rice which they
reared, and the imports purchased therewith. And
when the unjust tariff policy of the United States
allured the next generation of New Englanders to
invest the swollen accumulations of their slave trading
fathers in factories, it was still slave grown cotton
which kept their spindles busy. The structure of New
England wealth is cemented with the sweat and blood
of Africans.
In bright contrast with its guilty cupidity, stands
the consistent action of Virginia, which, from its very
foundation as a colony, always denounced and endeavoured to resist the trade. It is one of the strange
freaks of history, that this commonwealth, which was
guiltless in this thing, and which always presented a
steady protest against the enormity, should become, in
spite of herself, the home of the largest number of African slaves found within any of the States, and thus,
should be held up by Abolitionists as the representative of the "sin of slaveholding;" while Massachusetts, which was, next to England, the pioneer and
patroness of the slave trade, and chief criminal, having
gained for her share the wages of iniquity instead of
the persons of the victims, has arrogated to herself the
post of chief accuser of Virginia. It is because the latter colony was made, in this affair, the helpless victim
of the tyranny of Great Britain and the relentless avarice of New England. The sober evidence of history
which will be presented, will cause the breast of the
most deliberate reader to burn with indignation for the
injustice suffered by Virginia, and the profound hypocrisy of her detractors.
4
43 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
The preamble to the State Constitution of Virginia,
drawn up by George Mason, and adopted by the Convention June 29th, 1776, was written by Thomas Jefferson.
In the recital of grievances against Great Britain,
which had prompted the commonwealth to assume its
independence, this preamble contains the following
words: "By prompting our negroes to rise in arms
among us: those very negroes whom, by an inhuman
use of his negative, he had refused us permission to
exclude by law." * Mr. Jefferson, long a leading member of the House of Burgesses, and most learned of all
his contemporaries in the legislation of his country,
certainly knew whereof he affirmed. His witness is
more than confirmed by that of Mr. Madison,t who
says: "The British Government constantly checked
the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to this infernal
traffick." Mr. Jefferson, in a passage which was expunged from the Declaration of Independence by New
England votes in the Congress, strongly stated the
same charge.  And George Mason, perhaps the greatest and most influential of Virginians; next to Washington, reiterated the accusation with equal strength,
in the speech in the Federal Convention, 1787, in which
he urged the immediate prohibition of the slave trade by
the United States. See Madison Papers, vol. iii., pp.
1388-1398. A learned Virginian antiquary has found,
notwithstanding the destruction of the appropriate evidences, which will be explained anon, no less than
twenty-eight several attempts made by the Burgesses
to arrest the evil by their legislation, all of which were
t Madison Papers, iii., 1390.
144
I
t
* Code of Virginia, p. 36. 
THE AFRICAN SLAYE TRADE.
either suppressed or negatived by the proprietary or
royal authority. A learned and pious Huguenot divine,
having planted his family in the colony, in the first half
of the last century, bears this testinony: "But our
Assembly, foreseeing the ill consequences of importing
such numbers among us, hath often attempted to lay a
duty upon them which would amount to a prohibition,
such as ten or twenty pounds a head; but no governor
dare pass such a law, having instructions to the contrary from the Board of Trade at home. By this means
they are forced upon us, whether we will or not. This
plainly shows the African Company hath the advantage
of the colonies, and may do as it pleases with the ministry."* These personal testimonies are recited the.
more carefully, because the Vandalism of the British
officers at the Revolution annihilated that regular documentary evidence, to which the appeal might otherwise be made. Governor Dunmore first, and afterwards
Colonel Tarleton and Earl Cornwallis, carried off and
destroyed all the archives of the colony which theycould seize, and among them the whole of the original
journals of the House of Burgesses, except the volumes
containing the proceedings of 1769 and 1772. The only
sure knowledge which remains of those precious ree ords is derived from other documents and fragmentary
copies of some passages, found afterwards in the desks
of a few citizens.  The wonderfully complete collection
of their laws -edited> by' Hening, under the title of
"Statutes at Large," was drawn from copies and col lections of the acts which, having received the assent
* Rev. P. Fontaine, Huguenot Family, pp. 348, 351.
45 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
of the governors and kings, were promulgated to the
counties as actual law. Of course the suppressed and
negatived motions against the slave trade are not to be
sought among these, but could only have been found in
the lost journals of the House. But enough of the
documentary evidence remains, to substantiate triumphantly the testimony of individuals.
The first act touching the importation of slaves,
which was allowed by the royal governor and king,
was that of the 11th William III., 1699, laying an impost of twenty shillings upon each servant or African
slave imported. The motive assigned is the raising
of a revenue to rebuild the Capitol or State House,
lately burned down; and the law was limited to three
years.* This impost was renewed for two farther
terms of three years, by subsequent Assemblies.t Before the expiration of this period, the Assembly of 1705
laid a permanent duty of sixpence per head on all passengers and slaves entering the colony;t and this
little burthen, the most which the jealousy of the British slave traders would permit, was the germ of the
future taxes on the importation. This impost was
increased by the Assembly of 1732, to a duty of five
per centum ad valorem, for four years.~ Subsequent
Assemblies continued this tax until 1740, and then
doubled it, on the plea of the war then' existing.11
During tile remainder of the colonial government, the
impost remained at this grade, ten per centum on the
price of the slaves, and twenty per centum upon those
* Hening, Stat. at Large, vol. iii., p. 193.: Idem, pp. 346,492.
t Idem, pp. 212, 233.                      ~ Hening, vol. iv., p. 319.
0 Hening, iv., 394, and v., 29, 92, 160, 318.
46
0 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
imported from  Maryland or Carolina.  As  the allpowerful African Company in England was not concerned in maintaining a transit of the slaves from one
colony to another, after they were once off their hands,
they permitted the Burgesses to do as they pleased
with the Maryland and Carolina importations. HIere,
therefore, we have an unconfined expression of the sentiments of the Assemblies; and they showed their fixed
opposition to the trade by imposing what was virtually
a prohibitory duty.  In 1769, the House of Burgesses
passed an act for raising the duty on all slaves imported, to twenty per centurn.*  The records of the
Executive Department show that this law was vetoed
by the king, and declared repealed by a proclamation
of William Nelson, President of the Council, April 3d,
1771. The Assembly of 1772 passed the same law
again, with the substitution of a duty of 25 per head, instead of the twenty per centum, on slaves from Maryland
and Carolina; t and it received the signature of Governor Dunmore. It may well be doubted whether it
escaped the royal veto.
But the House now proceeded to a more direct effort
to extinguish the nefarious traffick.  Friday, March
20th, 1772, it was ~ "Resolved, that an humble address
be prepared to be presented to his Majesty, to express
the high opinion we entertain of his benevolent intentions towards his subjects in the colonies, and that we
are thereby induced to ask his paternal assistance in
averting a calamity of a most alarming nature; that
.the importation of negroes from Africa has long been
t Idem, 531.     1 House Journal
47
i
* Hening, viii., 336. 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and under
its present encouragement may endanger th existence
of his American dominions;  that self-preservation,
therefore, urges us to implore him to remove all restraints on his Governors from passing acts of Assembly which are intended to check this pernicious commerce; and that we presume to hope the interests of a
few of his subjects in Great Britain will be disregarded,
when such a number of his people look up to him for
protection in a point so essential; that when our duty
calls upon us to make application for his attention to
the welfare of this, his antient colony, we cannot refrain from renewing those professions of loyalty and
affection we have so often, with great sincerity, made,
or from assuring him that we regard his wisdom and
virtue as the surest pledges of the happiness of his
people."
"Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw
up an address to be presented to his Majesty, upon the
said resolution." And a Committee was appointed of
Mr. Harrison, Mr. Carey, Mr. Edmund Pendleton, Mr.
Richard Henry Lee, Mr. Treasurer, and Mr. Bland.
"Wednesday, April 1st, 1772: Mr. Harrison reported
from the Committee appointed upon Friday, the twentieth day of last month, to draw up an address to be
presented to his Majesty, that the Committee had drawn
up an address accordingly, which they had directed
him to report to the House; and he read the same in
his place; which is as folloWeth," etc.  The address is
so nearly in the words of the resolution, that the reader
need not be detained by its repetition.  The Hlouse
agreed, nemine contradicente, to the address, and the
48
iI
I
i
i 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
same Committee was appointed to present an address
to the Governor, asking him to transmit the address to
his Majesty, "and to support it in such manner as he
shall think most likely to promote the desirable end
proposed."'  This earnest appeal met the fate of all the
previous: Mammon and the African Company were
still paramount at Court, over humanity and right.
But the Revolution was near at hand, bringing a different redress for the grievance.
On the 15th of May, 1776, Virginia declared her independence of Great Britain, and the Confederacy, following her example, issued its declaration on the 4th
of July of the same year. The strict blockade observed
by the British navy, of course arrested the foreign
slave trade, as well as all other commerce. But in
1778, the State of Virginia, determined to provide in
good time against the resumption of the traffick when
commerce should be reopened, gave final expression
to her will against it.  At the General Assembly held
October 5th, Patrick Henry being Governor of the Commonwealth, the following law was the first passed:
AN ACT FOR PREVENTING THE FARTHER IMPORTATION OF
SLAVES.*'
"I. For preventing the farther importation of slaves
into this Commonwealth: Be it enacted by the General
Assembly, That from and after the passing of this act,
no slave or slaves shall hereafter be imported into this
Commonwealth by sea or land, nor shall any slaves so
imported be bought or sold by any person whatsoever.
* Hening, v. ix, p. 471.
3
49 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
"II. Every person hereafter importing slaves into
this Commonwealth contrary to this act, shall forfeit
and pay the sum of one thousand pounds for every
slave so imported, and every person selling or buying
any such slaves, shall in like manner forfeit and pay the
sum of five hundred pounds for every slave so bought
or sold, one moiety of which forfeitures shall be to the
use of the Commonwealth, and the other moiety to him
or them that will sue for the same, to be recovered by
action of debt or information in any court of record.
"III. And be it further enacted, That every slave imported into this Commonwealth, contrary to the true
intent and meaning of this act, shall, upon such importation, become free."
The remaining sections of the law only proceed to
exempt from the penalty citizens of the other United
States, coming to live as actual residents with their
slaves in the Commonwealth, and citizens of Virginia
bringing in slaves from other States of the Union by
actual inheritance.
Thus Virginia has the honour of being the first Commonwealth on earth to declare against the African
slave trade, and to mare it a penal offence. Her action
antedates by thirty years the much bepraised legislation of the British Parliament, and by ten years the
earliest movement of Massachusetts on the subject;
while it has the immense advantage, besides, of consistency; because she was never stained by any complicity
in the trade, and she exercised her earliest untrammelled power to stay its evils effectually in her domiiuions. Thus, almost before the Clarksons and Wilber
50
i
I 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
forces were born, had Virginia done that very work for
which her slanderers now pretend so much to laud
those philanthropists. All that these reformers needed
to do was to bid the British Government go and imitate the example which Virginia was the first to set,
among the kingdoms of the world. It is true that the
first Congress of 1774, at Philadelphia, had adopted a
resolution that the slave trade ought to cease; but this
body had no powers, either federal or national; it was
a mere committee; and its inspiration upon this subject,
as upon most others, came from Virginia. In 1788, lassachusetts passed an act forbidding her citizens from
importing, transporting, buying, or selling any of the
inhabitants of Africa as slaves, on a penalty of fifty
pounds for each person so misused, and of two hundred
pounds for every vessel employed in this traffick. Vessels which had already sailed were exempted from all
penalty for their present voyages.* It is manifest from
the character of the penalties, that this law was not
passed to be enforced; and the evidence soon to be
adduced will show, beyond all doubt, that this is true.
The act was one of those cheap tributes which Pharisaic avarice knows so well how to pay to appearances.
Connecticut passed a very similar law the same year,
prohibiting her citizens to engage in the slave trade,
and voiding the policies of insurance on slave ships.
The slave trade of New England continued in increasing activity for twenty years longer.
It may be said, that if the government of Virginia
was opposed to the African slave trade, her people pur
* Moore, Hist. of Slavery in Mass., p. 227.
51 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
chased more of its victims than those of any other colony; and the aphorism may be quoted,against them,
that the receiver is as guilty as the thief. This is
rarely true in the case of individuals, and when applied
to communities, it ia notoriously false. All States contain a large number of irresponsible persons. The
character of a free people as a whole should be estimated by that of its corporate acts, in which the common will is expressed.  The individuals who purchased
slaves of the traders were doubtless actuated by various
motives.  Many persuaded themselves that,  as they
were already enslaved, and without their agency, and
as their refusal to purchase them would have no effect
whatever to procure their restoration to their own country and to liberty, they might become their owners,
without partaking in the wrong of which they were
the victims. Many were prompted by genuine compassion, because they saw that to buy the miserable creatures was the only practicable way in their reach to
rescue them from their pitiable condition; for tradition
testifies that often when the captives were exposed in
long ranks upon the shore, near their floating prisons, for the inspection of purchasers, they besought the
planters and their wives to buy them, and testified an
extravagant joy and gratitude at the event. All pub
chasers were, perhaps, influenced partly by the convenience and advantage of possessing their labour.
Had every individual in Virginia been as intelligent
and virtuous as the patriots who, in the Burgesses,
denounced the inhuman traffick, the colony might perhaps have remained without a slave, notwithstanding
the two centuries of temptation during which its ports
52
i
i
i
i 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
were plied with cargoes seeking sale.  But a commonwealth without a single' weak, or selfish, or bad man,
is a Utopia.  The proper rulers were forbidden by the
mother country to employ that prohibitory legislation
which is, in all States, the'necessary guardian of the publick virtue; and it is therefore that we place the guilt
of the sale where that of the importation justly belongs.
Doubtless many an honourable citizen, after sincerely
sustaining the endeavour of his Burgess to arrest the
whole trade, himself purchased Africans, because he
saw.that their general introduction into the country
was inevitable, without legislative interference; and
his self-denial-would only have subjected him to the
severe inconveniences of being without slaves in a
community of slaveholders, whilst it did not arrest the
evil.
The government of Virginia was  unquestionably
actuated, in prohibiting the slave trade, by a sincere
sense of its intrinsic injustice and cruelty. Mr. Jefferson, a representative man, in his " Notes on Virginia,"
had given indignantexpression to this sentiment.  And
the reprobation of that national wrong, with regret for
the presence of the African on the soil, was the universal feeling of that generation which succeeded the
Revolution; while they firmly asserted the rightfulness
of that slavery which they had inherited. But human
motives are always complex; and1along with the moral
disapprobation for the crime against Africa, the Bur gesses felt other motives, which, although more per sonal, were right and proper. They were sober, wise,
and practical men, who felt that to protect the rights,
purity, and prosperity of their own country and pos
.53 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
terity, was more properly their task, than to plead the
wrongs of a distant and alien people, great although
those wrongs might be. They deprecated the slave
trade, because it was peopling their soil so largely
with an inferior and savage race, incapable of union,
instead of with civilized Englishmen. This was precisely their apprehension of the enormous wrong done
the colony by the mother country. They understood
also the deep political motive which combined with the
lust of gain to prompt the relentless policydf the Home
Government.   With it, the familiar argument. was:
"Let us stock the plantations plentifully with Africans,
not only that they may be good customers for our manufactures, and producers for our commerce; but that
they may remain dependent and submissive. An Englishman who emigrates, becomes the bold assertor of
popular and colonial rights; but the negro is only fit
for bondage." For the same reason, the colonies felt
that the forcing of the Africans upon them was as
much a political as a social wrong. But that righteous
Providence, whose glory it is to make the crimes of the
designing their own punishment, employed African
slavery in the Southern colonies as a potent influence
in forming the character of the Southern gentleman,
without whose high spirit, independence, and chivalry,
America would never have won her freedom from British rule.
This contrast between the policy and principles of
Virginia and of the New England colonies will be concluded with two evidences. The one is presented in
the history of the Declaration of Independence. Mr.
Jefferson, the author, states that he hadinserted in the
54
i
tI
t
I 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
enumeration of grievances against the King of Great
Britain, a paragraph strongly reprobating his arbitrary
support of the slave trade, against the remonstrances of
some of the colonies. When the Congress discussed
the paper, this paragraph was struck out, "in complaisance," he declares, "to South Carolina and'Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to
continue it.  Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt
a little tender under these censures; for though their
people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had
been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."*
Thus New England assisted to expunge from that immortal paper a testimony against the slave trade,
which Virginia endeavoured to place there.
The other evidence is presented by a case much more
practical. In the Convention of 1787, which framed the
Constitution of the United States, two questions concerning African slaves caused dissension. Upon the
supreme right of the States over the whole subject of
slavery within their own dominions, upon the recognition of slaves as property protected by the federal
laws, wherever slavery existed, and upon the fugitive
slave law, not a voice was raised in opposition.  But
the Convention presumed (what subsequent history did
not confirm,) that the main expenses of the federal
government would be met by direct taxation; and
some principle was to be adopted, for determining how
slaves should rank with freemen, in assessing capitation taxes, and apportioning representation. The other
* Jefferson's Correspondence, vol. i., p. 15.
55 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
question of difficulty was the suppression. of the African
slave trade, which, upon the return of peace, had been
actively revived by New England, with the connivance
of Carolina and Georgia. The Southern States, who
expected to have nearly the whole tax on slaves to
pay, desired to rate them very low; some members proposed that five slaves should count as equal to only one
white freeman; others, that three slaves should count
for one. The New England colonies generally desired
to make a negro count as a white man, both for representation and taxation!   After much  difference, the
majority of the Convention agreed to a middle conclusion proposed by Mr. Madison, that five negroes should
count for three persons.*  But the other question was
not so easily arranged. ihe Committee of eleven appointed to draw up a first draught of a constitution had
proposed that in Art. vii., ~ 4, of their draught, Congress should be prohibited from laying any import duty
on African slaves brought into the country. The effect
of this, so far as the federal government was concerned,
would be to legalize the slave trade forever, and protect it from all burdenst Maryland (by her legislature, then sitting,) to her immortal honour, and Pennsylvania and Virginia, exhibited a determination to
change this section, so as to arrest the trade through
the acti6on of the federal government, either by prohibition or tax. The New England States, South Carolina,
and Georgia, opposed them, and advocated the original
section, assigning various grounds. The difference
threatened to make shipwreck of the whole work of
* Madison Papers, v. i., pp. 422-425.
.56
i
I
I
t Ibid., v. II., p. lin 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
the Convention, when Gouverneur Morris adroitly proposed to commit the subject, along with that of the
*proposed navigation law, in order that disagreeing
parties might be induced, by private conference, to
combine mutual concessions into a sort of bargain.
The subjects were accordingly committed to a Committee of one from each State. This Committee reported,
August 24th, "in favour of not allowing Congress to
prohibit the importation of slaves before 1800, but giving them power to impose a duty at a rate not exceeding the average of other imports."   South Carolina
(through General  Pinckney)- moved  to prolong the
importation from 1800 to 1808, and Massachusetts
(through Mr. Gorham) seconded the motion. It was
then passed, as last proposed, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, (the only New  England States
then present,) Maryland, North Carolina, and South
Carolina, voting in the affirmative, and New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia in the negative.*
The maritime States soon after gained their point, of
authorizing Congress to pass, by a majority vote, a
navigation law for their advantage.
Thus, by the assistance of New England, the iniqui ties of the African slave trade, and the influx of that
alien and savage race into America, were prolonged
from the institution of the federal goverpment until
1808. Is it said, that New England had at this time
no interest in slavery, did not value it, and was already
engaged in removing it at home?  This is true; and it
is so much the worse for her historical position. it
* Madison Papers, v. iii., pp. 1398 et seq.
3*
57 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
only shows that she desired to fix that institution which
she had ascertained to be a curse to her, upon her
neighbours, for the sake of keeping open twenty years
longer an infamous but gainful employment, and of
securing a legislative bounty to her shipping. In other
words, her policy was simply mercenary. And these
votes for prolonging the slave trade effectually rob her
of credit for emancipation at home; proving beyond
all peradventure, that the latter measure was wholly
prompted by her sense of her own interests, and not of
the rights of the negro.  For if the latter motive had
governed, must it not have made her the equal opponent of the increase of slavery in Carolina and Georgia?
But the agency of New England in that increase was
still more active and direct.  As though to "make hay
while the sun shone," the people of that section renewed
their activity on the African coast, with a diligence
continually increasing up to 1808. Carey, in his work
upon the slave trade, estimates the importations into
the thirteen colonies between 1771 and 1790, (nineteen
years,) at thirty-four thousand; but that between the
institution of the federal government and 1808, he
places at seventy thousand. His estimate hee is unquestionably far too low; because forty thousand were
introduced at the port of Charleston, South Carolina,
alone, the last four years;* and within the years 1806
and 1807, there were six hundred arrivals of New England slavers at that place.t The latter fact shows that
those States must have possessed nearly the whole
traffick.  And the former bears out Mr. De Bow, in en
* De Bow, Compend. of Census, 1850, pp. 83,84.  t Com. BoutwelL
58
I
i
I
I 
THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
larging the total of importations under the federal government to one hundred and twenty-five thousand, at
least. For the average at one port was ten thousand
per year. In 1860, there were ten-fold as many Africans
in the United States as had been originally brought
thither from Africa. But as many of these had been
multiplying for four, or even five generations, this
rate of increase is too large to assume for the importations of 1800, whose descendants had only come to the
third generation. Assuming the half as nearly correct,
which seems a moderate estimate, we find their increase
five-fold. So that there were, in 1860, six hundred and
twenty-five thousand more slaves in the United States
than would have been found here, had not New England's cruelty and avarice assisted to prolong the slave
trade nineteen years after Virginia and the federal
government would otherwise have arrested it.
After the British, and even after the other governments of Europe, had abolished the trade in name, it
continued with a vast volume. Whereas at the time of
the abolition, in 1808, eighty-five thousand slaves were
taken from Africa annually, nearly fifty thousand annually were still carried, as late as 1847, to' Brazil and
the Spanish Indies.* In this illicit trade, no Virginian
(and; indeed, no Southern) ship or shipmaster has ever
been in a single case implicated, although our State
had meantime begun no inconsiderable career of maritime adventure. But adventurers frogln New England
ports and New York were continually found sharing
the lion's portion of the foul spoils. And to the latest
* De Bow, p. 84.
59 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
reclamations of the British Government upon the Brazilian, for violations of the treaties and laws against
the slave trade upon the extended shores of that empire, the answer of its noble Emperor has still been,
that if Britain would find the real culprits, she must go
to the ports of Boston and New York to seek them.*
But one more fact remains: When the late confederate
Government adopted a constitution, although it was
composed exclusively.of slaveholding States, it voluntarily did what the United States has never done: it
placed an absolute prohibition of the foreign slave
trade in its organic law.
* Journal do Commercio, (Rio,) May 26, 1856.
m
60
Q
-1
I 
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY.
t
CHAPTER III.
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY IN TIE UNITED STATES.
IT has been a favonrite and persistent assertion of
Abolitionists, that slavery in America was an exceptional institution, and contrary to the law of nature
and nations.  They represent it as owing its exist
ence solely to the lex loci of the States where it was
legalized by their own legislation; anc hence they
draw the conclusion, that the moment a slave passed
out of one of these States into a free State, or into the
territories of the United States, his bondage terminated
of itself. Hence, also, they argue that slaveholders
had nio right to the protection of that species of property in the territories, which were the common possession of the citizens of all the States; and that the federal government could not properly permit the growth
of, or recognize, new slave States. Their party cry
was: "Freedom is national;' slavery is local."' It is
plain that this proposition is the premise necessary to
all the above assumptions. It will now be shown that
this proposition is untrue.   Slavery in  the United
States, instead of being the mere creature of lex loci,
was founded on a basis as broad as that of the American Union, was in full accordance with the law of nature and nations as then recognized by the States and
61
O 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
the federal government, and had universal recognition
by the force of general law. The exclusion of slavery
from any State was legally the exception, owing its
validity purely to the lex loci, and to the recognized
sovereignty of the States over their own local affairs.
Hence, the rights of slaveholders stood valid, of course,
in all the common territories of the United States, and
everywhere, save where the sovereignty of a non   slaveholding State arrested them within its own bor   ders. This representation is established by the follow   ing facts:
First. Whenm the federal government was formed, all
the family of European nations was slaveholding; and
they all alike held the Africans as unquestioned and
legitimate subjects of bandage. The slave trade was
held by publick law as legitimate as the trade in corn.
It was the subject of treaty stipulations between the
several powers;  and slave trading companies weres
formally chartered and protected by all the leading
powers.  Slaves were declared by the English judges
to be merchandise.* They were universally held legal
prize of war when taken on the high seas.t They were
.recognized subjects of reclamation in forming and exe   cuting treaties. Thus, not to go outside of our own
history, we find General Washington, in 1783, by order
of Congress, remonstrating with the British commander
evacuating New York city, because certain officers of
the retiring forces carried away with them the fugitive
slaves of American citizens; and the latter was comn
* Bancroft, vol. iii., p. 414.
t Moore's Hist. of Slavery in Mass., p. 162.
62
I
II
ol 
LEGAL'STATUS OF SLAVERY.
pelled to surrender the attempt, as an unauthorized
spoliation of property.* In 1788, the Government of
the inited States claimed of Spain the return of fugitive slaves from the Spanish colony of Florida;t and
our government promised, in return, the rendition of
Spanish slaves found in the United States. It is well
known that the treaty of the United States with Great
Britain, negotiated by Mr. Jay, and ratified by President Washington, and the treaty of Ghent, in 1815,
both secured indemnities for slaves of American citizens abducted during the two wars; thus treating them
as property under the protection of national law in
America, and of the law of nations. In face of this
array of facts, we boldly ask, with what face it can be
asserted that slavery was not recognized by international law? Whether it is not as consonant with the
law of nature as of nations, will appear at another
place.
Second. During the whole planting and growth of the
British colonies in America, and at the time when they
passed from that government into the federal Union,
the Einpire of Great Britain was slaveholding in all its
parts. The obvious consequence is, that the government formed by the thirteen colonies in a part of the
territory of that empire, inherited the legal condition of
their mother, -in this particular. In seceding from that
empire, they brought away the slaveholding status; and
this subsisted ipso facto, except where it was changed
by the lex loci. All the original territory of the American Union was slave territory, as was that subse
* Justice Campbell, in Howard, 19th, Dred Scott Case.    t ldem.
63. 
A DEFENCE OF VIREGINIA.
quently acquired from France. Hence slave owners of
course possessed their rights in all this territory, unless
they were expressly restrained by special legislation
of tlie States, sovereign each one within its own borders.  The consequence cannot be denied, if the premise be admitted. Let the reader consider the following
evidences of it:
In 172, only four years before the Declaration of
Independence, Lord Mansfield, in the Court of King's
Bench, decided the famous Somersett case, by which, it
has usually been asserted, slavery was forever terminated in England, and the principle was settled that
this relation was inconsistent with her free laws. Mr.
Stewart, a citizen of Virginia, going to England on
business, carried with him a negro slave, Somersett,
whom he had bought in Jamaica. After a time he
indicated a purpose to return home, carrying his slave
with  him;  whereupon  the  negro absconded.   His
master had him seized, and placed on board a ship
in the Thames, to be forcibly carried to Jamaica and
sold. The negro then sued out an application for
habeas corpus, which being argued at a previous term,
was finally decided by Lord Mansfield, at the Trinity
term, 1712. The true extent of that decision will hereafter be shown. Our purpose here is to cite the admissions made by the court, as to the existing state of
English laws.*  It is noticeable, that this tribunal exhibited a great reluctance to decide the case, declaring
that it was attended with great, and almost inextrica
* See, on all the following statements from Lord Mansfield, Lofft's
Reports, 12th Geo. 3d, pp. 1, 8, 17, 18, etc. 
il
.64
i
i
I
I
I 
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY.
ble difficulties, and that Lord Mansfield proposed to
evade a decision by recommending a compromise between Mr. Stewart and the black. This not being
done, the court stated that there were then fifteen
thousand negro slaves in England, worth not less
than seven hundred thousand pounds  sterling.  It
also recognized the decisions of Sir Philip Yorke, and
Lord Chief Justice Talbot, confirmed in 1749, by that
of the chancellor, Lord Hardewicke, that if a slave,
brought by his master to England, should be detained
from him, an action of trover for his recovery would
lie; and the decision of Lord Talbot, that a negro
slave brought by his master to England from a colony, or baptized by the clergy, did not thereby gain
his liberty; and the opinion of the latter that while
the Statute of Tenures had abolished manorial villeinage, a white man might still become a villein in gross,
by the laws of England.* The court declared farther,
that the slave property of a debtor was undoubtedly
liable to action in the English courts, to recover the
sums due a creditor.  But after all these admissions,
which clearly amount to a recognition of the fact
that England itself was then by law a slaveholding
country, Lord Mansfield proceeds to settle the principle (the only one, as he carefully declares, to which
his decision extends) that the power of the writ of
* What the villein in gross was, may be learned from the following,
of Bracton, Lib. iv., 208:
"'Purum villenagium est, a quo proestatur servilium incertum et
indeterminatum; ubi scire non potest vespere, quale servitium fieri
debet mane, viz., ubi quis facere tenetur quicquid ei proeceptum fuit."
See also Blackstone, Lib. ii., 93.
65 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
habeas corpus, not bein'g limited to free persons by
express statute, should, as he thinks, in England be
extended to slaves, when they invoke it, and should be
held to override the rights of the master under the
laws; because those rights were now regarded as
odious and excessive by current publick opinion.
Such, and no more, is the extent of this much bepraised, and much  misunderstood decision I   It is
plain to common sense, that if it is not an instance of
the judicial abuse of making, instead of expounding,
law, it only establishes the fact that the laws of slaveholding England were then in a ridiculously inconsistent state.
In fact, not only were there then fifteen thousand
negro slaves in England, but they were publickly
bought and sold in the markets of London. The prevalence of slavery is attested by another species of historical evidence, very different from that of learned
judges, but at least as authentick. The pictures by
which Hogarth has fixed the follies and peculiarities of
fashionable life on his immortal canvass, frequently
contain the African valet; showing that the possession
of this species of servants was demanded by high life.
From the Normans, those noted slaveholders, to 1775,
no statute had been passed upon the subject of personal
slavery.* There then existed, in the northern part of
the kingdom of Great Britain, from thirty thousand to
forty thousand persons, of whom the Parliament said,
"Many colliers, coal-heavers, and salters, are in a state
of slavery, or bondage, bound to the collieries or salt
* Justice Campbell, on Dred Scott case, 19th Howard, 109.
66
I 
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY.
works where they work, for life, transferable with the
collieries and salt-works, when their original masters
have no use for them."* Again in 1799, they declare
that "many colliers and coal-heavers still continue in
a state of bondage."
Thus it appears that England was itself slave territory, at the time the thirteen colonies, declaring their
independence, brought away her laws and institutions.
But our argument of this fact is ex'abundantia; it may
be waived, and still our conclusion holds, because, by
existing laws, all the plantations and colonies of England in America were then, yet more indisputably,
slave territory. No stronger proof of this proposition
can be imagined, than the manner in which slavery was
planted in these communities. Not only were all the
thirteen colonies, and all the West India plantations,
slaveholdiag; but it required no statute, either of Parliament or of colonial legislature, to introduce African
slavery, or to establish the right of the owner, because
it was already established by imperial law and usage.
The first negroes were bought in Virginia in 1620; the
first act touching their bondage was passed by the
Burgesses in 1659; and this does not enact their slavery, but recognizes it as existing.   It was not until
1670,t that any law was passed which expressly enacted their slavery. But for fifty years they had been
unquestioned slaves, had paid impost duty as such, had
been bought and sold, had been bequeathed, had been
subject of suits.  By what law?   Obviously by the
* Parliament, 15th Geo. 3d.
t Hening, Stat. at Large, vol. ii., p. 283.
67 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
general law of the British Empire, and of nations. The
manner of the introduction of slavery into Massachusetts was the same. "The involuntary servitude of
Indians and negroes in the several colonies originated
under a law not promulgated by legislation, and rested
upon prevalent views of universal jurisprudence, or the
law of nations, supported by the express or implied
authority of the  Home  Government."*    But  the
"canny" Puritans, more careful than.the Virginians to
fortify their slave property, enacted slavery of both
classes, in their earliest codes of laws, 1641 and 1660.t
That African slavery was the universal law of the
British colonial empire, is equally plain from the facts
already given concerning the legalizing of the slave
trade. The treaty of Utrecht secured to Britain a
monopoly of that traffick. The Parliament chartered
the African Company, with the right to trade in slaves
to all the colonies.   The Parliament then by statute
threw the trade open'to all British subjects.  The Parliament, by express law, made the property in slaves
held in the colonies subject of action in English courts.
The Solicitor-General, with Chancellor-after Chancellor,
decided that residence in England did not emancipate
the slave upon his return to his colonial home. The
General Court of Massachusetts enacted the same rule,
as did the Burgesses  of Virginia, again and again;
and were never disallowed therein by the king. Even
so late as 1827, fifty-five years after the Somersett case,
Lord Stowell decided, in the case of the  slave Grace,
* Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, i 216, i., 225.
t Moore, Slavery in Mass., pp. 12, 15.
it
68
i
I
I 
-LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY.
from Antigua, that on her return to the colony, her
condition as a slave for life was fully revived.* And
in the correctness of this decision, we find Mr. Justice
Story concurring.t
The argument then is, that at the American Revolu tion all the territory claimed by the thirteen colonies
was, by the law of the Empire, and of nations, slave holding territory. The colonies, in assuming their
*independence, brought away the rights and institutlons
which they had inherited as colonial parts of that
empire; and whatever prescriptive right was not
expressly changed by law, was universally held to
survive, as of course. Hence all the territory of the
American Union was slave territory; and the only
mode by which any part became non-slaveholding, was
by the exercise of State sovereignty enacting a lex loci,
which was only operative within the bounds of the
State itself.
Third. The chief territory which the United States
acquired between the Revolution and the Mexican war,
was Louisiana. This vast region was gained by treaty
fromin France in 1803. It was then a single province
and government of the French Republick, and was,
through all its extent, a slaveholding country. In the
third article of the treaty for its purchase, between the
United States and the First Consul, it was stipulated
that until the ceded territory should be incorporated, as
States, in the Union, all its citizens should be " in the
-mean time maintained and protected in the free enjoy ment of their liberty, property, and the religion which
t Letter to Lord Stowell.
O
69
* 2d Haggard, p. 94. 
$
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.  -
they profess." The settled doctrine of the courts of
Louisiana has always been, that this guarantee covered all the citizens emigrating into any part of the
territory before its erection into a State, as fully as
those living in Louisiana in 1803.* Thus, the rights of
slave owners in the whole of the Louisiana purchase
were guaranteed to them by treaty, until such time as
the part they inhabited became a sovereign State, and
thusassumed plenary power over the subject.  But, by
Article 6th, ~ 2d, of the Constitution of the United
States, all treaties made by the authority of the United
States are declared to be the supreme law of the land.
Thus the rights of the master in all this region were
placed above the power of the legislature itself.
Fourth. The federal constitution recognized and protected property in slaves, in every way which was
competent to a federative compact of this kind. The
slaveholding States had representation for three-fifths
of their slaves. The slaves were made subjects of direct taxation, as property. The constitution provided
expressly for a fugitive slave law, which was soon
passed by the Congress, and continued to be the. law of
the land until the termination of the government. By
the constitution, property in slaves was treated like any
other property; and no ground can be found for the assertion that its rights were more restricted than rights
in cattle or lands. But the fundamental idea of that in
strument was the impartial equality of all the citizens
before the law. Whatever authority Congress had over
the common territories, was as trustee for all the citi
* Justice Catron, 19th Howard, p. 131.
70
I 
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY.
zens of the United States equally.  Hence it seems obvious that this body was bound to recognize in all the
citizens equal rights, in going into those territories with
any species of property which they might hold by the
laws of any State, or of Congress, and to protect them
in those rights while the country was in a territorial
condition.
Finally, these principles have been expressly decided
by the highest constitutional authority in the land, as
well as by the voice of the most enlightened founders
of the government. When the mischievous contest concerning the admission of Missouri was rising in 1819,
Mr. Madison declared, concerning the article of the constitution which conferred on Congress its powers over
the territories, (Art. 4, ~ 3,) that "it cannot be well extended beyond a power over the territories as property,
and the power to make provisions really needful or
necessary for the government of settlers, until ripe
for admission into the Union."* The Supreme Court of
the United States, in the well-known case of Dred Scott,
decided that Africans were not citizens of the United
States in the meaning of the constitution;t that property in African slaves was on the same footing under
that instrument with other legal property;l that the
residence of a slave ina territory of the United States
did not emancipate him, nor did his residence in a nonslaveholding State for a time, prevent the recurrence
of his state of bondage, on his return to the State in
which he had been a slave;~ and that Congress had no
* Letter to Robert Walsh, Nov. 27, 1819. t: 19th Howard, p. 57.
t 19th Howard, pp. 12, 33.               ~ Ibid., p. 38, 58.
71
I 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
vpower to use its authority to exclude slavery from any
part of the territories.*
Thus the main proposition with which we set out is
abundantly sustained by the history and legislation of
the country. Three evasions from this conclusion have
been attempted, of which the first is from the language
of the Declaration of Independence, in which these famous words occur: "We hold these truths to be selfevident: that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," etc.  The inference is, that the Declaration intended to imply that the slavery of the Africans was a natural wrong incapable of being legalized;
and it is claimed that this document is of the organic
force of constitutional law to the confederation which
then asserted its independence. Both these suppositions are erroneous. As to the latter, it may be justly
argued, that the Declaration of Independence was simply what it calls itself: a declaration, a justificatory
statement addressed to the world without, and not an
act of organic legislation ascertaining the rights of the
citizens within.  The evidence is, that it enacts nothing
save the one point of the independence of the colonies.
Neither the Confederation nor the new Union formed in
1787 ever based any legislation upon it, save as their acts
involved the fact of independence. The constitution
made no reference to it; did not ground itself upon
it, and did not ree6nact it. Hence, let its meaning be
what it may, it legislates nothing'for or against slavery.
* 19th Hloward, p. 58.
72 
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY.
But it is too clear to be disputed, that the enslaved
African race were not intended to be included, and
formed no part of the people who asserted their rights
in this Declaration. The evidence is, that if the men
who framed it had intended to refer to African slavery,
they would have completely stultified themselves. For
the majority of them, and of the States which they represented, continued to hold Africans in bondage just as
before. A few years after, the same men met in federal
convention, and framed the late constitution of the
United States; by which property in slaves was protected and perpetuated as before, and traffick in Africails was prolonged until 1808, and made subject of
taxation like other merchandise. The States which
were emancipating their own Africans, equally with
those which fetained them ire bondage, retained their
laws prohibiting the marriage of Africans with whites.*
Connecticut, until 1796, prohibited free negroes from
travelling beyond their township without a pass. New
Hampshire, and Congress itself, precluded negroes from
serving in the militia.t The Declaration of Independence was therefore intended by its framers to assert
the liberties of civilized Americans and Englishmen,
and not of African barbarians held in bondage. Wheth er their consistency therein can be defended, is a sep arate question, to which attention will be given in the
proper place. But all publicists are agreed, that the
meaning of a document is the document; and that this
* Law of Massachusetts, 1786, reenacted 1836. Rhode Island, Laws
of, 1822 and 1844.
t Code of New-Hampshire, 1815. Acts of Congress, 1792.
4
73
f 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
meaning is to be ascertained by the intentions of those
who frame and adopt it.
The second objection to our conclusion is grounded
upon the Ordinance of the Confederation, in 1187, by
which slavery was prohibited in the North-western Territory ceded to the United States by Virginia. This
magnificent domain, including the present States of
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, was conquered from the public enemy in the years 17]8-9, by the Commonwealth
of Virginia.  She sent out her own troops, at her own
charges, without either authority or assistance from
the Confederation, then also engaged in a war with
Great Britain, under her own commission to her heroick
son, General George Rogers Clarke. Upon the conquest of the country, she disposed by her own State action of the prisoners of war captured, and annexed the
territory to the State of Virginia, which then also included Kentucky. The-other States, and the Confederation, uniformly recognized this region as legitimately
a part of Virginia. But during and after the war, the
States which owned no unsettled territory grew exceedingly jealous of those which possessed such regions,
and tespeciall  of Virginia.  They feared her ulterior
grandeur  and power.  But their expressed plea was,
that she; and other States possessed of vacant lands,
cuid lpay their share of the common war debt, without
taxation, by the sale of these lands, which, as they
claimed, were the fruits of the common exertions of the
States, while the others would be subjected to an onerous taxation.  The North-west Territory had, in fact,
been won by Virginia, with her own bow and spear;
but at the request of the Congress of the Confederation,
74
9 
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY.
she magnanimously laid the splendid prize upon the
altar of the common cause, ceding it in 1784 to Congress, for the common behoof of the United States.
The Congress of the Confederation passed a long enactment, known as the Ordinance of 1787, providing, in
many articles, for its settlement, for its government
while a territory, and for the sale of lands. Among
these was a clause prohibiting slavery in it. But meantime, the Confederation was superseded by the general
government organized under the new constitution of
1787. The first Congress during the administration of
General Washington, acting under the article of the
constitution already cited for taking and managing the
"territory and other property" of the Confederation,
passed an act, (August 7th, 1789,) for putting in effect
the Ordinance of the Congress of the Confederation,
now extinct.
Such is the history of the case. The inference of the
objector is, that because the Congress of 1789, acting
under the late constitution, claimed power to execute
the ordinance of 1787, (passed by the previous and different general government,) with its anti-slavery clause
included, therefore that constitution gave it power to
exclude slavery from any other territory.  But the inference is worthless. For, first, the Congress of the
old Confederation had not a particle of constitutional
power to adopt such an antislavery clause. So declared Mr. Madison emphatically:* and so has decided
the Supreme Court of the United States.t Both these
high authorities declare, that if the clause had any
Federalist, No.38.  Letter to Walsh, 1819.  t19th Howard, pp.40,41.
A I
v
-75
x
I
v 
-A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
validity, it derived it only from the assent of Virginia,
who had full sovereignty over the territory, and who
accepted and ratified the exclusion by act of her General Assembly, as well as by the mouths of her representatives in the Confederation. And the Congress of
1789, in accepting the conditions imposed by the Ordinance-of 17-87 on the territory, as valid and abiding,
undertook to change nothing, because it regarded that
validity as the result of treaty stipulations between
Virginia and the other twelve States represented by the
old Congress.  It conceived itself as having inherited
from a previous and different government powers over
this particular territory, which it could by no means
have originated by its own constitutional authority.*
Second: The government framed under the new constitution was one of fimited powers; and Congress was
expressly inhibited, by the instrument which created
it, from exercising any authority not granted. But such
a power as that to exclude citizens of any of the United
States from the common territory, because they proposed to carry there property legalized. both by the
Constitution of the United States and of their own
State, was not granted to Congress.  That a government whose very foundation was the equality of the
States, should thus attempt to: disfranchise some States
of a part oittheir rights, was a solecism too monstrous
for these able and'enlightened men.   Third: When
similar cessions of territory were afterwards made by
North Carolina and Georgia, these States refused to Congress the privilege of appending to their laws touching
* 19th Howard, pp. 44, 45.
76
p 
LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY.
these lands, the exclusion of slavery; and Congress
obeyed, so framing their enactments as to admit and
protect slave-owners.  This proves that the exclusion
derived its force from the consent of the Sovereign
State, and not from the power of Congress.
The third ground of objection which has been advanced against our main proposition, is the doctrine
said to have been decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States, (as in the case of Prigg against the
State of Pennsylvania,) that according to recognized
international laws, a nation which does not hold slaves
itself is not bound to recognize property in slaves in
nleighbouring nations, when those slaves come into its
borders; and that if a rendition is claimed, it must be
asked of comity, or of special stipulation, and not as of
international right. The answer is clear and facile.
The States of the American Union were, initially, as independent nations to each other; and then they were
all slaveholding. Each one of them recognized in its
own citizens the right of property in slaves; and therefore, if the above doctrine be granted, they could not
then, by international law, refuse to recognize it in nations living at amity with them.  Again: When they
passed out of this condition of absolute independence,
into that of federal union, their relations, so far as they
ceased to be international, were regulated exclusively
by the constitution; and by this constitution the property in slaves was expressly recognized, the rendition
of fugitive slaves was expressly required of all the
States, whether themselves. holding slaves or not; and
all the common territory of the Union was originally
slave territory until it became free territory by sover
77
-e 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
eign State action. Plainly, in such a case as this, the
international law of Europe has no application, against
historical facts and actual constitutional enactments.
The sophism of this plea in the mouths of anti-slavery
men, the uniform assertors of consolidation doctrines,
would make the States, in the same breath, independent
nations, in order that the international law of a different
hemisphere may be applied against them, and also subject provinces of an anti-slavery nation, in order that
they may be stripped of that equality of rights, belonging to sovereign constituent parties in a confederation.
0
78 
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.
CHAPTER IV.
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.
THE motive for introducing the historical facts con tained in this chapter is the following: That the credit
of Virginia as a slaveholding State is relatively illus trated by the conduct of her partners in the confedera tion touching the same matter. Virginia never passed
a general act of emancipation; on the contrary, she
forbade masters to free their slaves within her borders,
unless they also provided for their removal to new,
homes. But what was it which the Northern States
actually did? The general answer to this question can not-be better given than in the words of the Hon. A. H.
It. Stuart of Virginia, in his Report to the General As sembly, as chairman of its joint committee on the Har per's Ferry outrages. He says:
' At the date of the declaration of our national inde pendence, slavery existed in every colony of the Con federation. * * * *
"Shortly after the Declaration of Independence, the
Northern States adopted prospective measures to re lieve themselves of the African population. But it is a
great mistake to suppose that their policy in this par* ticular was prompted by any spirit of philanthropy or
tender regard for the welfare of the negro race. On
I
79 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINTA.
the contrary, it was dictated by an enlightened self-interest, yielding obedience to overruling laws of social
economy.  Experience had shown that the African race
were not adapted to high northern latitudes, and that
slave labour could not compete successfully with free
white labour in those pursuits-to which the industry of
the North was directed. This discovery having been
made, the people of the North, at an early day, began
to dispose of their slaves by sale to citizens of the Southern States, whose soil, climate, and productions were
better adapted to their habits and capacities; and the
legislation of the Northern States, following the course
of publick opinion, was directed, not to emancipation,
but to the removal of the slave population beyond their
limits.  To effect this object, they adopted a system of
laws which provided, prospectively, that all slaves born
of female slaves, within their jurisdiction, after certain
specified dates, should be held free when they attained
a given age.  No law can be found on the statute-book
of any Northern State, which conferred the boon of
freedom on a single slave in being. - All who were
slaves remained slaves. Freedom was secured only to
the children of slaves, born after the days designated
in the laws; and it was secured to them only in the
contingency that the owner of the female slave should
retain her within the jurisdiction of the State until after
the child was bo:n.  To secure freedom to the afterborn child, therefore, it was necessary that the consent
of the master, indicated by his permitting the mother
to remain in the State, should be superadded to the provisions of the law. Without such consent, the law
would have been inoperative, because the mother, before
80 
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.
the birth of the child, might, at the will of the master,
be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the law.  There
was no legal prohibition of such removal, for such a
prohibition would have been at war with the policy of
the law, which was obviously removal, and not emancipation. The effect of this legislation was, as might
have readily been foreseen, to induce the owners of female slaves to sell them to the planters of the South,
before the time arrived when the forfeiture of the offspring would accrue. By these laws, a wholesale slave
trade was inaugurated, under which a large proportion
of the slaves of the Northern States were sold to persons residing south of Pennsylvania; and it is an unquestionable fact that a large number of the slaves of
the Southern States are the descendants of those sold
by Northern men to citizens of the South, with covenants of general warranty of title to them and to their
increase."
Thus wrote Mr. Stuart, after thorough research. A
brief recital of the enactments of the Northern slaveholding States will show that his general representation is correct. We begin with Massachusetts. No
law against slavery, (which had been long legally established in the colony,) was ever passed by her legis lature;* and in that sense, the right to hold slaves
may be said to have formally existed, until it was ex tinguished by her adoption of the "constitutional
amendment," in 1866! Practically, slavery was grad ually removed after 1780, by the current of the legal
decisions against it, grounded upon a clause in the new
* Moore, Slavery in Mass., p. 242.
4*' 
81
I 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
bill of rights, adopted by the State in that year. This
clause asserted, nearly in the words of the Declaration
of Independence, the native equality and liberty of
men. In 1781 a slave of N. Jennison, of Worcester
County, recovered damages of his master for beating.*
This decision, if sustained, of course implied the cessation of slavery. Although the Legislature of the State
was moved in 1783, by this Jennison and others, to declare that slavery did not exist legally, so that the
doubt might be ended, that body refused to act; nor
did it ever after abolish slavery.t But judicial decisions after the example of the Jennison case were
made from time to time, until, in 1l96, the Supreme Court
of Massachusetts, in the case of Littleton v. Tuttle,l
gave its countenance to the doctrine, that the bill of
rights virtually made slavery illegal. That all this
was a glaring instance of the judicial abuse, amnpliandi
jurisdictionern, is manifest from many facts: That the
Massachusetts statesmen who adopted the same proposition in the Declaration of Independence, never dreamed of its possessing any force to abolish slavery in the
United States which set it forth: That the convention
which drew up the bill of rights for Massachusetts did
not think of such an application; That this document
declared "no part of any citizen's property could be
taken from him without his own consent:" That slaves
continued to be bought and sold, and advertised as
before; And that the abolitionists, still in the minority,
continued after 1780 to remonstrate against slavery as
* Moore, Hist. of Slavery in Mass., p. 212.      t Ibid., p. 216, etc.
I Chief Justice Parsons, Mass. Rep., 4, Winchliedon v. Hatfield.
82 
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.
a sin still legalized.  But such a mode of determining
the question was well adapted to the meddlesome and
crooked temper of that people. By this judicial trick
the envious non-slaveholders were enabled to attack
their richer slaveholding neighbours, and render them
so uneasy as to insure their disposing of their slaves;
while still there was neither law nor publick opinion
prevalent enough to procure a legal act of emancipation.
New Hampshire and Vermont embodied the principle
of prospective emancipation in their new constitutions.
In 1790 there were 158 slaves in New Hampshire. In
1840 there was still one! Rhode Island passed a law
in 1784, that no person born after that year should continue a slave. Connecticut embodied in the revision of
her laws, in 1784, a law providing that all children
born of slave parents after March 1st of that year,
should be free at twenty-five years of age. In 1797
the term of servitude was reduced to twenty-one years
for all born after August 1st of that year. Slavery was
not actually abolished by law until June 12th, 1848;
when the census shows there were no fewer than
seventeen slaves in the State; and how old and worthless they must have been, appears from the fact that
the youngest of them must have been born before
March 1st, 1784.*
In New York, the laws for slaves were more severe
than in the Southern States, and the African slave
trade was zealously encouraged during the whole
colonial period. The slave could not testify, even to
* Rep. of C. J. Hoadly, State Librarian of Connecticut.
la
83 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
exculpate a slave. Three justices, with a sort of jury
of five freeholders, could try capitally, and inflict any
sentence, inclusive of burning alive.* It was not until
1799 that the State commenced a system of laws for
the gradual abolition of slavery. Every slave child
born after July 4th of that year was to be free, the
males after twenty-eight, and the females after twentyfive years. In 1810, the benefit of freedom was also
extended to those born before July 4th, 1799, to take
effect July 4th, 1827, the date at which the earliest born
of those freed by previous law reached their majority of
twenty-eight years.t Still the census of 1830 found
75 slaves I The Revised Statutes of New York, after
1817, provided a penalty for those carrying them out of
the State for sale; showing that the tendency to do so
existed.
In New Jersey, the first act looking towards prospective emancipation was adopted in 1784. By it all born
after 1804 were to be free in 1820. It was not until
1820 thaf attion was taken to give effect to this promise; and then the nature of the law was such as to postpone the hopes of the slaves.  The first section of the
law of February 24th, 1820, says: "Every child born
of a slave Within this State since the 4th day of July
1804, or which shall hereafter be born as aforesaid,
shall be free; but shall remain the servant of the
owner of his or her mother, and the executors, administrators and assigns of such owners, in the same
manner as if such child had been bound to service by
the Trustees or Overseers of the poor, and shall con
* Chancellor Kent.
84
t Idem.
go 
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.
tinue in such service, if a male until the age of twentyfive years, and if a female until the age of twenty-one
years." It was within the scope of possibility tha%
slave women whom this law left slaves for life might
bear children as late as the year 1848: whence bondage
would not have been terminated wholly by it until 1873.
New Jersey had 236 slaves for life in 1850. It is
stated by one of the best informed of her old citizens,
that the prospective effect of these enactments was to
cause a considerable exodus to Southern markets; and
that when a boy, he heard much talk of the sale of
negroes, and the sending of them to "the Natchez," and
was cognizant of the continual apprehension of the
negroes concerning the danger.
In Pennsylvania, emancipation was also prospective
and gradual. Her first act was passed March 1st, 1780.
The rate at which it operated may be seen from these
figures: In 1776 She had about 10,000 slaves; in 1790,
(ten years after her first act,) she had 3,737; in 1800,
1,700;.in 1810, 795; in 1820, 211; in 1830, 403; and
in 1840, 64 slaves.
Thus, the emancipation legislation of the Northern
States has been reviewed, and the assertions of the
Hon. Mr. Stuart substantially sustained.  That Northern emancipation was prompted by no consideration for
the supposed rights of Africans, but ]by regard to their
own interests, is evinced by many facts.  Of  these,
perhaps the most general and Striking is the persistent
neglect of the welfare of their emancipated slaves;
the refusal to give them equal civic rights, until they
found a motive for doing so in malice against the South;
and the shocking decadence, vice and misery to which
185S 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
a nominal liberty, according to the testimony of North
ern writers, has consigned their wretched free blacks.
Another proof is found in the current language of the
men of the generation which effected the change.
That language, as is well remembered by elderly persons still living, was usually such as this: that now
that the population had filled up the country, the question of emancipation was simply one of choice between
their own children and the negro-whether their sons
should emigrate, or the negro be gotten rid of, as there
was no longer room for both. Another conclusive
proof is in the fact that while these States were getting rid of their own negroes, they were deliberately
voting (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut,
in the Cgnvention of 1787,) to prolong the introduction
of slaves into the Carolinas nineteen years more. Still
another evidence is found in the repugnance of those
States to the influx of free blacks, and the stringent
laws of some of them to prevent it. Thus, Massachusetts, in March, 1788, (eight years after the pretended
extinction of human bondage,) passed a law ordering
every black, mulatto or Indian who came into the State
and remained two months to be publickly whipped;
and this punishment was to be repeated "if he or she
shall not depart tories quoties."*  This law remained
in force until 1834! as is shown by its appearance in
the Revised Laws of Massachusetts, 1823. It is also
to be noted that the scheme of gradual emancipation,
upon which the whole North acted, obviously recog
nizes the property of the master in his slave as legiti
* Moore, Hist. of Slavery in Mass., p. 229.
86 
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.
mate in itself. It only touches it, (because private
rights are here required to give place to publick interest,) in the case of those born after a certain day.
The slavery of the others is left as perpetual and legal
as ever. And even as to the later born, the right of
the master receives a certain recognition, in that he is
allowed twenty-five years' service as a partial compensation for the surrender of the remainder.
But how different is the summary abolition forced
upon Virginia and the Southl Here, the general legislation of the State was steadily multiplying, elevating
and blessing the black race, which in the North was so
rapidly dying out under its pretended liberty. And
private beneficence of Virginians, without any legal
compulsion, had actually given the boon of freedom to
at least one hundred thousand blacks; which is more
than all the citizens of the New England States, New
York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania together, ever did,
under the force of all their laws.* In this wise and
beneficent career Virginia has been violently interrupted, against her recognized and guaranteed rights, by
instant and violent abolition. The motive of the North,
*The negroes freed by Virginians, with their increase in Ohio,Pennsylvania, Liberia, etc., are 100,000 at least.  The maximum number of slaves freed by the above States was, New Hampshire 629,
Massachusetts 6,000, Rhode Island 4,370, Connecticut 6,000, New York
20,000, New Jersey 12,422, Pennsylvania 10,000. Total, 59,421. Such
was the largest number of original freedmen made by those States of
their own slaves. When we remember that the census has proved
that in the Northern States their natural increase has almost ceased
for several decades, and in some there has been an actual diminution,
it appears very plain that they and their progeny do not now number
100,000. Meantime, the votes of the New England States assisted to
add more than 600,000 to the number of slaves in Carolina!
87 
.A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
as a whole, has manifestly been, not love for the negro,
but hatred of the white man, and lust of domination.
This abolition is purely the result of a supposed military necessity, because the North believed that otherwise she could not overthrow the South in an unjust.
war. But for this single fact, the Africans would still
be in bondage, so far as the Yankee was concerned.
The proof is, that the Chicago platform of the Black
Republican party in 1860, expressly repudiated the
purpose ever to meddle with slavery in the States.
Mr. Lincoln, the chosen man of the North, solemnly
asserted the same thing in his letter to A. IH. Stephens
of Georgia, in his publick inaugural, and in his messages. The Congress, after.the beginning of the war,
solemnly declared to the world by a joint resolution,
that the purpose of the war was only to restore the
Union, and not to restrict or change State institutions.
Mr. Lincoln constantly declared to the Abolitionists,
that if the perpetuation of slavery tended to restore the
Union, it should be perpetuated. His standing invitation to the States in arms against him was: "If you
wish to keep your slaves, come back into the Union."
Can the North be believed in her own declarations?
Then, the charge made is true-that abolition in the
South was prompted by ambition and hatred, not by
philanthropy.
Nor has this act been less wicked in its effects than
in its motive.  To the white race it was the most violent, convulsive, reckless and mischievous act ever
perpetrated by a civilized government. As a war
measure, it was calculated and expected to evoke all
the savage horrors of servile war, neighbourhood mas
88 
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.
sacre  and  butchery of non-combatants.   Only  the
kindly relations which the benevolence and justice of
the people of Virginia had established between them-.
selves and their slaves, and the good character which
we had given to these former savages, disappointed
this desired result. As an economic measure, it was
the most violent ever attempted in modern history; being a sudden confiscation of half, (and in some of the
counties two-thirds) the existing property of the country; and a dislocation of its whole labour system, just
when the people were bowed under the burden of a
gigantic war, and a collapsed currency.  That it did
not then again result in a total paralysis of industry,
in famine and anarchy, (which was probably intended),
is only to be explained by the exercise of an energy,
versatility, good sense, and industry in the Southern
people, which are almost miraculous. By annihilating
at one blow so much of the property on which the indebtedness of the country was based, it insured a
financial confusion and general bankruptcy which are
destined to plunge hundreds of thousands of innocent
persons (innocent even from Yankee points of view)
into destitution and domestic distress, which three generations will not heal.  It confiscated the property of
"loyal Union men," of helpless minors and lunatics, of
venerable and infirm widows, without compensation,
just as it did the possessions of the Confederate leader
most obnoxious to the Yankee wrath. And what was
the species of possession?  Was it some foul lucre,
like the spoils of an Achan, so unrighteous that it
must be instantly plucked away, regardless of consequences?  No; it was a species of property legalized by
89 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Moses and Christ, owned for ages by the boasted ancestors of the despoilers, now owned by themselves in
the form of its fruits and increase, guaranteed by the
Constitution which alone gave them any right to govern us, legalized by all our State laws, which were of
earlier and superior authority to that Constitution, and
recognized by the sacred pledges of the North itself,
even so late as the beginning of this war. 
But the step has been far more mischievous and unjust
to the poor blacks, its pretended beneficiaries. It did
not tarry to inquire whether they were fit for the change.
It has resulted in the outbreak of a flood of vice, before
repressed; of drunkenness, of illicit lust, of infanticide,
of theft; and above all, of idleness, the least flagrant,
but most truly mischievous fault of the African. It has
suddenly and greatly diminished their share of the
material goods they before enjoyed. The supplies of
clothing and shoes now acquired by them do not reach
a third of what they received before the war.  Immediately on their emancipation, all the rural mill-owners
testified that their grists fell off one-half, and have remained at that grade since. In those neighbourhoods
where the blacks did not emigrate, (which wwas true of
many neighbourhoods,) this showed that the consumption of bread was reduced one-half; for although the
large proprietors now had no occasion to send their
large grists, yet, unless there were less consumed, the
aggregate of the little grists of the freedmen's families
should have made good that decrease. Every statesman knows that any burden or disaster imposed upon
the industrial pursuits of a country, is transmitted
down by the property classes to the destitute class, and
90 
HISTORY OF EMANCIPATION.
presses there with its whole force; just as inevitably as
the weight of a statue placed upon the top of a column,
is ultimately delivered upon the lowest stratum of
foundation-stones.  For the,great law of self-preservation prompts each man, who has any property, to employ it in evading that pressure for himself and his
family.  Thus the actual onus'is handed down, until
it reaches that class who have no property, and must
therefore bear it, because they have nothing wherewith
to pay for the shifting of it. Thus, all the malice of
the conqueror, aimed at the hated white man, while it
crowds us down, also crowds down equally the labourer beneath us; and the blow alights ultimately on him.
The famine which is now preying upon some parts
of the South illustrates the mischief done by the disorganization of labour, and the comparative excellence of
the old system. Such was its beneficence, that it carried the Southern country through all the exhausting
trials of the war, without actual dearth in any part of
the Confederacy. Hundreds of thousands of our most
vigorous men were wholly withdrawn from productive
pursuits; our own armies were to be sustained; great
hosts of enemies were continually tearing the vitals of
the country; the year 1864 brought a drought so severe
that; in some parts of the country the crops of grain
were reduced to one-tenth of the usual harvests; and
yet, such was the happiness of our system, that it endured all these enormous trials, and met the wants of
all. But after the new regime was well established,
there came in 1866 such a drought as the South had
several times experienced before, without inconvenience; and although all was peace, there were no
91 
A DEFENCE OF'VIRGINIA. -
armies to support, and no labouring man was called
from the farm to the unproductive toils of the camp 
and the intrenchment, famine immediately resulted.
Here is a fair comparison pf the system of free African
labour, with the old one.  Indolence is the parent of
crime. While the smaller misdemeanours are more frequent, there has been an alarming increase of felonies.
In the orderly little county of Prince Edward, the
criminal convictions of black persons averaged only
one per year before the war. The last year they numbered twelve!  An inquiry into the statistics of crime
in our cities would reveal a yet larger"increase.*
Last, facts already evince, that the doom of ultimate
extermination which  Southern philanthropists'ave
ever predicted as the result of premature emancipation,
is already overtaking the negro with giant strides.
About the end of 1866 the officers of the State revenue
made their returns, which showed that there were then
about $75,650 negro males over 21 years within the
present limits of Virginia. Repeated calculations made
from previous returns show that there.are usually four
and a half times as many souls among the blacks of
Virginia as there are males over 21- years.  The entire
)black population of the State then, at the end of the
* From April 31st, 1860, to May 31st, 1862, two-years and one month,
there were two criminal convictions of negroes by Prince Edward
Court. From April 31st, 1865, to April 31st, 1867, a less period by one
month, there were, in the same court, thirty-five criminal indictments
of negroes, and fifteen convictions, leaving thirteen cases over to be
tried at subsequent terms.  And this aggregate of crime has already
accumulated in our once peaceful little community, notwithstanding
that the jurisdiction of our courts over negroes was totally suspended
by our conquerors for a number of months after April 31st, 1865. 
92 
HIStORY OF EMANCIPATTON.V
last year, was 340,500. The census of 1860 returned
531,000 blacks within the present limits of the State.
The diminution is therefore 190,500; or nearly twofifths, in less than two years. Some may suppose that
more negro men have left the State since the war than
women and children. If this is true, the number of
males is now relatively smaller, and should be multiplied by a larger ratio than 421 to find the correct total.
But, on the other hand, it is certain that the neglect and
mortality have been much larger among the aged and
little children than among the robust men. This fact,
therefore, reduces the ratio of the total to the males over
21 years, and renders it certain that 340,500 is a large
estimate. Tle same officers brought in returns which
show that tfe white population of Virginia, although
decimated by a terrible war, has actually increased
since 1860. But we exposed no negro to the dangers of
the battle.  Thus it is made manifest that the philanthropy of Yankees has been to the poor negro an infinitely more desolating scourge than a tremendous
war has been to the race against which the sword was
openly wielded. And it requires little arithmetic to
discover how long it will be, at this rate, before the
monstrous consummation will be reached of the extinction of a whole nation of people by their professed
friends.
93  
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
CHAPTER V.
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
~ 1. Let us appeal, then, to the Bible, to learn the
moral character of Domestic Slavery. It will be well
for both writer and readers, if they recall the reverence
and honesty with which such a book should be approached; if the one is cautious to,permit no party zeal,
pride of opinion, or love of hypothesis, to tmpt him to
warp the sacred text to any thing inconsis ent with its
own truth and purity; and if the others are equally
careful to receive its teachings with impartiality and
docility.
That no misunderstanding may attend the discussion,
we must define at the outset, what we mean by that
domestic slavery which we defend. By this relation
we understand the obligations of the slave to labourfor
life, without his own consent, for the master.  The thing,
therefore, in which the master has property or ownership, is the-involuntary labour of the slave, and not his
personality, or his soul. A certain right of control over
the person of the slave is incidentally given to the
master by his property in the bondsman's labour; that is,
so much control as is necessary' to enable him to secure
the labour which belongs to him   But we repeat, it is
not the person, but the labour of the slave, which is the
master's property. This is substantially the definition
94 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
of Paley, an enemy of slavery; and it is obviously correct; it expresses the general result of the laws of all
modern nations which have had slaves, touching that
relation.
The abolitionists clamorously insist upon a different
definition, which makes the master claim property in
the very personality of the slave, in his soul, in the
highest capacities which connect him with his God,
and in his very being. According to this description,
slavery converts the responsible, rational being, into a
mere thing, a chattel, a commodity, by converting him
into mere property of another man. The motive of this
preposterous definition is obvious enough. One of the
most astute of American Abolitionists has been candid
enough to avow it, saying that if our definition be
adopted, there is an end of the discussion; for every
logician must see that it is absurd to declare the mere
ownership of one man's labour by another, an essential
and necessary moral wrong; which is the character it
suits them to ascribe to slavery.  Their objectis so to
represent it, that it shall appear a self-evident injustice,
and the apologist shall be overwhelmed and silenced by
a foregone prejudice. For, if it gave a literal ownership in the person and being of the slave, which can belong to none but the Creator; if it made not only his
labour, but his conscience, the property of the master,
destroying his moral responsibility, it would indeed dehumanize him, and would be an iniquity indefensible by
any fair mind. The trick of securing the victory before
the contest begins, by raising a false issue, is not very
novel. The utter absurdity of applying such a definition to African slavery in America, appears from this:
95 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
that it is contrary to the whole tenour of the legislation
which establishes and regulates the institution among
us.  These laws; first, legislate for the slave, as to his
own conduct, as a responsible human being, govern
him by precepts sanctioned by rewards and punishments, and require of him intelligent obedience to the
same moral rules which are enforced on his master..
Second, the laws assign to the master precisely that
amount of control over his slave's person which they
suppose (whether correctly or not is no concern to us
in this argument) to be incidental to his property in
the servant's labour; and no more.  Third, they protect
the person, being, and moral responsibility of the slave
against his own master. If the master kills him, it is
murder, by the law. The slave's Sabbath is secured to
him by the -law. If the master force him to commit
a crime, the former is held by the law guilty therefor,
as accessory before the fact: and the latter is also held
to his personal responsibility for it~ And last, the law
treats the slave so fully as a rational and responsible
human, that it even bestows on him the right of litigation against his own master, in one case. Any African
setting up a plea of unlawful detention in bondage,
against his master, is allowed to sue informapauperis,
in the courts of law. How could the fact be more
clearly defined, that the institution of slavery treats the
slave as a rational human being,-and gives the master
property in nothing but his labour?
Yet Senator Sumner points triumphantly to the words
of the South Carolina statute as proving that slavery
makes the servant a mere thing; and all smaller Abolitionists have caught up his special pleading.  The
' 96
I I 
THIE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
cane of Mr. Brooks having given him, as it seems, a
special taste for things South Carolinian, he hunted up
a clause where the law of that State declares, that
slaves and their children shall be held in every respect
as "chattels personal." This proves beyond a peradventure, he says, that the law reduces the slave to a
mere thing, as though he were an ox or bureau. Yet, a
hundred other laws of South Carolina treat him as a
responsible man! Any honest mind will perceive the
explanation, at once; which is, that the lawyers of
South Carolina were not aiming, in this law, to settle
the question of the moral nature of slavery; but to decide whether property in a slave should be regarded as
pertaining to the real, or to the personal estate of a citizen; and in deciding it, they very properly had more
regard to legal perspicuity than to ethical accuracy of
definition. Let us suppose that among the statutes of
the British Parliament, there should be one (as there
very probably is) declaring that when a master mechanic dies, having an indentured apprentice, the unfinished term of service of this apprentice should be
held as belonging to his personal effects, and should
be so used for the benefit of his heirs or creditors.
And let us suppose, farther, that in defining this fact,
some such words as these should be used: that said apprentice should be held in every respect, as pertaining
unto the personal estate of the deceased. Then, the
same logic would prove that the British laws reduce an
apprentice to a mere chattel I But we have a better
illustration of its folly. God says, Genesis xxvi. 14:
"Isaac had possessions of flocks, and herds, and servants." Leviticus, xxv. 45: " Of the children of strangers
5
97 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
that do sojourn among you, of them shall you buy:.-..
and they shall be your possession." Exodus, xxi. 20, 21:
"And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod,
and he die under his hand: he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall
not be punished: for he is his mnoney."  Does God's
law dehumanize the slave, and reduce him to a mere
chattel? We repeat, then, that, according to the slave
institutions of the Southern States, it is only the labour
of the servant which belongs to the master, and is
treated as property.
Let it be understood, then, from the beginning, that
we are not inquiring into the moral character of that
thing which Abolitionists paint as domestic slavery; a
something horrid with the groans of oppressed innocence and the clang of unrighteous stripes; a something which aims to reduce a man to a brute, and denies him his natural right to serve his Creator and save
his soul. We begin by asserting that these things, if
they ever exist in fact, are not domestic slavery, but
the abuses of it. We are not the apologists of them:
we no more defend them than do the Abolitionists. In
this discussion we have nothing more to do with them,
except to express, once for all, our strong abhorrence
and reprobation of all such unlawful abuses of a lawful
institution. It has been a favourite trick of our oppo nents, to represent the abuses of the relation so promi nently and odiously, that the defender of slavery shall
be held up to the abhorrence of the publick as the de fender of the abuses. Especially if he is a clergyman,
(and necessity has thrown our side of this discussion
very much into the hands of Southern clergymen,) do
98 
THE OLD TESTA31MENT.ARGUMENT.
they raise a holy clamour, representing the unnatural
wickedness of a desecrating of the sacred office to apol ogize -for such iniquities.  Their object is to raise a
prejudice against us in advance, which will deprive us
of a dispassionate and just hearing. With all dispas sionate and just readers, for whom alone we write, it
should be enough for us to repeat emphatically, that it
is only the relation of domestic slavery as authorized
by God, that we defend; and not the abuses it has re ceived at the hands of wicked men.  The parental authority, and civil government, and the operations of
God's own church, are often abused also. The intelligent reader, and especially the intelligent Englishman,
will remember how triumphantly this shallow sophism
of arguing against a thing from its abuses, is exposed
by Burke, in his reply to Bolingbroke's posthumous assault on Christianity, the ironical "Defence of Natural
Society." Such argument from abuses can only be just
when it is shown that the wrongs pointed out are not
incidental abuses, but legitimate, and necessary, and
uniform consequences of the institution itself.   But
that the incidental evils of African slavery among us
are not such)is abundantly proved by the simple fact,
that thousands of masters held slaves among us, and
yet perpetrated none of these abuses. About the relative frequency of such abuses, we shall have something
to say at a subsequent place.  Enough now to point to
the fact, that by the vast majority of our servants they
were unfelt, so that they cannot be necessary parts of
the system.
We conclude these preliminary definitions by requesting the reader to note well what is the moral character
99
i.       11      1.:::,:' 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
which we understand the Bible to assign to slavery.
We do not admit that it is a thing in itself evil, but yet
attended with such circumstances, in the eyes of many
merciful and humane masters who have found themselves by inheritance unwilling slaveholders, that a
change would be attended with still greater mischiefs:
so that they are excusable for its continuance for a
time. This is the view of many moderate and kind antislavery men; it is not ours. We do not hold that slaveholding is only justified as belonging to that class of
wrongs, to which the laws of Moses assigned polygamy,
which ought not to have been done, but which, when
done, cannot be undone, except by the perpetrating of
a greater wrong. We assert that the Bible teaches that
the relation of master and slave is perfectly lawful and
right, provided only its duties be lawfully fulfilled.
When we say this, we shall not be understood as saying that all men ought to live in this relation, notwithstanding the wide diversities of their condition and
characters, or that it would be politic, or even right,
for all. But we say that the relation is not sin in itself; but may be perfectly righteous and innocent, and
not merely excusable. And we are free to confess that
unless the Bible taught us this truth, we should be
obliged to hold with the decided Abolitionists. We
could never be'of the number of those, who attempt to
transmute the essential traits of moral right and wrong,
at the demand of expediency, and to excuse the continuance of a radical injustice, by the inconvenience of
repairing it. Duty belongs to man; consequences to
God.
I
100 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
~ 2. The Curse upon Canaan.
The student of history perceives that, whatever may
be the moral character of domestic slavery, it is one of
the most hoary institutions of the human race. It has
prevailed in every age and continent, and under patriarchal, monarchical, despotic, aristocratic, republican
and democratic governments; while secular history
gives us no account of its origin. But Sacred Writ informs us, and traces it to the earlier generations of the
human family as refounded after the flood. In Genesis,
ix. 20 to 27, we have the following brief narrative:
"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine and was
drunken: and he was uncovered within his tent. And
Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his
father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem
and Japhet took a garment, and laid it upon both their
shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward,
and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah
awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son
had done unto him; and he said, Cursed be Canaan; a
servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And
he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem: and Canaan
shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japhet and he
shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be
his servant."
In explanation of it, the following remarks may be
made; on which the majority of sound expositors are
agreed. In this transaction, Noah acts as an inspired
prophet, and also as the divinely chosen, patriarchal
101 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
head of church and state, which were then confined to
his one family. God's approbation attended his verdict, as is proved by the fact that the divine Providence
has been executing it for many ages since Noah's death.
Canaan probably concurred in the indecent and unnatural sin of Ham. As these early men were extremely
ambitious of a numerous  and prosperous posterity,
Ham's punishment, and Canaan's, consisted in the mortification of hearing their descendants doomed to a degraded lot. These descendants were included in the
punishment of their wicked progenitors on that wellknown principle of God's providence, which "visits the
sin of the fathers upon the children," and this again is
explained by the fact, that depraved parents will naturally rear depraved children, unless God interfere by
a grace to which they have no claim; so that not only
punishment, but the sinfulness, becomes hereditary.
Doubtless God's sentence, here pronounced by Noah,
was based on his foresight of the fact, that Ham's posterity, like their father, would be peculiarly degraded
in morals; as actual history testifies of them, so far as
its voice extends.
Some have been weak enough to draw a justification
of slavery from the fact, that the bondage of Canaan's
posterity is predicted..This logic the Abolitionists
have, of course, delighted to expose; it was easy to
show, by sundry biblical instances, like that of the Assyrian employed to chastise Israel, and then punished
by God for his own rapacity, that it is no justification
of one's acts to find that God, in his inscrutable and
holy workings, has overruled them to the effectuation
of his own righteous, secret purposes. And our oppo
102 
THIE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
nents, with a treachery fully equal to the folly of our
unwise advocates, usually represent this as nearly the
whole amount, and the fair exemplar; of our biblical argument. Such is not the use we design to make of this
important piece of history.
It does in the first place, what all secular history and
speculations fail to do: it gives us the origin of domestic slavery. And we find that it was appointed by God
as the punishment of, and remedy for (nearly all God's
providential chastisements are also remedial) the peculiar moral degradation of a part of the race. God here
ordains that this depravity shall find its necessary restraints, and the welfare of the more virtuous its safeguard against the depraved, by the bondage of the latter. He introduces that feature of political society, for
the justice of which we shall have occasion to contend;
that although men have all this trait of natural equality
that they are children of a common father, and sharers
of a common humanity, and subjects of the same law
of love; yet, in practice, they shall be subject to social
inequalities determined by their own characters, and
their fitness or unfitness to use privileges for their own
and their neighbours' good.
But second: this narrative gives us more than a pre diction. The words of Noah are not a mere prophecy;
they are a verdict, a moral sentence pronounced upon
conduct, by competent authority; that verdict sanc tioned by God. Now if the verdict is righteous, and
the execution blessed by God, it can hardly be, that the
executioners of it are guilty for putting it in effect
Can one believe that the descendants of Shem and Ja phet, with this sentence in their hands, and the divine
:103 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
commendation just bestowed on them for acting unlike
Ham, could have reasonably felt guilty for accepting
that control over their guilty fellow-men which God
himself had assigned? For the vital difference between
the case of the Assyrians, when their guilty ambition
was permissively employed by God to punish the backslidings of his own people, and the case of Shem and
Japhet, is this: The Assyrians were cursed by God for
doing their predicted work, in the very sentence; Shem
and Japhet were blessed by Him in. the very verdict
which assigns Canaan as their servant.
It may be that we should find little difficulty in tracing the lineage of the present Africans to Ham. But
this inquiry is not essential to our argument. If one
case is found where God has authorized domestic slavery, the principle is settled, that it cannot necessarily
be sin in itself. It is proper that we should say, in
conclusion, that this passage of Scripture is not regarded, nor advanced, as of prime force and importance in
this argument. Others more decisive will follow.
~ 3. Abraham   a Slaveholder.
The references to the bondsmen of Abraham and his
son Isaac are the following: Genesis xiv., 14, "And
when Abram heard that his brother," (or relative, viz.:
Lot,) "was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided
himself against them, he and his servants, by night,"
etc.   Genesis xvii., 10, etc., "This is my covenant
which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy secd
104 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.   105
after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised,"......12, "And he that is eight days old
shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in
your generations; he that is born in the house, or
bought with money of any stranger, which is not of
thy seed. He that is born in thy house and he that is
bought with thy money must needs be circumcised,"
and v. 26, 27, "In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son; and all the men of his
house, born in the house and bought with money of the
stranger, were circumcised with him." Genesis xviii.
17 to 19, "And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abrahar that thing which I do: seeing that Abraham shall
surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the
nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I
know him, that he will command his children and his
household after him, and they shall keep the way of the
Lord, to do justice and judgment: that the Lord may
bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."
Genesis xx. 14, "And Abimelech" (seeking reconciliation with Abraham for the wrong intended to Sarah his
wife, at God's command,) "took sheep and oxen, and
men-servants and women-servants, and gave them unto
Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife." Genesis
xxiv. 35, Eliezer, when seeking a wife f6r Isaac, says:
"And' the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he
is become great; and he hath given him flocks, and
herds, and silver, and gold, and men-servants, and
maid-servants, and camels and asses." And Genesis,
xxvi. 12, 14, it is said of Isaac: "And the LORD
blessed him. And the man waxed great and went for ward and grew until he became very great. For he
5* 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and
great store of servants."
It appears then, that Abraham, "the friend of God,"
and Isaac, the most holy and spotless of the Patriarchs,
were great slaveholders. But before pursuing the argument farther, it may be prudent to remove the quibble that these servants were not slaves, in the sense of
our African slaves, but only humble clansmen, retainers, or hirelings. At least one writer would prove this
by the fact that Abraham did not fear to arm three hundred and eighteen of them. For had they been real slaves,
says he, they would not have continued so one day after
getting arms in their hands. The retort most appropriate would be, that Abraham was not afraid to arm
his slaves, though actual slaves, because there were no.
saucy, meddling, Yankee Abolitionists in those days to
preach insubordination and make ill blood between
masters and servants. But, more seriously, what shall we
say of the professed reasoning which assumes the very
point in debate? viz.: that slavery is an evil; and thence
infers the conclusion that these could not be slaves,
because they did not seize the power to burst the bonds
of such an evil when placed in their reach? If their
bondage was not evil, which is the question sub judice
in this debate, then they would not necessarily desire
to burst from it. And that these were actual slaves is
clear, because the words for bondsman and bondsmaid
here used are, in every case, ebed and shippheh, which are
defined by every honest lexicon to mean actual slaves,
which are used in that sense alone everywhere else in
the Hebrew Scriptures, which are contrasted in the
book of Leviticus with the "hired servant," or sasir.
106 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT
A part of these servants were bought from foreigners
with Abraham's money. They are represented along
with his very sheep and oxen as his property.
Abraham and Isaac then, were all their lives literal
slaveholders, on a large scale. Now we do not argue
that this fact alone, coupled with the other, that they
were good men, proves that slaveholding is innocent.
The Abolitionists, fond of an easy victory on a false
issue, always hasten to represent this as the amount of
the argument; and then, their reply is obvious-that
the example of truly good men is no rule of ethics for
us, unless supported by the expressed or implied approval of God; for good men are imperfect, and many
of their errors are recorded, by the honesty of the
sacred writers, for our warning tiat Abraham himself
was guilty of falsehood to Abimelech, King of Gerar,
and especially that he was betrayed into the gross sin
bf concubinage. Hence they say, Abraham's example
no more proves slaveholding innocent than concubinage. We reply, that all these remarks, except the last,
are perfectly just; but they have no application to the
case, because God's sanction of Abraham's example as
a slaveholder is expressly found in the narrative. The
cases of slaveholding and concubinage are totally
different. First, because the origin of the latter sin
in the accursed lineage of Cain, and the act of the
murderer Lamech, is impliedly stamped with God's condemnation, (Genesis iv. 19,) whereas  the origin of
domestic slavery is given us in the righteous sentence
of God for depraved conduct. Second, Abraham fell
into the sins of falsehood and concubinage but once,
under violent temptation. There is no evidence that
107 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
either he or Isaac ever practised them again, but both
lived and died without one recorded qualm of con science, in the practice of slaveholding, and made it
one of their last acts, before passing to the judgment seat of God, to bequeath their slaves, as property, to
their heirs.  Third, in Genesis xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 12,
14, it is represented that the bestowal of a multitude of
slaves on Abraham and Isaac was a mark of the divine
favour. In the first passage, it is indeed only the
pious Eliezer who states this; but in the second, it is
stated of Isaac by the sacred narrative itself. Now to
represent God as blessing a favoured saint by bestowing providentially gifts which it is a sin to have, implicate  T-lrin thl  sin.  Fourth, in Genesis xviii. 17
-  to19, Jehovah expresses his love for Abraham, approbation for his character, and purpose to exalt him as
a blessing to all nations, because " He knew him that
he would command  his children and his household
after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord to
do justice and judgment."  What was this "household," distinct from his children?  Hebrew usage and
the context answer with one voice, his slaves. Then,
God's high favour to Abraham was explained by the
fact that he foresaw the patriarch would govern his
children and slaves religiously and righteously. Now
we ask emphatically, does a holy God bless a misguided
and sinning man for the manner in which he perseveres
in the sinful practice, be that manner what it may? If
the relation of master and slave were sinful, would not
the virtue of terminating the relation at once, so far
transcend the questionable credit of using it to make
the wronged and oppressed victim live piously, that it
108 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
would be impossible for God to bestow his peculiar
praise on the latter, where the former was lacking?
There is no righteous way to perpetuate an unrighteous
relation. Therefore God's blessing Abraham for his
good government of his slaves, is proof that it is not a
sin to have slaves to govern.
But, last and chiefly, we have a still stronger fact to
present.  When Abraham was directed in Genesis xvii.,
10, etc., to circumcise himself as a sign of the covenant between God and him, he was also directed to
circumcise all his male children. The parental relationship was made the ground of their inclusion in the
same covenant. And God directed his slaves also,
"born in his house, or bought with his money of any
foreigner," to be circumcised along with him. The
parental tie brought his children under the religious
rite of circumcision; the bond of master and servant
brought his servants under it. Here then, we have the
relationship of domestic slavery sanctioned, along with
the parental and filial, by God's own injunction, by a
participation in the holiest sacrament of the ancient
church. Would a holy God thus baptize an unholy
relation? Would he make it the ground of admission
to a religious ordinance? To see a feeble illustration
of the absurdity of such a conclusion, consider what
would be thought of a minister of the New Testament,
in which our Saviour has forbidden a plurality of wives,
if that minister should desecrate the marriage ceremonial of his church, knowingly, to sanctify the union
of the felon in the act of bigamy? Such a desecration
would surely be not less shocking in the Author, than
in a minister of religion.
109 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
And here, the favourite plea of the anti-slavery men
fails entirely-that Abraham lived in the dawn of religious light; that the revelation given him was only
partial, and that while he possessed the rectitude of
conscience which would have made him relinquish all
sinful relations, if enlightened as to their true character,
the customs of his age misled him to commit things
which Christians afterwards taught to be sinful, and
that therefore, these things, excusable in him because
of his ignorance, would be wickedness in us. There is
some truth in these statements, but they have nothing
on earth to do with this example; because the circumcision of the slaves was God's act, and not Abraham's.
God knows all things. He is perfectly holy and unchangeable.  If he had seen that slavery is intrinsically
wrong, and had intended at some future day to declare
it so, would he at this time have sanctioned it by making it the ground of a solemn ordinance of religion?  As
we shall see, this cry of the imperfection of the Old
Testament revelation is of Socinian origin, and is essentially false, in the sense in which it is uttered. But
be it as just as any statement could be, it has no application here; because our whole inference is drawn from
the acts of God himself, and not of an Old Testament
Saint.
~ 4. Htagar remanded to Slavery by God.
Sarah, in a season of desperation at her childless
condition, seems to have been tempted to imitate the
corrupt expedient which was prevalent among the Canaanites around her, and which still prevails in the
East. According to this usage, the chief wife, or wife
110 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
proper, givez to her husband a concubine from-among
her slaves, as a sort of substitute for herself; and the
offspring of the connexion is regarded as her own
child. Abram, misled by evil example, and by the solicitations of his wife-the person who would have had
the best right to complain of his act-concurred temporarily in the arrangement, and received his Egyptian
slave Hagar as an inferior wife.'  The favour of her
master, and the prospective honour of being the mother
of offspring, which has- always been exceedingly prized
by Oriental women, so inflated the servant with impudence, that she no longer treated her mistress with decent respect. When Sarah bitterly complained of this,
Abram replied by reminding her that Hagar was- still
her slave; and that she was entitled, as a mistress, to
compel her to observe a suitable demeanour. When
Sarah proceeded to exert this authority, probably administering corporal punishment to Hagar for some instance of impertinence, the latter ran away, find pursued the direction which led to her native country,
Egypt.  It was then that the angel of the LORD found
her "by the fountain in the way to Shur.  And he said,
IHagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither
wilt thou go?  And she said, I flee from the face of my
mistress Sarai.  And the angel of the LORD said unto
her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under
her hands."  Genesis xvi., 7 to 9.  He then proceeded
to unfold the future of her unborn son, and Hagar
obeyed his commands. From verses 10th and 13th, we
learn certainly that this angel was a Divine Person.
For, in the first place, he promises Hagar, "I will mul tiply thy seed exceedingly;" but none but the Almighty
ill 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
could truthfully make such a promise in his own name,
as it is here made. In the latter place we are informed
that it was the LORD (in Hebrew, Jehovah; the most
characteristic and incommendable name of God) that
spake unto her; and Hagar called his name: "Thou
God, seest me." We remark again, that Hagar was
certainly in the relation of domestic slavery, and not of
a hired servant, to abraham and Sarai.  She is called
Shiphheh, which is the regular word for female slave
in the Old Testament. Had she not been an actual
slave, Sarai would never have presumed, according to
Oriental usage, to dispose of her person in the manner
related. Here, then, we have God, himself, the Angel
Jehovah, who can be no other than the Second Person
of the Trinity, Christ, commanding this fugitive to return into the relation of domestic slavery, and submit
to it.  Can that relation be in itself sinful?  To assert
this, would make our adorable Saviour particeps criminis. He cannot have required a soul to return into a
sinful state. He never requires of his servants more
than their duty; so that if Sarai had possessed no real
and just title to Hiagar's services as a slave-if the claim
had been a mere imposition and injustice, she would
not have been required to submit to it. Abolitionists
attempt to evade this by saying that Hagar was instructed to return and submit to bondage on the same
principle on which Christ instructs us, when wrongfully smitten on one cheek to turn the other likewise.
This, say they, by no means implies that the smiting
was just. We reply, that the parallel cannot be drawn.
Had Iagar been in the hand of an unjust mistress, it
would have been her duty in Christian forbearance to
112 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
"take it patiently, though buffeted wrongfully." But
she was not now in Sarai's hand. She had successfully escaped it, and was far advanced in her journey to her native Egypt, where she evidently expected
to find friends and shelter. Under these circumstances,
it is preposterous to say that the grace of Christian
forbearance required of her to return voluntarily whither no claim of right drew her, and subject herself to
unjust and unauthorized persecution again. We ask,
Does Christ so press the duty of peaceableness, as to
sacrifice to it the whole personal well-being and rightful interests of the innocent victim of unjust aggression? Is his chief object, in these lessons of forbearance, to gratify and pamper the lust of persecution in
the aggressor? Is there no right of just self-defence
left? Surely he teaches us that we owe a duty to our
own life and well-being, as well as to our fellow-men's.
When we are wronged, we are to defend this right only
in such ways as become a son of peace-a man of forgiveness. But the same Saviour who taught his disciples to render good for evil when injured, also commanded them: "When they persecute you in one city,
flee ye into another." When a peaceable escape can
be secured from injustice, it is both the privilege and
duty of the'most forgiving Christian on earth to use it.
Now Hagar was in such a condition; had her subjection to Sarai been, as the Abolitionists say slavery is, a
condition of unjust persecution, the Saviour's instructions to her would doubtless have been: "Now that
you have escaped the injustice of her that wronged
you, flee to another city." His remanding her to Sarai
shows that the subjection was lawful and right.
113 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
It has been objected again, that we cannot argue
this, unless we are willing to argue the lawfulness of
concubinage; because to send Hlagar back to her bondage was to resign her again to this relation. We utterly deny it.  The LORD only says to her: "Return to
thy mistress and submit thyself under her hands;" not
"Return to thy master's bed." There is not one particle of proof that Abram continued his improper connexion with her after these transactions. Nor is there
more worth in the remark, that subsequently, the same
divine Being met Hagar wandering in the same wilderness, and did not require her to return, but assisted her
journey. The answer is, that she was then under no
obligation to return; because her master had fully
manumitted her, and bestowed her freedom on her.
~ 5. Slavery in the Laws of Nloses.
God, in accordance with his covenant with Abraham,
set apart Israel, through the ministry of Moses, to be
his peculiar and holy people, his witness in the midst
of an apostate world, to keep alive the services and
precepts of true morality and true religion, till, in the
fulness' of time, Jesus Christ should come in the flesh,
and begin the Christianizing of all nations. To effect
these objects, He renewed his revelation of the eternal
and unchangeable moral law, from Sinai, in the Decalogue; and he also gave, by the intervention of Moses,
various religious and civil laws, which were peculiar to
the Jews, and were never intended to be observed after
the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The great object of
all this legislation, was to set apart the Jewish nation
as a holy people, peculiarly dedicated to purity of moral
-114 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
life, and the maintenance of true religion, amidst corrupt and idolatrous generations. To effect this, God
found it necessary to raise a barrier to familiar social
intercourse between the Israelites and their corrupting
heathen neighbours; and,sundry of the expedients' by
which this barrier was raised, were prohibitions of
usages which would have been, in themselves, neither
right nor wrong, but morally indifferent, as the eating
of pork.  Some of those laws having the same object in
view, required acts in their original nature indifferent;,
such as circumcision and eating the Passover. But it
is totally inconsistent with the holiness of God, and
with his purpose of setting Israel apart to a holy life,
that any of those peculiar laws should require acts in
themselves wicked, or forbid things in themselves morally binding.  It would be impiety to represent God as
capable of commanding what is wrong'; and to enjoin
sin in order to make people holy, would be'a folly and
a contradiction. God's revealed will, so far as it is revealed for a rule of life, either permanent or temporary,
can contain nothing but what is right, and pure, and
just. If it had been a positive moral duty to eat pork,
this holy God would never have made the prohibition
to eat it a part even of the temporary, ceremonial-laws
of his servants.  Had it been morally wrong to kill,
roast, and eat a lamb, Grod would never have enjoined
on them the institution of the Passover.  These conclusions are as plain as the alphabet.
Now then, if we find any particular thing either sanctioned or enjoined, in the peculiar ceremonial or civil
institutions of Moses, it does not prove that thing to be
morally binding on us, in this century, or necessarily
11,5 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
politic and proper for us; but it does prove it to be, in
its essential moral character, innocent. That thing cannot be sin in itself. So, Jno. David Michaelis, in his
Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Book 1, Art. 1.
This is the important and just distinction. The fact
that animal sacrifices were required in the ceremonial
laws of Moses, does not prove that it is our duty, under
the Christian dispensation, to offer sacrifices, or that it
is appropriate for us to do so; but it does prove that
the act would be in itself innocent (though useless) for
us, and for every one, if it had not been forbidden in
subsequent revelation. Otherwise, a holy God would
never have enjoined or sanctioned it at all.
Therefore, the fact that God expressly authorized domestic slavery, among the peculiar and temporary civil
laws of the Jews, while it does not prove that it is our
positive duty to hold slaves, does prove that it is innocent to hold them, unless it has been subsequently forbidden by God. Now then, let us see what God authorized by Moses.  Exodus xxi. 2 to 6: "If thou buy an
Hebrew servant, (Ebed,) six years he shall serve; and
in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he
came in by himself he shall go out by himself: if he
were married; then his wife shall go out with him. If
his master have given him a wife, and she have borne
him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall
be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And
if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my
wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his
master shall bring him unto tihe judges; he shall also
bring him unto the door, or unto the door-post; and his
master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he
116 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
shall serve him forever," (that is, probably, until the
year of Jubilee, which came once in fifty years. See
Leviticus xxv. 41.)
This, cries the anti-slavery man, was only temporary
servitude. We reply: but it was involuntary servitude,
though temporary. It gave to the master the right to
compel the labour of the servant without his consent;
and this is a sanction of the principle of our institution.
What will be said then to the following? Leviticus
xxv. 44 to 46: "Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are
round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and
bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy and of
their families that are with you, which they begat in
your land; and they shall be your possession," (your
property.) "And ye shall take them as an inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever; but over
your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule
over one another with rigour."
The antithesis in the position of the two laws shows
that these heathen slaves were not to go free at the
year of Jubilee, like Hebrew slaves.  They are to be
/bondmen forever. They and their children, slaves by
birth, are to descend from father to son, as heritable
property. There was to be "no seventh year freedom
here; thee is no Jubilee liberation."  So says  the
learned divine, Moses Stuart, of Andover, himself an
anti-slavery man. And so say all respectable Hebrew
antiquaries. Indeed it would be hard to construct lan guage defining more strongly and fully all those fea
117 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
tures of domestic slavery most contradictory to the the- 
ory of Abolitionists.  They were to be bought and sold.
They were heritable property: (Mr. Sumner would prove
hence, "mere chattels.")  iHere is involuntary slavery
for life, expressly authorized to God's own peculiar and
holy people, in the strongest and most careful terms.
The relation, then, must be innocent in itself.  With
what show of candour can men say, in the face of a
sanction so full, so emphatic, so hearty, that Moses,
finding the hoary institution of domestic slavery so
deeply rooted that it would be impossible then to abolish it, tolerated it, and limited it by all the restrictions
which he could apply, calculated to cut off its worst
horrors? We ask, was Moses the author of these laws,
or God? Does the Almighty, the Unchangeable, the
Holy, connive at moral abuses, like a puny human magistrate, and content himself, where he dare not denounce
a sin, with pruning its growth a little?  We ask again:
Is this gloss borne out by the facts?  Was Moses, in
fact, timid in assailing old and deeply-rooted vices, and
in demanding that they-should be eradicated wholly?
Let his uncompromising legislation against Idolatry
and Adultery answer.. The truth is, such writers as use
the above language know nothing about the true nature of domestic slavery, and draw their inferences only
from their prejudices.  God and Moses knew it well.
They knew that it was an institution which, when not
abused, was suitable to the character of the. depraved
persons for whom it was designed, and wholesome and
benign.  HIence, they prohibit all inhuman abuses of
it; and then they do not tolerate it merely as an unavoidable wrong; but they expressly legalize it, as
118 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
right.  An honest mind can make nothing less of their
words. But in Numbers xxxi. 25 to 30, and Joshua
ix. 20 to 27, we have instances'which are, if possible,
still stronger. In the former passage the people of
Midian had been conquered by God's command, and the
captives and spoils brought home; the captives to be
slaves for life according to the law of Leviticus, ch.
xxv.  The book of Numbers then proceeds: "And the
Lord spake unto Moses saying, Take the sum of prey
that was taken both of man and of beast, thou and
Eleazer the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; and divide the prey into two parts; between
them that took the war upon them who went out to
battle, and between all the congregation. And levy a
tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went
out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses and of the
sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazer
the priest, for an heave-offering of the Lord. And of
the children of Israel's half thou shalt take one portion
of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses and
of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them
unto the Levites which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord."  In verses 40th and 46th, we read
farther that the "Lord's tribute of the persons" of the
first half, "was thirty and two persons," and of the
second half, "three  hundred and twenty."  Here God
commands a portion of these slaves to be set apart to a
sacred use, and dedicated to himself, that they might
become the property of the ministers of religion. The
second instance is not contained in the books of Moses,
but in the history of his successor Joshua: we group it
119
p 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
with the former, for its similarity. In Joshua, ch. ix.,
we are told that while he was triumphantly engaged in
the destruction of the condemned heathen tribes of Palestine, according to God's command, the people of Gibeon, a part of the doomed race, despairing of a successful defence, adopted this stratagem to save themselves.
Under pretence that they were not of Palestine at all,
but from a very distant place, their ambassadors obtained from the leaders of the Israelites a very stringent oath of amity. This pledge the elders incautiously
gave, without seeking the divine direction. In a very
few days they learned to their astonishment, that these
Gibeonites lived in the very heart of Palestine, close to
the spot where they were encamped, and that they were
of the very race which they were appointed to destroy.
But they had sworn in the name of Jehovah not to destroy them. In this state of things, the princes and
Joshua determined to punish them for their falsehood,
and at the same time substantially observe their oath,
by leaving them unhurt, but reducing them to slavery
as the serfs of the Tabernacle and its ministers. In
verses 23d and 27th, Joshua told them: "Now, therefore, ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed
from being bondmen," (Ebed, i.e., slaves,) "and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my
God." "And Joshua made them that day hewers of
wood and drawers of water for the congregation and
for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in that
place which he should choose." This compact the Gib eonites seem gladly to have accepted. In 2d Samuel,
ch. xxi., we find this same race of serfs still living
among the Israelites, under the same compact.  King
— 20
is 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
Saul, David's predecessor, having broken it by killing
many of them, God himself interposed, and required a
satisfaction for the breach. Here we have evidence
that the slaves of heathen origin were not freed by the
Jubilee, for centuries had now elapsed and they were
still slaves. We also see evidence that the contract
made by Joshua was not regarded by God as unlawful.
In this case, also, we find God accepting a religious offering of slaves for the service of his sanctuary. And
these, while real slaves, did not belong each to an individual master, but were slaves to an institution and a
caste, a form of bondage always justly regarded as less
benevolent than the former.
Yet men say slavery is a wicked relation, which God
only tolerated and curbed in the Old Testament. The
Lord's claiming his tythe of slaves (as of cattle and
wheat) seems to the candid man a strange way of expressing bare tolerance I  Was it not enough to leave
the laity of the "holy people" polluted with the sin of
slaveholding, without proceeding by his own express
injunction to introduce the "taint" into the still more
sacred caste of the priesthood?   Did the God of all
holiness direct a part of the wages of iniquity to be set
apart for his holy uses?  Perhaps it may be said that
He regarded the holy use as sanctifying the unholy
source of the offering. The surmise is blasphemous.
But see Deuteronomy xxiii. 18: "Thou shalt not bring
the hire of a whore or the price of a dog into the house
of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these
are abomination to the Lord thy God."  To set apart to
God's use property wickedly acquired was an insult to
his holiness: and to offer Him even what was acquired
6
121
p 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
by the sale of an animal ceremonially unclean, was resented as a type of the same sin. The consecration of
these slaves to sacred uses is therefore the strongest
possible proof that slaves are lawful property. To sum
up: The divine permission and sanction of slavery to
the very people whom God was setting apart to a holy
life, the consecration of slaves as property to a sacred
purpose, the regulating by law of the duties flowing
from the relation, all prove that it was then a lawful
and innocent one.  Otherwise, we should have the holy
God teaching sin. If it was innocent once in its intrinsic nature, it is innocent now, unless it has been subsequently prohibited by God. But no such prohibition
can be shown.
~ 6. Slavery in the D)ecalogue.
Although the Ten Commandments were given along
with the civil and ceremonial laws of the Hebrews, we
do not include them along with the latter, because the
Decalogue was, unlike them, given for all men and all
dispensations. It is a solemn repetition of the sum of
those duties founded on the natures of fnan and of
God, and on their relations, enjoined on all ages alike.
It contains nothing ceremonial, or of merely temporary
obligation; (which is binding merely because it is commanded;) but all is of perpetual moral obligation. It
claims to be, rightly explained, a perfect and complete
rule.  Our Saviour repeatedly adopts it as the eternal
sum of all duty, on which hang all the law and the
prophets, that is, all Scripture. Accordingly, we find
that the mode of its republication gave to this Decalogue a grandeur and weight shared by no secular or
122 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
ceremonial precepts. Deuteronomy v. informs us that
it was delivered first, thus receiving the precedence,
that it was spoken by God himself in articulate words,
heard by all the quaking multitude, in tones of thunder,
from the smoking summit of Sinai, with the terrible
concomitants of angelic hosts, devouring fire, lightnings and earthquakes; that God added no more, thus
refusing to all the subsequent precepts the honour of
such a publication, and that He himself then engraved
it on stone,,signifying by the imperishable material,
the perpetuity of this law.
Hence, all the principles of right stated or implied in
this Decalogue, are valid, not for Hebrews only, but for
all men and ages. They rise wholly above the temporary and positive precepts, which were only binding
while they were expressly enjoined. They have not
been, because they cannot be, repealed or modified;
they are as immutable as God's perfections. In our
Saviour's words, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle of this law shall not pass away."
Now, our argument is, that in this short summary,
the relation of master and slave is mentioned twice;
and that in modes which are a recognition of its lawfulness. It is introduced as a basis of duties and rights
founded upon it, and those rights are defended, and
those duties enjoined. But if it were an unlawful relation, what rights could grow out of it except the
slave's right to have it broken?  And what duties of
the master could be founded on it, except the duties of
discontinuing, repenting of, and repairing its wrongs?
In the 4th Commandment, Exod. xx. 10, it is made the
master's duty to cause the slave to observe the Sabbath
123 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
day.   After the 8th Commandment had forbidden injury to our fellow-man's property in act, by overt theft,
the 10th, (v. 17,) prohibits its injury even in thought
by corrupt coveting. And in the enumeration of possessions thus carefully covered from assault, are menservants (ebed) and maid-servants, along with real estate and cattle. If the reader would feel the strength
of the argument implied in these facts, let him ask
himself what would have been his amazement, if, after
the description which God's word gives of the authority,
righteousness, purity, and perpetuity of this Decalogue,
he had read in it, that highwaymen and pirates are commanded to enforce Sabbath observance on their injured
victims, and that we must not covet our neighbour's
concubine, or the stolen goods in his possession? And
this, without hint of the guilt of violence, concubinage,
and theft. It would be impossible for either understanding or conscience to reconcile itself to the anomaly; he would feel, inevitably, that God was incapable
of such implied sanction of sin.
~ 7. Objections to the Old Testament Argument.
To state the arguments from the laws of Moses and
the Decalogue has not required a large space, because
those conclusions are so plain and sound, that many
words were not needed. But the cavils, objections and
special pleadings of the Abolitionists teem like the
frogs of Egypt, engendered in the mire of ignorance
and prejudice, so numerous because so worthless.
And when it is seen that we perhaps expend more
space in their refutation than we did in the direct ar
' 124 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
gument, the heedless reader may possibly be inclined
to say to himself, that there must be something wrong
in an argument to which so much can be objected.
We beg him to observe then, that we pause to explode
these objections, not because they are of any weight,
but because we purpose to make thorough wo;k with
our opponents. When we have finished these rejoinders, we shall take the impartial reader to witness,
that not only the weight, but the least appearance of
plausibility in these cavils has been blown into thin
air. And then we shall have the right to infer that
their number indicates, not the questionable character
of our positions, but only a fixed and blind prejudice
against the truth in our adversaries.
It is objected that domestic slavery among the Hiebrews was a much milder institution than in Virginia,
and that, therefore, we have no right to argue from the
one to the other. If it were true that Ilebrew slavery
was milder, it might show that we were wrong in the
way in which we treated our slaves; but it could not
prove that slaveholding was wrong. The principle
would still be established, for the lawfulness of the relation. But let it be noted that the peculiar mitigations
of slavery affected only slaves of Hebrew blood, not
Gentiles. Whatever may have been the leniency of the
system, the state of the Gentile slaves showed the essential features of slavery among us, the right to the
slave's labour for life without his consent, property in
that labour, the right to buy, sell and bequeath it; the
right to enforce it on the slave by corporal punishments, which might have any degree of severity short
of death. (See Exod. xxi. 20, 21.) Virginians had no in
125 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
terest to contend for any stricter form of slavery than
this.
Second. It is said that the permission to buy, possess,
and bequeath slaves of heathen origin, which we have
cited, related only to the seven condemned tribes of
Canaan, and was part of the divinely appointed penalty. for their wickedness. Even such a man as Dr.
Wayland, of Brown University, Rhode Island, has
adopted this plea, thus justifying in a prominent instance the assertion that Abolitionism is grounded in a
shameful ignorance of facts. The answer to the plea
is, that it is expressly contrary to fact. The Hebrews
were positively prohibited to reserve any of the seven
condemned.nations for slaves, and were enjoined to exterminate them all, lest the contagion of their vile
morals should corrupt Israel.  On the other hand, they
were told that they might buy them slaves of any of
the other Gentile nations around them, with whom they
were to live on terms of national amity. (See Deuteronomy, xx. 10 to 18.) After directing the policy of the
Hebrews towards conquered enemies from these nations, and permitting the enslaving of the captives,
Moses proceeds:  (v. 15.) "Thus shalt thou do unto
all the cities which are very far off from thee, which
are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities
of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee
for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that
breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely,
the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the
Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord
thy God hath commanded thee; that they teach you not
to do after all their abominations," etc.  (See  also,
Josh. vi. 17 to 21; viii. 26; x. 28 to 32, etc., etc.)
126 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.   127
Third. It is objected from these very injunctions, that
the examples of the commands given to the Israelites
are no rules for us; that God commanded them to exterminate the seven nations of Canaan; but if we
should therefore proceed to attack and destroy a neighbouring nation which had not assailed us, it would be
a horrible'wickedness. It is asked: Were the fanatics
of the English Commonwealth in the 17th century correct when they justified their barbarities upon royalists
by the examples of Joshua's slaughter of the Amorites,
and Samuel's of Amalek? And we are told that our
argument from Hebrew slavery is of the same absurd
kind.
We reply: We willingly accept the instances. God's
command to Joshua and Samuel to exterminate the Canamites and Amalek, does prove that killing is not
necessarily murder. This very instance gives us an
unanswerable argument against those who oppose all
capital punishments as wrong.  And just so we employ
the other instance, which our assailants say is parallel
-Hebrew slavery-'to prove that slaveholding is not
necessarily sinful. But the instances are not parallel.
The sanction of domestic slavery was a statute law for
all generations of Hebrews; the command to exterminate the seven.tribes imposed a specific task on certain
individuals. It is absurd to confound an executive
command, given to particular men for the once, under
particular circumstances, with the sanctions of a permanent institution, designed to descend from generation to generation. The command to exterminate the
seven guilty tribes was the former, the permission to
hold slaves the latter. True, the example of Joshua in
w 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
blotting these tribes from existence, is no authority for
us to do likewise, unless we also can show a direct divine commission authorizing us for a special case. But
neither was that example authority to any subsequent
generation of Hebrews, after Joshua, to exterminate
any other pagan tribe. Will any one say that the authority given by Moses to his fellow-citizens to hold
slaves was not just as good to enable subsequent generations of Hebrews to hold slaves?  Prejudice cannot
carry sophistry so far. There is, therefore, no analogy
between the two cases, in the point necessary for
grounding the objection to our argument.
Fourth. It is said that Moses himself commanded
that a runaway slave should not be surrendered to his
master; thereby plainly teaching that slaves had a
right to their liberty, if they could escape. This, t is
urged, proves that there must be some mistake in our
conclusions.   Of course, this passage is quoted triumphantly as settling the question against thefugitive
slave-law, required by the late Constitution of the
United States.  It is found in Deuteronomy xxiii. 15,
16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant
which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall
dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which
he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him
best; thou shalt not oppress him."
We need no better answer to this citation, than that
given by a Northern divine already named, who is no
friend to slavery, Rev. Moses Stuart.  He says: "The
first inquiry of course is: Where does his master live?
Among the Hebrews or among foreigners? The language of the passage fully developes this, and answers
128 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
the question. He has'escaped from his master unto
the Hebrews.' (The text says, unto thee, i. e., Israel.)
'He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in one of thy
gates.' Of course then, he is an immigrant, and did
not dwell among them before his flight. If he had been
a Hebrew servant, belonging to a Hebrew, the whole
face of the thing would be changed. Restoration or
restitution, if we may judge by the tenour of other
property laws among the Hebrews, would have surely
been enjoined. But, be that as it may, the language of
the text puts it beyond a doubt, that the servant is a
foreigner and has fled from a heathen master." Mr.
Stuart then proceeds to assign obvious reasons why a
foreign servant escaping from a heathen master was
not to be restored: that the bondage from which he
escaped was inordinately cruel, including the power of
murder for any caprice; awd that to force him back
was to remand him to the darkness of heathenism, and
to rob him of the light of true religion, which shone in
the land of the Hebrews alone.  He adds: "But if we
put now the other case, viz.: that of escape from a Hebrew master, who claimed and enjoyed Hebrew rights,
is not the case greatly changed? Who could take from
him the property which the Mosaic law gave him a
right to hold? Neither the bondsman himself, nor the
neighbours of the master to whom the fugitive might
come. Reclamation of him could be lawfully made,.and
therefore must be enforced." This explanation forces
itself upon our common sense. To suppose that Moses
could so formally authorize and define slavery among
the Hebrews, and then enact that every slave might
gain his liberty by merely stepping over the brook or
6*
129 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
imaginary line which separated the little cantons of the
tribes from each other, or even by going to the next
house of his master's neighbours, and claiming protection, whenever petulance, or caprice, or laziness should
move him thereto; this is absurd; it is trivial child's
play. It takes away with one hand what it professed
to give with the other.  The fact that slavery continued
to exist from age to age, is proof enough that the iebrews did not put the Abolitionist construction on the
law. To this agree the respectable Hebrew antiquarians, as Horne, etc.
Fifth. It is urged that Revelation was in its plan
progressive, like the morning twilight; that the Mosaic
code was the early dawn; that God, for wise reasons,
left many points in darkness, which the full daylight of
the Gospel has since shown to be sin. And, therefore,
several practices, which we are now taught to be sinful, may have been ignorantly followed by good men,
and tolerated by this imperfect legislation of God's
law. Yet if we, who enjoy a fuller revelation, should
indulge in these practices, we should be guilty and disobedient.
Grant this, for the present.  Grant, for argument's
sake, that it may have been consistent with the plan of
revelation to make known at first only a partial rule of
duty, leaving some sins unmentioned. Yet surely it
was not consistent with the truth and holiness of God,
to throw a false light in that partial revelation, on
those parts of man's duty which he professed to reveal!
So far as any revelation from God goes, it must be a
true and righteous one.  If it undertook to fix a point
of duty, it must fix it correctly, whatever else it might
130
I 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
omit. Otherwise, we should have a holy, true, and
good Creator, while professing to guide man to duty
and life, misleading him to sin and death. Let now
the reader note that the lawfulness of slavery was not
one of the points omitted.  God spake expressly upon
it; and what he said was to authorize it.
But we do not admit that Moses' was an incomplete
revelation in the sense of the Abolitionists. They are
fond of representing the New Testament revelation as
completing, amending, and correcting that of the Old.
Its details the New Testament does complete; but if it
were amended or corrected by any subsequent standard
of infallible truth, this would prove it not truly inspired.
Indeed, the history of theological opinion shows plainly
enough that this anti-slavery view of Old Tesfment
revelation is Socinian and Rationalistic. Modern Abolitionism in America had, in fact, a Socinian birth, in
the great apostasy of the Puritans of News England to
that benumbing heresy, and in the pharisaism, shallow
scholarship, affectation, conceit and infidelity of the
Unitarian clique in the self-styled American Athens,
Boston.  It is lamentable to see how men professing to
be evangelical are driven by blind prejudices against
Southern men and things, to adopt this skeptical tone
towards God's own word. The ruinous issue has been
seen in the case of a minister of the Gospel, who, after
floundering through a volume of confused and impotent
sophisms, roundlydeclares that if compelled to admit
that the Bible treated slavery as not a sin in itself, he
would repudiate the Bible rather than his opinions.
But we point these objectors to that Saviour who
said, in the full meridian of revealed light of this Old
131 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Testament law: "Whosoever shall keep these com
mandments shall enter into eternal life;" and to the fact
that the Decalogue itself twice recognizes the right of
the master. Will they say that this too was an old,
partial, and imperfect revelation?   Not so says the
sweet Psalmist of Israel: "The law of the Lord is perfect." Psalms, xix. 7. Whatever Abolitionists may
cavil, Jesus Christ acknowledged no more perfect rule
of morals than the Ten Commandments, as expounded
by the "law and the prophets."
Si,xth. An objection has been raised against the Old
Testament argument, from the supposed permission of,
or connivance at, polygamy and causeless divorce in
the laws of Moses. This objection has been urged by
Dr. Channing, the celebrated Unitarian, and since, in a
more exact form, by Dr. Wayland. In substance it is
this: That polygamy was allowed by the Old Testament law, and divorce for a less cause than conjugal
infidelity was expressly permitted by Moses.  But both
these are as expressly forbidden as sinful by our Saviour.  Matthew xix. 3 to 9. Therefore the main assertion in defence of slavery, on which the argument rested, does not hold: for these two instances show that a
thing is not intrinsically innocent because it was permitted for a time to the Jews.
Our reply is, that both the premises of the objection
are absolutely false.  Polygamy and capricious divorce
never were authorizel by Old Testament law, in the
sense in which domestic slavery was; and, second, the
latter was never prohibited in the New Testament, as
polygamy and such divorces expressly are. Either of
these facts, without the other, makes the objection in
132 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
valid, as we shall show; but we shall establish both.
Before doing this, however, we would ask: Suppose
these assertions of Drs. Wayland and Channing proved
that God expressly permitted polygamy and causeless
divorce to his own chosen and holy people, and that
Jesus Christ yet denounced these things as sins; what
is gained?  Not only is this part of our defence of
slavery overthrown, but the holiness of God is also
overthrown; or else the inspiration of the Scriptures.
(The latter would be a result evidently not very repugnant to Socinians and their sympathizers.) For then
these Scriptures would make Hiim the teacher of sin to
the very persons whom he was setting apart to peculiar
holiness. If God did indeed authorize polygamy and
causeless divorce in the Old Testament law, then the
only inference for the devout mind is, that those things
were then innocent, and would still be so, had not Christ'
afterwards forbidden them. Now, when we pass into
the New Testament, and find that domestic slavery
(which these objectors would make the parallel of
polygamy and divorce without just cause) is not forbidden there, as the latter two were, but is again permitted, authorized and regulated, we must conclude
that it is still innocent, as it must have been when a
holy God allowed it to his holy people. 
But the first part of the objectors' premise is also
false; polygamy and causeless divorce never were sanctioned by Moses as domestic slavery was.  Even admitting the more ignorant rendering of the matter, how
wide is the difference in God's treatment of the two subjects l Slaves are mentioned as lawful property, not
only in the biographies of God's erring and fallible ser
133 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
vants, but in his own legislation; the acquisition of
them is a blessing from him; their connexion with their
masters is made the basis of religious sacraments; prop erty in slaves is protected by laws of divine enactment;
and the rights and duties of them and their masters defined. But when we pass to the subjects of plurality
and change of wives, while we see the lives of imperfect, though good men, candidly disclosing these abuses,
no legislative act recognizes them, except in the single
case of divorce.  In all God's laws and precepts, He al ways says wife, not wives, so carefully does He avoid
a seeming allowance of a plurality. The Decalogue
throws no protection around concubines, against the
coveting of others. The rights and duties of polyga mists are never defined by divine law, save in seeming
exceptions which will be explained. How unlike is all
this to the legislation upon slavery I
What has been already said leaves our argument im pregnable. But so much misapprehension exists about
the two cases, that the general interests of truth prompt
a little farther separate discussion of each. The two
enactments touching divorce which present the sup posed contradiction in the strongest form, are those of
Moses in Deuteronomy xxiv. 1 to-4, and Matthew xix.
3 to 9. These the reader is requested to have under his
eye. The form of the Pharisees' question to Christ,
(" Is it lawful for a man to put away his wifefor every
cause?") concurs with the testimony of Josephus, in
teaching us that a monstrous perversion of Moses' stat ute then prevailed. The licentious, and yet self-right eous Pharisee claimed, as one of his mostunquestioned
privileges, the right to repudiate a wife, after the lapse
134: 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
of years, and birth of children, for any caprice whatsoever. The trap which they now laid for Christ was designed to compel him either to incur the odium of attacking this usage, guarded by a jealous anger, or to
connive at their interpretation of the statute. Manifestly Christ does not concede that they interpreted
Moses rightly; but indignantly clears the legislation of
that holy man from their licentious perversions, and
then, because of their abuse of it, repeals it by his plenary authority. iHe refers to that constitution of the
marriage tie which was original, which preceded Moses,
and was therefore binding when Moses wrote, to show
that it was impossible he could have enacted what they
claimed.  What then did Moses enact?  Let us explain
it. In the ancient society of the East, females being
reared in comparative seclusion, and marriages negotiated by intermediaries, the bridegroom had little opportunity for a familiar acquaintance even with the
person of the bride. When she was brought to him at
the nuptials, if he found her disfigured with some personal deformity or disease, (the undoubted meaning of
the phrase "some uncleanness,") which effectually
changed desire into disgust, he was likely to regard
himself as swindled in the treaty, and to send the rejected bride back with indignity to her father's house.
There she was reluctantly received, and in the anomalous position of one in name a wife, yet without a husband, she dragged out a wretched existence, incapable
of marriage, and regarded by her parents and brothers
as a disgraceful incumbrance.  It was to relieve the
wretched fate of such a woman, that Moses' law was
framed. She was empowered to exact of her proposed
135 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
husband a formal annulment of the unconsummated contract, and to resume the status of a single woman, eligible for another marriage. It is plain that Moses' law
contemplates the case, only, in which no consummation
of marriage takes place. She finds no favour in the
eyes "of the bridegroom." He is so indignant and disgusted, that desire is put to flight by repugnance. The
same fact appears from the condition of the law, that
she shall in no case return to this man, "after she is
defiled," i. e., after actual cohabitation with another
man had made her unapproachable (without moral defilement) by the first. Such was the narrow extent of
this law. The act for which it provided was divorce
only in name, where that consensus, qui matrimonium
facit, (in the words of the law maxim,) had never been
perfected. The state of social usages among the Hebrews, with parental and fraternal severity towards the
unfortunate daughter and sister, rendered the legislation of Moses necessary, and righteous at the time; but
"a greater than Moses" was now here; and he, after
defending the inspired law-giver from their vile misrepresentation, proceeded to repeal the law, because it
had been so perverted, and because the social changes
of the age had removed its righteous grounds. Let the
Abolitionists show us a similar change in the law of
domestic slavery, mad6 by Christ, and we will admit
that the moral conditions of the relation have changed
since Moses' day.
The case of the polygamist is still clearer; for we assert that the whole legislation of the Pentateuch and of
all the Old Testament is only adverse to polygamy.
As some Christian divines have taught otherwise, we
136 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.     1
must ask the reader's attention and patience for a brief
statement.  Polygamy is recorded of Abraham, Jacob,
Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon; but so are other sins
of several of these; and, as every intelligent reader
knows, the truthful narrative of holy writ as often discloses the sins of good men for our warning, as their
virtues for our imitation. And he who notes how, in
every Bible instance, polygamy appears as the cause of
domestic feuds, sin, and disaster, will have little doubt
that the Holy Spirit tacitly holds all these cases up for
our caution, and not our approval.   But, then, God
made Adam one wife only, and taught him the great
law of the perpetual unity of the twain, just as it is
now expounded by Jesus Christ. (Genesis ii. 23, 24,
with Matthew xix. 4 to 6.) God preserved but one wife
each to Noah and his sons. In every statute and preceptive word of the Holy Spirit, it is always wife, and
not wives. The prophets everywhere teach how to
treat a wife, and not wives. Moses, Leviticus xviii. 18,
in the code regulating marriage, expressly prohibits
the marriage of a second wife in the life of the first,
thus enjoining monogamy in terms as clear as Christ's.
Our English version hath it: " Neither shalt thou take
a wife to her sister to vex'er, to uncover her naked ness, besides the other, in her lifetime."  Some have
been preposterous enough to take the word sister here
in its literal sense, and thus to force on the law the
meaning that the man desiring to practise polygamy
may do so provided he does not marry two daughters
of the same parents; for if he did this, the two sisters
sharing his bed would, like Rachel and Leah, quarrel
more fiercely than two strangers. But the word "sis
137 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
ter" must undoubtedly be taken in the sense of mates,
fellows, (which it bears in a multitude of places,) and
this for two controlling reasons. The other sense makes
Moses talk nonsense and folly, in the supposed reason
for his prohibition; in that it makes him argue that two
sisters sharing one man's bed will quarrel, but two
women having no kindred blood will not. It is false to
fact and to nature. Did Leah and Rachel show more
jealousy than Sarah and Hagar, Hannah and Peninnah?
But when we understand the law in its obvious sense,
that the husband shall not divide his bed with a second
mate, the first still living, because such a wrong ever
harrows and outrages the great instincts placed in woman's heart by her Creator, we make Moses talk truth
and logick worthy of a profound legislator. The other
reason for this construction is, that the other sense
places the 18th verse in irreconcilable contradiction to
the 16th verse.  This forbids the marriage of a woman
to the husband of her deceased sister; while the 18th
verse, with this false reading, would authorize it.
Once more: Malachi, (chapter ii. 14, 15,) rebuking
the various corruptions of the Jews, evidently includes
polygamy; for he argues in favour of monogamy, (and
also against causeless divorce') from the fact that God,
"who had the residue of the Spirit," and could as easily
have created a thousand women for each man as a
single one, made the numbers of the sexes equal from
the beginning.  He states this as the    motive, "that he
might seek a godly seed;" that is to say, that the object of God in the marriage relation was the right rearing of children, which polygamy notoriously hinders.
Now the commission of an Old Testament prophet was
.1
138 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
not to legislate a new dispensation; for the laws of
Moses were in full force; the prophets' business was
to expound them. Hence, we infer that the laws of
the Mosaic dispensation on the subject of polygamy
had always been such as Malachi declared them. He
was but applying Moses' principles.
To the assertion that the law of the Old Testament
discountenanced polygamy as really as the New Testament, it has been objected that the practice was maintained by men too pious towards God to be capable of
Continuing in it against express precept; as, for instance, by the "king after God's own heart," David.
Did not he also commit murder and adultery?  Surely
there is no question whether Moses forbids these I The
history of good men, alas, shows us too plainly the
power of general evil example, custom, temptation, and
self-love, in blinding the honest conscience. It has
been objected that polygamy was so universally practised, and so prized, that Moses would never have
dared to attempt its extinction. When will men learn
that the author of the Old Testament law was not Moses,
but God?  Is God timid?  Does he fear to deal firmly
with his creatures? But it is denied that there is any
evidence that polygamy was greatly prevalent among
the Hebrews. And nothing is easier than to show, that
if it had been, Moses was a legislator bold enough to
grapple with it.  What more hardy than his dealing
with the sabbatical year, with idolatry? It is objected
that the marriage of the widow who was childless to
the brother of the deceased, to raise up seed to the
dead, presents a case of polygamy actually commanded.
We reply, no one can show that the next of kin was
1389 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
permitted or required to form such marriage when he
already had a wife. The celebrated J. D. Michaelis, a
witness learned and not too favourable, says, in his
Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, of this law, "Nor
did it affect a brother having already a wife of his
own.'? Book III., ch. vi., ~ 98.. It is objected that polygamy is recognized as a permitted relation in Deuteronomy xxi. 15-17, where the husband of a polygamous
marriage is forbidden to transfer the birthright from
the eldest son to a younger, the child of a more favoured wife; and in Exodus xxi. 9, 10, where the husbaifnd
is forbidden to deprive a less favoured wife of her marital rights and maintenance.  Both these cases are explained by the admitted principle, that there may be
relations which it was sin to form, and which yet it is
sinful to break when formed. No one doubts whether
the New Testament makes polygamy unlawful; yet it
seems very clear that the apostles gave the same instructions to the husbands of a plurality of wives entering the Christian church.  There appears, then, no
evidence that polygamy was allowed in the laws of
Moses.
We have thus shown that the objection of Dr. Channing to our Old Testament argument for the lawfulness
of domestic slavery, is false in both its premises. First,
it is not true that Moses sanctioned polygamy and
causeless divorce in the sense in which he sanctioned
slavery. And second, if he did, it would prove that
those practices were lawful until they were prohibited
J,y our Redeemer; but domestic slavery has met no such
prohibition from him, and is therefore lawful still. If not,
why did the divine Reformer strike down the two "sis
140
J 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
ter sins," and leave the third, the giant evil, untouched?
There is but one answer: He did not regard it as a sin.
If too much space has been devoted to this objection,
the apology is, that it is a subject much misunderstood
by Christian divines. The explanation is, that the
study of Hebrew antiquities has, in our day, been left
so much to German rationalists and secret Socinians;
the late essays of British and Yankee scholars being to
so great a degree servile imitations of theirs. But
these skeptical literati of Germany, while wearing the
clergyman's frock for the sake of the emoluments of an
established church, have usually been unsanctified men,
harbouring the most contemptuous views of Old Testament inspiration. The reader will bear in mind that,
whether he is convinced, with us, that Moses actually
prohibited polygamy, or not, the refutation of the Abolitionist objection is still perfectly valid.
The seventh and last objection against our Old Testament argument consists of various passages from the
Hebrew prophets, wihich denounce the oppression of
the poor, and' the withholding of the labouring man's
wages. Every phrase which sounds at all like their
purpose is violently seized by the Abolitionists, and
pressed incontinently into the service of condemning
slavery, without regard to the sacred writer's intention
or meaning. Were all the texts thus wrested discussed
here, this section would be swelled into a book. A few
passages which our opponents regard as their strongest
will be cited, therefore; and the reply to these will be
an answer to all.  One such is Isaiah, lviii. 6: "Is not
this the fast which I have chosen, to loose the bands of
wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the
141 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
oppressed go free; and that ye break every yoke?"
Another is found in Jeremiah xx. 13: "Woe unto him
that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his
chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's services without wages, and giveth him not for his work."
Another is in Jeremiah xxxiv. 17: "Therefore, thus
saith the Lord: Ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty every man to his brother, and every
man to his neighbour." And to find a scriptural stone
to pelt the fugitive slave-law, they quote Isaiah xvi. 3 
"Hide the outcasts; bewray not him that wandereth."
Now, one would think that it should have given some
pause to these perversions of Scripture, to remember that
these same prophets were undoubtedly slaveholders.
Witness, for instance, Elisha, who was so large a slaveholder as to have eleven ploughmen at once, and who, after he devoted himself exclusively to his prophetic ministry, still had his servants, Gehazi and others. (2 Kings,
v. 20, and vi. 15.) How could they have aimed such denunciations at slave-owners, and escaped the sarcasm,
"Physician, heal thyself?"  It should have been remembered again, that Moses' laws, in which slaveholding
was expressly sanctioned, were enacted by authority
just as divine as that by which Isaiah and Jeremiah
preached; that Moses was more a prophet than even
they-" the greatest — of the prophets;" that his laws
were still in full force; that they bore to these prophets'
instructions the relation of text to exposition; and that
always the great burden of their accusations against
their guilty countrymen was, that they had forsaken
Moses' statutes. Were the guardians and expounders
of the Constitution armed with power not only to repeal,
142 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGU'MENT.
but to vilify, the very law which they were appointed
to expound?  May the sermon contradict its own text?
Before these rebukes of oppression can be applied,
then, as God's condemnation of domestic slavery, it
must be proved that in His view slavery is oppression.
To take this for granted is a begging of the whole
question in debate. But not only is it not proved by
any such texts; it is obvious from the above remarks,
that it cannot be proved by them, unless God can be
made to contradict himself. But when we examine a
little the connected words of these prophets themselves,
we learn from them what they do mean; and we see an
instance, ludicrous if it were not too painful, of the
heedless folly with which the Word of God is abused.
Thus, in Isaiah, lviii. 6, 7, we proceed to the very next
words, and learn that the duty in hand consists in
"bringing to their homes the poor that are cast out,"
and being charitable to "their own flesh."  Were the
Gentile slaves of the Hebrews "their own flesh" in the
sense of the Old Testament, i.e., their kindred by blood?
Manifestly, the phrase intends their fellow-citizens of
Hebrew blood in distress. Are slaveholders in danger
of sinning by driving away from their houses their domestic slaves; and do they need objurgation to make
them receive them back? Such is the "infinite nonsense" forced upon Isaiah's words by Abolitionists.
There is, then, no reference here to the emancipation
of Gentile slaves; but to the duties of charity, justice
and hospitality towards the oppressed of their fellowcitizens. And if the passage has any reference to servants, it is only to the sin of detaining Hebrew servants
beyond the Sabbatical year's release.
143 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
When we turn to Jeremiah xxii. 13, a glance at the
connexion shows us that the woe against using a neighbour's services without wages, is denounced against
Shallum, the wicked king of Judah, who built his palaces, not by his domestic servants, but by unlawfully
impressing his political subjects. Such. is the marvellous accuracy of Abolitionist exposition I So in Jeremiah xxxiv. 17, which rebukes the Jews for not "proclaiming every man liberty to his brother," one little
question should have staggered our zealous accusers:
Were Gentile slaves "brethren" to Jews, in the sense
of the prophet? And we have only to carry the eye
back to verse 14, to see him explaining himself, that
they did not comply with the Mosaic law, "at the end
of seven years to let go every man his brother a Hiebrew, which hath been sold unto thee." From the obligation of that law, the masters of Gentiles were expressly excepted.
But the illustration of crowning folly is Isaiah xvi.
3, which is so boldly wrested to countenance the har- 
bouring of runaway slaves. The words are not the
language of the prophet at all I  The chapter is a
dramatic picture of the distress of the pagan nations
near Judea, and especially of Moab, one among them,
in a time of invasion which Isaiah denounces upon
them in punishment for their sin; and this verse represents the fugitive Moabites as entreating Jews for concealment and protection when pursued by their enemies.
So that there is no slave nor slave-owner in the case at
all; nor does the prophet's language contain any thing
to imply whether it was righteous or not for the Jews
to grant the request of these affrighted sinners in the
hour of their retribution.
144 
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
We have now reviewed, perhaps at too much length,
the various impotent attempts made to escape from the
meshes of our inexorable Old Testament argument. It
is an argument short, plain, convincing. Although
every thing enjoined on the Hebrews is not necessarily
enjoined on us, (because it may have been of temporary
obligation,) yet every such thing must be innocent in
its nature, because a holy God would not sanction sin
to his holy people, in the very act of separating them
to holiness. But slaveholding was expressly sanctioned as a permanent institution; the duties of masters
and slaves are defined; the rights of masters protected,
not only in the civic but the eternal moral law of God;
and He himself became a slave-owner, by claiming
an oblation of slaves for his sanctuary and. priests.
Hence, while we do not say that modern Christian nations are bound to hold slaves, we do assert that no
people sin by merely holding slaves, unless the place
can be shown where God has uttered a subsequent prohibition. But there is no such place, as the next chapter will show. While we well know that to secret infidels and rationalists, as all Abolitionists are, this has
no weight, to every mind which reverences the inspiration of the Old Testament it is conclusive.  And let
every Christian note, that with the inspiration of the
Old Testament stands or falls that of Christ and the
apostles, because they commit themselves irretrievably
to the support of the former.
7
145' 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
C,CHAPTER VI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
INSPIRATION always represents the New Testament as
its final teaching. Revelation is there completed; and
all the instruction concerning right and wrong which
man is ever to ask from God, must be sought in this
book. We have done, then, with all sophistical pleas
concerning the twilight of revelation: for we have come
now to the meridian splendour. If slaveholding was
allowed to the Old World for the hardness of its heart,
here we may expect to see it repealed. Wherever the
New Testament leaves the moral character of slavery,
there it must stand. What, then, is its position here?
~ 1. Definition of aovtog.
The word commonly translated servant in the authorized version of the New Testament is 6ov:og, (doulos,)
which is most probably derived from the verb des, (deo,)
'I bind.' Hence the most direct meaning of the noun
is'bondsman.' Many Abolitionists, with a reckless
violence of criticism which cannot be too sternly reprobated, have endeavoured to evade the crushing testimony of the New Testament against their dogma, by
denying that this word there means slave. Some of
146 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
them would make it mean son, some hired servant, and
some subject, or dependent citizen.  Even Mr. Albert
Barnes, in his Commentaries on the Epistles, denies that
the word carries any evidence that a servile relation,
proper, is intended by the sacred writers. Every honest and well-informed biblical scholar feels that it would
be an insult to his intelligence to suppose that a discussion of this preposterous assertion was needed for
him: but as our aim is the general reader, we will
briefly state the evidence that dovlor, when not metaphorical, means in the mouth of Christ and his apostles
a literal, domestic slave.
Judea and the Roman Empire in their day were full of
domestic slaves, so that in many places they were more
numerous than the free citizens.  AovXog is confessedly
the word used for slave by secular writers of antiquity,
in histories, statutes, works on political science, such
as Aristotle's, in the allusions of Greeks to the Roman
civil law, where they make it uniformly their translation
for Servus, so clearly and harshly defined in that law
as a literal slave. Did apostles and evangelists use the
Greek language of their day correctly anid honestly?
And if 6oviog in them does not mean slave, there is no
stronger word within the lids of the New  Testament
that does; (nor in the Greek language;) so that there
is in all the apostolic histories and epistles, no allusion
to this world-wide institution which surrounded them!
Who believes this? Again: The current Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, whose idioms are more imitated in the New Testament than any
other book, uses 6ovrog, as in Leviticus xxv. 44, for
translation of the Ebed, bought with money from the
147 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Gentiles. - The places where the New Testament writers
use dovxo? metaphorically imply the meaning of slave as
the literal one, because the aptness of the trope depends
on that sense. Thus, Acts iv. 29, xvi. 17, Romans i. 1,
apostles are called God's 6ovxot, servants, to express
God's purchase, ownership and authority over them, and
their strict obedience. Make the literal sense any thing
less than slave proper, and the strength and beauty of
the trope are gone. Again, the word is often used in
contrast with son, and political subject, so as to prove a
different meaning.  Thus, John viii. 34, 35: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (dovto?) of sin. And
the 6ovxo? abideth not in the house forever: but the son
abideth ever."  Luke xix. 13, 14: "He called his ten
dovxot, and delivered them ten pounds, etc.; but his
citizens (iro;t-a = political subjects) hated him," etc.
Galatians iv. 1: "Now the heir, as long as he is a child,
differeth nothing from a 6ovlog, though'he be lord of
all, but is under tutors and governors," etc.  In conclusion: all well-informed and candid expositors tell
us, that by doyvog, the New Testament means slave.
We may mention Drs. Bloomfield, Hodge, and Trench.
The classical authorities of the Greek language give
this as the most proper meaning; and the biblical lexicons of the New Testament Greek testify the same. Of
the latter, we may cite Dr. Edward Robinson, of New
York, no friend to slavery. He says:
"AovLo? ov. 6 = (subst. fr. deo,) a bondsman, a slave,
servant, properly by birth, diff. from avdpo7rodov,'one
enslaved in war.' Compare Xen. Anab. iv. 1, 12,
atXpa:Lra av6paroda. Hell. i. 6, 15; Thuc. viii. 28, ra
avd6paTroa 7rara, Kai  dovYa  Kal e,eviepa.  But such
148. 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
a captive is sometimes called 6ovro?, Xen.  Cyr.  3,
1, 11, 19, ib., 4, 4, 12.  Different also from 6Odaovo~,
see that art. No. 1.  In a family, the 6ovxog was one
bound to serve, a slave, the property of his master, a
'living possession,' as Aristotle calls him, Pol. 1, 4.
O6ovxo  gto  a' t, etbvxov.  Compare Gen. xvii. 12, 27;
Exod. xii. 44. According to the same writer, a complete
household consisted of slaves and freemen, Polit. 1, 3.
otita de re2eto0 EX  dovZ6v Kai eEviep&)v.  The dovxoq,
therefore, was never a hired servant, the latter being
called ptaOtog, gta,&),ro9, q. v.  Dr. Robinson then proceeds to define 6ovxog in detail as meaning, "1, Properly of involuntary service, a slave, servant, as opposed
to EEv@spog. 2, Tropically, of voluntary service, a servant, implying obligation, obedience, devotedness. 3,
Tropically, a minister, attendant, spoken of the officers
and attendants of an Oriental court, who are often
strictly slaves."
~ 2. Slavery often mentioned; yet not condemned.
The mere absence of a condemnation of slaveholding
in the New Testament is proof that it is not unlawful.
In showing that there is no such condemnation, we are
doing more than we could be held bound to do by any
logical obligation: we might very properly throw the
burden of proof here upon our accusers, and claim to
be held innocent until we can be proved to be guilty by
some positive testimony of holy writ. But our cause is
so strong, that we can afford to argue ex abundantia;
to assert more than we are bound to show. We claim
then the significant fact, that there is nowhere any re
119 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
buke of slaveholding, in express terms, in the New
Testament. Of the truth of this assertion it is sufficient proof, that Abolitionists, with all their malignant
zeal, have been unable to find a single instance, and are
compelled to assail us only with inferences. The express permission to hold slaves given by Moses to God's
people, is nowhere repealed by the. greater than Moses,'
the Divine Prophet of the new dispensation. Let the
reader consider how this fact is strengthened by the
attendant circumstances.   Christ  and  his  apostles
preached in the midst of slaves and slaveholders. The
institution was exceedingly prevalent in many parts of
the world. Potter tells us that in Athens, (a place
where Paul preached,) the freemen citizens, possessed
of franchises, were twenty-one thousand, and the slaves
four hundred thousand. The congregations to which
Christ and his apostles preached, were composed of
masters and their slaves. The slavery of that day, as
defined by the Roman civil law, was harsh and oppressive, treating the slave as a legal nonentity, without
property, rights, or legal remedy; without marriage,
subject, even as to his life, to the caprice of his master,
and in every respect a human beast of burden.  Again:
to this institution Christ and his apostles make many
allusions, for illustration of other subjects; and upon
the institution itself they often speak didactically. Yet,
while often condemning the abuses and oppressions incident to it, they never condemn the relation. Several
times the apostles give formal enumerations of the prevalent sins of their times; as in Romans i. 29, 31; Galatians v. 19 to 21; Matthew xv. 19; Colossians iii. 8,
9; 2 Timothy iii. 2 to 4. These catalogues of sins are
150 
TIE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
often full and minute; but the owning of slaves never
appears among them.
Now, we are entitled to claim, that this silence of
the later and final revelation leaves the lawfulness of
slaveholding in full force, as expressly established in
the earlier.  On that allowance we plant ourselves, and
defy our accusers to bring the evidence of its repeal.
On them lies the burden of proof. And we have indicated by the circumstances detailed above, how crushing that burden will be to them.
This is the most appropriate place to notice the evasion attempted from the above demonstration. They
plead that slavery is not specially forbidden in the
New Testament, because the plan of the Bible is to
give us a rule of morals, not by special enactments for
every case, but by general principles of right, which
we must apply to special cases as they arise. "Inspiration has not," say they, "specially condemned every
possible sin which may occur in the boundless varieties
of human affairs, because then the whole world would
not contain the books that should be written; and the
voluminous character of the rule of duty would disappoint its whole utility; and if any sin were omitted in
order to abridge it, this would be taken as a sanction.
Hence, God gives us a set of plain general principles,
of obvious application under the law of loye."  Therefore, it is argued, we are not to expect that the sin of
slaveholding should be singled out. Enough that general principles given exclude it.
There is a portion of truth in this statement of the
matter, and in the grounds assigned for it. But waiving for the present the exposure of the groundless as
151
0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
sertion that there are any general principles in the New
Testament condemnatory of slaveholding, we deny that
this book teaches morals only by general rules. It also
does it, in a multitude of cases, by special precepts. A
multitude of special sins prevalent in that and all ages
are singled out. This being so- the lists of particular
sins being so full and specific as they are-we assert
it would have been an unaccountable anomaly to pass
over a thing so important, open, prevalent, had it been
intrinsically wrong. But why does Revelation omit a
number of particulars, and state general principles?
For the lack of room, it is said. The other plan would
have made the Bible too large. Now we ask, as the
case actually stands in the New Testament, would not
a good deal of room have been saved as to slavery, by
simply specifying it as wrong?  It is a queer way to
economize space, thus to take up a subject, define it at
large, limit, modify it, retrench its abuses, lay down in
considerable detail a part of its duties and relations;
and then provide by some general principle for its utter prohibition I Would not the obvious way have been,
to say in:three plain words, what was the only fundamental thing, after all, which, on this supposition, needed to be taught, "Slavery is sinful?"  This would have
settled the matter, and also have saved space and ambiguity, and made an end of definitions, limitations,
abuses, inferences and all, in the only honest way. But
farther, we admit that the Bible has left a multitude of
new questions, emerging in novel cases, to be settled
by the fair application of general principles, (which are
usually illustrated in Scripture by application to some
specific case.) Now must not an honest mind argue,
152 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
that since the human understanding is so fallible in inferential reasonings, especially on social ethics, where
the premises are so numerous and vague, and prejtudices and interests so blinding, a special precept, where
one is found applicable, is better than an inference
probably doubtful? Will it not follow a'thus saith
the Lord,' if it has one, rather than its own deduction
which may be a blunder? Well, then, if God intended
us to understand that he had implicitly condemned
slavery in some general principles given, it was most
unlucky that He said any thing specific about it, which
was not a specific condemnation. For what He has
specifically said about it must lead His most honest
servants to conclude that He did not intend to leave it
to be settled by general inference, that He exempted it
from that class of subjects. Had God not alluded to it
by name, then we should have been more free to apply
general principles to settle its moral character, as we
do to the modern duel, not mentioned in Scripture, because it is wholly a modern usage. But since God has
particularized so much about slaveholding, therefore,
honesty, humility, piety, require us to study his specific
teachings in preference to our supposed inferences, and
even in opposition to them. Here, then, we stand: Inspiration has once expressly authorized slaveholding.
Until a repeal is found equally express, it must be innocent.
~ 3. Christ applauds a Slaveholder.
Our Lord has thrown at least a probable light upon
his estimation of slaveholders by his treatment of the
7*
153
0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Centurion of Capernaum, and his slave. The story may
be found in Matthew viii. 5 to 13, and Luke vii. 2 to 10.
This person, though a Gentile and an officer of the Roman army, was, according to the testimony of his Jewish neighbours, a sincere convert to the religion of the
Old Testament, and a truly good man. He had a valued slave very sick, called in Matthew his "boy," (Trat?,)
a common term for slave in New Testament times;
but Luke calls him again and again his "slave," (6ovog'.)
Hearing of Christ's approach, he sent some of his Hebrew neighbours, (rulers of the synagogue,) to beseech
our Lord to apply his miraculous power for the healing
of his sick slave. A little later he appears himself, and
explains to Jesus, that it was not arrogance, but humility, which prevented his meeting him at first, with
his full confidence. For as he, though a poor mortal,
was enabled, by the authority of an officer and master,
to make others come and go at his bidding, so he knew
that Christ could yet more easily bid away his servant's
disease.  And therefore he had not deemed it necessary
to demand (what he was unworthy to receive) an actual
visit to his house. Hereupon Christ declares with delight, that he "had not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel." This was high praise indeed, after the faith of
a Nathanael, a John, a James, a Mary Magdalene, a
Martha, and a Lazarus. Yet this much-applauded man
was a slaveholder! But our Lord comes yet nearer to
the point in dispute. He speaks the word, and heals
the slave, thus restoring him to the master's possession
and use. Had the relation been wrong, here, now, was
an excellent opportunity to set things right, when he
had before him a subject so docile, so humble, so grate
I
,154 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
ful and trustful.  Should not Christ have said: "Honest Centurion, you owe one thing more to your sick
fellow-creature: his liberty.  You have humanely sought
the preservation of his being, which I have now granted; but it therefore becomes my duty to tell you, lest
silence in such a case should confirm a sinful error, that
your possession of him as a slave outrages the laws of
his being. I cannot become accomplice to wrong. The
life which I have rescued, I claim for liberty, for righteousness.  I expect it of your faith and gratitude, that
instead of begrudging the surrender, you will thank me
for enlightening you as to your error." But no; Christ
says nothing like this, but goes his way and leaves the
master and all the people blinded by his extraordinary
commendation of the slave-owner, and his own act in
restoring the slave to him, to blunder on in the belief
that slavery was all right.  Certain we are, that had
Dr. Channing, or Dr. Wayland, or the most moderate
Abolitionist, been the miracle-worker, he would have
made a very different use of the occasion.  However
he might have hesitated as to immediate and universal
emancipation, he would have felt that the opportunity
was too fair to be lost, for setting up a good strong
precedent against slavery. Hence we feel sure that
Christ and they are not agreed in the moral estimate of
the relation.
~ 4. The Apostles separate Slavery  and its Abuses.
We find the apostles everywhere treating slavery, in
Dne particular, as the Abolitionists refuse to treat it;
that is to say, distinguishing between the relation and
155 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
its incidental abuses. Our accusers now claim a license
from the well-known logical rule, that it is not fair to
argue from the abuses of a thing to the thing itself.
Hence they insist that in estimating slavery, we must
take it in the concrete, as it is in these Southern States,
with all that bad men or bad legislation may at any
time have attached to it. And if any feature attaching
to an aggravated case of oppression should be proved
wrong, then the very relation of master and slate must
be held wrong in itself. The bald and insolent sophistry of this claim has been already alluded to. By this
way it could be proved that marriage, civil government
and church government, as well as the parental relation, are intrinsically immoral; for all have been and
are abused, not only by the illegal license of individual
bad men, but by bad legislation. Just as reasonably
might a monk say to all Mohammedans, that marriage
is a sin, for the character of the institution must be
tried in the concrete, with all the accessaries which usually attend it in Mohammedan lands, and most certainly with such as are established by law; and among
these is polygamy, which is sinful; wherefore the marriage relation is wrong. And this preposterous logick
has been urged, although it has been proved that, in
the vast majority of cases in these States, masters did
preserve the relation to their slaves, without connect
ing with it a single one of the incidents, whether allowed by law or not, which are indefensible in a moral
view. To say that the relation was sinful, in all these
virtuous citizens, because some of the occasional incidents were sinful, is just as outrageous as to tell the
Christian mother- that her authority over her child is a
156 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
wicked tyranny, because some drunken wretch near by
has been guilty of child-murder. But our chief purpose
here is to show, that the apostles were never guilty of
this absurdity; and that, on the contrary, they separa ted between the relation and its abuses, just as Chris tian masters now claim to do.
Let the reader note then, that the type of slavery
prevailing where the apostles preached, was, compared
with ours, barbarous, cruel, and wicked in many of its
customary incidents, as established both by usage and
law. Slaves were regarded as having neither rights
nor legal remedies. No law protected their life itself
against the master. There was no recognized marriage
for them, and no established parental or filial relations.
The chastity of the female slave was unprotected by
law against her master. And the temper of society
sanctioned the not infrequent use of these powers, in
the ruthless separation of families, inhuman punishments, hard labour, coarse food, maiming, and even
murder. Such were the iniquities which history assures us connected themselves only too often with this
relation in the apostles' days, and were sanctioned by
human laws.
But did they provoke these inspired lawgivers to
condemn the whole institution? By no means. As we
have seen, they nowhere pronounce the relation of
master and slave an inherent wrong. They everywhere act as though it might be, and when not abused,
was, perfectly innocent. And that it might be innocent, they forbade to the members of the Christian
church all these abuses of it. Thus they separated between the relation and its abuses. Doubtless, the
157 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
standard which they had in view, in commanding masters to "render to their servants those things which
are just and equal," was the Mosaic law. WVe have seen
how far this was in advance of the brutalities permitted by pagan laws, and how it protected the life,
limbs, and chastity of servants among the Hebrews.
This law, being founded in righteousness, was in its
general spirit the rule of the New Testament church
also. When this separation is made by the apostles
between the relation and its abuses, we find that
the former includes, as its essentials, just these elements: a right to the slave's labour for life, coupled
with the obligation on the master to use it with justice
and clemency, and to recompense the slave with a
suitable maintenance; and on the slave's part, the obligation to render this labour with all good fidelity, and
with a respectful obedience. Is not this just the definition of slavery with which we set out?
~ 5. Slavery no Essential Religious Evil.
The Apostle Paul teaches that the condition of a
slave, although not desirable for its own sake, has no
essential bearing on the Christian life and progress;
and therefore, when speaking as a Christian minister,
and with exclusive reference to man's religious interests, he treats it as unimportant. The proof of this
statement may be found in such passages as the following: 1 Cor. xii. 13, "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles,
whether we be bond or free: and have all been made
to drink into one Spirit." Galat. iii. 28, "There is
158 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond norfree;
there is neither male nor female; for we are all one in
Jesus Christ."  So, substantially, says Colos. iii. 11.
But the most decisive passage is 1 Cor. vii. 20, 21: "Let
every man abide in the same calling wherein he was
called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for
it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather."
(Paul had just defined his meaning in the phrase "calling in which he was called," as being circumcised or
uncircumcised, bond or free.)
The drift of all these passages is to teach that a man's
reception by Christ and by the Church does not depend in any manner on his class or condition in secular
life; because Christianity places all classes on the
same footing as to the things of the soul, and offers to
all the same salvation. When, therefore, men come to
the throne of grace, the baptismal water, the communion table, distinctions of class are left behind them
for the time. Hence, these distinctions are not essential, as to the soul's salvation.  The  last passage
quoted brings out the latter truth more distinctly. Is
any Christian, at his conversion, a Jew? That circumstance is unimportant to his religious life. Was he a
Gentile?  That also is unimportant.  Was he  a slave
when converted to Christ?  Let not this concern him,
for it cannot essentially affect his religious welfare:
the road to heaven is as open to him as to the freeman.
But if a convenient and lawful opportunity to acquire
his freedom, with the consent of his master, occurs,
then freedom is to be preferred. Such is the meaning
found in the words by all sober expositors, including
those of countries where slavery does not exist. Who
159 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
can believe that the apostle would have taught thus, if
slavery had been an-iniquitous relation?
But when he tells the Christian servant that freedom
is to be preferred by him to bondage, if it may be rightfully acquired, we must remember the circumstances of
the age, in order to do justice to his meaning. The
same apostle, speaking of marriage, says, "Art thou
loosed from a wife? seek not to be bound." Does he
mean to set himself against the holy estate of matrimony, and to contradict the divine wisdom which said
that "it is not good for man to be alone?"  By no
means. He explains himself as advising thus "because
of the present distress."  Exposure  to persecution,
banishment, death, made it a step of questionable prudence at that time, to assume the responsibilities of a
husband and father.. Now the laws and usages of the
age as to slaves were, as we have seen, harsh and oppressive. But worse than this, many masters among
the heathen were accustomed to require of their slaves
offices vile, and even guilty; and scruples of conscience
on the slave's part were treated as an absurdity or rebellion.  In such a state of society, although the relation of servitude was not in itself adverse to a holy
life, the prudent man would prefer to be secured
against the possibility of such a wrong, by securing
his liberty if he lawfully could.  Moreover, society offered a grade, and a career of advancement, to the
"freedman" and his children.  Master and slave were
of the same colour; and a generation or two would obliterate by its unions the memory of the servile condition. But in these States, where the servant's rights
were so much better protected by law and usage, and
160 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
where the freed servant, being a black, finds himself
only deprived of his master's patronage, and still debarred as much as ever from social equality by his colour and caste, the case may be very different.. Freedom to the Christian slave here, may prove a loss.
Now who can believe that the Apostle Paul would
have.spoken thus of slavery, if he had thought it an
injurious and iniquitous relation, as hostile to religion,
as degrading to the victim's immortal nature, and as
converting him from a rational person into a chattel, a
human brute? He treats the condition of bondage, in
its religious aspects, precisely as he does accidents of
birth, being born circumcised or uncircumcised, a citizen of the Empire or a subject foreigner, male or female. We have a practical evidence how incompatible
such language is with the Abolitionist first principle,
in their very different conduct. Do they ever say to
the Christian slave: "Art thou called being a  se           nt,t
care not for it."  We trow not.  They -gWry in teaching every slave they can to break away from his bondage, even at the cost of robbery and murder. And Mr.
Albert Barnes informs his readers, that in his interviews with runaway slaves, he long ago ceased to instruct them that it was their duty to return to their
masters. It is evident, therefore, that this abolitionist
and St. Paul were not agreed.
~ 6. Slaveholdersfully Admitted to Church-membership.
We now proceed, in the sixth place, to a fact of still
greater force: that slaveholders were admitted by
Christ to full communion and good standing in the
Christian church. Let us first establish the fact. In
161 
A DEFENSE OF VIRGINIA.
Acts x. 5-17, we learn that the pious Cornelius had
at least two household servants, (otieTsrv, one of the
Septuagint words for domestic slave.) There is no
hint of his liberating them; but-the Apostle Peter tells
his brethren, Acts xi. 15-17, that he was obliged to admit him by baptism to the church, by the act of God
himself. Says he: "Forasmuch then as God gave
them the like gift as he did unto us," (power of miracles,) "who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what
was I, that I could withstand God?" So he baptized
him and his servants together. Again we find the
Epistle to the Ephesians addressed in the first verse,
"to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful brethren in Christ Jesus," with a blessing in the
second verse appropriate to none but God's children.
When, therefore, in subsequent parts of the Epistle,
we find any persons addressed in detail with apostolic
prec-epts, we conclude of course that they are included
in."the saints and faithful." But all expositors say
these terms mean church members in good standing.
If we find here any persons commanded to any duty,
we know that they are church members. This thought
confirms it, that St. Paul knew well that his office gave
him no jurisdiction over the external world. He had
himself said to the church  authorities  at Corinth,
"What have I to do, to judge them that are without?"
1 Cor. v. 12. Now, in the sixth chapter and ninth verse
of Ephesians, we find him, after commanding Christian
husbands, Christian wives, Christian parents, Christian
children, and Christian slaves, how to demean themselves, addressing Christian masters: "And ye, masters,
do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening,
162 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT      1
knowing that your Master also is in heaven," &c.
Here, therefore, must have been slaveholders in good
standing in this favourite church, which was organized
under St. Paul's own eye. The Epistle to the Colossians is also addressed "to the saints and faithful
brethren in Christ which are at Colosse:" and in ch. iv.
1, Christian slaveholders are addressed: "Masters, give
unto your servants that which is just and equal," &c.
There were, therefore, slaveholders in full communion
at Colosse. Again: Mr. Albert Barnes ('whom we cite
here for a particular reason which will appear in the
sequel) says correctly, that Timothy received his first
Epistle from St. Paul at Ephesus, three or four years
after that church was planted, having been left in
charge there. But in Ephes. vi. 2, St. Paul writes:
"And they" (i.e. these Christian slaves) "that have believing masters, let them not despise them because
they are brethren, but rather do them service because
they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit,"
(i. e. of the blessings -of redemption.)  "These things
teach and exhort." There were still slaveholders then,
in this church, three or four years after its organiza tion; and Timothy is commanded to have them treated
as brethren faithful and beloved, partakers of the fa vour of God.  The Epistle to the Ephesians, according
to the same Mr. Barnes, was written from four to seven
y-ears after thefounding of the church, and that to the
Colossians from ten to thirteen. So that this member ship of slaveholders had continued for these periods.
But we have a stronger case still. St. Paul, during
his imprisonment at Rome, addresses Philemon of Co losse thus: "Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and
'163
IV 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Timothy our brother, unto our dearly beloved and
fellow-labourer, (avvepyo',) and to our beloved Apphia
and Archippus, our fellow-soldier, and to the church in
thy house." Philemon, then, was a church member; his
house was a place of meeting for the church; he was
beloved of Paul; and last, he was himself a Christian
minister.'(Such is the only meaning of avvepyog here,
according to the agreement of all expositors, of whom
may be mentioned Bloomfield, Doddridge, and Dr.
Edward Robinson of New York.)  But Philemon was
a slaveholder: the very purpose of this affectionate
epistle was to send back to him a runaway slave.
Here, then, we' have a slaveholder, not only in the
membership, but ministry of the Church.
Now when we consider how jealously the apostles
guarded the purity of the church, it will appear to be
incredible that they should receive slaveholders thus, if
the relation were unrighteous. The terms of admission
(for adults) were the renunciation of all known sin,
and a credible repentance leading to reparation, where
ever practicable. Even the Baptist, who was unworthy
to loose the shoe-latchet of Christ, could say: "Bring
forth therefore the fruits meet for repentance." From
all the prevalent and popular sins of Pagan society, the
church members were'inexorably required to turn awty;,
else excommunication soon rid the church of their
scandal.  Thus, I Cor. v. 11, says: "But now I have
written unto you not to keep company, if any man that
is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an
idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner;
with such an one no not to eat." Christ separated his
church out of the world, to secure sanctity and holy
164 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
living. To suppose that he, or his apostles, could
avowedly admit and tolerate the membership of men
who persisted in criminal conduct, betrays the very
purpose of the church, and impugns the purity of the
Saviour himself. And here, all the evasions of Abolitionists are worthless; as when they say that Christ's
mission was not to meddle with secular relations, or to
interfere in politics; for the communion of the church
was his own peculiar domain; and to meddle with every
form of sin there was precisely his mission. Entrance
to the church was voluntary.  The terms of membership
were candidly published; the penalty for violating
them was purely spiritual, (mere exclusion from the
society,) and interfered with no man's political rights
or franchises.  So that within this spiritual society,
Christ had things his own way; there was no difficulty
from without that could possibly restrain his action;
and if he tolerated deliberate sin here, his own character is tarnished.
So cogent is this, that Mr. Albert Barnes, in Iris
'Notes' on 1 Tim. vi. 2, seeks to evade it thus: "Nor
is it fairly to be inferred from this passage that he
(Paul) meant to teach that they (masters) might continue this (i.e. slaveholding) and be entitled to all the
respect and confidence due to the Christian name, or be
regarded. as maintaining a good standing'in the church.
WhatevY —e-be  true on these points, the passage
before us only proves, that Paul considered that a man
who was a slaveholder might be converted, and be
spoken of as a'believer' or a Christian.  Many have
been converted in similar circumstances, as many have
in the practice of all other kinds of iniquity.  What
165 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
was their duty after their conversion was another question."
That is, as a murderer or adulterer might become a
subject of Almighty grace, so might a slaveholder; but
all three alike must cease these crimes, when converted,
in order to continue credible church members! To him
who has weighed the Scripture facts, this statement will
appear (as we shall find sundry others of this writer)
so obviously uncandid, that it is mere affectation to
refran from calling it by its proper name, dishonesty.
Thesimple refutation is in the fact, by which Mr. Barnes
has convicted himself, that the slaveholders were still
in the churches from three to thirteen years after they
were organized, with no hint from the apostle that they
were living in a-criminal relation; that they were still
beloved, approved, yea applauded, by Paul; and that
one of them was even promoted to the ministry. The
last case is particularly ruinous to Mr. Barnes. For
when did Philemo-n first acquire his slave Onesimus?
Before the former first joined the Church? Then Paul
permitted him to remain all these years a member, and
promoted him to the ministry, with the' sin of slavery'
unforsaken I Was it afterhe joined the church?  Then
a thing occurred which, on Mr. Barnes' theory, is impossible: because buying a slave, being criminal, must
have terminated his church membership. 
We thank God that it is true that some sinners of
every class are converted. But their conversidn must
be followed by a prompt repentance and forsaking of
their sins. Thus, it is said to the Corinthians, 1 Cor.
vi. 9 to 11: "Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
166 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of
you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye
are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the
Spirit of our God." According to the Abolitionists, another class of criminals fully deserving to be ranked in
the above black list slaveholders-enter the church
under Paul's administration, without beinfig washed or
sanctified. If slaveholding is wrong, it was their duty
on entering the Church to repent of, forsake and repair
this wrong; to liberate their slaves, and to repay them
for past exactions so far as possible. If this was their
duty, it was the duty of the apostle to teach it to them.
But he has not taught it: he has taken up the subject,
and merely taught these masters that they would discharge their whole duty by treating their slaves, as
slaves, with clemency and equity; and then he has continued them in the Church. It remains true, therefore,
that this allowed membership of slaveholders in the
apostolic churches, proves it no sin to own slaves. -
~ 7. Relative Duties of Masters and Slaves recognized.
Another fact equally decisive is, that the apostles
frequently enjoin on masters and slaves their relative
duties, just as they do upon husbands and wives, parents and children.  And these duties they enforce, both
on master and servant, by Christian motives. Pursuing
the same method as under the last head, we will first
establish the fact, and then indicate the use to be made
of it.
In Ephesians vi. 5 to 9, having addressed the other
167 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
classes, the Apostle Paul says: "Servants, be obedient
to them that are your masters according to the flesh,
with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart as
unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but
as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from
the heart; with good-will doing service as to the Lord
and not unto men; knowing that whatsoever good
thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the
Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do
the same things unto them, forbearing threatening:
knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither
is there respect of persons with him."
In Colos. iii. 22 to iv. 1, inclusive, almost the same
precepts occur in the same words, with small exceptions,
and standing in the same coiciexion with recognized
relations.   Let the reader compare for himself.  In 1
Tim. vi, 1, 2, we read: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphomed. And they that have believing masters, let them
not despise them because they are brethren; but rather
do them service, because they are faithful and beloved,
partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort."
So, in the Epistle to Titus, having directed him how to
instruct sundry other classes in their relative duties, he
says, ch. ii. 9 to12: "Exhort servants to be obedient
unto their own masters, and to please them well in all
things:  not answering again;  not purloining, but
showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. For the grace
of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all
men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and world
168 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
ly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly
in this present world," etc. So, the Apostle Peter, 1 Ep.
ii. 18, 19: "Servants, be subject to your masters with
all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the
froward., For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience towards God endure grief, suffering wrongfully."
The word for servant in all these passages is 6ovlo',
except the last, where the Apostle Peter uses otcerat. But
this is also proved to mean here, domestic slaves proper,
by the current Septuagint and New Testament usage,
by its relation to dearroTate, (masters,) which always
means in this connexion the proprietor of a slave, and
by the reference in the subsequent verse to being buffeted for a fault; an incident of the slave's condition,
rather than of the hired freeman's. Now the drift of all
these precepts is too plain to be mistaken. Slaves who
are church-members are here instructed that it is their
religious duty to obey their masters, to treat them with
deferential respect, and with Christian love where the
masters are Christian, and to render the service due
from a servant with fidelity and integrity, without requiring to be watched or threatened.   The motives
urged for all this are not carnal, but evangelical, a
sense of duty,,love for Christ and his doctrine, the
credit of which was implicated in their Christian conduct here, and the expectation of a rich reward from
Jesus Christ hereafter.
But the apostles are not partial. In like manner they
positively enjoin on masters who are church-members,
the faithful performance of their reciprocal duties to
their slaves. They must avoid a harsh and minatory
government: they must allot to the slave an equitable
8
4
169 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
maintenance and humane treatment, and in every respect must act towards him so as to be able to meet
that judgment, where master and slave will stand as
equals before the bar of Jesus Christ, at which social
rank has no weight. These precepts imply, of course,
that both master and servant are church-members;
otherwise they would not have been under the ecclesiastical authority of the apostles. They imply with
equal clearness, that the continuance of the relation was
contemplated as legitimate: for if this is terminated as
sinful, the duties of the relation are at an end, and such
precepts are so much breath thrown away.  Does any
sophist insist that the "rendering of that which is just
and equal" must not be less than emancipation? The
very words refute him; for then he would no longer be
his servant, and the master no longer master; so that
he could owe no duties as such. Further, the same
passage proceeds to enjoin on the slave the duties of a
continued state of servitude. We repeat: all these
passages contemplate the continuance of the relation
among church-members, as legitimate. What would
men say of the Christian minister who should instruct
the penitent gambler how to continue the stated practice of his nefarious art in a Christian manner: and the
penitent adulterer how to continue his guilty connexion
exemplarily? When such a lawgiver as Christ legislates concerning such a thing, there is but one thing he
can consistently enjoin: and that is its instant termination. If slaveholding is a moral wrong, the chief
guilt, of course, attaches to the master, because on his
side is the' power. When the apostles pass, then, from
the duties of servants to those of masters, it is unavoid
-17 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
able that they must declare the imperative duty of
emancipation. But they say not one word about it:
they seek to continue the relation rightfully. Therefore, either slaveholding is not wrong, or the apostles
were unfaithful. The explanation ofrthese passages,
which we have given, is that of all respectable expositors, especially the British, no friends of slavery.
The attempt is made to argue, that if this were correct, then the holy apostles would be implicated in a
connivance at the excesses and barbarities which, the
history of the times tells us, often attached t9 the servile condition. The answeris: that they condemn and
prohibit all the wrongs, as criminal, and leave the relation itself as lawful. No other defence can be set up
for their treatment of the conjugal and parental relations.   Antiquarians tell us they also were then deformed by great abuses. The wife and child were no
better than slaves. Over the latter the father had the
power of life and death, and of selling into bondage.
From the former he divorced himself at pleasure, and
often visited her with corporal punishment. How do
the apostles treat these facts? They recognize the relation and forbid its abuses. Shall any one say that
because these abuses were current, therefore they should
have denounced the domestic relations, and invented
some newfangled communism?  Or shall it be said
that, because they have not done this, they wink at the
wife-beatings, the child-murders, and the other barbarities so common in Greek and Oriental families?
We trow not. Why then should these absurd inferences be attached to their treatment of domestic slavery?
171 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
But the favourite evasion of these Scriptures is that
of Dr. Wayland: "The scope of these instructions to
servants is only to teach patience, fidelity, meekness,
and charity, duties which Christians owe to all men,
even their enemies." In like strain, Mr. Albert Barnes,
in his'Notes on Ephesians,' vi. 7, writes: "But let not a
master think, because a pious slave shows this spirit,
that therefore the slave feels the master is right in withholding his freedom; nor let him suppose, because religion requires the slave to be submissive and obedient,
that therefore it approves of what the master does. It
does this no more than it sanctions the conduct of Mary
and Nero, because religion required the martyrs to be
unresisting, and to allow themselves to be led to the
stake.   A conscientious slave may find happiness in
submitting to God, and doing His will, just as a conscientious martyr may.  But this does not sanction the
wrong, either of the slave-owner or of the persecutor."
It is difficult to restrain the expression of natural indignation at so shameless a sophism as this, which outrages at once the understanding of the reader and the
honour of Christ.  It represents the pure and benign
genius of Christianity as walking abroad, and findingoppressor and oppressed together, the oppressor avowedly within her reach, as well as his victim, as a subject of her spiritual jurisdiction and instruction.  To
the one she is represented as saying:  "Oh, injured
slave I glorify thy meek and lowly Saviour under this
unrighteous oppression, by imitating His patience."
Turning then to the other, who is present, and equally
subject to her authority, must she not, of course, give
the correlative injunction: "Oh, master I since thy yoke
172
t
I 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
is wicked cease instantly to persecute Christ in the
person of his follower." But no: abolitionism represents her as saying nothing at all on this point; but
merely dismissing his side of the case with the injunction to oppress equitably  The honest mind meets such
a statement, not only with the'Incredulus sum,' but
with the'Incredulus odi,' of the Latin satirist. And
the suffering victim of oppression could not but feel,
while he recognized the duty of patience, that the counterpart treatment of his oppressor by Christianity was
a foul injustice. The fact that Christ and apostles admitted these masters, with these slaves, to the same
communion, proves that the comment of Mr. Barnes is
preposterous. The fact that these Christian slaves are
commanded to treat these pretended oppressors as
"brethren, faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit," proves it. Do the apostles, while enjoining patience under the persecutions of a bloody Nero, admit
that Nero, with his brutality, to the same Christian
communion with the peaceful and holy victims, address
him as "saint and faithful in Christ Jesus," and instruct him to burn and tear the Christians for their faith,
in a godly manner? The comment is disproved by Peter, when he says that there were slave-owners who
were "good and gentle," as well as others who were
"froward." Does truth or common sense distinguish
"good and gentle"' persecutors?  It is disproved farther, by the fact that the apostles do not enjoin patience
only, on these servants, as on Christians forbearing under an injury; but they enjoin duty, obedience, and
fidelity also, as upon Christians paying reciprocal obligations. It is not patience under ruthless force, which
173
I 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
they require, as a tribute to Christ's honour; but it is
obedience due to the master's legitimate authority, and
that, a tribute due to the master also. Servants must
"show all good fidelity."  This implies an obligation
to which to be faithful. Fidelity does not exist where
there is no debt. To unrighteous exaction we may be
submissive; but fidelity has no place. But the crowning refutation is, that St. Paul sent back an escaped
slave to his master Philemon, from Rome to Colosse,
hundreds of miles away. Will any one say that the
duty of Christian submission and patience under wrongs
extends so far as to require an injured Christian to go
back several hundred miles, and hunt up his oppressor
in order to be maltreated again, after Providence had
enabled him to escape from his injuries? If Mr. Barnes
is correct, Onesimus should have claimed that he had
now availed himself of Christ's own command: "When
they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another;"
and was rightfully concealed in the midst of the vast
metropolis. This was requiring him to "turn the other
cheek" with a vengeance: to waive the right of peaceable escape which his Divine Lord had given him, and
go all the way to Asia to be unjustly smitten again!
There is this farther absurdity: the pious servant is required to stretch his forbearance to so Quixotic a degree, as to waive, not only the claim of forcible selfdefence, but that of legal protection. (Oh that the holy
Abolitionists had practised towards the injured South a
little tythe of this forbearance which their learned
scribe so consistently inculcates I) Is it Christ's requirement, that the Christian under oppression must refuse the shield of legal protection? Did Paul think
174 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
thus, when, prosecuted at the bar of Porcius Festus by
unscrupulous enemies, he claimed the rights of his citizenship with so admirable a union of forbearance and
courage? Now, if Messrs. Wayland and Barnes are
right, these oppressed slaves possessed a tribunal in
common with their oppressors, to which they could lawfully, peacefully, forgivingly, yet righteously summon
them: the church court. They could have demanded of
these authorities, with the strictest Christian propriety,
to use all their spiritual powers, so far as they went,
to induce the masters, their fellow-members, to give
them that liberty which was their due.  But, so exceedingly forbearing are they, that they not only forego
forcible resistance, but the peaceable claim of their ecclesiastical right, for fear they might be thought to act
in an impatient manner I A highwayman meets me in
a wood, and begins to beat me and rob me: I have a
weapon, but I forbear to use violence against him.
Meantime, the legal authorities pass by, and I also forbear to claim their protection under the law, lest it
should scandalize the amiable highwayman, and make
him think less favourably of my religion!
It may be well, in concluding this point, to notice
the plea that Christians were required by the apostles
to render not only patience and submission to the Emperor Nero, but also allegiance and hearty obedience.
Yet none will say that Nero was a righteous ruler.
We reply, the case is precisely in our favour: for it
proves the proposition exactly parallel to ours, that
civil government is a lawful institution, notwithstanding it is abused.  The government of the Coesars was
providentially the defacto one, and Nero, bad as he
iz5, 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
was, its recognized head. As such, all his magisterial
acts which were not specifically contrary to God's law,
were legitimate, and were the proper objects of the
civic obedience of the Christian subject. Otherwise,
the apostles would never have exacted it for him. The
instance does imply, therefore, that civil government is
a lawful relation; and this is precisely what we infer
from the parallel instances of obedience enjoined on
servants to masters. If Abolitionists are not willing to
argue that the relation Qf ruler and subject is sin per se,
notwithstanding the obedience required to Nero, they
cannot argue from their proposed analogy between
Nero's cruelties and slaveholding. But an equally conclusive reply is, that apostles never admitted a Nero,
with his barbarities in full sway, to the same communion-table with his patient Christian victims, commanding the latter to forbear as towards a wrongdoer, and
yet failing to give him the correlative command, to
cease the wrongdoing.
~ 8. Philemon and Onesimus.
The Epistle to Philemon is peculiarly instructive and
convincing as to the moral character of slavery. This
Abolitionists betray, by the distressing wrigglings and
contortions of logic, to which they resort, in the vain
attempt to evade its inferences. The whole Epistle
need not be recited. The apostle, after saluting Philemon as a brother and fellow-minister, and commending
him in terms of peculiar beauty, warmth, and affection,
for his eminent piety, and his hospitalities and charities to Christians, proceeds thus, v. 8 to 19: "Though
I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that
176 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
which is convenient, yet, for love's sake, I rather
beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged,
and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. I beseech
thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in
my bonds; which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me; whom I
have sent again: thou, therefore, receive him, that
i      s,       mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained
with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered
unto me in the bonds of the Gospel. But without
thy mind would I do nothing-. that thy benefit should
not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou
shouldst receive him forever; not now as a servant,
but                    above a servant,  a  brother beloved, especially to
m      e,       but how much more unt o  thee, both in the flesh,
and in the Lord. If thou count me therefore, a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee,
o         r oweth thee aught,          put  that on mine account; I Paul
have written it- with mine own hand, I will repay it,"
&c. That it may not be supposed we give an explanation of these words warped to suit our own views, we
will copy the very words of the judicious Dr. Thomas
Scott,                                   one of the most fair and reasonable of expositors,
and a declared enemy of slavery. In his introduction
to the Epistle, he says: "Philemon seems to have been
a Christian of some eminence, residing at Colosse,
(Col. iv. 9, or 17,) who had been converted under St.
Paul's ministry, (19,) perhaps during his abode at
Ephesus, (Acts xix. 10.) When the apostle was imprisoned at Rome, Onesimus, a slave of Philemon, having, as it is generally thought, been guilty of some dis
)
40  
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
honesty, left his master and fled to that city, though at
the distance of several hundred miles.  When he came
thither, curiosity or some such motive induced him to
attend on St. Paul's ministry, which it pleased God to
bless for his conversion. After he had given satisfactory proof of a real change, and manifested an excellent
disposition, by suitable behaviour, which had greatly
endeared him to Paul, he judged it proper to send him
back to his master, to whom he wrote this epistle, that
he might procure Onesimus a more favourable reception
than he could otherwise have expected." Notes on v.
12 to 16: "Onesimus was Philemon's legal property,
and St. Paul had required, and prevailed with him, to
return to him, having made sufficient trial of his sincerity: and he requested Philemon to receive him with
the same kindness as he would the aged apostle's own
son according to the flesh, being equally dear to him,
as his spiritual child. He would gladly have kept him
at Rome, to minister to him in his confinement, which
Onesimus would willingly have done in the bonds of
the Gospel, being attached to him from Christian love
and gratitude; and as he knew that Philemon would
gladly have done him any service in person, if he had
been at Rome, so he would have considered Onesimus
as ministering to him in his master's stead. But he
would not do any thing of this kind without his consent, lest he should seem to extort the benefit, and
Philemon should appear to act from necessity, rather
than from a willing mind. And though he had hopes
of deriving benefit from Onesimus' faithful service, at
some future period, by Philemon's free consent, yet he
was not sure that this was the Lord's purpose concern
178
4w 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
ing him; for perhaps he permitted him to leave his master for a season in so improper a manner, in order that,
being converted, he might be received on his return
with such affection, and might abide with Philemon
with such faithfulness and diligence, that they should
choose to live together the rest of their lives as fellowheirs of eternal felicity. In this case he knew that
Philemon would no longer consider Onesimus merely as
a slave, but view him as'above a slave, even a brother
beloved.' This he was become to Paul in an especial
manner, who had before been entirely a stranger to him;
how much more, then, might it be supposed that he
would be endeared to Philemon, when he became well
acquainted with his excellency I seeing he would be
near to him both in the flesh as one of his domestics,
and in the Lord, as one with him in Christ by faith."
Thus far Dr. Scott. These are substantially the
views given of this epistle by Calvin, Whitby, Henry,
Doddridge, McKnight, Hodge, and others: none of
whom were slaveholders, or friends of the institution.
Now, our purpose is not to vindicate the intrinsic innocence of slaveholding here, by dwelling again upon
the just arguments, which have been already stated:
that a slaveholder here receives from an inspired
apostle the highest Christian commendations; and that
he is addressed as a brother minister in the church.
The Epistle presents still more emphatic evidence:
First, if the relation is unrighteous, and the master's
authority unfounded, then the only ground upon which
the duty of the slave's submission rests, is that of
Christian forbearance.  When the wicked bonds were
once happily evaded, and the oppressed person in
179
hi~ 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
safety, that ground of obligation was wholly at an end.
A captive has been unlawfully detained by a gang of
highwaymen, for the purpose of exacting ransom. He
has given them the slip, and is secure. Is there any
obligation to go back, because, while there, there was
an obligation to refrain from useless violence and
bloodshed? Let us even suppose that the means of
the captive's escape were in some point immoral: does
this fact make it his duty to go back and submit himself to the freebooters? By no means. To God he
ought to repent of whatever was immoral in the manner of his escape: but he is bound to make no reparation for it to the robbers, because they had no right to
detain him at all. But we see St. Paul here enjoining
on the newly-awakened conscience of Onesimus, the
duty of returning to his master. That the apostle sent
him, and that he went back under a sense of moral obligation, is proved by two facts: St. Paul had a strong
desire to retain him, being greatly in need of an affectionate domestic, inl his infirm, aged, and imprisoned condition, but he felt that he must not. (Verse 13.) Paul
had no power, except moral power, to make Onesimus
go back, being himself a helpless captive; so that the
latter must have been carried back by a sense of duty.
Hence this instance proves, beyond a cavil, that the
relation of master and servant was moral; it lies above
the level of all those quibbles which we have been
compelled to rebut.
Second: the transaction clearly implies  a moral
propriety or ownership in Onesimus' labour, as pertaining to Philemon; of which the latter could not be rightfully deprived without his consent.  For proof, see the
iso
I 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
fact that Paul says, (v. 14,) "Without thy mind I would
do nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it were of
necessity, but willingly." The attendance of Onesimus
on Paul, i.e., the bestowal of his labour; would have
been, if given, Philemon's "benefit" to Paul. If, as
Abolitionists say, Onesimus belongedto himself, how
could it be Philemon's benefit, or benefaction? See also
the fact that St. Paul (v. 18) explicitly recognizes the
justice of Philemon's claim to indemnity for Onesimus'
bad conduct.  In order to smoothe the way for hispardon by his justly offended master, he proposes to
pay this himself, whatever it may be, and (v. 19) gives
the force of a pecuniary bond to his promise, by writing
and signing it with his own hand: (the rest of the
Epistle, as the most of Paul's, being evidently written
by an amanuensis.)  Some expositors, indeed, explain
the 18th verse by supposing that Onesimus, when running away, had stolen something from Philemon. There
is not a particle of evidence for this in the narrative;
and -it is a most unsafe method of explaining the Scriptures, to do it by bringing in gratuitous surmises. But
be this as it may, Paul's language covers both suppositions, of debt for his delinquent services, and retention
of his master's property: ("If he hath wronged thee,
or oweth thee any thing.") Is it objected that St. Paul
suggests, v. 19th, that gratitude ought to cause Philemon to forego the exaction of such a vicarious payment
from him? The reply is, that the very nature of this
plea implies most strongly the legal completeness of
Philemon's title to the compensation. A poor man is
sued for a debt.  His only answer is, that he thinks the
suitor ought to be generous enough to remit this debt
181
I::",:: 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
to him, inasmuh as he had once saved that suitor's
life. Surely this plea is itself an admission that the
debt is legal; and if the claimant chooses to be ungracious enough to press it under the circumstances, it
must be paid. Moreover, Philemon's debt of gratitude
was, thus far, to Paul, and not to Onesimus. Paul's
stepping under the burden of his debt was an act of
voluntary generosity only. The apostle makes no claim
of any obligation, even of courtesy, from Philemon tc
his delinquent slave.
But if Onesimus' labour was Philemon's property, of
which he could not be rightfully deprived without his
own consent, and for the loss of which he was entitled
to an equivalent, slaveholding cannot be in itself unlawful. We have here a recognition of the very essence
of the relation.
This case is so fatal to the theory of all Abolitionists
who admit the canonical authority of the Epistle, that
desperate efforts are made to pervert its meaning. Mr.
Albert Barnes, Corypheus of these expository sophists,
says in one of his comments, that it does not appear
from the Epistle that Paul really sent Onesimus back
to his master at all!  "There is not the slightest evidence that he compelled, or even urged him to go. The
language is just such as would have been used on the
supposition, either that he suggested to him to go and
bear a letter to Colosse, or that Onesimus desired to go,
and that Paul sent him agreeably to his request. Compare Philip. ii. 25, Col. iv. 7, 8. But Epaphroditus and
Tychicus were not sent against'their own will; nor is
there any more reason to think that Onesimus was."
Mr. Barnes then adds the notable reason, that Paul 
THE NEW TESTAMIENT ARGUMENT.
had no sheriff or constable to send*Onesimus by; so
that if he did not choose to return, he could not compel
him. But the stubborn fact is, that Onesimus went:
and it must be accounted for. This author's account is,
that he probably found he had not mended his condition
by running away, and so, desired to return to regain
his comfortable home; whereupon Paul availed himself
of the occasion to write to his friend. This solution is
not particularly honourable to the religious character
of either party: we shall neither insult the apostle by
adopting, nor the understanding of readers by refuting
it. As to Paul's'sending' of Epaphroditis to Phillippi,
and Tychicus to Colosse, we note that the word is not
the same with the one used of Onesimus. This is
aveie'ftia; and it is expressly defined by Robinson's
Lexicon as an authoritative sending up, or remitting to
a higher tribunal, such as the sending of Paul by
Festus to Cesar, Acts xxv. 21.  Further, Paul did'send'
these two brethren, not indeed as slaves are sent, but
by his apostolic authority, to which they doubtless
cheerfully responded. Paul had no physical force by
which to drive Onesimus all the way from Rome to
Colosse; but there is such a thing as moral power, and
the fact that the conscience of the sent freely seconds
the righteous authority of the sender, surely does not
prove this authority to be naught. How perverse must
he be, who can see in the words, "whom I (Paul) have
sent," nothing but that Onesimus sent himself! Is not
this the state of facts, plain to any honest mind: that
Paul instructed him it was his duty to return to his
lawful master, and as his spiritual teacher told him to
do so? And this injunction the converted Onesimus
cheerfully obeyed.
183 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Mr. Barnes alm says, it is not proved that Onesimus
was a literal slave at all: he may have been a hired
servant or apprentice. Here, as will appear more fully,
he expressly contradicts himself. But as to the assumption, we reply, that Onesimus is called, v. 16, dovxo', a
name never given to the hired servant: that he is sent
back to his rightful owner, a thing which necessarily
implies his slavery: that St. Paul intercedes for him;
and that he recognizes his master's property in his
labour. The whole company of expositors, ancient and
modern, until Mr. Barnes, have declared that Onesimus
was Philemon's slave.
But others again, following the same notable guide,
learn that he was manumitted by the letter of Paul; so
that they find here, not a justification of the slaveholder,
but an implied rebuke of slavery. Thus contradictory
is error I Just now he was not a slave at all: now he
is a slave manumitted; and that by one who had no
power to do it. The ground claimed for the latter position is, v. 16, "Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved." Now, the obvious sense of
these words is, that Philemon should now receive Onesimus back, not as a slave only, but as both a slave
and Christian brother. For proof: By what law could
Paul manumit another man's servant?  And he had
admitted Philemon's rightful authority, v. 10, by saying:
"I beseech thee for my son Onesimus." Why beseech,
if he might have commanded?  If Paul had a right to
emancipate, why did he send him back at all, when
every other motive prompted to keep him? He again
disclaims such right, v. 14, "But without thy mind I
would do nothing." Still another proof appears, v. 18,
184 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
19,  where St. Paul fully recognizes Onei'mus' continued
servitude by undertaking to pay for his delinquencies.
The Epistle then adds, that Philemon was "to receive
him back forever," v. 15, i.e., for life. The residence
of a free denizen or dependent could not be defined
as for life; because he would go away whenever he
pleased. And last, St. Paul expressly declares that this
life-long relation was to be political as well as spirit-.
ual, both that of a servant and fellow-Christian-" How
much more (beloved) now unto thee both in the flesh and
in the Lord."
Such are the wretched quibblings by which abolitionism seeks to pervert the plain meaning of God's
Word, as clearly apprehended by the great current of
Christian expositors, both ancient and modern, Greek,
Latin, and English. We almost feel that an apology is
due to the enlightened reader, for detaining him with
the formal exposure of these miserable follies; but our
promise was to display the thorough emptiness of our
opponents.
~ 8. St. Paul reprobates Abolitionists.
One passage of the New Testament remains to be
noticed. It is that which commands the exclusion of
Abolitionist teachers from church communion, 1 Tim.
vi. 3-5. St. Paul had just enjoined on this young minister the giving of proper moral instruction to servants.
The pulpit was to teach them the duty of subordination
to masters, as to rightful authority; and if those masters
were also Christians, then the obligation was only the
stronger. See v. 1, 2. The apostle then proceeds, v. 3,
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to whole
185
0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
some words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and to the doctrine which is according to godliness,"
(the opposite teaching of abolitionism contradicts
Christ's own word,) "he is proud, knowing nothing,
but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse
disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of
the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such
withdraw thyself."
The more carefully these words of the Holy Ghost are
considered, the more exceedingly remarkable will they
appear. Doubtless, every reader of previous ages has
felt a slight trace of wonder, that the apostle should
have left on record a rebuke of such particularity, sternness, and emphasis, when there appeared nothing in the
opinions or abuses of the Christian world, of sufficient
importance quite to justify it. We have no evidence
that, either in the primitive or medieval church, any
marked disposition prevailed to assail the rights of
masters over their slaves, to such extent as to threaten
the disorganization of civil society or the dishonouring
of Christianity thereby. This denunciation of the apostle
seems to have been sufficient to give the quietus to the
spirit of abolition, so long as any reverence for inspiration remained. Even while the policy of the Roman
Church and clergy was steadily directed to the extinctio'n of feudal slavery in Western Europe, it does not
appear that the doctors of that church assailed the master's rights or preached insubordination to the slaves.
Why then did St. Paul judge it necessary to leave on
record so startling a denunciation? The question is
answered by the events of our age: these words were
186 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
written for us on whom these ends of the world have
come. And we have here a striking proof that his pen
was guided by omniscient foreknowledge. The God
who told Paul what to write, foresaw that though the
primitive church stood in comparatively slight need of
such admonitions, the century would come, after the
lapse of eighteen ages, when the church would be invaded and defiled bythe deadly spirit of modern abolitionism, a spirit perverse, blind, divisive and disorganizing,
which would become the giant scourge and opprobrium
of Christianity. Therefore has this stern warning been
recorded here, and left standing until events should
make men understand both its wisdom and the lineaments of the monster which it foreshadowed. The
learned Calvin, and the amiable Henry, in explaining
the Epistle to Philemon, allude to the question: Why
should this short letter, which directly touches no publick concernment of the churches, written on a personal
topick from Paul to his friend, be preserved among the
canonical Scriptures by God's Spirit and providence?
They answer, that it was placed there because, although
short and of private concernment, it teaches us many
pleasing lessons of Paul's condescension and courtesy,
and above all, of the adaptation of Christianity to visit,
purify, and elevate the lowest and vilest of the ranks of
men. This is true, so far as it goes; but another part
of God's purpose is now developed.  He left this little
Epistle among his authoritative words, because he foresaw that the day would come when the Church would
need just the instructions against insubordination,
which are here presented in a concrete case.
Those who have seen and suffered by modern abol
187 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
itionism best know, how astonishingly true is the picture here drawn of it by the Divine limner.  God here
declares that the principles of the lawfulness of slavery,
the rights of masters, and the duty of obedience in
slaves, are wholesome, and according to godliness.. In
addition, the sacred authority of our Lord Jesus Christ
is claimed for them.  The Abolitionist who assails these
teachings is described as a man proud, yet ignorant.
This combined arrogance and vindictiveness, with ignorance of the true facts and merits of the case upon
which they presume to dictate, are proverbial in modern
abolitionism, according to the testimony of neutral par-.
ties, and even of some of their own clique.. With a
stupid superciliousness, equally ludicrous and offensive,
they revile men wiser and better than themselves, and
pass an oracular verdict upon questions of which they
know nothing. They are doting about questions
and strifes of words: that is, as the original word
means, their minds are morbid with logomachies and
idle debates, and corrupted by prejudice and the spirit
of disputation. ("Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds.") Those who have read thus far in this discussion have seen, in the prejudiced sophisms which we
have been compelled to quote for refutation, sufficient
evidence of the perverse, erroneous, and disputatious
spirit of abolitionism. Their dogmas are not supported
by the testimony of Scripture, nor the lights of practical experience, nor sound political philosophy; but by
vain and Utopian theories of human rights, and philosophy falsely so called. The fruit of their discussions
has been naught but "envy, strife, railings, and evil
surmisings." The fact betrays itself in a thousand
188 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
ways, that envy of the slaveholder and his supposed advantages and power, is the root of much of their zeal.
Hence the epithets of "aristocrat," "lordly slaveholder,"
"Southern nabob," as ridiculously false to fact as envious, which firm so large a part of the staple of their
abuse.   They hate us because they suppose we possessed a privilege of which they were deprived. The
angry and divisive tendencies of abolitionism  have
manifested themselves but too familiarly in the rending of churches, in the awakening of fierce contention wherever it has appeared, in the destruction of the
union both of law and of love between the American
States, and in a gigantic war which has filled a continent with woe and crime. And the remaining trait of
"railings" is verified by the fact that these professed
friends of humanity have. exlusted the most inhuman
stores of vituperation upon a class of Christian people
whom none can know without loving for their purity
and benevolence. There is no sect that knows how to
scold so virulently as the Abolitionists.  The apostle
adds that they are "men of corrupt minds, and destitute
of the truth." Now it is notoriously the fact that this
sect, although claiming to be the special advocates of
righteousness, have ever prosecuted their ends by unprincipled and false means. Their party action has
been hypocritical and unscrupulous.  Their main weapons have been slanders.  And the tendency to mendacity has since been illustrated on a scale so grand in
the recent war, by falsifications of fact, diplomatic
treacheries, and wholesale breaches of covenant, that
the accuracy of the apostle's description becomes startling. It would seem that when once a man is swayed
189 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
by this spirit fully, he is under a fatality to speak untruth, whether he be prime-minister, historian, official
of government, or divine.
The last trait of abolitionism which the apostle
draws, is one which, at the first glance, strikes the observer with surprise, but which is fully verified by the
reality. This is the intensely mercenary spirit of the
sect. "Supposing that gain is godliness." Without
due reflection, one would suppose that a party animated as much as this is by an intense and sincere fanaticism, and that, a fanaticism of pretended humanity,
wnhatever violences it might commit, would at least be
free from the vice of a calculated avarice. But the
suppleness of fanaticism in affiliating with every other
vice, is not duly appreciated; it is a fact, true, if unexpected, that genuine fanaticism can tolerate any thing
except the peculiar object of its hate, and that it is
compatible with supreme selfishness. For what is fanaticism but selfishness acting under the forms of pride
with its offspring censoriousness, the lust of power,
envy, and dogmatism?  Modern events verify the apostle's picture: the religion and humanitarianism of abolition are only a covert avarice. The people of the American States are notorious for their worship of wealth,
just in proportion as they are swayed by the anti-slavery furor. No party has ever appeared on the stage
of Federal politics, whose ends were so avowedly selfish
and mercenary. The wrongs of the slave have been
the pretext, sectional and personal aggrandizement the
true ends. That party, under the phase of "free-soil,"
has thrown off the mask, and avowed the declaration
that the true meaning of their opposition to the rights
190 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
of Southern masters in the territories is, that "the soil
of America belongs to the white mail;" and the poor
negro, though now a native of it, is begrudged a home
and a living upon it. There is no class of people in
America which has expended so little of its money for
the actual advantage of the black race, as the abolitionists. Usually, the history of the case has been, that
they,vould give of their money, neither to ransom a
slave from bondage, nor to aid the cause of African colonization, nor to assist a distressed free negro of their
own section: the only use to which they can be induced
to apply it is the printing of vituperations against the
masters. It was the testimony of the fugitive slaves
themselves, that the philanthropy of the Abolitionists
extended only to seducing them from their homes;
thenceforth their whole thought was to make gain of
their godliness. The crowning evidence, however, of
the mercenary spirit of this party is in this fact, that
their advent to power in the Federal government of the
United States has been, according to the testimony of
their mutual recriminations, the epoch of an unprecedented reign of peculation and official corruption. Such
is the picture of abolitionism as drawn by the Apostle
Paul, and verified in America -in our day. It is our
privilege and our wisdom to obey his closing injunction, " From such withdraw thyself," that we may not
become partakers of their sins.  From this stern and
just denunciation, it may be learned how utterly the
New Testament is opposed to the whole doctrine and
spirit of the party.
We have now passed in review every passage in the
New Testament, in which domestic slavery is directly
191 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
treated, and we have seen that they every one imply
the innocency of the institution. We have discussed
many of the evasions by which Abolitionists attempt
to escape these testimonies, and have found them utterly unsound. There remain two pleas, of more general application to the New Testament argument, to
which the ablest of their advocates seem to attach
prime importance. To these we will now attend.
~ 9. The Golden Rule Compatible with Slavery.
One of these general objections to our New Testament argument is the following. They say, Christ
could not have intended to authorize slavery, because
the tenour and spirit of His moral teachings are opposed to it. The temper He currently enjoins is one of
fraternity, equality, love, and disinterestedness. But
holding a fellow-being in bondage is inconsistent with
all these. Especially is the great "Golden Rule" incompatible with slavery. This enjoins us to do unto our
neighbour as we would that he should do unto us.
Now, as no slaveholder would like to be himself enslaved, this is a clear proof that we should not hold
others in slavery.  Hence, the interpretations which
seem to find authority for slavery in certain passages
of the New Testament, must be erroneous, and we are
entitled to reject them without examination.
Abolitionists usually advance this with a disdainful
confidence, as though he who does not admit its justice
were profoundly stupid. - But it is exceedingly easy to
show that it is a bald instance ofpetitio principii, and it
is founded on a preposterous interpretation of the Golden
Rule, which every sensible Sabbath-school boy knows
192 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
how to explode.  Its whole plausibility rests on the a
priori assumption of prejudice, that slaveholding cannot
but be wicked, and on a determination not to see it otherwise. Our refutation, which is demonstrative, reveals
the Socinian origin and Rationalistic character of these
opinions. Socinianism harbours loose views of the
authority of inspiration, and especially of that of the
Old Testament. It scruples not to declare, that these
venerable documents contain many admixtures of human error, and wherever it finds in them any thing it
does not like, it boldly rejects and repudiates it. Moreover, Socinianism having denied the divinity of our Redeemer Christ, finds itself compelled to attempt an answer to the hard question: Wherein, then, is Hie greater
than Moses, David, or Isaiah?  And in what respect
does He fulfil those transcendent representations which
the Scriptures correctly give of His superiority of person and mission?  The answer which orthodoxy makes
is plain and good: That it is because He is God as
well as man, while they were but sinful men, redeemed
and inspired; and that His mission is to regenerate
and atone, while theirs was only to teach. But the
answer which Socinianism has devised is in part this:
Christ was commissioned to reform the moral system
of the Old Testament, and to teach a new law of far
superior beauty, purity, and benevolence. Thus, they
have a corrupt polemical motive to misrepresent and
degrade the Old Testament law, in order to make a
N6odus vindice dignus, for their imaginary Christ, who
does nothing but teach. To effect this, they seize on
all such passages as those in the "Sermon on the
Mount," which refute Pharisaic glosses, and evolve the
9
193
I
4 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
true law of love. This is the mint from which abolitionists have borrowed their objections against our
Old Testament defence of slaveholding; such as this,
that however it may have been allowed to the Hebrews,
by their older and ruder law, "because of the hardness
of their hearts," it is condemned by the new law of
love, taught by Jesus. Now, our refutation (and it is
perfect) is, that this law of love was just as fully announced by slaveholding Mloses as it is by Jesus; in
terms just as full of sweetness, benevolence, and universal fraternity. Yea more, the very words of Jesus
cited by them and their Socinian allies, as the most
striking instances of the superior mildness and love
of His teachings, are in most cases quoted from Moses
himself I The authority by which Christ enforced them
upon His Jewish auditors was Moses' own!  Such is
the shameful ignorance of these fanatics concerning
the real contents of that Old Testament which they depreciate. Thus, Christ's epitome of the whole law into
the two commands to love God and our neighbour, is
avowedly quoted from "the law," i.e., the Pentateuch.
See Matthew xxii. 36 to 39, and Mark xii. 28 to 33.  It
may be found in Deut. vi. 4 and 5, and in Levit. xix. 18.
Even the scribe of Mark) xii. 32, Pharisee as he was,
understood better than these modern Pharisees of abolitionism, that Christ's ethics were but a reproduction
of Moses'.  He avows the correctness of Christ's ren dering of the Pentateuch law, and very intelligently
adduces additional evidence of it by evident allusion
to 1 Samuel xv. 22, and Hosea vi. 6. Again: does
Christ inculcate forgiveness of injuries, benefactions
towards enemies, and the embracing of aliens in our
0
194 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
philanthropy as well as kindred and fellow-citizens?
H  does but cite them to the authority of Moses in
Levit. xix. 18, Exod. xxiii. 4, 5, Levit. xxiv. 22, Exod.
xxii. 21,'xxxiii. 9. For here their great prophet himself
had taught them that revenge must be left to God, that
an embarrassed or distressed enemy must be kindly
assisted, and that the alien must be treated in all humane respects as a fellow-citizen, under a lively and
sympathetic sense of their own sufferings when they
were oppressed aliens in Egypt. The Golden Rule, as
stated by our Saviour, is but a practical application of
the Mosaic precept "fo love our neighbours as ourselves," borrowed from Moses. In Matt. vii. 12, Christ,
after giving the Golden Rule, adds, "for this is the law
and the prophets." That is, the Golden Rule is the
summary of the morality of, the Pentateuch and Old
Testament prophets.  We repeat that there is not one
trait of love, of benevolence, of sweet expansive fraternity, of amiable equity, contained in any of Christ's
precepts or parables, that is not also found in the Laws
of Moses. Their pnoral teachings are absolutely at
one, in principle; and so they must be, if both are from
the unchangeable God.  To say otherwise is a denial
of inspiration; it is infidelity; and indeed abolitionism
is infidelity. Our reply, then, is, that Christ's giving
the law of love cannot be inconsistent with his authorizing slaveholding; because Moses gave the same law of
love, and yet indisputably authorized slaveholding. We
defy all the sophisms of the whole crew of the perverse
and destitute of the truth, to obscure, much less to rebut
this answer, without denying the inspiration and even
the common truthfulness of Moses. But that they will
195
0
-W 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
not stickle to do: for what do they care for Moses, or
Christ either, in comparison of their fanatical idol? -
But a more special word should be devoted to the argument from the Golden Rule.  The sophism is so bald,
and the clear evolution of it has been given so often,
even in the humblest manuals of ethics prepared for
school-boys, that it is tiresome to repeat its exposure.
But as leading Abolitionists continue to advance the
oft-torn and tattered folly, the friends of truth must continue to tear it to shreds. The whole reasoning of the
Abolitionists proceeds on the absurd idea, that any caprice or vain desire we might entertain towards our
fellowman, if we were in his place, and he in ours,
must be the rule of our conduct towards him, whether
the desire would be in itself right or not. This absurdity has been illustrated by a thousand instances. On
this rule, a parent who, were he a child again, would be
wayward and self-indulgent, commits a clear sin in
restraining or punishing the waywardness of his child,
for this is doing the opposite of what he would wish
were he again the child. Judge and sheriff commit a
criminal murder in condemning and executing  the
most atrocious felon; for were they on the gallows
themselves, the overmastering love of life would very
surely prompt them to desire release. In a word,
whatever ill-regulated desire we are conscious of having, or of being likely to have, in reversed circumstances, that desire we are bound to make the rule of
our action in granting the parallel caprice of any other
man, be he bore, beggar, highwayman, or what not.
On this understanding, the Golden Rule would become
any thing but golden; it would be a rule of iniquity;
196
0o 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
for instead of making impartial equity our regulating
principle, it would make the accidents of man's criminal caprice the law of his acts.  It would become
every man's duty to enable all other men to do whatever his own sinful heart, mutatis mutandis, might
prompt.
The absurdity of the abolitionist argument may be
shown, again, by "carrying the war into Africa."  We
prove from it, by a process precisely as logical as
theirs, that emancipation is a sin. Surely the principle
of the Golden Rule binds the slave just as much as the
master. If the desire which one would feel (mutateis
mutandis) must govern each man's conduct, then the
slave may be very sure that, were he the master, he
would naturally desire to retain the services of the
slaves who were his lawful property. Therefore, according to. this abolition rule, he is morally bound to
decline his own liberty; i.e., to act towards his master
as he, were he the master, would desire his slave to act.
It is clear, then, that our Saviour, by His Golden
Rule, never intended to establish so absurd a law. The
rule of our conduct to our neighbour is not any desire
which we might have, were we to change places; but
it is that desire which we should, in that case, be morally
entitled to have. To whatsoever treatment we should
conscientiously think ourselves morally entitled, were
we slaves instead of masters, all that treatment we as
masters are -morally bound to give our servants, so far
as ability and a just regard for other duties enables
us. Whether that treatment should include emancipation, depends on another question, whether the desire
which we, if slaves, should very naturally feel to be
197 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
emancipated, is a righteous desire or not; or, in other
words, whether the obligation to service is rightful.
Hence, before the Golden Rule can be cited as enjoining
emancipation, it must first be settled whether the master's title is unrighteous. The Apostle Paul gives precisely the true application of this rule when he says:
"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just
and equal." And this means, not emancipation from
servitude, but good treatment as servants; which is
proven by the fact that the precept contemplates the
relation of masters and servants as still subsisting. All
this is so clear, that it would-be an insult to the intelligence of the reader to tarry longer upon the sophism.
We only add, that the obvious meaning above put upon
the Golden Rule is that given to it by all sensible expositors, such as Whitby, Scott, Henry, before it received an application to this controversy. Yet, though
this obvious answer has been a hundred times offered,
abolitionists still obtrude the miserable cheat, in
speeches, in pamphlets, in tracts, as though it were the
all-sufficient demonstration of the anti-Christian character of slavery. They will doubtless continue a hundred times more to offer it, to gull none, however, except-the wilfully blind.
~ 10. Was Christ A.4fraid to Condemn Slavery?
The other general evasion of the New Testament argument for the lawfulness of slavery, is to say: That
Jesus Christ and his apostles did not indeed explicitly
condemn slavery; but that they forbore from doing so
for prudential reasons. They saw, say these abolitionists, that it was a sin universally prevalent, en
198 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
twined with the whole fabrick of human society, and
sustained by a tremendous weight of sinful prejudice
and self-interest. To denounce it categorically would
have been to plunge the infant church, at its feeble beginning, into all the oppositions, slanders, and strifes
of a great social revolution, thus jeopardizing all its
usefulness to the souls of men. For this reason, Christ
and his apostles wisely refrained from direct attack,
and contented themselves with spreading through the
world principles of love and bequity, before which
slavery would surely melt away in due time. So say all
the abolitionists.  So says Dr. Wayland, in substance,
not only in his discussion of slavery, but in his more
responsible and deliberate work, the "Moral Science."
In that essay, Bk. II., Pt. II., Chap. I., ~ 1, he says: "The
Gospel was designed, not for one race, or for one time,
but for all races, and for all times. It looked not at
the abolition of this form of evil for that age alone, but
for its universal abolition. Hence the important object
of its author was to gain it a lodgement in every part
of the known world: so that by its universal diffusion
among all classes of society, it might quietly and
peacefully modify and subdue the evil passions of
men; and thus, without violence, work a revolution in
thle whole mass of mankind. In this' manner a one
could its object, a universal moral revolution, have
been accomplished. For if it had forbidden the evil
instead of subverting the principle-if it had pro claimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves
to resist the oppression of their masters, it would in stantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hos  tility throughout the civilized world; its announcement
199 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
would have been the signal of servile war, and the
very name of the Christian religion would have been
forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed.
The fact that, under these circumstances, the Gospel
does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose
that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does it
afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended to
authorize it."
Such is the Jesuitry which is gravely charged, by a
professed minister of the Christian religion, and prominent instructor of youth, upon our Lord Jesus Christ
and his apostles I  Such is the cowardly prudence
which it imputes to men who, every one, died martyrs
for their moral courage and unvarying fidelity to truth.
And thus is the divine origin and agency by which, the
Bible declares, and by which alone Christianity is to
succeed in a hostile world, quietly left out of view;
and American youth are taught to apprehend it as a
creed which has no Divine king ruling the universe for
its propagation, no Almighty providence engaged for
its protection, no Holy Ghost working irresistibly in
the hearts of such as God shall call, to subdue their enmity to the obedience of Christ: but Christianity is
merely a human system of moral reform, liable to total
extinction, unless it is a little sly in keeping back its
unpopular points, until an adroit occasion offers, (such,
for instance, as the power and support of a resistless
Yankee majority in some confederation of slaveholders,) to make the unpopular doctrine go down, or at
least, to choke off those who dare to make wry faces!
Christ and the twelve went out, forsooth, into a sinful
and perishing world, professing to teach men the way
200 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
of salvation; and yet, although they knew that any sin
persevered in must damn the soul, they were totally silent as to one great and universal crime I They came
avowedly to "reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment;" and yet uttered no rebuke for
this "sum of all villainies."  They went preaching the
Gospel of repentance from all known sin, as the sole
condition of eternal life: and yet never notified their
hearers of the sin of one universal practice prevalent
among them, lest, forsooth, they should raise a storm of
prejudice against their system I Nay, far worse than
this: they are not satisfied with a suppressio veri, but
as though to insure the fatal misleading of the consciences which they undertook to guide to life, their
policy of pusillanimity leads them to a positive suggestio falsi. Had they been simply and wholly silent
about the great sin, this had been bad enough. But
this is not what they did. It isda glozing deceit to attempt to cover up the case under the pretended admission that "the Gospel does not forbid slavery," as
though this were the whole of it. Christ and his apostles allude to slavery: they say a multitude of things
about it: they travel all around it: they limit its
rights and define its duties: they retrench its abuses:
they admit the perpetrators of its wrong, (if it be a
wrong,) unrepenting, into the bosom of the church, and
to its highest offices. They do almost every thing which
is calculated to justify in masters the inference that it
is lawful. And then they finally dismiss the whole
matter, without one explicit warning of its sinfulness
and danger.  According to this theory, the apostles
find their trusting pupils on the brink of the precipice,
9*
1201 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA
surrounded with much darkness; and having added
almost every circumstance adapted farther to obfuscate their consciences, they coolly leave them there,
with no other guidance than a reference to those general principles of equity which, beautifully taught by
Moses, had already signally failed to enlighten them.
Dr. Wayland's hypothesis is also deceitful and erroneous, in representing Christ as having no alternatives
save the one which he imputes to him, or else of so
denouncing slavery as to "teach slaves to resist the oppression of their masters," and thus lighting the flames
of servile war. Is this so? When a given claim is
condemned by the Bible as not grounded in right, does
it necessarily follow on Gospel principles that those on
whom it is made must resist it by force? Surely not.
The uniform teaching of our Saviour to the wronged
individual is, "that he resist not evil." Christ, if he had
regarded slaveholding as sinful, would not indeed have
incited slaves to resistance, any more than he did the
victims of polygamy which he condemned. But he would
have taught his disciples the sinfulness of the relation,
and within the pale of his own spiritual commonwealth,
the Church, he would have enforced reformation by
refusing to admit or retain any who persevered in the
wrong.  Less than this he could not have done.
The hypothesis is also false to facts and to the actual
method of his mission towards deeply rooted sins, as
declared both by his words and conduct. He expressly
repudiates this very theory of action. He declares that
he came "not to send peace on earth, but a sword:"
and announces himself as the grand incendiary of the
world. How degrading to the almighty king of Zion is
.202 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
this imputation of politic cowardice I And'how different
from the real picture where we see him boldly exposing
the hypocrisy of the Jewish rulers, and assailing their
most cherished deceptions, though he knew that the
price of his truthfulness would be his blood! And can
this paltry theory be true of that Paul, who took his
hearers to record, in full view of his dread account, that
he was "clear from the blood of all men, because he
had not shunned to declare to them all the counsel of
God?" (Acts, xx. 27.) This of the man who everywhere
assailed and explicitly denounced the idolatry of Greece
and Rome, established by law, entwined with every
feeling, and defended by imperial might? This of men
who, sternly reprobating the universal libertinism of
the heathen world, attacked what every one, countenanced by sages and statesmen, regarded as a lawful
indulgence? This of men who boldly roused every prejudice of the Jewish heart, by declaring their darling
system of rites and types effete, their ceremonial right eousness  a cheat, and the middle wall of partition
between them and the Gentiles, the bulwark of their
proud spiritual aristocracy, broken down?  It is slander.
Finally, this hypothesis represents that Saviour who
-claimed omniscience, as adopting a policy which was a$
futile as dishonest.  He forbore the utterance of any
express testimony against the sin of slaveholding, say
they, leaving the church to find it out by deduction
from general principles of equity. But in point of
fact, the church never began to make such deduction,
until near the close of the 18th century. Neither primi tive, nor reformed, nor Romanist, nor modern divines
taught the doctrine of the intrinsic sinfulness of slave
203 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
holding. The church as a body never dreamed it.
Slavery remained almost universal. It remained for the
political agitators of atheistic, Jacobin France, almost
eighteen hundred years after Christ's birth, to give
active currency to this new doctrine, and thus to infuse
energy into the fanaticism of the few erratic Christian
teachers, such as Wesley, who had hitherto asserted
this novelty. Now, did Christ foresee this? If he did
not, he is not divine. If he did, then Dr. Wayland
believes that he deliberately chose a plan which consigned seventeen centuries of Christians to a sin, and
as many of slaves to a wrong, which he all along abhorred. Credat Judceus Apella!
The book from which we have extracted these words
of Dr. Wayland, was put forth by him as a text-book
for the instruction of young persons in academies and
colleges, in the science of morals.  We are informed that
it is extensively used for this purpose. What can be
expected of that people which suffers the very springs
of its morality to be thus corrupted, by inculcating
these ethics of expediency? Not satisfied with teaching
to mortals that species of morality, so called, which
makes convenience the measure of obligation, this scribe
of their Israel imputes the same degrading principle to
the Redeemer of men, and Author of religion, -in thus
suppressing the truth, and intimating error to whole
generations of his own followers, in order to avoid the
inconveniences of candour. So that unsuspecting youth
are thus taught to approve and imitate this corrupt
expediency, in the very person of the Redeemer God,
whom they are commanded to adore. Will the Yankee
give an actual apotheosis to his crooked principles, in
201 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENT.
the person of an imaginary New England Christ? We
thank God that this is not the Christ of the Bible, nor
our Redeemer, but only the hideous invention of "men
of perverse minds and destitute of the truth." But
since we are taught (Psalm cxv. 8) that they who
worship false Gods are like unto them, that is to say,
that idolaters always reproduce in themselves all the
abominations which they adore in their idols, we need
no longer wonder at any thing which the Yankee people
mnay do. Hence that state of publick morals blazoned
to the world by the effrontery of their own corrupt
press, charged upon each other in their mutual recriminations, and betrayed in their crimes against the general
weal.
In concluding the biblical part of this discussion, it
may be expected that we should indicate more exactly
the influence which we suppose Christianity ought to
have exerted upon slavery, and its ultimate destiny
under pure Bible teachings. It may be asked: "When
you claim that slavery is literally and simply a righteous relation, in itself, if it be not perverted and
abused; do you mean that this is the normal and perfect relation for the labouring man; that this is to be
the fullest and most blessed social development of
Christianity: that it ought to subsist in'the best states
of Christian society, and will endure even in the millennium?" We reply, that one uniform effect of Christian ity on slavery, has been to ameliorate it, to remove its
perversions and abuses, just as it does those of the
other lawful relations among men; to make better mas ters and better servants, and thus to promote the wel fare of both.  Domestic slavery has been violently and
205 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
mischievously ended in the South; and it is doubtless
ended here in this form, finally. And it has long been
manifest that the radical and anti-Christian tendency
of the age is likely speedily to break up this form of
servitude in other places where it still prevails.  But
true slavery, that is, the involuntary subjection of one
man to the will of another, is not thereby any more
abolished than sin and death are abolished. And least
of all will real bondage of man to man be abolished in
countries governed by radical democracy. The Scriptural, the milder and more benign form of servitude is
swept away, in the arrogance of false political philosophy, to be replaced by more pretentious but more grinding forms of society. But, it may be asked: Will not
the diffusion of the pure and blessed principles of the
Gospel ultimately extinguish all forms of slavery? We
answer: Yes, we devoutly trust it will, not by making
masters too righteous to hold slaves, but by so correcting the ignorance, thriftlessness, indolence, and vice of
labouring people, that the institution of slavery will be
no longer needed. Just so, we hope that the spread of
'Christianity will some day abolish penitentiaries and
jails: but this does not imply that to put rogues into
penitentiaries is not now, and will not continue, so long
as rogues shall continue to deserve imprisonment, an
act which an angel might perform without sullying his
morality. So likewise, we hope that our ransomed
world will see the day when defensive war and military
establishments will be.superseded: superseded not because defensive war and the calling of the Christian
soldier are immoral when one's country is wrongfully
invaded; but because there will be none irnmmoral
206 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ARGUMENIT.
enough to commit the aggressions which now justify
these costly, though righteous expedients of defence.
There appears, in many minds, a strange impotency to
comprehend the truth, that the strict righteousness of
the relation maintained, and the treatment observed towards a person, may depend on that person's character.
They will not see that, as -it may be strictly nioral to
punish one who is guilty because of his guilt, and yet
suffering is not intrinsic good in itself; so it may be
perfectly righteous to hold a class in bondage, which is
incapable of freedom, and yet it may be true still that
bondage is not a good in itself. Because they cannot
accept the extreme dogma, that domestic slavery is the
beau ideal of the proper relation of labour to capital,
they seem to imagine that they are bound in consistency to hold that it is somehow an evil. Yet they have
too much reverence for God's word to assert, with the
abolitionists, in the teeth of its fair meaning, that slavery is sin per se. So, they attempt to stand on an intermediate ground of invisible aid infinitesimal breadth.
The plain solution of the matter is, that slavery may
not be the beau ideal of the social organization; that
there is a true evil in the necessity for it, but that this
evil is not slavery, but the ignorance and vice in the
labouring classes, of which slaveryis the useful and
righteous remedy; righteous so long as the condition
of its utility exists. Others pass to another extreme,
and seeing that the Bible undoubtedly teaches that
slaveholding is righteous, they liken the relation to
those of the husband and father. There is, however,
this obvious difference: These relations were estab lished in paradise before man fell.  Their righteousness
207 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
and usefulness are not dependent on the fact that man
is a sinner, and they would be appropriately continued
as long as men are in the body, though all were perfectly wise and holy. But the propriety of slavery,
like that of the restraints and punishments of civil government, rests on the fact that man is depraved and
fallen. Such is his character, that the rights of the
whole, and the greatest welfare of the whole, may, in
many cases, demand the subjection of one part of
society to another, even as man's sinfulness demands
the subjection of all to civil government. Slavery is,
indeed, but one form of the institution, government.
Government is controul.  Some  controul over all is
necessary, righteous, and beneficent: the degree of it
depends on the character of those to be controuled. As
that character rises in the scale of true virtue, and selfcommand, the degree of outward controul may be properly made lighter. If the lack of those properties in
any class is so great as to demand, for the good and
safety of the whole, that extensive controul which
amounts to slavery, then slavery is righteous, righteous
by precisely the same reason that other government is
righteous  And this is the Scriptural account of the
origin of slavery, as justly incurred by the sin and depravity of man.
208 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
CHAPTER VII.
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
~ 1. THE flimsy character of the arguments based by
the abolitionists on the Scriptures, betrays another
than a biblical origin for their doctrines. They come
primarily not from God's word, but from "philosophy
falsely so called;" the abolitionists, having determined
on them in advance, are only concerned with the sacred
records, to thrust them aside by quibbles and evasions.
But the only sure and perfect rule of right is the Bible.
This, we have seen, condemns domestic slavery neither
expressly nor by implication. It shows us the institution in the family of the "Father of the faithful," the
"friend of God," and there recognized by God himself
in the solemn sacrament of the Old Testament circumcision: We have found it expressly authorized to God's
chosen people, Israel, and defended in the Decalogue
itself: We see it existing throughout the ages of that
dispensation, while inspired men, so far from condemning, practised it: We see that it is not removed by the
fuller light of the New Testament; but on the contrary, its duties are defined, and slaveholders admitted
to all the privileges of the Church: We learn, in a
word, that domestic slavery existed throughout the
ages of revelation, was practised continually by multi
209 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
tudes of God's own people, was never once rebuked,
but often recognized and authorized. We assert then,
that, according to that infallible standard, it is lawful.
Yet, it is condemned in unmeasured terms by most
of the people of Christendom, is said to be abhorrent to
the political ethicks of the age, and has been reprobated by some of the fathers of our own commonwealth.
What then? In the emphatic language of the book
whose protection we claim: "Let God be true, but
every man a liar." Nor are we much concerned to explain away this collision between human speculation
and God's word. When we consider the weakness of
human reason, and the mortifying history of its vagaries; when we remember how many dogmas once held
for axioms are now exploded, and what monstrous
crimes and follies have been upheld by the unanimous
consent of philosophers, we are not afrai  to adopt the
teachings of the All-Wise, in preference to the deductions of blundering aid purblind mortals. When the
political experience of the world shall have matured
and corrected the opinions of men, we have no fear but
that all the truly wise, and good, and philosophical, will
justify us, and will acknowledge that this simple, this
decried, this abhorred expedient of inspired law-givers
was, after all, best conformed to the true wants and
welfare of those to whom it was applied, and wiser
than any of the conceited nostrums of political quackery; that, in short, "the foolishness of God was wiser
than men." Here, then, we place our feet; and our
answer to reviling abolitionists and a frowning world
is: Your reproach is not against us, but God. Go and
convict the All-Wrise of folly, the Infinite Holiness of
,210 
THIIE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
injustice. Amidst the cruel sufferings of the war which
was thrust upon us for this institution, and of the violent and disastrous overthrow of our liberties; amidst
the floods of obloquy.which our interested persecutors
have belched forth upon us, and the contemptuous neglect of the nations, our confidence is in God's countenance. He permits us to be sorely chastened for our
sins; but he will not finally suffer his own honour to be
reproached. He will surely rebuke in the end, the folly
and impiety of our slanderers, and "bring forth our
righteousness as the noonday."
The Socinian and skeptical type of all the evasions
of our Scriptural argument has been already intimated.
If the most profane and reckless wresting of God's
word will not serve their turn, to make it speak abolitionism, then they not seldom repudiate its authority.
One of their leaders, long a professed minister of the
Gospel, declares, at the close of a train of tortuous
sophisms, that if hlie were compelled to believe the Bible
countenances slavery, he should be compelled to give
up the Bible: thereby virtually confessing that he had
never been convinced of the infallibility of that which,
for thirty years, he had been pretending to preach to
men as infallible.  Others, more blatant and blasphemous, when compelled to admit that both the Bible
and the American constitution recognized slavery, exclaimed: "Give me, then, an anti-slavery constitution,
an anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God!"
Orthodox Christians have always held it as a rule
perfectly settled, that a revelation which was made to
yield to any and every supposed deduction of reason,
would be no authoritative rule of faith at all.  It is only
211
N. 
A DEFENCE OF YIRGINIA.
when the express'word of Scripture clearly contradicts
a proposition which appears to be a primary intuition
of the reason, that it constitutes any difficulty in the
reception of God's word. But can this prejudice against
slavery claim to be such? The tests of such truths are,
that they shall be seen in their own light to be true;
that they shall be necessary; and that all sane human
beings shall inevitably believe them, if they comprehend
the terms of the statements. Obviously, abolitionism
can claim none of these traits. I Instead of being selfevident, we shall show that it is a mere deduction from
a deceitful and baseless theory. To the mind of all former ages, it has failed to commend itself as true. All
ancient nations, and most moderns, have believed the
contrary.  All ancient philosophers, and all Bible saint,
the latter at least as conscientious and clear-headed as
modern fanatics, believed slavery to be lawful. The
great philosophers of the middle ages, surpassed by
none ill acumen, and guided by the uninspired lights of
a Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, thought and wrote without suspecting the sinfulness of slavery. Thousands of
Christians in the Southern States, of as enlightened
and honest consciences as any in the world, lived and
died masters, with no other self-reproach than that they
did not more faithfully fulfil the master's duties.  Since
it is not a self-evident, not a necessary, not a universally received truth, that slavery is sinful, we therefore
claim the authority of the Scriptures as conclusive, and
boldly repudiate all logical obligation to reconcile them
with the vain conclusions of human speculation. " He
that reproveth God, let him answer it."
Yet we acknowledge the obligation of those who
212 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
undertake to expound God's word, "to commend it to
every man's conscience in the sight of God," so far as
the self-confidence and petulance of the depraved reason will permit. To show, therefore, that we have no
fear of any legitimate human speculation, and to do
what in us lies " to justify the ways of God to men,"
we propose in this chapter to examine the ethical argument against slavery with some care.
~ 2. Misrepresentations Cleared.
But abolitionists, by their audacious assumptions,
endeavour to throw the question out of the pale of discussion: they exclaim that it needs no wire-drawn inference, it is self-evident, that a system which dehumanizes a human being, and makes his very person like
a brute's body, the property of another creature; which
necessitates the entailing of ignorance and vice; which
ignores the marital and parental rights; which subjects
the chastity of the female to the brute will of her master, and which fills Southern homes with the constant
outcry of oppression, is an iniquity: and that he who
attempts to cite the testimony of reason and Scripture
in defence of such wrongs, offers an insult to their
minds and consciences which self-respect requires them
to repel at once.  The malignant industry of our enefnies in propagating these monstrous slanders, compels
us, therefore, to pause at the outset of the discussion,
to rebut them, and disabuse the minds. of readers. And
it is here asserted, once for all, that the popular apprehension of the slave's condition and treatment, spread
throughout Europe and the North, is utterlyfalse: that
213 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
it is the result of nothing less than persistent, wilful,
and almost incredible lying on the part of interested
accusers; and that this is recognized by every intelligent European and Northern man who has resided
among us long enough truly to know the institution of
slavery. The character disclosed by the Yankees in
the war lately closed, has effectually taught the rest of
the world to recognize the probability of our charge.
The reader is first, then, requested to recall the definition of American slavery admitted by us in the beginning of the fifth chapter. It is not an ownership of
the servant's moral personality, soul, religious destinies, or conscience; but a property in his involuntary
labour. And this right to his labour implies just so
much controul over his person as enables his master to
possess his labour. Our doctrine "hath this extent, no
more." This we established beyond cavil by a reference to our laws and usages. Now, the abolitionist
argues that the master's claim over the servant, if just,
must imply a right to employ any means necessary to
perpetuate it, such as to keep the mind of his slaves
stupid and dark, because this is necessary to prevent
his aspiring to his liberty.  We reply that such means
are not necessary in the nature of the case. To assert
their necessity audaciously begs the question. If the
master's claim were so essentially unrighteous, that
any intelligent reflection in the slave would justify his
indignation and resistance, then it might be more convenient for the master to make him an unreflecting
animal. But the very subject in debate is, whether
the claim is unrighteous. Suppose that the relation
can be demonstrated to be right, reasonable, and be
21-1 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
neficent for the servant, (which is what we assert,)
then the only effect of intelligent reflection and of
knowledge and virtue combined in the slave's character, will be to render him better satisfied with his,
condition. So that to degrade his soul is not a necessary means for perpetuating the master's authority,
and not a part of the rights of masters. And now, it
is emphatically asserted that Southern masters, as a
class, did not seek or desire to repress either the
mental or religious culture of their servants' souls;
but the contrary. It is our solemn and truthful testimony, that the nearly universal temper of masters was
to promote and not to hinder it; and the intellectual
and religious culture of our slaves met no other general
obstacle, save that which operates among the labouring poor of all countries, their own indifference to it,
and the necessities of nearly constant manual labour.
If there was-any exception, it was caused by the mischievous  meddling  of abolitionists themselves, obtruding on the servants that false doctrine so sternly
condemned by St. Paul.  Southern masters desired the
intelligence and morality of their servants.  As  a
class, masters and their families performed a large
amount of gratuitous labour for that end; and universally met all judicious efforts for it from others with
cordial approval. An intelligent Christian servant was
universally recognized as being, in a pecuniary view,
a better servant. Is it asserted that there is still much
degrading ignorance among Southern negroes? True:
but it exists not because of our system, but in spite of
it.  There is more besotted ignorance in the peasantry
of all other countries. It is the dispassionate convic
215 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
tion of intelligent Southerners, that our male slaves
presented a better average of virtue and intelligence
than the rank and file of the Federal armies by which
we were overrun: and even the negro troops of our
conquerors, although mostly recruited from the more
idle and vicious slaves, were better than the white I
The Africans of these States, three generations ago,
were the most debased among pagan savages. A nation
is not educated in a day.  How long have the British
people been in reaching their present civilization under
God's providential tutelage? The South has advanced
the Africans, as a whole, more rapidly than any other
low savage race has ever been educated. Hence we
boldly claim, that our system, instead of necessitating
the ignorance and vice of its subjects, deserves the
credit of a most beneficent culture.
We may here refer to the charge, that Virginian
slavery condemned the Africans to mental and religious
darkness, by forbidding them all access to letters;
because the laws of the commonwealth forbade the
teaching of them to read. Will not even the intelligent
reader, after the currency of this charge, be surprised
to learn that there has never been such a law upon the
statute books of Virginia? To assert that there has been
such a law, is an unmitigated falsehood. The only
enactment which touches the subject is the following
sentence, in the statute defining what were "unlawful
assemblages" of negroes. "And every assemblage of
negroes for the purpose of instruction in reading and
writing, or in the night time for any purpose, shall be
an unlawful assembly."  Stat. 1830-31, p. 107.  The
previous section, commencing the definition of these
216 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
unlawful assemblies, expressly states that they are un lawful if held without the master's consent. Our courts
and lawyers uniformly held that, without this feature,.
no assemblage of negroes, to do any thing not criminal
per se, can be unlawful; because the whole spirit of
Virginian laws recognized the master's authority. His
slaves were subject to his government. His authoriza tion legalized everything not intrinsically criminal.
Accordingly, the uniform interpretation given to the
above words was, that it was the assembling of slaves
for instruction in letters by others than their master or
his authorized agents, which constituted the unlawful
assembly.  The whole extent of the law was, to arm
masters with the power to prevent the impertinent
interference of others with his servants, under the
pretext of literary instruction; a power which the
meddlesomeness of abolitionists pointed out as most
wholesome and necessary. There was no more law to
prevent the master from teaching his slaves than his
children; either by himself, or his authorized agent;
and thousands of slaves in Virginia were taught to read
by their masters, or their children and teachers. As
many Virginian slaves were able to read their Bibles,
and had Bibles to read, as could probably be found
among the labouring poor of boasted Britain. Here let
another unmitigated falsehood be exposed.  Since the
ill-starred overthrow of our system, the most noted
religious newspaper of the North, mentioning an appropriation of Bibles by the American Bible Society for
gifts to negroes of the South, applauded the measure,
because, as it asserted, "the Southern States had
hitherto forbidden the circulation of the Scriptures
10
217.
a 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA
among their slaves." It would be mere puling in us, to
affect the belief that this amazing statement was made in
ignorance; when the officials of the Society whose organ
this slanderer professed to be, well know that, ever
since the institution of the Bible Society, they were
scarcely more familiar with any species of applications,
than those of Christian masters and mistresses, and of
Southern ministers, for Scriptures suitable for their
servants. There has never been a law in Virginia
preventing thegratuitous circulation of the Bible among
slaves, or the possession or reading of it by slaves:
and it is confidently believed that there has never been
a single man in Virginia who desired such a law, or
who would have executed it, had it defiled our statute
book; unless, perchance, it was some infidel of that
French school which invented abolitionism.
It is charged again, that' slavery impiously and inhumanly sacrificed the immortal soul of the slave, to
secure the master's pecuniary interest in him. This
slander is already in part answered. We farther declare
that neither our laws, nor the current temper and usage
of masters, interfered with the slave's religious rights.
On the contrary, they all protected and established
them. The law protected the legal right of the slave to
his Sabbath, forbidding the master to employ him on
that day in secular labours, other than those of necessity
and mercy. Instances in which slaves were prevented
by their masters from attending the publick worship of
God, were fully as rare among us, and as much reprobated, as similar abuses are in any other Christian
country. ()n the contrary, the masters were almost
universally more anxious that their servants should
218 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
attend publick worship, than the servants were to avail
themselves of the privilege.  There' was  scarcely a
Christian church in the South, which had not its black
communicants sitting amicably at the Lord's table beside their masters; and the whole number of these
adult communicants was reported by the statistics of
the churches, as not less than a half million. We can
emphatically declare, that we never saw or heard of a
house of worship in the South, where sittings were not
provided for the blacks at the expense of the whites:
and it is believed that if there was such a case, it was
in a neighbourhood containing:no negro population.
And in nearly every case, these sittings were more ample
than the blacks could be induced to fill.  Nor was there
any expenditure of money on ecclesiastical objects,
which was more cheerfully and liberally made, than that
for the religious culture of the slaves. Further, with a
few exceptions they enjoyed the fullest religious liberty
in the selection of their religious communions and places
of worship.  Masters refused thep  liberty to join the
churches of their choice more rarely than parents in
New Englanid and Old England perpetrated that act of
spiritual tyranny upon their wives and daughters. So
punctilious was this respect for the spiritual liberty of
the servants, that masters universally yielded to it their
own denominational preferences and animosities, allowing their servants to join the sects most repugnant to
their own, even in cases as extreme as that of the Protestant and Romanist. The white people of the South
may consider themselves truly fortunate, if they preserve, under the despotism which now rules them, as
much religious liberty as our negroes received at our
hands.
219 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Our system is represented as oppressive and cruel,
appointing different penalties for crimes to the black
man and the white man; depriving the slave of the
privilege of testifying against a white in a court of
justice; subjecting him to frequent and inhuman corporal punishments, and making it a crime for him to
exercise the natural right of self-defence, when violently
assailed by a white man. The reply is, that the penal
code of Virginia was properly made different in the case
of the whites and the blacks, because of the lower moral
tone of the latter. Many things, which are severe
penalties to the white man, would be no punishment to
the negro. And the penal code for the latter was
greatly milder, both in its provisions, and in the temper
of its administration, than that which obtained in
England over her white citizens, far into this century.
The slave was not permitted to testify against a white
man, and this was a restriction made proper by his low
grade of truthfulness, his difference of race, and the fact
that he was to so great a degree subject to the will of
another.  But the seeming severity of this restriction
was almost wholly removed, among us, by the fact that
he always had, in his master, an interested and zealous
patron and guardian, in all collisions with other white
men.  From oppression by his own master he found
his sufficient protection, usually, in affection and selfinterest. But in most of the abolition States, the
wretched free black was equally disqualified to testify
against his white oppressor; and the vast difference
against him was, that he had no white master, the legal
equal of his assailant, eagerly engaged by self-interest,
affection, and honourable pride, to protect him. The
220 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
black "citizen" was the helpless victim of the white
swindler or bully. And such was usually the hypocrisy
of abolitionism.
It is true again, that our law gave the master the
power of corporal punishment, and required the slave
to submit.  So does the law of England give it to parents over children, to masters over apprentices, and to
husbands over wives. Now; while we freely admit
that there were in the South, instances of criminal
barbarity in corporal punishments, they were very infrequent, and were sternly reprobated by publick opinion. So far were Southern plantations from being
"lash-resounding dens," the whipping of adult men and
women had become the rare exception. It was far less
frequent and severe than the whipping of white men
was, a few years ago, in the British army and navy, not
probably more frequent than the whipping of wives is
in the Northern States of America, and not nearly so
frequent as the whipping of white young ladies now
is in their State schools. The girls and boys of the
plantations received the lash from masters and ag(hts
more frequently than the adults, as was necessary and
right for the heedless children of mothers semi-civilized
and neglectful; but universally, this punishment by
their owners was far less frequent and severe than the
black parents themselves inflicted. We may be permitted to state our own experience as a fair specimen
of the average. The writer was for eighteen years a
householder and master of slaves, having the government of a number of different slaves; and in that time
he found it necessary to administer the lash to adults in
four cases; and two of these were for a flagrant adul
221 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
tery-(resulting in the permanent reform of at least one
of the delinquents.) His government was regarded by
his slaveholding neighbours as by no means relaxed.
Indeed, Europeans and Yankees are always surprised at
the leniency and tolerance of Southern masters. But to
the vain modern notion, that corporal punishments are
in any case barbarous and degrading, we give place not
for an instant.  God enjoined them, in appropriate cases,
on Hebrew citizens. Solomon inculcates the rod as the
most wholesome correction for children. The degrada tion is in the offence, and not in the punishment. This
pretended exclusion of whipping is a part of that God less humanitarianism, born of conceit and pride, which
always shows itself as full of real ferocity as of affected
mildness.
It is also an outrageous misrepresentation to say
that our laws imp9sed no check upon the master's bru tality in punishing, and took tSway the slave's natural
right of self-defence. The slave whose life was as  sailed might exercise thle natural right of self-defence,
eden against his own master. He did it, of course, under
the same responsibility to the law, and the same risque
of guilt, if it should appear that he had shed blood gra  tuitously in a moment of ill-justified passion, under which
the white man acts.  Cases actually adjudicated have
clearly ascertained this principle. In the county of,*
a slave, in the year 1861, turned upon his master during
harvest, and with his scythe inflicted a mortal wound.
He was arrested by his own fellow-slaves, and when
* Names and places are suppressed in this publick statement, for
obvious reasons of regard for meritorious survivors. But the official
records are at hand, and will be furnished any gainayer.
222 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
questioned, replied to one, "I intended to kill him;"
and to another, "I tried to cut him in two." It was
proved by the defence, at his trial, (through the exclusive testimony of blacks,) that his master had, on previous days, and also on the morning of the same day,
two hours previously, harassed him with barbarous and
unusual punishments, by which, although none or them
even in appearance assailed life, a just sense of outrage
and high indignation must have been produced. The
grave defect of this defence was, that the assaults of the
master, although barbarous, never had implicated life,
and that two or more hours had intervened, for the cooling of passion. The only immediate provocation at the
time of killing was the repetition of some words of rebuke, with a comparatively slight chastisement. Such
was the case. The court decided that, on the one hand, a
verdict of justifiable homicide could not be given in the
slave's favour, because the lawful present provocation
was absent; but on the other, that it was not murder, because the barbarities which had preceded the act justified resentment. The crime was therefore ascertained
as a mitigated homicide, with a milder punishment.
The laws of Virginiia protected not only the life, but
the limb of the slave against white persons, and even
his own master. The statute against wounding, stabbing and maiming is in the following words: *" If any
free person maliciously shoot, stab, cut or wound any
person, or by any means  cause him bodily injury
with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill, he shall,
except where it is otherwise provided, be punished by
* Code of 1849, Ch. 191, i 9.  Edit. 1860, p. 784.
223 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
confinement in the penitentiary not less than one, nor
more than ten years. If such act be done unlawfully,
but not maliciously, with the intent aforosaid, the offender shall, at the discretion of the jury if the accused
be white, or of the court if he be a negro, either be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more
than five years, or be confined in jail not exceeding
twelve months, and fined not exceeding five hundred
dollars." And in the chapter on trials it is added:
*"And on any indictment for maliciously shooting,
stabbing, cutting or wounding a person, or by any
means causing him bodily injury with intent to kill
him, the jury may find the accused not guilty of the offence charged, but guilty of maliciously doing such
act with intent to maim, disfigure or disable, or of unlawfully doing it, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill, such person." These are but digests of
repeated older statutes of Virginia, of date 1803, 1815,
and 1819. Now the General Court, the highest tribunal of appeal in criminal cases, tdecided that the "any
person," protected by these laws, included the slave;
and that an indictment for the malicious stabbing of a
slave could be supported under these acts. Thus,
while the slave was required to accept the chastisement of his master, his life and limb were as fully protected as those of the white man.
The General Court,: in 1851, decided the appeal of
Simeon Souther, convicted in the County of Hanover of
* Code of 1849, Ch. 208, ~ 30.
t Chapple's case, I. Virginia cases, 184. Carver's case, 5th Randolph's Rep., 660.
t 7th Grattan, 673, etc.
221 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
murder in the second degree, because his slave Sam
had, according to evidence, died under an excessive
and barbarous whipping, with other punishments, the
whole evidently not intended to kill. Souther's counsel appealed from this sentence to the General Court,
asking that the grade of the offence be reduced to manslaughter only, because it appeared in evidence that
the punishments were not inflicted with intent to kill.
The court, after reprobating Souther's conduct as a
"case of atrocious and wicked cruelty," instead of reducing the grade of the sentence already ascertained,
decided that it was already tdo low; and that it should
have been declared murder in the first degree. This
tribunal granted that it is lawful for the master to
chastise his slave; and that the law, as expounded by
the same authority, (5th Randolph, 678,) did not sustain an indictment of the master on the mere allegation
of excess in chastisement, where it was not charged
that any unlawful maiming or other injury ensued. Because "it is the policy of the law in respect to the relation of master and slave, and for the sake of securing
proper subordination and obedience on the part of the
slave, to protect the master from prosecution in all
such cases."...   "But in so inflicting punishment for the sake of punishment, the owner
of the slave acts at his peril; and if death ensues in
consequence of such punishment, the relation of master
and slave affords no ground of excuse or palliation.
The principles of the common law in relation to homicide apply to his case, without qualification or exception; and according to those principles, the act of the
prisoner, in the case under consideration, amounted to
10*
225 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
murder. Upon this point we are unanimous." And
Souther, although a man of property, and supported by
the most active and able counsel, was committed to the
penitentiary, (in pursuance of the original sentence, of
murder in the second degree,) where he died.  Such
was the law and its administration in Virginia.
It may further be asserted that the laws were at
least as well administered among us, against the murderers and oppressors of slaves, as against those who
killed their equals. Our people had unfortunately imbibed, to some degree, the infidel and fanatical notions
prevalent at the North against capital punishments;
so that crimes of bloodshed met with more tolerance
fromn publick sentiment than was proper. But when a
master took the life of his servant, especially if it were
done by cruel punishments, the publick scorn for his
meanness and tyranny, and the general feeling of kindliness for our dependent fellow-creatures, were apt to
secure a far more faithful execution of the law against
him, than if he had slain his white peer for any insult
or wrong.
The laws of Virginia were equally just and careful
in protecting the liberty of every person not justly held
to bondage. The stealing or kidnapping of any human
being with the purpose of selling him into slavery, is a
felony, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary
not less than three, nor more than ten years. *
Any coloured person whatsoever, conceiving himself
to be unlawfully detained in bondage, may apply to any
* Code of Va., 1849, Chap. 191, ~ 17.  The same may be found at its
appropriate place in the Code of 1860, which is little more than a
reprint of the Code of 1849.
226 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
justice of the peace, or county or circuit superior court,
to enter a suit for his freedom. There is not, within
the lids of the Virginian code, another statute, so gen  erous, so careful, so tender, so watchful, in protecting
every possible right of a plaintiff, as this law enabling
the slave, unjustly detained, to sue out his freedom.
First, it compels every magistrate, of every grade, and
every court, of every grade, to hearken to the cry of the
supposed oppressed man, and to take effectual steps to
secure him release, if just. Next, it instantly takes the
claimant out of the hand of his nominal master, and
assigns him protection and maintenance, during the
pendency of his claim.  Next, it provides counsel, and
all costs of suit for the oppressed man, at publick
expense. Next, -it orders that his case shall have pre  cedence of all other cases, before whatever court he
may select, at its first sessions, irrespective of its place
on the docket. And last, if the claim to freedom be
found just, the court is empowered to give him damages
for his detention pending the suit.*
Another charge against us is, that our laws abrogated
the rights of marriage among slaves, authorized their
capricious separation by masters, and thus consigned
them to promiscuous concubinage, like that of beasts.
Now, first, admitting defect in our legislation here, let
us ask, how much of the blame of the continuance of
this defect is chargeable upon the frantic attacks of
abolitionists upon us?  Every sensible man can under  stand, that a people so fiercely assailed in their vital
rights should be occupied solely by righteous defence,
* Code of Va., 1849, Chap. 106.
227 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
and should feel the time unsuited for the discussion of
innovations, however needful.  And next, let it be
understood what the South has really done, and has not
done, herein, and it will appear that an amazing mis representation is made of the whole case. The form of
the charge usually is, that our laws deprived the slaves
of all marital rights. This is, first, a monstrous per version of the facts, in that the Africans never had any
marital rights or domestic institutions to be deprived of.
Have men forgotten, that in their native country there
was no marriage, and no marriage law, but the negroes
either lived in vagrant concubinage, or held their plurality of wives as slaves, to be either sold or slain at will?
They have, at least, lost nothing, then; and the utmost
that' could be charged upon our legislation is, that it did
not undertake to innovate upon their own native usages;
that it did not force upon them marital restraints,
and penalties for their breach, which the Africans
were disqualified either to understand or value, which
they would have regarded as a more cruel burden than
their bondage. Next, our laws did not, as many seem
to represent, prohibit, or delegalize the marriage of
slaves; but were simply silent about them. The meaning of this silence was, to leave the whole matter to the
controul of the master. It appears almost impossible
for anti-slavery men to be made to apprehend the
nature of the institution, as described in the words,
'domestic slavery.' Their minds, perverted with vain
dreams of the powers and perfectibility of the State,
cannot be made to apprehend that God has made other
parties than the commonwealth and the civil magistrate, depositories of ruling power; and that this
228 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
arrangement is right and benevolent. Now, it is the
genius of slavery, to make the family the slave's commonwealth. The family is his State. The master is his
magistrate and legislator, in all save certain of the
graver criminal relations, in which the commonwealth
deals directly and personally with him. He is a menmber of municipal society only through his master, who
represents him.  The commonwealth knows him as only
a life-long minor under the master's tutelage. The
integers of which the commonwealth aggregate is made
up, are not single human beings, but single families,
authoritatively represented in the father and master.
And this is the fundamental difference between the
theory of the Bible, and that of radical democracy. The
silence of our laws, then, concerning the marriage of
slaves, means precisely this: that the whole subject is
remitted to the master, the chief magistrate of the little
integral commonwealth, the family. Obviously, therefore, the question whether our laws were defective
therein, is in no sense a question between the living of
the slaves in marriage or in beastly license; it is only
a question whether, in the distribution of ruling functions, those of the master were not made too large and
responsible, herein.  Anr if error be admitted in this
respect, it cannot be one which makes the relation of
servitude sinful; for then the same crime must be fixed
on all the patriarchs, notwithstanding their care in
rightly ordering and preserving, as family heads, the
marital relations of their children and slaves, because,
forsooth, there happened to be no commonwealth law
above them, as patriarchs, regulative of these marriages.
This is nonsense. Where the modern patriarch, the
229 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Southern master, rightly ordered and protected the
marriage relations of his slaves,  the silence of the
commonwealth no more made their connexions concubinage, than were those of Isaac, and of Abraham's
steward, Eliezer of Damascus. What magistrate or
legislature, other than Abraham, issued their marriage
license?  Who  else enforced their marriage  law or
defined its rights? What civic agent solemnized the
ceremonial for them? And this leads to another remark:
that that ceremonial is wholly unessential to the validity
of marriage.  Of course, where the laws enjoin it for
any class, every good citizen will observe it. But the
absence of suGh ordained ceremonial does not make
lawful marriage impossible.  In this sense, consensus
facit nuptias. It was thus that the holiest wedlock ever
seen on earth was instituted, that of Adam and Eve;
thus Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, were
united. The fact that our laws pronounce the unions
of Quakers and of Jews, legitimate marriage, although
announced with different forms, and indeed almost
without form, evinces this truth.
Now, then, for the facts. These facts are, that marriage in its substance was as much recognized among
our servants as among any other peasantry; that the
union was uniformly instituted upon a formal written
license of the two masters; that it was almost always
sanctioned by a religious ceremonial conducted,, by a
minister: that the regularity of the connexion was
uniformly recognized by the master's assigning the
husband and wife their own dwelling; that the moral
opinion of both whites and blacks made precisely the
same distinction between this connexion and the illicit
230
w 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
ones, and between the fruits of it as legitimate, and
the fruits of concubinage as illegitimate, which publick
opinion establishes for white persons: and that even
the criminal law recognized it as a regular connexion,
by extending to the black man who slew the violator of
his bed in heat of blood, the same forbearance which it
extends to the outraged husband. How can it be said,
in the face of these facts, that marriage did not exist
among them?
But, it is asked, did not the master possess power to
separate this union at his will; and was not this power
often exercised? They did. The power, relatively,
was not often exercised; and when the separation was
not justified by the crimes of the parties, it met the
steady and increasing reprobation of publick opinion.
The instances of tyrannical separation were, at most,
far fewer than the harsh tyranny of destitution imposes
on poor whites in all other countries;  and the pretended philanthropy of the Yankees has, in five years,
torn asunder more families than all the slave dealers
of the South did in a hundred. But the power of separating was sometimes abused by masters;. and the
room for this abuse was just the defect in our laws,
which nearly all Southern Christians deplored, and
which they desired to repair. Justice requires the testimony, on the other hand, that the relaxed morals
which prevailed among the Africans was not the result
of their marital relations, as arranged among us, but
the heritage of their paganism; that under our system
the evil was decreasing; and that since their emanci pation and nominal subjection to the marriage law of
the whites, a flood of licentiousness, vagrant concu
231 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
binage, and infanticide, has broken out again among
them. Clear proof this, that our abused system was
better adapted to their character than the present.
Anti-slavery men often talk as though the right of
slave parents to the controul and education of their
children, were so indefeasible and native, that it is a
natural wrong to permit the authority of the master
over them to override that of the parents. This we
utterly deny. We have the authority of Locke him self for saying that the parental authority is correlative to the parental obligation to preserve and train
the child; that it is, therefore, not indefeasible; that
if the father is clearly incompetent to or unwilling for
his duty, his authority often is, and of right ought to
be, transferred by society to another. When, therefore, the civilized master uses his authority against
and over that of the semi-civilized, or savage parent,
to train the slave child to habits of decency, industry,
intelligence, and virtue, which his degraded natural
guardians are unable or unwilling to inculcate, he
does no crime against nature, but an act just and
beneficent.
The most odious part of this charge is, that slavery
made the chastity of the female slave the property of
her. master. We meet this with an emphatic denial.
It is false. The laws of Virginia protect the virtue of
the female slave by the very same statute which shields
that of the white lady, even against her own master.
The law of rape, until 1849, used these words: * "If
any man do ravish a woman," &c. The act of 1849 used
*Code, 1819, p. 585, Ch. 158.
232 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
the words: * "If any white person do carnally know
a female of the age of twelve years or more, against
her will, by force, or carnally know a female child, under that age," &c. (If the ravisher were a negro the
penalty was different.) The question is, whether the
words "a woman," and "a female," were intended to
include coloured persons and slaves. The answer uniformly given by Virginian lawyers to this question is
affirmative. They say that the terms are the most
general in our statutory vocabulary. The law of 1849,
just quoted, clearly implies that the terms "a female,"
in ~ 15, are inclusive of coloured females, by expressly
introducing the word "white," "a white female," in
~ 16, when its purpose was to enact a special penalty
for the forcible abduction of that class. The General
Court has held thatfemale is synonymous with woman,t
and may be substituted for it even in an indictment.
Is it asked, why the appeal is not made'to judicial decisions, as conclusive authority of the true intent of
the statute? We have caused a thorough search to be
made by the most competent authority in Richmond;
and while many indictments are found against black
men for rape of white women, none exist, in the history
of our jurisprudence, against white men for rape of
black women. And this, not because there would have
been any difficulty in making the indictment lie: but
because, as the most experienced lawyers testify, the
crime is unheard of on the part of white men amongst us.
It is undoubtedly true, that the moral sense of the
* Code, 1849, p. 725, Ch. 191, ~ 15.
t Burnett's case, 2 Va. cases, 235. And this was an indictment
for rape.
233 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Africans on this subject is low: that many voluntary
breaches of chastity occur among themselves, and
some between them and whites. But the latter are far
less frequent than similar sins in Philadelphia, in
Boston, in London. Notwithstanding the sad inheritance of vice drawn by the Africans from their pagan
ancestors, Southern slavery had elevated them so far,
that illegitimate births among them had become far
fewer than among the boasted white peasantry of Protestant Scotland, with all its Bibles and churches, and
parochial schools. This fact can be proved by Scotch
statistics. The odious and filthy charge which the
abolitionists make  against the Southern people and
against slavery, as a system of lust, also receives a
terrible reply from the returns of the American census.
When  illicit cohabitation takes place between  the
whites and the blacks, nature tells the secret with infallible accuracy, in the yellow skin of the offspring.
The census of 1850 distinguished the full blacks from
the mulattoes, both among the slave and free. Of the
slaves, one in twelve was mulatto, taking the whole
United States together. Of the slaves in Virginia the
ratio of mulattoes to blacks was about the same. In
South Carolina there was only one mulatto to thirtyone black slaves I The explanation is, that the latter
State, being less commercial and manufacturing than
Virginia, and having a system of more perfect agricultural slavery, exposed her slaves less to intercourse
with immigrant and transient whites. But taking the
United States as a whole, the free mulattoes were more
than half as numerous as the free blacks I In several
of the slave States they are more numerous; and in
234
0 
THE ETHIICAL ARGUMENT.
Ohio, the stronghold of Black Republicanism, there
were fourteen thousand mulattoes to eleven thousand
blacks. Since the regular marriage of free blacks to
the whites was as unknowAi at the North as at the
South, these figures tell a tale as to the comparative
prevalence of this infamous and unnatural form of uncleanness among the Yankees, which should forever
seal their lips from reproaches of us. They also show
that at the South the state of slavery has been far
more favourable to chastity among the coloured people
than that of freedom.
The reader probably feels by this time, that if we
speak truth, then was slavery a very different thing
practically from its usual picture abroad.  He will perhaps feel with a shade of skepticism, that it is strange
the world should have been so much mistaken. The
chief explanation we offer of so strange a fact, is that
trait of abolitionists, our interested and unscrupulous
accusers, predicted by St. Paul: (" men of corrupt
minds and destitute of the truth.") The world will
find them out in due time: the statements made of the
events of the late war have done much to unmask them.
Still another cause is that Europeans, and even
Yankees, are so ignorant of Southern society. Still
another explanation is, that slavery in the British colonies, from which the people of that Empire have chiefly
derived their conceptions, actually was far more harsh
and barbarous than in this country. The reader is emphatically cautioned that he must not judge slavery in
Virginia by slavery in Jamaica or Guiana. Whether
the charge of the great Paley is correct, who accounts
for this difference by the greater harshness of British
225 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
character,* politeness may forbid us to decide. But
the comparative fates of the Africans in the British colonies, and those in our States, tell the contrast between
the humanity of our system, and the barbarity of theirs,
in terms of indisputable clearness. If political science
has ascertained any law, it is that the well or ill-being
of a people powerfully affects their increase or decrease
of numbers. The climate of the British Indies is salubrious for blacks. Yet, of the one million seven hundred thousand Africans imported into the British colonies, and their increase, only six hundred and sixty
thousand remained to be emancipated in 1832. The
three hundred and seventy-five thousand (the total)4imported.into the Southern States, had multiplied to four
millions. Such is the contrast l How grinding and
ruthless must have been that oppression which in the
one case reduced this prolific race, in the most fertile and
genial spots of earth, in the ratio of five to two! And
how generous an! beneficent that government which,
in the Southern States, nursed them to a more than tenfold increase, in a less hospitable and fruitful clime I
Well may we demur to have the world take its conceptions of our slavery from the British.
We trust that we shall proceed, then, to the remaining discussion of the moral character of slavery, with a
just understanding of what is to be defended. It is
simply that system which makes the involuntary labour
of the servant the property of the master, and gives the
latter such controul over the former's person, as will
* Moral Philosophy, Bk. 3, p. 2, Ch. 3: "The inordinate authority
which the plantation laws confer upon the slaveholder, is exercised
by the English slaveholder, especially, with rigour and brutality."
236
-It 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
secure his possession of the labour. We conclude this
section with a few words touching the admitted abuses
of the system. That such existed among us, both legislative and individual, is fully admitted. There Svere
cruel masters. Slaves were sometimes refused that
which the apostle enjoined masters to give them, as
"just and equal." Some cruel punishments were inflicted. A few slaves have been tortured to death.
Some wives and children were wickedly torn from their
husbands and parents. And our laws in some points
failed to secure to the slaves that to which their humanity entitled them. But we repeat, these things prove
only the sinfulness of the individual agent, and not of
the system of which they are incidents. Fathers have
been known to maltreat, scourge, maim and murder
their children; and husbands their wives; but no one
dreams that these things evince the unrighteousness of
the family relations. Wife-murder is doubtless more
frequent in the State of New York, than slave-murder
was in Virginia. The laws of the State of Indiana
concerning divorce are, in some particulars, glaring
violations of God's laws. Yet no one dreams of arguing
thence; that to have a wife in those States is a sin.
Unless the abuse can be shown to be an essential part
of the system, it proves nothing against the lawfulness
of the system itself. But that none of these crimes
against slaves are essential parts of slavery, is proved
by the fact, which we fearlessly declare, that the vast
majority of slaves in our country never experienced
any of them. The unfairness of this mode of arguing
cannot be better stated than in the words of Dr. Van
Dyke, of New York:
237 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
"Their mode of arguing the question of slaveholding,
by a pretended appeal to facts, is a tissue of misrepresentation from beginning to end.  Let me illustrate
my meaning by a parallel case.  Suppose I undertake
to prove the wickedness of marriage, as it exists in
the city of New York. In this discussion suppose the
Bible is excluded, or, at least, that it is not recognized
as having exclusive jurisdiction in the decision of the
question. My first appeal is to the statute law of the
State.
"I show there enactments which nullify the law of
God, and make divorce a marketable and cheap commodity.  I collect the advertisements of your daily
papers, in which lawyers'offer to procure the legal
separation of man and wife for a stipulated price, to
say nothing, in this sacred place, of other advertisements which decency forbids me to quote. Then I
turn to the records of our criminal courts, and find
that every day some cruel husband beats his wife, or
some unnatural parent murders his child, or some discontented- wife or husband seeks the dissolution of the
marriage bond.  In the next place, I turn to the orphan asylums and hospitals, and show there the miserable wrecks of domestic tyranny in wives deserted and
children maimed by drunken parents. In the last
place, I go through our streets, and into our tenement
houses, and count the thousands of ragged children,
who, amid ignorance  and filth, are training for the
prison and gallows.
"Summing all these facts together, I put them forth
as the fruits of marriage in the city of New York, and
a proof that the relation itself is sinful. If I were a
238 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
novelist, and had written a book to illustrate this same
doctrine, I would call this array of facts a'Key.' In
this key I say nothing about the sweet charities and
affections that flourish in ten thousand homes, not a
word about the multitude of loving-kindnesses that
characterize the daily life of honest people,'about the
instruction and discipline that are training children at
ten thousand firesides for usefulness here and glory
hereafter;;-all this I ignore, and quote only the statute
bgok, the newspapers, the records of criminal courts,
aid the miseries of the abodes of poverty. Now, what
have I done?  I have not misstated or exaggerated a
single fact. And yet am I not a falsifier and a slanderer of the deepest dye? Is there a virtuous woman
or an honest man in this city whose cheeks would not
burn with indignation at my one-sided and injurious
statements? But this is just what abolitionism has
done in regard to slaveholding. It has undertaken to
illustrate its cardinal doctrine in works of fiction;
and then, to sustain the creation of its fancy, has attempted to underpin it with an accumulation of facts.
These facts are collected in precisely the way I have
described. The statute books of slaveholding States
are searched, and every wrong enactment collated,
newspaper reports of cruelty and crime on the,part of
wicked masters are treasured up and classified, all the
outrages that have been perpetrated'by lewd fellows
of the baser sort' of whom there are plenty, both
North and South-are eagerly seized and  recorded;
and this mass of vileness and filth, collected from the
kennels and sewers of society, is put forth as a faithful
exhibition of slaveholding. Senators in the forum, and
239 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
ministers in the pulpit, distil this raw material into
the more refined slander'that Southern society is essentially barbarous, and that slaveholding had its
origin in hell."'
Such are the words of one who is himself no advocate of slavery, but who is moved to utter them solely
by his regard for truth. His reprobation is just. To
take the exceptional abuses of any institution, and
exhibit them as giving the ordinary state of society
under it, is the very essence of slander.
But the enemies of the South say, that still the system of slavery is unrighteous, even though the generosity of a majority of masters prevents its oppressions
from being felt, because it confers a power which is
irresponsible. We reply, that this is true, although to
a vastly less degree than has been charged; but it is
also true of every form of authority under heaven;
and it is simply impossible to place authority in any
human hands at all, without some degree of this risque
of irresponsible abuse. The authority of the master is
no more irresponsible than that of the husband, father,
'or mechanic, over his wife, child, or apprentice. The
father, in order to have authority, must have discretion: and he may abuse it: for he is imperfect; and
against this abuse the child has no legal remedy. For
this imperfection in the family law there is no help, save
by abolishing all family government; a remedy fraught
with ten thousand times the mischief and misery which
all the occasional severities of unnatural parents have
caused. All human government must have this defect,
for man, who administers it, is a sinner. So that the
objection of the abolitionist amounts to this: that the
2-0 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
institution of slavery is unlawful, because it is not perfect; which nothing human can be. It is so true that
any grant of power whatsoever confers some irresponsibility; that the fact remains even where the rights of
free citizens are most carefully guarded under republican governments. See, for example, the courts of law,
which judge concerning our lives and property. We
attempt to limit the abuse of power of the lower courts,
by passing their decisions in review before a higher;
but there must be some highest, beyond which no appeal can go. Yet the judges of that highest court are
also capable of wrong and error; and if they commit
them, the victim has no human help; he must submit.
All that just and humane legislation can do, then, is so
to adjust and limit powers, that the chances of uncompensated wrong may be as small as possible. Now we
shall see that in this case of employer and labourer,
such as they are in Virginia, the chances of unredressed wrong were reduced to their minimum by our
system of domestic slavery. For we thereby raised
the most efficient motives, those of self-interest and
affection, in the stronger party, to treat the weaker equitably. If the irresponsibility of a part of the master's
power proved the relation sinful, all government would
be wrong.
~ 3. The Rights of Man and Slavery.
The radical objection to the righteousness of slavery
in most minds is, that it violates the natural liberty
and equality of man. To clear this matter, it is our
purpose to test the common theory held as to the
rights of nature, and to show that this ground of oppo
11
241 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
sition to slavery rests upon a radical and disorganizing
scheme of human rights, is but Jacobinism in disguise, and involves a denial of all authority whatsoever. The popular theory of man's natural rights, of
the origin of governments, and of the moral obligation
of allegiance, is that which traces them to a social
contract. The true origin of this theory may be found
with Hiobbes of Malmesbury. It owes its respectability
among Englishmen, chiefly to the pious John Locke, a
sort of baptized image of that atheistic philosopher;*
and it was ardently held by the infidel democrats of
the first French revolution. According to this scheme,
each person is by nature an independent integer,
wholly suijuris, absolutely equal to every other man,
and naturally entitled, as a "Lord of Creation," to exercise his whole will. Man's natural liberty was accordingly defined as privilege to do whatever he wished.
True, Locke attempts to limit this monstrous postulate
by defining man's native liberty as privilege to do
whatever he wished within the limits of the law of nature. But this virtually returns to the same; because
he teaches that man is by nature absolutely independent, so that he must be himself the supreme, original
judge, what this law of nature is. According to the
doctrine of the social contract, man's natural rights are
*Notwithstanding Locke's amiable and pious spirit, the history-of
philosophic opinion has shown that he is but a disguised follower of
the philosopher of Malmesbury.  His psychology is but a system of
sensationalism, and his ethics lead to the denial of original moral
distinctions. Locke is chargeable with the germs of all the mischievous and atheistical doctrines developed by Hume in Great
Britain, and Cordillac in France.
212 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
confounded with this so-called natural liberty. Each
man's natural right is to protect his own existence, and
to possess himself of whatever will render it more
happy, (Locke again adds, within the limits of natural
law.) And this scheme most essentially ignored the
originality of moral distinctions. Hobbes explains
them as the conventional results of the rules which
man's experience and convenience have dictated to him.
For, the experience of the mutual violences and collisions of so many independent wills, in this supposed
"state of nature," induced men, in time, to consent to
the surrender of a part of this native independence, in
order to secure the remainder of their rights. To do
this, they are supposed to have conferred together, and
to have formed a compact with each other, binding
themselves to each other to submit to certain stipulated
rules, which restrained a part of their natural liberty,
and to obey certain men selected to govern. The power
thus delegated to these hands was to be used to protect
the remaining rights of all. The terms of this compact
form the organic law, or constitution.  Subsequent citizens entering the commonwealth by birth or immigration, are assumed to have given an assent, express
or implied, to this compact. And if the question be
asked, why men are morally bound  to obey magistrates, who naturally are their equals and fellows, the
answer of this school is: because they have voluntarily
bargained to do so in entering the social compact; and
they receive a quid pro quo for their accession to it.
Such is the theory of the origin of government, from
which the natural injustice of slavery is deduced.
For, obviously, if man's obligation to civil society
243 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
originates in the voluntary social contract of independent integers, none can be rightfully held to a compulsory obedience, which enters into all servitude, both
domestic and political.
Some liberal writers, as Blackstone, and the great
Swiss publicist, Burlemaqui, are too sensible not to see
that this scheme is false to the facts of the case. But
they still hold, that although individual men never, in
fact, existed in the independent insulation supposed,
and did not actually,pass into a state of society by a
formal social contract, yet such a transaction must be
assumed as the implied and virtual source of political
power and civic obligation.  To us it appears, that if
the contracting never occurred in fact, but is only a
theoretical fiction, it is no basis for any thing, and no
source of practical rights and duties. Civil society is
a universal fact; and its existence must be grounded
in something actual. We object, then, to this dream of
a social contract preceded by a native state of individual independence, that it is false to the facts of the
case.  Efuman beings never rightfully existed, for one
moment, in this state, out of which they are supposed
to have passed by their own option. God never gave
them such independency. Their responsibility to him,
and to the civil society under which He has placed
them, is as native as they'are, being ordained by God
to exist from the first. Men -do not choose civic obligation, but are born to it, just as the child to his filial
obligation. And the simple, conclusive proof is, that if
any man were to claim this native option to assume or
to decline civic obligations, (in the latter case relinquishing also their advantages,) there is not a govern
244 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
ment on earth, not the mQst liberal, that would not
laugh his claim to scorn, and at once compel his allegiance. The very assumption of what this theory:calls
man's normal state, and the very attempt to exercise
the option which, as it babbles, originated civil society,
would constitute a man an outlaw, the radical enemy
of civic society, and would give it a natural right, that
of self-preservation, to destroy him. The scheme is not
only fictitious, but absurd.
Second: We object that it is atheistic, utterly ignoring the existence of a Creator, and his relations to, and
proprietorship in, man. It affects to treat men as though
their existence were underived, and independent of any
Supreme Being. It boldly discards God's right to determine under what obligations man shall live, and
quietly contemns the great Scriptural fact that He has
determined man shall live under social law.
* Third: This scheme is thoroughly unphilosophical, in
that whereas the science of government should be an
inductive one, this theory is, and in its nature must be,
purely hypothetical. No body, no history pretends to
relate in a single instance, any such facts as it professes to rest upon.  This Locke admits, and even claims,
absurdly seeking in this mode to evade this vital objection.. Hence we assert that it has no claims to be
entertained in foro scientice, even for discussion.
Fourth: If man at first possessed that natural liberty,
and passed from it under the obligation of constitutions
and laws by a social contract, then sundry most inconvenient and preposterous consequences must logically
follow. One of these is, that when once men had established their constitution, (in other words, their com
245 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
pact,) so long as its terms. were observed by the magistrates and the minority, the majority could never righteously change it, no matter how inconvenient, or even
ruinous, new circumstances might have made it, against
the will of the minority or of the rulers. For when one
has made a voluntary bargain, subsequent inconveniences of it do not justify its breach. The just man is
one who changeth not, though he "sweareth to his own
hurt." Another consequence would be, that it could
never be settled what were the terms agreed upon in
the original compact, and what part of existing laws
were the accretions of unwarranted power, except in
the case of written constitutions.  Few nations have
such. But a far worse consequence would be, that if
the duty of allegiance originated in such compact, then
any one unconstitutional act of the rulers or majority
would dissolve it.  For it is a covenant; but a covenant broken by one party is broken for both. Now, who
believes that a single unconstitutional act of the ruler
voids the whole allegiance of the aggrieved citizen?
Where would be the government which would not be
plunged into anarchy?
Last, all commonwealths have found it necessary to
arm the magistrate with some powers, which individuals could not have conferred by a social compact, because they never possessed them. One of these is the
power of life and death. No man's life is his own: it
belongs to God alone. One cannot bargain away what
is not his own. Besides, it is absurd to represent men
as bargaining away this tremendous power for some
smaller advantages and securities; because life is'the
most precious of all. "What shall a man accept in
246 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
exchange for his life?" It is of no avail to say that the
community is entitled, by the law of self-preservation,
to assume this power; because, on this theory, there is
no community as yet. There is only a number of independent integers, sovereignly treating with each
other. The community cannot assume powers before
it exists! It is, if possible, still more difficult to explain, on this theory, how political societies came by
the power of capital punishment, against aliens who
assail their members. But all governments hold aliens
living among them, and invading enemies, subject to
their capital penalties. How is this? The foreigner
certainly has not assented to the social compact of this
society; for he claims to be alien, and to owe no allegiance. His consent, the supposed fountain of all right
over him, is utterly lacking. Once more, this theory
draws a broad distinction between man's civil liberty
as a subject of government, and his natural liberty.
The latter it defines as privilege to do whatever the man
pleases, within the limits of natural law as interpreted
by himself. And his natural rights are just the same.
Some of these he voluntarily surrenders to society, to
secure the rest. All government, therefore, is not only
of the nature of restraint; it is essentially restraint
upon one's rights. The advocates of the theory distinctly represent government as of the nature of a natural
evil and wrong, but adopted as an expedient against
the worse evil, anarchy; and therefore the obligation
to obey it has no higher source than expediency. But
worse yet; if there is any such thing as intrinsic morality, government is an immoral restraint, for it is a
restraint upon rights. Whatever good government may
247
14 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
bring us, it is of that species which St. Paul reprobates,
as "doing evil that good  may  come."   The  gireat
Hobbes was therefore perfectly consistent, in teaching
that there is no original morality in acts, and that there
was at first no such thing as right, distinct from might.
Morals are factitious distinctions invented iunder civil
society for expediency. Let the thoughtful reader consider how this monstrous conclusion uproots all obligation, and order, and allegiance.- No man can hold the
theory of the origin of government in the social contract, unless he either holds, with Hobbes, this damnable error, or with some abolitionists, (who are thoroughly consistent here,) that all government is immoral.
But its advocates urge that it does give the correct
origin of government, because they can point to specific
rights, which must have been natural in the individual,
but which we now find vested in the government.
The instance they most cite, is that of self-defence. We
accept it, and assert that it confirms our view. For, if
the right of self-defence means privilege of forcible
resistance to violence at the time it is offered, we utterly
deny that it has been surrendered by the individual, or
can be justly limited one iota by government. If it
means the savage privilege of retaliation after the
collision -has passed away, which claims' to make the
angry defendant. accuser, judge, jury, and executioner
in his own case, we utterly deny that nature ever gave
such right to any man.   "Vengeance is mine: I will
repay, saith the Lord."  Another instance alleged, is
when the citizen is restrained by society from certain
acts, moralper se: as selling his corn out of the country
when there is dearth. Yet the good citizen obeys. The
248 
D
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
answer is, that if the restriction is not unjust, it is
because there exists among the citizens such danger of
suffering for corn, that the sending it out of the country
would be a breach of the natural law of love and equity.
Natural rights may change with circumstances, a simple
truth often strangely forgotten on this subject.
Now, it is from this vicious theory of human rights,
that abolitionism sucks its whole life. The whole argument is but this: no restraint of government on man's
will can be righteous, which is forcible and involuntary,
because the obligation of all just government originates
in the option of the individuals governed, who are by
nature sovereign. Before we indicate the relationship
of this conclusion with its disorganizing brood of kindred, we must pause to meet a question which arises.
It is this: if this pet hypothesis is relinquished, on
what basis shall we defend free government? Let us
see if a better foundation for its blessings cannot be
found.
Political and ethical philosophers have been perpetually victims to the notion, that because theirs are
natural sciences, as distinguished from revealed or theological, therefore they must banish from them all reference to God, his nature, his acts, and his will, and our
relations to it. The true inference should be, 6nly, that
they must abstain from the introduction of those peculiar
revealed facts, which belong to man as an object of
redemption and subject of the Church of Christ. If we
are not atheists, the facts that God is, that our being
proceeds from his act, that we are his property, are as
truly natural as man and his attributes are. They
should therefore be embraced as a part of the facts of
11*
lb
249 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
the case, to be treated just as all other natural facts,
save that these are the most rudimental of all. For,
how can that treatment be truly scientific, which proceeds upon a partial induction of the facts of the case,
leaving out the most primary? It is this illusion which
has led so many moralists to attempt the discussion of
the nature and origin of moral distinctions, without
introducing a Creator, or a divine will.  Whereas, a
true science accepts God as the first fact in ethics; his
attributes as the primary standard of the moral distinction; his will as the fountain of moral obligation.
What wretched impotency and confusion has not this
omission caused in ethical discussions!
In like manner, this impotent and infidel theory of
government sets out, (as was consistent with its atheistic
inventors,) without reference to the fact that man's
existence, nature, and rights originated in the personal
will of a Creator, without reference to original moral
distinctions, or to original responsibilities to God, or to
the moral quality of God's will towards man. It quietly
ignores the fact that man's will, if he is the creature of
an intelligent and moral personal Creator, never could,
by any possibility, be his proper rule of acting. It
passes over, in the insane pride of human perfectionism,
the great fact that man is also a naturally depraved
creature. It falsely supposes a state of nature, in which
man's will made his right: whereas no being, save an
eternal and self-existent God, has a right to exist in that
state for one instant. But all these arefacts of nature,
belonging to the case, ascertainable by experience and
reason. If, then, we would have a correct theory of
natural rights, all of them must be embraced in our
0
250 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
view. - And the proper account of the matter is simply
this: Inasmuch as man did not make himself, he enters
existence the subject of God.  This subjection is not only
of force, but also of moral right. Moral distinctions are
original, being eternally expressed in God's perfections,
and sovereignly revealed to the creature in his preceptive will; which is, to man, the practical source and
rule of obligation. This moral obligation is therefore
as native as man is. The rudimental relations to his
God and his fellows imposed on man are binding on him
ab initio; not at all by force of any assent of his will,
but merely by the rightful force of God's will: man's
virtue is to conform his will freely to God's. This will
also defines his rights; by which we mean those things
which other creatures are morally obliged to allow him
to have and to do. Man, we repeat, enters existence
with these moral relations resting upon him. And
among them, are his social relations to his fellows; as
is shown by.the fact that he has a social nature.  Now
civil government is nothing more than the organization
of a part of.these social relations. God's will and
providence, then, as truly as his word, has -placed man
naturally under civil government. It is as natural as
man is. Again: the rule of action imposed by just
government is the moral rule.  That is to say, an equitable government enjoins on its members or subjects the
doing of those things which are morally right, and the
refraining from those things which are morally wrong.
We trace civil government, then, not to any social
contract, or other human expediency, but to the will
and providence of God, and to original moral obligation.
If asked, whence the obligation to obey the civil magis
251
ll 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
trate who, personally, is but our fellow, we answer,
from God's will, which is the source and measure of
duty. Man's will is wayward and depraved. Hence
practical authority to enforce this rule of right upon
him must be lodged in some hands; and since God
does not rule statedly by miracle, it must be in human
hands. Civil government is God's ordinance, and its
obligations are those of original moral right. The
advantage and convenience resulting illustrate and
confirm, but do not originate, the obligation. This is
the theory of government plainly taught by St. Paul
(Rom. xiii. 1 to 7) and St. Peter (1 Ep. ii. 13 to 18.)
For we are here told that the civil magistrate is God's
minister, to uphold right and repress wrong; that obedience to him in this is not only of moral, but religious
obligation; and that he who resists this function disobeys God.
What, then, is man's natural liberty? We answer,
that it is only privilege to do whatever he has a moral
right to do. Freedom to do whatever a man wills, is
not a liberty, either natural or civil, but an unnatural
license, a natural iniquity; man's will being naturally
depraved. What then is man's civil liberty? We reply,
that under an equitable government, it is the samethe privilege to do whatever he has a moral right to do.
No government is perfectly equitable: none are wholly
unjust. Some withhold more, some fewer, of the citizen's
moral rights.  None withhold them all.  Hence, under
the most despotic government there are some rights left,
and so, some liberty. A perfectly just government
would be one which would allot to each citizen freedom
to do all the things which he had a moral right to do, and
252 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
nothing else. Such a government would not restrain
the natural liberty of any citizen in any respect; each
man's civil liberty would be identical with his natural.
Government does not originate rights, neither can it
justly take them away. But practically, it confirms,
instead of impairing, our natural liberty; because it
secures us in the exercise of it.
But the friends of liberal government may feel a lurking suspicion of this plain statement; because it is on
a theory of pretended'divine right' that the arguments
for legitimacy, passive obedience, and despotism repose.
Let us, then, pause to inquire whether the true scheme
looks in that direction. And we ask first: Whether it is
not much more likely that tyrannical conclusions will be
drawn from those principles which ignore God, the great
standard of right, and original moral distinctions, which
are the basis of all rights, and so of all liberty-from
principles which make man's might his natural right;
rather than from our principles, which solidly found
man's rights in eternal moral distinctions, and in the will
of a just and benevolent God, the common Father, before
whom rulers and ruled are equal? And when we turn
to the history of opinion, we see that while Locke illogically deduced from this theory of the social contract a
scheme of liberal government, his greater master, Hobbes,
inferred that the most complete despotism was the most
consistent. And both the French and the Yankee Jacobins, deriving from it an impious deification of the
will of the mob which happens to be the larger, as the
supreme law, have reduced their theory to practice in the
most violent, ruthless, and mischievous oppressions ever
253 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
perpetrated on civilized communities. Let the tree be
judged by its fruits.
We repeat, that the glory and strength of the Chris    tian theory of human government and liberty is this:
that it founds man', rights on eternal moral distinctions.
The liberty it grants each man is privilege of doing all
those things which he, with his particular character
and relations, is morally entitled to do. Privilege of
doing all other things it retrenches; for what would
this be but sin? Now the epitome of moral distinctions
is,'Love thy neighbour as thyself.' It is the same law
expressed in the "Golden Rule."  The meaning of this,
as we saw, is, not that we must do to our fellow all that
our caprice might desire, if our positions were inverted;
but what we should believe ourselves morally entitled
to require Of him, in that case. Here, then, is the true
basis of human equality. Men are all children of a
common Father, brethren of the same race, each one
entitled by the same right to his own appropriate share
of well-being. Hence, by a single and conclusive step,
as the foundation of civil government is moral, its proper
object is the good of all, governors and governed. Gov    ernment is not for the behoof of rulers, but of the ruled
also. Subjects were not made for kings, but kings for
subjects. Indeed, rulers are themselves subjects, ow    ing allegiance to the universal law of right, and mem    bers of the brotherhood for whose common good this
law reigns. In the sublime words of Samuel. Ruther    ford, Rex, Lex.  Neither Scriptures nor providence give
to rulers any of that paternal right over the people, of
which the legitimatists prate. They neither have for
their subjects the father's instinctive love, nor the fa
254: 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
ther's natural superiority in virtue, experience, or powers. The Scriptural governments over Israel were none
of them legitimatist; and that to which Paul, Peter,
and Christ owned conscientious allegiance, the Empire
of the Ceesars, was not hereditary, and was a recent
novelty. Again: while it is God's ordinance that men
shall live under governments, no one form of government is ordained. "The powers that be are ordained
of God." The one which, in His providence, actually
subsists, is the legitimate one to the individual conscience. Still less has God indicated the individuals
who shall govern as His agents. There is no divine
nomination of the particular person. HIence, as government is for the common good of all, the selection of.
these agents belongs to the common wisdom and rectitude of the whole. And it is in this sense, (and only
this,) that the Christian holds that the power of rulers
is delegated from the ruled. In the higher sense, it is
delegated from God, who is our true, rightful, and literal
despot. The despotism of perfect, infinite rectitude is
the most perfect freedom.
Now it is clear, that the several rights of different
individuals in the same society must differ exceedingly,
because the persons differ indefinitely in powers, knowledge, virtue, and natural relations to each other. From
that very law of love and equity, whence the moral
equality of men was inferred, it must also follow, that
one man is not morally entitled to pursue his natural
well-being at the expense of that of other me, or of
the society.  Each one's right must be so pursued, as
not to infringe others' rights.  The well-being of all is
inter-connected. Hence equity, yea, a true equality it
255
0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
self, demands a varied distribution of social privilege
among the members, according to their different characters and relations. In other words, an equal government must confer very different degrees of power, and
impose very different degrees of restraint, upon different classes of members.  To attempt an identical and
mechanical equality; to confer on those who are incompetent to use them, the same privileges granted to
others who can and will use them rightfully, would be
essential inequality; for it would clothe the incompetent
and undeserving with power to injure the deserving and
capable, without real benefit to themselves. Hence,
the civic liberties of all classes in the same society
ought not to be the same. Thus, of the adult members,
half are females, inexorably separated by sex, strength,
social relations, and natural duties.   Hence different
civic rights are properly given to the minale, in some
respects; not because it is right to empower him to
consume upon the promotion of his natural well-being
that of his sister, but because, on the whole, the wellbeing of both sexes is thus most promoted. Whether
this result does follow, must be a question of fact, to be
decided by experience, if not settled in advance by God's
Word. There is in the society another class of members, the children, who are not only different from, but
inferior to, the adults, in knowledge, strength, experience, and self-controul. Hence, it is equitable to withhold from them still other privileges of the full citizenship. Again: the amount of privileges properly conceded to the body of citizens of the first class, should
vary in different commonwealths with their average
character. If intelligence and virtue are, in the aver
256
0 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
age, more developed, the restraints of government should
be fewer; if less cultivated, more numerous.  Different
framhes of government may be best for different communities.
Once more: If the society contains a class of adult
members, so deficient in virtue and intelligence that
they would only abuse the fuller privileges of other citizens to their own and others' detriment, it is just to
withhold so many of these privileges, and to impose so
much restraint, as may be necessary for the highest
equity to the whole body, inclusive of this subject class.
And how much restraint is just, must be determined by
facts and experience. Any degree of it is righteous,
which is necessary to the righteous end. This is so obvious, that even abolitionists admit it, when they lose
sight for the moment of their hobby.  Of this Dr. Francis Wayland, a prominent abolitionist, gives us a striking instance in his "Moral Science." (Boston, 1838, p.
351.)   He says: "Whatever concessions on the part
of the individual, and whatever powers on the part of
society, are necessary to the existence of society, must,
by the very fact of the existence of society, be taken for
granted."  On p. 356, he adds: "If it be asked which
of these" (hereditary, mixed, or republican)  "is the
preferable form of government, the answer, I think, must
be conditional. The best form of government for any
people, is the best that its present social and moral condition renders practicable. A people may be so entirely surrendered to the influence of passion, and so feebly influenced by moral restraints, that a government which relied
upon moral restraints could not exist for a day. In
this case a subordinate and inferior principle yet re
257 
A- DEFENCE OF Vi'RGINIA.
mains,-the principle offear: and the only resort is to a
government of force, or a military despotism."
If then the necessities of order justify the subjection
of a whole nation, with their labour, property, and lives,
to one man, will not tihe same reasons justify the far
milder and more benevolent authority of masters over
their servants? If it appear that the Africans in these
States were by recent descent pagans and barbarians,
men in bodily strength and appetite, with the reason
and morals of children, constitutionally prone to improvidence, so that their possession of all the franchises of
a free white citizen would make them a nuisance to
society and early victims to their own degradatipn; and
if sound experience teaches that this ruin cannot be
prevented without a degree of restraint approaching
that proper for children; that is, by giving to a guardian the controul of their involuntary labour, and the
expenditure of the fruits for the joint benefit of the
parties; how can we be condemned for it?' And that
social welfare and order, and the happiness of the African himself, do call imperiously for this degree of controul, is confessed by all who have a practical knowledge of his character, as it is proved by the disasters
resulting from his emancipation.
Every government in the.world acknowledges this
necessity, and applies; in some form, this remedy. The
abolition government of the United States, for instance,
imposed compulsory restraints and labour upon multitudes of fugitive slaves, during the war. The only difference was, ttat whereas our system of domestic
slavery placed this power in hands most powerfully interested to employ it humanely and wisely, the anti
258
I 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
slavery authorities placed it in hands which had every
selfish inducement to abuse it to the misery of the slave,
and the detriment of the publick interest. And the
same government is to-day avouching every word of
the above argument, by justifying itself, from a pretended political necessity, for placing the white race of
the South under a much stricter bondage than that
forme"rly borne by the negroes; a bondage which places
not only labour and property,- but life, at the irresponsible will of the masters. If slavery is wrong, then
the abolitionists are the greatest sinners; for they have
turned their own brethren into a nation of slaves.
Domestic servitude, as we define and defend it, is but
civil government in one of its forms. All government
is restraint; and this is but one form of restraint. As
long as man is a sinner, and his will perverted, restraint
is righteous.  We  are sick of that arrogant and profane cant, which asserts man's'capacity for self-governlment' as a universal proposition; which represents
human nature as so good, and democratic government
as so potent, that it is a sort of miraculous panacea,
sufficient to repair all the disorders of man's condition.
All this ignores the great truths, that man is fallen;
that his will is disordered, and therefore ought not to
be his rule; that God, his owner and master, has
ordained that he shall live under authority.   What
fruit has radical democracy ever borne, except factious oppression, anarchy, and the stern necessity for
despotism?
It has been stated that each man's civil liberty, which,
under a just government, is the same with;his natural
liberty, consists in the privilege of doing and having
,259 
A DEFENCE OF YIRGINIA.
tuose things to which he is morally entitled. It has
been shown, that as different persons in the same society differ widely in character, powers, and relations,
their specific natural rights differ also. But under all
forms of government, all still have some liberty. And
under a perfectly equitable form, the different classes of
persons would properly have different grades of liberty.
So that, even in the relation of involuntary servitude
for life, if it be not abused, there is an appropriate
liberty. Such a servant has privilege to do those things
which he is morally entitled to do. If there are certain
things which he is restrained by authority from doing,
which the superior grades may do, these things are not
rights to him.  His inferior character, ignoranee, and
moral irresponsibility, have extinguished his right to do
them. And this properly, because his privilege of doing them would injure others and himself, and thus violate the law of equity.  If his slavery restrains him
from doing more things than these, then the laws do
him injustice, and mar his rightful liberty.
This degree of domestic servitude supposes that he
end of the restraints it imposes is, to secure, on the
whole, the best well-being of both parties to the relation, servant as well as master. Here we may notice a
forensic trick practised by Dr..Wayland and the abolitionists.  It is that of giving to the proposition which
they wish to overthrow, such an exposition as makes it
absurd in itself. Says this professed moralist, in his
chapter on slavery: "Domestic slavery proceeds upon
the principle that the master has a right to controul the
actions, physical and intellectual, of the slave, for his
own, that is, the master's individual benefit; and of
0
260 
THE  ETHICAL.ARGUMENTL,
course, that the happiness of the master, when it comes
in competition with the happiness of the slave, extinguishes in the latter the right to pursue it."  If this
were true, it would need no argument to show that
slavery is a natural injustice. But slavery proceeds on
no such principles. All men ought to know that our
slave laws proved the contrary, in that they protected
the slave, in many particulars, against the master's will,
when it became unrighteous. All know that the publick sentiment of our people proved the contrary; in
that the vast majority laboured and gave heartily for
the welfare of their servants. And all men who have
informed themselves know, that the grand result stamps
the definition as a misrepresentation; in that domestic
slavery here has conferred on the unfortunate black
race more true well-being than any other form of society has ever given them. But it may be asked: Do
not many masters selfishly use their slaves according to
that definition? We reply: Do not many parents selfishly use their children according to that definition,
neglecting their culture and true well-being, temporal
and eternal, for the sake of gain? And is it not in the
"thrifty" North that most of these instances of greedy,
grinding parents are found?  Yet who dreams of accusing the parental relation as therefore unrighteous
and mischievous?  This selfish tyranny is not the
parental relation, but the abuse of it.  So, every intelligent master defends his slaveholding, because it was,
in the main, as preferable for the slave's interest as for
his own.
261 
.A DEFENCE-OF VIRGINIA.
~ 4. Abolitionism is Jacobinism.
The promise was made above, to unmask some of the
hideous affinities of the anti-slavery theory. This is
now easy.  If men are by nature sovereign and independent, and mechanically equal in rights, and if allegiance is founded solely on expressed or implied consent, then not only slavery, but every involuntary restraint imposed on a person or a class not convicted of
crime, and every difference of franchise among the
members.of civil society, is a glaring wrong. Such are
the premises of abolition.   Obviously, then, the only
just or free government is one where all franchises are
absolutely equal to all sexes and conditions, where
every office is directly elective, and where no magistrate has any power not expressly assented to by the
popular will. For if inequalities of franchise may be
justified by differences of character and condition, of
course a still wider difference of these might justify so
wide an inequality of rights as that between the master
and servant. Your true abolitionist is then, of course,
a Red-Republican, a Jacobin. Is not this strikingly
illustrated by the fact, that the first wholesale abolition
in the world was that enacted for tlh French colonies
by the frantic democrats of the'Reign of Terror?'  And
this hint may serve to explain to the aristocracy of
Great Britain the popularity of the authoress of'Uncle
Tom's Cabin,' and of her slanderous book, among the
masses there.  It was not because Britain was so exempt from cases of social hardship and oppression at
home, that its people had all its virtuous sympathies at
0
262
W. 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
leisure and unoccupied, to pour forth upon the imaginary wrongs of Uncle Tom: but it was because the
Jacobinism of the abolitionist theory awakened m
echo in the hearts of the lower classes, still seething
with the recent upheaval of 1848.  The community of
agrarian sympathies mde itself felt. The noble Lords
and Ladies, who patronized the authoress and her book,
were industriously fanning the very fires which are
destined to consume their vested privileges.
Again, it follows of course from the premises of
abolitionism, that hereditary monarchy, no matter how
limited, is a standing injustice. A hereditary branch of
the legislature is, -if possible, still worse. Any such
thing as a privileged class in the State is a fraud upon
the others; for "all men are equal."  The limitation of
the right of suffrage, by property or sex, is a crime
against human right; for the non-voting classes are
ruled without their own consent; but consent is, according to them, the source of rightful authority.  Thus are
condemned at once the three branches of the hoary and
honoured'British constitution, kings, lords, and commons; under which men have enjoyed regulated liberty
longer, and to a greater degree, than under any government on earth. And here it may be remarked that
abolitionist ideas, so current in Great Britain, should
have been as alien to the prevalent turns of thought of
that people, as they certainly are to their welfare and
the genius of their institutions That a fantastic sciolist,
intoxicated with vanity and dazzled by some glittering
spphisms, should be an abolitionist, is natural.  But Englishmen have ever been esteemed a solid amd practical
race. Their political conclusions have usually been, to
263 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
the credit of their good sense, historical rather than
theoretical. Their temper has been rather to guard the
franchises inherited from their fathers, and approved by
the national experience, than to gape after visionary
and abstract rights of man.  But despite all this, Great
Britain has also been leavened vth this fell spirit.  Her
political managers imagined that they found in abolitionism the convenient' apple of discord' to destroy the
peace of a great rival, and they therefore fostered it.
To this great injustice they have added the condemnation of the South unheard, upon the testimony of our
interested accusers. And the majority of Englishmen,
with a dogmatism as unjust as senseless, have refused
to permit either explanation or defence, proudly wrapped in impenetrable prejudice, while an innocent and
noble people were condemned and overwhelmed by
baseless obloquy. But it requires no spirit of prophecy
to see that Divine Providence is speedily preparing a
retribution by means of their own sin, which will be
tremendous enough to satisfy the resentment of any
injured Southerner.   Abolitionized America'is manifestly to be the Nemesis of Britain, through her Jacobin
ideas, or arms, or both.  The principles ofabolition are,
as we have proved, destructive of the foundations of
the British constitution. Her own statesmen have insanely taught them to her people.  The masses do not,
indeed, reason very continuously or consistently; yet
principles once fixed in their minds always work themselves out, in time, to their logical results. The socalled "Liberal Party" of Great Britain, which draws
its inspirations from the abolition democracy of America,
is unveiling itself more and more, as a party of true
264:
Ab 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
Jacobinism; and other parties have now paltered and
dallied so long, that it will speedily show itself irresistible.
And when the policy of England is swayed by moneyless votes, instead of capital and land, the caution and
forbearance, bred by financial interests, which has thus
far scarcely kept the peace between her and the United
States, will speedily be changed. The two Jacobinisms, now so sweetly fraternizing over the ruin of the
South, will disclose their innate and uniform aggressiveness, and will rush at each other's throats. This
the immemorial rivalries and opposition of dearest interests will insure. Then will England feel, in the disintegration of her whole social fabrick by radical
American ideas, and the Yankee invasions of Canada
and Ireland, the folly of her own policy.
But other consequences follow from the abolitionist
dogmas. "All involuntary restraint is a sin against
natural rights," therefore laws which give to husbands
more power over the persons and property of wives,
than to wives over husbands, are iniquitous, and should
be abolished. The same decision must be made upon
the exclusion of women, whether married or single,
from suffrage, office, and the full franchises of men.
There must be an end of the wife's obedience to her
husband. Is it said that these subordinations are consistent, because women assent to them voluntarily, in
consenting to become wives? This plea ig insufficient,
because the female sex is impelled to marriage by irresistible laws of their nature and condition. How tyrannous is this legislation which shuts woman up to the
alternative of foregoing the satisfaction of the prime instincts of her existence; or else of submitting to a code
12
2-65,
0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
of natural injustice! As to the disabilities of single
women, this plea has no pretended application. Thus
the abolitionists will reason, yea, are reasoning. What
was the strange prediction of prophetic wisdom, a few
years ago, is now already familiar fact. Female suffrage isalready introduced in one State, and will doubt.
less prevail as widely as abolitionism. But when God's
ordinance of the family is thus uprooted, and all the appointed influences of education thus inverted; when
America has had a generation of women who were politicians, instead of mothers, how fundamental must be
the destruction of society, and how distant and difficult
must be the remedy!
Once more: The same principles have consistently led
some abolitionists to assail the parental relation itself.
For although none can deny that, in helpless infancy,
subjection should be the correlative of protection and
maintenance, when once the young citizen has passed
from the age of childhood, by what reason can the abolitionist justify his compulsory government by the father?
Are not all men by nature equal.?
It has been currently asserted that the premises of
the abolitionists were embraced in the Declaration of
Independence; so that the United States have been committed to them from the beginning. The words usually
referred to are the following: "That all men are created
equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure
these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," etc.  If by these celebratecpropositions it was
266 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
meant that there ever was, or could be, a government
where all men enjoyed the same measure of privilege,
then it is false. If it was meant that there ever was,
or could be, a state of society in which all men could
indulge their volitions to the same extent, and that, in
every case, the full extent, it is false; for natural and
unavoidable differences of persons must ever prevent
this. If it were meant that all men are naturally equal,
then it would be false; for men are born with different
bodily and mental powers, different moral qualities, and
different inheritances of rights. If it was meant that
every person enters life free from just controul, it is
false; for we all begin our existence rightfully subject,
irrespective of our consent, to authority in family and
State. Neither God nor nature makes it optional with
us whether we will be subject to government. But if
it be meant that all men are created equal in this sense,
that all are children of a common heavenly Father, all
common subjects of the law of equity expressed in the
"Golden Rule," each one as truly entitled to possess
the set of rights justly appropriate to him, (and by the
same reason,) as any other is entitled to his set of
rights; this is true, and a glorious truth. This is
man's moral equality. It means that, under God, the
servant is as much entitled to the rights and privileges
of a justly-treated servant, as the master is to the
rights of a master; that the commoner is as much entitled to the just privileges of a commoner, as a peer to
those of a peer. It is the truthful boast of Englishmen, that in their land every man is equal before the
law. What does this mean? Does it mean that Lord
Derby has no other franchises and privileges than the
267 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
day-labourer? By no means. But the privileges allotted
to the day-labourer by the laws are defended by the
same institutions, and adjudicated by the same free
principles, and made legally as inviolable, as the very
different and larger privileges of Earl Derby. It is in
this sense that a just and liberal government holds all
men by nature equal. And if, when the Declaration of
Independence says that the right of all men to their
liberty is "inalienable," the proper definition of civil
liberty is accepted, (that it only means privilege to do
what each man, in his peculiar circumstances, has a
moral right to do,) this also is universally true. But all
this is perfectly consistent with differences of social
condition, and station, and privilege; where characters
and relations are different. As we have seen, the servant for life, who as a slave receives  "those things
which are just and equal," has his true liberty, though
it is different from that of the free citizen; and the servant can no more be justly stripped of this his modicum
of liberty, than the master of his. Last, when it is
declared that "governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed," there is a sense in
which it is true, and one in which it is false. In one
sense, they derive their just powers from God, his law,
and providence. In the other sense, that the people are
not for their rulers, but the rulers for their people, the
selection of particular forms of constitution and of the
individuals to execute the functions, belongs to the
aggregate rectitude and intelligence of the commonwealth, expressed in some way practically fair. But by
"the consent of the governed," our wise fathers never
intended the consent of each particular human being,
268
114
4 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
competent and incompetent. They intended the representative commonwealth as a body, the "populus," or
aggregate corporation of that part of the human beings
properly wielding the franchises of full citizens. Their
proposition is general, and not particular.  The men of
1776 were not vain Ideologues; they were sagacious,
practical Englishmen. Thus understood, as every correct thinker does, they teach nothing against difference
of privilege among the subjects of government; and
consequently, nothing inconsistent with the servitude of
those who are found incapable of beneficially possessing
a fuller liberty.
Now, the evidence that this only was their meaning
is absolutely complete. Had their proposition been that
of the Jacobin abolitionist, (that just claim on men's
obedience to authority is founded on the individual's
consent,) they must have ordered every thing differently from their actual legislation.   They  could  not
have countenanced limited suffrage, of which nearly all
of them were advocates. They must have taught female
suffrage, which the most democratic of them would have
pronounced madness. Not only did they retain the
African race in slavery, in the face of this declaration,
but they refused to adopt full democratic equality, in
reconstructing their constitutions.   Were  these men
fools? Were they ignorant of the plain meaning of
their own propositions? Did they, like modern Radicals,
disdain the plainest obligations of consistency? Some
attempt to evade their retention of slavery, by saying
that they did not defend its consistency, nor contem plate it as a permanent relation; but the other facts
are unanswerable.  It may be true that Jefferson, the
269 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
draughtsman of the Declaration, did heartily adopt his
propositions in the sense of the advocates of the social
contract; for it is well known that he was properly
a Democrat, and not, like the other great Whigs of Virginia, only a Republican; that he had drank deeply
into the spirit of Locke's political' writings; and that
he had already contracted a fondness for the atheistical
philosophy of' the French political reformers. But who
can believe that George Mason, of Gunston, could fail
to see the glaring inconsistency between these propoSitions, taken in thle extravagant and radical sense now
forced upon them by the abolitionists, and the constitution which he gave to the State of Virginia? According to that immortal instrument, our commonwealth
was as distinctly contrasted with a levelling democracy,
as any monarchy regulated by laws could possibly be.
It was, indeed, a liberal, aristocratic republic. None
could vote save the owners of land in fee-simple; and
these were permitted to exercise their elective powers
directly, only in one sole instance, the election of the
General Assembly. This Assembly then exercised, without farther reference to the freeholders, all the powers
of the commonwealth. The Assembly elected the Governor of the State. The Assembly appointed all judges
of law, and executive officers of State.   The county
courts, to whom belonged the whole power of police,
of local taxation, and of administration of local justice
in cases beneath the grade of a felony, formed a proper
aristocracy, serving for life, appointing their own clerks
and sheriffs, and filling vacancies in their own numbers
by a nomination to the Governor, which was always
virtually imperative.  Such'was the government which
270 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
the statesmen of Virginia deliberately adopted, after
signing the Declaration of Independence; than which
none could have been devised by human wit, so well
adapted to the character and wants of their people, and
under which they exhibited the highest political stability and purity which our commonwealth has ever
known. Any one who knows the British Constitution
will see at a glance, that our Virginian frame of government was not the work of men led by the Utopian
dream of "liberty, fraternity, and equality," but of
practical statesmen, establishing for their posterity the
historical rights of British freemen.
But were the language of the Declaration of Independence as docisive as anti-slavery men suppose, it would
concern us exceedingly little. We regard it as no
political revelation. When we formed a part of the
United States, it was no article of our constitution;
and still less are we responsible for it now. If it should
be even convicted of embodying some error, this would
be neither very surprising, nor very disgraceful to its
authors.  For what more probable than that men inflamed by the spirit of resistance to tyranny, and surrounded by the excitements of a revolution, in thp
indiscreet effort to propound a-set of abstract generalities as the basis of their action, should mix the
plausible errors of the advocates of freedom with the
precious truth?
~ 5. Labour of another may be Property.
By confounding  the master's right to the  slave's
labour with a pretended property in his conscience,
soul, and whole personality, abolitionists have at
271 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
tempted to represent "property in man" as  a selfevident wrong. But we shall show that, in the only
sense in which we hold it, property in man is recognized
by the laws of every commonwealth. The father has
property in his child, the master in his apprentice, the
husband in his wife, the wife in her husband, and the employer in his hireling. In every one of these cases, this
property is recoverable by suits at law, and admits of
being transmuted for money, just as any other possession.
When the husband is killed by the culpable negligence
of a railroad company which had engaged to transport
him for hire, the wife sues and recovers money damages. When the daughter is seduced from her father's
house, he may sue for compensation, and the court will
assess the value of her remaining services until her
majority, at such a sum as they judge proper. How is
this to be explained, save by regarding the wife as
having lawful property in the industry of her husband,
and the father as having property in the labour of his
daughter? The labour of a minor son is often sold by
the father, and thus becomes the property of the purchaser. It is of no avail to say that this labour is voluntary, and that the property originates in tihe virtual
compact between the parties; for this is not true of the
parental relation. Still another striking instance of
lawful property in the involuntary labour of a fellowman, appears in the apprenticeship of the children of
paupers.   Pauperism is not a crime; yet these children are, with undisputed moral propriety, indentured
to householders, during their minority; and the labour
thus conveyed is hired, sold, bequeathed, just as any
other property. Dr. Wayland argues that there cannot
272 
THE ETHIICAL ARGUMENT.
be ownership in man, because ownership as he defines
it, consists in our "right to use the property as we please!"
This definition was made to suit abolitionism, and is
not the truth. May we, because we have property in
our horses, use them living as we would our logs of
wood, for fuel? The ethics of common sense, as that of
all true science, (what Dr. W. should have known, if he
had been fit to do what he assumed, teach science,)
define ownership t6 be a right to use our property according to its nature.   Thus defined, property in man
presents no solecism whatever, inconsistent with righteousness.
~ 6. The Slave Received due Wages.
But it is charged that the injustice of our system is
apparent in this, that it takes the slave's labour without compensation.   It is simply untrue.  Southern
slaves received, on the average, better and more certain compensation than any labouring people of their
capacity in the world. It came to them in the form of
that maintenance, which the master was bound by the
laws,* as well as his own interests, to bestow upon
them. During childhood, they were reared at his expense; in sickness they received maintenance, nursing, and the same medical advice which he provided
for his own children; all at his expense. When they
married and had' children, (which all did, single-blessedness. was unknown among them,) their families
were provided for by the masters without one additional toil or anxiety on their part. When they died,
*See Code of Va., 1849, Chap. 10 ~ 6.
12*
:273 
A DEFEiICE OF VIRGINIA.
their orphans had, in the master's estate, an unfailing
provision against destitution; and if old age overtook
them, they received, without labour, the same supplies
and comforts which were allotted to them in their
prime. HIow many of the sons of toil in nominally free
countries would seize with rapture the offer of such
wages for their labour, if the name of slavery were detached from them? To be able to secure, by the moderate labours of their active years, a certain and liberal
provision for their daily wants, for their families, however large, and for sickness and old age, would be a
contract so advantageous, in comparison with the
hardships and uncertainties of the peasant's usual life,
that few thoughtful persons of that class would hesitate, from love of novelty or dim hope of a more lucky
career, to embrace it.  But this is just what our laws
and customs gave to our slaves, as wages of their easy
labour.
But the anti-slavery man objects, that the adjustment
of this compensation is made at the will of the master
alone, while the slave has no power to influence it.'
This is precisely the same objection, in effect, with the
one that the labour is involuntary. We have already
shown that this circumstance alone does not make the
claim on the labour unjust. And if the system makes
for the slave, on the average, a better bargain than he
could make for himself, where is his hardship? Is he
injured by being restrained of the liberty of injuring
himself? Surely, the fairness of any system should be
judged by the fairness of its average results. If some
masters withhold a part of the due wages, by failing
to "render to their servants that which is just and
274 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
equal," this is their individual fault, not that of the
system.  St. Paul, in the passage quoted, manifestly
thought that we might hold the involuntary labour of
our slaves, and yet be no robbers.
But our enemies return to the charge, urging that
we robbed our-slaves, because we  engrossed to ourselves the lion's share of the bondsman's labour. The
master and his family, say they, who did no work,
rolled in luxury, while the poor slaves, who did all, got
only such a pittance as was needed to preserve their
capacity for toil. This is false in every part. Masters
and their families were not idlers. Their life was not
relatively luxurious. The slave's share was not a pittance, but much more like the lion's share. But, they
exclaim:  "Let the masters stand aside and allow the
slaves to enjoy the whole fruits of the estates they cultivate: then only will the former cease to be robbers."
This astonishing folly is exposed by simply asking,
whether capital and superintending skill are not entitled to wages, as well as labour?  The crops of the
Southern plantation were the joint fruit of the master's
capital, the master's labour and skill of oversight, and
the slaves' labour. If capital be denied all remuneration, the wheels of productive industry would stop
everywhere, to the especial ruin of the  labouring
classes. Does the anti-slavery manufacturer of Lowell
or Manchester think it fair, after investing his
thousands in fixtures and material, and bestowing his
anxious superintendence, that his operatives should
claim the whole- profits of the factory, leaving him not
a penny, because, forsooth, he never spun or wove a
thread? Away with the nonsense! Southern slaves
275 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
enjoyed a larger share of the proceeds of conjoined
capital, superintending skill, and labour, than any
operatives in the world. This is not only allowed, but
virtually asserted, by anti-slavery men, when they
reason that slavery is an economical evil, because the
maintenance of slaves is more costly, in proportion to
the value of their labour, than that of free labourers.
Thus, in one place; they'object that slaves receive too
much compensation, and in another, that they receive
too little.  Nor is it true that Southern masters usually
make no contribution of labour to the products of
their farms. There is nowhere a population of equal
wealth, more industrious than slaveholders. The master usually contributes far more to the common production than the strongest labourer on his estate; and
the mistress more than the most industrious female
servant, partly in the labours of superintendence, but
also in actual toil. 
~ 7. Effects of Slavery on Moral Character.
It is argued by abolitionists, that slavery regularly
exerts many influences tending to degrade the moral
character of both masters and servants. Their charge
cannot be better stated than in the words of Dr.
Wayland.   ["Moral Science," Personal Liberty, Ch. I.,
~2.]
"Its effects must -be disastrous upon the morals of
both parties. By presenting objects on whom passion
jxay be satiated without resistance, and without redress, it tends to cultivate in the master, pride, anger,
cruelty, selfishness, and licentiousness. By accustoming the slave to subject his moral principles to the will
4
276 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
of another, it tends to abolish in him all moral distinctions, and thus fosters in him, lying, deceit, hypocrisy,
dishonesty, and a willingness to yield himself up to
minister to the appetites of his master. That in all
slaveholding countries there are exceptions to this remark, and that there are principles in human nature
which, in many cases, limit the effect of these tendencies, may be gladly admitted. Yet that such is the
tendency of slavery as slavery, we think no reflecting
person can for a momenit hesitate to allow."
This is a flattering picture of us, truly I By good
fortune, it is drawn by one who knows nothing of us.
Just such are the current representations which
Yankees have made of Southern morals, down to the
notable instance of Senator Sumner's speech on the
"B3arbarism' of Slavery."  The  question whether the
system of slave labour deteriorates the morals of master
and servant, as compared with that of free labour, may
be treated as one of deduction and reasoning, or one
of fact. The latter is the more trustworthy way to
decide it.  Dr. Wayland undertakes to settle it solely
by the former. And it is manifest to the first glance,
that his whole reasoning begs the question.  If the
very relation is wicked, if every act of authority on the
master's part is a wrong, and of submission on the
servant's part is a surrender of his right, then the
reasoning is plausible.  But let us suppose, for argu ment's sake, (what may be true, as it is the very point
undecided,) that the relation may be right, the au thority exercised lawful, and the things our servants
are usually enjoined to do, innocent acts. Then, the
fact that there is authority on one side and obedience
277.. 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
on the other, cannot tend, of itself, to degrade ruler
and ruled: for if this were so, the parental relation
itself (ordained by God as His school of morals for
young human beings) would be a school of vice. But
the argument is a sophism, in a yet more audacious
and insulting sense. Its author argues the degradation of the slave, chiefly because his wicked master
compels him by fear to do so many wicked things.
But suppose the master to be a gentleman, and not a
brute, so that the things he customarily compels the
slave to do, are right things; where, then, is the argument? Which of the two characters masters usually
bear, is the question to be solved at the conclusion of
the reasoning, and, yet more, to be decided by the
surer testimony of fact. But Dr. Wayland chooses to
begin by presuming, a( priori, that masters are generally rascals.
Wisdom would infer, on the contrary, that the habitual exercise of authority, approved as righteous by
the ruler's conscience, tends to elevate his character.
He who would govern others must first govern himself.
Hence, we should expect to find him who is compelled
to exercise a hereditary and rightful authority, a man
more self-governed, thoughtful, considerate, firm, and
dignified, than other men. The habit of providing constantly for'a number of persons, whom he is impelled
by the strongest self-interest to care for efficiently,
should render a man considerate of others, and benevolent. Experience will soon teach the head of such an
estate, that his relation with his dependents must be
any thing else than a carnival of self-indulgence,
violence, and tyranny; for such a life will speedily leave
I
278 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
him no servants to abuse. On the contrary,*the very
necessities of his position compel him to be, to a
certain extent, provident, methodical  and equitable.
Without these virtues, his estate slips rapidly away.
And who, that knows human nature, can fail to see the
powerful effects of the institution in developing, in the
ruling caste, a higher sentiment of personal honour,
chivalry, and love of liberty? This was asserted of
the slaveholders of Virginia and the Caxolinas by
the sagacious Burke. It is very true, that if every
man in the country were under the vital influence of
Christian sanctification, he would not need these more
human influences to elevate his character.  But the
wise statesman takes men as they are, not as they
should be.  Until the millennium,  the elevating influences of social position will continue to be of great
practical value. Yankeedom, at least, continues thus
far to exhibit a great want of them.
But now, in considering the actual influences of slavery on the morals of the Africans, let the reader remember what they actually were before they were
placed under this tutelage. He may be sure they were
not what abolitionism loves to picture them, a sort of
Ebony Arcadians;, full of simple, pastoral purity, and of
what infidels vainly prate as the dignity of native virtue. It is not slavery which has degraded them from
that imaginary elevation. On the contrary, they were
what God's word declares human depravity to be under
the degrading effects of paganism. Let the reader see
the actual and true picture, in the first chapter of Romans, and in authentic descriptions of the negro in his
own jungles, such as the invaluable work of Dr. John
4
279 
280        A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
Leightob Wilson, on the tribes of the Guinea coast.
And here, moreover, he will find proof, that the type of
savage life brought to America originally by the slave
trade, was far below that witnessed in Africa among
the more noticeable tribes; because the great bulk of
the slaves were either the Pariahs of that barbarous
society, or the kidnapped members of the feeble fragments of bush tribes, who had nearly perished before
the comparative civilization of the Mandingoes and
Greboes, living but one remove above the apes around
them. Now cannot common sense see the moral advantage to such a people, of subjection to the will of a
race elevated above them, in morals and intelligence,
to an almost measureless degree? Is it no moral advantage to be compelled to wear decent clothing, and
to observe at least the outward proprieties which should
obtain between the sexes? None to be taught industry, in place of pagan laziness; and methodical habits,
in place-of childish waste and unthrift? The destructive
effects of the savage's common vices, lying, theft, drunkenness, laziness, waste, upon business and pecuniary
interests, will of course prompt masters to repress those
vices, if no higher motive does. Is this no gain for the
poor pagan?  Especially does the matter of drunkenness illustrate, in a splendid manner, the benign effects
of our system on African character and happiness.
Place any savage race beside a civilized and commercial people, and leave them free; and the speedy result
is, that the "fire-water" consumes and depopulates them.
Witness the North American Indians. But here was
just such a race, in the midst of the temptation and
opportunity, and yet preserved from all appreciable
it 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
evil from this source, and advancing in physical comfort, manners, and numbers, more rapidly than any
white race in Christendom.  While numbers of Africans exhibited just that weakness for ardent spirits,
which is to be expected in people lately barbarians, yet
so wholesome were the restraints of that regular and
constant occupation enforced upon them, it was the
rarest thing in the world that a farm-servant filled a
drunkard's grave among us. But now the.flood-gates
are opened. Was not Dr. Wayland a temperance man?
Southern slavery was the most efficient temperance
society in the world.
Once more, was it nothing, that this race, morally
inferior, should be brought into close relations to a nobler race, so that the propensity to imitation should be
stimulated by constant and intimate observation, by
domestic affection, by the powerful sentiment of allegiance  and  dependence?   And  above  all, was it
nothing that they should be brought, by the relation of
servitude, under the consciences and Christian zeal of
a Christian people, in circumstances which most powerfully enlisted their sense of responsibility, and gave
free scope to their labour of love? Let the blessed results answer, of a nation of four millions lifted, in four
generations, out of idolatrous debasement, "sitting
clothed, and in their right mind;" of more than half a
million adult communicants in Christian churches!
And all this glorious work has been done exclusively
by Soutlhern masters; for never did foreign or Yankee
abolitionist find leisure from the more congenial work
of slandering the white, to teach or bless the black
man in any practical way. This much-abused system
4
281
0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
has thus accomplished for the Africans, amidst universal opposition and obloquy, more than all the rest of
the Christian world together has accomplished for the
rest of the heathen.
It is the delight of abolitionists to impute to slavery
a result peculiarly corrupting as to sins of unchastity.
Witness the repetitious charges by Dr. Wayland, of
these sins, as contaminating both masters and slaves, in
consequence of slavery. The evidence of facts has
been already given as to the comparative justice of this
charge. But reason itself would suggest to the least reflection, that Southern households are not the only ones
where young men and female domestics are thrown together, amidst all the temptations and opportunities of
privacy and domestic intimacy; that the power of corporal punishment, unlawful here for this end, is not the
only power which a superior may apply to an-inferior to
overcome her chastity, nor the most effective. But, on
the other hand, reason would suggest that the employment of free persons of the same colour and race would
greatly enhance the force of those temptations; while
among us, the differences of colour, race, and personal
attractions, would greatly diminish &em; while the
very sentiment of superior caste would render the intercourse more repulsive and unnatural.
The testimony of facts, however, is the conclusive
evidence'on the question, whether our system is relatively more corrupting than that of free labour. In
this department of the discussion, Providence has given
us a refutation against the Yankees so terribly biting,
as fully to satisfy any indignation which their arrogant
railings may have excited in our bosoms. We were
b
282
0 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
placed together at the beginning of our national existence, under the same Federal government, and under
similar religious and State institutions. Our union
presented a common field for constant meeting and
comparison. And what were the results disclosed? It
has been shown that while the South, as a great section of the Union, never, in one single instance, made
any general or united movement to pervert Federal
laws and powers for unfair local purposes; while the
South ever manifested a chivalrous patriotism against
any assaults upon the common rights; the North has
never failed, from the first year of the government, to
use it as a machine for legislative extortion and local
advantage; and the North has usually played the
traitor to the common cause when assailed from without, even when, as in the second war with England, the
interests assailed by the foreign enemy, and generously defended by the South, were more peculiarly her
own. It has appeared that when at last legislative
peculation grew so foul that the publick demanded inquiry, every member of the Congress convicted of that
disgraceful iniquity, was from the North, and not one
from the South. If we pass to personal comparisons,
the publick men of the South have shown themselves,
on the federal arena, superior, in general, in the talent
of command, in personal honour, in dignity, in the
amenities of life, in forbearance and self-controul; while
that very petulance, wilfulness, and love of arbitrary
power, which, abolition philosophers infer, must be the
peculiar fruits of slaveholding, were exhibited in
marked contrast, by the few Northern Presidents who
had the fortune to reach that high position. Compare,
283 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
for instance, the benign Washington, a great slaveholder, with-that petty tyrant, the elder Adams; or
Jefferson, Madison and Monroe with his son, (worthy
son of such a sire,) John Quincy Adams; or Jefferson
Davis with Abraham Lincoln; or our Lee, Johnstons,
Jackson and Beauregard,, with a McNeill and a Butler!
So well proved are the superior courtesy, liberality, and
humanity of the Southern gentleman, that the very porters on the wharves, and waiters in the hotels, of Northern cities, recognize them by these traits.  It has been
the fashion of a certain type of poltroons among  the
Yankees, who wish to indulge the anger and malignity
of the bully, along with the safety and impunity of the
Quaker, to represent the resort of Southerners to the
code of honour, as a peculiar proof of their uncivilized
condition. They exclaim triumphantly that we fight
duels, while Yankees do not. Now the code of honour
is certainly irrational, unchristian, and wicked. But
there is another thing that is greatly more wicked
and this is the disposition to inflict upon a fellow-man
the injuries and insults which that code proposes to
prevent; and then cloak one's self under the cowardly
pretence of a conscience which forbids to fight. The
duellist sins by anger and revenge: these sneaking
hypocrites sin by anger and revenge, and cowardice and
lying, at once.  The truly good man is forbidden by his
conscience from seeking retaliation; but the same coiiscience equally forbids him to inflict on others the injuries which provoke retaliation. The man who wilfully injures his fellow, has therefore no right to plead
conscience, for refusing satisfaction.  It is not conscience, but cowardice. While, then, we mourn the
281
0 
TH-IIE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.,
crimes of violent retaliation which sometimes occur at
the South, the citizens of the North have occasion for a
deeper blush, at the crimes of malignant slander and
vituperation which their people are' accustomed to
launch at us from the vile hiding-place of their hypocritical puritanism.
It will be seen by every one, that the females of the
ruling class must be very intimately concerned in the
duties of the relation of master and servant.  It is properly termed domestic slavery; and woman's functions
are wholly domestic. If then, slavery is morally corrupting, Southern ladies should show the sad result very
plainly. But what says fact? Its testimony is one
which fills the heart of every Southern man with grateful-pride; that the Southern lady is proverbially eminent
for all that adorns female character, for grace, for pu-,
rity and refinement, for benevolence, for generous charity, for dignified kindness and forbearance to inferiours,
for chivalrous moral courage, and for devout piety.
We might safely submit thee comparative soundness
of Southern society to this test: that it has never generated any of those loathsome isms, which Northern soil
breeds, as rankly as the slime of Egypt its spawn of
frogs. While the North has her Mormons, her various
sects of Communists, her Free Lovers, her Spiritualists,
and a multitude of corrupt visionaries whose names and
crimes are not. even known among us, our soil has never
proved congenial to the birth or introduction of a single
one of these inventions.
But the crowning refutation of this slander against
~outhern- morals, is presented by the great war lately
concluded-a refutation whose glory repays us for long
285
I 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
years of reproach. Dispassionate spectators abroad have
passed their verdict of disgust upon the combination
of feebleness in the field, boasting and falsehood at
home, venality and peculation towards their own treasury and the property of private citizens, with ruthless
violation of all the laws of humanity. Dispassionate
spectators I No; there were none such: but from ignorant and prejudiced minds stuffed with misconceptions
by our interested assailants, the splendid disclosure of
civic and military genius, bravery, fortitude under incredible hardships, magnanimity under unspeakable
provocations, and dignity under defeat, which appeared
at tihe South, drew a general acclaim of admiration from
the whole civilized world. This war, ainong its many
evils, has done us this good, that it has settled for this
century the charge of the "barbarism of Southern
slavery."
But it may not be amiss to reveal those vices which
are peculiarly opposed to the Yankees' own boasts, as
the inhabitants of "the land of steady habits."  Our soldiers who have been prisoners of war among them, all
report that their camps were Pandemoniums, for their
resounding blasphemies and profanities. Nothing was
more common than the capture from them of prisoners
of war, too drunk to walk steadily. The mass of the
letters found upon their slain, and about their captured
camps, disclosed a shocking prevalence of prurient and
licentious thought, both ini their armies'and at home.
And our unfortunate servants seduced away by their armies, usually found, to their bitter cost, that lust for the
African women was a far more prevalent motive, than
their pretended humanity, for their liberating zeal. Such
0
286 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
was the monstrous abuse to which these poor creatures
were subjected, that decent slave fathers often hid their
daughters in the woods, from their pretended liberators,
as from beasts of prey.
We freely avow that the line of argument which occupies this section is not to our taste; nor, as was intimated in the introduction, do we regard it as the safest
means of ascertaining the moral influences of the two
systems.  But it has not been by our choice that it has
been introduced. The slanders of our accusers have
thrust it upon us. We now gladly dismiss it with this
general concluding remark; that the comparative general virtue of Southern masters, and the purity of Southern Christianity, are a strong evidence that we were not
living in a criminal relation, as to the African race. For
sins are always gregarious. One sin, permanently established in the heart and life, always introduces its
foul kindred. Sin is contagious. An unsound spot in
the character ultimately taints the whole. The misguided gentleman who first yields to the passion of
gaming, solely for its amusement and excitement, cannot continue a habitual gamester and a gentleman. The
ingenuous youth who harbours the habit of intoxication,
in due time ceases to be even ingenuous. These unhallowed passions, once established introduce fraud, selfishness, meanness, falsehood. So, we argue, if slaveholding were a sin, its practice would surely tell upon the
honour and integrity of those who continue in it. Bust
Southern character exhibits no such general effect.
287
0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
~ 8. Slavery and the African Slave Trade.
It is a plausible ground of opposition to slavery, to
charge it with the guilt of the slave trade. It is argued
that unless we are willing to justify the capture of free
and-innocent men, on their own soil, and their reduction
from freedom to slavery, with all the enormous injustice
and cruelty of the African slave trade, we must acknowledge that the title of the Southern master to his slave
at this day is unrighteous; that a system which had its
origin in wrong cannot become right by the lapse of
time; that, if the title of the piratical slave catcher on
the coast of Africa was unrighteous, he cannot sell to
the purchaser any better title than he has; and that an
unsound title cannot become sound by the passage of
time. It need hardly be said that we abhor the injustice,
cruelty, and guilt of the African slave trade. It is justly
condemned by the public law of Christendom -a law
which not Wilberforce, nor the British Parliament, nor
British, nor Yankee Abolitionists, have the honour of
originating, but the slaveholding Commonwealth of
Virginia. It is condemned by the law of God. Moses
placed this among the judicial statutes of the Jews:
"And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be
found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.'
We fully admit, then, that the title of the original
slave catcher to the captured African was most unrghteous.  But few can be ignorant of -the principle,
that a title, originally bad, may be replaced by a good
one, by transmission from hand to hand, and by lapse
of time. When the property has been acquired, by the
latest holder, fairly and honestly; when, in the later
288 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
transfers, a fair equivalent was paid for it, and the last
possessor is innocent of fraud in intention and in the
actual mode of his acquisition of it, more wrong would
be effected by destroying his title, than by leaving the
original wrong unredressed.  Common sense says, that
whatever may have been the original title, a new and
valid one has arisen out of the circumstances of the case.
If this principle be denied, half the property of the
civilized world will be divorced from its present owners.
All now agree that the pretext which gave ground for
the conquest of William of Normandy was wicked; and
however just it might have been, by the laws of nations,
the conquest of the government of a country ought not
to disturb the rights of individuals in private property.
The Norman Conquest resulted in a complete transfer of
almost all the land in'England to the hands of new
proprietors; and nearly all the land titles of England, at
the present day, are the legal progeny of that iniquitous
robbery, which transferred the territory of the kingdom from the Saxon to the Norman barons. If lapse of
time, and change of hands, cannot make a bad title
good, then few of the present landlords of England
have any right to their estates.  Upon the same principles, the tenants leasing from them have no right to
their leases, and consequently they have no right to
the productions of the farms they hold.  If they have
no right to those productions, then they cannot communicate any right to those who purchase from them;
so that no man eating a loaf of English bread, or wearing a coat of English wool, could be certain that he
was not consuming what was not his own. Thus
extravagant and absurd are the results of such  a
13
289
40 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
principle. Let us apply to the abolitionists their own
argument, and we shall Unseat the most of them from
the snug homes whence they hurl denunciations at us.
It is well known that their forefathers obtained the
most of that territory from the poor Indians, either by
fraud or violence. If lapse- of time and subsequent
transfers cannot make a sound title in place of an un  sound one, then few of the people of the North have any
right to the lands they hold; and, as honest men, they
are bound to vacate them. To this even as great a
man as Dr. Wayland, the philosopher of abolitionism,
has attempted an answer, by saying that this right,
arising from possession, only holds so long as the true,
original owner, or the inheritor of his right, does not
appear; and that, when he appears, the right of posses  sion perishes at once. But he argues, the original and
tme claimant +e +he ownership of the slave is always
present, in the person of the slave himself;, so that the
right originating in possession cannotexist for a mo ment. Without staying to inquire whether the presence
of the inheritor of the original right necessarily puts an
end to this right of possession -a proposition worse
than questionable-I would simply remark, that, to
represent the slave himself as the possessor of the orig inal right, is a complete begging of the question. It
assumes the very point in dispute, whether the right Of
the master is sound or not. And we would add, what
would the courts of New England, what would Dr. Way land say, should the feeble remnants of the New England
Indians, who are yet lingering in those States, claim
all the fair domains of their tribe? And what would
be said in England, if the people of Saxon descent
290 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT.
should rise upon all those noble houses who boast a
Norman origin, and claim their princely estates?
But we carry this just argumentum ad hominem nearer
home.  If the Virginian slaveholder derived from the
New England or British slave-trader, no valid title to
the African, then the trader had no valid title to the
planter's money. What can be clearer than this? And
if continued possession, with lapse of time, and transmission from hand to hand, cannot convert an unsound
title into a sound one, all the wealth acquired by the
African slave trade, together with all its increase, is
wrongfully held by the heirs of those slave dealers: it
belongs to the heirs of the planters from whom it was
unjustly taken.  Now it is well known that the New
England States, and especially the little State of Dr.
Wayland, Rhode Island, drew immense sums from the
slave trade; and it was said of the merchants of Liverpool and Bristol, that the very bricks of their houses
were cemented with the blood of the slave.  Who can
tell how much of the wealth which now freights the
ships, and drives the looms of these anti-slavery marts,
is the fruit of slave profits? Let the pretended owners
disgorge their spoils, and restore them to the Virginian
planters, to indemnify them for the worthless and fictitious title to the' slaves whom they have been called
upon to emancipate; in order that means may be provided to make their new liberty a real blessing to them.
Thus we should have a scheme for emancipation, or colonization, which would be just in both its aspects. But
will abolitionism assent to this? About as soon as
death will surrender its prey. Let them cease, then, for
shame's sake, to urge this sophism.
291 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
If this principle of a right originated by possession
can be sound anywhere, it is sound in its application to
our slaves. The title by which the original slave
catchers held them may have been iniquitous. But these
slave catchers were not citizens of the Southern colonies; these slaves were not brought to our shores by
our ships. They were presented by the inhuman captors, dragged in chains from the.filthy holds of the slave
ships; and the alternative before the planter was, either
to purchase them from him who possibly had no right to
sell them, or re-consign them to fetters, disease, and
death. The slaves themselves hailed the conclusion of
a sale with joy, and begged the planters to become their
m-asters, as a means of rescue from their floating prison.
The planters, so far as they were concerned, paid a fair
commercial equivalent for the labour of the slaves; and
the right so acquired passed legally through generations from father to son, or seller to purchaser. The relation, so iniquitously begun in those cases where the
persons imported were not slaves already in Africa, has
been fairly and justly transferred to subsequent owners,
and has resulted in blessings to the slaves. Its dissolution is more mischievous to them than to the masters.
Must it not be admitted that the injustice ill which the
relation originated no longer attaches to it?  The dif,
ference between the title of the original slave catcher,
and that of the late Virginian slave owner, is as great
as between the ruffian Norman freebooter, who conquered his fief at Hastings, and his law-abiding descendant, the Christian gentleman of England.
292 
THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT. 
~ 9. The Morality of Slavery Vindicated by its Results.
To deny the mischievous effects of emancipation upon
the Africans themselves, requires an amount of impudence which even abolitionists seldom possess. The
experience of Britain has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of all her practical statesmen, that freedom amnong
the whites is ruinous to the blacks. They tell us of the
vast decline in the productiveness of their finest colonies, of the lapsing of fruitful plantations into the bush,
of the return of the slaves, lately an industrious and useful peasantry, to savage life, and of the imperative necessity for Asiatic labour, to rescue their lands from a
return to the wilderness.  A  comparison between the
slaves of the South, and the freed negroes of the North,
gives the same results. While the former were cheerful, healthy, progressive, industrious, and multiplying
rapidly in numbers, the latter are declared by their
white neighbours to be a social nuisance, depressed by
indolence and poverty, decimated by hereditary diseases,
and tending rapidly to extinction.
We argue hereupon, that it cannot be a moral duty to
bestow upon the slave that which is nothing but an injury.  It cannot be a sin to do to him that which uniformly and generally is found essential to his well-being
in his present condition. We certainly are not required
by a benevolent God to ruin him in order to do him justice!  No sober and practical mind can hold such an
absurdity. Hence we may know, even in advance of
examination, that the ethical premises, the theory of human rights, which lead to such preposterous conclusions,
293
0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
must be false. To illustrate tl argument, the humane
effects of slavery upon the slave should be more fully
exhibited. This we propose to attempt in another chapter.
294 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAyERY.
CHAPTER VIII.
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
WE are not propagandists of slavery. The highest
wish of Virginia with reference to it was, that now it
had been fastened on her against her remonstrances by.
others, she should be let alone to manage it as she
judged the best: a right which had been solemnly
pledged to her by her present aggressors. We had no
desire to force it on others, or to predict its universal
prevalence, as the best organization of society. But
having claimed that the Word of God and publick
justice authorize it, we admit that it is reasonable we
should meet those who assert economical and social
results of it so evil, as to render it in credible that a
wise and benevolent Godshould sanction such a mischief.
We hope to show that slavery, instead of being wasteful, impoverishing, and mischievous, is so far useful
and benevolent as to vindicate the divine wisdom in
ordaining it, and to show that we were wisely content
with our condition so far as this relation of labour and
capital was concerned.
We would also urge this preliminary remark: that
the economical effects of American slavery have usually
been argued from an amazingly unreasonable point of
view. Our enemies persist in discussing it as an elec
295 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
tion to be made between a system of labour by chris tianized, enlightened, free yeomen of the same race, on
one hand; and a system of labour by African slaves on
the other; as though the South had any such election in
its power! It was not a thing for us to decide, whether
we should have these Africans, or civilized, free, white
labour; the former were here; here, not by the choice of
our forefathers, but forced upon us by the unprincipled
cupidity of the slave-trading ancestors of the Aboli tionists of Old and New England who now revile us;
forced upon us against the earnest protest of Virginia.
Did Abolitionists ever propose a practical mode of
removing them, and supplying their places, which would
not inflict on both parties more mischief than slavery
occasion? They should have showed us'some way to
charm the four millions of Africans among us, away to
some happy Utopia, where they might be more comfort able than we  made them;  and to repair the shock
caused by the abstraction of all this productive labour.
Until they did this, the question was not whether it
would be wisest for a legislator creating a totally new
community; to form it like Scotland or New England;
or like Virginia. The true question was, these Africans
being here, and there being no humane or practicable
way to remove them, what shall be done with them?
If the social condition of Virginia exhibited points of
inferiority in its system of labour, to that of its rivals,
the true cause of the evil was to be sought in the
presence of the Africans among us, not in his enslave* ment. We shall indeed assert, and prove, that these
points of inferiority were wastly fewer and smaller than
our enemies represent. But, we emphatically repeat,
296 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   297
the source of the evils apparent in our industrial system
was the presence among us of four millions of heterogeneous pagan, uncivilized, indolent, and immoral
people; and for that gigantic evil, slavery was, in part
at least, the lawful, the potent, the beneficent remedy.
Without this, who cannot see that such an incubus
must have oppressed and blighted every interest of the
country? Such an infusion must have tainted the
sources of our prosperity. It would have been a curse
sufficient to paralyze the industry, to corrupt the morals,
and to crush the development of any people on earth,
to have such a race spread abroad among them like the
frogs of Egypt. And.that the South not only delivered
itself from this fate, but civilized and christianized this
people, making them the most prosperous and comfortble peasantry in the world, developed a magnificent
agriculture, and kept pace with the progress of its
gigantic rival, attests at once the energy of our people,
and the wisdom and righteousness of the expedient by
which all this has been accomplished.
~ 1. Slavery and Republican government.
Intelligent men at.the South found something to
reconcile them to their condition, in the wholesome
influence of their form of labour, upon their republican
institutions. The effect of slavery to make the temper
of the ruling caste more  honourable, self-governed,
reflective, courteous, and chivalrous, and to foster in
them an intense love of, and pride in, their free institutions, has been already asserted, and substantiated by
resistless facts. The testimony of these facts is concurrent with that of all history. But those qualities 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
are just the ones which fit a people for beneficent selfgovernment. Again: our system disposed, at one potent
touch, of that great difficulty which has beset all free
governments: the difficulty of either entrusting the full
franchises of the ruling caste to, or refusing them to,
the moneyless class. The Word of God tells us that
the poor shall always be with us. Natural differences
of capacity, energy, and thrift, will always cause one
part to distance the other part of the society, in the
race of acquisition; and the older and denser any
population becomes, the larger will be the penniless
class, and the more complete their destitution as compared with the moneyed class.  Shall they be refused
all participation in the suffrage and powers of government?  Then, by what means shall the constitution
make them secure against the iniquities of class-legislation, which wickedly and selfishly sacrifices their
i]terests and rights to the ruling class?  And yet more:
by what argument can they be rendered content in their
political disfranchisement, when they are of the same
race, colour, arid class, with their unauthorized oppressors, save as money makes an artificial distinction?
The perpetual throes and reluctations of the oppressed
class against the oppressors, will agitate and endanger
any free government; as witness the strifes of the
conservative and radical parties in England, and the
slumbering eruptions which the ideas of the democrats
of 1848 have kindled under every throne in Western
Europe. But on the other hand, if the full franchises of
the ruling class be conceded to the moneyless citizens,
they seize the balance of power, and virtually hold the
reins over the rights, property, and lives of the moneyed
298 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   299
classes. But the qualities which have made them continue penniless in a liberal government, together with
the pressure of immediate hardship, destitution, ignorance and passion, will eer render them most unsafe
hands to hold this power. The man who has "the wolf
at his door," who knows not where to-morrow's dinner
for his wife and babes is lto be obtained, is no safe man
to be entrusted with power over ethers' property, and
submitted to all the arts and fiery passions of the
demagogue. The inevitable result will be, that his
passions will drive him, under the pressure of his destitution, to some of those forms of agrarianism or legislative plunder, by which order and economical prosperity are blighted; and society is compelled, like democratic France and New England, to take refuge from
returning anarchy and barbarism, in the despotism of a
single will.  This truth cannot be more justly stated
than in the language of Lord Macaulay, himself once
an ardent advocate of British Reform. If the democratic States of America seemed, for a time, to offer an
exception to these tendencies, it proves nothing; for in
those States, the intense deniand for labour, the cheapness of a virgin soil, and the rapid growth of a new and
sparse population, rendered the working of the law, for
a time-, imperceptible. But even there, it had begun to
work with a portentous power.  Witness the violence
and frightful mutations of their parties, the loathsome
prevalence of demagogueism, and the great party of free soil, which is but a form of agrarianism reaching out
its plundering hand against the property class across
Mason's and Dixon's -lines, instead of the property
class at home. So completely had the danger we have 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
described been. verified, even in these new and prosperous communities, that the moment a serious strain
came upon their institutions, the will of the mob burst
over constitutions and publict ethics like a deluge, and
the pretended republicks rushed into a centralized despotism, with a speed and force which astounded the
world. All the pleas of universal suffrage have received
a damning and final refutation, from the events of this
revolution.
But the solution which Southern institutions gave to
this great dilemma of republicks was happy and potent.
The moneyless labouring class was wholly disfranchised
of political powers, and thus disarmed of its powers of
mischief. Yet this was effected without injustice to them,
or cruelty; because they were at the same time made
parts of thefamilies of the ruling class; and ensured an
active protection and competent maintenance, by law,
and by motives of affection and self-interest in the masters; which experience proved to be more beneficent in
practice to the labouring class, than any political expedient of free countries. The tendency of our African
slavery was to diminish, at the same time, the numbers and destitution of the class of white moneyless
men, so as to render them a harmless element in the
State. It did this by making for them a wider variety
of lucrative industrial pursuits; by making acquisition
easier for white people; by.increasing the total of property, that is to say, of values held as property, vastly,
through the addition of the labour of the Africans, and
by diffusing a general plenty and prosperity. We very
well know that anti-slavery men are accustomed to
assert the contrary of all this: but we know also, that
300 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   301
they affirm that whereof they know nothing. The census returns of the anti-slavery government of the United
States itself stubbornly refute them; showing that the
number and average wealth of the property classes at
the South were relatively larger, and that white pauperism and destitution were relatively vastly smaller, than
at the North. But the violent abolition of slavery here
has exploded into thin air every sophism by which it has
been argued that it was adverse to the interests of the
non-slaveholding whites. The latter have been taught
by a hard experience, to know, with a painful completeness of conviction before which the old anti-slavery
arguments appear insolent and mocking madness, that
they are more injured than the slaveholders. They see,
that while the late masters are reduced from country
gentlemen to yeomen landholders, they are reduced from
a thrifty, reputable middle class, to starving competitors
for day labour with still more starving free negroes.
The honest abolitionist (if there is such a thing) needs
only to take the bitter testimony of the non-slaveholding whites of the South, to unlearn forever this part of
his theory. Thus did African slavery among us solve
this hard problem; and plac before us a hopeful prospect of a long career- of freedom and stability.
The comparative history of the free and slave-holding
commonwealths of the late United States substantiates
every word of the above. The South, as a section, has
never, from the foundation of the government, committed itself to any project of unrighteous class legislation, such as tariffs, sectional bounties, or agrarian
plunderings of the public domain. The North has been
perpetually studying such attempts. The South has 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
ever beenfi remarked, (and strange to say, often twitted,)
for the stability and consistency of its political parties.
The Northern States have been "all things by turns,
and nothing long," save that they have been ever steady
in their devotion to their plans of legislative plunder. The
South has been a stranger to mobs, rebellions, and fanaticism. When, for instance, the wicked crotchet of Knownothingism was invented, it seized the brains of the
North like an infection. It carried all before it until it
came to Virginia, the first of the Southern States which it
essayed to enter, when the old Commonwealth quietly
arose and placed her foot upon its neck, and the monster expired at once.  From the day Virginia cast her
vote against it, it never gained another victory, tither
North or South.  But the crowning evidence of the superior stability of our freedom was presented during the
recent war.  While its stress upon Northern institutions crushed them at once into a pure despotism, the
South sustained the tremendous ordeal with the combined energy of a monarchy and the equity of a liberal
republick. There was no mob law; no terrorizing of
dissentients, no intimidations at elections, nor meddling
with their purity and freeqom, no infringement of rights
by class legislation, no riots nor mobs, save one or two
small essays generated by foreigners, and no general
suspension of the Habeas Corpus, until the pressure of
the war had virtually converted the whole country into
a camp: and this, even then, was only enacted by the
constitutional authority of the Congress.  The liberty of
the press and of religion was untouched during the
whole struggle. Let the contrast be now drawn. Shall
the tree be known by its fruits?
302 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
We believe, therefore, that we have no cause, in this
respect, to lament the condition which Providence had
assigned us, in placing this African Race among us.
We do not envy the political condition of our detractors, Yankee and British radicals; of the former
with their colluvies gentium, the off-scouring of all the
ignorance and discontent of Europe, and their frantic
agrarianism, which will turn, so soon as it has exhausted its expected prey from the homesteads of Southern planters, to ravage at home; and of the latter, with
their disorganizing theories of human right, subversive
of every bulwark of the time-honored British Constitution, and their increasing lnass of turbulent pauperism.
~ 2. Slavery and Malthusianism.
Taking mankind as they are, and not as we may desire them to be, domestic slavery offered the best relation which has yet been found, between labour and
capital. It is not asserted that it would be best for a
Utopia, where we night imagine the humblest citizen
virtuous, intelligent, and provident. But there are no
such societies on earth.  The business of the legislator,
whether human or divine, is with mankind as they are;
and while he adapts his institutions to their defects, so
as to avoid making them impracticable or mischievous,
he should also shape them to elevate and reform as far
as possible. The legislator, therefore, in devising a
frame of society, should adapt it to a state in which
the rich are selfish and the poor indolent and improvident. For, after all that has been boasted of human improvement, this is usually man's condition. Now, in
adjusting social institutions, it is all-important to secure
803 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
physical comfort; because in a state of physical misery
and degradation, moral and intellectual improvement
are hopeless; and the business of the legislator is more
especially to take care of the weak: the strong will
take care of themselves.  Property is the chief element
of political strength; it is this which gives to individuals power in society; for "money answereth all
things;" it commands for its possessor whatever he
needs for his physical comfort and safety. The great
desideratum in all benign legislation is to sustain the
class which has no property, against the social depression and physical suffering to which they always tend.
That there will always be such a class, at least till the
millennium, is certain, for reasons already stated. Now
all civilized communities exhibit a natural law which
tends to depress the physical condition of those who
have no property, who are, usually, the laboring classes.
That law is the tendency of population to increase.
The area of a country grows no larger, while the number of people in it is perpetually increasing, unless that
tendency is already arrested.by extreme physical evils.
The same acres have, therefore, more and more mouths
to feed, and backs to clothe. Consequently, each person
must receive a smaller and smaller share of the total
proceeds of the earth. The demand perpetually increases in proportion to the supply; and therefore the
price of those productions rises, as compared with the
price of labour. Hence in every flourishing community,
the relative proportion between the price of land, its
rents, and the food and clothing which it produces, on
the one hand, and the price of manual labour on the
other, is perpetually, though slowly, changing. The
304: 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
former rises, the latter sinks. Improvements in agriculture and the arts, extensive conquests, emigrations,
or some other cause, may for a time arrest, or even reverse, this process; but such is the general law, and
the constant tendency. The very prosperity and growth
of the community work this result. The owners of land
become richer: those who live by labour become poorer.
Physical depression works moral depression, and these
overcrowded and under-fed labourers, becoming more
reckless, are familiarized with a lower standard of comfort, and continue to increase. This law has wrought
in every growing nation on the globe which is without
domestic slavery. It is felt in Great Britain, in spite of
her vast colonies, where she has disgorged her superfluous mouths and hands, to occupy and feed them on
virgin soils: in spite of her conquests, which have cenfred in her lap the wealth-of continents. It has begun
to work in'the Northern States of America, notwithstanding the development of the arts, and the proximity
of the Great West. Every where it reduces the quantity or quality of food and raiment which a day's labour
will earn, and perpetually tends to approximate that
lowest grade at which the laboutring classes can vegetate, multiply, and toil.            -
What, now, is the remedy? Not agrarianism: this
could only aggravate the evil by taking away the incentive to effort, in making its rewards insecure.  Not
conquest of new territory: the world is now all occupied; and conquest from 6ur neighbours is unjust.
We found the remedy in the much-abused institution of
domestic slavery. It simply ended this natural, this
universal strife between capital and labour, by making
305 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
labour the property of capital, and thus investing it
with an unfailing claim upon its fair share in the joint
products of the two. The manner in which slavery
effects this is plain. Where labour is free, competition
reduces its price to whatever grade the laws of trade
may fix; for labour is then a mere commodity in the
market, unprotected, and subject to all the laws of demand and supply. The owner of land or capital pays
for the labour he needs, in the shape of wages, just the
price fixed by the relation of supply and demand; and
if that price implies the severest privation for the labourer or his family, it is no concern of his. Should
they perish by the inadequacy of the remuneration, it
is not his loss: he has but to hire others from the
anxious and competing multitude. Moreover, the ties
of compassion and charity are vastly weaker than
under our system; for that suffering labourer and has
family are no more to that capitalist, tltan any other
among the sons of want. But when we make the labour the property of the same persons to whom the land
and capital belong, self-interest inevitably impels them
to share with the labourer liberally enough to preserve
his life and efficiency, because the labour is also, in the
language of Moses, "their money," and if it suffers,
they are the losers. By this arrangement, also, a
special tie and bond of sympathy are established be
tween the capitalist and his labourers.  They are imembers of his family. They not only work, but live, on
his premises. A disregard of their wants and destitution is tenfold more glaring, more difficult to perpetrate, and more promptly avenged by his own conscience and public opinion. The bond of domestic
306 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   307
affection ensures to the labourer a comfortable share of
the fruits of that capital which hislabour fecundates.
And the law is enabled to make the employer directly
responsible for the welfare of the employed. Thus,
by this simple and potent expedient, slavery solved the
difficulty, and answered the question raised by the
gloomy speculations of Malthus, at whom all antislavery philosophers have only been able to rail, while
equally impotent to overthrow his premises, or to
arrest the evils he predicts.
Slavery also presented us with a simple and perfectly efficient preventive of pauperism.   The  law,
public opinion, and natural affection, all joined in compelling each master to support his own sick and superannuated. And the elevation of the free white labourers, which results from slavery, by placing another
labouring class below them, by assigning to them higher
and more remunerative kinds of labour, and by diffusing a more general prosperity, reduced white pauperism
to the smallest possible amount amongst us.  In a Virginian slaveholding county, the financial burden of
white pauperism was almost inappreciable.  Thus, at
one touch, our system solved happily, mercifully, justly,
the Gordian knot of pauperism, a subject which has
completely baffled British wisdom.
The attempt liay be made to evade these considerations, by saying that the same law of increase in population will at length operate, in spite of slavery; and
that its depressing effects will reveal themselves in
this form: that the labouring class will become so numerous, the same alteration between demand and supply of labour will appear, and the slave's labour will 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
be worth no more than his maintenance, when he will
cease to sell for any thing. At this stage, it may be
urged, self-interest will surely prompt emancipation,
and the whole slave system will fall before the evil
which it was expected to counteract.
To this there are several answers.  The  argument
implies that the slaves will be, at that stage, relatively
very numerous. Then, the political difficulties of emancipation would be proportionably great. The political
necessity would overrule the economical tendency, and
compel the continuance of the beneficent institution.
And while it subsisted, the tie of domestic affection, and
the force of law and public opinion, would still secure
for slaves a better share in the joint profits of labour
and capital, than would be granted to depressed free
labour.  This was  the case in the Roman Empire,
where the population of Italy and Sicily was for
several centuries as dense as in those modern States
where the Malthusian law has worked most deplorably:
and yet slavery did not yield, and emancipation did
not follow.
But the more complete answer is as follows.  We
will attempt now to point out an influence which enabled domestic slavery to resist and repair the evils of
over-population, vastly better than any other form of
labour. As population increases, the size of fortunes
which are accumulated increases. Instances of accumulation are more numerous and far more excessive.
Density of population, facility of large industrial operations, concentration of number of labourers, with other
causes, ensure that rich men will be vastly richer than
while population was sparse; and that there will be
308 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVED.   309
many more rich men. While a few of these will be
misers, as a general rule they will seek to expend their
overflowing incomes. But as man's real wants lie
within very narrow limits, and the actual necessaries
and comforts of life are cheap, the larger part of these
overgrown incomes must be spent in superfluities.
The money of the many excessively rich men is profusely spent in expensive jewelry, clothing, equipage,
ostentatious architecture, useless menials, fine arts,
and a thousand similar luxuries. Now the production
of all these superfluities absorbs a vast amount of the
national labour, and thus diminishes greatly the production of those values which satisfy real wants. A
multitude of the labourers are seduced from the production of those more essential values, by the higher
prices which luxury and pride are enabled to pay for
their objects. Now, although the manufacturers of these
superfluities may, individually, secure a better livelihood than those laborers who produce the necessaries
of life, yet the result of the withdrawal of so many producing hands is, that the total amount of neeessaries
produced in the nation is much smaller. There is,
then, a less mass of the necessaries of life to divide
among the whole number of the citizens; and some people must draw a smaller share from the common stock.
Every sensible man knows that these will be the landless, labouring men. The wealth of the rich will, of
course, enable them to engross a liberal supply for
their own wants, however scant may be that left for
the poor. The ability to expend in superfluities is,
therefore, a misdirection of just so much of the productive labour of the country, from the creation of 
310:   A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
essential values, to the producing of that which fills no
hungry stomach, clothes no naked back, and relieves
no actual, bodily want. Andfhere, after all, is the
chief cause why the Malthusian law is found a true
and efficient one in civilized communities.  For, were
the increasing labour of a growing nation wisely and
beneficiently directed to draw from the soil and from
nature all that they can be made to yield, their fecuindity would be found to be practically so unlimited,
that the means of existence would keep pace with the
increase of population, to almost any extent. The
operative cause of the growing depression of the poor
is, not that the same acres are compelled to feed more
mouths, and clothe more backs, so much as this: that
the inducements which excessive wealth gives to the
production of superfluities, misdirects so much precious
labour, that the fruitfulness of those acres is not made
to increase with the increase of mouths.  This is
proved by the simple fact, that in all the old countries
the misery of the lowest classes tends to keep pace with
the luxury of the highest. It is proved emphatically
by the industrial condition of Great Britain.  There is
no country in which production is so active; none in
which agriculture and the arts are more stimulated by
science, and intelligence; and yet there is a growing
mass of destitution, yearly -approaching more frightful
dimensions, and testing the endurance of human  nature by lower grades of physical discomfort. The
reason is not to be sought in her limited territory or
crowded population; for if the British Islands have
not acres enough to grow their own bread for so many,
why is it that so productive a people are not able to 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
pay for abundance of imported bread?  It is to be
found in the existence of their vast incomes, and the
excessive luxury pratised by the numerous rich.
True, these magnates excuse their vast expenditures in
superfluities by the plea, that one of the motives is the
"encouragement of industry." But they effect, as we
have seen, not an encouragement, but a misdirection of
industry. The reason why so many British poor hive'
a scanty share of physical comforts is, that there are
so many British rich men who, by their lavish expenditure, tempt and seduce so large a multitude of producing hands from the creation of actual comforts to
the creation of superfluities.
What safe remedy can the legislator propose for this
evil? Not a violent, agrarian leveling of the larger
estates.  That, as we have shown, would be wicked
and foolish. Nor can it be found in sumptuary laws.
The world has tried them to its heart's content, and
found them impracticable. It is true, that their adoption showed how clear a perception the ancients had of
one truth, which modern political science pretends to
ignore.  That truth is, that luxury is a social evil. We
have shown that it is as wasteful of social wealth as it
is of morals. The ancients thought thus, and they
were right. Legislators now-a-days, in exploding their
remedy as no remedy, seem to desire to cheat themselves into the belief that the disease is no disease.
But the ancients were not as stupid as men imagine.
Now, we do not boast that we can offer a perfect
remedy. But our system of labour certainly gave us a
partial one of inestimable value. Where the rich man
is a citizen of a hireling State, his accumulated wealth
311 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
and profuse income are all spent in superfluities, except the small portion needed for the comforts of life
for his own family. But whe, he is a citizen of a
slave State, they are first taxed with the comfortable
support of his slaves.  The law, public opinion, affection for them, and self-interest, all compel him-to make
the first appropriation out of that profuse income, to
fee'ling and clothing his slaves, before he proceeds to
superfluities. Thus, {he proceeds of the accumulations
which dense population and social prosperity cause, are
rescued from a useless and mischievous expenditure in
those luxuries, the purchase of which misdirects public
industry, and tempts to a deficient production of the
necessaries of life; and are directed where benevelence, mercy, and the public good indicate, to the comfortable maintenance of the labouring people. That
this is the effect of domestic slavery on the incomes of
the rich, is proved by one familiar fact. It is well
known at the South how slaveholders usually murmured
when comparing their style of living with that of capitalists in the hireling States of equal nominal wealth.
The planter who owned fifty thousand dollars worth of
fertile lands, and a hundred slaves, while he lived in
far more substantial comfort and plenty, displayed in
Virginia far less ostentation and luxury than the merchant or manufacturer of the North who owns the same
amount of capital. His house was plainly furnished
with the old-fashioned goods of his fathers; his family
rode in a plain carriage, drawn by a pair of stout nags
which, probably, either did a fair share of ploughing
also, or drew a large part of the fuel for the household.
Hle himself was dressed partly in "jeans," woven under
312 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
the superintendence of his wife; and his boys were at
school in a log house, with homespun clothing, and, in
summer, bare feet. It was not unusual to hear the
slaveholder, when he considered this contrast, complain
of slavery as a bad institution for the master. But this
was its merciful feature, that it in some measure arrested superfluous luxury, and taxed superfluous income
with the more comfortable support of the labourers. in
a hireling State, these might be left half-starved on the
inadequate compensation which the hard law of supply
and demand in the labour-market would compel them
to accept, while the capitalist was rioting in a mischievous waste of the overgrown profits- of his capital.
The question of the productiveness of slave labour
may be anticipated, so far as to point out the fact, that
this benevolent diversion of the large incomes from
luxurious expenditures to the comfortable maintenance
of the slaves, was a diversion from unproductive to
productive consumption. The -slaves were a productive
class and the increased comfort of their living added
greatly to their increase, and their ability to labour.
No student of political economy need be told how powerfully national wealth is prombted by any cause which
substitutes productive consumption for unproductive.
The truth of these views is confirmed l;y this fact,
which is attested by all experienced slaveholders: that
the slaves thfughout the South lived in far more comfort than they did a generation ago. And this is truest
of those Southern communities where population is
densest, and the price and rents of land are highest.
As these influences, elsewhere so depressing to the
poor, advanced, the standard of comfort for our slaves
14
313 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
rose rapidly, instead of falling.   How  can a more
splendid vindication of the benevolence of our system
be imagined?   Our slaves generally ate more meat,
wore more and better clothing, and lived in better
houses, than their fathers did.
That a palpable view may be given, to those who-are
not personally acquainted with our system, of its true
working, the reader's indulgence will be asked for the
statement of a few homely details.  In Virginia, all
slaves, without-exception, had their own private funds,
derived from their poultry, gardens, "patches," or the
prosecution of some mechanic art, in what is termed
"their own time." These funds they expended as they
pleased, in Sunday-clothing, or in such additions to
their diet and comfort as they liked. The allowances
which we proceed'to state, are strictly those which the
master usually made out of his funds. The allowances
fixed by usage in this State were generally these: for
clothing of adults, one complete suit of stout woolens,
two pair pantaloons of cotton or flax, two shirts, two
pair of worsted half-hose, and a hat and a blanket, each
year.  For shoes, the old rule was, one pair each winter, of the quality of best army shoes or boots, to be
replaced at harvest with new ones, in the case of
ploughmen and reapers, while the "less able-bodied
hands" only got their old shoes repaired. But in latter
years, the prevalent custom had come'  be, to issue
shoes to all adults, as often as is required, to keep them
shod throughout the year; while the children were universally shod during the winter only.
For diet, the slaves shared jointly the garden-stuff,
fruits and milk of the master's plantation and garden.
3i;i 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   315
But their essential and preferred food was a certain
daily or weekly allowance of corn meal and bacon,
issued in addition to the above. The common rule in
Virginia, where these were given in the form of rations,
was to allow each adult a half-pound of bacon, and two
quarts of meal per day. The meal of Indian corn, when
uninjured by the mustiness of- a sea-voyage, and properly baked at a bright wood-fire, is an excellent and
nutritious food, as is shown by the fact that it fills
more than an equal place with bread of wheat, on the
tables of the richest planters. In many other -families,
the allowance of meal was unlimited; and the bacon
was not issued in formal rations, the servants living at
a common board. The supply laid in was then usually
according to the following rule: one hundred and fifty
pounds of pork per year, for every soul, white and
black. When it is remembered that the sucklings and
the white females used almost none of this supply, a
simple calculation will show that it is equivalent to at
least a half-pound per day for each adult, Such were
the customary usages in Virginia. There were probably as many cases where the above rules were exceeded, as where the allowances fell below them.  In
the new States of the South West, where agriculture is
still more profitable, it is said that the allowances were
more liberal than in the old slave States.
It happens that the census returns of the United
States for 1860, published by our enemies themselves,
more than confirm this view of the abundant and comfortable living of our labouring population. According
to those returns the free States had in 1860, not quite
nineteen millions of people, and the slave States twelve 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGIXIA.
and a quarter millions. Of the cereals used by Americans for human food, the free States raised five hundred
and sixty-one millions bushels; and the slave States
four hundred and ninety-four millions bushels. That is,
while the people of the free States had about thirty
bushels each of these cereals, those of the slave States
had forty-one bushels per head. Moreover, the North
boasts that breadstuffs are her great export crops, while
cotton and tobacco were ours. Our people, including
our slaves, must therefore have used more than four
bushels each, to their three. In neither country does
each person eat either thirty or forty-one bushels per
year; because horses and other live stock eat a part,
which it is impossible accurately to estimate. Again: of
the animals used for human food, (horned cattle, sheep,
and swine,) the free States had about forty millions, or a
little more than two per heard to each inhabitant; while
tho slave States had forty and a half millions, or about
three and a half to each inhabitant. - But as bacon or
pork is the flesh most commonly consumed by Americans, and especially by farm labourers, the proportion
of swine is still more significant. The free States had
not quite twelve millions of swine, and the slave States
twenty millions six hundred thousand.  This gives a
little more than six-tenths of one swine to each inhabitant of the North, and one and seve?-tenths to each inhabitant of the South. But this is not all,-for the
North (especially the prairie States) exported vast
quantities of the flesh of swine to the South, while the
slave States exported none to the North. It should in
justice be said, that the disparity is not so enormous as would thus appear, because the swine reared
316 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   317
in the South are usually smaller than those of the
North.
~ 3. Comparativeproductiveness of Slave Labour.
From the days of Adam Smith, anti-slavery men have
been pleased to consider it as a point perfectly settled,
that slave labour is comparatively unfavourable to production, and thus, to publick wealth. So settled is this
conviction among the enemies, and so often has it been
admitted by the apologists of our system, it will probably be hard to secure even a hearing, while we review
the grounds-on which the common opinion is based.
One would think that the fact that those grounds have
usually been urged by men who, like Adam Smith, knew
nothing of slavery themselves, should bespeak for us at
least a little patience and candour.
One of those grounds is, that slavery, by making
manual labour the peculiar lot of a servile class, renders it disreputable. This, they suppose, together with
the exemption from the law of necessity, fosters indolence in the masters. But, we reply, is manual labour
the peculiar lot of the servile class alone, in slave
States? Is not this the very question to be settled?
Yet it is assumed as the premise from which to settle
it.  So that the reasoning amounts to no more than
this ridiculous petitio principii: "Because the slaves
do all the work, therefore the masters do none of the
work." This should belmade a-question of fact. And
we emphatically deny that Southern masters were an
indolent class, as compared with the moneyed classes
elsewhere. In fact, the general rule is that rich men
do not work, the world over. It was less true, prob 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
ably, in Virginia, than in any other commonwealth.
The wealthy man of the North, with his grown eons, is
more indolent, and more a fine gentleman, than tLhe
wealthy slaveholder.  If it be said that, in free States,
a multitude of small farmers cultivate their lands with
their own hands, it is equally true that a multitude of
small planters in the South, who owned one, three or
five slaves, laboured along with them. That the land
shall be owned by the very persons who cultivate it, is
an exceptional condition of things, resulting, to some
extent in New England, from a very peculiar history,
origin and condition of society, and not destined to
continue general even there.  It is as true of hireling
as of slave States, that the tendency of civilized institutions is, and ever has been, and ever will be, gener ally, to collect the lands in larger properties, in the
hands of a richer class than that which actually tills
them. Nor is there one syllable of truth in the idea,
that labour was among us more disreputable, because
usually done by slaves.  In all countries, there is foolish pride, and importance is attached, by the silly, to
empty badges of station. But it was less so among
slaveholders than among the rich, or the would-be rich,
of other countries. The reason is obvious. In free
States there is just as truly a servile class, bearing the
servile inferiority of social station, as among us. That
class being white, and nominally free, its addiction to
manual labour is the only badge of its social condition.
Hence whites of the superior class have a far stronger
motive, in their pride, to shun labour. But the white
master could freely labour among his black servants,
without danger of being mistaken by the transient ob
318 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF' SLAVERY.
server for one of the class, because his skin distinguished him: just as the man.f unquestioned wealth
and fashion can wear a plain coat, which would be
shunned as the plague, by the doubtful aspirant to ton.
We repeat: the planters of Virginia were more often
seen performing, not only the labours of superintendence, but actual manual labour, than any wealthy class
in America. They were proverbial for perseverance
and energy. There is a fact which bears a peculiar
testimony to this. While Yankee adventurers and immigrants have intruded themselves into every other
calling among us, like the frogs into the Egyptian
houses and their very chambers and kneading-troughs,
those of them who have attempted to act the tobacco
planter have, in almost every case, failed utterly. They
lack the requisite energy for the calling.
Another reason of the anti-slavery man is, that the
free labourer, stimulated by personal interest in his
own success, must be more thrifty, industrious, and
economical than the slave, who is stimulated only by
fear.   We reply:  both the premises are  absolutely
false.  Slaves were not stimulated only by fear.  They
felt at least as much affection as the Red Republican
or Chartist hireling. They comprehended their own in terest in their master's prosperity as fully as hired la bourers do. But, in the second place, the labour of free
States is not usually performed by men who have a per sonal interest in their own success: it is performed, in
* the main, by a landless class, who are as very hirelings
as our slaves were slaves; who need just as much the
eye of an overseer, and who must be pricked on in their
labour, at least as often, by the threat, not of the birch,
I ti.L C, 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
but of the more cruel penalty of discharge; which they
know is their dismissal to starvation or the work-house.
This delusive reasoning proceeds by comparing the
yeoman landholder in fee-simple, tilling his own soil
with his own hands, with the slave tilling the land of
his wealthy master. But are the lands of hireling
States prevalently tilled by their yeomen owners?  Is
this the system to which free society tends? The Englishman will not dare to say so, when he looks around
him, and sees how rapidly the small holdings have been
swallowed up into larger farms, which are now worked
by capitalists with organized gangs of hirelings; nor
the Scotchman, with the sight of an old tenant peasantry swept away before the ruthless Bothy-system of
his country.  And, as we have asserted, the class of yeomen landholders, labouring personally among their few
slaves, was at least as large, and as permanent in the
South, as in any civilized country.
Hiere again, the actual experiment of abolition has
ridiculously exploded all these baseless reasonings for
the superior zeal of the white free labourer, and the
thriftless eye-service of the slave. All intelligent men
knew before that they were precisely contrary to fact;
for they saw all hireling labour at the North obviously
required a supervision much more constant and stringent, to prevent the hirelings from bringing the employers to bankruptcy by their worthless eye-service,
than the labour of our own merry and affectionate servants. If the white hireling labour was aggregated in
masses, we uniformly saw it distributed in gangs, to
sturdy  "bosses," who  stood  with  their formidable
bludgeons in their hands, from morning to night, with
320
I 
ECONOMIC'AL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
just fourfold the persistency of any Southern  "headman" or "overseer," and actually inflicted blows on his
free white fellow-citizens, as frequently as our overseers
on the servant children. If the white hireling labour
was employed on their little farms; in small numbers,
then the proprietors always informed us, that they must
be present in the field all the time, to shame and encourage them by their example, or else their "help"
would cheat them to their ruin.   But in the South,
nothing was more common than to see estates farmed
by the faithful slaves, for widows, orphans, professional
men, or non-resident proprietors, without any other
superintendence than an occasional visit.  Now, all this
is at an end. The labourers are free hirelings, who,
according to the anti-slavery argument, should be so
superior in enlightened zeal and fidelity. But lo, the
Southern people have found that eye-service has thereby
increased tenfold; and if there is any lesson which the
South has effectually learned in these two years, it is,
that perpetual and jealous supervision is the sole condition on which a meagre profit can be extracted from
this wretched and grinding system; and that else, the
impositions of the hired labourers inevitably result in
speedy bankruptcy. Hard fact has demonstrated that
the truth is precisely opposite to the pretty postulates
of the- anti-slavery philosophers, so called.
It was currently asserted that one free white labourer
did as much work as two or three slaves; and Southern gentlemen used often to be heard assenting to it.
But here the reader should be reminded of what has
been already shown; that if this industrial evil existed
among us, that evil was not slavery, but the presence
14*
321 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
among us of four millions of recent pagans, characterized by all the listlessness, laziness, and unthrift of
savages. Slavery did not make the intelligent and industrious worthless; nor does freedom turn the lazy
barbarian into a civilized and diligent citizen. If there
ever was any truth in this comparison of the efficiency
of the African labourer with the free white, it doubtless
existed when the former were newly brought into our
country. The estimate then formed became traditionary, and prevailed after the partial training and civilization of the blacks had wholly removed its grounds.
Several facts prove that no white agricultural labour
was so efficient (especially under our ardent sun) as
the Africans, had become. Of this, the crowning proof
is, again, given us by the unfortunate experiences of
actual abolition. Many Virginian proprietors, having
still retained the old, but false prejudice, that the negro
slave was a less efficient labourer than the white hireling, and being well assured that the labour of the
slaves would be deteriorated by emancipation, procured
white labour from the North.  What was the result?
An almost universal conviction that the freed negro,
deteriorated as he was, proved still a better labourer
than the white hireling! Consequently, the importation
of white labour is totally relinquished.   Another of
these facts is, that in Middle Virginia, where the best
free labour in America exists, and was once almost exclusively used, the slave population was, up to the war,
steadily supplanting it in agriculture; and was more
and more preferred by the most enlightened agriculturists. Another is, that the great contractors on our public works, many of them Northern men, who came to us
3a2 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
provided with white labour, gradually convinced themselves that their works coufild be executed more cheaply,
quickly, and quietly, by slaves. The third fact is, that
along the line which separates Virginia and Pennsylvania, or Kentucky and Ohio, the lands immediately south
of the line were more valuable than those immediately
north of it. This is so well known that Senator Sumner, in his notorious libel on the South, admits its existence, and endeavours to evade its force by the following
preposterous solution.  He says: freedom, by its proximity, infuses something of its own vigour, virtue, and
life, into the adjoining Southern community; so as to
stimulate its prosperity; whereas, the blighting slavepower contaminates and palsies freedom along the line
of its contact, so as to make it exhibit less than its
usual happy effects.  That is, we are invited to believe
that the indirect influence of free labour is so potent
that it can go across Mason's and Dixon's line, or the
Ohio River, into the midst of the very blight and curse
of slavery, and act so happily as to raise the price of
slave-tilled lands to eighty dollars per acre;' while its
direct influences at home, on a soil uncursed with
slavery, cannot sustain the price of exactly similar
land at sixty dollars I And we are required to believe
that while the mere shadow of slavery, falling across
the border, sinks the price of land, otherwise blessed
with the most profitable system, to sixty dollars, the
actual incubus of the horrid monster on a soil unredeemed by the better system, raises it to eighty dollars I
Common sense shows us the true solution. Two farms
divided only by the imaginary line of the surveyor, of
course differ nothing in the natural advantages of soil,
323 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
climate and productions. Why, then, did the Virginian
farm sell for twenty dollars more per acre? Because
the owner could combine all the economy and efficiency
of a system of slave labour, with the partial advantages of the system of free labour near him; and thus
make his farm more profitable than his Pennsylvanian
neighbour.
But we are told that actual inspection showed the
labour of the South to be wasteful, shiftless, and expensive, as compared with the free labour of the North.
We reply, if it seemed so in any case, it is because the
comparison is unfairly made. On the Northern side,
the specimen is selected near some great city, in some
crack farming district," where the labour is stimulated
by abundant capital, supplied with costly implements,
and directed.by the best skill of that section. On the
Southern side, the specimen was taken firom some illinformed population, or some soil originally thin, and in
a community depressed and depleted by'the iniquitous
taxation of Yankee tariffs. But let the best of each be
compared,; or the medium specimens of each; or the
worst of each; and we fearlessly abide the test.
Where slave labour was directed by equal skill and
capital, it is shown to be as efficient as any in America.
'There was nowhere on our continent, more beautiful,
more economical, or more remunerative farming, than
in our densest slaveholding communities.
A third argument against the economy of slave labour, is thus stated by Dr. Wayland: "It removes
from both parties, the disposition and the motives to
frugality. Neither the master learns frugality from the
necessity of labour, nor the slave from the benefits
which it confers," etc.
824 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   325
Now we emphatically and proudly admit that Southern society has not learned the frugality of New England; which is, among the middle classes, a mean, inhospitable, grinding penuriousness, sacrificing the very
comfort of children, and the kindly cheer of the domestic board, to the Yankee pezates, Mammon and Lucre;
and among the upper classes a union of domestic scantiness and stinginess with external ostentation and profusion; a frugality which is "rich in the parlour, and poor
in the kitchen." The idea of the Southern planter is the
rational and prudent use of wealth to procure the solid
comfort of himself, his children, and his servants at
home, coupled with a simple and unostentatious equipage abroad, and a generous hospitality to rich and poor.
But we fearlessly assert, and will easily prove to every
sensible reader, that slavery was peculiarly favourable to
the economical application of labour, and of domestic
supplies and income. The attempt to carry the freehold tenure of land down to the yeomanry, subdivides
land too much for economical farming. The holdings
are too small, and the means of the proprietors too
scanty, to enable them to use labour-saving machines,
or to avail themselves of the vast advantages of combined labour.'How can the present proprietor of a
farm of five or ten acres in France or Belgium, afford a
reaper, a threshing-machine, a three-horse plough, or
even any plough at all? The spade, the wheel-barrow,
the donkey, and the flail, must do his work, at a wasteful cost of time and toil.   But the Southern system,
by placing the labour of many at the direction of one
more cultivated mind, and that furnished with more
abundant capital, secured the most liberal and enlight 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
ened employment of machines, and the most convenient
"division of labour." Moreover, the administration of
the means of living for the whole plantation, by the
master and mistress, secured a great economy of supplies.  The mistress of Southern households learns far
more providence, judgment and method ill administering her stores, than are possessed by firee labourers or
by blacks. The world over, those who have property
are more provident than those who have none. For,
this providence is the chief reason why they have property; and the improvidence of the poor is the cause of
their being poor. But even if the slaveholders had no
more of these qualities, all can see that an immense
saving is made by having one housekeeper for ten
families, with one kitchen, storehouse, and laundry, instead of ten kitchens, ten store-houses, and ten vary —
ing administrations of stores.   A smaller supply of
provisions secures a greater amount of comfort to all,
and a great saving of labour is effected in preparation
of food, and housekeeping cares. A system of slave
labour is, therefore, more productive, because it is more
economical.
In all this argument, the anti-slavery men keep out
of view a simple fact which is decisive of the absurdity
of their position. They shall now be made to look it in
the face. That fact is, that in free States, a large portion of all those who, from their moneyless condition,
ought to pursue manual labour, are too lazy to do so
voluntarily.   But they must live, and they do it by
some expedient which is a virtual preying on the means
of the more industrious, by stealing, by begging, by
some form of swindling, by perambulating the streets
326 
4
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   327
with a barrel-organ and monkey, or by vending toys or
superfluities. Their labour is lost to the community;
and their maintenance, together with their dishonest
arts and crimes, is a perpetual drain from the public
wealth.  But slavery made the lazy do their part with
the industrious, by the wholesome fear of the birch.
Slavery allowed no loafers, no swindlers, no "b'hoys,"
no "plug-uglies," no grinders of hurdy-gurdies, among
her labouring class. Who does not see that, even if
the average slave in Virginia did only two-thirds of the
day's work accomplished by the industrious free labourer in New York, yet, if all the idle classes in that
great commonwealth, together with those now industrious, were compelled to do just the tasks of the average
Virginia slave, there would be, on the whole, a vast
and manifold gain to the public?
Another potent source of the economy of the slave
system in its influences upon publick wealth, is found in
a fact which Northern men not only admit, but assert
with a foolish pride. It is the far greater development
of the local traffic of merchants among them. When
your down-East commercial traveller, whose only con ception of productive industry was of some arts of
"living by his wits," saw this contrast between North ern and Southern villages and country neighbourhoods,
he pointed to it with undoubting elation, as proof of the
vastly superior wealth and productive activity of the
North. But in fact, he was a fool; he mistook what
was a villainous, eating ulcer upon the public wealth of
the North, and on the true prosperity of the people, for
a spring of profits. In a farming neighbourhood of the
hireling States, he saw at every hamlet and cross-road, 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
pretentious shingle-palaces, occupied as large stores,
where great accumulations of farm produce were pa raded; sacks of meal, barrels of flour, bins of corn,
packs of wool, garners of wheat, tubs of eggs, cans. of
butter, hogsheads of bacon, and even kegs of home made soap, together with no little show of cheap finery.
In the farming districts of the South, he rode along a
quiet, shady road, with the country-seats of the planters
reposing at a distance, in the bosoms of their estates;
and found at long intervals a little country store, where
a few groceries, medicines, and cloths were exposed for
sale to sparse customers. Now this narrow trafficker,
whose only heaven was buying and selling, very naturally jumped to the conclusion, that the South was so
much poorer than the North, as she exhibited less local
trade. Whereas in fact, she was just so much richer.
And this unpopular assertion is, still, perfectly easy to
demonstrate.  The necessary labour of distributing commodities from producers to consumers, is a legitimate
element of that fair market value, which they have when
they finally reach the hand which consumes them. But
political economists well know, and uniformly teach, that
if any unnecessary middle-men interpose themselves between first producer and ultimate consumer, whose labour is not truly promotive of the economical distribution of commodities, then their industry is misdirected,
the wages they draw for it in the shape of increased
price of commodities passed through their hands is unproductive consumption, and they are a useless, a mischievous drain upon the common wealth. For instance,
if a class of middle-men, retailers, or forwarding merchants, juggle themselves unnecessarily into the import
0
328 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   329
ing dry-goods trade of the country; if they place themselves between the manufacturer in England, and the
consumer in rural New York, grasping wages for their
intervention, in the shape of an additional profit which
falls ultimately upon the retail- purchaser; while yet
they really contribute nothing to the economical distribution of the dry-goods; every one sees that they are a
nuisance; they grasp something for nothing; and are
preying upon the publick wealth, instead of promoting
it like the legitimate merchant. Honest men will speedily require legislation, to expel them and abate the nuisance. Apply now this well-known principle to the case
in hand. The simple system of slaveholding distributed
that part of the products of farms, which properly went
to the labourers' subsistence, direct to the consumers,
without taxing it unnecessarily with the profits of the
local merchant. The master was himself the retail
merchant; and he distributed his commodities to the
proper consumers, at wholesale prices, without profit.
The consumers were his own servants. He remarked,
in the, language of the country, that, for this part of
his products, he "had his market at home."  Now, is it
not obvious that the consumer, the slave, got more for
his labour, and that the system of hireling labour, by
invoking this local storekeeper, instead of the master, to
do this work of distribution to consumers, which the
master did better without him, and without charge, has
brought in a useless middle-man? And his industry
being useless and unproductive, its wages are a dead
loss to the publick wealth. This coarse fellow behind
the counter, retailing the meal and bacon and soap,
at extortionate retail prices, to labourers, should be 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
compelled to labour himself, at some really productive
task; and the labourers should have gotten these supplies, untaxed with his extortion, on the farms where
their own labour produced them, and at the farmer's
prices.   Is not this true science, and  true common
sense?  But this is just the old Virginian system.
The justice of this view may be seen by a familiar
case.  A  given landholder was, under our beneficent
system, a  slaveholder.   He employed ten labourers;
and for them and their families he reserved four bhundred bushels of grain in his garners, which their labour and his capital jointly had produced. This grain
is worth to him wholesale prices; and it is distributed
by him to his servants, throughout the year, without
charge.  It is, in fact, a part of the virtual wages of
their labour; and they get it at the wholesale price.
Butnow, abolition comes: these ten labourers become
freemen and householders.  They now work the same
lands, for the same proprietor; and instead of drawiIng
their wages in the form of a generous subsistence at
wholesale prices, they draw money.  Out of that money
they and their families must be maintained. One result is, that the landholder now has a surplus of four
hundred bushels more than before.  Of course it goes
to the corn-merchant.  And there must these labourers
go, with their money wages, to buy this same corn, at
the enhanced retail price. They get less for their labour.  The local merchant, thus unnecessarily invited
in, sucks a greedy profit; a vain show of trading activity is made in the community; and all the really producing classes are made actually poorer; while this
unproductive consumer, the unnecessary retail trader, 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
congratulates himself on his mischievous prosperity.  It
is most obvious, that when the advocate of the hireling
system attempts to reply to this, by saying that his system has opened a place for an additional branch of industry, that of enlarged traffic, he is preposterous. The
answer is, that the additional industry is a loss: it is
unproductive. As reasonably might one argue that
crime is promotive of publick prosperity, by opening up
a new branch of remunerative industry,-that of police
and jailors, (a well-paid class!)
But sensible men ever prefer facts to speculationsthe language of experience to that of theoretical assertion. Let us then appeal to the fact, as revealed by the
statistics furnished of us, by the anti-slavery government of the United States. By the census of 1860, while
the population of the Free States was not quite nineteen
millions, their total of assessed values, real and personal,
was $6,541,000,000: being three hundred and forty-six
($346) dollars to each soul. The free white population
of the South was a little more than eight and a quarter
millions, and our total of assessed values was $5,465,808,000: being six hundred and sixty ($660) dollars to
each soul;- nearly double the wealth of: the North.  But
if the four millions of Africans in the South be added,
our people  still have four hundred  and  forty-seven
($447) dollars of value for each soul, black and white.
I.     I    
~ 4. Effects of Slavery in the South, compared with those
of Free Labour in the North.
The citations just made introduce a topic upon which
anti-slavery men have usually abounded in sweeping
assertion; the actual effects of our system on our indus
331 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
trial concerns.  A fair example of these assertions may
be seen in Dr. Wayland, Moral Science, p. 210, (Boston,
1838:)  "No country, not of great fertility, can long
sustain a large slave population. Soils of more than
ordinary fertility cannot sustain it long, after the first
richness of the soils has been exhausted. Hence, slavery
in this country is acknowledged to have impoverished
many valuable districts; and hence it is continually
migrating from the older settlements to those new and
untilled regions, where the accumulated manure of
centuries of vegetation has formed a soil, whose produc tiveness may, for a while, sustain a system at variance
with the laws of nature.  Many of our free, and of our
slaveholding States, were peopled about the same time.
The plaveholding States had every advantage, both in
soil and climate, over their neighbours;  and yet the
accumulation of capital has been greatly in favour of
the latter," etc.
The points asserted here are, that Northern men have
grown rich faster than Southern men; that slavery has
so starved itself out by its wasteful nature, as to be com pelled to migrate from "many valuable districts," to
virgin soils; and that it is slavery which exhausts those
virgin soils. Each of these statements is absolutely
false. That the first and most important of the three is
so, we have just shown, by the overwhelming testimony
of fact. Southern citizens have accumulated capital
faster than Northern, in the ratio of six hundred and
sixty to three hundred and forty-six. And the man ner in which these thrice refuted lies are obtruded, may
fairly illustrate the morality with which anti-slavery
men have usually conducted their argument against us
332 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
That a conceited, pragmatical Yankee parson should be
misled by rancourous prejudice around him, and by the
concessions of foolish Southerners, to publish such statements thirty years ago, on a subject of which he knew
nothing, is not very surprising. But surely Dr. Wayland, President of Brown University, Christian Divine,
Instructor of youth, and Teacher of Ethicks, (!) would
hardly have been expected to continue to print the
falsehoods in successive editions of his work, after three
successive census returns had utterly exploded them.
The second statement we contradict by the census
as categorically as the first. It is not true that slavery
was compelled to emigrate, by its own exhaustion, to
virgin soils in the South West.  For, in fact, slavery
has not emigrated at all. Slaves have emigrated, in
large numbers; [as we presume, Yankees have.] But
the institution has not receded, and, at the beginning
of our war, was not receding from its old ground in
Virginia and the Carolinas. The slave population of
the old States has shown a steady increase at each
decennial period, and except where the penchant of the
Yankees for stealing them had rendered theminsecure,
they occupied substantially all the old counties, and
spread into new ones, as they were settled.
But we shall be asked: can it be possible that the
representations so uniformly made by travellers, of the
ragged, impoverished, and forlorn appearance of many
districts of Eastern Virginia and the Carolinas, and of
their poor and slovenly agriculture, are all mistaken?
That there is much exhausted, and still more poor land,
in these sections; that through extensive districts the
soil and crops are now very thin, and the tillage rude,
333 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
we explicitly admit.  But this is by no means the same
as admitting that it is slavery which has impoverished
those regions. In the first place, of the larger part it
is utterly false to say that they have ever been impoverished, by any cause; for they never had any fertility to
lose. The statement usually made, as to the most of
these old lands, is monstrously false.  It has been
usually represented that the Atlantic slope of Virginia
was originally excessively rich, and has been brought
to its present condition by slavery and tobacco. But
in truth, this region, with the exception of limited spots,
was naturally poor and thin; as every sensible persod
who has examined it knows. A vast proportion of it
would scarcely have been judged susceptible of settlement at all, but for the attraction of its healthy climate,
and the one or two crops of tobacco which its thin
mould would produce. And it is only the thrifty industry Of its inhabitants, together with the value of their
staple, tobacco, which enabled them to live as plentifully as they did on so poor a soil.
In the next place, the exhaustion is really far less
than it appears to the Englishman or New Englander,
and the tillage far more judicious and thorough. The
agriculture of planting regions is, necessarily, very
different from that of farming regions; and especially
is the culture of the grasses to a very large extent precluded by the nature of the crops, the soil, and the
climate.  Hence, excellent lands in the South, especially during fall and winter, often lack that appearance
of verdancy, which to the English eye is the chief
measure of fertility. But to suppose those lands as
exhausted as fields equally bare or brown would be
334 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   335
correctly judged in grass regions, would beb an amazing
mistake.   Nor is the management  always indolent
where it seems slovenly. The Southern planter is proverbially disinclined to consult mere appearances,at the
cost of substantial advantage. Though the fencing
seem rough, and the farm ill kept in many respects,
the accurate observer will find his cultivation of the
valuable staples, cotton and tobacco, thorough and
skillful. There is no neater,ciulture than that of the
tobacco fields of Virginia.
Again: wherever the soil was originally fertile, in
the Atlantic slope, as in the red lands of the Piedmont
region, and the alluvial valleys of the great rivers, there
the supposed decline of agriculture is unknown. All
those lands which by nature were really fine, are now
finer.  The tillage was better, the yield per acre larger,
the culture more remunerative, at the opening of the
war, than at any date since the virgin forests were
cleared away.
But so far as there has been an actual exhaustion of
Southern soil, [and that there has been is admitted,] it
can be proved to be due to other causes than slavery.
For an exhaustion precisely similar can be pointed out
in many of the free States.  In both regions, it has
arisen from two causes: the proximity of'new and cheap
lands, to which the exhausting farmer  could easily
resort, and the possession of a valuable staple crop,
whose profits powerfully stimulated large operations.
Those free States which lay under the same circumstances, have undergone the same exhaustion, except in
so far as a natural depth of soil has made the process
slower.  If any parts of our country have escaped the 
A- DEFENCE - OP VIRGINIA.
"skinning process" after their first settlement, it has
been simply because they were not so fortunate as to
possess any valuable staple, or else were too remote
from a market. Western Vermont, sixty years ago,
was resorted to as a fertile wheat growing district.
Long ago it was so exhausted that the culture of wheat
was nearly relinquished, and its inhabitants emigrated
to the new lands of Western New York to raise wheat;
while the wheat fields of Vermont are now sheep-walks,
and her farmers buy their flour. But Western New
York, in its turn, has declined, till its average crop per
acre is only one-half the original; and its farmers have
sought the fertile plains of Illinois and Michigan, to
subject them in turn to the same exhaustion.   Even
Ohio, fertile Ohio, the boast of abolitionists, whose
black loam seemed able to defy human mismanagement,
is proved by the stubborn census tables to have declined
one-half, already, in its yield per acre. And her own
children acknowledge, that if the appearance of the
older parts be compared with that of twenty years ago,
the signs of exhaustion are manifest. This vicious
system, then, is not traceable to slave labour, seeing it
pTevails just as often where no slave labour exists; but
to the cheapness of new lands, and facility of emigration.
Virginia presents other facts demonstrating the economy and efficiency of slave labour. The great Valley
of Virginia (between the Blue Ridge and North Mountain Ranges,) is a farming and grazing region, of fertile
soil and prosperous agriculture. In its great extent,
some counties are occupied almost exclusively by free
labour, and some have a large slave population. Now
it is perfectly well known to all intelligent persons here,
336 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
t 
that precisely in those counties of this beautiful valley
where there are most slaves, is the land highest in
price, the agriculture most profitable and skillful, the
farm buildings most elegant, and the community most
prosperous and wealthy.   Virginia east of the Blue
Ridge is partly a farming and partly a planting region,
having a mixed agriculture. Its soil is exceedingly
different from that of the great valley, even where as
fertile; and consequently the tillage is unlike.  But
there too, the neatest, most thorough and most profitable
agriculture, and the highest priced lan'ds, the finest farm
stock, and the most prosperous landholders, are to be
found precisely where the slave labour is most preva
lent.  And there is no agriculture in America superior
to that of these favoured regions.
But, in conclusion, even if the industrial pursuits of
the South were in the unfavourable condition which the
Yankees love to assert, the sufficient cause would be
found, not in slavery, but in the exactions and swindlings of their own section, through sectional federal
legislation. Let a sober statement of these exactions
be weighed, and the wonder will be, got that the Sohth
should be depleted, but that she is not bled to death.
In' the first place, the Federal Government, at its foun
dation, adopted the policy of giving a fishing bounty,
(to encourage, as it said, a school of sailors for. the national marine,) which went wholly into the pockets of
New Englanders.  It is said that the bounties paid are
yearly about one and a half millions.  Supposing that
half only of the sum thus taken from the Federal Treasury was paid in by the South, (which we shall see is
less than the truth,) this bounty, with that part of its
15
337 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
increase which has accrued by simple interest alone,
amounts now to one hundred and seventy-one millions,
transferred by this unfair legislation from the South to
the North. Next are to be mentioned the tonnage
duties on foreign ships carrying between American
ports, which, as the South had few ships, constituted a
perpetual tax on us for the benefit of the North.  Its
amount cannot possibly be estimated with exactness,
but it must have amounted to millions annually.  Next
came the oppression of a protective tariff, raising upon
imports as high a revenue as sixty or seventy millions
annually, in the last years of the government. As the
South had few manufactures, and the North many, and
as these duties, even where laid for revenue, were discriminating against the cheaper and better foreign
manufactures which the South desired, in every case where
discrimination was  possible; it is manifest that the
system constituted a simple robbery of the South of
annual:millions, for the benefit of the North.  But we
lost far more than the actual tariff on that portion of
the national imports which were consumed at the South;
because the restrctive policy, by throwing the balance
of trade against the nations which took our grand
staples of tobacco and cotton, deprived them of the
ability to buy so freely, and at so large prices, as they
would have done under a policy of free trade.  Thus,
the Southern planter not only paid the Northern manufacturer a profit on his goods-equal to the protective
tariff, but in the process of that robbery, lost several
times as much more, in the prices which he should have
received for his cotton or tobacco, had he been permitted to go with it to a free European market. This
-338 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   3390
method of legislative plunder was so wastefill, that the
Yankee, in stealing one-dollar from us, annihilated several other dollars of our values. Next may be mentioned the advantage which the North gained in the
funding of the Federal debt incurred at the Revolutionary war. This was so juggled by the Hamilton party,
as to give the avails of it chiefly to the North. The
enjoyment of that fund, with its increase since, has
made a difference of untold millions in favour of the
North.  Last: the North twice enjoyed the advantage
of having the National Bank situated in its midst, and
wielding for purposes of traffic a large part of the funds
of the Government.  This superior command of ready
money, acquired in these various ways, enabled the
North to develope commercial centres, and to fix the
great markets in her territory, thus ensuring to her the
countless profits of commissions, freights, etc., on Southern trade.
Is it wonderful that the industry of a people thus
swindled and plundered should languish?  Who does
not know the power of abundant capital, and especially
of ready money, in stimulating enterprise and facilitating industry?  Yet, under all this incubus the South
has more than kept pace with its rapacious partner.
When, therefore, the Yankee abolitionist points to any
unfavourable contrasts in our condition, as evidence of
the evil of slavery, he adds insult to falsehood: his own
injustice has created the misfortune with which he
taunts us, so far as that misfortune exists at all. 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
~ 5. Effects of Slavery on Population, Disease, and Crime.
But our enemies argue that slavery must be an obstacle to national growth and strength; for this is
evinced by the very fact that they are nearly nineteen
millions, and we only twelve and a quarter; when, at
the beginning, the two sections were nearly equal in
strength.   Let us, therefore, look into this question.
The increase of population is usually a sure test of the
physical well-being of a people. Hardship and destitution repress population, by obstructing marriages,
by breeding diseases, and by increasing the mortality
of infants.  If the population of the South be found to
have a rapid natural increase, it will prove, therefore,
the general prosperity of the people; and if the black
race be found to multiply rapidly, it will be an evidence
that their physical condition is happy, or in other words,
that the institution of slavery is a humane one for
them. Sufficient access being denied us to the statistics collected in 1860, our remarks must be based in
part on the returns of 1850, and previous periods.
These returns show that between 1840 and s1850, the
whites of the free States increased thirty-nine and a
half per cent., (39.42,) and the whites of the slave States
increased thirty-four and a fourth per cent., (34.26.)
The climate, the occupations, and the African labour of
the South, repel almost the whole of that teeming immigration from Europe which has been rushing to our
shores; so that making allowance for this source of
population, it will be seen that the natural increase of
Southern whites is as rapid as that of Northern. 
340 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
In 1860, the whites in the free States had increased
to about eighteen and a half millions; and in the slave
States, to about eight and a quarter millions. The increase for the free States was, therefore, forty-two (42)
per cent., and for the slave States thirty-three per cent.,
(33.) The census showed that in the decade between
1840 and 1850, four-fifths of the foreign immigration,
for the reasons mentioned, went into the free States.
If we suppose the same ratio to have prevailed in the
last decade, then the fact that the North has received
four-fifths of the immense rush of Europeans who resorted to our shores in the last ten years, will abundantly account for this difference of increase. The
South has grown as fast in white population, as the
North would have done, left to itself. 
But the increase of the slave population of the South
is obscured by no such disturbing cause. The South
having magnanimously concurred, and even gone before, in suppressing the foreign slave trade, from a conviction of its immorality, the African race has received
no accession whatever, in our day, from immigration.
Between 1840 and 1850, the increase of the slave popution solely from the excess of births over deaths, was
twenty-eight and eight-tenths per cent., (28.8,) and
between 1850 and 1860, it was twenty-three and threetenths (23.3) per cent. One cause for the diminished
rate of increase in the latter decade, was doubtless the
growing passion of the Yankees for the abduction of
our slaves; which, towards the last, carried off thousands annually.  But either rate of increase is more
rapid than the whites, either North or South, ever attained without the aid of immigration. The native in
341 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
crease of the free States in ten years has probably been
between eleven and fifteen per cent. So that tried by
this well-established test, the physical well-being of the
slaves is higher than of any race in the world. Mean time, the miserable free blacks of New England, in the
midst of the boasted philanthropy of abolitionism, only
increase at the rate of one and seven-tenths of one per
cent. in ten years I Such is the stern and impartial
testimony of fact. How calamitous must be that load
of social oppression, of disease and destitution, which
thus nearly annihilates the increase of this fruitful
race I Yet this is the'condition to which the benevolent abolitionist would reduce the prosperous servants
of the South.
This sews the suitable place to notice the most
insulting and preposterous of the abolitionists' slanders. It is that expressed by calling Virginia the
"slave-breeding commonwealth."  What do these insolent asses mean?  Do they intend to revile Virginia,
because she did not suppress the natural increase of
this peaceful and happy class of her people, by wholesale infanticide?  Or  because  she did not, like the
North, subject them to social evils so cruel and murderous, as to kill off that increase by the slow torture
of vice, oppression, and  destitution?   It was  the
honour of Virginia, that she was a man-breeding commonwealth; that her benignant government made existence a blessing, both to the black man and the
white, and, consequently, conferred it on many of both.
If it has been proved, which we claim, that servitude
was the best condition for the blacks, and that it promoted their multiplication, then this is a praise and not 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   343
a reproach to Virginia.  IHow perverse and absurd is
the charge, that Virginia was actuated by a motive
beastly and avaricious, in bestowing existence on
many black men, and making it a blessing to them;
because, forsooth, her wise government of them made
them useful to the State and to themselves I By the
same reason, the Christian parents who rejoice in children as a gift of the Lord, and a blessing to him "who
hath his quiver full of them," are "slave-breeders," because they make their children useful, and hope to find
them supports to their old age.
But medical statistics have revealed the fact, that
another sure test of the physical well-being and progress of a people may be found, in the percentage of
hereditary disease, idiocy, and lunacy among them.
The hardships, destitution, and immoralities of a bad
state of society have a powerful influence to propagate
blindness, deafness, idiocy, scrofula, cretinism, and to
harass the feebler minds into derangement; while the
blessings of good government, abundant food and raiment, and social happiness, strengthen and elevate the
"human breed."  The returns of the census of 1850
were collected by authority of Congress, on these
paints, and they show that of whites, North and South,
about one person in every thousand is either deaf, dumb,
blind, insane, or idiotic.  Of free blacks in the North,
one person in every five hundred and six was in one or
the other of these sad conditions! Of the black people
of the South, one person among every one thousandfour
hundred and forty-six, was thus afflicted.  8o that, by
this test, Southern slaves are tFree times as prosperous,
contented, happy, and moral as Northern free blacks, 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
and once and a half times as much so as the whites
themselves. The frightful proportion which these ele mental maladies have reached among the wretched
free blacks of abolitiondom, does more to reveal the
misery of their condition there, than volumes of de scription.               -
The statistics of crime and pauperism reveal results
yet more astounding for our enemies, and triumphant
for us. While the free States had,'in 1850, about
thirteen and a half millions, including a few hundreds
of thousands of free blacks, and the South about nine
and a half millions of whites and blacks, there were, in
that year (23,664) twenty-three thousand six hundred
and sixty-four criminal convictions in the North, and
(2,921) two thousand nine hundred and twenty-one in
the South. The same year, the North was supporting
(114,704) one hundred and fourteen thousand seven
hundred and four paupers; and the South (20,563)
twenty thousand five hundred and sixty-three. One of
the most remarkable things is the great excess of both
crime and pauperism in the New England States, "'the
land of steady habits," not only as compared with the
South, but as compared with the remainder of the
North, except New York. In Boston and its adjacent
county, in Massachusetts, the persons in jails, houses
of correction or refuge, and alms-houses, bore, among
the blacks, the ratio of one to every sixteen: and among
the whites, of one to every thirty-four. In Richmond,
Virginia, the same unhappy classes bore, among the
blacks, the ratio of one to everyforty-six, and among
the whites, of one to every one hundred and twelve. By
this test, then, the white people of Richmond are three
341 
a,
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.   345
times as happy and moral as the white people of
Boston, and the negroes of Richmond have proportionably one-third less crime than the white people of
Boston, and are nearly three times as moral as the free
blacks of that city.
We have thus examined the testimony of facts, as
given to us under the unwilling authority of the Congress of the United States. They show that, by all the
tests recognize: among statesmen, slavery has not
made the South less populous, less rich, less moral,
less healthy, or less abundant in the resources of
living than its boastful rival, in proportion to its opportunities. On this evidence of experience we rest
ourselves.
In dismissing this head of our discussion, we would
briefly touch two points. One is the annual production of the industry of the North and the South.
Without burdening the reader with statistical details,
it is sufficientto sum up the annual results of the three
great branches, of agriculture, mining, and manufactures. The North exceeds the So)uth in proportion to
population, in wheat, hay, dairy products, and manufactures; while the South greatly exceeds the North in
the great staples of Indian corn and tobacco, and surpasses it almost immeasurably in rice, cotton, and
naval stores. Summing up the varied productions of
each section, we find that the industry of the South is,
on the whole, more productive than that of the North,
relatively to its numbers.  And of the great commodities which-constitute the basis of foreign commerce,
the South yields more than the North, ill about the
ratio of four to one I
15* 
A -DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
,A
The other point is the relative improvement of the
soil.  According to the census of 1860, there werefour
acres of improved land to each inhabitant of the North,
appraised, with their rateable proportion of stock and
implements, at $223. This gives about $56 for each
acre and its stock. In the South, on the other hand,
each inhabitant claims nine acres of improved land,
valued, with their, stock and implements, at $322. This
allows about $36 for each acre and Tts stock.  It has
been argued that this evinces the slovenly and imperfect agriculture of the slaveholding States, and the
comparative exhaustion of their soils. It is said, their
rude tillage is spread over a far wider surface, and
conducted with inferiour appointments. And this depreciating result slavery has brought about, they assert, in spite of superiour natural advantages. We remark that, contrary to the usual assertion, the natural
fertility was superiour in the free States. The soil of
the Middle States had a better natural average than
that of the old Atlantic slave States, and the Northwestern States had a vastly larger proportion of fertile
lands than the South-western. In the next place, the
agriculture of the South is of such a character that it
requires a wider area; and yet this requirement argues
nothing of its greater imperfection.  It may require
more space to fly a kite than to spin a top, and yet it
does not follow that the kite-flying is less skillful sport
than the top-spinning. An iron manufactory must necessarily cover more ground than a chemical laboratory; but no one argues thence, that the ironmonger is
less a master of his trade than the manufacturer of
drugs, of his. Last: the fact that the Southern planter
0
4
346 
ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.
accounts the labour of his farm as property, and so, as
a part of his invested capital, causes a lower nominal
valuation of his lands, though there be no inferiority of
actual production.  Grain and grass lands in the county
of Rockingham have always sold higher than grain and
grass lands in the county of Albemarle, which were
actually yielding the same products annually. The
former were tilled by free labour, and the latter by
slave; but the Albemarle farming was confessedly as
skillful, as economical, and as profitable, as the Rockingham.  The explanation is the following: The Rockingham farmer, hiring his free labour, needed no more
capital for this purpose than was sufficient to pay the
wages of a few months in advance of the realization of
his crop. The Albemarle farmer expended a large
portion of his farming capital in the purchase of slaves,
and afterwards paid no money in hire. The former, investing twenty thousand dollars in agriculture, could
expend the whole sum in land, except what.was required to stock it and pay wages for a few months.
Thus he would begin by buying three hundred acres of
land for eighteen thousand dollars. But the slaveholding farmer began by expending eight thousand dollars
in the purchase of servants, leaving him but ten thousand to pay for the three hundred acres of land. For
this reason land of the same actual value must be rated
at a smaller nominal price among slaveholders than
among farmers employing free labour. But the true
profits o0the farming are not reduced thereby, in the
proportion of eighteen thousand to ten-thousand. For
the slaveholder no longer has to tax his crops, (equal
in gross amount to those of the Rockingham farmer,)
8t4 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
with the hire of labourers. That tax he pays in the
Cape of the annual interest on the eight thousand dollars, which, in the first instance, he paid for his servants. Hence the facts do not argue that the land is
intrinsically less productive or less profitable; they
only argue a different distribution of capital between
the two  sources of production, land and labour.  In
consequence of that difference, the land must be represented by less money. This obvious explanation explodes much that has been taught concerning the comparative barrenness of Southern farming..
V
*
318
. 
CONCLUSION.
CHAPTER Ix.
CONcLUsION.
THEsE facts, then, have been  established beyond
question: That slavery was forced upon Virginiaagainst her protests, by tht cupidity of New England,
and the tyranny and cupidity of Old England: That
the African race being thus placed in the State witlout her agency, she adopted the remedy of domestic
slavery, which is proved by the law of God in the Old
and New Testaments to be innocent; and shown by
events to be beneficent to the Africans: That, according to history, the laws of nations, and the laws of
the British Empire inherited by the American States,
slaveholding was lawful throughout the territories of
the United States, save where it was restrained by
State sovereignty: That it was expressly recognized
and protected by the Constitution; such recognition
having been an essential condition, without which the
Southern States would never have accepted the Union:
Tha every department of the government, and all
political parties, habitually recognized the political
equality of the slaveholding States, and of slaveholding
citizens: That the Supreme Court, the authorized expounder of the Constitution, also recognized the equal
rights of slaveholders in all the common territories:
349   0 
50  DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
And that slavery proved itself at once, not only lawful,
but eminently promotive of the well-being of the
Africans, of the interests of the whole government, and
of the publick wealth. Then the North, having ceased
to find its own interest in the slave trade and slavery,
changed its ground, and began to cast about, merely
from a desire of sectional power in the confederacy,
for means to destroy the institution. It is unnecessary
to argue that the whole free-soil controversy, and- the
war which grew out of it, were really designed by
them to destuoy slavery in the States: for they themselves, in the pride of success, have long ceased to
conceal that fact.
SNow,  had slavery been intrinsically a moral and
social evil, yet its protection was in the compact between the States; and to the honest mind, there was
but one course for the North to adopt when she concluded that she could no longer endure her connexion
with slavery.  This was, to restore to the South the
pledges, the fulfilment of which had become irksome;
and to dissolve the Union peacefully and fairly, as it
had been formed, leaving us in possession of our own
country and rights, to bear our own sin- and pursue
our own destiny.  It was the federal compact alone,
which gave the North any right to govern the South.
If they repudiated that contract, it was annihilated
equally for both parties.  Thenceforward their c,aim
to legislate for the South, or exercise any power over
her, was baseless and iniquitous.  No fair mind will
dispute, that even though slavery had been an indefensible wrong, the South ought not to have permitted
herself to be assailed for it, in an equal Union which
a50 
-CONCLUSION.
she had sovereignly entered with this institution expressly recognized.  But that basis of argument we
utterly repudiate. We will not defend ourselves from
such premises. We claim to have been justified, not
only by the Constitution of the United States, but by
God and the right, in our rights to slaves. Our status
in the Federal Union was, so far, as equal, as honourable, as legal, as free from ethical taint, as that of
any other States with their property in horses, ships,
land, and factories.
We have, in another place, (the Life of Jackson,)
stated with sufficient fulness, the admitted'facts and
doctrines of the Constitution, which justified the Southern States in resuming their independence, when the
compact, to which they had partially yielded it, was
destroyed. The indisputable proofs (now fully admitted by anti-slavery men) might be cited, which showed
that their election of a sectional President, with other
aggressions, were intended to destroy the most acknowledged and vital rights of the States. Had Virginia assumed her attitude of resistance upon that
event, she might have defended it by that maxim, so
obvious to every just mind, that it is righteous and
wise to meet the first clear aggression even though its
practical mischiefs be unimportant: that "a people
should rather contend for their rights upon their
threshold than upon their hearthstone."  But we had
stronger justification still. The aggression intended
was practically vast and ruinous in its results. It has
been shown in previous chapters, that the destruction
of African slavery among us was vital to us, because
emancipation by such means would be destructive of
251
1% 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
the very framework of society, and of our most funda mental rights and interests. All our statesmen, of all
parties, had taught us, not only that the reserved
rights of the States were the bulwarks of the liberties
of the people, but that emancipation by federal aggres sion would lead to the destruction of all other rights.
A Clay, as much as a Calhoun, proclaimed that when
abolition overthrew slavery in the South, it also would
equally  overthrow  the Constitution.  Calhoun, and
other Southern statesmen, with a sagacity which every
day confirms, had forewarned  us, that when once
abolition by federal aggression came, these other ure
results would follow: that the same greedy lust of
power which had meddled between masters and slaves,
would assuredly, and for the stronger reason, desire to
use the political weight of the late slaves against their
late masters: that having enforced a violent emancipation, they would enforce, of course, negro suffrage,
negro eligibility to office, and a full negro equality:
that negro equality thus theoretically established
would be practical negro superiority: that the tyrant
section, as it gave to its victims, the white men of the
South, more and more causes of just resentment, would
find more and more violent inducements to bribe the
negroes, with additional privileges and gifts, to assist
them in their domination: that this miserable career
must result in one of two things, either a war of races,
in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the
other, exterminated; or amalgamation. But while we
believe that "God made of one blood all nations of
men to dwell under the whole heavens," we know that
the African has become, according to a well-known
352 
CONCLUSION.
law of natural history, by the manifold influences of
the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated
from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral,
almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus.
Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a
hybrid race, stamped with all the feebleness of the
hybrid, and incapable of the career of civilization and
glory as an independent race. And this apparently is
the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If
indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa,
then they will never again have occasion to tremble
before the righteous resistance of Virginiq freemen;
but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that
position of political subjection, which they desire to
fix on the South.,
But although Virginia well knew that the very existence of society was assailed by these aggressions, so
strict was her loyalty to the Constitution, she refused to
make the election of a sectional President the immediate occasion of resistance, because, outrage as it was,
it was nominally effected by the forms of the Constitution. When her sisters, more advanced than herself in
the spirit of resistance, resumed their independence,
she refused to follow them. When, warned by thicken-ing events, she assembled her Convention, immediate
embodiment of her own sovereignty, it was not a convention of secessionists.  Only twenty-five, out of the
hundreds of members, advocated that extreme remedy.
But she did by this Convention, what she had already
done by her General Assembly: she repeated the assertion of the great principles on which the government
353
.0 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
was founded; that it was built on the free consent of
States originally sovereign, and not On force; that however wrongfully any State might resume its independence without just cause, the only remedy was conciliation, and not force; that therefore the coercion of a
sovereign State was unlawful, mischievous, and must
be resisted.  There Virginia took her stand-on this
foundation right, as essential to the well-being of assailant as of assailed. It was not for slavery that she
deliberately resolved to draw the sword, cardinal as she
knew circumstances had rendered slavery at this time;
but f-r this corner-stone of all constitutional liberty,
North and South.  And this, too, was a principle which
she had always-held against all assailants, in all ages
of the Republick.  She had asserted it firmly against
her own favourite, Andrew Jackson, in the case of
South Carolina, notwithstanding her disapproval of the
nullifying doctrine then held by that State.  She only
asserted her time-honoured creed now.   It was  not
until the claim to subjugate sovereign States was practically applied, that Virginia drew the sword; and then,
not for'slavery, but for the Constitution, and the liberties of a continent, which it had protected.
It is therefore a great and an odious perversion of
the truth, to say that the defensive movement of the
South was a war to extend and perpetuate slavery..
African slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of
the strife, on either side.  On the Northern side it was
merely the pretext, employed by that aggressive section to carry out ambitious projects of domination. To
the South, it was merely the circumstance of the controversy, that the right assailed was our right to the
354 
CONCLUSION.
labour of our servants. It was not the circumstance
for which we contended, but the principle-the great
cause of moral right, justice, and regulated liberty.' It
was therefore a gross injustice to burden our cause, in
the minds of the rest of the world, with the odium
which the prejudices of Christendom have attached to
the name —of slaveholder.  Even those who  are unable
to overcomethose prejudices, would, if just and magnanimous, approve our attempt to defend ourselves.
Finally: the means by which this defence has been
overpowered were as iniquitous as the attack. A-war
was waged, precipitated: by treachery, aggravated by
every measure of barbarity condemned by the laws of
nations, by the agency of multitudinous hordes of foreign mercenaries, and semi-civilized slaves seduced
from their owners  against captives, women, children,
and private property; with the attempt to let loose
upon our little community (which they found otherwise
unconquerable) a servile insurrection and all the horrors of domestic assassination-an attempt disappointed only by the good feeling —and good character which
the servants themselves had learned from the humanity
of their masters. The impartial and magnanimous
mind which weighs these facts cannot but feel itself
swelling with an unutterable sense of indignation. The
Southern people feel little impulse to give expression to
their sense of the enormous wrongs, in reproaches or
vituperations of those who have thus destroyed them.
When resistance was practicable, they gave a more expressive and seemly utterance to this sentiment, in the
energy of their blows. Let the heroick spirit in which
the soldiers of Virginia and the South struck for their
'355
11
I 
A DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA.
liberties, and suffered, and died, represent our appreciation of this injustice. A righteous xod, for our sins
towards Him, has permitted us to be overthrown byour
enemies and His. It is vain to complain in the ear of a
maddening tempest. Although our people are now oppressed with present sufferings and a prospective destiny more cruel and disastrous than has been visited
on any civilized people of modern ages, they suffer
silently, disdaining to complain, and only raising to the
chastening heavens, the cry, "How long, 0 Lord?"
Their appeal is to history, and to Him.   They well
know, that in due time, they, although powerless themselves, will be avenged through the same disorganizing
heresies under which they now suffer, and through the
anarchy and woes which they will bring upon the
North.   Meantime, let the arrogant and successful
wrongdoers flout our defence with disdain: we will
meet them with it again, when it will be heard; in the
day of their calamity, in the pages of impartial history,
and in the Day of Judgment.
356
,A 
EDWARD J. HALE & SON,
(LATE OF FAYETTEVILLE, NORTI CAROLINA,)
Publishers  & Wholesale  Booksellers  &  Stationers,
No. 16 MURRAY STREET, New York,
Publish the following works:
DEFENCE OF VIRGINIA, AND OF THE SOUTH.  By
Rev. Dr. DABNEY, author of a Life of Gen. (Stonewall)
Jackson. 1 vol., 12mo, cloth....................... $1 50
DIARY OF A REFUGEE, DURING THE WAR.  By a
Lady of Virginia. 1 vol., 12mo, cloth.............. 2 00
LIFE OF GEN. PAT. CLEBURNE. (In preparation.)
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA. By Rev. F. L.
H.AWKs, D.D., LL.D. 2 vols., 8vo, cloth............. 5 00
Library sheep..... 6 00
Half calf.......... 7 00
DEVEREUX'S NORTH CAROLINA EQUITY REPORTS.
New edition. Vol. 2.
DEVEREUX AND BATTLE'S EQUITY REPORTS. New
edition. 2 vols.
DEVEREUX AND BATTLE'S NORTH CAROLINA LAW
REPORTS. New edition. Vols. 1 and 2.
IREDELL'S NORTH CAROLINA LAW REPORTS. Vole.
6,7, 8,9,10,11,12.
IREDELL'S NORTH CAROLINA EQTtTY REPORTS.
Vols. 4, 5, 6, 7.
They are prepared to furnish any of these, or complete sets
of North Carolina Reports, as far as extant. Also, BATTLE'S
New and Complete DIGEST of these Reports, brought down to
1866, and superseding all former Digests. 3 vols. 
E. J. hale & Son's Publications.
SOUTHERN SCIHOOL BOOKS.
The subscribers are prepared and will be pleased to supply
their customers with School Books of all kinds in use, but are
particularly desirous to extend the use-of books prepared for
Southern Schools, by Southern authors, and therefore free from
matter offensive to Southern people. Most prominent among
these may be mentioned the
NORTH CAROLINA READERS.  By Rev. C. H. WILEY, Su    perintendent of Common Schools in North Carolina, and Rev.
Dr. HUBBARD, Professor in the University of North Carolina.
THE UNIVERSITY SERIES OF SCHOOL AND COLLEGE
TEXT-BOOKS.   By ProfessorsHOLMES, VENABLE, GILDER    SLEEVE, DE VERE, and LE COMTE, of Southern Universities,
and Captain M. F. MAURY, one of the most distinguished of
living Geographers.
OUR OWN  SERIES of Spellers, Reader, and Writing Books.
By Rev. Professor RICHARD STERLING, of Greepsiborough,
N. C.
. Of the above, the follow
now, and others soon will b
North Carolina Reader, No.
c  ~   ~s     ~s
2...........................
.............. 2..
Holmes's Southern Pictorial Primer,  per dozen.........
Elementary Speller,   "      net cash.
".."     Pictorial 1st Reader, each.............
".."... 2d"..................
3d   "...................4
"  "       "    4th ".................
"  "       "    I5th.................. 
Venable's First Lessons in Numbers.....................
"    Mental Arithmetic..........................
De Vere's Grammar in French.........................
36'
50
75
75
20
20
34
45'
64
00
45
40
i 
E. J. Hale &  Son's Publications.
Sterling's Southern Primer, paper,     per dozen........    90
"..".-."          stiff covers,    "...........  1 08
".."        Pictorial Primer,     "..........2 00
"..". Speller, per dozen, net ca7s........... 1 20
~" - "      1st Reader, -each..................   25
". ". 2d    "...................    50
".".3d  ".....................  60
"   "       O4th   "     ".....................    90
".."        5th.." "'.................1 08
"..". Writing Books, per dozen..........  1 80
Bingham's Latin Grammar. By Col. W. Bingham, Prin    cipal of the celebrated Bingham School, Oaks, Ala    mance County, N.C.  Each......................... 1 20
Bingham's English Grammar.  By the same.  Each.....  67
Ross's Southern Speaker. By Professor Ross, of Louisiana 1 13
Hill's Algebra (Gen. D. H. Hill, of " The Land we Love ") 1 50
They respectfully invite orders for these or other School,
Miscellaneous, and Standard Books, Stationery, &c., &c., from
their friends and the Southern public. They believe that they
supply Booksellers, Merchants, Teachers, and others, with goods
quite as cheaply, for cash, as they can be bought in this city.
Address
E. J. HALE & SON,
No. 16 MURRAY STREET, NEW YORK.
M Any Book, of their own or others' publications, will be sent
by Mail, free of postage, on receipt of Pubis8hers advertised retail
price.
41
it 
4
4