with true policy, and the unalienable rights of men, should subsist in an enlightened age and among a people professing that all mankind are by nature equally entitled to freedom." These noble sentiments, I repeat it, originated from Virginia, and were read and referred to a select Committee of the House of Representatives.

66

Much has also been said on the interference of Associations, and other ecclesiastical bodies, on this subject. I do not here enter upon the question whether or not such assemblies should, in their corporate capacity, take action on the matter of slavery. I will merely state that such action can claim very ancient precedents. At the meeting of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, held Aug. 7th, 1789, the following declaration was made: Agreeably to a letter from the church at Baltimore, this Association declare their high approbation of the several societies formed in the United States, and Europe, for the gradual abolition of the slavery of Africans, and for the guarding against their being detained or sent off as slaves after having obtained their liberty, and do hereby recommend to the churches we represent to form similar societies, to become members thereof, and to exert themselves to obtain this important object." To this action I know not that any exception was ever taken.

These facts seem to me conclusively to show that during the period of our history immediately succeeding the Revolution, the right or wrong of slavery was considered throughout the Union as a perfectly open question, on which any one, without offence to any class of persons, might freely express

his opinions; on which any citizens might memorialize Congress, and in these memorials, express their opinions, assured that such opinions would meet with respectful attention; and also that in at least three of the slaveholding States themselves, any citizen might, appealing to the understanding and conscience of his fellow-men, utter his sentiments as freely on this as on any other subject.

I deeply deplore the change in this respect that has come over the South. It seems to me unwise and unreasonable. The institution of slavery, whether it be considered in the light of political economy, of philanthropy, or of Christianity, is surely important enough to demand a full and impartial discussion. If it can be defended on either of these grounds, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind” would certainly require that its defence should be attempted. If it cannot be so defended, but on the contrary can be shown to be at variance both with virtue and self-interest, the sooner we are convinced of this the better. But I especially deplore the intolerance on this subject, which I believe now to exist in the slaveholding States themselves. I know that there are at this moment many of our Southern citizens, some of them slaveholders, who are convinced both of the moral evil of slavery, and of its ruinous influence on national prosperity. They long for an opportunity to express their sentiments to their fellow-citizens. But in the present state of public opinion they dare not do it. They are deprived of the opportunity of giving utterance to their honest convictions. Under such circumstances, how can we ever hope to arrive at the truth?

I admit the existthat it has in part

To this it may be replied, that the violence and fanaticism of abolitionists has been the cause of this universal irritability of our Southern fellowcitizens. I have no doubt that this, to a considerable degree, has been the fact. ence of the cause, and presume at least produced this effect. But the question still remains, ought it to have produced this effect? Suppose that a man addresses me unkindly and. abusively on a question of duty; this may be a reason why I should not hear him, but it is surely no sufficient reason why I should not hear another man who addresses me on the same subject kindly and respectfully; much less is it a reason why I should determine never to hear the subject discussed by any person in any manner whatever. If abolitionists have treated this subject offensively, this is a no sufficient reason why any citizen of a Southern State should not be allowed, without offence, to declare his views of it in any suitable manner that he pleases. It is conceded that the institution of slavery is a matter peculiarly and exclusively belonging to the States in which it exists. For this reason, were there no other, the discussion of it should in those States be specially free, thorough, and universal.

I cannot but believe that the public feeling, on this subject, was much more healthy with our fathers than with us. I cannot be persuaded that irritability and menace are either manly or dignified, or that the employment of physical force to arrest the discussion of an important subject, is either useful or wise. I wish most sincerely, that the temper and conduct of the Southern members

of the late Convention at Philadelphia might be imitated by all their brethren.

But I am protracting this letter to an unreasonable length, and will conclude by subscribing my. self with the highest personal esteem and Christian affection,

THE AUTHOR OF THE MORAL SCIENCE.

LETTER II.

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D.

MY DEAR BROTHER

In my last letter I took notice of some incidental topics alluded to in your letter on domestic slavery. My object was to show that while the North had erred in its manner of treating this subject, this error had been by no means peculiar to the North; and also that the sensitiveness in regard to it, which has of late become so universal at the South, had no existence in the early periods of the history of this country. It seems to me desirable that the position of both parties should be changed; that the North should treat this subject by calm yet earnest appeal to the understanding and conscience of their fellow-citizens at the South, and that the South should invite the freest possible discussion of it, from what quarter soever it may proceed, so long as it confine itself within these limits.

In your letter it is stated that "the thing affirmed and denied is, that slavery is a moral evil," "that slavery is, in itself, a sin; a sin amid any circum

stances." You also, with great truth and frankness, add, "if slavery be a sin, it is the immediate duty of masters to abolish it, whatever be the result; this you urge and this I grant. I believe that in these latter expressions you give utterance to the real sentiments of your heart. I believe that you have submitted yourself without reserve to the whole will of God, in so far as He shall reveal it to you. I well know the flattering prospects which you abandoned in order to become a preacher of the gospel of Christ. I believe that the same principles would govern you in this case; and that as soon as you shall be convinced that the rule of Christian duty requires of you any other course of conduct than that which you now adopt, you will, at any sacrifice whatever, act in accordance with your convictions. It is in this confidence that I address you on this subject with peculiar pleasure. I hope that if I am convinced of error, I shall be enabled to act from the same principles.

It may perhaps be proper to state that I have never expressed my views of slavery in the form to which you have alluded. The assertion is ambiguous in its meaning, and may admit of several very different answers. I could not pretend either to affirm or deny it, in this indefinite and indeterminate shape. It will be necessary therefore to fix its different meanings, and then offer my views upon each of them.

You remark, it is affirmed that "slavery is a moral evil." This you deny; and you assert, as I suppose, on the contrary, that slavery is not, in itself, a moral evil.