|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 25
I will close my remarks for the present on abolitionism, with a
summary of my leading objections to it. I am opposed to it, because it
proposes to abolish slavery by any means, and at any cost, be the
consequences what they may. Because it would abolish slavery at any
cost, and at any hazard; though it plunges us into a thousand evils,
infinitely worse than African slavery.
I am opposed to the abolitionists, because they trample under foot the
Constitution and laws of their country. The following sentiment is
found in a report, offered to an abolition convention, recently in
session, in Boston: "Anti-slavery shall sweep over the ruins of the
Constitution and the Union, when a fairer edifice, than our lathers
knew how to build, shall rise."
I am opposed to them, because they have in some instances made
attempts to foment insurrections, and to incite the slaves to
indiscriminate murder and rapine.
I am opposed to them, because they have decoyed away slaves from their
masters, and have at the same time encouraged slaves to steal from
their masters and others.
I am opposed to them, because of their utter and notorious disregard
of truth, in their representations of Southern slavery.
I am opposed to them, because they reject the Bible, and profess to be
under the guidance of a higher law. I was at a loss for some time to
know from what source they derived their higher law; but looking over
a Cincinnati paper a few days since, I read as follows: "The infidels
celebrated the birth-day of Thomas Paine on the night," &c. A
gentleman remarked, "that it was through the spread of Paine's
opinions, that he expected to see the colored race elevated, and
through this instrumentality alone." Vain hope!
I am opposed to them, because their plans, so far from bringing about
the abolition of slavery, will but rivet the chains on the slave, and
bring disaster on both master and slave. Because it strews the paths
of both master and slave with difficulties and dangers. Because their
interference makes slaves more impertinent and unhappy, frequently
subjecting them to harsh and cruel treatment.
I am opposed to their theories and views, because they are illogical,
and because so far as there is any truth in them, it is abstract
truth, and not real truth, as modified by circumstances. Because they
refuse to view things as they are, but rather as they should be, and
are utterly reckless as to results and consequences.
And finally, I am opposed to them, because there is no fairness,
justice, truth, or righteousness in them. The following is from the
Detroit Free Press; and I shall give it without comment. It is headed
"THE MORALITY OF NEGRO-STEALING."
"A novice might suppose, in witnessing the chuckle of satisfaction
that has been noticeable among a certain class of people hereabouts
within a few days back, that stealing is a virtue, and that the
receiver of stolen goods is, _par excellence_, a model Christian.
And even a man of some experience in the world might doubt the
morality of the precept "to do unto others as ye would that others
should do unto you," in view of the effrontery and impudence of
those who regard negro stealing as a Christian duty.
"A paper in this city, which professes that the free soil party do
not aim to attack the institution of slavery in those states where
it exists, unblushingly published a few days since the proceedings
of a meeting of free negroes, held on the occasion of the arrival
here of a quantity of runaway negroes from some of the Southern
States. We say, unblushingly, because more than usual prominence
was given to the proceedings in its columns.
"Now, there is no difference, under the Constitution and laws,
between stealing negroes from Kentucky and stealing horses from
Kentucky. The Constitution of the United States and the laws of
Kentucky hold one not less criminal than the other; and a paper in
this city would be just precisely as justifiable in publishing the
proceedings of a horse stealing society as the proceedings of a
negro stealing society. There is not less guilt involved in the one
than the other.
"For our own part we are disposed to call things by their right
names. We believe that he who would be guilty of aiding and
abetting the escape of a negro from his master, would not hesitate
to steal any other property if he could do it with equal safety to
himself. The fact that slaveholding is a sin does not change the
nature of the offense, because the Bible doctrine of submission to
the powers that be, is a plain and unequivocal duty. Negro stealing
is as much a violation of the law of God as of the law of a
Southern State.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|