nature; but I must be permitted to say, that the dispensations of unsearchable wisdom are always adapted, not only to the nature, but also to the condition of man. If the patriarch Abraham, the father of the faithful, was permitted to hold slaves, whom he purchased from his idolatrous neighbours, to subject them to his mild paternal government, and to bring them into covenant with the true and living God, it appears to me something allied to blasphemy, to infer from thence that we are divinely authorised to purchase and hold in bondage, the children born among us, without regard to their spiritual welfare. The authority given to Abraham, if authority it was, to retain the servants thus purchased, is accompanied with the most solemn obligations. The duty enjoined is the more prominent feature. If we plead the example, we must take it. with all its responsibilities. We must follow the example in regard to religious instruction as well as magisterial authority. We must not hold our slaves merely as property, and ministers to our pleasure and ease, but as objects of paternal solicitude and religious oversight. The testimony given of Abraham, "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," presents a conclusive reason why he might be safely trusted with power, which was not designed to be always purchased with money. It must have been a privilege of no trivial kind, to be domesticated in such a family.

But if we examine a little more closely, we find that the hypothesis, that those who had been purchased of

strangers were held in servitude by this pattern of righteousness, is entirely gratuitous. It is no where asserted that they were held as slaves. They may have been purchased from motives of humanity, to be redeemed from slavery; or they may have been purchased of their needy parents, to serve during a limited period.

From the whole tenor of the patriarchal history, it appears difficult to find even an example, not to say an authority, for personal and hereditary slavery. We find Jacob in possession of men-servants and women-servants, when returning from Padanaram; yet when we look round in search of those brethren whom he called to witness the covenant with Laban, none can be. found except those servants, who were employed in the care of his family and flocks. The family of this patriarch are afterwards named, upon their ingress into the land of their subsequent bondage; but these servants have disappeared. If they had been hereditary slaves, it is to be supposed they would have somewhere left their trace on the historian's page. The proof with respect to the practice of that day among this chosen people, is confessedly defective; we may therefore make our own suppositions on the subject. But while I admit that hypothesis is not argument, I insist that a supposition in favour of universal freedom is quite as good as one in defence of slavery.

I venture to assert, without fear of refutation, that no unequivocal testimony can be produced to support the hypothesis, that either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob was ever possessed of a slave. The instance of Hagar has been adduced, though our orator has over

looked it, as evidence in the case. She, it is true, is called a bond woman, but we have no account how long her term of service was to continue. She may have been bound for a limited period, which had not expired at the time of Ishmael's birth. We have no intimation that she was held to service after she had born Abraham a son. Her relation to Abraham, as the mother of his only son, sufficiently accounts for her continuance in the family, without resorting to the unauthorised assumption of her continuance in servitude. If, however, our brethren will insist that Hagar was a slave, and plead the example in defence of negro slavery, it is to be hoped that they I will not forget the sequel of her history. They may, perhaps, agree to follow Abraham's example in one or two instances; why not then give it its most salutary influence? Hagar and her son were unquestionably set free, and that expressly by divine command. If such a command was given for her previous detention in servitude, it has escaped my inquiries. The case, therefore, turns out rather against than in favour of slavery.

The most formidable argument is still behind. Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever, (Levit. xxv. 44, 45, 46.)

This argument, like the champion of Gath, is vulnerable in the forehead, and may be despatched with its own weapons.

The command, as our pleader calls it, to hold slaves, is thrown in among the prohibitions, and evidently amounts to no more than a modification of a restriction. The children of Israel were not to hold their brethren longer than six years, but might apply to the purchased heathen a less lenient rule. But certainly the man who chose to perform his labours with his own hands, and buy neither Hebrew nor heathen bondmen, could not, on that account, be charged with a breach of the divine command. This authority to hold the heathen in bondage, being only permissive, must be so construed as to preserve the force of the positive precepts. "Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof," is an unequivocal injunction. The permission applies expressly to those whom they should buy; no grant of the child, because the parents had been bought, appears in the text. They shall be, your bondmen for ever," may be construed, this class of bondmen shall continue to be bought and held, as long as this law continues unrepealed. The purchased servant was transmitted to the children of the purchaser. But when the year of jubilee came, all the inhabitants must become free. If Moses had designed that the liberty proclaimed in the jubilene year should be limited to a part of the inhabitants, we cannot rationally suppose he would have been less particular in regard to personal freedom than to the possession of property. A house within a walled city, if not redeemed within a year, was established for ever

66

to the purchaser; but he adds, throughout his generations, it shall not go out in the jubilee. Had hereditary servitude been intended, doubtless some equivalent expression would have been used.*

But admitting that hereditary slavery was sanctioned by the Jewish law, what is that to our purpose? It was an authority to the Israelites to buy and retain the heathen. We do not find a clause transferring that authority to us. We have no reason to suppose ourselves descended from either of the twelve tribes, to whom the permission was given. If the passage has any direct application to the people of the present day, it proves a great deal too much; for it proves that the Jews or any of the scattered tribes, may lawfully buy us and our children as slaves. If we could agree with some modern authors, that the Indian nations are descended from the followers of Moses, we should not readily subscribe to the practical application of these precepts. If we take Moses for our master, I fear he will condemn a much larger part of our practice than he will justify, while at the same time he may probably admit some inconvenient innovations into our new modelled society. The authority to buy and hold slaves, is at most a permission, not a command; but other parts even of this favourite chapter, without looking further, contain various positive injunctions, which it is presumed the people of these states would be very slow to adopt. The strict observance of the sabbatical year, the general liberation of servants on the year of

*A more particular examination of this subject may be seen in pages 87 and 254 of this journal. Vol. I.-45

jubilee, and the release of alienated property twice in a century, would encroach inconveniently upon our usual habits, and necessarily break down the system of negro slavery more rapidly than the warmest abolitionists would venture to advise.

To assert that the permission given to the Israelites to hold slaves is an evidence of the moral rectitude of slavery, would be to give the lie to a much higher authority than Moses himself. Many things were permitted to that hard-hearted and stiff-necked people, which refined morality, not to mention Christianity, absolutely prohibits.

One reason for the detention of heathens in the service of the Israelites, may have been, that the former might thereby become converts to the true religion. If we hold negroes for the same reason, we ought at least to be assiduous in the work of conversion. I fear we fall in this respect below our friends on the south of the Mediterranean. Conversion to Islamism is often attempted by the Mahometan master, and the converted slave becomes free. The superiority of our religion is but a lame excuse for the inferiority of our practice.

Lastly, the precepts of the gospel are invoked, but with lamentable success, in support of a system which the common sense of mankind has long agreed to condemn. The injunction to masters to render to their servants that which is reasonable and just, can afford no evidence of the rectitude of slavery, until it is proved that personal freedom is reasonably and justly withheld. The admonition to servants to serve their masters faithfully as in the sight of God, even if the address was made solely to slaves, no more proves that slavery is sanctioned by the gos

pel, than the injunction to turn the other cheek to the smiter, proves the propriety of the original aggression. To infer from this passage, that slavery is authorized by the doctrines of the gospel, is about as logical as to conclude, from the command "bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you," that cursing and persecuting the disciples, was consistent with their master's will.

The case of Onesimus, a supposed runaway, is again brought forward, for perhaps the five hundredth time. As there is no shadow of evidence that Onesimus was a slave, little need be said upon the case. The supposition of the apostle, and we observe it is expressly only a supposition, that possibly Onesimus had wronged or was indebted to Philemon, proves, if it proves any thing, that he was not a slave. It indicates a capability of contracts which belonged only to the free.

NORTHERN PRESIDENTS.

Mr. Dorsey, a member of congress from Maryland, in a speech which he delivered on the 10th ult. in the house of representatives, uttered the following sentiment :

"As to what has been said respecting a Northern President, it never enters into our conceptions that we shall again have such presidents. Does not the gentleman from New York know that a law has gone forth, which decrees that we shall hereafter have no president north of the Potomac? We are not, therefore to be scared by imaginary terrors."*-National Gazette.

* It appears by a subsequent notice, that the speaker had informed the editor, that this was expressed sportively, and was so understood by the house. It is of but little importance how sportively the thing was expressed; a strong

This may, perhaps, be regarded as mere declamation, unworthy of further attention. But casual remarks sometimes disclose the intentions which sober policy would wish to conceal. A deeper policy than that of mere local attachments or antipathies, is plainly indicated in this rash declaration. The recent discussions on the floor of congress, furnish unequivocal evidence of the sympathies of the south with the question of slavery. There can be little doubt that this will continue to be a rallying point with the politicians south of the Potomac, including a few north of that river. An extreme jealousy evidently pervades the slaveholding districts, in regard to any chief magistrate chosen from the other section of the union.

Certainly, whatever our opinions may be on the momentous question of slavery, and whether we consider its existence as the fault or the misfortune of those who support it, we must agree that neither the slave-holding nor the non slave-holding districts have a right to disfranchise each other. Having united together, with our institutions, right or wrong, already formed, we are bound to accede to each other all the political rights which the instrument of our union was designed to secure. If the privilege of raising an inhabitant of our own state to the first office in the government is judged an object of desire, certainly no state that can furnish a citizen worthy of the trust, and competent to discharge the duties of that important station, ought to be systematically excluded from the privilege.

As long as the free states can fur

propensity to act upon it in earnest, is too obvious to be easily overlooked.

nish their just proportion of statesmen equally qualified by talents, integrity, and experience, with those of the south, to occupy the presidential chair with advantage to the nation at large, it is a burlesque on the character of our government, to say that it can be safely administered by none but the holders of slaves. We may reasonably demand our share in the honours and profits of office. A just reciprocity requires, that of two candidates equally suitable, the choice should now fall on the northern one. Eight years balanced against thirty-two, do not furnish a just equipoise.

The twelve free states possessed, according to the census of 1820, a free white population of 5,021,800, while the twelve slave-holding states could boast of no more than 2,786,159, a ratio of something more than five to three. Should the former claim the privilege of selecting a president from among their own citizens five terms out of eight, it is not easy to discover upon what reasonable grounds the claim could be resisted. Such a claim, however, never has been, and probably never will be set up, unless the people of the north should be driven, by unjust and unconstitutional combinations in the south, to rise in the majesty of their strength, and assert the claims which justice cannot deny, and which the superiority of their representative, as well as absolute numbers, renders them fully competent to support.

If our representation had been calculated upon the free white population only, allowing, as is now done, a representative to every forty thousand, they would have stood thus: Maine 7, New Hampshire 6, Massachusetts 12, Rhode Island 1, Connecticut 6, Vermont 5, New York 33, New Jersey 6,

Pennsylvania 25, Ohio 14, Indiana 3, Illinois 1, making in the twelve free states 119; Delaware 1, Maryland 6, Virginia 15, North Carolina 10, South Carolina 5, Georgia 4, Alabama 2, Mississippi 1, Louisiana 1, Tennessee 8, Kentucky 10, Missouri 1, comprising an aggregate of 64. Adding the free coloured race, the free and the slave states respectively gain four representatives, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, and Louisiana, each gaining one. Adding the slaves to the free population, Virginia gains six representatives, the two Carolinas and Georgia each three, Maryland and Kentucky each two, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana, each one. Hence we perceive, that the slave population has given to the states where they are held, an addition of twenty-two members in the house of representatives, and consequently an equal addition to the number of presidential electors. No complaint is made of this representation-it is a constitutional provision; but surely the representative of forty thousand freemen is not inferior to the representative of the masters of 66,666 slaves.

Taking the presidential electors as they are at present, the twelve free states furnish 147, and the slave states 114. The next census will probably increase the majority.