and the slave were regarded. And hence it is worthy of observation that every respectable minister of the gospel from that country-no matter how zealous there against slavery-has, on coming to the United States, kept aloof from the Northern abolitionists; and this, not from any abatement of zeal in crossing the Atlantic, but from a perception of the different state of things here, and an invincible repugnance to the reckless and proscriptive intolerance everywhere characterizing that party-and which, in fact, will characterize any body of men, however pious and otherwise amiable, who allow their minds to be poisoned by the sentiment above mentioned. You have seen Dr. Chalmers's late letter, deprecating this dissociating system, and he expresses, no doubt, the views of all in Great Britain, who contemplate American slavery with calmness and wisdom.

Now as you condemn this distinguishing tenet of abolitionism, and as I referred to your treatise only because it appeared to favor it, I might very well let the matter rest where it is. And to this course, I confess, I am the more inclined, because unwilling to appear in any controversy, which can, even by implication, place me in a false and odious attitude, representing me as the eulogist and abettor of slavery, and not as simply the apologist of an institution transmitted to us by former generations, the existence of which I lament; for the commencement of which I am not at all responsible; for the extinction of which I am willing to make greater sacrifices than any abolitionist has made or would make, if the cause of true humanity would thus be advanced; but which, for all

that, I do say it is wrong to pronounce a moral evil and a great crime in the sight of God. If, then, I disregard my ill health and my wishes, and venture to join issue with you, it is because I fear that, notwithstanding your caveat, the correspondence you so skilfully manage will be pressed, by bits and shreds, into the service of those with whom you disclaim all sympathy; and become prolific of inferences-forbidden indeed by you, but recognised by them as legitimate and irresistible, and to which your charitable admissions will scarcely serve even as pleas in mitigation. There is, indeed, (and, knowing my affection, you will pardon my speaking plainly,) there is a passage of your second letter which, I venture to say, will be cited in every inflammatory address for a twelvemonth; and which I the more regret, since it does not minister, I humbly apprehend, to the elucidation of the truth, and will serve-though nothing was farther from your design-to confirm one of the most unfounded prejudices by which the Northern conscience is misled and exacerbated in reference to slavery. You say, "Suppose that I should set fire to your house, shoot you as you came out of it, and seizing upon your wife and children, oblige them to labor for my benefit without their contract or consent," &c., &c. Now, my dear brother, I submit to you that, in a disquisition like ours, such a picture as this can serve only to excite the imagination by fictitious horrors, and to divert the mind from a calm and unbiased investigation. If slavery be a crime necessarily and essentially, the manner in which it was origi. nated is just nothing at all to the purpose. Sla

very is a condition; and if it be one of guilt, then not only is the master bound to clear his skirts of it without regard to its origin or consequences, but (as with a woman detained in adultery) it is the duty of the slave-his duty, not only to himself but to his master-to revolt and escape; and the apostle enjoined a continuance in sin when he said, "Servants, obey your masters." After blackening the conduct portrayed with every diabolical ingredient, you add, "The question before us I suppose to be simply this-would I in so doing act at variance with the relations existing between us as creatures of God?" But there is not, never was, and never can be, such a question. The question before us I suppose to be simply this-is slaveholding always a sin? and the moment you make such an hypothesis as yours, it is manifest that another and very different question has been substituted, and the only proposition you undertook to maintain is virtually abandoned.

The

case to be proved was, that slavery is always a crime, a crime amid the most favorable and extenuating circumstances. The case made out is, that slavery created by murder and arson, and perpetuated by oppression and cruelty, is a crime.

While, however, this mode of reasoning does not aid our inquiry, it does, as I said, serve to nourish an undefined opinion, common at the North, as to the introduction of slavery into this country, than which nothing can be more unjust to the South. If the truth were considered as to this matter, I believe many at the North would regard the whole subject in a perfectly new light; and therefore it behooves that I put, not a fanciful case, but the

facts as recorded in history. Let it be borne in mind, then, (1) that it was the mother country which devised and prosecuted the system of supplying her colonies with laborers from Africa; (2) that these importations were made, not only without consulting the colonies supplied, but in spite of frequent protests from them; (3) that in this commerce the importations were all, with I believe not a single exception, in English and Northern bottoms, and by English and Northern speculators; and (4) that, on the arrival of a vessel thus freighted, there remained for the negro only one alternative-deliverance from his loathsome dungeon by the planter, or protracted and daily increasing suffering, to terminate in death. These are historical facts, which ought to be pondered before any man forms his opinion. Very old persons are now living here, and perhaps in Rhode Island too, who well remember the tears of joy shed by the unhappy prisoners when their chains were stricken off; and the gratitude manifested by them, in every look and gesture, towards those whom they blessed, and continued to bless during life, as their benefactors; and the horror with which they would cling to the knees of their deliverers, if the ship were only pointed to, and a return there hinted at. Let me also mention another fact; it is that the condition of the African has been vastly improved, physically, intellectually, morally, and religiously, by his transportation to these shores. This, I presume, will be admitted on all hands, and therefore it is unnecessary for me to insist upon it. The unmeasured cornucopia vituperation sometimes emptied on us, might

make one fear that even this concession may be too great a stretch of charity for some bitter spirits among the agitators. But the thing is incontestable; and, indeed, all who mingle much with slaves will bear me witness, that, whether they be preachers or private Christians, one of their most common themes, in or out of the pulpit, is the great goodness of God in transferring them from the thick darkness of their own land to the privileges they enjoy in ours.*

You know Whitefield's character; by all in the ministry it ought to be made a study. He was, I think, the greatest preacher who ever lived, in what constitutes preaching. He was, too, one of the purest and most benevolent and holiest men. Writing in March 22d, 1751, he says: "This is my comfort; 'all things work together for good to those that love God.' He is the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation. He can bring light out of darkness, and cause the barren wilderness to smile. This, I trust, will be verified in Georgia. Thanks be to God, that the time for favoring that Colony seems to be come. I think

* At this day, it is computed by eye-witnesses, that probably nine-tenths of the population of Africa are slaves; the master's power being, in most cases, arbitrary even over life. Mr. Hazlehurst, a missionary just from that country, states that many of the tribes eat their prisoners; and when a prince dies, a thousand slaves are often first mutilated, and then buried with him. A map of the world, showing the geographical extent of slavery, would, in truth, cause the proceedings of the little meeting in London, which grandiloquently styled itself "The World's Convention," to appear, not ludicrous, for such a term would be improper, but certainly most chimerical and Quixotic.