pel is sent; (6) and, lastly, as sustaining marital and parental relations; and I understand you to affirm, that, in all these respects, slavery is necessarily an outrage on the rights of man. "To put the matter in a simple light" you suppose one to "set fire" to his neighbor's house; to shoot him as he comes out of it; to seize his wife and children, and keep them as slaves, and forbid them to read, and consign them and their offspring to mental imbecility, and deny them the knowledge of God: and I understand you to affirm (for otherwise the supposition is wholly irrelevant) that slaveholding necessarily involves all this crime. You then remark, that "the question before us simply is, whether this would be criminal ?" and add, "I do not see how any intelligent creature can give more than one answer to this question." And, verily, so say I; and my only surprise is, that the very enormity of your premises did not startle you, and cause you to suspect error somewhere, and admonish you that what you supposed to be "the only question before us," never was, and never could be, a question at all with any intelligent creature.

You admit that the holiest men in the Old and New Testaments were masters of slaves; but do you believe they were the monsters of wickedness depicted in your portrait, or that they violated all the rights which you have specified? Slavery, then, may exist without inflicting these aggravated wrongs. Again, allow me to refer to your third letter, where the heart of my dear brother argues, (for the heart hath its reasonings, and they are often truer than the slow deductions of the head,) and to cite the following language: "I have known

13

Christian slaveholders who have devoted themselves through life to the welfare, temporal and spiritual, of their slaves, with the spirit of the most selfdenying missionaries; and who, I confidently believe, if they could do it with a reasonable prospect of improving the condition of their slaves, would gladly manumit them, and support themselves by daily labor at the North. Such men and women do honor to. human nature. They are the true friends of their race." Now, here is slavery. Here is no painting of fancy; no impracticable, Utopian abstraction; but slavery as you have known it, and as others know it to exist. And, is this one of the greatest crimes which can be conceived? Or is it not here conceded, that cases may occur where there is, not only no guilt in the act, but no moral evil in the thing? You agree with me "that if slavery be a sin, it is the immediate duty of masters to abolish it, whatever be the result;" and I say, too, this is their duty, whatever be the law of the State. Suppose, now, the laws of South Carolina should forbid an adulterer to dissolve his criminal connection; or require one of her citizens living by piracy to continue his desperately wicked career. These enactments are felt by all to be impossible, while no such emotions are excited by laws protecting slavery; a truth of itself showing that, in the instinctive consciousness of mankind, slavery is not necessarily in the category of crimes. Suppose, however, such a code; and suppose the adulterer and pirate should persevere in their courses, and plead these laws; could you could even your kind disposition bring you to regard them as innocent? How would it sound

44

to hear my brother say, "I have known Christian adulterers who have devoted themselves through life to the welfare, temporal and spiritual, of their paramours, with the spirit of the most self-denying missionaries; and who, I confidently believe, if they could do it with a reasonable prospect of improving the condition of their paramours, would gladly leave them, and discontinue the guilty intercourse. Such adulterers do honor to human nature. They are the true friends of their race"!! In fact, a single glance at the definition of slavery will convince anybody, that the argument advanced is precisely like that which proves murder of the most aggravated sort to be criminal, when the only issue is, whether in any case it be justifiable to take human life. Of all the rights enumerated by you, slaveholding necessarily interferes only with personal freedom; for we have before seen, what is perfectly manifest, that a man may be held in bondage, and yet be treated in every respect as an immortal, intelligent, moral, fallen, ransomed being, yea and Christian brother, and his conjugal and parental relations be sacredly respected; which I take to be the exact precept of the gospel. The question then is simply this-is it necessarily a crime in the sight of God, to restrict or control that personal liberty which every man is supposed to have in a state of nature?

Most affectionately, dear brother,

Yours,

R. FULLER.

LETTER III.

TO THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D.

MY DEAR BROTHER

I trust I have shown that slavery is not essentially the comprehensive wrong you make it; that a right to the services of a man without his contract or consent, does not confer any such rights as you suppose; and that slavery does not interfere necessarily with any of those rights called primary, except personal freedom. The discussion is then pruned to this,-Is it necessarily a crime in the sight of God to control or curtail the natural personal liberty of a human being? A question admitting no debate at all.

It will not be disputed that government is the ordinance of God. But government is restraint; the very idea of government includes an abridgment of that personal freedom which a savage has in the forest, and a modification of it into political freedom, or civil rights and privileges.

Is it, then, necessarily a crime for a government to discriminate between those whom it controls, in the distribution of civil privileges and political liberty? It would surely be preposterous to affirm this. Every government has necessarily a right. to pass laws indispensable to its existence ;* •* and

"Whatever concessions on the part of the individual, and whatever powers on the part of society, are necessary

it has a right, also, to establish those regulations which shall best promote the good of the whole population. Whether any particular enactments be necessary, and whether they do secure the greatest good, are points as to which error may be committed, but as to which each government is the judge; and if it acts uprightly, with all the lights possessed, there is no crime. We boast of our

liberties, and are forever quoting the words of the Declaration of Independence; yet in this country it has been deemed most for the good of the whole, that one half of the citizens (and I believe by far the noblest, purest, and best half) should be disfranchised of a great many civil rights. This is true, also, of all citizens until they reach an age wholly conventional,-viz. twenty-one. Is this a sin? Will it be urged that all are born free and equal, and that it is wicked to violate the indefeasible rights of women and minors? The day is coming, I venture to predict, when our regenerators will utter such frantic arguments; for they drive on, unrecking and unheeding alike the plainest dictates of reason and experience, and the stern lessons of the French Revolution, and the warning voice which spoke in such fearful accents amid the havoc and butchery and desolation of St. Domingo. But no good citizen considers the inequalities existing in these States criminal.

When we pass to England and France, we find these social distinctions far more numerous, and marked, and exclusive. Multitudes there are de

to the existence of society, must, by the very fact of the existence of society, be taken for granted."-Moral Science, p. 391.