It is one of the most interesting works on the subject that we have read for a year, and contains much that is new to the general run of readers. As freedom and slavery are now fairly arrayed against each other in the political arena, we advise the combatants to peruse this pamphlet before proceeding to blows.

We admire Mr. [O. S.] Freeman's industry. He appears to have been at immense pains in searching for authorities against slavery, and traces the "institution" down from the most remote and barbarous ages, showing that all great authorities, legal or political, have denounced its existence, and that historical experience has also condemned it as fraught with injustice and danger. These Letters on Slavery will form, for future use, an irrefutable text-book upon the subject.

We have rarely seen so much genuine anti-slavery truth packed into so small a space as is the case with this work. The author has ransacked history, theology, philosophy, law, and every other species of knowledge for arguments against the sin of this country. His citations from the Christian fathers and from the patriots and sages of all time, in favor of the higher law of liberty, are of great value, and cannot be gainsayed. The book, though small, is a perfect armory of argument and quotation for the friend of freedom. It costs but a trifle, and we hope many will buy it.

These letters are not hastily written and superficial documents. They deal in facts of history and law and ethics, which have been gathered with large labor and arranged with patient study. They indicate very extensive reading, and will be valuable as the index of multifarious lore upon the subject which they discuss. We commend them heartily to the widest circulation, confident that they will do good.

It has no waste words. Every family in the United States should read it; and all professional men, and men taking an active interest in the subject, should possess it as a book of reference.

This is a remarkable pamplet. It is remarkable for the condensation of a mass of truths in a small compass, which might reasonably be spread over a much larger space. Multum in parvo might appropriately be stamped upon its title-page. Friends of the rights of man, and believers in the Higher-law doctrine [Ed. Note: the doctrine that divine law overrides politician law], should read this pamphlet, and give it an extensive circulation.

The w»rk deserves to be read by all who are interested in a subject of such vital importance.

This pamphlet is elaborately written, and must have cost its writer immense pains. We commend it to the attention of pro-slavery men both in church and state.

The work displays great erudition and vast research; its style is exceedingly condensed, and it will form an armory of weapons for the use of all who are battling for human freedom, whether physical, mental, or spiritual.

It embodies much historical intelligence on the subject of slavery, a strong array of authorities against the folly and wickedness of attempting through legislation and compacts to nullify the 'higher law,' and a lucid argument to show that the pro-slavery spirit of the day is identical with ancient toryism, in its impudent assumptions, its method of reasoning, and its denial of human equality. It indicates laborious research, and a diligent examination of the whole subject. We commend it to the attention of all.

SIR:—"I have this moment finished reading your 'Letters on Slavery.' It is the best book I ever saw in proof of the impossibility of legalizing slavery. The friends of freedom and of true civil government owe you a great debt."

THE original plan of the author was the preparation of a larger work than the present, on the subject-matter in hand. The vast accumulation of materials, after a long course of investigation, convinced him that that would be very cumbersome, and satisfy but a few. The state of the public mind demanded something that any man could buy and read of an evening. And yet, the subject demanded that critical minds should be supplied with sufficient authorities on the points handled. Not only the common reader, then, was to be supplied, but lawyers, clergymen, statesmen, politicians, and reformers.

To effect this, the author has reduced a work of more than one thousand pages to the present form, which every man, however poor, can purchase, and which the statesman may carry in his pocket.

This volume, then, is for the whole people, though addressed as letters to a particular class. The author has chosen this method—that of letters addressed to pro-slavery men—for reasons which will appear obvious to the reader as he passes along.

The time has come when every lover of his country and of humanity should understand the true basis of civil association and government. He should know what slavery has done, and is doing, by an inevitable law of nature, to destroy free institutions, and convert society into a chaos.

And, feeling the ground of righteous law to be indeed the rock of eternal ages, he should stand upon that, fearless and firm, making no compromise with wrong; but openly, honorably, fearlessly, and with well-directed power, strike down the evils that make war upon the "rights of human nature."

To furnish every American—every man, indeed, who cares lor the right—with a good armory and a well-stored magazine, accumulated from the good and great of all nations and ages, that every one may choose what best fits him in the great contest upon which we have now entered, is purpose of this volume.

The author has endeavored to furnish in marginal references all that the most inquisitive could desire, or the greatest sticklers for authority could wish. Errors may have crept into this department, in the typographical execution, which future editions will correct. The true critic will have charity.

MAN is the same in every age, in every clime. He may differ in certain phenomenal respects, under the physical influences of locality, and the modifying play of native institutions; yet, in no aspect, are the fundamental principles which constitute him man, altered or annuled. All that he has been, all that he is, all that he can be, lie infolded as capacity, as capability, as potential power, as much in one man as in another.

Not that all are equal poets, or philosophers, or mechanics. But all possess the essential elements of humanity, so that no one can be declared, a priori, incapable of any particular human development. One specimen of a man among the Africans is enough to prove the title of his race to manhood; otherwise idiots and fools in other races might overbalance the evidence in their favor.

All that any member of humanity may be, as a man, he has the right to become. All that the most favorable circumstances can aid him in becoming as a man, he has the right, as a man, to seek and appropriate, providing he pushes no one else from his equal right.

To suppose God has created any rational capacity, without giving the right of its proper development, is equivalent to the supposition there is no God. There is no God who is not consistent with himself. You must either

deny that Jehovah [the Lord] has created those you enslave, men, or

you must allow them the rights of men, else you deny the supreme right of Divinity to command you to deal justly [the slaver untermenschen view].

Your position involves atheism—a crime against reason, justice, Divinity.

All that is righteous within reach of any human being, by virtue of power conferred by the Almighty, any man has a Divine charter of rights for attaining, without asking consent of any human corporation. Nor has any body of men, be they King, Lords and Commons, or President, Congress, or the nation, the right or authority to push him aside, much less to make him a slave.

His Divine title holds good against all the powers of earth and hell. Their attempt to defeat him is war de facto against Eternal Justice. Nor is this all.

The war against the just right of one man is waged against the equal right of all. Claim the right to make a slave of one man, you deny your own right to freedom. If yon may make a beast of him, he may make a beast of you. In making a beast of him, you make a beast of yourself.

Man was made before society. Society can have no right that man has not allowed it. He cannot delegate to society what he has no right to allow to himself. He has no right to enslave another; society can have no such right; society cannot guarantee a right that is wrong. The rights of society are the aggregation of individual rights.

Every man may protect the just claims of himself and his brother. Society has the right to protect the just claims of all. Nay, further: Men associate and organize for rational purposes. The principal purpose, the grand aim, is protection of human rights. Power is conferred upon government for this sole purpose. No man enters society to be a slave, but that he may have his jost claims protected, by the superior power of it, in case any member, or body of its members, attempt to rob him.

Can the supreme power side with the robbers? Not by any right it possesses; not without opposing its own right of authority. Its authority was given to do justice, and that alone. To side with the aggressive power, with the robber, the oppressor, is abrogation of its authority, an abandonment of government, an assumption of despotism. From a protector of human rights it becomes their sworn enemy. It turns its sword upon society and hews it in pieces.

Justice existed before the forms of government. It is the law of one man, the law of every man, the law of

Heaven ordains no law for man that is not as good for one as for another. Government, not tyranny, is the ordinance of God. It is by His law that it rules; that law "regards not the person of any man [Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; Acts 10:34]," it is "a terror to evil doers," not to "those who do well" [Romans 13:3].

Equal and impartial, it can do no less for the beggar than for the millionaire; not acting by human senses, but by its own divine spirit, it knows no difference between the African and the Anglo-American.

Do you say this is all mere rhetoric? Tyrants and demagogues have always said that; the former to justify themselves in their injustice, the latter to excuse their own consciences for duplicity.

All good men, all wise statesmen, all benefactors of the human race, from Confucius [551 B.C.- 479 B.C.] down to [William] Blackstone [1723-1780] and Isaac T. Hopper [1771-1852], have held to the same [equal justice] principles.

Only the robbery and pirates, the despots and their cringing minions, have denied them. They have been recognized in all the legitimate civil systems whose histories and laws are known in the world.

Where is the nation whose history does not show that its fundamental law is that of equal justice and the rights of all men to freedom? I care not how ancient, I care not how modern the nation, its one fundamental law is the same.

For wherever humanity was, wherever it is, its rights have been and are declared in the first principles of society.

They [rights] followed the Nomads, settled with the Shepherds who watched the stars and the robbers who stole their flocks, stood by the hardy Yeoman in defence of the products of his toils. When men assembled in cities, the defence of right was the aim—protection against the human wolves who lived upon the spoils of human rights.

Nor was it till these monsters climbed into the fold of government that civil power offered to protect injustice and robbery. Nor was it till then that political demagogues had birth, whose mother is hypocrisy, and whose father, tyranny. These are the men, who, gaining the favor of the people by hollow flattery, persuade them that good

"We are practical men," say these demagogues; "we do, while others think, and dream, and philosophise."

Yes, gentlemen, you do, for ever do for yourselves, while the dear people delegate you to act for them. They send you to restore right, to root up the poisonous weeds of the civil garden. You return to them, having plucked the flowers for the adornment of your own persons.

We have boasted that the American governments are founded upon principles new to the world. It has become a fashionable saying with some that the good whig fathers were the first who said, "all men are born free and equal;" as if mankind had lived thousands of years in ignorance of a self evident principle of their own nature. The truth is, it was known and declared more than a thousand years before America was dreamed of by its discoverer.

Nor is this all. The same fundamental principles of the American constitutions were ever recognized as the only legitimate principles of government. We have only a variation of form. While the form has changed in every age, the principles of society have ever been permanent.

It would be an easy, and, withal, a profitable task, to show the exact likeness—the identity of the primary principles—of American state constitutions with those of all nations. Easy, I say, in respect to the fact, aside from the labor of collecting the materials necessary to its elucidation.

The evidence on this head demonstrates that slavery cannot, by any possibility, be recognized by legitimate, but only by a bastard government, a system of tyranny. Let us try this in a small way, for I cannot expatiate at large.

[Lucius Annaeus] Seneca [4 B.C. - 65 A.D.] affirms that

Upon what principle could slavery enter into such a social compact? Upon what principle could any
____________
^* Senec. de Benef., 1. 4. c. 18.

Yet you, sirs, contend that the slaves of America are "members of society," and, in the same breath, that the members of society, in respect to their rights, are not equal; you therefore oppose the fundamental principles of legitimate society, and introduce a bastard system, that will allow of lordship, kingship, mastership, slavery.

Even Aristotle [384 B.C. - 322 B.C.], though a Grecian aristocrat, a despiser of the humanity of all other nations as barbarous, fit only to be enslaved by the lordly Greeks, yet acknowledged that the law of human equality was the only legitimate basis of society, rendering slavery unjust and inadmissible.

Could the fundamental principle of every free American constitution be more clearly expressed.

It was not for the good of Greece that her authorities allowed a large portion of the community to be excluded from her protection, and contrary to the law of social organization, be held the absolute slaves of a privileged order.

• This was allowing a state of war de jure in the body politic, which could not be prevented from becoming a war de facto to the destruction of the commonwealth. [Judge Handy verifies].

• It was allowing as paramount the partial and unjust claims of a select class in a community that could have no stability, no existence, in fact, without the actual, the decided recognition of that universal law, that guarantees to all men equal rights and denies to any, counter claims.

• It was allowing pirates and robbers a license to trample upon those fundamental and

eternal principles, the sacred regard of which, alone, on the part of government, preserves society from becoming the certain prey of impious men.
• It was breaking down the only guards and fences which the Almighty has placed around freedom, and allowing the wolves and bears of society to enter and devour the weak and the defenceless.

• It was casting the social superstructure from the immovable rock of absolute justice, and founding it upon the quicksands of passion and lust—the sensuous power of lawless tyrants.

• It was entering into a war de jure et de facto against the ordinances of nature and the judgment of heaven and was certain to be rigorously punished with the total ruin of the state.

The best minds and hearts of Greece saw and felt this; and they raised their voice against slavery. They denied the justice of the claim of any, upon the involuntary and unrequited services of unfortunate men.

They delighted in the liberty of mankind; they had given freedom as a sacred birth-right of all—had written it upon the soul of the poorest and the weakest as a divine diploma which no tyrants could efface.^*

Euripides [480 B.C. - 406 B.C.], in his play called "The Suppliant," introduces Theseus, King of Athens, as saying,

So slavery was declared to be contrary to the Grecian constitution, by some of the most eminent among the Greeks.^§ Nor could it be regarded by Socrates [470 B.C. - 399 B.C.] in any
____________
^* Arist. Pol., 1. 1, c. 3.—Plato [427 B.C. - 347 B.C.]. De Leg., 1, 9. p. 660.—Cudworth, b. 1, c. 5.—Plato in his Eighth Epist.—Isocrat. [436 B.C. - 338 B.C.] Orat. de Permutat.

^† Pol., 1. 3, c. 12.

^‡ As quoted by [John] Milton [1608-1674], in his Defence of the People of England.

^§ Thucyd. [471 B.C. - 400 B.C.], 1. 4, c. 86.

It was acknowledged that before men made war upon one another, slavery [had] had no existence; that, rightfully, every man was by nature free, and had a right to defend his freedom against all force to subject him to bondage.^†

Indeed, this [self-defense against being enslaved] was honorable, said the Greeks; "it is noble," said Cyrus, "to fight, in order not to be made a slave."^‡ Nor can there be found a single dissenting voice among the best Greek authors on this point.

Yet it was held the moment a man was conquered by another he lost his title to manhood and became the absolute slave of the conqueror. It mattered not how distinguished the captive had been, nor how honorable. The slavery of the captive was the reward of valor, prowess, and strategem—thus wholly excluding the law of absolute right, the law of society. Force without law begat slavery, and only force without law could sustain it.

But force without law was at irreconcilable warfare with the righrs of mankind and the principles of society. Therefore, slavery could never be incorporated into society. It could only be introduced as its enemy. It could only be attached to society as a sinking weight that would drag it under the waves. The captive, the slave, was the natural enemy of his oppressor, and of all who took sides with the tyrant against him.

Greece was in almost a constant state of civil warfare after the establishment of slavery. The principles of the constitution were disregarded. One state made war upon another as a band of robbers. Greek enslaved Greek. Justice and equity fled. Policy and stratagem, bribery and corruption, force and slavery, anarchy and dissolution, took the place of humanity, justice, virtue, unity, and peace.
____________
^* Xen. Mem., 1. 4, c. 2.

^† Xen. Cyrop., 1. 3, § 2.

^‡ Ibid. "At the second period the Athenian citizens were 21,000," "while the slaves numbered 400,000." [Mitford, vol. 1, pp. 354, 355.] Who can wonder that Greece fell.

Tradition, in the age of Herodotus [485 B.C. - 428 B.C.], preserved the memory of a time when slavery was unknown in Greece. Herodot., 1. 6, p. 137.   Sparta, as a band of robbers, made war upon Helos, and reduced all the people to perpetual slavery.

Ed. Note: Other ancient Greek philosophers also opposed slavery, says Prof. Michael Parenti, Ph.D., in Land of Idols: Political Mythology in America (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993), Chapter 9, “Racism and the Ideology of Slavery,” § 3, “The Theory and Practice of Slavery,” p 119: "From the third century B.C., we have fragments from the Stoic Chrysippus, who wrote that slavery was 'not according to nature.' ["Quoted in G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), p. 417 and p. 638, n. 17; M. I. Finley, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology (London: Chatto and Windus, 1980), p. 120."]     "The Sophist Alcidamas, in a fragmentary note, is quoted as saying: 'God has left all men free. Nature had made none a slave.'" [Quoted in I. F. Stone, The Trial of Socrates (Boston: Little, Brown, 1980), p 44. "Stone notes that Alcidimas is the author of Messeniacus, a lost work whose title suggests that it may have dealt with the Messenian slave revolt against Sparta."] The references are from Prof. Parenti's "Notes," p. 188.

Yet you, sirs, advocate this as a worthy example for America to follow. Yon would have us all slaveholders. You would have us turn robbers, pirates, tyrants. You would drive justice from the land, liberty from the state, religion from the temple, and God from our souls.

Antiquity enrolled Hercules amongst the gods, because he punished Busiris, Diomedes, and other tyrants—the pests of mankind and monsters of the world.^*

It was seen by Plato [427 B.C. - 347 B.C.] that slavery segregated and destroyed Grecian society. It

• was partial to the claims of injustice vs right;^‡

• favored the few in the robbery of the many;

• destroyed the honor of free labor;

• drove the virtue of humanity out of the hearts of the people;

• made them venal, sensuous, fraudulent;

• while it exalted the power of unprincipled slaveholders, made them over-reaching, proud, domineering, the sworn enemies of society, and the founders of the most despicable of all tyrannies—an oligarchal despotism in the name of democracy.

Yet you point to the ancients, and say, "Slavery always existed. It was recognized in the republics of Greece." Ah, yes! Always recognized by tyrants, and by those whom slavery had so much degraded as to render unfit and despicable as the interpreters of law.

Remember, sirs, who trampled upon the liberties of Greece; who were left to wander amid her ruins; whose careless feet kicked the bleached skulls of tyrants and slavemasters. Go, sirs, and interrogate those classic remains! Call up the spirits of the ancient dead! Ask, why these solemn ruins? Why this lonely desolation? Why has fled society, and left the owl and the bat, the serpent and the wolf; to people the palaces and temples of the classic land? From out the depth of old ruins shall come the answer, These are the works of masters and of slaves.

There is but one foundation for society, that is, absolute
____________
^* [John Lord Somers, et al.] Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations [Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, and the Rights, Priviledges, and Properties of the People, Shewing the Nature of Government in General, Both from God and Man, An Account of the British Government, and the Rights and Priviledges of the People in the Time of the Saxons and Since the Conquest; The Prophets and Ancient Jews Strangers to Absolute Passive Obedience; A Large Account of the Revolution; Several Declarations in Queen Elizabeth's Time (London: T. Harrison, 1710)], par. 32 [reprinted, New York: Garland Pub., 1979]. (See Background).

^† Pol., 1, 3, c. 11.

^‡ Plato de Leg., 1. 9.

But tyrants seek other foundations. They prefer the quagmire of lust, the quicksands of sensuousness. They entice the people away from the ordinances of heaven, and make them the instruments of their own slavery.

To suppose that the rights common to all men are not the fundamental principles of society, is impossible. Yet you, sirs, are forced to involve yourselves in that monstrous dilemma,

• of either denying that society has immutable foundations of moral law, that there is equal law of justice established by Jehovah for the government and regulation of men's lives in respect to one another as brethren, or

• you [slavers] must, in justifying robbery and slavery, admit that you have turned rebels against Infinite Justice [God] and have joined the enemy of all mankind [the devil] in subjecting Humanity to beastly servitude.

You must then, confess yourselves hung upon the other horn. You must confess that you wholly deny that the Almighty is infinitely just, and has established justice as the eternal rule of society; that, there being no justice for the equal regulation of the conduct of men in respect to each other, there is no wrong in one man robbing and enslaving another.

This was the position which the pro-slavery school of Greece were forced to take.^* For it was as impious in the sight of the Grecians to declare war with the Supreme Deity as it would be now.

It was easier for tyrants and robbers then, as now, to create doubt in the minds of many that the eternal justice was the immutable law of society. It was easier, by appealing to the selfish passions of men, to sophisticate the reason and drown the voice of conscience, and upon the ruins of faith in right build a system of robbery and despotism.

These Grecian sophists who supported slavery said, as
____________
^* They were forced to reason against the existence of natural justice, and declared there was no injustice but that which was conventionally so. See Plato de Repub., 1. 2.

Thus the same arguments you are forced to use in support of slavery and robbery, the corrupting sophists of Greece resorted to in justification, not only of slavery, but of all the crimes in the calendar. Is it a wonder, then that Greece fell? Once destroy faith in the principle by which one criminal action is made to be criminal, and you have mined away the whole foundation of moral rectitude. Then you may enact that virtue itself shall be a crime.

WHAT nation was ever destroyed by the equity and justice of its laws? What nation of antiquity, whose ruins remain to tell the tale of long-gone woes, fell not by the hands of both tyrants and slaves?

There was a time when ancient Rome [founded 753 B.C.] recognized the equality of all men in her fundamental principles of social compact. Had she held by these, and maintained them by rigid virtue—even had the penalties been as severe as they are said to have been—Rome would have remained firm and unshaken through all the fierce onsets of barbarous tribes.

But [long after 753 B.C.] a few ambitious [Roman] men

blew the trump of conquest,

marshaled the spirit of the people from peaceful labors into freebooting bands,

and on they rushed upon [to conquer] the nations.

The conqueror returned with spoils, with long processions of miserable captives, and these were sold into perpetual bondage.

Every new conquest crowded the markets with thousands of slaves. So numerous at one time had they become, that men were sold for less than a dollar per head.

It is awful as well as instructive to mark the results of this horrid system of barbarity—to observe how the Almighty Judge, by an inevitable law, turned the whole weight of this curse, the Romans were heaping upon wretched foreigners, upon their own heads. As the slaves increased, free labor was destroyed and became a disgrace.

Every Roman citizen who had the means, purchased the right of becoming a tyrant by purchasing a slave. Effeminacy seized upon the once virtuous and industrious workers. Those who had been most successful in foreign robbery, and were the most artful, now commenced a system of robbery at home. The wealthier citizens secured a supremacy of power.

The great body of the citizens [farmers] who had cultivated their own plots of ground were unable to

As the poorer citizen turned his energies to other sources for a livelihood where there was less disgrace, alas! he was soon met with the same dread images of slavery and death. Slaves! slaves!! slaves!!! he saw everywhere, and dreaded everywhere. Every where and every moment they haunted his visions. They were always devouring the last crumbs of his famishing children. Thousands of these once industrious citizens became beggared; thousands became petty criminals of all shades.

There was no honorable calling but in the army or in civil offices, and these were controlled by the wealthy nabobs. The beggared Roman still boasted of his freedom, though robbed of all but the name. Equality was destroyed, and liberty had become a mockery.

What a tale does [Cornelius] Tacitus [55 A.D. - 117 A.D.] tell in these few lines:

And this he repeats with mournful emphasis.

[Charles de Secondat, baron de] Montesquieu [1689-1755], who devoted his life to the study of the laws of all nations, and a great portion of it to the study of the Roman system, attributes the downfall of the Republic to the influence of slavery;^† and, in his learned work on the Spirit of Laws, with his eyes upon sad examples of slavery in the Grecian and Roman Republics, he says:

And again, alluding directly to the system of
____________
^* Tacit. Ann., lib. 3.

^† See Montesquieu's [Reflections on the Causes of the] Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire [London: Innys, Davis, Manby, and Cox, 1752]. [Ed Note: Translated from Considerations sur les Causes de la Grandeur des Romains, et de Leur Decadence (Amsterdam: Chez J. Wetstein, 1746)].

^‡ [The] Spirit of Laws [London: J. Nourse and P. Vaillant, 1750], b. 15, c. 1. [Ed. Note: Translated from De l'Esprit des Loix, ou, Du Rapport que les Loix Doivent avoir avec la Constitution de Chaque Gouvernement, les Moeurs, le Climat, la Religion, le Commerce, &c.: Quoi l'Auteur a Ajout des Recherches Nouvelles sur les Loix Romaines Touchant les Successions, sur les Loix François, & sur les Loix Fodales (Geneve: Chez Barrillot & fils., 1749)].

Plato [427 B.C. - 347 B.C.] had made almost the same expression in respect to the tyrannical course of civil power in the name of law and order. "The most complete injustice," said he, "is to seem just, not being so."^†

It is hence that Montesquieu, speaking of the "law" or act "of slavery," says, "It is contrary to the fundamental principle of all societies."^‡

Rome, like Greece, violated the great social law in allowing slavery. She made war upon the spirit of her own constitution as a republic—as a democracy. The citizens became petty tyrants. Wealth seized the supreme control. Free labor was annihilated. The whole nation became enslaved. And when all had become mendicant freemen, bloated tyrants, and miserable slaves, [Gaius Julius] Cæsar [100 B.C. - 44 B.C.] found no obstructions ia establishing a despot's throne.

This infamous double robber crushed the hearts of the citizens. Poor and despised, they refused to enlist in the armies to defend their robbers and themselves; "nor did they," says Plutarch, "take any care of the education of their children."

Thus ignorance, imbecility, vagabondism, loathsome vice, and universal ruin, followed in the train of Roman slavery. Yet you point to the Romans in justification of this mother of desolation—refer to it as a blessing to be fostered by the Republic of America.

If you had gone to Polybius [205 B.C. - 125 B.C.], he would have told you that

Had you gone to
____________
^* Montesquieu's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 14.

^† Repub. 1. 2.

^‡ Spirit of Laws, b.15, ch. 2.

^§ Polyb., lib. 4.

And Cicero would have told you in particular, heathen as you may call him, that this "law of nature"—this fundamental principle of all societies of men as well as of every individual man—

Thus, in Rome, the "Higher Law," which you affect to despise, and call in ridicule "Babel-building," was regarded as the fundamental and absolute law of the nation by the highest legal authorities. Nor was it allowed by the best Roman minds that any decree of the Senate counter to this Higher Law was obligatory upon the people.

There was a class of pettifoggers in that age, as there is now, who sophisticated the subject of law, and tried to make unrighteous legislation reasonable and acceptable. The "Higher Law" school, at the head of which stood Cicero, advocated that unjust ordinances and decrees were equivalent to an attempt to "create law," which was in itself impossible.^‡

It was contended by these noble civilians [moralists] that that is not law, and, therefore, not obligatory, which is not in itself just. Nor could the people alter any thing in this respect. They were bound by the eternal law as much
____________
^* De Offic., 1. 3, c. 6. Ibid. Also 9th Law Dig. et Justit et Jure, 1. 1, tit. 1.

^† De Repub., 1. 3. Apud Soct. Inst. Div., 1. 6, c. 8. See also Marcus Tullus Orat. de lege Agra. Also Theophilus de Jure Nature et gent., § 6. Also Soto. De Just. et Jure, 1. 4.

^‡ See Cicero De Leg., 1.1.

The same corrupting and destructive sophistry was then stealing its way into Roman society, under the influence of slaveholders, which is now so alarmingly prevalent in portions of American society, namely: that whatever the supreme power decrees in a nation is right, and, therefore, binding.

Cicero saw the fatal consequences of this [pro-slavery] sophistry, and met it as it deserves to be met in America. "If," said he, "there be such a power in the decrees and commands of fools, that the nature of things is changed by their votes, why do they not decree that what is bad and pernicious shall be regarded as good and wholesome? or why, if the law can make wrong right, can it not make bad good?"^†

Natural law—equal and eternal justice—is the basis of all human law, said Gicero,^‡ and this was according to the arguments of all wise men who had preceded him.^§

It was all to no purpose [avail], however, that Cicero attempted to beat back the flood of legal corruption that was overwhelming the nation. The supporters of injustice—the aristocracy, the slaveholder—who had already gone far in robbing the people, in crushing free labor, in making the
____________
^* De. Leg., 1, 17.

^† Ibid.

^‡ Ibid, 1. 2.

^§ Ibid, 1. 4.

When the sources of legislation become so corrupt that there is not moral energy enough to recover first principles, the ruin of the civil state, the destruction of society, is as inevitable as if the avenging angel dashed his exterminating thunders upon the nation in one awful blaze.

Roman slave-holders triumphed; they warred against God and his law of nations; they destroyed free labor, common education, robbed the people of their lands, covered them with slaves; and Rome the Republic fell [40's B.C.], and [Gaius Julius] Cæsar [100 B.C. - 44 B.C.] ascended the throne.

Ah, sirs, once break down the law of right—let a nation once concede that one man may without crime hold another in slavery, and rob him of his rights—once let the people join with the slaveholder and say there is no higher law than the decrees of the slave power—once compromise justice for the sake of union and peace—and every pillar of the civil temple has become rotten, cankered, and eaten by worms; then but a footfall, we jar of the passing train, a single human voice, may throw the pile of ages into a heap of desolate ruins.

Society from everlasting is built upon the same principles. Those principles are God's, not man's. They are for the safety of no class to the exclusion of others. They are for the equal safety of all. Lay your impious hands upon them for their destruction, and your own ruin is certain. Break down the fences and guards around freedom, and you shall be the first to be made a slave when the master-tyrant comes. Open the way for despots, and you shall be the first to be crushed under his iron heel.

What did [Gaius Julius] Cæsar [100 B.C. - 44 B.C.] do when he had conquered the coward slavemasters by the sound of his name? He saw the shameful degradation of the people, the despotism of the petty tyrants, the land crowded with slaves and all in ruins. He called to him the wisest of the Romans. Were these the friends of slavery? Far from that. Of Agrippa and Mæcenas he asked what was best to be done. The

But this did not so well please Cæsar. There was no virtue to cement a new Republic. There were few but masters and slaves. These could make no Republic.

Then Mæcenas advised that Cæsar should retain the supreme power, and, as the saviour of his country, restore freedom and equality to the people, and force the robbers to give back the stolen lands to the rightful owners, and revive the honor of free labor. But Cæsar the conqueror was himself a slave, and he feared to restore justice, lest justice should restore him.

Other emperors succeeded. Some recorded their acts in blood and the tears of widows and orphans and wretched men; others with noble deeds, gave their names to the pleasant-memories of all future ages.

There were three [emperors] who would have restored all men to freedom and their equal rights, but had too little faith in the power of the people to sustain them in the immediate and entire emancipation of the slaves, and the full restoration of free labor to its honor and lost rights. Besides, the wealthy citizens, who were the slaveholders, held many of the offices of government, and those who held no office had the power of corrupting those who had.

Antoninus Pius [138 A.D. - 161 A.D.], Theodosius the Younger [379 A.D. - 395 A.D.], and Justinian [527 A.D. - 565 A.D.], (the three emperors referred to) found themselves obliged to resort to more indirect methods to destroy slavery and restore the sinking power of the nation. Their first step was to encourage manumissions, and to confer Roman citizenship upon those manumitted.

The learned Gothofred, referring to the three noble edicts of these emperors for conferring citizenship upon the manu-

Another indirect means was to restore, in form at least, the grand fundamental law of society and government. The most eminent jurists were employed to look into the laws of all nations—to digest their principles and develop them in form. The ancient laws of Rome were to be especially regarded. In the results of this immense labor, of the wisest lawyers under the wisest of the emperors, we have developed what I have asserted, namely, that the fundamental laws of all societies and governments are the same, and those are "the laws of nature," which in their legitimate action render slavery impossible.

The Roman jurists found that the basis of law in every nation was "common impartial justice"—"equal right"—"equity"—a recognition of the "natural right to freedom of every man." "All nations governed by laws and customs," said they, "make use partly of their own law and partly of the law common to all men."^†

This latter [Marcus Tullius] Cicero [106 B.C. - 43 B.C.] had observed, and said of it, "The law of all nations forbids one man to pursue his advantage at the expense of another."^‡

And the Digest declared, as well as the Institutes, that

Thus the fundamental law of all nations, in the time of the Romans, declared the equal freedom of all men, and this law,

^† Dig. 1.1, tit. 1. See also Inst., 1.1, tit. 2, § 1.

^‡ De Off., 1. 3, c. 5.

^§ Dig., 1. 1. Inst., 1. 1, tit. 2.

^|| Instit., 1. 1, tit 2, § 1.

This immutable principle was affirmed and re-affirmed by the best of the Roman emperors; but, joined with all their wisest statesmen and jurists, they were impotent to save Rome. The slavemaster had struck the parricidal blow which no physician could heal. The last drops of virtuous blood were ebbing quite away, and only the black blood of vice remained. Thus Rome died the victim of slavery.

Is it not as absurd to suppose that society organizes without its "natural law" as that crystalization or germination and growth occur without their definite and invariable laws? Is not association as natural to man as it is to the bee and the beaver? Does not human society spring spontaneously from the soul and sentiment of human nature, the roots of which shoot down into the moral element of the universe?

How orderly, how regular is crystalization! How admirable is the formation of organic being! Not, however, unless their fundamental laws are dominant. Let other and foreign forces enter, and how ugly every thing becomes! In all the orderly processes of nature, every part that enters to make up the great whole has a common interest. It has its state and place, but its relation is equal. The sublime law that guides it to its place has no respect to parts. They are all divine, and have a sacred mission.

So in the orderly processes of legitimate society. The law of their occurrence is common, universal. Every individual part, every man, has his equal right with every other. He has his state and place determined him, not by the arbitrary will of a few, but by that common law—God's enactment—that determines the state and place of every man as he freely moves in the Maelstrom of the world.

The moment one part, or one man, assumes to himself what is not common to all, disturbance enters the mass, distraction seizes other members; orderly arrangement, then, is impossible. Yet the law that struggles for this will still be seen, but the result is an irregular formation, as much different from legitimate society as a rough lump of dingy quartz is unlike the transparent and geometrical crystal. Hence Plato [427 B.C. - 347 B.C.]:

It was the latter that ruined Greece—the private interest of slaveholders. The same destroyed Rome. The common law of association—the equal right of all—was forced aside. It was denied its action. Partial legislation was allowed.

Ah, sirs, how ruinous to all government is that! It licenses rights (wrongs) to a few it would be impossible for all to exercise! How has government the authority to do for the few what it cannot do for all? All associate and appoint government for the common benefit of all. There is no legitimate right short of that. The assumed right of the slaveholder is not the common right of all, else all would have the right to enslave all. That is impossible.

Common right is universal, equal, opposed to the assumed right of the few. Government, then, cannot allow it, as it is built on common law, common right, justice. Government cannot, then, sanction slaveholding—that would be justice sanctioning injustice. It would be favoring assumed partial right in its warfare against common right—against the fundamental principle of government.

Not government, then, but arbitrary power, sanctions slavery. For common-right law is fundamental—the first, prime, sole law of social organization—the primal law of human relations. It is absolute. Would you go behind that? you shall meet face to face the Eternal God. Would you pierce beneath it? you shall meet the impenetrable rock of Divine Justice. Would you soar above it? then you shall pass into the heavens of Infinite Love!

America is following Greece and Rome. She has rebelled against her law of laws. She has abandoned common right. She [unconstitutionally] legislates for slaveholders. Had Rome gone so far towards ruin three hundred years from her foundation? How old is America? Where is her nationality? What is her name abroad?

When Rome had become rotten with this sin, the barbarians came forth and dragged her carcase to the pit. Yet
____________
^* De Leg., 1. ix, p. 660.

I have shown that the fundamental principles of Roman law, as well as those of all other nations, recognized the common right of all men, and were, therefore, opposed to slavery. When the Barbarians overran the Roman Empire, and, at length, began to organize into associations, the same law of common right was developed as the basis of government.

Normans, Saxons, Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Lombards, all recognized this primal principle as the sacred basis of their civil societies. There is a universal concurrence among all the best writers on this^* point.

The fundamental law of human rights was also distinctly developed in the civil constitutions of Sweden,^† Denmark,^‡ Hungary,^§ Arragon and Navarre,^|| Spain and Portugal.^¶

This was by no mere voluntary choice. It was a matter of absolute necessity. The law of nature obliged it, as it obliges the crystelic energy to fulfil its definite action to produce a crystal. Men may choose to associate, but they cannot associate in organic form without acting according to the common law of social organization.

Hence slavery is at war with legitimate government, and, therefore, legitimate government is at war with it. When slavery trnunphs, government is overthrown. When slavery takes the place of government, society is overthrown; for society can be protected only by legitimate government, either internally, from the righteousness of every man; or externally, by the dread mandates of justice, in the forms of outward law, prohibiting wrong and affixing penalties to the infringement of common rights.
____________
^* See Hale's Hist. Com. Law. Stuart's Constit. of Eng. Rapin's Origin and Nature of Eng. Com. Law. Hallam's Mid. Ages. Hume's Eng. Dunham's Mid. Ages.

^† Johan Magnus Hist., 1.15 & 29. Crantzius, 1. 5.

^‡ Pontanus, 1. 8.

^§ Donsinius, Decad 4, 1. 9.

^|| Chalcondile, I. 5.

^¶ Molina, de Hist. Primog. c. 2, n. 13. Greg of Tours, 1. 2. Lindenburg, 1. 2, tit. 2. 17 tit. Ord. Portugal, 1.2, § 2, 3, et seq. Also Lind., l. 1, tit. 7.

While society in the Roman Empire was becoming a chaos of corruption, under the disorganizing influence of slavery, [Jesus] Christ [c. 4 B.C. - 31 A.D.] was born within it as a new germinating and organizing energy. Only masters and slaves were to be found. Those who boasted of their freemanship were the oppressors of those called slaves.

All the common offices of life had become degraded. Common charity had grown into a monstrous hypocrisy. Justice had fled, and left tyranny with its scepter of iron to rule in the name of law. Public virtue, there was none; and the common rights of humanity were as if they had never been.

The indolent proud lived upon the toils of those they had degraded into beasts of burden, and looked with sanctimonious contempt upon the sons of labor, whom they called slaves; as if labor had been designed by the Creator a degradation, and those were to be scorned and crushed under the iron heel of tyranny who performed the most useful, indispensable offices of life.

[Jesus] Christ broke in upon this monstrous system, by taking upon himself the form of a slave [Philippians 2:7], and acting in the service of humanity, without regard to the conventional rules of Scribes, Pharasees, slave-masters. He washed his disciples' feet, and said,

There shall be, henceforth, no degradation in the offices of life. Ye shall have no slaves to serve you. Service, labor, usefulness, is henceforth to be viewed by you as holy.

^† Matt. 10: 42-46.

Life is a ministry. All labor is holy, that ministers to the benefit of man. None shall be masters, none slaves, but all ministers of good, God's freemen; above none, beneath none.

It is that state wherein freedom and slavery meet; that is,—the labor which those who boast of being free, leave in their pride to be performed by crushed humanity; Christians shall do for each other and for the world as God's freemen, so that there shall be in the church no worldly distinctions of bond and free, Greek and Jew, but all shall be equal, all ministers.

Such was the grand idea of Christian life. It was wholly at war [incompatible] with slavery. Hence the purest of the church fathers labored against slavery. The Christians in Asia Minor at a very early period

Maximus preached and wrote against it.^†

Those who entered upon a religious life gave freedom to their slaves.^‡

Theodorus Studita gave particular directions, "not to employ those beings, created in the image of God, as slaves."^§

Polycarp [69 A.D. - 155 A.D.] and Ignatious
____________
^* [John] Fletcher's Lessons on Slavery [Natchez: J. Warner, 1852].

^† Maximus Exposit Dom. I., f. 356. [August] Neander [The History of the Christian Religion and Church During the Three First Centuries (London: Rivington, 1841)].

^‡ Actis Sanct. Apr. T. I, append, f. 47, § 8.

^§ Ibid. L. I., ep. 10. See Leander.

[Emperor] Constantine [306 A.D. - 337 A.D.] gave authority to the bishops to manumit slaves,^* and [as Emperor] granted Roman citizenship to many of those set free.^†

St. Augustine [354 A.D. - 430 A.D.] speaks of the freedom of slaves as a great religious virtue,^‡ and declares the Christian law against regarding God's rational creation as property.^§

Nor could the corrupting influence which heathenism and barbarism exerted upon the church, entirely destroy this particular mission of the gospel. [August] Neander [1789-1850] speaking of the early oriental Christians, says,

This was the spirit that animated the purest men of the church. By their influence, laws and charters of freedom were obtained, by means of which immense numbers of slaves were made free.^**

They [early Christian Church leaders] united their exertions to enlist even the barbarian princes in the cause of the slave. [Archbishop of Reims, St.] Remigius [437-553] thus wrote to [King] Clovis [481 A.D. - 511 A.D.],

Johannes Eleemosynarius, patriarch of Alexandria, addressing himself to a slaveholder, said,

So [John] Lingard [1771-1851]
____________
^* Sozomen, l. 1, c. 9.—Cod. Theod., 1. 1., c. De nis qui in eccl. manumit

^† Ibid. I. 2.

^‡ Ser. de diversis, 60.

^§ Ser. de ch. mo 1. 1.

^|| Neander, Hist. Chris. Re. and Ch. vol. 3, p. 99.

^¶ Ibid.

^** Murat Antiq. Ital, v. 1. p. 84.

^†† See Life of St. Remigius.

^‡‡ Life of Johannes Eleemosyn., by Leontius. Trans., by Anastasius in Actis.

I have already referred, in the preceding letter, to the efforts of Justinian [527 A.D. - 565 A.D.] to restore the fundamental law of society, by which all men are pronounced free. In 539 he determined by an edict that masters had no power to separate families in the sale of slaves, and that it was a crime.^†

And [Pope] Gregory the Great [590 A.D. - 604 A.D.] pronounced it "a cruel evil," "a great crime," and declared a severe punishment upon the bishops who allowed it in their bishoprics.^‡

King Charlemagne [768 A.D. - 814 A.D.] issued a decree against it.^§

And [Emperor] Constantine [306 A.D. - 337 A.D.] and Constantinus, both made the subjection of females to slavery a capital crime.^||

[Pope] Gregory the Great was born in Rome, among the nobility, about 545. He filled for a time the office of prætor, and held numerous slaves. After his conversion, he abandoned his civil office, and devoted himself to the church. On the death of Pelagius II, he was chosen bishop of Rome. His heathenism and pride of superiority clung to him with great tenacity, notwithstanding he acknowledged the equal rights of mankind as recognized not only by the fundamental principles of the state, but by the Christian religion. On granting freedom to his slaves, he gave as his reason the consideration of what Christ had done,

He also admonished slaveholders that those they held in bondage were "their equals," that "by nature they were created upon a level with their slaves."^** Still he favored making chattels of the heathen.^††
____________
^* See his Ant. Angle Saxon church, c. 1.

^† Novell, 162, c. 3.

^‡ Greg. 1. 3, ind. 3, ch. 12.

^§ Council of Chalons, Can. 30.

^|| Cod. Theod, 1. 9, tit. 29, leg. 1, 5.

^¶ Greg. Magn. op. Polguss., l. 4, c. 1, § 3.

^** Postorulis Curae, 3, c 1, admon. 6.

^†† See Greg. Mag., F. E. P., 1. 10, ep. 62, and 1. 2, ep. 39. and 1. 5, ep. 34.

About the eighth century the old Roman slavery had been quite overthrown, but a new form had also been rising to take its place—that, consequent upon the wars of the "Barbarians." The good men of the church had this to contend with.

I have already referred to the letter of St. Remigius to Clovis to induce him to exert his power and bestow his wealth in the cause of suffering captives. Nor did Clovis disregard altogether such admonitions; for he sent a circular letter to all the bishops in his dominions, in which he allowed them to give liberty to any of the captives he had taken, and thus save them from slavery.^*

A volume might be filled with the most interesting incidents, showing the noble exertions of the purest and best men of the church in that fearful period, against the barbarous institution.

W«it a beautiful example we have in the life of Cesarius in the sixth century! When the Franks and Burgundians laid seige to Arls, and a great many captives were brought into the city to be sold, this good Christian hastened to the church, stripped all the silver ornaments from the pillars and rulings, took the sacred vessels, the silver censers, chalices and all, for the relief of the captives and the freedom of those in bonds, saying,—

There were Pharasees then, as now, who regarded such an act as a great sacrilege. The good man replied

The wiser and better men of the church always commended this. Lactantius said of it:

And again he says:

^† Life of St. Cesarius.

^† Ibid.

^§ Lactant, Div. Just. p 587.

^|| Ibld.

This had been a frequent practice in the church. St. Ambrose [340 A.D. - 397 A.D.] ordered [as Bishop of Milan] the priests to sell all the sacred vases in order to redeem slaves and set them free.

St. Augustine [354 A.D. - 430 A.D.] also practised the like thing repeatedly, and justified it as a duty the free owed to those in slavery.^† If Christ could lay down his life for the redemption of mankind, how could the church refuse its treasures for the redemption of captives. Christ came to break the bonds in sunder and to let the captive go free. Nor did Augustine [Bishop of Hippo, 396 A.D. - 430 A.D.] shun to rebuke the oppressors and enslavers of mankind.

There were Christians in those days of peril, who did not fear to meet tyrants face to face. Death was no terror to them. They were ready to die for the oppressed. Many went so far as to enslave themselves for the freedom of others. They conferred not with flesh and blood. They took their lives in their hands and went out amid the barbarians to save humanity from degradation and miserable thraldom. Heaven was the only reward they expected. By their energy, countless slaves were made free.

In the name of God and Christ and humanity they accosted the slave masters. St. Cyprian [Bishop of Carthage, 248 A.D. - 258 A.D.] said to Demetrius the tryant,

^† Life of St. Augustine—Possid, vit. Aug. caput 24.—Cyril of Jerusalem taught the same. Vide. Theodoret, 1. ii. c. 27. Also, Acacius of Amida. Vid, Socrat, 1. 7. c. 24.—So also Deigratias of Carthage. Vid.—Vict, de Persec. Vandal, 1. i.

^‡ August, de Civit. Dei. 1. 4. c. 4.

How does this compare with the "South side view of slavery," with the letter of a "northern presbyter," with the reasoning of Dr. Blagden.

Not so! Not so! cry our new light doctors of divinity. "Religion makes it our duty to aid the oppressor, to return the captive to bonds and stripes; and as for humanity, that is only the foam and froth in the boiling pot of society." So these fine [vile and lusting] doctors of today, advocate the superiority of barbarism, repeat the creed of old tyrants, take the side of heathenism and atheism against Christianity, while yet they pretend to be Christians.

They would send their mothers into slavery if they had been born under a taskmaster and the tyrant demanded the sacrifice; for "this" say they, "is law and order." Such law and order, gentlemen, as sunk Greece, buried Rome, plunged mankind into palpable night, extinguishing the last taper of science and the last star of hope.
____________
^* St. Cyp. t. v. Dernet.

^† St. Cyprian to the Bishop of Numidia.

FEUDALISM originated as a protective system. The equal rights of the people were to be sacredly regarded. Justice was recognized as the basis. The people entrusted their rights in the hands of chieftains. They, in turn, solemnly pledged themselves to protect those rights with the aid of the people themselves.

The leaders took advantage of the power they found in their hands to enslave their subjects. What had been a mere conditional trust they gradually assumed as an unconditional right. Instead of being magistrates and protectors, they became oppressive robbers, cruel task-masters. The people degenerated into slaves.

As this dreadful state of things progressed over Europe, the blackness of night settled down upon all nations. The elements of society were dissolved. Even those who flattered themselves with the name of freemen were, like the free blacks of the Southern States, but a slight remove from absolute slavery.

Knowledge fled. Master and slave were alike benighted and beastly. The tenant could not dispose of the effects of his own industry,^* and he buried his talents and turned his hands to villany. He was forbidden to marry without purchasing the consent of his petty tyrant,^† and he stole connections without regard to primal law. He was forbidden to marry beyond the limits of his nabob's dominions.^‡ He was thus degraded in all respects as a man.

Black and revolting as feudal slavery was, however, it was a virtuous institution compared with the slavery of the Southern States of America. Not, indeed, in all history—not in the darkest days of ancient barbarism, can be found
____________
^* Ducherii Spicel. tom. xi. 374, 375.

^† Murat, Ant. Ital. vol. 4, p. 20. Ord. des Rois de France, tom. i. p. 22. Tom. iii. p. 203.
^‡ Hist. de Dauphine, tom. i. p. 81.

Thus heathen barbarism was more Christian in its system of slavery than the [demonized] Christian barbarism in America. You, sirs, resort to the most diabolical measures to crush the minds out of the human beings you enslave. Where was despotism ever found equal to the present educational laws of Virginia!^*

In the European slavery in its worst days, a slave on taking holy orders became free.^† American slaves, on becoming ministers of Christ, are still held slaves. So on any agreeable event, European princes used to testify their gratitude by enfranchising great numbers of slaves.^‡

But when to you has ever come the occasion that brought with it such gratitude to God? So the Christian Church, as I have already shown, regarded it as a mark of the purest religious fervor for a master to manumit his slaves^§ without pecuniary considerations; while your [vile] church makes slavery a virtue—a divine right, and freeing men from bondage, a vice—a sin.

In the darkest period of European history, there were some men who violently opposed freeing slaves.

Fools! dangerous to whom? to society? As if a band of robbers were a society! Does the existence of society depend upon the smallest possible amount of freedom, and the greatest possible amount of slavery?

This, sirs, is your cry—"danger to society!" This is your plea for not favoring manumissions. As if freedom were a greater evil to society than slavery; as if society could be preserved by slavery, and annihilated by every
____________
^* Educational Laws of Virginia. Boston: Jewett & Co. [Ed. Note: Details.]

^† Murat, Ant. p. 842.

^‡ Marculsi Form, 1. 1, c. 39.

^§ Ibid, 1. 2, c. 23, 33, 34.

^|| Potgiess, l. iv. 2, 2, § 6. Morico, Mem. pur serv. preuves à Phist. de Bret. tom. ii. p. 100.

The fundamental law of society—equal human rights—was urged in Spain against slavery in the eighth century with much energy and effect,^* and by the fourteenth century nearly every civil society in Europe had gone far towards universal emancipation. Kings were not unwilling to declare the equal rights of their enslaved subjects, and to exert themselves for the overthrow of domestic bondage.

The school-men everywhere discussed the natural and inherent rights of the people, and the light which they shed upon this subject had no inconsiderable influence in preparing even the minds of princes for the great change.

In the year 1315, [King] Louis X. [1314-1316] of France, issued an edict for the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of the people. This noble document is a standing reproach to republican despote.

Three years after, Philip V. [1316-1322], the brother of Louis, confirmed the same edict.^‡

Oh, sirs! when a long inactive law of nature sprmgs into energy in the midst of confusion and disorder, how admirable is it to see order and beauty spring up with it! The enslaved people of France, without a center of action, had lived without unity, without public spirit, in factional divisions, without society, degraded.

The revival of this fundamental [equality, pro-freedom] law quickened, as by an electric flash, the central energies of the nation. The heart of France beat with new life; the dissociated elements began to coalesce in crystaline order. New organic parts started into form. Sirs, when has not liberty been the greatest boon to a people? When has not slavery been their greatest curse?
____________
^* Bodin de Repub., c. 5.

^† Ordon, tom. i. p. 583.

^‡ Ibid, p. 653.

Frederic II. was one of those honest and true noblemen, who, scoffing at the arrogance of bloated aristocracy, and the bigoted pride of kings, confessed the grand law that mankind were created equal and free.^*

How important the fact, that the best minds in all ages have recognized this principle of nature! How significant that despotism has ever denied it, and has ever been at war with it!—that only tyrants, and robbers should have the disposition to oppose this self-evident truth! What a lesson! that tyrants in Greece triumphed over it, and sunk the nation into barbarism!—that slaveholders trampled upon it in Rome, and drove liberty and virtue forever from the eternal city. How impressive, that the lords of Europe waged war against it, and converted all that had been called society into a mass of moral putridity—black and loathsome!

How beautiful, that while the church fostered and preserved it as a divine principle, it in turn preserved her, and gave her the love and reverence of humanity!

When it was once more revived in the hearts of the nations—when it had roused and quickened the consciences of kings—when it had become enthroned in the courts of judicature, and was felt as the law of the twelve peers—how soon did slavery and anarchy and disorder vanish, and the new light of civilization arise!

In France, all the noted writers on law, at an early period, decided that slavery was contrary to the common law,^† and that no slave could touch French soil without instantly becoming a freeman. Even a foreign ambassador was not allowed to hold a man in involuntary servitude. The slave of a Spanish minister was pronounced a freeman by the French judges. Nor could the distinguished position of the claimant have any influence upon the court to allow his claim.^‡ Some complained of this want of respect to his office and rank,^§ though the correctness of the
____________
^* See [George] Bancroft's Hist. U. S. [from the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston, Little and Brown, 1841)], vol. v., p. 7.

^† Hargrave, in the case of Somerset, [p 62].

^‡ See Bodin de Repub., 1. 1, c. 5.

^§ Kircher, de Legat., 1. 2, c. 1, n. 233. Binkershock Juge compet. des. Amb., ed. par Barbyr, c. 15, s. 3.

That policy creates only contempt which tamely allows injustice out of respect to empty titles or any other matter of accident. France respected herself, and sustained her law of personal rights; and she had the respect of the world.

The Northern States of the American Union are bound to maintain as sacred the same eternal law. It is the fundamental principle of their constitutions. But they have deserted that, for the defence and perpetuity of which Whig fathers labored, suffered, and died. This law has been deserted by the North, not out of respect to the claims of foreign ministers, but to satisfy the demands of petty tyrants—plantation masters; and at how great a cost!

In England the battle against slavery was long and arduous, sometimes extremely bloody; for the pro-slavery party was always active, and consisted of the most unprincipled men of the kingdom. They fought against the fundamental law of society, in order to maintain their own unjust assumptions.

The friends of justice and freedom improved every advantage to give supremacy to this law and to overthrow slavery. No man was allowed to be tried on a question involving his personal rights without a jury of twelve men. No claimant of a slave could touch the man till twelve peers had set in judgment upon the case; and they were always, when fairly chosen, on the side of freedom. It was by the institution of jury trial that slavery was completely annihilated.

Laws, too, were enacted by Parliament for increasing the advantages in favor of freedom,^† though not without the most strenuous opposition of the slavemasters. Many [villeins] were manumitted by positive enactments in the days of Edward I [1272-1307].^‡ Every possible legal obstruction was thrown in the way of the claimant, whilst all possible advantage was given to the alleged
____________
^* Wicquefort's Ambass. [London: Bernard Lintott, 1716], p. 268.

^† Co. Litt. 139,—Fitzh. Nat. Br. 78, C. D. 13th Edw. 2, 408. Litt. s. 20—209, & 2 Ro. Abr. 735-737.

^‡ Britt. Cap. 31.—Mirror of Justice, c. 2, s. 38.

Even as early as 1102, shortly after the accession of Henry I. [1100-1135] of England, the anti-slavery spirit was so strong in that nation, that, in a national ecclesiastical council, held at Westminster, under [Archbishop of Canterbury, Saint] Anselm [1033-1109],

especially since the conquest [1066] of William of Normandy [1066-1087].

Here it is important to remark, that this conqueror, or robber, on gaining possession of England, attempted a regular system of slavery. He was prevented from fully carrying out his purpose only by the resolute resistance of the Saxons. He attempted, by overthrowing the fundamental principles of government, and by setting up an arbitrary and despotic system, to reduce the Saxons to the condition of abject servitude to himself and to his Norman lords.

Henry I. [1100-1135], on taking the throne, promised the people their natural rights. To make sure of that, they required him to give them a charter of those rights and his solemn oath to maintain it. He complied. This charter of English liberties was regarded as the law of the land. It recognized the great primal law of nature, guaranteed justice and right to every man, and prepared the way for the total abolition of slavery in the kingdom.

Seventy years after, the great synod of Ireland denounced the

^† Fitzh. Arb. Villen. 38.

^‡ Vid. Butler's Lives.—Anselm.

Thus Ireland has the honor of the first general emancipation act known in history.

There is nothing more marked in the history of English jurisprudence than the fact, that up to the time of the bloody Stuarts [1603-1649; 1660-1688], the courts of justice presumed in favor of liberty in the trial of the claims of slavemasters.^† A fugitive claimed by the master had the right of Habeas Corpus and Homine Replegiando.^‡ The latter gave great advantage to freedom.

How much different is all that from the course pursued in this boasting land of democracy! Here, slave-masters rule the courts, and convert the temples of justice into slave-pens. Every advantage is given to the claims of the petty tyrant. Instead of a jury of twelve men, a commissioner is anointed, in mockery of justice [and jury trial], and he is paid a premium [double fee] for deciding in favor of slavery. Ah, sirs, what a difference is that! How infamous! How barbarous!

The English law said, "Impious and cruel is he to be esteemed who favors not liberty."^§

But you make American law to say, "Impious and accursed shall he be who favors not slavery."

"Justice must be done to every man," says the English law.^!!

"Not so," say you; "justice shall not be done to every man. Four millions of men, women, and children shall be denied justice. They shall be held in eternal bondage, though innocent of crime."

"A bad custom or usage is to be abolished," said the English law;^¶ and away went slavery.

"Not so," say you; "that principle would ruin America. Bad customs are to be fostered and nursed," as Greece and Rome nursed slavery till it had destroyed both.

Slavery originated in the barbarism of war and piracy. It exists by no other claim than that of the freebooter.
____________
^* Vid. Moore's Hist. Ireland, vol. 2, p. 232. Chronica Hiberniæ. Cott. Lib Dom. A. 18. Stephens' West Ind. Slav., vol. 1, p. 6.

^† Vid. Lib. Instrut., 176 a 177, b. & Bro. Arb. Vil. 66.—47, Hen. 3. St. Dev. Fitz. Arb.,vil. 39.

^‡ Ibid. Also Fitzh. N. Br. 66, & Lib. Instrut. 176 a. 177-6.

^§ Cod. Lit., 124.

^|| Jenk Cent., 93.

^¶ Cod. Lit., 141.

The primal law of society, then, is supreme. It is the highest law, and its violation is the highest crime against Society. Nothing can be lawful and right that makes war upon that. All enactments, to be law, must harmonize with it. To enforce an opposing enactment is suicidal, destructive of all government. Hence slavery can never be sanctioned by society. It can be supported, not by government, but only by a band of robbers in the name of government.

Human rights are divine. That which is at war with those rights is not of God, but of the Devil. It was legitimate law which overthrew European slavery; while bastard law, diabolical edicts, sham legislation, attempted to sustain it. God and the people were against the Devil and the tyrants. The latter were defeated.

But here you we, sirs, in the nineteenth century, defending pirates, robbers, despots, and the Devil; making war against the Almighty and the people's rights. Do you expect to triumph?

"The day cometh that shall burn as an oven" [Malachi 4:1]. [Ed. Note: Details.]

It has been seen that just when the old, Roman slavery was being destroyed, the feudal slavery of the middle ages arose. Alas! that just when this latter was expiring throughout Europe, under the powerful influence of the natural law of society, another and a still more horrid form of this monster should arise—the bondage of the African.

But little more than a century had passed after Louis X. and his brother Philip, of France, had decreed that "as all men are by nature free born," enfranchisements should be granted throughout the whole kingdom upon just and reasonable conditions; when popes

Martin V. [1417-1431],

Eugene IV. [1431-1447],

Nicholas V. [1447-1455],

Calixtus III. [1455-1458], and

Sextus IV. [1471-1484],^*

assumed the right in the name of God and Christ to grant power to the kings and princes of Portugal to enslave the poor Africans. [Ed Note: See details by Stowe].

This was not the first attempt of the popes to give an open and direct sanction to involuntary bondage. It would not have answered for them to have made even this attempt of enslaving the Africans, without the specious pretext that their purpose was the conversion of these heathen.

The bulls however expressly granted the right of robbery and murder thus:—

Thus modern negro slavery had its origin in the bulls of five Roman popes, in the most corrupt age of the church. Such, then, gentlemen, is the origin of your beautiful, your
____________
^* The following are the dates of these bulls, 1430, 1438, 1454, 1458, 1484. Vid. Coloniæ Anglicaræ Illustratæ [or, The Acquest of Dominion, and the Plantation of Colonies Made by the English in America]. By Wm. Bollan. Lond. [S. Baker] 1762. Part I, pp. 115-141.

^† Ibid.

It is a notorious fact that the popes generally, from a very early period, had been on the side of slavery.

Leo IX. [1049-1054], in 1051, condemned the mistresses of the priests to a state of absolute slavery.^*

So Gregory XI. [1370-1378], in his bull against the Florentines in 1376, declared their property to be at the mercy of any who wished to rob them, and exhorted the world to seize their person wherever found, and reduce them to absolute slavery.^†

Between the bull of Calixtus III. [1455-1458], in 1458, and that of Sextus IV. [1471-1484], in 1484, granting the right to enslave the Africans, a bull was issued by Pius II. [1458-1464], in 1462 in which this pope remonstrated against the Portuguese enslaving the Christians. But not one word does he utter against enslaving the poor heathen in Africa.

The first pope who took any direct steps to suppress African slavery in the Romish church, was Gregory XVI. [1831-1846], in 1839. [Excerpt]. And though he quotes the precedence of other popes, yet I find none of them he refers to, issued any bull against African slavery.

He refers to Pius VII. [1800-1823], as opposing the slave trade, but it was not the African slave trade.

He refers to Paul III. [1534-1549]. But Paul III. only condemned the slavery of the Indians. [See the full text]. Though it is due to say that some declare he imprecated a curse on those who should enslave any class of men.^‡

So Urban VIII. [1623-1644], in 1639, is referred to.^§ But his bull was only against enslaving the western and southern Indians.

Likewise Benedict XIV. [1740-1758] is cited.^|| But his bull was intended for the suppression of Indian slavery in Brazil, Paragua, &c.

All these popes denounce the slavery of the poor American Indians in no measured terms. Why? Slavery was complained of by the Jesuits as a monstrous barrier to the
____________
^* Bower, vol. 1, p. 183. Also Herrnan. ad an, 1051.

^† Ibid., vol. 7, p. 23.

^‡ Vid. Remusal. Hist. de Chippa fl. 3, c.16.

^§ Bullarum. Prin. Diplo. Rom. Col. Tom.VI. P. I. and II., p. 183, DCIV.

^|| Sanct. Dom. Nos. Ben. Pap. 14, Bull. Tom. 1, p. 44, XXXVII.

True, Bancroft says,

But why did not this pope with others exert the same efficent power in the suppression of African as of Indian slavery? Why was the church allowed to buy and sell Africans, while it was not allowed to buy and sell Christians and Indians? Why should five popes say to the barbarous Portuguese,

Was it not because the church had become corrupt? Was it not that popes had become presumptuous despots, assuming to dispose of rights that belonged solely to Almighty God?

Such, sir, is the origin of negro slavery: The bulls of five pontifical despots, assuming to annihilate eternal justice, and to break the moral bonds which bind the human race together in one brotherhood. This is the origin of your darling institution of negro slavery,—five bulls of five popes. Such is the basis—the primary foundation of your peculiar institution, you can find no authority beyond those bulls.

You go to the Bible, it is true, but not to support negro slavery. That knows no difference between the Ethiopian and the Caucasian. If it sanctions any slavery, it sanctions the slavery of the white,—of native white Americans, as much as the native black Americans.

It is solely the authority of five despotic, corrupt popes, in the worst age of the church, that furnishes you specific rights to enslave the children of Africa. It is authority granted in an age when the church had become a mass of corruption
____________
^* Bancroft's Hist. U. S., vol. 1, p. 172.

But you cannot escape the odium that comes by the knowledge of the fact, that, negro slavery has no other specific unction [support] but the bulls of five wicked popes, and the Stuart despots [1603-1649, 1660-1688].

Besides, sirs, reflect, that the same corruptions of the Romish church that allowed and sanctioned the slavery of the Africans, sanctioned other crimes, and that these forced the Protestant reformation. Reflect, that in justifying African slavery you are obliged to make use of popish sophistries, against protestant principles. Protestantism is, legitimately, the declaration of human rights against popish despotism. Popish despotism established negro slavery. Protestantism, in denying the despotism of the popes denounces negro slavery. No man then, is a legitimate protestant who lends his sanction to this infamous system.

When the reformation broke out [1500's], the protestants renouncing the rights of popish despotism, openly and boldly asserted, what good men of the church had always asserted—the rights of human nature, and they denounced slavery. The same vicious power which had set up the institution of negro slavery had developed itself in those other forms of disgusting oppression which necessitated a revolution. Hence negro slavery in Americans one of those putrescent remains of popish assumption which drove, with disgust, the best men of the church to hurl their protests at the Vatican.

The reformers, planting themselves upon the unchangeable law of right, denounced the injustice of oppression in words that shook the eternal city, and every despot's throne in Europe. The popes justified the tyrannical ordinances of the civil power. But [Martin] Luther [1483-1546] declared that

So was slavery denounced by [Ulrich] Zwinglius [1484-1531], the bold Switz. He considered that St. Paul opposed slavery in saying,—"but if thou mayest be free, use it rather [I Cor. 7:21]."^* This noble Switz had a singular idea of the divine purpose of slavery. He looked upon it as the worst of punishments inflicted upon those who were so sinful as to allow themselves to be oppressed.^†

Sir Robert Filmer [1588 - 1653], the arch tory, in the reign of Charles I. [1625-1649] says,

"[John] Calvin [1509-1564] squinted‡ [leaned] so strongly towards the doctrine of the absolute equality of all men as to be one of the heretical founders of Genevan Republicanism."

Bishop Jewell represents Luther and [Philipp] Melancthon [1497-1560] as teaching the natural and equal rights of mankind, and the right to defend one's self by all righteous means against oppression, as did David against Saul [10th century B.C.];—that is "by avoiding the power of the tyrant,"^§ and St. Augustine [354 A.D. - 430 A.D.] was quoted to the same purpose.^||

Thus Protestantism would help the slave to regain his liberty by encouraging him to fly from his tyrant. It can offer no aid to the oppressor.

According to Selden (if I mistake not) Luther at one time was impressed that the gospel was opposed to civil government, as the latter appeared to be the enemy of human rights and equal justice, and to be in a constant "struggle against doing justice to the subjects," and seemed "to labor wholly to amass power for enslaving mankind." Many other good men have been forced to the same conclusion, from the same circumstances. Luther lived to correct his mistake.

• He [Luther] saw that tyranny is not government, but the assumption of the powers of it without its spirit—equal justice.

• He saw, as every good and wise man will, that legitimate government, is ordained of God for the sole purpose of protecting the absolute and common rights of mankind, and

• that whatever sets itself up in the name of civil government under whatever form, without this one grand purpose, is not a legitimate outberth from the deity

^† Opus Articulorum Art. 40, 42.

^‡ See Filmer's "Patriarcha," 1685, p. 5.

^§ See Jewell's "Defence of the Apology," p. 16.

^|| August. in Ps. 124.

The crime of enslaving the Africans was pursued by the Portugues in their African dominions for about three quarters of a century before they commenced the importation of slaves to America to supply the Spaniards in Hispaniola. This infamous work commenced in 1508.^*

The soul of [Emperor] Charles V. [1519-1556] revolted at the idea of reducing the "image of God" to the condition of a brute, and in 1540, under a noble incitement, ordered all the slaves in the American Isles to be set free. Lagasea the governor, obeyed, but soon returned to Spain with such a tale for the Emperor as induced him to consent to the re-establishment of this crime.^† Gold is an argument which princes seldom oppose long.

The French king shed some tears when some of his unprincipled aristocracy joined the Spaniards and Portugues in the barter of human flesh. He had the principle of man in him and it revolted at the thought of such a crime, but he gave way to other influences.

And here let me link two parts of the French chain in the matter of slavery, and show you at the same time the primal law of society in its warfare against this crime of crimes. I have shown that the principle that the principle that "all men are born free," was that by which slavery in France was abolished.

Now, it so happened that at the time negro slavery was introduced and established in the French colonies, contrary to the primary law of the French nation, she [France] had quite sunk into a state of despotism. The kings had abandoned justice as the rule of civil power. They issued edicts permitting and sanctioning the trade in human flesh. They laid down their regulations with regard to this "property in man."^‡

This was at the moment when the infamous house of Stuart [1603-1649, 1660-1688] was crushing the liberties of England, and laboring to re-establish slavery through the British dominions.

Contrary to the fundamental law of France, her kings, instigated by their corrupt lords, granted
____________
^* Ander. Hist. comm. 6, p. 336.

^† Bodin de Repub. 1. 1, c. 5.

^‡ Two edicts to this effect in 1615, 1685. Vid. Decis. Nouv. [Paris: Savoye, 1757], par M. [Jean B.] Denisart [1713-1765], Tit. Negroes.

The parliament of Paris had not lost all sense of right and propriety. It had the soul to make some resistance to this despotism, but not by very open measures.

Thus was it declared by the parliament of Paris, some four hundred years after Louis X. proclaimed that "all men are by nature born free," and therefore that slavery is unlawful-—that involuntary bondage "was opposed to the common law of the kingdom." In spite of this, however, the base and infamous men of the nation were determined, under the sanction of the king's edicts, to bring in negro slavery. The friends of justice were, on the other hand, too vigilant and determined to allow it. Every case of a slave they could find, was brought to trial, and the judges decided in favor of the common law of society, the universal right to personal freedom.^‡

Thus you see once more, sirs, that the personal right of every man to freedom is the fundamental law of society—that slavery is opposed to the common law, and has been pronounced to be so by the highest authorities.

I have already shown that the same law acted in England to the overthrow of slavery. The last cases of slavery were decided in the reign of Elizabeth [1558-1603]^§ and James I [1603-1625].^||

There were men who were now determined in England to set up the new slavery at all hazards. In order to effect this, they found it necessary to overthrow the constitution, and to make a clean sweep of the fundamental principles of society. It had been attempted in the reign of Elizabeth to introduce slaves from Russia.^¶ A lucky circumstance [master's public whipping (assault and battery) of the slave]
____________
^* This edict in 1716, another in 1778. Ibid, § 27.

^† See M. Denisart, as already cited.

^‡ See Causes Celebres, Vol. 13, p. 492. Also Nouvelles Decis., par M. Denisart, Neg.

^§ See Sir Thomas Smith's Commonwealth, B. 2, c. 10. Dyre. 266, pl. 11.—283, pl. 32.

^|| Co. Entr. 406, 6. Hughes' Abridgment, tit. Villen, pl. 23.

^¶ Rushworth's Hist. Coll., vol. 2, p. 468.

A change, however, was coming over the English nation. The friends of tyranny at court sanctioned the introduction of slavery into the colonies; and under Charles I. [1625-1649], a system of tyranny was developing itself for the absolute slavery of the nation. The people were roused, and Charles lost his head [was executed] for his despotism. This was but a momentary triumph [in 1649].

The means used by the Protector [Oliver Cromwell] for preserving what had been gained, introduced another form of despotism. The friends of absolute slavery took advantage of it for regaining their lost power.

They [pro-slavery tories] restored Charles II. [1660-1685] to the throne, secured themselves in places of the government, and trampling upon the fundamental law of the realm, decided in the court of the king's bench in favor of negro slavery, the right of holding property in man.^*

The infamous [Lord Chief Justice George] Jeffries [1648-1689] was the leading spirit of this tory court. Hence this court of king's bench decided,

and judgment, nisi, was given in favor of holding negro slaves in England.

Thus under the worst despotism England ever knew, the same brutal power that set at defiance the rights of the English people, that trampled upon the liberties and laws of the nation, that murdered in cool blood the friends of freedom [e.g., Algernon Sidney], was the first that attempted to legalize the new slavery in the British Kingdom, the first of the English nation to side with the [five] popes in the sanction of the trade in human flesh.

The English party of despotism received the name of tory, while that of France was called jacobin. Both were in secret league with the pope, and controlled by the worst characters among the Jesuits.

On the settlement of the southern colonies this [pro-monarchy tory] school [belief system] had the ascendency in England, except during [1649-1660] the control of Parliament and the pro-
____________
^* [Butts v Penny,] 2 Lev. 201, and 3 Keb. 785. Vide Hill 29 Cha. II. B. R. Rpt. 1116. This was an action of trover for 10 negroes.

^† This like the same in bulls of the popes was to hoodwink Christian people.

In the next letter I shall make this matter a little plainer.

How terrible has been the contest between principle and lust in all ages of the world! Vicious men, reckless of the laws of God, supremely devoted to their own passions, have spaciously seized upon [attacked, violated] the rights of mankind, and plundered society of its unity and peace. To preserve any part of its existence, the civil organism [society] has been forced to a bloody warfare, which has always ended in the death of the old form.

Strange that, in the nineteenth century, when every man has the history of the world before his eyes, and a thousand travelers in the orient tell the same melancholy tale of the ruins of ancient nations, destroyed by despotism, and whose desolations forewarn America of the deadly effects of slavery—strange, in view of this, that there should be a party in this new world so corrupt, so base, as to plunge the people into that terrible contest so often and so fatally repeated in the old world!

Upon whom rests the fearful responsibility of the war upon which America has now entered? Who is the aggressor? Society is bound to preserve itself. It can exist only by virtue of the "Higher Law." That law you scorn and trample upon. You make war upon legitimate government, dethrone justice, uproot the fundamental principles of society, and overthrow the defences and structures of freedom.

Why this onslaught? What is your purpose? Is it not that you may enslave the nation? Is it not that you may preserve an accursed system of bondage in which you already pride yourselves as masters? Is it not that you may extend to infinity the despotic power you already find yourselves in possession of?

I have shown the pro-slavery school of every age to have been at war with society, and I have shown so far,

It is self-evident that justice is the basis of all legitimate governments, whatever be their form. This is recognized even in the government of the Hindoos.

According to the fundamental law of the Hindoo people, slavery could have no legal existence among them. The learned commentator on the voyage of Nearchus, has concluded, that among the East Indians there was no slavery properly so called, though the people were divided into castes.^† Alexander, the Great Robber [356 B.C. - 323 B.C.], was the first to institute slavery in India. He condemned whole communities of people to perpetual bondage.^‡

All noted writers on China agree that slavery had no existence among that people till a modern date, and that it is even now mostly of a voluntary character; involuntary servitude being a violation of the fundamental law of the empire.

The primal law of India declared that

This was an eternal prohi-
____________
^* Sir William Jones' Works, vol. 3, p. 299. Inst. Hindoo Law.

^† See Mitford's Greece, vol. 8, n. 426.

^‡ Ibid.

^§ Sir William Jones' Works, vol. 3. Inst. Hindoo Law, § 168.

Sparta broke loose from law, and as a band of robbers enslaved the Helots; and Pliny [23 A.D. - 79 A.D.] says of them, "they were the first to invent slavery in Greece."^†

The universally acknowledged right of self-defence, is a universal acknowledgment of the unrighteousness of slavery. St. Germain said,

So St. Augustine [354 A.D. - 430 A.D.] said,

But the pro-slavery school in every age of the world have been at war with this "Law Eternal." You, sirs, have set up this infamous claim in America—that you have a right to establish a legislation in defiance of justice, at war with human rights, destructive of liberty, and overwhelming the nation with beastly servitude. You claim the right to drag America from freedom, justice and brotherhood into slavery, anarchy, and civil strife; from civilization and Christianity into barbarism and the blackest heathenism.

But you would curse the land [nation] with despotism, and slavery in the name of law. You would
____________
^* Herodot. lib. 6, p. 137.

^† Nat. Hist. lib. 7, c. 67.

^‡ Doct. et Stud. D. 1, c. 1.

^§ Ibid.

^|| Free Arbit. 1. 1.

^¶ Lib. 4, c. 129.

Had the pro-slavery school in England prevailed as the same school prevailed in Greece and Rome, that nation would long before this have been plunged into loathsome barbarism. The law of nature by which all men are born free, was not only recognized in the common law of the English realm, but it ever had a strong party to sustain it; men who were ready to die in its defence. How many martyrs sacrificed their lives to sustain it?

In the fifth year of the reign of Edward I [1272-1307]., of England, an attempt was made by the corrupt aristocracy, to create slavery by legislation. Parliament went so far in this path of infamy, as to pass an act enslaving vagabonds for a term of years,^§ and as a penalty for acts of violence in resisting, or in revenge, the miserable creatures were to be reduced to perpetual slavery, or murdered.^||

This barbarous enactment created a powerful excitement throughout the whole kingdom. It was a violation of the natural law of the realm. It trampled upon the common law of society. Nor would the people allow its execution. The judges knew they could not sustain its execution. Not an impartial jury could be found that would not pronounce against it. Nor would the people allow it to remain on the statute book. Two years after its enactment, the king prorogued parliament, and they, acting under the special instructions
____________
^* As quoted by St. Germain.

^† See Coke's 7 Rep. p. 12.

^‡ ., p. 13.

^§§ Vid. Statutes at Large, vol. 9.

^|| Ibid.

It was thus that the English people beat back the attempts of the bloated aristocracy to re-establish domestic slavery among them. They would not have even vagabonds made slaves of.

England always had two opposite political schools [parties], the one pro-slavery the other, the "Higher Law," or liberty school. The former opposed the charter of rights, and embraced every opportunity to trample it in the dust. They consisted of the most corrupt and unprincipled, proud and overbearing men of the nation.

This party gained the control under the bloody Stuarts [1603-1649, 1660-1688]. They were determined, as already shown, to establish slavery. Under Charles II. [1660-1685], they had gained a decision [Butts v Penny] from the judges on the king's bench, in favor of chattel slavery. They advocated the despotism of the king. Speaking of [rebutting] them, John Locke [1632-1704] said:

"In this last age, a generation of men has sprung up amongst us, that would flatter princes with an opinion that they have a divine right to absolute power. To make way for this doctrine, they have denied mankind a right to natural freedom, whereby they have as much as in them lies [i.e., as much as possible],

^† See the speech of Hon. William Pinkney, in the Maryland House of Delegates, in its session in November, 1789. In this speech the spirit of whig fathers against slavery is seen.

These men were at first called Cavaliers, and then revived the name of Tories—an appellation [name, title] by which a band of robbers in Ireland were known at that time. It was applied to the cavaliers, as they advocated pro-slavery doctrine—the right of their party to rob and enslave their fellow-men. Our good whig fathers gave the same distinguishing title to the pro-slavery school during the Revolution.

The English tories published several works in support of their pro-slavery principles; to which you seem to be largely indebted, sirs, for your political doctrines. The most notorious of these works were those of Sir Robert Filmer [1588-1653]—such as his "Anarchy of a Limited and Mixed Monarchy," and his "Patriarcha."

The latter was for some time circulated in manuscript [unpublished], and was carefully excluded from the eyes of the opposite party [the anti-slavery party] on account of the execrable character of its doctrines.

It was finally discovered by one of the noblest among the friends of freedom—Algernon Sidney [1622-1683],^† who immediately set himself to work to expose its infamous libels upon human nature. For this labor the noble Sidney was condemned by the same judges who sanctioned the trade in Africans, and was cruelly murdered upon the block.^‡

This tory "Patriarcha" of Filmer, commences by denying the grand principle I have all along shown to have been recognized in every nation and in every age of European history, as the fundamental law of legitimate society and government, namely; that

• "all men are by nature free born," and

• "have an inalienable right to their inheritance."

^† See the Life of Sidney, and his Works.

^‡ Trial of Sidney. See his Life.

^§ See "Patriarcha," or the Natural Power of Kings, by Sir Robert Filmer, Bart. 2d, Lond. 1685, c. 1.

The latter principle had been sworn to by all the kings of England, down to the reign of the Stuarts.^*

• The English constitution embraced it.^†

• It regarded every man as having the absolute rights of man.

• It was the basis of English association.

• Its grand aim was "the protection of every individual in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature."^‡

The pro-slavery, or tory school, found this natural system in their way. They could not establish despotism by these fundamental principles. Nor had they any hopes of establishing a system of slavery that would remain permanent, so long as the mind of the people were possessed of the idea that all men were inheritors of equal rights and liberties, and that no one portion were born to rule over the rest. It was necessary, therefore, to strike down this principle of natural liberty and equality.

Hence says the arch-tory, Filmer,

^† See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Eng. Constitution, b. 1, c. 1.

^‡ Ibid.

^§ Filmer's Patriarcha, ch. 1, § 5.

In what manner did the arch-tory now attempt to "confute" this first principle of society? Why, he first calls it "erroneous," and then asserts that it sprang from the Devil in the Garden of Eden, when he tempted our first parents. Then he asserts that God made the mass of mankind slaves, and ordained the cavaliers or tories to be their masters, and the king the supreme, absolute master. This is the sum of his argument to overthrow the eternal law of equal right. Still he displays a great deal of tact and apparent learning. He, like all tyrants and abettors of legal robbery, makes great use of the "Sacred Book," and would make appear that God took immense pains to write the Bible, on purpose to sanction the despotism of kings and slavemasters.

This work of Filmer contains all the arguments which are now advanced by your [pro-slavery] school in support of the RIGHTS (?) of slavemasters. Nor is it possible to support slavery without denying those fundamental principles of government which the tories denied, and without asserting the same doctrines of despotism which they asserted. The same positions which sustain the assumed rights of the slavemaster, sustain the assumed rights of tory lords, and tyrant kings, and corrupt popes.

Nor did these tories fail to receive the aid of doctors of divinity in promulgating their new political creed. There was Dr. [William] Laud [1573-1645] , who answers to your Dr. Lord. And then there was Dr. Sibthorp, who sits well beside your Dr. South-side-view. And then there was Dr. Manwarring, who is answered by Dr. Man-stealer. Dr. Man-war-ing, by the way, was a notorious character under Charles I [1625-1649]. He had the honor of preaching before the king, and of supporting this tyrant by libeling human nature. His sermons were published,
____________
^* Filmer's Patriarcha, ch. 1, § 6.

The Doctor [Manwarring], in taking this position, was not cunning; he was really committing treason against the constitution and government of the realm, and exposed himself to the penalty of the law. The Commons, therefore, called him to account under the charge of attempting to overthrow the government, by asserting the right of the king to enslave the people and rob them of their property. On his being proved guilty, the Commons published a declaration against him, in which they re-assert the inherent rights and liberties of the subjects of the realm, as an established law of the kingdom, which no king had right to overthrow.^†

The foolish Doctor, for attempting to subvert this fundamental law, was sentenced to the fine of a thousand pounds, imprisonment, suspension and disgrace as a doctor of divinity and as a preacher of Christ, and to the burning of his sermons by the common hangman.

This was a very mild penalty. It was sufficient, however, to bring the unfortunate man to hie senses. He confessed his crime^‡ before Parliament, and was finally pardoned.^§

The tories, in pushing forward their purposes of enslaving the people roused [provoked] the latter [people] to take up arms in self-defence. The nation was plunged into a civil war [late 1640's].

The king [Charles I. (1625-1649)] and his party were defeated.

The former lost his head [was executed in 1649], and great numbers of the latter [pro-Stuart tories and slavery advocates] emigrated to America, and settled in Virginia.

These tories brought with them to Virginia all their [perverse] love of monarchy, of Filmerism, of mastership.

They despised labor, looked with contempt upon the laborer, and, what was a very natural result, they sought to make others their slaves, in order to find support.

^† Ibid, p. 593.

^‡ Ibid, p. 605.

^§ Ibid, p. 635.

The South, from the beginning, represented toryism [advocates for economic-social-political inequality, the 'divine right of kings' concept, the "right to work" for nothing, etc.], being settled by tories, and ruled by tories at "home" and in the colonies. Hence the doctrines now held by the ruling men of the Southern States are identical with those advocated by Filmer, the arch-tory, and the real founder of the tory school [belief system].

You are thus forced, like the worst school of English tories, to wage war upon the legitimate principles of society and government. You, as they, pretend that a "compact"—a bargain—is binding, which requires as a condition the rebellion of the people against Eternal Justice.

You pretend that you have derived power by a compact to make slaves, not only of Africans, but of the whole people of the United States. Did the tories of England, in the worst days of tyranny, ever pretend to a more dangerous power over that nation?

As your doctrine with regard to the right of enslaving men is the same with that put forth by your progenitors in England, I shall, in the next letter, answer you with the arguments of the old English whigs.

I KNOW not by what principle the legislative power of one nation has better right to enact injustice than that of another. The fundamental law of all nations forbids such claim. Our fathers in the revolution denied it to parliament. Are we not bound to deny it to Congress?

It was always affirmed that parliament had no right to make slaves by enactment, or to sanction slavery. Can you tell from what god or demigod Congress has derived such authority?

The slaveholders of Rome opposed this primal principle of all nations. They labored to legalize slavery. The tories of England, under the Stuarts [1603-1649; 1660-1688], exerted themselves to the same infamous [pro-slavery] purpose. They contended it was in the [legitimate] power of government to enforce oppressive measures.

[John] Milton [1608-1674] met and overthrew their execrable assumptions. He exhibited the fundamental law of the nation; showed that it had been sacredly held even by the early Saxons.

^† Ibid.

^‡Milton's Prose Works, vol. 3, p. 807. "[Henry de] Bracton and Fleta," says Milton, "both refer to this truly royal law of King Edward" the Confessor [1042-1066].

This "law of laws"—this "Higher Law," it is impossible to abolish. It is coeval with society and government. You can rebel against, and you can subvert government by doing so. In this war upon society and the rights of man, you take sides with all the tyrants of antiquity—you identify yourselves with the jacobins, the tories, under the Stuarts [1603-1649, 1660-1688], and under George III. [1760-1820].

How can government be founded in justice, and yet have the right to enact measures against justice? This is like asking how a man can be a Christian, and have the right to overthrow Christianity. Has the Almighty given a title to Congress to enact injustice, when He has denied it to the parliament of England,

That, sirs, is what Lord [Chief Justice Edward] Coke [1551-1633] acknowledges to be the fundamental law of government—the constitutional principle—the safeguard against injustice—tyranny, slavery. But your school would hiss it htto contempt. You sneer at it—you call it "Babel-building."^†

Does not every well-informed lawyer know, that "there is no necessity to obey, where there is no authority to ordain."^‡ There is no power in Congress to ordain unjust measures under any pretext. Law, to be law, must be just. Injustice is opposed to law, destructive of law, and "whatever is destructive of law, cannot itself be law, for then the law would be sole de se."^§

^† This is the language of that sage man, Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in his letter to Dr. Adams, of Boston, and the Dr. in his "South side view," favors it.

^‡ Dav. 69, and 10 Co. 76.

^§ Judge Atkins, 221.

^|| Lord Abingdon's Thoughts. See also Loft's Elements of Universal Law, 173.

These, sirs, are not the declarations of wild and ignorant enthusiasts, but of profound and learned civilians [moralists]—men who had made law and government the diligent study of life. They are the declarations of government itself, the decision of judges.

The old whigs, both of England and America, at the period of the American Revolution, opposed the tories ith the like authorities against the usurpations of parliament. The Massachusetts General Assembly, in the year 1764, in their petition to the king, took this position against the oppressive acts of parliament, and sustained it with numerous citations of authority [precedents].^†

Thus [Lord Chief Justice] Judge [Henry] Hobart [1625] had decided that

This was pronouncing the Law of Nature, to be the fundamental law of the land, against which no statutes could be allowed. The petition of our whig fathers gives an overwhelming amount of other authorities to the same purpose, and instances where this primal law had been formally rccognized by parliament.^§

And [James] Otis himself in his masterly work multiplied other authorities in abundance, and gave cases wherein

^† See Appendix to Otis' rights of the British Col.

^‡ Hob. 87.

^§ Tren. 12. Jac. Day v. Savage, S. C. and P. cited Arg. 10, Mod. 115; Hill. 11; Ann C. B. Halt. c. 9, 12; Mod. 687, 688; Hill. 13, W. 3, B. R. in c. of cit. Lond. v. Wood.

^|| See Rights of the British Colonists, p. 73.

^¶ And therefore 8 E. 3, 30. T. Tregor's case, W.2, cap. 28, and Art. Sup. Chart. 9, Sec. 8 Rep. 118, Hill.7, Dr. Bonham's case [4 Coke's Rep, part 8, p 118].

This [Founders' era view] is what you [tories, pro-slavers] impiously call "Babel-building," as if government is not bound by the eternal law of right. George III. [1760-1820] sneered at it, and his tory ministry, and the tories in parliament, but every whig knew that the "Higher Law" was none the less binding for all that. Nor did they flinch when the hour came to maintain it with more than mere words [Revolution].

Now, sirs, it is a principle universally acknowledged among all authoritative writers on law, that slavery is contrary to natural law, and cannot by any possible form of legislation be legalized. It is certain that if "by the law of nature all men are born free," which even the civil as well as the common law maintains, you may not attempt to legislate in favor of slavery without committing treason against government.

Montesquieu [1689-1755], than whom there never was one better acquainted with the laws of all nations, after showing that slavery is opposed to the law of nature, says,

Why? Because, sirs, the civil law of all nations assumes that justice alone is the basis of law. And therefore that whatever is unjust is unlawful, and, because civil law to bind all, must be be assented to by all. All men are presumed to assent to be governed by justice but no man can be presumed to assent to be governed by injustice. Hence the civil law has no power to bind a slave.

As "every man is born with a right to freedom to his person, which no other man has a power over,"^§ and as

^† Spirit of Laws, b. 15, c. 2.

^‡ Ibid.

^§ See Locke on Civil Government, b. 2, c. 16, § 190.

^|| Blackstone's Com. b. 1, c. 1.

These are established principles never denied in any civil society, but by robbers, assassins, and the general enemies of society,

It is true, the Algerines were governed by no such principles as these, but everyone knows that Algiers was not a civil state, but a band of robbers. They opposed the legitimate principles of civil society, for the same reason you oppose them, and for no other. Men who do not live by robbery, are not afraid of justice; they have no cause for that.

The tories under the Stuarts [1603-1649, 1660-1688] opposed these [pro-freedom, anti-slavery] principles, but everyone knows for what reason: they were the friends of kingship, lordship, mastership, tyranny, slavery, robbery. They sought to overthrow the fundamental principles of the civil state, and to build up an absolute despotism; they made it their chief aim to restore the old feudal slavery.

That was what caused the civil war, under Charles I. When they had secured the control under James II. [1685-1688], how clearly was it seen that they had doomed the nation to the most disgraceful and insufferable bondage.

But your principles are identical with theirs.

True, you advocate the divine rights of no single tyrant; you do worse than that, you labor to sustain the tyranny of fifty thousand tyrants. You do not, it is true, endeavor to impose upon us a living despot under the title of king, but
____________
^* Locke as above, ch. 11, § 137.

^† Jenk. Cent. 176. Prin. Leg. ct. Æquit. 47.

^‡ Jenk. Cent. 93.

^§ 3d Inst. 23.

^|| Cod. Lit. 124.

^¶ Leg. Ri. Vin. 32, 33, 160.

It is natural, sirs, you should desire a king after your own liking. Were you certain of establishing a live one, whose despotism would sustain the claims of slaveholders, you would, if possible, effect that impious work tomorrow.

Nor would you be obliged to change your principles to accommodate yourselves to the new form of despotism. All you assert now, is the same that [Robert] Filmer [1588-1653], the arch-tory, concocted for the support of the Stuart despotism, in England. And the same arguments the best whig writers in those times advanced against your school in England, can be urged with equal power against your present school in America.

You assert that the Federal covenant, or compact, guarantees slavery, sanctions property in man. [John] Locke [1632-1704] answers you,

So the eminent [Ralph] Cudworth [1617-1688],

But you reply that "slavery is not iniquitous," that it is "a divine institution," and therefore may be legalized. So said the English tories. But Locke answered,

^† Cud. Int. Syst. Uni., 2 ed. v. 2, p. 894.

^‡ Ibid, p. 896.

^§ Declaration of the Peoples' nat. rights, a fundamental principle of the British Constitution, &c., p. 10.

Thus the slaveholder is set forth as a criminal, as even a "wild beast," a "noxious brute"—as one who declares war against the common law of mankind, and instead of being protected in his dangerous warfare by government is one "with whom mankind can have neither society nor security."

So the excellent [Algenon] Sidney [1622-1683], who was murdered for having written a book refuting your impious doctrines, said,

Nor did they consider that the slaveholder alone was criminal in this case; but the magistrate who atrempted to enforce oppressive laws in the name of government, was a criminal, and placed himself on the side of the devil in rebellion against God and society, and was to be resisted.

^† Sidney on Government, vol. 1, ch. 2, sec. 1, ¶ 1.

This, you will say, perhaps, applies only to a magistrate who assumes to command where the law and the constitution give no legal power, and does not refer to a slave-sanctioning officer and executor, or one appointed to execute the [1850] fugitive slave act, whose power is [erroneously alleged by pro-slavers to be] sanctioned by the constitution!

In this you assert that those who established the present form of federal government granted powers to the officers of civil state to act the part of tyrants, and overthrow liberty and justice. You say that our [founding] fathers, in other words, created a constitution which guarantees support to slavery.

I have already shown you what Locke and Cudworth say of such an instrument of compact, and I will add Lord Somers' words:

The charter of nature declares,

Nor is there to be found any legitimate government or order of society, whose fundamental laws do not recognize these self-evident principles. It was impossible, then, for the American people in 1787-8, to establish a system of government wholly at war with government itself. They could bind the nation by no such compact of injustice as you affirm the federal constitution to be!—for "none can be obliged in duty to obey but by natural justice."^‡

It is impious and treasonable, then, to assert, as you do, that our fathers bound us to destroy the very government which they labored to establish; that they bound us to
____________
^* Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, ¶ 111. [Reprinted Newport, R.I.: Solomon Southwick, 1774.]

^† Ibid, ¶ 1.

^‡ Cudworth Int. Syst. Univ., vol. 2, p. 896.

Nor would it be less infamous in us to admit your execrable doctrine than for you to assert it. The greatest civilians [moralists] that ever lived, have declared that "the people have no power to grant power to destroy or injure the meanest person, saving upon a previous crime and a just demerit."^*

Hence, as before shown, and as I shall now add, in the language of the martyr Sidney,

Hence Blackstone:

But you affect to despise this and call it "Babel-building." The slaveholders of antiquity talked like that in respect to the justice of legitimate government; so did the robbers and pirates of Algiers, and Peter speaks of those who

^† Sidney on Government, vol. 2, p. 34.

^‡ Ibid.

^§ BIackstone's Com. vol. 1.

^|| Cudworth, as above, B. 1, ch. 5.

^¶ Peter's Epist., ch. 2, v. v. 3, 10, 12.

To what purpose, then, do you declare that the people of the American States, in 1787-8, bound themselves by a covenant to sustain slavery—to dispose of the absolute right of their brethren in a manner wholly at war with government and society? Every one knows, who has any understanding of the principles upon which civil society is based, that the people had no such power. If they attempted it, they assumed to themselves rights which it would be impossible to suppose any but God himself could claim.

As civil society is based upon the law of nature, it is clear, as already shown, that "no human law is binding which is contrary to the laws of nature."^|| To suppose it would be a palpable contradiction. Hence, as all authorities concur, and the judicious Hooker emphatically affirms, "Human laws must be made according to the general laws of nature."^¶
____________
^* Milton's Defence of the People of England [Amsterdam, 1692; and London, 1695].

^† Ibid. Milton's Works, vol. 3, p. 216.

^‡ Ibid, p. 275

^§ Judgment of Whole Kingdoms, ¶ 1.

^|| Ibid, ¶ 14.

^¶ Hooker's Eccl. Pol., I. 3, sec. 9.

To admit your monstrous assumption, that our fathers attempted to bind their children by a system of injustice to become man-thieves, robbers, pirates, " brute beasts," "blood hounds "—would be bad enough; but for us to admit that they could thus bind us, is impious—blasphemous; for it is to suppose that the Infinite God is so tyrannical and unjust as to hold posterity bound to perform the unjust oaths of their progenitors. To admit that we are thus bound, is to admit that we can be and are, legal slaves to plantation masters.

Your system thus makes us blasphemous slaves, if we submit to it. It renders justice impossible to be supported. Your government is not legitimate, then, but a bastard, a tyranny, which we are bound to reject and overthrow. This is just, it is right, it is a solemn duty; for, as Lord Somers says,

You, as [like] the tories in England, abolish just government, and set up an oligarchal despotism, which denies human rights and crushes the soul out of the nation.

Government, as it is ordained of God, has its bounds, its unalterable and eternal principles. It can have no right to do wrong, even if all the people and their rulers should resolve they had, and should swear to maintain so contradictory and diabolical a position.

Hence, as "every man is born with a right to the freedom of his person, which no other man has a power over,"^‡ it would be the absolute destruction of civil society, and the assumption of the right of a band of robbers, to attempt to sanction one portion of
____________
^* Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, ¶ 35.

^† Locke on Government, b. 2, cb. 11, § 142.

^‡ Ibid, ch. 16, § 190.

Injustice segregates, dissociates, completely breaks up a nation; destroys government, barbarizes mankind, and renders society impossible. The interest of the slaveholder is partial, selfish, and at war with the rights of mankind, at war with justice; hence, at war with legitimate government and society. How impossible is it, then, for a people to favor such a class of men without precipitating their own ruin, without allowing that humanity have no absolute rights; and thus allowing themselves no absolute defence against themselves being made slaves.

[Claudius] Salmatius [1588-1653], the French Jacobite, who wrote [Defenso Regia Pro Carolo I (Nov. 1649)] in defence of the tyranny of Charles I. [1625-1649], asserted that the constitutional principles of England gave despotic powers to the king. This is like what you assert of the American Constitution. [John] Milton's answer to Salmatius is an answer to you.

Nor is there any law of the American nation by which slaveholders have the right they claim for themselves in the constitution. There is no American law by which the Legislature can enact in favor of slavery, no more than in favor of adultery, rape, forgery.

The power of legislators is limited by the laws of nature. Hence Milton, speaking of the law by which the representatives of the people are bound, says,

^† Milton's Prose Works, vol. 3, p. 268.

liament or people that will thoroughly reform but may and must have recourse."^*

The basis of public liberty is the same as that of the personal liberty of every man. That basis is Natural Law. Your doctrine of the constitution strikes at this and undermines the whole foundation of civil freedom. You deny all guarantee to the rights of the nation, and claim to yourselves the sole mastership, and the absolute slavery of the people to your oligarchy of slaveholding aristocrats.

I have shown, in former letters, that it had ever been recognized by all legitimate forms of society and government, that "by the Law of Nature all men are born free," and that this law constituted the fundamental basis of all legal organizations of men from the earliest periods.

Have you not seen the punishments Eternal Justice brought upon Rome for slaveholding? The same unbending law of the Almighty holds amenable at the dread bar the acts of the American people in respect to the just rights of three and a half millions of their own brethren. The liberties and rights of the whole people of America, black and white, are indissolubly united. That which sinks and destroys the one part, sinks and destroys the whole; that which exalts and secures one, preserves and ennobles all.

Greece, I have shown, had her noble sons who exposed
____________
^* Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth.—Milton's Prose Works, vol. 3, p. 403.

^† Discourses on Government, vol. 1, p. 330.

^‡ De Repub., lib. 8, apud Lactant, Inst. Div., lib. 6, cap. 8.

Ah, sirs! how great, how immense was the evil that afterwards involved Greece for this one sin of slave-holding—the greatest of all national curses!
____________
^* Isoc. Orat. de Permutat.

You oppose the doctrine of the preceding letter in regard to legislative power. So did the tories of England. The doctrine is based on the Law of Nature, and cannot be abrogated. The tories made war upon it, and labored to overthrow society in England in the time of the Stuarts [1603-1649; 1660-1688].

In the reign of George III. [1760-1820], the same impious school gained the control in the councils of the British nation, and at once commenced a crusade against liberty and right. The first purpose was to enslave the whig colony of Massachusetts, to break down her independent spirit, and cripple and stultify her energies. They had no idea that the Southern colonies would join with the North on whig grounds to opposte tory despotism, as the Southern colonies had been made up mostly of tory elements under the Stuarts [1603-1649; 1660-1688].

They knew that the Virginia House of Burgesses had been extremely strong in its tory principles under the Stuarts [1603-1649; 1660-1688], and had passed resolutions in favor of that execrable despot, Charles I. [1625-1649], and had secretly acknowledged the sovereignty of his banished son, (afterwards Charles II. [1660-1685]). They knew that the tory settlers of Virginia had always hated the colony of Massachusetts on account of her liberal principles and her free institutions.

Massachusetts had opposed slavery as "a vile and odious course." True, in 1637, in the reign of the tyrant, Charles I. [1625-1649], Massachusetts authorities were over persuaded to dispose of some captive "savages" by sending them to the West Indies. These were exchanged for "negroes and other merchandise," which were brought into the colony. They were the first slaves in New England.^*

One of these was a captive African princess. This fact became known through the colony. It excited great disgust when it was
____________
^* Winthrop's Journal. See Col. Amer. Stat. Assoc., vol. 1, p. 200.

Shortly after this, a number of African captives were landed in the colony and sold. The fact was brought to the knowledge of the general court [legislature], whereupon they resolved that,

Shortly after, Providence plantations and Warwick, passed acts against slavery.^§

Thus while anti-slavery principles—the fundamental principles of society—were being carried out in the Northern colonies by English whig settlers, the Southern colonies settled mostly by tories, were fastening upon the South fhat detestable system of robbery and oppression which is now sinking it beyond recovery.

Almost at the instant that the people of Massachusetts, through the general court [legislature], abolished the slavery which had but just been introduced, the tory lords of England established a constitution for the province of Carolina, in which they impiously declare that every free man of the colony shall possess "absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of
____________
^* Mass. Hist. Coll., 3d Series, v. 9, p. 2.

^† Coll. Amer. Stat. Assoc., voL 1, p. 200.

^‡ Ibid, vol. 1, p. 201.

^§ See Updike's Hist. Narraganset Church, p. 170 -174.

Shortly before this, and under the special favor of the Stuart despotism [1603-1649, 1660-1688], slavery had been introduced into the Catholic colony of Maryland, and under tory influence the Maryland Assembly enacted [a law], consonous [consistent] with the arbitrary and unjust rule at home, that

These [blacks] were not considered people, even though they might be Christians. They were a new species of animals—brute-Christians, not Christian people.

The professed purpose of the tory lords in establishing the colony of Carolina was "the propagation of the gospel among the heathen."^† They were [they claimed!] very zealous for religion. They had filled the prisons of England with such heretics as Richard Baxter, who had denounced slavery,^‡ and John Bunyan and Alleine.

The first act of missionary labor in Carolina was the introduction of negro slavery; the second was by King Charles himself—a gift to the knightly slavemaster-missionaries, of twelve pieces of cannon and military stores.^§ Tories from England flocked to this colony. They

and bartering them in the West Indies for Africans.

Thus was the gospel promoted by the tories among the heathen.

The pirates, too, came in for a share. This tory colony became a house of refuge to them, and a shelter from the storm. These high sea murderers and robbers were specially favored by the robber king. Patronized in the beginning, by him, knighted indeed, and honored for their
____________
^* Graham's Hist of the United States.

^† Boyman, Oldrnixon, Chalmers.

^* Graham's Hist. U. S.

^† Ibid. Also Bacon.

^‡ Clarkson's Hist. of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, vol. 1.

^§ Graham.

^|| Ibid.

The gospel of Christ, however, was scarcely at all preached in the colony [Carolina] till after the year 1695. The first time the ordinances of religion were administered, was in 1696, by some puritan missionaries sent into Carolina from Massachusetts.^† There were no school-houses, no meeting-houses—no legitimate society, no government of impartial justice. Everywhere was robbery, murder, ignorance, vulgarity, toryism, slavery.

It is hardly to be wondered at then, that the tory lords under George III. [1760-1820], had no expectation of rousing the opposition of the southern colonies when they, in connection with the king, struck at the old whig liberty of Massachusetts.

The contest commenced in 1761, in the town of Boston, in the old court-house, in the masterly speech of James Otis [1725-1783] against the Writ of Assistance. "Then and there," says John Adams, "American Independence was born."^‡

In opposition to tory despotism, both that of the lords of England, and that of the slavemasters, he [James Otis] proclaimed the natural freedom and equality of mankind. He boldly asserted the rights, not only of the white, but of the black man. He denounced African slavery, and urged such high-toned principles, as made Mr. Adams tremble when he thought of them.^§

Slavery had stolen in upon the puritan colony by evasion of the law, and by the aid of tory influence, so that at the moment Otis was speaking, slaves were advertized for
____________
^* See Graham.

^† Ibid.

^‡ See [William] Tudor's [The] Life of [James] Otis [of Massachusetts] (1823, reprinted, New York: Da Capo Press, 1970)].

^§ Ibid.

Then came the news of the stamp act. The spirit of alarm and of earnest inquiry flew abroad. It was seen that a regular system of oppression had been determined on by the tory power of the mother country. The question arose, how shall we remonstrate? What shall we say? We must declare that the supreme power has no right to make slaves of us. We have the right of British subjects. We are under the protection of the laws of the realm.

But it is impossible to assert the rights of any class to the exclusion of others. Our colonial charters make no difference between black and white colonists. If we appeal to the protection of the just laws of our ancestors, we cannot deny the protection of the same laws to all who are born under them.

English law cannot be allowed to protect the white, unless it be allowed to protect the black; for the law knows no color. All who are born in the English colonies, are born under the obedience, power, faith, liegealty, or liegeance of the king, and are natural subjects and not aliens, they are free born, and not slaves de jure and if slaves de facto, it is contrary to law.

Allegiance and protection are inseparable. There is a mutual bond of obligation.^§

^† Ibid, p 8. Also Regist. fol. 25, b. 26. 44, E. 3.

^‡ Coke's 7 Rep., p. 9.

^§ Ibid, p. 5.

^|| Ibid.

These legitimate principles of the English government were now to be trampled upon once more by the tory lords and the foolish king, they had secured to their interests. Blind and fool-hardy, they pressed their measures of despotism, as you, sirs, are at the present moment pressing your odious plans of tyranny, upon the American people.

In 1764, Massachusetts passed resolutions in which the rights of all the colonists were declared, without respect to rank or color. And James Otis [1725-1783], under the sanction of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, published his work on the Rights of the British Colonies, in which it was declared that

Speaking of a certain class of slaveholders, he says,

^† 20 H. 7, 8. Fortesque, c. 13. Acts of Parl. 10, R. c. 5, and 11. R. 2, c. 1. 14 H. 8, c. 2, &c.

^‡ See this work referred to, p. 29.

^§ Ibid.

^|| Ibid, pp. 29 - 31.

There was not an intelligent lawyer in the colonies, who did not at once perceive that, in advocating the rights of the British subjects in America against the claims of the tories of England, the equal rights of every native-born colored man, though held a slave, was also declared.

The Rhode Island whigs, and those of all the northern colonies, in taking part with Massachusetts in 1764, assumed this ground.

In Connecticut they declared^*

This made it illegal for any person born in the colonies, or within the realm of England, to be held a slave by the colonists, no matter what was his color, for the law had no knowledge of color or the shape of the nose. Hence the town of Boston, in their resolutions passed in 1764, declared that all the natural rights, guaranteed to the subjects in the kingdom, were guaranteed to the colonists, without respect to color, by the colonial charters. Hence James Otis, in behalf of Massachusetts, declared that

Now the revolution in England, in 1688, in overthrowing the tory despotism of the Stuarts [1603-1649; 1660-1688], ought to have been followed in the colonies with a revolution overthrowing slavery, inasmuch as slavery had been introduced into the colonies by the tories, under the tyrannical Stuarts [1603-1649; 1660-1688], against English law.

But, as already shown, the tories had settled the Southern colonies, and slavery was their darling offspring, which they would cherish, though it destroyed them, because they would rather die than labor for an honest livelihood.

The tories under George III., in forcing upon the colonies oppressive measures, forced the true men of America to look into the fundamental principles of the nation. There they found the old law of nature as the eternal basis of legitimate government. There they found that "by this immutable law all men are born free," and have an equal title to the protection of the civil power. There they found that slavery was at war with the charters of rights, and that they could lay no claim to the protection of the English constitution without allowing the equal and inalienable rights of those held as slaves.

Hence, St. George Tucker, a Virginia professor of law, and a judge in the General Court, declared that

^† Ibid, p. 37.

So Judge [James] Wilson [1742-1798], of Pennsylvania, a revolutionary patriot, declared

This was tested in Massachusetts, according to Dr. Belknap,^‡ a contemporary. Several cases were tried, according to this writer, and,

The latter, however, referred to questions of crime, and not to the trial of question of property in man. Judgment was rendered in favor of freedom.

Shortly after the favorable decision of the first case in Massachusetts, in 1769, the same question came up in the [1772] case of Sommerset, in England. When it was decided that, according to English law, negro slavery was illegal, and that it had no respect to the color of a man; that a slave, in short, could not legally exist under the British Constitution.

In view of all this, South Carolina, in 1774,

^† See Judge Wilson's Works on Law [Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804], vol. 2, p. 488.

^‡ See Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. 4.

The same resolutions had been passed over and over again in all the other colonies, North and South. This was, up to the year 1776, common whig ground of union between the colonies and the mother country:

• the authority of Magna Charta,

• the English common law,

• the Natural Law as the basis and fundamental law of the British realm,

• and the natural rights of the colonists, as acknowledged and guaranteed in the colonial charters.

All of these, however, toryism (both in the mother country and in the colonies) trampled upon and kicked aside. For the tory denied the authority of justice and the Natural Law, and scouted [ridiculed] the doctrine, that "by the law of nature all men are born free."

The Southern colonies, in uniting with the North on fundamental principles of English law, declared the illegality of Slavery. When the colonies were forced to abandon the protection of English law, being driven to this by the tories, who denied its authority and trampled upon the constitution, they were forced to plant themselves solely upon the Law of Nature, and declare themselves free and independent.

In assuming this independent position, it was impossible to avoid adopting the Law of Nature as the fundamental basis of the nation. America could have effected nothing for herself on the platform of tory principles. It was toryism—pro-slaveryism—that was at war with America, and demanded her unconditional surrender. There was no alternative, but to surrender to slavery—to pro-slavery power, or to take anti-slavery ground—the law of human rights—and defend their position as best they could.

Taking this ground of Natural Law, Southern slaveholders, who were sincere, would not only be ready to acknowledge the illegality and unrighteousness of slavery, but would condemn it, and be willing to adopt some certain method for its overthrow.
____________
^* See Hist. Revolu. South Carolina from a British Province to an Independent State. By D. Ramsay, M.D. 1786. Vol. 1, pp. 18, 19.

Hence, we find that, through the whole period of the revolution, and for several years after, not an instance can be found of a whig patriot justifying slavery. On the contrary, every one of them took occasion, in one form or another, to condemn this institution.

In a political work, published in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1784, the writer [Thomas Tudor Tucker (1745-1828)], in the very outset, declares that

This noble whig writer advocated "that the (constitution [of South Carolina] should be framed on principles of equal freedom, in order that oligarchal despotism might be prevented from assuming the control."^†

The tories however bore rule in that state. They were determined to perpetuate slavery. The few whigs who were true to principle were overwhelmed by the arts, corruptions, and despotism of wealthy nabobs who had secured the power in their own hands. Licentiousness, ignorance, tyranny, and degrading bondage were the characteristics to be seen everywhere.

Alluding to the unhappy state of things in that day, this writer says:

You, sirs, would do well to learn from this whig writer of South Carolina, the great mission of the American States. You will recollect that he spoke the sentiments of the true whigs of the Revolution.

^† Ibid, p. 27.

^‡ Ibid, p. 32.

The tories then pointed to Grecian and Roman slavery in justification of slavery in the American Republics. This southern whig would have them see that, slavery was the great rock on which those ancient Republic split. He would have them remember that the lessons of the past give a terrible warning to slave-holding despotisms.

That was the great fact that was pressed home to the hearts of the true patriots of those times. They felt that in breaking loose from all connection with European institutions—in becoming independent of the English government—in establishing civil institutions properly and truly American, every improvement should be made that the advantage of circumstances could allow.

The tories, or pro-slavery men, had no fellowship [respect] for these rational views. They lived only for themselves, and sought to turn government to their own account. Slavery was their darling institution; and though it resulted in the entire destruction of society, the total subversion of government, and the overthrow of morals and religion, they cared not, so long as it supported their luxuries.
____________
^* See work above cited p. 33.

TWO months and ten days after the Congress of 1776 had declared it to be a

the Massachusetts House of Representatives

This was the whig spirit of the revolution—it was the manner in which the whigs understood the grand movement of the nation. The tories who had stolen the livery of the whigs—who, in other words, had assumed the name of whiggery, secretly favored slavery, and made use of every possible stratagem to defeat and overthrow the liberal policy and principles of the revolution.

Hence, while the true whigs—the sons of Freedom—were laboring to destroy the institution of slavery throughout the American States, the impious tories under the guise of moderate whigs, labored to preserve and establish this system of robbery. It was through the influence of these false men, in the council of the Massachusetts General Court, that the above noble resolution was prevented from going before the world.

Congress, in 1774, had made a unanimous and solemn agreement, upon sacred honor,

The tories of the Northern States united with those of South Carolina and Georgia to defeat this effort to suppress the slave-trade. Jefferson complained of this shameful disregard of the congressional agreement, and declared that South Carolina and Georgia "never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves," and refers also to "Northern Brethren" who "had been pretty considerable carriers of slaves."^*

The tories in the North were anxious, as already observed, to preserve the institution of slavery. The men of this stamp in Massachusetts endeavored to prevent the introduction of that clause in the constitution, which declares the equal rights and liberties of humanity, because they knew that the whigs would make use of it for the abolitron of slavery in the Bay State.

A Constitution was framed and sent to the people in 1778. This instrument, by the artful management of certain influential tories, bearing the name of "moderate whigs," carefully left out the declaration of equal human rights,—the fundamental basis of civil association. The true whigs in the county conventions, exposed this trick, and the people rejected with scorn the miserable mockery which had been offered as a constitution.

Other conventions were called, and at last, in 1780, a form of constitution was framed and adopted, that gave freedom to the slaves in Massachusetts. It is worthy of remark, that the same principle upon which the slaves became free in this state, was the same, almost in the very expression, with that declared by Louis X. of France, in 1315, when he abolished slavery throughout his Kingdom; namely,

But you would have it, sirs, that "Jack Frost [cold weather] abolished slavery in Massachusetts," and not the constitution, not the fundamental law of civil society. That [the above] will answer now for tories to say.

Dr. Belknap, of Massachusetts, was written to in 1795 by Judge Tucker, of Virginia, inquiring
____________
^* Am. Arch. 4 se., vol. 1.

^† Madison Papers.

Furthermore, that the like clause incorporated into the New Hampshire constitution, three years after, was with the understanding, that all who were born of slave parents from the time of the adoption of the constitution were born free.^†

Thus without legislation, but by the fundamental law of society, acknowledged and adopted by the people of these two Northern states, slavery was abolished.

The same primal law was incorporated into every other American [state] constitution, except into that of South Carolina. She was too essentially toryistic, or Filmerean to take this step. She adapted, through her delegates, however, the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And moreover, on adopting a constitution, she did not, as she could not legally, incorporate any clause or word recognizing slavery, or the right of property in man. Such step would have been too infamous in those days.

I have said that the whigs of the revolution not only in declaring the principles of human right in opposition to the infamous claims of the tories, but also in establishing the state governments, took great pains to develop and unfold, as the eternal foundation of civil institutions, the grand Law of Nature. All the writers on government from the earliest periods, were ransacked, and all the writers on Natural Law. It was found that on no other point was there so universal an agreement as on this one—"that by the Law of Nature all men are born free," and that "by the Law of Nature all men are entitled to equal absolute rights."

There was found a diversity of expression, it is true; but in the one fundamental law of liberty there was no variation. The tory writers under the Stuarts [1603-1649, 1660-1688], and those of that period who favored the despotism of George III. [1760-1820] constituted the only school that denied this law.
____________
^* See Mass. Hist Coll., 1st Series, vol. 4, p. 204.

^† Ibid.

[Jean Jacques] Burlamaqui [1694-1748] had declared that

The same was declared by Chief Justice [William] Blackstone [1723-1780].^†

So [Samuel von] Puffendorf affirmed that

The "judicious Hooker" also declared the same principle in his "Ecclesiastical Polity"^§ in almost the exact words quoted above.

The "learned Grotius" also, in his work on "Peace and War,"^|| not only recognized the same principle as fundamental in civil association, but as absolute in morals, being a part and parcel of the immutable Law of Nature. This Higher Law—the foundation of all civil states—he found to have been universally acknowledged by poets, orators, historians, philosophers and jurists in all ages. These he quoted, he said,

It was this universal agreement which established it as a Law of Nature in all intelligent minds.

Then, referring to the numerous quotations he had made
____________
^* Burlamaqui's Natural and Political Law, vol. 1, c. 2, sec. 15.

^† Commen., vol. 1, p. 125.

^‡ See Puffendorf's Law of Nature and Nations, Oxford ed, 1710, p. 109. Puffendorf was a learned German civilian and historian, born in 1631. Burlamaqui was a German civilian, born in 1694. [Ed. Note: Burlamaqui became a Swiss official and Professor of Ethics and Natural Law, at Geneva. His Natural Law books were widely used as texts.]

^§ Hooker was born in 1554.

^|| De Jure Belli et Pacis. [Hugo] Grotius was born in Holland in 1583; was one of the profouudest men of the age.

So Horne, in his Mirror of Justice, written about the year 1275, says "According to the L»y of Nature all creatures ought to be free."^†

And Hughes, in his edition of the Mirror of Justice says, "Sure I am that every law, custom, usage, privilege, prescription, act of Parliament [Congress], or prerogative, which doth exalt itself above or beyond the . . . . Law of Nature, hath ever by the worthy sages of our laws been declared to be void."^‡

So the learned St. German, in the early part of the 16th century, declared that this

In "America's Appeal to the Impartial World," published in Hartford in 1775, the Law of Nature is thus declared:

^† See Mirror of Justice, c. 2, sec. 28.

^‡ See Hughes' ed. of Horne's Mirror of Justice, 1768. Address to the Reader.

^§ Doct. et Stud.

Neither the slaveholder nor the tory lords of England could show credentials for the first [approval by the Almighty], nor could they show that they had derived any right to rob and enslave by the consent of those they were disposed to victimize.

Nothing is more evident in American history than the fact, that, in establishing the nationality of America, the great and good men who took the leading part, recognized as the sole basis of the civil organization, the grand Law of Nature by which all men are entitled to freedom and equal rights—impartial justice. This appears in almost every act of Congress during the revolution, and in every State Constitution, from the extreme North to the borders of South Carolina.

The patriots, in writing and speaking of the purpose of the great contest, referred to it, not as a defence of the rights of slaveholders, as you do now, but the "rights of Human Nature." When Gen. Washington and Gen. Charles Lee came to Cambridge, in July, 1776, the people's delegates congratulated them as "the defenders of the rights of human nature; and they, in reply, acknowledge the compliment in the same terms.

To Gen. Washington they said,

To this Washington replied:

^† See the above noble work for much more besides.

To the Hon. Charles Lee, the Massachusetts Congress thus addressed themselves:

To which Gen. Lee replied:

In almost immediate connection with these addresses, we have an address of the General Congress to the army, in which the principles of pro-slavery men are held in detestation, and identifying the claims of the tory slaveholder with those of the tory ministry in England.

This is exactly the principle I have all along shown to

The General Congress, also, in its address to the people of Ireland, recognized the grand principle of the American revolution as that of the "right of human nature." So in the address to the inhabitants of Great Britain, the same is brought to view; and in the address to the inhabitants of Canada, Congress said:

Pennsylvania declared, through her delegates, that

This language they adopted from Burlamaqui; and furthermore, that,

The most abundant testimonies were cited by the whigs of the revolution on this point, against the tory doctrine of oppression. Thus [John] Locke [1632-1704]:

So Lord Camden, in defending the rights of the Colonies, declared,

Yet you, sirs, in this age, attempt to make us believe that our fathers intended to establish slavery and not liberty. You trample upon the sacred principles for which our fathers suffered. You scout [ridicule] and kick aside with contempt our free State Constitutions, and convert the Federal Government into a ruinous despotism.

You mock at our fathers; you libel our institutions; you overthrow trial by jury; you chain our court-houses, and convert them into slave-pens; and then, in derision, you call us "degenerate Greeks."

You deny, with the oppressors of Europe, that all men are, by the Law of Nature, born free, and created equal; and to support your system of robbery, you have converted the Federal Union into a slaveholding oligarchy. The people have felt your iron hand. It is enough. They are convinced that you, sirs, are their sworn enemies. You have roused them to battle for the right. They will know the truth, and the truth shall make them free.
____________
^* Ibid. This had been declared by Burlamaqui, of Geneva, in the forepart of the 18th century.

^† Locke on Civil Government, part 2, c. 5, § 27.

YOUR political school—the pro-slavery school of America—is identical in doctrine with the worst school of English tories. The time was, when, in this country, there was no respectable man who dared openly advocate your execrable theory, unless it might be in South Carolina. The principles of the American Revolution were directly opposed to the doctrines you now maintain. This I have already shown.

What the tories of the mother country advocated you now advocate. True, you do not claim the right to tax colonies at a distance, but

• you do assert the right to impose odious and oppressive measures upon free states;

• you do claim the right, through the general government, to trample out and annihilate our free institutions;

• you do pretend that whatever you can effect through the halls of legislation for strengthening the slave power at the expense of human rights, you have a right to effect;

• and we, miserable wretches! "degenerate Greeks!" as you call us, are bound to submit.

In short, there is not a fundamental principle of the constitutions of the free states, you do not as a political school attempt to annihilate.

Not only in your measures, but in your openly declared doctrines, you strike at the root of all free government.

There is not a constitution north of Virginia, whose fundamental principle is not the equal, absolute rights of human nature. But you deny the truth of this principle in toto.

• You call it a "chimera."^*

• You assert that mankind "never were equal" "nor was it intended," you say, "they ever should be."^†

• You declare that the doctrine of the "natural liberty and equality of mankind," is a "general and radical error among political and moral theorists."^‡

[South Carolina Senator John C.] Calhoun [1782-1850] in 1849 called this great [Declaration of Independence] truth, a lie.
____________
^* [John] Fletcher's Studies on Slavery [Natchez: J. Warner, 1852], p. 407.

^† Ibid.

^‡ See letter from [Governor] Henry A. Wise of Virginia to Dr. Adams of Boston. The like reproach is cast upon this constitutional principle by Drs. Lord, Blagden and other pro-slavery or tory writers.

In short, sirs, it is absolutely impossible for you to maintain pro-slavery principles without taking the impious course of the arch-tory, Sir Robert Filmer [1588-1653], and deny this fundamental principle of all legitimate society. It was a necessity for him. Why? He could not support the despotism of the Stuarts [1603-1649; 1660-1688] without denying that grand doctrine, which had always been held as the first principle of legitimate society, and which opposed itself as a barrier to tyranny and slavery.

Filmer found, on hunting among old writers, that this primal principle was advocated by the school-men, and this he brought up as a reproach against it. The whig [Algernon] Sidney [1622-1683] thus answered him:—

It is not strange that the man [Algernon Sidney] who was thus opposed to the tyranny of the tory party should be murdered [by Lord Chief Justice George Jeffries] for his defence of freedom. Your party, when in full power, has in all ages murdered those advocates of freedom and equality who were honest and bold enough to oppose your infamous libels upon human nature.

If you will examine Algernon Sidney's and John Locke's criticisms upon Filmer's "Patriarcha" you will see with what detestation those tory doctrines you advocate were then looked upon by the good and wise men of England.

Think, sirs, whose company you are keeping in occupying the ground you do in opposition to the fundamental law of society, and all legitimate government. You are with

nay, indeed, with all the execrable tories and tyrants of those periods of civil war, and robbery and murder.

"Mankind," they declared, "were not created equal and free. The masses of the people were created slaves, and the remainder to rule over them."^†

So the tories under
____________
^* Sidney's Discourses on Government [1680], vol. 1. p. 43.

^† See Locke on Civil Government [c. 1689], B. 1. c. 1.

The whig fathers of the revolution, taking the ground of Natural Law, asserted the natural freedom and equality of mankind. Nor could they take any other position against the British tyrants. They were forced to assert the first law of society—the self-evident truth that all men are created free and equal before God and in the eyes of just law.

Understand, sirs, what it is that renders revolution necessary. Is it not "a long train of abuses" on the part of the power that rules in the name of law? Is it not in consequence of the oppressive measures at war with society, forced upon the nation, and which must, if not resolutely resisted, result in the entire overthrow of the social state?

There never was a rebellion, says an ancient writer, unless tyranny was the cause of it. None but tyrants, robbers, and base men can deny the equal rights of mankind, for only such can have hearts base enough to allow themselves to declare war against the constitutional law of society. Our fathers, who were forced to resist the tory power of Great Britain, had all the old whig works in their hands,—those grand and masterly productions which the greatest and best minds of England had delivered on the subject of human rights—works written against those innovating despots and tyrants, who were determined to turn society upside clown, and establish absolute and perpetual slavery.

They quoted John Locke [1632-1704] who said, when battling against the infamous Filmer,

In 1774, the Hon. Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, published his noble work in defence of the colonies, in which he declares, "all men are, by nature, equal and free," and that "no one has a right to any
____________
^* See his Works on Law, &c., vol. 3, pp 205, 206.

So DeWitt Clinton [1769-1828], referring to the tory despotisms of the mother country, and the existence of slavey in the new world, asks:—

Alexander Hamilton [1755-1804], in 1774, in defending the action of Congress of that year against the outrageous charges of an American tory, said to him,

But you, sirs, scout [ridicule] this great truth, and take sides with the impious tories of the revolution. Must not every thinking American of the present day see, that to allow your school to control the nation, must inevitably result in its total ruin. If your doctrine subvert the fundamental law of all societies of men, how can American society endure under your crushing administration?

The law of human equality is written by the Almighty in the constitution of man. So said Hamilton, so said Franklin, so said Jay, so said Hancock, the Adamses, the noble Warren, and all the true whig patriots of the revolution. But you deny this doctrine, and take sides with the enemies of America, against the fathers of the revolution.

The House of Burgesses of Virginia, so early as 1765, acknowledged this fundamental law, in asserting the rights of the colonies, and it was afterwards incorporated into her constitution as the prime basis of civil association and government. Was that all mockery? It was effected in opposition to tory influence.

Pennsylvania, also, in 1765,

Massachusetts in the same year passed like resolutions, and indeed every other colony north of Virginia. So also the Committees from the several colonial assemblies, which met in New York on the 19th October of that year, (1765,) recognized the same eternal fundamental "law of liberty and equality."

Indeed, sirs, how can you escape the infamy which must attach to you from the fact that the doctrines you uphold, and the measures you urge are identical in spirit with those detestable princples and measures of the tories of our fathers' days.

You claim that a part of mankind were born to be the slaves of a privileged class. You assert that you have a right to appropriate the hard earnings of unfortunate men to your own use. In other words, you, as the tories, claim the power of taxing certain classes of men without their consent, and without allowing them any honest representation in your councils. This is toryism complete.

One hundred and nine days after Warren had uttered that declaration against slavery, he fell a noble martyr in its defence on Bunker Hill. Yet some of you boast that you will one day stand upon that spot with your slaves.

It was a whig principle, adopted from the fundamental law of human rights, that

The constitutional convention held in Ipswich, 29th April, 1778, declared that the benefits of government are greater or less,

^† Ibid, B. 2, c. 5.

^‡ Harrington's Works, 3d ed., Lond. p. 11.

When the Massachusetts constitution was adopted in 1780, as already hinted, the declaration that all men are born free and equal, was incorporated, "not merely," says Dr. Belknap, "as a moral or political truth, but with a particular view to establish the liberation of the negroes on the general principle, and so it was understood by the people at large."^†

Thus was it recognized in Massachusetts on the adoption of her constitution that

[James] Harrington [1611-1677], who uttered the above, [elsewhere] represents [describes] an illegitimate or bastard government, to be

Such a system was not to be permitted; the people were bound to resist it, and overthrow it. And what other is your pretended government, but just this system of bastardy; an oligarchy of slaveholders, which the American people in the name of equal justice, and the rights of humanity, are bound to overthrow. There is not a free state constitution you have not trampled upon.

The people are therefore bound to rout your whole force; for

^† Massachusetts Hist. Coll., 1st Series, vol. 4. p. 208.

^‡ Harrington's Oceana [1656]. See his Works, 3d Ed. 1767. p. 37.

^§ Ibid, pp. 517, 520.

I have already shown that your system of slavery is worse than that of the barbarians of Europe in the early periods of the Christian Era.

François Guizot [1787-1874] says,

But your nepotism denies this principle, and makes the life of those you hold as slaves, and of those who oppose slavery, of little more worth than the life of a dog.

You traduce and villify those, who, like the true whigs of '76, are the firm friends of freedom, and the advocates of equal human rights. This is to be expected. But that you should be permitted to impose the most odious enactments upon the people in the name of law, in order to support a system of oppression which is contrary to law, and justice, is a degradation to which the people of America cannot submit without overwhelming their own institutions with floods of corruption and disgrace.

That “slavery is condemned by reason and the law of nature” has been decided even by the Supreme Court of Mississippi.^‡

The whigs of the American revolution, as already shown,
____________
^* Burlamaqui, part 4, c. 1, § 4.

^† Guizot's Hist. Europe, Civil, p. 81. Amer. ed., 1838.

^‡ This declaration was given in 1818. See Walker's reports of cases &c., p. 42. Fletcher, the tory advocate of the South, a renegade Northerner, says of this [honest] decision of the Mississippi court, it is "a false and suicidal assertion, most unnecessarily and irrelevantly introduced." See Fletcher's Lessons on Slavery, p. 392.

^§ Sheridan before the House of Lords in 1787, in the trial of Sir Warren Hasting. Baron de Wolf advances the same principle. See Observat. sur le Traite du Droit de la Nat. de m. 1763.

The distinct and emphatic manner in which the doctrine of equal human righte was stated in its opposition to slavery, at that period, has already been shown. And here I may add the words of one of the leading whigs of Connecticut in that era:

The same author speaking of the state of the public mind on the subject of slavery at that period says:—

Thus, it is seen by a contemporary writer and one of the most learned men of New England, that in the year 1783,
____________
^* See Effects of Slavery on Morals and Industry. By Noah Webster, 1788.

^† Ibid p. 5.

From what I have shown, then, it is evident that slavery is wholly illegal. It has always been illegal. It was contrary to law in Greece, in Rome, in all the nations of Europe during the middle ages. It was abolished as illegal—as a monstrous sin—as at war with legitimate society and government.

Negro slavery was set up by a corrupt papal power. It was sanctioned only by the despots of Europe in opposition to the law of civil society. It was introduced into the South, solely under the favor of tory despotism.

The English law condemned it. Positive law could never be made to sanction it.

It [slavery] exists at the present moment in the South against law. The civil power of the Southern states—what civil power there is—has never been able to establish this infamous institution.

This [lack of legal basis for slavery] has been acknowledged by Senator [James M.] Mason, of Virginia.

Yet you pretend that slavery is sanctioned by the Federal Constitution. You say that our fathers in adopting that instrument, established slavery, and bound themselves and their children, and their children's children to support it. Infamous libel!—Has it not been shown that that is not law, that is not just? That that cannot bind that does not justly oblige?—that government, as ordained of God and instituted by the people, is for the protection of the absolute rights of human nature?—that, for government to attempt to establish slavery, is to abrogate itself, and to commit suicide?

Your theory then abolishes government, overthrows society, makes war upon the people, sets up despotism, crushes
____________
^* See Mason's Speech in the U. S. Senate 19th Aug. 1850 [Cong Globe, 31^st Cong, I Sess, App, pp 1583-1584].

Our [founding] fathers established and nationalized slavery!—Shame—eternal infamy to that name which lends its sanction to that impious libel! They legalize slavery? Look to it, sirs! The time has come when this falsehood shall rebound upon your own heads. The whigs of the revolution knew and declared that no legal power on earth could sanction slavery.

The American government de jure, on its establishment, could not be less than equal in its institutions, equitable in its fundamental principles. De jure, it could not then sanction slavery. And what it could not effect de jure, it had no authority for effecting de facto. On the contrary, as the government was legitimately founded on equal justice, it was de jure anti-slavery; inasmuch as justice is opposed to injustice. For if equal justice was not its fundamental law,—then it was not a government de jure, but something else de facto. If then the constitution, as you assert, sanctions slavery, it is bastard and not legitimate. For no legitimate constitution of government can sanction that which de jure et de facto is at war with government.

You, then, in asserting that the Constitution of the United States sanctions slavery, assert that the government of the United States is bastard—that it has no legal foundation—that the legal bond of union between the states is a rope of sand. For no one is bound by a compact that is unjust. Every one is indeed bound to tear it in pieces and scatter its atoms to the winds.

Your theory then overthrows the American Union. It denies the American government. It sets up despotism, makes war on society, annihilates law, abolishes justice, tramples upon all free institutions [civil and constitutional rights and liberties], and enslaves the people.

If the present Federal Constitution is what you assert in respect to slavery, it is opposed to the principles of the revolution. It takes sides with the tories. It is a tory instrument and not whig. It is a cheat upon the people—an impious imposition, which the people of the present generation are bound to destroy in order to preserve themselves and their institutions.

Your theory makes civil power at war with human rights, whereas civil power is bound by the law of its existence to preserve human rights. That is not civil power that requires the rendition of an innocent man to slavery, but a power at war with civil government, at war with society, which mankind are bound to resist, as they are bound by the law of nature to preserve the rights of nature—the institutions of society—the liberties of mankind.

Your theory is at war with the fundamental laws of all the free states. Every pro-slavery advocate in the free states, as much commits treason against the states governments of the North, by advocating his theory, as the silly Dr. Manwarring did against the government of England when he advocated the divine right of Charles I. to tax the English people without their consent. Every state—the people of every commonwealth, are bound to preserve their own constitution. There can be no legal power in the general government that can abrogate the fundamental laws of the states. For it is only by virtue of those fundamental laws that every state is a free commonwealth.

The rights of human nature constitute the fundamental principle of every legitimate civil society. The people have no power—no right to abandon this law under any circumstances. They are bound to resist every invading power that comes in to destroy or to trample upon it. To allow of such invasion is infamous treachery to society. It is a degradation to which only degenerate men—beastly cowards, and traitors can be supposed willing to submit to. The only salvation for our free institutions is in the union of all the true sons of freedom on the fundamental law of society, and a manly and determined resistance to your infamous despotism.