The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-05-04
From the Anti Slavery Lecturer.
.tertment! Happinessi Kind treatment


But the slaves are so reiterated they are
so contented they are so happy they are SO
ardently attached to their masters that they would
not be free if they could; and it is the height OIL
impertinence for the aboitionists to ntermedde so
officiously in their behalf"'
So say thousands, in high places and in low
And what if the statements they make were all
true? Would there be any soundness in the con-
illusions that are drawn from them By no means
Saveholding is sin 1t is an invasion of hu-
man rights. 1t is a transgression of the diUine
law, by which those rights are protected. Can
the kind treatment, the contenment, or the hap
piness, or the friendly attachments of the slaves
atone for the sin of the masters? What pernen-
cy be found in the logic that would dsprove
the sin of one man by alleging the happiness Of
another?
Savehodng is a fragrant breach of the first
commandments the fifih-of the seventeen
the eighth-of the tenth 1t usurps the preroga-
tives of God; it denies the free agency of man
it degrades an immortal soul to a thing; it bots
out the family relation; it forbids family govern
ment and parental discipline; it herds men and
women together like brutes it robs the laborer of
his last dues; itcovets and seizes upon that which
belongs to another What has the kind treatment,
or the happiness, or the contentment Of the slave
to do with the merits Of such a system-or with
the duty of its overthrow
Your neighbor seizes your whole estate, and
converts it to his own use. In other respects, he
treats YOU, ever afterwards, with marked kindness
but he restores not your property. Does his kind
ness cancel his crime? Is it at the expense of in
PRODUCING such system of ethics, that abolition
lists are to be conIuted?
A pickpocllet pliers your purse of gold. He
contrives methods to keep you ignorant of your
loss, or to amuse and satisfy you with worthless
baubles. Can your ignorance or your content
men take away the guilt of his thef!9 Can it al
ter the fact that he is robber
Abolitionists have never said nor supposed that
no acts of kindness towards the slaves are ever
put forth by their masters. What they say is, that
SLAVERY constitutes no part Of that kindness
That system, they say is coil and only evil, from
its foundation to its top stone. Can this statement
be dsproved by the fact that in spite of the cruel
system, some kindness may remain in the breast of
the stakeholder, and be extended 10 the slave p
The STAKEHOLDER is man, and God has put into
every mans constitution those cords and fbres
which cannot but vbratc, whether he will or no,
and which no system of iniquity has been able,
perhaps, wholly to annihtate. Look over the
slave code. Ponder the several parts of the sys-
TEN, and tell if you can, what part of it is good ;
what part of it is benevolent what part of it tends
to beget kindness, or secure the happiness OF the
slave If men can be kind in spite of it, the cred
it belongs not to the system.
1t is the Saue system against which abolitionists
contend. They have never made it question Of
regiment. And accordingly they have never ex-