The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 184?-1851, 1845-01-15
Executive DEPARTMENT.,
South Carolina. June 81. lS44

FIA hENA
South Carolina, June 81, 1914.
SIR: The last post brought me your comrnuni-
cation, accompanying the memorial of the Pres
bytery Of the Free Church Of Glasgow, in behalf
of John l.. Brown. convicted in this State Of aid.
ing a slave in escaping from her master, and SELL
fenced to be hung in April last. 1t will be gra-
flying to you, seeing the interest you have taken
in the matter, to learn that | have pardoned Brown.
In consequence of representations made to me
in December last by Judge O'Neill, speaking for
himself and the judges Of the court of appeals,
| committed his punishment 10 thirty-nine lashes.
Facts, not known to the jury nor 10 the Judges,
were afterwards brought 10 my knowledge, which
satisfied me that Brown had no criminal design
in what he did; and in the month Of March |
transmitted TO him a full pardon. | was not at
all aware at that time of the great interest taken
abroad in behalf Of one whose case ! had never
heard mentioned here, except on the occasion re-
ferred TO; and | was astonished to find myself
overwhelmed soon after with voluminous petitions
for his pardon from the non-slaveholding States
of this Union; and 10 perceive that his sentence
was commented on, not only in the English news
papers, but in the English House of Lords
The latest, and, | trust, last communication to
me on the subject, is your memorial.
The interference of foreigners, or any persons
beyond eur boundaries, in the execution of the
municipal laws of a sovereign, State, even if in
respectful terms, is certainly a violation of all
~propriety and courtesy; and, if carried to any ex-
tent, must become wholly intoleroble. | pass
that by, however. The law under which Brown
was convicted, was enacted during our colonial
existence, and is emphatically British law. !
~pardoned him, not because | disapproyed the law,
but because ! did not think he violated it. 1t
would be the most absurd thing in the world TO
recognize by law a system Of domestic slavery,
and yet allow every one TO free, not merely his
own slaves, but those of his ncigbbor, whenever
instigated to do so by his own notions Of propri-
ETY., his interest, OF his caprice. What sort of
security would we have for property held on such
terms as these? You cunnot but perceive, that
to permit others to take our slaves from us at
pleasure with IMMUNITY, would amount TO a total
abolition of slavery. There would be no real
difference between this, and allowing the slaves
to go free themselves. Your Prcsbytery, and all
the petitioners for Brown, and agitators of his
case, must have seen the matter in this light;
and it is attribut;ng to us but a small share of
common sense TO suppose that we would not take
the SAINT view of it ourselves.
Whether death should be inflicted for such an
offence is another question. We have modified
in a great degree the sanguinary code of law
left us by our British ancestors; but we have not
gone the length which some philosophers, both
here and in your country, would have all govern
ments to go-of abolishing the punishment Of
death.
Nor do | believe the success your government
has met with in cndeavoring to diminish crime
by abolishing punishment in so many cases, will
encourage them TO press the matter much farther
at this time. Considering the value Of the slave
the facility of seducing him from his owner
the evil influence which frequent seduction might
exercise on an institution, the destruction Of
which must speedily and inevitably strike from
the roll of civilized States nearly the whole slave
holding section Of this country, as it has already
done St. Domingo and Jamaica; and the enthusi-
astic and reckless enemies Of this institution with
which we arc surrounded, it seems to- me that il
any offence affecting property merits death, this
is one.
Your memorial, like all that have been sent to
me, denounccs slavery in the severest terms; as
" traversing every law of nature, and violating
the most sacred domestic relations, and the pri-
mary rights Of man." You and your Prosbyrory
are Christians. You profess to believe, and nc
doubt do believe, that the laws laid down in the
Old and New T~estamcnts for the government Of
man, in his moral, social, and political relations
were all the direct revelations Of God himself
Does it never occur to you, that in anathemati-
zing slavery, you deny this divine sanction OF
those laws, and repudiate both Christ and Moses
or charge God with downright crime, in regula.
ting and perpetuating slavery in the Old Tesla.
ment, and the most criminal neglect, in not only
not abolishing, but not even reprehendiDg it, in
the New?
If these Testamens came from God, it is i'm.
possible that slavery can "traverse the laws Of
nature, or violate the primary rights of NAM
What those laws and rights really are, mankind
have not agreed. But they are clear to God and
it is ~blasphemous for any of His creatures to sci
up their notions of them in opposition 10 His i'm,
mediate and acknowledged revolution.
Nor does our system of slavery outrage the
most sacred domestic relations. Husbands and
wives, parents and children, among our slaves
are seldom separated, except from necessity Of
crime. The same reasons induce much more
frequent separations among the white population
in this, and, | imagine, in almost every othcl
country.
But | mako bold TO say that the Presbytery o.
the free church of Glasgow, and nearly all the
abolitlonists in every part of the world, in de.
nouncing our domestic slavery, denounce a thing
of which they know absolutely nothing--nay
which does not even exist. Vow weep over the
horrors Of the middle passage, which have cea
! sed, SO far sg We are concerned and over pic