Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1846-01-15
r liz FREE M N.
For the Green Mountain Freeman.

For the Green Mountain Freeman.
MEssRs. EDIToRs.-Tbe object of this is to review
a few sentiments and expressions of your worthy cor
respondent, Klah Bailey, in the freeman of Dec. II.
My apology, if any be needed, may be found in the ap-
pended note, requesting special publicity and discus
sion.
In Q previous number he had attempted to prove,
from the example of Israel, retaining the goods they
had borrowed of the Egyptians, by divine direction,
that any slave, fleeing from his oppressor, would be
justified in taking from him pay for his past services;
and that on the ground that all the commands of God
are founded in equity. To this l will just say, in
passing, 1 ESQ, by parity Of reasoning from the commits
stoned conquest of Canaan by Israel, we may Justify
wars Of aggression, conquest and determination. But
an attempt to establish an abstract principle from II
concrete case, is hazardous in the extreme, and may
never be done until we can enter fully into all the cir
cumstances that come in to make up the case. Be-
side, God has an underivcd right to all creatures and
things, and may set up one and pull down another by
such means as he sees ft--yet the example would not
necessarily Justify similar acts in his creatures. But
took the pen to reply to his argument that the
law Of natural Justice leads to the same result" Here
| shall readily acknowledge the correctness of his po-
sition, "The laborer is worthy of his reward" and as
readily admit, also, that the slave is under no moral oh
legation to respect that law, which, instead Of affording
protection to his person, and his dearest interests,
makes them the prey of others. However Just and
however obligatory the laws of a slave State may be,
in their operations between the free denizens of the
State, on that portion of The community who haze pev-
or sanctioned thcm by their consent, and for whose
benefit or security they make no provision; but who, on
the contrary, are themselves made prey to other en-
actmonts they have, in equity, no more binding moral
force than the confederacy of a lawless banditti or
gang of robbers has on their victims.
And though much ingenious and learned Comment
has been expended on the passage, "The powers that
be are ordained of God to make it inculcate subordi-
nation to irresponsible despotic power, can but regard
the whole a libel on the Bible. The grand principle
that lies at the foundation of all civil government, re-
~cognized, alike, by scripture ard moral sense, is this;
Governments derive their just power from the consent
of the governed"
Among the great variety of governments the consent
may be more or less distinct, and, consequently, the
moral obligation be more or less immediate. But Mr..
B. says, "The slave, so long as he submits to the
power ofhis oppressor, should do faithfully the service
ASSIGNED HIM; but when he has a reasonable prospect
of regaining his liberty, and resolves to be free, his
relations to his oppressor change at once, and he may
leave his service without his consent" Here the re-
lation of the master to the slave is justly expressed by
A. 41w, Nonr.oc-o-3 H,d 7 oorG,ss I co, M oh
legation to faithful service, on the part of the slave,
growing out of this relation. Nor can | see how a
reasonable prospect of escape, and a resolve to make
the trial, should change the moral relation s~ubsisting
between them. Mr.. B. inquiries, after repeating the
Justice Of the slaves claim, "Why may he not, in such
case claim and take bis Just due, kept from him by his
oppressor?' ! answer, because the identical property
is not his own! He has no right to pass judgment ad-
verse to another and in his own favor. Certainly none
to enter the possession of his antagonist to execute
such Judgment. Again: he says, "The man who
strikes for liberty is, by that very act, thrown back into
a state of nature, behind all constitutions and human
enactmeats. Why so? Are not his natural and inhe-
rent rights, first and last, the same? Again, he says,
Gle is g nation by himself and if any nation may take
the property of an enemy who has injured them, so
may he" Here I admit the process of reasoning, but
dispute the premises. Pursuing, however, the same
course, he adds, "Every man, while in a state of ma
ture, may ~retaliate on.any one who has taken away his
property or killed his relative" "rhe law of retalia-
ton is founded in equity and repeatedly sanctioned by
divine authority" 1.-THE rule is a good rule" &c
Here we meet what I regard his fundamental error.
And however popular the sentiment, as applied to ma
tons may have been among the great; and however
distinctly asserted in the codes Of International law, Z
deny the right of any man, or of any set Of men, in a
corporate capacity, to seize upon the possession of an
adverse party, or to infict punishment on another at
discretion, for abuses received. A pretence to such
a right must necessarily clash with the rights Of others.
"May ~retaliste on any one who takes away his proper
ty or kills his %relativey" "The rale good rnle2" Let
us once test it by another good rule. "By their fruits
ye shall know them, The long array of war which
dyes the history of our world with blood, with all its
multiform horrors and devastation, is but The legitimate
fruit of this sentiment. 1t lies at The foundation Of that
deliberate mania, where "rage for plumber makes a
god;D oand bloodshed can wash out every other STAMP
Do men gather grapes Of thorns or figs Of thistles?-
wThe law Of retaliation founded in equity and repeat
edlv sanctioned BY divine authority What did Christ
say on this subject Matt. 5: as. "Ye have heard that
hath been said, thou shalt love thy n%eighbor andhotc
thine enemy. But | say unto you, love your enemies
do good to them'that hate you. What did PauI write5