The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-07-14

and il must be admitted tha' IL - ooS'ei "
eide before both sides are heard. Whether the
decision is likely to be correcti is another thing
Mr.. B. laws down some principles which If car
ried out would inevitably cad to the extinction
Of slavery in Kentucky; and yet his articles are
referred TO BY pro-slavsry men as q triumphant
vindicatiOn of the system Of slavery. am
anxious for his pro-slavery friends to see that II
those principles were acted ont, Emancipation
would take place. But they do not wish TO be
troubled with anti-slavery notions, and the Edi-
tor Of the Banner Is resolved that they shall not
be so troubled.
Messrs. Editors, throw myself on your
clemency. With all respect,
J. NJ. PENDLEToN.
LETTERI.
Rev. WIN. c. BUCK:
Dear Sir: have read with deep interest the
articles on slavery recently published in your
paper. have aimed 10 bestow upon them the |
impartial consideration requisite to a proper |
decision Of a controvertsd question. tits graft
flying to me to be able to say that much of what
you have written receives my hearty endorse
msnt. Some of your views think objectiOna-
BILE, and my saying so will, am sure, give you
no offence. You prize the privilege of think
ing for yourself too highly to refuse to accord
ii to others. Freedom of thought and freedom
of speech are, in American estimation, two
rights Of incalculable value. ~
viii you, in your kindness, permit me to no.
tice few of the positions you have assumed
II my communications are not perfectly re-
spectful, hereby authorise you TO commit them
TO the flames And lest you may be disturbed
by the apprehension that shall draw too large
ly on your columns, | low state that do not
expect to write more than three or four sheets.
Ii is proper, also, for TO say, that but for my
absence from home, and other circumstances,
you would have heard from me at an earlier day.
perceive from your first article, that you
have fallen into a very common but, as | con-
ceive, unaccountable error. You refer to the
and on this account you are disposed 10 leave it
"to the political press" Suffer me cOurteOusly
but emphatcally to dissent from this opinion.
If any question more deeply and vitality invOlv-
ing morals and religion ever came before the
voters of Kentucky, have yet to learn the
fact. According to the Constitution and laws
of the State, Shareholders can, whenever they
please, sever the marriage tie as it exists among
slaves. You will say that slave marriages
not lsgalissd- This is true. but the absence OF
legal tie binding the parties together, only
stamps with greater odium the cruelty which is
allowed to sunder the moral tis-the only tie
that unites them. Slave-owners, too, have the
power, cOnstitutionaIly and legally conferred,
OF booming to hopeless separation, slave pa
rents and children. And this is not all. Mas
tiers and mistresses can, If SO disposed, prevent
their slaves from ever learning to read the BIZ
bic, or from hearing the gospel preached. They
can keep them in profound ignorance Of God
and salvation. Shareholders in this Common
wealth are the depositaries Of this fearful power
On them Is conferred this terrible prerogative
But you will perhaps say that the exercise Of
this power is an abuse of slavery, and that good
men do not avail themselves Of their legal right
to use it. This view Of the case is, know,
entertained by some, and it is an anOdyne to
their consciences. But let us look at it, To
what does il AMOUNT Evidently to this-thai
our Constitution and laws confer power which
good men will not exert, and, therefore, its ex-
erclse is restricted to bad men. This fact OF
itself, supplies an argument of transcendeni
force in favor of taking away the power. III
good men will not exercise il, bad men should
not be allowed TO do so. This is as plain as the
sun in the heavens.
| In view Of considerations like these, how
can the question of slavery be considered
"purely political one7'' If morals and religion
are not in inseparable association with it in
some of its most important aspects, it would re-
quire some reflection to fix on a subject in
which they are involved. | am aware that
misrepresentation of this matter has caused
many politicians and political editors to pour
upon the heads Of the anti-slavery preachers
of Kentucky torrents of gratuitous abuse and |
super1uous denunciation. trust, however,
that the ministers who are numbered among
Emancipationists will exempIify the meekness
Of their Master, and like Him pray, "Father
forgive them: they know not what they do"
If preachers should not take an interest in a
subject which has a most important bearing on |
morality and religion, | ask, what topics should
engage their attention and call their energies
into actionl But l need not elaborate this
point. You in your first article admit what
contend for. Speaking Of christian voters Won
say, "Their views Of it 1.-THE question of slayeryl
in a religious point of light, will necessarily
have paramount control over their action as
members of the body polite" This, I affirm,
should be the case. Religious considerations
ought to have paramount CONTROL in deter
mining the votes Of Christians. Again Won
say, "The subject is one of great moment in
its moral, social and political bearings, cousid-
cred either in reference to the slaves. their
owners, or the country" Here also are we
agreed. I insist, therefore, in view of vour
own statements, that IL is an unfair presenta.
ton of the subject to represent 1t as ga purely
political one." Many professors of religion, /
know, speak Of 1t az II ii were on level with
"tariffs," irrational banks" &c.; and this to
me IL a source Of profound modification The