The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-12-17

mtsSlol paper
"Who are the Quakers to whom Mr.. FISHER
refers Is it not known to every intelligent
mind, that no class of men in the Union are
more ayerse, not to say hostile to the Institution
of slavery, than the Quakers? that anti-slavery
is almost part of their religious creed? that
their opposition to the insti ution is so deeply
rooted, that the name of Quaker is synonymous
almost with an anti-slavery man that many of
them are the most ultra AbClitonsts in the
land! These things will not be denied by any
man who values his reputation for veracity.-
Yet, MIR. FISHER admits that he is as much OPP
posed to slavery as any of them, and hopes to
vindicate himself before the Southern people by
the fact that he advocated the annexation of
Texas with the institution of slavery therein.
Ii that single fact exculpat him, there are
thousands of Abolitionists throughout the free
State who might vindicate themselves in the
same way-they, too, advocated the admission
of Texas!
But says Mr.. FISHER, this paragraph is part
Of an article written in reply to writer in the
Louisville Journal, under the signature of Jus
tee" who had attacked his lecture on the North
and the South-which article was written at the
Fauquier Springs, Virginia, about the time that
he was honored with an entertainment by the
members of the Virginia legslaturer We
should, indeed, like to know what bearing all
that has upon the paragraph, or how i, relieves
it Of the obnoxious declaration that he was as
much opposed to slavery as any of the Quakers {?
Drowning men catch ut strawa,' and Mr.. FISHER
will find that neither the waters of the FauQuier
Springs, nor the entertainment of the Virginia
legislature, can purge the pare graph of its strong
anti slavery principles.
Mr. Fisher admits and avows the obnoxious
sentiment charged upon him, even by his own
version, and yet lie assumes, through the columns
of the " Southern Press" to advise Southern
shareholders to dissolve the Union to preserve
the institution, and has the cool impudence to
cenounce as "submissonsts," all those who do
not acquicsce in the views which he has 80 re-
Gently embraced.
Yes, Southern men, this is the man. Ewood
Fisher, whom the exclusive friends" Of the
South have selected from among all the distin-
guished men of the Union, to vindicate Southern
institutions, through the columns of the South
erm Pres" notwithstanding the ink is but just
dry with which he proclaimed " that he was as
much opposed to slavery, or rather to the cause
oft, as any Of the Quakcrs..'
We don't know whether the dulncss of the
Chronicle d Sentinel is real or assumed: but
it answers the purpose Of the editor much better
than any faculties of perception or deduction
that he may happen to have. lie is the only
commentator we have found in the papers or
out of them, that arrives at the inference he
makes.
In the letter we wrote from Fauquier, we at
tempted to show that slavery was founded on the
moral inferlority of one race to another. This
we believe, is the argument generally employed
in its favor by those who know anything about
it. We said that slavery was an alienation and
corrective of that moral inferiority. This is not
we suppose, an anti-slavery sentiment. But, we
also said immedi .tely afterwards, that we were
as much opposed to slavery or the cause of it,
as anybody else JEFFERSON, the Quakers or the
Abolitionists Now, what is the cause Of it?
Moral inferiorily. Is it wrong to be opposed to
moral inferiority-to desire it to b. reformed or
not, and if whilst there is this moral inequality
between races, it is proper and right for one to
be the master, then we were right.
We held then that, whilst the moral inequality
existed slavery not only right, not only bene-
fetal, but that is was inevitable. We hold with
Scripture that, sin is slavery, with philosophers
that vice is slavery, with poetry that he only is,
"a freeman whom the truth makes Free
The essence ofsAvcry then is moral depravity,
Is it wrong to oppose that!
The difference between ourselves and JET
PERSON, the Quakers and Abotionists, is, that
they hold African slavery to be creature OF
law, and existing only by the will Of the master,
and therefore a sin of the master, whilst We hold
that it is the result, the necessity OF the moral
condition Of the black, and that no law, no mas
ter, can make freeman out Of one whose qnal-
tiles are those Of slave, He may be emanci-
patcd nd coonized, or he will yet be Il slave 10
his own vices, he will not enjoy as much of the
comforts Of life of real liberty, rs whilst his i'll
dustry and his appetite are regulated by SUI
perior race.
AS for tic attempt to question the orthodoxy
of our views or our consistency. on slavery be-
fore the Southern people, it is rather too s|.al-
low an eypedent for submissionist, to es-
cape the odum of deserving Southern rights.
No argument on that subject has ever been re-
ceived in the South with more satisfaction with
more cordially, with more unanimity, than ours.
1t has never been attacked with any success
The passage referred to by the Chronicle has
never been attacked by any body but the Chron-
icie and Sentinel and that attack is 80 hmsv
that we are almost ashamed of taking this much
notice of it.
AS for the reference made by the Sentinel to
our course in Cincinnati on the Texas qucs-
ton, it is quite characteristic Of the paper. We
stated that we then, in 1928, took the same
grounds on The slavery question that acre after
yards taken in The lecture Of ls4S, and referred
to it 10 show the improbability Of the story that
we were an abolitonst five years ago
The Chronicle refers to it as mere support n
Annexation which many Abolitionists were in
favor of! But enough of this. We have shown