The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-03-24

The fact that we hold him and his pos
terity as our property, our slaves, is the
plainest. the most positive denial of any
such a relation. l grant, for the sake of
argument, that "slavery is consistent
with Christianity" Now what are some
of the consequences? This one, evident
", I" that we may set aside this relation
which we sustain to our fellow-man and
be consistent Christian. And now,
friend Ker, il We can set one Ged-or-
dained relation aside, why not both?
And if both may be set aside, then
what precept, what Divine command do
we violate, should we riot on the rights
of our neighbors, laugh at the claims of
God upon us, and sneer at the idea of
moral distinction =? / knowof none. The
key that unlocks one door to me, permits
me to roam lawiess throughout the moral
universe of God. 1t is evident that
Christianity recognizes the natural REID
ton, which man sustains to his fellow
man, as one of the pillars on which it
rests, while the complete overthrow of
that same relation is essential to the very
existence of American slavery. Then
do we not utter truth, when we say,
that If slavery is consistent with Chris
| tianity, !" is right, then there is no such a
thing as Christianity; for the obvious
reason that the existence of the former
implies the destruction of the latter.
tmay be difficult for persons who are
accustomed to getall their theology from
the scholastic ages, to perceive the SYM
nietrieal prominence which we assign to
the natural relation which man sustains
to his fellow-man; but the student of
Christ and the Apostles will readily con-
meet all the precepts, commands, and or
dinances of religion with one or the 9TH
er of these two grand relations of life.
Our Leavenworth friend would have
us believe that we may strip man of all
his rights, all his time, all his property,
all his money, all his talents, as his pow
ers of soul and body, and yet be acting
the part of consistent Christian p and
yet he would charge you with injustice
were you to Withhold from him the price
of one days toll. He would claim it, too,
on the basis of his natural rights, his
right to enjoy the proceeds of his own toll.
1t is because man comes from the plastic
hand of his Maker a freeman, which gives
him just claim on another for the pro-
ceeds of his own toll. To suppose that
a man is born without being freeman,
is monstrosity which involves the ludi-
crous assumption that he IS and IS not a
man. l cannot conceive of a man with
out including IN that conception the ideas
lof completeness, individuality, personal
Consciousness, personal identity, person.
al responsibility, and all those properties
which are essential TO his existence unit
ed.
If he belong to species which we
call man, all the distinguishing proper
ties and rights which appertain to that
species naturally belong TO every single
individual of that species. If he possess
not the natural properties and rights, he
is not man. And the fact that he is an
, individual man is the best evidence in
, the world that he naturally possesses all
the properties andFights which appertain
TO the being man.
How does it happen that the colored
man has no God-given-rishts, is not a
man, and consequently has not the rights
) of man? Is it because .God has made
/ of one blood all nations of men, which
, has robbed him of his rights Or is it
) because his habitation has been SO long
under the scorching rays of a burning
5 sun that now he has no right to the pro-
J ceeds of his own hard toll?
But We must turn to the lecture of our
friend, and possibly he may throw some
light on hoa0 the colored man has lost
his rights
. He gives us a labored preface to inform
, US how poor the poor in England are
Grant it all and more, what then ? Be.
cause the aristocracy of England are
crushing the poor, is that the reason why
we should do the same? Why did oul
ingenious friend write this preface ? No
to prove anything surely? Possibly he
had in his mind eye The old adage, .'that
misery loves company" he thought il
would be precious solace to. the slavehold.
er to know tina. the English aristocracy
were as deeply engaged in crushing the
pooras themselves The first thing which
has the semblance of an argument in the
lecture is dollhouse fabric, built on the
curse which Noah pronounced on his
. grandson Canaan. He assumes that be-
cause curse was pronounced on Canaan.
!. that, therefore, We become the execution,
ers of the curse. The very point to be
! proved. God has pronounced curse or
, those who take the sword "they who
T take the sword shall perish with The
sword wonder if the reverend gen.
! tleman, in his ministrations at For
! Leavenworth, adopts his own chosen
: principle of Bible Interpretation. and ac-
1 tuaily instructs the officers and soldiers
E stationed there that the most high God
S has pronounced curse on those who take
D the sword even for defense. and therefore
: it becomes his duty, and the duty of ths
t people in this region, to execute that curse
D on them 2 IL his assumption is correct
in the case of Canaan, then is all thi.
l true and still more. For he not only as
2 sumes that We are to be exeeutioRers o
q wrath on Canaan and his posterity. bu
: he positively includes In that curse all tn,
descendants of Ham-the father of. Ca
: naan. Strange logic this for the brigh
5 effulgenee of the nineteenth century.
0a page twenty-nine our friend call
4 the curse pronounced on CanaaH .spre
n diction," thai is, prophetic declaration
|, Ior prediction; but throughout his worl
: he assumes it IS command given to tn
E Descendants of Japheth to enslave the de
seendants of Ham. No question but
|, / is a prediction, and one which has beel
literally fulfilled. Canaan settled in th
land Of Canaan, became that corrup
people which Noah foresaw they would
land which corruption was the anteceden
i of that curse indicated 50 clearly B.
s Hams improper conduct. So deep di'
; Canaan and hisdescendants becomesieep
4 ed in their own pollution, that God "a