Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1857-09-03
Bishop Hopkins. Nc. Q.

S-N'NS'A
ates the plainest principles of justice and hui
mainly, and advocates tyranny and oppres-
sion, he should either be pitied or censured.
1t the Bishop is sincere in renouncing his
former principles, he should be pitied for the
loss of his understanding. But if the weak
ness and absurdity of his defence of Slavery
be imputed, as Henry Ward Beecher said of
John Mitchell, to " that dizziness which one
must be expected to feel after a summerset,"
it is hoped that he may soon recover his UNI
derstanding, and repent his folly.
Instead OF the arguments to which he in
vites the favorable attention of the reader of
his defence, We find nothing but mere assump-
ton, and declaration without proof lie de-
clares Slavery, Simply perpetual obliga-
ton which binds the slave to serve the master
for life" Had he but concentrated his scat
tered powers, and clearly proved this solitary
declaration, he would have done more than
all the Pro-Slavery writers have done. He
would have settled forever, the DANGEROUS
question of Slavery, and received the lasting
gratitude of the stakeholder. He would have
avoided the sad appeal to the unauthorized
curse Of Noah and the obsolete law of Mo-
ses. If in fact, the slave is under perpetual
obligation to serve his master for life, then
Slavery is not a physical evil as maintained
by the learned Bishop. 1t cannot be admit
ted that the infection of physical evil creates
such obligation Tt would require much in
genious sophistry to convince person of
very limited knowledge, that he who compels
his fellow being to serve him, is justly enti-
tied to his unrequited labor for life
1t is said by the celebrated Abercrombie,
in his Philosophy Of the Moral Feelings,
"That the principles of justice may recognize
mans surrendering, to a certain extent his
personal liberty, by mutual compact; but
they are opposed to Slavery, in which the in
dividual concerned is not a party to the ar
rangcment." Indeed all moral philosophers
admit the self-evident fact, that man has GER
tain natural rights, "among which are life,
, liberty" &c. Liberty for life is a sacred and
invaluable right, and therefore, admits of no
equivalent. The value of property may be
ascertained, and therefore, admits of an
equivalent. Yet no person is under legal OBJ
legation to convey his property for any con-
sideration whatever. But the idea that
person is under obligation to surrender his
personal liberty, and become a slave for life,
is opposed to the clearest principles of justice.
n Ii must be obvious to every sane mind that
: there exists no legal relation between the
o master and the slave. The slave being
y claimed and treated as property, and denied
q every legal right, caunot be under any legal
obligations to his master. To talk of such
obligation, is to recognize legal obligation
; between a person and his chattels, which is
the very perfection of absurdity.
= In 1867 Sir John Hawkins in one of his
$ piratical expeditions in Africa, set fire to a
r city of which the huts were covered with
palm leaves, and out of eight thousand of the
defenceess anc atfrighted inhabitants succeed.
ed in Selling two hundred and fifty. These
were transported to this continent, and sub
ected to perpetual Slavery" According to
IT the Bishop, they were under obligation to
re serve their masters for life, and this obliga-
ton was created by personal violence, or their
re seizure by pirates. What strange doctrine
for the moralist and Christian! He tells us
It that Slavery in itself, is physical evil,
and then, that the slave is under obligation
= to submit to this evil for life. His defence o.
~ Slavery, or work of old age, is rife with the
'e most ridiculous absurdities, and,
h. With nature, with itself and truth at war;
D. Unless we are permitted to doubt the Bish
I'd ops avowed candor, we should believe tina
Mt were he kidnapped and sold into Slavery, h
- would consider himself under perpetual obi
=, cation to serve his master for life. But
change OF circumstances sometimes causes
= change of opinion. 1t is said that one G
ne the Stole philosophers denied that pain wa
an evil; but severe illness, attended wit
ne the most acute pain, obliged him to chang
his opinion. Were the Bishop subjected t
do Slavery, he would not only change his opir
ion in relation to the obligation Of the sav
!. but denounce Slavery with as much sncerit
er as he now does the Abolitionist.
;, In justification of Slavery in general, /
appeals to the Levitical Law. This law thu
- was originally adapted to the circumstance
'" Of an Ignorant people, he calls the hlyht
IT, laac. With all the solemnity and pertinacit
re- OF jew, he would re-create and enforce tt
ay law of Moses. He has renowned the gosp
of human iberty,--buried his talent
he I" Southern diet,"-taken his stand behir
ng the dust of four thousand years." and vii
the sad imbecility and dulness of obi wage, a,
ng vocates chattel Slavery. Though he seems
sheer at the Puritans yet ignorant and shor
m sighted as they were, he might receive impo
tant instruction from their political action
81 two hundred years ago If colony of tn
~ people resolved to adopt, and be governed b
the Levitical Law, until they should enact
OF better law, they certainly exhibited more p
IN litical knowledge than the learned Bisho
on who neither admits, nor has any idea Of
better Jaw than that of Moses.
he Should it be conceded that Slavery existe
among the Jews in tne days of the Messia
Eat and was not expressly condemned by Hin
nd this by no means ustihes American SLAYER
There exists but little comparison betwe,
,.u these systems OF Slavery. The mlldness, al
~ limitel duration OF Hebrew Slavery, do n
~ Justify the unparalleled cruelty of Amcric;
10 Slavery.
l. An Hebrew might be cnslaved six yea
HE for insolvency; but American Slavery, wit
in out any cause or pretext, is perpetual.
2. Hebrew Slavery was sometimes vount
ING ry; but American Slavery is involuntary.
3. The law regulating Hebrew SLAYER
ifs prohibited man-stealing but American Slay
If ry was established by man-stealng.
- 4. The Hebrews were permitted to pu
chase children of heather parents, land ensla
me them Forty-niue years was the longest tel
md that they could be legally ensaved but t
81 system of American Slavery authorizes ?