The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-08-24
For TIE MississiRpfaa.
The Morality Of Slavery.
NUMBER II

=
The distinction taken between natural and
moral philosophy
The question Of the moral propriety of the
enslavement Of the African race, depends, as
matter of necessity upon the enquiry into
the origin and authority of moral rules
1t will, am sure, scarcely be disputed at
this day, that in order to the existence of
moral or immoral eoadua in life, there must
be rules of right action existing antecedently
or permanently, to serve as guides or STAN
dards Of human thought and action.
If now, slavery be right or wrong in NOR
al point of view, it must be because of its
agreement with, or opposition to, moral rule
or government. Whence come moral rules ?
Come they from nature, Or are they prefer
natural? Are they naturally displayed or
are they repealed ~.
If we knew the moral rule bearing upon
the institution of domestic slayery-knew it
definitely and precisely, we could then, with
out any sort of difficulty, determine the moral
status Of it.
If indeed, for example, the natural equality
of man be rule of morals---be principle of
moral philosophy, then, nothing can be plain
er or more indisputable, than that slavery is
nay, must be, wrong immoral repugnant
to moral government, since it plainly opposes
that principle.
The revelation of Jesus Christ proceeds I'M
deniably upon the basis that inequalities in
the civil relations Of life. when they tend to
the public advantage, a5gnOs sinful. Now, if
nature teaches equality Of civil or social rights,
as principle of moral government, then the
scripture is at issue-at variance with moral
government.
The position that intend to assume on this
question: state it boldly and broadly-is
that moral government is not naturally dis
played-that it exists aside from nature and
independently of it-exists simply. The dis
pute, therefore, between shareholders and alb
olitionists is clearly dispute respecting the
higher law-that is, a dispute touching moral
government-touching the permanent rights
of man in the several States.
Aboltionists charge upon us that we act
unnaturally or contrary to nature. In reply,
affirm, that this is physically impossible /
affirm, that no mere human being can act IN
naturally--that none have ever so acted, in the
| tide of time, but Jesus Christ and his Patri-
archs and Apostles. To act unnaturally is to
perform miracles to denote God Men
ever act naturally whether they act morally
or not-that all our physical powers Or powers
of action are of natural origin, and hence, the
man whodOes wrong uses natural powers, not
being possessed of any other kind. Good
men employ their natural powers, when they
obey moral goyernment-bad men act in ODE
dience of the same natural laws when they
commit acts of immortality. There is a very
wide distinction between natural and moral
government God has given US natural pow
ers of action in order that thus being able
naturally to violate moral rules, he might then
bring us under moral government
When does man act morally ? Plainly
when he refuses to do some act, morally pro-
hibited, which he had the moral ability to do.
Unless he had the natural ability to do the
morally prohibited act, the moral prohibition,
would be unnecessary. Hence. moral prohi-
billions are engrafted on natural liberty. Hence
natural liberty precedes moral government
and needs limitations both civil and moral.
When Christ raised Lazarus did he not act
unnaturally-or contrary to nature Did he
not oppose the laws Of nature Did he not
for that purpose, use and employ super-nat-
ural power :? This point comes up again fur.
| Their on in the discussion
The question as to the origin of moral gov
eminent may be investigated according to two
very distinct and different methods of proce-
dure.
If were, for example, called upon to dis.
! cuss this question with gentlemen processing
the religious opinions of Voltaire, Hume
Paine, Fourier, st. Simon, Thomas Jefferson
and others, Of that school-that is, of thu
school Of naturalism-men who do not con.
slider themselves bound to defer their judg
ment to the standard of the Christian revela.
| ton, / would, as matter of course, forbear tc
appeal to the rules of right or principles O.
moral government therein revealed, | would
discuss it according to the lights of nature OIL
the supposed principles of naturalism-l
would make nature or natural principles the
| umpire between US, and instead of studying
the scripture would study the French En-.
cyclopedists, / would ransack the pages o.
Rousseau and Mirabeau-or coming to a
later date would defer to the utterances of M
Cousinand NJ Compile, the latest illuminate
Of this school of inner light. But if called
upon to discuss it with one who admitted
Christ to be divine personage-who conced-
| ed the divine origin in Christ of the principles
of moral government therein revealed,
would simply turn him to its pages, where the
victory would be an easy one and would there
show him, among other things, that Christ
had legislated for the fnstitution-had pre-
scribed the moral rules, according to which,
the relation of master and slave was to be
governed, and would tell him that the idea of
the divinity of Christ and the perfection of
his moral character was utterly inconsistent
with any regulation Of an institution among
men intrinsicaly immoral.
This method of investigation would carry
us away from the lights Of nature-away from
any enquiry into the natural equality of man
from any rights conferred by nature, to the
investigation of the conduct of Jesus Christ,
and that of his diyinely inspired Apostles and
to their teachings when their attention was
directed to the exigencies and necessities of
that relation as civil institution.
If it be true, as Abolitionists maintain, that
all men are born entitled to equal rights in the
social state in virtue of natural birth, which it
is also immoral to disregard-if nature be the
origin of any moral rule or government which
shareholders or the institution of slavery vio-
lates--if in word, to act unnaturally, means
also to act immorally, then, the distinction, on
which christianity reposes, viz: that revela-
ton is supernatural, and therefore, not natu-
"a. is 6reYer -oblitaf rated and destroysd-
then, the doctrine Of Hume and voltaire gain
the ascendency- then Christ comes to be logi-
cally declared an imposter, in those points
wherein his philosophy differed from the phil
osophy of nature-then, in order to be right
in society we must study her displays, and
to do right, to follow her promptings and her
instincts.
l need not inform the intelligent reader that
the doctrine that moral government is Of nat
ural origin and character has been, and is the
only and exclusive ground Of infidelity in all
ages.
As it is impossible for men to act immorally
without violating some rule of morals arising
in some ultimate authority Il follows, if nature
be the origin Of moral government, that there
is no escape from the conclusions of the Au-
thor of the "Vestages Of Creation for he
merely held that God as the first cause, is a
natural and not a preter-natural principle or
being--is the cause working naturally and
not . being aside from his.works, entertaining