The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-10-05
For the MississiPpian.
The Ethics Of Slavery--A Re-statement

one OtHer.
/ These arguments | am persuaded, are des-
tined to take the place Of all others that have
preceded them. And as ! wish them to be
attentiyely studied, herewith append some Of
the most important typographical errors that
crept into theln.*
AS have said, there is Il fourth argument
and that is the Bible defence of slavery
This regard as our strongest foothold but
as it has been repeatedly and most fully pre-
scented by Southern writers, l shall forbear to
y avail myself OF it in my defense. therefore
predicate my argument on three grounds
/. The character Of nature or natural liberty,
2. The character of moral evil and .. Inc
office of civil government. | contrast slavery
as social state, with the three and arrive at
the conclusion that slavery is morally right
is in no respect morally wrong.
But sill, with respect to the Bible argument
think it plain, let me say incidentally, that
we have the distinct promise of God that we
shall increase-shall be enlarged-that we
shall dwell in the tents of Shem and that
Canaan, the negro, shall serve us. Turn to
the 9th Chap. of Gen., and find the words Of
this prophesy, 'Japhet will be enlarged, he
shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan
shall be his servant
But, Mr. Editor, my object now is, with
your permission, to re-state in short and plain
words what are the three positions have ia
ken on the subject of negro slavery.
In the first place, with respect to the argu-
ment based Oh nature Or natural liberty, | as.
sumed this ground, that all men are naturally
at liberty to do as they please.
maintained that by nature our slaves are
as free as We are-equally as free as we are
either to obey or disobey those principles o.
right to which all men are philosophically
subjected in the social state. l held that by
nature one man was as free an agent as an.
other-that free agency came first and obliged
agency afterwards. I maintained that my
slave by nature was just as free from the in
stitution of slavery, as am by nature, free
from the institution Of christianity. | held
that both, slavery and the religious system Of
Christ, were posterior in origin to laws Of ma
ture, and therefore restrained free agency. |
held that moral government was restriction
of natural liberty-that men had the natural
liberty to do wrong as we'll as right, and were
thus free agents, and that moral government
addressed itself to this natural free agency,
and changed it from free, to obliged agency
from no obligation to moral obligation.
For example, have now faithful slave
a Canaanite who has been serving me from
my infancy until now in my old age.
But how has this faithful Canaanite been
words, in what has his fidelity consisted
and why has it been commendabe and virtu-
Gus ? Now, know of but one rational reply
to these questions.
| hold, because he was naturally free to have
been otherwise. His fidelity, therefore, was
voluntary. Voluntary, because he was able
to have been either good or bad servant,
and therefore, freely chose to be good and
faithful slave, he being free to have been bad
slave. The institution of slavery demands of
him to be virtuOus slave In other words
Christ has prescribed rules for the institution
Of slavery, just as he has prescribed rules
for the institution of christianity, and these
rules are restrictive of the natural liberty of
both slaves and christians.
Now, my slave, who is also christian, has
obeyed substantially the rules that Christ in
stituted with regard to the social state of slave
ry, and is, therefore, virtuouS. Why virtuous?
Plainly, as I think, because he was naturally
free-that is, free to obey or disobey those
Divine regulations, and being so free, yolun-
tarily chose to extraordinarily chose not to
disobey the limitations Of h;a aaa...sl~ lsl..siz
that constitute institution of slavery.
; What constitutes the institution of christi
anity Nothing but limitations of the natu-
raj liberty of men. Hence, were the insttu-
tons of christianity annulled, or abrogated by
God, men would regain their liberty and could
then act without regard to those Institutions
and act rightly. As it is now, they have no
such right
Men now have no right to disobey the insti-
tutions of Christ, although they do limit and
restrain their free agency-limit and restrain
their natural freedom.
To choose implies not one thing to be cho-
sen, but two or more.
Suppose had liberty only to choose to be
christian What would be the necessary
consequence | would cease to be free
agent and to be a virtuous one.
Suppose my slave had only liberty to choose
to be a good slave! What would be the con-
sequence? He would cease to be free, and
hence, would be entitled to no credit, for his
fidelity as a slave. Hence, his virtue or fidel-
ity is due to the fact that being naturally free
to be either good or bad slave, he volunta-
rily chose the former.
Why my slave is wise enough to perceive
the force Of this reasoning-to expound this
philosophy.
Were any one to ask him, why do you not
take the good things your master has and of
which you are deprived-why do you not kill
him and thus rid yourself of his authority,
&C., &c. =? He would say that those things
were wrong-that he could not be religious
and also lie, or steal or kill-that in SO doing
he would violate both the laws of God and
those of men, and would, therefore suffer
both morally and civilly.
81 know" he would say, that can do
those things if choose, but prefer not to do
them. l have plenty of opportunities of lying,
stealing and killing. have by nature the
power, if l choose to use it, but prefer, from
regard to the civil and moral laws that tell
me not to use that power-not to do so-not
to do as | please, but as the law pleases. l
prefer to obey higher law than my own
will or wishes-whatever they may be. A
good servant should obey Christ and Christ
tells him to obey his master and to protect
him and his interest"
The reason why the institution of christi
anity is merely limitation of the natural
liberty of men, is because Christ perceived
the utter inutility of telling men to do or not
to do, anything, which they were not free to
do, or not to do. Hence, he addressed the
laws of christianity to free agents, and by
those laws obliged them or made them obliged
agents-brought them under moral obligation
| to do what he directed them to do-moral OBJ
legations, or moral restrictions, which lid not
previously exist. Previously they were free
! from them and thus free agents.
sleep with my doors all open My now
| y The conclusion of my reasoning | take to be
| this. If moral and civil government abridge the
natural liberty Of man-whieh almost all writer's
on the science of government admit, then, it is no
argument against slavery to say that it abridges the
| natural liberty of the African.
The proper method to assail the institution is to
prove-not that natural liberty is abridged by it,
but that the limitations abridgments of it, are
not in accordance with the rights of the social
state-nOt accordant with the moral government Of
God prohibiting those certain specific Limitations
| to be particularly pointed out and specified.
Slavery may be wrong-that is to say-human
Iau-Oivers NAV incorpofAte into the Institution