The weekly Mississippian., 1859-10-12
For the MississRpiGn.
The Ethics of Slavery.
A LETTER AND ITS REPLY.

received by me and as | am requested u all
swer it in the Mississippian proceed 10 20 81
before entering upon the re-statement Oh my
second argument.
This letter is from a gentleman as eminent
for ability, as distinguished for his private VIZ
tues. and one who would be as foreign IRON
slaveholding as l. if it were logically proven
to be wrong in the contemplation OF morals
"Mr. G., Dear Sir have read your COM
munications in the Mississippian, and am
pleased with them, as far as comprehend
them But are they not in opposition TO all
previous theories ?'' &c.
knowing you to be a candid, as well as
thinking man, will you please reply in the
Mississppian to the three following questions:
l. If God gave Adam, the natural liberty |
IA cat Of the forbidden fruit, how could he al |
forwards consistently censure him for acting |
out that liberty?
2. The Declaration of Independence speaks |
of iaalienaUe rights as the gift OF nature
The whole question of slavery turns on this. !
| If there are inalienable rights, conferred by
laws Of nature-conferred by the God of ma
ture, and if life, ioerty, and the pursuit of
happiness, be among those rights, then, as far
as | can perceive, slavery cannot be consist
entity maintained. What says your theory
| to this
g. Paley says slavery may arse consist
entlv with the laws of nature" See book
3, part 2, chapter 3, Do you believe that
proceed to answer them at once.
You have, my dear sir, simply to distln-
guish between liberty of action and the
right of the action to comprehend the whole
subject
Your own experience daily assures you
that you have the liberty to do many acts
that your Judgment condemns as morally
wrong, and thus you daily perceive the dis
tinction between freedom and right. The
reason of the thing is this God originally or
primarily made you free agent, You can'
therefore. do as you please, even if you please
to lie. steal OF cheat. Being thus a free agent,
God addresses you as such and scrpturally
or super naturally, tells you not to do as you
may, or can, or please but as the scripture di-
rects-whch directions are obviously llmta-
tions of your free ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
your natural freedom.
Now let us apply this reasoning to the case
of Adam.
When God made this original or first hu-
man being, he made him free agent and so
he continued up to a certain perion in his his
tory. By this mean that he gave him the
liberty to do as he might. would or could, /. e.,
as he pleased-created him entirely free from
moral obligation-gave him, what we and our
slaves have now in state OF nature-natural
liberty. This natural liberty or free agency,
he gives equally to all the descendants of the
first man-and this state Of nature precedes
all moral government.
This was Adams state and condition, when
he was brought by his Creator to look on
and contemplate the garden of Eden, where
the fruit all grew.
> Let us contemplate this state, the moment
, before God delivered his moral prohibition. az
| to the fruit of the forbidden tree.
Adams powers and liberties of nature wer'
in their full play and exercise. Gods mora
rule delivered after the natural creation die
not alter the nature or the natural liberty o
9 the creature. 1t only theoretically limiteI
= his will, or his freedom Of action. If now
}. with the forbidden fruit before him, invitin:
TO the taste-pleasant to the natural apetlt
:, God had withheld instead Of revealing hi
: will in prohibition Of the use of the fruit Q
the tree, would not Adam have been free u
eat it if he so chose, and would he not hav
eaten Of it in perfect innocence and proprlety
, Surely you cannot deny this. And if yo'
admit it. it covers the whole ground for whic!
| contend. 1t makes me right and puts Pale!
} in the wrong.
}; When, then, did it become wrong for Adam
to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, ant
5, why r? Let US have the time and the reason
1, The time when it became wrong for HIN
5, to appropriate to his own use, the irult OF
} certain tree was posterior to the pevalcnce 0
s the laws of his nature, and consequent upon
: his APPREHENSION of a rule ~of moral govern
ment
God disclosed to his creature possessed Q
IL free agency, the distinction of property ID
te pointcd out to him what was his, and wha
'r was not He pointed out to him, what n
l. might appropriate to his own uses. and VIVA
v he ,airht not He told him only to claim t
A. possess, to enjoy his own, and not to use tina
which was not his-that which the Giver re
ID served for himself or for his purposes, l. c
his moral purposes. With the fruit OF the on
Id tree God designed TO test the virtue OF HI
er creature This consisted IN the doctrine
s. self denial. of temperance, Of honesty. Her
se, is the original of moral government, and her
ic it first became practicable for man to be
V. ropue. A thief, cheat and liar. When tn
Z; first man, therefore took the fruit to eat oil
he stole it. He tried to defraud his maker
He committed an act of theft, and when h
duplcity and roguery were discovered l
tried to lie out of it, by another act of treacl
cry and wrong
His crime compared to that Of his wife W;
as scarlet compared to wool. She was real
deceived, but he became the victim to loy
horn animal, uxorousness and thirst for ST
len goods. fully warned and fully undeceive
And so at this day, women with half
~ chances are thrice as virtuous as man, b,
nal more easily duped. This is the general rule
he the known and the generally recognized ru
be which observation perpetually confirms.
~ ~, God told Adam nothing but what we tt
of the Abolitionists now. We tell them to e
we ercise the principle of self-denial-to act
lai obedience to the laws of property-to act no
li a astIv and not to steal When God broug
~ Adam to behold the fruit of the certain trC
he md when he told him that that tree was n
me his property, and that, therefore, he must e
OF ercise the principle of self-denial-the prin
an ,ad ple of honesty, he knew that his creature
INT the liberty to violate his super natural
ion moral direction to him. and it was this orr
the nal liberty or free agency, that he restrain
h1o bv the moral prohibition or ethical directi
,ts he imposed upon him. Now, God did
the blame or censure the creature, because he c
red erc;sed the liberty he gave him to eat of
nat tree but blamed him because, in the exerc
% Of of that free agency, he violated a rule OF m
- aleoyernment by which God ethically or Il
en- oretically restrained or limited his freedom
as abridged his natural liberty.
00' When Adam received the stolen fruit a
appropriated it to the uses of his own aDir
,rse qualification, he did two things of dive
rup character i. e., 1st he exercised his free as
..ss n,s cy-used his natural liberty of action-ac
ain ain in accordance with the laws of nature, 1
end secondly he acted in opposition to the mo
YES, government of God, and hence, it follows
God gave him the natural liberty to viol
moral government, and then limited and