The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-09-08
TRUTH IN A NUTSHELL.

In late article by Rev. Henry T. Cheever,
Secretary of the Church Anti-Slavery Society,
in the New York Tribune entitled "Church
Anti-Slavery Society and Boston Congrega-
tionalist," it is well and truly said that Pro-
Slavery politicians never thought of taking the
position that Slavery is bOnum IN Sc, good in
ITSELF and that the right of property in man is
natural and inherent, or that Africans and
descendants of Africans are Justly held in
bondage until they were taught by theolo-
gians, skilled in what they call ethical distinc-
tons, that Slavery is not NAHUM IN Sc
"The latter first adopted it as a quasi apol-
ogy for Slavery, and as a reason for not touch
ing the sin of slaveholding in the church, and
for not legislating Slavery out of the Mission
Churches of the American Board among the
Cherokees and Choctaws, that Slavery aoas
not NAHUM in Sc. Then, and not till then,
politicians chimed In, and made the welkin
ring with the GodAward side of Slavery
"Neither, again, is it true, what the Conore-
gatiOnalist intimates, viz that the churches at
the North are unprepared and unwilling to
take the ground of the sinfulness of slavehold-
ing in itself; for they, composed generally of
sincere and right-minded men, cannot see how,
if slaveholding be sin at all, 1t can helm bein0
san an ITSELF. But it is true that a portion of
the ministry of the churches are unwilling to
take this ground, because it is principle in
their ethics quote the exact language of
one of them that Slavery is not NAHUM ii Sc. ;
Here is the pinch; it is this pre- committal to a
false principle of ethics, on the part of some in
the ministry, who begin to see their mistake,
but are wanting in magnanimity to avow it,
that keeps them from coming upon the plat
form of the Church Anti-Slavery Society.
" The churches--it was well said in an article
contributed to the Worcester Transcript, ifnme-
diately after the formation of the Church Anti
Slavery Society," the churches are not parcel
of Ephraims, concluding that gain is goodness,
and that profitable iniquity is not sin in
ITSELF not NAHUM per Sc. How many persons
are there in the churches that know what this
phrase, mdtum per sc, means? Yet, ministers
are continually ringing its changes in their ears,
till they think it is some profound, indisputable
argument.
But the churches no more believe that
SldUeholding is not, in itself, sinful, than they
believe murder is not in itself, sinful. They
are as well prepared and as willing to say that
slaveholding is inherently sinful, as they are to
say that murder is inherently sinful. If a man
should say that men sometimes kill one another
By accident, and therefore that murder is not,
under all circumstances, sinful in ITSELF and
must not be called sinful, the churches would
scout at such nonsense. If man should say
that the killing of another by accident is muir
der, and should contend that all killing, under
all circumstances, Is murder; and, therefore,
that murder ought never to be said to be sinful
In itself, you would regard him as a dishonest
reasoner, if not as rogue who wishes to CON
trive an apology for the murderer's guilt
Now, the word murder might Just as prop
erly be applied to killing in seifdefcnce, or to
the killing OF a murderer In protection of your
wife and children from his brutal assault, OF to
the execution OF a murderer by the sheriff, as
the word slaceholding to the keeping of man,
a brother, flor the moment under the legal
show and shield of slave law, which is. in truth.
no law,l for the purpose of giving him his free
dom. That is not slayeh6lding, any more than
the killing OF q murderer, to keep your wife and
children from being killed, is murder Yet MUIR
der is, under all possible circumstances, a
crime; and so is slaveholding, under all posi-
BILE circumstances, crime; because murder
is the intentional killing of man, with malice
against him, and slaveholding is the intentional
holding of q man az property, against his own
will, and without his contract or consent,
Slaveholding is the intentional killing of his
personal freedom, and the DEMONSTRATION OF
him from person into q thing. And this is
always, under all circumstances, in ITSELF, a
crime. And the churches are not only pre-
pared to sustain convention that win take
this high ground, but viii rejoice with all their
heart that it is taken, let the hair splitting and
technical theologians say what they please. The
churches will be glad to have us call san SIM
Now, we should like to have these reasonings
met, If they can be. If not il Is high time that
the learned nonsense first started by reverend
spologists for Slavery about malum per Sc, and
long current among ministers, were abjured.
Nothing has worked more mischievously, to
retard the cause Of Emancipation, in our coun-
try, than this same false position, in the inter
est of Slavery, thai Slavery is not mal.m per Sc,
and that slayeholding is not inherently sinful.
IN the pane of Heaven and Humanity, We
ask if holding msn o. property, without the