The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-08-31
THE MISSISSIPPIAN.
For The Mississigpian.
The Morality of Slavery
NUMBER Ill
THR ORIGIN OF Evl1.

NUMBER Ill
THR ORIGIN OF EVIL.
Am therefore become your enemy be
cause tell you the truth p
How frequently is il the case that We heal
men, some gravely psonouneing slavery to b
moral evil. and others as grayely denying it
who have not given one thought as to the orr
gin and character Of this, confessedly. "yul-
nus immedicabiles of our finite world
Maniestly no man should presume to call
slavery either the one or the other without
some definite idea Of The character of the thing
with which it is compared and by which it is
supposed to be either condemned or justi-
fed
What moral evil is ahstractly ? is therefore
question of the first importance and evident
" precedes the enquiry into the moral status
of slavery.
The very grave distinction between moral
evil and sin. the first being the act of God and
the other. that Of her finite creature, is one
which some of our Wisest philosophers and
very many of our most thoughtful clergymen
habituaIly and constantly disregard.
No man who has the faintest conception of
the origin and character of moral or physical
evil win for moment suppose, he has uttered
the slightest breath prejudicial to the institu-
ton of slavery when he declares ii to be NOR
ally evil. for if he has any. the least aequaint-
ance with the history Of our past philosophy
the pages Of revelation, or the circumstan-
ces of his daily life he will know that moral
evil uniformly and consistently characterizes
every known manifestation of the works and
institutions Of tsle God whom he worships.
Moral evil is Divine institution having all
the unfailing marks of the Divine Legislation,
uniformity and consistency marks that
never characterize the works of man, and has
abeneYolent design in human economy which
no reasonable man can either gainsay or mis-
conceive.
These positions shall now proceed to I'M
bld and to establish.
And BY way Of introduction, l AFFIRM what
presume none win deny, that Temperance
is an institution of God. Now the question
/ arises what IS the moral evil Of Temperance
| Yhis question we can all answer readily. 1t
is drunkenness, or the drunken state, with
which we are all familiar
As the moral evil Of slavery and that of
Temperance, which We affirm to be drunken
ness, run ON all fours, as the Logicians say,
permit me 10 illustrate IN the argument that
IS to follow. the philosophy Of the one by ref
erenee to the philosophy of the other
If the moral evil Of temperance IS not drum
kenness what is it? Certainly it is not the
wise. the temperate, the proper use, Of the
blessings of life that stimulate the several SEN
ses Il is their abuse So in like manner the
wise, the temperate, the proper use of slavery
is not the evil of it. It's evil IS its abuse Its
wise and proper use Is the right of it.
But what is drunkenness aside from the
sin of it, and what is the SIN Of it, aside from
drunkenness Very proper questions since
man may be drunk and yet be innocently On
sinlessly so.
Drunkenness aside from the sin of it, IS the
uniform and consistent result, flowing from the
introduction of certain quantities of alcohol
into the human stomach. Hence the drunken
state is the effect of the laws of nature which
is Gods viii. naturally displayed.
The sin of drunkenness is the knowing or
voluntary use Of alcohol IN the quantities that
produce under animal excitatiOn, in opposition
to the moral or temperate government of
God. Hence the state Of the drunkard, is
the act of God, and the getting so. the act o
the creature.
If man may be drunk without sin, it fol- |
lows conclusiyely that the drunken state
merely, IS not the sin Of il while it is unde-
niable, ti.st Il : he neral evil Whethbx .
man be IN the drunken state either innocently |
or sinfully. he experiences the moraleyil equal
iy in either event
So in like manner, no man can be slave
holder either sinfuIly or innocently. without
enduring the moral evil Of that state just as
it IS equally impossible for any man to be
christian or christian minister, or be citi-
zen in civil government, without experiencing,
and therefore perceiving the evils of those
several conditions in life.
II man steals my slave, for example, he |
is then sIasehoIder sinfully. If he cruelty |
Expresses that slave, that is to say-acts in |
his relation Of STAKEHOLDER, with knowledge |
.aforethought in opposition to the principles, |
morally regulating that relation, he acts sim
fully and he viii, also, at the same time, ex-
perience the moral evils of slavery, and expe-
Renee them moreover IN greater degree than
he who IS . STAKEHOLDER in pursuance Of the |
legal or regulated authority of the state, and |
observes the rules theoretically binding him. |
But the latter VIII experience those evils
esrffopsrtion Is he brings his government of
his slaves in harmony with the wise and hu- |
name principles in institution BY our Divine |
law -gser. ior that state; hut govern as best |
he may, be cannot escape from the moral evil |
of slavery. while he may wholly escape from
the SIN Of Il
Hence the sin Of slavery, like the sin of |
Temperance. IS the violation of the moral |
truths that make them Divine institutions,
and the moral evil Of slavery. like drunken
ness, the moral evil, Of the law of temperance,
results from that violation.
Hence the moral evil of any law does not |
show itself except as consequent upon human
action Hence n You see man drunk and
If you see ) STAKEHOLDER. you cannot tell
whether they are blame worthy or not but
you can very wen tell that they are expe-
rienceing the moral evils that attend all Divine
laws instituted for the use and benefit of fin
lie beings
But If you see man, who knows better, j.
drinking spirits IN quantities that inebriate,
yos at once 81 hat that man is acting sin
fully even n ADVANCE Of the drunken state :
that 5 to say-eFen before he experiences the |
moral EVIL Of bis sinful conduct, which is the
consequent drunkenness But drunkenness,
although Dsine possibility never supervenes
except g consequent upon human agency
Hence 70 Constitute the drunken state, there
needs the tire agencies, that of God in nature,
and that Of man--that of the laws of nature,
ana mat Of ffee human agency. In other
words, that men can get drunk, Is of the leg
islatiOn g God that they do get drunk Is of
Their own he agency-thus showing the
great distinction between being drunk, and
getting m that state. Now what makes it
wrong to get drunk Clearly the higher law,
or the law q temperance. Hence Gods moral
government comes N to Limit and restrain nat
ural free ageucy. Hence temperance is the
limitation Of human conduct otherwise free or
natural
1 NOW, what s / that adds especially TO the
virtue Of temperance 1t is the natural abil-
ity to get drunk, and the therefore voluntary
refusal to SGT %, IN obedience Of Gods moral
government restraining human agency, other
wise free N that regard For it is as plain as
the sun at noon that unless God had naturally
empowered me to get drunk, could not be
a m