The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1859-06-02
BY THOMAS FOWLER.

| Before we proceed further with the argu
ment, we will here give some of our reasons
for defending the divine sanction to slavery
First: Because God authorized it.
Second: Because many of the Christian
churches sanction it, and their members
practice it, ..."
! Third: Because it belongs to, and is a part
OF the institutions of one of the most clio.
rious republics ever formed. But, not that
slavery is necessary everywhere, "for all
things are not expedient that are lawful
| says st. Paul Nor that it is necessary anv.
where, though it may be; and should it be
we defend the right, as it IS no sin before
God, AS certain class of men are perpetrl-
ally clamoring about for the purpose of polit-
ical effect.
live in free State at present, of choice :
Others may live in a slave State, of choice
hold slaves of choice, and sin not i.--.-+-7'S 'i'
of God bv 81 doing anti again, because
Mr. Ta,,-.yr m his remarks during the dis
lcussion, has unchristianized all shareholders
and even those who apologize for the practice
of Slavery. And he condemned all the
South as corrupt and being destitute of con-
science: Very little conscience south of the
Ptomac!" "Bludgeons are the arguments
Of the South!" is the emphatic lang, age of
Mr.. Taunton. These are some of our rea-
sons for the defense. Our first argument
upon Old Testament Scriptures, we based on
the establishment of slavery, (or the right of
property in man, by divine law as given by
Moses Both thy bondmen and thy bond
maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the
heathen that are round about you: of them
shall you buy bondmen and bondmaids."
Mr.. T. in his argument took the position {:
That slavery could not, nor cannot exist by
divine law. That man cannot by divine
right, hold property in man; that man has no
right by divine sanction to sell property
right in man; that man has no right by di-
vine sanction to separate the slave husband
and wife without the consent of the parties.
And, on the contrary, that the laws of the
slave States in the United States gives to man
the right of property in man; gives the
master the right to dispose of, by sale, his
right to his slave property; that the master
or law, has the right to separate the slave hus-
band and wife.
This right Of the master of the slave in
the United States. we accept as correct and
true,-granted by the laws of the States.-
But we demur to Mr.. Us. denial of divine
sanction to such right And if we have or
should succeed in finding similar, or like
rights established by divine law, we will
have succeeded in thwarting the fallacious
theories Of Mr.. T., and of vindicating the
principles of truth in their stead
Mr.. T. first undertook to show that the
words servant, bondservant madservant, &c.
as used in the scriptures, did not mean Stare.
Though finding that he had failed and was
unable to sustain himself in this position, he
drops it, and declares the whole of the Old
Testament scriptures have been repealed but
the Decalogue, and that does not recognize
slavery. But finally, he tells us that when
the Savior came, slavery existed in all the
civilized world In his letters of 'On the
Fence yet" similar declarations may be found
And further, in one of his letters he says in
speaking with regard to slavery under the
curse Of Noah, on Canaan a part of the
posterity of Ham, that in the 18th. chap.
of Ezekiel, that curse is repealed Any one
who will read this chapter viii readily see
that the curse there removed from off the son
for the fathers sins, was one involving life
and death, nothing else. Further this law
here spoken of in Ezekiel, was law of the
Jewish nation. And Mr. I. tells us that by
the laws of all the civilized world, slavery
extended down to the advent of the Savior:
consequently, Judea being part of the civ
ilized world slavery, there existed up to that
time; and existing by the law of Judea up
to the coming of the Savior, it could not be
one of the repealed laws or removed curses,
spoken of by Ezekiel Strange inconsistent
cy in Mr.. Taunton! Though it appears
to be his general practice: after introluc-
ing testimony to introduce contrary evidence
upsetting all he has before said.
We have only cited these instances here to
show the fallacious and contradictory course
pursued by Mr.. T., ("On the Fence yet"
and shall not attempt to follow him through
the multiplied numbers of such erroneous and
contradictory arguments; but at the present
leave them to wither and fall fruitless to the
ground and hide themselves in shameful OBJ
liyion from an enlightened and intelligent
people.
We now proceed to investigate the differ
ent features of the proposition in the form
they are objected to: .
First: The divine right to hold property
in man. This right without a cause could
not exist, and that cause we now set out in
search of:
Man, like all the balance of the animal
creation, when he came from the hands of
his Creator was free belonging to himself
and God alone; but by the nature of his be-
inc he possessed the power to do that which