Part 1
LECTURES ON THE Philosophy and Practice OF SLAVERY, AS EXHIBITED IN THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES:
WITH THE Duties of Masters to Slaves.
BY WILLIAM A. SMITH, D.D., PRESIDENT OF RANDOLPH-MACON COLLEGE, AND PROFESSOR OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHY.
EDITED BY THOMAS O. SUMMERS, D.D.
Nashville, Tenn.: STEVENSON AND EVANS. 1856.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by WILLIAM A. SMITH, In the Office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY A. A. STITT, SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN.
Contents.
PREFACE
LECTURE I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE SUBJECT OF AFRICAN SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES.
General subject enunciated--Why this discussion may be regarded as humiliating by Southern people--Other stand-points, however, disclose an urgent necessity, at this time, for a thorough investigation of the whole subject--The results to which it is the object of these lectures to conduct the mind
LECTURE II.
THE ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE OF THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY.
If the system be sinful, _per se_, the sin of it must be found in the principle--Is the principle sinful?--The principle defined--Objections to the term “submission” answered--The effects of Mr. Jefferson’s doctrine upon many conscientious persons in the Southern States
LECTURE III.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
Objections classified--Popular views discussed--“All men are born free and equal”--“All men are created equal”--“All men in a state of nature are free and equal”--And the particular form in which Dr. Wayland expresses the popular idea, viz., “The relation in which men stand to each other is the relation of equality; not equality of condition, but equality of right”--Remarks on Dr. Wayland’s course--His treatise on Moral Science as a text-book.
LECTURE IV.
THE QUESTION OF RIGHTS DISCUSSED.
Why it is necessary to define the term RIGHTS--The RIGHT in itself defined to be the GOOD--The doctrine that the will of God is the origin of the right considered--The will of God not the origin of the right, but an expression of the right which is the GOOD--Natural rights and acquired rights, each defined
LECTURE V.
THE DOCTRINES OF RIGHTS APPLIED TO GOVERNMENT.
Government, human as well as Divine, is a necessity of man’s fallen condition--All men concur in this--Man did not originate government: he has only modified the form--The legitimate objects of government, and the means which it employs to effect these objects--The logical inferences: 1. Although he has the power, he has no _right_ to do _wrong_; 2. As a fallen being, he is, without a government over him, liable to lose the power of self-control--What are the rights of man, 1. In a state of infancy, 2. In a state of maturity, and, 3. In a savage or uncivilized state--Civil government is not founded on a concession of rights
LECTURE VI.
THE ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE OF SLAVERY DISCUSSED ON SCRIPTURE GROUNDS, AND MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE EXAMINED.
The true subjective right of self-control defined according to the Scriptures--The abstract principle of slavery sanctioned by the Scriptures--The Roman government--Dr. Wayland’s Scripture argument examined and refuted--The positions of Dr. Channing and Professor Whewell examined and refuted
LECTURE VII.
THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY.
The question stated--The conduct of masters a separate question--The institution defined--The position of the abolitionists, and that of the Southern people--The _presumption_ is in favor of the latter--Those who claim freedom for the blacks of this country failed to secure it to those on whom they professed to confer it--The _doctrine_ by which they seek to vindicate the claim set up for them, together with the _fact_ of history assumed to be true, is false
LECTURE VIII.
DOMESTIC SLAVERY, AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE AFRICANS IN AMERICA, EXAMINED AND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF ITS ADAPTATION TO THE PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE RACE.
There should be a separate and subordinate government for our African population--Objection answered--Africans are not competent to that measure of self-government which entitles a man to political sovereignty--They were not prepared for freedom when first brought into the country; hence they were placed under the domestic form of government--The humanity of this policy--In the opinion of Southern people, they are still unprepared--The fanaticism and rashness of some, and the inexcusable wickedness of others, who oppose the South
LECTURE IX.
THE NECESSITY FOR THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY EXEMPLIFIED BY FACTS.
The attempts made at domestic colonization--The result of the experiment in the case of our free colored population--The colonization experiment on the coast of Africa--The example of the Canaanitish nations--Summary of the argument on the general point, and inferences
LECTURE X.
EMANCIPATION DOCTRINES DISCUSSED.
Gradual emancipation the popular plan--It would operate to collect the slaves into a few States, cut them off from contact with civilization, and reduce them to barbarism--It would make an opening for Northern farmers and their menials to come into those States from which they retired--The modifications which the system of slavery has undergone within late years--A comparison of the menials of the free and of the slave States, and the only plan of emancipation admissible--The gospel the only remedy for the evils of slavery--Paul’s philosophy and practice, 1 Tim. vi. 1-5
LECTURE XI.
TEACHING THE SLAVES TO READ AND WRITE.
Superiors frequently neglect inferiors--The policy of the South vindicated by necessity--The results that would follow an _attempt_ to establish a system for instructing the blacks in letters, and those which would follow the establishment of such a system--The domestic element of the system of slavery in the Southern States affords the means for their improvement adapted to their condition and the circumstances of the country--It affords the _natural_, _safe_, and the effectual means of the intellectual and moral elevation of the race--The prospects of the Africans in this country, and their final removal to Africa--The country never will be entirely rid of them--The Southern policy wise and humane
LECTURE XII.
THE CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE OF THE AFRICAN POPULATION OF THE SOUTH.
Preliminary remarks--American party--The present and prospective condition of our country--The large number of voters in the free-soil States who will be under a foreign influence, political and religious, inducing them to discard the Bible and the right of private judgment--The freedom of the Southern States from this anti-Christian and anti-republican influence--The presence of the African race in the Southern States secures them this advantage--The unpatriotic policy of freesoilism
LECTURE XIII.
THE DUTIES OF MASTERS TO SLAVES.
“Masters, give unto your servants (δούλοις, slaves) that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”--COL. iv. 1.
The duty of masters and the rights of slaves reciprocal--1. The duty of masters to their slaves considered as “their money:” in regard to working, resting, feeding, clothing, housing, and the employment of persons over them: also to the sick and the aged. 2. Their duty to their slaves considered as social beings--Punishments and the social principle discussed. 3. Their duty to their slaves considered as religious beings--Public instruction on the Sabbath and at other times, and the opportunity of attending--The employment of preachers, and the religious instruction of children
PREFACE.
The following pages contain the substance of Lectures on the subject of Domestic Slavery in the United States, which for several years have been delivered to the classes in Moral Science in Randolph Macon College.
Since the year 1844, I have been frequently called on to discuss this subject on various popular occasions in Virginia and North Carolina. My classes in college were compelled to deal with the subject of domestic slavery. Not only the popular ideas in regard to African slavery in this country, but the specific treatment of this topic by numerous text authors in Moral Science, rendered this unavoidable. A deep conviction that the minds of young men were receiving a wrong, and, in the present state of the country, a fatal direction, both as regards the principles of the institution, and the institution itself, induced me to substitute the text authorities on the subject by a course of lectures. These lectures, therefore, were originally drawn up with a view to oral delivery. They were modified by the circumstances of their origin. In preparing them for the press, however, I was led to consider the class of persons for whose use they were chiefly designed, and at the same time to adapt them as far as possible to the general reader. I was aware of the difficulty of fixing definitely on the mind of the student the nature and limits of abstract truths, and that this difficulty is, if any thing, greatly increased when we pass to those whose reading is not characterized by habits of thought,--as would be the case with many of those whose interest in the general subject of slavery might induce them to read these lectures. The task of meeting these difficulties was encountered with a measure of painful distrust.
My views on the subject of slavery, as a practical question, will be found very generally to accord with the popular ideas of those communities in which the African population chiefly resides. But, as a question of Moral Science, I will be found to differ, and in some aspects very materially, from those who have spoken and written on the subject.
The closing lecture is on the duties of masters to slaves. On this point it may also appear that my views do not accord with those of some others. There are men whose views I judge to be entirely too loose on the whole subject. But I should consider any treatise on the subject of slavery as inexcusably defective that did not embrace the duties of masters to slaves; and I persuade myself that the number, if any, who take a different view of the subject will be found to be exceedingly small.
Whether I have acted wisely in endeavoring to combine in one performance a treatise adapted to the habits of the student, and at the same time to the habits of the general reader; and whether I have succeeded to any desirable extent in so difficult an undertaking, it is not for me to determine. I can only say, that in giving these lectures to the public, I have yielded to the earnest desire, often expressed, of a large number of friends whose judgment is entitled to my highest respect and confidence. In meeting their wishes, I have endeavored to do justice to the subject. I have written honestly, and with a sincere desire to do good.
For the many imperfections of this volume, the author persuades himself that the assurance that it has been written and prepared for the press under the pressure of other important and frequently distracting avocations, will be received as some apology. In the humble hope that it may, nevertheless, shed some light on the difficulties of the general subject, and thereby contribute to diffuse sounder views on the principles involved, quiet the irritation of the public mind, and give more stability to our political union, and, at the same time, impress masters more deeply with the importance and obligations of their providential position, it is with diffidence submitted to the judgment of the public.
RANDOLPH MACON COLLEGE, VA., _August 18th, 1856_.
LECTURES ON THE Philosophy and Practice of Slavery.
LECTURE I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE SUBJECT OF AFRICAN SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES.
General subject enunciated--Why this discussion may be regarded as humiliating by Southern people--Other stand-points, however, disclose an urgent necessity, at this time, for a thorough investigation of the whole subject--The results to which it is the object of these lectures to conduct the mind.
The great question which arises in discussing the slavery of the African population of this country--correctly known as “Domestic Slavery”--is this: _Is the institution of domestic slavery sinful?_
The position I propose to maintain in these lectures is, that slavery, _per se_, is right; or that the great abstract principle of slavery is right, because it is a fundamental principle of the social state; and that domestic slavery, as an _institution_, is fully justified by the condition and circumstances (essential and relative) of the African race in this country, and therefore equally right.
I confess that it is somewhat humiliating to discuss the question enunciated--Is the institution of domestic slavery sinful? The affirmative assumes that an immense community of Southern people, of undoubted piety, are, nevertheless, involved in great moral delinquency on the subject of slavery. This is a palpable absurdity in regard to a great many. For nothing is more certain than this, that if it be sinful, they either know it, or are competent to know it, and hence are responsible. And as no plea of necessity can justify an enlightened man in committing known sin, it follows that all such Southern people are highly culpable, which is utterly inconsistent with the admission that they are pious. To say, as some are accustomed to do, that “slavery is certainly wrong in the _abstract_,” that is, in plain terms, in itself sinful, but that they cannot help themselves, appears to me to be wholly unfounded. It assumes that a man may be absolutely compelled to commit sin. This certainly cannot be true. All candid minds will readily allow, that so far as Deity has yet explained himself, he has in no instance enjoined upon man the observance of any principle as his duty, which he may be compelled, in the order of his providence, to violate. It is equally false in fact, for it is not true that we are absolutely compelled to be slaveholders. If government be, as it undoubtedly is, the agent of the people, and the people choose, they are certainly competent by this agent to free themselves from this institution. True, the immense cost of such an enterprise would be the least in the catalogue of evils resulting from it; for the total ruin of the African race in this country may be put down among the rest. But what of all this? Nothing can justify an enlightened and civilized people in committing sin. No; not even the sacrifice of life itself. Withal, if the civil society refuse to make so costly a sacrifice to avoid sin, there is nothing that can compel any individual citizen to remain a slaveholder. He can live in the community, as some do, without even hiring or owning a slave; or he can remove to one of the so-called free States. We should give no countenance, therefore, to any such mere attempts to _apologize_ for domestic slavery. The conduct of bad men may sometimes find apologists. The conduct of good men always admits _of defence_. Hence, with many others, I have often been grieved by the repeated attempts of certain pseudo-friends to pass off this flimsy and ridiculous apology as an able defence of the South.
In maintaining the institution of domestic slavery, we are either right or wrong, in a moral point of view. We ask no mere apology on the score of necessity, and we can certainly claim none on the ground of ignorance. Those who affirm that we are wrong, directly attack our morals. In doing this, they arraign the character of many thousands, who are among the most civilized and pious people now living. This fact alone is a sufficient refutation of so foul an aspersion; and in this view, it may be readily admitted that any attempt at a more formal refutation is a humiliating condescension, to which few Southern men can willingly submit.
But there is another stand-point from which this subject is to be viewed, and which reflects it in a very different light, and clearly indicates the duty of submitting it to the test of the soundest principles of philosophy and religion. It is this: _the ascendency which certain popular errors on the subject of African slavery have acquired, and the extent to which they peril the peace of the country, if not the very liberties of the whole republic_. I allude to the fact that there are many in the country--and not a few of this number spread through our Southern States--who would not intentionally arraign the piety of their fellow-citizens, but whose minds (it is painfully humiliating to know) are in a state of great embarrassment on this subject; so much so, that they are constantly liable to be made the victims of any fanatical influences abroad in the land, no less than the dupes of that large class of political aspirants who, reckless of both truth and morals, would secure their elevation at any price.
Nor need we wonder at the ascendency of erroneous opinions on the subject of slavery, any more than at the results which they threaten.
At an early period in our history, Thomas Jefferson denounced domestic slavery as sinful, _per se_, and declared that “there was no attribute in the Divine mind which could take sides with the whites in a controversy between the races:” thus assuming in this remark, that the providences as well as the attributes of the Deity are against the slaveholder. Owing to the prominence given by our Puritan fathers to the higher institutions of learning, together with the fact that the soil and the climate of New England were unfavorable to agricultural pursuits, citizens of these States have, from an early period in the history of the republic, supplied the most of the text-books for the schools and colleges of the whole country. This grossly offensive error of Mr. Jefferson has been more or less diffused through the whole of these text-books. It has been among the first of speculations upon abstract truth presented to the minds of the American people. It has been studiously inculcated from professors’ chairs in colleges and universities in the Northern States, while Southern literary institutions have been for the most part silent. The pulpits of the South have also lent their aid, and in some instances have been zealous and active in propagating this error.
As early as 1780, the Methodists declared, in a general convention of preachers, that “slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the dictates of conscience and pure religion; doing that which we would not that others should do to us and ours; and that we pass our disapprobation upon all our friends who keep slaves, and advise their freedom.” This doctrine was reässerted after the organization of the Church in 1784, and, with short intervals of time, and unimportant variations of phraseology, the essential features of this doctrine have been adhered to until the present time, by this most numerous body of professing Christians in this country. At an early day, Bishop Coke, of the M. E. Church, openly advocated this doctrine in the pulpits of the country, until silenced by the force of public opinion; yet he did not cease, while he remained in the country, to exert the full amount of his personal influence in private and social circles against the institution of domestic slavery. His example was followed by a large number of his preachers, and many ministers of other Christian denominations, who imbibed the same doctrine and were animated by the same spirit of hostility to the institution; and who, like himself, were only held in abeyance by the same force of public opinion. Many politicians, also, there were, from time to time, who did not scruple to avow Mr. Jefferson’s doctrine, and like him affect to foresee dreadful calamities overhanging the country as a consequence of domestic slavery. In view of these facts, it cannot be a matter of surprise that abolition opinions and sentiments should pervade the non-slaveholding sections of the country; and that at least a private but painful impression or suspicion that there must be something wrong in the principle of domestic slavery, should be found to pervade a portion even of the Southern mind. Reluctant as we may be to admit the truth, necessity compels us to do so. Let the following facts bear witness.
No communities on earth are so free from domestic insurrections, and the disturbing influences which come up from the lower orders of society as those of the Southern States of this Union. The social condition of England and Ireland, and the states of the continent of Europe, are perpetually subject to the disturbing and ruinous influence of local, and often widely spread, insurrectionary movements against the social order, and even the safety of the governments. Nor are the Northern States of this Union any more free from these agrarian movements, than may be accounted for by the relative sparseness of their population. Yet a general feeling of security pervades all these people, whilst it is notorious that there are a great many in Southern communities who are in a constant state of feverish excitement on the subject of domestic insurrections. Any announcement of that kind is sufficient to convulse a whole community. The trifling affair of Nat. Turner (trifling compared with the frequent disturbances and loss of life common in the communities just referred to) painfully agitated the whole State of Virginia; and occupied her Legislature through a whole winter in grave discussions as to the “best means of freeing the State from the incubus of slavery.” These results have all followed from the causes at which we have glanced.