News - Agassizhorn to Rentyhorn - June 2009
Forgot your password?
New user?
Document Actions
Teaching of the Spirit, Exemplified in the History of Two Slaves (XHTML)
by
things
—
last modified
2006-02-23 00:58
Post-war anti-slavery tract, published by the Society of Friends (Philadelphia: Tract Association of Friends, 1870). Digitized by the Antislavery Literature Project.
Size 29.1 kB - File type text/html
Click here to get the file
File contents
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="undefined">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>SLAVES BOUGHT AND SOLD</title>
<style>
<!--
h1
{page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h2
{text-align:center;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
letter-spacing:.95pt;}
h3
{text-align:center;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader
{font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter
{font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
{text-align:center;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent
{text-align:center;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent2, li.MsoBodyTextIndent2, div.MsoBodyTextIndent2
{text-indent:7.2pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.Style2, li.Style2, div.Style2
{text-autospace:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.Style1, li.Style1, div.Style1
{text-align:justify;
text-justify:inter-ideograph;
text-indent:10.8pt;
line-height:9.6pt;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
ol
{ul
{-->
</style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US">
<div class="Section1">
<h2>Bible Against Slaveholders</h2>
<h3>Friend of Freedom and the Perpetuity of the Union</h3>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>This is an annotated edition of the original text of <i>Bible
Against Slaveholders</i>, a tract published in 1840 and reprinted in 1849 in
Buffalo, New York. No author is listed or has been identified for this
tract. Original spelling, punctuation and page citations have been retained;
minor typographic errors have been corrected.</b></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>This electronic edition has been prepared for the
Antislavery Literature Project, Arizona State University, a public education
project working in cooperation with the EServer, Iowa State University.
Digitization has been supported by a grant from the Institute for Humanities
Research, Arizona State University. </b></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><b>Editorial annotation by Joe Lockard. Digitization and
annotation research by April Brannon. All rights reserved by the Antislavery
Literature Project. Permission for non-commercial educational use is granted.</b></p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<h1>Introduction</h1>
<p> This anonymous tract was published twice, in
1840 and again in 1849, in Buffalo, New York. ‘Friend of Freedom and the
Perpetuity of the Union,’ the unknown author of <i>Bible Against Slaveholders</i>,
paid for the printing of the tract at the <i>Buffalo Republican</i>, a
newspaper that existed under various names during the 1840s and beyond.
Buffalo was a highly active antislavery city during this period, with a
well-known vigilance committee that worked to transport fugitives across the
border into Canada. </p>
<p>This is a tract that in many ways
represents the local character of the antebellum antislavery movement. While
the author exhibits significant familiarity with classical terms and dialogical
rhetoric, the essay does not reference any text beyond the Bible. It rehearses
biblical argument with easy familiarity, indicating that the author was
concerned primarily with religious arguments against slavery. Like many
religious antislavery texts during the antebellum period, the present tract is
concerned to contradict citation of the Old Testament as providing license for
the institution of slavery. The author subordinates secular political
arguments over slavery to religious argument and concludes that, even under
threat of disunion, the iniquitous sin of slavery must be prevented from
expansion through passive resistance. </p>
<p><i>Bible Against Slaveholders</i> is rude-hewn religious antislavery argument written by an author who does not
employ the theological vocabulary characteristic of Garrissonian abolitionism.
Its expressions are more attributable to the reform evangelical culture that
abounded in western New York State during most of the first half of the
nineteenth century.</p>
<p>— Joe Lockard</p>
<br clear="all" style='page-break-before:always' />
<p class="MsoHeader">[page 2]</p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;letter-spacing:.95pt'>SLAVES BOUGHT AND SOLD!</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;letter-spacing:.95pt'>___________________</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;letter-spacing:.95pt'>READ AND EXAMINE</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;letter-spacing:.95pt'>___________________</span></b></p>
<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;letter-spacing:-.8pt'>My
doctrine </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>is "— <span
style='letter-spacing:-.3pt'>That God hath made of one blood, all Nations </span><span
style='letter-spacing:.25pt'>of </span><span style='letter-spacing:-.7pt'>men,
for to </span><span style='letter-spacing:.3pt'>dwell </span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.5pt'>on all the face </span>of <span style='letter-spacing:
.15pt'>the earth." — That the Negro </span><span style='letter-spacing:
.6pt'>is </span><span style='letter-spacing:-.8pt'>a man, and that which </span><span
style='letter-spacing:.55pt'>is</span><span style='letter-spacing:-.2pt'> </span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.5pt'>the inalienable right </span>of <span
style='letter-spacing:-.55pt'>one man is also the right </span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.05pt'>of a</span><span style='letter-spacing:-.3pt'>ll
men, — That Freedom </span><span style='letter-spacing:-.4pt'>and </span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.3pt'>Slavery are antagonistical principles</span>; <span
style='letter-spacing:-.15pt'>both cannot be right — that Freedom </span>is <span
style='letter-spacing:-.5pt'>right and Slavery wrong, therefore Slavery ought
not to exist.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent2">As we were passing through your city we saw the
above sign, and a man came out and accosted us, "Have you slaves to sell?
or do you wish to buy?"</p>
<p><i> Ardent. </i>Neither; we abhor all such business.</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>There is no need to
speak reproachfully of it. It is a legal business, carried on under the
sanction of the public authorities. I claim to have just as much right to buy
men, women and children, as my neighbor has to buy horses and cattle.</p>
<p><i>Thoughtful. </i>The laws of the
land may protect you in so doing; but they do not make it right, unless it is
authorized by the laws of God, which we suppose you will scarcely claim.</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>I believe that
slaveholding is authorized by the Bible; and that, consequently, the buying and
selling of slaves is authorized also. Was not Abraham a slaveholder?</p>
<p><i> Ard.</i> <i> </i>I think not. But, perhaps we shall
need to define our terms. What is a slave?</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>He is a "chattel
personal." He is not regarded as a person, but a thing. He has no rights
and can have no property. Whatever he has in his possession belongs to his
master.</p>
<p><i>Th.</i> <i> </i>I believe that
is a correct definition of modern slavery, and nearly so of the ancient Roman
slavery. The fundamental idea is that <i>slaves are not persons but things</i>,<i> </i>(thereby all the rights of property attach, even to the selling of men,
women, children, and even babies by the pound, as is said to have been done.)
In this case I deny that slavery was authorized in the Old Testament or the New.</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>You take bold ground.
Had not Abraham bondman and bondwomen, born in his house, and bought with his
money?</p>
<p class="Style1" align="left" style='text-align:left;line-height:normal'>[page 3]</p>
<p class="Style1" align="left" style='text-align:left;line-height:
normal'><i>Th.</i> Yes; but, what was a <i>bondman in </i>Abraham's house? Was
he considered as a <i>person, </i>having rights, like the white servants among
us, capable of making contracts, capable of acquiring and holding property, and
the like? If so, he was not a slave. For a slave is a <i>thing, </i>and not <i>a
person. </i>A slave has no rights.</p>
<p class="Style2"><i> Man. </i>But I suppose the word <i>bondman </i>meant slave.</p>
<p><i>Th. </i>The Hebrew word is <i>ebed, </i>which is commonly rendered <i>servant. </i>David was the <i>ebed of </i>Saul,
not his slave. Ziba was the <i>ebed </i>of Mephibosheth, but a man of<i> </i>wealth
and importance. Jeroboam was the <i>ebed </i>of<i> </i>Solomon. It is used just
as we use the word <i>servant, </i>to denote subordination and dependence, but
not the degradation of <i>persons </i>to <i>things, </i>in which the essence
of slavery consists.</p>
<p class="Style2"><i> Man. </i>But Abraham's servants
were <i>bought </i>with his money.</p>
<p class="Style1" align="left" style='text-align:left;line-height:normal'><i> Th</i>. The word signifies, <i>acquired, got,
procured. </i>Abraham procured them with his money. And this is the way we
procure white servants. The usual way to obtain a servant in patriarchal times
is brought into view in that very ancient composition, the Book of Job, where,
in respect to the leviathan, it is asked, "Will he make a covenant with
thee? wilt thou take him for a servant forever?" The servant was bought,
indeed, but he was bought of himself, and became a servant by contract. So it
seems to be contemplated it might be among the Israelites. "If a sojourner
or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax<b> </b>poor,
and <i>sell himself </i>unto the stranger." <i>Slaves </i>are never bought
of themselves, but of some other. Abraham might also have procured servants of
his heathen neighbors, by way of redeeming captives taken in war, on the easy
condition of their becoming permanent members of his family, and there enjoying
the substantial benefits of freedom, which they could not hope to do among
their enemies. Wives also were <i>bought. </i>Jacob gave fourteen years'
personal service for his. David bought his wife of the king her father, by his
military services. To betroth a wife among the Israelites was to <i>buy </i>her,<i> </i>by paying a sum of money, or goods to her father. Joseph bought the people
with food to be servants unto Pharaoh. But they were not made slaves. They
were only to pay Pharaoh a large rent for their land.</p>
<p><i>Ard. </i>Would any slaveholder
now treat his slaves as Abraham did his servants? He put arms into their hands,
and intrusted them with the guardianship of his person. They were to be his
heirs, in case of the failure of children, in preference to other relations.
The oldest servant of Abraham's house was a person of great consideration, to
whom Isaac was in some respects subordinate, even at the age of forty years.
And Abraham thought it necessary to bind him by an oath that <i>he </i>would
not marry Isaac to any of the daughters of the land. There is no evidence that
Abraham sold any of them, or gave them away, or treated them in any respect
like slaves.</p>
<p>[page 4]</p>
<p><i> Th.</i> If Abraham's service was slavery, his servants
had an easy method of emancipating themselves. It was but to refuse a
compliance with some of the religious obligations which his family were
required to observe, and they would at once be excluded from his family, and turned
out of his house. No, they must have been substantially like the servants of
whom the apostle<sup>,</sup> speaks. "Now I say that the heir, as long as
he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of
all." Of course, the servant differs nothing from a child in his minority.
But as a child in his minority is very different from a slave, so also the
servitude which is authorized by the Scriptures is very different from slavery.</p>
<p><i>Man. </i> But Moses found
slavery in existence, and made laws to regulate it.</p>
<p><i> Th</i>. Moses found a<i> </i>system of servitude in
existence, not slavery, and made laws to regulate it which are not found in
modern slave countries. Servants could make intermarriages with other members
of the family, and become heirs with the children. "A wise servant shall
have rule over<i> </i>a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the
inheritance among the brethren." Servants were not allowed to be separated
from their wives and children; they were invited guests at all the national and
family festivals of the household in which they resided; they were under the
same religious instruction, and under the same civil laws with their masters.
There was not one law for the master, and another for the servant, as in all
slave countries. Servants might be parties to a suit at law for the recovery
of their rights; and they could give testimony in courts of justice where
masters were concerned.</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>But Moses says:
"Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of
the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and
bondmaids-they shall be your bondmen forever." Is not that authority to
buy slaves?</p>
<p><i>Th. </i>The word rendered, <i>bondmen<b> </b></i>signifies <i>servants</i>;<i> </i>the word rendered <i>buy </i>signifies <i>procure. </i>— And we are not obliged by the language, when divested of the
wrong ideas derived from our familiarity with slavery, to understand it as
meaning any more than this: "Both thy male and female" servants,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen<sup> </sup>that are round about
you; (and not of your Hebrew brethren;) of them shall ye procure men servants
and maid servants-of such shall be your permanent servants in all ages." </p>
<p> <i>Ard. </i>Did Moses authorize the buying and selling
of slaves?</p>
<p><i> Th. </i>The institutions of Moses provide for persons
selling themselves to be servants, that is, hiring themselves out to be
permanent servants, for a sum paid in advance; and also for fathers selling
their daughters to be wives, and thus providing them with a dowry. But there
seems to be no trace of any toleration of slave trading. The possibility that
such a thing might be attempted appears to be pro-</p>
<p>[page 5]</p>
<p>vided for. "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or
if he be<sup> </sup>found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."</p>
<p><i> Man. </i>Were not the Israelites slaves in
Egypt?"</p>
<p><i>Th. </i>They were under great
oppression there, for which their oppressors were severely punished; but not
slaves according to your definition. They resided by themselves in the land of
Goshen, in permanent dwellings, in their own distinct and separate families.
They held their possessions independently, and owned a large amount of
property, which does not appear to have been claimed by their masters. They
kept arms, and were fully equipped when they left Egypt.<i> </i>They had their
own government, and laws, and magistrates. They appear to have<sup>-</sup>been
called out, a given portion of the men at a time, to labor in the public works.
And the great oppression consisted in their being required to perform too much
labor for the king. They appear to have had time to learn and practise several
of the fine arts. There is no complaint that their women were subject to any
personal outrages, nor to any species of cruel treatment, save that which Pharaoh
judged to be necessary for his own safety, the destruction of their male
children. They were abundantly supplied with the necessaries and comforts of
life, as they afterwards alleged in their complaints when in the wilderness.
Instead of being allowed "a quart of corn a day," as some slave-holding
states now provide, they "sat by the flesh pots, and did eat bread to the
full." They also did "eat fish freely, and cucumbers, and melons, and
leeks, and onions, and garlic." No restrictions seem to have been placed
on their intellectual and moral improvement, or the free exercise of their
religion, till they asked leave to go away in a body three days' journey into
the wilderness, with all they possessed. And then the king seems to have
refused chiefly from the fear that they would not return. If such was the
bondage of Egypt, so decidedly condemned and so severely punished; if it was so
mild, compared with modern slavery; is it credible that God would authorize any
thing like modern slavery, among a people whom he so abundantly enjoins not to
oppress<sub> </sub>the stranger, nor to forget that they had been strangers in
the land of Egypt? I cannot think it credible.</p>
<p><i>Ard. </i>And then, there was a
year of jubilee, of which it is said: "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth <i>year, </i>and proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto <i>all </i>the
inhabitants thereof.''</p>
<p><i>Th. </i>And there was another
direction, which the modern advocates of slavery do not like to have us obey.
"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from
his master unto thee."</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>You<i> </i>had better
take care what you do, when you are within<sub>.</sub> the reach of
slaveholders.</p>
<p><i>Th. </i>We mean to obey God,
in relation to this matter, as well as all others; and bear testimony against
oppression and cruelty. And we do not think you have any right to complain of
us for doing so.</p>
<p>[page 6]</p>
<p><i>
Man. </i>"Slavery was prevalent at the coming of Christ; but he issued no
command with regard to it; the apostles nowhere assailed it; the Gospel does
not proclaim liberty to the slave."</p>
<p><i> Th.</i> I cannot but wonder that you should use such
language, if you have read the New Testament. It brings to mind the
annunciation of the object of his coming, which is put into the mouth of our
Lord, by the prophet: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the
Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto to the meek; he hath sent me
to bind up the broken-hearted, <i>to proclaim liberty to the captives, </i>and
the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable
year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that
mourn."</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>But I cannot think it
a sin to hold slaves, because the New Testament gives precepts to regulate the
conduct both of masters and slaves. "Servants, be obedient to them that
are your masters according to the flesh." "Exhort servants to be
obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things."</p>
<p> <i>Th. </i>With reference to
these precepts, I have two remarks to make. One is that nothing is here said
about <i>slaves. </i>The Greek word is <i>doaloi, </i>servants. The relation of <i>master </i>and <i>servant<b> </b></i>may be, very proper, and the relation
of <i>master </i>and <i>slave </i>not be sanctioned at all. The proper Greek
for <i>slave is andrapodon. Doulos, </i>servant, is used in the New Testament,
very much as the Hebrew <i>ebed, </i>(servant,) is in the Old. It is evident,
to any who examine the New Testament, that those who are called <i>douloi </i>were
regarded as <i>persons, </i>and not as <i>things; </i>they possessed property
of their own, were capable of making contracts, of owing debts to others, and
having debts due to them; their wives and children were theirs, and not their
masters. None of these things apply to modern slaves. Paul called himself a <i>doulos,
servant, </i>of Jesus Christ, which was a title of honor. But his declaring it
to be the same condition in which the heir is, during his minority, shows that
it meant a man in a subordinate station, and not a mere chattle. But there is
another remark to be made respecting these commands: They mention the duty of
the servant, without deciding whether it is right for him to be held<sup> </sup>in
that condition. It is the duty of those who are held <sup> </sup>as slaves; to
be obedient to the lawful commands of those to whom, in the providence of God,
they are subordinate. But that does not prove it right for them to be held in
that condition. Christianity found Nero exercising the most cruel tyranny at
Rome; and it says, to the Christians of that city: "Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God; the powers
that be are ordained of God." Did this prove that the government of Nero
was right and no sin?</p>
<p><i> Man. </i>But Christianity
gives precepts to masters also; and thus recognizes that relation. </p>
<p><i> Th</i>. It gives precepts for, the treatment of <i>servants. </i>But I do not</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p> [page 7]</p>
<p>admit that it therefore recognizes slave-holding as no sin.
It says, indeed, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and
equal; knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." <i>Just </i>and <i>equal; </i>what is that, but a fair equivalent for their service? Can it be just and
equal to compel them to labor without wages, and refuse to pay them for their
work?</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>I consider the case
of Onesimus as good proof. When Paul sent him, back to Philemon, he practically
recognized the right of taking up runaway slaves, and sending them back to
their masters.</p>
<p><i>Th. </i>This case seems to be
strangely misunderstood. Philemon had embraced the Gospel. His servant Onesimus
had run away, apparently in his debt. By the preaching of Paul, Onesimus was
converted to Christianity. Paul speaks as if he might have retained him for the
service of the Gospel; but he chose to have Philemon do his duty in discharging
him, of his own accord, and not by compulsion. He sends him therefore, and
exhorts Philemon to receive him, "<i>not now as a servant, </i>but above a
servant, a brother beloved, especially to me; but how much more unto
thee." Was that to receive him as a slave? He said, "If thou count
me, therefore, a partner, receive him as myself," that is receive him as a
partner, a companion, not as a slave. And he expresses the greatest confidence
that he would do his duty in the case: "Having confidence in thy
obedience, I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I
say." If all men, now held as slaves, were treated as Paul asks Onesimus
might be, the reproach of slavery would no longer rest upon our country.</p>
<p><i>Ard. </i>How do you pretend to
reconcile slave-holding with our Savior's golden rule, "Whatsoever ye
would that men should do to you, do ye even so them; for this is the law and
the prophets!"</p>
<p><i> Man. </i>That means, I suppose, that we should do what
is best for others, considering their situation, character, and circumstances.
And it is clearly best for most slaves to be kept in that condition; for they
cannot take care of themselves.</p>
<p><i> Ard. </i>They prove that they can, by taking care of
themselves and their masters, too, in many cases. But that would acknowledge
that all who would be better off in freedom, should be set free.</p>
<p><i> Man. </i>I<i> </i>doubt whether any would be better
off.</p>
<p><i> Ard. </i>Suppose you test the sincerity of your
principles by changing places with them. Would you be willing to be shut up for<i> </i>a season, and then be sold to the highest bidder? Would you be willing to
be chained in a company, and be driven with a whip to the sugar plantations,
and there be worked, as those you sell are worked, till they are exhausted, and
die? Just put the case to yourself; and put yourself in their place, and see
what you ought to do.</p>
<p><i> Man. </i>"Slavery is the corner-stone of our
republican edifice."</p>
<p><i> Ard. </i>Out upon such republicanism. The republican
edifice erected by our revolutionary fathers, has the contrary as its
foundation. They say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are</p>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="3" height="15">
<tr>
<td valign="top" align="left" height="15"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>[page 8] </p>
<p>created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness." If these truths are self-evident, in the light of nature,
they are equally clear according to the word of God. That affirms that God
"hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on the face of
the earth." Here, then, we, take our stand, with the Bible in one hand,
and the declaration of our fathers in the other; and we fearlessly affirm, that
every pretended grant of the right of property in human beings, is self-evidently
null and void; and every assertion of such a right is usurpation and robbery.</p>
<p><i>Man. </i>Such declarations are
mere rhetorical flourishes. Nobody believed them at the time.</p>
<p><i>Th</i>. I<i> </i>am not
willing to think that it was so. I believe them to be true, according to the natural
import of their language, and I honor the patriots who put forth such a
declaration before the world; and I think it eminently disgraceful for their
posterity to maintain the contrary now.</p>
<p><i>Man.</i> We must have slaves in
our warm regions to perform the <sup></sup>labor necessary to support human
life. If they were free, they could not be hired to do it, and the land would
become desolate.</p>
<p><i>Th.</i> Better so, than live
in the continual violation of the laws of God and man. "Woe unto him that
buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth
his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work"
"Rob not the poor because he is poor; neither oppress the afflicted in the
gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that
spoiled them." I should suppose you would sometimes think as Mr. Jefferson,<b> </b>himself a slaveholder, said: "I tremble for my country, when I reflect
that God is just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever. The Almighty has
no attribute which can take sides with us."</p>
<p> <i>Man.</i> I am astonished at such sentiments. <i>Slaveholders</i> will not tolerate them; secession, rebellion, and division of the Union will be
the result, if persevered in.</p>
<p><i> Ard. </i>Away with your threats of rebellion,
secession, and disunion — remember the Whisky Rebellion and Shay's War — in
later times, Nullification. Will not freemen, now as then, stand by the U<span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>NION</span>. Try it —</p>
<p><i> Th. </i>Hold,<i> </i>hold,
brother! "In meekness admonish those that oppose themselves."
Although I admit that slaveholding, in these United States <i>is sin</i>;<i> </i>the
vilest transgression of the laws of God, and the principles of the constitution
of. these United States, that ever had a legal existance, yet we must remember
the slaveholding mind is darkened by reason of its existance, therefore we must
bear with their taunts and threats. But as you love your country, your fellow
men and our free institutions, do nothing to extend or perpetuate the system of
slaveholding; or in any way be partaker of its iniquity. — The love you bear
your fellow men at the south,<i> </i>and their children yet unborn, — DEMAND IT
AT YOUR HANDS! </p>
</div>
</body>
</html>