THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY.

Right or wrong slavery is the one institution of the ages. Its Latin name, servus, correctly translated a slave, comes from servire, to preserve. The servi, or slaves were captured in war, and their lives were preserved on the condition of their becoming the absolute property of their masters. It is doubtless as old as war, and hence existed long before the historic age.

It existed in ancient Egypt, Chaldea, Arabia and all the wide East. Poets, Philosophers, and Statesmen alike regarded it as regular and natural. Aristotle defended it on the ground of "diversity of races." Plato in his perfect state only desired that no Greek should become the slave of a Greek.

Abraham, the father of the faithful, was a slave owner. With him God made a covenant for the redemption of mankind. Some of his slaves were "born" such. Others were "bought with money." Job, whom God called "his servant," had many slaves. When Christ came into this world he found slavery here. "The man without sin" rebuked all sin, yet he did not rebuke the relation between master and slave. Of a certain Centurion he said, "I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel." Yet that Centurion was a large slave-owner, Onesimus was an escaped slave of Philemon. Both the slave and his master were converted under the preaching of Paul. Onesimus was sent back by Paul to his master. Martin Luther wrote: "He that says slavThe great French

ery is opposed to Christianity is a liar." preacher, Bousett, near the end of the 17th century, wrote, "To condemn slavery is to condemn the Holy Ghost."

Must we condemn the Bible because it does not condemn slavery? All are slaves to a greater or less extent. Freedom itself is not unbridled liberty. It is restricted on all sides by the law, both civil and moral. If restriction of liberty is slavery, freedom itself is a slave. The most civilized races need restriction, but infinitely less than the least civilized. The best government for any people is that which is best adapted to their capacity. Judged by this test who can deny that the humane institution of slavery

in the South was not the best government for the savages shipped from Africa to this country in the colonial days?

When the colonies were first organized the whole civilized world advocated the institution of slavery. Georgia was the only colony of the original thirteen that excluded slavery in her organization. If salvery was right all share equally in the credit of establishing it in this country. If it was wrong all share equally in the wrong.

The institution of slavery was the solace of Heaven in comparison to the cruelty of the slavers. Apparently without remorse of conscience by Northern slavers vast numbers of helpless savages were crowded into close quarters on these vessels, causing most intense suffering and a very large death rate. Bancroft estimates that prior to 1776 more than six million of negroes had been stolen from Africa, while Reynol estimates the number to exceed nine million. It is estimated that at least three million of these came to America; and that no less than a quarter of a million were thrown into the Atlantic on the voyage.

The first state to legalize the slave trade was Massachusetts. The first State to build and equip a slaver was Massachusetts. The first slaver was christened "The Desire"-built and equipped at Marblehead in June 1637. Whatever significance was attached to the name, "The Desire," of this first slaver, it is certain that the slavers did more to render North America pro-slavery than all other forces combined. The other New England states followed in the wake of Massachusetts, for the slave trade was very profitable. More than two score slavers from MassachuNot a slaver setts were on the bosom of the Atlantic at once.

went from a Southern Colony.

The New England States plead in justification of their course the fact that the savages they secured in Africa were already the slaves of the neighboring African tribes. But there was no ex

cuse.

Besides they captured and enslaved peaceful Indians by the hundreds, and exchanged them for negroes in the Bermudas, Barbardoes and other islands. But if wrong, had the South no part in all these great wrongs? Yes, in these great wrongs all the colonies shared-in the South by purchasing these negroes,

thus encouraging the slave traffic. She plead in excuse that it was an act of mercy in as much as she found them at her door under most distressing circumstances; and in as much as she gave them life instead of death; comfort instead of suffering and distress; and kindness instead of cruelty. But still it encouraged the slave trade. But again it was very difficult for sympathetic human nature to turn a deaf ear to their misfortunes. When the Declaration of Independence was written, slavery existed in all the states. The Revolutionary War was fought to a finish by slave-holding states. When the Constitution was adopted slavery existed in all the states except Massachusetts. And Massachusetts freed her slaves out of the regular order. The people had voted for a new state constitution. In that election the question of slavery was not an issue. The new Constitution. contained this clause: "All men are born free and equal." The same clause was also in the Virginia Constitution.

Seven months after Massachusetts had adopted her Constitution a slave known as Quaco Walker, of the town of Barre, Worcester County, left his master, Nathaniel Jennison, and hired himself to two brothers, John and Seth Caldwell. Jennison reclaimed and punished his slave. Quaco Walker sued Jennison for damages. Jennison also sued the Caldwells. Quaco gained his suit, obtaining judgment for fifty pounds, damages. Jennison also gained his case, obtaining judgment for twenty-five pounds. Jennison appealed to the Supreme Court and lost. The Caldwells also appealed to the same Court and gained their case.

The Supreme Court based its decision on the clause: "All men are born free and equal." Only in this very peculiar manner did Massachusetts free her slaves before the adoption of the Constitution. This decision was rendered in April 1783, one year and eight months after the battle of Yorktown. Hence the Revolutionary War was fought by slave-holding states without a single exception.

In 1783 the right to hold slaves existed in all the States. In 1790 it existed in all except Massachusetts. As late as 1840 all were slave states except four, viz.: Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Michigan. In 1850 there were sixteen free states

and fifteen slave-holding states. In 1860 the right to hold slaves existed in fifteen out of thirty-three states, one of these being New Jersey.

Massachusetts, the first to abolish slavery owned slaves almost, if not quite, a half century longer than Georgia, while New Jersey held slaves at least a full century longer than Georgia.

When the Constitution was adopted it was said of the Government, "Its corner stone is slavery." Mr. Thorpe says, "The South had the Negro on its hands in 1860 and it has him today chiefly because of the law of climate. And the North did not have the Negro on its hands in 1860, as it does not have him to-day on account of the same law. If it be asked why in 1790 and earlier slavery existed in New England, and in the Middle States in spite of the climate the answer is contained in the question: it existed in spite of the climate. But negro slavery at the North was not profitable excepting as at New York and other markets where slaves were bought and sold as commodities. Whether the Northern conscience would have considered slavery a crime had slavery been profitable all the way up to the Canadian border, is a question which Southern men can answer perhaps more accurately than Northern men: for the climate which is necessary to the existence of the negro is the climate of the South rather than the North. If slavery was right at the South at any time it would have been at the North whatever the climate of the North might be." (The Civil War from a Northern standpoint, p. 14).

Mr. Thorpe evidently means that had similar conditions existed in the North to those of the South the institution of slavery would have continued there as in the South. As late as 1831, as the conditions then were in the North the pro-slavery sentiment was violently strong. In that year Abolitionists were mobbed, assaulted, and threatened with tar and feathers in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and other states. As late as 1837 a Mr. Lovejoy was actually put to death by a mob of enraged citizens in the state of Illinois. Eleven years before this the abolition of slavery was actually proposed

It

and earnestly debated in the Legislature of Virginia, and so near was its accomplishment that it lacked only one vote. was defeated only on the ground of expediency.

The love of liberty is innate and shrewd Northerners took advantage of the existence of slavery in the South, making it the occasion of their own political advancement Appealing to this innate principle they finally inflamed the North against both the South and the Constitution, denouncing the South as the propagandists of slavery and the Constitutoin as "a compact with death and a league with hell." Is comment necessary here? No, the facts speak for themselves.

In 1619 a few slaves were sold to private citizens of the Colony of Virginia. The colony tolerated slavery at that time but had not yet legalized it. We believe that Massachusetts was the first of all the colonies to legalize slavery.

In 1860 there were 3,950,531 slaves in the South and 247,817 free colored people. All the States at this time had more or less free negroes. Maryland had no less than 83,743 free blacks, only 3,247 less than her entire slave population. Virginia had no less than 58,042 free negroes and North Carolina no less than 30,462. These were the three oldest slave states of the South. The all important fact is learned here that time and patience would have solved the slavery question without that great shedding of blood that distinguished the Sixties. Alas! for reckless, impatient, cruel, and selfish ambition! The records made by its bloody hand mar every page of history.,

The institution of slavery in the South was missionary in the truest and highest sense. Who can begin to estimate the benefits slavery conferred on the degraded savages brought by Northern slavers from the wilds of Africa, and sold to the Southern planter! Compare these savages with the negroes of the South, and consider the contrast. Brought into immediate contact with the best type of Christian civilization, their transformation was wonderful-almost magical. They found here the best possible conditions for their wants. They were helpless. They were ignorant. Hence they were most dependent. They found here good homes, comfortable beds, warm clothing—an abund