We have already shown, that slavery originated in the practice of sparing and enslaving captives taken in war. Judge Blackstone, whose argument on this subject is triumphantly cited by the abolitionists, denies the right to make prisoners of war slaves; for, he says, we have no right to enslave, unless we had the right to kill; and we had no right to kill, unless "in cases of absolute necessity for selfdefence; and it is plain this absolute necessity did not subsist, since the victor did not actually kill him, but made him prisoner." (See chap. 6, on Civil Government.) Professor Dew, in his work on slavery, furnishes the following conclusive refutation of Blackstone's position. "Upon this we proceed to remark:-1st. That Judge Blackstone here speaks of slavery in its pure unmitigated form, whereby an unlimited power is given to the master over the life and fortune of the slave. Slavery scarcely exists any where in this form, and if it did, it would be a continuance of a state of war, as Rosseau justly observes, between the captive and the captor. Again: Blackstone, in his argument on this subject, seems to misunderstand the grounds upon which civilians place the justification of slavery, as arising from the laws of war. It is well known, that most of the horrors of war spring from the principle of retaliation, and not, as Blackstone supposes, universally from absolute necessity.""

It seems, that almost every distinguished writer on the jus gentium, has admitted the justice of slavery, under certain circumstances. Grotius says that, as the law of nature permits prisoners of war to be killed, so the same law has introduced the right of making them slaves, that the captors, in view of the benefits arising from the labour or sale of their prisoners, might be induced to spare them. Puffendorf speaks of slavery as established by the

free consent of the opposing parties." Rutherford, in his Institutes, says, "the law of nations will allow those who are prisoners to be made slaves by the nation which takes them." Other authors confirm the same rule.-Vattel asks, "are prisoners of war to be made slaves?" and answers, "yes; in cases which give a right to kill them." Locke says, "he, to whom a prisoner has forfeited his life, may, when he has him in his power, delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it."

But whatever may have been the origin of slavery in this country, or the grounds on which it was justified, it has, in its present state, in the recognition of the laws, in the practice of centuries, in the support afforded to the slave in infancy and weakness, in the peculiarities of his race and position, and in the necessities arising from them; in the impracticability of legal or peaceful abolition, and in the great advantages arising to the states, in which it exists, to the nation at large, to the slaves themselves, and to the whites a sanction more potential and conclusive than the dicta of philosophers.

The abolitionist, who is fired at the thought of the negro in contented and comfortable bondage, scruples not, should his debtor, sinking under the heavy hand of poverty, fail to pay his claim, to seize and consign him to a jail. Here, debarred from common food and common air-the damp straw his couch, the mouldering and filth-mantled prison walls his home, abandoned to suffering, horror, and infamy, he may weep over the fate of his lone and helpless wife and little ones-and admire the philanthropy of the abolitionist! Such things are of daily occurrence. Has the abolitionist then no compassion for the white slave? Does he think it justifiable to inflict upon him cruelties which the negro never fears

and never suffers? He will answer that the white man incurred an obligation to pay him. Does the negro incur no such obligation in return for the abundance provided him by his master? He will urge that the laws of the land sanction it. And has the South no laws, or are their laws alone to be despised and trampled on? But he will persist-the white man is not held for life. In certain cases he is held for life, condemned to respire only in the loathsome atmosphere of a dungeon; and if he sees at all the blessed sky, to gaze at it, with a pallid cheek and an aching heart, through the grates of that perpetual prison to which his white brother-perchance an abolitionist-a pious philanthropist, who expends tens of thousands to excite the happy negro to discontent and murder-has condemned him for the crime of poverty!-Such things may occur, even at the enlightened and sanctimonious North and East. The poor white slave may thus live-perish thus-and who tells him that his slavery is unlawful, an offence against God, or bids him destroy his jailor and set himself free?

The laws of every community justify a certain state of domestic bondage. The child is, to a certain extent, the slave of his father, the servant or the apprentice of his master. True, the master is restricted by law; and he can neither punish unnecessarily, nor use those, whose care is entrusted with him, with cruelty or neglect. But is not the slaveholder of the South equally controlled? Is not the slave equally protected? If the law is justified in the sanction of slavery, for the undoubted benefit of society and of those concerned, for a term of ten or fifteen years, why not of twenty, or fifty, or an hundred? The welfare of society is the object of both species of servitude; both are sanctioned by national law, and both must be continued.

CHAPTER IX.

Slavery considered in continuation-Sanctioned by the Old and New Testaments, and accordant with the precepts and spirit of Christianity.

THE scheme of abolition had its origin in religious fanaticism; and is still urged on religious grounds. Religious feelings and prejudices are invoked in its favour; religious periodicals are enlisted in its support; and even religious persecution has been already used to aid and urge its advance. These measures have, it is feared, deceived some, who have not examined this subject, into a belief that slavery is inconsistent with religion; and good, but weak men, have thus been induced to lend their names to one of the most sanguinary schemes which ever borrowed the cloak of religion to conceal the purpose and perpetration of crime. To such it may be well to mention, that the whole clergy of the South, certainly not inferior, in any particular, to their brethren in any part of the world, lend their express sanction to slavery. If inconsistent with the letter or spirit of Christianity, if cruel or oppressive, could they be thus induced unanimously to approve and countenance it? Such an imputation on their purity and holiness cannot for a moment be cherished.

We will, however, proceed by quotations from Scripture, to prove that slavery, so far from being irreconcilable to religion, is fully sanctioned by the clear and unequivocal expression of the divine will.

Immediately after the deluge, Noah, an inspired prophet, pronounced the following curse upon the posterity of Ham, from whom the African race is supposed to have sprung:-" Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethen. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." Gen. ix. 25, 26, 27. Thus when there was but one family on the face of the earth, a portion of that family was doomed to be slaves to the others.

In the covenant made by God with Abraham, the patriarch is directed to ratify it with the ceremonial of circumcision. Among those included in the covenant, were slaves. "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised." Gen. xvii. 13. In the 27th verse of the same chapter, we are informed that this direction was obeyed: "And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him." From these passages, it is evident that slavery existed in the time of Abraham; that the patriarch was himself a slave-holder; that his slaves were not captives in war, nor convicts of crime, but "bought with money, of the stranger;" that Abraham, notwithstanding that he was a slave-holder, was the chosen of God among the families of the earth; and that God, in making the covenant, mentions the slaves, and impliedly sanctions their bondage.

After this time, the patriarch increased his stock of slaves. In Gen. xx. 14, it is said, "And Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and men servants and women servants, and gave them unto Abraham.” In a subsequent chapter, a servant of Abraham says, "And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and