Press enter after choosing selection

Rev. Mr. West's Third Letter

Rev. Mr. West's Third Letter image
Parent Issue
Day
14
Month
August
Year
1843
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

Before we proceed to an examination of the r particular propositions contained ii) tliis letter, t let us take a slight review of the ces out of whicü our differences of opinión 1 have grown. ' The first occasion on whicli Mr. West became generally kuown to to the aboütionists ' of Michigan, was at the Anniversary of our , Stute Society in February. Here, in a lengthy nnd oloqiieut speech, he denounced slavery in the strongest terms, as cruel, inhuman, ani directly withstanding the progrcssof the Gos pel. He expressed his belief that cruelty was the general rule in the treatmenl of the slave, and kindness the exception, and he defied gentlemen to show a condition on this side of Heil worse than that of the &lave. He urged the duty of Christians to do all they cnuld for the overthrow of the systein, and he admonished them that although it was fortified bylegislation, yet it was right to disobey all laws which coutravene the legislation of heavcn. These eentiments were cordially received by our noble hearled friends, and they considered him among the number of their decided and energetic co-adjutors. The liext we heard from Mr. West was from the General Assembly. What was his course there? Sixteen memoriais came up before this body asking them to take some efficiënt action against this iniquily. by which if we may believe Mr. West, many members of the Presbylerian church were in a condition more wretched than any this side of Bdl! Was he in favor of any expressinn of disapprobation of this abomination? He wasnot.' When the slaveholders, Üke the evil spirits of old, asked to be let nlone, Mr. West secondedtheir request with a warmth and earnestness which was noticed by every reporter whose statement we have seen. The Pennsylvama Freeman speaks ofhim as "one of the most, determined opponents of anii-slavery action in the Assembly." When we read the final determinntion of the Assembly, wethought, with Dr. Beecher, that a very different result was due "to the cause of Truth and Justice, and the cliaractcr of the Presbyterian Church." We expressed our convictions in the plainest and most simple language we knew how to use, yet, as we thoug-ht, with the utmost kindness of feeling We altio expressed our disapproval of the courseofMr. West in urging the Assembly not to interfere. We supposed we had a perfect right to say in what light we viewed the whole matter, especially as Mr. West rcpresented a pon ion of our churches, and conveyed the impression to that Assembly that the Abolitionists of this State were of a "rumpart spuit,"" that they were "goading the church to action on this subject reckless of its interesls" that they were for "usmg the Assembly for party purposes" and that attempts had been made to "mak e a caCs paw' ofhim. - These were certainly grave charges to bring against a very respectable closs of his fellow Christians, and although they were made in that Assembly, and thus disseminated all over the Union, they have not been 6upported, bo far as we know, by the least partiële of evidence. Mr. West thought we had done injiistice to him as well as to the Assembly, and forwarded a communication, correcting our errors. In the first place, he assured us that "there was not a pro-slavery man in that Assembly." We suppose Mr. W. will admit that all the members were either anti-slavery, pro-slavcry, or neutral. To ascertain their character, let us listen to their ODÏnions. In most cases wegive the language of the reporters. Rrv. Dr. Kly, of Missouri. "He did not think that all slaveholding was sin: he could prove it was not. But then this was a free country." "There were some sores in the human system, which can only be cured by letting them alone - sometimes by covering (hem up. So that plastered up, and exempt from external irritations, the natural absorption of the system wíl) gradually remove the disease. So it was wilh slavery.' Rkv. Mr. Graït, of Marylnnd. "Gad does not require u to declare slavery a sin; he has nol so declaredit hmself." "Where does God justify us in taking his place, and declaring that slavery js sin? In taking these positions, we are making war on the laws of the land, which neither Christnor his Apostles did, in their contest with the evil." Rev. Dr. WiSNfR, of Ithaca, N. Y. He was opposed to all action of the Assembij'.'' Slavery was a political matter, not toilhiu their proper juñsdiction. He would treat it aa Christ and the Apostles did - they did not inttrferc with the relalion, but gave specific directions to masters and slaves how to conduct themselves." "We are not auihorized by the Word of God to say that ever y man who holds slaves is guilty of sin. Father Richards, of Auburn, owns an old woman in New Jersey, and pays her board, because she would not use her liberty. Is he a great sinner going down to perdition?" Rrv. Dr. Hill, of Virginia. 'I love tbe Abolilionists. I love the ultraists. But from my soul Ipiiy them. I pity their inorance - their excluei vences. They are under a fenrful delusion. Abolitiomsm is a master STROKB OV THE DkviL." We will submit the matter to our readers, whether these are the sentiments of an antislavery man, or of one who was neutral, if neutrality on this question were possible. If these are anti slavery doctrines, of whatcharacler must they be to be j?ro-slo.very, in the esttmation of Mr. West? In our remarks on the action of the Assembly, we spoke of slaveholders as "men-stealers" and "sinners of the first rank," and as such,we thought them i.nproper persons to sit in such a judicatory. The Confession of Faith of this Church, of 1794, says: "Stealers of men are all thosc who bring off 6lavcs of freemcn, or kctpy buy or sell thern.'Henee we cellcd Presbytiírian slaveholders, mcn-slealers, according to this definition of their own Juoicatory. ín exlenuation, or as we tlien eupposed, in uefence of his slaveholding cüllengues, Mr. West odvancedanother pruposition thus: iiWo had not a man in that Assembly' who was either a sentimental or voluntary sluveholder. Every one who spoke cleared himself in tbifl respect." This proposition was new and strange to us. We ezamined it carefuliy, and could make nothing else of it than tliis: that so far s the guili of holding slaves was concerned, very member cleared kimse'f ' ofall culpaüity in the matter. We knew of only one vind of slaveholding, and had never heard Mr. West mention any other. We therefore harged Mr. W. wilh justij'ying tukse slaveiolder8, and showed that upon líis principies, ie could be a slaveholder in Monroe, did the aw permit it. But i: seems tliat Mr. W. iuended to extenúate, not justity, such slaveïolding as the membera of the Assembly pracice. So much of our article as made Mr. W. a justine" of their oppression, we ure bouud to retract. As to his success in extenuating their sin, we will presently consider it. Mr. W. says this was "a great error" in us, but we assure him it was not a uwilful ' one. And he will exeicise much charity towards us, when he perceives how widely our theological views differ from his. Mr. West contended that his slaveholding colleagues wcre involuntary jn holding slaves aud we supposed, as a matter of course, that a man's involuntary cetions cannot make him morally guilty. We 6upposed that sin was a voluntary transgression of a known rule of dut)', and to be held as a sinner, a mnnmust be sensible oí a rue oí tluty, and must voluntarily transgress it. This, ve thought, was the general impresión with the vast majority of the peop'.e. But it seem s that Mr. W., who is our sen'mr in age, and our superior in literary attaínments tind theologicai knowledge, will have it that men are often "involuntary sinners." As this poinl has been a prominent topic in religious conlroversy for 6everal genei ations, we shall not discuss it in its abstrnct form. But so far ns the doctrine of "involuntary slaveholding" is odvocatcd, we cannot let it pass witheut a rigid examination. Mr. West defines itthus: "An involuntary slaveholder is one who may be opposed to slavery in his henrt. wlio may neverlheless, under certain circumstances, hold men as slaves legally, but not on his own part act from choice, or 6entimentally )elievein the propriety of such a relation." On this we have several remarks to make. 1. It is a neto doctrine, not rocognized by any anti-slavery society, paper, orlecturer, ir. the United States, or in Europe, or in the world, so far as we kwow. 2. Itappears to us absurd to say that any man or set of men can make one a slaveholder against his choice, or voiition. Suppose Mr. West lived in a slave State, and the mob should get together, and threaten to burn him alive, unless he would become a legal owiier of a slave. This is the strongest poss:ble case: and yet who does not see that he might reeist all theee ''circumst anees," and still refuae to accept the legeal relation of master. All the world could not compel him against his will. But when he yields to these "circumstances," and 6ays to the mob,"1 am oppoeed to slavery in my neart, anci do not believe in the propriety of tlie rehtion, jet ï will consent to it rather than be buriicd to deatb," Does he not net voluntarily - froin his ovu volitions? And are these "circumstances" any jusüfication or palüation of slaveholding? No man can be made to act as a slaveholoer againsl his will. 3. If slaveholders are to be divided into two elasses, voluntary and involvnlary, according to "ciicumslancee," why not oxtend the distinction to all other crimes? Why not say there are involuntory horse-steolers, involuntary gamblers or adulterers,involuntary thieves and incendiarles? Where is the criminal who cannot plead circumstances in his favor? Why has this plea never been set up in our Courts of Justice? Suppose a criminal to be arraigned at the bar for thnft, and he should plead that he Btoie involuntarily, aga'mst nis choice, being compelled to do it by "circumstances," he would be told that there can be no etealing without nn inteiilion to steal. Why has not thelaw divided all crimináis into these two classes? 4. It appears to us that this "involuntary" systrin of wickedness. if guneraüy believed, would have a powerful tenctency to break down all the barriers of virtue and good order. - Suppose every rumseller should say to himsclf: "I have just learned that there arettvo kinds of rum-sellers, voluntary and involuntarv: the last are not as bad as the first - Involuntary - Iet me see - a man cannot be very guilty for an involuniary act, can he? Ilere is Mr. Wesfs definition - let rae eee if I cun make it fit my case. An involuntary rum-seller is one who is opposed to rutn-eelling in his heart" - that'6 it, just my case - it ís a horrid business - "who may nevertheless under certain circumBtnnce?, sell rum lesally" - I am obligcd to sell it for a living - I am poor - "bul does not on his own part act from choice, or sentimentally believe in the propnety cf the business" - that's my caee exactly - the Great searchcr of Hearts knows that I abhor the business as wron" and wicked, and I do not follow it by choice, but am determined to f:et out of it as coon as I can find som e other business. - Well, I om glad I have stumbled on this piece of information. I always thought there was but one kind of rum-selling, and I have feit bad about it. But involuntary rum -selling cannot be very bad . will makc use of thisistinclion the nexl time I argxie wtth a temlerance Iccturer," This, it nppears to us, vvould be the c mate tendency of this doctrine, if practically .arried out in the different departments of 1 rime with which the earlli is filled. This i distinction would sootli the cousciences of all lic botter classes oí" slaveholders, and a largo portion of thetn could consistently take this irescription from Mr. West and range them seives in ihe involuntary class. 5. Admitting tliat tliere can be involuntary slavehoiderfi, as Mr, VV. contends, we are at a loss to know what good lus proposition wil! do. We supposed le made this allegation u reference to his slaveholding brethren, as a juslificatton of their acts; but we understand liim now to disclaim any 6uch ititention, and we presuma the pica is ad vaneed as a matter of exteniiation. But of this we have no positive evidence. We do not know, from any thinjj ho ha? said, to what exlent he considers invohin'ary slaveholders guilty. He is entirely noncommittal on this point. As this subject is nevv to us as well as our readers, we should be pleaseu if Mr. W. wilf give us more light on the subject. 6. We consider all slaveholders (o be rr.enstealers, according to the Confesöion of Faith, and have so spoken of Dr. Ely and Dr. Hül. Will Mr. W. state whether he agrees with us in sentiment, or whether he disagrees? - An explicit ansvver to this, if Mr. W. can consistently give it, will enable our leaders to determine at once whether there ia a radical difierence hetween us and Mr. West,or whether tho difFerences are verbal and unimportant. 7. This involuntary slaveholding looks to us very much like the old doctrine of hating slavery in the abstract, and approving it in practice. Indeed, we suspect that a rigul examination would show that they not only look aliko, but are identically the same; both proceeding on the assumption that holding slaves ' is not wrong ín itself, or only a lilllc wrong, and that nearly or quite all the guilt is derived from its attendont "circumstances." But we cannot pursue the subject now.Bui b t true lliat there was not a voluntary slaveho'dsrin the Assembly? Let us take the case of Dr. Ely. 1. He purchased a slave several years since whom he now holds. The price, we tliink was S700. Was this an mvoluntary act? 2. Ile toU the Assembly lie had purchased more since that time. Were these purchases involuntary? Who compelled him to buy si aves? 3. He has held as slaves their children bom in his house. Who compeüed him to 6teal the liberty of these belpless infants1 4. He boasted how well off his slaves were - in better condition than the poor people of Philadelphia. 5. It is not kno'vn that he has made the least excrtion to set them free. 6. He justifies slavr.holding: "He lid not think that all slaveholding was sin; he could prove it was not."1 He spoke of Abraham as a slaveholdfir, and quoted Paul as making the relalion of masler and slave perpetual. His expressions on this point have been understood out of the Assembly, so faras we know, just as we have understood them; and he hns ncver disavowed euch a construction. When he does, we wiJl stand corrected. Now when a man goes from a free State, and purchases slaves at several limes, at a specified price, enslaves their children, justifies it from the Bible, boasts of their good condi? tion, and makes no effort for their emancipation, noreven expressen a wish for it - are we to set him down as a poor unfurtunate involvnlary laveholder. who ia cursed with the institution against his will? Mr. West may have an amount of charity wliich may enable him to believe this; but the readers of the Signal, we suspect, will be slow to come to a i conclusión so opposile to thi dictates of common sense. As to Dr. Hill, will Mr. West deny that he is a "áldve-breeder," that he has "practically" sustained slavery, and that the system is "Hell-begotlen"? If he admits these poeitions, why speak of them as he does? Our differences wilh Mr. West are now considerably narrowed down by discussion, and will soon come to two or three points. We shall resume their consideration next week, in connectlon with the topics of his fourth letter, which we have now on hand.

Article

Subjects
Signal of Liberty
Old News