lated, would tend to make them more happy and contented. We should not suppose that they would be more dissatisfied, because their reasons for dissatisfaction were diminished.

But it is contended, and not without some show of reason, that the moment any rights are conferred on the slaves, they will begin to understand how valuable are the rights from which they are still debarred, and will never be contented till they have gained them all. We perceive the full force of the argument; but it leads us to a conclusion directly opposite to that of those who urge it. The uneasiness of the slaves would not arise from some rights being conceded to them, but from others being denied them. We should therefore say, remove all cause of dissatisfaction, by granting them all the rights of white men.

Again, does the safety of society, or the good of the slaves, require that they should be liable to be flogged at the arbitrary discretion of their masters and overseers? Again, we must answer, certainly not. The slaves would undoubtedly be much better satisfied, if they could only be punished by the order of a magistrate, after the hearing of the complaints against them. Perhaps it may be said, that if slaves could only be punished in this way, they would become indolent from not having the fear of a prompt application of the lash constantly before them. We are not prepared to admit that this would be the case, if all punishments were taken from the hands of the master; but admit that it would be, it only shows that the pecuniary interests of the master would suffer from the change of system, not that society would be endangered by the excesses of the negroes, or that they themselves would be less contented.

Does the safety of society, or the good of the slaves, require that they should be compelled to labor without wages? It cannot be pretended that the community would be unfavorably affected by having the negroes paid for their labor, except so far as it might make labor more expensive. But it seems obvious. that a change of this kind would render the slaves more satisfied with their situation, and less likely to violate the peace of the community.

Does the safety of society, or the good of the slaves, require that to teach them to read and write should be made penal of

fences? No. It is not kindness to the slaves, it is not the safety of society, but love of slave property, and the safety of the slave system, which dictate the laws for this purpose.

Does the safety of society, or the good of the slaves, require that their offences should be punished with far greater severity, than the same acts when committed by white persons ?—

But it is needless to pursue these inquiries. It would be easy to examine every part of the existing system of slavery in the same manner. What has been already said, however, is sufficient to show that the objections against each particular change are not, in truth, that such a change would endanger the peace of society, or prove really injurious to the slave himself, but that it might occasion a pecuniary loss to slave owners, or help to undermine the whole system. It must be obvious that the cruel laws and the oppressive practices engendered by slavery, are defended not from any tender regard for the slave, but from a determination of slaveholders not to suffer their property to be impaired. The whole system, so far from being intended to protect the slave, is constructed for the manifest purpose of perpetuating itself, and maintaining the privileges of slave owners, regardless of the rights and feelings of their unfortunate victims.

Let the advocates of slavery point out any important parts of their laws, which are made with a single eye to the good of the slaves; show the benevolent statutes which consider these ignorant and helpless men as wards under the guardianship of kind friends. It is a base and heartless mockery of the names of justice and benevolence, to claim their countenance for Southern oppression. It is monstrous to contend, as slaveholders do, that because the slaves are not fit to enjoy all the privileges of enlightened and intelligent freemen, therefore, their bloody statutes and atrocious cruelties are justified. Can any one doubt, for a moment, that if the majority of southern planters had a sincere desire of making their slaves free, they could accomplish the work without any danger?

But it is urged that notwithstanding no objection may be apparent to some particular changes in the system of slavery, yet if the whole system should be overthrown at once, terrible dis

asters would inevitably ensue-the slaves, freed from their present restraints and having no new ones in their place, would run riot, refuse to labor, and subsist by plundering the peaceable citizens. Let us admit this objection in its full force, and what is the conclusion? that injustice, cruelty, and oppression, are to be tolerated and fostered forever, because their abandonment may produce temporary evils?

Perhaps we have paid the arguments of slaveholders more attention than they really merit; for any one, who considers the subject of emancipation candidly, must, we think, be satisfied that our opponents, like other men who are defending themselves against charges which they are ashamed of, put forth not the reasons which really influence their conduct, but those which seem to them most likely to strike their antagonists. Thus, while slaveholders defend their perseverance in the present system on the ground of humanity, and the fear of creating disturbance by a change, the animating motive to their conduct is, with most of them, a sense of their own interest.

When abolitionists call for immediate emancipation, they do not mean that legislation should at once abandon all caution and discretion in carrying the measure into effect. They are far from denying that any restraints may be imposed upon the newly emancipated slaves, which their own good or the safety of society may require. They are contending for a great principle, namely, that colored men have equal natural rights with white men. They would applaud any Southern State, which conscientiously regulated its laws by this principle, even if it accompanied the gift of liberty with temporary restrictions which they could not approve.

It is not to be disputed that when a large number of persons are enfranchised at once, new and peculiar legislation would be required by the emergency. Under such circumstances, a strict police, and prompt and efficient modes of compelling able bodied vagrants to work, would probably be necessary. It might also be advisable to exclude ignorant blacks from the elective franchise. Any disabilities, however, peculiar to people of color, should be temporary. Indeed, there seems great reason for thinking that though the new laws would, from their character,

Thus,

apply chiefly to people of color, yet the laws themselves should make no distinction between the white and colored races. instead of enacting that no colored person should be allowed to vote, who could not read and write, it would be well to provide that no person should be allowed to vote, who could not read and write. So, instead of empowering magistrates under certain circumstances to compel able bodied colored vagrants to labor, it would be well to give magistrates this power over all vagrants. By this sort of legislation, while society would be protected against the misconduct of the newly emancipated slaves, the laws would not regard them as a distinct and degraded casteevery colored man would be, in the eye of the law, equal to a white man.

Though this is not the place to enter into the details of legislative plans, it ought never to be forgotten, that emancipation would be a very imperfect measure, if provision were not at the same time made for the intellectual, moral, and religious education of newly emancipated slaves.

The opposers of slavery are not so unreasonable as to suppose that its abolition is to work a miracle, and prevent the evils which inevitably spring from ignorance and degradation. The southern States cannot by any legislation escape entirely the visitation of calamities, which the oppression of a great part o their population is calculated to produce. But by a change of system, they may avoid the greatest evils which now impend over them they may preserve themselves from insurrection and bloodshed, and by a general diffusion of education through every part of society, may, in the course of years, enjoy the blessing of being filled with industrious, enlightened, and moral freemen.

Some of our friends say, Why insist on immediate emancipation? Leave out that word, and many would join your ranks, who now consider you visionary enthusiasts. But take away that word, and you take out the soul of our cause. You deprive it of its moral life and energy. If, as it has already been remarked, to hold slaves be a sin-to emancipate them immediately is a duty. If we admit that it is right to emancipate slaves gradually, we admit that to hold them for a time in their present state is not sinful.

We say that their natural rights are violated when they are made property, subjected to the arbitrary will of others, and made to work without wages, and we must claim for them immediate emancipation, until we shall see clearly that the safety of society and the good of the slaves can only be established by continuing their fetters. We say to the advocates of slavery, it is not sufficient for you to assert, in general terms, that emanci pation would destroy the south and injure the negroes; but you must prove it clearly, fully, and beyond doubt, before you have made out your case. The humanity of our law will not allow an individual to be put under guardianship on the ground of insanity, without giving him an opportunity of being heard, and every presumption is in favor of his competency to act for himself. And yet the friends of slavery would condemn two millions of persons and their descendants to abject servitude, on the bare suggestion of their incompetency to take care of themselves, a suggestion which all history contradicts.

We entreat the friends of human rights, for we cannot here enter into a detail of facts which would fill a volume-we intreat them to examine carefully the history of the abolition of slavery wherever it has taken place, in our Northern States, in Mexico, in Hayti, and we are satisfied that the more thoroughly they examine the facts, the more will they be convinced of the safety of immediate emancipation.

The argument which is most frequently and seriously urged against all attacks upon slavery from this quarter, is, that the citizens of the Northern States have no right to interfere with the Southern States-that slavery is their business-and no concern of ours.

This argument deserves a passing notice-not from its intrinsic difficulty, but from the warmth and confidence with which it is advanced, and the influence which it apparently has upon the minds of many conscientious persons.

The position which abolitionists in this country assume is not generally understood. They claim for the United States government the power of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, and the Territories, and of putting an end to the slavetrade between the States, as rights clearly vested in the govern