Aunt Philliss Cabin | Page 5

had fled from his master, Paul
persuaded him to return and to do his duty toward him. Open your
Bible, Christian, and carefully read the letter of Paul to Philemon, and
contrast its spirit with the incendiary publications of the Abolitionists
of the present day. St. Paul was not a fanatic, and therefore could not be
an Abolitionist. The Christian age advanced and slavery continued, and
we approach the time when our fathers fled from persecution to the soil
we now call our own, when they fought for the liberty to which they
felt they had a right. Our fathers fought for it, and our mothers did more
when they urged forth their husbands and sons, not knowing whether
the life-blood that was glowing with religion and patriotism would not
soon be dyeing the land that had been their refuge, and where they
fondly hoped they should find a happy home. Oh, glorious parentage!
Children of America, trace no farther back--say not the crest of nobility
once adorned thy father's breast, the gemmed coronet thy mother's
brow--stop here! it is enough that they earned for thee a home--a free, a
happy home. And what did they say to the slavery that existed then and
had been entailed upon them by the English government? Their
opinions are preserved among us--they were dictated by their position
and necessities--and they were wisely formed. In the North, slavery
was useless; nay, more, it was a drawback to the prosperity of that
section of the Union--it was dispensed with. In other sections, gradually,
our people have seen their condition would be more prosperous without
slaves--they have emancipated them. In the South, they are necessary:
though an evil, it is one that cannot be dispensed with; and here they
have been retained, and will be retained, unless God should manifest
his will (which never yet has been done) to the contrary. Knowing that
the people of the South still have the views of their revolutionary
forefathers, we see plainly that many of the North have rejected the
opinions of theirs. Slaves were at the North and South considered and
recognized as property, (as they are in Scripture.) The whole nation
sanctioned slavery by adopting the Constitution which provides for
them, and for their restoration (when fugitive) to their owners. Our
country was then like one family--their souls had been tried and made
pure by a united struggle--they loved as brothers who had suffered
together. Would it were so at the present day!

The subject of slavery was agitated among them; many difficulties
occurred, but they were all settled--and, they thought, effectually. They
agreed then, on the propriety of giving up runaway slaves, unanimously.
Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, "saw no more impropriety in the public
seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse!" (Madison's
Papers.) This was then considered a compromise between the North
and South. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster--the mantle of their
illustrious fathers descended to them from their own glorious times.
The slave-trade was discontinued after a while. As long as England
needed the sons and daughters of Africa to do her bidding, she
trafficked in the flesh and blood of her fellow-creatures; but our
immortal fathers put an end to the disgraceful trade. They saw its
heinous sin, for they had no command to enslave the heathen; but they
had no command to emancipate the slave; therefore they wisely forbore
farther to interfere. They drew the nice line of distinction between an
unavoidable evil and a sin.
Slavery was acknowledged, and slaves considered as property all over
our country, at the North as well as the South--in Pennsylvania, New
York, and New Jersey. Now, has there been any law reversing this,
except in the States that have become free? Out of the limits of these
States, slaves are property, according to the Constitution. In the year
1798, Judge Jay, being called on for a list of his taxable property, made
the following observation:--"I purchase slaves and manumit them at
proper ages, when their faithful services shall have afforded a
reasonable retribution." "As free servants became more common, he
was gradually relieved from the necessity of purchasing slaves." (See
Jay's Life, by his son.)
Here is the secret of Northern emancipation: they were relieved from
the necessity of slavery. Rufus King, for many years one of the most
distinguished statesmen of the country, writes thus to John B. Coles
and others:--"I am perfectly anxious not to be misunderstood in this
case, never having thought myself at liberty to encourage or assent to
any measure that would affect the security of property in slaves, or tend
to disturb the political adjustment which the Constitution has made
respecting them."

John Taylor, of New York, said, "If the weight and influence of the
South be increased by