Suppose that he has designed that
one race, the African, shall be the source from which he will draw this
supply, and that down through long generations he proposes to make this
black race our servants, seeking at the same time, by means of this,
their elevation, by connecting them with us, and keeping up the
relation; and that for the permanence of the relation, and for the
security of all concerned, there should be 'ownership,' such as he
himself ordained when he prescribed the boring of the ear? For my part,
I cannot see in this 'the sum of all villanies,' 'an enormous wrong,' 'a
stupendous injustice.' Yet this would be slavery. I am not arguing for
such a constitution of things. As was before observed, the whole black
race may, in a few years, be swept off from the country; but who will
undertake to say that, as the people of other nations have been employed
by Providence to make our railroads and canals, the black race may not
be employed for a much longer term to be our servants, both North and
South, both East and West? And who will say that the tenure of
'ownership' may not be the wisest and most benevolent arrangement for
all concerned? I repeat it, I am not arguing for this; I am only trying
to show you that the present abuses in slavery are no valid argument
against the relation itself; that this may remain when the abuses cease,
and therefore that at the present time we ought to discriminate in our
arguments against slavery, and direct our assaults, if we continue to be
assailers, against its abuses.
Pages:
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329