WASHINGTON, June 9, 1850.
Yesterday I read Prof. Stuart's pamphlet in defence of Mr. Webster. It is
a most extraordinary production. He begins by proving biblically that slavery
is a divine institution, permitted, recognized, regulated, by God himself; and
therefore that it cannot be malum in se.
The greater part of the work consists in maintaining this point both from the
Old and New Testaments; but he spends a few pages at the close in showing that
it is contrary to all the precepts and principles of the gospel, and is little
better than all crimes concentrated in one. How it can be both of these things
at the same time, we are not informed.
He says, with Mr. Webster, that we are bound to admit four slave States from
Texas, although we were to admit but four in the whole; and one at least, if
not two, of the four were to be free States. But he says it is to be by the
consent of Texas; and Texas may give consent to only four slave States taken in
succession. Now, the answer to this is so plain, that it is difficult to see
why even an Old-Testament orthodox minister should not see it.
When a contract is executory, as the lawyers say (that is, to be executed
in future), and it contains mutual stipulations in favor of each of the
parties, then nothing can be more clear than that each of the successive steps
for fulfilment must have reference to what is to be done afterwards. Neither
party can claim that the contract shall be so fulfilled by the other party in
any one particular as to render the fulfilment of the whole impossible. Each
preceding act of execution must have reference to what, by its terms, is to be
subsequently executed.
So he says the Wilmot Proviso for a Territory is in vain, because the
Territory, as soon as it is transformed into a State, can establish slavery.
But the Wilmot Proviso over a Territory defends it against that class of
population that would establish slavery when it becomes a State. It attracts to
it that class of population which will exclude slavery; and therefore such
proviso is decisive of the fate of the State.
SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 301-2
No comments:
Post a Comment