Thus, sir, it is manifest that you would be equally justified in placing our federal government, under the administration of Mr. Van Buren, and yourself, in company with British and American abolitionists, as you were in placing his holiness Pope Gregory XVI. there. Is it not a little strange, sir, that whilst you exhibit him, and by implication me and my flock, as allied with the abolitionists, the abolitionists themselves, by a select division to whom it was entrusted in New York, drew up a petition which they forwarded to Hayti for signatures, and which was presented to President Boyer, by the general of division at Port au Prince, requesting that no communication should be held with me as envoy from this same Pope Gregory XVI., upon the ground that he was not averse to southern slavery, and that I was an enemy to Daniel O'Connell, and an enemy to negroes? Yes, sir, in a conversation which I held with President Boyer, he acknowledged to me the receipt of the petition, when, to spare him the trouble of an examination to discover my sentiments, I informed him that I was aware of the origin and history of the document, and had requested the interview for the purpose of giving him the necessary explanation. He has more common sense than most of the abolitionists, and makes more just allowance for the position of the southern planters than do their fellow-citizens; and he had the candour and honour to declare that though he must deprecate slavery in every shape, yet from what I told him, he was happy to feel that there were great humanity and very creditable feelings of kindness to their slaves in the great bulk of the southern proprietors, and he added, that he would be devoid of every principle of honour were he to deny the kindness and affection of many of the Spanish proprietors to their slaves in the eastern part of Hayti, previous to the revolution.

This, sir, is the fate of the Catholics of the United States; they are the shuttlecock for the parties of the republics,-threatened by the myrmidons of General Harrison's party to-day, and placed in a false position by Mr. Van Buren's secretary of state the next moment. There is, however, sir, one at least of that body who will not submit to the infliction from either one party or the other, from friend or from foe, without endeavouring, however humble his place in the republic, and however powerless his pen, at least to demand more just conduct towards the body to which he has the honour to belong, even though he may not succeed in obtaining what he seeks.

In my next, sir, I shall give additional reasons to show that our holy father, Pope Gregory XVI., is not the associate of the abolitionists,

and that the Catholics of the South should not be rendered objects of suspicion to their fellow-citizens.

I have the honour to be, sir,

Respectfully,

JOHN, Bishop of Charleston.

LETTER II

CHARLESTON, S. C., Oct. 7, 1840.

To the Hon. John Forsyth, Secretary of State, United States.

Sir: I proceed to give additional reasons to show that the letter of our holy father, Pope Gregory XVI., regarded only the "slave-trade." At the late council in Baltimore, that document was formally read and accepted by the prelates of the United States. Did it contain anything contrary to their judgment, respecting faith or morals, it would have been their duty to have respectfully sent their statement of such difference to the Holy See, together with their reasons for such dissent. Did they believe it contained the correct exposition of Christian morality, and were aware that in the ecclesiastical province of the United States, under their charge, there existed practices in opposition to that exposition, it would have been their duty to use their best efforts to have such practices discontinued, and to refuse sacraments to those who would persevere in the immoral conduct which it denounced.

Thus, if this document condemned our domestic slavery as an unlawful and consequently immoral practice, the bishops could not have accepted it without being bound to refuse the sacraments to all who were slaveholders unless they manumitted their slaves; yet, if you look to the prelates who accepted the document, for the acceptation was immediate and unanimous: you will find, 1st, the Archbishop of Baltimore, who is also the administrator of Richmond, having charge of the slaveholding territory of the states of Maryland and Virginia, and the District of Columbia; 2d, the Bishop of Bardstown, having charge of the slaveholding state of Kentucky; 3d, the Bishop of Charleston, having charge of the slaveholding states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; 4th, the Bishop of St. Louis, having charge of the slaveholding states of Missouri and Arkansas; 5th, the Bishop of Mobile, having charge of the slaveholding state of Alabama and the Territory of Florida; 6th, the Bishop of New Orleans, having charge of the slaveholding states of Louisiana and Mississippi; and, 7th, the Bishop of Nashville, having charge of the slaveholding state of Tennessee. They formed a majority of the council, and were in charge of all the slaveholding por

tion of the Union. Amongst the most pious and religious of their flocks, are large slaveholders, who are most exact in performing all their Christian duties, and who frequently receive the sacraments. The prelates, under whose charge they are, have never, since the day on which they accepted this letter, indicated to them the necessity of, in any manner, adopting any new rule of conduct respecting their slaves. Nor did the other six prelates, under whose charge neither slaves nor slaveholders are found, express to their brethren any new views upon the subject, because they all regarded the letter as treating of the "slavetrade," and not as touching "domestic slavery."

I believe, sir, we may consider this to be pretty conclusive evidence as to the light in which that document is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Since the issuing of this document, the Holy See has been in treaty with Portugal, which has, first and last, been most deeply engaged in this cruel traffic, and I have good reason to believe that one of the stipulations without which the Holy See will not conclude the treaty is, that the Portuguese government will act as ours did upwards of thirty years since, and prohibit this desolating, criminal, and inhuman system of murder, ruin, and desolation. What southern planter would deliberately sanction a system of which the following passage of a letter, from a highly creditable person, is but the description of a trifling appendage? SIERRA LEONE, June 18, 1840.

"The slave-trade is by no means extinguished upon this coast; it is, however, more covertly conducted. From the most accurate sources of information, I can fairly state that one out of seven slaveships is caught by the British cruisers. There is more secrecy, but the trade is nearly as frequent as before, but more profitable, and for that reason more alluring. A few days ago I visited a captured slaver. In a space which a moderate sized French bedstead would occupy, I have seen forty-five unhappy wretches packed, without regard to age or constitution, like herrings in a barrel. I saw them fed after they had been captured. On a shell about the size of a half crown piece, was deposited a pinch of salt, for which a father and four children contended, each endeavouring to scramble a portion to eat with his rice. I have seen four children packed in a cask I thought it impossible to contain one.

31

It is against this desperate traffic, in which Portugal and Spain

31

"1 Spain. We are desired by Bishop England to state that in mentioning Spain and Portugal as concerned in the "slave-trade," he did not mean to deny that the Spanish government had, in 1825, legally abolished the traffic; but nothing is more notorious than the continued introduction of negroes from Africa into the ports of her colonies by the connivance of her officers, for whom the prohibition and the introduction produce large incomes.

Not only is Spain thus made a participator, but we have had given to us the names of zealous and noisy abolitionists at the North, who we are told make largely at the present day by the traffic. We have ourselves seen in ports in the United States, within ten years, several vessels fitted out evidently for this trade, and notor

have had so enormous a share, that the Pope's letter is directed, and not against domestic slavery, [of] the existence of which he is conscious, but respecting which he uses no action, and which rests upon a totally different basis, as it is perfectly unconnected with cruelty such as is. above described.

If you will permit myself, sir, to be a witness in this case, I can inform you, that in different audiences which I had of his holiness upon the subject of religion in Hayti, I urged, amongst other topics, to induce him to make a selection of a different person as his envoy, my peculiar position; I stated that my being a bishop of the diocess, within the limits of which was contained the most numerous negro slave population that is to be found in any diocess in the world, would render me unacceptable to the Haytian government, and that being engaged to transact the ecclesiastical organization of that island, would probably render me unacceptable in my own diocess. His holiness met me by stating the very distinction to which I have been drawing your attention. "Though the Southern States of your Union have had domestic slavery as an heirloom, whether they would or not, they are not engaged in the negro traffic," that is, the "slave-trade."

Thus, sir, I trust I have succeeded in showing that this letter of his holiness which you described to be "an apostolic letter on slavery". does, in fact, regard only that "slave-trade" which the United States condemn, and not that domestic slavery which exists in our Southern States.

But, sir, I regard this subject as one of great moment at the present time, and likely to become much more troublesome before many years shall elapse; I shall, therefore, enter more deeply upon its elucidation.

Respecting domestic slavery, we distinguish it from the compulsory slavery of an invaded people in its several degrees. I shall touch upon the varieties separately. The first is "voluntary;" that which exists amongst us is not of that description, though I know very many instances where I have found it to be so; but I regard not the cases of individuals, I look to the class. In examining the lawfulness of voluntary slavery, we shall test a principle against which abolitionists contend. They assert, generally, that slavery is contrary to the natural law. The soundness of their position will be tried by inquiring into the lawfulness of holding in slavery a person, who has voluntarily sold himself. Our

iously employed in it, and owned by our Northern merchants, but against which legal proof could not be exhibited.

If our information be correct, and we have reason to think it is, several of the prominent abolitionists participate in worse cruelty than is known to the planter.— Misc., vol. xx., p. 119.

theological authors lay down a principle, that man in his natural state is master of his own liberty, and may dispose of it as he sees proper; as in the case of a Hebrew, (Exodus xxi. 5,) who preferred remaining with his wife and children as a slave, to going into that freedom to which he had a right; and as in the case of the Hebrew, (Levit. xxv. 47,) who, by reason of his poverty, would sell himself to a sojourner or to a stranger. Life and its preservation are more valuable than liberty, and hence when Esther addresses Assuerus, (vii. 4,) she lays down the principle very plainly and naturally. "For we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed and slain, and to perish. But if we had been sold for bondsmen and bondswomen, I had held my tongue." The natural law then does not prohibit a man from bartering his liberty and his services to save his life, to provide for his sustenance, to secure other enjoyments which he prefers to that freedom and to that right to his own labour, which he gives in exchange for life and protection. Nor does the natural law prohibit another man from procuring and bestowing upon him those advantages, in return for which he has agreed to bind himself to that other man's service, provided he takes no unjust advantage in the bargain. Thus a state of voluntary slavery is not prohibited by the law of nature; that is, a state in which one man has the dominion over the labour and the ingenuity of another to the end of his life, and consequently in which that labour and ingenuity are the property of him who has the dominion, and are justly applicable to the benefit of the master and not of the slave. All our theologians have from the earliest epoch sustained, that though in a state of pure nature all men are equal, yet the natural law does not prohibit one man from having dominion over the useful action of another as his slave; provided this dominion be obtained by a just title. That one man may voluntarily give this title to another, is plain from the principle exhibited, and from the divine sanction to which I have alluded.

In one point of view, indeed, we may say that the natural law does not establish slavery, but it does not forbid it-and I doubt how far any of the advocates of abolition would consent to take up for refutation, the following passage of St. Thomas of Aquin,--(1, 2, q. 94, a. 5, ad. 2).

"The common possession of all things is said to be of the natural law, because the distinction of possessions and slavery were not introduced by nature, but by the reason of man, for the benefit of human life: and thus the law of nature is not changed by their introduction, but an addition is made thereto."

As well may the wealthy merchant then assert, that it is against the law of nature that one man should possess a larger share of the common fund belonging to the human family for his exclusive benefit, as