Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin

by Harriet Beecher Stowe

  of a successful American minister.

  In speaking, therefore, of this subject, we shall speak of the

  church and the clergy as identical, using the word church in the

  American sense of the word, for that class of men, of all de-

  nominations, who are organised in bodies distinct from nominal

  Christians, as professing to be actually controlled by the precepts

  of Christ.

  What, then, is the influence of the church on this great ques-

  tion of slavery?

  Certain things are evident on the very face of the matter.

  1. It has not put an end to it.

  2. It has not prevented the increase of it.

  3. It has not occasioned the repeal of the laws which forbid

  education to the slave.

  4. It has not attempted to have laws passed forbidding the

  separation of families and legalising the marriage of slaves.

  5. Is has not stopped the internal slave-trade.

  6. It has not prevented the extension of this system, with all

  its wrongs, over new territories.

  With regard to these assertions it is presumed there can be

  no difference of opinion.

  What, then, have they done?

  In reply to this, it can be stated--

  1. That almost every one of the leading denominations have,

  at some time, in their collective capacity, expressed a decided

  disapprobation of the system, and recommended that something

  should be done with a view to its abolition.

  2. One denomination of Christians has pursued such a course

  as entirely, and in fact, to free every one of its members from

  any participation in slave-holding. We refer to the Quakers.

  The course by which this result has been effected will be shown

  by a pamphlet soon to be issued by the poet J. G. Whittier, one

  of their own body.

  3. Individual members, in all denominations, animated by the

  spirit of Christianity, have in various ways entered their protest

  against it.

  It will be well now to consider more definitely and minutely

  the sentiments which some leading ecclesiastical bodies in the

  church have expressed on this subject.

  It is fair that the writer should state the sources from which

  the quotations are drawn. Those relating to the action of

  Southern judicatories are principally from a pamphlet compiled

  by the Hon. James G. Birney, and entitled “The Church the

  Bulwark of Slavery.” The writer addressed a letter to Mr.

  Birney, in which she inquired the sources from which he com-

  piled. His reply was, in substance, as follows:--That the

  pamphlet was compiled from original documents, or files of

  newspapers, which had recorded these transactions at the time

  of their occurrence. It was compiled and published in England,

  in 1842, with a view of leading the people there to understand

  the position of the American church and clergy. Mr. Birney

  says that, although the statements have long been before the

  world, he has never known one of them to be disputed; that,

  knowing the extraordinary nature of the sentiments, he took the

  utmost pains to authenticate them.

  We will first present those of the Southern States.

  1. The Presbyterian Church.

  Whereas, sundry persons in Scotland and England, and others in the north, east,

  and west of our country, have denounced slavery as obnoxious to the laws of God,

  some of whom have presented before the General Assembly of our church, and the

  Congress of the nation, memorials and petitions, with the avowed object of bring-

  ing into disgrace slaveholders, and abolishing the relation of master and slave:

  And whereas, from the said proceedings, and the statements, reasonings, and cir-

  cumstances connected therewith, it is most manifest that those persons “know not

  what they say, nor whereof they affirm;” and with this ignorance discover a spirit

  of self-righteousness and exclusive sanctity, &c., therefore--

  1. Resolved, That as the kingdom of our Lord is not of this world, His

  church, as such, has no right to abolish, alter, or affect any institution or ordi-

  nance of men, political or civil, &c.

  2. Resolved, That slavery has existed from the days of those good old slave-

  holders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who are now in the kingdom

  of heaven), to the time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his master

  Philemon, and wrote a Christian and fraternal letter to this slaveholder, which we

  find still stands in the canon of the Scriptures: and that slavery has existed ever

  since the days of the apostle, and does now exist.

  3. Resolved, That as the relative duties of master and slave are taught in the

  Scriptures, in the same manner as those of parent and child, and husband and wife,

  the existence of slavery itself is not opposed to the will of God; and whosoever

  has a conscience too tender to recognise this relation as lawful is “righteous over

  much,” is “wise above what is written,” and has submitted his neck to the yoke of

  men, sacrificed his Christian liberty of conscience, and leaves the infallible word of

  God for the fancies and doctrines of men.

  It is a principle which meets the views of this body, that slavery, as it exists

  among us, is a political institution, with which ecclesiastical judicatories have not

  the smallest right to interfere; and in relation to which, any such interference,

  especially at the present momentous crisis, would be morally wrong and fraught

  with the most dangerous and pernicious consequences. The sentiments which we

  maintain, in common with Christians at the South of every denomination, are sen-

  timents which so fully approve themselves to our consciences, are so identified with

  our solemn convictions of duty, that we should maintain them under any circum-

  stances.

  Resolved, that in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far

  from being a sin in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word;

  that it is in accordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts of

  patriarchs, apostles, and prophets, and that it is compatible with the most frater-

  nal regard to the best good of those servants whom God may have committed to

  our charge.

  The New School Presbyterian Church in Petersburgh, Virginia,

  November, 16, 1838, passed the following:

  Whereas, the General Assembly did, in the year 1818, pass a law which contains

  provisions for slaves irreconcilcable with our civil institutions, and solemnly

  declaring slavery to be sin against God--a law at once offensive and insulting to

  the whole Southern community.

  1. Resolved, that, as slaveholders, we cannot consent longer to remain in con-

  nexion with any church where there exists a statute conferring the right upon

  slaves to arraign their masters before the judicatory of the church, and that, too,

  for the act of selling them without their consent first had and obtained.

  2. Resolved, that as the Great Head of the Church has recognised the relation

  of master and slave, we conscientiously believe that slavery is not a sin against

  God, as declared by the General Assembly.

  This sufficiently indicates the opinion of the
Southern Presby-

  terian Church. The next extracts will refer to the opinions of

  Baptist Churches. In 1835, the Charleston Baptist Association

  addressed a memorial to the Legislature of South Carolina, which

  contains the following:

  The undersigned would further represent that the said Association does not

  consider that the Holy Scriptures have made the fact of slavery a question of

  morals at all. The Divine Author of our holy religion, in particular, found

  slavery a part of the existing institutions of society, with which, if not sinful, it

  was not his design to intermeddle, but to leave them entirely to the control of men.

  Adopting this, therefore, as one of the allowed arrangements of society, he made

  it the province of his religion only to prescribe the reciprocal duties of the rela-

  tion. The question, it is believed, is purely one of political economy. It amounts

  in effect to this, “Whether the operatives of a country shall be bought and sold,

  and themselves become property, as in this State; or whether they shall be hire-

  lings, and their labour only become property, as in some other States. In other

  words, whether an employer may buy the whole time of labourers at once, of

  those who have a right to dispose of it, with a permanent relation of protection

  and care over them, or whether he shall be restricted to buy it in certain portions

  only, subject to their control, and with no such permanent relation of care and

  protection. The right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves has been

  distinctly recognised by the Creator of all things, who is surely at liberty to vest

  the right of property over any object in whomsoever he pleases. That the lawful

  possessor should retain this right at will, is no more against the laws of society

  and good morals, than that he should retain the personal endowments with which

  his Creator has blessed him, or the money and lands inherited from his ancestors,

  or acquired by his industry; and neither society nor individuals have any more

  authority to demand a relinquishment, without an equivalent, in the one case,

  than in the other.

  As it is a question purely of political economy, and one which in this country is

  reserved to the cognisance of the State governments severally, it is further believed

  that the State of South Carolina alone has the right to regulate the existence and

  condition of slavery within her territorial limits; and we should resist to the

  utmost every invasion of this right, come from what quarter and under whatever

  pretence it may.

  The Methodist Church is, in some respects, peculiarly situated

  upon this subject, because its constitution and book of discipline

  contain the most vehement denunciations against slavery of

  which language is capable, and the most stringent requisitions

  that all members shall be disciplined for the holding of slaves;

  and these denunciations and requisitions have been re-affirmed

  by its General Conference.

  It seemed to be necessary, therefore, for the Southern Confe-

  rence to take some notice of this fact, which they did, with

  great coolness and distinctness, as follows:

  Resolved unanimously, that whereas there is a clause in the discipline of our

  church which states that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of

  slavery; and whereas, the said clause has been perverted by some, and used in such

  a manner as to produce the impression that the Methodist Episcopal Church

  believed slavery to be a moral evil--

  Therefore Resolved, that it is the sense of the Georgia Annual Conference that

  slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil.

  Resolved, that we view slavery as a civil and domestic institution, and one with

  which, as ministers of Christ, we have nothing to do, further than to ameliorate the

  condition of the slave, by endeavouring to impart to him and his master the benign

  influences of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way to heaven.

  On motion it was resolved unanimously, that the Georgia Annual Conference

  regard with feelings of profound respect and approbation the dignified course pur-

  sued by our several superintendents, or bishops, in suppressing the attempts that

  have been made by various individuals to get up and protract an excitement in the

  churches and country on the subject of abolitionism.

  Resolved, further, that they shall have our cordial and zealous support in

  sustaining them in the ground they have taken.

  SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE.

  The Rev. W. Martin introduced resolutions similar to those

  of the Georgia Conference.

  The Rev. W. Capers, D.D., after expressing his conviction

  that “the sentiment of the resolutions was universally held, not

  only by the ministers of that conference, but of the whole

  South;” and after stating that the only true doctrine was, “it

  belongs to Cæsar, and not to the church,” offered the following

  as a substitute:

  Whereas, we hold that the subject of slavery in these United States is not one

  proper for the action of the church, but is exclusively appropriate to the civil

  authorities.

  Therefore Resolved, That this conference will not intermeddle with it, further

  than to express our regret that it has ever been introduced, in any form, into any

  one of the judicatures of the church.

  Brother Martin accepted the substitute.

  Brother Betts asked whether the substitute was intended as implying that

  slavery, as it exists among us, was not a moral evil. He understood it as equivalent

  Brother Capers explained that his intention was to convey that sentiment fully

  and unequivocally; and that he had chosen the form of the substitute for the purpose

  not only of reproving some wrong-doings at the North, but with reference also to

  the General Conference. If slavery were a moral evil (that is, sinful), the church

  would be bound to take coguisance of it; but our affirmation is, that it is not a

  matter for her jurisdiction, but is exclusively appropriate to the civil government,

  and of course not sinful.

  The substitute was then unanimously adopted.

  In 1836, an Episcopal clergyman in North Carolina, of the

  name of Freeman, preached in the presence of his bishop (Rev.

  Levi S. Ives, D.D., a native of a free State), two sermons on the

  rights and duties of slaveholders. In these he essayed to

  justify from the Bible the slavery both of white men and negroes,

  and insisted that “without a new revelation from heaven, no man

  was authorised to pronounce slavery wrong.” The sermons

  were printed in a pamphlet, prefaced with a letter to Mr. Free-

  man from the Bishop of North Carolina, declaring that he had

  “listened with most unfeigned pleasure” to his discourses, and

  advised their publication as being “urgently called for at the

  present time.”

  “The Protestant Episcopal Society for the advancement of

  Christianity (!) in South Carolina” thought it expedient to re-

  publish Mr. Freeman's pamphlet as a religious tract!*

  Afterwards, when the addition of the new State of Texas

  made it important to organise the Episcopal C
hurch there, this

  Mr. Freeman was made Bishop of Texas.

  The question may now arise--it must arise to every intelligent

  thinker in Christendom--Can it be possible that American

  slavery, as defined by its laws and the decisions of its Courts,

  including all the horrible abuses that the laws recognise and

  sanction, is considered to be a right and proper institution?

  Do these Christians merely recognise the relation of slavery in

  the abstract, as one that, under proper legislation, might be

  made a good one, or do they justify it as it actually exists in

  America?

  It is a fact that there is a large party at the South who justify

  not only slavery in the abstract, but slavery just as it exists in

  America, in whole and in part, and even its worst abuses.

  There are four legalised parts or results of the system, which

  are of especial atrocity.

  They are,

  1. The prohibition of the testimony of coloured people in cases

  of trial.

  2. The forbidding of education.

  3. The internal slave-trade.

  4. The consequent separation of families.

  We shall bring evidence to show that every one of these

  practices has been either defended on principle, or recognised

  without condemnation, by decisions of judicatories of churches,

  or by writings of influential clergymen, without any expression

  of dissent being made to their opinions by the bodies to which

  they belong.

  In the first place, the exclusion of coloured testimony in the

  church. In 1840, the General Conference of the Methodist

  Episcopal Church passed the following resolution:--“That it

  is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher

  to permit coloured persons to give testimony against

  white persons in any State where they are denied

  that privilege by law.”

  This was before the Methodist Church had separated on the

  question of slavery, as they subsequently did, into Northern and