“<< SLAVERY ORDAINED>> OF << GOD>> .”

Is the title of a book written by Rev. Fred. A. Ross, D.D., of Huntsville, Alabama, and published by J.B. Lippincott & Co., of Philadelphia, 1857. It consists of two speeches and five letters, all upon the subject of Slavery, and all designed to prove that Slavery is a God-appointed, Heaven-ordained institution. The book is a literary curiosity and a moral curiosity, and we might amuse, if not instruct, our readers, with specimen of its reasoning and its ethics. But this would open before us too broad a field. We propose to confine ourselves to much narrower limits. We shall notice only his second letter to Rev. Albert Barnes.
“This letter,” says Dr. Rosa, “is the examination and refutation of the infidel theory of human government foisted into the Declaration of Independence.” He here alludes to that part of the Declaration of Independence which asserts that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” According to Dr. Ross, “this is the affirmation of liberty claimed by infidelity.” And thus, he says, “it teaches as a fact that which is not true, and it claims as a right that which God has not given.”
Such an assault upon the doctrine of human rights - and by such a man - seems a little startling, especially when we consider how that declaration of rights has stood for three quarters of a century, challenging the faith of the nation and receiving the assent of the world. But it well illustrates the desperate expedients to which a man will resort in an emergency, when once he has undertaken the defence of a desperate case.
But, to the Doctor's argument. “The paragraph,” he says, “is a chain of four links, each of which is claimed to be a self-evident truth.” By this metaphor, he admits its logical consistency and connection, and claims that, by breaking one link, he can destroy the chain. Let us see how he assails the first. He says, “The first and controlling assertion is, 'that all men are created equal' - which proposition, as I understand it, is that every man and woman on earth is created with equal attributes of body and mind.” Who else ever put such a construction upon that phrase in our declaration of rights? No one, doubtless. Indeed, it is scarcely possible to believe that Dr. Ross himself could ever have thought of such a construction, until he took his pen to attack it, when, indeed, it became necessary for him to attribute to it some meaning more questionable than its true one. And so, forsooth, he makes it say what all mankind know is “a self-evident lie.

After covering three or four pages of his book with sort of salmagundi, more or less connected with this false construction, he at last ventures to state what common sense claims as the true construction, to wit, that the passage in question “merely asserts that all men are 'created equal' in natural rights.” He says, “That is not the meaning of the clause, for that is the meaning of the next sentence.” Thus he attempts to prove that one sentence cannot assert a certain proposition, by showing that a subsequent sentence does assert it; and as the Doctor seems to be a little vain of his logic, we offer this as a sample. To us it seems a singularly happy, if not quite a conclusive mode of demonstration. And yet he himself seems not quite satisfied with it, so he proceeds to construct another argument. He says, “there are four links to the chain of thought in this passage: 1st. That all men are created equal. 2d. That they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights. 3d. That Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. 4th. That the people may alter and abolish it,” &c. “These links (he says) are logical sequences. - - - The meaning, then, I give to that first link, and to the chain following, is the sense, because, if you deny that meaning to the first link, then the others have no logical truth whatever.” Thus we have a second demonstration of the true meaning of the phrase, “All men are created equal.”
So we have demonstration first and demonstration second, that the true meaning of this phrase is, that every man, woman, and child, on the face of the earth, is equal - precisely equal - bodily and mentally, morally and phisicall,” mathamatically and pshchologically,to every other man, woman, and child. And this very obvious truth is not only made prominent in our Declaration of Independence, but its discovery is ascribed to the sagacity of Thomas Jefferson. The sages of “76, and the heroes of the Revolution, thought it worthy to stand as the corner-stone of our national Independance; and their children through successive generations, for three-quarters of a century, have annually repeated it, amid the roar of exultant cannon, and all the demonstrations of jubilant thanksgiving, in commemoration of the day of its first public announcement. And this natural and physical equality of all the individuals of the race, is what Dr. Ross would have us believe they intended to declare, as the foundation of their claim to liberty. But, notwithstanding the Doctor's confidence in his construction, and his double demonstration of its truth, he must excuse us, if we still find a little difficulty in admitting its truth. He must still allow us to believe, that when the patriarchs of the Revolution used the phrase, “all men are created equal,” they understood what they were saying; and that they meant to assert the common and equal rights of the race. When, in the next sentence, they averred that certain of those rights were unalienable, they knew whereof they affirmed. When, in the sentence following, they enumerated as “among these, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” did they err? Are not these unalienable? Can a man indeed lawfully - (for we speak not of what is unlawfully done) - sell his life? What compensation shall he receive? Can justice be satisfied, if it be taken for less than a fair equivalent? Is liberty less dear than life? How the arch of heaven rings with the indignant no of the millions who have yielded life in its defence! How many more millions would rush to the sacrifice, if death or Slavery were the only alternative before them. Nay, what multitudes of those who never tasted the sweets of freedom, are daily incurring the hazards of almost inevitable death, to secure the precious boon?
The Doctor speaks (page 128) of these rights of mankind as “unalienable except in their consent.” But the Declaration of Independence makes no such exception. And what sort of unalienable is that which requires but the consent of the party to alienate? Alas! the Doctor is too familiar with the alienation of human rights without consent of the party, and to that unfortunate experience must be attributed his absurd blunder.
But the Doctor has a taste for analysis, whatever may be said of his talent. This is manifest from his treatment of the passage under consideration. We have given above the four ingredients which he has evolved from that compendious declaration. Let us, now invite his attention to an examination of the complex idea denoted by the expressions “human rights,” “individual rights,” “natural rights,” &c., in very common use, not only among mankind at large, but also in his own book. In the first place we may remark, that in spite of the recent discoveries of Doctor Ross in moral science, Americans will still believe that these phrases, so long familiar to their tongue and ear, are not quite destitute of meaning. They consist of the word right - meaning. They consist of the word right - singular or plural - used as a noun, and prefixed by a modifier. The modifier human, represents the rights - whatever they be - as belonging to the race; individual, denotes that they pertain to some single person; and natural, describes them by a reference to their source, or origin. The word right, whether substantive or attribute, has its necessary correlative wrong; and the use of these words necessarily implies the acknowledgment of some standard by which these qualities are to be ascertained. That standard, by common consent, is called a law. Law, in its broadest definition, is “a rule of action.” Law, in its application to the actions of men, is either municipal or moral. The municipal law, says Blackstone, is “a rule of action, prescribed by the supreme power in the State, commanding what is right, and forbidding what is wrong.”
This, which we think is generally acknowledged to be a correct definition of municipal law, assumes that there was a standard of right and wrong antecedent to itself, and to which it is bound to conform. That pre-existing standard is the Divine law, otherwise called “the higher law,” “natural law,” “moral law,” &c. It is this law which imposes upon all men, both in their public and private relations, what is called “moral obligation.” The Declaration of Independence, in the paragraph which we are considering, assumes the existence and obligation of such law; and when it says that “all men are endowed with certain rights, and that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” it means that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are privileges given to “all men” by their Creator, and guarantied to them by the provisions of his law, and that none can deprive them of these privileges, or violate their enjoyment, without incurring the penalties by which the Divine law will enforce its claims. To express the idea in fewer words, it means that, according to the Divine law, it is right, that “all men” should enjoy undisturbed their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; and that to disturb or prevent such enjoyment, is to transgress that law. The Congress of '76 believed this proposition to be true; Dr. Ross asserts that it is false. Perhaps it is, but time, we think, will vindicate its truth; tyrants alone are interested to prove its falsehood.
We think the Doctor has failed signally in his attempted analysis of our declaration of rights. He has made it, as we have shown above, to consist of four propositions, and these “a chain of four links,” each dependent on the preceding, and all so connected, that if one is broken, the chain is destroyed. But we do not so read the Declaration. As we understand it, is asserts, 1st, “that all men are created equal;” 2d, that they are endowed with certain rights; 3d, that these are the fight of their Creator; 4th, that they are inalienable; 5th, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; 6th, that Governments are instituted for the protection of these rights; 7th, that human Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; 8th, that whenever any Government becomes destructive of such rights; “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it;” 9th, that it is their right to institute a new Government, and any such as they may think shall beat secure their safety and happiness; and 10th, that al these propositions are self-evident.
Thus, this enumeration of rights, instead of forming “a chain of four links,” consists of at least ten distinct propositions; instead of constituting links of a dependent chain, the first six and the tenth are separate and independent of the other three, and partly of each other. Perhaps these ten propositions may be as false and as infidel as Dr. Ross represents them; but we hazard nothing in saying, that it will require better logic or deeper sophistry than he has yet employed, to shake the faith of the nation in their truth and power.
But what is the object of Dr. Ross in seeking to overthrow the doctrine of “human rights,” as set forth in our National Declaration of Independence? Is it not, by thus sapping the foundations of Liberty, to establish more firmly upon their ruins his favorite system of American Slavery? “<< Slavery Ordained>> of << God>> ” is the title of his book, and to sustain the idea that it is so ordained, appears to be his leading object. His argument begins with asserting the Divine institution of human government, and ends with inferring the righteousness of personal slavery. Briefly, it might be stated thus: God has a right to establish Governments over men. He has ordained the institution of human government; therefore, it is just and right for the strong to enslave the weak. We believe that this, though somewhat condensed, is a fair representation of his argument. Should we copy all that intervenes between his premises and conclusion, we think the logical connection would be no more obvious. Such arguments need not be overthrown, for they have not strength enough to stand alone. The slaveholder may lay them as a “flattering unction” to his conscience, while his grasp is strong upon his defenceless slave; but when he “shall give an account of himself to God,” he will never dare plead them in justification of his oppression.