THE AMERICAN RELIGION PRO-SLAVERY.
Messrs. Editors:ー
My object in directing the attention of your readers to the pro-slavery tendency of the Protestant religion of this country, is to trace its effect on the moral, intellectual, social, and civil condition of the "colored population," with the hope of devorcing from their minds the fatal impression, that by embracing said religion they are espousing the cause of human freedom. if I can successfully demonstrate this truth, (in my opinion,) one of the most formidable obstacles to our future advancement will be removed.ー
Therefore I assert that the Protestant religion, is now, and has been ever since the days of the reformation, opposed to the religious, natural, civil and social equality of the colored people with the whites. It has assumed that we were by "nature, and a law of Providence, a distinct, and inferior people," that ought to be subject to the rule and dominion of those whom God in his wisdom had made superior, and assigned the duty of a guardianship, over us and our posterity, forever. The Protestant sects have united in promoting this doctrine for upwards of a century; and it may now be regarded as inseparable from their creed; therefore every individual that embraces said religion and lives in obedience to its teachings, must, from the very nature of his education, and theological views, imbibe its spirit, and principles.ーHence, I maintain that it ought not to be a matter of surprise to find the "colored people" religiously occupying a pro-slavery position. The kind of education, and religion we have obtained, has placed us on our present platform.
Therefore, I cannot hurl denunciatory anathema's against the colored churches and clergy, as being hypocritical, because they occupy a pro-slavery position. On the contrary, it is to my mind a distinguished mark of loyalty to the church, when I see its members taking sides with our oppressors; and if the term hypocrite, rightfully belongs to any class of our people, it is to those who are sufficiently enlightened to see the evil of their position, and still embrace it. For the majority who cling to those ancient land-marks, I entertain sentiments of regard for their welfare, whilst my pity for their ignorance is boundless, "because they know not what the evil they do."
From the period of the American revolution to the present hour, history asserts that the leaders in every moral movment for the benefit of the human family, have been denounced as being either of fanatical temperament, or heterodox in faith. The great ruling idea, that gave birth to the Declaration of American Independence, was opposed to the legitimate doctrine of the "divine right of Kings," and would never have sprang from the church, or been nurtured by a spirit of loyalty to either the civil or ecclesiastical government of the mother country.
The pilgrim fathers crossed the ocean for the purpose of establishing a religion, that would vindicate the right of man to govern himself, free from the restraints of ecclesiastical intolerance, and governmental persecution. Impelled by the dictates of our common natures, they directed their course westward, and after landing on the shores of this "Paradiseal Eden," they formed a standard of religion for themselves and their posterity, and a generation cradled in the wilderness of the new world, vindicated, sanctified, and adopted it.
The Convention of '76, by adopting the bold infidel doctrine that "all men were created free and equal," hurled the keystone of divinity from the decalogue of Protestantism, and with it those magic charms that had for centuries subjected the people of different nations to the despotic rule of Kings and Princes. The pilgrim fathers have given us an illustrious example for glorious imitation, by repudiating the religion of their oppressors, and adopting one that was more congenial to their free spirits, but vindicated their interest and self respect, and if we ever adopt the principles, and practice the spirit of freemen, we will do likewise. They did not look forward to the mother church and the modern Joshua, that would pilot them through the rocks and quicksands of despotism, to the shores of freedom. They based their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," on authorities that had existed antecedent to church organizationsーthe rights of nature that was imprinted on the heart of man on the first mooring of his existence,ー"The same in all times, and in all ages." This revolution was not accomplished by a reverential and worshipful obedience to the church; its pioneers were not Bishops, Prelates, Laymen, or those learned Lawyers in the service of the crown; it was performed by men professing higher and holier aspirations for freedom, than ever breathed through the nostrils of the Knights of the Gown, or Garter.
It sprang from nature's noblemenーthe Jeffersons, the Adams's, the Paines, the Franklins, and others who were the infidels of their own times, and the orthodox of coming generations. With them, the motto was "liberty first, now and forever." They made their religion sanctify right to freedom, while ours crucifies it.
This faithful adherence to the fundamental right of man to exist on this globe, brought them into a powerful collision with the "powers that be," and resulted in a prodigal expenditure of blood and treasure; yet in this instance victory perched upon the banner of the faithful. In this conflict, Protestantism after losing a portion of her power, made a base appeal to the avarice and cupidity of our infant nation, (the first born of the earth from a divine parentage) yet wrapped in swaddling clothes, and dictated a compromise that ought to have been an insult to her virgin purity. She was successful, and loathsome disgrace, and dishonor followed the foul embrace.
The substance of the compromise was simply this, that the "divine right of Kings" should be abrogated on this continent, and the divine right of complexion be substituted.
W. W.
Columbus, Sept. 10th, 1848.