equal to the whites:  but, on the contrary, they ought to yield to them on every occasion, and never speak or answer them but with respect, under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of the offence.”  The following extract of a letter, written to me from the South, by a gentleman who still resides there, serves to show how true it is, that “on every occasion,” the colored person must yield to the white, and, especially, if the white be clothed with the authority of an ambassador of Christ.  “A negro was executed in Autauga Co., not long since, for the murder of his master.  The latter, it seems, attempted to violate the wife of his slave in his presence, when the negro enraged, smote the wretch to the ground.  And this master—­this brute—­this fiend—­was a preacher of the gospel, in regular standing!” In a former part of this communication, I said enough to show, that slavery prevents children from complying with the command to obey their parents.  But, in reply to what I have said of these outrages on the rights of husbands and wives, parents and children, you maintain, that they are no part of the system of slavery.  Slaveholders, however, being themselves judges, they are a part of it, or, at least, are necessary to uphold it; else they would not by deliberate, solemn legislation, authorize them.  But, be this as it may, it is abundantly proven, that slavery is, essentially and inevitably, at war with the sacred rights of the family state.  Let me say, then, in conclusion under this head, that in whatever other company you put slavery, place it not in that of the just relations of husband and wife, parent and child.  They can no more company with each other, than can fire with water.  Their natures are not only totally opposite to, but destructive of, each other.

6th.  The laws, to which you refer on the sixty-eighth page of your book, tend to prove, and, so far as your admission of the necessity of them goes, do prove, that the relation of slaveholder and slave does not deserve a place, in the class of innocent and proper relations.  You there say, that the writings of “such great and good men as Wesley, Edwards, Porteus, Paley, Horsley, Scott, Clark, Wilberforce, Sharp, Clarkson, Fox, Johnson, and a host of as good if not equally great, men of later date,” have made it necessary for the safety of the institution of slavery, to pass laws, forbidding millions of our countrymen to read.  You should have, also, mentioned the horrid sanctions of these laws—­stripes, imprisonment, and death.  Now, these laws disable the persons on whom they bear, from fulfilling God’s commandments, and, especially, His commandment to “search the Scriptures.”  They are, therefore, wicked.  What then, in its moral character, must be a relation, which, to sustain it, requires the aid of wicked laws?—­and, how entirely out of place must it be, when you class it with those just relations of life, that, certainly, require none of the support, which, you admit, is indispensable