of Independence, “had uniformly exhibited a disposition to restrict the extension of the evil—­and had always manifested as cordial a disposition to ameliorate it as those of the North and East”; and 5.  That the actual state and condition of the slave population “reflected no disgrace whatever on the character of the country—­as the slaves were infinitely better provided for than the laboring poor of other countries of the world, and were generally happier than millions of white people in the world.”  Such arguments the clergy supported and endeavored to reconcile with Christian precept.  Rev. Dr. Richard Furman, president of the Baptist Convention of South Carolina,[2] after much inquiry and reasoning, arrived at the conclusion that “the holding of slaves is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained in Holy Writ; and is, therefore, consistent with Christian uprightness both in sentiment and conduct.”  Said he further:  “The Christian golden rule, of doing to others as we would they should do to us, has been urged as an unanswerable argument against holding slaves.  But surely this rule is never to be urged against that order of things which the Divine government has established; nor do our desires become a standard to us, under this rule, unless they have a due regard to justice, propriety, and the general good....  A father may very naturally desire that his son should be obedient to his orders:  Is he therefore to obey the orders of his son?  A man might be pleased to be exonerated from his debts by the generosity of his creditors; or that his rich neighbor should equally divide his property with him; and in certain circumstances might desire these to be done:  Would the mere existence of this desire oblige him to exonerate his debtors, and to make such division of his property?” Calhoun in 1837 formally accepted slavery, saying that the South should no longer apologize for it; and the whole argument from the standpoint of expediency received eloquent expression in the Senate of the United States from no less a man than Henry Clay, who more and more appears in the perspective as a pro-Southern advocate.  Said he:  “I am no friend of slavery.  But I prefer the liberty of my own country to that of any other people; and the liberty of my own race to that of any other race.  The liberty of the descendants of Africa in the United States is incompatible with the safety and liberty of the European descendants.  Their slavery forms an exception—­an exception resulting from a stern and inexorable necessity—­to the general liberty in the United States."[3] After the lapse of years the pro-slavery argument is pitiful in its numerous fallacies.  It was in line with much of the discussion of the day that questioned whether the Negro was actually a human being, and but serves to show to what extremes economic interest will sometimes drive men otherwise of high intelligence and honor.

[Footnote 1:  The Pro-Slavery Argument (as maintained by the most distinguished writers of the Southern states).  Charleston, 1852.]