utter inconsistency with sound policy, justice, reason, humanity, and
religion.

"I will not here," says he, "so far debase myself as to enlarge the
ignominious list of those writers, who devote their abilities to justify by
policy what morality condemns. In an age where so many errors are boldly
laid open, it would be unpardonable to conceal any truth that is
interesting to humanity. If whatever I have hitherto advanced hath
seemingly tended only to alleviate the burthen of slavery, the reason is,
that it was first necessary to give some comfort to those unhappy beings,
whom we cannot set free, and convince their oppressors, that they were
cruel, to the prejudice of their real interests. But, in the mean time,
till some considerable revolution shall make the evidence of this great
truth felt, it may not be improper to pursue this subject further. I shall
then first prove that there is no reason of state, which can authorize
slavery. I shall not be afraid to cite to the tribunal of reason and
justice those governments, which tolerate this cruelty, or which even are
not ashamed to make it the basis of their power."

And a little further on he observes--"Will it be said that he, who wants to
make me a slave, does me no injury, but that he only makes use of his
rights? Where are those rights? Who hath stamped upon them so sacred a
character as to silence mine?"--

In the beginning of the next paragraph he speaks thus: "He, who supports
the system of slavery, is the enemy of the whole human race. He divides it
into two societies of legal assassins; the oppressors, and the oppressed.
It is the same thing as proclaiming to the world, If you would preserve
your life, instantly take away mine, for I want to have yours."