the descendants of Ham are, and where they are. I presume you would
not consider the title even to one acre of land satisfactorily
settled by evidence of such extremely dubious character; how much
less, then, a man's ownership of himself! Then, again, if we admit
that Africans are descendants of Ham, what is to be said of
thousands of slaves, advertised in Southern newspapers as "passing
themselves for white men, or white women"? Runaways with "blue eyes,
light hair, and rosy complexions"? Are these sons and daughters of
our Presidents, our Governors, our Senators, our Generals, and our
Commodores, descendants of Ham? Are _they_ Africans?

If you turn to the favorite New Testament argument, you will find
that Paul requested Philemon to receive Onesimus, "no longer as a
servant, but as a brother beloved." Is _that_ the way Southern
masters receive the "fugitives from injustice" whom we drive back to
them? Is it the way we _expect_ they will be received? In 1851, the
intelligent young mechanic, named Thomas Sims, escaped from a hard
master, who gave him many blows and no wages. By his own courage and
energy, he succeeded in reaching our Commonwealth, where mechanics
are not compelled by law to work without wages. But the authorities
of Boston decreed that this man was "bound to such service or
labor." So they ordered out their troops and sent him back to his
master, who caused him to be tied up and flogged, till the doctor
said, "If you strike another blow, you will kill him." "Let him
die," replied the master. He did nearly die in prison, but recovered
to be sold farther South. Was _this_ being received as "a brother
beloved"? Before we send back any more Onesimuses, it is necessary
to have a different set of Philemons to deal with. The Scripture is
clearly not obeyed, under present circumstances.