Original is in the Charles Hodge Papers, Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library. This electronic text version is from a photocopy in the Centre College Special Collections. Published with permission of the Princeton University Library
[page 1]
Danville June 15th [1836]
Dear Brother,
I have thought you might perhaps call it hypercriticism in me to prefer the phrase "mere act of holding a slave" to "slaveholding," as the one is scarcely more than an abridgment & condensation of the other. But you know the ideas men attach to words are drawn from their actual uses, not their etymology. A new phrase etymologically the same with an old one may convey very different ideas. The word slaveholding has many associations around it from common use, which the other has not. Still, on reflection, I would prefer departing even farther from the chance of exciting the idea that what I defended as in some cases right was the odious system presented to most minds by the word slaveholding; & I would request, if you look over the proof, to change the form of expression for the following "the mere act of holding a man to service under slave laws is not &c". I have thought it possible you might demur to the proof of the sin of depriving of personal liberty drawn from the Old Testament, on the ground that the cause of offence[sic] in those cases was the oppression &c &c - not the holding. But you may observe the phraseology seems to condemn not the acts performed in consequence of their holding, but the holding itself. Not that I suppose that the holding is an evil as the other, but it was attacked as the origo malorum in these cases. This phrase escaping
[page 2]
just now from my pen leads me to another remark, or rather a question. You speak of a "malum in se". What is the foundation of the difference between it & the malum prohibitum? What difference in their natures? It appears to me that the one [unclear: set?] are simply such as in no conceivable cases can be right, & the other may be in some cases. Now incest & murder may be cited as cases of the mala in se. Yet Adam's children intermarried, & Saul slew the Amalekites - both acts authorized by God. But the one was not incest nor the other murder - why? Difference in the circumstances from other acts that look like them. This distinction is good enough for popular use - to mark the difference of things which vary very little in the attendant circumstances & may therefore be at once judged at first glance wrong - & things whose circumstances vary so frequently that no general rule can be laid down about them. Still the distinction does not carry us to the bottom of things. Where a thing like the holding of a slave is wrong, it is wrong for the same general reason that stealing, lying, swearing, killing etc. are wrong. But I have room for no more than mere hints of my views, & if you disagree I must bear the imputation of error with you for I cannot assign reasons here. I hope, my dear brother, you will be cautious & avoid, as much as you can, lulling the minds of our people on the subject of their duty to terminate as soon as possible the system of slavery. You have no idea how sleepy they are on the subject already. People away from us have a much better opinion of us than we deserve. I could, if I had an hour's conversation with you, tell you many facts which would change your views of the state of feeling in the slave states in reference to slavery - even in Kentucky
[page 3]>
mankind lie a great deal. Honest & unsuspecting men are deceived by professions. Men will not let go what is gainful. My hope is for the generation to come. Many will emancipate for their children but not for themselves - and as to wages of labor to the slave, they never think of it. If I preached this doctrine they would think I was a raving abolitionist. I have been touching upon it several times - and this quite as much as my direct attacks on slavery, produces [illegible word] my reputation as being an abolitionist who disavow the name. I cannot get near all my people up to intellectual instruction - and it is everywhere known through the state that this congregation is years in advance of any other on this subject. There are some of our clergy yet preaching in favor of slavery - shocking even the feelings of ardent infidels by their sentiments, - [illegible word] never saying one word out of the pulpit or [illegible word] in it of teaching the blacks or compensating them. Yet even these will tell you "we are in favor of emancipation". They take care, however, never to do anything except against it. And when they say they are in favor, they also say it would be an intolerable nuisance ever to let the blacks go free except on conditions of colonizing them. I believe they will be colonized when we construct a rail-road to the moon. Long before the public mind would be willing to begin the work in earnest (even if from this moment a rapid change of public sentiment should commence) they will amount to a number which will bid despair to all efforts of even a nation's wealth to transport & support. But they will have the South to themselves some day. I believe that all
[page 4]
anti-slavery efforts are now doing good. The consciences of many are waking. There is now much more conscientious opposition to slavery here than there was 6 years ago. There is not as much professed opposition as there was 3 years since. One strong reason for more tenacious clinging to slavery is that the price of blacks is nearly double what it was 3 years ago. The causes are temporary of course, though they will continue to operate for some years. To this as much as to the efforts of abolitionists is owing the increased opposition to dis-discussions on the subject. Sometimes I feel disposed to flee away from all the abominations of this system. But I suppose it is duty to stay as long as I can get a chance of telling the truth on this subject as well as others to the largest congregation in the State & one that is continually increasing, as well as of conducting a College which, though crippled in numbers by the operation of this very
[continued in margin of page 1]
system, is still the best establishment which a large slaveholding state can support. I would write occasionally for the Repertory - but a new book scarcely ever reaches me before I see it reviewed. However, I will endeavor soon to convince you that I do not need to be "hit on a sore place" to induce
[continued in margin of page 2]
me to give you an occasional lift in your Repertory labors. One thing, however, I wish to know, viz do you hold yourselves responsible for every article in such a sense as to require a conformity of the article, in all respects,
[continued in margin of page 3]
with your own views? I do not by this question mean to hint that I expect to differ in anything I might write from your general views, but if such a thing should happen as it might in many cases, I wish to know what is your usual course. Dr. Barnes my nearest preaching neighbor
[continued in margin of page 4]
is about removing to Ohio, on account of slavery - yet no urgency or remonstrances could ever induce him to tell his people their duty on the subject. Instead of increasing, our ministerial ranks are rather thinning & all attributable to the one cause.
With respect your brother
J.[ohn] C. Young
Envelope
Revd. Charles Hodge D.D.
Prof.[essor] Bib.[lical] Theo.[logy]
Princeton, New Jersey