e pleased to consider the people of the Southern States, we are not
so utterly lost to all reverence for the Creator as to suppose, even for
a moment, that he _intended any one human being to possess the right of
sacrificing the happiness of his fellow-men to his own_. We can assure
him that we are not quite so dead to every sentiment of political
justice, as to imagine that any legislation which intends to benefit the
one at the expense of the many is otherwise than unequal and iniquitous
in the extreme. There is some little sense of justice left among us yet;
and hence we approve of no institution or law which proceeds on the
monstrous principle that any one man has, or can have, the "_right to
sacrifice the happiness of any number of other human beings for the
purpose of promoting his own_." We recognize no such right. It is as
vehemently abhorred and condemned by us as it can be abhorred and
condemned by the author himself.

In thus taking it for granted, as Dr. Wayland so coolly does, that the
institution in question is "intended" to sacrifice the happiness of the
slaves to the selfish interest of the master, he incontinently begs the
whole question. Let him establish this point, and the whole controversy
will be at an end. But let him not hope to establish any thing, or to
satisfy any one, by assuming the very point in dispute, and then proceed
to demolish what every man at the South condemns no less than himself.
Surely, no one who has looked at both sides of this great question can
be ignorant that the legislation of the South proceeds on the principle
that slavery is beneficial, not to the master only, but also and
_especially_ to the slave. Surely, no one who has either an eye or an
ear for facts can be ignorant that the institution of slavery is based
on the ground, or principle, that it is beneficial, not only to the
parts, but also to the whole, of the society in which it exists. This
ground, or principle, is set forth in every defense of slavery by the
writers and speakers of the South; it is so clearly and so unequivocally
set forth, that he who runs may read. Why, then, is it overlooked by Dr.
Wayland? Why is he pleased to imagine that he is combating Southern
principles, when, in reality, he is merely combating the monstrous
figment, the distorted conception of his own brain,--namely, the right
of one man to sacrifice the happiness of multitudes to his own will and
pleasure? Is it because facts do not li