QUESTIONS by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 6, 1862

QUESTIONS.

By Editor

SOME ask proper questions for information, some to perplex, others to draw out a statement with which to carry points in local differences, and still others ask questions on subjects which have no real bearing on our position, and should not be urged upon the Review. Those who understand the principles of Bible unity, will avoid all questions but the first, namely, proper questions for information. These we shall be happy to notice when circumstances will possibly admit.

We received the following questions from an esteemed brother in the West, and decided not to notice them, as probably no good can result from discussing them. But, by mistake, we sent them to Bro. Waggoner, who returns them with the reply below.—[Ed.

QUESTIONS.

1st. Can an individual be in the message if he believes that slavery is a sin in the sight of God, and that the slave should go free, and be colonized or sent to Africa? Or 2d. Must he not only believe slavery to be a sin, and that the slave should go free, but also believe that these slaves should remain in our country?

ANSWER.

BRO. WHITE—Did you wish me to give an answer to these questions? If so, I will offer the following:

I cannot see any connection between our belief in the sinfulness of slavery, and our belief in regard to the proper remedy, especially as there is no remedy within our reach, or, we are not permitted to provide one. If the slaveholders were willing to do justice to the slaves, and would call upon us to assist them, common humanity would demand that we respond to the call. Then a responsibility in the case would attach to us; but it does not now, and never will. Hence, it can never be a profitable question to discuss, as it rests on contingencies that will never arise.

If any further answer is expected, I would make it only on the consideration that the moral condition of the mind is in a measure dependent on our views of right and wrong, even though we are not involved personally in the action.

I hold that a state of freedom is the natural condition of man, and any deprivation by usurpation or oppression cannot destroy the right. The slaves, by right, ought to be free. Colonization, of itself, defines no usage; it might, or it might not, effect the desired object. The idea, however, is inconsistent with freedom. Thus, if you have your freedom assured to you on condition of your being taken to Africa, the condition destroys your freedom. You would, of course, protest that it was only a choice between servitude and banishment. There can be no freedom where terms are settled by dictation instead of agreement.

As a question of right, the slave is not only entitled to freedom, but to recompense. This, of course, can only be partially bestowed. As they have been deprived, to a great degree, of the capability of properly using and preserving their rights, it belongs to their oppressors to restore the capability as far as possible. This could now only be done by education. In my opinion, education and gradual emancipation would be the best for all parties. But who has any hope for such a thing? J. H. W.