_Liberty_ is a glorious term--so is _Christianity_--but under the sacred garb of both one and the other, the foulest deeds have been, and may be, perpetrated! Under the name of _Christianity_, the holy crusades, in which thousands were slain, were instituted and carried on, by Englishmen! And under the name of _Liberty_, men, women, and children were, in 1793, slaughtered by Frenchmen! Be not therefore carried away by _sounds_--by mere _words_. _Slavery_ is a horrid term! But why? Not that bondage or slavery is uncommon, or rare; for there are few, very few men, white or black, on the face of the Earth who are not SLAVES! He who commits sin is the _slave_ of lust--so says the Bible--Let God be true, and every man a liar. Who therefore is not a slave? Was not Buonaparte, while he was the Emperor of nearly all Europe, a _slave_ to his god--ambition? And is not the _covetous_ man a slave to his idol--gold? "He is a freeman whom the truth makes free, And all are slaves beside. There's not a chain, That hellish foes, confederate for his harm, Can wind around him, but he casts it off, With as much ease, as Samson his green withes." The principal reason why we abhor so much the term _slavery_ is, the base cruelty with which _some_ tyrant slaveholders, for there are wicked slaveholders as well as wicked husbands and masters, have treated their slaves. Hence we are very apt to use as synonymous terms, _slavery_, _cruelty_, _tyranny_, and _oppression_. Moreover it is the interest of certain persons so to use these words, for the purpose of getting more ready access to the hearts of good-natured men and women. Does any one really believe that a man _cannot_ treat his slaves _kindly_, _tenderly_, and _affectionately_? If any one thinks it _possible_, then let not, for the future, the terms _slavery_ and _cruelty_ be inseparably united. But if he thinks it impossible, then it is evident the testimony of some thousands of disinterested, good, and religious men, who have visited the South, and who have most solemnly borne testimony to the kind, tender, and Christian manner in which _numerous_ slaveholders treat their slaves, must be rejected! If all this is to be rejected, then let the doubter, who is so charitable towards the coloured population, exercise a little of that charity, "which rejoiceth not in iniquity," and is "without partiality," towards his white fellow citizens, and ere he slanders them, or encourages those who bear false witness against them, pay the South a visit, and judge for himself, with his own eyes, and his own cars. Methinks he replies, "but I have it from those who themselves have witnessed it!" Witnessed what? Is it that _all_ the slaveholders in the South treat their slaves with _cruelty_ and _barbarity_? Oh no, perhaps he says, not _all_, but many of them! Many thanks! This is fully admitted, and much regretted; but this exception proves the very proposition with which we started, viz. "that