A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate.
1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent _the form_ witnessed by our Savior “in Judea?” That, _he_ will by no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the “worst” kind. _How then does he account for the alledged silence of the Savior?–a silence covering the essence and the form–the institution and its “worst” abuses?_
2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see.
_Christianity in supporting _The American system for Slavery, according to Prof. supporting Slavery,_ Hodge,_
“Enjoins a fair compensation Makes compensation impossible for labor.” by reducing the laborer to a chattel.
“It insists on the moral It sternly forbids its victim and intellectual improvement to learn to read even the of all classes of men.” name of his Creator and Redeemer.
“It condemns all infractions It outlaws the conjugal and of marital or parental rights.” parental relations.
“It requires that free scope It forbids any effort, on the should be allowed to human part of myriads of the human improvement.” family, to improve their character, condition, and prospects.
“It requires that all suitable It inflicts heavy penalties means should be employed to improve for teaching letters to the mankind.” to the poorest of the poor.
“Wherever it has had free scope, it Wherever it has free scope, has abolished domestic bondage.” it perpetuates domestic bondage.
_Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the abolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form of slavery as is consistent with Prof. Hodge’s account of the requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings, or called forth their exertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around? Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the _man of straw_ he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business. It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying both Church and State;–it is this that they feel pledged to do battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown, dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss.
3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may be thrown over SUCH SLAVERY, as may be consistent with what the Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity?_ Is _this?_ THE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands maintain? “Fair compensation for labor”–“marital and parental rights”–“free scope” and “all suitable means” for the “improvement, moral and intellectual, of all classes of men;”–are these, according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such requisition and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the “peculiar institution?” Their gratitude must be of a stamp and complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their “domestic system” under the weight of such Christian requisitions as must at once crush its snaky head “and grind it to powder.”
And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions which Prof. Hodge quotes, upon _the definition of slavery_ which he has elaborated? “All the ideas which necessarily enter into the definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the master[A].”
[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 12]
_According to Prof. Hodge’s According to Prof. Hodge’s account of the requisitions of account of Slavery, Christianity,_
The spring of effort in the labor The laborer must serve at the is a fair compensation. discretion of another.
Free scope must be given for his moral He is deprived of personal and intellectual improvement. liberty–the necessary condition, and living soul of improvement, without which he has no control of either intellect or morals.
His rights as a husband and a father The authority and claims of are to be protected. the master may throw an ocean between him and his family, and separate them from each other’s presence at any moment and forever.
Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Prof. Hodge so cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided, for the peace of the respective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so far from _the requisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them into each other’s presence, their natural and invincible antipathy to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as _wish_ to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger of rushing into the professor’s dungeon. Those who, having something to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their hearts’ content. The hour can not be far away, when upright and reflective minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the slaveholder.
But _Prof. Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that “_Paul did not expect slavery to be ousted in a day_[A].” _Did not_ EXPECT! What then? Are the _requisitions_ of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human consciousness? And are we to interpret the _precepts_ of the Gospel by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every where to repent, and this, though “Paul did not expect” that human wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community “be ousted in a day.” Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite another.
[Footnote A: Supra, p.8.]
In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, “gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor.” _That_ he did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Prof. Stuart, “decides against the righteousness of slavery” even as a “theory.” Accordingly, Christians were required, _without_ _respect of persons_, to do each other justice–to maintain equality as common ground for all to stand upon–to cherish and express in all their intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one _brother_ naturally feels for another. These were the “ad interim precepts,”[A] which can not fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, “root and branch,” at once and forever.
[Footnote A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 8.]
Prof. Stuart comforts us with the assurance that “_Christianity will ultimately certainly destroy slavery_.” Of this _we_ have not the feeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that “_slavery may exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE CHURCH?”[B] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient and cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor condition![C] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful to her? This is to be _aggressive_ with a witness. Far be it from the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its inherent wickedness–its malignant temper–its deadly effects–its constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the authority of God and the welfare of man.
[Footnote B: The same, p. 7.]
[Footnote C: Prof. Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et salva ecclesia_.]
“Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery.” “ULTIMATELY!” What meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time, concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have rolled over this world of wrong and outrage–and yet we tremble in the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but for a single day, upon the head of the prophet who dipped his pen, in such cold blood, to write that word “ultimately,” how, under the sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the lamentable cry, “How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!” In the agony of beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet, quite at “ease in Zion,” that “ULTIMATELY _Christianity would destroy slavery_.” As the hammer falls and the beloved of his soul, all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of _legalized_ debauchery, his heart turns to stone, while the cry dies upon his lips, “_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG?”
“_Ultimately!_” In _what circumstances_ does Prof. Stuart assure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts of this republic–as living members of this community, did we forfeit the prerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and act as wielding the powers which the principle of self-government has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or statesman, of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the freedom which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven and the Constitution of our country? Can we expect to see Christianity on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of slavery, what “_ultimately_” must Christianity here wait for before she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over slavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so widely spread through the “sacramental host” beneath her banners! Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the _ultimately_ of the “dark spirit of slavery” would at once give place to the _immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor.
* * * * *
NO 8.
THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
* * * * *
CORRESPONDENCE,
BETWEEN THE
HON. F.H. ELMORE,
ONE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATION IN CONGRESS,
AND
JAMES G. BIRNEY,
ONE OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.
* * * * *
NEW-YORK:
PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
No. 143 NASSAU STREET.
1838.
* * * * *
This periodical contains 5 sheets.–Postage under 100 miles, 7-1/2 cts.; over 100 miles, 12-1/2 cts.
_Please read and circulate_.
REMARKS IN EXPLANATION.
* * * * *
ANTI-SLAVERY OFFICE, _New York, May 24, 1838_.
In January, a tract entitled “WHY WORK FOR THE SLAVE?” was issued from this office by the agent for the _Cent-a-week Societies_. A copy of it was transmitted to the Hon. John C. Calhoun;–to _him_, because he has seemed, from the first, more solicitous than the generality of Southern politicians, to possess himself of accurate information about the Anti-Slavery movement. A note written by me accompanied the tract, informing Mr. Calhoun, why it was sent to him.
Not long afterward, the following letter was received from the Hon. F.H. Elmore, of the House of Representatives in Congress. From this and another of his letters just now received, it seems, that the Slaveholding Representatives in Congress, after conferring together, appointed a committee, of their own number, to obtain authentic information of the intentions and progress of the Anti-Slavery associations,–and that Mr. Elmore was selected, as the _South Carolina_ member of the Committee.
Several other communications have passed between Mr. Elmore and me. They relate, chiefly, however, to the transmission and reception of Anti-slavery publications, which he requested to be sent to him,–and to other matters not having any connection with the merits of the main subject. It is, therefore, thought unnecessary to publish them. It may be sufficient to remark of all the communications received from Mr. Elmore–that they are characterized by exemplary courtesy and good temper, and that they bear the impress of an educated, refined, and liberal mind.
It is intended to circulate this correspondence throughout the _whole country_. If the information it communicates be important for southern Representatives in Congress, it is not less so for their Constituents. The Anti-slavery movement has become so important in a National point of view, that no statesman can innocently remain ignorant of its progress and tendencies. The facts stated in my answer may be relied on, in proportion to the degree of accuracy to which they lay claim;–the arguments will, of course, be estimated according to their worth.
JAMES G. BIRNEY.
CORRESPONDENCE.
* * * * *
WASHINGTON CITY, FEB. 16, 1838
To Jas. G. Birney, Esq., _Cor. Sec. A.A.S. Soc._
Sir:–A letter from you to the Hon. John C. Calhoun, dated 29th January last, has been given to me, by him, in which you say, (in reference to the abolitionists or Anti-Slavery Societies,) “we have nothing to conceal–and should you desire any information as to our procedure, it will be cheerfully communicated on [my] being apprised of your wishes.” The frankness of this unsolicited offer indicates a fairness and honesty of purpose, which has caused the present communication, and which demands the same full and frank disclosure of the views with which the subjoined inquiries are proposed.
Your letter was handed to me, in consequence of a duty assigned me by my delegation, and which requires me to procure all the authentic information I can, as to the nature and intentions of yours and similar associations, in order that we may, if we deem it advisable, lay the information before our people, so that they may be prepared to decide understandingly, as to the course it becomes them to pursue on this all important question. If you “have nothing to conceal,” and it is not imposing too much on, what may have been, an unguarded proffer, I will esteem your compliance as a courtesy to an opponent, and be pleased to have an opportunity to make a suitable return. And if, on the other hand, you have the least difficulty or objection, I trust you will not hesitate to withhold the information sought for, as I would not have it, unless as freely given, as it will, if deemed expedient, be freely used.
I am, Sir,
Your ob’d’t serv’t,
F.H. ELMORE, of S.C.
QUESTIONS for J.G. Birney, Esq., Cor. Sec. A.A.S. Society.
1. How many societies, affiliated with that of which you are the Corresponding Secretary, are there in the United States? And how many members belong to them _in the aggregate_?
2. Are there any other societies similar to yours, and not affiliated with it, in the United States? and how many, and what is the aggregate their members?
3. Have you affiliation, intercourse or connection with any similar societies out of the United States, and in what countries?
4. Do your or similar societies exist in the Colleges and other Literary institutions of the non-slaveholding States, and to what extent?
5. What do you estimate the numbers of those who co-operate in this matter at? What proportion do they bear in the population of the Northern states, and what in the Middle non-slaveholding states? Are they increasing, and at what rate?
6. What is the object your associations aim at? does it extend to the abolition of slavery only in the District of Columbia, or in the whole slave country?
7. By what means, and under what power, do you propose to carry your views into effect?
8. What has been for three years past, the annual income of your societies? and how is it raised?
9. In what way, and to what purposes, do you apply these funds?
10. How many priming presses and periodical publications have you?
11. To what classes of persons do you address your publications, and are they addressed to the judgment, the imagination, or the feelings?
12. Do you propagate your doctrines by any other means than oral and written discussions,–for instance, by prints and pictures in manufactures–say pocket handkerchiefs, &c. Pray, state the various modes?
13. Are your hopes and expectations increased or lessened by the events of the last year, and, especially, by the action of this Congress? And will your exertions be relaxed or increased?
14. Have you any permanent fund, and how much?
ANTI-SLAVERY OFFICE, _New York, March 8, 1838_
Hon. F.H. ELMORE,
Member of Congress from S. Carolina:
SIR,–I take pleasure in furnishing the information you have so politely asked for, in your letter of the 16th ult., in relation to the American Anti-Slavery Society;–and trust, that this correspondence, by presenting in a sober light, the objects and measures of the society, may contribute to dispel, not only from your own mind, but–if it be diffused throughout the South–from the minds of our fellow-citizens there generally, a great deal of undeserved prejudice and groundless alarm. I cannot hesitate to believe, that such as enter on the examination of its claims to public favour, without bias, will find that it aims intelligently, not only at the promotion of the interests of the slave, but of the master,–not only at the re-animation of the Republican principles of our Constitution, but at the establishment of the Union on an enduring basis.
I shall proceed to state the several questions submitted in your letter, and answer them, in the order in which they are proposed. You ask,–
“1. _How many societies, affiliated with that of which you are corresponding secretary, are there in the United States? And how many members belong to them_ IN THE AGGREGATE?”
ANSWER.–Our anniversary is held on the Tuesday immediately preceding the second Thursday in May. Returns of societies are made only a short time before. In May, 1835, there were 225 auxiliaries reported. In May, 1836, 527. In May, 1837, 1006. Returns for the anniversary in May next have not come in yet. It may, however, be safely said, that the increase, since last May, is not less than 400.[A] Of late, the multiplication of societies has not kept pace with the progress of our principles. Where these are well received, our agents are not so careful to organize societies as in former times, when our numbers were few; _societies, now_, being not deemed so necessary for the advancement of our cause. The auxiliaries average not less than 80 members each; making an aggregate of 112,480. Others estimate the auxiliaries at 1500, and the average of members at 100. I give you, what I believe to be the lowest numbers.
[Footnote A: The number reported for May was three hundred and forty, making, in the aggregate, 1346.–_Report for May_, 1838.]
“2. _Are there any other societies similar to yours, and not affiliated with it in the United States? And how many, and what is the aggregate of their members_?”
ANSWER.–Several societies have been formed in the Methodist connection within the last two years,–although most of the Methodists who are abolitionists, are members of societies auxiliary to the American. These societies have been originated by Ministers, and others of weight and influence, who think that their brethren can be more easily persuaded, as a religious body, to aid in the anti-slavery movement by this twofold action. None of the large religious denominations bid fairer soon to be on the side of emancipation than the Methodist. Of the number of the Methodist societies that are not auxiliary, I am not informed.–The ILLINOIS SOCIETY comes under the same class. The REV. ELIJAH P. LOVEJOY, the corresponding secretary, was slain by a mob, a few days after its organization. It has not held a meeting since; and I have no data for stating the number of its members. It is supposed not to be large.–Neither is the DELAWARE SOCIETY, organized, a few weeks ago, at Wilmington, auxiliary to the American. I have no information as to its numbers.–The MANUMISSION SOCIETY in this city, formed in 1785, with JOHN JAY its first, and ALEXANDER HAMILTON its second president, might, from its name, be supposed to be affiliated with the American. Originally, its object, so far as regarded the slaves, and those illegally held in bondage _in this state_, was, in a great measure, similar. Slavery being extinguished in New-York in 1827, as a state system, the efforts of the Manumission Society are limited now to the rescue, from kidnappers and others, of such persons as are really free by the laws, but who have been reduced to slavery. Of the old Abolition societies, organized in the time, and under the influence of Franklin and Rush and Jay, and the most active of their coadjutors, but few remain. Their declension may be ascribed to this defect,–they did not inflexibly ask for _immediate_ emancipation.–The PENNSYLVANIA ABOLITION SOCIETY, formed in 1789, with DR. FRANKLIN, president, and DR. RUSH, secretary, is still in existence–but unconnected with the American Society. Some of the most active and benevolent members of both the associations last named, are members of the American Society. Besides the societies already mentioned, there may be in the country a few others of anti-slavery name; but they are of small note and efficiency, and are unconnected with this.
“3. _Have you affiliation, intercourse, or connection with any similar societies out of the United States, and in what countries_?”
ANSWER.–A few societies have spontaneously sprung up in Canada. Two have declared themselves auxiliary to the American. We have an agent–a native of the United States–in Upper Canada; not with a view to the organization of societies, but to the moral and intellectual elevation of the Ten thousand colored people there; most of whom have escaped from slavery in this Republic, to enjoy freedom under the protection of a Monarchy. In Great Britain there are numerous Anti-slavery Societies, whose particular object, of late, has been, to bring about the abolition of the Apprentice-system, as established by the emancipation act in her slaveholding colonies. In England, there is a society whose professed object is, to abolish slavery _throughout the world_. Of the existence of the British societies, you are, doubtless, fully aware; as also of the fact, that, in Britain, the great mass of the people are opposed to slavery as it existed, a little while ago, in their own colonies, and as it exists now in the United States.–In France, the “FRENCH SOCIETY FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY” was founded in 1834. I shall have the pleasure of transmitting to you two pamphlets, containing an account of some of its proceedings; from which you will learn, that, the DUC DE BROGLIE is its presiding officer, and many of the most distinguished and influential of the public men of that country are members.–In Hayti, also, “The HAYTIAN ABOLITION SOCIETY” was formed in May, 1836.
These are all the foreign societies of which I have knowledge. They are connected with the American by no formal affiliation. The only intercourse between them and it, is, that which springs up spontaneously among those of every land who sympathize with Humanity in her conflicts with Slavery.
“4. _Do your or similar societies exist in the Colleges and other Literary institutions of the non-slaveholding states, and to what extent_?”
ANSWER.–Strenuous efforts have been made, and they are still being made, by those who have the direction of most of the literary and theological institutions in the free states, to bar out our principles and doctrines, and prevent the formation of societies among the students. To this course they have been prompted by various, and possibly, in their view, good motives. One of them, I think it not uncharitable to say, is, to conciliate the wealthy of the south, that they may send their sons to the north, to swell the college catalogues. Neither do I think it uncharitable to say, that in this we have a manifestation of that Aristocratic pride, which, feeling itself honored by having entrusted to its charge the sons of distant, opulent, and distinguished planters, fails not to dull everything like sympathy for those whose unpaid toil supplies the means so lavishly expended in educating southern youth at northern colleges. These efforts at suppression or restraint, on the part of Faculties and Boards of Trustees, have heretofore succeeded to a considerable extent. Anti-Slavery Societies, notwithstanding, have been formed in a few of our most distinguished colleges and theological seminaries. Public opinion is beginning to call for a relaxation of restraints and impositions; they are yielding to its demands; and _now_, for the most part, sympathy for the slave may be manifested by our generous college youth, in the institution of Anti-Slavery Societies, without any downright prohibition by their more politic teachers. College societies will probably increase more rapidly hereafter; as, in addition to the removal or relaxation of former restraints, just referred to, the murder of Mr. Lovejoy, the assaults on the Freedom of speech and of the press, the prostration of the Right of petition in Congress, &c, &c, all believed to have been perpetrated to secure slavery from the scrutiny that the intelligent world is demanding, have greatly augmented the number of college abolitionists. They are, for the most part, the diligent, the intellectual, the religious of the students. United in societies, their influence is generally extensively felt in the surrounding region; _dispersed_, it seems scarcely less effective. An instance of the latter deserves particular notice.
The Trustees and Faculty of one of our theological and literary institutions united for the suppression of anti-slavery action among the students. The latter refused to cease pleading for the slave, as he could not plead for himself. They left the institution; were providentially dispersed over various parts of the country, and made useful, in a remarkable manner, in advancing the cause of humanity and liberty. One of these dismissed students, the son of a slaveholder, brought up in the midst of slavery, and well acquainted with its peculiarities, succeeded in persuading a pious father to emancipate his fourteen slaves. After lecturing a long time with signal success–having contracted a disease of the throat, which prevented him from further prosecuting his labors in this way–he visited the West Indies, eighteen months ago, in company with another gentleman of the most ample qualifications, to note the operation of the British emancipation act. Together, they collected a mass of facts–now in a course of publication–that will astonish, as it ought to delight, the whole south; for it shows, conclusively, that IMMEDIATE emancipation is the best, the safest, the most profitable, as it is the most just and honorable, of all emancipations.[A]
[Footnote A: See Appendix, A.]
Another of these dismissed students is one of the secretaries of this society. He has, for a long time, discharged its arduous and responsible duties with singular ability. To his qualifications as secretary, he adds those of an able and successful lecturer. He was heard, several times, before the joint committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, a year ago, prior to the report of that committee, and to the adoption, by the Senate and House of Representatives, of their memorable resolutions in favor of the Power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and of the Right of petition.
“5. _What do you estimate the number of those who co-operate in the matter at? What proportion do they bear in the population of the northern states, and what in the middle non-slaveholding states? Are they increasing, and at what rate_?”
ANSWER.–Those who stand _ready to join_ our societies on the first suitable occasion, may be set down as equal in number to those who are now _actually members_. Those who are ready _fully to co-operate with us_ in supporting the freedom of speech and the press, the right of petition, &c, may be estimated at _double_, if not _treble_, the joint numbers of those who _already are members_, and those who are _ready to become members_. The Recording secretary of the MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY stated, a few weeks ago, that the abolitionists in the various minor societies in that state were one in thirty of the whole population. The proportion of abolitionists to the whole population is greater in Massachusetts than in any other of the free states, except VERMONT,–where the spirit of liberty has almost entirely escaped the corruptions which slavery has infused into it in most of her sister states, by means of commercial and other intercourse with them.
In MAINE, not much of systematic effort has, as yet, been put forth to enlighten her population as to our principles and proceedings. I attended the anniversary of the State Society on the 31st of January, at Augusta, the seat of government. The Ministers of the large religious denominations were beginning, as I was told, to unite with us–and Politicians, to descry the ultimate prevalence of our principles. The impression I received was, that much could, and that much would, speedily be done.
In NEW HAMPSHIRE, more labor has been expended, and a greater effect produced. Public functionaries, who have been pleased to speak in contemptuous terms of the progress of abolitionism, both in Maine and New Hampshire, will, it is thought, soon be made to see, through a medium not at all deceptive, the grossness of their error.
In RHODE ISLAND, our principles are fast pervading the great body of the people. This, it is thought, is the only one of the free states, in which the subject of abolition has been fully introduced, which has not been disgraced by a mob, triumphant, for the time being, over the right of the people to discuss any, and every, matter in which they feel interested. A short time previous to the last election of members of Congress, questions, embodying our views as to certain political measures were propounded to the several candidates. Respectful answers and, in the main, conformable with our views, were returned. I shall transmit you a newspaper containing both the questions and the answers.[A]
[Footnote A: Since the above was written, at the last election in this state for governor and lieutenant governor, the abolitionists _interrogated_ the gentlemen who stood candidates for these offices. Two of them answered respectfully, and conformably to the views of the abolitionists. Their opponents neglected to answer at all. The first were elected.–See Appendix, B.]
In CONNECTICUT, there has not been, as yet, a great expenditure of abolition effort. Although the moral tone of this state, so far as slavery is concerned, has been a good deal weakened by the influence of her multiform connexions with the south, yet the energies that have been put forth to reanimate her ancient and lofty feelings, so far from proving fruitless, have been followed by the most encouraging results. Evidence of this is found in the faithful administration of the laws by judges and juries. In May last, a slave, who had been brought from Georgia to Hartford, successfully asserted her freedom under the laws of Connecticut. The cause was elaborately argued before the Supreme court. The most eminent counsel were employed on both sides. And it is but a few days, since two anti-abolition rioters (the only ones on trial) were convicted before the Superior court in New Haven, and sentenced to pay a fine of twenty dollars each, and to be imprisoned six months, the longest term authorized by the law. A convention, for the organization of a State Society, was held in the city of Hartford on the last day of February. It was continued three days. The _call_ for it (which I send you) was signed by nearly EIGHTEEN HUNDRED of the citizens of that state. SEVENTEEN HUNDRED, as I was informed, are legal voters. The proceedings of the convention were of the most harmonious and animating character.[B]
[Footnote B: See Appendix, C.]
In NEW YORK, our cause is evidently advancing. The state is rapidly coming up to the high ground of principle, so far as universal liberty is concerned, on which the abolitionists would place her. Several large Anti-Slavery conventions have lately been held in the western counties. Their reports are of the most encouraging character. Nor is the change more remarkable in the state than in this city. Less than five years ago, a few of the citizens advertised a meeting, to be held in Clinton Hall, to form a City Anti-Slavery Society. A mob prevented their assembling at the place appointed. They repaired, privately, to one of the churches. To this they were pursued by the mob, and routed from it, though not before they had completed, in a hasty manner, the form of organization. In the summer of 1834, some of the leading political and commercial journals of the city were enabled to stir up the mob against the persons and property of the abolitionists, and several of the most prominent were compelled to leave the city for safety; their houses were attacked, broken into, and, in one instance, the furniture publicly burnt in the street. _Now_, things are much changed. Many of the merchants and mechanics are favorable to our cause; gentlemen of the bar, especially the younger and more growing ones, are directing their attention to it; twenty-one of our city ministers are professed abolitionists; the churches are beginning to be more accessible to us; our meetings are held in them openly, attract large numbers, are unmolested; and the abolitionists sometimes hear themselves commended in other assemblies, not only for their honest _intentions_, but for their _respectability_ and _intelligence_.
NEW JERSEY has, as yet, no State Society, and the number of avowed abolitionists is small. In some of the most populous and influential parts of the state, great solicitude exists on the subject; and the call for lecturers is beginning to be earnest, if not importunate.
PENNSYLVANIA has advanced to our principles just in proportion to the labor that has been bestowed, by means of lectures and publications in enlightening her population as to our objects, and the evils and dangers impending over the whole country, from southern slavery. The act of her late Convention, in depriving a large number of their own constituents (the colored people) of the elective franchise, heretofore possessed by them without any allegation of its abuse on their part, would seem to prove an unpropitious state of public sentiment. We would neither deny, nor elude, the force of such evidence. But when this measure of the convention is brought out and unfolded in its true light–shown to be a party measure to bring succor from the south–a mere following in the wake of North Carolina and Tennessee, who led the way, in their _new_ constitutions, to this violation of the rights of their colored citizens, that they might the more firmly compact the wrongs of the enslaved–a pernicious, a profitless violation of great principles–a vulgar defiance of the advancing spirit of humanity and justice–a relapse into the by-gone darkness of a barbarous age–we apprehend from it no serious detriment to our cause.
OHIO has been well advanced. In a short time, she will be found among the most prominent of the states on the right side in the contest now going on between the spirit of liberty embodied in the free institutions of the north, and the spirit of slavery pervading the south. Her Constitution publishes the most honorable reprobation of slavery of any other in the Union. In providing for its own revision or amendment, it declares, that _no alteration of it shall ever take place, so as to introduce slavery or involuntary servitude into the state_. Her Supreme court is intelligent and firm. It has lately decided, virtually, against the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, made, in effect, to favor southern slavery by the persecution of the colored people within her bounds. She has, already, abolitionists enough to turn the scale in her elections, and an abundance of excellent material for augmenting the number.
In INDIANA but little has been done, except by the diffusion of our publications. But even with these appliances, several auxiliary societies have been organized.[A]
[Footnote A: The first Legislative movement against the annexation of Texas to the Union, was made, it is believed, in Indiana. So early as December, 1836, a joint resolution passed its second reading in one or both branches of the Legislature. How it was ultimately disposed of, is not known.]
In MICHIGAN, the leaven of abolitionists pervades the whole population. The cause is well sustained by a high order of talent; and we trust soon to see the influence of it in all her public acts.
In ILLINOIS, the murder of Mr. Lovejoy has multiplied and confirmed abolitionists, and led to the formation of many societies, which, in all probability, would not have been formed so soon, had not that event taken place.
I am not possessed of sufficient data for stating, with precision, what proportion the abolitionists bear in the population of the Northern and Middle non-slaveholding states respectively. Within the last ten months, I have travelled extensively in both these geographical divisions. I have had whatever advantage this, assisted by a strong interest in the general cause, and abundant conversations with the best informed abolitionists, could give, for making a fair estimate of their numbers. In the Northern states I should say, _they are one in ten_–in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, _one in twenty_–of the whole adult population. That the abolitionists have multiplied, and that they are still multiplying rapidly, no one acquainted with the smallness of their numbers at their first organization a few years ago, and who has kept his eyes about him since, need ask. That they have not, thus far, been more successful, is owing to the vastness of the undertaking, and the difficulties with which they have had to contend, from comparatively limited means, for presenting their measures and objects, with the proper developments and explanations, to the great mass of the popular mind. The progress of their principles, under the same amount of intelligence in presenting them, and where no peculiar causes of prejudice exist in the minds of the hearers, is generally proportioned to the degree of religious and intellectual worth prevailing in the different sections of the country where the subject is introduced. I know no instance, in which any one notoriously profane or intemperate, or licentious, or of openly irreligious _practice_, has professed, cordially to have received our principles.
“6. _What is the object your associations aim at? Does it extend to abolition of slavery only in the District of Columbia, or in the whole slave country_?”
ANSWER.–This question is fully answered in the second Article of the Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, which is in these words:–
“The object of this society is the entire abolition of slavery in the United States. While it admits that each state, in which slavery exists, has, by the Constitution of the United States, the exclusive right to _legislate_ in regard to its abolition in said state, it shall aim to convince all our fellow-citizens, by arguments addressed to their understandings and consciences, that slaveholding is a heinous crime in the sight of God, and that the duty, safety, and best interests of all concerned require its immediate abandonment, without expatriation. The society will also endeavor, in a constitutional way, to influence Congress to put an end to the domestic slave-trade, and to abolish slavery in all those portions of our common country which come under its control, especially in the District of Columbia; and likewise to prevent the extension of it to any state that may hereafter be admitted to the Union.”
Other objects, accompanied by a pledge of peace, are stated in the third article of the Constitution,–
“This Society shall aim to elevate the character and condition of the people of color, by encouraging their intellectual, moral, and religious improvement, and by removing public prejudice,–that thus they may, according to their intellectual and moral worth, share an equality with the whites of civil and religious privileges; but this Society will never in any way, countenance the oppressed in vindicating their rights by resorting to physical force.”
“7. _By what means and by what power do you propose to carry your views into effect_?”
ANSWER.–Our “means” are the Truth,–the “Power” under whose guidance we propose to carry our views into effect, is, the Almighty. Confiding in these means, when directed by the spirit and wisdom of Him, who has so made them as to act on the hearts of men, and so constituted the hearts of then as to be affected by them, we expect, 1. To bring the CHURCH of this country to repentance for the sin of OPPRESSION. Not only the Southern portion of it that has been the oppressor–but the Northern, that has stood by, consenting, for half a century, to the wrong. 2. To bring our countrymen to see, that for a nation to persist in injustice is, but to rush on its own ruin; that to do justice is the highest expediency–to love mercy its noblest ornament. In other countries, slavery has sometimes yielded to fortuitous circumstances, or been extinguished by physical force. _We_ strive to win for truth the victory over error, and on the broken fragments of slavery to rear for her a temple, that shall reach to the heavens, and toward which all nations shall worship. It has been said, that the slaveholders of the South will not yield, nor hearken to the influence of the truth on this subject. We believe it not–nor give we entertainment to the slander that such an unworthy defence of them implies. We believe them _men_,–that they have understandings that arguments will convince–consciences to which the appeals of justice and mercy will not be made in vain. If our principles be true–our arguments right–if slaveholders be men–and God have not delivered over our guilty country to the retributions of the oppressor, not only of the STRANGER but of the NATIVE–our success is certain.
“8. _What has been for three years past, the annual income of your societies? And how has it been raised?_”
ANSWER.–The annual income of the societies at large, it would be impossible to ascertain. The total receipts of this society, for the year ending 9th of May, 1835–leaving out odd numbers–was $10,000; for the year ending 9th of May, 1837, $25,000; and for the year ending 11th of May, 1836, $38,000. From the last date, up to this–not quite ten months–there has been paid into the treasury the sum of $36,000.[A] These sums are independent of what is raised by state and auxiliary societies, for expenditure within their own particular bounds, and for their own particular exigencies. Also, of the sums paid in subscriptions for the support of newspapers, and for the printing (by auxiliaries,) of periodicals, pamphlets, and essays, either for sale at low prices, or for gratuitous distribution. The moneys contributed in these various modes would make an aggregate greater, perhaps, than is paid into the treasury of any one of the Benevolent societies of the country. Most of the wealthy contributors of former years suffered so severely in the money-pressure of this, that they have been unable to contribute much to our funds. This has made it necessary to call for aid on the great body of abolitionists–persons, generally, in moderate circumstances. They have well responded to the call, considering the hardness of the times. To show you the extremes that meet at our treasury,–General Sewall, of Maine, a revolutionary officer, eighty-five years old–William Philbrick, a little boy near Boston, not four years old–and a colored woman, who makes her subsistence by selling apples in the streets in this city, lately sent in their respective sums to assist in promoting the emancipation of the “poor slave.”
[Footnote A: The report for May states the sum received during the previous year at $44,000.]
All contributions of whatever kind are _voluntary_.
“9. _In what way, and to what purposes do you apply these funds!_”
ANSWER.–They are used in sustaining the society’s office in this city–in paying lecturers and agents of various kinds–in upholding the press–in printing books, pamphlets, tracts, &c, containing expositions of our principles–accounts of our progress–refutations of objections–and disquisitions on points, scriptural, constitutional, political, legal, economical, as they chance to arise and become important. In this office three secretaries are employed in different departments of duty; one editor; one publishing agent, with an assistant, and two or three young men and boys, for folding, directing, and despatching papers, executing errands, &c. The business of the society has increased so much of late, as to make it necessary, in order to ensure the proper despatch of it, to employ additional clerks for the particular exigency. Last year, the society had in its service about sixty “permanent agents.” This year, the number is considerably diminished. The deficiency has been more than made up by creating a large number of “Local” agents–so called, from the fact, that being generally Professional men, lawyers or physicians in good practice, or Ministers with congregations, they are confined, for the most part, to their respective neighborhoods. Some of the best minds in our country are thus engaged. Their labors have not only been eminently successful, but have been rendered at but small charge to the society; they receiving only their travelling expenses, whilst employed in lecturing and forming societies. In the case of a minister, there is the additional expense of supplying his pulpit while absent on the business of his agency, However, in many instances, these agents, being in easy circumstances, make no charge, even for their expenses.
In making appointments, the executive committee have no regard to party discrimination. This will be fully understood, when it is stated, that on a late occasion, two of our local agents were the candidates of their respective political parties for the office of Secretary of State for the state of Vermont.
It ought to be stated here, that two of the most effective advocates of the anti-slavery cause are females–the Misses Grimke–natives of South Carolina–brought up in the midst of the usages of slavery–most intelligently acquainted with the merits of the system, and qualified, in an eminent degree, to communicate their views to others in public addresses. They are not only the advocates of the slave at their own charge, but they actually contribute to the funds of the societies. So successfully have they recommended the cause of emancipation to the crowds that attended their lectures during the last year, that they were permitted on three several occasions publicly to address the joint committee (on slavery) of the Massachusetts Legislature, now in session, on the interesting matters that occupy their attention.
“10. _How many printing presses and periodical publications have you?_”
ANSWER.–We own no press. Our publications are all printed by contract. The EMANCIPATOR and HUMAN RIGHTS are the organs of the Executive Committee. The first (which you have seen,) is a large sheet, is published weekly, and employs almost exclusively the time of the gentleman who edits it. Human Rights is a monthly sheet of smaller size, and is edited by one of the secretaries. The increasing interest that is fast manifesting itself in the cause of emancipation and its kindred subjects will, in all probability, before long, call for the more frequent publication of one or both of these papers.–The ANTI-SLAVERY MAGAZINE, a quarterly, was commenced in October, 1835, and continued through two years. It has been intermitted, only to make the necessary arrangements for issuing it on a more extended scale.–It is proposed to give it size enough to admit the amplest discussions that we or our opponents may desire, and to give _them_ a full share of its room–in fine, to make it, in form and merit, what the importance of the subject calls for. I send you a copy of the Prospectus for the new series.–The ANTI-SLAVERY RECORD, published for three years as a monthly, has been discontinued _as such_, and it will be issued hereafter, only as occasion may require:–THE SLAVE’S FRIEND, a small monthly tract, of neat appearance, intended principally for children and young persons, has been issued for several years. It is replete with facts relating to slavery, and with accounts of the hair-breadth escapes of slaves from their masters and pursuers that rarely fail to impart the most thrilling interest to its little readers.–Besides these, there is the ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER, in which are published, as the times call for them, our larger essays partaking of a controversial character, such as Smith’s reply to the Rev. Mr. Smylie–Grimke’s letter and “Wythe.” By turning to page 32 of our Fourth Report (included in your order for books, &c,) you will find, that in the year ending 11th May, the issues from the press were–bound volumes, 7,877–Tracts and Pamphlets, 47,250–Circulars, &c, 4,100–Prints, 10,490–Anti-Slavery Magazine, 9000–Slave’s Friend, 131,050–Human Rights, 189,400–Emancipator, 217,000. These are the issues of the American Anti-Slavery Society, from their office in this city. Other publications of similar character are issued by State Societies or individuals–the LIBERATOR, in Boston; HERALD OF FREEDOM, in Concord, N.H.; ZION’S WATCHMAN and the COLORED AMERICAN in this city. The latter is conducted in the editorial, and other departments, by colored citizens. You can judge of its character, by a few numbers that I send to you. Then, there is the FRIEND of MAN, in Utica, in this state. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, in Philadelphia;[A] the CHRISTIAN WITNESS, in Pittsburgh; the PHILANTHROPIST, in Cincinnati.–All these are sustained by the friends, and devoted almost exclusively to the cause, of emancipation. Many of the Religious journals that do not make emancipation their main object have adopted the sentiments of abolitionists, and aid in promoting them. The Alton Observer, edited by the late Mr. Lovejoy, was one of these.
[Footnote A: The NATIONAL ENQUIRER, edited by Benjamin Lundy, has been converted into the PENNSYLVANIA FREEMAN, edited by John G. Whittier. Mr. Lundy proposes to issue the GENIUS OF UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION, in Illinois.]
From the data I have, I set down the newspapers, as classed above, at upwards of one hundred. Here it may also be stated, that the presses which print the abolition journals above named, throw off besides, a great variety of other anti-slavery matter, in the form of books, pamphlets, single sheets, &c, &c, and that, at many of the principal commercial points throughout the free states, DEPOSITORIES are established, at which our publications of every sort are kept for sale. A large and fast increasing number of the Political journals of the country have become, within the last two years, if not the avowed supporters of our cause, well inclined to it. Formerly, it was a common thing for most of the leading _party_-papers, especially in the large cities, to speak of the abolitionists in terms signally disrespectful and offensive. Except in rare instances, and these, it is thought, only where they are largely subsidized by southern patronage, it is not so now. The desertions that are taking place from their ranks will, in a short time, render their position undesirable for any, who aspire to gain, or influence, or reputation in the North.
“11. _To what class of persons do you address your publications–and are they addressed to the judgment, the imagination, or the feelings_?”
ANSWER.–They are intended for the great mass of intelligent mind, both in the free and in the slave states. They partake, of course, of the intellectual peculiarities of the different authors. Jay’s “INQUIRY” and Mrs. Child’s “APPEAL” abound in facts–are dispassionate, ingenious, argumentative. The “BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY,” by the most careful and laborious research, has struck from slavery the prop, which careless Annotators, (writing, unconscious of the influence, the prevailing system of slavery throughout the Christian world exercised on their own minds,) have admitted was furnished for it in the Scriptures. “Wythe” by a pains-taking and lucid adjustment of facts in the history of the Government, both before and after the adoption of the Constitution, and with a rigor of logic, that cannot, it is thought, be successfully encountered, has put to flight forever with unbiased minds, every doubt as to the “Power of Congress over the District of Columbia.”
There are among the abolitionists, Poets, and by the acknowledgment of their opponents, poets of no mean name too–who, as the use of poets is, do address themselves often–as John G. Whittier does _always_ –powerfully to the imagination and feelings of their readers.
Our publications cannot be classed according to any particular style or quality of composition. They may characterized generally, as well suited to affect the public mind–to rouse into healthful activity the conscience of this nation, stupified, torpid, almost dead, in relation to HUMAN RIGHTS, the high theme of which they treat!
It has often been alleged, that our writings appeal to the worst passions of the slaves, and that they are placed in their hands with a view to stir them to revolt. Neither charge has any foundation in truth to rest upon. The first finds no support in the tenor of the writings themselves; the last ought forever to be abandoned, in the absence of any single well authenticated instance of their having been conveyed by abolitionists to slaves, or of their having been even found in their possession. To instigate the slaves to revolt, as the means of obtaining their liberty, would prove a lack of wisdom and honesty that none would impute to abolitionists, except such as are unacquainted with their character. Revolt would be followed by the sure destruction, not only of all the slaves who might be concerned in it, but of multitudes of the innocent. Moreover, the abolitionists, as a class, are religious–they favor peace, and stand pledged in their constitution, before the country and heaven, to abide in peace, so far as a forcible vindication of the right of the slaves to their freedom is concerned. Further still, no small number of them deny the right of defence, either to individuals or nations, even when forcibly and wrongfully attacked. This disagreement among ourselves on this single point–of which our adversaries are by no means ignorant, as they often throw it reproachfully in our teeth–would forever prevent concert in any scheme that looked to instigating servile revolt. If there be, in all our ranks, one, who–personal danger out of the question–would excite the slaves to insurrection and massacre, or who would not be swift to repeat the earliest attempt to concoct such an iniquity–I say, on my obligations as a man, he is unknown to me.
Yet it ought not to be matter of surprise to abolitionists, that the South should consider them “fanatics,” “incendiaries,” “cut-throats,” and call them so too. The South has had their character reported to them by the North, by those who are their neighbors, who, it was supposed, knew, and would speak the truth, and the truth only, concerning them. It would, I apprehend, be unavailing for abolitionists now to enter on any formal vindication of their character from charges that can be so easily repeated after every refutation. False and fraudulent as they knew them to be, they must be content to live under them till the consummation of the work of Freedom shall prove to the master that they have been _his_ friends, as well as the friends of the slave. The mischief of these charges has fallen on the South–the malice is to be placed to the credit of the North.
“12. _Do you propagate your doctrines by any other means than oral and written discussions–for instance, by prints and pictures in manufactures–say of pocket-handkerchiefs, calicoes, &c? Pray, state the various modes?_”
ANSWER.–Two or three years ago, an abolitionist of this city procured to be manufactured, at his own charge, a small lot of children’s pocket-handkerchiefs, impressed with anti-slavery pictures and mottoes. I have no recollection of having seen any of them but once. None such, I believe, are now to be found, or I would send you a sample. If any manufactures of the kinds mentioned, or others similar to theta, are in existence, they have been produced independently of the agency of this society. It is thought that none such exist, unless the following should be supposed to fall within the terms of the inquiry. Female abolitionists often unite in sewing societies. They meet together, usually once a week or fortnight, and labor through the afternoon, with their own hands, to furnish means for advancing the cause of the slave. One of the company reads passages from the Bible, or some religious book, whilst the others are engaged at their work. The articles they prepare, especially if they be of the “fancy” kind, are often ornamented with handsomely executed emblems, underwritten with appropriate mottoes. The picture of a slave kneeling (such as you will see impressed on one of the sheets of this letter) and supplicating in the words, “AM I NOT A MAN AND A BROTHER,” is an example. The mottoes or sentences are, however, most generally selected from the Scriptures; either appealing to human sympathy in behalf of human suffering, or breathing forth God’s tender compassion for the oppressed, or proclaiming, in thunder tones, his avenging justice on the oppressor. A few quotations will show their general character:–
“Blessed is he that considereth the poor.”
“Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and the needy; rid him out of the hand of the wicked.”
“Open thy mouth for the dumb, plead the cause of the poor and needy.”
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”
“First, be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
“All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
Again:–
“For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper.”
“The Lord looseth the prisoners; the Lord raiseth them that are bowed down; the Lord preserveth the strangers.”
“He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, to set at liberty them that are bruised.”‘
“For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.”
Again:–
“The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.”
“Rob not the poor because he is poor, neither oppress the afflicted in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them.”
“And I will come near to you to judgment, and I will be a swift witness against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.”
“Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work.”
Fairs, for the sale of articles fabricated by the hands of female abolitionists, and recommended by such pictures and sentences as those quoted above, are held in many of our cities and large towns. Crowds frequent them to purchase; hundreds of dollars are thus realized, to be appropriated to the anti-slavery cause; and, from the cheap rate at which the articles are sold, vast numbers of them are scattered far and wide over the country. Besides these, if we except various drawings or pictures on _paper_, (samples of which were put up in the packages you ordered a few days ago,) such as the Slave-market in the District of Columbia, with Members of congress attending it–views of slavery in the South–a Lynch court in the slave-states–the scourging of Mr. Dresser by a vigilance committee in the public square of Nashville–the plundering of the post-office in Charleston, S.C., and the conflagration of part of its contents, &c, &c, I am apprised of no other means of propagating our doctrines than by oral and written discussions.
“13. _Are your hopes and expectations of success increased or lessened by the events of the last year, and especially by the action of this Congress? And will your exertions be relaxed or increased?_”
ANSWER.–The events of the last year, including the action of the present Congress, are of the same character with the events of the eighteen months which immediately preceded it. In the question before us, they may be regarded as one series. I would say, answering your interrogatory generally, that none of them, however unpropitious to the cause of the abolitionists they may appear, to those who look at the subject from an opposite point to the one _they_ occupy, seem, thus far, in any degree to have lessened their hopes and expectations. The events alluded to have not come altogether unexpected. They are regarded as the legitimate manifestations of slavery–necessary, perhaps, in the present dull and unapprehensive state of the public mind as to human rights, to be brought out and spread before the people, before they will sufficiently revolt against slavery itself.
1. They are seen in the CHURCH, and in the practice of its individual members. The southern portion of the American church may now be regarded as having admitted the dogma, that _slavery is a Divine institution_. She has been forced by the anti-slavery discussion into this position–either to cease from slaveholding, or formally to adopt the only alternative, that slaveholding is right. She has chosen the alternative–reluctantly, to be sure, but substantially, and, within the last year, almost unequivocally. In defending what was dear to her, she has been forced to cast away her garments, and thus to reveal a deformity, of which she herself, before, was scarcely aware, and the existence of which others did not credit. So much for the action of the southern church as a body.–On the part of her MEMBERS, the revelation of a time-serving spirit, that not only yielded to the ferocity of the multitude, but fell in with it, may be reckoned among the events of the last three years. Instances of this may be found in the attendance of the “clergy of all denominations,” at a tumultuous meeting of the citizens of Charleston, S.C., held in August, 1835, for the purpose of reducing to _system_ their unlawful surveillance and control of the post-office and mail; and in the alacrity with which they obeyed the popular call to dissolve the Sunday-schools for the instruction of the colored people. Also in the fact, that, throughout the whole South, church members are not only found on the Vigilance Committees, (tribunals organized in opposition to the laws of the states where they exist,) but uniting with the merciless and the profligate in passing sentence consigning to infamous and excruciating, if not extreme punishment, persons, by their own acknowledgment, innocent of any unlawful act. Out of sixty persons that composed the vigilance committee which condemned Mr. Dresser to be scourged in the public square of Nashville, TWENTY-SEVEN were members of churches, and one of them a professed Teachers of Christianity. A member of the committee stated afterward, in a newspaper of which he was the editor, that Mr. D. _had not laid himself liable to any punishment known to the laws_. Another instance is to be found in the conduct of the Rev. Wm. S. Plumer, of Virginia. Having been absent from Richmond, when the ministers of the gospel assembled together formally to testify their abhorrence of the abolitionists, he addressed the chairman of the committee of correspondence a note, in which he uses this language:–“If abolitionists will set the country in a blaze, it is but fair that they should have the first warming at the fire.”–“Let them understand, that they will be caught, if they come among us, and they will take good heed to keep out of our way.” Mr. P. has no doubtful standing in the Presbyterian church with which he is connected. He has been regarded as one of its brightest ornaments.[A] To drive the slaveholding church and its members from the equivocal, the neutral position, from which they had so long successfully defended slavery–to compel them to elevate their practice to an even height with their avowed principles, or to degrade their principles to the level of their known practice, was a preliminary, necessary in the view of abolitionists, either for bringing that part of the church into the common action against slavery, or as a ground for treating it as confederate with oppressors. So far, then, as the action of the church, or of its individual members, is to be reckoned among the events of the last two or three years, the abolitionists find in it nothing to lessen their hopes or expectations.
[Footnote A: In the division of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, that has just taken place, Mr. Plumer has been elected Moderator of the “Old School” portion.]
2. The abolitionists believed, from the beginning, that the slaves of the South were (as slaves are everywhere) unhappy, _because of their condition_. Their adversaries denied it, averring that, as a class, they were “contented and happy.” The abolitionists thought that the argument against slavery could be made good, so far as this point was concerned, by either _admitting_ or _denying_ the assertion.
_Admitting_ it, they insisted, that, nothing could demonstrate the turpitude of any system more surely than the fact, that MAN–made in the image of God–but a little lower than the angels–crowned with glory and honor, and set over the works of God’s hands–his mind sweeping in an instant from planet to planet, from the sun of one system to the sun of another, even to the great centre sun of them all–contemplating the machinery of the universe “wheeling unshaken” in the awful and mysterious grandeur of its movements “through the void immense”–with a spirit delighting in upward aspiration–bounding from earth to heaven–that seats itself fast by the throne of God, to drink in the instructions of Infinite Wisdom, or flies to execute the commands of Infinite Goodness;–that such a being could be made “contented and happy” with “enough to eat, and drink, and wear,” and shelter from the weather–with the base provision that satisfies the brutes, is (say the abolitionists) enough to render superfluous all other arguments for the _instant_ abandonment of a system whose appropriate work is such infinite wrong.
_Denying_ that “the slaves are contented and happy,” the abolitionists have argued, that, from the structure of his moral nature–the laws of his mind–man cannot be happy in the fact, that he is _enslaved_. True, he may be happy in slavery, but it is not slavery that makes him so–it is virtue and faith, elevating him above the afflictions of his lot. The slave has a will, leading him to seek those things which the Author of his nature has made conducive to its happiness. In these things, the will of the master comes in collision with his will. The slave desires to receive the rewards of his own labor; the power of the master wrests them from him. The slave desires to possess his wife, to whom God has joined him, in affection, to have the superintendence, and enjoy the services, of the children whom God has confided to him as a parent to train them, by the habits of the filial relation, for the yet higher relation that they may sustain to him as their heavenly Father. But here he is met by the opposing will of the master, pressing _his_ claims with irresistible power. The ties that heaven has sanctioned and blessed–of husband and wife, of parent and child–are all sundered in a moment by the master, at the prompting of avarice or luxury or lust; and there is none that can stay his ruthless hand, or say unto him, “What doest thou?” The slave thirsts for the pleasures of refined and elevated intellect–the master denies to him the humblest literary acquisition. The slave pants to know something of that still higher nature that he feels burning within him–of his present state, his future destiny, of the Being who made him, to whose judgment-seat he is going. The master’s interests cry, “No!” “Such knowledge is too wonderful for you; it is high, you cannot attain unto it.” To predicate _happiness_ of a class of beings, placed in circumstances where their will is everlastingly defeated by an irresistible power–the abolitionists say, is to prove them destitute of the sympathies of _our_ nature–not _human_. It is to declare with the Atheist, that man is independent of the goodness of his Creator for his enjoyments–that human happiness calls not for any of the appliances of his bounty–that God’s throne is a nullity, himself a superfluity.
But, independently of any abstract reasoning drawn from the nature of moral and intelligent beings, FACTS have been elicited in the discussion of the point before us, proving slavery everywhere (especially Southern slavery, maintained by enlightened Protestants of the nineteenth century) replete with torments and horrors–the direst form of oppression that upheaves itself before the sun. These facts have been so successfully impressed on a large portion of the intelligent mind of the country, that the slaves of the South are beginning to be considered as those whom God emphatically regards as the “poor,” the “needy,” the “afflicted,” the “oppressed,” the “bowed down;” and for whose consolation he has said, “Now will I arise–I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.”
This state of the public mind has been brought about within the last two or three years; and it is an event which, so far from lessening, greatly animates, the hopes and expectations of abolitionists.
3. The abolitionists believed from the first, that the tendency of slavery is to produce, on the part of the whites, looseness of morals, disdain of the wholesome restraints of law, and a ferocity of temper, found, only in solitary instances, in those countries where slavery is unknown. They were not ignorant of the fact, that this was disputed; nor that the “CHIVALRY OF THE SOUTH” had become a cant phrase, including, all that is high-minded and honorable among men; nor, that it had been formally asserted in our National legislature, that slavery, as it exists in the South, “produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth.” Nor were the abolitionists unaware, that these pretensions, proving anything else but their own solidity, had been echoed and re-echoed so long by the unthinking and the interested of the North, that the character of the South had been injuriously affected by them–till she began boldly to attribute her _peculiar_ superiority to her _peculiar_ institution, and thus to strengthen it. All this the abolitionists saw and knew. But few others saw and understood it as they did. The revelations of the last three years are fast dissipating the old notion, and bringing multitudes in the North to see the subject as the abolitionists see it. When “Southern Chivalry” and the _purity_ of southern society are spoken of now, it is at once replied, that a large number of the slaves show, by their _color_, their indisputable claim to white paternity; and that, notwithstanding their near consanguineous relation to the whites, they are still held and treated, in all respects, _as slaves_. Nor is it forgotten now, when the claims of the South to “hospitality” are pressed, to object, because they are grounded on the unpaid wages of the laborer–on the robbery of the poor. When “Southern generosity” is mentioned, the old adage, “be just before you are generous,” furnishes the reply. It is no proof of generosity (say the objectors) to take the bread of the laborer, to lavish it in banquetings on the rich. When “Southern Chivalry” is the theme of its admirers, the hard-handed, but intelligent, working man of the North asks, if the espionage of southern hotels, and of ships and steamboats on their arrival at southern ports; if the prowl, by day and by night, for the solitary stranger suspected of sympathizing with the enslaved, that he may be delivered over to the mercies of a vigilance committee, furnishes the proof of its existence; if the unlawful importation of slaves from Africa[A] furnishes the proof; if the abuse, the scourging, the hanging on suspicion, without law, of friendless strangers, furnish the proof; if the summary execution of slaves and of colored freemen, almost by the score, without legal trial, furnishes the proof; if the cruelties and tortures to which _citizens_ have been exposed, and the burning to death of slaves by slow fires,[B] furnish the proof. All these things, says he, furnish any thing but proof of _true_ hospitality, or generosity, or gallantry, or purity, or chivalry.
[Footnote A: Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, some years ago, asserted in Congress, that “CARGOES” of African slaves were smuggled into the southern states to a deplorable extent. Mr. Middleton, of South Carolina, declared it to be his belief, that THIRTEEN THOUSAND Africans were annually smuggled into the southern states. Mr. Wright, of Maryland, estimated the number at FIFTEEN THOUSAND. Miss Martineau was told in 1835, by a wealthy slaveholder of Louisiana, (who probably spoke of that state alone,) that the annual importation of native Africans was from THIRTEEN THOUSAND to FIFTEEN THOUSAND. The President of the United States, in his last Annual Message, speaking of the Navy, says, “The large force under Commodore Dallas [on the West India station] has been most actively and efficiently employed in protecting our commerce, IN PREVENTING THE IMPORTATION OF SLAVES, &c.”]
[Footnote B: Within the last few years, four slaves, and one citizen of color, have been put to death in this manner, in Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, and Arkansas.]
Certain it is, that the time when southern slavery derived countenance at the North, from its supposed connection with “chivalry,” is rapidly passing away. “Southern Chivalry” will soon be regarded as one of the by-gone fooleries of a less intelligent and less virtuous age. It will soon be cast out–giving place to the more reasonable idea, that the denial of wages to the laborer, the selling of men and women, the whipping of husbands and wives in each others presence, to compel them to unrequited toil, the deliberate attempt to extinguish mind, and, consequently, to destroy the soul–is among the highest offences against God and man–unspeakably mean and ungentlemanly.
The impression made on the minds of the people as to this matter, is one of the events of the last two or three years that does not contribute to lessen the hopes or expectations of abolitionists.
4. The ascendency that Slavery has acquired, and exercises, in the administration of the government, and the apprehension now prevailing among the sober and intelligent, irrespective of party, that it will soon overmaster the Constitution itself, may be ranked among the events of the last two or three years that affect the course of abolitionists. The abolitionists regard the Constitution with unabated affection. They hold in no common veneration the memory of those who made it. They would be the last to brand Franklin and King and Morris and Wilson and Sherman and Hamilton with the ineffaceable infamy of attempting to ingraft on the Constitution, and therefore to _perpetuate_, a system of oppression in absolute antagonism to its high and professed objects, one which their own practice condemned,–and this, too, when they had scarcely wiped away the dust and sweat of the Revolution from their brows! Whilst abolitionists feel and speak thus of our Constitutional fathers, they do not justify the dereliction of principle into which they were betrayed, when they imparted to the work of their hands _any_ power to contribute to the continuance of such a system. They can only palliate it, by supposing, that they thought, slavery was already a waning institution, destined soon to pass away. In their time, (1787) slaves were comparatively of little value–there being then no great slave-labor staple (as cotton is now) to make them profitable to their holders.[A] Had the circumstances of the country remained as they then were, slave-labor, always and every where the most expensive–would have disappeared before the competition of free labour. They had seen, too, the principle of universal liberty, on which the Revolution was justified, recognised and embodied in most of the State Constitutions; they had seen slavery utterly forbidden in that of Vermont –instantaneously abolished in that of Massachusetts–and laws enacted in the New-England States and in Pennsylvania, for its gradual abolition. Well might they have anticipated, that Justice and Humanity, now starting forth with fresh vigor, would, in their march, sweep away the whole system; more especially, as freedom of speech and of the press–the legitimate abolisher not only of the acknowledged vice of slavery, but of every other that time should reveal in our institutions or practices–had been fully secured to the people. Again; power was conferred on Congress to put a stop to the African slave-trade, without which it was thought, at that time, to be impossible to maintain slavery, as a system, on this continent,–so great was the havoc it committed on human life. Authority was also granted to Congress to prevent the transfer of slaves, as articles of commerce, from one State to another; and the introduction of slavery into the territories. All this was crowned by the power of refusing admission into the Union, to any new state, whose form of government was repugnant to the principles of liberty set forth in that of the United States. The faithful execution, by Congress, of these powers, it was reasonably enough supposed, would, at least, prevent the growth of slavery, if it did not entirely remove it. Congress did, at the set time, execute _one_ of them–deemed, then, the most effectual of the whole; but, as it has turned out, the least so.
[Footnote A: The cultivation of cotton was almost unknown in the United States before 1787. It was not till two years afterward that it began to be raised or exported. (See Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Feb. 29, 1836.)–See Appendix, D.]
The effect of the interdiction of the African slave-trade was, not to diminish the trade itself, or greatly to mitigate its horrors; it only changed its name from African to American–transferred the seat of commerce from Africa to America–its profits from African princes to American farmers. Indeed, it is almost certain, if the African slave-trade had been left unrestrained, that slavery would not have covered so large a portion of our country as it does now. The cheap rate at which slaves might have been imported by the planters of the south, would have prevented the rearing of them for sale, by the farmers of Maryland, Virginia, and the other slave-selling states. If these states could be restrained from the _commerce_ in slaves, slavery could not be supported by them for any length of time, or to any considerable extent. They could not maintain it, as an economical system, under the competition of free labor. It is owing to the _non-user_ by Congress, or rather to their unfaithful application of their power to the other points, on which it was expected to act for the limitation or extermination of slavery, that the hopes of our fathers have not been realized; and that slavery has, at length, become so audacious, as openly to challenge the principles of 1776–to trample on the most precious rights secured to the citizen–to menace the integrity of the Union and the very existence of the government itself.
Slavery has advanced to its present position by steps that were, at first, gradual, and, for a long time, almost unnoticed; afterward, it made its way by intimidating or corrupting those who ought to have been forward to resist its pretensions. Up to the time of the “Missouri Compromise,” by which the nation was wheedled out of its honor, slavery was looked on as an evil that was finally to yield to the expanding and ripening influences of our Constitutional principles and regulations. Why it has not yielded, we may easily see, by even a slight glance at some of the incidents in our history.
It has already been said, that we have been brought into our present condition by the unfaithfulness of Congress, in not _exerting_ the power vested in it, to stop the domestic slave-trade, and in the _abuse_ of the power of admitting “_new_ states” into the Union. Kentucky made application in 1792, with a slave-holding Constitution in her hand.–With what a mere _technicality_ Congress suffered itself to be drugged into torpor:–_She was part of one of the “Original States”–and therefore entitled to all their privileges._
One precedent established, it was easy to make another. Tennessee was admitted in 1796, without scruple, on the same ground.
The next triumph of slavery was in 1803, in the purchase of Louisiana, acknowledged afterward, even by Mr. Jefferson who made it, to be unauthorized by the Constitution–and in the establishment of slavery throughout its vast limits, actually and substantially under the auspices of that instrument which declares its only objects to be–“to form a more perfect union, establish JUSTICE, insure DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity.”[A]
[Footnote A: It may be replied, The colored people were held as _property_ by the laws of Louisiana previously to the cession, and that Congress had no right to divest the newly acquired citizens of their property. This statement is evasive. It does not include, nor touch the question, which is this:–Had Congress, or the treaty-making power, a right to recognise, and, by recognising, to establish, in a territory that had no claim of privilege, on the ground of being part of one of the “Original States,” a condition of things that it could not establish _directly_, because there was no grant in the constitution of power, direct or incidental, to do so–and because, _to do so_, was in downright oppugnancy to the principles of the Constitution itself? The question may be easily answered by stating the following case:–Suppose a law had existed in Louisiana, previous to the cession, by which the children–male and female–of all such parents as were not owners of real estate of the yearly value of $500, had been–no matter how long–held in slavery by their more wealthy land-holding neighbors:–would Congress, under the Constitution, have a right (by recognising) to establish, for ever, such a relation as one white person, under such a law, might hold to another? Surely not. And yet no substantial difference between the two cases can be pointed out.]
In this case, the violation of the Constitution was suffered to pass with but little opposition, except from Massachusetts, because we were content to receive in exchange, multiplied commercial benefits and enlarged territorial limits.
The next stride that slavery made over the Constitution was in the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union. _She_ could claim no favor as part of an “Original State.” At this point, it might have been supposed, the friends of Freedom and of the Constitution according to its original intent, would have made a stand. But no: with the exception of Massachusetts, they hesitated and were persuaded to acquiesce, because the country was just about entering into a war with England, and the crisis was unpropitious for discussing questions that would create divisions between different sections of the Union. We must wait till the country was at peace. Thus it was that Louisiana was admitted without a controversy.
Next followed, in 1817 and 1820, Mississippi and Alabama–admitted after the example of Kentucky and Tennessee, without any contest.
Meantime, Florida had given some uneasiness to the slaveholders of the neighboring states; and for their accommodation chiefly, a negociation was set on foot by the government to purchase it.
Missouri was next in order in 1821. She could plead no privilege, on the score of being part of one of the original states; the country too, was relieved from the pressure of her late conflict with England; it was prosperous and quiet; every thing seemed propitious to a calm and dispassionate consideration of the claims of slaveholders to add props to their system, by admitting indefinitely, new slave states to the Union. Up to this time, the “EVIL” of slavery had been almost universally acknowledged and deplored by the South, and its termination (apparently) sincerely hoped for.[A] By this management its friends succeeded in blinding the confiding people of the North. They thought for the most part, that the slaveholders were acting in good faith. It is not intended by this remark, to make the impression, that the South had all along pressed the admission of new slave states, simply with a view to the increase of its own relative power. By no means: slavery had insinuated itself into favor because of its being mixed up with (other) supposed benefits–and because its ultimate influence on the government was neither suspected nor dreaded. But, on the Missouri question, there was a fair trial of strength between the friends of Slavery and the friends of the Constitution. The former triumphed, and by the prime agency of one whose raiment, the remainder of his days, ought to be sackcloth and ashes,–because of the disgrace he has continued on the name of his country, and the consequent injury that he has inflicted on the cause of Freedom throughout the world. Although all the different Administrations, from the first organization of the government, had, in the indirect manner already mentioned, favored slavery,–there had not been on any previous occasion, a direct struggle between its pretensions and the principles of liberty ingrafted on the Constitution. The friends of the latter were induced to believe, whenever they should be arrayed against each other, that _theirs_ would be the triumph. Tremendous error! Mistake almost fatal! The battle was fought. Slavery emerged from it unhurt–her hands made gory–her bloody plume still floating in the air–exultingly brandishing her dripping sword over her prostrate and vanquished enemy. She had won all for which she fought. Her victory was complete–THE SANCTION OF THE NATION WAS GIVEN TO SLAVERY![B]
[Footnote A: Mr. Clay, in conducting the Missouri compromise, found it necessary to argue, that the admission of Missouri, as a slaveholding state, would aid in bringing about the termination of slavery. His argument is thus stated by Mr. Sergeant, who replied to him:–“In this long view of remote and distant consequences, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) thinks he sees how slavery, when thus spread, is at last to find its end. It is to be brought about by the combined operation of the laws which regulate the price of labor, and the laws which govern population. When the country shall be filled with inhabitants, and the price of labor shall have reached a minimum, (a comparative minimum I suppose is meant,) free labor will be found cheaper than slave labor. Slaves will then be without employment, and, of course, without the means of comfortable subsistence, which will reduce their numbers, and finally extirpate them. This is the argument as I understand it,” says Mr. Sergeant; and, certainly, one more chimerical or more inhuman could not have been urged.]
[Footnote B: See Appendix, E.]
Immediately after this achievement, the slaveholding interest was still more strongly fortified by the acquisition of Florida, and the establishment of slavery there, as it had already been in the territory of Louisiana. The Missouri triumph, however, seems to have extinguished every thing like a systematic or spirited opposition, on the part of the free states, to the pretensions of the slaveholding South.
Arkansas was admitted but the other day, with nothing that deserves to be called an effort to prevent it–although her Constitution attempts to _perpetuate_ slavery, by forbidding the master to emancipate his bondmen without the consent of the Legislature, and the Legislature without the consent of the master. Emboldened, but not satisfied, with their success in every political contest with the people of the free states, the slaveholders are beginning now to throw off their disguise–to brand their former notions about the “_evil_, political and moral” of slavery, as “folly and delusion,”[A]–and as if to “make assurance double sure,” and defend themselves forever, by territorial power, against the progress of Free principles and the renovation of the Constitution, they now demand openly–scorning to conceal that their object is, to _advance and establish their political power in the country_,–that Texas, a foreign state, five or six times as large as all New England, with a Constitution dyed as deep in slavery, as that of Arkansas, shall be added to the Union.
[Footnote A: Mr. Calhoun is reported, in the National Intelligencer, as having used these words in a speech delivered in the Senate, the 10th day of January:–
“Many in the South once believed that it [slavery] was a moral and political evil; that folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.”
Mr. Hammond, formerly a Representative in Congress from South Carolina, delivered a speech (Feb. 1, 1836) on the question of receiving petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In answering those who objected to a slaveholding country, that it was “assimilated to an aristocracy,” he says–“In this they are right. I accept the terms. _It is a government of the best._ Combining all the advantages, and possessing but few of the disadvantages, of the aristocracy of the old world–without fostering, to an unwarrantable extent, the pride, the exclusiveness, the selfishness, the thirst for sway, the contempt for the rights of others, which distinguish the nobility of Europe–it gives us their education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their undaunted spirit. Slavery does indeed create an aristocracy–an aristocracy of talents, of virtue, of generosity, of courage. In a slave country, every freeman is an aristocrat. Be he rich or poor, if he does not possess a single slave, he has been born to all the natural advantages of the society in which he is placed; and all its honors lie open before him, inviting his genius and industry. Sir, I do firmly believe, that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society, that has ever existed on the face of the earth.”
That this _retraxit_ of former _follies and delusions_ is not confined to the mere politician, we have the following proofs:–
The CHARLESTON (S.C.) UNION PRESBYTERY–“Resolved. That in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far from being a sin in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word; that it is in accordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts, of patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; and that it is compatible with the most fraternal regard to the good of the servants whom God has committed to our charge.”–Within the last few months, as we learn from a late No. of the Charleston Courier, the late Synod of the Presbyterian Church, in Augusta, (Ga.) passed resolutions declaring “That slavery is a CIVIL INSTITUTION, with which the General Assembly [the highest ecclesiastical tribunal] has NOTHING TO DO.”
Again:–The CHARLESTON BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, in a memorial to the Legislature of South Carolina, say–“The undersigned would further represent, that the said Association does not consider that the Holy Scriptures have made the FACT of slavery a question of morals at all.” And further,–“The right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves, has been distinctly recognised by the Creator of all things.”
Again:–The EDGEFIELD (S.C.) ASSOCIATION–“Resolved, That the practical question of slavery, in a country where the system has obtained as a part of its stated policy, is settled in the Scriptures by Jesus Christ and his apostles.” “Resolved, That these uniformly recognised the relation of master and slave, and enjoined on both their respective duties, under a system of servitude more degrading and absolute than that which obtains in our country.”
Again we find, in a late No. of the Charleston Courier, the following:–
“THE SOUTHERN CHURCH.–The Georgia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at a recent meeting in Athens, passed resolutions, declaring that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil, and is a civil and domestic institution, with which Christian ministers have nothing to do, further than to meliorate the condition of the slave, by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign influence of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way to heaven.”]
The abolitionists feel a deep regard for the integrity and union of the government, _on the principles of the Constitution_. Therefore it is, that they look with earnest concern on the attempt now making by the South, to do, what, in the view of multitudes of our citizens, would amount to good cause for the separation of the free from the slave states. Their concern is not mingled with any feelings of despair. The alarm they sounded on the “annexation” question has penetrated the free states; it will, in all probability, be favorably responded to by every one of them; thus giving encouragement to our faith, that the admission of Texas will be successfully resisted,–that this additional stain will not be impressed on our national escutcheon, nor this additional peril brought upon the South.[A]
[Footnote A: See Appendix, F.]
This, the present condition of the country, induced by a long train of usurpations on the part of the South, and by unworthy concessions to it by the North, may justly be regarded as one of the events of the last few years affecting in some way, the measures of the abolitionists. It has certainly done so. And whilst it is not to be denied, that many abolitionists feel painful apprehensions for the result, it has only roused them up to make more strenuous efforts for the preservation of the country.
It may be replied–if the abolitionists are such firm friends of the Union, why do they persist in what must end in its rupture and dissolution? The abolitionists, let it be repeated _are_ friends of _the_ Union that was intended by the Constitution; but not of a Union from which is eviscerated, to be trodden under foot, the right to SPEAK,–to PRINT–to PETITION,–the rights of CONSCIENCE; not of a Union whose ligaments are whips, where the interest of the oppressor is the _great_ interest, the right to oppress the _paramount_ right. It is against the distortion of the glorious Union our fathers left us into one bound with despotic bands that the abolitionists are contending. In the political aspect of the question, they have nothing to ask, except what the Constitution authorizes–no change to desire, but that the Constitution may be restored to its pristine republican purity.
But they have well considered the “dissolution of the Union.” There is no just ground for apprehending that such a measure will ever be resorted to by the _South_. It is by no means intended by this, to affirm, that the South, like a spoiled child, for the first time denied some favourite object, may not fall into sudden frenzy and do herself some great harm. But knowing as I do, the intelligence and forecast of the leading men of the South–and believing that they will, if ever such a crisis should come, be judiciously influenced by the _existing_ state of the case, and by the _consequences_ that would inevitably flow from an act of dissolution–they would not, I am sure, deem it desirable or politic. They would be brought, in their calmer moments, to coincide with one who has facetiously, but not the less truly remarked, that it would be as indiscreet in the slave South to separate from the free North, as for the poor, to separate from the parish that supported them. In support of this opinion, I would say:
First–A dissolution of the Union by the South would, in no manner, secure to her the object she has in view.–The _leaders_ at the South, both in the church and in the state, must, by this time, be too well informed as to the nature of the anti-slavery movement, and the character of those engaged in it, to entertain fears that, violence of any kind will be resorted to, directly or indirectly.[A] The whole complaint of the South is neither more nor less than this–THE NORTH TALKS ABOUT SLAVERY. Now, of all the means or appliances that could be devised, to give greater life and publicity to the discussion of slavery, none could be half so effectual as the dissolution of the Union _because of the discussion_. It would astonish the civilized world–they would inquire into the cause of such a remarkable event in its history;–the result would be not only enlarged _discussion_ of the whole subject, but it would bring such a measure of contempt on the guilty movers of the deed, that even with all the advantages of “their education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their undaunted spirit,” so eloquently set forth by the Hon. Mr. Hammond, they would find it hard to withstand its influence. It is difficult for men in a _good_ cause, to maintain their steadfastness in opposition to an extensively corrupt public sentiment; in a _bad_ one, against public sentiment purified and enlightened, next to impossible, if not quite so.
[Footnote A: “It is not,” says Mr. Calhoun, “that we expect the abolitionists will resort to arms–will commence a crusade to deliver our slaves by force.”–“Let me tell our friends of the South, who differ from us, that the war which the abolitionists wage against us is of a very different character, and _far more effective_. It is waged, not against our lives, but our character.” More correctly, Mr. C. might have said against a _system_, with which the slaveholders have chosen to involve their characters, and which they have determined to defend, at the hazard of losing them.]
Another result would follow the dissolution:–_Now_, the abolitionists find it difficult, by reason of the odium which the principal slaveholders and their friends have succeeded in attaching to their _name_, to introduce a knowledge of their principles and measures into the great mass of southern mind. There are multitudes at the South who would co-operate with us, if they could be informed of our aim.[A] Now, we cannot reach them–then, it would be otherwise. The united power of the large slaveholders would not be able longer to keep them in ignorance. If the Union were dissolved, they _would_ know the cause, and discuss it, and condemn it.
[Footnote A: There is abundant evidence of this. Our limits confine us to the following, from the first No. of the Southern Literary Journal, (Charleston, S.C.):–“There are _many good men even among us_, who have begun to grow _timid_. They think, that what the virtuous and high-minded men of the North look upon as a crime and a plague-spot, cannot be perfectly innocent or quite harmless in a slaveholding community.”
This, also, from the North Carolina Watchman:–
“It (the abolition party) is the growing party at the North. We are inclined to believe that there is even more of it at the South than prudence will permit to be openly avowed.”
“It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that there is a LARGE, RESPECTABLE and INTELLIGENT PARTY in Kentucky, who will exert every nerve and spare no efforts to dislodge the subsisting rights to our Slave population, or alter in some manner, and to some extent, at least, the tenure by which that species of property is held.”–_Speech of the Hon. James T. Morehead in the Kentucky Legislature, last winter_.]
A second reason why the South will not dissolve the Union is, that she would be exposed to the visitation of _real_ incendiaries, exciting her slaves to revolt. Now, it would cover any one with infamy, who would stir them up to vindicate their rights by the massacre of their masters. Dissolve the Union, and the candidates for “GLORY” would find in the plains of Carolina and Louisiana as inviting a theatre for their enterprise, as their prototypes, the Houstons, the Van Rennsselaers, and the Sutherlands did, in the prairies of Texas or the forests of Canada.
A third reason why the South will not dissolve is, that the slaves would leave their masters and take refuge in the free states. The South would not be able to establish a _cordon_ along her wide frontier sufficiently strong to prevent it. Then, the slaves could not be reclaimed, as they now are, under the Constitution. Some may say, the free states would not permit them to come in and dwell among them.–Believe it not. The fact of separation on the ground supposed, would abolitionize the whole North. Beside this, in an economical point of view, the _demand for labor_ in the Western States would make their presence welcome. At all events, a passage through the Northern States to Canada would not be denied them.
A fourth reason why the South will not dissolve is, that a large number of her most steady and effective population would emigrate to the free states. In the slave-_selling_ states especially, there has always been a class who have consented to remain there with their families, only in the hope that slavery would, in some way or other, be terminated. I do not say they are abolitionists, for many of them are slaveholders. It may be, too, that such would expect compensation for their slaves, should they be emancipated, and also that they should be sent out of the country. The particular mode of emancipation, however crude it may be, that has occupied their minds, has nothing to do with the point before us. _They look for emancipation–in this hope they have remained, and now remain, where they are_. Take away this hope, by making slavery the _distinctive bond of union_ of a new government, and you drive them to the North. These persons are not among the rich, the voluptuous, the effeminate; nor are they the despised, the indigent, the thriftless–they are men of moderate property, of intelligence, of conscience–in every way the “bone and sinew” of the South.
A fifth reason why the South will not dissolve, is her _weakness_. It is a remarkable fact, that in modern times, and in the Christian world, all slaveholding countries have been united with countries that are free. Thus, the West Indian and Mexican and South American slaveholding colonies were united to England, France, Spain, Portugal, and other states of Europe. If England (before her Emancipation Act) and the others had at any time withdrawn the protection of their _power_ from their colonies, slavery would have been extinguished almost simultaneously with the knowledge of the fact. In the West Indies there could have been no doubt of this, from the disparity in numbers between the whites and the slaves, from the multiplied attempts made from time to time by the latter to vindicate their rights by insurrection, and from the fact, that all their insurrections had to be suppressed by the _force_ of the mother country. As soon as Mexico and the South American colonies dissolved their connexion with Spain, slavery was abolished in every one of them. This may, I know, be attributed to the necessity imposed on these states, by the wars in which they engaged to establish their independence. However this may be–the _fact_ still remains. The free states of this Union are to the slave, so far as the maintenance of slavery is concerned, substantially, in the relation of the European states to their slaveholding colonies. Slavery, in all probability, could not be maintained by the South disjoined from the North, a single year. So far from there existing any reason for making the South an exception, in this particular, to other slave countries, there are circumstances in her condition that seem to make her dependence more complete. Two of them are, the superior intelligence of her slaves on the subject of human rights, and the geographical connexion of the slave region in the United States. In the West Indies, in Mexico and South America the great body of the slaves were far below the slaves of this country in their intellectual and moral condition–and, in the former, their power to act in concert was weakened by the insular fragments into which they were divided.
Again, the depopulation of the South of large numbers of its white inhabitants, from the cause mentioned under the fourth head, would, it is apprehended, bring the two classes to something like a numerical equality. Now, consider the present state of the moral sentiment of the Christianized and commercial world in relation to slavery; add to it the impulse that this sentiment, acknowledged by the South already to be wholly opposed to her, would naturally acquire by an act of separation on her part, with a single view to the perpetuation of slavery; bring this sentiment in all its accumulation and intensity to act upon a nation where one half are enslavers, the other the enslaved–and what must be the effect? From the nature of mind; from the laws of moral influence, (which are as sure in their operation, if not so well understood, as the laws of physical influence,) the party “whose conscience with injustice is oppressed,” must become dispirited, weakened in courage, and in the end unnerved and contemptible. On the other hand, the sympathy that would be felt for the oppressed–the comfort they would receive–the encouragement that would be given them to assert their rights, would make it an impossibility, to keep them in slavish peace and submission.
This state of things would be greatly aggravated by the peculiarly morbid sensitiveness of the South to every thing that is supposed to touch her _character_. Her highest distinction would then become her most troublesome one. How, for instance, could her chivalrous sons bear to be taunted, wherever they went, on business or for pleasure, out of their own limits, with the cry “the knights of the lash!” “Go home and pay your laborers!” “Cease from the scourging of husbands and wives in each others presence–from attending the shambles, to sell or buy as slaves those whom God has made of the same blood with yourselves–your brethren–your sisters! Cease, high minded sons of the ‘ANCIENT DOMINION,’ from estimating your revenue by the number of children you rear, to sell in the flesh market!” “Go home and pay your laborers!” “Go home and pay your laborers!” This would be a trial to which “southern chivalry” could not patiently submit. Their “high honor,” their “undaunted spirit” would impel them to the field–only to prove that the “last resort” requires something more substantial than mere “honor” and “spirit” to maintain it. Suppose there should be a disagreement–as in all likelihood there soon would, leading to war between the North and the South? The North would scarcely have occasion to march a squadron to the field. She would have an army that could be raised up by the million, at the fireside of her enemy. It has been said, that during the late war with England, it was proposed to her cabinet, by some enterprising officers, to land five thousand men on the coast of South Carolina and proclaim liberty to the slates. The success of the scheme was well thought of. But then the example! England herself held nearly a million of slaves at no greater distance from the scene of action than the West Indies. _Now_, a restraint of this kind on such a scheme does not exist.
It seems plain beyond the power of argument to make it plainer, that a slaveholding nation–one under the circumstances in which the South separated from the North would be placed–must be at the mercy of every free people having neither power to vindicate a right nor avenge a wrong.[A]
[Footnote A: Governor Hayne, of South Carolina, spoke in high terms, a few years ago, of the ability that the South would possess, in a military point of view, because her great wealth would enable her, at all times, to command the services of mercenary troops. Without stopping to dispute with him, as to her comparative wealth, I would remark, that he seemed entirely to have overlooked this truth–that whenever a government is under the necessity of calling in foreign troops, to keep in subjection one half of the people, the power of the government has already passed into the hands of the _Protectors_. They can and will, of course, act with whichever party will best subserve their purpose.]
A sixth reason why the South will not dissolve the Union, is found in the difficulty of bringing about an _actual_ separation. Preparatory to such a movement, it would seem indispensable, that _Union_ among the seceding states themselves should be secured. A General Convention would be necessary to adjust its terms. This would, of course, be preceded by _particular_ conventions in the several states. To this procedure the same objection applies, that has been made, for the last two or three years, to holding an anti-abolition convention in the South:–It would give to the _question_ such notoriety, that the object of holding the convention could not be concealed from the slaves. The more sagacious in the South have been opposed to a convention; nor have they been influenced solely by the consideration just mentioned–which, in my view, is but of little moment–but by the apprehension, that the diversity of sentiment which exists among the slave states, themselves, in relation to the _system_, would be disclosed to the country; and that the slaveholding interest would be found deficient in that harmony which, from its perfectness heretofore, has made the slaveholders so successful in their action on the North.
The slaveholding region may be divided into the _farming_ and the _planting_–or the slave-_selling_ and the slave-_buying_ districts. Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and East Tennessee constitute the first. West Tennessee is somewhat equivocal. All the states south of Tennessee belong to the slave-_buying_ district. The first, with but few exceptions, have from the earliest times, felt slavery a reproach to their good name–an encumbrance on their advancement–at some period, to be cast off. This sentiment, had it been at all encouraged by the action of the General Government, in accordance with the views of the convention that formed the Constitution, would, in all probability, by this time, have brought slavery in Maryland and Virginia to an end. Notwithstanding the easy admission of slave states into the Union, and the _yielding_ of the free states whenever they were brought in collision with the South, have had a strong tendency to persuade the _farming_ slave states to continue their system, yet the sentiment in favor of emancipation in some form, still exists among them. Proof, encouraging proof of this, is found in the present attitude of Kentucky. Her legislature has just passed a law, proposing to the people, to hold a convention to alter the constitution. In the discussion of the bill, slavery as connected with some form of emancipation, seems to have constituted the most important element. The public journals too, that are _opposed_ to touching the subject at all, declare that the main object for recommending a convention was, to act on slavery in some way.
Now, it would be in vain for the _planting_ South to expect, that Kentucky or any other of the _farming_ slave states would unite with her, in making slavery the _perpetual bond_ of a new political organization. If they feel the inconveniences of slavery _in their present condition_, they could not be expected to enter on another, where these inconveniences would be inconceivably multiplied and aggravated, and, by the very terms of their new contract, _perpetuated_.
This letter is already so protracted, that I cannot stop here to develop more at large this part of the subject. To one acquainted with the state of public sentiment, in what I have called, the _farming_ district, it needs no further development. There is not one of these states embraced in it, that would not, when brought to the test, prefer the privileges of the Union to the privilege of perpetual slaveholding. And if there should turn out to be a single _desertion_ in this matter, the whole project of secession must come to nought.
But laying aside all the obstacles to union among the seceding states, how is it possible to take the first step to _actual_ separation! The separation, at the worst, can only be _political_. There will be no