We propose to convert the country to our views by measures which some of our opponents, (ashamed to deny our doctrines,) allege to be the principal ground of their dissent. We think they have failed to make a proper distinction between ourmeasuresand theabuseof these measures. The constitutional action of Congress, the pulpit, the press, public debate, private conversation, anti-slavery societies,theseareour measures. If any of our associates, through human infirmity, prosecute any of these measures in ill-temper or with indiscretion, we regret and condemn it. The measures themselves, and the prosecution of them we approve, and shall now attempt to vindicate.
Some object toour organizing Anti-Slavery Societies, which in our opinion they would not do, if they wished well to our enterprise. For it is manifest that union gives us strength, influence, courage, money and other facilities for carrying on the work; it lays a foundation for concentrated, permanent, economical effort. Societies have their stated and occasional meetings, without giving offence and provoking popular violence. They animate each other by friendly correspondence, and prosecute their work systematically and vigorously, by the gratuitous labors of their most enlightened members. A general organization will enable us to petition the various legislative bodies in behalf of human rights, with unanimity and regularity,until our objectsare gained. We see other ends to be secured by it. There is no disputing our constitutional right to adopt this measure; which we believe any men of common sense would adopt in our circumstances. Even the wisdom of Christ sanctions the measure, for whatis hischurchbut asocietyformed for the purpose of converting men to the truth and progressively sanctifying them? Nor do we see how we can testify to the South our abhorrence of Slavery unless we form societies for the purpose. Had none been formed, it might be doubted whether there are a thousand decided Abolitionists in the country. It would be said in Congress and believed at the South, that we are few in numbers, and constantly becoming fewer and more contemptible. The existence and rapidly increasing number of oursocietiesprecludes the possibility of such misrepresentations and mistakes. As soon as our plan is completed, in the formation of a flourishing society in each village of the free states, embodying a majority of the people, the South will know what our public sentiment is. It will be concentrated upon her. She will feel it. We learn from intelligent sources, that the general opinion at the South now is, that all the citizens of the North who are not Abolitionists, sympathize with the slave-holders. It is natural they should think so. We must, therefore, rank ourselves with the Abolitionists, by joining an Anti-Slavery Society, if we would give our decided testimony against theGREAT SOUTHERN SIN.
Some object toour employing itinerant lecturers. We think they would not object, if they had considered the matter with friendly feelings. The subject of Slavery has so many relations in this country, and involves so many questions in morals, in biblical literature, in constitutional law, in political economy, in history, and other departments of learning, that our stated clergy, have not sufficient time for its thorough investigation, were they disposed to make it. We ought not to expect of them more than a faithful exposition of the testimony of God against Slavery, and in favor of immediate emancipation. As a general rule, they can do no more. We need an extensive and thorough discussion of the whole subject. Nor are all our clergymen yet Abolitionists. Some are with us; others are against us. This was to be expected. The subject has but just come before the public mind. It found almost all our ministers colonizationists. It would have been surprising, if they had all embraced our views at the first blush, without discussion. We don’t do things so in Connecticut. Hereafter we doubt not they will all join us; but in the interim, we must employitinerantlecturers, if we would disseminate what we believe to be the truth. And who will be harmed by it? The truth will hurt no one; and even “error,” we quote the words of Jefferson, “may safely be tolerated, so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Some think it an interference with the rights of the stated ministry to introduce an itinerant lecturer, without the advice and consent of the settled pastor. How so? Suppose there are several clergymen in the same village. One of them being an Abolitionist does all he can, by conversation, the distribution of papers, and public lectures, to make the people Abolitionists, without distinction of sect or party. Is that an interference with the rights of the other pastors? No; such a course has never been thought so. Nor is there the least difference in the two cases. The several churches introduce these pastors to be their teachers. We, the Abolitionists, another body of people, introduce a man to teach on a particular subject. We have the right; he has a right to come; therefore no right is violated.[1]
Some object to our employing severe epithets in speakingof Slavery and slave-holders.They say our condemnation is too hard, denunciatory and indiscriminate. We wish all who allege this against us would illustrate their meaning and sustain their charge by quoting the offensive expressions. It would put them to great inconvenience. They may think the language “hard” and “too hard,” when it barely expresses what ought to be said, and cannot be better said. We do indeed tell slave-holders their sins plainly, calling things by their right names; but it is only in the conclusion of an argument to prove the charge, that we justify making it. Nor is our language any harder than the sober language of moral philosophers, and of the most eminent fathers of the church. Wesley says: “You, [the slave-holder,] first acted the villain in making them slaves, whether you stole them or bought them.” “This equally concerns all slave-holders, of whatever rank and degree: seeingmen-buyers are exactly on a level with men-stealers.” The younger President Edwards says: “To hold a man in a state of Slavery is to be every day guilty ofrobbinghim of his liberty, or ofman-stealing.” Grotius says: “Those are men-stealers, who abduct,keep, sell or buyslavesor freemen. To steal a man is the highest kind of theft.” Adam Clarke says: “Among the heathen Slavery was in some sort excusable; amongchristiansit isAN ENORMITY AND A CRIME FOR WHICH PERDITION HAS SCARCELY AN ADEQUATE STATE OF PUNISHMENT.” We use no language more hard, more true, or more indiscriminate. We think these great men understood how to do good, at least as well as our critics. We are also fully persuaded, that the South is far less incensed at ourlanguagethan at oursentiments. She is indignant at what we say, not the manner of saying it. Dr. Channing had this vulgar prejudice, that we were injuring our cause by using abusive language. And Mr. Leigh of Virginia, took the very book, in which he reproves us, and quoted passages which he declared in the United States Senate, rivalled the most insulting language of Garrison. So difficult is it to tell the truth about Slavery in palatable terms.
We are also censured forsending pictures to the South illustrative of the horrors of Slavery. We do indeed employ the art of painting, as well as the arts of printing and speaking, to awaken sympathy for the Slave; but our pictures are designed for the North, not the South. Though some of them may find their way there, they arenever sentto the slaves, are not apt to fall into their hands, and not adapted to make them uneasy and turbulent. Were they painted as large as life, and set up at the corner of every street and on every plantation, the sole effect would be to awe the slaves into subjection, by reminding them of the consequences of disobedience.
We are accused ofsending papers to the slaves. The charge is false. Our publications are sent exclusively to the free white population. Were it in our power to send to the slaves, we should indeed rejoice at it. If they could read and the mails would carry them papers, we would prepare tracts on purpose for them, explaining the doctrines and duties of christianity, inculcating the forgiveness of injuries, the patient endurance of wrong, the faithful service of their masters, until such time as theycan be made free. We would even send them the Bible, which says: “Woe 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.” Jer. xxii, 13.
The foregoing are current objections tospecificmeasures of the Abolitionists. There are other objections of a more general and sweeping character, which go to condemnallour measures, calling upon us to disband our societies, to dismiss our agents, to break up our printing presses, and interfere in no way with Southern Slavery. We can give these only a brief notice.
It is a current objection to our enterprise, thatSlavery is no concern of ours: that the South alone is interested in the subject, and we have no right tointerfere. Interference is a very indefinite term. We acknowledge we have no right to interfere by force of arms; and have ever disclaimed the intention of interfering, except by the constitutional and peaceable action of Congress, and the application of truth to the hearts and consciences of our southern brethren. As to our having no right to interfere inthis manner, because Slavery is no concern of ours, it is a strange doctrine to be promulgated in the nineteenth century by republicans and christians. What interest had we in the struggle of Greece and Poland with Turkish and Russian despotism? What concern have we in the moral and political degradation of the Hindoo, Hottentot and Chinese? We have the answer in the motto of the christian church:Our country is the world, our countrymen mankind. As christians we are concerned for the spiritual welfare of all classes at theSouth; the great mass of whom are now sunk in infidelity and vice. Their alarming destitution of the means of religion, and the general corruption of their morals, are justly attributed to Slavery. What would become of the virtue, intelligence and religious institutions of Meriden, if all the real estate and all the inhabitants of the town, were held as property by one man? He might be an infidel; and if he were a christian, what dependence could be placed on him to support the gospel, or what confidence would the oppressed people have in his religion? Such is the state of things at the South. Slavery not only creates a distaste for true religion, but withdraws from its support the laboring class, which in every free country, embodies a great proportion of the most devoted and liberal christians.There is alsomuch in the habits which Slavery fosters, to indispose pious youth to enter the ministry and to disqualify them for its laborious duties; while many who enter upon the work, abandon it for secular pursuits, or remove to the free states, where they can preach thewholegospel with more security and success. Not only must a slave-holding community be destitute of men and means to make known the way of salvation, but the preaching of the gospel will generally be inefficacious with all classes; with themasters, for Slavery fosters in them the worst passions of human nature, affords them facilities for the unbounded indulgence of their appetites, and relieves them from the necessity of personal exertion for a livelihood; with thepoor white population, for Slavery accumulates the wealth of the community in a few hands, renders free labor disreputable, and multiplies temptations to low and degrading vices; with thefree people of color, for Slavery holds most of them in a state of abject poverty, ignorance and sin; with theslaves, for Slavery robs them of the bible, of self-control, of hope, of parent, wife and child, of the best motives to be virtuous, and of the best evidences of christianity; it makes them vicious; it makes them sceptics. We are concerned for these perishing millions.
Slavery is a concern of ours for it involves our personal interests. It throws back upon us a moral pestilence; it scatters the seeds of intemperance, licentiousness, and infidelity; it popularizes gambling, Sabbath breaking, profaneness and lawless violence; it casts an undeserved stigma on manual labor, it encourages idleness and prodigality. It disgraces us in the eyes of the whole world; it impairs our national strength; it encroaches on the spirit of liberty; it is constantlyundermining our free institutions. The northern states have no greater enemy. Were Slavery abolished, her religion, her morals, her liberties, her general prosperity would be far more secure. The chief source of danger to the integrity of our union, and to our domestic tranquility would be removed; a greater market would be opened for our manufactures, and a wider field for our industryand enterprise; theemancipated slaves would purchase our goods, and our youth could enter into competition with the sons of the South in raising cotton, &c. without becoming slave-holders. Labor would soon cease to be disgraceful; property would accumulate in every part of the land; education would flourish; religion would revive; the entire country would rejoice in peace and plenty under the smiles of an approving providence. Tell us not, that we have no concern in removing the greatest sin, curse and shame of the nation, and in securing for ourselves and our posterity, a truly free and virtuous government.
It is said thatSlavery is an agitating subject, which cannot be discussed without disturbing the peace and harmony of our churches. Why so? This subject can be discussed in the churches in Great Britain without discord and division. We think it could be here, were it not for the corruption of our public sentiment, which can be corrected only by free discussion. It is where the truth needs most to be heard, that it creates most opposition and variance. Primitive christianity was accused of turning the world upside down. The temperance cause has occasioned strife, and separated “very friends.” We hold to the Apostolic injunction: “firstpure,thenpeaceable.” We love a virtuous peace. A truce with sin we abhor. If we must surrender our liberties, and connive at iniquity, to avoid a war, we say with Patrick Henry, “The war is inevitable, and let it come; I repeat it, sir, let it come.” Who does not see that if polygamy were common in our churches, it would create a terrible excitement to preach against it, and lead to the dismission of pastors? Yet any one would acknowledge, that religion could never prosper, while the church was so corrupt; and that she had better be torn into ten thousand fragments, than that polygamy should continue in vogue; for she would soon be re-organized in greater purity and strength. So it is with aslave-holdingChurch; and with a Church in which thespiritof Slavery is so rife, that she will not live in peace with her Anti-Slavery members,nor tolerate the exercise of their Constitutional rights. But we do not believe this of our Churches. We think the more this “delicate and agitating” subject is discussed among us, the less unpleasant excitement will prevail.
It is saidthat our measures to overthrow Slavery are unconstitutional. Our opponents may easily test this question by bringing it before the U. S. Court. We claim to be acting constitutionally. Our plan of operations is essentially the same as that pursued by the early Anti-Slavery Societies, of which such men as John Jay, Benj. Franklin, Benj. Rush, and Jonathan Edwards, were active members; some of whom were engaged in forming our federal Constitution. Did they not understand that instrument? Did their contemporaries ever dispute their right to discuss the merits of Slavery? Have not our citizens, from time immemorial and without restriction, exercised this right? Does not the Constitution, instead of guaranteeing Slavery against this moral influence, guarantee to us the right of employing it, by forbidding Congress to pass any law abridging the freedom of speech and of the press?
We are told our measures are aninvasion of the rights of property. This objection assumes, what nature denies, thatmanmay berightfullyheld as property. Blackstone maintains in his Commentaries, that man cannot be reduced by any just process to a state of absolute Slavery; that he cannot be born in that state, nor sell himself into it, nor be placed there when taken captive in war, without flagrant injustice. We also hold it to beself-evident, that all men areborn free and equal, and entitled to certaininalienablerights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Slave owns himself by grant of his Creator.Slaveryis, therefore, an invasion of his rights of property. It is the slave-master who makes an aggression on the property of others, not we, who exhort him to relinquish that property. The Slaves being the rightful owners of themselves, the abolition of Slavery is merely an act declarative of this indisputable title. Nor do we seek the destruction of Slavery, except through the constitutional authorities. Even were the slaves thepropertyof their masters, it would be lawful for us topersuadethem to part with it. Would it not? The Legislatures of the several states have a right to abolish Slavery. Have they not? It has hitherto been conceded, that the law making power of everyslave-holding country has this right. May we not then persuade the states to exercise it, by convincing them of the moral wrong and frightful impolicy of Slavery? Should it be said that the government encouraged its citizens to invest property under the protection of the slave code, and therefore ought not to abolish Slavery without indemnifying them, our answer is, that mankind are under a paramount obligation not to invest property under the protection ofimmorallaws; that all such laws are in their nature null and void from the beginning; that governments have always exercised the power of correcting abuses; and there is no greater abuse than Slavery; none more unjust and oppressive; none more pernicious and perilous to our national interests.
Some object, that the abolition of Slaveryon our plan, without compensation to the masters,would be taking away the bread of poor widows and orphans. We have no plan. We say only, that Slavery is wrong, and ought forthwith to be abandoned. The South will adopt and prosecute her own plan. When her Legislatures abolish Slavery, they can, if they will, provide for widows and children, who are left destitute by that act. If they will not do it, we will raise contributions for their relief; for we deem the claims ofcharity, nearly as imperative as the claims of justice. But we can never sanction theprincipleof Slavery, by saying, that slave-holders have arightto compensation for restoring to the slaves their stolen rights. We must always consider it a greater hardship to be unjustly held as a slave, than to be made poor by freeing such slave. It is a sad blunder in morals, that this man may make that man, perhaps fifty other men, poor for life, lest he himself should be a pauper; that this man may make that man poor bydishonesty, lest he himself should become poor bybeing honest.
No objection to our measures is more senseless, or more common, than analleged tendency to dissolve the Union. Which had we better surrender, the Union or our liberties? The Union is a curse instead of a blessing, if we must surrender for it,freedom of speech and personal protection in any part of the country. And if Slavery continues to be protected by public sentiment, and by popular violence, how long could the Union last, even wereallthe abolitionists this day laid in their graves? Slavery endangers theintegrity of the Union, more than all other enemies; and unless soon destroyed, will be the destroyer both of it and us. If we love the Union, we should labor to overthrow Slavery. Wesley somewhere defines fanaticism, to be the expectation of accomplishing ends without the use of means. Let us not hope for the peaceable destruction of Slavery, by such a fanatical course. Let us dosomething; and if we do any thing, what can be done which the abolitionists are not attempting? In doing this we shall not peril the Union, but preserve it. The South will never venture on the mad experiment of secession,becausethe North is opposed to Slavery. Such an act would be suicidal. It would encourage the slaves to revolt. It would leave her defenceless against the invasion of a foreign foe. It would release us fromthe constitutionalobligation to suppress domestic violence, and to restore fugitives from service. It would open several thousand miles of frontier, over which her slaves would escape into a land of liberty. It would make the south “a good country to emigrate from,” and she would find herself losing her best citizens, and her condition becoming more and more exposed and perilous. She would be ruined. She knows it. Were our legislators in Congress to retort her stereotyped threat to dissolve the Union, with a challenge to do it, if she dares, we should hear no more of this empty bravado.
It is said, if our measures should be successful,the slaves would resort to the North, and coming up upon our farms, and into our shops, like the frogs of Egypt, reduce the wages of our laborers. No apprehension is more groundless. The free colored people of the South are quite numerous, and very much oppressed; yet few of them leave that part of the country; though the whites would be very glad to have them do so, because they render the slaves uneasy, and come into competition with slave labor. But were slavery abolished, the whites would desire to retain all the colored people, in order to employ them in cultivating the soil; precisely as is now the case in the West Indies. Nor would the slaves be willing to leave the land of their nativity, and of their kindred, to reside in the cold regions of the north, to the business and climate of which they are uninured, and where they must labor more severely to obtain a comfortable living. Butshould they come, what then? Do you prefer perpetual slavery?
It is also objected to our enterprise, thatthe immediate abolition of slavery, would be “letting the slaves loose” to be idlers, vagabonds, thieves, and cut-throats. This objection is more forcible againstgradualemancipation, which would throw upon society a multitude of freedmen, while the rest of their brethren still remained in bondage. The holders of slaves would not encourage the free by giving them labor; who would, therefore, be more apt to be idle and vicious; while their release would excite uneasiness in the minds of the unemancipated. The objection is also equally strong againstprospectiveemancipation, according to which the slaves would all be set free at once; but not until some time after the passage of the act. Experience and human nature both teach us, that slaves under such circumstances are more apt to be overworked, than to be better prepared for the enjoyment of freedom. The objection is, therefore, good forperpetualslavery, or good for nothing. It is good for nothing. Immediate emancipation would indeed deliver the slave and his family at once from the hands of an irresponsible master, and empower him to go where he pleases and do what he pleases, so long as he breaks none of the laws which restrain other men. And why not? He could not otherwise rejoin his wife and children, whom the slave trade has torn from him, nor secure fair wages, nor be safe from oppression. But this isnot letting himlooseto do evil.The laws of slavery let the masters loose upon the slaves,instead of the abolition of slavery letting the slaves loose upon the masters. Were there a law authorizing the inhabitants of Meriden to seize the inhabitants of Berlin, to confine them to jail limits, and work them without wages, to separate husbands and wives, parents and children, and even to kill them by that very indefinite thing, called “moderate correction;” this law would let the inhabitants of Meriden loose upon the inhabitants of Berlin; for it would protect the former in the grossest outrages upon the latter. But the repeal of this law would not let the inhabitants of Berlin loose upon us. Extending them protection would not be letting them loose upon us. Had we the power of repealing the law; or if not, possessing the power ofnot enforcingit, we should find our security in doing so. Thevery way to make them respectourrights, would be to respecttheirs. Immediate emancipation places the slaves under thecontrolas well as protection of the laws of the State against idleness, vagrancy, theft, murder, and all other aggressions on the rights of men.
We are told that theSlaves are not fit to be free; and therefore our scheme of immediate emancipation, if adopted, would prove a curse to them and the country. Nothing is more false. The Slaves aremen; and therefore they are more fit for freedom than for slavery; more fit to be treated as persons than as things; to be governed by appeals to the reason and conscience than by brute force. God made man to be free and adapted him to that condition. A state of Slavery is unnatural to him. Nor can his nature so change, that he shall be more fit to be treated as a brute, than as a free moral agent. Slaves have often been set at liberty, and havealwaysproved their capacity for freedom, by their industry, frugality and ready obedience to the laws.
And why, we would ask, should they be thought unfit to be put under the control and protection of the same laws, which govern freemen? Do their vices or their ignorance, disqualify them? While Slavery lasts, they will remain equally degraded.
Are theySabbath breakers? Slavery has taught them to desecrate the day of rest, by making it to them almost the only day of recreation, the only day for visiting, for trading and for tilling their gardens. Are theythieves? They consider stealing from their masters to be only makingreprisalsfor the robbery of their just wages; while many of them are strongly tempted to steal by the desire of more or better food. Are theyliars? They will continue such, while they are slaves. They will pretend sickness, to avoid labor; they will say they do not wish to be free, lest their masters should sell them into distant banishment; they will lie to conceal the unavoidable delinquences,for which slavesare daily upbraided and beaten. Are theyidle? As slaves they have no hope of reward to stimulate their exertions. They will work much better, as one facetiously expresses it, for Mr.Cashthan for Mr.Lash. Let their wives and children be dependent on their industry for support, a far more noble and efficient motive than the fear of violence, to call forth the energies of man. Are theyimprovident? They cannot learn to save property, until theyare allowed to hold it in their own right. Make them free, and then that faculty of their nature, which the phrenologists call “acquisitiveness” will prompt them to save their earnings. Are theylicentious? Then give them their liberty, that the husband and father may be the legal protector of his wife and daughters. Are theyrevengeful? Redress their wrongs, and they will forgive their oppressors. Are theyheathen? Take your foot from their necks, before you disgrace christianity, by attempting to convert them. Are theyignorant of letters? So are a majority of the freemen of the world; nor is it to be expected that slave-holders will teach their slaves to read and write, until they repent of Slavery itself. The vices of the Slaves are inseparable from their condition. If they are not now fit for freedom, Slavery, which unfitted them, will perpetuate their unfitness. Nor is their degradation of mind and morals a disqualification for freedom. You may find its counterpart in the characters of a large class of citizens in every country.
While Slavery continues, what is the prospect of their becomingbetterfitted for freedom? Where are the men and the means? Who will teach them? Who will support the teachers? The south cannot supply herfreepopulation with instruction. Even with the aid of the north, she is very destitute of the means of religion. Nor would she be willing to adopt a general system of education for the improvement of the Slaves. Instead of giving her money to fit them for freedom, she would hunt from society any persons, who should seriously propose the measure. They know little of the spirit of Slavery, who imagine, that the south was disposed to prepare her Slaves for freedom, until the abolitionists roused her to resistance. Had she really wished to free her Slaves, she would have welcomed us as coadjutors, at least she would not have abandoned her own plan, because ours was offensive to her. She never intended to fit her Slaves for freedom. She does not intend it now. Her laws, in most of the States, are against it. The mass of her Slaves will, no doubt, be as unfit for freedom fifty years hence, if Slavery should continue so long, as they are to day. The British abolitionists were once deceived by this syren song of preparation, but now in allusion to the words of Paul; “thegloriousgospel of the blessed God;” they exclaim,THE GLORIOUS DOCTRINE OFIMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION! They found it thepower of God, to awaken the slumbering conscience of the nation; and thewisdom of Godas a measure of relief to their Slaves. We shall find it so.
Our opponents also object toemancipation upon the soil. Not all, but some of them, are in favor of Colonization as a remedy for Slavery, and others execrate us for our opposition to it as a scheme for benefiting Africa. We are especially averse to the former class. When men say, that the Slaves ought not to be freed, until they can be colonized, weought to make resistance, for the following reasons:
1. We ought toresist every wicked prejudice; and they who object to emancipation on the soil, do so, in obedience to such a prejudice. They say the colored people can never rise in this country. They maintain that our aversion to the race is instinctive and natural; though we find no one averse to associating with them asslaves. The two races are certainly on veryintimateterms at the South. It is only when they come asfreemenbetween the wind and our nobility, that they taint the air. We, therefore, say, this prejudice is unnatural and sinful; and instead of fostering it, we ought to rebuke, and check it in ourselves and others. Some of us recollect the time, when as Colonizationists we wished to get rid of the colored people, and were indignant at them for being unwilling to leave the country. May we not repent of such a feeling and condemn in it others, without being hunted from society?
2.By retaining the emancipated slaves on the soil, we can at less expense of men and means educate and christianize them.Were we to send them beyond the Mississippi or to Africa, it would take ten times the number of Missionaries and Teachers, that we are now supporting among the heathen, to save them from sinking into barbarism. But if they should be retained as free laborers in the service of their present masters, those masters would provide for their instruction, and without diverting means from other objects, the delightful spectacle would soon be witnessed of Schools and Churches springing up among them, through the voluntary efforts of the ministers and christians of the South.
3.The labor of the Slaves is wanted on the plantations at the South.To withdraw such an amount of labor would bankrupt the entire country. Nor could their places besupplied, except by the worst population of the old world; by men, whose religion, whose morals, whose politics are all, in the highest degree, hostile to our national interests. The emancipated Slaves, on the contrary, would be prejudiced in favor of the protestant faith, and prove the staunchest friends of our free institutions.
4. TheSouth will not consent to the colonization of the Slaves. She is willing we should contribute to carry off the free people of color, “the nuisances,” “the disturbing force,” as she terms them; and also those Slaves, whom the more conscientious of her citizens, who dare not die Slave-holders, may emancipate for the purpose. But she is unwilling we should go a step further. She does not believe we can get the means of doing more. We think, if a place were provided in Africa, and we had the means necessary to transport every Slave there, and were to go and tell the south, about the sinfulness of holding Slaves, when theycanbe colonized, and call upon her ingood earnest, to give them up, she would denounce us as fanatics, and pass no more resolutions in favor of colonization. She is now at peace with it, because she does not fear it, and hopes to find it of use in repelling the abolitionists, inletting off, as by a safety valve, the pious feeling of her own citizens, and in expelling the free people of color.
5. The Slavesare unwilling to leave the country; and will never consent to do it, but on such a dread alternative as no christian people should impose.Firstgive them their liberty, put them under the protection of impartial law, and treat them with kindness, and then if theyaskour aid to remove their families to Africa, their determination to leave this country will evidently be spontaneous.
6.It is better for them to remain in the employment of southern capitalists, who are able to pay them wages for their labor than to go out into the wilderness as paupers, where there is no capital, and the very necessaries of life, are to be created.
7.They cannot be colonized without an appalling expense of money, life and comfort.
8. To colonize the Slaves of this countryon account of their color, would be in the highest degree dishonorable to christianity. Were Christ on earth, he would associate with the despised colored man in preference to many who think themselvesthe best society. Can we act, as hewould not and yet exemplify his religion? What, too, would be the effect on the minds of the heathen, nearly all of whom arecoloredmen, were they to learn, that that nation, which makes the loudest professions of attachment to christianity, had banished more than two millions of her citizens to a land of pagan darkness, being offended at thecolor of their skin?
9. Tosend all the slaves to Africa would be fatal to the natives of that Continent. Said Mr. Pinney, agent of the Colonization Society, and once Gov. of Liberia, ‘the colony must be kept pure, or it will either enslave or exterminate the African tribes.’ Send 2,500,000 of people to Africa, four-fifths of whom are in heathenish darkness, and all of whom have been taught, by the example of their masters, that slavery is morally right, and labor disgraceful, would they hesitate to buy Slaves of the native Princes, or to reduce their captives to a state of servitude? It is said, there is as strong a line of demarkation between the colonists, and the heathen, though of the same color, as there is between the white and colored people in this country. But if they should not become slave-holders, would they not gradually exterminate the native tribes for the sake of revenging injuries, and possessing themselves of their lands? Said Mr. Pinney, the colony must be kept pure, or such a result is inevitable; and it cannot be kept pure, unless it is conducted on a very small scale. We doubt whether a commercial and military colony can be so far controlled bymoral principle, as to avoid these results. For if the emigrants were all pious persons, and few in number, their posterity might become both vicious and powerful. We are not, therefore, without our objections to African colonization, even if it should be distinctly abandoned as a remedy for slavery, and conducted with caution, and on a small scale. We know not to what it may grow. We like better, the good, old, apostolic plan of sendingmissionariesto the heathen—men, who have no commercial and selfish interests to subserve, and who bear no hostile weapons. There is danger that a colony, however carefully guarded, willmisrepresent christianityand fatally prejudice the native mind against it. The fact, that not a native has yet been converted to christianity, in connection with the colony of Liberia, justifies the inquiry, whether theschemeis a good one for Africa. The transportation of all our Slaves would confessedly form a colony too large andcorrupt for the safety of the native tribes; and we tremble for the result of the presentexperiment.
In this argument we have not denied the practicability of colonizing two millions and a half of people, at an expense of $125,000,000. We think it enough to show the thing ought not to be done.
With this view of our sentiments, of their practical value, and of the propriety and wisdom of our measures, we leave you to judge whether abolitionists deserve to be out-lawed in their own country; to be loaded with abuse and contumely; to be denied a right, conceded to all other decent men, of advocating their cause in our public halls and churches; and to be left, unprotected, to the violence of ill-minded men? We beg you also to consider, how terrific would be the prospects of our country, were we in obedience to popular clamor, to disband our societies, and retire from the field. Who would ever again venture to raise his voice in behalf of the down-trodden slave? Should any one have the temerity to do it, how soon would he be overwhelmed by the violence of the pro-slavery party, encouraged by past success, and maddened by the remembrance of the formidable array of talent, wealth, and piety, which they once encountered. We verily believe, that the peaceable abolition of Slavery depends, under God, on our perseverance. Moral means must continue to be used by us until they issue in success, or slavery will terminate in a bloody revolution. We anticipate such an event, as a possibility, with painful emotions; and feel disposed to look, in the use of all lawful means, to that God, who has promised to do for us, exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think, that so dire a catastrophe may be averted. We earnestly solicit your co-operation.
We might have said much more to correct misapprehensions, refute calumnies, and fortify our positions; but our limits forbid it. We may have said some things, which you will disapprove; for we have ingenuously confessed our most obnoxious sentiments; but if you will give us credit for sincerity and weigh our arguments, we shall expect to stand better in your opinion, than our calumniators would have us.
With much respect,
FOOTNOTE:[1]As our enterprise is not sectarian but national and catholic, it is the highest pitch of arrogance for any sect to denounce this measure as a violation of ecclesiastical order. Religious freedom demands that all such claims should be at once and steadfastly resisted.
[1]As our enterprise is not sectarian but national and catholic, it is the highest pitch of arrogance for any sect to denounce this measure as a violation of ecclesiastical order. Religious freedom demands that all such claims should be at once and steadfastly resisted.
[1]As our enterprise is not sectarian but national and catholic, it is the highest pitch of arrogance for any sect to denounce this measure as a violation of ecclesiastical order. Religious freedom demands that all such claims should be at once and steadfastly resisted.