[2]Although there are some who like to discant on the worthless character of the Haytians, and the miserable condition of the Island, yet it is an indisputable fact, that a population of nearly 1,000,000 are supported on its soil, and that in 1833, the value of its exports to the United States exceeded in value those of Prussia, Sweden, and Norway—Denmark and the Danish West Indies—Ireland and Scotland—Holland—Belgium—Dutch East Indies—British West Indies—Spain—Portugal—all Italy—Turkey and the Levant, or any one Republic in South America.
[2]Although there are some who like to discant on the worthless character of the Haytians, and the miserable condition of the Island, yet it is an indisputable fact, that a population of nearly 1,000,000 are supported on its soil, and that in 1833, the value of its exports to the United States exceeded in value those of Prussia, Sweden, and Norway—Denmark and the Danish West Indies—Ireland and Scotland—Holland—Belgium—Dutch East Indies—British West Indies—Spain—Portugal—all Italy—Turkey and the Levant, or any one Republic in South America.
[2]Although there are some who like to discant on the worthless character of the Haytians, and the miserable condition of the Island, yet it is an indisputable fact, that a population of nearly 1,000,000 are supported on its soil, and that in 1833, the value of its exports to the United States exceeded in value those of Prussia, Sweden, and Norway—Denmark and the Danish West Indies—Ireland and Scotland—Holland—Belgium—Dutch East Indies—British West Indies—Spain—Portugal—all Italy—Turkey and the Levant, or any one Republic in South America.
Haverhill, Mass.,7th mo. 23, 1837.
Dear Friend:—Thou sayest, ‘thebestway to make a person like a thing which is disagreeable, is to try in some way to make it agreeable.’ So, then, instead of convincing a person by sound argument and pointed rebuke that sin issin, we are todisguisethe opposite virtue in such a way as to make him like that, in preference to the sin he had so dearly loved. We are tocheata sinner out of his sin, rather than to compel him, under the stings of conviction, to give it up from deep-rooted principle.
If this is the course pursued by ministers, then I wonder not at the kind of converts which are brought into the church at the present day. Thy remarks on the subject of prejudice, show but too plainly how strongly thy own mind is imbued with it, and how little thy colonization principles have done to exterminate this feeling from thy own bosom. Thou sayest, ‘if a certain class of persons is the subject of unreasonable prejudice, the peaceful and christian way of removing it would be to endeavor to render the unfortunatepersons who compose this class, so useful, sohumble, so unassuming, &c. that prejudice would be supplanted by complacency in their goodness, andpityand sympathy for their disabilities.’ ‘If the friends of the blacks had quietly set themselves to work to increase their intelligence, their usefulness, &c. and then had appealed to thepityand benevolence of their fellow citizens, a very different result would have appeared.’ Or in other words, if one person is guilty of a sin against another person, I am to let the sinner go entirely unreproved, but to persuade the injured party to bear with humility and patience all the outrages that are inflicted upon him, and thus try to soothe the sinner ‘into complacency with their goodness’ in ‘bearing all things, and enduring all things.’ Well, suppose I succeed:—is that sinner won from the evil of his ways byprinciple? No! Has he the principle of love implanted in his breast? No! Instead of being in love with the virtue exhibited by the individual, becauseit is virtue, he is delighted with the personal convenience he experiences from the exercise of that virtue. He feels kindly toward the individual,becausehe is aninstrumentof his enjoyment, a meremeansto promote his wishes. There isnoreformation there at all. And so the colored people are to be taught to be ‘veryhumble’ and ‘unassuming,’ ‘gentle’ and ‘meek,’ and then the ‘pityand generosity’ of their fellow citizens are to be appealed to. Now, no one who knows anything of the influence of Abolitionists over the colored people, can deny that it has beenpeacefuland christian; had it not been so, they never would have seen thosewhom they had regarded as their best friends, mobbed and persecuted, without raising an arm in their defence. Look, too, at the rapid spread of thorough temperance principles among them, and their moral reform and other laudable and useful associations; look at the rising character of this people, the new life and energy which have been infused into them. Who have done it? Who have exerted by far the greatest influence on these oppressed Americans? I leave thee to answer. I will give thee one instance of this salutary influence. In a letter I received from one of my colored sisters, she incidentally makes this remark:—‘Until very lately, I have lived and acted more formyselfthan for the good of others. I confess that I amwholly indebted to the Abolition causefor arousing me from apathy and indifference, and shedding light into a mind which has been too long wrapt in selfish darkness.’ The Abolition cause has exerted a powerful and healthful influence over this class of our population, and it has been done by quietly going into the midst of them, and identifying ourselves with them.
But Abolitionists are complained of, because they, at the same time, fearlessly exposed thesinof the unreasonable and unholy prejudice which existed against these injured ones. Thou sayest ‘that reproaches, rebukes and sneers were employed to convince the whites that their prejudices were sinful, andwithoutany just cause.’Without any just cause!Couldst thou think so, if thou really loved thy colored sistersas thyself? The unmeasured abuse which, the Colonization Society was heaping upon this despisedpeople, was nojust causefor pointed rebuke, I suppose! The manner in which they are thrust into one corner of our meeting-houses, as if the plague-spot was on their skins; the rudeness and cruelty with which they are treated in our hotels, and steamboats, rail road cars and stages, isno just causeof reproach to a professed christian community, I presume. Well, all that I can say is, that I believe if Isaiah or James were now alive, they would pour their reproaches and rebukes upon the heads andheartsof those who are thus despising the Lord’s poor, and saying to those whose spirits are clothed by God in the ‘vile raiment’ of acolored skin, ‘Stand thou there in yonder gallery, or sit thou here in ‘the negro-pew.’ ‘Sneers,’ too, are complained of. Have abolitionists ever made use of greater sarcasm and irony than did the prophet Elijah? When things are ridiculous as well as wicked, it is unreasonable to expect that every cast of mind will treat them with solemnity. And what is more ridiculous than American prejudice; to proscribe and persecute men and women, because theircomplexionsare of a darker hue than our own? Why, it is an outrage upon common sense; and as my brother Thomas S. Grimké remarked only a few weeks before his death, ‘posterity will laugh at our prejudices.’ Where is the harm, then, if abolitionists should laugh now at the wicked absurdity?
Thou sayest, ‘this tended to irritate the whites, and to increase their prejudices against the blacks.’ Thetruth alwaysirritates the proud, impenitent sinner. To charge abolitionists with this irritation, is somethinglike the charge brought against the English government by the captain of the slaver I told thee of in my second letter, who threw all his human merchandize overboard, in order to escape detection, and then charged this horrible wholesale murder upon the government; because, said he, they had no business to make a law to hang a man if he was found engaged in the slave trade. Sowemust bear the guilt of man’s angry passions, because thetruthwe preach is like a two-edged sword, cutting through the bonds of interest on the one side, and the cords of caste on the other.
As to our increasing the prejudice against color, this is just like the North telling us that we have increased the miseries of the slave. Common sense cries out against the one as well as the other. With regard to prejudice, I believe the truth of the case to be this: the rights of the colored manneverwere advocated by any body of men in their length and breadth, before the rise of the Anti-Slavery Society in this country. The propagation of these ultra principles has produced in the northern States exactly the same effect, which the promulgation of the doctrine of immediate emancipation has done in the southern States. It hasdevelopedthe latent principles of pride and prejudice, notproducedthem. Hear John Green, a Judge of the Circuit Court of Kentucky, in reference to abolition efforts having given birth to the opposition against emancipation now existing in the South: ‘I would rather say, it has been the means ofmanifestingthat opposition, whichpreviouslyexisted, butlaid dormantfor want of an exciting cause.’ And justso has it been with regard to prejudice at the North—when there was no effort to obtain for the colored man hisrightsas a man, as an American citizen, there was no opposition exhibited, because it ‘laid dormant for want of an exciting cause.’
I know it is alleged that some individuals, who treated colored people with the greatest kindness a few years ago, have, since abolition movements, had their feelings so embittered towards them, that they have withdrawn that kindness. Now I would ask, could such people have acted fromprinciple? Certainly not; or nothing that others could do or say would have driven them from the high ground theyappearedto occupy. No, my friend, they acted precisely upon the false principle which thou hast recommended; theirpitywas excited, theirsentiments of generositywere called into exercise, because they regarded the colored man as anunfortunate inferior, rather than as anoutragedandinsulted equal. Therefore, as soon as abolitionists demanded for the oppressed American thevery same treatment, upon the high ground ofhuman rights, why, then it was instantly withdrawn, simply becauseit never had been conceded on the rightground; and those who had previously granted it became afraid, lest, during the æra of abolition excitement, persons would presumetheywere acting on the fundamental principle of abolitionism—the principle ofequal rights, irrespective of color or condition, instead of on the mere principle of ‘pityandgenerosity.’
It is truly surprising to find a professing christian excusing the unprincipled opposition exhibited in NewHaven, to the erection of a College for young men of color. Are we indeed to succumb to a corrupt public sentiment at the North, and the abominations of slavery at the South, by refraining from asserting therightof Americans to plant a literary institution in New Haven, or New York, orany whereon the American soil? Are we to select ‘some retired place,’ where there would be the least prejudice and opposition to meet, rather than openly and fearlessly to face the American monster, who, like the horse-leach, is continually crying give, give, and whose demands are only increased by compromise and surrender? No! there is a spirit abroad in this country, which will not consent to barter principle for anunholypeace; a spirit which seeks to be ‘pure from the blood of all men,’ by a bold and christian avowal of truth; a spirit which will not hide God’s eternal principles of right and wrong, but will stand erect in the storm of human passion, prejudice and interest, ‘holding forth the light of truth in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation;’ a spirit which will never slumber nor sleep, till man ceases to hold dominion over his fellow creatures, and the trump of universal liberty rings in every forest, and is re-echoed by every mountain and rock.
Art thou not aware, my friend, that this College was projected in the year 1831, previous to the formation of the first Anti-Slavery Society, which was organized in 1832? How, then, canst thou say that the circumstances relative to it occurred ‘at a time when the public mind was excited on the subject?’ I feel quite amused at thepresumptionwhich thou appearest to think was exhibited by the projectors of this institution,in wishing it to be located in New Haven, where was another College ‘embracing a large proportion of southern students,’ &c. It was a great offence, to be sure, for colored men to build a College by the walls of the white man’s ‘College, where half the shoe-blacks and waiters werecolored men.’ But why so? The other half of the shoe-blacks and waiters werewhite, I presume; and if thesewhiteservants could be satisfied withtheirhumble occupationunder the roofof Yale College, why might not the colored waiters be contented also, though an institution for the education of colored Americans mightpresumeto lift its head ‘beside the very walls of this College?’ Is it possible that any professing christian can calmly look back at these disgraceful transactions, and tell me that such opposition was manifested ‘for the best reasons?’ And what is still worse, censure the projectors of a literary institution, in free, republican, enlightened America, because they did not meekly yield to ‘such reasonable objections,’ and refused ‘to soothe the feelings and apprehensions of those who had been excited’ to opposition and clamor by the simple fact that some American born citizens wished to give their children a liberal education in a separate College, only because the white Americans despised their brethren of a darker complexion, and scorned to share with them the privileges of Yale College? It was very wrong, to be sure, for the friends of the oppressed American to consider such outrageous conduct ‘as a mark of the force of sinful prejudice!’ Vastly uncharitable! Great complaints are made that ‘the worst motives were ascribed to some of the most respectable,and venerated, andpiousmen who opposed the measure.’ Wonderful indeed, that men should be found so true to their principles, as to dare in this age of sycophancy to declare the truth to those who stand in high places, wearing the badges of office or honor, and fearlessly to rebuke the puerile and unchristian prejudice which existed against their colored brethren! ‘Pious men!’ Why, I would ask, how are we to judge of men’s piety—by professions or products? Do men gather thorns of grapes, or thistles of figs? Certainly not. If, then, in the lives of men we do not find the fruits of christian principle, we have no right, according to our Saviour’s criterion, ‘by their fruits ye shall know them,’ to suppose that men are really pious who can be perseveringly guilty of despising others, and denying them equal rights, because they have colored skins. ‘A great deal was said and done that was calculated to throw the community into an angry ferment.’ Yes, and I suppose the friends of the colored man were just as guilty as was the great Apostle, who, by the angry, and excited, andprejudicedJews, was accused of being ‘a pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition,’ because he declared himself called to preach the everlasting gospel to the Gentiles, whom they considered as ‘dogs,’ and utterly unworthy of being placed on the same platform of human rights and a glorious immortality.
Thy friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
Groton, Mass.,6th month, 1837.
Dear Friend:—In my last, I commented upon the opposition to the establishment of a College in New Haven, Conn., for the education of colored young men. The same remarks are applicable to the persecutions of the Canterbury School. I leave thee and our readers to apply them. I cannot help thinking how strange and unaccountable thy soft excuses for thesins of prejudicewill appear to the next generation, if thy book ever reach their eye.
As to Cincinnati having been chosen as the city in which the Philanthropist should be published after the retreat of its editor from Kentucky, thou hast not been ‘sufficiently informed,’ for James G. Birney pursued exactly the course whichthouhast marked out as the most prudent and least offensive. He edited his paper at New Richmond, in Ohio, for nearly three months before he went to Cincinnati, and did not go there until the excitement appeared to have subsided.
And so, thou thinkest that abolitionists are accountable for the outrages which have been committedagainst them; they are the tempters, and are held responsible by God, as well as the tempted. Wilt thou tell me, who was responsible for the mob which went with swords and staves to take an innocent man before the tribunals of Annas and Pilate, some 1800 years ago? And who was responsible for the uproar at Ephesus, the insurrection at Athens, and the tumults at Lystra and Iconium? Were I a mobocrat, I should want no better excuse than thou hast furnished for such outrages. Wonderful indeed, if, in free America, her citizens cannotchoosewhere they will erect their literary institutions and presses, to advocate the self-evident truths of our Declaration of Independence! And still more wonderful, that a New England woman should,after years of reflection, deliberately write a book to condemn the advocates of liberty, and plead excuses for a relentless prejudice against her colored brethren and sisters, and for the persecutors of those, who, according to the opinion of aSouthernmember of Congress, are prosecuting ‘theonly planthat can ever overthrow slavery at the South.’ I am glad,for thy own sake, that thou hast exculpated abolitionists from the charge of the ‘deliberate intention of fomenting illegal acts of violence.’ Would it not have been still better, if thou hadst spared the remarks which rendered such an explanation necessary?
I find that thou wilt not allow of the comparison often drawn between the effects of christianity on the hearts of those who obstinately rejected it, and those of abolitionism on the hearts of people of the present day. Thou sayest, ‘Christianity is a system ofpersuasion,tending by kind and gentle influences to make menwillingto leave their sins.’ Dost thou suppose the Pharisees and Sadducees deemed it was verykindandgentlein its influences, when our holy Redeemer called them ‘a generation of vipers,’ or when he preached that sermon ‘full of harshness, uncharitableness, rebuke and denunciation,’ recorded in the xxiii. chapter of Matthew? But I shall be told that Christ knew the hearts of all men, and therefore it was right for him to use terms which mere human beings never ought to employ. Read, then, the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others, and also the Epistles of the New Testament. They employed the most offensive terms on many occasions, and the sharpest rebukes, knowing full well that there are some sinners who can be reached by nothing but death-thrusts at their consciences. An anecdote ofJohn Richardson, who was remarkable for his urbanity of manners, occurs to me. He one day preached a sermon in a country town, in which he made use of somehardlanguage; a friend reproved him after meeting, and inquired whether he did not know that hard wood was split by soft knocks. Yes, said Richardson, but I also know that there is some wood so rotten at the heart, that nothing but tremendously hard blows will ever split it open. Ah! John, replied the elder, I see thou understandesthowto do thy master’s work. Now, I believe this nation isrotten at the heart, and that nothing but the most tremendous blows with the sledge-hammer of abolition truth, could ever have broken the false rest which we had taken up for ourselves on the very brink of ruin.
‘Abolitionism, on the contrary, is a system ofcoercionby public opinion.’ By this assertion, I presume thou ‘hast not been correctly informed’ as to the reasons which have induced abolitionists to put forth all their energies to rectify public opinion. It isnotbecause we wish to wield this public opinion like a rod of iron over the heads of slaveholders, tocoercethem into an abandonment of the system of slavery; not at all. We are striving to purify public opinion, first, because as long as the North is so much involved in the guilt of slavery, by its political, commercial, religious, and social connexion with the South,her own citizensneed to be converted. Second, because we know that when public opinion is rectified at the North, it will throw a flood of light from its million of reflecting surfaces upon the heart and soul of the South. The South sees full well at what we are aiming, and she is so unguarded as to acknowledge that ‘if she does not resist the danger in its inception, it willsoonbecomeirresistible.’ She exclaims in terror, ‘the truth is, themoralpower of the world is against us; it is idle to disguise it.’ The fact is, that the slaveholders of the South, and their northern apologists, have been overtaken by the storm of free discussion, and are something like those who go down to the sea and do business in the great waters: ‘they reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit’s end.’
Our view of the doctrine of expediency, thou art pleased to pronounce ‘wrong and very pernicious in its tendency.’ Expediency is emphatically the doctrine by which the children of this world are wont toguide their steps, whilst the rejection of it as a rule of action exactly accords with the divine injunction, to ‘walk by faith,notby sight.’ Thy doctrine that ‘the wisdom and rectitude of a given course depend entirely on theprobabilities of success,’ is not the doctrine of the Bible. According to this principle, how absurd was the conduct of Moses! What probability of success was there that he could move the heart of Pharaoh? None at all; and thus didhereason when he said, ‘Who amI, that I should go unto Pharaoh?’ And again, ‘Behold, they will not believeme, nor hearken unto my voice.’ Thesuccessof Moses’s mission in persuading the king of Egypt to ‘let the people go,’ was not involved in the duty of obedience to the divine command. Neither was the success of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others of the prophets who were singularlyunsuccessfulin their mission to the Jews. All who see the path of duty plain before them, are bound to walk in that path, end where it may. They then can realize the meaning of the Apostle, when he exhorts Christians to cast all their burden on the Lord, with the promise that He would sustain them. This is walking byfaith, not by sight. In the work in which abolitionists are engaged, they are compelled to ‘walk by faith;’ they feel called upon to preach the truth in season and out of season, to lift up their voices like a trumpet, to show the people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. Thesuccessof this mission,theyhave no more to do with, than had Moses and Aaron, Jeremiah or Isaiah, with that of theirs. Whether the South will be saved by Anti-Slavery efforts, isnot a question for us to settle—and in some of our hearts, thehope of its salvation has utterly gone out. All nations have been punished for oppression, and why should ours escape? Our light, and high professions, and the age in which we live, convict us not only of enormous oppression, but of the vilest hypocrisy. It may be that the rejection of the truth which we are now pouring in upon the South, may be the final filling up of their iniquities, just previous to the bursting of God’s exterminating thunders over the Sodoms and Gomorrahs, the Admahs and Zeboims of America. Theresultof our labors is hidden from our eyes; whether the preaching of Anti-Slavery truth is to be a savor of life unto life, or of death unto death to this nation, we know not; and we have no more to do with it, than had the Apostle Paul, when he preached Christ to the people of his day.
If American Slavery goes down in blood, it will but verify the declarations of those who uphold it. A committee of the North Carolina Legislature acknowledged this to an English Friend ten years ago. Jefferson more than once uttered his gloomy forebodings; and the Legislators of Virginia, in 1832, declared that if the opportunity of escape, through the means of emancipation, were rejected, ‘though they mightsave themselves, they would rear their posterity to the business of the dagger and the torch.’ I have myself known several families to leave the South, solely from a fear of insurrection; and this twelve and fourteen years ago, long before any Anti-Slavery efforts were made in this country. Andyet, I presume,ifthrough the cold-hearted apathy and obstinate opposition of the North, the South should become strengthened in her desperate determination to hold on to her outraged victims, until they are goaded to despair, and if the Lord in his wrath pours out the vials of his vengeance upon the slave States, why then, Abolitionists will have to bear all the blame. Thou hast drawn a frightful picture of the final issue of Anti-Slavery efforts, as thou art pleased to call it; but none of these things move me, for with just as much truth mayest thou point to the land of Egypt, blackened by God’s avenging fires, and exclaim, ‘Behold the issue of Moses’s mission.’ Nay, verily! See in that smoking, and blood-drenched house of bondage, the consequences of oppression, disobedience, and an obstinate rejection of truth, and light, and love. What had Moses to do with those judgment plagues, except to lift his rod? And if the South soon finds her winding sheet in garments rolled in blood, it willnotbe because of what the North has told her, but because, like impenitent Egypt, she hardened her heart against it, whilst the voices of some of her own children were crying in agony, ‘O! that thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day, the things which belong to thy peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes.’
Thy friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
Brookline, Mass.,8th month, 17th, 1837.
Dear Friend:—Thou sayest ‘There are cases also, where differences in age, and station, and character, forbid all interference to modify the conduct and character of others.’ Let us bring this to the only touchstone by which Christians should try their principles of action.
How was it when God designed to rid his people out of the hands of the Egyptian monarch? Washisstation so exalted ‘as to forbid all interference to modify his character and conduct?’ Andwhowas sent to interfere with his conduct towards a stricken people? Was it some brother monarch of exalted station, whose elevated rank might serve to excuse such interference ‘to modify his conduct and character?’ No. It was an obscure shepherd of Midian’s desert; for let us remember, that Moses, in pleading the cause of the Israelites, identified himself with thelowestandmeanestof the King’s subjects. Ah! he wasone of that despised caste; for, although brought up as the son of the princess, yet he had left Egypt as an outlaw.He had committed the crime of murder, and fled because the monarch ‘sought to slay him.’ This exiled outlaw is the instrument chosen by God to vindicate the cause of his oppressed people. Moses was in the sight of Pharaoh as much an object of scorn, as Garrison now is to the tyrants of America. Some seem to think, that great moral enterprises can be made honorable only by Doctors of Divinity, and Presidents of Colleges, engaging in them: when all powerful Truth cannot be dignified byanyman, butitdignifies and ennobles all who embrace it.Itlifts the beggar from the dunghill, and sets him among princes. Whilst it needs no great names to bear it onward to its glorious consummation, it is continually making great characters out of apparently mean and unpromising materials; and in the intensity of its piercing rays, revealing to the amazement of many, the insignificance andmorallittleness of those who fill the highest stations in Church and State.
But take a few more examples from the bible, of those in high stations being reproved by men of inferior rank. Look at David rebuked by Nathan, Ahab and Jezebel by Elijah and Micaiah. What, too, was the conduct of Daniel and Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego, but apracticalrebuke of Darius and Nebuchadnezzar? Andwhowere these men, apart from these acts of daring interference? They were the Lord’s prophets, I shall be told; but what cared those monarchs forthis fact? How much credit did they give them for holding this holy office? None. And why? Because all but David were impenitent sinners, and rejected with scorn all ‘interference tomodify their conduct or characters.’ Reformers are rarely estimated in the age in which they live, whether they be called prophets or apostles, or abolitionists, or what not. They stand on the rock of Truth, and calmly look down upon the careering thunder-clouds, the tempest, and the roaring waves, because they well know that where the atmosphere is surcharged with pestilential vapors, a conflict of the elementsmusttake place, before it can be purified by that moral electricity, beautifully typified by the cloven tongues that sat uponeachof the heads of the 120 disciples who were convened on the day of Pentecost. Such men and women expect to be ‘blamed and opposed, because their measures are deemed inexpedient, and calculated to increase rather than diminish the evil to be cured.’ They know full well, thatintellectualgreatness cannot givemoralperception—therefore,those who have no clear views of the irresistibleness of moral power, cannot see the efficacy of moral means. They say with the apostle, ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ We know full well, that northern men and women laugh at the inefficacy of Anti-Slavery measures;but slaveholders never have ridiculed them: not that their moral perceptions are any clearer than those of our northern opponents, but where men’sinterestsandlust of powerare immediately affected by moral effort, they instinctively feel that it is so, and tremble for the result.
But suppose even that our measures were calculatedtoincreasethe evils of slavery.The measures adopted by Moses, and sanctioned by God, increased the burdens of the Israelites.Were they, therefore,inexpedient? And yet, ifourmeasures produce a similar effect, O then! they are very inexpedient indeed. The truth is, when we look at Moses and his measures, we look at them in connection with the emancipation of the Israelites. Theultimateand glorious success of the measures proves their wisdom and expediency. But when Anti-Slavery measures are looked atnow, we see them longbefore the end is accomplished. We see, according to thy account, the burdens increased; but we do not yet see the triumphant march through the Red Sea, nor do we hear the song of joy and thanksgiving which ascended from Israel’s redeemed host. But canst thou not give us twenty years to complete our work? Clarkson, thy much admired model, worked twenty years; and the benevolent Colonization Society has been in operation twenty years. Just give us as long a time, or half that time, and then thou wilt be a far better judge of the expediency or inexpediency of our measures. Then thou wilt be able to look at them in connection with their success or their failure, and instead of writing a book on thy opinions and my opinions, thou canst write ahistory.
I cannot agree with thee in the sentiment, that the station of a nursery maid makes it inexpedient for her to turn reprover of the master who employs her. This is the doctrine ofmodern aristocracy, not of primitive christianity; for ecclesiastical history informs us that, in the first ages of christianity, kingswere converted through the faithful and solemn rebukes of their slaves and captives. I have myself been reproved by aslave, and I thanked her, and still thank her for it. Think how this doctrine robs the nursery maid of her responsibility, and shields the master from reproof; for it may be that she alone has seen him ill-treat his wife. Now it appears to me, so far from her station forbidding all interference to modify the character and conduct of her employer, that that station peculiarly qualifies her for the difficult and delicate task, because nursery maids often know secrets of oppression, which no other persons are fully acquainted with. For my part, I believe it isnow the duty of the slaves of the South to rebuke their mastersfor their robbery, oppression and crime; and so far from believing that such ‘reproof would do no good, but only evil,’ I think it would be attended by the happiest results in the main, though I doubt not it would occasion some instances of severe personal suffering. No station or character can destroy individual responsibility, in the matter of reproving sin. I feel that a slave has a right to rebuke me, and so has the vilest sinner; and the sincere, humble christian will be thankful for rebuke, let it come from whom it may. Such, I am confident, never would think it inexpedient for their chamber maids to administer it, but would endeavor to profit by it.
Thou askest very gravely, why James G. Birney did not go quietly into the southern States, and collect facts? Indeed! Why should he go to the South to collect facts, when he had lived there forty years? Thou mayest with just as much proprietyask me, why I do not go to the South to collect facts. The answer to both questions is obvious:—We have lived at the South, asintegralparts of the system of slavery, and therefore we know from practical observation and sad experience, quite enough about it already. I think it would be absurd for either of us to spend our time in such a way. And even if J. G. Birney had not lived at the South, why should he go there to collect facts, when the Anti-Slavery presses are continually throwing them out before the public? Look, too, at the Slave Laws! What more do we need to show us the bloody hands and iron heart of Slavery?
Thou sayest on the 89th page of thy book, ‘Every avenue of approach to the South is shut. No paper, pamphlet, or preacher, that touches on that topic, is admitted in their bounds.’ Thou art greatly mistaken; every avenue of approach to the South isnotshut. The American Anti-Slavery Society sends between four and five hundred of its publications to the South by mail,to subscribers, or as exchange papers. One slaveholder in North Carolina, not long since, bought $60 worth of our pamphlets, &c. which he distributed in the slave States. Another slaveholder from Louisiana, made a large purchase of our publications last fall, which he designed to distribute among professors of religion who held slaves. To these I may add another from South Carolina, another from Richmond, Virginia, numbers from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, and others from New Orleans, besides persons connected with at least three Colleges and Theological Seminariesin slave States, have applied for our publications for their own use, and for distribution. Within a few weeks, the South Carolina Delegation in Congress have sent on an order to the publishing Agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, for all the principal bound volumes, pamphlets, and periodicals of the Society. At the same time, they addressed a very courteous letter to J. G. Birney, the Corresponding Secretary, propounding nearly a score of queries, embracing the principles, designs, plans of operation, progress and results of the Society. I know in the large cities, such as Charleston and Richmond, that Anti-Slavery papers are not suffered to reach their destination through the mail; butit is not soin the smaller towns. But even in the cities, I doubt not they are read by the postmasters and others. The South may pretend that she will not read our papers, but it is all pretence; the fact is, she is very anxious to see what we are doing, so that when the mail-bags were robbed in Charleston in 1835,I knowthat the robbers were very careful to select a few copies of each of the publicationsbeforethey made the bonfire, and that these were handed round in a private way through the city, so that they wereextensively read. This fact I had from a friend of mine who was in Charleston at the time, andreadthe publications himself. My relations also wrote me word, that they had seen and read them.
In order to show that our discussions and publications have already produced a great effect upon many individuals in the slave States, I subjoin the following detail of facts and testimony now in my possession.
My sister, S. M. Grimké, has just received a letter from a Southerner residing in the far South, in which he says, ‘On the 4th of July, the friends of the oppressed met and contributed six or eight dollars, to obtain some copies of Gerrit Smith’s letter, and some other pamphlets for our own benefit and that of the vicinity. The leaven, we think, is beginning to work, and we hope that it will ere long purify the whole mass of corruption.’
An intelligent member of the Methodist Church, who resides in North Carolina, was recently in the city of New York, and told the editor of Zion’s Watchman, that ‘our publications were read with great interest at the South—that there was great curiosity there to see them.’ A bookseller also in one of the most southern States, only a few months ago, ordered a package of our publications. And within a very short time, an influential slaveholder from the far South, who called at the Anti-Slavery Office in New York, said he had had misgivings on the subject ever since the formation of the American Society—that he saw some of our publicationsat the Souththree years ago, and is now convinced and has emancipated his slaves.
A correspondent of the Union Herald, a clergyman, and a graduate of one of the colleges of Kentucky, says, ‘I find in this Statemanywho are decidedly opposed to slavery—but few indeed take the ground that it is right. I trust the cause of human rights is onward—weekly, I receive two copies of the Emancipator, which I send out as battering rams, to beat down the citadel of oppression.’ In a letter to JamesG. Birney, from a gentleman in a slave State, we find this declaration: ‘Your paper, the Philanthropist, is regularly distributed here, and as yet works no incendiary results; and indeed, so far as I can learn, general satisfaction is here expressed, both as to the temper and spirit of the paper, and no disapprobation as to the results.’ At an Anti-Slavery meeting last fall in Philadelphia, a gentleman from Delaware was present, who rose and encouraged Abolitionists to go on, and said that he could assure them the influence of their measures was felt there, and their principles were gaining ground secretly and silently. The subject, he informed them, was discussed there, and he believed Anti-Slavery lectures could be delivered there with safety, and would produce important results. Since that time, a lecturer has been into that State, and a State Society has been formed, the secretary of which was the first editor of the Emancipator, and is now pastor of the Baptist church in the capital of the State. The North Carolina Watchman, published at Salisbury, in an article on the subject of Abolition, has the following remarks of the editor: ‘It [the abolition party] is the growing party at the North: we are inclined to believe, that there is evenmore of it at the South, than prudence will permit to be openly avowed.’ It rejoices our hearts to find that there are some southerners who feel and acknowledge the infatuation of the politicians of the South, and the philanthropy of abolitionists. The Maryville Intelligencer of 1836, exclaims, ‘What sort of madness, produced by a jaundiced and distorted conception of the feelings and motives bywhich northern abolitionists are actuated, can induce the southern political press to urge a severance of the tie that binds our Union together? To offer rewards for those very individuals who stand asmediatorsbetween masters and slaves, urging the one to be obedient, and the other to do justice?’
A southern Minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the session of the New York Annual Conference, in June of 1836, said: ‘Don’t give up Abolitionism—don’t bow down to slavery. You have thousands at the South who are secretly praying for you.’ In a subsequent conversation with the same individual, he stated, that the South is not that unit of which the pro-slavery party boast—there is a diversity of opinion among them in reference to slavery, and theREIGN OF TERRORalone suppresses the free expression of sentiment. That there are thousands who believe slaveholding to be sinful, who secretly wish the abolitionists success, and believe God will bless their efforts. That the ministers of the gospel and ecclesiastical bodies who indiscriminately denounce the abolitionists, without doing any thing themselves to remove slavery, havenotthe thanks of thousands at the South, but on the contrary are viewed astaking sides with slaveholders, andrecreant to the principles of their own profession.—Zion’s Watchman, November, 1836.
The Christian Mirror, published in Portland, Maine, has the following letter from a minister who has lately taken up his abode in Kentucky, to a friend in Maine:—‘Several ministers have recently left the State, I believe, on account of slavery; and many of the membersof churches, as I have understood, have sold their property, and removed to the free States. Many are becoming more and more convinced of the evil andsinof slavery, and would gladly rid themselves and the community of this scourge; and I feel confident that influences are already in operation, which, if properly directed and regulated by the principles of the gospel, may ‘break every yoke and let the oppressed go free’ in Kentucky.
In 1st month, 1835, when Theodore D. Weld was lecturing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at the close of one of his evening lectures, a man sought him through the crowd, and extending his hand to him through his friends, by whom he was surrounded, solicited him to step aside with him for a moment. After they had retired by themselves, the gentleman said to him with great earnestness, ‘I am a slaveholder from Maryland—you are right—the doctrine you advocate is truth.’ Why, then, said the lecturer, do you not emancipate your slaves? ‘Because,’ said the Marylander, ‘I have not religion enough’—He was a professing christian—‘I dare not subject myself to the torrent of opposition which, from the present state of public sentiment, would be poured upon me; but do you abolitionists go on, and you will effect a change in public sentiment, which will render it possible and easy for us to emancipate our slaves. I know,’ continued he, ‘a great many slaveholders in my State, who stand on precisely the same ground that I do in relation to this matter.Only produce a correct public sentiment at the North and the work is done; for all that keeps the South in countenance while continuing this system,is the apology and argument afforded so generally by the North; only produce a right feeling in the North generally, and the South cannot stand before it; let the North be thoroughly converted, and the work is at once accomplished at the South.’ Another fact which may be adduced to prove that the South is looking to the North for help, is the following: At an Anti-Slavery concert of prayer for the oppressed, held in New York city, in 1836, a gentleman arose in the course of the meeting, declaring himself a Virginian and a slaveholder. He said he came to that city filled with the deepest prejudice against the abolitionists, by the reports given of their character in papers published at the North. But he determined to investigate their character and designs for himself. He even boarded in the family of an abolitionist, and attended the monthly concert of prayer for the slaves and the slaveholders. And now, as the result of his investigations and observations, he was convinced thatnot only the spirit but the principles and measures of the abolitionistsARE RIGHTEOUS. He was now ready to emancipate his own slaves, and had commenced advocating the doctrine of immediate emancipation—‘and here,’ said he, pointing to two men sitting near him, ‘are the first fruits of my labors—these two fellow Virginians and slaveholders, are converts with myself to abolitionism. And I know a thousand Virginians, who need only to be made acquainted with the true spirit and principles of abolitionists, in order to their becoming converts as we are.Let the abolitionists go on in the dissemination of their doctrines, and let the Northern papers cease to misrepresentthem at the South—let the true light of abolitionism be fully shed upon the Southern mind, and the work of immediate and general emancipation will be speedily accomplished.‘—Morning Star, N. Y.
A letter from a gentleman in Kentucky to Gerrit Smith, dated August, 1836, contains the following expressions:—