THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

WHITE SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES.

The rule of the Roman slave code—the child follows the condition of the mother—is universally adopted in the Southern States. If the mother be a slave, the child is one also, notwithstanding the father is a free man.

The effect of this rule is to enslave all the issue in the maternal line to the remotest generation. The father in each generation may be a free white person, so that soon not the slightest tinge of negro blood nor the faintest trace of negro feature may be visible, and yet the unfortunate being whose remote maternal ancestor was a negro is doomed to as hopeless a slavery as that ancestor ever was.

With us the mixed races are generally called mulattoes, or persons of color; but in the West Indies names are given to the different degrees of the mixed races, expressive of their distance from the original stock. One ancestor in each generation being a white person, the child of the negro is called a mulatto; of the mulatto, a terceron; of the terceron, a quarteron; and the child of the latter is called a quinteron. “This is the last gradation, there being no visible difference between them and the whites, either in color or features.” They are, indeed, often fairer than the Spaniards. (Edwards’s West Indies, book 4, c. 1.) Judge O’Neall, of South Carolina, thinks even quadroons should always be rated as white. He says, “When the blood is reduced to or below one eighth, the jury ought always to find the party white.” And we know that tercerons frequently pass for whites, so little real difference is there between them and white persons, either in color or feature. (See 1 Dall. Rep. 167.) The laws of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas apparently rate as white all the mixed issue below tercerons. All [2] below quadroons are apparently so considered in Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas; but in North Carolina, not even the fourth generation is so rated.

Persons of mixed blood of every degree are prima facie presumed to be free in Delaware, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, and probably in some other States. The contrary presumption (except as to persons apparently white) obtains in Virginia, Kentucky, and in South Carolina. In Missouri and Arkansas, a mulatto who is held as a slave must prove his right to freedom. But in all the States a presumption of freedom undoubtedly attaches in favor of those who are to be legally classed or rated as whites, though held as slaves.

These presumptions are, however, never imperative, even in case of a person manifestly white; for slavery legally extends to all the issue, however remote from the original stock. The presumption only obliges the master, in case of dispute arising, to be able to prove the descent from a female slave, according to law, of the person whom he claims to own; and so long as he can do this, the law in all the States upholds the slavery of his victims, however white they may be.

That the law thus allows an owner to prove the descent of his white slave, and by so doing overthrow the presumption of freedom arising from color, has been settled in several cases.

In Virginia, in the case of Hook vs. Nanny Pagee and her Children, (2 Munf. Rep. 379, 385, 387,) the verdict of the jury was, “that the said Nanny Pagee was a white woman,” and therefore free. But Judge Brooke said that it was competent for Hook “to have proved, if he could, that the plaintiff was descended in the maternal line from a slave. Having not proved it, she and her children must be considered as free.” In the case of Hudgins vs. Wrights, (1 Hen. and Munf. Rep. 134, 140,) Judge Tucker held, that if one evidently white be, notwithstanding, claimed as a slave, the proof lies on the party claiming to make the other his slave. Judge Roane’s opinion was the same. (Ibid. p. 141.) “A white person may be a slave, according to our laws,” says Judge Green, of the same State, (2 Leigh Rep. 653,) “if all his female ancestors were slaves.”

In Kentucky, says Chief Justice Robertson, “a white person of unmixed blood cannot be a slave. * * * But as a person apparently white may, nevertheless, have some African taint, and [3] may, consequently, have descended from a mother who was a slave, the apparent color is but prima facie evidence; and consequently, where a jury, on their view, decide that the color is white, testimony will be admissible to prove that, notwithstanding the visible complexion, there is African blood in the veins sufficient to doom to slavery.” (3 Dana Rep. 387, 388.) In Gatliff vs. Rose, (8 B. Munr. Rep. 629,) it appeared that James Lauderdale, of Bottetourt county, Virginia, sold Rose as a slave, she being from five to seven years of age. Rose was “as white as most children through the country,” and “was sometimes mistaken, while in the family of Lauderdale, for one of his children;” and there was evidence adduced “conducing to prove” that he was her father.

The law of North Carolina, by forbidding “any white man or woman, being free,” to do a certain act, implies that such persons may be slaves. (Rev. Stat. c. 71, sec. 5.)

In Tennessee (Miller vs. Denman, 8 Yerg. 233) it was admitted that a woman of fair complexion and straight hair, and who was so white that “no one suspected that she was a slave, or that she had any negro blood,” might be proved to be a slave.

In Georgia (Hunter vs. Shaffer, Dudley, 224) it was admitted that a woman who had been married to a white person, who had enjoyed liberty and property for a long time, and transmitted them to her descendants, and who was actually presumed to be free so far as to give effect to a deed made by her, could yet be proved to have been a slave.

In Arkansas it is a penitentiary offence to steal a “white” slave. (Eng. Dig. c. 51, art. 2, sec. 6.)

In Maryland there formerly existed a law for enslaving the issue of white women. Some time in the early part of the year 1681, Lord Baltimore brought into this State, as a domestic servant, a free white woman, called Eleanor, or Irish Nell. She was married to a negro slave whilst the law of 1663, c. 30, was in force. By this law, any free white woman so marrying a negro slave was obliged to “serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband;” and the issue of such marriage were declared to be slaves, as their father was. In the month of August, 1681, after the marriage of Eleanor, the act of 1663 was repealed; but the repealing act expressly saved the rights acquired under the act of 1663, before the date of the repealing act, so far as concerned the enslavement of the woman and her issue. (Stroud’s Sketch, 9, 10.) After the lapse of nearly ninety years, [4] during which time Eleanor and her children had died, William and Mary Butler, husband and wife, and first cousins, who were her grandchildren, petitioned for freedom. The court below, following the impulses of the times, decided in their favor; but the owner appealed, and in 1770 (1 Har. and McHen. Rep. 371) the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court; and it was held that issue born after the repealing law were slaves. William and Mary toiled on hopelessly as ever, and died. Seventeen years elapsed, and their child, Mary Butler, a great granddaughter of Eleanor, again petitioned for freedom; and in 1787, after the lapse of more than a century of wrong and outrage committed on her family, she was declared free, for want of a conviction in a court of record of Nell’s having intermarried with a slave, (2 ib. 214;) a striking illustration of that fiction, the certainty of the law, and of the great, almost overwhelming, difficulties in the way of establishing even a legal claim to freedom, and by persons apparently white. In another case (3 ib. 139) the great-granddaughter of a Spanish woman, whose grandmother and mother had been held and died in slavery, was finally set free.

We have no statistics in relation to the number of the mixed races; it must, however, be large. The female slave cannot resist her master’s power; and the law every where practically teaches her to acquiesce in his wishes, by denying her the capacity to contract a valid marriage even with a slave. If she must be the concubine of some one, how much better, then, to be the mistress of the owner, who has it in his power to do so much for her! She cannot commit adultery; nor is a slave ever punished for incontinence. It was a southerner who said that the best blood of Virginia flowed in the veins of her slaves! The following advertisements serve to confirm this view.

From the Richmond (Virginia) Whig:—

One Hundred Dollars Reward will be given for the apprehension of my negro (!) Edmund Kenney. He has straight hair, and complexion so nearly white that it is believed a stranger would suppose there was no African blood in him. He was with my boy Dick a short time since in Norfolk, and offered him for sale, and was apprehended, but escaped under pretence of being a white man!

Anderson Bowles.

January 6, 1836.

[5]

From the Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, July, 14, 1849:—

Two Hundred Dollars Reward.—Ran away from the subscriber, on the 23d of June last, a bright mulatto woman, named Julia, about twenty-five years of age. She is of common size, nearly white, and very likely. She is a good seamstress, and can read a little. She may attempt to pass for white; dresses fine. She took with her Anna, her child, eight or nine years old, and considerably darker than her mother. * * * She once belonged to a Mr. Helm, of Columbia, Tennessee.

I will give a reward of $50 for said negro and child if delivered to me, or confined in any jail in this State so I can get them; $100 if caught in any other slave State, and confined in a jail so that I can get them; and $200 if caught in any free State, and put in any good jail in Kentucky or Tennessee so I can get them.

A. W. Johnson.

Nashville, July 9, 1849.

From the Chattanooga (Tennessee) Gazette, October 5, 1852:—

Five Hundred Dollars Reward.—Ran away from the subscriber, on the 25th of May, a very bright mulatto boy, about twenty-one or twenty-two years old, named Wash. Said boy, without close observation, might pass himself for a white man, as he is very bright; has sandy hair, blue eyes, and a fine set of teeth. He is an excellent bricklayer; but I have no idea that he will pursue his trade, for fear of detection. Although he is like a white man in appearance, he has the disposition of a negro, and delights in comic songs and witty expressions. He is an excellent house servant; very handy about a hotel; tall, slender, and has rather a down look, especially when spoken to, and is sometimes inclined to be sulky. I have no doubt but he has been decoyed off by some scoundrel; and I will give the above reward for the apprehension of the boy and thief, if delivered at Chattanooga; or I will give $200 for the boy alone; or $100 if confined in any jail in the United States so that I can get him.

George O. Ragland.

Chattanooga, June 15, 1852.

[6]

From the Newbern (North Carolina) Spectator:—

Fifty Dollars Reward will be given for the apprehension and delivery to me of the following slaves: Samuel, and Judy, his wife, with their four children, belonging to the estate of Sacker Dubberly, deceased.

I will give $10 for the apprehension of William Dubberly, a slave belonging to the estate. William is about nineteen years old, quite white, and would not readily be taken for a slave.

John J. Lane.

March 13, 1837.

The following three advertisements are taken from Alabama papers:—

Ran away from the subscriber, working on the plantation of Colonel H. Tinker, a bright mulatto boy named Alfred. Alfred is about eighteen years old, pretty well grown; has blue eyes, light flaxen hair, skin disposed to freckle. He will try to pass as freeborn.

S. G. Stewart.

Green county, Alabama.

One Hundred Dollars Reward.—Ran away from the subscriber a bright mulatto man slave, named Sam. Light, sandy hair, blue eyes, ruddy complexion; is so white as very easily to pass for a free white man.

Edwin Peck.

Mobile, April 22, 1837.

Ran away on the 15th of May, from me, a negro woman, named Fanny. Said woman is twenty years old; is rather tall; can read and write, and so forge passes for herself. Carried away with her a pair of ear rings, a Bible with a red cover. Is very pious; she prays a great deal, and was, as supposed, contented and happy. She is as white as most white women, with straight light hair and blue eyes, and can pass herself for a white woman. I will give $500 for her apprehension and delivery to me. She is very intelligent.

John Balch.

Tuscaloosa, May 29, 1845.

The next advertisements we cut from the New Orleans Picayune, (September 2, 1846:)—

[7]

Twenty-Five Dollars Reward.—Ran away from the plantation of Madame Fergus Duplantier, on or about the 27th of June, 1846, a bright mulatto, named Ned, very stout built, about five feet eleven inches high, speaks English and French, about thirty-five years old, waddles in his walk. He may try to pass himself for a white man, as he is of a very clear color, and has sandy hair. The above reward will be paid to whoever will bring him to Madame Duplantier’s plantation, Manchac, or lodge him in some jail where he can be conveniently obtained.

Two Hundred Dollars Reward.—Ran away from the subscriber, last November, a white negro man, about thirty-five years old, height about five feet eight or ten inches, blue eyes, has a yellow woolly head, very fair skin, (particularly under his clothes.) * * * Said negro man was raised in Columbia, S. C., and is well known by the name of Dick Frazier. * * * He was lately known to be working on the railroad in Alabama, near Moore’s Turnout, and passed as a white man, by the name of Jesse Teams. I will give the above reward for his delivery in any jail so that I can get him; and I will give five hundred dollars for sufficient proof to convict, in open court, any man who carried him away.

J. D. Allen.

Barnwell Court House, S. C.

P. S.—Said man has a good-shaped foot and leg, and his foot is very small and hollow.

A later number of the same paper (1848) contains this:—

Fifty Dollars Reward.—Ran away from the subscriber, about two months ago, a bright mulatto girl, named Mary, about twenty-five years of age, almost white, and reddish hair, front teeth out, a cut on her upper lip; about five feet five inches high; has a scar on her forehead; she passes for free; talks French, Italian, Dutch, English, and Spanish.

Andre Grasso.

Upper side of St. Mary’s Market.—N. O. Picayune.

In the New Orleans Bee of June 22, 1831, P. Bahi advertises, as a runaway, “Maria, with a clear white complexion.”

The story of Ellen Craft is well known. The slave traders Bruin [8] and Hill thought that Emily Russell, the quadroon girl, was worth at least eighteen hundred dollars in the New Orleans market. Two or three gentlemen from the south were anxious to buy her. She was thought to be, they said, “the finest-looking woman in this country.”

In the summer of 1852, the Rev. Francis Bishop, of Liverpool, visited the slave market of Pullam and Davis, in Richmond, Virginia. Among the slaves offered for sale were a mother and her six children. These are his words: “The eldest of that family was a young woman, eighteen or nineteen years of age—a beautiful young woman, nearly white.” She “excited great notice when she was placed on the stand, and the auctioneer seemed to take pride in selling such a valuable article; and he said, ‘There, gentlemen; that speaks for itself.’ Taking her by the shoulders, he turned her round that they might see her figure. ‘There is not a finer figure in all America than that,’ he said. And so he went on praising the poor creature. She seemed indignant at it. She was nearly white, as I have said, and her bosom heaved with indignation at being thus pointed at and so spoken of; and far worse treatment she was subject to than even this, such as I dare not mention here.”

A friend, a resident for some time in New Orleans, describes to us a very beautiful slave he saw there, who had light, curling hair, blue eyes, and almost a blond complexion. After having been kept as a mistress by her owner, he finally sold her to pay his debts! And so we might go on multiplying proofs; but enough has been said to prove that white slavery not only actually, but legally, exists in these United States. And will not those whose ears are closed to the cry of the despised and hated negro extend a helping hand to relieve the anguish of the white slave?

Published for gratuitous distribution, at the office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

I. The Colonization Society propose transporting to Africa the whole free colored population of the United States, with or without their consent. Said Mr. Webster, “If Virginia or the south see fit to make any proposition to relieve themselves from the burden of their free colored population, they have my free consent that the government shall pay them out of these proceeds (two hundred million dollars) any sum of money adequate to that end.” Said Mr. Stanton, of the “ebony line” of steamers, “Have we not driven away the red man? Who shall say nay when we say to the black man, You are not wanted?” Mr. Brodnax, of Virginia, avowed himself in favor of compulsory laws to force the blacks into exile, and would extort their “consent” by a species of oppression calculated to make their situation here insupportable. He even confesses that some are induced to emigrate “by the gentle admonition of a severe flagellation.” It is a fact, that out of eight thousand five hundred persons sent by this society to Liberia, up to the year 1853, four thousand and ninety-three were emancipated in view of emigrating. Of course these had no choice about going.

II. The object of this wholesale banishment of the free blacks is the security of the slave system. Proofs of this abound. We have room for a few only.

1. The idea of removing the free blacks of the south, by colonizing them in remote Africa, originated in 1777. But the first vigorous impulse towards it was given, in 1800, by a threatened insurrection in Virginia; in consequence of which the governor was “requested to correspond with the President of the United States on the subject of purchasing lands without the limits of this State, whither persons obnoxious to the laws, or dangerous to the peace [2] of society, may be removed.” This was the beginning—a dread of the disturbing presence of the free blacks—a dread on the part of slaveholders, anxious to secure their property.

2. The society was founded and supported by slaveholders. It had its birth in Virginia. At its formation Mr. Clay presided and John Randolph spoke. Its first president was Judge Washington, of Virginia. Its seventeen vice presidents were all from the south. Its managers were owners of slaves. The substitution, in later years, of northern men with southern principles for southern men has not affected this peculiarity a whit. Its organs declare that “slaveholders have given the society their approval; that they will approve it, and can approve no other;” of course because it maintains slavery.

3. The society has never manifested hostility to the institution of slavery. This would seem to follow from the nature of the case. But here are evidences: John Randolph, at the meeting called, in 1816, “to consider the propriety and practicability of colonizing the free people of color in the United States, and of forming a society for that purpose,” declared publicly that the meeting, in its effects, “must materially tend to secure the property of every master in the United States over his slaves. And again, in another speech: “The measure proposed will prove one of the greatest securities to enable the master to keep in possession his own property.” To the same purport hear Henry Clay: “It is not proposed to consider any question of emancipation, or that is connected with the abolition of slavery. I am myself a slaveholder, and consider that species of property as inviolable as any other in the country.” The society “has always protested,” say some memorialists, (12th Ann. Rep.,) “that it has no wish to interfere with the delicate, but important, question of slavery.” “Its object, if I understand it aright,” said Mr. Archer, of Virginia, “involves no intrusion upon property, or even upon prejudice.” “It is necessary,” contends Hermannus Bleecker, “to disclaim all attempts for the immediate abolition of slavery, or the instruction of the great body of the blacks.” Rev. J. M. Pease announces that “in no sense whatever does the genius of this institution interfere with the legal relation of master and servant. It acknowledges the constitutionality of that relation, and the providential arrangement by which it subsists.” The editor of the New [3] York Colonization Society’s Journal, (March, 1853,) informs his readers that the Colonization Society was formed to assist free colored people, and only such, and from its beginning disclaimed, as a society, all interference with the question of slavery. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, in 1839, called on the Colonization society “to maintain that great original principle on which it was founded—friendship to the slaveholders.” More than this, the society is often recommended as the safeguard and defence of slavery. Thus in the African Repository, vol. i, p. 67, we read: “The object of the Colonization Society commends itself to every class. The landed proprietor may enhance the value of his property by assisting the enterprise,” and “may contribute more effectually to the continuance and strength of this system, by removing those now free, than by any or all other methods which can possibly be devised.” Again: Mr. Archer speaks: “It is on the ground of interest, therefore, the most indisputable pecuniary interest, that I address myself to the people and legislatures of the slaveholding States.” Hon. T. Butler King, writing to F. P. Stanton about his “ebony line,” says, “The slaves cannot be removed; but the free colored people can be, and the security of both master and servant promoted.” Thus do the slaveholding colonizationists describe their favorite institution: “Its objects are, in the first place, to aid ourselves by relieving us from a species of population pregnant with future danger and present inconvenience.” In the African Repository, vol. xii. p. 375, it is maintained “that the rights of the master or owner of slave property are acknowledged by the divine law.” And this is good colonization doctrine, often uttered by the most eminent champions of the society.

4. The Colonization Society does not encourage emancipation. “The managers could with no propriety depart from their original and avowed purpose, and make emancipation their object. And they would further say, that, if they were not thus restrained by the terms of their association, they would still consider any attempts to promote the increase of the free colored population by manumission unnecessary, premature, and dangerous.” “The rights of the masters are to remain sacred in the eyes of the society.” (African Repos. vol. xi. p. 58, and iv. 274.) “It would be as humane to throw them from the decks in the middle passage as to set them free in our country. We believe there is not the slightest moral turpitude in holding slaves [4] under existing circumstances at the south.” (African Repos. vol. ix. p. 4.) And Mr. Hopkins, president of the Geneva (New York) Colonization Society, goes further: “As I understand the Epistle to Timothy,” he says, “there is an express injunction not to preach manumission.” Distinguished patrons of this scheme have not been forward in emancipating their slaves. Judge Washington, the first president of the society, in 1821 undeceived his sanguine serfs by assuring them that none of them need expect freedom, and soon after sold fifty-four to the New Orleans market. Its second president, Mr. Carroll, held through life, and bequeathed at his death, one thousand slaves. Mr. Madison, another president, left a hundred slaves to his heirs, sending none to Liberia. Mr. Clay directed that his slaves should be kept in bonds twenty-five years after his death, and then should be removed to Liberia. Colonization operates, not to accelerate emancipation, but to retard it. That it must have this effect is plain, because the removal of the free blacks enhances the value of slave property, and manumission causes the market price of the non-manumitted to rise. It is doubtful if the rate of emancipation has ever to any considerable extent been influenced by this scheme. It has depended upon the cotton crop. Statistics show that when the cotton crop, between 1800 and 1820, increased nearly threefold, the number of emancipations decreased nearly two thirds. Emancipations multiplied between 1820 and 1830, the value of the cotton crop remaining nearly stationary. In 1830-1840 they dwindled away more than one half, owing to the more than double value of the cotton crop; and in 1840-1850 they diminished almost to nothing, from a similar cause. All this proves that colonization does not encourage emancipation. It is perfectly willing to leave slavery where and what it is, and only aims to remove the already free people, whose presence menaces its safety.

5. The Colonization Society wages war upon the free blacks. It calls them “notoriously ignorant, degraded, and miserable, mentally diseased, broken spirited; acted upon by no motives to honorable exertion; scarcely reached in their debasement by the heavenly light;” an incubus, a nuisance; “more addicted to crime, and vice, and dissolute manners than any other portion of the people of the United States.” And not in pity is this said of them, but in hate, and with the design of awakening against them more hate. What [5] kind of love is it that thus vilifies its objects? What kind of love is it that strives to deepen degradation; that views with “highest gratification” the barbarous edicts of southern legislatures, by which free colored people entering the State (Maryland) must pay twenty dollars, on conviction, for the first offence, and five hundred dollars for the second offence, or be sold to satisfy the demand; [2] are forbidden to attend religious meetings, save when conducted by whites; [3] and may not sell any of the most common articles of traffic among whites, nine in number, without proving by certificate that they came honestly by them? Do they who despise and persecute the blacks here really wish them well any where, even in Liberia? To think so is absurd. Men do not scorn and revile those they love. The free blacks are objects of antipathy; and in banishing them, the slaveholders wish only to protect themselves.

6. Finally, the enemies of slavery, with almost unanimous consent, are hostile to the Colonization Society. Repeatedly have the free people of color exposed and protested against it, as in direct opposition to their best hopes, prospects, and rights. As early as 1817, ere an anti-slavery society was formed, it was denounced in Virginia, and by public resolves, as cruel, and “in direct violation of those principles which have been the boast of the republic.” And in 1853 the colored people of Syracuse held a meeting, and unanimously resolved, “That our abhorrence of the scheme of African colonization is not in the slightest degree abated; that we recognize in it the most intense hatred of the colored race, clad in the garb of pretended philanthropy.” The same estimate of its character was formed and promulgated by such men as Wilberforce, Macaulay, Gurney, Lushington, Buxton, Cropper, and O’Connell. And Thomas Clarkson, in a letter to Mr. Garrison, giving his reasons for first accepting, and afterwards rejecting, the plan, says, “I will only say that I saw the scheme—shall I say the diabolical scheme?—with new eyes, and that the new light thrown upon it determined me to wash my hands clean forever of the undertaking.” Who are the truest friends of the slave—such persons as these? or the Clays, Stantons, Wises, and Archers, who favor colonization?

[6]

We think now we have fairly proved our propositions, that the Colonization Society aims to expatriate the free blacks of the United States, and that in doing this it has in view the security of slavery. Many more evidences might be produced; but let candid men ponder these. Let them consider, moreover, how much respect is fairly due to a society whose agents say one thing at the north, and another at the south; commend slavery in Georgia, and condemn it in Massachusetts; profess themselves the friends of the negro on one side of the line, and the friends of the negro’s oppressor on the other side; and use unsuspecting anti-slavery feeling to advance the ends of crafty pro-slavery principles. Let them estimate the feasibility of a scheme so slow that in thirty-six years it transported to Liberia only about two thirds of the annual increase of the free black population, and not one sixth of the annual increase of those in bondage, and so costly that Mr. Webster’s famous bid of two hundred million dollars would pay not quite one third of the expense of carrying it out. Let them ask what kind of civilization is likely to be diffused in Africa by slaves, and how it is possible that a free, enlightened Christian republic can be established by people who are “notoriously ignorant, degraded, and miserable; more addicted to crime, and vice, and dissolute manners than any other portion of the United States.” Let them weigh well these facts and reasonings; and if they hear from colonizationists, as they will, sentiments verbally at variance with the propositions maintained above, let them regard such as illustrations of the duplicity, the sublime hypocrisy and treachery, which are not the least remarkable among the peculiarities of this remarkable society.

PROTEST. (1833.)

We the undersigned, observing with regret that the American Colonization Society appears to be gaining some adherents in this country, are desirous to express our opinions respecting it.

Our motive and excuse for thus coming forward are the claims which the society has put forth to anti-slavery support. These claims are, in our opinion, wholly groundless; and we feel bound to affirm that our deliberate judgment and conviction are, that the professions made by the Colonization Society, of promoting the abolition of slavery, are altogether delusive.

As far as the mere colony of Liberia is concerned, it has, no doubt, the advantages of other trading establishments. In this sense it is beneficial [7] both to Africa and America, and we cordially wish it well. We cannot, however, refrain from expressing our strong opinion that it is a settlement of which the United States ought to bear the whole cost. We never required of that country to assist us in Sierra Leone. We are enormously burdened by our own connection with slavery; and we do maintain that we ought not to be called on to contribute to the expenses of a colony which, though no doubt comprising some advantages, was formed chiefly to indulge the prejudices of American slaveholders, and which is regarded with aversion by the colored population of the United States.

With regard to the extinction of the slave trade, we apprehend that Liberia, however good the intentions of its supporters, will do little or nothing towards it except on the extent of its own territory. The only effectual deathblow to the accursed traffic will be a destruction of slavery throughout the world. To the destruction of slavery throughout the world, we are compelled to say that we believe the Colonization Society to be an obstruction.

Our objections to it are, therefore, briefly these: While we believe its pretexts to be delusive, we are convinced that its real effects are of the most dangerous nature. It takes its root from a cruel prejudice and alienation in the whites of America against the colored people, slave or free. This being its source, the effects are what might be expected; that it fosters and increases the spirit of caste, already so unhappily predominant; that it widens the breach between the two races; exposes the colored people to great practical persecution, in order to force them to emigrate; and, finally, is calculated to swallow up and divert that feeling which America, as a Christian and a free country, cannot but entertain, that slavery is alike incompatible with the law of God and with the well being of man, whether the enslaved or the enslaver.

On these grounds, therefore, and while we acknowledge the colony of Liberia, or any other colony on the coast of Africa, to be in itself a good thing, we must be understood utterly to repudiate the principles of the American Colonization Society. That society is, in our estimation, not deserving the countenance of the British public.

Wm. Wilberforce,	Suffield,
Wm. Smith,	S. Lushington, M. P.,
Zachary Macaulay,	Thos. Fowell Buxton,
Wm. Evans, M. P.,	James Cropper,
Samuel Gurney,	William Allen,
George Stephen,	Daniel O’Connell, M. P.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS CLARKSON.

This lamented British philanthropist, in a letter addressed to William Lloyd Garrison in 1840, explaining in what manner he became deceived in regard to the real character and designs of the American Colonization Society, says,—

“You will see in this narrative my reasons for patronizing at first the American Colonization Society, and my reasons, also, for having afterwards deserted it. I left it, first, because it was entirely impracticable. This is a sufficient reason of itself; for no man in his senses would pursue a plan which he thought could never be accomplished. I left it, secondly, because I thought that newly-emancipated slaves were not qualified to become colonists in Africa to any good purpose. How could persons be sent with any propriety to civilize others who wanted civilizing themselves? Besides, the advocates for the Colonization Society in America had no right to send the scum of their population to Africa, to breed a moral pestilence there. * * * If the society did not take these people, then the prospectus offered to the public had no meaning in it, and slavery could never, according to its promises, be extinguished in the United States.”

Referring to the speeches made by the friends of the Colonization Society in different states of the Union, he adds,—

“It appeared from these speeches that the most violent supporters of this society were planters themselves, and that the speakers did not hesitate to hold out the monstrous and hateful proposition, that the negroes were not men and women, but that they belonged to the brute creation. It was impossible to read these speeches, which were so many public documents, and not perceive that the persons then assembled were no friends, but bitter enemies, to the whole African race, and that nothing in the way of good intentions towards the negro could be expected from them. It is unnecessary for me to attempt to describe what my feelings were upon this occasion. I will only say that I saw the scheme—shall I say the diabolical scheme?—with new eyes, and that the new light thus thrown upon it, added to the two arguments before mentioned, determined me to wash my hands clean forever of the undertaking. * * *

I have now given you my reasons for having once patronized the Colonization Society and then deserted it, and hope you will consider them satisfactory.

I am, dear sir, with great esteem,
Very truly and cordially yours,

THOMAS CLARKSON.”

American slavery, say many of its advocates, is a great missionary institution, ordained by Providence for the civilization and instruction of the heathen.

Now, this experiment has been tried already in the Southern States of this country for some two centuries; and if we judge foreign missions by their fruits, we must certainly admit the same test as valid here. Two questions then suggest themselves, which cover the whole ground.

1. What is the result of the enterprise thus far, as seen in the moral condition of the “reclaimed heathen” now in slavery at the south?

In answer, we introduce the following testimony, confining ourselves to the words of southern men:—

Committee of Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, in 1833. “Who would credit it, that in these years of benevolent and successful missionary effort, in this Christian republic, there are over two millions of human beings in the condition of heathen, and in some respects in a worse condition? From long-continued and close observation, we believe that their moral and religious condition is such that they may justly be regarded as the heathen of this Christian country.”

Kentucky Union’s Circular to the Ministers of the Gospel in Kentucky, 1834. “After making all reasonable allowances, our colored population can be considered, at the best, but semi-heathen.”

Rev. C. C. Jones’s Sermon, published at Savannah, 1831. “A nation of heathen in our very midst.”

Rev. C. C. Jones’s Catechism, preface, p. 4. “Their depravity, their spiritual ignorance and destitution, are amazingly and awfully great.”

Hon. C. C. Pinckney, Address before S. C. Agricultural Society, [2] Charleston, 1829, 2d edition, pp. 10, 12. “There needs no stronger illustration of the doctrine of depravity than the state of human nature on plantations in general.” * * * “Their advance in years is but a progression to the higher grades of iniquity.”

Rev. Dr. Dalcho, “Practical Considerations,” &c., Charleston, 1823, p. 6. “Ignorant and indolent by nature, improvident and depraved by habit, and destitute of moral principle, as they generally appear to be.”

C. W. Gooch, Esq., Prize Essay on Agriculture in Virginia. “There seems to be almost an entire absence of moral principle among the mass of our colored population.”

The Maryville (Tennessee) Intelligencer of October 4, 1835, says of the slaves of the south-west, that their “condition through time will be second only to that of the wretched creatures in hell.”

But the chief authority on this subject is the work of the Rev. C. C. Jones, of Savannah, Ga., printed in that city in 1842, on the Religious Instruction of Slaves—a book of unimpeachable authority and great thoroughness, written by a firm defender of slavery, and yet forming an anti-slavery document to which Uncle Tom’s Cabin is feeble; for this is fact, instead of fiction founded on fact. Nor have we ever read, in the reports of any missionary society, a description of more hopeless human degradation.

“When the charge of the intellectual and moral degradation of the negroes is preferred against us,” says the author candidly, p. 107, “we are inclined to put the best face on affairs, knowing that this is the darkest feature and the most vulnerable point.”

“We have indeed assisted in sending missionaries to the heathen thousands of miles from us, * * * in founding theological seminaries, * * * in having the gospel preached in our prisons; * * * we have been printing Bibles and tracts; * * * but what have we done publicly, systematically, and perseveringly for the negroes, in order that they may also enjoy the gospel of Christ? Why are they, as a class, overlooked by us in our benevolent regards and efforts.”—P. 167.

“That the negroes are in a degraded state is a fact, so far as my knowledge extends, universally conceded.”—P. 145.

“Such a general corruption of morals as would blast the reputation of any white community is known to exist among them; and [3] yet how unaffected are we by it? Indeed, the habit of our mind is to consider them as in a state of moral degradation. * * * Whatever is idle, dissolute, criminal, and worthless attaches to them.”—P. 104.

Mr. Jones explains the origin of this. First, there is almost no religious instruction among the families of slaves.

“But how much religious instruction do the young negroes receive from their masters, who sustain the relation of parents to them?” * * * “How many ministers assemble the colored children of their congregations for instruction?” * * * “The negro children cannot be ‘hearers of the law,’ for oral instruction is but sparingly afforded to the mass of them; and on the other hand, they cannot ‘search the Scriptures,’ for a knowledge of letters they have not, and legally cannot obtain.” “The remarks on the religious instruction of children apply with equal force to adults.”—Pp. 114, 7.

True, many belong to the church; but see what follows:—

“I have heard the remark made, by men whose standing and office in the churches afforded them abundant opportunity for observation, that the more they have had to do with colored members, the less confidence they have been compelled to place in their Christian professions.”

He then explains the prevailing vices:—

“Violations of the marriage contract.—The divine institution of marriage depends for its perpetuity, sacredness, and value largely upon the protection given it by the law of the land. Negro marriages are neither recognized nor protected by law. The negroes receive no instruction on the nature, sacredness, or perpetuity of the institution; at any rate, they are far from being duly impressed with these things.”—Pp. 131-132.

“Uncleanness.—This sin may be considered as universal.” “They are proverbially thieves.” “Their veracity is nominal.” “Whenever opportunity is given, they will practise imposition.” “Immense quantities of ardent spirits are sold in the Southern States [4] to the negroes by retailing shops established for the express purpose of negro trading, wherever such trade may be found.”—Pp. 134-138.

“We are surprised,” says Mr. Jones, “to find Christianity in absolute conjunction with a people, and yet conferring so few benefits.” * * * “To say that they fare as well as their masters does not settle the question; for great numbers of their masters have very few or no religious privileges at all.”—P. 177.

Finally, he concludes, “Ignorance, religious ignorance, so far from being any safety, is the very marrow of our sin against this people, and the very rock of our danger.”—P. 212.

Thus testifies Rev. C. C. Jones, a man evidently sincere and earnest, and who has apparently made more exertion for the religious instruction of the African race in the Southern States than any other for half a century. And what are we to think of a missionary institution whose results are thus stated, after two centuries of experiment, by the very leader and chief laborer among the missionaries?

We have no space for an investigation into the condition of Africa. We commonly forget that the coast of Africa, as we see it, has been desolated for ages by the slave trade, and that the condition of the natives is of course degraded. The bright side of this question is exhibited in an article in Putnam’s Magazine for October, 1854. But never have we seen a picture of the state of morals in the wildest African tribe which filled us with such indignation and such pity as the picture of “Religious Instruction among the Negroes” by the southern slaveholding divine. This degradation is worse than the other, by as much as a nominally Christian barbarism is necessarily worse than mere heathen barbarism.

But there is another and more formidable question, suggested by some terrible hints of this same witness, in the latter portion of his statement.

2. What is the effect of this missionary institution upon the missionaries themselves?

Rev. C. C. Jones. “I do not hesitate to say that the influence of the negroes on the general intelligence and morality of the whites is not good. There are those who deny this. I differ with them, and am happy in believing that the majority of our fellow-citizens are with me. We are so accustomed to sin in the negroes that our [5] sensibilities are blunted. * * * Planters will generally confess that the management of negroes is not only attended with trouble and vexation from time to time, but with provocations to sin. Masters and mistresses have their trials. And the kind of influence which the negroes exert over our children and youth, when permitted to associate with them, is well known to all careful and observing parents.”—P. 216.

So said Jefferson: “The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals uncontaminated” [in the midst of slavery.]

Judge Tucker, of Virginia, said, in 1801, “I say nothing of the baneful effects of slavery on our moral character, because you know I have long been sensible of this point.”

Judge Nichols, of Kentucky, in a speech in 1837, said, “The deliberate convictions of my most matured consideration are, that the institution of slavery is a most serious injury to the habits, manners, and morals of our white population; that it leads to sloth, indolence, dissipation, and vice.”

Judge Summers, of Virginia, said, in a speech in 1832, in almost the same words, “A slave population produces the most pernicious effects upon the manners, habits, and character of those among whom it exists.”

The Presbyterian synod of South Carolina and Georgia said, in their Report of 1834, “Those only who have the management of these servants know what the hardening effect of it is upon their own feelings towards them.”

And that fearful revelation by John Randolph on the floor of Congress: “Where are the trophies of this infernal traffic? The handcuff, the manacle, the bloodstained cowhide! What man is worse received in society for being a hard master? Who denies the hand of sister or daughter to such monsters?”

But enough—enough of the dark results of this “missionary institution” upon all whom it concerns. We have only spoken of it in the words of southern men; we will not trust ourselves to use any others. We will only tell a story, and come to an end.

It is said that a century has passed since one of the finest islands of the Indian Ocean was visited by three young Englishmen, who, moved by the loveliness of Nature there and the degradation of man, pledged themselves with youthful ardor to make it their home henceforward, and uplift its friendly inhabitants from their ignorance [6] and their sin. They began their work well; but soon, alas! the enervating influence of that tropical air began to soothe soul and senses; the most warlike chiefs offered them their power, the wealthiest their luxury, and the fairest maidens their virtue. Need we tell the issue? Half a century afterwards the island was again visited by English cruisers. The children of these young adventurers were now the princes of the island; and none of their subjects were so hopelessly depraved as they.

May God enlighten the minds of those who would urge the renewal of the same suicidal experiment beneath the same soft southern atmosphere, but upon a different shore.

APPENDIX.

Some years ago, the Rev. Bishop Meade, an Episcopal clergyman of Virginia, published a book of sermons and tracts for masters and slaves. It was printed at Winchester, Va., by John Hieskell.

In the preface to the work, the bishop remarks:—

“The editor of this volume offers it to all masters and mistresses in our Southern States, with the anxious wish and devout prayer that it may prove a blessing to themselves and their households.”

In this book are two sermons from this text, to be read by masters to their slaves: “Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.”

As these sermons are so perfect a delineation of slaveholding godliness, some extracts will not here be out of place. They are addressed to a congregation of slaves.

After showing the slaves that they are all in the condition where God would have them, and that they were made for the use and service of their masters, he proceeds:—

“When people die, we know of but two places they have to go to; and one is heaven, the other hell. Now, heaven is a place of great happiness, which God has prepared for all that are good, where they shall enjoy rest from their labors. And hell is a place of great torment and misery, where all wicked people will be shut up with the devil and other evil spirits, and be punished forever, because they will not serve God. If, therefore, we would have our souls saved by Christ, if we would escape hell, and obtain heaven, we must set about doing what he requires of us; that is, to serve God. Your own poor circumstances in this life ought to put you particularly upon this and taking care of your souls. * * * Almighty God hath been pleased to make you slaves here, and to give you nothing but labor and poverty in this world, which you are obliged to submit to, as it is [7] his will that it should be so. And think within yourselves what a terrible thing it would be, after all your labors and sufferings in this life, to be turned into hell in the next life, and, after wearing out your bodies in service here, to go into a far worse slavery when this is over, and your poor souls be delivered over into the possession of the devil, to become his slaves forever in hell, without any hope of ever getting free from it! If, therefore, you would be God’s freemen in heaven, you must strive to be good and serve him here on earth. Your bodies, you know, are not your own; they are at the disposal of those you belong to; but your precious souls are still your own, which nothing can take from you, if it be not your own fault. Consider well, then, that, if you lose your souls by leading idle, wicked lives here, you have got nothing by it in this world, and you have lost your all in the next. For your idleness and wickedness are generally found out, and your bodies suffer for it here; and what is far worse, if you do not repent and amend, your unhappy souls will suffer for it hereafter.

Having thus shown you the chief duties you owe to your great Master in heaven, I now come to lay before you the duties you owe to your masters and mistresses here upon earth. And for this you have one general rule, that you ought always to carry in your minds; and that is, to do all service for them as if you did it for God himself. Poor creatures! you little consider when you are idle and neglectful of your masters’ business, when you steal, and waste, and hurt any of their substance, when you are saucy and impudent, when you are telling them lies and deceiving them, or when you prove stubborn and sullen, and will not do the work you are set about without stripes and vexation,—you do not consider, I say, that what faults you are guilty of towards your masters and mistresses are faults done against God himself, who hath set your masters and mistresses over you in his own stead, and expects that you will do for them just as you would do for him. And pray do not think that I want to deceive you when I tell you that your masters and mistresses are God’s overseers, and that, if you are faulty towards them, God himself will punish you severely for it in the next world, unless you repent of it, and strive to make amends by your faithfulness and diligence for the time to come; for God himself hath declared the same.

And in the first place, you are to be obedient and subject to your masters in all things. * * * And Christian ministers are commanded to ‘exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things, not answering them again, or gainsaying.’ * * * You are to be faithful and honest to your masters and mistresses, not purloining or wasting their goods or substance, but showing all good fidelity in all things. * * * Do not your masters, under God, provide for you? And how shall they be able to do this, to feed and to clothe you, unless you take honest care of every thing that belongs to them? Remember that God requires this of you; and if you are not afraid of suffering for it here, you cannot escape the vengeance of Almighty God, who will judge between you and your masters, and make you pay severely, in the next world, for all the injustice you do them here. And though you could manage so cunningly as to escape the eyes and hands of man, yet think what a dreadful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God, who is able to cast both soul and body into hell!” * * *

And again, on page 116:—

“‘All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them;’ that is, do by all mankind just as you would desire they should do by you, if you were in their place, and they in yours.

[8]

Now, to suit this rule to your particular circumstances. Suppose you were masters and mistresses, and had servants under you, would you not desire that your servants should do their business faithfully and honestly as well when your back was turned as while you were looking over them? Would you not expect that they should take notice of what you said to them, that they should behave themselves with respect towards you and yours, and be as careful of every thing belonging to you as you would be yourselves? You are servants: do, therefore, as you would wish to be done by, and you will be both good servants to your masters, and good servants to God, who requires this of you, and will reward you well for it, if you do it for the sake of conscience, in obedience to his commands. * * * Take care that you do not fret, or murmur, or grumble at your condition; for this will not only make your life uneasy, but will greatly offend Almighty God. Consider that it is not yourselves, it is not the people you belong to, it is not the men that have brought you to it, but it is the will of God, who hath by his providence made you servants, because, no doubt, he knew that condition would be best for you in this world, and help you the better towards heaven, if you would but do your duty in it. So that any discontent at your not being free, or rich, or great, as you see some others, is quarrelling with your heavenly Master, and finding fault with God himself. * * * There is only one circumstance which may appear grievous that I shall now take notice of; and that is correction.

Now, when correction is given you, you either deserve it, or you do not deserve it. But whether you really deserve it or not, it is your duty, and Almighty God requires, that you bear it patiently. You may, perhaps, think that this is hard doctrine; but if you consider it rightly, you must needs think otherwise of it. Suppose, then, that you deserve correction; you cannot but say that it is just and right you should meet with it. Suppose you do not, or at least you do not deserve so much or so severe a correction for the fault you have committed; you perhaps have escaped a great many more, and are at least paid for all. Or suppose you are quite innocent of what is laid to your charge, and suffer wrongfully in that particular thing; is it not possible you may have done some other bad thing which was never discovered, and that Almighty God, who saw you doing it, would not let you escape without punishment one time or another? And ought you not in such a case to give glory to him, and be thankful that he would rather punish you in this life for your wickedness than destroy your souls for it in the next life? But suppose that even this was not the case, (a case hardly to be imagined,) and that you have by no means, known or unknown, deserved the correction you suffered; there is this great comfort in it, that if you bear it patiently, and leave your cause in the hands of God, he will reward you for it in heaven, and the punishment you suffer unjustly here shall turn to your exceeding great glory hereafter.”

Published for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

It is only about seventy years since Clarkson, Wilberforce, and their philanthropic associates began to move the British legislature for the abolition of the African slave trade. Every obstacle which the basest cupidity could contrive was placed in their way. The West India interest worked upon the commercial interest, and both together upon the manufacturing interest, and all three upon the landed interest, and the united four upon the ministry and Parliament. Liverpool and Bristol, with millions invested in the nefarious business, raised as holy a howl as New York did four years ago when the Union was in danger. In his place in the House of Lords, a prince of the blood presumed to stigmatize Wilberforce and his friends as “either fanatics or hypocrites.” He lived to set his name as king to the immortal act which abolished slavery from the British dominions. His throne might have been overset by this time if he had stuck to the doctrines of his misguided youth.

In monarchical England there was a power too strong for princes or ministers, planters or spinners, merchants or landed gentlemen, or all of them together. It was a plain common sense, informed by a moral and religious sense, in the minds and hearts of the British people. By dint of industrious writing and talking through some five and twenty years, that sentiment got its peremptory voice heard in Parliament; and then omnipotent Parliament made known to Liverpool and Bristol merchant that, if he did not want to go to Botany Bay for fourteen years, he must let alone dealing in dark-colored men—an alternative of which it changed the terms a little, a few years afterwards, by substituting hanging for transportation. And so a hitherto creditable business fell into great disesteem, in which condition it has remained in England to this day. Not a decent man is known to have been hung under that law. The decent men took note of it, and mended their manners in time.

Plenty of fortunes have been made in America in the same way; [2] and seventy years ago the men who made them held up their heads as high as their neighbors on exchanges and in drawing rooms. The carriages which had been set up by owners and masters of slave ships might be seen quite lately. Horrible traditions, of no ancient date, are still current at Bristol and Newport. But the thing has had its day. Since 1820, if a man be caught at this business, he must end his days on the gallows in America as surely as in England. And so wholesome is the provision, that a person suspected of dealing in Guinea slaves is now taboo among people who are choice as to their company; and such is the further effect of this social frown, that whoever means to make money, and at the same time keep on fair terms with the circles, finds it indispensable to pursue the former object by some other use of his talents than that of trading in his Maker’s image in ebony.

So far, so good. But what remains to be wondered at and grieved ever is, that the law should make such a parade of its own inconsistency. According to the law, it is not the act that makes the crime, but the place where the act is committed. If an American deals in slaves on the Guinea Coast, and we can lay hands on him, we hang him, not only without scruple, but with uncommon satisfaction. But nobody has a right to touch a hair of his head for carrying on the same business in Virginia. The slaves may be his own children, and still the business is perfectly legal, and, according to the local opinion, not disreputable. Judge Washington, at his slave barrack overlooking the Potomac, may do just what Mongo John does at his barracoon on the Rio Pongo, and yet continue to be a much-considered judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to have as good estimation with his neighbors as Mongo John with his. If Judge Washington had conducted himself in this manner on the Rio Pongo, and Mongo John at Mount Vernon, the law would have noosed Judge Washington, while John’s fellow-citizens might have seated him in Congress or on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Importation from abroad being a hanging business, the domestic trade thrives in the absence of competition. Guinea proper being driven out of the market, the northern slave States, and especially Virginia, become the American Slave Coast. Virginia breeds men for exportation as Vermont breeds horses. The thing is no secret, and the breeders, on their own ground, take no shame to themselves, though our late minister, Mr. Stevenson, was annoyed by the charge in England, and denied it. “The six thousand slaves which Virginia annually sends off to the south are a source of wealth to Virginia.” [3] So wrote, in 1832, Professor Dew, of the College of William and Mary, in that State. “Virginia,” he continued, “is in fact a negro-raising State for other States.” “Negroes,” said the Virginia Enquirer eight years ago, “have become the only reliable staple of the tobacco-growing sections of Virginia—the only reliable means of liquidating debts, foreign and domestic.”

The African slave trade was made a felony in England and the United States because humanity in those nations cried out against it as an intolerable abomination. How much less detestable an abomination is the Virginian slave trade?

In some respects it is less horrible; in others it is more so.

The sufferings of slaves in the “middle passage,” or sea voyage, are probably not quite paralleled in their transfer from one slave State to another. The poor creatures, in the latter case, are not so crowded together, nor put to such distress for want of food, water, and air as when stowed in bulk between the decks of a Captain Canot’s little slave schooner; though any one who has seen a coffle of them on their journey, the men in pairs, handcuffed and chained to the opposite sides of an iron bar, and the women and children, tied to each other, driven behind them by armed brutes on horseback, will be apt to think that it is only by comparison with something still more wretched if their misery is not to be called extreme. Here is a picture drawn by a gentleman, since Secretary of the Navy, who, when he came to covet office, was fain to eat his words.

“The sun was shining out very hot, and in turning an angle of the road, we encountered the following group: first a little cart drawn by one horse, in which five or six naked black children were tumbled like pigs together. The cart had no covering, and they seemed to have been actually broiled to sleep. Behind the cart marched three black women, with head, neck, and breasts uncovered, and without shoes or stockings. Next came three men bare-headed, half naked, and chained together with an ox chain. Last of all came a white man on horseback, carrying pistols in his belt, and who, as we passed him, had the impudence to look us in the face without blushing. I should like to see him hunted by bloodhounds.”

The original of this sketch, on a much larger scale, is a familiar sight, in the proper season, in the transit states.

Nor as to mere loss of life is the excess of the African slave trade, as compared with the American, so large as is commonly supposed. The rice, cotton, and sugar regions are notoriously unhealthy. [4] Persons not natives do not pass their summers in those regions if they can help it, lest their first summer should be their last. To an immigrant, spending his first summer under the scorching sun in a rice ditch or a cane field, a black skin is insufficient protection. Accordingly, acclimation is one of the most familiar elements of a bargain in the article. The advertisements of prime negroes in the more southerly slave States constantly describe them as acclimated. Why? Of course with a view to a better price. And why a better price? Of course because slaves not acclimated are more likely to die on the buyer’s hands. In what proportion more likely to die? A writer in the New Orleans Argus, on the cultivation of sugar, says, “The loss by death in bringing slaves from a northern climate, which our planters are under the necessity of doing, is not less than twenty-five per cent.” It is likely he is not far from right. He wrote on the spot; there was no occasion for overstatement; and such results of experience, affecting the prices current of a great article of merchandise, are just as accurately noted and determined as the facts that fix our rates of marine and life insurance are noted and ciphered out by us. But if twenty-five per cent. is the actual ratio of loss of life in the internal slave trade, it is very little, if at all, less than that of the African slave trade used to be, the horrors of “the middle passage” included. Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton computed that proportion to be nearly one third. Newton placed it at one quarter.

But supposing a less amount of mortality and of physical suffering, in the process of sending to market the home-made commodity of white Colonel Horseracer, of Albemarle, than takes place among the prisoners shipped by black Prince Bumbo in the Bight of Benin, other circumstances tend to throw the balance of agony on the other side. Compared with the Guinea negro, his brother in Virginia is a civilized and cultivated person. He has much more of local attachment, of love for wife, children, and friends, to make him wretched when he is torn away from them, or they from him, never to see or hear from one another more. Comparatively he has sensibility, reflection, and forethought; he can look backward and forward, and each view brings aggravations to his woe. Between the two sufferers there is all the difference as to mental distress that there is difference in the respective capacities of suffering between a human being scarcely raised above brute life and another of some culture of the mind and affections. Accordingly a person who will be at the pains may collect any number of perfectly well-authenticated [5] instances of suicides committed under these circumstances, with occasional killing of children by their parents to save them from the dreaded doom. The same Secretary of the Navy before quoted from had some account from one of the dealers of a bad speculation of this kind in a young mulatto girl.

“I swore most bitterly I was only to take her to her mother’s at ——, and she went with me, though she seemed to doubt me. But when she discovered that we were out of the State, I thought she would go mad; and in fact the next night she drowned herself in the river close by. I lost a good five hundred dollars.” [4]

The weak attempt to qualify the indignation of humanity and Christianity at such proceedings by a denial that separations of families are an incident of slave sales is too preposterous upon its face to require any refutation. How likely is it that of people who can make up their minds to buy and sell wives and husbands, parents and children, brothers, sisters, and so on, any considerable number will be so scrupulous as to lose a good bargain rather than hurt the feelings of the article bought and the article rejected? But if any one is doubtful on this point, let him step into the nearest reading room and look at the first column that comes in his way of the advertisements daily issued in the southern newspapers. Or, if more convenient, he may find ample specimens of them in various books which are easily accessible; for instance, in that unanswered and unanswerable treatise, Mrs. Beecher Stowe’s “Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Messrs. Mayhew, Bliss, & Co., of New Orleans, advertise negroes “to be sold separately or together as desired.” Mr. Benjamin Davis, of Hamburg, South Carolina, will sell “small [6] girls, suitable for nurses, and several small boys, without their mothers.” Mr. Benjamin Little, of Memphis, Tennessee, has for sale “likely young negroes.” Mr. T. B. McClendon, “having located in Lynchburg, (Virginia,) is giving the highest cash prices for negroes between the ages of ten and thirty years.” Mr. Seth Woodroof “continues in market for negroes of both sexes, between the ages of ten and thirty years.” Mr. A. A. McLean, General Agent, Cherry Street, Nashville, “wants to purchase immediately twenty-five likely negroes, male and female, between the ages of fifteen and twenty years.” Mr. S. N. Brown, of Montgomery, Alabama, “has now on hand, of his own selection and purchasing, a lot of likely young negroes, consisting of men, boys, and women, field hands, and superior house servants,” &c. Messrs. Sanders & Foster, of the same place, “intend to keep constantly on hand a large assortment of negroes, comprising every description.” And so on, to any extent to which the inquirer may incline to go. How are these “selections” and “assortments” made? Nature does not make them. She puts young and old, coachmen and housemaids, children and their mothers, together in one group, and binds them so with strong ties, and when they are assorted into different lots, it is not without much laceration of heartstrings, nor without great violence to nature, and impious defiance of nature’s God. The friends so separated—separated by force, or what may be even more cruel, treacherously, and without the chance of a word of farewell—are parted never to see each other more on earth—the one never to hear of the others more unless by some rare accident, never to know where they live or when they die. The Presbyterian synod of the slave State of Kentucky, in an address to the churches under its care, before synods and other such bodies got silenced, thus condensed its observations on this subject:—

“Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives, are torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. These acts are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and the agony often witnessed on such occasions proclaim, with a trumpet tongue, the iniquity of our system. There is not a neighborhood where these heart-rending scenes are not displayed; there is not a village or road that does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts, whose mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by force from all that their hearts hold dear.”

It would be very interesting to know by what figure we are to multiply the bitter distress of each single doom of this kind, in [7] order to get at the sum total of woe; in other words, to know what number of persons are subjects of the inter-state slave trade. It has been estimated as high as an average of forty thousand annually; and there appears no room to doubt that in some years, as in 1835 and 1836, this estimate was below the reality. An easy computation from the census tables (which, unfortunately, in such matters can by no means be relied upon as telling the whole truth) indicates the number to be, on an average, something over twenty thousand a year. The decennial ratio of increase in slaves in the United States for fifty years preceding 1840 (and of course preceding the admission of Texas) was as follows, viz.: between 1790 and 1800, 27.9; between 1800 and 1810, 33.4; between 1810 and 1820, 29.1; between 1820 and 1830, 30.61; between 1830 and 1840, 23.8. (See “Report of the Superintendent of the Census for December 1, 1852,” p. 153.) The average of these decennial ratios is 28.96. Apply it to the slave-exporting States; viz., Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, the two Carolinas, Kentucky, and Tennessee, with the District of Columbia, (for we will leave out of the account the large number of transfers which undoubtedly takes place between states classed respectively as exporting and importing, as from Virginia to South Carolina, and from Missouri to Mississippi.) In 1840 the States and Territory just named held 1,484,195 slaves. Increasing in the ratio of 28.96 per cent. in ten years, they should have had, in 1850, 1,914,017. In fact, according to the census, they had only 1,703,936, leaving a difference of 210,081, or something more than 21,000 a year, to be accounted for by emigration. On the other hand, the number of slaves in the slave-importing States—viz., Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri—in 1840 was 1,002,031. Increasing in the ratio of 28.96 per cent. in ten years, their number in 1850 should have been 1,292,219; the census of that year, however, ascertained it to be 1,429,544. In other words, they had received 137,325, or 13,732 each year, by importation. But the exporting States had sent out 21,008 each year. What became of the residue of 72,756—the annual residue of 7,275—more than one third of the number sold out of the northern slave States? Some of them went to Texas; by no means the larger part, however; for Texas, with all its various sources of supply, importations before the annexation, importations from the neighboring and from more northerly States, and from natural increase, had only 53,346 slaves in 1850. To say that Texas received one third of the residue in question would be to allow an excessive proportion. [8] Account in this way for an annual average of 2,276 in the ten years from 1840 to 1850, (during only one third of which time Texas was in our possession,) it follows that an annual average of 5,000, or close upon one quarter of the whole number annually exported from the slave-raising States, are lost sight of after the time of exportation. In other words, they perish in the miseries of the land “middle passage,” and the “acclimation.”

Such, very imperfectly sketched, and with a total omission of some material views, are the nature and extent of the inter-state slave trade. Whatever may be other political relations of slavery, the remedy for the unutterable wickedness of this traffic is in the hands of that Congress of the United States to which the free States send a majority of members. “Congress,” says the Federal Constitution, (Art. 1, sec. 8,) “shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States.” Under the authority given in the former clause, Congress made the African slave trade a felony; the latter clause gives Congress the same power to deal in the same way with the American slave trade. It has actually legislated under the authority of this latter clause. The act of March 2, 1807, prohibits the transportation of slaves from one State to another in vessels of less than forty tons burden. An extension of the provisions of this act to vessels of any tonnage whatever would put a stop to this business as part of the coasting trade. The constitution further provides (Art. 1, sec. 9) that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.” To provide that importation should not be prohibited before 1808 was to provide by implication that it might be prohibited after that year; and accordingly the federal legislature has in fact prohibited it since 1808 by law. The constitutional provision respecting migration is precisely the same. Ever since 1808 the legislature has had the constitutional power to prohibit the migration of slaves—a power which would long ago have been put into beneficent exercise if the spirit of the fathers had not long ago died out.

Published for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

REVOLUTION THE ONLY REMEDY FOR SLAVERY.

In the treatment of diseases of the human system, an accurate knowledge of their nature and cause is essential to success. An eruption upon the skin indicates a derangement of the internal machinery; and he is the truly skilful physician who discovers the cause of this derangement, and applies himself wisely to its removal, thereby restoring to the vital economy its original harmonious action. Precisely so is it in administering to the moral maladies of our race. A clear and distinct knowledge of their nature and cause is absolutely essential to the discovery and skilful application of appropriate remedies. The absence of such knowledge is one of the principal reasons why, with an unequalled number of spiritual physicians, our country, at the present time, is reeking with corruption, and presents an aspect which, in some respects, might well shame the darkest portions of the heathen world. Slavery, that crime of crimes, with all its untold horrors and abominations, not only exists among us, but is extending itself with a rapidity hitherto unknown in the annals of history. It stands out before the world, to-day, a dark plague-spot upon our national escutcheon. It is an eruption upon the surface of our social system—a foul ulcer, already gangrened, and threatening the very life of the nation. Confined, it is true, in its external developments, to a distinct portion of the body politic, but in its cause and consequences coextensive with the remotest current of life blood which circulates through our common heart.

Unfortunately, however, such is not the popular belief. Slavery is regarded by the masses at the north not only as an evil of trifling magnitude, but as altogether a southern affair; and hence they decline all efforts for its abolition. As well might the head refuse to [2] prescribe remedies for diseases of the foot; or the hand refuse to apply the assuaging ointment to an angry wound, because it had chanced upon the knee, and not upon the thumb. The south is but a part of ourself,—bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh,—and we share with her the sin, the shame, and the misfortunes of slavery. We are a united people, with one and the same destiny; and in nothing are we more thoroughly united than in support of this odious institution.

It is a sad mistake to suppose that the south alone is involved in the unparalleled crime of enslaving three and a half millions of the people of this republic. In this terrible holocaust she has officiated at the altar, it is true; but the north has furnished the knife and the wood, without which not a single victim would now be gasping in the agonies of a living death. To illustrate this important truth, and place the matter beyond the possibility of doubt, or even of cavil,—to point out some of the most important channels through which the wealth, the physical force, and the religious influence of the north are employed to sustain this great national iniquity, and to suggest the appropriate remedy,—will be the object of the following pages.

To understand the actual relations of the different sections of our country to the institution of slavery, it is necessary, in the first place, to bring to mind certain important facts of common notoriety, and consider them in their relative position and general bearing upon this subject.

The slaves, it is well known, constitute about one seventh part of our entire population. In several of the States they are the majority. Taken together they are more numerous than the entire population of the country at the time of the declaration of our national independence. If, in their knowledge of their rights, and their means of defending them, they are more circumscribed than were our revolutionary fathers, the oppression to which they are subjected is infinitely more severe and galling, and hence the motive to resistance proportionally stronger. Said Thomas Jefferson, himself a revolutionist and a slaveholder, “One hour of their bondage is fraught with more misery than whole ages of that which we rose in rebellion to oppose.” Our fathers were stimulated to resistance by the loss of political rights merely. They were subjected to taxation without representation; and when accused of crime, the right to an impartial trial by a jury of their peers was denied them. But a [3] nation in our midst has been robbed of personal liberty, utterly denied an appeal to the laws of the land for protection in any shape whatever, and, so far as rights and personal security are concerned, placed absolutely on a level with the brutes. Our fathers, under the most rigorous administration of the British government, were never doomed, even in anticipation, to the loss of a tithe of their possessions. The slaves are robbed of all. They have earned thousands of millions of dollars—the wealth of a nation; but among them all there cannot be found a solitary individual who is the legally recognized owner of a single cent. Their plunderers have literally spared them nothing. “A slave,” says the statue, “is one who is in the power of the master to whom he belongs. He can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but what must belong to his master.” With the loss of property has gone also the sacred right of marriage, and the parental relation. These heaven-descended institutions exist for them only to mock their agony. A million and a half of slave women, some of them without even the tinge of African blood, are given up a lawful prey to the unbridled lusts of their masters. Even the most refined and virtuous are liable, at any hour, to come under the absolute control of any vile and bloated wretch who has the gold to command their price, and can appeal neither to the government nor to their friends for protection. Their backs are scarred with the lash; their foreheads exposed to the branding iron. Their families are sold upon the auction block. The spelling book is denied them. The Bible is to them a sealed book; the public worship of God a crime.

Such is but a faint picture of the condition of more than three and a half millions of the people of this country, many of whom are the offspring of their masters, and some of them children of our most distinguished statesmen. To hold this vast people in such a condition of wretchedness; to plunder, maim, and imbrute them; and especially to do this in a country where liberty is, theoretically, the acknowledged right of all, requires the constant application of an immense force. In this age of light, of discussion, of world-wide sympathy with the oppressed, it requires the strength of numbers as well as superior intelligence to triumph over those who are, by nature, our equals, and bind them in fetters. Whence then comes the force by means of which this great wrong is perpetrated? In other words, how, and by whom, are the slaves actually held in this [4] condition? What power is that which makes them slaves? which holds possession of their plundered rights? We know their masters, the men who claim them as their property, and who are usually denominated slaveholders. Their position is clear and unmistakable. But is it by them alone that the slaves are held in bondage? or are others concerned with them, as accomplices and abettors? This is a most important inquiry, an intelligent answer to which will shed a world of light upon all the various ramifications of this most intricate subject.

That the slaves are not held by their claimants unaided by any foreign force, is apparent from the vast disparity in their numbers. The slaves, it must be remembered, are more than three and a half millions; their masters less than half a million, or as one to seven. We must, therefore, look elsewhere than to the plantation for the power which makes the plantation what it is—the charnel house of liberty, the grave of unnumbered hopes. The master, beyond all question, has his accomplices somewhere. To find them is the object of our search, that upon them also, as well as upon him, we may roll the mountain weight of this terrible iniquity.

Slavery in this country was, originally, a purely domestic institution. It existed without the sanction of law, solely on the responsibility of the families into which it was introduced, and the neighborhoods which tolerated it. But as it grew in strength, it became necessary for the government to take cognizance of it, and either adopt and regulate it, or put an end to its existence. It was seen to be a beast of prey which must either be caged or exterminated, or, in time, its depredations would become indiscriminate, and the children of all classes would be exposed to its terrible fangs. The governments, in most of the States, decided to adopt it, and assume its regulation and support. Hence the system lost its purely domestic character, and became a political institution. In those States slaves were declared to be lawful property, and the whole power of the government, civil and military, was pledged to the claimants of such property for its protection. By that act of the government the responsibility of slavery, which had hitherto been confined to a comparatively small number of private individuals, was extended to the whole community, or, at least, to that portion of it which constituted the government; and supporting the government became synonymous with slaveholding. It is now no longer the claimants of the [5] slaves who control their destiny. The government has assumed that prerogative. It and not the master, decides their condition. It puts the official brand of slavery upon them, and follows them, wherever they may go, by night and by day, with a doom as certain as their own existence. It makes it a crime in any one to shelter or protect them, or to aid their escape. The masters, in some cases, would gladly set free their slaves; but the government overrules their wishes, and holds them still in bondage. The real slaveholders, therefore, are those who, through the government, actually ordain, uphold, and protect the system—who doom the negro, by law, to the condition of a brute. And hence, as slavery is preëminently a political institution, and slaveholding a political act, we should go to the caucus and to the ballot box, as well as to the plantation, to ascertain a man’s standing on this question. One may possibly be the legally-recognized owner of slaves, and be innocent in the sight of God. But he cannot sustain a slaveholding government, knowing its character, without involving himself in all the guilt and crimes inherent in the system. To sustain such a government is inevitably to aid in holding slaves. Not the slaves only of humane masters, but of the most cruel and brutal also. By that act he makes himself the accomplice of all the Legrees and Haleys in the land who perpetrate their crimes under the sanctions of a government of which he constitutes a part, and to the strength of which he voluntarily consents to add the weight of his own personal influence. For, it must be remembered, these wretches derive all their power over their victims from the government. Let its protection be withdrawn but for a single hour, and they would have returned to their own lips the poisoned chalice which they had mingled for the lips of their hapless slaves. Whoever, therefore, consents to accept a slaveholding government, and proffers to it his support, should be classed with the worst of slave claimants, inasmuch as he is not only their accomplice, but is party to an association without whose authority and protection these miscreants could never perpetrate their crimes. Such is the cost at which, in this republic, a citizen purchases the privilege of membership in the government.

Originally, the responsibility of slavery rested exclusively with the States in which it existed. No State had, necessarily, any connection with it in any other State; and if any of the States chose, they might be entirely free from the contamination. But in the formation [6] of our present political union the relations of the several States to slavery became entirely changed. The support of the institution which had hitherto devolved exclusively upon the States in which it existed, was now assumed by the Federal Government, and the responsibility thereby thrown upon the whole country. In the United States Constitution are four important provisions, each of which, in its operations, makes the north a party to the continuance of the system, and is of such a nature as necessarily to involve all who acknowledge allegiance to the government in the guilt of that odious institution. There is also in the Constitution another provision of the same tenor, but it has become inoperative by its own limitation.

Of these provisions, the one which presents itself first in order for our notice relates to the rendition of escaped slaves. Prior to her adoption of the United States Constitution the soil of Massachusetts was free. The slave no sooner planted his feet upon it than his chains fell off. She knew no difference between the fugitive from Carolina and the fugitive from Hungary. All who sought her protection were alike the objects of her care. It was her proud boast that her soil, barren though it might be, was untainted with the footprints of a slave—that her chill breezes fanned no tyrant brow. But alas, the change! To-day every rood of her soil is hunting ground for kidnappers. Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill are all deeded to the slave power. There is no temple in all her borders so sacred that it may not be profaned by the presence of the impious man-hunter; while her young men, who should have been the pride and glory of the Commonwealth, may be seen armed with murderous steel, assisting him to seize and bind his hapless prey. But recently have we seen two armies, headed respectively by National and State officials,—the strong arm of the Federal Government, backed and supported by the strong arm of the State Executive,—marshalled in deadly array through the streets of New England’s proud capital, over the very spot where Attucks fell, and within sight of Bunker Hill, dragging back to the hell from whence he had escaped one poor, solitary victim who had trustingly sought protection at her hands! Alas! who could have believed this proud old Commonwealth capable of such a crime! And yet this is the legitimate fruit of our “glorious Union.” What better could be expected from the political companionship of a people who live by [7] plunder, and make education a crime? What is here said of Massachusetts is essentially true of all the north. There is not a solitary foot of soil beneath the shadow of the stars and stripes where the slave-hunter may not pursue his prey.

Another provision of the Constitution requires the United States to “protect each of the States against domestic violence.” This provision pledges the entire blood and treasure of the north to fight the battles of slavery, and makes all who acknowledge allegiance to the government virtually the body guard of slave masters. It is to them that the master looks to keep the peace on his plantation, and in more instances than one have they responded to his call, by sending a military force to suppress a slave insurrection. It is this provision of the Constitution, more especially, which guaranties the perpetuity of slavery. In a conflict with her slaves, it is not upon herself that the south relies, but upon the strong, vigorous, athletic arm of the north. Says the Maryville (Tenn.) Intelligencer, “We of the south are, emphatically, surrounded by a dangerous class of beings,—degraded, stupid savages,—who, if they could but once entertain the idea that immediate and unconditional death would not be their portion, would react the St. Domingo tragedy. But the consciousness, with all their stupidity, that a tenfold force, superior in discipline if not in barbarity, would gather from the four corners of the United States and slaughter them, keeps them in subjection. But to the non-slaveholding States particularly are we indebted for a permanent safeguard against insurrection. Without their assistance, the white population of the south would be too weak to quiet that innate desire for liberty which is ever ready to act itself out with every rational creature.” Said the Hon. Thomas D. Arnold, of Tennessee, in the United States House of Representatives, “What had the south to rely on if the Union were dissolved? All the crowned heads were against her. A million of slaves were ready to rise, and strike for freedom at the first tap of the drum!” Said the Hon. Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, (lately of the United States Senate,) on the same occasion, “The dissolution of the Union was the dissolution of slavery. It had been the common practice for southern men to get up on this floor, and say, ‘Touch this subject, and we will dissolve this Union as a remedy.’ Their remedy was the destruction of the thing they wished to save, and any sensible man could see it.”

[8]

Similar admissions have been made by many of the prominent statesmen of the south, among whom is the late Hon. Henry Clay; but our limits will not permit us to introduce them here.

Indeed, testimony on this point is unnecessary; for, as Mr. Underwood has well said, no sensible man, at all familiar with the subject, can fail to see that slavery draws its life blood from the Union. If the protection of the north were withdrawn, the slaves could only be kept in subjection by the constant presence of an immense standing army, and this would be entirely out of the power of the south to maintain.

A third provision of the Constitution requires the United States “to protect each of the States against invasion.”

It will readily be seen, that to protect the slave States against invasion is to cut off the slaves from all hope of foreign aid,—the very aid which secured our own independence,—and thereby to postpone the day of their emancipation. It is defending freebooters in the very act of plunder, and, of course, makes us a party to the crime. In resisting their masters by force, the slaves have a natural right to seek assistance from whatever quarter they may think proper; and we cannot interfere with the free exercise of that right without making ourselves responsible for the continuance of their enslavement. Were they left thus free,—that is, were the protection which the south receives from the Federal Government withdrawn,—there is reason to believe that their appeal to the awakened sympathies of Christendom would not be in vain. The north is to the slave what Russia is to Hungary—the strong right arm of the power which mocks all his hopes.

The fourth provision of the Constitution touching the question of slavery is that which gives to the slave States a representation in Congress based upon slave property.

The effect of this provision is to give the slaveholding interests a preponderance in the Federal Government, and thereby to place the whole military and naval power of the nation, together with the national treasury, entirely at the disposal of the slave power, thus rendering it morally impossible for the north to oppose any effectual resistance to its most arrogant demands. In speaking of this with other provisions of the Constitution, the late Hon. John Quincy Adams holds the following language:—

“Yes, it cannot be denied—the slaveholding lords of the south [9] prescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves—an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from Sinai; and, thirdly, the exaction, fatal to the principles of popular representation, of a representation for slaves—for articles of merchandise under the name of persons. * * * in fact, the oppressor representing the oppressed. * * * To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the understandings of mankind. It is doubly tainted with the infection of riches and slavery. Its reciprocal operation upon the government of the nation is to establish an artificial majority in the slave representation over that of the free people in the American Congress, and thereby to make the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital and animating spirit of the national government.”

By this critical analysis of the subject, we find three distinct classes of slaveholders, each sustaining peculiar external relations to the system. The first class are the claimants of slaves. The second are the members of those State governments which have adopted and now regulate the system. The third are the members of the general government—that government having assumed its protection from all forcible interference from within or from without. It should also be remarked, that the latter class stand in the same relation to the system in the District of Columbia and the Territories as that occupied by the constituents of the State governments, within their respective States. We have further seen that it is to the support given to slavery by the general government that it owes its existence at the present time. Had it been left exclusively to the States in which it existed for protection, it might have passed away many years since. The responsibility and guilt of slaveholding, therefore, rest upon the Federal government to the same extent, and in the same degree, that they do upon the State governments, or the slave claimants. As the virus of slavery is inwrought into the very framework of the government, and the support of it is the legitimate fruit of the existing compact, and must inevitably follow from any political union whatever with slaveholders, this responsibility is not confined to any particular party, or class of parties, but it falls [10] necessarily upon all parties which are now, or may be hereafter, organized under the Constitution; and not only upon such parties, collectively, but upon every individual of society who gives his assent to that blood-stained instrument, or to the government of which it is the basis. It matters not how anti-slavery one may be in his feelings or professions—to promise allegiance and support to a Constitution which is “doubly tainted with the infection of riches and slavery,” is practically to betray the cause of freedom into the hands of its enemies, by whomsoever that promise may be made. No support of slavery is so potent as that given to it by honest men. If the interpretation here given to the Constitution—and it is the only one ever given to it by any legislative, judicial, or executive body in the country—be the true one, the conclusion is inevitable that to support it is, virtually, to become a slaveholder. It is to become an accomplice of the master in all the crimes which flow from the system, and, of course, to share his guilt and infamy. The only admissible plea which can be made in abatement of judgment, in the case of any individual, is the general one of ignorance of the nature of the act. We are, therefore, driven, logically, to the conclusion, that all that anti-slavery which accepts the Constitution, and acknowledges the Union, is utterly worthless, if not tainted and spurious, so far at least as its political character and influence are concerned. At best it is but a promissory note, the indorser of which, though an honest man, has not the means to redeem his promise.

It is this complicity with slavery through the government which has palsied all the efforts of our politicians to resist its encroachments, and confine it within its present limits. Having pledged themselves to support it with their treasure and blood, within the limits of the States where it now exists, they have become tainted with its guilt, and have thereby lost their moral power to oppose its progress into new territory. All their denunciations of slaveholding, and their arguments against it, are rendered powerless by their position. They are nothing more nor less than self-condemnation and self-reproach. “If slavery be a sin,” responds its advocate, “why do you engage to support it? Why allow it any where? If it be not a sin, why object to its introduction wherever the people choose to have it?” And so all their preaching against it serves only to disgust and exasperate while it has no tendency to reform. The Christian proverb, “Cast first the beam out of thine own eye, [11] and thou shalt then see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye,” contains a great philosophic principle, which, if disregarded in our efforts to reform others, is sure to vindicate itself in our utter defeat. They who have sworn upon the altar of slavery are not the men to fight the battles of freedom. The recent unparalleled success of the slave power has in it no hidden mystery. It was repeatedly predicted by the abolitionists as the inevitable result of the composition of the elements of our government. They clearly saw, several years since, that a struggle against slavery carried on under a Constitution which pledged them to its support must inevitably end in utter defeat; and therefore wisely determined to renounce the government, and raise the flag of revolution. They also saw, with equal clearness, that there was no alternative left them but either to withdraw from the government or involve themselves in the guilt of slaveholding; and hence, for the sake of preserving their own personal purity, as well as for the slave’s sake, they decided to exchange an alliance with slave claimants in the government for an alliance with their slaves outside of it, and against it.

In the Federal Union lies the grand secret of the strength of the slave power. Of itself that power is contemptibly weak. If in the countenances of their masters only the slaves discovered the visage of a foe, not another sun would go down upon an unbroken fetter. Backed by the entire body of non-slave-claimants of the south, it could have no strength to stand against the combined forces of the slaves, and their many sympathizers in the north, and in Europe. But in its alliance with the free States, through the Federal government, its strength is immense. It rules with a rod of iron, and none can say to it, “Why do ye so?” It kills, and it makes alive. It casts into the shade the giant intellect of Webster, and places on the highest pinnacle of political eminence and power a man whose boon companions may be found in the bar rooms of the Granite State, and whose fame has scarcely reached the remotest township of the county which gave him birth. It is able not only to command the services of the entire body of our militia when an insurrection is to be suppressed, an invasion to be repelled, or a slave to be recaptured, but it has seduced into its willing service, or awed into submission, nearly every prominent man throughout the entire north. It has by the same means corrupted the heart of the church. [12] It has awed the pulpit [Editor: illegible word] and, in some instances, bribed it into a scriptural defense of slavery. Whatever crime is perpetrated against freedom amongst us, it is done in the name and for the sake of the Union. Is a slave to be recaptured, it must be done to save the Union. Is an abolitionist fined and imprisoned for hiding the outcast, it is done to save the Union. Is the freedom of speech cloven down by the lawless violence of a ruthless mob, or by a shameful perversion of the law by a faithless court, it is done to save the Union. Does a doctor of divinity offer up his mother or his son on the altar of slavery, to serve in the harem or toil in the rice swamps, it is to save the Union. Indeed, no language can describe the depth of degradation to which this guilty connection with slavery has reduced us. It has led us into the perpetration of crimes at the very sight of which all Christendom has turned pale with horror. And where this career of infamy is to end God only knows. Thanks to his name, there is a remnant left, which has not bowed the knee to this political Baal—the seed, it may be, of a revolution which will yet bring light out of darkness, order out of chaos and confusion, and the sweet nectar of liberty from this sea of fathomless corruption.

One of the most obvious, if not disgraceful crimes committed against the cause of freedom by the north, is her fellowship of southern slave breeders and slave mongers as Christians and ministers of Christ. At the south the members of the different religious sects traffic in the bodies and souls of their fellow-members. They sell the living temple of the living God. Baptist sells his brother Baptist on the auction block. The Methodist communes with a woman on one day, and on the next sells her, it may be, for prostitution. The Presbyterian gives the elements of a Savior’s body and blood to a mother on Sunday, and on Monday sells her babe to the slave trader, as we sell the calf to the butcher. And yet when these men visit our northern cities and large towns, they are taken to the bosom of our churches, and oftentimes made welcome to our pulpits, even while the blood of their victims is still dripping fresh from their fingers! Against such indecency every instinct of our nature rises in rebellion. Even the unregenerate heart of the most confirmed worldling mocks at the infamy of the church in this matter. Indeed, so gross and flagrant is her inconsistency even with her own professions, and so little apparent interest has she in maintaining [13] her present fellowship of southern slaveholders, that, to many, her conduct seems a perfect enigma. They can see no sufficient motive to induce her to adhere to a practice which is a source of great grief to many of the most devoted of her members. But the fault of such lies in searching for motives in the wrong direction. The secret of this attachment to an ecclesiastical connection with the south is not to be found in any special love or affection existing between the two sections, not in any conscious honor or strength derived from it by the north, but it is one of the many latent, but fatal results of our “glorious Union.” It is this political network in the toils of which our ministry, as well as our statesmen, find themselves bound hand and foot, and delivered over to the tender mercies of the slave power. Gladly would the northern church, undoubtedly, to-day cut her connection with the south, could it be done without disturbing other, and, to her, more important relations. She feels the infamy of her position, and is smarting under the withering scorn of Christendom, but sees no ready way of escape.

The difficulty lies here: By our political connection with the south, all our influential statesmen and politicians are forced into the interests of slavery. They have no hope of political preferment and eminence but in swearing upon its altars, and vying with each other in their readiness to do its bidding. The government, which is but another name for the slave power, holds in its hands the annual distribution of more than fifty millions of dollars, with all the honors of office, and is therefore a power whose will none but a martyr can afford to disregard. By means of this connection a similar influence is also exerted over our capitalists. All our commercial cities are threatened with the loss of southern trade unless they consent to remain true to the interests of slavery. By this means Boston is made to vie with New York, and New York to vie with Philadelphia, in doing whatever work the slave power may require at their hands. The tariff is also a most effective instrument in the hands of the slave power in controlling northern capitalists. The north desires protection for her manufactures; the slave power will grant that protection only on condition of the most faithful allegiance on her part to its one great interest—its own preservation and aggrandizement. Here, then, we have the two dominant classes of society—the wealth and talent—placed entirely at the disposal of the slave power, and ever listening to catch its word of command [14] To them the Constitution is the higher law, and the will of the slave power is the Constitution. What slavery requires of us is, that there shall be no discussion of the subject here, and that we shall promptly fulfil all our constitutional obligations to protect it, leaving the south to direct the policy of the general government undisturbed by northern interference; and the duty and aim of these men have ever been to see that this requirement was obeyed. This is the work demanded of them by their southern masters, and in consideration of the faithful performance of which they receive political preferment and southern trade, with a tariff pitched upon a sliding scale. In the prosecution of this work the pulpit, from its powerful influence over the popular mind, naturally became a coveted instrument, and through its dependence on the voluntary system for support, became an easy prey to the assaults of so powerful an antagonist.

At a very early period of the anti-slavery enterprise, nearly the entire clergy of the north were either bribed into an open, though indirect support of slavery, or constrained to silence by the threat of expulsion from their pulpits, and starvation for their dependent families. Thus, through our political union with the south, have our clergy been made the slaves of slaves, and our churches kept in a position which is fast making the very name of Christianity a reproach. What is here said of the clergy is essentially true of our periodical press. By means similar to those employed to subjugate the pulpit has the press been muzzled by the slave power, and made to speak only the language of oppression.

Another difficulty which lies across the pathway of the church in cutting her ecclesiastical connection with southern slaveholders, so long as she remains in a political union with them, is the glaring inconsistency of the act. What principle of Christianity or of common sense would warrant her in excluding a man from her fellowship for a heinous crime, in the commission of which she had stood his sworn defender? In concert with others, she has made slavery and the slave trade lawful in our capital. Shall she, then, banish a man from her table whose only offence is, that he has bought and sold slaves?

Again: Should she exclude from her table those who hunt slaves at the south, with what show of consistency could she admit to that table those who, “conquering their prejudices,” do the same thing at the north? Is slave hunting any more unchristian and villanous [15] in Virginia than in Massachusetts or Michigan? As well might the common drunkard refuse to associate with his cronies on account of the quality of the liquor on which they had become intoxicated, or the bad character of the house at which it had been purchased, as the northern church refuse to fellowship those of her own faith, at the south, merely because they held slaves. Such a course, should she attempt it so long as her political relations remain unchanged, would only make her the laughing stock, as she is now the tool, of the slave power.

The only practicable way of cutting any of the cords which bind her to slavery is to sever them all at a single stroke. But so long as she consents to sustain a government which annually consigns to all the horrors of chattel slavery more than a hundred thousand of its own children, turn and shift as she may, the mark of Cain will remain upon her forehead. The only possible salvation from the guilt of slaveholding is in the position long occupied by a single sect,—the old school Covenanters,—and more recently assumed by the abolitionists, of uncompromising hostility to a slaveholding government, and total disfellowship, religiously, of all who persist in upholding it.

We have now laid open before us the secret sources of the strength of the slave power. We see that power, feeble in itself, through the agency of the national government gathering into its hand the strength and resources of twenty millions of freemen, and employing them for its own aggrandizement. By means of this agency it lays its hand upon our pulpit, and it is dumb; upon the press, and it is silent; upon capital, and straightway, for the sake of its per cent., it parts with its birthright; upon our literature, and forthwith it is self-emasculated. It commands our armies. It controls our treasury. It dictates law to our judges. It expounds the gospel to our churches. It has bound the conscience of the nation by an oath to participate in its crimes, and thereby rendered its opposition impossible, or powerless. At its command we trample the law of God under our feet, and refuse to hide the outcast. Thus has it made us at once a nation of atheists and an empire of slaves.

Such is but a faint picture of the nature and strength of the evil with which, as abolitionists, we are called to grapple. Our contest is not with a few hundred thousand slave claimants, in distant States, but with a nation powerful in all the elements of physical [16] strength and intellectual greatness. The enemy is at our own door. The entire government, from the president down to the humblest citizen in the retirement of private life, is, by the requirements of the Constitution, its protector, and is sworn to defend it, if need be, with the heart’s blood. We lift our hand to succor the victim of the merciless man-hunter, and the bayonet, not of the Carolina planter, but of our next door neighbor, is thrust into our bosoms. We hasten the panting fugitive on his flight, and forthwith we find ourselves incarcerated within the walls of a prison built with our own money. We turn to the church for sympathy, and she brands us with the double infamy of fanaticism and infidelity. We, on the other hand, are few in number and limited in resources. And yet our only chance of success lies in being able to bring into the field and oppose to this mighty cordon of strength, behind which slavery has intrenched itself, a superior force. Where, then, lies our hope? Is it in political tactics? in the skilful manœuvring of forces already committed by an oath to the slave power?

To the enlightened vision there is for this evil but one remedy. Our strength all lies in a single force—the conscience of the nation. All else is on the side of the oppressor. But conscience, that force of forces when properly instructed, is all, and always, on our side. It is to this element of strength, then, that our attention should be mainly directed. Our only hope is in being able to bring the conscience of the nation into active conflict with its present position, in respect to slavery, and thereby induce a radical change. What that position is we have already seen. The Constitution requires of the general government the protection of slavery in such of the States as choose to retain it, with no power to regulate or abolish it. Hence the private citizen has no course left to him but either to aid in upholding the system, or renounce his allegiance to the government. His only choice is between slaveholding and revolution. By this subtle device of the slave power the whole country has been leagued in defence of the institution, and the north reduced to a mere subjugated province of the plantation. The heart of the church has been corrupted by it, the conscience of the country fettered, and our statesmen converted into sycophants fawning at the feet of the slave power. Here, then, is the seat of this terrible disease, and here especially must the remedy be applied. Our first great work is to cut this Gordian knot,—the Union,—and [17] set free the northern conscience from the restraints of the constitutional oath. Till this is done, all other efforts will prove of little avail. There is no hope for the slave, nor for the country, but in revolution.

So long as we fulfil our constitutional obligations to slavery, it will live, and extend its domain, in spite of freesoil and free democratic triumphs. To promise to fulfil them, with a different purpose in our hearts, is an act of fraud which will most certainly rob us of our moral power, and make us alike the prey and sport of our enemies. At present, we have little or nothing to do with the slave claimants. They are, of themselves, but a mere cipher. Our controversy is with the government which upholds the system, and makes it possible for the master to plunder his victim, and with a clergy and church who baptize such a government, and thank God for its existence, because, forsooth, it protects them and theirs, though at the same time it inflicts upon millions of their countrymen outrages such as find no parallel under the darkest despotisms of the old world—a government in whose capital stands the auction block for the sale of human flesh, and many of whose senators have acquired princely fortunes by robbing mothers of their babes. This sin of the government and of the church must be brought and laid at the door of every individual member of these corrupt bodies. They must be made to see and feel that they cannot remain in organizations which are employed in the commission of such atrocious crimes without being themselves partakers of the guilt. It is the presence, mainly, of the seemingly good in these corrupt organizations which gives them power to do the wrong. The vilest members of our government, if left alone, would stand aghast at its wickedness. But the presence of better men keeps them in countenance, the better class, meanwhile, excusing themselves with the belief that the villains who use and direct them will alone be held responsible for the results of their united action. Such delusion must be dispelled, and all the guilt, and blood, and fathomless abominations of slavery rolled upon the individual conscience of every man who consents to support a government which legalizes and protects it, or to fellowship a church which recognizes the members of such a government as ministers or followers of Christ. If we would succeed, our separation from slavery must be thorough [18] and complete. “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing,” is the voice of reason, as well as the language of Scripture.

The great anti-slavery lesson of to-day is, that support to institutions which protect or sanction slavery is slaveholding; and that uncompromising hostility to all such institutions is the only genuine anti-slavery. The time has gone by when lower ground than this can be safely occupied by any true friend of liberty. As well might we recognize a man who is in the daily use, in moderate quantities, of intoxicating drinks, as a genuine friend of temperance, as regard him as a true abolitionist who proffers his allegiance and support to a slaveholding government. The honesty of such a man we may not perhaps question; but in his influence, as well as by his position, he stands with the oppressor, and we should regard and treat him as an enemy of the slave. Freedom allows no compromises. The man who makes them is ill begotten, and can never inherit her estates. To consent to yield to the oppressor a single barleycorn is, in fact, to yield principle, and consequently to yield every thing. So we have always found it. So we always shall find it, till the law of God is reversed, and the corrupt tree brings forth good fruit. In every contest with evil, the highest ground is the strongest. Indeed, our only real strength is in planting our feet upon the absolute right, so that God can work with us and through us. He is no compromiser. He has no part or lot with those who abate one “jot or tittle” of his law to accommodate themselves to the institutions of wicked men. The idea of hedging slavery in within certain limits is morally absurd. It can be exterminated, but it can never be controlled. You can never say to it, “Thus far—but no farther.” And that anti-slavery which seeks merely to confine it within its present limits, or within any limits, is utterly spurious and worthless. It is but a milder type of pro-slavery—a hybrid, or, more properly, a kind of varioloid, whose only grace is in comparison with the hateful disease to which it bears so close a resemblance, and for which it serves as a substitute. Talk of confining slavery? As well might you talk of regulating the cholera, or of confining the plague within certain limits, or say to intemperance, “In such and such localities seek your victims, and we will defend you there; but pass not those boundaries.” The vices are not our [19] servants. We have power to exterminate them, if we will, but we can never tolerate them, except to become our masters. A people whose moral standard will permit them to tolerate slavery any where are too weak to resist its most arrogant demands, under the pressure of temptations such as the slave power is always able to present.

If we would see our country free from the curse of slavery, we must begin the work of its abolition by applying to it the golden rule—the eternal law of absolute moral rectitude.

Our first work is with ourselves, to bring our own conduct within the requirements of this law, by assuming such a position towards the slaveholding institutions of the country as we should desire others to occupy were we the slaves; thus practically “remembering those in bonds as bound with them.” Our next duty is to press its claims upon the conscience of our neighbor, and give him no rest till he also yields to its requirements. Anti-slavery, it must be remembered, is a reform as well as a revolution. It can progress only as the people are made better; and we can aid it only as we exert a healthful moral influence on those around us. The slaves can be delivered from their chains only by delivering their enslavers from their guilt. In the same proportion that the one is made morally better is the other made politically and socially free.

By means such as are here proposed must the moral sentiments of the country be renovated. When that shall have been done to any considerable extent, the time will have come to commence the work of reconstructing the government and remodelling the church. But it must be remembered, we cannot build without material; nor is it wise to commence the work till a moderate portion, at least, shall have been previously prepared. Let it be the aim, then, of every true friend of liberty to get ready the public mind; and in due time will appear a master-builder under the superintendence of whose tasteful and discerning eye will be reared an edifice worthy the highest love and admiration of a free and generous people. May God hasten the day when it shall be our happiness to hail for our beloved country a new State and a new Church, “wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

Reader, do you agree, in the main, with the views here presented? Suffer us, then, to exhort you to engage, with all your heart, in the work of their dissemination. Be yourself a preacher of this divine [20] gospel, leaning, in the mean time, upon the arm of Him who is above all, and keeping your heart warm and overflowing with that love which animated the bosom of our great Leader while on earth. Remember the wretchedness and utter desolation of those for whom you toil, and with what eagerness and intense anxiety they watch your every motion. Their destiny is in your hands! Disappoint not their hopes. Remember, too, that you are laboring for a world’s redemption—for such is really the scope of this great enterprise. “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.” Like the divinely illuminated Saul of Tarsus, “Confer not with flesh and blood.” Like our revolutionary fathers, though with better weapons, defend the struggling cause of Freedom manfully, heroically, against all its enemies. Now is emphatically the time to work.

Published for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

I speak to mothers. The mothers in the Free States could abolish slavery; American mothers are responsible for American slavery.

My countrywomen, let me ask you a few questions. Have you, to whom the holy fountain of a mother’s love has been opened,—when that day-star of your life, a living child, was first set in the eternal firmament of your being,—solemnly consecrated this immortal soul to the service of justice, of truth, of God? to the imitation of Christ? I will take it for granted that you have performed this high and holy duty; your son, perhaps, is now a man; he is the pride of your life, the joy of your heart; you have, perhaps, some cherished picture of him when he was a boy, and you love to compare the manly face, filling and brightening daily with the record of a good and happy life, with the innocent child-face that you love for its very childishness, and for the dawning prophecy you read there of what now is a happy reality. Do you, when you so look at the child and the man, and bring home to your heart the memory of this happy darling boy playing at your feet or laughing in your lap, your heart running over with love and joy, do you sometimes think what would have been your desolation of soul at his being snatched from you and sold for a slave, condemned to life-long ignorance, hard labor, and brutal treatment,—bereft, both of childhood and manhood,—and you, left with a breaking heart, forced to submit in silence, or endure the lash should you murmur? And now when you rejoice in the manhood of your grown-up son, and his possible happy future, and find your waning existence brightened by the sunshine of his early days, do you remember the slave that has no childhood, no youth, no manhood, and his poor mother who can never know your joy?

There is even a more painful picture than this for American mothers to see, and one that God and man call upon them to look at and remember. You have a daughter; you are a proud, tender, virtuous mother. She is your heart’s choicest treasure. You would bid the winds of Heaven to blow gently upon her; you guard her with the most sensitive care; she is as the flower of your existence. Imagine her exposed to ill usage, often cruelty, always to the lowest passions of humanity; her womanly feelings trampled upon,—if possible, obliterated; her pure affections laughed at and scorned; her person desecrated, and her whole nature brought down to the level of the vileness of a licentious man. I ask you whether, when you look upon your beloved daughter, you remember the poor slave-mother and her child? Is the picture overdrawn? If you will not believe authentic statements, like those in the Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and many others never disproved, use your [2] own reason, and yourself judge whether it is improbable. The slaveholder has, by law, the same power over his slaves as he has over his cattle. He puts them up on the auction-block to be examined by slave-traders, just as cattle are examined by a butcher. The poor girl whom he owns may not refuse to do his bidding, let the act he commands be what it will; if she disobey him, he may punish her in any way he pleases; if she forcibly resists, he may flog her to death. The law of the land and the customs of society give her to him. She is his slave.

Do you not—I address every mother in the land—do you not know that such irresponsible power must be abused? Would you trust your own husbands or sons with such power? Would you dare accept it yourselves? In spite of the restraints of law and public opinion, do you not see enough of injustice, licentiousness, and cruelty, to show you what a hell on earth life must be where all restraints are taken away? For my part, I only wonder that, in the South, the enormities of the Slave System are not multiplied tenfold. It speaks well for human nature, that so much love and tender care and justice are practised towards these poor helpless creatures who have nothing to protect them—nothing, save the unquenchable pity still left in the hearts of men, and the fear which even the worst masters have, lying at the bottom of their hearts, of the retribution laid up for them in the world where they and their victims will soon stand side by side before the Great Judge of all. But though it doubtless is true that excessive cruelty is the exception, not the rule, yet the story of the actual treatment of the slaves is too frightful to relate. Every honest and intelligent man and woman in the land must know that Uncle Tom and Ida May owe much of their power to the ghastly truths they reveal.

But if it were proved that no cruelty was exercised towards the slaves, the case would be no better. A slaveholder calls himself the owner of that to which he has no lawful claim. He who pretends to own a human soul usurps the prerogative of the Almighty. The right of a man to himself is his first and dearest right; and there is no robbery so monstrous as that which takes it from him, thereby stripping its victim of all that is worth having in life, and putting out of his power all redress save by death or crime. It is as mean as it is cruel.

You will, perhaps, say to me ‘these things may be as you state them, but what can women,—what can we mothers do? why make ourselves miserable at the thought of these terrible facts, when we can do the poor sufferers no good? what can we do?’ I answer, you can do everything; I repeat, you can abolish slavery. Let every mother take the subject to heart, as one in which she has a personal concern. In the silence of night, let her listen to the slave-mothers crying to her for help. Let her prayer for them be her “Soul’s sincere desire.” Let her promise before God to do all she can for their redemption. Let her be faithful to her vow, “in season and out of season,” and watch every opportunity and means of doing, or saying, or suffering anything she can for these poor, dumb and helpless creatures. Let her seek for light how she can best serve their cause. Let the desire to serve them go with her where she goes, and dwell a perpetual presence in her home. Let her heart, her understanding, her thoughts, be ever on the alert in their cause. While she must ask for heavenly wisdom to guide her, she must take no council from her fears; she must call no man master. [3] She must, in all things, be “true as truth, uncompromising as justice.” Let no worldly favor win her, no flattery deceive her, no danger deter her. Her children will see in her every act a respect for the rights of all. They will see that neither position, nor color, nor any circumstances of life, can ever make her forget that God made us all of one blood. They will grow up in an atmosphere of true christian love. When they are of an age to understand and hear the sad story, she will tell them of the wrongs done by the white man to the poor slave. She has kindled in the hearts of her children a love of justice, a hatred of tyranny, a passionate desire to take the part of the oppressed which shall enlist them for life as the champions of their sorely-injured, down-trodden, colored brethren. Such a mother is as an abiding inspiration to her children. Her son will not vote for the Fugitive Slave Law or the Nebraska Bill, nor become a kidnapping United States Commissioner! If he be opposed, persecuted for fidelity to the “higher law,” if all his worldly prospects be destroyed, he will not waver for a moment. Should he be fined and imprisoned, or, as some faithful ones have been, called upon to die unless he will bow to the hideous idol of American slavery, he will still hold fast his faith. Like the young Hebrew, in the story of the Maccabees, who refused to obey the tyrant, he will be ready to say:—“even in death, in the last gasp; ‘thou, like a fury, itakest me out of this present life; but the King of this world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.’ ” And the heroic mother will, with God’s help, support him and say as the noble Hebrew mother said:—“I beseech thee, my son, to look upon the Heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not, and so was mankind made likewise. Fear not this tormentor; take thy death, that I may receive thee again in mercy.” In the early days of our country, we had such mothers; and they had such sons. Let them of the present day emulate their example. Let them so consecrate themselves, so dedicate their children; and, ere long, the chains will fall from our three millions of captives, and the jubilee be heard in our land.

Many will say, “Suppose all our sons were sincerely devoted, what could they do? What steps can they take? The Free States have no power to abolish slavery. Show us some practical way.” It is an old, but true saying, “A will finds a way.” But who does not know that the votes from the Free States made the Fugitive Slave Law and passed the Nebraska Bill? The Free States support Slavery. The Southerners are the Slave Owners, we are the Slave Holders. Put an end to the immoral participation of the Free States, and their almost as criminal indifference, and American Slavery could no longer exist. We are the greater sinners, for we have the baser motives for our share in this iniquity. A selfish fear of harm to ourselves keeps us quiet, while we see our Republic scorned or mourned over by the lovers of Justice throughout the world. No old sacred remembrances, no time-honored prejudices, no tender associations of early and childish attachments, none of all these things can be pleaded in extenuation of our conduct. Not one of us thinks Slavery right; nay, we declare it to be a sin; out of our own mouths we are condemned.

I say, then, to mothers in the Free States, you have before you a solemn duty, a glorious work. Shall the noble Florence Nightingale [4] spend eight hours in the day upon her knees, by the bedside of her wounded and suffering fellow-men, both countrymen and enemies, and will not you listen to the cry of the millions of sufferers in your native land? Her mission is one of love and mercy only; yours is a work of love and mercy and justice. Shall she and other heroic women, taking no counsel from fear of ridicule, or that shrinking fastidious delicacy in which they have been nurtured, nor from fear of hardship, disease, or death, leave comfort, luxury, home, in pity for bodily suffering; and can our American women do nothing, risk nothing, for those in their native land who are bereft of everything that is desirable in life! Shall not the broken spirit, the bruised body, the wounded affections, the cramped and distorted intellect, the crushed aspirations, of the slave be remembered by his happy and favored countrywomen? Will you not listen to his cry for help? Will you not hasten to his relief, and, “on the knees of your spirit,” pray and labor for him, till his wrongs are redressed and he is set free? Can you not find the skill and the courage to apply efficient remedies to the moral contagion that is slowly but surely poisoning our very atmosphere, sapping the foundations of our existence as a Republic, so that liberty and love of justice are fast dying out in our land?

Mothers in the Free States, I tell you no idle dream; I present no visionary impracticable idea. I tell you the simple truth, when I say you can, if you will, abolish slavery. The tender heart of the boy is in the hands of the mother. From her he receives his first impressions of right and wrong—impressions which remain to him through life, mingled with the memory of his first and happiest hours. When he is tempted to abandon the highest right, to make a compromise with wrong, to adopt a time-serving policy dignified by the name of prudence and defended on the plea of necessity; then shall the memory of his mother and her faithful words come back to him—the angel of his early days. In that presence, the tempter shall stand rebuked, and take his true shape of cowardice and sin. Therefore, O my countrywomen, I call upon you, I plead with you to take up this cause with a heroic faith, a martyr-like fidelity, an unquenchable courage!

I am myself a mother. I am bound with the same ties that you are. I have counted the cost, and know what I demand of you. But the time has come when woman must come to the rescue in this land. As women, our all is at stake. We have, above every other motive, that especial call for our devotion—our children. They are, at once, the pledges of our sincerity and the tests of our courage. Let us not be found wanting.

Published, for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also, to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

Much has been said and written about the “victims of oppression;” and wherever the term is used in connection with American institutions, our thoughts at once turn to the millions of our colored brethren in bondage.

A true understanding of the nature and influences of American slavery forces the conviction that this system renders the master no less a “victim” than the slave. The attractive elegances of social life may deceive the superficial observer; but a deeper insight will discover, under this light drapery, not only a world of secret misery, but of hideous corruption.

Nothing can convey a true idea of the influence of slavery upon the white population but an intimate acquaintance with southern society—not as a guest, to be entertained and flattered, but as a resident year by year, when all reserve is laid aside in the free and natural relations of social and domestic life.

In order to understand the immense power of slavery to shape the character and destiny of the master, we must remember that it has the sole training of his early youth. The men and women of the south are what the slaves have made them. With a knowledge of the influences exerted upon the first eighteen or twenty years of life, almost any biography may be predicted. This is peculiarly true of the characters formed by slavery. In the pulpit, on the plantation, in Congress, we find the promise of the child fulfilled in manhood.

The conscience which is never awakened to the force of the command, to “do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you,” will not in after life be vigilant in self-government.

The heart that has never been made to realize that all created beings are the children of one Father, and equally dear to him, cannot acknowledge the obligations resting on that fact, especially when they conflict with the whole social and civil arrangements of life.

The first aspect in which slavery presents itself to a northerner is in the relations of the household. This is the first and the best; and if objections to slavery are based upon stories of personal abuse and suffering, and no pains are taken to look beneath the fair exterior, [2] such objections will speedily give place to a less hostile feeling.

The white child at the south is born into a strange and unnatural combination of influences. Consigned at once to the care of his colored nurse, often dependent on her for food as well as every other service which belongs to the office of maternity, he is attached to her by the first instincts of his nature. It is a common thing for the colored mother to nurse her own and her mistress’s child through the whole period of lactation; and thus between these little ones a bond of affection is formed, which, if left to its natural development, would consecrate these relations for life.

The office of the nurse is to keep the child from physical injury. He must be carefully protected from extremes of heat, cold, fatigue, and hunger. He must not be thwarted or fretted, for that would “spoil his disposition.” The nurse carries him about from morning to night, to the kitchen, the stable, the garden, or the fields, wherever her roving disposition may dictate; and if he is brought back at the appointed time in good condition, the nurse is considered unexceptionable.

Yet, all this while, bad temper and the waywardness of childhood are developing, without restraint or correction. The life of mental and physical inactivity that southern women lead renders them incapable of a judicious training of their children, and, in general, they seem entirely ignorant of the responsibilities involved in the relation of a mother. They are too essentially indolent to undertake the arduous duty of “managing” any thing or any body; and thus the precious years of infancy are committed to the most ignorant or malicious hands.

As soon as the little one is old enough to seek playmates, his foster brother and the little negroes near his age are his constant companions. They become the next instructors of his youth, and their language, habits, and manners form the strongest associations of his childhood—associations so strong that there is hardly a southern man or woman who, under extensive culture and intercourse with the best society in after life, does not occasionally, by language and pronunciation, betray their early intimacy with the southern negro, whose peculiarities, when once heard, can always be recognized.

Meanwhile “human nature” begins to show itself with considerable vigor. The little master gets angry with his playmates; he fights and beats them, while they are never to strike back. His little foster brother, who is generally presented to him for a body servant, becomes his favored victim. He beats him the most because he is his most constant companion, and oftenest offends him; and the enslaved brother is taught that he must bear more because he especially belongs to his young master.

Occasionally a mother corrects her son, and begs him not to strike, because it is not “pretty.” But, as a general rule, as soon as the child learns the use of his little fist, he finds it most effectual for his purposes, and in the exercise of ungoverned passion and imperious [3] self-will, the years of childhood prepare the way for the deeper sins of manhood. But long before he reaches that period he is drilled in the catechism whose first question is, “What is the chief end of the white man?” Ans. “To rule.” “What is the chief end of the slave?” Ans. “To obey.” And by a logical inference from the right of property in man, he argues that a master has a right to do what he will with his own, and even if he choose to torment his slave, he is accountable to no one therefor.

Neither Eva nor Topsy are exaggerations, for I have known the counterpart of each. But I have seen a specimen of haughty rebellion against reasonable requirements, of insensibility to the sufferings of others, in the daughter of a southern merchant, which has never yet been paralleled in fiction.

Imagine a young negro girl, with her hair blazing round her head, lighted “for fun” by her young “missis.” I thought it had caught by accident, and extinguished it; but she told me it had been often done before. I asked her why she allowed it, and she proudly answered, “I would not put it out if it burned off my ears.”

Nature produces the same diversities of temper at the south as at the north. But wherever the elements are bad, slavery fosters them into full and hateful proportions. It has no gentle teachings of self-control and self-sacrifice for the happiness of others; it forms no habits of industry and self-reliance; it cultivates no sense of justice. On the other hand, it exalts self into hateful supremacy over every other consideration. Indolence and imbecility are its inevitable results, and this very idleness and mental vacuity encourage artificial wants, which make extra demands upon the compulsory labor of the slave.

The time soon comes to “educate” the youth; but the only opportunities for education which deserve the name must be sought beyond the reach of slavery. In a speech before the House of Representatives, in Congress, in 1848, the Hon. Horace Mann says, upon this subject, “Slavery makes the general education of the whites impossible. You cannot have general education without common schools. Common schools cannot exist where the population is sparse. Where slaves till the soil, or do the principal part of whatever work is done, the free population must be sparse. Slavery, then, by an inexorable law, denies general education to the whites.” * * *

“Sir, during the last ten years I have had a most extensive correspondence with the intelligent friends of education in the south. They yearn for progress, but they cannot obtain it. They procure laws to be passed, but they speak in a vacuum, and no one hears the appeal. If a parent wishes to educate his children, he must send them from home, and thus suffer a sort of bereavement while they live, or he must employ a tutor or governess, which few are able to do. The rich may do it; but what becomes of the poor? In cities the obstacles are less, but the number of persons resident in cities is comparatively small. All this is the inevitable result of [4] slavery; and it is as impossible for free, thorough, universal education to coexist with slavery as for two bodies to occupy the same space at the same time. Slavery would abolish education if it should invade a free state; education would abolish slavery if it could invade a slave State.”

But slavery not only precludes education by its very nature—it enacts laws to secure ignorance among the free citizens of the slave States. By the laws of Virginia, Mrs. Douglass, of Norfolk, was pronounced guilty of a “crime” for teaching free colored children to read. She suffered thirty days’ imprisonment in the city jail, not because it is actually a crime to teach a free colored child to read, but because intelligence is dangerous to slavery. It was necessary to make an example of her to deter all future offenders. Judge Baker has won an unenviable notoriety in his delivery of her sentence. He says that the idea that universal culture is necessary to religious instruction and education is “mischievous”—a well-chosen term. He says that of all the negroes in the world, none are so intelligent, so inclined to the gospel, and so blessed by the elevating influences of the gospel, as the slaves of the United States, and that if any one would have their interests more carefully regarded than they are by the laws of Virginia, it must be from a sickly sensibility towards them. Then he proceeds to vindicate the justice of the sentence by the fact that, “in good sense and sound morality, his discretionary power to imprison for six months or less does not authorize a mere minimum punishment,” since the question of “guilt” is beyond a doubt, and there are many “aggravating circumstances.” “Therefore, as a terror to those who acknowledge no rule of action but their own evil will and pleasure, and in vindication of the justness of our laws, the judgment of the court is, that you be imprisoned for the period of one month in the jail of this city.”

Because Mrs. Douglass chose to remain and suffer the full penalty of the law, though all the citizens hoped she would leave the city, the Norfolk Argus of February 9, 1854, says, “Then sympathy departed, and in the breast of every one rose a righteous indignation towards a person who would throw contempt in the face of the laws, and brave the imprisonment for ‘the cause of humanity.’ ”

Such a burlesque of all that is truly enlightened and just cannot be improved by any comment. It is an admirable illustration of the significance attached to that clause in the Declaration of Independence which guaranties “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to every American citizen, whether applied to Mrs. Douglass or the free colored children. It explains the fact that of nine hundred thousand there are eighty thousand whites in Virginia who can neither read nor write.

This is the sort of justice that rendered the Hon. Samuel Hoar a “fugitive from slavery.” One of the governor’s aids, now a member of Congress from South Carolina, told me that his orders from the governor to the mayor of Charleston were to treat Mr. Hoar with the utmost courtesy, but that he must leave the city—peaceably if he would—by violence if necessary. He granted that [5] Massachusetts had the right to test the constitutionality of a law affecting her own citizens, but that the discussion of that question was fraught with such dangers to the life and safety of the masters, that it was a matter of life or death to them, and “they were resolved to suppress it, right or no right.”

But suppose the most favorable opportunities afforded by wealth for education; what future worthy of true manhood offers itself under the institution of slavery? Its first, greatest, all-absorbing ambition is for wealth. That is absolutely indispensable. Not that wealth which is the honorable reward of industry; on the other hand, it is the inherited proceeds of unrequited toil which give the highest social position. If a man has never soiled his hands by useful labor, and is secure from the possibility of ever applying them to the purposes for which they were created,—if by inheritance or marriage he can command a fortune,—the ends of his ambition are attained—an ambition more universal and unscrupulous in the means adopted to obtain it than any or all others combined. “A poor white man” is a byword and a reproach. For him there is no future. By degrading the dignity of manual labor, slavery crushes those who are neither slaveholders nor slaves. The poor white man is too proud to associate with negroes, his superiors too proud to associate with him; denied the benefits of education, with a hopeless prospect for himself and children, there is absolutely no sphere for him but to labor for the supply of his animal wants, despised and rejected.

It is from this rank and condition in life that the material is chosen to fill the place of slave driver—a fit school for such an office, where he must crush out of his soul the last vestige of self-respect; he must crucify his true manhood, its very life blood must be drained, in order to prepare the soulless automaton to do his work acceptably. When that is accomplished, he may hope for promotion to the more lucrative and conspicuous offices of kidnapper and slave hunter.

But if he cannot “conquer his prejudices,” if there is a tender place in his heart that quivers at the sound of mourning, and if he proudly prefers the scanty fruits of his own earning to the wealth of unrequited toil, then his fate is fixed, and in hopeless ignorance and poverty he and his children will live and die to no other purpose than to swell the list of those who shall one day rise up in judgment against slavery.

If the “poor white man” numbers daughters among his progeny, their condition is equally deplorable, especially if their home happens to be remote from towns. They are then too far removed from the means of acquiring the useful trades which afford a respectable livelihood to find advancement in that direction, and the best thing offered them is the position of housekeeper in a wealthy family. The white girl, by virtue of her color, is ranked one degree above the slaves, though the advantages of the house servants for cultivation in the refinements of domestic life are often superior to those afforded by her own home. She holds an intermediate position [6] between the mistress and slave, always subject to the countermanding orders of her superior, and therefore not recognized as authority by the slaves, treated by them with contempt, answered with impertinence, annoyed by disobedience, and insulted with her poverty; yet she finds no companionship in the family which she serves. Guests may come and go, and gayety resound throughout the borders, but she has no part or lot therein, and is virtually ranked among the slaves.

One of these unfortunate women told me that she had been compelled to bear treatment from a former mistress to which few house servants are ever subjected. She was required to rise at three o’clock in the morning, after working till ten or eleven at night; and sometimes she was so overpowered by fatigue, that, after she went out doors in the morning, she sat down under the trees and fell asleep again. She had the whole oversight of house and kitchen, carrying the basket of keys to every locked drawer and closet about the house, and the various storerooms arranged about the yard; she must answer every call from every quarter; she employed all her leisure time in weaving negro cloth; she was stinted in her food, and provided with a bed that would disgrace a convict’s cell; and for this labor and this usage she received ninety-six cents a week.

And now I approach a part of my subject from which I would gladly draw back, were I not riveted to the point by my desire to be faithful to my purpose of setting forth the effects of slavery upon the master. It is a painful and delicate office to do justice to this matter; but I speak to the pure in heart, who seek to know and defend eternal truths.

By a strange misnomer, slavery has been called a “domestic” institution: but before its presence all that is properly implied in that word domestic vanishes like an exorcised spirit. The desolation wrought among the colored victims of slavery is terrible, and mighty indeed is their demand for redress; but they have their revenge in the wreck of the domestic happiness of their oppressors.

I have said that the white child is committed entirely to the care of the colored nurse, and thus the process of contamination begins in infancy. Young children are familiarized to sights and associations which destroy the instinctive modesty of youth. They are also placed in such relations to the colored children, through the ignorance or malice of the nurse, as to stimulate the passions into premature activity. Some nurses believe that personal intimacies between the young master and his young female companions cultivate a closer affection, and insure the latter from the chances of being sold. Others, of a fiercer temper, seek their revenge for outrages committed on themselves in order to exult over the wreck of early manhood always resulting from self-indulgence. By whichever process the result is attained, it is a well-known fact that purity among southern men is almost an unknown virtue.

There are thousands of proofs of this in the prevalence of the [7] fair skin, smooth and glossy hair, blue eyes, straight nose, delicate foot, and arched instep, which are every where to be met among the slaves. But why should we expect purity when every restraint is removed which helps to subdue the clamors of the animal nature, while every possible opportunity is offered for its indulgence?

There is no fear of public opinion, for there is no danger of detection, since the slave is bound to submit in silence.

There is no loss of social position consequent upon the grossest licentiousness.

The most honorable social and political distinctions are awarded without reference to the private character of the individual.

The libertine maintains a high and honored standing in the church.

The law decrees that every child born of a slave shall follow the condition of its mother, and thus not only extends no protection to virtue, but offers a premium to vice.

Nor is one class of society more base than another in this respect. The highest social life is often the most vile in its secret history. A young man at the age of twenty-one takes possession of his portion of the paternal estate, erects a house upon it, where he retires and establishes a household for himself. He secures what means of gratification his taste can select, and thus lives, sometimes ten or fifteen years, if no heiress or beauty cross his path of sufficient attractions to induce him to add her as an ornamental appendage to his establishment. Meanwhile his human “property” steadily increases, both in numbers and value; for the lighter the mulatto the more desirable among the fastidious; and rare beauty is often the result of a second intermingling of the same aristocratic blood with the offspring of a former passion. From time to time, friends come to visit this bachelor hall, and in due season the master is repaid for his hospitality to them by a valuable addition to his stock of human chattels.

If in due time a wife be wooed and won, what is she? Nothing but “the fairest among his concubines.” She is not his wife; and if she deserve the name of woman, her fate is a living death. If by a false education her feminine nature has formed no pure ideal, and she neither expects nor demands true manhood, then also has slavery wrought its perfect work in her. There are few women who can endure the proofs of their husband’s infidelity. There is an instinct in the female heart about this matter too deep and thoroughly inwrought in her organization to be reasoned away or crushed out. Her suffering will show itself, either in the premature decay which tells the story of a broken heart, or her heart will turn to stone, and a haughty pride will endeavor to conceal the wreck of love. She will write the record of her outraged nature in the frenzy with which she persecutes her favored rivals. She is the first to propose, the most relentless to insist on, the sale of the unfortunate victims in whose agonies she tries to find satisfaction for her own wrongs.

Mrs. Douglass, to whom I have before referred, adds a powerful [8] testimony on this point. She is a South Carolinian by birth, and lately a resident of Virginia, and testifies to what she knows.

Speaking of licentiousness, she says, “It is impossible to deny that this unnatural custom prevails to a fearful extent throughout the south. The testimony is of too positive and personal a character to be overcome. * * * Its followers are to be found in all ranks, occupations, and professions. The white mothers and daughters of the south have suffered under it for years, have seen their dearest affections trampled upon, their hopes of domestic happiness destroyed, and their future lives imbittered, even to agony, by those who should be all in all to them as husbands, sons, and brothers. I cannot use too strong language in reference to this subject, for I know that it will meet a heartfelt response from every southern woman. I would deal delicately with them if I could; but they know the fact, and their hearts bleed under the knowledge, however they may attempt to conceal their discoveries. Southern wives know that their husbands come to them, * * * from the arms of their tawny mistresses. Father and son seek the same sources of excitement, * * * scarcely blushing when detected, and recklessly defying every command of God and every tie of morality and human affection.”

Peace, and happiness, and the faith which is as immovable as the everlasting hills in the heart of pure and constant love, those essential elements of the true home, are nowhere to be found in slavery.

The wife constantly sees the likeness of her husband in children that are not hers; the husband welcomes every new comer among them as so many hundreds of prospective gain, and devotes himself to their increase, while his legal children are born with feeble minds and bodies, with just force enough to transmit the family name, and produce in feebler characters a second edition of the father’s life.

The plantation in Virginia is “stocked” with negroes that are bought with sole reference to their capacities for reproduction, and master and slave unite, the former consciously, the latter unconsciously, in the same odious enterprise of raising victims for the southern market.

Mr. Gholson, of Virginia, in his speech in the legislature of that State, January 18, 1832, (see Richmond Whig) says, “It has always (perhaps erroneously) been considered by steady and old-fashioned people, that the owner of land had a reasonable right to its annual profits, the owner of orchards to their annual fruits, * * * and the owner of female slaves to their increase. * * * It is on the justice and inviolability of this maxim that the master foregoes the service of the female slave, has her nursed and attended during the period of gestation, and raises the helpless infant offspring. The value of the property justifies the expense; and I do not hesitate to say, that in its increase consists much of our wealth.”

R. S. Finley, Esq., late general agent of the American Colonization [9] Society, at a meeting in New York, 27th February, 1833, said, “In Virginia and other grain growing States, the blacks do not support themselves, and the only profit their masters derive from them is, repulsive as the idea may justly seem, in breeding them, like other live stock, for the more southern States.”

Professor Dew, president of the University of William and Mary, Virginia, in his review of the debate in the Virginia legislature, 1831-2, says, p. 49, “From all the information we can obtain, we have no hesitation in saying that upwards of six thousand [slaves] are yearly exported [from Virginia] to other States.” Again, p. 61, “The six thousand slaves which Virginia annually sends off to the south are a source of wealth to Virginia.” Again, p. 120, “A full equivalent being thus left in the place of the slave, this emigration becomes an advantage to the State, and does not check the black population as much as, at first view, we might imagine—because it furnishes every inducement to the master to attend to the negroes, to encourage breeding, and to cause the greatest possible number to be raised.”

I might add a hundred testimonials to these facts; but I forbear. Volumes could not record the length and breadth, the height and depth, of the pollutions of slavery.

The possession of absolute, irresponsible power, guarantied by law to the American slaveholder, inevitably cultivates selfishness, cruelty, and insensibility towards the slave, especially since that law affords no redress to the injured party.

The master’s ungoverned temper vents itself in blows, and this exasperates the slave. He retaliates by theft, eye service, and disobedience; the master storms, and the slave persists in sullen defiance, till at last selling becomes too lenient a punishment, and the victim is delivered over to the stocks, whip, thumbscrews, &c.

W. C. Gildersleeve, of Georgia, in 1839 an elder of the Presbyterian church, Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania, after describing the flogging of a slave, in which his hands were tied together, and the slave was hoisted by a rope, in which condition one hundred lashes were inflicted, says, “I stood by and witnessed the whole without feeling the least compassion; so hardening is the influence of slavery, that it very much destroys the feeling for the slave.”

With this indifference to physical suffering, it would be what Judge Baker terms “sickly sensibility,” to expect any tenderness towards the natural affections which bind the slaves to each other. Hence the inhuman hardness of heart which separates man and wife, (though not recognized as such by slave law,) mother and child, brother and sister, like cattle, to be sold, “singly or in lots, to suit purchasers.”

A resident in a southern family relates that the lady of the house, wishing to buy a shawl, and having no ready money, took with her to the store a fine mulatto girl, who had been brought up in the house, and whose mother and grandmother still served in the family. The girl waited outside the store till the mistress called her in, [10] and to her horror, she was informed that she was sold to the merchant. Her cries and lamentations were in vain; the mistress left her; she was immediately taken to the auction block, and in twenty-four hours was on her way to New Orleans. When the child’s mother and grandmother heard the news, they gave vent to the most piercing cries and groans, and the mistress, after repeatedly ordering silence without effect, at last sent them to be whipped for disobedience.

Yet with all this domestic cruelty and callousness of heart, the south is proverbial for its hospitality, kindness, and generosity. Many believe it impossible that such opposite qualities can be found in the same individual, and hence disbelieve the reported cruelties inflicted on the slave. But it must be remembered that hospitality costs nothing. Guests are a merciful relief from the tedium of daily life. They are feasted on the proceeds of the labor of the slave, they are served by an attendance which in no wise interferes with the time or interrupts the occupations of the white household; and why should not stolen wealth be lavishly bestowed? But one cannot infer, from the master’s generosity towards the guest, a similar one towards the slave. It were as wise to infer that the highway robber would show the same “honor” towards the traveller who chanced to fall in his power, as to his companions in crime, with whom he shares the spoils. I have attended a Christmas party where the table groaned under the weight of luxuries, and piles of wood blazed high on the hearth, (for the day was bitter cold,) and the little boy who opened the gate to admit our carriage was bareheaded, barefooted, and had nothing but the remains of a cotton shirt to cover him. This was on the estate of one of the wealthiest men in South Carolina.

With such influences from youth to manhood, what right have we to hope for a higher standard of manners or morality than are presented in our halls of Congress? If we look to the pulpit of the south, what do we find? The pulpit! What memories rise up as I write the word! Sunday after Sunday I have seen the pious church members meet to listen to the garbled presentation of God’s word, members of one church, claiming one God as their Father, one Christ for their Savior, striving for the blessed promises of one heaven, to which there is but one strait and narrow way of entrance; yet here in the visible church, divided, black from white, by a wooden fence, and on sacrament days, after the white members had partaken of the bread and wine, the black members crawled through a little gate, left open only on that day, and came forward, four or five at a time, to take the bread and wine. I have heard a minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church in Virginia read the discipline, and explain the clause forbidding to church members the traffic in slaves, by remarking that it referred to the African slave trade, but had no allusion to the exchange of slaves already in bondage, and then proceed to an harangue of an hour’s length on the sin of wearing jewelry and artificial flowers.

[11]

Christianity can no more coexist with slavery than can education. The first words of the gospel of Christ, preached in their true spirit and with their proper application, would exterminate it from the face of the earth. There is no half way in this matter. One must either recognize the spurious religion which, under cover of Christ’s name, kills both soul and body, and reject it with scorn and indignation, or be so stultified in moral and mental capacity as not to detect the enormous counterfeit. Slavery has wrought this last effect upon the southern mind. The abstract right has no binding force. The “peculiar institution” has become their God, and whatever protects it is right, whether in politics or religion. The most intelligent men of the south see through the sham, and are most indifferent to religion. They maintain the church, as a respectable institution, especially prized by the women, and valuable for the negroes. It makes them better servants, and forms an item of pecuniary value. A Methodist will bring more than a Baptist, because the latter depends upon immersion for his hopes of heaven, while the Methodist is taught that he must “work out his salvation with fear and trembling”—a precept that hardly needs to be enforced under the circumstances. The pathetic appeals to the feelings, the terrors of hell, the necessity of joining the church, &c., produce the clap-trap effects which gloss over the oratory of the southern pulpit with a mock solemnity. But every thinking person knows that these are but the mint, anise, and cumin, while the weightier matters of the law—truth, justice, and mercy—are overlooked. Here, as every where else, slavery shows its cloven foot. It blinds the reason, perverts the conscience, and in awful blasphemy plants itself upon God’s word, claiming a divine origin and sanction, and in his name proceeds to outrage humanity in the person of the slave.

If, then, the two highest sources of moral power are polluted by slavery, if home is desecrated, and religion turned into a mockery, where shall we look for the cultivation of that moral integrity which constitutes the true life of a nation, and on which its real prosperity depends?

Never did a panic of terror wring out a deeper truth than that which lately echoed from north to south—“The Union is in danger.” The nation is in peril, whether whole or severed; not because a compact has been broken, not because the Constitution may be shattered, not from the possibility of a civil war, or the horrors of an insurrection, but because truth, justice, and mercy are being hourly slain. Upright fidelity to the truth in our halls of Congress meets cunning, trickery, and abuse; justice is answered by a bluster about “honor;” and the mention of a higher law draws down undisguised derision and contempt. The question at issue is not between north and south, but between truth and error, right and wrong, God and the devil.

Our work, then, is to beware lest by silence or apology we lend our strength to the oppressor; to guard our hearts from the insensibility [12] to the wrongs of others, which our own secure enjoyments may induce; but most of all to keep the eye single, that we be full of light as to the enormity of our country’s sin, and our own duty towards it. Then only will the battle of life be earnestly fought, and our whole work be done. Thus only can the full stature of manhood be attained.

Published for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

In discussing this question, it should be remembered that it is in the highest sense a moral question, and, as such, superior to any criticisms of an immoral expediency; that its positions cannot be met by arguments not based on the same fundamental principle from which it starts, namely, that right is right, and therefore demands the voluntary adherence of men—that wrong is wrong, and as such must be repudiated; that in questions of this nature there is no room for compromise or evasion. And it must be further borne in mind that, however much must be conceded to a necessary expediency in matters purely political, nevertheless this great principle must be applied, wherever it is applicable, equally to the affairs of nations as of individuals. It is not claimed that governments and political associations should be either missionary societies, ecclesiastical tribunals, or direct religious agencies; yet no government or party has a right, for any possible motive, itself to violate, or to exact of any of its subjects or members a violation of the absolute and immutable moral law.

If disunion be, as is asserted, a measure not simply of expediency, but of justice, not of mere policy, but of right, it certainly is the duty of every honest man to investigate the subject calmly and rationally, as he would any other subject making such claims. It is a duty he owes, not alone to the slave, whose emancipation he would secure, nor to the country, whose otherwise sure and final ruin he would avert, but to himself as a moral agent responsible for his actions.

To do this fairly, or at all, we have first to free ourselves of an amount of prejudice unequalled in any other direction; the prejudice of education, ignorance, pride, and inherited reverence, all [2] of which is fostered by the mistaken patriotism of an uninquiring public, and the atheistical idolatry of a human constitution and political union, by most of the controlling minds of the country, in both church and state,—a prejudice so general and so confirmed, that the impression is almost universal, that the United States Constitution is sacred as divine revelation, and the Union, however cemented, to whatever base uses prostituted, of divine origin. To investigate these, therefore, to question their right to be perpetuated, or the duty of allegiance, is regarded with pious horror, as the ravings of a disorganizing and impious fanaticism, a profanation of the sanctuary which shields us. [5]

Such view as this, it is evident, precludes all hope or necessity of amendment, and denies even that final and universally-conceded right of revolution. For, of course, if the Constitution and Union are infallible and sacred, nothing can ever justify disobedience or resistance. Whatever of oppression or injustice may be exercised under the authority of the one, or by the force of the other, must be patiently endured. A position, which no political theorist has ever ventured to take. But, what is of even greater consequence, such a view puts an end at once, to the right of criticism, examination, and moral judgment; in other words, forbids the exercise of reason and conscience. This is the necessary effect of the popular idea of the sacredness of these things, and is the actual present state of public sentiment.

But, since the Constitution is of human origin, and the Union, existing by virtue of that instrument, equally the result of human agency, there is no sufficient reason why these should be more infallible in their aim and operation than their authors, and no especial heresy or impropriety in examining and criticizing their claims upon us as honest men. With these rational views, with no prejudice or preference, save for the truth, we may look at this question of disunion with the hope of coming to some just conclusion.

And, at the outset, we are ready as any, to grant the importance of some such union as ours for most ends of political existence. The physical constitution of the country, apart from other considerations, [3] which need not be mentioned here, makes a union natural, desirable, and in the end, perhaps, essential. Probably no person wishes to deny this. But the question is not of the advantage of union (though it has been often and undeniably proved that in every respect it is injurious to the north, and only advantageous to the south, as it at present stands); the question is deeper than this; not, Is it expedient? but, Is it right? Have we a right, for the sake of national greatness and power, or territorial integrity, or any conceivable material prosperity, or for any purpose whatsoever, to sustain a union, which demands, and for its preservation must secure, from its citizens, a sacrifice of the fundamental and eternal laws of religion and morality? We firmly and sincerely believe that we have no such right; that nothing of presumed expediency or necessity, can justify conscious and deliberate acquiescence in, or support of what we believe to be morally wrong. We stand on the assertion of the simplest, the very elementary principles of morality and religion, that whatever is contrary to the universal, unchangeable, and very initial laws of God, cannot be made right by vote of a majority; that what is intrinsically wrong for one man is equally so for a hundred, or a hundred thousand men; and, on the same principle, that what is wrong in one State is wrong in every State, or in a union of States; and yet further, that to defend or sustain another in doing what we confess would be wrong for us, and is wrong for them to do, involves us in an equal culpability for the sin and its consequences.

It is on these simple principles that the abolitionist justifies, and commends to the consideration of a candid public, his opposition to the Union. It is wrong for us to support voluntarily, a government or political union, which sustains iniquity. If, then, our Union does sustain iniquity, it is wrong for us to abide by the Union. This, in brief statement, is the position of the northern anti-slavery, and only sincere disunionist, who is not insane.

Does the Union, then, protect, encourage, sustain iniquity, and do we by our acts, as members of that Union, acquiesce?

We proceed, in answering this question, with the assumption, that slavery is not simply a social or political evil, but a sin and a crime, in the fullest sense; something which neither law nor presumed necessity can justify; which cannot exist, in however mitigated a form, without infraction of the primal rights of human nature; therefore [4] not without absolute and direct rebellion against God; who, by creating man with the nature he has, granted, by the very act of creation, and guaranteed the rights, which that nature demands for its satisfaction. Preëminent among these are the rights to life and liberty, and all which necessarily result therefrom; which even our Declaration of Independence unqualifiedly asserts when it declares them to be inalienable. Now, slavery actually alienates these rights; robs three and a half millions of human beings of their right to the pursuit of happiness, to liberty, and even to life—men, women, and children, who, even granting their present inferiority, are still human beings, endowed by their Creator with the common human nature, and so equally entitled to human rights.

The assumption and exercise of the power and boasted right to hold property in man, is the essential wrong, and the necessary source and justification of the misery and iniquity which result;—as, the denial to the slave of the slightest opportunity for the culture and development of the faculties given him in trust; the exaction of severe and wasting labor without compensation, and wrung from the indolent and the feeble by the lash; the encouragement of prostitution in various ways, but most cruelly in its mockery of the sacredness of marriage; the separation and sale of husband and wife, parent and child, and the many other infamous customs of slavery. And these are not accidental, unusual, or mere abuses of the system, but its necessary results, without which, slavery cannot exist, so declared in the statute laws of the slaveholding States, and of constant occurrence under the administration of these laws. So we say that the whole thing is, from beginning to end, in principle and result, “de facto et de jure,” sin, and nothing but sin, and that continually. It should seem unnecessary, it certainly is humiliating, to feel compelled to waste a word, or a moment of time, in stating such evident propositions as these: that slavery is sin, at war with the holiest instincts of our nature, the essential rights of man, the principles of Christianity, and the will of God; and, that we have no right deliberately to countenance or sustain sin. But we are fallen on unhappy times, when even learned and influential ministers of religion, (so accredited,) occupying commanding social positions, urge, with the calm and mature deliberation of printed argument and appeal, the opposite doctrines; and when men gladly accept these modern, Protestant indulgences to countenance and [5] abet in man stealing, prostitution, and all the iniquity of slavery, with untarnished title to respect here, and duly endorsed passport to heaven.

Nothing more, certainly, need be said to prove—what, it is presumed, after all, most men here at the north will grant—that slavery is sin, and that we have no right to sanction or encourage sin. And any man who grants this, has granted all we ask; for we assert, what a very few words will confirm, that in sustaining the Union, we are encouraging and upholding slavery; and even more strongly, that without the Union, as it now exists, slavery could not stand another day.

Our present political position proves our connection with the sin. In closest league with States in which slavery, with all its infamy, is sustained by express statute—States in which this system is supreme, the controlling element in all affairs, political and religious, and which have succeeded, for nearly seventy years, ever since the Union was formed, in subjecting the legislation of the entire country to their will, making the general government, which by virtue of numbers, is ours more than theirs, favor, foster, and extend slavery, till it has grown to what it is. We are in intimate union with these States, in partnership with them in crime. We swear to abide by a Constitution, which guarantees perpetual possession of his slaves to the slaveholder, which grants him unusual privileges, in proportion to the number of his slaves, and finally, guarantees perpetual enjoyment of those privileges. We meet with them in the national Congress, yielding them a larger representation there, than an equal number of non-slaveholders, in proportion to their iniquity. We make laws together, elect officers in common, pay taxes into a common treasury, collect a common revenue, make treaties and form alliances with other nations, as one people, united in principle and interest. We associate with them in church and state, as friends and fellow-Christians, and do their bidding in all things, without noticeable or efficient protest. We have thus openly committed ourselves, in the eyes of the world, to a participation in their guilt, and in the court of conscience, to an equal responsibility for the sin. For our association with the slave States is not a partial or limited confederacy, formed for protection against a common danger, for special purposes, in no wise connected with this peculiar evil, in which we hold no part, and for which we are not responsible. [6] Such argument is not merely fallacy, but falsehood. Undoubtedly, an alliance of that nature is possible between two or more States, without involving an acquiescence from either one, in the peculiar faith, institutions, or customs of the other. As England and France are, at this moment, acting as associates and allies of the Turk, without suspicion of countenancing either Islamism or polygamy. But our Union is not of that temporary or limited character. It is not a partial and independent alliance, in view of some pressing emergency, to cease when that is past. Were it so, the hour for dissolving that connection arrived long ago. Ours is an unlimited partnership, a perpetual and peculiar confederation, of the most intimate character. One which unites both north and south, the free and the slave States, into a common country, under one central government, under a federal Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, which grants, as has been said, extraordinary privileges to the slaveholders—1st, a three-fifths representation for their slaves in the national Congress; 2d, a pledge to restore fugitives; and 3d, the pledge that we will labor, and, if necessary, fight to repel aggression, and to suppress any efforts that may be made by the oppressed to regain their freedom. Now, in illustration of our position, we will take a supposable case, thus: I form a partnership in trade with a notoriously wicked man, one who is dishonest in his dealings, given to theft and falsehood, engaged in constant brawls, living in open adultery, and feeding his lust by force. In our articles of agreement, I allow him an undue interest in the concern, in proportion to his iniquity; agree to continue the connection, despite his character, though he should cheat even me; pledge myself to defend his practices; and, more, should any victims of his knavery or unholy violence resist, or rise against him, to shoot them down. Now, should I do all this, I could as justly claim exemption from any responsibility for, or encouragement of that man’s iniquity, as we can, under the Union, disclaim any responsibility for slavery and its inevitable iniquities. The cases are strictly parallel. The man who swears to sustain the Constitution, which grants and the Union, which sustains slavery, is certainly, in the sight of God, as guilty as one would be in the case I have supposed. The cry, “Freedom national, slavery sectional,” is an absurdity. It is impossible under the Union. Slavery existing any where in these States is the sin of the whole people.

[7]

From what has already been said, it is apparent that slavery exists only by virtue of the Union. This is further confirmed by the voluntary confessions of a few southern gentlemen, who exhibit either superior sagacity or a greater degree of honesty than is common in their portion of the country. In the debate in Congress on the question of censuring John Q. Adams for presenting a petition for dissolution of the Union, Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, said,—

“They (the south) were the weaker portion, were in the minority. The north could do what they pleased with them; they could adopt their own measures. All he asked was, that they would let the south know what those measures were. One thing he knew well—that the State which he in part represented had perhaps a deeper interest in this subject than any other, except Maryland and a small portion of Virginia. And why? Because he knew that to dissolve the Union and separate the different States composing this confederacy,—making the Ohio river and Mason and Dixon’s line the boundary line,—he knew as soon as that was done, slavery was done in Kentucky, Maryland, and a large portion of Virginia, and it would extend to all the States south of this line. The dissolution of the Union was the dissolution of slavery. It had been the common practice for southern men to get up on this floor and say, ‘Touch this subject, and we will dissolve this Union as a remedy.’ Their remedy was the destruction of the thing which they wished to save, and any sensible man could see it. If the Union were dissolved into two parts, the slave would cross the line, and then turn round and curse his master from the other shore.”

Mr. Thomas D. Arnold, of Tennessee, in a speech on the same subject, spoke as follows:—

“The free States had now a majority of forty-four in that house. Under the new census they would have fifty-three. The cause of the slaveholding States was getting weaker and weaker, and what were they to do? He would ask his southern friends what the south had to rely on if the Union were dissolved? Suppose the dissolution could be peaceably effected, (if that did not involve a contradiction in terms,) what had the south to depend upon? All the crowned heads were against her. A million of slaves were ready to rise and strike for freedom at the first tap of the drum. They were cut loose from their friends at the north (friends that ought to be, and without them the south had no friends); whither were they to look for protection? How were they to sustain an assault from England or France, with that cancer at their vitals? The more the south reflected, the more clearly she must see that she had a deep and vital interest in maintaining the Union.”

The editor of the Maryville (Tenn.) Intelligencer, in an article on the slave population, wrote thus:—

[8]

“We of the south are emphatically surrounded by a dangerous class of beings,—degraded, stupid savages,—who, if they could but once entertain the idea that immediate and unconditional death would not be their portion, would react the St. Domingo tragedy. But the consciousness, with all their stupidity, that a tenfold force, superior in discipline, if not in barbarity, would gather from the four corners of the United States, and slaughter them, keeps them in subjection. But to the non-slaveholding States particularly we are indebted for a permanent safeguard against insurrection. Without their assistance, the white population of the south would be too weak to quiet that innate desire for liberty which is ever ready to act itself out with every rational creature.”

More recently, Mr. Gentry, member of Congress from Tennessee, thought it would be better for the south to submit to the Wilmot proviso than to dissolve the Union, as he “believes that the continued existence of slavery rests upon the existence of the Union.”

Every slave will confirm what these gentlemen tell us—that what prevents the slaves securing their liberty, is not their degradation, nor fear of their masters, but the fear, into which they are carefully educated, of the intervention of the northern States. The first successes of the Nat Turner insurrection, and its final suppression by the forces of the Union, teach the value of that Union to the slaveholder, and afford a painful precedent of despair to the unhappy slave. It is idle to offer further evidence. Every one who understands the Constitution, and interprets it fairly, and who knows so much of history as is comprised in the records of these States for seventy years, must confess that the Union is the main stay of slavery, and that were the Union dissolved, slavery that moment hastens to its end. No man, therefore, can properly regard the position of the abolitionist as other than reasonable and just, fully sanctioned, in the light of religion and humanity, by such facts and admissions as have been stated. A position, whose justice is implied by the Hon. Horace Mann, in his eloquent and able speech in Congress, August 17, 1852, when he says, “Let me ask if the political free soil party do not go to the uttermost verge that patriot, moralist, or Christian can go, when it consents to let slavery remain where it is?” To his question we reply, Yes; and beyond that dizzy and bewildering verge, where a mistaken expediency overlaps the boundaries of right, farther than either patriot, moralist, or Christian can go. It is on these grounds that a dissolution of the Union is urged; because, first, while we remain in the Union we are responsible [9] for slavery, which the Union sustains, and second, because we believe, that in disunion lies the only hope of emancipation for the slave.

No reference has been made to the corrupting influence of slavery upon the country; its constant aggressions upon our liberties; its control of the political parties; its despotic use of the general government as a tool for the promotion of its interests, by patronage, public moneys, and unjust enactments; its wars, fought by northern men, paid for by northern money; its prostitution of justice, through packed juries, profligate attorneys, and unjust judges; for all these things the north has power to correct if she will; though it is an impossible expectation, that the north will ever be sufficiently free and united, to rule by virtue of its numerical preponderance, while slavery exists as a recognized power in the State. But we omit any argument based on these things, which admit of possible cure. For, in respect to these things, the fault (strictly speaking) is not directly with the Union. These, we are not forbidden to prevent, and therefore, of themselves, afford no necessary or unavoidable reason for a separation. Now, this same argument, could it be applied to the Constitution, would be equally valid against our measure of dissolution. If it were possible, under the Constitution, to abolish slavery, and we could be freed from the responsibility of an immoral oath, if it were possible so to alter the Constitution as to expunge its slave clauses, and allow us to move for abolition,—then the Union need not, necessarily, be severed. But how is it, in fact?

The Constitution is pro-slavery. That has been assumed throughout. Nothing need be said on that point, save to refer the reader to the first tract of this series, or to Mr. Phillips’s reply to Lysander Spooner. Facts, evidence, usage, the interpretation of our courts, the public voice, and the instrument itself, are unanimous in their decision of that point. That Constitution is the fundamental federal law. Whatever is constitutional may be done; whatever is unconstitutional (save when in favor of slavery) may not be done. It stands, therefore, as the supreme law of the land, and is regarded by the people as a sort of external conscience. Here, then, we have an authority, established nearly seventy years ago, to control the legislation of a great and growing country, increasing, since that authority was established, from thirteen to thirty-one States, and seven enormous Territories, and, in population, from three to twenty-three [10] millions—an authority from which there is no appeal; which neither changing social needs, the growing wants of a growing country, nor increasing intelligence and virtue, and capacity of men for freer forms, nor any exigency or circumstance whatever can question. But even further; this authority, which admits of no appeal, hears no petitions, which is blind, deaf and heartless, in its protection of sin, this authority is perpetual. The Constitution cannot be altered, so that there may be just laws, which shall be at the same time constitutional, so that we may obey conscience legally, and speak and act for the right, without arrest for treason. Provision is made, indeed, for amendment, but under conditions so strict and impossible, that it amounts to prohibition, so far as any great dividing question, like slavery, is concerned. Article V. of the Constitution reads as follows: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments; which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress.”

By this article, therefore, not one State alone, not all New England, not the entire north, have any right to propose a modification or repeal of the slave clauses of the Constitution. As we now stand, twenty-one States must agree to propose an amendment, before the proposition can be received; and after that is done, twenty-four States must ratify that amendment, before it can be law. Is not this simple statement sufficient? Who so sanguine or visionary, that he dare hope for a vote of three fourths of the States, to free our Constitution from its protection of slavery, or even of two thirds of the States to make such a proposal. This very difficulty was alluded to by Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, a member of the convention which framed the Constitution. In a letter to the Virginia legislature, explaining his reasons for refusing to sign the Constitution, he says, “My opinion always was, and still is, that every citizen of America, let the crisis be what it may, ought to have a full opportunity to propose, through his representatives, any amendment which in his apprehension tends to the public welfare. By signing, I should have contradicted this sentiment. * * * I may be asked [11] why the mode pointed out in the Constitution, for its amendment, may not be a sufficient security against its imperfections. My answers are, That it is better to amend while the passions of designing men are not yet enlisted, and while a bare majority of the States may amend, than to wait for the uncertain assent of three fourths; that a bad feature in government becomes more and more fixed every day; * * * and that in the present case it may be questionable whether, after the particular advantages of its operation shall be discerned, three fourths of the States can be induced to amend.”

Here, then, we have the singular spectacle, of a Constitution, which is the national fundamental law, the bond of union, and supreme, from whose authority there is no appeal, which is unchangeable and eternal, formed nearly seventy years ago, not by an omniscient power, but by men like ourselves; men who yet made laws not for themselves alone, not for their times, suited to their political necessities alone, but, with an assumption of infallibility almost impious, for their children’s children, to the remotest generation, for every age, to the end of time or of the Union. Absolute beyond the possible limits of monarchical despotism, our charter of tyranny, not only makes laws, but makes them perpetual. And in swearing to the Constitution, we are compelled, virtually, to swear to its perpetuity just as it is. That Constitution is pro-slavery. Viewed, then, in the light of all that is urged, (and can logic or inspiration point to any other conclusion?) he is not the traitor to his country, but the only true patriot as well as Christian, who labors for the peaceful dissolution of this Union.

The question of the policy of this movement, apart from its effect in removing slavery, we have not discussed. We care not to discuss it; though the fears, so commonly expressed, of consequent disaster and ruin, might easily be shown to be unfounded. But whether so or not, it is a fatal admission for any one to make, that the prosperity and safety of the country depend on sustaining sin, and would be perilled by removing it; still more fatal to say, that any conceivable danger to existing institutions, can justify persevering and perpetual disobedience to the supreme law of God. But there is no danger of disaster or ruin in the success of the measure proposed, even were it put into execution at once. There is, however, no immediate prospect of that. A score or two of abolitionists cannot [12] dissolve the Union. Their principles must first be carried home to the consciences of the people of the north. Thus the public mind will be prepared for the change, when it can be made, and all needful precautions taken. And when the people are ready, then the Union is broken, the Constitution repealed, slavery abolished. Then, and not till then, shall we be able to secure, what, in the preamble to our Constitution, the present Union proposed, but has signally failed to effect—“a more perfect union,” which will “establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Our purpose is not incendiary. We do not expect to dissolve the Union, alone. With the truest and most disinterested love of justice, humanity, and our country, we simply ask coöperation, and for this, appeal to the conscience and understanding of the people. There is no necessity, therefore, for any definite answer to the question, “How do you propose to do this thing?” It is not the time to lay out a plan of the campaign, to open trenches, dispose forces, and besiege the citadel, while we yet have no forces, save only a few recruiting officers. The thing to be done now is, to urge upon every man this question—Are you ready? If you (believing slavery a sin, and that it is wrong to sustain sin) believe that the American Union does sustain slavery, can you do otherwise than commit yourself to this cause, as the only hope for the slave, the only measure of salvation for the country, and a simple expression of adhesion to the eternal laws of the Almighty?

Published for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

WHERE IS THY BROTHER?

“What mean ye that ye bruise and bind
388.    My people? saith the Lord;”
389.And starve your craving brother’s mind
390.    That asks to hear My word?

What mean ye that ye make them toil
392.    Through long and hopeless years;
393.And shed, like rain, upon your soil
394.    Their blood and bitter tears?

What mean ye that ye dare to rend
396.    The tender mother’s heart?
397.Brothers from sisters, friend from friend,
398.    How dare ye bid them part?

What mean ye, when God’s bounteous hand
400.    To you so much has given,
401.That from the slave that tills your land
402.    Ye keep both earth and Heaven?

When, at the Judgment, God shall call
404.    “Where is thy brother?” Say!
405.What mean ye to the Judge of all
406.    To answer, on that day?

“THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE.”

My country that nobly could dare
408.    The sword of oppression to brave:
409.Can’st thou, of all nations, still bear
410.    To be the dark land of the slave?

[2]

His groans and the clank of his chains
412.    Shall rise with the shouts of the free;
413.And turn into discord the strains
414.    We raise, God of justice, to Thee.

Proud knees at the altar we bend.
416.    Upon the Almighty we call.
417.We name Him our Father and Friend;
418.    And forget He’s the Father of all.

His children He will not forget.
420.    His mercy, His power, can save;
421.And, sure as God liveth, He yet
422.    With liberty give to the slave.

Rejoice not in freedom and peace;
424.    With blood of the slave on your sod!
425.Till the groans of the negro shall cease,
426.    Hope not for a blessing from God!

The dead whom the white man has slain,
428.    They cry from the ground and the waves:
429.They once prayed for mercy in vain.
430.    They plead for their brothers the slaves.

O, let them, my country, be heard!
432.    Be the home of the free and the brave;
433.And send forth the glorious word,—
434.    This is not the land of the slave!

REMEMBER THE SLAVE!

Mother, when around your child
436.    You clasp your arms in love,
437.And when with grateful joy you raise
438.    Your eyes to God above;

[3]

Think of the negro-mother when
440.    Her child is torn away,—
441.Sold for a little slave,—oh then
442.    For that poor mother pray!

Father, when your happy boys
444.    You look upon with pride,
445.And pray to see them, when you ’re old,
446.    All blooming by your side;

Think of the man who lives to be
448.    The father of a slave;
449.And asks a pitying God to give
450.    His little son a grave!

Brothers and sisters who with joy
452.    Meet round the social hearth,
453.And talk of home and happy days,
454.    And laugh in careless mirth;

Remember then the poor young slave
456.    Who never felt your joy,
457.Who, early old, has never known
458.    The bliss to be a boy!

Ye Christian ministers of Him
460.    Who came to make men free,
461.When at the Almighty Maker’s throne
462.    You bend the suppliant knee;

From the deep fountains of your soul,
464.    Then let your prayers ascend
465.For the poor slave who hardly knows
466.    That God is still his friend!

Let all who know that God is just,
468.    That Jesus came to save
469.Unite in the most holy cause
470.    Of the forsaken slave!

“AULD LANG SYNE.”

How hopeful were the early days
472.    Our brave forefathers knew!
473.How beautiful their simple ways,
474.    Their doings good and true!
475.Chorus.—Our early days, our early days,
476.    With all their light, are o’er;
477.The mighty men and good old ways
478.    That we shall see no more.

The glowing history we read
480.    Of acts too great for praise;
481.And learn by heart each noble deed
482.    Of those bright early days.
483.    Our early days, &c.

Alas, that hour of deepest gloom!
485.    Those men so good and true
486.Have signed and sealed the negro’s doom.
487.    “They know not what they do.”
488.    Our early days, &c.

To give their children peace and wealth,
490.    Their brother’s right they stole.
491.God sent the nation’s body health,
492.    But “leanness to its soul.”
493.    Our early days, &c.

A prophet speaks the word to-day
495.    ‘For erring sires atone!
496.That fatal Union shall ye lay
497.    Upon the altar-stone.’
498.    Our early days, &c.

And from that sacrifice sublime
500.    Shall rise the sacred fire;
501.The spirit of the olden time
502.    Our people shall inspire.
503.Chorus.—Our early days, our early days,
504.    With all their light, are o’er;
505.But earnest men and honest ways
506.    Shall come to us once more.

“AND THE DAYS OF THY MOURNING SHALL BE ENDED.”

Air—From Greenland’s icy mountains.

Lift up a voice of gladness,
509.    Ye lowly waiting throng!
510.O, dry your tears of sadness,
511.    And raise a cheerful song!

Hope on! A glorious morrow
513.    Your aching hearts shall see;
514.And quench their burning sorrow
515.    In freedom’s jubilee.

The word of doom is spoken.
517.    Your chains are loosening fast.
518.Ere long, they shall be broken;
519.    And Justice reign at last.

Nation to nation calling,
521.    Cries—liberty for all!
522.The tyrant’s power is falling,
523.    Is quailing at that call.

From mountain back to mountain,
525.    Its echoes shall be heard;
526.And maidens at the fountain
527.    Shall pass the holy word.

O’er mighty lake and river.
529.    Shall go the great decree,
530.The tyrant’s chain to sever,
531.    And set the captive free.

O’er many a flowery prairie,
533.    Like breath from Heaven, it sighs;
534.And bids the sad and weary
535.    Lift up their tearful eyes.

[6]

Ocean to ocean swelling,
537.    With loud exulting waves,
538.The joyful word is telling—
539.    There shall be no more slaves.

RESCUE THE SLAVE.

Air—The Troubadour.

Sadly the fugitive weeps in his cell.
542.Listen awhile to the story we tell!
543.Listen ye gentle ones! Listen ye brave!
544.Lady fair, lady fair, weep for the slave!

Praying for liberty dearer than life;
546.Torn from his little ones, torn from his wife;
547.Flying from slavery; hear him, and save!
548.Christian men, christian men, help the poor slave!

Think of his agony, feel for his pain;
550.Should his hard master e’er hold him again!
551.Spirit of liberty, rise from thy grave!
552.Make him free! Make him free! Rescue the slave!

Freely the slave-master goes where he will.
554.Freemen stand ready his wish to fulfil:
555.Helping the tyrant, or honest or knave:
556.Thinking not, caring not for the poor slave.

Talk not of liberty! Liberty ’s dead.
558.See the slave-master’s whip over our head!
559.Stooping beneath it, we ask what he craves.
560.Boston boys, Boston boys, catch me my slaves!’

Freemen, arouse ye, before ’t is too late!
562.Slavery ’s knocking at every gate.
563.Make good the promise your early days gave!
564.Boston boys, Boston boys, rescue the slave!

LORD DELIVER!

Lord deliver! Thou canst save.
566.    Save Thy children, mighty God!
567.Hear, O hear the kneeling slave!
568.    Break, O break the oppressor’s rod!

Shall the tyrant reign forever?
570.    Shall we always suffer wrong?
571.When wilt Thou our race deliver?
572.    Must we wait? “O God, how long?”

O, how long, with blood and tears,
574.    Shall we till the oppressor’s soil?
575.When shall end these heavy years?
576.    When shall cease our hopeless toil?

Robbed of manhood, knowledge, all;
578.    Father, we have nought but Thee.
579.Hear us, when on Thee we call!
580.    God of mercy, set us free!

Not on Afric’s distant strand
582.    Shall our people exiled be.
583.Here, within our native land,
584.    Give us back our liberty!

Still we watch the passing hour
586.    Patiently through sorrow’s night;
587.Till the Lord shall give us power
588.    Here to vindicate our right.

He whose power is everywhere,
590.    Who doth lowly sorrow see;
591.He will hear the captive’s prayer.
592.    He will set the captive free.

ON HEARING OF THE SADNESS OF THE SLAVE-CHILDREN FROM THE FEAR OF BEING SOLD.

When children play the livelong day,
594.    Like birds and butterflies;
595.As free and gay, sport time away,
596.    And know not care or sighs;
597.Then all the air seems fresh and fair
598.    Around us and above.
599.Life’s flowers are there; and everywhere
600.    Is innocence and love.

When children pray with fear all day,
602.    A blight must be at hand.
603.Then joys decay, and birds of prey
604.    Are hovering o’er the land.
605.When young hearts weep as they go to sleep,
606.    Then all the world is sad.
607.The flesh must creep, and woes are deep,
608.    When children are not glad.

Published, for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also, to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

Yes, my friend, I can resolve your question. Twenty years of actual experience qualify one to reply. I have stood, as you now stand, on the threshold of this grandest undertaking of any age—this effort to elevate a whole people in the scale of moral being—with my head full of plans, and my heart of devotedness, asking the same question. I really longed for this coming of millennial glory, and therefore soon found the road on which to go forth to meet it. My disgust was unutterable, as yours, too, will be, if you desire the abolition of slavery more than the temporary triumph of sect or party, at the stupid schemes by which selfish men were then, as now, trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights—seeking to sell the gift of the Holy Ghost for money. Hear them clamorously and meanly taking advantage of ignorance, for the promotion of self-interest.

First, hear the agents of slavery presenting the colonization scheme as the instrument of abolition.

“Aid the Colonization Society.” Yes; to make slavery stronger by exalting prejudice as an ordination of divine Providence; to make slavery safer by eliminating that dangerous element, the free black; to make its term longer by stultifying national conscience. See that society making the laws of slave States more cruel, the men of the free States more obdurate, the situation of the free men of color more difficult and insupportable, as a part of its plan. It [2] could not, if it would, transport three millions of souls to Africa; the navies and revenues of the world would be insufficient. It would not, if it could; for slavery has no intention of parting with its three millions of victims; unless induced to free them out of generosity, it will keep them on speculation. Its forty years of colonization labor, and its million of gold and silver, have exiled fewer to Liberia than have escaped into Canada in spite of it—less in that period than the monthly increase of the slaves! It can do nothing for Christianizing Africa, for it sends a slaveholding gospel, which is anti-Christ. Be not deceived, then, by a tyrannical mockery like this, working to perpetuate slavery, and not to abolish it. Aid the American Anti-Slavery Society, which deals with the heart and conscience of this slaveholding nation, demanding immediate, unconditional emancipation, without expatriation; the abolition of slavery by the spirit of repentance, in conformity with all your own principles and traditions, whether religious or political.

Hear another cry, (coming, not like the first, from the enemies of abolition, but from friends, generally those of more pretension than devotedness:) “Form a political party, free soil or other, to vote down slavery.”

Yes, don’t kill the growing monster—call to him to stop growing; merge immediatism, which always succeeds, in gradualism, which never does. Substitute a secondary object for the primary one. Strive in the first place not to abolish slavery, but to get one set of men out of office and another in, to learn by the event that the last are as incapable to turn back the whirlpool that masters the government as the first were. Make an appeal to force of numbers in a case where you know it is against you; in a case, too, where, having sworn assistance, you must lose influence by such an appeal. Spend your time and money, not in making new abolitionists, but in counting the old ones, that at every count diminish. Politics, in the common, small sense of the term, merely takes the circumstances it finds, and does its best with them. But the present circumstances are unfavorable. Then create new ones. This is true politics, in the enlarged, real meaning of the word. Here is a building to be erected, and no sufficient materials. A little untempered mortar, a few unbaked bricks—that is all. Go to the deep quarries of the human heart, and make of your sons and daughters polished stones [3] to build the temple of the Lord. It is this cleaving into the living rock the American Anti-Slavery Society girds itself to do. Under its operations men become better and better abolitionists. Under the labors of political partisanship they necessarily grow worse and worse. They must ever ask themselves how little anti-slavery feeling and principle they can make serve the temporary turn; because the less of either, the greater the chance. They must always be sacrificing the end to the means. Call them to the witness box in their capacity of philosophical observers, and out of their little circumventing political characters, and themselves will tell you that the effect of electioneering on anti-slavery is most unfavorable, adding to the existing opposition to right the fury of party antagonism, throwing away the balance of power, lowering the tone of moral and religious feeling and action, and thus letting a sacred enterprise degenerate into a scramble for office. But labor with the American Anti-Slavery Society directly to the great end, and even Franklin Pierce and Co., pro-slavery as they are, will grovel to do your bidding. The administration now on the throne is as good for your bidding as any other. In a republican land the power behind the throne is the power. Save yourself the trouble of calling caucuses, printing party journals, distributing ballots, and the like. Let men who are fit for nothing of more consequence do this little work, which is best done by mere nobodies. More than enough of them are always ready for it. You, who are smitten by the sacred beauty of the great cause, should serve it greatly. Don’t drag the engine, like an ignoramus, but bring wood and water and flame, like an engineer. The American Anti-Slavery Society has laid the track.

“Buy slaves and set them free.’ Yes; lop the branches and strengthen the root; make the destruction of the system more difficult by practising upon it; create a demand for the slave breeder to supply; compromise with crime; raise the market price, when you ought to stop the market; put a philanthropic mark upon the slave trade; spend money enough in buying one man to free fifty gratis, and convert a thousand. But there is a wholesale way, cries one. “Sell the public lands, and set every means in motion, from the merely mercantile donation of a million to the infant cent society, and thus raise two thousand millions of dollars, and beg the slaveholders to take it, (not as compensation, but as a token of good will,) and [4] let their bondmen go.” I marvel at this insufficient notion of the heart of a slaveholder. I wonder exceedingly at such a want of imagination. “Not as compensation” is well put; for what sum can compensate a monarch for his throne? This system of slavery makes the south the parent of long lines of princes. It gives to her diabolical dominions

“Kingdoms, and sway, and strength, and length of days.”

I am strangely divided in sympathy. I feel at once the generosity of the proposal, and have the feeling of contempt with which its insufficient inappropriateness is received.

“Organize vigilance committees, and establish underground railroads.” Yes; hide from tyranny, instead of defying it; whisper a testimony; form a bad habit of mind in regard to despotism; try to keep out the sea with a mop, when you ought to build a dike; flatter your sense of compassion by taking private retail measures to have suffering ameliorated, when you might, with the American Anti-Slavery Society, be taking public wholesale measures to have wrong (the cause of suffering) righted. You may safely leave with the half and quarter converted, with the slaveholders, nay, even with the Curtises, the charge of all these things, which without the American Anti-Slavery Society are but as hydrogen and nitrogen without oxygen, however good with it, as the natural fruits of its labors. What I would discourage is, not mercy and compassion in an individual case, but a disgraceful mistake in the economy of well doing; spending in salving a sore finger what would buy the elixir vitæ; preferring the less, which excludes the greater, to the greater, which includes the less. Slavery can only be abolished by raising the character of the people who compose the nation; and that can be done only by showing them a higher one. Now, there is one thing that can’t be done in secret; you can’t set a good example under a bushel.

“But instruction! instruction! found schools and churches for the blacks, and thus prepare for the abolition of slavery.” O, shallow and shortsighted! the demand is the preparation; nothing can supply the place of that. And exclusive instruction, teaching for blacks, a school founded on color, a church in which men are herded ignominiously, apart from the refining influence of association with [5] the more highly educated and accomplished,—what are they? A direct way of fitting white men for tyrants, and black men for slaves. No; if you would teach and Christianize the nation, strengthen the American Anti-Slavery Society, the only American institution founded on the Christian and republican idea of the equal brotherhood of man, and in opposition to a church and state which deny human brotherhood by sanctioning slavery, and pull down Christ to their own level. The American Anti-Slavery Society is church and university, high school and common school to all who need real instruction and true religion. Of it what a throng of authors, editors, lawyers, orators, and accomplished gentlemen of color have taken their degree! It has equally implanted hopes and aspirations, noble thoughts and sublime purposes in the hearts of both races. It has prepared the white man for the freedom of the black man, and it has made the black man scorn the thought of enslavement, as does a white man, as far as its influence has extended. Strengthen that noble influence. Before its organization, the country only saw here and there in slavery some “faithful Cudjoe or Dinah,” whose strong natures blossomed even in bondage, like a fine plant beneath a heavy stone. Now, under the elevating and cherishing influence of the American Anti-Slavery Society, the colored race, like the white, furnishes Corinthian capitals for the noblest temples. Aroused by the American Anti-Slavery Society, the very white men who had forgotten and denied the claim of the black man to the rights of humanity now thunder that claim at every gate, from cottage to capitol, from school house to university, from the railroad carriage to the house of God. He has a place at their firesides, a place in their hearts—the man whom they once cruelly hated for his color. So feeling, they cannot send him to Coventry with a hornbook in his hand, and call it instruction! They inspire him to climb to their side by a visible acted gospel of freedom. Thus, instead of bowing to prejudice, they conquer it.

“Establish free-labor warehouses.” Indeed! is that a good business calculation that leads to expend in search of the products of free labor the time and money that would make all labor free? While wrong exists in the world, you cannot (short of suicide) but draw your every life breath in involuntary connection with it; nor is conscience to be satisfied with any thing short of a complete devotion to the anti-slavery cause of the life that is sustained by slavery. [6] We may draw good out of evil: we must not do evil, that good may come. Yet I counsel you to honor those who eat no sugar, as you ask no questions for conscience’s sake; while you despise those who thrust forward such a call upon conscience, impossible, in the nature of things, to be obeyed, and therefore not binding, as if it were the end of the law for righteousness, in order to injure Garrison, the great and good founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society. I have seen men stand drawing bills of exchange between England and the United States, while uttering maledictions against the American Anti-Slavery Society, because it does not, as such, occupy itself with the free produce question. This I brand as pro-slavery in disguise—sheer hypocrisy.

You see, my friend, that I have replied to your question in the conviction that you desire the abolition of slavery above all other things in this world; as one assured that it is the great work of Christianity in our age and country, as the conflict with idolatry was in other times and climes. Thus you see the salvation of the souls, the maintenance of the rights, the fulfilment of the duties, and the preservation of the free institutions of Americans, to depend upon the extirpation of this accursed and disgraceful disease which is destroying them. If I had reason to think you merely desirous to make sectarian and political capital out of a holy thought and a sacred purpose originated by others—if you were merely contriving defences for what is indefensible, and trying to save the credit of what is disgraceful, trying to throw dust, and change the issue, and pay tithes of cumin to delay justice, in order to spare your own insignificant self in this greatest conflict of light and darkness, good and evil, which the world has now to show—if you had been trying how to seem creditably interested in what ought to be an American’s first business, and calculating how little instead of how much you might sacrifice to the soul-exalting cause of freedom—if you were but trying to get yourself or some friend into office by the judicious use of ideas which, as a republican and a Christian, you ought to give yourself wholly to be used by—if you were the hired agent of some demisemiquaver of a movement which tacked anti-slavery to its other titles, in order to establish a claim on the purses of abolitionists—in any of these cases I would not have stopped to talk with you. Your interest being the thing you had at heart, I should not counsel; I should be called, in the name of all that is [7] holy, to condemn you, in order that blame might awaken conscience. But the case, I trust, is different. I may, then, say to you, with all the confidence, nay, certainty, which is inseparable from experience, knowledge, and utter self-abnegation in the matter, Work with the American Anti-Slavery Society. Lavish your time, your money, your labors, your prayers, in that field, which is the world, and you will reap a thousand fold, now and hereafter. This movement moves. It is alive. Hear how every thing mean and selfish struggles, hisses, and dies under its influence. Never, since the world was, has any effort been so clear, so strong, so uncompromising, so ennobling, so holy, and, let me add, so successful. It is “the bright consummate flower” of the Christianity of the nineteenth century. Look at those who “have not resisted the heavenly vision” it presented them of a nation overcoming its evil propensities, and doing right at all risks; ask them whether it has not saved their souls alive; ask them if it has not made them worshippers of the beauty and sublimity of high character, till they are ready to “know nothing on earth but Jesus Christ and him crucified.” For this they give all—wealth, youth, health, strength, life. Worldly success, obtained by slackening their labors against slavery, (and it is easy to have it on those terms at any moment, so placable a monster is the world,) strikes them like failure and disgrace. They have “scorned delights, and lived laborious days,” till at length they feel it no sacrifice, but the highest joy. All this the American Anti-Slavery Society demands of you. Do it! and be most grateful for the opportunity of fulfilling a work which is its own exceeding great reward. Do it, and find yourself the chosen of God, to keep alive in this nation, degraded and corrupted by slavery, the noble flame of Christian faith, the sentiment of honor and fidelity, the instinct of high-mindedness, the sense of absolute, immutable duty, the charm of chivalrous and poetic feeling, which would make of the poorest Americans the Christian gentlemen of the world.

“Cherish all these high feelings that become
750.A giver of the gift of liberty.”

You will find yourself under the necessity of doing it in this noble company, or alone. Try it. Strive to be perfect, as God is perfect—to act up to your own highest idea, in connection with church or state in this land corrupted by slavery, and see if you are helped or [8] hindered. Be not dragged along by them protesting. It is graceing as a slave the chariot wheels of a triumph. But flee from them, as one flees out of Babylon. Secure the blessing of union for good, and be delivered from the curse of union in evil, by acting with the American Anti-Slavery Society, its members and friends.

I use this mode of expression advisedly, for I am not speaking of a mere form of association. Many are in harmonious coöperation with it who have neither signed the constitution nor subscribed the annual half dollar. Hence it is neither a formality nor a ceremony, but a united, onward-flowing current of noble lives.

If, then, you feel that devotedness of heart which I verily think your question indicates, I feel free to counsel you to go immediately to the nearest office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, [7] by letter, if not in person, subscribe what money you can afford—the first fruits of a life-long liberality, and study the cause like a science, while promoting it like a gospel, under the cheering and helpful sympathy of some of the best company on earth; but not unless; for this company despises what politicians, ecclesiastical and other, call “getting people committed.” They have a horror of this selfish invasion of another’s freedom, as of the encumbrance of selfish help. They warn you not to touch the ark with unhallowed hands.

One consideration more—the thought of what you owe to your forerunners in what you feel to be the truth. It is, to follow meekly after, and be baptized with the baptism that they are baptized with. “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness;” and the more your talents, gifts, and graces may, in your own judgment, be superior to theirs, the more becoming it will be to seek their fellowship; for in the whole land they, and they alone, are right. It is not eulogy, but fact, that theirs is the path of the just, shining more and more unto the perfect day—denied only by the besotted with injustice, the committed to crime. Consider, then, not only what you owe to your slavery-cursed country, your enslaving as well as enslaved countrymen, your fathers’ memory, your remotest posterity, the Christian religion, which forbids the sacrifice of one man’s rights to another man’s interests, and which knows no distinction of caste, color, or condition,—but consider, also, what you owe to those individuals and to that brotherhood who have battled twenty years in the breach for your freedom, involved with that of the meanest slave.

[9]

Imagine how the case stood with those who perished by suffocation in the Black Hole at Calcutta. Suppose that some of their number had felt the sublime impulse to place their bodies in the door, and the high devoted hearts to stand the crushing till dawn awoke the tyrant; the rest of that doomed band might have passed out alive. This is what the American Anti-Slavery Society has been unflinchingly doing for you, and for the rest of the nation, amid torture, insult, and curses, through a long night of terror and despair. The life of the land, its precious moral sense, has been thus kept from suffocation. The free agitating air of faithful speech has saved it. The soul of the United States is not dead, thanks, under Providence, to that noble fellowship of resolute souls, to find whom the nation has been winnowed. Do your duty by them, in the name of self-respect. Such companionship is an honor accorded to but few, and of that worthy few I would fain count you one. Strike, then, with them at the existence of slavery, and you will see individual slaves made free, anti-slavery leaven introduced into parties and churches, instruction diffused, the products of free labor multiplied, and fugitives protected, in exact proportion to the energy of the grand onset against the civil system.

Note. The work of the American Anti-Slavery Society is carried on by newspapers, books, tracts, agents, meetings, and conventions. The donor is requested to specify to what department, and in what section of country, he wishes his contribution applied.

CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

‘I wish you would not distress me by continually talking about the slaves. I do not consider the subject as belonging either to you or me; it is for the south, and not for the north. The southerners must do their work, and we must do ours. I make a rule of forgetting the slaves as far as I can. What is the use of dwelling upon what you cannot help? it only unfits one for doing any thing. For my own part, I find quite enough for my time and thoughts in feeling and acting for those at my very door, whose wants and necessities require all one’s spare hours; and were I to take up the slave question, I hardly know what would become of me. No; this work is beyond my powers; it would be only a waste of time and feeling to attempt it. At all events, I cannot bear it; it only makes me nervous, and no good comes of dwelling upon it.’ These words, or their meaning, are often uttered to those who allude to the subject of slavery in their intercourse with friends; but they do not always carry conviction with them, even when those to whom they are addressed are conscious that the speaker is one who is devoted to charitable thoughts and deeds, and earnestly striving to take their full share of the duties which Christianity lays upon her disciples; but we lament the more for this very reason that they should be uttered, because we think them at variance with that very charity which calls upon us to overcome all things. It may seem foolish or presumptuous to attempt to confute them, and we would not strive to do this in the way of argument; but in presenting another, and what seems to us a more satisfactory view of the subject, we may hope, as “in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to [2] man,” that we may by this appeal excite sympathy and interest in what seems to us a more just and Christian way of looking at the subject.

In reply to the remarks we have cited, we would say that our interest for the slave springs from the same source as our interest for the poor; we cannot say, My heart shall flow out for the white woman, and not for the black, for the free woman, and not for the bond. The sense of justice and of right does not stop to inquire how far, or how long, or upon what objects she shall exercise her divine power; but, like the widow with her flask of oil, pours out upon him who stands in need, and finds in proportion as this is done, so is the supply. In how few words are we told in this simple story to trust in right doing! When we undertake to fix the boundary of our hearts, and say how far, or how long, or for whom they shall move us to act, it shows we have not put our confidence in Him who has made them to beat; it is the questioning of the divine power to mistrust them in this way. While we are intent upon doing the right thing, the urn will fill without our care; for we know not at best how it is that we are able to remove mountains, excepting by our trust in the divine word.

Those who are troubled and made nervous by the discussion of slavery, and wish never to hear about it are not put into this state because they have no feeling for the slave, but because they find it necessary to work with a distinct idea that they must accomplish something, as they show when you ask them to give money to buy one of these poor sufferers. How willingly they will do this! And yet in their hearts they may have been wanting in that true sympathy which, in the sight of God, makes this purchase a dreadful comment on the relation of his children one to the other.

‘Why,’ we are asked, ‘do you say we may have been wanting in true sympathy for the slaves?’ Because we believe a true sympathy for their condition would leave no desire to criticize any sincere efforts to help them out of their despair, but would gladly join in the work, with the prayer that God would order it for the right.

When we feel called upon to do something, the nerves take their appointed place, and give us the power to accomplish what we desire to do; and then they become sources of pleasure, and not of pain. To bear one another’s burdens came from the lips of Jesus. Did not his life show us how to do this? When he called the leper [3] to him, had not his heart overflowed with love and compassion and the thought that this too is a child of God, would he not have felt nervous, and questioned the prudence and propriety of touching him?

The circumstance of the complexion and conformation of the slaves, added to their long history of degradation, influences unconsciously, we think, the feelings and judgment of those who do not sympathize with the advocates of their cause. These objectors find it easy enough to see the mistakes that are made in the means used, and in the mode of doing the work. Doubtless there is some ground for these objections, so keenly perceived; but we think the fares in this field can safely be left. When some delicate woman, brought up in the refinements of life, visits the hovel of the poor drunkard, and sees the object of her charity so disfigured that hardly a trace of humanity is left, she, all the more, longs to bring back the soul to this degraded temple, that it may again assert its origin. Her heart does not grow cold by criticism, but burns with a new desire, at the sight of this ruin, to do something to restore this fallen one. But this poor creature is white; hence her ears are quick to hear any suggestions to break the sinful chains that bind him to the earth. She does not ask herself to what country he belongs; she knows he is a child of God, and that is enough. But the poor negro whose dark skin we are unaccustomed to, whose chains are riveted by the hand of the white man, whose degradation is compelled by the avarice of selfishness, must be pleaded for, must be reasoned about, before we can penetrate the prejudice that hardens the heart against him—a prejudice which blinds the eye of justice, and makes us forget that this too is a child of God; and one whom, could the curtain be raised, perhaps we should see nearer the throne of grace than, in our short-sightedness, we imagined. By whose fiat did this dark skin come into the world? Are we to question the wisdom of his existence? Are we to judge the Almighty?

If the question were put, whether, if the three millions of slaves were white instead of black, there would not be more sympathy for those who take their part, and less criticism upon their imperfect measures, there are many who would say, ‘Yes,’ and add, ‘naturally enough we do prefer white to black; we have a right to our preference, and no one has a right to interfere with it.’ We would not infringe upon the rights of any one; respect for the rights of all [4] being the groundwork of our interest in the slave. It is our preference, our choice, which guides us in our efforts for the emancipation of the slave; but it is not a choice of color, so much as of morality. We do not condemn this preference of any one; but when a matter of taste oversteps its legitimate bounds, and influences our judgment of right and wrong, encroaching upon the integrity of our hearts, bribing our consciences, and ruling our lives, then we are giving up gold for dross, the permanent for the transient, the corruptible for the incorruptible. Would the fugitive slave law, that forces men and women to break away from their honest calling and the fireside of their cherished homes have been received with such patriotic consideration had these fugitives and a white skin instead of a black one? This new aspect of the system of slavery, this new manifestation of its reckless power, has a tongue for itself; it needs no comment. The 2d of June, 1854, has not yet quite faded out of the memory of those who, perhaps then for the first time, were made conscious of what stuff slavery is made.

But our object is not now to call up the horrors of slavery, in order to make apparent the view we have of it; it is simply to show our relation to it as Christians that we speak of it. We have said that one difference between those who do and those who do not advocate the cause of the slave is that the latter are influenced by the fact that their actions in this regard need the incentive of apparent results. One of their arguments against any action is that they see no good in it; ‘What is the use of talking, if you do nothing? How are your lectures and your speeches going to affect the slave? There he is still in his bondage, and will continue to be so for all your words.’ It may be so; but, could this be proved, it would not shake the friend of the slave from his purpose of clearing his skirts of the sin of slavery by his constant protest against it, and his determination to do all that in him lies to overthrow it, this being a necessary and natural expression of his allegiance to justice, and of his sympathy with humanity. We do not acknowledge as a consistent Christian him whose actions in the moral world are influenced by the idea of success, as a necessary condition of his efforts for the right. He shows a scepticism in the power of right. He works not as children, in the love of obedience to the perfect standard set up in our hearts, which we must obey, or become rebels. He would put himself in the place of the divine [5] law that he may come to a shorter method of accomplishing the work. For a time, in the eye of the world, he may succeed; but He that knows the end from the beginning sees with a clearer eye. It is from the starting point of right, and not of calculation, that the abolitionist sets out upon his work of reform. His mind is not weakened or troubled by the many stumbling blocks in his way, nor is he moved from his purpose because misunderstood. When we are in earnest, we are unmindful of casualties. If the ground we have taken is a false one, if there is in it any contradiction to the simple precepts of Jesus, any thing at variance with his life, then should it be abandoned; but not till then. It may be supposed from what we have said that we are indifferent to results; not at all; but we leave them in the hands of God.

There must arise in the mind of every one who uses his faculties consciously some idea of the object he has chosen as most worthy of the use of his powers; but it comes before his mind as the result of the work of time, with which he personally has nothing to do, any further than a strict adherence to what he conceives to be the right thing at the time requires. The artist who first conceives the idea of the cathedral glowing in all the splendor of his aspiring soul, solemnized with the desire of making a place of worship fitting the Most High is not detened from devoting all his thoughts to the carrying out his conception from the fact that he shall never see it realized: he still feels a sacred obligation to be true to his idea; he still retains his temple of worship within.

With these views, it is natural that the advocate of the slave should be opposed to those who try to forget him, who think it not their affair to interfere with his condition, who treat the attempt to restore him to the place God assigned him as Quixotic. Those who so feel are considered the common sense part of society, the rational—the practical. We have attempted to show how we differ from them, and why; and we think we have the vantage ground, from the fact that we have espoused the cause in question. The interest which induces one to adopt any subject (supposing the mind tolerably fair) helps him to understand and see more quickly its claims; it renders him clear sighted to its vulnerable points, that he may guard against them. We cannot do justice to any subject till we have loved it; it is this “hunger of the heart” which is [6] essential to put in motion the will, and which gives sight to the understanding.

When our philanthropy is influenced by our taste it shows that it springs not from the highest source, and is liable to fail when its refreshing waters are most needed for the parched lips which plead for it; but when this happens, we are apt to think the fault is in the object and not in ourselves. This is a failure we can avoid, as we have before intimated, by starting from the highest point, from that source of living waters which is a well ever springing up, that we may always trust in. Those who are simply guided by their taste and their sensitiveness in their works of philanthropy naturally avoid all contact with slavery. The fact of the color and degraded condition of the slave repels them. This seems to us as a form of atheism. It may seem a harsh judgment; but surely, if we believe that we are all children of God, and that he is no respecter of persons, it is great presumption for us to discard as unfit for our sympathy any portion of his family; and by indulging in this selfish selection we are doing homage to ourselves rather than to Him. This exclusive feeling carried out would gradually estrange us from an impartial Being; our hearts would grow hard; and, in the midst of our rejoicing amongst our chosen friends, some hour might come when there might appear a fiery hand, that would write in burning characters that the days of such a philanthropy were numbered. It seems more fitting for Christians to take their feast at the common table of humanity, where neither complexion nor country can interfere with our belief that we are all children of God, all learners in the great school of life which is the preparation for a higher existence.

The advocates of the slave are called people of one idea. But this one idea—what is it? It is an idea that includes all others, for its aim is to overthrow a system which takes in and covers all the immoralities and sins that man can work upon the fair face of God’s earth. Let one sin be mentioned which does not, almost of necessity, spring from the atheistic root of slavery! From the time when Joseph was cast into the pit by his brothers down to the present hour, its poisonous root has sent forth its shoots; and here, in this so called land of freedom, it flourishes in the plantations, and is exhibited on the auction block. We are longing and looking for the hour when the sin that has sold our brother shall, [7] through much sorrowing and many tears, be so repented of that on bended knee and in deep humiliation we shall ask pardon for our great iniquity. May this Joseph be the prefigurement of our better spirit, of our allegiance to the highest law of right. Let us take all that we have, and make a pilgrimage in the search for what we have lost, till we find ourselves again in the arms of truth and justice. We have done this great sin in the sight of Heaven; let us pray to be released from its weary bondage that our souls may be refreshed by peace of conscience. Let this slavery become a history to be told to our grandchildren, taking its place with that record of sins of which the floods of heaven were opened to destroy all likeness from the face of the earth. Let us pray for that mercy which shall allow us an ark of safety in the integrity of our determination: that we may rise above these dark waters which threaten to destroy the life of our souls.

Published for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia; and at the Anti-Slavery Depository, Salem, Columbiana Co., Ohio.

the

UNANIMOUS REMONSTRANCE

of the

FOURTH CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH,

HARTFORD, Conn.,

against the

Policy of the American Tract Society

of

THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY.

The following unanimous Remonstrance of the Fourth Congregational Church of Hartford, Conn., was originally published and circulated to the number of several thousands by private individuals. The stereotype plates having been generously presented to the American Anti-Slavery Society, it has been adopted as a tract in their series, and for obvious reasons is published without alteration. The committee by whom it was prepared consisted of the Pastor, (Rev. Wm. W. Patton,) John Hooker, Esq., and Mr. Milo Doty.

New York, June, 1855.

LETTER OF REMONSTRANCE:

[(35)]

It seems very strange that any one should think that the Bible sanctions slavery. Yet the defenders of the system appeal to the Bible with boldness, as if its authority were on their side.

The Charleston Union Presbytery, South Carolina, declare, that “the holding of slaves, so far from being a sin in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word.”

The Charleston Baptist Association “does not consider that the Holy Scriptures have made the fact of slavery a question of morals at all.”

The Georgia Methodist Annual Conference resolved that “slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil.”

The Protestant Episcopal Society for the Advancement of Christianity declare in a tract, that “without a new revelation from heaven, no man is authorized to pronounce slavery wrong.”

Rev. James Smylie, of Mississippi, (endorsed by two Presbyteries,) says, “The twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus clearly and unequivocally establishes the fact, that slavery was sanctioned by God himself, and that buying, selling, holding and bequeathing slaves, as property, are regulations which are established by himself.”

Rev. Thomas S. Witherspoon says, “I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to hold the slave in bondage.”

Dr. Fuller says, “I find my Bible condemning the abuses of slavery, but permitting the system itself.”

Statements like these could be brought from sources of high [2] standing, to any required amount. Now, the very boldness of this claim may stagger some minds. How could men dare appeal so earnestly to the Bible, if it was really against them? But as history shows that the worst despotisms of the Old World have been in the habit of putting forth just such claims, so it may be in the case of slavery. It may be only the instinctive effort of an evil system to stave off judgment, by clothing itself with sacredness as a Bible institution, and representing all opposition to it as infidelity. And when we reflect on the cruelty of the system, this appears quite probable; nor, if we look at the arguments used to back this claim, is the probability at all diminished.

A fair Bible argument ought to show that slavery, as defined by the slave law, is agreeable to the character of God as revealed in the Bible. If this be really friendly to the system, then, and not otherwise, is slavery upheld by the Bible. Now, this is not the usual method of the defenders of slavery. Instead of it, they usually appeal to the curse on Canaan, the practice of Abraham, the legislation of Moses, and the silence of Christ and the apostles—an argument in every point unsound, nay, even absurd, when stripped of rhetorical ornament, and stated in the plain dialect of common sense. God cursed Canaan, who settled in Asia; therefore Ham, whom God did not curse, and who lived in Africa, must be enslaved. Abraham had armed servants, free to leave his service at will; therefore we may hold slaves unarmed, and without the least power to change masters. Moses’ laws destroyed slavery in Palestine; therefore God sanctions our laws which make slavery eternal. The apostles declared masters and slaves brethren, and forbade all recourse to Roman civil law; therefore they sanction that law and its cruel offspring among us.

Let it not be said that this is a caricature. If you tear off the fleece from a wolf in sheep’s clothing, you do not caricature him; you show him as he is. So it is not a caricature to tear off rhetorical fleece from a sophism, and show it to be absurd.

Leaving, however, this point for further consideration by and by, let us now test the system of slavery by the only fair Bible argument; an argument not from disputed theological points, on which Christians may honestly disagree, but from the revealed attributes of the true God, about which there can scarcely be much difference of opinion.

[3]

What is the Bible view of God? How does he stand towards slavery as defined in the American slave code?

1. The Scriptures represent God as interested in the temporal concerns of men. Indeed, he is the Author of all really good social organization, and the only cause adequate to preserve it from corruption. He was the Founder and manifest Executive of the Hebrew commonwealth; and their system was the wisest, for the ends in view, that ever existed. All nations are held accountable to him for their laws and institutions; and whatever system is intrinsically unthrifty, disorderly, and disorganizing, must be displeasing to him.

But slavery degrades labor, discourages education, science, art; enfeebles commerce, blights agriculture, and continually works society towards barbarism. No traveller from a free to a slave state can fail to be struck with the evidence of this. The wisest southern statesmen have confessed slavery an incubus; and the fate of the Roman empire, where the experiment was tried on a magnificent scale, demonstrates the fact beyond denial.

Says Alison, “The steady growth, unequalled extent, and long duration of the Roman empire prove the wisdom of their political system; but it fell a prey at length to the dreadful evil of domestic slavery.”

Says Dr. Hague, “What caused that weakness of the empire which gave the barbarians a chance to overturn it? The answer is, The slave system within the empire corroded the core of its strength, and rendered it a mere shell, unable to resist the pressure of its enemies.”

Such a system, then, cannot be well pleasing to God.

2. God is revealed in the Bible as the Author of the family state, and the jealous defender of its purity. The family is the oldest, simplest, strongest, and most sacred institution of God on earth. All true systems have guarded it; all false systems have struck at its very life. Two of the ten commandments aim directly to establish the family,—

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

“Honor thy father and thy mother.”

Any system of laws, then, which nullifies the family, and legalizes concubinage, is in direct and flagrant opposition to the law of God, and must excite his deepest displeasure.

But what is slave law on this head?

[4]

“A slave cannot even contract matrimony.” (Stroud’s Sketch of Slave Laws, p. 61.) “Slaves are not entitled to the conditions of matrimony.” (Taylor’s Roman Civil Law, p. 429.) Slaves may indeed go through the usual forms, and be joined by the minister at the altar; but the laws allow no reality, no binding force, to the transaction. The law has nothing to shield any female slave from the passions of her owner; and husband and wife, parent and child, may be legally sold asunder forever, at any moment. Thus the family is completely annihilated by law, and the result is universal licentiousness.

“We southern ladies,” said the sister of President Madison, “are complimented with the name of wives; but we are only mistresses of seraglios.”

Nor is this destruction of the family an “abuse” of the system. It is an essential element of its legal being. Therefore the system of slavery must be exceedingly odious before God.

3. The Bible reveals the justice of God. He is the Creator and Father of all, and all are his offspring. All bear his image. He loves all impartially. All have equal rights before him. He is the common Judge of all, before whom all complaints must come for final decision. He is always represented as judging the cause of the poor and needy, and pleading for the oppressed. If we should extract from the Old Testament alone, to say nothing of the New, all that God says against social injustice, the accumulation of testimony would be overwhelming.

But what does slavery say of itself in its laws?

“Slaves,” says the South Carolina statute, “shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”

That this is the radical doctrine of slave law throughout the South, the following statement of Mr. Goodell shows:—

“Where other usages or statutes in any of the states fail, recourse is generally had to the Roman civil law.” That law was as follows:—

“Slaves were held pro nullis, pro mortuis, pro quadrupedibus. They had no head in the state; no name, title, or register; they were not capable of being injured,” &c.

[5]

This is the root notion of slave law. A slave is counted “as a cipher, a corpse, a quadruped.” He is not a citizen. He cannot be injured or wronged, because he is so stripped of rights that he has no rights to be violated. But why? What has he done? Does he deserve this? Is there any ground for it in natural law? None. Says Blackstone, “It is repugnant to reason and the principles of natural law that such a state should exist any where.” Book I. chap. xiv. p. 423.

The slave has simply been born of a slave mother, and is thus stripped of his rights because his mother was before him; she, because her mother was; and so onward until we arrive at the original act of man-stealing in Africa, which our laws condemn as piracy, and Moses’ law punishes with death. Therefore the ablest judges confess in open court that this is intrinsically unjust. “Merely in the abstract,” says Judge Ruffin, of North Carolina, “it may well be asked, which power of the master accords with right?”

Here, again, we are not dealing with “abuses” of the system, but with the system itself, as it is in its own laws and courts; and we ask, Must not the Bible, revealing a God of infinite justice, reject such a system, and expel it from the world?

4. God is infinitely benevolent. Awful as God appeared on Sinai, the law that he revealed there was love, and in it he disclosed the deepest law of his own being; so that “he that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God, for God is love.” The gospel is a still higher unfolding of the same feeling, for “God so loved the world that he gave his beloved Son to die.” Hence no one can deny that any system which is radically selfish must be hateful to God. But slavery confesses this of itself. If we wish to hear slavery speak, we must go into southern courts, and hear the slave law utter itself through the lips of its ablest judges.

Speaking of the legal relation of master and slave, Judge Ruffin says, “This has been assimilated at the bar to the other domestic relations; and arguments drawn from the well-established principles which confer and restrain the authority of the parent over the child, the tutor over the pupil, the master over the apprentice, have been pressed on us.

“The court does not recognize their application; there is no likeness between the cases; they are in opposition to each other, and there is an impassable gulf between them. The difference is that [6] which exists between freedom and slavery, and a greater cannot be imagined. In the one, the end in view is the happiness of the youth born to equal rights with that governor on whom the duty devolves of training the young to usefulness in a station which he is afterwards to assume among freemen. * * * With slavery it is far otherwise. The end is the profit of the master, his security, and the public safety; the subject, one doomed, in his own person and his posterity, to live without knowledge, and without the capacity to make any thing his own, and to toil that another may reap the fruits. * * * The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect. I most freely confess my sense of the harshness of this proposition. I feel it as deeply as any man can; and as a principle of moral right, every person in his retirement must repudiate it; but in the actual condition of things, it must be so; there is no remedy.”

This may stand as a full and fair confession from the mouth of the slave system of its incurable selfishness. Parents may be selfish, but the relation itself of parent and child is not intrinsically selfish, but benevolent. But while, on the other hand, the master may be humane and benevolent, the legal relation existing between him and his slave is intrinsically and unchangeably selfish. Therefore the mere fact that the Bible reveals a God of infinite benevolence, is ample condemnation of such a system.

5. The character ascribed to God in the Bible is eminently undespotic; the opposite of the usual character of earthly monarchs. Abraham conversed familiarly with God as a man with his friend. Moses found him, even on Sinai, long-suffering, slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Psalms and prophecies all breathe the same spirit; while Christ, in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, said, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.”

Alluding to the tyranny of earthly lords and rulers, Jesus said, “So shall it not be among you;” and afterwards actually stooped to wash his disciples’ feet, saying, “If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet.”

Now, is this the fundamental characteristic of the slave law? Meekness, lowliness, self-sacrifice for inferiors? Not so thought Judge Ruffin, when he said, “The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect.” It is power, not love, on which such dominion stands,—brute force, not [7] ideas. Indeed, Judge Ruffin asks in open court, “What moral considerations shall be addressed to such a being to convince him, what it is impossible but that the most stupid must feel and know can never be true, that he is to labor thus upon a principle of natural duty, or for the sake of his own personal happiness? * * * Such obedience is the consequence only of uncontrolled authority over the body.”

And this is despotism—a government not of ideas and motives, but of bodily violence. Hence Jefferson declared “the whole commerce between master and slave to be a perpetual exercise of the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and of the most degrading submission on the other.”

Therefore he adds, that the children of slaveholders “nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities.”

As much, then, as the character of God, as shown in Christ, is opposite to the character of a Nero or a Caligula, so much is the Bible opposed to the system of American slavery.

6. Finally, the Bible reveals God as above all other things interested in the moral elevation and renovation of men, their deliverance from darkness and sin, and their preparation for heaven. God only is Lord of the conscience. All men have from him equal religious rights. The Bible reveals to all the solemn sanctions of eternity, and summons all to the same judgment seat. To all it brings the message of salvation through a crucified Redeemer. Any system, then, which darkens the mind, and tends to prevent repentance, and faith, and holy living, must in the highest degree incur the wrath of God.

All Protestants admit this principle as applied to Romanism: consistency requires them to admit it as applied to slavery. For slaves are far more dependent on their masters, who are not even professedly Christian teachers, than Catholics on their priests, who are. It is against the law to distribute Bibles and good books to slaves. It is against the law to teach them to read. The law gives to every master full power to deprive his slave of all religious instruction, if he choose; or to determine the nature and extent of that instruction. And the result is, that the slaves are generally ignorant and demoralized. The Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, in 1833, said, “In this Christian republic, there are over two millions of human beings in the condition of heathen, and in some [8] respects in a worse condition.” * * * “They may justly be considered the heathen of this Christian country.” Similar testimony is abundant from other religious bodies at the South.

Now, if the slaves have souls; if they are in danger of eternal destruction; if Christ died for them; how great the guilt of that system which thus imperils their salvation!—a system which, not content with stripping them of all their rights here, tends directly to defeat their last hope of happiness hereafter!

With an unbeliever in future punishment this argument might have less weight. But with the majority of denominations of Christians in this country, it is an argument of inconceivable power. If God be justly indignant with pagan delusions, with papal priest-craft, and with other systems which tend to destroy the soul, how much fiercer the indignation he must feel towards this, whose malignant tendencies in this respect are unparalleled upon earth! And how can the Bible, which reveals him, fail to make war on such a system?

Now, in the face of such a Bible argument as this, an argument susceptible of unlimited expansion, an argument any single point in which ought to be conclusive, what do the defenders of the system allege?

Shall we take up again, and examine in the light of this development, their fourfold plea?

1. Noah said, “Cursed be Canaan.” We answer, that curse was executed on Canaan, all whose descendants are, in Gen. x., expressly located in Palestine. What has it to do, then, with Ham, who was not cursed, and whose descendants were located in Africa? As well call the yellow fever in New Orleans a fulfilment of Moses’ curses on the Jews.

2. Abraham had slaves. We answer, Abraham had several wives; does the Bible therefore sanction polygamy? But the fact is, Abraham’s slaves were not slaves as Southern law defines slavery. They had arms; they could leave his service at will; there was no state and national law to interfere. Indeed, instead of being in Abraham’s power, he was in theirs.

3. Moses legalized slavery. “Of them” (the heathen) “shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids, and ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever.”—Lev. xxv. 46.

But, as Dr. Hague judiciously remarks, “this must be understood [9] in consistency with the law of the jubilee, laid down in a preceding part of the same chapter, (ver. 9, 10,) “Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Hence the meaning of the statute is not the entail of perpetual slavery on any class, but simply the confining the Jews in the purchase of slaves, always and forever, to the children of the heathen.”—Christianity and Statesmanship, pp. 382, 383.

A full view of all the Mosaic statutes on this subject shows conclusively that the property principle of our laws was in no wise sanctioned. Let us take a bird’s eye view. Moses found slavery in existence. He legislated not to perpetuate, but to destroy the practice. Hence, while in other nations it continued, in Israel it disappeared, so that in Christ’s time, while the Roman empire was full of slaves, in Judea there were none. Moses’ laws were the opposite of ours in this: ours favor the master, his favored the slave; ours disfranchise the slave, his made him a Jewish citizen. Kidnapping was punished with death. Every Hebrew slave and every circumcised foreign slave went free the seventh year. Every fiftieth year all went free, whether proselytes or not.

No permission was ever given to sell a slave, or bequeath them by will; nor is there any evidence in the record that such a thing was ever done. The law protected the person of the slave. The loss of an eye or a tooth set him free. If the slave ran away, all were strictly forbidden to help the master catch him. This alone destroys entirely the chattel principle. More than one third of the slave’s time was at his own disposal by law. Finally, the slave was required to be circumcised, and incorporated into the state as a citizen, with the right of intermarriage, and of equal religious privileges, and there was no prejudice of color or caste feeling to keep him down.

The contrast between such a system of legislation as this, and the American slave code, is as wide as between the things of God and the things of Cæsar. It is a contrast so entire, that if to-day the Jewish law could be substituted for our slave code, it would instantly operate as an effectual abolition of the entire system of American slavery.

4. Christ and the apostles did not condemn slavery. We answer, Christ spent his life in Palestine, where slavery had been [10] abolished. He, probably, never came in contact with Roman slavery. The argument is then narrowed to the apostles. The question now is, what stand the apostles took in their epistles to converts from paganism; for of their actual preachings to unconverted pagans we have few vestiges remaining. Paul’s sermon on Mars’ Hill, in which he declared that “God had made of one blood all nations that dwell on the earth,” is about the only specimen of an apostolic sermon to pagans.

Did, then, the apostles sanction the Roman civil code, in their letters to the churches? This is manifestly the vital point of the whole argument. For it is the Roman civil code, and not the Jewish, from which our slave code has descended.

We reply, they not only did not sanction it, but they unequivocally, and with the whole weight of their authority, condemned it. In his letter to the Corinthian converts, Paul asks, “Dare any one of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?”

And again,—

“I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not a wise man among you, no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.” That is, in the courts of the Roman civil law.

“Now, therefore, there is utterly a fault among you because ye go to law one with another,” &c.

Christians, then, were utterly forbidden to go into Roman courts, and to appeal to Roman law; and then the whole system of slavery was in an instant annihilated, both the slavery of slaves, and the slavery of sons and of wives. For the Roman civil law gave the father absolute power of life and death over his wife and his son, as much as over his slave. And if the apostles had by silence sanctioned that law in one respect, they would have equally sanctioned it in all. But they did not. They were not silent. Says Dr. Hague, “Far from availing themselves of any power granted by the civil law to retain their brethren in bondage, their religion forbade them to refer to that law any question respecting their duties to each other.”

Hence slavery was immediately abolished in the primitive churches. For whenever a question arose between a convert and his former slave, he could no longer resort to the civil tribunals; he [11] must go to the brotherhood, and the case must be issued by them. But they had sworn allegiance to Christ. His golden rule was for them “the royal law,” “the law of Christ.” Hence, when the apostles commanded masters to love their servants as brethren, and to render to them things just and equal, we see a deep significance in those words. “Justice” and “equality” were terms not predicable under Roman law of slaves. What “justice” to a cipher, a corpse? what equality to a quadruped? Roman law must have been utterly ignored before such words could be used. Hence all the passages alluding to masters and slaves receive a new meaning, far different from that the defenders of slavery are wont to give. Does the apostle speak of slaves “who are under the yoke,” “suffering wrongfully”? It is plain they are converted slaves of unconverted masters, who have not ignored Roman law. Does he caution converted slaves “not to despise” their believing masters? It is plain emancipation has taken place, with its natural reaction from servility to unrestraint. Does an escaped slave, now a convert, wish to return to his former master, now also converted, the apostle entreats Philemon to receive him “not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved.” Such expressions the apostle could never have used, if he had not utterly repealed and ignored the Roman law, as having any thing to do with the conduct of Christians.

Such, then, is the value of the so-called Bible argument in behalf of American slavery. Noah’s curse cannot touch Ham in Africa; Abraham’s servants are insulted by the idea of chattelhood; Moses’ law is the antipode of the Roman; and the Roman, with its courts, expressly prohibited by apostolic authority.

At the same time, on every page of the Bible a glorious God of infinite order, purity, justice, benevolence, meekness, and grace, stands revealed against a system of disorder, lust, injustice, selfishness, despotism, and irreligion. Does, then, the Bible uphold Slavery? Nay, verily, it must ever be to that system a consuming fire. Either the system must be consumed, or the fire quenched. Either Slavery or the Bible must be put down.

Published, for gratuitous distribution, at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 138 Nassau Street, New York. Also, to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 31 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia, and at the Anti-Slavery Depository, Salem, Columbiana Co., Ohio.

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND ITS VICTIMS.

The Fugitive Slave Law was enacted by Congress in September, 1850, received the signature of Howell Cobb, [of Georgia,] as Speaker of the House of Representatives, of William R. King, [of Alabama,] as President of the Senate, and was “approved,” September 18th, of that year, by MILLARD FILLMORE, Acting President of the United States.

The authorship of the Bill is generally ascribed to James M. Mason, Senator from Virginia. Before proceeding to the principal object of this tract, it is proper to give a synopsis of the Act itself, which was well called, by the New York Evening Post, “An Act for the Encouragement of Kidnapping.” It is in ten sections.

The Anti-Slavery movement (as conducted, for twenty-three years past, by the American Anti-Slavery Society) was at its commencement, and has ever since been, thoroughly and emphatically a religious enterprise. The earliest official documents of that Society (its Constitution and its Declaration of Sentiments, both adopted at Philadelphia in 1833) show that its prominent and preponderating appeal was to religious considerations; that Slavery, whatever else it might be, was first, “a heinous crime in the sight of God;” that immediate emancipation was the divinely imposed “duty” of the slaveholder, whether he recognized it as his pecuniary interest or not; that a public sentiment adverse to slavery was to be awakened first by “appeals to the consciences” of the people; that the elevation of the character and condition of the people of color was to be sought “by encouraging their intellectual, moral, and religious improvement;” and that it was proposed, among the means to this end, “to enlist the pulpit in the cause of the slave, and to aim at a purification of the churches from all participation in the guilt of slavery.”

It is obvious that the founders of the American Anti-Slavery Society, in this plan for the accomplishment of a religious end by religious means, confidently relied upon the support of “the pulpit.” They had attributed the silence of the clergy respecting slavery to the same source with their own former quiescence, partly thoughtlessness, partly ignorance of the essential character and the actual workings of the system, and partly preoccupation with subjects nearer home; and they had confidently expected that when a sin so gross and so widely extended, and moreover entwined so intimately and injuriously with their own ecclesiastical system, was brought to their notice, the clergy would at once take measures, first for the purification of their own churches and ecclesiastical bodies, and next for that of the community and the country. But subsequent events showed this charitable judgment not to be well founded. The great majority of ministers, of every denomination, remained utterly indifferent both to the facts and the arguments which were set forth concerning slavery, continuing to fraternize with slaveholders both in church and state; and the flocks felt no call to renounce or oppose that which their pastors allowed. Thus the church, which had been looked to as the field best prepared for the reception of Anti-Slavery truth, was found to be no more accessible than the congregation; and both church and congregation soon learned to appeal to the indifference of so pious and excellent a man as their minister, as a sufficient reason for their own indifference to the guilt and the danger involved in slavery.

The failure of their efforts in this direction wrought as a stimulus instead of a discouragement to the Abolitionists. If the disease had taken a deeper hold than even they had supposed, if slavery was to be tacitly allowed by the church as well as supported by the state, and if even the teachers of [2] religion refused to oppose it, the more need was there for strenuous and unwearied exertions on their own part. The harvest being greater and the laborers fewer than they had expected, those who were in the field must work with double diligence. And they did so work.

But they soon found that not only indifference, but opposition, was to be encountered from the clergy. Having undertaken to call the nation to repentance for a great sin, and to immediate abandonment of it, they of course preached this doctrine on Sunday as well as on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday; and presently they were stigmatized by the clergy as violators of the Sabbath. Making large use, as their previous culture and habits of thought dictated, of the denunciations of prophets, apostles, and evangelists against oppression, and finding these injunctions neutralized, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, by men who called themselves ministers of the gospel, they saw the fitness, and did not shrink from the painful duty, of quoting what was said by the same authorities against corrupt priests, false prophets, blind guides, dumb dogs that bark not, and hireling shepherds; and for this the corrupters of religion called them revilers of religion. Finally, when, having proved by indisputable argument and overwhelming evidence that slavery is the sum of all villanies, they were met by the assertion that “slavery is authorized by the Bible” they replied, “If it be so, so much the worse for the Bible,”—for this their clerical opponents declared them infidels.

Though by no means the first, or the only instance, the Anti-Slavery Society is yet a signal and noteworthy instance of an evil reputation not only coexisting with, but growing out of, a good character. The Abolitionists, after their first surprise at the recreancy of the clergy to their own principles, were very little concerned at being called ill names by those whom they had shown to be in the wrong. They could afford to be censured for recommending right things because they were right, by men who tolerated things contrary to justice and humanity because (they said) they found no prohibition of them in the Bible. They therefore went on, continuing to quote, as the supreme authority, “the higher law” of right, and have so continued till the present time, though the theologians under Moses Stuart combined with the politicians under Daniel Webster to scoff at that rule as unpractical and fanatical, avowing their own chief standard of duty (in relation to slavery) to be the Constitution of the United States.

If the systematic allowance by clergymen, and from (so called) religious considerations, of a system combining the height of oppression with the depth of meanness, be well suited to excite the tears of the weeping philosopher, the mirth of the laughing philosopher must no less be awakened by the charge of infidelity, made by the same clergymen, against persons who are vainly calling them and their people to repentance for “a heinous sin in the sight of God.”

The Abolitionists have quoted Scripture quite as much as their opponents, but with this peculiarity, that they have always quoted it on the side of right and justice. Their offence has been that they have not bowed their heads in silence when an interpretation of Scripture favoring injustice and oppression has been brought against them. Preaching to a slaveholding Union of Northern and Southern States their duty to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke, they have cared nothing for the allegation, true or false, that Abraham and Job were slaveholders. Engaged in helping the robbed and wounded traveller, they have neither stopped to pull off their hats to the Priest and Levite passing by on [3] the other side, nor regarded the cry of “infidelity” which those reverend personages set up against them. Regarding a man as better than a sheep, they have not scrupled to pull him out of a pit, even on the Sabbath day. Finding Onesimus to have been sent back to Philemon, “not as a servant, but as a brother beloved,” they have not seen in this message any justification of the Fugitive Slave Law; and they regard the positive precept of Jesus, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them,” as infinitely more weighty than the negative assertion that he is nowhere recorded to have claimed immediate emancipation for the Roman slaves, even supposing, what is yet unproved, that he ever came in contact with slaves at all.

Steadily and invariably, through the twenty-three years of its existence, the American Anti-Slavery Society has adhered to this high ground. From first to last, they have denounced the act of slaveholding as “a sin against God;” they have declared immediate emancipation to be the “duty” of every master, as well as the right of every slave; and they have steadily disregarded the overtures that have been made, sometimes from political and sometimes from ecclesiastical sources, to increase their numbers by lowering their platform, abating their denunciations against the sin, and moderating their demand upon the sinner. They have been urged in the most persevering and importunate manner, not to represent slaveholding as absolutely and invariably sinful; not to require immediate repentance and reformation; not to insist on placing popular vices in the same category with unpopular ones; and, above all, not to impugn a man’s Christian character, and fitness for church membership, on the ground of his systematically practising the “sum of all villanies.” Despite all the persuasions, promises, threats, and vituperations that have been brought to bear upon them, they have steadily insisted on bringing slavery face to face with this one test—“Whether it be right in the sight of God.”

The Anti-Slavery Society is not, and has never pretended to be, a church; neither are its principles presented to the community as covering the whole ground of Christian duty. The relation with which this association concerns itself, namely, that of self-assumed ownership on one side and compulsory chattelhood on the other, is only one of the relations of life; it has, however, extensively interwoven itself with other relations, combining a vast array of social, political, and ecclesiastical influences for its support; and the claim of the Abolitionists is, that they have followed it, through all its windings, with the touchstone of right; that they have demanded that this, like all other relations, shall be judged by Christian principles instead of by custom, or interest, or, an unjust law, or a selfish expediency; that they have felt, and spoken, and acted for those in bonds as bound with them; that they have maintained, in the face of calumny, persecution, and discouragement of every sort, the rightful supremacy of divine laws over human; and that neither bribes nor threats, neither the thunder of the state nor the anathema of the church, neither the sophistry of Webster nor of Stuart, nor yet the specious pretence of gaining more for the slave by demanding less, have for a moment prevailed with them to recede from this commanding position. They have pursued, and mean still to pursue, a Christian end by Christian means.

None have a better right than the Abolitionists to address the American people in the words of Paul to the Galatians—“Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” They have given the very highest evidence of disinterested sincerity in voluntarily exposing themselves to reproach and contumely to advance the end which they deem [4] most beneficial alike to the slave and the master. The very act which unreflecting people charge upon them as a fault,—the plain exposure of unfaithfulness to their duty in a class of men so popularly respected as the clergy,—is the best proof that they are really seeking the welfare of others, and not their own credit or profit. They claim, and prove, that their work in behalf of the slave is a good work, pursued in a right manner; but they may also claim, and can thoroughly prove, that in doing this work for the slave, they are collaterally doing an immense service to the cause of religion; that in plainly demonstrating wherein the professed teachers of Christianity are unfaithful to their work,—in pointing out as false prophets and blind guides those who, speaking in the name of Jesus, teach the doctrines of Daniel Webster and Franklin Pierce, and declare that, if there be any conflict between these, the latter should be obeyed in preference to the former,—they (the Abolitionists) are acting in the interest of religion not less than of Anti-Slavery; that the advancement of Christianity itself, in this country, demands the precise course they are taking; that, as the very root and essence of true religion is confidence in the infinite excellence, the absolute perfection of the Creator—as the imputation to him of injustice in his own acts, or any countenance of injustice in the laws which he has given to men, would be (in the mind that accepted such an idea) a weakening of the very foundation of Christianity—as the duty of loving and serving God results from his being good and not evil, and as both love and service will of necessity be deteriorated by the supposition that injustice forms a part, either of his character or his commands—and that, since the very first step towards reclaiming the wanderer is to show him the direction in which he has been led astray, and point out the course by which he should return,—so the indispensable preliminary to a thorough and effective preaching of the gospel in the United States is, to show the churches and congregations how, and how far, and by whom, they have been led to pervert religion to the support of slavery.

There are doubtless many persons who (having neither sought it themselves, nor read it when collected by the Abolitionists) are yet unacquainted with the immense body of evidence which exists in proof of the unfaithfulness of the clergy to their duty in relation to slavery in all the large and popular sects of this country. For the instruction of such persons, a statement, and a few specimens of this unfaithfulness, will here be given.

I charge upon the churches of all the great sects in the United States, and preëminently upon the clergy, the leaders of those churches, that, assuming to be “the salt of the earth and the light of the world,” or, in other words, assuming to be not only the chief, but the divinely constituted and authorized conservators of religion and good morals, a great and controlling majority of them in each sect hold one or another of the following positions:—

I. They make no effort, [12] by word or deed, to put a stop to slavery.

[5]

II. They throw the weight of their influence actively against those who are seeking its immediate and unconditional abolition.

III. Some of them practise slaveholding, and defend it; and others actively and thoroughly defend it, without the temptation or the opportunity to practise it.

IV. The remainder (including some who freely comment on the vicious character of slavery, and oppose its extension northward) welcome to their full fellowship, as Christians and Christian ministers, both the above-mentioned classes; namely, those who hold slaves, and those, both North and South, who maintain from the Bible the right to hold them.

V. The condition of heart and life which they recognize and inculcate as “piety,” or “evangelical Christianity,” and which qualifies a man for membership in their churches, neither excludes the practice of slaveholding, nor requires opposition to it,—the good standing of their church members being absolutely unaffected by slaveholding, slave trading, and slave breeding; while, on the other hand, the expression of any active and energetic opposition to slavery is regarded as a disturbing force, an objectionable element, in their religious meetings, and specially to be deprecated when there is most fervor and earnestness of religious feeling.

Among the evidences that the churches and clergy of the United States really hold this position in regard to slavery, namely, ignoring its anti-Christian character, acquiescing in its indefinite continuance in the South, fraternizing with those who practise and defend it, and opposing those who most directly and actively oppose it, are the following:—

1. The American Tract Society, a great incorporated body, supported by, and a fair representative of, all the sects which call themselves “Evangelical,” and declaring its purpose in the distribution of books and tracts to be to “promote the interests of vital godliness and good morals,” not only refuses to publish and distribute tracts against slavery, but persists in this refusal on the very ground that it cannot oppose what the American churches support. It also takes pains to conciliate the slaveholders by cutting out from its editions of works originally published elsewhere, such testimonials against slavery as they may incidentally contain, sometimes persuading the authors to consent to such mutilation.

2. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, a great incorporated body, also supported by, and fairly representing, all the sects which call themselves “Evangelical,” refuses to exclude slaveholders from its mission churches, also, on the ground that it cannot oppose what the American churches support; and thus at once throws its weight into the scale of slavery, and corroborates our position respecting the corrupt state of the popular religion.

[6]

3. The American Bible Society, a great incorporated body, also supported by, and fairly representing, all the sects which call themselves “Evangelical,” has gone a step further than this, namely, it has circulated, in one of its official documents, an elaborate representation of the Bible as a pro-slavery book, characterizing this representation (Bible Society Record, November 1854 and April 1855) as an “Important document,” and an “excellent address.”

4. Every one knows the assiduity with which Daniel Webster devoted the last years of his life to advocating the perpetuity of the American Union; and every one also knows that the means by which he sought this end were exhortations to the North to “conquer their prejudices” against slavery, to consent to its indefinite continuance and extension, and to fortify it on the Northern border by the seizure and surrender of fugitive slaves. He not only gave these counsels to his political friends and the Northern people at large, but he expressly claimed that, in relation to slavery and all other matters connected with politics, the Constitution of the United States was to be reverenced and obeyed as supreme, and “the higher law” (if any such existed) set aside as subordinate. This was either asserted or taken for granted in all the speeches and political letters of that portion of his life. Here is one of the direct expressions of it:—

“When nothing else will answer, they [the abolitionists] invoke religion, and speak of the higher law. Gentlemen, this North Mountain is high, the Blue Ridge higher still, the Alleghanies higher than either, and yet this ‘higher law’ ranges further than an eagle’s flight above the highest peaks of the Alleghanies. No common vision can discern it; no common and unsophisticated conscience can feel it; the hearing of common men never learns its high behests; and therefore one would think it is not a safe law to be acted upon in matters of the highest practical moment. It is the code, however, of the abolitionists of the North.”—Speech at Capon Springs, Virginia, June 26, 1851.

What was the response of the clergy of New England to these declarations of the most prominent statesman of their time? It is to be remembered that, as the Whigs and Democrats of that period vied with each other in expressions of allegiance to the Fugitive Slave Law, there were many zealous advocates and practisers of this system of immoral philosophy in every one of the congregations to which these clergymen preached. What, then, did they say to and of Daniel Webster, when he publicly scoffed at the claim that there was a law higher than the Constitution of the United States, and when a prominent and fundamental feature of the course pursued through the last years of his life was the assumption of a right entirely to disregard religion when politics were in question?

The great majority of the New England clergy, (tacitly conceding the points assumed by Webster,) said not one word against them; of the remainder, far the greater number gave explicit testimony in favor of Webster’s position, (perhaps a hundred and fifty sermons to this effect having been printed,) while a few [13] made a prompt and manly protest against it. Professor Stuart, the most prominent in learning and station of the Orthodox clergy, took the lead in authenticating Webster’s position, elaborately arguing the case in his pamphlet entitled “Conscience and the Constitution;” [7] and long before that publication, he had advised his theological students not to speak nor pray against slavery in public. Rev. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, takes the same position, saying, (page 128 of his “South-Side View of Slavery,”) “While it [the Constitution] remains, all our appeals to a higher law are fanaticism.”

5. The great annual meetings of the principal sects in the United States, at which their representatives, assembled from all parts of the country, discuss, in sessions continued through several days, the position, progress, purposes, desires, and modes of operation of the religious denominations which they represent, form one important criterion by which those sects should be judged. Their proceedings are published at length, from year to year, in the organs of their respective denominations, and they have, thus far, never commenced, nor even proposed, any decisive action against slavery in the South, nor ever refused to fraternize with slaveholders and defenders of slavery, as Christians.

6. The system of “caste” which, partly by law and partly by public opinion, stigmatizes colored people as an inferior race, and forcibly keeps them in a degraded social position, receives the support and coöperation of the churches as corporate bodies, of the church members in private life, and of the clergy as their leaders and teachers in both these departments, as fully as of any other classes in the community, though all these contend vigorously against a similar system, when it is practised as far off as Hindostan, and by persons out of their church communion.

Even the above statement does not express the whole truth upon this important subject. The highest type of piety recognized by the churches of the popular religion in the United States does not include, but on the contrary, does exclude, such an estimation of the rights of man as would demand for the colored man and woman equality of civil and social standing with the white. I mean to assert these two things respecting the highest type of (self-styled) “Evangelical religion” in the United States, as represented by the Park Street, Essex Street, Central, and Old South churches of Boston; first, that their most pious communicant would not find his reputation for piety in the eyes of his brethren diminished in the slightest degree by his refusal, on the ground of color or race, to receive a colored man at his table, or in his carriage or pew, or a colored child in the class at school with his children, or to sign a petition or document in aid of the recovery of civic or social rights for such persons; and next, that active interest and continuous exertion in relation to matters of this sort would unfavorably affect a man’s reputation for piety in the eyes of those churches, and any persistent attempt to elicit from them a practical recognition of this department of human rights would cause the mover to be stigmatized as a disturber of the peace of the church—a troubler of Israel.

This is neither a hasty nor a careless statement. I feel fully authorized to make it, on the grounds following: a large acquaintance, and numerous conversations, extending over a period of twenty years, with clergymen and church members, upon the subjects above mentioned; a careful notice of the attitude of these classes towards the colored people, towards the abolitionists, and towards the few of their own church members who fraternized with either abolitionists or blacks; and a careful scrutiny into the circumstances and true meaning of facts like the following:—

In the year 1830, a colored man bought and paid for a pew in Park Street church, then and since the headquarters of “orthodoxy” in Boston. He occupied it, with his family, a Sunday forenoon, but on returning in the afternoon, a constable, employed by the church committee, forcibly prevented [8] his entrance; the prudential committee wrote him a prohibitory [14] letter; and the church, in a church meeting called thereafter for the express purpose, voted that he should not be allowed to occupy his own pew. They then proceeded to discuss, in five or six meetings following, each opened and closed with prayer, the most convenient and effective way of excluding the whole colored race from equal participation in their worship. Finally, at the suggestion of one who bore, while he lived, the very highest reputation for piety in that church, a new pew deed was framed, containing a provision enabling them to effect their purpose, and the pews of that church are still held under that deed. It has been so perfectly obvious that any similar attempt would meet the like result, that the trial has never been repeated in Boston. A Baptist church, however, (Rev. Baron Stow’s, in Rowe Street,) has guarded itself against such attempts by inserting in its pew deeds the restriction that the pews shall be sold only to “respectable white persons.” Whoever of that congregation is not a saint can at least claim the credit of being a respectable white sinner.

In the earlier years of the Anti-Slavery effort in Boston, before it became absolutely certain that the clergy were to be opposers and not helpers of it, the prayers of the churches on Sundays were hundreds of times requested, in the ordinary form, by Anti-Slavery men and women, in behalf of slaves whose cases were then before the public, and hundreds of times refused. That I might assure myself whether any change had taken place in the twelve or fifteen intervening years, I made another trial, as follows.

The Old South church (Rev. Dr. Blagden’s, equally with Park Street church the headquarters of Boston orthodoxy) has for many years maintained in its vestry a daily morning prayer meeting. Finding it customary to present requests, sometimes verbal and sometimes written, that particular bodies or individuals might be made the subjects of special prayer, one morning in May, 1851, while the Boston court house was in chains, and the case of the kidnapped Sims yet unfinished, I handed in the following note:—

“The prayers of this congregation are requested in behalf of a brother who is now in imminent danger of being torn away from the religious privileges of Boston, and carried as a slave to Georgia, where the laws forbid him to read the Bible; also, that God would be pleased to arouse the churches of this city to a sense of the duty of not delivering again to his master the servant who has escaped from his master unto them.”

This note was presented during the singing of a hymn. The chairman, (Rev. Dorus Clarke,) having cast his eye over it, beckoned to Deacon Safford, who sat near him, and after he also had read the note, they held a brief whispered conference together. The purport of this I can only conjecture, but as the note was not read to the meeting, nor any allusion whatever made to it, I presume they decided that the poor man who had fallen among thieves belonged to another parish; that they were neither his “keepers” nor his “neighbors,” and that the interests of their Zion would prosper quite as well whether he were adjudged a slave or a freeman.

[9]

Not choosing, however, to content myself with inferences, I went to the desk after meeting, and asked Mr. Clarke why he had not read the note. He replied, “It was thought best not to read it; we have had nothing of this sort here for a long time, [it is perhaps quite time to begin, I suggested,] and just in the peculiar state of things among us now, [indications of a ‘revival.’] it seemed best not to introduce it.” “Is that a reason for not praying?” said I. He replied, “We thought it best, all things considered, to hold on upon it.” Another person, a constant attendant of the prayer meeting, who had read the note while we were talking, now said, “You did perfectly right, brother Clarke.”

I was not in the least surprised at these results; neither was I surprised when, on the death, some time after, of the deacon who joined the reverend chairman in rejecting Thomas Sims’s petition for prayers, the brethren of the prayer meeting united in extolling him as a pattern of pious excellence.

Now let us take a glance at the relation of the popular religion in Boston to slavery, anti-slavery, and the social position of the people of color. Park Street church turns a colored man, because he is colored, out of a pew which he has bought and paid for, and then votes that no colored man shall be allowed even to buy a pew any more among them; and their minister says nothing against it. Rowe Street church votes that only respectable white persons shall own pews among them; and their minister says nothing against it. The minister of the Old South church publicly defends slavery from the Bible, and his people agree with him. To carry out their idea of the best mode of promoting piety and good morals, they establish a daily meeting for prayer and exhortation. Whatever is “their hearts’ sincere desire” in the departments of religion and good morals, it is appropriate to express in that meeting, to God by prayer, to men by exhortation. A man, who represents himself as a member of an evangelical church in communion with them, is kidnapped in their own city, and about to be enslaved for life in a region where the laws forbid him to read the Bible. His friend asks their prayers, exhortations, and efforts in his behalf. All these are refused, jointly refused by three persons, each a representative of the highest form of piety cultivated by that church and that meeting, and refused because piety is just then in an unusually flourishing state among them. Dr. Lyman Beecher, the father of Mrs. Stowe, is one of the most constant attendants on that meeting, and one of the main pillars in its management. He knows that their form of piety excludes anti-slavery, and includes pro-slavery; yet, far from protesting against it, he fraternizes with, and supports it. He knows that the Rev. Mr. Blagden, their pastor, defends slavery from the Bible, yet he fully authenticates and recommends him as a Christian and a minister of the Gospel. A few ministers of that denomination, among whom is Henry Ward Beecher, the brother of Mrs. Stowe, hate slavery, and, though thinking themselves obliged to acquiesce in its indefinite continuance at the South, strenuously oppose its extension, and also the surrender of fugitive slaves from their own region. They all know that Dr. Blagden defends slavery from the Bible, and favors the surrender of fugitive slaves. But they all authenticate and recommend him as a Christian and a minister of the Gospel, in good as well as regular standing. Pro-slavery in their view, however unsatisfactory as a trait of character, is not anti-Christian; not incompatible with fervent piety, a truly Christian character, or the adequate fulfilment of the Christian ministry. And thus, even those among the clergy who hate slavery, throw over it the cloak of Christian charity, and join hands with its most thorough defenders.

[10]

7. Besides the numerous ordinary cases, like the above, in which the clergy fraternize with pro-slavery as perfectly compatible with the Christian character, I wish to mention two especially prominent and noteworthy cases.

Rev. Nathan Lord, a Presbyterian clergyman, President of Dartmouth College, in Hanover, N. H., has long devoted himself to the defence of slavery, reading each year a lecture to that effect before the class about to graduate from his college. In the year 1855, he extended the sphere of his operations by publishing two bulky pamphlets, addressed “To Ministers of the Gospel, of all denominations, on Slavery,” in which he stated and defended the three following propositions:—

“Slavery is an institution of God according to Natural Religion.

It is also an institution of God according to Revealed Religion.

It is also perfectly consistent with the law of love.”

No protest has been made against Dr. Lord by his sect, or by any part of it, or by any of the (self-styled) “Evangelical” sects, in communion with it. They hold, and have expressed, various opinions about the speculative correctness of his position, but do not hold it incompatible with the character of a Christian, or of a Christian minister.

In 1854, the Rev. Nehemiah Adams, pastor of the Essex Street (Orthodox Congregational) church, in Boston, and bearing the highest reputation for orthodox piety, published a book called “A South-Side View of Slavery,” in which he praises slavery, as now carried on at the South, both generally and in its most characteristic particulars, defending it from the Bible, and on religious as well as other grounds, wishing he could apply its mode of operations in Boston, seriously suggesting the advantages of a renewal of the African slave trade, and echoing Daniel Webster’s position (above referred to) in the following words, which, however well suited to the last desperate struggle of a profligate politician, are no less than amazing in the mouth of one who claims to be a minister of the Gospel.

“While it [the Constitution of the United States] remains, all our appeals to a higher law are fanaticism.”—p. 128.

The point to which I wish to direct the attention of my readers is this. Since Dr. Adams has thus identified himself, his wishes, his efforts, his reputation as a Christian minister, his influence as a writer of religious books, and his credit as an interpreter of the Bible and the Christian system, with the defence of slavery as it is now practised in the Southern States, not only has no protest been made by his sect, or any part of it, or any of the (self-styled) “Evangelical” bodies in communion with it, impeaching him as having thereby forfeited the character of a Christian, and especially that of a Christian minister, but, on the contrary, the professors, lay and clerical, of the popular religion have seemed to take especial pains to fraternize with him, and to publish to the world their undiminished confidence in him as a Christian minister. Thus, he has been chosen one of the executive committee of the American Tract Society, whose function includes the examination of books and tracts proposed for publication, each member having the absolute power of prohibition; he has preached the annual sermon before that great representative of orthodoxy, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; he presided at the opening session of that prayer and conference meeting formed by the combined “Evangelical” churches of Boston which filled Winter Street church every morning of “Anniversary Week,” 1855; he was chosen to preach the sermon at an installation in Providence, R. I.; and to make a dedicatory prayer at the opening of the new rooms of the Mercantile Library Association in Boston; and to open [11] with prayer the May term of the United States Circuit Court in Boston, 1855; and last, not least, he was suggested by the editor of The Independent (a religious newspaper with which Mrs. Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher are connected as regular contributors) as a satisfactory person to write a tract upon slavery for the American Tract Society, and thus remove from that body the reproach—which has become somewhat burdensome of late—that they have never issued a tract upon that subject. The Independent was so considerate as to suggest to Dr. Adams that such a tract need not “meddle with the vexed question of abolition,” and so mindful of the credit of its clerical brother as to assure its readers that they might expect to find such a tract “clear, dispassionate, earnest, full of a holy unction.” (See Note at the end of this Tract.)

Let us now look at the sum of the whole matter.

The government of the United States, which has always sustained slavery, appealing to the Constitution as its sufficient authority, has of late years manifestly directed its chief power and activity to that end.

A certain proportion of the clergy of every sect buy, sell, and hold slaves; maintain from the Bible the right to do so as Christians; maintain from the Constitution the right to do so as citizens; denounce abolitionism as a compound of treason and infidelity, and exhort their people, both as Christians and citizens, to defend the system of slavery, and stand by the government which is already defending it for them.

A smaller number of the clergy, though not holding slaves themselves, occupy the same position with the former class in every other respect.

A far greater number of the clergy, amounting to a decided majority in all the principal sects, feeling no special interest in the slaves, and no impulse to join, far less to initiate, a revolutionary movement in their behalf, finding their consciences somewhat disturbed, and their quiet materially so, by the censures of the Abolitionists, and being already in bonds of ecclesiastical union with the two classes of clergymen previously mentioned, take what seems to them the easiest course,—defending their clerical allies by echoing their justification of slavery from the Bible, and doing what they can to neutralize the censures of the Abolitionists by echoing the current calumnies against them.

Lastly, the small remaining proportion of the clergy, who, with or without the aid of the abolitionists, have attained “a realizing sense” of the essential viciousness of slavery, and see how it depraves the South, injures the North, corrupts the nation at home, disgraces it abroad, obstructs education and improvement, undermines morality and subverts religion, as well as oppresses the slave, would be glad to make an energetic and uncompromising warfare with slavery, but find themselves fettered by two considerations: First, the Constitution authorizes slavery. The Constitution, the work of their venerated forefathers, the basis of their country’s laws, protects the very thing which they wish to destroy; and, though the answer to this objection seems plain enough when they remember what Peter and John said to their [15] Constitution, and though a glow of generous ardor fills their souls when they recall the answer of Shadrach and his companions to their [16] Constitution, the thought next comes up that the elder leaders of their sect, [12] the heads of their theological school, the editors of their strictest religious newspapers, all wise as well as good and pious men, take the opposite view; they do not feel like entering into a controversy with them, as well as into a war with the actual slaveholders; so they are strongly tempted to compromise the matter, as their fathers did, and to direct their active exertions only against the extension of slavery, either tacitly acquiescing in its indefinite continuance within its present boundaries, or explicitly pledging themselves, as Henry Ward Beecher did, (in Park Street church, Feb, 1854,) to abandon and discountenance all agitation, and allow to slavery and the slave trade undisturbed and indefinite continuance within their present limits, if they would desist from the occupancy of any new territories.

I say, the small number of clergymen now under consideration are strongly tempted to this compromising course by finding a decided majority, both in number and weight, of their own ecclesiastical connection arrayed against them in relation to the supremacy of the Constitution. But the second obstacle, now to be mentioned, a far more weighty one, effectually decides them to take that course. They find themselves already thoroughly committed, by the whole ecclesiastical system under which they have been living, and preaching, and making converts, and building up churches, to the concession that the men who practise and defend slavery are Christians. Slaveholders are members, in good and regular standing, of great numbers of the churches of their denomination. They practise no concealment; they were converted while slaveholders, (probably by the preaching of a slaveholding minister;) were fairly examined by the church committee, (probably slaveholders;) were accepted as regenerate men, children of God, and heirs of heaven, without a word expressed or implied in condemnation of their slaveholding, and perhaps joined a church which held slaves in its corporate capacity. How are they to be laid hold of, called to account, and subjected to discipline according to the rules of the church, for that which, equally existing five or ten years ago, was no bar to their admission then? And if they cannot be subjected to discipline, how are they to be accused at all, or how is their slaveholding position to be censured? The truth is, that how much soever they may have infringed justice, humanity, the golden rule, and the Christian system, they have not infringed the laws of the church, as understood and administered by its government.

Abolitionists would know very well what to do in this situation. They would see that the church was involved in a reductio ad absurdum; that its rules were grossly deficient, and needed immediate revision; they would set themselves to that work at once, and if, after a fair trial, their numbers, strength, and influence proved insufficient to accomplish it, they would leave that organization, and find or make a better. They would at all events keep clear of the enormous blunder of assuming the body which shelters the “sum of all villanies” in its bosom to be the “church of Christ.”

But our clergymen, not being prepared for movements so energetic and radical, not venturing even for a moment to entertain the hypothesis that their church is any thing but a church of Christ, withhold their hands from the work, leave the slave a slave, the slaveholding church members and ministers obvious but unimpeached oppressors, and the church a synagogue of Satan, and do nothing;—nothing but protest, with the whole strength of their lungs, that slavery is so thoroughly and hopelessly evil that it ought not for a moment to be admitted into Kansas. As if that which is too bad for Kansas was not just as much, and for the very same reasons, too bad for Kentucky; as if that could be too bad for Kansas which is not too bad for the church of Christ on earth, and the kingdom of God in heaven!

[13]

These things being so, what are the Abolitionists to do? For twenty-five years they have been demanding the abolition of slavery, in the name and on the grounds of Christianity. What are they to do when they find nearly the whole body of American clergy, (some by direct and open demand, and some by tacit allowance, but all effectively,) giving shelter to slavery in the church, declaring the practice of it to be perfectly consistent with piety; declaring opposition to it to be opposition to God’s system; and assuming that where piety is most fervent and effective, there opposition to slavery is most to be deprecated? What? Just what the engineer does when he finds the trunk of a tree across his railroad track!—take immediate measures for its removal, or at least towards its removal; and if a body of men in black coats and white cravats say that the tree is theirs, and that they choose to keep it in that position, apply himself, by all legitimate means, to the work of their removal.

This is what the Abolitionists have done. Finding the representatives and managers of the American religion holding towards slavery precisely the attitude described above, in the New England Anti-Slavery Convention, assembled in Boston, May 30th, 1855, they framed, fully discussed, and unanimously adopted the following preamble and resolutions:—

“Whereas, the popular religion of the land is thoroughly impregnated with the slaveholding spirit, and from the organization of the government to the present time has given its sanction to a colossal and ever enlarging system of robbery, licentiousness, heathenism, and soul murder, until the victims thereof are counted by millions; and

Whereas, an extensive revival of this religion is said to be going on in Boston, under the sanction and with the coöperation of such men as the Rev. Dr. Nehemiah Adams and the Rev. Dr. Blagden, the defenders of slavery against every assault upon it; therefore,

Resolved, That the multiplication of converts to such a religion, instead of indicating any progress in the cause of justice, freedom, and Christianity, or furnishing any occasion for congratulation, is a sure sign of moral degeneracy, judicial blindness, and pharisaical malignity, to be denounced as an imposture; and that such a ‘revival’ is only a device of time-serving hirelings to withdraw attention from the reforms of the age, and especially from the anti-slavery movement; to affect a zeal for God for the benefit of their craft; and to shield themselves from the condemnation which they deserve for their treachery to the rights of man.

Resolved, That the charge brought by Abolitionists against the Northern church, that it is the bulwark of American slavery, finds its justification in much that transpires in what are denominated the religious anniversary meetings; and as a special illustration of our meaning, we would point to the prayer meeting in the Winter Street church, which was opened with prayer by the Rev. Nehemiah Adams,—a man standing before the world as the confessed champion of slavery, and yet retaining the unimpaired confidence and fellowship of the evangelical (so called) churches. To such assemblies we commend the consideration of the 13th, 14th, and 15th verses of the 1st chapter of Isaiah: ‘Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.’ ‘Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.’ ‘And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.’ ”

I have selected this particular series of resolutions among many of the [14] same class that have for years past been voted by the Abolitionists, because I find here one of the strongest and fullest expressions of their judgment that the popular religion is at variance with Christianity, of the particulars in which they find such variance to exist, and of the source through which they see this corruption to have been perpetuated and to be now upheld. Founding themselves on the very essence of the system which Jesus taught, and accepting his summary of it [17] as their rule of action, and relying for the overthrow of slavery upon the clearness with which they can show its absolute contrariety to that system, and finding the power of this contrast neutralized in the public mind by a false idea already fixed there by the clergy of what Christianity is, what it necessarily implies, what it includes, and what it excludes, they see the exposure of this false teaching to be a duty imposed on them by Christianity not less than by Anti-Slavery. Yet for this very course, followed for this very purpose, they have been called infidels!

The Abolitionists have taken, and hold, and mean still to hold, until it is proved to be erroneous, just this position towards the American pro-slavery religion. Remembering those in bonds “as bound with them,” recognizing their “neighbor” and their “brother” in the black man who has fallen among thieves, and seeing the active or silent partners of those thieves in the Priest and the Levite who are passing by on the other side, they call upon the nation which practises this wickedness, and especially upon those in the nation who acknowledge their religious responsibilities and duties, to repent, immediately to repent, and immediately to commence the work of reformation. They rely solely upon what Paul called “the foolishness of preaching.” They point out plainly, in the sight of all men, who are the oppressed, and what justice and humanity require for their relief; they also point out who are the oppressors, and who their accomplices in church and state; and they cry unceasingly to the whole people, in the words of Jeremiah, “Thus saith the Lord, Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor.” In view of the example of prophets, apostles, and martyrs, of the plain commands of God, and of the nature of religion itself, they see not how any other course is open to them; and they say with Luther, when he was persecuted by those who called themselves successors of the apostles, “Here we stand! we can no other! God help us!”

And we know that he will help us.

[The following letters were originally published, with the signature of Worcester, in the New York Tribune.]

[18]

CORRESPONDENCE

between LYDIA MARIA CHILD,

and

GOV. WISE AND MRS. MASON, OF VIRGINIA.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

1860.

CORRESPONDENCE.

[13]

[14]

[15]

LETTERS

on

AMERICAN SLAVERY

from

VICTOR HUGO, DE TOCQUEVILLE, EMILE DE

GIRARDIN, CARNOT, PASSY, MAZZINI,

HUMBOLDT, O. LAFAYETTE—&c.

BOSTON:

published by the american anti-slavery society.

1860.

LETTERS

[8]

[10]

[11]

[14]

[15]

[17]

[22]

AN ACCOUNT

of

SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL

SLAVE INSURRECTIONS,

and others, which have occurred, or been attempted,

in the united states and elsewhere, during

the last two centuries.

WITH VARIOUS REMARKS.

COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BY

JOSHUA COFFIN.

NEW YORK:

published by the american anti-slavery society.

1860.

Republished by

Negro History Press - P. O. Box 5129 - Detroit, Michigan 48236

TO THE READER.

The subsequent collection of facts is presented to your notice, with the hope that they will have that effect which facts always have on every candid and ingenuous mind. They exhibit clearly the dangers to which slaveholders are always liable, as well as the safety of immediate emancipation. They furnish, in both cases, a rule which admits of no exception, as it is always dangerous to do wrong, and safe to do right. Please to examine carefully the whole account of the revolution in St. Domingo, beginning in March, 1790, and ending in 1802. That exhibits a different picture from that presented in a speech made at the Union-saving meeting lately held in Boston. A part of the truth may be so told as to have all the effect of a deliberate lie.

Paper used in this edition is

a fine acid-free, permanent durable paper

of the type commonly referred to as

“300-year” paper

SLAVE INSURRECTIONS.

And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.

—Gen. 42: 21.

Thus saith the Lord my God, Feed the flock of the slaughter, whose pastors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty; and they that sell them say, Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich; and their own shepherds pity them not.

—Zech. 11: 4, 5.

He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

—Ex. 21: 16.

The late invasion of Virginia by Capt. John Brown and his company has, with all its concomitant circumstances, excited more attention and aroused a more thorough spirit of inquiry on the subject of slavery, than was ever before known. As this is pre-eminently a moral question, and as there is no neutral ground in morals, all intelligent men must ultimately take sides. Every such man must either cherish and defend slavery, or oppose and condemn it, and his vote, if he is an honest man, must accord with his belief. On a question of so momentous importance, “Silence is crime.” It demands and will have a thorough investigation, and all attempts to stifle discussion will only accelerate the triumph of the cause they were designed to crush. Thus the denunciation in Congress of Mr. Helper’s book, which is in substance only an abstract of facts taken from the last census of the United States, has operated as an extensive advertisement, and will be the means of circulating thousands of copies, where, without such denunciation, it would never have been known. There is in the North, as well as the South, a class of [4] men who act, apparently, on the supposition that those who foresee and foretell any calamity are as guilty as those who create it, and that the only way to obviate any impending danger is not to see it. Such persons not only refuse to see and hear themselves, but do what they can to keep their neighbors in like ignorance.

It has been truly said that “the power of slavery lies in the ignorance, the degradation, the servility of the slaves, and of the non-slaveholding whites of the South, and of the corresponding classes in the Free States. It is through this ignorance and servility that the slaveholders manage to dictate to ecclesiastical bodies, to have power to control pulpits, presses, Colleges, Theological Seminaries, and Missionary and Tract Societies.” To keep the blacks and non-slaveholding whites in ignorance is, doubtless, the reason why such pains are taken in Congress to prevent the circulation of Helper’s book at the South, which was compiled by a non-slaveholder for the special benefit of the men of his class. The population of the Free States is now about eighteen millions; of the Slave States, eight millions. The slaves number about four millions, who are held as property by only 347,545 persons, men, women and children. This number, small as it is, constituting about one sixth part of the United States, have thus far controlled the legislation of the country. How this power has been acquired is easily understood when we examine the false ideas respecting slavery which are everywhere prevalent; such as the weakness of the public conscience, in the absence of a practical and experimental knowledge of the truth of God’s word—in the atheistic notion, prevailing even in the Church and in the ministry, that the unrighteous enactments of wicked men are paramount in authority to the commandments of the Great Jehovah. Hundreds of clergymen, in all parts of the Union, profess to believe that the Bible sanctions American slavery,—a system which, of necessity, cannot exist without a continual violation of every commandment of the Decalogue.

If the Bible sanctions slavery, (as many profess to believe,) why does not the God of the Bible sanction it? In other words, if slavery is sanctioned by the revealed will of God, why are not the dispensations of his providence in accordance with that will? Could it be fairly proved that slavery is in [5] accordance with the will of God, it must necessarily follow that obedience to his will is not only highly advantageous, but perfectly safe; for, surely, no Christian can, for a moment, believe that the providence of God ever militates against the precepts of his word. As, however, the consequences of slavery have been, in all cases, when not averted by timely repentance, disastrous in the extreme, it is therefore undeniably evident that slavery is in direct opposition to the revealed will of God, and, consequently, that those who so violently oppose the abolition of slavery, for fear of supposed dangerous consequences, may truly be said “to know not what they do.” The truth on this subject is so plain, and the facts so abundant, that he who runs may read, and know to a certainty the entire safety of immediate emancipation; and that danger arises from liberty withheld, and not from liberty granted. The general opinion seems to be, that the moment you proclaim “liberty to the captive,” and make the slave a freeman, be the conditions and restrictions what they may, that moment you make him a vagabond, a thief, and a murderer, whom nothing will satisfy but the blood of those who had been so “fanatical and insane” as to treat him like a human being. Whence this opinion is derived, no one can tell; for it is in direct opposition to reason, common sense, the nature of the human mind, and is entirely unsustained by facts. Indeed, so far as the evidence of facts is concerned, the advocates of immediate abolition have a complete monopoly. All experience proves two things, viz., the entire safety of immediate emancipation, and that all danger has arisen from its indefinite postponement; for this is really the true definition of gradual emancipation.

We all know the results of slavery in Greece and Rome. Troy perished by her slaves in a single night; and as like causes always produce like effects, our obligations to our slaveholding brethren imperiously demand that we should urge on them, in the most earnest manner, the duty of immediately abolishing slavery as their only hope of safety,—the only means by which they can escape the just judgments of God. The safety of immediate emancipation has been proved by Buenos Ayres in 1816, Colombia in 1821, Guatemala in 1824, Peru and Chili in 1828, Mexico in 1829, and especially on the 1st of August, 1834, when 800,000 slaves were [6] set free in a single day in the British West India Islands; and thus far, not a single life has been lost, not a drop of blood shed, in consequence of that beneficent and righteous act. The consequences of holding slaves in bondage, and refusing to emancipate them, have always been disastrous. In our present exemption from slavery in the Free States, we have no cause of boasting, but rather of deep humiliation. We are all involved in the guilt, and must share in the punishment, unless timely and thorough repentance avert the impending blow. To do this effectually, information must be spread, the spirit of inquiry aroused, the temple of God be purified, and “the book of the law be read in the ears of all the people,” that thus the gross mistakes and misapprehensions which everywhere exist on the subject of slavery and its abolition may be corrected.

Of these mistakes, no one is more prevalent or more dangerous than the one just mentioned, that insurrection, rapine and bloodshed are the necessary consequences of immediate emancipation; and that the only way to avert the evils and the curse of slavery, is to continue in the sin for the present, promise future repentance, and in the meantime, whilst we are preparing to get ready to begin to repent, do every thing that in us lies to extinguish every good feeling, and cultivate and bring into action every bad feeling of the human heart. That such is the belief, and consequent practice, to an alarming extent, throughout our country, and that such a course is impolitic, because it is wicked and dangerous, because it is unjust, facts abundantly show.

Since the abolition of slavery in the British dominions, no trouble has arisen, no danger been feared or apprehended. A thousand John Browns, each with nineteen white men and five black men, could not cause any tumult in any part of the British West Indies. Why is it, then, that one John Brown and company have created so wide-spread an alarm and consternation throughout the Slave States? The Governor of South Carolina has sent a dispatch (Nov. 21) to Gov. Wise, tendering any amount of military aid to the defence of Virginia! Gov. Wise had several companies of the military present on the day of the execution of John Brown and others, and assured the Governor of South Carolina that Virginia is able to defend herself. What causes all this tumult and apprehension? [7] Slavery! And yet, strange as it may seem, the Virginians, with a stupidity and infatuation which no language can describe, are seriously discussing the propriety of enslaving the free negroes of that State. Such a proceeding would resemble a physician who should order a dose of arsenic to cure a patient who had taken strychnine, or attempt to extinguish a conflagration by throwing oil on the flames.

How the consequences of abolishing slavery would be dreadful and horrible, neither history nor experience informs us. Let us, then, see what they tell us of the consequences of holding men in bondage. In every instance which has fallen under my notice, insurrections have always been projected and carried on by slaves, and never (with the exception of Denmark Vesey in 1822, in Charleston, S. C.) by the free blacks.

The contest between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, justice and injustice, has always continued from the earliest ages to the present moment. More especially is it true concerning American slavery, that “sum of all villanies,” a crime which involves the continual violation of every one of the Ten Commandments. I propose, therefore, to give, with other incidents, an abstract of some of the attempts of the oppressed to throw off the yoke which held them, or threatened to hold them, in bondage.

The first instance which has come to my knowledge in this country of an insurrection on a small scale, occurred on Noddle’s Island, now East Boston, in 1638. In John Josselyn’s account of his first voyage to New England may be found the following. Having previously stated that he was a guest of “Mr. Samuel Maverick, the only hospitable man (as he says) in all the country, giving entertainment to all comers gratis,” he thus writes:—

“The second of October about 9 of the clock in the morning Mr. Maverick’s negro came to my chamber window, and in her own Countrey language and tune sung very loud and shrill. Going out to her she used a great deal of respect towards me, and willingly would have expressed her grief in English, but I apprehended it by her countenance and deportment, whereupon I repaired to my host to learn of him the cause, and resolved to intreat him on her behalf for that I [8] understood before that she had been a Queen in her own Countrey, and observed a very dutiful garb used toward her by another Negro who was her maid. Mr. Maverick was desirous to have a breed of Negroes, and therefore seeing she would not yield by persuasion to company with a Negro young man he had in his house, he commanded him, will’d she, nill’d she, to go to bed to her, but she kickt him out again. This she took in high disdain beyond her slavery, and this was the cause of her grief.”

From this statement it appears that Maverick had at least three slaves; but of the number held in the Province, no record informs us. In 1641, the Massachusetts Colony passed the following law:—

“There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or captivitie amongst us unless it be lawfull captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves. And these shall have all the liberties and christian usuages, which the law of God established in Isreal concerning such persons doth morally require. This exempts none from servitude, who shall be judged thereto by authority.”

“He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

—Ex. 21: 16.

In 1646, one James Smith, a member of Boston church, brought home two negroes from the Coast of Guinea, and had been the means of killing near a hundred more. In consequence of this conduct, the General Court passed the following order:—

“The General Court conceiving themselves bound by the first opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing, as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past and such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men, do order that the negro interpreter with others unlawfully taken, be by the first opportunity at the charge of the country for the present, sent to his native country (Guinea) and a letter with him of the indignation of the Court thereabouts, and justice thereof desiring our honored Governor would please put this order in execution.”

[9]

From this time till about 1700, the number of slaves imported into Massachusetts was not large. In 1680, Governor Simon Bradstreet, in answer to inquiries from “the lords of his Majesties privy council,” thus writes:—

“There hath been no company of blacks or slaves brought into the country since the beginning of this plantation, for the space of 50 years, only one small vessell about two yeares since after 20 month’s voyage to Madagasca brought hither betwixt 40 and 50 negros, most women and children, sold for £10, £15 and £20 apiece, which stood the merchants in near £40 apiece one with another: now and then two or three negros are brought hither from Barbados and other of his majesties plantations, and sold here for about £20 apiece, so that there may bee within our government about 100 or 120, and it may bee as many Scots brought hither and sold for servants in the time of the war with Scotland, and most now married and living here, and about halfe so many Irish brought hither at several times as servants.”

The number of slaves at this period in the middle and southern colonies is not easily ascertained, as few books, and no newspapers, were published in North America prior to 1704. In that year, the Weekly News Letter was commenced, and in the same year the “Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts opened a catechising school for the slaves at New York, in which city there were then computed to be about 1500 negro and Indian slaves,” a sufficient number to furnish materials for the “irrepressible conflict,” which had long before begun. The catechist, whom the Society employed, was “Mr. Elias Neau, by nation a Frenchman, who, having made a confession of the Protestant religion in France, for which he had been confined several years in prison, and seven years in the gallies.” Mr. Neau entered upon his office “with great diligence, and his labors were very successful; but the negroes were much discouraged from embracing the Christian religion upon account of the very little regard showed them in any religious respect. Their marriages were performed by mutual consent only, without the blessing of the Church; they were buried by those of their own country and complexion, in the common field, without any Christian office; perhaps some ridiculous heathen [10] rites were performed at the grave by some of their own people. No notice was given of their being sick, that they might be visited; on the contrary, frequent discourses were made in conversation, that they had no souls, and perished as the beasts,” and “that they grew worse by being taught, and made Christians.”

In 1711, May 15, Gov. Gibbes, of South Carolina, in his address to the Legislature of that Province, thus speaks:—

“And, gentlemen, I desire you will consider the great quantities of negroes that are daily brought into the government, and the small number of whites that comes amongst us: how insolent and mischievous the negroes are become, and to consider the Negro Act already made, doth not reach up to some of the crimes they have lately been guilty of, therefore it might be convenient by some additional clause of said Negro Act to appoint either by gibbets or some such like way, that after executed, they may remain more exemplary than any punishment that hath been inflicted on them.”

In the next month, June, the Governor thus writes:—

“We further recommend unto you the repairs of the fortifications about Charleston, and the amending of the Negro Act, who are of late grown to that height of impudence, that there is scarce a day passes without some robbery or insolence, committed by them in one part or other of this province.”

“In the year 1712,” says the Rev. D. Humphreys, “a considerable number of negroes of the Carmantee and Pappa Nations formed a plot to destroy all the English, in order to obtain their liberty; and kept their conspiracy so secret, that there was no suspicion of it till it came to the very execution. However, the plot was by God’s Providence happily defeated. The plot was this. The negroes sat fire to a house in York city, and Sunday night in April, about the going down of the moon. The fire alarmed the town, who from all parts ran to it; the conspirators planted themselves in several streets and lanes leading to the fire, and shot or stabbed the people as they were running to it. Some of the wounded escaped, and acquainted the Government, and presently by the firing of a great gun from the fort, the inhabitants were called under arms and pretty easily scattered the negroes; they had killed [11] about 8 and wounded 12 more. In their flight some of them shot themselves, others their wives, and then themselves; some absconded a few days, and then killed themselves for fear of being taken; but a great many were taken, and 18 of them suffered death. This wicked conspiracy was at first apprehended to be general among all the negroes, and opened the mouths of many to speak against giving the negroes instruction. Mr. Neau durst hardly appear abroad for some days; his school was blamed as the main occasion of this barbarous plot. On examination, only two of all his school were so much as charged with the plot, and on full trial the guilty negroes were found to be such as never came to Mr. Neau’s school; and what is very observable, the persons, whose negroes were found to be most guilty, were such as were the declared opposers of making them Christians. However a great jealousy was now raised, and the common cry very loud against instructing the negroes.”

From the Boston Weekly Journal, of April 8th, 1724, I make the following extract:—

“Every reasonable man ought to remember their first villanous attempt at New York, and how many good innocent people were murdered by them, and had it not been for the garrison there, that city would have been reduced to ashes, and the greatest part of the inhabitants murdered.”

On the 6th of May, 1720, the negroes in South Carolina murdered Mr. Benjamin Cattle, a white woman, and a negro boy. Forces were immediately raised, and sent after them, twenty-three of whom were taken, six convicted, three executed, and three escaped.

In October, 1722, about two hundred negroes near the mouth of the Rappahannock river, Virginia, got together in a body, armed with an intent to kill the people in church, but were discovered, and fled.

On the 13th of April, 1723, Gov. Dummer issued a proclamation with the following preamble, viz.:—

“Whereas within some short time past, many fires have broke out within the town of Boston, and divers buildings have thereby been consumed: which fires have been designedly and industriously kindled by some villanous and desperate [12] Negroes, or other dissolute people, as appears by the confession of some of them (who have been examined by authority) and many concurring circumstances; and it being vehemently suspected that they have entered into a combination to burn and destroy the town, I have therefore thought fit, with the advice of his Majesty’s Council, to issue forth this Proclamation,” &c.

On the 18th of April, 1723, Rev. Joseph Sewall preached a discourse, particularly occasioned “by the late fires y 316. t 317.have broke out in Boston, supposed to be purposely set by y 318. e 319.Negroes.” [3]

On the next day, April 19th, the Selectmen of Boston made a report to the town on the subject, consisting of nineteen articles, of which the following is No. 9:—

“That if more than Two Indians, Negro or Molatto Servants or Slaves be found in the Streets or Highways in or about the Town, idling or lurking together unless in the service of their Master or Employer, every one so found shall be punished at the House of Correction.”

So great at that time were the alarm and danger in Boston, occasioned by the slaves, that in addition to the common watch, a military force was not only kept up, but at the breaking out of every fire, a part of the militia were ordered out under arms to keep the slaves in order!!

The report of nineteen articles, submitted to the town of Boston, was finally embodied in a Negro Act of fifteen sections, of which the 15th was as follows:—

“That no Indian, negro or mullatto, upon the breaking out of fire and the continuance thereof during the night season, shall depart from his or her master’s house, nor be found in the streets at or near the place where the fire is, upon pain of being forthwith seized and sent to the common gaol, and afterwards whipt, three days following before dismist, &c.”

From the N. E. Courant, Nov. 1724, I take the following extract:—

“It is well known what loss the town of Boston sustained [13] by fire not long since, when almost every night for a considerable time together, some building or other and sometimes several in the same night were either burned to the ground or some attempts made to do it. It is likewise well known that those villanies were carried on by Negro servants, the like whereof we never felt before from unruly servants, nor ever heard of the like happening in any place attended with the like circumstances.”

Like causes produce like effects. Since the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, no one has felt alarmed at seeing “two or more colored men lurking together” in Boston. Prior to the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies, the militia were always called out under arms on the Christmas holidays, in order to prevent any attempts at insurrection among the slaves. Since that time, there has been no apprehension of any disturbances, and, of course, no calling out of the militia.

In 1728, an insurrection of slaves occurred in Savannah, Georgia, who were fired on twice before they fled. They had formed a plot to destroy all the whites, and nothing prevented them but a disagreement about the mode. At that time, the population consisted of 3000 whites and 2700 blacks.

In January, 1729, the slaves in Antigua conspired to destroy the English, which was discovered two or three days before the intended assault. Of the three conspirators, two were burnt alive!! “’Twas admirable,” says the account, “to see how long they stood before they died, the great wood not readily burning, and their cry was water, water!”

In August, 1730, an insurrection of blacks occurred in Williamsburgh, Va., occasioned by a report, on Col. Spotswood’s arrival, that he had direction from his Majesty to free all baptized persons. The negroes improved this to a great height. Five counties were in arms pursuing them, with orders to kill them if they did not submit.

In August, 1730, the slaves in South Carolina conspired to destroy all the whites. This was the first open rebellion in that State, where the negroes were actually armed and embodied, and took place on the Sabbath.

[14]

In the same month, a negro man plundered and burned a house in Malden, (Mass.) and gave this reason for his conduct, that his master had sold him to a man in Salem, whom he did not like.

In 1731, Capt. George Scott, of R. I. was returning from Guinea with a cargo of slaves, who rose upon the ship, murdered three of the crew, all of whom soon after died, except the captain and boy.

In 1732, Capt. John Major, of Portsmouth, N. H., was murdered, with all his crew, and the schooner and cargo seized by the slaves.

In December, 1734, Jamaica was under martial law, and two thousand soldiers ordered out after the “rebellious negroes.”

In the same year, an insurrection occurred in Burlington, (Pa.) among the blacks, whom the account styles “intestine and inhuman enemies, who in some places have been too much indulged.” Their design was as soon as the season was advanced, so that they could lie in the woods, on a certain night, agreed on by some hundreds of them, and kept secret a long time, that every negro and negress should rise at midnight, kill every master and his sons, sparing the women, kill all the draught horses, set all their houses and barns on fire, and secure all their saddle horses for flight towards the Indians in the French interest.

In 1735, the slaves of the ship Dolphin, of London, on the coast of Africa, rose upon the crew; but being overpowered, they got into the powder room, and to be revenged, blew up themselves with the crew.

In 1739, there were three formidable insurrections of the slaves in South Carolina—one in St. Paul’s Parish, one in St. Johns, and one in Charleston. In one of these, which occurred in September, they killed in one night twenty-five whites, and burned six houses. They were pursued, attacked, and fourteen killed. In two days, twenty more were killed, and forty were taken, some of whom were shot, some hanged, and some gibbeted alive! This “more exemplary” punishment, as Gov. Gibbes called it, failed of its intended effect, for the next year there was another insurrection in South Carolina. There were then above 40,000 slaves, and about twenty persons were killed before it was quelled.

[15]

In 1741, there was a formidable insurrection among the slaves in New York. At that time the population consisted of 12,000 whites and 2,000 blacks. Of the conspirators, thirteen were burned alive, eighteen hung, and eighty transported.

Those who were transported were sent to the West India islands. As a specimen of the persons who were suitable for transportation, I give the following from the Boston Gazette, Aug. 17, 1761:—

“To be sold, a parcel of likely young negroes, imported from Africa, cheap for cash. Inquire of John Avery. Also, if any person have any negro men, strong and hearty, though not of the best moral character, which are proper subjects of transportation, they may have an exchange for small negroes.”

In 1747, the slaves on board of a Rhode Island ship commanded by Capt. Beers, rose, when off Cape Coast Castle, and murdered the captain and all the crew, except the two mates, who swam ashore.

In 1754, C. Croft, Esq., of Charleston, S. C., had his buildings burned by his female negroes, two of whom were burned alive!!

In September, 1755, Mark and Phillis, slaves, were put to death at Cambridge, (Mass.) for poisoning their master, Mr. John Codman of Charlestown. Mark was hanged, and Phillis burned alive! Having ascertained that their master had, by his will, made them free at his death, they poisoned him in order to obtain their liberty so much the sooner.

In August, 1759, another insurrection was contemplated in Charleston, S. C.

In October, 1761, there was a rebellion among the slaves in Kingston, Jamaica; and in the next December, the slaves in Bermuda rebelled, and threatened to destroy all the whites. All were engaged in the plot, which was accidentally discovered. One was burned alive, one hanged, and eleven condemned.

In the same year, Capt. Nichols, of Boston, lost forty of his slaves by an insurrection, but saved his vessel.

In 1763, the Dutch settlement at Barbetias was surprised and destroyed by the negroes.

[16]

In 1764, the slaves in Jamaica projected a rebellion, and intended to destroy all the whites on the island.

In 1767, there was a rebellion among the slaves in Grenada.

In 1768, when Gen. Gage was in command of the British troops in Massachusetts, one Capt. John Wilson, of the 59th regiment, made an attempt to excite the few slaves in Boston [about 300] to rise against their masters. He assured the slaves that the foreign troops had come to procure their freedom, and that “with their assistance, they would be able to drive the Liberty Boys to the devil.” In October, the Selectmen made a complaint against him; had him arrested, and bound over for trial, but by the influence of British officials, the indictment was quashed, and Wilson fled, satisfied that Boston would not be a safe place for him.

In 1765, symptoms of a rebellious and insurrectionary spirit were manifested in various parts of the thirteen colonies, then nominally at least subjects of King George. This spirit was aroused by the passage, by the British Parliament, of the Stamp Act on the 22d of March of that year. As the British government were unable to enforce this Act, it was graciously repealed on the 22d of February, 1766, but coupled with the declaratory Act, that “the Legislature of Great Britain had authority to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever.” On the 20th of November, 1767, the Act previously passed, imposing a duty of three pence per pound on tea, was to take effect. From this Act, with other causes combined, many commotions were excited anew among the people. On the 5th of March, 1770, the Boston massacre occurred. The skirmish at Lexington and Concord on the 19th of April, and the battle on Breed’s hill on the 17th of June, 1775, greatly increased the excitement. About the middle of July, the year Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, ceased to exercise the functions of his office, having with his wife and children, for fear of the people, taken refuge on board the Fowey man of war. With the hope that he should succeed in reducing the Virginians to subjection, Lord Dunmore gave out that he should instigate the slaves, who were extremely numerous, to revolt against their masters. The dread of the consequences of such a revolt decided the Virginians to form a convention, in which they [17] placed great confidence. The governor expected, but in vain, that the people would rise, and take arms in favor of the king. Hoping, however, that with such force as he had, and with the frigates on that station, he should make some impression on the surrounding country, he surprised the town of Hampton, situated on the bay of the same name, and devoted it to the flames. He then proclaimed martial law, “declared free all slaves or servants, black or white, belonging to rebels, provided they would take up arms and join the royal troops.” The governor again came on shore at Norfolk, where some hundreds of loyalists and negroes joined the governor. With this motley force, aided by two hundred soldiers of the line, he made an unsuccessful attack on the provincials on the 9th of December. He again repaired on board of one of the ships, and on the first of January, 1776, the frigate Liverpool, two corvettes and the governor’s armed sloop, opened a terrible fire on the city; and at the same time, a detachment of marines landed, and set fire to the houses. In this manner was destroyed one of the most opulent and flourishing cities of Virginia.

On the 4th of July, 1776, after eleven years of unavailing negotiation and some fighting, the delegates of the thirteen Colonies, not believing the modern dogma that, however bad the laws may be, they must be obeyed till they are repealed, raised the standard of rebellion, and bade defiance to the colossal power of Great Britain, declaring that they were, and of right ought to be, free and independent, and making the following declaration, viz.:—

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This was an insurrection on a great scale; and as the insurgents were white men, and were successful, they were, of course, right. Says Jefferson, in 1814, “What an incomprehensible machine is man! who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment, and death itself, in vindication of his own liberty; and the next moment be deaf to all those motives, whose power supported him through his trials, and inflict on his fellow-man a bondage, one hour of which is [18] fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose.”

The insurrection of the people of France against their king, which is generally called the French revolution, is with all its horrors too well known to require notice.

The scenes of St. Domingo next claim our attention. The incidents are given in the language of an author, whose name I do not recollect.

When the French Revolution, which decreed equality of rights to all citizens, had taken place, the free people of color of St. Domingo, many of whom were persons of large property and liberal education, petitioned the General Assembly that they might enjoy the same political privileges as the whites. At length, in March, 1790, the subject of the petition was discussed, when the Assembly adopted a decree concerning it. The decree, however, was worded so ambiguously, that the two parties in St. Domingo—the whites and the people of color—interpreted each in their own favor. This difference of interpretation gave rise to animosities between them, which were augmented by political party spirit, according as they were royalists, or partisans of the French revolution, so that disturbances took place, and blood was shed.

In the year 1791, the people of color petitioned the Assembly again, but principally for an explanation of the decree in question.

On the 15th of May, the subject was taken into consideration, and the result was another decree in more explicit terms, which determined that the people of color in all the French islands were entitled to all the rights of citizens, provided they were born of free parents on both sides. The news of this decree no sooner arrived at the Cape, than it produced an indignation almost amounting to frenzy among the whites. They directly trampled under foot the national cockade, and with difficulty were prevented from seizing all the merchant ships in the roads. After this, the two parties armed against each other. Even camps began to be formed. Horrible massacres and conflagrations followed, the reports of which, when brought to the mother country, were so terrible that the Assembly rescinded the decree in favor of the people of color in the same year.

[19]

In 1792, the news of this new decree reached St. Domingo, and produced as much irritation among the people of color, as the news of the former had done among the whites; and hostilities were renewed on both sides.

As soon as these events became known in France, the Conventional Assembly, which had then succeeded the Legislature, seeing no hope of reconciliation on either side, knew not what other course to take than to do justice, whatever the consequences might be. They resolved accordingly, in the month of April, that the decree of 1791, which had been first made and reversed by the preceding Assembly, should be made good; thus restoring to the people of color the privileges which had been before voted to them; and they appointed Santhonax, Polverel, and another to repair as Commissioners to St. Domingo, with a large body of troops, in order to enforce the decree, and to keep the peace.

In the year 1793, the same division and bloodshed continuing, notwithstanding the arrival of the commissioners, a very trivial matter, a quarrel between a mulatto and a white man, (an officer in the French marines,) gave rise to new disasters. The quarrel took place at Cape Francois on the 20th of June. On the same day, the seamen left their ships in the roads, and came on shore, and made common cause with the white inhabitants of the town. On the other side were ranged the mulattoes and other people of color, and these were afterwards joined by some insurgent blacks. The battle lasted nearly two days. During this time, the arsenal was taken and plundered, some thousands were killed in the streets, and more than half of the town was burned. The commissioners, who were witnesses of the horrible scene, and who had done all that they could to restore peace, escaped unhurt; but they were left upon a heap of ruins, and with little more power than the authority which their commission gave them. They had only about a thousand troops left in the place. They determined, therefore, under these circumstances, to call in the slaves in their neighborhood to their assistance. They issued a proclamation in consequence, by which they promised to give freedom to all the blacks who were willing to range themselves under the banner of the republic.

This was the first proclamation made by public authority [20] for emancipating slaves in St. Domingo, and was usually called the proclamation of Santhonax. The result of it was, that a considerable number of slaves came in, and were enfranchised.

Soon after this transaction, Polverel left his colleague, Santhonax, at the Cape, and went in his capacity of commissioner to Port au Prince, the capital of the West. Here he found every thing quiet, and cultivation in a flourishing state. From Port au Prince he visited Aux Cayes, the capital of the South. He had not, however, been long there, before he found that the minds of the slaves began to be in an unsettled state. They had become acquainted with what had taken place in the North; not only with the riots at the Cape, but the proclamation of Santhonax. Polverel, therefore, seeing the impression which it had begun to make on the minds of the slaves in these parts, was convinced that emancipation could neither be prevented, nor even retarded; and that it was absolutely necessary, for the personal safety of the white planters, that it should be extended to the whole island. He was so convinced of the necessity of this, that in September, 1793, he drew up a proclamation without further delay to that effect, and put it into circulation. He dated it from Aux Cayes. He exhorted the planters to patronise it. He advised them, if they wished to avoid the most serious calamities, to concur themselves in the proposition of giving freedom to their slaves. He then caused a registry to be opened at the government house, to receive the signatures of those who should approve of his advice. It was remarkable that all the proprietors in these parts inscribed their names in this book. He then caused a similar registry to be opened at Port au Prince for the West. Here the same disposition was found to prevail. All the planters, except one, gave in their signatures. They had become pretty generally convinced, by this time, that their own personal safety was connected with the measure. We may now add that, in the month of February, 1794, the Conventional Assembly of France passed a decree for the abolition of slavery throughout the whole of the French Colonies. Thus the government of the mother country confirmed freedom to those, on whom it had been bestowed by the commissioners. This decree, therefore, put the finishing stroke [21] to the whole. It completed the emancipation of the whole slave population of St. Domingo.

With regard to the conduct of those who were emancipated by Santhonax in the North, I find nothing particular to communicate. With respect to those emancipated in the South and West by Polverel, we are enabled to give a pleasing account. Colonel Malenfant, who was residing in the island at the time, has made us acquainted with their general conduct and character. “After the public act of emancipation,” says he, (by Polverel,) “the negroes remained quiet, both in the South and in the West, and they continued to work on all the plantations. There were, indeed, estates which had neither owners nor managers resident on them. Some of these had been put in prison by Mount Brun; and others, fearing the same fate, had fled to the quarter which had just been given up to the English. Yet on these estates, though abandoned, the negroes continued their labors, where there were any (even inferior) agents to guide them; and on those estates where no white men were left to direct them, they betook themselves to the planting of provisions; but on all the plantations where the whites resided, the blacks continued to labor as quietly as before.”

A little further on, in the same work, ridiculing the notion entertained in France, that the negroes would not work without compulsion, he takes occasion to allude to other negroes who had been liberated by the same proclamation, but who were more immediately under his own eye. “If,” says he, “you will take care not to speak to them of their return to slavery, but talk to them about their liberty, you may, with this latter word, chain them down to labor. How did Toussaint succeed? How did I succeed also, before his time, in the plain of the Cul de Sac, and on the plantation Gouraud, more than eight months after liberty had been granted (by Polverel) to the slaves? Let those who knew me at the time, and even the blacks themselves, be asked. They will all reply that not a single negro on that plantation, consisting of more than 460 laborers, refused to work; and yet this plantation was thought to be under the worst discipline, and the slaves the most idle in the plain. I, myself, inspired the same activity into three other plantations, of which I had the management.”

[22]

The above account is far beyond any thing that could have been reasonably expected; indeed, it is most gratifying. We find that the liberated negroes, both in the South and West, continued to work on their old plantations, and for their old masters; so that there was also a spirit of industry among them; for they are described as continuing to work as quietly as before. Such was the conduct of the negroes for the first nine months after their liberation, up to the middle of 1794. Of the conduct of the negroes during the year 1795, and part of 1796, I find no account. Had there been any outrages, they would have been mentioned. Let no one connect the outrages, which assuredly took place in St. Domingo in 1791 and 1792, with the effects of the emancipation of the slaves. The great massacres and conflagrations which at that time made so frightful a picture in the history of this unhappy island, occurred in the days of slavery, before the proclamation of Santhonax and Polverel, and before the great conventional decree of the mother country was known. They had been occasioned, too, not originally by the slaves themselves, but by quarrels between the white and colored planters, and between the royalists and the revolutionists, who, for the purpose of wreaking their vengeance on each other, called in the aid of their slaves; and as to the insurgent negroes of the North, who filled that part of the colony in those years with terror and dismay, they were originally put in motion, according to Malenfant, by the royalists themselves, to strengthen their own cause, and to put down the partisans of the French revolution.

When Jean Francois and Brasson commenced the insurrection, there were many white royalists among them, and the negroes were made to wear the white cockade.

I now come to the latter part of the year 1796, and we shall find that there was no want of industry or of obedience in those who had been emancipated. “The colony,” says Malenfant, “was flourishing under Toussaint; the whites lived happily on their estates, and the negroes continued to work for them.” Now, Toussaint came into power, being General-in-chief of the armies of St. Domingo, near the end of the year 1796, and remained in power till the year 1802, or till the invasion of the island by the French expedition by Bonaparte, under Le Clerc. Malenfant, therefore, means to [23] state that from 1796 to 1802, a period of six years, the planters and farmers kept possession of their estates; that they lived on them peacefully, and without interruption or disturbance; and that the negroes, though they had all been set free, continued to be their laborers.

Gen. La Croix, who published his “Memoirs for a History of St. Domingo” at Paris in 1819, informs us that when Santhonax returned to the colony in 1796, “he was astonished at the state in which he found it on his return.” This, says La Croix, was owing to Toussaint, who, while he had succeeded in establishing perfect order and discipline among the black troops, had succeeded in making the black laborer return to the plantation, there to resume the drudgery of cultivation.

But the same author tells us that, in the next year, 1797, the most wonderful progress had been made in agriculture. He uses these remarkable words:—“The colony marched as by enchantment to its former splendor; cultivation prospered; every day produced perceptible proofs of its progress. The city of the Cape and the plantations of the North rose up again visibly to the eye.” To effect this wonderful improvement, many circumstances conspired, but principally the fact that the negroes, being free, had a powerful motive to be industrious and obedient.

The next witness is Gen. Vincent, who was a colonel, and afterwards a general of brigade of artillery at St. Domingo, and was there during the time of Santhonax and Toussaint. He was called to Paris by Toussaint, where he arrived just at the moment of the peace of Amiens, and found, to his inexpressible surprise and grief, that Bonaparte was preparing an immense armament, to be commanded by Le Clerc, for the purpose of restoring slavery in St. Domingo! Against this expedition, the General remonstrated with the First Consul, telling him that, though the army destined for this purpose was composed of the brilliant conquerors of Europe, it would do nothing in the Antilles, and would assuredly be destroyed by the climate of St. Domingo, if not destroyed by the blacks. He stated that every thing was going on well in St. Domingo and therefore conjured him, in the name of humanity, not to attempt to reverse this beautiful order of things. His efforts were ineffectual. The armament sailed, and, arriving on the [24] shores of St. Domingo, a scene of blood and torture followed, such as history had seldom if ever before disclosed, which, though planned and executed by whites, all the barbarities said to have been perpetrated by the insurgent blacks of the North amounted comparatively to nothing. At length, the survivors of that vast army were driven from the island, with the loss of sixty thousand lives. Till that time, the planters had retained their estates; and then it was, and not till then, that they lost their all. The question may be asked, why did the First Consul make this frightful invasion? It was owing, not to the emancipated negroes, who were peaceful, industrious, and beyond example happy, but to the prejudices of their former masters—prejudices common to almost all slaveholders. Accustomed to the use of arbitrary power, they could not brook the loss of their whips. Accustomed to look down on the negroes as an inferior race of beings, as mere reptiles of the earth, they could not bear, peaceably as these had conducted themselves, to come into that familiar contact with them as free laborers, which the change in their condition required. They considered them, too, as property lost, and which was to be recovered. In an evil hour, they prevailed on Bonaparte, by false representations and promises of pecuniary support, to undertake to restore things to their former state; and the result is before the world as an example and a warning. When will our slaveholding brethren learn that the advocates of immediate emancipation are the only true friends of both slaveholders and slaves, and that the only path of safety is the path of duty, which demands the immediate repentance of all sin, and especially that “sum of all villanies,” slavery?

In the year 1800, the city of Richmond, Va., and indeed the whole slaveholding country were thrown into a state of intense excitement, consternation and alarm, by the discovery of an intended insurrection among the slaves. The plot was laid by a slave named Gabriel, who was claimed as the property of Mr. Thomas Prosser. A full and true account of this General Gabriel, and of the proceedings consequent on the discovery of the plot, has never yet been published. In 1831 a short account, which is false in almost every particular, appeared in the Albany Evening Journal under the head of “Gabriel’s Defeat.” It was the same year republished in [25] the first volume of the Liberator, and during the last year (1859) has been extensively republished in many other papers. The following is the copy of a letter dated Sept. 21, 1800, written by a gentleman of Richmond, Va., and published in the Boston Gazette, Oct. 6th:—

“By this time, you have no doubt heard of the conspiracy, formed in this country by the negroes, which, but for the interposition of Providence, would have put the metropolis of the State, and even the State itself, into their possession. A dreadful storm with a deluge of rain, which carried away the bridges and rendered the water courses every where impassable, prevented the execution of their plot. It was extensive and vast in its design. Nothing could have been better contrived. The conspirators were to have seized on the magazine, the treasury, the mills, and the bridges across James river. They were to have entered the city of Richmond in three places with fire and sword, to commence an indiscriminate slaughter, the French only excepted. They were then to have called on their fellow negroes and the friends of humanity throughout the continent, by proclamation, to rally round their standard. The magazine, which was defenceless, would have supplied them with arms for many thousand men. The treasury would have given them money, the mills bread, and the bridges would have enabled them to let in their friends, and keep out their enemies. Never was there a more propitious season for the accomplishment of their purpose. The country is covered with rich harvests of Indian corn; flocks and herds are every where fat in the fields; and the liberty and equality doctrine, nonsensical and wicked as it is, (in this land of tyrants and slaves,) is for electioneering purposes sounding and resounding through our valleys and mountains in every direction. The city of Richmond and the circumjacent country are in arms, and have been so for ten or twelve days past. The patrollers are doubled through the State, and the Governor, impressed with the magnitude of the danger, has appointed for himself three Aids de Camp. A number of conspirators have been hung, and a great many more are yet to be hung. The trials and executions are going on day by day. Poor deluded wretches! Their democratic deluders, conscious of their own guilt, and fearful of the [26] public vengeance, are most active in bringing them to punishment. “Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi”! Two important facts have been established by the witnesses on the different trials. First, that the plan of the plot was drawn by two Frenchmen in Richmond, and by them given to the negro General Gabriel, who is not yet caught; and secondly, that in the meditated massacre, not one Frenchman was to be touched. It is moreover believed, though not positively known, that a great many of our profligate and abandoned whites (who are distinguished by the burlesque appellation of democrats) are implicated with the blacks, and would have joined them if they had commenced their operations. The particulars of this horrid affair you will probably see detailed in Davis’ paper from Richmond, but certainly in Stewart’s paper in Washington. The Jacobin printers and their friends are panic struck. Never was terror more strongly depicted in the countenances of men. They see, they feel, the fatal mischiefs that their preposterous principles and ferocious party spirit have brought upon us.”

The Virginia Gazette of Sept. 12th thus writes:—“The public mind has been much involved in dangerous apprehensions concerning an insurrection of the negroes in several of the adjoining counties. Such a thing has been in agitation by an ambitious and insidious fellow named Gabriel, the property of Mr. Thomas Prossor. * * * * Yesterday a Court was held at the Court House in this city, when six of them were convicted, and condemned to be executed this day, Sept. 12th.”

“On Thursday, Sept. 18th,” says the New York Spectator, “five more were executed near the city of Richmond, who were concerned in the insurrection.”

These eleven negroes were executed before the apprehension of Gen. Gabriel, for whose arrest Gov. Monroe offered a reward of $300. The following is a copy of a letter dated Norfolk, Sept. 25th, 1800:—

“Last Tuesday, on information being given that Gen. Gabriel was on board the three-masted schooner Mary, Richardson Taylor skipper, just arrived from Richmond, he was committed to prison in irons. It appeared on his [27] examination that he went on board on the 14th inst., four miles below Richmond, and remained on board eleven days; that when he went first on board, he was armed with a bayonet and bludgeon, both of which he threw into the river.”

“On Saturday last,” (Sept. 27th,) says a Richmond paper, “the noted Gabriel arrived here by water, under guard from Norfolk, and was committed to the Penitentiary for trial. We understand that when he was apprehended, he manifested the greatest marks of firmness and composure, showing not the least disposition to equivocate, or screen himself from justice. He denied the charge of being the first in exciting the insurrection, although he was to have had the chief command, but that there were four or five persons more materially concerned in the conspiracy, and said that he could mention several in Norfolk; but being conscious of meeting with the fate of those before him, he was determined to make no confession.”

“It was stated,” says a New York paper, “to be the best planned and most matured of any before attempted.” “Gabriel was condemned,” says another paper, “on the 3d of October, and executed on the 7th, (having been respited from the 4th,) without making any useful confession. On the 3d of October, ten more negroes were executed, and on the 7th, fifteen more—viz.: five at the Brook, five at Four Mile Creek, and four with Gabriel at the Richmond gallows.”

These fifteen, as far as we have any account, were the last who were either executed or tried. The Court, in their eager haste to apprehend and punish the conspirators, of whom five, six, ten and fifteen at a time were executed, and that only the day after trial, of whom not one had committed any overt act, and against whom no testimony appears to have been furnished by any white witness, found, after the apprehension of General Gabriel, that they had made some sad mistakes. This fact, with others, caused such a revulsion of feeling, and excited so great a sympathy in behalf of the poor creatures, that they were obliged, by a moral necessity, to pause in their course.

Under date of Oct. 13th, the Commercial Advertiser thus writes:—

[28]

“The trials of the negroes concerned in the late insurrection are suspended until the opinion of the Legislature can be had on the subject. This measure is said to be owing to the immense numbers, who are implicated in the plot, whose death, should they all be found guilty and be executed, will nearly produce the annihilation of the blacks in this part of the country.”

The next day, Oct. 14th, a correspondent from Richmond makes a similar statement with this addition:—

“A conditional amnesty is perhaps expected. At the next session of the Legislature of Virginia, they took into consideration the subject referred to them, in secret session, with closed doors. The whole result of their deliberations has never yet been made public, as the injunction of secrecy has never been removed. To satisfy the Court, the public, and themselves, they had a task so difficult to perform, that it is not surprising that their deliberations were in secret.”

From 1800 till 1816, nothing was divulged. In the spring of 1816, the Hon. Charles Fenton Mercer, in a speech delivered by him in 1833, says, “The intelligence broke in upon me, like a ray of light through the profoundest gloom, and by a mere accident, which occurred in the spring of 1816, that, upon two several occasions, the General Assembly of Virginia had invited the United States to obtain a territory beyond their limits, whereon to colonize certain portions of our colored population. For the evidence of these facts, then new to me, I was referred to the Clerk of the Senate; and in the private records I found them verified.”

On the 21st of December, 1800, the Virginia House of Delegates passed, in secret session, the following resolution:—

“Resolved, That the Governor [Monroe] be requested to correspond with the President of the United States, on the subject of purchasing land without the limits of this State, whither persons obnoxious to the laws, or dangerous to the peace of society, may be removed.”

The General Assembly of Virginia, having through their agent, Mr. Jefferson, failed in 1800, 1802 and 1804, to obtain a place of banishment for that portion of their colored population whom they were afraid to hang, and unwilling to pardon, passed on Jan. 22, 1805, still in secret session, the following resolution:—

[29]

“Resolved, That the Senators of this State in the Congress of the United States be instructed, and the Representatives be requested, to exert their best efforts for the obtaining from the General Government a competent portion of territory in the country of Louisiana, to be appropriated to the residence of such people of color as have been, or shall be, emancipated, or may hereafter become dangerous to the public safety,” &c.—

[See African Repository, June, 1832, and November, 1833.]

The Legislature of Virginia having failed in all their attempts to find a suitable Botany Bay, to which the free people of color, convicts, and other dangerous persons could be banished, passed in 1805 a law prohibiting emancipation, except on the condition that the emancipated should leave the State; or, if remaining in the State more than twelve months, should be sold by the overseers of the poor for the benefit of the Literary Fund.

Here we see another consequence of the attempt of slaves to obtain their freedom, viz., an increased persecution of the free people of color, a law to prevent their increase, and a desire to banish all of them from the State. The conspiracy of Gen. Gabriel and his coadjutors was, therefore, the occasion, if not the cause, of the formation, in 1817, of the Colonization Society, whose great object was, by removing all disturbing causes, to make slavery secure, lucrative, and perpetual. Another noticeable fact, made manifest by the intended insurrection, is the state of fearful insecurity in which the residents of a slaveholding community must feel that they are living. The late assertion of Gov. Wise, that “We, the Virginians, are in no danger from our slaves or the colored people,”—or that of Senator Mason, “We can take care of ourselves,”—or that of Miles, of South Carolina, “We are impregnable,”—betrays the depth and extent of their fear by the very attempt to conceal it; like timid boys “ejaculating through white lips and chattering teeth,” Who’s afraid? In the wide-spread panic of 1800, the slaveholders appear to have been excessively puzzled to ascertain what could have induced their slaves to engage in such a conspiracy. They, of course, could not have originated such a plot, and had been, in their opinion, so well-treated that they could have no motive to wish for their freedom. It was at first rumored that Gabriel had in his possession letters written by white men; then, that the conspiracy of the negroes was “occasioned by the circulation of some artfully written hand-bills, drawn [30] up by the noted Callender in prison, and circulated by two French people of color from Guadaloupe, aided by a United Irish pretended Methodist preacher”; then, “that the instigators of the diabolical plan wished thereby to insure the election of Adams and Pinckney, and that the blacks, as far as they were capable, reasoned on the Jeffersonian principles of emancipation.” They were, at last, unwillingly compelled to believe that the whole plot originated with slaves, and was confined to them exclusively, and that, like all other human beings, deprived by arbitrary power of all their just rights, they were determined to be free.

In a letter written in 1800, by Judge St. George Tucker, of Virginia, and published in Baltimore, he thus speaks:—

“The love of freedom is an inborn sentiment, which the God of nature has planted deep in the heart. Long may it be kept under by the arbitrary institutions of society; but, at the first favorable moment, it springs forth with a power which defies all check. This celestial spark, which fires the breast of the savage, which glows in that of the philosopher, is not extinguished in the bosom of the slave. It may be buried in the embers, but it still lives, and the breath of knowledge kindles it into a flame. Thus we find there never have been slaves in any country, who have not seized the first favorable opportunity to revolt. These, our hewers of wood and drawers of water, possess the power of doing us mischief, and are prompted to it by motives which self-love dictates, which reason justifies. Our sole security, then, consists in their ignorance of this power, and their means of using it—a security which we have lately found is not to be relied on, and which, small as it is, every day diminishes. Every year adds to the number of those who can read and write; and the increase of knowledge is the principal agent in evolving the spirit we have to fear. * * * By way of marking the prodigious change which a few years have made among that class of men, compare the late conspiracy with the revolt under Lord Dunmore. In the one case, a few solitary individuals flocked to that standard, under which they were sure to find protection. In the other, they, in a body, of their own accord, combine a plan for asserting their freedom, and rest their safety on success alone. The difference is, that then they sought freedom merely as a good; now they also claim it as a right. * * * Ignorant and illiterate as they yet are, they have maintained a correspondence, which, whether we consider its extent or duration, is truly astonishing.”

Thus far Judge Tucker.

Monday, Sept. 1st, was the day set by General Gabriel and his associates to make the attack on Richmond with fire and sword. The plot was, however, discovered only the day previous, and, as I have been informed, was made known by a slave named Ben, who was unwilling that his master (a Mr. W. who had been very kind to him) should lose his life.

[31]

The incidents of this conspiracy were embodied in a song, and set to a tune, both of which were composed by a colored man. The song is still sung.

In the New York Spectator, of Sept. 24th, 1800, is a letter dated Charleston, S. C., Sept. 13th, which says that “the negroes have rose in arms against the whites in this country, and have killed several. All the troops of light horse are ordered out by the Governor to suppress the insurrection. Some reports state the number of insurgents, who were embodied about thirty miles from the city, to be about four or five thousand strong. Others decreased this number to seven or eight hundred.”

In June, 1816, a conspiracy was formed in Camden, South Carolina; but information of the intent was given by a favorite and confidential slave of Col. Chesnut.

On May 30th, 1822, a “faithful and confidential slave” disclosed to the Intendant of Charleston, S. C., that, on Sunday evening, June 16th, the slaves had determined to rise in rebellion against the whites, “set fire to the Governor’s house, seize the Guard-house and Arsenal, and sweep the town with fire and sword, not permitting a white soul to escape.” Of the supposed conspirators, one hundred and thirty-one were committed to prison, thirty-five executed, and thirty-seven banished. Of the six ringleaders, Ned Bennet, Peter Poyas, Rolla, Batteau, Jesse, and Denmark Vesey, all were slaves, except Vesey, who had been a slave thirty-eight years, a free man twenty-two years, having in 1800 purchased his freedom.

On July 12th, two slaves were executed; July 26th, twenty-two; July 30th, four; and August 9th, one.

In 1826, the inhabitants of Newbern, Tarborough and Hillsborough were alarmed by insurrectionary movements among their slaves. The people of Newbern, being informed that forty slaves were assembled in a swamp, surrounded it, and killed the whole party!!

In August, 1831, there was an insurrection of slaves in Southampton, Virginia, headed by a slave, who called himself Gen. Nat. Turner, who declared to his associates that he was acting under inspired directions, and that the singular appearance of the sun at that time was the signal for them to commence the work of destruction; which resulted in the murder of sixty-four white persons, and more than one hundred slaves [32] were killed. The excitement extended throughout Virginia and the Carolinas. “Another such insurrection,” says the Richmond Whig, “will be followed by putting the whole race to the sword.” In the same year, insurrections occurred in Martinique, Antigua, St. Jago, Caraccas, and Tortola.

In January, 1832, James McDowell, Jr., in reply to a member who called the Nat. Turner insurrection a “petty affair,” thus spoke in the Virginia House of Delegates:—

“Now, sir, I ask you, I ask gentlemen, in conscience to say, was that a ‘petty affair’ which startled the feelings of your whole population; which threw a portion of it into alarm, a portion of it into panic; which wrung out from an affrighted people the thrilling cry, day after day, conveyed to your executive, ‘We are in peril of our lives—send us an army for defence!’ Was that a ‘petty affair,’ which drove families from their homes; which assembled women and children in crowds, without shelter, at places of common refuge, in every condition of weakness and infirmity, under every suffering which want and terror could inflict, yet willing to endure all, willing to meet death from famine, death from climate, death from hardships, preferring any thing rather than the horrors of meeting it from a domestic assassin? Was that a ‘petty affair,’ which erected a peaceful and confiding portion of the State into a military camp; which outlawed from pity the unfortunate beings whose brothers had offended; which barred every door, penetrated every bosom with fear or suspicion; which so banished every sense of security from every man’s dwelling, that, let but a hoof or horn break upon the silence of the night, and an aching throb would be driven to the heart? The husband would look to his weapon, and the mother would shudder, and weep upon her cradle! Was it the fear of Nat. Turner and his deluded, drunken handful of followers, which produced such effects? Was it this that induced distant counties, where the very name of Southampton was strange, to arm and equip for a struggle? No, sir, it was the suspicion eternally attached to the slave himself; the suspicion that a Nat. Turner might be in every family—that the same bloody deed might be acted over at any time, and in any place—that the materials for it were spread through the land, and were always ready for a like explosion. Nothing but the force of this withering apprehension, nothing but the paralyzing and deadening weight with which it falls upon and prostrates the heart of every man who has helpless dependants to protect, nothing but this could have thrown a brave people into consternation, or could have made any portion of this powerful Commonwealth, for a single instant, to have quailed and trembled.”

In the same year and month, Henry Berry, Esq., another delegate, thus spoke:—

“Sir, I believe that no cancer on the physical body was ever more certain, steady and fatal in its progress, than this cancer on the political body of Virginia. It is eating into her very vitals. And shall we admit that the evil is past remedy? Shall we act the part of a puny patient, suffering under the ravages of a fatal disease, who would say the remedy is too painful? Pass as severe laws as you will to keep these unfortunate creatures [33] in ignorance, it is in vain, unless you can extinguish that spark of intellect which God has given them. Sir, we have, as far as possible, closed every avenue by which light might enter their minds. We have only to go one step further—to extinguish the capacity to see the light—and our work will be completed. They would then be reduced to the level of the beasts of the field, and we should be safe; and I am not certain that we would not do it, if we could find out the necessary process, and that under the plea of necessity. But, sir, this is impossible; and can man be in the midst of freemen, and not know what freedom is? Can he feel that he has the power to assert his liberty, and will he not do it? Yes, sir, with the certainty of Time’s current, he will do it whenever he has the power. The data are before us all, and every man can work out the process for himself. Sir, a death-struggle must come between the two classes, [4] in which one or the other will be extinguished forever. Who can contemplate such a catastrophe as even possible, and be indifferent?”

In an essay written by Judge St. George Tucker, and published in 1796, he expresses similar sentiments, in language equally forcible, and concludes by saying:—

“I presume it is possible that an effectual remedy for the evils of slavery may at length be discovered. Whenever that happens, the golden age of our country will begin. Till then,

—————“Non hospes a hospite tutus
Non Herus a Famulis, fratrum quoque gratia rara.”

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever,” and “that the Almighty has no attribute that can take sides with us in such a contest,” viz., “an exchange of situation” [with the slaves,] are the well-known words of Jefferson.

In 1832, a general insurrection of the slaves occurred in Jamaica, when between two and three thousand slaves were killed, and a large number of whites. The loss occasioned by the rebellion was estimated at five millions of dollars, a part of which was occasioned by the burning of one hundred and fifty plantations. Now, the British West Indies are forever exempted from all danger of insurrection, while the danger of a servile war in America will, until slavery is abolished, every year increase.

In the month of June, 1839, a vessel, called the Amistad, Ramon Ferrer, Captain, sailed from Havana for Principe, about one hundred leagues distant, with fifty-four negroes and two white passengers, (Spaniards,) viz., Pedro Montez and Jose Ruiz, one of whom claimed to be the owner of the negroes, [34] who were all natives of Africa. While on board, they “suffered much from hunger and thirst.” In addition to this, there was much whipping, and “the cook told them that, when they reached land, they would all be eaten.” This “made their hearts burn.” To avoid being eaten, and to escape the bad treatment, they rose upon the crew with the design of returning to Africa. This was on June 27th, four days after leaving Havana. After killing the captain and cook, and permitting the crew to escape, they under command of Cinque, who compelled Montez to steer the ship for Africa, which he did in the day time, because the negroes could tell his course by the sun, but put the vessel about in the night. In this manner, the vessel drifted about till August 26th, when she was taken possession of by Capt. Gedney, U. S. N. After an interesting trial in Connecticut, the negroes were set free, and, under the American Missionary Association, were sent to their native country, Africa, and of whom many are now receiving religious instruction by means of missionaries who accompanied them to the Mendi country. It is in relation to these blacks that President Buchanan, in his late message, thus speaks:—“I again recommend that an appropriation be made to be paid to the Spanish Government for the purpose of distribution among the claimants in the Amistad case”!!

On the 27th of October, 1841, the Creole sailed from Richmond with one hundred and thirty-five slaves, bound for New Orleans. On November 7th, they rose on the crew, killed a passenger named Howell, and on November 9th, arrived at Nassau, New Providence, where they were all set free by the British authorities. The leader in this successful attempt to secure their freedom was Madison Washington. “The sagacity, bravery and humanity of this man,” says the Hon. William Jay, “do honor to his name, and, but for his complexion, would excite universal admiration.”

In 1846, the slaves in Santa Cruz rose in rebellion against their masters, took possession of the island, and thus obtained their freedom, but did no injury to any white person. This was remarkable, as the whites numbered 3,000, and the blacks 25,000.

Now, what is the inference from this list of conspiracies and insurrections, and scores of others which could be collected? [35] Why, (1,) that all danger arises from the continuance of slavery, and not from its abolition. And, (2,) that if the Bible sanctions slavery, the God of the Bible does not. The language of God’s providence is one and uniform, and too explicit to be misunderstood. It assures us, and writes the assurance in lines of blood, that the way of the transgressor is hard, and that though hand join in hand, the violators of God’s law shall not go unpunished. All history, ancient and modern, is full of examples and warnings on this point. Shall we slight these warnings, shut our eyes against the light, and madly rush on our own destruction? Let us remember that slavery is an unnatural state; that Nature, when her eternal principles are violated, always struggles to restore them to her true estate; and that the natural feelings accord with the sentiment of the poet,

“If I’m designed yon lordling’s slave,
    By Nature’s laws designed,
Why was an independent wish
    E’er planted in my mind?”

“If the Bible,” says the Rev. Albert Barnes, “could be shown to defend and countenance slavery as a good institution, it would make thousands of infidels; for there are multitudes of minds that will see more clearly that slavery is against all the laws which God has written on the human soul, than they would see that a book, sanctioning such a system, had evidence of divine origin.”

Says Charles Alcott, of Medina, Ohio, in his very able lectures on slavery:—“It is easy to show that slavery has, from first to last, been supported directly and solely by crimes, and that the commission of nearly every crime in the Bible calendar, and many crimes against the common law, are absolutely necessary to support it, and give it full effect. It is a fact equally curious and true, that crime of any kind can only be supported by crime; and that, in order to persevere in the commission of one crime, and prevent its detection and punishment, it is necessary to commit still further crimes.”

This being true, it follows conclusively that immediate repentance of the sin of slavery is the duty of every master, and immediate emancipation the right of every slave. Says Charles Alcott, “A man cannot stir, or move, or begin to act, either in support of slavery, or in opposition to its immediate [36] abolition, without committing crimes or sins of some sort or other.” He cannot be neutral. Therefore, gentle reader, in the “irrepressible conflict” that is now agitating the country, and will continue to agitate it till slavery is abolished, which side have you chosen, or do you intend to choose? Will you take the “higher law,” which is in harmony with God’s providence and his word, or act in favor of the “lower law,” which opposes both? If slavery is right, sustain, defend and justify it; but if it is a crime, do all in your power, by moral means, to overthrow the execrable system. If you are a professed Christian, remember the words of Rev. Albert Barnes:—“There is not vital energy enough, there is not power of numbers and influence enough, out of the Church, to sustain it. Let every religious denomination in the land detach itself from all connection with slavery. All that is needful is, for each Christian man, for every Christian church, to stand up in the sacred majesty of such a solemn testimony, and to free themselves from all connection with the evil, and utter a calm, deliberate voice to the world, and the work is done.”

Published at the Office of the American Anti-Slavery Society, No. 5 Beekman Street, New York. Also, to be had at the Anti-Slavery Offices, No. 21 Cornhill, Boston, and No. 107 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia.

the

NEW “REIGN OF TERROR”

in the

SLAVEHOLDING STATES,

for

1859-60.

NEW YORK:

published by the american anti-slavery society.

1860.

PREFACE.

“There exists,” says the New York Tribune, “at this moment, throughout the Southern States, an actual Reign of Terror. No Northern man, whatever may be his character, his opinions, or his life, but simply because he is a Northern man, can visit that region without the certainty of being subjected to a mean espionage over all his actions, and a rigid watchfulness over all his expressions of opinions; with the risk of personal indignity, and danger even to life and limb. This mortifying necessity of submission to a contemptible despotism, or suffering the penalty of any assertion of an independent and manly spirit, is confined to no condition of life, but is enforced upon every visitor, whether he be a poor mechanic like Powers, who hammers stone for a living, a merchant’s clerk like Crangale, who is paid with imprisonment for asking the settlement of a just debt, a peddler who sells books as harmless as a dictionary, or a Member of Congress, who, for words spoken in debate, may be, by the bludgeon of a bully, incapacitated for the rest of his life for following any honorable or useful career. Nor is it necessary even to cross Mason and Dixon’s line to come under this degrading compulsion. Northern merchants who sell goods for Southern consumption are called upon to square their opinions according to the plantation standard, and any recusancy on their part is visited with the discipline of the loss of trade. Editors of petty Southern newspapers hardly capable of forming an intelligent notion upon any subject, and quite incapable of writing two consecutive sentences of even tolerable English, form their Black Lists and White Lists, and compel the obedience and subsidy of large commercial houses of a great, and wealthy, and powerful city, a thousand miles distant. And, worst of all, this state of things seems accepted rather as in the natural order of events, than as a monstrous growth of an insolent tyranny on the one hand, and the subserviency of an infinitely mean, and sordid, and peddling poltroonery on the other.

And here is its latest development. A morning paper of yesterday publishes ‘a card,’ signed ‘James P. Hambleton, editor of the Southern Confederacy.’ The Black List of the Confederacy had included the name of Davis, Noble & Co., No. 87 Chambers street, and the purpose of the card is to exonerate this firm from the charge implied in that publication, the [iv] editor being now satisfied, on ‘the best evidence, that the aforesaid firm are true, constitutional men, having never been tainted with any of the Anti-Slavery isms of the day, either directly or indirectly, and that we hereby recommend them to their former patrons at the South, as a concern in every respect deserving their continued patronage and support.’ We neither know nor care what the evidence may be which has produced this change—whether it be a suit of clothes, a pair of shoes, a hat, a bill of dry goods, a bill of wet goods, or fifty dollars in current bills—the fact itself is enough. The disgraceful fact is enough that this Hambleton is at this moment in New York; that he is, while we write, making a round of calls upon tradesmen, receiving sometimes money, sometimes goods, and always the evidence of the most despicable subserviency, on condition that he will certify to that fact; and that nowhere, among all these tradesmen—men who on Sunday go to church, who are not hissed when they appear in public, who look their wives in the face, who meet their children unabashed, who go into the streets by daylight—men, moreover, whose legs have the ordinary muscular development, whose boots have the ordinary thickness, to all whose stores there is a front door—have not one of them, as yet, indignantly ejected Mr. James P. Hambleton from their premises! We honestly and sincerely think that this is a fact not to be laughed at, but one which demands our most serious consideration.”

Let us suppose the tables to be turned; suppose there existed here a little of the spirit of ’76, such as our fathers manifested in their treatment of the tories at that time, and we should catch, and tar and feather, every slaveholder coming into the North, by way of retaliation, and to show our jealous appreciation of the sacred cause of freedom—how long would “our glorious Union” hold together? How many victims would be subjected to Northern Lynch law, before the South would bring this matter to a head? And yet, there are scores of Northern men so treated at the South,—not one of them an Abolitionist, or in sympathy with their movement,—and the intelligence excites no popular indignation among us, and scarcely elicits a comment from the press. In one half of the country, there is, practically, no Constitution or Union now; there, all constitutional rights are ruthlessly violated in the persons of those who believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule; there, a bloody usurpation holds undisputed sway. And for such atrocities there is no remedy; at least, none is looked for, none even attempted. The submission to them, on the part of the North, is as absolute as that exacted of the scourged and cowering slaves on the plantation!

People of the North! read and ponder the following record of the high-handed measures and lawless deeds referred to, and decide the question,—Of what value is the Union?

THE NEW REIGN OF TERROR.

[12]

Gov. Magoffin, says the Commercial, received the bearers of the petition (Reed and Hayes) courteously, and advised them, for the sake of preserving the peace of the State, to leave it! He said that the public mind was deeply moved by the events in Virginia, and that until the excitement subsided, their presence in the State would be dangerous, and he could not engage to protect them from their fellow-citizens who had resolved that they must go.

He promised them security while taking their departure, and that their property should be protected. They say that, for the most part, they were treated politely by those who have driven them from their homes, and they have hopes that presently the people of Kentucky will take a sober thought, and allow them to return to their several places of abode and accustomed avocations.

It is certainly not a light matter to drive out of a State men who build steam saw-mills, improve farms, keep schools, and labor faithfully as ministers of the Gospel, and who give no provocation to any in any way—who offend against no law—who make no war upon society—and who merely hold that slavery is a sin, and teach that it should come to an end in God’s own good time. The steam-mill of Mr. Hanson was doing well until he was constrained to abandon it. The school of Mr. Rogers was in a flourishing condition, having nearly a hundred pupils during the last term, a great portion of them the children of slaveholders. Kentucky cannot afford to drive beyond her borders the men who build mills and academies.

The exiles seem in good spirits. They do not indulge even in unkind words about those who have made them homeless. They seem to be divided in opinion as to their course in future. They all hope to go back to Old Kentucky, and live, labor, and die on her soil. Some fear they cannot go back, and [16] think of looking out for employment in the free States; and they have vague ideas of appealing for protection in their rights and immunities as citizens to the Federal Government.

LETTER FROM REV. JOHN G. FEE.

The following is an extract from a letter of Mr. Fee to one of the Secretaries of the American Missionary Association, dated Germantown, Bracken County, Ky., Jan. 25th:—

“I am enduring a great trial. The floods come over me. I am again to be driven out, by a more overwhelming force than was in Madison county. Last Monday, it was supposed there came from eight hundred to a thousand people at the county seat. With almost unanimous rush, the mass gathered from the two counties, (I am near the Mason county line,) and resolved to drive me out. Some ten or twelve days are given us to leave. A committee of one hundred men are appointed to come, and warn us to go. I have sought counsel of the Lord, and of friends. There can be no human protection. I am to be driven out from one of the best communities in the State.

A few days since, I went to Germantown, to talk with the leading influential citizens. I desired to meet them face to face to talk over the positions I assume, and the evils of mob violence. Brother Humlong, a man of true excellence, went with me.

We called, and talked freely with many. A physician, of commanding position in society, speaking of the people of Bethesda, friends of the Church, said, “I wish to Heaven all Kentucky was as that neighborhood.” “The people,” said he, “are industrious, quiet, upright citizens,” and then repeated his wish! Now from this scene of thrift I must be driven, from relatives, from the dear brethren and sisters in the Church, and friends around. Also from the plan or prospect of building up churches in Kentucky, and, still harder, from the prospect of carrying to the people of Kentucky the only [17] Gospel that can save. I can understand, now, why the Saviour wept over Jerusalem, as he saw that people about to push the cup of Salvation from them. Oh, how I wish I could be with you, to tell the anguish of my heart for others, and to plan for the future! The giving up of property, home, all earthly considerations, are not so painful as the idea of giving up these churches, and the privilege of laboring directly with and for the people of Kentucky. How shall I go away, and give up this work? I cannot give it up. I must only change my place of labor for a time. For years I have had unceasing care and toil to get things so established here, that I could have a prospect of their standing. Other brethren have toiled for a like object. We hoped then to have rest of spirit, and to rejoice in that reaped growth, which we then expected to see when we should have lived down much of the opposition, and seen confidence secured. The rest has not yet come. The viper that now stings, has been nurtured into strength in the bosom of the denominations around us. Church and State have been warming into life that which is now poisoning their vitals, and ruthlessly destroying all law and order. The abomination of desolation is working. Can, oh, can this nation be roused to the work of exterminating this monster, Slavery? It can be done by means peaceful and legitimate, if Christians and philanthropists will only, at once, do their duty, in Church and State.

Brother Hanson, Griffin, Mallett, Holman, and Robinson, are ordered to leave here. Brother Davis (Rev. J. S. Davis, of Cabin Creek, Lewis Co.,) is also driven out. A tremendous meeting for that purpose preceded the one held here.”

ANOTHER EXPULSION FROM KENTUCKY.

Some of the persons lately expelled from Berea, Madison County, Kentucky, having manifested an intention of taking up their abode in Bracken and Lewis Counties, strong manifestations of displeasure have been exhibited by a portion of the inhabitants of those localities. The excitement has been [18] growing more intense for a week or two past, and at last found its vent in meetings, the proceedings of which we annex.

On Saturday, the 21st, a public meeting was held at Orangeburg, Mason County, where the following resolutions were passed:—

Whereas, Our fellow citizens of the county of Madison have recently expelled therefrom the Rev. John G. Fee—a radical Abolitionist and zealous agent and emissary of the Anti-Slavery Societies of the North—and many confederates in the dissemination of his principles, and the accomplishment of the illegal and dangerous purposes of his mission; be it, therefore,

1. Resolved, That we approve of the action of the citizens of Madison county, rendered, as we believe, necessary and justifiable by a proper regard for the protection of their property, and the safety and security of their families.

2. That no Abolitionist has a right to establish himself in the slaveholding community, and disseminate opinions and principles destructive of its tranquillity and safety.

3. That forbearance ought nor will not by us be extended to those persons who come hither with intent to, and who do actually interfere with our rights of property or domestic institutions. Our own peace, and the good of the slaves, alike demand their expulsion.

4. That Kentucky has never assailed, openly or covertly, the rights or institutions of the North, nor will she suffer, silently or unrepelled, any aggression upon those guaranteed to her, either by her own or that of the Constitution of the United States.

5. That we desire and demand to be “let alone,” leaving our officious and philanthropic friends at the North and elsewhere to work out their personal and social “salvation with fear and trembling.”

6. That the Rev. James S. Davis (a co-worker with the Rev. John G. Fee, and one of those expelled from Madison) is, as we understand, now resident on Cabin Creek, in Lewis County, Ky., and has, as we are informed, recently received for circulation a large number of “Helper’s Compendium of the Impending Crisis of the South,” a book, in the estimation of this meeting, dangerous in its spirit and tendencies. Be it, therefore, further resolved, That his presence and residence among us are highly objectionable, and that he be and is hereby advised and requested to remove from Kentucky, and that Charles Dimmitt, John R. Bean, James Francis, Samuel Hord, James Hise, Garrett Bradley, and Leonard Bean are hereby appointed a committee to inform Mr. Davis of the purpose and object of this meeting, and that he comply with said request within seven days next after the same is made him, or suffer the consequences of non-compliance therewith. Duty, safety, and the interest of the community compelling us, in the event of non-compliance, to resort to means alike painful to us and hazardous to him.

7. In case Mr. Davis does not leave, that the committee hereinbefore appointed call another public meeting to consider and determine what action shall be had in the premises.

8. That these proceedings be signed by the President and Secretary, and published in the Maysville papers.

On Monday, the 23d inst., a meeting was held at Brooksville, [19] Bracken County, the proceedings of which we give below:

A meeting of the citizens of Bracken and Mason Counties, Kentucky, called for the purpose of considering the propriety of allowing John G. Fee & Co., and others of like character, to settle among us, was held at Brooksville, Bracken County, Ky., January 23d, 1860.

On motion of John H. Boude, Col. W. Orr was elected President, and Gen. Samuel Worthington and Rudolph Black, Vice Presidents. Arthur Fox, James W. Armstrong, and J. A. Kackley were appointed Secretaries.

On motion of Judge Joseph Doniphan, a Committee of twelve were appointed to draft resolutions expressive of the sense of this meeting. The following persons were appointed as said Committee: Dr. J. Taylor Bradford, Col. A. Bledsoe, W. P. Delty, Dr. John Coburn, Judge Joseph Doniphan, Isaac Reynolds, Henry Anderson, John E. French, A. J. Coburn, Robert Coleman, R. P. Dimmitt, and Col. A. Soward.

The Committee, through their Chairman, Judge Joseph Doniphan, presented the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:—

Whereas, John Gregs Fee and John G. Hanson, lately expelled from Madison County, Kentucky, are now in Bracken County, preparing to make it their home. And whereas, that both Fee and Hanson are enemies to the State, dangerous to the security of our lives and property, we, the citizens of Kentucky, deem it our duty to protect our lives and property from enemies at home as well as abroad, do now solemnly declare the said John G. Fee and John G. Hanson must, by the 4th day of February next, leave this county and State.

1. That we earnestly entreat them to do so without delay, but in the event of their failure to do so by that time, they shall do so, even should it require physical force to accomplish the end.

2. That J. B. Mallett, a school teacher in District No. 27, and Wyatt Robinson and G. R. Holeman, must leave this county and State at the same time; and in the event of their failing or refusing, they shall be expelled by force; and that for the purpose of carrying out these resolves, a Committee of fifty of our citizens be appointed to notify the said Hanson, Fee, Mallett, Robinson and Holeman of the action of this meeting, and said Committee be also empowered to give notice to any other persons of like character to leave the State, and report the same to the meeting to be held in Germantown on the 6th day of February next.

3. That Dr. J. Taylor Bradford, Chairman; Rudolph Black, W. H. Reynolds, Henderson Anderson, Jonathan Hedgecock, C. A. Soward, W. Orr, Sr., John W. Terhune, Washington Ward, Jesse Holton, John Taylor, J. W. Armstrong, James Booth, W. Winter, Marcus Ware, E. W. Chinn, R. S. Thomas, John M. Walton, R. P. Dimmitt, Wm. Dougherty, J. A. Kackley, John M. Pearl, Robt. Coleman, David Brooks, Thurman Pollock, Joseph [20] Doniphan, A. D. Moore, Riley Rout, D. R. Cinville, J. H. Murry, Sen., of Bracken; A. Killgore, Gen. Samuel Worthington, J. E. French, Benjamin Kirk, Chas. Gordon, Isaac Reynolds, Col. A. Bledsoe, James Y. Reynolds, Evan Lloyd, Dr. John A. Coburn, Jacob Slack, B. W. Woods, Sr., Gen. Samuel Foreman, A. J. Coburn, C. A. Lyon, Samuel Frazee, A. Fox, R. C. Lewis, John D. Lloyd, Thornton Norris, Thomas Worthington, J. W. Reynolds, J. G. Bacon, and A. Hargot, of Mason, shall compose that Committee. That said Committee, in the event of said Fee, Hanson, Mallett, Robinson, and Holeman, failing to remove, that then the Committee report the result to a meeting to be held in Germantown, Ky., on the 6th day of February next.

4. That we deprecate the use of a church, known as the Free Church, by Abolition preachers; and we now solemnly declare that we will resist, by all possible means, the occupying said church, by such incendiary persons.

5. That the Secretaries be requested to prepare copies of the proceedings of this meeting, and furnish, one each, to The Mountain Democrat, The Richmond Messenger, The Augusta Sentinel, The Maysville Eagle, and The Maysville Express.

The meeting then adjourned.

WILLIAM ORR, President.

Arthur Fox, James W. Armstrong, J. A. Kackley, Secretaries.

In accordance with the resolutions adopted at the Bracken county meeting, a Committee representing the organized mob proceeded on Thursday, the 25th inst., to the work assigned them, and notified Fee, Hanson, Mallett, Holeman, Robinson, Griggson, and Griffin that they must be without the State on or by the 4th of February next.

They assumed an astonishing amount of pomposity. Such was the power assumed by them, that they passed through the toll-gate, and informed the keeper that “this company paid no toll.”

They first met in Germantown, and proceeded in a body to the residence of Mr. John Humlong, and called for J. B. Mallett.

He came out within a few steps of the company, when the Chairman, Dr. Bradford, called out in a stern voice, as follows: “Walk this way, Mr. Mallett; don’t have any fears, we don’t intend to hurt you.” Mr. Mallett replied, “No, he expected not; he was in the company of gentlemen, he supposed.” Dr. Bradford read the resolutions, and asked, “Do you intend to leave?” Mr. Mallett replied that he had said he intended to do so.

Mr. Mallett asked the privilege of making a few remarks, but was told that the mob had no time to listen. Mr. Humlong asked, and was also denied this privilege. However, he [21] made the inquiry, what was this for? They replied, for teaching incendiary and insurrectional sentiments. Mr. H. said he would say, to the contrary, the teaching had always been that of peace.

They then proceeded to G. G. Hanson’s, and in the same pompous manner notified his son to leave.

Mr. J. G. Hanson endeavored to get a hearing, but to no purpose. In this mob were some of his relations.

They next called at Mr. Vincent Hamilton’s, father-in-law of John G. Fee. Mr. Fee told them he had intended to leave, yet in their notice he recognized no right to require him to leave. He asked the mob to pause a moment, but the Chairman ordered them to proceed. He was previously told that he was smart enough to keep out of the hands of the law, and this was the only course to get him out. As one of the mob passed, Mr. Fee extended his hand and said:

“Do you approve of this action?”

“Yes, I do,” was the reply.

“Well,” said Mr. Fee, “we took vows together in the same Church. I expected different things of you.”

In that mob were school-mates, parents of school-mates, and life-long acquaintances.

From this they proceeded to the residence of Mr. John D. Gregg, where Mr. Holeman was stopping, in feeble health, and notified him, without a show of authority from any previous meeting, and ordered him, peremptorily, to be without the State by the 4th of February next.

J. G. Fee is a minister, and well known as being an earnest man, and esteemed by all who love and admire an honest man. J. G. Hanson is a citizen of Berea, from whence he had been driven, and was visiting at his father’s. He had never been charged with a crime, unless it was his honesty! C. E. Griffin is also a Bereau, and is noted for his quiet, peaceable character. Mr. Griffin is a quiet, unpretending laborer, and has always been noted for his amiable disposition. He is a poor man, and this blow is felt severely by him and his family. He is driven from the land of his nativity, the scenes of his childhood, and all his friends. G. R. Holeman has formerly been employed as a school-teacher, but has not been engaged in teaching this winter, on account of poor health. He is a native of Ohio. J. B. Mallett has taught [22] Locust Academy school for nearly three years. The school has the reputation of being one of the best in the country. Notwithstanding the school closed most abruptly, he received a certificate of respect, signed by the patrons of the institution. An enraged mob could not accuse, or sustain the accusation, that he was even aggressive in his teachings upon the subject of Slavery. Scholars who had attended the school six months, say they never heard the subject mentioned in the school. Yet he has ever acknowledge himself in the social circle to be an anti-slavery man. He is a native of New York State.

The people have for years sustained the reputation of being among the most honest and reliable men in the State. A prominent citizen and slaveholder said, “Would to God all Kentucky was like that neighborhood!”

The exiles left Germantown on Saturday morning. Eighteen, including women and children, made up the company of the expelled, and some of these persons arrived in this city last night. Legal advice was taken, prior to their leaving home, as to the best course to be pursued. It was found that they could only remain by resisting the mob, and this was not deemed advisable. It was therefore decided to withdraw quietly.

At Felicity, on Saturday night, a part of the exiles were present at a large meeting held in the M. E. Church.

The names of those who arrived here last night are as follows: C. E. Griffin and lady; the Rev. John G. Fee, J. G. Hanson, G. R. Holeman, J. B. Mallett, and Oliver Griggson.—Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, Jan. 31st.

A Tar and Feathering Case.—A Scotchman named Sandy Tate, having expressed himself rather too freely upon the slave question and Harper’s Ferry affair, in the village of Salisbury, North Carolina, was recently seized by a mob, and tarred and feathered, after which he was placed upon a fence rail, and carried to a neighboring duck pond, where, in the presence of an immense throng of people, he was ducked until he recanted. Upon being released, the poor fellow took to his heels, and has never been seen since.

A PREACHER ARRESTED IN NORTH CAROLINA.

Greensboro’, N. C., Dec. 26th, 1859.

On Friday, the 23d inst., Daniel Worth, a Wesleyan Methodist preacher, a native of this State, but who has been residing until within two years past in Indiana, where he was formerly a member of the Legislature of that State, was arrested by the Sheriff of this county on a charge of selling and circulating “Helper’s Impending Crisis,” and also of uttering language in the pulpit calculated to make slaves and free negroes dissatisfied with their condition, thereby offending against the laws of the State. He was brought before the magistrates of the town, and a partial hearing had, when the case was adjourned until the following afternoon at one o’clock, for the purpose of procuring the attendance of witnesses for the prosecution. The prisoner was taken to jail, bail having been refused by the magistrates.

On Saturday, at the appointed hour, the Court met. The examination was held in the old Court-House, which was crowded.

The prisoner had no counsel, but managed his own case. Messrs. Scott, Dick and McLean, of the Greensboro’ bar, were engaged in the prosecution.

Over a dozen witnesses were examined, and it was conclusively proved that Worth had on many and various occasions uttered such sentiments in the pulpit against slavery as the State of North Carolina declared to be unlawful to be uttered. It was also proved by a witness that he (the witness) had purchased from Worth a copy of “Helper’s Impending Crisis.”

Worth acknowledged during the examination that he had been engaged in circulating Helper’s book, and also a work on the “War in Kansas,” but that he did not consider it any harm to circulate them; that at first he did not intend to admit having circulated the former, but that he wanted to make them, as a lawyer would, bring evidence to substantiate the charge.

During the examination, various extracts were read from “Helper’s Impending Crisis,” some showing the modus operandi [24] by which slavery was to be got rid of in the South, and others pretending to give facts, all of which were commented on by the various counsel for the State.

It was also proved that Worth had, in the pulpit, on the Sabbath day, applied the most opprobrious epithets to the legislators of the State of North Carolina, saying that the laws ought not to be obeyed; that “they were made by a set of drunkards, gamblers and whoremongers.”

The prosecution was opened by Wm. Scott, Esq., who, in his remarks, eloquently described the inhuman tendency of the doctrines inculcated and taught in this work of Helper’s, which this traitor to the State of his birth had been engaged in circulating. He read many extracts from the book, and showed how grossly perverted were the facts pretended to be therein set forth—that they were base lies and calumnies on the South.

Robert P. Dick, Esq., made some highly effective and stirring remarks; he was glad that this case of Worth’s had come up here in old Guilford county—a county that had the reputation of being an Abolition county; that a warrant had already been issued from Raleigh for this Daniel Worth, but that this was the best place for him to be tried, that the result of this examination might now go forth as a vindication from the foul aspersion cast upon it. He spoke of Helper as a traitor to the State that had once claimed him as a North Carolinian, adding that this man who sought, in his “Impending Crisis,” to array the South against slavery, and bring about bloodshed and anarchy, and to desolate and lay waste the beautiful South, to dissolve the glorious Union, which had been given us by the wisdom of our forefathers, was obnoxious to the law under other criminal charges. He prayed and trusted that the Union would never be dissolved.

Robert McLean, Esq., took up the question at issue. The very doctrines that the prisoner had been disseminating in his remarks from the pulpit, and which were contained in “Helper’s Impending Crisis,” which book he had been proved to have circulated, were at utter variance with the laws of the State of North Carolina, and it was upon this charge that he was now undergoing his examination. He read several extracts from Helper’s work, commenting on them in a clear, forcible and telling manner. His remarks on the ways and [25] means of abolishing slavery, as set forth in the “Impending Crisis,” were very sarcastically commented on, and were much applauded by the large audience present.

He read from the “Impending Crisis,” the names of Cheever, Chapin and Bellows, of the clergy of the North, as being engaged in the advocacy of those principles which were to dismember this Republic, and the name of the Rev. Daniel Worth as a Southern co-laborer.

It was extremely difficult to restrain the applause during the delivery of the remarks of all the legal gentlemen who spoke—the Court frequently interfering, and insisting upon order being observed.

Previous to the remarks of Robert McLean, Esq., the prisoner delivered his defence. He attempted to argue the evil of slavery, and to try and convince the Court that he was right in preaching against it. He was twice requested by the Court to stick to the point at issue; that they were not here to listen to a discussion on slavery, but to hear what he had to say in reply to the charges brought against him of violating the laws of North Carolina.

The prosecution requested the Court to let him go on.

The prisoner then continued his remarks at considerable length on Abolition, until the Court told him that it had listened long enough to that strain, and desired him to speak as to the charges brought against him. The prisoner then spoke as to his course having been consistent with his calling as a preacher and as a man; that when he heard there was a warrant out for his arrest, he had started for this place to surrender himself; that in his preaching and practice, he had only been doing what others in the State had long ago been doing unmolested; that he was a peace man and a Union man; that he sought not to dissever the Union; that he did not endorse all the sentiments contained in Helper’s work; that he had formerly been a magistrate in this county; that he had been living in Indiana many years, and came back to North Carolina about two years since, to benefit the health of an invalid wife; that that wife had died, and he had married again, and had been engaged in preaching in several counties since; he was not conscious of having violated the laws of the State, either in his calling as a preacher, or as a circulator of “Helper’s Impending Crisis.”

[26]

The Court ordered him to find bail in $5,000 for his appearance at the next term of Court, and the same amount to keep the peace until that time. Bail for the first was offered, but up to the present time of writing, the other bail has not been obtained. It is said that should the prisoner be released on the above bail, he will be taken before his Honor, Judge Dick, who will refuse to take bail for him.

At the close of the examination, remarks were made by Ralph Gorrell, Esq., and Robert P. Dick, Esq., to the effect that the public mind was much excited by this examination, and that threats had been made as to a disposition of the prisoner; but that they would recommend the people to let the law take its course, and not to do any thing to militate against its authority, now that the prisoner was in its hands.

The Rev. Daniel Worth is a large, portly man, with a fine head, an intellectual and expressive countenance, and a large, commanding eye. He is fluent in speech, and the general style and manner of his speaking are calculated to win attention. He did not appear to be at all embarrassed or frightened at his position; on the contrary, he expressed his ideas and opinions with boldness and fearlessness. He complained to the Court of the unfitness of the jail for a prison, it being extremely cold weather, and no fire in the building; he had passed one night there, and was fully competent to express an opinion on the subject.

Mr. Worth was a man raised in this county, is sixty-five years old, and emigrated to Indiana and Ohio, and no doubt to Kansas. He was in the Legislature of the first-named State, acting as sub-chairman in the Convention that nominated Fremont for President.

I was glad to see that mob law was not exercised on him; but there is no doubt that the punishment prescribed for this offence by the laws of North Carolina will be fully meted out to him, which he and all others deserve who engage in such hellish work.

This man has been an eyesore to this community for eighteen months. Nothing but good feelings for the respectable family who bear his name has prevented him from incurring the same fate months ago. A clean sweep may now be expected by all who advocate such vile doctrines as those disseminated. Any man who is found with a volume of the [27] “Impending Crisis,” or the sequel to it, will be held strictly accountable how he came by it. I am fully satisfied that if the course is persisted in which has already been attempted by our Northern Abolitionists, the North will suffer much in her trade with the Southern States, to say nothing of the political consequences attending it. It is as well to state that the punishment for the first offence of this kind under the statute laws of North Carolina is thirty-nine lashes; for the second, it is death, as meted out to John Brown and his fellow-associates at Harper’s Ferry.—Correspondence of the New York Herald.

LETTER FROM A LADY TO AN OFFICER OF THE AMERICAN MISSIONARY ASSOCIATION.

Guilford County, N. C., Jan. 13th, 1860.

At present, we are circumstanced something like the children of Israel, when they started for the Land of Promise, pursued by Pharaoh and his host, with the Red Sea before them, and mountains on either hand. Still we hope to see the salvation of the Lord, relying on the arm of Jehovah for protection.

I suppose, ere this, you have seen some account of the Rev. D. Worth’s arrest and commitment to prison, in Greensboro’, Guilford County, N. C., charged with circulating incendiary books, &c., principally the “Impending Crisis,” by Helper, which seems to be attracting more attention, at present, than all other books put together.

Brother Worth was arrested on the 23d of last month, had a preliminary trial before three magistrates on the 24th, which resulted in his commitment to prison to await further decision at the Spring Term of the Superior Court. There was great excitement during his trial; three lawyers appeared in behalf of the State; the prisoner pleaded his own cause in an able manner—his enemies themselves being judges. Since then, there have been five other arrests of citizens of [28] this county for circulating “Helper,” most of them under heavy bonds, but all admitted to bail except the first. The nature of the bonds required of him was considered unreasonable. The first was a bond of $5,000 for his appearance at the Spring Term, which was complied with; the other was $5,000 also, requiring him not to preach at all. This is not complied with, yet. Not content with the above, he was arrested again, in prison, and brought out yesterday before Judge Dick, and bound in the sum of $5,000 to appear at the Spring Term, in Randolph county, in March. His enemies seem determined to push the law to the furthest extremity, but the old veteran has been happy beyond description, and filled with joy unspeakable.

His keepers observe the strictest vigilance, not allowing even his wife to speak a word to him without witnesses being present; nor do they suffer him to write a word to any person, only what passes under their inspection. They made an attempt yesterday, during his trial, to deprive him of the means of writing at all; but finally concluded to let him have two or three sheets of paper at a time, by his giving an account to the Sheriff what disposition he made of it. One object seems to be to cut off all correspondence with friends, and indeed all the friends of liberty here must suffer likewise. They say that it is against the law to say slavery is wrong, and they have pronounced the woe; the decree has gone forth against all such offenders. I trust and believe there is a remnant who will trust and fear God more than man, even in this land of intolerance and usurpation; and I hope that all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity will remember us at the Throne of Grace, that we may be able to withstand all the fiery darts of the wicked; also, that our aged minister may be delivered from wicked and unreasonable men.

Rev. Daniel Worth.—We have just heard from Mr. Worth, through his nephew, Rev. A. Worth. He is still in jail. His bail bonds would have been filed, but there were several Sheriffs hanging around the jail door from other counties, to arrest him as soon as he should come out of Greensboro’ jail. His wife and friends are not permitted to visit him. His cell is wholly unsuitable for any person to live in. [29] His only bedding is a dirty pallet. The jail is strongly guarded. Some of the Quakers who were imprisoned have given bail, and are now out of jail. Several of them were leading and influential men.—Randolph Co. (Ind.) Journal.

Whipping a Preacher.—The Christian Luminary, Cincinnati, January 12th, publishes an account, in three columns, of the whipping of Solomon M’Kinney. Mr. M’Kinney left Bloomfield, Iowa, last April, for Texas. He is about sixty years old, and has been a preacher thirty years. He is a Kentuckian, a Democrat, and understands slavery to be authorized by the Bible. While living in Texas, he boarded with Thomas Smith, a slaveholder, of Dallas Co., Texas, who was also a member of the church. Having been requested by T. Smith to preach on the relative duties of master and slave, Bro. M’Kinney did so, and reflected severely on the inhuman treatment servants sometimes receive. This resulted in the calling of a meeting, which, after having determined to “mobilize” all preachers of Mr. M’Kinney’s type, appointed a committee to whip Mr. M’Kinney and a companion of his, both having previously been lodged in jail. Mrs. M’Kinney wanted to enter the jail with her husband, but was forced back by the mob, and compelled to await the result outside of the town. After dark, seven men came and opened the jail, and took the prisoners out; then, after divesting them of all their clothing, except shirt and pantaloons, they bound their wrists firmly with cords, and one held the cords while a second took a cowhide, and administered ten lashes; then another and another, till they had administered seventy lashes. The other, William Blunt, was next taken in hand, and served in the same way, receiving eighty lashes. The shirts of both were cut into ribbons by the raw hide. They were then unbound, and left to seek their company. Bruised, mangled, and bleeding, these wretched men staggered to the place where Mrs. M’Kinney was waiting for them. Their backs were one mass of clotted blood and gore, and bruised and mangled flesh.

[30]

Mr. Blunt, it appears, is a licensed minister of the Campbellite persuasion, and for twenty-four years has been a citizen of Green County, Wisconsin. The old Democrat has sent a long memorial to the Wisconsin Legislature on the subject of his experience among his Southern brethren, and asking redress for the wrongs and outrages received at the hands of the authorities of Texas. The Madison State Journal publishes the document, which created quite a flutter on the Democratic side of the Senate when read; and no wonder, for in Wisconsin the excoriated Reverend had distinguished himself by the blatant character of his advocacy of slavery. The Journal says:—

“He was particularly ‘gifted’ in the Biblical argument in favor of slavery; and, at Republican meetings, was wont to confront the speakers with long and flatulent speeches based upon Mosaic regulations. For more than thirty years, as he tells us in his memorial, the truth of which he attests under oath, he has voted the Democratic ticket.

“Last year he went down to Texas in quest of health, expecting a cordial welcome and a comfortable stay among the Democratic brethren, whose cause he had so faithfully advocated.

“The sequel is not calculated to quicken the ardor of Northern Democrats. The Rev. William Blunt was asked by an old friend and brother to fill some of his appointments; and, not knowing that his friend had been suspected of secretly cherishing Abolition sentiments, he acceded to the request. The result was, that he too fell under the suspicion of being an Abolitionist in disguise—he, the ardent, uncompromising Blunt, a Democrat of thirty years’ standing—and therefore, as he relates with due particularity, he was set upon, arrested, his money taken from him, thrown into jail, taken out and treated to eighty lashes, and with other indignities and ‘spurnings a posteriori not to be named,’ told to leave that portion of this free and gel-lorious Republic forthwith without delay, which suggestion he proceeded to act upon with alacrity.

“In view of all the facts, he demands that the State of Wisconsin take such action as will enable him to obtain redress for the outrages perpetrated upon him.”

DESPOTISM AND ESPIONAGE IN THE SOUTH.

We are continually receiving information, through private sources, from different parts of the South, which we shall from time to time publish, showing the fearful state of things now prevailing in all the Southern States, growing out of the popular excitement against the North and against Liberty. A Reign of Terror is prevailing. The despotism of Russia does not parallel the despotism of South Carolina. A stranger with a passport can freely travel in any part of the Czar’s dominions; but no passport will guarantee safety to a Northern traveller between Richmond and New Orleans. It is no longer necessary that a man should speak against slavery to warrant his expulsion from a slave State. It is enough if he has simply been in the North, or sends his children to a Northern school, or buys his goods in New York or Boston. In almost every city, town and village south of the border slaveholding States, vigilance committees have been appointed, to put to inquisition every Northern man who makes his appearance in the place, whether as foe or friend. Even harmless young women, who have gone from Northern boarding-schools to be teachers of Southern children, have been waited upon by respectable and even clerical gentlemen, with the polite hint that the sooner they leave the State, the better for their safety. Our correspondents inform us that it is impossible to convey by description an adequate idea of the public sentiment in the extreme Southern States. The bitterness against the North is unparalleled. The common topic of talk is disunion, and the common threat of vengeance is to hang the Abolitionists. An Abolitionist, with the masses of the Southern people, is any man who does not live in a slaveholding State. If this definition were true, and the sentiment of the North were so unanimous in favor of freedom, the institution of slavery could not exist for half a year in the face of such an enlightened public opinion. We trust that the time may soon come when this shall be the strong and generous sentiment of all the free States. Such a sentiment would be a moral power for the overthrow of slavery, without violence or blood. The conduct of the South is exciting everywhere throughout the North a more intelligent, earnest and conscientious [32] anti-slavery feeling. The frenzy of the Southern leaders, and of the Southern masses who follow and urge on their leaders, is only working the destruction of the system which they are seeking to defend. The providence of God was never more visible in human affairs than in the present state of the nation. We believe that the present excitement, while it will have the incidental evils common to all excitements, will in the end produce great good in the cause of the freedom of the enslaved.

We prefix to the array of facts which our correspondents have furnished us, the following brief but significant article from the Constitution of the United States, on the rights of citizens:—

“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

The following incidents and statements will afford a commentary:—

The Northern newspapers have recently republished a brief paragraph from the Charleston Mercury, announcing, in a very nonchalant style, that a workman engaged in the State House, in Columbia, S. C., was recently seized by a mob, on account, as was alleged, of holding anti-slavery opinions, and that he received twenty-nine lashes, and was tarred and feathered, and escorted out of the State!

It took a very few lines to tell this story, according to the style of the Southern press; for it is a trait of Southern chivalry, first to practise cruelty, and then to suppress the facts.

We have seen this unfortunate man, and heard his story, and looked at his wounds. His name is James Power. He is an intelligent young man, about twenty-three years of age, a native of Wexford, Ireland, and a stone-cutter by trade. He went from Philadelphia to the South, and obtained employment in Columbia, where he had worked for nine months. The only opinion he ever expressed against slavery was that it caused a white laborer in the South to be looked upon as an inferior and degraded man. But this was enough! The remark was reported to the Vigilance Committee, (composed of twelve members,) who immediately ordered the police to arrest him. He was seized two miles away from town, in [33] attempting to escape. He was brought back, and put in a cell, where he remained for three days, during which time he was denied the use of pen and ink, and all communication with his friends outside.

At length he was taken before the Mayor. Four persons appeared and bore testimony to the remark which he had made. The evidence was conclusive. He was returned to prison, and kept locked up for six days. During this time, he was allowed only two scanty meals a day, and the food was carried to him by a negro. He was then taken out of jail in the custody of two marshals, who said to him: “You are so fond of niggers that we are going to give you a nigger escort.”

He was led through the main street, amid a great crowd, hooting and yelling, the marshals compelling two negroes to drag him through the puddles and muddy places of the street, and of the State House yard! As he was taken past the State House, three members of the Legislature, including the Speaker, stood looking on and laughing! The crowd gradually increased, until it numbered several thousand persons, headed by a troop of horse.

After a march of three miles out of the city, to a place called “the Junction,” the procession was stopped, and preparations were made for punishment. The populace cried, “Brand him!” “Burn him!” “Spike him to death!” and made threats against his life by pointing pistols at his head, and flourishing sticks in his face.

The Vigilance Committee ordered him to strip himself naked, and forced a negro to assist in taking off the clothes. A cowhide was then put into the negro’s hands, who was ordered to lay on thirty-nine lashes, (not twenty-nine, as reported,) and to draw blood with every stroke. Our informant describes the pain of this infliction as exceeding in severity any thing which he ever suffered before. His back and lower limbs are still covered with the scars of the wounds!

A bucket of tar was then brought, and two negroes were ordered to rub it upon his bleeding skin, and to cover him from head to waist. His hair and eye-brows were clotted with the tar. After this part of the ceremony was concluded, he was covered with feathers. His pantaloons were then drawn up to his waist, but he was not allowed to put on his shirt or coat. He was conducted, in this exposed condition [34] amid the shouts of the populace, to the railroad train, and was put on board the negroes’ car. The engineer blew a continuous blast on his whistle to signalize the performance.

A citizen of Charleston on the train, who saw the poor fellow’s unhappy condition, stepped into a neighboring hotel, before the starting of the cars, and brought a cup of coffee and some biscuits to relieve the sufferer’s faintness. It was a timely gift, and gratefully received. But the Southern chivalry gathered around the Southern gentleman, and threatened him with summary vengeance if he repeated his generosity. The exasperated crowd detained the train, and called for more tar and feathers, for a further infliction upon their bleeding victim. More tar was brought, but more feathers could not be found; and after fresh tar was applied, cotton was stuck upon it instead!

When the train started for Charleston, the mob bade him good-bye, and told him that when he reached this city, he would receive 130 lashes! At every station between Columbia and Charleston, the engineer blew a prolonged whistle, and gathered a mob to add fresh insults to the wounded man. At length, on arriving, he was met by the police, conveyed to prison, and detained in his cell for an entire week. Here he received, for the first time, soap and water to wash off the tar, and oil to soften his sores. A mob several times threatened to break into the prison to carry him out into the street, and make a public spectacle of him a second time. But he was kept closely confined. A physician called to see him, to examine his wounds, who told him that his case was a mild one, comparing it with that of a man who was then lying in the City Hospital from the effects of 500 lashes, which had almost put an end to his life!

On Saturday morning last, at seven o’clock, the poor workman was taken from prison, and conducted quietly on board the steamer for New York. He arrived in this city on Monday last, where he is still staying, recovering from the effects of his ill-treatment, and looking for work, which we hope he may find.

We have only one comment to make on this case. This man informed us that, in common with the great mass of Irishmen in this country, he had always voted with the Democratic party. He had long known in Philadelphia that the Democratic [35] party upheld slavery, but he never learned, until he went to South Carolina, that slavery crushed the white laborer, and that the Democratic party, in upholding slavery, is therefore the enemy of Irishmen, who are a nation of laborers. In the Southern States, work is looked upon as dishonorable, and workmen as degraded. This is what an Irish stone-cutter learned while cutting stone in South Carolina. We hope the lesson of his experience may reach the ears of his countrymen!—New York Independent.

AN IRISHMAN IMPRISONED AND BANISHED.

In the Augusta (Ga.) Evening Dispatch of the 29th ult. is the following editorial paragraph:—

“Arrested. A man named James Crangale, hailing from Columbia, S. C., was arrested by the police, last night, for giving vent to Abolition sentiments, while in a state of intoxication, and is now in durance.”

A second edition of this story is published in the Charleston (S. C.) Mercury of Dec. 31st, two days later, and is as follows:—

“Vigilance. Passengers from Augusta report that an Abolitionist was tarred and feathered in that city on Friday. His name is represented to be James Crangale, recently from Columbia.”

Mr. Crangale arrived in this city, from Charleston, on Saturday last, in the steamer Nashville. His story we have from his own lips, and we think it may be repeated to the edification of Mr. O’Conor’s countrymen who believe slavery to be an excellent institution, and who vote the Democratic ticket, and for the information of those Union-saving gentlemen who have debts to collect on account, or under judgments, at the South.

Mr. James Crangale is by birth an Irishman, educated to the law, who emigrated to this country about two and a half years since. Being under the necessity of earning a livelihood, he made an engagement, soon after his arrival in this city, to [36] go as clerk into the establishment of Messrs. Gray & Turley, Dry Goods Merchants of Savannah and Augusta. After a brief stay in the former place, in the employment of Messrs. Gray & Turley, he was sent by them to the establishment at Augusta, when they refused to retain him longer in their service. He returned to Savannah, where he soon obtained the place of Deputy Clerk to the Court of Ordinary of Chatham County, Ga. Since that time, he has lived quietly, unobtrusively and inoffensively, busy with the duties of his office, and in qualifying himself to be admitted to the bar. With the subject of slavery he never meddled, and never, in any way, expressed an opinion in regard to it.

Feeling, however, that he had been unjustly dealt with by Messrs. Gray & Turley, who had induced him to go to the South, and had then broken the engagement between them, without regard to the consequences that might ensue to him, a stranger and friendless in a strange land, he sued them for his salary under the contract. The suit was brought in a Justice’s Court, and a decision given in his favor. Appeal was made by Messrs. Gray & Turley to the Superior Court, where the decision of the Court below was confirmed, and judgment granted against the defendants. This end, however, was not gained without some difficulty. Three lawyers successively threw up his case, after delaying it for several months, and he at length carried his suit through, and brought it to a successful issue, by acting as his own counsel. But even here was not an end to the legal obstacles in the way of justice. With the judgments in his hand, he went to one after another of the officers of the law in Savannah, but could find none who would execute the duties of their office against a well-known, influential and wealthy house, in behalf of a poor and friendless Irishman. He appealed to the Solicitor-General, Julian Hartridge, to lay the conduct of these delinquent officials before the Grand Jury, but it was only to meet with a refusal from that gentleman, on the ground that an indictment against them would also involve one against the attorneys for the defendants.

Hopeless of redress in Savannah, Mr. Crangale went to Augusta, trusting that in that place, where Messrs. Gray & Turley are holders of property, he should be able to find officers who would serve the judgment of the Court against [37] them. On his arrival, he went to the United States Hotel, kept by Messrs. Dobey & Mosher, and took a room. In the course of the evening, he was waited upon by a man, calling himself John Neilly, who invited him out upon the sidewalk in front of the hotel, and there said to him that, understanding him to be an Abolitionist, he, Neilly, on behalf of the Vigilance Committee, directed him to leave town immediately. Mr. Crangale at once refused to act on this order. He was there, he said, for the purpose simply of collecting money due him on a judgment of the Superior Court, and for nothing else; and that if they could prove him to be an Abolitionist, they were welcome to hang him. He was permitted, then, to return to the bar-room of the hotel, where he presently related the summons that had been served upon him, and the conversation that ensued. Thereupon, James Hughes, the bar-keeper, came forward and stated that he knew that Crangale was an Abolitionist; that he had this information from Andrew Gray, who said that “Crangale was a damned Abolitionist and rascal, and ought to be put out of the way.” Mr. Crangale again denied the allegation. He understood now, however, the source and meaning of the accusation, for Andrew Gray is a brother of the senior partner in the house of Gray & Turley.

About two o’clock that night, when asleep in bed, his room was broken into by three constables, named Everett, King and Ramsay, accompanied by about twenty of the Vigilance Committee, who arrested him. They dragged him out of bed, and, after taking from him his overcoat and valise, hurried him off to jail. The next day he was waited upon by another constable, one Ford, who demanded his keys, which he refused to give up. Ford assured him that if no Abolition documents were found in his possession, he would be discharged; but if the charge against him should be proved, he would be hung up at the prison gates by the Vigilance Committee. To persist in refusing to give up his keys, Ford assured him, would be considered as equivalent to a confession of guilt, and he should call the committee to execute speedy judgment. Under these threats, he had no alternative but to comply with the demand for the keys, and surren lered them. In the evening of that day, Mr. Olin, a Justice of the Peace, called upon him, and informed him that Mr. Foster Blodget, Jr., the [38] Mayor of Augusta, had filed an affidavit against him, which was sufficient to swear away ten lives, if he had so many. This formidable document, which Mr. Olin showed him, asserted that he, the Mayor, had been informed and believed that the errand of Crangale at the South was to stir up an insurrection among the slaves, and that he was doing so; that he had asserted that the slaves would be justified in rising against their masters; that the people of the North would be justified in putting arms into the hands of the slaves; that the people of Massachusetts were justified in aiding and arming the “niggers” at Harper’s Ferry; and that he, the Mayor, was prepared to prove these assertions. Mr. Crangale met these charges with a flat denial. He assured Mr. Olin that the whole story was a falsehood, a fiction from beginning to end; that he had never held and had never uttered any such sentiments. Mr. Olin thereupon informed him that his trial would take place the next day, and advised him to send for and engage as his counsel Col. Cumming, a well-known lawyer, and one of the most respectable and influential citizens of Augusta. The advice was taken, and Col. Cumming applied to. He called that evening, and, after listening to Mr. Crangale’s statement, to his honor be it said, consented to defend the case.

All this time, it should be remembered, the prisoner was held under no legal process, but, though confined in the City Prison, and visited by the officers of the law, was simply in the custody of the Vigilance Committee. The next morning, he was ordered into Court, and on his way thither was arrested at the suit of the State, on a charge of endeavoring to incite an insurrection among the slaves, and was arraigned before Justices Olin and Piquet. The statute of the State which provides the penalty of death for the crime with which the prisoner was charged was read, when Col. Cumming moved that the case be carried to the Superior Court, which would sit the latter part of January, and that the prisoner be remanded to take his trial at that time. He gave as his reasons for this motion, that the present trial was held, in fact, by the Vigilance Committee, who alone constituted the audience, and who would hang the accused then and there, if the slightest shadow of suspicion could attach to him. Mr. Crangale himself, however, arose and opposed this motion. Strong in his [39] own innocence, he wished the trial to proceed, and did not fear the result. The witnesses were then called and examined. They were Charles M’Calla, John Neilly, Allen Davy, Thomas T. Fogarty, and James Hughes, the bar-keeper at the United States Hotel. Their evidence, however, was only hearsay. Not one of them knew any thing, of his own knowledge, of the prisoner; not one of them had ever heard him utter a single Abolition opinion, or any opinion whatever, upon the subject of slavery, and none of them knew any thing about him, good, bad or indifferent. The only evidence of any moment was that of Hughes, who testified, on a cross-examination, that Andrew Gray had pointed out the prisoner to him as an Abolitionist; and that of Neilly, who acknowledged that he had agreed and proposed that the prisoner should be hanged, without the formality of a trial, at the time of his arrest, upon the lamp-post opposite the United States Hotel. This admission passed even without rebuke from the Court. But the Court was more vigilant when Hughes admitted that Gray had pointed out the prisoner to him as an Abolitionist, and ruled out the evidence, on the ground that the trade of Augusta with the North would be injured should it become known that such was their method of dealing with creditors. After the witnesses had been examined, Col. Cumming addressed the Court, in a speech evidently so fearless as to have exercised a strong influence over the minds of the Court and audience, and marked by a degree of sound common sense hitherto unheard of under such circumstances. He denounced these Vigilance Committees as self-made tribunals, constituting themselves at once witnesses and judges, and as actuated by no higher motive than a determination to denounce all Northern men of property as Abolitionists, for the purpose of ruining them and dividing the spoils among themselves. The statute of Georgia, providing the penalty of death for inciting the slaves to insurrection, he said, on the other hand, though severe, was none too much so. It behooved the South to keep both its eyes and ears open to protect their property against incendiaries. But the innocent, he declared, should not be accused and subjected to persecution. Under the effect of this speech, and as no tittle of evidence could be produced against Mr. Crangale, the Court had but one course to pursue, and the prisoner was acquitted. He [40] was nevertheless condemned to pay the costs of prosecution, the fees of the Vigilance Committee who had arrested him without legal process, and the cost of the imprisonment which he had been compelled to suffer, and was remanded to jail till payment was made. On arriving at the hotel, his coat and valise, which the committee had taken from him, were produced, but the pocket-book, containing nearly a hundred dollars, and which he had left in the coat-pocket, was not to be found. Again he was taken to the Court, where he stated the circumstances to Justice Olin. But that gentleman refused to believe him. “I have,” he said, to the prisoner, “acquitted you simply for want of evidence; but I still believe you are an Abolitionist, a God d——d Abolitionist, and you had better confess it. You are,” he continued, “a fool, a God d——d fool. Have not your friends told you so? Do you not know it yourself?” He then ordered him to open his valise, declaring that if any thing was found in it to convict him, there were enough of the “boys” present to string him up. The prisoner at first refused to obey this order. The valise and the keys, he said, had been out of his possession for two days; he did not know what might have been put in the valise, and he did not choose to take the chance of being hanged on such a contingency. On the threats being repeated, however, he consented to open the valise, which fortunately had not been tampered with, and where nothing was found but his clothing and some papers relative to the debt which he had come to Augusta to collect. Word was then sent to Col. Sneed, the President of the Vigilance Committee, of the inability of the prisoner to discharge the bill of costs, and to demand its payment of him, as the representative of the party making the arrest. Col. Sneed refused. The Mayor was then sought for to make the same demand of him as prosecutor, but he could not be found. It seemed perfectly clear to the Justice that the bill had to be paid by somebody, and, as those from whom it was rightfully due could not be compelled to, he chose to act on the principle that possession is nine points of the law, and hold him responsible whom he had in his power. A new committal was made out, and Mr. Crangale returned to jail till he could pay the costs of his own false imprisonment. After suffering a further confinement of thirty-three hours, and it being evident [41] that there was no relenting on the part of his persecutors, he wrote to Col. Cumming to thank him for his generous services, and to ask for another interview on his behalf. Soon after, Mr. Alfred Cumming, a son of Col. Cumming, appeared at the jail, paid the fees demanded, and the prisoner was released. Mr. Olin had advised him to be off the moment he was out of jail, as there were “boys enough about,” he said, “to string him up.” As he had every reason to believe in the soundness of this counsel, he left immediately, and arrived, as we have already stated, in this city on Saturday.

We subjoin a copy of the bill for the non-payment of which Mr. Crangale was detained in the Augusta jail thirty-three hours; and had not this sum been generously advanced by Col. Cumming, he would, no doubt, have been still in confinement, unless, indeed, the old cry of “a la lanterne” had been fulfilled in his case, in this modern Reign of Terror.

Augusta, Ga., Dec. 31, 1859.

Mr. James Crangale,

To Richmond County Jail,	Dr.
For three days’ board, of self, at 50c.,	$ 1 50
Turnkey’s Fee,	1 20
Committing, Marshal and Constable cost,	11 58
Jailer, R. C.,	1 25
Received Payment,	$15 33

URIAH SLACK.

It will be observed that Mr. Crangale still owes Richmond County, Georgia, twenty cents, if he ever owed it any thing, as Mr. Uriah Slack made an error to that amount in adding up the items. It is all he has gained to carry to the credit of his account against Messrs. Gray & Turley.—New York Tribune.

The Charleston Mercury publishes a letter signed “A Merchant,” in which the paper’s New York correspondents are requested to give the names of the leading Abolition houses in New York and elsewhere. For one, the writer pledges himself not to purchase one dollar’s worth of goods from such parties as shall be designated.

AN EXILE FROM ALABAMA.

Every day, fresh instances of banishment are occurring in all parts of the South. Northern men are coming away in armies—driven out of sixteen States, and made exiles in their own country. A purser on one of the Southern steamers which arrived a few days ago in this city said, “We are having crowds of passengers, for we are bringing home all the Abolitionists.” The men who are driven away are not generally Abolitionists until they become so after their expulsion. A peaceable workman in South Carolina, who never has had a thought about slavery until a mob tars and feathers him, and sends him to New York, becomes very naturally a strong Abolitionist by the time he reaches Sandy Hook. In this way, South Carolina is now doing more to make genuine anti-slavery men than all the North together.

Since our last issue, we have been called upon at our office by a fresh exile, who was recently driven away, in a very elegant and polite style, from a very aristocratic circle of society in Alabama. The manner of the expulsion was so dainty and chivalrous, that we cannot forbear to relate the circumstances.

Dr. Meigs Case, an intelligent and educated gentleman, formerly of Otsego county, in this State, went to Salem, Alabama, in September last, to take charge of the Alabama Female College. This institution, which had formerly been prosperous, had for some years past been running down, under the inefficient management of Southern teachers. Dr. Case, on arriving at Salem, found himself welcomed by the most intelligent part of the community, who said to him, “We have to look to the North for teachers, for we never yet have found a Southern man who was not too lazy to teach a school!” Dr. C. found that the old “field-school,” or the “ten-hour” system, was in vogue in that town, as in many other parts of the State. According to this system, the scholars and teachers go to school at daylight, and stay all day in or around the school-buildings. Each scholar recites, not in a class with others, but by himself. After his lesson is over, he roams about the grounds and indulges himself in a pleasing variety of idle amusements. This constitutes, in Alabama, “a day’s schooling.”

[43]

Dr. C., after receiving assurances of aid from the chief citizens of the place, agreed to undertake the management of the institution. He immediately began making arrangements for the thorough reorganization of the establishment. His design was to begin the first term with the beginning of the New Year. To this end, he wrote to the North, and engaged the services of assistant teachers, ordered from Northern publishers the necessary school-books, and sent for other members of his family. But while the teachers, the books, and the family were just on the point of starting for the South, he was waited on by a “Committee on the safety of the Union,” who politely informed him that public opinion, during the last few months, had undergone such remarkable changes, that it was now no longer expedient to permit the residence of a Northern man in a Southern community. The time had come, they said, when Southern men must be watchful of their institutions, and must rid themselves promptly of all persons whose influence was likely to be cast, in however faint a degree, against the system of slavery. Dr. C. had never made any expression of views on either side of the question; but the fact that he was a Northern man was a sufficient pretext for his banishment. The gentlemen who had given him the most cordial welcome to the place were now the most active in procuring his summary dismissal. They stated, with true chivalric politeness, that they regretted to compel him to leave, but apologized by adding that the state of the times demanded prompt expulsion. They concluded their interview by urging him to quit the place at once, intimating that they could not be responsible for his safety if he remained longer than twenty-four hours. A leading physician in the town, who had professed great friendship for Dr. Case, said to him, in parting, “If you had been introduced to our citizens by the Governor of the State, and were as stanch a Democrat as any in Alabama, you still could not be sustained amid the excitement that now pervades all classes of the community.”

At this time, a bill was before the lower house of the Legislature, entailing a fine of $500 on any school commissioner who should give a certificate of qualification to any Northern man who had not resided ten years within the State, and who was, moreover, not an owner of slave property!

Dr. Case, perceiving that to attempt to carry out his projected [44] enterprise would not only be useless but hazardous, determined to take the most prudent course, which was to leave the State within the required time. He is now in this city, where he is in negotiation with several institutions of learning from which he has had application since his return.

If Southern men shall succeed in banishing all Northern teachers, the next generation of the chivalry will scarcely know how to read and write.—New York Independent.

TRIBULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT BOOK-AGENTS.

Two young men of this State—James J. Miller, of Hartford, seventeen years old, (large of his age, and looking older,) and Emmons J. Coe, of Meriden—have just returned from North Carolina with a rather uncomfortable experience of the manner in which some of the people of that region observe the guarantees of the Constitution.

They went to Salisbury, Rowan county, about four weeks ago, as travelling agents for L. Stebbins, publisher, of this place, to sell two large and handsomely illustrated volumes, “The History of the North American Indians,” and “The History of Christ and His Apostles.” They took a room at the Mount Vernon House, and, after thoroughly canvassing Salisbury and the vicinity, they went to Gold Hill on Monday, Nov. 22, and returned on the evening of the 23d.

On their way back, in the evening, they met two men returning from court, who asked, “Do you know Old Brown, the insurrectionist?” “No.” “Well, you look out, or you will be in jail pretty soon.” They heard nothing more until Wednesday morning, when, as they were looking at a fire which broke out in the Methodist church, Coe heard the Mayor say to a man standing by: “Yes, that’s the very man; he stops at the Mount Vernon House.” “Are you speaking of me?” said Coe. “Yes.” He handed them his card, and, with Miller, returned to the hotel, whither they [45] were followed by the man to whom the Mayor spoke. In a short time, an officer with five patrolmen, carrying heavy canes, came to their door. Miller opened it, and politely asked them in. He also offered them his trunk, his keys, papers, books, letters, &c., and invited them to satisfy themselves as to his character and business. They chose to take the young men directly to the police court.

Arriving there, accompanied by a great crowd, a scene ensued supremely ludicrous to any bystander who could have dared to laugh. Three magistrates presided. The trunks were brought in, the leaves of the books turned over and over, and laid aside for more careful study. The crowd questioned a good deal, and then swore a great deal, and then questioned and swore more. They opened carefully and shook out every shirt and pair of trowsers, but no treason appeared.

The presiding magistrate said that there was nothing against them but suspicion, yet he thought it better to bind them over for trial before the Superior Court, requiring $500 bail! They asked Miller and Coe if they were ready to give bail? “Certainly not,” said Miller; “take us to jail.”

So they went to jail, with a solemn procession of six officers around them, and ten couples in front, and six more in the rear. They sent for a lawyer, R. B. Moore, who proved himself a frank, generous, sensible friend throughout. They had crowds of visitors daily asking to see the “d—d Yankees,” or the “d—d Abolitionists.”

On Tuesday, the 29th, they were brought into the Superior Court, and the prosecuting attorney told the Court that “these young men were ignorant of the laws, and, so far as ascertained, had committed no intentional offence,” &c. The judge lectured them, for what nobody knew, and told them that on paying their jail fees, $4.12 each, they should be discharged. They paid the bill, but returned to the jail for protection from the mob of “lewd fellows of the baser sort,” who manifested great anxiety to use tar and feathers.

In the evening, the sheriff escorted them to the hotel, where they kept close. Crowds gathered at the depot, hoping to get a chance at them as they took the cars. On Wednesday evening, November 30, gatherings in the street indicated a disposition to mob them, and they armed themselves, with a [46] determination to resist, and the landlord told them, “If they tar and feather you, they shall tar and feather me also.” On Thursday at noon, they quietly took a buggy for Lexington, a station some miles distant, where they waited, appearing not to know each other, for the night train. Excepting some close questioning at Portsmouth, they met no further difficulty, and took the steamer for New York.

Among the ridiculous and wholly baseless stories against them, it was said that they had called slaves into gin shops, talked two hours with them privately, sold them books, and told them that if they would only run away somewhere “across the river,” the invading army that came to rescue Brown would take them off, and also promised to correspond with, &c. &c. They heard threats in abundance daily, but escaped without serious loss, aside from the breaking up of their business and the expenses of their defence.

We trust that the outrages of which this is but one sample out of hundreds will receive a decided rebuke on Wednesday evening from our “Union-savers.”—Hartford Press, Dec. 12.

A NEW-YORKER EXPELLED FROM KNOXVILLE.

On Monday, a man from New York, by the name of Cregar, was taken up by a committee, who waited on him, and brought him before a meeting of our citizens in the court-house, upon the charge of being an Abolitionist. He was called upon to state his own case, and he did so by saying that he had been forced to leave Asheville upon a short notice; that he was an anti-slavery man; had rode in a wagon with a slave near Asheville, and had told the negro what wages were at the North, &c. According to his own version, he is an Abolitionist; but he said that he had not tampered with any slaves—did not believe it right to run negroes out of the South, and he was opposed to getting up insurrections. His business was to sell fruit trees and shrubbery for an extensive establishment at Rochester. The excitement was very great, the crowd was large, and at one [47] time, the consequences threatened to be serious. Rev. James Park opened the meeting with a sensible address, in which he counselled moderation, and expressed the hope that the citizens would preserve their dignity, and calmly listen to reason, and not to the suggestions of passion. We considered his remarks well-timed, and his sentiments proper, and we stated to the meeting that we endorsed the sentiments of Mr. Park, and urged upon the citizens to act in keeping with their magnanimity of character, and not to inflict personal violence upon the man, unless they had other and stronger testimony against him. At this stage of the game, the sentiment of the crowd was that Cregar ought to be required to leave the State in a reasonable length of time, but that he ought not to be treated with violence. But Gen. Ramsay, the lately defeated candidate for Congress, came down upon the stand, and delivered one of the most uncalled-for, ill-timed, not to say infamous, speeches we ever listened to under the circumstances. He was for crucifying the man, as an example to others. He was grossly insulting to all who counselled moderation; he made the political party issue, and placed all who were not for violence in the attitude of hostility to the South, and launched out against the Union and in favor of dissolution.

Col. O. P. Temple followed Gen. Ramsay, and gave him a most severe, but merited, castigation for the speech he had delivered, denouncing his sentiments as worthy alone of scorn and contempt, and was loudly cheered by the audience.

Speeches were also made by James R. Cooke, Esq., and Will L. Scott, Esq., who took the proper view of the subject, and counselled moderation, deprecating the great evil of mob law prevailing to a dangerous extent in the South, and hoped that reason, moderation and justice would be acted out on this occasion.

After these speeches were delivered, the committee of three, who were out, brought in a report requiring Cregar to leave in twenty-four hours. This was, as we understood it, so amended as to allow him three days to wind up his business, and this, we are inclined to think, met with the approval of the meeting. But an unfortunate debate sprang up between Messrs. Park and Charlton, and the consequences threatened, for a time, to be fearful, as the friends of these [48] gentlemen drew weapons. But, by the interference of friends, peace was restored, the crowd dispersed, and the New-Yorker has left for his congenial North, where he ought to remain.—Knoxville (Tenn.) Whig.

TAR AND COTTON.

A case of applying these two commodities to the epidermis of an individual was practised in this city, Thursday night, under the following circumstances: Sewall H. Fisk, a dealer in boots and shoes, on Market square, of several years’ standing, has been the object of suspicion for some time, in consequence of his known abolition proclivities, which he has taken, as we are informed, some trouble to make known to our slave population. His latest acts are, enticing negroes into his cellar at night, and reading them all sorts of abolition documents, and last Sunday night was devoted especially to the history of the trial of John Brown, and a general exhortation upon the institution of slavery and the advantages of freedom. These facts, as we hear, were sworn to before a Justice of the Peace by his nephew and his clerk; and coming to the ears of some parties who have constituted themselves a quasi-vigilance committee, Mr. Fisk’s store, over or in which he sleeps, was visited, and he was called out and gagged before he could make either noise or resistance. He was then placed in a carriage, and driven a short distance from the city, and the application, as above, made to his nude person; he was then left to find his way back as best he could. His first appearance in the limits was near the hospital, where he came in sight of a watchman, who was so alarmed at the sight, that he gave a spasmodic jerk at his rattle, and took to his heels, not willing to face so dreadful an apparition. A reinforcement, however, was brave enough to approach him, when he was conducted home, the most pitiable object it is possible to imagine. Not a spot of his skin was visible, and his hair was trimmed close to his head.—Savannah (Ga.) Republican, Dec. 3d.

A BOUNTY ON KIDNAPPING.

In the Maryland Legislature, in January last, Mr. Jacobs, of Worcester, offered the following:—

“Whereas, at the 21th anniversary of the American Abolition Society, held in the City Assembly Rooms, in New York city, in May, 1857, a certain Francis Jackson, of Boston, Treasurer of the Society, reported that during the current year the receipts of the Society were $19,200, and of the auxiliary societies of New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan, $18,856; making a total of $38,162 from those sources; and,

Whereas, said American Abolition Society also received for the same year, as appears from said report, the further sum of $158,750 from the Exeter Hall Emancipation Society, in the city of London, Great Britain, and both of said two sums make an aggregate of $196,912; and,

Whereas, the London Times, a newspaper of high repute on all questions involving the policy of England towards this country, distinctly declares that this money was given as a bounty on slaves—i. e., to decoy them from their owners, and induce them to run away; and,

Whereas, a certain Hiram K. Wilson, of Worcester, in Massachusetts, did go into Canada, and take a census of all such runaway slaves during the winter of 1856, and reported their number at 35,000, since augmented to 45,000; and,

Whereas, a certain Thomas Garrett, of the city of Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, did attend the anniversary meetings as aforesaid in the city of New York, in May, 1857, and did there show by his books of record and entry, where he had stolen 2,059 slaves, and forwarded them North, per underground railroad; and,

Whereas, said Garrett did attend a meeting of Abolitionists held at the Assembly Buildings, in the city of Philadelphia, on the 17th December, 1859, whereat he stated, that by his books of entry and record, he had stolen and conveyed North by the underground railroad the further number of 386 slaves, since the report in May, 1857, making a total of 2,445 slaves stolen by said Garrett; and,

Whereas, the said sum of $196,912, bestowed upon said Garrett in May, 1857, and his large annual receipts per capita for every slave he can so steal, have made him rich in wealth, and marked him as a wicked and base traitor to man and God; and,

Whereas, most of the slaves so stolen by said Garrett belong to citizens of this State, whose rights of property the State is sacredly pledged to secure inviolate—therefore, be it

Resolved, by the General Assembly of Maryland. That the Treasurer pay, upon the order of the Comptroller, the sum of —— to any person or persons who may secure said Thomas Garrett in some one of the public jails in this State; and that the Governor of this State, on information of such fact, is hereby requested to employ the best legal ability of the State to prosecute said Garrett to conviction and punishment.”

Mr. Jacobs then entered into a detailed explanation of the resolution; of the manner in which slaves are stolen from Worcester and other counties in that vicinity. He dwelt at [50] some length upon peddlers, their tricks of trade, and the insinuating way they have of ingratiating themselves into the good-will of negroes. He was particularly hard on Garrett; said he was a traitor, and should be hung.

About having slaves run of, Mr. Jacobs had experienced loss from that cause. He now had a man in Canada who often wrote home begging for money and to be brought back. The poor devil was nearly starved, but could not come back, although he wanted to do so. Mr. Jacobs verily believed he was run off by “Old Brown.” Garrett, who sent his minions, the peddlers, throughout the country, pocketed the money for running them off. Mr. Jacobs denounced Garrett as an archtraitor, a villain, and guilty of every horrid crime. There were men that he knew who could convict the scoundrel, and he wanted him caught. As a matter of course, under the rules of the House, the resolutions of Mr. Jacobs lie over for another reading.

Subsequently, Mr. Jacobs asked a suspension of the rules, so as to call up his resolutions providing for the capture of Thomas Garrett, for running off slaves from Maryland. The rules were suspended.

Mr. Jacobs moved that the blank in his resolutions for the capture of Garrett be filled with $2,000.

Mr. McCleary moved to amend with $500.

Mr. Chaplain moved to amend the amendment by $5,000.

Mr. Gordon thought it best first to change the resolution of Mr. Jacobs, so that the bounty would not be paid until Garrett was convicted.

Mr. Dennis asked, if this man was in the State, what could be done with him?

Mr. Jacobs. Hang him. (Laughter.)

Mr. Dennis resumed. According to the gentleman’s statement yesterday, Garrett was never in Maryland. If a citizen of another State receives slaves from Maryland, and forwards them to Canada or elsewhere, he cannot be touched for violating the soil of Maryland. The thing is out of the question.

Mr. Gordon, of Allegany, said that without an examination of the questions, he was not prepared to coincide with the gentleman from Somerset. If a man stands on the Virginia bank of the Potomac, and shoots another in Maryland with a rifle, is he not amenable to the Maryland laws? Certainly. [51] If by means of emissaries, he, on the borders of another State, steals a horse, and runs him off, is he not just as amenable to the laws of the State which he violates in that manner? And so it was with negroes.

Mr. Dennis, of Somerset, replied that there was no analogy in the cases. In the one instance, there is a direct violation of the soil of the State; in the other, it is asserted that a man in another State has gotten rich from the per capita of slaves run off, as the resolutions say, from this State. Allowing that it could be proved that they were run off from Maryland, he could not be harmed. He had never been in the State. We do not know that he had emissaries, and if he had, it is a question not for decision by this House.

Mr. Gordon rejoined. He said it was admitted that Garrett sent emissaries into the State; that he had publicly boasted of having, through their instrumentality, run off slaves from Maryland. That gave the question another aspect, and it should be well considered.

Mr. Jacobs said he had no doubt but that Thomas Garrett could be convicted, if taken. He cited several instances in which the fact that he ran off slaves could be proved.

Mr. Dennis asked why Mr. Jacobs or some other gentleman had not gone before the Grand Jury and had him presented, if these statements were so notorious.

Mr. Jacobs spoke warmly; denounced the London Times and the New York Courier, and declared that before he would have Maryland become secondary to the North, he would go in for a dissolution of the Union.

Mr. Long, of Somerset, moved to refer to Committee on Judiciary.

Mr. Jacobs. Will that kill it, or not? (Laughter.)

Mr. Long. The resolutions embrace important considerations, and should be referred to the Committee. They were the creatures of the House, and their action, therefore, could either be adopted or not by the body creating them.

Mr. Jacobs. You are Chairman of that Committee, ain’t you? (Laughter.)

Mr. Long. No, sir. I am, however, on the Committee. Mr. Gordon is Chairman.

Mr. Jacobs. Ah, well, I will trust it to him. (Laughter.)

[52]

After some debate as to the propriety of referring the matter, Mr. Jacobs consented to the reference. The whole matter—resolutions and amendments—was then referred. [5]

THE REIGN OF TERROR IN VIRGINIA.

To the Editor of the New York Tribune:

Sir:

As I observe that your statements as to the risk of travelling at the South are doubted by your neighbors of the Times and Herald, permit me to relate a fact in my own experience of very recent occurrence.

[54]

For fifteen years past I have been in the habit of visiting the South, having certain interests in Tennessee which require my personal attention. In the latter part of January; I was on my way to Tennessee, with Judge Platt, of Yonkers, and Mr. Lewis Edwards, of Orient, L. I. When passing through Virginia, I fell into conversation, somewhere between Lynchburg and Bristol, with a fellow passenger. After some talk upon indifferent matters, this person asked me “if New York merchants did not feel the withdrawal of Southern trade.” I replied that it was too early in the season as yet to judge whether there had been any diminution of trade from such a cause. “I am,” he continued, “interested in two mercantile firms, and I have given orders to both that they shall purchase no goods north of Baltimore, and not even there, except of direct importation.” “You have,” I answered, “a perfect constitutional right to buy your goods where you please. We are, however, glad to deal with you as long as you pay your notes. The South,” I remarked further, on some allusion on his part to Northern sympathy for John Brown, “does not understand the feeling of the North in regard to that affair. Not a hundred people among us knew of Brown’s intention, or approved of his acts when known, however much they might admire the character of the man. And on that point,” I added, “no one has paid him a higher compliment than Gov. Wise, who said he was the pluckiest man he ever saw.”

“Sir,” said my interrogator, with a good deal of emphasis, “before having any further conversation with you, I wish to know what you think of Helper’s book.”

“I have never read it,” I replied.

“At any rate,” said he, “you cannot be ignorant of its contents. But I will tell you what it advises: it advises non-slaveholders to cease all intercourse with slaveholders; not to employ them either as physicians or lawyers, not to trade with them, nor to go to communion with them. Now, what do you think of it?”

“Have you ever read that work yourself?” I asked.

“I have not,” said he.

“Then,” said I, “I think that you are not the proper person to interrogate me upon this work, nor am I the proper person to criticise it, when we have neither of us read it.”

But this did not satisfy him. He wanted and insisted upon having a more positive answer. At length I said: “I acknowledge [55] that Virginia has a perfect constitutional right to continue or to abolish slavery as she shall see fit, and that we of the North have nothing to do with it. This should satisfy you as to my opinions of the Helper book.”

But this was not enough. He wanted a more positive expression of opinion on the book itself.

“It seems to me,” said I, “that the question is one that belongs to you alone. It is simply a quarrel among cousins. The book was written by the South, in the South, and for the South, and we commercial men at the North care very little about the matter any way.”

He burst out here with great violence and vehemence: “Sir, I believe you are a d——d Yankee Abolitionist! I am a member of the Vigilance Committee, and I will have you arrested and examined!”

“I am,” I answered, “a merchant of New York, passing through the State on my way further South, where I have large interests, and am on my lawful business.”

He continued his abuse, reiterating, “You are a d——d Abolitionist! I will have you arrested and examined!”

Presently he asked me for my address, which I gave him without hesitation. “I,” said he, “am Fayette McMullen. I have been for eight years a member of Congress from this State, and two years the Governor of Washington Territory. And you,” he repeated, “are a d——d Yankee Abolitionist, and no gentleman.” Here I turned my back upon him and took up a newspaper. Then he left me; but going through the car, he pointed me out to a number of persons as an Abolitionist. My fellow passengers were some of them Southern men, and some Northern. With many of these passengers I had travelled from Washington, and we had been together for four and twenty hours. It was to this circumstance, perhaps, that I owed it that Mr. McMullen’s attempt to get up an excitement against me was a failure. There were some muttered remarks, it is true, undoubtedly intended for me, such as “that any Abolitionist going through the South ought to be tarred and feathered;” but I was not molested. My assailant went through the other cars of the train, with the amiable intention, I presume, of having me mobbed. He failed, however, there also, and finally returned to his seat near me, and went to sleep after his labors.

New York, Feb. 23, 1860.

J. C. HAZELTON.

A GERMAN CITIZEN HANGED, BEATEN AND ROBBED.

Yesterday, (says the Quincy (Illinois) Whig, of February 25th,) a respectable German citizen of LaGrange, Missouri, Mr. Frederick Schaller, (a brother-in-law of Mr. H. Dasbach, of this city,) who has resided in LaGrange for the last twelve years, was brought to Quincy a victim to the horrors of a pro-slavery outrage, the recital of which is enough to make the blood of any man, who has a soul, boil in his veins. We called upon Mr. Schaller and obtained the statement which we publish below. We saw the bloody evidence of the horrible treatment he had undergone, heard the story of the affair as given by him, and could not help believing every word of his statement. He is a respectable and intelligent man, and his plain and simple account of the dastardly outrage, was, we venture to say, implicitly credited by the hundreds of our citizens who called at Mr. Dasbach’s yesterday.

Mr. Shaller has always voted the Democratic ticket, and we are assured by German citizens of Quincy, that in his visits to this city, he has defended the institution as it existed in Missouri. That he is innocent of the charge of assisting negroes to escape—as he asserts—we have no doubt.

We trust that our German citizens, especially those who have been in the habit of voting the Democratic ticket, will ponder well this flagitious outrage, and then determine whether they can continue to vote with a party whose cardinal principle is the spread and extension of that institution which is the parent of such damnable and brutal lawlessness.

We are under obligations to the editors of the Tribune for the translation of Mr. Schaller’s statement:—

A HIRED TRAITOR IN OUR MIDST—PASS HIM ROUND.

Our attention has just been called to a copy of the Clarke Journal, (a weekly sheet, published at Berryville, Clarke Co., Va.,) bearing date the 11th inst. This journal is professedly Democratic in politics, and now keeps the following ticket at the head of its leading columns:—

For President—R. M. T. Hunter, of Va.

For Vice President—D. S. Dickinson, of N. Y.

Under color of this show of conservatism, the editor of the paper, Alexander Parkins by name, publishes as an advertisement the full prospectus of the New York Tribune, occupying an entire column, and for which, doubtless, Mr. Parkins receives a considerable moneyed compensation. That our readers may properly appreciate the nature of the inflammatory article thus paid for and published within a few miles of Harper’s Ferry, we reproduce the following sample of Greeley’s prospectus:—

“The ‘irrepressible conflict’ between Darkness and Light, Inertia and Progress, Slavery and Freedom, moves steadily onward. Isolated acts of folly and madness may for the moment give a seeming advantage to Wrong; but God still reigns, and the Ages are true to Humanity and Right. The year 1860 must witness a memorable conflict between these irreconcilable antagonists. The question, ‘Shall Human Slavery be further strengthened and diffused by the power and under the flag of the Federal Union?’ is now to receive a momentous, if not a conclusive answer. ‘Land for the Landless versus Negroes for the Negroless,’ is the battle-cry of the embodied millions, who, having just swept Pennsylvania, Ohio and the North-West, appear in the now Congress, backed by nearly every free State, to demand a recognition of every man’s right to cultivate and improve a modicum of the earth’s surface, wherever he has not been anticipated by the State’s session to another. Free Homes, and the consecration of the virgin soil of the Territories to Free Labor—two requirements, but one policy—must largely absorb the attention of our Congress through the ensuing session, as of the People in the succeeding Presidential canvass; and, whatever the immediate issue, we cannot doubt that the ultimate verdict will be in accord at once with the dictate of impartial Philanthropy and the inalienable rights of man.”

We merely suggest to the good people of Jefferson and Clarke counties that the squad of Yankee peddlers lately ordered away from their borders are emissaries of a much less dangerous description than that to which Mr. Alexander Parkins [60] belongs. A hired disseminator of Abolition treason is the very man of all others to tamper with slaves, to run them off, or, if he had the courage to do so, to lead the van of servile insurrection. Whether Mr. Parkins has not already laid himself liable to fine and imprisonment in the county jail for his complicity with Horace Greeley’s incendiary efforts, is a question which we recommend to the careful consideration of the prosecuting attorney of Clarke county. But there can be no doubt whatever that the people of Clarke and the surrounding counties owe it to their own safety to suppress this incendiary sheet. A respectful request to Mr. Parkins to leave the community, signed by all his subscribers, would perhaps prove efficacious; but don’t lynch him. The friends and supporters of Messrs. Hunter and Dickinson should especially attend to this matter. The impudence with which Parkins attempts to shelter his treason behind the names of these worthy gentlemen deserves especial reprobation.—Richmond (Va.) Enquirer, Nov. 15th.

FREE SPEECH IN VIRGINIA.

Every body in Virginia knows or ought to know that she has a set of laws for the especial government of her negro population, bond and free, one of which makes it an indictable offence, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to give utterance to Abolition language and sentiments. We know that in the so-called free States this interdict is severely commented upon; but if they will persist in sending their emissaries among us to corrupt our negroes and entice them away from their owners, they deserve themselves whatever odium may be attached to such a law, the necessity for enacting which they have enforced upon us. All we ask of strangers coming among us from those States is implicit obedience to our laws, be they good or evil in their eye; if they are not prepared to yield it, let them pack up and quit our borders; otherwise they are to expect no immunity for their disobedience. The thing is very simple, and cannot possibly be misunderstood, we should think, even by a crazy Abolitionist. Yet instances [61] of a disregard of this provision of our municipal code are by no means unfrequent; and two have occurred here since that of S. Danneberg, which we mentioned a few days ago. One was that of a clerk in a store, a young Scotchman, who strongly advocated the conduct of Old Barabbas Brown. His employer, having more compassion for him than Old Barabbas had for the wives, mothers and children of Virginia, gave him his discharge without subjecting him to an arrest, and, following the advice of a friend, he “took out in the first boat” for the North.

The other was that of a resident on Ferry Point, opposite this city, John Fletcher by name, who came from Washington City some five years ago. On Tuesday last, in the grocery store of his neighbor, Mr. James P. Jones, in the presence of ten creditable witnesses, while in conversation about the Harper’s Ferry affair, “he avowed himself an Abolitionist, and asserted that there were many in Norfolk and Portsmouth, but that they were afraid to say so; but he was free, white and twenty-one, and had no hesitation in declaring that if he had five thousand dollars, he would give one-half of it for the release or rescue of John Brown.”

The bystanders were highly indignant at such language, and immediately had information of it lodged with T. Portlock, Esq., J. P., who thereupon issued his warrant for the apprehension of Fletcher. The warrant was given to officer John M. Drury to execute, who proceeded to Fletcher’s dwelling, and knocked for admittance at the front door; but he made his appearance at a side door, and, being told by the officer that he must go with him, said he would do so, and retired to get his coat and hat; but on his return, said he had changed his mind, and was determined not to be taken. The officer then attempted to seize him, when he held the door nearly closed with one hand, while with the other he drew a knife, which he held up in a threatening manner, and said, “d——n you, if you attempt to enter, I will kill you.” Mr. Drury then went and summoned persons to his assistance; and on his return, Fletcher, after consulting with members of his family, and being threatened with a forcible entrance by the posse without, quietly surrendered and was taken off to jail, to undergo an examination.—Norfolk (Va.) Herald.

DASTARDLY OUTRAGES UPON NORTHERN CITIZENS AT THE SOUTH.

Washington, D. C., Nov. 28th, 1859.

Slavery has taken another advancing step, and this time it is free speech which has been stricken down in the capital of the country. I allude to the case of Dr. Breed, referred to in my last letter. The main facts, agreed to by all parties, are as follows: A gentleman who has lived in peace and respectability in Washington for the last seven years—who has had high office under successive administrations—a Quaker—calls upon a neighbor upon business. He there meets a stranger, and is introduced to him. The two gentlemen talk of John Brown—get excited—both say extravagant things—get cool afterward—make up—shake hands, and part. The next day, one of the parties is arrested for the expression of his sentiments respecting slavery, and he is forced to take his choice of a prison, or give $2000 bond, to keep the peace for a twelvemonth! No man swore that he was afraid Dr. Breed would attack him; not only that, but the man (one Dr. Camp) who instigated the arrest of Dr. Breed, himself threatened the life of Dr. Breed if he dared to utter certain sentiments respecting slavery.

Your correspondent attended the trial before Justice Down, and is forced to say that it was a farce from beginning to end. The two witnesses covered each other’s tracks in their testimony; one of them swore positively that he did not believe either of the gentlemen (Van Camp and Breed) knew what they said—that they were much excited—and that he did not suppose Dr. Breed meant what it is alleged he said. It was evident to every body present that it was simply an angry private discussion between two persons who call themselves gentlemen. Dr. Breed utterly denied, before Justice Down, the utterance of the sentiments imputed to him; and none of his friends here, who know him to be a Non-Resistant on principle, for a moment credited the statement of Van Camp. Justice Down seemed to have no idea of law or justice, for he bound Dr. Breed to keep the peace in the sum of $2000, on the ground that, if he had uttered his sentiments before [63] slaves, or a white audience, it would have endangered the peace of the community! What an insolent defiance of all law and justice!

In the court-room, a gang of ruffians was gathered, and threats were openly and loudly made to take the life of Dr. Breed on the spot. One man cried out in open Court: “Let’s hang him up when he goes out!” and no man reprimanded the scoundrel for his offence. The Star very candidly admits that if the police had not been present in strong numbers, Dr. Breed would have been in danger. This affair did not occur in Virginia or Naples, but in the capital of the United States! Henceforth, Washington is to be set down as a spot where freedom of speech is not allowed. Any member of Congress may be thrown into prison by this so-called Justice Down, for words uttered in private conversation, and left there till he will give bonds.

Brooks was fined three hundred dollars for making a murderous assault upon a United States Senator in his Senatorial seat; while a Northern man is held to bail in the sum of two thousand dollars, and but for the presence of a friend, would have gone to jail, upon a charge of using “seditions language.” He might have blasphemed God, or threatened to dissolve the Union, with impunity; to speak against slavery is the unpardonable sin.—Correspondence of the N. Y. Evening Post.

A NINE YEARS’ RESIDENT DRIVEN AWAY FROM ALABAMA.

We have authentic information, that a gentleman who has resided for nine years in Georgia and Alabama was driven away from home a few days ago, and forced to take a hurried passage to the North, leaving behind him his wife and children, and a thriving business, which must now go to wreck. What was his crime? He had not only never spoken against slavery, but always in favor of it. He honestly held Southern sentiments, and was always ready to avow the same, although he could never persuade himself to own a slave. [64] His profession was that of a teacher of vocal and instrumental music.

A fortnight ago, a book agent was arrested in a town in Alabama for soliciting subscribers to “Fleetwood’s Life of Christ,” published by a Northern publisher. The Methodist Conference was in session at that time, and the case was noticed on the floor of that body. The members advocated the unfortunate agent’s immediate expulsion from the place, on the ground that his continued presence would be dangerous to the existence of Southern institutions! A paper was drawn up, adopted, and published in the newspapers, setting forth the ground of their action, substantially as follows:—

“We have examined this man’s case. We find no evidence to convict him of tampering with slaves, but as he is from the North, and engaged in selling a book published at the North, we have a right to suspect him of being an Abolitionist, and we therefore recommend, in order to guard ourselves against possible danger, that he be immediately conducted by the military out of this county into the next adjoining.”

Accordingly, the militia were called out, and the poor book-peddler was summoned to receive military honors. But this was not all. The musician of whom we have spoken, a nine years’ resident, whom nobody ever suspected of being an Abolitionist, was called upon to ride at the head of the procession, and play the flute! He immediately declined, and took occasion to express his opinion that the agent had done nothing worthy of his expulsion. The procession accordingly marched without the flute player. In the evening, greatly to his surprise, he received an anonymous letter (whose source, however, he could not fail to detect) commanding him, under penalty of tar and feathers, to leave the State immediately. He knew the people too well not to be wise enough to take the hint. His wife, who was a Southern lady, and had never been in the North, was thrown into great grief on reading the letter, but advised her husband to leave before daylight, as she feared for his safety if he remained longer. So at three o’clock in the morning he saddled his horse, and taking with him what clothes he could put in his saddle-bags, galloped away—an exile from home and friends! He has since reached a Northern city, and is now making arrangements to bring his family to a place where they can breathe freer air.—N. Y. Independent.

MOB VIOLENCE IN KENTUCKY.

VIRGINIA RUNNING OUT WHITE MEN.

Some years since, Mr. Reuben Salisbury, then of Sandy Creek, in this county, and brother of Mason Salisbury, Esq., disposed of his property, and, with his family, removed to Virginia, where he engaged in the business of farming, and where he led a peaceable and peaceful life, until the unfortunate occurrence at Harper’s Ferry. He was a quiet man, a member of the Baptist Church, and estimable in all the relations of life. Though not an advocate of, nor an apologist for, the institution of slavery, he was a man who attended to his own business, meddling with nobody’s slaves, and questioning no man’s privilege to hold them, if he was satisfied that it was right to do so. He was a man of rare integrity and moral worth, charitable, tolerant—in short, a good man.

Well, a short time since, a complaint was lodged against this gentleman, who is now about sixty years of age, some kind of a process obtained, and about twenty of Virginia’s chivalric sons deputed to execute it. They were all armed, and, visiting the premises in a body, they had no serious difficulty in capturing Mr. Salisbury. A search was then instituted for evidence to sustain the charge that had been preferred against him. His house was ransacked from cellar to garret; every nook and cranny was peered into, and his private papers fumbled over, and the hunt had well-nigh proved fruitless, when a few copies of the Albany Evening Journal, which had been sent him by his friends in Sandy Creek, were discovered, and the venerable old man was hurried off to jail. Here he remained several days, but was finally admitted to bail, and by the advice of friends, was induced to quit his home in the Old Dominion and the State of his adoption. He returned to Sandy Creek last week. His farm in Virginia he advertises for sale at auction, and expects it will go at a sacrifice of from $2,000 to $3,000.

So much for Virginia justice. We ought to add, that the magistrate before whom Mr. Salisbury was arraigned belonged to the same church with that gentleman, for that will show the kind of Christianity they have down in that section.

This occurrence has created considerable sensation and no little indignation among Mr. Salisbury’s former neighbors and [68] friends. And is it remarkable that it should? Turning to the Constitution of the United States, and learning that the object of that instrument, according to the preamble, was to “establish justice” and “secure the blessings of liberty,” they very naturally ask themselves if “liberty” and “justice” have not, in this instance, been ruthlessly trodden under foot? John Brown and four others were adjudged guilty of murder, and have been executed, for their attempts to run black men out of Virginia; what is the offence of those other men who are engaged in running white men out of the State? If it be a high crime to seek to deprive slaveholders of their property, is it a justifiable proceeding to divest non-slaveholders of theirs? Are doings of this sort calculated to increase our respect for the Union, to allay the anti-slavery feeling at the North, and bring us over to the faith of those who are opposing what they term “sectionalism”? Has the time indeed come when people living South must stop reading Northern newspapers? Shall we of the free States be denied the privilege of sending papers to our friends who have gone South to reside? Shall we stop corresponding with them, lest we get them into difficulty?

We cannot reconcile these things with our notions of justice. If a man leaves New York and takes up his residence in Virginia, we expect he will conform to the laws of the latter State, and in so doing he ought to be protected in his person and property, and we think he would be, if the head of the Government cared as much for the rights of freemen as for the wishes of the slaveholding oligarchy; in other words, if our Federal Executive was an impartial ruler. Such a ruler may we not hope to elect in 1860?—Pulaski (N. Y.) Democrat, Dec. 29.

A mob of pro-slavery men recently broke up a school taught by Robert Milliken, at Kirksville, Mo. He was conceded to be a good teacher, and personally unobjectionable, but was guilty of having a father who had incautiously expressed anti-slavery sentiments in a letter to a friend in New York!

A SHAKER CITIZEN OF COLUMBIA COUNTY EXPELLED FROM VIRGINIA.

Among the many ludicrous incidents consequent upon the raid of the eccentric and fanatical man, the late John Brown, upon the unsuspecting and peaceable citizens of Harper’s Ferry, there was one in which a resident of this county bore a very conspicuous part.

One of the peaceable and exemplary Shakers from New Lebanon, in this county, was on his yearly tour through south-western Pennsylvania and the adjacent parts of Virginia, peddling his garden seeds, or rather, supplying his old customers with their usual stock for the ensuing spring demand. While quietly moving along the highway with his horses and wagon, with a close box (painted green, probably) in which his seeds were packed, secure from rain and fogs, and without even knowing that he had passed the boundaries of Pennsylvania, and entered into the land of chivalry, he was suddenly arrested in his progress, and charged with being an incendiary Abolitionist. His vigilant captors were informed that though his closed wagon-box contained materials that would expand, if properly sowed in their gardens in the spring, they were not really of an explosive nature.

The Virginia vigilants were incredulous, strongly suspected that he was a very dangerous character, and proceeded with due care and caution (probably fearing that some “infernal machines” were mixed up with the small boxes containing seeds) to overhaul and examine the contents of the wagon. Though finding neither powder, nor Sharp’s rifles, nor warlike pikes, they were far from being satisfied that all was right—pronounced him to be a very suspicious and dangerous character, and lodged him in jail, or some other safe “lock-up,” for the night.

On the following morning, a company of brave and chivalrous militia was assembled, with muskets and bayonets in hand, and, with the soul-inspiring music of life and drum, he was safely escorted and guarded back from “Old Virginia’s shore” into the State of Pennsylvania, and the agitation and alarm caused by his presence in that part of the “Old Dominion” [70] quieted and allayed; and then did the chivalry breathe calmly and freely again.

This incident is regarded as eminently worthy of being recorded in history as the first occasion on which it was found necessary to call out a military company for the protection of the citizens of any community from the evil designs of an unoffending, unwarlike and non-combatant Shaker.—Kinderhook Rough Notes.

LYNCH LAW MEETING IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

A public meeting (says the Kingstree (S. C.) Star) of a portion of the citizens of Williamsburg District, S. C., was held at Boggy Swamp, at Mr. McClary’s store, on Tuesday, the 22d inst., for the purpose of taking the preliminary steps of ridding the community of two Northern Abolitionists, who have been for some time teaching school in said district. The two characters are W. J. Dodd and R. A. P. Hamilton.

Nothing definite is known of their Abolition or insurrectionary sentiments, but being from the North, and therefore necessarily imbued with doctrines hostile to our institutions, their presence in this section has been obnoxious, and, at any rate, very suspicious; therefore the meeting was called. On motion, Samuel W. Maurice was called to the chair, and James Potter acted as Secretary. On taking the chair, the Chairman explained the object of the meeting, whereupon, on motion, it was

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this meeting, the presence of W. J. Dodd and R. A. P. Hamilton in this community, under the present critical condition of public affairs, touching the institution of slavery, is obnoxious; and although we entertain great respect for the persons in whose employment they have been, yet we deem their longer continuance here as being so dangerous and suspicious as to be our sufficient apology for taking some coersive measures for their removal.

Resolved, That a committee of twelve be appointed to proceed forthwith to the whereabouts of said Dodd and Hamilton, and give them notice that they will have until Saturday, the 26th, to leave the District.

The chair appointed the following as a Committee to wait upon them:

R. C. Logan, Chairman; T. S. Chandler, Dr. W. L. Wallace, [71] John M. McClary, T. A. McCrea, W. H. Griggs, R. H. Shaw, James Potter, S. J. Strong, Wm. McCullough, Enoch Dudley, James C. Murphy.

Resolved, That another public meeting of all citizens in the District favorable to the move is hereby called in the court-house at Kingstree, on Saturday, the 26th, M., to hear the report of said Committee; and if said gentlemen do not quietly leave, pursuant to notice, by that time, that then such measures of a coersive character will be adopted as in the opinion of said meeting may be necessary to put them off by force.

Resolved, That these proceedings be published in the Kingstree Star.

On motion, the meeting adjourned, and the Committee proceeded to the performance of their duty instanter.

S. W. MAURICE, Chairman.

James Potter, Secretary.

PUBLIC MEETING.

At a public meeting (says the Sumter (S. C.) Watchman) of the citizens assembled on Wednesday afternoon last, at the Town Hall, Col. G. S. C. DeSchamps was called to the chair, and T. W. Dinkins, Esq., requested to act as Secretary. The Chairman having stated the object of the meeting, asked if gentlemen had prepared business for the consideration of the meeting; whereupon the Chair (in conformity with a motion to that effect) appointed the following Committee to report on business: T. W. Dinkins, D. J. Winn, H. L. Darr, A. Anderson and W. L. Pelot. The Committee, in a few minutes, reported the following preamble and resolution. After discussion, they were unanimously adopted:—

Whereas, disclosures of an inflammatory character are brought to our notice by every mail, showing that it is time for every slaveholding community to be on the alert for its own security and protection of its interests; and whereas, notwithstanding the warnings from the press growing out of the present state of the country, stragglers from the North continue to visit and tarry in our town as agents for books, medicines, &c., whose real object may be to act as spies and Abolition emissaries; therefore,

Resolved, That we, the citizens of Sumter, in public meeting assembled, do call upon and request our Town Council to institute a rigid surveillance on all such transient persons; and where full satisfaction is not given, to notify such persons that their presence in our community is not to be tolerated.

[72]

It was further moved and adopted, that a committee of five be appointed to lay the foregoing preamble and resolution before the Town Council. In accordance with which motion, the Chair appointed Messrs. W. E. Dick, L. P. Loring, H. Haynesworth, A. A. Nettles and Dr. J. L. Haynesworth a committee.

It was also resolved, that the meeting, when adjourned, be adjourned to meet again on Wednesday next, 23d inst., at 11 o’clock, and that an invitation be extended to the citizens of the District to attend and co-operate in measures for the public safety.

G. S. C. DeSCHAMPS, Chairman.

T. W. Dinkins, Secretary.

VIRGINIA INDIGNATION.

A large meeting of the citizens of Barbour and adjoining counties was held at the Court House in Phillippi, Virginia, on the 7th ult., the same being court day for said county, to express a public sentiment concerning the late insurrection at Harper’s Ferry. Among the resolutions passed were the following:—

“Whereas, we contemplate with shame and detestation the late deadly affray at Harper’s Ferry, from which it appears that a treasonable scheme has been for some time in preparation by certain instigators and emissaries of ‘Irrepressible Conflict,’ ‘Higher Law,’ and Abolition doctrines, whose end and aim is an assault and warfare upon the constitutional and guaranteed rights of the Southern States of our great confederacy; and whereas, by this attack on an arsenal of the United States, in the heart of the nation, and on the soil of our beloved Virginia, encouraged by advices and counsels from individuals in various of the Northern States, and emboldened by the appliances of money, and stores of arms and ammunition, furnished by accessories to this treacherous scheme of plunder and murder, it is evidenced to our belief [73] that no mere riot of deluded fanatics was intended, but that a great, bloody and destructive project of civil war was contemplated, in which our servants and citizens, in co-operation with their Northern leaders and abettors of this rebellion, were expected to join in the plunder and butchery of their masters and brothers; therefore,

Resolved, That we will, at all times, as Virginians and citizens of the United States, hold ourselves ready, as one man, to bear arms, even to death, if necessary, in defence of our constitutional rights, our liberties, and our homes.

Resolved, That while we deprecate this invasion of Harper’s Ferry as the ebullition of a blind and misguided fanaticism, which has resulted in bloodshed and the loss of the lives of valuable citizens of our State and country, we, notwithstanding, assert a confidence in the conservative element and spirit of the mass of the Northern people, and that our brethren there will unite with us in strengthening the bonds of government, the preservation of law and order, and in suppressing the incendiary movements and purposes of an infuriated and misguided portion of their population, who blindly plot the destruction of the Union.

Resolved, That a committee of thirteen be appointed, whose duty it shall be to notify all persons in our county, known to be Abolitionists, to leave the county of Barbour in sixty days, if there should be any in our county.”

Six Salesmen Sent Back to New York. A large and well-known business house in New York (who carry on a large trade with the South in the two articles of liquors and Union-saving) were greatly surprised to find that their great zeal in getting up the recent Union meeting had profited them nothing among their Southern customers. Six of their salesmen and agents were summarily forced to leave the South, and recently returned to their employers. Perhaps the firm will think twice before they sign a call for another meeting at the Academy of Music.

[74]

The New York Journal of Commerce says that the following incendiary handbill was received, a few days since, “by a highly respectable citizen, an American by birth, a patriot and a Christian, to whom it was addressed through the post-office. The envelope was post-marked Montgomery, Alabama, Nov. 25. The carrier who delivered it remarked to our informant that he had several others of the same appearance, addressed to other persons in his beat. It is probable that a large number of the same have been forwarded to different places at the North and West.”

[CONFIDENTIAL.]

TO THE IRISH FRIENDS OF THE SOUTH IN THE NORTHERN CITIES.

Fellow-Citizens,—

You who have always been true to the Constitution and the South—who have never degraded yourselves to the level of the African race, as the dirty Free-Soilers do—you are aware that the borders of Virginia have been profaned by the tread of the Free-Soil assassin. The South looks to its Irish friends in the large free cities to effect a diversion in its favor, and for this purpose the United Constitutional Irish Association has been formed, of which some of you are (and doubtless all will be) members. In the great cities, prominent Free-Soilers and Abolitionists own large factories, stores and granaries, in which vast sums (made out of the South) are invested. This fact furnishes a means of checking their aggressions on the South; and the Irish friends of the South are relied on to make the check effective. Property is proverbially timid. Whenever a hay-stack or cotton-gin is burned at the South by Free-Soil emissaries, let a large factory, or a plethoric store, or an immense granary, in New York or Boston, be given to the flames. To make this course safe, your Association must be true to itself and its principles; method, caution, your double secrecy, will insure the safety of the actors. Southern gentlemen will be constantly among you, amply supplied with means to remove those whose patriotism has subjected them to suspicion. Besides, many friends will be found, both among Southern steamers’ crews, railway conductors, and the police. In fact, you will find friends and funds on every hand. Be energetic, [75] therefore; go at once to your Foreman, and see if he cannot introduce you to the Association, if you are not already a member.

Let us urge you to disseminate among your fellow-laborers the idea that you have not wages proportioned to the present high scale of prices. When once the mass of your countrymen are filled with the notion that the Free-Soil capitalists are withholding the price of Irish labor, while trying to incite the negro of the South to rebellion, it will be easy enough to gather large mobs of your brethren, and when large mobs assemble, ware-houses may be burst open or fired. Be careful, however, that only the property of Abolitionists is harmed; every where protect those who are friendly to the South and true to the Constitution.

Irishmen! the South relies on you! Depend on it, that for every dollar’s worth of injury to our enemies in the Northern factories, &c. &c., by riot or the torch, the South will amply compensate, and, besides, furnish you a safe refuge and a homestead. &rightpointing1; Remember to apply at once to your Foreman, for particular instructions. If he should not be able (which is not likely) to inform you, show this privately to some Irish gentleman of intelligence, after ascertaining his feelings towards the South. Thousands of copies of this confidential circular will be sent by Irish people in the South to their friends at the North.

THE COMMITTEE.

November 23, 1859.

SHOCKING CASE.

Glastenbury, Conn., Dec. 28th, 1859.

The Rev. Mr. Alberton was brought to his home—three miles from here—last Friday, with one leg broken and his head and arm bruised, by a fall from the cars, on his way home from Alabama, where he went a few weeks since, in the employ of Mr. Stebbins, of Hartford, peddling books. He was arrested after the John Brown invasion, on suspicion of evil designs, and imprisoned twelve days. The suspicion was [76] founded on a passage found in a letter to another person, in the same business, from Mr. Stebbins. The suspicious sentence was this: “Take the best men, be faithful, do your work thoroughly; my agent in this section is the Rev. Mr. Alberton, whose head quarters is at ———.” I don’t recollect the name of the place. On this expression they founded a suspicion of treason, and sent forthwith to the place and arrested Mr. A., and the mob gathered around and cried out, “Shoot him, shoot him!” “hang him, hang him!” He was searched, tried, and false charges were brought against him, and he was thrust into prison. He was so excited that he finally had turns of derangement.

His case being reported to Mr. Stebbins, he procured the testimony of persons in Hartford, Gov. Seymour and others, who could be trusted, and he was released, and paid $60 for false imprisonment. He was put on board of a steamer on the Alabama river to Montgomery, and thence by cars came home. In a fit of derangement, he jumped out of the cars this side of New Haven, and lay from 6, P. M., Thursday, to 3, A. M., Friday, when he was found, and accompanied to Hartford.

I saw him on Monday of this week. He is very feeble, and lies prostrate, bruised and mangled, like the “man who went from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves.” He is unable to talk much yet, he is so exhausted and excited. He has a family consisting of a wife and six children; is an Englishman by birth; has preached in this part of the town five years, and has preached in this country about ten years. He owns a house in Manchester, and suspends preaching on account of the inconvenience of moving about with a family of small children. He is a whole-souled, large-hearted Englishman and Christian; a man of unblemished moral character, and in good standing. He spent last winter in North Carolina, and preached at times on the Sabbath to his own and all other denominations.

Yours, &c.,

F. SNOW.

Helper, the author of the Impending Crisis, had a lot of his books burned at Maysville, Ky., a short time since.

THE LYNCH CODE ENFORCED.

Correspondence of the Newbern (N. C.) Daily Progress.

Salisbury, N. C., Nov. 20, 1859.

A few days ago, two Abolitionists of the most flagrant kind, from Connecticut, under the guise of book agents, were put in jail here. At their examination before Mayor Shaver, many damning facts were elicited in connection with their prowlings through Salisbury and neighborhood, in the shape of tampering variously with slaves, pulse-feeling of non-slaveholding whites, confabing with free negroes, &c.; indeed, they were arrested in a free negro house, in which it was stated they had sojourned, a la Hotel de Dumas! All this, together with the incoherent and contradictory statements made by themselves, relative to their business and movements, warranted the Mayor in ordering them to jail to await a trial. The indignation of the citizens was so wrought up that the miscreants begged piteously for protection, from the office to the jail.

On Saturday forenoon, an Irishman, named Tait, was loudly announcing to a crowd in front of the post-office that he was an Abolitionist, and that he hoped before long every slaveholder’s throat would be cut; he has been in this vicinity some eight years, and, by those who know him, is said to possess a fine school education—to have been a bookkeeper at one time here. Since I have been here, two years, he has been a common laborer, very low in his conduct and associations, and habitually drunken; he is also said to be very quarrelsome, very cowardly, and, covertly, very malicious, spiteful and revengeful. I mention these facts that you may understand the rather culpable leniency of the people here in this case. Well! continuing to express his worse than seditious sentiments and wishes, a crowd soon gathered, by whom he was seized and carried down to the yard of the Mansien Hotel, where, I really believe, had he retracted, they would have let him go, in consideration of his having been in their midst and known to them so long (an aggravation of his crime, in my mind); but when questioned, he repeated what he had before said in a mocking and spiteful manner; also acknowledged [78] to and glorified in having wrote passes for the slaves of Mr. J. Clark (one of his examiners) and others, to trade with, &c. They then proceeded to remove a luxuriant crop of dirty red hair from his head, after which they peeled him to the waist. The day being rather cold, and it being resolved to ride him out, “without horse, saddle or bridle,” they humanely replaced the articles of covering of which they had divested him with a very neat-fitting garment of North Carolina manufacture—tar is the name; but this was not enough, for the more fastidious and tasteful J. B., who, resolving to combine the ornamental with the useful, rushed into my neighbor C.’s room, seized one of his pillows, and soon had its contents all artistically attached to Tait’s new coat; it was a complete success; and I remarked to some one that, with their limited practice, they could “tar and feather” with neatness and dispatch. Now, to a man of mind, principle and honor, such a degradation would be worse than death, and he would die rather than submit to it, but of such men Abolitionists are not composed, particularly those who have been living any length of time in the South, where they have ample opportunity to know the negro and his position; their sentiments are caused by that malignant and jealous hatred and envy which is too often found to exist in the hearts of the ignorant and vicious poor towards the good, the intellectual or the wealthy, or to all combined. When they rode Tait out, he did every thing like a buffoon, to attract attention; this disgusted me so much that I did not follow. I thought that his thus glorifying in his disgrace as well as his crime would incense the parties who were carrying him out of town to such an uncontrollable degree that they would hang him, and he richly deserved it, for the necessities of the times imperatively demand terrible examples, through short trials and condign punishments, in such cases. They only ducked him two or three times in a creek, however, and let him go, he refusing to leave the State or retract any thing he had said, and, when at a safe distance, turned and threatened several of the parties with a speedy and terrible vengeance. A crowd of us went down to see the upshot of the affair, and finding him gone, and learning particulars, blamed them for their forbearance in thus letting him go, worse than he was before. Some then started after him on horseback. It was twenty-four [79] hours before they recaught him. He is now in jail, with the two precious villains from Connecticut. All irresponsible (i. e., non-property holding) parties from the North, at the present time, are naturally enough looked on with distrust by the people here, and all of them who have deeply pondered on the subject of slavery, and are still anti-conservative, should immediately leave. The peace of society here and their own personal safety require it; for the criminal suggestions of the higher law delirium, which they attribute to inspiration in their unprincipled leaders, will be viewed here as something worse than the oozing out of distempered natures and the vapors of spleen, which are the mildest terms possible by which to designate their diabolical rhodomontade.

COSMO.

NEW-YORKERS EXPELLED FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.

To the Editor of the New York Times:

I see in your Times of Monday last, I am put down as one of the unfortunate individuals lately sent away from South Carolina with a “new coat of tar and feathers.” Not quite so bad as that, but, nevertheless, I was sent away, and without the least shadow of a reason. I had gone down there like any other honest Northerner, with trunk and books, and recommendations, and, having got a place in a little village by the name of Orangeburg, went to teaching. Thinking myself perfectly secure, and having got a very good place, I began to be considerably satisfied, when suddenly my quiet was broken up, and I was ordered to take my books and recommendations and trunk, and start for the North. It was a week ago on Saturday last, about two o’clock in the afternoon. I thought it best not to confine myself too much to my room, but take a walk. Accordingly, I took a short tour of the village, stopped at the post-office, and then called on one of my friends. To avoid suspicion of being thought an insurrectionist or an emissary of John Brown, as the Southerners think [80] all the Northerners among them are, I had been especially careful not to say or do any thing that would at all alarm, not even whispering that slavery was an abominable thing, nor attending any of their “nigger meetings,” except once or twice by special request, and in company with some of my friends.

Such being the case, one would naturally think himself safe enough in any place, especially in one that professes to have reasonable men. So I thought, but, having stayed awhile at my friend’s, and read his papers, I was on my way back to my boarding-house, thinking, I believe, about Coleridge—something or other of his speculations—“Stop a minute, if you please; going up to your room?” and before me were standing Capt. Salley, Maj. Glover, and one or two others I did not know. Meaning to pass the time of day, and not expecting any such visitors, I was unprepared for receiving company; nevertheless, I gladly accompanied them to my room, and, as politely as I could, gave them seats. “Hem! We might as well commence business,” said Capt. Salley. The rest assented, and then he went on to say that they had been appointed a committee, by the citizens of Orangeburg, to inform me that I must leave the place in the next train. If he had said, Take a trip in the New York City across the Atlantic, I could not have been more astonished. “You surprise me,” I said, and wanted to know the reason of such a course. This was the contemptible thing offered as such: “They had come to the conclusion I was not exactly a proper person to be allowed among them, on account of my political sentiments.” How they knew my political sentiments was, of course, a mystery; for no one there knew them. But they chose not to reason further; “the exigencies of the times demanded it.” I “might be innocent for aught they knew; but the case was such, the innocent had to suffer with the guilty.” I asked them for a chance to vindicate myself; I asked them for time to collect my bills; I asked them to lend me money to get away with. They granted neither. I then appealed to them as men endowed with reason; showed the cruelty and foolishness of what they were doing; but the only answer to every thing was: “You must expect the consequences, or leave town by the next train,” which would be in about two hours. They did, however, at last agree to collect [81] my bills, and give me money enough to get to Charleston; and having assured me I should not be troubled by a mob, left the room.

I left it, too, a short time afterwards, considering it best to go where my own will might control the ways and means of my own body—this flesh and bones that troubled them so, because it came from the far North. I thought it best to take care of it, and not let it get broken, or bruised, or covered over with Southern slime, mixed up with prickly quills. This is the sum and substance of the affair, though I might say a good deal more of other men who were sent out in the same way, and some, alas! who got the “tar and feathers.” I do not blame all the Southerners. A good many I found whole-hearted, noble souls, whose memory I shall always cherish; but those men who sent me away, and the brainless hotheads, generally, there, I hardly know what to think of. I would have said nothing about them—not wishing myself to be connected with their little, silly, villanous affair—but they have already put it in the papers; and it is only justice to myself and friends prompts me to give as much as I have, merely a plain statement of facts.

THREATS OF EXPULSION.

Resolutions of a public meeting at Beaver Dam Depot, composed of citizens of Hanover, Louisa, Spotsylvania and Carolina Counties, Va.:—

1. Resolved, That all classes in our community have one common interest in opposing the wicked intermeddling of the Abolitionists in our affairs.

2. Resolved, That we pledge ourselves to each other to keep a strict eye on all suspicious persons, particularly on all strangers whose business is not known to be harmless, or any one whatever who may express sentiments of sympathy or toleration with Abolitionists, either directly or indirectly.

3. Resolved, That Vigilance Committees, twenty-five in number, be appointed to act in the 4th and 6th magisterial [82] districts, whose especial duty it shall be to carry out the foregoing resolutions, in which all our citizens are expected to cooperate; all suspected persons are to be brought before the chairman of each committee, who, with any two members, may act, and either bring them to trial or drive them from the neighborhood, as may be determined.

4. Resolved, That the Delegate and Senator from this county be requested to endeavor to have the law of criminal trials so amended that a Justice of the Peace may be authorized to require the Sheriff in this county to empanel a jury for the trial of any person brought before him on a charge of encouraging or promoting insurrection or insubordination among the slaves; and also to have the sentence of the jury executed without delay.

EXPERIENCE OF AN INDIANIAN IN KENTUCKY.

Cove Spring, Mercer Co., Dec. 20th, 1859.

Mr. B. R. Sulgrove:

Dear Sir,—

I will endeavor to write you a few lines, and I know it will surprise you and my friends. I started from Indianapolis last Monday, the 14th. Little did I think, when I got here, that I would be notified to leave the State, or take a coat of tar and feathers for being an Abolitionist. On Saturday, I went up to Harrodsburg from here; and when I came back, there was a company of slaveholders here to arrest me for being a negro-stealer from the North, and they notified me to leave the State. I told them I was ignorant of the laws of Kentucky, but I thought the law of the land was that before they could hang a man, they must find him guilty, and therefore I should not go until I got ready; and if they chose to apply the tar and feathers, they could pitch in; but I thought they would have a warm time of it before they got through. That is what they call Democracy here—the man that can scare and catch the most men from the North here [83] is the man they intend to run for the next Congress. But I told them I did not come from Indiana here to be run off by a pack of ruffians. I told them I lived in a free State, and was a Republican; that every man spoke his sentiments there, and, thank God, I was glad of it. They may hang me yet—I can’t say what they will do—but I want it distinctly understood that I am no negro-lover.

I was going to start back to-morrow, but I shall remain longer, to let them know that they can’t scare me: and if any thing worse occurs, I will try and let you know.

Yours,

WM. S. DEMOTT.

Since the above letter was put in type, we have seen Mr. Demott himself, who has returned home. He says he was arrested on Monday following the writing of his letter, and put in jail till the next day, when he was released on $500 bail. The charge against him was that he was tampering with some body’s slave. He was on a visit to some of his relatives, and his guilt has just the extent, and no more, of being an Indianian. His attorneys, Hon. J. F. Bell, the Opposition candidate for Governor last fall, and Mr. Fox, certify that there was no evidence of the truth of the charge. The fact is that the feeling in Kentucky, as in all the other slave States, makes criminal purposes of the mere presence of free State men; and while this feeling lasts, it is actually useless for an Indianian to visit the interior of Kentucky, unless he chooses to play the lick-spittle to their prejudices. The arrest of Mr. Demott, from all that we can learn, was nothing, and was intended to be nothing, but the most offensive mode of insulting and outraging his Republican opinions. He made no concealment of them, though he did not offensively parade them, and his imprisonment shows the appreciation that Kentuckians have of freedom of speech and opinion. People from that State will never be molested here for an expression of their opinions. May be they may learn some time that it will be wisest for them to show equal liberality.—Indianapolis Journal, Dec. 24th.

GROSS OUTRAGE.

The Belfast (Me.) Age publishes a letter from a correspondent in Georgia, giving the revolting particulars of a gross outrage committed upon a ship’s crew near Jeffersontown, in that State. The writer says:—

“The brig B. G. Chaloner, of East Machias, Me., was chartered in New York to come to Statilla Mills, on the Statilla river, to load lumber. Capt. A. V. Kinney was master, who had with him his wife, Mr. Patterson the mate, and a crew of four men.

Mr. Patterson was well acquainted with the river, having once been wrecked up White Oak Creek. At that time, while stripping the vessel, he lived with a wealthy planter, who became much attached to him. No sooner had his planter friend—Mr. Morrissey—learned that he was again on the river, than he sent a negro to conduct him to the house. Mr. Morrissey, learning that the Captain had his wife with him, sent a pressing invitation by Mr. Patterson for the Captain to come, and bring his wife with him, to take a Christmas dinner with his family.

On Sunday morning, Dec. 25th, the Captain, with his wife and mate, took the crew in the boat and started for Mr. Morrissey’s plantation, having to go about fifteen miles by water to his place of landing, from which, to the plantation, was five miles. After landing, he sent his men to Mr. Peters’ house, (he being acquainted with Mr. P.,) to tarry until his return. The crew had been in the house but a short time when six armed men came there, by the names of David Brown, and his two sons, Burrill Brown and Nathan Brown, with their brother-in-law, Thomas Harrison, and two others whose names I don’t recollect, and told them they must go to jail. The sailors, believing their innocence would appear the more apparent if they yielded, concluded to obey their orders, supposing they were authoritative. They were then taken into the woods, tied to a tree, and a negro made to give three of them fifty lashes apiece. The reserved one was a tall man, of the height of six feet three inches, whom they called ‘the captain of the crowd.’ Upon his back, they dealt one [85] hundred lashes. After he was taken down, they asked him if he would run as fast as the others had—they having been compelled to run as fast as released. As he did not at once start, one of the gang raised his gun, saying, ‘—— you, you won’t run, won’t you?’ and fired, the ball passing near his head, and lodging in a tree. With what strength remained, the suffering man then started, hastened by the profane threats of his menacing tormentors. By the kindness of Burrill Brown’s wife, the men were shown the way down, and a boat was provided to take them on board the vessel.

On Monday morning, as Capt. Kinney, his wife, and Mr. Patterson were coming down toward the landing, they were met by the men who took the sailors aboard, and told what had happened, and advised to go back to Mr. Morrissey’s and leave the woman, and then go round the other way and send a sheriff for the boat. This advice was acted upon. They had not gone more than half a mile before they were overtaken by a man on horseback, who pointed a double-barelled gun at the captain’s head, and told him to stop. Presently, old Brown and his gang came along, armed with pistols and guns, and ordered the captain and mate to take off their coats, which they refused to do. Guns were at once cocked and levelled at their heads, and compliance demanded by threatening to blow out their brains.

After they had divested themselves of their outer garments, a negro was ordered to give them fifty lashes apiece. The captain’s wife piteously interceded in behalf of her husband and companion, but they coarsely told her to stop her d—d crying, or they would give her the same number of lashes they were now giving her husband. After the negro had completed his task, old Brown, who was unable to walk without a cane, came hobbling along, and commanded the slave to give them four more for tally.

The six inquisitors then marched the sufferers before their guns to the boat, and shoved it off, leaving them to row fifteen miles, against the tide, to their vessel.

A few days after the transaction, the mate showed me his back, which was bruised and cut from his neck to his knees, as was also the case with the others who were flogged.

The only reason given for committing this outrage was, that the captain and his men were ‘damned Northerners.’ ”

A METHODIST CLERGYMAN IMPRISONED.

We have to-day to add another to the already long catalogue of outrages on the liberty of speech committed in behalf of slavery.

Rev. Mr. Howe, a Methodist clergyman in Harrison Co., Missouri, was challenged by a Kentuckian neighbor to debate the slavery question. He accepted the challenge in good faith, and the debate took place, with no unusual circumstances, about six miles from Bethany, the county seat. Immediately afterwards, Mr. Howe was arrested. A man owning $3,000 worth of slaves had made affidavit that he was “an Abolitionist,” and demanded his incarceration in the penitentiary. A prosecution so evidently malicious and absurd did not alarm Mr. Howe until his return to town, when he found that all the lawyers, with one exception, had combined to refuse to defend him. Out of this combination were selected W. G. Lewis, Circuit Attorney, and J. W. Wyatt, to conduct the prosecution. The one exception was O. L. Abbott, Esq., a native of this State, and a graduate of the Albany Law School. He undertook Mr. Howe’s defence, but was allowed no time for preparation. Notwithstanding he offered, in behalf of the prisoner, any amount of bail, and asked that the examination might be postponed, he was compelled to go on immediately, without having had an hour’s time to ascertain the nature of the case or obtain evidence, and that, too, in regard to an offence hitherto unknown to the record of crime!

During the examination, the court sustained every objection made by the prosecuting attorneys to questions which were all-important to the interests of the defence. The defendant was required to produce all the testimony in his behalf in court at midnight! At one o’clock, however, the judge, for his own convenience, having other business coming on in the morning, consented to a postponement for two days. In the mean time, all the influences that could be exerted to embarrass the defence were resorted to.

When the trial was resumed, the town was filled with people from all parts of the county. The large court room was densely crowded. The evidence closed late in the afternoon. [87] Mr. Abbott summed up his case, assisted, since no lawyer would assist him, by Rev. John S. Allen, who, though a slaveholder himself, was not willing to see his own disgraced by such tyranny against free speech. Judge Lewis followed in a fanatical pro-slavery tirade against the prisoner, his counsel, “incendiaries” and “Abolitionists” in general, and the case was submitted for decision.

That decision will be looked for with interest, even at this distance from the scene. The crime with which Mr. Howe is charged is defined as “uttering words, the tendency of which is to excite any slave to insolence and insubordination,” [Missouri R. S., vol. 1, p. 536,] although it was shown in evidence that there was not a negro, bond or free, within two miles of the place of debate! The penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary.

During and since the trial, threats have been freely made of “tar and feathers” against the prisoner’s counsel, and various attempts made to intimidate and drive him from the place.—Albany Evening Journal, March 7.

THE REIGN OF TERROR IN MISSOURI.

To the Editor of the New York Tribune:

Sir,—

In the Tribune of Jan. 6, you publish a letter of mine to Mr. Anthon, of New York, which has caused great excitement here, and subjected me and others to much abuse.

My son, Robert Milliken, graduated last June at Antioch College, in Ohio, and established a school here the 6th day of last month, and was doing well. He gave general satisfaction until my letter to Mr. Anthon was published in the paper here. Suspicion was fastened on him as the author of the letter, and the pro-slavery men, alias the Democrats, commenced threatening to break up his school. His assistant, a young man by the name of Ira Chamberlain, was violently [88] assaulted at a public meeting, and struck a blow on the head. Notwithstanding I came out and avowed myself the author of the letter, and they poured out a flood of abuse on me, they do not abate their persecution of my son.

Yesterday, a Methodist clergyman called upon him, and told him that money would not hire him (the clergyman) to stand in my son’s place; for, said the clergyman, your life is in danger. I hope and trust that he was mistaken. I am sure that if whiskey were let alone, there would be no danger. I have been informed by some Free-State men, who have not openly avowed their Free-State sentiments, and consequently mingle with the pro-slavery squads who are engaged in discussing this matter, that the pro-slavery men threaten to make me leave the State. What the result will be is difficult to conjecture, but I think they will hardly carry matters thus far. Still, it is hard to say what men will not do when intoxicated with modern Democracy and pro-slaveryism.

I live out of town, and have had nothing to say on political matters since I came here, for the reason that all my time has been employed in improving my farm, having made improvements costing over $2,000. It is true, when asked what party I acted with, I have answered, with the Republican, which is nearly enough to forfeit all rights as a citizen. So, there is no feeling against me except for my politics, and this letter to Mr. Anthon.

At a public meeting held at the court-house in Kirksville, the Democrats read extracts from the “Compend,” and denounced the book and me in no measured terms. What I regretted the most was, they read extracts that I could not endorse. When I get the book and read it for myself, and not have it dealt out to me in garbled extracts, it may put a different face on these passages. They could hardly find words strong enough to show their hatred to that part of the book that advises non-slaveholders not to patronize slaveholders, and all who endorsed such procedure by circulating the book. Now, the very next morning, these same men went to work in good earnest to break up my son’s school, who had circulated no Compends, but simply because I had written that letter, and that he was an anti-slavery man. They have succeeded in driving half of his scholars from his school. [89] To show the strong efforts they made to break up his school, I will here copy a letter that he received from one of his patrons:—

“Mr. Robert Milliken:

Dear Sir,—

It is with regret that I take my son from your school. It is not because of your political views, or any disrespect I have for you or any of the family, but I want to live in friendship with all men, and my friends are falling out with me. I could not send him much longer any how. To save difficulty with other men, I will take him away. Don’t think hard of me.

“Yours, with respect,

——.”

The author of the letter told a neighbor that he was in danger of being mobbed if he did not take his son out of school. Look into these statements, and you can see the men who are so shocked and outraged at Helper’s advice to non-slaveholders not to patronize slaveholders.

Slavery has crushed the spirit of ’76 in all the slave States. Since I came to Missouri, I have been astonished to see the restraint it exercised over free-labor men from the free States. To hear them say, “I know that slavery is a curse, but it will not do to say so publicly,” makes one feel that the patriots of the Revolution bled in vain for the rights secured to us in the Constitution of the United States, for their unworthy posterity are about to yield them up to satisfy the demands of slavery.

Yours, truly,

JAS. P. MILLIKEN.

Kirksville, Jan. 28, 1860.

Exclusion of Free Negroes from Mississippi. The bill for excluding free negroes from the State of Mississippi passed the House on the 7th December, by a vote of 75 to 5. It provides that they shall leave the State on or before the 1st of July, 1860; or, if they prefer to remain, that they shall be sold into slavery, with a right of choice of masters at a price assessed by three disinterested slaveholders, the proceeds to go into the treasury of the county in which the provisions of the bill may require to be executed.

ASSAULT ON HON. MR. HICKMAN.

The Hon. Mr. Edmundson, of Virginia, is well known as a most courteous and unexceptionable gentleman. But under a very quiet demeanor, he carries a chivalrous estimate of the respect due to his own personal honor and the good name of the State to which he belongs.

So it chanced a few days since, as the Hon. Mr. Hickman was leaving the House of Representatives, he was followed and accosted by Mr. Edmundson, who held him to account for the slanders uttered by him against the State and people of Virginia.

Just as Mr. Hickman said, “I did not mean to”———his disclaimer was cut short by a slap in the face from Mr. Edmundson, accompanied with the emphatic assertion that Mr. Hickman was a “d——d scoundrel.” At this moment, Messrs. Keitt and Clingman, who were leaving the Capitol at the same time, seeing from Edmundson’s manner that he intended to chastise Hickman, and knowing that they would be placarded in the Tribune next day for a conspiracy to beat an unprotected free-soiler, ran up and seized Mr. Edmundson, who struggled very violently to inflict further indignities upon the affrighted Timour.

According to our information, Hickman’s hat had been knocked off, and he had staggered back with an aspect and attitude of the most abject alarm. Mr. Keitt cried out in a loud voice to Mr. Hickman, “Pick up your hat and go away; we can’t hold this man all day!” and added to Mr. Breckenridge, who was passing at the moment, “Take him along.” The bewildered Hickman collected his hat and mechanically obeyed the conservative counsel, and soon, like one of the discomfitted heroes in Homer, “ascended the Black ships,” or took refuge in some Republican stronghold. Nor has he been since heard from, so far as we are advised, by cartel, military proclamation, or otherwise.—Washington States.

The Washington correspondent of the New York Evening Post gives the following account of this disgraceful affair:—

“The attack upon Mr. Hickman on Friday evening by Edmundson, of Virginia, creates a good deal of excitement [91] among the opposition members. The attack was entirely unprovoked, and was made by a large, stout man, accompanied by two of his friends, upon a weak, slight, sick man, who was alone. Mr. Hickman was walking down the Capitol steps, when Edmundson approached him, saying: ‘You made a speech the other night at Willard’s Hotel.’ ‘I did,’ replied Mr. Hickman. ‘And d——n you, you slandered my State, you liar and coward,’ continued Edmundson, at the same moment striking him with his cane across the head. Mr. Hickman was about to repel the assault, when he was caught by Vice President Breckenridge, who led him away; Keitt, and Bouligny, of New Orleans, taking care of Edmundson. It is reported that Keitt called out to Breckenridge, alluding to Hickman, ‘Take the hound away!’

It will be remembered that both Keitt and Edmundson were the instigators of the attack upon Sumner, and stood sentinel while Brooks did his bloody work. No one thinks Mr. Keitt had any thing to do with the recent outrage except to separate the parties. I understand that Mr. Hickman bled at the lungs freely the night and morning after the brutal attack upon him. It was remarked yesterday that Mr. Breckenridge was in the House for half an hour, and all the time he sat laughing with Edmundson, who, overcoat on and cigar in his mouth, sat upon one of the sofas in the extremity of the hall, and finally the Vice President went out with his Virginia friend, as if he meant to testify to the House his approbation of the attack on Mr. Hickman. It must be remembered that the brutal attack was unprovoked, and if the excuse be offered for Edmundson that he was tipsy, it will be replied that when sober he offered no apology. I think it is safe to say that the offence will not again be repeated this winter, for every Republican member will henceforth be prepared for any assault, at any time, even at the breakfast and dinner table; for Southern gentlemen choose most singular places and occasions to attack Northern representatives.”

A Blacksmith Driven Away. Benjamin F. Winter, a blacksmith by trade, has been ordered to leave the town of Hamilton, Harris County, Ga., by a meeting of citizens, for avowing Abolition and incendiary sentiments.

MORE SOUTHERN FANATICISM.

On Monday last, Marshal McDonald brought before the Vigilance Committee two men, named Manchester and Bishop. About the first of December last, the Vigilance Committee examined two young men who were procuring subscriptions to the American Cyclopædia. It was charged on them that they had been tampering with slaves. The Committee not deeming the evidence against them sufficient to authorize summary punishment, they were discharged, with the injunction to leave the State, and to abandon their agency, and inform the publishers or their agents that the book should not be delivered in this county, the Committee at that time thinking they were agents for Appleton’s “New American Cyclopædia,” which had been condemned by Mr. Pryor, and which was regarded by the Committee as being incendiary in its tendency.

The two men, Manchester and Bishop, notwithstanding the warning given to Smith and Tilden, undertook to sell them, whereupon they were arrested, and upon examination, a book was found in their possession entitled “Cotton is King,” which, after a careful perusal by Dr. W. S. Price, R. S. Wier, and ourself, who were appointed a Committee for that purpose, was reported as being incendiary and of a dangerous character.

It was further shown in evidence against them, that they had sold and circulated said book in this county and Newton. After much discussion as to what action the Committee should take in the premises, the vote was taken, when six present voted to turn them over to the authorities, and five voted to treat them to a coat of tar and feathers. The majority ruling, they were then turned over to R. T. Kennedy, Esq., who committed them to the county jail, to answer at the spring term of our Circuit Court.

A strong feeling on the part of the citizens to tar and feather them was manifested, and, as for our part, we think that the proper way to deal with such men. The books were burned in the street.—Enterprise (Miss.) News.

A CHIVALROUS DEMONSTRATION.

Albertis Patterson, a citizen of West Finley township, in this county, happened to be at Haineytown, a small village in Virginia, situated near the line that divides that State from this county, on or about the 25th ult., and was accosted by three of the chivalrous citizens of that region, named Seaton, Caldwell and Wherry, and interrogated as to his political opinions. He replied that he was a Know-Nothing, when his interrogators charged him with being a “Black Republican or Abolitionist,” and asked him if he did not sympathize with John Brown. To this he answered that he was a Republican; and as for John Brown, he “believed that Gov. Wise was as big a fool as he was.” Upon making this declaration, he was violently seized by Seaton and Caldwell, a rope was procured, looped and thrown around his neck, and the desperadoes immediately proceeded to strangle him, which they most unquestionably would have succeeded in doing had it not been for the interference of two men, named Armstrong and Bemer, who happened to be on the street at the time. When Patterson was rescued from his brutal assailants, his face was black from strangulation, and his neck bruised and discolored by the abrasion of the rope.

The scoundrels, we are sorry to say, escaped unpunished; but should any such demonstrations be made in future by the chivalry of that region, we are assured the ruffians will be hanged to the nearest limb. They will find that Haineytown is not Charlestown, although both villages are within the jurisdiction of the Old Dominion, where every petty postmaster and country squire is, ex officio, inquisitor of the opinions of his neighbor. But Haineytown catches some of the healthy breezes of independence from our western boundary, and it is not quite a safe experiment there to choke people to death, even for believing that his late Excellency, Gov. Wise, is a little weak in the upper story.—Washington (Pa.) Tribune.

In Charlottesville, Va., a man from the North, named Rood, has been arrested on suspicion, and papers found on him sufficiently important to warrant his imprisonment.

[94]

Two Young Ladies Driven Out of Richmond. Two intelligent young ladies, formerly well known in the choirs of churches in Boston and Hartford, went to Richmond in September last with a view of establishing a private school. They soon gained the confidence of many friends, and succeeded in starting an enterprise which gave fair prospect of speedily prospering. As soon as the recent excitement began, they were waited upon by some very respectable gentlemen, who informed them that Northern school-mistresses, however amiable and competent, were not the proper persons to teach the children of Southern parents and guardians! The ladies were forced immediately to break up their school. Wishing, on account of their health, to remain in a Southern climate, and hearing of a vacancy in a school in another city in Virginia, they made application and presented their letters. They received a reply from a clergyman, who wrote to them as follows:—

“The Board of Trustees met yesterday, and passed upon the various applications, yours among the rest. I deeply regret to say, that although your recommendations were altogether the most favorable, your proposal was immediately rejected, as soon as the fact became known that you were both from the North. The feeling is so strong, and the foolish excitement has run so high, on the subject of Northern people, that the community here seem almost blind; and if they continue in their present policy, they will lay themselves open to severe criticism, if not to censure.”

Accordingly, the ladies, being compelled to leave Richmond, and unable to find a place for the soles of their feet any where else in Virginia, and knowing the uselessness of going further south, took an early train to New York. One of them still remains in this city, where she is anxious to procure a situation as soprano singer in a choir, or as a teacher of music to private pupils. Any application sent to her through the office of the Independent, addressed “Richmond,” will be immediately forwarded to her. The name of Mr. Horace Waters, music publisher, is among her references.—New York Independent.

Pushed Off a Railroad Car. A passenger on the Mississippi Central Railroad was pushed off the train while it was in full motion, for denouncing Gov. Wise and lauding John Brown.

[95]

Expulsion of Free Negroes from Arkansas. At the late session of the Arkansas Legislature, an act was passed giving the free negroes of that State the alternative of migrating before January 1st, 1860, or of becoming slaves. As the time of probation has now expired, while some few individuals have preferred servitude, the great body of the free colored people of Arkansas are on their way northward. We learn that the upward bound boats are crowded with them, and that Seymour, Ind., on the line of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad, affords a temporary home for others.

A party of forty, mostly women and children, arrived in this city last evening by the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad. They were welcomed by a committee of ten, appointed from the colored people of the city, by whom the refugees were escorted to the Dumas House, on McAllister street, at which place a formal reception was held. They were assured by the Chairman of the Reception Committee, Peter H. Clark, that if they were industrious and exemplary in their conduct, they would be sure to gain a good livelihood and many friends. The exiles, as before stated, are mostly women and children, the husbands and fathers being held in servitude. They report concerning the emigration, that hundreds of the free colored men of Arkansas have left for Kansas, and hundreds more are about to follow.—Cincinnati Gazette, Jan. 4th.

Two Heads Half-Shaven. The steamer Huntsville, which arrived in New York from Savannah, on Monday, Dec. 19th, brought several passengers who had been driven away from different parts of the South. Among them were two gentlemen whose heads were shared on one side! They had been exiled from the chivalrous State of South Carolina! One of the victims avowed his determination speedily to return to execute vengeance on his maltreaters.

At Danville, Va., a clerk in the Post Office saw a man throw a letter, which he had just gotten, into the stove, and, on taking it out, found it to be a proposition for running off slaves. The man was arrested.

[96]

How Two Organ-Grinders were Tarred and Feathered.—We have private intelligence from a friend in Alabama of a case of tar and feathering which is both serious and comical. Two Italian organ-grinders, who could scarcely speak a word of English, made their way from Mobile into the interior of the State, to earn a livelihood by itinerating with their poor tunes. After playing in a bar-room in a small town, and gathering all the pennies which Southern generosity was likely to bestow upon such entertainment, they asked to be directed to the next town. Whereupon, a wag took a piece of paper, and, under pretence of writing down the necessary direction, gave the poor men a fatal letter, somewhat as follows:—

The music peddlers, on reaching the next town, faint and weary with the weight of their organs on their backs, went immediately to a tavern, and unwittingly presented their letter of recommendation! They were at once taken by the whiskey drinkers, stripped, threatened until they were terrified out of their wits, tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail! Such is Southern chivalry!

The New York Independent Outlawed. A correspondent in Texas, who has for years received the Independent, has written to us to stop it, as the continued sending might cost him his business and possibly his neck. No Northern publications but the New York Herald and the Nassau street Tracts are now considered safe reading on the other side of the line.—New York Independent.

Narrowly Escaped Lynching. An Italian grocer, named John Ginochio, narrowly escaped being lynched by the citizens of Petersburg, Va., last Monday, for saying that John Brown was a good and very useful man, and, instead of being hung, he ought to have been made President of the United States.

[97]

Mr. J. P. Gillespie, of New Albany, Indiana, publishes a card in the Ledger, of that city, in which he explains the circumstances connected with a recent visit which he made to Franklin, La., for the purpose of practising his profession. On his arrival there, it became noised about that he was an Abolitionist. A committee waited on him and advised him to leave the place forthwith if he wished to escape lynching. Mr. G. denied the accusation. A large crowd assembled around the hotel to carry out the threat, and Mr. G. armed himself and walked out into the crowd, demanding to know the person who made the accusation. Capt. Atkinson was given as the author, who had said that he (Gillespie) had gone into Kentucky, with an armed band of men, to rescue a “nigger” thief by the name of Bell, and that they had carried off some slaves at the same time. Mr. Gillespie left on the following day on a steamer for Berwick Bay, and then for New Orleans, accompanied by a number of persons from Franklin, who pointed him out as an Abolitionist. Immediately on his arrival at New Orleans, he took passage on an up-river boat.

We learn that Rev. George Candee, Rev. Wm. Kendrick, and Robert Jones, missionaries of the American Missionary Association, in Jackson County, Ky., (Jones, a colporteur,) were recently, near Laurel, where they were preaching, waited upon by a committee of five, and requested to leave. They were engaged to preach the next morning, but were prevented by a mob, which took them a half mile and interrogated them, then took them five miles further and left them, after shaving their hair and beards, and putting tar on their heads and faces. Mr. Kendrick was in the Union Theological Seminary of this city last year.—New York Independent.

The Sylvania (Georgia) News reports that two book agents were treated to thirty-nine lashes each, after the style of “Russian executioners,” by a planter in that vicinity, recently, because they had visited his plantation and rendered themselves not only disagreeable by their volubility, but suspicious by their conduct.

LEGISLATION IN MARYLAND.

They have a most iniquitous way of legislating on some subjects in the State of Maryland. The Commmittee on Corporations of the House of Delegates recently had an investigation into alleged frauds in the passage of the City Passenger Railway Ordinance of the city of Baltimore. Among the witnesses was Mr. Jonathan Brock, and he was questioned after the following manner. We are not able to see exactly what this has to do with railroads, but we suppose the Maryland Legislature could tell:—

Q.—Will you state whether you have any Black Republican proclivities? A.—I have not. I do not belong to that crowd. Q.—Did you ever know Passmore Williamson? A.—I do not. I would not know him, if I saw him. Q.—You never, of course, engaged in any effort to rescue him from the grasp of the law, or from punishment? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know whether your associates, or any of them, are Black Republicans? A.—I do not think they are; they are not politicians. Mr. Grove is an American, and sometimes takes part with the opposition. Q.—To what party do you belong? A.—The old line Whig. I have not meddled with polities since 1844; it would not do well. I am engaged in business in Florida. Q.—You mentioned Mr. Miller, of Pennsylvania. What is he; an American, or a Democrat? A.—A Democrat. He was Clerk of the Senate. Q.—No Black Republican? A.—I don’t think he is. Q.—And none of your people are tainted with it? A.—They are all Union men. Q.—It has even been charged that your wife is some connection of Lucretia Mott; did you ever see her? A.—I have seen her. Q.—Does she know you? A.—No, sir. Q.—Does your wife know her? A.—She knows her in the street, but she is no connection of hers, and no acquaintance. Q.—Your road is never used to run off negroes from Baltimore? A.—No, sir, and never shall. Q.—Has Simon Cameron directly or indirectly any interest in this road? A.—He has not. Q.—Is it understood that he is to have any, or his friends? A.—There is no promise; no understanding. He is with the other side. Q.—He and you are not friendly? A.—No, sir. Q.—You are antagonistic? [99] A.—He is here, endeavoring to get this grant after the passage of it. Q.—Is the party of which the counsel spoke known as the Black Republican or Republican party? A.—In some States, it is called the Opposition party. Q.—When was the last State election in Pennsylvania? A.—In October. Q.—Where were you at the time? A.—I do not recollect whether I was in Pennsylvania, or not. Q.—Did you vote? A.—I do not recollect that; I am not positive. Q.—Who were the candidates for State officers? A.—I do not know; I took no part in politics. Q.—Did you vote in 1856? A.—I did not vote for President, in 1856. Q.—Have you voted since the party, known as the Republican party, has been in existence? A.—It is not called the Republican party in our State. Q.—The Opposition, then? A.—I have. Q.—How did you vote then? A.—I voted a mixed ticket—for my personal friends—I did not care whether they were Americans or Democrats. Q.—Have you voted for a Congressman since that time? A.—I presume I have, but really, I do not know who the candidates were, I tell you plainly. Q.—If a Democratic Congressman were running, and an Opposition candidate, which one would you vote for? A.—Whichever was my personal friend. Q.—Suppose neither was? A.—I can’t tell; I have no decided politics. Q.—Was, or was not one of your associates elected to the City Council in a Black Republican ward? A.—I do not know that one was elected.

White Families Leaving Virginia. The New York Times says that it has reliable information when it states that, in consequence of the Harper’s Ferry affair, the heavy property-holders of Virginia begin to see that the subject of slavery is destined to produce interminable strife in that State in the future, and materially decrease the value of property. Families are accordingly preparing to leave the State; panic pervades all classes of citizens; there is no freedom of speech; suspicion and distrust are abroad; the last resort to check the progress of crime, the jury system, has become weak and corrupt; the spirit of religion is dying out, and infidelity taking its place. The country, according to this representation, is in fact but one degree removed from anarchy.

A TEACHER EXPELLED FROM ARKANSAS.

Correspondence of the Chicago Tribune.

Aurora, Illinois, Feb. 15th, 1860.

With your permission, I will occupy a small space in your paper, as a witness against the tyranny and oppression in the South. I have resided in Louisiana and Arkansas over ten years, was engaged in teaching, and am an official member of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Since the Harper’s Ferry affair, the Southern people have a peculiar hatred against Northern and Eastern people, irrespective of party.

In January, a spy was sent to me to ascertain my political views, endeavoring to extort from me a confession that “slavery was a social, moral and political blessing,” (or sentiments to that amount,) and also to have me enlist in a military company, to be ready “to fight the North, and particularly the Yankees, in the next expected outbreak”; to “be ready to fight for the dissolution of the Union,” &c.

I informed the spy that “I could not, consistently with my convictions of right and wrong,” and further, “I would not!” that “I was proud of Yankeedom as the land of my nativity, and that I would sooner die than take up arms against my parents, brothers and sisters.”

Three days after, I was waited upon by a gentleman slaveholder, showing me resolutions, signed by nearly all the planters in that vicinity, resolving themselves into a “Vigilance Committee, for the security of their slaves, pledging themselves one to another to examine every non-slaveholder, and satisfy themselves beyond a doubt of the soundness of every person; and should they find any one of whom they should have the slightest suspicion, they would communicate at once one with another.”

The gentleman then accused me of receiving Abolition literature, saying that a Congregational Herald was found at the post-office addressed to me, and that I had correspondence and associations in the North and East. This I admitted; also that “I was anti-slavery from the bottom of my heart.” He then notified me “to leave within thirty-six hours; that [101] he would protect me that length of time, but he would not promise me my life to be safe any longer.” I consented to leave rather than lose my life. I was obliged to leave all my property, library and all, not being allowed time to collect my claims or pay my debts, or to talk with any non-slaveholder—breaking up my school, and throwing me out of employment.

I have reason to praise God that I am once more free, in a land where the truth is not muzzled, where free discussion is tolerated, and that I have emerged from that savage wilderness where reigns the prince of darkness, whose haunts are commanded by slaveholders and dealers in human flesh, where, as long as life shall last, and I have the power of expression, and as long as I can wield a pen, I shall bear testimony against that debasing system which is oppressing so many millions of our human race.

Thanks be to God that there is a party in the North, the great Republican party, that great terror to the South, who are riding forth to conquer, whose great moral influence is being felt in all the remotest parts of slavedom.

Respectfully,

H. T. TEWKSBURY.

[111]

Wholesale Proscription. In the Oxford (Miss.) Mercury, of last week, we find the following:—

“We believe that if the excitement gets much higher, all Northern-born people, of whatever grade, standing, or time they have been living here, will be forced to leave. They never can hope to be considered or treated in the social circle here with the respect once shown to all people of respectability. An Englishman, or any foreign gentleman, is now more highly respected by the people of the South than a Yankee.”

[112]

Another Expulsion from Kentucky. Mr. D. B. Hamilton, of Trumbull county, removed from Ohio to Kentucky, last October, for the purpose of keeping school. He received the Western Reserve Chronicle regularly, and the New York Tribune occasionally. Mr. H. was in Medina on Thursday, having been driven out of Kentucky by the pro-slavery mobites, for a high misdemeanor, thus related by the Gazette:—

“He, on one occasion, took the New York Tribune in his pocket into the school room, and laid it on his desk, and some of the larger scholars seeing the paper in the school room, informed the citizens of the fact. The result was, that Mr. H. was arrested and tried, for introducing incendiary reading matter into the public schools, fined one hundred and fifty dollars and costs of prosecution, and warned to leave the State immediately. They kept his wages back to pay his fine, and drove him off with one dollar in his pocket, leaving his wife and children behind, not having the means to take them with him. Mr. H. is now on his way to Trumbull county, to raise the means to send for his family. He has walked all the way from Kentucky, near five hundred miles, and came into our town pretty badly used up. It is not necessary to make many comments of any kind on such proceedings, but they will show the freemen of the North what their rights are, and how much they are respected by the men-drivers of the southern part of this great republic.”

Two Days to Leave the State. An Abolitionist in Clayton, Alabama, was brought before a meeting of the citizens, whose sentence was to array him in tar and feathers, and then ride him on a rail around the town. The resolution was carried into effect, and the Abolitionist was ordered to leave the State within two days.

A correspondent of a Charleston (S. C.) paper is highly indignant at what he calls “a clear case of impertinence,” viz.: A Yankee peddler canvassing that city “with the Constitution of the United States in bronze, with gilt frame!” It is not the market for any such document as that.

[113]

Arrest of a Suspicious Character in Charlestown, Virginia. A man, who gives the name of Otis, and claims to hail from the town of Yonkers, New York, was arrested on Saturday, under suspicious circumstances. He made his appearance in the town at a late hour on Friday evening, and put up at the Carter House, and on Saturday he called on Rev. Mr. Waugh with a letter of introduction, which not being satisfactory to the reverend gentleman, he handed him over to the Mayor of the town, who had him placed under guard in one of the rooms of the hotel, where he still remains, but will probably be “shipped” to-day. He has made a variety of statements, one of which is that he had been in Washington on business, and wishing to be present at the execution, left Alexandria for Leesburg, Va., and from that place he came here in a buggy; that he came through curiosity alone, having determined not to discuss the subject of slavery while here. He also says he was not aware that the Union had been dissolved, and was under the impression that he was still in the United States, until he reached this town. Whilst conversing with the guard in relation to the hanging of Brown, he burst into a flood of tears, and on being asked the cause of his grief, he said he had lost his father a few months ago. In appearance and conversation, he is very gentlemanly, and bears up under his confinement with patience.

Men of Business Obliged to Abandon their Business.—Washington, Dec. 8th. Thirty-two gentlemen, agents of New York and Boston houses, arrived here to-day from the South, and report the feeling of indignation so great against Northerners, that they were compelled to return and abandon their business. These gentlemen have been known for years as traders in the South. They also report that Northerners of long residence in the South have been disfigured, and driven from their homes.

Eleven business men who were on their way South returned last night, after having reached a station in Virginia, being turned back by a Vigilance Committee. They say the feeling in six of the States through which they have passed is very intense against the North, and against the continuance of the Union.

[114]

The Way Abolition Emissaries are Treated in South-Western Virginia. A philanthropic pilgrim from the land of wooden nutmegs, supposed to be an agent of some Abolition Aid Society or underground railroad, was arrested the other day in the neighboring county of Pulaski, and dealt with in the most summary manner by his captors; one of the most influential and worthy citizens of the county acting as judge, jury, and executioner. After ordering him to be hung by the neck, he very coolly proceeded to execute the sentence. Having hung him up until the “vital spark” was nearly extinct, he cut him down and gave him a breathing spell. When sufficiently restored to undergo another swinging, he was again haltered, and suspended for a few moments. After having undergone this process five times, (once each for old Brown, Coppick, Cook, Stevens, and Hazlett,) he was kindly permitted to retrace his steps to a more congenial clime, but not until he had been fairly admonished that if ever caught in Virginia again, he would have to take the sixth and fatal leap. It is said by those who witnessed the whole proceeding, that when the fellow got loose, he ran like a quarter nag.—Wytheville (Va.) Telegraph.

A Man Indicted for Expressing Sympathy with Brown.—The Grand Jury of Norfolk, Va., have found a true bill on an indictment against S. Daneburg, who keeps a clothing and shoe store in that city, for seditious language, calculated to incite insurrection. The Day Book says:—

“The first count charged him with having used the words, ‘John Brown was a good man, and was fighting in a good cause, and did nothing but what any honest man would do.’ And the second count charged that he had used the following expressions: ‘John Brown was fighting in a good cause,’ (meaning that he was fighting in the cause of the slave against the master,) ‘and that owners have no right of property in their slaves’; and said that ‘Brown did nothing but what any other honest man would do.’ Daneburg left the city a few days ago, having an intimation that he had got himself into trouble. His case will come on early in the present term of the Superior Court, now in session.”

[115]

A Conservative Minister Driven from North Carolina. The Rev. B. C. Smith, of Prattsburgh, is sojourning temporarily in the “Old North State,” having the double object in view of benefitting his health, and laboring in his calling with such ability as is left to him. He went out under the auspices of the Southern Aid Society, after having correspondence with a prominent public functionary of North Carolina. At Washington he was warmly welcomed by Hon. John A. Gilmer, of that State, and furnished with kindly passports to the confidence of that gentleman’s family and friends. He carries with him the earnest hope of troops of friends that the mild Southern skies may be beneficial to him, and that there, as here, he may have strength to proclaim those essential doctrines of Christianity which he so well understands, and which alone constitute “the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.”

We copy the above from the last Advocate. Before its publication, the Rev. B. C. Smith had returned from the “Old North State,” without “having proclaimed” to its citizens “those essential doctrines of Christianity which he so well understands,” and without having materially benefitted his health. Notwithstanding he went thither under the auspices of the Southern Aid Society, and with “passports” from Hon. John A. Gilmer, the fact that he had breathed the air of freedom was an insuperable objection, and he was not allowed to enter a pulpit. Learning that a Methodist brother was in “durance vile” across the way, on suspicion of entertaining anti-slavery sentiments, the Rev. B. C. Smith bade adieu to “mild Southern skies,” and returned to his Northern home. Mr. Smith was regarded here by a portion of his congregation as “pro-slavery,” and would have been the last man in the world to give offence to the advocates of the peculiar institution, but he has returned the victim of, if not a firm believer in, the “irrepressible conflict.”—Northern Christian Advocate.

A suspicious man is in jail at Union, Monroe Co., Virginia. He has but one arm, says he is from Baltimore, and that his name is Nicholas Mitchell.

[116]

The Virginia Fright. The panic has seized all classes of the people, and most exaggerated reports are in circulation. Some think that hordes of Northerners are on their way to invade the State which has given birth to Presidents and statesmen. Petersburg has been divided into patrol districts, and fines of $25 and $50 are to be imposed upon those who disobey orders to perform patrol duty whenever Major Davenport, the officer left to protect the city, may call for their services. Seven men each from eight companies were on patrol duty last night, and a special detachment was sent to guard the powder magazine on the other side of the river Appomatox. These warlike preparations are, of course, a serious interruption to all business in the city, and the suspicions which are excited by them contribute to the same result.

If five or six negroes are seen talking together, they are speedily magnified by rumor into a hundred, armed with pitchforks and scythe blades. Beggars are arrested and put into jail, and strangers, if they happen to be poorly dressed, are accosted by the police and examined. Two of this class, who were found a night or two ago, had in their possession a tin cup and a whiskey-flask, with a little spirits in it, supposed to be of Northern manufacture, an old jack-knife, and a piece of string. They were ordered to leave the city immediately; but before they had time to comply with the injunction, they were again taken into custody.—Letter from Petersburg, Va.

In North Carolina, Rev. Alfred Vestal has been forced to leave his work, by the spirit of violence which has recently broken out there. He is now in Indiana. A Christian sister in North Carolina writes that the immediate cause of his leaving was his having learned that warrants for his arrest, on charges similar to those against Mr. Worth, were issued, both in Randolph and Guilford counties.

At Charlestown, Virginia, the military authorities not only held possession of the telegraph, but also interfered with the mails. Letters directed to certain of the New York papers were not forwarded; and packages of newspapers from New York were suppressed.

[117]

Vigilance Committees are being organized in every county, town and village of the Commonwealth. The following preamble and resolutions, adopted at a highly respectable meeting of the citizens of the counties of Madison and Culpepper, held recently at a place called Locust Dale, will suffice to show the object of these Vigilance Committees. The sentiments they express may be esteemed a fair index of those uttered at meetings held elsewhere for a similar purpose, and, in fact, of the general sentiment of the State:—

Whereas, in view of the present troubled state of the times, and the outrageous inroad made upon our peace and happiness by recent occurrences in our midst, and in view of the fact that we have reason to believe that our country is traversed throughout its whole extent by Abolition emissaries in the guise of peddlers and venders of patent rights, qunck nostrums, &c., we, a part of the citizens of Madison and Culpepper, deem it a duty to ourselves, to the welfare of our country, and more especially to the protection of our peculiar institutions, to adopt the following resolutions, to wit:—

1. That a Vigilance Committee be appointed, whose duty it shall be to examine all suspicious persons who cannot give a satisfactory account of themselves, and to dispose of said persons as may seem to them to be expedient.

2. That it be considered the duty of each member of this meeting to exercise the utmost vigilance in arresting every individual of suspicious character, and in handing him over to the Vigilance Committee, and that every citizen be requested to co-operate with them. A third resolution, naming twenty-six gentlemen as a Vigilance Committee, was then adopted.

A similar meeting was held in Luray, Page county, and a Vigilance Committee, consisting of thirty-two, appointed for the same purpose. Meetings have also been held in Rockingham, Shenandoah, Orange, and several other counties, each of which has organized its Vigilance Committee. Volunteer companies are also being rapidly organized in every town and village of the State—Virginia correspondent of New York Herald.

Personal. Several Cincinnati ladies were travelling down the Mississippi, and while the steamer was letting off freight at a station, went ashore for a walk. Dr. Horton, the owner of the plantation, sent a negro to order them off, to which they paid no attention, when the chivalric Doctor himself informed the ladies that he “didn’t want people, male or female, from so abolition a hole as Cincinnati, prowling about his premises.” The ladies retired.

[118]

First be sure of public opinion before you express your own in a free country! Because he did not keep this sound maxim in mind, Mr. T. A. Salvo has had his head shaved gratis on one side, been treated to a coat of tar and feathers, ridden on a rail, and compelled to listen to a lecture. All this happened at Hamburg—not in Germany, for they are not enlightened there, but in—South Carolina. Mr. Salvo’s offence was his expression of the opinion that slavery was not a good thing. Strong as were the arguments made use of to convince him of his error, we doubt if his sentiments have undergone any change. What a terrible cry there would be if a Palmetto man should be tarred and feathered in Massachusetts for saying slavery is a good thing! Yet the deed would be in no respect different from what has just been done in South Carolina, because a man said he thought slavery was not a good thing.—Boston Traveller.

A correspondent of the Charleston Mercury, writing from Blackville, in that State, after narrating the circumstance connected with the tarring of Salvo, says: “On the 14th, we sent off a foot-traveller, who was passing through the country with an air-gun, a dice-box, and some stereoscopic views; and last night we started back to Charleston a man named Jones, who came here with his wife direct from Vermont, for the professed purpose of taking ambrotypes. Having no use for such vagabond characters, when they hail from Abolition territory, we advise them to keep away.”

Two persons, whose presence was considered undesirable on account of Abolitionism, were ridden on a rail at Kingstree, South Carolina, not long since. One was an old man, and the other a young man of good personal appearance. They were carried about the village, borne by negroes, and compelled to sing while travelling in this manner. They were then turned loose. They took the noon train for Charleston, but the other passengers refusing to ride with them, they were put out of the cars at St. Stephen’s station.

[119]

More Incendiarism. The States and Union keeps up its vile and incendiary appeals against this office, in its issue of Monday, as follows:—

“The police should have a scrutinizing eye on all suspicious, evil-looking persons who may take shelter in the city. The railroad depot should be closely observed. The incendiary printing offices should be closely watched. The ‘devil’s den,’ or Black Republican Association Lodge, should not escape attention.

If Black Republicanism had in its service John Brown, who risked so much upon an expedition to take Harper’s Ferry, what may not be undertaken with such shelter as may be afforded by the league of Black-Brown spirits who infest this community? The price of public security, like that of public liberty, is eternal vigilance.”

—National Era, Wash.

An Abolitionist Caught in Alabama. We heard on Saturday that an Abolitionist emissary had been detected at Prattville, in Autauga County, on the previous day, and rather summarily dealt with by the citizens of that village. He was immediately arrested and put upon his trial, which resulted in his being bound over in the sum of $10,000. It is stated that this fellow had in his possession several letters from some of Brown’s men in the North, relative to the plans of that infamous band of rebellionists, and containing advice as to how he should act—what point to fix upon as headquarters, &c. &c. He was first arrested on suspicion of being the murderer of McCrabb, and, on examination, these incendiary documents were found about his person. We hope to be able to give full particulars of this affair in our issue of Tuesday. The plot, indeed, seems to thicken.—Montgomery Advertiser, Nov. 28th.

The Warrentown (Va.) Flag, having been informed that over twenty copies of the New York Tribune are taken at the post-offices of Prince William county, suggests that those receiving them should not only be presented before the Grand Jury and fined heavily, but dealt with even more severely.

[120]

Sent Away. No less than four men, suspected of being Abolition emissaries, were arrested in our city on Friday and Saturday, examined before a committee appointed by the citizens, and finally discharged, with an injunction to leave, with their faces turned Northward—which injunction they seemed to obey, not only readily, but thankfully. We understand that there was no strong, positive evidence of very improper conduct on the part of any of them, and, therefore, we refrain from giving a description of them. It is best for all transient Northern men to have a known and honest business when they come South just now, and we do not condemn the disposition to expel them if they cannot exhibit such “credentials;” nevertheless, we trust that the people of this and every other Southern community will continue to act coolly and cautiously—that they will not inflict personal violence without sufficient proof that it is deserved—Columbus (Ga.) Enquirer.

Arkansas has been extending her pro-slavery courteous hospitalities to a Democratic citizen of Clark county, Ohio, who was on a visit to that State, in connection with the sale of fruit trees. He registered himself at Napoleon from Springfield, Ohio. This was enough to excite suspicion. The mob gathered, he exhibited letters from prominent Democrats of Ohio, among them Hon. W. S. Groesbeck, but these, and his tree talk, were no go. His credentials were returned, he was escorted to the boat, and the nursery agent hurried up the Mississippi as a “d—d abolitionist!”

Mr. Ashley, a Republican member of Congress from Ohio, went to Charlestown, Va., and witnessed the execution of John Brown. Some hours before the execution, he was discovered to be a spy, and he plainly avowed himself to the crowd to be a Republican member of Congress. His intrepidity alone saved his life. He was insulted, his life was threatened a hundred times, but by cool bearing, he put his panic-stricken foes to shame, and they did not venture to attack him.

[121]

The “Irrepressible Conflict” a Two-Edged Sword.—The South is laying about with its anti-abolition weapons with such blind fury that friends as well as foes are struck down. An incident illustrative of this recently occurred at Columbus, Mississippi. The agent of a Northern mercantile house visiting the city was suspected of being an Abolitionist in disguise, and having left town for a day or two, Mr. James Blair searched his trunk for proof of his treasonable character. He found, on opening the trunk, a copy of a letter to a friend, which commenced by saying that it was “all right with him and the Brown family;” then Mr. Blair’s excitement was reported to have been very great, and he threw down the letter, confident that he had detected treason.

A bystander picked up the letter, and upon a further perusal, discovered that the “Brown family” in question was not that of Osawatomie, but was the family of old Mr. and Mrs. Brown, who had a certain daughter that had captivated the unfortunate drummer; then followed an overhauling of the correspondence of the unfortunate swain, which resulted in some very interesting developments in the way of soft sentiments. At this juncture of affairs, Dr. Shepherd came up, and pronounced the procedure an outrage; Mr. Blair replied with a curse, saying that if he took sides with the Northern agents, he was no better than one of them. Shepherd then told him that he would have to answer for his remarks, or something to that effect, and, arming himself with a walking-stick, for a day or two was on the watch for Blair to show himself in the streets. That individual, however, kept out of the way until the second night after the words were passed, when they met, and Shepherd commenced caning Blair, whereupon Blair drew a pistol, and shot him three times, Shepherd continuing to cane him until he fell dead. Thus was the Doctor’s life sacrificed to a blind rage against Abolitionists. Dr. Shepherd formerly resided in Texas, and held the position of Secretary of the Navy under Gen. Houston, in the time of the Texan Republic. He was the special friend of Commodore Moore, of the Texan Navy.

Two alleged Abolitionists have been arrested in Mobile, Alabama, and compelled to give bonds or leave the State.

[122]

More Arrests and Expulsions. The Charleston Mercury, of the 17th ult., says that a man, supposed to be an Abolitionist, of dark complexion, with black hair and a scar over the left eye, about five feet eleven inches in height, and calling himself James W. Rivers, was taken up on the 13th by the Vigilance Committee, tarred and feathered, and the right side of his head shaven.

We learn that two men arrived in this city yesterday morning, having been dismissed from Sumter. Confident in the honesty of their intentions, and feeling innocent of any misdemeanor, they will endeavor to regain their residence at Sumter.

During last week, a few young men, in a frolicking spirit, agreed to play Vigilance Committee, and cause the first man they should meet to give a strict account of himself. They had not proceeded far ere they met a Charleston gentleman, who, surmising that nothing but sport was at the bottom of it, submitted to their catechism, and told them distinctly that he was a South Carolinian and a Charlestonian. One of the self-constituted Vigilants, in the pride of his position, hinted that the matter might be all right; but that an unprejudiced evidence, other than the examined gentleman, was necessary to satisfy him. This was too much, even for the good nature of the impressed gentleman, who squared off, and, by a well-directed blow, landed his persistent examiner in the middle of the street. As his comrades picked him up, he exclaimed, “I reckon he’s a Southerner; let’s go along!” This was the end of that Vigilance Committee.

Itinerant teachers, peddlers, drummers, &c., are so numerous in Frederick County, Md., that the people fear a second Harper’s Ferry affair, and have set a watch over the barracks, where seven hundred stand of arms are deposited, lest they should be broken into or taken possession of.

In South Easton, Pa., on the 22d of February, an itinerant peddler of the “Life of John Brown” was treated to a dozen lashes on the back, and ordered out of town!

[123]

Another Mechanic Driven from the South. Mr. Perley Seaver, of Oxford, a year ago last May, went to South Carolina to superintend a steam saw mill, his employer also being an Oxford man. By industry and economy, he accumulated sufficient funds to purchase a house, and he thought himself settled for life. Mr. Seaver, says the Worcester (Mass.) Transcript, was a quiet, religious man, and as there was no preaching or other religious exercises in the place, he was wont to call his neighbors together on the Sabbath to read the Bible and hear a sermon. A rumor got round the village that “Seaver preached Abolition sermons,” but nothing was done about it until Saturday night, Christmas Eve. At 1 o’clock in the morning, he was waited upon by a large delegation, who, after ransacking his papers and books, and obtaining from him an admission that five negroes had attended his meetings—how many whites attended is not stated—ordered him to leave within twenty days. Seaver offered to go at once, if they would buy his place, but this they refused, and he came away within the specified time, finding it impossible to dispose of his property.

Arrest of Suspected Emissaries. A correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, writing from Rockville, Md., under the date of Nov. 25, says:—

“We have one of Brown’s sympathizers with us, a man calling himself Wm. McDougal, or Dougal. He was committed to our jail on the 23d inst., and had a second hearing on the 24th, before Squire Braddock, of our town, after which he was recommitted, for uttering sympathy sentiments for ‘Old Brown.’ The language used was that he thought Brown was doing right, and that he ought to free every negro in the South. He says he was born in Franklin County, Pa., but for the last twelve or fifteen years, has been working in Maryland and Virginia. His wife and child are in Cumberland, Maryland, and his brothers and sisters live in Monroe county, Ohio. He says he had no idea of doing any harm in saying what he did. He was arrested on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, near Seneca. I suppose he is about 30 or 35 years of age, about 5 feet, 6 or 7 inches high, and not very stoutly made.

B.”

[124]

Another Alarm—Torpedoes Discovered. The Richmond Enquirer reports another important discovery:—

“Among the thousand rumors which we have heard daily of revengeful acts, as being in contemplation by the hardened sinners, the friends, admirers and abettors of Old Brown and Company, is the following:

When all chances for making a successful rescue fail the Abolitionists, they will strive to get satisfaction for the deaths of the miserable beings at Charlestown by sending parcels of death-dealing and explosive materials to the most prominent parties in Virginia, who were in favor of the letter of the law being strictly carried out in regard to the condemned prisoners.

These ‘torpedoes,’ or ‘infernal machines,’ are generally made up in most deceptive packages, and labelled so as to prevent all suspicion of danger on the part of the receiver. The latter naturally undoes the package in a hurry, and, in pulling off the lid or cover, starts some concealed spring, or other igniting contrivance, and the whole affair explodes, with the sound and fury of a bomb-shell, dealing death and destruction around.

Such a killing conception is truly worthy of the demons who would lend money, means and succor, to incite our Southern slaves to rise in rebellion, with midnight dagger, poison and incendiary’s torch, to destroy their owners and protectors, with our wives and children!”

Sent. Off. We learn from a gentleman just arrived from Unionville, that the citizens of that place are exercising a commendable vigilance with regard to suspicious characters among them. At a meeting of the Town Council, on Wednesday last, three persons, whose movements have been regarded with some suspicion, were ordered to leave the place, within twenty-four hours, or be dealt with summarily. Our informant states that they complied with the order immediately, without even bidding their landlord adieu.

We also learn from the Kingstree Star that two printers, caught in the company of some negroes at the depot in that place, were treated to a ride on a rail, and sent out of town.—Columbia (S. C.) Guardian.

[125]

A Fulmination from Virginia. The Richmond Whig publishes the following amiable exhortation:—

Two young men (brothers) took letters from —— ——, a noted Democrat of Woodstock, Connecticut, to Governor Letcher, of Virginia, stating that they were all right, i. e., “sound on the goose” in regard to slavery. But, (mark this!) they were mechanics—carpenters—and, of course, “had no rights that slaveholders were bound to respect”; consequently, they were watched in words and actions. One day, some of the butterfly troops of Virginia were on parade, and a remark was made by one of the brothers that they were a fine-looking set of men! The other replied, Yes, they were; but twenty Yankees would drive them all into the swamp; which observation was overheard by a slaveholder, who instantly had the mob upon them, and they barely escaped with their lives, glad to get home to old Woodstock—changed in their views in regard to the peculiar institution and Democracy.—Correspondent of the Boston Liberator.

[126]

Two Trenton Mechanics Driven from Virginia. Two tinsmiths of Trenton, who had been hired to go to the vicinity of Charlestown, Va., to do some roofing, returned a few days ago, having been prevented from doing their work, and driven by threats of arrest to leave the place. An account of the affair, which appears to be authentic, is as follows:—

“A wealthy gentleman of New Jersey, understood to be a Mr. H. J. Garrison, formerly a dry goods merchant at Trenton, who removed to a locality near Charlestown in 1854, or about that time, having concluded to remain permanently at the latter place, had partly built a house, which he designed to cover with a metallic roof. Preferring the work of Northern mechanics, or finding it impracticable to get it done without incurring the considerable expense of bringing them so great a distance, he came on to Trenton and engaged two tin-workers, who had been employed in the hardware establishment of G. Brearly & Co., of that city. Taking them with him, he returned to his Southern home, and the work was about being commenced. But the Virginians had no idea of allowing any such proceeding; nobody knew but that this was a contrivance of the Abolitionists—at any rate, it could not be permitted. So they threatened the tin-workers they would arrest them and deal summarily with them, if they did not forthwith depart, and the mechanics, to avoid trouble, concluded to go home. Their employer was at the same time informed that his house might remain for ever uncovered, if he could not get it roofed without sending to the North for Abolitionists to do the work.”

Not a Safe Place for Yankees. On the day that John Brown was in possession of Harper’s Ferry, the Superintendent of the Harper’s Ferry Armory was in Springfield, Mass., to get a new master armorer for that establishment, and engaged Mr. Salmon Adams, the clerk and assistant of the master armorer at the Government shops in Springfield. But since he has got home, he writes back cancelling the engagement, for the reason that the people there are so exasperated with the Yankees, that they would not stand one of them in the place of master armorer. They would butcher him, he says, should Mr. Adams come on and take the place!

[127]

Excitement in Talbot County, Md. On Sunday last, an incendiary letter was picked up in St. Michael’s, which purports to give the outlines of an extended insurrectionary movement in Maryland and Virginia. It states the very improbable fact, that over 12,000 men are engaged in the crusade, who can instantly recognize each other by a look in the eyes whenever they meet. The plot contemplates the capture of the city of Baltimore, by the aid of 40,000 men from the North, the time to be fixed by a State Convention of the crusaders, to be held in this city. The name and date of the letter were both torn off. This ridiculous document created great excitement among the good people of Talbot. Patrols were immediately formed in the St. Michael’s district, and a strong guard placed in Easton on Sunday night. A public meeting of the citizens of the county took place in the court-house at Easton, yesterday afternoon, to take into consideration the existing state of affairs, but we have not learned the result of their deliberations.—Baltimore Republican, November 30.

Col. S. A. Cooley, of this city, was in Charlestown, Va., last week. Mr. Penfield, agent of Sharpe’s Rifle Company, was also there. Both were placed under arrest, but were treated kindly. Mr. Penfield showed a letter of introduction from the Secretary of War, Mr. Floyd. Col. Cooley protested that he was no Abolitionist. But all availed nothing. The officer said, “Gentlemen, we have no reason to believe that either of you meditate harm; but the authorities have directed that the movements of all strangers shall be guarded; this is absolutely necessary for our safety; persons pretending to be friendly have been among us for some time, and our horses and cattle have been poisoned at night; our barns and sheds and haystacks have been destroyed by fire; the property of some of the jurors in John Brown’s case has been burnt by incendiaries; we have only stopped these alarming proceedings by the most decided action in permitting no strangers to be staying about here in idleness.” Messrs. Cooley and Penfield, seeing the absolute necessity for the regulations which had been established, then left the place.—Hartford Times, Dec. 14th.

[128]

A Reward Offered for the Head of Mr. Giddings.—The following advertisement appears in the Richmond Whig:

Ten Thousand Dollars Reward.—Joshua R. Giddings, having openly declared himself a traitor in a lecture at Philadelphia, on the 28th of October, and there being no process, strange to say, by which he can be brought to justice, I propose to be one of one hundred to raise $10,000 for his safe delivery in Richmond, or $5,000 for the production of his head. I do not regard this proposition, extraordinary as it may at first seem, either unjust or unmerciful. The law of God and the Constitution of his country both condemn him to death.

For satisfactory reasons, I withhold my name from the public, but it is in the hands of the editor of the Richmond Whig. There will be no difficulty, I am sure, in raising the $10,000, upon a reasonable prospect of getting the said Giddings to this city.

Richmond, Nov. 1, 1859.

The Providence Journal says:—“We lately mentioned that a twelve pound cannon ball had been found here in a bale of cotton, and we then took occasion to remark, that the substitution of iron for sand as an article to increase the weight of the bale showed a slight moral improvement in the dishonest packers. But something worse even than sand has been found in a bale which recently arrived. That is, lucifer matches. They were in a pine box, which was partially broken, so that they could not fail to ignite in passing through the picker. Had they not been accidentally discovered, they might have caused the destruction of one of the most valuable mills in this State.”

A dentist, who has advertised himself for the last eighteen months in Charleston, S. C., as desiring to cure tooth-ache without pain, was waited upon, on the 17th ult., by a committee, who were fortified by the oaths of two reliable citizens before a magistrate, and notified that, considering his avowed Abolitionism, he must select another residence. He left.

[129]

In a Dilemma. A young gentleman, whose parents reside in a neighboring county in an adjoining State, is just now in rather an unpleasant dilemma in Kentucky, the result of the jealousy induced by the persistent attempts of Abolitionists to excite a servile insurrection, which culminated by the invasion at Harper’s Ferry. The facts came to our knowledge to-day, and are vouched for by men of veracity, though the name of the young man was not given. He was, it seems, employed as a teacher, and was in the full tide of success, and quite popular among the patrons of his school, until the fact became known that he frequently received letters from Oberlin, about which he was extremely shy. The excitement about the Harper’s Ferry invasion, and rumors of contemplated attempts in Kentucky, awakened so much suspicion, that the young man was finally taken into custody, and placed in the hands of a committee of citizens to investigate his case, about which suspicion was very much increased upon his refusal to divulge the nature of his correspondence with Oberlin.—Adrian (Mich.) paper.

Literature in Leechville. Somewhere down in the tar and rosin State is a shambling sort of a hamlet called Leechville. They have a post-office in Leechville. The man who overhauls the mails at this out-of-the-way spot is one Augustus Latham. From the Blue Book, it appears that the annual receipts of this post-office are thirty-one dollars, whereof Latham pockets twenty-one for his salary, leaving ten to replenish the Federal Treasury, which probably pays some Democratic contractor a hundred dollars per annum for going off the main road in search of Leechville, and stopping long enough for the contractor’s horse to catch breath, and the contractor’s driver to imbibe a draught of whiskey, while Latham peers into the half-dozen letters and newspapers, more or less, in the mail bag. One would suppose that the arrival in this desolate locality of a half-dozen speeches, bearing the frank of some U. S. Senator, would be hailed as a godsend, even if only for the novelty of the thing. It seems that there is a resident in Leechville, permanent or temporary, who is pursuing knowledge under difficulties—one Thomas Dunbar, the [130] senior of that name. Hearing (we confess we are at a loss to guess how) that Senator Wilson had delivered a speech exposing the Disunion schemes of the Democracy, Mr. Dunbar wrote to that gentleman, requesting him to send him two or three copies of that speech; which, of course, Mr. Wilson did. The return mail brings to the Senator a missive from Mr. Holt’s man Latham. We print it as an average specimen of Southern respect for law, Southern manners and Southern grammar:—

Leechville, Feb 16 1860.

Sir Your speeches and your Black Republican friends cannot circulate your Abolition speeches through this Post office so you need not send any more to Thomas Dunbar senr

Yours &c

AUGUSTUS LATHAM P M”

Latham’s orthography is inimitable; so, in that particular, we fall back upon Webster.

In all seriousness, there has been quite enough of this sort of mail robbery under the rule of Mr. Holt. If he does n’t stop it promptly and peremptorily, he should be impeached. Such creatures as this Latham should be dismissed instanter. If Mr. Holt, on due notice, refuses to have this done, then the House of Representatives should immediately take the initial step toward degrading him from office.—New York Tribune.

Dr. Mulroe, of South Carolina, the owner of two plantations, and negroes sufficient to work them, was arrested a few days ago, as a suspicious character, by a Vigilance Committee, in Eufala, Ala. The Doctor was peddling ploughs, and it was hard to believe that so wealthy a man would turn “travelling Yankee.” A friend, who knew the Doctor at home, happened to be in town, however, and hearing of the difficulty he was in, went to the place where the committee were trying him, and when he entered, and found Dr. M. occupying a chair, and undergoing an examination, under such peculiar circumstances, he was so astonished that he exclaimed, “Why, Dr. Mulroe!” and burst out in a loud laugh, while the Doctor, overcome with his feelings, burst into tears, and the sympathy was so intense, that the whole committee were soon in tears! As a finale, all pledged themselves to sell as many ploughs as they could.

[131]

The Excitement Against Northern Men in Virginia.—The Richmond correspondent of the New York Herald, writing on the 18th, says:—

“A gentleman from Baltimore, who was on his way South upon a tour for the benefit of his health, informed me, last evening, that however great might be the advantages of the trip, he would forego it, sooner than submit to the suspicions and scrutinies of which he was the object at various points upon his passage through Virginia. He travelled through some portions of the interior of the Commonwealth, before reaching here. I know an instance in which the presentation of a Massachusetts bank note at a tavern in the country, by a gentleman who resides in Virginia, and is sound upon the State, was nearly subjecting him to serious indignities and inconveniences. His recognition by a gentleman of the locality, as he emerged from the tavern, was the only thing that saved him from a disagreeable overhauling. The gentleman assured me that he was well armed, and determined that the first man who laid hands upon him should die. I have had myself some little experience in this sort of treatment, and I can therefore appreciate its disadvantages. While standing in the hall of a hotel, in North Carolina, some year or two ago, awaiting the meeting of an assembly whose proceedings I had gone to report for the Herald, I was rudely seized by two ruffians, who planted themselves on each side of me, and carried me into the street, there to ascertain what my purpose in coming to town was, and to administer due punishment, if it was not in keeping with their views. By this time, we were approached by several persons, amongst whom, most fortunately for me, was a distinguished gentleman of that State, who instantly recognized me. The observance of the recognition by these ruffians caused them immediately to release me. Being then without any means of defence, I was forced to submit to this indignity.”

The surest way, and perhaps the only way, to prevent such resorts to that justly reprobated code—lynch law—is, for those philanthropists who cannot restrain the expression of their anti-slavery sentiments, to leave the benighted communities of the South, and make their homes in more congenial regions.—Savannah News.

[132]

There is a College at Roanoke, Va., and, of course, its students had to improve John Brown’s raid. ’Twas thus they did it, on the 3d of December:—

“Forasmuch, as the sacred soil of Virginia has been invaded, her citizens incarcerated, and innocent blood shed by a band of monomaniac fanatics, instigated to the desperate deed by individuals beyond the reach of law and justice, therefore,

Resolved, 1st, That we, the students of Roanoke College, under the protection of the laws of Virginia, do express our sentiments towards Wm. H. Seward, Joshua R. Giddings, and Wendell Phillips, by casting upon them the infamous stigma of burning them in effigy.

Resolved, 2d, That we fire a cannon as each image is consumed by the flames, and give three cheers for our intrepid, indefatigable, vigilant Governor, Henry A. Wise.

Resolved, 3d, That we shall ever be ready to enlist under the standard of our State, to defend Virginia and her rights, under all emergencies.”

John Brown in Florida. A gentleman, who is spending the winter in Florida for the benefit of his health, writes:—

“The news of the John Brown affair reached Florida before we did, and a party of chivalrous citizens had an indignation meeting, and threatened to tar and feather any Abolitionist who might venture among them. I understood from one of the residents of the place, that not one of the indignant citizens aforesaid owned a slave, or had money enough to buy one. They appointed a committee to wait on a poor Jersey minister, half dead with bronchitis, but the only thing they could find against him was, that he had been seen to shake hands with a nigger, so they only warned him.”

A book agent, named Day, who made his appearance in the village yesterday afternoon, was ordered to leave on the one one o’clock train for Columbia. Before the arrival of the cars, however, he was seen giving leg bail along the railroad, in the direction of Charleston.—Orangeburg (S. C.) Southron.

[133]

“Let us prepare for disunion; not precipitate it. Between this and the 4th of March, 1861, the Union cannot harm us. In the meanwhile, let us enact laws of retaliation and non-intercourse, and establish a direct trade, and, consequently, friendly relations, with Europe. Let us charge heavy license for the sale of all goods from the North, whether produced there, or imported from abroad; let us send our cotton, rice and tobacco, directly to Europe; let us establish a stricter espionage over all visitors from the North, and a stricter espionage over all Virginians who deal or associate with them.

We may treat such Northerners as we please as persons of ill fame, improper company for Virginians, and recognize, fine and imprison our own citizens, who deal or associate with them. Thus we might expel all the itinerant quacks and peddlers and teachers from the most inimical Northern States,—and from all of those States, if experience proved it necessary to our safety. We might also punish our citizens who shipped grain by Yankee vessels, or procured goods of any sort by them.

The election of a Black Republican as President in 1860, unless that party adopts new leaders and a new platform, will render disunion inevitable on the 4th of March, 1861. We should delay it until that time, preparing for its consequences.”—Richmond Enquirer.

The Cincinnati Commercial states that anonymous letters in mourning envelopes are being sent through the Newport (Ky.) post-office, to Republican residents of that town, warning them to take their leave of the soil of Kentucky. Mr. J. R. Whittemore, a gentleman who resides in Newport, and does business in Cincinnati, recently received notice to leave, on or before the first day of December, 1859.

Four individuals, who were regarded as “rather noxious to the community,” have recently been ordered to leave Orangeburg, S. C. The first was a school teacher, a young man calling himself D. Heagle, from New York. The next were two young men, house painters, one by the name of Mahon, who also hailed from the State of New York, and the other, who signed his name as Clarkson, from North Carolina. The fourth was a book agent, named Day. Each was compelled to take the first train which left town after the warning.

[134]

A Kentucky Sympathizer in Trouble. The Cincinnati Commercial, of Nov. 29, has the following:—

“We learn that a man by the name of Brown, late a conductor on the Lexington and Danville Railroad, happening to be in May’s grocery in Lexington, last week, was bantered by the proprietor on his name, and asked whether he was ‘any relation of old Osawatomie.’ He replied that he was not, but took occasion to say that he endorsed his sentiments as to slavery. Thereupon the bystanders put him out of doors by violence. Shortly after, he was called on by some pretended friends, who invited him to go to Beard’s stable, in Lexington, which he did, and there found a lot of men, who demanded that he should repeat what he had said about slavery. On doing so, the crowd became very much excited, and told him he had better leave Lexington, and the State.

We are also told that he received an anonymous letter, signed, ‘Many Citizens,’ warning him to leave within three days, with a threat of summary measures being used to eject him, if he failed to comply. He left and came to Covington, on Saturday, where he met some of the employees of the railroad, who pretended to sympathize with him, but soon advised him not to stay longer in Kentucky.

He has left for the West, although he would have preferred remaining in Kentucky, had it not been for this intolerant and persecuting spirit. Brown is spoken of by the Superintendent of the Lexington and Danville Railroad, as a sober intelligent and steady man.”

An Abolitionist Arraigned. The Charlotte (N. C.) Carolina Bulletin says: “We learn that on yesterday, before the county court, now in session, a Mr. Franklin Davis, residing in Farrelltown, about ten miles north of Charlotte, sitting as grand juryman, was, on motion of Solicitor D. B. Rea, expelled from the jury, for having expressed sentiments in opposition to the institution of slavery, and he was immediately bound over in the penal sum of one thousand dollars for his appearance at the next sitting of the Superior Court. The facts will all appear at the trial in May next. We take great pleasure in commending Mr. Rea for the prompt and faithful manner in which he has discharged his duty.

[135]

Excitement at Abbeville, Mississippi. The Oxford Mercury of Thursday, Jan. 24th, says:—

“Considerable excitement was produced in our neighboring town of Abbeville, last Sunday and Monday, by a gang of ten peddlers. Some stories represent them to us as having been Irish or German, and others that they were Abolitionists, endeavoring to stir up an insurrection. The neighborhood became greatly alarmed when they appeared, as so many of that kind of traders do not often travel together. They were, the whole ten, arrested on Monday, and taken to Abbeville and examined, but no proof was elicited against them, except that several were operating without license. They were ordered to leave the State within a given time.

One of Brown’s Map Men. A book peddler, named Albritton, was arrested in Marion, Ala., on the 3d inst. The American says: “He was arrested about 8 o’clock this morning, and carried to Cahaba, where, it is reported, they have the documents showing him to be one of the original men to be stationed on the line of the published Brown Map. We learn from Marshal Curtis, that there is sufficient proof, found in the prisoner’s trunk, to convict him, beyond a shadow of a doubt, of being an emissary. If so, the Lord have mercy on his soul (?), for we know the people of Cahaba well enough to feel confident that they will give him full justice, terrible as it may be.”—Richmond Dispatch.

A negro barber, named Wilson, went, a few days since, from his home in Chattanooga to Knoxville, Tenn., to make a few purchases. He was followed closely and keenly watched by two men of stern visage, one of whom finally drew a fearful knife, and rushed at him, exclaiming, “You’re Fred Douglass!” In peril of his life, Wilson took to his heels, hotly pursued by a constantly increasing rabble, and barely escaping a terrible fate by dodging behind a fence and permitting his followers to pass by. He went home by the first train. The next morning, the two gentlemen addressed the Mayor for papers for the arrest of Fred. Douglass.

[136]

A Political Refugee.—Is this a Free Country? A gentleman of good address, bearing the evidences of sincerity and respectability, called upon us yesterday, saying that he was an exile from Kentucky. His name is E. J. Dean, and his story is as follows:—

“I have been a resident of Kentucky for the last seven years, all of which time I have been engaged in teaching. Latterly, say since September, I have been living near Richmond, the county seat of Madison county, where I had a school, in which I supposed I gave my patrons good satisfaction. I do not know that during the whole time that I lived in the State, I ever said a single word in condemnation of slavery. Certainly I have never been a brawler about that or any other political matter. To the best of my ability, I discharged the duties which I had undertaken for pay; and I declare that never have I tampered with any slave or in any way attempted to make a negro dissatisfied with his lot. What then was my surprise, on Saturday morning last, to receive from a man who represented himself as the chairman of the County Vigilance Committee, a warning to immediately give up my employment and quit the State. In answer to my inquiry—‘Of what crime am I accused, that I should be punished thus?’ I had only this answer, ‘None, only that you are a d——d Abolitionist!’ Pleading my inability to settle my little affairs in five minutes’ time, I was graciously permitted to remain in Richmond until Monday, when, in obedience to the mandate which I was not at liberty to disobey, without bringing upon myself great indignity and peril, I set out, and arrived here this morning. This is a plain and perfectly truthful account of my expulsion, and, so far as I have been informed, of the causes which led thereto. In conclusion, I have only this inquiry to make—Is this a free country? If so, where and what is despotism?”

Madison is one of the wealthiest, most populous and civilized counties in Kentucky, but mob law is administered there with a degree of vigor that is without parallel in all the United States. From that county, Rev. John G. Fee and his associates—twenty-eight in all—as peaceable, orderly, industrious, Christian men and women as there are in Kentucky—were driven out. In that county, C. M. Clay—brave Cassius—has [137] been subjected to dangers which have more than once put his life in peril, and to a series of petty annoyances which have for years made that life a perpetual torture. The people of Madison are naturally kind and hospitable; but the majority are possessed of that purely American devil—the intolerant, rampant, persecuting spirit of slavery; and under its influence, all within its reach are subjected to a despotism, compared with which the rule of King Bomba at Naples was a government of which his subjects might be proud.

Well may Mr. Dean ask—“Is this a free country?”—Chicago Press and Tribune.

How the South Respects the Constitution. An ebullition of Southern chivalry was witnessed at Demossville, Pendleton county, on Saturday last, which resulted in the driving away of a peaceable citizen, for no other crime than possessing convictions, and having the manhood to express them.

According to Mr. Payne’s version of the singular proceeding, he was at the depot when the cars were detained by an accident, a few days since, when a gentleman from Covington approached him, and questioned him as to his politics. Mr. Payne replied that he was a Republican. “Of what kind?” continued his interrogator. “One of the blackest,” was the reply. During this conversation, several of Mr. P.’s friends were present, and the matter rested until Saturday morning, when he received the following notice, handed him by Dr. Cummins:—

Demossville, Ky., Dec. 10, 1859.

Mr. Charles Payne—Dear Sir:—

You having declared yourself an Abolitionist of the blackest character, we give you the limit of twenty minutes to leave this town; if not, you will be dealt with as we think proper.

Citizens of Demossville,
Pendleton Co., Ky.

A large and excited mob gathered around at the same time, and he was compelled to leave, in obedience to the warning. He has long been known as a Republican, and was the candidate of that party for Congress, two years ago. He has a family, who are yet in Demossville. He purposes returning home in a day or two, there to await the progress of the “irrepressible conflict.”—Cincinnati Commercial.

[138]

Arrest and Imprisonment of a Kentucky Pioneer in Virginia. We received a visit, yesterday, from a gray-haired Kentuckian, just from the “inhospitable shores” of Virginia, where he has been incarcerated in jail for two weeks, for having the presumption to be an American citizen, and attempting to cross the State by way of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The old gentleman is a citizen of Oldham county, Ky.,—73 years of age,—had been on to Washington to see about some land, which fell to him under the act of Congress making provision for the soldiers of 1812, and on his return, was seized at Martinsburg (as the train West stopped at that place) by the vigilant military stationed at that place, and incarcerated in the jail. He was suspected of having conceived the “deep design” of rescuing “Old Osawatomie” Brown, and accordingly, this regiment of soldiery, aided by two or three “peace officers,” instituted a vigilant search of the old man’s wardrobe. Each boot-leg, in the heated imagination of the Virginians, contained a knife or pike, and every pocket a revolver. The only article that was left him was a cake of soap, which he had thoughtfully provided himself with, having been duly advised of the impurity of the Federal city.

He remained in jail two weeks, and on the 2d of December, after the last ghost of fear of a rescue of old John Brown—that is to say, after the hour of 11 o’clock and 15 minutes, A. M.—he was released, first being graciously furnished with a pass, of which the following is a verbatim copy:—

Martinsburg, Dec. 2d, 1859.

To Capt. of any patrol or military company in Virginia:

You will pass James C. Gardner through the State of Virginia without molestation. He has been under arrest here for two weeks, and is all right. He was dis charged this morning, by order of the Commandant of the battalion stationed at this point.

GEO. H. MURPHY,
Attorney for the Commonwealth for Berkley Co.

How the blood in the veins of this pioneer on the “Dark and Bloody Ground” boiled at such indignity, those who still have faith in the existence of chivalry, generosity, and honesty of purpose, can best imagine. The old gentleman arrived in our city last evening. Through the kindness of the officers of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad, he has been furnished with a pass over the road to Louisville, for which place he will depart this morning.—Cincinnati Gazette.

[139]

Incendiary Documents in Virginia. In our last paper, under the head of “Political and Personal,” we briefly noticed the arrest of John H. Gargas and Thomas Cruix, in Fairfax County, Virginia, charged with circulating incendiary documents, Helper’s book particularly. They were held to bail in large sums to answer at court. We learn from the last number of the Fairfax News, that Mr. Gargas was tried for the offence before a “called court,” consisting of five justices. It appears that Mr. Gargas is a Postmaster in Fairfax county, and handed out one of Helper’s books, received by mail, to a citizen of the neighborhood, being of course ignorant of what it was. This coming to the ears of the Virginians, they determined to act at once in the spirit of Postmaster General Holt’s decision, authorizing the robbery of the mails. However, at the trial, after hearing the testimony, the court concluded to discharge Mr. Gargas. Mr. G. is nearly connected with the Geil and Gargas families, living near Doylestown, being a nephew of Abraham Gargas, of Warrington. His father moved to Fairfax county many years ago, and held a post-office, in which he was succeeded by his son. The other suspected person, Mr. Cruix, who was held in $2,500 to appear at court, has forfeited his bond by making his escape from the Commonwealth.—Bucks County (Pa.) Intelligencer.

Sergeant Birney Driven out of the South. The Virginia panic, since the shooting of the cow, seems to have extended into other States. Sergeant Birney, whose career in this city, as a policeman, was brought to a termination some months since, has just arrived on the Columbia, from Charleston.

It seems that the sergeant has been pursuing the business of a merchant, in the State of Georgia, and that, since John Brown’s capture of Harper’s Ferry, the people of his neighborhood have been coasting about to discover any enemies lurking in among them, and suspicion fell upon the sergeant. He was questioned, and, his answers not proving satisfactory to his inquisitors, he was notified to leave. Our informant states that the alternative was a coat of tar and feathers.—Evening Post.

[140]

Gov. Wise Warns the South to Rouse—Yankee Peddlers, &c. The following brief letter from Gov. Wise shows what he considers the necessity of the times. We learn that very stringent measures have been adopted in South Carolina, Alabama, and in some portions of our State, against peddlers, showmen and others, who are reasonably suspected of hostility to our institutions. Scarcely a day passes, that we do not hear of some itinerant, unable to prove himself to be of reliable character, having been expelled from Southern communities. Here is the letter of the Virginia Governor:—

Richmond, Va., Nov. 25th, 1859.

My Dear Sir:—

I have time only to acknowledge yours. Say to your father, and all others, that there are serious times here. We are arming, and have need to do so; and the Southern States all had better be rousing. Drive out peddlers and schoolmasters (not well known) from Yankeedom.

Yours, &c.,

HENRY A. WISE.

William Scott, Esq.

—Atlanta (Ga.) News.

As an illustration of the annoyance and persecution to which strangers are subjected in the sacred district of Virginia, it is stated that a Mr. Charles Grattan, of Easton, Md., hired a house and shop at Harper’s Ferry, and he went there with his wife and family, and with goods to open a millinery shop. On his arrival, he was dragged at once to the arsenal, and kept in custody, and was subjected to such annoyances for several days, that he concluded Harper’s Ferry was not a pleasant place to live in, and packed up his goods again and retreated back to Easton, cursing the stupidity and cowardice of the Virginians.

The Columbus (Geo.) Sun mentions the arrest, in that city, of Wm. Scott, a member of the firm of Charles Scott & Co., dealers in embroideries, linens, &c., New York. An open expression of sympathy for “Old Brown,” and the possession of Beecher’s incendiary sermons, were the occasion of the arrest. He received “notice to quit,” and took his departure by the first train.

[141]

The Norristown (Pa.) Republican says:—“Christian Stout, a good Democrat, long a resident of Upper Dublin, and for a year or two of Plymouth township, removed to Maryland a few years ago, to work a farm for Wm. Earnest, Hon. John McNair, and others, and has resided there ever since. About two weeks ago, he appeared amongst us again, and informed us that he was a fugitive from his home. He says that a short time after the opening of Congress, and the introduction of Clark’s resolution, a wealthy Englishman, his neighbor, handed him Helper’s book to read. He read it, and then seeing his neighbor, he told him that he was done with it, and desired him to take it; but he said, ‘No, never mind giving it to me, hand it to one of your neighbors.’ He did so, and shortly afterwards the Englishman was arrested, as were some others. He was then informed that the slaveholders had sixty-two names on their paper of persons who were to be arrested for circulating Helper’s book, uttering Abolition sentiments, and sympathizing with Brown. As his name was among the proscribed, he suddenly left for Pennsylvania. The Englishman was bailed in the sum of $2,500, and immediately left for New York, intending to forfeit the bail, and abandon the State. Before Stout left, he consulted a lawyer, who told him that although they might perhaps not convict him, they would probably keep him in jail a year or two, and put him to much cost, so he concluded he had better leave. He is now waiting the result of the trial of others.”

A Southern Opinion of the Rev. Mr. Spurgeon. A newspaper published at Jacksonville, Florida, has a very savage attack upon the New York publishers of Mr. Spurgeon’s works, apropos to the statement that “they stand ready to publish any thing that he may say on the subject of slavery.” The following language, which is more forcible than elegant, is applied to Mr. Spurgeon and his publishers:—“If Messrs. ——— intend to publish the insane conceits of a beef-eating, puffed-up, vain, over-righteous, pharisaical, English, blab-mouth, ranting preacher of doctrine not found in the Bible, and worse, if possible, than the infamous book of Helper, then we think the South should know it, and bestow their patronage accordingly.”

[142]

The Harper’s Ferry raid demonstrates the necessity of the Northern people, in a body, and with one voice, putting down and crushing out such miserable, incendiary Abolition wretches as Giddings, Garrison, Fred. Douglass, Wendell Phillips, Seward, Wilson and Sumner. These are all schemers and conspirators against the peace of the Union.

All the powers of the Federal Government and the Government of Virginia should be employed in bringing them to a speedy justice. If there is evidence showing the complicity of Giddings, Douglass, or Thayer, or any other person in this affair, let them be arrested, tried and convicted, and punished.

As to the prisoners who were caught in the act, let them be hung, and that forthwith. There should be no temporizing and no fiddling on the part either of the President or of Governor Wise. The insurgents are nothing more nor less than pirates and murderers, entitled to none of the courtesies of war nor clemencies of law. Immediate shooting or hanging, without trial, is the punishment they merit, and the only punishment which will have the desired effect, either at the North or the South. In regard to such offenders, a just and safe principle is to hang them, and try them afterwards.—Richmond Whig.

The Staunton Virginian tells this story:—“One of our townsmen, Mr. George W. Dilliard, was involved in great danger at Harper’s Ferry. He had gone there on business on the day after the capture of Old Brown and his party, and in walking along in the vicinity of the Ferry, enjoying the splendid scenery, with one of the pikes in his hand, and two or three blank commissions in his pocket, taken from the insurgents, and which Gov. Wise had given him the day before, he was pursued and captured by a party who were hunting for Cook. Mr. Dilliard was immediately charged with being one of Cook’s men; the pike was satisfactory evidence, and the cry was raised of ‘shoot him! shoot him!’ and several loaded guns were pointed at his breast. Fortunately, Mr. Dilliard retained his self-possession so well that the party at last yielded to his request that he should be taken to the Superintendent at the Ferry, and there be permitted to prove his innocence. Mr. Dilliard said it was about the most trying half hour or more he ever spent.

[143]

The Charleston Mercury, of Tuesday, says that two Abolitionists left town on that day for the North, by steamer. One of them was taken in charge several weeks since, and has been earning his living for a month, by cracking stones for the city, agreeable to sentence imposed by the Mayor. He has acquired his trade, and leaves without a single regret. The other was received from Georgetown, where he had expressed obnoxious sentiments.

We learn from the Auburn Signal, that some short time ago, near Society Hill, Macon County, Alabama, a man named L. Stearns, claiming to be from Montgomery, was caught tampering with a Mr. Richardson’s negroes. He was driven off, and a party of citizens caught and whipped him. Two or three nights afterwards, Mr. Richardson had a lot of cotton set on fire.

Abolitionists. As it is becoming evident that we have numerous Abolitionists in our midst, tampering with our slaves, it will behoove the planters to be strict with their servants, and not allow them too much latitude during the coming holidays. We are not alarmists, and would not create unnecessary excitement, but we warn the people to be on the alert, and hope that “a word to the wise will be sufficient.”—Vicksburg (Miss.) Southern Sun, Nov. 22.

The Western Christian Advocate publishes the following from a Postmaster in Virginia:—

Wayne, C. H. Va., Feb. 28, 1860.

To the Editor of the Western Chreston Advocate.

Sir you will Please Discontinue sending your paper to this office as it has bin found to contain incindary matter, and burnt.

Yours &c

J. M. FERGUSON.

The porter of the steamship Marion, named Francis Mitchell, has been tried at Charleston, S. C., for aiding a slave in trying to escape, found guilty, and sentenced to be hanged!

[144]

A New York Captain Fined. The Richmond Enquirer, of Nov. 30, says: “The schooner L. Waterbury, Capt. S. A. Swinnerton, of New York, last July violated the inspection laws of Virginia, and escaped, doubtless believing inspection laws were the greatest of humbugs. She returned to our port last week, when that ever-vigilant Yankee-hunter, W. H. Parker, Chief Inspector, pounced upon the L. Waterbury, at this port, and her captain was compelled to pay $528 fine. The L. Waterbury’s cargo was about $750 in lumber from Florida. Rather an unprofitable voyage for an “enterprising” Yankee.

“This, added to the previous line, swells the amount to $3,000, besides the costs, recovered since last October, for violations of Inspection laws.”

A letter from a Boston gentleman who has gone South for his health, states that on the first day out from Washington, he had a pistol held to his head, and that he was dogged by four Southern men for hundreds of miles, annoyed and insulted until he challenged the whole crowd of them to fight him, whereupon they backed out. All his newspapers from Boston have been withheld from him, and his letters have been broken open before they reached the post-office to which they were sent.

Louisville, March 27th.

A man named Hanson, who was recently expelled from Berea, Madison county, Ky., with J. G. Fee, returned to Berea, whereupon a committee waited upon him, for the purpose of again ordering him from the county. Hanson, with twenty-five or thirty associates, armed with rifles, fired upon the committee, but without injuring any one. Hanson’s party then retreated, and barricaded themselves in a house. The committee, which is composed of twenty-five or thirty men, are armed with revolvers.

DANIEL O’CONNELL

upon

AMERICAN SLAVERY:

with

OTHER IRISH TESTIMONIES.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

1860.

PREFACE.

Among all the distinguished and eloquent advocates of negro emancipation, on either side of the Atlantic, perhaps no one has ever surpassed in earnestness of zeal, or potency of speech, the late Daniel O’Connell, the “Irish Liberator.” Especially was his soul filled with horror and disgust in view of the existence and rapid growth of slavery in America. Whenever he heard our boasts of freedom and equality, and read our Heaven-attested Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and then saw us shamelessly putting millions of an unfortunate race under the lash of the slave-driver, trafficking in their bodies and souls, and depriving them of every human right, a mighty moral conflagration instantly kindled within him! It was then that the flames of his indignation burst out in awful grandeur and with consuming power, the intensity of which, spreading over the vast Atlantic, was felt in every section of our guilty land. To quote his own words:—“It is not England alone that is stained with the crime of oppression: the democratic republic of America shares in the guilt. Oh, the inconsistency of these apostles of liberty, talking of freedom, while they basely and wickedly continue the slavery of their fellowmen! A republican is naturally proud and high-minded, and we may make the pride of the North American republicans the very weapon with which to break down slavery.” Such, too, was the spirit of Ireland’s native poet, Thomas Moore, as expressed in the following lines, descriptive of this terribly paradoxical republic:—

“Who can, with patience, for a moment see
The medley mass of pride and misery,
Of whips and charters, manacles and rights,
Of slaving blacks and democratic whites,
And all the piebald policy that reigns
In free confusion o’er Columbia’s plains?
To think that man, thou just and gentle God!
Should stand before thee with a tyrant’s rod,
O’er creatures like himself, with souls from thee,
Yet dare to boast of perfect liberty!

[4]

Away! away! I ’d rather hold my neck
By doubtful tenure from a Sultan’s beck,
In climes where liberty has scarce been nam’d,
Nor any right but that of ruling claim’d,
Than thus to live where boasted Freedom waves
Her fustian flag in mockery over slaves!
Where motley laws, (admitting no degree
Betwixt the basely slav’d and madly free,)
Alike the bondage and the license suit—
The brute made ruler, and the man made brute!”

There was something sublime in the attitude maintained by O’Connell upon the question of American slavery. If he had courted popularity in this country, he would either have flattered our vices or extenuated our crimes; but he loved uncompromising justice more than he did the transient reputation which general corruption bestows upon its apologist, and impartial liberty more than fame. Every effort was made by the leading Irishmen in the United States, through their “Repeal Associations,” to bribe or to bully him into silence on this subject; but he nobly defied their malice, rebuked their baseness, and spurned their blood-stained money. He rightly predicted that the real friends of freedom on this side of the Atlantic would sympathize with him, and rejoice that he had the moral courage to “tear down the image of liberty from the recreant hand of America, and condemn her as the vilest of hypocrites, the greatest of liars.”

Such was the spirit of Daniel O’Connell—brave, ingenuous, disdaining every trammel, scorning every bribe, soaring above all national and all personal considerations!—“I do not hesitate,” he said, “to declare my opinions. I never faltered in my own sentiments. We might have shrunk from the question of American slavery, but I would consider such a course unworthy of me. We may not get money from America after this declaration; but we do not want blood-stained money. Those who commit, and those who countenance the crime of slavery, I regard as the enemies of Ireland, and I desire to have no sympathy or support from them. I am not bound to look to consequences, but to justice and humanity. Wherever slavery rears its head, I am the enemy of the system. I will take my part in the anti-slavery meeting; and though it should be a blow against Ireland, it is a blow in favor of human liberty, and I will strike that blow. In America, let them execrate me—let their support be taken from Ireland—slavery, I denounce you, wherever you are! Come freedom, come slavery to Ireland—let Ireland be as she may—I will have my conscience clear before my God.”

In the following pages are embodied numerous extracts from the speeches of O’Connell, in reprobation of American slavery, and of all its abettors. Irishmen of America! will you not give heed to these testimonies, and unite as one man in espousing the cause of those in bondage?

EXTRACTS FROM THE SPEECHES OF O’CONNELL.

I now come to America, the boasted land of freedom; and here I find slavery, which they not only tolerate but extend, justified and defended as a legacy left them by us. It is but too true. But I would say unto them, you threw off the allegiance you owed us, because you thought we were oppressing you with the Stamp Act. You boasted of your deliverance from slavery. On what principle, then, do you now continue your fellow-men in bondage, and render that bondage even more galling by ringing in the ears of the sufferers from your tyranny, what you have done, what you have suffered, for freedom? They may retaliate upon us. They may reply by allusions to the slaveries we have established or encouraged. But what would be thought of that man who should attempt to justify the crime of sheep-stealing, by alleging that another stole sheep too? Would such a defence be listened too? Oh, no; and I will say unto you, freemen of American and the press will convey it to you almost as swift as the wind, that God understands you; that you are hypocrites tyrants and unjust men; that you are degraded and dishonored; and I say unto you, dare not to stand up boasting of your freedom or your privileges, while you continue to the men, redeemed by the same blood, as the mere creatures of your will; for while you do so, there is a blot upon your escutcheon which all the waters of the Atlantic cannot wash out.

* * * * * *

Of all men living, an American citizen, who is the owner of slaves, is the most despicable. He is a political hypocrite [6] of the very worst description. The friends of humanity and liberty, in Europe, should join in one universal cry of shame on the American slaveholders! “Base wretches,” should we shout in chorus—“base wretches, how dare you profane the temple of national freedom, the sacred fane of republican rites, with the presence and the sufferings of human beings in chains and slavery?”—Speech delivered at an Anti-Slavery Meeting in 1829.

I speak of liberty in commendation. Patriotism is a virtue, but it can be selfish. Give me the great and immortal Bolivar, the savior and regenerator of his country. He found her a province, and he has made her a nation. His first act was to give freedom to the slaves upon his own estate. (Hear, hear.) In Colombia, all castes and all colors are free and unshackled. But how I like to contrast him with the far-famed northern heroes! George Washington! that great and enlightened character,—the soldier and the statesman,—had but one blot upon his character. He had slaves, and he gave them liberty when he wanted them no longer. (Loud cheers.) Let America, in the fullness of her pride, wave on high her banner of freedom and its blazing stars. I point to her, and say, There is one foul blot upon it; you have negro slavery. They may compare their struggles for freedom to Marathon and Leuctra, and point to the rifleman with his gun, amidst her woods and forests, shouting for liberty and America. In the midst of their laughter and their pride, I point them to the negro children screaming for the mother from whose bosom they have been torn. America, it is a foul stain upon your character! (Cheers.) This conduct, kept up by men who had themselves to struggle for freedom, is doubly unjust. Let them hoist the flag of liberty, with the whip and rack on one side, and the star of freedom upon the other. The Americans are a sensitive people; in fifty-four years they have increased their population from three millions to twenty millions; they have many glories that surround them, but their beams are partly shorn, for they have slaves. (Cheers.) Their hearts do not beat so strong for liberty as mine. * * * * * I will call for justice, in the name of the living God, and I shall find an echo in the breast of every human being. (Cheers.)—Speech delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Cork Anti-Slavery Society, 1829.

[7]

Ireland and Irishmen should be foremost in seeking to effect the emancipation of mankind. (Cheers.) * * * * * The Americans alleged that they had not perpetrated the crime, but inherited it from England. This, however, fact as it was, was still a paltry apology for America, who, asserting liberty for herself, still used the brand and the lash against others. (Hear.) He taunted America with the continuance of slavery; and the voice with which he there uttered the taunt would be wafted on the wings of the press, until it would be heard in the remote wilds of America; it would be wafted over the waters of the Missouri and those of the Mississippi; and even the slaves upon the distant banks of the Ohio would make his words resound in the ears of their heartless masters, and tell them to their face, that they were the victims of cruelty, injustice, and foul oppression. (Cheers.) Bright as was the page of American history, and brilliant as was the emblazonment of her deeds, still, negro slavery was a black, a “damning spot” upon it. Glorious and splendid as was the star-spangled banner of republican America, still it was stained with the deep, foul blot of human blood.—Speech delivered at a Meeting of the Dublin Anti-Slavery Society, 1830.

Man cannot have property in man. Slavery is a nuisance, to be put down, not to be compromised with; and to be assailed without cessation and without mercy by every blow that can be levelled at the monster. * * * * * Let general principles be asserted. And as it is the cause of religion and liberty, all that is wanted is the unwearied repetition of zealous advocacy to make it certainly triumphant. Let every man, then, in whatever position he may be placed, do his duty in crushing that hideous tyranny, which rends the husband from the wife, the children from their parents; which enables one human being, at his uncontrolled will, to apply the lash to the back of his fellow-man.—Speech delivered at the London Anti-Slavery Society, 1830.

We are responsible for what we do, and also for the influence of our example. Think you that the United States of America would be able to hold up their heads among the nations,—the United States, who shook off their allegiance to [8] their sovereign, and declared that it was the right of every man to enjoy freedom—of every man, whether black, white, or red; who made this declaration before the God of armies, and then, when they had succeeded in their enterprise, forgot their vow, and made slaves, and used the lash and the chain,—would they dare to take their place among the nations, if it were not that England countenances them in the practice?—Speech delivered at the General Meeting of the British Anti-Slavery Society, 1831.

My claim to be heard on this occasion is included in one sentence—I am an Abolitionist. (Cheering.) I am for speedy, immediate abolition. (Renewed cheers.) I care not what caste, creed, or color, slavery may assume. Whether it be personal or political, mental or corporeal, intellectual or spiritual, I am for its total, its instant abolition. (Great applause.) I enter into no compromise with slavery. I am for justice, in the name of humanity, and according to the law of the living God.

* * * * * *

The time has now come, when every man who has honest feelings should declare himself the advocate of abolition. He who consents to tolerate crime is a criminal; and never will I lose the slightest opportunity, whether here or in the legislature, or any where else, to raise my voice for liberty,—for the extinction of slavery. (Great applause.) Humanity, justice and religion combine to call upon us to abolish this foul blot. But it is not England or Britain alone that is stained with the crime. The democratic Republic of America shares in the guilt. Oh! the inconsistency of these apostles of liberty talking of freedom, while they basely and wickedly continue the slavery of their fellow-men, the negroes of Africa! A republican is naturally proud and high-minded, and we may make the pride of the North American republicans the very weapon by which to break down slavery; for, if the example of England were gone, they could not, in the face of the world, continue the odious and atrocious system one moment longer. (Cheers.) Abolish it throughout the British colonies, and away it goes in America. (Renewed cheers.)

* * * * * *

[9]

Slavery is a crime, a high crime against Heaven, and its annihilation ought not to be postponed. We have lately heard a good deal of the iniquity of the East India Company getting money from the poor, infatuated wretches who throw themselves beneath the wheel of Juggernaut’s car. This is lamentable indeed; but what care I, whether the instrument of torture be a wheel or a lash? (Applause.) I am against Juggernaut, both in the East Indies and West Indies, and am determined, therefore, not to assist in perpetuating slavery. Is it possible, that where humanity, benevolence and religion are combined, there can be doubt of success? The priests of Juggernaut are respectable persons compared with those who oppose such a combination (applause); and I entreat you to assist in the great work by becoming its apostles.—Speech delivered before the London Anti-Slavery Society, 1831.

I will now go to America. I have often longed to go there, in reality; but, so long as it is tarnished by slavery, I will never pollute my foot by treading on its shores. (Cheers.) In the course of my Parliamentary duty, a few days ago, I had to arraign the conduct of the despot of the North, for his cruelty to the men, women and children of Poland; and I spoke of him with the execration he merits. But, I confess, that although I hate him with as much hatred as one Christian man can hate another human being, viz.: I detest his actions with abhorrence, unutterable and indescribable; yet there is a climax in my hatred. I would adopt the language of the poet, but reverse the imagery, and say,

“In the deepest hell, there is a depth still more profound,”

and that is to be found in the conduct of the American slave-owners. (Cheers.) They are the basest of the base—the most execrable of the execrable. I thank God, that upon the wings of the press, the voice of so humble an individual as myself will pass against the western breeze—that it will reach the rivers, the lakes, the mountains, and the glens of America—and that the friends of liberty there will sympathize with me, and rejoice that I here tear down the image of Liberty from the recreant hand of America, and condemn [10] her as the vilest of hypocrites—the greatest of liars. (Long continued cheers.)

When this country most unjustly and tyrannically oppressed its colonies, and insisted that a Parliament of borough-mongers in Westminster should have the power of putting their long fingers across the Atlantic into the pockets of the Americans, taking out as much as they pleased, and, if they found any thing, leaving what residuum they chose—America turned round, and appealed to justice, and she was right; appealed to humanity, and she was right; appealed to her own brave sword, and she was right, and I glory in it. At that awful period, when America was exciting all the nations of the world; when she was declaring her independence, and her inhabitants pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and invoked the God of charity (whom they foolishly called the God of battles, which he is not, any more than he is the God of murder)—at that awful period, when they laid the foundation of their liberty, they began with these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thus the American has acknowledged what he cannot deny, viz., that God the Creator has endowed man with those inalienable rights. But it is not the white man, it is not the copper-colored man, nor is it the black man alone, who is thus endowed; it is all men who are possessed of these inalienable rights. The man, however, who cannot vote in any State assembly without admitting this as the foundation of his liberty, has the atrocious injustice, the murderous injustice, to trample upon these inalienable rights; as it were, to attempt to rob the Creator of his gifts, and to appropriate to himself his brother man, as if he could be his slave. (Cheers.) Shame be upon America! eternal shame be upon her escutcheon! (Loud cheers.)

Shortly there will not be a slave in the British colonies. Five lines in an Act of Parliament, the other night, liberated nearly 500,000 slaves in the East Indies, at a single blow. The West Indians will be obliged to grant emancipation, in spite of the paltry attempts to prevent it; and we will then turn to America, and to every part of Europe, and require emancipation. [11] (Cheers.) No! they must not think that they can boast of their republican institutions—that they can talk of their strength and their glory. Unless they abolish slavery, they must write themselves down liars, or call a general convention of the States, and blot out the first sentence of their Declaration of Independence, and write in its place, “Liberty in America means the power to flog slaves, and to work them for nothing.” (Loud applause.) * * * *

The voice of Europe will proclaim the slave’s deliverance, and will say to him, “Shed no blood, but take care that your blood be not shed.” I tell the American slave-owner, that he shall not have silence; for, humble as I am, and feeble as my voice may be, yet deafening the sound of the westerly wave, and riding against the blast as thunder goes, it shall reach America, telling the black man that the time for his emancipation has come, and the oppressor that the period of his injustice is soon to terminate! (Cheers.)—Speech delivered at the Great Anti-Colonization Meeting in London, 1833.

Mr. O’Connell presented himself to the meeting, amid the most enthusiastic cheers. After some remarks of a general nature, the Hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to speak in terms of severe censure of the conduct of the Americans, in continuing to keep in bondage the black population in many of their States. He did not wonder at the death-plagues of New Orleans, or the devastation of its people, many of whom enjoyed health and vigor at morn, and were lifeless at noon, when they had committed or countenanced crimes which could only be registered with the annals of Nicholas and the curses of Poland.

The Hon. and learned gentleman read several extracts from an American slaveholding Act, in which it was enjoined that no judge, legislative member, barrister or preacher, should speak or write any thing against slavery, under the pain of being sentenced to not less than three years, and not more than twenty-one years’ imprisonment, or death, at the discretion of the court!!! And that no American should teach a slave to read or write, under pain of not less than three months, and not more than twelve months’ imprisonment. (Hear, hear.) The Hon. and learned gentleman flung this [12] black dishonor on the star-spangled banner of America—in vain did it wave over every sea, proclaiming the honor of the boasted republic of modern times—those who fought under it were felons to the human race, (hear, hear,) traitors to liberty, to their own honor, and blasphemers of the Almighty. “The red arm of God,” continued the Hon. and learned gentleman, “is bared; and let the enemies of those whom his Son died to save, the black man as well as the white man, beware of its vengeance! The lightning careers through the troubled air resistless, amidst the howling of the tempest and rolling of the thunder. Oh, for one moment of poetic inspiration, that my words, with the fire of indignation with which my bosom burns, may be borne on the western breeze across the wide Atlantic, light on their shores, reverberate among their mountains, and be wafted down the rivers of America!”—Speech delivered at an Anti-Slavery Meeting in London, 1835.

He had given the Americans some severe but merited reproofs; for which they had paid him wages in abuse and scurrility. He was satisfied that they had done so. He was accustomed to receive such wages in return for his labors. He had never done good but he was villified for his pains; and he felt that he could not sleep soundly were such opponents to cease abusing him. (Cheers.) He would continue to earn such wages. (Cheers.) By the blessing of God, he would yet trample on the serpent of slave-owning cupidity, and triumph over the hiss of the foul reptile, which marked its agony, and excited his contempt. The Americans, in their conduct towards their slaves, were traitors to the cause of human liberty, and foul detractors of the democratic principle, which he had cherished throughout his political life, and blasphemers of that great and sacred name which they pretended to reverence. In reprobation of their disgraceful conduct, his public voice had been heard across the wide Atlantic. Like the thunder-storm in its strength, it had careered against the breeze, armed with the lightning of Christian truth. (Great cheering.) And, let them seek to repress it as they may; let them murder and assassinate in the true spirit of lynch law; the storm would wax louder and louder around them, till the claims of justice became too strong to be withstood, [13] and the black man would stand up, too big for his chains. It seemed, indeed—he hoped what he was about to say was not profanation—as if the curse of the Almighty had already overtaken them. For the first time in their political history, disgraceful tumult and anarchy had been witnessed in their cities. Blood had been shed without the sanction of law, and even Sir Robert Peel had been enabled—but he was here in danger of becoming political. (Cries of No, no—Go on, and cheers.) Well, then, even Sir Robert Peel had been enabled to taunt the Americans with gross inconsistency and lawless proceedings. He differed from Sir Robert Peel on many points. (Laughter.) Every body knew that. (Renewed laughter.) It was no doubt presumption in him to differ from so great a man, but yet such was the fact. (Laughter.) On one point, however, he fully agreed with him. Let the proud Americans learn, that all parties in this country unite in condemnation of their conduct; and let them also learn that the worst of all aristocracies is that which prevails in America—an aristocracy which had been aptly denominated that of the human skin. The most insufferable pride was that shown by such an aristocracy. And yet he must confess that he could not understand such pride. He could understand the pride of noble descent. He could understand why a man should plume himself on the success of his ancestors in plundering the people some centuries ago. He could understand the pride arising from immense landed possessions. He could even understand the pride of wealth, the fruit of honest and careful industry. Yet when he thought of the color of the skin making men aristocratic, he felt his astonishment to vie with his contempt. Many a white skin covered a black heart; yet an aristocrat of the skin was the proudest of the proud. Republicans were proverbially proud, and therefore he delighted to taunt the Americans with the superlative meanness, as well as injustice, of their assumed airs of superiority over their black fellow-citizens. (Cheers.) He would continue to hurl his taunts across the Atlantic. And, oh!—but perhaps it was his pride that dictated the hope—that some black O’Connell might rise among his fellow slaves, (tremendous cheers,) who would cry, Agitate, agitate, (renewed cheering,) till the two millions and a half of his fellow-sufferers learned the secret of their [14] strength—learned that they were two millions and a half. (Enthusiastic cheers.) If there was one thing which more than another could excite his hatred, it was the laws which the Americans had framed to prevent the instruction of their slaves. To be seen in company with a negro who could write, was visited with imprisonment, (shame!) and to teach a slave the principles of freedom was punished with death. Were these human laws, it might be asked? Were they not laws made by wolves of the forest?—No—they were made by a congregation of two-legged wolves—American wolves—monsters in human shape, who boast of their liberty and of their humanity, while they carry the hearts of tigers within them. (Cheers.)—Speech delivered at the Presentation of the Emancipation Society’s Address to Mr. O’Connell, 1835.

I hate slavery in all countries—the slavery of the Poles in Russia under their miscreant tyrant, and the slavery of the unfortunate men of color under their fellow-men, the boasted friends of liberty in the United States. Let the slave leap up for joy when he hears of the meeting of this day (cheers); let him have the prospect of freedom to cheer him in the decline of life. (Cheers.) We ought to make our exertions strongly, immediately, and unanimously. (Cheers.) Remember what is taking place elsewhere. Only cast your eyes across the Atlantic, and see what is taking place on the American shores. (Cheers.) Behold those pretended sons of freedom—those who declared that every man was equal in the presence of his God—that every man had an inalienable right to liberty—behold them making, in the name of honor, their paltry honor, an organized resistance in Southern Slave States against the advocates of emancipation. Behold them aiding in the robbery committed on an independent State. See how they have seized upon the territory of Texas, taking it from Mexico, Mexico having totally abolished slavery without apprenticeship, (loud cheers,) in order to make it a new market for slavery. (Shame!) Remember how they have stolen, cheated, swindled, robbed that country, for the audacious and horrible purpose of perpetuating negro slavery. (Cries of “Shame!”) Remember that there is now a treaty on foot, in contemplation at least, between the Texians and the President of the United States, and that it is only postponed till this robbery [15] of Texas from Mexico can be completed. Oh! raise the voice of humanity against these horrible crimes! (Cheers.) There is about republicans a sentiment of pride—a feeling of self-exaltation. Let us tell these republicans, that instead of their being the highest in the scale of humanity, they are the basest of the base, the vilest of the vile. (Tremendous cheers.) My friends, there is a community of sentiment all over the world, borne on the wings of the press; and what the humble individual who is now addressing you may state, will be carried across the waves of the Atlantic; it will go up the Missouri—it will be wafted along the banks of the Mississippi—it will reach infernal Texas itself. (Immense cheering.) And though that pandemonium may scream at the sound, they shall suffer from the lash of human indignation applied to their horrible crime. (Cheers.) If they are not arrested in their career of guilt, four new States in America will be filled with slaves. Oh, hideous breeders of human beings for slavery! Such are the horrors of that system in the American States, that it is impossible, in this presence, to describe them; the mind is almost polluted by thinking of them. Should the measures now contemplated by the Americans be accomplished, these horrors will be increased fourfold; and men, with the human soul degraded, will be in a worse state even than the physical degradation of human bodies. (Cheers.) What have we to look to? Their honor—their generosity! We must expect nothing from their generosity. (Cheers.) Sir, I cannot restrain myself. It was only the other day, I read a letter in The Morning Chronicle, from their Philadelphia correspondent. A person, whose Indian name I forget, (a voice, “Osceola,”) but who was called Powell, had carried on a war at the head of the Seminoles, and other Florida tribes, against the people of Florida. He behaved nobly, and bravely fought for his country; and he would have been deified as a hero had he fought in a civilized nation, and testimonials would have been reared to commemorate his deeds, as great and numerous as those which have been raised to a Napoleon or a Wellington. But what happens to this warrior? Why, these Americans, having made a truce with him, invited him to a conference. He comes under the protection of that truce. Thus confiding in their honor, is he allowed to return? Oh no! He is not [16] allowed to return, but is taken prisoner, and carried captive to the fort. (Shame, shame!) Oh, cry out shame, and let that cry be heard across the waves of the mighty ocean! (Cheers.) We are the teachers of humanity, we are the friends of humanity. What does it signify to us, that the crime is not committed on British soil? Wherever it is committed, we are its enemies. (Cheers.) The American, it is true, boasts of having been the first to abolish the slave trade carried on in foreign vessels. Why, he was. But what was the consequence? Every one of his own slaves at home was made of more value to him. It was a swindling humanity. It was worse than our twenty millions scheme. It had the guise of humanity, but had really the spirit of avarice and oppression. (Cheers.) I, perhaps, ought to apologize for detaining you (No, no! Go on!); but we are all children of the same Creator, heirs to the same promise, purchased by the blood of the same Redeemer, and what signifies of what caste, color or creed we may be? (Cheers.) It is our duty to proclaim that the cause of the negro is our cause, and that we will insist upon doing away, to the best of our human ability, the stain of slavery, not only from every portion of this mighty empire, but from the face of the whole earth. (Cheers.) If there be in the huts of Africa, or amidst the swamps of Texas, a human being panting for liberty, let it be proclaimed to him that he has friends and supporters among the great British nation. (Cheers.)—Speech delivered at a Public Meeting of Anti-Slavery Delegates in London, 1837.

It is utterly impossible that any thing should exist more horrible than the American slave-breeding. The history of it is this: The Americans abolished the foreign slave trade earlier than England, but with this consolation—no small comfort to so money-loving a race as the slaveholders—that by such abolition, they enhanced the price of the slaves then in America, by stopping the competition in the home market of newly imported slaves. Why, otherwise, was not the home trade stopped as well as the foreign? The reply is obvious.

To supply the home slave trade, an abominable, a most hideous, most criminal, and most revolting practice of breeding negroes exclusively for sale, has sprung up, and especially, we are told, in Virginia. There are breeding plantations for [17] producing negroes, as there are with us breeding farms for producing calves and lambs. And as our calf and lamb breeders calculate the number of males of the flock to the females, similar calculations are made by the traffickers in human flesh. One instance was mentioned to me of a human breeding farm in America, which was supplied with two men and twelve women. Why should I pollute my page with a description of all that is immoral and infamous in such practice? But only think of the wretched mothers, whom nature compels to love their children—children torn from them for ever, just at the period that they could requite their mother’s love! The wretched, wretched mother! Who can depict the mother’s distraction and madness? “But their maternal feelings are,” says a modern writer, “treated with as much contemptuous indifference, as those of the cows and ewes whose calves and lambs are sent to the English market.”

That it is which stains the character of the American slaveholder, and leaves the breeder of slaves the most detestable of human beings; especially when that slaveholder is a republican, boasting of freedom, shouting for liberty, and declaring, as the charter of his liberal institutions, these are self-evident truths, “that all men are created equal—that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

My sole object in my speech at Birmingham, and present object, is to rouse the attention of England and of Europe to all that is cruel, criminal, and, in every sense of the word, infamous, in the system of negro slavery in North America. My deliberate conviction is, that until that system is abolished, no American slaveholder ought to be received on a footing of equality by any of the civilized inhabitants of Europe.—Letter of Mr. O’Connell to the Editor of the London Morning Chronicle, 1838.

I have no superfluous tears to shed for Ireland, and shall show my love of my country by continuing my exertions to obtain for her justice and good government; but I feel that I have something Irish at my heart, which makes me sympathize with all those who are suffering under oppression, and forces me to give to universal man the benefit of the exertions [18] which are the consequence. (Cheers.) And what adds peculiarly to the claim of Ireland for sympathy and support is, that in the great cause of suffering humanity, no voice was ever raised, but Ireland was found ready to afford relief and succor.—Speech delivered at a Meeting of the British India Society, London, 1839.

He then came to North America, and there, thank God, he found much reason for congratulation. There were now present forty representatives of American Abolition Societies to aid them in the great struggle for human liberty. Let them be honored, in proportion as the slaveholders were execrated. Oh! they had a hard battle to fight! In place of being honored as they were in this land, they had to encounter coolness and outrage; the bowie-knife and lynch law threatened them; they were Abolitionists at the risk of their lives. (Cheers.) Glory to them! A year or two since, he made some observations upon the conduct of the American Minister; he charged him with breeding slaves for sale; he denied it; and, in order to prove who was right, he sent him [Mr. O’Connell] a challenge to fight a duel. (Laughter.) He did not accept it. Nothing would ever induce him to commit murder. God had forbidden it, and he would obey him. (Cheers.) The American Minister denied the charge, but he admitted that he had slaves, and he admitted that he did afterwards sell some; so let him have the benefit of such a denial. (A laugh.) He added, however, that he did not believe that slaves were bred for sale in Virginia. Now, he would read some few extracts from Judge Jay’s book, published in New York, in 1839. He would call Mr. Stevenson’s attention to page 88 of that book, and that would prove to him, not only that slave-breeding existed in Virginia, but within twenty-five miles of his own residence. [The Honorable Gentleman read several extracts, proving the practice; also several advertisements of lots of slaves wanted for ready money, for shipment to New Orleans, and dated in Richmond, the very place of Mr. Stevenson’s residence.] He had established against the Ambassador, that slave-raising did exist in Virginia. Yet all these things took place in a civilized country—a civilized age—advertisements of human flesh for sale, and written in even a more contemptuous manner than if the subjects of [19] them were cattle. The traffic in slaves from the North to the Southern States was immense. In the latter, they were put to the culture of sugar—a horrible culture, that swept off the whole in seven years—every seven years there was a new generation wanted. This was in a community calling themselves civilized. Why, they were worse than the savage beasts of the desert, for they only mangled when driven to it by hunger; but this horrible practice is carried on by well-fed Americans for paltry pecuniary profit—for that low and base consideration, they destroy annually their tens and twenty thousands.

These scenes took place in a country, which, in all other respects, had a fair claim to be called civilized—in a country which had nobly worked out its own freedom—in a country where the men were brave and the women beautiful. Amongst the descendants of Englishmen—even amongst such was to be found a horrible population, whose thirst for gold could only be gratified at the expense of such scenes of human suffering; a population who were insensible to the wrath of God, who were insensible to the cries and screams of mothers and children, torn from each other for ever. But there was one thing they would not be insensible to—they dare not, they would not be insensible to the contempt of Europe. (Loud cheers.) While they embraced the American Abolitionists as friends and brothers, let none of the slave-owners, dealers in human flesh, dare to set a foot upon our free soil. (Cheering.) Let them call upon the Government to protest to America, that they would not receive any slaveholding ambassador. (Loud cheering.) Let them declare that no slave-owner can be admitted into European society; and then Calhoun and Clay, and men like them, who stand up putting forth their claims to be President of the great Republic, must yield to the public, universal opinion. He had made mention of those two men—he would only say that Calhoun was branded with the blood issuing from the stripes of the slave, and Clay drowned in the tears of the mothers and the children. (Cheers.) Let the people of Europe say to slave-owners, “Murderers, you belong not to us! Away to the desert, and herd with kindred savages!” (Cheers.) He begged pardon of the savage. (Laughter.) Sometimes in anger he committed heinous crimes, but he was incapable of [20] coolly calculating how long or how hard he could work a human being with a profit,—sometimes granting him a boon for the purpose of obtaining a year or two more of labor out of him. Well, are we to remain passive as hitherto? (Loud cries of “No, no!”) Let our declaration also go abroad. Let this Society adopt it—let the benevolence and good sense of Englishmen make that declaration. If an American addresses you, find out at once if he be a slaveholder. (Hear, hear.) He may have business with you, and the less you do with him, the better (a laugh)—but the moment that is over, turn from him as if he had the cholera or the plague (cheers)—for there is a moral cholera and a political plague upon him. (Cheers.) He belongs not to your country or your clime—he is not within the pale of civilization or Christianity. (Cheers.) Let us rally for the liberty of the human race (applause)—no matter in what country or in what clime he is found, the slave is entitled to our protection; no matter of what caste, of what creed, of what color, he is your fellow-man—he is suffering injustice; and British generosity, which has done so much already, ought to be cheered to the task by the recollection of the success it has already attained. (Cheers.) * * * I am zealous in the cause, to be sure, but inefficient—acknowledging the humility of the individual, I am still swelled by the greatness of the cause. My bosom expands, and I glory in the domestic struggle for freedom which gave me a title to stand among you, and to use that title in the best way I can, to proclaim humanity to man, and the abolition of slavery all over the world.—Speech delivered at the Anniversary of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 1840.

From this spot, I wish to rouse all the high and lofty pride of the American mind. Republicanism necessarily gives a higher and prouder tone to the human mind than any other form of government. I am not comparing it with any thing else at present; but all history shows there is a pride about republicanism, which, perhaps, is a consolation to the republican for any privations he may suffer, and a compensation for many things in which he may possibly be inferior; but from this spot, I repeat, I wish to rouse all the honesty and pride of American youth and manhood; and would that the voice [21] of civilized Europe would aid me in the appeal, and swell my feeble voice to one shout of honest indignation; and when these Americans point to their boasted Declaration of Independence, exclaim, “Look at your practice!” Can there be faith in man, or reliance placed in human beings, who thus contrast their action with their declarations? * * * That was the first phrase of their boasted Declaration of Independence. What was the last?—“To these principles we solemnly pledge our lives,” (invoking the name of the great God, and calling for his aid,) “we solemnly pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” It has the solemnity without the profaneness of an oath; it speaks in the presence of the living God; it pledges life, fortune, and sacred honor to the principles they assert. How can they lay claim to “sacred honor,” with this dark, emphatic, and diabolical violation of their principles staring them in the face? No! America must know that all Europe is looking at her, and that her Senate, in declaring that there is property in human beings, has violated her oath to God, and “sacred honor” to men. Will the American come down upon me, then, with his republicanism? I will meet him with the taunt, that he has mingled perjury with personal disgrace and dishonor, and inflicted both with a double barb into the character of any man who claims property in any human being. France, and even England, might possibly adopt such a resolution without violating their national honor, because they have made no such declarations as America, and therefore she is doubly dyed in disgrace by the course she has taken, in open opposition to her own charter of Independence. * * * I rejoice to hear the present agitation is striking terror into the hearts of the slave-mongers, whose selfish interests, vile passions, and predominant pride, with all that is bad and unworthy commingled, make them willing to retain their hold of human property, and to work with the bones and blood of their fellow-creatures; whilst a species of democratic aristocracy, the filthiest aristocracy that ever entered into civilized society, is set up in the several States—an aristocracy that wishes to have property without the trouble and toil of earning it, and to set themselves above men, only to plunder them of their natural rights, and to live solely upon their labor. Thus, the gratification of every bad passion, and every base emotion of the human [22] mind, is enlisted in defence of the slaveholder’s right. When we turn our eyes upon America, we see in her Declaration of Independence the display of the democratic elements of popular feeling against every thing like tyranny or oppression. But when I come to the District of Columbia, there I see in the capital and temple of freedom, the negro chained to his toil, and writhing beneath the lash of his taskmaster, and the negress doomed to all the horrors of slavery. There I see their infant, yet unable to understand what it is that tortures its father, or distracts its mother; while that mother is cursing its existence, because it is not a man, but a slave; and almost wishing—oh! what a wringing thought to a mother’s heart—that the child might sink into an early grave, rather than become the property of an excruciating tyrant, and the instrument of wealth to others, without being able to procure comfort and happiness for itself. That is America; that is the land of the free; these are the illustrations of the glorious principles laid down in the Declaration of American Independence! These evils, inflicted as they are by the democratic aristocracy of the States, are worse than ever were inflicted by the most kingly aristocracy, or the most despotic tyranny. I do not mean any thing offensive to our American friends present, but I do say, there is written in letters of blood upon the American escutcheon, robbery and murder, and plunder of human beings. I recognize no American as a fellow-man, except those who belong to anti-slavery societies. Those who uphold slavery are not men as we are, they are not honest as we are; and I look upon a slaveholder as upon a pickpocket, who violates the common laws of property and honesty.

They say that, by their Constitution, they are prevented from emancipating the slaves in the slaveholding States; but I look in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of 1787, and I defy them to find a single word about slavery, or any provision for holding property in man.

No man can deny the personal courage of the American people. With the recollection of the battles of Bunker’s Hill and Saratoga,—of which, indeed, I might be reminded by the portrait which hangs opposite to me, of one of the officers who took an active part in those conflicts, (the Earl of Moira,)—with the recollection, I say, of those battles, it would be disgraceful and dishonest to deny to the American people personal [23] courage and bravery. There exists not a braver people upon the face of the earth. But, amongst all those who composed the Convention of 1787, there was not one man who had the moral courage—I was about to say the immoral courage—to insert the word slavery in the Constitution. No! they did not dare pronounce the word; and if they did not dare to use the word slavery, are they to be allowed to adopt the thing? Is America to shake her star-spangled banner in the breeze, and boast of liberty, while she is conscious that that banner floats over the heads of slaves? Oh, but they call it “persons held to labor”—that is the phrase they use in their Constitution; but dare any one say that slavery is implied in those words? The term applies to any person who enters into a contract to labor, for a given period, as by the month or year, or for an equivalent; but his doing so does not constitute him a slave, surely; the very term is disgraceful to nature, and an affront to nature’s God. No wonder the word was not in their Declaration; you would not look to find words of injustice and cruelty in a declaration of honesty and humanity. I repeat it, they have not used the word. They meant slavery: they intended to have slaves, but they dared not employ the word; and “persons held to labor” was as near as they dared approach to it. Can you conceive of a deeper crime than slavery? A crime which includes in it injustice and cruelty, which multiplies robberies and murders! Ay, there is one thing worse even than this, and that is hypocrisy added to it. Let hypocrisy be superinduced on injustice, and you have, indeed, a character fit to mingle with the murky powers of darkness; and the Americans (I speak not of them all, there are many noble exceptions) have added hypocrisy to their other accomplishments. They say they have no power to emancipate their slaves: is that the real reason? It may be, that they have not power to do so in some particular States; but then, what shall be said of the District of Columbia? There they are not bound by any restriction; yet in that District there are slaves, and there they furnish further proof of their hypocrisy. Oh, say they, we are the finest gentlemen, the wisest statesmen, the most profound legislators in the world. We are ardent lovers of liberty, we detest slavery, and we lament that we have not the power to make all free. Then I whisper, Columbia! [24] Columbia! You have the power there, you have the authority there, to remove this foul blot; you have the means and opportunities; you have, in short, every thing but the will: the will alone is wanting; and, with all your professions, you are hypocrites.

But I will now turn to a subject of congratulation: I mean the Anti-Slavery Societies of America—those noble-hearted men and women, who, through difficulties and dangers, have proved how hearty they are in the cause of abolition. I hail them all as my friends, and wish them to regard me as a brother. I wish for no higher station in the world; but I do covet the honor of being a brother with these American Abolitionists. In this country, the Abolitionists are in perfect safety: here we have fame and honor; we are lauded and encouraged by the good; we are smiled upon and cheered by the fair; we are bound together by godlike truth and charity; and though we have our differences as to points of faith, we have no differences as to this point, and we proceed in our useful career esteemed and honored. But it is not so with our anti-slavery friends in America: there they are villified, there they are insulted. Why, did not very lately a body of men—of gentlemen, so called—of persons who would be angry if you denied them that cognomen, and would even be ready to call you out to share a rifle and a ball—did not such “gentlemen” break in upon an Anti-Slavery Society in America; aye, upon a ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society, and assault them in a most cowardly manner? And did they not denounce the members of that Society? And where did this happen? Why, in Boston—in enlightened Boston, the capital of a non-slaveholding State. In this country, the Abolitionists have nothing to complain of; but in America, they are met with the bowie-knife and lynch law! Yes! in America, you have had martyrs; your cause has been stained with blood; the voice of your brethren’s blood crieth from the ground, and riseth high, not, I trust, for vengeance, but for mercy, upon those who have thus treated them. But you ought not to be discouraged, or relax in your efforts. Here you have honor. A human being cannot be placed in a more glorious position than to take up such a cause under such circumstances. I am delighted to be one of a Convention in which are so many of such great and good men. I trust that [25] their reception will be such as that their zeal may be greatly strengthened to continue their noble struggle. I have reason to hope that, in this assembly, a voice will be raised which will roll back in thunder to America, which will mingle with her mighty waves, and which will cause one universal shout of liberty to be heard throughout the world. Oh, there is not a delegate from the Anti-Slavery Societies of America, but ought to have his name, aye, her name, written in characters of immortality! The Anti-Slavery Societies in America are deeply persecuted, and are deserving of every encouragement which we can possibly give them. I would that I had the eloquence to depict their character aright; but my tongue falters, and my powers fail, while I attempt to describe them. They are the true friends of humanity, and would that I had a tongue to describe aright the mighty majesty of their undertaking! I love and honor America and the Americans. I respect their great principles; their untiring industry; their lofty genius; their social institutions; their morals, such morals as can exist with slavery—God knows they cannot be many—but I respect all in them or about them that is good. But, at the same time, I denounce and anathematize them as slaveholders, and hold them up to the scorn of all civilized Europe. I would that the government of this country would tell the United States of America, that they must send no more slaveholding negotiators here!

I will tell you a little anecdote. Last year, I was accosted with great civility by a well-dressed, gentleman-like person, in the lobby of the House of Commons. He stated that he was from America, and was anxious to be admitted to the House. “From what State do you come?” “From Alabama.” “A slaveholder, perhaps?” “Yes.” “Then,” said I, “I beg to be excused;” and so I bowed and left him. Now, that is an example which I wish to be followed. Have no intercourse with a slaveholder. You may, perhaps, deal with him as a man of business, but, even then, you must act with caution, as you would with a pickpocket and a robber. You ought to be very scant of courtesy towards him, at least until he has cleared himself of the foul imputation. Let us beware of too much familiarity with such men; and let us plainly and honestly tell them, as a Convention, what we think of them. I am not for the employment of force; no—let [26] all be done by the statement of indisputable facts; by the diffusion of information; by the union of benevolent minds; by our bold determination to expose tyranny and cruelty; by proclaiming to the slaveholders that, so long as they have any connection with the accursed traffic in human beings, we hold them to be a different race. Why should it not be so? Why should we not shrink from them, as we would with shuddering from the approach of the vilest reptiles? The declaration of such views and feelings from such a body of men as are now before me, will make the slaveholders tremble. My voice is feeble; but I have no doubt that what I say will reach them, and that it will have some influence upon them. They must feel that they cannot much longer hold the sway. One of the great objects of my hope is to affright the Americans by laying hold upon their pride, their vanity, their self-esteem, by commending what is excellent in them, and by showing how very far they come short in those proprieties upon which they boast themselves. I would have this Convention avail themselves of all such aids, and to urge them by every possible argument to abandon the horrid vice by which their character is so foully disfigured. * * * We have proof this day that there are those who love the cause of freedom in every part of the globe. And why should it not be so? Why should not all unite in such a glorious cause? We are all formed by the same Creator; we are alike the objects of the same watchful Providence; we are all the purchase of the same redeeming blood; we have one common Savior; and our hearts beat high with the same immortal hopes. And why should any portion of the human race be shut out from our affection and regard? * * * O, let our word go forth from this place, that we do not deem the Americans Christians, by whatever name they are called, whether Episcopalians, or Baptists, or Independents, or Methodists, or whatever other name,—that we regard them not as Christians at all, unless they cordially unite with us in this great work. We honor all that is really good in America, and would have it all on our side in this glorious struggle—in this holy cause. Let us unite and persevere, and, by the blessing of God, and the aid of good men, freedom will, ere long, wave her triumphant banner over emancipated America, and we shall unite with the whole world to rejoice in the result.—Speech at the World’s Anti-Slavery Convention, held in Freemason’s Hall, London, June, 1840.

[27]

At a special meeting of the Loyal National Repeal Association, held in the Great Room, Corn Exchange, Dublin, May 9, 1843,—James Haughton, Esq., in the chair,—

Mr. O’Connell said—The Association had adjourned to that day for the purpose of receiving a communication with which they had been honored from the Anti-Slavery Society of America—a body of men whom they most entirely respect—whose objects should be cherished in their hearts’ core—whose dangers enhanced their virtues—and whose persevering patriotism would either write their names on the pages of temporal history, or impress them in a higher place, where eternal glory and happiness would be the reward of their exertions. (Cheers.) His impressions were so strong in favor of the Anti-Slavery Society of America, that he thought it would not be so respectful as he would desire, if he brought forward that document in the routine of business on the last day, when it could not be so much attended to as it deserved. (Hear, hear.) It was out of respect to the people who sent that document, that they had adjourned; and he might say, that personal respect for the Chairman was mixed up with that consideration. (Cheers.) They could not have sent a better message, or a more sincere one; and, if he now had the kindness to make the communication, they would receive it with the respect it deserved. (Cheers.)

The Anti-Slavery Address having been read,—

Mr. O’Connell then said:—I rise with the greatest alacrity to move that that most interesting document be inserted on the minutes, and that the fervent thanks of the Repeal Association of Ireland be by acclamation voted to the writers of it. I never in my life heard any thing read that imposed more upon my feelings, and excited a deeper sympathy and sorrow within me. I never, in fact, before knew the horrors of slavery in their genuine colors. It is a production framed in the purest effort of simplicity, but, at the same time, powerful in its sentiments, so at once to reach the human heart, and stir up the human feelings to sorrow and execration,—sorrow for the victims, and execration for the tyrants. (Loud cries of hear, hear, and cheers.) It will have its effect throughout Ireland; for the Irish people did not know what [28] was, alas! familiar to you, Sir, and to me,—the real state of slavery in America, and of the unequalled evils it inflicts; for slavery, wherever it exists, is the bitterest potion that can be commended to the lips of man. Let it be presented in any shape, and it must disgust, for a curse inherent to it grows with it, and inflicts oppression and cruelty wherever it descends. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) We proclaim it an evil; and though, as a member of this Association, I am not bound to take up any national quarrel, still, I do not hesitate to declare my opinions; I never paltered in my own sentiments. (Cheers.) I never said a word in mitigation of slavery in my life; and I would consider myself the most criminal of human beings if I had done so. (Hear, and cheers.)

Yes, I will say, shame upon every man in America, who is not an anti-slavery man; shame and disgrace upon him! I don’t care for the consequences. I will not restrain my honest indignation of feeling. I pronounce every man a faithless miscreant, who does not take a part for the abolition of slavery. (Tremendous cheering for several minutes.) It may be said that offence will be taken at these words. Come what may from them, they are my words. (Renewed applause.) The question never came regularly before us until now. We had it introduced collaterally; we had it mentioned by persons who were friends of ours, and who were endeavoring to maintain good relations between us and the slaveholders, but it is only now that it comes directly before us. We might have shrunk from the question by referring the document to a committee; but, I would consider such a course unworthy of me, enjoying as I do the confidence of the virtuous, the religious, and the humane people of Ireland; for I would be unfit to be what I desire to consider myself, the representative of the virtues of the people, if I were not ready to make every sacrifice for them, rather than to give the least sanction to human slavery.

They say that the slaves are worse treated, since the cry of the Abolitionists has been raised in their favor, as it has made their masters more suspicious of them, and more severe against them; but has that any weight with me? How often was I told, during our agitation, that “the Catholics would be emancipated but for the violence of that O’Connell”! (Laughter.) Why, one of the cleverest men in the country wrote a [29] pamphlet in 1827, in which he stated that the Protestants of Ireland would have emancipated their Catholic countrymen long before, but for me, and fellows of my kind; and yet, two years after, I got emancipation in spite of them. (Cheers.) But it is clearly an insult to the understanding to speak so. When did tyranny relax its gripe merely because it ought to do so? (Hear.) As long as there was no agitation, the masters enjoyed the persecution of their slaves in quietness; but the moment the agitation commenced, they cried out, “Oh, it is not the slaves we are flogging, but we are flogging through his back the anti-slavery men.” (Laughter.) But the subject is too serious for ridicule. I am afraid they will never give up slavery until some horrible calamity befalls their country; and I here warn them against the event, for it is utterly impossible that slavery can continue much longer. (Hear, hear.) But, good Heaven! can Irishmen be found to justify, or rather to palliate, (for no one could dare attempt to justify,) a system which shuts out the book of human knowledge, and seeks to reduce to the condition of a slave, 2,500,000 human beings;—which closes against them not only the light of human science, but the rays of divine revelation, and the doctrines which the Son of God came upon the earth to plant! The man who will do so belongs not to my kind. (Hear, hear.) Over the broad Atlantic I pour forth my voice, saying, “Come out of such a land, you Irishmen; or, if you remain, and dare countenance the system of slavery that is supported there, we will recognize you as Irishmen no longer.” (Hear, hear, and cheers.) * *

I say the man is not a Christian,—he cannot believe in the binding law of the Decalogue. He may go to the chapel or the church, and he may turn up the whites of his eyes, but he cannot kneel as a Christian before his Creator, or he would not dare to palliate such an infamous system. No, America! the black spot of slavery rests upon your star-spangled banner; and no matter what glory you may acquire beneath it, the hideous, damning stain of slavery rests upon you, and a just Providence will sooner or later avenge itself for your crime. (Loud and continued cheers.) Sir, I have spoken the sentiments of the Repeal Association. (Renewed cheers.) There is not a man amongst the hundreds of thousands that belong to our body, or amongst the millions that [30] will belong to it, who does not concur in what I have stated. We may not get money from America after this declaration; but even if we should not, we do not want blood-stained money. (Hear, hear.) If they make it the condition of our sympathy, or if there be implied any submission to the doctrine of slavery on our part, in receiving their remittance, let them cease sending it at once. But there are wise and good men every where, and there are wise and good men in America,—and that document which you have read, Sir, is a proof, among others, that there are; and I would wish to cultivate the friendship of such men; but the criminals and the abettors,—those who commit, and those who countenance the crime of slavery,—I regard as the enemies of Ireland, and I desire to have no sympathy or support from them. (Cheers.)

I have the honor to move that this document be inserted in full upon our minutes, and that the most grateful thanks of the Repeal Association be given to the Anti-Slavery Society of America who sent it to us, and, in particular, to the two office-bearers, whose names are signed to it.

At a meeting of the Loyal National Repeal Association, in Dublin, August 8, 1843, Mr. O’Connell, in the course of a powerful Anti-Slavery speech, said—

A disposition was evinced in America to conciliate the opinion of that Association in favor of the horrid system of slavery, but they refused, of course, to show any sanction to it. (Hear, and cheers.)

He had taken an active part in the Anti-Slavery Society from the moment that he was competent to discover any one body of men acting for the extinction of slavery all over the world; and he stood in that Association as the representative of the Irish people, who had themselves suffered centuries of persecution, because they were attached to humanity, and to what justice and reason demanded; for if they had chosen to be silent, and had bowed to authority—if they had acquiesced in the dictation of their masters and tyrants, they would have escaped many temporary sufferings, but they would not have acquired the glory of having adhered with religious fidelity to their principles. Standing as their representative, [31] he could not act otherwise than he had done, though the liberty of Ireland, the repeal of the Union itself, were to abide the result. He was bound not to look to consequences, but to justice and humanity; and come what would, he did not hesitate to throw heart and soul into his opposition to the system that would treat human beings as brute beasts of the field. He spoke distinctly and emphatically, for as he wanted to make an impression, he used harsher words than he would have done, if he did not know that harsh words were necessary to rouse the selfish temperament of the domineering master of slaves. And he did make that sensation, and he was glad of it.

At a meeting of the Loyal National Repeal Association, held in Conciliation Hall, Dublin, Sept. 29th, 1845, Mr. O’Connell, speaking on the subject of American slavery, said—

I have been assailed for attacking the American institution, as it is called, negro slavery. I am not ashamed of that attack—I do not shrink from it. I am the advocate of civil and religious liberty all over the globe, and wherever tyranny exists, I am the foe of the tyrant; wherever oppression shows itself, I am the foe of the oppressor; wherever slavery rears its head, I am the enemy of the system, or the institution, call it by what name you will. (Great cheering.) I am the friend of liberty in every clime, class, and color:—my sympathy with distress is not confined within the narrow bounds of my own green island—no, it extends itself to every corner of the earth—my heart walks abroad, and wherever the miserable is to be succored, and the slave is to be set free, there my spirit is at home, and I delight to dwell in its abode. (Enthusiastic cheering.) It has been asked, What business has O’Connell to interfere with American slavery? Why, do not the Americans show us their sympathy for our struggles, and why should we not show a sympathy in efforts for liberty amongst themselves? (Cheers.) But I confess I have another strong reason for desiring to abolish slavery in America. In no monarchy on the face of the earth is there such a thing as domestic slavery. It is true, in some colonies belonging to monarchies, slavery exists; but in no European [32] country is there slavery at all—for the Russian serf is far different from the slave of America, and therefore I do not wish that any lover of liberty should be able to draw a contrast between the democratic republic of America and the despotic States of Europe. (Hear, hear.) I am in favor of the democratic spirit, and I wish to relieve it from the horrors of slavery. (Cheers.) I do not wish to visit America with force and violence—I would be the last man in the world to consent to it. I would not be for making war to free the negro—at least, not for the war of knife, and lash, and sword; but I would be for the moral warfare—I would be for the arms of argument and humanity to procure the extinction of tyranny, and to hurl contempt and indignation on those who call themselves freemen, and yet keep others in slavery. I would bring elements of that kind to bear upon the system, until the very name of slavery should be regarded with horror in the republic of America. (Cheers.) * * *

In the year ’25, when I left my profession and went over to England, there was an anti-slavery meeting, at which I was present and spoke; and afterwards, when I went to Parliament, another meeting was appointed, greater in magnitude. The West India interest was 27 strong in the House of Commons—the Algerine bill was carried through the House by a majority of 19—therefore, the emancipation bill was in the power of the West India interest; but when they sent a respected friend of mine—the Knight of Kerry—to me, to ask why I did not take a certain course with regard to it, what was my answer? “I represent the Irish people here, and I will act as the Irish people will sanction. Come liberty, come slavery to myself, I will never countenance slavery, at home or abroad!” (Cheers.) I said I came here on principle; the Irish people sent me here to carry out their principles; their principles are abhorrent of slavery; and, therefore, I will take my part at that anti-slavery meeting; and though it should be a blow against Ireland, it is a blow in favor of human liberty, and I will strike that blow. (Cheers.) So far was I from cultivating the slavery interest, that I adopted that course, though I regretted to lose their votes. But I must do them the credit to say, that I did not lose them. They acted nobly, and said they would not revenge upon Ireland my attack upon them. (Cheers.) * * * * [33] Let them blame me—in America let me be execrated by them—let their support be taken from Ireland—Slavery, I denounce you wherever you are! (Loud cheers.) Come freedom, come oppression to Ireland—let Ireland be as she may—I will have my conscience clear before my God. (Continued cheers.) * * * *

They were told that the speech he made in that room would put an end to the remittances from America, and that the Americans would not again contribute to the funds of the Association. If they should never get one shilling from America, his course was plain, his path was obvious. He was attached to liberty; he was the uncompromising hater of slavery wherever it was to be found. (Cheers.)

Have I traduced the Americans, when I talked of the horrors of domestic slavery? I happened to receive a New Orleans paper, published in the centre of domestic slavery—it is called the Jeffersonian Republic, and I shall read an extract from it. By that I perceive that, in connection with the institution of slavery in New Orleans—for I find that, in America, they call it an institution—there are public whipping places—men are licensed to keep shambles of torture, (Hear, hear,)—the master sends his slave to those shambles, there to get one hundred lashes, and the man gets the hundred lashes, or whatever degree of punishment his master desires. (Hear, hear.) There are actually shambles kept there for the torture of slaves, and there are persons who earn a livelihood—what a hideous livelihood!—by flogging human beings at the instance of those who are called their masters. (Hear, hear.) Am I to blame if I attack a system of that kind? (Hear, hear.) Male or female—young or old—whipped at the discretion of a man whose only limit is not actually killing the individual! (Hear, hear.) They would thus make the slave declare whether he is guilty of a theft or not. Are they, I ask, Christian men who endure to see these scenes going on around them? (Hear, hear.) Recollect that this is not the statement of a calumniator, or a libeller, or foreign emissary, but it is the statement published in the darkest hole of slavery, New Orleans itself. (Hear, hear.)—Speech before the Dublin Repeal Association, September, 1844.

[34]

[37]

[43]

[47]

[48]

THE

RIGHT WAY THE SAFE WAY,

proved by

EMANCIPATION IN THE BRITISH WEST INDIES,

AND ELSEWHERE.

BY L. MARIA CHILD.

“The world is beginning to understand, that injuring one class, for the immediate benefit of another, is ultimately injurious to that other; and that to secure prosperity to a community, all interests must be consulted.”

—Dr. Davy.

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE AT 5 BEEKMAN STREET.

1860.

CHAPTER I. THE WEST INDIES BEFORE THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

It is a common idea that the British West Indies were a mine of wealth before the abolition of slavery, and since that event have been sinking into ruin. To correct those erroneous impressions, I have carefully collected the following facts from authentic sources:—

Official Reports, returned to the British Parliament, prove that the outcry about ruin in the West Indies began long before the abolition of slavery, and even before the abolition of the slave trade; and we ought, moreover, never to forget that this outcry related solely to the ruin of the masters; nobody expended a thought upon the ruin of their 800,000 laborers.

As early as 1792, a Report to Parliament stated that, in the course of the preceding twenty years, one hundred and seventy-seven estates in Jamaica had been sold for the payment of debts; the cultivation of fifty-five had been abandoned; ninety-two were in the hands of creditors; and 80,021 executions, amounting to £22,500,000 sterling ($109,012,500), had been lodged in the provost marshal’s office. In 1805, the Reports described the condition of the West India planters as one of “increasing embarrassment, and impending ruin.” The Reports in 1807, 1808, 1812, 1830, and 1832, were still more lamentable. In 1830, four years before emancipation, Lord Chandos presented to Parliament a petition from West India planters and merchants, setting forth “the extreme distress under which they labored.” In his speech, in support of the petition, he said, “They are reduced to a state in which they are obliged earnestly to solicit relief from Parliament. It is not possible for them to stand up against such a pressure any longer.” Mr. Bright said: “The distress of the West India Colonies [4] is unparalleled in the country. Many families, who formerly lived in comparative affluence, are reduced to absolute penury.” The West India Reporter also quoted thus from a Report on the commercial state of the Colonies: “There are strong concurrent testimonies and proofs that, unless some speedy and efficient measures of relief are adopted, the ruin of a great number of the planters must inevitably take place.” An able writer in the Edinburgh Review informs us that, “In the small island of St. Lucia an Encumbered Estate Court was established in 1833, and, small as that island is, [6]in the first eighteen months, liabilities were recorded to the enormous amount of £1,089,965 ($5,280,880); all debts incurred under slavery. Nor did that island stand alone. In each one of them the same state of things prevailed.” The laborers were decreasing rapidly. The Edinburgh Review declares: “What gave the death-blow to slavery, in the minds of British statesmen, was the appalling fact that the Population Returns, from only eleven of the Colonies, showed that, in the course of twelve years, the slaves had decreased 60,219. Had similar returns been procured from the other seven Colonies, they must have shown a decrease of little, if at all, less than 100,000. Had the same rate of decrease gone on, one century would have seen the extinction of slavery by the extinction of the slaves.” Production was also decreasing. A table of exports, in the Appendix to Mr. Bigelow’s work on Jamaica, shows that, in the ten years ending 1830, there was a decrease in that island, of 201,843 hogsheads of sugar, from the amount in the ten years ending with 1820. In view of these, and similar facts, the Edinburgh Review says: “Plainly, the artificial, arbitrary interference of law with the freedom of man, and freedom of trade, was bringing about the extinction of the working-class, and was whirling their masters along to utter ruin.” [7]

[5]

At the time when the planters were complaining of such excessive embarrassments, they had a monopoly of the sugar market in Great Britain, so close that not even the East India Colonies were allowed to compete with them; a monopoly, which cost the comsumers $25,000,000 annually. They paid no wages to their laborers; and furnished them merely with rags to tie about their loins, and enough of coarse food to keep them in working condition. Yet while they produced from a prolific soil the great staples of commerce, without paying for the labor, and with an enormous premium from the consumers in Great Britain, they were so nearly reduced to “ruin,” that they were compelled “earnestly to solicit relief from Parliament.”

A few facts will help to explain this apparent anomaly. In the first place, the system of slavery contravenes all the laws of human nature, and therefore contains within itself the seed of ultimate ruin. It takes away the motive power from the laborers, who naturally desire to shirk as much as possible of the work, which brings them no pay; consequently, overseers and drivers must be hired to force out of them their unwilling toil. It makes them indifferent to the destruction of property on estates, in whose prosperity they have no interest. It stimulates them to theft, by perpetual privations, from which they have no prospect of relief. It kills their ingenuity and enterprise, by rendering them utterly unavailing for any improvement in their own condition; while all their faculties are stupefied by the extreme ignorance in which they must necessarily be kept in order to be held in slavery. The effects on the white population are quite as injurious, though in a different way. Slavery unavoidably renders labor a degradation, and consequently, it is a matter of pride with them to live in idleness. Extravagance and dissipation follow of course. All, who have examined into the subject, are aware that intemperance, licentiousness, and gambling, are fearfully prevalent in slave-holding countries. One hint will suffice to suggest the immoral condition of the West Indies, during slavery. It is a well-known fact that the white subordinates employed by planters were very liable to lose their situations if they married; because it was for the interest of the proprietors to have them live with slaves, and raise up laborers for the [6] estates. As for the slaves, being regarded as animals, and treated like live-stock, they unavoidably lived like animals. Modesty and self-respect were impossible to their brutalized condition. In this Tract, I merely aim at presenting a business-view of the subject. Therefore, I will not describe the cruelties, which were continually practised, and which kept the worst passions of both masters and slaves in perpetual excitement. The barbarities recorded were the same that always must prevail, under a system of coerced labor and irresponsible power.

In addition to the unavoidable expenses, and inevitable deterioration involved in the very nature of slavery, the West India planters had another difficulty to contend with. “Nearly the whole of the sugar estates were owned by absentees, the greater part of whom never set foot in the islands.” This involved the necessity of hiring managers and attorneys to look after the property. Mr. Bigelow computes the average annual expense of an estate to have been $3,000, solely to pay for the absence of the proprietor. The Rev. Henry Bleby, who was a missionary in the West Indies before emancipation, and has resided there ever since, says: “Let us look at the condition of a West India estate under slavery. There were four or five hundred slaves. True, there was little expended for their food; but their masters had to supply them with so many yards of cloth a year, and several other small articles. That was one item of expense. Then, to superintend the labor of these slaves, there must be four bookkeepers, as they were called; one to superintend the still, another the boiling-house, another the cattle on the estate, and another, sometimes two or three others, to superintend the people in the field. All these had to be fed and salaried. Then there was the overseer, with his harem, living at considerable expense out of the estate, and at a high salary. Over all these was the attorney, who took his commission out of every thing the estate produced, and lived in the great house with his servants and harem. Then there was the proprietor living with his family in princely style, in France or England. All this was to be drawn out of the produce of one estate! I should like to know whether there is any property that would not be brought to ruin, with so many living upon it, and out of it.”

[7]

Everybody knows how property is cared for, when there are none but hirelings to look after it. All accounts of the West Indies abound with the complaints of proprietors concerning the neglect, wastefulness, and fraud of their subordinates. Accumulation of salaries being the principal object in view, one manager often superintended many estates. Dr. Davy, in his work on the West Indies, speaks of twenty-three estates in Montserrat, managed by one agent. He reports nineteen of them as “imperfectly cultivated,” or “abandoned;” which is by no means surprising, under the circumstances. Mr. Bigelow met in Jamaica, a gentleman who had come from England to ascertain why he was always sinking more and more money upon his estate. Upon inquiry, he discovered that his manager lived sixty miles from the property, and had never seen it.

With such drains upon their income, the proprietors were, of course, obliged to borrow money continually. Year after year, a gambling game was carried on between them and the merchants of London. The merchant would advance money to the planter, on condition that all the produce of the estate should be consigned to his house, and that whatever was needed on the estate, in his line of business, should be bought of him. The merchant charged what price he pleased for his own articles, and took what commission he pleased for selling the produce. “Thus,” says Mr. Bigelow, “the planter’s candle was burning at both ends.” If there was a hurricane, or a severe drought, or an insurrection of the slaves, which caused a failure of the crops, the proprietor was obliged to mortgage his lands to get the necessary supply of money. Thus a great many of the estates passed into the hands of British merchants, and had a heavy interest to pay in addition to other expenses.

Such was the state of things, when the British people, ignorant of this financial chaos, and actuated solely by motives of justice and humanity, started the idea of abolishing slavery. When the planters became aware that the measure might be carried, they met it with a furious storm of opposition. They characterized it as an “impertinent interference with their rights,” and threatened to withdraw from the British government, unless the project were relinquished. Still they petitioned for relief; any kind of relief, [8] except from the destructive system, which had brought them to the verge of ruin. To that they swore they never would submit. Missionaries, who went to the West Indies to impart religious instruction to the slaves, were assaulted with brickbats and imprisoned on false pretences. Their houses were attacked, and their chapels demolished. A Colonial Union was formed, the object of which was to drive away every instructor of the negroes. Those in England, who sought to help on the cause of emancipation, were hated with inconceivable intensity. Women in the West Indies expressed a wish to get hold of Wilberforce “that they might pull his heart out.” With these wrathful vociferations were mingled every form of lamentable prediction concerning the ruin “fanatical philanthropists” were bringing on the Colonies. They said if their mad designs were carried into execution, the masters would all have their throats cut, and their houses burned. What they seemed especially concerned about was that “the negroes could not possibly take care of themselves.” They were too lazy to work without the whip. They would abscond to the woods, and live there like animals. The few, who might be willing to work, would be robbed by the others; that would lead to continual fighting, and there would be prodigious slaughter. Thousands also would die of disease, from want of the fostering care of their masters. In short, blacks and whites would all be swallowed up in one great gulf of swift destruction.

The Colonial press was, of course, on the side of slavery. There was all manner of suppression of truth, and propagation of every sort of falsehood on the subject. But through all these obstacles, the work of reform went slowly and steadily on. It took twenty years of hard labor and violent agitation to abolish the slave-trade; then eleven years, still more stormy, to abolish the system. But, at last, the Act of Emancipation was passed, and went into effect in 1834. The slaves received nothing from the British government for centuries of unrequited toil. But £20,000,000 ($96,900,000) were paid to the masters, for ceasing to extort labor by the lash. That was called Compensation. With the idea of preparing the bondmen for freedom, the Act of Emancipation was unfortunately clogged with an Apprenticeship [9] System, by which it was ordained that the emancipated laborers were to work six years for their masters, without wages, as before. But they were to work nine hours a day, instead of twelve; and were to have half of Friday, and the whole of Saturday, for themselves. The power of punishing was also taken from masters, and transferred to magistrates. Household slaves were to become entirely free in 1838, and field slaves in 1840.

Men long accustomed to arbitrary power are not easily convinced that it is both right and politic to relinquish the exercise of it. Moreover, we are all, more or less, the creatures of custom and prejudice. Therefore, it is not surprising that the great body of the planters were opposed to emancipation, until the eventful crisis had actually passed. Up to the last month, they remonstrated, and threatened, and entreated the Home Government not to consign them to such inevitable destruction. Many judicious and kindly men among them thought otherwise. They were convinced that the present system was certainly bringing ruin upon the Colonies, and they felt persuaded that nothing worse could come in its place. Their belief in the safety of emancipation was partly founded upon general principles of human nature, and partly upon their experimental knowledge of the docility of the negroes, when justly and humanely treated. But very few of these individuals dared, however, to express such opinions; for the community was in such an excited state, that they were sure to suffer for it, in some form or other.

Mr. James Scotland, of St. John’s, Antigua, said to Mr. Thome: “Whoever was known or suspected of being an advocate for freedom, became an object of vengeance, and was sure to suffer by a loss of business, if in no other way. Every attempt was made to deprive my son of business, as a lawyer; and I was thrown into prison, without any form of trial, or any opportunity of saying one word in my own defence. There I remained, till discharged by the peremptory orders of the Colonial Secretary, to whom I appealed for relief. The opinions of the clergymen and missionaries, with the exception of a few of the clergy, were favorable to emancipation; but neither in their conduct, preaching, nor prayers, did they declare themselves openly, until the measure [10] of abolition was determined on. The missionaries felt restrained by their instructions from home; and the clergy thought it did not comport with their order to take part in politics. I never heard of a single planter, who was favorable, until about three months before emancipation took place; when some few of them began to perceive that it would be advantageous to their interest.”

Mr. Thome, in his work on the West Indies, says: “We were informed that, some time previous to the abolition of slavery, a meeting of the influential men in Antigua was called at St. John’s, to memorialize Parliament against the measure of abolition. When the meeting convened, the Hon. Samuel O. Baijer, who had been the champion of the opposition, was called upon to propose a plan of procedure. To the consternation of the pro-slavery meeting, their leader rose and spoke to the following effect: ‘Gentlemen, my previous sentiments on this subject are well known to you all. Be not surprised to learn that they have undergone an entire change. I have not altered my views without deliberation. For several days past I have been making calculations with regard to the probable results of emancipation; and I have ascertained, beyond a doubt, that I can cultivate my estate at least one-third cheaper by free labor, than by slave labor.’ The honorable gentleman proceeded to draw out the details of his calculations, and he presented an array of pecuniary considerations altogether new and imposing to the majority of the assembly. After he had finished his remarks, Mr. S. Shands, Member of Assembly, and a wealthy proprietor, observed that he entertained precisely the same views with those just expressed; but he thought the honorable gentleman had been unwise to utter them in so public a manner; for should these sentiments reach the ear of Parliament, it might induce them to withhold compensation. Colonel Edwards, Member of Assembly, rose and said he had long been opposed to slavery, but had not dared to avow his sentiments.”

When the question came before the Colonial Assembly similar discussions ensued. The abolition of slavery was now seen to be inevitable. The only alternative presented to the colonists was the apprenticeship system, or immediate, unconditional emancipation. When the question came to [11] this issue in the Antigua Assembly, both bodies unanimously passed a bill in favor of immediate emancipation; on the ground that it was the wisest policy.

The first of August, 1834, was the day fixed by Parliament for the Abolition Act to go into effect. As the time approached, a heavy cloud lowered over the minds of most of the white population. A merchant of St. John’s told Mr. Thome that several American vessels which had lain in the harbor, weighed anchor on the 31st of July, through actual fear that the island would be destroyed on the following day; and they earnestly entreated the merchant to escape with them, if he valued his life. Many planters believed it would be unsafe to go out in the evening, after emancipation. Some timid families did not venture to go to bed on the night of the 31st. They waited anxiously for the hour of midnight, fearing that the same bell which proclaimed “Liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof,” would prove the signal for general conflagration, and massacre of the white inhabitants. [8]

CHAPTER II. ANTIGUA, AFTER IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL EMANCIPATION.

When the clock began to strike twelve, on the 31st of July, 1834, there were nearly 30,000 slaves in the island of Antigua; when it ceased to strike, they were all freemen!

I extract from Thome’s West Indies the following account of that glorious transition: “The Wesleyans kept ‘watch-night’ in all their chapels. One of the missionaries gave us an account of the watch-meeting at the chapel in St. John’s. The spacious house was filled with the candidates for liberty. All was animation and eagerness. A mighty chorus of voices swelled the song of expectation and joy; and, as they united in prayer, the voice of the leader was drowned in the universal acclamations of thanksgiving, and praise, and blessing, and honor, and glory to God, who had come down for their deliverance. In such exercises the evening was spent, until the hour of twelve approached. The missionary then proposed that when the cathedral clock should begin to strike, the whole congregation should fall on their knees, and receive the boon of freedom in silence. Accordingly, as the loud bell tolled its first note, the crowded assembly prostrated themselves. All was silence! save the quivering, half-stifled breath of the struggling spirit. Slowly the tones of the clock fell upon the waiting multitude. Peal on peal, peal on peal, rolled over the prostrate throng, like angels’ voices, thrilling their weary heart-strings. Scarcely had the last tone sounded, when lightning flashed vividly, and a loud peal of thunder rolled through the sky. It was God’s pillar of fire! His trump of Jubilee! It was followed by a moment of profound silence. Then came the outburst! They shouted ‘Glory! Hallelujah!’ They clapped their hands, they leaped up, they fell down, they [13] clasped each other in their free arms, they cried, they laughed, they went to and fro, throwing upward their unfettered hands. High above all, a mighty sound ever and anon swelled up. It was the utterance of gratitude to God, in broken negro dialect.

“After this gush of excitement had spent itself, the congregation became calm, and religious exercises were resumed. The remainder of the night was spent in singing and prayer, in reading the Bible, and in addresses from the missionaries, explaining the nature of the freedom just received, and exhorting the people to be industrious, steady, and obedient to the laws, and to show themselves in all things worthy of the high boon God had conferred upon them.

“The first of August came on Friday; and a release from all work was proclaimed, until the next Monday. The great mass of the negroes spent the day chiefly in the churches and chapels. The clergy and missionaries, throughout the island, actively seized the opportunity to enlighten the people on all the duties and responsibilities of their new relation. We were assured that, in every quarter, the day was like a sabbath. A sabbath indeed! when ‘the wicked ceased from troubling, and the weary were at rest.’ Many of the planters informed us that they went to the chapels where their own people were assembled, and shook hands with them, and exchanged hearty good wishes.

“At Grace Hill, a Moravian missionary station, the emancipated negroes begged to have a sunrise meeting on the first of August, as they had been accustomed to have at Easter; and as it was the Easter Morning of their freedom, the request was granted. The people all dressed in white, and walked arm in arm to the chapel. There a hymn of thanksgiving was sung by the whole congregation kneeling. The singing was frequently interrupted by the tears and sobs of the melted people, until finally, they were overwhelmed by a tumult of emotion. The missionary, who was present, said the scene was indescribable.

“Planters and missionaries, in every part of the island, told us there was not a single dance, by night or day; not even so much as a fiddle played. There were no drunken carousals, no riotous assemblies. The emancipated were as [14] far from dissipation and debauchery, as they were from violence and carnage. Gratitude was the absorbing emotion. From the hill-tops and the valleys, the cry of a disenthralled people went upward, like the sound of many waters: ‘Glory to God! Glory to God!’

“Dr. Daniell, who has been long resident in Antigua, and has the management of several estates, told us that after such a prodigious change in the condition of the negroes, he expected some irregularities would ensue. He anticipated some relaxation from labor, during the week that followed emancipation. But on Monday morning, he found all his hands in the field; not one missing. The same day, he received a message from another estate, of which he was proprietor, that the negroes, to a man, had refused to go into the field. He immediately rode to the estate, and found the laborers, with hoes in their hands, doing nothing. Accosting them in a friendly manner, he inquired, ‘What is the meaning of this? How is it that you are not at work this morning?’ They immediately replied, ‘It’s not because we don’t want to work, massa; but we wanted to see you, first and foremost, to know what the bargain would be.’ As soon as that matter was settled, the whole body of negroes turned out cheerfully, without a moment’s cavil. Mr Bourne, manager of Millar’s estate, informed us that the largest gang he had ever seen in the field, on his property, turned out the week after the emancipation.”

In the days of slavery, it had always been customary to order out the militia, during the Christmas holidays, when the negroes were in the habit of congregating in large numbers, to enjoy the festivities of the season. But the December after emancipation, the Governor issued a proclamation, that, “in consequence of the abolition of slavery,” there was no furtherneed of taking that precaution. And it is a fact that there have been no soldiers out at Christmas, from that day to this. The Legislature of Antigua subsequently passed “an Act for the better organizing of the militia, the preamble of which reads thus: “Whereas the abolition of slavery, in this island, renders it expedient to provide against an unnecessary augmentation of the militia,” etc. The public security and confidence were also strikingly indicated by the following military advertisement in 1836: “Recruits [15] wanted! The freed men of Antigua are now called upon to show their gratitude to King William, for the benefits he has conferred on them and their families, by volunteering their services as soldiers in his First West India Regiment. By doing this, they will acquire a still higher rank in society, by being placed on a footing of perfect equality with the other troops in his majesty’s service, and receive the same bounty, pay, clothing, rations, and allowances.”

[23]

CHAPTER III. THE WINDWARD ISLANDS, DURING THE APPRENTICESHIP—TESTIMONY OF PLANTERS IN BARBADOES, IN 1837. [10]

Mr. Thome says: “Soon after we arrived in Barbadoes we visited Mr. C., manager of Lear’s estate, about four miles from Bridgetown. He had been a planter for thirty-six years. He was attorney for two other large estates, and had under his superintendence more than a thousand apprenticed laborers. He said, ‘I often wished that slavery might be abolished, and other planters of my acquaintance had the same feelings; but we did not dare to express them. Most of the planters were so violently opposed to emancipation, that even up to the 31st of July, they declared it could not and should not take place. Now, these very men see and acknowledge the benefits which are resulting from the new system. Slavery was a reign of terror. I have often started up from a dream in which I thought my room was filled with armed slaves. But all such fears have passed away. There is no motive for insurrection now. On the first of August, 1834, the people labored on the estates the same as usual. If a stranger had gone over the island, he would not have suspected that any change had taken place. I told my people, the day before, that under the new laws they were to turn out at six o’clock in the morning, instead of at five, as formerly. I did not expect they would go to work that day; but, at the appointed hour, they were all in the field; not one was missing. They do more work in the nine hours required by present laws, than they did in the twelve hours, exacted under slavery. They are more faithful, than when they were slaves. They take more interest [30] in the prosperity of the estate, and in seeing that things are not destroyed. There is less theft, because they begin to have some respect for character. They can now appeal to the law for protection; and their respect for law is very great. They are always willing to work for me during their own time, for which I pay them twenty-five cents a day. I have planted thirty additional acres this year, and have taken a larger crop than I have ever taken. The island has never been under such good cultivation, and it is becoming better every year. Real estate has increased in value more than thirty per cent. Emancipation was a great blessing, to the master, as well as the slave. It was emancipation to me. You cannot imagine the responsibilities and anxieties that were swept away with the extinction of slavery. There are many annoying circumstances connected with slavery, which have a pernicious effect on the master. There is continual jealousy and suspicion between him and his slaves. They look upon each other as natural enemies. A perpetual system of plotting and counterplotting is kept up. Flogging was a matter of course throughout the island, while slavery existed. It was as common to strike a slave, as to strike a horse. Very often, it was merely because the master happened to be in an irritable mood, and the slave had no idea what he was punished for. I have myself, more than once, ordered slaves to be flogged, when I was in a passion, and after I was cool I would have given guineas not to have done it. I believe emancipation will save the souls of many planters. If it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, it is much harder for a planter. I sometimes wonder at myself, when I think how long I was connected with slavery; but self-interest and custom blinded me to its enormities. I lately met with a planter, who, up to the last of July, had maintained that the mother country could not be so mad as to take a step that would inevitably ruin her Colonies. Now, he would be the last man to vote for the restoration of slavery. He even wants to get rid of the apprenticeship, and adopt immediate, unconditional emancipation, as they did in Antigua. Such changes of opinion are very common among the planters. I think the expenses under apprenticeship are about the same as during slavery; but calculations [31] I have made convince me that under an entirely free system, I could cultivate this estate for $3,000 a year less than it formerly cost. I have no doubt the negroes will work, when their freedom comes in 1840. There may be a little excited, experimenting feeling, for a short time, but I am confident that things generally will move on peaceably and prosperously. The slaves were well acquainted with the efforts made in England for their emancipation. They used to watch the arrival of every packet with extreme anxiety. If Parliament had refused to abolish slavery, there would have been a general insurrection. While there was hope, they waited peaceably for release; but if hope had been destroyed, slavery would have been buried in blood. The apprenticeship caused some dissatisfaction among them. They thought they ought to be entirely free, and they suspected that their masters were deceiving them. At first, they could not understand the conditions of the new system; and there was some murmuring among them; but they concluded it was better to wait six years more for the desired boon, than to lose it by revolt.’

“Samuel Hinkston, Esq., manager of Colliton estate, and one of the local magistrates, gave an account similar in all respects, to that given by the manager of Lear’s. He had been a planter for thirty-six years, and was universally esteemed for his humane character, and close attention to business. He said his apprentices never refused to work in the hours required by law, and during their own time, they were always ready to work for him, for wages, whenever he needed them. When he had no occasion for them, they often let themselves out to work on other people’s grounds. Real estate had risen very much, and it was universally conceded that the island had never been under better cultivation. In every respect, the new system worked better than the old; but he looked forward with pleasure to the still better change that would come in 1840. He believed unconditional freedom would remove all annoyances. His only regret was that it could not come sooner.

“We were invited to visit Col. Ashby, an aged and experienced planter, who resides in the southernmost part of the island. He told us he had been a practical planter ever since 1795. He had violently opposed abolition, and regarded [32] the anti-slavery members of Parliament with unmingled hatred. He thought no punishment, either in this life, or the life to come, was too bad for Wilberforce. When he told us this, he exclaimed, ‘But, oh, how mistaken I was about that man! I am convinced of it now. The abolition of slavery has proved an incalculable blessing.’ He dwelt much on the trustiness and strong attachment of the negroes, when they were well treated. They were never disposed to leave their employer, unless he was intolerably passionate and hard with them. He said he avoided, as much as possible, carrying his apprentices before a special magistrate; and he always found it easy to settle difficulties himself by a conciliatory course.”

Mr. Thome was introduced to one planter, whose name he does not mention, probably because his neighbors gave him the character of having been a cruel master, during slavery. He retained the prejudices natural to that class of men. “He complained that the negroes were an ungrateful, perverse set; the more they were indulged, the more lazy and insolent they became. He said he knew that by his own experience. One fault he had to find with all his apprentices, both in the house and in the field; they all held him to the letter of the law, and were always ready to arraign him before a special magistrate for any infraction of it. He also considered it a great grievance that women with young babies were unwilling to work in the field, as they did formerly; now ‘they spent half their time taking care of their brats.’ He however acknowledged that his apprentices were willing to work, that his estates were never under better cultivation, and that he could say the same for estates all over the island.”

Dr. Bell, a planter from Demerara, was on a visit to Barbadoes, and Mr. Thome made some inquiries concerning the results of abolition there. “He said the Colony was now suffering for want of laborers; but after the apprentices were free, in 1840, there would doubtless be increased emigration thither, from older and less productive Colonies. The planters were making arrangements for cultivating sugar on a larger scale than ever before, and estates were selling at very high prices. Every thing indicated the [33] fullest confidence that the prosperity of the country would be permanent and progressive.”

Mr. Thome says: “We had repeated interviews with gentlemen, who were well acquainted with the adjacent islands; one of them was proprietor of a sugar estate in St. Vincent’s. They all assured us that in those islands there reigned the same tranquillity that we saw in Barbadoes. Sir Evan McGregor, Governor-General of all the Windward Colonies, and of course thoroughly informed respecting their internal condition, gave us the same assurances. From these authentic sources, we learned enough to satisfy ourselves, that in all the Colonies, conciliatory and equitable management has never failed to secure peace and industry.”

CHAPTER IV. TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE WEST INDIES, FROM 1840 TO 1859.

Joseph J. Gurney, of England, visited the British West Indies in 1840. At St. Christopher’s, the Solicitor General of the Colony told him that a small estate on the island sold shortly before emancipation, with all the slaves on it, for £2,000. He said, six years afterward, it would sell, without the slaves for £6,000. Mr. Gurney adds: “This remarkable rise in the value of property is by no means confined to particular estates.” “In this island, the negroes perform a far greater amount of work in a given time, than could be obtained from them under slavery. One of my informants said, ‘They will do an infinity of work for wages.’ ”

Sir William Colebrook, Governor of Antigua, and Mr. Gilbert, a clergyman, both gave the following testimony to Mr. Gurney: “At the lowest computation, the land, without a single slave upon it, is fully as valuable now, as it was, including all the slaves, before emancipation.” Mr. Gilbert told Mr. Gurney that the compensation he received for his slaves, from the British government, was “a mere present put into his pocket; a gratuity, on which he had no reasonable claim. For his land, without the slaves, was at least of the same value that it formerly was with the slaves; and since emancipation, his profits had increased.”

At Dominica, Mr. Gurney found the emancipated laborers “working cheerfully, and cheaply to their employers, as compared with slavery.”

Concerning the islands he visited, Mr. Gurney says: “The change for the better, in the dress, demeanor, and welfare of the people, is prodigious. The imports are vastly increased. The duties on imports in St. Christopher’s [39] were £1,000 more in 1838 than they were in 1837; and in 1839, they were double what they were in 1838, within £150. This surprising increase is owing to the demand, on the part of the freed laborers for imported goods; especially for articles of dress.”

In May, 1846, Dr. John Davy, author of a work on the West Indies, and brother of the celebrated Sir Humphrey Davy, wrote from Barbadoes, where he was residing, in official and professional employment, to the well-known Mr. George Combe, of Edinburgh. The letter was published in The Liberty Bell, for 1847, and I make the following extracts from it:—

“I could wish that those who still approve of slavery, or who may consider it a necessary evil, would pay a visit to the West Indies, especially to this island, and witness the effects of emancipation. I am much mistaken if they would not go back satisfied that the abolition of slavery has here been, in every respect, advantageous; to the negroes, to the planters, and to the population generally. I have been in Barbadoes very nearly a year, and I have conversed on the subject with proprietors of estates, who formerly owned slaves, with merchants, and with colored people, who had been slaves. Among them all, there seemed to be but one feeling; that emancipation was a blessing, and that were it possible to bring back slavery, all would be opposed to it.

“When slavery existed, there was always fear of insurrection, especially in times of danger, whether connected with war, or other calamities, such as fires and hurricanes. Then, it was necessary to have a standing militia, always ready to act. It was necessary to have beacons and forts, to give the alarm and afford defence. Now, there is a perfect feeling of security. The population is considered as one; bound together by common rights and common interests. The militia has been disbanded, and is not likely to be re-organized, except on a threatening of war. Forts are no longer required. Some of them have been dismantled and are forgotten. Some are converted into stations for the police; a body chiefly composed of colored men. Prior to abolition, from what I can learn, crime of every kind was more prevalent; especially robbery. Then, there was always at large a certain number of runaway slaves, who [40] supported themselves by nightly depredations, and, occasionally collecting into large parties, broke into and plundered the houses of the opulent. Since the abolition of slavery, I have not heard of the murder of a white man, nor of any instance of revenge taken by the liberated for cruel treatment inflicted before liberation. I have not heard of any instances of house breaking, or of robbery, except of a petty kind, commonly designated as pilfering. The security, as to property, in which the opulent live here is remarkable. But it is not surprising, when we reflect on the easy condition of the people generally. Want is almost unknown, beggars are almost unknown; yet there are no poor laws, and no provision made by law for the support of paupers.

“The freed laborers are contented with a shilling sterling (twenty-four cents) a day for their work, men and women alike. This is sufficient to supply their wants, and to enable them to have some comforts, and even luxuries, where the ordinary articles of diet are cheap, and where most laborers have a portion of land, for which they pay rent. Commonly, on every estate requiring over a hundred laborers, there is a village, where those who work on the estate reside. To be near their work is an advantage to both laborers and proprietors; and it being for the interest of the latter to attach the former to them, they are dealt with kindly and liberally. If other treatment is experienced, the laborers seek employment elsewhere, and have no difficulty in finding it. This, it must be admitted, is a happy change, and worth some pecuniary sacrifices; but it is doubtful whether it entailed any such. I have been assured by many managers of estates, well acquainted with the minute details of expenditure under the former and the present systems of slave labor and free labor, that free labor is more economical. I admit that in some of the islands, especially the smaller ones, the landed proprietors have been great sufferers, and their estates have become depreciated in a remarkable manner, owing to a new direction of labor. But I am disposed to think that their misfortunes have, in great part, been brought on themselves, by their injudicious conduct. In the first instance, they paid the freed laborers at a low rate, and thus tempted them to emigrate to the [41] larger Colonies, where higher remuneration was offered for labor; as in Trinidad and Demerara. Next, they endeavored to keep them at home, by allowing them to have as much land as they chose, and to keep as many cattle as they chose, without payment. This did, indeed, keep them at home; but its tendency was to keep them from laboring on the estates of the proprietors. They found it more for their interest to cultivate land on their own account.

“Sometimes, a single fact will prove more convincing than a multiplicity of arguments. I will state one fact, of which I am assured on the best authority. The value of land in Barbadoes is so much increased since emancipation, that an estate will now sell for as much as it did formerly, when the slaves necessary for its cultivation were included in the purchase. Who would have believed this to be possible, before slavery was abolished?

Now let us compare the moral condition of the population with what it was previous to emancipation. It is admitted that, in the time of slavery, planters, attorneys, managers, merchants, etc., were licentious. Concubinage was common, and not held in discredit. There was a looseness of conduct and conversation, which could not fail to have an injurious effect on the mind. Youth was particularly exposed to this degrading and enervating influence, when there was no check to indulgence, no call to exercise control; when too often a gentleman’s house was a kind of brothel, and when instances occurred of planters keeping in slavery their own offspring by slave mothers. From what I have seen and heard, the higher classes of the white population now appear to be exemplary in their conduct. A natural change has also taken place with regard to the emancipated race. Formerly, a colored woman esteemed it an honor to be the kept mistress of a white man. Now, she considers it disreputable; and few such connections are found. Marriage is more common among the black and colored people. The understanding is, that marriage is right, and concubinage wrong. There is still a good deal of irregular connection among them; the marriage tie is loose, and the senses little under the control of principle. But these remarks apply to the older portion of the population, whose habits were formed in slavery, when the marriage ceremony was not [42] permitted, and when chastity was not known, even by name. I believe they do not apply to the rising generation, a certain proportion of whom have come under the influence of moral and religious training. The children of the laborers manifest great facility in learning at school; and the men have great aptitude in learning whatever they take an interest in, belonging to their trades and occupations; such as the use of implements in husbandry, and improved methods in the useful arts.”

Dr. Davy states that three-fourths of the laborers in Antigua had cottages of their own, and small freeholds. Small as that island is, there were, at the time he wrote, about eighty-seven villages, all built by emancipated laborers, near the estates on which they were formerly chattels. He says: “It is a mistake, often committed, to suppose the African is by nature indolent, less inclined to work than the European. He who has witnessed, as I have, their indefatigable and provident industry, will be disposed perhaps to overrate, rather than underrate, the activity of the negroes.”

In 1857, the Governor of Tobago published this statement: “I deny that the peasantry are abandoned to slothful habits. On the contrary, I assert that a more industrious class does not exist in the world; at least, when they are working for themselves.”

When Louis Philippe sent Commissioners to the British West Indies, to inquire into the state of things, with a view to emancipation in the French Colonies, they published a Report, from which I translate the following extract: “In Guiana, some planters declare the impossibility of getting along with the existing system. Others, on the contrary, assure us that they never want for laborers; they praise the assiduity of the blacks, and say they produce as much as under the former system. So much for the old planters. But when we consult the new planters, men who know coerced labor only by tradition, we find among them entire unanimity. They all tell us that the labor is satisfactory, and that their agricultural operations succeed well.”

Rev. Henry Bleby has been a missionary in the West Indies for thirty years. He resided there before emancipation and since. On the 1st of August, 1858, he delivered [43] an address at Abington, Mass., from which I extract the following: “Since I have been here, I have heard that emancipation is understood to have been a failure. I am prepared to give that statement an unqualified contradiction. In no sense whatever has the emancipation of the slaves in the British Colonies proved a failure. I am at present laboring as a minister among the colored churches in Barbadoes, and I can tell you that never, even in the most palmy days of slavery, was there such prosperity as now. This year, a long drought has lessened the crop of sugar; yet they have raised more than double the amount of produce they ever raised under slavery; and with no greater amount of labor, than in the time of slavery. You cannot get an acre of land, in any part of the island, for less than four or five hundred dollars. In my own neighborhood an estate of not more than two or three hundred acres was sold for nearly $90,000 in your money; paid in cash. The case is the same in Antigua, where I lived three years. A member of my own church there bought an estate, which was sold under a decree of Chancery for $24,225. He has taken off three valuable crops, which have more than repaid the original purchase money; and he has been offered $48,450 for the property, and refused to take it. That is the kind of ruin that has come upon the West Indies because of emancipation!

“As for the moral condition of Barbadoes, I believe the criminal statistics, for the last five or six years, would compare, without disadvantage, with any country under heaven. We seldom hear of any thing like serious crimes. Intemperance is not prevalent among the people. I have a membership of seventeen hundred colored persons, and, during the last two years, I have not had one single case of intemperance reported to me. Every sabbath our churches are crowded with people anxious to receive instruction. I know of no people in the world who will make such efforts, and exercise such self-denial, to obtain education for their children, as the people of Barbadoes. One of my colored church members had just finished manufacturing his little portion of sugar, grown on part of the half-acre of land on which his house stood, and on which he raised provisions for his family; and he brought me six dollars in advance, as [44] school fees for his four children the next twelve months. It is the only instance I ever knew of a man in his condition pre-paying the education of his children for a year. It is a falsehood that emancipation has failed to improve the condition of the colored race. Throughout the West Indies, in every island, the condition of the people is incomparably superior to what it was in slavery. Some say if it has not ruined the laborers, it has ruined the planters. I deny that statement, as plainly as I deny the other. Emancipation proved a blessing, instead of a curse, to the proprietors. What I have told you concerning the prices of land are facts that speak volumes in regard to the sort of ruin brought upon British planters by emancipation.”

Lord Stanley, now Earl of Derby, in a despatch, dated February, 1842, says: “Experience has shown, what reason would anticipate, that the industry of the negro, like that of all mankind, is drawn out just in proportion to the interest he has in his labor.” Lord John Russell declared in one of his public speeches: “None of the most inveterate opponents of our recent measures of emancipation allege that the negroes have turned robbers, or plunderers, or bloodthirsty insurgents. What appears from their statements is that they have become shopkeepers and petty traders, hucksters, and small freeholders. A blessed change this, which Providence has enabled us to accomplish!”

Sir Francis Hincks, formerly Prime Minister of Canada, is Governor of the Windward Islands, which comprise Barbadoes, St. Vincent, Grenada, St. Lucia, and Tobago. He is distinguished for financial ability, and practical good sense as a statesman. Being on a visit to England, he was present at an anniversary meeting in London, August 1st, 1859; on which occasion, he offered the following resolution: “That, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the British Colonies, this meeting joyfully records its satisfaction in the retrospect of that great act of national justice and sound policy; and emphatically affirm that the emancipated population of those Colonies have triumphantly vindicated their right to freedom, and the justice of the Act of Emancipation, by the signal progress they have since made, morally, religiously, and politically.”

[45]

In speaking to this Resolution, His Excellency said: “It is not denied by anybody in the West Indies that the good results of emancipation on the social condition of the people have been very great. In Barbadoes, the progress has been especially marked. I know of no people of the laboring class anywhere, who have done so much for the education of their children, as the people of Barbadoes; and results of the most gratifying character are to be seen in the social habits and mental acquirements of the people. I believe the planters themselves are convinced of the good results of emancipation. There can be no doubt in the minds of any, who investigate the subject, that slave labor is much dearer than free labor. I wish it to be understood that I have formed my opinion after full inquiry into the circumstances of every British Colony, regarding which I could obtain information.

“Let me deal at once with the popular delusion that the African Creole is naturally indolent; for that it is a delusion, I have no doubt whatever. My opinion is in accordance with all that I have heard from the clergymen of the various Protestant churches, as well as from those of the Church of Rome. It is likewise in accordance with the opinions expressed by the stipendiary magistrates generally, as I have found them in official documents. A Barbadoes proprietor, who stands high in the estimation of all who know him, writes to me thus: ‘There never was a greater mistake, than to suppose the negro will not work for hire. No man is more sensitive to that stimulus, or works more readily, more cheerfully, or more effectually, for the hope of reward. It is perfectly astonishing how much a negro can do, when he is under the influence of a wholesome stimulus; and how little he will do, when that is removed.’ ” Gov. Hincks said: “I willingly admit that there has been a considerable withdrawal of labor from sugar cultivation in some of the Colonies, owing to a variety of causes. Among those causes, I am inclined to think that, next to the tenure of land, the insolvency of the proprietors has been the chief. I have never been able to trace an instance in which an estate has gone out of cultivation owing to want of labor; but I have heard of many cases in which estates have been abandoned for want of capital; and of some estates on which the laborers [46] have been dismissed with wages several months in arrear. The only wonder is, that with such a land-tenure as that which exists in the West Indies, a single laborer has remained on the sugar estates. It is a tenure by the month, subject to ejectment by the owner. If the tenant has notice to quit, while his crops are growing, he is obliged to take for them whatever price the proprietor appraises them at. If the tenant himself gives notice of intention to leave, he is obliged to sacrifice his crops altogether. The obvious tendency of this is to drive laborers from sugar cultivation to places where they can get land of their own. If I were proprietor of a sugar estate, I would devote one-fourth, or one-third, of the cane land on the estate to the laborers. I would give them a good tenure; for instance, leases renewable forever, with a right to buy, at such a number of years’ purchase as might be agreed upon. I would make it the interest of my laborers to occupy, or buy, land near my cane lands, instead of at a distance. I would trust to their admitted sagacity to cultivate the product that would pay them best. I would have a labor market at my door; and I would have the spare time of my laborers employed in growing a a product, which must be brought to my works to be manufactured. Even if the result should be that all my land was rented or sold, I should still make ample profit by my manufactory. Such, however, in my opinion, would not be the case. The large proprietor would still be the principal cultivator of the land, and the small one would combine labor on the estates with labor on his own land in growing the cane; as is the case in Barbadoes. But this common-sense view of the subject has not been generally taken. In Barbadoes alone, so far as my knowledge extends, the laborers on the large estates cultivate the sugar cane on their own grounds; and this is one of the reasons why the laborers in Barbadoes cannot be attracted elsewhere. There, the laborer is dependent on the proprietor for the manufacture of his little crop of canes, while the proprietor is dependent on him for labor, when it is required. This mutual dependence has produced the best results.”

When Gov. Hincks visited Canada, April, 1859, he received an address from the Association for the Education of the Colored People. I make the following extract from [47] his reply: “While it is my own deliberate opinion that a very large amount of labor now wasted in the West Indies, or less profitably employed, could be obtained for the cultivation of sugar, I am not prepared to admit that the success of the great measure of emancipation is to be tested in this way. The true test, it seems to me, is the progress of the African race. The best proof of the industry of that race is that large numbers have acquired, and are acquiring, large properties. They are amenable to the laws, anxious for the education of their children, and good and loyal subjects to the queen. There is still vast room for improvement; but I certainly concur in the following statement by the Lord Bishop of Barbadoes, a prelate esteemed and respected by all who have the advantage of his friendship: ‘I certainly think we have great reason to say, especially in Barbadoes, that the advantages resulting from the abolition of slavery have been quite as great as we could reasonably expect, in so short a time; much greater, indeed, than the most sanguine among us, I believe, ever anticipated.’ ”

Mr. Charles Tappan, of Boston, visited the West Indies, in the autumn of 1857; and in January, 1858, Gov. Hincks wrote him a letter, dated Barbadoes, in answer to some questions that had been addressed to him. It was published in the National Era, and some other papers. I make the following extracts from it. “With regard to the complaint against the negroes, that they are indolent, and have abandoned the sugar plantations, I admit that, in several of the British Colonies, the planters would generally vehemently maintain the correctness of the charge. I am, however, bound to affirm that, after a most patient investigation, I have been unable to arrive at such a conclusion. There is no doubt that the condition of the laboring class in Barbadoes ought to be worse than in any of the other Colonies; for land is exorbitantly dear, being from $400 to $600 an acre; while wages are from tenpence to a shilling (twenty-four cents) a day. There are only five working days in the week, except during crop time. With all these disadvantages, the small proprietors in Barbadoes, those holding less than five acres of land, have increased in sixteen years, from about 1,100 to 3,537. I doubt very much whether such a proof of industrious habits could be furnished with regard to a [48] similar class of laborers in any other country in the world. I adduce this remarkable fact to prove that there has been no want of industry in this island, on the part of the Creoles of African descent.

“In all those Colonies where the sugar estates have been partially abandoned, we must look to other causes than the indolence of the laborers. In all those Colonies, land is abundant and comparatively cheap; and I need not remind any one acquainted with the settlement of land in America, that where land is abundant and cheap, labor will be scarce and dear. The negroes in Guiana and Trinidad pursue the same course as poor Irish emigrants in Canada, or the United States; they endeavor to get land of their own, and to become proprietors instead of laborers. Unfortunately, the planters have never adopted a policy calculated to retain laborers on their plantations. At least, such is my opinion. I am fully convinced that the abandonment of the estates is more owing to the tenure, on which alone planters would lease land, than to any other cause.

“In this island, there can be no doubt whatever, that emancipation has been a great boon to all classes. The estates are much better cultivated, and more economically. Real estate has increased in price, and is a more certain and advantageous investment, than in the time of slavery. The proprietor of an estate, containing three hundred acres of land, twelve miles from the shipping port, informs me that the estate, during slavery, required two hundred and thirty slaves, and produced on an average, one hundred and forty hogheads of sugar. It is now worked by ninety free laborers, and the average product the last seven years has been one hundred and ninety hogheads. During slavery, this estate was worth £15,000 ($72,675); under the apprenticeship, it was sold for £25,000 ($121,125); the present proprietor purchased it a few years ago, for £30,000 ($145,350), which I have no doubt he could obtain for it at any moment. I could multiply instances, where the results have been similar.

“The improvement which has taken place in the religious condition of all classes, and the progress of education, are quite equal to what could have been reasonably expected. You have yourself made the acquaintance of men, who were [49] once slaves, who are now in independent circumstances, and enjoying a large share of public respect. It is impossible to compare the present statistics of crime with those during slavery; for then the great bulk of ordinary offences, such as petty thefts and assaults, were not brought before magistrates, but summarily punished by managers and overseers on the estates. That there is much greater security for person and property now, than during slavery, does not admit of a doubt.”

Never was an experiment more severely tested, than that of emancipation in the West Indies. It seems as if God intended to prove to the world that the vitality of freedom was indestructible. In addition to the general state of insolvency to which slavery has reduced the planters, and the difficulties attending the commencement of all great changes in the social system, there were an unusual number of fortuitous calamities. In 1843, an earthquake made dreadful devastation in the Leeward Islands. Out of one hundred and seventy-two sugar mills in Antigua, one hundred and seventeen were demolished, or nearly so. A third of the houses in St. John’s were flung down, and the remainder too much injured to be habitable. Then came a hurricane which blew down churches, uprooted trees, destroyed a great many houses and huts, did immense damage to the sugar canes. And the crowning misfortune of all, was a series of severe droughts, year after year. Between 1840 and 1849, there were only two seasons when the crops did not suffer terribly for rain. Under such a combination of disasters the anxieties and sufferings of West India proprietors must have been very severe indeed; and there, as elsewhere, there were plenty of people ready and eager to attribute all their troubles to emancipation. Yet such is the recuperative power of freedom, that Commissioners who went to Guiana in 1850, to inquire into the condition of things, reported: “Every symptom of change for the better is apparent. Cultivation has extended and crops increased. The laboring population are working more steadily, and evince signs of speedy improvement.”

In the first part of this Tract it has been mentioned that in twelve years, during slavery, the laboring class in eleven of the islands had decreased more than 60,000. In the [50] twelve years following emancipation, in ten Colonies there was an increase of more than 54,000. That fact alone is a significant indication of the vast change for the better in their condition.

The following statistics I copy from an able article in the Edinburgh Review, April, 1859. They are quoted from the Colonial Reports:—

Barbadoes. In ten years, “between 1842 and 1852, increase of sugar exported, is 27,240 hogheads.” The Report for 1851, states, “There has been more sugar shipped from this island this year, than in any one year since it has been peopled; and it is a remarkable fact that there will be more laborers’ sugar made this year, than previously. By laborers’ sugar is meant that raised by the negroes on their own patches of ground, and sent to the proprietor’s mill for manufacture.” The Report for 1853 announces “vast increase in trade. So far the success of cultivation by free labor is unquestionable.” Report for 1858: “A great increase in the value of the exports.” “The large proportion of land acquired by the laboring classes furnishes striking evidence of their industry.”

Bahamas. In 1851, the Governor reports, “a great and important change for the better,” in the condition of the people; which he mainly attributes to “improved education.” The rapidity with which these islands are advancing is indicated by the fact that the exports and imports increased in one year, from 1854 to 1855, £102,924 ($498,666.78).

Grenada. Returns in 1851 and 1852, show an increase of trade, amounting to £88,414 ($428,355.83). Report of 1858: “Contentment appears to pervade all classes of the community.” “A proprietary body, of considerable magnitude and importance, has already risen from the laboring class.” “State of the finances most satisfactory.” “A greatly extended surface is covered by sugar cultivation.” A considerable increase is noted in the exports of sugar, rum, and cocoa. Some remarks on the want of labor.

Antigua.—Reports for 1858: “Satisfactory evidence is afforded, by the Revenue Returns, of increase of trade and mercantile business, consequent upon the revival of agricultural prosperity.” (There had been a depression in consequence of a great fall in the price of sugar in 1847.)

Dominica.—Report for 1853: “The steady maintenance of production is full of promise as to the future.” Report for 1857: “The exports show a considerable increase.” “Very considerable increase in revenue, and an equally marked improvement in the amount of imports.” In the Report for 1858, the Governor speaks of the growing independence of the laborers, manifested [51] “in the small patches of canes, and little wooden mills here and there dotting the plains around.”

Guiana.—In 1852, the Governor reports that the fall in the price of sugar, in 1847 and 1848 (owing to the repeal of the tariff), was “so sudden and enormous, as to have almost annihilated the Colony, at that crisis.” But he goes on to state that “the revenue is now flourishing, population augmenting, education spreading, crime diminishing, and trade increasing.”

Montserrat.—In 1853, the Governor reports “increase of confidence, enterprise, and industry.” “The improved and improving state of the community is allowed on all hands.” “No island in these seas exhibits a more decisive tendency to social and moral regeneration and improvement. The rural population are quiet, contented, and orderly.”

Nevis.—(This is a very small island; about the size of a common New England town.) Report for 1857: “The roads appear as if the greater part of the population had new clothed themselves; and in the harbor, so often deserted, I now count ten ships of considerable burden.” “There appears now to be at work an industrious spirit of improvement.”

St. Kitts.—Report for 1856: A larger quantity of sugar is produced now than in the time of slavery” (though on a smaller area). Report for 1858: “The agricultural prospects of the island are most encouraging. Its financial condition continues satisfactory; so do the education returns. Attendance in schools is steadily increasing. Crime is steadily diminishing. In one year, from 1856 to 1857, trade increased £106,233” ($514,642.88).

St. Lucia.—Report for 1853: “At no period of her history, has there been a greater breadth of land under cultivation, than at the present moment.” Between the four years ending 1842, and the four years ending 1856, the increase of sugar exported was 1,803,618 pounds.

St. Vincent.—In 1857, the Governor describes “a really sound and healthy state of the Colony at present, and a cheering and promising prospect for the future.” He describes the rising villages, the growing number of freeholders and leaseholders, and the steady progressive increase in the value of imports. In one year, from 1856 to 1857, imports and exports increased £156,633 ($758,886.88); and he expressly attributes it to “increased cultivation and prosperity.” In 1858, he describes the Colony as “in a most satisfactory state.” “Agricultural operations largely extended.” “Anticipations of continued progress and prosperity fully realized.”

Tobago.—The accounts had been dismal in 1852 and 1853; but an improved financial system was adopted in 1856, the result of which was a Report in 1858 announcing a “marked improvement [52] in the revenue returns.” The Governor describes the laborers as “well-behaved and industrious.”

Tortola.—This island, under slavery, exported 15,559 cwt. of sugar. Now it exports none at all. But the change is wholly an advantage. It is remarkably well adapted for the raising of stock. “The people, with few exceptions, are owners of cattle, which they dispose of to great advantage.” “The laborers appear fully sensible of the advantages of education to their children, and the latter manifest a great desire to benefit by the opportunities offered them.”

Trinidad is highly flourishing. In 1852, the crop was the largest ever shipped from the island; and it has been extending since. The whole trade greatly increased since slavery. The Report for 1853 speaks of “marked improvement in the cultivation of the sugar estates.” Export of sugar rose from an average of 310,797 cwt. under slavery, to 426,042 cwt. in the seven years ending 1854.

The writer in the Edinburgh Review says: “These specific accounts of the several islands are borne out by the statistics and Reports that relate to our West Indies en masse. Lest it should be thought that these extracts are carefully culled, to produce a particular impression, and that if the reader had the whole Reports before him, he would find complaints and lamentations, we may at once say that they appear to us to be fair samples of the views entertained by the Governors, and also by other gentlemen acquainted with the West Indies. The language of complaint is no longer heard. Throughout these Colonies, hope and congratulation seem to have taken the place of irritation and despair. In all cases, the later the Report, the more gratifying it is found to be.

“To men of business, one fact will seem almost enough by itself to show the sound commercial state of these Colonies; viz., that, in the year 1857, the Colonial Bank received bills from the West Indies to the amount of more than £1,300,000 ($6,298,500); and less than £8,000 ($38,760) were returned. Nor was there a single failure in the West India trade, during the severe commercial crisis of that year. Furthermore, coffee, cotton, wool, sugar, rum, and cocoa, are all exported in increasing quantities. The total exports from Great Britain to the West Indies in 1857 were valued at [53] half a milliom more ($2,422,500) than the average of the preceding ten years.”

Mr. C. Buxton made a speech in the British House of Commons, March, 1859, in which he said: “Because labor is free, and trade is free, the West Indies are now rising to a pitch of wealth and happiness unknown before. It would be impossible for me to lay before the House the immense mass of evidence, which demonstrates that fact. I am assured of it by mercantile men, I find it strongly set forth in the Reports from the Governors of the Islands, and in the statistics furnished by the Board of Trade. In the four years between 1853 and 1857, there has been an increase in the exports and imports of the West Indies and Guiana of £4,500,000 ($21,802,500). Considering what mere specks these islands look on the map of America, it is astonishing that their trade to and fro, in the year 1857, should actually amount to £10,735,000 ($52,011,075). It is altogether absurd to suppose this prosperity is owing to the immigration of a few thousand laborers; and in fact the islands which have received no immigrants are quite as flourishing as those that have. Interested parties describe the negroes as barbarous and idle; but I find ample evidence that they are living in a high degree of industry and comfort; though I admit that they somewhat prefer working on freeholds they have purchased, to laboring for hire.”

The Edinburgh Review concludes its array of evidence, by saying: “A long and thorough investigation of the case has borne us irresistibly to the conclusion that, merely as a dry question of economy, emancipation has paid; that it was an act of prudence, for which we, as a nation of shopkeepers, need not blush before that golden god, whom we are thought to worship so eagerly. Slavery and monopoly were bearing the West Indies to ruin. Under free labor and free trade they are rising to wealth. They are yearly enriching us more and more with the wealth of their fertile soil. Instead of being the plague of statesmen and the disgrace of England, they are becoming invaluable possessions of the British crown. Never did any deed of any nation show more signally that to do right is the truest prudence, than the great deed of Emancipation.”

CHAPTER V. JAMAICA. [11]

I have placed Jamaica in a section by itself, because emancipation has there worked less prosperously than elsewhere, and the reasons for it need some explanation. I have already mentioned causes which were bringing all the West Indies to ruin, previous to emancipation. These operated as powerfully in Jamaica as elsewhere. They were cursed with the same coercive system, which seems ingeniously contrived to make laborers lazy and shiftless, and to array them in the most stubborn opposition to their employers. There was among the white population the same haughty contempt for useful occupations, which inevitably brings extravagance and dissipation in its train. There was the same expensive retinue of attorneys, managers, and bookkeepers, with their mistresses, servants, and horses, to be supported out of the estate. There was the same neglect and fraud, arising from the absence of proprietors; for “nine-tenths of the land in Jamaica was owned by absentees, mostly residing in England.” There was the same injudicious system of apportioning the soil into large plantations, to the utter exclusion of small farmers; for slavery always renders the existence of a middling class impossible. There was the same desperate game of borrowing and mortgaging, ending in universal insolvency. Mr. Bigelow, one of the editors of the New York Evening Post, visited Jamaica in 1850, and carefully examined into the state of things. He says: “The island was utterly insolvent the day the Emancipation Bill passed. Nearly every estate was mortgaged for more than it was worth, and was liable for more interest than it could possibly pay. It will not be disputed [55] by any, who are at all informed on the subject, that the whole real estate under culture in Jamaica, in 1832, would not have sold for enough to pay off encumbrances. This fact must have been disclosed sooner or later, even if slavery had been permitted to continue. Bankruptcy was inevitable; and the rapid depreciation of real estate would, of course, have been one of the first fruits of such a catastrophe. The Emancipation Act did not cause, it only precipitated, a result, which was inevitable. It compelled a balance to be struck between the debtors and the creditors, which revealed, rather than begat, the poverty which now no effort can conceal.”

The Export Tables show a decrease of sugar, in ten years, ending 1830, of 201,843 hogsheads.

These drawbacks Jamaica had in common with the other Colonies; except, perhaps, that the load of debt was somewhat heavier there than elsewhere. Why then have her complaints been so much louder and more prolonged, than those of her neighbors? I think the strongest reason is to be found in the fact that the spirit of slavery was more violent and unyielding there than in the other Colonies. There was more bitter hostility between masters and slaves; manifesting itself in shocking barbarities on one side, and frequent riots and insurrections on the other. There was a more furious opposition to abolition, and a more stubborn determination to make it operate badly, if possible. The great body of the planters had predicted ruin, and they seemed resolved that they would be ruined, rather than prove false prophets. Dr. Coke, one of the missionaries, says: “The persecutions we have experienced in Jamaica far exceed, very far, all the persecutions we have experienced in all the other islands unitedly considered.” Those who opened their houses to these religious teachers, in many instances, narrowly escaped being stoned to death. Rev. Mr. Bleby says: “Being determined to perpetuate slavery, they resolved to do all they could to get rid of Christianity, and keep their people in heathen darkness. The whole white population of Jamaica banded themselves together in an Association, which they called The Colonial Union; the avowed object of which was to drive every instructor of the negroes from the island. Eighteen of our [56] churches were levelled with the ground. They dragged the missionaries to prison, got false witnesses to swear against them, treated them with brutal violence, and did every thing they could to put an end to their labors.” One of the Methodist missionaries died in a dungeon, in consequence of the brutal treatment he had received from violent pro-slavery men.

Another cause for the slow progress of improvement in Jamaica is assigned by the writer in the Edinburgh Review; viz., “the superlative badness of its government.” Taxation has been, and is oppressive, and the financial arrangements are said to be very injudicious. As late as 1854, the Governor, Sir Charles Grey, declared, “There is no system or consistency whatever in the conduct of the financial affairs of the Colony; nor any recognized organ of government, or legislature, which has the power to bring about effective and comprehensive changes.”

There was a small minority of planters and merchants, who regretted the violence and blind policy of the majority; but they would have risked their property, if not their lives, by venturing to express disapprobation. The excitement was prodigiously increased in 1832, by a formidable attempt at insurrection, in consequence of the numerous meetings and inflamed speeches of the planters, from which the slaves got the idea that the British government had made them free, and that their masters were acting in opposition to it.

Such was the community into which the modified freedom called apprenticeship was ushered on the 1st of August, 1834. In an address delivered in Massachusetts, 1858, the Rev. Mr. Bleby said: “I was in Jamaica when slavery was abolished. This day twenty-four years ago, I stood up late at night in one of the churches under my charge. It was a very large church; and the aisles, the gallery stairs, the communion place, the pulpit stairs, were all crowded; and there were thousands of people round the building, at every open door and window, looking in. It was ten o’clock at night, on the 31st of July. We thought it right and proper that our Christian people should receive their freedom, as a boon from God, in the house of prayer; and we gathered them together in the church for a midnight service. Our mouths had been closed about slavery up to that time. [57] We could not quote a passage that had reference even to spiritual emancipation, without endangering our lives. The planters had a law of ‘constructive treason,’ that doomed any man to death, who made use of language tending to excite a desire for liberty among the slaves; and they found treason in the Bible, and sedition in the hymns of Watts and Wesley; and we had to be very careful how we used them. You may imagine with what feelings I saw myself emancipated from this thraldom, and free to proclaim ‘liberty to the captive, and the opening of prison doors to them that were bound.’ I took for my text, ‘Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof! It shall be a jubilee unto you.’ A few minutes before midnight, I requested all the people to kneel down in silent prayer to God, as befitting the solemnity of the hour. I looked down upon them as they knelt. The silence was broken only by sobs of emotion, which it was impossible to repress. The clock began to strike. It was the knell of slavery, in all the British possessions! It proclaimed liberty to 800,000 human beings! When I told them they might rise, what an outburst of joy there was among that mass of people! The clock had ceased to strike, and they were slaves no longer! Mothers were hugging their babes to their bosoms, old white-headed men embracing their children, and husbands clasping their wives in their arms. By and by, all was still again, and I gave out a hymn. You may imagine the feelings with which these people, just emerging into freedom, shouted—for they literally shouted,

“ ‘Send the glad tidings o’er the sea!
His chains are broke, the slave is free!’ ”

[61]

CHAPTER VI. EMANCIPATION SAFE IN EVERY INSTANCE.

“Right never comes wrong.”

—Old Maxim.

Whenever immediate emancipation is urged, the “horrors of St. Domingo” are always brought forward to prove it dangerous. This is one of numerous misstatements originating in prejudice, and afterward taken for granted by those who have not examined the subject. The first troubles between the white and black races in St. Domingo were the result of oppressive and unlawful treatment of the free colored population, who were numerous, and many of them wealthy proprietors. The whites were determined to wrest from them certain rights which the French government had secured to them. The next troubles were occasioned by an attempt to restore slavery, after it had been for some years abolished. It was never the granting of rights to the colored people that produced bloodshed or disturbance. All the disasters to the whites came in consequence of withholding those rights, in the first instance, and afterward from a forcible attempt to take them away, after they had long been peacefully and prosperously enjoyed under the protection of French laws.

In 1793, the National Assembly proclaimed liberty to all slaves under the dominion of France; more than 600,000 in number; and history shows that the measure proved safe. In St. Domingo emancipation was both peaceful and prosperous in its results. Col. Malenfant, a slave-holder resident in the island at the time, published “A Historical and Political Memoir of the Colonies,” in which he says: “After this public act of emancipation the negroes remained quiet, both in the south and west. There were estates which had [87] neither owners nor managers upon them; yet upon those estates, though abandoned, the negroes continued their labors, where there were any of the inferior agents left to guide them; and where there was no white man, in any capacity, to take direction of affairs, they betook themselves to planting provisions. Several of my neighbors, proprietors or managers, were in prison; and the negroes on their plantations were in the habit of coming to me to direct them in their work. If you will take care not to talk to them of the restoration of slavery, but to talk to them of freedom, you may with that word chain them to their labor. In the plain of the Cul de Sac, on the plantation Gouraud, I managed four hundred and fifty laborers for more than eight months after liberty had been granted them. Not one of them refused to work. Yet that plantation was reputed to have been under the worst discipline, and the slaves the most idle of any in the plain. I inspired the same activity into three other plantations, of which I had the management. Ninety-nine out of a hundred blacks are perfectly well aware that labor is the process by which they can obtain means to gratify their wants and their tastes; and therefore they are desirous to work.” In describing the latter part of 1796, Col. Malenfant says: “The Colony is flourishing. The whites live peacefully and happily upon their estates, and the negroes continue to work for them.” Gen. Lecroix, who published “Memoirs for a History of St. Domingo,” speaks of wonderful progress in agriculture in 1797. He says: “The Colony marched, as by enchantment, toward its ancient splendor; cultivation prospered, and every day furnished perceptible proofs of progress.”

Such was the effect of Emancipation in St. Domingo!

In 1801, Gen. Vincent, a proprieter of estates in St. Domingo, went to France to lay before the government the plan of a new Constitution for the island. He found Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul, preparing to send out an armament to restore slavery in St. Domingo. General Vincent earnestly remonstrated against the expedition. He assured the Consul that the negroes were orderly and industrious, and that every thing was going on peacefully and prosperously for all parties; that it was unnecessary, and [88] therefore cruel, to attempt to reverse this happy state of things. But there was a class of old despotic planters who clamored for the restoration of the arbitrary power, which they had most cruelly abused. Unfortunately, Bonaparte considered it good policy to conciliate that class; and he persisted in his purpose. He tried to restore slavery, by military force, and the consequence was that the French were driven out of the island, with great bloodshed.

In Guadaloupe, where liberty was proclaimed at the same time as in St. Domingo, the sudden transition took place with perfect safety. The reports from the Governors, for successive years, bear testimony that the emancipated laborers were universally industrious and submissive to the laws.

Gen. Lafayette, the consistent friend of human freedom, made a practical experiment of emancipation, as early as 1785. In the French Colony of Cayenne, most of the soil belonged to the crown, and he was able to obtain it on easy terms. He expended $30,000 in purchasing land and slaves. He employed an amiable and judicious gentleman to take the management. The first thing the agent did, when he arrived in Cayenne, was to call the slaves together, and in their presence burn all the whips and other instruments of punishment. He informed them that their owner, Gen. Lafayette had bought them for the purpose of enabling them to obtain their freedom. He then stated to them the laws and regulations by which the estate would be governed, and the pecuniary advantages that would be granted, according to degrees of industry. This stimulus operated like a charm. The energy of the laborers redoubled, and they were obedient to the wishes of their managers. He died from the effects of the climate. But when the slaves in all the French Colonies were emancipated in 1793, the laborers on this estate in Cayenne waited upon the new agent, and said if the land still belonged to Gen. Lafayette they wished to resume their labor for him on the old terms, giving as a reason that they were “desirous to promote the interests of one who had treated them like men, and cheered their toil by making it a certain means of freedom.”

In 1811 the British authorities emancipated all the slaves in Java. This also proved a complete success; as any one [89] can ascertain by examining the account given by Sir Stamford Raffles, who was Governor of the island.

At successive periods, between 1816 and 1828, the South American Republics, Buenos Ayres, Chili, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia and Guatemala emancipated all their slaves. In some of those States means were taken for the instruction of young slaves, who were enfranchised on arriving at a certain age. In other States, slaves of all ages were emancipated after a certain date, fixed by law. In no one instance were these changes productive of any injury to life or property.

In 1828 the British government emancipated all the slaves in Cape Colony. 30,000 Hottentot Helots were admitted by law to all the rights and privileges of the white inhabitants. The slave-holders in the Colony remonstrated vehemently against this measure. They declared that the Hottentots were stupid, sensual, brutal, vicious, and totally incapable of taking care of themselves. They predicted awful outrages, as the consequence of emancipating a horde of such degraded wretches. But the event proved quite otherwise. The poor creatures were grateful for their freedom, and tried to behave as well as they knew how. All went on as peaceably as before, as concerned the white inhabitants, and much more peaceably, as concerned the blacks, who had previously suffered shocking barbarities at the hands of their masters. In the sunlight of freedom even the Hottentots have been gradually emerging out of barbarism. Year by year they pay more for British manufactures, because they wear calico and woollen cloth, instead of sheepskin mantles. They have horses and wagons, and flocks of their own, and their small weekly contributions to the Missionary Societies at the Cape amount to many hundreds of dollars.

From the time that Mexico became independent of Spain, in 1821, there was an increasing conviction in the public mind, that the existence of slavery was inconsistent with their professed principles as a Republic. This feeling soon manifested itself in laws. The prices of slaves were fixed by magistrates, and they were required to work, at stipulated wages, till they had paid for themselves. Protective laws were passed, enabling the servants to work for others, [90] if they were not justly and humanely treated by their masters. Transfers of service might also take place to accommodate the masters; but never without consent of the servants. Mr. Ward, the British Minister to Mexico, in his work on that country, speaks very highly of the beneficial effects produced by these regulations. He says they gave a powerful stimulus to industry, and rapidly increased agricultural prosperity. A Mississippi slave-holder, who went to reside in Matamoras, was also so much pleased with the results of this experiment, that he wrote of it with enthusiasm, as an example highly important to the United States. He declared that the value of plantations was soon increased by the introduction of free labor. He says: “No one was made poor by it. It gave property to the servant, and increased the riches of the master.” Free labor commended itself so much in this process, that, in 1859, the government of Mexico published the following proclamation: “Slavery is forever abolished in this Republic. Consequently, all those individuals, who, until this day have been considered slaves, are free!” No interruption of public peace or prosperity followed this just decree.

In 1831, the South African Commercial Advertiser gave an account of 3,000 prize negroes, taken from slave traders. It says: “They all received their freedom; 400 in one day. No difficulty or disorder occurred. Servants found masters; masters hired servants; all gained homes; and at night scarcely an idler was to be seen.”

In 1848, the French government, after careful examination into the state of things in the British West Indies, decreed immediate emancipation to all the slaves in their Colonies. M. Arago, formerly member of the Provisional Government, wrote thus, in 1851: “Much has been said of the ruin which the Act of Emancipation has scattered over our Colonies. But it should be remembered that they were in a deplorable condition for a long time previous-The Chamber of Deputies resounded daily with their lamentations. Extreme and utterly inadmissible measures for their relief were continually proposed. The Act of Emancipation cut peacefully one of the most complicated questions our social state afforded. Free labor has taken the place of slave labor without much resistance. So far, it has been [91] attended with results sufficiently favorable, and these cannot fail to grow better.” O. Lafayette, grandson of General Lafayette, member of the Chamber of Deputies, wrote thus, in 1851: “In one day, as by the stroke of a wand, 150,000 human beings were snatched from the degradation, in which they had been held by former legislation, and resumed their rank in the great human family. And this great event occurred without any of those disorders and struggles, which had been threatened, in order to perplex the consciences of the friends of abolition.”

In 1857, the Dutch abolished slavery in their West India Colonies. The government paid a certain sum to the masters, and took the entire control of the slaves, who were to work till they repaid the sum advanced for their freedom. Children under five years were free at once, and moderate prices were fixed by law for all the slave population, graduated according to their ages. As soon as the stipulated price was offered by any slave, he became a freeman. Wages were also fixed by law; and in case any planters refused to submit to the prescribed regulations, rural settlements were formed where the colored people could find employment, under the superintendence of managers appointed by government, aided by colleagues who were elected by the laborers. Of course, the success of this experiment will greatly depend on the good-temper and good judgment of the men who manage it. I have no means of ascertaining the degree of financial prosperity in the Dutch West India Colonies since emancipation began to take effect; but I know that before the abolition of slavery, they were complaining of “ruin” and begging for “relief.” The Colony of Surinam, under slavery, made this statement. “Out of nine hundred and seventeen, plantations, six hundred and thirty-six have been totally abandoned. Of the remainder, sixty-five grow nothing but wood and provisions.” The small balance of estates not included in this description, were declared to be on the road to destruction. Whether free labor works better results, time will show. But one thing is already certain; the transition was made with perfect safety. In 1859, the Dutch abolished slavery in all their East India possessions; where it had existed under a comparatively mild form. There was one very remarkable and [92] beautiful feature in this transaction. The government offered an assessed compensation to the masters; but many of them refused to take it, while others took it and gave it to the emancipated slaves, who had worked so many years without wages.

History proves that emancipation has always been safe. It is an undeniable fact, that not one white person has ever been killed, or wounded, or had life or property endangered by any violence attendant upon immediate emancipation, in any of the many cases where the experiment has been tried. On the contrary, it has always produced a feeling of security in the public mind.

CHAPTER VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS.

I appeal to candid readers whether I have not, in the preceding pages, fairly made out a case in favor of immediate emancipation. I have not advanced opinions, or theories; I have simply stated facts. In view of these facts, is it not unjust and irrational to persist in calling immediate emancipation a “fanatical” idea? Leaving the obvious considerations of justice and humanity entirely out of the question, I ask whether experience has not proved it to be a measure of plain, practical good sense, and sound policy. The trouble in forming a correct estimate on this subject arises mainly from our proneness to forget that negroes are men, and, consequently, governed by the same laws of human nature, which govern all men. Compulsion always excites resistance; reward always stimulates exertion. Kindness has upon the human soul an influence as renovating as sunshine upon the earth; and no race is so much and so easily influenced by it as the negroes. Jamaica overseers, blinded by the long habit of considering slaves as cattle, said to them, after they became apprentices, “Work faster, you black rascal! or I’ll flog you.” That excited the apprentice to remind them they had no power to do it. The retort enraged the overseers; and the magistrate was called upon to punish the laborer for his insolence in expressing the feelings of a man. The Antigua planters acted with more enlightened policy. They wisely gave up their power into the hands of the law. If they chanced to see a laborer rather dilatory, they said, “We expect better things of freemen:” and that simple appeal to their manhood, we are told, invariably quickened their motions, while it gratified their feelings.

Free labor has so obviously the advantage, in all respects, over slave labor, that posterity will marvel to find in the history [94] of the nineteenth century any record of a system so barbarous, so clumsy, and so wasteful. Let us make a very brief comparison. The slave is bought, sometimes at a very high price; in free labor there is no such investment of capital. The slave does not care how slowly or carelessly he works; it is the freeman’s interest to do his work well and quickly. The slave is indifferent how many tools he spoils; the freeman has a motive to be careful. The slave’s clothing is indeed very cheap, but it is provided by his master, and it is of no consequence to him how fast it is destroyed; the hired laborer pays more for his garments, but he has a motive for making them last six times as long. The slave contrives to spend as much time as he can in the hospital; the free laborer has no time to spare to be sick. Hopeless poverty and a sense of being unjustly dealt by, impels the slave to steal from his master, and he has no social standing to lose by indulging the impulse; with the freeman pride of character is a powerful inducement to be honest. A salary must be paid to an overseer to compel the slave to work; the freeman is impelled by a desire to increase his property, and add to the comforts of himself and family. We should question the sanity of a man who took the main-spring out of his watch, and hired a boy to turn the hands round. Yet he who takes from laborers the natural and healthy stimulus of wages, and attempts to supply its place by the driver’s whip, pursues a course quite as irrational.

When immediate emancipation is proposed, those who think loosely are apt to say, “But would you turn the slaves loose upon society?” There is no sense in such a question. Emancipated slaves are restrained from crime by the same laws that restrain other men; and experience proves that a consciousness of being protected by legislation inspires them with respect for the laws.

But of all common questions, it seems to me the most absurd one is, “What would you do with the slaves, if they were emancipated?” There would be no occasion for doing any thing with them. Their labor is needed where they are; and if white people can get along with them, under all the disadvantages and dangers of slavery, what should hinder their getting along under a system that would make them [95] work better and faster, while it took from them all motive to rebellion?

It is often asked, “What is your plan?” It is a very simple one; but it would prove as curative as the prophet’s direction, “Go wash, and be clean.” It is merely to stimulate laborers by wages, instead of driving them by the whip. When that plan is once adopted, education and religious teaching, and agricultural improvements will soon follow, as matters of course.

It is not to be supposed that the transition from slavery to freedom would be unattended with inconveniences. All changes in society involve some disadvantages, either to classes or individuals. Even the introduction of a valuable machine disturbs for a while the relations of labor and capital. But it is important to bear in mind that whatever difficulties might attend emancipation would be slight and temporary; while the difficulties and dangers involved in the continuance of slavery are permanent, and constantly increasing. Do you ask in what way it is to be accomplished? I answer, That must finally be decided by legislators. It is my business to use all my energies in creating the will to do it; because I know very well that “Where there is a will there is a way;” and I earnestly entreat all who wish well to their country to aid me in this work.

TESTIMONIES

of

CAPT. JOHN BROWN,

at

HARPER’S FERRY,

with his

ADDRESS TO THE COURT.

“He, being dead, yet speaketh.”

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

1860.

EXTRACTS FROM THE LETTERS OF CAPT. JOHN BROWN.

“I feel quite cheerful in the assurance that God reigns, and will overrule all for his glory and the best possible good. I feel no consciousness of guilt in the matter, nor even mortification on account of my imprisonment and irons; and I feel perfectly assured that very soon no member of my family will feel any possible disposition to ‘blush on my account.’ Already, dear friends at a distance, with kindest sympathy, are cheering me with the assurance that posterity, at least, will do me justice. I shall commend you all together, with my beloved, but bereaved, daughters-in-law, to their sympathies, which I have no doubt will soon reach you. I also commend you all to Him ‘whose mercy endureth for ever’—to the God of my fathers, ‘whose I am, and whom I serve.’ ‘He will never leave you nor forsake you,’ unless you forsake Him. Finally, my dearly beloved, be of good comfort. Be sure to remember and to follow my advice, and my example too, so far as it has been consistent with the holy religion of Jesus Christ, in which I remain a most firm and humble believer. Never forget the poor, nor think any thing you bestow on them to be lost to you, even though they may be as black as Ebedmelech, the Ethiopian eunuch, who cared for Jeremiah in the pit of the dungeon, or as black as the one to whom Philip preached Christ. Be sure to entertain strangers, for thereby some have —— ‘Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them.’ I am in charge of a jailer like the one who took charge of Paul and Silas, and you may rest assured that both kind hearts and kind faces are more or less about me, whilst thousands are thirsting for my [4] blood. ‘These light afflictions, which are but for a moment, shall work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.’ ”

“When and in what form death may come is of but small moment. I feel just as content to die for God’s eternal truth, and for suffering humanity, on the scaffold, as in any other way. And I do not say this from any disposition to ‘brave it out.’ No; I would readily own my wrong, were I in the least convinced of it. I have now been confined over a month, with a good opportunity to look the whole thing as ‘fair in the face’ as I am capable of doing; and I now feel it most grateful that I am counted in the least possible degree worthy to suffer for the truth. I want you all to ‘be of good cheer.’ This life is intended as a season of training, chastisement, temptation, affliction, and trial, and ‘the righteous shall come out of’ it all. O, my dear children, let me again entreat you all to ‘forsake the foolish and live.’ What can you possibly lose by such a course? ‘Godliness with contentment is great gain, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.’ ‘Trust in the Lord and do good, so shalt thou dwell in the land; and verily thou shalt be fed.’ I have enjoyed life much; why should I complain on leaving it? . . . ‘To God and the word of his grace I commend you all.’ ”

“It is solely my own fault, in a military point of view, that we met with our disaster—I mean, that I mingled with our prisoners, and so far sympathized with them and their families, that I neglected my duty in other respects. But God’s will, not mine, be done.

“You know that Christ once armed Peter. So also in my case; I think he put a sword into my hand, and there continued it, so long as he saw best, and then kindly took it from me. I mean when I first went to Kansas. I wish you could know with what cheerfulness I am now wielding the ‘sword of the Spirit’ on the right hand and on the left. I bless God that it proves ‘mighty to the pulling down of strongholds.’ ”

“I do not feel conscious of guilt in taking up arms; and had it been in behalf of the rich and powerful, the intelligent, [5] the great,—as men count greatness,—of those who form enactments to suit themselves and corrupt others, or some of their friends, that I interfered, suffered, sacrificed and fell, it would have been doing very well. But enough of this.

“These light afflictions, which endure for a moment, shall work out for me a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. . . . God will surely attend to his own cause in the best possible way and time, and he will not forget the work of his own hands.”

“I am quite cheerful, having, as I trust, the peace of God, which ‘passeth all understanding,’ to ‘rule in my heart,’ and the testimony (in some degree) of a good conscience that I have not lived altogether in vain. I can trust God with both the time and the manner of my death, believing, as I now do, that for me at this time to seal my testimony for God and humanity with my blood, will do vastly more towards advancing the cause I have earnestly endeavored to promote, than all I have done in my life before. I beg of you all meekly and quietly to submit to this; not feeling yourselves in the least degraded on that account. Remember, dear wife and children all, that Jesus of Nazareth suffered a most excruciating death on the cross as a felon, under the most aggravating circumstances. Think, also, of the prophets, and apostles, and Christians of former days, who went through greater tribulations than you or I, and (try to) be reconciled. May God Almighty comfort all your hearts, and soon wipe away all tears from your eyes! To Him be endless praise! Think, too, of the crushed millions who ‘have no comforter.’ I charge you all never, in your trials, to forget the griefs of ‘the poor that cry, and of those that have none to help them.’

“ ‘Finally, my beloved, be of good comfort.’ May all your names be ‘written on the Lamb’s book of life’—may you all have the purifying and sustaining influence of the Christian religion—is the earnest prayer of your affectionate husband and father.

“I cannot remember a night so dark as to have hindered the coming day, nor a storm so furious or dreadful as to prevent the return of warm sunshine and a cloudless sky. But, [6] beloved ones, do remember that this is not your rest, that in this world you have no abiding-place or continuing city. To God and his infinite mercy I always commend you.”

“I am gaining in health slowly, and am quite cheerful in view of my approaching end, being fully persuaded that I am worth inconceivably more to hang than for any other purpose.

“Say to my poor boys never to grieve for one moment on my account; and should many of you live to see the time when you will not blush to own your relation to Old John Brown, it will not be more strange than many things that have happened. I feel a thousand times more on account of my sorrowing friends than on my own account. So far as I am concerned, I ‘count it all joy.’ ‘I have fought the good fight,’ and have, as I trust, ‘finished my course.’ My love to all; and may God, in his infinite mercy, for Christ’s sake, bless and save you all.”

“I do certainly feel that through divine grace I have endeavored to be ‘faithful in a very few things,’ mingling with even these much of imperfection. I am certainly ‘unworthy even to suffer affliction with the people of God;’ yet in infinite grace he has thus honored me. May the same grace enable me to serve him in a ‘new obedience,’ through my little remainder of this life, and to rejoice in him for ever. I cannot feel that God will suffer even the poorest service we may any of us render him or his cause to be lost or in vain. I do feel, ‘dear brother,’ that I am wonderfully ‘strengthened from on high.’ May I use that strength in ‘showing his strength unto this generation,’ and his power to every one that is to come.”

“I have many opportunities for faithful plain dealing with the more powerful, influential, and intelligent classes in this region, which I trust are not entirely misimproved. I humbly trust that I firmly believe that ‘God reigns,’ and I think I can truly say, ‘Let the earth rejoice.’ May God take care of his own cause, and of his own great name, as well as of those who love their neighbors.”

“Notwithstanding ‘my soul is amongst lions,’ still I believe that ‘God in very deed is with me.’ You will not, therefore, [7] feel surprised when I tell you that I am ‘joyful in all my tribulations’; that I do not feel condemned of him whose judgment is just, nor of my own conscience. Nor do I feel degraded by my imprisonment, my chain, or prospect of the gallows. I have not only been (though utterly unworthy) permitted to ‘suffer affliction with God’s people,’ but have also had a great many rare opportunities for ‘preaching righteousness in the great congregation.’ I trust it will not all be lost. The jailer in whose charge I am, and his family and assistants, have all been most kind; and, notwithstanding he was one of the bravest of all who fought me, he is now being abused for his humanity. So far as my observation goes, none but brave men are likely to be humane to a fallen foe. Cowards prove their courage by their ferocity. It may be done in that way with but little risk.”

“Christ, the great Captain of liberty as well as of salvation, and who began his mission, as foretold of him, by proclaiming it, saw fit to take from me a sword of steel, after I had carried it for a time; but he has put another in my hand, ‘the sword of the Spirit’; and I pray God to make me a faithful soldier wherever he may send me—not less on the scaffold, than when surrounded by my warmest sympathizers.

“My dear old friend, I do assure you that I have not forgotten our last meeting, nor our retrospective look over the route by which God had then led us; and I bless his name that he has again enabled me to hear your words of cheering and comfort at a time when I, at least, am on the ‘brink of Jordan.’ (See Bunyan’s Pilgrim.) God in infinite mercy grant us soon another meeting on the opposite shore. I have often passed under the rod of Him whom I call my Father; and certainly no son ever needed it oftener; and yet I have enjoyed much of life, as I was enabled to discover the secret of this somewhat early. It has been in making the prosperity and the happiness of others my own; so that really I have had a great deal of prosperity. I am very prosperous still, and looking forward to a time when ‘peace on earth and good will to men’ shall every where prevail; I have no murmuring thoughts or envious feelings to fret my mind. ‘I’ll praise my Maker with my breath.’ ”

“As I believe most firmly that God reigns, I cannot believe that any thing I have done, suffered, or may yet suffer, [8] will be lost to the cause of God or of humanity. And before I began my work at Harper’s Ferry, I felt assured that in the worst event, it would certainly pay. I often expressed that belief, and can now see no possible cause to alter my mind. I am not as yet, in the main, at all disappointed. I have been a good deal disappointed as regards myself in not keeping up to my own plans; but I now feel entirely reconciled to that, even; for God’s plan was infinitely better, no doubt, or I should have kept to my own. Had Samson kept to his determination of not telling Delilah wherein his great strength lay, he would probably never have overturned the house. I did not tell Delilah; but I was induced to act very contrary to my better judgment; and I have lost my two noble boys, and other friends, if not my two eyes.

“But ‘God’s will, not mine, be done.’ I feel a comfortable hope that, like that erring servant of whom I have just been writing, even I may, through infinite mercy in Christ Jesus, yet ‘die in faith.’ As to both the time and manner of my death, I have but very little trouble on that score, and am able to be, as you exhort, ‘of good cheer.’ ”

“Let me say a word about the effort to educate our daughters. I am no longer able to provide means to help towards that object, and it therefore becomes me not to dictate in the matter. I shall gratefully submit the direction of the whole thing to those whose generosity may lead them to undertake it in their behalf, while I give anew a little expression of my own choice respecting it. You, my wife, perfectly well know that I have always expressed a decided preference for a very plain, but perfectly practical, education for both sons and daughters. I do not mean an education so very miserable as that you and I received in early life, nor as some of our children enjoyed. When I say plain, but practical, I mean enough of the learning of the schools to enable them to transact the common business of life comfortably and respectably, together with that thorough training to good business habits which best prepares both men and women to be useful, though poor, and to meet the stern realities of life with a good grace. You well know that I always claimed that the music of the broom, wash-tub, needle, spindle, loom, axe, scythe, hoe, flail, &c., should first be learned at all events, and that of the piano, [9] &c., afterwards. I put them in that order as most conducive to health of body and mind; and for the obvious reason that, after a life of some experience and of much observation, I have found ten women, as well as ten men, who have made their mark in life right, whose early training was of that plain, practical kind, to one who had a more popular and fashionable early training.”

“Tell your father that I am quite cheerful; that I do not feel myself in the least degraded by my imprisonment, my chains, or the near prospect of the gallows. Men cannot imprison, or chain, or hang the soul. I go joyfully in behalf of millions that ‘have no rights’ that this great and glorious, this Christian Republic is ‘bound to respect.’ Strange change in morals, political as well as Christian, since 1776! I look forward to other changes to take place in God’s good time, fully believing that the ‘fashion of this world passeth away.’ ”

“I am ‘joyful in all my tribulations,’ even since my confinement, and I humbly trust that ‘I know in whom I have trusted.’ A calm peace, perhaps like that which your own dear mother felt, in view of her last change, seems to fill my mind by day and by night. Of this, neither the powers of ‘earth or hell’ can deprive me. Do not, dear children, any of you, grieve for a single moment on my account. As I trust my life has not been thrown away, so I also humbly trust that my death shall not be in vain. God can make it to be a thousand times more valuable to his own cause than all the miserable service, at best, that I have rendered it during my life. . . . I know of nothing you can any of you now do for me, unless it is to comfort your own hearts, and cheer and encourage each other to trust in God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. If you will keep his sayings, you shall certainly ‘know of his doctrine, whether it be of God or no.’ Nothing can be more grateful to me than your earnest sympathy, except it be to know that you are fully persuaded to be Christians.”

“I am not a stranger to the way of salvation by Christ. From my youth, I have studied much on that subject, and at [10] one time hoped to be a minister myself; but God had another work for me to do. To me it is given, in behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake. But while I trust that I have some experimental and saving knowledge of religion, it would be a great pleasure to me to have some one better qualified than myself to lead my mind in prayer and meditation, now that my time is so near a close. You may wonder, are there no ministers of the gospel here? I answer, No. There are no ministers of Christ here. These ministers who profess to be Christian, and hold slaves or advocate slavery, I cannot abide them. My knees will not bend in prayer with them while their hands are stained with the blood of souls.

“The subject you mention as having been preaching on, the day before you wrote to me, is one which I have often thought of since my imprisonment. I think I feel as happy as Paul did when he lay in prison. He knew if they killed him, it would greatly advance the cause of Christ; that was the reason he rejoiced so. On that same ground ‘I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.’ Let them hang me; I forgive them, and may God forgive them, for they know not what they do. I have no regret for the transaction for which I am condemned. I went against the laws of men, it is true; but ‘whether it be right to obey God or men, judge ye.’ Christ told me to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them, to do towards them as I would wish them to do towards me in similar circumstances. My conscience bade me do that. I tried to do it, but failed. Therefore I have no regret on that score. I have no sorrow, either, as to the result, only for my poor wife and children. They have suffered much, and it is hard to leave them uncared for. But God will be a husband to the widow, and a father to the fatherless.”

“I have had many interesting visits from pro-slavery persons, almost daily, and I endeavor to improve them faithfully, plainly and kindly. I do not think I ever enjoyed life better than since my confinement here. For this I am indebted to Infinite Grace, and kind letters from friends from different quarters. I wish I could only know that all my poor family were as composed and as happy as I. I think [11] nothing but the Christian religion could ever make any one so composed.

“ ‘My willing soul would stay
In such a frame as this.’ ”

“Although I have not been at all low-spirited nor cast down in feeling since being imprisoned and under sentence, which I am fully aware is soon to be carried out, it is exceedingly gratifying to learn from friends that there are not wanting in this generation some to sympathize with me and appreciate my motive, even now that I am whipped. Success is in general the standard of all merit. I have passed my time here quite cheerfully, still trusting that neither my life nor my death will prove a total loss. As regards both, however, I am liable to mistake. It affords me some satisfaction to feel conscious of having at least tried to better the condition of those who are always on the under-hill side, and I am in hope of being able to meet the consequences without a murmur. I am endeavoring to get ready for another field of action, where no defeat befalls the truly brave. That ‘God reigns,’ and most wisely, and controls all events, might, it would seem, reconcile those who believe it to much that appears to be very disastrous. I am one who has tried to believe that, and still keep trying. Those who die for the truth may prove to be courageous at last; so I continue ‘hoping on,’ till I shall find that the truth must finally prevail. I do not feel in the least degree despondent nor degraded by my circumstances, and I entreat my friends not to grieve on my account.”

“I will add, if the Court will allow me, that I look upon it as a miserable artifice and pretext of those who ought to take a different course in regard to me, if they took any at all, and I view it with contempt more than otherwise. Insane persons, so far as my experience goes, have but little ability to judge of their own sanity; and if I am insane, of course I should think I knew more than all the rest of the world. But I do not think so. I am perfectly unconscious of insanity, and I reject, so far as I am capable, any attempts to interfere in my behalf on that score.”

[12]

“The great bulk of mankind estimate each other’s actions and motives by the measure of success or otherwise that attends them through life. By that rule, I have been one of the worst and one of the best of men. I do not claim to have been one of the latter; and I leave it to an impartial tribunal to decide whether the world has been the worse or the better for my living and dying in it. My present great anxiety is to get as near in readiness for a different field of action as I well can, since being in a good measure relieved from the fear that my poor, broken-hearted wife and children would come to immediate want. May God reward, a thousand fold, all the kind efforts made in their behalf!

“I have enjoyed remarkable cheerfulness and composure of mind ever since my confinement; and it is a great comfort to feel assured that I am permitted to die for a cause, not merely to pay the debt of nature, as all must. I feel myself to be most unworthy of so great distinction. The particular manner of dying assigned to me gives me but very little uneasiness. I wish I had the time and the ability to give you, my dear friend, some little idea of what is daily, and, I might almost say, hourly, passing within my prison-walls; and could my friends but witness only a few of those scenes, just as they occur, I think they would feel very well reconciled to my being here just what I am, and just as I am. My whole life before had not afforded me one half the opportunity to plead for the right. In this, also, I find much to reconcile me both to my present condition and my immediate prospect. I may be very insane (and I am so, if insane at all); but if that be so, insanity is like a very pleasant dream to me. I am not in the least degree conscious of any ravings, of any fears, or of any terrible visions whatever; but fancy myself entirely composed, and that my sleep, in particular, is as sweet as that of a healthy, joyous little infant. I pray God that he will grant me a continuance of the same calm, but delightful, dream, until I come to know of those realities which ‘eyes have not seen, and which ears have not heard.’ I have scarce realized that I am in prison, or in irons, at all. I certainly think I was never more cheerful in my life.”

“I am waiting the hour of my public murder with great composure of mind and cheerfulness, feeling the strong [13] assurance, that in no other possible way could I be used to so much advantage to the cause of God and of humanity, and that nothing that either I or all my family have sacrificed or suffered will be lost. The reflection that a wise and merciful, as well as a just and holy God, rules not only the affairs of this world, but of all worlds, is a rock to set our feet upon under all circumstances—even those more severely trying ones into which our own feelings and wrongs have placed us. I have now no doubt but that our seeming disaster will ultimately result in the most glorious success. So, my dear shattered and broken family, be of good cheer, and believe and trust in God with all your heart, and with all your soul, for he doeth all things well. Do not feel ashamed on my account, nor for one moment despair of the cause or grow weary of well doing. I bless God I never felt stronger confidence in the certain and near approach of a bright morning and glorious day than I have felt, and do now feel, since my confinement here. I am endeavoring to return, like a poor prodigal as I am, to my Father, against whom I have always sinned, in the hope that he may kindly and forgivingly meet me, though a very great way off.

“O, my dear wife and children, would to God you could know how I have been travailing in birth for you all, that no one of you may fail of the grace of God through Jesus Christ; that no one of you may be blind to the truth and glorious light of his Word, in which life and immortality are brought to light.”

“My dear young children, will you listen to this last poor admonition of one who can only love you? O, be determined at once to give your whole heart to God, and let nothing shake or alter that resolution. You need have no fears of regretting it. Do not be vain and thoughtless, but sober-minded; and let me entreat you all to love the whole remnant of our once great family. Try and build up again your broken walls, and to make the utmost of every stone that is left. Nothing can so tend to make life a blessing as the consciousness that your life and example bless and leave you the stronger. Still, it is ground of the utmost comfort to my mind to know that so many of you as have had the opportunity have given some proof of your fidelity to the great family of men. Be faithful unto death; from the exercise of [14] habitual love to man, it cannot be very hard to love his Maker.”

“Be sure to owe no man any thing, but to love one another. John Rogers wrote to his children, ‘Abhor that arrant whore of Rome.’ John Brown writes to his children to abhor, with undying hatred also, that sum of all villanies, slavery. Remember, he that is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city. Remember, also, that they, being wise, shall shine, and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever.”

“I am very cheerful, in hopes of entering on a better state of existence in a few hours, through infinite grace in ‘Christ Jesus, my Lord.’ Remember the ‘poor that cry,’ and ‘them that are in bonds as bound with them.’ ”

JOHN BROWN’S LAST SPEECH.

I have, may it please the Court, a few words to say.

In the first place, I deny every thing but what I have all along admitted—the design on my part to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clear thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when I went into Missouri, and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again, on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.

I have another objection: and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved—(for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case)—had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right, and every man in this Court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This Court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the Law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or, at least, the New Testament. That teaches me that all things “whatsoever I would that men should do unto me, I should do even so to them.” It teaches me, further, to “remember them that are in bonds as bound with them.” I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say, I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I have done, in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children, and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by [16] wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit: so let it be done!

Let me say one word further.

I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances, it has been more generous than I expected. But I feel no consciousness of guilt. I have stated from the first what was my intention and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of that kind.

Let me say, also, a word in regard to the statements made by some of those connected with me. I hear it has been stated by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with, till the day they came to me, and that was for the purpose I have stated.

Now I have done.

THE

PHILOSOPHY

of the

ABOLITION MOVEMENT.

by

WENDELL PHILLIPS.

NEW YORK:

published by the american anti-slavery society.

1860.

SPEECH OF WENDELL PHILLIPS, AT THE MELODEON, BOSTON, JAN. 27, 1853.

Mr. Chairman,—

I have to present, from the Business Committee, the following resolution:—

Resolved, That the object of this Society is now, as it has always been, to convince our countrymen, by arguments addressed to their hearts and consciences, that slaveholding is a heinous crime, and that the duty, safety and interest of all concerned, demand its immediate abolition, without expatriation.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, to notice some objections that have been made to our course, ever since Mr. Garrison began his career, and which have been lately urged again, with considerable force and emphasis, in the columns of the London Leader, the able organ of a very respectable and influential class in England. I hope, Sir, you will not think it waste of time to bring such a subject before you. I know these objections have been made a thousand times; that they have been often answered; though we have generally submitted to them in silence, willing to let results speak for us. But there are times when justice to the slave will not allow us to be silent. There are many in this country, many in England, who have had their attention turned, recently, to the Anti-Slavery cause. They are asking, “Which is the best and most efficient method of helping it?” Engaged ourselves in an effort for the slave, which time has tested and success [4] hitherto approved, we are, very properly, desirous that they should join us in our labors, and pour into this channel the full tide of their new zeal and great resources. Thoroughly convinced ourselves that our course is wise, we can honestly urge others to adopt it. Long experience gives us a right to advise. The fact that our course, more than all other efforts, has caused that agitation which has awakened these new converts, gives us a right to counsel them. They are our spiritual children: for their sakes, we would free the cause we love and trust from every seeming defect and plausible objection. For the slave’s sake, we reiterate our explanations, that he may lose no tittle of help by the mistakes or misconceptions of his friends.

All that I have to say on these points will be to you, Mr. Chairman, very trite and familiar; but the facts may be new to some, and I prefer to state them here, in Boston, where we have lived and worked, because, if our statements are incorrect, if we claim too much, our assertions can be easily answered and disproved.

The charges to which I refer are these: That in dealing with slaveholders and their apologists, we indulge in fierce denunciations, instead of appealing to their reason and common sense by plain statements and fair argument;—that we might have won the sympathies and support of the nation, if we would have submitted to argue this question with a manly patience; but instead of this, we have outraged the feelings of the community by attacks, unjust and unnecessarily severe, on its most valued institutions, and gratified our spleen by indiscriminate abuse of leading men, who were often honest in their intentions, however mistaken in their views;—that we have utterly neglected the ample means that lay around us to convert the nation, submitted to no discipline, formed no plan, been guided by no foresight, but hurried on in childish, reckless, blind and hot-headed zeal—bigots in the narrowness of our views, and fanatics in our blind fury of invective and malignant judgment of other men’s motives.

There are some who come upon our platform, and give us the aid of names and reputations less burdened than ours with popular odium, who are perpetually urging us to exercise charity in our judgments of those about us, and to consent to argue these questions. These men are ever parading [5] their wish to draw a line between themselves and us, because they must be permitted to wait—to trust more to reason than feeling—to indulge a generous charity—to rely on the sure influence of simple truth, uttered in love, &c. &c. I reject with scorn all these implications that our judgments are uncharitable,—that we are lacking in patience,—that we have any other dependence than on the simple truth, spoken with Christian frankness yet with Christian love. These lectures, to which you, Sir, and all of us, have so often listened, would be impertinent, if they were not rather ridiculous for the gross ignorance they betray of the community, of the cause, and of the whole course of its friends.

The article in the Leader to which I refer is signed “Ion,” and may be found in the Liberator of December 17, 1852. The writer is cordial and generous in his recognition of Mr. Garrison’s claim to be the representative of the Anti-Slavery movement, and does entire justice to his motives and character. The criticisms of “Ion” were reprinted in the Christian Register, of this city, the organ of the Unitarian denomination. The editors of that paper, with their usual Christian courtesy, love of truth, and fair-dealing, omitted all “Ion’s” expressions of regard for Mr. Garrison and appreciation of his motives, and reprinted only those parts of the article which undervalue his sagacity and influence, and endorse the common objections to his method and views. You will see in a moment, Mr. President, that it is with such men and presses, “Ion” thinks Mr. Garrison has not been sufficiently wise and patient, in trying to win their help for the Anti-Slavery cause. Perhaps, were he on the spot, it would tire even his patience and puzzle even his sagacity to make any other use of them than that of the drunken Helot—a warning to others how disgusting mean vice is. Perhaps, were he here, he would see that the best and only use to be made of them is to let them unfold their own characters, and then show the world how rotten our Politics and Religion are, that they naturally bear such fruit. “Ion” quotes Mr. Garrison’s original declaration, in the Liberator:—

“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.

[6]

It is pretended that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question, my influence, humble as it is, is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years—not perniciously, but beneficially—not as a curse, but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony that I was right. I desire to thank God that he enables me to disregard ‘the fear of man which bringeth a snare,’ and to speak his truth in its simplicity and power.”

He then goes on to say:—

“This is a defence which has been generally accepted on this side of the Atlantic, and many are the Abolitionists among us whom it has encouraged in honesty and impotence, and whom it has converted into conscientious hindrances. * * *

We would have Mr. Garrison to say, ‘I will be as harsh as progress, as uncompromising as success.’ If a man speaks for his own gratification, he may be as ‘harsh’ as he pleases; but if he speaks for the down-trodden and oppressed, he must be content to put a curb upon the tongue of holiest passion, and speak only as harshly as is compatible with the amelioration of the evil he proposes to redress. Let the question be again repeated: Do you seek for the slave vengeance or redress? If you seek retaliation, go on denouncing. But distant Europe honors William Lloyd Garrison because it credits him with seeking for the slave simply redress. We say, therefore, that ‘uncompromising’ policy is not to be measured by absolute justice, but by practical amelioration of the slave’s condition. Amelioration as fast as you can get it—absolute justice as soon as you can reach it.”

He quotes the sentiment of Confucius, that he would choose for a leader “a man who would maintain a steady vigilance in the direction of affairs, who was capable of forming plans, and of executing them,” and says:—

“The philosopher was right in placing wisdom and executive capacity above courage; for down to this day, our popular movements are led by heroes who fear nothing, and who win nothing. * * *

There is no question raised in these articles as to the work to be done, but only as to the mode of really doing it. The platform resounds with announcements of principle, which is but asserting a right, while nothing but contempt is showered on policy, which is the realization of right. The air is filled with all high cries and spirited denunciations; indignation is at a premium; and this is called advocacy. * * * But to calculate, to make sure of your aim, is to be decried as one who is too cold to feel, too genteel to strike.”

Further on, he observes:—

“If an artillery officer throws shell after shell which never reach the enemy, he is replaced by some one with a better eye and a surer aim. But in the artillery battle of opinion, to mean to hit is quite sufficient; and if you have a certain grand indifference as to whether you hit or not, you may count on public applause. * * *

[7]

A man need be no less militant, as the soldier of facts, than as the agent of swords. But the arena of argument needs discipline, no less than that of arms. It is this which the Anti-Slavery party seem to me not only to overlook, but to despise. They do not put their valor to drill. Neither on the field nor the platform has courage any inherent capacity of taking care of itself.”

The writer then proceeds to make a quotation from Mr. Emerson, the latter part of which I will read:—

“Let us withhold every reproachful, and, if we can, every indignant remark. In this cause, we must renounce our temper, and the risings of pride. If there be any man who thinks the ruin of a race of men a small matter compared with the last decorations and completions of his own comfort—who would not so much as part with his ice-cream to save them from rapine and manacles—I think I must not hesitate to satisfy that man, that also his cream and vanilla are safer and cheaper by placing the negro nation on a fair footing than by robbing them. If the Virginian piques himself on the picturesque luxury of his vassalage, on the heavy Ethiopian manners of his house servants, their silent obedience, their hue of bronze, their turbaned heads, and would not exchange them for the more intelligent but precarious hired services of whites, I shall not refuse to show him that when their free papers are made out, it will still be their interest to remain on his estates; and that the oldest planters of Jamaica are convinced that it is cheaper to pay wages than to own slaves.”

The critic takes exception to Mr. Garrison’s approval of the denunciatory language in which Daniel O’Connell rebuked the giant sin of America, and concludes his article with this sentence:—

“When William Lloyd Garrison praises the great Celtic Monarch of invective for this dire outpouring, he acts the part of the boy who fancies that the terror is in the war-whoop of the savage, unmindful of the quieter muskets of the civilized infantry, whose unostentatious execution blows whoop and tomahawk to the devil.”

Before passing to a consideration of these remarks of “Ion,” let me say a word in relation to Mr. Emerson. I do not consider him as endorsing any of these criticisms on the Abolitionists. His services to the most radical Anti-Slavery movement have been generous and marked. He has never shrunk from any odium which lending his name and voice to it would incur. Making fair allowance for his peculiar taste, habits and genius, he has given a generous amount of aid to the Anti-Slavery movement, and never let its friends want his cordial “God-speed.”

“Ion’s” charges are the old ones, that we Abolitionists are hurting our own cause—that, instead of waiting for the [8] community to come up to our views, and endeavoring to remove prejudice and enlighten ignorance, by patient explanation and fair argument, we fall at once, like children, to abusing every thing and every body—that we imagine zeal will supply the place of common sense—that we have never shown any sagacity in adapting our means to our ends, have never studied the national character, or attempted to make use of the materials which lay all about us, to influence public opinion, but by blind, childish, obstinate fury and indiscriminate denunciation, have become “honestly impotent, and conscientious hindrances.”

These, Sir, are the charges which have uniformly been brought against all reformers in all ages. “Ion” thinks the same faults are chargeable on the leaders of all the “popular movements” in England, which, he says, “are led by heroes who fear nothing and who win nothing.” If the leaders of popular movements in Great Britain for the last fifty years have been losers, I should be curious to know what party, in “Ion’s” opinion, have won? My Lord Derby and his friends seem to think Democracy has made, and is making, dangerous headway. If the men who, by popular agitation, outside of Parliament, wrung from a powerful oligarchy Parliamentary Reform, and the Abolition of the Test Acts, of High Post Rates, of Catholic Disability, of Negro Slavery and the Corn Laws, did “not win any thing,” it would be hard to say what winning is. If the men who, without the ballot, made Peel their tool and conquered the Duke of Wellington, are considered unsuccessful, pray what kind of a thing would success be? Those who now, at the head of that same middle class, demand the separation of Church and State, and the Extension of the Ballot, may well guess, from the fluttering of Whig and Tory dovecotes, that soon they will “win” that same “nothing.” Heaven grant they may enjoy the same ill success with their predecessors! On our side of the ocean, too, we ought deeply to sympathize with the leaders of the Temperance movement in their entire want of success! If “Ion’s” mistakes about the Anti-Slavery cause lay as much on the surface as those I have just noticed, it would be hardly worth while to reply to him; for as to these, he certainly exhibits only “the extent and variety of his mis-information.”

[9]

His remarks upon the Anti-Slavery movement are, however, equally inaccurate. I claim, before you who know the true state of the case, I claim for the Anti-Slavery movement with which this Society is identified, that, looking back over its whole course, and considering the men connected with it in the mass, it has been marked by sound judgment, unerring foresight, the most sagacious adaptation of means to ends, the strictest self-discipline, the most thorough research, and an amount of patient and manly argument addressed to the conscience and intellect of the nation, such as no other cause of the kind, in England or this country, has ever offered. I claim, also, that its course has been marked by a cheerful surrender of all individual claims to merit or leadership—the most cordial welcoming of the slightest effort, of every honest attempt to lighten or to break the chain of the slave. I need not waste time by repeating the superfluous confession that we are men, and therefore do not claim to be perfect. Neither would I be understood as denying that we use denunciation, and ridicule, and every other weapon that the human mind knows. We must plead guilty, if there be guilt in not knowing how to separate the sin from the sinner. With all the fondness for abstractions attributed to us, we are not yet capable of that. We are fighting a momentous battle at desperate odds—one against a thousand. Every weapon that ability or ignorance, wit, wealth, prejudice or fashion can command, is pointed against us. The guns are shotted to their lips. The arrows are poisoned. Fighting against such an array, we cannot afford to confine ourselves to any one weapon. The cause is not ours, so that we might, rightfully, postpone or put in peril the victory by moderating our demands, stifling our convictions, or filing down our rebukes, to gratify any sickly taste of our own, or to spare the delicate nerves of our neighbor. Our clients are three millions of Christian slaves, standing dumb suppliants at the threshold of the Christian world. They have no voice but ours to utter their complaints, or to demand justice. The press, the pulpit, the wealth, the literature, the prejudices, the political arrangements, the present self-interest of the country, are all against us. God has given us no weapon but the truth, faithfully uttered, and addressed, with the old prophets directness, to the conscience of [10] the individual sinner. The elements which control public opinion and mould the masses are against us. We can but pick off here and there a man from the triumphant majority. We have facts for those who think, arguments for those who reason; but he who cannot be reasoned out of his prejudices must be laughed out of them; he who cannot be argued out of his selfishness must be shamed out of it by the mirror of his hateful self held up relentlessly before his eyes. We live in a land where every man makes broad his phylactery, inscribing thereon, “All men are created equal”—“God hath made of one blood all nations of men.” It seems to us that in such a land there must be, on this question of Slavery, sluggards to be awakened as well as doubters to be convinced. Many more, we verily believe, of the first, than of the last. There are far more dead hearts to be quickened than confused intellects to be cleared up—more dumb dogs to be made to speak, than doubting consciences to be enlightened. (Loud cheers.) We have use, then, sometimes, for something beside argument.

What is the denunciation with which we are charged? It is endeavoring, in our faltering human speech, to declare the enormity of the sin of making merchandise of men—of separating husband and wife—taking the infant from its mother, and selling the daughter to prostitution—of a professedly Christian nation denying, by statute, the Bible to every sixth man and woman of its population, and making it illegal for “two or three” to meet together, except a white man be present! What is this harsh criticism of motives with which we are charged? It is simply holding the intelligent and deliberate actor responsible for the character and consequences of his acts. Is there any thing inherently wrong in such denunciation or such criticism? This we may claim—we have never judged a man but out of his own mouth. We have seldom, if ever, held him to account, except for acts of which he and his own friends were proud. All that we ask the world and thoughtful men to note are the principles and deeds on which the American pulpit and American public men plume themselves. We always allow our opponents to paint their own pictures. Our humble duty is to stand by and assure the spectators, that what they would take for a [11] knave or a hypocrite is really, in American estimation, a Doctor of Divinity or Secretary of State. [13]

The South is one great brothel, where half a million of women are flogged to prostitution, or, worse still, are degraded to believe it honorable. The public squares of half our great cities echo to the wail of families torn asunder at the auction-block—no one of our fair rivers that has not closed [12] over the negro seeking in death a refuge from a life too wretched to bear—thousands of fugitives skulk along our highways, afraid to tell their names, and trembling at the sight of a human being—free men are kidnapped in our streets, to be plunged into that hell of slavery, and now and then one, as if by miracle, after long years, returns to make men aghast with his tale. The Press says, “It is all right;” and the Pulpit cries, “Amen.” We print the Bible in every tongue in which man utters his prayers; and get the money to do so by agreeing never to give the book, in the language our mothers taught us, to any negro, free or bond, south of Mason and Dixon’s line. The Press says, “It is all right;” and the Pulpit cries, “Amen.” The slave lifts up his imploring eyes, and sees in every face, but ours, the face of an enemy. Prove to me now that harsh rebuke, indignant denunciation, scathing sarcasm, and pitiless ridicule, are wholly and always unjustifiable; else we dare not, in so desperate a case, throw away any weapon which ever broke up the crust of an ignorant prejudice, roused a slumbering conscience, shamed a proud sinner, or changed, in any way, the conduct of a human being. Our aim is to alter public opinion. Did we live in a market, our talk should be of dollars and cents, and we would seek to prove only that slavery was an unprofitable investment. Were the nation one great, pure Church, we would sit down and reason of “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.” Had slavery fortified itself in a College, we would load our cannons with cold facts, and wing our arrows with arguments. But we happen to live in the world—the world made up of thought and impulse, of self-conceit and self-interest, of weak men and wicked. To, conquer, we must reach all. Our object is not to make every man a Christian or a philosopher, but to induce every one to aid in the abolition of slavery. We expect to accomplish our object long before the nation is made over into saints, or elevated into philosophers. To change public opinion, we use the very tools by which it was formed. That is, all such as an honest man may touch.

All this I am not only ready to allow, but I should be ashamed to think of the slave, or to look into the face of my fellow-man, if it were otherwise. It is the only thing that justifies us to our own consciences, and makes us able to say we have done, or at least tried to do, our duty.

[13]

So far, however you distrust my philosophy, you will not doubt my statements. That we have denounced and rebuked with unsparing fidelity will not be denied. Have we not also addressed ourselves to that other duty, of arguing our question thoroughly—of using due discretion and fair sagacity in endeavoring to promote our cause? Yes, we have. Every statement we have made has been doubted. Every principle we have laid down has been denied by overwhelming majorities against us. No one step has ever been gained but by the most laborious research and the most exhausting argument. And no question has ever, since Revolutionary days, been so thoroughly investigated or argued here, as that of Slavery. Of that research and that argument, of the whole of it, the old-fashioned, fanatical, crazy Garrisonian Anti-Slavery movement has been the author. From this band of men has proceeded every important argument or idea that has been broached on the Anti-Slavery question from 1830 to the present time. (Cheers.) I am well aware of the extent of the claim I make. I recognize, as fully as any one can, the ability of the new laborers—the eloquence and genius with which they have recommended this cause to the nation, and flashed conviction home on the conscience of the community. I do not mean, either, to assert that they have in every instance borrowed from our treasury their facts and arguments. Left to themselves, they would probably have looked up the one, and originated the other. As a matter of fact, however, they have generally made use of the materials collected to their hands. But there are some persons about us, sympathizers, to a great extent, with “Ion,” who pretend that the Anti-Slavery movement has been hitherto mere fanaticism, its only weapon angry abuse. They are obliged to assert this, in order to justify their past indifference or hostility. At present, when it suits their purpose to give it some attention, they endeavor to explain the change by alleging that now it has been taken up by men of thoughtful minds, and its claims are urged by fair discussion and able argument. My claim, then, is this: that neither the charity of the most timid of sects, the sagacity of our wisest converts, nor the culture of the ripest scholars, though all have been aided by our twenty years’ experience, has yet struck out any new method of reaching the public mind, or originated [14] any new argument or train of thought, or discovered any new fact bearing on the question. When once brought fully into the struggle, they have found it necessary to adopt the same means, to rely on the same arguments, to hold up the same men and the same measures to public reprobation, with the same bold rebuke and unsparing invective that we have used. All their conciliatory bearing, their pains-taking moderation, their constant and anxious endeavor to draw a broad line between their camp and ours, have been thrown away. Just so far as they have been effective laborers, they have found, as we have, their hands against every man, and every man’s hand against them. The most experienced of them are ready to acknowledge that our plan has been wise, our course efficient, and that our unpopularity is no fault of ours, but flows necessarily and unavoidably from our position. “I should suspect,” says old Fuller, “that his preaching had no salt in it, if no galled horse did wince.” Our friends find, after all, that men do not so much hate us as the truth we utter and the light we bring. They find that the community are not the honest seekers after truth which they fancied, but selfish politicians and sectarian bigots, who shiver, like Alexander’s butler, whenever the sun shines on them. Experience has driven these new laborers back to our method. We have no quarrel with them—would not steal one wreath of their laurels. All we claim is, that if they are to be complimented as prudent, moderate, Christian, sagacious, statesmanlike reformers, we deserve the same praise; for they have done nothing that we, in our measures, did not attempt before. (Cheers.)

I claim this, that the cause, in its recent aspect, has put on nothing but timidity. It has taken to itself no new weapons of recent years; it has become more compromising—that is all! It has become neither more persuasive, more learned, more Christian, more charitable, nor more effective, than for the twenty years preceding. Mr. Hale, the head of the Free Soil movement, after a career in the Senate that would do honor to any man—after a six years’ course which entitles him to the respect and confidence of the Anti-Slavery public—can put his name, within the last month, to an appeal from the city of Washington, signed by a Houston and a Cass, for a monument to be raised to Henry Clay! If that [15] be the test of charity and courtesy, we cannot give it to the world. (Loud cheers.) Some of the leaders of the Free Soil party of Massachusetts, after exhausting the whole capacity of our language to paint the treachery of Daniel Webster to the cause of liberty, and the evil they thought he was able and seeking to do,—after that, could feel it in their hearts to parade themselves in the funeral procession got up to do him honor! In this we allow we cannot follow them. The deference which every gentleman owes to the proprieties of social life, that self-respect and regard to consistency which is every man’s duty, these, if no deeper feelings, will ever prevent us from giving such proofs of this newly-invented Christian courtesy. (Great cheering.) We do not play politics; Anti-Slavery is no half-jest with us; it is a terrible earnest, with life or death, worse than life or death, on the issue. It is no law-suit, where it matters not to the good feeling of opposing counsel which way the verdict goes, and where advocates can shake hands after the decision as pleasantly as before. When we think of such a man as Henry Clay, his long life, his mighty influence cast always into the scale against the slave; of that irresistible fascination with which he moulded every one to his will; when we remember that, his conscience acknowledging the justice of our cause, and his heart open on every other side to the gentlest impulses, he could sacrifice so remorselessly his convictions and the welfare of millions to his low ambition: when we think how the slave trembled at the sound of his voice, and that, from a multitude of breaking hearts, there went up nothing but gratitude to God when it pleased him to call that great sinner from this world,—we cannot find it in our hearts, we could not shape our lips, to ask any man to do him honor. (Great sensation.) No amount of eloquence, no sheen of official position, no loud grief of partisan friends, would ever lead us to ask monuments or walk in fine processions for pirates; and the sectarian zeal or selfish ambition which gives up, deliberately and in full knowledge of the facts, three million of human beings to hopeless ignorance, daily robbery, systematic prostitution, and murder, which the law is neither able nor undertakes to prevent or avenge, is more monstrous, in our eyes, than the love of gold which takes a score of lives with merciful quickness on the high seas. Haynau on the [16] Danube is no more hateful to us than Haynau on the Potomac. Why give mobs to one, and monuments to the other?

If these things be necessary to courtesy, I cannot claim that we are courteous. We seek only to be honest men, and speak the same of the dead as of the living. If the grave that hides their bodies could swallow also the evil they have done and the example they leave, we might enjoy at least the luxury of forgetting them. But the evil that men do lives after them, and Example acquires ten-fold authority when it speaks from the grave. History, also, is to be written. How shall a feeble minority, without weight or influence in the country, with no jury of millions to appeal to,—denounced, vilified, and contemned,—how shall we make way against the overwhelming weight of some colossal reputation, if we do not turn from the idolatrous Present, and appeal to the Human Race; saying to your idols of to-day, “Here we are defeated; but we will write our judgment with the iron pen of a century to come, and it shall never be forgotten, if we can help it, that you were false in your generation to the claims of the slave!” (Loud cheers.)

At present, our leading men, strong in the support of large majorities, and counting safely on the prejudices of the community, can afford to despise us. They know they can overawe or cajole the Present; their only fear is the judgment of the Future. Strange fear, perhaps, considering how short and local their fame! But however little, it is their all. Our only hold upon them is the thought of that bar of posterity, before which we are all to stand. Thank God! there is the elder brother of the Saxon race across the water—there is the army of honest men to come! Before that jury we summon you. We are weak here—out-talked, out-voted. You load our names with infamy, and shout us down. But our words bide their time. We warn the living that we have terrible memories, and that their sins are never to be forgotten. We will gibbet the name of every apostate so black and high that his children’s children shall blush to bear it. Yet we bear no malice—cherish no resentment. We thank God that the love of fame, “that last infirmity of noble mind,” is shared by the ignoble. In our necessity, we seize this weapon in the slave’s behalf, and teach caution to the living by meting out relentless justice to the dead. How [17] strange the change death produces in the way a man is talked about here! While leading men live, they avoid as much as possible all mention of slavery, from fear of being thought Abolitionists. The moment they are dead, their friends rake up every word they ever contrived to whisper in a corner for liberty, and parade it before the world; growing angry, all the while, with us, because we insist on explaining these chance expressions by the tenor of a long and base life. While drunk with the temptations of the present hour, men are willing to bow to any Moloch. When their friends bury them, they feel what bitter mockery, fifty years hence, any epitaph will be, if it cannot record of one living in this era some service rendered to the slave! These, Mr. Chairman, are the reasons why we take care that “the memory of the wicked shall rot.”

I have claimed that the Anti-Slavery cause has, from the first, been ably and dispassionately argued, every objection candidly examined, and every difficulty or doubt any where honestly entertained, treated with respect. Let me glance at the literature of the cause, and try not so much, in a brief hour, to prove this assertion, as to point out the sources from which any one may satisfy himself of its truth.

I will begin with certainly the ablest and perhaps the most honest statesman who has ever touched the slave question. Any one who will examine John Quincy Adams’s speech on Texas, in 1838, will see that he was only seconding the full and able exposure of the Texas plot, prepared by Benjamin Lundy; to one of whose pamphlets Dr. Channing, in his “Letter to Henry Clay,” has confessed his obligation. Every one acquainted with those years will allow that the North owes its earliest knowledge and first awakening on that subject to Mr. Lundy, who made long journeys and devoted years to the investigation. His labors have this attestation, that they quickened the zeal and strengthened the hands of such men as Adams and Channing.

Look next at the Right of Petition. Long before any member of Congress had opened his mouth in its defence, the Abolition presses and lecturers had examined and defended the limits of this right, with profound historical research and eminent constitutional ability. So thoroughly had the work been done, that all classes of the people had made up their [18] minds about it, long before any speaker of eminence had touched it in Congress. The politicians were little aware of this. When Mr. Adams threw himself so gallantly into the breach, it is said he wrote anxiously home to know whether he would be supported in Massachusetts; little aware of the outburst of popular gratitude that the Northern breeze was even then bringing him, deep and cordial enough to wipe away the old grudge Massachusetts had borne him so long. Mr. Adams himself was only in favor of receiving the petitions, and advised to refuse their prayer, which was the abolition of slavery in the District. He doubted the power of Congress. His doubts were examined by Mr. William Goodell, in two letters of most able and acute logic, and of masterly ability. If Mr. Adams still retained his doubts, it is certain, at least, that he never expressed them afterward. When Mr. Clay paraded the same objections, the whole question of the power of Congress over the District was treated by Theodore D. Weld, in the fullest manner, and with the widest research: indeed, leaving nothing to be added: an argument which Dr. Channing characterized as “demonstration,” and pronounced the Essay “one of the ablest pamphlets from the American press.” No answer was ever attempted. The best proof of its ability is, that no one since has presumed to doubt the power. Lawyers and statesmen have tacitly settled down into its full acknowledgment.

The influence of the Colonization Society on the welfare of the colored race was the first question our movement encountered. To the close logic, eloquent appeals, and fully sustained charges of Mr. Garrison’s Letters on that subject, no answer was ever made. Judge Jay followed with a work full and able, establishing every charge by the most patient investigation of facts. It is not too much to say of these two volumes, that they left the Colonization Society hopeless at the North. It dares never show its face before the people, and only lingers in some few nooks of sectarian pride, so secluded from the influence of present ideas as to be almost fossil in their character.

The practical working of the slave system, the slave laws, the treatment of slaves, their food, the duration of their lives, their ignorance and moral condition, and the influence of Southern public opinion on their fate, have been spread [19] out in a detail and with a fullness of evidence which no subject has ever received before in this country. Witness the works of Phelps, Bourne, Rankin, Grimke, the “Anti-Slavery Record,” and, above all, that encyclopædia of facts and storehouse of arguments, the “Thousand Witnessess” of Mr. Theodore D. Weld. He also prepared that full and valuable tract for the World’s Convention called “Slavery and the Internal Slave Trade in the United States,” published in London, 1841. Unique in Anti-Slavery literature is Mrs. Child’s “Appeal,” one of the ablest of our weapons, and one of the finest efforts of her rare genius.

The Princeton Review, I believe, first challenged the Abolitionists to an investigation of the teachings of the Bible on slavery. That field had been somewhat broken by our English predecessors. But in England, the pro-slavery party had been soon shamed out of the attempt to drag the Bible into their service, and hence the discussion there had been short and somewhat superficial. The pro-slavery side of the question has been eagerly sustained by Theological Reviews and Doctors of Divinity without number, from the half-way and timid faltering of Wayland up to the unblushing and melancholy recklessness of Stuart. The argument on the other side has come wholly from the Abolitionists; for neither Dr. Hague nor Dr. Barnes can be said to have added any thing to the wide research, critical acumen, and comprehensive views of Theodore D. Weld, Beriah Green, J. G. Fee, and the old work of Duncan.

On the constitutional questions which have at various times arisen,—the citizenship of the colored man, the soundness of the “Prigg” decision, the constitutionality of the old Fugitive Slave Law, the true construction of the slave-surrender clause,—nothing has been added, either in the way of fact or argument, to the works of Jay, Weld, Alvan Stewart, E. G. Loring, S. E. Sewall, Richard Hildreth, W. I. Bowditch, the masterly Essays of the Emancipator at New York, and the Liberator at Boston, and the various addresses of the Massachusetts and American Societies for the last twenty years. The idea of the Anti-Slavery character of the Constitution—the opiate with which Free Soil quiets its conscience for voting under a pro-slavery government—I heard first suggested by Mr. Garrison in 1838. It was elaborately [20] argued in that year in all our anti-slavery gatherings, both here and in New York, and sustained with great ability by Alvan Stewart, and in part by T. D. Weld. The Anti-Slavery construction of the Constitution was ably argued in 1836, in the “Anti-Slavery Magazine,” by Rev. Samuel J. May; one of the very first to seek the side of Mr. Garrison, and pledge to the slave his life and efforts—a pledge which thirty years of devoted labors have nobly redeemed. If it has either merit or truth, they are due to no legal learning recently added to our ranks, but to some of the old and well-known pioneers. This claim has since received the fullest investigation from Mr. Lysander Spooner, who has urged it with all his unrivalled ingenuity, laborious research, and close logic. He writes as a lawyer, and has no wish, I believe, to be ranked with any class of anti-slavery men.

The influence of slavery on our government has received the profoundest philosophical investigation from the pen of Richard Hildreth, in his invaluable essay on “Despotism in America”—a work which deserves a place by the side of the ablest political disquisitions of any age.

Mrs. Chapman’s survey of “Ten Years of Anti-Slavery Experience,” was the first attempt at a philosophical discussion of the various aspects of the Anti-Slavery cause, and the problems raised by its struggles with sect and party. You, Mr. Chairman, [Edmund Quincy, Esq.,] in the elaborate Reports of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society for the last ten years, have followed in the same path, making to American literature a contribution of the highest value, and in a department where you have few rivals and no superior. Whoever shall write the history either of this movement, or any other attempted under a Republican Government, will find nowhere else so clear an insight and so full an acquaintance with the most difficult part of his subject.

Even the vigorous mind of Rantoul, the ablest man, without doubt, of the Democratic party, and perhaps the ablest politician in New England, added little or nothing to the storehouse of Anti-Slavery argument. The grasp of his intellect and the fullness of his learning, every one will acknowledge. He never trusted himself to speak on any subject till he had dug down to its primal granite. He laid a most generous contribution on the altar of the Anti-Slavery [21] cause. His speeches on our question, too short and too few, are remarkable for their compact statement, iron logic, bold denunciation, and the wonderful light thrown back upon our history. Yet how little do they present which was not familiar for years in our anti-slavery meetings!

Look, too, at the last great effort of the idol of so many thousands, Mr. Senator Sumner; a discussion of a great national question, of which it has been said that we must go back to Webster’s Reply to Hayne, and Fisher Ames on the Jay Treaty, to find its equal in Congress;—praise which we might perhaps qualify, if any adequate report were left us of some of those noble orations of Adams. No one can be blind to the skillful use he has made of his materials, the consummate ability with which he has marshalled them, and the radiant glow which his genius has thrown over all. Yet, with the exception of his reference to the anti-slavery debate in Congress in 1817, there is no train of thought or argument, and no single fact in the whole speech, which has not been familiar in our meetings and essays for the last ten years.

Before leaving the Halls of Congress, I have great pleasure in recognizing one exception to my remarks, Mr. Giddings. Perhaps he is no real exception, since it would not be difficult to establish his claim to be considered one of the original Abolition party. But whether he would choose to be so considered or not, it is certainly true that his long presence at the seat of government, his whole-souled devotedness, his sagacity and unwearied industry, have made him a large contributor to our anti-slavery resources.

The relations of the American Church to slavery, and the duties of private Christians,—the whole casuistry of this portion of the question, so momentous among descendants of the Puritans,—have been discussed with great acuteness and rare common sense by Messrs. Garrison, Goodell, Gerrit Smith, Pillsbury, and Foster. They have never attempted to judge the American Church by any standard except that which she has herself laid down—never claimed that she should be perfect, but have contented themselves with demanding that she should be consistent. They have never judged her except out of her own mouth, and on facts asserted by her own presses and leaders. The sundering of the Methodist and Baptist denominations, and the universal agitation of the religious [22] world, are the best proof of the sagacity with which their measures have been chosen, the cogent arguments they have used, and the indisputable facts on which their criticisms have been founded.

In nothing have the Abolitionists shown more sagacity or more thorough knowledge of their countrymen, than in the course they have pursued in relation to the Church. None but a New Englander can appreciate the power which church organizations wield over all that share the blood of the Puritans. The influence of each sect over its own members is overwhelming, often shutting out, or controlling, all other influences. We have Popes here, all the more dangerous because no triple crown puts you on your guard, The Methodist priesthood brings Catholicism very vividly to mind. That each local church is independent of all others, we have been somewhat careful to assert, in theory and practice. The individual’s independence of all organizations that place themselves between him and his God, some few bold minds have asserted in theory, but most even of those have stopped there.

In such a land, the Abolitionists early saw, that for a moral question like theirs, only two paths lay open: to work through the church—that failing, to join battle with it. Some tried long, like Luther, to be Protestants, and yet not come out of Catholicism; but their eyes were soon opened. Since then, we have been convinced that, to come out from the Church, to hold her up as the Bulwark of Slavery, and to make her shortcomings the main burden of our appeals to the religious sentiment of the community, was our first duty and best policy. This course alienated many friends, and was a subject of frequent rebuke from such men as Dr. Channing. But nothing has ever more strengthened the cause, or won it more influence; and it has had the healthiest effect on the Church itself. British Christians have always sanctioned it, whenever the case has been fairly presented to them. Mr. John Quincy Adams, a man far better acquainted with his own times than Dr. Channing, recognized the soundness of our policy. I do not know that he ever uttered a word in public on the delinquency of the churches; but he is said to have assured his son, at the time the Methodist Church broke asunder, that other men might be more startled by the eclat [23] of political success, but nothing, in his opinion, promised more good, or showed more clearly the real strength of the Anti-Slavery movement, than that momentous event. [14]

In 1838, the British Emancipation in the West Indies opened a rich field for observation, and a full harvest of important facts. The Abolitionists, not willing to wait for the official reports of the government, sent special agents through those islands, whose reports they scattered, at great expense and by great exertion, broadcast through the land. This was at a time when no newspaper in the country would either lend or sell them the aid of its columns to enlighten the nation on an experiment so vitally important to us. And even now, hardly a press in the country cares or dares to bestow a line or communicate a fact toward the history of that remarkable revolution. The columns of the Anti-Slavery Standard, Pennsylvania Freeman, and Ohio Bugle, have been for years full of all that a thorough and patient advocacy of our cause demands. And the eloquent lips of many whom I see around me, and whom I need not name here, have done their share toward pressing all these topics on public attention.

I remember that when, in 1845, the present leaders of the Free Soil party, with Daniel Webster in their company, met to draw up the Anti-Texas Address of the Massachusetts Convention, they sent to Abolitionists for anti-slavery facts and history, for the remarkable testimonies of our Revolutionary great men which they wished to quote. (“Hear, hear.”) When, many years ago, the Legislature of Massachusetts wished to send to Congress a resolution affirming the duty of immediate emancipation, the Committee sent to William Lloyd Garrison to draw it up, and it stands now on our statute-book as he drafted it.

How vigilantly, how patiently did we watch the Texas plot from its commencement! The politic South felt that its first move had been too bold, and thenceforward worked underground. For many a year, men laughed at us for entertaining any apprehensions. It was impossible to rouse the North to its peril. David Lee Child was thought crazy, because he [24] would not believe there was no danger. His elaborate “Letters on Texan Annexation” are the ablest and most valuable contribution that has been made towards a history of the whole plot. Though we foresaw and proclaimed our conviction that Annexation would be, in the end, a fatal step for the South, we did not feel at liberty to relax our opposition, well knowing the vast increase of strength it would give, at first, to the Slave Power. I remember being one of a Committee which waited on Abbott Lawrence, a year or two only before Annexation, to ask his countenance to some general movement, without distinction of party, against the Texas scheme. He smiled at our fears, begged us to have no apprehensions; stating that his correspondence with leading men at Washington enabled him to assure us Annexation was impossible, and that the South itself was determined to defeat the project. A short time after, Senators and Representatives from Texas took their seats in Congress!

Many of these services to the slave were done before I joined his cause. In thus referring to them, do not suppose me merely seeking occasion of eulogy on my predecessors and present co-laborers. I recall these things only to rebut the contemptuous criticism which some about us make the excuse for their past neglect of the movement, and in answer to “Ion’s” representation of our course as reckless fanaticism, childish impatience, utter lack of good sense, and of our meetings as scenes only of excitement, of reckless and indiscriminate denunciation. I assert that every social, moral, economical, religious, political, and historical aspect of the question has been ably and patiently examined. And all this has been done with an industry and ability which have left little for the professional skill, scholarly culture and historical learning of the new laborers to accomplish. If the people are still in doubt, it is from the inherent difficulty of the subject, or a hatred of light, not from want of it.

So far from the Anti-Slavery cause having lacked a manly and able discussion, I think it will be acknowledged hereafter that this discussion has been one of the noblest contributions to a literature really American. Heretofore, not only has our tone been but an echo of foreign culture, but the very topics discussed and the views maintained have been too often pale reflections of European politics and European philosophy. [25] No matter what dress we assumed, the voice was ever “the voice of Jacob.” At last we have stirred a question thoroughly American; the subject has been looked at from a point of view entirely American; and it is of such deep interest, that it has called out all the intellectual strength of the nation. For once, the nation speaks its own thoughts, in its own language, and the tone also is all its own. It will hardly do for the defeated party to claim that, in this discussion, all the ability is on their side.

We are charged with lacking foresight, and said to exaggerate. This charge of exaggeration brings to my mind a fact I mentioned last month, at Horticultural Hall. The theatres, in many of our large cities, bring out, night after night, all the radical doctrines and all the startling scenes of “Uncle Tom.” They preach immediate emancipation, and slaves shoot their hunters to loud applause. Two years ago, sitting in this hall, I was myself somewhat startled by the assertion of my friend, Mr. Pillsbury, that the theatres would receive the gospel of anti-slavery truth earlier than the churches. A hiss went up from the galleries, and many in the audience were shocked by the remark. I asked myself whether I could endorse such a statement, and felt that I could not. I could not believe it to be true. Only two years have passed, and what was then deemed rant and fanaticism, by seven out of ten who heard it, has proved true. The theatre, bowing to its audience, has preached immediate emancipation, and given us the whole of “Uncle Tom”; while the pulpit is either silent or hostile, and in the columns of the theological papers, the work is subjected to criticism, to reproach, and its author to severe rebuke. Do not, therefore, friends, set down as extravagant every statement which your experience does not warrant. It may be that you and I have not studied the signs of the times quite as accurately as the speaker. Going up and down the land, coming into close contact with the feelings and prejudices of the community, he is sometimes a better judge than you are of its present state. An Abolitionist has more motives for watching and more means of finding out the true state of public opinion, than most of those careless critics who jeer at his assertions to-day, and are the first to cry. “Just what I said,” when his prophecy becomes fact to-morrow.

[26]

Mr. “Ion” thinks, also, that we have thrown away opportunities, and needlessly outraged the men and parties about us. Far from it. The Anti-Slavery movement was a patient and humble suppliant at every door whence any help could possibly be hoped. If we now repudiate and denounce some of our institutions, it is because we have faithfully tried them, and found them deaf to the claims of justice and humanity. Our great Leader, when he first meditated this crusade, did not

“At once, like a sunburst, his banner unfurl.”

O, no! he sounded his way warily forward. Brought up in the strictest reverence for church organizations, his first effort was to enlist the clergymen of Boston in the support of his views. On their aid he counted confidently in his effort to preach immediate repentance of all sin. He did not go, with malice prepense, as some seem to imagine, up to that “attic” where Mayor Otis with difficulty found him. He did not court hostility or seek exile. He did not sedulously endeavor to cut himself off from the sympathy and countenance of the community about him. O, no! A fervid disciple of the American Church, he conferred with some of the leading clergy of the city, and laid before them his convictions on the subject of slavery. [15]He painted their responsibility, and tried to induce them to take from his shoulders the burden of so mighty a movement. He laid himself at their feet. He recognized the colossal strength of the Church; he knew that against their opposition it would be almost desperate to attempt to relieve the slave. He entreated them, therefore, to take up the cause. But the Church turned away from [27] him! They shut their doors upon him! They bade him compromise his convictions—smother one half of them, and support the Colonization movement, making his own auxiliary to that, or they would have none of him. Like Luther, he said—“Here I stand; God help me; I can do nothing else!” But the men who joined him were not persuaded that the case was so desperate. So they returned, each to his own local sect, and remained in them until some of us, myself among the number—later converts to the Anti-Slavery movement—thought they were slow and faltering in their obedience to conscience, and that they ought to have cut loose much sooner than they did. But a patience, that old sympathies would not allow to be exhausted, and associations, planted deeply in youth, and spreading over a large part of manhood, were too strong for any mere argument to dislodge them. So they still persisted in remaining in the Church. Their zeal was so fervent and their labors so abundant, that in some towns large societies were formed, led by most of the clergymen, and having almost all the church members on their lists. In those same towns now, you will not find one single Abolitionist, of any stamp whatever. They excuse their falling back by alleging that we have injured the cause by our extravagance and denunciation, and by the various other questions with which our names are associated. This might be a good reason why they should not work with us, but does it excuse their not working at all? These people have been once awakened, thoroughly instructed in the momentous character of the movement, and have acknowledged the rightful claim of the slave on their sympathy and exertions. It is not possible that a few thousand persons, however extravagant, could prevent devoted men from finding some way to help such a cause, or at least manifesting their interest in it. But they have not only left us, they have utterly deserted the slave, in the hour when the interests of their sects came across his cause. Is it uncharitable to conjecture the reason? At the early period, however, to which I have referred, the Church was much exercised by the persistency of the Abolitionists in not going out from her. When I joined the anti-slavery ranks, sixteen years ago, the voice of the clergy was, “Will these pests never leave us? Will they still remain to trouble us? If you do not like us, there [28] is the door!” When our friends had exhausted all entreaty, and tested the Christianity of that body, they shook off the dust of their feet, and came out of her.

At the outset, Mr. Garrison called on the head of the Orthodox denomination—a man, compared with whose influence on the mind of New England, that of the statesman whose death you have just mourned was, I think, but as dust in the balance—a man who then held the Orthodoxy of Boston in his right hand, and who has since taken up the West by its four corners, and given it so largely to Puritanism—I mean the Rev. Dr. Lyman Beecher. Mr. Garrison was one of those who bowed to the spell of the matchless eloquence that then fulmined over our Zion. He waited on his favorite divine, and urged him to give to the new movement the incalculable aid of his name and countenance. He was patiently heard. He was allowed to unfold his plans and array his facts. The reply of the veteran was, “Mr. Garrison, I have too many irons in the fire to put in another.” My friend said, “Doctor, you had better take them all out and put this one in, if you mean well either to the religion or to the civil liberty of our country.” (Cheers.)

The great Orthodox leader did not rest with merely refusing to put another iron into his fire; he attempted to limit the irons of other men. As President of Lane Theological Seminary, he endeavored to prevent the students from investigating the subject of slavery. The result, we all remember, was a strenuous resistance on the part of a large number of the students, led by that remarkable man, Theodore D. Weld. The Right triumphed, and Lane Seminary lost her character and noblest pupils at the same time. She has languished ever since, even with such a President. Why should I follow Dr. Beecher into those Ecclesiastical Conventions where he has been tried, and found wanting, in fidelity to the slave? He has done no worse, indeed, he has done much better, than most of his class. His opposition has always been open and manly.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is something in the blood, which, men tell us, brings out virtues and defects, even when they have lain dormant for a generation. Good and evil qualities are hereditary, the physicians say. The blood whose warm currents of eloquent aid my friend solicited in vain in [29] that generation, has sprung voluntarily to his assistance in the next—both from the pulpit and the press—to rouse the world by the vigor and pathos of its appeals, (Enthusiastic cheers.) Even on that great triumph I would say a word. Marked and unequalled as has been that success, remember, in explanation of the phenomenon—for “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is rather an event than a book—remember this: if the old Anti-Slavery movement had not roused the sympathies of Mrs. Stowe, the book had never been written; if that movement had not raised up hundreds of thousands of hearts to sympathize with the slave, the book had never been read, (Cheers.) Not that the genius of the author has not made the triumph all her own; not that the unrivalled felicity of its execution has not trebled, quadrupled, increased ten-fold, if you please, the number of readers; but there must be a spot even for Archimedes to rest his lever upon, before he can move the world, (cheers,) and this effort of genius, consecrated to the noblest purpose, might have fallen dead and unnoticed in 1835. It is the Anti-Slavery movement which has changed 1835 to 1852. Those of us familiar with Anti-Slavery literature know well that Richard Hildreth’s “Archy Moore,” now “The White Slave,” was a book of eminent ability; that it owed its want of success to no lack of genius, but only to the fact that it was a work born out of due time; that the Anti-Slavery cause had not then aroused sufficient numbers, on the wings of whose enthusiasm even the most delightful fiction could have risen into world-wide influence and repute. To the cause which had changed 1835 to 1852 is due something of the influence of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

The Abolitionists have never overlooked the wonderful power that the wand of the novelist was yet to wield in their behalf over the hearts of the world. Frederika Bremer only expressed the common sentiment of many of us, when she declared that “the fate of the negro was the romance of our history.” Again and again, from my earliest knowledge of the cause, have I heard the opinion, that in the debateable land between Freedom and Slavery, in the thrilling incidents of the escape and sufferings of the fugitive, and the perils of his friends, the future Walter Scott of America would find the “border-land” of his romance, and the most touching incidents [30] of his “sixty years since”; and that the literature of America would gather its freshest laurels from that field.

So much, Mr. Chairman, for our treatment of the Church. We clung to it as long as we hoped to make it useful. Disappointed in that, we have tried to expose its paltering and hypocrisy on this question, broadly and with unflinching boldness, in hopes to purify and bring it to our aid. Our labors with the great religious societies, with the press, with the institutions of learning, have been as untiring, and almost as unsuccessful. We have tried to do our duty to every public question that has arisen, which could be made serviceable in rousing general attention. The Right of Petition, the Power of Congress, the Internal Slave Trade, Texas, the Compromise Measures, the Fugitive Slave Law, the motions of leading men, the tactics of parties, have all been watched and used with sagacity and effect as means to produce a change in public opinion. Dr. Channing has thanked the Abolition party, in the name of all the lovers of free thought and free speech, for having vindicated that right, when all others seemed ready to surrender it; vindicated it at the cost of reputation, ease, property, even life itself. The only blood that has ever been shed, on this side the ocean, in defence of the freedom of the press, was the blood of Lovejoy, one of their number. In December, 1836, Dr. Channing spoke of their position in these terms:—

“Whilst, in obedience to conscience, they have refrained from opposing force to force, they have still persevered, amidst menace and insult, in bearing their testimony against wrong, in giving utterance to their deep convictions. Of such men, I do not hesitate to say, that they have rendered to freedom a more essential service than any body of men among us. The defenders of freedom are not those who claim and exercise rights which no one assails, or who win shouts of applause by well-turned compliments to liberty in the days of her triumph. They are those who stand up for rights which mobs, conspiracies, or single tyrants put in jeopardy; who contend for liberty in that particular form which is threatened at the moment by the many or the few. To the Abolitionists this honor belongs. The first systematic effort to strip the citizen of freedom of speech, they have met with invincible resolution. From my heart I thank them. I am myself their debtor. I am not sure that I should this moment write in safety, had they shrunk from the conflict, had they shut their lips, imposed silence on their presses, and hid themselves before their ferocious assailants. I know not where these outrages would have stopped, had they not met resistance from their first destined victims. The newspaper press, with a few exceptions, uttered no genuine indignant rebuke of the wrongdoers, but rather countenanced by its gentle censures the reign of Force. The mass of the people looked supinely on this new tyranny, under which [31] a portion of their fellow-citizens seemed to be sinking. A tone of denunciation was beginning to prescribe all discussion of slavery; and had the spirit of violence, which selected associations as its first objects, succeeded in this preparatory enterprise, it might have been easily turned against any and every individual, who might presume to agitate the unwelcome subject. It is hard to say to what outrage the fettered press of the country might not have been reconciled. I thank the Abolitionists that, in this evil day, they were true to the rights which the multitude were ready to betray. Their purpose to suffer, to die, rather than surrender their dearest liberties, taught the lawless that they had a foe to contend with whom it was not safe to press, whilst, like all manly appeals, it called forth reflection and sympathy in the better portion of the community. In the name of freedom and humanity, I thank them.”

No one, Mr. Chairman, deserves more of that honor than he whose chair you now occupy. Our youthful city can boast of but few places of historic renown; but I know of no one which coming time is more likely to keep in memory, than the roof which Francis Jackson offered to the anti-slavery women of Boston, when Mayor Lyman confessed he was unable to protect their meeting, and when the only protection the laws could afford Mr. Garrison was the shelter of the common jail.

Sir, when a nation sets itself to do evil, and all its leading forces, wealth, party, and piety, join in the career, it is impossible but that those who offer a constant opposition should be hated and maligned, no matter how wise, cautious and well-planned their course may be. We are peculiar sufferers in this way. The community has come to hate its reproving Nathan so bitterly, that even those whom the relenting part is beginning to regard as standard-bearers of the anti-slavery host, think it unwise to avow any connection or sympathy with him. I refer to some of the leaders of the political movement against slavery. They feel it to be their mission to marshal and use as effectively as possible the present convictions of the people. They cannot afford to encumber themselves with the odium which twenty years of angry agitation have engendered in great sects sore from unsparing rebuke, parties galled by constant defeat, and leading men provoked by unexpected exposure. They are willing to confess, privately, that our movement produced theirs, and that its continued existence is the very breath of their life. But, at the same time, they would fain walk on the road, without being soiled by too close contact with the rough pioneers who threw [32] it up. They are wise and honorable, and their silence is very expressive.

When I speak of their eminent position and acknowledged ability, another thought strikes me. Who converted these men and their distinguished associates? It is said we have shown neither sagacity in plans, nor candor in discussion, nor ability. Who, then, or what, converted Burlingame and Wilson, Sumner and Adams, Palfrey and Mann, Chase and Hale, and Phillips and Giddings? Who taught the Christian Register, the Daily Advertiser, and that class of prints, that there were such things as a slave and a slaveholder in the land, and so gave them some more intelligent basis than their mere instincts to hate William Lloyd Garrison? (Shouts and laughter.) What magic wand was it whose touch made the toadying servility of the land start up the real demon that it was, and at the same time gathered into the slave’s service the professional ability, ripe culture and personal integrity that grace the Free Soil ranks? We never argue! These men, then, were converted by simple denunciation! They were all converted by the “hot,” “reckless,” “ranting,” “bigoted,” “fanatic” Garrison, who never troubled himself about facts, nor stopped to argue with an opponent, but straightway knocked him down! (Roars of laughter and cheers.) My old and valued friend, Mr. Sumner, often boasts that he was a reader of the Liberator before I was. Do not criticise too much the agency by which such men were converted. That blade has a double edge. Our reckless course—our empty rant—our fanaticism, has made Abolitionists of some of the best and ablest men in the land. We are inclined to go on, and see if even with such poor tools we cannot make some more. (Enthusiastic applause.) Anti-slavery zeal and the roused conscience of the “godless come-outers” made the trembling South demand the Fugitive Slave Law, and the Fugitive Slave Law “provoked” Mrs. Stowe to the good work of “Uncle Tom.” That is something! (Cheers.) Let me say, in passing, that you will nowhere find an earlier or more generous appreciation, or more flowing eulogy, of these men and their labors, than in the columns of the Liberator. No one, however feeble, has ever peeped or muttered, in any quarter, that the vigilant eye of the Pioneer has not recognized him. He has stretched out [33] the right hand of a most cordial welcome the moment any man’s face was turned Zionward. (Loud cheers.)

I do not mention these things to praise Mr. Garrison; I do not stand here for that purpose. You will not deny—if you do, I can prove it—that the movement of the Abolitionists converted these men. Their constituents were converted by it. The assault upon the right of petition, upon the right to print and speak of slavery, the denial of the right of Congress over the District, the annexation of Texas, the Fugitive Slave Law, were measures which the Anti-Slavery movement provoked, and the discussion of which has made all the Abolitionists we have. The Anti-Slavery cause, then, converted these men; it gave them a constituency; it gave them an opportunity to speak, and it gave them a public to listen. The Anti-Slavery cause gave them their votes, gave them their offices, furnished them their facts, gave them their audience. If you tell me they cherished all these principles in their own breasts before Mr. Garrison appeared, I can only say, if the Anti-Slavery movement did not give them their ideas, it surely gave them the courage to utter them.

In such circumstances, is it not singular that the name of William Lloyd Garrison has never been pronounced on the floor of the United States Congress, linked with any epithet but that of contempt! No one of those men who owe their ideas, their station, their audience, to him, have ever thought it worth their while to utter one word in grateful recognition of the power that called them into being. When obliged, by the course of their argument, to treat the question historically, they can go across the water to Clarkson and Wilberforce—yes, to a safe salt-water distance. (Laughter.) As Daniel Webster, when he was talking to the farmers of Western New York, and wished to contrast slave labor and free labor, did not dare to compare New York with Virginia,—sister States, under the same government, planted by the same race, worshipping at the same altar, speaking the same language,—identical in all respects, save that one in which he wished to seek the contrast; but, no; he compared it with Brazil—(cheers and laughter)—the contrast was so close! (Renewed cheers.) Catholic—Protestant; Spanish—Saxon; despotism—municipal institutions; readers of Lope de Vega and of Shakspeare; mutterers of the Mass—children of the [34] Bible! But Virginia is too near home! So is Garrison! One would have thought there was something in the human breast that would sometimes break through policy. These noble-hearted men whom I have named must surely have found quite irksome the constant practice of what Dr. Gardner used to call “that despicable virtue, prudence”!—(laughter)—one would have thought, when they heard that name spoken with contempt, their ready eloquence would have leaped from its scabbard to avenge even a word that threatened him with insult. But it never came—never! (Sensation.) I do not say I blame them. Perhaps they thought they should serve the cause better by drawing a broad black line between themselves and him. Perhaps they thought the devil could be cheated;—I do not think he can. (Laughter and cheers.)

We are perfectly willing—I am for one—to be the dead lumber that shall make a path for these men into the light and love of the people. We hope for nothing better. Use us freely, in any way, for the slave. When the temple is finished, the tools will not complain that they are thrown aside, let who will lead up the nation to “put on the topstone with shoutings.” But while so much remains to be done, while our little camp is beleagured all about, do nothing to weaken his influence, whose sagacity, more than any other single man’s, has led us up hither, and whose name is identified with that movement which the North still heeds, and the South still fears the most. After all, Mr. Chairman, this is no hard task. We know very well, that, notwithstanding this loud clamor about our harsh judgment of men and things, our opinions differ very little from those of our Free Soil friends, or of intelligent men generally, when you really get at them. It has even been said that one of that family which has made itself so infamously conspicuous here, in executing the Fugitive Slave Law, a Judge, whose earnest defence of that Law we all heard in Faneuil Hall, did himself, but a little while before, arrange for a fugitive to be hid till pursuit was over. I hope it is true—it would be an honorable inconsistency. And if it be not true of him, we know it is of others. Yet it is base to incite others to deeds, at which, whenever we are hidden from public notice, our own hearts recoil! But thus we see that when men lay aside [35] the judicial ermine, the senator’s robe, or the party collar, and sit down in private life, you can hardly distinguish their tones from ours. Their eyes seem as anointed as our own. As in Pope’s day—

——“A all we laugh they laugh, no doubt,
The only difference is, we dare laugh out.”

Caution is not always good policy in a cause like ours. It is said that when Napoleon saw the day going against him, he used to throw away all the rules of war, and trust himself to the hot impetuosity of his soldiers. The masses are governed more by impulse than conviction; and even were it not so, the convictions of most men are on our side, and this will surely appear, if we can only pierce the crust of their prejudice or indifference. I observe that our Free Soil friends never stir their audience so deeply as when some individual leaps beyond the platform, and strikes upon the very heart of the people. Men listen to discussions of laws and tactics with ominous patience. It is when Mr. Sumner, in Faneuil Hall, avows his determination to disobey the Fugitive Slave Law, and cries out. “I was a man before I was a Commissioner,”—when Mr. Giddings says of the fall of slavery, quoting Adams, “Let it come; if it must come in blood, yet I say, let it come!”—that their associates on the platform are sure they are wrecking the party—while many a heart beneath beats its first pulse of anti-slavery life.

These are brave words. When I compare them with the general tone of Free Soil men in Congress, I distrust the atmosphere of Washington and of politics. These men move about, Sauls and Goliaths among us, taller by many a cubit. There they lose port and stature. Mr. Sumner’s speech in the Senate unsays no part of his Faneuil Hall pledge. But, though discussing the same topic, no one would gather from any word or argument that the speaker ever took such ground as he did in Faneuil Hall. It is all through, the law, the manner of the surrender, not the surrender itself, of the slave, that he objects to. As my friend Mr. Pillsbury so forcibly says, so far as any thing in the speech shows, he puts the slave behind the jury trial, behind the habeas corpus act, and behind the new interpretation of the Constitution, and says to the slave claimant—“You must get through all [36] these, before you reach him; but if you can get through all these, you may have him!” It was no tone like this which made the old Hall rock! Not if he got through twelve jury trials, and forty habeas corpus acts, and Constitutions built high as yonder monument, would he permit so much as the shadow of the little finger of the slave claimant to touch the slave! (Loud applause.) At least, so he was understood. In an elaborate discussion by the leader of the political Anti-Slavery party, of the whole topic of fugitive slaves, you do not find one protest against the surrender itself, one frank expression on the constitutional clause, or any indication of the speaker’s final purpose, should any one be properly claimed under that provision. It was under no such uncertain trumpet that the anti-slavery host was originally marshalled. The tone is that of the German soldiers whom Napoleon routed. They did not care, they said, for the defeat, but only that they were not beaten according to rule. (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. Mann, in his speech February 15, 1850, says:—“The STATES BEING SEPARATED, I would as soon return my own brother or sister into bondage, as I would return a fugitive slave. Before God, and Christ, and all Christian men, they are my brothers and sisters.” What a condition! from the lips, too, of a champion of the Higher Law! Whether the States be separate or united, neither my brother nor any other man’s brother shall, with my consent, go back to bondage. (Enthusiastic cheers.) So speaks the heart—Mr. Mann’s version is that of the politician.

Mr. Mann’s recent speech in August, 1852, has the same non-committal tone to which I have alluded in Mr. Sumner’s. While professing, in the most eloquent terms, his loyalty to the Higher Law, Mr. Sutherland asked—“Is there, in Mr. Mann’s opinion, any conflict between that Higher Law and the Constitution? If so, what is it? If not so, why introduce an irrelevant topic into the debate?” Mr. Mann avoided any reply, and asked not to be interrupted! Is that the frankness which becomes an Abolitionist? Can such concealment help any cause? The design of Mr. Sutherland is evident. If Mr. Mann had allowed there was no conflict between the Higher Law and the Constitution, all his remarks were futile and out of order. But if he asserted that [37] any such conflict existed, how did he justify himself in swearing to support that instrument?—a question our Free Soil friends are slow to meet. Mr. Mann saw the dilemma, and avoided it by silence!

The same speech contains the usual deprecatory assertions that Free Soilers have no wish to interfere with slavery in the States; that they “consent to let slavery remain where it is.” If he means that he, Horace Mann, a moral and accountable being, “consents to let slavery remain where it is,” all the rest of his speech is sound and fury, signifying nothing. If he means that he, Horace Mann, as a politician and party man, consents to that, but, elsewhere and otherwise, will do his best to abolish this “all-comprehending wickedness of slavery, in which every wrong and every crime has its natural home”—then he should have plainly said so. Otherwise, his disclaimer is unworthy of him, and could have deceived no one. He must have known that all the South care for is the action, not in what capacity the deed is done.

Mr. Giddings is more careful in his statement; but, judged by his speech on the “Platforms,” how little does he seem to understand either his own duty, or the true philosophy of the cause he serves! He says—

“We, Sir, would drive the slave question from discussion in this Hall. It never had a constitutional existence here. Separate this Government from all interference with slavery; let the Federal Power wash its hands from that institution; let us purify ourselves from its contagion; leave it with the States, who alone have the power to sustain it—then, Sir, will agitation cease in regard to it here; then we shall have nothing more to do with it; our time will be no more occupied with it; and, like a band of freemen, a band of brothers, we could meet here, and legislate for the prosperity, the improvement of mankind, for the elevation of our race.”

Mr. Sumner speaks in the same strain. He says—

“The time will come when Courts or Congress will declare, that nowhere under the Constitution can man hold property in man. For the Republic, such a decree will be the way of peace and safety. As slavery is banished from the national jurisdiction, it will cease to vex our national politics. It may linger in the States as a local institution, but it will no longer endanger national animosities when it no longer demands national support.” * * * “For himself, he knows no better arm under the Constitution than to bring the Government back to the precise position which it occupied” when it was launched.

This seems to me a very mistaken strain. Whenever slavery is banished from our national jurisdiction, it will be a [38] momentous gain, a vast stride. But let us not mistake the half-way house for the end of the journey. I need not say that it matters not to Abolitionists under what special law slavery exists. Their battle lasts while it exists any where, and I doubt not Mr. Sumner and Mr. Giddings feel themselves enlisted for the whole war. I will even suppose, what neither of these gentlemen states, that their plan includes, not only that slavery shall be abolished in the District and Territories, but that the slave basis of representation shall be struck from the Constitution, and the slave-surrender clause construed away. But even then, does Mr. Giddings or Mr. Sumner really believe that slavery, existing in its full force in the States, “will cease to vex our national politics”? Can they point to any State where a powerful oligarchy, possessed of immense wealth, has ever existed, without attempting to meddle in the government? Even now, do not manufacturing, banking and commercial capital perpetually vex our politics? Why should not slave capital exert the same influence? Do they imagine that a hundred thousand men, possessed of two thousand millions of dollars, which they feel the spirit of the age is seeking to tear from their grasp, will not eagerly catch at all the support they can obtain by getting the control of the Government? In a land where the dollar is almighty, “where the sin of not being rich is only atoned for by the effort to become so,” do they doubt that such an oligarchy will generally succeed? Besides, banking and manufacturing capital are not urged by despair to seek a controlling influence in politics. They know they are about equally safe, whichever party rules—that no party wishes to legislate their rights away. Slave property knows that its being allowed to exist depends on its having the virtual control of the Government. Its constant presence in politics is dictated, therefore, by despair as well as by the wish to secure fresh privileges. Money, however, is not the only strength of the Slave Power. That, indeed, were enough, in an age when capitalists are our feudal barons. But, though driven entirely from national shelter, the slaveholders would have the strength of old associations, and of peculiar laws in their own States, which gives those States wholly into their hands. A weaker prestige, fewer privileges, and less comparative wealth, have enabled the British aristocracy to rule [39] England for two centuries, though the root of their strength was cut at Naseby. It takes ages for deeply-rooted institutions to die; and driving slavery into the States will hardly be our Naseby. Whoever, therefore, lays the flattering unction to his soul, that while slavery exists any where in the States, our legislators will sit down “like a band of brothers,”—unless they are all slaveholding brothers,—is doomed to find himself wofully mistaken. Mr. Adams, ten years ago, refused to sanction this doctrine of his friend, Mr. Giddings, combating it ably and eloquently in his well-known reply to Ingersoll. Though Mr. Adams touches on but one point, the principle he lays down has many other applications.

But is Mr. Giddings willing to sit down with slaveholders, “like a band of brothers,” knowing all the time that they are tyrants at home, and not seek to use the common strength to protect their victims? Does he not know that it is impossible for Free States and Slave States to unite under any form of Constitution, no matter how clean the parchment may be, without the compact resulting in new strength to the slave system? It is the unimpaired strength of Massachusetts and New York, and the youthful vigor of Ohio, that, even now, enable bankrupt Carolina to hold up the institution. Every nation must maintain peace within her limits. No government can exist which does not fulfil that function. When we say the Union will maintain peace in Carolina, that being a Slave State, what does “peace” mean? It means keeping the slave beneath the heel of his master. Now, even on the principle of two wrongs making a right, if we put this great weight of a common government into the scale of the slaveholder, we are bound to add something equal to the slave’s side. But, no; Mr. Giddings is content to give the slaveholder the irresistible and organic help of a common government, and bind himself to utter no word, and move not a finger, in his civil capacity, to help the slave! An Abolitionist would find himself not much at home, I fancy, in that “band of brothers”!

And Mr. Sumner “knows no better aim, under the Constitution, than to bring back the Government” to where it was in 1789! Has the voyage been so very honest and prosperous a one, in his opinion, that his only wish is to start again with the same ship, the same crew, and the same sailing orders? [40] Grant all he claims as to the state of public opinion, the intentions of leading men, and the form of our institutions at that period; still, with all these checks on wicked men, and helps to good ones, here we are, according to his own showing, ruled by slavery, tainted to the core with slavery, and binding the infamous Fugitive Slave Law like an honorable frontlet on our brows! The more accurate and truthful his glowing picture of the public virtue of 1789, the stronger my argument. If even all those great patriots, and all that enthusiasm for justice and liberty, did not avail to keep us safe in such a Union, what will? In such desperate circumstances, can his statesmanship devise no better aim than to try the same experiment over again, under precisely the same conditions? What new guarantees does he propose to prevent the voyage from being turned into a piratical slave-trading cruise? None! Have sixty years taught us nothing? In 1660, the English thought, in recalling Charles II., that the memory of that scaffold which had once darkened the windows of Whitehall, would be guarantee enough for his good behavior. But, spite of the spectre, Charles II. repeated Charles I., and James outdid him. Wiser by this experience, when the nation, in 1689, got another chance, they trusted to no guarantees, but so arranged the very elements of their government that William III. could not repeat Charles I. Let us profit by the lesson. These mistakes of leading men merit constant attention. Such remarks as those I have quoted, uttered from the high places of political life, however carefully guarded, have a sad influence on the rank and file of the party. The Anti-Slavery awakening has cost too many years and too much labor to risk letting its energy be turned into a wrong channel, or balked by fruitless experiments. Neither the slave nor the country must be cheated a second time.

Mr. Chairman, when I remember the grand port of these men elsewhere, and witness this confusion of ideas, and veiling of their proud crests to party necessities, they seem to me to lose in Washington something of their old giant proportions. How often have we witnessed this change! It seems the inevitable result of political life under any government, but especially under ours; and we are surprised at it in these men, only because we fondly hoped they would be exceptions [41] to the general rule. It was Chamfort, I think, who first likened a Republican Senate House to Milton’s Pandemonium;—another proof of the rare insight French writers have shown in criticising Republican institutions. The Capitol at Washington always brings to my mind that other Capitol, which in Milton’s great Epic “rose like an exhalation” “from the burning marl”—that towered palace, “with starry lamps and blazing cressets” hung—with “roof of fretted gold” and stately height, its hall “like a covered field.” You remember, Sir, the host of archangels gathered round it, and how thick the airy crowd

“Swarmed and were straitened; till, the signal given,
Behold a wonder! They but now who seemed
In bigness to surpass earth’s giant sons,
Now less than smallest dwarfs, in narrow room
Throng numberless, like that pygmean race
Beyond the Indian mount; or fairy elves,
Whose midnight revels, by a forest side
Or fountain, some belated peasant sees.
* * * * * * * *
Thus incorporeal spirits to smallest forms
Reduced their shapes immense, and were at large,
Though without number still, amid the hall
Of that infernal court.”

Mr. Chairman, they got no farther than the hall! (Cheers.) They were not, in the current phrase, “a healthy party!” The healthy party,—the men who made no compromise in order to come under that arch,—Milton describes further on, where he says—

    —— “But far within,
And in their own dimensions, like themselves,
The great seraphic lords and cherubim
In close recess and secret conclave, sat;
A thousand demi-gods on golden seats
Frequent and full.”

These were the healthy party! (Loud applause.) These are the Casses and the Houstons, the Footes and the Soulés, the Clays, the Websters and the Douglases, that bow no lofty forehead in the dust, but can find ample room and verge enough under the Constitution. Our friends go down there, and must be dwarfed into pigmies before they can find space within the lists! (Cheers.)

[42]

It would be superfluous to say that we grant the entire sincerity and true-heartedness of these men. But in critical times, when a wrong step entails most disastrous consequences, to “mean well” is not enough. Sincerity is no shield for any man from the criticism of his fellow-laborers. I do not fear that such men as these will take offence at our discussion of their views and conduct. Long years of hard labor, in which we have borne at least our share, have resulted in a golden opportunity. How to use it, friends differ. Shall we stand courteously silent, and let these men play out the play, when, to our thinking, their plan will slacken the zeal, balk the hopes, and waste the efforts of the slave’s friends? No! I know Charles Sumner’s love for the cause so well, that I am sure he will welcome my criticism whenever I deem his counsel wrong; that he will hail every effort to serve our common client more efficiently. (Great cheering.) It is not his honor nor mine that is at issue; not his feeling nor mine that is to be consulted. The only question for either of us is, What in these golden moments can be done—where can the hardest blow be struck? (Loud applause.) I hope I am just to Mr. Sumner; I have known him long, and honor him. I know his genius—I honor his virtues; yet if, from his high place, he sends out counsels which I think dangerous to the cause, I am bound to raise my voice against them. I do my duty in a private communication to him first, then in public to his friends and mine. The friendship that will not bear this criticism is but the frost-work of a winter’s morning, which the sun looks upon and it is gone. His friendship will survive all that I say of him, and mine will survive all that he shall say of me; and this is the only way in which the Anti-Slavery cause can be served. Truth, success, victory, triumph over the obstacles that beset us—this is all either of us wants. (Cheers.)

If all I have said to you is untrue, if I have exaggerated, explain to me this fact. In 1831, Mr. Garrison commenced a paper advocating the doctrine of immediate emancipation. He had against him the thirty thousand churches and all the clergy of the country—its wealth, its commerce, its press. In 1831, what was the state of things? There was the most entire ignorance and apathy on the slave question. If men [43] knew of the existence of slavery, it was only as a part of picturesque Virginia life. No one preached, no one talked, no one wrote about it. No whisper of it stirred the surface of the political sea. The Church heard of it occasionally, when some Colonization agent asked funds to send the blacks to Africa. Old school books tainted with some anti-slavery selections had passed out of use, and new ones were compiled to suit the times. Soon as any dissent from the prevailing faith appeared, every one set himself to crush it. The pulpits preached at it: the press denounced it: mobs tore down houses, threw presses into the fire and the stream, and shot the editors: religious conventions tried to smother it: parties arrayed themselves against it. Daniel Webster boasted in the Senate, that he had never introduced the subject of slavery to that body, and never would. Mr. Clay, in 1839, makes a speech for the Presidency, in which he says, that to discuss the subject of slavery is moral treason, and that no man has a right to introduce the subject into Congress. Mr. Benton, in 1844, laid down his platform, and he not only denies the right, but asserts that he never has and never will discuss the subject. Yet Mr. Clay, from 1839 down to his death, hardly made a remarkable speech of any kind, except on slavery. Mr. Webster, having indulged now and then in a little easy rhetoric, as at Niblo’s and elsewhere, opens his mouth in 1840, generously contributing his aid to both sides, and stops talking about it only when death closes his lips. Mr. Benton’s six or eight speeches in the United States Senate have all been on the subject of slavery in the southwestern section of the country, and form the basis of whatever claim he has to the character of a statesman, and he owes his seat in the next Congress somewhat, perhaps, to anti-slavery pretensions! The Whig and Democratic parties pledged themselves just as emphatically against the anti-slavery discussion—against agitation and free speech. These men said, “It shan’t be talked about, it won’t be talked about!” These are your statesmen!—men who understand the present, that is, and mould the future! The man who understands his own time, and whose genius moulds the future to his views, he is a statesman, is he not? These men devoted themselves to banks, to the tariff, to internal improvements, to constitutional [44] and financial questions. They said to Slavery—“Back! no entrance here! We pledge ourselves against you.” And then there came up a humble printer boy, who whipped them into the traces, and made them talk, like Hotspur’s starling, nothing but Slavery. He scattered all these gigantic shadows—tariff, bank, constitutional questions, financial questions—and Slavery, like the colossal head in Walpole’s romance, came up and filled the whole political horizon! (Enthusiastic applause.) Yet you must remember he is not a statesman; he is a “fanatic.” He has no discipline—Mr. “Ion” says so; he does not understand the “discipline that is essential to victory”! This man did not understand his own time—he did not know what the future was to be—he was not able to shape it—he had no “prudence”—he had no “foresight”! Daniel Webster says, “I have never introduced this subject, and never will”—and died broken-hearted because he had not been able to talk enough about it. Benton says, “I will never speak of slavery”—and lives to break with his party on this issue! Mr. Clay says it is “moral treason” to introduce the subject into Congress, and lives to see Congress turned into an Anti-Slavery Debating Society, to suit the purpose of one “too powerful individual”!

These were statesmen, mark you! Two of them have gone to their graves covered with eulogy; and our national stock of eloquence is all insufficient to describe how profound and far-reaching was the sagacity of Daniel Webster! Remember who it was that said, in 1831, “I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard!” (Repeated cheers.) That speaker has lived twenty-two years, and the complaint of twenty-three millions of people is, “Shall we never hear of any thing but slavery?” (Cheers.) I heard Dr. Kirk, of Boston, say in his own pulpit, when he returned from London—where he had been as a representative to the “Evangelical Alliance”—“I went up to London, and they asked me what I thought of the question of immediate emancipation! They examined us all. Is an American never to travel any where in the world but men will throw this troublesome question in his face?” Well, it is all his fault [pointing to Mr. Garrison.] (Enthusiastic cheers.)

[45]

Now, when we come to talk of statesmanship, of sagacity in choosing time and measures, of endeavor, by proper means, to right the public mind, of keen insight into the present and potent sway over the future, it seems to me that the Abolitionists, who have taken—whether for good or for ill, whether to their discredit or to their praise—this country by the four corners, and shaken it until you can hear nothing but slavery, whether you travel in railroad or steamboat, whether you enter the hall of legislation or read the columns of a newspaper—it seems to me that such men may point to the present aspect of the nation, to their originally avowed purpose, to the pledges and efforts of all your great men against them, and then let you determine to which side the credit of sagacity and statesmanship belongs. Napoleon busied himself, at St. Helena, in showing how Wellington ought not to have conquered at Waterloo. The world has never got time to listen to the explanation. Sufficient for it that the Allies entered Paris. In like manner, it seems hardly the province of a defeated Church and State to deny the skill of measures by which they have been conquered!

It may sound strange to some, this claim for Mr. Garrison of a profound statesmanship. Men have heard him styled a mere fanatic so long, that they are incompetent to judge him fairly. “The phrases men are accustomed,” says Goethe, “to repeat incessantly, end by becoming convictions, and ossify the organs of intelligence.” I cannot accept you, therefore, as my jury. I appeal from Festus to Cæsar; from the prejudice of our streets to the common sense of the world, and to your children.

Every thoughtful and unprejudiced mind must see that such an evil as slavery will yield only to the most radical treatment. If you consider the work we have to do, you will not think us needlessly aggressive, or that we dig down unnecessarily deep in laying the foundations of our enterprise. A money power of two thousand millions of dollars, as the prices of slaves now range, held by a small body of able and desperate men; that body raised into a political aristocracy by special constitutional provisions; cotton, the product of slave labor, forming the basis of our whole foreign commerce, and the commercial class thus subsidized; the press bought [46] up, the pulpit reduced to vassalage, the heart of the common people chilled by a bitter prejudice against the black race; our leading men bribed, by ambition, either to silence or open hostility—in such a land, on what shall an Abolitionist rely? On a few cold prayers, mere lip service, and never from the heart? On a Church Resolution, hidden often in its records, and meant only as a decent cover for servility in daily practice? On political parties, with their superficial influence at best, and seeking, ordinarily, only to use existing prejudices to the best advantage? Slavery has deeper root here than any aristocratic institution has in Europe; and Politics is but the common pulse beat of which Revolution is the fever spasm. Yet we have seen European aristocracy survive storms which seemed to reach down to the primal strata of European life. Shall we then trust to mere Politics, where even Revolution has failed? How shall the stream rise above its fountain? Where shall our church organizations or parties get strength to attack their great parent and moulder, the Slave Power? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? The old jest of one who tried to lift himself in his own basket, is but a tame picture of the man who imagines that, by working solely through existing sects and parties, he can destroy slavery. Mechanics say nothing but an earthquake, strong enough to move all Egypt, can bring down the Pyramids.

Experience has confirmed these views. The Abolitionists who have acted on them have a “short method” with all unbelievers. They have but to point to their own success, in contrast with every other man’s failure. To waken the nation to its real state, and chain it to the consideration of this one duty, is half the work. So much we have done. Slavery has been made the question of this generation. To startle the South to madness, so that every step she takes, in her blindness, is one step more toward ruin, is much. This we have done. Witness Texas and the Fugitive Slave Law. To have elaborated for the nation the only plan of redemption, pointed out the only Exodus from this “sea of troubles,” is much. This we claim to have done in our motto of Immediate, Unconditional Emancipation on the Soil. The closer any statesmanlike mind looks into the question, the [47] more favor our plan finds with it. The Christian asks fairly of the Infidel, “If this Religion be not from God, how do you explain its triumph, and the history of the first three centuries?” Our question is similar. If our agitation has not been wisely planned and conducted, explain for us the history of the last twenty years! Experience is a safe light to walk by, and he is not a rash man who expects success in future from the same means which have secured it in times past.

THE

DUTY OF DISOBEDIENCE

to the

FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT:

an appeal to the

LEGISLATORS OF MASSACHUSETTS.

By L. MARIA CHILD.

“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.”

—Deut. 23: 15.

BOSTON:

published by the american anti-slavery society.

1860.

APPEAL TO THE LEGISLATORS OF MASSACHUSETTS.

I feel there is no need of apologizing to the Legislature of Massachusetts because a woman addresses them. Sir Walter Scott says: “The truth of Heaven was never committed to a tongue, however feeble, but it gave a right to that tongue to announce mercy, while it declared judgment.” And in view of all that women have done, and are doing, intellectually and morally, for the advancement of the world, I presume no enlightened legislator will be disposed to deny that the “truth of Heaven” is often committed to them, and that they sometimes utter it with a degree of power that greatly influences the age in which they live.

I therefore offer no excuses on that score. But I do feel as if it required some apology to attempt to convince men of ordinary humanity and common sense that the Fugitive Slave Bill is utterly wicked, and consequently ought never to be obeyed. Yet Massachusetts consents to that law! Some shadow of justice she grants, inasmuch as her Legislature have passed what is called a Personal Liberty Bill, securing trial by jury to those claimed as slaves. Certainly it is something gained, especially for those who may get brown by working in the sunshine, to prevent our Southern masters from taking any of us, at a moment’s notice, and dragging us off into perpetual bondage. It is something gained to require legal proof that a man is a slave, before he is given up to arbitrary torture and unrecompensed toil. But is that [4] the measure of justice becoming the character of a free Commonwealth? “Prove that the man is property, according to your laws, and I will drive him into your cattle-pen with sword and bayonet,” is what Massachusetts practically says to Southern tyrants. “Show me a Bill of Sale from the Almighty!” is what she ought to say. No other proof should be considered valid in a Christian country.

One thousand five hundred years ago, Gregory, a Bishop in Asia Minor, preached a sermon in which he rebuked the sin of slaveholding. Indignantly he asked, “Who can be the possessor of human beings save God? Those men that you say belong to you, did not God create them free? Command the brute creation; that is well. Bend the beasts of the field beneath your yoke. But are your fellow-men to be bought and sold, like herds of cattle? Who can pay the value of a being created in the image of God? The whole world itself bears no proportion to the value of a soul, on which the Most High has set the seal of his likeness. This world will perish, but the soul of man is immortal. Show me, then, your titles of possession. Tell me whence you derive this strange claim. Is not your own nature the same with that of those you call your slaves? Have they not the same origin with yourselves? Are they not born to the same immortal destinies?”

Thus spake a good old Bishop, in the early years of Christianity. Since then, thousands and thousands of noble souls have given their bodies to the gibbet and the stake, to help onward the slow progress of truth and freedom; a great unknown continent has been opened as a new, free starting point for the human race; printing has been invented, and the command, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them,” has been sent abroad in all the languages of the earth. And here, in the noon-day light of the nineteenth century, in a nation claiming to be the freest and most enlightened on the face of the globe, a portion of the population of fifteen States have thus agreed among themselves: “Other men shall work for us, without wages, while we smoke, and drink, and gamble, and race horses, and fight. We will have their wives and daughters for concubines, and sell their children in the market with horses and pigs. If they make any objection to this arrangement, we [5] will break them into subjection with the cow-hide and the bucking-paddle. They shall not be permitted to read or write, because that would be likely to ‘produce dissatisfaction in their minds.’ If they attempt to run away from us, our blood-hounds shall tear the flesh from their bones, and any man who sees them may shoot them down like mad dogs. If they succeed in getting beyond our frontier, into States where it is the custom to pay men for their work, and to protect their wives and children from outrage, we will compel the people of those States to drive them back into the jaws of our blood-hounds.”

And what do the people of the other eighteen States of that enlightened country answer to this monstrous demand? What says Massachusetts, with the free blood of the Puritans coursing in her veins, and with the sword uplifted in her right hand, to procure “peaceful repose under liberty”? Massachusetts answers: “O yes. We will be your blood-hounds, and pay our own expenses. Only prove to our satisfaction that the stranger who has taken refuge among us is one of the men you have agreed among yourselves to whip into working without wages, and we will hunt him back for you. Only prove to us that this woman, who has run away from your harem, was bought for a concubine, that you might get more drinking-money by the sale of the children she bears you, and our soldiers will hunt her back with alacrity.”

Shame on my native State! Everlasting shame! Blot out the escutcheon of the brave old Commonwealth! Instead of the sword uplifted to protect liberty, let the slave-driver’s whip be suspended over a blood-hound, and take for your motto, Obedience to tyrants is the highest law.

Legislators of Massachusetts, can it be that you really understand what Slavery is, and yet consent that a fugitive slave, who seeks protection here, shall be driven back to that dismal house of bondage? For sweet charity’s sake, I must suppose that you have been too busy with your farms and your merchandise ever to have imagined yourself in the situation of a slave. Let me suppose a case for you; one of a class of cases occurring by hundreds every year. Suppose your father was Governor of Carolina and your mother was a slave. The Governor’s wife hates your mother, and is ingenious in inventing occasions to have you whipped. You [6] don’t know the reason why, poor child! but your mother knows full well. If they would only allow her to go away and work for wages, she would gladly toil and earn money to buy you. But that your father will not allow. His laws have settled it that she is his property, “for all purposes whatsoever,” and he will keep her as long as suits his convenience. The mistress continually insists upon her being sold far away South; and after a while, she has her will. Your poor mother clings to you convulsively; but the slave-driver gives you both a cut of his whip, and tells you to stop your squalling. They drive her off with the gang, and you never hear of her again; but, for a long time afterward, it makes you very sad to remember the farewell look of those large, loving eyes. Your poor mother had handsome eyes; and that was one reason her mistress hated her.

You also are your father’s property; and when he dies, you will be the property of your whiter brother. You black his shoes, tend upon him at table, and sleep on the floor in his room, to give him water if he is thirsty in the night. You see him learning to read, and you hear your father read wonderful things from the newspapers. Very naturally, you want to read, too. You ask your brother to teach you the letters. He gives you a kick, calls you a “damned nig,” and informs his father, who orders you to be flogged for insolence. Alone on the hard floor at night, still smarting from your blows, you ponder over the great mystery of knowledge, and wonder why it would do you any more harm than it does your brother. Henceforth, all scraps of newspapers you can find are carefully laid by. Helplessly you pore over them, at stolen moments, as if you expected some miracle would reveal the meaning of those printed signs. Cunning comes to your aid. It is the only weapon of the weak against the strong. When you see white boys playing in the street, you trace a letter in the sand, and say, “My young master calls that B.” “That ain’t B, you dammed nigger. That ’s A”! they shout. Now you know what shape is A; and diligently you hunt it out, wherever it is to be found on your scraps of newspaper. By slow degrees you toil on, in similar ways, through all the alphabet. No student of Greek or Hebrew ever deserved so much praise for ingenuity and diligence. But the years pass on, and still you cannot read. Your master-brother [7] now and then gives you a copper. You hoard them, and buy a primer; screening yourself from suspicion, by telling the bookseller that your master wants it for his sister’s little boy. You find the picture of a cat, with three letters by its side; and now you know how cat is spelt. Elated with your wonderful discovery, you are eager to catch a minute to study your primer. Too eager, alas! for your mistress catches you absorbed in it, and your little book is promptly burned. You are sent to be flogged, and your lacerated back is washed with brine to make it heal quickly. But in spite of all their efforts, your intelligent mind is too cunning for them. Before twenty years have passed, you have stumbled along into the Bible; alone in the dark, over a rugged road of vowels and consonants. You keep the precious volume concealed under a board in the floor, and read it at snatches, by the light of a pine knot. You read that God has created of one blood all the nations of the earth; and that his commandment is, to do unto others as we would that they should do unto us. You think of your weeping mother, torn from your tender arms by the cruel slave-trader; of the interdicted light of knowledge; of the Bible kept as a sealed book from all whose skins have a tinge of black, or brown, or yellow; of how those brown and yellow complexions came to be so common; of yourself, the son of the Governor, yet obliged to read the Bible by stealth, under the penalty of a bleeding back washed with brine. These and many other things revolve in your active mind, and your unwritten inferences are worth whole folios of theological commentaries.

As youth ripens into manhood, life bears for you, as it does for others, its brightest, sweetest flower. You love young Amy, with rippling black hair, and large dark eyes, with long, silky fringes. You inherit from your father, the Governor, a taste for beauty warmly-tinted, like Cleopatra’s. You and Amy are of rank to make a suitable match; for you are the son of a Southern Governor, and she is the daughter of a United States Senator, from the North, who often shared her master’s hospitality; her handsome mother being a portion of that hospitality, and he being large-minded enough to “conquer prejudices.” You have good sympathy in other respects also, for your mothers were both slaves; [8] and as it is conveniently and profitably arranged for the masters that “the child shall follow the condition of the mother,” you are consequently both of you slaves. But there are some compensations for your hard lot. Amy’s simple admiration flatters your vanity. She considers you a prodigy of learning because you can read the Bible, and she has not the faintest idea how such skill can be acquired. She gives you her whole heart, full of the blind confidence of a first love. The divine spark, which kindles aspirations for freedom in the human soul, has been glowing more and more brightly since you have emerged from boyhood, and now her glances kindle it into a flame. For her dear sake, you long to be a free man, with power to protect her from the degrading incidents of a slave-girl’s life. Wages acquire new value in your eyes, from a wish to supply her with comforts, and enhance her beauty by becoming dress. For her sake, you are ambitious to acquire skill in the carpenter’s trade, to which your master-brother has applied you as the best investment of his human capital. It is true, he takes all your wages; but then, by acquiring uncommon facility, you hope to accomplish your daily tasks in shorter time, and thus obtain some extra hours to do jobs for yourself. These you can eke out by working late into the night, and rising when the day dawns. Thus you calculate to be able in time to buy the use of your own limbs. Poor fellow! Your intelligence and industry prove a misfortune. They charge twice as much for the machine of your body on account of the soul-power which moves it. Your master-brother tells you that you would bring eighteen hundred dollars in the market. It is a large sum. Almost hopeless seems the prospect of earning it, at such odd hours as you can catch when the hard day’s task is done. But you look at Amy, and are inspired with faith to remove mountains. Your master-brother graciously consents to receive payment by instalments. These prove a convenient addition to the whole of your wages. They will enable him to buy a new race horse, and increase his stock of choice wines. While he sleeps off drunkenness, you are toiling for him, with the blessed prospect of freedom far ahead, but burning brightly in the distance, like a Drummond Light, guiding the watchful mariner over a midnight sea.

When you have paid five hundred dollars of the required [9] sum, your lonely heart so longs for the comforts of a home, that you can wait no longer. You marry Amy, with the resolution of buying her also, and removing to those Free States, about which you have often talked together, as invalids discourse of heaven. Amy is a member of the church, and it is a great point with her to be married by a minister. Her master and mistress make no objection, knowing that after the ceremony, she will remain an article of property, the same as ever. Now come happy months, during which you almost forget that you are a slave, and that it must be a weary long while before you can earn enough to buy yourself and your dear one, in addition to supporting your dissipated master. But you toil bravely on, and soon pay another hundred dollars toward your ransom. The Drummond Light of Freedom burns brighter in the diminished distance.

Alas! in an unlucky hour, your tipsy master-brother sees your gentle Amy, and becomes enamored of her large dark eyes, and the rich golden tint of her complexion. Your earnings and your ransom-money make him flush of cash. In spite of all your efforts to prevent it, she becomes his property. He threatens to cowhide you, if you ever speak to her again. You remind him that she is your wife; that you were married by a minister. “Married, you damned nigger!” he exclaims; “what does a slave’s marriage amount to? If you give me any more of your insolence, you ’ll get a taste of the cowhide.”

Anxious days and desolate nights pass. There is such a heavy pain at your heart, it is a mystery to yourself that you do not die. At last, Amy contrives to meet you, pale and wretched as yourself. She has a mournful story to tell of degrading propositions, and terrible threats. She promises to love you always, and be faithful to you till death, come what may. Poor Amy! When she said that, she did not realize how powerless is the slave, in the hands of an unprincipled master. Your interview was watched, and while you were sobbing in each other’s arms, you were seized and ordered to receive a hundred lashes. While you are lying in jail, stiff with your wounds, your master-brother comes to tell you he has sold you to a trader from Arkansas. You remind him of the receipt he has given you for six hundred dollars, and ask him to return the money. He laughs in your face, and [10] tells you his receipt is worth no more than so much brown paper; that no contracts with a slave are binding. He coolly adds, “Besides, it has taken all my spare money to buy Amy.” Perhaps you would have killed him in that moment of desperation, even with the certainty of being burnt to cinders for the deed, but you are too horribly wounded by the lash to be able to spring upon him. In that helpless condition, you are manacled and carried off by the slave-trader. Never again will Amy’s gentle eyes look into yours. What she suffers you will never know. She is suddenly wrenched from your youth, as your mother was from your childhood. The pall of silence falls over all her future. She cannot read or write; and the post-office was not instituted for slaves.

Looking back on that dark period of desolation and despair, you marvel how you lived through it. But the nature of youth is elastic. You have learned that law offers colored men nothing but its penalties; that white men engross all its protection; still you are tempted to make another bargain for your freedom. Your new master seems easy and good-natured, and you trust he will prove more honorable than your brother has been. Perhaps he would; but unfortunately, he is fond of cards; and when you have paid him two hundred dollars, he stakes them, and you also, at the gaming-table, and loses. The winner is a hard man, noted for severity to his slaves. Now you resolve to take the risk of running away, with all its horrible chances. You hide in a neighboring swamp, where you are bitten by a venomous snake, and your swollen limb becomes almost incapable of motion. In great anguish, you drag it along, through the midnight darkness, to the hut of a poor plantation-slave, who binds on a poultice of ashes, but dares not, for fear of his life, shelter you after day has dawned. He helps you to a deep gully, and there you remain till evening, half-famished for food. A man in the neighborhood keeps blood-hounds, well trained to hunt runaways. They get on your track, and tear flesh from the leg which the snake had spared. To escape them, you leap into the river. The sharp ring of rifles meets your ear. You plunge under water. When you come up to take breath, a rifle ball lodges in your shoulder, and you plunge again. Suddenly, thick clouds throw [11] their friendly veil over the moon. You swim for your life, with balls whizzing round you. Thanks to the darkness and the water, you baffle the hounds, both animal and human. Weary and wounded, you travel through the forests, your eye fixed hopefully on the North Star, which seems ever beckoning you onward to freedom, with its bright glances through the foliage. In the day-time, you lie in the deep holes of swamps, concealed by rank weeds and tangled vines, taking such rest as can be obtained among swarms of mosquitoes and snakes. Through incredible perils and fatigues, footsore and emaciated, you arrive at last in the States called Free. You allow yourself little time to rest, so eager are you to press on further North. You have heard the masters swear with peculiar violence about Massachusetts, and you draw the inference that it is a refuge for the oppressed. Within the borders of that old Commonwealth, you breathe more freely than you have ever done. You resolve to rest awhile, at least, before you go to Canada. You find friends, and begin to hope that you may be allowed to remain and work, if you prove yourself industrious and well behaved. Suddenly, you find yourself arrested and chained. Soldiers escort you through the streets of Boston, and put you on board a Southern ship, to be sent back to your master. When you arrive, he orders you to be flogged so unmercifully, that the doctor says you will die if they strike another blow. The philanthropic city of Boston hears the bloody tidings, and one of her men in authority says to the public: “Fugitive slaves are a class of foreigners, with whose rights Massachusetts has nothing to do. It is enough for us, that they have no right to be here.” [16] And the merchants of Boston cry, Amen.

Legislators of Massachusetts! if you had been thus continually robbed of your rights by the hand of violence, what would you think of the compact between North and South to perpetuate your wrongs, and transmit them to your posterity? Would you not regard it as a league between highwaymen, who had “no rights that you were bound to respect”? I put the question plainly and directly to your consciences and your common sense, and they will not allow you to answer, No. [12] Are you, then, doing right to sustain the validity of a law for others, which you would vehemently reject for yourselves, in the name of outraged justice and humanity?

The incidents I have supposed might happen to yourselves, if you were slaves, are not an imaginary accumulation of horrors. The things I have described are happening in this country every day. I have talked with many “fugitives from injustice,” and I could not, within the limits of these pages, even hint at a tithe of the sufferings and wrongs they have described. I have also talked with several slaveholders, who had emancipated themselves from the hateful system. Being at a safe distance from lynching neighbors, they could venture to tell the truth; and their statements fully confirm all that I have heard from the lips of slaves. If you read Southern Laws, you will need very small knowledge of human nature to be convinced that the practical results must inevitably be utter barbarism. In view of those laws, I have always wondered how sensible people could be so slow in believing the actual state of things in slaveholding communities.

There are no incidents in history, or romance, more thrilling than the sufferings, perils, and hair-breadth escapes of American slaves. No Puritan pilgrim, or hero of ’76, has manifested more courage and perseverance in the cause of freedom, than has been evinced, in thousands of instances, by this persecuted race. In future ages, popular ballads will be sung to commemorate their heroic achievements, and children more enlightened than ours will marvel at the tyranny of their white ancestors.

All of you have doubtless read some accounts of what these unhappy men and women have dared and endured. Do you never put yourselves in their stead, and imagine how you would feel, under similar circumstances? Not long ago, a young man escaped from slavery by clinging night and day to the under part of a steamboat, drenched by water, and suffering for food. He was discovered and sent back. If the Constitution of the United States sanctioned such an outrage upon you, what would you think of those who answered your entreaties and remonstrances by saying, “Our fathers made an agreement with the man who robs you of your wages and your freedom. It is law; and it is your duty to submit to it [13] patiently”? I think you would then perceive the necessity of having the Constitution forthwith amended; and if it were not done very promptly, I apprehend you would appeal vociferously to a higher law.

A respectable lady, who removed with her family from Virginia to New York, some years ago, had occasion to visit the cook’s cabin, to prepare suitable nourishment for a sick child, during the voyage. This is the story she tells: “The steward kindly assisted me in making the toast, and added a cracker and a cup of tea. With these on a small waiter, I was returning to the cabin, when, in passing the freight, which consisted of boxes, bags, &c., a little tawny, famished-looking hand was thrust out between the packages. The skeleton fingers, agitated by a convulsive movement, were evidently reached forth to obtain the food. Shocked, but not alarmed by the apparition, I laid the cracker on the hand, which was immediately withdrawn. No one observed the transaction, and I went swiftly to the cabin. In the afternoon, I went to the steward again, in behalf of the little invalid. Finding he was a father, I gave him presents for his children, and so ingratiated myself into his favor, that I had free access to the larder. Whatever I could procure, I divided with the famished hand, which had become to me a precious charge. As all was tranquil on board, it was evident that I alone was aware of the presence of the fugitive. I humbly returned thanks to God for the privilege of ministering to the wants of this his outcast, despised and persecuted image. That the unfortunate being was a slave, I doubted not. I knew the laws and usages in such cases. I knew the poor creature had nothing to expect from the captain or crew; and again and again I asked myself the agonizing question whether there would be any way of escape. I hoped we should arrive in the night, that the fugitive might go on shore unseen, under favor of the darkness. I determined to watch and assist the creature thus providentially committed to my charge. We had a long passage. On the sixth day, I found that the goods were being moved to come at something which was wanted. My heart seemed to die within me; for the safety of the sufferer had become dear to me. When we sat down to dinner, the dishes swam before my eyes. The tumbling of the freight had not ceased. I felt [14] that a discovery must take place. At length, I heard a sudden, Hallo! Presently, the steward came and whispered to the captain, who laid down his knife and fork, and went on deck. One of the passengers followed him, but soon returned. In a laughing manner, he told us that a small mulatto boy, who said he belonged to Mr. ——, of Norfolk, had been found among the freight. He had been concealed among the lumber on wharves for two weeks, and had secreted himself in the schooner the night before we sailed. He was going to New York, to find his father, who had escaped two years before. ‘He is starved to a skeleton,’ said he, ‘and is hardly worth taking back.’ Many jokes were passed as to the manner of his being renovated, when he should fall into the hands of his master.

“The unfortunate child was brought on deck, and we all left the cabin to look at him. I stood some time in the companion-way before I could gain strength to move forward. As soon as he discovered me, a bright gleam passed over his countenance, and he instantly held out to me that famished hand. My feelings could no longer be controlled. There stood before me a child, not more than eleven or twelve years of age, of yellow complexion, and a sad countenance. He was nearly naked; his back was seared with scars, and his flesh was wasted to the bone. I burst into tears, and the jeers of others were for a moment changed into sympathy. It began, however, to be suspected that I had brought the boy away; and in that case, the vessel must put back, in order to give me up also. But I related the circumstances, and all seemed satisfied with the truth of my statement.

“I asked to be allowed to feed the boy, and the request was granted. He ate voraciously, and, as I stood beside him, he looked into my face at every mouthful. There was something confiding in his look. When he had finished his meal, as I took the plate, he rubbed his fingers softly on my hand, and leaned his head toward me, like a weary child. O that I could have offered him a place of rest! that I could have comforted and protected him! a helpless child! a feeble, emaciated, suffering, innocent child, reserved for bondage and torture!

“The captain informed us that the vessel had been forbidden to enter the port with a fugitive slave on board. She [15] must discharge her cargo where she lay, and return, with all possible dispatch, to Norfolk. Accordingly, we came to anchor below the city, and the passengers were sent up in a boat. I said to the captain, ‘There is a great ado about a poor helpless child.’ He replied, ‘The laws must be obeyed.’ I could not help exclaiming, ‘Is this the land of boasted freedom?’ Here was an innocent child treated like a felon; manacled, and sent back to slavery and the lash; deprived of the fostering care which even the brute is allowed to exercise toward its young. The slender boy was seeking the protection of a father. Did humanity aid him? No. Humanity was prevented by the law, which consigns one portion of the people to the control and brutality of the other. Humanity can only look on and weep. ‘The laws must be obeyed.’ ”

Legislators of Massachusetts! suppose for one moment that poor abused boy was your own little Johnny or Charley, what would you say of the law then? Truly, if we have no feeling for the children of others, we deserve to have our own children reserved for such a fate; and I sometimes think it is the only lesson that will teach the North to respect justice and humanity.

It is not long ago, since a free colored man in Baltimore was betrothed to a young slave of eighteen, nearly white, and very beautiful. If they married, their children would be slaves, and he would have no power to protect his handsome wife from any outrages an unprincipled master, or his sons, might choose to perpetrate. Therefore, he wisely resolved to marry in a land of freedom. He placed her in a box, with a few holes in it, small enough not to attract attention. With tender care, he packed hay around her, that she might not be bruised when thrown from the cars with other luggage. The anxiety of the lover was dreadful. Still more terrible was it, when waiting for her in Philadelphia, he found that the precious box had not arrived. They had happened to have an unusual quantity of freight, and the baggage-master, after turning the box over, in rough, railroad fashion, had concluded to leave it till the next train. The poor girl was thrown into a most uneasy position, without the power of changing it. She was nearly suffocated for want of air; the hay-seed fell into her eyes and nostrils, and it required almost superhuman efforts to refrain from sneezing or [16] choking. Added to this was terror lest her absence should be discovered, and the heavy box examined. In that state of mind and body, she remained more than two hours, in the hot sun, on the railroad platform. At last, the box arrived in Philadelphia, and the lover and his friends conveyed it to a place of safety as speedily as possible. Those who were present at the opening, say it was the most impressive scene they ever witnessed. Silently, almost breathlessly, they drew out the nails, expecting to find a corpse. When the cover was lifted, she smiled faintly in the anxious face of her lover. “O God, she is alive!” he exclaimed, and broke down in a paroxysm of sobs. She had a terrible brain fever, and when she recovered from it, her glossy hair was sprinkled with gray, and the weight of ten years was added to her youthful face. Thanks to the vigilance and secrecy of friends, the hounds of the United States, who use the Constitution for their kennel, did not get a chance to lap the blood of this poor trembling hare.

Legislators of Massachusetts! suppose this innocent girl had been your own Mary or Emma, would you not straightway demand amendment of the Constitution, in no very measured terms? And if it could not be obtained right speedily, would you not ride over the Constitution roughshod? If you would not, you do not deserve to have such blessings as lovely and innocent daughters.

You have all heard of Margaret Garner, who escaped from Kentucky to Ohio, with her father and mother, her husband and four children. The Cincinnati papers described her as “a dark mulatto, twenty-three years of age, of an interesting appearance, considerable intelligence, and a good address.” Her husband was described as “about twenty-two years old, of a very lithe, active form, and rather a mild, pleasant countenance.” These fugitives were sheltered by a colored friend in Ohio. There the hounds in pay of the United States, to which “price of blood” you and I and all of us contribute, ferreted them out, and commanded them to surrender. When they refused to do so, they burst open the door, and assailed the inmates of the house with cudgels and pistols. They defended themselves bravely, but were overpowered by numbers and disarmed. When Margaret perceived that there was no help for her and her little ones, she [17] seized a knife and cut the throat of her most beautiful child. She was about to do the same by the others, when her arm was arrested. The child killed was nearly white, and exceedingly pretty. The others were mulattoes, and pretty also. What history lay behind this difference of complexion, the world will probably never know. But I have talked confidentially with too many fugitive women not to know that very sad histories do lie behind such facts. Margaret Garner knew very well what fate awaited her handsome little daughter, and that nerved her arm to strike the death-blow. It was an act that deserves to take its place in history by the side of the Roman Virginius.

The man who claimed this unfortunate family as chattels acknowledged that they had always been faithful servants. On their part, they complained of cruel treatment from their master, as the cause of their attempt to escape. They were carried to the United States Court, under a strong guard, and there was not manhood enough in Cincinnati to rescue them. What was called law decided that they were property, and they were sent back to the dark dungeon of interminable bondage. The mother could not be induced to express any regret for the death of her child,—her “pretty bird,” as she called her. With tears streaming from her eyes, she told of her own toils and sufferings, and said, “It was better they should be killed at once, and end their misery, than to be taken back to slavery, to be murdered by inches.” To a preacher, who asked her, “Why did you not trust in God? Why did n’t you wait and hope?” she answered, “We did wait; and when there seemed to be no hope for us, we run away. God did not appear to help us, and I did the best I could.”

These poor wretches were escorted through the streets by a National Guard, the chivalry of the United States. There was not manhood enough in the Queen City of the West to attempt a rescue; though they are very fond of quoting for themselves, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” Men satisfied themselves by saying it was all done according to law. A powerful plea, truly, for a people who boast so much of making their own laws!

These slaves were soon after sent down the Mississippi to be sold in Arkansas. The boat came in collision with another [18] boat, and many were drowned. The shock threw Margaret overboard, with a baby in her arms. She was too valuable a piece of property to lose, and they drew her out of the water; but the baby was gone. She evinced no emotion but joy, still saying it was better for her children to die than to be slaves.

The man who could not afford to let this heroic woman own her little ones, was very liberal in supporting the Gospel, and his wife was a member of the church. Do you think that mother had a murderer’s heart? Nay, verily. Exceeding love for her children impelled her to the dreadful deed. The murder was committed by those human hounds, who drove her to that fearful extremity, where she was compelled to choose between Slavery or Death for her innocent offspring.

Again I ask, what would be your judgment of this law, if your own daughter and infant grand-daughter had been its victims? You know very well, that had it been your own case, such despotism, calling itself law, would be swept away in a whirlwind of indignation, and men who strove to enforce it would be obliged to flee the country.

—— “They are slaves most base,
Whose love of right is for themselves, and not for all the race.”

I was lately talking with Friend Whittier, whose poetry so stirs the hearts of the people in favor of freedom and humanity. He told me he thought the greatest pain he ever suffered was in witnessing the arrest of a fugitive slave in Philadelphia. The man had lived there many years; he bore a good character, and was thriving by his industry. He had married a Pennsylvania woman, and they had a fine family of children. In the midst of his prosperity and happiness, the blood-hounds of the United States tracked him out. He was seized and hurried into court. Friend Whittier was present, and heard the agonized entreaties of his wife and children. He saw them clinging to the half frantic husband and father, when the minions of a wicked law tore him away from them for ever. That intelligent, worthy, industrious man was ruthlessly plunged into the deep, dark grave of slavery, where tens of thousands perish yearly, and leave no record of their wrongs. “A German emigrant, who witnessed the scene, poured out such a tornado of curses as I [19] never before heard,” said Whittier; “and I could not blame the man. He came here supposing America to be a free country, and he was bitterly disappointed. Pity for that poor slave and his bereaved family agonized my heart; and my cheeks burned with shame that my country deserved the red-hot curses of that honest German; but stronger than either of those feelings was overpowering indignation that people of the Free States were compelled by law to witness such barbarities.”

Many of you have heard of William and Ellen Crafts, a pious and intelligent couple, who escaped from bondage some years ago. She disguised herself in male attire, and passed for a white gentleman, taking her darker colored husband with her as a servant. When the Fugitive Slave Act went into operation, they received warning that the hounds were on their track. They sought temporary refuge in the house of my noble-hearted friend, Ellis Gray Loring, who then resided in the vicinity of Boston. He and his family were absent for some days; but a lady in the house invited Mr. Crafts to come in and stay till they returned. “No, I thank you,” he replied. “There is a heavy fine for sheltering fugitives; and it would not be right to subject Mr. Loring to it without his consent.” “But you know he is a true friend to the slaves,” urged the lady. “If he were at home, I am sure he would not hesitate to incur the penalty.” “Because he is such a good friend to my oppressed race, there is all the more reason why I should not implicate him in my affairs, without his knowledge,” replied this nobleman of nature. His wife had slept but little the previous night, having been frightened by dreams of Daniel Webster chasing her husband, pistol in hand. The evening was stormy, and she asked him if they could not remain there till morning. “It would not be right, Ellen,” he replied; and with tears in her eyes, they went forth into the darkness and rain. Was that a man to be treated like a chattel? How many white gentlemen are there, who, in circumstances as perilous, would have manifested such nicety of moral perception, such genuine delicacy of feeling? England has kindly received that worthy and persecuted couple. All who set foot on her soil are free. Would to God it were so in Massachusetts!

It is well known that Southerners have repeatedly declared [20] they do not demand fugitives merely to recover articles of property, or for the sake of making an example of them, to inspire terror in other runaways; that they have a still stronger motive, which is, to humiliate the North; to make them feel that no latitude limits their mastership. Have we no honest pride, that we so tamely submit to this? What lethargic disease has fallen on Northern souls, that they dare not be as bold for Freedom as tyrants are for Slavery? It was not thus with our fathers, whose sepulchres we whiten. If old Ben Franklin had stood as near Boston Court House as his statue does, do you believe he would have remained passive, while Sims, the intelligent mechanic, was manacled and driven through the streets, guiltless of any crime, save that of wishing to be free? My belief is that the brave old printer of ’76 would have drawn down the lightning out of heaven upon that procession, with a vengeance.

What satisfactory reasons can be alleged for submitting to this degradation? What good excuse can be offered? Shall we resort to the Old Testament argument, that anodyne for the consciences of “South-Side” divines? Suppose the descendants of Ham were ordained to be slaves to the end of time, for an offence committed thousands of years ago, by a progenitor they never heard of. Still, the greatest amount of theological research leaves it very uncertain who the descendants of Ham are, and where they are. I presume you would not consider the title even to one acre of land satisfactorily settled by evidence of such extremely dubious character; how much less, then, a man’s ownership of himself! Then, again, if we admit that Africans are descendants of Ham, what is to be said of thousands of slaves, advertised in Southern newspapers as “passing themselves for white men, or white women”? Runaways with “blue eyes, light hair, and rosy complexions”? Are these sons and daughters of our Presidents, our Governors, our Senators, our Generals, and our Commodores, descendants of Ham? Are they Africans?

If you turn to the favorite New Testament argument, you will find that Paul requested Philemon to receive Onesimus, “no longer as a servant, but as a brother beloved.” Is that the way Southern masters receive the “fugitives from injustice” whom we drive back to them? Is it the way we expect [21] they will be received? In 1851, the intelligent young mechanic, named Thomas Sims, escaped from a hard master, who gave him many blows and no wages. By his own courage and energy, he succeeded in reaching our Commonwealth, where mechanics are not compelled by law to work without wages. But the authorities of Boston decreed that this man was “bound to such service or labor.” So they ordered out their troops and sent him back to his master, who caused him to be tied up and flogged, till the doctor said, “If you strike another blow, you will kill him.” “Let him die,” replied the master. He did nearly die in prison, but recovered to be sold farther South. Was this being received as “a brother beloved”? Before we send back any more Onesimuses, it is necessary to have a different set of Philemons to deal with. The Scripture is clearly not obeyed, under present circumstances.

If you resort to the alleged legal obligation to return fugitives, it has more plausibility, but has it in reality any firm foundation? Americans boast of making their own laws, and of amending them whenever circumstances render it necessary. How, then, can they excuse themselves, or expect the civilized world to excuse them, for making, or sustaining, unjust and cruel laws? The Fugitive Slave Act has none of the attributes of law. If two highwaymen agreed between themselves to stand by each other in robbing helpless men, women and children, should we not find it hard work to “conquer our prejudices” so far as to dignify their bargain with the name of law? That is the light in which the compact between North and South presents itself to the minds of intelligent slaves, and we should view it in the same way, if we were in their position. Law was established to maintain justice between man and man; and this Act clearly maintains injustice. Law was instituted to protect the weak from the strong; this Act delivers the weak completely into the arbitrary power of the strong. “Law is a rule of conduct, prescribed by the supreme power, commanding what is right, and forbidding what is wrong.” This is the commonly received definition of law, and obviously, none more correct could be substituted for it. The application of it would at once annul the Fugitive Slave Act, and abolish slavery. That Act reverses the maxim. It commands what is wrong, [22] and forbids what is right. It commands us to trample on the weak and defenceless, to persecute the oppressed, to be accomplices in defrauding honest laborers of their wages. It forbids us to shelter the homeless, to protect abused innocence, to feed the hungry, to “hide the outcast.” Let theological casuists argue as they will, Christian hearts will shrink from thinking of Jesus as surrendering a fugitive slave; or of any of his apostles, unless it be Judas. Political casuists may exercise their skill in making the worse appear the better reason, still all honest minds have an intuitive perception that no human enactment which violates God’s laws is worthy of respect. By what law of God can we justify the treatment of Margaret Garner? the surrender of Sims and Burns? the pitiless persecution of that poor little “famished hand”?

There is another consideration, which ought alone to have sufficient weight with us to deter us from attempting to carry out this tyrannical enactment. All history, and all experience, show it to be an immutable law of God, that whosoever injures another, injures himself in the process. These frequent scuffles between despotism and freedom, with despotism shielded by law, cannot otherwise than demoralize our people. They unsettle the popular mind concerning eternal principles of justice. They harden the heart by familiarity with violence. They accustom people to the idea that it is right for Capital to own Labor; and thus the reverence for Liberty, which we inherited from our fathers, will gradually die out in the souls of our children. We are compelled to disobey our own consciences, and repress all our humane feelings, or else to disobey the law. It is a grievous wrong done to the people to place them between these alternatives. The inevitable result is to destroy the sanctity of law. The doctrine that “might makes right,” which our rulers consent to teach the people, in order to pacify slaveholders, will come out in unexpected forms to disturb our own peace and safety. There is “even-handed justice” in the fact that men cannot aid in enslaving others, and themselves remain free; that they cannot assist in robbing others, without endangering their own security.

Moreover, there is wrong done, even to the humblest individual, when he is compelled to be ashamed of his country. [23] When the judge passed under chains into Boston Court House, and when Anthony Burns was sent back into slavery, I wept for my native State, as a daughter weeps for the crimes of a beloved mother. It seemed to me that I would gladly have died to have saved Massachusetts from that sin and that shame. The tears of a secluded woman, who has no vote to give, may appear to you of little consequence. But assuredly it is not well with any Commonwealth, when her daughters weep over her degeneracy and disgrace.

In the name of oppressed humanity, of violated religion, of desecrated law, of tarnished honor, of our own freedom endangered, of the moral sense of our people degraded by these evil influences, I respectfully, but most urgently, entreat you to annul this infamous enactment, so far as the jurisdiction of Massachusetts extends. Our old Commonwealth has been first and foremost in many good works; let her lead in this also. And deem it not presumptuous, if I ask it likewise for my own sake. I am a humble member of the community; but I am deeply interested in the welfare and reputation of my native State, and that gives me some claim to be heard. I am growing old; and on this great question of equal rights I have toiled for years, sometimes with a heart sickened by “hope deferred.” I beseech you to let me die on Free Soil! Grant me the satisfaction of saying, ere I go hence—

“Slaves cannot breathe among us. If their lungs
Receive our air, that moment they are free!
They touch our country, and their shackles fall!”

If you cannot be induced to reform this great wickedness, for the sake of outraged justice and humanity, then do it for the honor of the State, for the political welfare of our own people, for the moral character of our posterity. For, as sure as there is a Righteous Ruler in the heavens, if you continue to be accomplices in violence and fraud, God will not “save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

L. MARIA CHILD.

[24]

[36]