It throws back upon us a moral pestilence; it scatters the seeds
of intemperance, licentiousness, and infidelity; it popularizes
gambling, Sabbath breaking, profaneness and lawless violence; it
casts an undeserved stigma on manual labor, it encourages idleness
and prodigality. It disgraces us in the eyes of the whole world;
it impairs our national strength; it encroaches on the spirit of
liberty; it is constantly undermining our free institutions. The
northern states have no greater enemy. Were Slavery abolished, her
religion, her morals, her liberties, her general prosperity would be
far more secure. The chief source of danger to the integrity of our
union, and to our domestic tranquility would be removed; a greater
market would be opened for our manufactures, and a wider field for
our industry and enterprise; the emancipated slaves would purchase
our goods, and our youth could enter into competition with the sons
of the South in raising cotton, &c. without becoming slave-holders.
Labor would soon cease to be disgraceful; property would accumulate
in every part of the land; education would flourish; religion would
revive; the entire country would rejoice in peace and plenty under
the smiles of an approving providence. Tell us not, that we have no
concern in removing the greatest sin, curse and shame of the nation,
and in securing for ourselves and our posterity, a truly free and
virtuous government.
It is said that _Slavery is an agitating subject, which cannot be
discussed without disturbing the peace and harmony of our churches_.
Why so? This subject can be discussed in the churches in Great
Britain without discord and division. We think it could be here,
were it not for the corruption of our public sentiment, which can
be corrected only by free discussion. It is where the truth needs
most to be heard, that it creates most opposition and variance.
Primitive christianity was accused of turning the world upside down.
The temperance cause has occasioned strife, and separated “very
friends.” We hold to the Apostolic injunction: “_first_ pure, _then_
peaceable.” We love a virtuous peace. A truce with sin we abhor. If
we must surrender our liberties, and connive at iniquity, to avoid
a war, we say with Patrick Henry, “The war is inevitable, and let
it come; I repeat it, sir, let it come.” Who does not see that if
polygamy were common in our churches, it would create a terrible
excitement to preach against it, and lead to the dismission of
pastors? Yet any one would acknowledge, that religion could never
prosper, while the church was so corrupt; and that she had better be
torn into ten thousand fragments, than that polygamy should continue
in vogue; for she would soon be re-organized in greater purity and
strength. So it is with a _slave-holding_ Church; and with a Church
in which the _spirit_ of Slavery is so rife, that she will not live
in peace with her Anti-Slavery members, nor tolerate the exercise
of their Constitutional rights. But we do not believe this of our
Churches. We think the more this “delicate and agitating” subject is
discussed among us, the less unpleasant excitement will prevail.
It is said _that our measures to overthrow Slavery are
unconstitutional_. Our opponents may easily test this question
by bringing it before the U. S. Court. We claim to be acting
constitutionally. Our plan of operations is essentially the same as
that pursued by the early Anti-Slavery Societies, of which such men
as John Jay, Benj. Franklin, Benj. Rush, and Jonathan Edwards, were
active members; some of whom were engaged in forming our federal
Constitution. Did they not understand that instrument? Did their
contemporaries ever dispute their right to discuss the merits of
Slavery? Have not our citizens, from time immemorial and without
restriction, exercised this right? Does not the Constitution, instead
of guaranteeing Slavery against this moral influence, guarantee to
us the right of employing it, by forbidding Congress to pass any law
abridging the freedom of speech and of the press?
We are told our measures are an _invasion of the rights of
property_. This objection assumes, what nature denies, that _man_
may be _rightfully_ held as property. Blackstone maintains in his
Commentaries, that man cannot be reduced by any just process to a
state of absolute Slavery; that he cannot be born in that state, nor
sell himself into it, nor be placed there when taken captive in war,
without flagrant injustice. We also hold it to be _self-evident_,
that all men are _born free and equal_, and entitled to certain
_inalienable_ rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. The Slave owns himself by grant of his Creator.
_Slavery_ is, therefore, an invasion of his rights of property. It is
the slave-master who makes an aggression on the property of others,
not we, who exhort him to relinquish that property. The Slaves
being the rightful owners of themselves, the abolition of Slavery
is merely an act declarative of this indisputable title. Nor do we
seek the destruction of Slavery, except through the constitutional
authorities. Even were the slaves the _property_ of their masters, it
would be lawful for us to _persuade_ them to part with it. Would it
not? The Legislatures of the several states have a right to abolish
Slavery. Have they not? It has hitherto been conceded, that the law
making power of every slave-holding country has this right. May
we not then persuade the states to exercise it, by convincing them
of the moral wrong and frightful impolicy of Slavery? Should it be
said that the government encouraged its citizens to invest property
under the protection of the slave code, and therefore ought not
to abolish Slavery without indemnifying them, our answer is, that
mankind are under a paramount obligation not to invest property under
the protection of _immoral_ laws; that all such laws are in their
nature null and void from the beginning; that governments have always
exercised the power of correcting abuses; and there is no greater
abuse than Slavery; none more unjust and oppressive; none more
pernicious and perilous to our national interests.
Some object, that the abolition of Slavery _on our plan_, without
compensation to the masters, _would be taking away the bread of poor
widows and orphans_. We have no plan. We say only, that Slavery is
wrong, and ought forthwith to be abandoned. The South will adopt
and prosecute her own plan. When her Legislatures abolish Slavery,
they can, if they will, provide for widows and children, who are
left destitute by that act. If they will not do it, we will raise
contributions for their relief; for we deem the claims of _charity_,
nearly as imperative as the claims of justice. But we can never
sanction the _principle_ of Slavery, by saying, that slave-holders
have a _right_ to compensation for restoring to the slaves their
stolen rights. We must always consider it a greater hardship to be
unjustly held as a slave, than to be made poor by freeing such slave.
It is a sad blunder in morals, that this man may make that man,
perhaps fifty other men, poor for life, lest he himself should be a
pauper; that this man may make that man poor by _dishonesty_, lest he
himself should become poor by _being honest_.
No objection to our measures is more senseless, or more common,
than an _alleged tendency to dissolve the Union_. Which had we
better surrender, the Union or our liberties? The Union is a curse
instead of a blessing, if we must surrender for it, _freedom of
speech and personal protection in any part of the country_. And
if Slavery continues to be protected by public sentiment, and by
popular violence, how long could the Union last, even were _all_ the
abolitionists this day laid in their graves? Slavery endangers the
integrity of the Union, more than all other enemies; and unless soon
destroyed, will be the destroyer both of it and us. If we love the
Union, we should labor to overthrow Slavery. Wesley somewhere defines
fanaticism, to be the expectation of accomplishing ends without
the use of means. Let us not hope for the peaceable destruction of
Slavery, by such a fanatical course. Let us do _something_; and if
we do any thing, what can be done which the abolitionists are not
attempting? In doing this we shall not peril the Union, but preserve
it. The South will never venture on the mad experiment of secession,
_because_ the North is opposed to Slavery. Such an act would be
suicidal. It would encourage the slaves to revolt. It would leave her
defenceless against the invasion of a foreign foe. It would release
us from the constitutional obligation to suppress domestic violence,
and to restore fugitives from service. It would open several thousand
miles of frontier, over which her slaves would escape into a land
of liberty. It would make the south “a good country to emigrate
from,” and she would find herself losing her best citizens, and her
condition becoming more and more exposed and perilous. She would be
ruined. She knows it. Were our legislators in Congress to retort her
stereotyped threat to dissolve the Union, with a challenge to do it,
if she dares, we should hear no more of this empty bravado.
It is said, if our measures should be successful, _the slaves would
resort to the North_, and coming up upon our farms, and into our
shops, like the frogs of Egypt, reduce the wages of our laborers.
No apprehension is more groundless. The free colored people of the
South are quite numerous, and very much oppressed; yet few of them
leave that part of the country; though the whites would be very glad
to have them do so, because they render the slaves uneasy, and come
into competition with slave labor. But were slavery abolished, the
whites would desire to retain all the colored people, in order to
employ them in cultivating the soil; precisely as is now the case in
the West Indies. Nor would the slaves be willing to leave the land of
their nativity, and of their kindred, to reside in the cold regions
of the north, to the business and climate of which they are uninured,
and where they must labor more severely to obtain a comfortable
living. But should they come, what then? Do you prefer perpetual
slavery?
It is also objected to our enterprise, that _the immediate abolition
of slavery, would be “letting the slaves loose” to be idlers,
vagabonds, thieves, and cut-throats_. This objection is more forcible
against _gradual_ emancipation, which would throw upon society
a multitude of freedmen, while the rest of their brethren still
remained in bondage. The holders of slaves would not encourage the
free by giving them labor; who would, therefore, be more apt to be
idle and vicious; while their release would excite uneasiness in the
minds of the unemancipated. The objection is also equally strong
against _prospective_ emancipation, according to which the slaves
would all be set free at once; but not until some time after the
passage of the act. Experience and human nature both teach us, that
slaves under such circumstances are more apt to be overworked, than
to be better prepared for the enjoyment of freedom. The objection
is, therefore, good for _perpetual_ slavery, or good for nothing.
It is good for nothing. Immediate emancipation would indeed deliver
the slave and his family at once from the hands of an irresponsible
master, and empower him to go where he pleases and do what he
pleases, so long as he breaks none of the laws which restrain
other men. And why not? He could not otherwise rejoin his wife and
children, whom the slave trade has torn from him, nor secure fair
wages, nor be safe from oppression. But this is not letting him
loose _to do evil_. THE LAWS OF SLAVERY LET THE MASTERS LOOSE UPON
THE SLAVES, _instead of the abolition of slavery letting the slaves
loose upon the masters_. Were there a law authorizing the inhabitants
of Meriden to seize the inhabitants of Berlin, to confine them to
jail limits, and work them without wages, to separate husbands and
wives, parents and children, and even to kill them by that very
indefinite thing, called “moderate correction;” this law would let
the inhabitants of Meriden loose upon the inhabitants of Berlin;
for it would protect the former in the grossest outrages upon the
latter. But the repeal of this law would not let the inhabitants of
Berlin loose upon us. Extending them protection would not be letting
them loose upon us. Had we the power of repealing the law; or if
not, possessing the power of _not enforcing_ it, we should find
our security in doing so. The very way to make them respect _our_
rights, would be to respect _theirs_. Immediate emancipation places
the slaves under the _control_ as well as protection of the laws of
the State against idleness, vagrancy, theft, murder, and all other
aggressions on the rights of men.
We are told that the _Slaves are not fit to be free_; and therefore
our scheme of immediate emancipation, if adopted, would prove a
curse to them and the country. Nothing is more false. The Slaves are
_men_; and therefore they are more fit for freedom than for slavery;
more fit to be treated as persons than as things; to be governed by
appeals to the reason and conscience than by brute force. God made
man to be free and adapted him to that condition. A state of Slavery
is unnatural to him. Nor can his nature so change, that he shall
be more fit to be treated as a brute, than as a free moral agent.
Slaves have often been set at liberty, and have _always_ proved
their capacity for freedom, by their industry, frugality and ready
obedience to the laws.
And why, we would ask, should they be thought unfit to be put under
the control and protection of the same laws, which govern freemen? Do
their vices or their ignorance, disqualify them? While Slavery lasts,
they will remain equally degraded.
Are they _Sabbath breakers_? Slavery has taught them to desecrate
the day of rest, by making it to them almost the only day of
recreation, the only day for visiting, for trading and for tilling
their gardens. Are they _thieves_? They consider stealing from their
masters to be only making _reprisals_ for the robbery of their just
wages; while many of them are strongly tempted to steal by the
desire of more or better food. Are they _liars_? They will continue
such, while they are slaves. They will pretend sickness, to avoid
labor; they will say they do not wish to be free, lest their masters
should sell them into distant banishment; they will lie to conceal
the unavoidable delinquences, for which slaves are daily upbraided
and beaten. Are they _idle_? As slaves they have no hope of reward
to stimulate their exertions. They will work much better, as one
facetiously expresses it, for Mr. CASH than for Mr. LASH. Let their
wives and children be dependent on their industry for support, a
far more noble and efficient motive than the fear of violence, to
call forth the energies of man. Are they _improvident_? They cannot
learn to save property, until they are allowed to hold it in their
own right. Make them free, and then that faculty of their nature,
which the phrenologists call “acquisitiveness” will prompt them to
save their earnings. Are they _licentious_? Then give them their
liberty, that the husband and father may be the legal protector of
his wife and daughters. Are they _revengeful_? Redress their wrongs,
and they will forgive their oppressors. Are they _heathen_? Take
your foot from their necks, before you disgrace christianity, by
attempting to convert them. Are they _ignorant of letters_? So are a
majority of the freemen of the world; nor is it to be expected that
slave-holders will teach their slaves to read and write, until they
repent of Slavery itself. The vices of the Slaves are inseparable
from their condition. If they are not now fit for freedom, Slavery,
which unfitted them, will perpetuate their unfitness. Nor is their
degradation of mind and morals a disqualification for freedom. You
may find its counterpart in the characters of a large class of
citizens in every country.
While Slavery continues, what is the prospect of their becoming
_better_ fitted for freedom? Where are the men and the means? Who
will teach them? Who will support the teachers? The south cannot
supply her _free_ population with instruction. Even with the aid
of the north, she is very destitute of the means of religion. Nor
would she be willing to adopt a general system of education for the
improvement of the Slaves. Instead of giving her money to fit them
for freedom, she would hunt from society any persons, who should
seriously propose the measure. They know little of the spirit of
Slavery, who imagine, that the south was disposed to prepare her
Slaves for freedom, until the abolitionists roused her to resistance.
Had she really wished to free her Slaves, she would have welcomed
us as coadjutors, at least she would not have abandoned her own
plan, because ours was offensive to her. She never intended to fit
her Slaves for freedom. She does not intend it now. Her laws, in
most of the States, are against it. The mass of her Slaves will, no
doubt, be as unfit for freedom fifty years hence, if Slavery should
continue so long, as they are to day. The British abolitionists were
once deceived by this syren song of preparation, but now in allusion
to the words of Paul; “the _glorious_ gospel of the blessed God;”
they exclaim, THE GLORIOUS DOCTRINE OF IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION! They
found it the POWER OF GOD, to awaken the slumbering conscience of the
nation; and the WISDOM OF GOD as a measure of relief to their Slaves.
We shall find it so.
Our opponents also object to _emancipation upon the soil_. Not all,
but some of them, are in favor of Colonization as a remedy for
Slavery, and others execrate us for our opposition to it as a scheme
for benefiting Africa. We are especially averse to the former class.
When men say, that the Slaves ought not to be freed, until they
can be colonized, we _ought to make resistance_, for the following
reasons:
1. We ought to _resist every wicked prejudice_; and they who object
to emancipation on the soil, do so, in obedience to such a prejudice.
They say the colored people can never rise in this country. They
maintain that our aversion to the race is instinctive and natural;
though we find no one averse to associating with them as _slaves_.
The two races are certainly on very _intimate_ terms at the South.
It is only when they come as _freemen_ between the wind and our
nobility, that they taint the air. We, therefore, say, this prejudice
is unnatural and sinful; and instead of fostering it, we ought to
rebuke, and check it in ourselves and others. Some of us recollect
the time, when as Colonizationists we wished to get rid of the
colored people, and were indignant at them for being unwilling to
leave the country. May we not repent of such a feeling and condemn in
it others, without being hunted from society?
2. _By retaining the emancipated slaves on the soil, we can at less
expense of men and means educate and christianize them._ Were we
to send them beyond the Mississippi or to Africa, it would take
ten times the number of Missionaries and Teachers, that we are
now supporting among the heathen, to save them from sinking into
barbarism. But if they should be retained as free laborers in the
service of their present masters, those masters would provide for
their instruction, and without diverting means from other objects,
the delightful spectacle would soon be witnessed of Schools and
Churches springing up among them, through the voluntary efforts of
the ministers and christians of the South.
3. _The labor of the Slaves is wanted on the plantations at the
South._ To withdraw such an amount of labor would bankrupt the
entire country. Nor could their places be supplied, except by the
worst population of the old world; by men, whose religion, whose
morals, whose politics are all, in the highest degree, hostile to our
national interests. The emancipated Slaves, on the contrary, would be
prejudiced in favor of the protestant faith, and prove the staunchest
friends of our free institutions.
4. The _South will not consent to the colonization of the Slaves_.
She is willing we should contribute to carry off the free people of
color, “the nuisances,” “the disturbing force,” as she terms them;
and also those Slaves, whom the more conscientious of her citizens,
who dare not die Slave-holders, may emancipate for the purpose. But
she is unwilling we should go a step further. She does not believe we
can get the means of doing more. We think, if a place were provided
in Africa, and we had the means necessary to transport every Slave
there, and were to go and tell the south, about the sinfulness of
holding Slaves, when they _can_ be colonized, and call upon her in
_good earnest_, to give them up, she would denounce us as fanatics,
and pass no more resolutions in favor of colonization. She is now at
peace with it, because she does not fear it, and hopes to find it of
use in repelling the abolitionists, in _letting off_, as by a safety
valve, the pious feeling of her own citizens, and in expelling the
free people of color.
5. The Slaves _are unwilling to leave the country_; and will never
consent to do it, but on such a dread alternative as no christian
people should impose. _First_ give them their liberty, put them under
the protection of impartial law, and treat them with kindness, and
then if they _ask_ our aid to remove their families to Africa, their
determination to leave this country will evidently be spontaneous.
6. _It is better for them to remain in the employment of southern
capitalists, who are able to pay them wages for their labor than to
go out into the wilderness as paupers, where there is no capital, and
the very necessaries of life, are to be created._
7. _They cannot be colonized without an appalling expense of money,
life and comfort._
8. To colonize the Slaves of this country _on account of their color,
would be in the highest degree dishonorable to christianity_. Were
Christ on earth, he would associate with the despised colored man in
preference to many who think themselves the best society. Can we act,
as he would not and yet exemplify his religion? What, too, would
be the effect on the minds of the heathen, nearly all of whom are
_colored_ men, were they to learn, that that nation, which makes the
loudest professions of attachment to christianity, had banished more
than two millions of her citizens to a land of pagan darkness, being
offended at the _color of their skin_?
9. To _send all the slaves to Africa would be fatal to the natives of
that Continent_. Said Mr. Pinney, agent of the Colonization Society,
and once Gov. of Liberia, ‘the colony must be kept pure, or it will
either enslave or exterminate the African tribes.’ Send 2,500,000 of
people to Africa, four-fifths of whom are in heathenish darkness,
and all of whom have been taught, by the example of their masters,
that slavery is morally right, and labor disgraceful, would they
hesitate to buy Slaves of the native Princes, or to reduce their
captives to a state of servitude? It is said, there is as strong a
line of demarkation between the colonists, and the heathen, though
of the same color, as there is between the white and colored people
in this country. But if they should not become slave-holders, would
they not gradually exterminate the native tribes for the sake of
revenging injuries, and possessing themselves of their lands? Said
Mr. Pinney, the colony must be kept pure, or such a result is
inevitable; and it cannot be kept pure, unless it is conducted on a
very small scale. We doubt whether a commercial and military colony
can be so far controlled by _moral principle_, as to avoid these
results. For if the emigrants were all pious persons, and few in
number, their posterity might become both vicious and powerful. We
are not, therefore, without our objections to African colonization,
even if it should be distinctly abandoned as a remedy for slavery,
and conducted with caution, and on a small scale. We know not to what
it may grow. We like better, the good, old, apostolic plan of sending
_missionaries_ to the heathen—men, who have no commercial and selfish
interests to subserve, and who bear no hostile weapons. There is
danger that a colony, however carefully guarded, will _misrepresent
christianity_ and fatally prejudice the native mind against it. The
fact, that not a native has yet been converted to christianity, in
connection with the colony of Liberia, justifies the inquiry, whether
the _scheme_ is a good one for Africa. The transportation of all our
Slaves would confessedly form a colony too large and corrupt for the
safety of the native tribes; and we tremble for the result of the
present _experiment_.
In this argument we have not denied the practicability of colonizing
two millions and a half of people, at an expense of $125,000,000. We
think it enough to show the thing ought not to be done.
CONCLUSION.