Transcriber's Notes: Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been
left as in the original. Words in italics in the original are surrounded
by _underscores_. A row of asterisks represents a thought break.
The original sometimes uses two numbered columns for comparisons. This
text has the contents of the right column indented like a blockquote
below the contents of the left column.
The original uses an image of a hand with a finger pointing to the right.
In this text, --> represents that image.
ABOLITIONISM
EXPOSED!
PROVING THAT
THE PRINCIPLES OF ABOLITIONISM
ARE
INJURIOUS TO THE SLAVES THEMSELVES, DESTRUCTIVE
TO THIS NATION, AND CONTRARY TO THE
EXPRESS COMMANDS OF GOD;
WITH STRONG EVIDENCE
_That some of the principal CHAMPIONS of Abolitionism are
inveterate Enemies to this Country, and are taking advantage
of the 'ANTI-SLAVERY WAR-WHOOP'
to dissever, and break up, the UNION_.
"While they promise them _Liberty_, they themselves are the
_Slaves_ of corruption."--2 Pet. ii. 19.
BY W. W. SLEIGH, F. R. C. S. L.
FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF ANATOMY AND SURGERY, LONDON; HON.
MEMB. R. W. L. S. I.; AUTHOR OF "THE SCIENCE OF
SURGERY;" "THE CHRISTIAN'S DEFENSIVE
DICTIONARY AGAINST INFIDELITY;"
&c. &c. &c.
PHILADELPHIA:
PUBLISHED BY D. SCHNECK,
N. W. CORNER OF SECOND AND RACE STREETS.
Stereotyped by J. Fagan.
1838.
Entered according to the act of Congress, in the year 1838, by W. W.
SLEIGH, in the office of the district court of the eastern district of
Pennsylvania.
CONTENTS.
Page
PREFACE 4
CHAPTER I.
Liberty and Slavery defined--Difference between Words and Things 5
CHAPTER II.
The Principles, &c. of the Leaders of Abolitionism exhibited 16
CHAPTER III.
The impracticability of the object of Abolitionists demonstrated 24
CHAPTER IV.
The Errors of the Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine, for April, 1837,
respecting the Scriptural Words, "_servant_"--"_property_"--"_buy_,"
&c., briefly noticed 43
CHAPTER V.
The Conduct and Character of the Southern Slave-holder vindicated 49
CHAPTER VI.
Colonization Principles vindicated--Calumnies refuted--The
good the Colonization Society has already done--is doing--and
the incalculable good it must do, if duly patronized 66
CHAPTER VII.
Colonization and Abolitionism contrasted 88
APPENDIX.
Extract of an Address of William Lloyd Garrison, Esq., published
in the London Patriot, of August, 1833 91
Conclusion 92
PREFACE.
The conflagration of the late "_Pennsylvania Hall_" having frustrated
the contemplated discussion between some of the champions of
Abolitionism and the Author, he feels it a duty he owes the public, and
the best service he can render this country, to make known, through the
medium of a Pamphlet, a few of the facts and arguments which he
intended adducing on that occasion. Thus contributing his mite of
information towards allaying the general excitement on this subject,
and, if possible, to open the eyes of those who, _through mistaken
philanthropy_, have become the _innocent_ tools of a few reckless men,
whose object, (to put the most favourable construction on it) may be,
while indifferent of consequences, to render themselves conspicuous.
Were he not convinced that the best interests of this country, that the
real interests of the coloured population, bond and free, and that
common humanity itself, are involved in the question of Abolitionism, he
would not presume to obtrude himself on the notice of the Public, on a
topic more or less now connected with politics, from which he has
hitherto carefully refrained. He comes forward therefore, while he
declares himself an eternal and uncompromising enemy to all _cruelty_,
_injustice_, _tyranny_, and _oppression_, not _against_, but _for_
liberty--not _against_, but _for_ the coloured man--not _against_, but
_for_ humanity.
Philadelphia, 285 Race Street.
_May 21st, 1838._
ABOLITIONISM EXPOSED!
CHAPTER I.
LIBERTY AND SLAVERY DEFINED.----DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORDS AND THINGS.
Mankind has ever been disposed to be carried away with _names_ and
_words_, with the _representation_ of things, rather than with _things
themselves_: and that portion of mankind thus apt to be deceived by
_mere sound_, is generally the most innocent--the best--the most
unsuspecting--the most charitable--these very qualities rendering them
the easy victims of design and imprudence: the history of the world
proves, not only this, but also that demagogues are the _first_ to fly
from the commotions, which they themselves create; and thus leave their
poor innocent victims to suffer the vengeance of an outraged and
insulted community! They stand their ground while the weapons used are
merely words, and "_rotten_" eggs, &c.; but when recourse is had to
leaden balls, and swords of steel, they generally take good care to make
a quick retreat, leaving their deluded followers to have the glory of
martyrdom!
_Liberty_ is a glorious term--so is _Christianity_--but under the sacred
garb of both one and the other, the foulest deeds have been, and may
be, perpetrated! Under the name of _Christianity_, the holy crusades, in
which thousands were slain, were instituted and carried on, by
Englishmen! And under the name of _Liberty_, men, women, and children
were, in 1793, slaughtered by Frenchmen! Be not therefore carried away
by _sounds_--by mere _words_.
_Slavery_ is a horrid term! But why? Not that bondage or slavery is
uncommon, or rare; for there are few, very few men, white or black, on
the face of the Earth who are not SLAVES! He who commits sin is the
_slave_ of lust--so says the Bible--Let God be true, and every man a
liar. Who therefore is not a slave? Was not Buonaparte, while he was the
Emperor of nearly all Europe, a _slave_ to his god--ambition? And is not
the _covetous_ man a slave to his idol--gold?
"He is a freeman whom the truth makes free,
And all are slaves beside. There's not a chain,
That hellish foes, confederate for his harm,
Can wind around him, but he casts it off,
With as much ease, as Samson his green withes."
The principal reason why we abhor so much the term _slavery_ is, the
base cruelty with which _some_ tyrant slaveholders, for there are wicked
slaveholders as well as wicked husbands and masters, have treated their
slaves. Hence we are very apt to use as synonymous terms, _slavery_,
_cruelty_, _tyranny_, and _oppression_. Moreover it is the interest of
certain persons so to use these words, for the purpose of getting more
ready access to the hearts of good-natured men and women. Does any one
really believe that a man _cannot_ treat his slaves _kindly_,
_tenderly_, and _affectionately_? If any one thinks it _possible_, then
let not, for the future, the terms _slavery_ and _cruelty_ be
inseparably united. But if he thinks it impossible, then it is evident
the testimony of some thousands of disinterested, good, and religious
men, who have visited the South, and who have most solemnly borne
testimony to the kind, tender, and Christian manner in which _numerous_
slaveholders treat their slaves, must be rejected! If all this is to be
rejected, then let the doubter, who is so charitable towards the
coloured population, exercise a little of that charity, "which rejoiceth
not in iniquity," and is "without partiality," towards his white fellow
citizens, and ere he slanders them, or encourages those who bear false
witness against them, pay the South a visit, and judge for himself, with
his own eyes, and his own cars. Methinks he replies, "but I have it from
those who themselves have witnessed it!" Witnessed what? Is it that
_all_ the slaveholders in the South treat their slaves with _cruelty_
and _barbarity_? Oh no, perhaps he says, not _all_, but many of them!
Many thanks! This is fully admitted, and much regretted; but this
exception proves the very proposition with which we started, viz. "that
slavery, and cruelty, ought not to be used as _synonymous_ terms!"
Again, fresh he is no doubt to the charge, with the thrust, "but this
fact of many of the slaveholders treating their slaves with cruelty,
shows there ought to be no slavery!" Avast, friend! is the _abuse_ of a
system a just cause of condemnation? Do you say it is: then the system
of apprenticeship--of guardianship--of matrimony--_Liberty_--and
_Christianity_ themselves, ought to be condemned, for they all have been
abused--all have had the most _cruel_--_tyrannical_--and _Satanic_ acts,
committed under their names! Therefore, according to the very argument
by which you would have slavery condemned, you would also have
_liberty_, _matrimony_, and _Christianity_, banished from the
earth!--You cannot get out of the dilemma--there is no possible
alternative--if _slavery_ is to be condemned because it has been
_abused_, so are Liberty and Christianity! Out of thine own mouth thou
art condemned!
A total recklessness of truth is a remarkable feature in the arguments
adopted by the advocates of Abolitionism; while they give no credit to
the statements of those differing from them! they unblushingly assert
that _all_ slaveholders are _tyrants_ and _cruel_! Does truth require
falsehood to make it conquer? Ought not those preposterous misstatements
open the eyes of the public to the real character, and motive, of those
men?--The cause of God they cannot be advocating, for his cause requires
not the weapons of Satan! Error invariably stands in need of lies for
its support.
That there is great cruelty in the South, no one denies; but is there no
cruelty in the North? Are there no cruel, tyrannical, husbands and
masters in Philadelphia or in Boston? Are no acts of oppression
committed north of the Chesapeake? These cannot be attributed to
slavery! There is, rely on it, a deeper, a more concealed, a more
galling _slavery_ and _bondage_, to which these evils are attributable,
even the slavery of the soul to sin and to Satan. To this one, and the
same _mental slavery_, both cruelty and tyranny in the South, and in the
North, are alike referable. Therefore attributing these detestable
evils, cruelty, and tyranny, to _corporeal_ slavery, is not only
unphilosophical and unscriptural, but fatally erroneous; for it leads us
to attack the _effect_, and not the _cause_.
The Author, while listening last week to the Abolition Champions in the
late "Pennsylvania Hall," was forcibly struck with the strong similarity
between the _mode_ of argument adopted by them, and by the champions of
Infidelity in the late public discussions, between them and him, in New
York! They commenced their addresses with high-sounding words about
_liberty!_ _oppression!_ _tyranny_, &c.! Having by this mode (_and they
know the value of it!_) got ready access to the hearts of their
audience, and made a favourable impression, so as to make the females
whisper to each other, "Oh what a fine, good man, that must be," &c.(!)
then they depicted, in the strongest colours, the horrors of
slavery--next they issued forth a tirade of slander and abuse against
all slaveholders; and lastly they proceeded to undermine the character
of every man opposed to them--the credibility of every witness bearing
testimony against them--and the motives of all men, _except themselves_!
Moreover they invariably attacked the _abuses_ of each system (as if a
system were answerable for its abuse) holding up to public odium, what
every good man from his heart must condemn, viz: oppression, tyranny,
and cruelty; thus leaving the vast majority of the audience under the
impression that it was the _thing itself_, and not the _abuse of it_, on
which they were animadverting!
LIBERTY--there is scarcely a word in the English Vocabulary so often
perverted as the term _liberty_.--A vast mass of mankind conceive that
the meaning of the word is, a perfect privilege and license for each and
every man to do as he pleases.--If this be the real and true meaning of
liberty, and that where this is _not_, there is _slavery_, then there is
no liberty in the United States, (and God forbid, say I, there ever
should be here such liberty,) and every man, woman, and child in the
Union, is a _slave_! I doubt not this is the kind of liberty at which
some of the champions of Abolitionism, viz. Fanny Wright
Darusmont--Owen--et hoc omne genus, are aiming! But is this the liberty
sanctioned by God? No! Is this the liberty guaranteed by the declaration
of Independence? No! Is this the liberty for which the Fathers of this
Country fought and bled? No! No! Such liberty would be the most awful
tyranny and oppression--The liberty authorised by God, and sanctioned by
the laws of this Country, is, that no man shall do aught to the injury,
prejudice, or hurt of his neighbour--This is the only true liberty
granted by God to man; yet this is the very liberty, the advocates of
Abolitionism turn into ridicule, and attempt to destroy, under the
plausible plea of vindicating the rights of man! This was the plea of
Thomas Paine--This was the plea of Robert Owen--this is the plea of
Fanny Wright Darusmont--this is the plea of all the infidels on the face
of the earth! But, say Abolitionists, the Bible commands us, to "do unto
others as we would be done by." Admitted. This very passage was
addressed by the Infidels in their discussion with me to show the
absurdity of the Bible: and according to the use made of it by
Abolitionists, the argument of Infidels would be unanswerable! But will
Abolitionists stand by this rule? They will not: for if they did, they
would instantly abandon their crusade against their southern fellow
citizens: and if they will not, then let them no longer quote that as
authority, by which they themselves will not be governed! [See this
subject further illustrated in a subsequent chapter.]
Liberty then may be defined to be, _the privilege of doing all that is
good--and nothing that is evil_--But who is to decide that which is
good, and that which is evil? The Creator of the universe--Man
unassisted by revelation never was, and never will be, able. The Bible
which contains the revealed will of Omnipotence is that volume, and that
only, which constitutes the umpire of good and evil[11:A]--The very fact
of the existence of laws in the land, proves man is not at liberty to do
as he pleases: for, "law is a rule of action:" actions therefore must be
controlled--Society demands it--God has authorised it--And perfect
Liberty maintains it.
The Pirate boasts of liberty--preaches liberty to his comrades--and
condemns all law! Here is a specimen of perfect liberty! He may with
equal propriety, when taken prisoner, urge the Abolition text, "do unto
others, as you would be done by." Now, if you had been a pirate, (he
would say) and had the misfortune of having been taken prisoner, would
_you_ not _wish_ to be set at liberty? You reply, yes, certainly--then
he says, the Bible commands you to do unto others as you would be done
by; and, as you would _wish_ to be set at _liberty_, were you in my
situation, if you regard the authority of God you will set me _free_!
The reader must perceive to what lengths this principle may be carried
out--even to the utter destruction of all society!
Again; would opening the doors of a lunatic asylum, and letting free the
patients thereof, be an act of kindness or friendship towards them? You
reply, Certainly not! Yet this would be granting them immediate
liberty--this would be pure abolitionism! But, you rejoin, the condition
of the persons--their mental inabilities disqualify them for liberty
till they are cured--till they can take care of themselves--till there
is no danger of their doing violence to others; therefore, keeping them
confined till _then_, is in fact an act of kindness towards them,--and
the opposite course would be most injurious to them! Thank you, kind
reader, these are identically the same reasons I give for not advocating
the _immediate_ emancipation of the slaves. I give you full credit for
the wisdom and propriety of your reasons: be so liberal as to grant me
the same indulgence--to give me the same credit for the sincerity of my
actions. It is probable the Abolitionist will reply, that the condition
of the slaves, and of the inmates of a lunatic asylum, is very
different. I answer, without fear of contradiction, that, as far as
mental incapability, the vast mass of the slaves are as incapable of
taking care of themselves as the great proportion of lunatics; and this
we shall fully demonstrate in a subsequent chapter. Again; do you think
children ought to be freed from all parental control? You reply,
certainly not; and you give the same reasons as you have just adduced
for not setting lunatics free. Is not this, then, a case parallel with
that of the slaves? And in both, I may as justly accuse you of
oppression, of tyranny, of a hatred to liberty, because you will not
emancipate lunatics, and all children, as you accuse me, for not
advocating the immediate abolition of slavery.
_Slavery_ is derived from _slave_; as _servant_ comes from _service_. In
the English language the two are distinct from one another; the former
term being applied to _involuntary_, the latter to voluntary, servitude.
But this is not the case in either the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin tongues;
one and the same word, in each language, signifies both voluntary and
involuntary service. Thus "_obed_," in Hebrew--"δουλος," in Greek--and
"servus," in Latin, signify what we mean by the terms, _servant_ and
_slave_. Hence in works written in any of these languages, we can never
tell from the word _itself_ whether the person to whom the term is
applied was a _slave_, or a _servant_: it is therefore only by
concomitant expressions or circumstances that we can come to a
conclusion as to the actual nature of his situation. This is the case
both in the Old and New Testament.
For instance, when we read of individuals having been _sold_, having
been _purchased_, having been "bought _with money_" &c., we cannot doubt
for a moment the propriety of applying to such persons the term _slave_:
and that, no matter whether their servitude was temporary, or for
ever--whether they had sold themselves, or were sold by _others_; they
were _slaves_ to all intents and purposes--from the moment they were
sold they became subject to _involuntary_ servitude.
Again, while it by no means follows that every servant ("_obed_"--
"δουλος"--"servus,") mentioned in the Bible, was a slave, it does
follow that every slave was a servant!
Ere I make the next statement, I request it may be distinctly
understood, 1st, that I consider the "_Slave-trade_," and
"_Slave-holding_," two distinct things: 2d, that I do not consider
"_slave-holding_," "_cruelty_," "_oppression_," and "_tyranny_,"
synonymous. While therefore I pronounce the former, that is _the
slave-trade_, to be barbarous, iniquitous, and _unscriptural_, I
_cannot_ find a single passage in the whole word of God which either
denounces _slave-holding_, or commands the owner to liberate
instantaneously his slaves. And I fearlessly defy all the Abolitionists
on earth to produce one such passage. If therefore the Bible is to be
the umpire, and to its authority alone I ever consent to strike, that
sacred book announces that "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO
TRANSGRESSION;" (Rom. iv. 14): and as there is no law prohibitory of
_slave-holding_, it cannot be considered _sin_ (for sin is the
transgression of the law) by any, except those who aim at possessing a
higher degree of moral worth and righteousness, than the Lord Jesus
Christ himself; and, "who by good words and fair speeches deceive the
hearts of the simple."
While I thus humbly vindicate the slandered slave-holder, I desire
equally to denounce all cruelty--all inhumanity--all oppression--the
same law of God which desires the slave to "be obedient to his master,
with fear and trembling" (Eph. vi. 5-9) commands the Master, "to FORBEAR
THREATENING"--(for "vengeance belongeth UNTO GOD") "to give that which
is _just_, and _equal_ to his slave; knowing that there is a MASTER in
Heaven; who will render to every man, without respect of persons,
according to his deeds." (Col. iv. 1.)
But so far from the Bible condemning _slave-holding_, I maintain it
recognizes the practice by giving laws, and directions, both for Master
and for slave--and so far from encouraging the slave to run away from
his master, as the principles of Abolitionism teach, it unequivocally
exhorts and commands "_every_ man to ABIDE in the same calling wherein
he is called"--"if called, _being a slave_, care not for it; but if thou
_mayest_ (i. e. if thou lawfully) be _made_ (set) free, use it rather."
(1 Cor. vii. 20, 21.) This is my _guide_, this is my _principle_, this
would be the foundation of my advice to all.--But how opposite are the
principles, the advice, and the conduct of Abolitionists, to the
inspired Apostle! Paul says to the slave, "be obedient to your
Master--care not for being a slave"--_abide_ in it, unless "_lawfully_
you can be made free." The Abolitionist says to the slave: "your
Master has no lawful control over you--run away from him the first
opportunity--take with you whatever of his property you can, _for it is
yours not his_!--and I will shelter you!" Thus it will easily be
perceived, that a very different spirit actuated Paul, from that which
now actuates the Abolitionist! More about this hereafter.
If it be now enquired whether I consider slave-holding a sin and an
evil, I readily reply, I do consider it an _evil_; but I do _not_
consider it a _sin_! I am aware Abolitionists confound the two terms
together, some through design, and, no doubt, many through want of
reflection or ignorance. Now although every _sin_ is an _evil_, yet
every evil is not a sin--I hesitate not to pronounce slavery one of the
_effects_ of sin--hence an _evil_: for all evil is the effect of sin.
Disease, famine, poverty, &c., are all evils; but who will venture to
affirm that they are therefore _sins_--I would use means to the best of
my judgment to assuage those evils--yea to remove them; but I would not
in order to remove _suddenly_ a disease, adopt a remedy which if it
would not _instantly_ cure it, would in all human probability destroy
the individual, or produce a greater disease--this would be Abolition
practice! Nor would I desire the poor man, in order to get rich
_instantly_, to go and plunder a bank--this would be Abolitionism! But I
would in the former case, adopt such remedies as would, with the least
possible danger to my patient's life, be calculated to assuage or
_remove_ the disease; and if it could not be removed, without having
recourse to a measure which would put his life in _jeopardy_, I would
not, provided life could be sustained at all, adopt any such measures;
but use every means in my power, to mitigate his sufferings--allay all
pain--and make his life as comfortable as possible. As to the latter
case (the indigent person) while I would relieve him to the best of my
ability, I would exhort him, not to have recourse to violent
measures--not to commit evil; but to put his trust in an all-wise and
benevolent Omnipotence, and by slow and sure means, by active industry,
to endeavour to better his condition--the opposite course I leave to
Abolitionists for adoption.
Upon the principles inculcated in the cases I have just related, would I
act towards the slave, and the slave-holder; as more fully explained in
another part of this treatise.