LETTERS
TO
CATHERINE E. BEECHER,
IN REPLY TO
AN ESSAY ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM,
ADDRESSED TO
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
REVISED BY THE AUTHOR.
BOSTON:
PRINTED BY ISAAC KNAPP,
25, CORNHILL.
1838.
Entered according to the Act of Congress in the year 1838,
by ISAAC KNAPP,
in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
LETTER I.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF ABOLITIONISTS.
BROOKLINE, Mass., _6 month, 12th, 1837_.
MY DEAR FRIEND: Thy book has appeared just at a time, when, from the
nature of my engagements, it will be impossible for me to give it that
attention which so weighty a subject demands. Incessantly occupied in
prosecuting a mission, the responsibilities of which task all my powers, I
can reply to it only by desultory letters, thrown from my pen as I travel
from place to place. I prefer this mode to that of taking as long a time
to answer it, as thou didst to determine upon the best method by which to
counteract the effect of my testimony at the north--which, as the preface
of thy book informs me, was thy main design.
Thou thinkest I have not been ‘sufficiently informed in regard to the
feelings and opinions of Christian females at the North’ on the subject of
slavery; for that in fact they hold the same _principles_ with
Abolitionists, although they condemn their measures. Wilt thou permit me
to receive their principles from thy pen? Thus instructed, however
misinformed I may heretofore have been, I can hardly fail of attaining to
accurate knowledge. Let us examine them, to see how far they correspond
with the principles held by Abolitionists.
The great fundamental principle of Abolitionists is, that man cannot
rightfully hold his fellow man as property. Therefore, we affirm, that
_every slaveholder is a man-stealer_. We do so, for the following reasons:
to steal a man is to rob him of himself. It matters not whether this be
done in Guinea, or Carolina; a man is a _man_, and _as_ a man he has
_inalienable_ rights, among which is the right to personal _liberty_. Now
if every man has an _inalienable_ right to personal liberty, it follows,
that he cannot rightfully be reduced to slavery. But I find in these
United States, 2,250,000 men, women and children, robbed of that to which
they have an _inalienable_ right. How comes this to pass? Where millions
are plundered, are there no _plunderers_? If, then, the slaves have been
robbed of their liberty, _who_ has robbed them? Not the man who stole
their forefathers from Africa, but he who now holds them in bondage; no
matter _how_ they came into his possession, whether he inherited them, or
bought them, or seized them at their birth on his own plantation. The only
difference I can see between the original man-stealer, who caught the
African in his native country, and the American slaveholder, is, that the
former committed _one_ act of robbery, while the other perpetrates the
same crime _continually_. Slaveholding is the perpetrating of acts, all of
the same kind, in a _series_, the first of which is technically called
man-stealing. The _first_ act robbed the man of himself; and the same
state of mind that prompted _that act, keeps up the series_, having
_taken_ his all from him: it _keeps_ his all from him, not only _refusing_
to _restore_, but still robbing him of all he gets, and as fast as he gets
it. Slaveholding, then, is _the constant or habitual perpetration of the
act of man-stealing. To make_ a slave is _man-stealing_--_the ACT
itself_--to _hold_ him such is man-stealing--the _habit_, the _permanent_
state, made up of _individual_ acts. In other words--to _begin_ to hold a
slave is man-stealing--to _keep on_ holding him is merely a _repetition_
of the first act--a doing the same identical thing _all the time_. A
series of the same acts continued for a length of time is a _habit_--_a
permanent state_. And the _first_ of this series of the _same_ acts that
make up this _habit_ or state is just like all the rest.
If every slave has a right to freedom, then surely the man who withholds
that right from him to-day is a man-stealer, though he may not be the
first person who has robbed him of it. Hence we find that Wesley
says--‘Men-_buyers_ are _exactly on a level_ with men-_stealers_.’ And
again--‘Much less is it possible that any child of man should ever be
_born a slave_.’ Hear also Jonathan Edwards--‘To hold a man in a state of
slavery, is to be _every day guilty_ of robbing him of his liberty, or of
_man-stealing_.’ And Grotius says--‘Those are men-stealers who abduct,
_keep_, sell or buy _slaves_ or freemen.’
If thou meanest merely that _acts_ of that _same nature_, but differently
located in a series, are designated by different terms, thus pointing out
their different _relative positions_, then thy argument concedes what we
affirm,--the identity in the _nature_ of the acts, and thus it dwindles to
a mere philological criticism, or rather a mere play upon words.
These are Abolition sentiments on the subject of slaveholding; and
although our principles are universally held by our opposers at the North,
yet I am told on the 44th page of thy book, that ‘the word man-stealer has
one peculiar signification, and is no more synonymous with slaveholder
than it is with sheep-stealer.’ I must acknowledge, thou hast only
confirmed my opinion of the difference which I had believed to exist
between Abolitionists and their opponents. As well might Saul have
declared, that he held similar views with Stephen, when he stood by and
kept the raiment of those who slew him.
I know that a broad line of distinction is drawn between our principles
and our measures, by those who are anxious to ‘avoid the appearance of
evil’--very desirous of retaining the fair character of enemies to
slavery. Now, our _measures_ are simply the carrying out of our
_principles_; and we find, that just in proportion as individuals embrace
our principles, in spirit and in truth, they cease to cavil at our
measures. Gerrit Smith is a striking illustration of this. Who cavilled
more at Anti-Slavery _measures_, and who more ready now to acknowledge his
former blindness? Real Abolitionists know full well, that the slave never
has been, and never can be, a whit the better for mere abstractions,
floating in the _head_ of any man; and they also know, that _principles,
fixed in the heart_, are things of another sort. The former have never
done any good in the world, because they possess no vitality, and
therefore cannot bring forth _the fruits_ of holy, untiring effort; but
the latter live in the lives of their possessors, and breathe in their
words. And I am free to express my belief, that _all_ who really and
heartily approve our _principles_, will also approve our _measures_; and
that, too, just as certainly as a good tree will bring forth good fruit.
But there is another peculiarity in the views of Abolitionists. We hold
that the North is guilty of the crime of slaveholding--we assert that it
is a _national_ sin: on the contrary, in thy book, I find the following
acknowledgement:--‘_Most_ persons in the non-slaveholding States, have
considered the matter of southern slavery as one in which they were no
more called to interfere, than in the abolition of the press-gang system
in England, or the tithe-system in Ireland.’ Now I cannot see how the same
principles can produce such entirely different opinions. ‘Can a good tree
bring forth corrupt fruit?’ This I deny, and cannot admit what thou art
anxious to prove, viz. that ‘Public opinion may have been _wrong_ on this
point, and yet _right_ on all those great _principles_ of rectitude and
justice relating to slavery.’ If Abolition principles are generally
adopted at the North, how comes it to pass, that there is no abolition
action here, except what is put forth by a few despised fanatics, as they
are called? Is there any living faith without works? Can the sap circulate
vigorously, and yet neither blossoms put forth nor fruit appear?
Again, I am told on the 7th page, that all Northern Christians believe it
is a sin to hold a man in slavery for ‘_mere purposes of gain_;’ as if
this was the _whole_ abolition principle on this subject. I can assure
thee that Abolitionists do not stop here. Our principle is, that _no
circumstances can ever justify_ a man in holding his fellow man as
_property_; it matters not what _motive_ he may give for such a monstrous
violation of the laws of God. The claim to him as _property_ is an
annihilation of his right to himself, which is the foundation upon which
all his other rights are built. It is high-handed robbery of Jehovah; for
He has declared, ‘All souls are _mine_.’ For myself, I believe there are
hundreds of thousands at the South, who do _not_ hold their slaves, by any
means, as much ‘for purposes of gain,’ as they do from _the lust of
power_: this is the passion that reigns triumphant there, and those who do
not know this, have much yet to learn. Where, then, is the similarity in
our views?
I forbear for the present, and subscribe myself,
Thine, but not in the bonds of gospel Abolitionism,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER II.
IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION.
BROOKLINE, Mass., _6th month, 17th, 1837_.
DEAR FRIEND: Where didst thou get thy statement of what Abolitionists mean
by immediate emancipation? I assure thee, it is a novelty. I never heard
any abolitionist say that slaveholders ‘were physically unable to
emancipate their slaves, and of course are not bound to do it,’ because in
some States there are laws which forbid emancipation. This is truly what
our opponents affirm; but _we_ say that all the laws which sustain the
system of slavery are unjust and oppressive--contrary to the fundamental
principles of morality, and, therefore, null and void.
We hold, that all the slaveholding laws violate the fundamental principles
of the Constitution of the United States. In the preamble of that
instrument, the great objects for which it was framed are declared to be
‘to establish justice, to promote the _general_ welfare, and to secure the
blessings of _liberty_ to us and to our posterity.’ The slave laws are
flagrant violations of these fundamental principles. Slavery subverts
justice, promotes the welfare of the _few_ to the manifest injury of the
many, and robs thousands of the _posterity_ of our forefathers of the
blessings of liberty. This cannot be denied, for Paxton, a Virginia
slaveholder, says, ‘the _best_ blood in Virginia flows in the veins of
slaves!’ Yes, even the blood of a Jefferson. And every southerner knows,
that it is a common thing for the _posterity of our forefathers_ to be
sold on the vendue tables of the South. _The posterity of our fathers_ are
advertised in American papers as runaway slaves. Such advertisements often
contain expressions like these: ‘has sometimes passed himself off as a
_white_ man,’--‘has been mistaken for a _white_ man,’--‘_quite white_, has
_straight_ hair, and would not readily be taken for a slave,’ &c.
Now, thou wilt perceive, that, so far from thinking that a slaveholder is
bound by the _immoral_ and _unconstitutional_ laws of the Southern States,
_we_ hold that he is solemnly bound as a man, as an American, to _break_
them, and that _immediately_ and openly; as much so, as Daniel was to
pray, or Peter and John to preach--or every conscientious Quaker to refuse
to pay a militia fine, or to train, or to fight. _We_ promulgate no such
time-serving doctrine as that set forth by thee. When _we_ talk of
immediate emancipation, we speak that we do mean, and the slaveholders
understand us, if thou dost not.
Here, then, is another point in which we are entirely at variance, though
the _principles_ of abolitionism are ‘generally adopted by our opposers.’
What shall I say to these things, but that I am glad thou hast afforded
me an opportunity of explaining to thee what _our principles_ really are?
for I apprehend that _thou_ ‘hast not been sufficiently informed in regard
to the feelings and opinions’ of abolitionists.
It matters not to me what meaning ‘Dictionaries or standard writers’ may
give to immediate emancipation. My Dictionary is the Bible; my standard
authors, prophets and apostles. When Jehovah commanded Pharaoh to ‘let the
people go,’ he meant that they should be _immediately emancipated_. I read
his meaning in the judgments which terribly rebuked Pharaoh’s repeated and
obstinate refusal to ‘let the people go.’ I read it in the _universal_
emancipation of near 3,000,000 of Israelites in _one awful night_. When
the prophet Isaiah commanded the Jews ‘to loose the bands of wickedness,
to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye
break every yoke,’ he taught no gradual or partial emancipation, but
_immediate, universal emancipation_. When Jeremiah said, ‘Execute judgment
in the MORNING, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the
oppressor,’ he commanded _immediate_ deliverance. And so also with Paul,
when he exhorted masters to render unto their servants that which is just
and equal. Obedience to this command would _immediately_ overturn the
whole system of American Slavery; for liberty is justly _due_ to every
American citizen, according to the laws of God and the Constitution of our
country; and a fair recompense for his labor is the right of every man.
Slaveholders know this is just as well as we do. John C. Calhoun said in
Congress, in 1833--‘He who _earns_ the money--who _digs it out of the
earth_ with the sweat of his brow, has a _just title_ to it against the
Universe. _No one_ has a right to touch it _without his consent_, except
his government, and _it only_ to the extent of its _legitimate_ wants: to
take more is _robbery_.’
If our fundamental principle is right, that no man can rightfully hold his
fellow man as _property_, then it follows, of course, that he is bound
_immediately_ to cease holding him as such, and that, too, in _violation
of the immoral and unconstitutional laws_ which have been framed for the
express purpose of ‘turning aside the needy from judgment, and to take
away the right from the poor of the people, that widows may be their prey,
and that they may rob the fatherless.’ Every slaveholder is bound to cease
to do evil _now_, to emancipate his slaves _now_.
Dost thou ask what I mean by emancipation? I will explain myself in a few
words. 1. It is ‘to reject with indignation, the wild and guilty phantasy,
that man can hold _property_ in man.’ 2. To pay the laborer his hire, for
he is worthy of it. 3. No longer to deny him the right of marriage, but to
‘let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own
husband,’ as saith the apostle. 4. To let parents have their own children,
for they are the gift of the Lord to _them_, and no one else has any right
to them. 5. No longer to withhold the advantages of education and the
privilege of reading the Bible. 6. To put the slave under the protection
of equitable laws.
Now, why should not _all_ this be done immediately? Which of these things
is to be done next year, and which the year after? and so on. _Our_
immediate emancipation means, doing justice and loving mercy
_to-day_--and this is what we call upon every slaveholder to do.
I have seen too much of slavery to be a gradualist. I dare not, in view of
such a system, tell the slaveholder, that ‘he is physically unable to
emancipate his slaves.’ I say _he is able_ to let the oppressed go free,
and that such heaven-daring atrocities ought to _cease now_, henceforth
and forever. Oh, my very soul is grieved to find a northern woman thus
‘sewing pillows under all arm-holes,’ framing and fitting soft excuses for
the slaveholder’s conscience, whilst with the same pen she is _professing_
to regard slavery as a sin. ‘An open enemy is better than such a secret
friend.’
Hoping that thou mayest soon be emancipated from such inconsistency, I
remain until then,
Thine _out_ of the bonds of Christian Abolitionism,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER III.
MAIN PRINCIPLE OF ACTION.
LYNN, _6th Month, 23d, 1837_.
DEAR FRIEND:--I now pass on to the consideration of ‘the main principle of
action in the Anti-Slavery Society.’ Thou art pleased to assert that it
‘rests wholly on a false deduction from past experience.’ In this, also,
thou ‘hast not been sufficiently informed.’ Our main principle of action
is embodied in God’s holy command--‘Wash you, make you clean, put away the
evil of your doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do
well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead
for the widow.’ Under a solemn conviction that it is our duty as Americans
to ‘cry aloud and spare not, to lift up our voices as a trumpet, and to
show our people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins,’
we are striving to rouse a slumbering nation to a sense of the
retributions which must soon descend upon her guilty head, unless like
Ninevah she repent, and ‘break off her sins by righteousness, and her
transgressions by showing mercy to the poor.’ _This_ is our ‘main
principle of action.’ Does it rest ‘wholly on a false deduction from past
experience?’ or on the experience of Israel’s King, who exclaimed, ‘In
keeping of them (thy commandments,) there is great reward.’
Thou art altogether under a mistake, if thou supposest that our ‘main
principle of action’ is the successful effort of abolitionists in England,
in reference to the abolition of the slave-trade; for I hesitate not to
pronounce the attempts of Clarkson and Wilberforce, at that period of
their history, to have been a _complete failure_; and never have the
labors of any philanthropists so fully showed the inefficacy of halfway
principles, as have those of these men of honorable fame. The doctrines
now advocated by the American Anti-Slavery Society, were not advanced by
the abolitionists of that day. _They_ were _not_ immediate abolitionists,
but just such gradualists as thou art even now. If I supposed that our
labors in the cause of the slave would produce _no better_ results than
those of these worthies, I should utterly despair. I need not remind thee,
that they bent all their energies to the annihilation of the slave-trade,
under the impression that _this_ was the mother of slavery; and that after
toiling for twenty years, and obtaining the passage of an act to that
effect, the result was a mere _nominal_ abolition; for the atrocities of
the slave-trade are, if possible, _greater_ now than ever. I will explain
what I mean. A friend of mine one evening last winter, heard a
conversation between two men, one of whom had, until recently, been a
slave-trader. He had made several voyages to the coast of Africa, and said
that once his vessel was chased by an English man of war, and that, in
order to avoid a search and the penalty of death, he threw every slave
overboard; and when his companion expressed surprise and horror at such a
wholesale murder, ‘Why,’ said the trader, ‘it was the fault of the
English; they had no business to make a law to hang a man on the yard arm,
if they caught him with slaves in his ship.’ He intimated that it was not
an uncommon thing for the captains of slavers thus to save their lives.[1]
Where, then, I ask, is this glorious success of which we _hear_ so much,
but _see_ so little?
Let us travel onward, from the year 1806, when England passed her
abolition act. What were British philanthropists doing for the
emancipation of the slave, for the next twenty years? Nothing at all; and
it was the voice of Elizabeth Heyrick which first awakened them from
their dream of _gradualism_ to an understanding of the simple doctrine of
immediate emancipation; but even though they saw the injustice and
inefficiency of _their own_ views, yet several years elapsed before they
had the courage to promulgate hers. And now I can point thee to the
success of these efforts in the emancipation bill of 1834. But even this
success was paltry, in comparison with what it would have been, had all
the conspicuous abolitionists of England been true to these just and holy
principles. Some of them were false to those principles, and hence the
compensation and apprenticeship system. A few months ago, it was my
privilege to converse with Joseph Sturge, on his return from the West
Indies, via New York, to Liverpool, whither he had gone to examine the
working of England’s plan of emancipation. I heard him speak of the bounty
of £20,000,000 which she had put into the hands of the planters, of their
mean and cruel abuse of the apprenticeship system, and of the hearty
approbation he felt in the thorough-going principles of the Anti-Slavery
Societies in this country, and his increased conviction that _ours_ were
the _only right_ principles on this important subject. That even the
apprenticeship system is viewed by British philanthropists as a complete
failure, is evident from the fact that they are now re-organizing their
Anti-Slavery Societies, and circulating petitions for the substitution of
immediate emancipation in its stead.
Hence it appears, that so far from our resting ‘wholly upon _a false
deduction from past experience_,’ we are resting on _no_ experience at
all; for no class of men in the world ever have maintained the principles
which we now advocate. Our main principle of action is ‘obedience to
God’--our hope of success is faith in Him, and that faith is as unwavering
as He is true and powerful. ‘Blessed is the man who trusteth in the Lord,
and whose hope the Lord is.’
With regard to the connection between the North and the South, I shall say
but little, having already sent thee my views on that subject in the
letter to ‘Clarkson,’ originally published in the New Haven Religious
Intelligencer. I there pointed out fifteen different ways in which the
North was implicated in the guilt of slavery; and, therefore, I deny the
charge that abolitionists are endeavoring ‘to convince their fellow
citizens of the faults of _another_ community.’ Not at all. We are
spreading out the horrors of slavery before Northerners, in order to show
them _their own sin_ in sustaining such a system of complicated wrong and
suffering. It is because we are politically, commercially, and socially
connected with our southern brethren, that we urge our doctrines upon
those of the free States. We have begun our work _here_, because
pro-slavery men of the North are to the system of slavery just what
temperate drinkers were to the vice of intemperance. Temperance reformers
did not _begin_ their labors among drunkards, but among temperate
drinkers: so Anti-Slavery reformers did not _begin_ their labors among
slaveholders, but among those who were making their fortunes out of the
unrequited toil of the slave, and receiving large mortgages on southern
plantations and slaves, and trading occasionally in ‘slaves and the souls
of men,’ and sending men to Congress to buy up southern land to be
converted into slave States, such as Louisiana and Florida, which cost
_this nation_ $20,000,000--men who have admitted seven slave States into
the Union--men who boast on the floor of Congress, that ‘there is no cause
in which they would sooner buckle a knapsack on their backs and shoulder a
musket, than that of putting down a servile insurrection at the South,’ as
said the present Governor of Massachusetts, which odious sentiment was
repeated by Governor Lincoln only last winter--men who, trained up on
Freedom’s soil, yet go down to the South and marry slaveholders, and
become slaveholders, and then return to our northern cities with slaves in
their train. This is the case with a native of this town, who is now here
with his southern wife and southern _slave_. And as soon as we reform the
recreant sons and daughters of the North,--as soon as we rectify public
opinion at the North,--then I, for one, will promise to go down into the
midst of slaveholders themselves, to promulgate our doctrines in the land
of the slave. But how can we go now, when northern pulpits and
meeting-houses are closed, and northern ministers are dumb, and northern
Governors are declaring that ‘the discussion of the subject of slavery
ought to be made an offence indictable at common law,’ and northern women
are writing books to paralyze the efforts of southern women, who have come
up from the South, to entreat their northern sisters to exert their
influence in behalf of the slave, and in behalf of the slaveholder, who is
as deeply corrupted, though not equally degraded, with the slave. No! No!
the taunts of a New England woman will induce no abolitionist to cease
his rebuke of _northern slaveholders_ and apologists for slavery.
Southerners see the wisdom of _this_, if _thou_ canst not; and over
against thy opinion, I will place that of a Louisiana planter, who, whilst
on a visit to his relatives at Uxbridge, Mass. this summer, unhesitatingly
admitted that the _North was the right place to begin Anti-Slavery
efforts_. Had I not been convinced of this before, surely thy book would
have been all-sufficient to satisfy me of it; for a more subtle defence of
the slaveholder’s right to property in his helpless victims, I never saw.
It is just such a defence as the hidden enemies of Liberty will rejoice to
see, because, like thyself, they earnestly desire to ‘avoid the
_appearance of evil_;’ they are as much opposed to slavery as we are, only
they are as much opposed to Anti-Slavery as the slaveholders themselves.
Is there any middle path in this reformation? Or may we not fairly
conclude, that he or _she_ that is not for the slave, in deed and in
truth, is _against_ him, no matter how specious their professions of pity
for his condition?
In haste, I remain thy friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
[1] And in ‘Laird’s Expedition to Africa, &c.’ a work recently
published in England, this assertion of the slave trader is fully
sustained. Laird relates that ‘there is _proof_ of the horrid fact,
that several of the wretches engaged in this traffic, when hotly
pursued, consigned _whole cargoes_ to the deep.’ He then goes on to
state several such instances, from which I select the following: ‘In
1833, the Black Joke and Fair Rosamond fell in with the Hercule and
Regule, two slave vessels off the Bonny River. On perceiving the
cruisers, they attempted to regain the port, and pitched overboard
upwards of 500 human beings, chained together, before they were
captured; from the abundance of sharks in the river, their track was
literally a blood-stained one. The slaver not only does this, but
_glories in it_: the first words uttered by the captain of the Maria
Isabelle, seized by captain Rose, were, ‘that if he had seen the man
of war in chase an hour sooner, he would have thrown _every_ slave
in his vessel overboard, as _he was fully insured_.’
LETTER IV.
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
DANVERS, Mass., _7th mo., 1837_.
DEAR FRIEND:--I thank thee for having furnished me with just such a simile
as I needed to illustrate the connection which exists between the North
and the South. Thou sayest, ‘Suppose two rival cities, one of which
becomes convinced that certain practices in trade and business in the
other are dishonest, and have an oppressive bearing on certain classes in
that city. Suppose, also, that these are practices, which, by those who
allow them, are considered as honorable and right. Those who are convinced
of this immorality wish to alter the opinions and the practices of the
citizens of their rival city, and to do this they commence the collection
of facts, that exhibit the tendencies of these practices and the evils
they have engendered. But, instead of going among the community in which
the evil exists, and endeavoring to convince them, they proceed to form
voluntary associations among their neighbors at home, and spend their
time, money, and efforts to convince their fellow citizens that the
inhabitants of their rival city are guilty of a great sin.’ Now I will
take up the comparison here, and suppose a few other things about these
two cities. Suppose that the people in one city were _known never_ to pay
the laborer his wages, but to be in the constant habit of keeping back the
hire of those who reaped down their fields; and that, on examination, it
was found that the people in the other city were continually going over to
live with these gentlemen oppressors, and instead of rebuking them, were
joining hands in wickedness with them, and were actually _more_ oppressive
to the poor than the native inhabitants. Suppose, too, it was found that
many of the merchants in the city of Fairdealing, as it was called, were
known to hold mortgages, not only upon the property which ought to belong
to the unpaid laborers, but mortgages, too, on the _laborers themselves_,
ay, and _their wives and children also_, a thing altogether contrary to
the laws of their city, and the customs of their people, and the
principles of fundamental morality. Suppose, too, it was found that the
people in the city of Oppression were in the constant practice of sending
over to the city of Fairdealing, and bribing their citizens to seize the
poorest, most defenceless of their people for them, because they were so
lazy they would not do their own work, and so mean they would not pay
others for doing it, and chose thus to supply themselves with laborers,
who, when they once got into the city, were placed under such severe laws,
that it was almost impossible for them ever to return to their afflicted
wives and children. Suppose, too, that whenever any of these oppressed,
unpaid laborers happened to escape from the city of Oppression, and after
lying out in the woods and fastnesses which lay between the two cities,
for many weeks, ‘in weariness and painfulness, in watchings, in hunger and
thirst, in cold and nakedness,’ that, as soon as they reached the city of
Fairdealing, they were most unmercifully hunted out and sent back to their
cruel oppressors, who it was well known generally treated such laborers
with great cruelty, ‘_stern necessity_’ demanding that they should be
punished and ‘rebuked before all, that others might fear’ the consequences
of such elopement. In short, suppose that the city of Fairdealing was so
completely connected with the city of Oppression, that the golden strands
of their interests were twisted together so as to form a bond of Union
stronger than death, and that by the intermarriages which were constantly
taking place, there was also a silken cord of love tying up and binding
together the tender feelings of their hearts with all the intricacies of
the Gordian knot; and then, again, that the identity of the political
interests of these cities were wound round and round them like bands of
iron and brass, altogether forming an union so complicated and powerful,
that it was impossible even to _speak_ in the most solemn manner, in the
city of Fairdealing, of the enormous crimes which were common in the city
of Oppression, without having brickbats and rotten eggs hurled at the
speaker’s head. Suppose, too, that although it was perfectly manifest to
every reflecting mind, that a most guilty copartnership existed between
these two cities, yet that the ‘gentlemen of property and standing’ of the
city of Fairdealing were continually taunting the people who were trying
to represent _their_ iniquitous league with the city of Oppression in its
true and sinful bearings, with the query of ‘Why don’t you go to the city
of Oppression, and tell the people there, not to rob the poor?’ Might not
these reformers very justly remark, we cannot go there _until_ we have
persuaded _our own_ citizens to cease _their unholy co-operation with
them_, for they will certainly turn upon us in bitter irony and
say--‘Physician, heal thyself;’ go back to your own city, and tell your
own citizens ‘to break off _their_ sins by righteousness, and _their_
transgressions by showing mercy to the poor,’ who fly from our city into
the gates of theirs for protection, but receive it not. Would not common
sense bear them out in refusing to go there, until they had _first_
converted _their own_ people from the error of their ways? I will leave
thee and my other readers to make the application of this comparison; and
if thou dost not acknowledge that abolitionists have been governed by the
soundest common sense in the course they have pursued at the North with
regard to slavery, then I am very much disappointed in thy professions of
_candor_. With regard to the parallel thou hast drawn (p. 16,) between
abolitionists, and the ‘men (who) are daily going into the streets, and
calling all bystanders around them’ and pointing out certain men, some as
liars, some as dishonest, some as licentious, and then bringing proofs of
their guilt and rebuking them before all; at the same time exhorting all
around to point at them the finger of scorn; thou sayest, ‘they persevere
in this course till the whole community is thrown into an uproar; and
assaults and even bloodshed ensue.’ But why, I should like to know, if
these people are themselves _guiltless_ of the crimes alleged against the
others? I cannot understand why they should be so angry, unless, like the
Jews of old, they perceived that the parable had been spoken ‘_against
them_.’ To my own mind, the exasperation of the North at the discussion of
slavery is an undeniable proof of _her guilt_, a certain evidence of the
necessity of her plucking the beam out of her own eye, _before_ she goes
to the South to rebuke sin there. To thee, and to all who are continually
crying out, ‘Why don’t you go to the South?’ I retort the question by
asking, why don’t YOU go to the South? _We_ conscientiously believe that
this work must be commenced _here_ at the North; this is an all-sufficient
answer for US; but YOU, who are ‘as much anti-slavery as we are,’ and
differ _only_ as to the modus operandi, believing that the South and _not_
the North ought to be the field of Anti-Slavery labors--YOU, I say, have
no excuse to offer, and are bound to go there now.
But there is another view to be taken of this subject. By all our printing
and talking at the North, we _have actually reached the very heart of the
disease at the South_. They acknowledge it themselves. Read the following
confession in the Southern Literary Review. ‘There are _many good men even
among us, who have begun to grow timid_. They think that what the virtuous
and high-minded men of the North look upon as a crime and a plague-spot,
_cannot_ be perfectly innocent or quite harmless in a slaveholding
community.’ James Smylie, of Mississippi, a minister of the gospel, _so
called_, tells us on the very first page of his essay, written to uphold
the doctrines of Governor McDuffie, ‘that the abolition maxim, viz. that
slavery is _in itself sinful_, had gained on and entwined itself among the
_religious_ and _conscientious_ scruples of _many_ in the community, so
far as to render them _unhappy_.’ I could quote other southern testimony
to the same effect, but will pass on to another fact just published in the
New England Spectator; a proposition from a minister in Missouri ‘to have
separate organizations for slavery and anti-slavery professors,’ and
indeed ‘all over the _slaveholding States_.’ Has our labor then been in
vain in the Lord? Have we failed to rouse the slumbering consciences of
the South?
Thou inquirest--‘Have the northern States power to rectify evils at the
South, as they have to remove their own moral deformities?’ I answer
unhesitatingly, certainly they have, for _moral_ evils can be removed only
by _moral_ power; and the close connection which exists between these two
portions of our country, affords the greatest possible facilities for
exerting a _moral_ influence on it. Only let the North exert as much moral
influence over the South, as the South has exerted demoralizing influence
over the North, and slavery would die amid the flame of Christian
remonstrance, and faithful rebuke, and holy indignation. The South has
told us so. In the report of the committee on federal relations in the
Legislature of South Carolina last winter, we find the following
acknowledgement: ‘Let it be admitted, that by reason of an efficient
police and judicious internal legislation, we may render abortive the
designs of the fanatic and incendiary within our limits, and that the
torrent of pamphlets and tracts which the abolition presses of the North
are pouring forth with an inexhaustible copiousness, is arrested the
moment it reaches our frontier. Are we to wait until our enemies have
built up, by the grossest misrepresentations and falsehoods, a _body of
public opinion, which it would be impossible to resist_, without
separating ourselves from the social system of the rest of the civilized
world?’ Here is the acknowledgement of a southern legislature, that it
will be _impossible for the South to resist the influence_ of that body of
_public opinion_, which abolitionists are building up against them at the
North. If further evidence is needed, that anti-slavery societies are
producing a powerful influence at the South, look at the efforts made
there to vilify and crush them. Why all this turmoil, and passion, and
rage in the slaveholder, if we have indeed rolled back the cause of
emancipation 200 years, as thy father has asserted? Why all this terror at
the distant roar of free discussion, if they feel not the earth quaking
beneath them? Does not the _South_ understand what really will affect her
interests and break down her domestic institution? Has _she_ no subtle
politicians, no far-sighted men in her borders, who can scan the practical
bearings of these troublous times? Believe me, she has; and did they not
know that we are springing a mine beneath the great bastile of slavery,
and laying a train which will soon whelm it in ruin, she would not be
quite so eager ‘to cut out our tongues, and hang us as high as Haman.’
I will just add, that as to the committee saying that abolitionists are
building up a body of public opinion at the North ‘by the grossest
misrepresentations and falsehoods,’ I think it was due to _their_
character for veracity, to have cited and refuted some of these calumnies.
Until they do, we must believe them; and as a Southerner, I can bear the
most decided testimony against slavery as the mother of _all_
abominations.
Farewell for the present.
I remain thy friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER V.
CHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF ABOLITIONISM.
NEWBURYPORT, _7th mo. 8th, 1837_.
DEAR FRIEND: As an Abolitionist, I thank thee for the portrait thou hast
drawn of the character of those with whom I am associated. They deserve
all thou hast said in their favor; and I will now endeavor to vindicate
those ‘men of pure morals, of great honesty of purpose, of real
benevolence and piety,’ from some objections thou hast urged against their
measures.
‘Much evidence,’ thou sayest, ‘can be brought to prove that the character
and measures of the Abolition Society are not either peaceful or christian
in tendency, but that they are in their nature calculated to generate
party spirit, denunciation, recrimination, and angry passion.’ Now I
solemnly ask thee, whether the character and measures of our holy Redeemer
did not produce exactly the same effects? Why did the Jews lead him to the
brow of the hill, that they might cast him down headlong; why did they go
about to kill him; why did they seek to lay hands on him, if the tendency
of _his_ measures was so very _pacific_? Listen, too, to his own
declaration: ‘I came not to send peace on earth, but a sword;’ the effects
of which, he expressly said, would be to set the mother against her
daughter, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. The rebukes
which he uttered against sin were eminently calculated to produce
‘recriminations and angry passions,’ in all who were determined to
_cleave_ to their sins; and they did produce them even against ‘him who
did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.’ He was called a
wine-bibber, and a glutton, and Beelzebub, and was accused of casting out
devils by the prince of the devils. Why, then, protest against our
measures as _unchristian_, because they do not smooth the pillow of the
poor sinner, and lull his conscience into fatal security? The truth is,
the efforts of abolitionists have stirred up the _very same spirit_ which
the efforts of _all thorough-going_ reformers have ever done; we consider
it a certain proof that the truths we utter are sharper than any two edged
sword, and that they are doing the work of conviction in the hearts of our
enemies. If it be not so, I have greatly mistaken the character of
Christianity. I consider it pre-eminently aggressive; it waits not to be
assaulted, but moves on in all the majesty of Truth to _attack_ the strong
holds of the kingdom of darkness, carries the war into the enemy’s camp,
and throws its fiery darts into the midst of its embattled hosts. Thou
seemest to think, on the contrary, that Christianity is just such a weak,
dependent, puerile creature as thou hast described woman to be. In my
opinion, thou hast robbed both the one and the other of all their true
dignity and glory. Thy descriptions may suit the prevailing christianity
of this age, and the general character of woman; and if so, we have great
cause for shame and confusion of face.
I feel sorry that thy unkind insinuations against the christian character
of Wm. Lloyd Garrison, have rendered it necessary for me to speak of him
individually, because what I shall feel bound to say of him may, to some
like thyself, appear like flattery; but I must do what justice seems so
clearly to call for at my hands. Thou sayest that ‘though he professes a
belief in the christian religion, he is an avowed opponent of most of its
institutions.’ I presume thou art here alluding to his views of the
ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper, and the Sabbath. Permit me to
remind thee, that in _all_ these opinions, he coincides entirely with the
Society of Friends, whose views of the Sabbath never were so ably
vindicated as by his pen: and the insinuations of hypocrisy which thou
hast thrown out against him, may with just as much truth be cast upon
_them_. The Quakers think that these are not _christian_ institutions, but
thou hast assumed it without any proof at all. Thou sayest farther, ‘The
character and spirit of _this man_ have for years been exhibited in the
Liberator.’ I have taken that paper for two years, and therefore
understand its character, and am compelled to acknowledge, that harsh and
severe as is the language often used, I have never seen any expressions
which _truth_ did not warrant. The abominations of slavery _cannot_ be
otherwise described. I think Dr. Channing exactly portrayed the character
of brother Garrison’s writings when he said, ‘That deep feeling of evils,
which is _necessary_ to _effectual_ conflict with them, which marks
_God’s most powerful messengers to mankind, cannot_ breathe itself in soft
and tender accents. The deeply moved soul _will_ speak strongly, and
_ought_ to speak strongly, so as to move and shake nations.’ It is well
for the slave, and well for this country, that such a man was sent to
sound the tocsin of alarm before slavery had completed its work of moral
death in this ‘hypocritical nation.’ Garrison began that discussion of the
subject of slavery, which J. Q. Adams declared in his oration, delivered
in this town on the 4th inst. ‘to be the only safety-valve by which the
high pressure boiler of slavery could be prevented from a most fatal
explosion in this country;’ and as a Southerner, I feel truly grateful for
all his efforts to redeem not the slave only, but the _slaveholder_, from
the polluting influences of such a system of crime.
In his character as a man and a Christian, I have the highest confidence.
The assertion thou makest, ‘that there is to be found in that paper, or
_any thing else, any_ evidence of his possessing the peculiar traits of
Wilberforce, (benignity, gentleness and kind heartedness, I suppose thou
meanest,) not even his warmest admirers will maintain,’ is altogether new
to me; and I for one feel ready to declare, that I have never met in any
one a more lovely exhibition of these traits of character. I might relate
several anecdotes in proof of this assertion, but let one suffice. A
friend of mine, a member of the Society of Friends, told me that after he
became interested in the Anti-Slavery cause through the Liberator, he
still felt so much prejudice against its editor, that, although he wished
to labor in behalf of the slaves, he still felt as if he could not
identify himself with a society which recognized such a leader as he had
heard Wm. L. Garrison was. He had never seen him, and after many struggles
of feeling, determined to go to Boston on purpose to see ‘this man,’ and
judge of his character for himself. He did so, and when he entered the
office of the Liberator, soon fell into conversation with a person he did
not know, and became very much interested in him. After some time, a third
person came in and called off the attention of the stranger, whose
benevolent countenance and benignant manners he had so much admired. He
soon heard him addressed as Mr. Garrison, which astonished him very much;
for he had expected to see some coarse, uncouth and rugged creature,
instead of the perfect gentleman he now learned was Wm. L. Garrison. He
told me that the effect upon his mind was so great, that he sat down and
wept to think he had allowed himself to be so prejudiced against a person,
who was so entirely different from what his enemies had represented him to
be. He at once felt as if he could most cheerfully labor, heart and hand,
with such a man, and has for the last three or four years been a faithful
co-worker with him, in the holy cause of immediate emancipation. And his
confidence in him as a man of pure, _christian_ principle, has grown
stronger and stronger, as time has advanced, and circumstances have
developed his true character. I think it is impossible thou canst be
personally acquainted with brother Garrison, or thou wouldst not write of
him in the way thou hast. If thou really wishest to have thy erroneous
opinions removed, embrace the first opportunity of being introduced to
him; for I can assure thee, that with the fire of a Paul, he does possess
some of the most lovely traits in the character of Wilberforce.
In much haste, I remain thy friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER VI.
COLONIZATION.
AMESBURY, _7th mo. 20th, 1837_.
DEAR FRIEND: The _aggressive_ spirit of Anti-Slavery papers and pamphlets,
of which thou dost complain, so far from being a repulsive one to me, is
very attractive. I see in it that uncompromising integrity and fearless
rebuke of sin, which will bear the enterprize of emancipation through to
its consummation. And I most heartily desire to see these publications
scattered over our land as abundantly as the leaves of Autumn, believing
as I do that the principles they promulgate will be as leaves for the
healing of this nation.
I proceed to examine thy objections to ‘one of the first measures of
Abolitionists:’ their attack on a _benevolent_ society.