letter from a minister who has lately taken up his abode in Kentucky, to a
friend in Maine:--‘Several ministers have recently left the State, I
believe, on account of slavery; and many of the members of churches, as I
have understood, have sold their property, and removed to the free States.
Many are becoming more and more convinced of the evil and _sin_ of
slavery, and would gladly rid themselves and the community of this
scourge; and I feel confident that influences are already in operation,
which, if properly directed and regulated by the principles of the gospel,
may ‘break every yoke and let the oppressed go free’ in Kentucky.
In 1st month, 1835, when Theodore D. Weld was lecturing in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, at the close of one of his evening lectures, a man sought
him through the crowd, and extending his hand to him through his friends,
by whom he was surrounded, solicited him to step aside with him for a
moment. After they had retired by themselves, the gentleman said to him
with great earnestness, ‘I am a slaveholder from Maryland--_you are
right--the doctrine you advocate is truth_.’ Why, then, said the lecturer,
do you not emancipate your slaves? ‘Because,’ said the Marylander, ‘I have
not religion enough’--He was a professing christian--‘I dare not subject
myself to the torrent of opposition which, from the present state of
public sentiment, would be poured upon me; but do you abolitionists go on,
and you will effect a change in public sentiment, which will render it
possible and easy for us to emancipate our slaves. I know,’ continued he,
‘a great many slaveholders in my State, who stand on precisely the same
ground that I do in relation to this matter. _Only produce a correct
public sentiment at the North and the work is done; for all that keeps the
South in countenance while continuing this system, is the apology and
argument afforded so generally by the North; only produce a right feeling
in the North generally, and the South cannot stand before it; let the
North be thoroughly converted, and the work is at once accomplished at the
South._’ Another fact which may be adduced to prove that the South is
looking to the North for help, is the following: At an Anti-Slavery
concert of prayer for the oppressed, held in New York city, in 1836, a
gentleman arose in the course of the meeting, declaring himself a
Virginian and a slaveholder. He said he came to that city filled with the
deepest prejudice against the abolitionists, by the reports given of their
character in papers published at the North. But he determined to
investigate their character and designs for himself. He even boarded in
the family of an abolitionist, and attended the monthly concert of prayer
for the slaves and the slaveholders. And now, as the result of his
investigations and observations, he was convinced that _not only the
spirit but the principles and measures of the abolitionists_ ARE
RIGHTEOUS. He was now ready to emancipate his own slaves, and had
commenced advocating the doctrine of immediate emancipation--‘and
here,’ said he, pointing to two men sitting near him, ‘are the first
fruits of my labors--these two fellow Virginians and slaveholders, are
converts with myself to abolitionism. And I know a thousand Virginians,
who need only to be made acquainted with the true spirit and principles
of abolitionists, in order to their becoming converts as we are. _Let
the abolitionists go on in the dissemination of their doctrines, and
let the Northern papers cease to misrepresent them at the South--let
the true light of abolitionism be fully shed upon the Southern mind,
and the work of immediate and general emancipation will be speedily
accomplished._‘--_Morning Star, N. Y._
A letter from a gentleman in Kentucky to Gerrit Smith, dated August, 1836,
contains the following expressions:--
‘I am fully persuaded, that the voice of the free States, lifted up
in a proper manner against the evil, [Slavery] will awaken them
[slaveholders] from their midnight slumbers, and produce a happy
change. I rejoice, dear brother in Christ, to hear that you are with
us, and feel deeply to plead the cause of the oppressed, and undo
the heavy burdens. May God bless you, and the cause which you
pursue.’
In the summer of 1835, William R. Buford, of Virginia, who had then
recently emancipated his slaves, wrote a letter which was published in the
Hampshire Gazette, North Hampton, Mass. from which I give thee some
extracts.
DEAR SIR:--As you are ardently engaged in the discussion of Slavery,
I think it likely I may be of service to you, and through you to the
cause which you are advocating. … I was born and brought up at the
South in the midst of slavery, as you know. My father inherited
slaves from his father, and I from him. So far from thinking slavery
a sin, or that I had no right to own the slaves inherited from my
father, I thought no one could venture to dispute that right, any
more than he could my right to his land or his stock. I advocated
Colonization, as I thought it on many accounts a good plan to get
rid of such colored persons as wished to go to Africa; but my
conscience as a slaveholder was not much troubled by it. Of course,
I had no tendency to make me disclaim my right to my slaves.
Abolition--immediate abolition, began afterwards to be discussed in
various parts of the country. My right to the slaves I owned began
to be disputed. I had to defend myself. In vain did I say I
inherited my slaves from a pious father, who seemed to be governed
in his dealings by a sense of duty to his slaves. In vain did I say
that nearly all my property consisted in slaves, and to free them
would make me a poor man. My duty to emancipate was still urged. At
length my eyes were opened--partly by the arguments used by the
abolitionists: but mainly, by long being compelled _by them_ to
examine the subject for myself. No longer could I close my eyes to
the evils of slavery, nor could I any longer despise the
abolitionists, ‘the only true friends of their country and kind.’ I
now think, I know, I have no more right to own slaves, whether I
inherited them or not, than I have to encourage the African slave
trade. By declaring this sentiment, I expect and design to abet the
cause of Abolition at the North, and through the North the
emancipation of the slaves at the South. I know that in doing this,
I condemn the South. No one can suppose, however, that I have any
unkind feelings towards the South. All my relatives live in the
slaveholding States, and are almost all slaveholders.
I think the abolitionists have done, and are doing a great deal of
good, by holding slavery up to the public gaze. Sentiment at the
North on the subject of slavery must have the same effect on the
South, that their opinions have on any other matter.’
The writer of the foregoing is, as I am told, still a resident of
Virginia, where he has long been known, and is highly respected.
In the 11th month, 1835, the United States Telegraph, published at
Washington city, contains the following remarks by the Editor, Duff
Green.
‘We are of those who believe the South has nothing to fear from a
servile war. We do not believe that the abolitionists intend, nor
could they if they would, excite the slaves to insurrection. The
danger of this is remote. We believe that we have most to fear from
the _organised action upon the consciences_ and fears of the
slaveholders themselves; _from the insinuations of their dangerous
heresies into our schools, our pulpits, and our domestic circles. It
is only by alarming the consciences of the weak and feeble, and
diffusing among our own people a morbid sensibility on the question
of slavery, that the abolitionists can accomplish their object._
PREPARATORY TO THIS, they are now laboring to saturate the
non-slaveholding States with the belief that slavery is a ‘sin
against God.’ We must meet the question in all its bearings. We must
SATISFY THE CONSCIENCES, we must allay the fears of our own people.
We must satisfy them that slavery is of itself right--that it is not
a sin against God--that it is not an evil, moral or political. To do
this, we must discuss the subject of slavery itself. We must examine
its bearing upon the moral, political, and religious institutions of
the country. In this way, and this way only, can we prepare our own
people to _defend their own institutions_.’
In another number of the same paper, the Editor says,
‘We hold that our sole reliance is on ourselves; that we have _most
to fear from the gradual operation on public opinion among
ourselves_; and that those are the most insidious and dangerous
invaders of our rights and interests, who, coming to us in the guise
of friendship, endeavor to _persuade_ us that slavery is a sin, a
curse, an evil. It is not true that the South sleeps on a
volcano--that we are afraid to go to bed at night--that we are
fearful of murder and pillage. _Our greatest cause of apprehension
is from the operation of the morbid sensibility which appeals to
the consciences of our own people_, and would make them the
voluntary instruments of their own ruin.’
In 1835, I think about the close of the year, a series of articles on
Slavery appeared in the Lexington (Kentucky) Intelligencer. In one of the
numbers, the writer says:--
‘Much of the preceding matter was inserted (May, 1833) in the
Louisville Herald. A _great change_ has since taken place in public
sentiment. Colonization, then a favorite measure, is now rejected
for instant emancipation. Were this last feasible, I would gladly
join its advocates,’ &c.
In a letter to the publisher of the Emancipator, dated ‘April 1, 1837,’
from a Southerner, I find the following language:--
‘Though a ---- born and bred, I now consider the Anti-Slavery cause
as a just and holy one. Deep reflection, the reading of your
excellent publications, and--years of travel in Europe, have made
me, what I am now proud to call myself, an abolitionist.
‘For the present, accept the assurances of my unswerving devotion to
the cause of liberty and justice. Any letter from yourself will
always give me sincere pleasure, and whenever I go to New York, I
shall call upon you, _sans ceremonie_, as I would upon an old
friend.’
A short time since, J. G. Birney received a donation of $20 for the
Anti-Slavery Society, from an individual residing in a slave State,
accompanied with a request that his name might not be mentioned.
About the time of the robbery of the U. S. Mail, and the burning of
Abolition papers by the infatuated citizens of my own city, the Editor of
the Charleston Courier made the following remarks in his paper, which
plainly reveal the cowering of the spirit of slavery, under the searching
scrutiny occasioned by the Anti-Slavery discussions in the free States.
‘_Mart for Negroes._--We understand that a proposition is before the
city council, relative to the establishment of a mart for the sale
of negroes in this city, in a place _more remote from observation_,
and less offensive to the public eye, than the one now used for that
purpose. We doubt not that the proposition before the council will
be acceptable to the community, and that it may be so matured as to
promote public decency, without prejudice to the interest of
individuals.’
Hear, too, the acknowledgement of the Southern Literary Review, published
at Charleston, South Carolina, which was got up in 1837, to sustain the
system of Slavery.
‘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. …
Some timid men among us, whose ears have been long assailed with
outcries of tyranny and oppression, wafted over the ocean and land
from North to South, begin to look _fearfully_ around them.’
A correspondent of the Pittsburgh Witness, detailing the particulars of an
Anti-Slavery meeting in Washington co. Pennsylvania, says:--
‘After Dr. Lemoyne, the President of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery
Society, had finished his address, in which the principles and
measures of the Anti-Slavery Society were fully exhibited, the Rev.
Charles Stewart, of Kentucky, a slaveholding clergyman of the
Presbyterian church, who was casually present, rose and addressed
the audience, and instead of opposing our principles as might have
been expected, fully endorsed every thing that had been said,
declaring his conviction that such a speech would have been well
received by the truly religious part of the community in which he
resided, and would have been opposed only by those who were actuated
by party politics alone, or those who ‘neither feared God nor
regarded man.’
I give thee now a letter from a gentleman in a South Western slaveholding
State, to J. G. BIRNEY.
‘_Very Dear Sir_:--I knew you in the days of your prosperity at the
South, though you will not recognize me. Ever since you first took
your stand in defence of _natural rights_, I have been looking upon
you with intense interest. I _was_ violently opposed to
Abolitionists, and verily thought I was doing service to both church
and State, in decrying them as _incendiaries_ and _fanatics_. What
blindness and infatuation! Yet I was _sincere_. Ah! my dear sir, God
in mercy has taught me that something more than _sincerity_, in the
common acceptation of the term, is necessary to preserve our
understandings from idiocy, and our hearts from utter ruin. How
could I have been such a _madman_, as coolly and composedly to place
my foot upon the necks of immortal beings, and from that horrid
point of elevation, hurl the deep curses of church and State at the
heads of----whom? Fanatics? No, sir!--_but of the only persons on
the face of the earth, who had HEART enough to FEEL, and SOUL
enough to ACT, in behalf of the RIGHTS OF MAN_! Yet I was just
such a madman! Yes, sir, I was a _fanatic_, and an _incendiary_
too--setting on fire the worst passions of our fallen nature. But I
have repented. I have become a convert to political, and I trust,
also, to _Christian Freedom_. The spectacle exhibited by yourself,
and your compatriots and fellow-christians, has completely overcome
me. Your reasonings convince my judgment, and your ACTIONS win my
heart. God speed you in your work of love! The hopes of the world
depend, under God, upon the success of your cause.
Very respectfully and with undying affection,
Your friend and brother,
A SOUTHERNER.’
Another of J. G. Birney’s southern correspondents says, in 1836,
‘That portion of the Church with which I am connected, seem to have
no sympathy with the indignation against the abolitionists, which
prevails so extensively North and South; but, on the other hand,
consider the _South_ as _infatuated_ to the highest degree.
There is more credit for philanthropy given those who manumit their
slaves, without _expatriation_, than formerly.
The thirst for information is increasing, while the ‘_non
liquetism_’ [voting on neither side] of brethren in church courts is
becoming less and less satisfactory; and such of them as advocate
the perpetuity of the system, are looked upon with surprise and
regret.
Those who view with horror the traffic in slaves by ministers of the
gospel, express more freely their pain at its indulgence, _than I
have ever known_. I am acquainted with several such cases. In no
instances have they left the brother’s standing where it was, before
it took place. Of such cases--even those, too, where the usual
allowances might be called for--I have heard professors of religion
remark, ‘Mr. A. could not get an audience to hear him preach’--‘Mr.
B. has more assurance than I could have, to preach, after selling my
slaves as he has done’--‘He can never make me believe he has any
religion’--‘This is the first time you have done so, but repeat it,
and I think I shall never hear you preach again.’
These remarks were made by slaveholding professors of religion themselves,
and under circumstances neither calculated nor intended to deceive.
The following letter was written by an intelligent gentleman in the
interior of Alabama, to Arthur Tappan, of New York, who had sent him some
Anti-Slavery publications. The date is March 21, 1834.
‘Dear Sir--Your letter of Dec. last, I read with much interest. The
numbers of the Anti-Slavery Reporter, also, which you were so kind
as to send me, I carefully examined, and put them in circulation.
Your operations have produced considerable excitement in some
sections of this country, but humanity has lost nothing. The more
the subject of slavery is agitated, the better. A distinguished
gentleman remarked to me a day or two since, that ‘there was a great
change going on in public sentiment.’ Few would acknowledge that it
was to be ascribed to the influence of your Society. There can be no
doubt, however, that this is directly and indirectly the principal
cause.’
During the same year, the Editor of the New York Evangelist received a
letter from a christian friend in North Carolina, from which I give thee
an extract.
_To the Editor of the Evangelist_--
‘The subject of slavery, recently brought up and discussed in your
paper, is the one which elicits the following remarks.
In the first place I will state, that I entertain very different
views _now_, to what I did six months ago. I was among those who
thought (and honestly too) that there was no more moral guilt
attached to the holding our fellow beings in bondage, regarding them
as property, than to the holding of a mule or an ox. It was natural
enough for me to think so, for I had been trained from my very
infancy to view the subject in no other light. I shall never forget
my feelings when the subject was first hit upon in the Evangelist. I
became angry, and was disposed to attribute sinister motives to all
who were concerned in the matter. With some others, I determined to
stop the paper forthwith.
Though I made every effort to turn my mind away from the subject, my
conscience in spite of me began to awake, and to be troubled. The
word of God was resorted to, with the hope of finding something to
bring peace and quietude, but all in vain. It was but adding fuel to
the flame. I determined, let others do as they would, to meet the
subject, to examine it in all its bearings, and to abide the result;
and if it should be found that God regards slavery as an evil, and
incompatible with the gospel, I would give it up. If not, I should
be made wiser without incurring any harm by the investigation.
In the very nature of God’s dealings with men, this subject must and
will be agitated, until conviction shall be brought home to the
heart and conscience of every man, and _slavery shall be banished
from our land_. And woe be to him who wilfully closes his eyes, and
stops his ears against the light of God’s truth.’
In 8th month of the same year, the same paper contained the following
extract from another correspondent in North Carolina.
---- N. C. JULY 9, 1834.
‘Rev. and dear Sir--If I owe an apology for intruding on you, and
introducing myself, I must find it in the fact, that I wish to bid
you God speed in the good cause in which you are so heartily
engaged. While so many at the North are opposing, I wish to cheer
you by one voice from the South. If it is unpopular to plead the
cause of the oppressed negro in New York, how dangerous to be known
as his friend in the far South, where, as a correspondent in the
Evangelist justly observes, a minister cannot enforce the law of
love, without being suspected of favoring emancipation. I am glad
the people with you are beginning to feel and to act. I pray God
that you may go on with all the light and love of the gospel, and
that the cry of ‘Let us alone,’ will not frighten you from your
labor of love.’
James A. Thome, a Presbyterian clergyman, a native, and still a resident
of Kentucky, said in a speech at New York, at the Anniversary of the
American Anti-Slavery Society in 1834:
‘Under all these disadvantages, you are doing much. The very little
leaven which you have been enabled to introduce, is now working with
tremendous power. One instance has lately occurred within my
acquaintance, of an heir to slave property--a young man of growing
influence, who was first awakened by reading a single number of the
Anti-Slavery Reporter, sent to him by some unknown hand. He is now a
whole-hearted abolitionist. I have facts to show that cases of this
kind are by no means rare. A family of slaves in Arkansas Territory,
another in Tennessee, and a third, consisting of 88, in Virginia,
were successively emancipated through the influence of one abolition
periodical. Then do not hesitate as to duty. Do not pause to
consider the propriety of interference. It is as unquestionably the
province of the North to labor in this cause, as it is the duty of
the church to convert the world. The call is urgent--it is
imperative. We want light. The ungodly are saying, ‘the church will
not enlighten us.’ The church is saying, ‘the ministry will not
enlighten us.’ The ministry is crying, ‘Peace--take care.’ We are
altogether covered in gross darkness. We appeal to you for light.
Send us facts--send us kind remonstrance and manly reasoning. We are
perishing for lack of truth. We have been lulled to sleep by the
guilty apologist.’
A letter from a Post Master in Virginia, to the editor of ‘Human Rights,’
dated August 15, 1835, contains the following:--
‘I have received two numbers of Human Rights, and one of The
Emancipator. I have read and loaned them, had them returned, and
loaned again. I can see no unsoundness in the arguments there
advanced--and until I can see some evil in your publications, I
shall distribute all you send to this office. It is certainly high
time this subject was examined, and viewed in its proper light. I
know these publications will displease those who hold their fellow
men in bondage: but reason, truth and justice are on your side--and
why should you seek the good will of any who do evil?
I would be pleased to have a copy of the last Report of the Am.
Anti-Slavery Society, if convenient, and some of your other
pamphlets, which you have to distribute gratis. I will read and use
them to the best advantage.’
A gentleman of Middlesex County, Mass. whose house is one of my New
England homes, told me that he had very recently met with a slaveholder
from the South, who, during a warm discussion on the subject of slavery,
made the following acknowledgment: ‘The worst of it is, _we have fanatics
among ourselves_, and we don’t know what to do with them, for they are
_increasing fast_, and are sustained in their opposition to slavery by the
Abolitionists of the North.’
A Baptist clergyman whom I met in Worcester County, Mass., a few months
since, told me that his brother-in-law, a lawyer of New Orleans, who had
recently paid him a visit, took up the Report of the Massachusetts
Anti-Slavery Society, and read it with great interest. He then inquired,
whether the principles set forth in that document were Anti-Slavery
principles. Upon being informed that they were, he expressed his entire
approbation of them, and full conviction that they would prevail as soon
as the South understood them; for, said he, they are the principles of
truth and justice, and must finally triumph. This gentleman requested to
be furnished with some of our publications, and carried them to the South
with him.
There certainly can be no doubt to a reflecting and candid mind, as to
what will and _must_ be the result of Anti-Slavery operations. Hear now
the opinion of one of the leading political papers in Charleston, South
Carolina, the Southern Patriot.