for the South_. While discussion is _allowed_ in that body, year
after year, in relation to slavery and its incidents, the rights of
property at the South _must, in the lapse of a short period, be
undermined_. It is the weapon of all who expect to work out _great
changes in public opinion_. It was the instrument by which O’CONNELL
gradually shook the fabric of popular prejudice in England on the
Catholic question. His sole instrument was agitation, both in
Parliament and out of it. His constant counsel to his followers was,
agitate! agitate! They did agitate. They happily carried the
question of Catholic rights.
Agitation may be successfully employed for a bad as well as good
cause. What was the weapon of the English abolitionists?--Agitation.
Regard the question of the abolition of the slave trade when first
brought into Parliament--behold the influence of PITT and the tory
party beating down its advocates by an overwhelming majority! Look
at the question of abolition itself, twenty years after, and you see
WILBERFORCE and his adherents carrying the question itself of
_abolition of slavery_, by a majority as triumphant! How was all
this accomplished?--By agitation in Parliament! It was on this ample
theatre that the abolitionists worked their fatal spells. It was on
this wide stage of discussion that they spoke to the people of
England in that voice of fanaticism, which, at length, found an echo
that suited their purposes. It was through the debates, which
circulated by means of the press throughout every corner of the
realm, that they carried that question to its extremest borders, to
the hamlet of every peasant in the empire. Can it then be expected,
if we give the American abolitionists the same advantage of that
wide field of debate which Congress affords, that the _same results_
will not follow? The local legislatures are limited theatres of
action. Their debates are comparatively obscure. These are not read
by the people at large. Allow the agitators a great political
centre, like that of Washington--_permit_ them to address their
voice of fanatical violence to the whole American people, through
their diffusive press, and they want no greater advantage. They have
a MORAL LEVER BY WHICH THEY CAN MOVE A WORLD OF OPINION.
The course of the southern States is therefore marked out by a
pencil of light. They should obtain additional guarantees against
_the discussion of slavery in Congress, in any manner, or in any of
its forms, as it exists in the United States_. This is the only
means that promises success in removing agitation. We have said that
this is the accepted time. When we look at the spread of opinion on
this subject in some of the eastern States--in Vermont,
Massachusetts and Connecticut--what are we to expect in a few years,
in the middle States, should discussion proceed in Congress? These
States are yet uninfected, in any considerable degree, by the
fanatical spirit. _They may not remain so after a lapse of five
years._ If they are animated by a true spirit of patriotism--by a
genuine love for the Union, they should, and could with effect,
interpose to stay this _moral_ pestilence. Their voice in this
matter would be influential. New York and Pennsylvania are
intermediate between the South and East in position and in physical
strength.’
Samuel L. Gould, a minister of the Baptist denomination, writing to the
Secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, from Fayette County,
Pennsylvania, in 4th month, 1836, says:--
‘The Smithfield Anti-Slavery Society, [on the border of Virginia]
has among its members, several residents of Virginia. Its President
has been a slaveholder, and until recently, was a distinguished
citizen of Virginia, the High Sheriff of Rockingham County. Having
become convinced of the wickedness of slaveholding, a little more
than a year ago he purchased an estate in Pennsylvania, and removed
to it, his colored men accompanying him. He now employs them as
hired laborers.’
I may mention, in this connection, an Alabama slaveholder, a lawyer named
Smith, who emancipated his slaves, I think about twenty in number, a few
months since. He was the brother-in-law of William Allan of Huntsville,
who was in 1834, president of the Lane Seminary Anti-Slavery Society, and
subsequently an agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, and who had
for years previous been in kind and faithful correspondence with him on
the subject of slavery.
Henry P. Thompson, a student of Lane Seminary, and a slaveholder at the
time of the Anti-Slavery discussion in that Institution, was convinced by
it, went to Kentucky, and emancipated his slaves.
Arthur Thome, an elder in the Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Kentucky,
emancipated his slaves, fourteen in number, about two years since. J. G.
Birney, speaking of him in the Philanthropist, says:--
‘For a long time he had been a professor of religion, but had not,
till the doctrines of abolition were embraced by his son on the
discussion of the subject at Lane Seminary, given to the subject
more attention than was usual among slaveholding professors at the
time. At first he thought his son was deranged--and that his
intended trip to New York, to speak at the anniversary of the
American Anti-Slavery Society, was evidence of it. He sought him (as
we have heard,) on the steamboat, which was to convey him up the
Ohio river, that he might stop him from going. Something, however,
prevented his seeing his son before his departure, and there was no
detention.
The truth bore on the mind of Mr. T. till it produced its proper
fruit--and he now says, that he is confident no other doctrine but
that of the SIN of slaveholding, connected with an _immediate_
breaking off from it, will influence the slaveholder to do justice.’
I see by the late Washington papers, that one of my South Carolina
cousins, Robert Barnwell Rhett, the late Attorney General of the State,
has come up to my help on this point, with his characteristic chivalry;
[howbeit ‘he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so.’] In his
late address to his Congressional Constituents, he says:--
‘Who that knows anything of human affairs, but must be sensible that
the subject of abolition may be approached in a thousand ways,
without direct legislation? By perpetual discussion, agitation and
threats, accompanied with the real or imaginary power to perform,
_there will be need of no other action than words to shake the
confidence of men in the safety and continuance of the institution
of slavery, and its value and existence will be destroyed_. These
are all the weapons the abolitionist desires to be allowed to use to
accomplish his purpose. When Congress moves, it will be the last act
in the drama; and it will be prepared to enforce its legislation. To
acknowledge the right, or to tolerate the act of interference at all
with this institution, is to give it up--to abandon it entirely;
and, as this must be the consummation of any interference, the
sooner it is reached the better. The South must hold this
institution, not amidst alarm and molestation, but in peace--perfect
peace, from the interference or agitation of others; or, I repeat
it, she _will_--she _can_--hold it not at all. … There is no one so
weak, but he must perceive that, whilst the spirit of abolition in
the North is increasing, slavery in the South, in all the frontier
States, is decreasing.’
Farther, I may add the names of J. G. Birney of Alabama, John Thompson and
a person named Meux, Jassamine County, Kentucky, J. M. Buchanan, Professor
in Center College, Kentucky, Andrew Shannon, a Presbyterian minister in
Shelbyville, Kentucky, Samuel Taylor, a Presbyterian minister of
Nicholasville, Kentucky, Peter Dunn of Mercer County, Kentucky, a person
named Doake in Tennessee, another named Carr in North Carolina, another
named Harndon in Virginia--with a number of others, the particulars of
whose cases I have not now by me, all of whom were slaveholders four years
since, and were induced to emancipate their slaves through the influence
of Anti-Slavery discussions and periodicals.
The Democrat, a political paper published at Rochester, New York,
contained the following in the summer of 1835.
‘On Saturday last, many of our citizens had an opportunity of
witnessing a noble scene. On board the boat William Henry, then
lying at the Exchange street wharf, were TEN SLAVES, or those who
had recently been such, and several free persons of color. The
master, a gentleman of more than seventy years of age, accompanied
them. His residence was in Powhattan County, seventy miles below
Richmond, Virginia. He was on his way to Buffalo, near which place
he intends purchasing a large farm, where his ‘people,’ as he calls
them, are to be settled. The above named gentleman was led to
sacrifice much of this world’s lucre, besides some $5000 of _human
‘property,’_ by becoming convinced of the sinfulness of his practice
while reading _Anti-Slavery publications_.’
A letter now lies before me from an elder of a religious denomination in
the far South-West, who was converted to Abolition sentiments by
Anti-Slavery publications sent to him from the city of New York, and who
has already emancipated his slaves, ten in number. The writer says, ‘my
hopes are revived when I read of the progress of the cause in the Eastern
States, and of the increase of Anti-Slavery Societies. My soul glows with
gratitude to God for his mercy to the down-trodden slaves, in raising up
for them in these days of savage cruelty, hundreds who, fearless of
consequences, are standing up for the entire abolition of slavery, whom,
though unseen, I dearly love. O! how it would delight me to listen to the
public addresses of some of these dear friends.’
Hear, too, the reason assigned by James Smylie, a Presbyterian minister of
the Amite Presbytery, Mississippi, for writing a book in 1836, to prove
that slavery is a divine institution.
‘From his intercourse with religious societies of _all_
denominations in Mississippi and Louisiana, he was aware 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_. The eye of the mind, resting on Slavery itself as a
_corrupt fountain_, from which, of necessity, _nothing but corrupt_
streams could flow, was _incessantly_ employed in search of some
plan by which, with safety, the fountain could, in some future time,
be _entirely_ dried up.’ An illustration of this important
acknowledgement, will be found in the following fact, extracted from
the Herald of Freedom: ‘A young gentleman who has been residing in
South Carolina, says our movements (Abolitionists) are producing the
best effects upon the South, _rousing the consciences of
Slaveholders_, while the slaves seem to be impressed as a body with
the idea, that help is coming--that an interest is felt for them,
and plans devising for their relief somewhere--which keeps them
quiet. He says it is not uncommon for ministers and good people to
make confession like this. One, riding with him, broke forth, ‘O, I
fear that the groans and wails from our slaves enter into the ear of
the Lord of Sabaoth. I am distressed on this subject: my
_conscience_ will let me have no peace. I go to bed, but not to
sleep. I walk my room in agony, and resolve that I will never hold
slaves another day; but in the morning, my heart, like Pharaoh’s, is
hardened.’
In the autumn of 1835, an influential minister in one of the most southern
States, (who only one year before had stoutly defended slavery, and
vehemently insisted that northern abolitionists were producing unmixed and
irremediable evil at the South,) wrote to the Corresponding Secretary of
one of our State Anti-Slavery Societies who had furnished him with
Anti-Slavery publications, avowing his conversion to Abolition sentiments,
and praying that Anti-Slavery Societies might persevere in their efforts,
and increase them. Among other expressions of strong feeling the letter
contained the following:
‘I am greatly surprised that I should in any form have been the
apologist of a system so full of deadly poison to all holiness and
benevolence as slavery, the concocted essence of fraud, selfishness,
and cold-hearted tyranny, and the fruitful parent of unnumbered
evils, both to the oppressor and the oppressed, THE ONE THOUSANDTH
PART OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT.
‘Do you ask why this change, after residing in a slave country for
twenty years? You remember the lines of Pope, beginning:
‘Vice is a monster, of so frightful mien
As to be hated, needs but to be seen,
But seen too oft, _familiar_ with her face;
We first endure, then pity, then _embrace_.’
‘I had become so familiar with the loathsome features of slavery,
that they _ceased to offend_--besides, I had become a _southern man_
in all my feelings, and it is a part of our _creed_ to defend
slavery.’
About two years since, Arthur and Lewis Tappan received a letter from a
Virginian slaveholder, who held nearly one hundred slaves, and whose
conscience had been greatly roused to the sin of slavery. In the letter,
he avowed his determination to absolve himself from the guilt of
slaveholding, declaring that he ‘had rather be a wood cutter or a coal
heaver, than to _remain in the midst of slavery_.’
An intelligent gentleman, a lawyer and a citizen of the District of
Columbia, has just written a letter to a gentleman of New York city, from
which I give thee the following extract:
‘The proceedings in Congress at this session have had the effect, I
think, to rouse the attention of the public in all quarters, to the
subject of slavery; and that, of itself, I think is a good: and it
is in my opinion the chief present good that is to grow out of it.
Discussion of some sort takes place, and the real foundation on
which the system rests, cannot but be brought more or less into
view. My hope is, that men who _denounce_ now, will at length
_reason_. That is what is wanted--reasoning, reflection, and a true
perception of the basis on which slavery is founded.’
The foregoing are but a few of the facts and testimonies in the possession
of Abolitionists, showing that their discussions, periodicals, petitions,
arguments, appeals and societies, have extensively moved, and are still
mightily moving the slaveholding States--_for good_. Did time and space
permit, I might, by a little painstaking, procure many more. Before
passing from this part of the subject, I must record my amazement at the
clamors of many of the opponents of Abolitionists, from whom better things
might indeed be hoped. What slaveholders have you convinced? they demand.
Whom have you made Abolitionists? Give us their names and places of abode.
Now, those who incessantly stun us with such unreasonable clamor, know
full well, that to give the public the names and residences of such
persons, would be in most instances to surrender them to butchery. But be
it known to the North and to the South, we have names of scores of
citizens of the slaveholding states, many of them slaveholders, who are in
constant correspondence with us, persons who feel so deeply on the subject
as to implore us to persevere in our efforts, and not to be dismayed by
Southern threats nor disheartened by Northern cavils and heartlessness.
Yea more, these persons have committed to us the custody even of their
lives, thus encountering imminent peril that they might cheer us onward in
our work. Shall we betray their trust, or put them in jeopardy? Judge
thou.
Now let me ask, when in former years Anti-Slavery tracts, with our
doctrines, could be circulated at the South? The fact is, there were
_none_ to be circulated there; our principle of repentance is quite new.
But I can tell thee of two facts, which it is probable thou ‘hast not been
informed of.’ In the year 1809, the steward of a vessel, a colored man,
carried some Abolition pamphlets to Charleston. Immediately on his
arrival, he was informed against, and would have been tried for his life,
had he not promised to leave the State, never to return. Was South
Carolina willing to receive abolition pamphlets _then_? Again, in 1820, my
sister carried some pamphlets there--‘Thoughts on Slavery,’ issued by the
Society of Friends, and therefore _not_ very incendiary, thou mayest be
assured; and yet she was informed some time afterwards, that had it not
been for the influence of our family, she would have been imprisoned; for
she, too, was accused of giving one of them to a slave; just as
Abolitionists have been falsely charged with sending their papers to the
enslaved. What she did give away, she was _obliged_ to give _privately_.
Was Charleston ready to receive Abolition pamphlets _then_? Or when?
please to tell me. I say that _more_, far more Anti-Slavery tracts, &c.
are _now_ read in the South, than ever were at any former period. As to
Colonization tracts, I know they have circulated at the South; but what of
that, when Southerners believed that Colonization had _no_ connection with
the overthrow of Slavery? Colonization papers, &c. are not Abolition
papers.
As to preachers, let me assure thee, that they _never_ have dared to
preach on the subject of slavery in my native city, so far as my knowledge
extends. Ah! I for some years sat under two _northern_ ministers, but
never did I hear them preach in public, or speak in private, on the _sin_
of slavery. O! the _deep_, DEEP injury which such unfaithful ministers
have inflicted on the South! It is well known that our young men have, to
a great extent, been educated in Northern Theological Seminaries. With
what principles were _their_ minds imbued? What kind of religion did the
_North_ prepare them to preach? A slaveholding religion. What kind of
religion did _northern men_ come down and preach to us? A slaveholding
religion--and multitudes of them became slaveholders. Such was one of my
_northern_ pastors. And yet thou tellest me, the North has nothing to do
with slavery at the South--is _not_ guilty, &c. &c. ‘Their own clergy,’
thou sayest, ‘either entirely hold their peace, or become the defenders
of a system they once lamented, and attempted to bring to an end.’ Do name
to me one of those valiant defenders of slavery, who formerly lamented
over the system, and attempted to bring it to an end. ‘What is his name,
or what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?’ Strange indeed, if,
because _we_ advocate the truth, others should begin to hate it; or
because we expose sin, they should turn round and defend what once they
lamented over! Is this in accordance with ‘the known laws of mind,’ where
principle is deeply rooted in the heart?
And then thou closest these assertions _without proof_, with the
triumphant exclamation, ‘This is the record of experience, as to the
tendencies of abolitionism, as thus far developed. The South is just now
in that state of high exasperation, at the sense of wanton injury and
_impertinent interference_, which makes the influence of truth and reason
most useless and powerless.’ Hadst thou been better informed as to the
real tendencies of abolitionism on the South, this assertion also might
have been spared. Again I repeat, the _South_ does not tell us so. Read
the subjoined extract of a letter now lying before me from a correspondent
in a _Southern_ State. ‘12 or 15 at this place believe that _all_ men are
born free and equal, that _prejudice against color is a disgrace to the
man who feels it_, that such a feeling is without foundation in reason or
scripture, and ought to be abandoned _immediately_, that slavery is a
_malum in se_, yea, a _heinous crime_ in the sight of God, to be repented
of _without delay_.’ Read also the following, extracted from the Marietta
Gazette: ‘A citizen of one of the free states, not many months ago,
observed to a distinguished southerner, that the operations of the
abolitionists were impeding the cause of emancipation--or to that effect.
‘Sir,’ said the Southerner, ‘You are mistaken. Depend upon it, these
agitations have put the slaveholders to very serious thinking.’ These,
then, are the effects which Abolitionism is producing on some at the
South. That others are exasperated, I do not deny. Hear what Bolling of
Virginia said in 1832, in the Legislature of that State: ‘It has long been
the pleasure of those who are wedded to the system of slavery, to brand
_all_ its opponents with opprobrious epithets; to represent them as
enemies to order, as persons desirous of tearing up the foundation of
society thereby endeavoring to brand them with infamy in order to avert
from them the public ear.’ Here then we find a Southern Legislator
acknowledging that _all_ the opponents of Slavery have ever excited the
same exasperation in those who are ‘wedded to the system.’ Who is to be
blamed? Is _this_ any cause of discouragement? That we have succeeded in
rousing the North to reflection, thou art thyself a living proof; for let
me ask, what it was that set _thee_ to such serious thinking, as to induce
_thee_ to write a _book_ on the Slave Question?
Thy friend in haste,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER X.
‘THE TENDENCY OF THE AGE TOWARDS EMANCIPATION’ PRODUCED BY ABOLITION
DOCTRINES.
DEAR FRIEND: Thou sayest, ‘that this evil (Slavery,) is at no distant
period to come to an end, is the unanimous opinion of all who either
notice the tendencies of the age, or believe in the prophecies of the
Bible.’ But how can this be true, if Abolitionists have indeed rolled back
the car of Emancipation? If our measures really tend to this result, how
can this evil come to an end at no distant period? Colonizationists tell
us, if it had not been for our interference, they could have done a vast
deal better than they have done; and the American Unionists say, that we
have paralyzed their efforts, so that they can do nothing; and yet ‘the
tendencies of the age’ are crowding forward Emancipation. Now, what has
produced this tendency? Surely every reflecting person must acknowledge,
that Colonization cannot effect the work of Abolition. The American Union
is doing nothing; and Abolitionists are pursuing a course which ‘will tend
to bring slavery to an end, _if at all_, at the _most distant_
period,’--then do tell me, how the tendencies of the age can possibly lean
towards Emancipation! Perhaps I shall be told, that the movements of Great
Britain in the West Indies created this tendency. Ah! but this is a
_foreign influence_, more so even than Northern influence; and if the
North is ‘a foreign community,’ as thou expressly stylest it, and can on
_that account_ produce _no_ influence on the South, how can the doings of
England affect her?
Now I believe with thee, that the tendencies of the age are toward
Emancipation; but I contend that nothing but free discussion has produced
this tendency--‘the present agitation of the subject’ is in fact _the
thing_ which is producing this happy tendency. Now let us turn to the
South, and ask her eagle-eyed politicians what _they_ are most afraid of.
Read their answer in their desperate struggles to fetter the press and gag
the mouths of--_whom?_--Colonizationists? Why no--_they_ talk colonization
_themselves_, and are not at all afraid that the expatriation of a few
hundreds or thousands in 20 years will ever drain the country of its
millions of slaves, where they are now increasing at the rate of 70,000
every year. The American Unionists? O no! the South has not deemed them
worthy of any notice! Pray, then, _whose_ mouths are slaveholders so
fiercely striving to seal in silence? Why, the mouths of Abolitionists, to
be sure--even our infant school children know this. Strange indeed, when
the labors of these men are actually rolling back the car of Emancipation
for one or two centuries! Why, the South ought to pour out her treasure,
to support Anti-Slavery agents, and print Anti-Slavery papers and
pamphlets, and do all she can to aid us in _rolling back_ Emancipation.
Pray, write _her a book_, and tell her she has been very needlessly
alarmed at our doings, and advise her to send us a few thousand dollars:
her money would be very acceptable in these hard times, and we would take
it as the wages due to the unpaid laborers, though we would never admit
the donors to membership with us. How dost thou think _she_ would receive
_such a book_? Just try it, I entreat thee.