The CHARLESTON (S.C.) UNION PRESBYTERY--"Resolved. That in the opinion

of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far from being a sin in

the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word; that it is in

accordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts, of

patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; and that it is compatible with the

most fraternal regard to the good of the servants whom God has committed

to our charge."--Within the last few months, as we learn from a late No.

of the Charleston Courier, the late Synod of the Presbyterian Church, in

Augusta, (Ga.) passed resolutions declaring "That slavery is a CIVIL

INSTITUTION, with which the General Assembly [the highest ecclesiastical

tribunal] has NOTHING TO DO."

Again:--The CHARLESTON BAPTIST ASSOCIATION, in a memorial to the

Legislature of South Carolina, say--"The undersigned would further

represent, that the said Association does not consider that the Holy

Scriptures have made the FACT of slavery a question of morals at all."

And further,--"The right of masters to dispose of the time of their

slaves, has been distinctly recognised by the Creator of all things."

Again:--The EDGEFIELD (S.C.) ASSOCIATION--"Resolved, That the practical

question of slavery, in a country where the system has obtained as a

part of its stated policy, is settled in the Scriptures by Jesus Christ

and his apostles." "Resolved, That these uniformly recognised the

relation of master and slave, and enjoined on both their respective

duties, under a system of servitude more degrading and absolute than

that which obtains in our country."

Again we find, in a late No. of the Charleston Courier, the following:--

"THE SOUTHERN CHURCH.--The Georgia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal

Church, at a recent meeting in Athens, passed resolutions, declaring

that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil,

and is a civil and domestic institution, with which Christian ministers

have nothing to do, further than to meliorate the condition of the

slave, by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign

influence of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way

to heaven."]

The abolitionists feel a deep regard for the integrity and union of the

government, _on the principles of the Constitution_. Therefore it is,

that they look with earnest concern on the attempt now making by the

South, to do, what, in the view of multitudes of our citizens, would

amount to good cause for the separation of the free from the slave

states. Their concern is not mingled with any feelings of despair. The

alarm they sounded on the "annexation" question has penetrated the free

states; it will, in all probability, be favorably responded to by every

one of them; thus giving encouragement to our faith, that the admission

of Texas will be successfully resisted,--that this additional stain will

not be impressed on our national escutcheon, nor this additional peril

brought upon the South.[A]

[Footnote A: See Appendix, F.]

This, the present condition of the country, induced by a long train of

usurpations on the part of the South, and by unworthy concessions to it

by the North, may justly be regarded as one of the events of the last

few years affecting in some way, the measures of the abolitionists. It

has certainly done so. And whilst it is not to be denied, that many

abolitionists feel painful apprehensions for the result, it has only

roused them up to make more strenuous efforts for the preservation of

the country.

It may be replied--if the abolitionists are such firm friends of the

Union, why do they persist in what must end in its rupture and

dissolution? The abolitionists, let it be repeated _are_ friends of

_the_ Union that was intended by the Constitution; but not of a Union

from which is eviscerated, to be trodden under foot, the right to

SPEAK,--to PRINT--to PETITION,--the rights of CONSCIENCE; not of a Union

whose ligaments are whips, where the interest of the oppressor is the

_great_ interest, the right to oppress the _paramount_ right. It is

against the distortion of the glorious Union our fathers left us into

one bound with despotic bands that the abolitionists are contending. In

the political aspect of the question, they have nothing to ask, except

what the Constitution authorizes--no change to desire, but that the

Constitution may be restored to its pristine republican purity.

But they have well considered the "dissolution of the Union." There is

no just ground for apprehending that such a measure will ever be

resorted to by the _South_. It is by no means intended by this, to

affirm, that the South, like a spoiled child, for the first time denied

some favourite object, may not fall into sudden frenzy and do herself

some great harm. But knowing as I do, the intelligence and forecast of

the leading men of the South--and believing that they will, if ever such

a crisis should come, be judiciously influenced by the _existing_ state

of the case, and by the _consequences_ that would inevitably flow from

an act of dissolution--they would not, I am sure, deem it desirable or

politic. They would be brought, in their calmer moments, to coincide

with one who has facetiously, but not the less truly remarked, that it

would be as indiscreet in the slave South to separate from the free

North, as for the poor, to separate from the parish that supported them.

In support of this opinion, I would say:

First--A dissolution of the Union by the South would, in no manner,

secure to her the object she has in view.--The _leaders_ at the South,

both in the church and in the state, must, by this time, be too well

informed as to the nature of the anti-slavery movement, and the

character of those engaged in it, to entertain fears that, violence of

any kind will be resorted to, directly or indirectly.[A] The whole

complaint of the South is neither more nor less than this--THE NORTH

TALKS ABOUT SLAVERY. Now, of all the means or appliances that could be

devised, to give greater life and publicity to the discussion of

slavery, none could be half so effectual as the dissolution of the Union

_because of the discussion_. It would astonish the civilized world--they

would inquire into the cause of such a remarkable event in its

history;--the result would be not only enlarged _discussion_ of the

whole subject, but it would bring such a measure of contempt on the

guilty movers of the deed, that even with all the advantages of "their

education, their polish, their munificence, their high honor, their

undaunted spirit," so eloquently set forth by the Hon. Mr. Hammond, they

would find it hard to withstand its influence. It is difficult for men

in a _good_ cause, to maintain their steadfastness in opposition to an

extensively corrupt public sentiment; in a _bad_ one, against public

sentiment purified and enlightened, next to impossible, if not quite so.

[Footnote A: "It is not," says Mr. Calhoun, "that we expect the

abolitionists will resort to arms--will commence a crusade to deliver

our slaves by force."--"Let me tell our friends of the South, who differ

from us, that the war which the abolitionists wage against us is of a

very different character, and _far more effective_. It is waged, not

against our lives, but our character." More correctly, Mr. C. might have

said against a _system_, with which the slaveholders have chosen to

involve their characters, and which they have determined to defend, at

the hazard of losing them.]

Another result would follow the dissolution:--_Now_, the abolitionists

find it difficult, by reason of the odium which the principal

slaveholders and their friends have succeeded in attaching to their

_name_, to introduce a knowledge of their principles and measures into

the great mass of southern mind. There are multitudes at the South who

would co-operate with us, if they could be informed of our aim.[A] Now,

we cannot reach them--then, it would be otherwise. The united power of

the large slaveholders would not be able longer to keep them in

ignorance. If the Union were dissolved, they _would_ know the cause, and

discuss it, and condemn it.

[Footnote A: There is abundant evidence of this. Our limits confine us

to the following, from the first No. of the Southern Literary Journal,

(Charleston, S.C.):--"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."

This, also, from the North Carolina Watchman:--

"It (the abolition party) is the growing party at the North. We are

inclined to believe that there is even more of it at the South than

prudence will permit to be openly avowed."

"It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that there is a LARGE, RESPECTABLE and

INTELLIGENT PARTY in Kentucky, who will exert every nerve and spare no

efforts to dislodge the subsisting rights to our Slave population, or

alter in some manner, and to some extent, at least, the tenure by which

that species of property is held."--_Speech of the Hon. James T.

Morehead in the Kentucky Legislature, last winter_.]

A second reason why the South will not dissolve the Union is, that she

would be exposed to the visitation of _real_ incendiaries, exciting her

slaves to revolt. Now, it would cover any one with infamy, who would

stir them up to vindicate their rights by the massacre of their masters.

Dissolve the Union, and the candidates for "GLORY" would find in the

plains of Carolina and Louisiana as inviting a theatre for their

enterprise, as their prototypes, the Houstons, the Van Rennsselaers, and

the Sutherlands did, in the prairies of Texas or the forests of Canada.

A third reason why the South will not dissolve is, that the slaves would

leave their masters and take refuge in the free states. The South would

not be able to establish a _cordon_ along her wide frontier sufficiently

strong to prevent it. Then, the slaves could not be reclaimed, as they

now are, under the Constitution. Some may say, the free states would not

permit them to come in and dwell among them.--Believe it not. The fact

of separation on the ground supposed, would abolitionize the whole

North. Beside this, in an economical point of view, the _demand for

labor_ in the Western States would make their presence welcome. At all

events, a passage through the Northern States to Canada would not be

denied them.

A fourth reason why the South will not dissolve is, that a large number

of her most steady and effective population would emigrate to the free

states. In the slave-_selling_ states especially, there has always been

a class who have consented to remain there with their families, only in

the hope that slavery would, in some way or other, be terminated. I do

not say they are abolitionists, for many of them are slaveholders. It

may be, too, that such would expect compensation for their slaves,

should they be emancipated, and also that they should be sent out of the

country. The particular mode of emancipation, however crude it may be,

that has occupied their minds, has nothing to do with the point before

us. _They look for emancipation--in this hope they have remained, and

now remain, where they are_. Take away this hope, by making slavery the

_distinctive bond of union_ of a new government, and you drive them to

the North. These persons are not among the rich, the voluptuous, the

effeminate; nor are they the despised, the indigent, the

thriftless--they are men of moderate property, of intelligence, of

conscience--in every way the "bone and sinew" of the South.

A fifth reason why the South will not dissolve, is her _weakness_. It is

a remarkable fact, that in modern times, and in the Christian world, all

slaveholding countries have been united with countries that are free.

Thus, the West Indian and Mexican and South American slaveholding

colonies were united to England, France, Spain, Portugal, and other

states of Europe. If England (before her Emancipation Act) and the

others had at any time withdrawn the protection of their _power_ from

their colonies, slavery would have been extinguished almost

simultaneously with the knowledge of the fact. In the West Indies there

could have been no doubt of this, from the disparity in numbers between

the whites and the slaves, from the multiplied attempts made from time

to time by the latter to vindicate their rights by insurrection, and

from the fact, that all their insurrections had to be suppressed by the

_force_ of the mother country. As soon as Mexico and the South American

colonies dissolved their connexion with Spain, slavery was abolished in

every one of them. This may, I know, be attributed to the necessity

imposed on these states, by the wars in which they engaged to establish

their independence. However this may be--the _fact_ still remains. The

free states of this Union are to the slave, so far as the maintenance of

slavery is concerned, substantially, in the relation of the European

states to their slaveholding colonies. Slavery, in all probability,

could not be maintained by the South disjoined from the North, a single

year. So far from there existing any reason for making the South an

exception, in this particular, to other slave countries, there are

circumstances in her condition that seem to make her dependence more

complete. Two of them are, the superior intelligence of her slaves on

the subject of human rights, and the geographical connexion of the slave

region in the United States. In the West Indies, in Mexico and South

America the great body of the slaves were far below the slaves of this

country in their intellectual and moral condition--and, in the former,

their power to act in concert was weakened by the insular fragments into

which they were divided.

Again, the depopulation of the South of large numbers of its white

inhabitants, from the cause mentioned under the fourth head, would, it

is apprehended, bring the two classes to something like a numerical

equality. Now, consider the present state of the moral sentiment of the

Christianized and commercial world in relation to slavery; add to it the

impulse that this sentiment, acknowledged by the South already to be

wholly opposed to her, would naturally acquire by an act of separation

on her part, with a single view to the perpetuation of slavery; bring

this sentiment in all its accumulation and intensity to act upon a

nation where one half are enslavers, the other the enslaved--and what

must be the effect? From the nature of mind; from the laws of moral

influence, (which are as sure in their operation, if not so well

understood, as the laws of physical influence,) the party "whose

conscience with injustice is oppressed," must become dispirited,

weakened in courage, and in the end unnerved and contemptible. On the

other hand, the sympathy that would be felt for the oppressed--the

comfort they would receive--the encouragement that would be given them

to assert their rights, would make it an impossibility, to keep them in

slavish peace and submission.

This state of things would be greatly aggravated by the peculiarly

morbid sensitiveness of the South to every thing that is supposed to

touch her _character_. Her highest distinction would then become her

most troublesome one. How, for instance, could her chivalrous sons bear

to be taunted, wherever they went, on business or for pleasure, out of

their own limits, with the cry "the knights of the lash!" "Go home and

pay your laborers!" "Cease from the scourging of husbands and wives in

each others presence--from attending the shambles, to sell or buy as

slaves those whom God has made of the same blood with yourselves--your

brethren--your sisters! Cease, high minded sons of the 'ANCIENT

DOMINION,' from estimating your revenue by the number of children you

rear, to sell in the flesh market!" "Go home and pay your laborers!" "Go

home and pay your laborers!" This would be a trial to which "southern

chivalry" could not patiently submit. Their "high honor," their

"undaunted spirit" would impel them to the field--only to prove that the

"last resort" requires something more substantial than mere "honor" and

"spirit" to maintain it. Suppose there should be a disagreement--as in

all likelihood there soon would, leading to war between the North and

the South? The North would scarcely have occasion to march a squadron to

the field. She would have an army that could be raised up by the

million, at the fireside of her enemy. It has been said, that during the

late war with England, it was proposed to her cabinet, by some

enterprising officers, to land five thousand men on the coast of South

Carolina and proclaim liberty to the slates. The success of the scheme

was well thought of. But then the example! England herself held nearly a

million of slaves at no greater distance from the scene of action than

the West Indies. _Now_, a restraint of this kind on such a scheme does

not exist.

It seems plain beyond the power of argument to make it plainer, that a

slaveholding nation--one under the circumstances in which the South

separated from the North would be placed--must be at the mercy of every

free people having neither power to vindicate a right nor avenge

a wrong.[A]

[Footnote A: Governor Hayne, of South Carolina, spoke in high terms, a

few years ago, of the ability that the South would possess, in a

military point of view, because her great wealth would enable her, at

all times, to command the services of mercenary troops. Without stopping

to dispute with him, as to her comparative wealth, I would remark, that

he seemed entirely to have overlooked this truth--that whenever a

government is under the necessity of calling in foreign troops, to keep

in subjection one half of the people, the power of the government has

already passed into the hands of the _Protectors_. They can and will, of

course, act with whichever party will best subserve their purpose.]

A sixth reason why the South will not dissolve the Union, is found in

the difficulty of bringing about an _actual_ separation. Preparatory to

such a movement, it would seem indispensable, that _Union_ among the

seceding states themselves should be secured. A General Convention would

be necessary to adjust its terms. This would, of course, be preceded by

_particular_ conventions in the several states. To this procedure the

same objection applies, that has been made, for the last two or three

years, to holding an anti-abolition convention in the South:--It would

give to the _question_ such notoriety, that the object of holding the

convention could not be concealed from the slaves. The more sagacious in

the South have been opposed to a convention; nor have they been

influenced solely by the consideration just mentioned--which, in my

view, is but of little moment--but by the apprehension, that the

diversity of sentiment which exists among the slave states, themselves,

in relation to the _system_, would be disclosed to the country; and that

the slaveholding interest would be found deficient in that harmony

which, from its perfectness heretofore, has made the slaveholders so

successful in their action on the North.

The slaveholding region may be divided into the _farming_ and the

_planting_--or the slave-_selling_ and the slave-_buying_ districts.

Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and East Tennessee constitute the

first. West Tennessee is somewhat equivocal. All the states south of

Tennessee belong to the slave-_buying_ district. The first, with but few

exceptions, have from the earliest times, felt slavery a reproach to

their good name--an encumbrance on their advancement--at some period, to

be cast off. This sentiment, had it been at all encouraged by the action

of the General Government, in accordance with the views of the

convention that formed the Constitution, would, in all probability, by

this time, have brought slavery in Maryland and Virginia to an end.

Notwithstanding the easy admission of slave states into the Union, and

the _yielding_ of the free states whenever they were brought in

collision with the South, have had a strong tendency to persuade the

_farming_ slave states to continue their system, yet the sentiment in

favor of emancipation in some form, still exists among them. Proof,

encouraging proof of this, is found in the present attitude of Kentucky.

Her legislature has just passed a law, proposing to the people, to hold

a convention to alter the constitution. In the discussion of the bill,

slavery as connected with some form of emancipation, seems to have

constituted the most important element. The public journals too, that

are _opposed_ to touching the subject at all, declare that the main

object for recommending a convention was, to act on slavery in

some way.

Now, it would be in vain for the _planting_ South to expect, that

Kentucky or any other of the _farming_ slave states would unite with

her, in making slavery the _perpetual bond_ of a new political

organization. If they feel the inconveniences of slavery _in their

present condition_, they could not be expected to enter on another,

where these inconveniences would be inconceivably multiplied and

aggravated, and, by the very terms of their new contract, _perpetuated_.

This letter is already so protracted, that I cannot stop here to develop

more at large this part of the subject. To one acquainted with the state

of public sentiment, in what I have called, the _farming_ district, it

needs no further development. There is not one of these states embraced

in it, that would not, when brought to the test, prefer the privileges

of the Union to the privilege of perpetual slaveholding. And if there

should turn out to be a single _desertion_ in this matter, the whole

project of secession must come to nought.

But laying aside all the obstacles to union among the seceding states,

how is it possible to take the first step to _actual_ separation! The

separation, at the worst, can only be _political_. There will be no

chasm--no rent made in the earth between the two sections. The natural

and ideal boundaries will remain unaltered. Mason and Dixon's line will

not become a wall of adamant that can neither be undermined nor

surmounted. The Ohio river will not be converted into flame, or into

another Styx, denying a passage to every living thing.

Besides this stability of natural things, the multiform interests of the

two sections would, in the main, continue as they are. The complicate

ties of commerce could not be suddenly unloosed. The breadstuffs, the

beef, the pork, the turkies, the chickens, the woollen and cotton

fabrics, the hats, the shoes, the socks, the "_horn flints and bark

nutmegs_,"[A] the machinery, the sugar-kettles, the cotton-gins, the

axes, the hoes, the drawing-chains of the North, would be as much needed

by the South, the day after the separation as the day before. The

newspapers of the North--its Magazines, its Quarterlies, its Monthlies,

would be more sought after by the readers of the South than they now

are; and the Southern journals would become doubly interesting to us.

There would be the same lust for our northern summers and your southern

winters, with all their health-giving influences; and last, though not

least, the same desire of marrying and of being given in marriage that

now exists between the North and South. Really it is difficult to say

_where_ this long threatened separation is to _begin_; and if the place

of beginning could be found, it would seem like a poor exchange for the

South, to give up all these pleasant and profitable relations and

connections for the privilege of enslaving an equal number of their

fellow-creatures.

[Footnote A: Senator Preston's Railroad Speech, delivered at Colombia,

S.C., in 1836.]

Thus much for the menace, that the "UNION WILL BE DISSOLVED" unless the

discussion of the slavery question be stopped.

But you may reply, "Do you think the South is not in earnest in her

threat of dissolving the Union?" I rejoin, by no means;--yet she pursues

a perfectly reasonable course (leaving out of view the justice or

morality of it)--just such a course as I should expect she would pursue,

emboldened as she must be by her multiplied triumphs over the North by

the use of the same weapon. "We'll dissolve the Union!" was the cry,

"unless Missouri be admitted!!" The North were frightened, and Missouri

was admitted with SLAVERY engraved on her forehead. "We'll dissolve the

Union!" unless the Indians be driven out of the South!! The North forgot

her treaties, parted with humanity, and it is done--the defenceless

Indians are forced to "consent" to be driven out, or they are left,

undefended, to the mercies of southern land-jobbers and gold-hunters.

"We'll dissolve the Union! If the Tariff" [established at her own

suggestion] "be not repealed or modified so that our slave-labor may

compete with your free-labor." The Tariff is accordingly modified to

suit the South. "We'll dissolve the Union!" unless the freedom of speech

and the press be put down in the North!!--With the promptness of

commission-merchants, the alternative is adopted. Public assemblies met

for deliberation are assailed and broken up at the North; her citizens

are stoned and beaten and dragged through the streets of her cities; her

presses are attacked by mobs, instigated and led on by men of influence

and character; whilst those concerned in conducting them are compelled

to fly from their homes, pursued as if they were noxious wild beasts;

or, if they remain to defend, they are sacrificed to appease the

southern divinity. "We'll dissolve the Union" if slavery be abolished in

the District of Columbia! The North, frightened from her propriety,

declares that slavery ought not to be abolished there NOW.--"We'll

dissolve the Union!" if you read petitions from your constituents for

its abolition, or for stopping the slave-trade at the Capital, or

between the states. FIFTY NORTHERN REPRESENTATIVES respond to the cry,

"down, then, with the RIGHT OF PETITION!!" All these assaults have

succeeded because the North has been frightened by the war-cry, "WE'LL

DISSOLVE THE UNION!"

After achieving so much by a process so simple, why should not the South

persist in it when striving for further conquests? No other course ought

to be expected from her, till this has failed. And it is not at all

improbable, that she will persist, till she almost persuades herself

that she is serious in her menace to dissolve the Union. She may in her

eagerness, even approach so near the verge of dissolution, that the

earth may give way under her feet and she be dashed in ruins in the

gulf below.

Nothing will more surely arrest her fury, than the firm array of the

North, setting up anew the almost forgotten principles of our fathers,

and saying to the "dark spirit of slavery,"--"thus far shalt thou go,

and no farther." This is the best--the only--means of saving the South

from the fruits of her own folly--folly that has been so long, and so

strangely encouraged by the North, that it has grown into intolerable

arrogance--down right presumption.

There are many other "events" of the last two or three years which have,

doubtless, had their influence on the course of the abolitionists--and

which might properly be dwelt upon at considerable length, were it not

that this communication is already greatly protracted beyond its

intended limits. I shall, therefore, in mentioning the remaining topics,

do little more than enumerate them.

The Legislature of Vermont has taken a decided stand in favor of

anti-slavery principles and action. In the Autumn of 1836, the following

resolutions were passed by an almost unanimous vote in both houses:--

"Resolved, By the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, That neither

Congress nor the State Governments have any constitutional right to

abridge the free expressions of opinions, or the transmission of them

through the medium of the public mails."

"Resolved, That Congress do possess the power to abolish slavery in the

District of Columbia."

"Resolved, That His Excellency, the Governor, be requested to transmit a

copy of the foregoing resolutions to the Executive of each of the

States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress."

At the session held in November last, the following joint resolutions,

preceded by a decisive memorial against the admission of Texas, were

passed by both branches--with the exception of the _fifth_ which was

passed only by the House of Representatives:--

1. Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives, That our

Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested,

to use their influence in that body to prevent the annexation of Texas

to the Union.

2. Resolved, That, representing, as we do, the people of Vermont, we do

hereby, in their name, SOLEMNLY PROTEST against such annexation in

any form.

3. Resolved, That, as the Representatives of the people of Vermont, we

do solemnly protest against the admission, into this Union, of any state

whose constitution tolerates domestic slavery.

4. Resolved, That Congress have full power, by the Constitution, to

abolish slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia and in

the territories of the United States.

[5. Resolved, That Congress has the constitutional power to prohibit the

slave-trade between the several states of this Union, and to make such

laws as shall effectually prohibit such trade.]

6. Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our

Representatives requested, to present the foregoing Report and

Resolutions to their respective Houses in Congress, and use their

influence to carry the same speedily into effect.

7. Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a

copy of the foregoing Report and Resolutions to the President of the

United States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives

in Congress.

The influence of anti-slavery principles in Massachusetts has become

decisive, if we are to judge from the change of sentiment in the

legislative body. The governor of that commonwealth saw fit to introduce

into his inaugural speech, delivered in January, 1836, a severe censure

of the abolitionists, and to intimate that they were guilty of an

offence punishable at common law. This part of the speech was referred

to a joint committee of five, of which a member of the senate was

chairman. To the same committee were also referred communications which

had been received by the governor from several of the legislatures of

the slaveholding states, requesting the Legislature of Massachusetts to

enact laws, making it PENAL for citizens of that state to form societies

for the abolition of slavery, or to speak or publish sentiments such as

had been uttered in anti-slavery meetings and published in anti-slavery

tracts and papers. The managers of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery

Society, in a note addressed to the chairman of the committee, requested

permission, as a party whose rights were drawn in question, to appear

before it. This was granted. The gentlemen selected by them to appear on

their behalf were of unimpeachable character, and distinguished for

professional merit and general literary and scientific intelligence.

Such was _then_ the unpopularity of abolitionism, that notwithstanding

the personal influence of these gentlemen, they were ill--not to say

rudely--treated, especially by the chairman of the committee; so much

so, that respect for themselves, and the cause they were deputed to

defend, persuaded them to desist before they had completed their

remarks. A Report, including Resolutions unfavorable to the

abolitionists was made, of which the following is a copy:--

The Joint Special Committee, to whom was referred so much of the

governor's message as related to the abolition of slavery, together with

certain documents upon the same subject, communicated to the Executive

by the several Legislatures of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Georgia, and Alabama, transmitted by his Excellency to the Legislature,

and hereunto annexed, have considered the same, and ask leave,

respectfully, to submit the following:--

Resolved, That this Legislature distinctly disavow any right whatever in

itself, or in the citizens of this commonwealth, to interfere in the

institution of domestic slavery in the southern states: it having

existed therein before the establishment of the Constitution; it having

been recognised by that instrument; and it being strictly within their

own keeping.

Resolved, That this Legislature, regarding the agitation of the question

of domestic slavery as having already interrupted the friendly relations

which ought to exist between the several states of this Union, and as

tending permanently to injure, if not altogether to subvert, the

principles of the Union itself; and believing that the good effected by

those who excite its discussion in the non-slaveholding states is, under

the circumstances of the case, altogether visionary, while the immediate

and future evil is great and certain; does hereby express its entire

disapprobation of the doctrine upon this subject avowed, and the general

measures pursued by such as agitate the question; and does earnestly

recommend to them carefully to abstain from all such discussion, and all

such measures, as may tend to disturb and irritate the public mind.

The report was laid on the table, whence it was not taken up during the

session--its friends being afraid of a lean majority on its passage; for

the _alarm_ had already been taken by many of the members who otherwise

would have favored it. From this time till the election in the

succeeding autumn, the subject was much agitated in Massachusetts. The

abolitionists again petitioned the Legislature at its session begun in

January, 1837; especially, that it should remonstrate against the

resolution of Mr. Hawes, adopted by the House of Representatives in

Congress, by which all memorials, &c, in relation to slavery were laid,

and to be laid, on the table, without further action on them. The

abolitionists were again heard, in behalf of their petitions, before the

proper committee.[A] The result was, the passage of the following

resolutions with only 16 dissenting voices to 378, in the House of

Representatives, and in the Senate with not more than one or two

dissentients on any one of them:--

[Footnote A: The gentleman who had been chairman of the committee the

preceding year, was supposed, in consequence of the change in public

opinion in relation to abolitionists, to have injured his political

standing too much, even to be nominated as a candidate for re-election.]

"Whereas, The House of Representatives of the United States, in the

month of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred

and thirty-seven, did adopt a resolution, whereby it was ordered

that all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers,

relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the subject of

slavery, or the abolition of slavery, without being either printed

or referred, should be laid upon the table, and that no further

action whatever should be had thereon; and whereas such a

disposition of petitions, then or thereafter to be received, is a

virtual denial of the right itself; and whereas, by the resolution

aforesaid, which is adopted as a standing rule in the present House

of Representatives, the petitions of a large number of the people of

this commonwealth, praying for the removal of a great social, moral,

and political evil, have been slighted and contemned: therefore,--

Resolved, That the resolution above named is an assumption of power

and authority at variance with the spirit and intent of the

Constitution of the United States, and injurious to the cause of

freedom and free institutions; that it does violence to the

inherent, absolute, and inalienable rights of man; and that it

tends, essentially, to impair those fundamental principles of

natural justice and natural law which are antecedent to any written

constitutions of government, independent of them all, and essential

to the security of freedom in a state.

Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress, in

maintaining and advocating the right of petition, have entitled

themselves to the cordial approbation of the people of this

commonwealth.

Resolved, That Congress, having exclusive legislation in the

District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish slavery in said

district, and that its exercise should only be restrained by a

regard to the public good."

That you may yourself, judge what influence the abolition question

exercised in the elections in Massachusetts _last_ autumn, I send you

three numbers of the Liberator containing copies of letters addressed to

many of the candidates, and their respective answers.

The Legislature have passed, _unanimously_, at its present session,

resolutions (preceded by a report of great ability) protesting

"_earnestly and solemnly against the annexation of Texas to this

Union_;" and declaring that, "_no act done, or compact made, for such

purpose, by the government of the United States, will be binding on the

states or the people_."

Two years ago, Governor Marcy, of this state, showed himself willing, at

the dictation of the South, to aid in passing laws for restraining and

punishing the abolitionists, whenever the extremity of the case might

call for it. Two weeks ago, at the request of the Young Men's

Anti-Slavery Society of Albany, the Assembly-chamber, by a vote of the

House (only two dissentient) was granted to Alvan Stewart, Esq., a

distinguished lawyer, to lecture on the subject of abolition.

Kentucky is assuming an attitude of great interest to the friends of

Liberty and the Constitution. The blessings of "them that are ready to

perish" throughout the land, the applause of the good throughout the

world will be hers, if she should show moral energy enough to break

every yoke that she has hitherto imposed on the "poor," and by which her

own prosperity and true power have been hindered.

In view of the late action in the Senate and House of Representatives in

Congress--adverse as they may seem, to those who think more highly of

the branches of the Legislature than of the SOURCE of their power--the

abolitionists see nothing that is cause for discouragement. They find

the PEOPLE sound; they know that they still cherish, as their fathers

did, the right of petition--the freedom of the press--the freedom of

speech--the rights of conscience; that they love the liberty of the

North more than they love the slavery of the South. What care they for

_Resolutions_ in the House, or Resolutions in the Senate, when the House

and the Senate are but their ministers, their servants, and they know

that they can discharge them at their pleasure? It may be, that Congress

has yet to learn, that the people have but slight regard for their

restraining resolutions. They ought to have known this from the history

of such resolutions for the last two years. THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND

petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia had

their petitions laid on the table by the resolution of the House of

Representatives in May, 1836. At the succeeding session, they had

increased to ONE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND.--The resolution of Jan. 18,

1837, laid all _their_ petitions in the same way on the table. At the

_called_, and at the present session, these 110,000 had multiplied to

FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND[A]. Soon, Senators and Representatives will be

sent from the free states who will need no petitions--they will know

the prayer of their constituents _before they leave their homes_.

[Footnote A: See Appendix, G.]

In concluding this, my answer to your 13th interrogatory, I will say

that I know of no event, that has transpired, either in or out of

Congress, for the last two or three years, that has had any other

influence on the efforts of abolitionists than to increase and stimulate

them. Indeed, every thing that has taken place within that period, ought

to excite to their utmost efforts all who are not despairing dastards.

The Demon of oppression in this land is tenfold more fierce and rampant

and relentless than he was supposed to be before roused from the quiet

of his lair. To every thing that is precious the abolitionists have seen

him lay claim. The religion of the Bible must be adulterated--the claims

of Humanity must be smothered--the demands of justice must be

nullified--a part of our Race must be shut out from the common sympathy

of a common nature. Nor is this all: they see their _own_ rights and

those of the people; the right to SPEAK--to WRITE--to PRINT--to

PUBLISH--to ASSEMBLE TOGETHER--to PETITION THEIR OWN SERVANTS--all

brought in peril. They feel that the final conflict between Popular

liberty and Aristocratic slavery has come; that one or the other must

fall; and they have made up their minds, with the blessing of God on

their efforts, that their adversary shall die.

"14. _Have you any permanent fund, and how much?_"

ANSWER.--We have none. The contributions are anticipated. We are always

in debt, and always getting out of debt.

I have now, Sir, completed my answers to the questions proposed in your

letter of the 16th ult. It gives me pleasure to have had such an

auspicious opportunity of doing so. I cannot but hope for good to both

the parties concerned, where candor and civility have characterized

their representatives.

Part of the answer to your 13th question may seem to wander from the

strict terms of the question proposed. Let it be set down to a desire,

on my part, to give you all the information I can, at all germain to the

inquiry. The "proffer," made in my note to Mr. Calhoun, was not

"unguarded;"--nor was it _singular_. The information I have furnished

has been always accessible to our adversaries--even though the

application for it might not have been clothed in the polite and

gentlemanly terms which have so strongly recommended yours to the most

respectful consideration of

Your very obedient servant,

JAMES G. BIRNEY.

* * * * *

[In the Explanatory Remarks placed at the beginning of this

Correspondence, reasons were given, that were deemed sufficient, for not

publishing more of the letters that passed between Mr. Elmore and myself

than the two above. Since they were in type, I have received from Mr.

Elmore a communication, in reply to one from me, informing him that I

proposed limiting the publication to the two letters just mentioned. It

is dated May 19. The following extract shows that he entertains a

different opinion from mine, and thinks that justice to him requires

that _another_ of his letters should be included in the

Correspondence:--

"The order you propose in the publication is proper enough; the omission

of business and immaterial letters being perfectly proper, as they can

interest nobody. I had supposed my last letter would have formed an

exception to the rule, which excluded immaterial papers. It explained,

more fully than my first, my reasons for this correspondence, defined

the limits to _which I had prescribed myself_, and was a proper

accompaniment to _a publication_ of what _I_ had not written for

publication. Allow me, Sir, to say, that it will be but bare justice to

me that it should be printed with the other papers. I only suggest this

for your own consideration, for--adhering to my former opinions and

decision--I ask nothing and complain of nothing."

It is still thought that the publication of the letter alluded to is

unnecessary to the purpose of enlightening the public, as to the state,

prospects, &c, of the anti-slavery cause. It contains no denial of the

facts, nor impeachment of the statements, nor answer to the arguments,

presented in my communication. But as Mr. Elmore is personally

interested in this matter, and as it is intended to maintain the

consistent liberality which has characterized the Executive Committee in

all their intercourse with their opponents, the suggestion made by Mr.

Elmore is cheerfully complied with. The following is a copy of the

letter alluded to.--J.G.B.]

"WASHINGTON, May 5, 1838.

To JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., Cor. Sec. A.A.S.S.

SIR,--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st

instant, in which you again refer to the publication of the

Correspondence between us, in relation to the measures and designs

of the abolitionists. I would have certainly answered yours of the

2d ult., on the same subject, more fully before this, had it not

escaped my recollection, in consequence [of] having been more

engaged than usual in the business before the House. I hope the

delay has been productive of no inconvenience.

If I correctly understand your letters above referred to, the

control of these papers, and the decision as to their publication,

have passed into the 'Executive Committee of the American

Anti-Slavery Society;' and, from their tenor, I infer that their

determination is so far made, that nothing I could object would

prevent it, if I desired to do so. I was certainly not apprised,

when I entered into this Correspondence, that its disposition was to

depend on any other will than yours and mine,--but that matters

nothing now,--you had the power, and I am not disposed to question

the right or propriety of its exercise. I heard of you as a man of

intelligence, sincerity, and truth,--who, although laboring in a bad

cause, did it with ability, and from a mistaken conviction of its

justice. As one of the Representatives of a slave-holding

constituency, and one of a committee raised by the Representatives

of the slave-holding States, to ascertain the intentions and

progress of your associations, I availed myself of the opportunity

offered by your character and situation, to propose to you inquiries

_as to facts_, which would make those _developments so important to

be known by our people_. My inquiries were framed to draw out _full

and authentic details_ of the organization, numbers, resources, and

designs of the abolitionists, of the means they resorted to for the

accomplishment of their ends, and the progress made, and making, in

their dangerous work, that all such information might be laid before

the _four millions and a half of white inhabitants in the slave

States, whose lives and property are menaced and endangered_ by this

ill-considered, misnamed, and disorganizing philanthropy. They

should be informed of the full length and breadth and depth of this

storm which is gathering over their heads, before it breaks in its

desolating fury. Christians and civilized, they are _now_

industrious, prosperous, and happy; but should your schemes of

abolition prevail, it will bring upon them overwhelming ruin, and

misery unutterable. The two races cannot exist together upon terms

of equality--the extirpation of one and the ruin of the other _would

be inevitable_. This humanity, conceived in wrong and born in civil

strife, would be baptized in a people's blood. It was, that our

people might know, in time to guard against the mad onset, the full

extent of this gigantic conspiracy and crusade against their

institutions; and of necessity upon their lives with which they must

sustain them; and their fortunes and prosperity, which _exist only

while these institutions exist_, that I was induced to enter into a

correspondence with you, who by your official station and

intelligence were known to be well informed on these points, and

from your well established character for candor and fairness, would

make no statements of facts which were not known or believed by you

to be true. To a great extent, my end has been accomplished by your

replies to my inquiries. How far, or whether at all, your answers

have run, beyond _the facts inquired for_, into theories, arguments,

and dissertations, as erroneous as mischievous, is not a matter of

present consideration. We differed no wider than I expected, but

that difference has been exhibited courteously, and has nothing to

do with the question of publication. Your object, or rather the

object of your Committee, is to publish; and I, having no reason to

desire it, as you have put me in possession of the facts I wished,

and no reason not to desire it, as there is nothing to conceal, will

leave yourself and the Committee to take your own course, neither

assenting nor dissenting, in what you may finally decide to do.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

F.H. Elmore."

[This letter of Mr. Elmore contains but little more than a reiteration

of alarming cries on the part of the slaveholder;--cries that are as old

as the earliest attempts of philanthropy to break the fetters of the

enslaved, and that have been repeated up to the present day, with a

boldness that seems to increase, as instances of emancipation multiply

to prove them groundless. Those who utter them seem, in their panic, not

only to overlook the most obvious laws of the human mind, and the lights

of experience, but to be almost unconscious of the great events

connected with slavery, that are now passing around them in the world,

and conspiring to bring about its early abrogation among all civilized

and commercial nations.

However _Christian, and civilized, industrious, prosperous and happy_,

the SLAVEHOLDERS of the South may be, this cannot be said of the SLAVES.

A large religious denomination of the state in which Mr. Elmore resides,

has deliberately pronounced them to be "HEATHEN." _Their_ "industry" is

seen at the end of the lash--of "prosperity" they have none, for they

cannot possess any thing that is an element of prosperity--their

"happiness" they prove, by running away from their masters, whenever

they think they can effect their escape. This is the condition of a

large _majority_ of the people in South Carolina, Mississippi and

Louisiana.

The "two races" exist in peace in Mexico,--in all the former South

American dependencies of Spain, in Antigua, in the Bermudas, in Canada,

in Massachusetts, in Vermont, in fine, in every country where they enjoy

_legal equality_. It is the _denial_ of this that produces discontent.

MEN will never be satisfied without it. Let the slaveholders consult the

irreversible laws of the human mind--make a full concession of right to

those from whom they have withheld it, and they will be blessed with a

peace, political, social, moral, beyond their present conceptions;

without such concessions they never can possess it.

A system that cannot withstand the assaults of truth--that replies to

arguments with threats--that cannot be "talked about"--that flourishes

in secrecy and darkness, and dies when brought forth into the light and

examined, must in this time of inexorable scrutiny and relentless

agitation, be a dangerous one. If _justice_ be done, all necessity for

the extirpation of any part of the people will at once be removed.

Baptisms _of blood_ are seen only when humanity has failed in her

offices, and the suffering discern hope only in the brute efforts

of despair.

Mr. Elmore is doubtless well versed in general history. To his vigorous

declamation, I reply by asking, if he can produce from the history of

our race a single instance, where emancipation, full and immediate, has

been followed, as a legitimate consequence, by insurrection or

bloodshed. I may go further, and ask him for a well authenticated

instance, where an emancipated slave, singly has imbrued his hands in

his master's blood. The first record of such an act in modern times, is

yet to be made.

Mr. Elmore says "the white inhabitants in the slave states should be

informed of the full length and breadth and depth of this storm which is

gathering over their heads, before it breaks in its desolating fury." In

this sentiment there is not a reasonable man in the country, be he

abolitionist or not, who will not coincide with him. We rejoice at the

evidence we here have, in a gentleman of the influence and intelligence

of Mr. Elmore, of the returning sanity of the South. How wildly and

mischievously has she been heretofore misled! Whilst the Governors of

Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas, have been repelling offers,

made in respectful terms, of the fullest and most authentic accounts of

our movements; and whilst Governor Butler of South Carolina, has not

only followed the example of his gubernatorial brethren just named, but

is found corresponding with an obscure culprit in Massachusetts--bribing

him with a few dollars, the sum he demanded for his fraudulent promise

to aid in thwarting the abolitionists[A]; whilst too, Mr. Calhoun has

been willing to pass laws to shut out from his constituents and the

South generally information that concerned them more nearly than all

others--we now have it from the highest source, from one selected by a

state delegation as its _representative_ in a general committee of the

whole slaveholding delegations, that the South ought to be "_informed of

the full length and breadth and depth_" of the measures, intentions, &c,

of the abolitionists. At this there is not an abolitionist who will not

rejoice. We ask for nothing but access to the popular mind of the South.

We feel full confidence in the eternal rectitude of our principles, and

of their reception at the South, when once they are understood. Let the

conflict come, let the truth of liberty fairly enter the lists with the

error of slavery, and we have not a doubt of a glorious triumph.

[Footnote A: Appendix H.]

May we not, after this, expect the aid of Mr. Elmore and others of equal

distinction in the South, in giving to their fellow-citizens the

information that we have always believed, and that they now acknowledge,

to be so, important to them?

_May 24, 1838_.

JAMES G. BIRNEY.]

APPENDIX.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A.

Extract from an article addressed to the editor of the Christian

Register and Observer, signed W.E.C.--attributed to the Rev.

Dr. Channing.

"Speaking of slavery, I wish to recommend to your readers a book

just from the press, entitled 'Emancipation in the West Indies,' and

written by J. A. Thome and J.H. Kimball, who had visited those

islands to inquire into the great experiment now going on there. I

regard it as the most important work which has appeared among us for

years. No man, without reading it, should undertake to pass judgment

on Emancipation. It is something more than a report of the

observation and opinions of the writers. It consists, chiefly, of

the opinions, conversations, letters, and other documents of the

very inhabitants of the islands whose judgments are most

trust-worthy; of the governors, special magistrates, police

officers, managers, attorneys, physicians, &c; and, in most cases,

the names of these individuals are given, so that we have the

strongest evidence of the correctness of the work.

The results of this great experiment surpass what the most sanguine

could have hoped. It is hardly possible that the trial could have

been made under more unfavorable circumstances. The planters on all

the islands were opposed to the Act of Emancipation, and, in most,

exceedingly and fiercely hostile to it, and utterly indisposed to

give it the best chance of success. The disproportion of the colored

race to the whites was fearfully great, being that of seven or eight

to one; whilst, in our slaveholding states, the whites outnumber the

colored people. The slaves of the West Indies were less civilized

than ours, and less fit to be trusted with their own support.

Another great evil was, that the proprietors, to a considerable

extent, were absentees; residing in England, and leaving the care of

their estates and slaves to managers and owners; the last people for

such a trust, and utterly unfit to carry the wretched victims of

their tyranny through the solemn transition from slavery to freedom.

To complete the unhappy circumstances under which the experiment

began, the Act of Emancipation was passed by a distant government,

having no intimate knowledge of the subject; and the consequence

was, that a system of 'Apprenticeship,' as it was called, was

adopted, so absurd, and betraying such ignorance of the principles

of human nature, that, did we not know otherwise, we might suspect

its author of intending to produce a failure. It was to witness the

results of an experiment promising so little good, that our authors

visited three islands, particularly worthy of examination--Antigua,

Barbadoes, and Jamaica.

Our authors went first to Antigua, an island which had been wise

enough to foresee the mischiefs of the proposed apprenticeship, and

had substituted for it immediate and unqualified emancipation. The

report given of this island is most cheering. It is, indeed, one of

the brightest records in history. The account, beginning page 143,

of the transition from slavery to freedom, can hardly be read by a

man of ordinary sensibility without a thrill of tender and holy joy.

Why is it not published in all our newspapers as among the most

interesting events of our age? From the accounts of Antigua, it

appears that immediate emancipation has produced only good. Its

fruits are, greater security, the removal of the fears which

accompany slavery, better and cheaper cultivation of the soil,

increased value of real estate, improved morals, more frequent

marriages, and fewer crimes. _The people proclaim, with one voice,

that emancipation is a blessing, and that nothing would tempt than

to revert to slavery._

Our authors proceeded next to Barbadoes, where the apprenticeship

system is in operation; and if any proof were needed of the docility

and good dispositions of the negroes, it would be found in their

acquiescence to so wonderful a degree in this unhappy arrangement.

The planters on this island have been more disposed, than could have

been anticipated, to make the best of this system, and here,

accordingly, the same fruits of the Act of Emancipation are found as

in Antigua, though less abundant; and a very general and strong

conviction prevails of the happiness of the change.

In Jamaica, apprenticeship manifests its worst tendencies. The

planters of this island were, from first to last, furious in their

hostility to the act of emancipation; and the effort seems to have

been, to make the apprenticeship bear as heavily as possible on the

colored people; so that, instead of preparing them for complete

emancipation, it has rather unfitted them for this boon. Still,

under all these disadvantages, there is strong reason for expecting,

that emancipation, when it shall come, will prove a great good. At

any rate, it is hardly possible for the slaves to fall into a more

deplorable condition, than that in which this interposition of

parliament found them.

The degree of success which has attended this experiment in the

West Indies, under such unfavorable auspices, makes us sure, that

emancipation in this country, accorded by the good will of the

masters, would be attended with the happiest effects. One thing is

plain, that it would be perfectly _safe_. Never were the West Indies

so peaceful and secure as since emancipation. So far from general

massacre and insurrection, not an instance is recorded or intimated

of violence of any kind being offered to a white man. Our authors

were continually met by assurances of security on the part of the

planters, so that, in this respect at least, emancipation has been

unspeakable gain. The only obstacle to emancipation is, therefore,

removed; for nothing but well grounded fears of violence and crime

can authorize a man to encroach one moment on another's freedom.

The subject of this book is of great interest at the present

moment. Slavery, in the abstract, has been thoroughly discussed

among us. We all agree that it is a great wrong. Not a voice is here

lifted up in defence of the system, when viewed in a general light.

We only differ when we come to apply our principles to a particular

case. The only question is, whether the Southern states can abolish

slavery consistently with the public safety, order, and peace? Many,

very many well disposed people, both at the North and South, are

possessed with vague fears of massacre and universal misrule, as the

consequences of emancipation. Such ought to inquire into the ground

of their alarm. They are bound to listen to the voice of _facts_,

and such are given in this book. None of us have a right to make up

our minds without inquiry, or to rest in opinions adopted indolently

and without thought. It is a great crime to doom millions of our

race to brutal degradation, on the ground of unreasonable fears. The

power of public opinion is here irresistible, and to this power

every man contributes something; so that every man, by his spirit

and language, helps to loosen or rivet the chains of the slave."

* * * * *

The following sentiments are expressed by GOVERNOR EVERETT, of

Massachusetts, in a letter to EDMUND QUINCY, Esq., dated

"Boston, April 29, 1838.

DEAR SIR,--I have your favor of the 21st, accompanied with the

volume containing the account of the tour of Messrs. Thome and

Kimball in the West Indies, for which you will be pleased to accept

my thanks. I have perused this highly interesting narrative with the

greatest satisfaction. From the moment of the passage of the law,

making provision for the immediate or prospective abolition of

slavery in the British colonial possessions, I have looked with the

deepest solicitude for tidings of its operation. The success of the

measure, as it seemed to me, would afford a better hope than had

before existed, that a like blessing might be enjoyed by those

portions of the United States where slavery prevails. The only

ground on which I had been accustomed to hear the continuance of

slavery defended at the South, was that of necessity, and the

impossibility of abolishing it without producing consequences of the

most disastrous character to both parties. The passage of a law

providing for the emancipation of nearly a million of slaves in the

British colonies, seemed to afford full opportunity of bringing this

momentous question to the decisive test of experience. _If the

result proved satisfactory, I have never doubted that it would seal

the fate of slavery throughout the civilised world_. As far as the

observations of Messrs. Thome and Kimball extended, the result is of

the most gratifying character. It appears to place beyond a doubt,

that the experiment of immediate emancipation, adopted by the

colonial Legislature of Antigua, has fully succeeded in that island;

and the plan of apprenticeship in other portions of the West Indies,

as well as could have been expected from the obvious inherent vices

of that measure. _It has given me new views of the practicability of

emancipation_. It has been effected in Antigua, as appears from

unquestionable authorities contained in the work of Messrs. Thome

and Kimball, not merely _without danger_ to the master, but without

any sacrifice of his _interest_. I cannot but think that the

information collected in the volume will have a powerful effect on

public opinion, not only in the northern states, but in the

slaveholding states."

GOVERNOR ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, writes thus to A.F. WILLIAMS, Esq.,

of this city:--

"NEW HAVEN, _May_ 19, 1838.

MY DEAR SIR,--Just before I left home, I received from you the

Journal of Thome and Kimball, for which token of friendship I

intended to have made you my acknowledgments before this; but I

wished first to read the book. As far as time would permit, I have

gone over most of its pages; and let me assure you, it is justly

calculated to produce great effects, provided you can once get it

into the hands of the planters. Convince _them_ that their

interests, as well as their security, will be advanced by employing

free blacks, and emancipation will be accomplished without

difficulty or delay.

I have looked with great interest at the startling measure of

emancipation in Antigua; but if this book is correct, the question

is settled as to that island beyond a doubt, since there is such

accumulated testimony from all classes, that the business and real

estate of the island have advanced, by reason of the emancipation,

one fourth, at least, in value; while personal security, without

military force, is felt by the former masters, and contentment,

industry, and gratitude, are seen in those who were slaves.

The great moral example of England, in abolishing slavery in the

West Indies, will produce a revolution on this subject throughout

the world, and put down slavery in every Christian country.

With sentiments of high esteem, &c,

W. W. ELLSWORTH."

* * * * *

APPENDIX B.

A short time previous to the late election in Rhode Island for governor

and lieutenant-governor, a letter was addressed to each of the

candidates for those offices by Mr. Johnson, Corresponding Secretary of

the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, embodying the views of the

abolitionists on the several subjects it embraced, in a series of

queries. Their purport will appear from the answer of Mr. Sprague, (who

was elected governor,) given below. The answer of Mr. Childs (elected

lieutenant-governor) is fully as direct as that of governor Sprague.

"WARWICK, _March 28, 1838_.

DEAR SIR,--Your favor of the 19th inst. requesting of me, in

conformity to a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Rhode

Island Anti-Slavery Society, an expression of my opinions on certain

topics, was duly received. I have no motive whatever for withholding

my opinions on any subject which is interesting to any portion of my

fellow-citizens. I will, therefore, cheerfully proceed to reply to

the interrogatories proposed, and in the order in which they are

submitted.

1. Among the powers vested by the Constitution in Congress, is the

power to exercise exclusive legislation, 'in all cases whatsoever,'

over the District of Columbia? 'All cases' must, of course, include

the _case_ of slavery and the slave-trade. I am, therefore, clearly

of opinion, that the Constitution does confer upon Congress the

power to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in that District; and,

as they are great moral and political evils, the principles of

justice and humanity demand the exercise of that power.

2. The traffic in slaves, whether foreign or domestic, is equally

obnoxious to every principle of justice and humanity; and, as

Congress has exercised its powers to suppress the slave-trade

between this country and foreign nations, it ought, as a matter of

consistency and justice, to exercise the same powers to suppress the

slave-trade between the states of this Union. The slave-trade within

the states is, undoubtedly, beyond the control of Congress; as the

'sovereignty of each state, to legislate exclusively on the subject

of slavery, which is tolerated within its limits,' is, I believe,

universally conceded. The Constitution unquestionably recognises the

sovereign power of each state to legislate on the subject within its

limits; but it imposes on us no obligation to add to the evils of

the system by countenancing the traffic between the states. That

which our laws have solemnly pronounced to be piracy in our foreign

intercourse, no sophistry can make honorable or justifiable in a

domestic form. For a proof of the feelings which this traffic

naturally inspires, we need but refer to the universal execration in

which the slave-dealer is held in those portions of the country

where the institution of slavery is guarded with the most jealous

vigilance.

3. Congress has no power to abridge the right of petition. The

right of the people of the non-slaveholding states to petition

Congress for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in the

District of Columbia, and the traffic of human beings among the

states, is as undoubted as any right guarantied by the Constitution;

and I regard the Resolution which was adopted by the House of

Representatives on the 21st of December last as a virtual denial of

that right, inasmuch as it disposed of all such petitions, as might

be presented thereafter, in advance of presentation and reception.

If it was right thus to dispose of petitions on _one_ subject, it

would be equally right to dispose of them in the same manner on

_all_ subjects, and thus cut of all communication, by petition

between the people and their representatives. Nothing can be more

clearly a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, as it

rendered utterly nugatory a right which was considered of such vast

importance as to be specially guarantied in that sacred instrument.

A similar Resolution passed the House of Representatives at the

first session of the last Congress, and as I then entertained the

same views which I have now expressed, I recorded my vote

against it.

4. I fully concur in the sentiment, that 'every principle of

justice and humanity requires, that every human being, when personal

freedom is at stake, should have the benefit of a jury trial;' and I

have no hesitation in saying, that the laws of this state ought to

secure that benefit, so far as they can, to persons claimed as

fugitives from 'service or labor,' without interfering with the laws

of the United States. The course pursued in relation to this subject

by the Legislature of Massachusetts meets my approbation.

5. I am opposed to all attempts to abridge or restrain the freedom

of speech and the press, or to forbid any portion of the people

peaceably to assemble to discuss any subject--moral, political, or

religious.

6. I am opposed to the annexation of Texas to the United States.

7. It is undoubtedly inconsistent with the principles of a free

state, professing to be governed in its legislation by the

principles of freedom, to sanction slavery, in any form, within its

jurisdiction. If we have laws in this state which bear this

construction, they ought to be repealed. We should extend to our

southern brethren, whenever they may have occasion to come among us,

all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by our own citizens, and

all the rights and privileges guarantied to them by the Constitution

of the United States; but they cannot expect of us to depart from

the fundamental principles of civil liberty for the purpose of

obviating any temporal inconvenience which they may experience.

These are my views upon the topics proposed for my consideration.

They are the views which I have always entertained, (at least ever

since I have been awakened to their vast importance,) and which I

have always supported, so far as I could, by my vote in Congress;

and if, in any respect, my answers have not been sufficiently

explicit, it will afford me pleasure to reply to any other questions

which you may think proper to propose.

I am, Sir, very respectfully,

Your friend and fellow citizen,

WILLIAM SPRAGUE."

Oliver Johnson, Esq., Cor. Sec. R.I.A.S. Society.

APPENDIX C.

The abolitionists in Connecticut petitioned the Legislature of that

state at its late session on several subjects deemed by them proper for

legislative action. In answer to these petitions--

1. The law known as the "Black Act" or the "Canterbury law"--under which

Miss Crandall was indicted and tried--was repealed, except a single

provision, which is not considered objectionable.

2. The right to _trial by jury_ was secured to persons who are claimed

as slaves.

3. Resolutions were passed asserting the power of Congress to abolish

slavery in the District of Columbia, and recommending that it be done as

soon as it can be, "consistently with the _best good_ of the _whole

country_."(!)

4. Resolutions were passed protesting against the annexation of Texas to

the Union.

5. Resolutions were passed asserting the right of petition as

inalienable--condemning Mr. Patton's resolution of Dec. 21, 1837 as an

invasion of the rights of the people, and calling on the Connecticut

delegation in Congress to use their efforts to have the same rescinded.

* * * * *

APPENDIX D.

In the year 1793 there were but 5,000,000 pounds of cotton produced in

the United States, and but 500,000 exported. Cotton never could have

become an article of much commercial importance under the old method of

preparing it for market. By hand-picking, or by a process strictly

_manual_, a cultivator could not prepare for market, during the year,

more than from 200 to 300 pounds; being only about one-tenth of what he

could cultivate to maturity in the field. In '93 Mr. Whitney invented

the Cotton-gin now in use, by which the labor of at least _one thousand_

hands under the old system, is performed by _one_, in preparing the crop

for market. Seven years after the invention (1800) 35,000,000 pounds

were raised, and 17,800,000 exported. In 1834, 460,000,000 were

raised--384,750,000 exported. Such was the effect of Mr. Whitney's

invention. It gave, at once, extraordinary value to the _land_ in that

part of the country where alone cotton could be raised; and to _slaves_,

because it was the general, the almost universal, impression that the

cultivation of the South could be carried on only by slaves. There being

no _free_ state in the South, competition between free and slave labor

never could exist on a scale sufficiently extensive to prove the

superiority of the former in the production of cotton, and in the

preparation of it for market.

Thus, it has happened that Mr. Whitney has been the innocent occasion of

giving to slavery in this country its present importance--of magnifying

it into the great interest to which all others must yield. How he was

rewarded by the South--especially by the planters of Georgia--the reader

may see by consulting Silliman's Journal for January, 1832, and the

Encyclopedia Americana, article, WHITNEY.

* * * * *

APPENDIX E.

It is impossible, of course, to pronounce with precision, how great

would have been the effect in favor of emancipation, if the effort to

resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding state had been

successful. We can only conjecture what it would have been, by the

effect its admission has had in fostering slavery up to its present huge

growth and pretensions. If the American people had shown, through their

National legislature, a _sincere_ opposition to slavery by the rejection

of Missouri, it is probable at least--late as it was--that the early

expiration of the 'system' would, by this time, have been discerned

by all men.

When the Constitution was formed, the state of public sentiment even in

the South--with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia, was

favorable to emancipation. Under the influence of this public sentiment

was the Constitution formed. No person at all versed in constitutional

or legal interpretation--with his judgment unaffected by interest or any

of the prejudices to which the existing controversy has given

birth--could, it is thought, construe the Constitution, _in its letter_,

as intending to perpetuate slavery. To come to such a conclusion with a

full knowledge of what was the mind of this nation in regard to slavery,

when that instrument was made, demonstrates a moral or intellectual flaw

that makes all reasoning useless.

Although it is a fact beyond controversy in our history, that the power

conferred by the Constitution on Congress to "regulate commerce with

foreign nations" was known to include the power of abolishing the

African slave-trade--and that it was expected that Congress, at the end

of the period for which the exercise of that power on this particular

subject was restrained, would use it (as it did) _with a view to the

influence that the cutting off of that traffic would have on the

"system" in this country_--yet, such has been the influence of the action

of Congress on all matters with which slavery has been mingled--more

especially on the Missouri question, in which slavery was the sole

interest--that an impression has been produced on the popular mind, that

the Constitution of the United States _guaranties_, and consequently

_perpetuates_, slavery to the South. Most artfully, incessantly, and

powerfully, has this lamentable error been harped on by the

slaveholders, and by their advocates in the free states. The impression

of _constitutional favor_ to the slaveholders would, of itself,

naturally create for them an undue and disproportionate influence in the

control of the government; but when to this is added the arrogance that

the possession of irresponsible power almost invariably engenders in its

possessors--their overreaching assumptions--the contempt that the

slaveholders entertain for the great body of the _people_ of the North,

it has almost delivered over the government, bound neck and heels, into

the hands of slaveholding politicians--to be bound still more

rigorously, or unloosed, as may seem well in their discretion.

Who can doubt that, as a nation, we should have been more honorable and

influential abroad--more prosperous and united at home--if Kentucky, at

the very outset of this matter, had been refused admission to the Union

until she had expunged from her Constitution the covenant with

oppression? She would not have remained out of the Union a single year

on that account. If the worship of Liberty had not been exchanged for

that of Power--if her principles had been successfully maintained in

this first assault, their triumph in every other would have been easy.

We should not have had a state less in the confederacy, and slavery

would have been seen, at this time, shrunk up to the most contemptible

dimensions, if it had not vanished entirely away. But we have furnished

another instance to be added to the long and melancholy list already

existing, to prove that,--

"facilis descensus Averni,

Sed revocare gradum

Hoc opus hic labor est,"

if _poetry_ is not _fiction_.

Success in the Missouri struggle--late as it was--would have placed the

cause of freedom in our country out of the reach of danger from its

inexorable foe. The principles of liberty would have struck deeper root

in the free states, and have derived fresh vigor from such a triumph. If

these principles had been honored by the government from that period to

the present, (as they would have been, had the free states, even then,

assumed their just preponderance in its administration,) we should now

have, in Missouri herself, a healthful and vigorous ally in the cause of

freedom; and, in Arkansas, a free people--_twice_ her present

numbers--pressing on the confines of slavery, and summoning the keepers

of the southern charnel-house to open its doors, that its inmates might

walk forth, in a glorious resurrection to liberty and life. Although

young, as a people, we should be, among the nations, venerable for our

virtue; and we should exercise an influence on the civilized and

commercial world that we most despair of possessing, as long as we

remain vulnerable to every shaft that malice, or satire, or philanthropy

may find it convenient to hurl against us.[A]

[Footnote A: A comic piece--the production of one of the most popular of

the French writers in his way--had possession of the Paris stage last

winter. When one of the personages SEPARATES HUSBAND AND WIFE, he cries

out, "BRAVO! THIS IS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED

STATES!" [Bravo! C'est la Declaration d'Independence des Etats Unis.]

One of our distinguished College-professors, lately on a tour in Europe,

had his attention called, while passing along the street of a German

city, to the pictorial representation of a WHITE MAN SCOURGING A

SUPPLICATING COLORED FEMALE, with this allusion underwritten:--"A

SPECIMEN OF EQUALITY--FROM REPUBLICAN AMERICA."

Truly might our countryman have exclaimed in the language, if not with

the generous emotions of the Trojan hero, when he beheld the noble deeds

of his countrymen pencilled in a strange land--

--"Quis jam locus--

Quae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?"

]

Instead of being thus seated on a "heaven-kissing hill," and seen of all

in its pure radiance; instead of enjoying its delightful airs, and

imparting to them the healthful savor of justice, truth, mercy,

magnanimity, see what a picture we present;--our cannibal burnings of

human beings--our Lynch courts--our lawless scourgings and capital

executions, not only of slaves, but of freemen--our demoniac mobs raging

through the streets of our cities and large towns at midday as well as

at midnight, shedding innocent blood, devastating property, and applying

the incendiaries' torch to edifices erected and dedicated to FREE

DISCUSSION--the known friends of order, of law, of liberty, of the

Constitution--citizens, distinguished for their worth at home, and

reflecting honor on their country abroad, shut out from more than half

our territory, or visiting it at the hazard of their lives, or of the

most degrading and painful personal inflictions--freedom of speech and

of the press overthrown and hooted at--the right of petition struck down

in Congress, where, above all places, it ought to have been maintained

to the last--the people mocked at, and attempted to be gagged by their

own servants--the time the office-honored veteran, who fearlessly

contended for the _right_, publicly menaced for words spoken in his

place as a representative of the people, with an indictment by a

slaveholding grand jury--in fine, the great principles of government

asserted by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied

in our Constitution, with which they won for us the sympathy, the

admiration of the world--all forgotten, dishonoured, despised, trodden

under foot! And this for slavery!!

Horrible catalogue!--yet by no means a complete one--for so young a

nation, boasting itself, too, to be the freest on earth! It is the ripe

fruit of that _chef d'oeuvre_ of political skill and patriotic

achievement--the MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

Another such compromise--or any compromise now with slavery--and the

nation is undone.

APPENDIX F.

The following is believed to be a correct exhibit of the legislative

resolutions against the annexation of Texas--of the times at which they

were passed, and of the _votes_ by which they were passed:--

1. VERMONT.

"1. _Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives_, That our

Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives

requested, to use their influence in that body to prevent the

annexation of Texas to the Union.

2. _Resolved_, That representing, as we do, the people of Vermont,

we do hereby, in their name, SOLEMNLY PROTEST against such

annexation in any form."

[Passed unanimously, Nov. 1, 1837.]

2. RHODE ISLAND.

(_In General Assembly, October Session, A. D. 1837_.)

"Whereas the compact of the Union between these states was entered

into by the people thereof in their respective states, 'in order to

form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic

tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general

welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their

posterity;' and, therefore, a Representative Government was

instituted by them, with certain limited powers, clearly specified

and defined in the Constitution--all other powers, not therein

expressly relinquished, being 'reserved to the states respectively,

or to the people.'

And whereas this limited government possesses no power to extend

its jurisdiction over any foreign nation, and no foreign nation,

country, or people, can be admitted into this Union but by the

sovereign will and act of the free people of all and each of these

United States, nor without the formation of a new compact of

Union--and another frame of government radically different, in

objects, principles, and powers, from that which was framed for our

own self-government, and deemed to be adequate to all the exigencies

of our own free republic:--

Therefore, Resolved, That we have witnessed, with deep concern, the

indications of a disposition to bring into this Union, as a

constituent member thereof, the foreign province or territory

of Texas.

Resolved, That, although we are fully aware of the consequences

which must follow the accomplishment of such a project, could it be

accomplished--aware that it would lead speedily to the conquest and

annexation of Mexico itself, and its fourteen remaining provinces or

intendencies--which, together with the revolted province of Texas,

would furnish foreign territories and foreign people for at least

twenty members of the new Union; that the government of a nation so

extended and so constructed would soon become radically [changed] in

character, if not in form--would unavoidably become a military

government; and, under the plea of necessity, would free itself from

the restraints of the Constitution and from its accountability to

the people. That the ties of kindred, common origin and common

interests, which have so long bound this people together, and would

still continue to bind them: these ties, which ought to be held

sacred by all true Americans, would be angrily dissolved, and

sectional political combinations would be formed with the newly

admitted foreign states, unnatural and adverse to the peace and

prosperity of the country. The civil government, with all the

arbitrary powers it might assume, would be unable to control the

storm. The usurper would find himself in his proper element; and,

after acting the patriot and the hero for a due season, as the only

means of rescuing the country from the ruin which he had chiefly

contributed to bring upon it, would reluctantly and modestly allow

himself to be declared 'Protector of the Commonwealth.'

We are now fully aware of the deep degradation into which the

republic would sink itself in the eyes of the whole world, should it

annex to its own vast territories other and foreign territories of

immense though unknown extent, for the purpose of encouraging the

propagation of slavery, and giving aid to the raising of slaves

within its own bosom, the very bosom of freedom, to be esported and

sold in those unhallowed regions. Although we are fully aware of

these fearful evils, and numberless others which would come in their

train, yet we do not here dwell upon them; because we are here

firmly convinced that the free people of most, and we trust of all

these states, will never suffer the admission of the foreign

territory of Texas into this Union as a constituent member

thereof--will never suffer the integrity of this Republic to be

violated, either by the introduction and addition to it of foreign

nations or territories, one or many, or by dismemberment of it by

the transfer of any one or more of its members to a foreign nation.

The people will be aware, that should one foreign state or country

be introduced, another and another may be, without end, whether

situated in South America, in the West India islands, or in any

other part of the world; and that a single foreign state, thus

admitted, might have in its power, by holding the balance between

contending parties, to wrest their own government from the hands and

control of the people, by whom it was established for their own

benefit and self-government. We are firmly convinced, that the free

people of these states will look upon any attempt to introduce the

foreign territory of Texas, or any other foreign territory or nation

into this Union, as a constituent member or members thereof, as

manifesting a willingness to prostrate the Constitution and dissolve

the Union.

Resolved, That His Excellency, the Governor, be requested to

forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators

and Representatives in Congress, and to each of the Executives of

the several states, with a request that the same may be laid before

the respective Legislatures of said states."

[The Preamble and Resolutions were unanimously adopted, Nov. 3, 1837.]

3. OHIO.

"_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio_, That in

the name, and on behalf of the people of the State of Ohio, we do

hereby SOLEMNLY PROTEST against the annexation of Texas to the Union

of these United States.

_And be it further resolved_, That the Governor be requested to

transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,

and to the Governors of each of the States, a copy of the foregoing

resolution, with a statement of the votes by which it was passed in

each branch of the Legislature."

[Passed by 64 out of 72, the whole number in the House of

Representatives--unanomously in the Senate. Feb. 24, 1838.]

4. MASSACHUSETTS.

"Resolves against the annexation of Texas to the United States.

Whereas a proposition to admit into the United States as a

constituent member thereof, the foreign nation of Texas, has been

recommended by the legislative resolutions of several States, and

brought before Congress for its approval and sanction; and whereas

such a measure would involve great wrong to Mexico, and otherwise be

of evil precedent, injurious to the interests and dishonorable to

the character of this country; and whereas its avowed objects are

doubly fraught with peril to the prosperity and permanence of this

Union, as tending to disturb and destroy the conditions of those

compromises and concessions, entered into at the formation of the

Constitution, by which the relative weights of different sections

and interests were adjusted, and to strengthen and extend the evils

of a system which is unjust in itself, in striking contrast with the

theory of our institutions, and condemned by the moral sentiment of

mankind; and whereas the people of these United States have not

granted to any or all of the departments of their Government, but

have retained in themselves, the only power adequate to the

admission of a foreign nation into this confederacy; therefore,

_Resolved_, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives, in

General Court assembled, do in the name of the people of

Massachusetts, earnestly and solemnly protest against the

incorporation of Texas into this Union, and declare, that no act

done or compact made, for such purpose by the government of the

United States, will be binding on the States or the People.

_Resolved_, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to

forward a copy of these resolutions and the accompanying report to

the Executive of the United States, and the Executive of each State

and also to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,

with a request that they present the resolves to both Houses of

Congress."

[Passed MARCH 16, 1838, UNANIMOUSLY, in both Houses.]

* * * * *

5. MICHIGAN.

Whereas, propositions have been made for the annexation of Texas to the

United States, with a view to its ultimate incorporation into the Union:

"And whereas, the extension of this General Government over so large

a country on the south-west, between which and that of the original

states, there is little affinity, and less identity of interest,

would tend, in the opinion of this Legislature, greatly to disturb

the safe and harmonious operations of the Government of the United

States, and put in imminent danger the continuance of this happy

Union: Therefore,

_Be it resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

State of Michigan_, That in behalf, and in the name of the State of

Michigan, this Legislature doth hereby dissent from, and solemnly

protest against the annexation, for any purpose, to this Union, of

Texas, or of any other territory or district of country, heretofore

constituting a part of the dominions of Spain in America, lying west

or south-west of Louisiana.

And be it further Resolved, by the Authority aforesaid, That the

Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the

foregoing preamble and resolve, under the great seal of this state,

to the President of the United States; also, that he transmit one

copy thereof, authenticated in manner aforesaid, to the President of

the Senate of the United States, with the respectful request of this

Legislature, that the same may be laid before the Senate; also, that

he transmit one copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of

Representatives of the United States, authenticated in like manner,

with the respectful request of this Legislature, that the same may

be laid before the House of Representatives; and also, that he

transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress,

one copy thereof, together with the Report adopted by this

Legislature, and which accompanies said preamble and resolves."

[Passed nearly if not quite unanimously, April 2, 1838].

* * * * *

6. CONNECTICUT.

"_Resolved_, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives in

General Assembly convened, do, in the name of the people of this

State, solemnly _protest_ against the annexation of Texas to

this Union."

[Passed, it is believed, unanimously in both houses.]

* * * * *

(Those which follow were passed by but one branch of the respective

Legislatures in which they were introduced.)

7. PENNSYLVANIA.

_Resolutions relative to the admission of Texas into the Union._

"_Whereas_ the annexation of Texas to the United States has been

advocated and strongly urged by many of our fellow-citizens,

particularly in the southern part of our country, and the president

of Texas has received authority to open a correspondence with, and

appoint, a commissioner to our government to accomplish the

object;--_And whereas_ such a measure would bring to us a dangerous

extension of territory, with a population generally not desirable,

and would probably involve us in war;--_And whereas_ the subject is

now pressed upon and agitated in Congress; therefore,

_Resolved_, &c, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and

our Representatives requested, to use their influence and vote

against the annexation of Texas to the territory of the

united States.

_Resolved_, That the Governor transmit to each of our Senators and

Representatives a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions."

[Passed the Senate March 9, 1835, by 22 to 6. Postponed indefinitely in

the House of Representatives, April 13, by 41 to 39.]

* * * * *

8. MAINE.

"_Resolved_, That the Legislature of the State of Maine, on behalf

of the people of said state, do earnestly and solemnly protest

against the annexation of the Republic of Texas to these United

States; and that our Senators and Representatives in Congress be,

and they hereby are, requested to exert their utmost influence to

prevent the adoption of a measure at once so clearly

unconstitutional, and so directly calculated to disturb our foreign

relations, to destroy our domestic peace, and to dismember our

blessed Union."

[Passed in the House of Representatives, March 22, 1838, by 85 to 30.

Senate (same day) refused to concur by 11 to 10.]

* * * * *

9. NEW-YORK.

"_Resolved_, (if the Senate concur,) That the admission of the

Republic of Texas into this Union would be entirely repugnant to the

will of the people of this state, and would endanger the union of

these United States.

_Resolved_, (if the Senate concur,) That this Legislature do, in

the name of the people of the State of New York, solemnly protest

against the admission of the Republic of Texas into this Union.

_Resolved_, (if the Senate concur.) That his Excellency the Governor

be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each

of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and also to the

governors of each of the United States, with a request that the same

be laid before their respective Legislatures."

[These resolutions passed the House of Representatives in April, by a

large majority--the newspapers say, 83 to 13. They were indefinitely

postponed in the Senate, by a vote of 21 to 9.]

* * * * *

APPENDIX G.

The number of petitioners for abolition in the District of Columbia, and

on other subjects allied to it, have been ascertained (in the House of

Representatives) to be as follows:--

Men. Women. Total.

For abolition in the District, 51,366 78,882 130,248

Against the annexation of Texas, 104,973 77,419 182,392

Rescinding the gag resolution, 21,015 10,821 31,836

Against admitting any new slave state, 11,770 10,391 22,161

For abolition of the slave-trade

between the states, 11,864 11,541 23,405

For abolition of slavery in the

territories, 9,129 12,083 21,212

At the extra session for rescinding

the gag resolution of Jan. 21, 1837, 3,377 3,377

----------------------------

Total, 213,494 201,137 414,631

The number in the Senate, where some difficulty was interposed that

prevented its being taken, is estimated to have been about two-thirds as

great as that in the House.

* * * * *

APPENDIX H.

[On the 1st of December, one of the secretaries of the American

Anti-Slavery Society addressed a note to each of the Governors of the

slave states, in which he informed them, in courteous and respectful

terms, that he had directed the Publishing Agent of this society,

thereafter regularly to transmit to them, free of charge, the periodical

publications issued from the office of the society. To this offer the

following replies were received:--]

GOVERNOR CAMPBELL'S LETTER.

JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., _New York_

"RICHMOND, _Dec. 4, 1837_.

SIR,--I received, by yesterday's mail, your letter of the 1st

instant, in which you state that you had directed the publishing

agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, hereafter, regularly to

transmit, free of charge, by mail, to all the governors of the slave

states, the periodical publications issued from that office.

Regarding your society as highly mischievous, I decline receiving

any communications from it, and must request that no publications

from your office be transmitted to me.

I am, &c,

DAVID CAMPBELL."

* * * * *

GOVERNOR BAGBY'S LETTER.

"TUSCALOOSA, _Jan. 6, 1838_

SIR,--I received, by due course of mail, your favor of the 1st of

December, informing me that you had directed the publishing agent of

the American Anti-Slavery Society to forward to the governors of the

slaveholding states the periodicals issued from that office. Taking

it for granted, that the only object which the society or yourself

could have in view, in adopting this course, is, the dissemination

of the opinions and principles of the society--having made up my own

opinion, unalterably, in relation to the whole question of slavery,

as it exists in a portion of the United States, and feeling

confident that, in the correctness of this opinion, I am sustained

by the entire free white population of Alabama, as well as the great

body of the people of this Union, I must, with the greatest respect

for yourself, personally but not for the opinions or principles

advocated by the society--positively decline receiving said

publications, or any others of a similar character, either

personally or officially. Indeed, it is presuming a little too much,

to expect that the chief magistrate of a free people, elected by

themselves, would hold correspondence or give currency to the

publications of an organized society, openly engaged in a scheme

fraught with more mischievous consequences to their interest and

repose, than any that the wit or folly of mankind has

heretofore devised.

I am, very respectfully,

Your ob't servant,

A.P. BAGBY"

JAMES G. BIRNEY, _Esq., New York_.

* * * * *

GOVERNOR CANNON'S LETTER.

[This letter required so many alterations to bring it up to the ordinary

standard of epistolary, grammatical, and orthographical accuracy, that

it is thought best to give it in _word_ and _letter_, precisely as it

was received at the office.]

"EXECUTIVE DEPT.--

NASHVILLE. _Dec. 12th, 1837_.

Sir

I have rec'd yours of the 1st Inst notifying me, that you had

directed, your periodical publications, on the subject of Slavery to

be sent to me free of charge &c--and you are correct, if sincere, in

your views, in supposing that we widely differ, on this subject, we

do indeed widely differ, on it, if the publications said to have

emanated from you, are honest and sincere, which, I admit,

is possible.

My opinions are fix'd and settled, and I seldom Look into or

examine, the, different vague notions of others who write and

theorise on that subject. Hence I trust you will not expect me to

examine, what you have printed on this subject, or cause to have

printed. If you or any other man are influenced by feelings of

humanity, and are laboring to relieve the sufferings, of the human

race, you may find objects enough immediately around you, where you

are, in any nonslaveholding State, to engage your, attention, and

all your exertions, in that good cause.

But if your aim is to make a flourish on the subject, before the

world, and to gain yourself some notoriety, or distinction, without,

doing good to any, and evil to many, of the human race, you are,

pursuing the course calculated to effect. Such an object, in which

no honest man need envy. Your honours, thus gaind, I know there are

many such in our country, but would fain hope, you are not one of

them. If you have Lived, as you state forty years in a Slave holding

State, you know that, that class of its population, are not the

most, miserable, degraded, or unhappy, either in their feelings or

habits, You know they are generally governd, and provided for by men

of information and understanding sufficient to guard them against

the most, odious vices, and hibets of the country, from which, you

know the slaves are in a far greater degree, exempt than, are other

portions of the population. That the slaves are the most happy,

moral and contented generally, and free from suffering of any kind,

having, each full confidence, in his masters, skill means and

disposition to provide well for him, knowing also at the same time

that _it is his interest to do it_. Hence in this State of Society

more than any other, Superior intelligence has the ascendency, in

governing and provideing, for the wants of those inferior, also in

giveing direction to their Labour, and industry, as should be the

case, superior intelligence Should govern, when united with Virtue,

and interest, that great predominating principle in all human

affairs. It is my rule of Life, when I see any man labouring to

produce effects, at a distance from him, while neglecting the

objects immediately around him, (in doing good) to suspect his

sincerity, to suspect him for some selfish, or sinister motive, all

is not gold that glitters, and every man is not what he, endeavours

to appear to be, is too well known. It is the duty of masters to

take care of there slaves and provide for them, and this duty I

believe is as generally and as fully complyd with as any other duty

enjoind on the human family, for next to their children their own

offspring, their slaves stand next foremost in their care and

attention, there are indeed very few instances of a contrary

character.

You can find around you, I doubt not a large number of persons

intemix'd, in your society, who are entirely destitute of that care,

and attention, towards them that is enjoyed by our slaves, and who

are destitute of that deep feeling of interest, in guarding their

morals and habits, and directing them through Life in all things,

which is here enjoyd by our slaves, to those let your efforts be

directed immediately around you and do not trouble with your vague

speculations those who are contented and happy, at a distance

from you.

Very respectfully yours,

N. CANNON."

Mr. JAS. G. BIRNEY, _Cor. Sec._ &c.

* * * * *

[The letter of the Secretary to the governor of South Carolina was not

_answered_, but was so inverted and folded as to present the

_subscribed_ name of the secretary, as the _superscription_ of the same

letter to be returned. The addition of _New York_ to the address brought

it back to this office.

Whilst governor Butler was thus refusing the information that was

proffered to him in the most respectful terms from this office, he was

engaged in another affair, having connection with the anti-slavery

movement, as indiscreet, as it was unbecoming the dignity of the office

he holds. The following account of it is from one of the Boston

papers:--]

"_Hoaxing a Governor_.--The National Aegis says, that Hollis Parker,

who was sentenced to the state prison at the late term of the

criminal court for Worcester county, for endeavoring to extort money

from governor Everett, had opened an extensive correspondence,

previous to his arrest, with similar intent, with other

distinguished men of the country. Besides several individuals in New

York, governor Butler, of South Carolina, was honored with his

notice. A letter from that gentleman, directed to Parker, was lately

received at the post office in a town near Worcester, enclosing a

check for fifty dollars. So far as the character of Parker's letter

can be inferred from the reply of governor Butler, it would appear,

that Parker informed the governor, that the design was entertained

by some of our citizens, of transmitting to South Carolina a

quantity of 'incendiary publications,' and that with the aid of a

little money, he (Parker) would be able to unravel the plot, and

furnish full information concerning it to his excellency. The bait

took, and the money was forwarded, with earnest appeals to Parker to

be vigilant and active in thoroughly investigating the supposed

conspiracy against the peace and happiness of the South.

The Aegis has the following very just remarks touching this

case:--'Governor Butler belongs to a state loud in its professions

of regard for state rights and state sovereignty. We, also, are

sincere advocates of that good old republican doctrine. It strikes

us, that it would have comported better with the spirit of that

doctrine, the dignity, of his own station and character, the respect

and courtesy due to a sovereign and independent state, if governor

Butler had made the proper representation, if the subject was

deserving of such notice, to the acknowledged head and constituted

authorities of that state, instead of holding official

correspondence with a citizen of a foreign jurisdiction, and

employing a secret agent and informer, whose very offer of such

service was proof of the base and irresponsible character of him who

made it.'"

* * * * *

GOVERNOR CONWAY'S LETTER.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, _March_ 1, 1838.

Sir--A newspaper, headed '_The Emancipator_,' in which you are

announced the 'publishing agent,' has, for some weeks past, arrived

at the post office in this city, to my address. Not having

subscribed, or authorized any individual to give my name as a

subscriber, for that or any such paper, it is entirely _gratuitous_

on the part of its publishers to send me a copy; and not having a

favorable opinion of the _intentions_ of the _authors and founders_

of the '_American Anti-Slavery Society_;' I have to request a

discontinuance of '_The Emancipator_.'

Your ob't servant, "J.S. CONWAY."

R. G. WILLIAMS, Esq., New York.

* * * * *

[NOTE.--The following extract of a letter, from the late Chief Justice

Jay to the late venerable Elias Boudinot, dated Nov. 17, 1819, might

well have formed part of Appendix E. Its existence, however, was not

known till it was too late to insert it in its most appropriate place.

It shows the view taken of some of the _constitutional_ questions by a

distinguished jurist,--one of the purest patriots too, by whom our early

history was illustrated.]

"Little can be added to what has been said and written on the

subject of slavery. I concur in the opinion, that it ought not to be

_introduced, nor permitted_ in any of the _new_ states; and that it

ought to be gradually diminished, and finally, abolished, in all

of them.

To me, the _constitutional authority_ of the Congress to prohibit

the _migration_ and _importation_ of slaves into any of the states,

does not appear questionable.

The first article of the Constitution specifics the legislative

powers committed to Congress. The ninth section of that article has

these words:--'The _migration_ or _importation_ of such persons as

any of the _now existing_ states shall think proper to admit, shall

not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808--but a tax

or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding _ten

dollars_ for each person.'

I understand the sense and meaning of this clause to be, That the

power of the Congress, although _competent to prohibit such

migration and importation_, was not to be exercised with respect to

the THEN existing states, and _them only_, until the year 1808; but

that Congress were at liberty to make such prohibition as to any

_new state_ which might in the _meantime_ be established. And

further, that from and after _that_ period, they were authorized to

make such prohibition as to _all the states, whether new or old_.

Slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, on

account of the existing toleration of slavery, and its discordancy

with the principles of the Revolution; and from a consciousness of

its being repugnant to those propositions to the Declaration of

Independence:--'We hold these truths to be self-evident--that all

men are created equal--that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain inalienable rights--and that, among these, are life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"

* * * * *

NO. 9.

THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

* * * * *

LETTER

OF

GERRIT SMITH,

TO

HON. HENRY CLAY.

* * * * *

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

----- 1839.

* * * * *

This No. contains 3-1/2 sheets.--Postage, under 100 miles, 6 cts. over

100, 10 cts.

_Please Read and circulate_.

LETTER.

* * * * *

PETERBORO, MARCH 21, 1839.

HON. HENRY CLAY:

DEAR SIR,

In the Annual Meeting of the American Colonization Society, held in the

Capitol in the city of Washington, December, 1835, you commented on a

speech made by myself, the previous autumn. Your objections to that

speech formed the principal subject matter of your remarks. Does not

this fact somewhat mitigate the great presumption of which I feel myself

guilty, in undertaking, all unhonored and humble as I am, to review the

production of one of the most distinguished statesmen of the age?

Until the appearance of your celebrated speech on the subject of

slavery, I had supposed that you cherished a sacred regard for the right

of petition. I now find, that you value it no more highly than they do,

who make open war upon it. Indeed, you admit, that, in relation to this

right, "there is no substantial difference between" them and yourself.

Instead of rebuking, you compliment them; and, in saying that "the

majority of the Senate" would not "violate the right of petition in any

case, in which, according to its judgment, the object of the petition

could be safely or properly granted," you show to what destructive

conditions you subject this absolute right. Your doctrine is, that in

those cases, where the object of the petition is such, as the

supplicated party can approve, previously to any discussion of its

merits--there, and there only, exists the right of petition. For aught I

see, you are no more to be regarded as the friend of this right, than is

the conspicuous gentleman[A] who framed the Report on that subject,

which was presented to the Senate of my state the last month. That

gentleman admits the sacredness of "the right to petition on any

subject;" and yet, in the same breath, he insists on the equal

sacredness of the right to refuse to attend to a petition. He manifestly

failed to bear in mind, that a right to petition implies the correlative

right to be heard. How different are the statesmen, who insist "on the

right to refuse to attend to a petition," from Him, who says, "Whoso

stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but

shall not be heard." And who are poor, if it be not those for whom the

abolitionists cry? They must even cry by proxy. For, in the language of

John Quincy Adams, the champion of the right of petition, "The slave is

not permitted to cry for mercy--to plead for pardon--to utter the shriek

of perishing nature for relief." It may be well to remark, that the

error, which I have pointed out in the Report in question, lies in the

premises of the principal argument of that paper; and that the

correction of this error is necessarily attended with the destruction of

the premises, and with the overthrow of the argument, which is built

upon them.

[Footnote A: Colonel Young.]

I surely need not stop to vindicate the right of petition. It is a

natural right--one that human laws can guarantee, but can neither create

nor destroy. It is an interesting fact, that the Amendment to the

Federal Constitution, which guarantees the right of petition, was

opposed in the Congress of 1789 as superfluous. It was argued, that this

is "a self-evident, inalienable right, which the people possess," and

that "it would never be called in question." What a change in

fifty years!

You deny the power of Congress to abolish the inter-state traffic in

human beings; and, inasmuch as you say, that the right "to regulate

commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states," does not

include the right to prohibit and destroy commerce; and, inasmuch as it

is understood, that it was in virtue of the right to regulate commerce,

that Congress enacted laws to restrain our participation in the "African

slave trade," you perhaps also deny, that Congress had the power to

enact such laws. The history of the times in which the Federal

Constitution was framed and adopted, justifies the belief, that the

clause of that instrument under consideration conveys the power, which

Congress exercised. For instance, Governor Randolph, when speaking in

the Virginia Convention of 1788, of the clause which declares, that "the

migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now

existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by

Congress prior to the year 1808," said, "This is an exception from the

power of regulating commerce, and the restriction is to continue only

till 1808. Then Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent

future importations."

Were I, however, to admit that the right "to regulate commerce," does

not include the right to prohibit and destroy commerce, it nevertheless

would not follow, that Congress might not prohibit or destroy certain

branches of commerce. It might need to do so, in order to preserve our

general commerce with a state or nation. So large a proportion of the

cloths of Turkey might be fraught with the contagion of the plague, as

to make it necessary for our Government to forbid the importation of all

cloths from that country, and thus totally destroy one branch of our

commerce with it, to the end that the other branches might be preserved.

No inconsiderable evidence that Congress has the right to prohibit or

destroy a branch of commerce, is to be found in the fact, that it has

done so. From March, 1794, to May, 1820, it enacted several laws, which

went to prohibit or destroy, and, in the end, did prohibit or destroy

the trade of this country with Africa in human beings. And, if Congress

has the power to pass embargo laws, has it not the power to prohibit or

destroy commerce altogether?

It is, however, wholly immaterial, whether Congress could prohibit our

participation in the "African slave trade," in virtue of the clause

which empowers it "to regulate commerce." That the Constitution does, in

some one or more of its passages, convey the power, is manifest from the

testimony of the Constitution itself. The first clause of the ninth

section says: "The migration or importation of such persons, as any of

the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be

prohibited by the Congress prior to they year 1808." Now the implication

in this clause of the existence of the power in question, is as

conclusive, as would be the express and positive grant of it. You will

observe, too, that the power of Congress over "migration or

importation," which this clause implies, is a power not merely to

"regulate," as you define the word, but to "prohibit."

It is clear, then, that Congress had the power to interdict our trade in

human beings with Africa. But, in view of what has been said on that

point--in view of the language of the Federal Constitution--of the

proceedings of the Convention, which framed it--and of the cotemporary

public sentiment--is it any less clear, that Congress has the power to

interdict the inter-state traffic in human beings?

There are some, who assert that the words "migration" and "importation,"

instead of referring, as I maintain they do--the former to the removal

of slaves from state to state, and the latter to their introduction from

Africa--are used in the Constitution as synonyms, and refer exclusively

to the "African slave trade." But there is surely no ground for the

imputation of such utter tautology, if we recollect that the

Constitution was written by scholars, and that remarkable pains were

taken to clear it of all superfluous words--a Committee having been

appointed for that special purpose. But, it may be asked, Why, in

reference to the taking of slaves from one state to another, use the

word "migration," which denotes voluntary removal? One answer is--that

it can be used with as much propriety in that case, as in the removal of

slaves from Africa--the removal in the one case being no less

involuntary than in the other. Another answer is--that the framers of

the Constitution selected the word "migration," because of its congruity

with that of "persons," under which their virtuous shame sought to

conceal from posterity the existence of seven hundred thousand slaves

amongst a people, who had but recently entered upon their national

career, with the solemn declaration, that "all men are created equal."

John Jay, whose great celebrity is partly owing to his very able

expositions of the Constitution, says: "To me, the constitutional

authority of the Congress to prohibit the migration _and_ importation of

slaves into any of the states, does not appear questionable." If the

disjunctive between "migration" and "importation" in the Constitution,

argues their reference to the same thing, Mr. Jay's copulative argues

more strongly, that, in his judgment, they refer to different things.

The law of Congress constituting the "Territory of Orleans," was enacted

in 1804. It fully recognizes the power of that body to prohibit the

trade in slaves between a territory and the states. But, if Congress had

this power, why had it not as clear a power to prohibit, at that time,

the trade in slaves between any two of the states? It might have

prohibited it, but for the constitutional suspension of the exercise of

the power. The term of that suspension closed, however, in 1808; and,

since that year, Congress has had as full power to abolish the whole

slave trade between the states, as it had in 1804 to abolish the like

trade between the Territory of Orleans and the states.

But, notwithstanding the conclusive evidence, that the Constitution

empowers Congress to abolish the inter-state slave trade, it is

incomprehensible to many, that such states as Virginia and Maryland

should have consented to deprive themselves of the benefit of selling

their slaves into other states. It is incomprehensible, only because

they look upon such states in the light of their present character and

present interests. It will no longer be so, if they will bear in mind,

that slave labor was then, as it is now, unprofitable for ordinary

agriculture, and that Whitney's cotton-gin, which gave great value to

such labor, was not yet invented, and that the purchase of Louisiana,

which has had so great an effect to extend and perpetuate the dominion

of slavery, was not yet made. It will no longer be incomprehensible to

them, if they will recollect, that, at the period in question, American

slavery was regarded as a rapidly decaying, if not already expiring

institution. It will no longer be so, if they will recollect, how small

was the price of slaves then, compared with their present value; and

that, during the ten years, which followed the passage of the Act of

Virginia in 1782, legalizing manumissions, her citizens emancipated

slaves to the number of nearly one-twentieth of the whole amount of her

slaves in that year. To learn whether your native Virginia clung in the

year 1787 to the inter-state traffic in human flesh, we must take our

post of observation, not amongst her degenerate sons, who, in 1836, sold

men, women, and children, to the amount of twenty-four millions of

dollars--not amongst her President Dews, who write books in favor of

breeding human stock for exportation--but amongst her Washingtons, and

Jeffersons, and Henrys, and Masons, who, at the period when the

Constitution was framed, freely expressed their abhorrence of slavery.