But, however confident you may be, that Congress has not the lawful

power to abolish the branch of commerce in question; nevertheless, would

the abolition of it be so clearly and grossly unconstitutional, as to

justify the contempt with which the numerous petitions for the measure

are treated, and the impeachment of their fidelity to the Constitution,

and of their patriotism and purity, which the petitioners are made

to endure?

I was about to take it for granted, that, although you deny the power of

Congress to abolish the inter-state traffic in human beings, you do not

justify the traffic--when I recollected the intimation in your speech,

that there is no such traffic. For, when you speak of "the slave trade

between the states," and add--"or, as it is described in abolition

petitions, the traffic in human beings between the states"--do you not

intimate there is no such traffic? Whence this language? Do you not

believe slaves are human beings? And do you not believe that they suffer

under the disruption of the dearest earthly ties, as human beings

suffer? I will not detain you to hear what we of the North think of this

internal slave trade. But I will call your attention to what is thought

of it in your own Kentucky and in your native Virginia. Says the

"Address of the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky to the Churches in

1835:"--"Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives,

are torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. Those acts

are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and the agony often

witnessed on such occasions, proclaim with a trumpet tongue the iniquity

and cruelty of the system. There is not a neighborhood where these

heart-rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a village or road

that does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts, whose

chains and mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by force from

all that their hearts hold dear." Says Thomas Jefferson Randolph, in the

Virginia Legislature in 1832, when speaking of this trade: "It is a

practice, and an increasing practice, in parts of Virginia, to rear

slaves for market. How can an honourable mind, a patriot, and a lover of

his country, bear to see this ancient dominion, rendered illustrious by

the noble devotion and patriotism of her sons in the cause of liberty,

converted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared for the

market like oxen for the shambles. Is it better--is it not worse than

the (foreign) slave trade--that trade which enlisted the labor of the

good and wise of every creed and every clime to abolish? The (foreign)

trader receives the slave, a stranger in language, aspect, and manner,

from the merchant who has brought him from the interior. The ties of

father, mother, husband, and child, have already been rent in twain;

before he receives him, his soul has become callous. But here, sir,

individuals whom the master has known from infancy, whom he has seen

sporting in the innocent gambols of childhood--who have been accustomed

to look to him for protection, he tears from the mother's arms, and

sells into a strange country--among strange people, subject to cruel

taskmasters."

You are in favor of increasing the number of slave states. The terms of

the celebrated "Missouri compromise" warrant, in your judgment, the

increase. But, notwithstanding you admit, that this unholy compromise,

in which tranquillity was purchased at the expense of humanity and

righteousness, does not "in terms embrace the case," and "is not

absolutely binding and obligatory;" you, nevertheless, make no attempt

whatever to do away any one of the conclusive objections, which are

urged against such increase. You do not attempt to show how the

multiplication of slave states can consist with the constitutional duty

of the "United States to guarantee to every state in the Union a

republican form of government," any more than if it were perfectly

clear, that a government is republican under which one half of the

people are lawfully engaged in buying and selling the other half; or

than if the doctrine that "all men are created equal" were not the

fundamental and distinctive doctrine of a republican government. You no

more vindicate the proposition to enlarge the realm of slavery, than if

the proposition were as obviously in harmony with, as it is opposed to

the anti-slavery tenor and policy of the Constitution--the rights of

man--and the laws of God.

You are perhaps of the number of those, who, believing, that a state can

change its Constitution as it pleases, deem it futile in Congress to

require, that States, on entering the Union, shall have anti-slavery

Constitutions. The Framers of the Federal Constitution doubtless foresaw

the possibility of treachery, on the part of the new States, in the

matter of slavery: and the restriction in that instrument to the old

States--"the States now existing"--of the right to participate in the

internal and "African slave trade" may be ascribed to the motive of

diminishing, if not indeed of entirely preventing, temptation to such

treachery. The Ordinance concerning the North-west Territory, passed by

the Congress of 1787, and ratified by the Congress of 1790, shows, so

far as those bodies can be regarded as correct interpreters of the

Constitution which was framed in 1787, and adopted in 1789, that slavery

was not to have a constitutional existence in the new States. The

Ordinance continues the privilege of recapturing fugitive slaves in the

North-west Territory to the "existing States." Slaves in that territory,

to be the subjects of lawful recapture, must in the language of the

Ordinance, owe "labour or service in one of the _original_ States."

I close what I have to say on this topic, with the remark, that were it

admitted, that the reasons for the increase of the number of slave

States are sound and satisfactory, it nevertheless would not follow,

that the moral and constitutional wrong of preventing that increase is

so palpable, as to justify the scorn and insult, which are heaped by

Congress upon this hundred thousand petitioners for this measure.

It has hitherto been supposed, that you distinctly and fully admitted

the Constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District

of Columbia. But, on this point, as on that of the right of petition,

you have for reasons known to yourself, suddenly and greatly changed

your tone. Whilst your speech argues, at no small length, that Congress

has not the right to abolish slavery in the District, all that it says

in favor of the Constitutional power to abolish it, is that "the

language (of the Constitution) may _possibly_ be sufficiently

comprehensive to include a power of abolition." "Faint praise dams;" and

your very reluctant and qualified concession of the Constitutional power

under consideration, is to be construed, rather as a denial than a

concession.

Until I acquire the skill of making white whiter, and black blacker, I

shall have nothing to say in proof of the Constitutional power of

Congress over slavery in the District of Columbia, beyond referring to

the terms, in which the Constitution so plainly conveys this power. That

instrument authorises Congress "to exercise exclusive legislation in all

cases whatsoever over such District." If these words do not confer the

power, it is manifest that no words could confer it. I will add that,

never, until the last few years, had doubts been expressed, that these

words do fully confer that power.

You will, perhaps, say, that Virginia and Maryland made their cessions

of the territory, which constitutes the District of Columbia, with

reservations on the subject of slavery. We answer, that none were

expressed;[A] and that if there had been, Congress would not, and in

view of the language of the Constitution, could not, have accepted the

cessions. You may then say, that they would not have ceded the

territory, had it occurred to them, that Congress would have cleared it

of slavery; and that, this being the fact, Congress could not thus clear

it, without being guilty of bad faith, and of an ungenerous and

unjustifiable surprise on those States. There are several reasons for

believing, that those States, not only did not, at the period in

question, cherish a dread of the abolition of slavery; but that the

public sentiment within them was decidedly in favor of its speedy

abolition. At that period, their most distinguished statesmen were

trumpet-tongued against slavery. At that period, there was both a

Virginia and a Maryland society "for promoting the abolition of

slavery;" and, it was then, that, with the entire consent of Virginia

and Maryland, effectual measures were adopted to preclude slavery from

that large territory, which has since given Ohio and several other

States to the Union. On this subject, as on that of the inter-state

slave trade, we misinterpret Virginia and Maryland, by not considering,

how unlike was their temper in relation to slavery, amidst the decays

and dying throes of that institution half a century ago, to what it is

now, when slavery is not only revivified, but has become the predominant

interest and giant power of the nation. We forget, that our whole

country was, at that time, smitten with love for the holy cause of

impartial and universal liberty. To judge correctly of the view, which

our Revolutionary fathers took of oppression, we must go back and stand

by their side, in their struggles against it,--we must survey them

through the medium of the anti-slavery sentiment of their own times, and

not impute to them the pro-slavery spirit so rampant in ours.

[Footnote A: There is a proviso in the Act of Virginia. It was on this,

that three years ago, in the Senate of the United States, Benjamin

Watkins Leigh built his argument against the constitutional power of

Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. I well remember

that you then denied the soundness of his argument. This superfluous

proviso virtually forbids Congress to pass laws, which shall "affect the

rights of individuals" in the ceded territory. Amongst the inviolable

"rights" was that of holding slaves, as Mr. Leigh contended. I regret,

that, in replying to him, you did not make use of the fact, that all the

members of Congress from Virginia voted in favor of the Ordinance, which

abolished slavery in the North-West Territory; and this too,

notwithstanding, that, in the Act of 1784, by which she ceded the

North-West Territory to the Confederacy, she provided, that the

"citizens of Virginia" in the said Territory, many of whom held slaves,

should "be protected in the enjoyment of their rights." This fact

furnishes striking evidence that at, or about, the time of the cession

by Virginia of her portion of the District of Columbia, her statesmen

believed, that the right to hold slaves in those portions of our country

under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, was not beyond the reach

of the controlling power of Congress.]

I will, however, suppose it true, that Virginia and Maryland would not

have made the cessions in question, had they foreseen, that Congress

would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia:--and yet, I affirm,

that it would be the duty of Congress to abolish it. Had there been

State Prisons in the territory, at the time Congress acquired

jurisdiction over it, and had Congress immediately opened their doors,

and turned loose hundreds of depraved and bloody criminals, there would

indeed have been abundant occasion for complaint. But, had the exercise

of its power in the premises extended no farther than to the liberation

of such convicts, as, on a re-examination of their cases, were found to

be clearly guiltless of the crimes charged upon them; the sternest

justice could not have objected to such an occasion for the rejoicing of

mercy. And are not the thousands in the District, for whose liberation

Congress is besought, unjustly deprived of their liberty? Not only are

they guiltless, but they are even unaccused of such crimes, as in the

judgment of any, justly work a forfeiture of liberty. And what do

Virginia and Maryland ask? Is it, that Congress shall resubject to their

control those thousands of deeply wronged men? No--for this Congress

cannot do. They ask, that Congress shall fulfil the tyrant wishes of

these States. They ask, that the whole people of the United

States--those who hate, as well as those who love slavery, shall, by

their representatives, assume the guilty and awful responsibility of

perpetuating the enslavement of their innocent fellow men:--of chaining

the bodies and crushing the wills, and blotting out the minds of such,

as have neither transgressed, nor even been accused of having

transgressed, a single human law. And the crime, which Virginia and

Maryland, and they, who sympathise with them, would have the nation

perpetrate, is, not simply that of prolonging the captivity of those,

who were slaves before the cession--for but a handful of them are now

remaining in the District. Most of the present number became slaves

under the authority of this guilty nation. Their wrongs originated with

Congress: and Congress is asked, not only to perpetuate their

oppression, but to fasten the yoke of slavery on generations yet unborn.

There are those, who advocate the recession of the District of Columbia.

If the nation were to consent to this, without having previously

exercised her power to "break every yoke" of slavery in the District,

the blood of those so cruelly left there in "the house of bondage,"

would remain indelible and damning upon her skirts:--and this too,

whether Virginia and Maryland did or did not intend to vest Congress

with any power over slavery. It is enough, that the nation has the power

"to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to

be slain," to make her fearfully guilty before God, if she "forbear" to

exercise it.

Suppose, I were to obtain a lease of my neighbor's barn for the single

and express purpose of securing my crops; and that I should find,

chained up in one of its dark corners, an innocent fellow man, whom that

neighbor was subjecting to the process of a lingering death; ought I to

pause and recall President Wayland's, "Limitations of Human

Responsibility," and finally let the poor sufferer remain in his chains;

or ought I not rather, promptly to respond to the laws of my nature and

my nature's God, and let him go free? But, to make this case analogous

to that we have been considering--to that, which imposes its claims on

Congress--we must strike out entirely the condition of the lease, and

with it all possible doubts of my right to release the victim of my

neighbor's murderous hate.

I am entirely willing to yield, for the sake of argument, that Virginia

and Maryland, when ceding the territory which constitutes the District

of Columbia, did not anticipate, and did not choose the abolition of

slavery in it. To make the admission stronger, I will allow, that these

States were, at the time of the cession, as warmly opposed to the

abolition of slavery in the District as they are said to be now: and to

make it stronger still, I will allow, that the abolition of slavery in

the District would prove deeply injurious, not only to Virginia and

Maryland but to the nation at large. And, after all these admissions, I

must still insist, that Congress is under perfectly plain moral

obligation to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

They, who are deterred from favoring the abolition of slavery in the

District by the apprehension, that Virginia and Maryland, if not,

indeed, the nation at large, might suffer injurious consequences from

the measure, overlook the fact, that there is a third party in the case.

It is common to regard the nation as constituting one of the

parties--Virginia and Maryland another, and the only other. But in point

of fact, there is a third party. Of what does it consist? Of horses,

oxen, and other brutes? Then we need not be greatly concerned about

it--since its rights in that case, would be obviously subordinate to

those of the other parties. Again, if such be the composition of this

third party, we are not to be greatly troubled, that President Wayland

and thousands of others entirely overlook its rights and interests;

though they ought to be somewhat mindful even of brutes. But, this third

party is composed, not of brutes--but of men--of the seven thousand men

in the District, who have fallen under the iron hoofs of slavery--and

who, because they are men, have rights equal to, and as sacred as the

rights of any other men--rights, moreover, which cannot be innocently

encroached on, even to the breadth of one hair, whether under the plea

of "state necessity"--of the perils of emancipation--or under any other

plea, which conscience-smitten and cowardly tyranny can suggest.

If these lines shall ever be so favored, as to fall under the eye of the

venerable and beloved John Quincy Adams, I beg, that, when he shall have

read them, he will solemnly inquire of his heart, whether, if he should

ever be left to vote against the abolition of slavery in the District of

Columbia, and thus stab deeply the cause of civil liberty, of humanity,

and of God; the guilty act would not result from overlooking the rights

and interests, and even the existence itself, of a third party in the

case--and from considering the claims of the nation and those of

Virginia and Maryland, as the only claims on which he was called to

pass, because they were the claims of the only parties, of which he

was aware.

You admit that "the first duty of Congress in relation to the District,

of Columbia, is to render it available, comfortable, and convenient as a

seat of the government of the whole Union." I thank you for an

admission, which can be used, with great effect, against the many, who

maintain, that Congress is as much bound to consult the interests and

wishes of the inhabitants of the District, and be governed by them, as a

State Legislature is to study and serve the interests and wishes of its

constituents. The inhabitants of the District have taken up their

residence in it, aware, that the paramount object of Congressional

legislation is not their, but the nation's advantage. They judge, that

their disfranchisement and the other disadvantages attending their

residence are more than balanced by their favorable position for

participating in Governmental patronage and other benefits. They know,

that they have no better right to complain, that the legislation of

Congress is not dictated by a primary regard to their interests, than

has the Colonization Society, of which you are President, to complain,

that the Capitol, in which it holds its annual meetings, is not

constructed and fitted up in the best possible manner for such

occasions. They know, that to sacrifice the design and main object of

that building to its occasional and incidental uses, would be an

absurdity no greater than would Congress be guilty of in shaping its

legislation to the views of the thirty thousand white inhabitants of the

District of Columbia, at the expense of neglecting the will and

interests of the nation.

You feel, that there is no hazard in your admission, that the paramount

object in relation to the District of Columbia, is its suitableness for

a seat of Government, since you accompany that admission with the

denial, that the presence of slavery interferes with such suitableness.

But is it not a matter of deep regret, that the place, in which our

national laws are made--that the place from which the sentiment and

fashion of the whole country derive so much of their tone and

direction--should cherish a system, which you have often admitted, is at

war with the first principles of our religion and civil polity;[A] and

the influences of which are no less pervading and controlling than

corrupting? Is it not a matter of deep regret, that they, whom other

governments send to our own, and to whom, on account of their superior

intellect and influence, it is our desire, as it is our duty, to commend

our free institutions, should be obliged to learn their lessons of

practical republicanism amidst the monuments and abominations of

slavery? Is it no objection to the District of Columbia, as the seat of

our Government, that slavery, which concerns the political and moral

interests of the nation, more than any other subject coming within the

range of legislation, is not allowed to be discussed there--either

within or without the Halls of Congress? It is one of the doctrines of

slavery, that slavery shall not be discussed. Some of its advocates are

frank enough to avow, as the reason for this prohibition, that slavery

cannot bear to be discussed. In your speech before the American

Colonization Society in 1835, to which I have referred, you distinctly

take the ground, that slavery is a subject not open to general

discussion. Very far am I from believing, that you would employ, or

intentionally countenance violence, to prevent such discussion.

Nevertheless, it is to this doctrine of non-discussion, which you and

others put forth, that the North is indebted for her pro-slavery mobs,

and the South for her pro-slavery Lynchings. The declarations of such

men as Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, that slavery is a question not to

be discussed, are a license to mobs to burn up halls and break up

abolition meetings, and destroy abolition presses, and murder abolition

editors. Had such men held the opposite doctrine, and admitted, yea, and

insisted, as it was their duty to do, that every question in morals and

politics is a legitimate subject of free discussion--the District of

Columbia would be far less objectionable, as the seat of our Government.

In that case the lamented Dr. Crandall would not have been seized in the

city of Washington on the suspicion of being an abolitionist, and thrown

into prison, and subjected to distresses of mind and body, which

resulted in his premature death. Had there been no slavery in the

District, this outrage would not have been committed; and the murders,

chargeable on the bloodiest of all bloody institutions, would have been

one less than they now are. Talk of the slaveholding District of

Columbia being a suitable locality for the seat of our Government! Why,

Sir, a distinguished member of Congress was threatened there with an

indictment for the _crime_ of presenting, or rather of proposing to

present, a petition to the body with which he was connected! Indeed the

occasion of the speech, on which I am now commenting, was the _impudent_

protest of inhabitants of that District against the right of the

American people to petition their own Congress, in relation to matters

of vital importance to the seat of their own Government! I take occasion

here to admit, that I have seen but references to this protest--not the

protest itself. I presume, that it is not dissimilar, in its spirit, to

the petition presented about the same time by Mr. Moore in the other

House of Congress--his speech on which, he complains was ungenerously

anticipated by yours on the petition presented by yourself. As the

petition presented by Mr. Moore is short, I will copy it, that I may say

to you with the more effect--how unfit is the spirit of a slaveholding

people, as illustrated in this petition, to be the spirit of the people

at the seat of a free Government!

[Footnote A: "It (slavery) is a sin and a curse both to the master and

the slave:"--_Henry Clay_.]

"_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

The petition of the undersigned, citizens of the District of Columbia

represents--That they have witnessed with deep regret the attempts which

are making _to disturb the integrity_ of the Union by a BAND OF

FANATICS, embracing men, women, and children, who cease not day and

night to crowd the tables of your halls with SEDITIOUS MEMORIALS--and

solicit your honorable bodies that you will, in your wisdom, henceforth

give neither support nor countenance to such UNHALLOWED ATTEMPTS, but

that you will, in the most emphatic manner, set the seal of your

disapprobation upon all such FOUL AND UNNATURAL EFFORTS, by refusing not

only to READ and REFER, but also to RECEIVE any papers which either

directly or indirectly, or by implication, aim at any interference with

the rights of your petitioners, or of those of any citizen of any of the

States or Territories of the United States, or of this District of which

we are inhabitants."

A Legislature should be imbued with a free, independent, fearless

spirit. But it cannot be, where discussion is overawed and interdicted,

or its boundaries at all contracted. Wherever slavery reigns, the

freedom of discussion is not tolerated: and whenever slavery exists,

there slavery reigns;--reigns too with that exclusive spirit of Turkish

despotism, that, "bears no brother near the throne."

You agree with President Wayland, that it is as improper for Congress to

abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as to create it in some

place in the free States, over which it has jurisdiction. As improper,

in the judgment of an eminent statesman, and of a no less eminent

divine, to destroy what they both admit to be a system of

unrighteousness, as to establish it! As improper to restrain as to

practice, a violation of God's law! What will other countries and coming

ages think of the politics of our statesmen and the ethics of

our divines?

But, besides its immorality, Congress has no Constitutional right to

create slavery. You have not yet presumed to deny positively, that

Congress has the right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia;

and, notwithstanding the intimation in your speech, you will not presume

to affirm, that Congress has the Constitutional right to enact laws

reducing to, or holding in slavery, the inhabitants of West Point, or

any other locality in the free States, over which it has exclusive

jurisdiction. I would here remark, that the law of Congress, which

revived the operation of the laws of Virginia and Maryland in the

District of Columbia, being, so far as it respects the slave laws of

those States, a violation of the Federal Constitution, should be held of

no avail towards legalizing slavery in the District--and the subjects of

that slavery, should, consequently, be declared by our Courts

unconditionally free.

You will admit that slavery is a system of surpassing injustice:--but

an avowed object of the Constitution is to "establish justice." You will

admit that it utterly annihilates the liberty of its victims:--but

another of the avowed objects of the Constitution is to "secure the

blessings of liberty." You will admit, that slavery does, and

necessarily must, regard its victims as _chattels_. The Constitution, on

the contrary, speaks of them as nothing short of _persons_. Roger

Sherman, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a framer of the

Federal Constitution, and a member of the first Congress under it,

denied that this instrument considers slaves "as a species of property."

Mr. Madison, in the 54th No. of the Federalist admits, that the

Constitution "regards them as inhabitants." Many cases might be cited,

in which Congress has, in consonance with the Constitution, refused to

recognize slaves as property. It was the expectation, as well as the

desire of the framers of the Constitution, that slavery should soon

cease to exist is our country; and, but for the laws, which both

Congress and the slave States, have, in flagrant violation of the letter

and spirit and obvious policy of the Constitution, enacted in behalf of

slavery, that vice would, ere this, have disappeared from our land.

Look, for instance, at the laws enacted in the fact of the clause: "The

citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and

immunities of citizens in the several States"--laws too, which the

States that enacted them, will not consent to repeal, until they consent

to abandon slavery. It is by these laws, that they shut out the colored

people of the North, the presence of a single individual of whom so

alarms them with the prospect of a servile insurrection, that they

immediately imprison him. Such was the view of the Federal Constitution

taken by James Wilson one of its framers, that, without, as I presume,

claiming for Congress any direct power over slavery in the slave States,

he declared that it possessed "power to exterminate slavery from within

our borders." It was probably under a like view, that Benjamin Franklin,

another of its framers, and Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration

of Independence, and other men of glorious and blessed memory,

petitioned the first Congress under the Constitution to "countenance the

restoration to liberty of those unhappy men," (the slaves of our

country). And in what light that same Congress viewed the Constitution

may be inferred from the fact, that, by a special act, it ratified the

celebrated Ordinance, by the terms of which slavery was forbidden for

ever in the North West Territory. It is worthy of note, that the avowed

object of the Ordinance harmonizes with that of the Constitution: and

that the Ordinance was passed the same year that the Constitution was

drafted, is a fact, on which we can strongly rely to justify a reference

to the spirit of the one instrument for illustrating the spirit of the

other. What the spirit of the Ordinance is, and in what light they who

passed it, regarded "republics, their laws and constitutions," may be

inferred from the following declaration in the Ordinance of its grand

object: "For extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious

liberty, which form the basis wherever these Republics, their laws and

constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the

basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever

hereafter shall be formed in the said territory, &c.; it is hereby

ordained and declared that the following articles, &c." One of these

articles is that, which has been referred to, and which declares that

"there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said

Territory."

You will perhaps make light of my reference to James Wilson and Benjamin

Franklin, for I recollect you say, that, "When the Constitution was

about going into operation, its powers were not well understood by the

community at large, and remained to be accurately interpreted and

defined." Nevertheless, I think it wise to repose more confidence in the

views, which the framers of the Constitution took of the spirit and

principles of that instrument, than in the definitions and

interpretations of the pro-slavery generation, which has succeeded them.

It should be regarded as no inconsiderable evidence of the anti-slavery

genius and policy of the Constitution, that Congress promptly

interdicted slavery in the first portion of territory, and that, too, a

territory of vast extent, over which it acquired jurisdiction. And is it

not a perfectly reasonable supposition, that the seat of our Government

would not have been polluted by the presence of slavery, had Congress

acted on that subject by itself, instead of losing sight of it in the

wholesale legislation, by which the laws of Virginia and Maryland were

revived in the District?

If the Federal Constitution be not anti-slavery in its general scope and

character; if it be not impregnated with the principles of universal

liberty; why was it necessary, in order to restrain Congress, for a

limited period, from acting against the slave trade, which is but a

branch or incident of slavery, to have a clause to that end in the

Constitution? The fact that the framers of the Constitution refused to

blot its pages with the word "slave" or "slavery;" and that, by

periphrase and the substitution of "persons" for "slaves," they sought

to conceal from posterity and the world the mortifying fact, that

slavery existed under a government based on the principle, that

governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

contains volumes of proof, that they looked upon American slavery as a

decaying institution; and that they would naturally shape the

Constitution to the abridgment and the extinction, rather than the

extension and perpetuity of the giant vice of the country.

It is not to be denied, that the Constitution tolerates a limited

measure of slavery: but it tolerates this measure only as the exception

to its rule of impartial and universal liberty. Were it otherwise, the

principles of that instrument could be pleaded to justify the holding of

men as property, in cases, other than those specifically provided for in

it. Were it otherwise, these principles might be appealed to, as well to

sanction the enslavement of men, as the capture of wild beasts. Were it

otherwise, the American people might be Constitutionally realizing the

prophet's declaration: "they all lie in wait for blood: they hunt every

man his brother with a net." But mere principles, whether in or out of

the Constitution, do not avail to justify and uphold slavery. Says Lord

Mansfield in the famous Somerset case: "The state of slavery is of such

a nature, that it is incapable of being now introduced by courts of

justice upon mere reasoning or inferences from any principles, natural

or political; it must take its rise from _positive law_; the origin of

it can in no country or age be traced back to any other source. A case

so odious as the condition of slaves, must be taken strictly." Grotius

says, that "slavery places man in an unnatural relation to man--a

relation which nothing but positive law can sustain." All are aware,

that, by the common law, man cannot have property in man; and that

wherever that law is not counteracted on this point by positive law,

"slaves cannot breathe," and their "shackles fall." I scarcely need add,

that the Federal Constitution does, in the main, accord with the common

law. In the words of a very able writer: "The common law is the grand

element of the United States Constitution. All its fundamental

provisions are instinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles,

and paramount authority, are presupposed and assumed throughout

the whole."

To argue the anti-slavery character of the Federal Constitution, it is

not necessary to take the high ground of some, that whatever in the

Constitution favors slavery is void, because opposed to the principles

and general tenor of that instrument. Much less is it necessary to take

the still higher ground, that every law in favor of slavery, in whatever

code or connection it may be found, is utterly invalid because of its

plain contravention of the law of nature. To maintain my position, that

the Constitution is anti-slavery in its general character, and that

constitutional slavery is, at the most, but an exception to that general

character, it was not necessary to take either of these grounds; though,

had I been disposed to take even the higher of them, I should not have

lacked the countenance of the most weighty authorities. "The law of

nature," says Blackstone, "being coeval with mankind, and dictated by

God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is

binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human

laws are of any validity if contrary to this." The same writer says,

that "The law of nature requires, that man should pursue his own true

and substantial happiness." But that slavery allows this pursuit to its

victims, no one will pretend. "There is a law," says Henry Brougham,

"above all the enactments of human codes. It is the law written by the

finger of God on the heart of man; and by that law, unchangeable and

eternal, while men despise fraud, and loathe rapine, and abhor blood,

they shall reject with indignation the wild and guilty phantasy, that

man can hold property in man."

I add no more to what I have said on the subject of slavery in the

District of Columbia, than to ask, as I have done in relation to the

inter-state slave trade and the annexation of slave states, whether

petitions for its abolition argue so great a contempt of the

Constitution, and so entire a recklessness of propriety, as to merit the

treatment which they receive at the hands of Congress. Admitting that

Congress has not the constitutional power to abolish slavery in the

District--admitting that it has not the constitutional power to destroy

what itself has established--admitting, too, that if it has the power,

it ought not to exercise it;--nevertheless, is the case so perfectly

clear, that the petitioners for the measure deserve all the abuse and

odium which their representatives in Congress heap upon them? In a word,

do not the three classes of petitions to which you refer, merit, at the

hands of those representatives, the candid and patient consideration

which, until I read your acknowledgment, that, in relation to these

petitions, "there is no substantial difference between" yourself and

those, who are in favor of thrusting them aside undebated, unconsidered,

and even unread, I always supposed you were willing to have bestowed

on them?

I pass to the examination of your charges against the abolitionists.

_They contemn the "rights of property."_

This charge you prefer against the abolitionists, not because they

believe that a Legislature has the right to abolish slavery, nor because

they deny that slaves are legally property; for this obvious truth they

do not deny. But you prefer it, because they believe that man cannot

rightfully be a subject of property.

Abolitionists believe, to use words, which I have already quoted, that

it is "a wild and guilty phantasy, that man can hold property in man."

They believe, that to claim property in the exalted being, whom God has

made in His own image, and but "a little lower than the angels," is

scarcely less absurd than to claim it in the Creator himself. You take

the position, that human laws can rightfully reduce a race of men to

property; and that the outrage, to use your own language, is "sanctioned

and sanctified" by "two hundred years" continuance of it. Abolitionists,

on the contrary, trace back man's inalienable self-ownership to

enactments of the Divine Legislator, and to the bright morning of time,

when he came forth from the hand of his Maker, "crowned with glory and

honor," invested with self-control, and with dominion over the brute and

inanimate creation. You soothe the conscience of the slaveholder, by

reminding him, that the relation, which he has assumed towards his

down-trodden fellow-man, is lawful. The abolitionist protests, that the

wickedness of the relation is none the less, because it is legalized. In

charging abolitionists with condemning "the rights of property," you

mistake the innocent for the guilty party. Were you to be so unhappy as

to fall into the hands of a kidnapper, and be reduced to a slave, and

were I to remonstrate, though in vain, with your oppressor, who would

you think was the despiser of "the rights of property"--myself, or the

oppressor? As you would judge in that case, so judges every slave in his

similar case.

The man-stealer's complaint, that his "rights of property" in his stolen

fellow men are not adequately respected by the abolitionist, recalls to

my mind a very similar, and but little more ludicrous case of

conscientious regard for the "rights of property." A traveler was

plundered of the whole of his large sum of money. He pleaded

successfully with the robber for a little of it to enable him to reach

his home. But, putting his hand rather deeper into the bag of stolen

coins than comported with the views of the robber, he was arrested with

the cry, "Why, man, have you no conscience?" You will perhaps inquire,

whether abolitionists regard all the slaves of the South as stolen--as

well those born at the South, as those, who were confessedly stolen from

Africa? I answer, that we do--that every helpless new-born infant, on

which the chivalry of the South pounces, is, in our judgment, the owner

of itself--that we consider, that the crime of man-stealing which is so

terribly denounced in the Bible, does not consist, as is alleged, in

stealing a slave from a third person, but in stealing him from

himself--in depriving him of self control, and subjecting him, as

property, to the absolute control of another. Joseph's declaration, that

he "was stolen," favors this definition of man-stealing. Jewish

Commentators authorise it. Money, as it does not own itself, cannot be

stolen from itself But when we reflect, that man is the owner of

himself, it does not surprise us, that wresting away his inalienable

rights--his very manhood--should have been called man-stealing.

Whilst on this subject of "the rights of property," I am reminded of

your "third impediment to abolition." This "impediment" consists in the

fact of the great value of the southern slaves--which, according to your

estimation, is not less than "twelve hundred millions of dollars." I

will adopt your estimate, and thus spare myself from going into the

abhorrent calculation of the worth in dollars and cents of immortal

man--of the worth of "the image of God." I thank you for your virtual

admission, that this wealth is grasped with a tenacity proportioned to

its vast amount. Many of the wisest and best men of the North have been

led into the belief that the slaveholders of the South are too humane

and generous to hold their slaves fur the sake of gain. Even Dr.

Channing was a subject of this delusion; and it is well remembered, that

his too favorable opinions of his fellow men, made it difficult to

disabuse him of it. Northern Christians have been ready to believe, that

the South would give up her slaves, because of her conscious lack of

title to them. But in what age of the world have impenitent men failed

to cling as closely to that, which they had obtained by fraud, as to

their honest acquisitions? Indeed, it is demonstrable on philosophical

principles, that the more stupendous the fraud, the more tenacious is

the hold upon that, which is gotten by it. I trust, that your admission

to which I have just referred, will have no small effect to prevent the

Northern apologist for slavery from repeating the remark that the South

would gladly liberate her slaves, if she saw any prospect of bettering

the condition of the objects of her tender and solicitous benevolence. I

trust, too, that this admission will go far to prove the emptiness of

your declaration, that the abolitionists "have thrown back for half a

century the prospect of any species of emancipation of the African race,

gradual or immediate, in any of the states," and the emptiness of your

declaration, that, "prior to the agitation of this subject of abolition,

there was a progressive melioration in the condition of slaves

throughout all the slave states," and that "in some of them, schools of

instruction were opened," &c.; and I further trust, that this admission

will render harmless your intimation, that this "melioration" and these

"schools" were intended to prepare the slaves for freedom. After what

you have said of the great value of the slaves, and of the obstacle it

presents to emancipation, you will meet with little success in your

endeavors to convince the world, that the South was preparing to give up

the "twelve hundred millions of dollars," and that the naughty

abolitionists have postponed her gratification "for half a century." If

your views of the immense value of the slaves, and of the consequent

opposition to their freedom, be correct, then the hatred of the South

towards the abolitionists must be, not because their movements tend to

lengthen, but because they tend to shorten the period of her possession

of the "twelve hundred millions of dollars." May I ask you, whether,

whilst the South clings to these "twelve hundred millions of dollars,"

it is not somewhat hypocritical in her to be complaining, that the

abolitionists are fastening the "twelve hundred millions of dollars" to

her? And may I ask you, whether there is not a little inconsistency

between your own lamentations over this work of the abolitionists, and

your intimation that the South will never consent to give up her slaves,

until the impossibility, of paying her "twelve hundred millions of

dollars" for them, shall have been accomplished? Puerile and insulting

as is your proposition to the abolitionists to raise "twelve hundred

millions of dollars" for the purchase of the slaves, it is nevertheless

instructive; inasmuch as it shows, that, in your judgment, the South is

as little willing to give up her slaves, as the abolitionists are able

to pay "twelve hundred millions of dollars" for them; and how unable the

abolitionists are to pay a sum of money far greater than the whole

amount of money in the world, I need not explain.

But if the South must have "twelve hundred millions of dollars" to

induce her to liberate her present number of slaves, how can you expect

success fur your scheme of ridding her of several times the present

number, "in the progress of some one hundred and fifty, or two hundred

years?" Do you reply, that, although she must have "four hundred

dollars" a-piece for them, if she sell them to the abolitionists, she

is, nevertheless, willing to let the Colonization Society have them

without charge? There is abundant proof, that she is not. During the

twenty-two years of the existence of that Society, not so many slaves

have been emancipated and given to it for expatriation, as are born in a

single week. As a proof that the sympathies of the South are all with

the slaveholding and _real_ character of this two-faced institution, and

not at all with the abolition purposes and tendencies, which it

professes at the North, none of its Presidents, (and slave-holders only

are deemed worthy to preside over it,) has ever contributed from his

stock of slaves to swell those bands of emigrants, who, leaving our

shores in the character of "nuisances," are instantly transformed, to

use your own language, into "missionaries, carrying with them

credentials in the holy cause of Christianity, civilization, and free

institutions." But you were not in earnest, when you held up the idea in

your recent speech, that the rapidly multiplying millions of our colored

countrymen would be expatriated. What you said on that point was but to

indulge in declamation, and to round off a paragraph. It is in that part

of your speech where you say that "no practical scheme for their removal

or separation from us has yet been devised or proposed," that you

exhibit your real sentiments on this subject, and impliedly admit the

deceitfulness of the pretensions of the American Colonization Society.

Before closing my remarks on the topic of "the rights of property," I

will admit the truth of your charge, that _Abolitionists deny, that the

slaveholder is entitled to "compensation" for his slaves_.

Abolitionists do not know, why he, who steals men is, any more than he,

who steals horses, entitled to "compensation" for releasing his plunder.

They do not know, why he, who has exacted thirty years' unrequited toil

from the sinews of his poor oppressed brother, should be paid for

letting that poor oppressed brother labor for himself the remaining ten

or twenty years of his life. But, it is said, that the South bought her

slaves of the North, and that we of the North ought therefore to

compensate the South for liberating them. If there are individuals at

the North, who have sold slaves, I am free to admit, that they should

promptly surrender their ill-gotten gains; and no less promptly should

the inheritors of such gains surrender them. But, however this may be,

and whatever debt may be due on this score, from the North to the South,

certain it is, that on no principle of sound ethics, can the South hold

to the persons of the innocent slaves, as security for the payment of

the debt. Your state and mine, and I would it were so with all others,

no longer allow the imprisonment of the debtor as a means of coercing

payment from him. How much less, then, should they allow the creditor to

promote the security of his debt by imprisoning a third person--and one

who is wholly innocent of contracting the debt? But who is imprisoned,

if it be not he, who is shut up in "the house of bondage?" And who is

more entirely innocent than he, of the guilty transactions between his

seller and buyer?

Another of your charges against abolitionists is, _that, although

"utterly destitute of Constitutional or other rightful power--living in

totally distinct communities--as alien to the communities in which the

subject on which they would operate resides, so far as concerns

political power over that subject, as if they lived in Africa or Asia;

they nevertheless promulgate to the world their purpose to be, to

manumit forthwith, and without compensation, and without moral

preparation, three millions of negro slaves, under jurisdictions

altogether separated from those under which they live."_

I will group with this charge several others of the same class.

_1._ _Abolitionists neglect the fact, that "the slavery which exists

amongst us (southern people) is our affair--not theirs--and that they

have no more just concern with it, than they have with slavery as it

exists throughout the world."_

_2._ _They are regardless of the "deficiency of the powers of the

General Government, and of the acknowledged and incontestable powers of

the States."_

_3._ "Superficial men (meaning no doubt abolitionists) confound the

totally different cases together of the powers of the British Parliament

and those of the Congress of the United States in the matter of

slavery."_

Are these charges any thing more than the imagery of your own fancy, or

selections from the numberless slanders of a time-serving and corrupt

press? If they are founded on facts, it is in your power to state the

facts. For my own part, I am utterly ignorant of any, even the least,

justification for them. I am utterly ignorant that the abolitionists

hold any peculiar views in relation to the powers of the General or

State Governments. I do not believe, that one in a hundred of them

supposes, that slavery in the states is a legitimate subject of federal

legislation. I believe, that a majority of the intelligent men amongst

them accord much more to the claims of "state sovereignty," and approach

far more nearly to the character of "strict constructionists," than does

the distinguished statesman, who charges them with such latitudinarian

notions. There may be persons in our country, who believe that Congress

has the absolute power over all American slavery, which the British

Parliament had over all British slavery; and that Congress can abolish

slavery in the slave states, because Great Britain abolished it in her

West India Islands; but, I do not know them; and were I to look for

them, I certainly should not confine my search to abolitionists--for

abolitionists, as it is very natural they should be, are far better

instructed in the subject of slavery and its connections with civil

government, than are the community in general.

It is passing strange, that you, or any other man, who is not playing a

desperate game, should, in the face of the Constitution of the American

Anti-Slavery Society, which "admits, that each state, in which slavery

exists, has, by the Constitution of the United States, the exclusive

right to legislate in regard to the abolition of slavery in said state;"

make such charges, as you have done.

In an Address "To the Public," dated September 3, 1835, and subscribed

by the President, Treasurer, the three Secretaries, and the other five

members of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society,

we find the following language. 1. "We hold that Congress has no more

right to abolish slavery in the Southern states than in the French West

India Islands. Of course we desire no national legislation on the

subject. 2. We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the

legislatures of the several states in which it prevails, and that the

exercise of any other than moral influence to induce such abolition is

unconstitutional."

But what slavery is it that the abolitionists call on Congress to

abolish? Is it that in the slave states? No--it is that in the District

of Columbia and in the territories--none other. And is it not a fair

implication of their petitions, that this is the only slavery, which, in

the judgment of the petitioners, Congress has power to abolish?

Nevertheless, it is in the face of this implication, that you make your

array of charges.

Is it true, however, that the North has nothing more to do with slavery

in the states, than with slavery in a foreign country? Does it not

concern the North, that, whilst it takes many thousands of her voters to

be entitled to a representative in Congress, there are districts at the

South, where, by means of slavery, a few hundred voters enjoy this

benefit. Again, since the North regards herself as responsible in common

with the South, for the continuance of slavery in the District of

Columbia and in the Territories, and for the continuance of the

interstate traffic in human beings; and since she believes slavery in

the slave states to be the occasion of these crimes, and that they will

all of necessity immediately cease when slavery ceases--is it not right,

that she should feel that she has a "just concern with slavery?" Again,

is it nothing to the people of the North, that they may be called on, in

obedience to a requirement of the federal constitution, to shoulder

their muskets to quell "domestic violence?" But, who does not know, that

this requirement owes its existence solely to the apprehension of

servile insurrections?--or, in other words, to the existence of slavery

in the slave states? Again, when our guiltless brothers escape from the

southern prison-house, and come among us, we are under constitutional

obligation to deliver them up to their stony-hearted pursuers. And is

not slavery in the slave states, which is the occasion of our obligation

to commit this outrage on humanity and on the law of God, a matter of

"just concern to us?" To what too, but slavery, in the slave states, is

to be ascribed the long standing insult of our government towards that

of Hayti? To what but that, our national disadvantages and losses from

the want of diplomatic relations between the two governments? To what so

much, as to slavery in the slave states, are owing the corruption in our

national councils, and the worst of our legislation? But scarcely any

thing should go farther to inspire the North with a sense of her "just

concern" in the subject of slavery in the slave states, than the fact,

that slavery is the parent of the cruel and murderous prejudice, which

crushes and kills her colored people; and, that it is but too probable,

that the child will live as long as its parent. And has the North no

"just concern" with the slavery of the slave states, when there is so

much reason to fear that our whole blood-guilty nation is threatened

with God's destroying wrath on account of it?

There is another respect in which we of the North have a "just concern"

with the slavery of the slave states. We see nearly three millions of

our fellow men in those states robbed of body, mind, will, and

soul--denied marriage and the reading of the Bible, and marketed as

beasts. We see them in a word crushed in the iron folds of slavery. Our

nature--the laws written upon its very foundations--the Bible, with its

injunctions "to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them," and

to "open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are

appointed to destruction"--all require us to feel and to express what we

feel for these wretched millions. I said, that we see this misery. There

are many amongst us--they are anti-abolitionists--who do not see it; and

to them God says; "but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse."

I add, that we of the North must feel concerned about slavery in the

slave states, because of our obligation to pity the deluded,

hard-hearted, and bloody oppressors in those states: and to manifest our

love for them by rebuking their unsurpassed sin. And, notwithstanding

pro-slavery statesmen at the North, who wink at the iniquity of slave

holding, and pro-slavery clergymen at the North, who cry, "peace, peace"

to the slaveholder, and sew "pillows to armholes," tell us, that by our

honest and open rebuke of the slaveholder, we shall incur his enduring

hatred; we, nevertheless, believe that "open rebuke is better than

secret love," and that, in the end, we shall enjoy more Southern favor

than they, whose secret love is too prudent and spurious to deal

faithfully with the objects of its regard. "He that rebuketh a man,

afterward shall find more favor than he that flattereth with the

tongue." The command, "thou shall in any wise rebuke thy neighbor and

not suffer sin upon him," is one, which the abolitionist feels, that he

is bound to obey, as well in the case of the slaveholder, as in that of

any other sinner. And the question: "who is my neighbor," is so answered

by the Savior, as to show, that not he of our vicinity, nor even he of

our country, is alone our "neighbor."

The abolitionists of the North hold, that they have certainly as much

"just concern" with slavery in the slave states, as the temperance men

of the North have with "intemperance" at the South. And I would here

remark, that the weapons with which the abolitionists of the North

attack slavery in the slave states are the same, and no other than the

same, with those, which the North employs against the vice of

intemperance at the South. I add too, that were you to say, that

northern temperance men disregard "the deficiency of the powers of the

General Government," and also "the acknowledged and incontestable powers

of the states;" your charge would be as suitable as when it is applied

to northern abolitionists.

You ascribe to us "the purpose to manumit the three millions of negro

slaves." Here again you greatly misrepresent us, by holding us up as

employing coercive, instead of persuasive, means for the accomplishment

of our object. Our "purpose" is to persuade others to "manumit." The

slaveholders themselves are to "manumit." It is evident, that others

cannot "manumit" for them. If the North were endeavoring to persuade the

South to give up the growing of cotton, you would not say, it is the

purpose of the North to give it up. But, as well might you, as to say,

that it is the "purpose" of the abolitionists to "manumit." It is very

much by such misrepresentations, that the prejudices against

abolitionists are fed and sustained. How soon they would die of atrophy,

if they, who influence the public mind and mould public opinion, would

tell but the simple truth about abolitionists.

You say, that the abolitionists would have the slaves manumitted

"without compensation and without moral preparation." I have already

said enough on the point of "compensation." It is true, that they would

have them manumitted immediately:--for they believe slavery is sin, and

that therefore the slaveholder has no right to protract the bondage of

his slaves for a single year, or for a single day or hour;--not even,

were he to do so to afford them "a moral preparation" for freedom, or to

accomplish any other of the kindest and best purposes. They believe,

that the relation of slaveholder, as it essentially and indispensably

involves the reduction of men to chattelship, cannot, under any plea

whatever, be continued with innocence, for a single moment. If it can

be--if the plain laws of God, in respect to marriage and religious

instruction and many other blessings, of which chattelized man is

plundered, can be innocently violated--why credit any longer the

assertion of the Bible, that "sin is the transgression of the law?"--why

not get a new definition of sin?

Another reason with abolitionists in favor of immediate manumission, is,

that the slaves do not, as a body, acquire, whilst in slavery, any

"moral preparation" for freedom. To learn to swim we must be allowed the

use of water. To learn the exercises of a freeman, we must enjoy he

element of liberty. I will not say, that slaves cannot be taught, to

some extent, the duties of freemen. Some knowledge of the art of

swimming may be acquired before entering the water. I have not forgotten

what you affirm about the "progressive melioration in the condition of

slaves," and the opening of "schools of instruction" for them "prior to

the agitation of the subject of abolition;" nor, have I forgotten, that

I could not read it without feeling, that the creations of your fancy,

rather than the facts of history, supplied this information. Instances,

rare instances, of such "melioration" and of such "schools of

instruction," I doubt not there have been: but, I am confident, that the

Southern slaves have been sunk in depths of ignorance proportioned to

the profits of their labor. I have not the least belief, that the

proportion of readers amongst them is one half so great, as it was

before the invention of Whitney's cotton gin.

Permit me to call your attention to a few of the numberless evidences,

that slavery is a poor school for "moral preparation" for freedom. 1st.

Slavery turns its victims into thieves. "Who should be astonished," says

Thomas S. Clay, a very distinguished slaveholder of Georgia, "if the

negro takes from the field or corn-house the supplies necessary for his

craving appetite and then justifies his act, and denies that it is

stealing?" What debasement in the slave does the same gentleman's remedy

for theft indicate? "If," says he, "the negro is informed, that if he

does not steal, he shall receive rice as an allowance; and if he does

steal, he shall not, a motive is held out which will counteract the

temptation to pilfer." 2nd. Slavery reeks with licentiousness. Another

son of the South says, that the slaveholder's kitchen is a brothel, and

a southern village a Sodom. The elaborate defence of slavery by

Chancellor Harper of South Carolina justifies the heaviest accusations,

that have been brought against it on the score of licentiousness. How

could you blame us for deeply abhorring slavery, even were we to view it

in no other light than that in which the Dews and Harpers and its other

advocates present it? 3rd. Slavery puts the master in the place of God,

and the master's law in the place of God's law! "The negro," says Thomas

S. Clay, "is seldom taught to feel, that he is punished for breaking

God's law! He only knows his master as law-giver and executioner, and

the sole object held up to his view is to make him a more obedient and

profitable slave. He oftener hears that he shall be punished if he

steals, than if he breaks the Sabbath or swears; and thus he sees the

very threatenings of God brought to bear on his master's interests. It

is very manifest to him, that his own good is very far from forming the

primary reason for his chastisement: his master's interests are to be

secured at all events;--God's claims are secondary, or enforced merely

for the purpose of advancing those of his owner. His own benefit is the

residuum after this double distillation of moral motive--a mere

accident." 4th. The laws of nearly all the slave-states forbid the

teaching of the slaves to read. The abundant declarations, that those

laws are without exception, a consequence of the present agitation of

the question of slavery are glaringly false. Many of these laws were

enacted long before this agitation; and some of them long before you and

I were born. Say the three hundred and fifty-three gentlemen of the

District of Abbeville and Edgefield in South Carolina, who, the last

year, broke up a system of oral religious instruction, which the

Methodist Conference of that State had established amongst their slaves:

"Intelligence and slavery have no affinity for each other." And when

those same gentlemen declare, that "verbal and lecturing instruction

will increase a desire with the black population to learn"--that "the

progress and diffusion of knowledge will be a consequence"--and that "a

progressive system of improvement will be introduced, that will

ultimately revolutionize our civil institutions," they admit, that the

prohibition of "intelligence" to the slaves is the settled and necessary

policy of slavery, and not, as you would have us believe, a temporary

expedient occasioned by the present "agitation of this subject of

abolition." 5th. Slavery--the system, which forbids marriage and the

reading of the Bible--does of necessity turn its subjects into heathens.

A Report of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, made five years

ago, says: "Who could credit it, that in these years of revival and

benevolent effort--that, in this Christian Republic, there are over two

millions of human beings in the condition of heathen, and in some

respects in a worse condition? They may be justly considered the heathen

of this Christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in any

country in the world." I will finish what I have to say on this point of

"moral preparation" for freedom, with the remark, that the history of

slavery in no country warrants your implication, that slaves acquire

such "moral preparation." The British Parliament substituted an

apprenticeship for slavery with the express design, that it should

afford a "moral preparation" for freedom. And yet, if you will read the

reports of late visitors to the British West Indies, you will find, that

the planters admit, that they made no use of the advantages of the

apprenticeship to prepare their servants for liberty. Their own

gain--not the slaves'--was their ruling motive, during the term of the

apprenticeship, as well as preceding it.

Another of your charges is, _that the abolitionists "have increased the

rigors of legislation against slaves in most if not all the

slave States_."

And suppose, that our principles and measures have occasioned this

evil--are they therefore wrong?--and are we, therefore, involved in sin?

The principles and measures of Moses and Aaron were the occasion of a

similar evil. Does it follow, that those principles and measures were

wrong, and that Moses and Aaron were responsible for the sin of

Pharaoh's increased oppressiveness? The truth, which Jesus Christ

preached on the earth, is emphatically peace: but its power on the

depravity of the human heart made it the occasion of division and

violence. That depravity was the guilty cause of the division and

violence. The truth was but the innocent occasion of them. To make it

responsible for the effects of that depravity would be as unreasonable,

as it is to make the holy principles of the anti-slavery cause

responsible for the wickedness which they occasion: and to make the

great Preacher Himself responsible for the division and violence, would

be but to carry out the absurdity, of which the public are guilty, in

holding abolitionists responsible for the mobs, which are got up against

them. These mobs, by the way, are called "abolition mobs." A similar

misnomer would pronounce the mob, that should tear down your house and

shoot your wife, "Henry Clay's mob." Harriet Martineau, in stating the

fact, that the mobs of 1834, in the city of New York, were set down to

the wrong account, says, that the abolitionists were told, that "they

had no business to scare the city with the sight of their burning

property and demolished churches!"

No doubt the light of truth, which the abolitionists are pouring into

the dark den of slavery, greatly excites the monster's wrath: and it may

be, that he vents a measure of it on the helpless and innocent victims

within his grasp. Be it so;--it is nevertheless, not the Ithuriel spear

of truth, that is to be held guilty of the harm:--it is the monster's

own depravity, which cannot

"endure

Touch of celestial temper, but returns

Of force to its own likeness."[A]

[Footnote A: This is a reference to a passage in Milton's Paradise Lost,

in which Satan in disguise is touched by the spear of the archangel

Ithuriel and is thereby forced to return to his own form.]

I am, however, far from believing, that the treatment of the slaves is

rendered any more rigorous and cruel by the agitation of the subject of

slavery. I am very far from believing, that it is any harsher now than

it was before the organization of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

Fugitive slaves tell us, it is not: and, inasmuch as the slaveholders

are, and, by both words and actions, abundantly show, that they feel

that they are, arraigned by the abolitionists before the bar of the

civilized world, to answer to the charges of perpetrating cruelties on

their slaves, it would, unless indeed, they are of the number of those

"whose glory is in their shame," be most unphilosophical to conclude,

that they are multiplying proofs of the truth of those charges, more

rapidly than at any former stage of their barbarities. That slaveholders

are not insensible to public opinion and to the value of a good

character was strikingly exhibited by Mr. Calhoun, in his place in the

Senate of the United States, when he followed his frank disclaimer of

all suspicion, that the abolitionists are meditating a war against the

slaveholder's person, with remarks evincive of his sensitiveness under

the war, which they are waging against the slaveholder's character.

A fact occurs to me, which goes to show, that the slaveholders feel

themselves to be put upon their good behavior by the abolitionists.

Although slaves are murdered every day at the South, yet never, until

very recently, if at all, has the case occurred, in which a white man

has been executed at the South for the murder of a slave. A few months

ago, the Southern newspapers brought us copies of the document,

containing the refusal of Governor Butler of South Carolina to pardon a

man, who had been convicted of the murder of a slave. This document

dwells on the protection due to the slave; and, if I fully recollect its

character, an abolitionist himself could hardly have prepared a more

appropriate paper for the occasion. Whence such a document--whence, in

the editorial captions to this document, the exultation over its

triumphant refutations of the slanders of the abolitionists against the

South--but, that Governor Butler feels--but, that the writes of those

captions feel--that the abolitionists have put the South upon her

good behavior.

Another of your charges is, _that the abolitionists oppose "the project

of colonisation."_

Having, under another head, made some remarks on this "project," I will

only add, that we must oppose the American Colonization Society, because

it denies the sinfulness of slavery, and the duty of immediate,

unqualified emancipation. Its avowed doctrine is, that, unless

emancipation he accompanied by expatriation, perpetual slavery is to be

preferred to it. Not to oppose that Society, would be the guiltiest

treachery to our holy religion, which requires immediate and

unconditional repentance of sin. Not to oppose it, would be to uphold

slavery. Not to oppose it, would be to abandon the Anti-Slavery Society.

Do you ask, why, if this be the character of the American Colonization

Society, many, who are now abolitionists, continued in it so long? I

answer for myself, that, until near the period of my withdrawal from it,

I had very inadequate conceptions of the wickedness, both of that

Society, and of slavery. For having felt the unequalled sin of slavery

no more deeply--for feeling it now no more deeply, I confess myself to

be altogether without excuse. The great criminality of my long

continuance in the Colonization Society is perhaps somewhat palliated by

the fact, that the strongest proofs of the wicked character and

tendencies of the Society were not exhibited, until it spread out its

wing over slavery to shelter the monster from the earnest and effective

blows of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

Another of your charges is, that the abolitionists, in declaring "that

their object is not to stimulate the action of the General Government,

_but to operate upon the States themselves, in which the institution of

domestic slavery exists," are evidently insincere, since the "abolition

societies and movements are all confined to the free Slates_."

I readily admit, that our object is the abolition of slavery, as well in

the slave States, as in other portions of the Nation, where it exists.

But, does it follow, because only an insignificant share of our

"abolition societies and movements" is in those States, that we

therefore depend for the abolition of slavery in them on the General

Government, rather than on moral influence? I need not repeat, that the

charge of our looking to the General Government for such abolition is

refuted by the language of the Constitution of the Anti-Slavery Society.

You may, however, ask--"why, if you do not look to the General

Government for it, is not the great proportion of your means of moral

influence in the slave States, where is the great body of the slaves?" I

answer that, in the first place, the South does not permit us to have

them there; and that, in the words of one of your fellow Senators, and

in the very similar words of another--both uttered on the floor of the

Senate--"if the abolitionists come to the South, the South will hang

them." Pardon the remark, that it seems very disingenuous in you to draw

conclusions unfavorable to the sincerity of the abolitionists from

premises so notoriously false, as are those which imply, that it is

entirely at their own option, whether the abolitionists shall have their

"societies and movements" in the free or slave States. I continue to

answer your question, by saying, in the second place, that, had the

abolitionists full liberty to multiply their "societies and movements"

in the slave States, they would probably think it best to have the great

proportion of them yet awhile in the free States. To rectify public

opinion on the subject of slavery is a leading object with

abolitionists. This object is already realized to the extent of a

thorough anti-slavery sentiment in Great Britain, as poor Andrew

Stevenson, for whom you apologise, can testify. Indeed, the great power

and pressure of that sentiment are the only apology left to this

disgraced and miserable man for uttering a bald falsehood in vindication

of Virginia morals. He above all other men, must feel the truth of the

distinguished Thomas Fowel Buxton's declaration, that "England is turned

into one great Anti-Slavery Society." Now, Sir, it is such a change, as

abolitionists have been the instruments of producing in Great Britain,

that we hope to see produced in the free States. We hope to see public

sentiment in these States so altered, that such of their laws, as uphold

and countenance slavery, will be repealed--so altered, that the present

brutal treatment of the colored population in them will give place to a

treatment dictated by justice, humanity, and brotherly and Christian

love;--so altered, that there will be thousands, where now there are not

hundreds, to class the products of slave labor with other stolen goods,

and to refuse to eat and to wear that, which is wet with the tears, and

red with the blood of "the poor innocents," whose bondage is continued,

because men are more concerned to buy what is cheap, than what is

honestly acquired;--so altered, that our Missionary and other religious

Societies will remember, that God says: "I hate robbery for

burnt-offering," and will forbear to send their agents after that

plunder, which, as it is obtained at the sacrifice of the body and soul

of the plundered, is infinitely more unfit, than the products of

ordinary theft, to come into the Lord's treasury. And, when the warm

desires of our hearts, on these points, shall be realized, the fifty

thousand Southerners, who annually visit the North, for purposes of

business and pleasure, will not all return to their homes,

self-complacent and exulting, as now, when they carry with them the

suffrages of the North in favor of slavery: but numbers of them will

return to pursue the thoughts inspired by their travels amongst the

enemies of oppression--and, in the sequel, they will let their

"oppressed go free."

It were almost as easy for the sun to call up vegetation by the side of

an iceberg, as for the abolitionists to move the South extensively,

whilst their influence is counteracted by a pro-slavery spirit at the

North. How vain would be the attempt to reform the drunkards of your

town of Lexington, whilst the sober in it continue to drink intoxicating

liquors! The first step in the reformation is to induce the sober to

change their habits, and create that total abstinence-atmosphere, in the

breathing of which, the drunkard lives,--and, for the want of which, he

dies. The first step, in the merciful work of delivering the slaveholder

from his sin, is similar. It is to bring him under the influence of a

corrected public opinion--of an anti-slavery sentiment:--and they, who

are to be depended on to contribute to this public opinion--to make up

this anti-slavery sentiment--are those, who are not bound up in the iron

habits, and blinded by the mighty interests of the slaveholder. To

depend on slaveholders to give the lead to public opinion in the

anti-slavery enterprise, would be no less absurd, than to begin the

temperance reformation with drunkards, and to look to them to produce

the influences, which are indispensable to their own redemption.

You say of the abolitionists, _that "they are in favor of

amalgamation."_

The Anti-Slavery Society is, as its name imports, a society to oppose

slavery--not to "make matches." Whether abolitionists are inclined to

amalgamation more than anti-abolitionists are, I will not here take upon

myself to decide. So far, as you and I may be regarded as

representatives of these two parties, and so far as our marriages argue

our tastes in this matter, the abolitionists and anti-abolitionists may

be set down, as equally disposed to couple white with white and black

with black--for our wives, as you are aware, are both white. I will here

mention, as it may further argue the similarity in the matrimonial

tastes of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, the fact so grateful to

us in the days, when we were "workers together" in promoting the "scheme

of Colonization," that our wives are natives of the same town.

I have a somewhat extensive acquaintance at the North; and I can truly

say, that I do not know a white abolitionist, who is the reputed father

of a colored child. At the South there are several hundred thousand

persons, whose yellow skins testify, that the white man's blood courses

through their veins. Whether the honorable portion of their parentage is

to be ascribed exclusively to the few abolitionists scattered over the

South--and who, under such supposition, must, indeed, be prodigies of

industry and prolificness--or whether anti-abolitionists there have,

notwithstanding all their pious horror of "amalgamation," been

contributing to it, you can better judge than myself.

That slavery is a great amalgamator, no one acquainted with the blended

colors of the South will, for a moment, deny. But, that an increasing

amalgamation would attend the liberation of the slaves, is quite

improbable, when we reflect, that the extensive occasions of the present

mixture are the extreme debasement of the blacks and their entire

subjection to the will of the whites; and that even should the

debasement continue under a state of freedom, the subjection would not.

It is true, that the colored population of our country might in a state

of freedom, attain to an equality with the whites; and that a

multiplication of instances of matrimonial union between the two races

might be a consequence of this equality: but, beside, that this would be

a lawful and sinless union, instead of the adulterous and wicked one,

which is the fruit of slavery, would not the improved condition of our

down-trodden brethren be a blessing infinitely overbalancing all the

violations of our taste, which it might occasion? I say violations of

_our_ taste;--for we must bear in mind that, offensive as the

intermixture of different races may be to us, the country or age, which

practices it, has no sympathy whatever with our feeling on this point.

How strongly and painfully it argues the immorality and irreligion of

the American people, that they should look so complacently on the

"amalgamation," which tramples the seventh commandment under foot, and

yet be so offended at that, which has the sanction of lawful wedlock!

When the Vice President of this Nation was in nomination for his present

office, it was objected to him, that he had a family of colored

children. The defence, set up by his partisans, was, that, although he

had such a family, he nevertheless was not married to their mother! The

defence was successful; and the charge lost all its odiousness; and the

Vice President's popularity was retrieved, when, it turned out, that he

was only the adulterous, and not the married father of his children!

I am aware, that many take the ground, that we must keep the slaves in

slavery to prevent the matrimonial "amalgamation," which, they

apprehend, would be a fruit of freedom. But, however great a good,

abolitionists might deem the separation of the white and black races,

and however deeply they might be impressed with the power of slavery to

promote this separation, they nevertheless, dare not "do evil, that good

may come:"--they dare not seek to promote this separation, at the

fearful expense of upholding, or in anywise, countenancing a

humanity-crushing and God-defying system of oppression.

Another charge against the abolitionists is implied in the inquiry you

make, _whether since they do not "furnish in their own families or

persons examples of intermarriage, they intend to contaminate the

industrious and laborious classes of society of the North by a revolting

admixture of the black element."_

This inquiry shows how difficult it is for southern minds, accustomed as

they have ever been to identify labor with slavery, to conceive the true

character and position of such "classes" at the North; and also how

ignorant they are of the composition of our Anti-Slavery societies. To

correct your misapprehensions on these points, I will briefly say, in

the first place, that the laborers of the North are freemen and not

slaves;--that they marry whom they please, and are neither paired nor

unpaired to suit the interests of the breeder, or seller, or buyer, of

human stock:--and, in the second place, that the abolitionists, instead

of being a body of persons distinct from "the industrious and laborious

classes," do, more than nineteen twentieths of them, belong to those

"classes." You have fallen into great error in supposing, that

_abolitionists_ generally belong to the wealthy and aristocratic

classes. This, to a great extent, is true of _anti-abolitionists_. Have

you never heard the boast, that there have been anti-abolition mobs,

which consisted of "gentlemen of property and standing?"

You charge upon abolitionists "_the purpose to create a pinching

competition between black labor and white labor;" and add, that "on the

supposition of abolition the black class, migrating into the free

states, would enter into competition with the white class, diminishing

the wages of their labor_."

In making this charge, as well as in making that which immediately

precedes it, you have fallen into the error, that abolitionists do not

belong to "the industrious and laborious classes." In point of fact, the

abolitionists belong so generally to these classes, that if your charge

be true, they must have the strange "purpose" of "pinching" themselves.

Whether "the black class" would, or would not migrate, I am much more

pleased to have you say what you do on this point, though it be at the

expense of your consistency, than to have you say, as you do in another

part of your speech, that abolition "would end in the extermination or

subjugation of the one race or the other."

It appears to me highly improbable, that emancipation would be followed

by the migration of the emancipated. Emancipation, which has already

added fifty per cent. to the value of estates in the British West

Indies, would immediately add as much to the value of the soil of the

South. Much more of it would be brought into use; and, notwithstanding

the undoubted truth, that the freedman performs twice as much labor as

when a slave, the South would require, instead of any diminution, a very

great increase of the number of her laborers. The laboring population of

the British West India Islands, is one-third as large as that of the

southern states; and yet, since these islands have got rid of slavery,

and have entered on their career of enterprize and industry, they find

this population, great as it is, insufficient to meet the increased

demand for labor. As you are aware, they are already inviting laborers

of this and other countries to supply the deficiency. But what is the

amount of cultivable land in those islands, compared with that in all

the southern states? It is not so extensive as the like land in your

single state.

But you may suppose, that, in the event of the emancipation of her

slaves, the South would prefer white laborers. I know not why she

should. Such are, for the most part, unaccustomed to her kinds of labor,

and they would exact, because they would need, far greater wages than

those, who had never been indulged beyond the gratification of their

simplest wants. There is another point of view, in which it is still

more improbable, that the black laborers of the South would be displaced

by immigrations of white laborers. The proverbial attachment of the

slave to his "bornin-ground," (the place of his nativity,) would greatly

contribute to his contentment with low wages, at the hands of his old

master. As an evidence of the strong attachment of our southern colored

brethren to their birth-places, I remark, that, whilst the free colored

population of the free states increased from 1820 to 1830 but nineteen

per cent., the like population in the slave states increased, in the

same period, thirty five per cent;--and this, too, notwithstanding the

operation of those oppressive and cruel laws, whose enactment was

dictated by the settled policy of expelling the free blacks from

the South.

That, in the event of the abolition of southern slavery, the emancipated

slaves would migrate to the North, rather than elsewhere, is very

improbable. Whilst our climate would be unfriendly to them, and whilst

they would be strangers to our modes of agriculture, the sugar and

cotton fields of Texas, the West Indies, and other portions of the

earth, would invite them to congenial employments beneath congenial

skies. That, in case southern slavery is abolished, the colored

population of the North would be drawn off to unite with their race at

the South, is, for reasons too obvious to mention, far more probable

than the reverse.

It will be difficult for you to persuade the North, that she would

suffer in a pecuniary point of view by the extirpation of slavery. The

consumption of the laborers at the South would keep pace with the

improvement and elevation of their condition, and would very soon impart

a powerful impulse to many branches of Northern industry.

Another of your charges is in the following words: "The subject of

slavery within the District of Florida," and that "of the right of

Congress to prohibit the removal of slaves from one state to another,"

are, with abolitionists, "but so many masked batteries, concealing the

real and ultimate point of attack. That point of attack is the

institution of domestic slavery, as it exists in those states."

If you mean by this charge, that abolitionists think that the abolition

of slavery in the District of Columbia and in Florida, and the

suppression of the interstate traffic in human beings are, in

themselves, of but little moment, you mistake. If you mean, that they

think them of less importance than the abolition of slavery in the slave

states, you are right; and if you further mean, that they prize those

objects more highly, and pursue them more zealously, because they think,

that success in them will set in motion very powerful, if not indeed

resistless influences against slavery in the slave states, you are right

in this also. I am aware, that the latter concession brings

abolitionists under the condemnation of that celebrated book, written by

a _modern_ limiter of "human responsibility"--not by the _ancient_ one,

who exclaimed, "Am I my brother's keeper?" In that book, to which, by

the way, the infamous Atherton Resolutions are indebted for their

keynote, and grand pervading idea, we find the doctrine, that even if it

were the duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of

Columbia, the North nevertheless should not seek for such abolition,

unless the object of it be "ultimate within itself." If it be "for the

sake of something ulterior" also--if for the sake of inducing the

slaveholders of the slave states to emancipate their slaves--then we

should not seek for it. Let us try this doctrine in another

application--in one, where its distinguished author will not feel so

much delicacy, and so much fear of giving offence. His reason why we

should not go for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,

unless our object in it be "ultimate within itself," and unaccompanied

by the object of producing an influence against slavery in the slave

states, is, that the Federal Constitution has left the matter of slavery

in the slave states to those states themselves. But will President

Wayland say, that it has done so to any greater extent, than it has left

the matter of gambling-houses and brothels in those states to those

states themselves? He will not, if he consider the subject:--though, I

doubt not, that when he wrote his bad book, he was under the prevailing

error, that the Federal Constitution tied up the hands and limited the

power of the American people in respect to slavery, more than to any

other vice.

But to the other application. We will suppose, that Great Britain has

put down the gambling-houses and brothels in her wide dominions--that

Mexico has done likewise; and that the George Thompsons, and Charles

Stuarts, and other men of God, have come from England to beseech the

people of the northern states to do likewise within their respective

jurisdictions;--and we will further suppose, that those foreign

missionaries, knowing the obstinate and infatuated attachment of the

people of the southern states to their gambling-houses and brothels,

should attempt, and successfully, too, to blend with the motive of the

people of the northern states to get rid of their own gambling houses

and brothels, the motive of influencing the people of the southern

states to get rid of theirs--what, we ask, would this eminent divine

advise in such a case? Would he have the people of the northern states

go on in their good work, and rejoice in the prospect, not only that

these polluting and ruinous establishments would soon cease to exist

within all their limits, but that the influence of their overthrow would

be fatal to the like establishments in the southern states? To be

consistent with himself--with the doctrine in question--he must reply in

the negative. To be consistent with himself, he must advise the people

of the northern states to let their own gambling-houses and brothels

stand, until they can make the object of their abolishment "ultimate

within itself;"--until they can expel from their hearts the cherished

hope, that the purification of their own states of these haunts of

wickedness would exert an influence to induce the people of their sister

states to enter upon a similar work of purity and righteousness. But I

trust, that President Wayland would not desire to be consistent with

himself on this point. I trust that he would have the magnanimity to

throw away this perhaps most pernicious doctrine of a pernicious book,

which every reader of it must see was written to flatter and please the

slaveholder and arrest the progress of the anti-slavery cause. How great

the sin of seizing on this very time, when special efforts are being

made to enlist the world's sympathies in behalf of the millions of our

robbed, outraged, crushed countrymen--how great the sin, of seizing on

such a time to attempt to neutralize those efforts, by ascribing to the

oppressors of these millions a characteristic "nobleness"--"enthusiastic

attachment to personal right"--"disinterestedness which has always

marked the southern character"--and a superiority to all others "in

making any sacrifice for the public good!" It is this sin--this heinous

sin--of which President Wayland has to repent. If he pities the slave,

it is because he knows, that the qualities, which he ascribes to the

slaveholder, do not, in fact, belong to him. On the other hand, if he

believes the slaveholder to be, what he represents him to be, he does

not--in the very nature of things, he cannot--pity the slave. He must

rather rejoice, that the slave has fallen into the hands of one, who,

though he has the name, cannot have the heart, and cannot continue in

the relation of a slaveholder. If John Hook, for having mingled his

discordant and selfish cries with the acclamations of victory and then

general joy, deserved Patrick Henry's memorable rebuke, what does he not

deserve, who finds it in his heart to arrest the swelling tide of pity

for the oppressed by praises of the oppressor, and to drown the public

lament over the slave's subjection to absolute power, in the

congratulation, that the slaveholder who exercises that power, is a

being of characteristic "nobleness," "disinterestedness," and

"sacrifice" of self-interest?

President Wayland may perhaps say, that the moral influence, which he is

unwilling to have exerted over the slaveholder, is not that, which is

simply persuasive, but that, which is constraining--not that, which is

simply inducing, but that, which is compelling. I cheerfully admit, that

it is infinitely better to induce men to do right from their own

approbation of the right, than it is to shame them, or in any other wise

constrain them, to do so; but I can never admit, that I am not at

liberty to effect the release of my colored brother from the fangs of

his murderous oppressor, when I can do so by bringing public opinion to

bear upon that oppressor, and to fill him with uneasiness and shame.

I have not, overlooked the distinction taken by the reverend gentleman;

though, I confess that, to a mind no less obtuse than my own, it is very

little better than "a distinction without a difference." Whilst he

denies, that I can, as an American citizen, rightfully labor for the

abolition of slavery in the slave states, or even in the District of

Columbia; he would perhaps, admit that, as a man, I might do so. But am

I not interested, as an American citizen, to have every part of my

country cleared of vice, and of whatever perils its free institutions?

Am I not interested, as such, to promote the overthrow of gambling and

rum drinking establishments in South Carolina?--but why any more than to

promote the overthrow of slavery? In fine, am I not interested, as an

American citizen, to have my country, and my whole country, "right in

the sight of God?" If not, I had better not be an American citizen.

I say no more on the subject of the sophistries of President Wayland's

book on, "The limitations of human responsibility;" nor would I have

said what I have, were it not that it is in reply to the like

sophistries couched in that objection of yours, which I have now been

considering.

Another of your charges against the abolitionists is, _that they seek to

"stimulate the rage of the people of the free states against the people

of the slave states. Advertisements of fugitive slaves and of slaves to

be sold are carefully collected and blazoned forth to infuse a spirit of

detestation and hatred against one entire and the largest section of

the Union."_

The slaveholders of the South represent slavery as a heaven-born

institution--themselves as patriarchs and patterns of benevolence--and

their slaves, as their tenderly treated and happy dependents. The

abolitionists, on the contrary, think that slavery is from hell--that

slaveholders are the worst of robbers--and that their slaves are the

wretched victims of unsurpassed cruelties. Now, how do abolitionists

propose to settle the points at issue?--by fanciful pictures of the

abominations of slavery to countervail the like pictures of its

blessedness?--by mere assertions against slavery, to balance mere

assertions in its favor? No--but by the perfectly reasonable and fair

means of examining slavery in the light of its own code--of judging of

the character of the slaveholder in the light of his own conduct--and of

arguing the condition of the slave from unequivocal evidences of the

light in which the slave himself views it. To this end we publish

extracts from the southern slave code, which go to show that slavery

subjects its victims to the absolute control of their erring fellow

men--that it withholds from them marriage and the Bible--that it classes

them with brutes and things--and annihilates the distinctions between

mind and matter. To this end we republish in part, or entirely,

pamphlets and books, in which southern men exhibit, with their own pens,

some of the horrid features of slavery. To this end we also republish

such advertisements as you refer to--advertisements in which immortal

beings, made in the image of God, and redeemed by a Savior's blood, and

breathed upon by the Holy Spirit, are offered to be sold, at public

auction, or sheriff's sale, in connection with cows, and horses, and

ploughs: and, sometimes we call special attention to the common fact,

that the husband and wife, the parent and infant child, are advertised

to be sold together or separately, as shall best suit purchasers. It is

to this end also, that we often republish specimens of the other class

of advertisements to which you refer. Some of the advertisements of this

class identify the fugitive slave by the scars, which the whip, or the

manacles and fetters, or the rifle had made on his person. Some of them

offer a reward for his head!--and it is to this same end, that we often

refer to the ten thousands, who have fled from southern slavery, and the

fifty fold that number, who have unsuccessfully attempted to fly from

it. How unutterable must be the horrors of the southern prison house,

and how strong and undying the inherent love of liberty to induce these

wretched fellow beings to brave the perils which cluster so thickly and

frightfully around their attempted escape? That love is indeed

_undying_. The three hundred and fifty-three South Carolina gentlemen,

to whom I have referred, admit, that even "the old negro man, whose head

is white with age, raises his thoughts to look through the vista which

will terminate his bondage."

I put it to your candor--can you object to the reasonableness and

fairness of these modes, which abolitionists have adopted for

establishing the truth on the points at issue between themselves and

slaveholders? But, you may say that our republication of your own

representations of slavery proceeds from unkind motives, and serves to

stir up the "hatred," and "rage of the people of the free states against

the people of the slave states." If such be an effect of the

republication, although not at all responsible for it, we deeply regret

it; and, as to our motives, we can only meet the affirmation of their

unkindness with a simple denial. Were we, however, to admit the

unkindness of our motives, and that we do not always adhere to the

apostolic motto, of "speaking the truth in love"--would the admission

change the features of slavery, or make it any the less a system of

pollution and blood? Is the accused any the less a murderer, because of

the improper motives with which his accuser brings forward the

conclusive proof of his blood-guiltiness?

We often see, in the speeches and writings of the South, that

slaveholders claim as absolute and as rightful a property in their

slaves, as in their cattle. Whence then their sensitiveness under our

republication of the advertisements, is which they offer to sell their

human stock? If the south will republish the advertisements of our

property, we will only not be displeased, but will thank her; and any

rebukes she may see fit to pour upon us, for offering particular kinds

of property, will be very patiently borne, in view of the benefit we

shall reap from her copies of our advertisements.

A further charge in your speech is, _that the abolitionists pursue their

object "reckless of all consequences, however calamitous they may be;"

that they have no horror of a "civil war," or "a dissolution of the

Union;" that theirs is "a bloody road," and "their purpose is abolition,

universal abolition, peaceably if it can, forcibly if it must."_

It is true that, the abolitionists pursue their object, undisturbed by

apprehensions of consequences; but it is not true, that they pursue it

"reckless of consequences." We believe that they, who unflinchingly

press the claims of God's truth, deserve to be considered as far less

"reckless of consequences," than they, who, suffering themselves to be

thrown into a panic by apprehensions of some mischievous results, local

or general, immediate or remote, are guilty of compromising the truth,

and substituting corrupt expediency for it. We believe that the

consequences of obeying the truth and following God are good--only

good--and that too, not only in eternity, but in time also. We believe,

that had the confidently anticipated deluge of blood followed the

abolition of slavery in the British West Indies, the calamity would have

been the consequence, not of abolition, but of resistance to it. The

insanity, which has been known to follow the exhibition of the claims of

Christianity, is to be charged on the refusal to fall in with those

claims, and not on our holy religion.

But, notwithstanding, we deem it our duty and privilege to confine

ourselves to the word of the Lord, and to make that word suffice to

prevent all fears of consequences; we, nevertheless, employ additional

means to dispel the alarms of those, who insist on walking "by sight;"

and, in thus accommodating ourselves to their want of faith, we are

justified by the example of Him, who, though he said, "blessed are they

that have not seen and yet have believed," nevertheless permitted an

unbelieving disciple, both to see and to touch the prints of the nails

and the spear. When dealing with such unbelievers, we do not confine

ourselves to the "thus saith the Lord"--to the Divine command, to "let

the oppressed go free and break every yoke"--to the fact, that God is an

abolitionist: but we also show how contrary to all sound philosophy is

the fear, that the slave, on whom have been heaped all imaginable

outrages, will, when those outrages are exchanged for justice and mercy,

turn and rend his penitent master. When dealing with such unbelievers,

we advert to the fact, that the insurrections at the South have been the

work of slaves--not one of them of persons discharged from slavery: we

show how happy were the fruits of emancipation in St. Domingo: and that

the "horrors of St. Domingo," by the parading of which so many have been

deterred from espousing our righteous cause, were the result of the

attempt to re-establish slavery. When dealing with them, we ask

attention to the present peaceful, prosperous, and happy condition of

the British West India Islands, which so triumphantly falsifies the

predictions, that bankruptcy, violence, bloodshed, and utter ruin would

follow the liberation of their slaves. We point these fearful and

unbelieving ones to the fact of the very favorable influence of the

abolition of slavery on the price of real estate in those islands; to

that of the present rapid multiplication of schools and churches in

them; to the fact, that since the abolition of slavery, on the first day

of August 1834, not a white man in all those islands has been struck

down by the arm of a colored man; and then we ask them whether in view

of such facts, they are not prepared to believe, that God connects

safety with obedience, and that it is best to "trust in the Lord with

all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding."

On the subject of "a dissolution of the Union," I have only to say,

that, on the one hand, there is nothing in my judgment, which, under

God, would tend so much to preserve our Republic, as the carrying out

into all our social, political and religious institutions of its great

foundation principle, that "all men are created equal;" and that, on the

other hand, the flagrant violation of that principle in the system of

slavery, is doing more than all thing, else to hasten the destruction of

the Republic. I am aware, that one of the doctrines of the South is,

that "slavery is the corner-stone of the republican edifice." But, if it

be true, that our political institutions harmonize with, and are

sustained by slavery, then the sooner we exchange them for others the

better. I am aware, that it is said, both at the North and at the South,

that it is essential to the preservation of the Union. But, greatly as I

love the Union, and much as I would sacrifice for its righteous

continuance, I cannot hesitate to say, that if slavery be an

indispensable cement, the sooner it is dissolved the better.

I am not displeased, that you call ours "a bloody road"--for this

language does not necessarily implicate our motives; but I am greatly

surprised that you charge upon us the wicked and murderous "purpose" of

a forcible abolition. In reply to this imputation, I need only refer you

to the Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society--to the

Declaration of the Convention which framed it--and to our characters,

for pledges, that we design no force, and are not likely to stain our

souls with the crime of murder. That Constitution says: "This society

will never, in any way, countenance the oppressed in vindicating their

rights by resorting to physical force." The Declaration says "Our

principles forbid the doing of evil that good may come, and lead us to

reject, and to entreat the oppressed to reject, the use of all carnal

weapons for deliverance from bondage. Our measures shall be such only,

as the opposition of moral purity to moral corruption--the destruction

of error by the potency of truth--the overthrow of prejudice by the

power of love--and the abolition of slavery by the spirit of

repentance." As to our characters they are before the world. You would

probably look in vain through our ranks for a horse-racer, a gambler, a

profane person, a rum-drinker, or a duellist. More than nine-tenths of

us deny the rightfulness of offensive, and a large majority, even that

of defensive national wars. A still larger majority believe, that deadly

weapons should not be used in cases of individual strife. And, if you

should ask, "where in the free States are the increasing numbers of men

and women, who believe, that the religion of the unresisting 'Lamb of

God' forbids recourse to such weapons, in all circumstances, either by

nations or individuals?"--the answer is, "to a man, to a woman, in the

ranks of the abolitionists." You and others will judge for yourselves,

how probable it is, that the persons, whom I have described, will prove

worthy of being held up as murderers.

The last of your charges against the abolitionists, which I shall

examine, is the following: _Having begun "their operations by professing

to employ only persuasive means," they "have ceased to employ the

instruments of reason and persuasion," and "they now propose to

substitute the powers of the ballot box;" and "the inevitable tendency

of their proceedings is if these should be found insufficient, to invoke

finally the more potent powers of the bayonet."_

If the slaveholders would but let us draw on them for the six or eight

thousand dollars, which we expend monthly to sustain our presses and

lecturers, they would then know, from an experience too painful to be

forgotten, how truthless is your declaration, that we "have ceased to

employ the instruments of reason and persuasion."

You and your friends, at first, employed "persuasive means" against "the

sub-treasury system." Afterwards, you rallied voters against it. Now, if

this fail, will you resort to "the more potent powers of the bayonet?"

You promptly and indignantly answer, "No." But, why will you not? Is it

because the prominent opposers of that system have more moral

worth--more religious horror of blood--than Arthur Tappan, William Jay,

and their prominent abolition friends? Were such to be your answer, the

public would judge, whether the men of peace and purity, who compose the

mass of abolitionists, would be more likely than the Clays and Wises and

the great body of the followers of these Congressional leaders to betake

themselves from a disappointment at "the ballot-box" to "the more potent

powers of the bayonet?"

You say, that we "_now_ propose to substitute the powers of the

ballot-box," as if it were only of late, that we had proposed to do so.

What then means the following language in our Constitution: "The society

will also endeavor in a Constitutional way to influence Congress to put

an end to the domestic slave-trade, and to abolish slavery in all those

portions of our common country, which come under its control--especially

in the District of Columbia--and likewise to prevent the extension of it

to any State, that may be hereafter admitted to the Union?" What then

means the following language in the "Declaration" of the Convention,

which framed our Constitution: "We also maintain, that there are at the

present time the highest obligations resting upon the people of the Free

States to remove slavery by moral and political action, as prescribed in

the Constitution of the United States?" If it be for the first time,

that we "_now_ propose" "political action," what means it, that

anti-slavery presses have, from year to year, called on abolitionists to

remember the slave at the polls?

You are deceived on this point; and the rapid growth of our cause has

been the occasion of your deception. You suppose, because it is only

within the last few months, that you have heard of abolitionists in this

country carrying their cause to "the ballot box," that it is only within

the last few months that they have done so. But, in point of fact, some

of them have done so for several years. It was not, however, until the

last year or two, when the number of abolitionists had become

considerable, and their hope of producing an impression on the Elections

proportionately strong, that many of them were seen bringing their

abolition principles to the "ballot-box." Nor was it until the Elections

of the last Autumn, that abolition action at "the ballot-box" had become

so extensive, as to apprise the Nation, that it is a principle with

abolitionists to "remember" in one place as well as in another--at the

polls as well as in the closet--"them that are in bonds." The fact that,

at the last State Election, there were three or four hundred abolition

votes given in the County in which I reside, is no more real because of

its wide spread interest, than the comparatively unheard of fact, that

about one hundred such votes were given the year before. By the way,

when I hear complaints of abolition action at the "ballot-box," I can

hardly refrain from believing, that they are made ironically. When I

hear complaints, that the abolitionists of this State rallied, as such,

at the last State Election, I cannot easily avoid suspecting, that the

purpose of such complaints is the malicious one of reviving in our

breasts the truly stinging and shame-filling recollection, that some

five-sixths of the voters in our ranks, either openly apostatized from

our principles, or took it into their heads, that the better way to vote

for the slave and the anti-slavery cause was to vote for their

respective political parties. You would be less afraid of the

abolitionists, if I should tell you that more than ten thousand of them

in this State voted at the last State Election, for candidates for law

makers, who were openly in favor of the law of this State, which creates

slavery, and of other laws, which countenance and uphold it. And you

would owe me for one of your heartiest laughs, were I to tell you, that

there are abolitionists--professed abolitionists--yes, actual members of

the Anti-Slavery Society--who, carrying out this delusion of helping the

slave by helping their "party," say, that they would vote even for a

slaveholder, if their party should nominate him. Let me remark, however,

that I am happy to be able to inform you, that this delusion--at least

in my own State--is fast passing away; and that thousands of the

abolitionists who, in voting last Autumn for Gov. Marey or Gov. Seward,

took the first step in the way, that leads to voting for the slaveholder

himself, are now not only refusing to take another step in that

inconsistent and wicked way, but are repenting deeply of that, which

they have already taken in it.

Much as you dislike, not to say _dread_, abolition action at "the

ballot-box," I presume, that I need not spend any time in explaining to

you the inconsistency of which an abolitionist is guilty, who votes for

an upholder of slavery. A wholesome citizen would not vote fur a

candidate for a law maker, who is in favor of laws, which authorize

gaming-houses or _groggeries_. But, in the eye of one, who his attempted

to take the "guage and dimensions" of the hell of slavery, the laws,

which authorize slaveholding, far transcend in wickedness, those, which

authorize gaming-houses or _groggeries_. You would not vote for a

candidate for a law-maker, who is in favor of "the sub-treasury system."

But compared with the evil of slavery, what is that of the most

pernicious currency scheme ever devised? It is to be "counted as the

small dust of the balance." If you would withhold your vote in the case

supposed--how gross in your eyes must be the inconsistency of the

abolitionist, who casts his vote on the side of the system of

fathomless iniquity!

I have already remarked on "the third" of the "impediments" or

"obstacles" to emancipation, which you bring to view. _"The first

impediment," you say, "is the utter and absolute want of all power on

the part of the General Government to effect the purpose."_

But because there is this want on the part of the General Government, it

does not follow, that it also exists on the part of the States: nor does

it follow, that it also exists on the part of the slaveholders

themselves. It is a poor plea of your neighbor for continuing to hold

his fellow man in slavery, that neither the Federal Government nor the

State of Kentucky has power to emancipate them. Such a plea is about as

valid, as that of the girl for not having performed the task, which her

mistress had assigned to her. "I was tied to the table." "Who tied you

there?" "I tied myself there."

_"The next obstacle," you say, "in the way of abolition arises out of

the fact of the presence in the slave states of three millions

of slaves."_

This is, indeed a formidable "obstacle:" and I admit, that it is as much

more difficult for the impenitent slaveholder to surmount it, than it

would be if there were but one million of slaves, as it is for the

impenitent thief to restore the money he has stolen, than it would be,

if the sum were one third as great. But, be not discouraged, dear sir,

with this view of the case. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the

obstacle, the warmest desires of your heart for the abolition of

slavery, may yet be realized. Be thankful, that repentance can avail in

every case of iniquity; that it can loosen the grasp of the man-thief,

as well as that of the money-thief: of the oppressors of thousands as

well as of hundreds:--of "three millions," as well as of one million.

But, were I to allow, that the obstacle in question, is as great, as you

regard it--nevertheless will it not increase with the lapse of years,

and become less superable the longer the work of abolition is postponed?

I suppose, however, that it is not to be disguised, that,

notwithstanding the occasional attempts in the course of your speech to

create a different impression, you are in favor of perpetual slavery;

and that all you say about "ultra abolitionists" in distinction from

"abolitionists," and about "gradual emancipation," in distinction from

"immediate emancipation," is said, but to please those, who sincerely

make, and are gulled by, such distinctions. I do not forget, that you

say, that the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania was proper. But, most

obviously, you say it, to win favor with the anti-slavery portion of the

North, and to sustain the world's opinion of your devotion to the cause

of universal liberty;--for, having made this small concession to that

holy cause--small indeed, since Pennsylvania never at any one time, had

five thousand slaves--you, straightway, renew your claims to the

confidence of slaveholders, by assuring them, that you are opposed to

"any scheme whatever of emancipation, gradual or immediate," in States

where the slave population is extensive;--and, for proof of the

sincerity of your declaration, you refer them to the fact of your recent

open and effective opposition to the overthrow of slavery in your

own State.

The South is opposed to gradual, as well as to immediate emancipation:

and, were she, indeed, to enter upon a scheme of gradual emancipation,

she would speedily abandon it. The objections to swelling the number of

her free colored population, whilst she continued to hold their brethren

of the same race in bondage, would be found too real and alarming to

justify her perseverance in the scheme. How strange, that men at the

North, who think soundly on other subjects, should deduce the

feasibility of gradual emancipation in the slave states--in some of

which the slaves outnumber the free--from the fact of the like

emancipation of the comparative handful of slaves in New York and

Pennsylvania!

You say, "_It is frequently asked, what will become of the African race

among us? Are they forever to remain in bondage? That question was asked

more than half a century ago. It has been answered by fifty years of

prosperity_."

The wicked man, "spreading himself like the green bay tree," would

answer this question, as you have. They, who "walk after their own

lusts, saying, where is the promise of his coming--for since the fathers

fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the

creation?" would answer it, as you have. They, whose "heart is fully set

in them to do evil, because sentence against an evil work is not

executed speedily," would answer it, as you have. But, however you or

they may answer it, and although God may delay his "coming" and the

execution of his "sentence," it, nevertheless, remains true, that "it

shall be well with them that fear God, but it shall not be well with

the wicked."

"Fifty years of prosperity!" On whose testimony do we learn, that the

last "fifty years" have been "years of prosperity" to the South?--on the

testimony of oppressors or on that of the oppressed?--on that of her two

hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders--for this is the sum total of

the tyrants, who rule the South and rule this nation--or on that of her

two millions and three quarters of bleeding and crushed slaves? It may

well be, that those of the South, who "have lived in pleasure on the

earth and been wanton and have nourished their hearts as in a day of

slaughter," should speak of "prosperity:" but, before we admit, that the

"prosperity," of which they speak, is that of the South, instead of

themselves merely, we must turn our weeping eyes to the "laborers, who

have reaped down" their oppressors' "fields without wages," and the

"cries" of whom "are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth;" and

we must also take into the account the tears, and sweat, and groans, and

blood, of the millions of similar laborers, whom, during the last "fifty

years," death has mercifully released from Southern bondage. Talks the

slaveholder of the "prosperity" of the South? It is but his own

"prosperity"--and a "prosperity," such as the wolf may boast, when

gorging on the flock.

You say, _that the people of the North would not think it "neighborly

and friendly" if "the people of the slave states were to form societies,

subsidize presses, make large pecuniary contributions, &c. to burn the

beautiful capitals, destroy the productive manufactories, and sink the

gallant ships of the northern states_."

Indeed, they would not! But, if you were to go to such pains, and

expense for the purpose of relieving our poor, doubling our wealth, and

promoting the spiritual interests of both rich and poor--then we should

bless you for practising a benevolence towards us, so like that, which

abolitionists practise towards you; and then our children, and

children's children, would bless your memories, even as your children

and children's children will, if southern slavery be peacefully

abolished, bless our memories, and lament that their ancestors had been

guilty of construing our love into hatred, and our purpose of naught but

good into a purpose of unmingled evil.

Near the close of your speech is the remark: "_I prefer the liberty of

my own country to that of any other people_."

Another distinguished American statesman uttered the applauded

sentiment: "My country--my whole country--and nothing but my

country;"--and a scarcely less distinguished countryman of ours

commanded the public praise, by saying: "My country right--but my

country, right or wrong." Such are the expressions of _patriotism_ of

that idolized compound of selfish and base affections!

Were I writing for the favor, instead of the welfare of my fellow-men, I

should praise rather than denounce patriotism. Were I writing in

accordance with the maxims of a corrupt world, instead of the truth of

Jesus Christ, I should defend and extol, rather than rebuke the

doctrine, that we may prefer the interests of one section of the human

family to those of another. If patriotism, in the ordinary acceptation

of the word, be right, then the Bible is wrong--for that blessed book

requires us to love all men, even as we love ourselves. How contrary to

its spirit and precepts, that,

"Lands intersected by a narrow frith,

Abhor each other, Mountains interposed

Make enemies of nations, who had else,

Like kindred drops, been mingled into one."

There are many, who consider that the doctrine of loving all our fellow

men as ourselves, belongs, to use your words, "to a sublime but

impracticable philosophy." Let them, however, but devoutly ask Him, who

enjoins it, to warm and expand their selfish and contracted hearts with

its influences; and they will know, by sweet experience, that under the

grace of God, the doctrine is no less "practicable" than "sublime." Not

a few seem to suppose, that he, who has come to regard the whole world

as his country, and all mankind as his countrymen, will have less love

of home and country than the patriot has, who makes his own nation, and

no other, the cherished object of his affections. But did the Saviour,

when on earth, love any individual the less, because the love of His

great heart was poured out, in equal tides, over the whole human family?

And would He not, even in the eyes of the patriot himself, be stamped

with imperfection, were it, to appear, that one nation shares less than

another in His "loving-kindness" and that "His tender mercies are (not)

over all his works?" Blessed be His holy name, that He was cast down the

"middle wall of partition" between the Jew and Gentile!--that there is

no respect of persons with Him!--that "Greek" and "Jew, circumcision and

uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond" and "free," are equal

before Him!

Having said, "_I prefer the liberty of my own country to that of any

other people_," you add--"_and the liberty of my own race to that of any

other race."_

How perfectly natural, that the one sentiment should follow the other!

How perfectly natural, that he who can limit his love by state or

national lines, should be also capable of confining it to certain

varieties of the human complexion! How perfectly natural, that, he who

is guilty of the insane and wicked prejudice against his fellow men,

because they happen to be born a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand

miles from the place of his nativity, should foster the no less insane

and wicked prejudice against the "skin not colored like his own!" How

different is man from God! "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on

the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." But were man

invested with supreme control, he would not distribute blessings

impartially even amongst the "good" and the "just."

You close your speech with advice and an appeal to abolitionists. Are

you sure that an appeal, to exert the most winning influence upon our

hearts, would not have come from some other source better than from one

who, not content with endeavoring to show the pernicious tendency of our

principles and measures, freely imputes to us bloody and murderous

motives? Are you sure, that you, who ascribe to us designs more

diabolical than those of burning "beautiful capitals," and destroying

"productive manufactories," and sinking "gallant ships," are our most

suitable adviser? We have, however, waved all exception on this score to

your appeal and advice, and exposed our minds and hearts to the whole

power and influence of your speech. And now we ask, that you, in turn,

will hear us. Presuming that you are too generous to refuse the

reciprocation, we proceed to call on you to stay your efforts at

quenching the world's sympathy for the slave--at arresting the progress

of liberal, humane, and Christian sentiments--at upholding slavery

against that Almighty arm, which now, "after so long a time," is

revealed for its destruction. We urge you to worthier and more hopeful

employments. Exert your great powers for the repeal of the matchlessly

wicked laws enacted to crush the Saviour's poor. Set a happy and an

influential example to your fellow slaveholders, by a righteous

treatment of those, whom you unrighteously hold in bondage. Set them

this example, by humbling yourself before God and your assembled slaves,

in unfeigned penitence for the deep and measureless wrongs you have done

the guiltless victims of your oppression--by paying those _men_, (speak

of them, think of them, no longer, as _brutes_ and _things_)--by paying

these, who are my brother men and your brother men, the "hire" you have

so long withheld from them, and "which crieth" to Heaven, because it "is

of you kept back"--by breaking the galling yoke from their necks, and

letting them "go free."

Do you shrink from our advice--and say, that obedience to its just

requirements would impoverish you? Infinitely better, that you be

honestly poor than dishonestly rich. Infinitely better to "do justly,"

and be a Lazarus; than to become a Croesus, by clinging to and

accumulating ill-gotten gains. Do you add to the fear of poverty, that

of losing your honors--those which are anticipated, as well as those,

which already deck your brow? Allow us to assure you, that it will be

impossible for you to redeem "Henry Clay, the statesman," and "Henry

Clay, the orator," or even "Henry Clay, the President of the United

States," from the contempt of a slavery-loathing posterity, otherwise

than by coupling with those designations the inexpressibly more

honorable distinction of "HENRY CLAY, THE EMANCIPATOR."

I remain,

Your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.

No. 10 THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

* * * * *

AMERICAN SLAVERY

AS IT IS:

TESTIMONY of A THOUSAND WITNESSES.

* * * * *

"Behold the wicked abominations that they do!"--Ezekial, viii, 2.

"The righteous considereth the cause of the poor; but the wicked

regardeth not to know it."--Prov. 29, 7.

"True humanity consists not in a squeamish ear, but in listening to

the story of human suffering and endeavoring to relieve it."--Charles

James Fox.

* * * * *

NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, OFFICE, No.

143 NASSAU STREET. 1839.

* * * * *

This periodical contains 7 sheets--postage, under 100 miles, 10-1/2

cts; over 100 miles, 17-1/2 cents.

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER. A majority of the facts and testimony

contained in this work rests upon the authority of slaveholders, whose

names and residences are given to the public, as vouchers for the

truth of their statements. That they should utter falsehoods, for the

sake of proclaiming their own infamy, is not probable.

Their testimony is taken, mainly, from recent newspapers, published in

the slave states. Most of those papers will be deposited at the office

of the American Anti-Slavery Society, 143 Nassau street, New York

City. Those who think the atrocities, which they describe, incredible,

are invited to call and read for themselves. We regret that _all_ of

the original papers are not in our possession. The idea of preserving

them on file for the inspection of the incredulous, and the curious,

did not occur to us until after the preparation of the work was in a

state of forwardness, in consequence of this, some of the papers

cannot be recovered. _Nearly all_ of them, however have been

preserved. In all cases the _name_ of the paper is given, and, with

very few exceptions, the place and time, (year, month, and day) of

publication. Some of the extracts, however not being made with

reference to this work, and before its publication was contemplated,

are without date; but this class of extracts is exceedingly small,

probably not a thirtieth of the whole.

The statements, not derived from the papers and other periodicals,

letters, books, &c., published by slaveholders, have been furnished by

individuals who have resided in slave states, many of whom are natives

of those states, and have been slaveholders. The names, residences,

&c. of the witnesses generally are given. A number of them, however,

still reside in slave states;--to publish their names would be, in most

cases, to make them the victims of popular fury.

New York, May 4, 1839.

NOTE.

The Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society, while

tendering their grateful acknowledgments, in the name of American

Abolitionists, and in behalf of the slave, to those who have furnished

for this publication the result of their residence and travel in the

slave states of this Union, announce their determination to publish,

from time to time, as they may have the materials and the funds,

TRACTS, containing well authenticated facts, testimony, personal

narratives, &c. fully setting forth the _condition_ of American

slaves. In order that they may be furnished with the requisite

materials, they invite all who have had personal knowledge of the

condition of slaves in any of the states of this Union, to forward

their testimony with their names and residences. To prevent

imposition, it is indispensable that persons forwarding testimony, who

are not personally known to any of the Executive Committee, or to the

Secretaries or Editors of the American Anti-Slavery Society, should

furnish references to some person or persons of respectability, with

whom, if necessary, the Committee may communicate respecting the

writer.

Facts and testimony respecting the condition of slaves, in _all

respects_, are desired; their food, (kinds, quality, and quantity,)

clothing, lodging, dwellings, hours of labor and rest, kinds of labor,

with the mode of exaction, supervision, &c.--the number and time of

meals each day, treatment when sick, regulations inspecting their

social intercourse, marriage and domestic ties, the system of torture

to which they are subjected, with its various modes; and _in detail_,

their _intellectual_ and _moral_ condition. Great care should be

observed in the statement of facts. Well-weighed testimony and

well-authenticated facts; with a responsible name, the Committee

earnestly desire and call for. Thousands of persons in the free states

have ample knowledge on this subject, derived from their own

observation in the midst of slavery. Will such hold their peace? That

which maketh manifest is _light_; he who keepeth his candle under a

bushel at such a time and in such a cause as this, _forges fetters for

himself_, as well as for the slave. Let no one withhold his testimony

because others have already testified to similar facts. The value of

testimony is by no means to be measured by the _novelty_ of the

horrors which it describes. _Corroborative_ testimony,--facts, similar

to those established by the testimony of others,--is highly valuable.

Who that can give it and has a heart of flesh, will refuse to the

slave so small a boon?

Communications may be addressed to Theodore D. Weld, 143

Nassau-street, New York. New York, May, 1839.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

Twenty-seven hundred thousand free born citizens of the U.S. in

slavery;

Tender mercies of slaveholders;

Abominations of slavery;

Character of the testimony.

PERSONAL NARRATIVES--PART I.

NARRATIVE of NEHEMIAH CAULKINS;

North Carolina Slavery;

Methodist preaching slavedriver, Galloway;

Women at child-birth;

Slaves at labor;

Clothing of slaves;

Allowance of provisions;

Slave-fetters;

Cruelties to slaves;

Burying a slave alive;

Licentiousness of Slave-holders;

Rev. Thomas P. Hunt, with his "hands tied";

Preachers cringe to slavery;

Nakedness of slaves;

Slave-huts;

Means of subsistence for slaves;

Slaves' prayer.

NARRATIVE of REV. HORACE MOULTON;

Labor of the slaves;

Tasks;

Whipping posts;

Food;

Houses;

Clothing;

Punishments;

Scenes of horror;

Constables, savage and brutal;

Patrols;

Cruelties at night;

_Paddle-torturing_;

_Cat-hauling_;

Branding with hot iron;

Murder with impunity;

Iron collars, yokes, clogs, and bells.

NARRATIVE of SARAH M. GRIMKÉ;

Barbarous Treatment of slaves;

Converted slave;

Professor of religion, near death, tortured his slave for visiting

his companion;

Counterpart of James Williams' description of Larrimore's wife;

Head of runaway slave on a pole;

Governor of North Carolina left his sick slave to perish;

Cruelty to Women slaves;

Christian slave a martyr for Jesus.

TESTIMONY of REV. JOHN GRAHAM;

Twenty-seven slaves whipped.

TESTIMONY of WILLIAM POE;

Harris whipped a girl to death;

Captain of the U.S. Navy murdered his boy, was tried and acquitted;

Overseer burnt a slave;

Cruelties to slaves.

PRIVATIONS OF THE SLAVES.