Produced by K Nordquist, Emanuela Piasentini and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber's Note: |
| |
|The adjective 'Christian' is sometimes spelled 'christian' |
|and its use is inconsistent throughout the book. The original|
|punctuation, language and spelling have been retained, except|
|where noted at the end of the text. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
AN ESSAY
ON
SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM,
WITH REFERENCE TO THE
DUTY OF AMERICAN FEMALES.
BY
CATHARINE E. BEECHER.
Philadelphia:
HENRY PERKINS, 134 CHESTNUT STREET.
PERKINS & MARVIN, BOSTON.
1837.
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1837, by _Henry
Perkins_, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
L. ASHMEAD AND CO. PRINTERS.
PREFACE.
THE following are the circumstances which occasioned the succeeding
pages. A gentleman and a friend, requested the writer to assign reasons
why he should not join the Abolition Society. While preparing a reply
to this request, MISS GRIMKE's Address was presented, and the
information communicated, of her intention to visit the North, for the
purpose of using her influence among northern ladies to induce them to
unite with Abolition Societies. The writer then began a private letter
to Miss Grimke as a personal friend. But by the wishes and advice of
others, these two efforts were finally combined in the following Essay,
to be presented to the public.
The honoured and beloved name which that lady bears, so associated as it
is at the South, North, and West, with all that is elegant in a scholar,
refined in a gentleman, and elevated in a Christian,--the respectable
sect with which she is connected,--the interesting effusions of her
pen,--and her own intellectual and moral worth, must secure respect for
her opinions and much personal influence. This seems to be a sufficient
apology for presenting to the public some considerations in connexion
with her name; considerations which may exhibit in another aspect the
cause she advocates, and which it may be appropriate to consider. As
such, they are respectfully commended to the public, and especially to
that portion of it for which they are particularly designed.
ESSAY
ON
SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM.
ADDRESSED TO MISS A. D. GRIMKE.
MY DEAR FRIEND,
Your public address to Christian females at the South has reached me,
and I have been urged to aid in circulating it at the North. I have also
been informed, that you contemplate a tour, during the ensuing year, for
the purpose of exerting your influence to form Abolition Societies among
ladies of the non-slave-holding States.
Our acquaintance and friendship give me a claim to your private ear; but
there are reasons why it seems more desirable to address you, who now
stand before the public as an advocate of Abolition measures, in a more
public manner.
The object I have in view, is to present some reasons why it seems
unwise and inexpedient for ladies of the non-slave-holding States to
unite themselves in Abolition Societies; and thus, at the same time,
to exhibit the inexpediency of the course you propose to adopt.
I would first remark, that your public address leads me to infer, that
you are not sufficiently informed in regard to the feelings and opinions
of Christian females at the North. Your remarks seem to assume, that the
_principles_ held by Abolitionists on the subject of slavery, are
peculiar to them, and are not generally adopted by those at the North
who oppose their _measures_. In this you are not correctly informed. In
the sense in which Abolitionists explain the terms they employ, there is
little, if any, difference between them and most northern persons.
Especially is this true of northern persons of religious principles. I
know not where to look for northern Christians, who would deny that
every slave-holder is bound to treat his slaves exactly as he would
claim that his own children ought to be treated in similar
circumstances; that the holding of our fellow men as property, or the
withholding any of the rights of freedom, for mere purposes of gain, is
a sin, and ought to be immediately abandoned; and that where the laws
are such, that a slave-holder cannot _legally_ emancipate his slaves,
without throwing them into worse bondage, he is bound to use all his
influence to alter those laws, and, in the meantime, to treat his slaves,
as nearly as he can, _as if_ they were free.
I do not suppose there is one person in a thousand, at the North, who
would dissent from these principles. They would only differ in the use
of terms, and call this the doctrine of _gradual emancipation_, while
Abolitionists would call it the doctrine of _immediate emancipation_.
As this is the state of public opinion at the North, there is no
necessity for using any influence with northern ladies, in order that
they may adopt your _principles_ on the subject of slavery; for they
hold them in common with yourself, and it would seem unwise, and might
prove irritating, to approach them as if they held opposite sentiments.
In regard to the duty of making efforts to bring the people of the
Southern States to adopt these principles, and act on them, it is
entirely another matter. On this point you would find a large majority
opposed to your views. Most persons in the non-slave-holding States have
considered the matter of Southern slavery, as one in which they were no
more called to interfere, than in the abolition of the press-gang system
in England, or the tythe system of Ireland. Public opinion may have been
wrong on this point, and yet have been right on all those great
principles of rectitude and justice relating to slavery, which
Abolitionists claim as their _distinctive_ peculiarities.
The distinctive peculiarity of the Abolition Society is this: it is a
voluntary association in one section of the country, designed to awaken
public sentiment against a moral evil existing in another section of the
country, and the principal point of effort seems to be, to enlarge the
numbers of this association as a means of influencing public sentiment.
The principal object of your proposed tour, I suppose, is to present
facts, arguments, and persuasions to influence northern ladies to enrol
themselves as members of this association.
I will therefore proceed to present some of the reasons which may be
brought against such a measure as the one you would urge.
In the first place, the main principle of action in that society rests
wholly on a false deduction from past experience. Experience has shown,
that when certain moral evils exist in a community, efforts to awaken
public sentiment against such practices, and combinations for the
exercise of personal influence and example, have in various cases tended
to rectify these evils. Thus in respect to intemperance;--the collecting
of facts, the labours of public lecturers and the distribution of
publications, have had much effect in diminishing the evil. So in
reference to the slave-trade and slavery in England. The English nation
possessed the power of regulating their own trade, and of giving liberty
to every slave in their dominions; and yet they were entirely unmindful
of their duty on this subject. Clarkson, Wilberforce, and their
coadjutors, commenced a system of operations to arouse and influence
public sentiment, and they succeeded in securing the suppression of the
slave trade, and the gradual abolition of slavery in the English
colonies. In both these cases, the effort was to enlighten and direct
public sentiment in a community, of which the actors were a portion, in
order to lead them to rectify an evil existing among THEMSELVES, which
was entirely under their control.
From the success of such efforts, the Abolitionists of this country have
drawn inferences, which appear to be not only illogical, but false.
Because individuals in _their own_ community have aroused their fellow
citizens to correct their own evils, therefore they infer that attempts
to convince their fellow-citizens of the faults of _another_ community
will lead that community to forsake their evil practices. An example
will more clearly illustrate the case. Suppose two rival cities, which
have always been in competition, and always jealous of each other's
reputation and prosperity. Certain individuals in one of these cities
become convinced, that the sin of intemperance is destroying their
prosperity and domestic happiness. They proceed to collect facts, they
arrange statistics, they call public meetings, they form voluntary
associations, they use arguments, entreaties and personal example, and
by these means they arrest the evil.
Suppose another set of men, in this same community, become convinced
that certain practices in trade and business in the rival city, are
dishonest, and have an oppressive bearing on certain classes in that
city, and are injurious to the interests of general commerce. Suppose
also, that these are practices, which, by those who allow them, are
considered as honourable and right. Those who are convinced of their
immorality, wish to alter the opinions and the practices of the citizens
of their rival city, and to do this, they commence the collection of
facts, that exhibit the tendencies of these practices and the evils they
have engendered. But instead of going among the community in which the
evils exist, and endeavouring to convince and persuade them, they
proceed to form voluntary associations among their neighbours at home,
and spend their time, money and efforts to convince their fellow
citizens that the inhabitants of their rival city are guilty of a great
sin. They also publish papers and tracts and send out agents, not to the
guilty city, but to all the neighbouring towns and villages, to convince
them of the sins of the city in their vicinity. And they claim that they
shall succeed in making that city break off its sins, by these measures,
because other men succeeded in banishing intemperance by labouring among
their own friends and fellow citizens. Is not this example exactly
parallel with the exertions of the Abolitionists? Are not the northern
and southern sections of our country distinct communities, with
different feelings and interests? Are they not rival, and jealous in
feeling? Have the northern States the power to rectify evils at the
South, as they have to remove their own moral deformities; or have they
any such power over the southern States as the British people had over
their own trade and their dependent colonies in the West Indies? Have
not Abolitionists been sending out papers, tracts, and agents to
convince the people of the North of the sins of the South? Have they not
refrained from going to the South with their facts, arguments, and
appeals, because they feared personal evils to themselves? And do not
Abolitionists found their hopes of success in their project, on the
success which crowned the efforts of British philanthropists in the case
of slavery, and on the success that has attended efforts to banish
intemperance? And do not these two cases differ entirely from the
Abolition movement in this main point, that one is an effort to convince
men of _their own_ sins, and the other is an effort to convince men of
the sins of _other persons_?
The second reason I would urge against joining the Abolition Society is,
that its character and measures are not either peaceful or Christian in
tendency, but they rather are those which tend to generate party spirit,
denunciation, recrimination, and angry passions.
But before bringing evidence to sustain this position, I wish to make a
distinction between the _men_ who constitute an association, and the
_measures_ which are advocated and adopted.
I believe, that as a body, Abolitionists are men of pure morals, of
great honesty of purpose, of real benevolence and piety, and of great
activity in efforts to promote what they consider the best interests of
their fellow men. I believe, that, in making efforts to abolish slavery,
they have taken measures, which they supposed were best calculated to
bring this evil to an end, with the greatest speed, and with the least
danger and suffering to the South. I do not believe they ever designed
to promote disunion, or insurrection, or to stir up strife, or that they
suppose that their measures can be justly characterized by the
peculiarities I have specified. I believe they have been urged forward
by a strong feeling of patriotism, as well as of religious duty, and
that they have made great sacrifices of feeling, character, time, and
money to promote what they believed to be the cause of humanity and the
service of God. I regard individuals among them, as having taken a bold
and courageous stand, in maintaining the liberty of free discussion, the
liberty of speech and of the press; though this however is somewhat
abated by the needless provocations by which they caused those
difficulties and hazards they so courageously sustained. In speaking
thus of Abolitionists as a body, it is not assumed that there are not
bad men found in this party as well as in every other; nor that among
those who are good men, there are not those who may have allowed party
spirit to take the place of Christian principle; men who have exhibited
a mournful destitution of Christian charity; who have indulged in an
overbearing, denouncing, and self-willed pertinacity as to measures. Yet
with these reservations, I believe that the above is no more than a fair
and just exhibition of that class of men who are embraced in the party
of Abolitionists. And all this can be admitted, and yet the objection I
am to urge against joining their ranks may stand in its full force.
To make the position clearer, an illustration may be allowed. Suppose a
body of good men become convinced that the inspired direction, "them
that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear," imposes upon them
the duty of openly rebuking every body whom they discover in the
practice of any sin. Suppose these men are daily in the habit of going
into the streets, and calling all by-standers around them, pointing out
certain men, some as liars, some as dishonest, some as licentious, and
then bringing proofs of their guilt and rebuking them before all; at the
same time exhorting all around to point at them the finger of scorn.
They persevere in this course till the whole community is thrown into an
uproar; and assaults, and even bloodshed ensue. They then call on all
good citizens to protect their persons from abuse, and to maintain the
liberty of speech and of free opinion.
Now the men may be as pure in morals, as conscientious and upright in
intention, as any Abolitionist, and yet every one would say, that their
measures were unwise and unchristian.
In like manner, although Abolitionists may be lauded for many virtues,
still much evidence can be presented, that the character and measures of
the Abolition Society are not either peaceful or christian in tendency,
but that they are in their nature calculated to generate party spirit,
denunciation, recrimination, and angry passions.
The first thing I would present to establish this, is the character of
the leaders of this association. Every combined effort is necessarily
directed by leaders; and the spirit of the leaders will inevitably be
communicated to their coadjutors, and appear in the measures of the
whole body.
In attempting to characterize these leaders, I would first present
another leader of a similar enterprise, the beloved and venerated
WILBERFORCE. It is thus that his prominent traits are delineated by an
intimate friend.
"His extreme benevolence contributed largely to his success. I have
heard him say, that it was one of his constant rules, and on the
question of slavery especially, never to provoke an adversary--to allow
him credit fully for sincerity and purity of motive--to abstain from all
irritating expressions--to avoid even such political attacks as would
indispose his opponents for his great cause. In fact, the benignity, the
gentleness, the kind-heartedness of the man, disarmed the bitterest
foes. Not only on this question did he restrain himself, but generally.
Once he had been called during a whole debate 'the religious member,' in
a kind of scorn. He remarked afterwards, that he was much inclined to
have retorted, by calling his opponent the _irreligious_ member, but
that he refrained, as it would have been a returning of evil for evil.
Next to his general consistency, and love of the Scriptures, the
_humility_ of his character always appeared remarkable. The modest,
shrinking, simple Christian statesman and friend always appeared in him.
And the nearer you approached him, the more his habit of mind obviously
appeared to be modest and lowly. His _charity in judging of others_, is
a farther trait of his Christian character. Of his benevolence I need
not speak, but his _kind construction of doubtful actions_, his
_charitable language_ toward those with whom he most widely differed,
his thorough forgetfulness of little affronts, were fruits of that
general benevolence which continually appeared."
This was the leader, both in and out of Parliament, of that body of men
who combined to bring to an end slavery and the slave trade, in the
dominions of Great Britain. With him, as principal leaders, were
associated CLARKSON, SHARPE, MACAULAY, and others of a similar spirit.
These men were all of them characterized by that mild, benevolent,
peaceful, gentlemanly and forbearing spirit, which has been described as
so conspicuous in Wilberforce. And when their measures are examined, it
will be found that they were eminently mild, peaceful, and forbearing.
Though no effort that is to encounter the selfish interests of men, can
escape without odium and opposition, from those who are thwarted, and
from all whom they can influence, these men carefully took those
measures that were calculated to bring about their end with the least
opposition and evil possible. They avoided prejudices, strove to
conciliate opposers, shunned every thing that would give needless
offence and exasperation, began slowly and cautiously, with points which
could be the most easily carried, and advanced toward others only as
public sentiment became more and more enlightened. They did not beard
the lion in full face, by coming out as the first thing with the maxim,
that all slavery ought and must be abandoned immediately. They began
with "inquiries as to the _impolicy_ of the _slave trade_," and it was
years before they came to the point of the abolition of slavery. And
they carried their measures through, without producing warring parties
among _good men_, who held common principles with themselves. As a
general fact, the pious men of Great Britain acted harmoniously in this
great effort.
Let us now look at the leaders of the Abolition movement in America. The
man who first took the lead was William L. Garrison, who, though he
professes a belief in the Christian religion, is an avowed opponent of
most of its institutions. The character and spirit of this man have for
years been exhibited in "the Liberator," of which he is the editor. That
there is to be found in that paper, or in any thing else, any evidence
of his possessing the peculiar traits of Wilberforce, not even his
warmest admirers will maintain. How many of the opposite traits can be
found, those can best judge who have read his paper. Gradually others
joined themselves in the effort commenced by Garrison; but for a long
time they consisted chiefly of men who would fall into one of these
three classes; either good men who were so excited by a knowledge of the
enormous evils of slavery, that _any thing_ was considered better than
entire inactivity, or else men accustomed to a contracted field of
observation, and more qualified to judge of immediate results than of
general tendencies, or else men of ardent and impulsive temperament,
whose feelings are likely to take the lead, rather than their judgment.
There are no men who act more efficiently as the leaders of an
enterprise than the editors of the periodicals that advocate and defend
it. The editors of the Emancipator, the Friend of Man, the New York
Evangelist, and the other abolition periodicals, may therefore be
considered as among the chief leaders of the enterprise, and their
papers are the mirror from which their spirit and character are
reflected.
I wish the friends of these editors would cull from their papers all the
indications they can find of the peculiarities that distinguished
Wilberforce and his associates; all the evidence of "a modest and lowly
spirit,"--all the exhibitions of "charity in judging of the motives of
those who oppose their measures,"--all the "indications of benignity,
gentleness, and kind-heartedness,"--all the "kind constructions of
doubtful actions,"--all the "charitable language used toward those who
differ in opinion or measures,"--all the "thorough forgetfulness of
little affronts,"--all the cases where "opponents are allowed full
credit for purity and sincerity of motive,"--all cases where they have
been careful "never to provoke an adversary,"--all cases where they have
"refrained from all irritating expressions,"--all cases where they have
avoided every thing that would "indispose their opponents for their
great cause," and then compare the result with what may be found of an
opposite character, and I think it would not be unsafe to infer that an
association whose measures, on an exciting subject, were guided by such
men, would be more likely to be aggressive than peaceful. The position I
would establish will appear more clearly, by examining in detail some of
the prominent measures which have been adopted by this association.
One of the first measures of Abolitionists was an attack on a benevolent
society, originated and sustained by some of the most pious and devoted
men of the age. It was imagined by Abolitionists, that the influence and
measures of the Colonization Society tended to retard the abolition of
slavery, and to perpetuate injurious prejudices against the coloured
race. The peaceful and christian method of meeting this difficulty would
have been, to collect all the evidence of this supposed hurtful tendency,
and privately, and in a respectful and conciliating way, to have
presented it to the attention of the wise and benevolent men, who were
most interested in sustaining this institution. If this measure did not
avail to convince them, then it would have been safe and justifiable to
present to the public a temperate statement of facts, and of the
deductions based on them, drawn up in a respectful and candid manner,
with every charitable allowance which truth could warrant. Instead of
this, when the attempt was first made to turn public opinion against the
Colonization Society, I met one of the most influential supporters of
that institution, just after he had had an interview with a leading
Abolitionist. This gentleman was most remarkable for his urbanity,
meekness, and benevolence, and his remark to me in reference to this
interview, shows what was its nature. "I love truth and sound argument,"
said he, "but when a man comes at me with a sledge hammer, I cannot help
dodging." This is a specimen of their private manner of dealing. In
public, the enterprise was attacked as a plan for promoting the selfish
interests and prejudices of the whites, at the expense of the coloured
population; and in many cases, it was assumed that the conductors of
this association were aware of this, and accessory to it. And the style
in which the thing was done was at once offensive, inflammatory, and
exasperating. Denunciation, sneers, and public rebuke, were bestowed
indiscriminately upon the conductors of the enterprise, and of course
they fell upon many sincere, upright, and conscientious men, whose
feelings were harrowed by a sense of the injustice, the indecorum, and
the unchristian treatment, they received. And when a temporary
impression was made on the public mind, and its opponents supposed they
had succeeded in crushing this society, the most public and triumphant
exultation was not repressed. Compare this method of carrying a point,
with that adopted by Wilberforce and his compeers, and I think you will
allow that there was a way that was peaceful and christian, and that
this was not the way which was chosen.
The next measure of Abolitionism was an attempt to remove the prejudices
of the whites against the blacks, on account of natural peculiarities.
Now, prejudice is an _unreasonable_ and _groundless_ dislike of persons
or things. Of course, as it is unreasonable, it is the most difficult of
all things to conquer, and the worst and most irritating method that
could be attempted would be, to attack a man as guilty of sin, as
unreasonable, as ungenerous, or as proud, for allowing a certain
prejudice.
This is the sure way to produce anger, self-justification, and an
increase of the strength of prejudice, against that which has caused him
this rebuke and irritation.
The best way to make a person like a thing which is disagreeable, is to
try in some way to make it agreeable; and if a certain class of persons
is the subject of unreasonable prejudice, the peaceful and christian way
of removing it would be to endeavour to render the unfortunate persons
who compose this class, so useful, so humble and unassuming, so kind in
their feelings, and so full of love and good works, that prejudice would
be supplanted by complacency in their goodness, and pity and sympathy
for their disabilities. If the friends of the blacks had quietly set
themselves to work to increase their intelligence, their usefulness,
their respectability, their meekness, gentleness, and benevolence, and
then had appealed to the pity, generosity, and christian feelings of
their fellow citizens, a very different result would have appeared.
Instead of this, reproaches, rebukes, and sneers, were employed to
convince the whites that their prejudices were sinful, and without any
just cause. They were accused of pride, of selfish indifference, of
unchristian neglect. This tended to irritate the whites, and to increase
their prejudice against the blacks, who thus were made the causes of
rebuke and exasperation. Then, on the other hand, the blacks extensively
received the Liberator, and learned to imbibe the spirit of its
conductor.
They were taught to feel that they were injured and abused, the objects
of a guilty and unreasonable prejudice--that they occupied a lower place
in society than was right--that they ought to be treated as if they were
whites; and in repeated instances, attempts were made by their friends
to mingle them with whites, so as to break down the existing
distinctions of society. Now, the question is not, whether these things,
that were urged by Abolitionists, were true. The thing maintained is,
that the method taken by them to remove this prejudice was neither
peaceful nor christian in its tendency, but, on the contrary, was
calculated to increase the evil, and to generate anger, pride, and
recrimination, on one side, and envy, discontent, and revengeful
feelings, on the other.
These are some of the general measures which have been exhibited in the
Abolition movement. The same peculiarities may be as distinctly seen in
specific cases, where the peaceful and quiet way of accomplishing the
good was neglected, and the one most calculated to excite wrath and
strife was chosen. Take, for example, the effort to establish a college
for coloured persons. The quiet, peaceful, and christian way of doing
such a thing, would have been, for those who were interested in the
plan, to furnish the money necessary, and then to have selected a
retired place, where there would be the least prejudice and opposition
to be met, and there, in an unostentatious way, commenced the education
of the youth to be thus sustained. Instead of this, at a time when the
public mind was excited on the subject, it was noised abroad that a
college for blacks was to be founded. Then a city was selected for its
location, where was another college, so large as to demand constant
effort and vigilance to preserve quiet subordination; where contests
with "sailors and town boys" were barely kept at bay; a college
embracing a large proportion of southern students, who were highly
excited on the subject of slavery and emancipation; a college where half
the shoe-blacks and waiters were coloured men. Beside the very walls of
this college, it was proposed to found a college for coloured young men.
Could it be otherwise than that opposition, and that for the best of
reasons, would arise against such an attempt, both from the faculty of
the college and the citizens of the place? Could it be reasonably
expected that they would not oppose a measure so calculated to increase
their own difficulties and liabilities, and at the same time so certain
to place the proposed institution in the most unfavourable of all
circumstances? But when the measure was opposed, instead of yielding
meekly and peaceably to such reasonable objections, and soothing the
feelings and apprehensions that had been excited, by putting the best
construction on the matter, and seeking another place, it was claimed as
an evidence of opposition to the interests of the blacks, and as a mark
of the force of sinful prejudice. The worst, rather than the best,
motives were ascribed to some of the most respectable, and venerated,
and pious men, who opposed the measure; and a great deal was said and
done that was calculated to throw the community into an angry ferment.
Take another example. If a prudent and benevolent female had selected
almost any village in New England, and commenced a school for coloured
females, in a quiet, appropriate, and unostentatious way, the world
would never have heard of the case, except to applaud her benevolence,
and the kindness of the villagers, who aided her in the effort. But
instead of this, there appeared public advertisements, (which I saw at
the time,) stating that a seminary for the education of young ladies of
colour was to be opened in Canterbury, in the state of Connecticut,
where would be taught music on the piano forte, drawing, &c., together
with a course of English education. Now, there are not a dozen coloured
families in New England, in such pecuniary circumstances, that if they
were whites it would not be thought ridiculous to attempt to give their
daughters such a course of education, and Canterbury was a place where
but few of the wealthiest families ever thought of furnishing such
accomplishments for their children. Several other particulars might be
added that were exceedingly irritating, but this may serve as a specimen
of the method in which the whole affair was conducted. It was an entire
disregard of the prejudices and the proprieties of society, and
calculated to stimulate pride, anger, ill-will, contention, and all the
bitter feelings that spring from such collisions. Then, instead of
adopting measures to soothe and conciliate, rebukes, sneers and
denunciations, were employed, and Canterbury and Connecticut were held
up to public scorn and rebuke for doing what most other communities
would probably have done, if similarly tempted and provoked.
Take another case. It was deemed expedient by Abolitionists to establish
an Abolition paper, first in Kentucky, a slave State. It was driven from
that State, either by violence or by threats. It retreated to Ohio, one
of the free States. In selecting a place for its location, it might have
been established in a small place, where the people were of similar
views, or were not exposed to dangerous popular excitements. But
Cincinnati was selected; and when the most intelligent, the most
reasonable, and the most patriotic of the citizens remonstrated,--when
they represented that there were peculiar and unusual liabilities to
popular excitement on this subject,--that the organization and power of
the police made it extremely dangerous to excite a mob, and almost
impossible to control it,--that all the good aimed at could be
accomplished by locating the press in another place, where there were
not such dangerous liabilities,--when they kindly and respectfully urged
these considerations, they were disregarded. I myself was present when a
sincere friend urged upon the one who controlled that paper, the
obligations of good men, not merely to avoid breaking wholesome laws
themselves, but the duty of regarding the liabilities of others to
temptation; and that where Christians could foresee that by placing
certain temptations in the way of their fellow-men, all the
probabilities were, that they would yield, and yet persisted in doing
it, the tempters became partakers in the guilt of those who yielded to
the temptation. But these remonstrances were ineffectual. The paper must
not only be printed and circulated, but it must be stationed where were
the greatest probabilities that measures of illegal violence would
ensue. And when the evil was perpetrated, and a mob destroyed the press,
then those who had urged on these measures of temptation, turned upon
those who had advised and remonstrated, as the guilty authors of the
violence, because, in a season of excitement, the measures adopted to
restrain and control the mob, were not such as were deemed suitable and
right.
Now, in all the above cases, I would by no means justify the wrong or
the injudicious measures that may have been pursued, under this course
of provocation. The greatness of temptation does by no means release men
from obligation; but Christians are bound to remember that it is a
certain consequence of throwing men into strong excitement, that they
will act unwisely and wrong, and that the tempter as well as the tempted
are held responsible, both by God and man. In all these cases, it cannot
but appear that the good aimed at might have been accomplished in a
quiet, peaceable, and christian way, and that this was not the way which
was chosen.
The whole system of Abolition measures seems to leave entirely out of
view, the obligation of Christians to save their fellow men from all
needless temptations. If the thing to be done is only lawful and right,
it does not appear to have been a matter of effort to do it in such a
way as would not provoke and irritate; but often, if the chief aim had
been to do the good in the most injurious and offensive way, no more
certain and appropriate methods could have been devised.
So much has this been the character of Abolition movements, that many
have supposed it to be a deliberate and systematized plan of the leaders
to do nothing but what was strictly a _right_ guaranteed by law, and
yet, in such a manner, as to provoke men to anger, so that unjust and
illegal acts might ensue, knowing, that as a consequence, the opposers
of Abolition would be thrown into the wrong, and sympathy be aroused for
Abolitionists as injured and persecuted men. It is a fact, that
Abolitionists have taken the course most calculated to awaken illegal
acts of violence, and that when they have ensued, they have seemed to
rejoice in them, as calculated to advance and strengthen their cause.
The violence of mobs, the denunciations and unreasonable requirements of
the South, the denial of the right of petition, the restrictions
attempted to be laid upon freedom of speech, and freedom of the press,
are generally spoken of with exultation by Abolitionists, as what are
among the chief means of promoting their cause. It is not so much by
exciting feelings of pity and humanity, and Christian love, towards the
oppressed, as it is by awakening indignation at the treatment of
Abolitionists themselves, that their cause has prospered. How many men
have declared or implied, that in joining the ranks of Abolition, they
were influenced, not by their arguments, or by the wisdom of their
course, but because the violence of opposers had identified that cause
with the question of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and civil
liberty.
But when I say that many have supposed that it was the deliberate
intention of the Abolitionists to foment illegal acts and violence, I
would by no means justify a supposition, which is contrary to the
dictates of justice and charity. The leaders of the Abolition Society
disclaim all such wishes or intentions; they only act apparently on the
assumption that they are exercising just rights, which they are not
bound to give up, because other men will act unreasonably and wickedly.
Another measure of Abolitionists, calculated to awaken evil feelings,
has been the treatment of those who objected to their proceedings.
A large majority of the philanthropic and pious, who hold common views
with the Abolitionists, as to the sin and evils of slavery, and the duty
of using all appropriate means to bring it to an end, have opposed their
measures, because they have believed them not calculated to promote, but
rather to retard the end proposed to be accomplished by them. The
peaceful and Christian method of encountering such opposition, would
have been to allow the opponents full credit for purity and integrity of
motive, to have avoided all harsh and censorious language, and to have
employed facts, arguments and persuasions, in a kind and respectful way
with the hope of modifying their views and allaying their fears. Instead
of this, the wise and good who opposed Abolition measures, have been
treated as though they were the friends and defenders of slavery, or as
those who, from a guilty, timid, time-serving policy, refused to take
the course which duty demanded. They have been addressed either as if it
were necessary to convince them that slavery is wrong and ought to be
abandoned, or else, as if they needed to be exhorted to give up their
timidity and selfish interest, and to perform a manifest duty, which
they were knowingly neglecting.
Now there is nothing more irritating, when a man is conscientious and
acting according to his own views of right, than to be dealt with in
this manner. The more men are treated as if they were honest and
sincere--the more they are treated with respect, fairness, and
benevolence, the more likely they are to be moved by evidence and
arguments. On the contrary, harshness, uncharitableness, and rebuke, for
opinions and conduct that are in agreement with a man's own views of
duty and rectitude, tend to awaken evil feelings, and indispose the mind
properly to regard evidence. Abolitionists have not only taken this
course, but in many cases, have seemed to act on the principle, that the
abolition of Slavery, in the particular mode in which they were aiming
to accomplish it, was of such paramount importance, that every thing
must be overthrown that stood in the way.
No matter what respect a man had gained for talents, virtue, and piety,
if he stood in the way of Abolitionism, he must be attacked as to
character and motives. No matter how important an institution might be,
if its influence was against the measures of Abolitionism, it must be
attacked openly, or sapped privately, till its influence was destroyed.
By such measures, the most direct means have been taken to awaken anger
at injury, and resentment at injustice, and to provoke retaliation on
those who inflict the wrong. All the partialities of personal
friendship; all the feelings of respect accorded to good and useful men;
all the interests that cluster around public institutions, entrenched
in the hearts of the multitudes who sustain them, were outraged by such
a course.
Another measure of Abolitionists, which has greatly tended to promote
wrath and strife, is their indiscreet and incorrect use of terms.
To make this apparent, it must be premised, that words have no inherent
meaning, but always signify that which they are commonly _understood_ to
mean. The question never should be asked, what _ought_ a word to mean?
but simply, what is the meaning generally attached to this word by those
who use it? Vocabularies and standard writers are the proper umpires to
decide this question. Now if men take words and give them a new and
peculiar use, and are consequently misunderstood, they are guilty of a
species of deception, and are accountable for all the evils that may
ensue as a consequence.
For example; if physicians should come out and declare, that it was
their opinion that they ought to poison all their patients, and they had
determined to do it, and then all the community should be thrown into
terror and excitement, it would be no justification for them to say,
that all they intended by that language was, that they should administer
as medicines, articles which are usually called poisons.
Now Abolitionists are before the community, and declare that all slavery
is sin, which ought to be immediately forsaken; and that it is their
object and intention to promote the _immediate emancipation_ of all the
slaves in this nation.
Now what is it that makes a man cease to be a slave and become free? It
is not kind treatment from a master; it is not paying wages to the
slave; it is not the intention to bestow freedom at a future time; it is
not treating a slave as if he were free; it is not feeling toward a
slave as if he were free. No instance can be found of any dictionary, or
any standard writer, nor any case in common discourse, where any of
these significations are attached to the word as constituting its
peculiar and appropriate meaning. It always signifies _that legal_ act,
which, by the laws of the land, changes a slave to a freeman.
What then is the _proper_ meaning of the language used by Abolitionists,
when they say that all slavery is a sin which ought to be immediately
abandoned, and that it is their object to secure the immediate
emancipation of all slaves?
The true and only proper meaning of such language is, that it is the
duty of every slave-holder in this nation, to go immediately and make
out the legal instruments, that, by the laws of the land, change all his
slaves to freemen. If their maxim is true, no exception can be made for
those who live in States where the act of emancipation, by a master,
makes a slave the property of the State, to be sold for the benefit of
the State; and no exception can be made for those, who, by the will of
testators, and by the law of the land, have no power to perform the
legal act, which alone can emancipate their slaves.
To meet this difficulty, Abolitionists affirm, that, in such cases, men
are physically unable to emancipate their slaves, and of course are not
bound to do it; and to save their great maxim, maintain that, in such
cases, the slaves are not slaves, and the slave-holders are not
slave-holders, although all their legal relations remain unchanged.
The meaning which the Abolitionist attaches to his language is this,
that every man is bound to treat his slaves, as nearly as he can, like
freemen; and to use all his influence to bring the system of slavery to
an end as soon as possible. And they allow that when men do this they
are free from guilt, in the matter of slavery, and undeserving of
censure.
But men at the North, and men at the South, understand the language used
in its true and proper sense; and Abolitionists have been using these
terms in a new and peculiar sense, which is inevitably and universally
misunderstood, and this is an occasion of much of the strife and alarm
which has prevailed both at the South and at the North. There are none
but these defenders of slavery who maintain that it is a relation
justifiable by the laws of the Gospel, who differ from Abolitionists in
regard to the real thing which is meant. The great mistake of
Abolitionists is in using terms which inculcate the immediate
annihilation of the relation, when they only intend to urge the
Christian duty of treating slaves according to the gospel rules of
justice and benevolence, and using all lawful and appropriate means for
bringing a most pernicious system to a speedy end.
If Abolitionists will only cease to teach that _all_ slave-holding is a
sin which ought to be _immediately abolished_; if they will cease to
urge their plan as one of _immediate emancipation_, and teach simply and
exactly that which they do mean, much strife and misunderstanding will
cease. But so long as they persevere in using these terms in a new and
peculiar sense, which will always be misunderstood, they are guilty of a
species of deception and accountable for the evils that follow.
One other instance of a similar misuse of terms may be mentioned. The
word "man-stealer" has one peculiar signification, and it is no more
synonymous with "slave-holder" than it is with "sheep-stealer." But
Abolitionists show that a slave-holder, in fact, does very many of the
evils that are perpetrated by a man-stealer, and that the crime is quite
as evil in its nature, and very similar in character, and, therefore, he
calls a slave-holder a man-stealer.
On this principle there is no abusive language that may not be employed
to render any man odious--for every man commits sin of some kind, and
every sin is like some other sin, in many respects, and in certain
aggravated cases, may be bad, or even worse, than another sin with a
much more odious name. It is easy to show that a man who neglects all
religious duty is very much like an atheist, and if he has had great
advantages, and the atheist very few, he may be much more guilty than an
atheist. And so, half the respectable men in our religious communities,
may be called atheists, with as much propriety as a slave-holder can be
called a man-stealer. Abolitionists have proceeded on this principle, in
their various publications, until the terms of odium that have been
showered upon slave-holders, would form a large page in the vocabulary
of Billingsgate. This method of dealing with those whom we wish to
convince and persuade, is as contrary to the dictates of common sense,
as it is to the rules of good breeding and the laws of the gospel.
The preceding particulars are selected, as the evidence to be presented,
that the character and measures of the Abolition Society are neither
peaceful nor Christian in their tendency; but that in their nature they
are calculated to generate party-spirit, denunciation, recrimination,
and angry passions. If such be the tendency of this institution, it
follows, that it is wrong for a Christian, or any lover of peace, to be
connected with it.
The assertion that Christianity itself has led to strife and contention,
is not a safe method of evading this argument. Christianity is a system
of _persuasion_, tending, by kind and gentle influences, to make men
_willing_ to leave off their sins--and it comes, not to convince those
who are not sinners, but to sinners themselves.
Abolitionism, on the contrary, is a system of _coercion_ by public
opinion; and in its present operation, its influence is not to convince
the erring, but to convince those who are not guilty, of the sins of
those who are.