Having in the preceding chapter dismissed Mrs. Stowe's narrative; I
shall in the following pages, confine my remarks, so far as they refer
to "Uncle Tom's Cabin," to its evident design and manifest tendency.
It was about thirty-five years ago, that the great abolition
excitement broke out in the North. The subject of course, was agitated
previous to that time, but there must have been then, some additional,
or new excitement, for it was at that memorable period, that the South
took the alarm. Previous to that period, as far back as I can
recollect, the subject of slavery was freely discussed in the Southern
States, by clergymen and politicians in public; and it was withal, a
common topic of conversation in the social circle. Throughout the
slave states, at that time, the necessity of enlightening the minds,
and ameliorating the conditions of the slaves was generally seen,
felt, and acknowledged. It was then enforced on church members as a
duty, by ministers of all denominations; and the ministers of the
Gospel rebuked, (sometimes with great severity), harshness, cruelty,
or unkindness to slaves.
A spirit of emancipation was then common among slaveholders; many
slaves were set at liberty, and Christians, and philanthropists, were
anxiously looking forward to a period of universal emancipation. A
gentleman, by name Benjamin Lundy, published at that time an
anti-slavery paper in Greenville, East Tennessee; which paper had an
extensive circulation. About that time, I gathered up my anti-slavery
juvenile doggerel, corrected it, as well as I could,--selected poems
from Cowper and others, on the subject; forwarded the manuscript to
the aforesaid B. Lundy, and the result was, a little volume of
anti-slavery poems. But the abolition excitement broke out in the
North, and the South took the alarm. The mouths of clergymen were
closed in the pulpit; for it was deemed inadvisable, in consequence of
Northern interference, to discuss the subject of slavery in the
pulpit, social circle, or under any circumstances, whatever. It was
thus, we see, through the intermeddling of Northern abolitionists,
that discussion was cut off in the South. Rigid laws were then enacted
by the state Legislatures, for the suppression of public discussion;
and there were also enactments which threw obstacles in the way of
emancipation; and thus, the fetters of slavery have been drawn
tighter, and tighter, from that day, to the present time.
A short time after the excitement commenced in the South, a committee
of panic-stricken citizens called on Mr. Lundy, after expressing for
him personally the highest regard, they politely requested him to
discontinue his paper; expressing the opinion, at the time, that its
publication was no longer consistent with public safety. Mr. Lundy
complied with their request, and it was rumored, whether true or
false, I know not, that he remarked, that it was a great pity that the
Yankees could not mind their own business. Mr. Lundy, I believe, was a
Yankee himself, but was said to be a gentlemanly, humane man. Some are
no doubt ready to ask, Why was it, that the abolition excitement in
the North, produced such a panic in the South? It was the revolting
and shocking doctrines, which they openly promulgated. It was their
notorious disregard of the laws of God and man, and all those ties
which bind us together as one great nation; their denial of the right
of the South to hold slave property, notwithstanding that right had
been guaranteed to them by the Federal Constitution; their advocacy of
the right of the slave to arise in the night and cut his master's
throat; or, else, burn his house over his head; their advocacy of the
right of the North to force emancipation on the South, at the point of
the bayonet, &c.
It was these monstrous doctrines and assumptions, which were then, and
are to the present day, avowed and defended by abolition orators, that
alarmed the Southern people. It was not long before Northern
abolitionists were detected in circulating through the South, exciting
and incendiary publications, on the subject of slavery, and in some
instances, intermeddling with slaves, and trying to incite
insurrections among them. These things inflamed the public mind more
and more in the South. Legislatures met, and enacted laws still more
stringent for the punishment of such offenders; for the suppression of
public discussion; and they, withal, threw so many restrictions around
those who held slaves that in most of the states, emancipation became
exceedingly difficult, and in some of them, absolutely impracticable.
These are historical facts, and they are worth more than a volume of
any man's speculations on the subject of slavery. They speak for
themselves, and require but little comment from me. Who was it that
crushed in embryo, the reform which was in progress thirty-five years
ago? It was the abolitionists, and every one is aware of it, who is
informed on the subject; and intelligent men among the abolitionists
know it, as well as any one else. The officious inter-meddling of
abolitionists with Southern slavery, never has, and never can effect
anything for the slave; it has served but to retard emancipation, and
to rivet the chains of slavery. This opinion has been expressed a
thousand times, by the wisest and best men, that our nation has ever
produced--men, who enjoyed the best opportunities for forming correct
opinions on the subject. Henry Clay said, in a letter, written in
1845, "I firmly believe that the cause of the extinction of negro
slavery, far from being advanced, has been retarded by the agitation
of the subject at the North."
I believe slavery to be an individual and a national evil--a dire
calamity--and would rejoice to see it extinguished by any means
compatible with the safety, peace and prosperity of the nation, the
best interests of master and slave; and in the fear of God Almighty,
before whose bar I know that I must shortly appear, I sincerely,
firmly and solemnly believe, that if the free states had stood aloof,
and left the discussion and disposition of it entirely to the slave
states, several states which are now slave states, and are likely to
remain so, would have long since made provisions for the emancipation
of their slaves. And I moreover believe, that if the North would now
desist from all interference with it, the evil would be eradicated
from the United States, some hundreds of years sooner than it will be,
provided she persists in her present course. This is a legitimate
conclusion from the foregoing historical facts. Abolitionists can do
nothing, and men of intelligence well know it, that will mitigate the
evils of slavery, or eradicate it from the South. It is entirely
beyond their reach, they cannot control it; and if the object of
intelligent men in the North was the abolition of slavery, they would
cease to agitate the subject. But that is not their object. I allude
to the leaders of that party--the politicians, and not the common
people, for they are sincere. What then is their object? It is to
produce a dissolution of the Union; a separation of the Northern and
Southern sections of the United States, civil war, blood-shed, the
sacking and burning of cities, devastations, brother imbruing his
hands in the blood of brother, the father shedding the blood of his
son, and the son that of the father! Yea, and ten thousand other evils
and calamities, of which they, themselves, have never dreamed. Is this
abolitionism? Great God! what a picture--and the half has not been
told! From whence did it spring? "By whom begot?" It is an offspring
of New England infidelity. It was born in fanaticism, and nurtured in
violence and disorder. It opposes and violates the commands of God,
and is full of strife and pride. Its course is unchristian, impolitic
and hypocritical; it is alike hostile to religion and republicanism;
it rejects the Bible and the constitution of our country, and under
the pretense of higher law, it abrogates all law! This is
abolitionism, but all is not yet told. Be patient, reader, and perhaps
before I bring this essay to a close, I shall succeed in disclosing
its anti-christian and anti-republican tendencies; its seditious
spirit; its self will, pride and contumacy; its duplicity and
hypocrisy; its cruelties, horrors and woes.
Should they succeed in dissolving the Union, what would they
accomplish thereby? Would they by dissolving the Union emancipate a
solitary slave in the South? No, not one. The South would then set up
for itself, and the North for itself.
We would then have a Southern confederacy, and a Northern confederacy;
each separate and independent of the other. The North would then have
no more control or influence over the South; nor yet the South over
the North, than England has over America, or America over England. But
what has now become of the institution of slavery in the South? There
it is, just as it was, before the dissolution of the Union was
accomplished. And the Northern portion of the Union has lost all her
control--all her influence over the South; which influence, she might
have exerted for the benefit of the slave, if the Union had not been
dissolved, and her course towards the South had been kind,
conciliatory and pacific. It is all very plain--so clear, that it
requires but a little common sense to comprehend the whole matter. It
is clear then--clear as the noon-day sun, that the object of the
leaders of the abolition party is not the abolition of slavery.
Office, is the god they worship. Elevation to office, and self
aggrandizement, is their ultimate object. If they can strengthen their
party, and agitate the subject of slavery, until they bring about a
dissolution of the Union, then Hale will be president of the Northern
confederacy, Julian, vice-president, and Giddings, I suppose, prime
minister. Would not Joshua cut a sorry figure, in that high and
responsible office! Prince John, I suppose, would be attorney general.
The little magician, John's daddy, would be thrown overboard, for no
party, I think, will ever trust him again.
But only once let them get snugly fixed in their fat offices, and we
shall then hear nothing more about Southern slavery from them, for the
very good reason, that they care nothing about it. They have tried
various expedients, and fallen upon various plans, in order to
accomplish their diabolical purposes, but they have made the
discovery, that either the whig, or the democratic party must be
dissolved--annihilated; before they can possibly succeed. They base
this conclusion on the supposition, that the fragments of the
demolished party will unite with them. Well, one of the two great
parties must be dissolved; but the democratic party being strong, and
well organized, it was vain for them to expect aid from that quarter;
but, it was otherwise with the whig party; and from this source they
had reason to hope for aid. Hence, they labored hard in the recent
presidential canvass, to defeat the whig nominee; believing that it
was at least probable, that if General Scott was defeated, the whig
party would in that event dissolve, and a large majority of the voters
belonging to that party would fall into their ranks. If the whig party
should hang together, and God grant they may, if for no other reason,
to avert a calamity so awful, then are they again destined to meet
with defeat and discomfiture, as heretofore. It is true that the whig
party may not have entire confidence in their rivals, the democratic
party; they may doubt the propriety of some of the measures advocated
by them--the purity of the motives of some of their leaders. They may
raise many objections to the democratic party, but I assure you, my
whig friends, that there is more patriotism in Col. Benton's or Gen.
Cass's little finger, as well as some others of the same party, whom I
could name, than there is in every abolition politician on this
continent. If you must leave your own party, I pray you go over to the
democratic ranks, or else, stand neutral; but for God's sake, and for
the sake of our common country, never be found in the abolition ranks.
Keep clear of them--stand aloof--come not near them--have nothing to
do with them. I am not advising the whig party to disband; on the
contrary, I believe that the interests of the country will be
subserved by their hanging together as a band of brothers. It is only
on the supposition, that you must and will bolt, that I give you this
advice.
The formation and organization of parties must and will take place, in
all governments; and under these circumstances, it becomes our duty to
guard against those moral and political evils, which are generated or
brought about by selfish or corrupt partisans. I think it probable,
that the present organization of parties into whig and democratic, is
the best and safest that we could have; and for this reason, I have no
wish to see either party dissolved. I am well aware, that when party
prejudices and prepossessions are carried to excess, a vast deal of
evil may grow out of them; but keep party spirit within clue bounds,
and parties exert a salutary influence on government.
It is true, that such men as Hale, Julian and Giddings, would be
likely to receive office from the hands of any party to which they
might choose to attach themselves; but it is not less true, that
ambitious men are rarely satisfied, unless there is a prospect of
their reaching the pinnacle of fame. Elect such men to a State
legislature, and they fix their eyes on the lower house of Congress,
elect them to the lower house of Congress, and they fix their eyes on
the United States Senate; elect them to the upper house of Congress,
and they fix their eyes on the presidency; elect them to the
presidency, and they are not yet satisfied--yea, they would then
dethrone the Eternal, if possible.
I will close my remarks for the present on abolitionism, with a
summary of my leading objections to it. I am opposed to it, because it
proposes to abolish slavery by any means, and at any cost, be the
consequences what they may. Because it would abolish slavery at any
cost, and at any hazard; though it plunges us into a thousand evils,
infinitely worse than African slavery.
I am opposed to the abolitionists, because they trample under foot the
Constitution and laws of their country. The following sentiment is
found in a report, offered to an abolition convention, recently in
session, in Boston: "Anti-slavery shall sweep over the ruins of the
Constitution and the Union, when a fairer edifice, than our lathers
knew how to build, shall rise."
I am opposed to them, because they have in some instances made
attempts to foment insurrections, and to incite the slaves to
indiscriminate murder and rapine.
I am opposed to them, because they have decoyed away slaves from their
masters, and have at the same time encouraged slaves to steal from
their masters and others.
I am opposed to them, because of their utter and notorious disregard
of truth, in their representations of Southern slavery.
I am opposed to them, because they reject the Bible, and profess to be
under the guidance of a higher law. I was at a loss for some time to
know from what source they derived their higher law; but looking over
a Cincinnati paper a few days since, I read as follows: "The infidels
celebrated the birth-day of Thomas Paine on the night," &c. A
gentleman remarked, "that it was through the spread of Paine's
opinions, that he expected to see the colored race elevated, and
through this instrumentality alone." Vain hope!
I am opposed to them, because their plans, so far from bringing about
the abolition of slavery, will but rivet the chains on the slave, and
bring disaster on both master and slave. Because it strews the paths
of both master and slave with difficulties and dangers. Because their
interference makes slaves more impertinent and unhappy, frequently
subjecting them to harsh and cruel treatment.
I am opposed to their theories and views, because they are illogical,
and because so far as there is any truth in them, it is abstract
truth, and not real truth, as modified by circumstances. Because they
refuse to view things as they are, but rather as they should be, and
are utterly reckless as to results and consequences.
And finally, I am opposed to them, because there is no fairness,
justice, truth, or righteousness in them. The following is from the
Detroit Free Press; and I shall give it without comment. It is headed
"THE MORALITY OF NEGRO-STEALING."
"A novice might suppose, in witnessing the chuckle of satisfaction
that has been noticeable among a certain class of people hereabouts
within a few days back, that stealing is a virtue, and that the
receiver of stolen goods is, _par excellence_, a model Christian.
And even a man of some experience in the world might doubt the
morality of the precept "to do unto others as ye would that others
should do unto you," in view of the effrontery and impudence of
those who regard negro stealing as a Christian duty.
"A paper in this city, which professes that the free soil party do
not aim to attack the institution of slavery in those states where
it exists, unblushingly published a few days since the proceedings
of a meeting of free negroes, held on the occasion of the arrival
here of a quantity of runaway negroes from some of the Southern
States. We say, unblushingly, because more than usual prominence
was given to the proceedings in its columns.
"Now, there is no difference, under the Constitution and laws,
between stealing negroes from Kentucky and stealing horses from
Kentucky. The Constitution of the United States and the laws of
Kentucky hold one not less criminal than the other; and a paper in
this city would be just precisely as justifiable in publishing the
proceedings of a horse stealing society as the proceedings of a
negro stealing society. There is not less guilt involved in the one
than the other.
"For our own part we are disposed to call things by their right
names. We believe that he who would be guilty of aiding and
abetting the escape of a negro from his master, would not hesitate
to steal any other property if he could do it with equal safety to
himself. The fact that slaveholding is a sin does not change the
nature of the offense, because the Bible doctrine of submission to
the powers that be, is a plain and unequivocal duty. Negro stealing
is as much a violation of the law of God as of the law of a
Southern State.
"But we have not much faith in the Christianity of those abolitionists
who steal negroes. And the receiver of stolen goods is equally
guilty with the thief. Tom Corwin was not far out of the way (and
it must be conceded that Mr. Corwin has had abundant opportunities
to know) when he declared that 'they (the abolitionists) are a
whining, canting, praying set of fellows who keep regular books of
debit and credit with the Almighty.' 'They will,' he says, 'lie and
cheat all the week, and pray off their sins on Sunday. If they
steal a negro, that makes a very large entry to their credit, and
will cover a multitude of peccadilloes and frauds. This kind of
entry they are always glad to make, because it costs them nothing.'
'But,' adds Mr. Corwin, and this is the severest cut of all, 'when
they cannot steal a negro they give something in charity for the
extension of the gospel, and then commence a system of fraud and
cheating, till they think they have balanced accounts with their God.'
For once we believe Mr. Corwin has told the truth."