Should a kind providence place me again upon the soil of my
birth, and when there, should any American (and I hope many
will) visit that soil to plead the cause of virtue and
philanthropy, and strive in love to provoke us to good works,
let him know that there will be one man who will uphold his
right to liberty of speech, one man who will publicly and
privately assert and maintain the divinity of his commission
to attack sin and alleviate suffering, in every form, in
every latitude, and under whatever sanction and authorities
it may be cloaked and guarded. And coming on such an errand,
I think I may pledge myself in behalf of my country, that he
shall not be driven with a wife and little ones, from the
door of a hotel in less than 36 hours after he first breathes
our air--that he shall not be denounced as an incendiary, a
fanatic, an emissary, an enemy, and a traitor--that he shall
not be assailed with oaths and missiles, while proclaiming
from the pulpit in the house of God, on the evening of a
Christian Sabbath, the doctrines of 'judgment, justice, and
mercy,'--that he shall not be threatened, wherever he goes,
with 'tar and feathers'--that he shall not be repudiated and
abused in newspapers denominated religious, and by men
calling themselves Christian Ministers--that he shall not
have a price set upon his head, and his house surrounded with
ruffians, hired to effect his abduction--that his wife and
children shall not be forced to flee from the hearth of a
friend, lest they should be 'smoked out' by men in civic
authority, and their paid myrmidons--that the mother and her
little ones shall not find at midnight, the house surrounded
by an infuriated multitude, calling with horrible execrations
for the husband and the father--that his lady shall not be
doomed, while in a strange land, to see her babes clinging to
her with affright, exclaiming, 'the mob shan't get papa,'
'papa is good is he not? the naughty mob shan't get him,
shall they?'--that he shall not, finally, be forced to quit
the most enlightened and christian city of our nation, to
escape the assassin's knife, and return to tell his country,
that in Britain the friend of virtue, humanity, and freedom,
was put beyond the protection of the laws, and the pale of
civilized sympathy, and given over by professor and profane,
to the tender mercies of a blood-thirsty rabble.
These extracts were from the last letter that he had written to the
people of America, and which had been widely published there; and
he was glad of an opportunity of now laying them before a Glasgow
audience, and of having them incorporated in the proceedings of the
evening, in order to show that he then forgave America, that he now
forgave America. He would stand there to defend the right of Mr.
Breckinridge to a fair hearing from his (Mr. Thompson's) countrymen;
and stand forward as his protector, to save him from the missile that
might be aimed at him, and to receive into his own bosom the dagger
which might be aimed at his heart. His opponent might be anxious to
know what report he (Mr. T.) made on his return to Britain of his
proceedings in America. He would therefore read an extract from the
minutes of the LONDON SOCIETY for UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION:--
George Thompson was then introduced to the Committee, and
communicated at length the result of his Mission in the
United States, and the present cheering aspect of the
Anti-Slavery cause in that country. The following is a brief
outline of his statement:
He desired to be devoutly thankful to Divine Providence for
the signal preservation and help vouchsafed to him in all his
labors, perils, and persecutions. He considered it a high
honor to have been permitted to proclaim in the ears of a
distant people the great principles held by the Society.
He sailed from this country on the 17th August, 1834, landed
at New York on the 20th September, and commenced his public
labors on the 1st of October. His public Lectures were
continued down to the 20th October, 1835, during which period
he delivered between 2 and 300 public Lectures, besides
innumerable shorter addresses before Committees, Conventions,
Associations, &c. &c. His audiences had invariably been
overflowing, and composed from time to time of members of
State Legislatures, the Heads of Colleges, Professors,
Clergymen of all denominations, members of the legal
profession, and the students of nearly all the Theological
and Academical Institutions in New England. The result of his
labors had been the multiplication of Anti-Slavery
Associations to an unprecedented extent. Up to the month of
May, 1835, he met with no serious or formidable opposition.
At that time the National Society reported the existence of
250 auxiliaries, and its determination to appropriate during
the ensuing year the sum of 30,000 dollars in the printing of
papers and pamphlets to be gratuitously circulated amongst
the entire white population of the country. The Southern
States, previously almost silent and inoperative, soon after
commenced a system of terrorism, intercepting the public
conveyances, rifling the Mail Bags, scourging, mutilating or
murdering all suspected of holding Anti-Slavery views, and
calling with one consent upon the Free States to pass laws,
abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, upon the
subject of slavery. The North promptly responded to the call
of the South, and in every direction through the Free States
the Abolitionists became the victims of persecution,
proscription and outrage. The friends of Negro freedom every
where endured with a patience and spirit of christian
charity, almost unexampled, the multiplied wrongs and
injuries accumulated upon them. They ceased not to labor for
the Holy cause they had espoused, but perseveringly pursued
their course in the use of all means sanctioned by Justice,
Religion, and the Constitution of their country. The result
had been the rapid extension of their principles, and a vast
accession of moral strength. G. T. gave an appalling account
of the condition of the Southern Churches. The Presbyterians,
Baptists, and Episcopal Methodist Churches were the main
pillars of the system of Slavery. Were they to withdraw their
countenance, and cease to participate in its administration
and profit, it would not exist one year. Bishops, presiding
Elders, Travelling Preachers, Local Preachers, Trustees,
Stewards, Class Leaders, private Members, and other
attendants in the Churches of the Episcopal Methodists, with
the preachers and subordinate members of the other
denominations, are, with few exceptions, Slaveholders. Many
of the preachers, not merely possessing domestic Slaves, but
being planters 'on a pretty extensive scale,' and dividing
their time between the duties of the Pastoral Office and the
driving of a gang of Negroes upon a cotton, tobacco, or rice
plantation.
In the great pro-Slavery Meetings at Charleston and Richmond,
the clergy of all denominations attended in a body, and at
the bidding of vigilance Committees suspended their Schools
for the instruction of the colored population, receiving as
their reward a vote of thanks from their lay Slaveholding
Brethren 'for their prudent and patriotic conduct.'
G. T. gave a most encouraging account of the present state of
the Anti-Slavery cause, as nearly as it could be ascertained
by letters recently received. He stated that there were now,
exclusive of the Journals published by the Anti-Slavery
Societies, 100 newspapers boldly advocating the principles of
Abolition. Between 4 and 500 auxiliary associations,
comprising 15 or 1700 Ministers of the Gospel of various
denominations. G. T. stated also a number of particulars,
shewing the rapid progress of correct opinions amongst the
Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists,
producing a Document just received from the last named body,
signed by 185 Clergymen, being a reply to a letter addressed
by the Baptist ministers in and near London to the Baptist
Churches of America, and fully reciprocating all their
sentiments on the subject of immediate and entire
emancipation. The cause was proceeding with accelerated
rapidity. Ten or twelve Agents of the National Society were
incessantly laboring with many others employed by the State
Societies, of which there were seven, viz. Kentucky, (a slave
State,) Ohio, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and Vermont. Gerrit Smith, Esq. a competent
authority, had stated that every week witnessed an accession
to the ranks of the Abolitionists of not less than 500, in
the State of New York alone, and he did not know that in all
the Societies there was one intemperate or profane person. G.
T. in describing the character of the persons comprising the
Anti-Slavery Societies in America, stated, that they were
universally men and women of religious principles, and, in
most instances, of unquestioned piety. He had never known any
benevolent enterprise carried forward more in dependence upon
Divine Direction and Divine Aid, than the abolition cause in
the United States. In all their meetings, public or social,
they committed themselves to God in Prayer, and he had found
that those who had been most vehemently denounced as
'Fanatics and Incendiaries' were men sound in judgment, calm
in temper, deliberate in council, and prudent, though
resolute, in action. The great principle on which all their
Societies were founded was the essential sinfulness of
slaveholding, and the consequent necessity of its immediate
and entire abolition. The great means by which they had
sought to accomplish their object, was the fearless
publication of the truth in love, addressed to the
understandings and hearts of their fellow citizens.
Expediency was a doctrine they abjured. Free from a
time-serving or timid spirit, they boldly relied upon the
righteousness of their cause, the potency of truth, and the
blessing of God. They were entitled to receive from the
Abolitionists of Great Britain the warmest commendation, the
fullest confidence, and most cordial co-operation.
He was happy in being able to state, that wherever the
principles of immediate abolition had been fully adopted,
prejudice against color had been thrown aside, and that the
members of the Anti-Slavery Societies throughout the country
were endeavoring by every proper means to accomplish the
moral, intellectual, and spiritual elevation of the colored
population.
He hoped he would yet have ample opportunities of replying to the
positions assumed by his opponent. He thought he would be able to
show that slavery in America was American slavery; that the Congress
of America--that the Constitution of America made it an institution of
the country, and therefore a national sin of America. In reference to
any question as to the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America, he was glad he had to do with a gentleman who knew these
well, who held a high character for his Constitutional and legal
attainments; and he hoped he would be able to show that Slavery in
America was American Slavery--that the people in the North did not
hate slavery--that they did not oppose slavery--that they were the
greatest supporters of slavery in the United States--that slavery in
America was a national question. But he would keep his proofs till he
had time to say something along with them. Our interference was not a
political interference with America, it was only a moral interference,
to put an end to slavery--and he hoped the people of this country,
would continue to denounce slavery in America; and at the same time he
was quite willing that his opponent should denounce the idolatry of
our eastern possessions.
* * * * *
MR. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would take up the line of argument in which
he had been proceeding; but before doing so he wished to make one
observation. How did it happen--admitting all that had been said by
his opponent to be true and fair, how did it happen, that the same
arguments and the same principles were so differently received in
different countries? How did it happen that the individual who
advocated the same cause, with the same temper, and almost in the same
words, in Glasgow and in Boston, should in the one place be supported
by general applause, and in the other be ill-treated and despised, and
even made to flee for his life? This was a question which was yet to
be solved. Mr. Thompson had spoken of the Northern states as the
greatest friends of slavery, forgetting that he had formerly
represented the clergy as such. This was one of the principal reasons
of his want of success--of what might justly be called his signal
failure. He had brought unjust charges against an entire people, and
had in consequence been ill-treated. Mr. Thompson had shown the better
part of valor, discretion, in taking care never to visit any of the
slave states. He had never seen a slaveholder, except, perhaps, he had
met such an individual in a free state. At least if he had done so, it
was a circumstance which was not generally known, one of those hidden
things of which it was not permitted to read. Having made this
observation, he (Mr. B.) would proceed to state that in the
slaveholding states there was a large minority--in some, nearly one
half of the population--zealously engaged in furthering the abolition
of slavery. In Kentucky, slaveholding had been introduced only by a
small majority. When some time after, a convention canvassed the
subject, that majority was diminished, and, still at this hour in that
State, in which he had been born, one of the greatest political
questions agitated was whether slaveholding should be abolished or
retained as an element of the constitution. A law had long ago been
passed imposing a fine of six hundred dollars on whoever brought a
slave into the State for sale, and three hundred dollars on whoever
bought him. A fine of nine hundred dollars was thus made the penalty
of introducing a slave into Kentucky as merchandise. He was sorry to
have to speak of buying and selling human beings; but, to be
understood, it was absolutely necessary that he should do so. In
Virginia also, from which Kentucky had been in great measure peopled,
not many years ago a frightful insurrection had taken place, and many
cruelties had been practised--it was needless to say whether most on
the side of the blacks or the whites. The succeeding legislature of
that State took up the question of slavery in its length and
breadth--passed a law for giving $20,000 to the Colonization
Society,--and rejected only by a small majority a proposal to
appropriate that fund equally to the benefit of slaves to be set
free--as of those already free. He mentioned these things merely to
show that there was a great and an increasing party in the south
favorable to the abolition of negro slavery. In fact, in some of the
Southern states the free people of color had increased faster than the
whites; in Maryland alone there were 52,000 of a free colored
population, all of whom, or their immediate progenitors, had been
voluntarily manumitted. It was needless to say, therefore, that in the
Southern states there was no anti-slavery party. There certainly was
not such a party in Mr. Thompson's sense of the word; but Mr.
Thompson's definition was not the correct one, as he (Mr. B.) would
explain directly. Was it fair then, he would ask, to hold up to the
British public, not only the people of the free states, but also this
great minority in the Southern states as pro-slavery men. Let slavery
be denounced, but let not the denunciation fall upon the whole
American people, many of whom were doing all they could for its
abolition. If Louisiana resolved on perpetuating slavery, let this be
told of Louisiana. If South Carolina adhered to the system, say so of
South Carolina; but do not implicate the mass of the American people,
so many of whom are as much opposed to slavery as is Mr. Thompson
himself. He had heard it said that the sun never sat on the British
dominions. As well, then, might the British people be identified with
the idolatry which prevailed in Hindostan as the Americans be
identified with negro slavery. The question was not American; it
existed solely between the slaveholder and the world. It was unfair,
therefore, to blame the Americans as a nation: the slaveholder, and
the slaveholder alone, should be blamed, let him reside where he
might. Having thus disposed of the first branch of his argument, he
was naturally led to explain the wonderful phenomenon of Mr.
Thompson's reception in America--to give a reason why that reception
was so different from what the same gentleman met with in Glasgow.
Mr. Thompson had taken up the question as one of civil organization.
Now the fact was, that the American nation was divided into two
parties on the subject, namely, the pro-slavery, and the anti-slavery
parties. One party said, let it alone; the other, and by far the most
numerous party, said, something ought to be done in relation to it. In
the last named class, was to be included the population of all the
non-slaveholding states. He declared, in the presence of God, his
conviction, that there was not a sane man in the free states who did
not wish the world rid of slavery. He believed the same of a large
minority in the states in which slavery existed. The pro-slavery party
themselves were also divided. One section, and he rejoiced to add, a
small one, called into exertion in fact only by that effervesence
which had been produced by the violence of Mr. T's friends--spoke of
slavery as an exceedingly good thing--as not only consistent with the
law of God, but as absolutely necessary for the advancement of
civilization. This party was organised within the last few years, and
met the violence of Mr. Thompson's party by a corresponding violence,
as a beam naturally seeks its balance. Another section of the
pro-slavery party, considered slavery a great evil, and wished that it
were abolished, but they did not see how this could be effected. They
had been born in a state of society where it had an existence, and
they could see no course to adopt but to let it cure itself. These
were the two sections into which the supporters of slavery were
divided. The anti-slavery party was also composed of individuals who
had different views of the subject. The one class had been called
Gradualists, Emancipationists, and Colonizationists.--The other were
called Abolitionists. With the latter class, Mr. Thompson had
identified himself. And now, as while in America, by his praises of
Mr. Garrison, and all their leaders, his abuse of their opponents, and
his efforts to chain the British public, hand and foot, to them and
their projects, shows his continued devotion to them. He would refer
to this party again, but, in the mean time, he would only say, that
its members manifested far more honesty than wisdom. In 1833, the
abolitionists held a Convention in Philadelphia, at which they drew up
a Declaration of Independence--a declaration which he dared to say Mr.
Thompson cherished as the apple of his eye; but which had been more
effectual in raising mobs than ever witch was in raising the wind. The
document of which he spoke announced three principles, to the
promulgation of which, the members of the Convention pledged their
lives and their fortunes. A number of the particulars specified, in
support of which they said they would live and die, went to change
materially the laws and Constitution of the United States, and yet
it was pretended that this was not a political question! Their first
principle was, that every human being has an instant right to be free,
irrespective of all consequences; and incapable of restriction or
modification. The second was like unto it, that the right of
citizenship, inherent in every man, in the spot where he is born,
is so perfect, that to deprive him of its exercise in any way
whatever--even by emigration, under strong moral constraint, is a
sin. Their third principle was, that all prejudice against color was
sinful; and that all our judgments and all our feelings towards others
should be regulated exclusively by their moral and intellectual worth.
Mr. B. said he stated these principles from memory only--as he did
most of the facts on which he relied. But he was willing to stand or
fall, in both countries, upon the substantial accuracy of his
statements. Mr. Breckinridge here closed his address, the period
allotted to him having expired.
* * * * *
MR. THOMPSON was anxious to lay before the meeting documentary
testimony, in preference to any thing he could say himself. Rather
than set forth his own views, as he had done on many former occasions,
he wished to bring forward such documents as even his opponent would
admit to be really American. He pledged himself to show that this was
an American question. He was not prepared for this branch of the
subject, because he had not expected that Mr. Breckinridge would
exonerate America from the charge of being a slaveholding nation;
nevertheless, he was perfectly ready to take it up. He would undertake
to prove that the existence of slavery in the United States was the
result of a compromise--that the Constitution of the United States
was, in fact, based upon a compromise, in relation to this subject. At
the time when the Constitution was agreed to, the then slaveholding
states refused to come into what was called the confederacy of
republics, unless slaveholding was permitted. At that time there were
only three hundred thousand slaves in the Union; now there were two
millions and a half. So much, said Mr. Thompson, for what the good and
influential men of the South, spoken of by Mr. Breckinridge, had done
for the abolition of slavery. Then there were three hundred thousand;
now there were two million four hundred thousand. The method by which
these good and influential people had gone about extirpating slavery,
had been an Irish method; it had shown distinctly the extent of their
zeal and usefulness. Why, setting aside their influence altogether,
they might, had they been as numerous as represented by his respected
opponent, have manumitted as many of their own slaves. It was said, no
doubt, that the laws prevented this; but who made the laws? The child
could not do what her mamma had commanded her to do, because she was
tied to the mahogany table, she could only answer, when asked who tied
her, that it was herself. In like manner, he could turn round on those
whom his respected opponent represented, as haters of slavery.
Emancipationists they wished to be called; colonizationists they ought
to be called. He would ask them, what had they done? Had they not
compromised every principle of justice and truth, by permitting
slaveholding in their Union? Had they not even bestowed exclusive
privileges on the slaveholders? Had they not bestowed on them such
privileges as that, even now, they sent twenty-four or twenty-five
representatives to Congress more than their proportion? His respected
opponent had said this was not a national question. Why, then, send
six thousand bayonets to the South for the protection of the
slaveholder? Why were the American people taxed in order to maintain
bayonets, blunderbusses, and artillery in the South? Not a national
question! Why, then, was Missouri admitted a member of the
Union--Missouri a slaveholding State, admitted by the votes of the
Northern republics. Mr. Breckinridge had fought very shy of the state
of the Capital, and the power of Congress to suppress the internal
traffic in slaves. He (Mr. Thompson) trusted, however, that this
branch of the subject would be taken up. His opponent himself, in a
letter addressed to the New York Evangelist, had stated, that Congress
possessed full power to suppress the internal traffic in slaves; and
yet they did it not. There was in fact no question at all respecting
the power of the Congress, in this matter; yet it was said the
question of slavery was not national. The people of the Northern
states,--the slavery-hating, liberty-loving people of the Northern
states had said they would fight shoulder to shoulder with the
Slaveholders of the South, should the slaves dare to rise and say they
were men, and after all this, it was asserted that this was not a
national question. Mr. Breckinridge had said, that he (Mr. Thompson)
got all his information at second hand. He might have told the reason
why; he knew, however, that such a revelation would have been awful.
He knew that pious men, advocates of the cause of abolition had been
hanged, butchered, their backs ploughed up by Presbyterian elders; and
if such had been done towards natives of New England, what could a
stranger such as he have expected? He (Mr. T.) had, it seems, got all
at second hand. He would tell the meeting where he had obtained some
of his information. From Mr. Breckinridge himself; and he must say,
that sounder or juster views respecting slavery--or a more complete
justification of the mission in which he (Mr. T.) had been so lately
engaged, could scarcely be met with. This was evidence which he had no
fear could be ruled out of court. It was that of the friend and
defender of America. Mr. T. then read the following passage from a
speech delivered by Mr. Breckinridge:--
What, then, is slavery? for the question relates to the
action of certain principles on it, and to its probable and
proper results; what is slavery as it exists among us? We
reply, it is that condition enforced by the laws of one half
of the states of this confederacy, in which one portion of
the community, called masters, is allowed such power over
another portion called slaves; as
1. To deprive them of the entire earnings of their own labor,
except only so much as is necessary to continue labor itself,
by continuing healthful existence, thus committing clear
robbery.
2. To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubinage,
by denying to them the civil rights of marriage; thus
breaking up the dearest relations of life, and encouraging
universal prostitution.
3. To deprive them of the means and opportunities of moral
and intellectual culture, in many states making it a high
penal offence to teach them to read; thus perpetuating
whatever of evil there is that proceeds from ignorance.
4. To set up between parents and their children an authority
higher than the impulse of nature and the laws of God; which
breaks up the authority of the father over his own
offspring, and, at pleasure, separates the mother at a
returnless distance from her child; thus abrogating the
clearest laws of nature; thus outraging all decency and
justice, and degrading and oppressing thousands upon
thousands of beings, created like themselves, in the image of
the most high God! This is slavery as it is daily exhibited
in every slave state.
Here, continued Mr. T., is slavery acknowledged to be clear robbery,
and yet it is not to be instantly abolished! Universal concubinage and
prostitution, which must not immediately be put an end to! Oh, these
wicked abolitionists, who seek to put an immediate close to such a
state of things. What an immensity of good have the emancipationists
of the South, as they wish to be called, of the colonizationists as
they ought to be called, done during their fifty years labor, when
this is yet left for the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge to say. Dear,
delightful, energetic men! Truly, if this is all they have been able
to effect it is time that the work were committed to abler hands. Mr.
Thompson then read an extract from the Philadelphia declaration. Mr.
Breckinridge had called it a declaration of independence, but it was
only a declaration of sentiments;--
We have met together for the achievement of an enterprise,
without which, that of our fathers is incomplete, and which,
for its magnitude, solemnity, and probable results upon the
destiny of the world, as far as transcends theirs, as moral
truth does physical force.
In purity of motive, in earnestness of zeal, in decision of
purpose, in intrepidity of action, in steadfastness of faith,
in sincerity of spirit, we would not be inferior to them.
Their principles led them to wage war against their
oppressors, and to spill human blood like water, in order to
be free. Ours forbid the doing of evil that good may come,
and lead us to reject, and entreat the oppressed to reject
the use of all carnal weapons, for deliverance from
bondage--relying solely upon those which are spiritual, and
mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.
Their measures were physical resistance--the marshalling in
arms--the hostile array--the mortal encounter. Ours 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.
Their grievances, great as they were, were trifling in
comparison with the wrongs and sufferings of those for whom
we plead. Our fathers were never slaves--never bought and
sold like cattle--never shut out from the light of knowledge
and religion--never subjected to the lash of brutal task
masters.
But those, for whose emancipation we are striving,
constituting at the present, at least one-sixth part of our
countrymen,--are recognised by the laws, and treated by their
fellow-beings as marketable commodities--as goods and
chattels--as brute beasts; are plundered daily of the fruits
of their toil, without redress;--really enjoy no
constitutional or legal protection from licentious and
murderous outrages upon their persons--are ruthlessly torn
asunder--the tender babe from the arms of its frantic
mother--the heart-broken wife from her weeping husband--at
the caprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants;--for the
crime of having a dark complexion--they suffer the pangs of
hunger, the infliction of stripes, and the ignominy of brutal
servitude. They are kept in heathenish darkness by laws
expressly enacted to make their instruction a criminal
offence.
These are the prominent circumstances in the condition of
more than two millions of our people, the proof of which may
be found in thousands of indisputable facts, and in the laws
of the slaveholding states.