MR. THOMPSON, before proceeding with the discusssion, would make one
or two preliminary observations. Last evening he had been led into an
error, as regarded both number and time, in speaking of the amount of
slaves in America at the adoption of the Constitution; and he was
anxious that every statement made by him should be without a flaw; and
if there should be an error committed he would be the first person to
admit and correct it when discovered. He stated that at the adoption
of the American Constitution, there were only about three hundred
thousand slaves in the United States. There were not many more in
1776, when the states declared themselves independent: in 1788 when
the Constitution was settled there were more; and in 1790, there were
between six and seven hundred thousand slaves in the United States of
America. His error consisted in his subtracting 1776 from 1790, and
saying twenty-four years instead of fourteen. He mentioned this error
to show that he held a regard to truth to be the ultimate end of their
discussion. There was one other preliminary remark. His antagonist had
repeatedly said that George Thompson had published himself a martyr.
George Thompson never did publish himself a martyr. Mr. Breckinridge,
in the course of his speeches last night, had said more of himself
than he (Mr. T.) had ever done during all the speeches he had ever
made on the question. He had only referred to himself when urgently
requested to give an account of his personal experience. He never had
a wish to be considered a martyr. If, when he had finished his course
here; if, when this probationary scene was over, he was found to have
done his duty, he would be fully satisfied. He was not pharasaical
enough to imagine that he had performed any works of supererogation.
Mr. Breckinridge had said this was not a national question; that
slavery in America was not American Slavery; that it was not a
national evil; that it was not a national sin; that is was merely a
question between the State Legislatures and the slave owners. He (Mr.
T.) had said last night, that slavery in America was a national sin,
and he would now adduce the reasons for his statement:--First--The
American people had admitted the slave states into the Union; and by
consenting to admit these states into the confederacy, although there
were in them hundreds of thousands in a state of slavery, they took
the slaves under the government of the United States, and made the sin
national. Second--For twenty years after the adoption of their
Constitution, and by virtue of that very instrument, the United States
permitted the horrid, unchristian, diabolical African slave-trade.
Third--Than the Capital of the United States of America there was not
one spot in the whole world which was more defiled by slavery; and
considering the professions and privileges of the people, there was
not a more anti-christian traffic on the face of the earth.
Fourth--each of the states is bound by the Constitution to give up all
run-away slaves; so that the poor, wretched, tortured slave might be
pursued from Baltimore to Pennsylvania, from thence to New Jersey and
New York, and dragged even from the confines of Canada, a fugitive and
a felon, back into the slavery from which he had fled. He might be
taken from the Capitol: from the very horns of the altar, to be
subjected by a cruel kidnapper to the most horrid of human sufferings.
It is not a national question! When the North violates the law of
God--when it tramples on the Decalogue--when it defies Jehovah! what
was a stronger injunction in the law of Moses than that the Israelites
should protect the run-away slave? But in America every state was
bound by law to give up the slave to his slave-master, to his ruthless
pursuer; and yet it must not be called a national question! Fifth--The
citizens of the free states were bound to go South to put down any
insurrection among the slaves. They were bound and pledged to do this
when required. The youth of Pennsylvania had pledged themselves to go
to the Southern states to annihilate the blacks in case they asserted
their rights--the rights of every human being--to be free. So also was
it in New York, and in the other free states, and yet we are to be
told that slavery is not a national question. The whole Union was
bound to crush the slave, who, standing on the ashes of Washington
said, he ought to be, and would be free. Yes, Northern bayonets would
give that slave a speedy manumission from his galling yoke, by sending
him in his gore, where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary
are at rest. Yet it is not a national question! Sixth--The North is
taxed to keep up troops in the South to overawe and terrify the slave;
and yet it is not a national question! Seventh--Mr. Breckinridge has
shown in a letter published by him, that the Congress has the power to
put an end to the international slave trade, and yet this trade goes
on in America. Mr. B. well knows that at least one hundred thousand
human beings--slaves--change hands annually; he must have seen the
slaves driven in coffles through his own beloved state, to be sold
like cattle at Washington and Alexandria; he knows that thousands of
Virginia and Maryland slaves are sold at New Orleans yearly, and yet
he tells us that slavery is not a national question! Eighth--How did
they admit Missouri into the Union with slaves? Were they Southern
votes which admitted it? No! But they were the votes of recreant New
Englanders--false to the principles of freedom, who sold the honor of
their country, and with it the liberty of thousands of human beings in
Missouri--or at least consented to their bondage. And yet it is not a
national question! He (Mr. T.) would last refer to the remarks of a
constitutional lawyer, who was able, eloquent, sincere, and high
minded. Mr. T. then read the following extract:--
Such thoughts (referring to the judgments to be expected)
habitually crowd upon me when I contemplate those great
personal and NATIONAL evils, from which the system of
operations (vis., the movements of the Colonization Society)
which I stand here to advocate, seems to offer us some
prospect of deliverance.
From that day (1698) till the present, there have flourished
in our country, men of large and just views, who have not
ceased to pour over this subject a stream of clear and noble
truth, and to importune their country, by every motive of
duty and advantage, to wipe from her escutcheon, the stain of
human tears.
It is generally known, that the original members of the
American Colonization Society anticipated, that, at some
future period, the General Government, and some, if not all
the State Governments, would co-operate in their exertions
for the removal of an evil which was obviously NATIONAL in
all its aspects.
Now who was the writer from whom he had quoted?--His friend Mr.
Breckinridge. This was his final reason. If Mr. Breckinridge's
argument survived these reasons, it would have a life like that of a
cat, which is said to have nine lives; for they were nine fatal
thrusts at his position, that slavery in America was not American
slavery. Mr. B. admits the existence of slavery, but lays no blame
either in this quarter or in that; he does not lay it on the states,
nor on the General Government. Slavery does exist in America,
but--interminably; but, but--coming as these buts did from a
temperance country, he wondered much that they had escaped being
staved. Slavery exists in America, but it is not a national question!
There are upwards of two millions and a half of slaves in the United
States of America, and of these, at least one hundred thousand changed
hands annually, thus sundering, without remorse, the tenderest ties of
human nature; at whose door, then, lay the guilt of this sin? To whom
were the people of this country to address their warnings--over whose
transgressions were they to mourn--whose hearts were they to endeavor
to humanize and mollify--where were the responsible and guilty parties
to be found--how are we to get access to their consciences on behalf
of the slave? Mr. Breckinridge says the system is one of 'clear
robbery,' 'universal concubinage,'--'unmitigated wickedness'--and yet
it is not to be immediately abolished! If it be clear robbery--if it
be universal concubinage--if it be unmitigated wickedness--let the
horrid system immediately, and totally, and eternally cease--a worse
system it was impossible to have if these were the evils it entailed.
Mr. B. triumphantly makes out my case for immediate and complete
emancipation. The duty is plain and indispensable. Mr. Breckinridge
says the abolitionists are the most despicable and odious men on the
face of the earth. Those who love liberty are always odious in the
eyes of tyrants. The lovers of things as they are, of corruption of
despotism--men who look at every thing from beneath the aprons of
their grandmothers, invariably regard as insufferably odious all who
are lovers of reformation and liberty. This always has been, and
always will be the case. As it was said in the service of the church
of England, it might be said on this subject, 'As it was in the
beginning, is now, and ever shall be' if not 'world without end,' at
least to the end of this world. On the 6th day of January, 1831, Mr.
Breckinridge delivered in Frankfort, Kentucky, an able address in
favor of the Colonization Society. In that address, Mr. B. stated that
the Society was established on the 21st day of Dec. 1816, and was of
course, at the time of his speech, fourteen years and sixteen days
old. Mr. Breckinridge said the legislatures of eleven states of the
Union had recommended this Society to Congress; that the
ecclesiastical tribunals of all the leading sects of Christians in
America had testified their approbation of its principles; and yet
there were, after fourteen years and sixteen days, with all this
support and high patronage in church and state only one hundred and
sixty auxiliary societies existing throughout the Union. Now, as to
the contemptible and odious abolitionists! as they were called by the
gentleman who differed from him. The National Society for the
immediate abolition of American slavery, was formed on the 6th of Dec.
1833; and on the 12th of May, 1835, when the anniversary was
held--without being recommended to Congress by any of the state
legislatures--without a testimony of approbation from any of the
ecclesiastical tribunals--being only one year and six months old--how
many auxiliary societies were connected with this abolition
organization? Two hundred and twenty-four. That was the number then on
the books of the Society; and the Secretary said the whole of them
were not inserted from the want of proper returns. In a letter
addressed to him (Mr. T.) by the Secretary of the American
Anti-Slavery Society, dated New York, 31st March, 1836, were the
following words:--
Never were societies forming in all parts of our country with
greater rapidity. At this moment we have four hundred and
fifty on our list, and doubtless, there are five hundred in
existence. We have at this time eleven agents in the field,
all good men and true, and all fast gaining converts.
And yet the abolitionists are a handful! The one society in fourteen
years and sixteen days, having one hundred and sixty auxiliaries; the
other in two years and three months, having, without the support of
state legislatures, or of ecclesiastical tribunals, not fewer than
five hundred; and yet the abolitionists are a handful. He (Mr. T.)
held in his hand a list of delegates to the New England Convention
which was held in the city of Boston, on the 25th of May, 1835. In
that list he found two hundred and eighty-one gentlemen, who, at their
own expense, had come from all parts of New England, to attend that
Convention. On the 27th May, it was stated that the Massachusetts
Society were in want of funds, and a committee was appointed to
collect subscriptions. That committee in less than an hour obtained
$1,800, and on the following day, $4,000, for the American Society. In
New York, at the anniversary, there had been collected $14,500--and
yet the abolitionists were a handful. The American Society at its
anniversary, had collected a larger sum than was collected by all the
other societies together, during the week set apart for the purpose;
and in Boston, $6,000 had been collected in two days; whilst in two
months, a friend of Mr. B's, viz. Mr. Gurley, had only been able to
collect, in the same city, about $600 for the Colonization Society. By
their fruits shall ye know them; do men gather grapes of thorns, or
figs of thistles? You may send to New England any foreigner you
please--but he must show his cause to be sound and practicable before
he can draw a dollar or a cent from a New Englander, who gets his
bread by early rising, and laborious attention to business--yet $6,000
were collected in two days. But the abolitionists are a mere handful!
Yes--they may be a handful, but they are most precious and multyplying
seed. Mr. B. said that many of the slave-owners were doing all they
could for the emancipation of the slaves; whether they were doing any
thing or nothing, we find New Englanders had endeavored to retrieve
the honor of their country, by a subscription for emancipation of
$6,000 in two days--and yet it was said, they were an odious handful!
When he saw the Colonization Society like a Juggernaut, endeavoring to
crush the bodies and spirits of colored men and colored women, he
would league himself with the despised and 'odious handful,' and labor
with them, and for them, till, by the blessing of God, on their
exertions, the slaves were elevated to the condition and dignity of
intelligent and intellectual beings. Mr. T. would give another proof
that the abolitionists were a handful of most odious creatures. He
would refer to the New York Convention. Mr. B. knows well that the
pro-slavery prints pointed forward to the New York Convention in
October last, as likely to be a scene of blood. Not rendered so by the
abolitionists, for they were men of peace, but by the fury of their
opponents. Notwithstanding, there were six hundred delegates assembled
in Utica, at 9 o'clock, on the first day; and when they were driven
from that city by a mob, headed by the Hon. Mr. Beardsley, member of
Congress, and by the Hon. Mr. Hayden, Judge of the county--and the
greater part of them went to Peterborough, these six hundred were
joined by other four hundred, making one thousand delegates, for one
state--and yet they were a mere handful. He would next refer to the
Rhode Island Convention, at which, though held in the smallest State
in the Union--in the depth of winter--and at a time when many of the
roads were impassible through a heavy fall of snow, four hundred
delegates attended, and $2,000 were collected--but yet the
abolitionists were a mere handful! Gerrit Smith had said that there
was an accession to the anti-slavery societies, in the State of New
York alone, of five hundred weekly, among whom he says, there is not
known one intemperate or profane person;--five hundred weekly added to
one state society--yet they are a mere handful! If they go on
increasing at this rate in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
throughout New England, they will not long be a small handful!
Besides, many of those who were formerly on the side of colonization,
have now come over to the ranks of the abolitionists. Where are now
the Smiths, and Birneys, and Jays, and Coxs, that once were the
eloquent and munificent advocates and patrons of the Colonization
Society? They are now, with all their souls and energies, on the side
of immediate abolition. Nor these alone. He might--he ought to name
such men as President Green, and Professors Wright, Bush, Follen,
Smyth, and Gregg. He ought to speak of a Leavitt in New York, a Kirk
in Albany, a Beman in Troy, a Weld in Ohio, a Garrison in New England;
and of a Mrs. Child, a Mrs. Chapman, a John G. Whittier, a May, a
Dickinson, a Phelps, a Goodell, a Bourne, a Lundy, a Loring, a Sewall,
and a host of others. All these men esteemed it their joy and honor to
be amongst the most odious of the contemptible handful referred to.
These were men of mind, of piety, of influence, of energy; men not to
be deterred from doing their duty by the harsh music of the birds of
ill omen, from the Upas Tree of Slavery, who sent forth their
croakings, by night and by day, to scare the nation from its
indispensable work of Justice and Truth--and yet these men are odious
and contemptible! Your agent, too, is contemptible--he was the agent
of the 'goodies' of Glasgow--and--his fair auditors could scarcely
believe what epithets were lavishly bestowed on him and them--yet
their agent, as contemptible as he was, was, perhaps, the only
Englishman, who had ever been honored as he had been by the President
of the United States of America. He who was so contemptible in the
eyes of the Americans--who was a most impetuous, and untameable, and
worthless animal--who was the representative of the 'goodies' and
superannuated maids and matrons of Glasgow--was honored by a notice
and a rebuke in the message to Congress of the President of the United
States! This looked much like being insignificant and contemptible! He
did not seek the honor which had been thus conferred upon him--it came
upon him unaware--but he had not therefore refused it. It was an honor
to be persecuted in the United States with the abolitionists of 1830.
And when their children, and their children's children looked back
upon these persecutions, they would exult and be proud to say they
were the sons, the grandsons, or the great grandsons of the Coxs, the
Jays, the Garrisons, the Tappans, and the Thompsons of England and
America. After alluding to the treatment he had experienced from the
New York Courier and Enquirer, Mr. T. said--let us bear these honors
meekly--when calumniated for truth's sake, let us be humble, while we
are joyful. One word more as to the odious handful. Seven-eights of
the Methodist Episcopal ministers in the New Hampshire Conference,
and seven-eights of the New England Conference were abolitionists. The
students of the colleges and institutions, academical and theological
of the country, known by the names of Lane Seminary, Oberlin
Institute, Western Reserve College, Oneida Institute, Waterville
College, Brunswick College, Amherst College, and the Seminaries of
Andover, were many of them in some, and all of them in others,
abolitionists; and yet, when all these societies, and ministers, and
men of learning, and students were put together, they were, in their
aggregate capacity, but an odious and most contemptible handful! He
would now proceed to speak of the Maryland scheme--a scheme of obvious
wickedness. When Mr. B. came to Boston to advocate that scheme, he
says a placard was published, calling on the rabble to mob him. This
placard he attributes to Mr. Garrison and the abolitionists, as he
says it was of the same size and appearance as the type and columns of
the Liberator newspaper, and that therefore Mr. Garrison was the
publisher. This he (Mr. T.) most pointedly, and distinctly, and
solemnly denied, and challenged Mr. B. to the proof. Did Mr. B. show
the placard? No. Did he demonstrate its identity with Mr. Garrison's
paper? No. He had not done so. To make Mr. Garrison the author or
publisher of such a placard, was to publish him a coward and a
villain; for he who could point out any man, still more a Christian
minister, to the fury of a mob, was a moral monster, a coward, and a
villain. He called on Mr. B. by his regard for truth and justice, and
his reputation as a minister of Christ, to adduce the proofs necessary
to sustain so grave an accusation, and he (Mr. T.) pledged himself to
cast off the dearest friend he had, if a crime so base could be fixed
on him. To return to the Maryland scheme. In the month of July or
August, 1834, Boston was visited by his respected opponent, his
brother, Dr. J. Breckinridge, and an agent of the Maryland
Colonization Society, and a meeting was convened to enable those
gentlemen to set forth and recommend the scheme of that Society, in
aid of which the legislature of Maryland had made an appropriation of
$200,000. He (Mr. T.) was fully prepared to show, that the object of
the Society was to get rid of the free colored population, and that
according to their design the state legislature had, in immediate
connection with the grant of money, passed most rigorous and cruel
laws. The Colonization Society was the net cast for the colored
people--the laws of the state were the means devised to drive the
devoted victims into its meshes. This was called helping them out of
the country with their free consent. He (Mr. T.) would bring forward
abundant proofs when he next addressed them--he would then read the
laws which he could not now produce for want of time. Mr. Breckinridge
might or might not notice these general charges against the Maryland
scheme; but he (Mr. T.) would hereafter fully support them, and show,
too, that the National Colonization Society was equally culpable,
having at its ensuing annual meeting fully approved of the plan, and
recommended it as a bright example for the imitation of other states.
* * * * *
MR. BRECKINRIDGE then rose. He had last night understood Mr. Thompson
to say, that this evening he would take up and expose the colonization
scheme. It was possible that he had been wrong in this; but such was
certainly the impression made upon his mind. Instead of adopting such
a course, however, Mr. Thompson had treated them to a second edition
of his last night's speech the only difference being that the one they
had just heard was more elaborate. If they were to be called on to
hear all Mr. Thompson's speeches twice, it would be a considerable
time before they finished the discussion. He congratulated Mr.
Thompson on his second edition, being in some respects an improvement,
on his first. It was certainly better arranged. In the observations he
was about to make, he would follow the course of the argument
exhibited in Mr. Thompson's two speeches; but he, at the same time,
wished it to be understood that he would not be cast out of the line
of discussion every night in the same manner. As to what had been said
about the 'handful,' he did not think it necessary to say much. He
would simply remind Mr. T., that however great or however small the
'handful' might be, one pervading evil might pollute it all. A dead
fly could cause the ointment of the apothecary to stink. But to come
to the point. Mr. Thompson had said that the question was national as
it respected America, because slaveholding states had been admitted
into the confederacy. The simple fact of these states having been
admitted members of the Union, was, in Mr. Thompson's estimation,
proof sufficient, not only that slavery was chargeable on the whole
nation, but that there had been a positive predilection among the
American people in favor of slavery. In clearing up this point, a
little chronological knowledge would help us. He would therefore call
the attention of the audience to the real state of matters when the
confederacy was established. At that period, Massachusetts was the
only State in which slavery had been abolished; and even in
Massachusetts its formal abolition was not effected till some time
after. For in that State it came to an end in consequence of a clause
inserted in the Constitution itself--tantamount to the one in our
Declaration of Independence, that freedom is a natural and inalienable
right. Successive judicial decisions, upon this clause, without any
special legislation, had abolished slavery there; so that the exact
period of its actual termination is not easily definable. This recalls
another point on which Mr. Thompson would have been the better of
possessing a little chronological information. He had repeatedly
stated that the American Constitution was founded on the principle,
that all men are created free and equal. Now, this was not so. The
principle was no doubt, a just one; it was asserted most fully by the
Continental Congress of 1776, and might be said to form the basis of
our Declaration of Independence. But it was not contained in the
American Constitution, which was formed twelve years afterwards. That
Constitution was formed in accordance with the circumstances in which
the different states were placed. Its chief object was to guard
against external injury, and regulate external affairs; it interfered
as little as possible with the internal regulations of each state. The
American was a federative system of government; twenty-four distinct
republics were united for certain purposes, and for these alone. So
far was the national government from possessing unlimited powers, that
the Constitution itself was but a very partial grant of those, which,
in their omnipotence, resided, according to our theory, only in the
people themselves in their primary assemblies. It had been specially
agreed in the Constitution itself, that the powers not delegated
should be as expressly reserved, as if excepted by name; and, amongst
the chief subjects, exclusively interior, and not delegated, and so
reserved, is slavery. Had this not been the case, the confederacy
could not have been formed. It had been said that the American
Constitution had not only tolerated slavery, but that it had actually
guaranteed the slave-trade for twenty years. Nothing could be more
uncandid than this statement. Never had facts been more perverted. One
of the causes of the American Revolution had been the refusal of the
British King to sanction certain arrangements on which some of the
states wished to enter, for the abolition of the slave-trade. At the
formation of the Federal Constitution, while slavery was excluded from
the control of Congress, as a purely state affair, the slave trade was
deemed a fit subject, by the majority, for the executors of national
power, as being an exterior affair. And at a period prior to the very
commencement of that great plan of individual effort, guided by
Wilberforce and Clarkson, in Britain; and which required twenty years
to rouse the conscience of this nation--our distant, and now traduced
fathers, had already made up their minds, that this horrid traffic,
which they found not only existing, but encouraged by the whole power
of the King, should be abolished. It was granted, perhaps too readily
to the claims of those who thought, (as nearly the whole world
thought) that twenty years should be the limit of the trade; and at
the end of that period it was instantly prohibited, as a matter
course, and by unanimous consent. How unjust then was it to charge on
America, as a crime, what was one of the brightest virtues in her
escutcheon. Mr. Thompson had next asserted, that slavery of the most
horrid description existed in the Capital of America, and in the
surrounding District, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
Congress. He (Mr. Breckinridge) did not hesitate to deny this. It was
not true. Slavery did exist there; but it was not of the horrible
character which had been represented. It was well known that the
slavery existing in the United States was the mildest to be seen in
any country under Heaven. Nothing but the most profound ignorance
could lead any one to assert the contrary. Mr. Thompson had a
colleague in his recent exhibitions in London, who seemed to have
taken interludes in all Mr. T's speeches. In one of these, that
colleague had said, he knew of his own knowledge a case, in which a
man had given $500 for a slave, in order to burn him alive! Mr.
Thompson, no doubt knew, that even on the supposition that such a
monster was to be found, he was liable in every part of the United
States, to be hanged as any other murderer. Slavery was bad enough
anywhere; but to say that it was more unmitigated in America than in
the West Indies, where emigration had always been necessary to keep up
the numbers, while in America, the slave population increased faster
than any part of the human race, was a gross exaggeration, or a proof
of the profoundest ignorance. To say that the slavery of the District
of Columbia was the most horrid that ever existed, when it, along with
the whole of the slavery on that continent, was so hedged about by
human laws, that in every one of the states cruelty to the slave was
punished as an offence against the state; the killing of a slave was
punished every where with death; while in all ages, and nearly in all
countries where slavery has existed besides, the master was not only
the exclusive judge of the treatment of his slave, but the absolute
disposer of his life, which he could take away at will; these
statements can proceed only from unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose
to mislead. As to the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia, there might, at first sight, appear to be some grounds of
accusation; but yet, when the subject was considered in all its
bearings, so many pregnant, if not conclusive, reasons presented
themselves against interference, that though much attention had been
bestowed upon it for many years, the result had been that nothing was
done. It was to be recollected that the whole District of Columbia was
only ten miles square; and that it was surrounded by states in which
slavery was still legalized. It was thus clear, that though slavery
were abolished in Columbia, not an individual of the six thousand
slaves now within its bounds, would necessarily be relieved of his
fetters. Were an abolition bill to pass the House of Representatives
to-day, the whole six thousand could be removed to a neighboring slave
state before it could be taken up in the Senate to-morrow. It was,
therefore, worse than idle to say so much on what could never be a
practical question. Again; the District of Columbia had been ceded to
the General Government by Maryland and Virginia, both slaveholding
states, for national purposes; but this would never have been done had
it been contemplated that Congress would abolish slavery within its
bounds, and thus establish a nucleus of anti-slavery agitation in the
heart of their territory. The exercise of such a power, therefore, on
the part of Congress, could be viewed in no other light than as a
gross fraud on those two states. It should never be forgotten that
slavery can be abolished in any part of America only by the persuasive
power of truth voluntarily submitted to the slaveholders themselves.
And though much is said in that country, and still more here, about
the criminality of the Northern States in not declaring that they
would not aid in the suppression of a servile war--such declamation is
worse than idle. But there is a frightful meaning in this unmeasured
abuse heaped by Mr. Thompson on the people of the free states, for
their expressions of devotion to the Union and the Constitution, and
their determination to aid, if necessary, in suppressing by force--all
force used by, or on behalf of the slaves. Is it then true, that Mr.
Thompson and his American friends, did contemplate a servile war? If
not, why denounce the North for saying it should be suppressed? Were
the people of America right when they charged him and his co-workers
with stirring up insurrection? If not, why lavish every epithet of
contempt and abhorrence upon those who have declared their readiness
to put a stop to the indiscriminate slaughter and pillage of a region
as large as Western Europe? Such speeches as that I have this night
heard go far to warrant all that has ever been said against this
individual in America, and to excuse those who considered him a
general disturber of their peace, and were disposed to proceed against
him accordingly. It was, however, the opinion of many that Congress
had no power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. B.
said his opinion was different; yet it must be admitted that the
obstacles to the exercise of this power were of the most serious kind,
and such as, to a candid mind, would free those who hesitated, from
the charge of being pro-slavery men. Perhaps the great reason against
the exercise of that power, even if its existence in Congress were
clear, was, that it would inevitably produce a dissolution of the
Union. When he spoke of the free states bringing about the abolition
of slavery in the South, he was to be understood as meaning that these
states, in accordance with what had been so often hinted at, should
march to the South with arms in their hands, and declare the slaves
free. Now, even supposing that the people of the North had no regard
for the peace of their country--that they were perfectly indifferent
to the glory, the power, and the happiness resulting from the Federal
Union--was it certain, that by adopting such a course, they would
really advance the welfare of the slave? Every candid man would at
once see that the condition of the slave population would be made more
hopeless than ever by it. The fourth proof brought forward by Mr.
Thompson, in support of his proposition that America was chargeable,
in a national point of view, with the guilt of slavery, was the fact
that the different states were bound to restore all run-away slaves.
But this was a regulation which applied to the case of all servants
who leave their masters in an improper manner. Apprentices, children,
even wives, if it might be supposed that a wife would ever leave her
husband, were to be restored as well as the slaves. Were this not
provided, the different states would form to each other the most
horrible neighborhood that could be imagined. No state is expected to
say, that any man is of right or should be 'held to service' of any
kind, in another state; for such are the words of the Constitution.
But the purely internal arrangements of each state, must necessarily
be respected by all the others; or eternal border wars must be the
result. In the re-delivery of a run-away slave, or apprentice,
therefore, the court of the one state is only required to say what are
the law, and the fact of the other state from which the claimant
comes, and to decide accordingly. And when Mr. T. says that this
proceeding is not only contrary to the spirit of the gospel, but to
the express command of God under the Jewish dispensation, I need only
to defend the practice, by questioning his biblical capacities, and
referring for explanation to his second printed speech before the
Glasgow Emancipation Society. In that, he states a fictitious case as
regards Ireland--resembling remarkably the case recorded in holy writ,
of Egypt under the government of Joseph; and while all men have
thought that Joseph came from God, and was peculiarly approved of
him--Mr. T. has represented, that he who should do in Ireland, very
much what Joseph did in Egypt, could be considered as coming only
'from America, or from the bottomless pit!!!' As long as the Holy
Ghost gives men reason to consider certain principles right, they may
be well content to abide under the wrath of Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson
said, in the fifth place, that slavery was a national crime, because
the states were all bound to assist each other, in suppressing
internal insurrection. To this he would answer, that as it regarded
the duty of the nation to the several states, there were two, and but
two great guarantees--namely, the preservation of internal peace, and
the upholding of republican institutions, tranquillity, and
republicanism. Carolina was as much bound to assist Rhode Island as
Rhode Island was to assist Carolina. All were mutually bound to each;
and if things went on as of late, the South were as likely to be
called on to suppress mobs at the North, as the North to suppress
insurrection at the South. It was next advanced by Mr. T. that the
people of the North were taxed for the support of slavery. Now, the
fact was, that America presented the extraordinary spectacle of a
nation free of taxes altogether; free of debt, with an overflowing
Treasury, with so much money, indeed, that they did not well know what
to do with it. It was almost needless to explain that the American
revenue was at present and had been for many years past, derived
solely from the sale of public lands, and from the customs or duties
levied on imported articles of various kinds. The payment of these
duties was entirely a voluntary tax, as in order to avoid it, it was
only necessary to refrain from the use of articles on which they were
imposed. As for Mr. T's argument about the standing army, employed in
keeping down the slaves, its value might be judged from the fact,
that, though even according to Mr. T's own showing, the slave
population amounted to two and a half millions, the army was composed
of only six thousand men, scattered along three frontiers, extending
two thousand miles each. Throughout the whole slaveholding states
there were not probably fifteen hundred soldiers. The charge was, in
fact, complete humbug, founded upon just nothing at all. Mr.
Thompson's seventh charge was, that Congress refused to suppress the
internal slave-trade. This was easily answered. There was in America
not one individual among five hundred who believed that Congress had
the power to do so. And, although he (Mr. B.) believed that Congress
had power to prevent the migration of slaves from state to state, as
fully as they had to prevent the importation of them into the states
from foreign countries; and that the exercise of this power, would
prevent, in a great degree, the trade in slaves from state to state,
yet very few concurred with him even in this modified view of the
case. And it must be admitted that the exercise of such a power, if
it really exists, would be attended with such results of unmixed evil
at this time, that no one whatever would deem it proper to attempt, or
possible to enforce its exercise. It was next said, that as Missouri,
a slaveholding state, had been admitted into the Union after the full
consideration of the subject by Congress, therefore the nation had
become identified with slavery, and responsible for its existence, at
least in Missouri. But on the supposition that, before receiving
Missouri as a member of the confederacy, it had been demanded of her
that she should abolish slavery; and supposing Missouri had acceded to
the terms proposed, that she had really given her slaves freedom, and
been added to the Federal Union in consequence: suppose Missouri had
done all this; what was there to prevent her from re-establishing
slavery so soon as the end she sought was gained. No power was
possessed by the other states in the matter, and all that could have
been said was, that Missouri had acted with bad faith--that she had
broken a condition precedent--that she had given just cause of war.
According to the most latitudinarian notions, this was the extent of
the remedy in the hands of Congress. But Mr. Thompson, being a holder
of peace principles--if we may judge by his published speeches--must
admit it to be as really a sin to kill, as to enslave men; so that, in
his own showing, this argument amounts to nothing. But when it is
considered that every state in the American Union has the recognized
right to alter its Constitution, when, and how it may think fit,
saving only that it be republican; it is most manifest that Congress
and the other states have, and could have in no case, any more power
or right to prevent Missouri's continuing, or creating slavery, than
they had to prevent Massachusetts from abolishing it. But, if we were
to stand upon the mere rights of war, he (Mr. B.) did not know but
that America had just cause of war against Britain, according to the
received notions on that subject, in the speeches delivered by Mr.
Thompson under the connivance of the authorities here. But the causes
of war were very different in the opinions of men, and in the eye of
God. If Mr. Thompson was right in condemning America for the guilt of
Missouri, then they should go to war at once and settle the question.
But, if they were not ready for this conclusion, they could do
nothing. In the edition of Mr. Thompson's speech which had been
delivered on the preceding evening, an argument had been adduced which
was omitted in the present. The argument to which he referred, was
concerning the right of the slaves to be represented. A slight
consideration of the subject might have shown that the whole power
over the subject of citizenship in each state, was exclusive in the
state itself, and was differently regulated in different states. In
some, the elective franchise was given to all who had attained the age
of twenty-one. In some, it was made to depend on the possession of
personal property; and in others, of real property. That in the
Southern states, the power of voting should be given to the masters,
and not to the slaves, was not calculated to excite surprise in
Britain, where such a large proportion of the population, and that in
a number of instances composed of men of high intelligence, were not
entitled to the elective franchise. The origin of this arrangement,
like many others involved in our social system, was a compromise of
apparently conflicting interests in the states which were engaged in
forming the Federal Constitution. The identity of taxation and
representation, was the grand idea on which the nation went into the
war of independence. When it was agreed that all white citizens, and
three-fifths of all other persons, as the Constitution expresses it,
should be represented, it followed of course, that they should be
subject to taxation. Or, if it were first agreed that they should be
taxed, it followed as certainly they should be represented. Who should
actually cast the votes, was, of necessity, left to be determined by
the states themselves, and as has been said, was variously determined;
many permitting free negroes, Indians, and mulattos, who are all
embraced, as well as slaves, to vote. That three-fifths, instead of
any other part, or the whole should be agreed on, was, no doubt, the
result of reasons which appeared conclusive to the wise and benevolent
men who made the Constitution; but I am not able to tell what they
were. It must, however, be very clear, that to accuse my country, in
one breath, for treating the negroes, bond and free, as if they were
not human beings at all--and to accuse her in the next, of fostering
and encouraging slavery, for allowing so large a proportion of the
blacks to be a part of the basis of national representation in all the
states, and then, in the third, because the whole are not so treated,
to be more abusive than ever--is merely to show plainly, how earnestly
an occasion is sought to traduce America, and how hard it is to find
one. He came now to the last charge. He himself, it seems, had
admitted, on former occasions, that slavery was a national evil. He
certainly did believe that the people of America, whether anti-slavery
or pro-slavery, would be happier and better, in conscience and
feelings, were slavery abolished. He believed that every interest
would be benefited by such an event, whether political, moral, or
social. The existence of slavery was one of the greatest evils of the
world, but it was not the crime of all the world. Though, therefore,
he considered slavery a national evil, it was not to be inferred that
he viewed it as a national crime. The cogency of such an argument was
equal to the candor of the citation on which it was founded. He would
now come to matters rather more personal. In enumerating the great
numbers of anti-slavery societies in America, Mr. Thompson had paraded
one as formed in Kentucky, for the whole state. Now, he would venture
to say that there were not ten persons in that whole State, holding
anti-slavery principles, in the Garrison sense of the word. If this
was to be judged a fair specimen of the hundreds of societies boasted
of by Mr. Thompson, there would turn out but a beggarly account of
them. He found also the name of Groton, Massachusetts, as the location
of one of the societies in the boasted list. He had once preached, and
spoken on the subject of slavery, in that sweet little village, and
been struck with the scene of peace and happiness which it presented.
He afterwards met the clergyman of that village in the city of
Baltimore, and asked him what had caused him to leave the field of his
labors. The clergyman answered, that the anti-slavery people had
invaded his peaceful village, and transformed it into such a scene of
strife that he preferred to leave it. And so it was. The pestilence,
which, like a storm of fire and brimstone from hell, always followed
the track of abolitionism, had overtaken many a peaceful village, and
driven its pastor to seek elsewhere a field not yet blasted by it. He
would conclude by remarking, that Mr. Thompson and he (Mr. B.) were
now speaking, as it were, in the face of two worlds, for Western
Europe was the world to America. And it was for England to know--that
the opinion of America--that America which already contained a larger
reading population than the whole of Britain--was as important to her,
as hers could be to us. What he had said of Mr. Garrison and of Mr.
Wright, he had said; and he was ready to answer for it in the face of
God and man. But he had something else to do, he thanked God, than to
go about the country carrying placards, ready to be produced on all
occasions. Nor where he was known, was such a course needful, to
establish what he said. When those gentlemen should make their
appearance, in defence or explanation of what he had said, he would be
the better able to judge--whether it would be proper for him to take
any notice--and if any, what--of the defence for which Mr. Thompson
had so frankly pledged himself. In the mean time, he would say to that
gentleman himself, that his attempts at brow-beating were lost upon
him.
* * * * *
MR. THOMPSON said he should commence with the end of his opponent's
speech, and notice what that gentleman had said in regard to the
charges brought by him against William Lloyd Garrison and Elizur
Wright. It appeared as if Mr. Breckinridge expected that, because in
his own country his character for veracity stood high, that therefore,
he was entitled, if he chose, to enter an assembly of twelve hundred
persons in Great Britain, and utter the gravest charges against
certain individuals 3,000 miles away, and when called upon as he had
been for proof, that he had nothing to do but turn round and say,
'Why, I am not bound to furnish proof; let the parties accused
demonstrate their innocence.' This was American justice with a
vengeance. This might be Kentucky law, or Lynch law, but could hardly
be called justice by any assembly of honest and impartial persons.
Such justice might suit the neighborhood of Vicksburg, but it would
not recommend itself to a Scotish audience. He (Mr. T.) would not
undertake at this time the task of justifying the men who had been
calumniated. He knew these gentlemen, and had no doubt when they heard
the charges preferred against them in this country, they would be able
and ready to clear themselves before the world. He would not say that
Mr. Breckinridge did not himself believe the allegations to be true,
but he would say that had that gentleman possessed a knowledge of the
true character of those he had spoken against--had he known them as he
(Mr. T.) knew them, he would have held them incapable of the dark
deeds alleged against them. With regard to Mr. B's remarks upon the
number of the slave population, the amount of the troops in the United
States, and the existence of slavery in the district of Columbia, he
must say that they were nothing but special pleadings; that the whole
was a complete specimen of what the lawyers termed pettifogging. He
(Mr. T.) was not prepared to hear a minister say that because only
1500 troops out of 6000 were found in the southern states, that,
therefore, the nation was not implicated--that because, if the slavery
of the district was abolished, there would be no fewer slaves in the
country--that, therefore, the seat of government should not be
cleansed from its abomination. He would remind his opponent that they
were discussing a question of principle, and that the scriptures had
declared that he who was unjust in the least, was unjust also in the
greatest. Mr. Breckinridge had still cautiously avoided naming the
parties in the United States who were responsible for the sin of
Slavery. They were told that neither New Hampshire nor Massachusetts,
nor any other of the Northern states were to blame; that the
government was not to blame, nor, had it even yet been said, that the
Southern states were to blame. Still the aggregate of the guilt
belonged somewhere; and if the parties to whom reference had been made
were to be exculpated, at whose door, he would ask, were the sin and
shame of the system to be laid. The gentleman with whom he was
debating had repeatedly told him (Mr. T.) that he did not understand
'the system.' He frankly confessed that he did not. It was a
mystery of iniquity which he could not pretend to fathom; but he
thought he might add that the Americans themselves, at least the
Colonizationists, did not seem to understand it very well neither,
for they had been operating for a very long time, without effecting
any favorable change in the system. A word with regard to the
representation of slaves in Congress. Mr. B. had spoken as if he had
intended to have it understood, that the slaves were themselves
benefited by that representation--that it was a partial representation
of the slave population by persons in their interest. How stood the
fact? The slaves were not at all represented as men, but as things.
They swelled, it was true, the number of members upon the floor of
Congress, but that extra number only helped to rivet their bonds
tightly upon them, being as they were, in the interest of the tyrant,
and themselves slaveholders, and not in the interest of the slaves.
What said John Quincy Adams in his celebrated report on the Tariff:--
'The representation of the slave population in this House
has, from the establishment of the Constitution of the United
States, amounted to rather more than one-tenth of the whole
number. In the present Congress (1833,) it is equivalent to
twenty-two votes; in the next Congress it will amount to
twenty-five. This is a combined and concentrated power,
always operating to the support and exclusive favor of the
slave-holding interest.'
Here was a mighty engine in the cause of oppression. It was a wicked
misrepresentation to say that the slaves were benefited by such an
arrangement. Instead of being a lever in their hands to aid them in
the overthrow of the system which was crushing them, it was a vast
addition of strength to the ranks of their tyrants, who went to
Congress to cry down discussion, to cry up Lynch law, and shout Hail
Columbia. Mr. Thompson then proceeded to give some account of the
Maryland Colonization scheme.
The first movement on the subject was in March, 1831, when Mr. Brawner
submitted the following resolutions to the Maryland Legislature, which
were by that assembly adopted. He begged particular attention both to
the letter and spirit of this document, exhibiting as it did, the
feelings of 'the good people of the state' towards the colored
population:--
Resolved, That the increased proportion of the free people of
color in this state, to the white population, the evils
growing out of their connection and unrestrained association
with the slaves their habits and manner of obtaining a
subsistence, and their withdrawing a large portion of
employment from the laboring class of the white population,
are subjects of momentous and grave consideration to the good
people of this state.
Resolved, That as philanthropists and lovers of freedom, we
deplore the existence of slavery amongst us, and would use
our utmost exertions to ameliorate its condition, yet we
consider the unrestrained power of manumission as fraught
with ultimate evils of a more dangerous tendency than the
circumstance of slavery alone, and that any act, having for
its object the mitigation of these joint evils, not
inconsistent with other paramount considerations, would be
worthy the attention and deliberation of the representatives
of a free, liberal-minded, and enlightened people.
Resolved, That we consider the colonization of free people of
color in Africa as the commencement of a system, by which if
judicious encouragement be afforded, these evils may be
measurably diminished, so that in process of time, the
relative proportion of the black to the white population,
will hardly be matter for serious and unpleasant
consideration.
Ordered, therefore, That a committee of five members be
appointed by the Chair, with instructions to report a bill,
based as nearly as may be, upon the principles contained in
the foregoing resolutions, and report the same to the
consideration of this house.
Such was the first movement on the subject. At the next session of
the legislature Mr. Brawner presented the report of the committee,
some of the extracts from which he (Mr. T.) would read:--
The committee to whom was referred the several memorials from
numerous citizens in this state, upon the subject, of the
colored population, Report,--
That the views presented by the memorialists are various, and
the recommendations contained in some of the memorials are
entirely repugnant to those contained in others. The
subjects, however, upon which legislative action is required,
may be embraced under a few general heads:
First, That a law be passed prohibiting the future
emancipation of the slaves, unless provision be made for
their removal from the state.
Secondly, That a sum of money adequate for the attainment of
the object, be raised and appropriated for the further
removal of those already free.
Thirdly, That a system of police be established, regulating
the future conduct and morals of this class of our
population.
And, Fourthly, There are several memorials from different
parts of our state, signed by a numerous and highly
respectable portion of our citizens, recommending the entire
abolition of slavery in the state.
On the 14th of March, 1832, the State Legislature of Maryland
appropriated for the use of the State Colonization Society the sum
of two hundred thousand dollars, payable in sums of twenty thousand
dollars per annum for ten years. Having made the grant, the
legislature next proceeded to pass acts to obtain the consent of the
colored population to quit the state and country, and emigrate to
Africa. He (Mr. T.) claimed special attention to some short extracts
from those laws. They would reveal more powerfully than any language
of his, the benevolent or rather atrociously cruel designs of the
'good people' of the state. He should quote first from 'An Act
relating to Free Negroes and Slaves,' passed within a few days of the
grant and part and parcel of the same benevolent scheme:--
Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland,
That after the passage of this act, no free negro or mulatto
shall emigrate to, or settle in this State; and no free negro
or mulatto belonging to any other state, district or
territory, shall come into this State, and therein remain for
the space of ten successive days, whether such free negro or
mulatto intends settling in this State or not, under the
penalty of fifty dollars for each and every week such persons
coming into, shall thereafter remain in this State; the one
half to the informer and the other half to the sheriff for
the use of the county. * * * and any free negro or mulatto
refusing or neglecting to pay said fine or fines, shall be
committed to the jail of the county; and shall be sold by the
sheriff at public sale, for such time as may be necessary to
cover the aforesaid penalty, first giving ten days previous
notice of such sale.
Sec. 2d. And be it enacted, That no person in this State,
shall hereafter hire, employ, or harbor any free negro or
mulatto who shall emigrate or settle in this state, after the
first day of June next, or any free negro or mulatto who
shall come into this state from any other state, district or
territory, and continue in this state for the space of ten
successive days as above, under the penalty of twenty dollars
for every day after the expiration of four days, any such
free negro or mulatto * * * shall be so employed, hired or
harbored, and all fines accruing under this act, * * * one
half thereof to be applied to the informer, and the other
half to the use of the county; and if any negro or mulatto
shall remove from this state and remain without the limits
thereof for a space longer than thirty consecutive days,
unless before leaving the state he deposits with the clerk of
the county in which he resides, a written statement of his
object in so doing, and his intention of returning again, or
unless he shall have been detained by sickness or coercion,
of which he shall bring a certificate, he shall be regarded
as a resident of another state, and be subject, if he return,
to the penalties imposed by the foregoing provisions upon
free negroes and mulattoes of another state, migrating to
this state: Provided that nothing contained in this act shall
prevent any free negro or mulatto from visiting Liberia, and
returning to the state whenever he may choose to do so.
Sec. 4. And be it enacted, That it shall not be lawful from
and after the first of June next, to import or bring into
this state by land or water, any negro, mulatto or other
slave for sale, or to reside within this state: * * * and any
person or persons so offending, shall forfeit for every such
offence, any negro, mulatto or other slave brought into this
state contrary to this act, and such negro, mulatto or other
slave, shall be entitled to freedom upon condition that he
consent to be sent to Liberia, or to leave the state
forthwith, otherwise such negro or mulatto or other slave,
shall be seized and taken and confined in jail by the sheriff
of the county where the offence is committed, which sheriff
shall receive ten dollars for every negro, mulatto or other
slave so brought into this state and forfeited as aforesaid,
and seized and taken by him. * * * Moreover, said sheriff
shall receive five dollars for such negro, mulatto or other
slave actually confined by him in jail, and the usual prison
fee as now allowed by law, and any person or persons so
offending under this act, shall be punished by indictment in
the county court of the county where the offence shall be
committed, and upon conviction thereof, the said court shall,
by its order, direct said sheriff to sell any negro, mulatto
or other slaves so seized and taken by him, under this act,
to the Colonization Society for said five dollars, and the
prison fees * * * to be taken to Liberia: and if such
Colonization Society shall not receive such negroes,
mulattoes or other slaves for said five dollars each, and the
prison fees of each, upon refusing, said sheriff shall, after
three weeks' public notice given by advertisements, sell any
such negro, mulatto or other slave to some person or persons,
with a condition that any such negro, mulatto or other slave
shall be removed and taken forthwith beyond the limits of
this state to settle and reside.
Such was the scheme which had been advocated in Boston and elsewhere
by his opponent. He now left the matter in his hands, recommending him
to exert all his eloquence and ingenuity in behalf of the honor of
Maryland, but warning him beforehand that his labors would be in vain.
* * * * *
MR. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would now proceed with what remained of the
argument on the general question. He had been asked to point out the
responsible parties in regard to slavery, and this was what he was
about to do. It was indeed much more easy to show who were the
responsible parties than to prove the innocence of those unjustly
accused--it was perhaps his duty to do both--the first he had been
attempting. It would be easy to do the other, and he trusted, that
after he had done so--if the good people of Glasgow on any future
occasion should meet to pass resolutions applauding Mr. Thompson, for
the vast sacrifices he had made, and the suffering he had endured in
the cause of emancipation, they would not again feel obliged to pass
resolutions condemning the whole American nation, as the vilest nation
that ever existed, for maintaining slavery. He would say, then, that
he considered the owners of the slaves, as in the first place,
responsible. The slave-owner had two important duties to perform in
reference to those of his fellow-beings, who were held in bondage. In
the first place, he was bound to inform himself of the whole question,
in its length and breadth, and having done so, he ought, in the
speediest manner possible, consistent with the happiness of the slaves
themselves, to set them free. This was the duty of a slave-owner, as
an individual. But, as his lot might be cast in a slaveholding state,
it was his duty, in addition to freeing his own slaves, that he should
use every lawful means to enlighten public opinion. Whatever faculties
he possessed, it was his duty to use them in the attempt to remove the
prejudices of those whose minds were not yet enlightened on this
important question. But, while it was his duty to do this, he was to
refrain from every thing which would naturally tend to exasperate the
minds of the masters. He was not to go and take hold of a man by the
throat, and say, 'You are a great thieving, man-dealing villain, and
unless you instantly give your slaves liberty, I will pitch you out of
this three story window.' That was not the mode in which a prudent man
would go to work. And he (Mr. Breckinridge) would like, above all
things, to make Mr. Thompson, and his fellow-laborers sensible of this
important truth; that in their efforts to give freedom to the slaves,
nothing could be done without the consent of the slave-owners. And
unless it was kept in view, Mr. Thompson might labor, to use an
American homely phrase, 'till the cows come home,' but he would not
move a single step nearer his object. While on this head there was
another saying which he had no doubt Mr. Thompson had frequently heard
in America, and which might be of some use for him to bear in mind, if
he revisited that horrible country; it was that one 'spoonful of
molasses would catch more flies than a hogshead of vinegar.' With
regard to the mode in which the question of slavery should be taken up
in those states where it existed, he would say that every thing had
been done--agitation, as it was called in this country--to enlighten
the public mind on the whole question, was the only thing that could
advance the cause. If there was any thing else that could be taken
advantage of for that end, he was willing to learn it, and to go home
and try to teach his countrymen who were laboring in the same cause.
In the second place, Mr. B. proceeded to say, that the parties
responsible for the existence of slavery were the states which
tolerated it. If slavery were wrong, as he was fully prepared to
assert it to be, then those states or communities which tolerate it
were justly responsible at the bar of God, at the tribunal of an
enlightened world. If slavery were wrong, those who have power were
bound to abolish it as soon as it could be done consistently with the
greatest amount of good to all concerned. Now, slavery could end in
any state only by violence, or by the consent of the masters. This
made it obviously the duty of all who had right views in such
communities, to extend and enforce them in such a way as shall appear
most likely to secure the object in view--namely, peaceful, voluntary,
and legal abolition. It demonstrates too, that whenever the majority
of such a community are ready to act in this behalf, they are bound to
act in such a manner as will constitutionally and speedily effect the
object, even though multitudes in that community should still oppose
it. But here again it is most clear that such a result can never be
brought about, till the majority of such slaveholding communities
shall not only consent to it, but require it. So that in every branch
of the matter, it constantly appears how indispensable, light, and
love, gentleness, wisdom, and truth are; and how perfectly mad it is
to expect to do any thing in America by harsh vituperation, hasty and
violent proceedings. But, say the anti-slavery people, you can abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia, and might purchase the freedom of
all the slaves throughout the whole of the states with the public
money. But it was not the price of the slaves that was the chief
difficulty in making an end of slavery. The inhabitants of the
Southern states reckoned this the least part of the case. To take away
our slaves, say they, is to take away not our property alone, but our
country also; for without them the country would not be cultivated. He
did not say that the Southern planters were right in thinking so, but
he knew that they did think so; and therefore, it was necessary to
take their opinion into account. This was only an instance of the many
difficulties by which the question was beset, and would let them see
that it was not a mere matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. In
reference to the efforts made by the American people to abolish
slavery, Mr. Breckinridge said they had done much in this cause before
Mr. Thompson was born, and possibly before his father was born. They
had labored for ages, he might almost say for half centuries. During
that time they had effected much, and they would have done more but
for the interference of the party with which Mr. Thompson was
identified. A party whose principles were based on false
metaphysics--on false morality, who came often with the fury of
demons, and yet said they were sent by God. He would say the cause of
emancipation had been much injured by the ill-designed efforts of that
party, they had thrown the cause a hundred years farther back, than it
was five years ago. In reference to the Maryland colonization scheme,
of which they had heard so much from Mr. Thompson, he would only be
able, as his time was nearly expired, to make a remark or two. That
Society had existed for about four years. In its fourth annual report
there is a statement from the managers of the Maryland State fund,
that within the preceding year, two hundred and ninety-nine
manumissions had been reported to them, which, with those previously
reported, make eleven hundred and one slaves manumitted, purely and
freely manumitted, within four years in that State: while the total
number of colored persons transported to Liberia since the Society
commenced its operations was then only one hundred and forty, as
exhibited by the same report. Nothing could show more clearly the
falsity of those statements which represent the scheme of Maryland
colonization, as being cruel, oppressive, and peculiarly opposed to
the progress of emancipation. The direct contrary is in all respects
true. With regard to the book from which Mr. Thompson had read some
extracts, purporting to be the laws of Maryland; if he were not
mistaken, that book was a violent and inflammatory pamphlet written by
some person, perhaps Mr. Thompson himself, shortly after his (Mr. B's)
visit to Boston. He would not enter upon the discussion of the merits
of that pamphlet, against which it had been alleged in America, at
the place where it originated, and he believed truly charged, that
instead of containing faithful extracts from the laws of Maryland, it
did in fact, contain only schemes of laws which had been proposed in
the Assembly of Maryland, but which had never received their sanction;
chiefly in consequence of the opposition of the friends of
colonization. In conclusion, he would say, that the Maryland scheme
was, as a whole, one of the most wise and humane projects that had
ever been devised. He had no objection on proper occasions, to go
fully into it, and he hoped to be able to show that it would do much
for the amelioration of the negro race.