New-York, September 3, 1835."

The other document to which he had referred, was an "Address" adopted

at "A meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, duly held in

Boston, on Monday, August 17, A. D., 1835," signed by W. L. Garrison,

and twenty-seven highly respectable citizens of Boston, on behalf of

the Massachusetts Society, and others concurring generally in its

principles. He (Mr. T.) would only quote a few brief passages.

"We are charged with violating, or wishing to violate, the

Constitution of the United States. What have we done, what

have we said to warrant this charge? We have held public

meetings, and taken other usual means of convincing our

countrymen that slave-holding is sin, and, like all sin,

ought to be, and can be, immediately abandoned. We have said,

in the words of the Declaration of Independence, that "ALL

MEN are created equal," and that liberty is an inalienable

gift of God to every man. We know of no clause in the

Constitution which forbids our saying this. We appeal to the

calm judgment of the community, to decide, in view of recent

events, whether the measures of the friends, or those of the

opposers of abolition, are more justly chargeable with the

violation of the Constitution and laws."

* * * * *

"The foolish tale, that we would encourage amalgamation by

intermarriage between the whites and blacks, though often

refuted, as often re-appears. We shall content ourselves with

a simple denial of this charge. We challenge our opponents to

point to one of our publications in which such intermarriages

are recommended. One of our objects is to prevent the

amalgamation now going on, so far as can be done, by placing

one million of the females of this country under the

protection of law."

"We are accused of interfering in the domestic concerns of

the southern States. We would ask those, who charge this, to

explain precisely what they mean by "interference." If, by

interference be meant any attempt to legislate for the

southern States, or to compel them, by force or intimidation,

to emancipate their slaves, we at once deny any such

pretension. We are utterly opposed to any force on the

subject, but that of conscience and reason, which are

"mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds." We

fully acknowledge that no change in the slave-laws of the

southern States can be made, unless by the southern

Legislatures. Neither Congress nor the Legislatures of the

free States have authority to change the condition of a

single slave in the slave States. But, if by "interference"

be intended the exercise of the right of freely discussing

this subject, and, by speech, and through the press, creating

a public sentiment, which will reach the conscience, and

blend with the convictions of the slave-holder, and thus

ultimately work the complete extinction of slavery, this is a

species of interference which we can never consent to

relinquish."

* * * * *

"We respectfully ask our fellow-citizens, whether we are to

be deprived of these sacred privileges,--and, if so, whether

the sacrifice of our rights will not involve consequences

dangerous to all mental and even personal freedom. We have

violated, we mean to violate, no law. We have acted, we

shall continue to act, under the sanction of the Constitution

of the United States. Nothing that we propose to do can be

prevented by our opposers, without violating the Charter of

our rights. To the Law and to the Constitution we appeal."

Such were the sentiments of the abolitionists of the United States of

America.

He (Mr. T.) would embrace the present opportunity of saying a few

words respecting his own mission to the United States. It had been

much denounced as an impertinent foreign interference; but he thought

the charge had neither grace nor honesty when it came from those who

were engaged, and, as he believed, most conscientiously and

praiseworthily, in seeking, by their missionaries and agents, to

overturn the institutions, social, political, and religious, of every

other quarter of the globe. Mr. Breckinridge had said that it would be

as just on his part to inveigh against England on account of Roman

Catholicism in the west of Ireland, or Idolatry in India, as it was on

his (Mr. T's.) to condemn America for the slavery existing in that

country. The cases were not quite parallel. Before they could be

compared, Mr. B. must prove that the population of Ireland were

_constrained_ to worship the Virgin Mary--that in India, men were

_forced_ by British Law to worship idols. No British subject was

compelled by any law of this country, or any other country to which

British sway extended, to be either a _Papist_ or an _Idolator_. But

in America, men were converted into _beasts_, "according to law," and

their souls and bodies crushed and degraded by a system most

vigorously enforced by the strong arm of the _State_. His opponent had

said, however, that slavery was not a national sin. He (Mr. T.) had to

thank a friend for suggesting an illustration of the knotty problem.

Suppose a number of _Agriculturists_ and _Merchants_ and _Highway

Robbers_ were to meet together to form a Union, and the Highway

Robbers were to say--come, let us unite for the purpose of common

security, and common prosperity: we will defend each other, and trade

with each other, but we will not "interfere" in each other's

_internal_ affairs. You, gentlemen, Agriculturists and Merchants,

shall promise that you will take no notice of my felonious and

cut-throat proceedings, and I, on my part, will pledge my honor not to

intermeddle in the affairs of your farms or counting-houses: and

suppose they were to shake hands, complete the bargain, and ratify an

indissoluble union of Agriculturists, Merchants, and Highway Robbers!

would the world hold the farmer or the merchant guiltless? Mr. B. had

said much of the purity and emancipation principles of Massachusetts,

and New-Hampshire and Maine. How came it to pass, then, that they were

in terms of such close and cordial fellowship with South Carolina,

and Georgia, and Louisiana, and so ready to mob, stone, and outlaw

those who deemed it their duty to cry aloud on behalf of the

oppressed? To return to his own mission. He would never condescend to

apologize for speaking the truth. He had a commission direct from the

skies, to rebuke sin and compassionate suffering wherever on the face

of the earth they existed. This world belonged to God; and all men

were His subjects and his (Mr. Thompson's) brethren. Men might be

naturally divided by rivers, and oceans, and mountains; they might be

politically divided by different forms of government, and specified

lines of demarkation; but he (Mr. T.) took the Bible in his hand and

deemed himself at liberty to address every human being on the face of

the earth in reference to those eternal principles of justice and

truth, which are alike in all countries and in all ages, and which the

subjects of God's moral government are everywhere bound to respect. He

would say to America and to England, silence your cry of foreign

interference, or call home your Missionaries from India, and China,

and Constantinople. To shew that the object of his mission was in

accordance with the spirit of the gospel, he would read an extract

from an article in the first number of the "_Abolitionist_," the organ

of "The British and Foreign Society for the Universal Abolition of

Slavery and the Slave Trade"--a Society with which he was connected

when he went to America, and whose Agent he still was. The objects of

his mission were thus set forth:

"1. To lecture in the principal cities and towns of the free

States, upon the character, guilt, and tendency of slavery,

and the duty, necessity, and advantages of immediate and

entire abolition. These addresses will be founded upon those

great principles of humanity and religion, which have been so

fully enunciated in this country, and will consequently be

wholly unconnected with particular and local politics. This

work will be carried on under the advice and with the

co-operation of the Anti-Slavery Societies at present in

existence in the United States.

2. To aim, by every Christian means, at the overthrow of that

prejudice against the colored classes, which now so

lamentably prevails through all the States of America; and to

regard as a principal mean to obtain this desirable object,

their elevation in intellect and moral worth.

3. To suggest to the friends of negro freedom in the United

States the adoption and prosecution of such measures as were

found conducive to the cause of abolition in this country,

and may be found applicable to existing circumstances in

that.

4. To seek access to influential persons of various religious

denominations, and especially to ministers of the gospel, for

the purpose of explanatory conversation on the subjects of

slavery and prejudice.

5. To endeavor to effect a junction between the abolitionists

of the United States of America and great Britain, with a

view to the abolition of slavery and the slave trade

throughout the world."

The principles of the American Societies, his own principles, and the

objects proposed by his mission to America, were now before his

opponent. He called upon him to throw aside his quibbles on legal

technicalities, and point out, if he were able, anything in the

documents he had read, or the sentiments he had advanced,

inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity, or the genius of

rational freedom. It had been said that abolitionism was "quackery,"

only four years old. He would give them a little of the quackery of

Benjamin Franklin, in the year 1790. He held in his hand a petition

drawn up by that celebrated man, and adopted by the "_Pennsylvania

Society for the Abolition of Slavery_," the preamble of which

recognizes the doctrines which are maintained by American

Abolitionists at the present day, and expresses the (_now incendiary_)

desire of diffusing them "_wherever the evils of Slavery exist_." Of

this Society, Dr. Franklin was elected President, and Dr. Rush the

Secretary. In 1790, this Society presented to the first Congress a

petition, from which the following is an extract:--

"From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the

portion, and is still the birth-right of all men, and

influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the principles

of their institutions, your memorialists conceive themselves

bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bands of

slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of

freedom. Under these impressions, they earnestly entreat your

serious attention to the subject of slavery; that you may be

pleased to countenance the restoration to liberty of those

unhappy men, who, alone in a land of freedom, are degraded

into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of

surrounding freemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that

you will devise means for removing this inconsistency from

the character of the American people; that you will promote

mercy and justice towards this oppressed race, and that you

will step to the very verge of the power vested in you, for

discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our

fellow-men."

(Signed) BENJAMIN FRANKLIN,

President.

_Philadelphia, February 2, 1790._"

Besides the venerable Franklin in 1790, he might refer to the truly

able speech of the Rev. David Rice, in the Convention held at

Danville, Kentucky, before, or soon after the petition just read--to

the sermon of Jonathan Edwards, the younger, in the year 1791--and to

a most excellent sermon by Alexander M'Leod, through whose zeal and

labors chiefly, the Reformed Presbyterians were brought to the

determination to rid their church of slavery, an object they

accomplished in the year 1802. It was a painful fact that the American

community had retrograded in feeling and sentiment upon the subject of

slavery. The anti-slavery feeling of 1820 was neither so pure nor so

strong as in 1800, or 1790; and in 1830 the feeling had become still

weaker, and the views of the community still more corrupted. This was

owing to the formation of the colonization society, which, like a

great sponge, gathered up and absorbed the anti-slavery feeling of the

country, and by proposing the removal of the colored population, and

constantly preaching such doctrines as were calculated to advance that

object, drew public attention away from the duty of immediate

emancipation on the soil, and caused the Christian community to rest

in a scheme based upon expediency, and fully in unison with their

prejudice against color. To those who compared the various sentiments

contained in the writings and speeches of the colonizationists, with

the pure and uncompromising principles advocated towards the close of

the last, and the beginning of the present century, nothing was more

obvious than the fact he had just stated, namely, that there had been

a gradual giving up of sound views and principles, for others

accommodated to the prejudices and interests and fears of the

different portions of the community. For instance, nothing was more

common in the records of the Colonization Society than the recognition

of a right of property in man; to find the advocates of the Society,

when speaking of the slaveholder and his slaves, saying, "we hold

their _slaves_, as we hold their other _property_, _sacred_." Mr.

Breckinridge might say "these are not my opinions;"--but he must know

they were the published opinions of the managers and chief advocates

of the Society, and it was for him to explain how he could lend a

Society his countenance and aid, which promulgated and upheld so

impious a doctrine as the right of property in God's rational,

accountable, and immortal creatures. He (Mr. T.) knew, however, that

the Society could assume all colors, and preach all kinds of

doctrines. At one time it was promoting emancipation, and at another,

increasing the value of slaves, and securing the master in the

possession of them. It had one face for the north, and another for the

south--a very Proteus enacting every sort of character; having no

fixed principles--never consistent with itself in anything but its

determination by all means to get rid, if possible, of the colored

man. If there was any one thing which, more than another, was

calculated to demonstrate the true character and tendency of the

Society, it was the opinions everywhere entertained respecting it by

the colored population. It was a fact that they loathed and abhorred

the Society. No man advocating it could be popular amongst them. Even

Mr. Breckinridge, with all his virtues and benevolence, was considered

by the colored people as practically their enemy, by helping to

sustain a Society which they regarded as the most effective engine of

oppression ever invented. Surely they were qualified to form a

judgment upon the subject. They had looked into its workings--they had

narrowly watched its movements, and had satisfied themselves that it

was full of all unrighteousness. If, on the other hand, the

abolitionists were, by their measures, doing vast injury to the cause

of the free colored people, how came it to pass, that they had the

love and confidence of that entire class of the population? How was it

that even the arch fiend of abolition, George Thompson, was by them

caressed and beloved, and that they would hang for hours upon the

accents of his lips--and that the tear of gratitude would start into

their eyes wherever he met them? The secret was soon told. He (Mr. T.)

spoke _to_ them and _of_ them, as _men_. He compromised none of their

rights--he exhibited no prejudice against their complexion. He did not

recommend exile as their only way of escape from their present and

dreaded ills. He preached justice, and kindness, and repentance to

their persecutors, and maintained the right of the bleeding captive to

full and unconditional liberty, with all the privileges and honors of

humanity. Therefore they loved him--therefore they would lay down

their lives for him. He would read a list of places, in all of which

the colored people had held meetings, and denounced the plans of the

Colonization Society, viz,--

Philadelphia, New-York, Boston, Baltimore, Washington; Brooklyn and

Rochester, in the State of New-York; Hartford, Middletown, New-Haven,

and Lime in the State of Connecticut; Columbia, Pittsburg, Lewistown,

and Harrisburg, in the State of Pennsylvania; Providence, in the State

of Rhode-Island; Trenton, in the State of New-Jersey; Wilmington, in

the State of Delaware; New-Bedford, in the State of Massachusetts;

Nantucket; in the National Convention of free colored persons, held in

Philadelphia, in 1831--by the same Convention in 1832, and, he

believed, in very subsequent Conventions.

To return to the Anti-Slavery Societies of the United States. He (Mr.

T.) knew them to be composed of the finest and purest elements in the

country. They were numerous and powerful. It would soon be proved

that, with the blessing of God, they were omnipotent. Knowing the

piety, intelligence, wealth, and energy of the abolitionists of

America, it required some effort to be calm when Mr. Breckinridge

stood before a British audience and compared them to Falstaff's ragged

regiment. The Society of Kentucky might be small in regard to numbers.

He believed, however, they were highly respectable. He referred to Mr.

J. G. Birney on this point. Mr. Breckinridge might represent on the

present occasion, if it pleased him, the abolitionists of his (Mr.

B's) country as beggarly, odious, and despicable: but if he lived to

revisit England (and he hoped he might) he believed he would then have

to find some other illustration of their character, numbers and

appearance, than the ragged regiment of Shakspeare's Falstaff.

Having stated the principles of the Anti-Slavery Societies in America,

he would exhibit, in the words of the Philadelphia declaration of

sentiments, their mode of operations. The National Society, formed

during the convention, thus made known to the world its intended

course of action:--

We shall organize Anti-Slavery Societies, if possible, in

every city, town and village in our land.

We shall send forth Agents to lift up the voice of

remonstrance, of warning, of entreaty and rebuke.

We shall circulate, unsparingly, and extensively,

anti-slavery tracts and periodicals.

We shall enlist the "Pulpit" and the "Press" in the cause of

the suffering and the dumb.

We shall aim at a purification of the churches from all

participation in the guilt of slavery.

We shall encourage the labor of freemen rather than that of

the slaves, by giving a preference to their productions: and

We shall spare no exertions nor means to bring the whole

nation to speedy repentance.

Our trust for victory is solely in GOD. We may be personally

defeated, but our principles never. Truth, Justice, Reason,

Humanity, must and will gloriously triumph. Already a host is

coming up to the help of the Lord against the mighty, and the

prospect before us is full of encouragement.

Submitting this declaration to the candid examination of the

people of this country, and of the friends of liberty

throughout the world, we hereby affix our signatures to it;

pledging ourselves that, under the guidance and by the help

of Almighty God, we will do all that in us lies, consistently

with this Declaration of our principles, to overthrow the

most execrable system of slavery that has ever been witnessed

upon earth; to deliver our land from its deadliest curse; to

wipe out the foulest stain which rests upon our national

escutcheon; and to secure to the colored population of the

United States all the rights and privileges which belong to

them as men and as Americans--come what may to our persons,

our interests, or our reputations--whether we live to witness

the triumph of Liberty, Justice, and Humanity, or perish

untimely as martyrs in this great, benevolent and holy cause.

_Signed in the Adelphi Hall, in the City of Philadelphia,

on the 6th day of December, A. D. 1833._

True to the pledges given in this declaration, the abolitionists had

printed, preached, and prayed without ceasing. As a proof of what they

were doing in one department of their work, he would exhibit a number

of newspapers, tracts, pamphlets, and other periodicals, which were in

circulation throughout the country. Mr. Thompson then produced copies

of the "Slaves Friend," "Anti-Slavery Records," "Anti-Slavery

Anecdotes," "Human Rights," "Emancipator," "Liberator," "New-York

Evangelist," "Zion's Herald," "Zion's Watchman," "Philadelphia

Independent Weekly Press," "Herald of Freedom," "Lynn Record," "New

England Spectator," &c., and an "Anti-Slavery Quarterly," edited by

Professor Wright, the Secretary of the National Society, and

distinguished by considerable literary talent. These were amongst the

means pursued by the Abolitionists. They were peaceful and honorable

means, and under God, would prove effectual to bring the

blood-cemented fabric of Slavery to the ground. Other than moral and

constitutional means, the abolitionists sought not to employ. Their's

would not be the glory reaped upon the crimson field amidst the

carnage and the din of war. Their victory would not be a victory

achieved by the use of carnal weapons, effecting the freedom of one

man by the destruction of another. Their victory would be a victory

won by the potency of principles drawn from the Gospel of the Prince

of Peace--their glory the glory of those who had obtained a bloodless

conquest over the consciences and hearts of men. In the full

conviction that the principles he (Mr. Thompson) had that night

maintained, were the principles of the word of God, he would still

prosecute the work to which he had for some years devoted himself. He

called upon those around him to be true to those principles, and to

continue zealously to advocate them, and leave the consequences in the

hands of God. Let the friends of human rights again rally under the

banner which had aforetime led them to battle--under which they had

together fought and together triumphed--and to remember that the motto

inscribed upon its ample folds--a motto which, though oft abused, had

oft sustained them in the hour of conflict--was, Fiat Justicia ruat

Coelum.

* * * * *

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE rose. Having taken a good many notes of what Mr.

Thompson had said in the speech now delivered, he was prepared for

replying, if an opportunity were presented after he should have

finished saying what seemed to him more pertinent to the subject in

hand. In the meantime, he would introduce what he had now to say by

reading another version of the events which had been represented as

one of Mr. Thompson's triumphs at Boston.

Mr. May introduced a resolution denouncing the Colonization

Society as unworthy of patronage, because it disseminates

opinions unfavorable to the interest of the colored people.

Mr. Gurley replied. He finished the consideration of Mr.

May's objections, went into an exposition of the advantages

of the Colonization Society, and contrasted its claims with

those of the Anti-Slavery Society. In doing this, he

exhibited a handbill, having a large cut of a negro in

chains, with some inflammatory sentences under it. Here he

was interrupted by hisses, which were answered by clapping.

Mr. George Thompson rose and attempted to address the

meeting. This increased the confusion, Cries of "sit

down--shame--be silent--let Mr. May answer if he can--no

foreign interference," &c., from all parts of the hall. Mr.

Thompson persevered as few men would have done, but at last

yielded to the evident determination of the audience, and

took his seat. The hall then became still, and Mr. Gurley

proceeded.

We do not know that any Anti-Colonizationist was convinced by

these discussions; except men who are committed against the

Society, we believe the very general opinion is, that their

overthrow on the field of argument was as complete as any

could desire. It is evident that the cause of the

Colonization Society is gaining a hold on the convictions and

affections of the people of New-England stronger than it ever

had before. We say this in view of facts which are coming to

our knowledge from various parts. The storm of abuse and

misrepresentation with which it has been assailed, is

beginning already to contribute to its strength.

Now he begged to remark that the paper from which he had read the

foregoing extract, the New-York Observer, together with the one from

which it was originally taken, the Boston Recorder, printed more

matter weekly than all the avowed abolition newspapers, in America,

put together, did in half a year. He would notice farther, in relation

to the great display of abolition publications which had been made by

Mr. Thompson on the platform, that one of the papers lying there on

the table, had advocated his principles and cause when he was in

Boston, and likely to be mobbed at the instigation, as he believed,

of Mr. Garrison. Some of the remainder of the publications were, he

believed, long ago dead; some could hardly be said ever to have

lived; some were purely occasional; the greater part as limited in

circulation as they were contemptible in point of merit. Not above

two or three of the dozen or fifteen that had been produced before

them--and the names of which he (Mr. B.) required to be recorded--were

in fact, worthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition

newspapers. But to come to the point immediately in hand. He would

on the present occasion attempt to show that abolition was not worthy

to supplant the colonization scheme in the affections of Americans

or Britons, or of any other thinking people. He acknowledged that

there were many respectable men in the ranks of the abolitionists;

but these, almost without exception, had been at one time

colonizationists; and had he time he might show that many of them

had deserted the colonization society on some peculiar or personal

grounds, not involving the principles of the cause. He was prepared

to show, however, that by whomsoever supported, the principles of the

abolitionists were essentially wrong, and that their practice was

still worse. He had not access to the voluminous documents brought

forward by Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson had, indeed, that evening, on

this platform, publicly offered him access to them. Had that offer

been made at the beginning of the discussion, instead of the end of

it, or during the four or five days we spent in Glasgow before it

commenced, it might have been turned to some advantage. But as it

was, the audience would know how to appreciate it; and he must rely

solely upon memory, when he stated the principles promulgated by

abolitionists; though at the same time he pledged himself that his

statements not only were intended to be, but were, substantially

correct and entirely candid. The abolitionists held, then, in the

first place, as a fundamental truth, that every human being had an

instant right to be free, irrespective of consequences to himself and

others; consequently that it was the duty of masters to set free their

slaves instantly, and irrespective of all consequences; and of course,

sinful to exercise the powers of a master for one moment, or for any

purpose. This was, in substance, the great principle on which the

abolitionists acted--a principle which he was now prepared to

question. He had, on a former occasion, shown that there were only two

parties responsible for the existence of slavery, namely, individual

slave-holders, and slave-holding communities. He would now attempt to

prove, that, as applied to either of these, this principle was not

only false, but that it was a mere figment, and calculated to produce

tremendous evil. Let them first attend to what the abolitionists say

to the individual slave-holder. Perhaps the person addressed was an

inhabitant of Louisiana; where, if it is not directly contrary to

law, to manumit a slave--the law refuses to recognize the act. Was he

to be told then that he should turn off his slaves, the young and

helpless along with the old and the infirm, with the certain knowledge

that so soon as they left his plantation, they would commence a career

of trouble and sorrow most likely to end in their being seized,

imprisoned, fined, and again enslaved. Mr. Thompson had mentioned, in

nearly all his printed speeches, the case of a certain colored man,

who had been thrown into prison at Washington city, and sold into

eternal slavery to discharge the fees which had accrued by reason of

his oppression. Now he (Mr. B.) took leave to say that this story was

false, in toto. It was customary in some parts of America to sell

vagabonds, in order to make up their jail fees; but they were bound

for no longer a period than was necessary to do this. The system was

this--they were taken up as vagrants. If they were able and willing to

show that they had some regular and honest means of livelihood, they

were of course acquitted and discharged; but when they were unable to

do this, they were sold for as much as would pay the fees of

detention, trial, &c. That any person, black or white, once recognized

by the law as free, was ever sold into everlasting slavery, he

positively denied, and demanded proof. In Louisiana, however, it being

illegal to manumit a slave, those whom the abolitionists would set

free, would not be considered free in the eye of the law. They might

be harrassed, imprisoned as vagabonds, sold to pay expenses, as

vagabonds, and so soon as set free again imprisoned. He admitted that

such proceedings would be inexcusable; but what was a benevolent man,

who had the welfare of his slave really at heart, to do with an eye to

them? To act upon the abolitionist principle, would be to consign the

slave to incalculable misery, for they had but one lesson to

teach--turn loose the slaves, and leave consequences to God! The

colonizationists, however, are provided with a better remedy. If

Louisiana would not countenance manumission, nor suffer manumitted

slaves to remain within her bounds, with the usual privileges of

freemen, let them be taken to some other State, where such laws did

not exist; or if this should not on the whole be desirable, let them

be taken to Liberia. No, repeats Mr. Thompson; discharge your slaves

at once, and leave the consequences to God. If, by the wicked laws of

Louisiana, they are left to starve, or driven to desperation, or sold

again into slavery, the responsibility is theirs; do you your duty in

setting them immediately at liberty. It would require, however, that a

humane individual should be very strongly impressed with the truth of

this principle before he could persuade himself to do that which was

evidently so cruel in its immediate effects, and so likely to be

ruinous in those that are more remote. Yet that principle was, to say

the least, extremely doubtful, and ought not at every hazard to be

crammed down the throats of an entire nation. If the laws of the

community were bad, as he admitted it to be the case, he supposed it

was the duty of enlightened citizens to seek a change of that law by

proper means, but not in the meantime to do that which would be

totally insubordinate to the State--and injurious to all parties.

Whether, moreover, it was either fair or candid to denounce, as had

been done, the free States as being participators in slavery, because,

though they did not themselves hold a property in slaves, they did not

choose to swallow such nostrums even without chewing, could not be a

question. If it was so doubtful whether duty to the slaves themselves

rendered the immediate breaking up of all relations between them and

their masters a proper or even a permitted thing, it was still more

questionable whether our duties to the State may not imperiously

forbid what our duties to the slave have already warned us against. I

have omitted all considerations of a personal or selfish kind--all

rules of conduct drawn from what is due to one's self, one's family,

or one's condition, or engagements. Common benevolence forbids, as we

have seen, and common loyalty prohibits, as we shall see--what a man

must do, or lie under the curse of abolitionism. For though it be our

duty to seek the amendment of bad laws, because they are bad, it is

equally our duty to obey laws because they are laws, unless it is

clear that greater ill will follow from obedience than from

disobedience. Now all our slave States are perfectly willing that

their citizens should emancipate their slaves; only many of them

insist on their doing it elsewhere, than within their borders. As long

as other lands exist, ready to receive the manumitted slave, and

certain to be benefitted by his reception, it is to preach treason, as

well as cruelty, and folly as well as either, to assert the bounden

duty of the individual slave-holder, at all hazards, to attempt an

impossibility on the instant, rather than accomplish a better result

by foresight, preparation, and suitable delay. It may therefore be

boldly said that instant surrender of the authority of the master,

irrespective of all other considerations, must, in many cases, be a

great crime in the individual slave-holder. He would now speak of this

abolition principle to which he had adverted as a rule of conduct for

slave-holding communities. In this respect, also, he considered that

it was at best extremely questionable. Let us illustrate the principle

by the oft-repeated case of the District of Columbia. Abolitionism

asserts that it is the clear duty of Congress to abolish slavery

instantly in that District, without regard to what may occur

afterwards in consequence of that act. Let us admit that the

dissolution of the Federal Union is a consequence not worthy of

regard--even when distinctly foreseen; and that all the evils

attendant on such a result, to human society, and to all the great

interests of man throughout the earth, are as nothing, compared with

the establishment of a doubtful definition, having an antiquity of at

least four years, and a paternity disputed between Mr. Garrison and

Mr. Thompson. As a principle concerning no other creature but the

slaves of the District, and no interest but theirs, it can be shown to

be false. If Congress were instantly to abolish slavery there, with a

tolerable certainty that every slave in the District would be removed

and continued with their issue in perpetual slavery; when by an

arrangement with the owners, they might so prospectively abolish it as

to secure the freedom of every slave in five or ten years, and of

their issue as they successively arrived at twenty or twenty-five

years of age; if Congress could do the latter, and were in preference

to do the former, they would deserve the execrations of the world. The

first plea is Mr. Thompson and abolitionism; the second express my

principles and those of the despised gradualists. At all events, the

truth of the principle involved in the former supposition was not so

manifest as to justify Mr. Thompson in denouncing, as he had done,

those who did not see proper to follow it. A wise man would

hesitate--he would weigh well the resulting circumstances as one of

the best tests of the truth and utility of his principles before he

propagated, as indisputably and exclusively true, and that in despite

of all results, such principles, with the violence which had been

manifested--principles which, he repeated, were but four years old,

and which he was still convinced, were but arrant quackery. There was

another aspect of the subject. Reference had been made to the

representation of the black population in the National Government. He

would remark on this subject that it was the duty of every State to

see that power was committed only to the hands of those qualified to

exercise it properly, wisely, and beneficially. What would be said in

this country, were Mr. Thompson to propose that the elective franchise

should be made universal, and that the age at which it might be

exercised should be fixed at fifteen years? He would venture to say

that the ministry who would introduce such a scheme to Parliament,

would not exist for three days. The proposal, as Mr. T. no doubt knew,

would be considered altogether revolutionary and shocking. Yet it must

be admitted that the average of the boys of Britain who are fifteen

years old, are fully as well qualified for the exercise of the elected

franchise, as the average of the slaves in the various parts of the

United States are at the age of twenty-one years. But with us, as with

you, twenty-one years is the age at which electors vote. As I have

shown, in most of our States the elective franchise is extended to

every white man, who has attained that age; while the qualifications

of a property kind, anywhere required, are so extremely moderate, that

in all our communities nine-tenths at least of the adult white males

are entitled to vote. Now let it be borne in mind, that abolitionism

requires not only instant freedom for the slave, but also instant

treatment of him, in every civil and political, as well as every

social and religious respect, as if he were white, that is, in plain

terms--if we should follow the dogmas you sent Mr. T. to teach us, and

in which we have been held up to the scorn of all good men, for

declining to receive, a revolution far more terrible and revolting

would immediately follow throughout all our slave States, than would

follow in Britain by enfranchising in a day, every boy in it fifteen

years old--even if your house of lords were substituted by an elective

senate, and your parliaments made annual! And it is in the light of

such results, that America has received with horror the enunciation of

principles which lead directly to them, while their advocates declare

"all consequences" indifferent as it regards their conduct! And can it

be the duty of any commonwealth to bring upon itself "instantly,"--or

at all--such a condition as this? The abolitionists themselves had

evidently felt that their scheme was absurd; for they had never

ventured to propose it to a slave State. Their papers were published

and their efforts all made, and their organized agitation carried on,

and a tremendous uproar raised in States where there existed no power

whatever to put an end to slavery; but hardly a syllable had been

uttered where, if anywhere, some effect might have been produced

beneficial to the slaves, had abolition principles been practicable

anywhere. The conduct of the abolitionists had been of a piece with

what would have taken place in this country, had an agitation been got

up for the direct abolition of idolatry in China, or of popery in

Spain. Their principles had never yet been advocated in the South, but

by means of the post-office, the effects of which, in the tearing up

of mail bags, &c., Mr. Thompson well knew, and had declared. But the

fact was, that such metaphysical propositions as those propounded by

the abolitionists--even admitting them to be true--were altogether

uncalled for. Thousands of slaves had been emancipated before the

abolition principles were heard of, and all that was needed, was, that

those who were engaged in the good work should have been let alone or

aided on their own principles. What was the use of blazoning forth a

doctrine which was in all likelihood false and ruinous, but which,

were it true, could do no good? For if you could persuade a man that

his duty required him to give freedom to his slaves, and he became

suitably impressed with a sense thereof--he would do it just as

certainly and effectually as though you had begun by saying to

him--now as soon as I convince you, you must set them free

immediately! He could indeed characterize such a mode of proceeding by

no other term than that of gratuitous folly.

Again he might say that this principle of abolitionism was contrary to

all the experience which America had acquired as a nation on this

subject. Principles favorable to emancipation first took root where

there were few slaves, and when the products of their labor were of

little value. They had spread gradually towards the South, the border

States being always first inoculated, till no fewer than eight States

which tolerated slavery, adopted this principle, and successively

abolished it. To these eight States were to be added four others,

created since the formation of the Federal Constitution, which never

tolerated slavery, thus making twelve States in which slavery was not

permitted. By the influence of gradualism alone, had the cause of

freedom advanced steadily to this point, and every day rendered its

ultimate triumph throughout the whole empire more and more probable.

At this time it might have been carried South by at least 5 degrees of

latitude; and Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri,

added to the free States; and the shackles of 1,000,000 slaves been in

a process of gradual melting off. If fifty years had seen the rise of

12 free States, was it too much to hope that the next fifty years

should enfranchise twelve more. For all the ruin brought on this

glorious cause during the last four years by principles and practices

of Mr. Thompson's friends, what have they to compensate suffering

humanity? Have they or theirs released from his bonds a single slave?

The abolition plan had in fact, been a signal, a total, absolute

failure. Mr. Thompson himself did not pretend to say that a twentieth

part of the population of America had embraced his views. The whole

theory was as false as the whole practice was fatal; and just and

pious men would hereafter hesitate before they sent out new missions

to advocate them, or lent the influence of their just weight to

denunciations levelled against all who did not think them worthy of

their applause. The _second_ great _principle_ of the abolitionists,

to which he would invite attention, was this--that it was the inherent

and indestructible right of every man to abide in perfect freedom in

whatever spot he was born; and that while it is a crime to deny him

there all the rights of a man, a citizen and a Christian, it was not

less so to persuade, to win, or to coerce him into what they called

exile--this principle was levelled at the Colonization Society; and

while instant abolition formed the first, and denunciation of what

they call prejudice against color formed the last; hatred to

colonization formed the middle and active principle of the band. Of

this, it might be said, first, that it had the advantage of

contradicting all the wisdom and practice of mankind. Whether it was

meant to embrace women and minors--or at what age to establish the

beginning of rights so extraordinary and unprecedented, whether at

twenty-one, as here, or twenty-five, as in some countries, or

twenty-eight, as in others, had not yet been defined. Thus much at

least might be said--that if these rights resided in black men, they

resided in no others, of whatever hue or race; and the philosophers

who discovered their existence had found out something to compensate

these unhappy men for their unparalleled sufferings. It certainly need

not create surprise that we should listen with suspicion to such

dogmas taught by an Englishman, when we remember that, from time

immemorial, all the institutions of his own country were built upon

dogmas precisely opposite; and all her practice the reverse of the

preaching of the semi-national representative. Mr. Thompson says, a

man is a citizen by inherent right, wherever he is born; the British

monarchy, which Mr. Thompson says he prefers to all things else, says

on the contrary, that let a man be born where he may he is a Briton,

if born of British parents; and it both claims his allegiance, and

will extend to him every right of a subject born at home! Then why is

not a man an African if born of African parents in America, as well as

a Briton, if born of British parents there? Or why are we to be

attacked first with cannon on one side, and then with Billingsgate on

the other side of this vexed question? Nor did our own notions,

adverse as they were to those of Britain, conflict less with Mr. T.

and abolitionism on another part of the principle. All our notions

permit men to expatriate themselves, many of our constitutions

guarantee it as a natural right, and America had actually gone to war

with Britain in defence of that right in her unnaturalized citizens.

Britain had insisted on searching American vessels for British

sailors--America had refused to submit to the search; because, among

other things the man sought was, by naturalization, an American.

America did not oppose any of her citizens becoming Britons, if they

thought fit, and was resolved to maintain the right of those who chose

to become American citizens, from whatever country they might have

emigrated, and therefore could hear only with contempt this dictum of

abolitionism. Again he would say that, this principle is contrary to

common sense. Rights of citizenship were not to be considered natural

rights. They were given by the community--they might be withheld by

the community; and, therefore, to talk of their being indestructible,

was sheer nonsense. No man had a natural right to say, I will be a

citizen of this or that State; and in point of fact, the great bulk of

mankind were not citizens at all, but merely subjects. There were laws

establishing the present form of government, giving a certain power

to the king and to the Parliament, and regulating the mode in which

Parliament was to be elected. These laws were altogether conventional;

and as well might a man claim a natural right to be a king or a judge

as to be a citizen. It might be as truly said that one is inherently a

shark because he was born at sea, or a horse because he happened to

have been born in a stable. So far is the theory of abolition from the

truth; and so widely remote is their hatred to colonization, from

being based in justice, or reason, that circumstances may occur in

which it shall become imperative duty for men to emigrate. America

presented a striking example of the truth of this. In this country it

was customary to talk of America as a daughter of England. He had

heard people talk as if America were about as large as one English

shire, and settled principally from their own villages. But the fact

was that America was an epitome of the whole world, peopled by

colonies from almost all parts of it. It was an eclectic nation; and

to talk to Americans, of the inherent right of a man to stay and be

oppressed, where he happened to be born--or the guilt of seducing him

to emigrate, is only to expose one's self to pity or scorn. To realize

this, it is only necessary to take a map of our wide empire, washed by

both oceans, and embracing all the climates of the earth, and get some

American boy to tell you the migrations of his ancestors. To omit all

mention of the red man, from Asia, and the poor black man, from

Africa; there, he will say in New-England, are the children of the

pilgrims, who were the fathers of your own Roundheads, driven out by

the mean and vexatious tyranny of James I.; and there, in lower

Virginia, three hundred leagues off, are the descendants of the

Cavaliers and Malignants. There, in the back parts of the same ancient

commonwealth, and in all western Pennsylvania, are the sturdy Scotch,

whose fathers were hanged in the streets of your cities, by that

perjured Charles II., who thus rewarded the loyalty that gave him back

his crown. In the same key State, of the Union is a nation of

industrious Germans; while in the empire state of New-York, are the

children of those glorious United Provinces, that disputed with

yourselves for ages, the empire of the seas; and between them both in

New-Jersey the descendants of those ancient Danes who often ravaged

your own coasts. The descendants of the Hugonauts, whose ancestors

Louis XIV. expelled from France, and placed cordons on his frontiers

to butcher as they went out, simply because they were Protestants,

peopling parts of the south; in other parts of which, are colonies of

Swiss, of Spaniards, and of Catholic French. The Irishmen is

everywhere; and everywhere better treated than at home. Amongst such a

people, it must needs be an instinctive sentiment, that he who loves

country more than liberty, is unworthy to have either; that he who

inculcates or affects the love of place above the possession of

precious privileges, must have a sinister object. But he might proceed

much farther; and having shown that it might be the duty of men to

emigrate under various circumstances, prove that such a duty never was

more imperative than on the free colored population of America.

Possessing few motives to remain in America that were not base or

insignificant compared with those that ought to urge their return,

every attempt to explain and defend their conduct revealed a

selfishness on their part a thousand times greater than that they

charge upon the whites; and a cruelty on the part of their advisers

towards the dying millions of heathen in Africa, more atrocious than

that charged, even by them, on the master against his slave. The love

of country, of kindred, of liberty, of the souls of men, and of God

himself, impels them to depart, and do a work which none but they can

do; and which they forego through the love of ease, the lack of

energy, vanity gratified by the caresses of abolitionists, and

deadness to the great motives detailed above. But there was another,

and most obvious truth, which shows the utter futility of the

principle of abolition now contested. So far was the fact from being

so, that anybody, black or white, held an inherent right of

citizenship in the place of his birth; that it is most certain, no man

had even a right of bare residence, which the state might not justly

and properly deprive him of--upon sufficient reason. The state has the

indisputable right to coerce emigration, whenever the public good

required it; and when that public good coincided with the interest of

the emigrating party--and that also of the land to which they went--to

coerce such emigration might become a most sacred duty. It was indeed

true, that the friends of colonization had not contemplated nor

proposed any other than a purely voluntary emigration; for even the

traduced State of Maryland not only made the fact of removal

voluntary, but, going a step further than any other, gave a choice of

place to the emigrant. I recommend Africa, says she, but I will aid

you to go wherever you prefer to go. It should, however, be borne in

mind that this power is inherent in all communities, and has been

exercised in all time. And it were well for the advocates of abolition

principles to remember that the final, and, if necessary, forcible

separation of the parties is surely preferable to the annihilation, or

the eternal slavery of either; while it is infinitely more probable

than the instant emancipation--the universal levelling--or the general

mixture for which they contend. He had still left a _third principle_

advanced by the abolitionists on which to comment, but as only two or

three minutes of his allotted time remained, he would not enter on the

subject; but would read, for the information of the audience a speech

delivered by Mr. Thompson at Andover, in Massachusetts, the seat of

one of our largest theological seminaries, as reported by a student

who was present. He wished this speech to be put on record for the

information of the British public.

Students--I shall first speak of the natural and inalienable

rights to discuss slavery. It is not a question; you ought to

do it; you sin against God and conscience, and are traitors

to human nature and truth, if you neglect it. Whoever

attempts to stop you from the exercise of this right,

snatches the trident from the Almighty, and whoever dares to

put manacles upon mind must answer for it to the bar of God.

It belongs to God, and to God exclusively. You are not at

liberty to give respect to any entreaty or suggestion or to

take into consideration the feelings of any man or body of

men on the subject. The wicked spirit of expediency is the

spirit of hell, the infamous doctrines of the demons of hell;

and whoever attempts to preach it to the rising youth of the

land, preaches the doctrine of the damned spirits. It is the

spirit of the flame and faggot, revealing itself as it dares,

and corrupting the atmosphere so as to prevent the free

breathing of a free soul. Where are the students of the Lane

seminary? Where they ought to be;--from Georgia to Maine, and

from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains--far from a

prison-house where fetters are forged and rivetted. They

could not stay in a place where a thermometer was hung up to

graduate the state of their feelings. It was not till Dr.

Beecher consulted the faculty at New-Haven and Andover, to

see if they would sustain him, that he ventured to put the

screws on. But, perhaps you may say, we must bid farewell to

promotion if we do as you desire. The faculty have the power,

in a degree, to fix our future settlements by the

recommendation, and, therefore, we must desist. What if you

do have to leave the seminary? Far better to be away than to

breathe the tainted air of tyranny. I proclaim it here, that

the only reason why abolition is not countenanced at Andover

is, because it is unpopular; when it is popular it will be

received. In 1823, the Colonization Society was the pet child

of the churches, the seminaries, and the colleges of the

land; but now, forsooth, because it is unpopular, it is cast

off. Aye, once the eloquent tongues voiced its praise, and

the gold and silver were its tributaries--where is it now?

Cast off because it is not popular. This is rather hard; in

its old age, too. But I forbear, it is a touching theme. I

return to the Lane seminary. Never were nobler spirits and

finer minds congregated together; never in all time and place

a more heroic and generous band. Dr. Beecher himself has

pronounced the eulogy. In what condition is the seminary now.

Lying in ruins, irretrievably gone! Dr. Beecher then

sacrificed honor and reputation.

Mr. Thompson read extracts from an article in the Liberator,

which went to show that the faculty at Andover advised the

students to be uncommitted on the dividing topic of slavery.

Yes, added Mr. Thompson, go out uncommitted; wait till you

get into a pulpit and have it cushioned and a settee in it,

and then you may commit yourself. The speaker observed that

very ill effects had resulted from the failure of the

students at Andover to form themselves into an Anti-Slavery

Society--the evil example had extended to Philip's Academy,

Amherst College, &c. He had been twitted about it wherever he

had been, but you may recover yourselves, he added,

condescendingly; there is some apology for you, only let a

Society be formed instantly. Those who attempted to show from

the Bible that slavery was justifiable, were paving the

slave-holders' paths to hell with texts of Scripture. Mr.

Thompson enlarged upon the merits of the refractory students

at Lane Seminary, with a most abundant supply of adjectives;

and the mean-spirited students of Andover, although not

expressly designated as such, were understood by the manner

of expression to be placed in contrast. Mr. Thompson remarked

that such conduct would not be tolerated by the students of

any college in England, Scotland, or Ireland. This abuse, of

the faculty at Andover was more personal and pointed than I

have described; one of the faculty was called by name, but

the severe expressions I have forgotten. He would probably

have outrun himself, and exhausted the vocabulary of

opprobrious epithets, had he not been interrupted. At the

conclusion of the lecture, with the strange inconsistency

which belongs to the man, he remarked that he had a high

respect for the members of the faculty, and that he would

willingly sit at their feet as a learner.

He had only one remark before he sat down. It had been publicly

stated by a student of this seminary, that Mr. Thompson, in a

conversation with him, had said, that _every slave-holder deserved to

have his throat cut_, and that his slaves ought to do it. He could

not, of course, vouch for the truth of this; but Mr. Thompson was

there to explain. One thing, however, he could state as an

indisputable fact, namely, that the professors of the seminaries had

signed a document in which it was asserted that the young man had been

in the college for three years, and that his veracity was unimpeached

and unimpeachable. If the story were true--it was well that it was

timely made public. If the young man misunderstood Mr. Thompson, he

(Mr. B.) believed he formed one of a very large class in America, who

had fallen into similar mistakes, and drawn similar conclusions from

the general drift of his doings and sayings in that country.

* * * * *

Mr. THOMPSON, on rising, observed that no one could be more ready than

himself to commend the gentleman who had just resumed his seat for the

courage which he had shewn in dealing so frankly and faithfully with

him, (Mr. T.) in the presence of those to whom he (Mr. B.) was

comparatively a stranger, and whose favorable opinion he (Mr. T.) had

had many opportunities of conciliating. He rejoiced that his opponent

had, towards the end of his speech, attempted to state facts and

specify charges, and had thus afforded him an opportunity of showing

how completely and triumphantly he could meet the charges brought

against himself personally, and support the statements he had made in

reference to America. He would commence with the Andover story about

cutting throats. The truth of the matter was this. A student in the

Theological Seminary of the name of A. F. Kaufman, Jr., charged him,

George Thompson, with having said, in a private conversation, that

every slave-holder ought to have his throat cut, and that if the

abolitionists preached what they ought to preach, they would tell

every slave to cut his master's throat. Mr. Kaufman was from Virginia,

the son of a slave-holder, and heir to slave property. The story was

first circulated in Andover, and was afterwards published in the

New-York Commercial Advertiser, in a communication dated from the

Saratoga Springs. In reply to the printed version, I (said Mr. T.)

printed a letter denying the charge in the most solemn manner, and

referring to my numerous public addresses, and innumerable private

conversations, in proof of the perfectly pacific character of my

views. Then came forth a long statement from Mr. Kaufman, with a

certificate to his veracity and general good character, signed by

professors Woods, Stuart, and Emerson, of Andover. Here the matter

must have rested--Mr. Kaufman's charge on one side, and my denial on

the other--had the conversation been strictly private; but,

fortunately for me, there were witnesses of every word; and this

brings me to notice other circumstances connected with the affair,

constituting a most complete contradiction of the charge. I was

staying at the time under the roof of the Rev. Shipley W. Willson, the

minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Andover, and when I had

the conversation with Mr. Kaufman, in which the language imputed to me

is alleged to have been uttered, there were present, besides

ourselves, my host the Rev. S. W. Willson; the Rev. Amos A. Phelps,

congregational clergyman, and one of the agents of the American

Anti-Slavery Society; the Rev. La Roy Sunderland Methodist Episcopal

clergyman, and at present the editor of Zion's Watchman, New-York; and

the Rev. Jarvis Gregg, now a Professor in Western Reserve College,

Ohio. In consequence of the use made of the statement put forth by Mr.

Kaufman, I wrote to Professor Gregg, and Mr. Phelps, requesting them

to give their version of the conversation in writing; and their

letters in reply, which, together with one written without

solicitation by Mr. Sunderland, have been published. They not only

flatly contradict the account given by Mr. Kaufman, but prove that I

advocated in the strongest language the doctrine of non-resistance on

the part of the slaves. These letters, however, never appeared in the

columns of the papers which brought the charge and defied me to the

proof of my innocence.

It may be well to give some idea of the conversation out of which the

charge grew. Mr. Kaufman complained of the harsh language of the

abolitionists, and challenged me to quote a passage of scripture

justifying our conduct in that respect. I quoted the passage "Whoso

stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he

shall surely be put to death;" and observed, that in this text we had

a proof of the awful demerit of the slaveholder; that he was

considered worthy of death; and that the modern slaveholder, under the

Christian dispensation, was not less guilty than the slaveholder under

the Jewish law. I then reminded him of the political principles of the

Americans, and cited the words of the declaration of Independence,

"RESISTANCE _to tyrants is obedience to God_." I then contrasted the

injuries inflicted on the slave with the grievances complained of in

the Declaration of Independence, and argued, that, if the Americans

deemed themselves justified in resisting to blood the payment of a

threepenny tea tax and a stamp duty, how much more, upon the same

principles, would the slave be justified in cutting his masters'

throat, to obtain deliverance from personal thraldom. Nay more, that

every American, true to the principles of the revolution, ought to

teach the slaves to cut their master's throats--but that while these

were fair deductions from their own revolutionary principles, I held

the doctrine that it was invariably wrong to do evil that good might

come, and that I dared not purchase the freedom of the slaves by

consenting to the death of one master.

He (Mr. T.) had thus disposed of one of the most tangible portions of

his opponent's speech. He regretted there had not been more of

matter-of-fact statement in the speech of one hour in length, to which

they had just listened; a speech, which, however creditable to the

intellect of his opponent on account of its ingenuity, was by no means

creditable to his heart. Instead of dealing fairly with the documents

he (Mr. T.) had produced, and which contained a true and ample

statement of the views, feelings, principles, purposes and plans of

the abolitionists, Mr. Breckinridge had manufactured a series of

dextrous sophisms, calculated to keep out of sight the real merits of

the question. Was it not strange, that, covered as that platform was

with the documents of the abolitionists, his opponent had not quoted

one word from their writings, but had based all he had said upon a

statement of their principles made out by himself; and had then given

to that statement an interpretation of his own, utterly at variance

with all the views and doctrines entertained by the abolitionists. The

gentleman had most ably played the part of Tom Thumb, who made the

giants he so valiantly demolished. He would not attempt to grapple

with that which rested altogether upon a gross misstatement of the

principles and views of the Abolitionists. He had a right to expect

that Mr. B. would go to the many sources of official information

touching the principles he professed to denounce; but instead, he had

put forth a creed, as the creed of the Abolitionists of America, which

was nowhere to be found in their writings, and he (Mr. T.) should

therefore wait until an objection had been taken to something they

(the abolitionists) had really said or done.

Mr. Breckinridge had amused them with another Andover story. He had

read an extract from a speech said to have been delivered by him (Mr.

T.) during the protracted meeting he had held there. He would just

take the liberty of assuring the audience that he had never uttered

the speech which had that night been put into his mouth. It had been

said that the speech was reported by a student. Had Mr. B. given the

name of the student?--No. He (Mr. B.) knew that it was an anonymous

communication, written by a vile enemy of a righteous cause, who was

too much ashamed of his own productions to sign his name, but put the

initial C. at the end of his libellous productions, which were

greedily copied into the pro-slavery papers of the United States. The

reports furnished by that scribbler were known in Andover to be false,

and laughed at by the students as monstrous and ludicrous perversions

of the truth. Upon this point also, he (Mr. T.) had ample documentary

evidence. He did not wonder that Mr. Breckinridge had so frequently

twitted him respecting the multitude of documents which he (Mr. T.)

was in the habit of producing. It must be peculiarly unpleasant to

find that he (Mr. T.) had always the document at hand necessary to

annihilate the pretended proof of his opponent. He would now read from

a report of the proceedings at Andover--but a very different report

compared with that they had just heard--not an anonymous one, but

signed by a respectable and pious student in the Theological Seminary,

R. Reed, Corresponding Secretary of the Andover Anti-Slavery Society.

As reference was made, in the extract he was going to read, to a

former visit, he would just state, that about three months after his

arrival in the United States, he visited Andover, and delivered three

lectures, besides undergoing a long examination into his principles in

the College Chapel; and that on his return to Boston, where he was

then residing, he received from the Institution a series of

resolutions signed by upwards of fifty of the students, expressive of

their entire concurrence in the sentiments he had advanced, and their

high approbation of the temper in which he had advocated those

sentiments, and commending him to the blessing and protection of

Heaven. He (Mr. T.) need not say that such a testimonial from

theological students, unasked and unexpected, was peculiarly

gratifying.

The account of his second visit in July, 1835, was thus given in a

letter addressed to the editor of the Liberator.

"It had been previously announced that Mr. Thompson would

address us on Tuesday evening. The hour arrived, and a large

and respectable audience were convened in the expectation of

again listening to the--(Mr. Thompson here omitted some

complimentary expressions.) After the introductory prayer,

Mr. Phelps arose, and said he regretted that he was obliged

to state that Mr. Thompson had not yet arrived in town, but

he thought it probable he would soon be with us. He then

resumed the subject of American Slavery. He had, however,

uttered but a few sentences before Mr. T. came in. His

arrival was immediately announced from the desk, and the

expression of satisfaction, manifested by the audience, told,

more eloquently than words, the estimation in which they held

this beloved brother, and the pleasure they felt on again

enjoying the opportunity of listening to his appeals. Mr.

Thompson took his seat in the desk, and Mr. Phelps then

proceeded at some length. When he closed his remarks, Mr.

Thompson arose, and after some introductory remarks,

answered, in a powerful and eloquent manner, the inquiry,

'Why don't you go to the South.'

"The first part of the three succeeding evenings was occupied

by Mr. Phelps, in exposing the janus-faced monster, the

American Colonization Society, which he did in so masterly a

manner, that we are quite sure none of his auditors, save

those who are willfully blinded, will hereafter doubt of its

being 'a fraud upon the ignorance, and an outrage upon the

intelligence of the community.'"

"Thursday evening Mr. Thompson vindicated himself against the

aspersions heaped upon him for denouncing Dr. Cox. I would

that all Mr. Thompson's friends had been present, and his

enemies too, for I am sure that unless encased in a shield of

prejudice more impenetrable than steel, they would have been

compelled to acknowledge that his denunciation of Dr. Cox was

just, and not such an instance of tiger-like malice as some

have represented it to be." "Friday evening (the evening to

which the extract read by Mr. Breckinridge referred) he spoke

of the 'armed neutrality' of the seminary and the course

which had been taken in the Academical Institutions of

Andover. He is accused of wantonly abusing our Professors and

Teachers--of making personal attacks upon them. No personal

attacks however were made; no man's motives were impeached.

He attacked PRINCIPLES and not MEN for while he would render

to the guardians of the seminary and academies all that

respect which their station and learning and piety demands,

he would at the same time condemn the course that had been

pursued, as having a tendency to retard the progress of

emancipation. Let the public judge as to the propriety of his

remarks.

It would be recollected that the same question had been put to him

here in Glasgow, as that which he had answered at Andover. "Why don't

you go to the South?" He would tell his opponent on the present

occasion, that even he could not advocate abolition sentiments in the

South, purely and openly, without endangering his life. The reason he

was able to express his views on slavery and remain unmolested, was

because it was known that he denounced the abolitionists, and

advocated colonization. The experience of Mr. Birney was in point.

That gentleman hated slavery before he joined the abolitionists, and

was in the habit of speaking against it, in connection with the

colonization cause, and was permitted to do so without hindrance; but

when he emancipated his slaves, and called upon others to do likewise,

upon true anti-slavery principles, he was forced to fly from his

residence and family, and was now in the city of Cincinnati.

It had been tauntingly Said, "show us the fruits of your principles."

"Where are the slaves you have liberated?" He would reply, that in

Kentucky, very recently, nineteen slaves had been liberated upon

anti-slavery principles:--enough to answer Mr. B's demand, "point us

to _one_ slave your Society has been the means of liberating." But the

question was not to be so tested. The abolitionists of Britain were

often called upon in the same way; and their answer was, our

principles are extending, and when they are sufficiently impressed

upon the public mind, there will be a _general_ emancipation of the

slaves. On the 31st of July, 1834, they could not point to any

actually free in consequence of their efforts; but the night came and

passed away, and the morrow dawned upon 800,000 human beings, lifted

by the power of anti-slavery principles, out of the legal condition of

chattels, into the position of free British subjects. So in the United

States. The principles of abolition would necessarily be some time

extending, but ultimately they would effect a change in public

opinion, and a corresponding change in the treatment of the black man.

Mr. Breckinridge had disputed the truth of the fact he (Mr. T.) had

stated relative to the imprisonment and sale into bondage for life, in

the city of Washington, of a black man, justly entitled to his

freedom. He (Mr. T.) trusted that in this matter also he should be

able most satisfactorily to establish his own veracity. The evidence

he would produce to support the statement he had made, was, "A

memorial of the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, U. S., signed

by one thousand of the most respectable citizens of the District, and

presented to Congress, March 24, 1828, then referred to the Committee

on the District, and on the motion of Mr. Hubbard, of New-Hampshire,

Feb. 9, 1835, ordered to be printed." He (Mr. T.) held in his hand the

genuine document printed by Congress, "22d Congress, 2d Session, House

of Representatives, Doc. No. 140." The following was the part

containing the fact he had mentioned.

"A colored man, who stated that he was entitled to freedom

was taken up as a runaway slave, and lodged in the jail of

Washington City. He was advertised, but no one appearing to

claim him, he was according to law, put up at public auction

for the payment of his jail fees, and SOLD as a SLAVE for

LIFE. He was purchased by a slave trader, who was not

required to give security for his remaining in the District

and he was soon shipped at Alexandria for one of the southern

States. An attempt was made by some benevolent individual to

have the sale postponed until his claim to freedom could be

investigated; but their efforts were unavailing; and thus was

a human being SOLD into PERPETUAL BONDAGE at the capital of

the freest government on earth, without even a pretence of

trial, or an allegation of crime."

He should be glad to find that Mr. B. had a satisfactory explanation

of this most revolting case. Such things were enough to make any man

speak hardly of America. If he (Mr. T.) said severe things of that

country, it was not, Heaven knew, because he did not love that

country, for his heart's desire and prayer was, that she might soon be

free from every drawback upon her prosperity and usefulness. He told

these things because they ought to be known and branded as they

deserved, that the nation guilty of them might repent and abandon

them. _He_ was not the enemy of America that faithfully pointed out

her follies and crimes. No. He was the man that loved America, that

seeing her, like some lofty tree, spreading abroad her branches, and

furnishing at once shelter and sustenance to all who sought refuge

under her shade, observed with sorrow and dismay, a canker-worm at the

root, threatening to consume her beauty and her strength, and could

not rest day or night in his efforts to bring so great and glorious a

nation to a sense of her danger, and an apprehension of her duty. Let

others do the pleasant work of flattery and panegyric, and be it his

more ungracious, but not less salutary work, of proclaiming her

errors, and denouncing her sins, until she learns to do justice and

love mercy.

(He (Mr. T.) thought he might with some justice complain of the manner

in which he had been treated by his opponent. He (Mr. T.) had made

every concession which truth and justice would warrant to Mr. B.; had

honored his motives, and studiously separated him from those upon whom

his heaviest censures had fallen--the lovers and abettors of the slave

system. But a similar course had not been pursued towards him. In many

ways his motives had been impeached and his statements so denied as to

throw discredit upon his intentions in making them. In a word, Mr.

B's. whole course had been wanting in that courtesy which he had a

right to expect would be exhibited by one disputant towards another.

At the same time, he earnestly desired Mr. B. to state freely all he

thought of his motives and conduct.

A few moments yet remaining, he would say a word or two in reference

to the designs attributed to the abolitionists, in respect of the

privileges to which the colored people were entitled. He denied that

the abolitionists had ever asked for the blacks, either in regard to

political rights or social privileges, anything unreasonable. They

asked for their immediate release from personal bondage, and a

subsequent participation of civil rights; according to the amount in

which they possessed the qualifications demanded of others. Where, in

the documents of abolitionists, was the doctrine of instant and

universal enfranchisement, of which so much had been heard? He knew

not the abolitionist who had contended for such a thing. He asked

nothing for him over and above what would be freely bestowed on him if

he were white. Oh! it was an awful crime to have a black skin! There

lay all the disqualification.

The great fault which Mr. B. seemed to find with the principles of the

abolitionists was that they were too lofty; too grand; too little

accommodated to the spirit of the age; that, in the adoption of their

views and principles, they had not consulted the manners and habits

and prejudices of their country; and the whole of his (Mr.

Breckinridge's) argument had been in favor of expediency. He hated

that word "expediency," as ordinarily used. It contained, as he had

often said, the doctrine of devils. It was so congenial with our

depraved nature to make ourselves a little wiser than God--to believe

that we understood better than God's servants of old the best way of

reforming mankind. Oh! that men would take the Almighty at his word,

and simply doing their duty, leaving him to take care of consequences.

Doubtless, the dauntless Hebrew, Daniel, was deemed, in his day, a

rash man. He might so very easily have escaped the snare laid for him.

Why did he not go to the back of the house? Why not shut the window?

Why could he not pray silently to the searcher of hearts? Daniel

scorned compromise. He prayed as he had ever prayed--aloud--with his

window open, and his face to Jerusalem. He boldly met the

consequences. He walked to the lion's den--he entered, he remained:

but lo! on the third day he came forth unhurt, to tell mankind to the

end of time that, if they will do their duty and trust in Daniel's

God, no weapon formed against them shall prosper, but they shall in

His strength stop the mouths of lions, and put to flight the armies of

the aliens.

* * * * *

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE said that, so far as the present respectable audience

was concerned, he would make but a single remark. Mr. Thompson and he

had already trespassed on their patience, but they would probably do

so no longer than to-morrow night; at least so far as he was

concerned, he thought it unnecessary, if not improper. The chief

reason of his (Mr. B's.) coming here was to defend the churches,

ministers and Christians of America, from the false and dreadful

charges which had been proclaimed over Britain against them by Mr.

Thompson, and which he had challenged all the world to give him an

opportunity to prove. Upon this topic that gentleman had, as yet,

fought shy. He could wait on him no longer. They might expect,

therefore, that next evening he would take up that subject, whether

Mr. Thompson should follow him or not. If the audience considered that

the general subject had been sufficiently discussed already--as from

some manifestations he was inclined to suppose--he would at once

retire. (Slight hissing.) Was he to consider that as an answer in the

affirmative? (Renewed hissing.) Why, then, he had erred in laying any

of the blame of trying their patience on Mr. Thompson, and it was his

duty to take it all to himself; and, when he returned home, to tell

his countrymen that no charges were too gross or caluminous to be

entertained against them--nor any length of time, a weariness in

hearing them--but that the hearing of defence and proof of innocence

was an insupportable weariness. (Increased hissing, with cries of

'no'.) The only remaining supposition was, that Mr. T's. partizans had

become convinced he needed succor, and therefore gave it most

naturally in the form of organized violence. (The hissing was again

attempted, but was put down by the general voice of the meeting.) Mr.

T., he said, had at length brought accusations against him, and had

complained that although he (Mr. T.) had repeatedly and cordially

expressed good feelings towards him, (Mr. B.) he had in no instance

returned this kindness or justice; nor said a word favorable to him

throughout the debate. He would appeal to the Chairman, to know

distinctly, if Mr. Thompson had any right to demand, or if he (Mr. B.)

were bound to express his opinion of that individual. Because,

continued Mr. B., as I have in the beginning said that Mr. T. as an

individual could be nothing to me or my countrymen, I have preferred

to be silent as to him individually. If he is right, however, in

bringing such things as charges against me, and continues to demand

my opinion, I will give it fearlessly. But let him beware--for I will

call no man friend who gains his bread by calumniating my country. Nor

can he who traduces my bretheren--my kindred--my home--all that I most

venerate and revere--honor me so much as by traducing me. They had

been told that Mr. J. G. Birney had fled from Kentucky, and left his

wife and children behind him in great danger, he being obliged to flee

for his life. It was true, he believed, that Mr. Birney, excellent and

beloved as he was, had found it best to emigrate from that State. But

that he had _fled_, rested, he believed, on Mr. T's. naked assertion.

That he had left his wife and children behind, believing them to be in

personal danger, was a thing which it would require amazingly clear

proof to establish against the gentleman in question. But he would

show to the meeting that there was one individual who could do such an

act. (Mr. B. then read the following extract from a speech, delivered

at a meeting in Edinburgh, on the 28th of January, 1836:)

"He stood there not to defame America. It was true they had

persecuted him; but that was a small matter. It was true they

had hunted him like a partridge on the mountains; that he had

to lecture with the assassin's knife glancing before his

eyes; AND HIS WIFE AND HIS LITTLE ONES WERE IN DANGER OF

FALLING BY THE RUTHLESS HANDS OF MURDERERS."

And again, from the preface to the same pamphlet in which the above

cited speech is found, a pamphlet intended perhaps for America, and

called, "A Voice to her from the Metropolis of Scotland," the

following paragraph occurs:----

"Mr. Thompson having proceeded by way of St. John's, New

Brunswick, embarked on board of a British vessel for

Liverpool, where he arrived on the 4th of January, and on the

12th was happily joined by his family who had left New-York

on the 16th December.

So that it appeared from these statements that Mr. Thompson, believing

that the Americans meant to take away the lives of his wife and

children, left them to their fate while he prudently consulted his own

safety by flight. In regard to the alleged case of the sale of a free

man of color, at Washington city, the proof stood thus: Mr. T. broadly

asserted, again and again, that a free man had been sold, without

trial, into eternal slavery. He, (Mr. B.) without knowing the especial

facts relied on, but knowing America, and knowing abolitionism, had

flatly and emphatically denied that such a thing ever did or could

happen in the District of Columbia. Mr. Thompson re-asserts, and

triumphantly proves it, as he says. His first step in the proof is, a

printed scrap, which, he says, is the identical memorial laid on the

table of the Senate of the United States, who, as they received and

printed it, he insinuates, thereby avouched its truth. Upon which

principle I also avouch all Mr. T.'s charges, as I hear them and

consent to their publication. But, he adds, there were once one

thousand signatures to this document, all witnesses of the truth of

its contents. To which I reply--I see no name to it at all now; and

secondly, if there were a million, the paper does not assert, much

less prove, what Mr. T. produces it to sustain. It merely declares

_that the man said he was free_; without even expressing the opinion

of the writer or any signer of the paper. Now, upon this case, and

this proof, it is nearly certain that the man was not free, and

extremely probable that the whole case is fictitious. For the glorious

writ of habeas corpus, one of the main pillars of your liberty--a

privileged writ which no English judge, for his right hand, would dare

illegally refuse; that writ is one of the great heirlooms we got with

our Anglo-Saxon blood, and is dearer to us than that blood itself.

Here, by act of Parliament, you do sometimes suspend this writ; with

us the tyrant does not breathe who would dare to whisper a wish for

its suspension. Now, if this man was, or believed himself to be free,

what hindered him, from the moment of his arrest to that of his sale,

from demanding and receiving a fair trial? Will it be said he did not

know his rights? But will it be pretended that the one thousand

signers of the memorial, the many abolitionists at Washington of whom

Mr. T. boasts, did not know his rights--in a land where every man

knows and is ready to defend his rights? If they did not, they were

thrice sodden asses, fit only to be tools in gulling mankind into the

belief of a tale that had not feasibility enough to gull a child. Upon

the face of his own proof Mr. Thompson had shown that he had not the

slightest authority for the assertions he had so often made in arguing

this case; by all of which he intended to make men believe that in

America it was not uncommon to sell free men into slavery! Mr.

Breckinridge then resumed the consideration of abolition principles;

the _third of which_ was, that all prejudice against color is sinful,

and that everything which induces us to refuse any social, personal,

religious, civil, or political right to a black man, which is allowed

to a white one, not superior to him in moral or intellectual

qualifications, is a prejudice, and therefore sinful. He believed this

to be a fair statement of their principles on that head. And he would,

in the first place, remark concerning them, that even if they were

true, which he denied, the discussion of them was worse than useless.

It could not advance the cause of emancipation, nor improve the

condition of the free blacks. And whatever the abolitionists might

say, the slaves when freed would follow their own course and

inclinations; nor could the declaration of an abstract principle alter

either their conduct or that of the whites, in any material degree.

If, as Mr. Thompson asserted, prejudice against color was the

national sin of America, the plague-spot of the nation, it had just as

often been asserted by others that the prejudice itself originated at

first out of the relation of slavery. The latter was the disease, the

former a mere symptom. If there were no black slaves on earth there

would no longer be any aversion against that color, which went beyond

the invariable and mutual restraints of nature, or was tolerated by a

proper Christian liberty. They know little of human prejudices who do

not know that they are more invincible in the bulk of mankind than the

dictates of reason, or the impulses of virtue itself. The case of the

abolitionists must therefore be pronounced foolish on their own

showing. For they undertook to break down the strongest of all

prejudices, as they themselves say, as a condition precedent to the

doing of acts which, to do at all, required great pecuniary sacrifices

and a high tone of moral feeling. But if, as I shall try to show,

their doctrines are contrary to all the course of nature and all the

teachings of Providence--their behavior is to be considered little

else than sheer madness. Again: even if it did not prejudice the case

of the slave--as none can deny it did--to agitate this question of

color, and mix it up inseparably with the question of freedom, of what

use was it to him? If the whites treat him with scorn, give him his

liberty--and he may pity, forgive, or return the scorn. What advantage

was he to gain as a slave, by the discussion, even if no harm came

from it? What advantage was he to obtain as a freeman even if its

agitation did not forever prevent him from being free? It is, in all

its aspects, the most remarkable illustration of a weak, heady, and

ignorant fanaticism which this age has produced, and has been, of them

all, the most fruitful of evil. The truth was, that many of the rights

and privileges of free persons of color were better secured to them in

America than corresponding rights and privileges were to the white

peasantry of any other country on the globe. With regard to the

religious rights of colored persons, he could only say that he had sat

in Presbyteries with them, that he had dispensed the Sacrament to them

together with white persons; and that he and multitudes of others had

sat in the same class with them at our Theological Seminaries. As for

all the stories which Mr. T. was accustomed to tell about Dr. Sprague

having part of his church curtained round for persons of color, he

knew personally nothing, and noticed it only because it was told as a

_specimen_ story. He merely knew that Dr. Sprague was accounted a

benevolent man, and common charity required him not readily to believe

anything of him in a bad sense which could be justified in a good one.

But if there was anything so very exclusive and revolting in these

marks of superiority or inferiority in a church, let them not look to

America alone; nor limit their sympathies exclusively to the blacks.

In almost every church in England in which he had been, from the

cathedral of St. Paul's at London, to the curate's village church, he

had seen seats railed off, or curtained, or cushioned, or elevated,

and some how distinguished from the rest. And when he inquired why

these things were so, and for whose accommodation, the answer was

ready. "O, that is for My Lord this; or Sir Harry that; or Mr. Prebend

so and so; or the Lord Bishop of what not." And very often, even in

dissenting chapels, he had seen part of the seats of an inferior

description in particular parts of the house, which he had as often

been told were free seats for the poor; an arrangement which has

struck him as favorably as the similar one in Dr. Sprague's church did

Mr. T. the reverse. This preparation of free and separate seats for

the poor is, if he is rightly informed, nearly universal, in both the

Scotch and English establishments, whenever the poor have seats in

their churches. Now, if Mr. Thompson wished to begin a system of

levelling--if he meant to preach universal equality, why did he not

begin here? Why did he not try to convert Earl Grey and Lord

Melbourne, instead of going across the Atlantic in order to try his

experiments on the despised Americans? As to the civil rights of the

free blacks in America, the most erroneous notions were entertained in

both countries, but especially here. The truth was, they enjoyed

greater _civil_ rights than the peasantry of Britain herself; and

those rights were fully as well protected in their exercise. Their

right to acquire property of any kind, anywhere, without being hedged

about with exclusive privileges and ancient corporations; their right

to enjoy that property, unencumbered with poor rates, and church

rates, and tithes and tiends, and untold taxes and vexations; their

right to pursue trades, callings, or business, without regard to

monopolies, and innumerable vexatious and worrying preliminaries;

their right to be free in person--subject neither to forcible

impressment, nor to the serveilance of an innumerable police: their

right to be cared for in sickness and destitution, without questions

of domicile previously settled; their right to the speedy and cheap

administration of justice without "sale, denial or delay"--and

unattended with ruinous expenses; these, with whatever may truly be

considered civil rights, are enjoyed by the free colored people in

nearly every part of America, to a degree utterly unknown by millions

of British subjects, not only in the East and West-Indies, but in

Ireland, and even in England itself. If any rights had been denied

them, as the following of certain professions, as that of a minister

of the gospel, for example, as Virginia had lately done, he could

point their attention to the time when these laws were passed, and

show that it was not till after the era of abolition; and that would

never have been, but for its fury. It was not till after they had

learned with bell book and candle to curse the white man, and teach

sedition and murder to the slaves. The nature of _political_ rights

claimed by Mr. Thompson for the blacks, in his sweeping claim to have

them put on a footing of perfect equality with the whites, seemed to

be utterly unknown to him, both as to their origin and character.

Whilst he advocated a scheme in America which demanded the most

extensive political changes, and claimed political rights as the

birthright of certain parties, he still persisted in assuring the

British nation that he had never touched the subject in a political

aspect! Now what political rights does he claim for the free

blacks--and denounce all America for refusing, on account of this

prejudice against color? Is it right of suffrage? is it right of

office? is it perfect, personal, and political equality? If not, what

does he mean? But if he means that it already exists in all the free

States and in several of the slave States, in behalf of the free

blacks, to a far greater extent than the same exists in England, as

between the privileged classes and the bulk of the nation, though all

are white,--I boldly assert, that a greater part of the free men of

color in America did enjoy perfect political privileges at the rise of

abolitionism, than of the white men of Britain at this day. There were

more free black voters in North America, in proportion to the free

black race, than there are white voters in all Britain, in proportion

to the white inhabitants of the British empire. And this, even leaving

out the red millions of the East, and the black thousands of the

West-Indies; and making the Reform Bill the basis of calculation! If

some have been deprived of these privileges, let abolitionists blame

themselves. If in most places these privileges have been dormant, it

only proves that their exercise was a very secondary advantage--that

the present outcry is but the more wicked and absurd. As to the social

rights which were demanded for the slaves and free blacks both, there

seemed to be a complete confusion of ideas in the minds of the

abolitionists. Did they mean to say that all distinctions and

gradations of rank were iniquitous, or did they mean that men ought to

enjoy rights because they were black, which were justly denied to the

whites? Who had ever heard of a nobleman marrying a gipsy? or, of a

king of England marrying a laborer's daughter? But the fact was,

everything tended to prove that in preaching against the alleged

prejudice against color, the abolitionists were really advocating

general amalgamation. There were three opinions on the the subject:

1st. That in a State situated like most of those in America, public

policy required the mixture of the races to be prohibited; so that, in

nearly all the States, intermarriages were prohibited, and in many

States they were punishable as a felony with fine or imprisonment.

2d. That the practice was inexpedient, but so far innocent as to be

left to the discretion of the parties, which he believed was the

opinion of sober-minded people generally in this country. 3d. That, as

the chief practical objection to it is a sinful prejudice against

color, that prejudice is to be broken down, and the contrary right

upheld, as neither improper nor inexpedient, when voluntarily

exercised. This last, or even a much stronger advocacy of

amalgamation, is the doctrine of abolitionism; facts deducible from

their declaration of independence, and found in the whole scope of

their writings and speeches. Mr. Breckinridge then went on to show the

utter folly, and, as he believed, wickedness of advocating

amalgamation; or so acting or talking as to create the universal

impression that was what was meant. In the first place, the result

after which the abolitionists seemed to strive, was impossible; in the

most strict sense of the terms, naturally or physically impossible. He

by no means meant to contend with some freethinkers, who, to upset the

Mosaic cosmogony, asserted that the different races of men were not

fruitful if intermixed beyond a given and very near point. But what he

meant was this: all who believe the Mosaic account of the origin of

the human race, must, of course, believe that they were once all of

one complexion. Now, if they could all be amalgamated and made of one

complexion again, those causes, whatever they are, which have produced

so great diversities, would, after a time, reproduce them. And having

gratified Mr. Thompson and his friends, by universal levelling and

mixing the world, would soon find that they had done a work which

nature did not permit to stand; and would again behold, in one belt

upon the earth's surface, the black, in another the red, and in a

third the white man. And to whatever degree they carried their

principles into practice, they would find proportionately great

counteracting causes--continually fighting against them, and

continually requiring the reproduction of their amalgamated breed,

from the original stocks. This, then, is a fatal objection to their

scheme; the course of nature is against it. But again, he would say,

as a second fundamental objection against all such schemes, that

wherever, in the past history of the world, the various races of men

had been allowed freely to amalgamate, one of two concomitants had

universally attended the process, namely, polygamy or prostitution. If

either of these be permitted, as innocent, amalgamation can easily be

pushed through its first stage; without one at least of these two

engines, no progress has ever yet been made in this work of fighting

against the overwhelming course of events. He regretted he had not

time to go over these branches of the argument with that pains which

he could wish. If he had, he believed, notwithstanding all that Mr.

Thompson had said, or might say, about sophistry, they could each of

them be demonstrated as clearly as that gentleman could demonstrate

any proposition in geometry. Again, in the third place, he believed,

from what was contained in the Bible, that in preserving distinct from

each other the three families of mankind, as descended from the three

sons of Noah, God had great and yet undeveloped purposes to

accomplish. How far the whole history of his providence led to the

same conclusion, he must leave to their own reflections to determine.

But on the admission of such a truth as even possible--it was surely

natural to look for something in the structure of nature that would

effectually prevent the obliteration of either race. One may find this

in those general considerations which make intermarriages, in his

view, inexpedient; or another in the innate and absolute instincts of

the creature. But both will receive with suspicion, as an undoubted

and fundamental rule of Christian morals, a dogma which requires us to

contend against the clear leadings of providence, and the good and

merciful intentions of our Creator. We tax our faith but slightly when

we believe that as soon as these purposes of mercy and glory are

accomplished, and the signal revolution in the social condition of man

now contended for shall be required by the Almighty, we may look for a

channel of communication between him and the world more in accordance

with the Spirit of his Son than any which has yet brought us messages

on the subject. The _fourth_ objection which struck him against this

whole procedure was, that in point of fact the world has need of

every race that now exists on its surface. It has taken forty

centuries to adjust the nicely-balanced and adapted relations and

proportions of a vast and complicated structure,--which the finger of

all-pervading wisdom has itself guided in all the steps of its

development. And now, a stroke of the pen is to subvert it all, and

one dictum, of the world knows not whom, accomplish the most

stupendous revolution which all these forty centuries have witnessed.

Suppose the end gained. If any one race now existing was obliterated,

or very materially altered in its physical condition, how large a

proportion of the world's surface would become speedily depopulated,

and so remain until the present condition of things were restored! If

this could happen as to every race _but one_, what a wreck would the

earth exhibit! He who will look with a Christian's eye abroad upon the

families of men, must feel that to accomplish the great hopes that his

heart has conceived for this ruined world, he needs every race that

now peoples it; and must see the hand of God in arresting so speedily

and so signally this pernicious heresy. In the fifth place, he

suggested an argument against amalgamation, which at once showed

the injustice of the outcry against America, and the total

inconsiderateness of Mr. Thompson and his party. The fact was that

this prejudice of color, as it was called, was in all respects mutual;

and so far from being the peculiar sin of America, was the common

instinct of the human race, and existed as really, if not as strongly

on the side of the colored population as on that of the whites. In

proof of this, Mr. Breckinridge cited the case of Hayti, where no man

is allowed the rights of citizenship, unless a certain portion of

black blood runs in his veins; and that of Richard Lander, who, while

travelling in the interior of Africa, as the servant of Park, was

looked upon with comparative favor by the natives on account of his

dark complexion, while his master, who was of a very fair complexion,

was far less a favorite on that account. The North American Indians

and the blacks more readily intermixed than the Indians and the

whites, while the latter connexion, which is not indeed uncommon, is

formed by the marriage of a white man with a squaw; never, or most

rarely, of an Indian and a white woman, the slight, and most

exaggerated number of mulattoes, are nearly without exception, the

offspring of white men and colored women. These facts seemed to show

the reality and nature or the mutual aversion of which I have spoken;

an aversion never overcome but in gross minds. And the whole current

of remark proves that those who attempted to promote amalgamation are

fighting equally against the purposes of providence, the convictions

of reason, and the best impulses of nature. He had much to say, which

time failed him to say, on the spirit in which the abolition had been

advocated in America. He would therefore merely remark whether it

might be taken as a compliment, or the reverse, that the spirit of all

Mr. Thomson's speeches, which he had heard or read--might give them a

tolerable idea of the spirit of abolitionism everywhere: a spirit

which many seemed to consider as from above, but for himself he prayed

to be preserved from any such spirit. He had much also to say upon the

malignant feeling and spirit of insubordination which had been

produced by the discussion of these questions in the breasts of

multitudes of free colored people. The riots, of which so much had

been said in this country, were as often produced by the imprudence

and insolence of these deluded people, as by the wanton violence and

prejudices of the lowest classes of the whites. In consequence of the

influence of the Jacobinical principles of the abolitionists, many

free colored servants left employments they had held for years;

because the claim then first set up, of perfect domestic equality with

their masters, was refused; while many cases of insult to females, in

the streets of our cities, signalized the same season and spirit. He

had also much to say of the wide-spread feeling, looking towards

immediate deliverance, from a distance, and by force, which suddenly,

and, if the abolitionists are innocent as they pretend, miraculously

got possession of the minds of the slaves over all the southern

country; and which led to such stern, and but the more unhappy, if

necessary, consequences. It had been said, in justification of his

conduct by Mr. Thompson, that persuasion had never yet induced any one

to relax his hold on slaves--and that as for America, in particular,

she would never be made to feel ought on the subject, till her pride

and fears were awakened. To that he would reply that, as regarded

pride, perhaps America had her share of it; but if abolition was not

to be looked for till her fears granted it, he apprehended they would

have sufficient time yet left to send Mr. Thompson on several new

voyages before the whole country was frightened into his terms.