Mr. B. says, that 'in many instances the bad laws had become worse,
and good laws had become bad, solely through the imprudent conduct of
Mr. Thompson's associates.' Some of the most unrighteous, barbarous,
and abominable laws ever enacted in this land, whose rulers have so
long occupied the 'throne of iniquity,' and been so often and so
deeply guilty of 'framing mischief by a law,' are cited in Stroud's
Sketch, a work published several years before 'Mr. Thompson and his
associates' had commenced their 'imprudent' measures. Those laws
certainly were not occasioned by their imprudence. It is nearly a
hundred years at least, since these statutes of pandemonium began to
disgrace American legislation.
In the fourth evening's discussion, Mr. B. asserts, page 88, that the
N. Y. Observer and Boston Recorder, 'print more matter weekly than all
the abolition newspapers in America, put together, do in half a year.'
It is really matter of astonishment, that he should venture the
utterance of such a glaring falsehood. He ought to have learned to
keep at least within the bounds of probability in his fictions. There
were at the time when his assertion was made--to say nothing of the
monthlies--not less than eight or nine _weekly_ anti-slavery papers,
some of which circulated more widely than the Recorder, and not much
less widely than the Observer. If we do not mistake, Mr. B. told a
story at least forty or fifty times as large as the truth, and we are
by no means sure that the proportion is not much larger.
Mr. Thompson, for the purpose of showing what the abolitionists are
doing in one department of their work, produced copies of the Slaves
Friend, Anti-Slavery Record, 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. Of these, Mr. B. said 'some of them 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 were, in fact,
worthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition newspapers.' Now
for the truth. _Not one_ of them was 'long ago,' or is now 'dead.'
Only one of them is 'purely occasional'--the Anti-Slavery
Anecdotes--but, with that exception, all are now alive, and nearly
every one has a circulation as extensive as that of the
Recorder--some, as already stated, still more extensive. And beside
these which Mr. Thompson exhibited, there are several other weekly and
monthly anti-slavery publications, which are neither dead, nor likely
soon to be. The Philanthropist, (its publication suspended indeed, for
a short time by the destruction of its press, but soon to be resumed,)
the Friend of Man, the American Citizen, the Vermont Telegraph, the
Middlebury Free Press, the Vermont State Journal, and a number more,
weekly, and some monthly periodicals are 'avowed abolition
newspapers,' some of them devoted almost exclusively to this cause,
and all 'respectable' both in character and extent of circulation.
Some of them are of the very highest order in point of ability and
merit, of the weekly periodicals of the country. Mr. T., therefore,
instead of exaggerating in regard to the number of the abolition
papers, fell considerably short of the truth.
'Was he [the inhabitant of Louisiana] to be told then, that he should
turn off his slaves?' &c., asks Mr. B., page 90, Certainly not--at
least, not by abolitionists. They propose that the slaves should be
permitted to remain on the plantations and work as free laborers,
where their services will be needed, and will be mutually advantageous
to themselves and their employers.
Mr. B. denies, page 90, that any person legally free, 'was ever sold
into everlasting slavery,' but his denial is only another evidence of
the facility with which he can utter, not only gross falsehoods, but
falsehoods which contradict _notorious_ facts, and which of course
cannot escape detection. Mr. T. has fully exposed this falsehood, by
presenting documentary evidence of the fact denied.
Of Mr. B's declarations, on page 91, to which we refer the reader, the
Emancipator says, 'All this, if not "gratuitous folly," is at least,
unfounded and reckless assertion, which we have scarcely ever seen
equalled.'
We ask our readers to turn back, and read again the paragraph on page
97, ending '_to_ COERCE _such emigration, might be a_ MOST SACRED
DUTY,' This has frankness at least, if it has no other good quality to
recommend it. But it is the frankness of the tyrant, who, confident of
his power to effect his purposes, fears not to avow them, however
iniquitous or abominable. And if there be frankness in letting out the
design, there is most unblushing impudence in calling its execution
'_a sacred duty_.' What utter heartlessness too, and what obliquity of
moral vision does it exhibit. And this man dares to rank himself with
the friends of the colored people! Such a friend as the Holy
Inquisitors of Spain, to the heretical Protestants, whom they deem it
their 'sacred duty to coerce' with rack and fire, to a renunciation of
their heresies. Such a friend as Louis XIV., to the Huguenots,--James
I., to the Puritans, and Charles II., to the Scottish Covenanters.
On page 98, Mr. B. introduces what he calls a speech of Mr. T. at
Andover, as reported by a student in the Theological Seminary. Mr. T.
has met this anonymous report with counter testimony, not anonymous,
but we will add that of the editor of the Emancipator, who says, 'Mr.
B. although so often pretending that he had no documents, &c., here
read the false and distorted account of Mr. Thompson's speech on this
occasion, published at the time in the Boston Courier, and signed C.
Having been there at the time, we here record our testimony to the
fact of its being false and distorted in its representations.'
Mr. B. on page 109, alludes to what Mr. Thompson has said 'about Dr.
Sprague having part of his church curtained round for persons of
color,' and says he notices it 'only because it was told as a
_specimen_ story.' In the same connection he evidently endeavors to
create the impression that the religious privileges of the free
colored people are equal to those of the whites. On this, the
Emancipator remarks, 'We can testify to the truth of the story in
regard to Dr. Sprague's church; and although every church does not
separate the blacks from the whites with so much care, or in precisely
the same way, yet it is strictly true, that almost, without exception,
the separation is made and carefully kept up, and this not only in the
ordinary worship of the Sabbath, but even when the church gather about
the table of their crucified and common Lord, to partake of the
emblems of his dying love.' And after admitting that colored men have,
in a few instances, been admitted to theological seminaries, and to a
seat in ecclesiastical bodies, the editor adds, and truly, as all
familiar with the facts can testify, 'Such instances, however, are few
and far between, and whenever they do occur, the individuals concerned
are, in many ways, made to feel their inferiority and to _know their
place_. The impression made by Mr. B's representation would be, as a
whole, incorrect.'
Mr. B. asserts, page 110, that the free blacks 'in nearly every part
of America,' enjoy all civil rights 'to a degree utterly unknown to
millions of British subjects,' in various parts of the empire, and
'even in England itself.' 'It would be easy,' says the Emancipator,
'to show that he is wrong in several particulars.' And then, as one,
refers to the fact, that the colored man is not secure in his rights
or person, but may be dragged into slavery, even from free states,
without a jury trial. This one fact is certainly sufficient to
disprove Mr. B's assertion.
'But,' says Mr. B. 'If any rights have been denied them,' as for
instance, that of preaching the gospel, 'which Virginia had lately
done,' it was all owing to the fury of abolition. See page 110. Yet
Stroud cites a law of Virginia, dating back as far as 1819, and being
then but the re-enactment of a law before in force, which rendered all
assemblies of slaves and free negroes in a meeting house or other
place by night, or at any school for teaching reading and writing, by
day or night, _unlawful_ assemblies, and subjects any person, slave or
free black, found in them, to the punishment of twenty lashes, by
order of a justice of the peace. Stroud, page 89.
Mr. B. in the true colonization spirit, takes occasion to slander the
colored people, accusing them of 'insolence and imprudence,' and of
'insulting females in the streets of our cities,' and 'setting up
claim of perfect domestic equality with their masters,' &c. See page
114. We give the Emancipator's note on this wicked accusation, which
is as cruel as it is false. 'This whole representation is false.
Nothing can be more so. The modest deportment and the spirit of
forbearance manifested by the colored people, from the outset, has
been of the most marked as well as praiseworthy character, and in
instances not a few, has secured to them the approbation of avowed
enemies of the anti-slavery cause.' We add our own testimony, so far
as our observation has extended, to the truth of this statement.
In the fifth evening's debate, Mr. B. complains, page 120, that Mr.
Thompson 'did not tell them that none of the ministers in twelve whole
states were or could easily be slaveholders, seeing they were not
inhabitants of a slave state.' And why should he. Would not the mere
knowledge of the fact, that 'they were not inhabitants of slave
states' render it unnecessary that his hearers should be particularly
informed that they were not slaveholders? Does Mr. B. believe that the
people of Glasgow supposed Northern ministers to be generally
slaveholders? We say _generally_, for we should not dare to assert
that '_none_' of them 'were,' whether they '_easily_ could be' or not.
If we have not been misinformed, and we believe we have not, it has
been our fortune, good or ill, to hear a northern slaveholding
minister preach, a minister too, whose pastoral charge was in the very
cradle of this _free_ nation.
'The overwhelming mass of American ministers,' says Mr. B., 'never
owned a slave, and those who had, were exceptions from the general
rule.' Mr. T. has demolished this position with a most tremendous
broadside of evidence. We add the following quotation, which we find
in the Emancipator, from a document published a few months ago, by the
Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. 'The number of our ministers is
but little more than half the number of our churches, and of those
ministers _not one fifth sustain any pastoral relation_.' The number
of ministers is about 100, 'and many of them are obliged to devote a
part or the whole of their time to teaching, _farming_, or some other
secular employment, to procure a support for their families.' Farming
we all know, means in the slave states, 'slaveholding and
slave-driving.'
Mr. B. seems very indignant at the declarations of his opponent, and
Moses Roper, (a colored man who had been present at some of the
meetings which Mr. T. addressed,) that slaves in America were owned,
not only by ministers and church members, but even by churches
themselves. He calls Roper's statement, 'the poor negro's silly
falsehood,' and says, page 123, 'If there be above five congregations
in all America, that own slaves, I never heard of them.' He then
mentions three of which he has heard, all in the Southern part of
Virginia. The Emancipator, in a note on this part of Mr. B's speech,
remarks, 'True, it is not the _general_ practice for churches or
ecclesiastical societies at the South, to own slaves as church
property, yet we suppose that the practice is by no means uncommon;
and the proof is threefold: _first_, that a number of instances of the
kind are actually known; _second_, that when such instances do occur,
they never produce any special sensation in the public mind--are never
spoken of as special and extraordinary cases, and never subjects such
church to reproof or the loss of ecclesiastical fellowship with other
churches; and _third_, that ministers very generally at the South hold
slaves, and that oftentimes when they are unable to buy for
themselves, some kind friend makes them a present of one or two for
house servants; and if to the ministry, why not the church?' It then
goes on to enumerate two instances, beside those admitted by Mr. B.,
of churches holding slaves, and one of a bequest of slaves to the
Missionary Society, [A. B. C. F. M.] and gives also an advertisement
of the sale of certain property 'belonging to the estate of the late
Rev. Dr. Truman,' including land, 'a library _chiefly theological_,'
and '_twenty-seven negroes_, two mules, one horse, and an old wagon.'
The note thus continues, 'And when these notices appeared in the
Southern prints, no body was struck with amazement; no protestation
was given to the public that they were extraordinary cases; no
Christian minister or Christian newspaper, as we are aware, ever
lifted their voice against them as rare cases, or bore their testimony
against them as being as monstrous as they were rare. What then is the
inference? Why, that such things, if not _general_, are yet never
regarded as singular or uncommon. Now add to these; and others that
might be named, the cases admitted by Mr. B., and to this, add the
fact that Mr. Paxton at least felt that his church in Virginia _could_
emancipate the _fifty_ slaves they owned, but _would_ not, and then
say whose statements have most of the "silly falsehoods" about them,
those of Mr. B., or the despised but honest-hearted negro?'
Mr. B. seems to regard it as a mighty grievance, that when there are
so few slaveholding ministers, church members, and churches in
America, his opponent should charge the guilt of slavery upon the
whole American church. But why is not the whole church guilty, if any
of its members persist in committing the sin, and yet are regarded as
worthy members, in regular standing?--if any of its ministers with
hands polluted by the abominable thing, are still allowed, without any
ecclesiastical censure, not only to dispense the bread of life from
the store-house of God's word, but to distribute the emblems of
Christ's body and blood, to those who come around the table to
commemorate a Saviour's dying love?--if any of its branches, claiming
to hold God's image as property, and treating as 'chattels personal,'
their Saviour, in the person of 'one of the least of these' his
'brethren,' are fellow-shipped as sister churches, and unreproved for
their iniquity? 'Who dare pretend,' asks the Emancipator, 'That the
American church does not uphold and countenance Christian slaveholders
in their conduct? True, there are individuals, and individual churches
not a few, who do not, but who bear a faithful testimony against them.
But how is it with the _governing influences_ of the church? Their
character and their acts, and not those of a minority, however large
or respectable are the character and the acts of the church. What then
is the position of the governing influences of the American church in
regard to American slavery? It is that of protection and countenance.
The proceedings of the last General Convention of the Baptists, and
the last General Conference of the Methodists, and the last General
Assembly of the Presbyterians are our confirmation--and they are
"confirmation strong as holy writ." At this very moment, these three
bodies stand before the world as the three great Patrons and
Protectors of American slavery. Deny it as they will, the gains of the
oppressor, the hire kept back by fraud is in their coffers, the blood
of the oppressed stains their garments, and they refuse to confess or
forsake their sin.'
Mr. B. would doubtless have thought it very uncharitable to cause a
large army of Israelites to turn their backs before their enemies, and
suffer a shameful and disastrous defeat, just because there was _one_
Achan in the camp.
We cannot but think that the reverend disputant rather unfortunate in
his reference to the book of Drs. Cox and Hoby, (see page 128,) for
information about the connection of the Baptists with slavery. In
looking there for light on that particular point, the reader might
chance to stumble on some things about the wicked prejudice against
the black man, as well as some sentiments in regard to the treatment
of slaves and free blacks generally, that would ill accord with the
expressed notions of the Presbyterian delegate.
On page 133, Mr. B. introduces a letter, published in the N. Y.
Observer, and signed Truth, which represents the negroes of South
Carolina as '_generally_ well fed, well clothed,' and enjoying '_the
means of religious instruction_,' and declares that '_great and
increasing efforts are made to instruct them in religion, and elevate
their characters_.' We request our readers to turn back and read the
whole letter, and then to compare it with the following extracts from
a report on the subject of the religious instruction of the colored
people, published in 1834, by the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia.
'We believe that their (the colored population's) moral and religious
condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the _heathen_
of this christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in
any country in the world.'
'The negroes are destitute of the privileges of the gospel, and ever
will be, under the present state of things. There were some exceptions
to this, the Synod say, and they "rejoice" in it; but although our
assertion is broad, we believe that, in general, it will be found to
be correct.'
'They can have no access to the the scriptures. They are dependent for
their knowledge of Christianity, upon _oral instruction_. Have they
then that amount of oral instruction, which, in their circumstances,
is necessary to their enjoyment of the gospel? _They have not._ From
an entire state beyond the Potomac to the Sabine, and from the
Atlantic to the Ohio, there are, to the best of our knowledge, not
_twelve_ men exclusively devoted to the religious instruction of the
negroes.'
The report then goes on to say that 'the negroes do not have access to
the gospel through the stated ministry of the whites,' that 'a _very
small proportion_ of the ministers in the slaveholding states, _pay
any attention to them_,' that 'they have no churches, neither is there
sufficient room for their accommodation in white churches,' and that,
in some cases, for want of a place within, 'the negroes who attend,
must catch the gospel as it escapes by the doors and windows.' 'We
venture to say,' the report continues, 'that _not a twentieth part_ of
the negroes attend divine worship on the Sabbath. Thousands and
thousands hear not the sound of the gospel, or _ever_ enter a church
_from one year to another_.'
The report says too, that they 'do not enjoy the privileges of the
gospel in private, at their houses, or on their plantations. If the
master is pious, the house servants _alone_, and frequently few or
none of these attend family worship. In general it does not enter into
the arrangement of the plantations, to make provision for their
religious instruction. We feel warranted, therefore, in the
conclusion, that the negroes are _destitute of the privileges of the
gospel, and must continue to be so_, if nothing more is done for
them.'
'We are astonished,' say the Synod, 'thus to find Christianity in
absolute conjunction with _Heathenism_, and yet conferring few or no
benefits.'
Our readers, after comparing the above with the letter read by Mr. B.,
can decide how much right the author of that letter had to sign it
'Truth.'
Mr. B., page 155, endeavors to escape the force of the immense weight
of evidence with which his antagonist presses him to the earth, by
sneering at the witnesses as 'obscure,' and for aught that could be
known, 'fictitious persons,' although the names are generally given,
and yet he quotes evidence to sustain himself, which is absolutely
anonymous. See page 132. The Emancipator pertinently asks, 'Can Mr. B.
tell us who "Truth" and "A New England man" are? Or are the persons as
"fictitious" as their stories?'
Upon Mr. B.'s assertion that Mr. Thompson's testimonies were of this
worthless character, the Emancipator has the following note. 'We beg
our readers to stop here, and go back and count the documents, and
they will find that the very reverse of what Mr. B. has stated is the
fact; and that while Mr. B.'s _main_ proofs are, first, his _own_
assertions, and, second, the assertion of individuals, or of anonymous
writers in partisan newspapers, Mr. Thompson's _main_ proofs are the
formal resolutions and declarations of ecclesiastical bodies, and of
those who represent the _governing_ influence in church and state, and
that the testimony of individuals, so far as it is used, is brought in
only as confirmatory of the other.'
On page 158, Mr. B. attacks Mr. J. A. Thome of Kentucky, with
characteristic virulence, because, in a speech at an Anti-Slavery
meeting, that young man had boldly exposed the abominations of slavery
in his native state. For this act his slanderer calls him 'the ingrate
who commenced his career of manhood, by smiting his parent in the
face.' But he cautiously avoids attempting--what he was doubtless
sensible would be a somewhat difficult task--to disprove the
statements of Mr. Thome. It is a little remarkable that the facts
stated by Thome, and denied by Mr. B. and his brother at the time,
were confirmed abundantly by an article published in the Western
Luminary, a Kentucky paper, on the very day on which Mr. Thome made
his statement in New York. Thus without any concert or arrangement,
two witnesses at a long distance from each other, testified to the
same facts, and unfortunately for the credibility of Mr. Breckinridge,
those were the facts which he was almost at the same time stoutly
denying. Other witnesses of unimpeachable veracity, have since
attested the same facts, and now Mr. B.'s impotent efforts to
discredit Mr. Thome, only serve to show his own vexation, malignity
and falsehood.
We do not pretend to have noticed all the slips of Mr. B.'s 'unruly
member' in this discussion, or to have pointed out every instance in
which he has labored with all that ability and ingenuity which we
readily admit he possesses, to create false impressions on the minds
of his audience; but enough have been pointed out to show in some
measure, the degree of confidence which ought to be reposed in his
veracity as a witness and his candor and fairness as a reasoner.
A few trifling errors into which Mr. Thompson has fallen, we feel
bound to correct; in proceeding to which, however, we cannot but
remark that considering the shortness of the time which Mr. T. spent
among us, the amount of labor which he performed in lecturing,
addressing conventions, debating, &c. &c. and the large portion of his
time necessarily consumed in social intercourse with his extensive
circle of acquaintance--nay, the very considerable share of it which
was required for the mere answering of applications to lecture, which
came from every quarter; we are actually astonished at the extent and
minuteness of his information, the mass of facts and documents which
he has contrived to collect, and what is more, at the general--the
almost uniform accuracy of his knowledge of American affairs. The
reader has seen how completely furnished he was, how armed at all
points, and ever ready to lay his hand on the very weapon which was
needed at any stage of the conflict, whether to parry the blow aimed
at himself, or to send home to his antagonist's bosom, a vigorous
thrust which neither the dexterity of sophistry could elude, nor the
buckler of brazen falsehood ward off. Indeed the mass of his
documents, and the readiness and aptness to the purpose with which he
used them, seems to have been one of the chief causes of the bitter
vexation which his opponent continually betrays. That he should have
fallen into a few mistakes is nothing surprising--that he should have
fallen into _so_ few, is indeed wonderful, and proves the industry and
diligence with which he labored at times when from the fatiguing
nature, and great amount of his public efforts, one would have
supposed he must have been obliged to indulge in perfect repose. But
to the errors.
He stated the first evening, page 12, that there were now, exclusive
of the publications of the Anti-Slavery Society, one hundred
newspapers boldly advocating the principles of abolition. 'There are,'
says the Emancipator, 'about that number friendly to our cause, and
that occasionally speak in our behalf, but not that _boldly advocate_
our principles,' or, as perhaps would be the more accurate mode of
expression, that do not boldly advocate our principles, _in their
application_ to the subject to which we apply them.
On the second evening, Mr. Thompson in speaking of the New York State
Anti-Slavery Convention, page 30, said there were 600 delegates at
Utica the first day, and that when driven away by a mob, these went to
Peterboro', and were there joined by 400 more, making 1000 in all. In
reality, it was estimated that nearly or quite 1000 went to Utica, and
of these only about 400 went to Peterboro'. The error is indeed
immaterial.
In the fourth evening's debate, Mr. T. alluding to Kaufman's
slanderous story about him, calls Kaufman 'the son of a slaveholder,
and heir to slave property.' Such was supposed to be the case, and we
were not aware that this supposition was erroneous, till we met, in
the Emancipator's note to this remark of Mr. T., an intimation that
this report had been contradicted. 'Mr. K. is from Virginia,' says the
note, 'but we believe not a slaveholder or heir to slave property.'
These are all the errors we have observed in the statements of Mr.
Thompson, and these are of so little moment that we should not have
considered them worthy of notice in his opponent.
It is perhaps unnecessary in concluding, formally to acknowledge,
what the reader cannot fail to have perceived, our large indebtedness
to the editor of the Emancipator for aid in the preparation of this
appendix. The truth is, our hands are at this time so plentifully
filled with business, that we have had but little time, to spare for
this work, and were glad to avail ourselves of the labors of one who
had, to such good purpose, just gone over the ground before us.