COLONIZATION SOCIETY, AND ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.
It is not madness
That I have utter'd:----For love of grace,
Lay not that flattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass but my madness speaks:
It will but _skin_ and _film_ the ulcerous place;
While rank corruption, mining all within,
_Infects unseen_. Confess yourself to Heaven;
Repent what's past; avoid what is to come;
And do not spread the compost on the weeds,
To make them ranker.
HAMLET, _Act III, Scene 3d_.
When doctrines meet with general approbation,
It is not heresy, but reformation.
GARRICK.
So much excitement prevails with regard to these two societies at
present, that it will be difficult to present a view of them which will
be perfectly satisfactory to all. I shall say what appears to me to be
candid and true, without any anxiety as to whom it may please, and whom
it may displease. I need not say that I have a decided predilection,
because it has been sufficiently betrayed in the preceding pages; and
I allude to it for the sake of perfect sincerity, rather than from any
idea that my opinion is important.
The American Colonization Society was organized a little more than
sixteen years ago at the city of Washington, chosen as the most central
place in the Union. Auxiliary institutions have since been formed in
almost every part of the country; and nearly all the distinguished men
belong to it. The doing away of slavery in the United States, by
gradually removing all the blacks to Africa, has been generally supposed
to be its object. The project at first excited some jealousy in the
Southern States; and the Society, in order to allay this, were anxious
to make all possible concessions to slave-owners, in their Addresses,
Reports, &c. In Mr. Clay's speech, printed in the first Annual Report
of the Society, he said, "It is far from the intention of this Society
to affect, in _any manner_, the tenure by which a certain species of
property is held. I am myself a slaveholder, and I consider that kind
of property as inviolable as any other in the country. I would resist
encroachment upon it as soon, and with as much firmness, as I would upon
any other property that I hold. Nor am I prepared to go as far as the
gentleman who has just spoken, (Mr. Mercer) in saying that I would
emancipate my slaves, if the means were provided of sending them from
the country."
At the same meeting Mr. Randolph said, "He thought it necessary, being
himself a slaveholder, to show that so far from being in the _smallest
degree_ connected with the abolition of slavery, the proposed Society
_would prove one of the greatest securities to enable the master to keep
in possession his own property_."
In Mr. Clay's speech, in the second Annual Report, he declares: "It is
not proposed to deliberate upon, or consider at all, any question of
emancipation, or any that is _connected_ with the abolition of slavery.
On this condition alone gentlemen from the South and West can be
expected to co-operate. On this condition only, I have myself attended."
In the seventh Annual Report it is said, "An effort for the benefit of
the blacks, in which all parts of the country can unite, of course must
not have the abolition of slavery for its immediate object; _nor may it
aim directly at the instruction of the blacks_."
Mr. Archer, of Virginia, fifteenth Annual Report, says: "The object of
the Society, if I understand it aright, involves no intrusion on
property, _nor even upon prejudice_."
In the speech of James S. Green, Esq. he says: "This Society have ever
disavowed, and they do yet disavow that their object is the emancipation
of slaves. They have no _wish_ if they _could_ to interfere in the
smallest degree with what they deem the most interesting and fearful
subject which can be pressed upon the American public. There is no
people that treat their slaves with so much kindness and so little
cruelty."
In almost every address delivered before the Society, similar
expressions occur. On the propriety of discussing the evils of slavery,
without bitterness and without fear, good men may differ in opinion;
though I think the time is fast coming, when they will all agree. But
by assuming the ground implied in the above remarks, the Colonization
Society have fallen into the habit of glossing over the enormities of
the slave system; at least, it so appears to me. In their constitution
they have pledged themselves not to speak, write, or do anything to
offend the Southerners; and as there is no possible way of making the
truth pleasant to those who do not love it, the Society must perforce
keep the truth out of sight. In many of their publications, I have
thought I discovered a lurking tendency to palliate slavery; or, at
least to make the best of it. They often bring to my mind the words
of Hamlet:
"Forgive me this my virtue;
For in the fatness of these pursy times,
Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg;
Yea, curb and woo, for leave to do him good."
Thus in an Address delivered March, 1833, we are told, "It ought never
to be forgotten that the slave-trade between Africa and America, had its
origin in a compassionate endeavor to relieve, by the substitution of
negro labor, the toils endured by native Indians. It was the _simulated
form of mercy_ that piloted the first slave-ship across the Atlantic."
I am aware that Las Cases used this argument; but it was less unbecoming
in him than it is in a philanthropist of the present day. The speaker
does indeed say that "the 'infinite of agonies' and the infinite of
crime, since suffered and committed, proves that mercy cannot exist in
opposition to justice." I can hardly realize what sort of a conscience
it must be, that needed the demonstration.
The plain truth was, the Spaniards were in a hurry for gold; they
overworked the native Indians, who were inconsiderate enough to die in
very inconvenient numbers; but the gold must be had, and that quickly;
and so the Africans were forced to come and die in company with the
Indians. And in the nineteenth century, we are told it is our duty not
to forget that this was a "simulated form of mercy!" A _dis_simulated
form would have been the better expression.
If we may believe slave-owners, the whole system, from beginning to end,
is a matter of mercy. They have described the Middle Passage, with its
gags, fetters, and thumb-screws, as "the happiest period of a negro's
life;" they say they do the slaves a great charity in bringing them
from barbarous Africa to a civilized and Christian country; and on the
plantation, under the whip of the driver, the negroes are so happy, that
a West India planter publicly declared he could not look upon them,
without wishing to be himself a slave.
In the speech above referred to, we are told, that as to any political
interference, "the slave States are _foreign_ States. We can alienate
their feelings until they become foreign enemies; or, on the other hand,
we can conciliate them until they become allies and auxiliaries in the
sacred cause of emancipation."
But so long as the South insist that slavery is _unavoidable_, and say
they will not tolerate any schemes _tending_ to its abolition--and so
long as the North take the _necessity_ of slavery for an unalterable
truth, and put down any discussions, however mild and candid, which
tend to show that it _may_ be done away with safety--so long as we
thus strengthen each other's hands in evil, what remote hope is there
of emancipation? If by political interference is meant _hostile_
interference, or even a desire to promote insurrection, I should at
once pronounce it to be most wicked; but if by political interference
is meant the liberty to investigate this subject, as other subjects
are investigated--to inquire into what has been done, and what may be
done--I say it is our sacred duty to do it. To enlighten public opinion
is the best way that has yet been discovered for the removal of national
evils; and slavery is certainly a _national_ evil.
The Southern States, according to their own evidence, are impoverished
by it; a great amount of wretchedness and crime inevitably follows in
its train; the prosperity of the North is continually checked by it;
it promotes feelings of rivalry between the States; it separates our
interests; makes our councils discordant; threatens the destruction of
our government; and disgraces us in the eyes of the world. I have often
heard Americans who have been abroad, declare that nothing embarrassed
them so much as being questioned about our slaves; and that nothing was
so mortifying as to have the pictures of runaway negroes pointed at in
the newspapers of this republic. La Fayette, with all his admiration for
our institutions, can never speak of the subject without regret and
shame.
Now a common evil certainly implies a common right to remedy; and where
is the remedy to be found, if the South in all their speeches and
writings repeat that slavery _must_ exist--if the Colonization Society
re-echo, in all their Addresses and Reports, that there is no help for
the evil, and it is very wicked to hint that there is--and if public
opinion here brands every body as a fanatic and madman, who wishes to
_inquire_ what can be done? The supineness of New-England on this
subject, reminds me of the man who being asked to work at the pump,
because the vessel was going down, answered, "I am only a passenger."
An error often and urgently repeated is apt to receive the sanction of
truth; and so it is in this case. The public take it for granted that
slavery is a "lamentable _necessity_." Nevertheless there _is_ a way to
effect its cure, if we all join sincerely, earnestly, and kindly in the
work; but if we expend our energies in palliating the evil, or mourning
over its hopelessness, or quarrelling about who is the most to blame for
it, the vessel,--crew, passengers, and all,--will go down together.
I object to the Colonization Society, because it tends to put public
opinion asleep, on a subject where it needs to be wide awake.
The address above alluded to, does indeed inform us of one thing which
we are at liberty to do: "We must _go_ to the master and _adjure_
him, by all the sacred rights of humanity, by all the laws of natural
justice, by his dread responsibilities,--which, in the economy of
Providence, are always co-extensive and commensurate with power,--to
_raise the slave_ out of his abyss of degradation, to give him a
participation in the benefits of mortal existence, and to make him a
member of the _intellectual_ and moral world, from which he, and his
fathers, for so many generations, have been exiled." The practical
_utility_ of such a plan needs no comment. Slave-owners will smile when
they read it.
I will for a moment glance at what many suppose is still the intention
of the Colonization Society, viz., gradually to remove all the blacks in
the United States. The Society has been in operation more than fifteen
years, during which it has transported between two and three thousand
_free_ people of color. There are in the United States two million of
slaves and three hundred thousand free blacks; and their numbers are
increasing at the rate of seventy thousand annually. While the Society
have removed less than three thousand,--five hundred thousand have been
born. While one hundred and fifty _free_ blacks have been sent to Africa
in a _year_, two hundred _slaves_ have been born in a _day_. To keep the
evil just where it is, seventy thousand a year must be transported. How
many ships, and how many millions of money, would it require to do this?
It would cost three million five hundred thousand dollars a year, to
provide for the safety of our Southern brethren in this way! To use the
language of Mr. Hayne, it would "bankrupt the treasury of the world"
to execute the scheme. And if such a great number could be removed
annually, how would the poor fellows subsist? Famines have already been
produced even by the few that have been sent. What would be the result
of landing several thousand destitute beings, even on the most fertile
of our own cultivated shores?
And why _should_ they be removed? Labor is greatly needed, and we are
glad to give good wages for it. We encourage emigration from all parts
of the world; why is it not good policy, as well as good feeling, to
improve the colored people, and pay them for the use of their faculties?
For centuries to come, the means of sustenance in this vast country
must be much greater than the population; then why should we drive away
people, whose services may be most useful? If the moral cultivation of
negroes received the attention it ought, thousands and thousands would
at the present moment be gladly taken up in families, factories, &c.
And, like other men, they ought to be allowed to fit themselves for more
important usefulness, as far and as fast as they can.
There will, in all human probability, never be any decrease in the black
population of the United States. Here they are, and here they must
remain, in very large numbers, do what we will. We may at once agree
to live together in mutual good-will, and perform a mutual use to each
other--or we may go on, increasing tyranny on one side, and jealousy and
revenge on the other, until the fearful elements complete their work of
destruction, and something better than this sinful republic rises on the
ruins. Oh, how earnestly do I wish that we may choose the holier and
safer path!
To transport the blacks in such annual numbers as has hitherto been
done, cannot have any beneficial effect upon the present state of
things. It is Dame Partington with her pail mopping up the rushing
waters of the Atlantic! So far as this gradual removal _has_ any effect,
it tends to keep up the price of slaves in the market, and thus
perpetuate the system. A writer in the Kentucky Luminary, speaking of
colonization, uses the following argument: "None are obliged to follow
our example; and those who do not, _will find the value of their negroes
increased by the departure of ours_."
If the value of slaves is kept up, it will be a strong temptation to
smuggle in the commodity; and thus while one vessel carries them out
from America, another will be bringing them in from Africa. This would
be like dipping up the water of Chesapeake Bay into barrels, conveying
it across the Atlantic, and emptying it into the Mediterranean: the
Chesapeake would remain as full as ever, and by the time the vessel
returned, wind and waves would have brought the _same_ water back again.
Slave-owners have never yet, in any part of the world, been known to
favor, as a body, any scheme, which could ultimately _tend_ to abolish
slavery; yet in this country, they belong to the Colonization Society in
large numbers, and agree to pour from their State treasuries into its
funds. Individuals object to it, it is true; but the scheme is very
generally favored in the slave States.
The following extract from Mr. Wood's speech in the Legislature of
Virginia, will show upon what ground the owners of slaves are willing
to sanction any schemes of benevolence. The "Colonization Society may be
a part of the grand system of the Ruler of the Universe, to provide for
the transfer of negroes to their _mother_ country. Their introduction
into this land may have been one of the inscrutable ways of Providence
to confer blessings upon that race--it may have been decreed that they
shall be the means of conveying to the minds of their benighted
countrymen, the blessing of religious and civil liberty. But I fear
there is little ground to believe the means have yet been created to
effect so glorious a result, or that the present race of slaves are to
be benefited by such a removal. _I shall trust that many of them may be
carried to the south-western States as slaves._ Should this door be
closed, how can Virginia get rid of so large a number as are now
annually deported to the different States and Territories where slaves
are wanted? Can the gentleman show us how from _twelve thousand to
twenty thousand_ can be _annually_ carried to Liberia?"
Yet notwithstanding such numbers of mothers and children are yearly sent
from a single State, "separately or in lots," to supply the demands of
the internal _slave-trade_, Mr. Hayne, speaking of _freeing_ these
people and sending them away, says: "It is wholly irreconcilable with
our notions of humanity to _tear asunder the tender ties_, which they
had formed among us to gratify the feelings of a false philanthropy!"
As for the _removal_ of blacks from this country, the real fact is this;
the slave States are very desirous to get rid of their troublesome
_surplus_ of colored population, and they are willing that we should
help to pay for the transportation. A double purpose is served by this;
for the active benevolence which is eager to work in the cause, is thus
turned into a harmless and convenient channel. Neither the planters nor
the Colonization Society, seem to ask what _right_ we have to remove
people from the places where they have been born and brought up,--where
they have a home, which, however miserable, is still their home,--and
where their relatives and acquaintances all reside. Africa is no more
their native country than England is ours,[AF]--nay, it is less so,
because there is no community of language or habits;--besides, we cannot
say to them, as Gilpin said to his horse, "'Twas for _your_ pleasure you
came here, you shall go back for mine."
[Footnote AF: At the close of the last war, General Jackson issued
a proclamation to the colored people of the South, in which he says:
"I knew that you _loved the land of your nativity_, and that, like
ourselves, you had to defend all that is dear to man. But you surpass
my hopes. I have found in you, united to those qualities, that noble
enthusiasm which impels to great deeds."]
In the Virginia debate of 1832, it was agreed that very few of the free
colored people would be _willing_ to go to Africa; and this is proved
by several petitions from them, praying for leave to remain. One of the
Virginian legislators said, "either _moral_ or _physical_ force must be
used to compel them to go;" some of them advised immediate coercion;
others recommended persuasion first, until their numbers were thinned,
and coercion afterward. I believe the resolution finally passed the
House without any proviso of this sort; and I mention it merely to show
that it was generally supposed the colored people would be unwilling
to go.
The planters are resolved to drive the free blacks away; and it is
another evil of the Colonization Society that their funds and their
influence co-operate with them in this project. They do not indeed
thrust the free negroes off, at the point of the bayonet; but they make
their _laws_ and _customs_ so very unequal and oppressive, that the poor
fellows are surrounded by raging fires on every side, and must leap
into the Atlantic for safety. In slave ethics I suppose this is called
"_moral_ force." If the slave population is left to its own natural
increase, the crisis will soon come; for labor will be so very cheap
that slavery will not be for the interest of the whites. Why should we
retard this crisis?
In the next place, many of the Colonizationists (I do not suppose it
applies to all) are averse to giving the blacks a good education; and
they are not friendly to the establishment of schools and colleges for
that purpose. Now I would ask any candid person why colored children
should _not_ be educated? Some say, it will raise them above their
situation; I answer, it will raise them _in_ their situation--not
_above_ it. When a High School for white girls was first talked of in
this city, several of the wealthy class objected to it; because, said
they, "if everybody is educated, we shall have no servants." This
argument is based on selfishness, and therefore cannot stand. If carried
into operation, the welfare of many would be sacrificed to the
convenience of a few. We might as well protest against the sunlight,
for the benefit of lamp-oil merchants. Of all monopolies, a monopoly of
_knowledge_ is the worst. Let it be as active as the ocean--as free as
the wind--as universal as the sunbeams! Lord Brougham said very
wisely, "If the higher classes are afraid of being left in the rear,
they likewise must hasten onward."
With our firm belief in the natural inferiority of negroes, it is
strange we should be so much afraid that knowledge will elevate them
quite too high for our convenience. In the march of improvement, we are
several centuries in advance; and if, with this obstacle at the very
beginning, they can outstrip us, why then, in the name of justice, let
them go ahead! Nay, give them three cheers as they pass. If any nation,
or any class of men, can obtain intellectual pre-eminence, it is a sure
sign they deserve it; and by this republican rule the condition of the
world will be regulated as surely as the waters find their level.
Besides, like all selfish policy, this is not _true_ policy. The more
useful knowledge a person has, the better he fulfils his duties in _any_
station; and there is no kind of knowledge, high or low, which may not
be brought into _use_.
But it has been said, that information will make the blacks
discontented; because, if ever so learned, they will not be allowed to
sit at the white man's table, or marry the white man's daughter.
In relation to this question, I would ask, "Is there anybody so high,
that they do not see others above them?" The working classes of this
country have no social communication with the aristocracy. Every day of
my life I see people who can dress better, and live in better houses,
than I can afford. There are many individuals who would not choose to
make my acquaintance, because I am not of their _caste_--but I should
speak a great untruth, if I said this made me discontented. They have
their path and I have mine; I am happy in my own way, and am willing
they should be happy in theirs. If asked whether what little knowledge
I have produces discontent, I should answer, that it made me happier,
infinitely happier, than I could be without it.
Under every form of government, there will be distinct classes of
society, which have only occasional and transient communication with
each other; and the colored people, whether educated or not, will form
one of these classes. By giving them means of information, we increase
their happiness, and make them better members of society. I have often
heard it said that there was a disproportionate number of crimes
committed by the colored people in this State. The same thing is true
of the first generation of Irish emigrants; but we universally attribute
it to their ignorance, and agree that the only remedy is to give their
children as good an education as possible. If the policy is wise in one
instance, why would it not be so in the other!
As for the possibility of social intercourse between the different
colored races, _I_ have not the slightest objection to it, provided they
were equally virtuous, and equally intelligent; but I do not wish to war
with the prejudices of others; I am willing that all, who consult their
consciences, should keep them as long as ever they can. One thing is
certain, the blacks will never come into your houses, unless you _ask_
them; and you need not ask them unless you choose. They are very far
from being intrusive in this respect.
With regard to marrying your daughters, I believe the feeling in
opposition to such unions is quite as strong among the colored class,
as it is among white people. While the prejudice exists, such instances
must be exceedingly rare, because the consequence is degradation in
society. Believe me, you may safely trust to any thing that depends on
the pride and selfishness of unregenerated human nature.
Perhaps, a hundred years hence, some negro Rothschild may come from
Hayti, with his seventy _million_ of pounds, and persuade some white
woman to _sacrifice_ herself to him.--Stranger things than this do
happen every year.--But before that century has passed away, I apprehend
there will be a sufficient number of well-informed and elegant colored
women in the world, to meet the demands of colored patricians. Let the
sons and daughters of Africa _both_ be educated, and then they will be
fit for each other. They will not be forced to make war upon their white
neighbors for wives: nor will they, if they have intelligent women of
their own, see any thing so very desirable in the project. Shall we keep
this class of people in everlasting degradation, for fear one of their
descendants _may_ marry our great-great-great-great-grandchild?
While the prejudice exists, such unions cannot take place; and when the
prejudice is melted away, they will cease to be a degradation, and of
course cease to be an evil.
My third and greatest objection to the Colonization Society is, that its
members write and speak, both in public and private, as if the prejudice
against skins darker colored than our own, was a fixed and unalterable
law of our nature, which cannot possibly be changed. The very
_existence_ of the Society is owing to this prejudice: for if we
could make all the colored people white, or if they could be viewed
as impartially as if they were white, what would be left for the
Colonization Society to do? Under such circumstances, they would have
a fair chance to rise in their moral and intellectual character, and we
should be glad to have them remain among us, to give their energies for
our money, as the Irish, the Dutch, and people from all parts of the
world are now doing.
I am aware that some of the Colonizationists make large professions on
this subject; but nevertheless we are constantly told by this Society,
that people of color must be removed, not only because they are in
our way, but because they _must_ always be in a state of degradation
here--that they never _can_ have all the rights and privileges of
citizens--and all this is because the _prejudice_ is so great.
"The managers consider it clear that causes exist and are operating to
prevent their (the blacks) improvement and elevation to any considerable
extent as a class, in this country, which are fixed, not only beyond
the control of the friends of humanity, but of any human power.
_Christianity will not_ do for them _here_, what it will do for them
in _Africa_. This is not the fault of the colored man, nor Christianity
but _an ordination of Providence_, and no more to be changed than the
laws of Nature!"--_Last Annual Report of American Colonization Society._
"The habits, the feelings, all the prejudices of society--prejudices
which neither _refinement_, nor _argument_, nor _education_, NOR
RELIGION ITSELF, can subdue--mark the people of color, whether bond or
free, as the subjects of degradation _inevitable_ and _incurable_. The
African _in this country_ belongs _by birth_ to the very lowest station
in society; and from that station HE CAN NEVER RISE, be his _talents,
his enterprise, his virtues, what they may_. They constitute a class by
themselves--a class out of which _no individual can be elevated_, and
below which none can be depressed."--_African Repository_, vol. iv,
pp. 118, 119.
This is shaking hands with iniquity, and covering sin with a silver
veil. Our prejudice against the blacks is founded in sheer pride; and
it originates in the circumstance that people of their color only, are
universally allowed to be slaves. We made slavery, and slavery makes the
prejudice. No christian, who questions his own conscience, can justify
himself in indulging the feeling. The removal of this prejudice is not
a matter of opinion--it is a matter of _duty_. We have no right to
palliate a feeling, sinful in itself, and highly injurious to a large
number of our fellow-beings. Let us no longer act upon the narrow-minded
idea, that we must always continue to do wrong, because we have so long
been in the habit of doing it. That there is no _necessity_ for the
prejudice is shown by facts. In England, it exists to a much less degree
than it does here. If a respectable colored person enters a church
there, the pews are readily opened to him; if he appears at an inn, room
is made for him at the table, and no laughter, or winking, reminds
him that he belongs to an outcast race. A highly respectable English
gentleman residing in this country has often remarked that nothing
filled him with such utter astonishment as our prejudice with regard to
color. There is now in old England a negro, with whose name, parentage,
and history, I am well acquainted, who was sold into West Indian slavery
by his New-England master; (I know _his_ name.) The unfortunate negro
became free by the kindness of an individual, and has now a handsome
little property and the command of a vessel. He must take care not to
come into the ports of our Southern republics!--The anecdote of Prince
Saunders is well known; but it will bear repeating. He called upon an
American family, then residing in London. The fashionable breakfast hour
was very late, and the family were still seated at the table. The lady
fidgetted between the contending claims of politeness and prejudice. At
last, when all but herself had risen from the table, she said, as if
struck by a sudden thought, "Mr. Saunders, I forgot to ask if you had
breakfasted." "I thank you, madam," replied the colored gentleman; "but
I have engaged to breakfast with the Prince Regent this morning."
Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Brougham have often been seen in the streets of
London, walking arm in arm with people of color. The same thing is true
of Brissot, La Fayette, and several other distinguished Frenchmen. In
this city, I never but once saw such an instance: When the Philadelphia
company were here last summer, I met one of the officers walking arm in
arm with a fine-looking black musician. The circumstance gave me a
good deal of respect for the white man; for I thought he must have kind
feelings and correct principles, thus fearlessly to throw off a worse
than idle prejudice.
In Brazil, people of color are lawyers, clergymen, merchants and
military officers; and in the Portuguese, as well as the Spanish
settlements, intermarriages bring no degradation. On the shores of the
Levant, some of the wealthiest merchants are black. If we were
accustomed to see intelligent and polished negroes, the prejudice would
soon disappear. There is certainly no law of our nature which makes a
_dark color_ repugnant to our feelings. We admire the swarthy beauties
of Spain; and the finest forms of statuary are often preferred in
bronze. If the whole world were allowed to vote on the question, there
would probably be a plurality in favor of complexions decidedly dark.
Every body knows how much the Africans were amused at the sight of Mungo
Park, and what an ugly misfortune they considered his pale color,
prominent nose, and thin lips.
Ought we to be called Christians, if we allow a prejudice so absurd
to prevent the improvement of a large portion of the human race, and
interfere with what all civilized nations consider the most common
rights of mankind? It cannot be that my enlightened and generous
countrymen will sanction any thing so narrow-minded and so selfish.
Having found much fault with the Colonization Society, it is pleasant
to believe that one portion of their enterprise affords a distant
prospect of doing more good than evil. They now principally seek to
direct the public attention to the founding of a colony in Africa; and
this may prove beneficial in process of time. If the colored emigrants
were _educated_ before they went there, such a Colony would tend slowly,
but certainly, to enlighten Africa, to raise the character of the
negroes, to strengthen the increasing liberality of public opinion, and
to check the diabolical slave-trade. If the Colonizationists will work
zealously and judiciously in this department, pretend to do nothing
more, and let others work in another and more efficient way, they will
deserve the thanks of the country; but while it is believed that they do
all the good which _can_ be done in this important cause, they will do
more harm in America, than they can atone for in Africa.
Very different pictures are drawn of Liberia; one party represents it as
thriving beyond description, the other insists that it will soon fall
into ruin. It is but candid to suppose that the colony is going on as
well as could possibly be expected, when we consider that the emigrants
are almost universally ignorant and vicious, without property, and
without habits of industry or enterprise. The colored people in
our slave States must, almost without exception, be destitute of
information; and in choosing negroes to send away, the masters would
be very apt to select the most helpless and the most refractory. Hence
the superintendents of Liberia have made reiterated complaints of
being flooded with shiploads of "vagrants." These causes are powerful
drawbacks. But the negroes in Liberia have schools and churches, and
they have freedom, which, wherever it exists, is always striving to work
its upward way.
There is a palpable contradiction in some of the statements of this
Society.
"We are told that the Colonization Society is to civilize and evangelize
Africa. '_Each emigrant_,' says Henry Clay, the ablest advocate which
the Society has yet found, '_is a missionary_, carrying with him
_credentials_ in the holy cause of civilization, religion and free
institutions!!'"
"Who are these emigrants--these _missionaries_?"
"The Free people of color. 'They, and they _only_,' says the African
Repository, 'are QUALIFIED for colonizing Africa.'"
What are their _qualifications_? Let the Society answer in its own words:
"'Free blacks are a greater nuisance than even slaves
themselves.'"--_African Repository_, vol. ii, p. 328.
"'A horde of miserable people--the objects of universal
suspicion--subsisting by plunder.'"--_C. F. Mercer._
"'An anomalous race of beings, the most debased upon earth.'"--_African
Repository_, vol. vii, p. 230.
"'Of all classes of our population the most vicious is that of the free
colored.'"--_Tenth Annual Report of Colonization Society._
An Education Society has been formed in connection with the Colonization
Society, and their complaint is principally that they cannot find proper
subjects for instruction. Why cannot such subjects be found? Simply
because our ferocious prejudices compel the colored children to grow
up in ignorance and vicious companionship, and when we seek to educate
them, we find their minds closed against the genial influence of
knowledge.
When I heard of the Education Society, I did hope to find one instance
of _sincere_, _thorough disinterested_ good-will for the blacks. But in
the constitution of that Society, I again find the selfish principle
predominant. They pledge themselves to educate no colored persons unless
they are solemnly bound to _quit the country_. The abolitionists are
told that they must wait till the slaves are more fit for freedom. But
if this system is pursued, when are they to be more fit for
freedom?--Never--never--to the end of time.
Whatever other good the Colonization Society may do, it seems to me
evident that they do not produce _any_ beneficial effect on the
condition of colored people in America; and indirectly they produce
much evil.
In a body so numerous as the Colonization Society, there is, of course,
a great variety of character and opinions. I presume that many among
them believe the ultimate tendency of the Society to be very different
from what it really is. Some slave-owners encourage it because they
think it cannot decrease slavery, and will keep back the inconvenient
crisis when free labor will be cheaper than slave labor; others of the
same class join it because they really want to do some act of kindness
to the unfortunate African race, and all the country insist upon it that
this is the only way; some politicians in the free States countenance it
from similar motives, and because less cautious measures might occasion
a loss of Southern votes and influence; the time-serving class--so
numerous in every community,--who are always ready to flatter existing
prejudices, and sail smoothly along the current of popular favor, join
it, of course; but I am willing to believe that the largest proportion
belong to it, because they have compassionate hearts, are fearful of
injuring their Southern brethren, and really think there is no other way
of doing so much good to the negroes. With this last-mentioned class, I
sympathize in feeling, but differ in opinion.
The Anti-Slavery Society was formed in January, 1832. Its objects are
distinctly stated in the second Article of their constitution, which is
as follows:
"ART. 2. The objects of the Society shall be, to endeavor by
all means sanctioned by law, humanity and religion, to effect
the abolition of slavery in the United States; to improve the
character and condition of the free people of color, to inform
and correct public opinion in relation to their situation and
rights, and obtain for them equal civil and political rights
and privileges with the whites."
From this it will be seen that they think it a duty to give colored
people all possible means of education, and instead of removing them
away from the prejudice, to remove the prejudice away from them.
They lay it down as a maxim that immediate emancipation is the only
just course, and the only safe policy. They say that slavery is a common
evil, and therefore there is a common right to investigate it, and
search for modes of relief. They say that New-England shares, and ever
has shared, in this national sin, and is therefore bound to atone for
the mischief, as far as it can be done.
The strongest reason why the Anti-Slavery Society wish for the
emancipation of slaves, is because they think no other course can be
pursued which does not, in its very nature, involve a constant violation
of the laws of God. In the next place, they believe there is no other
sure way of providing for the safety of the white population in the
slave States. I know that many of the planters affect to laugh at the
idea of fearing their slaves; but why are their laws framed with such
cautious vigilance? Why must not negroes of different plantations
communicate together? Why are they not allowed to be out in the evening,
or to carry even a stick to defend themselves, in case of necessity?
In the Virginia Legislature a gentleman said, "It was high time for
something to be done when men did not dare to open their own doors
without pistols at their belts;" and Mr. Randolph has publicly declared
that a planter was merely "a sentry at his own door."
Mr. Roane, of Virginia, asks,--"Is there an intelligent man who does not
know that this _excess_ of slavery is increasing, and will continue to
increase in a ratio which is alarming in the extreme, and must overwhelm
our descendants in ruin? Why then should we shut our eyes and turn our
backs upon the evil? Will delay render it less gigantic, or give us more
Herculean strength to meet and subdue it at a future time? Oh, no--delay
breeds danger--procrastination is the thief of time, and the refuge of
sluggards."
It is very true that insurrection is perfect madness on the part of
the slaves; for they are sure to be overpowered. But such madness has
happened; and innocent women and children have fallen victims to it.
A few months ago, I was conversing with a very mild and judicious
member of the Anti-Slavery Society, when a gentleman originally from the
South came in. As he was an old acquaintance, and had been a long time
resident in New-England, it was not deemed necessary, as a matter of
courtesy, to drop the conversation. He soon became excited. "Whatever
you may think, Mrs. Child," said he, "the slaves are a great deal
happier than either of us; the less people know the more merry they
are." I replied, "I heard you a short time since talking over your plans
for educating your son; if knowledge brings wretchedness, why do you not
keep him in happy ignorance?" "The fashion of the times requires some
information," said he; "but why do you concern yourself about the
negroes? Why don't you excite the horses to an insurrection, because
they are obliged to work, and are whipped if they do not?" "One _horse_
does not whip another," said I; "and besides, I do not wish to promote
insurrections. I would on the contrary, do all I could to prevent them."
"Perhaps you do not like the comparison between slaves and horses,"
rejoined he; "it is true, the horses have the advantage." I made no
reply; for where such ground is assumed, what _can_ be said; besides,
I did not then, and I do not now, believe that he expressed his real
feelings. He was piqued, and spoke unadvisedly. This gentleman denied
that the lot of the negroes was hard. He said they loved their masters,
and their masters loved them; and in any cases of trouble or illness, a
man's slaves were his best friends. I mentioned some undoubted instances
of cruelty to slaves; he acknowledged that such instances might very
rarely happen, but said that in general the masters were much more to be
pitied than the negroes. A lady, who had been in South Carolina when an
insurrection was apprehended, related several anecdotes concerning the
alarm that prevailed there at the time: and added, "I often wish that
none of my friends lived in a slave State." "Why should you be anxious?"
rejoined the Southern gentleman; "You know that they have built a strong
citadel in the heart of the city, to which all the inhabitants can
repair in case of insurrection." "So," said I, "they have built a
_citadel_ to protect them from their happy, contented servants--a
citadel against their _best friends_!" I could not but be amused at the
contradictions that occurred during this conversation.
That emancipation has in several instances been effected with safety
has been already shown. But allowing that there is some danger in
discontinuing slavery, is there not likewise danger in continuing it?
In one case, the danger, if there were any, would soon be subdued; in
the other, it is continually increasing.
The planter tells us that the slave is very happy, and bids us leave him
as he is. If laughter is a sign of happiness, the Irishman, tumbling in
the same mire as his pigs, is happy. The merely sensual man is no doubt
merry and heedless; but who would call him happy? Is it not a fearful
thing to keep immortal beings in a state like beasts? The more the
senses are subjected to the moral and intellectual powers, the happier
man is,--the more we learn to sacrifice the present to the future, the
higher do we rise in the scale of existence. The negro may often enjoy
himself, like the dog when he is not beaten, or the hog when he is not
starved; but let not this be called _happiness_.
How far the slave laws are conducive to the enjoyment of those they
govern, each individual can judge for himself. In the Southern papers,
we continually see pictures of runaway negroes, and sometimes the
advertisements identify them by scars, or by letters branded upon them.
Is it natural for men to run away from comfort and happiness, especially
when any one who meets them may shoot them, like a dog! and when,
whipping nearly unto death is authorized as the punishment? I forbear
to describe how much more shocking slave-whipping is than any thing we
are accustomed to see bestowed upon cattle.
But the advocates of slavery tell us, that on the negro's own account,
it is best to keep him in slavery; that without a master to guide him
and take care of him, he is a wretched being; that freedom is the
greatest curse that can be bestowed upon him. Then why do their
Legislatures grant it as a reward for "_meritorious services to the
State_?" Why do benevolent masters bequeath the legacy of freedom,
"in consideration of long and faithful service?" Why did Jefferson so
earnestly, and so very humbly request the Legislature of Virginia to
ratify the manumission of his five _favorite_ slaves?
Notwithstanding the disadvantageous position of free negroes in a
community consisting of whites and slaves, it is evident that, even
upon these terms, freedom is considered a blessing.
The Anti-Slavery Society agree with Harriet Martineau in saying,
"Patience with the _men_, but no patience with the _principles_. As
much patience as you please in enlightening those who are unaware of
the abuses, but no patience with social crimes!"
The Colonization Society are always reminding us that the _master_
has rights as well as the slave: The Anti-Slavery Society urge us to
remember that the _slave_ has rights as well as the master. I leave it
for sober sense to determine which of these claims is in the greatest
danger of being forgotten.
The abolitionists think it a duty to maintain at all times, and in all
places, that slavery _ought_ to be abolished, and that it _can_ be
abolished. When error is so often repeated it becomes very important
to repeat the truth; especially as good men are apt to be quiet, and
selfish men are prone to be active. They propose no _plan_--they leave
that to the wisdom of Legislatures. But they never swerve from the
_principle_ that slavery is both wicked and unnecessary.--Their object
is to turn the public voice against this evil, by a plain exposition
of facts.
Perhaps it may seem of little use for individuals to maintain any
particular _principle_, while they do not attempt to prescribe the ways
and means by which it can be carried into operation: But the voice of
the public is mighty, either for good or evil; and that far-sounding
echo is composed of single voices.
Schiller makes his Fiesco exclaim, "Spread out the thunder into its
_single_ tones, and it becomes a lullaby for children; pour it forth
in one quick peal and the royal sound shall move the heavens!"
If the work of abolition must necessarily be slow in its progress, so
much the more need of beginning soon, and working vigorously. My life
upon it, a safe remedy can be found for this evil, whenever we are
sincerely desirous of doing justice for its own sake.
The Anti-Slavery Society is loudly accused of being seditious,
fanatical, and likely to promote insurrections. It seems to be supposed,
that they wish to send fire and sword into the South, and encourage the
slaves to hunt down their masters. Slave-owners wish to have it viewed
in this light, because they know the subject will not bear discussion;
and men here, who give the tone to public opinion, have loudly repeated
the charge--some from good motives, and some from bad. I once had a very
strong prejudice against anti-slavery;--(I am ashamed to think _how_
strong--for mere prejudice should never be stubborn,) but a candid
examination has convinced me, that I was in an error. I made the common
mistake of taking things for granted, without stopping to investigate.
This Society do not wish to see any coercive or dangerous measures
pursued. They wish for universal emancipation, because they believe
it is the only way to _prevent_ insurrections. Almost every individual
among them, is a strong friend to Peace Societies. They wish to move the
public mind on this subject, in the same manner that it has been moved
on other subjects: viz., by open, candid, fearless discussion. This is
_all_ they want to do; and this they are determined to do, because they
believe it to be an important duty. For a long time past, public
sympathy has been earnestly directed in the wrong way; if it could be
made to turn round, a most happy change would be produced. There are
many people at the South who would be glad to have a safe method of
emancipation discovered; but instead of encouraging _them_, all our
presses, and pulpits, and books, and conversation, have been used to
strengthen the hands of those who wish to perpetuate the "costly
iniquity." Divine Providence _always_ opens the way for the removal
of evils, individual or national, whenever man is sincerely willing
to have them removed; it may be difficult to do right, but it is never
impossible. Yet a majority of my countrymen do, in effect, hold the
following language: "We know that this evil _cannot_ be cured; and we
will speak and publish our opinion on every occasion: but you must not,
for your lives, dare to assert that there is a possibility of our being
mistaken."
If there were any apparent wish to get rid of this sin and disgrace, I
believe the members of the Anti-Slavery Society would most heartily and
courageously defend slave-owners from any risk they might incur in a
sincere effort to do right. They would teach the negro that it is the
Christian's duty meekly and patiently to _suffer_ wrong; but they dare
not excuse the white man for continuing to _inflict_ the wrong.
They think it unfair that all arguments on this subject should be
founded on the convenience and safety of the master _alone_. They wish
to see the white man's claims have their due weight; but they insist
that the negro's rights ought not to be thrown out of the balance.
At the time a large reward was offered for the capture of Mr. Garrison,
on the ground that his paper excited insurrections, it is a fact, that
he had never sent or caused to be sent, a single paper south of Mason
and Dixon's line. He _afterwards_ sent papers to some of the leading
politicians there; but they of course were not the ones to promote negro
insurrections. "But," it has been answered, "the papers did find their
way there." Are we then forbidden to publish our opinions upon an
important subject, for fear _somebody_ will send them _somewhere_? Is
slavery to remain a sealed book in this most communicative of all ages,
and this most inquisitive of all countries? If so, we live under an
actual censorship of the press. This is like what the Irishman said of
our paved cities--tying down the stones, and letting the mad dogs run
loose.
If insurrections do occur, they will no doubt be attributed to
the Anti-Slavery Society. But we must not forget that there were
insurrections in the West Indies long before the English abolitionists
began their efforts; and that masters were murdered in this country,
before the Anti-Slavery Society was thought of. Neither must we forget
that the increased severity of the laws is very likely to goad an
oppressed people to madness. The very cruelty of the laws against
resistance under any circumstances, would be thought to justify a
white man in rebellion, because it gives resistance the character of
self-defence. "The law," says Blackstone, "respects the passions of the
human mind; and when external violence is offered to a man himself, or
those to whom he bears a near connexion, makes it lawful in him to do
himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and
which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain."
As it respects promoting insurrections by discussing this subject, it
should be remembered that it is very rare for any colored person at the
South to know how to read or write.
Furthermore, if there be any danger in the discussion, _our_ silence
cannot arrest it; for the whole world is talking and writing about it.
A good deal of commotion has been excited in the South because some
mustard has arrived there, packed in English newspapers, containing
Parliamentary speeches against slavery;--even children's handkerchiefs
seem to be regarded as sparks falling into a powder magazine. How much
better it would be not to live in the midst of a powder magazine.
The English abolitionists have labored long and arduously. Every inch of
the ground has been contested. After obtaining the decision that negroes
brought into England were freemen, it took them _thirty-five years_ to
obtain the abolition of the slave _trade_. But their progress, though
slow and difficult, has been certain. The slaves are now emancipated in
every British colony; and in effecting this happy change, not one drop
of blood has been spilt, nor any property destroyed, except two sheds,
called _trash houses_, which were set on fire by some unknown hand.
In Antigua and Bermuda, emancipation was unqualified; that is, the
slaves at once received the stimulus of wages. In those Islands, there
has not been the slightest difficulty. In the other colonies, the slaves
were made apprentices, and obliged to work five years more, before they
received their freedom, and magistrates decided what proportion of
time should be employed for their own benefit. The planters had been
so violent in opposition to abolition, and had prophesied such terrible
disasters resulting from it, that they felt some anxiety to have their
prophecies fulfilled. The abolition act, by some oversight, did not
stipulate that while the apprentices worked without wages, they should
have all the privileges to which they had been accustomed as slaves. It
had been a universal practice for one slave to cook for all the rest,
so that their food was ready the moment they left the field; and aged
female slaves tended the little children, while their mothers were at
work. The planters changed this. Every slave was obliged to go to his
cabin, whether distant or near, and cook his own dinner; and the time
thus lost must be made up to the masters from the hours set apart for
the benefit of the apprentices. The aged slaves were likewise sent into
the field to work, while mothers were obliged to toil with infants
strapped at their backs.
Under these circumstances, the apprentices very naturally refused to
work. They said, "We are worse off than when we were slaves; for they
have taken away privileges to which we were accustomed in bondage,
without paying us the wages of freemen." Still under all these
provocations, they offered merely _passive_ resistance. The worst
enemies of the cause have not been able to discover that a single life
has been lost in the West Indies, or a single plantation destroyed in
consequence of emancipation! It is a lamentable proof of the corrupt
state of the American press, on the subject of slavery, that the
irritating conduct of the West Indian planters has been passed over
in total silence, while every effort has been made to represent the
_passive_ resistance of the apprentices as some great "raw-head and
bloody-bones story."
While the good work was in progress in England, it was for a long time
called by every odious name. It was even urged that the abolition of
the slave _trade_ would encourage the massacre of white men. Clarkson,
who seems to have been the meekest and most patient of men, was
stigmatized as an insurrectionist. It was said he wanted to bring all
the horrors of the French Revolution into England, merely because he
wanted to abolish the slave _trade_. It was said Liverpool and Bristol
would sink, never to rise again, if that traffic were destroyed.
The insurrection at Barbadoes, in 1816, was ascribed to the influence
of missionaries infected with the wicked philanthropy of the age; but
it was discovered that there was no missionary on the island at the time
of that event, nor for a long time previous to it. The insurrection at
Demerara, several years after, was publicly and angrily ascribed to the
Methodist missionaries; they were taken up and imprisoned; and it was
lucky for these innocent men, that out of their twelve hundred black
converts, only _two_ had joined the rebellion.
Ridicule and reproach has been abundantly heaped upon the laborers in
this righteous cause. Power, wealth, talent, pride, and sophistry, are
all in arms against them; but God and truth is on their side. The cause
of anti-slavery is rapidly gaining ground. Wise heads as well as warm
hearts, are joining in its support. In a few years I believe the opinion
of New-England will be unanimous in its favor. Maine, which enjoys
the enviable distinction of never having had a slave upon her soil,
has formed an Anti-Slavery Society composed of her best and most
distinguished men. Those who are determined to be on the popular side,
should be cautious how they move just now: It is a trying time for such
characters, when public opinion is on the verge of a great change.
Men who _think_ upon the subject, are fast coming to the conclusion that
slavery can never be much ameliorated, while it is allowed to exist.
What Mr. Fox said of the _trade_ is true of the _system_--"you may as
well try to _regulate_ murder." It is a disease as deadly as the cancer;
and while one particle of it remains in the constitution, no cure can be
effected. The relation is unnatural in itself, and therefore it reverses
all the rules which are applied to other human relations. Thus a free
government which in every other point of view is a blessing, is a curse
to the slave. The liberty around him is contagious, and therefore the
laws must be endowed with a tenfold crushing power, or the captive will
break his chains. A despotic monarch can follow the impulses of humanity
without scruple. When Vidius Pollio ordered one of his slaves to be cut
to pieces and thrown into his fish-pond, the Emperor Augustus commanded
him to emancipate immediately, not only that slave, but all his slaves.
In a free State there is no such power; and there would be none needed,
if the laws were equal,--but the slave-owners are legislators, and
_make_ the laws, in which the negro has no voice--the master influences
public opinion, but the slave cannot.
Miss Martineau very wisely says; "To attempt to combine freedom and
slavery is to put new wine into old skins. Soon may the old skins burst?
for we shall never want for better wine than they have ever held."
A work has been lately published, written by Jonathan Dymond, who was
a member of the Society of Friends, in England; it is entitled "Essays
on the Principles of Morality"--and most excellent Essays they are.
Every sentence recognises the principle of sacrificing all selfish
considerations to our inward perceptions of duty; and therefore every
page shines with the mild but powerful light of true Christian
philosophy. I rejoice to hear that the book is likely to be republished
in this country. In his remarks on slavery the author says: "The
supporters of the _system_ will hereafter be regarded with the same
public feelings, as he who was an advocate of the slave _trade_ now is.
How is it that legislators and public men are so indifferent to their
fame? Who would now be willing that biography should record of
him,--_This man defended the slave trade?_ The time will come when the
record,--_This man opposed the abolition of slavery_, will occasion
a great deduction from the public estimate of weight of character."