The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus
Chapter 128 : It is common to regard the nation as const.i.tuting one of the parties--Virginia and M

It is common to regard the nation as const.i.tuting one of the parties--Virginia and Maryland another, and the only other. But in point of fact, there is a third party. Of what does it consist? Of horses, oxen, and other brutes? Then we need not be greatly concerned about it--since its rights in that case, would be obviously subordinate to those of the other parties. Again, if such be the composition of this third party, we are not to be greatly troubled, that President Wayland and thousands of others entirely overlook its rights and interests; though they ought to be somewhat mindful even of brutes. But, this third party is composed, not of brutes--but of men--of the seven thousand men in the District, who have fallen under the iron hoofs of slavery--and who, because they are men, have rights equal to, and as sacred as the rights of any other men--rights, moreover, which cannot be innocently encroached on, even to the breadth of one hair, whether under the plea of "state necessity"--of the perils of emanc.i.p.ation--or under any other plea, which conscience-smitten and cowardly tyranny can suggest.

If these lines shall ever be so favored, as to fall under the eye of the venerable and beloved John Quincy Adams, I beg, that, when he shall have read them, he will solemnly inquire of his heart, whether, if he should ever be left to vote against the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and thus stab deeply the cause of civil liberty, of humanity, and of G.o.d; the guilty act would not result from overlooking the rights and interests, and even the existence itself, of a third party in the case--and from considering the claims of the nation and those of Virginia and Maryland, as the only claims on which he was called to pa.s.s, because they were the claims of the only parties, of which he was aware.

You admit that "the first duty of Congress in relation to the District, of Columbia, is to render it available, comfortable, and convenient as a seat of the government of the whole Union." I thank you for an admission, which can be used, with great effect, against the many, who maintain, that Congress is as much bound to consult the interests and wishes of the inhabitants of the District, and be governed by them, as a State Legislature is to study and serve the interests and wishes of its const.i.tuents. The inhabitants of the District have taken up their residence in it, aware, that the paramount object of Congressional legislation is not their, but the nation's advantage. They judge, that their disfranchis.e.m.e.nt and the other disadvantages attending their residence are more than balanced by their favorable position for partic.i.p.ating in Governmental patronage and other benefits. They know, that they have no better right to complain, that the legislation of Congress is not dictated by a primary regard to their interests, than has the Colonization Society, of which you are President, to complain, that the Capitol, in which it holds its annual meetings, is not constructed and fitted up in the best possible manner for such occasions. They know, that to sacrifice the design and main object of that building to its occasional and incidental uses, would be an absurdity no greater than would Congress be guilty of in shaping its legislation to the views of the thirty thousand white inhabitants of the District of Columbia, at the expense of neglecting the will and interests of the nation.

You feel, that there is no hazard in your admission, that the paramount object in relation to the District of Columbia, is its suitableness for a seat of Government, since you accompany that admission with the denial, that the presence of slavery interferes with such suitableness.

But is it not a matter of deep regret, that the place, in which our national laws are made--that the place from which the sentiment and fas.h.i.+on of the whole country derive so much of their tone and direction--should cherish a system, which you have often admitted, is at war with the first principles of our religion and civil polity;[A] and the influences of which are no less pervading and controlling than corrupting? Is it not a matter of deep regret, that they, whom other governments send to our own, and to whom, on account of their superior intellect and influence, it is our desire, as it is our duty, to commend our free inst.i.tutions, should be obliged to learn their lessons of practical republicanism amidst the monuments and abominations of slavery? Is it no objection to the District of Columbia, as the seat of our Government, that slavery, which concerns the political and moral interests of the nation, more than any other subject coming within the range of legislation, is not allowed to be discussed there--either within or without the Halls of Congress? It is one of the doctrines of slavery, that slavery shall not be discussed. Some of its advocates are frank enough to avow, as the reason for this prohibition, that slavery cannot bear to be discussed. In your speech before the American Colonization Society in 1835, to which I have referred, you distinctly take the ground, that slavery is a subject not open to general discussion. Very far am I from believing, that you would employ, or intentionally countenance violence, to prevent such discussion.

Nevertheless, it is to this doctrine of non-discussion, which you and others put forth, that the North is indebted for her pro-slavery mobs, and the South for her pro-slavery Lynchings. The declarations of such men as Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, that slavery is a question not to be discussed, are a license to mobs to burn up halls and break up abolition meetings, and destroy abolition presses, and murder abolition editors. Had such men held the opposite doctrine, and admitted, yea, and insisted, as it was their duty to do, that every question in morals and politics is a legitimate subject of free discussion--the District of Columbia would be far less objectionable, as the seat of our Government.

In that case the lamented Dr. Crandall would not have been seized in the city of Was.h.i.+ngton on the suspicion of being an abolitionist, and thrown into prison, and subjected to distresses of mind and body, which resulted in his premature death. Had there been no slavery in the District, this outrage would not have been committed; and the murders, chargeable on the bloodiest of all b.l.o.o.d.y inst.i.tutions, would have been one less than they now are. Talk of the slaveholding District of Columbia being a suitable locality for the seat of our Government! Why, Sir, a distinguished member of Congress was threatened there with an indictment for the _crime_ of presenting, or rather of proposing to present, a pet.i.tion to the body with which he was connected! Indeed the occasion of the speech, on which I am now commenting, was the _impudent_ protest of inhabitants of that District against the right of the American people to pet.i.tion their own Congress, in relation to matters of vital importance to the seat of their own Government! I take occasion here to admit, that I have seen but references to this protest--not the protest itself. I presume, that it is not dissimilar, in its spirit, to the pet.i.tion presented about the same time by Mr. Moore in the other House of Congress--his speech on which, he complains was ungenerously antic.i.p.ated by yours on the pet.i.tion presented by yourself. As the pet.i.tion presented by Mr. Moore is short, I will copy it, that I may say to you with the more effect--how unfit is the spirit of a slaveholding people, as ill.u.s.trated in this pet.i.tion, to be the spirit of the people at the seat of a free Government!

[Footnote A: "It (slavery) is a sin and a curse both to the master and the slave:"--_Henry Clay_.]

"_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

The pet.i.tion of the undersigned, citizens of the District of Columbia represents--That they have witnessed with deep regret the attempts which are making _to disturb the integrity_ of the Union by a BAND OF FANATICS, embracing men, women, and children, who cease not day and night to crowd the tables of your halls with SEDITIOUS MEMORIALS--and solicit your honorable bodies that you will, in your wisdom, henceforth give neither support nor countenance to such UNHALLOWED ATTEMPTS, but that you will, in the most emphatic manner, set the seal of your disapprobation upon all such FOUL AND UNNATURAL EFFORTS, by refusing not only to READ and REFER, but also to RECEIVE any papers which either directly or indirectly, or by implication, aim at any interference with the rights of your pet.i.tioners, or of those of any citizen of any of the States or Territories of the United States, or of this District of which we are inhabitants."

A Legislature should be imbued with a free, independent, fearless spirit. But it cannot be, where discussion is overawed and interdicted, or its boundaries at all contracted. Wherever slavery reigns, the freedom of discussion is not tolerated: and whenever slavery exists, there slavery reigns;--reigns too with that exclusive spirit of Turkish despotism, that, "bears no brother near the throne."

You agree with President Wayland, that it is as improper for Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, as to create it in some place in the free States, over which it has jurisdiction. As improper, in the judgment of an eminent statesman, and of a no less eminent divine, to destroy what they both admit to be a system of unrighteousness, as to establish it! As improper to restrain as to practice, a violation of G.o.d's law! What will other countries and coming ages think of the politics of our statesmen and the ethics of our divines?

But, besides its immorality, Congress has no Const.i.tutional right to create slavery. You have not yet presumed to deny positively, that Congress has the right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; and, notwithstanding the intimation in your speech, you will not presume to affirm, that Congress has the Const.i.tutional right to enact laws reducing to, or holding in slavery, the inhabitants of West Point, or any other locality in the free States, over which it has exclusive jurisdiction. I would here remark, that the law of Congress, which revived the operation of the laws of Virginia and Maryland in the District of Columbia, being, so far as it respects the slave laws of those States, a violation of the Federal Const.i.tution, should be held of no avail towards legalizing slavery in the District--and the subjects of that slavery, should, consequently, be declared by our Courts unconditionally free.

You will admit that slavery is a system of surpa.s.sing injustice:--but an avowed object of the Const.i.tution is to "establish justice." You will admit that it utterly annihilates the liberty of its victims:--but another of the avowed objects of the Const.i.tution is to "secure the blessings of liberty." You will admit, that slavery does, and necessarily must, regard its victims as _chattels_. The Const.i.tution, on the contrary, speaks of them as nothing short of _persons_. Roger Sherman, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a framer of the Federal Const.i.tution, and a member of the first Congress under it, denied that this instrument considers slaves "as a species of property."

Mr. Madison, in the 54th No. of the Federalist admits, that the Const.i.tution "regards them as inhabitants." Many cases might be cited, in which Congress has, in consonance with the Const.i.tution, refused to recognize slaves as property. It was the expectation, as well as the desire of the framers of the Const.i.tution, that slavery should soon cease to exist is our country; and, but for the laws, which both Congress and the slave States, have, in flagrant violation of the letter and spirit and obvious policy of the Const.i.tution, enacted in behalf of slavery, that vice would, ere this, have disappeared from our land.

Look, for instance, at the laws enacted in the fact of the clause: "The citizens of each State shall be ent.i.tled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"--laws too, which the States that enacted them, will not consent to repeal, until they consent to abandon slavery. It is by these laws, that they shut out the colored people of the North, the presence of a single individual of whom so alarms them with the prospect of a servile insurrection, that they immediately imprison him. Such was the view of the Federal Const.i.tution taken by James Wilson one of its framers, that, without, as I presume, claiming for Congress any direct power over slavery in the slave States, he declared that it possessed "power to exterminate slavery from within our borders." It was probably under a like view, that Benjamin Franklin, another of its framers, and Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and other men of glorious and blessed memory, pet.i.tioned the first Congress under the Const.i.tution to "countenance the restoration to liberty of those unhappy men," (the slaves of our country). And in what light that same Congress viewed the Const.i.tution may be inferred from the fact, that, by a special act, it ratified the celebrated Ordinance, by the terms of which slavery was forbidden for ever in the North West Territory. It is worthy of note, that the avowed object of the Ordinance harmonizes with that of the Const.i.tution: and that the Ordinance was pa.s.sed the same year that the Const.i.tution was drafted, is a fact, on which we can strongly rely to justify a reference to the spirit of the one instrument for ill.u.s.trating the spirit of the other. What the spirit of the Ordinance is, and in what light they who pa.s.sed it, regarded "republics, their laws and const.i.tutions," may be inferred from the following declaration in the Ordinance of its grand object: "For extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis wherever these Republics, their laws and const.i.tutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, const.i.tutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory, &c.; it is hereby ordained and declared that the following articles, &c." One of these articles is that, which has been referred to, and which declares that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory."

You will perhaps make light of my reference to James Wilson and Benjamin Franklin, for I recollect you say, that, "When the Const.i.tution was about going into operation, its powers were not well understood by the community at large, and remained to be accurately interpreted and defined." Nevertheless, I think it wise to repose more confidence in the views, which the framers of the Const.i.tution took of the spirit and principles of that instrument, than in the definitions and interpretations of the pro-slavery generation, which has succeeded them.

It should be regarded as no inconsiderable evidence of the anti-slavery genius and policy of the Const.i.tution, that Congress promptly interdicted slavery in the first portion of territory, and that, too, a territory of vast extent, over which it acquired jurisdiction. And is it not a perfectly reasonable supposition, that the seat of our Government would not have been polluted by the presence of slavery, had Congress acted on that subject by itself, instead of losing sight of it in the wholesale legislation, by which the laws of Virginia and Maryland were revived in the District?

If the Federal Const.i.tution be not anti-slavery in its general scope and character; if it be not impregnated with the principles of universal liberty; why was it necessary, in order to restrain Congress, for a limited period, from acting against the slave trade, which is but a branch or incident of slavery, to have a clause to that end in the Const.i.tution? The fact that the framers of the Const.i.tution refused to blot its pages with the word "slave" or "slavery;" and that, by periphrase and the subst.i.tution of "persons" for "slaves," they sought to conceal from posterity and the world the mortifying fact, that slavery existed under a government based on the principle, that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

contains volumes of proof, that they looked upon American slavery as a decaying inst.i.tution; and that they would naturally shape the Const.i.tution to the abridgment and the extinction, rather than the extension and perpetuity of the giant vice of the country.

It is not to be denied, that the Const.i.tution tolerates a limited measure of slavery: but it tolerates this measure only as the exception to its rule of impartial and universal liberty. Were it otherwise, the principles of that instrument could be pleaded to justify the holding of men as property, in cases, other than those specifically provided for in it. Were it otherwise, these principles might be appealed to, as well to sanction the enslavement of men, as the capture of wild beasts. Were it otherwise, the American people might be Const.i.tutionally realizing the prophet's declaration: "they all lie in wait for blood: they hunt every man his brother with a net." But mere principles, whether in or out of the Const.i.tution, do not avail to justify and uphold slavery. Says Lord Mansfield in the famous Somerset case: "The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being now introduced by courts of justice upon mere reasoning or inferences from any principles, natural or political; it must take its rise from _positive law_; the origin of it can in no country or age be traced back to any other source. A case so odious as the condition of slaves, must be taken strictly." Grotius says, that "slavery places man in an unnatural relation to man--a relation which nothing but positive law can sustain." All are aware, that, by the common law, man cannot have property in man; and that wherever that law is not counteracted on this point by positive law, "slaves cannot breathe," and their "shackles fall." I scarcely need add, that the Federal Const.i.tution does, in the main, accord with the common law. In the words of a very able writer: "The common law is the grand element of the United States Const.i.tution. All its fundamental provisions are instinct with its spirit; and its existence, principles, and paramount authority, are presupposed and a.s.sumed throughout the whole."

To argue the anti-slavery character of the Federal Const.i.tution, it is not necessary to take the high ground of some, that whatever in the Const.i.tution favors slavery is void, because opposed to the principles and general tenor of that instrument. Much less is it necessary to take the still higher ground, that every law in favor of slavery, in whatever code or connection it may be found, is utterly invalid because of its plain contravention of the law of nature. To maintain my position, that the Const.i.tution is anti-slavery in its general character, and that const.i.tutional slavery is, at the most, but an exception to that general character, it was not necessary to take either of these grounds; though, had I been disposed to take even the higher of them, I should not have lacked the countenance of the most weighty authorities. "The law of nature," says Blackstone, "being coeval with mankind, and dictated by G.o.d himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this." The same writer says, that "The law of nature requires, that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness." But that slavery allows this pursuit to its victims, no one will pretend. "There is a law," says Henry Brougham, "above all the enactments of human codes. It is the law written by the finger of G.o.d on the heart of man; and by that law, unchangeable and eternal, while men despise fraud, and loathe rapine, and abhor blood, they shall reject with indignation the wild and guilty phantasy, that man can hold property in man."

I add no more to what I have said on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, than to ask, as I have done in relation to the inter-state slave trade and the annexation of slave states, whether pet.i.tions for its abolition argue so great a contempt of the Const.i.tution, and so entire a recklessness of propriety, as to merit the treatment which they receive at the hands of Congress. Admitting that Congress has not the const.i.tutional power to abolish slavery in the District--admitting that it has not the const.i.tutional power to destroy what itself has established--admitting, too, that if it has the power, it ought not to exercise it;--nevertheless, is the case so perfectly clear, that the pet.i.tioners for the measure deserve all the abuse and odium which their representatives in Congress heap upon them? In a word, do not the three cla.s.ses of pet.i.tions to which you refer, merit, at the hands of those representatives, the candid and patient consideration which, until I read your acknowledgment, that, in relation to these pet.i.tions, "there is no substantial difference between" yourself and those, who are in favor of thrusting them aside undebated, unconsidered, and even unread, I always supposed you were willing to have bestowed on them?

I pa.s.s to the examination of your charges against the abolitionists.

_They contemn the "rights of property."_

This charge you prefer against the abolitionists, not because they believe that a Legislature has the right to abolish slavery, nor because they deny that slaves are legally property; for this obvious truth they do not deny. But you prefer it, because they believe that man cannot rightfully be a subject of property.

Abolitionists believe, to use words, which I have already quoted, that it is "a wild and guilty phantasy, that man can hold property in man."

They believe, that to claim property in the exalted being, whom G.o.d has made in His own image, and but "a little lower than the angels," is scarcely less absurd than to claim it in the Creator himself. You take the position, that human laws can rightfully reduce a race of men to property; and that the outrage, to use your own language, is "sanctioned and sanctified" by "two hundred years" continuance of it. Abolitionists, on the contrary, trace back man's inalienable self-owners.h.i.+p to enactments of the Divine Legislator, and to the bright morning of time, when he came forth from the hand of his Maker, "crowned with glory and honor," invested with self-control, and with dominion over the brute and inanimate creation. You soothe the conscience of the slaveholder, by reminding him, that the relation, which he has a.s.sumed towards his down-trodden fellow-man, is lawful. The abolitionist protests, that the wickedness of the relation is none the less, because it is legalized. In charging abolitionists with condemning "the rights of property," you mistake the innocent for the guilty party. Were you to be so unhappy as to fall into the hands of a kidnapper, and be reduced to a slave, and were I to remonstrate, though in vain, with your oppressor, who would you think was the despiser of "the rights of property"--myself, or the oppressor? As you would judge in that case, so judges every slave in his similar case.

The man-stealer's complaint, that his "rights of property" in his stolen fellow men are not adequately respected by the abolitionist, recalls to my mind a very similar, and but little more ludicrous case of conscientious regard for the "rights of property." A traveler was plundered of the whole of his large sum of money. He pleaded successfully with the robber for a little of it to enable him to reach his home. But, putting his hand rather deeper into the bag of stolen coins than comported with the views of the robber, he was arrested with the cry, "Why, man, have you no conscience?" You will perhaps inquire, whether abolitionists regard all the slaves of the South as stolen--as well those born at the South, as those, who were confessedly stolen from Africa? I answer, that we do--that every helpless new-born infant, on which the chivalry of the South pounces, is, in our judgment, the owner of itself--that we consider, that the crime of man-stealing which is so terribly denounced in the Bible, does not consist, as is alleged, in stealing a slave from a third person, but in stealing him from himself--in depriving him of self control, and subjecting him, as property, to the absolute control of another. Joseph's declaration, that he "was stolen," favors this definition of man-stealing. Jewish Commentators authorise it. Money, as it does not own itself, cannot be stolen from itself But when we reflect, that man is the owner of himself, it does not surprise us, that wresting away his inalienable rights--his very manhood--should have been called man-stealing.

Whilst on this subject of "the rights of property," I am reminded of your "third impediment to abolition." This "impediment" consists in the fact of the great value of the southern slaves--which, according to your estimation, is not less than "twelve hundred millions of dollars." I will adopt your estimate, and thus spare myself from going into the abhorrent calculation of the worth in dollars and cents of immortal man--of the worth of "the image of G.o.d." I thank you for your virtual admission, that this wealth is grasped with a tenacity proportioned to its vast amount. Many of the wisest and best men of the North have been led into the belief that the slaveholders of the South are too humane and generous to hold their slaves fur the sake of gain. Even Dr.

Channing was a subject of this delusion; and it is well remembered, that his too favorable opinions of his fellow men, made it difficult to disabuse him of it. Northern Christians have been ready to believe, that the South would give up her slaves, because of her conscious lack of t.i.tle to them. But in what age of the world have impenitent men failed to cling as closely to that, which they had obtained by fraud, as to their honest acquisitions? Indeed, it is demonstrable on philosophical principles, that the more stupendous the fraud, the more tenacious is the hold upon that, which is gotten by it. I trust, that your admission to which I have just referred, will have no small effect to prevent the Northern apologist for slavery from repeating the remark that the South would gladly liberate her slaves, if she saw any prospect of bettering the condition of the objects of her tender and solicitous benevolence. I trust, too, that this admission will go far to prove the emptiness of your declaration, that the abolitionists "have thrown back for half a century the prospect of any species of emanc.i.p.ation of the African race, gradual or immediate, in any of the states," and the emptiness of your declaration, that, "prior to the agitation of this subject of abolition, there was a progressive melioration in the condition of slaves throughout all the slave states," and that "in some of them, schools of instruction were opened," &c.; and I further trust, that this admission will render harmless your intimation, that this "melioration" and these "schools" were intended to prepare the slaves for freedom. After what you have said of the great value of the slaves, and of the obstacle it presents to emanc.i.p.ation, you will meet with little success in your endeavors to convince the world, that the South was preparing to give up the "twelve hundred millions of dollars," and that the naughty abolitionists have postponed her gratification "for half a century." If your views of the immense value of the slaves, and of the consequent opposition to their freedom, be correct, then the hatred of the South towards the abolitionists must be, not because their movements tend to lengthen, but because they tend to shorten the period of her possession of the "twelve hundred millions of dollars." May I ask you, whether, whilst the South clings to these "twelve hundred millions of dollars,"

it is not somewhat hypocritical in her to be complaining, that the abolitionists are fastening the "twelve hundred millions of dollars" to her? And may I ask you, whether there is not a little inconsistency between your own lamentations over this work of the abolitionists, and your intimation that the South will never consent to give up her slaves, until the impossibility, of paying her "twelve hundred millions of dollars" for them, shall have been accomplished? Puerile and insulting as is your proposition to the abolitionists to raise "twelve hundred millions of dollars" for the purchase of the slaves, it is nevertheless instructive; inasmuch as it shows, that, in your judgment, the South is as little willing to give up her slaves, as the abolitionists are able to pay "twelve hundred millions of dollars" for them; and how unable the abolitionists are to pay a sum of money far greater than the whole amount of money in the world, I need not explain.

But if the South must have "twelve hundred millions of dollars" to induce her to liberate her present number of slaves, how can you expect success fur your scheme of ridding her of several times the present number, "in the progress of some one hundred and fifty, or two hundred years?" Do you reply, that, although she must have "four hundred dollars" a-piece for them, if she sell them to the abolitionists, she is, nevertheless, willing to let the Colonization Society have them without charge? There is abundant proof, that she is not. During the twenty-two years of the existence of that Society, not so many slaves have been emanc.i.p.ated and given to it for expatriation, as are born in a single week. As a proof that the sympathies of the South are all with the slaveholding and _real_ character of this two-faced inst.i.tution, and not at all with the abolition purposes and tendencies, which it professes at the North, none of its Presidents, (and slave-holders only are deemed worthy to preside over it,) has ever contributed from his stock of slaves to swell those bands of emigrants, who, leaving our sh.o.r.es in the character of "nuisances," are instantly transformed, to use your own language, into "missionaries, carrying with them credentials in the holy cause of Christianity, civilization, and free inst.i.tutions." But you were not in earnest, when you held up the idea in your recent speech, that the rapidly multiplying millions of our colored countrymen would be expatriated. What you said on that point was but to indulge in declamation, and to round off a paragraph. It is in that part of your speech where you say that "no practical scheme for their removal or separation from us has yet been devised or proposed," that you exhibit your real sentiments on this subject, and impliedly admit the deceitfulness of the pretensions of the American Colonization Society.

Before closing my remarks on the topic of "the rights of property," I will admit the truth of your charge, that _Abolitionists deny, that the slaveholder is ent.i.tled to "compensation" for his slaves_.

Abolitionists do not know, why he, who steals men is, any more than he, who steals horses, ent.i.tled to "compensation" for releasing his plunder.

They do not know, why he, who has exacted thirty years' unrequited toil from the sinews of his poor oppressed brother, should be paid for letting that poor oppressed brother labor for himself the remaining ten or twenty years of his life. But, it is said, that the South bought her slaves of the North, and that we of the North ought therefore to compensate the South for liberating them. If there are individuals at the North, who have sold slaves, I am free to admit, that they should promptly surrender their ill-gotten gains; and no less promptly should the inheritors of such gains surrender them. But, however this may be, and whatever debt may be due on this score, from the North to the South, certain it is, that on no principle of sound ethics, can the South hold to the persons of the innocent slaves, as security for the payment of the debt. Your state and mine, and I would it were so with all others, no longer allow the imprisonment of the debtor as a means of coercing payment from him. How much less, then, should they allow the creditor to promote the security of his debt by imprisoning a third person--and one who is wholly innocent of contracting the debt? But who is imprisoned, if it be not he, who is shut up in "the house of bondage?" And who is more entirely innocent than he, of the guilty transactions between his seller and buyer?

Another of your charges against abolitionists is, _that, although "utterly dest.i.tute of Const.i.tutional or other rightful power--living in totally distinct communities--as alien to the communities in which the subject on which they would operate resides, so far as concerns political power over that subject, as if they lived in Africa or Asia; they nevertheless promulgate to the world their purpose to be, to manumit forthwith, and without compensation, and without moral preparation, three millions of negro slaves, under jurisdictions altogether separated from those under which they live."_

I will group with this charge several others of the same cla.s.s.

_1._ _Abolitionists neglect the fact, that "the slavery which exists amongst us (southern people) is our affair--not theirs--and that they have no more just concern with it, than they have with slavery as it exists throughout the world."_

_2._ _They are regardless of the "deficiency of the powers of the General Government, and of the acknowledged and incontestable powers of the States."_

_3._ "Superficial men (meaning no doubt abolitionists) confound the totally different cases together of the powers of the British Parliament and those of the Congress of the United States in the matter of slavery."_

Are these charges any thing more than the imagery of your own fancy, or selections from the numberless slanders of a time-serving and corrupt press? If they are founded on facts, it is in your power to state the facts. For my own part, I am utterly ignorant of any, even the least, justification for them. I am utterly ignorant that the abolitionists hold any peculiar views in relation to the powers of the General or State Governments. I do not believe, that one in a hundred of them supposes, that slavery in the states is a legitimate subject of federal legislation. I believe, that a majority of the intelligent men amongst them accord much more to the claims of "state sovereignty," and approach far more nearly to the character of "strict constructionists," than does the distinguished statesman, who charges them with such lat.i.tudinarian notions. There may be persons in our country, who believe that Congress has the absolute power over all American slavery, which the British Parliament had over all British slavery; and that Congress can abolish slavery in the slave states, because Great Britain abolished it in her West India Islands; but, I do not know them; and were I to look for them, I certainly should not confine my search to abolitionists--for abolitionists, as it is very natural they should be, are far better instructed in the subject of slavery and its connections with civil government, than are the community in general.

It is pa.s.sing strange, that you, or any other man, who is not playing a desperate game, should, in the face of the Const.i.tution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, which "admits, that each state, in which slavery exists, has, by the Const.i.tution of the United States, the exclusive right to legislate in regard to the abolition of slavery in said state;"

make such charges, as you have done.

In an Address "To the Public," dated September 3, 1835, and subscribed by the President, Treasurer, the three Secretaries, and the other five members of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society, we find the following language. 1. "We hold that Congress has no more right to abolish slavery in the Southern states than in the French West India Islands. Of course we desire no national legislation on the subject. 2. We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the legislatures of the several states in which it prevails, and that the exercise of any other than moral influence to induce such abolition is unconst.i.tutional."

But what slavery is it that the abolitionists call on Congress to abolish? Is it that in the slave states? No--it is that in the District of Columbia and in the territories--none other. And is it not a fair implication of their pet.i.tions, that this is the only slavery, which, in the judgment of the pet.i.tioners, Congress has power to abolish?

Nevertheless, it is in the face of this implication, that you make your array of charges.

Is it true, however, that the North has nothing more to do with slavery in the states, than with slavery in a foreign country? Does it not concern the North, that, whilst it takes many thousands of her voters to be ent.i.tled to a representative in Congress, there are districts at the South, where, by means of slavery, a few hundred voters enjoy this benefit. Again, since the North regards herself as responsible in common with the South, for the continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territories, and for the continuance of the interstate traffic in human beings; and since she believes slavery in the slave states to be the occasion of these crimes, and that they will all of necessity immediately cease when slavery ceases--is it not right, that she should feel that she has a "just concern with slavery?" Again, is it nothing to the people of the North, that they may be called on, in obedience to a requirement of the federal const.i.tution, to shoulder their muskets to quell "domestic violence?" But, who does not know, that this requirement owes its existence solely to the apprehension of servile insurrections?--or, in other words, to the existence of slavery in the slave states? Again, when our guiltless brothers escape from the southern prison-house, and come among us, we are under const.i.tutional obligation to deliver them up to their stony-hearted pursuers. And is not slavery in the slave states, which is the occasion of our obligation to commit this outrage on humanity and on the law of G.o.d, a matter of "just concern to us?" To what too, but slavery, in the slave states, is to be ascribed the long standing insult of our government towards that of Hayti? To what but that, our national disadvantages and losses from the want of diplomatic relations between the two governments? To what so much, as to slavery in the slave states, are owing the corruption in our national councils, and the worst of our legislation? But scarcely any thing should go farther to inspire the North with a sense of her "just concern" in the subject of slavery in the slave states, than the fact, that slavery is the parent of the cruel and murderous prejudice, which crushes and kills her colored people; and, that it is but too probable, that the child will live as long as its parent. And has the North no "just concern" with the slavery of the slave states, when there is so much reason to fear that our whole blood-guilty nation is threatened with G.o.d's destroying wrath on account of it?

There is another respect in which we of the North have a "just concern"

with the slavery of the slave states. We see nearly three millions of our fellow men in those states robbed of body, mind, will, and soul--denied marriage and the reading of the Bible, and marketed as beasts. We see them in a word crushed in the iron folds of slavery. Our nature--the laws written upon its very foundations--the Bible, with its injunctions "to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them," and to "open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction"--all require us to feel and to express what we feel for these wretched millions. I said, that we see this misery. There are many amongst us--they are anti-abolitionists--who do not see it; and to them G.o.d says; "but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse."

I add, that we of the North must feel concerned about slavery in the slave states, because of our obligation to pity the deluded, hard-hearted, and b.l.o.o.d.y oppressors in those states: and to manifest our love for them by rebuking their unsurpa.s.sed sin. And, notwithstanding pro-slavery statesmen at the North, who wink at the iniquity of slave holding, and pro-slavery clergymen at the North, who cry, "peace, peace"

to the slaveholder, and sew "pillows to armholes," tell us, that by our honest and open rebuke of the slaveholder, we shall incur his enduring hatred; we, nevertheless, believe that "open rebuke is better than secret love," and that, in the end, we shall enjoy more Southern favor than they, whose secret love is too prudent and spurious to deal faithfully with the objects of its regard. "He that rebuketh a man, afterward shall find more favor than he that flattereth with the tongue." The command, "thou shall in any wise rebuke thy neighbor and not suffer sin upon him," is one, which the abolitionist feels, that he is bound to obey, as well in the case of the slaveholder, as in that of any other sinner. And the question: "who is my neighbor," is so answered by the Savior, as to show, that not he of our vicinity, nor even he of our country, is alone our "neighbor."

The abolitionists of the North hold, that they have certainly as much "just concern" with slavery in the slave states, as the temperance men of the North have with "intemperance" at the South. And I would here remark, that the weapons with which the abolitionists of the North attack slavery in the slave states are the same, and no other than the same, with those, which the North employs against the vice of intemperance at the South. I add too, that were you to say, that northern temperance men disregard "the deficiency of the powers of the General Government," and also "the acknowledged and incontestable powers of the states;" your charge would be as suitable as when it is applied to northern abolitionists.

You ascribe to us "the purpose to manumit the three millions of negro slaves." Here again you greatly misrepresent us, by holding us up as employing coercive, instead of persuasive, means for the accomplishment of our object. Our "purpose" is to persuade others to "manumit." The slaveholders themselves are to "manumit." It is evident, that others cannot "manumit" for them. If the North were endeavoring to persuade the South to give up the growing of cotton, you would not say, it is the purpose of the North to give it up. But, as well might you, as to say, that it is the "purpose" of the abolitionists to "manumit." It is very much by such misrepresentations, that the prejudices against abolitionists are fed and sustained. How soon they would die of atrophy, if they, who influence the public mind and mould public opinion, would tell but the simple truth about abolitionists.

You say, that the abolitionists would have the slaves manumitted "without compensation and without moral preparation." I have already said enough on the point of "compensation." It is true, that they would have them manumitted immediately:--for they believe slavery is sin, and that therefore the slaveholder has no right to protract the bondage of his slaves for a single year, or for a single day or hour;--not even, were he to do so to afford them "a moral preparation" for freedom, or to accomplish any other of the kindest and best purposes. They believe, that the relation of slaveholder, as it essentially and indispensably involves the reduction of men to chattels.h.i.+p, cannot, under any plea whatever, be continued with innocence, for a single moment. If it can be--if the plain laws of G.o.d, in respect to marriage and religious instruction and many other blessings, of which chattelized man is plundered, can be innocently violated--why credit any longer the a.s.sertion of the Bible, that "sin is the transgression of the law?"--why not get a new definition of sin?

Another reason with abolitionists in favor of immediate manumission, is, that the slaves do not, as a body, acquire, whilst in slavery, any "moral preparation" for freedom. To learn to swim we must be allowed the use of water. To learn the exercises of a freeman, we must enjoy he element of liberty. I will not say, that slaves cannot be taught, to some extent, the duties of freemen. Some knowledge of the art of swimming may be acquired before entering the water. I have not forgotten what you affirm about the "progressive melioration in the condition of slaves," and the opening of "schools of instruction" for them "prior to the agitation of the subject of abolition;" nor, have I forgotten, that I could not read it without feeling, that the creations of your fancy, rather than the facts of history, supplied this information. Instances, rare instances, of such "melioration" and of such "schools of instruction," I doubt not there have been: but, I am confident, that the Southern slaves have been sunk in depths of ignorance proportioned to the profits of their labor. I have not the least belief, that the proportion of readers amongst them is one half so great, as it was before the invention of Whitney's cotton gin.

Permit me to call your attention to a few of the numberless evidences, that slavery is a poor school for "moral preparation" for freedom. 1st.

Slavery turns its victims into thieves. "Who should be astonished," says Thomas S. Clay, a very distinguished slaveholder of Georgia, "if the negro takes from the field or corn-house the supplies necessary for his craving appet.i.te and then justifies his act, and denies that it is stealing?" What debas.e.m.e.nt in the slave does the same gentleman's remedy for theft indicate? "If," says he, "the negro is informed, that if he does not steal, he shall receive rice as an allowance; and if he does steal, he shall not, a motive is held out which will counteract the temptation to pilfer." 2nd. Slavery reeks with licentiousness. Another son of the South says, that the slaveholder's kitchen is a brothel, and a southern village a Sodom. The elaborate defence of slavery by Chancellor Harper of South Carolina justifies the heaviest accusations, that have been brought against it on the score of licentiousness. How could you blame us for deeply abhorring slavery, even were we to view it in no other light than that in which the Dews and Harpers and its other advocates present it? 3rd. Slavery puts the master in the place of G.o.d, and the master's law in the place of G.o.d's law! "The negro," says Thomas S. Clay, "is seldom taught to feel, that he is punished for breaking G.o.d's law! He only knows his master as law-giver and executioner, and the sole object held up to his view is to make him a more obedient and profitable slave. He oftener hears that he shall be punished if he steals, than if he breaks the Sabbath or swears; and thus he sees the very threatenings of G.o.d brought to bear on his master's interests. It is very manifest to him, that his own good is very far from forming the primary reason for his chastis.e.m.e.nt: his master's interests are to be secured at all events;--G.o.d's claims are secondary, or enforced merely for the purpose of advancing those of his owner. His own benefit is the residuum after this double distillation of moral motive--a mere accident." 4th. The laws of nearly all the slave-states forbid the teaching of the slaves to read. The abundant declarations, that those laws are without exception, a consequence of the present agitation of the question of slavery are glaringly false. Many of these laws were enacted long before this agitation; and some of them long before you and I were born. Say the three hundred and fifty-three gentlemen of the District of Abbeville and Edgefield in South Carolina, who, the last year, broke up a system of oral religious instruction, which the Methodist Conference of that State had established amongst their slaves: "Intelligence and slavery have no affinity for each other." And when those same gentlemen declare, that "verbal and lecturing instruction will increase a desire with the black population to learn"--that "the progress and diffusion of knowledge will be a consequence"--and that "a progressive system of improvement will be introduced, that will ultimately revolutionize our civil inst.i.tutions," they admit, that the prohibition of "intelligence" to the slaves is the settled and necessary policy of slavery, and not, as you would have us believe, a temporary expedient occasioned by the present "agitation of this subject of abolition." 5th. Slavery--the system, which forbids marriage and the reading of the Bible--does of necessity turn its subjects into heathens.