Discussion on American Slavery Part 14

In the first evening's discussion, page 6, Mr. Breckinridge says that the British people 'had sent out agents to America, who had returned defeated. They have failed--they admit they have failed in their object.' To say nothing of the accuracy which speaks in the plural number of a single individual, and which can easily be excused to one who in encountering him, probably felt that that individual was himself a host,--when or where has the alleged admission been made?

Never. Nowhere. The a.s.sertion is untrue.

During the same evening, page 7, Mr. B. tells his audience that 'of the twelve [free] states, at least four, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Maine never had a slave.' What says the United States' census? In 1830, there were 2 slaves in Maine, 6 in Ohio, 3 in Indiana, and 747[A] in Illinois. In 1820, there were 190 in Indiana, and 917 in Illinois. In 1810, Indiana contained 237, Illinois 168. In 1800, there were 135 in Indiana. But Mr. B. says, that 'since 1785, till this hour, there never had been one slave in any of these states.'

[A] Called indented apprentices, but from the connection in which it stands in the census, we infer that they are virtually slaves.

'America,' he tells us, 'was the first nation upon earth, which abolished the slave trade and made it piracy.' See page 8. This will be unwelcome news to Messrs. Franklin and Armfield of Alexandira, D.

C., whose standing advertis.e.m.e.nts in the Washington papers, offer cash for negroes of both s.e.xes, from 12 to 25 years of age, and announce the 'regular trips' twice a month, of their vessels engaged in the slave trade between the District and New Orleans. It will be unpleasant intelligence in the city of Washington, where for $400 a year, the 'trade or traffic in slaves' is licensed for the benefit of the ca.n.a.l fund. It will be news to the keepers of the prisons in the District, who, in their official capacity, carry on the slave trade by selling men 'for their prison and other expenses, _as the law directs_.'

But Mr. B. means the _foreign_ slave trade, not the domestic. The latter, indeed, may be licensed, and protected, and deemed honorable as it is lucrative. Those who engage in it, may be like Armfield and Woolfolk, gentlemen 'of engaging and graceful manners,' reported to be 'mild, indulgent, upright, and scrupulously honest,' but the _foreign_ trade is _piracy_ by the law of the land. Very meritorious truly! and worthy of abundant eulogy! to prohibit piracy on the high seas, or the African coast, while selling permission to do along her own coast, and on her own territories, the same acts which, when done abroad, const.i.tute piracy. But to what does her abolition of even the foreign slave trade amount? Do her cruizers ever capture a slave ship? Seldom, if ever. Does she consent to such arrangements, in her treaties with other nations which are in earnest in their endeavors to suppress the slave trade, as will prevent her flag from being made a protection to the detestable traffic? No. The N. Y. Journal of Commerce, in a recent article very truly a.s.serts, that 'We neither do any thing ourselves to put down the accursed traffic, nor afford any facilities to enable others to put it down. Nay, rather, we stand between the slave and his deliverer. We are a drawback--a dead weight on the cause of bleeding humanity.' And a late number of the Edinburgh Review, speaking of the application of the British Government to this, for its co-operation, says, 'The final answer, however, is, that _under no condition, in no form, and with no restrictions, will the United States enter into any convention or treaty, or make combined efforts of any sort or kind, with other nations for the suppression of the trade_.' With what face, then, can she claim praise for having merely made a law, which she almost never executes, and to the execution of which, by others, she permits her flag to be used as a hindrance.

The next a.s.sertion of Mr. B's that we notice, is the astounding one, that America, 'as a nation, has done every thing in her power' for the abolition of slavery. See page 8. This, while the national domain is the home of slavery and the seat of the slave trade! While the domestic slave trade, so far from being abolished by the National Legislature, as it may const.i.tutionally be, is shielded and licensed!

This, while the moral power of the nation is slumbering, or if awake, arrayed to a great extent, in the defence of slavery! That a man who values his reputation--that a minister of the gospel of Mr. B's intelligence and knowledge of the country's condition and history in regard to this matter, should make such a declaration, is truly most wonderful. Could he have expected it to be believed? Could he have believed it himself?

Mr. B., page 15, by way of explaining why Mr. Thompson was so differently received in Glasgow and Boston, applauded in the one place, and abused in the other, says that he took up the question of slavery as one of political organization. We give to this a.s.sertion, the answer of the editor of the Emanc.i.p.ator. 'This we p.r.o.nounce _utterly and unequivocally false_. We were with Mr. Thompson, while he was in this country, as much probably as any other one individual. We were with him in private and in public, in the house and by the way, in the public convention and the public lecture, and we most solemnly declare, that we never heard George Thompson, on any occasion, take up or discuss the question of American Slavery, 'as one of civil organization.' He always discussed it primarily and essentially as a moral and religious question, and never went into its political relations and bearings, except to answer the objections of cavillers and opponents. And we are astonished that R. J. Breckinridge should dare to make such an a.s.sertion, when, we venture to say, he never heard George Thompson in America.'

The same editor has furnished a better solution than Mr. B's, of the--not very difficult--problem of Mr. Thompson's different reception in Boston and Glasgow. 'For the same reason that Knibb, and Taylor, and Burch.e.l.l did not meet with the same reception in Glasgow and Jamaica--because, and simply because the slave spirit was diffused through the land, infecting and corrupting alike the leading influences of Church and State, so that Mr. T. could not condemn slavery and prejudice 'in Boston as in Glasgow,' without constraining the conviction and the outcry from the implicated and the prejudiced, "so saying thou condemnest us also."'

'There is not a sane man in the free states, who does not wish the world rid of slavery.' This Mr. B. states as his conviction, page 15.

Perhaps it is correct, but if so, there are a great many _insane_ men in the free states, or a great many who have a very strange way of manifesting their wishes. The fact is notorious, that Northern men who remove to the South, almost uniformly become slaveholders the moment their convenience or pecuniary interest can thereby be promoted.

On page 20, Mr. B. accuses Garrison of having written placards to stir up a mob against him, when he lectured in Boston, in behalf of colonization. A charge more utterly false was never made, and it requires a great exercise of charity to believe that Mr. B. did not know its falsehood. It will have been seen that Mr. Thompson challenged proof of the accusation, but none was produced except the word of the accuser--evidence on which, any reader who compares his a.s.sertions in several other instances, with facts, will place very little reliance.

Another of Mr. B's accusations against 'some of the friends of the Anti-Slavery Society,' is, that they procured a writ to take the two 'African princes,' who had been sent to the Maryland Colonization Society to be educated, and that Elizur Wright was the instigator of the measure, on pretence that the boys had been kidnapped. See page 20. The truth of this matter as given in the Emanc.i.p.ator, on Mr.

Wright's authority, is that, on learning that two native African boys, supposed to be slaves, were on board a schooner in New York harbor, bound for Baltimore, Mr. Wright made inquiries on board, and could only learn that they were brought from Africa by a pa.s.senger, and consigned to some one in Baltimore. To make sure of the means of prosecuting a legal inquiry, a writ was obtained, but as soon as Mr.

W. discovered that the lads were sent to this country to be educated, he ordered the officer _not to serve it_.

The next slanderous charge uttered by the reverend delegate is, that Elizur Wright tried to stir up a mob to liberate a fugitive slave confined in New York prison. The story of course is wholly false.

In the second evening's discussion, Mr. B. says, page 34, the admission of a clause into the Const.i.tution prohibiting the abolition of the slave trade for twenty years, 'was one of the brightest virtues in the escutcheon of America,' A dark escutcheon, then, must be hers, if the protection of the slave trade for twenty years is the 'brightest' spot on it. The 'importation of such persons,' &c.

(meaning slaves,) 'shall _not_ be prohibited prior to 1808,' says the Const.i.tution, 'The brightest virtue in her escutcheon!' exclaims Mr.

Breckinridge.

'It was well known that the slavery existing in the United States was the mildest to be seen in any country under heaven.' Page 34. Of this a.s.sertion of Mr. B., we have only to say in the words of the Emanc.i.p.ator, 'It is "well known that the slavery existing in the United States," is _not_ "the mildest to be seen in any country under heaven," and to say so is demonstration absolute of the most "unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead." Witness the fact, that the man who teaches the slave to read, or gives him the religious tract, or the Bible even, does it at his peril. Witness the fact, on the testimony of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, that the large majority of the slave population are "heathen, and will bear comparison with the heathen in any country in the world." Witness the slave-code every where--particularly the following, which is the law of North Carolina, and in Georgia nearly the same, "that if any person hereafter shall be guilty of killing a slave, he shall, upon the first conviction, suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free man"--(i. e. if any white man is witness, and will come forward to testify in the case, for the testimony of a million of colored men would go for nothing,) and "_Provided always, that this act shall not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed_, (and running away, concealment, and the stealing of a hog, or some animal of the cattle kind, to sustain life, outlaws him,) _or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful owner or master or to any slave_ DYING UNDER MODERATE CORRECTION"--thus by the very law which prohibits, giving the master express license to kill as many, and as often as he pleases, provided he will only take care to do it, first, when no white men are present who will inform or testify against him, or secondly, when the slave is an outlaw; or, thirdly, when he lifts his hand in opposition to his master, no matter how cruel the punishment or how base the design upon his or her person; or, fourthly, by "moderate correction."

Let him only see to it, that it is done in one or all of these ways, and under one or all these circ.u.mstances, and if reckless enough to do so, he may kill ad libitum, and n.o.body to say why do ye so. Witness the fact, trumpeted through all the papers within five years, that a Southern man seeing another pa.s.sing across his grounds in the evening, and supposing that he was a runaway slave, _shot him dead_, because, although he hailed him, he did not stop--when lo! it appeared that he had shot a white neighbor, and that, the wind being high, he did not hear, and therefore did not stop at the summons!--a striking ill.u.s.tration of the carelessness and perfect impunity with which, as a matter of fact, black men are and may be shot when attempting an escape from their thraldom. And, once more, witness the fact, that the way to emanc.i.p.ation is hedged up in this country so as it is in no other "country under heaven," and then say what but "ignorance, or a purpose to mislead," could lead to such statements?'

'Perhaps the great reason against the exercise of that power' [to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,] was, that it would _inevitably_ produce a dissolution of the Union. Put 'this and that together.' 'There is not a sane man in the free states, but wishes the world rid of slavery;' the free states contain 'seven millions out of the eleven millions of the white population of the Union;' (see page 7,) 'a large minority in the slaveholding states, in some nearly one half of the population,' (see page 13,) 'are _zealously_ engaged in furthering the abolition of slavery,' and yet the exercise by Congress of its const.i.tutional power to abolish slavery in the national district would '_inevitably_ dissolve the Union.' Verily, the old proverb hath well said that a certain cla.s.s of persons should have a good memory.

Mr. B. sneers at 'Mr. Thompson's argument about the standing army employed in keeping down the slaves,' and declares that it was 'complete humbug, founded upon just nothing at all.' Will the citizens of Southampton county, Virginia, who called in the aid of the U. S.

dragoons to quell an insurrection a few years ago, corroborate his testimony? 'An officer of the United States' army, who was in the expedition from fortress Monroe, against the Southampton slaves in 1831, speaks with constant horror of the scenes which he was compelled to witness. Those troops, agreeably to their orders, which were to exterminate the negroes, killed all that they met with, although they encountered neither resistance, nor show of resistance: and the first check given to this wide, barbarous slaughter grew out of the fact, that the law of Virginia, which provides for the payment to the master of the full value of an executed slave, was considered as not applying to the cases of slaves put to death without trial. In consequence of numerous representations to this effect, sent to the officer of the United States' army, commanding the expedition, the ma.s.sacre was suspended.'--_Child's Oration._

And what says Mr. B. to this a.s.sertion of John Q. Adams, that were it not for the protection of the western frontier against the Indians, and of the Southern slaveholder against his human 'machinery,' this country would scarcely have any need of a standing army. Is that 'complete humbug' too?

Mr. B. ventures to say that 'there are not ten persons in the whole state of Kentucky, holding anti-slavery principles, in the Garrison sense of the word.' Page 40. We know not how many there may be now, but in 1835, a const.i.tution of a state society, framed on anti-slavery principles, 'in the Garrison sense of the word,' was signed by more than forty persons.

Mr. B. tells about a minister who was driven, he says, from Groton, Ma.s.s., by the storm of abolitionism, and who seems to have fled to Baltimore, doubtless, seeking a congenial climate. See page 40. But Mr. B. forgot to mention the many cases in which the _slave_ spirit, 'like a storm of fire and brimstone from h.e.l.l,' has driven faithful pastors from their charges, just for the crime of praying and preaching now and then for the enslaved.

Mr. B. says of a doc.u.ment from which his opponent quoted certain Maryland laws that placed the 'benevolent colonization scheme' in any thing but a favorable light, that it was said in America, and he believed truly, to contain not the laws, but only schemes of laws which never pa.s.sed the a.s.sembly. See page 47. On this the Emanc.i.p.ator remarks, 'This was never alleged against the pamphlet. The pamphlet contains the laws precisely as they stand in the statute book of Maryland, as Mr. B. would have seen had he ever taken the trouble to compare them. And for him to make such a.s.sertions, without having done so, is only another instance of "unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead."'

In the third evening's discussion, Mr. B. a.s.serted, page 50, that Mr.

Garrison was among the first who opposed the Colonization Society, 'on the ground that its operations were injurious to the colored race in America.' To this the Emanc.i.p.ator says, 'This is partly true and partly not. The Society was decidedly opposed, at the outset, both by the colored people and by those who, up to that time, had been most active in promoting the cause of emanc.i.p.ation. As early as August, 1817, the subject came before the "American Convention for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery," &c., at its session in Philadelphia. This body, representing for the most part Friends, and made up of delegates from abolition and manumission societies in different parts of the country, after a full discussion, appointed a committee on the subject. That committee reported, that "they must express their unqualified wish, that no plan of colonization shall be permitted to go into effect without an _immutable pledge_ from the slaveholding states of a just and wise system of gradual emanc.i.p.ation;" and they conclude their report, which was approved and adopted by the Convention with the following resolution:--

"Resolved, As a sense of this Convention, that the gradual and total emanc.i.p.ation of all persons of color, and their literary and moral education, should precede their colonization."

When the Convention met again in 1819, the Pennsylvania society, in sending up a statement of its views and proceedings, warned the "abolitionists of our country to retain in view the lessons of experience, and avoid subst.i.tuting for them, schemes however splendid, yet of questionable result;" and added, "for ourselves there is but one principle on which we can act. It is the principle of immutable justice! We can make no compromise with the prejudices of slavery, or with the slavery of prejudice. The same arguments that are now urged against emanc.i.p.ation, unless the subjects of it be removed from our territory, were used with more plausibility when abolition was an experiment, yet they were combatted with success."

Mr. B. says, page 52, it 'would-be difficult, if not utterly impossible, for evidences of friendship to the Colonization Society from an avowed friend of slavery to be culled out, as occurring within the last three or four years.' Says the Emanc.i.p.ator, "So far is this from being true, that the most decisive evidences of this sort are found, _within_ the last three or four years. Scarce a pro-slavery mob, or speech, or meeting, during this whole time, but has contained, in one and the same breath, a condemmnation of abolition and a commendation of colonization."

After quoting the resolution against the Colonization Society, in Boston last year, Mr. B. remarks, 'that the verbiage of this resolution, showed its parentage. No one who had ever heard one of Mr.

Thompson's speeches could, for a moment, doubt the authorship of the resolution!' This is a small mistake indeed, and among so many great ones, scarce merits a notice, but to show that Mr. B's sagacity in conjecture, exceeds not much his veracity in a.s.sertion, we just mention in pa.s.sing, that the 'authorship of the resolution' belongs _not_ to Mr. Thompson.

'The abolitionists,' says Mr. B. page 54, 'have been going about, from Dan to Beersheba, not only attacking and vilifying the whites, for proposing to colonize the blacks, with their own free consent; but equally attacking the blacks for availing themselves of the offer.' An a.s.sertion utterly false, and wickedly slanderous.

On page 55, Mr. B. introduces an extract from an address of some of the Cape Palmas Colonists to their friends in America, for the purpose of showing the prosperity of the Colony. In connection with this, let the following letter from a colonist be read:--

'CAPE PALMAS, MAY 5TH, 1834.

_Dear Mother_,--I write you with regret. It is true, I wrote to you of my pa.s.sage, how I enjoyed it. I spent a very agreeable time, and also on my first arrival; but now I am distressed, and all Mr. C's family also. * * * O! I am sorry!

yes, sorry that I ever came to this country. It is true, mother, had I taken your advice, I would not have been here.

I have suffered and all my family, and Mr. C's family too, and we still continue to suffer. Not a cent of money have any of us got. Now, mother, if you can get any gentleman to advance the amount of three hundred dollars, or two hundred and fifty dollars I will work for them for it four years. I will serve as a waiter in a house, or any thing at all, to pay for it. My wife says she would maintain herself and sister, if that could get her home once more, for here they can do nothing, for we are not able, the country is so sickly--we have been sick ever since we have been here--* * *

I will serve any way or at any thing. _I will sell myself as a slave_, for the sake of getting HOME once more. Try for me, if you please, for my _family's_ sake. If I was by myself, I might scuffle for myself.'

In a subsequent letter, dated August 3, 1834, this same writer communicates the additional intelligence, that Mrs. C 'died of grief.'

'Every benevolent and right thinking person must see, that the scheme of colonizing Africa by black men, is necessary to enlighten Africa, and prevent the extirpation of the black man there.' So says Mr.

Breckinridge. Doubtless it was to _enlighten_ the poor natives, and _prevent their_ extirpation, that a brisk traffic in rum, tobacco, gunpowder, and spear-pointed knives, has been carried on with them by black men colonized in Africa--that nine pound b.a.l.l.s from 'a gun of great power' were discharged into a body of eight hundred men, standing within sixty yards, pressed shoulder to shoulder, in so compact a form that a child might easily walk upon their heads from one end of the ma.s.s to the other' and 'every shot literally spent its force in a solid ma.s.s of living human flesh[B]--that by fraud and injustice the colonists excited the hostility of the Africans, and stirred up a war with King Joe Harris, which resulted in the slaughter of numbers of the ignorant barbarians, who were unable to cope with the superior arms, and discipline, and military prowess of the American blacks--the 'missionaries in the holy cause of civilization, religion, and free inst.i.tutions.'[C]

[B] See Gurley's Life of Ashmun, page 139.

[C] Speech of Henry Clay. Tenth Annual Report of the American Colonization Society.

'America,' says Mr. B., 'was christianized by colonization.' Yea, verily! and in this case we have another precious example of the enlightening, civilizing, and christianizing influence of colonies.

The poor Indian has felt, and faded away before it, along the Atlantic-sh.o.r.es, and still the 'missionary' work is going on at the far southwest. Ask the Seminoles and the Creeks if colonization has not Christianized America. Ask the shades of Metacom, and Canonicus, and Sarsacus; ask the feeble remnants of the mighty tribes which once dwelt from the lakes to the Gulf, and from the ocean to the Alleghany, and learn of them the process of christianization which colonies have introduced into America. Is it by a similar process that 'colonizing Africa by black men,' is to 'prevent the extirpation' of the natives of that continent?

'The climate' of Africa Mr. B. says, page 58 'suits the black man, while hundreds of white men have fallen victims to it.' And how many 'hundreds of black men' have fallen victims to it? Those especially who have gone from the Northern states, have found it as fatal as have the whites themselves, nor has it been very remarkably healthy to any portion of the colonists.

Mr. B. is very certain that colonizing Africa will destroy the slave trade. He says the colonists 'would put an end to the trade the moment they were able to chastise the pirates, or make reprisals on the nations to which they belonged. Nothing is plainer, than that any nation that will make reprisals, will have none of the inhabitants stolen. If reprisals were made effective, the slave trade would be immediately stopped.' A Christian mode of reforming vices and removing evils, truly! '_Any nation that will make reprisals!_' So, if Peter steals John's child, John must steal Peter's by way of reprisal, and that will put a stop to the mischief at once! And why not reprisals prevent all other kinds of violence, as well as man-stealing? If an Englishman shoots a Frenchman, let a Frenchman shoot an Englishman in return, and the quarrel is settled, and peace restored! For 'nothing is plainer, than that any nation that will make reprisals, will have none of the inhabitants' shot. Does past history sustain this doctrine? Do present facts sustain it? No longer let our clergy preach, that 'all they who take the sword, shall perish by the sword.'

'Nothing is plainer,' than that those nations 'which take the sword'

to 'make reprisals,' 'will have none of the inhabitants' injured by the sword. But where is the need of colonies? If the 'Foulahs' will only steal as many men, women, and children, from the 'Ialoffs,' as the latter from the former, 'nothing is plainer than that these two tribes will have none of the inhabitants stolen.' Do the various African tribes never make reprisals? How happens it then, that the slave trade, and the whole business of man-stealing has not been long since suppressed?

'On one hundred leagues of the African coast,' says Mr. B., 'it is already to a great degree suppressed' by the operation of the colonization societies and their colonies. To this the Emanc.i.p.ator says, 'These statements are far, very far from true, and we can account for them only on the ground of "unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead." Again and again have we been a.s.sured, and on colonial colonization authority too, that the trade still goes on in the vicinity of the colony as briskly as ever, nay, that it is even prosecuted within the limits of the colony, and in sight of Monrovia itself. Indeed, at this very moment the colony, instead of being able to suppress or destroy the trade, is in danger of being itself destroyed by it, and is sending out its appeal to this country for help, praying that some "American vessels" may be sent upon the coast to seize the traders, and to protect the colony. Let our friends in this country and in England peruse the following extracts from the Liberia Herald just received in this country, and then say what shall be thought of the man or the men who, in the face of such and similar testimony repeatedly received, can unblushingly pretend "that on one hundred leagues of the African coast, the trade is already to a great degree suppressed?"

Extracts from late Liberia papers, received at the office of the N. Y.

Commercial Advertiser:--

"_Slave Trade._--This nefarious traffic is again lifting its horrid head in our vicinity, and increasing in a fearful ratio. Within one hundred miles of the settlement, there are at this very time, at least _four_ factories for the purchase of slaves, and one of them not more than eighteen miles off!

The consequences are most severely felt by the colony. It is now impossible to purchase rice, at any rate that would not starve the most fortunate man. In our immediate vicinity, it is reported, slavers have lately given the natives a musket for four cross! the retail price of which, in the colony, is six dollars! To the Spaniards, in view of a successful voyage, the profits of which are so enormous, goods are of no value; but it is far otherwise with us. The natives, like other men, disposed to get the most for their articles, will of course sell to those who will give the highest. This being the case, we ask, _how are the people of this colony to live_? We have sometimes thought if the people of the United States once knew the _inconvenience_ to which the slave trade subjects us, and what an _effectual check_ it is upon the advancement and prosperity of the colony, and how little of those surplus and useless millions, whose proper place of deposite has created so much contention, that without an exception, saints and sinners, politicians, philosophers, colonizationists, and abolitionists, anti-colonizationists, anti-abolitionists, and anti-all, would rise up, and with one general voice decree, that a small armed vessel shall ply between Sherbro Islands and Kroo country, and thus _effectually protect_ a few poor OUTCASTS, while millions of their brethren are faithfully slaving to enrich us at home."