Discussion on American Slavery Part 15

And so, notwithstanding the Paradise to which they have gone, and their "free consent" to go, they are "poor outcasts" when they get there after all; and the very trade which they were sent to abolish, is in a fair way of abolishing them, unless government vessels go out to their aid!'

Of the remark said to have been made by him at the colonization meeting, in 1834, that certain emigrants to Liberia 'were coerced away, as truly as if it had been done with a cart-whip,' Mr. B. says 'it was an unfair report, got up by Mr. Leavitt, the editor of the N.

Y. Evangelist, to serve a special purpose.' The Emanc.i.p.ator answers the a.s.sertion thus, 'This pa.s.sage has been quoted and requoted in this country, in times and ways well nigh innumerable, but, to the best of our knowledge, it was never before p.r.o.nounced an unfair report, either by Mr. B. or any other individual. And now, while we leave Mr. Leavitt to answer for himself on the question of its fairness, we take the liberty to say, that if unfair, it will not relieve Mr. B. of difficulty. For if the report be fair, and Mr. B. did say the things attributed to him, why then, as every body knows, he said what was true. If, however, it be unfair, and he did not say those things, then as every body knows, he did _not_ say what was true, and what, if he had spoken the truth, he would have said. For that they were "coerced away as truly as if it had been done with a cart-whip," every body knows to be fact.'

_Mr. Leavitt's Note to the Editor of the Emanc.i.p.ator._

'In reply to Mr. Breckinridge's allegation, that I "got up"

a report of his speech, "to serve a special purpose," I will only say, that Mr. Breckinridge did prudently to go across the Atlantic before he made that charge. My character as a _fair_ reporter, will not be affected _here_ by such insinuations. I have no doubt that the report in question gives the ideas Mr. B. uttered, mostly in the very language he used. My recollection, in this case, is very distinct, and the words taken down at the time.

JOSHUA LEAVITT.

Mr. B. says, that 'in many instances the bad laws had become worse, and good laws had become bad, solely through the imprudent conduct of Mr. Thompson's a.s.sociates.' Some of the most unrighteous, barbarous, and abominable laws ever enacted in this land, whose rulers have so long occupied the 'throne of iniquity,' and been so often and so deeply guilty of 'framing mischief by a law,' are cited in Stroud's Sketch, a work published several years before 'Mr. Thompson and his a.s.sociates' had commenced their 'imprudent' measures. Those laws certainly were not occasioned by their imprudence. It is nearly a hundred years at least, since these statutes of pandemonium began to disgrace American legislation.

In the fourth evening's discussion, Mr. B. a.s.serts, page 88, that the N. Y. Observer and Boston Recorder, 'print more matter weekly than all the abolition newspapers in America, put together, do in half a year.'

It is really matter of astonishment, that he should venture the utterance of such a glaring falsehood. He ought to have learned to keep at least within the bounds of probability in his fictions. There were at the time when his a.s.sertion was made--to say nothing of the monthlies--not less than eight or nine _weekly_ anti-slavery papers, some of which circulated more widely than the Recorder, and not much less widely than the Observer. If we do not mistake, Mr. B. told a story at least forty or fifty times as large as the truth, and we are by no means sure that the proportion is not much larger.

Mr. Thompson, for the purpose of showing what the abolitionists are doing in one department of their work, produced copies of the Slaves Friend, Anti-Slavery Record, Anti-Slavery Anecdotes, Human Rights, Emanc.i.p.ator, Liberator, New York Evangelist, Zion's Herald, Zion's Watchman, Philadelphia Independent Weekly Press, Herald of Freedom, Lynn Record, New England Spectator, &c., and an Anti-Slavery Quarterly. Of these, Mr. B. said 'some of them were, he believed, long ago dead; some could hardly be said ever to have lived; some were purely occasional; the greater part as limited in circulation, as they were contemptible in point of merit. Not above two or three of the dozen or fifteen that had been produced before them were, in fact, worthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition newspapers.' Now for the truth. _Not one_ of them was 'long ago,' or is now 'dead.'

Only one of them is 'purely occasional'--the Anti-Slavery Anecdotes--but, with that exception, all are now alive, and nearly every one has a circulation as extensive as that of the Recorder--some, as already stated, still more extensive. And beside these which Mr. Thompson exhibited, there are several other weekly and monthly anti-slavery publications, which are neither dead, nor likely soon to be. The Philanthropist, (its publication suspended indeed, for a short time by the destruction of its press, but soon to be resumed,) the Friend of Man, the American Citizen, the Vermont Telegraph, the Middlebury Free Press, the Vermont State Journal, and a number more, weekly, and some monthly periodicals are 'avowed abolition newspapers,' some of them devoted almost exclusively to this cause, and all 'respectable' both in character and extent of circulation.

Some of them are of the very highest order in point of ability and merit, of the weekly periodicals of the country. Mr. T., therefore, instead of exaggerating in regard to the number of the abolition papers, fell considerably short of the truth.

'Was he [the inhabitant of Louisiana] to be told then, that he should turn off his slaves?' &c., asks Mr. B., page 90, Certainly not--at least, not by abolitionists. They propose that the slaves should be permitted to remain on the plantations and work as free laborers, where their services will be needed, and will be mutually advantageous to themselves and their employers.

Mr. B. denies, page 90, that any person legally free, 'was ever sold into everlasting slavery,' but his denial is only another evidence of the facility with which he can utter, not only gross falsehoods, but falsehoods which contradict _notorious_ facts, and which of course cannot escape detection. Mr. T. has fully exposed this falsehood, by presenting doc.u.mentary evidence of the fact denied.

Of Mr. B's declarations, on page 91, to which we refer the reader, the Emanc.i.p.ator says, 'All this, if not "gratuitous folly," is at least, unfounded and reckless a.s.sertion, which we have scarcely ever seen equalled.'

We ask our readers to turn back, and read again the paragraph on page 97, ending '_to_ COERCE _such emigration, might be a_ MOST SACRED DUTY,' This has frankness at least, if it has no other good quality to recommend it. But it is the frankness of the tyrant, who, confident of his power to effect his purposes, fears not to avow them, however iniquitous or abominable. And if there be frankness in letting out the design, there is most unblushing impudence in calling its execution '_a sacred duty_.' What utter heartlessness too, and what obliquity of moral vision does it exhibit. And this man dares to rank himself with the friends of the colored people! Such a friend as the Holy Inquisitors of Spain, to the heretical Protestants, whom they deem it their 'sacred duty to coerce' with rack and fire, to a renunciation of their heresies. Such a friend as Louis XIV., to the Huguenots,--James I., to the Puritans, and Charles II., to the Scottish Covenanters.

On page 98, Mr. B. introduces what he calls a speech of Mr. T. at Andover, as reported by a student in the Theological Seminary. Mr. T.

has met this anonymous report with counter testimony, not anonymous, but we will add that of the editor of the Emanc.i.p.ator, who says, 'Mr.

B. although so often pretending that he had no doc.u.ments, &c., here read the false and distorted account of Mr. Thompson's speech on this occasion, published at the time in the Boston Courier, and signed C.

Having been there at the time, we here record our testimony to the fact of its being false and distorted in its representations.'

Mr. B. on page 109, alludes to what Mr. Thompson has said 'about Dr.

Sprague having part of his church curtained round for persons of color,' and says he notices it 'only because it was told as a _specimen_ story.' In the same connection he evidently endeavors to create the impression that the religious privileges of the free colored people are equal to those of the whites. On this, the Emanc.i.p.ator remarks, 'We can testify to the truth of the story in regard to Dr. Sprague's church; and although every church does not separate the blacks from the whites with so much care, or in precisely the same way, yet it is strictly true, that almost, without exception, the separation is made and carefully kept up, and this not only in the ordinary worship of the Sabbath, but even when the church gather about the table of their crucified and common Lord, to partake of the emblems of his dying love.' And after admitting that colored men have, in a few instances, been admitted to theological seminaries, and to a seat in ecclesiastical bodies, the editor adds, and truly, as all familiar with the facts can testify, 'Such instances, however, are few and far between, and whenever they do occur, the individuals concerned are, in many ways, made to feel their inferiority and to _know their place_. The impression made by Mr. B's representation would be, as a whole, incorrect.'

Mr. B. a.s.serts, page 110, that the free blacks 'in nearly every part of America,' enjoy all civil rights 'to a degree utterly unknown to millions of British subjects,' in various parts of the empire, and 'even in England itself.' 'It would be easy,' says the Emanc.i.p.ator, 'to show that he is wrong in several particulars.' And then, as one, refers to the fact, that the colored man is not secure in his rights or person, but may be dragged into slavery, even from free states, without a jury trial. This one fact is certainly sufficient to disprove Mr. B's a.s.sertion.

'But,' says Mr. B. 'If any rights have been denied them,' as for instance, that of preaching the gospel, 'which Virginia had lately done,' it was all owing to the fury of abolition. See page 110. Yet Stroud cites a law of Virginia, dating back as far as 1819, and being then but the re-enactment of a law before in force, which rendered all a.s.semblies of slaves and free negroes in a meeting house or other place by night, or at any school for teaching reading and writing, by day or night, _unlawful_ a.s.semblies, and subjects any person, slave or free black, found in them, to the punishment of twenty lashes, by order of a justice of the peace. Stroud, page 89.

Mr. B. in the true colonization spirit, takes occasion to slander the colored people, accusing them of 'insolence and imprudence,' and of 'insulting females in the streets of our cities,' and 'setting up claim of perfect domestic equality with their masters,' &c. See page 114. We give the Emanc.i.p.ator's note on this wicked accusation, which is as cruel as it is false. 'This whole representation is false.

Nothing can be more so. The modest deportment and the spirit of forbearance manifested by the colored people, from the outset, has been of the most marked as well as praiseworthy character, and in instances not a few, has secured to them the approbation of avowed enemies of the anti-slavery cause.' We add our own testimony, so far as our observation has extended, to the truth of this statement.

In the fifth evening's debate, Mr. B. complains, page 120, that Mr.

Thompson 'did not tell them that none of the ministers in twelve whole states were or could easily be slaveholders, seeing they were not inhabitants of a slave state.' And why should he. Would not the mere knowledge of the fact, that 'they were not inhabitants of slave states' render it unnecessary that his hearers should be particularly informed that they were not slaveholders? Does Mr. B. believe that the people of Glasgow supposed Northern ministers to be generally slaveholders? We say _generally_, for we should not dare to a.s.sert that '_none_' of them 'were,' whether they '_easily_ could be' or not.

If we have not been misinformed, and we believe we have not, it has been our fortune, good or ill, to hear a northern slaveholding minister preach, a minister too, whose pastoral charge was in the very cradle of this _free_ nation.

'The overwhelming ma.s.s of American ministers,' says Mr. B., 'never owned a slave, and those who had, were exceptions from the general rule.' Mr. T. has demolished this position with a most tremendous broadside of evidence. We add the following quotation, which we find in the Emanc.i.p.ator, from a doc.u.ment published a few months ago, by the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. 'The number of our ministers is but little more than half the number of our churches, and of those ministers _not one fifth sustain any pastoral relation_.' The number of ministers is about 100, 'and many of them are obliged to devote a part or the whole of their time to teaching, _farming_, or some other secular employment, to procure a support for their families.' Farming we all know, means in the slave states, 'slaveholding and slave-driving.'

Mr. B. seems very indignant at the declarations of his opponent, and Moses Roper, (a colored man who had been present at some of the meetings which Mr. T. addressed,) that slaves in America were owned, not only by ministers and church members, but even by churches themselves. He calls Roper's statement, 'the poor negro's silly falsehood,' and says, page 123, 'If there be above five congregations in all America, that own slaves, I never heard of them.' He then mentions three of which he has heard, all in the Southern part of Virginia. The Emanc.i.p.ator, in a note on this part of Mr. B's speech, remarks, 'True, it is not the _general_ practice for churches or ecclesiastical societies at the South, to own slaves as church property, yet we suppose that the practice is by no means uncommon; and the proof is threefold: _first_, that a number of instances of the kind are actually known; _second_, that when such instances do occur, they never produce any special sensation in the public mind--are never spoken of as special and extraordinary cases, and never subjects such church to reproof or the loss of ecclesiastical fellowship with other churches; and _third_, that ministers very generally at the South hold slaves, and that oftentimes when they are unable to buy for themselves, some kind friend makes them a present of one or two for house servants; and if to the ministry, why not the church?' It then goes on to enumerate two instances, beside those admitted by Mr. B., of churches holding slaves, and one of a bequest of slaves to the Missionary Society, [A. B. C. F. M.] and gives also an advertis.e.m.e.nt of the sale of certain property 'belonging to the estate of the late Rev. Dr. Truman,' including land, 'a library _chiefly theological_,'

and '_twenty-seven negroes_, two mules, one horse, and an old wagon.'

The note thus continues, 'And when these notices appeared in the Southern prints, no body was struck with amazement; no protestation was given to the public that they were extraordinary cases; no Christian minister or Christian newspaper, as we are aware, ever lifted their voice against them as rare cases, or bore their testimony against them as being as monstrous as they were rare. What then is the inference? Why, that such things, if not _general_, are yet never regarded as singular or uncommon. Now add to these; and others that might be named, the cases admitted by Mr. B., and to this, add the fact that Mr. Paxton at least felt that his church in Virginia _could_ emanc.i.p.ate the _fifty_ slaves they owned, but _would_ not, and then say whose statements have most of the "silly falsehoods" about them, those of Mr. B., or the despised but honest-hearted negro?'

Mr. B. seems to regard it as a mighty grievance, that when there are so few slaveholding ministers, church members, and churches in America, his opponent should charge the guilt of slavery upon the whole American church. But why is not the whole church guilty, if any of its members persist in committing the sin, and yet are regarded as worthy members, in regular standing?--if any of its ministers with hands polluted by the abominable thing, are still allowed, without any ecclesiastical censure, not only to dispense the bread of life from the store-house of G.o.d's word, but to distribute the emblems of Christ's body and blood, to those who come around the table to commemorate a Saviour's dying love?--if any of its branches, claiming to hold G.o.d's image as property, and treating as 'chattels personal,'

their Saviour, in the person of 'one of the least of these' his 'brethren,' are fellow-shipped as sister churches, and unreproved for their iniquity? 'Who dare pretend,' asks the Emanc.i.p.ator, 'That the American church does not uphold and countenance Christian slaveholders in their conduct? True, there are individuals, and individual churches not a few, who do not, but who bear a faithful testimony against them.

But how is it with the _governing influences_ of the church? Their character and their acts, and not those of a minority, however large or respectable are the character and the acts of the church. What then is the position of the governing influences of the American church in regard to American slavery? It is that of protection and countenance.

The proceedings of the last General Convention of the Baptists, and the last General Conference of the Methodists, and the last General a.s.sembly of the Presbyterians are our confirmation--and they are "confirmation strong as holy writ." At this very moment, these three bodies stand before the world as the three great Patrons and Protectors of American slavery. Deny it as they will, the gains of the oppressor, the hire kept back by fraud is in their coffers, the blood of the oppressed stains their garments, and they refuse to confess or forsake their sin.'

Mr. B. would doubtless have thought it very uncharitable to cause a large army of Israelites to turn their backs before their enemies, and suffer a shameful and disastrous defeat, just because there was _one_ Achan in the camp.

We cannot but think that the reverend disputant rather unfortunate in his reference to the book of Drs. c.o.x and Hoby, (see page 128,) for information about the connection of the Baptists with slavery. In looking there for light on that particular point, the reader might chance to stumble on some things about the wicked prejudice against the black man, as well as some sentiments in regard to the treatment of slaves and free blacks generally, that would ill accord with the expressed notions of the Presbyterian delegate.

On page 133, Mr. B. introduces a letter, published in the N. Y.

Observer, and signed Truth, which represents the negroes of South Carolina as '_generally_ well fed, well clothed,' and enjoying '_the means of religious instruction_,' and declares that '_great and increasing efforts are made to instruct them in religion, and elevate their characters_.' We request our readers to turn back and read the whole letter, and then to compare it with the following extracts from a report on the subject of the religious instruction of the colored people, published in 1834, by the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia.

'We believe that their (the colored population's) moral and religious condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the _heathen_ of this christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in any country in the world.'

'The negroes are dest.i.tute of the privileges of the gospel, and ever will be, under the present state of things. There were some exceptions to this, the Synod say, and they "rejoice" in it; but although our a.s.sertion is broad, we believe that, in general, it will be found to be correct.'

'They can have no access to the the scriptures. They are dependent for their knowledge of Christianity, upon _oral instruction_. Have they then that amount of oral instruction, which, in their circ.u.mstances, is necessary to their enjoyment of the gospel? _They have not._ From an entire state beyond the Potomac to the Sabine, and from the Atlantic to the Ohio, there are, to the best of our knowledge, not _twelve_ men exclusively devoted to the religious instruction of the negroes.'

The report then goes on to say that 'the negroes do not have access to the gospel through the stated ministry of the whites,' that 'a _very small proportion_ of the ministers in the slaveholding states, _pay any attention to them_,' that 'they have no churches, neither is there sufficient room for their accommodation in white churches,' and that, in some cases, for want of a place within, 'the negroes who attend, must catch the gospel as it escapes by the doors and windows.' 'We venture to say,' the report continues, 'that _not a twentieth part_ of the negroes attend divine worship on the Sabbath. Thousands and thousands hear not the sound of the gospel, or _ever_ enter a church _from one year to another_.'

The report says too, that they 'do not enjoy the privileges of the gospel in private, at their houses, or on their plantations. If the master is pious, the house servants _alone_, and frequently few or none of these attend family worship. In general it does not enter into the arrangement of the plantations, to make provision for their religious instruction. We feel warranted, therefore, in the conclusion, that the negroes are _dest.i.tute of the privileges of the gospel, and must continue to be so_, if nothing more is done for them.'

'We are astonished,' say the Synod, 'thus to find Christianity in absolute conjunction with _Heathenism_, and yet conferring few or no benefits.'

Our readers, after comparing the above with the letter read by Mr. B., can decide how much right the author of that letter had to sign it 'Truth.'

Mr. B., page 155, endeavors to escape the force of the immense weight of evidence with which his antagonist presses him to the earth, by sneering at the witnesses as 'obscure,' and for aught that could be known, 'fict.i.tious persons,' although the names are generally given, and yet he quotes evidence to sustain himself, which is absolutely anonymous. See page 132. The Emanc.i.p.ator pertinently asks, 'Can Mr. B.

tell us who "Truth" and "A New England man" are? Or are the persons as "fict.i.tious" as their stories?'

Upon Mr. B.'s a.s.sertion that Mr. Thompson's testimonies were of this worthless character, the Emanc.i.p.ator has the following note. 'We beg our readers to stop here, and go back and count the doc.u.ments, and they will find that the very reverse of what Mr. B. has stated is the fact; and that while Mr. B.'s _main_ proofs are, first, his _own_ a.s.sertions, and, second, the a.s.sertion of individuals, or of anonymous writers in partisan newspapers, Mr. Thompson's _main_ proofs are the formal resolutions and declarations of ecclesiastical bodies, and of those who represent the _governing_ influence in church and state, and that the testimony of individuals, so far as it is used, is brought in only as confirmatory of the other.'

On page 158, Mr. B. attacks Mr. J. A. Thome of Kentucky, with characteristic virulence, because, in a speech at an Anti-Slavery meeting, that young man had boldly exposed the abominations of slavery in his native state. For this act his slanderer calls him 'the ingrate who commenced his career of manhood, by smiting his parent in the face.' But he cautiously avoids attempting--what he was doubtless sensible would be a somewhat difficult task--to disprove the statements of Mr. Thome. It is a little remarkable that the facts stated by Thome, and denied by Mr. B. and his brother at the time, were confirmed abundantly by an article published in the Western Luminary, a Kentucky paper, on the very day on which Mr. Thome made his statement in New York. Thus without any concert or arrangement, two witnesses at a long distance from each other, testified to the same facts, and unfortunately for the credibility of Mr. Breckinridge, those were the facts which he was almost at the same time stoutly denying. Other witnesses of unimpeachable veracity, have since attested the same facts, and now Mr. B.'s impotent efforts to discredit Mr. Thome, only serve to show his own vexation, malignity and falsehood.

We do not pretend to have noticed all the slips of Mr. B.'s 'unruly member' in this discussion, or to have pointed out every instance in which he has labored with all that ability and ingenuity which we readily admit he possesses, to create false impressions on the minds of his audience; but enough have been pointed out to show in some measure, the degree of confidence which ought to be reposed in his veracity as a witness and his candor and fairness as a reasoner.

A few trifling errors into which Mr. Thompson has fallen, we feel bound to correct; in proceeding to which, however, we cannot but remark that considering the shortness of the time which Mr. T. spent among us, the amount of labor which he performed in lecturing, addressing conventions, debating, &c. &c. and the large portion of his time necessarily consumed in social intercourse with his extensive circle of acquaintance--nay, the very considerable share of it which was required for the mere answering of applications to lecture, which came from every quarter; we are actually astonished at the extent and minuteness of his information, the ma.s.s of facts and doc.u.ments which he has contrived to collect, and what is more, at the general--the almost uniform accuracy of his knowledge of American affairs. The reader has seen how completely furnished he was, how armed at all points, and ever ready to lay his hand on the very weapon which was needed at any stage of the conflict, whether to parry the blow aimed at himself, or to send home to his antagonist's bosom, a vigorous thrust which neither the dexterity of sophistry could elude, nor the buckler of brazen falsehood ward off. Indeed the ma.s.s of his doc.u.ments, and the readiness and aptness to the purpose with which he used them, seems to have been one of the chief causes of the bitter vexation which his opponent continually betrays. That he should have fallen into a few mistakes is nothing surprising--that he should have fallen into _so_ few, is indeed wonderful, and proves the industry and diligence with which he labored at times when from the fatiguing nature, and great amount of his public efforts, one would have supposed he must have been obliged to indulge in perfect repose. But to the errors.

He stated the first evening, page 12, that there were now, exclusive of the publications of the Anti-Slavery Society, one hundred newspapers boldly advocating the principles of abolition. 'There are,'

says the Emanc.i.p.ator, 'about that number friendly to our cause, and that occasionally speak in our behalf, but not that _boldly advocate_ our principles,' or, as perhaps would be the more accurate mode of expression, that do not boldly advocate our principles, _in their application_ to the subject to which we apply them.

On the second evening, Mr. Thompson in speaking of the New York State Anti-Slavery Convention, page 30, said there were 600 delegates at Utica the first day, and that when driven away by a mob, these went to Peterboro', and were there joined by 400 more, making 1000 in all. In reality, it was estimated that nearly or quite 1000 went to Utica, and of these only about 400 went to Peterboro'. The error is indeed immaterial.

In the fourth evening's debate, Mr. T. alluding to Kaufman's slanderous story about him, calls Kaufman 'the son of a slaveholder, and heir to slave property.' Such was supposed to be the case, and we were not aware that this supposition was erroneous, till we met, in the Emanc.i.p.ator's note to this remark of Mr. T., an intimation that this report had been contradicted. 'Mr. K. is from Virginia,' says the note, 'but we believe not a slaveholder or heir to slave property.'

These are all the errors we have observed in the statements of Mr.

Thompson, and these are of so little moment that we should not have considered them worthy of notice in his opponent.