Discussion on American Slavery Part 7

To return to the Anti-Slavery Societies of the United States. He (Mr.

T.) knew them to be composed of the finest and purest elements in the country. They were numerous and powerful. It would soon be proved that, with the blessing of G.o.d, they were omnipotent. Knowing the piety, intelligence, wealth, and energy of the abolitionists of America, it required some effort to be calm when Mr. Breckinridge stood before a British audience and compared them to Falstaff's ragged regiment. The Society of Kentucky might be small in regard to numbers.

He believed, however, they were highly respectable. He referred to Mr.

J. G. Birney on this point. Mr. Breckinridge might represent on the present occasion, if it pleased him, the abolitionists of his (Mr.

B's) country as beggarly, odious, and despicable: but if he lived to revisit England (and he hoped he might) he believed he would then have to find some other ill.u.s.tration of their character, numbers and appearance, than the ragged regiment of Shakspeare's Falstaff.

Having stated the principles of the Anti-Slavery Societies in America, he would exhibit, in the words of the Philadelphia declaration of sentiments, their mode of operations. The National Society, formed during the convention, thus made known to the world its intended course of action:--

We shall organize Anti-Slavery Societies, if possible, in every city, town and village in our land.

We shall send forth Agents to lift up the voice of remonstrance, of warning, of entreaty and rebuke.

We shall circulate, unsparingly, and extensively, anti-slavery tracts and periodicals.

We shall enlist the "Pulpit" and the "Press" in the cause of the suffering and the dumb.

We shall aim at a purification of the churches from all partic.i.p.ation in the guilt of slavery.

We shall encourage the labor of freemen rather than that of the slaves, by giving a preference to their productions: and

We shall spare no exertions nor means to bring the whole nation to speedy repentance.

Our trust for victory is solely in G.o.d. We may be personally defeated, but our principles never. Truth, Justice, Reason, Humanity, must and will gloriously triumph. Already a host is coming up to the help of the Lord against the mighty, and the prospect before us is full of encouragement.

Submitting this declaration to the candid examination of the people of this country, and of the friends of liberty throughout the world, we hereby affix our signatures to it; pledging ourselves that, under the guidance and by the help of Almighty G.o.d, we will do all that in us lies, consistently with this Declaration of our principles, to overthrow the most execrable system of slavery that has ever been witnessed upon earth; to deliver our land from its deadliest curse; to wipe out the foulest stain which rests upon our national escutcheon; and to secure to the colored population of the United States all the rights and privileges which belong to them as men and as Americans--come what may to our persons, our interests, or our reputations--whether we live to witness the triumph of Liberty, Justice, and Humanity, or perish untimely as martyrs in this great, benevolent and holy cause.

_Signed in the Adelphi Hall, in the City of Philadelphia, on the 6th day of December, A. D. 1833._

True to the pledges given in this declaration, the abolitionists had printed, preached, and prayed without ceasing. As a proof of what they were doing in one department of their work, he would exhibit a number of newspapers, tracts, pamphlets, and other periodicals, which were in circulation throughout the country. Mr. Thompson then produced copies of the "Slaves Friend," "Anti-Slavery Records," "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," edited by Professor Wright, the Secretary of the National Society, and distinguished by considerable literary talent. These were amongst the means pursued by the Abolitionists. They were peaceful and honorable means, and under G.o.d, would prove effectual to bring the blood-cemented fabric of Slavery to the ground. Other than moral and const.i.tutional means, the abolitionists sought not to employ. Their's would not be the glory reaped upon the crimson field amidst the carnage and the din of war. Their victory would not be a victory achieved by the use of carnal weapons, effecting the freedom of one man by the destruction of another. Their victory would be a victory won by the potency of principles drawn from the Gospel of the Prince of Peace--their glory the glory of those who had obtained a bloodless conquest over the consciences and hearts of men. In the full conviction that the principles he (Mr. Thompson) had that night maintained, were the principles of the word of G.o.d, he would still prosecute the work to which he had for some years devoted himself. He called upon those around him to be true to those principles, and to continue zealously to advocate them, and leave the consequences in the hands of G.o.d. Let the friends of human rights again rally under the banner which had aforetime led them to battle--under which they had together fought and together triumphed--and to remember that the motto inscribed upon its ample folds--a motto which, though oft abused, had oft sustained them in the hour of conflict--was, Fiat Justicia ruat Coelum.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE rose. Having taken a good many notes of what Mr.

Thompson had said in the speech now delivered, he was prepared for replying, if an opportunity were presented after he should have finished saying what seemed to him more pertinent to the subject in hand. In the meantime, he would introduce what he had now to say by reading another version of the events which had been represented as one of Mr. Thompson's triumphs at Boston.

Mr. May introduced a resolution denouncing the Colonization Society as unworthy of patronage, because it disseminates opinions unfavorable to the interest of the colored people.

Mr. Gurley replied. He finished the consideration of Mr.

May's objections, went into an exposition of the advantages of the Colonization Society, and contrasted its claims with those of the Anti-Slavery Society. In doing this, he exhibited a handbill, having a large cut of a negro in chains, with some inflammatory sentences under it. Here he was interrupted by hisses, which were answered by clapping.

Mr. George Thompson rose and attempted to address the meeting. This increased the confusion, Cries of "sit down--shame--be silent--let Mr. May answer if he can--no foreign interference," &c., from all parts of the hall. Mr.

Thompson persevered as few men would have done, but at last yielded to the evident determination of the audience, and took his seat. The hall then became still, and Mr. Gurley proceeded.

We do not know that any Anti-Colonizationist was convinced by these discussions; except men who are committed against the Society, we believe the very general opinion is, that their overthrow on the field of argument was as complete as any could desire. It is evident that the cause of the Colonization Society is gaining a hold on the convictions and affections of the people of New-England stronger than it ever had before. We say this in view of facts which are coming to our knowledge from various parts. The storm of abuse and misrepresentation with which it has been a.s.sailed, is beginning already to contribute to its strength.

Now he begged to remark that the paper from which he had read the foregoing extract, the New-York Observer, together with the one from which it was originally taken, the Boston Recorder, printed more matter weekly than all the avowed abolition newspapers, in America, put together, did in half a year. He would notice farther, in relation to the great display of abolition publications which had been made by Mr. Thompson on the platform, that one of the papers lying there on the table, had advocated his principles and cause when he was in Boston, and likely to be mobbed at the instigation, as he believed, of Mr. Garrison. Some of the remainder of the publications 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--and the names of which he (Mr. B.) required to be recorded--were in fact, worthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition newspapers. But to come to the point immediately in hand. He would on the present occasion attempt to show that abolition was not worthy to supplant the colonization scheme in the affections of Americans or Britons, or of any other thinking people. He acknowledged that there were many respectable men in the ranks of the abolitionists; but these, almost without exception, had been at one time colonizationists; and had he time he might show that many of them had deserted the colonization society on some peculiar or personal grounds, not involving the principles of the cause. He was prepared to show, however, that by whomsoever supported, the principles of the abolitionists were essentially wrong, and that their practice was still worse. He had not access to the voluminous doc.u.ments brought forward by Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson had, indeed, that evening, on this platform, publicly offered him access to them. Had that offer been made at the beginning of the discussion, instead of the end of it, or during the four or five days we spent in Glasgow before it commenced, it might have been turned to some advantage. But as it was, the audience would know how to appreciate it; and he must rely solely upon memory, when he stated the principles promulgated by abolitionists; though at the same time he pledged himself that his statements not only were intended to be, but were, substantially correct and entirely candid. The abolitionists held, then, in the first place, as a fundamental truth, that every human being had an instant right to be free, irrespective of consequences to himself and others; consequently that it was the duty of masters to set free their slaves instantly, and irrespective of all consequences; and of course, sinful to exercise the powers of a master for one moment, or for any purpose. This was, in substance, the great principle on which the abolitionists acted--a principle which he was now prepared to question. He had, on a former occasion, shown that there were only two parties responsible for the existence of slavery, namely, individual slave-holders, and slave-holding communities. He would now attempt to prove, that, as applied to either of these, this principle was not only false, but that it was a mere figment, and calculated to produce tremendous evil. Let them first attend to what the abolitionists say to the individual slave-holder. Perhaps the person addressed was an inhabitant of Louisiana; where, if it is not directly contrary to law, to manumit a slave--the law refuses to recognize the act. Was he to be told then that he should turn off his slaves, the young and helpless along with the old and the infirm, with the certain knowledge that so soon as they left his plantation, they would commence a career of trouble and sorrow most likely to end in their being seized, imprisoned, fined, and again enslaved. Mr. Thompson had mentioned, in nearly all his printed speeches, the case of a certain colored man, who had been thrown into prison at Washington city, and sold into eternal slavery to discharge the fees which had accrued by reason of his oppression. Now he (Mr. B.) took leave to say that this story was false, in toto. It was customary in some parts of America to sell vagabonds, in order to make up their jail fees; but they were bound for no longer a period than was necessary to do this. The system was this--they were taken up as vagrants. If they were able and willing to show that they had some regular and honest means of livelihood, they were of course acquitted and discharged; but when they were unable to do this, they were sold for as much as would pay the fees of detention, trial, &c. That any person, black or white, once recognized by the law as free, was ever sold into everlasting slavery, he positively denied, and demanded proof. In Louisiana, however, it being illegal to manumit a slave, those whom the abolitionists would set free, would not be considered free in the eye of the law. They might be harra.s.sed, imprisoned as vagabonds, sold to pay expenses, as vagabonds, and so soon as set free again imprisoned. He admitted that such proceedings would be inexcusable; but what was a benevolent man, who had the welfare of his slave really at heart, to do with an eye to them? To act upon the abolitionist principle, would be to consign the slave to incalculable misery, for they had but one lesson to teach--turn loose the slaves, and leave consequences to G.o.d! The colonizationists, however, are provided with a better remedy. If Louisiana would not countenance manumission, nor suffer manumitted slaves to remain within her bounds, with the usual privileges of freemen, let them be taken to some other State, where such laws did not exist; or if this should not on the whole be desirable, let them be taken to Liberia. No, repeats Mr. Thompson; discharge your slaves at once, and leave the consequences to G.o.d. If, by the wicked laws of Louisiana, they are left to starve, or driven to desperation, or sold again into slavery, the responsibility is theirs; do you your duty in setting them immediately at liberty. It would require, however, that a humane individual should be very strongly impressed with the truth of this principle before he could persuade himself to do that which was evidently so cruel in its immediate effects, and so likely to be ruinous in those that are more remote. Yet that principle was, to say the least, extremely doubtful, and ought not at every hazard to be crammed down the throats of an entire nation. If the laws of the community were bad, as he admitted it to be the case, he supposed it was the duty of enlightened citizens to seek a change of that law by proper means, but not in the meantime to do that which would be totally insubordinate to the State--and injurious to all parties.

Whether, moreover, it was either fair or candid to denounce, as had been done, the free States as being partic.i.p.ators in slavery, because, though they did not themselves hold a property in slaves, they did not choose to swallow such nostrums even without chewing, could not be a question. If it was so doubtful whether duty to the slaves themselves rendered the immediate breaking up of all relations between them and their masters a proper or even a permitted thing, it was still more questionable whether our duties to the State may not imperiously forbid what our duties to the slave have already warned us against. I have omitted all considerations of a personal or selfish kind--all rules of conduct drawn from what is due to one's self, one's family, or one's condition, or engagements. Common benevolence forbids, as we have seen, and common loyalty prohibits, as we shall see--what a man must do, or lie under the curse of abolitionism. For though it be our duty to seek the amendment of bad laws, because they are bad, it is equally our duty to obey laws because they are laws, unless it is clear that greater ill will follow from obedience than from disobedience. Now all our slave States are perfectly willing that their citizens should emanc.i.p.ate their slaves; only many of them insist on their doing it elsewhere, than within their borders. As long as other lands exist, ready to receive the manumitted slave, and certain to be benefitted by his reception, it is to preach treason, as well as cruelty, and folly as well as either, to a.s.sert the bounden duty of the individual slave-holder, at all hazards, to attempt an impossibility on the instant, rather than accomplish a better result by foresight, preparation, and suitable delay. It may therefore be boldly said that instant surrender of the authority of the master, irrespective of all other considerations, must, in many cases, be a great crime in the individual slave-holder. He would now speak of this abolition principle to which he had adverted as a rule of conduct for slave-holding communities. In this respect, also, he considered that it was at best extremely questionable. Let us ill.u.s.trate the principle by the oft-repeated case of the District of Columbia. Abolitionism a.s.serts that it is the clear duty of Congress to abolish slavery instantly in that District, without regard to what may occur afterwards in consequence of that act. Let us admit that the dissolution of the Federal Union is a consequence not worthy of regard--even when distinctly foreseen; and that all the evils attendant on such a result, to human society, and to all the great interests of man throughout the earth, are as nothing, compared with the establishment of a doubtful definition, having an antiquity of at least four years, and a paternity disputed between Mr. Garrison and Mr. Thompson. As a principle concerning no other creature but the slaves of the District, and no interest but theirs, it can be shown to be false. If Congress were instantly to abolish slavery there, with a tolerable certainty that every slave in the District would be removed and continued with their issue in perpetual slavery; when by an arrangement with the owners, they might so prospectively abolish it as to secure the freedom of every slave in five or ten years, and of their issue as they successively arrived at twenty or twenty-five years of age; if Congress could do the latter, and were in preference to do the former, they would deserve the execrations of the world. The first plea is Mr. Thompson and abolitionism; the second express my principles and those of the despised gradualists. At all events, the truth of the principle involved in the former supposition was not so manifest as to justify Mr. Thompson in denouncing, as he had done, those who did not see proper to follow it. A wise man would hesitate--he would weigh well the resulting circ.u.mstances as one of the best tests of the truth and utility of his principles before he propagated, as indisputably and exclusively true, and that in despite of all results, such principles, with the violence which had been manifested--principles which, he repeated, were but four years old, and which he was still convinced, were but arrant quackery. There was another aspect of the subject. Reference had been made to the representation of the black population in the National Government. He would remark on this subject that it was the duty of every State to see that power was committed only to the hands of those qualified to exercise it properly, wisely, and beneficially. What would be said in this country, were Mr. Thompson to propose that the elective franchise should be made universal, and that the age at which it might be exercised should be fixed at fifteen years? He would venture to say that the ministry who would introduce such a scheme to Parliament, would not exist for three days. The proposal, as Mr. T. no doubt knew, would be considered altogether revolutionary and shocking. Yet it must be admitted that the average of the boys of Britain who are fifteen years old, are fully as well qualified for the exercise of the elected franchise, as the average of the slaves in the various parts of the United States are at the age of twenty-one years. But with us, as with you, twenty-one years is the age at which electors vote. As I have shown, in most of our States the elective franchise is extended to every white man, who has attained that age; while the qualifications of a property kind, anywhere required, are so extremely moderate, that in all our communities nine-tenths at least of the adult white males are ent.i.tled to vote. Now let it be borne in mind, that abolitionism requires not only instant freedom for the slave, but also instant treatment of him, in every civil and political, as well as every social and religious respect, as if he were white, that is, in plain terms--if we should follow the dogmas you sent Mr. T. to teach us, and in which we have been held up to the scorn of all good men, for declining to receive, a revolution far more terrible and revolting would immediately follow throughout all our slave States, than would follow in Britain by enfranchising in a day, every boy in it fifteen years old--even if your house of lords were subst.i.tuted by an elective senate, and your parliaments made annual! And it is in the light of such results, that America has received with horror the enunciation of principles which lead directly to them, while their advocates declare "all consequences" indifferent as it regards their conduct! And can it be the duty of any commonwealth to bring upon itself "instantly,"--or at all--such a condition as this? The abolitionists themselves had evidently felt that their scheme was absurd; for they had never ventured to propose it to a slave State. Their papers were published and their efforts all made, and their organized agitation carried on, and a tremendous uproar raised in States where there existed no power whatever to put an end to slavery; but hardly a syllable had been uttered where, if anywhere, some effect might have been produced beneficial to the slaves, had abolition principles been practicable anywhere. The conduct of the abolitionists had been of a piece with what would have taken place in this country, had an agitation been got up for the direct abolition of idolatry in China, or of popery in Spain. Their principles had never yet been advocated in the South, but by means of the post-office, the effects of which, in the tearing up of mail bags, &c., Mr. Thompson well knew, and had declared. But the fact was, that such metaphysical propositions as those propounded by the abolitionists--even admitting them to be true--were altogether uncalled for. Thousands of slaves had been emanc.i.p.ated before the abolition principles were heard of, and all that was needed, was, that those who were engaged in the good work should have been let alone or aided on their own principles. What was the use of blazoning forth a doctrine which was in all likelihood false and ruinous, but which, were it true, could do no good? For if you could persuade a man that his duty required him to give freedom to his slaves, and he became suitably impressed with a sense thereof--he would do it just as certainly and effectually as though you had begun by saying to him--now as soon as I convince you, you must set them free immediately! He could indeed characterize such a mode of proceeding by no other term than that of gratuitous folly.

Again he might say that this principle of abolitionism was contrary to all the experience which America had acquired as a nation on this subject. Principles favorable to emanc.i.p.ation first took root where there were few slaves, and when the products of their labor were of little value. They had spread gradually towards the South, the border States being always first inoculated, till no fewer than eight States which tolerated slavery, adopted this principle, and successively abolished it. To these eight States were to be added four others, created since the formation of the Federal Const.i.tution, which never tolerated slavery, thus making twelve States in which slavery was not permitted. By the influence of gradualism alone, had the cause of freedom advanced steadily to this point, and every day rendered its ultimate triumph throughout the whole empire more and more probable.

At this time it might have been carried South by at least 5 degrees of lat.i.tude; and Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, added to the free States; and the shackles of 1,000,000 slaves been in a process of gradual melting off. If fifty years had seen the rise of 12 free States, was it too much to hope that the next fifty years should enfranchise twelve more. For all the ruin brought on this glorious cause during the last four years by principles and practices of Mr. Thompson's friends, what have they to compensate suffering humanity? Have they or theirs released from his bonds a single slave?

The abolition plan had in fact, been a signal, a total, absolute failure. Mr. Thompson himself did not pretend to say that a twentieth part of the population of America had embraced his views. The whole theory was as false as the whole practice was fatal; and just and pious men would hereafter hesitate before they sent out new missions to advocate them, or lent the influence of their just weight to denunciations levelled against all who did not think them worthy of their applause. The _second_ great _principle_ of the abolitionists, to which he would invite attention, was this--that it was the inherent and indestructible right of every man to abide in perfect freedom in whatever spot he was born; and that while it is a crime to deny him there all the rights of a man, a citizen and a Christian, it was not less so to persuade, to win, or to coerce him into what they called exile--this principle was levelled at the Colonization Society; and while instant abolition formed the first, and denunciation of what they call prejudice against color formed the last; hatred to colonization formed the middle and active principle of the band. Of this, it might be said, first, that it had the advantage of contradicting all the wisdom and practice of mankind. Whether it was meant to embrace women and minors--or at what age to establish the beginning of rights so extraordinary and unprecedented, whether at twenty-one, as here, or twenty-five, as in some countries, or twenty-eight, as in others, had not yet been defined. Thus much at least might be said--that if these rights resided in black men, they resided in no others, of whatever hue or race; and the philosophers who discovered their existence had found out something to compensate these unhappy men for their unparalleled sufferings. It certainly need not create surprise that we should listen with suspicion to such dogmas taught by an Englishman, when we remember that, from time immemorial, all the inst.i.tutions of his own country were built upon dogmas precisely opposite; and all her practice the reverse of the preaching of the semi-national representative. Mr. Thompson says, a man is a citizen by inherent right, wherever he is born; the British monarchy, which Mr. Thompson says he prefers to all things else, says on the contrary, that let a man be born where he may he is a Briton, if born of British parents; and it both claims his allegiance, and will extend to him every right of a subject born at home! Then why is not a man an African if born of African parents in America, as well as a Briton, if born of British parents there? Or why are we to be attacked first with cannon on one side, and then with Billingsgate on the other side of this vexed question? Nor did our own notions, adverse as they were to those of Britain, conflict less with Mr. T.

and abolitionism on another part of the principle. All our notions permit men to expatriate themselves, many of our const.i.tutions guarantee it as a natural right, and America had actually gone to war with Britain in defence of that right in her unnaturalized citizens.

Britain had insisted on searching American vessels for British sailors--America had refused to submit to the search; because, among other things the man sought was, by naturalization, an American.

America did not oppose any of her citizens becoming Britons, if they thought fit, and was resolved to maintain the right of those who chose to become American citizens, from whatever country they might have emigrated, and therefore could hear only with contempt this dictum of abolitionism. Again he would say that, this principle is contrary to common sense. Rights of citizenship were not to be considered natural rights. They were given by the community--they might be withheld by the community; and, therefore, to talk of their being indestructible, was sheer nonsense. No man had a natural right to say, I will be a citizen of this or that State; and in point of fact, the great bulk of mankind were not citizens at all, but merely subjects. There were laws establishing the present form of government, giving a certain power to the king and to the Parliament, and regulating the mode in which Parliament was to be elected. These laws were altogether conventional; and as well might a man claim a natural right to be a king or a judge as to be a citizen. It might be as truly said that one is inherently a shark because he was born at sea, or a horse because he happened to have been born in a stable. So far is the theory of abolition from the truth; and so widely remote is their hatred to colonization, from being based in justice, or reason, that circ.u.mstances may occur in which it shall become imperative duty for men to emigrate. America presented a striking example of the truth of this. In this country it was customary to talk of America as a daughter of England. He had heard people talk as if America were about as large as one English shire, and settled princ.i.p.ally from their own villages. But the fact was that America was an epitome of the whole world, peopled by colonies from almost all parts of it. It was an eclectic nation; and to talk to Americans, of the inherent right of a man to stay and be oppressed, where he happened to be born--or the guilt of seducing him to emigrate, is only to expose one's self to pity or scorn. To realize this, it is only necessary to take a map of our wide empire, washed by both oceans, and embracing all the climates of the earth, and get some American boy to tell you the migrations of his ancestors. To omit all mention of the red man, from Asia, and the poor black man, from Africa; there, he will say in New-England, are the children of the pilgrims, who were the fathers of your own Roundheads, driven out by the mean and vexatious tyranny of James I.; and there, in lower Virginia, three hundred leagues off, are the descendants of the Cavaliers and Malignants. There, in the back parts of the same ancient commonwealth, and in all western Pennsylvania, are the st.u.r.dy Scotch, whose fathers were hanged in the streets of your cities, by that perjured Charles II., who thus rewarded the loyalty that gave him back his crown. In the same key State, of the Union is a nation of industrious Germans; while in the empire state of New-York, are the children of those glorious United Provinces, that disputed with yourselves for ages, the empire of the seas; and between them both in New-Jersey the descendants of those ancient Danes who often ravaged your own coasts. The descendants of the Hugonauts, whose ancestors Louis XIV. expelled from France, and placed cordons on his frontiers to butcher as they went out, simply because they were Protestants, peopling parts of the south; in other parts of which, are colonies of Swiss, of Spaniards, and of Catholic French. The Irishmen is everywhere; and everywhere better treated than at home. Amongst such a people, it must needs be an instinctive sentiment, that he who loves country more than liberty, is unworthy to have either; that he who inculcates or affects the love of place above the possession of precious privileges, must have a sinister object. But he might proceed much farther; and having shown that it might be the duty of men to emigrate under various circ.u.mstances, prove that such a duty never was more imperative than on the free colored population of America.

Possessing few motives to remain in America that were not base or insignificant compared with those that ought to urge their return, every attempt to explain and defend their conduct revealed a selfishness on their part a thousand times greater than that they charge upon the whites; and a cruelty on the part of their advisers towards the dying millions of heathen in Africa, more atrocious than that charged, even by them, on the master against his slave. The love of country, of kindred, of liberty, of the souls of men, and of G.o.d himself, impels them to depart, and do a work which none but they can do; and which they forego through the love of ease, the lack of energy, vanity gratified by the caresses of abolitionists, and deadness to the great motives detailed above. But there was another, and most obvious truth, which shows the utter futility of the principle of abolition now contested. So far was the fact from being so, that anybody, black or white, held an inherent right of citizenship in the place of his birth; that it is most certain, no man had even a right of bare residence, which the state might not justly and properly deprive him of--upon sufficient reason. The state has the indisputable right to coerce emigration, whenever the public good required it; and when that public good coincided with the interest of the emigrating party--and that also of the land to which they went--to coerce such emigration might become a most sacred duty. It was indeed true, that the friends of colonization had not contemplated nor proposed any other than a purely voluntary emigration; for even the traduced State of Maryland not only made the fact of removal voluntary, but, going a step further than any other, gave a choice of place to the emigrant. I recommend Africa, says she, but I will aid you to go wherever you prefer to go. It should, however, be borne in mind that this power is inherent in all communities, and has been exercised in all time. And it were well for the advocates of abolition principles to remember that the final, and, if necessary, forcible separation of the parties is surely preferable to the annihilation, or the eternal slavery of either; while it is infinitely more probable than the instant emanc.i.p.ation--the universal levelling--or the general mixture for which they contend. He had still left a _third principle_ advanced by the abolitionists on which to comment, but as only two or three minutes of his allotted time remained, he would not enter on the subject; but would read, for the information of the audience a speech delivered by Mr. Thompson at Andover, in Ma.s.sachusetts, the seat of one of our largest theological seminaries, as reported by a student who was present. He wished this speech to be put on record for the information of the British public.

Students--I shall first speak of the natural and inalienable rights to discuss slavery. It is not a question; you ought to do it; you sin against G.o.d and conscience, and are traitors to human nature and truth, if you neglect it. Whoever attempts to stop you from the exercise of this right, s.n.a.t.c.hes the trident from the Almighty, and whoever dares to put manacles upon mind must answer for it to the bar of G.o.d.

It belongs to G.o.d, and to G.o.d exclusively. You are not at liberty to give respect to any entreaty or suggestion or to take into consideration the feelings of any man or body of men on the subject. The wicked spirit of expediency is the spirit of h.e.l.l, the infamous doctrines of the demons of h.e.l.l; and whoever attempts to preach it to the rising youth of the land, preaches the doctrine of the d.a.m.ned spirits. It is the spirit of the flame and f.a.ggot, revealing itself as it dares, and corrupting the atmosphere so as to prevent the free breathing of a free soul. Where are the students of the Lane seminary? Where they ought to be;--from Georgia to Maine, and from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains--far from a prison-house where fetters are forged and rivetted. They could not stay in a place where a thermometer was hung up to graduate the state of their feelings. It was not till Dr.

Beecher consulted the faculty at New-Haven and Andover, to see if they would sustain him, that he ventured to put the screws on. But, perhaps you may say, we must bid farewell to promotion if we do as you desire. The faculty have the power, in a degree, to fix our future settlements by the recommendation, and, therefore, we must desist. What if you do have to leave the seminary? Far better to be away than to breathe the tainted air of tyranny. I proclaim it here, that the only reason why abolition is not countenanced at Andover is, because it is unpopular; when it is popular it will be received. In 1823, the Colonization Society was the pet child of the churches, the seminaries, and the colleges of the land; but now, forsooth, because it is unpopular, it is cast off. Aye, once the eloquent tongues voiced its praise, and the gold and silver were its tributaries--where is it now?

Cast off because it is not popular. This is rather hard; in its old age, too. But I forbear, it is a touching theme. I return to the Lane seminary. Never were n.o.bler spirits and finer minds congregated together; never in all time and place a more heroic and generous band. Dr. Beecher himself has p.r.o.nounced the eulogy. In what condition is the seminary now.

Lying in ruins, irretrievably gone! Dr. Beecher then sacrificed honor and reputation.

Mr. Thompson read extracts from an article in the Liberator, which went to show that the faculty at Andover advised the students to be uncommitted on the dividing topic of slavery.

Yes, added Mr. Thompson, go out uncommitted; wait till you get into a pulpit and have it cushioned and a settee in it, and then you may commit yourself. The speaker observed that very ill effects had resulted from the failure of the students at Andover to form themselves into an Anti-Slavery Society--the evil example had extended to Philip's Academy, Amherst College, &c. He had been twitted about it wherever he had been, but you may recover yourselves, he added, condescendingly; there is some apology for you, only let a Society be formed instantly. Those who attempted to show from the Bible that slavery was justifiable, were paving the slave-holders' paths to h.e.l.l with texts of Scripture. Mr.

Thompson enlarged upon the merits of the refractory students at Lane Seminary, with a most abundant supply of adjectives; and the mean-spirited students of Andover, although not expressly designated as such, were understood by the manner of expression to be placed in contrast. Mr. Thompson remarked that such conduct would not be tolerated by the students of any college in England, Scotland, or Ireland. This abuse, of the faculty at Andover was more personal and pointed than I have described; one of the faculty was called by name, but the severe expressions I have forgotten. He would probably have outrun himself, and exhausted the vocabulary of opprobrious epithets, had he not been interrupted. At the conclusion of the lecture, with the strange inconsistency which belongs to the man, he remarked that he had a high respect for the members of the faculty, and that he would willingly sit at their feet as a learner.

He had only one remark before he sat down. It had been publicly stated by a student of this seminary, that Mr. Thompson, in a conversation with him, had said, that _every slave-holder deserved to have his throat cut_, and that his slaves ought to do it. He could not, of course, vouch for the truth of this; but Mr. Thompson was there to explain. One thing, however, he could state as an indisputable fact, namely, that the professors of the seminaries had signed a doc.u.ment in which it was a.s.serted that the young man had been in the college for three years, and that his veracity was unimpeached and unimpeachable. If the story were true--it was well that it was timely made public. If the young man misunderstood Mr. Thompson, he (Mr. B.) believed he formed one of a very large cla.s.s in America, who had fallen into similar mistakes, and drawn similar conclusions from the general drift of his doings and sayings in that country.

Mr. THOMPSON, on rising, observed that no one could be more ready than himself to commend the gentleman who had just resumed his seat for the courage which he had shewn in dealing so frankly and faithfully with him, (Mr. T.) in the presence of those to whom he (Mr. B.) was comparatively a stranger, and whose favorable opinion he (Mr. T.) had had many opportunities of conciliating. He rejoiced that his opponent had, towards the end of his speech, attempted to state facts and specify charges, and had thus afforded him an opportunity of showing how completely and triumphantly he could meet the charges brought against himself personally, and support the statements he had made in reference to America. He would commence with the Andover story about cutting throats. The truth of the matter was this. A student in the Theological Seminary of the name of A. F. Kaufman, Jr., charged him, George Thompson, with having said, in a private conversation, that every slave-holder ought to have his throat cut, and that if the abolitionists preached what they ought to preach, they would tell every slave to cut his master's throat. Mr. Kaufman was from Virginia, the son of a slave-holder, and heir to slave property. The story was first circulated in Andover, and was afterwards published in the New-York Commercial Advertiser, in a communication dated from the Saratoga Springs. In reply to the printed version, I (said Mr. T.) printed a letter denying the charge in the most solemn manner, and referring to my numerous public addresses, and innumerable private conversations, in proof of the perfectly pacific character of my views. Then came forth a long statement from Mr. Kaufman, with a certificate to his veracity and general good character, signed by professors Woods, Stuart, and Emerson, of Andover. Here the matter must have rested--Mr. Kaufman's charge on one side, and my denial on the other--had the conversation been strictly private; but, fortunately for me, there were witnesses of every word; and this brings me to notice other circ.u.mstances connected with the affair, const.i.tuting a most complete contradiction of the charge. I was staying at the time under the roof of the Rev. Shipley W. Willson, the minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Andover, and when I had the conversation with Mr. Kaufman, in which the language imputed to me is alleged to have been uttered, there were present, besides ourselves, my host the Rev. S. W. Willson; the Rev. Amos A. Phelps, congregational clergyman, and one of the agents of the American Anti-Slavery Society; the Rev. La Roy Sunderland Methodist Episcopal clergyman, and at present the editor of Zion's Watchman, New-York; and the Rev. Jarvis Gregg, now a Professor in Western Reserve College, Ohio. In consequence of the use made of the statement put forth by Mr.

Kaufman, I wrote to Professor Gregg, and Mr. Phelps, requesting them to give their version of the conversation in writing; and their letters in reply, which, together with one written without solicitation by Mr. Sunderland, have been published. They not only flatly contradict the account given by Mr. Kaufman, but prove that I advocated in the strongest language the doctrine of non-resistance on the part of the slaves. These letters, however, never appeared in the columns of the papers which brought the charge and defied me to the proof of my innocence.

It may be well to give some idea of the conversation out of which the charge grew. Mr. Kaufman complained of the harsh language of the abolitionists, and challenged me to quote a pa.s.sage of scripture justifying our conduct in that respect. I quoted the pa.s.sage "Whoso stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death;" and observed, that in this text we had a proof of the awful demerit of the slaveholder; that he was considered worthy of death; and that the modern slaveholder, under the Christian dispensation, was not less guilty than the slaveholder under the Jewish law. I then reminded him of the political principles of the Americans, and cited the words of the declaration of Independence, "RESISTANCE _to tyrants is obedience to G.o.d_." I then contrasted the injuries inflicted on the slave with the grievances complained of in the Declaration of Independence, and argued, that, if the Americans deemed themselves justified in resisting to blood the payment of a threepenny tea tax and a stamp duty, how much more, upon the same principles, would the slave be justified in cutting his masters'

throat, to obtain deliverance from personal thraldom. Nay more, that every American, true to the principles of the revolution, ought to teach the slaves to cut their master's throats--but that while these were fair deductions from their own revolutionary principles, I held the doctrine that it was invariably wrong to do evil that good might come, and that I dared not purchase the freedom of the slaves by consenting to the death of one master.

He (Mr. T.) had thus disposed of one of the most tangible portions of his opponent's speech. He regretted there had not been more of matter-of-fact statement in the speech of one hour in length, to which they had just listened; a speech, which, however creditable to the intellect of his opponent on account of its ingenuity, was by no means creditable to his heart. Instead of dealing fairly with the doc.u.ments he (Mr. T.) had produced, and which contained a true and ample statement of the views, feelings, principles, purposes and plans of the abolitionists, Mr. Breckinridge had manufactured a series of dextrous sophisms, calculated to keep out of sight the real merits of the question. Was it not strange, that, covered as that platform was with the doc.u.ments of the abolitionists, his opponent had not quoted one word from their writings, but had based all he had said upon a statement of their principles made out by himself; and had then given to that statement an interpretation of his own, utterly at variance with all the views and doctrines entertained by the abolitionists. The gentleman had most ably played the part of Tom Thumb, who made the giants he so valiantly demolished. He would not attempt to grapple with that which rested altogether upon a gross misstatement of the principles and views of the Abolitionists. He had a right to expect that Mr. B. would go to the many sources of official information touching the principles he professed to denounce; but instead, he had put forth a creed, as the creed of the Abolitionists of America, which was nowhere to be found in their writings, and he (Mr. T.) should therefore wait until an objection had been taken to something they (the abolitionists) had really said or done.

Mr. Breckinridge had amused them with another Andover story. He had read an extract from a speech said to have been delivered by him (Mr.

T.) during the protracted meeting he had held there. He would just take the liberty of a.s.suring the audience that he had never uttered the speech which had that night been put into his mouth. It had been said that the speech was reported by a student. Had Mr. B. given the name of the student?--No. He (Mr. B.) knew that it was an anonymous communication, written by a vile enemy of a righteous cause, who was too much ashamed of his own productions to sign his name, but put the initial C. at the end of his libellous productions, which were greedily copied into the pro-slavery papers of the United States. The reports furnished by that scribbler were known in Andover to be false, and laughed at by the students as monstrous and ludicrous perversions of the truth. Upon this point also, he (Mr. T.) had ample doc.u.mentary evidence. He did not wonder that Mr. Breckinridge had so frequently twitted him respecting the mult.i.tude of doc.u.ments which he (Mr. T.) was in the habit of producing. It must be peculiarly unpleasant to find that he (Mr. T.) had always the doc.u.ment at hand necessary to annihilate the pretended proof of his opponent. He would now read from a report of the proceedings at Andover--but a very different report compared with that they had just heard--not an anonymous one, but signed by a respectable and pious student in the Theological Seminary, R. Reed, Corresponding Secretary of the Andover Anti-Slavery Society.

As reference was made, in the extract he was going to read, to a former visit, he would just state, that about three months after his arrival in the United States, he visited Andover, and delivered three lectures, besides undergoing a long examination into his principles in the College Chapel; and that on his return to Boston, where he was then residing, he received from the Inst.i.tution a series of resolutions signed by upwards of fifty of the students, expressive of their entire concurrence in the sentiments he had advanced, and their high approbation of the temper in which he had advocated those sentiments, and commending him to the blessing and protection of Heaven. He (Mr. T.) need not say that such a testimonial from theological students, unasked and unexpected, was peculiarly gratifying.

The account of his second visit in July, 1835, was thus given in a letter addressed to the editor of the Liberator.

"It had been previously announced that Mr. Thompson would address us on Tuesday evening. The hour arrived, and a large and respectable audience were convened in the expectation of again listening to the--(Mr. Thompson here omitted some complimentary expressions.) After the introductory prayer, Mr. Phelps arose, and said he regretted that he was obliged to state that Mr. Thompson had not yet arrived in town, but he thought it probable he would soon be with us. He then resumed the subject of American Slavery. He had, however, uttered but a few sentences before Mr. T. came in. His arrival was immediately announced from the desk, and the expression of satisfaction, manifested by the audience, told, more eloquently than words, the estimation in which they held this beloved brother, and the pleasure they felt on again enjoying the opportunity of listening to his appeals. Mr.

Thompson took his seat in the desk, and Mr. Phelps then proceeded at some length. When he closed his remarks, Mr.

Thompson arose, and after some introductory remarks, answered, in a powerful and eloquent manner, the inquiry, 'Why don't you go to the South.'

"The first part of the three succeeding evenings was occupied by Mr. Phelps, in exposing the ja.n.u.s-faced monster, the American Colonization Society, which he did in so masterly a manner, that we are quite sure none of his auditors, save those who are willfully blinded, will hereafter doubt of its being 'a fraud upon the ignorance, and an outrage upon the intelligence of the community.'"

"Thursday evening Mr. Thompson vindicated himself against the aspersions heaped upon him for denouncing Dr. c.o.x. I would that all Mr. Thompson's friends had been present, and his enemies too, for I am sure that unless encased in a shield of prejudice more impenetrable than steel, they would have been compelled to acknowledge that his denunciation of Dr. c.o.x was just, and not such an instance of tiger-like malice as some have represented it to be." "Friday evening (the evening to which the extract read by Mr. Breckinridge referred) he spoke of the 'armed neutrality' of the seminary and the course which had been taken in the Academical Inst.i.tutions of Andover. He is accused of wantonly abusing our Professors and Teachers--of making personal attacks upon them. No personal attacks however were made; no man's motives were impeached.

He attacked PRINCIPLES and not MEN for while he would render to the guardians of the seminary and academies all that respect which their station and learning and piety demands, he would at the same time condemn the course that had been pursued, as having a tendency to r.e.t.a.r.d the progress of emanc.i.p.ation. Let the public judge as to the propriety of his remarks.

It would be recollected that the same question had been put to him here in Glasgow, as that which he had answered at Andover. "Why don't you go to the South?" He would tell his opponent on the present occasion, that even he could not advocate abolition sentiments in the South, purely and openly, without endangering his life. The reason he was able to express his views on slavery and remain unmolested, was because it was known that he denounced the abolitionists, and advocated colonization. The experience of Mr. Birney was in point.

That gentleman hated slavery before he joined the abolitionists, and was in the habit of speaking against it, in connection with the colonization cause, and was permitted to do so without hindrance; but when he emanc.i.p.ated his slaves, and called upon others to do likewise, upon true anti-slavery principles, he was forced to fly from his residence and family, and was now in the city of Cincinnati.

It had been tauntingly Said, "show us the fruits of your principles."

"Where are the slaves you have liberated?" He would reply, that in Kentucky, very recently, nineteen slaves had been liberated upon anti-slavery principles:--enough to answer Mr. B's demand, "point us to _one_ slave your Society has been the means of liberating." But the question was not to be so tested. The abolitionists of Britain were often called upon in the same way; and their answer was, our principles are extending, and when they are sufficiently impressed upon the public mind, there will be a _general_ emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves. On the 31st of July, 1834, they could not point to any actually free in consequence of their efforts; but the night came and pa.s.sed away, and the morrow dawned upon 800,000 human beings, lifted by the power of anti-slavery principles, out of the legal condition of chattels, into the position of free British subjects. So in the United States. The principles of abolition would necessarily be some time extending, but ultimately they would effect a change in public opinion, and a corresponding change in the treatment of the black man.

Mr. Breckinridge had disputed the truth of the fact he (Mr. T.) had stated relative to the imprisonment and sale into bondage for life, in the city of Washington, of a black man, justly ent.i.tled to his freedom. He (Mr. T.) trusted that in this matter also he should be able most satisfactorily to establish his own veracity. The evidence he would produce to support the statement he had made, was, "A memorial of the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, U. S., signed by one thousand of the most respectable citizens of the District, and presented to Congress, March 24, 1828, then referred to the Committee on the District, and on the motion of Mr. Hubbard, of New-Hampshire, Feb. 9, 1835, ordered to be printed." He (Mr. T.) held in his hand the genuine doc.u.ment printed by Congress, "22d Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives, Doc. No. 140." The following was the part containing the fact he had mentioned.