{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_26123/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_26123","id":"gutenberg_26123","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26123","summary":null,"tags":["Abolitionists -- United States","Antislavery movements -- United States","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Slavery -- United States"],"text":"Produced by K Nordquist, Emanuela Piasentini and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n    +-------------------------------------------------------------+\n    |Transcriber's Note:                                          |\n    |                                                             |\n    |The adjective 'Christian' is sometimes spelled 'christian'   |\n    |and its use is inconsistent throughout the book. The original|\n    |punctuation, language and spelling have been retained, except|\n    |where noted at the end of the text.                          |\n    +-------------------------------------------------------------+\n\n\n\n\n                                AN ESSAY\n\n\n                                   ON\n\n\n                        SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM,\n\n\n                          WITH REFERENCE TO THE\n\n\n                        DUTY OF AMERICAN FEMALES.\n\n\n                                   BY\n\n                          CATHARINE E. BEECHER.\n\n\n                             Philadelphia:\n                   HENRY PERKINS, 134 CHESTNUT STREET.\n                        PERKINS & MARVIN, BOSTON.\n\n\n                                 1837.\n\n\nEntered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1837, by _Henry\nPerkins_, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern\nDistrict of Pennsylvania.\n\n                      L. ASHMEAD AND CO. PRINTERS.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTHE following are the circumstances which occasioned the succeeding\npages. A gentleman and a friend, requested the writer to assign reasons\nwhy he should not join the Abolition Society. While preparing a reply\nto this request, MISS GRIMKE's Address was presented, and the\ninformation communicated, of her intention to visit the North, for the\npurpose of using her influence among northern ladies to induce them to\nunite with Abolition Societies. The writer then began a private letter\nto Miss Grimke as a personal friend. But by the wishes and advice of\nothers, these two efforts were finally combined in the following Essay,\nto be presented to the public.\n\nThe honoured and beloved name which that lady bears, so associated as it\nis at the South, North, and West, with all that is elegant in a scholar,\nrefined in a gentleman, and elevated in a Christian,--the respectable\nsect with which she is connected,--the interesting effusions of her\npen,--and her own intellectual and moral worth, must secure respect for\nher opinions and much personal influence. This seems to be a sufficient\napology for presenting to the public some considerations in connexion\nwith her name; considerations which may exhibit in another aspect the\ncause she advocates, and which it may be appropriate to consider. As\nsuch, they are respectfully commended to the public, and especially to\nthat portion of it for which they are particularly designed.\n\n\n\n\nESSAY\n\nON\n\nSLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM.\n\nADDRESSED TO MISS A. D. GRIMKE.\n\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND,\n\nYour public address to Christian females at the South has reached me,\nand I have been urged to aid in circulating it at the North. I have also\nbeen informed, that you contemplate a tour, during the ensuing year, for\nthe purpose of exerting your influence to form Abolition Societies among\nladies of the non-slave-holding States.\n\nOur acquaintance and friendship give me a claim to your private ear; but\nthere are reasons why it seems more desirable to address you, who now\nstand before the public as an advocate of Abolition measures, in a more\npublic manner.\n\nThe object I have in view, is to present some reasons why it seems\nunwise and inexpedient for ladies of the non-slave-holding States to\nunite themselves in Abolition Societies; and thus, at the same time,\nto exhibit the inexpediency of the course you propose to adopt.\n\nI would first remark, that your public address leads me to infer, that\nyou are not sufficiently informed in regard to the feelings and opinions\nof Christian females at the North. Your remarks seem to assume, that the\n_principles_ held by Abolitionists on the subject of slavery, are\npeculiar to them, and are not generally adopted by those at the North\nwho oppose their _measures_. In this you are not correctly informed. In\nthe sense in which Abolitionists explain the terms they employ, there is\nlittle, if any, difference between them and most northern persons.\nEspecially is this true of northern persons of religious principles. I\nknow not where to look for northern Christians, who would deny that\nevery slave-holder is bound to treat his slaves exactly as he would\nclaim that his own children ought to be treated in similar\ncircumstances; that the holding of our fellow men as property, or the\nwithholding any of the rights of freedom, for mere purposes of gain, is\na sin, and ought to be immediately abandoned; and that where the laws\nare such, that a slave-holder cannot _legally_ emancipate his slaves,\nwithout throwing them into worse bondage, he is bound to use all his\ninfluence to alter those laws, and, in the meantime, to treat his slaves,\nas nearly as he can, _as if_ they were free.\n\nI do not suppose there is one person in a thousand, at the North, who\nwould dissent from these principles. They would only differ in the use\nof terms, and call this the doctrine of _gradual emancipation_, while\nAbolitionists would call it the doctrine of _immediate emancipation_.\n\nAs this is the state of public opinion at the North, there is no\nnecessity for using any influence with northern ladies, in order that\nthey may adopt your _principles_ on the subject of slavery; for they\nhold them in common with yourself, and it would seem unwise, and might\nprove irritating, to approach them as if they held opposite sentiments.\n\nIn regard to the duty of making efforts to bring the people of the\nSouthern States to adopt these principles, and act on them, it is\nentirely another matter. On this point you would find a large majority\nopposed to your views. Most persons in the non-slave-holding States have\nconsidered the matter of Southern slavery, as one in which they were no\nmore called to interfere, than in the abolition of the press-gang system\nin England, or the tythe system of Ireland. Public opinion may have been\nwrong on this point, and yet have been right on all those great\nprinciples of rectitude and justice relating to slavery, which\nAbolitionists claim as their _distinctive_ peculiarities.\n\nThe distinctive peculiarity of the Abolition Society is this: it is a\nvoluntary association in one section of the country, designed to awaken\npublic sentiment against a moral evil existing in another section of the\ncountry, and the principal point of effort seems to be, to enlarge the\nnumbers of this association as a means of influencing public sentiment.\nThe principal object of your proposed tour, I suppose, is to present\nfacts, arguments, and persuasions to influence northern ladies to enrol\nthemselves as members of this association.\n\nI will therefore proceed to present some of the reasons which may be\nbrought against such a measure as the one you would urge.\n\nIn the first place, the main principle of action in that society rests\nwholly on a false deduction from past experience. Experience has shown,\nthat when certain moral evils exist in a community, efforts to awaken\npublic sentiment against such practices, and combinations for the\nexercise of personal influence and example, have in various cases tended\nto rectify these evils. Thus in respect to intemperance;--the collecting\nof facts, the labours of public lecturers and the distribution of\npublications, have had much effect in diminishing the evil. So in\nreference to the slave-trade and slavery in England. The English nation\npossessed the power of regulating their own trade, and of giving liberty\nto every slave in their dominions; and yet they were entirely unmindful\nof their duty on this subject. Clarkson, Wilberforce, and their\ncoadjutors, commenced a system of operations to arouse and influence\npublic sentiment, and they succeeded in securing the suppression of the\nslave trade, and the gradual abolition of slavery in the English\ncolonies. In both these cases, the effort was to enlighten and direct\npublic sentiment in a community, of which the actors were a portion, in\norder to lead them to rectify an evil existing among THEMSELVES, which\nwas entirely under their control.\n\nFrom the success of such efforts, the Abolitionists of this country have\ndrawn inferences, which appear to be not only illogical, but false.\nBecause individuals in _their own_ community have aroused their fellow\ncitizens to correct their own evils, therefore they infer that attempts\nto convince their fellow-citizens of the faults of _another_ community\nwill lead that community to forsake their evil practices. An example\nwill more clearly illustrate the case. Suppose two rival cities, which\nhave always been in competition, and always jealous of each other's\nreputation and prosperity. Certain individuals in one of these cities\nbecome convinced, that the sin of intemperance is destroying their\nprosperity and domestic happiness. They proceed to collect facts, they\narrange statistics, they call public meetings, they form voluntary\nassociations, they use arguments, entreaties and personal example, and\nby these means they arrest the evil.\n\nSuppose another set of men, in this same community, become convinced\nthat certain practices in trade and business in the rival city, are\ndishonest, and have an oppressive bearing on certain classes in that\ncity, and are injurious to the interests of general commerce. Suppose\nalso, that these are practices, which, by those who allow them, are\nconsidered as honourable and right. Those who are convinced of their\nimmorality, wish to alter the opinions and the practices of the citizens\nof their rival city, and to do this, they commence the collection of\nfacts, that exhibit the tendencies of these practices and the evils they\nhave engendered. But instead of going among the community in which the\nevils exist, and endeavouring to convince and persuade them, they\nproceed to form voluntary associations among their neighbours at home,\nand spend their time, money and efforts to convince their fellow\ncitizens that the inhabitants of their rival city are guilty of a great\nsin. They also publish papers and tracts and send out agents, not to the\nguilty city, but to all the neighbouring towns and villages, to convince\nthem of the sins of the city in their vicinity. And they claim that they\nshall succeed in making that city break off its sins, by these measures,\nbecause other men succeeded in banishing intemperance by labouring among\ntheir own friends and fellow citizens. Is not this example exactly\nparallel with the exertions of the Abolitionists? Are not the northern\nand southern sections of our country distinct communities, with\ndifferent feelings and interests? Are they not rival, and jealous in\nfeeling? Have the northern States the power to rectify evils at the\nSouth, as they have to remove their own moral deformities; or have they\nany such power over the southern States as the British people had over\ntheir own trade and their dependent colonies in the West Indies? Have\nnot Abolitionists been sending out papers, tracts, and agents to\nconvince the people of the North of the sins of the South? Have they not\nrefrained from going to the South with their facts, arguments, and\nappeals, because they feared personal evils to themselves? And do not\nAbolitionists found their hopes of success in their project, on the\nsuccess which crowned the efforts of British philanthropists in the case\nof slavery, and on the success that has attended efforts to banish\nintemperance? And do not these two cases differ entirely from the\nAbolition movement in this main point, that one is an effort to convince\nmen of _their own_ sins, and the other is an effort to convince men of\nthe sins of _other persons_?\n\nThe second reason I would urge against joining the Abolition Society is,\nthat its character and measures are not either peaceful or Christian in\ntendency, but they rather are those which tend to generate party spirit,\ndenunciation, recrimination, and angry passions.\n\nBut before bringing evidence to sustain this position, I wish to make a\ndistinction between the _men_ who constitute an association, and the\n_measures_ which are advocated and adopted.\n\nI believe, that as a body, Abolitionists are men of pure morals, of\ngreat honesty of purpose, of real benevolence and piety, and of great\nactivity in efforts to promote what they consider the best interests of\ntheir fellow men. I believe, that, in making efforts to abolish slavery,\nthey have taken measures, which they supposed were best calculated to\nbring this evil to an end, with the greatest speed, and with the least\ndanger and suffering to the South. I do not believe they ever designed\nto promote disunion, or insurrection, or to stir up strife, or that they\nsuppose that their measures can be justly characterized by the\npeculiarities I have specified. I believe they have been urged forward\nby a strong feeling of patriotism, as well as of religious duty, and\nthat they have made great sacrifices of feeling, character, time, and\nmoney to promote what they believed to be the cause of humanity and the\nservice of God. I regard individuals among them, as having taken a bold\nand courageous stand, in maintaining the liberty of free discussion, the\nliberty of speech and of the press; though this however is somewhat\nabated by the needless provocations by which they caused those\ndifficulties and hazards they so courageously sustained. In speaking\nthus of Abolitionists as a body, it is not assumed that there are not\nbad men found in this party as well as in every other; nor that among\nthose who are good men, there are not those who may have allowed party\nspirit to take the place of Christian principle; men who have exhibited\na mournful destitution of Christian charity; who have indulged in an\noverbearing, denouncing, and self-willed pertinacity as to measures. Yet\nwith these reservations, I believe that the above is no more than a fair\nand just exhibition of that class of men who are embraced in the party\nof Abolitionists. And all this can be admitted, and yet the objection I\nam to urge against joining their ranks may stand in its full force.\n\nTo make the position clearer, an illustration may be allowed. Suppose a\nbody of good men become convinced that the inspired direction, \"them\nthat sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear,\" imposes upon them\nthe duty of openly rebuking every body whom they discover in the\npractice of any sin. Suppose these men are daily in the habit of going\ninto the streets, and calling all by-standers around them, pointing out\ncertain men, some as liars, some as dishonest, some as licentious, and\nthen bringing proofs of their guilt and rebuking them before all; at the\nsame time exhorting all around to point at them the finger of scorn.\n\nThey persevere in this course till the whole community is thrown into an\nuproar; and assaults, and even bloodshed ensue. They then call on all\ngood citizens to protect their persons from abuse, and to maintain the\nliberty of speech and of free opinion.\n\nNow the men may be as pure in morals, as conscientious and upright in\nintention, as any Abolitionist, and yet every one would say, that their\nmeasures were unwise and unchristian.\n\nIn like manner, although Abolitionists may be lauded for many virtues,\nstill much evidence can be presented, that the character and measures of\nthe Abolition Society are not either peaceful or christian in tendency,\nbut that they are in their nature calculated to generate party spirit,\ndenunciation, recrimination, and angry passions.\n\nThe first thing I would present to establish this, is the character of\nthe leaders of this association. Every combined effort is necessarily\ndirected by leaders; and the spirit of the leaders will inevitably be\ncommunicated to their coadjutors, and appear in the measures of the\nwhole body.\n\nIn attempting to characterize these leaders, I would first present\nanother leader of a similar enterprise, the beloved and venerated\nWILBERFORCE. It is thus that his prominent traits are delineated by an\nintimate friend.\n\n\"His extreme benevolence contributed largely to his success. I have\nheard him say, that it was one of his constant rules, and on the\nquestion of slavery especially, never to provoke an adversary--to allow\nhim credit fully for sincerity and purity of motive--to abstain from all\nirritating expressions--to avoid even such political attacks as would\nindispose his opponents for his great cause. In fact, the benignity, the\ngentleness, the kind-heartedness of the man, disarmed the bitterest\nfoes. Not only on this question did he restrain himself, but generally.\nOnce he had been called during a whole debate 'the religious member,' in\na kind of scorn. He remarked afterwards, that he was much inclined to\nhave retorted, by calling his opponent the _irreligious_ member, but\nthat he refrained, as it would have been a returning of evil for evil.\nNext to his general consistency, and love of the Scriptures, the\n_humility_ of his character always appeared remarkable. The modest,\nshrinking, simple Christian statesman and friend always appeared in him.\nAnd the nearer you approached him, the more his habit of mind obviously\nappeared to be modest and lowly. His _charity in judging of others_, is\na farther trait of his Christian character. Of his benevolence I need\nnot speak, but his _kind construction of doubtful actions_, his\n_charitable language_ toward those with whom he most widely differed,\nhis thorough forgetfulness of little affronts, were fruits of that\ngeneral benevolence which continually appeared.\"\n\nThis was the leader, both in and out of Parliament, of that body of men\nwho combined to bring to an end slavery and the slave trade, in the\ndominions of Great Britain. With him, as principal leaders, were\nassociated CLARKSON, SHARPE, MACAULAY, and others of a similar spirit.\nThese men were all of them characterized by that mild, benevolent,\npeaceful, gentlemanly and forbearing spirit, which has been described as\nso conspicuous in Wilberforce. And when their measures are examined, it\nwill be found that they were eminently mild, peaceful, and forbearing.\nThough no effort that is to encounter the selfish interests of men, can\nescape without odium and opposition, from those who are thwarted, and\nfrom all whom they can influence, these men carefully took those\nmeasures that were calculated to bring about their end with the least\nopposition and evil possible. They avoided prejudices, strove to\nconciliate opposers, shunned every thing that would give needless\noffence and exasperation, began slowly and cautiously, with points which\ncould be the most easily carried, and advanced toward others only as\npublic sentiment became more and more enlightened. They did not beard\nthe lion in full face, by coming out as the first thing with the maxim,\nthat all slavery ought and must be abandoned immediately. They began\nwith \"inquiries as to the _impolicy_ of the _slave trade_,\" and it was\nyears before they came to the point of the abolition of slavery. And\nthey carried their measures through, without producing warring parties\namong _good men_, who held common principles with themselves. As a\ngeneral fact, the pious men of Great Britain acted harmoniously in this\ngreat effort.\n\nLet us now look at the leaders of the Abolition movement in America. The\nman who first took the lead was William L. Garrison, who, though he\nprofesses a belief in the Christian religion, is an avowed opponent of\nmost of its institutions. The character and spirit of this man have for\nyears been exhibited in \"the Liberator,\" of which he is the editor. That\nthere is to be found in that paper, or in any thing else, any evidence\nof his possessing the peculiar traits of Wilberforce, not even his\nwarmest admirers will maintain. How many of the opposite traits can be\nfound, those can best judge who have read his paper. Gradually others\njoined themselves in the effort commenced by Garrison; but for a long\ntime they consisted chiefly of men who would fall into one of these\nthree classes; either good men who were so excited by a knowledge of the\nenormous evils of slavery, that _any thing_ was considered better than\nentire inactivity, or else men accustomed to a contracted field of\nobservation, and more qualified to judge of immediate results than of\ngeneral tendencies, or else men of ardent and impulsive temperament,\nwhose feelings are likely to take the lead, rather than their judgment.\n\nThere are no men who act more efficiently as the leaders of an\nenterprise than the editors of the periodicals that advocate and defend\nit. The editors of the Emancipator, the Friend of Man, the New York\nEvangelist, and the other abolition periodicals, may therefore be\nconsidered as among the chief leaders of the enterprise, and their\npapers are the mirror from which their spirit and character are\nreflected.\n\nI wish the friends of these editors would cull from their papers all the\nindications they can find of the peculiarities that distinguished\nWilberforce and his associates; all the evidence of \"a modest and lowly\nspirit,\"--all the exhibitions of \"charity in judging of the motives of\nthose who oppose their measures,\"--all the \"indications of benignity,\ngentleness, and kind-heartedness,\"--all the \"kind constructions of\ndoubtful actions,\"--all the \"charitable language used toward those who\ndiffer in opinion or measures,\"--all the \"thorough forgetfulness of\nlittle affronts,\"--all the cases where \"opponents are allowed full\ncredit for purity and sincerity of motive,\"--all cases where they have\nbeen careful \"never to provoke an adversary,\"--all cases where they have\n\"refrained from all irritating expressions,\"--all cases where they have\navoided every thing that would \"indispose their opponents for their\ngreat cause,\" and then compare the result with what may be found of an\nopposite character, and I think it would not be unsafe to infer that an\nassociation whose measures, on an exciting subject, were guided by such\nmen, would be more likely to be aggressive than peaceful. The position I\nwould establish will appear more clearly, by examining in detail some of\nthe prominent measures which have been adopted by this association.\n\nOne of the first measures of Abolitionists was an attack on a benevolent\nsociety, originated and sustained by some of the most pious and devoted\nmen of the age. It was imagined by Abolitionists, that the influence and\nmeasures of the Colonization Society tended to retard the abolition of\nslavery, and to perpetuate injurious prejudices against the coloured\nrace. The peaceful and christian method of meeting this difficulty would\nhave been, to collect all the evidence of this supposed hurtful tendency,\nand privately, and in a respectful and conciliating way, to have\npresented it to the attention of the wise and benevolent men, who were\nmost interested in sustaining this institution. If this measure did not\navail to convince them, then it would have been safe and justifiable to\npresent to the public a temperate statement of facts, and of the\ndeductions based on them, drawn up in a respectful and candid manner,\nwith every charitable allowance which truth could warrant. Instead of\nthis, when the attempt was first made to turn public opinion against the\nColonization Society, I met one of the most influential supporters of\nthat institution, just after he had had an interview with a leading\nAbolitionist. This gentleman was most remarkable for his urbanity,\nmeekness, and benevolence, and his remark to me in reference to this\ninterview, shows what was its nature. \"I love truth and sound argument,\"\nsaid he, \"but when a man comes at me with a sledge hammer, I cannot help\ndodging.\" This is a specimen of their private manner of dealing. In\npublic, the enterprise was attacked as a plan for promoting the selfish\ninterests and prejudices of the whites, at the expense of the coloured\npopulation; and in many cases, it was assumed that the conductors of\nthis association were aware of this, and accessory to it. And the style\nin which the thing was done was at once offensive, inflammatory, and\nexasperating. Denunciation, sneers, and public rebuke, were bestowed\nindiscriminately upon the conductors of the enterprise, and of course\nthey fell upon many sincere, upright, and conscientious men, whose\nfeelings were harrowed by a sense of the injustice, the indecorum, and\nthe unchristian treatment, they received. And when a temporary\nimpression was made on the public mind, and its opponents supposed they\nhad succeeded in crushing this society, the most public and triumphant\nexultation was not repressed. Compare this method of carrying a point,\nwith that adopted by Wilberforce and his compeers, and I think you will\nallow that there was a way that was peaceful and christian, and that\nthis was not the way which was chosen.\n\nThe next measure of Abolitionism was an attempt to remove the prejudices\nof the whites against the blacks, on account of natural peculiarities.\nNow, prejudice is an _unreasonable_ and _groundless_ dislike of persons\nor things. Of course, as it is unreasonable, it is the most difficult of\nall things to conquer, and the worst and most irritating method that\ncould be attempted would be, to attack a man as guilty of sin, as\nunreasonable, as ungenerous, or as proud, for allowing a certain\nprejudice.\n\nThis is the sure way to produce anger, self-justification, and an\nincrease of the strength of prejudice, against that which has caused him\nthis rebuke and irritation.\n\nThe best way to make a person like a thing which is disagreeable, is to\ntry in some way to make it agreeable; and if a certain class of persons\nis the subject of unreasonable prejudice, the peaceful and christian way\nof removing it would be to endeavour to render the unfortunate persons\nwho compose this class, so useful, so humble and unassuming, so kind in\ntheir feelings, and so full of love and good works, that prejudice would\nbe supplanted by complacency in their goodness, and pity and sympathy\nfor their disabilities. If the friends of the blacks had quietly set\nthemselves to work to increase their intelligence, their usefulness,\ntheir respectability, their meekness, gentleness, and benevolence, and\nthen had appealed to the pity, generosity, and christian feelings of\ntheir fellow citizens, a very different result would have appeared.\nInstead of this, reproaches, rebukes, and sneers, were employed to\nconvince the whites that their prejudices were sinful, and without any\njust cause. They were accused of pride, of selfish indifference, of\nunchristian neglect. This tended to irritate the whites, and to increase\ntheir prejudice against the blacks, who thus were made the causes of\nrebuke and exasperation. Then, on the other hand, the blacks extensively\nreceived the Liberator, and learned to imbibe the spirit of its\nconductor.\n\nThey were taught to feel that they were injured and abused, the objects\nof a guilty and unreasonable prejudice--that they occupied a lower place\nin society than was right--that they ought to be treated as if they were\nwhites; and in repeated instances, attempts were made by their friends\nto mingle them with whites, so as to break down the existing\ndistinctions of society. Now, the question is not, whether these things,\nthat were urged by Abolitionists, were true. The thing maintained is,\nthat the method taken by them to remove this prejudice was neither\npeaceful nor christian in its tendency, but, on the contrary, was\ncalculated to increase the evil, and to generate anger, pride, and\nrecrimination, on one side, and envy, discontent, and revengeful\nfeelings, on the other.\n\nThese are some of the general measures which have been exhibited in the\nAbolition movement. The same peculiarities may be as distinctly seen in\nspecific cases, where the peaceful and quiet way of accomplishing the\ngood was neglected, and the one most calculated to excite wrath and\nstrife was chosen. Take, for example, the effort to establish a college\nfor coloured persons. The quiet, peaceful, and christian way of doing\nsuch a thing, would have been, for those who were interested in the\nplan, to furnish the money necessary, and then to have selected a\nretired place, where there would be the least prejudice and opposition\nto be met, and there, in an unostentatious way, commenced the education\nof the youth to be thus sustained. Instead of this, at a time when the\npublic mind was excited on the subject, it was noised abroad that a\ncollege for blacks was to be founded. Then a city was selected for its\nlocation, where was another college, so large as to demand constant\neffort and vigilance to preserve quiet subordination; where contests\nwith \"sailors and town boys\" were barely kept at bay; a college\nembracing a large proportion of southern students, who were highly\nexcited on the subject of slavery and emancipation; a college where half\nthe shoe-blacks and waiters were coloured men. Beside the very walls of\nthis college, it was proposed to found a college for coloured young men.\nCould it be otherwise than that opposition, and that for the best of\nreasons, would arise against such an attempt, both from the faculty of\nthe college and the citizens of the place? Could it be reasonably\nexpected that they would not oppose a measure so calculated to increase\ntheir own difficulties and liabilities, and at the same time so certain\nto place the proposed institution in the most unfavourable of all\ncircumstances? But when the measure was opposed, instead of yielding\nmeekly and peaceably to such reasonable objections, and soothing the\nfeelings and apprehensions that had been excited, by putting the best\nconstruction on the matter, and seeking another place, it was claimed as\nan evidence of opposition to the interests of the blacks, and as a mark\nof the force of sinful prejudice. The worst, rather than the best,\nmotives were ascribed to some of the most respectable, and venerated,\nand pious men, who opposed the measure; and a great deal was said and\ndone that was calculated to throw the community into an angry ferment.\n\nTake another example. If a prudent and benevolent female had selected\nalmost any village in New England, and commenced a school for coloured\nfemales, in a quiet, appropriate, and unostentatious way, the world\nwould never have heard of the case, except to applaud her benevolence,\nand the kindness of the villagers, who aided her in the effort. But\ninstead of this, there appeared public advertisements, (which I saw at\nthe time,) stating that a seminary for the education of young ladies of\ncolour was to be opened in Canterbury, in the state of Connecticut,\nwhere would be taught music on the piano forte, drawing, &c., together\nwith a course of English education. Now, there are not a dozen coloured\nfamilies in New England, in such pecuniary circumstances, that if they\nwere whites it would not be thought ridiculous to attempt to give their\ndaughters such a course of education, and Canterbury was a place where\nbut few of the wealthiest families ever thought of furnishing such\naccomplishments for their children. Several other particulars might be\nadded that were exceedingly irritating, but this may serve as a specimen\nof the method in which the whole affair was conducted. It was an entire\ndisregard of the prejudices and the proprieties of society, and\ncalculated to stimulate pride, anger, ill-will, contention, and all the\nbitter feelings that spring from such collisions. Then, instead of\nadopting measures to soothe and conciliate, rebukes, sneers and\ndenunciations, were employed, and Canterbury and Connecticut were held\nup to public scorn and rebuke for doing what most other communities\nwould probably have done, if similarly tempted and provoked.\n\nTake another case. It was deemed expedient by Abolitionists to establish\nan Abolition paper, first in Kentucky, a slave State. It was driven from\nthat State, either by violence or by threats. It retreated to Ohio, one\nof the free States. In selecting a place for its location, it might have\nbeen established in a small place, where the people were of similar\nviews, or were not exposed to dangerous popular excitements. But\nCincinnati was selected; and when the most intelligent, the most\nreasonable, and the most patriotic of the citizens remonstrated,--when\nthey represented that there were peculiar and unusual liabilities to\npopular excitement on this subject,--that the organization and power of\nthe police made it extremely dangerous to excite a mob, and almost\nimpossible to control it,--that all the good aimed at could be\naccomplished by locating the press in another place, where there were\nnot such dangerous liabilities,--when they kindly and respectfully urged\nthese considerations, they were disregarded. I myself was present when a\nsincere friend urged upon the one who controlled that paper, the\nobligations of good men, not merely to avoid breaking wholesome laws\nthemselves, but the duty of regarding the liabilities of others to\ntemptation; and that where Christians could foresee that by placing\ncertain temptations in the way of their fellow-men, all the\nprobabilities were, that they would yield, and yet persisted in doing\nit, the tempters became partakers in the guilt of those who yielded to\nthe temptation. But these remonstrances were ineffectual. The paper must\nnot only be printed and circulated, but it must be stationed where were\nthe greatest probabilities that measures of illegal violence would\nensue. And when the evil was perpetrated, and a mob destroyed the press,\nthen those who had urged on these measures of temptation, turned upon\nthose who had advised and remonstrated, as the guilty authors of the\nviolence, because, in a season of excitement, the measures adopted to\nrestrain and control the mob, were not such as were deemed suitable and\nright.\n\nNow, in all the above cases, I would by no means justify the wrong or\nthe injudicious measures that may have been pursued, under this course\nof provocation. The greatness of temptation does by no means release men\nfrom obligation; but Christians are bound to remember that it is a\ncertain consequence of throwing men into strong excitement, that they\nwill act unwisely and wrong, and that the tempter as well as the tempted\nare held responsible, both by God and man. In all these cases, it cannot\nbut appear that the good aimed at might have been accomplished in a\nquiet, peaceable, and christian way, and that this was not the way which\nwas chosen.\n\nThe whole system of Abolition measures seems to leave entirely out of\nview, the obligation of Christians to save their fellow men from all\nneedless temptations. If the thing to be done is only lawful and right,\nit does not appear to have been a matter of effort to do it in such a\nway as would not provoke and irritate; but often, if the chief aim had\nbeen to do the good in the most injurious and offensive way, no more\ncertain and appropriate methods could have been devised.\n\nSo much has this been the character of Abolition movements, that many\nhave supposed it to be a deliberate and systematized plan of the leaders\nto do nothing but what was strictly a _right_ guaranteed by law, and\nyet, in such a manner, as to provoke men to anger, so that unjust and\nillegal acts might ensue, knowing, that as a consequence, the opposers\nof Abolition would be thrown into the wrong, and sympathy be aroused for\nAbolitionists as injured and persecuted men. It is a fact, that\nAbolitionists have taken the course most calculated to awaken illegal\nacts of violence, and that when they have ensued, they have seemed to\nrejoice in them, as calculated to advance and strengthen their cause.\nThe violence of mobs, the denunciations and unreasonable requirements of\nthe South, the denial of the right of petition, the restrictions\nattempted to be laid upon freedom of speech, and freedom of the press,\nare generally spoken of with exultation by Abolitionists, as what are\namong the chief means of promoting their cause. It is not so much by\nexciting feelings of pity and humanity, and Christian love, towards the\noppressed, as it is by awakening indignation at the treatment of\nAbolitionists themselves, that their cause has prospered. How many men\nhave declared or implied, that in joining the ranks of Abolition, they\nwere influenced, not by their arguments, or by the wisdom of their\ncourse, but because the violence of opposers had identified that cause\nwith the question of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and civil\nliberty.\n\nBut when I say that many have supposed that it was the deliberate\nintention of the Abolitionists to foment illegal acts and violence, I\nwould by no means justify a supposition, which is contrary to the\ndictates of justice and charity. The leaders of the Abolition Society\ndisclaim all such wishes or intentions; they only act apparently on the\nassumption that they are exercising just rights, which they are not\nbound to give up, because other men will act unreasonably and wickedly.\n\nAnother measure of Abolitionists, calculated to awaken evil feelings,\nhas been the treatment of those who objected to their proceedings.\n\nA large majority of the philanthropic and pious, who hold common views\nwith the Abolitionists, as to the sin and evils of slavery, and the duty\nof using all appropriate means to bring it to an end, have opposed their\nmeasures, because they have believed them not calculated to promote, but\nrather to retard the end proposed to be accomplished by them. The\npeaceful and Christian method of encountering such opposition, would\nhave been to allow the opponents full credit for purity and integrity of\nmotive, to have avoided all harsh and censorious language, and to have\nemployed facts, arguments and persuasions, in a kind and respectful way\nwith the hope of modifying their views and allaying their fears. Instead\nof this, the wise and good who opposed Abolition measures, have been\ntreated as though they were the friends and defenders of slavery, or as\nthose who, from a guilty, timid, time-serving policy, refused to take\nthe course which duty demanded. They have been addressed either as if it\nwere necessary to convince them that slavery is wrong and ought to be\nabandoned, or else, as if they needed to be exhorted to give up their\ntimidity and selfish interest, and to perform a manifest duty, which\nthey were knowingly neglecting.\n\nNow there is nothing more irritating, when a man is conscientious and\nacting according to his own views of right, than to be dealt with in\nthis manner. The more men are treated as if they were honest and\nsincere--the more they are treated with respect, fairness, and\nbenevolence, the more likely they are to be moved by evidence and\narguments. On the contrary, harshness, uncharitableness, and rebuke, for\nopinions and conduct that are in agreement with a man's own views of\nduty and rectitude, tend to awaken evil feelings, and indispose the mind\nproperly to regard evidence. Abolitionists have not only taken this\ncourse, but in many cases, have seemed to act on the principle, that the\nabolition of Slavery, in the particular mode in which they were aiming\nto accomplish it, was of such paramount importance, that every thing\nmust be overthrown that stood in the way.\n\nNo matter what respect a man had gained for talents, virtue, and piety,\nif he stood in the way of Abolitionism, he must be attacked as to\ncharacter and motives. No matter how important an institution might be,\nif its influence was against the measures of Abolitionism, it must be\nattacked openly, or sapped privately, till its influence was destroyed.\nBy such measures, the most direct means have been taken to awaken anger\nat injury, and resentment at injustice, and to provoke retaliation on\nthose who inflict the wrong. All the partialities of personal\nfriendship; all the feelings of respect accorded to good and useful men;\nall the interests that cluster around public institutions, entrenched\nin the hearts of the multitudes who sustain them, were outraged by such\na course.\n\nAnother measure of Abolitionists, which has greatly tended to promote\nwrath and strife, is their indiscreet and incorrect use of terms.\n\nTo make this apparent, it must be premised, that words have no inherent\nmeaning, but always signify that which they are commonly _understood_ to\nmean. The question never should be asked, what _ought_ a word to mean?\nbut simply, what is the meaning generally attached to this word by those\nwho use it? Vocabularies and standard writers are the proper umpires to\ndecide this question. Now if men take words and give them a new and\npeculiar use, and are consequently misunderstood, they are guilty of a\nspecies of deception, and are accountable for all the evils that may\nensue as a consequence.\n\nFor example; if physicians should come out and declare, that it was\ntheir opinion that they ought to poison all their patients, and they had\ndetermined to do it, and then all the community should be thrown into\nterror and excitement, it would be no justification for them to say,\nthat all they intended by that language was, that they should administer\nas medicines, articles which are usually called poisons.\n\nNow Abolitionists are before the community, and declare that all slavery\nis sin, which ought to be immediately forsaken; and that it is their\nobject and intention to promote the _immediate emancipation_ of all the\nslaves in this nation.\n\nNow what is it that makes a man cease to be a slave and become free? It\nis not kind treatment from a master; it is not paying wages to the\nslave; it is not the intention to bestow freedom at a future time; it is\nnot treating a slave as if he were free; it is not feeling toward a\nslave as if he were free. No instance can be found of any dictionary, or\nany standard writer, nor any case in common discourse, where any of\nthese significations are attached to the word as constituting its\npeculiar and appropriate meaning. It always signifies _that legal_ act,\nwhich, by the laws of the land, changes a slave to a freeman.\n\nWhat then is the _proper_ meaning of the language used by Abolitionists,\nwhen they say that all slavery is a sin which ought to be immediately\nabandoned, and that it is their object to secure the immediate\nemancipation of all slaves?\n\nThe true and only proper meaning of such language is, that it is the\nduty of every slave-holder in this nation, to go immediately and make\nout the legal instruments, that, by the laws of the land, change all his\nslaves to freemen. If their maxim is true, no exception can be made for\nthose who live in States where the act of emancipation, by a master,\nmakes a slave the property of the State, to be sold for the benefit of\nthe State; and no exception can be made for those, who, by the will of\ntestators, and by the law of the land, have no power to perform the\nlegal act, which alone can emancipate their slaves.\n\nTo meet this difficulty, Abolitionists affirm, that, in such cases, men\nare physically unable to emancipate their slaves, and of course are not\nbound to do it; and to save their great maxim, maintain that, in such\ncases, the slaves are not slaves, and the slave-holders are not\nslave-holders, although all their legal relations remain unchanged.\n\nThe meaning which the Abolitionist attaches to his language is this,\nthat every man is bound to treat his slaves, as nearly as he can, like\nfreemen; and to use all his influence to bring the system of slavery to\nan end as soon as possible. And they allow that when men do this they\nare free from guilt, in the matter of slavery, and undeserving of\ncensure.\n\nBut men at the North, and men at the South, understand the language used\nin its true and proper sense; and Abolitionists have been using these\nterms in a new and peculiar sense, which is inevitably and universally\nmisunderstood, and this is an occasion of much of the strife and alarm\nwhich has prevailed both at the South and at the North. There are none\nbut these defenders of slavery who maintain that it is a relation\njustifiable by the laws of the Gospel, who differ from Abolitionists in\nregard to the real thing which is meant. The great mistake of\nAbolitionists is in using terms which inculcate the immediate\nannihilation of the relation, when they only intend to urge the\nChristian duty of treating slaves according to the gospel rules of\njustice and benevolence, and using all lawful and appropriate means for\nbringing a most pernicious system to a speedy end.\n\nIf Abolitionists will only cease to teach that _all_ slave-holding is a\nsin which ought to be _immediately abolished_; if they will cease to\nurge their plan as one of _immediate emancipation_, and teach simply and\nexactly that which they do mean, much strife and misunderstanding will\ncease. But so long as they persevere in using these terms in a new and\npeculiar sense, which will always be misunderstood, they are guilty of a\nspecies of deception and accountable for the evils that follow.\n\nOne other instance of a similar misuse of terms may be mentioned. The\nword \"man-stealer\" has one peculiar signification, and it is no more\nsynonymous with \"slave-holder\" than it is with \"sheep-stealer.\" But\nAbolitionists show that a slave-holder, in fact, does very many of the\nevils that are perpetrated by a man-stealer, and that the crime is quite\nas evil in its nature, and very similar in character, and, therefore, he\ncalls a slave-holder a man-stealer.\n\nOn this principle there is no abusive language that may not be employed\nto render any man odious--for every man commits sin of some kind, and\nevery sin is like some other sin, in many respects, and in certain\naggravated cases, may be bad, or even worse, than another sin with a\nmuch more odious name. It is easy to show that a man who neglects all\nreligious duty is very much like an atheist, and if he has had great\nadvantages, and the atheist very few, he may be much more guilty than an\natheist. And so, half the respectable men in our religious communities,\nmay be called atheists, with as much propriety as a slave-holder can be\ncalled a man-stealer. Abolitionists have proceeded on this principle, in\ntheir various publications, until the terms of odium that have been\nshowered upon slave-holders, would form a large page in the vocabulary\nof Billingsgate. This method of dealing with those whom we wish to\nconvince and persuade, is as contrary to the dictates of common sense,\nas it is to the rules of good breeding and the laws of the gospel.\n\nThe preceding particulars are selected, as the evidence to be presented,\nthat the character and measures of the Abolition Society are neither\npeaceful nor Christian in their tendency; but that in their nature they\nare calculated to generate party-spirit, denunciation, recrimination,\nand angry passions. If such be the tendency of this institution, it\nfollows, that it is wrong for a Christian, or any lover of peace, to be\nconnected with it.\n\nThe assertion that Christianity itself has led to strife and contention,\nis not a safe method of evading this argument. Christianity is a system\nof _persuasion_, tending, by kind and gentle influences, to make men\n_willing_ to leave off their sins--and it comes, not to convince those\nwho are not sinners, but to sinners themselves.\n\nAbolitionism, on the contrary, is a system of _coercion_ by public\nopinion; and in its present operation, its influence is not to convince\nthe erring, but to convince those who are not guilty, of the sins of\nthose who are.\n\nAnother prominent peculiarity of the Abolitionists, (which is an\nobjection to joining this association,) is their advocacy of a\nprinciple, which is wrong and very pernicious in its tendency. I refer\nto their views in regard to what is called \"the doctrine of expediency.\"\nTheir difficulty on this subject seems to have arisen from want of a\nclear distinction between the duty of those who are guilty of sin, and\nthe duty of those who are aiming to turn men from their sins. The\nprinciple is assumed, that because certain men ought to abandon every\nsin immediately, therefore, certain other men are bound _immediately_ to\ntry and make them do it. Now the question of expediency does not relate\nto what men are bound to do, who are in the practice of sin\nthemselves--for the immediate relinquishment of sin is the duty of all;\nbut it relates to the duty of those who are to make efforts to induce\nothers to break off their wickedness.\n\nHere, the wisdom and rectitude of a given course, depend entirely on the\n_probabilities of success_. If a father has a son of a very peculiar\ntemperament, and he knows by observation, that the use of the rod will\nmake him more irritable and more liable to a certain fault, and that\nkind arguments, and tender measures will more probably accomplish the\ndesired object, it is a rule of expediency to try the most probable\ncourse. If a companion sees a friend committing a sin, and has, from\npast experience, learned that remonstrances excite anger and obstinacy,\nwhile a look of silent sorrow and disapprobation tends far more to\nprevent the evil, expediency and duty demand silence rather than\nremonstrance.\n\nThere are cases also, where differences in age, and station, and\ncharacter, forbid all interference to modify the conduct and character\nof others.\n\nA nursery maid may see that a father misgoverns his children, and\nill-treats his wife. But her station makes it inexpedient for her to\nturn reprover. It is a case where reproof would do no good, but only\nevil.\n\nSo in communities, the propriety and rectitude of measures can be\ndecided, not by the rules of duty that should govern those who are to\nrenounce sin, but by the probabilities of good or evil consequence.\n\nThe Abolitionists seem to lose sight of this distinction. They form\nvoluntary associations in free States, to convince their fellow\ncitizens of the sins of other men in other communities. They are blamed\nand opposed, because their measures are deemed inexpedient, and\ncalculated to increase, rather than diminish the evils to be cured.\n\nIn return, they show that slavery is a sin which ought to be abandoned\nimmediately, and seem to suppose that it follows as a correct inference,\nthat they themselves ought to engage in a system of agitation against\nit, and that it is needless for them to inquire whether preaching the\ntruth in the manner they propose, will increase or diminish the evil.\nThey assume that whenever sin is committed, not only ought the sinner\nimmediately to cease, but all his fellow-sinners are bound to take\nmeasures to make him cease, and to take measures, without any reference\nto the probabilities of success.\n\nThat this is a correct representation of the views of Abolitionists\ngenerally, is evident from their periodicals and conversation. All their\nremarks about preaching the truth and leaving consequences to God--all\ntheir depreciation of the doctrine of expediency, are rendered relevant\nonly by this supposition.\n\nThe impression made by their writings is, that God has made rules of\nduty; that all men are in all cases to remonstrate against the violation\nof those rules; and that God will take the responsibility of bringing\ngood out of this course; so that we ourselves are relieved from any\nnecessity of inquiring as to probable results.\n\nIf this be not the theory of duty adopted by this association, then they\nstand on common ground with those who oppose their measures, viz: that\nthe propriety and duty of a given course is to be decided by\n_probabilities as to its results_; and these probabilities are to be\ndetermined by the _known laws of mind_, and the _records of past\nexperience_.\n\nFor only one of two positions can be held. Either that it is the duty of\nall men to remonstrate at all times against all violations of duty, and\nleave the consequences with God; or else that men are to use their\njudgment, and take the part of remonstrance only at such a time and\nplace, and in such a manner, as promise the best results.\n\nThat the Abolitionists have not held the second of these positions, must\nbe obvious to all who have read their documents. It would therefore be\nunwise and wrong to join an association which sustains a principle false\nin itself, and one which, if acted out, would tend to wrath and strife\nand every evil word and work.\n\nAnother reason, and the most important of all, against promoting the\nplans of the Abolitionists, is involved in the main question--_what are\nthe probabilities as to the results of their movements?_ The only way to\njudge of the future results of certain measures is, by the known laws of\nmind, and the recorded experience of the past.\n\nNow what is the evil to be cured?\n\nSLAVERY IN THIS NATION.\n\nThat this evil is at no distant period to come to an end, is the\nunanimous opinion of all who either notice the tendencies of the age, or\nbelieve in the prophecies of the Bible. All who act on Christian\nprinciples in regard to slavery, believe that in a given period\n(variously estimated) it will end. The only question then, in regard to\nthe benefits to be gained, or the evils to be dreaded in the present\nagitation of the subject, relates to the _time_ and the _manner_ of its\nextinction. The Abolitionists claim that their method will bring it to\nan end in the shortest time, and in the safest and best way. Their\nopponents believe, that it will tend to bring it to an end, if at all,\nat the most distant period, and in the most dangerous way.\n\nAs neither party are gifted with prescience, and as the Deity has made\nno revelations as to the future results of any given measures, all the\nmeans of judging that remain to us, as before stated, are the laws of\nmind, and the records of the past.\n\nThe position then I would aim to establish is, that the method taken by\nthe Abolitionists is the one that, according to the laws of mind and\npast experience, is least likely to bring about the results they aim\nto accomplish. The general statement is this.\n\nThe object to be accomplished is:\n\nFirst. To convince a certain community, that they are in the practice of\na great sin, and\n\nSecondly. To make them willing to relinquish it.\n\nThe method taken to accomplish this is, by voluntary associations in a\nforeign community, seeking to excite public sentiment against the\nperpetrators of the evil; exhibiting the enormity of the crime in full\nmeasure, without palliation, excuse or sympathy, by means of periodicals\nand agents circulating, not in the community committing the sin, but in\nthat which does not practise it.\n\nNow that this method may, in conjunction with other causes, have an\ninfluence to bring slavery to an end, is not denied. But it is believed,\nand from the following considerations, that it is the least calculated\nto do the _good_, and that it involves the greatest evils.\n\nIt is a known law of mind first seen in the nursery and school,\nafterwards developed in society, that a person is least likely to judge\ncorrectly of truth, and least likely to yield to duty, when excited by\npassion.\n\nIt is a law of experience, that when wrong is done, if repentance and\nreformation are sought, then love and kindness, mingled with\nremonstrance, coming from one who has a _right_ to speak, are more\nsuccessful than rebuke and scorn from others who are not beloved, and\nwho are regarded as impertinent intruders.\n\nIn the nursery, if the child does wrong, the finger of scorn, the\ntaunting rebuke, or even the fair and deserved reproof of equals, will\nmake the young culprit only frown with rage, and perhaps repeat and\nincrease the injury. But the voice of maternal love, or even the gentle\nremonstrances of an elder sister, may bring tears of sorrow and\ncontrition.\n\nSo in society. Let a man's enemies, or those who have no interest in his\nwelfare, join to rebuke and rail at his offences, and no signs of\npenitence will be seen. But let the clergyman whom he respects and loves,\nor his bosom friend approach him, with kindness, forbearance and true\nsincerity, and all that is possible to human agency will be effected.\n\nIt is the maxim then of experience, that when men are to be turned from\nevils, and brought to repent and reform, those only should interfere who\nare most loved and respected, and who have the best right to approach\nthe offender. While on the other hand, rebuke from those who are deemed\nobtrusive and inimical, or even indifferent, will do more harm than\ngood.\n\nIt is another maxim of experience, that such dealings with the erring\nshould be in private, not in public. The moment a man is publicly\nrebuked, shame, anger, and pride of opinion, all combine to make him\ndefend his practice, and refuse either to own himself wrong, or to cease\nfrom his evil ways.\n\nThe Abolitionists have violated all these laws of mind and of\nexperience, in dealing with their southern brethren.\n\nTheir course has been most calculated to awaken anger, fear, pride,\nhatred, and all the passions most likely to blind the mind to truth, and\nmake it averse to duty.\n\nThey have not approached them with the spirit of love, courtesy, and\nforbearance.\n\nThey are not the persons who would be regarded by the South, as having\nany _right_ to interfere; and therefore, whether they have such right or\nnot, the probabilities of good are removed. For it is not only demanded\nfor the benefit of the offender, that there should really be a right,\nbut it is necessary that he should feel that there is such a right.\n\nIn dealing with their brethren, too, they have not tried silent,\nretired, private measures. It has been public denunciation of crime and\nshame in newspapers, addressed as it were to by-standers, in order to\narouse the guilty.\n\nIn reply to this, it has been urged, that men could not go to the\nSouth--that they would be murdered there--that the only way was, to\nconvince the North, and excite public odium against the sins of the\nSouth, and thus gradually conviction, repentance, and reformation would\nensue.\n\nHere is another case where men are to judge of their duty, by estimating\nprobabilities of future results; and it may first be observed, that it\ninvolves the principle of expediency, in just that form to which\nAbolitionists object.\n\nIt is allowed that the immediate abolition of slavery is to be produced\nby means of \"light and love,\" and yet it is maintained as right to\nwithdraw personally from the field of operation, because of\n_consequences_; because of the probable danger of approaching. \"If we go\nto the South, and present truth, argument, and entreaty, _we shall be\nslain_, and therefore we are not under obligation to go.\" If this\njustifies Abolitionists in their neglect of their offending brethren,\nbecause they fear evil results to themselves, it also justifies those\nwho refuse to act with Abolitionists in their measures, because they\nfear other evil results.\n\nBut what proof is there, that if the Abolitionists had taken another\nmethod, the one more in accordance with the laws of mind and the\ndictates of experience, that there would have been at the South all this\nviolence? Before the abolition movement commenced, both northern and\nsouthern men, expressed their views freely at the South. The dangers,\nevils, and mischiefs of slavery were exhibited and discussed even in the\nlegislative halls of more than one of the Southern States, and many\nminds were anxiously devising measures, to bring this evil to an end.\n\nNow let us look at some of the records of past experience. Clarkson was\nthe first person who devoted himself to the cause of Abolition in\nEngland. His object was to convince the people of England that they were\nguilty of a great impolicy, and great sin, in permitting the\nslave-trade. He was to meet the force of public sentiment, and power,\nand selfishness, and wealth, which sustained this traffic, in that\nnation. What were his measures? He did not go to Sweden, or Russia, or\nFrance, to awaken public sentiment against the sins of the English.--He\nbegan by first publishing an inquiry in England whether it was right to\nseize men, and make them slaves. He went unostentatiously to some of the\nbest and most pious men there, and endeavoured to interest them in the\ninquiry.\n\nThen he published an article on the impolicy of the slave-trade, showing\nits disadvantages. Then he collected information of the evils and\nenormities involved in the traffic, and went quietly around among those\nmost likely to be moved by motives of humanity and Christianity. In this\nmanner he toiled for more than fourteen years, slowly implanting the\nleaven among the good men, until he gained a noble band of patriots and\nChristians, with Wilberforce at their head.\n\nThe following extract from a memoir of Clarkson discloses the manner and\nspirit in which he commenced his enterprise, and toiled through to its\naccomplishment.\n\n\"In 1785 Dr. Peckhard, Vice-Chancellor of the University, deeply\nimpressed with the iniquity of the slave-trade, announced as a subject\nfor a Latin Dissertation to the Senior Bachelors of Arts: '_Anne liceat\ninvitos in servitutem dare?_' 'Is it right to make slaves of others\nagainst their will?' However benevolent the feelings of the\nVice-Chancellor, and however strong and clear the opinions he held on\nthe inhuman traffic, it is probable that he little thought that this\ndiscussion would secure for the object so dear to his own heart, efforts\nand advocacy equally enlightened and efficient, that should be\ncontinued, until his country had declared, not that the slave-trade\nonly, but that slavery itself should cease.\n\n\"Mr. Clarkson, having in the preceding year gained the first prize for\nthe Latin Dissertation, was naturally anxious to maintain his honourable\nposition; and no efforts were spared, during the few intervening weeks,\nin collecting information and evidence. Important facts were gained from\nAnthony Benezet's Historical Account of Guinea, which Mr. Clarkson\nhastened to London to purchase. Furnished with these and other valuable\ninformation, he commenced his difficult task. How it was accomplished,\nhe thus informs us.\n\n\"'No person,' he states,[1] 'can tell the severe trial which the writing\nof it proved to me. I had expected pleasure from the invention of the\narguments, from the arrangement of them, from the putting of them\ntogether, and from the thought, in the interim, that I was engaged in an\ninnocent contest for literary honour. But all my pleasure was damped by\nthe facts which were now continually before me. It was but one gloomy\nsubject from morning to night. In the day-time I was uneasy; in the\nnight I had little rest. I sometimes never closed my eyelids for grief.\nIt became now not so much a trial for academical reputation, as for the\nproduction of a work which might be useful to injured Africa. And\nkeeping this idea in my mind ever after the perusal of Benezet, I always\nslept with a candle in my room, that I might rise out of bed, and put\ndown such thoughts as might occur to me in the night, if I judged them\nvaluable, conceiving that no arguments of any moment should be lost in\nso great a cause. Having at length finished this painful task, I sent my\nEssay to the Vice-Chancellor, and soon afterwards found myself honoured,\nas before, with the first prize.\n\n    [1] History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade.\n\n\"'As it is usual to read these essays publicly in the senate-house soon\nafter the prize is adjudged, I was called to Cambridge for this purpose.\nI went, and performed my office. On returning, however, to London, the\nsubject of it almost wholly engrossed my thoughts. I became at times\nvery seriously affected while upon the road. I stopped my horse\noccasionally, and dismounted, and walked. I frequently tried to persuade\nmyself in these intervals that the contents of my Essay could not be\ntrue. The more, however, I reflected upon them, or rather upon the\nauthorities on which they were founded, the more I gave them credit.\nComing in sight of Wade's Mill, in Hertfordshire, I sat down\ndisconsolate on the turf by the road-side, and held my horse. Here a\nthought came into my mind, that if the contents of the Essay were true,\nit was time some person should see these calamities to their end.\nAgitated in this manner, I reached home. This was in the summer of 1785.\n\n\"'In the course of the autumn of the same year I experienced similar\nimpressions. I walked frequently into the woods, that I might think on\nthe subject in solitude, and find relief to my mind there. But there the\nquestion still recurred, 'Are these things true?' Still the answer\nfollowed as instantaneously,--'They are.' Still the result accompanied\nit; 'Then, surely, some person should interfere.' I then began to envy\nthose who had seats in parliament, and who had great riches, and widely\nextended connexions, which would enable them to take up this cause.\nFinding scarcely any one at that time who thought of it, I was turned\nfrequently to myself. But here many difficulties arose. It struck me,\namong others, that a young man of only twenty-four years of age could\nnot have that solid judgment, or knowledge of men, manners, and things,\nwhich were requisite to qualify him to undertake a task of such\nmagnitude and importance: and with whom was I to unite? I believed also,\nthat it looked so much like one of the feigned labours of Hercules, that\nmy understanding would be suspected if I proposed it. On ruminating,\nhowever, on the subject, I found one thing at least practicable, and\nthat this was also in my power. I could translate my Latin Dissertation.\nI could enlarge it usefully. I could see how the public received it, or\nhow far they were likely to favour any serious measures, which should\nhave a tendency to produce the abolition of the slave-trade. Upon this,\nthen, I determined; and in the middle of the month of November, 1785, I\nbegan my work.'\n\n\"Such is the characteristic and ingenuous account given by Clarkson of\nhis introduction to that work to which the energies of his life were\ndevoted, and in reference to which, and to the account whence the\nforegoing extract has been made, one of the most benevolent and gifted\nwriters of our country[2] has justly observed,--\n\n    [2] Coleridge.\n\n\"'This interesting tale is related, not by a descendant, but a\ncotemporary; not by a distant spectator, but by a participator of the\ncontest; and of all the many participators, by the man confessedly the\nmost efficient; the man whose unparalleled labours in this work of love\nand peril, leave on the mind of a reflecting reader the sublime doubt,\nwhich of the two will have been the greater final gain to the moral\nworld,--the removal of the evil, or the proof, thereby given, what\nmighty effects single good men may realize by self-devotion and\nperseverance.'\n\n\"When Mr. Clarkson went to London to publish his book, he was introduced\nto many friends of the cause of Abolition, who aided in giving it\nextensive circulation. Whilst thus employed, he received an invitation,\nwhich he accepted, to visit the Rev. James Ramsay, vicar of Teston, in\nKent, who had resided nineteen years in the island of St. Christopher.\n\n\"Shortly afterwards, dining one day at Sir Charles Middleton's,\n(afterwards Lord Barham,) the conversation turned upon the subject, and\nMr. Clarkson declared that he was ready to devote himself to the cause.\nThis avowal met with great encouragement from the company, and Sir C.\nMiddleton, then Comptroller to the Navy, offered every possible\nassistance. The friends of Mr. Clarkson increased, and this encouraged\nhim to proceed. Dr. Porteus, then Bishop of Chester, and Lord Scarsdale,\nwere secured in the House of Lords. Mr. Bennet Langton, and Dr. Baker,\nwho were acquainted with many members of both houses of parliament; the\nhonoured Granville Sharpe, James and Richard Phillips, could be depended\nupon, as well as the entire body of the Society of Friends, to many of\nwhom he had been introduced by Mr. Joseph Hancock, his fellow-townsman.\nSeeking information in every direction, Mr. Clarkson boarded a number of\nvessels engaged in the African trade, and obtained specimens of the\nnatural productions of the country. The beauty of the cloth made from\nAfrican cotton, &c. enhanced his estimate of the skill and ingenuity of\nthe people, and gave a fresh stimulus to his exertions on their behalf.\nHe next visited a slave-ship; the rooms below, the gratings above, and\nthe barricade across the deck, with the explanation of their uses,\nthough the sight of them filled him with sadness and horror, gave new\nenergy to all his movements. In his indefatigable endeavours to collect\nevidence and facts, he visited most of the sea-ports in the kingdom,\npursuing his great object with invincible ardour, although sometimes at\nthe peril of his life. The following circumstance, among others, evinces\nthe eminent degree in which he possessed that untiring perseverance, on\nwhich the success of a great enterprise often depends.\n\n\"Clarkson and his friends had reason to fear that slaves brought from\nthe interior of Africa by certain rivers, had been kidnapped; and it was\ndeemed of great importance to ascertain the fact. A friend one day\nmentioned to Mr. Clarkson, that he had, above twelve months before, seen\na sailor who had been up these rivers. The name of the sailor was\nunknown, and all the friend could say was, that he was going to, or\nbelonged to, some man-of-war in ordinary. The evidence of this\nindividual was important, and, aided by his friend Sir Charles\nMiddleton, who gave him permission to board all the ships of war in\nordinary, Mr. Clarkson commenced his search:--beginning at Deptford, he\nvisited successfully Woolwich, Chatham, Sheerness, and Portsmouth;\nexamining in his progress the different persons on board upwards of two\nhundred and sixty vessels, without discovering the object of his search.\nThe feelings under which the search was continued, and the success with\nwhich it was crowned, he has himself thus described:--\n\n\"'Matters now began to look rather disheartening,--I mean as far as my\ngrand object was concerned. There was but one other port left, and this\nwas between two and three hundred miles distant. I determined, however,\nto go to Plymouth. I had already been more successful in this tour, with\nrespect to obtaining general evidence, than in any other of the same\nlength; and the probability was, that as I should continue to move among\nthe same kind of people, my success would be in a similar proportion,\naccording to the number visited. These were great encouragements to me\nto proceed. At length I arrived at the place of my last hope. On my\nfirst day's expedition I boarded forty vessels, but found no one in\nthese who had been on the coast of Africa in the slave-trade. One or two\nhad been there in king's ships; but they never had been on shore. Things\nwere now drawing near to a close; and notwithstanding my success, as to\ngeneral evidence, in this journey, my heart began to beat. I was\nrestless and uneasy during the night. The next morning I felt agitated\nagain between the alternate pressure of hope and fear; and in this state\nI entered my boat. The fifty-seventh vessel I boarded was the Melampus\nfrigate.--One person belonging to it, on examining him in the captain's\ncabin, said he had been two voyages to Africa; and I had not long\ndiscoursed with him, before I found, to my inexpressible joy, that he\nwas the man. I found, too, that he unravelled the question in dispute\nprecisely as our inferences had determined it. He had been two\nexpeditions up the river Calabar, in the canoes of the natives. In the\nfirst of these they came within a certain distance of a village: they\nthen concealed themselves under the bushes, which hung over the water\nfrom the banks. In this position they remained during the day-light; but\nat night they went up to it armed, and seized all the inhabitants who\nhad not time to make their escape. They obtained forty-five persons in\nthis manner. In the second, they were out eight or nine days, when they\nmade a similar attempt, and with nearly similar success. They seized\nmen, women, and children, as they could find them in the huts. They then\nbound their arms, and drove them before them to the canoes. The name of\nthe person thus discovered on board of the Melampus was Isaac Parker. On\ninquiring into his character, from the master of the division, I found\nit highly respectable. I found also afterward that he had sailed with\nCaptain Cook, with great credit to himself, round the world. It was also\nremarkable, that my brother, on seeing him in London, when he went to\ndeliver his evidence, recognized him as having served on board the\nMonarch, man-of-war, and as one of the most exemplary men in that ship.'\n\n\"Mr. Clarkson became, early in his career, acquainted with Mr.\nWilberforce. At their first interview, the latter frankly stated, 'that\nthe subject had often employed his thoughts, and was near his heart,'\nand learning his visitor's intention to devote himself to this\nbenevolent object, congratulated him on his decision; desired to be made\nacquainted with his progress, expressing his willingness, in return, to\nafford every assistance in his power. In his intercourse with members of\nparliament, Mr. Clarkson was now frequently associated with Mr.\nWilberforce, who daily became more interested in the fate of Africa. The\nintercourse of the two philanthropists was mutually cordial and\nencouraging; Mr. Clarkson imparting his discoveries in the custom-houses\nof London, Liverpool, and other places; and Mr. Wilberforce\ncommunicating the information he had gained from those with whom he\nassociated.\n\n\"In 1788, Mr. Clarkson published his important work on the Impolicy of\nthe Slave-Trade.\n\n\"In 1789, this indefatigable man went to France, by the advice of the\nCommittee which he had been instrumental in forming two years before;\nMr. Wilberforce, always solicitous for the good of the oppressed\nAfricans, being of opinion that advantage might be taken of the\ncommotions in that country, to induce the leading persons there to take\nthe slave-trade into their consideration, and incorporate it among the\nabuses to be removed. Several of Mr. Clarkson's friends advised him to\ntravel by another name, as accounts had arrived in England of the\nexcesses which had taken place in Paris; but to this he could not\nconsent. On his arrival in that city he was speedily introduced to those\nwho were favourable to the great object of his life; and at the house of\nM. Necker dined with the six deputies of colour from St. Domingo,--who\nhad been sent to France at this juncture, to demand that the free people\nof colour in their country might be placed upon an equality with the\nwhites. Their communications to the English philanthropist were important\nand interesting; they hailed him as their friend, and were abundant in\ntheir commendations of his conduct.\n\n\"Copies of the Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave-Trade, translated into\nFrench, with engravings of the plan and section of a slave ship, were\ndistributed with apparent good effect. The virtuous Abbe Gregoire, and\nseveral members of the National Assembly, called upon Mr. Clarkson. The\nArchbishop of Aix was so struck with horror, when the plan of the slave\nship was shown to him, that he could scarcely speak; and Mirabeau ordered\na model of it in wood to be placed in his dining-room.\n\n\"The circulation of intelligence, although contributing to make many\nfriends, called forth the extraordinary exertions of enemies. Merchants,\nand others interested in the continuance of the slave-trade, wrote\nletters to the Archbishop of Aix, beseeching him not to ruin France;\nwhich they said he would inevitably do, if, as the president, he were\nto grant a day for hearing the question of the abolition. Offers of\nmoney were made to Mirabeau, if he would totally abandon his intended\nmotion. Books were circulated in opposition to Mr. Clarkson's; resort\nwas had to the public papers, and he was denounced as a spy. The clamour\nraised by these efforts pervaded all Paris, and reached the ears of the\nking. M. Necker had a long conversation with his royal master upon it,\nwho requested to see the Essay, and the specimens of African\nmanufactures, and bestowed considerable time upon them, being surprised\nat the state of the arts there. M. Necker did not exhibit the section of\nthe slave ship, thinking that as the king was indisposed, he might be\ntoo much affected by it. Louis returned the specimens, commissioning M.\nNecker to convey his thanks to Mr. Clarkson, and express his\ngratification at what he had seen.\n\n\"No decided benefit appears at this time to have followed the visit: but\nthough much depressed by his ill success in France, Mr. Clarkson\ncontinued his labours, till excess of exertion, joined to repeated and\nbitter disappointments, impaired his health, and, after a hard struggle,\nsubdued a constitution, naturally strong and vigorous beyond the lot of\nmen in general, but shattered by anxiety and fatigue, and the sad\nprobability, often forced upon his understanding, that all might at last\nhave been in vain. Under these feelings, he retired in 1794 to the\nbeautiful banks of Ulleswater; there to seek that rest which, without\nperil to his life, could no longer be delayed.\n\n\"For seven years he had maintained a correspondence with four hundred\npersons; he annually wrote a book upon the subject of the abolition, and\ntravelled more than thirty-five thousand miles in search of evidence,\nmaking a great part of these journeys in the night. 'All this time,' Mr.\nClarkson writes, 'my mind had been on the stretch; it had been bent too\nto this one subject; for I had not even leisure to attend to my own\nconcerns. The various instances of barbarity, which had come\nsuccessively to my knowledge within this period, had vexed, harassed,\nand afflicted it. The wound which these had produced was rendered still\ndeeper by the reiterated refusal of persons to give their testimony,\nafter I had travelled hundreds of miles in quest of them. But the\nseverest stroke was that inflicted by the persecution begun and pursued\nby persons interested in the continuance of the trade, of such witnesses\nas had been examined against them; and whom, on account of their\ndependent situation in life, it was most easy to oppress. As I had been\nthe means of bringing them forward on these occasions, they naturally\ncame to me, as the author of their miseries and their ruin.[3] These\ndifferent circumstances, by acting together, had at length brought me\ninto the situation just mentioned; and I was, therefore, obliged, though\nvery reluctantly, to be borne out of the field where I had placed the\ngreat honour and glory of my life.'\"\n\n    [3] The father of the late Samuel Whitbread, Esq., generously\n    undertook, in order to make Mr. Clarkson's mind easy upon the\n    subject, \"to make good all injuries which any individuals might\n    suffer from such persecution;\" and he honourably and nobly\n    fulfilled his engagement.\n\nIt was while thus recruiting the energies exhausted in the conflict,\nthat Clarkson, and the compatriot band with which he had been associated\nin the long and arduous struggle, were crowned with victory, and\nreceived the grateful reward of their honourable toil in the final\nabolition of the slave-trade by the British nation, in 1807, the last\nbut most glorious act of the Grenville administration.\n\nThe preceding shows something of the career of Clarkson while labouring\nto convince the people of Great Britain of the iniquity of _their own_\ntrade, a trade which they had the power to abolish. During all this\ntime, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and their associates avoided touching the\nmatter of _slavery_. They knew that one thing must be gained at a time,\nand they as a matter of expediency, avoided discussing the duty of the\nBritish nation in regard to the system of slavery in their Colonies\nwhich was entirely under their own control. During all the time that was\nemployed in efforts to end the slave-trade, slavery was existing in the\ncontrol of the British people, and yet Clarkson and Wilberforce decided\nthat it was right to let that matter entirely alone.\n\nThe following shows Clarkson's proceedings after the British nation had\nabolished the slave-trade.\n\n\"By the publication of his Thoughts on the Abolition of Slavery, Mr.\nClarkson showed that neither he nor those connected with him, considered\ntheir work as accomplished, when the laws of his country clasped with\nits felons those engaged in the nefarious traffic of slaves. But the\nefforts of Mr. Clarkson were not confined to his pen. In 1818, he\nproceeded to Aix la Chapelle, at the time when the sovereigns of Europe\nmet in congress. He was received with marked attention by the Emperor of\nRussia, who listened to his statements (respecting the _slave-trade_,)\nand promised to use his influence with the assembled monarchs, to secure\nthe entire suppression of the trade in human beings, as speedily as\npossible. Describing his interview with this amiable monarch, in which\nthe subject of peace societies, as well as the abolition of the\nslave-trade was discussed, Mr. Clarkson, in a letter to a friend, thus\nwrites:\n\n\"'It was about nine at night, when I was shown into the emperor's\napartment. I found him alone. He met me at the door, and shaking me by\nthe hand, said, 'I had the pleasure of making your acquaintance at\nParis.' He then led me some little way into the room, and leaving me\nthere, went forward and brought me a chair with his own hand, and\ndesired me to sit down. This being done, he went for another chair, and\nbringing it very near to mine, placed himself close to me, so that we\nsat opposite to each other.\n\n\"'I began the conversation by informing the emperor that as I supposed\nthe congress of Aix la Chapelle might possibly be the last congress of\nsovereigns for settling the affairs of Europe, its connexions and\ndependencies, I had availed myself of the kind permission he gave me at\nParis, of applying to him in behalf of the oppressed Africans, being\nunwilling to lose the last opportunity of rendering him serviceable to\nthe cause.\n\n\"'The emperor replied, that he had read both my letter and my address to\nthe sovereigns, and that what I asked him and the other sovereigns to\ndo, was only reasonable.\n\n\"'Here I repeated the two great propositions in the address--the\nnecessity of bringing the Portuguese time for continuing the trade\n(which did not expire till 1825, and then only with a condition,) down\nto the Spanish time, which expired in 1820; and secondly, when the two\ntimes should legally have expired, (that is, both of them in 1820,) then\nto make any farther continuance _piracy_. I entreated him not to be\ndeceived by any other propositions; for that Mr. Wilberforce, myself,\nand others, who had devoted our time to this subject, were sure that no\nother measure would be effectual.\n\n\"'He then said very feelingly in these words, 'By the providence of God,\nI and my kingdom have been saved from a merciless tyranny, (alluding to\nthe invasion of Napoleon,) and I should but ill repay the blessing, if I\nwere not to do every thing in my power to protect the poor Africans\nagainst their oppression also.'\n\n\"'The emperor then asked if he could do any thing else for our cause. I\ntold him he could; and that I should be greatly obliged to him if he\nwould present one of the addresses to the Emperor of Austria, and\nanother to the King of Prussia, _with his own hand_. I had brought two\nof them in my pocket for the purpose. He asked me why I had not\npresented them before. I replied that I had not the honour of knowing\neither of those sovereigns as I knew him; nor any of their ministers;\nand that I was not only fearful lest these addresses would not be\npresented to them, but even if they were, that coming into their hands\nwithout any recommendation, they would be laid aside and not read; on\nthe other hand, if he (the emperor,) would condescend to present them,\nI was sure they would be read, and that coming from him, they would come\nwith a weight of influence, which would secure an attention to their\ncontents. Upon this, the emperor promised, in the most kind and affable\nmanner, that he would perform the task I had assigned to him.\n\n\"'We then rose from our seats to inspect some articles of manufacture,\nwhich I had brought with me as a present to him, and which had been laid\nupon the table. We examined the articles in leather first, one by one,\nwith which he was uncommonly gratified. He said they exhibited not only\ngenius but taste. He inquired if they tanned their own leather, and how:\nI replied to his question. He said he had never seen neater work, either\nin Petersburg or in London. He then looked at a dagger and its scabbard\nor sheath. I said the sheath was intended as a further, but more\nbeautiful specimen of the work of the poor Africans in leather; and the\nblade of their dagger as a specimen of their work in iron. Their works\nin cotton next came under our notice. There was one piece which\nattracted his particular notice, and which was undoubtedly very\nbeautiful. It called from him this observation, 'Manchester,' said he,\n'I think is your great place for manufactures of this sort--do you think\nthey could make a better piece of cotton there?' I told him I had never\nseen a better piece of workmanship of the kind any where. Having gone\nover all the articles, the emperor desired me to inform him whether he\nwas to understand that these articles were made by the Africans in their\nown country, that is, in their native villages, or _after they had\narrived in America_, where they would have an opportunity of seeing\nEuropean manufactures, and experienced workmen in the arts? I replied\nthat such articles might be found in every African village, both on the\ncoast and in the interior, and that they were samples of their own\ningenuity, without any connexion with Europeans. 'Then,' said the\nemperor, 'you astonish me--you have given me a new idea of the state of\nthese poor people. I was not aware that they were so advanced in\nsociety. The works you have shown me are not the works of brutes--but of\nmen, endued with rational and intellectual powers, and capable of being\nbrought to as high a degree of proficiency as any other men. _Africa\nought to have a fair chance of raising her character in the scale of the\ncivilized world._' I replied that it was this cruel traffic alone, which\nhad prevented Africa from rising to a level with other nations; and that\nit was only astonishing to me that the natives there had, under its\nimpeding influence, arrived at the perfection which had displayed itself\nin the specimens of workmanship he had just seen.'\"\n\nAnimated by a growing conviction of the righteousness of the cause in\nwhich he was engaged, and encouraged by the success with which past\nendeavours had been crowned, Mr. Clarkson continued his efficient\nco-operation with the friends of Abolition, advocating its claims on all\nsuitable occasions.\n\nIt would be superfluous to recount the steps by which, even before the\nvenerated Wilberforce was called to his rest, this glorious event was\nrealized, and Clarkson beheld the great object of his own life, and\nthose with whom he had acted, triumphantly achieved. The gratitude\ncherished towards the Supreme Ruler for the boon thus secured to the\noppressed--the satisfaction which a review of past exertions afforded,\nwere heightened by the joyous sympathy of a large portion of his\ncountrymen.[4]\n\n    [4] This account of Clarkson, and the preceding one of Wilberforce,\n    are taken from the Christian Keepsake of 1836 and 1837.\n\nThe History of the Abolition of the Slave-trade, by Clarkson himself,\npresents a more detailed account of his own labours and of the labours\nof others, and whoever will read it, will observe the following\nparticulars in which this effort differed from the Abolition movement\nin America.\n\nIn the first place, it was conducted by some of the wisest and most\ntalented statesmen, as well as the most pious men, in the British\nnation. Pitt, Fox, and some of the highest of the nobility and bishops\nin England, were the firmest friends of the enterprise from the first.\nIt was conducted by men who had the intellect, knowledge, discretion,\nand wisdom demanded for so great an enterprise.\n\nSecondly. It was conducted slowly, peaceably, and by eminently judicious\ninfluences.\n\nThirdly. It included, to the full extent, the doctrine of expediency\ndenounced by Abolitionists.\n\nOne of the first decisions of the \"Committee for the Abolition of the\nSlave-trade,\" which conducted all Abolition movements, was that\n_slavery_ should not be attacked, but only the _slave-trade_; and\nClarkson expressly says, that it was owing to this, more than to any\nother measure, that success was gained.\n\nFourthly. Good men were not divided, and thrown into contending\nparties.--The opponents to the measure, were only those who were\npersonally interested in the perpetuation of slavery or the slave-trade.\n\nFifthly. This effort was one to convince men of their _own_ obligations,\nand not an effort to arouse public sentiment against the sinful\npractices of another community over which they had no control.\n\nI would now ask, why could not some southern gentleman, such for example\nas Mr. Birney, whose manners, education, character, and habits give him\nabundant facilities, have acted the part of Clarkson, and quietly have\ngone to work at the South, collecting facts, exhibiting the impolicy and\nthe evils, to good men at the South, by the fire-side of the planter,\nthe known home of hospitality and chivalry. Why could he not have\ncommenced with the most vulnerable point, the _domestic slave-trade_,\nleaving emancipation for a future and more favourable period? What right\nhas any one to say that there was no southern Wilberforce that would\nhave arisen, no southern Grant, Macaulay or Sharpe, who, like the\nEnglish philanthropists, would have stood the fierce beating of angry\nbillows, and by patience, kindness, arguments, facts, eloquence, and\nChristian love, convinced the skeptical, enlightened the ignorant,\nexcited the benevolent, and finally have carried the day at the South,\nby the same means and measures, as secured the event in England? All\nexperience is in favour of the method which the Abolitionists have\nrejected, because it involves _danger to themselves_. The cause they\nhave selected is one that stands alone.--No case parallel on earth can\nbe brought to sustain it, with probabilities of good results. No\ninstance can be found, where exciting the public sentiment of one\ncommunity against evil practices in another, was ever made the means of\neradicating those evils. All the laws of mind, all the records of\nexperience, go against the measures that Abolitionists have taken, and\nin favour of the one they have rejected. And when we look still farther\nahead, at results which time is to develope, how stand the probabilities,\nwhen we, in judging, again take, as data, the laws of mind and the\nrecords of experience?\n\nWhat are the plans, hopes, and expectations of Abolitionists, in\nreference to their measures? They are now labouring to make the North a\ngreat Abolition Society,--to convince every northern man that slavery at\nthe South is a great sin, and that it ought immediately to cease.\nSuppose they accomplish this to the extent they hope,--so far as we have\nseen, the more the North is convinced, the more firmly the South rejects\nthe light, and turns from the truth.\n\nWhile Abolition Societies did not exist, men could talk and write, at\nthe South, against the evils of slavery, and northern men had free\naccess and liberty of speech, both at the South and at the North. But\nnow all is changed. Every avenue of approach to the South is shut. No\npaper, pamphlet, or preacher, that touches on that topic, is admitted in\ntheir bounds. Their own citizens, that once laboured and remonstrated,\nare silenced; their own clergy, under the influence of the exasperated\nfeelings of their people, and their own sympathy and sense of wrong,\neither entirely hold their peace, or become the defenders of a system\nthey once lamented, and attempted to bring to an end. This is the record\nof experience as to the tendencies of Abolitionism, as thus far\ndeveloped. The South are now in just that state of high exasperation, at\nthe sense of wanton injury and impertinent interference, which makes the\ninfluence of truth and reason most useless and powerless.\n\nBut suppose the Abolitionists succeed, not only in making northern men\nAbolitionists, but also in sending a portion of light into the South,\nsuch as to form a body of Abolitionists there also. What is the thing\nthat is to be done to end slavery at the South? It is to _alter the\nlaws_, and to do this, a small minority must begin a long, bitter,\nterrible conflict with a powerful and exasperated majority. Now if, as\nthe Abolitionists hope, there will arise at the South such a minority,\nit will doubtless consist of men of religious and benevolent\nfeelings,--men of that humane, and generous, and upright spirit, that\nmost keenly feel the injuries inflicted on their fellow men. Suppose\nsuch a band of men begin their efforts, sustained by the northern\nAbolitionists, already so odious. How will the exasperated majority act,\naccording to the known laws of mind and of experience? Instead of\nlessening the evils of slavery, they will increase them. The more they\nare goaded by a sense of aggressive wrong without, or by fears of\ndangers within, the more they will restrain their slaves, and diminish\ntheir liberty, and increase their disabilities. They will make laws so\nunjust and oppressive, not only to slaves, but to their Abolitionist\nadvocates, that by degrees such men will withdraw from their bounds.\nLaws will be made expressly to harass them, and to render them so\nuncomfortable that they must withdraw. Then gradually the righteous will\nflee from the devoted city. Then the numerical proportion of whites will\ndecrease, and the cruelty and unrestrained wickedness of the system will\nincrease, till a period will come when the physical power will be so\nmuch with the blacks, their sense of suffering so increased, that the\nvolcano will burst,--insurrection and servile wars will begin. Oh, the\ncountless horrors of such a day! And will the South stand alone in that\nburning hour? When she sends forth the wailing of her agonies, shall not\nthe North and the West hear, and lift up together the voice of wo? Will\nnot fathers hear the cries of children, and brothers the cries of\nsisters? Will the terrors of insurrection sweep over the South, and no\nNorthern and Western blood be shed? Will the slaves be cut down, in such\na strife, when they raise the same paean song of liberty and human\nrights, that was the watchword of our redemption from far less dreadful\ntyranny, and which is now thrilling the nations and shaking monarchs on\ntheir thrones--will this be heard, and none of the sons of liberty be\nfound to appear on their side? This is no picture of fancied dangers,\nwhich are not near. The day has come, when already the feelings are so\nexcited on both sides, that I have heard intelligent men, good men,\nbenevolent and pious men, in moments of excitement, declare themselves\nready to take up the sword--some for the defence of the master, some for\nthe protection and right of the slave. It is my full conviction, that if\ninsurrection does burst forth, and there be the least prospect of\nsuccess to the cause of the slave, there will be men from the North and\nWest, standing breast to breast, with murderous weapons, in opposing\nranks.\n\nSuch apprehensions many would regard as needless, and exclaim against\nsuch melancholy predictions. But in a case where the whole point of\nduty and expediency turns upon the probabilities as to results, those\nprobabilities ought to be the chief subjects of inquiry. True, no one\nhas a right to say with confidence what will or what will not be; and it\nhas often amazed and disturbed my mind to perceive how men, with so\nsmall a field of vision,--with so little data for judging,--with so few\nyears, and so little experience, can pronounce concerning the results of\nmeasures bearing upon the complicated relations and duties of millions,\nand in a case where the wisest and best are dismayed and baffled. It\nsometimes has seemed to me that the prescience of Deity alone should\ndare to take such positions as are both carelessly assumed, and\npertinaciously defended, by the advocates of Abolitionism.\n\nBut if we are to judge of the wisdom or folly of any measures on this\nsubject, it must be with reference to future results. One course of\nmeasures, it is claimed, tends to perpetuate slavery, or to end it by\nscenes of terror and bloodshed. Another course tends to bring it to an\nend sooner, and by safe and peaceful influences. And the whole\ndiscussion of duty rests on these probabilities. But where do the laws\nof mind and experience oppose the terrific tendencies of Abolitionism\nthat have been portrayed? Are not the minds of men thrown into a\nferment, and excited by those passions which blind the reason, and warp\nthe moral sense? Is not the South in a state of high exasperation\nagainst Abolitionists? Does she not regard them as enemies, as reckless\nmadmen, as impertinent intermeddlers? Will the increase of their numbers\ntend to allay this exasperation? Will the appearance of a similar body\nin their own boundaries have any tendency to soothe? Will it not still\nmore alarm and exasperate? If a movement of a minority of such men\nattempt to alter the laws, are not the probabilities strong that still\nmore unjust and oppressive measures will be adopted?--measures that will\ntend to increase the hardships of the slave, and to drive out of the\ncommunity all humane, conscientious and pious men? As the evils and\ndangers increase, will not the alarm constantly diminish the proportion\nof whites, and make it more and more needful to increase such\ndisabilities and restraints as will chafe and inflame the blacks? When\nthis point is reached, will the blacks, knowing, as they will know, the\nsympathies of their Abolition friends, refrain from exerting their\nphysical power? _The Southampton insurrection occurred with far less\nchance of sympathy and success._\n\nIf that most horrible of all scourges, a servile war, breaks forth, will\nthe slaughter of fathers, sons, infants, and of aged,--will the cries of\nwives, daughters, sisters, and kindred, suffering barbarities worse than\ndeath, bring no fathers, brothers, and friends to their aid, from the\nNorth and West?\n\nAnd if the sympathies and indignation of freemen can already look such\nan event in the face, and feel that it would be the slave, rather than\nthe master, whom they would defend, what will be the probability, after\na few years' chafing shall have driven away the most christian and\nhumane from scenes of cruelty and inhumanity, which they could neither\nalleviate nor redress? I should like to see any data of past experience,\nthat will show that these results are not more probable than that the\nSouth will, by the system of means now urged upon her, finally be\nconvinced of her sins, and voluntarily bring the system of slavery to an\nend. I claim not that the predictions I present will be fulfilled. I\nonly say, that if Abolitionists go on as they propose, such results are\n_more_ probable than those they hope to attain.\n\nI have not here alluded to the probabilities of the severing of the\nUnion by the present mode of agitating the question. This may be one of\nthe results, and, if so, what are the probabilities for a Southern\nrepublic, that has torn itself off for the purpose of excluding foreign\ninterference, and for the purpose of perpetuating slavery? Can any\nAbolitionist suppose that, in such a state of things, the great cause of\nemancipation is as likely to progress favourably, as it was when we were\none nation, and mingling on those fraternal terms that existed before\nthe Abolition movement began?\n\nThe preceding are some of the reasons which, on the general view, I\nwould present as opposed to the proposal of forming Abolition Societies;\nand they apply equally to either sex. There are some others which seem\nto oppose peculiar objections to the action of females in the way you\nwould urge.\n\nTo appreciate more fully these objections, it will be necessary to recur\nto some general views in relation to the place woman is appointed to\nfill by the dispensations of heaven.\n\nIt has of late become quite fashionable in all benevolent efforts, to\nshower upon our sex an abundance of compliments, not only for what they\nhave done, but also for what they can do; and so injudicious and so\nfrequent, are these oblations, that while I feel an increasing respect\nfor my countrywomen, that their good sense has not been decoyed by these\nappeals to their vanity and ambition, I cannot but apprehend that there\nis some need of inquiry as to the just bounds of female influence, and\nthe times, places, and manner in which it can be appropriately exerted.\n\nIt is the grand feature of the Divine economy, that there should be\ndifferent stations of superiority and subordination, and it is\nimpossible to annihilate this beneficent and immutable law. On its first\nentrance into life, the child is a dependent on parental love, and of\nnecessity takes a place of subordination and obedience. As he advances\nin life these new relations of superiority and subordination multiply.\nThe teacher must be the superior in station, the pupil a subordinate.\nThe master of a family the superior, the domestic a subordinate--the\nruler a superior, the subject a subordinate. Nor do these relations at\nall depend upon superiority either in intellectual or moral worth.\nHowever weak the parents, or intelligent the child, there is no\nreference to this, in the immutable law. However incompetent the\nteacher, or superior the pupil, no alteration of station can be allowed.\nHowever unworthy the master or worthy the servant, while their mutual\nrelations continue, no change in station as to subordination can be\nallowed. In fulfilling the duties of these relations, true dignity\nconsists in conforming to all those relations that demand subordination,\nwith propriety and cheerfulness. When does a man, however high his\ncharacter or station, appear more interesting or dignified than when\nyielding reverence and deferential attentions to an aged parent, however\nweak and infirm? And the pupil, the servant, or the subject, all equally\nsustain their own claims to self-respect, and to the esteem of others,\nby equally sustaining the appropriate relations and duties of\nsubordination. In this arrangement of the duties of life, Heaven has\nappointed to one sex the superior, and to the other the subordinate\nstation, and this without any reference to the character or conduct of\neither. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is for the\ninterest of females, in all respects to conform to the duties of this\nrelation. And it is as much a duty as it is for the child to fulfil\nsimilar relations to parents, or subjects to rulers. But while woman\nholds a subordinate relation in society to the other sex, it is not\nbecause it was designed that her duties or her influence should be any\nthe less important, or all-pervading. But it was designed that the mode\nof gaining influence and of exercising power should be altogether\ndifferent and peculiar.\n\nIt is Christianity that has given to woman her true place in society.\nAnd it is the peculiar trait of Christianity alone that can sustain her\ntherein. \"Peace on earth and good will to men\" is the character of all\nthe rights and privileges, the influence, and the power of woman. A man\nmay act on society by the collision of intellect, in public debate; he\nmay urge his measures by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal\ninterest; he may coerce by the combination of public sentiment; he may\ndrive by physical force, and he does not outstep the boundaries of his\nsphere. But all the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to\nwoman, are those only which appeal to the kindly, generous, peaceful and\nbenevolent principles.\n\nWoman is to win every thing by peace and love; by making herself so\nmuch respected, esteemed and loved, that to yield to her opinions and to\ngratify her wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. But\nthis is to be all accomplished in the domestic and social circle. There\nlet every woman become so cultivated and refined in intellect, that her\ntaste and judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling and\naction, that her motives will be reverenced;--so unassuming and\nunambitious, that collision and competition will be banished;--so\n\"gentle and easy to be entreated,\" as that every heart will repose in\nher presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the sons, will find\nan influence thrown around them, to which they will yield not only\nwillingly but proudly. A man is never ashamed to own such influences,\nbut feels dignified and ennobled in acknowledging them. But the moment\nwoman begins to feel the promptings of ambition, or the thirst for\npower, her aegis of defence is gone. All the sacred protection of\nreligion, all the generous promptings of chivalry, all the poetry of\nromantic gallantry, depend upon woman's retaining her place as\ndependent and defenceless, and making no claims, and maintaining no\nright but what are the gifts of honour, rectitude and love.\n\nA woman may seek the aid of co-operation and combination among her own\nsex, to assist her in her appropriate offices of piety, charity,\nmaternal and domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws a woman\ninto the attitude of a combatant, either for herself or others--whatever\nbinds her in a party conflict--whatever obliges her in any way to exert\ncoercive influences, throws her out of her appropriate sphere. If these\ngeneral principles are correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan of\narraying females in any Abolition movement; because it enlists them in\nan effort to coerce the South by the public sentiment of the North;\nbecause it brings them forward as partisans in a conflict that has been\nbegun and carried forward by measures that are any thing rather than\npeaceful in their tendencies; because it draws them forth from their\nappropriate retirement, to expose themselves to the ungoverned violence\nof mobs, and to sneers and ridicule in public places; because it leads\nthem into the arena of political collision, not as peaceful mediators to\nhush the opposing elements, but as combatants to cheer up and carry\nforward the measures of strife.\n\nIf it is asked, \"May not woman appropriately come forward as a suppliant\nfor a portion of her sex who are bound in cruel bondage?\" It is replied,\nthat, the rectitude and propriety of any such measure, depend entirely\non its probable results. If petitions from females will operate to\nexasperate; if they will be deemed obtrusive, indecorous, and unwise, by\nthose to whom they are addressed; if they will increase, rather than\ndiminish the evil which it is wished to remove; if they will be the\nopening wedge, that will tend eventually to bring females as petitioners\nand partisans into every political measure that may tend to injure and\noppress their sex, in various parts of the nation, and under the various\npublic measures that may hereafter be enforced, then it is neither\nappropriate nor wise, nor right, for a woman to petition for the relief\nof oppressed females.\n\nThe case of Queen Esther is one often appealed to as a precedent. When a\nwoman is placed in similar circumstances, where death to herself and all\nher nation is one alternative, and there is nothing worse to fear, but\nsomething to hope as the other alternative, then she may safely follow\nsuch an example. But when a woman is asked to join an Abolition Society,\nor to put her name to a petition to congress, for the purpose of\ncontributing her measure of influence to keep up agitation in congress,\nto promote the excitement of the North against the iniquities of the\nSouth, to coerce the South by fear, shame, anger, and a sense of odium\nto do what she has determined not to do, the case of Queen Esther is not\nat all to be regarded as a suitable example for imitation.\n\nIn this country, petitions to congress, in reference to the official\nduties of legislators, seem, IN ALL CASES, to fall entirely without the\nsphere of female duty. Men are the proper persons to make appeals to\nthe rulers whom they appoint, and if their female friends, by arguments\nand persuasions, can induce them to petition, all the good that can be\ndone by such measures will be secured. But if females cannot influence\ntheir nearest friends, to urge forward a public measure in this way,\nthey surely are out of their place, in attempting to do it themselves.\n\nThere are some other considerations, which should make the American\nfemales peculiarly sensitive in reference to any measure, which should\neven _seem_ to draw them from their appropriate relations in society.\n\nIt is allowed by all reflecting minds, that the safety and happiness of\nthis nation depends upon having the _children_ educated, and not only\nintellectually, but morally and religiously. There are now nearly two\nmillions of children and adults in this country who cannot read, and who\nhave no schools of any kind. To give only a small supply of teachers to\nthese destitute children, who are generally where the population is\nsparse, will demand _thirty thousand teachers_; and _six thousand_ more\nwill be needed every year, barely to meet the increase of juvenile\npopulation. But if we allow that we need not reach this point, in order\nto save ourselves from that destruction which awaits a people, when\ngoverned by an ignorant and unprincipled democracy; if we can weather\nthe storms of democratic liberty with only one-third of our ignorant\nchildren properly educated, still we need _ten thousand_ teachers at\nthis moment, and an addition of _two thousand every year_. Where is this\narmy of teachers to be found? Is it at all probable that the other sex\nwill afford even a moderate portion of this supply? The field for\nenterprise and excitement in the political arena, in the arts, the\nsciences, the liberal professions, in agriculture, manufactures, and\ncommerce, is opening with such temptations, as never yet bore upon the\nmind of any nation. Will men turn aside from these high and exciting\nobjects to become the patient labourers in the school-room, and for only\nthe small pittance that rewards such toil? No, they will not do it. Men\nwill be educators in the college, in the high school, in some of the\nmost honourable and lucrative common schools, but the _children_, the\n_little children_ of this nation must, to a wide extent, be taught by\nfemales, or remain untaught. The drudgery of education, as it is now too\ngenerally regarded, in this country, will be given to the female hand.\nAnd as the value of education rises in the public mind, and the\nimportance of a teacher's office is more highly estimated, women will\nmore and more be furnished with those intellectual advantages which they\nneed to fit them for such duties.\n\nThe result will be, that America will be distinguished above all other\nnations, for well-educated females, and for the influence they will\nexert on the general interests of society. But if females, as they\napproach the other sex, in intellectual elevation, begin to claim, or to\nexercise in any manner, the peculiar prerogatives of that sex, education\nwill prove a doubtful and dangerous blessing. But this will never be the\nresult. For the more intelligent a woman becomes, the more she can\nappreciate the wisdom of that ordinance that appointed her subordinate\nstation, and the more her taste will conform to the graceful and\ndignified retirement and submission it involves.\n\nAn ignorant, a narrow-minded, or a stupid woman, cannot feel nor\nunderstand the rationality, the propriety, or the beauty of this\nrelation; and she it is, that will be most likely to carry her measures\nby tormenting, when she cannot please, or by petulant complaints or\nobtrusive interference, in matters which are out of her sphere, and\nwhich she cannot comprehend.\n\nAnd experience testifies to this result. By the concession of all\ntravellers, American females are distinguished above all others for\ntheir general intelligence, and yet they are complimented for their\nretiring modesty, virtue, and domestic faithfulness, while the other sex\nis as much distinguished for their respectful kindness and attentive\ngallantry. There is no other country where females have so much public\nrespect and kindness accorded to them as in America, by the concession\nof all travellers. And it will ever be so, while intellectual culture in\nthe female mind, is combined with the spirit of that religion which so\nstrongly enforces the appropriate duties of a woman's sphere.\n\nBut it may be asked, is there nothing to be done to bring this national\nsin of slavery to an end? Must the internal slave-trade, a trade now\nranked as piracy among all civilized nations, still prosper in our\nbounds? Must the very seat of our government stand as one of the chief\nslave-markets of the land; and must not Christian females open their\nlips, nor lift a finger, to bring such a shame and sin to an end?\n\nTo this it may be replied, that Christian females may, and can say and\ndo much to bring these evils to an end; and the present is a time and an\noccasion when it seems most desirable that they should know, and\nappreciate, and _exercise_ the power which they do possess for so\ndesirable an end.\n\nAnd in pointing out the methods of exerting female influence for this\nobject, I am inspired with great confidence, from the conviction that\nwhat will be suggested, is that which none will oppose, but all will\nallow to be not only practicable, but safe, suitable, and Christian.\n\nTo appreciate these suggestions, however, it is needful previously to\nconsider some particulars that exhibit the spirit of the age and the\ntendencies of our peculiar form of government.\n\nThe prominent principle, now in development, as indicating the spirit of\nthe age, is the perfect right of all men to entire freedom of opinion.\nBy this I do not mean that men are coming to think that \"it is no matter\nwhat a man believes, if he is only honest and sincere,\" or that they are\ngrowing any more lenient towards their fellow-men, for the evil\nconsequences they bring on themselves or on others for believing wrong.\n\nBut they are coming to adopt the maxim, that no man shall be forced by\npains and penalties to adopt the opinions of other minds, but that every\nman shall be free to form his own opinions, and to propagate them by\nall lawful means.\n\nAt the same time another right is claimed, which is of necessity\ninvolved in the preceding,--the right to oppose, by all lawful means,\nthe opinions and the practices of others, when they are deemed\npernicious either to individuals or to the community. _Facts_,\n_arguments_ and _persuasions_ are, by all, conceded to be lawful means\nto employ in propagating our own views, and in opposing the opinions and\npractices of others.\n\nThese fundamental principles of liberty have in all past ages been\nrestrained by coercive influences, either of civil or of ecclesiastical\npower. But in this nation, all such coercive influences, both of church\nand state, have ceased. Every man may think what he pleases about\ngovernment, or religion, or any thing else; he may propagate his\nopinions, he may controvert opposite opinions, and no magistrate or\necclesiastic can in any legal way restrain or punish.\n\nBut the form of our government is such, that every measure that bears\nupon the public or private interest of every citizen, is decided by\n_public sentiment_. All laws and regulations in civil, or religious, or\nsocial concerns, are decided by the _majority of votes_. And the present\nis a time when every doctrine, every principle, and every practice which\ninfluences the happiness of man, either in this, or in a future life, is\nunder discussion. The whole nation is thrown into parties about almost\nevery possible question, and every man is stimulated in his efforts to\npromote his own plans by the conviction that success depends entirely\nupon bringing his fellow citizens to think as he does. Hence every man\nis fierce in maintaining his own right of free discussion, his own right\nto propagate his opinions, and his own right to oppose, by all lawful\nmeans, the opinions that conflict with his own.\n\nBut the difficulty is, that a right which all men claim for themselves,\nwith the most sensitive and pertinacious inflexibility, they have not\nyet learned to accord to their fellow men, in cases where their own\ninterests are involved. Every man is saying, \"Let me have full liberty\nto propagate my opinions, and to oppose all that I deem wrong and\ninjurious, but let no man take this liberty with my opinions and\npractices. Every man may believe what he pleases, and propagate what he\npleases, provided he takes care not to attack any thing which belongs to\nme.\"\n\nAnd how do men exert themselves to restrain this corresponding right of\ntheir fellow men? Not by going to the magistrate to inform, or to the\nspiritual despot to obtain ecclesiastical penalties, but he resorts to\nmethods, which, if successful, are in effect the most severe pains and\npenalties that can restrain freedom of opinion.\n\nWhat is dearer to a man than _his character_, involving as it does, the\nesteem, respect and affection of friends, neighbours and society, with\nall the confidence, honour, trust and emolument that flow from general\nesteem? How sensitive is every man to any thing that depreciates his\nintellectual character! What torture, to be ridiculed or pitied for such\ndeficiencies! How cruel the suffering, when his moral delinquencies are\nheld up to public scorn and reprehension! Confiscation, stripes,\nchains, and even death itself, are often less dreaded.\n\nIt is this method of punishment to which men resort, to deter their\nfellow-men from exercising those rights of liberty which they so\ntenaciously claim for themselves. Examine now the methods adopted by\nalmost all who are engaged in the various conflicts of opinion in this\nnation, and you will find that there are certain measures which\ncombatants almost invariably employ.\n\nThey either attack the intellectual character of opponents, or they\nlabour to make them appear narrow-minded, illiberal and bigoted, or they\nimpeach their honesty and veracity, or they stigmatize their motives as\nmean, selfish, ambitious, or in some other respect unworthy and\ndegrading. Instead of truth, and evidence, and argument, personal\ndepreciation, sneers, insinuations, or open abuse, are the weapons\nemployed. This method of resisting freedom of opinions, by pains and\npenalties, arises in part from the natural selfishness of man, and in\npart from want of clear distinctions as to the rights and duties\ninvolved in freedom of opinion and freedom of speech.\n\nThe great fundamental principle that makes this matter clear, is this,\nthat a broad and invariable distinction should ever be preserved between\nthe _opinions_ and _practices_ that are discussed, and the _advocates_\nof these opinions and practices.\n\nIt is a sacred and imperious duty, that rests on every human being, to\nexert all his influence in opposing every thing that he believes is\ndangerous and wrong, and in sustaining all that he believes is safe and\nright. And in doing this, no compromise is to be made, in order to\nshield country, party, friends, or even self, from any just censure.\nEvery man is bound by duty to God and to his country, to lay his finger\non every false principle, or injurious practice, and boldly say, \"this\nis wrong--this is dangerous--this I will oppose with all my influence,\nwhoever it may be that advocates or practises it.\" And every man is\nbound to use his efforts to turn public sentiment against all that he\nbelieves to be wrong and injurious, either in regard to this life, or\nto the future world. And every man deserves to be respected and\napplauded, just in proportion as he fearlessly and impartially, and in a\n_proper spirit_, _time_ and _manner_, fulfils this duty.\n\nThe doctrine, just now alluded to, that it is \"no matter what a man\nbelieves, if he is only honest and sincere,\" is as pernicious, as it is\ncontrary to religion and to common sense. It is as absurd, and as\nimpracticable, as it would be to urge on the mariner the maxim, \"no\nmatter which way you believe to be north, if you only steer aright.\" A\nman's character, feelings, and conduct, all depend upon his opinions. If\na man can reason himself into the belief that it is right to take the\nproperty of others and to deceive by false statements, he will probably\nprove a thief and a liar. It is of the greatest concern, therefore, to\nevery man, that his fellow-men should _believe right_, and one of his\nmost sacred duties is to use all his influence to promote correct\nopinions.\n\nBut the performance of this duty, does by no means involve the necessity\nof attacking the character or motives of the _advocates_ of false\nopinions, or of holding them up, individually, to public odium.\n\nErroneous opinions are sometimes the consequence of unavoidable\nignorance, or of mental imbecility, or of a weak and erring judgment, or\nof false testimony from others, which cannot be rectified. In such\ncases, the advocates of false opinions are to be pitied rather than\nblamed; and while the opinions and their tendencies may be publicly\nexposed, the men may be objects of affection and kindness.\n\nIn other cases, erroneous opinions spring from criminal indifference,\nfrom prejudice, from indolence, from pride, from evil passions, or from\nselfish interest. In all such cases, men deserve blame for their\npernicious opinions, and the evils which flow from them.\n\nBut, it maybe asked, how are men to decide, when their fellow-men are\nguilty for holding wrong opinions; when they deserve blame, and when\nthey are to be regarded only with pity and commiseration by those who\nbelieve them to be in the wrong? Here, surely, is a place where some\ncorrect principle is greatly needed.\n\nIs every man to sit in judgment upon his fellow-man, and decide what are\nhis intellectual capacities, and what the measure of his judgment? Is\nevery man to take the office of the Searcher of Hearts, to try the\nfeelings and motives of his fellow-man? Is that most difficult of all\nanalysis, the estimating of the feelings, purposes, and motives, which\nevery man, who examines his own secret thoughts, finds to be so complex,\nso recondite, so intricate; is this to be the basis, not only of\nindividual opinion, but of public reward and censure? Is every man to\nconstitute himself a judge of the amount of time and interest given to\nthe proper investigation of truth by his fellow-man? Surely, this cannot\nbe a correct principle.\n\nThough there may be single cases in which we can know that our\nfellow-men are weak in intellect, or erring in judgment, or perverse in\nfeeling, or misled by passion, or biased by selfish interest, as a\ngeneral fact we are not competent to decide these matters, in regard to\nthose who differ from us in opinion.\n\nFor this reason it is manifestly wrong and irrelevant, when discussing\nquestions of duty or expediency, to bring before the public the\ncharacter or the motives of the individual advocates of opinions.\n\nBut, it may be urged, how can the evil tendencies of opinions or of\npractices be investigated, without involving a consideration of the\ncharacter and conduct of those who advocate them? To this it may be\nreplied, that the tendencies of opinions and practices can never be\nascertained by discussing individual character. It is _classes_ of\npersons, or large _communities_, embracing persons of all varieties of\ncharacter and circumstances, that are the only proper subjects of\ninvestigation for this object. For example, a community of Catholics,\nand a community of Protestants, may be compared, for the purpose of\nlearning the moral tendencies of their different opinions. Scotland and\nNew England, where the principles opposite to Catholicism have most\nprevailed, may properly be compared with Spain and Italy, where the\nCatholic system has been most fairly tried. But to select certain\nindividuals who are defenders of these two different systems, as\nexamples to illustrate their tendencies, would be as improper as it\nwould be to select a kernel of grain to prove the good or bad character\nof a whole crop.\n\nTo illustrate by a more particular example. The doctrines of the Atheist\nschool are now under discussion, and Robert Owen and Fanny Wright have\nbeen their prominent advocates.\n\nIn agreement with the above principles, it is a right, and the duty of\nevery man who has any influence and opportunity, to show the absurdity\nof their doctrines, the weakness of their arguments, and the fatal\ntendencies of their opinions. It is right to show that the _practical_\nadoption of their principles indicates a want of common sense, just as\nsowing the ocean with grain and expecting a crop would indicate the same\ndeficiency. If the advocates of these doctrines carry out their\nprinciples into practice, in any such way as to offend the taste, or\ninfringe on the rights of others, it is proper to express disgust and\ndisapprobation. If the female advocate chooses to come upon a stage, and\nexpose her person, dress, and elocution to public criticism, it is right\nto express disgust at whatever is offensive and indecorous, as it is to\ncriticize the book of an author, or the dancing of an actress, or any\nthing else that is presented to public observation. And it is right to\nmake all these things appear as odious and reprehensible to others as\nthey do to ourselves.\n\nBut what is the private character of Robert Owen or Fanny Wright?\nWhether they are ignorant or weak in intellect; whether they have\nproperly examined the sources of truth; how much they have been biased\nby pride, passion, or vice, in adopting their opinions; whether they are\nhonest and sincere in their belief; whether they are selfish or\nbenevolent in their aims, are not matters which in any way pertain to\nthe discussion. They are questions about which none are qualified to\njudge, except those in close and intimate communion with them. We may\ninquire with propriety as to the character of a _community_ of Atheists,\nor of a community where such sentiments extensively prevail, as compared\nwith a community of opposite sentiments. But the private character,\nfeelings, and motives of the individual advocates of these doctrines,\nare not proper subjects of investigation in any public discussion.\n\nIf, then, it be true, that attacks on the character and motives of the\nadvocates of opinions are entirely irrelevant and not at all necessary\nfor the discovery of truth; if injury inflicted on character is the most\nsevere penalty that can be employed to restrain freedom of opinions and\nfreedom of speech, what are we to say of the state of things in this\nnation?\n\nWhere is there a party which does not in effect say to every man, \"if\nyou dare to oppose the principles or practices we sustain, you shall be\npunished with personal odium?\" which does not say to every member of the\nparty, \"uphold your party, right or wrong; oppose all that is adverse to\nyour party, right or wrong, or else suffer the penalty of having your\nmotives, character, and conduct, impeached?\"\n\nLook first at the political arena. Where is the advocate of any measure\nthat does not suffer sneers, ridicule, contempt, and all that tends to\ndepreciate character in public estimation? Where is the partisan that is\nnot attacked, as either weak in intellect, or dishonest in principle, or\nselfish in motives? And where is the man who is linked with any\npolitical party, that dares to stand up fearlessly and defend what is\ngood in opposers, and reprove what is wrong in his own party?\n\nLook into the religious world. There, even those who take their party\nname from their professed liberality, are saying, \"whoever shall adopt\nprinciples that exclude us from the Christian church, and our clergy\nfrom the pulpit, shall be held up either as intellectually degraded, or\nas narrow-minded and bigoted, or as ambitious, partisan and persecuting\nin spirit. No man shall believe a creed that excludes us from the pale\nof Christianity, under penalty of all the odium we can inflict.\"\n\nSo in the Catholic controversy. Catholics and their friends practically\ndeclare war against all free discussion on this point. The decree has\ngone forth, that \"no man shall appear for the purpose of proving that\nCatholicism is contrary to Scripture, or immoral and anti-republican in\ntendency, under penalty of being denounced as a dupe, or a hypocrite, or\na persecutor, or a narrow-minded and prejudiced bigot.\"\n\nOn the contrary, those who attack what is called liberal Christianity,\nor who aim to oppose the progress of Catholicism, how often do they\nexhibit a severe and uncharitable spirit towards the individuals whose\nopinions they controvert. Instead of loving the men, and rendering to\nthem all the offices of Christian kindness, and according to them all\ndue credit for whatever is desirable in character and conduct, how often\ndo opposers seem to feel, that it will not answer to allow that there is\nany thing good, either in the system or in those who have adopted it.\n\"Every thing about my party is right, and every thing in the opposing\nparty is wrong,\" seems to be the universal maxim of the times. And it\nis the remark of some of the most intelligent foreign travellers among\nus, and of our own citizens who go abroad, that there is no country to\nbe found, where freedom of opinion, and freedom of speech is more really\ninfluenced and controlled by the fear of pains and penalties, than in\nthis land of boasted freedom. In other nations, the control is exercised\nby government, in respect to a very few matters; in this country it is\nparty-spirit that rules with an iron rod, and shakes its scorpion whips\nover every interest and every employment of man.\n\nFrom this mighty source spring constant detraction, gossiping,\ntale-bearing, falsehood, anger, pride, malice, revenge, and every evil\nword and work.\n\nEvery man sets himself up as the judge of the intellectual character,\nthe honesty, the sincerity, the feelings, opportunities, motives, and\nintentions, of his fellow-man. And so they fall upon each other, not\nwith swords and spears, but with the tongue, \"that unruly member, that\nsetteth on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire of hell.\"\n\nCan any person who seeks to maintain the peaceful, loving, and gentle\nspirit of Christianity, go out into the world at this day, without being\nbewildered at the endless conflicts, and grieved and dismayed at the\nbitter and unhallowed passions they engender? Can an honest, upright and\nChristian man, go into these conflicts, and with unflinching firmness\nstand up for all that is good, and oppose all that is evil, in whatever\nparty it may be found, without a measure of moral courage such as few\ncan command? And if he carries himself through with an unyielding\nintegrity, and maintains his consistency, is he not exposed to storms of\nbitter revilings, and to peltings from both parties between which he may\nstand?\n\nWhat is the end of these things to be? Must we give up free discussion,\nand again chain up the human mind under the despotism of past ages? No,\nthis will never be. God designs that every intelligent mind shall be\ngoverned, not by coercion, but by reason, and conscience, and truth.\nMan must reason, and experiment, and compare past and present results,\nand hear and know all that can be said on _both_ sides of every question\nwhich influences either private or public happiness, either for this\nlife or for the life to come.\n\nBut while this process is going on, must we be distracted and tortured\nby the baleful passions and wicked works that unrestrained party-spirit\nand ungoverned factions will bring upon us, under such a government as\nours? Must we rush on to disunion, and civil wars, and servile wars,\ntill all their train of horrors pass over us like devouring fire?\n\nThere is an influence that can avert these dangers--a spirit that can\nallay the storm--that can say to the troubled winds and waters, \"peace,\nbe still.\"\n\nIt is that spirit which is gentle and easy to be entreated, which\nthinketh no evil, which rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the\ntruth, which is not easily provoked, which hopeth all things, which\nbeareth all things. Let this spirit be infused into the mass of the\nnation, and then truth may be sought, defended, and propagated, and\nerror detected, and its evils exposed; and yet we may escape the evils\nthat now rage through this nation, and threaten us with such fiery\nplagues.\n\nAnd is there not a peculiar propriety in such an emergency, in looking\nfor the especial agency and assistance of females, who are shut out from\nthe many temptations that assail the other sex,--who are the appointed\nministers of all the gentler charities of life,--who are mingled\nthroughout the whole mass of the community,--who dwell in those\nretirements where only peace and love ought ever to enter,--whose\ncomfort, influence, and dearest blessings, all depend on preserving\npeace and good will among men?\n\nIn the present aspect of affairs among us, when everything seems to be\ntending to disunion and distraction, it surely has become the duty of\nevery female instantly to relinquish the attitude of a partisan, in\nevery matter of clashing interests, and to assume the office of a\nmediator, and an advocate of peace. And to do this, it is not necessary\nthat a woman should in any manner relinquish her opinion as to the\nevils or the benefits, the right or the wrong, of any principle or\npractice. But, while quietly holding her own opinions, and calmly\navowing them, when conscience and integrity make the duty imperative,\nevery female can employ her influence, not for the purpose of exciting\nor regulating public sentiment, but rather for the purpose of promoting\na spirit of candour, forbearance, charity, and peace.\n\nAnd there are certain prominent maxims which every woman can adopt as\npeculiarly belonging to her, as the advocate of charity and peace, and\nwhich it should be her especial office to illustrate, enforce, and\nsustain, by every method in her power.\n\nThe first is, that every person ought to be sustained, not only in the\nright of propagating his own opinions and practices, but in opposing all\nthose principles and practices which he deems erroneous. For there is no\nopinion which a man can propagate, that does not oppose some adverse\ninterest; and if a man must cease to advocate his own views of truth and\nrectitude, because he opposes the interest or prejudices of some other\nman or party, all freedom of opinion, of speech, and of action, is gone.\nAll that can be demanded is, that a man shall not resort to falsehood,\nfalse reasoning, or to attacks on character, in maintaining his own\nrights. If he states things which are false, it is right to show the\nfalsehood,--if he reasons falsely, it is right to point out his\nsophistry,--if he impeaches the character or motives of opponents, it is\nright to express disapprobation and disgust; but if he uses only facts,\narguments, and persuasions, he is to be honoured and sustained for all\nthe efforts he makes to uphold what he deems to be right, and to put\ndown what he believes to be wrong.\n\nAnother maxim, which is partially involved in the first, is, that every\nman ought to allow his own principles and practices to be freely\ndiscussed, with patience and magnanimity, and not to complain of\npersecution, or to attack the character or motives of those who claim\nthat he is in the wrong. If he is belied, if his character is impeached,\nif his motives are assailed, if his intellectual capabilities are made\nthe objects of sneers or commiseration, he has a right to complain, and\nto seek sympathy as an injured man; but no man is a consistent friend\nand defender of liberty of speech, who cannot bear to have his own\nprinciples and practices subjected to the same ordeal as he demands\nshould be imposed on others.\n\nAnother maxim of peace and charity is, that every man's own testimony is\nto be taken in regard to his motives, feelings, and intentions. Though\nwe may fear that a fellow-man is mistaken in his views of his own\nfeelings, or that he does not speak the truth, it is as contrary to the\nrules of good breeding as it is to the laws of Christianity, to assume\nor even insinuate that this is the case. If a man's word cannot be taken\nin regard to his own motives, feelings, and intentions, he can find no\nredress for the wrong that may be done to him. It is unjust and\nunreasonable in the extreme to take any other course than the one here\nurged.\n\nAnother most important maxim of candour and charity is, that when we are\nto assign motives for the conduct of our fellow-men, especially of\nthose who oppose our interests, we are obligated to put the best, rather\nthan the worst construction, on all they say and do. Instead of\nassigning the worst as the probable motive, it is always a duty to\n_hope_ that it is the best, until evidence is so unequivocal that there\nis no place for such a hope.\n\nAnother maxim of peace and charity respects the subject of\n_retaliation_. Whatever may be said respecting the literal construction\nof some of the rules of the gospel, no one can deny that they do,\nwhether figurative or not, forbid retaliation and revenge; that they do\nassume that men are not to be judges and executioners of their own\nwrongs; but that injuries are to be borne with meekness, and that\nretributive justice must be left to God, and to the laws. If a man\nstrikes, we are not to return the blow, but appeal to the laws. If a man\nuses abusive or invidious language, we are not to return railing for\nrailing. If a man impeaches our motives and attacks our character, we\nare not to return the evil. If a man sneers and ridicules, we are not to\nretaliate with ridicule and sneers. If a man reports our weaknesses and\nfailings, we are not to revenge ourselves by reporting his. No man has a\nright to report evil of others, except when the justification of the\ninnocent, or a regard for public or individual safety, demands it. This\nis the strict law of the gospel, inscribed in all its pages, and meeting\nin the face all those unchristian and indecent violations that now are\nso common, in almost every conflict of intellect or of interest.\n\nAnother most important maxim of peace and charity imposes the obligation\nto guard our fellow-men from all unnecessary temptation. We are taught\ndaily to pray, \"lead us not into temptation;\" and thus are admonished\nnot only to avoid all unnecessary temptation ourselves, but to save our\nfellow-men from the danger. Can we ask our Heavenly Parent to protect us\nfrom temptation, while we recklessly spread baits and snares for our\nfellow-men? No, we are bound in every measure to have a tender regard\nfor the weaknesses and liabilities of all around, and ever to be ready\nto yield even our just rights, when we can lawfully do it, rather than\nto tempt others to sin. The generous and high-minded Apostle declares,\n\"if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world\nstandeth;\" and it is the spirit of this maxim that every Christian ought\nto cultivate. There are no occasions when this maxim is more needed,\nthan when we wish to modify the opinions, or alter the practices of our\nfellow-men. If, in such cases, we find that the probabilities are, that\nany interference of ours will increase the power of temptation, and lead\nto greater evils than those we wish to remedy, we are bound to forbear.\nIf we find that one mode of attempting a measure will increase the power\nof temptation, and another will not involve this danger, we are bound to\ntake the safest course. In all cases we are obligated to be as careful\nto protect our fellow-men from temptation, as we are to watch and pray\nagainst it in regard to ourselves.\n\nAnother maxim of peace and charity requires a most scrupulous regard to\nthe reputation, character, and feelings of our fellow-men, and\nespecially of those who are opposed in any way to our wishes and\ninterests. Every man and every woman feels that it is wrong for others\nto propagate their faults and weakness through the community. Every one\nfeels wounded and injured to find that others are making his defects and\ninfirmities the subject of sneers and ridicule. And what, then, is the\nrule of duty? \"As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to\nthem.\" With this rule before his eyes and in his mind, can a man retail\nhis neighbour's faults, or sneer at his deficiencies, or ridicule his\ninfirmities, with a clear conscience? There are cases when the safety of\nindividuals, or public justice, demands that a man's defects of\ncharacter, or crimes, be made public; but no man is justified in\ncommunicating to others any evil respecting any of his fellow-men, when\nhe cannot appeal to God as his witness that he does it from benevolent\ninterest in the welfare of his fellow-men--from a desire to save\nindividuals or the public from some evil--and not from a malevolent or\ngossiping propensity. Oh, that this law of love and charity could find\nan illustration and an advocate in every female of this nation! Oh, that\nevery current slander, and every injurious report, might stand abashed,\nwhenever it meets the notice of a woman!\n\nThese are the maxims of peace and charity, which it is in the power of\nthe females of our country to advocate, both by example and by\nentreaties. These are the principles which alone can protect and\npreserve the right of free discussion, the freedom of speech, and\nliberty of the press. And with our form of government, and our\nliabilities to faction and party-spirit, the country will be safe and\nhappy only in proportion to the prevalence of these maxims among the\nmass of the community. There probably will never arrive a period in the\nhistory of this nation, when the influence of these principles will be\nmore needed, than the present. The question of slavery involves more\npecuniary interests, touches more private relations, involves more\nprejudices, is entwined with more sectional, party, and political\ninterests, than any other which can ever again arise. It is a matter\nwhich, if discussed and controlled without the influence of these\nprinciples of charity and peace, will shake this nation like an\nearthquake, and pour over us the volcanic waves of every terrific\npassion. The trembling earth, the low murmuring thunders, already\nadmonish us of our danger; and if females can exert any saving influence\nin this emergency, it is time for them to awake.\n\nAnd there are topics that they may urge upon the attention of their\nfriends, at least as matters worthy of serious consideration and\ninquiry.\n\nIs a woman surrounded by those who favour the Abolition measures? Can\nshe not with propriety urge such inquiries as these?\n\nIs not slavery to be brought to an end by free discussion, and is it not\na war upon the right of free discussion to impeach the motives and\ndepreciate the character of the opposers of Abolition measures? When the\nopposers of Abolition movements claim that they honestly and sincerely\nbelieve that these measures tend to perpetuate slavery, or to bring it\nto an end by servile wars, and civil disunion, and the most terrific\nmiseries--when they object to the use of their pulpits, to the embodying\nof literary students, to the agitation of the community, by Abolition\nagents--when they object to the circulation of such papers and tracts as\nAbolitionists prepare, because they believe them most pernicious in\ntheir influence and tendencies, is it not as much persecution to use\ninvidious insinuations, depreciating accusation and impeachment of\nmotive, in order to intimidate, as it is for the opposers of\nAbolitionism to use physical force? Is not the only method by which the\nSouth can be brought to relinquish slavery, a conviction that not only\nher _duty_, but her highest _interest_, requires her to do it? And is\nnot _calm, rational Christian_ discussion the only proper method of\nsecuring this end? Can a community that are thrown into such a state of\nhigh exasperation as now exists at the South, ever engage in such\ndiscussions, till the storm of excitement and passion is allayed? Ought\nnot every friend of liberty and of free discussion, to take every\npossible means to soothe exasperated feelings, and to avoid all those\noffensive peculiarities that in their nature tend to inflame and offend?\n\nIs a woman among those who oppose Abolition movements? She can urge such\ninquiries as these: Ought not Abolitionists to be treated as if they\nwere actuated by the motives of benevolence which they profess? Ought\nnot every patriot and every Christian to throw all his influence against\nthe impeachment of motives, the personal detraction, and the violent\nmeasures that are turned upon this body of men, who, however they may\nerr in judgment or in spirit, are among the most exemplary and\nbenevolent in the land? If Abolitionists are censurable for taking\nmeasures that exasperate rather than convince and persuade, are not\ntheir opponents, who take exactly the same measures to exasperate\nAbolitionists and their friends, as much to blame? If Abolitionism\nprospers by the abuse of its advocates, are not the authors of this\nabuse accountable for the increase of the very evils they deprecate?\n\nIt is the opinion of intelligent and well informed men, that a very\nlarge proportion of the best members of the Abolition party were placed\nthere, not by the arguments of Abolitionists, but by the abuse of their\nopposers. And I know some of the noblest minds that stand there, chiefly\nfrom the influence of those generous impulses that defend the injured\nand sustain the persecuted, while many others have joined these ranks\nfrom the impression that Abolitionism and the right of free discussion\nhave become identical interests. Although I cannot perceive why the\nright of free discussion, the right of petition, and other rights that\nhave become involved in this matter, cannot be sustained without joining\nan association that has sustained such injurious action and such\nerroneous principles, yet other minds, and those which are worthy of\nesteem, have been led to an opposite conclusion.\n\nThe South, in the moments of angry excitement, have made unreasonable\ndemands upon the non-slave-holding States, and have employed overbearing\nand provoking language. This has provoked re-action again at the North,\nand men, who heretofore were unexcited, are beginning to feel\nindignant, and to say, \"Let the Union be sundered.\" Thus anger begets\nanger, and unreasonable measures provoke equally unreasonable returns.\n\nBut when men, in moments of excitement rush on to such results, little\ndo they think of the momentous consequences that may follow. Suppose the\nSouth in her anger unites with Texas, and forms a Southern slave-holding\nrepublic, under all the exasperating influences that such an avulsion\nwill excite? What will be the prospects of the slave then, compared with\nwhat they are while we dwell together, united by all the ties of\nbrotherhood, and having free access to those whom we wish to convince\nand persuade?\n\nBut who can estimate the mischiefs that we must encounter while this\ndismemberment, this tearing asunder of the joints and members of the\nbody politic, is going on? What will be the commotion and dismay, when\nall our sources of wealth, prosperity, and comfort, are turned to\noccasions for angry and selfish strife?\n\nWhat agitation will ensue in individual States, when it is to be decided\nby majorities which State shall go to the North and which to the South,\nand when the discontented minority must either give up or fight! Who\nshall divide our public lands between contending factions? What shall be\ndone with our navy and all the various items of the nation's property?\nWhat shall be done when the post-office stops its steady movement to\ndivide its efforts among contending parties? What shall be done when\npublic credit staggers, when commerce furls her slackened sail, when\nproperty all over the nation changes its owners and relations? What\nshall be done with our canals and railways, now the bands of love to\nbind us, then the causes of contention and jealousy? What umpire will\nappear to settle all these questions of interest and strife, between\ncommunities thrown asunder by passion, pride, and mutual injury?\n\nIt is said that the American people, though heedless and sometimes\nreckless at the approach of danger, are endowed with a strong and\nlatent principle of common sense, which, when they fairly approach the\nprecipice, always brings them to a stand, and makes them as wise to\ndevise a remedy as they were rash in hastening to the danger. Are we not\napproaching the very verge of the precipice? Can we not already hear the\nroar of the waters below? Is not now the time, if ever, when our stern\nprinciples and sound common sense must wake to the rescue?\n\nCannot the South be a little more patient under the injurious action\nthat she feels she has suffered, and cease demanding those concessions\nfrom the North, that never will be made? For the North, though slower to\nmanifest feeling, is as sensitive to her right of freedom of speech, as\nthe South can be to her rights of property.\n\nCannot the North bear with some unreasonable action from the South, when\nit is remembered that, as the provocation came from the North, it is\nwise and Christian that the aggressive party should not so strictly\nhold their tempted brethren to the rules of right and reason?\n\nCannot the South bear in mind that at the North the colour of the skin\ndoes not take away the feeling of brotherhood, and though it is a badge\nof degradation in station and intellect, yet it is oftener regarded with\npity and sympathy than with contempt? Cannot the South remember their\ngenerous feelings for the Greeks and Poles, and imagine that some such\nfeelings may be awakened for the African race, among a people who do not\nbelieve either in the policy or the right of slavery?\n\nCannot the North remember how jealous every man feels of his domestic\nrelations and rights, and how sorely their Southern brethren are tried\nin these respects? How would the husbands and fathers at the North\nendure it, if Southern associations should be formed to bring forth to\nthe world the sins of Northern men, as husbands and fathers? What if the\nSouth should send to the North to collect all the sins and neglects of\nNorthern husbands and fathers, to retail them at the South in tracts\nand periodicals? What if the English nation should join in the outcry,\nand English females should send forth an agent, not indeed to visit the\noffending North, but to circulate at the South, denouncing all who did\nnot join in this crusade, as the defenders of bad husbands and bad\nfathers? How would Northern men conduct under such provocations? There\nis indeed a difference in the two cases, but it is not in the nature and\namount of irritating influence, for the Southerner feels the\ninterference of strangers to regulate his domestic duty to his servants,\nas much as the Northern man would feel the same interference in regard\nto his wife and children. Do not Northern men owe a debt of forbearance\nand sympathy toward their Southern brethren, who have been so sorely\ntried?\n\nIt is by urging these considerations, and by exhibiting and advocating\nthe principles of charity and peace, that females may exert a wise and\nappropriate influence, and one which will most certainly tend to bring\nto an end, not only slavery, but unnumbered other evils and wrongs. No\none can object to such an influence, but all parties will bid God speed\nto every woman who modestly, wisely and benevolently attempts it.\n\nI do not suppose that any Abolitionists are to be deterred by any thing\nI can offer, from prosecuting the course of measures they have adopted.\nThey doubtless will continue to agitate the subject, and to form\nvoluntary associations all over the land, in order to excite public\nsentiment at the North against the moral evils existing at the South.\nYet I cannot but hope that some considerations may have influence to\nmodify in a degree the spirit and measures of some who are included in\nthat party.\n\nAbolitionists are men who come before the public in the character of\n_reprovers_. That the gospel requires Christians sometimes to assume\nthis office, cannot be denied; but it does as unequivocally point out\nthose qualifications which alone can entitle a man to do it. And no man\nacts wisely or consistently, unless he can satisfy himself that he\npossesses the qualifications for this duty, before he assumes it.\n\nThe first of these qualifications is more than common exemption from the\nfaults that are reproved. The inspired interrogatory, \"thou therefore\nwhich teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?\" enforces this\nprinciple; and the maxim of common sense, that \"reprovers must have\nclean hands,\" is no less unequivocal. Abolitionists are reprovers for\nthe violation of duties in the domestic relations. Of course they are\nmen who are especially bound to be exemplary in the discharge of all\ntheir domestic duties. If a man cannot govern his temper and his tongue;\nif he inflicts that moral castigation on those who cross his will, which\nis more severe than physical stripes; if he is overbearing or exacting\nwith those under his control; if he cannot secure respect for a kind and\nfaithful discharge of all his social and relative duties, it is as\nunwise and improper for him to join an Abolition Society, as it would be\nfor a drunkard to preach temperance, or a slave-holder Abolitionism.\n\nAnother indispensable requisite for the office of reprover is a\ncharacter distinguished for humility and meekness. There is nothing more\ndifficult than to approach men for the purpose of convincing them of\ntheir own deficiencies and faults; and whoever attempts it in a\nself-complacent and dictatorial spirit, always does more evil than good.\nHowever exemplary a man may be in the sight of men, there is abundant\ncause for the exercise of humility. For a man is to judge of himself,\nnot by a comparison with other men, but as he stands before God, when\ncompared with a perfect law, and in reference to all his peculiar\nopportunities and restraints. Who is there that in this comparison,\ncannot find cause for the deepest humiliation? Who can go from the\npresence of Infinite Purity after such an investigation, to \"take his\nbrother by the throat?\" Who rather, should not go to a brother, who may\nhave sinned, with the deepest sympathy and love, as one who, amid\ngreater temptations and with fewer advantages, may be the least offender\nof the two? A man who goes with this spirit, has the best hope of doing\ngood to those who may offend. And yet even this spirit will not always\nsave a man from angry retort, vexatious insinuation, jealous suspicion,\nand the misconstruction of his motives. A reprover, therefore, if he\nwould avoid a quarrel and do the good he aims to secure, must be\npossessed of that meekness which can receive evil for good, with patient\nbenevolence. And a man is not fitted for the duties of a reprover, until\nhe can bring his feelings under this control.\n\nThe last, and not the least important requisite for a reprover, is\n_discretion_. This is no where so much needed as in cases where the\ndomestic relations are concerned, for here is the place above all\nothers, where men are most sensitive and unreasonable. There are none\nwho have more opportunities for learning this, than those who act as\nteachers, especially if they feel the responsibility of a Christian and\na friend, in regard to the moral interests of pupils. A teacher who\nshares with parents the responsibilities of educating their children,\nwhose efforts may all be rendered useless by parental influences at\nhome; who feels an affectionate interest in both parent and child, is\nsurely the one who might seem to have a right to seek, and a chance of\nsuccess in seeking, some modifications of domestic influences. And yet\nteachers will probably testify, that it is a most discouraging task, and\noften as likely to result in jealous alienation and the loss of\ninfluence over both parent and child, as in any good. It is one of the\ngreatest compliments that can be paid to the good sense and the good\nfeeling of a parent to dare to attempt any such measure. This may show\nhow much discretion, and tact, and delicacy, are needed by those who aim\nto rectify evils in the domestic relations of mankind.\n\nThe peculiar qualifications, then, which make it suitable for a man to\nbe an Abolitionist are, an exemplary discharge of all the domestic\nduties; humility, meekness, delicacy, tact, and discretion, and these\nshould especially be the distinctive traits of those who take the place\nof _leaders_ in devising measures.\n\nAnd in performing these difficult and self-denying duties, there are no\nmen who need more carefully to study the character and imitate the\nexample of the Redeemer of mankind. He, indeed, was the searcher of\nhearts, and those reproofs which were based on the perfect knowledge of\n\"all that is in man,\" we may not imitate. But we may imitate him, where\nhe with so much gentleness, patience, and pitying love, encountered the\nweakness, the rashness, the selfishness, the worldliness of men. When\nthe young man came with such self-complacency to ask what more he could\ndo, how kindly he was received, how gently convinced of his great\ndeficiency! When fire would have been called from heaven by his angry\nfollowers, how forbearing the rebuke! When denied and forsaken with\noaths and curses by one of his nearest friends, what was it but a look\nof pitying love that sent the disciple out so bitterly to weep? When, in\nhis last extremity of sorrow, his friends all fell asleep, how gently\nhe drew over them the mantle of love! Oh blessed Saviour, impart more of\nthy own spirit to those who profess to follow thee!\n\n\n                                THE END.\n\n\n    +------------------------------------------------------------------+\n    |Transcriber's Notes.                                              |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |The following changes were made to the original text (correction  |\n    |in brackets):                                                     |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page   3: to this request, MISS GRIMKE's(Grimke) Address was      |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page  19: associated CLARKSON, SHARPE, MACAULEY(Macaulay), and    |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page  44: (than) it is with \"sheep-stealer.\" But Abolitionists    |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page  53: Secondly,(.) To make them willing to relinquish         |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page  59: sustained this trafic(traffic), in that nation. What    |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page  71: visiter's(visitor's) intention to devote himself to this|\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page  77: Footnote 3: suffer from such persecution;(\") and he     |\n    |honourably and nobly                                              |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page  84: Mr. Clarkson continued his efficient                    |\n    |co-opetion(co-operation)                                          |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page 101: so benevolent in feeling and action;(,) that her        |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page 108: when she cannot please, or by petulent(petulant)        |\n    |complaints                                                        |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page 112: Every man is saying, \"let(Let) me have                  |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page 124: and prejudiced bigot.(\")                                |\n    |                                                                  |\n    |Page 134: tempation(temptation), and lead to greater evils than   |\n    +------------------------------------------------------------------+","title":"An Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism: With reference to the duty of American females","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":27021}