{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_32500/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_32500","id":"gutenberg_32500","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32500","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Slavery -- United States"],"text":"Produced by Juliet Sutherland and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                              DISCUSSION\n                                  ON\n                           AMERICAN SLAVERY,\n\n                                BETWEEN\n\n                        GEORGE THOMPSON, ESQ.,\n\n    AGENT OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN SOCIETY FOR THE ABOLITION OF\n                  SLAVERY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, AND\n\n                     REV. ROBERT J. BRECKINRIDGE,\n\n    DELEGATE FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH\n    IN THE UNITED STATES, TO THE CONGREGATIONAL UNION OF ENGLAND\n                              AND WALES:\n\n                            HOLDEN IN THE\n\n             REV. DR. WARDLAW'S CHAPEL, GLASGOW, SCOTLAND,\n\n  On the Evenings of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th of June, 1836,\n\n                           WITH AN APPENDIX.\n\n\n                       NEGRO UNIVERSITIES PRESS\n                               NEW YORK\n\n\n\n\n  Originally published in 1836\n  by Isaac Knapp, Boston\n\n  Reprinted from a copy in the collections\n  of the Brooklyn Public Library\n\n  Reprinted 1969 by\n  Negro Universities Press\n  A DIVISION OF GREENWOOD PRESS, INC.\n  NEW YORK\n\n  SBN 8371-2766-1\n\n  PRINTED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe following were the preliminary steps connected with the Discussion\nreported in the succeeding pages:--\n\nMr. BRECKINRIDGE'S Letter, expressing his willingness to meet Mr.\nTHOMPSON at Glasgow, was occasioned by the following passage in Mr.\nTHOMPSON'S Letter, which appeared in the _London Patriot_, in reply to\nthe extracts inserted in that Journal, from the work published by the\nRev. Drs. COX and HOBY, entitled, \"The Baptists in America\":--\n\n\"In the mean time, I am ready to meet Dr. COX in Exeter Hall, in his\nown chapel, or in any other building, to justify my charges against\nAmerica and American Ministers; my general policy in the Anti-Slavery\ncause, and any particular act of which Dr. COX complains. I am ready,\nalso, and anxious to meet any American Clergyman, or other gentleman,\nin any part of Great Britain, to discuss the general question, or the\npropriety of that interference, of which so much has been said by\npersons who are otherwise engaged, and most praiseworthily so, in\ninterfering with the institutions, social, political, and religious,\nof every _other_ quarter of the Globe.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nMR. THOMPSON'S CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.\n\n_To the Editor of the London Patriot._\n\nSIR,\n\nA friend in this city, with whom I have stopped for a day or two, on\nmy way to Scotland, has put into my hands your paper of the 23d inst.,\nwhich contains Mr. George Thompson's letter of the 13th, attacking Dr.\nCox.\n\nAs to the difficulties which exist between those two gentlemen, I, of\ncourse, have no right to speak.\n\nMr. Thompson, however, has not contented himself with urging a\nparticular controversy with Dr. Cox;--nor even a general controversy,\nfree for all who desire to engage him, or call in question his\n'charges against America, and American Ministers'--as slave-holding\nMinisters and Christians on the other side of the water. 'But,' says\nhe, 'I am ready, also, and anxious to meet any American clergyman, or\nother gentleman, in any part of Great Britain, to discuss the general\nquestion, &c.:' that is, the general question of his 'charges against\nAmerica and American ministers, touching the whole subject of African\nslavery in that country.'\n\nAFTER mature and prayerful consideration, and full consultation with a\nfew friends, I am not able to see how I can avoid taking notice of\nthis direct, and almost personal challenge; which, I have some reason\nto suspect, was probably intended for me.\n\nAND yet I feel myself encompassed by many difficulties. For some may\nconsider me defending the institution of slavery; whereas I myself\nbelieve it to be contrary to the spirit of the gospel, and the natural\nrights of men. Others might naturally look for more full proofs, and\nmore exact information than I can give, when relying almost entirely\nupon mere memory. While by far the greater part, I much fear, are as\nimpatient of all investigation on the subject, as, I am sorry to say,\nthey seem to me, totally unacquainted with its real condition in\nAmerica.\n\nI have concluded, however, to accept the somewhat boastful challenge\nof Mr. Thompson. And I trust the following suggestions and conditions\nwill be considered most reasonable, when the peculiar circumstances of\nthe case are considered:--\n\n1. I will meet Mr. Thompson at Glasgow, any time during the three\nfirst weeks of June; and spend three or four hours a day, for as many\ndays consecutively as may be necessary--in discussing the 'general\nquestion,' as involved in his 'charges against America, and American\nMinisters,' in reference to the whole subject of slavery there.\n\n2. BUT as my whole object is to get before the British churches\ncertain views and suggestions on this subject, which I firmly believe\nare indispensable, to prevent the total alienation of British and\nAmerican christians from each other; I shall not consider it necessary\nto commence the discussion at all, unless such arrangements are\npreviously made, as will secure the publication, in a cheap and\npermanent form, of all that is said and done on the occasion.\n\n3. I must insist on a patient and fair hearing, by responsible\npersons. Therefore I will agree that the audience shall consist of a\nselect number of gentlemen, say from fifty to five hundred; to be\nadmitted by ticket only,--and a committee previously agreed on to\ndistribute the tickets--only to respectable persons.\n\nI take it for granted that Mr. Thompson would himself prefer Glasgow\nto any other city, for the scene of this meeting: as it is the home of\nhis most active supporters. And while the selection of the particular\ntime of it cannot be important to him, my own previous arrangements\nare such, as to leave me no wider range than that proposed to his\nchoice above.\n\nMORE minute arrangements are left to the future; and they can, no\ndoubt, be easily made.\n\nI must ask the favour of an early insertion of this note, in the\n_Patriot_; and beg to say, through you, to the Editor of the _Glasgow\nChronicle_, that I shall feel obliged by its republication in his\npaper.\n\n                                         R. J. BRECKINRIDGE,\n\n                           A Delegate from the General Assembly of the\n                           Presbyterian Church of the U. S. America,\n                           to the Congregational Union of England and\n                           Wales.\n\n  Durham, May 28,1836.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW CHRONICLE.\n\n                                             London, June 1, 1836.\n\nSIR,\n\nI forward you, without a moment's delay, a copy of this evening's\n_Patriot_, containing a letter from the Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge,\nof Baltimore, United States. The following is my reply, which you will\noblige me by immediately inserting, in company with the communication\nto which it refers.\n\nI feel thankful that my overture has been accepted; and,\nnotwithstanding the arrangements I had made to remain in London during\nthe whole of the present month, and the announcement of my name in the\npublic advertisements to lecture during the forthcoming week, I shall,\nD. V. be in Glasgow on Tuesday next; and shall be ready to meet Mr.\nBreckinridge, in the Religious Institution House, South Frederick\nStreet, at noon of that day, to settle the preliminaries of the\ndiscussion, which, I trust, will commence the following morning.\n\nIt is my earnest hope, that every thing said and done, will be in\naccordance with gentlemanly feeling and christian courtesy.\n\n                                Your's respectfully,\n\n                                                  GEORGE THOMPSON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nThe Speeches and Documents in this Pamphlet having been submitted to\nthe correction of the Speakers, the Report may be relied on as an\naccurate and full account of the important proceedings.\n\n\n\n\nDISCUSSION.\n\n\n\n\nFIRST NIGHT--MONDAY JUNE 13.\n\n\nAgreeably to public advertisement, the discussion betwixt Mr. GEORGE\nTHOMPSON and the REV. R. J. BRECKINRIDGE, was opened Monday evening,\nJune 13. By half-past six, the hour fixed on by the Committee, Dr.\nWardlaw's Chapel contained 1,200 individuals, the number agreed\nupon by both parties. A great number could not gain admittance, in\nconsequence of the tickets allotted, being bought up on Saturday. On\nthe entrance of the two antagonists, accompanied by the Committee, the\naudience warmly cheered them. By appointment of the Committee--\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nREV. DR. WARDLAW took the Chair. Having thanked the Committee for the\nhonor they had conferred on him, and which, he trusted, would meet\nwith the concurrence of the meeting, he said he had accepted the\nhonorable post with the utmost confidence in the forbearance and\npropriety of conduct of the two gentlemen--or antagonists, should he\ncall them? who were to address the meeting; and also, with the most\nperfect confidence in the good conduct and sense of propriety\npossessed by the meeting. Had he not possessed such confidence, he\nwould never have thought of undertaking the present task. Had he\nimagined that the present meeting would give way to similar\nexpressions of feeling as had taken place within these walls on some\nformer occasions, he would at once have declined the task, as one for\nwhich he was totally unfit,--he was not fit to manage storms. The\nparties on the present occasion were different from those to whom they\nhad listened at the time to which he referred. One of them, it was\ntrue, was the same, and his character all of them knew. They knew his\nsentiments, his zeal, his eloquence, his devotedness to the great\ncause of which he was the fearless advocate. In reference to his\nopponent, on the present occasion, he would not dishonor that\ngentleman by naming him along with an individual who had stood before\nthem formerly in opposition to their eloquent friend. He felt it to be\nhis duty to introduce to them his friend--for he was allowed to call\nhim so--the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. That gentleman had come to this\ncountry, the accredited agent from the Presbyterian church--a large\nand influential body of Christians in America, to the congregational\nunion of England and Wales. It was proper that he should state to the\nmeeting that Mr. Breckinridge was no advocate of slavery--that he\nbelieved it to be opposed to the letter and spirit of the gospel, and\nas a proof how far he was in earnest in his professions in this\nmatter, he had freely parted with a patrimonial estate so far as it\nconsisted of slaves. (Cheers.) Having stated this, it might be further\nnecessary that he should mention what gave rise to the present\nmeeting. They were all aware, then, he said, that since his return\nfrom America, Mr. George Thompson had been lecturing in various parts\nof the kingdom. In the course of his labors he was accused of having\nbrought extravagant and unfounded charges against the American nation,\nand especially against the ministers of religion in that country. In\nconsequence of this, Mr. Thompson published a challenge in the Patriot\nnewspaper, in which he called upon any American minister to come\nforward and defend his brethren, if he were able, from the charges\nwhich he brought against them. This challenge, through the columns of\nthe same newspaper, had been accepted by Mr. Breckinridge, and now\nthey were here met to enter upon the discussion. The Chairman then\nread the regulations with regard to the conducting of the discussion\nwhich had been agreed upon by the Committee. In addition to what they\ncontained, he might add that the chairman was not to be considered\njudge of what was relevant or irrelevant, nor was the speaker to be\ninterrupted on any account. He would especially beg their serious\nattention to the rule requiring the entire suppression of every\nsymptom of approbation or disapprobation. He trusted that his\ninterference would not be required, but if it were he would feel\nhimself called upon by imperative duty to enforce this regulation with\nthe utmost strictness. Mr. Breckinridge had heard from some quarter or\nother very unfavorable accounts of the decorum of a Glasgow audience.\nHe hoped that their conduct on the present occasion would disabuse\nthat gentleman's mind of any unfavorable opinion he might entertain of\nthem on that score. In conclusion, he might repeat, that he placed the\nmost perfect reliance on the good sense and gentlemanly feeling of\nboth speakers. Let them both, then, be heard fairly. He solicited\nfavor for neither--he demanded justice for both.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. BRECKINRIDGE said, it was not easy to conceive of circumstances\nthat were more embarrassing than those in which he was placed this\nevening. They had already taken for granted all that had been said and\ndone on one side of the question; their minds had been already made up\nto oppose those conclusions to which it was his purpose to bring them.\nTheir affections and feelings had long been engaged to his opponent in\nthis cause; and all that he could say would necessarily have little\neffect in changing what he would not hesitate to call those unhappy\nopinions, which were long ago formed against him. Another cause of\nhis embarrassment was, that he would be rejudged of all he might say\nhere. What he said would be approved by one party in America, but\nwould be disapproved of by another. In the United States they were\ndifferently situated from what the people were in this country. Here\nthe people seemed now united on this subject, but in America they were\nsplit up into a great number of different parties, whose opinions and\nfeelings were arrayed against each other in as great a measure as it\nwas possible to conceive. Whatever, therefore, he might say in this\ncountry, would be disapproved of by many in the United States, while\nnothing was more certain than that, what was said by his opponent,\nwould the more commend him to his friends on the other side of the\nAtlantic; and nothing he could say would probably lower him in the\ngood opinion of his friends here. Hence arose the difficulty of the\nsituation in which he (Mr. B.) found himself placed, and his unusual\nclaim upon their patience in the course of the discussion. Still he\nshould be unworthy of his country, he should be forgetful of the power\nof truth, he would have little trust in God, if he was not ready to\nespouse the cause which he believed to be right; and more especially\nif he was not ready, before a Scotish and a Christian audience, to\ndefend the principles he adopted and avowed. He had no desire to\nattempt a mitigation of their hatred to slavery; and if, at a future\ntime, he should meet in America with any one now present, he would\nprove to them by the friendship of those who loved and respected him,\nand the opposition of those who did not, that he hated slavery as much\nas any one of those present could do. It was said by one of the\nancients, 'I am a man: I consider nothing that relates to man, foreign\nto me.' It was a true and noble sentiment. The fate of the most\nhopeless might be theirs if power could make it so; and their\ncondition might have been that of the poorest wretch on earth if God\nhad not smiled upon them and their ancestors as he had done. He did\nnot wish them to interfere with slavery in America. They might\ninterfere, but the question was, how were they to do so? He wished in\nthe course of the discussion to bring before them facts to show, that\nif they did at all interfere with slavery in America, it must be done\nas between individuals, not as a national question. That, whatever\nthey did, they do as Christians, not as communities. That they must\nnot, for a moment, look upon it as a question of rival power and\nglory, as a question between Great Britain and America. If they did so\nin the slightest degree, their chance of success was gone for ever. In\nthe prosecution of the question, they should not allow themselves to\nbe identified in their efforts with any party in America, in politics,\nin religion, or metaphysics; more especially, with a small and odious\nparty as they had done to a deplorable extent. They should not\nidentify themselves with a party so small as not to be able to obtain\ntheir object, and so erroneous as not to deserve success. Whatever\nthey did should be done meekly, and in the spirit of the gospel; they\nshould not press the principles of the gospel with the spirit of a\ndemon, but with all the sweetness and gentleness of the gospel of\npeace. These were the principles which he intended to endeavor to\nimpress upon their minds by details which he would adduce in the\ncourse of the discussion. It was nothing more than just to the\naudience that they should know, that they should understand it\ndistinctly, that as far as regarded his opponent, he neither was nor\ncould be any thing more to him or his countrymen than as an individual\nwho had identified himself with certain parties and principles in\nAmerica. Neither he nor the Americans could have any object in\nunderrating or overrating him. America could have no desire to raise\nhim up or to pull him down. It is not, it cannot be any thing to\nAmerica what any individual is, or may be, in the eyes of his own\ncountrymen. The King of England is known to America only as the King\nof Great Britain; if he ceased to be the King of that kingdom, he was\nto them no more than a common individual. Let it not be supposed that\neither he or America had any wish, even the most remote, to break down\nor injure the well earned or ill earned reputation of his opponent.\nThey looked upon him only with reference to his principles, and had no\npersonal motive on earth in reference to that gentleman. Let them not,\ntherefore, think that in any remarks he might make, or charges he\nmight bring forward, he had any intention of implicating his opponent\nas being solely responsible for these results. He called in question,\nnot the principles of a particular individual only, but those also of\na party in America, to whom he would have to answer when he returned\nto that country. Having said thus much, he would now proceed to the\nquestion before them, but would previously make a few preliminary\nremarks, which he thought necessary to enable them to come to a proper\nunderstanding of the subject. He did not think it necessary to trace\nthe progress of the great cause to the present moment. For forty years\nthey had suffered defeat after defeat--yet these defeats only\nstrengthened their cause, even in this country, till they had arrived\nat a given point. He would not wish to hurt the feelings of a single\nindividual now present, but he was sure he spoke the feelings of all\nin America, when he said that the great day of their power to do good,\nas a nation, was to be dated from the passing of the Reform Bill. From\nthat period, they started in a new career of action, both at home and\nabroad. The sending out of agents was one of the great lines of\noperation attempted upon the Americans. This the Americans complained\nof as having been done in an imprudent and impossible way, and sure to\nmeet with defeat. They have sent out agents to America who have\nreturned defeated. They admit they were not successful, though they\nsay they retreated only, that they were not defeated. They have\nfailed--they admit they have failed in their object. One of these\nagents on his return made certain statements as to the condition of\nthe slaves in America; and as to the state of the churches in the\nUnited States, which implicated not only the great body of Christian\nministers of the country, but the government, and the people of\nAmerica, except a small handful of individuals. If, as was admitted,\nthe number of pastors in America was twelve to fifteen thousand, and\nonly one thousand had embraced these views, were they anything but a\nsmall party? While yet the whole nation was denounced as wicked--and\nthe wrath of Heaven invoked against the country. It was only a very\nsmall handful that came in for a share of the praise of his opponent;\nand the sympathies here were invoked, on the assumption of principles\nwhich it was his object to prove false and unfounded. What could be\nthe cause of such an anomaly? that those principles which are said to\nbe loved and admired here, are repudiated there to the extremity of\npertinacious obstinacy? This cause it would be his duty to point out;\nfirst, he would say what perhaps no one would believe, that the\nquestion of American slavery, is in its name not only unjust, but\nabsurd. There was, properly speaking, no such thing as American\nslavery. It was absurd to talk of American slavery, except in so far\nas it applied to the sentiments of what was the minority, although he\nwould say a large minority, which tolerated slavery. It was not an\nAmerican question. In America there were twenty-four separate\nrepublics; of these, twelve had no slaves, and twelve of them\ntolerated slavery. Two new states had recently been added to the\nUnion, and God speed the day when others would be added, till the\nwhole continent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific was included in\nunion, carrying with the union, Liberty and Independence. Of the two\nstates which were lately added, one was a slave state and the other\nfree. Of the twelve free, independent, sovereign states of America to\nwhich he had alluded--one, Massachusetts, had, for a longer time than\nhis opponent had lived, not tolerated slavery. There were no slaves in\nMassachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire,\nMaine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois,\nand in four of them there never had been a slave. Eight of them, of\ntheir own free will and choice, abolished slavery without money and\nwithout price. By the influence of the Spirit of God, and the\ninfluence of divine truth, they had totally abolished slavery. Of the\ntwelve states, at least four, Ohio, with a million of inhabitants,\nIndiana, Illinois, and Maine, never had a slave. Since 1785 till this\nhour, there had not been one slave in any of these states. These\ntwelve either never had slaves or had abolished slavery without any\nremuneration. These states contain seven million out of the eleven\nmillion of the white population of the Union, and nearly two-thirds of\nthe territorial extent of the republic as now peopled. And when we\nremember that they have stood as they now do for the last twenty\nyears, as it was now more than twenty years since slavery was\nabolished, how could they be charged with the responsibility of the\nexistence of slavery in other states, or be charged with fostering\nslavery which they were the first people upon earth to abolish, and\nthe first to unite with other nations in putting down the slave trade\nas piracy. This he was aware would be denied; but though Wilberforce\nhad labored in the cause for twenty years, the American constitution\nhad fixed a limited time for the abolition of the slave trade, and the\nmoment the twenty years had elapsed, the Congress did abolish it; and\nthis was in the same month, and some days before the Abolition Bill\nhad passed through Parliament. Thus, America was the first nation on\nearth which had abolished the slave trade, and made it piracy. If we\njudge by the number of republics which tolerate no slavery--if we\njudge by the number of American citizens who abhor slavery, it will be\nfound not to be an American question, but one applicable only to a\nsmall portion of the nation. If he wished to prove that the British\nwere idolaters, he could point to millions of idolaters in India,\nunder the British Government, for every one in America who approved of\nslavery. If he wished to prove the British to be Catholics, and\nworshippers of the Virgin Mary, he could point to the west of Ireland,\nwhere were one thousand worshippers of the Virgin Mary for every one\nin America who did not wish slavery abolished. If he were to return to\nAmerica, and get up public meetings, and address them about British\nidolatry, because the Indians were Idolaters, or on British\nCatholicism, because many of the Irish worshipped the Virgin Mary,\nwould not the world at once see the absurdity and maliciousness of the\ncharge; and if he heaped upon Britain every libellous epithet he could\ninvent--if he got the wise, the good, and the fair, to applaud him,\nwould not the world see at once the grossness of the absurdity. And\nwhere, then, lay the difference? The United States Government have no\npower to abolish slavery in South Carolina--Britain can abolish\nidolatry throughout its dominions. It was absurd to say it was an\nAmerican question. America, as a nation, was not responsible, either\nin the sight of God or man, for the existence of slavery within\ncertain portions of the Union. As a nation, it had done every thing\nwithin its power. The half hour having now expired, Mr. B. sat down;\nand\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. THOMPSON rose. He said he did not stand on the platform this\nevening to explain to them his views in reference to slavery. He would\noccupy no portion of their time by an exposition of any of the\nprinciples or views entertained by himself on the subject of slavery\nas it has existed in our own dependencies, or as it exists in America\nat the present moment, or in other portions of the globe. He stood\nthere to justify that policy which in a distant land he had deemed it\nright to pursue; he stood there to justify the policy which had been\nadopted and pursued, and was still pursued by certain individuals in\nthe United States, whether many or few, whether a handful or a\nmultitude, who were known by the name of the abolitionists of the\nUnited States of America. He stood there to justify himself and them\nin the act of fearlessly, constantly, unceasingly, and universally, to\nevery class and color on the face of the habitable globe, enunciating\nthe great principles of equal justice and equal rights--of enunciating\nthis great truth that slaveholding is a crime in the sight of God, and\nshould be immediately and totally abolished. That God had in no\ninstance given to man a discretionary power to hold property in his\nfellow-man; that instant emancipation was the right of the slave; that\ninstant manumission was the duty of the master. That no government had\na right to keep a single soul in slavery; that no nation had authority\nto permit slavery, let that nation exist where it may; if professing\nto be a Christian nation, so much the more atrocious was their\nwickedness. The nation which permitted the keeping in slavery of God's\ncreatures, which allowed the traffic in human beings for 400 pieces of\nsilver, even in the capital itself, was not entitled to be called a\nchristian nation, and if professing to be a christian nation, so much\nthe more pre-eminently wicked and infamous was the nation. By that act\nthat infamous, wicked nation violated every christian feeling, and was\nworthy of being exposed to the scorn and derision of every nation\nunder heaven, christian or pagan. This was a most momentous question,\nand he spoke strongly upon it, but he spoke advisedly. He did not\nspeak angrily, but he did and must speak warmly on the subject of\nSlavery. He could not talk of millions of men and women, each of whom\nwas endowed with a soul which was precious in the sight of God--each\nof whom was endowed with that principle which out-valued worlds--he\ncould not speak of such, registered with the brutes, with calm\nunconcern, or classed with chattels, and be calm--if he could do so,\nhe should be ready with these nails to open his breast, and tear\ntherefrom a heart which would be unworthy of a man. He could and would\nspeak calmly on other topics, but this was a subject which required\nenergy, unceasing energy, till the evil was removed from the face of\nthe earth, till all the kingdoms of the world had become the kingdoms\nof our God, and of his Christ. He was thankful for the present\nopportunity which had been afforded him of entering into this\ndiscussion; he was thankful that his opponent, for so it seemed he\nmust be called, was an American, that he was a christian minister,\nthat he was an opponent of slavery, that he brought to the question\nbefore them, talent, learning, patriotism, and christian feeling. Such\nan opponent he respected and wished the audience to respect. He would\nask them to cherish his person, to respect his opinions, to weigh his\narguments, to test his facts, and if they were just and righteous, to\nadopt his principles. If he (Mr. T.) knew the strongest expression he\nhad ever used regarding America, he would use it to-night; if he knew\nin what recess of his heart his worst wish towards America was\ndeposited he would drag it forth to the light, that his opponent might\ngrapple with it in their presence. He would not soften down any of\nhis language; he would not sugar over his words, he would not abate\none iota of what he had ever said in reference to the wickedness of\nAmerica on former occasions. Let his opponent weigh every syllable he\n(Mr. T.) had uttered, every statement he had ever made, every charge\nhe had ever brought against his country or against his cloth, and if\nhe found that he had exaggerated facts or stated what was not true, he\nwould be glad to be shown it. He was there before them and his\nopponent to search after the truth, truth which would outlive Mr.\nBreckinridge--truth which would outlive Geo. Thompson--truth which was\nfar more valuable than the proudest victory--truth which was\ninvaluable to both--and let the truth stand out during the discussion\nwhich might follow; and when they had found out the truth, if they saw\nanything which had to be taken back--anything to be given up--anything\nfor which to be sorry, he would try to outstrip his opponent in his\nreadiness to retract what was wrong, to yield what was untenable, and\nto express his sorrow before God and the audience for what he had\nundeservedly said of America. With regard to the feelings he\nentertained towards the Americans, he need only refer to the last\nletter he had published to the American people, from which he would\nread a passage to show the feelings he entertained towards that\ncountry, as well as to those of her citizens who might reach these\nshores from America. Mr. Thompson then read the following passages:--\n\n    I love America, because her sons, though my persecutors, are\n    immortal--because 'they know not what they do,' or if\n    enlightened and wilful, are so much the more to be pitied and\n    cared for. I love America, because of the many affectionate\n    friends I have found upon her shores, by whom I have been\n    cherished, refreshed and strengthened; and upon whose regard\n    I place an incalculable value. I love America, for there\n    dwells the fettered slave--fettered and darkened, and\n    degraded now, but soon to spring into light and liberty, and\n    rank on earth, as he is ranked in heaven, 'but a little lower\n    than the angels.' I love America, because of the many mighty\n    and magnificent enterprises in which she has embarked for the\n    salvation of the world. I love her rising spires, her\n    peaceful villages, and her multiplied means of moral,\n    literary, and religious improvement. I love her hardy sons,\n    the tenants of her vallies and her mountains green. I love\n    her native children of the forest, still roaming, untutored\n    and untamed, in the unsubdued wildernesses of the 'far west.'\n    I love your country, because it is the theatre of the\n    sublimest contest now waging with darkness and despotism, and\n    misery on the face of the globe; and because your country is\n    ordained to be the scene of a triumph, as holy in its\n    character and as glorious in its results, as any ever\n    achieved through the instrumentality of men.\n\n    But though my soul yearns over America, and I desire nothing\n    more eagerly than to see her stand forth among the nations of\n    the world, unsullied in reputation, and omnipotent in energy,\n    yet shall I, if spared, deem it my duty to publish aloud her\n    wide and fearful departures from rectitude and mercy. I shall\n    unceasingly proclaim the wrongs of her enslaved children;\n    and, while she continues to 'traffic in the souls of men,'\n    brand her as recreant to the great principles of her\n    revolutionary struggle, and hypocritical in all her\n    professions of attachment to the cause of human rights.\n\n    I thank God, I cherish no feelings of bitterness or revenge,\n    towards any individual in America, my most inveterate enemy\n    not excepted. Should the sea on which I am about to embark\n    receive me ere I gain my native shore--should this be the\n    last letter I ever address to the people of America, Heaven\n    bears me witness, I with truth and sincerity affirm that, as\n    I look to be freely forgiven, so freely do I forgive my\n    persecutors and slanderers and pray--'Lord lay not this sin\n    to their charge.'\n\nIn another part of the same letter he had thus expressed himself:--\n\n    Should a kind providence place me again upon the soil of my\n    birth, and when there, should any American (and I hope many\n    will) visit that soil to plead the cause of virtue and\n    philanthropy, and strive in love to provoke us to good works,\n    let him know that there will be one man who will uphold his\n    right to liberty of speech, one man who will publicly and\n    privately assert and maintain the divinity of his commission\n    to attack sin and alleviate suffering, in every form, in\n    every latitude, and under whatever sanction and authorities\n    it may be cloaked and guarded. And coming on such an errand,\n    I think I may pledge myself in behalf of my country, that he\n    shall not be driven with a wife and little ones, from the\n    door of a hotel in less than 36 hours after he first breathes\n    our air--that he shall not be denounced as an incendiary, a\n    fanatic, an emissary, an enemy, and a traitor--that he shall\n    not be assailed with oaths and missiles, while proclaiming\n    from the pulpit in the house of God, on the evening of a\n    Christian Sabbath, the doctrines of 'judgment, justice, and\n    mercy,'--that he shall not be threatened, wherever he goes,\n    with 'tar and feathers'--that he shall not be repudiated and\n    abused in newspapers denominated religious, and by men\n    calling themselves Christian Ministers--that he shall not\n    have a price set upon his head, and his house surrounded with\n    ruffians, hired to effect his abduction--that his wife and\n    children shall not be forced to flee from the hearth of a\n    friend, lest they should be 'smoked out' by men in civic\n    authority, and their paid myrmidons--that the mother and her\n    little ones shall not find at midnight, the house surrounded\n    by an infuriated multitude, calling with horrible execrations\n    for the husband and the father--that his lady shall not be\n    doomed, while in a strange land, to see her babes clinging to\n    her with affright, exclaiming, 'the mob shan't get papa,'\n    'papa is good is he not? the naughty mob shan't get him,\n    shall they?'--that he shall not, finally, be forced to quit\n    the most enlightened and christian city of our nation, to\n    escape the assassin's knife, and return to tell his country,\n    that in Britain the friend of virtue, humanity, and freedom,\n    was put beyond the protection of the laws, and the pale of\n    civilized sympathy, and given over by professor and profane,\n    to the tender mercies of a blood-thirsty rabble.\n\nThese extracts were from the last letter that he had written to the\npeople of America, and which had been widely published there; and\nhe was glad of an opportunity of now laying them before a Glasgow\naudience, and of having them incorporated in the proceedings of the\nevening, in order to show that he then forgave America, that he now\nforgave America. He would stand there to defend the right of Mr.\nBreckinridge to a fair hearing from his (Mr. Thompson's) countrymen;\nand stand forward as his protector, to save him from the missile that\nmight be aimed at him, and to receive into his own bosom the dagger\nwhich might be aimed at his heart. His opponent might be anxious to\nknow what report he (Mr. T.) made on his return to Britain of his\nproceedings in America. He would therefore read an extract from the\nminutes of the LONDON SOCIETY for UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION:--\n\n    George Thompson was then introduced to the Committee, and\n    communicated at length the result of his Mission in the\n    United States, and the present cheering aspect of the\n    Anti-Slavery cause in that country. The following is a brief\n    outline of his statement:\n\n    He desired to be devoutly thankful to Divine Providence for\n    the signal preservation and help vouchsafed to him in all his\n    labors, perils, and persecutions. He considered it a high\n    honor to have been permitted to proclaim in the ears of a\n    distant people the great principles held by the Society.\n\n    He sailed from this country on the 17th August, 1834, landed\n    at New York on the 20th September, and commenced his public\n    labors on the 1st of October. His public Lectures were\n    continued down to the 20th October, 1835, during which period\n    he delivered between 2 and 300 public Lectures, besides\n    innumerable shorter addresses before Committees, Conventions,\n    Associations, &c. &c. His audiences had invariably been\n    overflowing, and composed from time to time of members of\n    State Legislatures, the Heads of Colleges, Professors,\n    Clergymen of all denominations, members of the legal\n    profession, and the students of nearly all the Theological\n    and Academical Institutions in New England. The result of his\n    labors had been the multiplication of Anti-Slavery\n    Associations to an unprecedented extent. Up to the month of\n    May, 1835, he met with no serious or formidable opposition.\n    At that time the National Society reported the existence of\n    250 auxiliaries, and its determination to appropriate during\n    the ensuing year the sum of 30,000 dollars in the printing of\n    papers and pamphlets to be gratuitously circulated amongst\n    the entire white population of the country. The Southern\n    States, previously almost silent and inoperative, soon after\n    commenced a system of terrorism, intercepting the public\n    conveyances, rifling the Mail Bags, scourging, mutilating or\n    murdering all suspected of holding Anti-Slavery views, and\n    calling with one consent upon the Free States to pass laws,\n    abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, upon the\n    subject of slavery. The North promptly responded to the call\n    of the South, and in every direction through the Free States\n    the Abolitionists became the victims of persecution,\n    proscription and outrage. The friends of Negro freedom every\n    where endured with a patience and spirit of christian\n    charity, almost unexampled, the multiplied wrongs and\n    injuries accumulated upon them. They ceased not to labor for\n    the Holy cause they had espoused, but perseveringly pursued\n    their course in the use of all means sanctioned by Justice,\n    Religion, and the Constitution of their country. The result\n    had been the rapid extension of their principles, and a vast\n    accession of moral strength. G. T. gave an appalling account\n    of the condition of the Southern Churches. The Presbyterians,\n    Baptists, and Episcopal Methodist Churches were the main\n    pillars of the system of Slavery. Were they to withdraw their\n    countenance, and cease to participate in its administration\n    and profit, it would not exist one year. Bishops, presiding\n    Elders, Travelling Preachers, Local Preachers, Trustees,\n    Stewards, Class Leaders, private Members, and other\n    attendants in the Churches of the Episcopal Methodists, with\n    the preachers and subordinate members of the other\n    denominations, are, with few exceptions, Slaveholders. Many\n    of the preachers, not merely possessing domestic Slaves, but\n    being planters 'on a pretty extensive scale,' and dividing\n    their time between the duties of the Pastoral Office and the\n    driving of a gang of Negroes upon a cotton, tobacco, or rice\n    plantation.\n\n    In the great pro-Slavery Meetings at Charleston and Richmond,\n    the clergy of all denominations attended in a body, and at\n    the bidding of vigilance Committees suspended their Schools\n    for the instruction of the colored population, receiving as\n    their reward a vote of thanks from their lay Slaveholding\n    Brethren 'for their prudent and patriotic conduct.'\n\n    G. T. gave a most encouraging account of the present state of\n    the Anti-Slavery cause, as nearly as it could be ascertained\n    by letters recently received. He stated that there were now,\n    exclusive of the Journals published by the Anti-Slavery\n    Societies, 100 newspapers boldly advocating the principles of\n    Abolition. Between 4 and 500 auxiliary associations,\n    comprising 15 or 1700 Ministers of the Gospel of various\n    denominations. G. T. stated also a number of particulars,\n    shewing the rapid progress of correct opinions amongst the\n    Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists,\n    producing a Document just received from the last named body,\n    signed by 185 Clergymen, being a reply to a letter addressed\n    by the Baptist ministers in and near London to the Baptist\n    Churches of America, and fully reciprocating all their\n    sentiments on the subject of immediate and entire\n    emancipation. The cause was proceeding with accelerated\n    rapidity. Ten or twelve Agents of the National Society were\n    incessantly laboring with many others employed by the State\n    Societies, of which there were seven, viz. Kentucky, (a slave\n    State,) Ohio, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New\n    Hampshire, and Vermont. Gerrit Smith, Esq. a competent\n    authority, had stated that every week witnessed an accession\n    to the ranks of the Abolitionists of not less than 500, in\n    the State of New York alone, and he did not know that in all\n    the Societies there was one intemperate or profane person. G.\n    T. in describing the character of the persons comprising the\n    Anti-Slavery Societies in America, stated, that they were\n    universally men and women of religious principles, and, in\n    most instances, of unquestioned piety. He had never known any\n    benevolent enterprise carried forward more in dependence upon\n    Divine Direction and Divine Aid, than the abolition cause in\n    the United States. In all their meetings, public or social,\n    they committed themselves to God in Prayer, and he had found\n    that those who had been most vehemently denounced as\n    'Fanatics and Incendiaries' were men sound in judgment, calm\n    in temper, deliberate in council, and prudent, though\n    resolute, in action. The great principle on which all their\n    Societies were founded was the essential sinfulness of\n    slaveholding, and the consequent necessity of its immediate\n    and entire abolition. The great means by which they had\n    sought to accomplish their object, was the fearless\n    publication of the truth in love, addressed to the\n    understandings and hearts of their fellow citizens.\n    Expediency was a doctrine they abjured. Free from a\n    time-serving or timid spirit, they boldly relied upon the\n    righteousness of their cause, the potency of truth, and the\n    blessing of God. They were entitled to receive from the\n    Abolitionists of Great Britain the warmest commendation, the\n    fullest confidence, and most cordial co-operation.\n\n    He was happy in being able to state, that wherever the\n    principles of immediate abolition had been fully adopted,\n    prejudice against color had been thrown aside, and that the\n    members of the Anti-Slavery Societies throughout the country\n    were endeavoring by every proper means to accomplish the\n    moral, intellectual, and spiritual elevation of the colored\n    population.\n\nHe hoped he would yet have ample opportunities of replying to the\npositions assumed by his opponent. He thought he would be able to\nshow that slavery in America was American slavery; that the Congress\nof America--that the Constitution of America made it an institution of\nthe country, and therefore a national sin of America. In reference to\nany question as to the Constitution and laws of the United States of\nAmerica, he was glad he had to do with a gentleman who knew these\nwell, who held a high character for his Constitutional and legal\nattainments; and he hoped he would be able to show that Slavery in\nAmerica was American Slavery--that the people in the North did not\nhate slavery--that they did not oppose slavery--that they were the\ngreatest supporters of slavery in the United States--that slavery in\nAmerica was a national question. But he would keep his proofs till he\nhad time to say something along with them. Our interference was not a\npolitical interference with America, it was only a moral interference,\nto put an end to slavery--and he hoped the people of this country,\nwould continue to denounce slavery in America; and at the same time he\nwas quite willing that his opponent should denounce the idolatry of\nour eastern possessions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would take up the line of argument in which\nhe had been proceeding; but before doing so he wished to make one\nobservation. How did it happen--admitting all that had been said by\nhis opponent to be true and fair, how did it happen, that the same\narguments and the same principles were so differently received in\ndifferent countries? How did it happen that the individual who\nadvocated the same cause, with the same temper, and almost in the same\nwords, in Glasgow and in Boston, should in the one place be supported\nby general applause, and in the other be ill-treated and despised, and\neven made to flee for his life? This was a question which was yet to\nbe solved. Mr. Thompson had spoken of the Northern states as the\ngreatest friends of slavery, forgetting that he had formerly\nrepresented the clergy as such. This was one of the principal reasons\nof his want of success--of what might justly be called his signal\nfailure. He had brought unjust charges against an entire people, and\nhad in consequence been ill-treated. Mr. Thompson had shown the better\npart of valor, discretion, in taking care never to visit any of the\nslave states. He had never seen a slaveholder, except, perhaps, he had\nmet such an individual in a free state. At least if he had done so, it\nwas a circumstance which was not generally known, one of those hidden\nthings of which it was not permitted to read. Having made this\nobservation, he (Mr. B.) would proceed to state that in the\nslaveholding states there was a large minority--in some, nearly one\nhalf of the population--zealously engaged in furthering the abolition\nof slavery. In Kentucky, slaveholding had been introduced only by a\nsmall majority. When some time after, a convention canvassed the\nsubject, that majority was diminished, and, still at this hour in that\nState, in which he had been born, one of the greatest political\nquestions agitated was whether slaveholding should be abolished or\nretained as an element of the constitution. A law had long ago been\npassed imposing a fine of six hundred dollars on whoever brought a\nslave into the State for sale, and three hundred dollars on whoever\nbought him. A fine of nine hundred dollars was thus made the penalty\nof introducing a slave into Kentucky as merchandise. He was sorry to\nhave to speak of buying and selling human beings; but, to be\nunderstood, it was absolutely necessary that he should do so. In\nVirginia also, from which Kentucky had been in great measure peopled,\nnot many years ago a frightful insurrection had taken place, and many\ncruelties had been practised--it was needless to say whether most on\nthe side of the blacks or the whites. The succeeding legislature of\nthat State took up the question of slavery in its length and\nbreadth--passed a law for giving $20,000 to the Colonization\nSociety,--and rejected only by a small majority a proposal to\nappropriate that fund equally to the benefit of slaves to be set\nfree--as of those already free. He mentioned these things merely to\nshow that there was a great and an increasing party in the south\nfavorable to the abolition of negro slavery. In fact, in some of the\nSouthern states the free people of color had increased faster than the\nwhites; in Maryland alone there were 52,000 of a free colored\npopulation, all of whom, or their immediate progenitors, had been\nvoluntarily manumitted. It was needless to say, therefore, that in the\nSouthern states there was no anti-slavery party. There certainly was\nnot such a party in Mr. Thompson's sense of the word; but Mr.\nThompson's definition was not the correct one, as he (Mr. B.) would\nexplain directly. Was it fair then, he would ask, to hold up to the\nBritish public, not only the people of the free states, but also this\ngreat minority in the Southern states as pro-slavery men. Let slavery\nbe denounced, but let not the denunciation fall upon the whole\nAmerican people, many of whom were doing all they could for its\nabolition. If Louisiana resolved on perpetuating slavery, let this be\ntold of Louisiana. If South Carolina adhered to the system, say so of\nSouth Carolina; but do not implicate the mass of the American people,\nso many of whom are as much opposed to slavery as is Mr. Thompson\nhimself. He had heard it said that the sun never sat on the British\ndominions. As well, then, might the British people be identified with\nthe idolatry which prevailed in Hindostan as the Americans be\nidentified with negro slavery. The question was not American; it\nexisted solely between the slaveholder and the world. It was unfair,\ntherefore, to blame the Americans as a nation: the slaveholder, and\nthe slaveholder alone, should be blamed, let him reside where he\nmight. Having thus disposed of the first branch of his argument, he\nwas naturally led to explain the wonderful phenomenon of Mr.\nThompson's reception in America--to give a reason why that reception\nwas so different from what the same gentleman met with in Glasgow.\nMr. Thompson had taken up the question as one of civil organization.\nNow the fact was, that the American nation was divided into two\nparties on the subject, namely, the pro-slavery, and the anti-slavery\nparties. One party said, let it alone; the other, and by far the most\nnumerous party, said, something ought to be done in relation to it. In\nthe last named class, was to be included the population of all the\nnon-slaveholding states. He declared, in the presence of God, his\nconviction, that there was not a sane man in the free states who did\nnot wish the world rid of slavery. He believed the same of a large\nminority in the states in which slavery existed. The pro-slavery party\nthemselves were also divided. One section, and he rejoiced to add, a\nsmall one, called into exertion in fact only by that effervesence\nwhich had been produced by the violence of Mr. T's friends--spoke of\nslavery as an exceedingly good thing--as not only consistent with the\nlaw of God, but as absolutely necessary for the advancement of\ncivilization. This party was organised within the last few years, and\nmet the violence of Mr. Thompson's party by a corresponding violence,\nas a beam naturally seeks its balance. Another section of the\npro-slavery party, considered slavery a great evil, and wished that it\nwere abolished, but they did not see how this could be effected. They\nhad been born in a state of society where it had an existence, and\nthey could see no course to adopt but to let it cure itself. These\nwere the two sections into which the supporters of slavery were\ndivided. The anti-slavery party was also composed of individuals who\nhad different views of the subject. The one class had been called\nGradualists, Emancipationists, and Colonizationists.--The other were\ncalled Abolitionists. With the latter class, Mr. Thompson had\nidentified himself. And now, as while in America, by his praises of\nMr. Garrison, and all their leaders, his abuse of their opponents, and\nhis efforts to chain the British public, hand and foot, to them and\ntheir projects, shows his continued devotion to them. He would refer\nto this party again, but, in the mean time, he would only say, that\nits members manifested far more honesty than wisdom. In 1833, the\nabolitionists held a Convention in Philadelphia, at which they drew up\na Declaration of Independence--a declaration which he dared to say Mr.\nThompson cherished as the apple of his eye; but which had been more\neffectual in raising mobs than ever witch was in raising the wind. The\ndocument of which he spoke announced three principles, to the\npromulgation of which, the members of the Convention pledged their\nlives and their fortunes. A number of the particulars specified, in\nsupport of which they said they would live and die, went to change\nmaterially the laws and Constitution of the United States, and yet\nit was pretended that this was not a political question! Their first\nprinciple was, that every human being has an instant right to be free,\nirrespective of all consequences; and incapable of restriction or\nmodification. The second was like unto it, that the right of\ncitizenship, inherent in every man, in the spot where he is born,\nis so perfect, that to deprive him of its exercise in any way\nwhatever--even by emigration, under strong moral constraint, is a\nsin. Their third principle was, that all prejudice against color was\nsinful; and that all our judgments and all our feelings towards others\nshould be regulated exclusively by their moral and intellectual worth.\nMr. B. said he stated these principles from memory only--as he did\nmost of the facts on which he relied. But he was willing to stand or\nfall, in both countries, upon the substantial accuracy of his\nstatements. Mr. Breckinridge here closed his address, the period\nallotted to him having expired.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. THOMPSON was anxious to lay before the meeting documentary\ntestimony, in preference to any thing he could say himself. Rather\nthan set forth his own views, as he had done on many former occasions,\nhe wished to bring forward such documents as even his opponent would\nadmit to be really American. He pledged himself to show that this was\nan American question. He was not prepared for this branch of the\nsubject, because he had not expected that Mr. Breckinridge would\nexonerate America from the charge of being a slaveholding nation;\nnevertheless, he was perfectly ready to take it up. He would undertake\nto prove that the existence of slavery in the United States was the\nresult of a compromise--that the Constitution of the United States\nwas, in fact, based upon a compromise, in relation to this subject. At\nthe time when the Constitution was agreed to, the then slaveholding\nstates refused to come into what was called the confederacy of\nrepublics, unless slaveholding was permitted. At that time there were\nonly three hundred thousand slaves in the Union; now there were two\nmillions and a half. So much, said Mr. Thompson, for what the good and\ninfluential men of the South, spoken of by Mr. Breckinridge, had done\nfor the abolition of slavery. Then there were three hundred thousand;\nnow there were two million four hundred thousand. The method by which\nthese good and influential people had gone about extirpating slavery,\nhad been an Irish method; it had shown distinctly the extent of their\nzeal and usefulness. Why, setting aside their influence altogether,\nthey might, had they been as numerous as represented by his respected\nopponent, have manumitted as many of their own slaves. It was said, no\ndoubt, that the laws prevented this; but who made the laws? The child\ncould not do what her mamma had commanded her to do, because she was\ntied to the mahogany table, she could only answer, when asked who tied\nher, that it was herself. In like manner, he could turn round on those\nwhom his respected opponent represented, as haters of slavery.\nEmancipationists they wished to be called; colonizationists they ought\nto be called. He would ask them, what had they done? Had they not\ncompromised every principle of justice and truth, by permitting\nslaveholding in their Union? Had they not even bestowed exclusive\nprivileges on the slaveholders? Had they not bestowed on them such\nprivileges as that, even now, they sent twenty-four or twenty-five\nrepresentatives to Congress more than their proportion? His respected\nopponent had said this was not a national question. Why, then, send\nsix thousand bayonets to the South for the protection of the\nslaveholder? Why were the American people taxed in order to maintain\nbayonets, blunderbusses, and artillery in the South? Not a national\nquestion! Why, then, was Missouri admitted a member of the\nUnion--Missouri a slaveholding State, admitted by the votes of the\nNorthern republics. Mr. Breckinridge had fought very shy of the state\nof the Capital, and the power of Congress to suppress the internal\ntraffic in slaves. He (Mr. Thompson) trusted, however, that this\nbranch of the subject would be taken up. His opponent himself, in a\nletter addressed to the New York Evangelist, had stated, that Congress\npossessed full power to suppress the internal traffic in slaves; and\nyet they did it not. There was in fact no question at all respecting\nthe power of the Congress, in this matter; yet it was said the\nquestion of slavery was not national. The people of the Northern\nstates,--the slavery-hating, liberty-loving people of the Northern\nstates had said they would fight shoulder to shoulder with the\nSlaveholders of the South, should the slaves dare to rise and say they\nwere men, and after all this, it was asserted that this was not a\nnational question. Mr. Breckinridge had said, that he (Mr. Thompson)\ngot all his information at second hand. He might have told the reason\nwhy; he knew, however, that such a revelation would have been awful.\nHe knew that pious men, advocates of the cause of abolition had been\nhanged, butchered, their backs ploughed up by Presbyterian elders; and\nif such had been done towards natives of New England, what could a\nstranger such as he have expected? He (Mr. T.) had, it seems, got all\nat second hand. He would tell the meeting where he had obtained some\nof his information. From Mr. Breckinridge himself; and he must say,\nthat sounder or juster views respecting slavery--or a more complete\njustification of the mission in which he (Mr. T.) had been so lately\nengaged, could scarcely be met with. This was evidence which he had no\nfear could be ruled out of court. It was that of the friend and\ndefender of America. Mr. T. then read the following passage from a\nspeech delivered by Mr. Breckinridge:--\n\n    What, then, is slavery? for the question relates to the\n    action of certain principles on it, and to its probable and\n    proper results; what is slavery as it exists among us? We\n    reply, it is that condition enforced by the laws of one half\n    of the states of this confederacy, in which one portion of\n    the community, called masters, is allowed such power over\n    another portion called slaves; as\n\n    1. To deprive them of the entire earnings of their own labor,\n    except only so much as is necessary to continue labor itself,\n    by continuing healthful existence, thus committing clear\n    robbery.\n\n    2. To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubinage,\n    by denying to them the civil rights of marriage; thus\n    breaking up the dearest relations of life, and encouraging\n    universal prostitution.\n\n    3. To deprive them of the means and opportunities of moral\n    and intellectual culture, in many states making it a high\n    penal offence to teach them to read; thus perpetuating\n    whatever of evil there is that proceeds from ignorance.\n\n    4. To set up between parents and their children an authority\n    higher than the impulse of nature and the laws of God; which\n    breaks up the authority of the father over his own\n    offspring, and, at pleasure, separates the mother at a\n    returnless distance from her child; thus abrogating the\n    clearest laws of nature; thus outraging all decency and\n    justice, and degrading and oppressing thousands upon\n    thousands of beings, created like themselves, in the image of\n    the most high God! This is slavery as it is daily exhibited\n    in every slave state.\n\nHere, continued Mr. T., is slavery acknowledged to be clear robbery,\nand yet it is not to be instantly abolished! Universal concubinage and\nprostitution, which must not immediately be put an end to! Oh, these\nwicked abolitionists, who seek to put an immediate close to such a\nstate of things. What an immensity of good have the emancipationists\nof the South, as they wish to be called, of the colonizationists as\nthey ought to be called, done during their fifty years labor, when\nthis is yet left for the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge to say. Dear,\ndelightful, energetic men! Truly, if this is all they have been able\nto effect it is time that the work were committed to abler hands. Mr.\nThompson then read an extract from the Philadelphia declaration. Mr.\nBreckinridge had called it a declaration of independence, but it was\nonly a declaration of sentiments;--\n\n    We have met together for the achievement of an enterprise,\n    without which, that of our fathers is incomplete, and which,\n    for its magnitude, solemnity, and probable results upon the\n    destiny of the world, as far as transcends theirs, as moral\n    truth does physical force.\n\n    In purity of motive, in earnestness of zeal, in decision of\n    purpose, in intrepidity of action, in steadfastness of faith,\n    in sincerity of spirit, we would not be inferior to them.\n\n    Their principles led them to wage war against their\n    oppressors, and to spill human blood like water, in order to\n    be free. Ours forbid the doing of evil that good may come,\n    and lead us to reject, and entreat the oppressed to reject\n    the use of all carnal weapons, for deliverance from\n    bondage--relying solely upon those which are spiritual, and\n    mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.\n\n    Their measures were physical resistance--the marshalling in\n    arms--the hostile array--the mortal encounter. Ours shall\n    be such only as the opposition of moral purity to moral\n    corruption--the destruction of error by the potency of\n    truth--the overthrow of prejudice by the power of love--and\n    the abolition of slavery by the spirit of repentance.\n\n    Their grievances, great as they were, were trifling in\n    comparison with the wrongs and sufferings of those for whom\n    we plead. Our fathers were never slaves--never bought and\n    sold like cattle--never shut out from the light of knowledge\n    and religion--never subjected to the lash of brutal task\n    masters.\n\n    But those, for whose emancipation we are striving,\n    constituting at the present, at least one-sixth part of our\n    countrymen,--are recognised by the laws, and treated by their\n    fellow-beings as marketable commodities--as goods and\n    chattels--as brute beasts; are plundered daily of the fruits\n    of their toil, without redress;--really enjoy no\n    constitutional or legal protection from licentious and\n    murderous outrages upon their persons--are ruthlessly torn\n    asunder--the tender babe from the arms of its frantic\n    mother--the heart-broken wife from her weeping husband--at\n    the caprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants;--for the\n    crime of having a dark complexion--they suffer the pangs of\n    hunger, the infliction of stripes, and the ignominy of brutal\n    servitude. They are kept in heathenish darkness by laws\n    expressly enacted to make their instruction a criminal\n    offence.\n\n    These are the prominent circumstances in the condition of\n    more than two millions of our people, the proof of which may\n    be found in thousands of indisputable facts, and in the laws\n    of the slaveholding states.\n\n    Hence we maintain:--\n\n    That in the view of the civil and religious privileges of\n    this nation, the guilt of its oppression is unequalled by\n    any other on the face of the earth--and, therefore,\n\n    That it is bound to repent instantly, to undo the heavy\n    burden, to break every yoke and let the oppressed go free.\n\n    We further maintain:--\n\n    That no man has a right to enslave or imbrute his brother--to\n    hold or acknowledge him, for one moment, as a piece of\n    merchandise--to keep back his hire by fraud--or to brutalize\n    his mind by denying him the means of intellectual, social,\n    and moral improvement.\n\n    The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to\n    usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to\n    his own body--to the products of his own labor--to the\n    protection of law--and to the common advantages of society.\n    It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject\n    him to servitude. Surely the sin is as great to enslave an\n    American as an African.\n\n    Therefore, we believe and affirm:--\n\n    That there is no difference _in principle_, between the\n    African slave-trade and American slavery.\n\n    That every American citizen who retains a human being in\n    involuntary bondage, as his property is (according to\n    Scripture) a man-stealer.\n\n    That the slaves ought instantly to be set free, and brought\n    under the protection of law.\n\n    That if they had lived from the time of Pharaoh down to the\n    present period, and had been entailed through successive\n    generations, their right to be free could never have been\n    alienated, but their claims would have constantly risen in\n    solemnity.\n\n    That all those laws which are now in force, admitting the\n    right of slavery, are therefore, before God, utterly null and\n    void; being an audacious usurpation of the Divine\n    prerogative, a daring infringement on the law of nature, a\n    base overthrow of the very foundations of the social compact,\n    a complete extinction of all the relations, endearments, and\n    obligations of mankind, and a presumptuous transgression of\n    all the holy commandments--and that, therefore, they ought to\n    be instantly abrogated.\n\nHe would ask if there was any thing here different from what he had\nread from his respected opponent? The sentiments were the same, though\nnot given in Mr. Breckinridge's strong and glowing language. Mr.\nBreckinridge's description of slavery was even more methodical,\nclearer, and better arranged; he was therefore inclined to prefer it\nto the other. He would, however, ask Mr. Breckinridge not to persevere\nin speaking of the violence, as he called it, of the abolitionists,\nonly in general terms. He hoped he would point out the instances to\nwhich he alluded, and not take advantage of them, because they were a\nhandful and _odious_. They were not singular in being called odious.\nNoah was called odious by the men of his day, because he pointed out\nto them the wickedness of which they were guilty. Every reformer had\nbeen called odious, and he trusted to be always among those who were\ndeemed odious by slaveholders and their apologists. He repeated, that\nhe wished Mr. Breckinridge to forsake general allegations, and to\nspecify time and place when he brought forward his charges. The time\nwas passed, when, in Glasgow, vague assertions could produce any\neffect. The time was not, indeed, distant when even here the friends\nof negro freedom had been deemed odious--when they were a mere\nhandful, met in a room in the Black Bull Inn. But from being odious\nthey had become respectable, and from respectable triumphant, in\nconsequence of their having renounced expediency, and taken their\nstand on the broad principles of truth and justice.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. BRECKINRIDGE said, he had on so many occasions and in so many\ndifferent forms uttered the sentiments contained in the passages which\nhad just been read as his, that he was unable to say from what\nparticular speech or writing they were taken. But he had no doubt that\nif the whole passage to which they belonged were read, it would be\nseen that they contained, in addition to what they had heard, the most\nunqualified condemnation of the irrational course pursued by the\nabolitionists. He believed also, that, whatever it was, that writing\nhad been uttered by him in a slave state. For he could say for\nhimself, that he had never said that of a brother behind his back,\nwhich he would be afraid or unwilling to repeat before his face. He\nhad never gone to Boston, to cry back to Baltimore, how great a sin\nthey were guilty of in upholding slavery. The worst things which he\nhad said against slavery had been said in the slave states, and had\nMr. Thompson gone there and seen with his two eyes, what he describes\nwholly upon hearsay, he would, perhaps, have understood the subject\nbetter than he seems to do. As he felt himself divinely commissioned,\nhe should have felt no fear, he should have gone at whatever hazard,\nhe should have seen slavery in its true colors, though he had read it\nin his own blood. If Saul of Tarsus had gone to America to see\nslavery--I dare to say, with the help of God, he would have been right\nsure to see it. He did not say that Mr. T. should have gone to the\nSouthern states if his life was likely to be endangered by his going\nthere; but he would say this, that Mr. Thompson ought not to pretend,\nthat he had been, in the least degree, a martyr in the cause, when, in\nreality, he had exercised the most masterly discretion. With regard to\nthe acts of the abolitionists, as he had been called on to mention\nparticulars, he could not say that he had ever heard of their having\nkilled any person, nor had he ever heard of any of them being killed.\nHe might mention, however, that he himself had once almost been mobbed\nin Boston, and, that too, by a mob stirred up against him, by\nplacards, written, as he believed, by William Lloyd Garrison. He had\nnever obtained direct proof of this, but he might state, as a reason\nfor his belief, that the inflammatory placards were of the precise\nbreadth and appearance of the columns of Garrison's paper--the\nLiberator, and the breadth of the columns of no other newspaper in\nthat city. Mr. B. stated a second case, in which, on the arrival at\nthe city of New York of the Rev. J. L. Wilson, a missionary to Western\nAfrica, in charge of two lads, the sons of two African kings,\ncommitted by their fathers to the Maryland Colonization Society for\neducation; some friends of the Anti-Slavery Society of that city, with\nthe concurrence, if not by the procurement, as was universally\nbelieved, of Elizur Wright, Jr., a leading person, and Secretary of\nthe principal society of abolitionists--got out a writ to take the\nbodies of the boys, under the pretence of believing, that they had\nbeen kidnapped in Africa. These two cases he considered, would\nperhaps satisfy Mr. T's appetite for facts in the meantime; he would\nhave plenty more of them when they came to the main question of\ndebate. One other instance, and he would have done. There was a law in\nthe United States, that if a slave run away from one of the\nslaveholding states, to any of the non-slaveholding states, the\nauthorities of the latter were bound to give him up to his master. A\nrunaway slave had been confined in New York prison, previous to being\nsent home, an attempt was made to stir up a mob, for the purpose of\nliberating him. A bill instigating the people to take the laws into\ntheir own hands, was traced to an abolitionist--the same Elizur\nWright, Jr. He brought to the office of one of the principal city\npapers, a denial of the charge--in a note signed by him in his\nofficial capacity. He was told that was insufficient, as it was in his\nindividual, not in his official capacity, that he was supposed to have\ndone the act in question. He replied, it would be time to make the\ndenial in that form, when the charge was so specifically made;\nmeantime he considered the actual denial sufficient. Then, sir, said\none present, I charge you with writing the placard--for I saw it in\nyour hand writing. These instances were sufficient to prove the charge\nof violence which he had made was not unfounded. In reference to the\nstatement made by Mr. Thompson regarding the number of slaves in the\nUnited States, at the commencement of the Revolution, Mr. B. said, it\nwas impossible to know precisely what number there was at that time,\nas there had been no statistical returns before 1790, at which time\nthere were six hundred and sixty-five thousand slaves in the five\noriginal slave states. The exertions of the American nation to put an\nend to slavery were treated with ridicule, but he would have them to\nbear in mind, that there were in the United States four hundred\nthousand free people of color, all of whom, or their progenitors, had\nbeen set free by the people of America, and not one of these, so far\nas he knew, had been liberated by an abolitionist. In addition to\nthese, there were not less than four thousand more in Africa, many of\nwhom had been freed from fetters and sent to that country. He would\nask if all this was to be counted as nothing. If they were to consider\nfor a moment the enormous sum which it would take to ransom so many\nslaves, they would perceive the value of the sacrifice. They might say\nthat they had given $150,000,000 towards the abolition of slavery. It\nmight seem selfish to talk of it thus; but if the conduct of Great\nBritain, rich and powerful as she was, was not reckoned worthy of\npraise for having done an act of justice, in granting emancipation to\nthe West India slaves, at the cost of $100,000,000, or L20,000,000,\nhow much more might be said of L30,000,000, being paid by a few\ncomparatively poor and scattered communities, and individual men. They\nhad been told some fine stories of a mahogany table, to which the\npeople of America had tied themselves, and they were left to infer\nthat it was quite easy, that it merely required the exertion of will,\nfor them to set their slaves free. Now, on this head, he would only\nask, had he the power of fixing the place of his birth? No. Nor had he\nany hand in making the laws of the place where he was born, nor the\npower of altering them. They might, indeed, be altered and he ought to\nadd, they would have been altered already, but for the passionate and\nintemperate zeal of the abolitionists; but for the conduct of those\nwho tell the slaveholders of the Southern states, that they must at\nonce give freedom to the slaves, at whatever cost or whatever hazard,\nand unless they do so, they will be denounced on the house-tops, by\nall the vilest names which language can furnish, or the imagination of\nman can conceive. And what was the answer the planters gave to these\ndisturbers of the public peace? First, coolly, 'there's the door;'\nand next, 'if you try to tell these things to those, who, when they\nlearn them, will at once turn round and cut our throats, we must take\nmeasures to prevent your succeeding.' Such conduct was just what was\nto be expected on the part of the slaveholders. They saw these men\ncoming among their slaves, and where they could not appeal to their\njudgments, endeavoring to speak to the eyes of the black population by\nprints, representing their masters, harsh and cruel. It was not\nsurprising that such unwise conduct should beget a bitter feeling of\nopposition among the inhabitants of the Southern states. They\nthemselves knew too well the critical nature of their position, and\nthe dangers of tampering with the passions of the black population.\nLet him who doubted go to the Southern states, and he would learn that\nthose harsh laws, in regard to slavery, which had been so much\ncondemned, were passed immediately after some of those insurrections,\nthose spasmodic efforts of the slaves to free themselves by violence,\nwhich could never end in good, and which the conduct of the\nabolitionists was calculated continually to renew. They ought to take\nthese things into account when they heard statements made about the\nstrong excitement against the abolitionists. He would repeat what he\nhad before stated, that the cause of emancipation had been ruined by\nthat small party with which Mr. Thompson had identified himself: but\nto whose chariot wheels he trusted the people of this country would\nnever suffer themselves to be bound.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. GEORGE THOMPSON said, the work he had to do in reference to the\nlast speech was by no means great or difficult. They had heard a great\nmany things stated by Mr. Breckinridge on the great question in\ndebate, but every one of these had been stated a thousand times\nbefore, and answered again and again within the last sixty years.\nWithin these very walls they had heard many of them brought forward\nand refuted within the last four years. But there was one part of his\nopponent's speech to which he would reply with emphasis. And he could\nnot but confess that he had listened to that one part of it with\nsurprise. He knew Mr. Breckinridge to be the advocate of gradual\nemancipation; he (Mr. Thompson) had therefore come prepared to hear\nall the arguments employed by the gradualists, urged in the ablest\nmanner, but he had not been prepared to hear from that gentleman's\nlips the things he had heard--he did not expect that the foul charge\nof stirring up a mob against Mr. Breckinridge for advocating the\nprinciples of colonization, would be brought against William Lloyd\nGarrison. But they would here see the propriety and utility of his\ncalling upon his opponent to leave generalities and come to something\nspecific--to lay his finger on a fact which could be examined and\ntested circumstantially. And what did they suppose was the truth in\nthe present case? Simply this, that when Mr. Breckinridge came\nforward to explain the principles of the Maryland colonization scheme,\nthe noisy rabble who sought to mob, did so only so long as they were\nunder the impression that he was an abolitionist. Mr. B. and his\nbrother, who was along with him on that occasion, did their best to\nlet the meeting know that they were not abolitionists but\ncolonizationists, and whenever the mob learned that, they became\nquiet. This was the fact in regard to that case--he would willingly\nstake the merits of the whole question on the truth of what he had\njust stated, and he would call on Mr. B. to say whether it was not\ntrue; he would call on him to exhibit the placard which had been\nwritten by Mr. Garrison, or tell what it contained. He had a copy of\nthe Liberator of the day referred to, and he would ask him to point\nout a single word in it which could be found fault with. He would dare\nMr. B. to find a single sentence in that paper calculated to stir up a\nmob, or to induce any one to hurt a single hair of his head. With\nregard to the Maryland colonization scheme, he was not going to enter\nupon its discussion at that hour of the evening, but the next evening,\nif they were spared, he would endeavor to show the gross iniquity of\nthat scheme, recommended as it was by Mr. Breckinridge. In the mean\ntime, to return to the next charge, they were told of an active\nabolitionist--Elizur Wright. And here he would at once say, that it\nwas too bad to bring such a charge against an individual like Elizur\nWright, than whom he knew no man, either on this or the the other side\nof the Atlantic, whose nature was more imbued with the milk of human\nkindness, or whose heart was more alive to the dictates of Christian\ncharity--it was too bad, he repeated, to bring such a charge against\nthat man, unless it could be substantiated beyond the possibility of\ndoubt. They were told that Elizur Wright had stirred up the people of\nNew York to insurrection, by inflammatory placards. Here indeed was a\nserious charge, but they ought to know what these placards were.\nAgain, he would call upon Mr. B. to show a copy of the placard, or to\nsay what were its contents. In explanation of the matter he might\nstate to the meeting that there was a little truth in what had been\nsaid about this matter; and in order to make them understand the case\nproperly, they must first know, that in New York there were at all\ntimes a number of runaway slaves, and also, that there was in the same\ncity a class of men, who, at least wore the human form, and who were\neven allowed to appear as gentlemen, whose sole profession was that of\nkidnappers; their only means of subsistence was derived from laying\nhold of these unfortunates, and returning them to their masters in the\nSouth. Nothing was more common than advertisements from these\ngentlemen kidnappers in the newspapers, in which they offered their\nservices to any slave master whose slaves had run off. All that was\nnecessary was merely that twenty dollars should be transmitted to them\nunder cover, with the marks of the runaway who was soon found out if\nin the city, and with the clutch of a demon, seized and dragged to\nprison. These were the kidnappers. And who was Elizur Wright? He was\nthe man who at all times was found ready to sympathise with those poor\nunfortunate outcasts, to pour the balm of consolation into their\nwounds--to come into the Recorder's Court, and stand there to plead\nthe cause of the injured African at the risk of his life--undeterred\nby the execrations of the slave-masters, or the knife of his\nmyrmidons. And was it a high crime that on some occasions he had been\nmistaken. But Elizur Wright would be able to reply to the charge\nhimself. The account of this meeting would soon find its way to\nAmerica, and he would then have an opportunity of justifying himself.\nAs to the charge of error in his statistics, on the subject of\nAmerican Slavery, it was very easily set at rest. He had said that the\nslave population amounted to but three hundred thousand, at the date\nof the Union, and that it was now two millions. The latter statement\nwas not questioned, but it was said that there were no authentic\nreturns at the date of the Union, and consequently, that it was\nimpossible to say precisely. But although they could not say exactly,\nthey could come pretty near the truth, even from the statement of Mr.\nBreckinridge. That gentleman admitted, that in 1790, there were only\nsix hundred and sixty-five thousand slaves in the states. He (Mr. T.)\nhad said, that in 1776, there were only three hundred thousand; but as\nthe population in America doubled itself in twenty-four years, he was\nwarranted in saying that there was no great discrepancy. But the\nquestion with him did not depend upon any particular number or any\nparticular date. It would have been quite the same for his argument,\nhe contended, whether he had taken six hundred and sixty-five thousand\nin 1790, or three hundred thousand in 1776. All that he had wished to\nshow, was the rapid increase of the slave population, and\nconsequently, of the vice and misery inherent in that system, even\nwhile the American people professed themselves to be so anxious to put\nan end to it altogether. Had he wished to dwell on this part of the\nargument, he could also have shown, that the increase of the slave\npopulation during the first twenty years of the Union, had gone on\nmore rapidly even during that time, the trade in slaves having been\nformally recognised by the Constitution during that period, and a duty\nof $10 imposed on every slave imported into the United States. The\nfollowing was the clause from the Constitution:\n\n    Sec. IX. The migration or importation of such persons as any\n    of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall\n    not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty\n    may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for\n    each person.\n\nTo sum up Mr. Breckinridge's last address, what, he would ask,\nhad been its whole aim? Clearly, that they should consider the\nabolitionists as the chief promoters of all the riots that had taken\nplace in America on this question, by making inflammatory appeals to\nthe passions of the people. He would call upon Mr. Breckinridge\nagain, to lay his hand on a single proof of this. He would call upon\nhim to point out a single instance where language had been used which\nwas in any degree calculated to call up the blood-thirsty passions of\nthe mob as had been represented. If the planters of the South were\nroused into fury by the declaration of anti-slavery sentiments--if\nthey were unable to hear the everlasting truths which it promulgated,\nwas that a sufficient reason for those to keep silent who felt it to\nbe their duty, at all hazards, to make known these truths. Or were\nthey to be charged with raising mobs, because the people were enraged\nto hear these truths. As well might Paul of Tarsus have been charged\nwith the mobs which rose against his life, and that of his\nfellow-apostles. As well might Galileo be charged with those\npersecutions which immured him in a dungeon. As well might the\napostles of truth in every age be charged with the terrible results\nwhich ensued from the struggle of light and darkness. In conclusion,\nMr. Thompson said, that on the following evening, he would take up the\nquestion of the Maryland colonization scheme.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDR. WARDLAW announced to the meeting that the discussion closed for\nthe evening. In doing so he complimented the audience on the very\ncorrect manner in which they had observed the rule regarding all\nmanifestation of applause. The attention and interest of the audience\nwere much excited throughout the whole proceedings, indeed, at few\nmeetings have we observed so lively an interest taken in the entire\nbusiness of an evening, and yet there was not a single instance in\nwhich the interference of the chairman was required. On several\noccasions the rising expression of applause was at once checked by\nthe general good sense of the meeting.\n\n\n\n\nSECOND NIGHT--TUESDAY, JUNE 14.\n\n\nMR. THOMPSON, before proceeding with the discusssion, would make one\nor two preliminary observations. Last evening he had been led into an\nerror, as regarded both number and time, in speaking of the amount of\nslaves in America at the adoption of the Constitution; and he was\nanxious that every statement made by him should be without a flaw; and\nif there should be an error committed he would be the first person to\nadmit and correct it when discovered. He stated that at the adoption\nof the American Constitution, there were only about three hundred\nthousand slaves in the United States. There were not many more in\n1776, when the states declared themselves independent: in 1788 when\nthe Constitution was settled there were more; and in 1790, there were\nbetween six and seven hundred thousand slaves in the United States of\nAmerica. His error consisted in his subtracting 1776 from 1790, and\nsaying twenty-four years instead of fourteen. He mentioned this error\nto show that he held a regard to truth to be the ultimate end of their\ndiscussion. There was one other preliminary remark. His antagonist had\nrepeatedly said that George Thompson had published himself a martyr.\nGeorge Thompson never did publish himself a martyr. Mr. Breckinridge,\nin the course of his speeches last night, had said more of himself\nthan he (Mr. T.) had ever done during all the speeches he had ever\nmade on the question. He had only referred to himself when urgently\nrequested to give an account of his personal experience. He never had\na wish to be considered a martyr. If, when he had finished his course\nhere; if, when this probationary scene was over, he was found to have\ndone his duty, he would be fully satisfied. He was not pharasaical\nenough to imagine that he had performed any works of supererogation.\nMr. Breckinridge had said this was not a national question; that\nslavery in America was not American Slavery; that it was not a\nnational evil; that it was not a national sin; that is was merely a\nquestion between the State Legislatures and the slave owners. He (Mr.\nT.) had said last night, that slavery in America was a national sin,\nand he would now adduce the reasons for his statement:--First--The\nAmerican people had admitted the slave states into the Union; and by\nconsenting to admit these states into the confederacy, although there\nwere in them hundreds of thousands in a state of slavery, they took\nthe slaves under the government of the United States, and made the sin\nnational. Second--For twenty years after the adoption of their\nConstitution, and by virtue of that very instrument, the United States\npermitted the horrid, unchristian, diabolical African slave-trade.\nThird--Than the Capital of the United States of America there was not\none spot in the whole world which was more defiled by slavery; and\nconsidering the professions and privileges of the people, there was\nnot a more anti-christian traffic on the face of the earth.\nFourth--each of the states is bound by the Constitution to give up all\nrun-away slaves; so that the poor, wretched, tortured slave might be\npursued from Baltimore to Pennsylvania, from thence to New Jersey and\nNew York, and dragged even from the confines of Canada, a fugitive and\na felon, back into the slavery from which he had fled. He might be\ntaken from the Capitol: from the very horns of the altar, to be\nsubjected by a cruel kidnapper to the most horrid of human sufferings.\nIt is not a national question! When the North violates the law of\nGod--when it tramples on the Decalogue--when it defies Jehovah! what\nwas a stronger injunction in the law of Moses than that the Israelites\nshould protect the run-away slave? But in America every state was\nbound by law to give up the slave to his slave-master, to his ruthless\npursuer; and yet it must not be called a national question! Fifth--The\ncitizens of the free states were bound to go South to put down any\ninsurrection among the slaves. They were bound and pledged to do this\nwhen required. The youth of Pennsylvania had pledged themselves to go\nto the Southern states to annihilate the blacks in case they asserted\ntheir rights--the rights of every human being--to be free. So also was\nit in New York, and in the other free states, and yet we are to be\ntold that slavery is not a national question. The whole Union was\nbound to crush the slave, who, standing on the ashes of Washington\nsaid, he ought to be, and would be free. Yes, Northern bayonets would\ngive that slave a speedy manumission from his galling yoke, by sending\nhim in his gore, where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary\nare at rest. Yet it is not a national question! Sixth--The North is\ntaxed to keep up troops in the South to overawe and terrify the slave;\nand yet it is not a national question! Seventh--Mr. Breckinridge has\nshown in a letter published by him, that the Congress has the power to\nput an end to the international slave trade, and yet this trade goes\non in America. Mr. B. well knows that at least one hundred thousand\nhuman beings--slaves--change hands annually; he must have seen the\nslaves driven in coffles through his own beloved state, to be sold\nlike cattle at Washington and Alexandria; he knows that thousands of\nVirginia and Maryland slaves are sold at New Orleans yearly, and yet\nhe tells us that slavery is not a national question! Eighth--How did\nthey admit Missouri into the Union with slaves? Were they Southern\nvotes which admitted it? No! But they were the votes of recreant New\nEnglanders--false to the principles of freedom, who sold the honor of\ntheir country, and with it the liberty of thousands of human beings in\nMissouri--or at least consented to their bondage. And yet it is not a\nnational question! He (Mr. T.) would last refer to the remarks of a\nconstitutional lawyer, who was able, eloquent, sincere, and high\nminded. Mr. T. then read the following extract:--\n\n    Such thoughts (referring to the judgments to be expected)\n    habitually crowd upon me when I contemplate those great\n    personal and NATIONAL evils, from which the system of\n    operations (vis., the movements of the Colonization Society)\n    which I stand here to advocate, seems to offer us some\n    prospect of deliverance.\n\n    From that day (1698) till the present, there have flourished\n    in our country, men of large and just views, who have not\n    ceased to pour over this subject a stream of clear and noble\n    truth, and to importune their country, by every motive of\n    duty and advantage, to wipe from her escutcheon, the stain of\n    human tears.\n\n    It is generally known, that the original members of the\n    American Colonization Society anticipated, that, at some\n    future period, the General Government, and some, if not all\n    the State Governments, would co-operate in their exertions\n    for the removal of an evil which was obviously NATIONAL in\n    all its aspects.\n\nNow who was the writer from whom he had quoted?--His friend Mr.\nBreckinridge. This was his final reason. If Mr. Breckinridge's\nargument survived these reasons, it would have a life like that of a\ncat, which is said to have nine lives; for they were nine fatal\nthrusts at his position, that slavery in America was not American\nslavery. Mr. B. admits the existence of slavery, but lays no blame\neither in this quarter or in that; he does not lay it on the states,\nnor on the General Government. Slavery does exist in America,\nbut--interminably; but, but--coming as these buts did from a\ntemperance country, he wondered much that they had escaped being\nstaved. Slavery exists in America, but it is not a national question!\nThere are upwards of two millions and a half of slaves in the United\nStates of America, and of these, at least one hundred thousand changed\nhands annually, thus sundering, without remorse, the tenderest ties of\nhuman nature; at whose door, then, lay the guilt of this sin? To whom\nwere the people of this country to address their warnings--over whose\ntransgressions were they to mourn--whose hearts were they to endeavor\nto humanize and mollify--where were the responsible and guilty parties\nto be found--how are we to get access to their consciences on behalf\nof the slave? Mr. Breckinridge says the system is one of 'clear\nrobbery,' 'universal concubinage,'--'unmitigated wickedness'--and yet\nit is not to be immediately abolished! If it be clear robbery--if it\nbe universal concubinage--if it be unmitigated wickedness--let the\nhorrid system immediately, and totally, and eternally cease--a worse\nsystem it was impossible to have if these were the evils it entailed.\nMr. B. triumphantly makes out my case for immediate and complete\nemancipation. The duty is plain and indispensable. Mr. Breckinridge\nsays the abolitionists are the most despicable and odious men on the\nface of the earth. Those who love liberty are always odious in the\neyes of tyrants. The lovers of things as they are, of corruption of\ndespotism--men who look at every thing from beneath the aprons of\ntheir grandmothers, invariably regard as insufferably odious all who\nare lovers of reformation and liberty. This always has been, and\nalways will be the case. As it was said in the service of the church\nof England, it might be said on this subject, 'As it was in the\nbeginning, is now, and ever shall be' if not 'world without end,' at\nleast to the end of this world. On the 6th day of January, 1831, Mr.\nBreckinridge delivered in Frankfort, Kentucky, an able address in\nfavor of the Colonization Society. In that address, Mr. B. stated that\nthe Society was established on the 21st day of Dec. 1816, and was of\ncourse, at the time of his speech, fourteen years and sixteen days\nold. Mr. Breckinridge said the legislatures of eleven states of the\nUnion had recommended this Society to Congress; that the\necclesiastical tribunals of all the leading sects of Christians in\nAmerica had testified their approbation of its principles; and yet\nthere were, after fourteen years and sixteen days, with all this\nsupport and high patronage in church and state only one hundred and\nsixty auxiliary societies existing throughout the Union. Now, as to\nthe contemptible and odious abolitionists! as they were called by the\ngentleman who differed from him. The National Society for the\nimmediate abolition of American slavery, was formed on the 6th of Dec.\n1833; and on the 12th of May, 1835, when the anniversary was\nheld--without being recommended to Congress by any of the state\nlegislatures--without a testimony of approbation from any of the\necclesiastical tribunals--being only one year and six months old--how\nmany auxiliary societies were connected with this abolition\norganization? Two hundred and twenty-four. That was the number then on\nthe books of the Society; and the Secretary said the whole of them\nwere not inserted from the want of proper returns. In a letter\naddressed to him (Mr. T.) by the Secretary of the American\nAnti-Slavery Society, dated New York, 31st March, 1836, were the\nfollowing words:--\n\n    Never were societies forming in all parts of our country with\n    greater rapidity. At this moment we have four hundred and\n    fifty on our list, and doubtless, there are five hundred in\n    existence. We have at this time eleven agents in the field,\n    all good men and true, and all fast gaining converts.\n\nAnd yet the abolitionists are a handful! The one society in fourteen\nyears and sixteen days, having one hundred and sixty auxiliaries; the\nother in two years and three months, having, without the support of\nstate legislatures, or of ecclesiastical tribunals, not fewer than\nfive hundred; and yet the abolitionists are a handful. He (Mr. T.)\nheld in his hand a list of delegates to the New England Convention\nwhich was held in the city of Boston, on the 25th of May, 1835. In\nthat list he found two hundred and eighty-one gentlemen, who, at their\nown expense, had come from all parts of New England, to attend that\nConvention. On the 27th May, it was stated that the Massachusetts\nSociety were in want of funds, and a committee was appointed to\ncollect subscriptions. That committee in less than an hour obtained\n$1,800, and on the following day, $4,000, for the American Society. In\nNew York, at the anniversary, there had been collected $14,500--and\nyet the abolitionists were a handful. The American Society at its\nanniversary, had collected a larger sum than was collected by all the\nother societies together, during the week set apart for the purpose;\nand in Boston, $6,000 had been collected in two days; whilst in two\nmonths, a friend of Mr. B's, viz. Mr. Gurley, had only been able to\ncollect, in the same city, about $600 for the Colonization Society. By\ntheir fruits shall ye know them; do men gather grapes of thorns, or\nfigs of thistles? You may send to New England any foreigner you\nplease--but he must show his cause to be sound and practicable before\nhe can draw a dollar or a cent from a New Englander, who gets his\nbread by early rising, and laborious attention to business--yet $6,000\nwere collected in two days. But the abolitionists are a mere handful!\nYes--they may be a handful, but they are most precious and multyplying\nseed. Mr. B. said that many of the slave-owners were doing all they\ncould for the emancipation of the slaves; whether they were doing any\nthing or nothing, we find New Englanders had endeavored to retrieve\nthe honor of their country, by a subscription for emancipation of\n$6,000 in two days--and yet it was said, they were an odious handful!\nWhen he saw the Colonization Society like a Juggernaut, endeavoring to\ncrush the bodies and spirits of colored men and colored women, he\nwould league himself with the despised and 'odious handful,' and labor\nwith them, and for them, till, by the blessing of God, on their\nexertions, the slaves were elevated to the condition and dignity of\nintelligent and intellectual beings. Mr. T. would give another proof\nthat the abolitionists were a handful of most odious creatures. He\nwould refer to the New York Convention. Mr. B. knows well that the\npro-slavery prints pointed forward to the New York Convention in\nOctober last, as likely to be a scene of blood. Not rendered so by the\nabolitionists, for they were men of peace, but by the fury of their\nopponents. Notwithstanding, there were six hundred delegates assembled\nin Utica, at 9 o'clock, on the first day; and when they were driven\nfrom that city by a mob, headed by the Hon. Mr. Beardsley, member of\nCongress, and by the Hon. Mr. Hayden, Judge of the county--and the\ngreater part of them went to Peterborough, these six hundred were\njoined by other four hundred, making one thousand delegates, for one\nstate--and yet they were a mere handful. He would next refer to the\nRhode Island Convention, at which, though held in the smallest State\nin the Union--in the depth of winter--and at a time when many of the\nroads were impassible through a heavy fall of snow, four hundred\ndelegates attended, and $2,000 were collected--but yet the\nabolitionists were a mere handful! Gerrit Smith had said that there\nwas an accession to the anti-slavery societies, in the State of New\nYork alone, of five hundred weekly, among whom he says, there is not\nknown one intemperate or profane person;--five hundred weekly added to\none state society--yet they are a mere handful! If they go on\nincreasing at this rate in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and\nthroughout New England, they will not long be a small handful!\nBesides, many of those who were formerly on the side of colonization,\nhave now come over to the ranks of the abolitionists. Where are now\nthe Smiths, and Birneys, and Jays, and Coxs, that once were the\neloquent and munificent advocates and patrons of the Colonization\nSociety? They are now, with all their souls and energies, on the side\nof immediate abolition. Nor these alone. He might--he ought to name\nsuch men as President Green, and Professors Wright, Bush, Follen,\nSmyth, and Gregg. He ought to speak of a Leavitt in New York, a Kirk\nin Albany, a Beman in Troy, a Weld in Ohio, a Garrison in New England;\nand of a Mrs. Child, a Mrs. Chapman, a John G. Whittier, a May, a\nDickinson, a Phelps, a Goodell, a Bourne, a Lundy, a Loring, a Sewall,\nand a host of others. All these men esteemed it their joy and honor to\nbe amongst the most odious of the contemptible handful referred to.\nThese were men of mind, of piety, of influence, of energy; men not to\nbe deterred from doing their duty by the harsh music of the birds of\nill omen, from the Upas Tree of Slavery, who sent forth their\ncroakings, by night and by day, to scare the nation from its\nindispensable work of Justice and Truth--and yet these men are odious\nand contemptible! Your agent, too, is contemptible--he was the agent\nof the 'goodies' of Glasgow--and--his fair auditors could scarcely\nbelieve what epithets were lavishly bestowed on him and them--yet\ntheir agent, as contemptible as he was, was, perhaps, the only\nEnglishman, who had ever been honored as he had been by the President\nof the United States of America. He who was so contemptible in the\neyes of the Americans--who was a most impetuous, and untameable, and\nworthless animal--who was the representative of the 'goodies' and\nsuperannuated maids and matrons of Glasgow--was honored by a notice\nand a rebuke in the message to Congress of the President of the United\nStates! This looked much like being insignificant and contemptible! He\ndid not seek the honor which had been thus conferred upon him--it came\nupon him unaware--but he had not therefore refused it. It was an honor\nto be persecuted in the United States with the abolitionists of 1830.\nAnd when their children, and their children's children looked back\nupon these persecutions, they would exult and be proud to say they\nwere the sons, the grandsons, or the great grandsons of the Coxs, the\nJays, the Garrisons, the Tappans, and the Thompsons of England and\nAmerica. After alluding to the treatment he had experienced from the\nNew York Courier and Enquirer, Mr. T. said--let us bear these honors\nmeekly--when calumniated for truth's sake, let us be humble, while we\nare joyful. One word more as to the odious handful. Seven-eights of\nthe Methodist Episcopal ministers in the New Hampshire Conference,\nand seven-eights of the New England Conference were abolitionists. The\nstudents of the colleges and institutions, academical and theological\nof the country, known by the names of Lane Seminary, Oberlin\nInstitute, Western Reserve College, Oneida Institute, Waterville\nCollege, Brunswick College, Amherst College, and the Seminaries of\nAndover, were many of them in some, and all of them in others,\nabolitionists; and yet, when all these societies, and ministers, and\nmen of learning, and students were put together, they were, in their\naggregate capacity, but an odious and most contemptible handful! He\nwould now proceed to speak of the Maryland scheme--a scheme of obvious\nwickedness. When Mr. B. came to Boston to advocate that scheme, he\nsays a placard was published, calling on the rabble to mob him. This\nplacard he attributes to Mr. Garrison and the abolitionists, as he\nsays it was of the same size and appearance as the type and columns of\nthe Liberator newspaper, and that therefore Mr. Garrison was the\npublisher. This he (Mr. T.) most pointedly, and distinctly, and\nsolemnly denied, and challenged Mr. B. to the proof. Did Mr. B. show\nthe placard? No. Did he demonstrate its identity with Mr. Garrison's\npaper? No. He had not done so. To make Mr. Garrison the author or\npublisher of such a placard, was to publish him a coward and a\nvillain; for he who could point out any man, still more a Christian\nminister, to the fury of a mob, was a moral monster, a coward, and a\nvillain. He called on Mr. B. by his regard for truth and justice, and\nhis reputation as a minister of Christ, to adduce the proofs necessary\nto sustain so grave an accusation, and he (Mr. T.) pledged himself to\ncast off the dearest friend he had, if a crime so base could be fixed\non him. To return to the Maryland scheme. In the month of July or\nAugust, 1834, Boston was visited by his respected opponent, his\nbrother, Dr. J. Breckinridge, and an agent of the Maryland\nColonization Society, and a meeting was convened to enable those\ngentlemen to set forth and recommend the scheme of that Society, in\naid of which the legislature of Maryland had made an appropriation of\n$200,000. He (Mr. T.) was fully prepared to show, that the object of\nthe Society was to get rid of the free colored population, and that\naccording to their design the state legislature had, in immediate\nconnection with the grant of money, passed most rigorous and cruel\nlaws. The Colonization Society was the net cast for the colored\npeople--the laws of the state were the means devised to drive the\ndevoted victims into its meshes. This was called helping them out of\nthe country with their free consent. He (Mr. T.) would bring forward\nabundant proofs when he next addressed them--he would then read the\nlaws which he could not now produce for want of time. Mr. Breckinridge\nmight or might not notice these general charges against the Maryland\nscheme; but he (Mr. T.) would hereafter fully support them, and show,\ntoo, that the National Colonization Society was equally culpable,\nhaving at its ensuing annual meeting fully approved of the plan, and\nrecommended it as a bright example for the imitation of other states.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. BRECKINRIDGE then rose. He had last night understood Mr. Thompson\nto say, that this evening he would take up and expose the colonization\nscheme. It was possible that he had been wrong in this; but such was\ncertainly the impression made upon his mind. Instead of adopting such\na course, however, Mr. Thompson had treated them to a second edition\nof his last night's speech the only difference being that the one they\nhad just heard was more elaborate. If they were to be called on to\nhear all Mr. Thompson's speeches twice, it would be a considerable\ntime before they finished the discussion. He congratulated Mr.\nThompson on his second edition, being in some respects an improvement,\non his first. It was certainly better arranged. In the observations he\nwas about to make, he would follow the course of the argument\nexhibited in Mr. Thompson's two speeches; but he, at the same time,\nwished it to be understood that he would not be cast out of the line\nof discussion every night in the same manner. As to what had been said\nabout the 'handful,' he did not think it necessary to say much. He\nwould simply remind Mr. T., that however great or however small the\n'handful' might be, one pervading evil might pollute it all. A dead\nfly could cause the ointment of the apothecary to stink. But to come\nto the point. Mr. Thompson had said that the question was national as\nit respected America, because slaveholding states had been admitted\ninto the confederacy. The simple fact of these states having been\nadmitted members of the Union, was, in Mr. Thompson's estimation,\nproof sufficient, not only that slavery was chargeable on the whole\nnation, but that there had been a positive predilection among the\nAmerican people in favor of slavery. In clearing up this point, a\nlittle chronological knowledge would help us. He would therefore call\nthe attention of the audience to the real state of matters when the\nconfederacy was established. At that period, Massachusetts was the\nonly State in which slavery had been abolished; and even in\nMassachusetts its formal abolition was not effected till some time\nafter. For in that State it came to an end in consequence of a clause\ninserted in the Constitution itself--tantamount to the one in our\nDeclaration of Independence, that freedom is a natural and inalienable\nright. Successive judicial decisions, upon this clause, without any\nspecial legislation, had abolished slavery there; so that the exact\nperiod of its actual termination is not easily definable. This recalls\nanother point on which Mr. Thompson would have been the better of\npossessing a little chronological information. He had repeatedly\nstated that the American Constitution was founded on the principle,\nthat all men are created free and equal. Now, this was not so. The\nprinciple was no doubt, a just one; it was asserted most fully by the\nContinental Congress of 1776, and might be said to form the basis of\nour Declaration of Independence. But it was not contained in the\nAmerican Constitution, which was formed twelve years afterwards. That\nConstitution was formed in accordance with the circumstances in which\nthe different states were placed. Its chief object was to guard\nagainst external injury, and regulate external affairs; it interfered\nas little as possible with the internal regulations of each state. The\nAmerican was a federative system of government; twenty-four distinct\nrepublics were united for certain purposes, and for these alone. So\nfar was the national government from possessing unlimited powers, that\nthe Constitution itself was but a very partial grant of those, which,\nin their omnipotence, resided, according to our theory, only in the\npeople themselves in their primary assemblies. It had been specially\nagreed in the Constitution itself, that the powers not delegated\nshould be as expressly reserved, as if excepted by name; and, amongst\nthe chief subjects, exclusively interior, and not delegated, and so\nreserved, is slavery. Had this not been the case, the confederacy\ncould not have been formed. It had been said that the American\nConstitution had not only tolerated slavery, but that it had actually\nguaranteed the slave-trade for twenty years. Nothing could be more\nuncandid than this statement. Never had facts been more perverted. One\nof the causes of the American Revolution had been the refusal of the\nBritish King to sanction certain arrangements on which some of the\nstates wished to enter, for the abolition of the slave-trade. At the\nformation of the Federal Constitution, while slavery was excluded from\nthe control of Congress, as a purely state affair, the slave trade was\ndeemed a fit subject, by the majority, for the executors of national\npower, as being an exterior affair. And at a period prior to the very\ncommencement of that great plan of individual effort, guided by\nWilberforce and Clarkson, in Britain; and which required twenty years\nto rouse the conscience of this nation--our distant, and now traduced\nfathers, had already made up their minds, that this horrid traffic,\nwhich they found not only existing, but encouraged by the whole power\nof the King, should be abolished. It was granted, perhaps too readily\nto the claims of those who thought, (as nearly the whole world\nthought) that twenty years should be the limit of the trade; and at\nthe end of that period it was instantly prohibited, as a matter\ncourse, and by unanimous consent. How unjust then was it to charge on\nAmerica, as a crime, what was one of the brightest virtues in her\nescutcheon. Mr. Thompson had next asserted, that slavery of the most\nhorrid description existed in the Capital of America, and in the\nsurrounding District, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of\nCongress. He (Mr. Breckinridge) did not hesitate to deny this. It was\nnot true. Slavery did exist there; but it was not of the horrible\ncharacter which had been represented. It was well known that the\nslavery existing in the United States was the mildest to be seen in\nany country under Heaven. Nothing but the most profound ignorance\ncould lead any one to assert the contrary. Mr. Thompson had a\ncolleague in his recent exhibitions in London, who seemed to have\ntaken interludes in all Mr. T's speeches. In one of these, that\ncolleague had said, he knew of his own knowledge a case, in which a\nman had given $500 for a slave, in order to burn him alive! Mr.\nThompson, no doubt knew, that even on the supposition that such a\nmonster was to be found, he was liable in every part of the United\nStates, to be hanged as any other murderer. Slavery was bad enough\nanywhere; but to say that it was more unmitigated in America than in\nthe West Indies, where emigration had always been necessary to keep up\nthe numbers, while in America, the slave population increased faster\nthan any part of the human race, was a gross exaggeration, or a proof\nof the profoundest ignorance. To say that the slavery of the District\nof Columbia was the most horrid that ever existed, when it, along with\nthe whole of the slavery on that continent, was so hedged about by\nhuman laws, that in every one of the states cruelty to the slave was\npunished as an offence against the state; the killing of a slave was\npunished every where with death; while in all ages, and nearly in all\ncountries where slavery has existed besides, the master was not only\nthe exclusive judge of the treatment of his slave, but the absolute\ndisposer of his life, which he could take away at will; these\nstatements can proceed only from unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose\nto mislead. As to the abolition of slavery in the District of\nColumbia, there might, at first sight, appear to be some grounds of\naccusation; but yet, when the subject was considered in all its\nbearings, so many pregnant, if not conclusive, reasons presented\nthemselves against interference, that though much attention had been\nbestowed upon it for many years, the result had been that nothing was\ndone. It was to be recollected that the whole District of Columbia was\nonly ten miles square; and that it was surrounded by states in which\nslavery was still legalized. It was thus clear, that though slavery\nwere abolished in Columbia, not an individual of the six thousand\nslaves now within its bounds, would necessarily be relieved of his\nfetters. Were an abolition bill to pass the House of Representatives\nto-day, the whole six thousand could be removed to a neighboring slave\nstate before it could be taken up in the Senate to-morrow. It was,\ntherefore, worse than idle to say so much on what could never be a\npractical question. Again; the District of Columbia had been ceded to\nthe General Government by Maryland and Virginia, both slaveholding\nstates, for national purposes; but this would never have been done had\nit been contemplated that Congress would abolish slavery within its\nbounds, and thus establish a nucleus of anti-slavery agitation in the\nheart of their territory. The exercise of such a power, therefore, on\nthe part of Congress, could be viewed in no other light than as a\ngross fraud on those two states. It should never be forgotten that\nslavery can be abolished in any part of America only by the persuasive\npower of truth voluntarily submitted to the slaveholders themselves.\nAnd though much is said in that country, and still more here, about\nthe criminality of the Northern States in not declaring that they\nwould not aid in the suppression of a servile war--such declamation is\nworse than idle. But there is a frightful meaning in this unmeasured\nabuse heaped by Mr. Thompson on the people of the free states, for\ntheir expressions of devotion to the Union and the Constitution, and\ntheir determination to aid, if necessary, in suppressing by force--all\nforce used by, or on behalf of the slaves. Is it then true, that Mr.\nThompson and his American friends, did contemplate a servile war? If\nnot, why denounce the North for saying it should be suppressed? Were\nthe people of America right when they charged him and his co-workers\nwith stirring up insurrection? If not, why lavish every epithet of\ncontempt and abhorrence upon those who have declared their readiness\nto put a stop to the indiscriminate slaughter and pillage of a region\nas large as Western Europe? Such speeches as that I have this night\nheard go far to warrant all that has ever been said against this\nindividual in America, and to excuse those who considered him a\ngeneral disturber of their peace, and were disposed to proceed against\nhim accordingly. It was, however, the opinion of many that Congress\nhad no power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. B.\nsaid his opinion was different; yet it must be admitted that the\nobstacles to the exercise of this power were of the most serious kind,\nand such as, to a candid mind, would free those who hesitated, from\nthe charge of being pro-slavery men. Perhaps the great reason against\nthe exercise of that power, even if its existence in Congress were\nclear, was, that it would inevitably produce a dissolution of the\nUnion. When he spoke of the free states bringing about the abolition\nof slavery in the South, he was to be understood as meaning that these\nstates, in accordance with what had been so often hinted at, should\nmarch to the South with arms in their hands, and declare the slaves\nfree. Now, even supposing that the people of the North had no regard\nfor the peace of their country--that they were perfectly indifferent\nto the glory, the power, and the happiness resulting from the Federal\nUnion--was it certain, that by adopting such a course, they would\nreally advance the welfare of the slave? Every candid man would at\nonce see that the condition of the slave population would be made more\nhopeless than ever by it. The fourth proof brought forward by Mr.\nThompson, in support of his proposition that America was chargeable,\nin a national point of view, with the guilt of slavery, was the fact\nthat the different states were bound to restore all run-away slaves.\nBut this was a regulation which applied to the case of all servants\nwho leave their masters in an improper manner. Apprentices, children,\neven wives, if it might be supposed that a wife would ever leave her\nhusband, were to be restored as well as the slaves. Were this not\nprovided, the different states would form to each other the most\nhorrible neighborhood that could be imagined. No state is expected to\nsay, that any man is of right or should be 'held to service' of any\nkind, in another state; for such are the words of the Constitution.\nBut the purely internal arrangements of each state, must necessarily\nbe respected by all the others; or eternal border wars must be the\nresult. In the re-delivery of a run-away slave, or apprentice,\ntherefore, the court of the one state is only required to say what are\nthe law, and the fact of the other state from which the claimant\ncomes, and to decide accordingly. And when Mr. T. says that this\nproceeding is not only contrary to the spirit of the gospel, but to\nthe express command of God under the Jewish dispensation, I need only\nto defend the practice, by questioning his biblical capacities, and\nreferring for explanation to his second printed speech before the\nGlasgow Emancipation Society. In that, he states a fictitious case as\nregards Ireland--resembling remarkably the case recorded in holy writ,\nof Egypt under the government of Joseph; and while all men have\nthought that Joseph came from God, and was peculiarly approved of\nhim--Mr. T. has represented, that he who should do in Ireland, very\nmuch what Joseph did in Egypt, could be considered as coming only\n'from America, or from the bottomless pit!!!' As long as the Holy\nGhost gives men reason to consider certain principles right, they may\nbe well content to abide under the wrath of Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson\nsaid, in the fifth place, that slavery was a national crime, because\nthe states were all bound to assist each other, in suppressing\ninternal insurrection. To this he would answer, that as it regarded\nthe duty of the nation to the several states, there were two, and but\ntwo great guarantees--namely, the preservation of internal peace, and\nthe upholding of republican institutions, tranquillity, and\nrepublicanism. Carolina was as much bound to assist Rhode Island as\nRhode Island was to assist Carolina. All were mutually bound to each;\nand if things went on as of late, the South were as likely to be\ncalled on to suppress mobs at the North, as the North to suppress\ninsurrection at the South. It was next advanced by Mr. T. that the\npeople of the North were taxed for the support of slavery. Now, the\nfact was, that America presented the extraordinary spectacle of a\nnation free of taxes altogether; free of debt, with an overflowing\nTreasury, with so much money, indeed, that they did not well know what\nto do with it. It was almost needless to explain that the American\nrevenue was at present and had been for many years past, derived\nsolely from the sale of public lands, and from the customs or duties\nlevied on imported articles of various kinds. The payment of these\nduties was entirely a voluntary tax, as in order to avoid it, it was\nonly necessary to refrain from the use of articles on which they were\nimposed. As for Mr. T's argument about the standing army, employed in\nkeeping down the slaves, its value might be judged from the fact,\nthat, though even according to Mr. T's own showing, the slave\npopulation amounted to two and a half millions, the army was composed\nof only six thousand men, scattered along three frontiers, extending\ntwo thousand miles each. Throughout the whole slaveholding states\nthere were not probably fifteen hundred soldiers. The charge was, in\nfact, complete humbug, founded upon just nothing at all. Mr.\nThompson's seventh charge was, that Congress refused to suppress the\ninternal slave-trade. This was easily answered. There was in America\nnot one individual among five hundred who believed that Congress had\nthe power to do so. And, although he (Mr. B.) believed that Congress\nhad power to prevent the migration of slaves from state to state, as\nfully as they had to prevent the importation of them into the states\nfrom foreign countries; and that the exercise of this power, would\nprevent, in a great degree, the trade in slaves from state to state,\nyet very few concurred with him even in this modified view of the\ncase. And it must be admitted that the exercise of such a power, if\nit really exists, would be attended with such results of unmixed evil\nat this time, that no one whatever would deem it proper to attempt, or\npossible to enforce its exercise. It was next said, that as Missouri,\na slaveholding state, had been admitted into the Union after the full\nconsideration of the subject by Congress, therefore the nation had\nbecome identified with slavery, and responsible for its existence, at\nleast in Missouri. But on the supposition that, before receiving\nMissouri as a member of the confederacy, it had been demanded of her\nthat she should abolish slavery; and supposing Missouri had acceded to\nthe terms proposed, that she had really given her slaves freedom, and\nbeen added to the Federal Union in consequence: suppose Missouri had\ndone all this; what was there to prevent her from re-establishing\nslavery so soon as the end she sought was gained. No power was\npossessed by the other states in the matter, and all that could have\nbeen said was, that Missouri had acted with bad faith--that she had\nbroken a condition precedent--that she had given just cause of war.\nAccording to the most latitudinarian notions, this was the extent of\nthe remedy in the hands of Congress. But Mr. Thompson, being a holder\nof peace principles--if we may judge by his published speeches--must\nadmit it to be as really a sin to kill, as to enslave men; so that, in\nhis own showing, this argument amounts to nothing. But when it is\nconsidered that every state in the American Union has the recognized\nright to alter its Constitution, when, and how it may think fit,\nsaving only that it be republican; it is most manifest that Congress\nand the other states have, and could have in no case, any more power\nor right to prevent Missouri's continuing, or creating slavery, than\nthey had to prevent Massachusetts from abolishing it. But, if we were\nto stand upon the mere rights of war, he (Mr. B.) did not know but\nthat America had just cause of war against Britain, according to the\nreceived notions on that subject, in the speeches delivered by Mr.\nThompson under the connivance of the authorities here. But the causes\nof war were very different in the opinions of men, and in the eye of\nGod. If Mr. Thompson was right in condemning America for the guilt of\nMissouri, then they should go to war at once and settle the question.\nBut, if they were not ready for this conclusion, they could do\nnothing. In the edition of Mr. Thompson's speech which had been\ndelivered on the preceding evening, an argument had been adduced which\nwas omitted in the present. The argument to which he referred, was\nconcerning the right of the slaves to be represented. A slight\nconsideration of the subject might have shown that the whole power\nover the subject of citizenship in each state, was exclusive in the\nstate itself, and was differently regulated in different states. In\nsome, the elective franchise was given to all who had attained the age\nof twenty-one. In some, it was made to depend on the possession of\npersonal property; and in others, of real property. That in the\nSouthern states, the power of voting should be given to the masters,\nand not to the slaves, was not calculated to excite surprise in\nBritain, where such a large proportion of the population, and that in\na number of instances composed of men of high intelligence, were not\nentitled to the elective franchise. The origin of this arrangement,\nlike many others involved in our social system, was a compromise of\napparently conflicting interests in the states which were engaged in\nforming the Federal Constitution. The identity of taxation and\nrepresentation, was the grand idea on which the nation went into the\nwar of independence. When it was agreed that all white citizens, and\nthree-fifths of all other persons, as the Constitution expresses it,\nshould be represented, it followed of course, that they should be\nsubject to taxation. Or, if it were first agreed that they should be\ntaxed, it followed as certainly they should be represented. Who should\nactually cast the votes, was, of necessity, left to be determined by\nthe states themselves, and as has been said, was variously determined;\nmany permitting free negroes, Indians, and mulattos, who are all\nembraced, as well as slaves, to vote. That three-fifths, instead of\nany other part, or the whole should be agreed on, was, no doubt, the\nresult of reasons which appeared conclusive to the wise and benevolent\nmen who made the Constitution; but I am not able to tell what they\nwere. It must, however, be very clear, that to accuse my country, in\none breath, for treating the negroes, bond and free, as if they were\nnot human beings at all--and to accuse her in the next, of fostering\nand encouraging slavery, for allowing so large a proportion of the\nblacks to be a part of the basis of national representation in all the\nstates, and then, in the third, because the whole are not so treated,\nto be more abusive than ever--is merely to show plainly, how earnestly\nan occasion is sought to traduce America, and how hard it is to find\none. He came now to the last charge. He himself, it seems, had\nadmitted, on former occasions, that slavery was a national evil. He\ncertainly did believe that the people of America, whether anti-slavery\nor pro-slavery, would be happier and better, in conscience and\nfeelings, were slavery abolished. He believed that every interest\nwould be benefited by such an event, whether political, moral, or\nsocial. The existence of slavery was one of the greatest evils of the\nworld, but it was not the crime of all the world. Though, therefore,\nhe considered slavery a national evil, it was not to be inferred that\nhe viewed it as a national crime. The cogency of such an argument was\nequal to the candor of the citation on which it was founded. He would\nnow come to matters rather more personal. In enumerating the great\nnumbers of anti-slavery societies in America, Mr. Thompson had paraded\none as formed in Kentucky, for the whole state. Now, he would venture\nto say that there were not ten persons in that whole State, holding\nanti-slavery principles, in the Garrison sense of the word. If this\nwas to be judged a fair specimen of the hundreds of societies boasted\nof by Mr. Thompson, there would turn out but a beggarly account of\nthem. He found also the name of Groton, Massachusetts, as the location\nof one of the societies in the boasted list. He had once preached, and\nspoken on the subject of slavery, in that sweet little village, and\nbeen struck with the scene of peace and happiness which it presented.\nHe afterwards met the clergyman of that village in the city of\nBaltimore, and asked him what had caused him to leave the field of his\nlabors. The clergyman answered, that the anti-slavery people had\ninvaded his peaceful village, and transformed it into such a scene of\nstrife that he preferred to leave it. And so it was. The pestilence,\nwhich, like a storm of fire and brimstone from hell, always followed\nthe track of abolitionism, had overtaken many a peaceful village, and\ndriven its pastor to seek elsewhere a field not yet blasted by it. He\nwould conclude by remarking, that Mr. Thompson and he (Mr. B.) were\nnow speaking, as it were, in the face of two worlds, for Western\nEurope was the world to America. And it was for England to know--that\nthe opinion of America--that America which already contained a larger\nreading population than the whole of Britain--was as important to her,\nas hers could be to us. What he had said of Mr. Garrison and of Mr.\nWright, he had said; and he was ready to answer for it in the face of\nGod and man. But he had something else to do, he thanked God, than to\ngo about the country carrying placards, ready to be produced on all\noccasions. Nor where he was known, was such a course needful, to\nestablish what he said. When those gentlemen should make their\nappearance, in defence or explanation of what he had said, he would be\nthe better able to judge--whether it would be proper for him to take\nany notice--and if any, what--of the defence for which Mr. Thompson\nhad so frankly pledged himself. In the mean time, he would say to that\ngentleman himself, that his attempts at brow-beating were lost upon\nhim.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. THOMPSON said he should commence with the end of his opponent's\nspeech, and notice what that gentleman had said in regard to the\ncharges brought by him against William Lloyd Garrison and Elizur\nWright. It appeared as if Mr. Breckinridge expected that, because in\nhis own country his character for veracity stood high, that therefore,\nhe was entitled, if he chose, to enter an assembly of twelve hundred\npersons in Great Britain, and utter the gravest charges against\ncertain individuals 3,000 miles away, and when called upon as he had\nbeen for proof, that he had nothing to do but turn round and say,\n'Why, I am not bound to furnish proof; let the parties accused\ndemonstrate their innocence.' This was American justice with a\nvengeance. This might be Kentucky law, or Lynch law, but could hardly\nbe called justice by any assembly of honest and impartial persons.\nSuch justice might suit the neighborhood of Vicksburg, but it would\nnot recommend itself to a Scotish audience. He (Mr. T.) would not\nundertake at this time the task of justifying the men who had been\ncalumniated. He knew these gentlemen, and had no doubt when they heard\nthe charges preferred against them in this country, they would be able\nand ready to clear themselves before the world. He would not say that\nMr. Breckinridge did not himself believe the allegations to be true,\nbut he would say that had that gentleman possessed a knowledge of the\ntrue character of those he had spoken against--had he known them as he\n(Mr. T.) knew them, he would have held them incapable of the dark\ndeeds alleged against them. With regard to Mr. B's remarks upon the\nnumber of the slave population, the amount of the troops in the United\nStates, and the existence of slavery in the district of Columbia, he\nmust say that they were nothing but special pleadings; that the whole\nwas a complete specimen of what the lawyers termed pettifogging. He\n(Mr. T.) was not prepared to hear a minister say that because only\n1500 troops out of 6000 were found in the southern states, that,\ntherefore, the nation was not implicated--that because, if the slavery\nof the district was abolished, there would be no fewer slaves in the\ncountry--that, therefore, the seat of government should not be\ncleansed from its abomination. He would remind his opponent that they\nwere discussing a question of principle, and that the scriptures had\ndeclared that he who was unjust in the least, was unjust also in the\ngreatest. Mr. Breckinridge had still cautiously avoided naming the\nparties in the United States who were responsible for the sin of\nSlavery. They were told that neither New Hampshire nor Massachusetts,\nnor any other of the Northern states were to blame; that the\ngovernment was not to blame, nor, had it even yet been said, that the\nSouthern states were to blame. Still the aggregate of the guilt\nbelonged somewhere; and if the parties to whom reference had been made\nwere to be exculpated, at whose door, he would ask, were the sin and\nshame of the system to be laid. The gentleman with whom he was\ndebating had repeatedly told him (Mr. T.) that he did not understand\n'the system.' He frankly confessed that he did not. It was a\nmystery of iniquity which he could not pretend to fathom; but he\nthought he might add that the Americans themselves, at least the\nColonizationists, did not seem to understand it very well neither,\nfor they had been operating for a very long time, without effecting\nany favorable change in the system. A word with regard to the\nrepresentation of slaves in Congress. Mr. B. had spoken as if he had\nintended to have it understood, that the slaves were themselves\nbenefited by that representation--that it was a partial representation\nof the slave population by persons in their interest. How stood the\nfact? The slaves were not at all represented as men, but as things.\nThey swelled, it was true, the number of members upon the floor of\nCongress, but that extra number only helped to rivet their bonds\ntightly upon them, being as they were, in the interest of the tyrant,\nand themselves slaveholders, and not in the interest of the slaves.\nWhat said John Quincy Adams in his celebrated report on the Tariff:--\n\n    'The representation of the slave population in this House\n    has, from the establishment of the Constitution of the United\n    States, amounted to rather more than one-tenth of the whole\n    number. In the present Congress (1833,) it is equivalent to\n    twenty-two votes; in the next Congress it will amount to\n    twenty-five. This is a combined and concentrated power,\n    always operating to the support and exclusive favor of the\n    slave-holding interest.'\n\nHere was a mighty engine in the cause of oppression. It was a wicked\nmisrepresentation to say that the slaves were benefited by such an\narrangement. Instead of being a lever in their hands to aid them in\nthe overthrow of the system which was crushing them, it was a vast\naddition of strength to the ranks of their tyrants, who went to\nCongress to cry down discussion, to cry up Lynch law, and shout Hail\nColumbia. Mr. Thompson then proceeded to give some account of the\nMaryland Colonization scheme.\n\nThe first movement on the subject was in March, 1831, when Mr. Brawner\nsubmitted the following resolutions to the Maryland Legislature, which\nwere by that assembly adopted. He begged particular attention both to\nthe letter and spirit of this document, exhibiting as it did, the\nfeelings of 'the good people of the state' towards the colored\npopulation:--\n\n    Resolved, That the increased proportion of the free people of\n    color in this state, to the white population, the evils\n    growing out of their connection and unrestrained association\n    with the slaves their habits and manner of obtaining a\n    subsistence, and their withdrawing a large portion of\n    employment from the laboring class of the white population,\n    are subjects of momentous and grave consideration to the good\n    people of this state.\n\n    Resolved, That as philanthropists and lovers of freedom, we\n    deplore the existence of slavery amongst us, and would use\n    our utmost exertions to ameliorate its condition, yet we\n    consider the unrestrained power of manumission as fraught\n    with ultimate evils of a more dangerous tendency than the\n    circumstance of slavery alone, and that any act, having for\n    its object the mitigation of these joint evils, not\n    inconsistent with other paramount considerations, would be\n    worthy the attention and deliberation of the representatives\n    of a free, liberal-minded, and enlightened people.\n\n    Resolved, That we consider the colonization of free people of\n    color in Africa as the commencement of a system, by which if\n    judicious encouragement be afforded, these evils may be\n    measurably diminished, so that in process of time, the\n    relative proportion of the black to the white population,\n    will hardly be matter for serious and unpleasant\n    consideration.\n\n    Ordered, therefore, That a committee of five members be\n    appointed by the Chair, with instructions to report a bill,\n    based as nearly as may be, upon the principles contained in\n    the foregoing resolutions, and report the same to the\n    consideration of this house.\n\nSuch was the first movement on the subject. At the next session of\nthe legislature Mr. Brawner presented the report of the committee,\nsome of the extracts from which he (Mr. T.) would read:--\n\n    The committee to whom was referred the several memorials from\n    numerous citizens in this state, upon the subject, of the\n    colored population, Report,--\n\n    That the views presented by the memorialists are various, and\n    the recommendations contained in some of the memorials are\n    entirely repugnant to those contained in others. The\n    subjects, however, upon which legislative action is required,\n    may be embraced under a few general heads:\n\n    First, That a law be passed prohibiting the future\n    emancipation of the slaves, unless provision be made for\n    their removal from the state.\n\n    Secondly, That a sum of money adequate for the attainment of\n    the object, be raised and appropriated for the further\n    removal of those already free.\n\n    Thirdly, That a system of police be established, regulating\n    the future conduct and morals of this class of our\n    population.\n\n    And, Fourthly, There are several memorials from different\n    parts of our state, signed by a numerous and highly\n    respectable portion of our citizens, recommending the entire\n    abolition of slavery in the state.\n\nOn the 14th of March, 1832, the State Legislature of Maryland\nappropriated for the use of the State Colonization Society the sum\nof two hundred thousand dollars, payable in sums of twenty thousand\ndollars per annum for ten years. Having made the grant, the\nlegislature next proceeded to pass acts to obtain the consent of the\ncolored population to quit the state and country, and emigrate to\nAfrica. He (Mr. T.) claimed special attention to some short extracts\nfrom those laws. They would reveal more powerfully than any language\nof his, the benevolent or rather atrociously cruel designs of the\n'good people' of the state. He should quote first from 'An Act\nrelating to Free Negroes and Slaves,' passed within a few days of the\ngrant and part and parcel of the same benevolent scheme:--\n\n    Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland,\n    That after the passage of this act, no free negro or mulatto\n    shall emigrate to, or settle in this State; and no free negro\n    or mulatto belonging to any other state, district or\n    territory, shall come into this State, and therein remain for\n    the space of ten successive days, whether such free negro or\n    mulatto intends settling in this State or not, under the\n    penalty of fifty dollars for each and every week such persons\n    coming into, shall thereafter remain in this State; the one\n    half to the informer and the other half to the sheriff for\n    the use of the county. * * * and any free negro or mulatto\n    refusing or neglecting to pay said fine or fines, shall be\n    committed to the jail of the county; and shall be sold by the\n    sheriff at public sale, for such time as may be necessary to\n    cover the aforesaid penalty, first giving ten days previous\n    notice of such sale.\n\n    Sec. 2d. And be it enacted, That no person in this State,\n    shall hereafter hire, employ, or harbor any free negro or\n    mulatto who shall emigrate or settle in this state, after the\n    first day of June next, or any free negro or mulatto who\n    shall come into this state from any other state, district or\n    territory, and continue in this state for the space of ten\n    successive days as above, under the penalty of twenty dollars\n    for every day after the expiration of four days, any such\n    free negro or mulatto * * * shall be so employed, hired or\n    harbored, and all fines accruing under this act, * * * one\n    half thereof to be applied to the informer, and the other\n    half to the use of the county; and if any negro or mulatto\n    shall remove from this state and remain without the limits\n    thereof for a space longer than thirty consecutive days,\n    unless before leaving the state he deposits with the clerk of\n    the county in which he resides, a written statement of his\n    object in so doing, and his intention of returning again, or\n    unless he shall have been detained by sickness or coercion,\n    of which he shall bring a certificate, he shall be regarded\n    as a resident of another state, and be subject, if he return,\n    to the penalties imposed by the foregoing provisions upon\n    free negroes and mulattoes of another state, migrating to\n    this state: Provided that nothing contained in this act shall\n    prevent any free negro or mulatto from visiting Liberia, and\n    returning to the state whenever he may choose to do so.\n\n    Sec. 4. And be it enacted, That it shall not be lawful from\n    and after the first of June next, to import or bring into\n    this state by land or water, any negro, mulatto or other\n    slave for sale, or to reside within this state: * * * and any\n    person or persons so offending, shall forfeit for every such\n    offence, any negro, mulatto or other slave brought into this\n    state contrary to this act, and such negro, mulatto or other\n    slave, shall be entitled to freedom upon condition that he\n    consent to be sent to Liberia, or to leave the state\n    forthwith, otherwise such negro or mulatto or other slave,\n    shall be seized and taken and confined in jail by the sheriff\n    of the county where the offence is committed, which sheriff\n    shall receive ten dollars for every negro, mulatto or other\n    slave so brought into this state and forfeited as aforesaid,\n    and seized and taken by him. * * * Moreover, said sheriff\n    shall receive five dollars for such negro, mulatto or other\n    slave actually confined by him in jail, and the usual prison\n    fee as now allowed by law, and any person or persons so\n    offending under this act, shall be punished by indictment in\n    the county court of the county where the offence shall be\n    committed, and upon conviction thereof, the said court shall,\n    by its order, direct said sheriff to sell any negro, mulatto\n    or other slaves so seized and taken by him, under this act,\n    to the Colonization Society for said five dollars, and the\n    prison fees * * * to be taken to Liberia: and if such\n    Colonization Society shall not receive such negroes,\n    mulattoes or other slaves for said five dollars each, and the\n    prison fees of each, upon refusing, said sheriff shall, after\n    three weeks' public notice given by advertisements, sell any\n    such negro, mulatto or other slave to some person or persons,\n    with a condition that any such negro, mulatto or other slave\n    shall be removed and taken forthwith beyond the limits of\n    this state to settle and reside.\n\nSuch was the scheme which had been advocated in Boston and elsewhere\nby his opponent. He now left the matter in his hands, recommending him\nto exert all his eloquence and ingenuity in behalf of the honor of\nMaryland, but warning him beforehand that his labors would be in vain.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would now proceed with what remained of the\nargument on the general question. He had been asked to point out the\nresponsible parties in regard to slavery, and this was what he was\nabout to do. It was indeed much more easy to show who were the\nresponsible parties than to prove the innocence of those unjustly\naccused--it was perhaps his duty to do both--the first he had been\nattempting. It would be easy to do the other, and he trusted, that\nafter he had done so--if the good people of Glasgow on any future\noccasion should meet to pass resolutions applauding Mr. Thompson, for\nthe vast sacrifices he had made, and the suffering he had endured in\nthe cause of emancipation, they would not again feel obliged to pass\nresolutions condemning the whole American nation, as the vilest nation\nthat ever existed, for maintaining slavery. He would say, then, that\nhe considered the owners of the slaves, as in the first place,\nresponsible. The slave-owner had two important duties to perform in\nreference to those of his fellow-beings, who were held in bondage. In\nthe first place, he was bound to inform himself of the whole question,\nin its length and breadth, and having done so, he ought, in the\nspeediest manner possible, consistent with the happiness of the slaves\nthemselves, to set them free. This was the duty of a slave-owner, as\nan individual. But, as his lot might be cast in a slaveholding state,\nit was his duty, in addition to freeing his own slaves, that he should\nuse every lawful means to enlighten public opinion. Whatever faculties\nhe possessed, it was his duty to use them in the attempt to remove the\nprejudices of those whose minds were not yet enlightened on this\nimportant question. But, while it was his duty to do this, he was to\nrefrain from every thing which would naturally tend to exasperate the\nminds of the masters. He was not to go and take hold of a man by the\nthroat, and say, 'You are a great thieving, man-dealing villain, and\nunless you instantly give your slaves liberty, I will pitch you out of\nthis three story window.' That was not the mode in which a prudent man\nwould go to work. And he (Mr. Breckinridge) would like, above all\nthings, to make Mr. Thompson, and his fellow-laborers sensible of this\nimportant truth; that in their efforts to give freedom to the slaves,\nnothing could be done without the consent of the slave-owners. And\nunless it was kept in view, Mr. Thompson might labor, to use an\nAmerican homely phrase, 'till the cows come home,' but he would not\nmove a single step nearer his object. While on this head there was\nanother saying which he had no doubt Mr. Thompson had frequently heard\nin America, and which might be of some use for him to bear in mind, if\nhe revisited that horrible country; it was that one 'spoonful of\nmolasses would catch more flies than a hogshead of vinegar.' With\nregard to the mode in which the question of slavery should be taken up\nin those states where it existed, he would say that every thing had\nbeen done--agitation, as it was called in this country--to enlighten\nthe public mind on the whole question, was the only thing that could\nadvance the cause. If there was any thing else that could be taken\nadvantage of for that end, he was willing to learn it, and to go home\nand try to teach his countrymen who were laboring in the same cause.\nIn the second place, Mr. B. proceeded to say, that the parties\nresponsible for the existence of slavery were the states which\ntolerated it. If slavery were wrong, as he was fully prepared to\nassert it to be, then those states or communities which tolerate it\nwere justly responsible at the bar of God, at the tribunal of an\nenlightened world. If slavery were wrong, those who have power were\nbound to abolish it as soon as it could be done consistently with the\ngreatest amount of good to all concerned. Now, slavery could end in\nany state only by violence, or by the consent of the masters. This\nmade it obviously the duty of all who had right views in such\ncommunities, to extend and enforce them in such a way as shall appear\nmost likely to secure the object in view--namely, peaceful, voluntary,\nand legal abolition. It demonstrates too, that whenever the majority\nof such a community are ready to act in this behalf, they are bound to\nact in such a manner as will constitutionally and speedily effect the\nobject, even though multitudes in that community should still oppose\nit. But here again it is most clear that such a result can never be\nbrought about, till the majority of such slaveholding communities\nshall not only consent to it, but require it. So that in every branch\nof the matter, it constantly appears how indispensable, light, and\nlove, gentleness, wisdom, and truth are; and how perfectly mad it is\nto expect to do any thing in America by harsh vituperation, hasty and\nviolent proceedings. But, say the anti-slavery people, you can abolish\nslavery in the District of Columbia, and might purchase the freedom of\nall the slaves throughout the whole of the states with the public\nmoney. But it was not the price of the slaves that was the chief\ndifficulty in making an end of slavery. The inhabitants of the\nSouthern states reckoned this the least part of the case. To take away\nour slaves, say they, is to take away not our property alone, but our\ncountry also; for without them the country would not be cultivated. He\ndid not say that the Southern planters were right in thinking so, but\nhe knew that they did think so; and therefore, it was necessary to\ntake their opinion into account. This was only an instance of the many\ndifficulties by which the question was beset, and would let them see\nthat it was not a mere matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. In\nreference to the efforts made by the American people to abolish\nslavery, Mr. Breckinridge said they had done much in this cause before\nMr. Thompson was born, and possibly before his father was born. They\nhad labored for ages, he might almost say for half centuries. During\nthat time they had effected much, and they would have done more but\nfor the interference of the party with which Mr. Thompson was\nidentified. A party whose principles were based on false\nmetaphysics--on false morality, who came often with the fury of\ndemons, and yet said they were sent by God. He would say the cause of\nemancipation had been much injured by the ill-designed efforts of that\nparty, they had thrown the cause a hundred years farther back, than it\nwas five years ago. In reference to the Maryland colonization scheme,\nof which they had heard so much from Mr. Thompson, he would only be\nable, as his time was nearly expired, to make a remark or two. That\nSociety had existed for about four years. In its fourth annual report\nthere is a statement from the managers of the Maryland State fund,\nthat within the preceding year, two hundred and ninety-nine\nmanumissions had been reported to them, which, with those previously\nreported, make eleven hundred and one slaves manumitted, purely and\nfreely manumitted, within four years in that State: while the total\nnumber of colored persons transported to Liberia since the Society\ncommenced its operations was then only one hundred and forty, as\nexhibited by the same report. Nothing could show more clearly the\nfalsity of those statements which represent the scheme of Maryland\ncolonization, as being cruel, oppressive, and peculiarly opposed to\nthe progress of emancipation. The direct contrary is in all respects\ntrue. With regard to the book from which Mr. Thompson had read some\nextracts, purporting to be the laws of Maryland; if he were not\nmistaken, that book was a violent and inflammatory pamphlet written by\nsome person, perhaps Mr. Thompson himself, shortly after his (Mr. B's)\nvisit to Boston. He would not enter upon the discussion of the merits\nof that pamphlet, against which it had been alleged in America, at\nthe place where it originated, and he believed truly charged, that\ninstead of containing faithful extracts from the laws of Maryland, it\ndid in fact, contain only schemes of laws which had been proposed in\nthe Assembly of Maryland, but which had never received their sanction;\nchiefly in consequence of the opposition of the friends of\ncolonization. In conclusion, he would say, that the Maryland scheme\nwas, as a whole, one of the most wise and humane projects that had\never been devised. He had no objection on proper occasions, to go\nfully into it, and he hoped to be able to show that it would do much\nfor the amelioration of the negro race.\n\n\n\n\nTHIRD NIGHT--WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15.\n\n\nMR. BRECKINRIDGE said, the subject for discussion this evening by two\nappointments, was the great cause of colonization, as it presented\nitself in America; and he was aware that of all the parts of the\nsubject of these discussions there were none on which their opinions\nwere more decidedly made up against what he believed to be the truth.\nIt was, therefore, peculiarly embarrassing for him to enter upon the\nsubject, but he did so with that frankness and candor with which he\nhad entered upon the other topics of discussion; and if he would not\nshow them sufficient reason to commend the principle of colonization\nto their minds and feelings, he could only expect that they should\nremain of their present opinions. The scheme of colonization was not a\nnew one in America. It had been spoken of 40 or 50 years ago, by him\nwho in his day ranked next to the father of his country in the\naffections of the American people, Mr. Jefferson, before he filled the\npresident's chair, while he was president, and afterwards occupied his\nthoughts with this great scheme. Being himself a decided enemy to\nslavery, he tried to rouse the minds of his countrymen to the\nadvantages which would arise from the colonizing of the free blacks of\nAmerica on some part of the Western coast of Africa. With this view he\nentered into negotiations with the Sierra Leone Company in this\ncountry, to receive into their colony free people of color from\nAmerica; and he also had applied to the Portuguese government, at that\ntime a large African proprietor, for a place where the free blacks\nmight be allowed to colonize themselves. Whether these efforts, which\nwere applauded and aided by many wise and good men, deserved to be\npraised or blamed, was not the topic to be taken up at present; but\nthey showed that the scheme was one which could not be called a new\nscheme. This proposal of colonizing the free blacks of America on the\nWest coast of Africa had obtained the approbation of nine tenths of\nall those throughout America who took any interest in the fate of the\nblack race: for even the great bulk of those who were now in favor of\n\"abolitionism,\" were at one time the friends of colonization. Whether\nthey had good or bad reasons for the change which had taken place in\ntheir opinions, would be more apparent, perhaps, when they arrived at\nthe end of the discussion. It was in the course of the years 1822 or\n1823 that the first colonists were sent out from America. He might not\nbe perfectly accurate in his dates, as he gave them from memory, but\nthe present argument did not depend on exact accuracy in that respect.\nThe society for promoting the colonization scheme was organized some\nyears before the date stated above, when an expedition was sent out to\nexplore the coast of Africa with a view to establishing the colony;\nand afterwards another to purchase territory; and then the colonists\nwere sent out, which he believed took place for the first time after\n1820. The society continued to pursue the scheme for a period of 9 or\n10 years, and met with no opposition except from some parties in the\nextreme South; but had the concurrence of almost all the wise, the\ngood, and the benevolent in America. It was not till about 1830 that\nany very violent opposition was made to the society's operations; and\nhe believed Mr. Garrison was among the first who opposed it, on the\nground that its operations were injurious to the interests of the\ncolored race in America. Mr. Arthur Tappan also seceded from the\nsociety about the same time, but upon different grounds from Garrison.\nHis opposition arose from the society's not taking up his ground in\nreference to Temperance. He had no hesitation in saying that Mr.\nTappan was right, and that the society was wrong; as they did not go\nfar enough in regard to this point. He the more readily admitted that\nin this particular Mr. Tappan's views were right, as he was wrong in\nevery other point which he assumed in reference to the society. But it\nwas not till about 1832, that an organized opposition to the society\nbegan to manifest itself. In 1833 the American Anti-Slavery Society\nwas established, one of the fundamental principles of which, and\nperhaps the one they most zealously propagated, was uncompromising\nhostility to the colonization scheme. In the progress of events too,\nit turned out that all the friends of colonization did not see alike\non all parts of the subject. Many of them thought that the interests\ninvolved were too important and too great to be left to a single board\nof management or staked on a single series of experiments. Some\nconsidered that one general principle of operation could not be made\nbroad enough for the circumstances of all the states, and hence arose\nseveral separate societies,--as that of Maryland, organized on\npeculiar principles, which have direct reference to general\nemancipation; and as those of New York and Philadelphia, which have\nfounded a colony on principles of peace,--the temperance principle\nbeing held equally by them and the Maryland society. The general\nsociety at Washington assumed the ground of colonizing, on the West\ncoast of Africa with their own consent, persons of color from America\nwho were of good character, and who were free at the time of their\nbeing sent out. The Maryland Society went a step farther. They saw\nthat the colonization scheme would have a reflection favorable to\nemancipation; and they carried on their operations with a direct and\navowed reference to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves in that\nstate. The New York and Philadelphia societies were founded, as I have\nabove said, on the principles of temperance and peace--the former\nprinciple being common also to the Maryland scheme. The united\nsocieties of New York and Philadelphia first took 120 slaves who had\nbeen manumitted by the late Dr. Hawes, of Va., and formed them into a\ncolony. The Parent Society's territory in Africa was called Liberia.\nIt was about 100 leagues in length along the coast, about 10 or 15\nleagues deep, and there were 5 or 6 settlements, all under the general\ncontrol of that society. There were in them all about 4,000 colonists,\na great portion of whom were manumitted slaves. The colony of the\nMaryland Society was farther South than that of the Parent Society. It\nwas situated on that point of the coast called Cape Palmas, and was\nitself called Maryland in Africa. It was under the charge of a board\nof management in Maryland, and consisted at this time of between two\nand three hundred colonists, who were chiefly manumitted slaves. The\nother colony, that belonging to the New York and Philadelphia Society,\nwas at Bassa Cove, and was under the charge of the directors of that\nsociety. There were in all about 5000 colonists under the charge of\nthese societies. For the first few years of the existence of the\nParent Society, it was supported by a number of gentlemen for\ndifferent reasons. At the commencement it was not perhaps perfectly\nclear how it might operate. Some advocated the cause and supported the\ninterests of the society, on the principles of direct humanity to the\nfree colored persons of America. Others again supported it as\ncalculated to produce collateral effects favorable to the slaves, and\nthe general cause of emancipation in the country. Others on the ground\nthat it would enable the country to get rid of the colored population,\nwithout much reference to what might be the result to the colored\npopulation themselves; just as if in England there were individuals\nwho would promote emigration, to get the country rid of those who were\nas they supposed given to idleness and a burden upon the country.\nThere may have been some who supported the society from an actual love\nfor slavery, and as a means which they supposed might lessen some of\nthe evils by which it was accompanied. During the first years of the\nsociety's operations, many thousands of speeches were delivered, and\nmany hundreds of pamphlets were published about the society, its\noperations, and their effects; and it was quite possible that Mr.\nThompson might be able to bring forward some sentences and scraps from\nthe speeches of a slave-owner, who looked upon the society as a means\nof perpetuating slavery in America; or he might produce some speech,\nin which the society was supported as a means of ridding the country\nof the free people of color, no matter what became of them afterward.\nBut it was uncandid and unjust to take this plan of opposing the\ncause; because it was well known that whatever might be the case in\nparticular instances, the general fact was, that the great majority of\nthe supporters of the society had always supported it, because of the\ngood effects they anticipated from it in favor of ultimate\nemancipation, as well as its present and immense benefits to the free\nblacks. Now I challenge Mr. Thompson to the plain admission, or the\nplain denial of these statements. If he denies them I am content; for\nin that case, he will stand convicted in America, for the denial of\nthat which every man, woman and child there knows to be true. If he\nadmits my statements to be substantially true, then the entire point\nof the charges brought by him and his friends against colonization, is\nbroken off; and all he or they can allege against it, can equally be\nalleged against every thing, good or bad, that ever existed, namely,\nthat men supported it for various, or even opposite reasons. I go\nfarther--I assert, and call upon Mr. Thompson to admit or to deny it,\nI care not which--that just in proportion as the cause has developed\nitself, and its natural and legitimate influences been plainly\nexhibited--those who favor slavery have cooled in its support, or\nwithdrawn entirely from it--while those who favor emancipation, and\ndesire the good of the free people of color, have, in the same degree,\nand with increasing cordiality, rather avowed it, insomuch that it\nwill be difficult if not wholly impossible for our evidences of\nfriendship to it, from an avowed friend of slavery, to be culled out\nof all his scraps, as occurring within the last three or four years.\nIndeed no persons were more persecuted after what Mr. T. calls\npersecution in some of the Southern states, than those who advocate\nthe cause of colonization, a fact which began to occur as soon as\nthose slave owners, who desired slavery to continue, clearly saw that\nthe natural result was the ultimate emancipation of the slaves. How\nfar the conduct of Mr. Thompson and his friends was calculated to\nproduce a reaction in the South, and incline moderate and humane\nmasters to the views of the emancipationists, cannot now be\ndetermined. But that the increasing wisdom and benevolence of the\nSouth will compensate for the folly and phrenzy at the North, there is\ngood reason to hope. He would now proceed to give a few reasons why\nthis scheme of colonization should be supported. But he would first\ncall their attention to a resolution proposed by Mr. George Thompson\nat a meeting of the Young Mens' Anti Slavery Society of Boston:--\n\n    That as the American Colonization Society has been\n    demonstrated to be in its principles unrighteous, unnatural,\n    and proscriptive, the attempt now made to give permanency to\n    this institution is a fraud upon the ignorance and an outrage\n    upon the intelligence of the public, and as such deserves the\n    severest reprobation.\n\nThe verbiage of this resolution showed its parentage. No one who had\never heard one of Mr. Thompson's speeches could for a moment doubt the\nauthorship of the resolution. But what were they to think of an\nindividual who, being almost a perfect stranger in America, came\nforward at a public meeting, and spoke in terms like these of a\nsociety, supported and encouraged by the great majority of the\nnation--embracing in that majority most of what is distinguished by\nrank, by knowledge, or by virtue, in the country? What but universal\nexecration from the violent, and pity and contempt from all--could be\nexpected to follow such proceedings. And yet London, Edinburgh, and\nGlasgow, celebrate the prudence of Mr. George Thompson in America, and\npraise his conduct there on their behalf! It was not demonstrated that\nthe scheme was either unnatural, proscriptive, or foolish. He wished\nmuch to hear Mr. Thompson attempt that demonstration. He (Mr. B.)\nwould attempt to prove, on the other hand, that in itself the scheme\nwas good, wise, and benevolent. His first reason was that it was good\nfor the free black population of America, for whose benefit it was\nintended, whatever might be the opinions entertained regarding\nslavery; whatever might be the opinion as to the duty of admitting the\nfree colored population to all the rights and privileges of white\npeople; taking it for granted that slavery should be abolished, taking\nit for granted that the free colored population should have the same\nrights and privileges as the white population; admitting, as so many\nhave declared, that these free people of color are generally very\nlittle elevated above the condition of the slaves; granting the\nexistence of the absurd prejudice among the white population against\npeople of color; taking as true, all the assertions of all, or any\nparties, on this subject, and then say, if it is not a good, a wise, a\nhumane reason for encouraging the society, that they are able to\nsnatch 1000 or 10,000 of these degraded, ruined, undone, and unhappy\npeople from the condition they are placed in, and plant them in\ncomfort, freedom, and peace in Africa? While Mr. Thompson and his\nfriends were trying their schemes to terminate slavery, and break down\nprejudice against color--schemes which were likely to be long in\nprogress, if we were to judge by the past--it seemed most\nextraordinary that they should object to our efforts to take a portion\nof these people out of the grasp of their present sorrows, and do for\nthem in Africa all that has been done for ourselves in America. Above\nall things, is it not inexplicable, that they should consider slavery\non one side of the Atlantic, better than freedom on the other,--a\nthought, proving him who held it unworthy of freedom anywhere. If this\nwas not a scheme, full of wisdom, of goodness and benevolence, he know\nnot what wisdom, goodness, or benevolence meant. They proposed to do\nnothing without the free consent of the colored people. And now, if a\nsimilar offer were made to every poor and unfortunate inhabitant of\nGlasgow, and all of them chose to remain here, except one, and that\none were captivated by the account of some distant El Dorado, and\nchose to push his fortune there, could the rest assume over this one\nthe right of saying, you shall not go; we are determined not to go,\nand equally determined not to let you go. Yet the abolitionists have\nbeen going about, from Dan to Beersheba, not only attacking and\nvilifying the whites, for proposing to colonize the blacks with their\nown free consent; but equally attacking the blacks for availing\nthemselves of the offer. And though the colony had been stigmatized as\na grave, as a place of skulls, it was the very place fitted by nature\nfor the black population, the land granted by God to their fathers. It\nis in one sense, then, a matter of no moment, what the causes are\nwhich induce the society to make the offer, or the black population to\nemigrate to Africa--even on the showing of the abolitionists\nthemselves, the colored population are kept in a state of degradation;\nand it is certainly just and good that means should be afforded them\nfor getting rid of that degradation. In the second place, he\nmaintained that this colonization scheme naturally tended to promote\nthe cause of general emancipation. To illustrate this, Mr.\nBreckinridge read the following extract from the Maryland report of\n1835, p. 17:--\n\n    The number of manumissions in the state reported to the board\n    since the last annual report, is two hundred and ninety-nine,\n    making the whole number reported as manumitted, since the\n    passage of the act of 1831, eleven hundred and one.\n\nThis extract showed that the scheme did not prevent manumission, but\nhad tended gradually to increase its amount. That this was the\nintention and actual effect of the colonization scheme, he would now\nprove to the meeting in so far as regarded Maryland; and if he did so\nof that state, he supposed they would not find it difficult to believe\nthe same thing of other states, as it was against Maryland that Mr.\nThompson had expended his peculiar virulence. Mr. B. then read the\nfollowing:--\n\n    Resolved, That this society believe, and act upon the belief\n    that colonization has a tendency to promote emancipation, by\n    affording to the emancipated slave a home, where he can be\n    happier and better, in every point of view, than in this\n    country, and so inducing masters to manumit, for removal to\n    Africa, who would not manumit unconditionally.--3rd A. Rep.\n    page 5.\n\n    Maryland, through her State Society, is about trying the\n    important experiment, whether, by means of colonies on the\n    coast of Africa, slave-holding states may become free states.\n    The Board of Managers cannot doubt of success, however; and\n    in exercising the high and responsible duties devolving upon\n    them, it is with the firm belief that the time is not very\n    remote, when, with the full and free consent of those\n    interested in this species of property, the state of Maryland\n    will be added to the list of the non-slave-holding states of\n    the Union.--3 A. R. page 6.\n\n    It has been charged, again and again, against the general\n    scheme, that its tendencies were to perpetuate slavery; and,\n    at this moment, both in this country and in Europe, there are\n    those who stigmatize the labors of men like Finley, Caldwell,\n    Harper, Ayres, Ashmun, Key, Gurley, Anderson and Randall, as\n    leading to this end. Unfounded as is the charge, it has many\n    believers. The colonization law of Maryland is based upon a\n    far different principle; for the immigration of slaves is\n    expressly prohibited, and the transportation of those who are\n    emancipated is amply provided for. In accordance, therefore,\n    with the general sentiment of the public, and anxious that\n    colonization in the state should be relieved from the\n    imputation put upon the cause, resolutions were unanimously\n    adopted, avowing that the extirpation of slavery in Maryland\n    was the chief object of the society's existence.--3 A. R.\n    page 33.\n\nThroughout the report the same current of events was referred to; and\nthey were found to be everywhere the same as to the effects of the\ncolonial scheme on the manumission of slaves. To show the cause of the\nobjections to the scheme by free persons of color, Mr. B. read the\nfollowing extract:--\n\n    The Board would here remark, that in collecting emigrants\n    from among the free persons of color in the state, the\n    greatest difficulty they have experienced has grown out of\n    the incredulity of these with regard to the accounts given to\n    them of Africa. Even when their friends in Liberia have\n    written to them, inviting them to emigrate, and speaking\n    favorably of the country, they have believed that a restraint\n    was upon the writers, and that the society's agents prevented\n    any letter from reaching America, which did not speak in\n    terms of praise of Africa. The ingenuity of the colored\n    people in this state devised a simple test of the reliance\n    that was to be placed in letters, purporting to be written by\n    their friends; which they have, during the last year or\n    eighteen months, been putting into practice. When the\n    emigrant sailed from the United States, he took with him one\n    half of a strip of calico, the other half being retained by\n    the person to whom he was to write when he reached Africa. If\n    he was permitted to write without restraint, and if he spoke\n    his real sentiments in his letter, he enclosed his portion of\n    the calico, which, matching with that from which it had been\n    severed, gave authenticity and weight to the correspondence.\n    Many of these tokens, as they are called, have been received,\n    and their effect has been evident in the greater willingness\n    manifested by the free people of color to emigrate;\n    especially those of them who are at all well judging and well\n    informed.--4 A. R. page 6.\n\nWhatever difficulties now exist as to getting free people of color to\navail themselves of the society's scheme and emigrate to Africa, arise\nin a great degree from the efforts of the abolition party to\nmisrepresent the intentions of the society, and the state and\nprospects of the colony, to the free colored people of the United\nStates,--thus showing the double atrocity of preventing these people\nfrom being benefited, and of traducing those persons who wish to\nbenefit them. In an address from Cape Palmas, by the Colonists to\ntheir brethren in America, dated in October, 1834, there was a\ndistinct avowal of the fact that it was better for them that they had\ngone there; and urging others to come also. Mr. B. then read the\nfollowing extract from the address:--\n\n    Dear Brethren--Agreeably to a resolution of our fellow\n    citizens herewith enclosed, we now endeavor to lay before you\n    a fair and impartial statement of the actual situation of\n    this colony; of our advantages and prospects, both temporal\n    and spiritual.\n\n    We are aware of the great difference of opinion which exists\n    in America with respect to colonization. We are aware of the\n    fierce contentions between its advocates and opposers; and we\n    are of opinion that this contention, among the well meaning,\n    is based principally upon the various and contradictory\n    accounts concerning this country and its advantages;\n    receiving on the one hand from the enthusiastic and visionary\n    new comers, who write without having made themselves at all\n    acquainted with the true state of affairs in Africa; and on\n    the other, from the timorous, dissipated and disheartened,\n    who long to return to their former degraded situation, and\n    are willing to assign any reason, however false and\n    detrimental to their fellow citizens, rather than the true\n    one, viz:--that they are actually unfit, from want of virtue,\n    energy and capacity, to become freemen in any country.\n\n    We judge that the time which has elapsed since our first\n    arrival, (eight months,) has enabled us to form a pretty\n    correct opinion of this our new colony, of the climate, and\n    of the fitness of our government. Therefore we may safely say\n    we write not ignorantly. And as to the truth of our\n    assertions we here solemnly declare, once for all, that we\n    write in the fear of God, and are fully sensible that we\n    stand pledged to maintain them both here and hereafter.\n\n    Of our Government--We declare that we have enjoyed (and the\n    same is for ever guaranteed to us by our Constitution) all\n    and every civil and religious right and privilege, which we\n    have ever known enjoyed by the white citizens of the United\n    States, excepting the election of our chief magistrate, who\n    is appointed by the board of managers of the Maryland State\n    Colonization Society. Other officers are appointed or elected\n    from the colonists.--Freedom of speech and the press,\n    election by ballot, trial by jury, the right to bear arms,\n    and the liberty of worshipping God agreeably to the dictates\n    of our own consciences, are rendered for ever inviolate by\n    the Constitution.\n\n    That we may not weary your patience or be suspected of a\n    desire to set forth matters in too favorable a light, we have\n    been thus brief in our statements. It will naturally be\n    supposed, brethren, that the object of this address is to\n    induce you to emigrate and join us. To deny this would be a\n    gross want of candor, and not in unison with our professions\n    at the outset. We do wish it, and we tender you both the\n    heart and hand of good fellowship.\n\n    But here again, let us be equally candid with you. It is not\n    every man we could honestly advise or desire to come to this\n    colony. To those who are contented to live and educate their\n    children as house servants and lackeys, we would say, stay\n    where you are; here we have no masters to employ you. To the\n    indolent, heedless and slothful, we would say, tarry among\n    the flesh pots of Egypt; here we get our bread by the sweat\n    of the brow. To drunkards and rioters, we would say, come not\n    to us; you can never become naturalized in a land where there\n    are no grog shops, and where temperance and order is the\n    motto. To the timorous and suspicious, we would say, stay\n    where you have protectors; here we protect ourselves. But the\n    industrious, enterprising and patriotic of what occupation or\n    profession soever; the merchant, the mechanic, and farmer,\n    (but more particularly the latter,) we would counsel, advise\n    and entreat to come and be one with us, and assist in this\n    glorious enterprise, and enjoy with us that liberty to which\n    we ever were, and the man of color ever must be, a stranger\n    in America. To the ministers of the gospel, both white and\n    colored, we would say, come to this great harvest, and\n    diffuse amongst us and our benighted neighbors, that light of\n    the gospel, without which liberty itself is but slavery, and\n    freedom but perpetual bondage.\n\n    Accept, brethren, our best wishes; and, praying that the\n    Great Disposer of events will direct you to that course,\n    which will tend to your happiness and the benefit of our race\n    throughout the world,\n\n                    We subscribe ourselves\n\n                           Yours, most affectionately,\n\n                                                 JACOB GROSS,\n                                                 WILLIAM POLK,\n                                                 CHARLES SCOTLAND,\n                                                 ANTHONY WOOD,\n                                                 THOMAS JACKSON.\n\n    The report having been read, it was then moved by James M.\n    Thompson and seconded, that the report be approved and\n    accepted. The yeas and nays were presented as follows:--\n\n    Yeas--Jeremiah Stewart, James Martin, Samuel Wheeler, H.\n    Duncan, Daniel Banks, Joshua Stewart, John Bowen, James\n    Stewart, Henry Dennis, Eden Harding, Robert Whitefield,\n    Nathan Lee, Nathaniel Edmondson, Charles Scotland, Nathaniel\n    Harmon, Bur. Minor, Anthony Howard, James M. Thompson,\n    Anthony Wood, Jacob Gross, Wm. Polk, Thomas Jackson.\n\n    Nays--Nicholas Thomson, William Reynolds, William Cassel.\n\n    N. B. Those who voted in the negative, declared that the\n    statements contained in the report were true, both in spirit\n    and letter, but they preferred returning to\n    America--whereupon the meeting adjourned, sine die.\n\n    A true copy of the record of the proceedings.\n\n                                                         WM. POLK.\n\nIf any weight was due to human testimony, it was made probable, at\nleast, if not certain, that the intentions of the promoters of the\nscheme were that it should be most kind to the black man, in all its\ndirect action, and by its indirect influences, the precursor of the\nabolition of slavery; and if the society had fallen into a mistake,\nthe colonists themselves had also fallen into the same; as in this\naddress they say the scheme has proved successful. He would,\ntherefore, conclude this second reason, by maintaining that he had\nsufficiently proved that the scheme had been productive of good, not\nonly to the colored population, but also to the cause of universal\nfreedom.\n\nThe reasons he would now offer would be more general. And in bringing\nforward the third head of argument, he observed, that the uniform\nmethod which God had selected to civilize and enlighten mankind, and\nto carry through the world a knowledge of the arts and laws, with all\nthe kindred blessings of civilization, was colonization. Amongst the\nfirst commands given by God to man, was to replenish and subdue the\nearth; and there was a striking fulness of meaning in the expression.\nWhile there seemed to exist in the whole human family an instinctive\nobedience to this command, God had so directed its manifestation, that\nhe believed he might safely challenge any one to show him any one\nnation which had located the permanent seat of its empire in the\nnative land of its inhabitants. Every nation had been a conquered\nnation; every people has been in turn enlightened from others, and in\nturn colonists again. This nation, which has reputed itself the most\nenlightened in the world, and far be it from him to controvert the\nopinion in their presence, might trace its superior enlightenment in\npart to the fact of its having been so much oftener conquered than any\nother, and the consequent greater mixture of nations among the\ninhabitants. Again, he observed, that God had kept several races of\nmen distinct, from the time of Noah down to the present day; and in\ntheir mutual action upon each other, there was this extraordinary\nfact, that wherever the descendants of Shem had colonized a country\noccupied by the descendants of Japhet or Ham, they had extirpated\nthose who were before them. When the descendants of Japhet conquered\nthe descendants of Shem, they were extirpated before them; when the\ndescendants of Shem conquered those of Japhet, the case was the same;\nand so of the descendants of Ham upon either. But when Japhet\nconquered Japhet there was no extirpation, and when Shem conquered\nShem there was no extirpation, as also of Ham conquering Ham. Now as\nto the continent of Africa, if history taught any truth, they must\nroll back all its tide, or Africa was destined to be still farther\ncolonized. As yet, the pestilence, like the flaming sword before the\ngarden of the Lord, had kept the way hedged up, the white man and\nyellow man away from the spot,--reserved till the fit hour and people\ncame. If we take the bodings of Providence all is well. But if we rely\non the lessons of the past, the only means in our power to prevent the\nultimate colonization of Africa by some strange race, and the\nconsequent extirpation of its race of blacks, is to colonize it with\nblacks. If they let Shem colonize there, the blacks will be\nextirpated; if they let Japhet colonize, the blacks will be\nextirpated. Africa must be undone, or she must be colonized with\nblacks; or all history is but one prodigious lie. To Britain seems\nspecially committed, by a good Providence, the destinies of Asia; and\nwe say to her, kindly and faithfully, Enter and occupy, till Messiah\ncome; enter at once, lest we enter before you. To America, in like\nmanner, is Africa committed. To do our Master's work there, we must\ncolonize it by blacks, we must enlighten it by blacks. And when Mr. T.\nand his friends come to us with their quackery, scarcely four year's\nold, and require us to forego for it our clearest convictions, our\nmost cherished plans, and our most enlightened views of truth and\nduty, we can only say to them, \"We are much obliged to you, but pray\nexcuse us, gentlemen; we have considered the matter before.\" Every\nbenevolent and right thinking person must see that the scheme of\ncolonizing Africa by black men, is necessary to enlighten Africa, and\nprevent the extirpation of the black men there. He would, in the\nfourth place, take up the question of christianizing Africa, separate\nfrom the other question of mere civilization and preservation. There\nwere only three ways, as had been argued, in which the works of\nmissions could be possibly conducted. In an admirable little treatise\non the subject, published in this country, and he regretted he knew\nnot the author, or he would name him in pure honor, these methods were\nably defined and illustrated. One method was, to send out\nmissionaries, and do the work, as many are now attempting it, in so\nmany lands. Another was, by bringing the people to be converted, to\nthose whom God chose to make the means of their conversion. And when\nBritain thinks harshly of America about slavery, let her remember, and\nmelt into kindness at the thought, of what we are doing to convert the\ntens of thousands of Irish Catholics she sends to us yearly. The third\nway was by colonization; and this, in past ages, has been the great\nand glorious plan. By this, Europe became what she is; by this,\nAmerica was Christianized; and he would again refer them to the little\nbook of which he had spoken--which, not being written by a slave\nowner, nor even an American, might possibly be true--to convince them,\nthat it was, in all cases, a most efficient means to save the world.\nBut in this peculiar case, it seemed to be the chief, if not the only\nmeans. The climate suited the black man, while hundreds of whites had\nfallen victims to it. So peculiar does this appear to me, that I have\nnever been able to comprehend how the pious and enlightened free\nblacks of America could so long, or at all, resist the manifest call\nof God, to go and labor for Him in their father land. There she is,\n\"sitting in darkness and drinking blood,\"--with a full capacity, and a\nperfect fitness on their parts, to enlighten, to comfort, and to save\nher--their mother, doubly requiring their care, that she knows not\nthat she is blind and naked! And yet they linger on a distant shore;\nand fill the air with empty murmurs, of time and earth, and its poor\nvanities; and Christian men around them caress and applaud them for\ntheir heathen hard-heartedness; and Christian communities, in their\nstrange infatuation, send missions to them, to prevent them from\nbecoming the truest missionaries that the earth could furnish!\nShadows that we are, shadows that we pursue! It was, in the fifth\nplace, the only effectual and practical mode of putting an end to the\nslave trade. There was, indeed, another way--by stopping the demand.\nBut while they disputed the means of stopping the demand, there was\nanother way--the stopping of the supply. This had long been an object\ndear to several nations. The government of Britain, the government of\nAmerica, and the governments of several other states, had sent several\ncruisers to stop the supply; but would any slaves be taken from\nAfrica, if there was even a single city on the western coast, with ten\nthousand inhabitants, and three vessels of war at their command? They\nwould put an end to the trade the moment they were able to chastise\nthe pirates, or make reprisals on the nations to which they belonged.\nWhy is it we never hear of the stealing of an Englishman, a German, or\na Turk? Because the thief knows that reprisals would be made, or that\nhe or some of his countrymen would be chastised or stolen in return.\nSo that all that was required, was to plant a city on the west coast\nof Africa, and this would give protection to the population of that\ncountry. Nothing is plainer, than that any nation which will make\nreprisals, will have none of the inhabitants stolen. If reprisals were\nmade effective, the slave trade would be immediately stopped. It is\nthe course pursued by Mr. Thompson and his friends, not the course\npursued by us, which is likely to continue the slave trade. On one\nhundred leagues of African coast, it is already to a great degree\nsuppressed; and if we had been aided as the importance of the cause\ndemanded, instead of being resisted with untiring activity, this\nblessed object might now have been granted to the prayers of\nChristendom.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. THOMPSON earnestly hoped that every word which Mr. Breckinridge\nhad that night uttered respecting the principles of the Colonization\nSociety, and what had been effected by that institution, would be\ncarefully preserved; that on other occasions, and by other persons, on\nboth sides the Atlantic, Mr. Breckinridge's arguments might be\ncanvassed, his facts investigated, and his sentiments made known. I\nshall offer no apology (continued Mr. T.) for referring to a point\ndiscussed last evening, but not fairly disposed of. I am by no means\nsatisfied, nor do I think the enlightened, and least of all the\nChristian world, will be satisfied with the doctrine which for two\nevenings has been laid down and maintained by Mr. Breckinridge, that\nAmerica, as a nation, is not responsible before God for the sin of\nslavery. I cannot, sir, receive that doctrine. I cannot lightly pass\nit over. Much hinges upon this point, nor will I consent that America\nshall lay the flattering unction to her soul that she is not her\nbrother's keeper; that any wretches within her precincts may commit\nsoul-murder, and she be innocent, by reason of her wilful, self\ninduced, and self continued impotency. I do not believe the doctrine\nof \"the irresponsibleness of America as a nation\" to be politically\nsound; still less do I believe it to be the doctrine of the Bible.\n\nSir, I fearlessly charge America, as a nation--as the United States of\nAmerica--as a voluntary confederacy of free republics--as living under\none common constitution, and one common government--with being a\nnation of slave-holders, and the vilest and most culpable on the face\nof the earth.\n\nI charge America with having a slave-holding president; with holding\nseven thousand slaves at the seat of government; with licensing the\nslave trade for four hundred dollars; with permitting the domestic\nslave trade to the awful extent of one hundred thousand souls per\nannum; with allowing prisons, built with the public money, to be made\nthe receptacles of unoffending, home-born Americans, destined for the\nsouthern market; with permitting her legislators and the highest\nfunctionaries in the state to trample upon every dictate of humanity,\nand every principle sacred in American independence, by trafficking\n\"in slaves and the souls of men.\"\n\nI charge America, \"as a nation,\" with permitting within her boundaries\na wide spread system, which my opponent has himself described as one\nof clear robbery, universal concubinage, horrid cruelty, and\nunilluminated ignorance.\n\nI charge America, before the world and God, with the awful crime of\nreducing more than two millions of her own children, born on her own\nsoil, and entitled to \"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,\"\nto the state of _beasts_; withholding from them every right, and\nprivilege, and social or political blessing, and leaving them the prey\nof those who have legislated away the word of life, and the ordinances\nof religion, lest their victims should at any time see with their\neyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and\nshould assume the bearing, and the name, and the honors of humanity.\n\nI charge America, \"as a nation,\" with being wickedly, cruelly, and, in\nthe highest sense, criminally indifferent to the happiness and\nelevation of the free colored man; with crushing and persecuting him\nin every part of the country; with regarding him as belonging to a\nlow, degraded, and irreclaimable _caste_, who ought not to call\nAmerica his country or his home, but seek in Africa, on the soil of\nhis ancestors, a refuge from persecution in the land which the\nEnglish, and the Dutch, and the French, and the Irish, have wrested\nfrom the _red_ men, and which they now proudly and self complacently,\nbut most falsely style the _white_ man's country.\n\nI charge all this, and much more, upon the _government_ of America,\nupon the _church_ of America, and upon the _people_ of America.\n\nIt is idle, to say the least, to talk of rolling the guilt of the\nsystem upon the individual slave-holder, and the individual state.\nThis cannot fairly be done while the citizens throughout the land are\nbanded, confederated, united. It is the sin of the entire church. The\nPresbyterians throughout the country are one body; the Baptists are\none body; the Episcopalian Methodists are one body; they acknowledge\none another; they cordially fellowship one another. They make the sin,\nif it be a sin, theirs, by owning as brethren in Christ Jesus, and\nministers of Him, who was anointed to preach deliverance to the\ncaptives, men who shamelessly traffic in rational, blood-redeemed\nsouls; nay, even barter away for accursed gold, their own church\nmembers. It is pre-eminently the sin of the church. It is the sin of\nthe people at large. It is said the laws recognize slavery. I reply,\nthe entire nation is answerable for those laws. We hear that the\n\"Constitution can do nothing,\" that \"the Congress can do nothing,\" to\nwhich I reply, Woe, and shame, and guilt, and execration must be, and\nought to be, the portion of that people calling themselves Christians\nand republicans, who can tolerate, through half a century, a\nConstitution and a Congress that cannot prevent nor cure the buying\nand selling of sacred humanity; the sundering of every fibre that\nbinds heart to heart, and the dehumanization and butchery of peaceful\nand patriotic citizens within the territories over which they extend.\nIn whatever aspect I view this question, the people, and the whole\npeople, appear to be, before God and man, responsible, politically and\nmorally, for the sin of slave-holding. They are responsible for the\nConstitution, with any deficiencies and faults it may have, for they\nhave the power, and it is therefore their duty, to amend it. They are\nresponsible for the character and acts of Congress, for they make the\nsenators and representatives that go there. In a word, they are\nproperly and solemnly responsible for that \"system\" of which we have\nheard so much, and for \"the workings of that system;\" and I declare it\nlittle better than subterfuge to say, that the people of America, the\nsource of power, the sovereign, the omnipotent people, are not\nresponsible for the existence of slavery and all its kindred\nabominations, within the territorial limits of the United States.\n\nThe charges which he had here made were important, grave and awful. He\nmade them under the full and solemn impression of his accountableness\nto mankind, and the God of nations. He believed them to be true; he\nwas prepared to substantiate them. That not one tittle of them might\nbe lost or misrepresented in Great Britain or America, he had penned\nthem with his own hand, out of his own heart, and he was prepared to\nsupport them in England, or in Scotland, or in America itself: for he\nhoped yet again to visit that country, and there resume his advocacy\nof the cause of the slave.\n\nHe would now come to the colonization question, on which he felt\ncompletely at home. In adverting to this question, however, he\nexperienced a difficulty, which he had felt on many former occasions,\nthat of not being able to compress what he had to say within the\ncompass of one address. He would not only have to reply to what Mr.\nBreckinridge had advanced, but he would have to touch on topics which\nMr. Breckinridge had overlooked--principles affecting the origin,\ncharacter, and very existence of that society, which Mr. Breckinridge\nhad taken under his special protection. He (Mr. T.) would show that\nthe improvement of the black man's condition was not the chief object\nof the Colonization Society; that its operations sprung from that\nloathing of color which might be denominated the peculiar sin of\nAmerica. Slavery might be found in many countries, but it was in\nAmerica alone that there existed an aristocracy founded on the color\nof the skin. A race of pale-skinned patricians, resting their claims\nto peculiar rank and privileges upon the hue of the skin, the texture\nof the hair, the form of the nose, and the size of the calf! But for\nthis abhorrence of color, Mr. B. would not have been contented with\nthe means proposed by the Colonization Society for the amelioration of\nslavery; he would not have spoken a word of colonization, or of that\nGolgotha, Liberia.\n\nAcquainted as he (Mr. T.) was with America, he had been able to come\nto no other conclusion, but that the prejudice of color was that on\nwhich the colonization of the free negro was founded. There had been a\ngreat deal said of the inferior intellect of the black race, and of a\nmarked deficiency in their moral qualities; but these were not the\ngrounds on which it was sought to expatriate them; the injustice\npractised towards them rested solely on the prejudice which had been\nexcited against their external personal peculiarities. Every word\nspoken by Mr. Breckinridge in defence of colonization, went directly\nto prove this. The whole scheme rested on the dark color of those to\nbe expatriated. Had the sufferers been white in the skin, Mr. B. would\nhave advocated immediate, complete, and everlasting emancipation.\n\nHe would now turn to a matter, regarding which he considered Mr.\nBreckinridge had treated the abolitionists of America with\ninjustice--with unkindness--with something which he did not like even\nto name. Mr. B. had charged the abolitionists with having published a\nlaw as the law of the state of Maryland, which had never been adopted\nby the legislature of that state; and when he (Mr. T.) had required of\nMr. B. evidence in support of his grave allegations, it was in this\ncase precisely as in the case of Mr. Garrison and Mr. Wright,--the\nproofs were non est inventus. Now, he would ask, was this fair; was it\nmagnanimous; was it generous; was it Christianlike?\n\nThe charge had been distinctly made, and then it had been asked of the\nparties accused to prove a negative. Mr. Breckinridge was not likely\nto be long in Glasgow, and it was therefore most easy, and most\nconvenient, to prefer charges which could not, even on the testimony\nof the parties implicated, be answered until Mr. Breckinridge was far\naway, and the poison had had full time to work its effect. He (Mr. T.)\nwould, however, give it as his opinion, that his fellow laborers on\nthe other side of the Atlantic, would triumphantly clear themselves of\nthis and every other imputation, and finally emerge from the ordeal,\nhowever fierce, pure, untarnished, and unscathed.\n\nSuch a charge, however, should not be brought against him (Mr. T.).\nThe laws of Maryland, he cited, were to be found in the pages of the\nColonization Society's accredited organ, the African Repository, an\nentire set of which was on the platform, open to inspection.\n\nMr. Breckinridge had taken great pains to make out a case for the\nMaryland Colonization Society. This was not to be wondered at. That\nsociety was a protege of his own. It had been patronized and fostered\nby him. For it, it appeared, he had almost suffered martyrdom, when,\nin advocating its cause in Boston, he had been mistaken for an\nabolitionist,--in that same city of Boston, where a gentlemanly mob of\n5000 individuals, fashionably attired, in black, and brown, and blue\ncloth, had joyfully engaged in assaulting and dispersing a peaceful\nmeeting of forty ladies.\n\nHe had not yet done with the Maryland Colonization Society. He was\nprepared to prove that it was, taken as a whole, a most oppressive and\niniquitous scheme. The laws framed to support it prohibited\nmanumission, except on condition of the removal of the freed slaves;\nthus submitting a choice of evils, both cruel to the last\nextent,--perpetual bondage, or banishment from the soil of their\nbirth, and the scenes and associations of infancy and youth. He could\nshow, that free persons of color, coming into the state, were liable\nto be seized and sold; and white persons inviting them, and harboring\nthem, liable to the infliction of heavy fines.\n\nThese, and similar provisions, all disgraceful and cruel, were the\nprominent features of the laws which had been framed to carry into\neffect the benevolent and patriotic designs of the Maryland\nColonization Society!\n\nThat expulsion from the state was the thing intended, he would show\nfrom newspapers published in the state. What said the Baltimore\nChronicle, a pro-slavery and colonization paper, at the time when the\nlaws referred to were passed? Let his auditory hear with attention.\n\n    \"The intention of those laws was, and their effect must be,\n    to EXPEL the free people of color from this state. They will\n    find themselves so hemmed in by restrictions, that their\n    situation cannot be otherwise than uncomfortable should they\n    elect to remain in Maryland. These laws will no doubt be met\n    by prohibitory laws in other states, which will greatly\n    increase the embarrassments of the people of color, and leave\n    them no other alternative than to emigrate or remain in a\n    very unenviable condition.\"\n\nWhat said the Maryland Temperance Herald of May 3, 1835?\n\n    \"We are indebted to the committee of publication for the\n    first No. of the Maryland Colonization Journal, a new\n    quarterly periodical, devoted to the cause of colonization in\n    our state. Such a paper has long been necessary; we hope this\n    will be useful.\n\n    \"Every reflecting man must be convinced, that the time is not\n    far distant when the safety of the country will require the\n    EXPULSION of the blacks from its limits. It is perfect folly\n    to suppose, that a foreign population, whose physical\n    peculiarities must forever render them distinct from the\n    owners of the soil, can be permitted to grow and strengthen\n    among us with impunity. Let hair-brained enthusiasts\n    speculate as they may, no abstract considerations of the\n    natural rights of man, will ever elevate the negro population\n    to an equality with the whites. As long as they remain in the\n    land of their bondage, they will be morally, if not\n    physically enslaved, and, indeed, so long as their distinct\n    nationality is preserved, their enlightenment will be a\n    measure of doubtful policy. Under such circumstances every\n    philanthropist will wish to see them removed, but gradually,\n    and with as little violence as possible. For effecting this\n    purpose, no scheme is liable to so few objections, as that of\n    African Colonization. It has been said, that this plan has\n    effected but little--true, but no other has done any thing.\n    We do not expect that the exertions of benevolent individuals\n    will be able to rid us of the millions of blacks who oppress\n    and are oppressed by us. All they can accomplish, is to\n    satisfy the public of the practicability of the scheme--they\n    can make the experiment--they are making it and with success.\n    The state of Maryland has already adopted this plan, and\n    before long every Southern state will have its colony. The\n    whole African coast will be strewn with cities, and then,\n    should some fearful convulsion render it necessary to the\n    public safety TO BANISH THE MULTITUDE AT ONCE, a house of\n    refuge will have been provided for them in the land of their\n    fathers.\"\n\nYet this was the plan of which the American Colonization Society, at\nits annual meeting in 1833, had spoken in the following terms:--\n\n    Resolved, That the Society view, with the highest\n    gratification, the continued efforts of the State of Maryland\n    to accomplish her patriotic and benevolent system in regard\n    to her colored population; and that the last appropriation by\n    that state of two hundred thousand dollars, in aid of African\n    colonization, is hailed by the friends of the system, as a\n    BRIGHT EXAMPLE to other states.\n\nMr. Breckinridge had lauded the Colonization Society as a scheme of\nbenevolence and patriotism. He (Mr. T.) did not mean to deny that\nthere had been many pious and excellent men found amongst its founders\nand subsequent supporters, but he was prepared to demonstrate that it\nhad grown out of prejudice, was based upon prejudice, made its appeal\nto prejudice, and could not exist were the prejudice against the\ncolored man conquered. It had, moreover, made an appeal to the fears\nand cupidity of the slaveholder, by setting forth, that, in its\noperations, it would remove from the southern states the most\ndangerous portion of the free population, and also enhance the value\nof the slaves left remaining in the country. The doctrines found\npervading the publications of the society were of the most absurd and\nanti-christian character. He would mention three, viz., 1st, that\n_Africa_, and not _America_, was the true and appropriate home of the\ncolored man; 2dly, that prejudice against color was _invincible_, and\nthe elevation of the colored man, therefore, while in America, beyond\nthe reach of humanity, legislation and religion; and, 3dly, that there\nshould be no emancipation except for the purposes of colonization. How\ntruly monstrous were these doctrines! How calculated to cripple\nexertion, to retard freedom, and mark the colored man out as a\nforeigner and alien, to be driven out of the country as soon as the\nmeans for his removal were provided. Such had really been the effect\nof the society's views upon the public mind in America. If the colored\nman was to be expatriated because his ancestors were Africans, then\nlet General Jackson be sent to Ireland, because his parents were\nIrish; and Mr. Van Buren be sent to Holland, because his ancestors\nwere Dutch; and let the same rule be applied to all the other white\ninhabitants of the country. Then would Great Britain, and France, and\nGermany, and Switzerland recover their children; America be delivered\nof her conquerors, and the red man come forth from the wilds and the\nwildernesses of the back country, to enjoy, in undisturbed security,\nthe soil from which his ancestors had been driven. Mr. Breckinridge\nhad said much respecting his (Mr. T.'s) presumption in bringing\nforward a resolution in Boston, so strongly condemning the measures\nand principles of the Colonization Society. He (Mr. T.) might be\npermitted to say, that if he had acted presumptuously, he had also\nacted boldly and honestly; and that the auditory should know, that the\nresolution referred to had been debated for one entire evening, and\nfrom half past nine till half past one, the next day, with the Rev. R.\nR. Gurley, the secretary and agent of the Colonization Society, who,\nfor eight or nine years, had been the editor of the African\nRepository, and was, perhaps, better qualified than any other man in\nthe United States, to discuss the subject--always, of course,\nexcepting his Rev. opponent, then on the platform. He admitted, the\nresolution was strongly worded; that it repudiated the society as\nunrighteous, unnatural, and proscriptive; and declared the efforts\nthen making to give strength and permanency to the institution, were a\nfraud upon the ignorance, and an outrage upon the intelligence and\nhumanity of the community. But this country should know that he had\ndefended his propositions, face to face, with one of the ablest\nchampions of the cause, before two American audiences, in the city of\nBoston. That the assembly then before him might judge of the character\nof the debate, and know its result, he would read a few short\nextracts, taken from a respectable daily paper, published in Boston,\nand entirely unconnected with the Abolitionists. The editor himself,\nB. F. Hallett, Esq., reported the proceedings, and thus remarked:--\n\n    \"One of the most interesting, masterly, and honorable\n    discussions ever listened to in this community, took place on\n    Friday evening and Saturday morning. The hall was as full as\n    it could hold. * * * * * * The whole discussion was a model\n    for courtesy and christian temper in like cases, and did\n    great credit to all parties concerned. We question if a\n    public debate was ever conducted in this city, in a better\n    spirit, and with more ability. There was not a discourteous\n    word passed, through the whole, and no occurrence which for\n    an instant marred the entire cordiality with which the\n    dispute was conducted. It was not men but principles that\n    were contending, and we venture to say that no public\n    discussion was ever managed on higher grounds, or was more\n    deeply interesting to an audience. The resolution was put,\n    all present being invited to vote. It was carried in the\n    affirmative with FOUR voices in the negative.\"\n\nSo said the Boston Daily Advocate.\n\nThe following extracts from the published addresses of some of the\nmost eminent and gifted supporters of the Colonization Society, would\nshow, that the _compulsory_ removal of the colored population, had\nfrom the first been contemplated. If it was replied, \"You cannot find\ncompulsion in the Constitution,\" he (Mr. T.) would rejoin, No; but\nherein consists the wickedness and hypocrisy of the scheme; that while\nit puts forth a fair face in its constitution, it does, really and in\ntruth, contain the elements of all oppression. The written\nconstitution of the Society was but the robe of an angel, covering an\nimplacable and devouring demon. He would make another remark, also,\nbefore submitting the extracts in his hand. Mr. Breckinridge had\nstrenuously endeavored to lay the guilt of the oppressive laws in the\nsouth upon the Abolitionists, declaring that those laws had resulted\nfrom the spread of Anti-slavery principles. From the passages about to\nbe cited, and, more especially, from the words of Mr. Clay, it would\nbe found, that long prior to the \"quackery\" of the Abolitionists,\nthere had existed harsh and cruel laws, calling forth the regrets and\ncensures of Slaveholders themselves. Even admitting the truth of what\nMr. B. had said, did it follow that the truth should not therefore be\npublished. By no means. The Israelites, in their bondage, murmured\nagainst the measures of him whom God had raised up to deliver them,\nand complained that their burdens had increased since Pharaoh had been\nremonstrated with. He would quote, for the benefit of Mr. B. a very\nlaconic remark, by an old commentator, \"When the bricks are doubled,\nMoses is near.\"\n\n    1. Charles Carrol Harper, Son of General Harper, to the\n    voters of Baltimore, 1826. Af. Repy., vol. 2. page 188. For\n    several years the subject of Abolition of Slavery has been\n    brought before you. I am decidedly opposed to the project\n    recommended. No scheme of abolition will meet my support,\n    that leaves the emancipated blacks among us. Experience has\n    proved that they become a corrupt and degraded class, as\n    burthensome to themselves, as they are hurtful to the rest\n    of society.\n\n    Again, page 189, \"To permit the blacks to remain amongst us\n    after their emancipation, would be to aggravate, and not to\n    cure the evil.\"\n\n    2. Extracted with approbation from the Public Ledger,\n    Richmond, Indiana, Af. Repy., vol. 3. page 26. \"We would say,\n    liberate them only on condition of their going to Africa or\n    Hayti.\"\n\n    3. Extracts from an address delivered at Springfield, before\n    the Hamden Col. Society, July 4th, 1828. By Wm. B. O.\n    Peabody, Esq. published by request of the Society. Af. Repy.,\n    vol. 4. page 226. \"I am not complaining of the owners of\n    Slaves; they cannot get rid of them; it would be as humane to\n    throw them from the decks in the middle passage, as to set\n    them free in our country.\" Upon which the following eulogy is\n    pronounced, page 230. \"We need hardly say that Mr. Peabody's\n    address is an excellent one. May its spirit universally\n    pervade and animate the minds of our countrymen.\n\n    4. Extracts from an Address to the Col. Socy. of Kentucky, at\n    Frankfort, Dec. 17th., 1829, by the Hon. Henry Clay. Af.\n    Repy., vol. 6, page 5. \"If the question were submitted,\n    whether there should be immediate or gradual emancipation of\n    all the slaves in the United States, without their removal or\n    colonization, painful as it is to express the opinion, I have\n    no doubt it would be unwise to emancipate them. For I believe\n    that the aggregate of the evils which would be engendered in\n    Society, upon the supposition of such general emancipation,\n    and of the liberated slaves remaining promiscuously among us,\n    would be greater than all the evils of Slavery, great as they\n    unquestionably are.\"\n\n    Again, page 12. \"Is there no remedy, I again ask, for the\n    evils of which I have sketched a faint and imperfect picture?\n    Is our posterity doomed to endure forever, not only all the\n    ills flowing from the state of Slavery, but all which arise\n    from incongruous elements of population, separated from each\n    other by invincible prejudices, and by natural causes?\n    Whatever may be the character of the remedy proposed, we may\n    confidently pronounce it inadequate, unless it provides\n    efficaciously for the total and absolute separation, by an\n    extensive space of water or of land, at least of the white\n    portion of our population, from that which is free of the\n    colored.\"\n\n    5. Extracts from the speech of Geo. Washington Park Curtis at\n    the 14th Annual meeting of the Amer. Col. Soc., Af. Repy.,\n    vol. 6. page 371-2. \"Some benevolent minds in the\n    overflowings of their philanthropy, advocate amalgamation of\n    the two classes, saying, let the colored classes be freed and\n    remain among us as denizens of the empire; surely all classes\n    of mankind are alike descended from the primitive parentage\n    of Eden, then why not intermingle in one common society as\n    friends and brothers. No, Sir; no. I hope to prove, at no\n    very distant day, that a Southron can make sacrifices for the\n    cause of Colonization beyond seas, but for a Home Department\n    in those matters, I repeat no, Sir; no. What right, I demand,\n    have the children of Africa to a homestead in the white man's\n    country?\n\n    \"If, as is most true, the crimes of the white man robbed\n    Africa of her sons, let atonement be made by returning the\n    descendants of the stolen to the clime of their ancestors,\n    and then all the claims of redeeming justice will have been\n    discharged. There let centuries of future rights, atone for\n    centuries of past wrongs. Let the regenerated African rise to\n    Empire; nay, let Genius flourish, and Philosophy shed its\n    mild beams to enlighten and instruct the posterity of Ham,\n    returning 'redeemed and disenthralled' from their long\n    captivity in the new world. But, Sir, be all these benefits\n    enjoyed by the African race under the shade of their native\n    palms. Let the Atlantic billow heave its high and everlasting\n    barrier between their country and ours. Let this fair land\n    which the white man won by his chivalry, which he has adorned\n    by the arts and elegancies of polished life, be kept sacred\n    for his descendants, untarnished by the footprint of him who\n    hath ever been a slave.\"\n\n    6. Mr. Henry Clay's speech, before the Society, January 1st,\n    1818--2d Annual Report, page 110. \"Further, several of the\n    slaveholding states had, and perhaps all of them would,\n    prohibit entirely, emancipation, without some such outlet was\n    created. A sense of their own safety required the painful\n    prohibition. Experience proved that persons turned loose who\n    were neither freemen nor slaves, constituted a great moral\n    evil, threatening to contaminate all parts of society. Let\n    the colony once be successfully planted, and legislative\n    bodies who have been grieved at the necessity of passing\n    those 'prohibitory laws,' which at a distance might appear to\n    'stain our codes,' will hasten to remove the impediments to\n    the exercise of benevolence and humanity. They will annex the\n    condition that the emancipated shall leave the country, and\n    he has placed a false estimate upon liberty, who believes\n    there are many who would refuse the boon, when coupled even\n    with such a condition.\"\n\nHere there was compulsion, both in principle and precept. In the laws\nof Maryland, and elsewhere, were found abundant evidences of\ncompulsion in practice, and where there were no direct acts forcing\nthem to depart, a public sentiment had been created, which, in its\nmanifold operations, brought the colored man, crushed and hopeless, to\nthe conclusion, that it would be better for him to say farewell to\nhome and country, than remain a proverb and a nuisance amongst a\nprejudiced and persecuting people. No colored man could justly be said\nto go to Liberia, or elsewhere, with his free and unconstrained\nconsent, until the laws were equal, the treatment kind, prejudice\nfounded on complexion destroyed, and he presented himself a voluntary\nagent, and asked the means to transport him to a foreign shore. As one\nproof that compulsion had been openly and unblushingly advocated, he\nwould quote the words of Mr. Broadnax in the Virginia House of\nDelegates:----\n\n    \"It is idle to talk about not resorting to force; every body\n    must look to the introduction of force of some kind or\n    other--and it is in truth a question of expediency, of moral\n    justice, of political good faith--whether we shall fairly\n    delineate our whole system on the face of the bill, or leave\n    the acquisition of extorted consent to other processes. The\n    real question, the only question of magnitude to be settled,\n    is the great preliminary question--Do you intend to send the\n    free persons of color out of Virginia, or not?\n\n    \"If the free negroes are willing to go, they will go--if not\n    willing they must be compelled to go. Some gentlemen think it\n    politic not now to insert this feature in the bill, though\n    they proclaim their readiness to resort to it when it becomes\n    necessary; they think that for a year or two a sufficient\n    number will consent to go, and then the rest can be\n    compelled. For my part, I deem it better to approach the\n    question and settle it at once, and avow it openly.\n\n    \"I have already expressed it as my opinion that few, very\n    few, will voluntarily consent to emigrate if no COMPULSORY\n    measure be adopted.\n\n    \"I will not express, in its full extent, the idea I entertain\n    of what has been done, or what enormities will be perpetrated\n    to induce this class of persons to leave the Slate. Who does\n    not know that when a free negro, by crime or otherwise, has\n    rendered himself obnoxious to a neighborhood, how easy it is\n    for a party to visit him one night, take him from his bed and\n    family, and apply to him the gentle admonition of a SEVERE\n    FLAGELLATION, to induce Kim to consent to go away I In a few\n    nights the dose can be repeated, perhaps increased, until, in\n    the language of the physician, quantum sufficit has been\n    administered to produce the desired operation; and the fellow\n    then becomes PERFECTLY WILLING to move away.\n\nFinally, on this part of the subject, he would cite the Rev. R. J.\nBreckinridge, who, at the annual meeting of the American Colonization\nSociety, in 1834, had used the following language:--\n\n    \"Two years ago I warned the Managers of this Virginia\n    business, and yet they sent out TWO SHIP-LOADS OF VAGABONDS,\n    not fit to go to such a place, and they were COERCED away as\n    truly as if it had been done with a CART-WHIP.\n\nHis grand complaint against the Colonization Society was this--that\ninstead of grappling with the reigning prejudices of the community, it\nfalsely assumed the _insensibility_ of those prejudices, and proceeded\nto legislate accordingly. They thus sanctioned and perpetuated the\ngreatest sources of suffering and wrong to the colored population. The\nprejudice against the people of color had greatly increased since the\nformation of the Society. The present supporters of the Society were\nthose who thoroughly loathed the free people of color, and the most\ncruel and sanguinary opponents of the Abolitionists were the\nboisterous defenders of the American Colonization Society. For\nexample, when a mob assailed the inhabitants in New York, broke up\ntheir meetings, assaulted their persons, and sacked the house of Mr.\nLewis Tappan, that mob could, in the midst of their ruffian-like and\nfelonious exploits, most unanimously and heartily shout, \"Three cheers\nfor the Colonization Society,\" and \"away with the niggers.\" In\ntravelling in steamboats and stage coaches, he (Mr. T.) had invariably\nfound that his most furious and malignant opponents, and the most\ndetermined haters of the black man, were loud in their profession of\nattachment to the principles and plans of the society. Why had not the\nwise and benevolent members of the society denounced that prejudice?\nBecause the best among them were themselves partakers of that\nprejudice. It was evident, from all that Mr. Breckinridge had said,\nthat he was deeply imbued with that prejudice. It gave tone, and\ncolor, and direction to all his remarks. Such men might profess to\nlove the black man; but they were likely to be suspected of\ninsincerity, when they uniformly manifested their love by driving the\nobject of it as far away as possible. Such a mode of expressing love\nwas contrary to all our ideas of the natural manifestations of that\nfeeling. If the Colonization Society was indeed so full of benevolence\nand mercy, how was it that its character was so misunderstood by the\ncolored people, for whose special benefit it had been originated?\nSurely they were likely to be the best judges of its effect upon their\nwelfare and happiness. What was the fact? The entire free colored\npopulation of the United States were opposed to the expatriating\nproject. But his opponent would say it was owing to the abuse poured\nupon the society by the foul-mouthed Abolitionists. He (Mr. T.)\nshould, however, deprive the gentleman of this refuge, by laying\nbefore the meeting a very interesting fact, which would at once show\nthe feeling of the colored people when the plan was first submitted to\nthem. It would show, that in a meeting of three thousand, convened in\nthe city of Philadelphia, to decide whether the society should, or\nshould not, receive their countenance, they decided _against_ it\nwithout a dissentient voice. He would lay before them a letter written\nby a highly respectable, enlightened, and wealthy gentleman of color\nin Philadelphia, Mr. James Forten. The letter was written to the\neditor of the New England Spectator, in consequence of a remark made\nby Mr. Gurley, during the debate in Boston.\n\n                                PHILADELPHIA, June 10th, 1835.\n\n    REV. W. S. PORTER,--Dear Sir,--I cheerfully comply with the\n    request contained in your note of the 3d inst., to give you a\n    brief statement of a meeting held in 1817, by the people of\n    color in this city, to express their opinion on the Liberia\n    project. It was the largest meeting of colored persons ever\n    convened in Philadelphia,--I will say 3000, though I might\n    safely add 500 more. To show you the deep interest evinced,\n    this large assemblage remained in almost breathless and fixed\n    attention during the reading of the resolutions and the other\n    business of the meeting; and when the question was put in the\n    affirmative you might have heard a pin drop, so profound was\n    the silence. But when in the negative, one long, loud, ay,\n    tremendous NO, from this vast audience, seemed as if it would\n    bring down the walls of the building. Never did there appear\n    a more unanimous opinion. Every heart seemed to feel that it\n    was a life and death question. Yes, even then, at the very\n    onset, when the monster came in a guise to deceive some of\n    our firmest friends, who hailed it as the dawning of a\n    brighter day for our oppressed race,--even then we penetrated\n    through its thickly-laid covering, and beheld it\n    prospectively as the scourge which in after years was to\n    grind us to the earth, and, by a series of unrelenting\n    persecution, force us into involuntary exile.\n\n    I was not a little surprised to learn that Mr. Gurley\n    professed to be ignorant of this fact; for in the African\n    Repository he reviewed Mr. Garrison's Thoughts on African\n    Colonization; and a whole chapter of the work, if I mistake\n    not, is taken up with the sentiments of the people of color\n    on colonization, commencing with the Philadelphia meeting.\n    Perhaps Mr. Gurley did not read that chapter. But if his\n    memory is not very treacherous, he ought to have known the\n    circumstance, for I related it to him myself in a\n    conversation which I had with him at my house one evening, in\n    company with the Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge, and our beloved\n    friend, William Lloyd Garrison. The subject of colonization\n    was warmly discussed; and I well recollect bringing our\n    meeting of 1817 forward as a proof of our early and decided\n    opposition to the measure. No doubt Mr. Garrison also\n    remembers it.\n\n    Three meetings were held by us in 1817. The two first you\n    will find in the \"Thoughts on Colonization,\" part 2d, page 9.\n    Of the protest and remonstrance adopted at the third meeting,\n    I send you an exact copy. It is in answer to an address to\n    the citizens of New York and Philadelphia, calling upon them\n    to aid a number of persons of color, whom they said were\n    anxious to join the projected colony in Africa. Those persons\n    were mostly from the south, and it was to disabuse the public\n    mind on this subject, that our meeting was held.\n\n                       I remain, with great respect,\n                                Yours,           JAMES FORTEN.\n\nHe (Mr. T.) could pledge himself that such were still the feelings\nof the free colored people of America. Wherever they possessed a\nglimmering of light upon the subject, they utterly abhorred the\nsociety, and would as soon _consent_ to be cut to pieces, as sent to\nany of the colonies prepared for their reception. Was it not then too\nbad that Christians should be called upon to support a society so\nutterly at variance with the wishes and feelings of the parties most\nnearly concerned? As a few moments yet remained, he would occupy it\nin quoting the opinions of two gentlemen, ministers of religion, and\nstanding high in their own country, who had furnished lamentable\nevidence of the extent to which prejudice might possess otherwise\nstrong and enlarged minds. The first quotation was from a report of\na committee at the Theological Seminary at Andover, Massachusetts,\npresented to the Colonization Society of that institution in 1823.\nIt was from the pen of the Rev. Leonard Bacon, now pastor of a\nCongregational church at New Haven, Connecticut.\n\n    \"The Soodra is not farther separated from the Brahmin, in\n    regard to all his privileges, civil, intellectual, and moral,\n    than the negro is from the white man, by the prejudices which\n    result from the difference made between them by the God of\n    nature. A barrier more difficult to be surmounted than the\n    institution of the Caste, cuts off, and while the present\n    state of society continues, must always cut off, the negro\n    from all that is valuable in citizenship.\"\n\nThe other was his opponent on that platform; who, in a letter to the\nNew York Evangelist, had said, that emancipation, to be followed by\namalgamation, at the option of the parties, would be reckless\nwickedness. But lest he should misrepresent that gentleman, he would\nturn to the paper, and quote the passage cited.\n\n    \"I know that any abolition without the consent of the States\n    holding the slaves, is impossible; that to obtain this\n    consent on any terms, is very difficult;--that to obtain it\n    without the prospect of extensive removal by colonization, is\n    impossible; that to obtain it instantly on any terms, is the\n    dream of ignorance; that to expect it instantly with\n    subsequent equality, is frantic nonsense; and that to demand\n    it, as an instant right, irrespective of consequences, and to\n    be followed by amalgamation at the option of the parties, is\n    RECKLESS WICKEDNESS!\"\n\nAll the alarm created on the subject of amalgamation was totally\nunfounded. The views of the Abolitionists were simple and scriptural.\nThey held that there should be no distinctions on account of color.\nThat to treat a man with coldness, unkindness, or contempt, on\naccount of his complexion, was to quarrel with the Maker of us all.\nThey held that this prejudice should be given up, and the colored man\nbe treated as a white man, according to his intellect, morality, and\nfitness for the duties of civil life. They did not interfere with\nthose tastes by which human beings were regulated in entering into the\nnearest and most permanent relations of life. They confined themselves\nto the exhibition of gospel truth upon the subject, and left it to an\noverruling and watchful Providence to guard and control the\nconsequences springing from a faithful and fearless discharge of duty.\nMr. Thompson concluded, by observing, that he considered the readiest\nway to make men curse their existence and their God, was to oppress\nand enslave them on account of that complexion, and those\npeculiarities, which the Creator of the world had stamped upon them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would commence with a slight allusion to two\nreferences which had been made to himself by Mr. Thompson. And in\nregard to certain passages which had been read from speeches of his,\nhe would only say, that he had never written or uttered a single word\non this subject, which he would not rejoice to see laid before the\nBritish public. But he had a right to complain of the manner in which\nthese passages had been quoted. It was not fair, he contended, to\nbreak down a passage, and read only half a sentence, passing over the\nother half because it would not answer the purpose of the reader; in\nfact, because it would alter the sense of the passage altogether. He\ncharged Mr. T. with having been guilty of this in the last quotation\nwhich he had made, and, in order to show the true meaning of the\ngarbled passage, he would read it as it stood: [See the passage as it\nappears in Mr. T.'s speech.] He had read this the more particularly,\nin order to show the consistency of his present opinions with those\nwhich he had held and uttered two years ago. They would now perceive,\nhe said, that when the sentence was given entire, he said, that\nsetting the slaves free without reference to consequences, constituted\na material and an omitted part of that procedure, which he had\ncharacterized as reckless wickedness, whereas by breaking it up in the\nmiddle, he was made to say, that to permit voluntary amalgamation,\nafter instant abolition, was by itself to be so considered. He was now\nready to defend this statement as he had at first made it.\n\nThe next thing he would refer to, was the report of a speech which he\n[Mr. B.] had delivered at an annual meeting of the American\nColonization Society. And with regard to it, if he was in America, he\nwould say, decidedly, that it was not a fair report: that it was an\nunfair report, got up by Mr. Leavitt, the editor of the New York\nEvangelist, to serve a special purpose. He would not deny that he had\nsaid something which might give a pretext for the report. He had\ncharged the parent society with having been guilty of a gross\ndereliction of duty to the colony and the cause, in sending away two\nships' cargoes of negroes to Liberia, who were not fit for that place,\nand he believed that those two expeditions had done much to injure\nthe colony itself, as well as to impair public confidence in the\nfirmness and judiciousness of the parent board. They were emigrants\nunfit to be sent out--the refuse of the counties around South Hampton\nin Virginia; who were hurried out by the violent state of public\nsentiment in that region, after the insurrection and massacre there.\nLike a man conscious of rectitude, he had gone to the very parties\nconcerned, and declared his grounds of complaint; a line of conduct he\ncould not too often commend to Mr. Thompson, and no proof could be\nmore conclusive than this anecdote afforded, that the active friends\nof colonization in America, however they might differ about details,\nmeant kindly by the blacks, and by Africa. Mr. B. again expressed his\nsurprise that Mr. Thompson should occupy the time of the meeting by\nrepeating his own speeches. He had adverted to this matter before, he\nsaid, and as he was in a poor state of health, and had work elsewhere,\nand as there was much ground yet to go over, and Mr. T. declared his\nmaterials to be most abundant, he thought those repetitions might have\nbeen spared. They who took the trouble to read the published speeches\nof this gentleman, would find, that however exhaustless might be the\nboasted stores of his facts, proofs, and illustrations, about what he\ncalled \"American Slavery,\" he was exceedingly economical of them.\nAfter reading six or seven of them, he found them so very like each\nother, that the same stories, in the same order, and the same\nillustrations, in the same sequence, and the same unfounded charges,\nin the same terms of unmeasured bitterness, may be often expected, and\nnever in vain. Indeed, so meagre was his supply of wit, even, that it\nalso went on very few changes. The whole case exhibiting a most\nstriking illustration of the truth uttered in a personal sense by one\nof their own statesmen and scholars, and now proved to be of general\napplication, namely, that when a man resorted to his memory for his\njokes, it was very probable that he would draw upon his imagination\nfor his facts. As he [Mr. B.] had been so often asked to produce\ncertain placards for the purpose of substantiating some of his\nstatements, there could be no better connexion in which to call upon\nMr. Thompson to bring forward proof of those charges which he brought\nagainst certain persons, and classes of persons, unless he wished the\nworld to believe that he had brought those charges without having a\nsingle iota of evidence on which to found them. He would call upon Mr.\nThompson to bring forward his proofs in support of all those charges,\nthose reckless and extravagant charges, which he brought against the\nministers of religion in America. Mr. Thompson had stood before\nseveral London audiences with a runaway slave from America, who\ncharged certain individuals with unparalleled cruelty! Amongst other\nthings, with burning a slave alive; a matter to which Mr. T's\nattention had in vain been called, and his proofs demanded. He would\ntake no further notice of the gross things he had uttered of the\npresident of the United States than to say, that if he (Mr. B.) could\ncondescend to imitate his conduct, and utter ribaldrous things of the\nking of Great Britain, he should richly deserve to be turned with\ncontempt out of this sacred place. He would proceed, then, with his\nremarks on the Maryland colonization scheme. They had been told by Mr.\nT. that the object of the Maryland society was compulsory\nexpatriation, as a condition precedent to freedom. When proof of this\nwas required, he could bring none; and when he (Mr. B.) had showed\nthat it was not so, but that its object was of unmixed good to the\nblacks, an object accomplished as to many, on their showing, in the\nproof produced, Mr. Thompson turned round, and said, that it was\nentirely contrary to his preconceived notions, and repeated\nstatements, and must be false! But facts were better than notions and\nstatements both. And what were the facts in the present case? Why,\nthat on the one hand Mr. Thompson asserts that no slave can be\nmanumitted in Maryland except he will instantly depart the country;\nwhereas Messrs. Harper, Howard and Hoffman assert, in an official\nreport, on the 31st of last December, that 299 manumissions within\nthat state had been officially reported to them within a year, and\n1101 within four years. At the same moment I have produced a record of\nthe very names and periods of emigration, of 140, bond and free, all\ntold, who, within the same four years, under the action of the very\nlaws in question, had gone from the state; admitting half of whom to\nbe of those particular manumitted slaves, there would be left 1021\nmore of them to prove that Mr. T. either totally misunderstood, or\nmis-stated, that of which he affirms--either way, his assertions are\ndemonstrated to be untrue. As to the laws of Maryland, of which\nmention had been made, he had not seen them since his visit to Boston\ntwo years ago, and in adverting to them he had stated in general terms\nwhat he understood them to be. The great object of these laws was said\nto be the driving out of the free blacks from the state of Maryland.\nNow that the means taken to promote this end were not of that grinding\nand iniquitous character which Mr. Thompson had represented them as\nbeing, would be sufficiently obvious to the meeting, when it was\nconsidered that in that state there were three times the number of\nfree persons of color, than were to be found in the majority of the\nfree states, and considerably more than there were in any other state\nin the Union. If the laws were found more oppressive in Maryland, how\ndid it come that the free blacks congregated there from all other\nparts of America? Or if they were set free by the people so much\nopposed to their increase, why did they not rather go to Pennsylvania,\nwhich was separated from Maryland only by an imaginary line, and where\nfree blacks enjoyed almost the same rights as white men? But, again,\nit was said, that that colonization scheme was an awfully wicked\nscheme, because it sought to prevent the increase of free persons of\ncolor in Maryland. But if this were a grievous sin, were the people of\nGreat Britain not equally guilty in sending away out of the country\nship loads of paupers, free whites, to other parts of the globe, in\norder to prevent the increase of pauperism in this country? Why had\nnot this branch of the subject been adverted to by Mr. Thompson? Why\nhad he not, in the paroxysms of his enfuriated eloquence, while\nabusing the American colonizationists, not included the king and\nparliament of Britain for allowing the existence of laws, or if there\nbe no such law, for a practice rife in England, of expatriating\nthousands of paupers not only by contributions, but at the public\nexpense. He would be told that the paupers were sent away to distant\nparts of the globe, where they would be more comfortable in every\nrespect than they were at present. And had Mr. T. bowels of compassion\nonly for the black man? Is it lawful to export a white man against his\nwill, at the public charge, while it is unlawful to export a black\nman, with his free consent, by private benevolence? Is America so\ndetestable a place, that England may lawfully make her the receptacle\nof the refuse of the poor houses of the realm; while Africa is so\nsacred a place, that no one that can even do her good is to be\npermitted to go there from America, if his skin is dark? May Britain\nsay, she has more paupers than she can support, and so make it state\npolicy to force emigration from Ireland, by a system which makes a\nquarter of the people there beg bread eight months out of twelve, and\nproduces inexpressible distress; and yet is Maryland to be precluded,\non any account, or upon any terms, from seeking the diminution, or\nrather preventing the disproportionate increase, of a population,\nanomalous, and difficult of proper regulation? He should be most happy\nto receive an explanation of these strange contradictions! There was\nanother feature of the Maryland laws, which he might mention, which\nforbade the emigration of slaves into Maryland, even along with their\nowners. Mr. Thompson had prudently omitted all notice of that\nenactment, while he had said a great deal about the registration of\nfree persons of color, as if it were a most intolerable hardship. He\n(Mr. B.) was unable to see in what respect the great hardship\nconsisted. Was not every freeholder in this country registered? But\nthe free black was not allowed to leave the state of Maryland without\ngiving notice, it was said. There was nothing very oppressive in all\nthat. It was no worse interference on the part of the government, than\nfor the king of Great Britain to say to his subjects, You must return\nhome under certain contingencies; you shall not dwell in particular\nplaces, nor fight for certain nations. Were the governments of\nAmerica, because they were republicans, not to have the power which\nother nations had, of controlling the actions of that portion of their\npopulation, whose movements must be regarded by all who regarded the\npeace of society or the public good. He admitted, that some of the\nlaws in several of the states were hard and severe in reference to the\nfree colored population, but while he said so, it was but fair to add\nthat he considered the conduct of the abolitionists, in spreading\ntheir new fangled notions, had done much to alter these laws for the\nworse. In many instances the bad laws had become worse, and good laws\nhad become bad, solely through the imprudent conduct of Mr. Thompson's\nassociates. And this specific law of registration, and loss of right\nof residence, by removal for any considerable time out of the state,\nwas obviously intended to prevent free persons of color from going out\nand becoming imbued with false and bloody theories, and then returning\nto disturb the public peace. The law says to them, Abide at home, or,\nif you prefer it, depart, and find a home more to your mind; but if\nyou go, prudence requests us to prohibit your return. Mr. T.'s\ncomplaints of this enactment, showed how necessary it was to have made\nit.\n\nIn conclusion, he would recommend to Mr. Thompson, should he ever\nreturn to America, he need not be so tremendously prudent in regard to\nhis personal safety, if he would just not be so tremendously imprudent\nin the principles and proceedings he advocated, and the statements he\nmade with regard to the conduct of the American people. He had now\ngone over the assertions of Mr. Thompson, regarding the Maryland\ncolonization scheme, and he trusted that he had shown the unfounded\nnature of those assertions. All that had been said by Mr. T. as to the\nprinciples and objects of the colonizationists, and the scope and\ninfluence of their course, had no other proof than the writings of\nthose persons, who for some years, had formed a very small portion of\nthe supporters of this great interest; and who, without exception,\nbelonged to those classes, who at first, as had already been admitted,\nsupported it, for reasons, some of which were entirely political,\nothers perhaps severe to the slaves, and others unjust or\ninconsiderate towards the free blacks. But that directly opposite\nviews, statements and arguments, could be more amply procured from the\nstill greater, and still proportionately increasing party, who support\nthis cause, as a great benevolent and religious operation, must be\nperfectly known to the individual himself. If he admit this, said Mr.\nB., it will show his present course to be of the same uncandid kind\nwith all the rest of his conduct towards America, in selecting what\nanswered his purpose; that always being the worst thing he could find,\nand representing it as a fair sample of all. It will do more, it will\nshow that what he calls proof is no proof at all. But if he denies my\nrepeated representations as to the various classes of the original\nsupporters of the parent society, and the present state of them, I am\nequally content; as, in that case, all America would have a fair\ncriterion by which to test his statements. As to the Maryland plan,\nand that pursued by the united societies of Philadelphia and New York,\nif they have any supporters except such as love the cause of the black\nman, of temperance, and of peace, the world has yet to find it out.\n\nThe time being expired, Mr. B. sat down.\n\n\n\n\nFOURTH NIGHT--THURSDAY, JUNE 16.\n\n\nMR. THOMPSON said that before proceeding to the subject decided upon\nfor that evening's discussion, he must, in justice to himself and his\ncause, offer a remark or two. He had on the previous evening been\nstruck with surprise at the extraordinary injustice of charging him\n(Mr. T.) with quoting unfairly from the letter of Mr. Breckinridge in\nthe New-York Evangelist. It must have been obvious to all, that in the\nfirst instance, he quoted from memory, but all would recollect with\nthe avowed wish of avoiding misrepresentation, he had gone to his\ntable--produced the letter, and read the passage entire without the\nomission or interpolation of a letter or a comma. He, therefore,\nemphatically denied the charge of garbling. Mr. Breckinridge did\nhimself, immediately afterwards, read the passage, and read it\nprecisely as he (Mr. Thompson) had read it. The imputation, therefore,\nwas equally unfounded and unfair. He (Mr. T.) was thankful that his\nargument needed not such help. It would be as absurd as it would be\nwicked for him to attempt to support his cause by any garbled\nstatement.\n\nHe begged also that it might be distinctly understood that he had by\nno means exhausted the evidence in his possession on the subject of\nColonization. He could adduce a thousand times as much as that which\nhad been already brought forward. He had much to say of the colony at\nLiberia; the means taken to establish it, the nature of the climate,\nthe character of the emigrants, the mortality amongst the settlers,\nhow much it had done towards the suppression of the slave trade, &c.\nIn fact, he was prepared with overwhelming evidence upon every branch\nof the subject, and was willing to return to it at any moment,\nconfident that the arguments he could produce, and the facts by which\nhe could support them, would, in the estimation of the public, destroy\nforever the claim of the Colonization Society to be considered a pure,\npeaceful, or benevolent institution. I now, (said Mr. T.) come to the\ntopic immediately before us.\n\nIt is my solemn and responsible duty to bring before you to-night the\n_principles_ and _measures_ of a large, respectable, and powerful body\nin the United States, known by the name of IMMEDIATE ABOLITIONISTS. A\nbody of individuals embracing not fewer than fifteen hundred ministers\nof the gospel, and men of the highest station and largest attainments.\nA body of persons that have been charged upon this platform with being\na handful, \"so small that they could not obtain their object, and so\nerroneous (_despicable_ was, I believe, the word used) as not to\ndeserve success,\"--charged with being the enemies of the\nslave-holder--taking him by the throat, and saying \"you great\nthieving, man-stealing villain, unless you instantly give your slaves\nliberty, I will pitch you out of this third-story window,\"--charged\nwith carrying in their track a pestilence like a storm of fire and\nbrimstone from hell; forcing ministers of religion to seek peaceful\nvillages not yet blasted by it,--charged with saying that they were\nsent from God, when they possessed the fury of demons,--charged,\nfinally, with having \"thrown the cause\" of emancipation \"a _hundred\nyears_ farther back than it was five years ago.\" These are fearful\nindictments, and Mr. Breckinridge has a weighty duty to fulfil\nto-night, for he is bound to sustain them. They have been brought by\nhimself, a Christian minister, the professed friend of the slave; and\nhe must, therefore, abundantly support them by incontrovertible\nevidence, or stand branded before the world as the worst foe of human\nfreedom--the foul calumniator of the friends and advocates of the\noppressed, the suffering, and the dumb.\n\nHe would lay the principles of the American abolitionists before the\naudience in the words of their solemn and official documents. He would\ngo back to the commencement of the five years mentioned by his\nopponent, and read from the \"CONSTITUTION of the NEW-ENGLAND\nANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,\" a lucid exposition of the principles and\nobjects of the first Anti-Slavery Society (technically so called) in\nthe United States.\n\n    \"We, the undersigned, hold that every person of full age and\n    sane mind, has a right to immediate freedom from personal\n    bondage of whatsoever kind, unless imposed by the sentence of\n    the law for the commission of some crime.\n\n    We hold that man cannot, consistently with reason, religion,\n    and the eternal and immutable principles of justice, be the\n    property of man.\n\n    We hold that whoever retains his fellow man in bondage, is\n    guilty of a grevious wrong.\n\n    We hold that a mere difference of complexion is no reason why\n    any man should be deprived of any of his natural rights, or\n    subjected to any political disability.\n\n    While we advance these opinions as the principles on which we\n    intend to act, we declare that we will not operate on the\n    existing relations of society by other than peaceful and\n    lawful means, and that we will give no countenance to\n    violence or insurrection.\n\n    With these views, we agree to form ourselves into a society,\n    and to be governed by the rules specified in the following\n    constitution, viz:\n\n    ARTICLE 1. This Society shall be called the New-England\n    Anti-Slavery Society.\n\n    ARTICLE 2. The object of the society will be to endeavor, by\n    all means sanctioned by law, humanity, and religion, to\n    effect the Abolition of Slavery in the United States, to\n    improve the character and condition of the free people of\n    color, to inform and correct public opinion in relation to\n    their situation and rights, and obtain for them equal civil\n    and political rights and privileges with the whites.\"\n\nHe would now pass on to the formation of the National Anti-Slavery\nSociety, in December, 1833, and submit all that was material in the\n\"CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.\"\n\n\n    ARTICLE 2. The object of this Society is the entire abolition\n    of slavery in the United States. While it admits that each\n    State in which Slavery exists has, by the Constitution of the\n    United States, the exclusive right to legislate in regard to\n    its abolition in that State, it shall aim to convince all our\n    fellow-citizens, by arguments addressed to their\n    understandings and consciences, that slave-holding is a\n    heinous crime in the sight of God; and that the duty, safety,\n    and best interest of all concerned, require its immediate\n    abandonment, without expatriation. The Society will also\n    endeavor, in a constitutional way, to influence Congress, to\n    put an end to the domestic slave trade; and to abolish\n    slavery in all those portions of our common country which\n    come under its control, especially in the district of\n    Columbia, and likewise to prevent the extension of it to any\n    State that may hereafter be admitted to the Union.\n\n    ARTICLE 3. This Society shall aim to elevate the character\n    and condition of the people of color, by encouraging their\n    intellectual, moral, and religious improvement, and by\n    removing public prejudice; that thus they may, according to\n    their intellectual and moral worth, share an equality with\n    the whites of civil and religious privileges; but the Society\n    will never in any way countenance the oppressed in\n    vindicating their rights by resorting to physical force.\n\n    ARTICLE 4. Any person who consents to the principles of this\n    Constitution, who contributes to the funds of this Society,\n    and is not a slave-holder, may be a member of this Society,\n    and shall be entitled to a vote at its meetings.\"\n\nHe would next read the \"Preamble\" to the Constitution of the\nNew-Hampshire State Anti-Slavery Society:\n\n    \"The most high God hath made of one blood all the families of\n    man to dwell on the face of all the earth, and hath endowed\n    all alike with the same inalienable rights, of which are\n    life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; yet there are\n    now in this land, more than two millions of human beings,\n    possessed of the same deathless spirits, and heirs to the\n    same immortal hopes and destinies with ourselves, who are\n    nevertheless deprived of these sacred rights, and kept in the\n    most cruel and abject bondage; a bondage under which human\n    beings are bred and fattened for the market, and then bought,\n    sold, mortgaged, leased, bartered, fettered, tasked,\n    scourged, beaten, killed, hunted even like the veriest\n    brutes,--nay, made often the unwilling victims of ungodly\n    lust; while, at the same time, their minds are, by law and\n    custom, generally shut out from all access to letters, and in\n    various other ways all their upward tendencies are repressed\n    and crushed, so as to make their \"moral and religious\n    condition such that they may justly be considered the heathen\n    of this country;\" and since we regard such oppression as one\n    of the greatest wrongs that man can commit against his\n    fellow; and existing as it does, and tolerated as it is,\n    under this free and Christian government, sapping its\n    foundation, bringing its institutions into contempt among\n    other nations, thus retarding the march of freedom and\n    religion, and strengthening the hands of despotism and\n    irreligion throughout the world; and since we deem it a\n    duty to ourselves, to our government, to the world, to\n    the oppressed, and to God, to do all we can to end this\n    oppression, and to secure an immediate and entire\n    emancipation of the oppressed; and believe we can act most\n    efficiently in the case, in the way of combined and organized\n    action:--Therefore, we, the undersigned, do form ourselves\n    into a Society for the purpose.\"\n\nIf there was anything for which the abolitionists as a body were\npeculiarly distinguished, it was for the perfect uniformity of\nsentiment upon all great points connected with the general question of\nslavery. This was attributable to the clearness and fullness with\nwhich the principles of the Society had been enunciated. Not so with\nthe Colonization Society. You quoted the language of the most eminent\nof its supporters, but were immediately told that the Society was not\nanswerable for the views or designs of its advocates. How very\ndifferent a course did the Colonizationists pursue towards the\nAnti-Slavery Society. That Society was not only made answerable for\nall which the abolitionists _really_ said, and _really_ designed, but\nfor things they never said, and never designed. No Society was more\nconspicuous for the simplicity of its principles, or the harmony of\nviews subsisting among its members. All regarded slave-holding as\nsinful. All considered immediate emancipation to be the duty of the\nmaster and the right of the slave. All deprecated the thought of a\nservile insurrection to effect the extinction of slavery. All abhorred\nthe doctrine that \"the end sanctifies the means.\" But all deemed it a\nsolemn duty to pursue, with energy and boldness, the overthrow of\nslavery; all were one in believing and teaching, that the means\nadopted should be honest, holy, peaceful, and moral. It had been said\nthat the only weapon should be \"persuasion.\" He (Mr. T.) believed that\nif no other weapon than \"persuasion\" was resorted to, slavery would be\nperpetual. He believed that the gathered, concentrated, withering\nscorn of the whole world, Pagan and Christian, must be brought down\nupon slave-holding America, ere much effect could be produced. If this\nwas insufficient, it would be the duty of Britain to consider well\nwhether it was right to hold the destinies of the slaves of America in\nher hand and not act accordingly. It would be the duty of the friends\nof the slave to point to slave-grown produce, and cry, \"touch not,\ntaste not, handle not\" the accursed thing! Great Britain had the\npower, by adopting a system of prohibitory duties or bounties, to\naffect very materially the question at issue, and he (Mr. T.) doubted\nnot, that, if some such course was adopted, certain of the slave\nStates would immediately abolish slavery that they might find a\nreadier market and a higher price for their produce.\n\nNotwithstanding, however, the precision with which the abolitionists\nhad stated their principles, and the wide publicity they had given\nthem, designs the most black, and measures the most monstrous and\nwicked, had been charged upon them. They had been represented as\n\"firebrands,\" \"incendiaries,\" \"disorganizers,\" \"amalgamatists\"--as\npromoting \"disunion,\" \"rebellion,\" and the \"intermixture of the\nraces.\" Again and again, had they solemnly disclaimed the views\nimputed to them, and pointed to their published \"constitutions\" and\n\"declarations;\" but as often had their enemies returned to their work\nof calumny and misrepresentation. How totally absurd was it to charge\nupon the abolitionists the design of promoting amalgamation, while,\nunder the system of slavery, an unholy amalgamation was going on to\nthe most awful extent; demonstrated by the endless shades of\ncomplexion at the south; and when nothing was more obvious than this,\nthat when a female was rescued from her present condition--inspired\nwith self-respect, and became the protector of her own virtue,--and\nwhen fathers, and brothers, and husbands, were free to defend the\nhonor of their wives and daughters, the great causes, and incentives,\nand facilities would cease, and cease forever, and to prove to the\nworld how solemnly the abolitionists had denied the imputations cast\nupon them by their enemies, he would read from two documents put forth\nduring the great excitement which prevailed through the United States\nin August last. The American Anti-Slavery Society, in \"_An Address to\nthe public_,\" thus anew declared their principles and objects.\n\n    \"We hold that Congress has no more right to abolish slavery\n    in the southern States, than in the French West-India\n    Islands. Of course we desire no national legislation on the\n    subject.\"\n\n    \"We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the\n    Legislatures of the several States in which it prevails, and\n    that the exercise of any other than moral influence to induce\n    such abolition is unconstitutional.\"\n\n    \"We believe that Congress has the same right to abolish\n    slavery in the District of Columbia, that the State\n    Governments have within their respective jurisdictions, and\n    that it is their duty to efface so foul a blot from the\n    national escutcheon.\"\n\n    \"We believe that American citizens have the right to express\n    and publish their opinions of the constitutions, laws, and\n    institutions, of any and every state and nation under Heaven;\n    and we mean never to surrender the liberty of speech, of the\n    press, or of conscience--blessings we have inherited from our\n    fathers, and which we intend, as far as we are able, to\n    transmit unimpaired to our children.\"\n\n    \"We are charged with sending incendiary publications to the\n    south. If by the term _incendiary_ is meant publications\n    containing arguments and facts to prove slavery to be a moral\n    and political evil, and that duty and policy require its\n    immediate abolition, the charge is true. But if the term is\n    used to imply publications _encouraging insurrection_, and\n    designed to excite the slaves to break their fetters, the\n    charge is utterly and unequivocally false. We beg our\n    fellow-citizens to notice that this charge is made without\n    proof, and by many who confess that they have never read our\n    publications, and that those who make it, offer to the public\n    no evidence from our writings in support of it.\"\n\n    \"We have been charged with a design to encourage\n    intermarriages between the whites and blacks. The charge has\n    been repeatedly, and is now again denied, while we repeat\n    that the tendency of our sentiments is to _put an end_ to the\n    criminal amalgamation that prevails wherever slavery exists.\"\n\nThese were only extracts from the address, which was of considerable\nlength, and thus concluded:\n\n    \"Such, fellow-citizens, are our principles. Are they unworthy\n    of republicans and of Christians? Or are they in truth so\n    atrocious, that in order to prevent their diffusion you are\n    yourselves willing to surrender, at the dictation of others,\n    the invaluable privilege of free discussion, the very\n    birth-right of Americans? Will you, in order that the\n    abomination of slavery may be concealed from public view, and\n    that the capital of your republic may continue to be, as it\n    now is, under the sanction of Congress, the great slave mart\n    of the American Continent, consent that the general\n    government, in acknowledged defiance of the constitution and\n    laws, shall appoint, throughout the length and breadth of\n    your land, ten thousand censors of the press, each of whom\n    shall have the right to inspect every document you may commit\n    to the Post-Office, and to suppress every pamphlet and\n    newspaper, whether religious or political, which, in its\n    sovereign pleasure, he may adjudge to contain an incendiary\n    article? Surely we need not remind you, that if you submit to\n    such an encroachment on your liberties, the days of our\n    Republic are numbered, and that, although abolitionists may\n    be the first, they will not be the last victims offered at\n    the shrine of arbitrary power.\n\n                            ARTHUR TAPPAN, _President_.\n                            JOHN RANKIN, _Treasurer_.\n                            WILLIAM JAY, _Sec. For. Cor._\n                            ELIZUR WRIGHT, Jr.,_ Sec. Dom. Cor._\n                            ABRAHAM L. COX, M. D., _Rec. Sec._\n                            LEWIS TAPPAN,        }\n                            JOSHUA LEAVITT,      } Members\n                            SAMUEL E. CORNISH,   } of the\n                            SIMEON S. JOCELYN,   } Executive\n                            THEODORE S. WRIGHT,  } Committee.\n\n      New-York, September 3, 1835.\"\n\nThe other document to which he had referred, was an \"Address\" adopted\nat \"A meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, duly held in\nBoston, on Monday, August 17, A. D., 1835,\" signed by W. L. Garrison,\nand twenty-seven highly respectable citizens of Boston, on behalf of\nthe Massachusetts Society, and others concurring generally in its\nprinciples. He (Mr. T.) would only quote a few brief passages.\n\n    \"We are charged with violating, or wishing to violate, the\n    Constitution of the United States. What have we done, what\n    have we said to warrant this charge? We have held public\n    meetings, and taken other usual means of convincing our\n    countrymen that slave-holding is sin, and, like all sin,\n    ought to be, and can be, immediately abandoned. We have said,\n    in the words of the Declaration of Independence, that \"ALL\n    MEN are created equal,\" and that liberty is an inalienable\n    gift of God to every man. We know of no clause in the\n    Constitution which forbids our saying this. We appeal to the\n    calm judgment of the community, to decide, in view of recent\n    events, whether the measures of the friends, or those of the\n    opposers of abolition, are more justly chargeable with the\n    violation of the Constitution and laws.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \"The foolish tale, that we would encourage amalgamation by\n    intermarriage between the whites and blacks, though often\n    refuted, as often re-appears. We shall content ourselves with\n    a simple denial of this charge. We challenge our opponents to\n    point to one of our publications in which such intermarriages\n    are recommended. One of our objects is to prevent the\n    amalgamation now going on, so far as can be done, by placing\n    one million of the females of this country under the\n    protection of law.\"\n\n    \"We are accused of interfering in the domestic concerns of\n    the southern States. We would ask those, who charge this, to\n    explain precisely what they mean by \"interference.\" If, by\n    interference be meant any attempt to legislate for the\n    southern States, or to compel them, by force or intimidation,\n    to emancipate their slaves, we at once deny any such\n    pretension. We are utterly opposed to any force on the\n    subject, but that of conscience and reason, which are\n    \"mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds.\" We\n    fully acknowledge that no change in the slave-laws of the\n    southern States can be made, unless by the southern\n    Legislatures. Neither Congress nor the Legislatures of the\n    free States have authority to change the condition of a\n    single slave in the slave States. But, if by \"interference\"\n    be intended the exercise of the right of freely discussing\n    this subject, and, by speech, and through the press, creating\n    a public sentiment, which will reach the conscience, and\n    blend with the convictions of the slave-holder, and thus\n    ultimately work the complete extinction of slavery, this is a\n    species of interference which we can never consent to\n    relinquish.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \"We respectfully ask our fellow-citizens, whether we are to\n    be deprived of these sacred privileges,--and, if so, whether\n    the sacrifice of our rights will not involve consequences\n    dangerous to all mental and even personal freedom. We have\n    violated, we mean to violate, no law. We have acted, we\n    shall continue to act, under the sanction of the Constitution\n    of the United States. Nothing that we propose to do can be\n    prevented by our opposers, without violating the Charter of\n    our rights. To the Law and to the Constitution we appeal.\"\n\nSuch were the sentiments of the abolitionists of the United States of\nAmerica.\n\nHe (Mr. T.) would embrace the present opportunity of saying a few\nwords respecting his own mission to the United States. It had been\nmuch denounced as an impertinent foreign interference; but he thought\nthe charge had neither grace nor honesty when it came from those who\nwere engaged, and, as he believed, most conscientiously and\npraiseworthily, in seeking, by their missionaries and agents, to\noverturn the institutions, social, political, and religious, of every\nother quarter of the globe. Mr. Breckinridge had said that it would be\nas just on his part to inveigh against England on account of Roman\nCatholicism in the west of Ireland, or Idolatry in India, as it was on\nhis (Mr. T's.) to condemn America for the slavery existing in that\ncountry. The cases were not quite parallel. Before they could be\ncompared, Mr. B. must prove that the population of Ireland were\n_constrained_ to worship the Virgin Mary--that in India, men were\n_forced_ by British Law to worship idols. No British subject was\ncompelled by any law of this country, or any other country to which\nBritish sway extended, to be either a _Papist_ or an _Idolator_. But\nin America, men were converted into _beasts_, \"according to law,\" and\ntheir souls and bodies crushed and degraded by a system most\nvigorously enforced by the strong arm of the _State_. His opponent had\nsaid, however, that slavery was not a national sin. He (Mr. T.) had to\nthank a friend for suggesting an illustration of the knotty problem.\nSuppose a number of _Agriculturists_ and _Merchants_ and _Highway\nRobbers_ were to meet together to form a Union, and the Highway\nRobbers were to say--come, let us unite for the purpose of common\nsecurity, and common prosperity: we will defend each other, and trade\nwith each other, but we will not \"interfere\" in each other's\n_internal_ affairs. You, gentlemen, Agriculturists and Merchants,\nshall promise that you will take no notice of my felonious and\ncut-throat proceedings, and I, on my part, will pledge my honor not to\nintermeddle in the affairs of your farms or counting-houses: and\nsuppose they were to shake hands, complete the bargain, and ratify an\nindissoluble union of Agriculturists, Merchants, and Highway Robbers!\nwould the world hold the farmer or the merchant guiltless? Mr. B. had\nsaid much of the purity and emancipation principles of Massachusetts,\nand New-Hampshire and Maine. How came it to pass, then, that they were\nin terms of such close and cordial fellowship with South Carolina,\nand Georgia, and Louisiana, and so ready to mob, stone, and outlaw\nthose who deemed it their duty to cry aloud on behalf of the\noppressed? To return to his own mission. He would never condescend to\napologize for speaking the truth. He had a commission direct from the\nskies, to rebuke sin and compassionate suffering wherever on the face\nof the earth they existed. This world belonged to God; and all men\nwere His subjects and his (Mr. Thompson's) brethren. Men might be\nnaturally divided by rivers, and oceans, and mountains; they might be\npolitically divided by different forms of government, and specified\nlines of demarkation; but he (Mr. T.) took the Bible in his hand and\ndeemed himself at liberty to address every human being on the face of\nthe earth in reference to those eternal principles of justice and\ntruth, which are alike in all countries and in all ages, and which the\nsubjects of God's moral government are everywhere bound to respect. He\nwould say to America and to England, silence your cry of foreign\ninterference, or call home your Missionaries from India, and China,\nand Constantinople. To shew that the object of his mission was in\naccordance with the spirit of the gospel, he would read an extract\nfrom an article in the first number of the \"_Abolitionist_,\" the organ\nof \"The British and Foreign Society for the Universal Abolition of\nSlavery and the Slave Trade\"--a Society with which he was connected\nwhen he went to America, and whose Agent he still was. The objects of\nhis mission were thus set forth:\n\n    \"1. To lecture in the principal cities and towns of the free\n    States, upon the character, guilt, and tendency of slavery,\n    and the duty, necessity, and advantages of immediate and\n    entire abolition. These addresses will be founded upon those\n    great principles of humanity and religion, which have been so\n    fully enunciated in this country, and will consequently be\n    wholly unconnected with particular and local politics. This\n    work will be carried on under the advice and with the\n    co-operation of the Anti-Slavery Societies at present in\n    existence in the United States.\n\n    2. To aim, by every Christian means, at the overthrow of that\n    prejudice against the colored classes, which now so\n    lamentably prevails through all the States of America; and to\n    regard as a principal mean to obtain this desirable object,\n    their elevation in intellect and moral worth.\n\n    3. To suggest to the friends of negro freedom in the United\n    States the adoption and prosecution of such measures as were\n    found conducive to the cause of abolition in this country,\n    and may be found applicable to existing circumstances in\n    that.\n\n    4. To seek access to influential persons of various religious\n    denominations, and especially to ministers of the gospel, for\n    the purpose of explanatory conversation on the subjects of\n    slavery and prejudice.\n\n    5. To endeavor to effect a junction between the abolitionists\n    of the United States of America and great Britain, with a\n    view to the abolition of slavery and the slave trade\n    throughout the world.\"\n\nThe principles of the American Societies, his own principles, and the\nobjects proposed by his mission to America, were now before his\nopponent. He called upon him to throw aside his quibbles on legal\ntechnicalities, and point out, if he were able, anything in the\ndocuments he had read, or the sentiments he had advanced,\ninconsistent with the spirit of Christianity, or the genius of\nrational freedom. It had been said that abolitionism was \"quackery,\"\nonly four years old. He would give them a little of the quackery of\nBenjamin Franklin, in the year 1790. He held in his hand a petition\ndrawn up by that celebrated man, and adopted by the \"_Pennsylvania\nSociety for the Abolition of Slavery_,\" the preamble of which\nrecognizes the doctrines which are maintained by American\nAbolitionists at the present day, and expresses the (_now incendiary_)\ndesire of diffusing them \"_wherever the evils of Slavery exist_.\" Of\nthis Society, Dr. Franklin was elected President, and Dr. Rush the\nSecretary. In 1790, this Society presented to the first Congress a\npetition, from which the following is an extract:--\n\n    \"From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the\n    portion, and is still the birth-right of all men, and\n    influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the principles\n    of their institutions, your memorialists conceive themselves\n    bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bands of\n    slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of\n    freedom. Under these impressions, they earnestly entreat your\n    serious attention to the subject of slavery; that you may be\n    pleased to countenance the restoration to liberty of those\n    unhappy men, who, alone in a land of freedom, are degraded\n    into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of\n    surrounding freemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that\n    you will devise means for removing this inconsistency from\n    the character of the American people; that you will promote\n    mercy and justice towards this oppressed race, and that you\n    will step to the very verge of the power vested in you, for\n    discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our\n    fellow-men.\"\n                    (Signed)                BENJAMIN FRANKLIN,\n                                                        President.\n      _Philadelphia, February 2, 1790._\"\n\nBesides the venerable Franklin in 1790, he might refer to the truly\nable speech of the Rev. David Rice, in the Convention held at\nDanville, Kentucky, before, or soon after the petition just read--to\nthe sermon of Jonathan Edwards, the younger, in the year 1791--and to\na most excellent sermon by Alexander M'Leod, through whose zeal and\nlabors chiefly, the Reformed Presbyterians were brought to the\ndetermination to rid their church of slavery, an object they\naccomplished in the year 1802. It was a painful fact that the American\ncommunity had retrograded in feeling and sentiment upon the subject of\nslavery. The anti-slavery feeling of 1820 was neither so pure nor so\nstrong as in 1800, or 1790; and in 1830 the feeling had become still\nweaker, and the views of the community still more corrupted. This was\nowing to the formation of the colonization society, which, like a\ngreat sponge, gathered up and absorbed the anti-slavery feeling of the\ncountry, and by proposing the removal of the colored population, and\nconstantly preaching such doctrines as were calculated to advance that\nobject, drew public attention away from the duty of immediate\nemancipation on the soil, and caused the Christian community to rest\nin a scheme based upon expediency, and fully in unison with their\nprejudice against color. To those who compared the various sentiments\ncontained in the writings and speeches of the colonizationists, with\nthe pure and uncompromising principles advocated towards the close of\nthe last, and the beginning of the present century, nothing was more\nobvious than the fact he had just stated, namely, that there had been\na gradual giving up of sound views and principles, for others\naccommodated to the prejudices and interests and fears of the\ndifferent portions of the community. For instance, nothing was more\ncommon in the records of the Colonization Society than the recognition\nof a right of property in man; to find the advocates of the Society,\nwhen speaking of the slaveholder and his slaves, saying, \"we hold\ntheir _slaves_, as we hold their other _property_, _sacred_.\" Mr.\nBreckinridge might say \"these are not my opinions;\"--but he must know\nthey were the published opinions of the managers and chief advocates\nof the Society, and it was for him to explain how he could lend a\nSociety his countenance and aid, which promulgated and upheld so\nimpious a doctrine as the right of property in God's rational,\naccountable, and immortal creatures. He (Mr. T.) knew, however, that\nthe Society could assume all colors, and preach all kinds of\ndoctrines. At one time it was promoting emancipation, and at another,\nincreasing the value of slaves, and securing the master in the\npossession of them. It had one face for the north, and another for the\nsouth--a very Proteus enacting every sort of character; having no\nfixed principles--never consistent with itself in anything but its\ndetermination by all means to get rid, if possible, of the colored\nman. If there was any one thing which, more than another, was\ncalculated to demonstrate the true character and tendency of the\nSociety, it was the opinions everywhere entertained respecting it by\nthe colored population. It was a fact that they loathed and abhorred\nthe Society. No man advocating it could be popular amongst them. Even\nMr. Breckinridge, with all his virtues and benevolence, was considered\nby the colored people as practically their enemy, by helping to\nsustain a Society which they regarded as the most effective engine of\noppression ever invented. Surely they were qualified to form a\njudgment upon the subject. They had looked into its workings--they had\nnarrowly watched its movements, and had satisfied themselves that it\nwas full of all unrighteousness. If, on the other hand, the\nabolitionists were, by their measures, doing vast injury to the cause\nof the free colored people, how came it to pass, that they had the\nlove and confidence of that entire class of the population? How was it\nthat even the arch fiend of abolition, George Thompson, was by them\ncaressed and beloved, and that they would hang for hours upon the\naccents of his lips--and that the tear of gratitude would start into\ntheir eyes wherever he met them? The secret was soon told. He (Mr. T.)\nspoke _to_ them and _of_ them, as _men_. He compromised none of their\nrights--he exhibited no prejudice against their complexion. He did not\nrecommend exile as their only way of escape from their present and\ndreaded ills. He preached justice, and kindness, and repentance to\ntheir persecutors, and maintained the right of the bleeding captive to\nfull and unconditional liberty, with all the privileges and honors of\nhumanity. Therefore they loved him--therefore they would lay down\ntheir lives for him. He would read a list of places, in all of which\nthe colored people had held meetings, and denounced the plans of the\nColonization Society, viz,--\n\nPhiladelphia, New-York, Boston, Baltimore, Washington; Brooklyn and\nRochester, in the State of New-York; Hartford, Middletown, New-Haven,\nand Lime in the State of Connecticut; Columbia, Pittsburg, Lewistown,\nand Harrisburg, in the State of Pennsylvania; Providence, in the State\nof Rhode-Island; Trenton, in the State of New-Jersey; Wilmington, in\nthe State of Delaware; New-Bedford, in the State of Massachusetts;\nNantucket; in the National Convention of free colored persons, held in\nPhiladelphia, in 1831--by the same Convention in 1832, and, he\nbelieved, in very subsequent Conventions.\n\nTo return to the Anti-Slavery Societies of the United States. He (Mr.\nT.) knew them to be composed of the finest and purest elements in the\ncountry. They were numerous and powerful. It would soon be proved\nthat, with the blessing of God, they were omnipotent. Knowing the\npiety, intelligence, wealth, and energy of the abolitionists of\nAmerica, it required some effort to be calm when Mr. Breckinridge\nstood before a British audience and compared them to Falstaff's ragged\nregiment. The Society of Kentucky might be small in regard to numbers.\nHe believed, however, they were highly respectable. He referred to Mr.\nJ. G. Birney on this point. Mr. Breckinridge might represent on the\npresent occasion, if it pleased him, the abolitionists of his (Mr.\nB's) country as beggarly, odious, and despicable: but if he lived to\nrevisit England (and he hoped he might) he believed he would then have\nto find some other illustration of their character, numbers and\nappearance, than the ragged regiment of Shakspeare's Falstaff.\n\nHaving stated the principles of the Anti-Slavery Societies in America,\nhe would exhibit, in the words of the Philadelphia declaration of\nsentiments, their mode of operations. The National Society, formed\nduring the convention, thus made known to the world its intended\ncourse of action:--\n\n    We shall organize Anti-Slavery Societies, if possible, in\n    every city, town and village in our land.\n\n    We shall send forth Agents to lift up the voice of\n    remonstrance, of warning, of entreaty and rebuke.\n\n    We shall circulate, unsparingly, and extensively,\n    anti-slavery tracts and periodicals.\n\n    We shall enlist the \"Pulpit\" and the \"Press\" in the cause of\n    the suffering and the dumb.\n\n    We shall aim at a purification of the churches from all\n    participation in the guilt of slavery.\n\n    We shall encourage the labor of freemen rather than that of\n    the slaves, by giving a preference to their productions: and\n\n    We shall spare no exertions nor means to bring the whole\n    nation to speedy repentance.\n\n    Our trust for victory is solely in GOD. We may be personally\n    defeated, but our principles never. Truth, Justice, Reason,\n    Humanity, must and will gloriously triumph. Already a host is\n    coming up to the help of the Lord against the mighty, and the\n    prospect before us is full of encouragement.\n\n    Submitting this declaration to the candid examination of the\n    people of this country, and of the friends of liberty\n    throughout the world, we hereby affix our signatures to it;\n    pledging ourselves that, under the guidance and by the help\n    of Almighty God, we will do all that in us lies, consistently\n    with this Declaration of our principles, to overthrow the\n    most execrable system of slavery that has ever been witnessed\n    upon earth; to deliver our land from its deadliest curse; to\n    wipe out the foulest stain which rests upon our national\n    escutcheon; and to secure to the colored population of the\n    United States all the rights and privileges which belong to\n    them as men and as Americans--come what may to our persons,\n    our interests, or our reputations--whether we live to witness\n    the triumph of Liberty, Justice, and Humanity, or perish\n    untimely as martyrs in this great, benevolent and holy cause.\n\n      _Signed in the Adelphi Hall, in the City of Philadelphia,\n      on the 6th day of December, A. D. 1833._\n\nTrue to the pledges given in this declaration, the abolitionists had\nprinted, preached, and prayed without ceasing. As a proof of what they\nwere doing in one department of their work, he would exhibit a number\nof newspapers, tracts, pamphlets, and other periodicals, which were in\ncirculation throughout the country. Mr. Thompson then produced copies\nof the \"Slaves Friend,\" \"Anti-Slavery Records,\" \"Anti-Slavery\nAnecdotes,\" \"Human Rights,\" \"Emancipator,\" \"Liberator,\" \"New-York\nEvangelist,\" \"Zion's Herald,\" \"Zion's Watchman,\" \"Philadelphia\nIndependent Weekly Press,\" \"Herald of Freedom,\" \"Lynn Record,\" \"New\nEngland Spectator,\" &c., and an \"Anti-Slavery Quarterly,\" edited by\nProfessor Wright, the Secretary of the National Society, and\ndistinguished by considerable literary talent. These were amongst the\nmeans pursued by the Abolitionists. They were peaceful and honorable\nmeans, and under God, would prove effectual to bring the\nblood-cemented fabric of Slavery to the ground. Other than moral and\nconstitutional means, the abolitionists sought not to employ. Their's\nwould not be the glory reaped upon the crimson field amidst the\ncarnage and the din of war. Their victory would not be a victory\nachieved by the use of carnal weapons, effecting the freedom of one\nman by the destruction of another. Their victory would be a victory\nwon by the potency of principles drawn from the Gospel of the Prince\nof Peace--their glory the glory of those who had obtained a bloodless\nconquest over the consciences and hearts of men. In the full\nconviction that the principles he (Mr. Thompson) had that night\nmaintained, were the principles of the word of God, he would still\nprosecute the work to which he had for some years devoted himself. He\ncalled upon those around him to be true to those principles, and to\ncontinue zealously to advocate them, and leave the consequences in the\nhands of God. Let the friends of human rights again rally under the\nbanner which had aforetime led them to battle--under which they had\ntogether fought and together triumphed--and to remember that the motto\ninscribed upon its ample folds--a motto which, though oft abused, had\noft sustained them in the hour of conflict--was, Fiat Justicia ruat\nCoelum.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. BRECKINRIDGE rose. Having taken a good many notes of what Mr.\nThompson had said in the speech now delivered, he was prepared for\nreplying, if an opportunity were presented after he should have\nfinished saying what seemed to him more pertinent to the subject in\nhand. In the meantime, he would introduce what he had now to say by\nreading another version of the events which had been represented as\none of Mr. Thompson's triumphs at Boston.\n\n    Mr. May introduced a resolution denouncing the Colonization\n    Society as unworthy of patronage, because it disseminates\n    opinions unfavorable to the interest of the colored people.\n\n    Mr. Gurley replied. He finished the consideration of Mr.\n    May's objections, went into an exposition of the advantages\n    of the Colonization Society, and contrasted its claims with\n    those of the Anti-Slavery Society. In doing this, he\n    exhibited a handbill, having a large cut of a negro in\n    chains, with some inflammatory sentences under it. Here he\n    was interrupted by hisses, which were answered by clapping.\n    Mr. George Thompson rose and attempted to address the\n    meeting. This increased the confusion, Cries of \"sit\n    down--shame--be silent--let Mr. May answer if he can--no\n    foreign interference,\" &c., from all parts of the hall. Mr.\n    Thompson persevered as few men would have done, but at last\n    yielded to the evident determination of the audience, and\n    took his seat. The hall then became still, and Mr. Gurley\n    proceeded.\n\n    We do not know that any Anti-Colonizationist was convinced by\n    these discussions; except men who are committed against the\n    Society, we believe the very general opinion is, that their\n    overthrow on the field of argument was as complete as any\n    could desire. It is evident that the cause of the\n    Colonization Society is gaining a hold on the convictions and\n    affections of the people of New-England stronger than it ever\n    had before. We say this in view of facts which are coming to\n    our knowledge from various parts. The storm of abuse and\n    misrepresentation with which it has been assailed, is\n    beginning already to contribute to its strength.\n\nNow he begged to remark that the paper from which he had read the\nforegoing extract, the New-York Observer, together with the one from\nwhich it was originally taken, the Boston Recorder, printed more\nmatter weekly than all the avowed abolition newspapers, in America,\nput together, did in half a year. He would notice farther, in relation\nto the great display of abolition publications which had been made by\nMr. Thompson on the platform, that one of the papers lying there on\nthe table, had advocated his principles and cause when he was in\nBoston, and likely to be mobbed at the instigation, as he believed,\nof Mr. Garrison. Some of the remainder of the publications were, he\nbelieved, long ago dead; some could hardly be said ever to have\nlived; some were purely occasional; the greater part as limited in\ncirculation as they were contemptible in point of merit. Not above\ntwo or three of the dozen or fifteen that had been produced before\nthem--and the names of which he (Mr. B.) required to be recorded--were\nin fact, worthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition\nnewspapers. But to come to the point immediately in hand. He would\non the present occasion attempt to show that abolition was not worthy\nto supplant the colonization scheme in the affections of Americans\nor Britons, or of any other thinking people. He acknowledged that\nthere were many respectable men in the ranks of the abolitionists;\nbut these, almost without exception, had been at one time\ncolonizationists; and had he time he might show that many of them\nhad deserted the colonization society on some peculiar or personal\ngrounds, not involving the principles of the cause. He was prepared\nto show, however, that by whomsoever supported, the principles of the\nabolitionists were essentially wrong, and that their practice was\nstill worse. He had not access to the voluminous documents brought\nforward by Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson had, indeed, that evening, on\nthis platform, publicly offered him access to them. Had that offer\nbeen made at the beginning of the discussion, instead of the end of\nit, or during the four or five days we spent in Glasgow before it\ncommenced, it might have been turned to some advantage. But as it\nwas, the audience would know how to appreciate it; and he must rely\nsolely upon memory, when he stated the principles promulgated by\nabolitionists; though at the same time he pledged himself that his\nstatements not only were intended to be, but were, substantially\ncorrect and entirely candid. The abolitionists held, then, in the\nfirst place, as a fundamental truth, that every human being had an\ninstant right to be free, irrespective of consequences to himself and\nothers; consequently that it was the duty of masters to set free their\nslaves instantly, and irrespective of all consequences; and of course,\nsinful to exercise the powers of a master for one moment, or for any\npurpose. This was, in substance, the great principle on which the\nabolitionists acted--a principle which he was now prepared to\nquestion. He had, on a former occasion, shown that there were only two\nparties responsible for the existence of slavery, namely, individual\nslave-holders, and slave-holding communities. He would now attempt to\nprove, that, as applied to either of these, this principle was not\nonly false, but that it was a mere figment, and calculated to produce\ntremendous evil. Let them first attend to what the abolitionists say\nto the individual slave-holder. Perhaps the person addressed was an\ninhabitant of Louisiana; where, if it is not directly contrary to\nlaw, to manumit a slave--the law refuses to recognize the act. Was he\nto be told then that he should turn off his slaves, the young and\nhelpless along with the old and the infirm, with the certain knowledge\nthat so soon as they left his plantation, they would commence a career\nof trouble and sorrow most likely to end in their being seized,\nimprisoned, fined, and again enslaved. Mr. Thompson had mentioned, in\nnearly all his printed speeches, the case of a certain colored man,\nwho had been thrown into prison at Washington city, and sold into\neternal slavery to discharge the fees which had accrued by reason of\nhis oppression. Now he (Mr. B.) took leave to say that this story was\nfalse, in toto. It was customary in some parts of America to sell\nvagabonds, in order to make up their jail fees; but they were bound\nfor no longer a period than was necessary to do this. The system was\nthis--they were taken up as vagrants. If they were able and willing to\nshow that they had some regular and honest means of livelihood, they\nwere of course acquitted and discharged; but when they were unable to\ndo this, they were sold for as much as would pay the fees of\ndetention, trial, &c. That any person, black or white, once recognized\nby the law as free, was ever sold into everlasting slavery, he\npositively denied, and demanded proof. In Louisiana, however, it being\nillegal to manumit a slave, those whom the abolitionists would set\nfree, would not be considered free in the eye of the law. They might\nbe harrassed, imprisoned as vagabonds, sold to pay expenses, as\nvagabonds, and so soon as set free again imprisoned. He admitted that\nsuch proceedings would be inexcusable; but what was a benevolent man,\nwho had the welfare of his slave really at heart, to do with an eye to\nthem? To act upon the abolitionist principle, would be to consign the\nslave to incalculable misery, for they had but one lesson to\nteach--turn loose the slaves, and leave consequences to God! The\ncolonizationists, however, are provided with a better remedy. If\nLouisiana would not countenance manumission, nor suffer manumitted\nslaves to remain within her bounds, with the usual privileges of\nfreemen, let them be taken to some other State, where such laws did\nnot exist; or if this should not on the whole be desirable, let them\nbe taken to Liberia. No, repeats Mr. Thompson; discharge your slaves\nat once, and leave the consequences to God. If, by the wicked laws of\nLouisiana, they are left to starve, or driven to desperation, or sold\nagain into slavery, the responsibility is theirs; do you your duty in\nsetting them immediately at liberty. It would require, however, that a\nhumane individual should be very strongly impressed with the truth of\nthis principle before he could persuade himself to do that which was\nevidently so cruel in its immediate effects, and so likely to be\nruinous in those that are more remote. Yet that principle was, to say\nthe least, extremely doubtful, and ought not at every hazard to be\ncrammed down the throats of an entire nation. If the laws of the\ncommunity were bad, as he admitted it to be the case, he supposed it\nwas the duty of enlightened citizens to seek a change of that law by\nproper means, but not in the meantime to do that which would be\ntotally insubordinate to the State--and injurious to all parties.\nWhether, moreover, it was either fair or candid to denounce, as had\nbeen done, the free States as being participators in slavery, because,\nthough they did not themselves hold a property in slaves, they did not\nchoose to swallow such nostrums even without chewing, could not be a\nquestion. If it was so doubtful whether duty to the slaves themselves\nrendered the immediate breaking up of all relations between them and\ntheir masters a proper or even a permitted thing, it was still more\nquestionable whether our duties to the State may not imperiously\nforbid what our duties to the slave have already warned us against. I\nhave omitted all considerations of a personal or selfish kind--all\nrules of conduct drawn from what is due to one's self, one's family,\nor one's condition, or engagements. Common benevolence forbids, as we\nhave seen, and common loyalty prohibits, as we shall see--what a man\nmust do, or lie under the curse of abolitionism. For though it be our\nduty to seek the amendment of bad laws, because they are bad, it is\nequally our duty to obey laws because they are laws, unless it is\nclear that greater ill will follow from obedience than from\ndisobedience. Now all our slave States are perfectly willing that\ntheir citizens should emancipate their slaves; only many of them\ninsist on their doing it elsewhere, than within their borders. As long\nas other lands exist, ready to receive the manumitted slave, and\ncertain to be benefitted by his reception, it is to preach treason, as\nwell as cruelty, and folly as well as either, to assert the bounden\nduty of the individual slave-holder, at all hazards, to attempt an\nimpossibility on the instant, rather than accomplish a better result\nby foresight, preparation, and suitable delay. It may therefore be\nboldly said that instant surrender of the authority of the master,\nirrespective of all other considerations, must, in many cases, be a\ngreat crime in the individual slave-holder. He would now speak of this\nabolition principle to which he had adverted as a rule of conduct for\nslave-holding communities. In this respect, also, he considered that\nit was at best extremely questionable. Let us illustrate the principle\nby the oft-repeated case of the District of Columbia. Abolitionism\nasserts that it is the clear duty of Congress to abolish slavery\ninstantly in that District, without regard to what may occur\nafterwards in consequence of that act. Let us admit that the\ndissolution of the Federal Union is a consequence not worthy of\nregard--even when distinctly foreseen; and that all the evils\nattendant on such a result, to human society, and to all the great\ninterests of man throughout the earth, are as nothing, compared with\nthe establishment of a doubtful definition, having an antiquity of at\nleast four years, and a paternity disputed between Mr. Garrison and\nMr. Thompson. As a principle concerning no other creature but the\nslaves of the District, and no interest but theirs, it can be shown to\nbe false. If Congress were instantly to abolish slavery there, with a\ntolerable certainty that every slave in the District would be removed\nand continued with their issue in perpetual slavery; when by an\narrangement with the owners, they might so prospectively abolish it as\nto secure the freedom of every slave in five or ten years, and of\ntheir issue as they successively arrived at twenty or twenty-five\nyears of age; if Congress could do the latter, and were in preference\nto do the former, they would deserve the execrations of the world. The\nfirst plea is Mr. Thompson and abolitionism; the second express my\nprinciples and those of the despised gradualists. At all events, the\ntruth of the principle involved in the former supposition was not so\nmanifest as to justify Mr. Thompson in denouncing, as he had done,\nthose who did not see proper to follow it. A wise man would\nhesitate--he would weigh well the resulting circumstances as one of\nthe best tests of the truth and utility of his principles before he\npropagated, as indisputably and exclusively true, and that in despite\nof all results, such principles, with the violence which had been\nmanifested--principles which, he repeated, were but four years old,\nand which he was still convinced, were but arrant quackery. There was\nanother aspect of the subject. Reference had been made to the\nrepresentation of the black population in the National Government. He\nwould remark on this subject that it was the duty of every State to\nsee that power was committed only to the hands of those qualified to\nexercise it properly, wisely, and beneficially. What would be said in\nthis country, were Mr. Thompson to propose that the elective franchise\nshould be made universal, and that the age at which it might be\nexercised should be fixed at fifteen years? He would venture to say\nthat the ministry who would introduce such a scheme to Parliament,\nwould not exist for three days. The proposal, as Mr. T. no doubt knew,\nwould be considered altogether revolutionary and shocking. Yet it must\nbe admitted that the average of the boys of Britain who are fifteen\nyears old, are fully as well qualified for the exercise of the elected\nfranchise, as the average of the slaves in the various parts of the\nUnited States are at the age of twenty-one years. But with us, as with\nyou, twenty-one years is the age at which electors vote. As I have\nshown, in most of our States the elective franchise is extended to\nevery white man, who has attained that age; while the qualifications\nof a property kind, anywhere required, are so extremely moderate, that\nin all our communities nine-tenths at least of the adult white males\nare entitled to vote. Now let it be borne in mind, that abolitionism\nrequires not only instant freedom for the slave, but also instant\ntreatment of him, in every civil and political, as well as every\nsocial and religious respect, as if he were white, that is, in plain\nterms--if we should follow the dogmas you sent Mr. T. to teach us, and\nin which we have been held up to the scorn of all good men, for\ndeclining to receive, a revolution far more terrible and revolting\nwould immediately follow throughout all our slave States, than would\nfollow in Britain by enfranchising in a day, every boy in it fifteen\nyears old--even if your house of lords were substituted by an elective\nsenate, and your parliaments made annual! And it is in the light of\nsuch results, that America has received with horror the enunciation of\nprinciples which lead directly to them, while their advocates declare\n\"all consequences\" indifferent as it regards their conduct! And can it\nbe the duty of any commonwealth to bring upon itself \"instantly,\"--or\nat all--such a condition as this? The abolitionists themselves had\nevidently felt that their scheme was absurd; for they had never\nventured to propose it to a slave State. Their papers were published\nand their efforts all made, and their organized agitation carried on,\nand a tremendous uproar raised in States where there existed no power\nwhatever to put an end to slavery; but hardly a syllable had been\nuttered where, if anywhere, some effect might have been produced\nbeneficial to the slaves, had abolition principles been practicable\nanywhere. The conduct of the abolitionists had been of a piece with\nwhat would have taken place in this country, had an agitation been got\nup for the direct abolition of idolatry in China, or of popery in\nSpain. Their principles had never yet been advocated in the South, but\nby means of the post-office, the effects of which, in the tearing up\nof mail bags, &c., Mr. Thompson well knew, and had declared. But the\nfact was, that such metaphysical propositions as those propounded by\nthe abolitionists--even admitting them to be true--were altogether\nuncalled for. Thousands of slaves had been emancipated before the\nabolition principles were heard of, and all that was needed, was, that\nthose who were engaged in the good work should have been let alone or\naided on their own principles. What was the use of blazoning forth a\ndoctrine which was in all likelihood false and ruinous, but which,\nwere it true, could do no good? For if you could persuade a man that\nhis duty required him to give freedom to his slaves, and he became\nsuitably impressed with a sense thereof--he would do it just as\ncertainly and effectually as though you had begun by saying to\nhim--now as soon as I convince you, you must set them free\nimmediately! He could indeed characterize such a mode of proceeding by\nno other term than that of gratuitous folly.\n\nAgain he might say that this principle of abolitionism was contrary to\nall the experience which America had acquired as a nation on this\nsubject. Principles favorable to emancipation first took root where\nthere were few slaves, and when the products of their labor were of\nlittle value. They had spread gradually towards the South, the border\nStates being always first inoculated, till no fewer than eight States\nwhich tolerated slavery, adopted this principle, and successively\nabolished it. To these eight States were to be added four others,\ncreated since the formation of the Federal Constitution, which never\ntolerated slavery, thus making twelve States in which slavery was not\npermitted. By the influence of gradualism alone, had the cause of\nfreedom advanced steadily to this point, and every day rendered its\nultimate triumph throughout the whole empire more and more probable.\nAt this time it might have been carried South by at least 5 degrees of\nlatitude; and Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri,\nadded to the free States; and the shackles of 1,000,000 slaves been in\na process of gradual melting off. If fifty years had seen the rise of\n12 free States, was it too much to hope that the next fifty years\nshould enfranchise twelve more. For all the ruin brought on this\nglorious cause during the last four years by principles and practices\nof Mr. Thompson's friends, what have they to compensate suffering\nhumanity? Have they or theirs released from his bonds a single slave?\nThe abolition plan had in fact, been a signal, a total, absolute\nfailure. Mr. Thompson himself did not pretend to say that a twentieth\npart of the population of America had embraced his views. The whole\ntheory was as false as the whole practice was fatal; and just and\npious men would hereafter hesitate before they sent out new missions\nto advocate them, or lent the influence of their just weight to\ndenunciations levelled against all who did not think them worthy of\ntheir applause. The _second_ great _principle_ of the abolitionists,\nto which he would invite attention, was this--that it was the inherent\nand indestructible right of every man to abide in perfect freedom in\nwhatever spot he was born; and that while it is a crime to deny him\nthere all the rights of a man, a citizen and a Christian, it was not\nless so to persuade, to win, or to coerce him into what they called\nexile--this principle was levelled at the Colonization Society; and\nwhile instant abolition formed the first, and denunciation of what\nthey call prejudice against color formed the last; hatred to\ncolonization formed the middle and active principle of the band. Of\nthis, it might be said, first, that it had the advantage of\ncontradicting all the wisdom and practice of mankind. Whether it was\nmeant to embrace women and minors--or at what age to establish the\nbeginning of rights so extraordinary and unprecedented, whether at\ntwenty-one, as here, or twenty-five, as in some countries, or\ntwenty-eight, as in others, had not yet been defined. Thus much at\nleast might be said--that if these rights resided in black men, they\nresided in no others, of whatever hue or race; and the philosophers\nwho discovered their existence had found out something to compensate\nthese unhappy men for their unparalleled sufferings. It certainly need\nnot create surprise that we should listen with suspicion to such\ndogmas taught by an Englishman, when we remember that, from time\nimmemorial, all the institutions of his own country were built upon\ndogmas precisely opposite; and all her practice the reverse of the\npreaching of the semi-national representative. Mr. Thompson says, a\nman is a citizen by inherent right, wherever he is born; the British\nmonarchy, which Mr. Thompson says he prefers to all things else, says\non the contrary, that let a man be born where he may he is a Briton,\nif born of British parents; and it both claims his allegiance, and\nwill extend to him every right of a subject born at home! Then why is\nnot a man an African if born of African parents in America, as well as\na Briton, if born of British parents there? Or why are we to be\nattacked first with cannon on one side, and then with Billingsgate on\nthe other side of this vexed question? Nor did our own notions,\nadverse as they were to those of Britain, conflict less with Mr. T.\nand abolitionism on another part of the principle. All our notions\npermit men to expatriate themselves, many of our constitutions\nguarantee it as a natural right, and America had actually gone to war\nwith Britain in defence of that right in her unnaturalized citizens.\nBritain had insisted on searching American vessels for British\nsailors--America had refused to submit to the search; because, among\nother things the man sought was, by naturalization, an American.\nAmerica did not oppose any of her citizens becoming Britons, if they\nthought fit, and was resolved to maintain the right of those who chose\nto become American citizens, from whatever country they might have\nemigrated, and therefore could hear only with contempt this dictum of\nabolitionism. Again he would say that, this principle is contrary to\ncommon sense. Rights of citizenship were not to be considered natural\nrights. They were given by the community--they might be withheld by\nthe community; and, therefore, to talk of their being indestructible,\nwas sheer nonsense. No man had a natural right to say, I will be a\ncitizen of this or that State; and in point of fact, the great bulk of\nmankind were not citizens at all, but merely subjects. There were laws\nestablishing the present form of government, giving a certain power\nto the king and to the Parliament, and regulating the mode in which\nParliament was to be elected. These laws were altogether conventional;\nand as well might a man claim a natural right to be a king or a judge\nas to be a citizen. It might be as truly said that one is inherently a\nshark because he was born at sea, or a horse because he happened to\nhave been born in a stable. So far is the theory of abolition from the\ntruth; and so widely remote is their hatred to colonization, from\nbeing based in justice, or reason, that circumstances may occur in\nwhich it shall become imperative duty for men to emigrate. America\npresented a striking example of the truth of this. In this country it\nwas customary to talk of America as a daughter of England. He had\nheard people talk as if America were about as large as one English\nshire, and settled principally from their own villages. But the fact\nwas that America was an epitome of the whole world, peopled by\ncolonies from almost all parts of it. It was an eclectic nation; and\nto talk to Americans, of the inherent right of a man to stay and be\noppressed, where he happened to be born--or the guilt of seducing him\nto emigrate, is only to expose one's self to pity or scorn. To realize\nthis, it is only necessary to take a map of our wide empire, washed by\nboth oceans, and embracing all the climates of the earth, and get some\nAmerican boy to tell you the migrations of his ancestors. To omit all\nmention of the red man, from Asia, and the poor black man, from\nAfrica; there, he will say in New-England, are the children of the\npilgrims, who were the fathers of your own Roundheads, driven out by\nthe mean and vexatious tyranny of James I.; and there, in lower\nVirginia, three hundred leagues off, are the descendants of the\nCavaliers and Malignants. There, in the back parts of the same ancient\ncommonwealth, and in all western Pennsylvania, are the sturdy Scotch,\nwhose fathers were hanged in the streets of your cities, by that\nperjured Charles II., who thus rewarded the loyalty that gave him back\nhis crown. In the same key State, of the Union is a nation of\nindustrious Germans; while in the empire state of New-York, are the\nchildren of those glorious United Provinces, that disputed with\nyourselves for ages, the empire of the seas; and between them both in\nNew-Jersey the descendants of those ancient Danes who often ravaged\nyour own coasts. The descendants of the Hugonauts, whose ancestors\nLouis XIV. expelled from France, and placed cordons on his frontiers\nto butcher as they went out, simply because they were Protestants,\npeopling parts of the south; in other parts of which, are colonies of\nSwiss, of Spaniards, and of Catholic French. The Irishmen is\neverywhere; and everywhere better treated than at home. Amongst such a\npeople, it must needs be an instinctive sentiment, that he who loves\ncountry more than liberty, is unworthy to have either; that he who\ninculcates or affects the love of place above the possession of\nprecious privileges, must have a sinister object. But he might proceed\nmuch farther; and having shown that it might be the duty of men to\nemigrate under various circumstances, prove that such a duty never was\nmore imperative than on the free colored population of America.\nPossessing few motives to remain in America that were not base or\ninsignificant compared with those that ought to urge their return,\nevery attempt to explain and defend their conduct revealed a\nselfishness on their part a thousand times greater than that they\ncharge upon the whites; and a cruelty on the part of their advisers\ntowards the dying millions of heathen in Africa, more atrocious than\nthat charged, even by them, on the master against his slave. The love\nof country, of kindred, of liberty, of the souls of men, and of God\nhimself, impels them to depart, and do a work which none but they can\ndo; and which they forego through the love of ease, the lack of\nenergy, vanity gratified by the caresses of abolitionists, and\ndeadness to the great motives detailed above. But there was another,\nand most obvious truth, which shows the utter futility of the\nprinciple of abolition now contested. So far was the fact from being\nso, that anybody, black or white, held an inherent right of\ncitizenship in the place of his birth; that it is most certain, no man\nhad even a right of bare residence, which the state might not justly\nand properly deprive him of--upon sufficient reason. The state has the\nindisputable right to coerce emigration, whenever the public good\nrequired it; and when that public good coincided with the interest of\nthe emigrating party--and that also of the land to which they went--to\ncoerce such emigration might become a most sacred duty. It was indeed\ntrue, that the friends of colonization had not contemplated nor\nproposed any other than a purely voluntary emigration; for even the\ntraduced State of Maryland not only made the fact of removal\nvoluntary, but, going a step further than any other, gave a choice of\nplace to the emigrant. I recommend Africa, says she, but I will aid\nyou to go wherever you prefer to go. It should, however, be borne in\nmind that this power is inherent in all communities, and has been\nexercised in all time. And it were well for the advocates of abolition\nprinciples to remember that the final, and, if necessary, forcible\nseparation of the parties is surely preferable to the annihilation, or\nthe eternal slavery of either; while it is infinitely more probable\nthan the instant emancipation--the universal levelling--or the general\nmixture for which they contend. He had still left a _third principle_\nadvanced by the abolitionists on which to comment, but as only two or\nthree minutes of his allotted time remained, he would not enter on the\nsubject; but would read, for the information of the audience a speech\ndelivered by Mr. Thompson at Andover, in Massachusetts, the seat of\none of our largest theological seminaries, as reported by a student\nwho was present. He wished this speech to be put on record for the\ninformation of the British public.\n\n    Students--I shall first speak of the natural and inalienable\n    rights to discuss slavery. It is not a question; you ought to\n    do it; you sin against God and conscience, and are traitors\n    to human nature and truth, if you neglect it. Whoever\n    attempts to stop you from the exercise of this right,\n    snatches the trident from the Almighty, and whoever dares to\n    put manacles upon mind must answer for it to the bar of God.\n    It belongs to God, and to God exclusively. You are not at\n    liberty to give respect to any entreaty or suggestion or to\n    take into consideration the feelings of any man or body of\n    men on the subject. The wicked spirit of expediency is the\n    spirit of hell, the infamous doctrines of the demons of hell;\n    and whoever attempts to preach it to the rising youth of the\n    land, preaches the doctrine of the damned spirits. It is the\n    spirit of the flame and faggot, revealing itself as it dares,\n    and corrupting the atmosphere so as to prevent the free\n    breathing of a free soul. Where are the students of the Lane\n    seminary? Where they ought to be;--from Georgia to Maine, and\n    from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains--far from a\n    prison-house where fetters are forged and rivetted. They\n    could not stay in a place where a thermometer was hung up to\n    graduate the state of their feelings. It was not till Dr.\n    Beecher consulted the faculty at New-Haven and Andover, to\n    see if they would sustain him, that he ventured to put the\n    screws on. But, perhaps you may say, we must bid farewell to\n    promotion if we do as you desire. The faculty have the power,\n    in a degree, to fix our future settlements by the\n    recommendation, and, therefore, we must desist. What if you\n    do have to leave the seminary? Far better to be away than to\n    breathe the tainted air of tyranny. I proclaim it here, that\n    the only reason why abolition is not countenanced at Andover\n    is, because it is unpopular; when it is popular it will be\n    received. In 1823, the Colonization Society was the pet child\n    of the churches, the seminaries, and the colleges of the\n    land; but now, forsooth, because it is unpopular, it is cast\n    off. Aye, once the eloquent tongues voiced its praise, and\n    the gold and silver were its tributaries--where is it now?\n    Cast off because it is not popular. This is rather hard; in\n    its old age, too. But I forbear, it is a touching theme. I\n    return to the Lane seminary. Never were nobler spirits and\n    finer minds congregated together; never in all time and place\n    a more heroic and generous band. Dr. Beecher himself has\n    pronounced the eulogy. In what condition is the seminary now.\n    Lying in ruins, irretrievably gone! Dr. Beecher then\n    sacrificed honor and reputation.\n\n    Mr. Thompson read extracts from an article in the Liberator,\n    which went to show that the faculty at Andover advised the\n    students to be uncommitted on the dividing topic of slavery.\n    Yes, added Mr. Thompson, go out uncommitted; wait till you\n    get into a pulpit and have it cushioned and a settee in it,\n    and then you may commit yourself. The speaker observed that\n    very ill effects had resulted from the failure of the\n    students at Andover to form themselves into an Anti-Slavery\n    Society--the evil example had extended to Philip's Academy,\n    Amherst College, &c. He had been twitted about it wherever he\n    had been, but you may recover yourselves, he added,\n    condescendingly; there is some apology for you, only let a\n    Society be formed instantly. Those who attempted to show from\n    the Bible that slavery was justifiable, were paving the\n    slave-holders' paths to hell with texts of Scripture. Mr.\n    Thompson enlarged upon the merits of the refractory students\n    at Lane Seminary, with a most abundant supply of adjectives;\n    and the mean-spirited students of Andover, although not\n    expressly designated as such, were understood by the manner\n    of expression to be placed in contrast. Mr. Thompson remarked\n    that such conduct would not be tolerated by the students of\n    any college in England, Scotland, or Ireland. This abuse, of\n    the faculty at Andover was more personal and pointed than I\n    have described; one of the faculty was called by name, but\n    the severe expressions I have forgotten. He would probably\n    have outrun himself, and exhausted the vocabulary of\n    opprobrious epithets, had he not been interrupted. At the\n    conclusion of the lecture, with the strange inconsistency\n    which belongs to the man, he remarked that he had a high\n    respect for the members of the faculty, and that he would\n    willingly sit at their feet as a learner.\n\nHe had only one remark before he sat down. It had been publicly\nstated by a student of this seminary, that Mr. Thompson, in a\nconversation with him, had said, that _every slave-holder deserved to\nhave his throat cut_, and that his slaves ought to do it. He could\nnot, of course, vouch for the truth of this; but Mr. Thompson was\nthere to explain. One thing, however, he could state as an\nindisputable fact, namely, that the professors of the seminaries had\nsigned a document in which it was asserted that the young man had been\nin the college for three years, and that his veracity was unimpeached\nand unimpeachable. If the story were true--it was well that it was\ntimely made public. If the young man misunderstood Mr. Thompson, he\n(Mr. B.) believed he formed one of a very large class in America, who\nhad fallen into similar mistakes, and drawn similar conclusions from\nthe general drift of his doings and sayings in that country.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. THOMPSON, on rising, observed that no one could be more ready than\nhimself to commend the gentleman who had just resumed his seat for the\ncourage which he had shewn in dealing so frankly and faithfully with\nhim, (Mr. T.) in the presence of those to whom he (Mr. B.) was\ncomparatively a stranger, and whose favorable opinion he (Mr. T.) had\nhad many opportunities of conciliating. He rejoiced that his opponent\nhad, towards the end of his speech, attempted to state facts and\nspecify charges, and had thus afforded him an opportunity of showing\nhow completely and triumphantly he could meet the charges brought\nagainst himself personally, and support the statements he had made in\nreference to America. He would commence with the Andover story about\ncutting throats. The truth of the matter was this. A student in the\nTheological Seminary of the name of A. F. Kaufman, Jr., charged him,\nGeorge Thompson, with having said, in a private conversation, that\nevery slave-holder ought to have his throat cut, and that if the\nabolitionists preached what they ought to preach, they would tell\nevery slave to cut his master's throat. Mr. Kaufman was from Virginia,\nthe son of a slave-holder, and heir to slave property. The story was\nfirst circulated in Andover, and was afterwards published in the\nNew-York Commercial Advertiser, in a communication dated from the\nSaratoga Springs. In reply to the printed version, I (said Mr. T.)\nprinted a letter denying the charge in the most solemn manner, and\nreferring to my numerous public addresses, and innumerable private\nconversations, in proof of the perfectly pacific character of my\nviews. Then came forth a long statement from Mr. Kaufman, with a\ncertificate to his veracity and general good character, signed by\nprofessors Woods, Stuart, and Emerson, of Andover. Here the matter\nmust have rested--Mr. Kaufman's charge on one side, and my denial on\nthe other--had the conversation been strictly private; but,\nfortunately for me, there were witnesses of every word; and this\nbrings me to notice other circumstances connected with the affair,\nconstituting a most complete contradiction of the charge. I was\nstaying at the time under the roof of the Rev. Shipley W. Willson, the\nminister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Andover, and when I had\nthe conversation with Mr. Kaufman, in which the language imputed to me\nis alleged to have been uttered, there were present, besides\nourselves, my host the Rev. S. W. Willson; the Rev. Amos A. Phelps,\ncongregational clergyman, and one of the agents of the American\nAnti-Slavery Society; the Rev. La Roy Sunderland Methodist Episcopal\nclergyman, and at present the editor of Zion's Watchman, New-York; and\nthe Rev. Jarvis Gregg, now a Professor in Western Reserve College,\nOhio. In consequence of the use made of the statement put forth by Mr.\nKaufman, I wrote to Professor Gregg, and Mr. Phelps, requesting them\nto give their version of the conversation in writing; and their\nletters in reply, which, together with one written without\nsolicitation by Mr. Sunderland, have been published. They not only\nflatly contradict the account given by Mr. Kaufman, but prove that I\nadvocated in the strongest language the doctrine of non-resistance on\nthe part of the slaves. These letters, however, never appeared in the\ncolumns of the papers which brought the charge and defied me to the\nproof of my innocence.\n\nIt may be well to give some idea of the conversation out of which the\ncharge grew. Mr. Kaufman complained of the harsh language of the\nabolitionists, and challenged me to quote a passage of scripture\njustifying our conduct in that respect. I quoted the passage \"Whoso\nstealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he\nshall surely be put to death;\" and observed, that in this text we had\na proof of the awful demerit of the slaveholder; that he was\nconsidered worthy of death; and that the modern slaveholder, under the\nChristian dispensation, was not less guilty than the slaveholder under\nthe Jewish law. I then reminded him of the political principles of the\nAmericans, and cited the words of the declaration of Independence,\n\"RESISTANCE _to tyrants is obedience to God_.\" I then contrasted the\ninjuries inflicted on the slave with the grievances complained of in\nthe Declaration of Independence, and argued, that, if the Americans\ndeemed themselves justified in resisting to blood the payment of a\nthreepenny tea tax and a stamp duty, how much more, upon the same\nprinciples, would the slave be justified in cutting his masters'\nthroat, to obtain deliverance from personal thraldom. Nay more, that\nevery American, true to the principles of the revolution, ought to\nteach the slaves to cut their master's throats--but that while these\nwere fair deductions from their own revolutionary principles, I held\nthe doctrine that it was invariably wrong to do evil that good might\ncome, and that I dared not purchase the freedom of the slaves by\nconsenting to the death of one master.\n\nHe (Mr. T.) had thus disposed of one of the most tangible portions of\nhis opponent's speech. He regretted there had not been more of\nmatter-of-fact statement in the speech of one hour in length, to which\nthey had just listened; a speech, which, however creditable to the\nintellect of his opponent on account of its ingenuity, was by no means\ncreditable to his heart. Instead of dealing fairly with the documents\nhe (Mr. T.) had produced, and which contained a true and ample\nstatement of the views, feelings, principles, purposes and plans of\nthe abolitionists, Mr. Breckinridge had manufactured a series of\ndextrous sophisms, calculated to keep out of sight the real merits of\nthe question. Was it not strange, that, covered as that platform was\nwith the documents of the abolitionists, his opponent had not quoted\none word from their writings, but had based all he had said upon a\nstatement of their principles made out by himself; and had then given\nto that statement an interpretation of his own, utterly at variance\nwith all the views and doctrines entertained by the abolitionists. The\ngentleman had most ably played the part of Tom Thumb, who made the\ngiants he so valiantly demolished. He would not attempt to grapple\nwith that which rested altogether upon a gross misstatement of the\nprinciples and views of the Abolitionists. He had a right to expect\nthat Mr. B. would go to the many sources of official information\ntouching the principles he professed to denounce; but instead, he had\nput forth a creed, as the creed of the Abolitionists of America, which\nwas nowhere to be found in their writings, and he (Mr. T.) should\ntherefore wait until an objection had been taken to something they\n(the abolitionists) had really said or done.\n\nMr. Breckinridge had amused them with another Andover story. He had\nread an extract from a speech said to have been delivered by him (Mr.\nT.) during the protracted meeting he had held there. He would just\ntake the liberty of assuring the audience that he had never uttered\nthe speech which had that night been put into his mouth. It had been\nsaid that the speech was reported by a student. Had Mr. B. given the\nname of the student?--No. He (Mr. B.) knew that it was an anonymous\ncommunication, written by a vile enemy of a righteous cause, who was\ntoo much ashamed of his own productions to sign his name, but put the\ninitial C. at the end of his libellous productions, which were\ngreedily copied into the pro-slavery papers of the United States. The\nreports furnished by that scribbler were known in Andover to be false,\nand laughed at by the students as monstrous and ludicrous perversions\nof the truth. Upon this point also, he (Mr. T.) had ample documentary\nevidence. He did not wonder that Mr. Breckinridge had so frequently\ntwitted him respecting the multitude of documents which he (Mr. T.)\nwas in the habit of producing. It must be peculiarly unpleasant to\nfind that he (Mr. T.) had always the document at hand necessary to\nannihilate the pretended proof of his opponent. He would now read from\na report of the proceedings at Andover--but a very different report\ncompared with that they had just heard--not an anonymous one, but\nsigned by a respectable and pious student in the Theological Seminary,\nR. Reed, Corresponding Secretary of the Andover Anti-Slavery Society.\nAs reference was made, in the extract he was going to read, to a\nformer visit, he would just state, that about three months after his\narrival in the United States, he visited Andover, and delivered three\nlectures, besides undergoing a long examination into his principles in\nthe College Chapel; and that on his return to Boston, where he was\nthen residing, he received from the Institution a series of\nresolutions signed by upwards of fifty of the students, expressive of\ntheir entire concurrence in the sentiments he had advanced, and their\nhigh approbation of the temper in which he had advocated those\nsentiments, and commending him to the blessing and protection of\nHeaven. He (Mr. T.) need not say that such a testimonial from\ntheological students, unasked and unexpected, was peculiarly\ngratifying.\n\nThe account of his second visit in July, 1835, was thus given in a\nletter addressed to the editor of the Liberator.\n\n    \"It had been previously announced that Mr. Thompson would\n    address us on Tuesday evening. The hour arrived, and a large\n    and respectable audience were convened in the expectation of\n    again listening to the--(Mr. Thompson here omitted some\n    complimentary expressions.) After the introductory prayer,\n    Mr. Phelps arose, and said he regretted that he was obliged\n    to state that Mr. Thompson had not yet arrived in town, but\n    he thought it probable he would soon be with us. He then\n    resumed the subject of American Slavery. He had, however,\n    uttered but a few sentences before Mr. T. came in. His\n    arrival was immediately announced from the desk, and the\n    expression of satisfaction, manifested by the audience, told,\n    more eloquently than words, the estimation in which they held\n    this beloved brother, and the pleasure they felt on again\n    enjoying the opportunity of listening to his appeals. Mr.\n    Thompson took his seat in the desk, and Mr. Phelps then\n    proceeded at some length. When he closed his remarks, Mr.\n    Thompson arose, and after some introductory remarks,\n    answered, in a powerful and eloquent manner, the inquiry,\n    'Why don't you go to the South.'\n\n    \"The first part of the three succeeding evenings was occupied\n    by Mr. Phelps, in exposing the janus-faced monster, the\n    American Colonization Society, which he did in so masterly a\n    manner, that we are quite sure none of his auditors, save\n    those who are willfully blinded, will hereafter doubt of its\n    being 'a fraud upon the ignorance, and an outrage upon the\n    intelligence of the community.'\"\n\n    \"Thursday evening Mr. Thompson vindicated himself against the\n    aspersions heaped upon him for denouncing Dr. Cox. I would\n    that all Mr. Thompson's friends had been present, and his\n    enemies too, for I am sure that unless encased in a shield of\n    prejudice more impenetrable than steel, they would have been\n    compelled to acknowledge that his denunciation of Dr. Cox was\n    just, and not such an instance of tiger-like malice as some\n    have represented it to be.\" \"Friday evening (the evening to\n    which the extract read by Mr. Breckinridge referred) he spoke\n    of the 'armed neutrality' of the seminary and the course\n    which had been taken in the Academical Institutions of\n    Andover. He is accused of wantonly abusing our Professors and\n    Teachers--of making personal attacks upon them. No personal\n    attacks however were made; no man's motives were impeached.\n    He attacked PRINCIPLES and not MEN for while he would render\n    to the guardians of the seminary and academies all that\n    respect which their station and learning and piety demands,\n    he would at the same time condemn the course that had been\n    pursued, as having a tendency to retard the progress of\n    emancipation. Let the public judge as to the propriety of his\n    remarks.\n\nIt would be recollected that the same question had been put to him\nhere in Glasgow, as that which he had answered at Andover. \"Why don't\nyou go to the South?\" He would tell his opponent on the present\noccasion, that even he could not advocate abolition sentiments in the\nSouth, purely and openly, without endangering his life. The reason he\nwas able to express his views on slavery and remain unmolested, was\nbecause it was known that he denounced the abolitionists, and\nadvocated colonization. The experience of Mr. Birney was in point.\nThat gentleman hated slavery before he joined the abolitionists, and\nwas in the habit of speaking against it, in connection with the\ncolonization cause, and was permitted to do so without hindrance; but\nwhen he emancipated his slaves, and called upon others to do likewise,\nupon true anti-slavery principles, he was forced to fly from his\nresidence and family, and was now in the city of Cincinnati.\n\nIt had been tauntingly Said, \"show us the fruits of your principles.\"\n\"Where are the slaves you have liberated?\" He would reply, that in\nKentucky, very recently, nineteen slaves had been liberated upon\nanti-slavery principles:--enough to answer Mr. B's demand, \"point us\nto _one_ slave your Society has been the means of liberating.\" But the\nquestion was not to be so tested. The abolitionists of Britain were\noften called upon in the same way; and their answer was, our\nprinciples are extending, and when they are sufficiently impressed\nupon the public mind, there will be a _general_ emancipation of the\nslaves. On the 31st of July, 1834, they could not point to any\nactually free in consequence of their efforts; but the night came and\npassed away, and the morrow dawned upon 800,000 human beings, lifted\nby the power of anti-slavery principles, out of the legal condition of\nchattels, into the position of free British subjects. So in the United\nStates. The principles of abolition would necessarily be some time\nextending, but ultimately they would effect a change in public\nopinion, and a corresponding change in the treatment of the black man.\n\nMr. Breckinridge had disputed the truth of the fact he (Mr. T.) had\nstated relative to the imprisonment and sale into bondage for life, in\nthe city of Washington, of a black man, justly entitled to his\nfreedom. He (Mr. T.) trusted that in this matter also he should be\nable most satisfactorily to establish his own veracity. The evidence\nhe would produce to support the statement he had made, was, \"A\nmemorial of the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, U. S., signed\nby one thousand of the most respectable citizens of the District, and\npresented to Congress, March 24, 1828, then referred to the Committee\non the District, and on the motion of Mr. Hubbard, of New-Hampshire,\nFeb. 9, 1835, ordered to be printed.\" He (Mr. T.) held in his hand the\ngenuine document printed by Congress, \"22d Congress, 2d Session, House\nof Representatives, Doc. No. 140.\" The following was the part\ncontaining the fact he had mentioned.\n\n    \"A colored man, who stated that he was entitled to freedom\n    was taken up as a runaway slave, and lodged in the jail of\n    Washington City. He was advertised, but no one appearing to\n    claim him, he was according to law, put up at public auction\n    for the payment of his jail fees, and SOLD as a SLAVE for\n    LIFE. He was purchased by a slave trader, who was not\n    required to give security for his remaining in the District\n    and he was soon shipped at Alexandria for one of the southern\n    States. An attempt was made by some benevolent individual to\n    have the sale postponed until his claim to freedom could be\n    investigated; but their efforts were unavailing; and thus was\n    a human being SOLD into PERPETUAL BONDAGE at the capital of\n    the freest government on earth, without even a pretence of\n    trial, or an allegation of crime.\"\n\nHe should be glad to find that Mr. B. had a satisfactory explanation\nof this most revolting case. Such things were enough to make any man\nspeak hardly of America. If he (Mr. T.) said severe things of that\ncountry, it was not, Heaven knew, because he did not love that\ncountry, for his heart's desire and prayer was, that she might soon be\nfree from every drawback upon her prosperity and usefulness. He told\nthese things because they ought to be known and branded as they\ndeserved, that the nation guilty of them might repent and abandon\nthem. _He_ was not the enemy of America that faithfully pointed out\nher follies and crimes. No. He was the man that loved America, that\nseeing her, like some lofty tree, spreading abroad her branches, and\nfurnishing at once shelter and sustenance to all who sought refuge\nunder her shade, observed with sorrow and dismay, a canker-worm at the\nroot, threatening to consume her beauty and her strength, and could\nnot rest day or night in his efforts to bring so great and glorious a\nnation to a sense of her danger, and an apprehension of her duty. Let\nothers do the pleasant work of flattery and panegyric, and be it his\nmore ungracious, but not less salutary work, of proclaiming her\nerrors, and denouncing her sins, until she learns to do justice and\nlove mercy.\n\n(He (Mr. T.) thought he might with some justice complain of the manner\nin which he had been treated by his opponent. He (Mr. T.) had made\nevery concession which truth and justice would warrant to Mr. B.; had\nhonored his motives, and studiously separated him from those upon whom\nhis heaviest censures had fallen--the lovers and abettors of the slave\nsystem. But a similar course had not been pursued towards him. In many\nways his motives had been impeached and his statements so denied as to\nthrow discredit upon his intentions in making them. In a word, Mr.\nB's. whole course had been wanting in that courtesy which he had a\nright to expect would be exhibited by one disputant towards another.\nAt the same time, he earnestly desired Mr. B. to state freely all he\nthought of his motives and conduct.\n\nA few moments yet remaining, he would say a word or two in reference\nto the designs attributed to the abolitionists, in respect of the\nprivileges to which the colored people were entitled. He denied that\nthe abolitionists had ever asked for the blacks, either in regard to\npolitical rights or social privileges, anything unreasonable. They\nasked for their immediate release from personal bondage, and a\nsubsequent participation of civil rights; according to the amount in\nwhich they possessed the qualifications demanded of others. Where, in\nthe documents of abolitionists, was the doctrine of instant and\nuniversal enfranchisement, of which so much had been heard? He knew\nnot the abolitionist who had contended for such a thing. He asked\nnothing for him over and above what would be freely bestowed on him if\nhe were white. Oh! it was an awful crime to have a black skin! There\nlay all the disqualification.\n\nThe great fault which Mr. B. seemed to find with the principles of the\nabolitionists was that they were too lofty; too grand; too little\naccommodated to the spirit of the age; that, in the adoption of their\nviews and principles, they had not consulted the manners and habits\nand prejudices of their country; and the whole of his (Mr.\nBreckinridge's) argument had been in favor of expediency. He hated\nthat word \"expediency,\" as ordinarily used. It contained, as he had\noften said, the doctrine of devils. It was so congenial with our\ndepraved nature to make ourselves a little wiser than God--to believe\nthat we understood better than God's servants of old the best way of\nreforming mankind. Oh! that men would take the Almighty at his word,\nand simply doing their duty, leaving him to take care of consequences.\nDoubtless, the dauntless Hebrew, Daniel, was deemed, in his day, a\nrash man. He might so very easily have escaped the snare laid for him.\nWhy did he not go to the back of the house? Why not shut the window?\nWhy could he not pray silently to the searcher of hearts? Daniel\nscorned compromise. He prayed as he had ever prayed--aloud--with his\nwindow open, and his face to Jerusalem. He boldly met the\nconsequences. He walked to the lion's den--he entered, he remained:\nbut lo! on the third day he came forth unhurt, to tell mankind to the\nend of time that, if they will do their duty and trust in Daniel's\nGod, no weapon formed against them shall prosper, but they shall in\nHis strength stop the mouths of lions, and put to flight the armies of\nthe aliens.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. BRECKINRIDGE said that, so far as the present respectable audience\nwas concerned, he would make but a single remark. Mr. Thompson and he\nhad already trespassed on their patience, but they would probably do\nso no longer than to-morrow night; at least so far as he was\nconcerned, he thought it unnecessary, if not improper. The chief\nreason of his (Mr. B's.) coming here was to defend the churches,\nministers and Christians of America, from the false and dreadful\ncharges which had been proclaimed over Britain against them by Mr.\nThompson, and which he had challenged all the world to give him an\nopportunity to prove. Upon this topic that gentleman had, as yet,\nfought shy. He could wait on him no longer. They might expect,\ntherefore, that next evening he would take up that subject, whether\nMr. Thompson should follow him or not. If the audience considered that\nthe general subject had been sufficiently discussed already--as from\nsome manifestations he was inclined to suppose--he would at once\nretire. (Slight hissing.) Was he to consider that as an answer in the\naffirmative? (Renewed hissing.) Why, then, he had erred in laying any\nof the blame of trying their patience on Mr. Thompson, and it was his\nduty to take it all to himself; and, when he returned home, to tell\nhis countrymen that no charges were too gross or caluminous to be\nentertained against them--nor any length of time, a weariness in\nhearing them--but that the hearing of defence and proof of innocence\nwas an insupportable weariness. (Increased hissing, with cries of\n'no'.) The only remaining supposition was, that Mr. T's. partizans had\nbecome convinced he needed succor, and therefore gave it most\nnaturally in the form of organized violence. (The hissing was again\nattempted, but was put down by the general voice of the meeting.) Mr.\nT., he said, had at length brought accusations against him, and had\ncomplained that although he (Mr. T.) had repeatedly and cordially\nexpressed good feelings towards him, (Mr. B.) he had in no instance\nreturned this kindness or justice; nor said a word favorable to him\nthroughout the debate. He would appeal to the Chairman, to know\ndistinctly, if Mr. Thompson had any right to demand, or if he (Mr. B.)\nwere bound to express his opinion of that individual. Because,\ncontinued Mr. B., as I have in the beginning said that Mr. T. as an\nindividual could be nothing to me or my countrymen, I have preferred\nto be silent as to him individually. If he is right, however, in\nbringing such things as charges against me, and continues to demand\nmy opinion, I will give it fearlessly. But let him beware--for I will\ncall no man friend who gains his bread by calumniating my country. Nor\ncan he who traduces my bretheren--my kindred--my home--all that I most\nvenerate and revere--honor me so much as by traducing me. They had\nbeen told that Mr. J. G. Birney had fled from Kentucky, and left his\nwife and children behind him in great danger, he being obliged to flee\nfor his life. It was true, he believed, that Mr. Birney, excellent and\nbeloved as he was, had found it best to emigrate from that State. But\nthat he had _fled_, rested, he believed, on Mr. T's. naked assertion.\nThat he had left his wife and children behind, believing them to be in\npersonal danger, was a thing which it would require amazingly clear\nproof to establish against the gentleman in question. But he would\nshow to the meeting that there was one individual who could do such an\nact. (Mr. B. then read the following extract from a speech, delivered\nat a meeting in Edinburgh, on the 28th of January, 1836:)\n\n    \"He stood there not to defame America. It was true they had\n    persecuted him; but that was a small matter. It was true they\n    had hunted him like a partridge on the mountains; that he had\n    to lecture with the assassin's knife glancing before his\n    eyes; AND HIS WIFE AND HIS LITTLE ONES WERE IN DANGER OF\n    FALLING BY THE RUTHLESS HANDS OF MURDERERS.\"\n\nAnd again, from the preface to the same pamphlet in which the above\ncited speech is found, a pamphlet intended perhaps for America, and\ncalled, \"A Voice to her from the Metropolis of Scotland,\" the\nfollowing paragraph occurs:----\n\n    \"Mr. Thompson having proceeded by way of St. John's, New\n    Brunswick, embarked on board of a British vessel for\n    Liverpool, where he arrived on the 4th of January, and on the\n    12th was happily joined by his family who had left New-York\n    on the 16th December.\n\nSo that it appeared from these statements that Mr. Thompson, believing\nthat the Americans meant to take away the lives of his wife and\nchildren, left them to their fate while he prudently consulted his own\nsafety by flight. In regard to the alleged case of the sale of a free\nman of color, at Washington city, the proof stood thus: Mr. T. broadly\nasserted, again and again, that a free man had been sold, without\ntrial, into eternal slavery. He, (Mr. B.) without knowing the especial\nfacts relied on, but knowing America, and knowing abolitionism, had\nflatly and emphatically denied that such a thing ever did or could\nhappen in the District of Columbia. Mr. Thompson re-asserts, and\ntriumphantly proves it, as he says. His first step in the proof is, a\nprinted scrap, which, he says, is the identical memorial laid on the\ntable of the Senate of the United States, who, as they received and\nprinted it, he insinuates, thereby avouched its truth. Upon which\nprinciple I also avouch all Mr. T.'s charges, as I hear them and\nconsent to their publication. But, he adds, there were once one\nthousand signatures to this document, all witnesses of the truth of\nits contents. To which I reply--I see no name to it at all now; and\nsecondly, if there were a million, the paper does not assert, much\nless prove, what Mr. T. produces it to sustain. It merely declares\n_that the man said he was free_; without even expressing the opinion\nof the writer or any signer of the paper. Now, upon this case, and\nthis proof, it is nearly certain that the man was not free, and\nextremely probable that the whole case is fictitious. For the glorious\nwrit of habeas corpus, one of the main pillars of your liberty--a\nprivileged writ which no English judge, for his right hand, would dare\nillegally refuse; that writ is one of the great heirlooms we got with\nour Anglo-Saxon blood, and is dearer to us than that blood itself.\nHere, by act of Parliament, you do sometimes suspend this writ; with\nus the tyrant does not breathe who would dare to whisper a wish for\nits suspension. Now, if this man was, or believed himself to be free,\nwhat hindered him, from the moment of his arrest to that of his sale,\nfrom demanding and receiving a fair trial? Will it be said he did not\nknow his rights? But will it be pretended that the one thousand\nsigners of the memorial, the many abolitionists at Washington of whom\nMr. T. boasts, did not know his rights--in a land where every man\nknows and is ready to defend his rights? If they did not, they were\nthrice sodden asses, fit only to be tools in gulling mankind into the\nbelief of a tale that had not feasibility enough to gull a child. Upon\nthe face of his own proof Mr. Thompson had shown that he had not the\nslightest authority for the assertions he had so often made in arguing\nthis case; by all of which he intended to make men believe that in\nAmerica it was not uncommon to sell free men into slavery! Mr.\nBreckinridge then resumed the consideration of abolition principles;\nthe _third of which_ was, that all prejudice against color is sinful,\nand that everything which induces us to refuse any social, personal,\nreligious, civil, or political right to a black man, which is allowed\nto a white one, not superior to him in moral or intellectual\nqualifications, is a prejudice, and therefore sinful. He believed this\nto be a fair statement of their principles on that head. And he would,\nin the first place, remark concerning them, that even if they were\ntrue, which he denied, the discussion of them was worse than useless.\nIt could not advance the cause of emancipation, nor improve the\ncondition of the free blacks. And whatever the abolitionists might\nsay, the slaves when freed would follow their own course and\ninclinations; nor could the declaration of an abstract principle alter\neither their conduct or that of the whites, in any material degree.\nIf, as Mr. Thompson asserted, prejudice against color was the\nnational sin of America, the plague-spot of the nation, it had just as\noften been asserted by others that the prejudice itself originated at\nfirst out of the relation of slavery. The latter was the disease, the\nformer a mere symptom. If there were no black slaves on earth there\nwould no longer be any aversion against that color, which went beyond\nthe invariable and mutual restraints of nature, or was tolerated by a\nproper Christian liberty. They know little of human prejudices who do\nnot know that they are more invincible in the bulk of mankind than the\ndictates of reason, or the impulses of virtue itself. The case of the\nabolitionists must therefore be pronounced foolish on their own\nshowing. For they undertook to break down the strongest of all\nprejudices, as they themselves say, as a condition precedent to the\ndoing of acts which, to do at all, required great pecuniary sacrifices\nand a high tone of moral feeling. But if, as I shall try to show,\ntheir doctrines are contrary to all the course of nature and all the\nteachings of Providence--their behavior is to be considered little\nelse than sheer madness. Again: even if it did not prejudice the case\nof the slave--as none can deny it did--to agitate this question of\ncolor, and mix it up inseparably with the question of freedom, of what\nuse was it to him? If the whites treat him with scorn, give him his\nliberty--and he may pity, forgive, or return the scorn. What advantage\nwas he to gain as a slave, by the discussion, even if no harm came\nfrom it? What advantage was he to obtain as a freeman even if its\nagitation did not forever prevent him from being free? It is, in all\nits aspects, the most remarkable illustration of a weak, heady, and\nignorant fanaticism which this age has produced, and has been, of them\nall, the most fruitful of evil. The truth was, that many of the rights\nand privileges of free persons of color were better secured to them in\nAmerica than corresponding rights and privileges were to the white\npeasantry of any other country on the globe. With regard to the\nreligious rights of colored persons, he could only say that he had sat\nin Presbyteries with them, that he had dispensed the Sacrament to them\ntogether with white persons; and that he and multitudes of others had\nsat in the same class with them at our Theological Seminaries. As for\nall the stories which Mr. T. was accustomed to tell about Dr. Sprague\nhaving part of his church curtained round for persons of color, he\nknew personally nothing, and noticed it only because it was told as a\n_specimen_ story. He merely knew that Dr. Sprague was accounted a\nbenevolent man, and common charity required him not readily to believe\nanything of him in a bad sense which could be justified in a good one.\nBut if there was anything so very exclusive and revolting in these\nmarks of superiority or inferiority in a church, let them not look to\nAmerica alone; nor limit their sympathies exclusively to the blacks.\nIn almost every church in England in which he had been, from the\ncathedral of St. Paul's at London, to the curate's village church, he\nhad seen seats railed off, or curtained, or cushioned, or elevated,\nand some how distinguished from the rest. And when he inquired why\nthese things were so, and for whose accommodation, the answer was\nready. \"O, that is for My Lord this; or Sir Harry that; or Mr. Prebend\nso and so; or the Lord Bishop of what not.\" And very often, even in\ndissenting chapels, he had seen part of the seats of an inferior\ndescription in particular parts of the house, which he had as often\nbeen told were free seats for the poor; an arrangement which has\nstruck him as favorably as the similar one in Dr. Sprague's church did\nMr. T. the reverse. This preparation of free and separate seats for\nthe poor is, if he is rightly informed, nearly universal, in both the\nScotch and English establishments, whenever the poor have seats in\ntheir churches. Now, if Mr. Thompson wished to begin a system of\nlevelling--if he meant to preach universal equality, why did he not\nbegin here? Why did he not try to convert Earl Grey and Lord\nMelbourne, instead of going across the Atlantic in order to try his\nexperiments on the despised Americans? As to the civil rights of the\nfree blacks in America, the most erroneous notions were entertained in\nboth countries, but especially here. The truth was, they enjoyed\ngreater _civil_ rights than the peasantry of Britain herself; and\nthose rights were fully as well protected in their exercise. Their\nright to acquire property of any kind, anywhere, without being hedged\nabout with exclusive privileges and ancient corporations; their right\nto enjoy that property, unencumbered with poor rates, and church\nrates, and tithes and tiends, and untold taxes and vexations; their\nright to pursue trades, callings, or business, without regard to\nmonopolies, and innumerable vexatious and worrying preliminaries;\ntheir right to be free in person--subject neither to forcible\nimpressment, nor to the serveilance of an innumerable police: their\nright to be cared for in sickness and destitution, without questions\nof domicile previously settled; their right to the speedy and cheap\nadministration of justice without \"sale, denial or delay\"--and\nunattended with ruinous expenses; these, with whatever may truly be\nconsidered civil rights, are enjoyed by the free colored people in\nnearly every part of America, to a degree utterly unknown by millions\nof British subjects, not only in the East and West-Indies, but in\nIreland, and even in England itself. If any rights had been denied\nthem, as the following of certain professions, as that of a minister\nof the gospel, for example, as Virginia had lately done, he could\npoint their attention to the time when these laws were passed, and\nshow that it was not till after the era of abolition; and that would\nnever have been, but for its fury. It was not till after they had\nlearned with bell book and candle to curse the white man, and teach\nsedition and murder to the slaves. The nature of _political_ rights\nclaimed by Mr. Thompson for the blacks, in his sweeping claim to have\nthem put on a footing of perfect equality with the whites, seemed to\nbe utterly unknown to him, both as to their origin and character.\nWhilst he advocated a scheme in America which demanded the most\nextensive political changes, and claimed political rights as the\nbirthright of certain parties, he still persisted in assuring the\nBritish nation that he had never touched the subject in a political\naspect! Now what political rights does he claim for the free\nblacks--and denounce all America for refusing, on account of this\nprejudice against color? Is it right of suffrage? is it right of\noffice? is it perfect, personal, and political equality? If not, what\ndoes he mean? But if he means that it already exists in all the free\nStates and in several of the slave States, in behalf of the free\nblacks, to a far greater extent than the same exists in England, as\nbetween the privileged classes and the bulk of the nation, though all\nare white,--I boldly assert, that a greater part of the free men of\ncolor in America did enjoy perfect political privileges at the rise of\nabolitionism, than of the white men of Britain at this day. There were\nmore free black voters in North America, in proportion to the free\nblack race, than there are white voters in all Britain, in proportion\nto the white inhabitants of the British empire. And this, even leaving\nout the red millions of the East, and the black thousands of the\nWest-Indies; and making the Reform Bill the basis of calculation! If\nsome have been deprived of these privileges, let abolitionists blame\nthemselves. If in most places these privileges have been dormant, it\nonly proves that their exercise was a very secondary advantage--that\nthe present outcry is but the more wicked and absurd. As to the social\nrights which were demanded for the slaves and free blacks both, there\nseemed to be a complete confusion of ideas in the minds of the\nabolitionists. Did they mean to say that all distinctions and\ngradations of rank were iniquitous, or did they mean that men ought to\nenjoy rights because they were black, which were justly denied to the\nwhites? Who had ever heard of a nobleman marrying a gipsy? or, of a\nking of England marrying a laborer's daughter? But the fact was,\neverything tended to prove that in preaching against the alleged\nprejudice against color, the abolitionists were really advocating\ngeneral amalgamation. There were three opinions on the the subject:\n1st. That in a State situated like most of those in America, public\npolicy required the mixture of the races to be prohibited; so that, in\nnearly all the States, intermarriages were prohibited, and in many\nStates they were punishable as a felony with fine or imprisonment.\n2d. That the practice was inexpedient, but so far innocent as to be\nleft to the discretion of the parties, which he believed was the\nopinion of sober-minded people generally in this country. 3d. That, as\nthe chief practical objection to it is a sinful prejudice against\ncolor, that prejudice is to be broken down, and the contrary right\nupheld, as neither improper nor inexpedient, when voluntarily\nexercised. This last, or even a much stronger advocacy of\namalgamation, is the doctrine of abolitionism; facts deducible from\ntheir declaration of independence, and found in the whole scope of\ntheir writings and speeches. Mr. Breckinridge then went on to show the\nutter folly, and, as he believed, wickedness of advocating\namalgamation; or so acting or talking as to create the universal\nimpression that was what was meant. In the first place, the result\nafter which the abolitionists seemed to strive, was impossible; in the\nmost strict sense of the terms, naturally or physically impossible. He\nby no means meant to contend with some freethinkers, who, to upset the\nMosaic cosmogony, asserted that the different races of men were not\nfruitful if intermixed beyond a given and very near point. But what he\nmeant was this: all who believe the Mosaic account of the origin of\nthe human race, must, of course, believe that they were once all of\none complexion. Now, if they could all be amalgamated and made of one\ncomplexion again, those causes, whatever they are, which have produced\nso great diversities, would, after a time, reproduce them. And having\ngratified Mr. Thompson and his friends, by universal levelling and\nmixing the world, would soon find that they had done a work which\nnature did not permit to stand; and would again behold, in one belt\nupon the earth's surface, the black, in another the red, and in a\nthird the white man. And to whatever degree they carried their\nprinciples into practice, they would find proportionately great\ncounteracting causes--continually fighting against them, and\ncontinually requiring the reproduction of their amalgamated breed,\nfrom the original stocks. This, then, is a fatal objection to their\nscheme; the course of nature is against it. But again, he would say,\nas a second fundamental objection against all such schemes, that\nwherever, in the past history of the world, the various races of men\nhad been allowed freely to amalgamate, one of two concomitants had\nuniversally attended the process, namely, polygamy or prostitution. If\neither of these be permitted, as innocent, amalgamation can easily be\npushed through its first stage; without one at least of these two\nengines, no progress has ever yet been made in this work of fighting\nagainst the overwhelming course of events. He regretted he had not\ntime to go over these branches of the argument with that pains which\nhe could wish. If he had, he believed, notwithstanding all that Mr.\nThompson had said, or might say, about sophistry, they could each of\nthem be demonstrated as clearly as that gentleman could demonstrate\nany proposition in geometry. Again, in the third place, he believed,\nfrom what was contained in the Bible, that in preserving distinct from\neach other the three families of mankind, as descended from the three\nsons of Noah, God had great and yet undeveloped purposes to\naccomplish. How far the whole history of his providence led to the\nsame conclusion, he must leave to their own reflections to determine.\nBut on the admission of such a truth as even possible--it was surely\nnatural to look for something in the structure of nature that would\neffectually prevent the obliteration of either race. One may find this\nin those general considerations which make intermarriages, in his\nview, inexpedient; or another in the innate and absolute instincts of\nthe creature. But both will receive with suspicion, as an undoubted\nand fundamental rule of Christian morals, a dogma which requires us to\ncontend against the clear leadings of providence, and the good and\nmerciful intentions of our Creator. We tax our faith but slightly when\nwe believe that as soon as these purposes of mercy and glory are\naccomplished, and the signal revolution in the social condition of man\nnow contended for shall be required by the Almighty, we may look for a\nchannel of communication between him and the world more in accordance\nwith the Spirit of his Son than any which has yet brought us messages\non the subject. The _fourth_ objection which struck him against this\nwhole procedure was, that in point of fact the world has need of\nevery race that now exists on its surface. It has taken forty\ncenturies to adjust the nicely-balanced and adapted relations and\nproportions of a vast and complicated structure,--which the finger of\nall-pervading wisdom has itself guided in all the steps of its\ndevelopment. And now, a stroke of the pen is to subvert it all, and\none dictum, of the world knows not whom, accomplish the most\nstupendous revolution which all these forty centuries have witnessed.\nSuppose the end gained. If any one race now existing was obliterated,\nor very materially altered in its physical condition, how large a\nproportion of the world's surface would become speedily depopulated,\nand so remain until the present condition of things were restored! If\nthis could happen as to every race _but one_, what a wreck would the\nearth exhibit! He who will look with a Christian's eye abroad upon the\nfamilies of men, must feel that to accomplish the great hopes that his\nheart has conceived for this ruined world, he needs every race that\nnow peoples it; and must see the hand of God in arresting so speedily\nand so signally this pernicious heresy. In the fifth place, he\nsuggested an argument against amalgamation, which at once showed\nthe injustice of the outcry against America, and the total\ninconsiderateness of Mr. Thompson and his party. The fact was that\nthis prejudice of color, as it was called, was in all respects mutual;\nand so far from being the peculiar sin of America, was the common\ninstinct of the human race, and existed as really, if not as strongly\non the side of the colored population as on that of the whites. In\nproof of this, Mr. Breckinridge cited the case of Hayti, where no man\nis allowed the rights of citizenship, unless a certain portion of\nblack blood runs in his veins; and that of Richard Lander, who, while\ntravelling in the interior of Africa, as the servant of Park, was\nlooked upon with comparative favor by the natives on account of his\ndark complexion, while his master, who was of a very fair complexion,\nwas far less a favorite on that account. The North American Indians\nand the blacks more readily intermixed than the Indians and the\nwhites, while the latter connexion, which is not indeed uncommon, is\nformed by the marriage of a white man with a squaw; never, or most\nrarely, of an Indian and a white woman, the slight, and most\nexaggerated number of mulattoes, are nearly without exception, the\noffspring of white men and colored women. These facts seemed to show\nthe reality and nature or the mutual aversion of which I have spoken;\nan aversion never overcome but in gross minds. And the whole current\nof remark proves that those who attempted to promote amalgamation are\nfighting equally against the purposes of providence, the convictions\nof reason, and the best impulses of nature. He had much to say, which\ntime failed him to say, on the spirit in which the abolition had been\nadvocated in America. He would therefore merely remark whether it\nmight be taken as a compliment, or the reverse, that the spirit of all\nMr. Thomson's speeches, which he had heard or read--might give them a\ntolerable idea of the spirit of abolitionism everywhere: a spirit\nwhich many seemed to consider as from above, but for himself he prayed\nto be preserved from any such spirit. He had much also to say upon the\nmalignant feeling and spirit of insubordination which had been\nproduced by the discussion of these questions in the breasts of\nmultitudes of free colored people. The riots, of which so much had\nbeen said in this country, were as often produced by the imprudence\nand insolence of these deluded people, as by the wanton violence and\nprejudices of the lowest classes of the whites. In consequence of the\ninfluence of the Jacobinical principles of the abolitionists, many\nfree colored servants left employments they had held for years;\nbecause the claim then first set up, of perfect domestic equality with\ntheir masters, was refused; while many cases of insult to females, in\nthe streets of our cities, signalized the same season and spirit. He\nhad also much to say of the wide-spread feeling, looking towards\nimmediate deliverance, from a distance, and by force, which suddenly,\nand, if the abolitionists are innocent as they pretend, miraculously\ngot possession of the minds of the slaves over all the southern\ncountry; and which led to such stern, and but the more unhappy, if\nnecessary, consequences. It had been said, in justification of his\nconduct by Mr. Thompson, that persuasion had never yet induced any one\nto relax his hold on slaves--and that as for America, in particular,\nshe would never be made to feel ought on the subject, till her pride\nand fears were awakened. To that he would reply that, as regarded\npride, perhaps America had her share of it; but if abolition was not\nto be looked for till her fears granted it, he apprehended they would\nhave sufficient time yet left to send Mr. Thompson on several new\nvoyages before the whole country was frightened into his terms.\n\n\n\n\nFIFTH NIGHT--FRIDAY, JUNE 17.\n\n\nMR. BRECKINRIDGE said that the order of the exercises of this evening\nhad, without the fault of any one, placed him in a position which was\nnot the most natural. Considering that it was his duty to support the\nnegative of the point for this evening's discussion, it would have\nbeen most natural had the affirmation been first brought out. He said\nthis arrangement was not the fault of any one, because it was not\nknown that the point would fall to be discussed on this particular\nevening; for had it fallen on last night or to-morrow night, the order\nwould have been as it ought to be. His position was, however, made\nsomewhat better by the fact, that nothing that Mr. Thompson could say\nthis evening, in an hour or two, could alter the assertions which he\nhad already repeatedly made and published in Britain. Since the notice\nof this discussion had been published, he had, through the providence\nof God, been put in possession of six or seven papers and pamphlets\ncontaining the substance of what had been said by Mr. Thompson\nthroughout the country, and reiterated by associated bodies of his\nfriends under his eye. After reading these carefully, he found himself\npretty fully possessed of that individual's charges and testimony\nagainst the ministers, private Christians, and churches of America; he\nwould, therefore, take them as he found them in those publications,\nwhile Mr. Thompson's presence would enable him to explain, correct, or\ndeny anything that might be erroneously stated. The first thing he\nshould attempt to do, was to impeach the competency of Mr. Thompson as\na witness in this or any similar case. Mr. Thompson had shown that he\nwas utterly incompetent, wisely to gather and faithfully to report\ntestimony on any subject involving great and complicated principles.\nHe did not wish to say anything personally offensive to Mr. Thompson;\nbut he must be plain, and he would first produce proof of what he\nsaid, which was as it regarded this whole nation perfectly _ad\nhominem_. He would show the audience what Mr. Thompson had said of\nthem, and then they would better judge what was his competency to be a\nwitness against the Americans. At a meeting in the Hopeton Rooms at\nEdinburgh, since his return from the United States, Mr. Thompson said:\n\n    We were really under a worse bondage than the slaves of the\n    United States. We kissed our chains and hugged our fetters.\n    We were governed by our drunken appetite.\n\n    The lecturer, in the concluding portion of his address,\n    depicted in a tone of high moral feeling, the degraded\n    condition of Great Britain as a nation, in consequence of her\n    extreme drunkenness. He shewed that habits of intemperance,\n    or feelings and prejudices generated by intemperance,\n    pervaded every class, from the highest to the lowest, the\n    richest to the poorest. Statesmen bowed upon the altar of\n    expediency; and, above all, the sanctuary was not clean. As a\n    Christian nation, we were paralized in our efforts to\n    evangelize the world--partly by the millions upon millions\n    actually expended upon ardent spirits--partly by the selfish\n    and demoralizing feelings which this sensual indulgence in\n    particular was known to produce. How could we, as a nation,\n    upbraid America with her system of slavery when we ourselves\n    were but glorying in a voluntary slavery of a thousand times\n    more defiling and abominable description? In our own country,\n    it might be said that there was, as it were, a conspiracy\n    against the bodies and souls of her people.\n\nNow in any Court of Justice, he would take his stand upon the fact\nthat the man who made that speech must be a _monomaniac_, and he\nbelieved no competent tribunal, after hearing it, would receive his\ntestimony as to the character or conduct of any nation on the face of\nthe earth. Or if there lingered a doubt on the subject, he should show\nfrom the burden of his charges against America, that he spoke in the\nsame general spirit, and nearly in the very same terms of her as of\nBritain, although the fault found with each country was totally\ndifferent. He spoke of each as the very worst nation on the earth,\nbecause of the special crime charged. Any man who could allow himself\nto say that the two most enlightened nations on earth were in\nsubstance the two most degraded nations on earth; who could permit\nhimself to bring such _railing accusations_ successively against two\ngreat people, on account of the sins of a small portion of each, which\nhe had looked at till he could see nothing else, and with the\nperseverance of a goldleaf-beater, exercised his ingenuity in\nstretching out to the utmost limits over each community; a man who not\nonly can see little to love anywhere that does not derive its\ncomplexion from himself, and who, the moment he finds a blot on his\nbrethren, or his country, instead of walking backwards and hiding it\nwith the filial piety of the elder sons of Noah, mocks over it with\nthe rude and unfeeling bitterness of Canaan; such a man is worthily\nimpeached, as incompetent to testify. Nay, I put the issue where Mr.\nThompson has put it. If this nation be such as he has described it to\nbe, I demand, with unanswerable emphasis, how can it dare to call us,\nor any other people, to account on any subject whatever? If, on the\nother hand, what he has said of this nation be false, I equally demand\nhow can he be credited in what he says of us--of any other nation\nunder the sun? After this caveat against all that such a witness could\nsay, he would in the first place observe, that all the accusations\nbrought by Mr. Thompson against Americans, were imbued with such\nbitterness and intemperance as ought to awaken suspicion in the minds\nof all who hear them. There was visible not only a violent national\nantipathy against that whole country, but also a strong prejudice in\nfavor of the one side and against the other in the local parties\nthere, which, before any impartial tribunal, ought greatly to weaken\nany credit that might otherwise be attached to his testimony. Besides\nan open hostility to the nation as such, and a most envomed hatred to\ncertain men, parties, and principles in America, the witness has\nexhibited such a wounded feeling of vanity from his want of success in\nAmerica; such a glorying of his friends, and that just in proportion\nto their subserviency to him, and such a contemptuous and unmerited\ndepreciation of his opponents, as should put every man who reads or\nhears his proofs at once on his guard. As to the opinions and\nconclusions of such a person, even from admitted facts, they are of\ncourse worthless; and his inferences from hearsay and idle reports,\nworse than trash. But what I mean to say is, that such a witness,\nconsidered strictly as testifying to what he asserts of his own\nknowledge, is to be heard by a just man with very great caution. For\nmy own part, at the risk of being called again a pettifogger, by this\ninformer, I am bound to say that his conduct impeaches his credibility\nfully as much as it has before been shown to affect his competency;\nand while I have peculiar knowledge of the facts, sufficient to assert\nthat his main accusations are false, I fully believe that the case he\nhad himself made, did of itself justify all good men to draw the same\nconclusion, merely from general principles. I will venture to go a\nstep farther, and express the opinion that they who are acquainted\nwith Mr. Thompson, as he exhibits himself in the public eye, and who\nhave knowledge of the past success, which really did, or which he\nallows himself to believe did attend his efforts in West-India\nemancipation, (a success, however, which I do not comprehend, as the\ncase was settled against him and his party, on the two chief points on\nwhich they staked themselves, namely, _immediate abolition_ and _no\ncompensation_,) they who can call to mind the preparation and\npretension with which he set out for America, the gigantic work he had\ncarved for himself there, the signal defeat he met with, and the\nterror in which he fled the country; may find enough to justify the\nfear that the fate of George Thompson has fully as large a share in\nhis recollections of America as the fate of the poor slave. In the\n_second place_, I charge upon Mr. Thompson that those parts of his\nstatements which might possibly be in part true, are so put as to\ncreate false impressions, and have nearly the same effect as if they\nwere wholly false on the minds of those who read or hear them. This\nresults from the constant manner of stating what might possibly be\ntrue; and it is not only calculated to produce a false impression, and\nmake the casual reader believe in a result different from what would\nbe presented if Mr. Thompson were on oath and forced to tell the whole\ntruth, but the uniformity and dexterity with which this is done,\nleaves us astonished how it could be accidental. He (Mr. B.) assumed\nthat all of them had read or would read Mr. Thompson's charges. After\ndoing so they would the better apprehend what was now meant; but, in\nthe mean time, he would illustrate it by a case or two. Thus, when Mr.\nT. spoke of the ministers in the United States being slave-holders, he\ndid it in such a way as to lead the reader to believe that this was a\ngeneral thing; that the most of them, if not the whole of them, were\nslave-owners. He did not tell them that none of the ministers in\ntwelve whole States were or could easily be slave-holders, seeing they\nwere not inhabitants of a slave State; he did not tell them that the\ncases of ministers owning slaves were rare even in some of the slave\nStates; and a fair sample of the majority in not a single State of the\nUnion; he left the charge indefinite, and did not condescend to tell\nwhether the number of ministers so accused was one half, or one third,\nor one fourth, or one hundredth part of the whole number in the United\nStates. He left it wholly indefinite, on the broad charge that\nAmerican ministers were slave-holding ministers; knowing, perhaps\nintending, that the impression taken up should be of the aggregate\nmass of American ministers; when he knew himself all the while that\nthe overwhelming mass of American ministers had never owned a slave;\nand that those who had, were exceptions from the general rule rather\nthan samples of the whole. It may well be asked how much less sinful\nit was to rob men of their good name, than of their freedom? Not\ncontent with even this injustice, Mr. Thompson had gone so far as to\ncharge the ministers of America with dealing in slaves; _slave-driving\nministers_ and _slave-dealing ministers_, were amongst his common\naccusations. Now, said Mr. B., he would lay a strong constraint upon\nhimself, and reply to these statements as if they were not at once\natrocious and insupportable. The terms used by Mr. Thompson were\nuniversally understood in the United States, to mean the carrying on\nof a regular traffic in slaves as a business. The meaning was the same\nhere, and every one who had heard or read one of his printed speeches,\nwas ex vi termini obliged to understand this charge like the\npreceding, as expressing his testimony as to the conduct of American\nministers generally, if not universally.\n\nNow I will admit that there may be in America, one minister in one\nthousand, or perhaps five hundred, who may at some period of his\nministry, when he had no sufficient light on the subject, have bought\nor sold slaves a single time, or perhaps twice, or possibly thrice.\nBut I solemnly declare I never knew, nor heard of, nor do I believe\nthere exists in all America, one such minister, as is above described;\nnor any sect that would hold fellowship with him. He would throw under\nthe _third general head_ charges of a different kind from the\npreceding. Mr. Thompson, when generalities fail, takes up some extreme\ncase, which might probably be founded on truth, and gives it as a\nspecimen of the general practice; thereby creating by false instances,\nas well as by indefinite accusations, an impression which he knows to\nbe entirely foreign from the truth. If he, (Mr. B.) were to tell in\nAmerica that on his way to this meeting to-night, he saw two blind men\nbegging in the streets, with their arms locked to support their\ntottering steps, while the crowd passed them idly by; and if he gave\nthis as a specimen of the manner in which the unfortunate poor were\ntreated in Scotland, he would not give a worse impression, nor make a\nmore unfair statement of the fact, than Mr. Thompson had done, nearly\nwithout exception, in his statements of America. Such a spirit and\npractice as this, pervaded the whole of Mr. Thompson's speeches. He\nwould select a few instances to enforce his meaning. There was a\nsingle Presbyterian Church at Nashville, Tennessee. Now he, (Mr. B.)\nhappened, in the providence of God, to be somewhat acquainted with the\npast history of that church; and was happy to call its present\nbenevolent minister his friend. He could consequently speak of it from\nhis own knowledge. Mr. Thompson said that a young man went to\nNashville, who, either through his own imprudence, or the violence of\nthe disjointed times, was arrested, tried by a popular committee,\nfound guilty of spreading seditious papers, and sentenced to be\nwhipped; that he had received twenty lashes, and was then discharged.\nThis he believed to be substantially true, and well remembered hearing\nof the occurrence; and taking the young man's account of it as true,\nhe had been greatly shocked at it, and had now no idea of defending\nit. But in Mr. Thompson's statement of the case, there was a minute\nmisrepresentation, which showed singular indifference to facts. Mr. T.\nsaid the young man went to Tennessee to sell cottage bibles, in which\nbusiness he succeeded well, for the reason, adds the narrator, that\nBibles were scarce in the South; although he could not fail to know,\nthat before the period in question, every family in all those States\nthat would receive a Bible, had been furnished with one by the various\nBible Societies. This, however, was not the main reason for a\nreference to this case; but was mentioned incidentally, to show the\nnature of the feelings and accusations indulged in by this gentleman.\nHis account went on to say, sometimes that there were seven, sometimes\neleven elders of this Presbyterian Church. It was not intended to lay\nany stress on the discrepancy; as the fault might be the reporter's.\nBut seven, or eleven; it was again and again charged, that all of\nthem, every one, was present, trying, and consenting to the punishment\nof the unhappy young man, \"plowing up his back,\" and mingling, perhaps\nin the mob who cursed him, even for his prayers. To make the case\ninexpressibly horrible, it is added, that these seven or eleven\nelders, had as to part of them, distributed the sacramental elements,\nto the abolitionist, the very Sabbath before, the day on which the\nseven elders participated in this outrage. Now I say first, that if\nthis story were literally true, no man knows better than Mr. Thompson,\nthat no falsehood could be more glaring than to say or insinuate, that\nthe case would be a fair average specimen of what the leading men in\nthe American churches generally might be expected to do, in like\ncircumstances. Yet for this purpose, he has repeatedly used it! No man\ncould know better than he, that if the case were true in all its\nparts, it would every where be accounted a violent and unprecedented\nthing, which could happen at all only in most extraordinary\ncircumstances. Yet he has so stated it, over and over, as to force the\nimpression that it is a fair sample of American Christianity. But,\nsaid Mr. B. I call in question all parts of the story, that implicate\nany Christian. I do not believe the statements. Let me have proof. I\ndo not believe there were either seven or eleven elders in the church\nin question. Record their names. If there were so many, it is next to\nimpossible, that every one of them, was on the comparatively small\ncommittee that tried the abolitionist. Produce the proofs; and I\nbelieve it will turn out, that if either of them was present, it was\nto mitigate popular violence; and that his influence perhaps, saved\nthe life of him he is traduced for having oppressed. He did not mean\nto stake his assertion against proof; but from his experience and\ngeneral knowledge of the parties, he had no hesitation in giving it as\nhis opinion, that the facts, when known, would not justify the\nassertions of Mr. Thompson, even as to the particular case; and\nbelieving this, I again challenge the production of his authority.\nBut, if it be true in all its parts, I repeat, it is every thing but\ntruth, to say that it affords a just specimen of the elders of the\nPresbyterian Churches of America. Another case resembling the\npreceding in its principle, is found in what Mr. Thompson has said of\nthe Baptists of the Southern States. There are, says he, above 157,000\nmembers in upwards of 3000 Baptist Churches, in those States, \"almost\nall both ministers and members being slave holders.\" Allowing this\nstatement to be true, and that each slave holder has ten slaves on an\naverage, which is too small for the truth, there would be an amount of\nslaves equal to 1,570,000 owned by the Baptist of the Southern States.\nIf this be true, and the census of 1830 true also, there were only\nleft about 500,000 slaves to divide among all the other churches;\nleaving for the remainder of the people, none at all! So that after\nall this, though churches be bad, the nation is clean enough.\n\nLet us now make some allowance for this gentleman's extravagance,\nespecially as he did think he was speaking under correction, and\ndivide his 157,000 Baptists into 52,000 families, of three professors\nof religion in each. This is more than the average for each family;\nespecially in a church admitting only adults; and the true number of\nfamilies, for that number of professors, would be nearer one hundred\nthan fifty thousand. Twenty slaves to the family is below the average\nof the slave owning families of the South; so that at the lowest rate,\nthe Baptists in a few States, according to this person, own 1,040,000\nslaves at the least, or above half the number that our last census\ngives to the whole union. The extraordinary folly of such statements,\nwould appear more clearly to the audience when they understood, that\nas large a proportion of all the blacks, as of all the whites in\nAmerica are professors of religion; that above half of all slaves who\nprofess religion, are Baptists; and that, therefore, if there are\n157,000 Baptists in the Southern States, instead of being \"almost all\nslave holders,\" at least a third of them are themselves slaves. He\ngave these instances to show that Mr. Thompson had taken extreme cases\ncontaining some show of truth as specimens of the whole of America,\nand had thereby produced totally false impressions. What truth there\nwas in them, was so terrifically exaggerated, that no dependence\nwhatever could be placed upon any of his testimony. And this would be\nstill more manifest after examining the charge brought by Mr.\nThompson, that the very churches in America own slaves; and several of\nhis speeches contain a pretty little dialogue with some slaves in the\nfields, the whole interest of which turns on their calling themselves\n\"_the Church's Slaves_.\" This was spoken of as it were in accordance\nwith the usual course of things in the United States. Indeed, Mr.\nThompson had not only spoken with his usual violence and generality of\nthe \"slave holding churches of America,\" and declared his conviction\nthat \"all the guilt of the system\" should be laid \"on the church of\nAmerica;\" but at the very latest joint exhibition of himself and his\nfriend _Moses Roper_, in London, it was stated by the latter in one of\nhis usual interludes to Mr. Thompson, perhaps in his presence,\ncertainly uncontradicted, that, slave holding was universally\npractised by \"all Christian _societies_\" in America; the societies of\nFriends only excepted. It may excite a blush in America, to know that\nthe poor negro's silly falsehood was received with cheers by the\nLondon audience.\n\nWhat then should the similar declarations of Mr. Thompson, made\ndeliberately and repeatedly, and with infinite pretence of candour and\naffection, what feelings _can_ they excite; and how will that insulted\npeople regard the easy credulity which has led the Christians of\nBritain to believe and reiterate charges in which it is not easy to\ntell whether there is less truth or more malignity? For how stood the\nfacts? What church owns slaves? What Christian corporation is a\nproprietor of men? Out of our ten thousand churches perhaps half are\ninvolved in this sin? Perhaps a tenth part? Surely one Presbytery at\nleast? No,--this mountain of fiction has but a grain of truth to\nsupport its vast and hateful proportions. If there be above five\ncongregations in all America that own slaves, I never heard of them.\nThe actual number, of whose existence I ever heard, is, I believe,\nprecisely _three_! They are all Presbyterian congregations, and\nchurches situated in the southern part of Virginia, and got into their\nunhappy condition in the following manner:--Many years ago, during\nthose times of ignorance at which God winked--when such a man as John\nNewton could go a slaving voyage to Africa, and write back that he\nnever had enjoyed sweeter communion with God than on that voyage;\nduring such a period as that, a few well meaning individuals had\nbequeathed a small number of slaves for the support of the gospel in\nthree or four churches. These unfortunate legacies had increased and\nmultiplied themselves to a great extent, and under present\ncircumstances to a most inconvenient degree. A fact which puts the\nclearest contradiction on that assertion of this \"accuser of the\nbrethren\"--representing their condition as being one of unusual\nprivation and suffering. Of late years these cases had attracted\nattention, and given great uneasiness to some of the persons connected\nwith these churches. I have on this platform, kindly furnished me,\nlike most of the other documents I have, since this debate was\npublicly known--a volume of letters written to one of these churches\non the whole case, by the Rev. Mr. Paxton, at that time its pastor.\nThat gentleman is now on this side of the Atlantic, and may perhaps\nexplain what Mr. Thompson has so sedulously concealed; how he was a\ncolonizationist; how he manumitted and sent his own servants to\nLiberia; how he labored in this particular matter with his church,\nlong before the existence of abolitionism; and how, finding the\ndifficulties insuperable, he had written this kind and modest volume,\nworth all the abolition froth ever spued forth,--and left the charge\nin which he found it so difficult to preserve at once an honest\nconscience and a healthful influence. It will not, however, be\nunderstood that even these few churches are worthy of the\nindiscriminate abuse lavished on us, all for their sakes; nor that\ntheir present path of duty is either an easy or a plain one. Whether\nit is that there are express stipulations in the original instruments\nconveying the slaves in trust for certain purposes; or whether the\ngeneral principle of law, which would transfer to the State, or to the\nheir of the first owner, the slaves with their increase,--upon a\nfailure of the intention of the donor, either by act of God, or of the\nparties themselves, embarrass the subject; it is very certain that\nwiser and better men than either Mr. Thompson or myself, are convinced\nthat these vilified churches have no power whatever to set their\nslaves free. If the churches were to give up the slaves, it could only\nhave the effect, it is believed, to send them into everlasting bondage\nto the heirs of the original proprietors. They have therefore justly\nconsidered it better for the slaves themselves that they should remain\nas they were in a state of nominal servitude, rather than be remitted\ninto real slavery. Such is the real state of the few cases which have\nfirst been exhibited as the sin, if not the actual condition of the\nAmerican churches; and then exaggerated into the utmost turpitude by\nhiding every mitigating circumstance, adding some purely new, and\ndistorting all things. Whether right or wrong, the same state of\nthings exists amongst the Society of Friends in North Carolina, to a\npartial extent, and in another form. They did not consider themselves\nliable to just censure, although they held title in and authority over\nslaves, as individuals, while they gave them their whole earnings, and\nhad collected large sums from their brethren in England, which were\napplied to the benefit of these slaves. It is not now for the first\ntime that charges have been made against the Church of God--that Judah\nis like all the heathen. But all who embark in such courses--have met\nwith the common fate of the revilers of God's people; and they, with\nsuch as select to stand in their lot--may find in the word of life a\nworse end apportioned for them, than even for those they denounce, in\ncase every word they utter had been true. We bless God that no weapon\nformed against Zion can prosper. There was one other instance which he\nhad noted under this head as requiring some comment, which could not\nbear omission, regarding the private members of the Christian churches\nin the United States, of whom a casual hearer or reader of Mr.\nThompson's speeches would believe that the far greater part actually\nowned slaves; that very few, and they almost exclusively\nabolitionists, considered slavery at all wrong; that with one accord\nthey deprived the slaves of all religious privileges, and used them,\nnot only as a chattel, but as nothing else than a chattel. According\nto our last census, there were about 11,000,000 of whites, 2,000,000\nof slaves, and 400,000 free blacks in America, making a total of\nnearly thirteen and a half millions. All the slaves were gathered into\nthe 12 most southerly states, free blacks were not far from half in\nthe free and half in the slave states, and of the whites over\n7,000,000 were in the free, and less than 3,000,000 in the slave\nstates. The best information I possess on this subject, authorizes me\nto say--about 1 person in 9, throughout the nation, black and white,\nis a member of a Christian church, the proportion being somewhat\nlarger to the north, and comparatively smaller at the south. There\nare, therefore, above 1,100,000 white Christians in the United States,\nof which about 800,000 live in the 12 free States, and neither own\nslaves nor think slavery right; leaving rather over 330,000 for the 12\nslave States. Now, if these white Christians in the slave States own\nall the slaves, and the other 8-9ths of the whites owned none at all,\nthere will be only about 6 slaves to each Christian there, a number\nfar below the average of the slave holders; and all the North, and all\nthe South, except Christians, free of charge and guilt, in the\nspecific thing. But if we divide these Christians into families, and\nsuppose there may be as many, as one in three or four of them, who is\na head of a family, say 100,000; and that they own all the slaves: in\nthat case, there would be an average of twenty slaves to every white\nhead of a Christian family in the slave States. But here again all the\nslaves would be absorbed: all the North innocent, above two-thirds of\nthe Christians at the South proved to be not slave holders at all;\nand all the followers of the devil wholly innocent of that crime.\nThese calculations demonstrate that these accusations are as\ngroundless and absurd as any of the preceding. And while it is\npainfully true that in the slaveholding States far too many Christians\ndo still own slaves; it is equally true, that they bear a small\nproportion to those who own none, even in those States. If we suppose\nthe Christians in America to be about on an equal footing as to wealth\nwith other people; and to have no more conscience about slavery, than\nthose around them in the slave States; and that twenty slaves may be\ntaken as the average, to each master; and a ninth of the people pious,\nas stated before, it follows that only about 11,000 professors of\nreligion can be slaveholders; or about one in every hundred of the\nwhole number in the nation. Yet every one of the above suppositions is\nagainst the churches, and yet upon this basis rests the charges of a\ncandid, affectionate Christian brother against them all! The only\nremaining illustration of Mr. Thompson's proneness to represent a\nlittle truth, in such a way as to have all the effects of an immense\nmisrepresentation, regards his own posture, doings and sufferings in\nAmerica. \"Fourteen months of toil, of peril, and persecution, almost\nunparalleled;\" \"there were paid myrmidons seeking my blood;\" \"there\nwere thousands waiting to rejoice over my destruction;\" \"when any\nindividual tells George Thompson who has put his life into his hands,\nand gone where slavery is rife; when I, George Thompson, am told I am\nto be spared,\" &c. Similar statements, ad infinitum, fill up all his\nspeeches; and are noticed now, not for the purpose of commenting on,\nor even contradicting them, but of affording my countrymen, who may\nchance to see the report of this discussion, specimens, as our\ncertificates often run \"of the modesty, probity, and good demeanor,\"\nof the individual.\n\nHe would pass next to a fourth general objection against Mr.\nThompson's testimony, as regards America, which was, that much of it\nwas in the strictest sense, positively untrue. For instance, Mr.\nThompson had twice put a runaway slave forward upon the platform at\nLondon; or at least connived at the doing of it; who stated of his own\nknowledge, that a Mr. Garrison, of South Carolina, had paid 500\ndollars for a slave, that he might burn him, and that he had done so\nwithout hindrance or challenge, afterwards. This statement Mr. T. has\nnever yet contradicted in any one of his numerous speeches, although\nhe must have known it to be untrue. I have myself several times\ndirected his attention to the subject, and yet the only answer is,\n\"expressive silence.\" Then I distinctly challenge his notice of the\ncase; and while I solemnly declare, that according to my belief,\nwhoever should do such an act in any part of America, would be hung: I\nas distinctly charge Mr. Thompson, with giving countenance to, and\nderiving countenance from this wilful misstatement.\n\nAs an other instance of the same kind, you are told that a free man\nwas sold from the jail at Washington city, as a slave, without even\nthe form of a trial; which is farther aggravated by the assertion\nthat this is vouched as a fact, on the testimony of 1000 signatures.\nThis matter, when Mr. Thompson's own proof is produced, resolves\nitself into this: that Mr. Thompson said, there had been a thousand\nsignatures to a certain paper, which said, that a certain man taken up\nas a runaway slave, said he was free! If he was a slave, the whole\ncase falls; whether he was a slave or not, was a fact that could have\nbeen judicially investigated and decided, if the person most\ninterested, or any other, had chosen to demand it. So that in point of\nfact, Mr. Thompson's whole statements, touching this oft repeated\ncase, are all purely gratuitous. And with what horror, must every good\nman hear that Mr. Thompson, within the last two or three weeks, told a\ncrowd of people in Mr. Price's Chapel, Devonshire Square, London, in\nallusion to this very case, that the poor black had \"DEMONSTRATED HIS\nFREEDOM,\" and afterwards been \"sold into everlasting bondage!\" And yet\nupon this fiction he bases one of his most effective \"illustrations of\nAmerican slavery,\" and some of his fiercest denunciations of the\nAmerican people. Oh! shame, where is thy blush! He could if time\npermitted exhibit other cases,--in principle perhaps worse than these;\nin which neither the false assertions of Moses Roper--nor the\npretended evidence of misrepresented petitions existed to make a show\nof evidence; and which nothing but the most extraordinary ignorance,\nor recklessness could explain. Such are the assertions made by himself\nor his coadjutors in his presence, that slaves are brought to the\ndistrict of Columbia from all the slave states for sale; that five\nyears is the average number, that slaves carried to the Southern\nStates live; that slaves without trial, or even examination, were\noften executed, by tens, twenties, and even thirties; that the banner\nof the United States, which floated over a slave dealing congress, in\nthe midst of the slave market of the entire nation, had the word\n\"_Liberty_\" upon it (which single sentence contained three\nmisstatements;) that religious men weighed children in scales, and\nsold them by the pound like meat;--that there were 2,000,000 of slaves\nin America who never heard the name of Christ; that no white man would\never be respected after he had been seen to shake hands with a man of\ncolour; all which _unnameable_ assertions are contained, along with\ndouble as many others like them, in one single newspaper (the London\n_Patriot_ of June 1, 1835;) and in a portion of the report of only two\nof Mr. Thompson's meetings! Alas! for poor human nature! Having now\ngone through all that his time permitted him to say, of the proof\nagainst America, he would lay before them some counter testimony upon\nseveral parts of this great subject. He had at one time greatly feared\nthat he might be obliged to ask them to believe his mere word, perhaps\nin the face of other proof; but through the providence of God, he had\nbeen put in possession of a very limited file of American newspapers,\nfrom the contents of which he thought he should be able to make out as\nstrong a case for the truth, as he had proved the case against it to\nbe weak and rotten. There were so many denominations of Christians in\nAmerica, that he would only tire the meeting by enumerating them.\nThey were of every variety of name and opinion. As to many of them he\nknew but little, and the present audience perhaps less. The Societies\nof Friends generally did not tolerate slaveholding among their\nmembers; neither did the Covenanters. The Congregationalists, or\nIndependents, had not, he believed, a dozen churches in all the Slave\nStates, and, of course, they should be considered as exempt from the\ncharge. It was, however, the less necessary to occupy ourselves in\ngeneral remarks, inasmuch as Mr. Thompson had laid the stress of his\naccusations on the three great denominations of America. \"He took all\nthe guilt of this system, and he laid it where? On the Church of\nAmerica. When he said the Church, he did not allude to any particular\ndenomination. He spoke of Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists, the\nthree great props--the all-sustaining pillars of that blood-cemented\nfabric.\" Such were the words of Mr. T., and it would therefore be\nneedless to trouble ourselves about the minor, if we could settle the\nmajor to our satisfaction. As to two of these denominations, he should\nsay but little; his chief and natural business being to defend that\none of which he knew most. In regard to the Baptists, he was sorry to\nbe obliged to say, that he believed they were the least defensible of\nthe three denominations, now principally implicated; indeed that some\nof their Associations had taken ground on the whole case, from which\nhe entirely dissented,--and which, he was sure, had given great pain\nto the majority of their own brethren. He begged leave to refer them\nto the work of Drs. Cox and Hoby, just through the press, in which he\npresumed, for he had not seen it, they would find an authentic and\nample information on this and every other point relating to that\ndenomination in America. In relation to the Methodists, his knowledge\nwas both more full and more accurate. Their discipline denounced\nSlavery, and prohibited their Members from owning slaves, and though\ntheir discipline itself was not carried into effect with rigid\nexactness, he did not believe that there was a Methodist Church in the\nUnited States, or upon the Earth, which owned slaves, as a Church. He\nbelieved that very few Methodist preachers--indeed, almost none, owned\nany slaves, and nothing but the most direct proof could for a moment\nmake him believe, that one of them was a slave-dealer. The whole sect,\nor at least the great majority of it, might be considered as fairly\nrepresented, in the following Resolutions passed in the Conference,\nheld at Baltimore; and which could be a set off to those read by Mr.\nThompson, from one of the northern Conferences.\n\n    METHODIST'S RESOLUTIONS ON ABOLITION.\n\n    At a late meeting of the Baltimore Annual Conference of the\n    Methodist Episcopal Church held at Baltimore, the following\n    preamble and Resolutions were unanimously adopted, and the\n    names of all the members and probationers present, in number,\n    one hundred and fifty-seven, were subscribed, and ordered to\n    be published. The secretary was also directed to furnish Rev.\n    John A. Collins, with a copy for insertion in the Globe and\n    Intelligencer, of Washington City.\n\n    Whereas great excitement has pervaded this country for some\n    time past on the subject of abolition; and whereas such\n    excitement is believed to be destructive to the best\n    interests of the country and of religion; therefore\n\n    1. _Resolved_, That \"we are as much as ever convinced of the\n    great evil of slavery.\"\n\n    2. That we are opposed in every part and particular to the\n    proceedings of the abolitionists, which look to the immediate\n    indiscriminate, and general emancipation of slaves.\n\n    3. That we have no connexion with any press, by whomsoever\n    conducted, in the interest of the abolition cause.\n\nAs to his own Connection, the Presbyterian, he would go as fully as\nhis materials permitted, into the proof of their past principles, and\npresent posture. And in the first place he was most happy to be able\nto present them with an abstract of the decisions of the General\nAssembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.\nHe found it printed in the New York Observer, of May 23, 1835,\nembodied in the proceedings of the Presbytery of Montrose, and\ntranscribed by it no doubt from the Assembly's digest.\n\n    As early as A. D. 1787, the Synod of N. York and Philadelphia\n    issued an opinion adverse to slavery, and recommended\n    measures for its final extinction; and in the year 1796 the\n    General Assembly assured \"all the churches under their care,\n    that they viewed with the deepest concern any vestiges of\n    slavery which then existed in our country;\" and in the year\n    1815 the same judicatory decided, \"that the buying and\n    selling of slaves by way of traffic, (meaning, doubtless, the\n    domestic traffic,) is inconsistent with the spirit of the\n    gospel.\" But in the year 1818, a more full and explicit\n    avowal of the sentiments of the church was unanimously agreed\n    on in the General Assembly. \"We consider, (say the Assembly,)\n    the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by\n    another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred\n    rights of human nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law\n    of God, which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves;\n    and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles\n    of the gospel of Christ, which enjoin, that \"whatever ye\n    would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.\" They\n    add, \"It is manifestly the duty of all Christians who enjoy\n    the light of the present day, when the inconsistency of\n    slavery, both with the dictates of humanity and religion, has\n    been demonstrated, and is generally seen and acknowledged, to\n    use their honest, earnest and unwearied endeavors to correct\n    the errors of former times, and as speedily as possible, to\n    efface this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the\n    complete abolition of slavery throughout Christendom and if\n    possible, throughout the world.\"\n\nIf, said Mr. B., he had expressed sentiments different from these, or\nif he had inculcated as the principles of his brethren any thing\ndifferent from these just and noble sentiments, let the blame be\nheaped upon his bare head. These sentiments they had held from a\nperiod to which the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. Here\ntonight, 3000 miles off, God enabled him to produce a record proving\nan antiquity of half a century, in full maturity! How grand, how far\nsighted, how illustrious is truth--compared with the wretched and new\nborn, and blear eyed fanaticism that carps at her! These are the\nprinciples of the Presbyterian church of the United States. She has\nrisen with them, she will stand, or, if it be God's will, she will\nfall with them. But she will not change them less or more. The General\nAssembly is but now adjourned. They have had this question before\nthem--perhaps have been deeply agitated by its discussion. But so\ntranquilly does my heart rest on the truth of these principles, and on\nthe fixed adherence to them, by my brethren, that nothing but a\nfeeling that it would be impertinent, in one like me, to vouch for a\nbody like that, could deter me from any lawful gage, that all its\ndecisions will stand with its ancient and unaltered principles. In\naccordance with these principles the great body of the members of that\nchurch had been all along acting.--There were about 24 synods under\nthe care of the General Assembly, of which about one third were in\nthe slave country. The number was constantly increasing, on which\naccount, and in the absence of all records, he could not be more\nexact. The synods in the free states stood, he believed, without\nexception, just where the Assembly stood, on this subject. In the\nslave states, much had been done--much was still doing--and in proof\nof this as regarded this particular denomination--in addition to what\nhe had all along declared, with reference to the great emancipation\nparty, in all of those states, he asked attention to the several\ndocuments he was about to lay before them. The first was a series of\nresolutions appended to a lucid and extended report, drawn up by a\nlarge committee of Ministers and Elders of the synod of Kentucky--in\nobedience to its orders after the subject had been several years\nbefore that body. That Synod embraces the whole state of _Kentucky_,\nwhich is one of the largest slave states in the Union. The resolutions\nare quoted from the New York Observer, of April 23, 1836.\n\n    1. We would recommend that all slaves now under 20 years of\n    age, and all those yet to be born in our possession be\n    emancipated, as they severally reach their 25th year.\n\n    2. We recommend that deeds of emancipation be now drawn up,\n    and recorded in our respective County Courts, specifying the\n    slaves we are about to emancipate, and the age at which each\n    is to become free.\n\n    This measure is highly necessary, as it will furnish to our\n    own minds, to the world, and to our slaves, satisfactory\n    proof of our sincerity in this work; and it will also secure\n    the liberty of the slaves against contingencies.\n\n    3. We recommend that our slaves be instructed in the common\n    elementary branches of education.\n\n    4. We recommend that strenuous and persevering efforts be\n    made, to induce them to attend regularly upon the ordinary\n    services of religion, both domestic and public.\n\n    5. We recommend that great pains be token to teach them the\n    Holy Scriptures; and that to effect this, the instrumentality\n    of Sabbath Schools, wherever they can be enjoyed, be united\n    with that of domestic instruction.\n\nThe plan revealed in these resolution, was the one of all others,\nwhich most commended itself to his (Mr. B.'s) judgment. And he most\nparticularly asked their attention to it, on an account somewhat\npersonal. He had several times been publicly referred to in this\ncountry, as having shown the sincerity of his principles in the\nmanumission of his own slaves. He was most anxious that no error\nshould exist on this subject, which he had not at any time, had any\npart in bringing before the public, and which, as often only as he was\nforced to do so, had he explained. The introductory remarks of the\nChairman, had laid him under the necessity of such an explanation,\nwhich had not so naturally occurred, as in this connexion. He took\nleave, therefore, to say, that this Kentucky plan, was in substance\nthe one he had been acting on for some years before its existence; and\nwhich he should probably be among the earliest, if his life was\nspared, fully to complete. He considered it substantially the same as\ntheir system for West India Emancipation; only more rapid as to\nadults, more tardy, cautious, and beneficent as to minors; and more\ngenerous, as being wholly without compensation. In plans that affect\nwhole nations, and successive generations, questions of _time_ are of\nall others, least important; of all others the most proper to make\nbend to the necessities of the case. He went only to say further, that\nhis brother, the Rev. Dr. Breckinridge, of whom Mr. Thompson speaks\nwith such affectation of scorn, had entered this good field before\nhim, and taken one course with his manumitted slaves. That a younger\nbrother, whose name, along with nine other beloved and revered names,\nis attached to this Kentucky report, had also entered it before him;\nand taken a second course, a different course still, in liberating\nhis. When he came, last of all, he had taken still a third, different\nfrom each; while other friends had pursued others still. What wisdom\ntheir combined, and yet varied experience could have afforded, was of\ncourse useless; now that all the deepest questions of abstract truth,\nand the most difficult of personal practice, were solved by instinct,\nand carried by storm.\n\nThe next extract related to the great slave holding State of North\nCarolina, and revealed a plan for the religious instruction and care\nof the souls of the slaves, intended to cover the States of Virginia,\nGeorgia, and South Carolina, all slave States of the first class, as\nwell as the one in which it originated. Its origin is due to the\nPresbyterian Synod, covering the whole of that State. The extract is\nfrom the New York Observer of June 20, 1835.\n\n    RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF SLAVES.\n\n    \"The Southern Evangelical Society,\" is the title of a\n    proposed association among the Presbyterians at the South,\n    for the propagation of the gospel among the people of color.\n    The constitution originated in the Synod of North Carolina,\n    and is to go into effect as soon as adopted by the Synod of\n    Virginia, or that of South Carolina and Georgia. The voting\n    members of the Society are to be elected by the Synods.\n    Honorary members are created by the payment of thirty\n    dollars. All members of Synods united with the Society, are\n    corresponding members; other corresponding members maybe\n    chosen by the voting members. Article 4th of the\n    Constitution, provides that \"there shall not exist between\n    this Society and any other Society, any connexion whatever,\n    except with a similar Society in the slave holding States.\"\n    Several resolutions follow the Constitution; one of these\n    provides that a presbytery in a slave holding district of the\n    country, not united with a Synod in connexion with the\n    Society, may become a member by its own act. The fifth and\n    sixth resolutions are as follows:\n\n    _Resolved_, 5, That it be very respectfully and earnestly\n    recommended to all the heads of families in connexion with\n    our congregations, to take up and vigorously prosecute the\n    business of seeking the salvation of the slaves in the way of\n    maintaining and promoting family religion.\n\n    _Resolved_, 6, That it be enjoined upon all the presbyteries\n    composing this Synod, to take order at their earliest\n    meeting, to obtain full and correct statistical information\n    as to the number of people of color, in the bounds of our\n    several congregations, the number in actual attendance at our\n    several places of worship, and the number of colored members\n    in our several churches, and make a full report to the Synod\n    at its next meeting, and for this purpose, that the Clerk of\n    this Synod furnish a copy of this resolution to the stated\n    Clerk of each Presbytery.\n\nThe next document carried them one State farther South, and related to\nSouth Carolina, in which that horrible Governor M'Duffie, who seems to\nhaunt Mr. Thompson's imagination with his threats of \"death without\nbenefit of clergy,\" lives, and perhaps still rules. It is taken from\nthe same paper as the next preceding extract;\n\n    RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF SLAVES.\n\n    We cheerfully insert the following letter from an intelligent\n    New Englander at the South.\n\n      _To the Editor of the New York Observer._\n\n    I am apprehensive that many of your readers, who feel a\n    lively interest in the welfare of the slaves, are not\n    correctly and fully informed as to their amount of religious\n    instruction. From the speeches of Mr. Thompson and others,\n    they might be led to believe that slaves in our Southern\n    States never read a Bible, hear a gospel sermon, or partake\n    of a gospel ordinance. It is to be hoped, however, that\n    little credit will be given to such misrepresentations,\n    notwithstanding the zeal and industry with which they are\n    disseminated.\n\n    What has been done on a single plantation.\n\n    I will now inform your readers what has been done, and is now\n    doing, for the moral and religious improvement of the slaves\n    on a single plantation, with which I am well acquainted, and\n    these few facts may serve as a commentary on the unsupported\n    assertions of Mr. Thompson and others. And here I could wish\n    that all who are so ready to denounce every man that is so\n    unfortunate as to be born to a heritage of slaves, could go\n    to that plantation, and see with their own eyes, and hear\n    with their own ears, the things which I despair of adequately\n    describing. Truly, I think they would be more inclined, and\n    better qualified to use those weapons of light and love which\n    have been so ably and justly commended to their hands.\n\n    On this plantation there are from 150 to 200 slaves, the\n    finest looking body that I have seen on any estate. Their\n    master and mistress have felt for years how solemn are the\n    responsibilities connected with such a charge; and they have\n    not shrunk from meeting them. The means used for their\n    spiritual good, are abundant. They enjoy the constant\n    preaching of the gospel. A young minister of the Presbyterian\n    church, who has received a regular collegiate and theological\n    education, is laboring among them, and derives his entire\n    support from the master, with the exception of a trifling sum\n    which he receives for preaching one Sabbath in each month for\n    a neighboring church. On the Sabbath, and during the week,\n    you may see them filling the place of worship, from the man\n    of grey hairs to the small child, all neatly and comfortably\n    clothed, listening with respectful, and in many cases, eager\n    attention to the truth as it is in Jesus, delivered in terms\n    adapted to their capacities, and in a manner suited to their\n    peculiar habits, feelings and circumstances; engaging with\n    solemnity and propriety in the solemn exercise of prayer, and\n    mingling their melodious voices in the hymn of praise.\n    Sitting among them are the white members of the family\n    encouraging them by their attendance, manifesting their\n    interest in the exercises, and their anxiety for the eternal\n    well-being of their people. Of the whole number, forty-five\n    or fifty have made a profession of religion, and others are\n    evidently deeply concerned.\n\n    Let me now conduct you to a Bible class of ten or twelve\n    adults who can read, met with their Bibles to study and have\n    explained to them the word of God. They give unequivocal\n    demonstrations of much interest in their employment, and of\n    an earnest desire to understand and remember what they read.\n    From hence we will go to another room, where are assembled\n    eighteen to twenty lads, attending upon catechetical\n    instruction, conducted by their young master. Here you will\n    notice many intelligent countenances, and will be struck with\n    the promptitude and correctness of their answers.\n\n    But the most interesting spectacle is yet before you. It is\n    to be witnessed in the Infant School Room, nicely fitted up\n    and supplied with the customary cards and other\n    appurtenances. Here every day in the week, you may find\n    twenty-five or thirty children, neatly clad and wearing\n    bright and happy faces. And as you notice their correct\n    deportment, hear their unhesitating replies to the questions\n    proposed, and above all when they unite their sweet voices in\n    their touching songs, if your heart is not affected and your\n    eyes do not fill, you are the hardest-hearted and driest-eyed\n    visitor that has ever been there. But who is their teacher?\n    Their mistress, a lady whose amiable Christian character and\n    most gifted and accomplished mind and manners are surpassed\n    by none. From day to day, month to month, and year to year,\n    she has cheerfully left her splendid halls and circle of\n    friends, to visit her school room, where, standing up before\n    those young immortals, she trains them in the way in which\n    they should go, and leads them to Him who said, \"suffer\n    little children to come unto me.\"\n\n    From the Infant School room, we will walk through a beautiful\n    lawn half a mile, to a pleasant grove commanding a view of\n    miles in extent. Here is a brick chapel, rising for the\n    accommodation of this interesting family; sufficiently large\n    to receive two or three hundred hearers. When completed, in\n    beauty and convenience it will be surpassed by few churches\n    in the Southern country.\n\n    On the plantation you might also see other things of great\n    interest. Here a negro is the overseer. Marriages are\n    regularly contracted. No negro is sold, except as a\n    punishment for bad behavior, and a dreaded one it is. None is\n    bought, save for the purpose of uniting families. Here you\n    will near no clanking of chains, no cracking of whips; (I\n    have never seen a blow struck on the estate,) and here last,\n    but not least, you will find a flourishing Temperance\n    Society, embracing almost every individual on the premises.\n    And yet the \"Christianity of the South is a chain-forging, a\n    whip-plaiting, marriage discouraging, Bible-withholding\n    Christianity!\"\n\n    I have confined myself to a single plantation. But I might\n    add many most interesting facts in regard to others, and the\n    state of feeling in general, but I forbear.\n\n                             Yours, &c\n                                            A NEW ENGLAND MAN.\n\nHe would now connect the peculiar and local facts of the preceding\nstatement, with the whole community of slave holders, in the same\nState, and show by competent and disinterested testimony, the real\nand common state of things. The following extracts were from a letter\nprinted in the New York Observer, of July 25, 1835:\n\n    I have resided eight years in South Carolina, and have an\n    extensive acquaintance with the planters of the middle and\n    low country. I have seen much of slavery, and feel competent\n    to speak in regard to many facts connected with it.\n\n    What your correspondent has stated of the condition of one\n    plantation, is in its essential points a common case\n    throughout the whole circle of my acquaintance.\n\n    The negroes generally, in this State, are well fed, well\n    clothed, and have the means of religious instruction.\n    According to my best judgment, the work which a slave here is\n    required to do, amounts to about one third the ordinary labor\n    commonly performed by a New England farmer. A similar\n    comparison would hold true in regard to the labor of\n    domestics. In the family where I reside, consisting of nine\n    white persons, seven slaves are employed to do the work. This\n    is a common case.\n\n    In the village where I live, there are about four hundred\n    slaves, and they generally attend church. More than one\n    hundred of them are members of the church. Perhaps two\n    hundred are assembled every Sabbath in the Sunday Schools. In\n    my own Sunday School are about sixty, and most of them\n    professors of religion. They are perfectly accessible and\n    teachable. In the town of my former residence, in New\n    England, there were three hundred free blacks. No more than\n    eight or ten of these were professors of religion, and not\n    more than twice that number could generally be induced to\n    attend church. They could not be induced to send their\n    children to the district schools, which were always open to\n    them, nor could they generally be hired to work. They are\n    thievish, wretched and troublesome. I have no hesitation in\n    saying, and I say it deliberately, it would be a great\n    blessing to them to exchange conditions with the slaves of\n    the village in which I now live. Their intellectual and moral\n    characters, and real means of improvement, would be promoted\n    by the exchange.\n\n    There are doubtless some masters who treat their slaves\n    cruelly in this State, but they are exceptions to the general\n    fact. Public opinion is in a wholesome state and the man who\n    does not treat his slaves kindly, is disgraced.\n\n    Great and increasing efforts are made to instruct the slaves\n    in religion, and elevate their characters. Missionaries are\n    employed solely for their benefit. It is very common for\n    ministers to preach in the forenoon to the whites, and in the\n    afternoon of every Sabbath to the blacks. The slaves of my\n    acquaintance are generally contented and happy. The master is\n    reprobated who will divide families. Many thousands of slaves\n    of this State give evidence of piety. In many churches they\n    form the majority. Thousands of them give daily thanks to God\n    that they or their fathers were brought to this land of\n    slavery.\n\n    And now, perhaps, I ought to add, that I am not a\n    slave-holder, and do not intend to continue in a slave\n    country; but wherever I may be, I intend to speak the TRUTH.\n\nThe next document related particularly to _Virginia_,--the largest and\nmost powerful of the Slave States; but had also a general reference to\nthe whole south, and the whole question at issue. The sentiments it\ncontained were entitled to extraordinary consideration, on account of\nthe source of them. Mr. Van Renselear, was the son of one of the most\nwealthy and distinguished citizens of the great free state of New\nYork. He had gone to Virginia, to preach to the slaves. He had every\nwhere succeeded; was every where beloved by the slaves, and honored by\ntheir masters. He had access to perhaps forty plantations,--on which\nhe from time to time preached,--and which might have been doubled,\nhad his strength been equal to the work. In the midst of his\nusefulness--the storm of abolition arose. Mr. Thompson, like some\nbaleful star landed on our shores; organized a reckless agitation,\nmade many at the north frantic with folly--and as many at the south\nfurious with passion. Mr. Van Renselear, like many others, saw a storm\nraging which they had no power to control; and like them withdrew from\nhis benevolent labors. The following brief statements made by him at a\ngreat meeting of the colonization society of New York, exhibit his own\nview of the conduct and duty of the parties.\n\n    The Rev. Cortlandt Van Renselear, formerly of Albany, but who\n    has lately resided in Virginia, addressed the meeting, and\n    after alluding to the difference of opinion which prevailed\n    among the friends of Colonization, touching the present\n    condition and treatment of the colored population in this\n    country, proceeded to offer reasons why the people of the\n    North should approach their brethren in the South, who held\n    the control of the colored population, with defference, and\n    in a spirit of kindness and conciliation.\n\n    These reasons were briefly as follows: 1. Because the people\n    of the South had not consented to the original introduction\n    of slaves into the country, but had solemnly, earnestly, and\n    repeatedly remonstrated against it. 2. Because having been\n    born in the presence of slavery, and accustomed to it from\n    their infancy, they could not be expected to view it in the\n    same light as we view it at the North. 3. Slavery being there\n    established by law, it was not in the power of individuals to\n    act in regard to it as their personal feelings might dictate.\n    The evil had not been eradicated from the state of New York\n    all at once: It had been a gradual process, commencing with\n    the law 1799 and not consumated until 1827. Ought we to\n    denounce our Southern neighbors if they refuse to do the work\n    at a blow? 4. The constitution of the United States tolerated\n    slavery, in its articles apportioning representation with\n    reference to the slave population, and requiring the\n    surrender of runaway slaves. 5. Slavery had been much\n    mitigated of late years, and the condition of the slave\n    population much ameliorated. Its former rigor was almost\n    unknown, at least in Virginia, and it was lessening\n    continually. It was not consistent with truth to represent\n    the slaves as groaning day and night under the lash of\n    tyranical task-masters. And as to being kept in perfect\n    ignorance, Mr. V. had seldom seen a plantation where some of\n    the slaves could not read, and where they were not encouraged\n    to learn. In South Carolina, where it was said the gospel was\n    systematically denied to the slaves, there were twenty\n    thousand of them church members in the Methodist denomination\n    alone. He knew a small church where out of 70 communicants,\n    50 were in slavery. 6. There were very great difficulties\n    connected with the work of Abolition. The relations of\n    slavery had ramified themselves through all the relations of\n    society. The slaves were comparatively very ignorant; their\n    character degraded; and they were unqualified for immediate\n    freedom. A blunder in such a concern as universal abolition,\n    would be no light matter. Mr. V. here referred to the result\n    of experience and personal observation on the mind of the\n    well-known Mr. Parker, late a minister of this city, but now\n    of New-Orleans. He had left this city for the South with the\n    feeling of an immediate abolitionist; but he had returned\n    with his views wholly changed. After seeing slavery and\n    slave-holders, and that at the far South, he now declared the\n    idea of immediate and universal abolition to be a gross\n    absurdity. To liberate the two and a half millions of slaves\n    in the midst of us, would be just as wise and as humane, as\n    it would be for the father of a numerous family of young\n    children to take them to the front door, and there bidding\n    them good bye, tell them they were free, and send them out\n    into the world to provide for and govern themselves. 7.\n    Foreign interference was, of necessity, a delicate thing, and\n    ought ever to be attempted with the utmost caution. 8. There\n    was a large amount of unfeigned Christian anxiety at the\n    South to obey God and do good to man. There were many tears\n    and prayers continually poured out over the condition of\n    their colored people, and the most earnest desire to mitigate\n    their sorrows. Were such persons to be approached with\n    vituperation and anathemas? 9. There was no reason why all\n    our sympathies should be confined to the colored race and\n    utterly withheld from our white southern brethren. The\n    apostle Paul exhibited no such spirit. 10. A regard to the\n    interest of the slaves themselves dictated a cautious and\n    prudent and forbearing course. It called for conciliation:\n    for the fate of the slaves depended on the will of their\n    masters, nor could the north prevent it. The late laws\n    against teaching the slaves to read had not been passed until\n    the Southern people found inflamatory publications\n    circulating among the colored people. 11. The spirit of the\n    gospel forbade all violence, abuse and threatening. The\n    apostles had wished to call fire from heaven on those they\n    considered as Christ's enemies; but the Saviour, instead of\n    approving this fiery zeal, had rebuked it. 12. These Southern\n    people, who were represented as so grossly violating all\n    Christian duty, had been the subjects of gracious blessings\n    from God in the outpourings of his Spirit. 13. When God\n    convinced men of error, he did it in the spirit of mercy; we\n    ought to endeavor to do the same thing in the same spirit.\n\nThe only remaining testimony relates to the states of Louisiana and\nMississippi, in the south west. The letter from which it is taken is\nwritten by a son of that Mr. Finley, who perhaps more than any one\nelse, set on foot the original scheme of African colonization; and\nwhose name, as a man of pure and enlarged benevolence and wisdom, the\nenemies of his plans quote with respect. The son well deserves to have\nhad such a father.\n\n                              _New-Orleans, March 12, 1835._\n\n    In my former letter I gave you some account of the leading\n    characters amongst the free people of color who recently\n    sailed from this port in the Brig \"Rover.\" for Liberia. I\n    then promised you in my next to give you some account of the\n    emancipated slaves who sailed in the same expedition. This\n    promise I will now endeavor to fulfil, and I will begin with\n    the case of an individual emancipation, and then state the\n    case of an emancipated family, and conclude with an account\n    of the emancipation of several families by the same\n    individual.\n\n    The first case alluded to is that of a young woman\n    emancipated by the last will and testament of the late Judge\n    James Workman, of this city, the same who left a legacy of\n    ten thousand dollars to the American Colonization Society.\n    Judge Workman's will contains the following clause in\n    relation to her, viz:--\"I request my statu liber, Kitty, a\n    quarteroon girl, to be set free as soon as convenient. And I\n    request my executors may send her, as she shall prefer, and\n    they think best, either to the Colonization Society at\n    Norfolk, to be sent to Liberia or to Hayti; and if she prefer\n    remaining in Louisiana, that they may endeavor to have an act\n    passed for her emancipation; if the same cannot be attained\n    otherwise; and it is my will that the sum of three hundred\n    dollars be paid to her after she shall be capable of\n    receiving the same. I request my executors to hold in their\n    hands money for this purpose. I particularly request my\n    friend John G. Greene to take charge of this girl, and do the\n    best for her that he can.\" Mr. Greene provided her with a\n    handsome outfit, carefully attended to her embarkation, and\n    the shipment of her freight, and placed her under the care of\n    the Rev. Gloster Simpson.\n\n    The next case, alluded to above, is that of a family of\n    eleven slaves emancipated for faithful and meritorious\n    services, by the will of of the late Mrs. Bullock, of\n    Claiborne county, Miss. Mrs. Moore, the sister and executrix\n    of Mrs. Bullock's estate, gave them 700 dollars to furnish an\n    outfit and give them a start in the colony.\n\n    The third and last case alluded to above, consisted of\n    several families, amounting in the whole to 26 individual\n    slaves belonging to the estate of the late James Green, of\n    Adams county, Mississipi. The following interesting\n    circumstances concerning their liberation, were communicated\n    to me by James Railey, Esq., the brother-in-law and acting\n    executor of Mr. Green's Estate. Mr. Green died on the 15th of\n    May, 1832, the proprietor of about 130 slaves, and left Mr.\n    Railey, his brother-in-law, and his sisters, Mrs. Railey and\n    Mrs. Wood, executors of his last will and testament. Mr.\n    Green's will provides for the unconditional emancipation of\n    but one of his slaves--a faithful and intelligent man named\n    Granger, whom Mr. Green had raised and taught to read, write,\n    and keep accounts. He acted as foreman for his master for\n    about five years previous to his death. Mr. Green, by his\n    will, left him 3000 dollars, on condition that he went to\n    Liberia, otherwise, 2000 dollars. Provision was also made in\n    the will for securing to him his wife. Granger has been\n    employed since the death of Mr. Green, until recently, as\n    overseer for Mr. Railey, at a salary of 600 dollars per\n    annum. Granger declines going to Liberia at present on\n    account of the unwillingness of his mother to go there. She\n    is very aged and infirm, and he is very much attached to her.\n    She was a favorite slave of Mr. Green's mother, who\n    emancipated her and left her a legacy of 1000 dollars.\n    Granger came to this city with Mr. Railey to see his friends\n    and former fellow-servants embark: and when he bade them\n    farewell, he said, with a very emphatic tone and manner, \"I\n    will follow you in about 18 months.\"\n\n    The executors of Mr. Green's estate were by no means slack in\n    meeting the testator's wishes concerning these people. Mr.\n    Railey accompanied them to New-Orleans, and both he and Mrs.\n    Wood, who also was in New-Orleans while they were preparing\n    to embark, took a lively and active interest in providing\n    them with everything necessary for their comfort on the\n    voyage, and their welfare after their arrival in the Colony,\n    and placed in my hand 7000 dollars for their benefit, one\n    thousand dollars of which were appropriated towards the\n    charter of a vessel to convey them to the Colony, with the\n    privilege of 140 barrels freight--sixteen hundred dollars\n    towards the purchase of an outfit, consisting of mechanics'\n    tools, implements of agriculture, household furniture,\n    medicines, clothing, &c., and the remaining four thousand\n    four hundred dollars, partly invested in trade, goods, and\n    partly in specia, were shipped and consigned to the Governor\n    of Liberia, for their benefit, with an accompanying\n    memorandum made out by Mr. Railey, showing how much was each\n    one's portion.\n\n    I will close this communication by relating one additional\n    circumstance communicated to me by Mr. Railey, to show the\n    interest felt by Mr. Green in the success of the scheme of\n    African Colonization. The day previous to his death, he\n    requested Mr. Railey to write a memorandum of several things\n    which he wished done after his death, which memorandum\n    contains the following clause, viz:--\"After executing all my\n    wishes as expressed by Will, by this memorandum, and by\n    verbal communications, I sincerely hope there will be a\n    handsome sum left for benefitting the emancipated negroes\n    emigrating from this State to Liberia; and to that end I have\n    more concern than you are aware of.\"\n\n    I am authorized by the Executors to state that there will be\n    a residuum to Mr. Green's estate of twenty or thirty-five\n    thousand dollars, which they intend to appropriate in\n    conformity with the views of Mr. Green expressed above.\n\n                             Yours, &c.,\n                                           ROBERT S. FINLEY.\n\nAnd now I rest the case, and commit the result to an enlightened\npublic. Here are my proofs and arguments showing as I believe\nconclusively, that the slanderous accusations against my country and\nmy brethren which I have come to this city to repel,--are not only\nfalse, but incredible. Here are my testimonials, few and casually\ngathered up, but yet, as it seems to me, irresistibly convincing, that\nthe people and churches of America--in the very thing charged,--have\nbeen and are acting, a wise, self-denying and humane part. That they\nshould move onward in it as rapidly as the happiness of all the\nparties will allow, must be the wish of all good men. That obstacles\nshould be interposed through the error, the imprudence, or the\nviolence of well meaning but ill-judging persons, is truly deplorable.\nBut that we should be traduced before the whole world, when we are\ninnocent; that we should first be forced into most difficult\ncircumstances, and then forced to manage those circumstances in such a\nway as to cause our certain ruin, by the very same people; or in\ndefault of submitting to both requirments, be forced first into war,\nand afterwards into a state of bitter mutual contention, only less\ndreadful than war itself, is outrageous and intolerable. While we\njustly complain of these things, we discharge ourselves of the guilt\nattributed to us, and acquit ourselves to God and our consciences, of\nall the fatal consequences likely to follow such conduct.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. THOMPSON rose, and spoke in nearly the following words:\n\n_Mr. Chairman_,\n\nIf I were to say that I rose on the present occasion without a feeling\nof anxiety regarding the issue of the discussion now drawing to a\nclose, I should say what is not the truth. I cannot remember that I\never stood before an auditory in a more interesting or responsible\nposition. The question before us is one of momentous magnitude; and\nthat branch of it which to-night claims our special attention, is of\nall others, the most solemn and delicate. I am, therefore, anxious,\ndeeply anxious, respecting the impression which shall rest upon the\nminds of this assembly, when I have occupied the attention of yourself\nand of it, for a portion of time equal to that which has been expended\nby my opponent. If, however, I were to say that I rose with any\nfeeling of alarm in the contemplation of the result of that ordeal\nthrough which I am about to pass, I should speak that which would be\nequally at variance with the truth. So far from indulging any fear, or\nwishing to propitiate this audience, I pray that for the sake of\ntruth, humanity, and the country represented by my opponent; for the\nsake of our character in the sight of God at the audit of the great\nday; there may be a severe, jealous and impartial judgment formed,\naccording to the evidence which shall be submitted. Or, if it be\nimpossible to hold the balance strictly even, I ask that the bias for\nthe present, may be in favor of my opponent. It is true, I am not an\nAmerican. It is true, I was in the United States but fourteen months.\nIt is true, I never crossed the Potomac; never saw a slave, unless\nthat slave had been brought to the North by some temporary resident.\nReceive, therefore, with caution and suspicion my statements. Let\nthere be every discount upon my assertions which my youth and\nrashness, my want of observation and experience demand. At the same\ntime I ask that every proper degree of respect shall be paid to the\nwitnesses I shall bring before you; and that however my testimony may\nbe doubted, theirs at least may have the weight which their character,\nand station, and opportunities shall appear to entitle them to.\n\nI am accused of monstrous injustice towards America, when I say that\nin that country slavery wears its most horrid forms. In saying this, I\nmust not be understood as speaking according to the actual physical\ncondition of the slave, or even of his legal and political condition,\napart from the religion and institutions of the land in which he\nlives. I judge not by the number of links in his chain; the number of\nlashes inflicted on his back; the nature of his toil, or the quality\nor quantity of his food. It is, when irrespective of the treatment of\nthe body, I find two millions of human beings regarded as merchandise;\nranked with the beasts of the field, and reduced by the neglect of\ntheir immortal minds to the condition of heathens; it is when I find\nthis awful system in full operation, surrounded by the barriers and\nsafeguards of the Law and the Constitution, in the United States of\nNorth America; the land of Republicanism, and Christianity, and\nRevivals, that I say, Slavery in America wears a form more horrid than\nin any other part of the world. Yes, Sir; when I am told that in that\nland, liberty is enjoyed to a greater extent than in any other\ncountry; that the principles on which this liberty and independence\nrest are these: \"God created all men free and equal.\" \"Resistance to\nTyrants is obedience to God;\" and see also two millions of captives;\ntheir dungeon barred and watched by proud Republicans, and boasting\nChristians; I turn with horror and indignation away, exclaiming as I\nquit the sickening scene, Slavery wears its most loathsome form in the\nUnited States of America!\n\nBefore I come to that portion of my Address which I shall present as a\nreply to Mr. Breckinridge, I beg to say one word in vindication of the\ncharacter and temper of American Abolitionists; and I am glad on this\noccasion to be able to cite the testimony of a gentleman, whom Mr.\nBreckinridge has not declined to call his friend; I mean James G.\nBirney, Esq., formerly residing in the same State with Mr. B., and now\nin Cincinnati. Mr. Birney made a visit to the North last year, for the\npurpose of ascertaining for himself, by actual observation and\nintercourse, the real character of the Abolitionists, and the manner\nin which they prosecuted their work. Having done this, he thus writes:\n\n    Last spring I attended the Ohio Anti-Slavery Convention; was\n    present at the several meetings of the American Anti-Slavery\n    Society in New York, and at the Anti-Slavery Convention held\n    in Boston. On these several occasions, I became acquainted,\n    and deliberated with, it may be, not less than one thousand\n    persons, who may be fairly set down as among the most\n    intelligent of the abolitionists. Subjects on which the most\n    diverse opinions were entertained, and which to ambitious and\n    untrained minds would be agitating and dissensious in the\n    extreme, were discussed with the most calm and unruffled\n    composure. And while some of the leading journals were\n    teeming with the foulest and the falsest charges of moral and\n    political turpitude; while there were produced in their\n    assemblies placards, calling on the mob for appropriate\n    deeds, and designating the time and place of holding their\n    meetings, that its violence might know at what point it might\n    most effectually spend itself; yet, never elsewhere have I\n    seen so much of sedate deliberation of sober conclusion, of\n    dignified moderation, sanctified by earnest prayer to God,\n    not only for the oppressed, but for the oppressor of his\n    fellow; not only for such as they loved, but for their\n    slanderers, and persecutors, and enemies.\n\n    The above is a fair account, so far as my knowledge enables\n    me to speak, of the character of those whom you are pleased\n    to describe \"a band of fanatical abolitionists.\" Light and\n    rash minds, unaccustomed to penetrate to the real causes of\n    great revolutions in public sentiment, will, of course, think\n    and speak contemptuously of them, while the philosophic\n    observer clearly sees, that such antagonists of error, armed\n    with so powerful a weapon as the Truth, must, at all times,\n    be invincible; and that in the end they will be triumphant.\n\nA word, too, before I come to the state of the churches, with regard\nto Mr. Breckinridge's concluding topic last evening; to which I had\nnot, of course, any opportunity to reply; and, as the time allotted\nfor this discussion is now determined, I shall be permitted to dwell a\nfew moments on the subject. Mr. Breckinridge did, I am ready to\nacknowledge, with tolerable fairness, state the views of the\nabolitionists with regard to prejudice against color; that it was\nsinful, that it ought to be abandoned, and that the colored man should\nbe raised to the enjoyment of equal civil and religious privileges\nwith the whites. But after he had laid down, generally speaking\ncorrectly, the views of the abolitionists, he proceeded to put the\nmost _unfair_ interpretation upon those views, and strangely contended\nthat they were directly aiming to accomplish the amalgamation of the\nraces in the fullest sense of that word. Once again, I _deny_ this.\nOnce again I appeal to all that the abolitionists have ever written or\nspoken: to their published, official, solemn, authoritative\ndisclaimers; and I say on my behalf and on theirs, that with the\nintermixture of \"the races,\" as they are called, (a phrase I do not\nlike,) the abolitionists have nothing to do. What they have ever\ncontended for is this, that the colored man should now be delivered\nfrom the condition of a beast; that he should cease to be regarded as\nthe property of his fellow man; and that according to the laws of the\nstate regulating the qualifications of citizens, he should be admitted\nto a participation of the privileges that are enjoyed by other classes\nof the community. We have never asked for more. We have left the\ndoctrine of amalgamation to be settled by our opponents. The slave\nholders are the amalgamationists whose licentiousness has gone far to\nput an end to the existence of a black race in the South, and who are\nstill carrying on, to use their own expression, \"a bleaching system,\"\nwhitening the population of the South, so that you may now discover\nall shades of colored persons; from those who are so fair that they\nare scarcely distinguishable from the whites, to the pure black of the\nunmixed negro. But my opponent defeated himself. While attempting to\nexpose the folly and wickedness of amalgamation, he at the same time\ncontended that the thing was physically impossible; that even a\npartial amalgamation could only be brought about by polygamy or\nprostitution, but that general amalgamation was hopeless, because\nphysically impossible. If the thing be utterly beyond the reach of the\nabolitionists, why dread it as an evil? Why not let the abolitionists\npursue their foolish and impracticable schemes? Why so much wrath\nagainst them for aiming at that which nature has rendered\nunattainable. I leave Mr. Breckinridge to find his way out of this\ndifficulty in the best manner he is able.\n\nAgain, we are told, that in attempting to bring about amalgamation,\nand in preventing Colonization, we are interfering with the _purposes_\nof God; fighting against His ordinances, and exposing Africa to the\nhorrors of extermination, should the descendants of Shem or Japhet\ncolonize her shores, and not the black man who has sprung from her\ntribes. I confess I am somewhat surprised, when told by a Presbyterian\nclergyman of Calvinistic sentiments, that I am to regulate my conduct\ntowards my fellow-men by the _purposes_ of God, rather than by the\n_law_ of God. This is surely a new doctrine! What, I ask, have I to do\nwith the decrees of the Almighty? Has he not given me a law by which\nto walk? Has he not told me to love my neighbor as myself? to \"honor\nall men?\" Am I not told that God hath made of _one_ blood all nations\nof men for to dwell on all the face of the earth? Where is the\nprohibition to marry with Shem or Ham. I know of no directions in the\nOld Testament respecting marriages, save such as were founded on\nreligious differences, and I have yet to learn that there are any in\nthe New Testament. That blessed Book declares, that in Christ Jesus\nthere is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision,\nBarbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but all are _one_. The only\ninjunction I am aware of is this, \"be not unequally yoked together\nwith unbelievers.\"\n\nMr. Breckinridge made a considerable parade of his knowledge of\nUniversal History, and pretended to build his theory upon the most\ncorrect historical data. While upon this subject of _amalgamation_ and\n_extermination_, I will take the liberty of submitting one or two\ninquiries to Mr. Breckinridge.\n\nIs there any law in America forbidding ministers to celebrate\nmarriages between Japhethite American Christians and Jewesses, (by\nbirth, even if Christians by faith,) and Jews, (even if Christians.)\nto marry Japhethite, American females? If there be not, then, why may\nShem and Japhet intermarry, but Ham with neither? Again: If there be\nno such law, then the doctrine about Noah's three sons, is not a\nprinciple on which the American people act, but Mr. B.'s individual\ndogma, got up to defend a line of conduct really proceeding without\nreference to any such principle. If it be said that Jewish and\nJaphethite Americans are very nearly, if not altogether, of the same\ncolor; and that there are no political evils to be dreaded from the\nintermixture of Jews with Japhethites; I reply, that, admitting the\ntruth of both these representations, is not the sin of mixing Noah's\nsons, and counter-working the designs of God, the same in the case of\nShem and Japhet as it would be in the case of Japhet or Shem with the\ntribes of Ham? Again,\n\nDid the Romans, (Japhethites,) exterminate the Jews, (Shemites?)\n\nDid the Arab Shemite conquerors of Egypt exterminate the ancient\ninhabitants (Hamites,) who still exist, and are known by the name of\nCopts or Cophti?\n\nDid not the Tartars, now Turks, a (Japhethite tribe,) when they\nconquered the Caliphs, embrace the religion of the conquered, who were\nMohamedans and Shemites?\n\nDid not the Shemite Mohamedans conquer the Persians, (Japhethites,) a\npart of whom, who would not embrace the Mohamedan religion, and could\nnot be tolerated by the Mohamedans in theirs, (viz. fire worship,)\nflee to India, where they still exist, known by the name of Guebers,\nwhile the rest of the people, embracing Mohamedanism, amalgamated with\ntheir conquerors; and is not the modern Persian language a proof of\nthis, in which all the terms of religion and science are Arabic,\n(Shemite,) the rest of the language being a colluvies of the Deri,\nZend, and Pehlavi dialects, which the most eminent phylologists\nconsider as all resolvable into Sanscrit, the most ancient Japhethite\nspeech existing?\n\nThe cases of the Romans and Jews, and of the Arab conquerors of Egypt\nand the Copts, are instances of conquest _without extermination_; the\nparties remaining dissevered by religious differences. The cases of\nthe Tartar-Turks, and the Arabs, and of the Arabs and the Persians,\nare cases of conquest without extermination, and _with amalgamation_;\nthe conquerors in the first case having adopted the religion of the\nconquered, and the conquered in the second case, that of the\nconquerors.\n\nInstead of the Americans proceeding in their conduct towards the\ncolored people with any reference either to the divine laws or the\ndivine decrees, they act solely under the influence of their pride and\nprejudice. How their prejudice was in the first place produced, it is\nnot necessary at this time to inquire. I may just remark that color\nhas long been the badge of slavery. Long have the negroes been an\nenslaved and degraded class. The child is tutored to look upon a\ncolored man as an inferior, and this feeling of superiority, implanted\nearly in the mind of the child, growing with his growth, and\nstrengthening with his strength, becomes at last a confirmed and\nalmost invincible principle, disposing him with eagerness to adopt any\nviews of revelation which will permit him to cherish and gratify his\npride and hatred towards the colored man. Hence has arisen the\naristocracy of the skin. Hence the many lamentable departures from the\nspirit and precepts of the gospel, every day witnessed in the United\nSlates. Two illustrations of the force of prejudice are now before me.\nThe first is a short article from the New York Evangelist, copied into\nthe Scottish Guardian of this city. I will read it entire. It is as\nfollows:\n\n    A HARD CASE. A native born American applied to our\n    authorities this morning for a license to drive a cart. He\n    has been for years employed as a porter in Pearl Street,\n    principally among the booksellers, who were his petitioners\n    to the number of forty firms. He is an honest, temperate, and\n    in every respect a worthy man; of an amiable disposition,\n    muscular frame, and of good address, and every way calculated\n    for the situation he seeks; besides being a member of the\n    Society of Friends, a sufficient recommendation of itself;\n    for the office is now filled in part by swearing, drunken,\n    quarrelling foreigners, who are daily disturbing the quiet of\n    our streets by their broils; and endangering the lives of our\n    citizens by their infuriate conduct.\n\n    Wm. S. Hewlett was refused by our Mayor, on the ground of\n    public opinion! because\n\n        \"----guilty of a skin\n        Not colored like his own.\"\n\n    Hewlett owns property in William Street, to the amount of\n    20,000 dollars; but prefers, unlike many of no more income, a\n    life of industry and economy, to seeking \"otium cum\n    dignitate.\"\n\n                           \"What man seeing this,\n        And having human feelings, does not blush,\n        And hang his head to own himself a man.\"\n\nThe next is found in a letter written by a Professor Smith, of the\nWesleyan University, Connecticut, who, while vindicating the\nUniversity from the charge of having expelled a young man \"for the\ncrime of color,\" makes the following admission:\n\n    \"That it would be difficult, in the present state of public\n    feeling, to preserve a colored individual from inquietude in\n    any of our collegiate schools, and to render his connection\n    with them tolerable, is not denied.\"\n\nI come now, (continued Mr. T.) to the state of the American Churches,\nin regard to Slavery; and to attempt a justification of the heavy\ncharges I have brought against them. If at the close of this address\nit shall appear that I have misrepresented the Christians of America;\nthat I have stated as facts, things which are untrue, I solemnly call\nupon those who have hitherto vindicated my reputation, and sustained\nme as the truthful advocate of the cause of human rights, to discard\nme as utterly disqualified to be their representative in so sacred a\nwork, because, capable of pleading for JUSTICE at the expense of\nTRUTH.\n\nOf slaveholding ministers in America, Mr. Breckinridge has asserted,\nthat they are as ONE IN A THOUSAND, or at most, as ONE IN FIVE\nHUNDRED. The first document I shall quote to disprove this assertion,\nwill be a letter in the \"Southern Religious Telegraph,\" of October 31,\n1835, addressed to the Presbyterian Clergy of Virginia; written to\nwarn those ministers against pursuits calculated to injure their\nspirituality, destroy their usefulness, and prevent those revivals of\nreligion with which other portions of the Church of Christ had been\nfavored; also to account for an apparent declension in piety in the\nState generally. It is proper to remark, that the letter from which I\nmake the present extract, was not written to promote the cause of\nabolition; that the writer never imagined it would be used on such an\noccasion; and that the newspaper in which it appears is _pro_-slavery\nto the very core.\n\n    \"In one region of country, where I am acquainted, of rather\n    more than THIRTY Presbyterian ministers, including\n    missionaries, TWENTY are farmers, viz. (planters and\n    SLAVEHOLDERS,) ON A PRETTY EXTENSIVE SCALE; three are school\n    teachers; one is a farmer and a teacher; one, a farmer and a\n    merchant, and joint proprietor of iron works, which must be\n    in operation on the Sabbath; and one is a farmer and editor\n    of a political newspaper. These farmers generally superintend\n    their own business. THEY OVERSEE THEIR NEGROES, attend to\n    their stock, make purchases, and visit the markets to make\n    sale of their crops. They necessarily have much intercourse\n    with their neighbors on worldly business, and not\n    unfrequently come into unpleasant collision with the\n    merchants.\"\n\nO, Sir, what a revelation of things is here! These are not the\ncalumnies of George Thompson, but the confessions of one, striving\nearnestly to awaken the attention of the Virginia clergy to a sense of\nthe degradation and barrenness of the church, and to direct their\nattention to the main causes of such lamentable effects.\n\nNext, permit me to request your attention to an extract from \"An\nAddress to the Presbyterians of Kentucky, proposing a plan for the\ninstruction and emancipation of their slaves; by a Committee of the\nSYNOD OF KENTUCKY. Cincinnati: published by Eli Taylor, 1835.\" We\nshall, in this document, get at the opinion of men, sensitively\njealous for the honor, purity, and usefulness of the Presbyterian\nchurches, from which Mr. Breckinridge is A DELEGATE. What say they of\nslavery in general, and the practice of THEIR CHURCH in particular:\n\n    \"Brutal stripes, and all the various kinds of personal\n    indignities, are not the only species of cruelty, which\n    slavery licenses. The law does not recognize the family\n    relations of a slave; and extends to him no protection in the\n    enjoyment of domestic endearments. The members of a slave\n    family may be forcibly separated, so that they shall never\n    more meet until the final judgment. And cupidity often\n    induces the masters to practise what the law allows. Brothers\n    and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives, are\n    torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. These\n    acts are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and\n    the agony, often witnessed on such occasions, proclaim with a\n    trumpet-tongue, the iniquity and cruelty of our system. The\n    cry of these sufferers goes up to the ears of the Lord of\n    Sabaoth. There is not a neighborhood, where these\n    heart-rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a\n    village or road that does not behold the sad procession of\n    manacled outcasts, whose chains and mournful countenances\n    tell that they are exiled by force from all that their hearts\n    held dear. Our church, years ago, raised its voice by solemn\n    warning against this flagrant violation of every principle of\n    mercy, justice, and humanity. Yet WE BLUSH TO ANNOUNCE TO YOU\n    AND TO THE WORLD, THAT, THIS WARNING HAS BEEN OFTEN\n    DISREGARDED, EVEN BY THOSE WHO HOLD TO OUR COMMUNION. CASES\n    HAVE OCCURRED, IN OUR OWN DENOMINATION, WHERE PROFESSORS OF\n    THE RELIGION OF MERCY HAVE TORN THE MOTHER FROM HER CHILDREN,\n    AND SENT HER INTO A MERCILESS AND RETURNLESS EXILE. YET ACTS\n    OF DISCIPLINE HAVE RARELY FOLLOWED SUCH CONDUCT.\"\n\nFollow me now into the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the Presbyterian Church of\nthe United States, convened in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in May, 1835,\nand let the individual who addresses you be forgotten, while you\nlisten to the things uttered in the midst of that solemn convocation.\nAt the time when the passages I am about to read, were spoken, there\nwere sitting in that Assembly, men from all parts of the country. The\nSouthern Churches fully represented by row upon row of ministers and\nelders from every region of the slaveholding States. In that Assembly,\none year from this time, did the Rev. J. H. Dickey, of the Chilicothe\nPresbytery, Ohio, (a clergyman who had passed thirty years of his life\nin a slave State.) and Mr. Stewart, a ruling elder from the Presbytery\nof Schuyler, Illinois, make the following statements, which have\nremained, I believe, uncontradicted to this hour:\n\n    \"He (Mr. Dickey,) believed there were many, and great evils\n    in the Presbyterian Church; but the doctrine of slaveholding,\n    he was fully persuaded, was the worst heresy now found in the\n    Church.\"\n\n    \"MR. STEWART--I hope this Assembly are prepared to come out\n    fully, and declare their sentiments, that slaveholding is a\n    most flagrant and heinous SIN. Let us not pass it by in this\n    indirect way, while so many thousands and thousands of our\n    fellow-creatures are writhing under the lash, often inflicted\n    too by MINISTERS AND ELDERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \"IN THIS CHURCH, a man may take a free born child, force it\n    away from its parents, to whom God gave it in charge, saying,\n    'Bring it up for me,' and sell it as a beast, or hold it in\n    perpetual bondage, and not only escape corporal punishment,\n    but really be esteemed an excellent Christian. NAY, EVEN\n    MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL, AND DOCTORS OF DIVINITY, may engage\n    in this unholy traffic, and yet sustain their high and holy\n    calling.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \"ELDERS, MINISTERS, AND DOCTORS OF DIVINITY, ARE WITH BOTH\n    HANDS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE. * * * * * * A Slave-holder who\n    is making gains by the trade, may have as good a character\n    for honesty as any other man.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \"No language can paint the injustice and abominations of\n    slavery, But in these United States, this vast amount of\n    moral turpitude is (as I believe) justly chargeable to the\n    Church. I do not mean to say those church members who\n    actually engage in this diabolical practice, but I mean to\n    say THE CHURCH. Yes, Sir, all the infidelity that is the\n    result of this unjust conduct of the professed followers of\n    CHRIST; all the unholy amalgamation; all the tears and\n    groans; all the eyes that have been literally plucked from\n    their sockets; all the pains and violent deaths from the\n    lash, and the various engines of torture, and all the souls\n    that are, or will be eternally damned, as a consequence of\n    slavery in these United States, ARE ALL JUSTLY CHARGEABLE TO\n    THE CHURCH; AND HOW MUCH FALLS TO THE SHARE OF THIS\n    PARTICULAR CHURCH YOU CAN ESTIMATE AS WELL AS I.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \"The judgments of God are staring this Church full in the\n    face, and threatening her dissolution. She is all life and\n    nerve in matters of doctrine, and on some points where men\n    may honestly differ; while sins of a crimson dye are\n    committed in open day, BY MEMBERS OF THIS CHURCH WITH PERFECT\n    IMPUNITY.\"\n\nI appeal to you, Sir, and this audience; did George Thompson ever\nutter charges against the American churches more awful than those\ncontained in the extracts I have read--extracts from speeches made in\nthe General Assembly of the body from which Mr. Breckinridge is a\ndelegate? I leave for the present the Presbyterians, and proceed to\nnotice the state of the\n\n\nMETHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCHES.\n\nMr. Breckinridge displayed great regard for the reputation of\nthis body. He believed they were almost free from the sin of\nslaveholding--their discipline was most emphatic in its condemnation\nof it, and he defied me to show that any Methodist was engaged in the\ninfernal practice of slave trading. First, as to the probable extent\nof slavery in the church. On this point I shall quote from a solemn\nand authenticated document issued by a number of ministers in the\nMethodist Episcopal body in New England, entitled:--\n\n    \"An appeal on the subject of Slavery, addressed to the\n    members of the New England and New Hampshire conferences of\n    the Methodist Episcopal Church;\" and signed by\n\n                                          SHIPLEY W. WILSON.\n                                          ABRAM D. MERRILL.\n                                          LA ROY SUNDERLAND.\n                                          GEORGE STORRS.\n                                          JARED PERKINS.\n\n        Boston, Dec. 19th, 1834.\n\nIn answer to the question--\n\n\"When will slavery cease from our church, if we continue to alter our\nrules against it as we have done for some years past?\" they observe--\n\n    \"But we will not dwell on this part of our subject; it is\n    painful enough to think of; and as members of the Methodist\n    Episcopal Church, and as Methodist preachers, we readily\n    confess we are exceedingly afflicted with a view of it, and\n    still more with a knowledge of the fact, that the \"great\n    evil\" of slavery has been _increasing_, both among the\n    membership and ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at\n    a _fearful rate_, for thirty or forty years past. The general\n    minutes of our Annual Conferences, announce about 80,000\n    colored members in our church; and it is highly probable,\n    from various reasons which might be named, that _as many as\n    sixty thousand, or upwards of these, are slaves_; but what\n    proportion of these and _others_, are enslaved by the\n    _Methodist members_ and _Methodist preachers_, we have no\n    means of determining precisely; but the _alterations_ which\n    have been made in the discipline, show at once that _the\n    number is neither few nor small_; and if this evil was a\n    \"great\" one fifty years ago, what must it be now? What will\n    it be fifty or a hundred years hence, _should the discipline\n    be_ ALTERED _as it has been during half a century past_? Who\n    can tell where this \"great\" and growing \"evil,\" will end? We\n    frequently hear Christians and Christian ministers expressing\n    the greatest fears for the safety of the \"political\" union of\n    these United States, whenever the subject of slavery is\n    mentioned; but no fears as to the prosperity and peace of the\n    Christian church, though this \"evil\" be ever so \"great,\" and\n    though it be increased every day a thousand fold. But can it\n    be supposed that any branch of the Christian church is in a\n    healthy and prosperous state, while it slumbers and nurses in\n    its bosom so great an evil.\"\n\nIn reply to the challenge to produce one instance of a slave trading\nMethodist, I give the following from \"Zion's Watchman,\" a Methodist\nnewspaper, published in New York. It is from a letter of a\ncorrespondent of that paper:\n\n    \"A man came among us where I was preaching, a class-leader,\n    from Georgia, having a regular certificate, who appeared to\n    be very zealous, exhorting and praying in our meetings, &c. I\n    thought I had got an excellent helper; but, on inquiring his\n    business, I found he was a SLAVE TRADER: come on purpose to\n    buy up men, women, and children, to drive to the South!!! I\n    expostulated with him; but he said it was not thought wrong\n    where he came from. I told him we could not countenance such\n    a thing here, and that we could hold no fellowship with him.\"\n    He farther told me that on inquiring of a slave he had with\n    him, what sort of a master he was, he replied, \"I have had\n    four masters, but this is the most cruel of them all;\" and\n    told him, as a proof of it, to look at his back, which, said\n    the minister, \"was cut with a whip, from his head to his\n    heels!!\" The Rev. S. W. Wilson, of Andover, United States,\n    gives also an extract of a letter he had seen from a\n    gentleman of high standing, who was at the South at the time\n    of writing, which says, \"The South is too much interested in\n    the continuance of slavery, to hear any thing upon the\n    subject. The preachers of the gospel are in the same\n    condemnation, and METHODIST PREACHERS ESPECIALLY. The\n    principal reason why the Methodists in these regions are more\n    numerous and popular than other denominations is, THEY STICK\n    SO CLOSELY TO SLAVERY!! THEY DENOUNCE BOTH THE ABOLITIONISTS\n    AND THE COLONIZATIONISTS.\"\n\nTo show the extent to which THE BAPTIST CHURCHES SHARE THE GUILT OF\nTHE SYSTEM OF SLAVERY IN AMERICA, it will be sufficient to read an\nextract from a letter addressed to the Board of Baptist ministers in\nand near London, by the Rev. Lucius Bolles, D. D., the Corresponding\nSecretary of the American Baptist Board of Foreign Missions. The\ntestimony is the stronger, because the whole letter is a carefully\nwritten apology for Southern religious slaveholders, and an attempt to\nsilence the remonstrances of the English churches.\n\n    \"There is a pleasing degree of union among the multiplying\n    thousands of Baptists throughout the land. Brethren from all\n    parts of the country meet in one General Convention and\n    co-operate in sending the gospel to the heathen. Our Southern\n    brethren are liberal and zealous in the promotion of every\n    holy enterprize for the extension of the gospel. THEY ARE,\n    GENERALLY, BOTH MINISTERS AND PEOPLE, SLAVE-HOLDERS.\"\n\nIn this connection, I may notice the recommendation of the work of\nDrs. Cox and Hoby. We are assured by Mr. Breckinridge, (though he\nconfesses he has not read the book,) that every representation it\ncontains relative to slavery among \"the Baptists in America,\" may be\nrelied on. That book, thus endorsed by Mr. B., informs us that the\ndeputation were permitted to sit in the convention at Richmond,\nVirginia, only on condition of _profound silence_, touching the wrongs\nof more than two millions of heathenized slaves. We are gravely told\nthat the introduction of abolition would have been \"an INTRUSION, as\nRUDE as it would have been UNWELCOME.\" It would, says the Delegates,\nhave \"FRUSTRATED every object of our mission;\" \"awakened HOSTILITY,\nand kindled DISLIKE;\" \"roused into EMBITTERED ACTIVITY feelings\nbetween Christian brethren, which must have SEVERED the Baptist\nchurches.\" It would have occasioned the \"UTTER CONFUSION OF ALL ORDER,\nthe RUIN of all Christian feeling,\" and \"THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL LOVE\nAND FELLOWSHIP;\" and the Convention would either have been \"DISSOLVED\"\nby \"MAGISTERIAL INFLUENCE,\" or \"THE DELEGATES WOULD HAVE DISSOLVED\nTHEMSELVES.\" Yet this was \"a sacred and heavenly meeting,\" in which\n\"the kindliest emotions, the warmest affections, the loveliest spirit\ntowards ourselves, (the Baptist Delegates,) towards England and\nmankind\" existed! Oh, Sir, is it possible to draw a more affecting\npicture of the withering and corrupting influences of slavery, than is\nhere presented to our view in this description of the triennial\nconvention of Baptist ministers, assembled in the city of Richmond,\nVirginia, in the year 1835.\n\n\nAMOS DRESSER'S CASE.\n\nI proceed to notice the case of Amos Dresser; the young man who was so\ninhumanly tortured by the citizens and professing Christians of the\ncity of Nashville, Tennessee. I can assure my opponent, that the\ndiscrepancy in my statements which he has noticed, is an error in\nreporting. I am not aware of having ever stated the number of elders\nin the committee to be _eleven_. My statement of the case has always\nbeen simply this--that Mr. Dresser, a pious and respectable young man,\nwas apprehended in Nashville, on suspicion of being an abolitionist;\nbrought before a Vigilance Committee, and, according to \"Lynch Law,\"\nwas sentenced to receive twenty lashes with a cowskin, on his bare\nback. That he was so punished; and that upon the Committee were seven\nelders of the Presbyterian church, and one Campbellite minister. The\nwhole case as narrated by Mr. Dresser, and published in the Cincinnati\nGazette, is now before me. The Committee, by which Mr. Dresser was\ntried and sentenced, is called a \"Committee of Vigilance and Safety.\"\n\nThe following are the names of the seven elders in the Presbyterian\nChurch:\n\n                                                JOHN NICHOL,\n                                                ALPHA KINGSLEY,\n                                                A. A. CASSEDAY,\n                                                WM. ARMSTRONG,\n                                                SAMUEL SEAY,\n                                                S. V. D. STOUT.\n                                                S. C. ROBINSON.\n          The name of the Campbellite Minister, THOMAS CLAIBORNE.\n\nThe Committee, after examining his books, papers, and private\nmemoranda, and hearing his defence, found him guilty--1st. \"Of being a\nmember of an Anti-Slavery Society in Ohio.\" 2d. \"Of having in his\npossession periodicals published by the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety.\" And 3d. \"They BELIEVED he had circulated these periodicals,\nand advocated in the community the principles they inculcated.\" The\nChairman, (says Mr. Dresser,) then pronounced that I was condemned to\nreceive twenty lashes on my bare back, and ordered to leave the place\nin twenty-four hours. This was not an hour previous to the\ncommencement of the Sabbath. Mr. Dresser gives the following account\nof the infliction of the sentence:\n\n    \"I knelt to receive the punishment, which was inflicted by\n    Mr. Braughton, the city officer, with a HEAVY COWSKIN. When\n    the infliction ceased, an involuntary feeling of thanksgiving\n    to God, for the fortitude with which I had been enabled to\n    endure it, arose in my soul, to which I began aloud to give\n    utterance. The death-like silence that prevailed for a\n    moment, was suddenly broken, with loud exclamations, \"G--d\n    d--m him, stop his praying.\" I was raised to my feet by Mr.\n    Braughton, and conducted by him to my lodging, where it was\n    thought safe for me to remain but for a few moments.\n\n    \"Among my triers, there was a great portion of the\n    respectability of Nashville. Nearly half the whole number,\n    professors of Christianity, the reputed stay of the church,\n    supporters of the cause of benevolence in the form of tract\n    and missionary societies and Sabbath schools, several members\n    and most of the elders of the Presbyterian church, from whose\n    hands, but a few days before, I had received the emblems of\n    the broken body, and shed blood of our blessed Saviour.\"\n    (!!!!)\n\nMr. Breckinridge has twice referred to the appearance of a runaway\nslave at my lectures in London, and has accused me of carrying him\nabout with me, to enact interludes during my meeting. I can assure Mr.\nBreckinridge that I never had any thing to do with the attendance of\nMoses Roper at my meetings, or with the speeches he delivered. On\nneither of the occasions mentioned had I any knowledge of his being in\nthe chapel until I found him among the rest of my auditors. As for\ndenying the facts stated by him, knowing as I do the brutalizing\neffects of slavery, and the state of society in the slave States of\nAmerica, it is out of the question. I see nothing in the facts stated\nby Moses Roper at all improbable. Since I last came to this city, I\nhave read in an American newspaper, an account of an affair in\nTennessee, at which the blood runs cold. A black man having committed\nsome crime, was lodged in prison by the authorities, but being\ndemanded by the citizens, was given up to them, tied to a tree, and\nBURNT ALIVE! During my residence in the United States, a negro was\nburnt alive, according to a sentence given by one of the constituted\ntribunals of the State! It was called an exemplary punishment, and\nmany of the papers throughout the country were filled with long and\nlearned articles, justifying the horrid outrage. Mr. Breckinridge may\npoint to the laws and the constitution of the country, but I tell him\nthey and the authorities appointed to enforce them are alike\npowerless. I point him to the atrocities of Lynch law all over the\nland; to the brutal massacre of the gamblers in Mississippi, where men\nin the broad daylight were dragged forth, and tied by the neck to\nbranches of trees, their eyes starting from their sockets, and their\nwives driven across the river, in open boats; their lives threatened,\nfor daring to ask for the dead bodies of their husbands. I ask if any\nlaw reached the fiends in human shape, who perpetrated these deeds. I\nask Mr. Breckinridge if any law punished the felons of Charleston,\nwho, seizing the public conveyances, violated the constitution, and\nthe law of the State, by robbing the mail bags of their contents, and\nburning them? Did not the Post Master General encouragingly say, \"I\ncannot sanction, but I will not condemn what you have done. In your\ncircumstances I would have acted in a similar manner.\" Need I remind\nMr. Breckinridge of the mobs at the North; the riots of New York; the\nsacking of Mr. Tappan's house, and the demolition of colored schools?\nLaws there may be, but while slavery exists, and is defended by public\nsentiment, and while the ferocious prejudice against color remains,\nthey will want the \"executory principle,\" without which they are but\ncruel mockery.\n\nA glance at the moral and religious state of the slave population will\nshow the amount of care and attention exercised by the Christian\nchurches at the South.\n\nWhat says the Rev. C. C. Jones, in a sermon preached before two\nassociations of planters in Georgia, in 1831?\n\n    \"Generally speaking, they (the slaves,) appear to us to be\n    without God, and without hope in the world, a NATION OF\n    HEATHEN in our very midst. We cannot cry out against the\n    Papists for withholding the Scriptures from the common\n    people, and keeping them in ignorance of the way of life, for\n    we WITHHOLD the Bible from our servants, and keep them in\n    ignorance of it, while we will not use the means to have it\n    read and explained to them. The cry of our perishing servants\n    comes up to us from the sultry plains as they bend at their\n    toil; it comes up from their humble cottages when they return\n    at evening to rest their weary limbs; it comes up to us from\n    the midst of their ignorance, and superstition, and adultery,\n    and lewdness. We have manifested no emotions of horror at\n    abandoning the souls of our servants to the adversary, the\n    roaring lion that walketh about seeking whom he may devour.\"\n\nAgain: what said the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, in a report\non the state of the colored population, in respect of religious\ninstruction?\n\n    \"Who would credit it, that in these years of revivals and\n    benevolent effort, in this Christian Republic, there are over\n    TWO MILLIONS of human beings in the condition of HEATHEN, and\n    in some respects in a worse condition. From long continued\n    and close observation, we believe that their moral and\n    religious condition is such, that they may justly be\n    considered the HEATHEN of this Christian country, and will\n    bear comparison with heathen in any country of the world. The\n    negroes are destitute of the gospel, and EVER WILL BE UNDER\n    THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS. In the vast field extending from\n    an entire State beyond the Potomac, to the Sabine River, and\n    from the Atlantic to the Ohio, there are to the best of our\n    knowledge, not TWELVE men exclusively devoted to the\n    religious instruction of the negroes. In the present state of\n    feeling in the South, a ministry of their own color could\n    neither be obtained NOR TOLERATED.\"\n\nAgain: what says a writer in a recent number of the Charleston, South\nCarolina, Observer?\n\n    \"Let us establish missionaries among our negroes, who, in\n    view of religious knowledge, are as debasingly ignorant as\n    any one on the coast of Africa; for I hazard the assertion,\n    that throughout the bounds of our Synod, there are at least\n    one hundred thousand slaves, speaking the same language as\n    ourselves, who never HEARD of the plan of salvation by a\n    Redeemer.\"\n\nA writer in the Western Luminary, a respectable religious paper in\nLexington, Kentucky, says,\n\n    \"I proclaim it abroad to the Christian world, that heathenism\n    is as real in the slave States as it is in the South Sea\n    Islands, and that our negroes are as justly objects of\n    attention to the American and other Boards of Foreign\n    Missions, as the Indians of the Western wilds. What is it\n    constitutes heathenism? Is it to be destitute of a knowledge\n    of God; of his holy word; never to have heard scarcely a\n    sentence of it read through life; to know little or nothing\n    of the history, character, instruction and mission of Jesus\n    Christ; to be almost totally devoid of moral knowledge and\n    feeling, of sentiments of probity, truth and chastity? If\n    this constitutes heathenism, then are there thousands,\n    millions, of heathen in our beloved land. There is one topic\n    to which I will allude, which will serve to establish the\n    heathenism of this population. I allude to the universal\n    licentiousness which prevails. It may be said emphatically,\n    that chastity is no virtue among them; that its violation\n    neither injures female character in their own estimation, or\n    that of their master or mistress. No instruction is ever\n    given; no censure pronounced. I speak not of the world; I\n    speak of Christian families generally.\"\n\nAgain: I give the words of the son of a Kentucky slaveholder, who\nbecame an abolitionist at Lane Seminary, and has since induced his\nfather to emancipate his slaves. Hear James A. Thome.\n\n    \"Licentiousness. I shall not speak of the far South, whose\n    sons are fast melting away under the UNBLUSHING PROFLIGACY\n    which prevails. I allude to the slaveholding West. It is well\n    known that the slave lodgings, I refer now to village slaves,\n    are exposed to the entrance of strangers every hour of the\n    night, and that the SLEEPING APARTMENTS OF BOTH SEXES ARE\n    COMMON.\n\n    \"It is also a fact, that there is no allowed intercourse\n    between the families and servants, after the work of the day\n    is over. The family, assembled for the evening, enjoy a\n    conversation elevating and instructive. But the poor slaves\n    are thrust out. No ties of sacred home thrown around them; no\n    moral instruction to compensate for the toils of the day; no\n    intercourse as of man with man; and should one of the younger\n    members of the family, led by curiosity, steal out into the\n    filthy kitchen, the child is speedily called back, thinking\n    itself happy if it escape an angry rebuke. Why is this? The\n    dread of moral contamination. Most excellent reason; but it\n    reveals a horrid picture. THE SLAVE CUT OFF FROM ALL\n    COMMUNITY OF FEELING WITH THEIR MASTER, ROAM OVER THE VILLAGE\n    STREETS, SHOCKING THE EAR WITH THEIR VULGAR JESTINGS, AND\n    VOLUPTUOUS SONGS, OR OPENING THEIR KITCHENS TO THE RECEPTION\n    OF THE NEIGHBORING BLACKS, THEY PASS THE EVENING IN GAMBLING,\n    DANCING, DRINKING, AND THE MOST OBSCENE CONVERSATION, KEPT UP\n    UNTIL THE NIGHT IS FAR SPENT, THEN CROWN THE SCENE WITH\n    INDISCRIMINATE DEBAUCHERY. WHERE DO THESE THINGS OCCUR? IN\n    THE KITCHENS OF CHURCH MEMBERS AND ELDERS!\n\nI shall now take the liberty of reading two letters from highly\nrespectable gentlemen in the South, to friends in New England. The\nfirst is from a clergyman in North Carolina, to one of the Professors\nin Bowdoin College, Maine.\n\n    \"You remember that when I was with you last summer, I was\n    much opposed to the Anti-Slavery Society, and contended that\n    the colonization scheme was a full, and the only remedy, for\n    the evils of slavery, and that I made a sort of talk before\n    the students on the subject of slavery. It was a poor talk,\n    for it was a miserable theme. I do not think what I said had\n    any effect against the Anti-Slavery people, or at all\n    strengthened the cause of the Colonization Society. Be this\n    as it may, I feel it a duty I owe both to myself and to the\n    friends I have with you, to say, that my views and feelings,\n    which were then wavering, have since, after mature\n    deliberation and much prayer, been entirely changed, and that\n    I am now a strong Anti-Slavery man. Yes, after mature\n    reflection, I am the sworn enemy of slavery in all its forms,\n    with all its evils. Henceforth it is a part of my religion to\n    oppose slavery. I am greatly surprised, that I should in any\n    form have been the apologist of a system, so full of deadly\n    poison to all holiness and benevolence as slavery, the\n    concocted essence of fraud, selfishness, and cold-hearted\n    tyranny, and the fruitful parent of unnumbered evils, both to\n    the oppressor and the oppressed, the one thousandth part of\n    which has never been brought to light.\n\n    \"Do you ask, why this change, after residing in a slave\n    country for twenty years. You recollect the lines of Pope,\n    beginning,\n\n        'Vice is a monster of such frightful mein,\n        That to be hated, needs but to be seen.'\n\n    I had become so familiar with the loathsome features of\n    slavery, that they ceased to offend; besides, I had become a\n    Southern man in all my feelings, and it is a part of our\n    creed to defend slavery. I had also considered it was\n    impossible to free the slaves in this country. But it is\n    unnecessary to investigate the ground of my former opinions.\n    As to the Colonization Society, I have this among many\n    objections that it has two faces, one for the North, and a\n    very different one for the South. If the agents of the\n    Colonization Society will come here and say what I heard them\n    say in New York, I will insure them a good coat of tar and\n    feathers for their labor. That Society has few friends here,\n    a few large slaveholders who by it hope to send off the free\n    people in their neighborhood, and a few others, whose\n    consciences are not quite easy, get a salvo by advocating the\n    Colonization Society. These last are many of them ministers.\n    The mass of the people regard it as a Yankee plan, and hate\n    it of course. I remember, among other things, I told the\n    students in my address, that the only way to do away slavery\n    was to give us more religion. This argument then seemed to be\n    good. Send us preachers said I, and as religion spreads,\n    slavery will melt away, it cannot stand the gospel. I did not\n    reflect that the religion we have here, justifies and upholds\n    slavery. Our religion does not permit the preacher to touch\n    the subject. It is not the whole gospel. I have not yet seen\n    the man who would venture to take for his text, 'Masters,\n    give to your servants that which is just and equal.' If every\n    man in the country was a professor of religion, the religion\n    we have, it would not much help the cause. I think that I can\n    safely say that as a general thing, the Presbyterians are by\n    far the best masters, and give more attention to the\n    religious instruction of their slaves than others, but I know\n    one of these, an elder, who contends that slavery is no\n    violation of the law, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as\n    thyself,' and whose slaves are driven in the field with the\n    long whip! But it is just to add, that they are not\n    over-worked, and they are well fed and clothed. You are at\n    liberty to inform the students, and others who heard me on\n    that occasion, that I am now an anti-slavery man; but I do\n    not wish the letter published with my name to it, as it would\n    be copied by other papers, and find its way back, and do me\n    injury, for no man is free, fully to express his thoughts in\n    this country.\"\n\nThe next is from a merchant in St. Louis, Missouri, to a Clergyman in\nNew Hampshire.\n\n                                     SAINT LOUIS, Jan. 18, 1835.\n\n    Very Dear Brother.\n\n    I want to say a good deal to you, Brother, on the subject,\n    which seems to interest you much at this time. I am now, and\n    was before I left Hartford, an abolitionist; and that too,\n    from deep and thorough conviction that the eternal rule of\n    right requires the immediate freedom of every bond-man in\n    this and every other country. Since my residence in this\n    slaveholding State, I have seen nothing which should tend to\n    alter my previous sentiments on this subject, on the contrary\n    much to confirm me in them. You, who reside in happy New\n    England, can have but very faint conceptions of the blighting\n    and corrupting influence of Slavery on a community. Although\n    in Missouri we witness Slavery in its mildest form, yet it is\n    enough to sicken the heart of benevolence to witness its\n    effects on society generally, and its awfully demoralizing\n    influence on the slaves themselves: being counted as property\n    among the cattle and flocks of their possessors, (forgive the\n    word,) their standard of morality and virtue is on a level\n    (generally) with the beasts with which they are classed: and\n    I am credibly informed that many emigrants from the slave\n    states, who own plantations on the Missouri River, finding\n    themselves disqualified by their former habits of indolence\n    to compete with emigrants of another character in enterprize,\n    turn their attention to the raising of slaves as they would\n    cattle, to be sold to the Negro dealers to go down the river.\n    What sort of standard of virtue, think you, will have place\n    on such a plantation; and at what period in the history of\n    our country will these degraded sons of Africa be\n    christianized under existing circumstances.\n\n    The ungodly man who is a slaveholder, is well enough pleased\n    with the efforts and views of the Colonization Society,\n    because he can manage to throw off responsibility, and date\n    far a-head the time when he shall be called upon to do right;\n    but state to him the sentiments and principles of the\n    abolitionists, and he at once begins to froth and rage--all\n    the malignity of his nature is called into action--and why?\n    He feels the pressure of responsibility, he acts very like an\n    impenitent sinner, pricked with the truth, and like him, too,\n    he either comes on the side of right, or is hardened into a\n    stern opposer. It is gratifying to notice the gradual\n    influence the abolition principles are obtaining over the\n    hearts and consciences of every slaveholding community,\n    especially over the hearts of Christian slaveholders. Many of\n    them who have allowed the subject to have a place in their\n    thoughts, are greatly agitated, and dare not sell or buy\n    again for their peace-sake. But more of this another time.\"\n\n\nI shall now lay before the meeting the sentiments of General George\nM'Duffie, Governor of the State of South Carolina; as contained in a\nmessage delivered by him to the two branches of the Legislature,\ntowards the close of the last year. I charge these sentiments upon the\nState, 1st, because the representatives of its citizens, in a series\nof resolutions presented to the Governor, unanimously expressed their\nspecial approbation of them; and 2dly, because I am not aware that any\nprotest has been entered against them by any part of the Christian\ncommunity. Sentiments more atrocious were, perhaps, never penned.\n\nThe first extract, recommending legislation, has reference to the\ndiffusion of Anti-Slavery publications.\n\n    \"IT IS MY DELIBERATE OPINION THAT THE LAWS OF EVERY COMMUNITY\n    SHOULD PUNISH THIS SPECIES OF INTERFERENCE BY DEATH WITHOUT\n    BENEFIT OF CLERGY, REGARDING THE AUTHORS OF IT AS ENEMIES TO\n    THE HUMAN RACE. Nothing could be more appropriate than for\n    South Carolina to set the example in the present crisis, and\n    I trust the Legislature will not adjourn till it discharges\n    this high duty of patriotism.\"\n\nLet us look at the theological views of this profound Statesman on the\nsubject of Slavery.\n\n    NO HUMAN INSTITUTION, IN MY OPINION, IS MORE MANIFESTLY\n    CONSISTENT WITH THE WILL OF GOD, THAN DOMESTIC SLAVERY, and\n    no one of his ordinances is written in more legible\n    characters than that which consigns the African Race to this\n    condition AS MORE CONDUCIVE TO THEIR OWN HAPPINESS, THAN ANY\n    OTHER OF WHICH THEY ARE SUSCEPTIBLE. Whether we consult the\n    sacred Scriptures or the lights of nature and reason, we\n    shall find these truths as abundantly apparent as if written\n    with a sun-beam in the heavens. Under both the Jewish and\n    Christian dispensations of our religion, DOMESTIC SLAVERY\n    existed with the unequivocal sanction of its prophets, its\n    apostles, and finally its great Author. The patriarchs\n    themselves, those chosen instruments of God, were\n    slaveholders. In fact the divine sanction of this institution\n    is so plainly written that \"he who runs may read\" it, and\n    those over-righteous pretenders and pharisees, who affect to\n    be scandalized by its existence among us, would do well to\n    inquire how much more nearly they walk in the way of\n    godliness, than did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That the\n    African negro is DESTINED BY PROVIDENCE TO OCCUPY THIS\n    CONDITION OF SERVILE DEPENDENCE, is not less manifest. It is\n    marked on the face, stamped on the skin, and evinced by the\n    intellectual inferiority, and natural improvidence of his\n    race. THEY HAVE ALL THE QUALITIES THAT FIT THEM FOR SLAVES,\n    AND NOT ONE OF THOSE THAT WOULD FIT THEM TO BE FREEMEN, they\n    are utterly unqualified not only for rational freedom, but\n    for self-government of any kind. They are in all respects\n    physical, moral and political, inferior to millions of the\n    human race, who have for consecutive ages dragged out a\n    wretched existence under a grinding political despotism, and\n    who are doomed to this hopeless condition by the very\n    qualities which unfit them for a better. It is utterly\n    astonishing that any enlighted American, after contemplating\n    all the manifold forms in which even the white race of\n    mankind are doomed to slavery and oppression, should suppose\n    it possible to reclaim the Africans from their destiny. THE\n    CAPACITY TO ENJOY FREEDOM IS AN ATTRIBUTE NOT TO BE\n    COMMUNICATED BY HUMAN POWER. IT IS AN ENDOWMENT OF GOD, AND\n    ONE OF THE RAREST WHICH IT HAS PLEASED HIS INSCRUTABLE WISDOM\n    TO BESTOW UPON THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH. IT IS CONFERRED AS\n    THE REWARD OF MERIT, and only upon those who are qualified to\n    enjoy it. Until the \"Ethiopian can change his skin,\" it will\n    he vain to attempt, by any human power, to make freemen of\n    those whom God has doomed to be slaves, by all their\n    attributes.\n\n    Let not, therefore, the misguided and designing intermeddlers\n    who seek to destroy our peace, imagining that they are\n    serving the cause of God by practically arraigning the\n    decrees of his Providence. Indeed it would scarcely excite\n    surprise, if with the impious audacity of those who projected\n    the tower of Babel, they should attempt to scale the\n    battlements of Heaven, and remonstrate with the God of wisdom\n    for having put THE MARK OF CAIN AND THE CURSE OF HAM upon the\n    African race instead of the European.\n\nThe Governor then proceeds to give his views on the political bearings\nof the question, and thus sums them up:--\n\n    \"DOMESTIC SLAVERY, THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF BEING A POLITICAL\n    EVIL, IS THE CORNER STONE OF OUR REPUBLICAN EDIFICE. No\n    patriot who justly estimates our privileges, will tolerate\n    the idea of emancipation, at any period however remote, or on\n    any conditions of pecuniary advantage, however favorable. I\n    would as soon think of opening a negotiation for selling the\n    liberty of the State at once, as for making any stipulations\n    for the ultimate emancipation of our slaves. So deep is my\n    conviction on this subject, that if I were doomed to die\n    immediately after recording these sentiments, I could say in\n    all sincerity, and under all the sanctions of Christianity\n    and patriotism, GOD FORBID THAT MY DESCENDANTS, IN THE\n    REMOTEST GENERATIONS, SHOULD LIVE IN ANY OTHER THAN A\n    COMMUNITY HAVING THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY.\"\n\nThe conduct of the clergy of South Carolina, may be inferred from the\nfollowing account of a great _pro_-slavery meeting, held in the city\nof Charleston, to denounce in the most malignant spirit, the\nabolitionists of the North:\n\n    (_From the Charleston Courier._)\n\n    GREAT AND IMPORTANT PUBLIC MEETING.\n\n    One of the most imposing assemblages of citizens in respect\n    of numbers, intelligence and respectability that we have ever\n    witnessed, met yesterday morning at the City Hall, to receive\n    the report of the Committee of twenty-one, appointed by the\n    meeting on the 4th inst. on the incendiary machinations now\n    in progress against the peace and welfare of the Southern\n    States. THE CLERGY OF ALL DENOMINATIONS ATTENDED IN A BODY,\n    LENDING THEIR SANCTION TO THE PROCEEDINGS, AND AIDING BY\n    THEIR PRESENCE, TO THE IMPRESSIVE CHARACTER OF THE SCENE!\n\nAfter thundering forth the most violent threats against the discussion\nof the subject of slavery, the meeting closed with the following\nresolution:\n\n    On the motion of Captain LYNCH,\n\n    \"_Resolved_, That the thanks of this meeting are due to the\n    Reverend gentlemen of the CLERGY in this city, who have so\n    promptly, and so effectually, responded to public sentiment,\n    BY SUSPENDING THEIR SCHOOLS IN WHICH THE FREE COLORED\n    POPULATION WERE TAUGHT; and that this meeting deem it a\n    patriotic action worthy of all praise, and proper to be\n    imitated by other teachers of similar schools throughout the\n    State.\"\n\nThe following document will speak for itself. I commend it to the\nconsideration of ministers of Christ throughout the world.\n\n    CHARLESTON PRESBYTERY ON SLAVERY.\n\n    Extract from the minutes of Charleston Union Presbytery, at\n    their meeting on the 7th of April, 1836.\n\n    With reference to the relation which the church sustains to\n    the institution of slavery, and the possibility of attempts\n    to agitate the question in the next General Assembly, this\n    presbytery deem it expedient to state explicitly the\n    principles which they maintain, and the course which will be\n    pursued by their commissioners in the Assembly. It is a\n    principle which meets the views of this body, that slavery as\n    it exists among us, is a political institution, with which\n    ecclesiastical judicatories have not the smallest right to\n    interfere; and in relation to which any such interference,\n    especially at the present momentous crisis, would be morally\n    wrong and fraught with the most dangerous and pernicious\n    consequences. Should any attempt be made to discuss this\n    subject, our Commissioners are expected to meet it at the\n    very threshold, and of any report, memorial or document,\n    which may be the occasion of agitating this question in any\n    form. And it is further expected, that our Commissioners,\n    should the case require it, will distinctly avow our full\n    conviction of the truth of the principles which we hold in\n    relation to this subject, and our resolute determination to\n    abide by them, whatever may be the issue; that it may appear\n    that the sentiments which we maintain, in common with\n    Christians at the South, of every denomination, are\n    sentiments which so fully approve themselves to our\n    consciences, are so identified with our solemn convictions of\n    duty, that we should maintain them under any circumstances;\n    and at the same time, the peculiar circumstances in which we\n    are placed, constitute an imperious necessity that we should\n    act in accordance with these principles, and make it\n    impossible for us to yield any thing in a matter which\n    concerns not merely our personal interests, but the cause of\n    Christ, and the peace, if not the very existence of the\n    Southern community.\n\n    Should our Commissioners fail of accomplishing this object,\n    it is expected that they will withdraw from the Assembly,\n    with becoming dignity; not willing to be associated with a\n    body of men who denounce the ministers and members of\n    Southern churches as pirates and men-stealers, or who\n    co-operate with those who thus denounce them.\n\n    In conclusion, this Presbytery would suggest to their\n    Commissioners the expediency of conferring with the\n    Commissioners from other Southern presbyteries, that there\n    may be a common understanding between them as to the course\n    most suitable to be pursued at this crisis, and on this\n    absorbing question. And may that wisdom which is from above,\n    which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be\n    entreated, be their guide in managing the important trust\n    committed to their hands.\n\n    _Resolved_, That this expression of our views be signed by\n    the Moderator and Clerk; that a copy be given to each of our\n    Commissioners to the General Assembly, and that it be\n    published in the Charleston Observer.\n\n                                   E. T. BUIST, _Moderator_.\n\n        B. GILDERSLEEVE, _Temporary Clerk_.\n\nResolutions of the Presbyterian Synods of South Carolina and Georgia,\nDecember, 1834.\n\n    \"_Resolved unanimously_, That in the opinion of this Synod,\n    Abolition Societies, and the principles on which they are\n    founded, in the United States, are inconsistent with the best\n    interests of the slaves, the rights of the holders, and the\n    great principles of our political institutions.\"\n\nThe following declaration of sentiments has been published in\nCharleston, South Carolina, by the Board of Managers of the Missionary\nSociety, of the South Carolina Conference of the Methodist Episcopal\nChurch:\n\n    \"We denounce the principles and opinions of the abolitionists\n    in toto; and do solemnly declare our conviction and belief,\n    that, whether they were originated, as some business men have\n    thought, as a money speculation, or, as some politicians\n    think, for party electioneering purposes, or, as we are\n    inclined to believe, in a false philosophy, over-reaching or\n    setting aside the Scriptures through a vain conceit of higher\n    moral refinement, they are utterly erroneous, and altogether\n    hurtful. We consider and believe that the Holy Scriptures, so\n    far from giving any countenance to this delusion, do\n    unequivocally authorize the relation of master and slave. We\n    hold that a Christian slave must be submissive, faithful and\n    obedient, for reasons of the same authority with those which\n    oblige husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sisters, to fulfil\n    the duties of these relations. We would employ no one in the\n    work who might hesitate to teach thus; nor can such an one be\n    found in the whole number of the preachers in this\n    Conference.\"\n\nOne other document in reference to South Carolina, viz., the\nresolutions recently passed by the \"Hopewell Presbytery.\" On the\nsubject of domestic slavery, this Presbytery believe the following\nfacts have been most incontrovertibly established, viz:\n\n    I. Slavery has existed in the church of God from the time of\n    Abraham to this day. Members of the church of God have held\n    slaves bought with their money, and born in their houses; and\n    this relation is not only recognized, but its duties are\n    defined clearly, both in the Old and New Testaments.\n\n    II. Emancipation is not mentioned among the duties of the\n    master to his slave. While obedience \"even to the froward\"\n    master is enjoined upon the slave.\n\n    III. No instance can be produced of an otherwise orderly\n    Christian, being REPROVED, much less EXCOMMUNICATED from the\n    church, for the single act of holding domestic slaves, from\n    the days of Abraham down to the date of the modern\n    Abolitionists.\n\n    IV. SLAVERY EXISTED IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE OUR\n    ECCLESIASTICAL BODY WAS ORGANIZED. IT IS NOT CONDEMNED IN OUR\n    CONFESSION OF FAITH, AND HAS ALWAYS EXISTED IN OUR CHURCH\n    WITHOUT REPROOF OR CONDEMNATION.\n\n    V. Slavery is a political institution, with which the Church\n    has nothing to do, except to inculcate the duties of master\n    and slave, and to use lawful spiritual means to have all,\n    both bond and free, to become one in Christ by faith.\n\n    Regarding these positions as undoubtedly true, our views of\n    duty constrain us to adopt the following resolutions:\n\n    _Resolved_, That the political institution of domestic\n    slavery, as it exists in the South, is not a lawful or\n    constitutional subject of discussion, much less, of action by\n    the General Assembly.\n\n    _Resolved_, That so soon as the General Assembly passes any\n    ecclesiastical laws, or recommends any action, which shall\n    interfere with this institution, this Presbytery will regard\n    such laws and acts as tyranical and odious; and from that\n    moment will regard itself independent of the General Assembly\n    of the Presbyterian Church.\n\n    _Resolved_, That our delegates to the approaching Assembly\n    are hereby enjoined to use all Christian means to prevent the\n    discussion of domestic slavery in the Assembly; to protest in\n    our name, against all acts that involve or approve abolition;\n    and to withdraw from the Assembly and return home, if, in\n    spite of their efforts, acts of this character shall be\n    passed.\"\n\nFrom the official account of the proceedings of the Synod of Virginia,\nI take the following\n\n    REPORT ON ABOLITION.\n\n    \"The Committee to whom were referred the resolutions, &c.,\n    have, according to order, had the same under consideration:\n    and respectfully report that in their judgment, the following\n    resolutions are necessary and proper to be adopted by the\n    Synod at the present time.\n\n    \"_Whereas_, The publications and proceedings of certain\n    organized associations commonly called Anti-slavery, or\n    Abolition Societies, which have arisen in some parts of our\n    land, have greatly disturbed, and are still greatly\n    disturbing the peace of the church, and of the country; and\n    the Synod of Virginia deem it a solemn duty which they owe to\n    themselves and to the community, to declare their sentiments\n    upon the subject; therefore,\n\n    \"_Resolved unanimously_, That we consider the dogma fiercely\n    promulgated by said associations; that slavery as it actually\n    exists in our slaveholding States, is necessarily sinful, and\n    ought to be immediately abolished, and the conclusions which\n    naturally follow from that dogma, as directly and palpably\n    contrary to the plainest principles of common sense and\n    common humanity, and to the clearest authority of the word of\n    God.\n\n    \"2. _Resolved unanimously_, That in the deliberate judgment\n    of the Synod, it is the duty of all ministers of the gospel\n    to follow the example of our Lord and Saviour, and of his\n    apostles in similar circumstances, in abstaining from all\n    interference with the state of slavery, as established among\n    us by the Commonwealth, and confining themselves strictly to\n    their proper province of inculcating upon masters and slaves\n    the duties enjoined upon them respectively in the sacred\n    Scriptures, which must tend immediately to promote the\n    welfare of both, and ultimately to restore the whole world to\n    that state of holy happiness which is the earnest desire of\n    every Christian heart.\n\n    \"The above preamble and resolutions having been severally\n    read, and adopted by paragraphs, the Moderator asked and\n    obtained leave to vote with the Synod, on the adoption of the\n    entire report. The question being put, it was unanimously\n    adopted, every member it is believed, giving it a hearty\n    response.\"\n\nThe last document I shall quote on this part of the subject, is one\nwhich will fill this meeting with horror; but it is right that it\nshould be placed on record, to show the opinion entertained by a\nminister of the Presbyterian church of his brethren and fellow\nChristians, and to show also, what kind of communications pass current\namong the professed disciples of Christ in a slaveholding community.\n\n    \"To the Sessions of the Presbyterian Congregations within the\n    bounds of West Hanover Presbytery:\n\n    \"At the approaching stated meeting of our Presbytery, I\n    design to offer a preamble and string of resolutions on the\n    subject of the use of wine in the Lord's Supper; and also a\n    preamble and a string of resolutions on the subject of the\n    treasonable and abominably wicked interference of the\n    Northern and Eastern fanatics, with our political and civil\n    rights, our property and our domestic concerns. You are aware\n    that our clergy, whether with or without reason, are more\n    suspected by the public than are the clergy of other\n    denominations. Now, dear Christian brethren, I humbly express\n    it as my earnest wish, that you quit yourselves like men. _If\n    there be any stray goat of a minister among us, tainted with\n    the blood-hound principles of abolitionism, let him be\n    ferreted out, silenced, excommunicated, and left to the\n    public to dispose of him in other respects._\n\n        \"Your affectionate brother in the Lord,\n\n                                      \"ROBERT N. ANDERSON.\"!!!\n\nI trust I have adduced sufficient evidence upon this heart-rending\ntopic, and abundantly proved the allegations I have deemed it my duty\nto bring against the American churches. No one can accuse me of\nwishing that any thing should be believed upon my bare assertion. I\nhave furnished documentary proof of the truth of all my statements.\nPresbyterians, and Conferences, and Ministers, and Elders, and Synods,\nand Assemblies have spoken for themselves through their solemn and\naccredited Speeches, and Letters, and Reports, and Resolutions. Judge,\ntherefore, whether I have libelled America; whether I am the foul\ntraducer that some would have you believe, but for believing which\nthey supply you no ground, save their own ill-natured vituperations.\nLet the facts I have brought before you be deliberately considered,\nand let such a verdict be given as will approve itself to the world\nand to God. Before sitting down, however, I must observe, that it has\nalways given me the sincerest pleasure to notice any Anti-slavery\nmovements among the clergy of America. With delight I have stated the\nfact, that in the General Assembly of 1835, there were FORTY EIGHT\nimmediate Abolitionists. I refer again, on the present occasion, with\nunfeigned satisfaction, to the indications of a better state of things\nin many portions of the Presbyterian Church. Mr. Breckinridge has\nquoted the Assembly's views on the subject of Slavery; so have I. In\nthe recent meeting of the United Secession Synod, held a short time\nsince in Edinburgh, I stated fully the sentiments of the Presbyterian\nbody in America. At the same time, I could not omit naming one\nstriking fact, viz. that in 1816, the Assembly struck out of the\nConfession of the Church, the following note, adopted in 1794, and\nwhich contained the doctrine of the church at that period on the\nsubject of slaveholding. The note was appended to the one hundred and\nforty-second question of the larger catechism.\n\n    \"1 Tim. 1:10. The law is made for MAN STEALERS. This crime\n    among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital\n    punishment; Exodus 21:16; and the apostle here classes them\n    with sinners of the first rank. The word he uses, in its\n    original import, comprehends all who are concerned in\n    bringing any of the human race into slavery, OR IN RETAINING\n    THEM IN IT. Hominum fures, qui servos vel liberos abducunt,\n    retinent vendunt, vel emunt. Stealers of men are all those\n    who bring off slaves or freemen AND KEEP, SELL, OR BUY THEM.\n    To steal a free man, says Grotius, is the highest kind of\n    theft. In other instances, we only steal human property, but\n    when we steal or retain men in slavery, we seize those who,\n    in common with ourselves, are constituted by the original\n    grant, lords of the earth. Genesis 1:28, Vide Poli synopsin\n    in loc.\"\n\nWhy this note has been cancelled, I shall not attempt to say. Neither\nMr. Breckinridge nor this Assembly need be at any loss to imagine for\nwhat reasons so strong and unequivocal a passage was omitted by a body\nin which so large a proportion were slaveholders. I have recently\nread, and publicly commended, an address put forth by the Synod of\nKentucky, containing a very faithful, though appalling disclosure of\nthe state of Slavery in Kentucky; and expressing an earnest hope that\nthe members of the Presbyterian body will, without delay, take steps\nto promote the education and emancipation of the slaves. Let me also\nstate, that the following ecclesiastical meetings have passed\nresolutions, and many of them adopted rules of church membership, in\naccordance with the views of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Some\nof them have specially approved the principles and measures of that\nbody. I beg, while I read this list, to remind Mr. Breckinridge that\nthese form a part of that ragged regiment, respecting which he was so\nmerry in one of his by-gone speeches,\n\n  SYNODS of Utica and Cincinnati.\n  Eastern Sub-Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.\n  PRESBYTERIES of Delaware, Champlain, Erie, Chillicothe, Detroit,\n          and Genesee.\n  General Association of New York.\n  Central Evangelical Association.\n  Cumberland Baptist Association.--Equally divided.\n  One Hundred and Eighty-Five Baptist Clergymen.\n  The vast majority of the New England and New Hampshire Conferences\n          of Episcopal Methodists, and a large number of individual\n          Churches.\n\nThus is the cause advancing! The purifying leaven is extending through\nall the country. The elements which are ordained to redeem America\nfrom the pollution and infamy of slavery, are working mightily. When I\nwent to the United Slates, I took the principles I found lying\ncomparatively forgotten, and proclaimed them abroad. I planted myself\nupon the American Bible, and the American Declaration of Independence,\nand preached from these that the varied tribes of men are of _one\nblood_, and that all men should be \"free and equal.\" I have not\nlabored in vain. There is now a mighty and indomitable host of pure\nand ardent friends to the freedom and elevation of the long degraded\ncolored man. Let us thank God and take courage, and expect with\nconfidence the speedy arrival of the happy day, when the soil of\nAmerica shall be untrodden by the foot of a slave.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. BRECKINRIDGE said he regretted to be obliged to say anything more\non this subject, which he had wished to consider concluded, so far as\nhe was concerned, at the close of his preceding speech. He felt\nobliged, however, by the importance of the whole case, to consume a\nportion of this, his last address--and which he had desired to occupy\nin a different way--in making a few explanations which seemed\nindispensable. It would be observed, first, that the great bulk of the\ntestimonies produced throughout, and especially in his last speech, by\nMr. Thompson, were individual opinions and assertions, often of\nobscure persons, and therefore, for ought the world could tell,\nfictitious persons; or if known persons they were often men of the\nworld, and avowedly acting on worldly principles, and therefore, no\nmore affording a criterion of the state of the American churches, than\nthe immoralities of any public functionary here, could be justly made\na rule of judgment of the faith and morals of British Christians. A\nconsiderable portion also were taken from the transient and heated\ndeclamations of violent party newspapers, which wrested from their\noriginal purpose and connection, might mean what never was meant, or\neven, if fairly collated, expressed what their authors, perhaps, would\nnow gladly recall. How far would it be proof of the assertions of Mr.\nT. of America--if in some other land, some bigot should quote as\nindisputable, Mr. Thompson's story of the colored man in Washington\nCity, whose assertion, at third hand, that he was free, authorised the\ndeclaration that \"_he had demonstrated his freedom_,\" and yet after\nall had been sold into everlasting slavery without a trial! And yet\nmany of his proofs are of no more value to him, than his assertions\nought to be to any who come after him. It is next most worthy of note,\nthat so far as all his proofs establish any thing against either any\nportion of the American nation or the American church, they all run\nupon the assumed truth of all my explanations of their real state and\noperations. It is the slaveholding portion, it is the comparatively\nsmall body of slaveholding professors of religion, it is the minority\nof the nation, the very small minority of the Christians of it,\nimplicated continually; and therefore, if every word produced were\ntrue, the sweeping conclusions from them would be gross fraud on the\nprevailing ignorance of all American affairs. But what is most\nimportant to observe, and what must be palpable to the capacity of\nevery child who has attended to this discussion, the weightiest of Mr.\nThompson's proofs ceased to be proofs at all, the moment the facts,\ncant words and circumstances connected are explained. He used words in\none sense which he knows you will understand in another--sporting at\nonce with your good feelings and your want of minute information while\nall the result is false as to us, and unhappy as to every thing\nconcerned, except \"Othello's occupation\" which meanwhile is _not_\ngone. When decided and perhaps violent terms are used against\n\"abolition\" or \"abolitionists\" or \"anti-slavery\" or \"the anti-slavery\nsociety,\" they are adduced to convince you that those who use them are\npro-slavery men: that they understand the terms as you do; and that it\nis an expression of rank hostility to all emancipation on the part of\nthe American tyrants, in whose nostrils according to this gentleman\nthe slave and freedom equally stink! A metaphor nearly as full of\ntruth as decency. The fact however is, that although many would\ndecline the use of the harsh and vindictive language which, caught\nfrom abolitionists, has been turned against them; yet the bulk of the\nreal sentiments, as brought forward by Mr. Thompson as proofs of\nAmerican slavery, on account of American hatred to his peculiar plans,\nprinciples and spirit in attempting its removal, are true, just and\ndefensible.--And I am ready to advocate and to defend much that he by\na disingenuous citation has made at first odious, and then\ncharacteristic of America. They prove only that he and his coadjutors\nare most odious to the country, which is a fact never denied except by\nhimself or them. And to what has the whole current of his testimony\ntended if not to show that they might reasonably have expected and did\na great deal to deserve such a conclusion.--But it is now impossible\nto enter again upon these matters and upon the case as presented, he\nwas willing for the world to pass its verdict. While he would\ntherefore take no farther notice of any new matter contained in the\nlast speech, there were several remarks necessary to be made, to\nelucidate subjects that had already been several times before them.\nThe first case was that of Amos Dresser the abolitionist whipped at\nNashville. He would pass over what Mr. T. had said relating to his\n(Mr. B.'s) notice of the discrepancy in the number of Elders in the\nNashville Church. He had treated that gentleman with great candor in\nthe matter, which he had returned with incivility and injustice, and\nthere he was content to let it rest. But how stood the facts of the\ncase itself? Amos Dresser is reported to have said that there were\nseven elders of the church; that all of them were on the committee of\nvigilance of Nashville; that _most_ of them were among his triers, and\nthat _some_ of them had administered the communion to him the\npreceding sabbath. Now let us admit that this is literally\ntrue--(which I believe however is not the case, in at least three\nparticulars)--how does it justify Mr. Thompson in asserting as he did\nat London and elsewhere \"that on that Lynch Committee _there sat seven\nElders and one Minister, some of whom_ had sat with the young man at\nthe table of the Lord on the preceding Sunday\"? Mr. Thompson\npositively contradicts his own and only witness when he says that all\nthe seven elders sat as triers;--he enlarges his testimony when he\ninsinuates that they not only concurred in his punishment, but were\npresent and active in its infliction; and he infers without the least\nauthority, and adds it to the words of the witness, that those very\nelders who administered the Lord's Supper to Dresser, on Sunday\n\"ploughed up his back\"--as Lynch Committee men on a subsequent day of\nthe same week. How in the name of common honesty is such deceitful\nhandling of the truth to be tolerated in a Christian community? Oh!\nwhat a spectacle would we behold--if I had but the privilege before\nsome competent tribunal--to take the published accusations of this man\nin my hands and force him to reveal on oath the whole grounds on which\nhe makes them!--Mr. B. then stated that after he entered the house\nto-night two packages had been put into his hands, which he could not\nexamine then, as he was just about to open the discussion. He had\nsnatched a moment during the interval to glance his eyes over their\ncontents, and considered it his duty to say a few words in reference\nto each. One of them was a little volume from the pen of Dr. Channing,\nof Boston, on the subject of slavery, just passing through the press\nof an enterprising bookseller of Glasgow, who had done him the favor\nof presenting to him, in very kind terms, the first copy of the\nedition. They who would take the trouble of looking over the printed\nreport of Mr. Thompson's second address to the Glasgow Emancipation\nSociety, would find that in speaking of the Unitarians of America, he\nhad used the following language:--\"One of their greatest men, a giant\nin intellect, had already taken the right view of the subject, and\nthere could not exist a doubt that ere long, he would bring over the\nbody to the good cause.\" In this sentence, as it stands in the speech,\nat the end of the words \"giant in intellect,\"--stands a star,--at the\nbottom of the page another, before the words \"Dr. Channing.\" Now it so\nhappens that in this little book, there is a chapter headed\n\"Abolitionism.\" I have looked through it casually, within the last\nhour; and I beseech you all to read it carefully, and judge for\nyourselves, of the utter recklessness with which Mr. Thompson makes\nassertions. The other parcel, contained a letter from an American\ngentleman residing in Britain, and one half of the New York Spectator,\nof October 1, 1835. Under the head of editorial correspondence, is an\narticle above a column and a half in length devoted in great part to\nMr. Thompson. Amongst other passages, it adverts to his doings at\nAndover, and the charges made against him there, on such weighty\nauthority; and in that connexion has the following explicit paragraph:\n\n    Mr. Thompson in conversation with some of the students\n    repeatedly averred that every slaveholder in the United\n    States OUGHT TO HAVE HIS THROAT CUT; or DESERVED TO HAVE HIS\n    THROAT CUT; although he afterwards publicly denied that he\n    had said so. But the proof is direct and positive. In\n    conversation with one of the theological students in regard\n    to the moral instruction which ought to be enjoyed by the\n    slaves, he distinctly declared THAT EVERY SLAVE SHOULD BE\n    TAUGHT TO CUT HIS MASTER'S THROAT! I state the fact--knowing\n    the responsibility I am assuming, and challenge a legal\n    investigation.\n\nOn this tremendous document, I make but two remarks--The first is that\nFrancis Hall & Co. the publishers of the Spectator, were in character\nand fortune, perfectly responsible to Mr. Thompson. The second is,\nthat if Mr. Thompson's rule of judgment was just, in that branch of\nthis same case--in the exercise of which he declared that another\npaper in New York could never be got to publish his exculpatory\ncertificates in regard to this very transaction, _because_ the\npublisher knew them to be true; then we are irresistibly bound on his\nown showing to conjecture, that for the same reason he declined taking\nup the challenge of the Spectator. There was only one more topic on\nwhich he seemed called on to remark; and that he had several times\npassed over, out of consideration of delicacy. It had all along been\nhis aim to use as little freedom as possible with the names of\nindividuals--and he could declare, that he had implicated by name, no\none except out of absolute necessity--that he had forborne to say true\nbut severe things of several who had been most unjustly commended\nduring this discussion--and had omitted of the very few he had\ncensured by name, decidedly worse things, than those he had uttered of\nthem--and which he might have uttered both truly and pertinently.\nAmongst the cases of rather peculiar forebearance, was the oft cited\none, of a misguided young man, by the name of Thome, who went from\nKentucky to New York to repeat a most audacious speech which was no\ndoubt prepared for him, before an assembly literally the most _mixed_\nthat was ever convened in that city: having delivered which, he\ndeparted with the pity or contempt of 9 10ths of all the decent people\nin it, and went I know not whither, and dwells I know not where. The\nvictory as there trumpeted, and now celebrated, of which he was part\ngainer, consisted of two portions--the destruction of the colonization\ncause--and the degradation of Kentucky, his native state. The death of\nthe Society was signalised by a subscription of six thousand dollars\non the part of its friends; and the infamy of Kentucky was\nillustrated by the ready stepping forward of four of her sons to\nconfront and confound the ingrate who commenced his career of manhood\nby smiting his parent in the face. Who made the defence, may be\nsurmised from Mr. Thompson's bitterness--I will not trust myself to\nrepeat his name. But this thousands can testify--that never was a\ngreat cause more signally successful--never were folly and wickedness\nmore thoroughly beaten into the dust--never did any community heap\nmore cordial and unanimous applause upon an effort of great and\nsuccessful eloquence.\n\nAnd now, Sir, (said Mr. B., addressing Dr. Wardlaw, the Chairman of\nthe meeting)--I repeat the expressions of my regret, that these last\nmoments allowed to me should have been required for any other purpose\nthan that which so sacredly belonged to them. Exhausted by a series of\nmost exciting, and to me perfectly new contentions, I am altogether\nunequal to the task, which I should yet esteem myself degraded if I\ndid not attempt in some way to perform.\n\nTo this large committee which has so kindly taken up this subject--so\nconsiderately provided for every contingency--so delicately considered\nall my wishes, and even all my weaknesses--to these respected\ngentlemen surrounding us upon this platform, whose conduct amid very\npeculiar circumstances has been towards me, full of candor, honor,\ncourtesy and Christian kindness, it would have been most gross\ningratitude, to have forborne this public expression of my regard and\ncordial thanks.\n\nFor yourself, Sir, what can I say more, or how could I say less, than\nthat in that distant country, which I love but too fondly, there are\nscores, there are hundreds, who would esteem all the trials through\nwhich this strife has led me, and all the weight of responsibility\nwhich my posture has forced me to assume, more than counter-balanced\nby the privilege of looking upon your venerated face. It is good to\nlive for the whole world; and it is but just to receive in recompense\nthe world's thanks.\n\nAnd you, my respected auditors, whose patience I must needs have so\nseverely taxed, and who have borne with much that possibly has tried\nyou deeply, you who have given me so many reasons to thank you, and\nnot one to regret the errand that brought me here; if in the course of\nprovidence, you or yours, should be thrown on whatever spot my resting\nplace may be, you need but say, \"I come from Glasgow, and I need a\nfriend,\" and it shall go hard with me, but I will find a way to prove,\nthat kindness is never thrown away.\n\nBut even as we part, let us not forget that cause which has chained us\nhere so long. We are free. Alas! how few can utter these words with\ntruth! We are Christian men. Alas! what multitudes have never heard\nour Master's name. Oh! how horrible must slavery be, when God himself\nillustrates the power of sin by calling it bondage! Oh! how sweet\nshould union with Christ be thought, when he proclaims it glorious\nliberty! Freedom and redemption are in our hands; the heritage in\ntrust for a lost world. It is not then our own souls only, but our\ndivine Lord, and our dying brethren, that we sin against and rob, when\nwe mismanage or pervert this great inheritance. We needs must labor;\nbut let us do it wisely. And though we may differ in many things, in\nthis at least we can agree, to importune our heavenly Father to\nprosper by his constant blessing what we do aright, and overrule by\nhis continued care all that we do amiss. (Cheers.)\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. THOMPSON then rose amidst much cheering, and said, Sir, after the\nvaledictory address to which we have just listened, it would ill\nbecome me to touch upon any topic calculated to disturb feelings which\nI trust and believe that address has awakened in the breasts of this\nassembly. Sir, it is my conviction, that I and those with whom it is\nmy joy and honor to act, in the advancement of the cause of Universal\nEmancipation, are much misunderstood. We are represented as the\nviolent, acrimonious, ferocious and sanguinary foes of the\nslaveholder; when, if he could look into our inmost hearts, he would\ndiscover no enmity to him abiding there, but on the contrary, an\nearnest desire to promote his safety, his honor, and his happiness. If\nwe act as we do, it is not that we love him less, but that we love\ntruth and freedom more. It is not with us a matter of choice that we\npursue our present course, but one of stern imperative duty; because\nwe believe that God will vouchsafe his blessing only to those who\npreach the doctrine of an immediate, entire, and uncompromising\ndischarge of duty, leaving to Him the consequences flowing from\nobedience to His law. To discover truth wherever it is hidden, should\nbe the aim and effort of every rational mind. It has been my desire to\narrive at truth upon the great question of Slavery; and after much\ninvestigation, and many conflicts, I have reached the conclusion, that\nslaveholding is sinful; that man cannot hold property in man; that to\ndo right, and to do it _now_, fearless of results, is the doctrine of\nthe Bible; and that a simple and strict compliance with the Divine\nLaw, is man's noblest and safest course. These being my settled views,\nI say to the slaveholder, give immediate freedom to your slaves. To\nthe non-slaveholder, I say, preach a pure doctrine; grapple with the\nprejudices and fears of the community around you; strive to raise the\ntone of public morals, and create a public sentiment unfavorable to\nthe continuance of slavery. To the private Christian, I say, betake\nyourself to prayer, and the study of the Scriptures; and invoke a\nblessing upon every righteous instrumentality for the overthrow of the\nabomination. To the minister of the gospel, I say, be bold for God;\ncry aloud, and spare not, till the merchants of the earth cease to\nmake merchandise of slaves, and the souls of men.\n\nMuch fault is found with our measures. What, Sir, are our measures,\nbut the simplest means of making known our principles? Having\ndeliberately and prayerfully adopted certain views, we take the\nordinary, common sense, every day methods of making those views known,\nand of recommending them to the adoption of others. Believing slavery\nto be sin, is it strange that we hate it, and speak strongly\nrespecting it? Believing immediate emancipation _a duty_, is it\nstrange that we pray, and preach, and print about it? That we take all\npeaceful means of making known the great truth; of warning men against\nthe danger of delay; and exhorting them to repentance? The\nabolitionists have done no more. To have done less, would have been to\nprove themselves unfaithful to the high and heaven-born principles\nthey profess. They court investigation. They scatter their\npublications on the winds to be read by all. They have not an office\nnor a book that is not open to the inspection of all. Their language\nto all who suspect their motives or their designs is, \"search us, and\nknow our hearts; try us, and know our thoughts; and see if there be\nany wicked way in us.\" If in the ardor of their zeal, and inherited\ninfirmities, and surrounded by influences, from which none of us are\nexempt; they sometimes apply epithets and bring charges with too\nlittle discrimination, \"something should be pardoned to the spirit of\nliberty;\" something granted to the advocates of outraged humanity; to\nthose, who, remembering them that are in bonds as bound with them,\nplead as for mothers, children, sisters, and brothers; at present lost\nto all the joys and purposes of life. Sir, I think it hard that on all\noccasions like these, the heaviest artillery should be levelled\nagainst the abolitionists, and the small arms only directed against\nthe slaveholder. I call upon those who act with such gentleness\ntowards the latter individual; who are so fearful of doing him\ninjustice and so readily to discover in him any thing that is amiable\nin character, or extenuating in conduct, to exercise some small\nportion of the same candor and kindness, and consideration towards the\nformer. Let not _that_ man be most hateful in their eyes, who of all\nothers is most earnestly engaged for the deliverance of the slave.\n\nA word before we part, for my honored co-adjutors on the other side of\nthe Atlantic. Should this be the last address of mine ever delivered\nand recorded for perusal when I am gone to give account of my sayings\nupon earth, I can with every feeling of sincerity aver, that to the\nbest of my knowledge and belief, there is not to be found on the face\nof the earth at the present time, engaged in any religious or\nbenevolent enterprise, a body of men more pure in their motives, more\nsimple and elevated in their aim, more dependent upon divine aid in\ntheir efforts, or, generally speaking, more unexceptionable in their\nmeasures, than the _immediate_ abolitionists of the United States of\nAmerica. It has been my high privilege to mingle much with devoted\nChristians of all denominations in my native land, and to enjoy the\nfriendship of some of the noblest and most laborious of living\nphilanthropists; but I have not yet seen the wisdom, the ardor, the\nhumanity or the faith of the abolitionists of America exceeded.\n\nAnother word and I have done. It is for one whom I love as a brother,\nand to whom my soul is united by a bond which death cannot dissolve;\nof one, who, though still young, has for ten years toiled with\nunremitting ardor, and unimpeached disinterestedness in the cause of\nthe bleeding slave; of one, who, though accused of scattering around\nhim fire-brands, arrows and death; though branded as a madman, an\nincendiary, and a fanatic; though denounced by the State, and reviled\nby a portion of the church, possesses a soul as peaceful and as pure\nas ever tenanted our fallen nature. I speak not to exalt him or\ngratify his love of praise. I know he seeks not the honor that cometh\nfrom man, nor the riches that perish in the using. He looks not for\nhis reward on earth. With the approbation of his conscience, he is\ncontent; with the blessing of the perishing, he is rich; with the\nfavor of God, he is blessed forever. He seeks no monumental marble, no\nfuneral oration, no proud escutcheon, no partial page of history to\nperpetuate his name. He knows that when resting from his labors, the\ntears of an enfranchised race\n\n  Shall sprinkle the cold dust in which he sleeps,\n  Pompless, and from a scornful world withdrawn:\n  The laurel, which its malice rent, shall shoot,\n  So watered, into life, and mantling throw\n  Its verdant honors o'er his grassy tomb.\n\nThat man is WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON. Sir, I thank God for having given\nhim to the age and country in which he lives. He is a man\npre-eminently qualified for the mighty work in which he has engaged.\nMay the God of the oppressed bless him, and keep him humble, and cheer\nhim onwards in his rugged path! May his lion heart never be subdued!\nMay his eloquent pen never cease to move while a slave breathes to\nrequire its advocacy! Heaven grant, and I can ask no more, that the\nwish of his heart may be fulfilled; and that the time may soon come,\nwhen, looking abroad over his beloved country with the soul of a\nPatriot, and the eye of a Philanthropist and a Christian, he shall not\nbe able to discover in State, or city, or town, or hamlet, a lingering\ntrace of a tyrant or a Slave!\n\nI shall not, Sir, attempt (turning to the Chairman,) to express the\nfeelings of my heart towards _you_, or my opinion of the manner in\nwhich you have discharged the duties of the Chair, through four of the\nevenings of this discussion. I cordially unite with the gentleman\nopposite, in thanking you for the dignity and strict impartiality with\nwhich you have borne yourself. I know you look for the reward of your\nlabors of love in another and a better world. In that world may we all\nmeet! There our jars and discords will be at an end. There we shall\nsee, eye to eye; and know, even as we are known. There, in the\npresence of one Saviour, our joys, our voices, our occupations will be\n_one_; and there I trust that we, who have been antagonists on earth,\nwill together meet and celebrate the glories of a common redemption\nfrom the sorrows and the sins of earth. (Mr. Thompson resumed his seat\namidst loud and long continued cheers.)\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMR. THOMPSON moved that the cordial thanks of the meeting be given to\nthe Rev. Dr. WARDLAW, for his able, dignified, and impartial conduct\nin the chair, and also to Dr. KIDSTON, who presided on Thursday\nevening, which was carried with acclamation.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nIn reading the foregoing discussion, we have been utterly astonished\nat the grossness and magnitude of the falsehoods--not to mention the\nnumerous miscolorings and misrepresentations--which the reverend\napologist for slavery has, with brazen effrontery, unblushingly\nuttered even though aware of the fact that they were to be published\nto the world. It would seem as if feeling the necessity of defending a\ndesperate cause by desperate means, he had resolved to pour out his\nmisstatements and inaccuracies with such lavish liberality, that his\nopponent would be absolutely unable, in the time allotted to him, to\ncorrect them all, and thus contrive to make some of his falsehoods,\nbecause uncontradicted, pass for truth, and some of his distortions\nand perversions for fair representations. The event, we cannot help\nthinking, will show that he has presumed with far too much rashness on\nthe supposed ignorance of the British people. Some of his falsehoods,\nmistakes, and misrepresentations, which were either wholly unnoticed,\nor not fully answered by Mr. Thompson, for want, as he has informed\nus, of time to do it, we shall briefly notice here,\n\nFirst, however, we would call attention to the remark, that 'he is not\na slaveholder,' with which Dr. Wardlaw introduced Mr. Breckinridge to\nthe audience, and in reference to it quote part of a letter from Dr.\nA. L. Cox of New York, to the editor of the emancipator. 'The only\nknowledge I have on this subject,' says Dr. C., 'is what I derived\nfrom the confession of R. J. Breckinridge, extorted at an anniversary\nmeeting of the Colonization Society in this city, in the spring of\n1834.' After mentioning some of the circumstances which led him to\nspeak, the letter goes on to say, 'Just as Robert J. Breckinridge was\non the point of speaking, one of the assembly inquired, 'Is he a\nslaveholder?' The orator seemed somewhat disconcerted, but answered\n'_I have_ that honor.'\n\nIn the first evening's discussion, page 6, Mr. Breckinridge says that\nthe British people 'had sent out agents to America, who had returned\ndefeated. They have failed--they admit they have failed in their\nobject.' To say nothing of the accuracy which speaks in the plural\nnumber of a single individual, and which can easily be excused to one\nwho in encountering him, probably felt that that individual was\nhimself a host,--when or where has the alleged admission been made?\nNever. Nowhere. The assertion is untrue.\n\nDuring the same evening, page 7, Mr. B. tells his audience that 'of\nthe twelve [free] states, at least four, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and\nMaine never had a slave.' What says the United States' census? In\n1830, there were 2 slaves in Maine, 6 in Ohio, 3 in Indiana, and\n747[A] in Illinois. In 1820, there were 190 in Indiana, and 917 in\nIllinois. In 1810, Indiana contained 237, Illinois 168. In 1800, there\nwere 135 in Indiana. But Mr. B. says, that 'since 1785, till this\nhour, there never had been one slave in any of these states.'\n\n    [A] Called indented apprentices, but from the connection\n    in which it stands in the census, we infer that they are\n    virtually slaves.\n\n'America,' he tells us, 'was the first nation upon earth, which\nabolished the slave trade and made it piracy.' See page 8. This will\nbe unwelcome news to Messrs. Franklin and Armfield of Alexandira, D.\nC., whose standing advertisements in the Washington papers, offer cash\nfor negroes of both sexes, from 12 to 25 years of age, and announce\nthe 'regular trips' twice a month, of their vessels engaged in the\nslave trade between the District and New Orleans. It will be\nunpleasant intelligence in the city of Washington, where for $400 a\nyear, the 'trade or traffic in slaves' is licensed for the benefit of\nthe canal fund. It will be news to the keepers of the prisons in the\nDistrict, who, in their official capacity, carry on the slave trade by\nselling men 'for their prison and other expenses, _as the law\ndirects_.'\n\nBut Mr. B. means the _foreign_ slave trade, not the domestic. The\nlatter, indeed, may be licensed, and protected, and deemed honorable\nas it is lucrative. Those who engage in it, may be like Armfield and\nWoolfolk, gentlemen 'of engaging and graceful manners,' reported to be\n'mild, indulgent, upright, and scrupulously honest,' but the _foreign_\ntrade is _piracy_ by the law of the land. Very meritorious truly! and\nworthy of abundant eulogy! to prohibit piracy on the high seas, or the\nAfrican coast, while selling permission to do along her own coast, and\non her own territories, the same acts which, when done abroad,\nconstitute piracy. But to what does her abolition of even the foreign\nslave trade amount? Do her cruizers ever capture a slave ship? Seldom,\nif ever. Does she consent to such arrangements, in her treaties with\nother nations which are in earnest in their endeavors to suppress the\nslave trade, as will prevent her flag from being made a protection to\nthe detestable traffic? No. The N. Y. Journal of Commerce, in a recent\narticle very truly asserts, that 'We neither do any thing ourselves to\nput down the accursed traffic, nor afford any facilities to enable\nothers to put it down. Nay, rather, we stand between the slave and his\ndeliverer. We are a drawback--a dead weight on the cause of bleeding\nhumanity.' And a late number of the Edinburgh Review, speaking of the\napplication of the British Government to this, for its co-operation,\nsays, 'The final answer, however, is, that _under no condition, in no\nform, and with no restrictions, will the United States enter into any\nconvention or treaty, or make combined efforts of any sort or kind,\nwith other nations for the suppression of the trade_.' With what face,\nthen, can she claim praise for having merely made a law, which she\nalmost never executes, and to the execution of which, by others, she\npermits her flag to be used as a hindrance.\n\nThe next assertion of Mr. B's that we notice, is the astounding one,\nthat America, 'as a nation, has done every thing in her power' for the\nabolition of slavery. See page 8. This, while the national domain is\nthe home of slavery and the seat of the slave trade! While the\ndomestic slave trade, so far from being abolished by the National\nLegislature, as it may constitutionally be, is shielded and licensed!\nThis, while the moral power of the nation is slumbering, or if awake,\narrayed to a great extent, in the defence of slavery! That a man who\nvalues his reputation--that a minister of the gospel of Mr. B's\nintelligence and knowledge of the country's condition and history in\nregard to this matter, should make such a declaration, is truly most\nwonderful. Could he have expected it to be believed? Could he have\nbelieved it himself?\n\nMr. B., page 15, by way of explaining why Mr. Thompson was so\ndifferently received in Glasgow and Boston, applauded in the one\nplace, and abused in the other, says that he took up the question of\nslavery as one of political organization. We give to this assertion,\nthe answer of the editor of the Emancipator. 'This we pronounce\n_utterly and unequivocally false_. We were with Mr. Thompson, while he\nwas in this country, as much probably as any other one individual. We\nwere with him in private and in public, in the house and by the way,\nin the public convention and the public lecture, and we most solemnly\ndeclare, that we never heard George Thompson, on any occasion, take up\nor discuss the question of American Slavery, 'as one of civil\norganization.' He always discussed it primarily and essentially as a\nmoral and religious question, and never went into its political\nrelations and bearings, except to answer the objections of cavillers\nand opponents. And we are astonished that R. J. Breckinridge should\ndare to make such an assertion, when, we venture to say, he never\nheard George Thompson in America.'\n\nThe same editor has furnished a better solution than Mr. B's, of\nthe--not very difficult--problem of Mr. Thompson's different reception\nin Boston and Glasgow. 'For the same reason that Knibb, and Taylor,\nand Burchell did not meet with the same reception in Glasgow and\nJamaica--because, and simply because the slave spirit was diffused\nthrough the land, infecting and corrupting alike the leading\ninfluences of Church and State, so that Mr. T. could not condemn\nslavery and prejudice 'in Boston as in Glasgow,' without constraining\nthe conviction and the outcry from the implicated and the prejudiced,\n\"so saying thou condemnest us also.\"'\n\n'There is not a sane man in the free states, who does not wish the\nworld rid of slavery.' This Mr. B. states as his conviction, page 15.\nPerhaps it is correct, but if so, there are a great many _insane_ men\nin the free states, or a great many who have a very strange way of\nmanifesting their wishes. The fact is notorious, that Northern men who\nremove to the South, almost uniformly become slaveholders the moment\ntheir convenience or pecuniary interest can thereby be promoted.\n\nOn page 20, Mr. B. accuses Garrison of having written placards to stir\nup a mob against him, when he lectured in Boston, in behalf of\ncolonization. A charge more utterly false was never made, and it\nrequires a great exercise of charity to believe that Mr. B. did not\nknow its falsehood. It will have been seen that Mr. Thompson\nchallenged proof of the accusation, but none was produced except the\nword of the accuser--evidence on which, any reader who compares his\nassertions in several other instances, with facts, will place very\nlittle reliance.\n\nAnother of Mr. B's accusations against 'some of the friends of the\nAnti-Slavery Society,' is, that they procured a writ to take the two\n'African princes,' who had been sent to the Maryland Colonization\nSociety to be educated, and that Elizur Wright was the instigator of\nthe measure, on pretence that the boys had been kidnapped. See page\n20. The truth of this matter as given in the Emancipator, on Mr.\nWright's authority, is that, on learning that two native African boys,\nsupposed to be slaves, were on board a schooner in New York harbor,\nbound for Baltimore, Mr. Wright made inquiries on board, and could\nonly learn that they were brought from Africa by a passenger, and\nconsigned to some one in Baltimore. To make sure of the means of\nprosecuting a legal inquiry, a writ was obtained, but as soon as Mr.\nW. discovered that the lads were sent to this country to be educated,\nhe ordered the officer _not to serve it_.\n\nThe next slanderous charge uttered by the reverend delegate is, that\nElizur Wright tried to stir up a mob to liberate a fugitive slave\nconfined in New York prison. The story of course is wholly false.\n\nIn the second evening's discussion, Mr. B. says, page 34, the\nadmission of a clause into the Constitution prohibiting the abolition\nof the slave trade for twenty years, 'was one of the brightest virtues\nin the escutcheon of America,' A dark escutcheon, then, must be hers,\nif the protection of the slave trade for twenty years is the\n'brightest' spot on it. The 'importation of such persons,' &c.\n(meaning slaves,) 'shall _not_ be prohibited prior to 1808,' says the\nConstitution, 'The brightest virtue in her escutcheon!' exclaims Mr.\nBreckinridge.\n\n'It was well known that the slavery existing in the United States was\nthe mildest to be seen in any country under heaven.' Page 34. Of this\nassertion of Mr. B., we have only to say in the words of the\nEmancipator, 'It is \"well known that the slavery existing in the\nUnited States,\" is _not_ \"the mildest to be seen in any country under\nheaven,\" and to say so is demonstration absolute of the most\n\"unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead.\" Witness the fact,\nthat the man who teaches the slave to read, or gives him the religious\ntract, or the Bible even, does it at his peril. Witness the fact, on\nthe testimony of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, that the\nlarge majority of the slave population are \"heathen, and will bear\ncomparison with the heathen in any country in the world.\" Witness the\nslave-code every where--particularly the following, which is the law\nof North Carolina, and in Georgia nearly the same, \"that if any person\nhereafter shall be guilty of killing a slave, he shall, upon the first\nconviction, suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free\nman\"--(i. e. if any white man is witness, and will come forward to\ntestify in the case, for the testimony of a million of colored men\nwould go for nothing,) and \"_Provided always, that this act shall not\nextend to the person killing a slave outlawed_, (and running away,\nconcealment, and the stealing of a hog, or some animal of the cattle\nkind, to sustain life, outlaws him,) _or to any slave in the act of\nresistance to his lawful owner or master or to any slave_ DYING UNDER\nMODERATE CORRECTION\"--thus by the very law which prohibits, giving the\nmaster express license to kill as many, and as often as he pleases,\nprovided he will only take care to do it, first, when no white men are\npresent who will inform or testify against him, or secondly, when the\nslave is an outlaw; or, thirdly, when he lifts his hand in opposition\nto his master, no matter how cruel the punishment or how base the\ndesign upon his or her person; or, fourthly, by \"moderate correction.\"\nLet him only see to it, that it is done in one or all of these ways,\nand under one or all these circumstances, and if reckless enough to do\nso, he may kill ad libitum, and nobody to say why do ye so. Witness\nthe fact, trumpeted through all the papers within five years, that a\nSouthern man seeing another passing across his grounds in the evening,\nand supposing that he was a runaway slave, _shot him dead_, because,\nalthough he hailed him, he did not stop--when lo! it appeared that he\nhad shot a white neighbor, and that, the wind being high, he did not\nhear, and therefore did not stop at the summons!--a striking\nillustration of the carelessness and perfect impunity with which, as\na matter of fact, black men are and may be shot when attempting an\nescape from their thraldom. And, once more, witness the fact, that the\nway to emancipation is hedged up in this country so as it is in no\nother \"country under heaven,\" and then say what but \"ignorance, or a\npurpose to mislead,\" could lead to such statements?'\n\n'Perhaps the great reason against the exercise of that power' [to\nabolish slavery in the District of Columbia,] was, that it would\n_inevitably_ produce a dissolution of the Union. Put 'this and that\ntogether.' 'There is not a sane man in the free states, but wishes the\nworld rid of slavery;' the free states contain 'seven millions out of\nthe eleven millions of the white population of the Union;' (see page\n7,) 'a large minority in the slaveholding states, in some nearly one\nhalf of the population,' (see page 13,) 'are _zealously_ engaged in\nfurthering the abolition of slavery,' and yet the exercise by Congress\nof its constitutional power to abolish slavery in the national\ndistrict would '_inevitably_ dissolve the Union.' Verily, the old\nproverb hath well said that a certain class of persons should have a\ngood memory.\n\nMr. B. sneers at 'Mr. Thompson's argument about the standing army\nemployed in keeping down the slaves,' and declares that it was\n'complete humbug, founded upon just nothing at all.' Will the citizens\nof Southampton county, Virginia, who called in the aid of the U. S.\ndragoons to quell an insurrection a few years ago, corroborate his\ntestimony? 'An officer of the United States' army, who was in the\nexpedition from fortress Monroe, against the Southampton slaves in\n1831, speaks with constant horror of the scenes which he was compelled\nto witness. Those troops, agreeably to their orders, which were to\nexterminate the negroes, killed all that they met with, although they\nencountered neither resistance, nor show of resistance: and the first\ncheck given to this wide, barbarous slaughter grew out of the fact,\nthat the law of Virginia, which provides for the payment to the master\nof the full value of an executed slave, was considered as not applying\nto the cases of slaves put to death without trial. In consequence of\nnumerous representations to this effect, sent to the officer of the\nUnited States' army, commanding the expedition, the massacre was\nsuspended.'--_Child's Oration._\n\nAnd what says Mr. B. to this assertion of John Q. Adams, that were it\nnot for the protection of the western frontier against the Indians,\nand of the Southern slaveholder against his human 'machinery,' this\ncountry would scarcely have any need of a standing army. Is that\n'complete humbug' too?\n\nMr. B. ventures to say that 'there are not ten persons in the whole\nstate of Kentucky, holding anti-slavery principles, in the Garrison\nsense of the word.' Page 40. We know not how many there may be now,\nbut in 1835, a constitution of a state society, framed on anti-slavery\nprinciples, 'in the Garrison sense of the word,' was signed by more\nthan forty persons.\n\nMr. B. tells about a minister who was driven, he says, from Groton,\nMass., by the storm of abolitionism, and who seems to have fled to\nBaltimore, doubtless, seeking a congenial climate. See page 40. But\nMr. B. forgot to mention the many cases in which the _slave_ spirit,\n'like a storm of fire and brimstone from hell,' has driven faithful\npastors from their charges, just for the crime of praying and\npreaching now and then for the enslaved.\n\nMr. B. says of a document from which his opponent quoted certain\nMaryland laws that placed the 'benevolent colonization scheme' in any\nthing but a favorable light, that it was said in America, and he\nbelieved truly, to contain not the laws, but only schemes of laws\nwhich never passed the Assembly. See page 47. On this the Emancipator\nremarks, 'This was never alleged against the pamphlet. The pamphlet\ncontains the laws precisely as they stand in the statute book of\nMaryland, as Mr. B. would have seen had he ever taken the trouble to\ncompare them. And for him to make such assertions, without having done\nso, is only another instance of \"unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose\nto mislead.\"'\n\nIn the third evening's discussion, Mr. B. asserted, page 50, that Mr.\nGarrison was among the first who opposed the Colonization Society, 'on\nthe ground that its operations were injurious to the colored race in\nAmerica.' To this the Emancipator says, 'This is partly true and\npartly not. The Society was decidedly opposed, at the outset, both by\nthe colored people and by those who, up to that time, had been most\nactive in promoting the cause of emancipation. As early as August,\n1817, the subject came before the \"American Convention for Promoting\nthe Abolition of Slavery,\" &c., at its session in Philadelphia. This\nbody, representing for the most part Friends, and made up of delegates\nfrom abolition and manumission societies in different parts of the\ncountry, after a full discussion, appointed a committee on the\nsubject. That committee reported, that \"they must express their\nunqualified wish, that no plan of colonization shall be permitted to\ngo into effect without an _immutable pledge_ from the slaveholding\nstates of a just and wise system of gradual emancipation;\" and they\nconclude their report, which was approved and adopted by the\nConvention with the following resolution:--\n\n    \"Resolved, As a sense of this Convention, that the gradual\n    and total emancipation of all persons of color, and their\n    literary and moral education, should precede their\n    colonization.\"\n\nWhen the Convention met again in 1819, the Pennsylvania society, in\nsending up a statement of its views and proceedings, warned the\n\"abolitionists of our country to retain in view the lessons of\nexperience, and avoid substituting for them, schemes however splendid,\nyet of questionable result;\" and added, \"for ourselves there is but\none principle on which we can act. It is the principle of immutable\njustice! We can make no compromise with the prejudices of slavery, or\nwith the slavery of prejudice. The same arguments that are now urged\nagainst emancipation, unless the subjects of it be removed from our\nterritory, were used with more plausibility when abolition was an\nexperiment, yet they were combatted with success.\"\n\nMr. B. says, page 52, it 'would-be difficult, if not utterly\nimpossible, for evidences of friendship to the Colonization Society\nfrom an avowed friend of slavery to be culled out, as occurring within\nthe last three or four years.' Says the Emancipator, \"So far is this\nfrom being true, that the most decisive evidences of this sort are\nfound, _within_ the last three or four years. Scarce a pro-slavery\nmob, or speech, or meeting, during this whole time, but has contained,\nin one and the same breath, a condemmnation of abolition and a\ncommendation of colonization.\"\n\nAfter quoting the resolution against the Colonization Society, in\nBoston last year, Mr. B. remarks, 'that the verbiage of this\nresolution, showed its parentage. No one who had ever heard one of Mr.\nThompson's speeches could, for a moment, doubt the authorship of the\nresolution!' This is a small mistake indeed, and among so many great\nones, scarce merits a notice, but to show that Mr. B's sagacity in\nconjecture, exceeds not much his veracity in assertion, we just\nmention in passing, that the 'authorship of the resolution' belongs\n_not_ to Mr. Thompson.\n\n'The abolitionists,' says Mr. B. page 54, 'have been going about, from\nDan to Beersheba, not only attacking and vilifying the whites, for\nproposing to colonize the blacks, with their own free consent; but\nequally attacking the blacks for availing themselves of the offer.' An\nassertion utterly false, and wickedly slanderous.\n\nOn page 55, Mr. B. introduces an extract from an address of some of\nthe Cape Palmas Colonists to their friends in America, for the purpose\nof showing the prosperity of the Colony. In connection with this, let\nthe following letter from a colonist be read:--\n\n                                'CAPE PALMAS, MAY 5TH, 1834.\n\n    _Dear Mother_,--I write you with regret. It is true, I wrote\n    to you of my passage, how I enjoyed it. I spent a very\n    agreeable time, and also on my first arrival; but now I am\n    distressed, and all Mr. C's family also. * * * O! I am sorry!\n    yes, sorry that I ever came to this country. It is true,\n    mother, had I taken your advice, I would not have been here.\n    I have suffered and all my family, and Mr. C's family too,\n    and we still continue to suffer. Not a cent of money have any\n    of us got. Now, mother, if you can get any gentleman to\n    advance the amount of three hundred dollars, or two hundred\n    and fifty dollars I will work for them for it four years. I\n    will serve as a waiter in a house, or any thing at all, to\n    pay for it. My wife says she would maintain herself and\n    sister, if that could get her home once more, for here they\n    can do nothing, for we are not able, the country is so\n    sickly--we have been sick ever since we have been here--* * *\n    I will serve any way or at any thing. _I will sell myself as\n    a slave_, for the sake of getting HOME once more. Try for me,\n    if you please, for my _family's_ sake. If I was by myself, I\n    might scuffle for myself.'\n\nIn a subsequent letter, dated August 3, 1834, this same writer\ncommunicates the additional intelligence, that Mrs. C 'died of grief.'\n\n'Every benevolent and right thinking person must see, that the scheme\nof colonizing Africa by black men, is necessary to enlighten Africa,\nand prevent the extirpation of the black man there.' So says Mr.\nBreckinridge. Doubtless it was to _enlighten_ the poor natives, and\n_prevent their_ extirpation, that a brisk traffic in rum, tobacco,\ngunpowder, and spear-pointed knives, has been carried on with them by\nblack men colonized in Africa--that nine pound balls from 'a gun of\ngreat power' were discharged into a body of eight hundred men,\nstanding within sixty yards, pressed shoulder to shoulder, in so\ncompact a form that a child might easily walk upon their heads from\none end of the mass to the other' and 'every shot literally spent its\nforce in a solid mass of living human flesh[B]--that by fraud and\ninjustice the colonists excited the hostility of the Africans, and\nstirred up a war with King Joe Harris, which resulted in the slaughter\nof numbers of the ignorant barbarians, who were unable to cope with\nthe superior arms, and discipline, and military prowess of the\nAmerican blacks--the 'missionaries in the holy cause of civilization,\nreligion, and free institutions.'[C]\n\n    [B] See Gurley's Life of Ashmun, page 139.\n\n    [C] Speech of Henry Clay. Tenth Annual Report of the\n    American Colonization Society.\n\n'America,' says Mr. B., 'was christianized by colonization.' Yea,\nverily! and in this case we have another precious example of the\nenlightening, civilizing, and christianizing influence of colonies.\nThe poor Indian has felt, and faded away before it, along the\nAtlantic-shores, and still the 'missionary' work is going on at the\nfar southwest. Ask the Seminoles and the Creeks if colonization has\nnot Christianized America. Ask the shades of Metacom, and Canonicus,\nand Sarsacus; ask the feeble remnants of the mighty tribes which once\ndwelt from the lakes to the Gulf, and from the ocean to the Alleghany,\nand learn of them the process of christianization which colonies have\nintroduced into America. Is it by a similar process that 'colonizing\nAfrica by black men,' is to 'prevent the extirpation' of the natives\nof that continent?\n\n'The climate' of Africa Mr. B. says, page 58 'suits the black man,\nwhile hundreds of white men have fallen victims to it.' And how many\n'hundreds of black men' have fallen victims to it? Those especially\nwho have gone from the Northern states, have found it as fatal as have\nthe whites themselves, nor has it been very remarkably healthy to any\nportion of the colonists.\n\nMr. B. is very certain that colonizing Africa will destroy the slave\ntrade. He says the colonists 'would put an end to the trade the moment\nthey were able to chastise the pirates, or make reprisals on the\nnations to which they belonged. Nothing is plainer, than that any\nnation that will make reprisals, will have none of the inhabitants\nstolen. If reprisals were made effective, the slave trade would be\nimmediately stopped.' A Christian mode of reforming vices and removing\nevils, truly! '_Any nation that will make reprisals!_' So, if Peter\nsteals John's child, John must steal Peter's by way of reprisal, and\nthat will put a stop to the mischief at once! And why not reprisals\nprevent all other kinds of violence, as well as man-stealing? If an\nEnglishman shoots a Frenchman, let a Frenchman shoot an Englishman in\nreturn, and the quarrel is settled, and peace restored! For 'nothing\nis plainer, than that any nation that will make reprisals, will have\nnone of the inhabitants' shot. Does past history sustain this\ndoctrine? Do present facts sustain it? No longer let our clergy\npreach, that 'all they who take the sword, shall perish by the sword.'\n'Nothing is plainer,' than that those nations 'which take the sword'\nto 'make reprisals,' 'will have none of the inhabitants' injured by\nthe sword. But where is the need of colonies? If the 'Foulahs' will\nonly steal as many men, women, and children, from the 'Ialoffs,' as\nthe latter from the former, 'nothing is plainer than that these two\ntribes will have none of the inhabitants stolen.' Do the various\nAfrican tribes never make reprisals? How happens it then, that the\nslave trade, and the whole business of man-stealing has not been long\nsince suppressed?\n\n'On one hundred leagues of the African coast,' says Mr. B., 'it is\nalready to a great degree suppressed' by the operation of the\ncolonization societies and their colonies. To this the Emancipator\nsays, 'These statements are far, very far from true, and we can\naccount for them only on the ground of \"unpardonable ignorance, or a\npurpose to mislead.\" Again and again have we been assured, and on\ncolonial colonization authority too, that the trade still goes on in\nthe vicinity of the colony as briskly as ever, nay, that it is even\nprosecuted within the limits of the colony, and in sight of Monrovia\nitself. Indeed, at this very moment the colony, instead of being able\nto suppress or destroy the trade, is in danger of being itself\ndestroyed by it, and is sending out its appeal to this country for\nhelp, praying that some \"American vessels\" may be sent upon the coast\nto seize the traders, and to protect the colony. Let our friends in\nthis country and in England peruse the following extracts from the\nLiberia Herald just received in this country, and then say what shall\nbe thought of the man or the men who, in the face of such and similar\ntestimony repeatedly received, can unblushingly pretend \"that on one\nhundred leagues of the African coast, the trade is already to a great\ndegree suppressed?\"\n\nExtracts from late Liberia papers, received at the office of the N. Y.\nCommercial Advertiser:--\n\n    \"_Slave Trade._--This nefarious traffic is again lifting its\n    horrid head in our vicinity, and increasing in a fearful\n    ratio. Within one hundred miles of the settlement, there are\n    at this very time, at least _four_ factories for the purchase\n    of slaves, and one of them not more than eighteen miles off!\n    The consequences are most severely felt by the colony. It is\n    now impossible to purchase rice, at any rate that would not\n    starve the most fortunate man. In our immediate vicinity, it\n    is reported, slavers have lately given the natives a musket\n    for four cross! the retail price of which, in the colony, is\n    six dollars! To the Spaniards, in view of a successful voyage,\n    the profits of which are so enormous, goods are of no value;\n    but it is far otherwise with us. The natives, like other men,\n    disposed to get the most for their articles, will of course\n    sell to those who will give the highest. This being the case,\n    we ask, _how are the people of this colony to live_? We have\n    sometimes thought if the people of the United States once\n    knew the _inconvenience_ to which the slave trade subjects\n    us, and what an _effectual check_ it is upon the advancement\n    and prosperity of the colony, and how little of those surplus\n    and useless millions, whose proper place of deposite has\n    created so much contention, that without an exception, saints\n    and sinners, politicians, philosophers, colonizationists, and\n    abolitionists, anti-colonizationists, anti-abolitionists, and\n    anti-all, would rise up, and with one general voice decree,\n    that a small armed vessel shall ply between Sherbro Islands\n    and Kroo country, and thus _effectually protect_ a few poor\n    OUTCASTS, while millions of their brethren are faithfully\n    slaving to enrich us at home.\"\n\nAnd so, notwithstanding the Paradise to which they have gone, and\ntheir \"free consent\" to go, they are \"poor outcasts\" when they get\nthere after all; and the very trade which they were sent to abolish,\nis in a fair way of abolishing them, unless government vessels go out\nto their aid!'\n\nOf the remark said to have been made by him at the colonization\nmeeting, in 1834, that certain emigrants to Liberia 'were coerced\naway, as truly as if it had been done with a cart-whip,' Mr. B. says\n'it was an unfair report, got up by Mr. Leavitt, the editor of the N.\nY. Evangelist, to serve a special purpose.' The Emancipator answers\nthe assertion thus, 'This passage has been quoted and requoted in this\ncountry, in times and ways well nigh innumerable, but, to the best of\nour knowledge, it was never before pronounced an unfair report, either\nby Mr. B. or any other individual. And now, while we leave Mr. Leavitt\nto answer for himself on the question of its fairness, we take the\nliberty to say, that if unfair, it will not relieve Mr. B. of\ndifficulty. For if the report be fair, and Mr. B. did say the things\nattributed to him, why then, as every body knows, he said what was\ntrue. If, however, it be unfair, and he did not say those things, then\nas every body knows, he did _not_ say what was true, and what, if he\nhad spoken the truth, he would have said. For that they were \"coerced\naway as truly as if it had been done with a cart-whip,\" every body\nknows to be fact.'\n\n    _Mr. Leavitt's Note to the Editor of the Emancipator._\n\n    'In reply to Mr. Breckinridge's allegation, that I \"got up\"\n    a report of his speech, \"to serve a special purpose,\" I will\n    only say, that Mr. Breckinridge did prudently to go across\n    the Atlantic before he made that charge. My character as a\n    _fair_ reporter, will not be affected _here_ by such\n    insinuations. I have no doubt that the report in question\n    gives the ideas Mr. B. uttered, mostly in the very language\n    he used. My recollection, in this case, is very distinct, and\n    the words taken down at the time.\n\n                                               JOSHUA LEAVITT.\n\nMr. B. says, that 'in many instances the bad laws had become worse,\nand good laws had become bad, solely through the imprudent conduct of\nMr. Thompson's associates.' Some of the most unrighteous, barbarous,\nand abominable laws ever enacted in this land, whose rulers have so\nlong occupied the 'throne of iniquity,' and been so often and so\ndeeply guilty of 'framing mischief by a law,' are cited in Stroud's\nSketch, a work published several years before 'Mr. Thompson and his\nassociates' had commenced their 'imprudent' measures. Those laws\ncertainly were not occasioned by their imprudence. It is nearly a\nhundred years at least, since these statutes of pandemonium began to\ndisgrace American legislation.\n\nIn the fourth evening's discussion, Mr. B. asserts, page 88, that the\nN. Y. Observer and Boston Recorder, 'print more matter weekly than all\nthe abolition newspapers in America, put together, do in half a year.'\nIt is really matter of astonishment, that he should venture the\nutterance of such a glaring falsehood. He ought to have learned to\nkeep at least within the bounds of probability in his fictions. There\nwere at the time when his assertion was made--to say nothing of the\nmonthlies--not less than eight or nine _weekly_ anti-slavery papers,\nsome of which circulated more widely than the Recorder, and not much\nless widely than the Observer. If we do not mistake, Mr. B. told a\nstory at least forty or fifty times as large as the truth, and we are\nby no means sure that the proportion is not much larger.\n\nMr. Thompson, for the purpose of showing what the abolitionists are\ndoing in one department of their work, produced copies of the Slaves\nFriend, Anti-Slavery Record, Anti-Slavery Anecdotes, Human Rights,\nEmancipator, Liberator, New York Evangelist, Zion's Herald, Zion's\nWatchman, Philadelphia Independent Weekly Press, Herald of Freedom,\nLynn Record, New England Spectator, &c., and an Anti-Slavery\nQuarterly. Of these, Mr. B. said 'some of them were, he believed, long\nago dead; some could hardly be said ever to have lived; some were\npurely occasional; the greater part as limited in circulation, as they\nwere contemptible in point of merit. Not above two or three of the\ndozen or fifteen that had been produced before them were, in fact,\nworthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition newspapers.' Now\nfor the truth. _Not one_ of them was 'long ago,' or is now 'dead.'\nOnly one of them is 'purely occasional'--the Anti-Slavery\nAnecdotes--but, with that exception, all are now alive, and nearly\nevery one has a circulation as extensive as that of the\nRecorder--some, as already stated, still more extensive. And beside\nthese which Mr. Thompson exhibited, there are several other weekly and\nmonthly anti-slavery publications, which are neither dead, nor likely\nsoon to be. The Philanthropist, (its publication suspended indeed, for\na short time by the destruction of its press, but soon to be resumed,)\nthe Friend of Man, the American Citizen, the Vermont Telegraph, the\nMiddlebury Free Press, the Vermont State Journal, and a number more,\nweekly, and some monthly periodicals are 'avowed abolition\nnewspapers,' some of them devoted almost exclusively to this cause,\nand all 'respectable' both in character and extent of circulation.\nSome of them are of the very highest order in point of ability and\nmerit, of the weekly periodicals of the country. Mr. T., therefore,\ninstead of exaggerating in regard to the number of the abolition\npapers, fell considerably short of the truth.\n\n'Was he [the inhabitant of Louisiana] to be told then, that he should\nturn off his slaves?' &c., asks Mr. B., page 90, Certainly not--at\nleast, not by abolitionists. They propose that the slaves should be\npermitted to remain on the plantations and work as free laborers,\nwhere their services will be needed, and will be mutually advantageous\nto themselves and their employers.\n\nMr. B. denies, page 90, that any person legally free, 'was ever sold\ninto everlasting slavery,' but his denial is only another evidence of\nthe facility with which he can utter, not only gross falsehoods, but\nfalsehoods which contradict _notorious_ facts, and which of course\ncannot escape detection. Mr. T. has fully exposed this falsehood, by\npresenting documentary evidence of the fact denied.\n\nOf Mr. B's declarations, on page 91, to which we refer the reader, the\nEmancipator says, 'All this, if not \"gratuitous folly,\" is at least,\nunfounded and reckless assertion, which we have scarcely ever seen\nequalled.'\n\nWe ask our readers to turn back, and read again the paragraph on page\n97, ending '_to_ COERCE _such emigration, might be a_ MOST SACRED\nDUTY,' This has frankness at least, if it has no other good quality to\nrecommend it. But it is the frankness of the tyrant, who, confident of\nhis power to effect his purposes, fears not to avow them, however\niniquitous or abominable. And if there be frankness in letting out the\ndesign, there is most unblushing impudence in calling its execution\n'_a sacred duty_.' What utter heartlessness too, and what obliquity of\nmoral vision does it exhibit. And this man dares to rank himself with\nthe friends of the colored people! Such a friend as the Holy\nInquisitors of Spain, to the heretical Protestants, whom they deem it\ntheir 'sacred duty to coerce' with rack and fire, to a renunciation of\ntheir heresies. Such a friend as Louis XIV., to the Huguenots,--James\nI., to the Puritans, and Charles II., to the Scottish Covenanters.\n\nOn page 98, Mr. B. introduces what he calls a speech of Mr. T. at\nAndover, as reported by a student in the Theological Seminary. Mr. T.\nhas met this anonymous report with counter testimony, not anonymous,\nbut we will add that of the editor of the Emancipator, who says, 'Mr.\nB. although so often pretending that he had no documents, &c., here\nread the false and distorted account of Mr. Thompson's speech on this\noccasion, published at the time in the Boston Courier, and signed C.\nHaving been there at the time, we here record our testimony to the\nfact of its being false and distorted in its representations.'\n\nMr. B. on page 109, alludes to what Mr. Thompson has said 'about Dr.\nSprague having part of his church curtained round for persons of\ncolor,' and says he notices it 'only because it was told as a\n_specimen_ story.' In the same connection he evidently endeavors to\ncreate the impression that the religious privileges of the free\ncolored people are equal to those of the whites. On this, the\nEmancipator remarks, 'We can testify to the truth of the story in\nregard to Dr. Sprague's church; and although every church does not\nseparate the blacks from the whites with so much care, or in precisely\nthe same way, yet it is strictly true, that almost, without exception,\nthe separation is made and carefully kept up, and this not only in the\nordinary worship of the Sabbath, but even when the church gather about\nthe table of their crucified and common Lord, to partake of the\nemblems of his dying love.' And after admitting that colored men have,\nin a few instances, been admitted to theological seminaries, and to a\nseat in ecclesiastical bodies, the editor adds, and truly, as all\nfamiliar with the facts can testify, 'Such instances, however, are few\nand far between, and whenever they do occur, the individuals concerned\nare, in many ways, made to feel their inferiority and to _know their\nplace_. The impression made by Mr. B's representation would be, as a\nwhole, incorrect.'\n\nMr. B. asserts, page 110, that the free blacks 'in nearly every part\nof America,' enjoy all civil rights 'to a degree utterly unknown to\nmillions of British subjects,' in various parts of the empire, and\n'even in England itself.' 'It would be easy,' says the Emancipator,\n'to show that he is wrong in several particulars.' And then, as one,\nrefers to the fact, that the colored man is not secure in his rights\nor person, but may be dragged into slavery, even from free states,\nwithout a jury trial. This one fact is certainly sufficient to\ndisprove Mr. B's assertion.\n\n'But,' says Mr. B. 'If any rights have been denied them,' as for\ninstance, that of preaching the gospel, 'which Virginia had lately\ndone,' it was all owing to the fury of abolition. See page 110. Yet\nStroud cites a law of Virginia, dating back as far as 1819, and being\nthen but the re-enactment of a law before in force, which rendered all\nassemblies of slaves and free negroes in a meeting house or other\nplace by night, or at any school for teaching reading and writing, by\nday or night, _unlawful_ assemblies, and subjects any person, slave or\nfree black, found in them, to the punishment of twenty lashes, by\norder of a justice of the peace. Stroud, page 89.\n\nMr. B. in the true colonization spirit, takes occasion to slander the\ncolored people, accusing them of 'insolence and imprudence,' and of\n'insulting females in the streets of our cities,' and 'setting up\nclaim of perfect domestic equality with their masters,' &c. See page\n114. We give the Emancipator's note on this wicked accusation, which\nis as cruel as it is false. 'This whole representation is false.\nNothing can be more so. The modest deportment and the spirit of\nforbearance manifested by the colored people, from the outset, has\nbeen of the most marked as well as praiseworthy character, and in\ninstances not a few, has secured to them the approbation of avowed\nenemies of the anti-slavery cause.' We add our own testimony, so far\nas our observation has extended, to the truth of this statement.\n\nIn the fifth evening's debate, Mr. B. complains, page 120, that Mr.\nThompson 'did not tell them that none of the ministers in twelve whole\nstates were or could easily be slaveholders, seeing they were not\ninhabitants of a slave state.' And why should he. Would not the mere\nknowledge of the fact, that 'they were not inhabitants of slave\nstates' render it unnecessary that his hearers should be particularly\ninformed that they were not slaveholders? Does Mr. B. believe that the\npeople of Glasgow supposed Northern ministers to be generally\nslaveholders? We say _generally_, for we should not dare to assert\nthat '_none_' of them 'were,' whether they '_easily_ could be' or not.\nIf we have not been misinformed, and we believe we have not, it has\nbeen our fortune, good or ill, to hear a northern slaveholding\nminister preach, a minister too, whose pastoral charge was in the very\ncradle of this _free_ nation.\n\n'The overwhelming mass of American ministers,' says Mr. B., 'never\nowned a slave, and those who had, were exceptions from the general\nrule.' Mr. T. has demolished this position with a most tremendous\nbroadside of evidence. We add the following quotation, which we find\nin the Emancipator, from a document published a few months ago, by the\nSynod of South Carolina and Georgia. 'The number of our ministers is\nbut little more than half the number of our churches, and of those\nministers _not one fifth sustain any pastoral relation_.' The number\nof ministers is about 100, 'and many of them are obliged to devote a\npart or the whole of their time to teaching, _farming_, or some other\nsecular employment, to procure a support for their families.' Farming\nwe all know, means in the slave states, 'slaveholding and\nslave-driving.'\n\nMr. B. seems very indignant at the declarations of his opponent, and\nMoses Roper, (a colored man who had been present at some of the\nmeetings which Mr. T. addressed,) that slaves in America were owned,\nnot only by ministers and church members, but even by churches\nthemselves. He calls Roper's statement, 'the poor negro's silly\nfalsehood,' and says, page 123, 'If there be above five congregations\nin all America, that own slaves, I never heard of them.' He then\nmentions three of which he has heard, all in the Southern part of\nVirginia. The Emancipator, in a note on this part of Mr. B's speech,\nremarks, 'True, it is not the _general_ practice for churches or\necclesiastical societies at the South, to own slaves as church\nproperty, yet we suppose that the practice is by no means uncommon;\nand the proof is threefold: _first_, that a number of instances of the\nkind are actually known; _second_, that when such instances do occur,\nthey never produce any special sensation in the public mind--are never\nspoken of as special and extraordinary cases, and never subjects such\nchurch to reproof or the loss of ecclesiastical fellowship with other\nchurches; and _third_, that ministers very generally at the South hold\nslaves, and that oftentimes when they are unable to buy for\nthemselves, some kind friend makes them a present of one or two for\nhouse servants; and if to the ministry, why not the church?' It then\ngoes on to enumerate two instances, beside those admitted by Mr. B.,\nof churches holding slaves, and one of a bequest of slaves to the\nMissionary Society, [A. B. C. F. M.] and gives also an advertisement\nof the sale of certain property 'belonging to the estate of the late\nRev. Dr. Truman,' including land, 'a library _chiefly theological_,'\nand '_twenty-seven negroes_, two mules, one horse, and an old wagon.'\nThe note thus continues, 'And when these notices appeared in the\nSouthern prints, no body was struck with amazement; no protestation\nwas given to the public that they were extraordinary cases; no\nChristian minister or Christian newspaper, as we are aware, ever\nlifted their voice against them as rare cases, or bore their testimony\nagainst them as being as monstrous as they were rare. What then is the\ninference? Why, that such things, if not _general_, are yet never\nregarded as singular or uncommon. Now add to these; and others that\nmight be named, the cases admitted by Mr. B., and to this, add the\nfact that Mr. Paxton at least felt that his church in Virginia _could_\nemancipate the _fifty_ slaves they owned, but _would_ not, and then\nsay whose statements have most of the \"silly falsehoods\" about them,\nthose of Mr. B., or the despised but honest-hearted negro?'\n\nMr. B. seems to regard it as a mighty grievance, that when there are\nso few slaveholding ministers, church members, and churches in\nAmerica, his opponent should charge the guilt of slavery upon the\nwhole American church. But why is not the whole church guilty, if any\nof its members persist in committing the sin, and yet are regarded as\nworthy members, in regular standing?--if any of its ministers with\nhands polluted by the abominable thing, are still allowed, without any\necclesiastical censure, not only to dispense the bread of life from\nthe store-house of God's word, but to distribute the emblems of\nChrist's body and blood, to those who come around the table to\ncommemorate a Saviour's dying love?--if any of its branches, claiming\nto hold God's image as property, and treating as 'chattels personal,'\ntheir Saviour, in the person of 'one of the least of these' his\n'brethren,' are fellow-shipped as sister churches, and unreproved for\ntheir iniquity? 'Who dare pretend,' asks the Emancipator, 'That the\nAmerican church does not uphold and countenance Christian slaveholders\nin their conduct? True, there are individuals, and individual churches\nnot a few, who do not, but who bear a faithful testimony against them.\nBut how is it with the _governing influences_ of the church? Their\ncharacter and their acts, and not those of a minority, however large\nor respectable are the character and the acts of the church. What then\nis the position of the governing influences of the American church in\nregard to American slavery? It is that of protection and countenance.\nThe proceedings of the last General Convention of the Baptists, and\nthe last General Conference of the Methodists, and the last General\nAssembly of the Presbyterians are our confirmation--and they are\n\"confirmation strong as holy writ.\" At this very moment, these three\nbodies stand before the world as the three great Patrons and\nProtectors of American slavery. Deny it as they will, the gains of the\noppressor, the hire kept back by fraud is in their coffers, the blood\nof the oppressed stains their garments, and they refuse to confess or\nforsake their sin.'\n\nMr. B. would doubtless have thought it very uncharitable to cause a\nlarge army of Israelites to turn their backs before their enemies, and\nsuffer a shameful and disastrous defeat, just because there was _one_\nAchan in the camp.\n\nWe cannot but think that the reverend disputant rather unfortunate in\nhis reference to the book of Drs. Cox and Hoby, (see page 128,) for\ninformation about the connection of the Baptists with slavery. In\nlooking there for light on that particular point, the reader might\nchance to stumble on some things about the wicked prejudice against\nthe black man, as well as some sentiments in regard to the treatment\nof slaves and free blacks generally, that would ill accord with the\nexpressed notions of the Presbyterian delegate.\n\nOn page 133, Mr. B. introduces a letter, published in the N. Y.\nObserver, and signed Truth, which represents the negroes of South\nCarolina as '_generally_ well fed, well clothed,' and enjoying '_the\nmeans of religious instruction_,' and declares that '_great and\nincreasing efforts are made to instruct them in religion, and elevate\ntheir characters_.' We request our readers to turn back and read the\nwhole letter, and then to compare it with the following extracts from\na report on the subject of the religious instruction of the colored\npeople, published in 1834, by the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia.\n'We believe that their (the colored population's) moral and religious\ncondition is such, as that they may justly be considered the _heathen_\nof this christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in\nany country in the world.'\n\n'The negroes are destitute of the privileges of the gospel, and ever\nwill be, under the present state of things. There were some exceptions\nto this, the Synod say, and they \"rejoice\" in it; but although our\nassertion is broad, we believe that, in general, it will be found to\nbe correct.'\n\n'They can have no access to the the scriptures. They are dependent for\ntheir knowledge of Christianity, upon _oral instruction_. Have they\nthen that amount of oral instruction, which, in their circumstances,\nis necessary to their enjoyment of the gospel? _They have not._ From\nan entire state beyond the Potomac to the Sabine, and from the\nAtlantic to the Ohio, there are, to the best of our knowledge, not\n_twelve_ men exclusively devoted to the religious instruction of the\nnegroes.'\n\nThe report then goes on to say that 'the negroes do not have access to\nthe gospel through the stated ministry of the whites,' that 'a _very\nsmall proportion_ of the ministers in the slaveholding states, _pay\nany attention to them_,' that 'they have no churches, neither is there\nsufficient room for their accommodation in white churches,' and that,\nin some cases, for want of a place within, 'the negroes who attend,\nmust catch the gospel as it escapes by the doors and windows.' 'We\nventure to say,' the report continues, 'that _not a twentieth part_ of\nthe negroes attend divine worship on the Sabbath. Thousands and\nthousands hear not the sound of the gospel, or _ever_ enter a church\n_from one year to another_.'\n\nThe report says too, that they 'do not enjoy the privileges of the\ngospel in private, at their houses, or on their plantations. If the\nmaster is pious, the house servants _alone_, and frequently few or\nnone of these attend family worship. In general it does not enter into\nthe arrangement of the plantations, to make provision for their\nreligious instruction. We feel warranted, therefore, in the\nconclusion, that the negroes are _destitute of the privileges of the\ngospel, and must continue to be so_, if nothing more is done for\nthem.'\n\n'We are astonished,' say the Synod, 'thus to find Christianity in\nabsolute conjunction with _Heathenism_, and yet conferring few or no\nbenefits.'\n\nOur readers, after comparing the above with the letter read by Mr. B.,\ncan decide how much right the author of that letter had to sign it\n'Truth.'\n\nMr. B., page 155, endeavors to escape the force of the immense weight\nof evidence with which his antagonist presses him to the earth, by\nsneering at the witnesses as 'obscure,' and for aught that could be\nknown, 'fictitious persons,' although the names are generally given,\nand yet he quotes evidence to sustain himself, which is absolutely\nanonymous. See page 132. The Emancipator pertinently asks, 'Can Mr. B.\ntell us who \"Truth\" and \"A New England man\" are? Or are the persons as\n\"fictitious\" as their stories?'\n\nUpon Mr. B.'s assertion that Mr. Thompson's testimonies were of this\nworthless character, the Emancipator has the following note. 'We beg\nour readers to stop here, and go back and count the documents, and\nthey will find that the very reverse of what Mr. B. has stated is the\nfact; and that while Mr. B.'s _main_ proofs are, first, his _own_\nassertions, and, second, the assertion of individuals, or of anonymous\nwriters in partisan newspapers, Mr. Thompson's _main_ proofs are the\nformal resolutions and declarations of ecclesiastical bodies, and of\nthose who represent the _governing_ influence in church and state, and\nthat the testimony of individuals, so far as it is used, is brought in\nonly as confirmatory of the other.'\n\nOn page 158, Mr. B. attacks Mr. J. A. Thome of Kentucky, with\ncharacteristic virulence, because, in a speech at an Anti-Slavery\nmeeting, that young man had boldly exposed the abominations of slavery\nin his native state. For this act his slanderer calls him 'the ingrate\nwho commenced his career of manhood, by smiting his parent in the\nface.' But he cautiously avoids attempting--what he was doubtless\nsensible would be a somewhat difficult task--to disprove the\nstatements of Mr. Thome. It is a little remarkable that the facts\nstated by Thome, and denied by Mr. B. and his brother at the time,\nwere confirmed abundantly by an article published in the Western\nLuminary, a Kentucky paper, on the very day on which Mr. Thome made\nhis statement in New York. Thus without any concert or arrangement,\ntwo witnesses at a long distance from each other, testified to the\nsame facts, and unfortunately for the credibility of Mr. Breckinridge,\nthose were the facts which he was almost at the same time stoutly\ndenying. Other witnesses of unimpeachable veracity, have since\nattested the same facts, and now Mr. B.'s impotent efforts to\ndiscredit Mr. Thome, only serve to show his own vexation, malignity\nand falsehood.\n\nWe do not pretend to have noticed all the slips of Mr. B.'s 'unruly\nmember' in this discussion, or to have pointed out every instance in\nwhich he has labored with all that ability and ingenuity which we\nreadily admit he possesses, to create false impressions on the minds\nof his audience; but enough have been pointed out to show in some\nmeasure, the degree of confidence which ought to be reposed in his\nveracity as a witness and his candor and fairness as a reasoner.\n\nA few trifling errors into which Mr. Thompson has fallen, we feel\nbound to correct; in proceeding to which, however, we cannot but\nremark that considering the shortness of the time which Mr. T. spent\namong us, the amount of labor which he performed in lecturing,\naddressing conventions, debating, &c. &c. and the large portion of his\ntime necessarily consumed in social intercourse with his extensive\ncircle of acquaintance--nay, the very considerable share of it which\nwas required for the mere answering of applications to lecture, which\ncame from every quarter; we are actually astonished at the extent and\nminuteness of his information, the mass of facts and documents which\nhe has contrived to collect, and what is more, at the general--the\nalmost uniform accuracy of his knowledge of American affairs. The\nreader has seen how completely furnished he was, how armed at all\npoints, and ever ready to lay his hand on the very weapon which was\nneeded at any stage of the conflict, whether to parry the blow aimed\nat himself, or to send home to his antagonist's bosom, a vigorous\nthrust which neither the dexterity of sophistry could elude, nor the\nbuckler of brazen falsehood ward off. Indeed the mass of his\ndocuments, and the readiness and aptness to the purpose with which he\nused them, seems to have been one of the chief causes of the bitter\nvexation which his opponent continually betrays. That he should have\nfallen into a few mistakes is nothing surprising--that he should have\nfallen into _so_ few, is indeed wonderful, and proves the industry and\ndiligence with which he labored at times when from the fatiguing\nnature, and great amount of his public efforts, one would have\nsupposed he must have been obliged to indulge in perfect repose. But\nto the errors.\n\nHe stated the first evening, page 12, that there were now, exclusive\nof the publications of the Anti-Slavery Society, one hundred\nnewspapers boldly advocating the principles of abolition. 'There are,'\nsays the Emancipator, 'about that number friendly to our cause, and\nthat occasionally speak in our behalf, but not that _boldly advocate_\nour principles,' or, as perhaps would be the more accurate mode of\nexpression, that do not boldly advocate our principles, _in their\napplication_ to the subject to which we apply them.\n\nOn the second evening, Mr. Thompson in speaking of the New York State\nAnti-Slavery Convention, page 30, said there were 600 delegates at\nUtica the first day, and that when driven away by a mob, these went to\nPeterboro', and were there joined by 400 more, making 1000 in all. In\nreality, it was estimated that nearly or quite 1000 went to Utica, and\nof these only about 400 went to Peterboro'. The error is indeed\nimmaterial.\n\nIn the fourth evening's debate, Mr. T. alluding to Kaufman's\nslanderous story about him, calls Kaufman 'the son of a slaveholder,\nand heir to slave property.' Such was supposed to be the case, and we\nwere not aware that this supposition was erroneous, till we met, in\nthe Emancipator's note to this remark of Mr. T., an intimation that\nthis report had been contradicted. 'Mr. K. is from Virginia,' says the\nnote, 'but we believe not a slaveholder or heir to slave property.'\n\nThese are all the errors we have observed in the statements of Mr.\nThompson, and these are of so little moment that we should not have\nconsidered them worthy of notice in his opponent.\n\nIt is perhaps unnecessary in concluding, formally to acknowledge,\nwhat the reader cannot fail to have perceived, our large indebtedness\nto the editor of the Emancipator for aid in the preparation of this\nappendix. The truth is, our hands are at this time so plentifully\nfilled with business, that we have had but little time, to spare for\nthis work, and were glad to avail ourselves of the labors of one who\nhad, to such good purpose, just gone over the ground before us.\n\n                                                     C. C. BURLEIGH.\n\n  Boston, Sept. 22, 1836.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES\n\n\nOther than a few punctuation errors and the misprints corrected in the\nlist below, printer's inconsistencies in spelling, punctuation, and\nhyphenation have been retained:\n\n  \"solictied\" corrected to \"solicited\" (page 4)\n  \"conclusinos\" corrected to \"conclusions\" (page 4)\n  \"belived\" corrected to \"believed\" (page 5)\n  \"anamoly\" corrected to \"anomaly\" (page 7)\n  \"wasnot\" corrected to \"was not\" (page 7)\n  \"Birtish\" corrected to \"British\" (page 8)\n  \"him self\" corrected to \"himself\" (page 10)\n  \"alloted\" corrected to \"allotted\" (pages 16, 163)\n  \"immeditate\" corrected to \"immediate\" (page 18)\n  \"decison\" corrected to \"decision\" (page 18)\n  \"spirtual\" corrected to \"spiritual\" (page 18)\n  \"kidknapped\" corrected to \"kidnapped\" (page 20)\n  \"aleady\" corrected to \"already\" (page 21)\n  \"colonziation\" corrected to \"colonization\" (page 23)\n  \"however. Mr. Thomppson\" corrected to \"however, Mr. Thompson\"\n            (page 33)\n  \"actualy\" corrected to \"actually\" (page 34)\n  \"abosolute\" corrected to \"absolute\" (page 35)\n  \"opionion\" corrected to \"opinion\" (page 36)\n  \"capacties\" corrected to \"capacities\" (page 37)\n  \"excercise\" corrected to \"exercise\" (page 38)\n  \"elighten\" corrected to \"enlighten\" (page 44)\n  \"commited\" corrected to \"committed\" (page 44)\n  \"thoughout\" corrected to \"throughout\" (page 87)\n  \"alledged\" corrected to \"alleged\" (page 111)\n  \"ojection\" corrected to \"objection\" (page 112)\n  \"proceedure\" corrected to \"procedure\" (page 113)\n  \"equesterd\" corrected to \"requested\" (page 135)\n  \"occuring\" corrected to \"occurring\" (page 171)\n  \"comendation\" corrected to \"commendation\" (page 171)\n  \"Engl shman\" corrected to \"Englishman\" (page 174)\n  \"succesful\" corrected to \"successful\" (page 175)","title":"Discussion on American Slavery","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":101757}