{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_69367/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_69367","id":"gutenberg_69367","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69367","summary":null,"tags":["Abolitionists -- Connecticut -- Meriden","Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Sociology","Slavery -- United States","Slavery -- United States -- Societies, etc."],"text":"TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n  Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.\n\n  There is one Footnote in this book. Its anchor is denoted by [1], and\n  the Footnote has been placed at the end of the book.\n\n  Some minor changes to the text are also noted at the end of the book.\n\n\n\n\n                                 AN\n\n                               APOLOGY\n\n                                 FOR\n\n                           ABOLITIONISTS:\n\n                              ADDRESSED\n\n                               BY THE\n\n                        ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY\n\n                                 OF\n\n                           MERIDEN, CONN.,\n\n                              TO THEIR\n\n                          FELLOW-CITIZENS.\n\n                           SECOND EDITION.\n\n                             MIDDLETOWN:\n\n                      C. H. PELTON .... PRINT.\n\n                                1837.\n\n\n\n\n=Fellow-Citizens=:\n\n  A regard for your good opinion, and a wish to promote the cause,\n  which, as Abolitionists, lies near our hearts, is our motive for\n  addressing you. We think the opposition to our enterprise arises\n  either from commercial, political or domestic connections with\n  Slavery, or from misapprehensions respecting our principles,\n  measures and prospects. We desire no better means of overcoming\n  these obstacles than a fair statement of facts; and to this we now\n  solicit your attention.\n\n\nDECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS.\n\nWe believe that all men are born free and equal, and endowed by\ntheir Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life,\nliberty and the pursuit of happiness.\n\nWe believe Slavery is an infraction of these rights, a violation of\nthe principles of christianity, and under all circumstances sinful.\n\nWe believe that Slavery is a great national evil, political as well\nas moral, opposed to the genius of a republican government, highly\ndangerous to the peace and permanency of the Union, and if persisted\nin, destined to bring upon us the severest judgments of Heaven.\n\nWe believe the immediate abolition of slavery would be safe and wise,\nand that it is the duty of every friend of humanity to use all fair\nand just means for its accomplishment.\n\nWe believe we have a right to express and publish our opinions\nrespecting the customs and institutions of the people of this and\nevery other country; and if we think them in any degree immoral,\nunequal, or oppressive, we are under the highest obligations, in the\nexercise of all honest and lawful means, to change them.\n\nWe believe that Slavery in the several states can be lawfully\nabolished only by the legislatures of the states in which it\nprevails, and that the exercise of any other than moral means to\ninduce such abolition, is unconstitutional.\n\nWe believe that Congress has a right to abolish Slavery in the\nDistrict of Columbia, and in the Territories, and to prohibit the\nslave trade between the states, and that the exercise of this right\nis required by the divine law, and by the interests of our country.\n\nWe believe that no class of men can rightfully be denied, _on account\nof their color_, the enjoyment of equal rights with others, in the\nprotection, immunities and administration of the government under\nwhich they live.\n\n\nUTILITY OF THESE SENTIMENTS.\n\nThese are our sentiments. We regret to say they are not collectively\nthe sentiments of our countrymen. It is for our zeal in propagating\nthem, that we have been assailed with unmeasured abuse and lawless\nviolence. We think it of high importance to our country and the world\nthat they should be received by all the people. What the effect of\ntheir general reception in the free states would be, is very apparent.\n\n_We should abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia._ There\nCongress has exclusive jurisdiction on all subjects whatsoever,\nincluding of course the subject of Slavery.\u2014This is admitted by\nMartin Van Buren, Henry Clay, and an overwhelming majority of\nthe present Congress. The Abolitionists are to a man in favor of\nthe exercise of this right. If, therefore, the free states were\n_thoroughly_ abolitionized, their Senators and Representatives,\nwho yet compose a majority in Congress, would at once bow to the\nsupremacy of their constituents, and abolish Slavery.\n\n_We should prohibit the inter state Slave-Trade._ This trade has\nrecently been carried on to a greater extent than ever was the\nforeign slave trade; it being estimated that not less than 120,000\nslaves were exported from Virginia alone, within little more than\na year, and removed for the most part to the southwestern states.\nFour of these states are said by their own papers, to have received\nwithin the same period, about 250,000 slaves from the old states.\nHow many tender ties have in one short year been broken by this\ndetestable business! How much bodily suffering has been endured! How\nmuch guilt has been contracted! This cruel and wicked traffic is\nat the foundation of a system of breeding slaves for market, which\nis prosecuted on a large scale, corrupting all concerned, by its\nlicentiousness and barbarity. Congress has a right to prohibit and\nsuppress this trade, under that article of the Constitution which\nempowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and\nbetween the several states. Were a majority of the citizens of the\nfree states decided Abolitionists, this right could be exercised. We\nshould insist upon it. Why then do not they, who profess to regard\nthe _slave trade_ as the worst feature of Slavery, join with us\nagainst it?\n\n_We should prevent the annexation of Texas to the United States._\nThe South has long had her eye on that fine and extensive country,\nintending to get it by purchase or stratagem, for the purpose of\nopening a market for her redundant slave population, and of securing\nthe balance of power in the general government to the slave-holding\ninterest. Every enemy of Slavery and friend of _free_ labor, ought\nto oppose this design. We apprehend that if the annexation of Texas\nto our country should not involve us in war with Mexico and Great\nBritain, it would either lead to a dissolution of the union, or\nindefinitely prolong the existence of Slavery. The Abolitionists\nare now preparing petitions to Congress, protesting against this\ninsane measure; and were the citizens of the free states generally to\njoin them, and load the tables of Congress with several millions of\nsignatures to these protests, the danger would be averted. But they\nwill not do it, _because_ they are not Abolitionists; and we must,\ntherefore, in all probability _take_ Texas.\n\n_We should admit no new slave states to the Union._ Had our\nsentiments prevailed when the Missouri question was decided, the\nfine soil of that state would not now be cursed with Slavery. She\nwas admitted to the union by northern men. They legalized the sin.\nIt is a sad proof of the corruption of _our_ public sentiment that\nseveral of these traitors to liberty, have, since that disgraceful\nvote was given, been elevated to the first offices in the gift of New\nEngland; and this without any signs of their repentance. Arkansas has\nalso been lately admitted to the Union by northern votes, with the\nsingular provision in her constitution, that her legislature shall\nhave no power to abolish Slavery; so that the \u201cpeculiar institution\u201d\nmay last until the greatest knave in the state is heartily weary\nand ashamed of it. Northern men thus voted for _perpetual_ Slavery;\nand this they did in the confident expectation of being re-elected\nto Congress. Had they known a majority of their constituents to be\nAbolitionists, they would have voted differently. Should Florida\nbe _next_ admitted to the Union as a _slave_ state, the south will\nhave a majority in the Senate. Who can predict the consequences? But\nwere the free states thoroughly abolitionized, Florida would never\ncome into the Union as a _slave_ State; for Abolitionists are in\n_principle_ opposed to it.\n\n_We should also prohibit the slave trade between the United States\nand Texas._ In the constitution of Texas, whose independence has\nalready been acknowledged by our government, Slavery is established\nas a permanent institution of the country, and a monopoly of the\nslave trade granted to the United States. Already thousands of slaves\nhave been sent there, and unless something is done to prevent it,\nvessels will soon be fitted out in northern ports, to carry slaves\nfrom Virginia to Texas, as well as to New Orleans; and this, whether\nTexas is annexed to the United States, or remains independent. Were\nthe citizens of the free states generally Abolitionists, they would\nnot allow a legal commerce in slaves from our Republic to a foreign\nnation.\n\n_We should save our own youth from the pollution and guilt of\nSlavery._ They would not directly participate in it. When they go\nto the South they would neither buy nor _hire_ slaves. Hitherto\nnothing has been more common than for our best and most intelligent\nyoung men, the sons of our ministers and church members, to become\nslave-holders. At home they were not taught the inherent and\nnecessary sinfulness of Slavery; at the South the practice was\nrecommended to them by the example and plausible pretexts of the best\nmen. They were accustomed from their childhood to see slave-holders\ntreated with respect because they were rich in human chattels,\nwithout hearing a word respecting the _extortion_ by which their\nwealth comes. Hence many of the merchants, physicians, lawyers,\nplanters, teachers and clergymen of the South, though northern\nmen by birth, are either slave-holders or abettors of the system.\nThis would not be the case, had our declaration of sentiments been\ntaught from the first by our parents and teachers, and been made the\n_cherished_ creed of the free states. Then the combined instructions\nof the nursery, of the school, and of the pulpit, together with\nthe impressive power of a sound public sentiment, would have\n_established_ our youth in the love and veneration of human rights;\nin sympathy for the colored man; in hatred of oppression. Thus would\nthe general reception of our sentiments withdraw from Slavery one of\nits main supports, and at the same time rescue our sons and daughters\nfrom the unutterable calamity of becoming rich by the spoiling of the\npoor.\n\n_We should establish the liberties of the free states on a firm\nfoundation._ We are not so connected with the slave-states that we\nmust necessarily perish in their ruin. If the judgments of heaven\nshould overtake them, we may be spared; should their liberties\nbe prostrated, ours may survive. It depends on our character and\nconduct. A people who respect the rights of others, will have their\nown rights respected. Regarding man, of whatever color and condition,\nas entitled to the sacred rights of liberty, of property, and of\npersonal security, they will neither forge chains for others, nor\nsuffer chains to be imposed on themselves. Nor will God forsake\nthem. Such are the character and security of Abolitionists. Read\nour declaration of sentiments. We go for _human nature_. We protest\nagainst Slavery, because it is an infraction of the rights of MAN. We\nknow that our entire country has forfeited her freedom, by oppressing\nthe colored man; still we believe we may, by hearty repentance\nand the adoption of just and humane sentiments, appease the wrath\nof heaven, and should our nation be rent in two, preserve our own\nliberties. But if we continue to connive at this wickedness, nothing\nis more certain than our ruin in the common destruction of the\ncountry.\n\n_The free people of color would rapidly improve in their moral and\nphysical condition._ A load of prejudice now crushes them in the\ndust. They cannot rise because they are deprived of the motives\nand facilities for self-improvement. They are a proscribed people.\nIT IS A CALAMITY IN THIS CHRISTIAN COUNTRY TO BE BORN WITH A\nCOLORED SKIN. It shuts out human beings from schools and colleges,\nfrom the mechanical arts, from the house of God, from a share in\nthe government of the nation, from social intercourse with their\nfellow-creatures, from the best incitements to virtue and enterprise.\nWe freely confess, that the Abolitionists, if a majority, would\ncorrect all these evils, and cause men in this so called christian\nand democratic country, to be treated, according to the bible without\ndistinction of color.\n\n_We should do much to vindicate the honor and truth of christianity._\nSlavery is the _strongest_ hold of infidelity at the South, and a\n_strong_ hold at the North. It is so because, while natural religion\ndeclares Slavery to be sinful, the ministers and professors of\nchristianity practice it, and defend their conduct from the bible.\nSuch a religion, says the infidel cannot be from God. It is thus that\nthe church is bringing into contempt and doubt our blessed religion.\nIt would greatly counteract this prolific cause of infidelity, were\nall our churches, ministers, and theological professors, to embrace\nand advocate the true doctrine of human rights as it is set forth in\nthe word of God. We should then hold up to the world, this internal\nevidence of the divine origin of the bible, that, being written in\nages of darkness and despotism, it notwithstanding clearly recognizes\nand protects MAN as the possessor of natural, inalienable, sacred\nrights. Instead of doing this, many northern preachers of the gospel,\nare now blaspheming their religion, by saying that both Moses and\nChrist tolerated Slavery.\n\n_We should no longer uphold Slavery by recognizing slave-holders as\nbrethren in good and regular standing in the Church._ We now receive\nto the table of the Redeemer, without one word of admonition, men,\nwho at the South, make merchandize of the image of God, of their\nfellow-christians. What is still more astonishing if not more wicked,\nwe receive slave-holders to our pulpits, to preach to us about loving\nGod and MAN! Thus we practically say, that Slavery is consistent both\nwith morality and the gospel of Christ. Were we Abolitionists, it\nwould be far otherwise; for they do not think it right to lend the\nsanction of the church to such outrageous wickedness.\n\nSuch would be _some_ of the happy results of the general adoption of\nour sentiments in the free states, if nothing more could be effected.\nBut we doubt not it would issue in THE PEACEABLE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY\nBY THE SEVERAL SLAVE STATES. This is the principal object of our\nenterprise; and on a strong probability of success, we are willing to\nrest its character.\n\n_The constitutional action of Congress in the ways above named, would\ndo much to induce the South to abolish Slavery._ Its abolition in\nthe District of Columbia by the assembled wisdom of the country,\nwould exert a powerful influence on the southern mind. It would be\nthe testimony of the nation, corroborating the testimony of every\ntruly civilized and christian people, to the impolicy and wickedness\nof Slavery. The prohibition of the inter state slave-trade, and the\nconfinement of Slavery to its present local limits would render\nit unprofitable to the old states, which depend on this trade as\nthe chief source of profit; and also drive the new states to the\nnecessity of introducing free labor; for how could they otherwise\ncultivate their immense tracts of virgin land, or supply the deficit\noccasioned by the rapid consumption of life on their cotton and sugar\nplantations?\n\nWe should make a still more _direct appeal to her interests_, by\nsaying: _You may keep your cotton, rice, and sugar, until you have\nabolished Slavery. We shall no longer use the products of unrequited\nlabor._ It would then be a question of dollars and cents with her,\nwhether or not she would give liberty to her captives. We should\nnot be obliged to deny ourselves the use of her productions one\nyear; for her states would vie with each other to see which could\nobtain a monopoly of northern patronage by first abolishing Slavery.\nMany northern men have been bought by southern patronage to _do\nwrong_; is it not equally possible to buy the south with northern\npatronage to _do right_; Human nature is every where the same. We\nshould indeed regret to have Slavery abandoned from an exclusive\nregard to self-interest. We would rather it should be destroyed by\nthe spirit of repentance; for then the emancipated slave would still\nbe treated with justice and humanity. But no means of bringing the\nSouth to repentance can be more promising, than the _conscientious_\nrefusal, by northern men, of all sects and parties, to sustain\nSlavery, by consuming its produce. At present this cannot be done on\na scale sufficiently large to secure, certainly and immediately, the\nabolition of Slavery; but were the North completely abolitionized, no\ndoubt she would do it with the most triumphant success.\n\n_We should move the South to abandon Slavery, by appealing to her\nlove of reputation._ The South shows herself sensitive on this point.\nSaid Mr. Calhoun in the United States Senate, \u201cdo they, [his southern\nopponents,] expect the Abolitionists will resort to arms, and\ncommence a crusade to liberate our slaves by force? Is this what they\nmean when they speak of the attempt to abolish Slavery? If so let me\ntell our friends of the South who differ from us, that the war which\nthe Abolitionists wage against us is of a very different character\nand _far more effective_\u2014it is waged not against our _lives_, but our\n_character_.\u201d Had he said _our reputations and consciences_, he would\nhave told the truth. We do intend to make Slavery _disgraceful_. Sin\nought to be esteemed a reproach to any people. Were all northern men\nof our way of thinking, this sin would be as infamous as any other\nkind of fraud and villainy. The _world_ is now pointing the finger\nof scorn at _slave-holding America_. The free states bear a merited\nportion of the shame, because we share largely in the responsibility.\nAs we have taken Slavery under our patronage, and consented to stand\ngodfather to it, what little respectability we have, is thrown\naround it, to the great relief and joy of its southern parents. Let\nus retire from the relation. Instead of defending Slavery, let us\nreiterate the just and indignant censures of the civilized world,\nuntil all shall feel, that so great an enormity cannot be practiced\nor connived at, without a forfeiture of character. This would be\nthe state of feeling, were the citizens of the north generally\nAbolitionists; and he knows little of human nature, who doubts\nthat _such_ a state of feeling, would render the condition of a\nslave-holder, the last to be sought, the first to be abandoned.\n\nIn these ways, if in no others, we could reach and influence the\nSouth. Although she should attempt to shut out the light by a strict\ncensorship of the press and post-office; though she should make the\nutterance of our sentiments on southern soil an offence against her\nlaws; she could not prevent the constitutional action of the general\ngovernment; she could not compel us to consume her produce; she could\nnot escape the withering contempt and indignant frown of our virtuous\npublic sentiment. We could reach her heart in these ways, in spite\nof herself, and as we think to the certain overthrow of Slavery. We\ncould do more.\n\nWE COULD CONVERT THE SOUTH TO THE PRACTICAL ADOPTION OF OUR\nSENTIMENTS BY ENLIGHTENING HER CONSCIENCE. This is the principal\nground of our confidence. If Slavery is sinful, we can prove it to be\nsuch; and this proof, made plain to the understanding of the South,\ncannot fail to awaken her conscience. Such is human nature. Some\nwould have us think that none but christians have consciences, and\ntherefore the first step to be taken for the removal of Slavery is\nto send missionaries to convert the masters to christianity, thus\nlaying a foundation for successful appeals to the conscience. But it\nseems to us the work of centuries, if not an impracticable work, to\nconvert the masters, or a majority of them, to true holiness, while\nSlavery lasts, _especially if they have no consciences_; and we think\nalso, if all were converted to such a christianity as consists with a\nhearty belief that _Slavery is not condemned by the Bible_, it would\nnot much facilitate our enterprise. Nor have we so much contempt for\nthat word, which is mighty through God to the pulling down of strong\nholds, as to doubt that _our doctrines_ will commend themselves\nto the _reason_ of our southern brethren, and receive a fruitful\nresponse from their _consciences_.\n\nSome would have the world believe, if every person in the free states\nwere an Abolitionist, it would not hasten the emancipation of the\nslaves; for, say they, we could not then get a hearing at the south,\nand if we could, she is too much exasperated at our interference\nto do any thing on the subject. In our opinion, they are entirely\nmistaken.\n\nWe believe _we can get a hearing at the South, or convey a knowledge\nof our sentiments to the southern mind, and that these sentiments are\nmore potent than her prejudices and passions_. In proof of it\u2014\n\n_She is now constantly receiving numerous publications containing\nour views._ There were, the last year, about five hundred regular\nsouthern subscribers to the publications of the American Anti-Slavery\nSociety. The Cincinnati Philanthropist, the Alton Observer, the New\nYork Evangelist, and scores of other papers, religious and political,\nhave subscribers at the South, with whom from week to week they\nadvocate this cause. Many valuable anti-slavery books are also\ndoing a good work in the very midst of the evil. Several thousands\nof Miss Grimke\u2019s Appeal, together with the writings of Jay, Child,\nChanning and others, are daily tearing off the mask from Slavery, and\nawakening the slumbering conscience of the South. Not unfrequently\nslave-holders themselves come to the anti-slavery office in New York\nand buy whole sets of our publications. The speeches of her Senators,\nand the messages of her Governors evince a better acquaintance with\nour writings and movements than the great men of the North can boast.\nHer own press is doing much to disseminate our sentiments. The\nUnited States Telegraph of February 18, 1837, edited by Duff Green,\nWashington, D. C., was nearly half filled with extracts from our\nprints. Her clergy by publishing apologies for slavery in refutation\nof our views, are also making these views known and waking up a\nspirit of inquiry. Indeed, such is human nature, and such is the\ncourse of the south, that we have come to believe she will not allow\nus at the north to _think aloud on the subject of Slavery without\nknowing what we think and why we think so. She will not allow us\nto form and express opinions on this subject_ WITHOUT KNOWING OUR\nOPINIONS AND THE GROUNDS OF THEM. She is too much interested, and\nknows that we have too much power, to pass our sentiments by in utter\ncontempt without even ascertaining them.\n\nBut were the free states completely abolitionized, not only the\npresses of the Anti-Slavery Societies, assisted by a few others,\nwould carry our doctrines to the South; but _all the religious,\npolitical and commercial papers of the North, indeed the whole body\nof our literature, would breathe the same spirit, would speak the\nsame language_. Were she, therefore, ever so much averse to the\ntruth, these numberless publications, aided by the English press and\nby private correspondence, would force upon her a knowledge of our\nfaith.\n\n_The social intercourse of the North and South would also afford us\nample opportunities for publishing our sentiments._ The citizens\nof every state in the Union are daily meeting in the steam-boats,\ncoaches, rail-road cars and hotels of our country. We are constantly\n_walking arm in arm_ with the South, so that she cannot fail to learn\nwhat we think of Slavery, and of the duty and pre-eminent safety of\nimmediate emancipation. If we are decided Abolitionists, we shall\ncertainly talk enough to let her know _what_ we think and _why_ we\nthink so.\n\n_Many of the youth of the South must continue, as in times past, to\nbe educated in the free states._ Mr. Calhoun was educated at Yale\nCollege. Who can doubt that an influence might have been exerted on\nhis mind, in relation to Slavery, of the most happy character, if the\nofficers of that institution, if the surrounding community, if the\nliterature of the day, had all breathed the spirit of Arthur Tappan\nand Gerritt Smith? There are now hundreds of southern youth in our\nschools, and hundreds will succeed them, whose minds would be set in\ndeadly and deathless hostility to the robbery of God\u2019s poor, were\ntheir teachers Abolitionists. Some think that in such an event, they\nwould be kept at home. A few might be, but not all. The salubrity\nof our climate, the excellence of our institutions, the comparative\npurity of our morals, give us an advantage, that the more virtuous\nand intelligent of southern parents, would not relinquish, for fear\nthat their sons should embrace views, which in their own hearts they\nmust approve.\n\nIt should also be remembered, that we not only educate the most\nprecious youth of the South, but we _supply many of her pulpits,\nprofessorships, and shops with our own sons_. The great body of\nsouthern merchants are northern men. Such is the genius of Slavery\nthat this will continue to be the case. The result would be, were we\nall Abolitionists, that the adopted sons of the South would soon form\na strong body of opposition to Slavery, laboring to overthrow it, by\ntheir votes, their arguments and their example. Some may think that\nlynch law would then drive us all from the South; or that we should\nbe received there only on condition of letting Slavery alone. They\nare mistaken. Were we _all_ Abolitionists, we should be defended. The\nnational government would protect us. The constitution guarantees the\nrights of a citizen in all the states to the citizens of each state;\nand had the North been thoroughly abolitionized, she would have\ndemanded and obtained redress for the blood of her innocent citizens,\nwho have been hung without color of law, by southern ruffians. Be\nassured when we all become Abolitionists, an end will be put to the\nreign of terror in every part of the country. Men of all creeds and\ncolors, will then go where they please, speak what they please, and\ndo what they please, with perfect safety, so long as they commit no\noffence against just and impartial law.\n\n_The interests of a large class at the South must predispose them\nto favor our enterprise._ Probably not more than half of the whites\nare directly interested in the continuance of Slavery. Many hire\nSlaves, who could on equally eligible terms, and with more peace of\nconscience, hire them as _free_ laborers, were they emancipated.\nSome own land without slaves; and it is admitted, that immediately\non the abolition of Slavery, the soil would rise in value, and\ncontinue to appreciate with the general improvement of the country. A\nmultitude of the whites are too poor to own slaves, and too ignorant\nto obtain a living, except by manual labor, and Slavery makes that\ndisreputable, and comparatively unprofitable. All these classes need\nonly open their eyes, to see that Slavery is subversive of their\ninterests: and we may therefore rationally calculate on having their\nattention and sympathy.\n\n_What we have already effected at the South, is a pledge of entire\nsuccess_, the moment the leading influences at the North shall\nsecond our efforts instead of counteracting them. Several hundred\nslaves have been set at liberty through the labors of those two\ndistinguished Abolitionists, David Nelson and James G. Birney. We\nhave heard of various other instances in which our doctrines have\nhad such successful access to the southern mind. We will mention\none. Some time since, in New York, a gentleman rose in a monthly\nconcert of prayer for the slaves, and said: \u201cI am a slave-holder from\nVirginia. I came to the North with violent prejudices against the\nAbolitionists, in consequence of what I read in northern papers; but\nI was determined to investigate the matter for myself. Accordingly\nI sought lodgings in the family of an Abolitionist, obtained and\nread your publications, and attended this monthly concert; and I am\nnow convinced that not only your doctrines but your measures are\nrighteous.\u201d And he added, turning to two gentlemen who sat beside\nhim, \u201cthese gentlemen are also slave-holders from Virginia, and\nmy first converts to abolitionism; and I know a thousand men in\nVirginia, who if they could have the truth stated to them, would\nagree with us.\u201d He then exhorted the Abolitionists present to go on,\nsaying \u201cyou have only to correct the public sentiment of the North so\nthat their papers shall not misrepresent you at the South, and THE\nWORK IS DONE.\u201d Besides many such facts evincive of the power of truth\nover the southern mind, and proving that the leaven is working there,\nwe have frequent admissions from the lips and pens of the defenders\nof Slavery at the South, that the Abolitionists are disturbing the\nconscience of her people, that there is more sympathy with them there\nthan it would be prudent to acknowledge; that if the fanatics are\nsuffered to go on they will succeed; that they _may_ build up a body\nof public sentiment which the South cannot resist. These facts, these\nadmissions, and the very nature of man, convince us that we have many\nallies at the South. The violence of the friends of Slavery, has\nforced them to a temporary silence; but no doubt many of them long\nto unburden their hearts, and are only waiting to be sustained by\na healthy public sentiment among us.\u2014Were we all Abolitionists, it\nwould be less odious and less hazardous to avow our sentiments at the\nSouth; and she would find a body of Abolitionists on her own soil,\ntoo respectable to be despised\u2014too strong to be resisted.\n\nOur expectations of success in making known our sentiments to our\nsouthern brethren, are rendered still more sanguine, _by the history\nof emancipation in the West Indies_. It will be impossible for our\ncountrymen, to close their eyes against the light, which the working\nof the British abolition act, will constantly throw on the duty and\nsafety of immediate emancipation.\n\nWe are nevertheless told, with surprising assurance, by men great\nand small, that we have postponed the abolition of Slavery, at least\nhalf a century; that our ultra doctrines and violent measures have\nso incensed the South, that she has settled down in the inflexible\ndetermination to keep her slaves. Is this human nature? They who\nthink so, seem to imagine that the work of reform must be carried\non solely by coaxing and flattering the sinner: that a declaration\nof his guilt and of his duty, sufficiently plain and unequivocal to\nexcite his displeasure, is the last way to bring him to repentance.\nWe think otherwise. We take the anger of the South as a precious\nomen of success. The hit bird flutters. She shows herself conscious\nof the truth of our charges. Accuse a consistent temperance man\nof drunkenness, he will smile in your face; accuse the drunkard\nhimself and he will be ready to fight you. The faithful reproof\nof sin always irritates the sinner, and his irritation continues\nuntil he either repents or forgets the admonition. Had our efforts\nproduced no such sensation among slave-holders, we should be far more\nready to despair. She believes unless this discussion is stopped,\nSlavery must cease, or else she will be disgraced in the eyes of the\nworld, and exceedingly embarrassed and trammeled in the possession\nof her slaves. We do not, however, attribute all the wrath of the\nSouth against us, to awakened conscience, and the anticipation of\nour success. We have been shamefully misrepresented by _northern_\npapers and mobs, which have not hesitated to charge us with the\nworst of motives and the most hostile feelings towards the South;\nas if we would gladly involve her in a servile war. The belief of\nthese calumnies has doubtless excited her worst passions; and the\nmoment she learns the truth, it will create a re-action in our\nfavor. Nor should it be overlooked that many of her own citizens\nhave no sympathy for Slavery, and no strong prejudices against us.\nFacts also show that argument can appease this very wrath, to which\nour opponents attribute such indomitable energy. When the students\nof Lane Seminary, under the Presidency of the Rev. Dr. Beecher,\ncommenced a discussion of the subject of Slavery, about fifteen\nyoung men from the South, all of them slave-holders or sons of\nslave-holders, were not a little incensed at the faithful exposure of\nSlavery by their fellow-students; but at the close of the discussion,\nall these young men, save one, were thorough going Abolitionists; and\nseveral of them are now lecturing in the free states for the purpose\nof correcting our public sentiment, as a necessary and infallible\nmeans of rectifying that of the South.\n\nWe believe, therefore, that if we succeed in abolitionizing the\nNorth, we shall the South. Were the North already abolitionized,\nwe should do all the good specified above. We should preserve our\nown liberties, virtue and religion, and save the South from man\u2019s\ngreatest curse, his own voluntary wickedness. Is it not, then,\ndesirable that our sentiments should prevail? Do they not carry\nwith them the clearest credentials of truth\u2014the very best practical\ntendencies? Is it not the grossest hypocrisy in the North to pretend\nhostility to Slavery, when she refuses to do the good which she\nwould rejoice to do, were she a convert to abolitionism? Is it not\na crime in her to fight against the diffusion of these sentiments?\nIn one word\u2014ought not the Abolitionists to do all they can, in a\nconstitutional and christian manner, to propagate their views?\n\nSuccess at the North is certain; for she has an interest in\ndestroying Slavery: her political principles are opposed to it; and\nthe great mass of her citizens are intelligent and virtuous, unbought\nby southern patronage, and accustomed to abhor cruelty and injustice.\nOur success is also written in the desperate, but ineffectual\nendeavors of the opposition, to prevent the agitation of the subject.\nBy their own showing, Slavery cannot endure the light of free\ninquiry. If northern abettors of Slavery were not convinced, that the\ndiscussion will inevitably abolitionize the mass of the people, they\nwould rely on argument rather than on lawless violence. Our progress\ntoo, has already been astonishing. In the course of three years\nnearly a thousand Anti-Slavery Societies have been organized; many\nenemies have become friends, and many opposers, the able advocates\nof our cause. The prejudices of the people have been softened, and\nthousands are now on the eve of joining us, who lately were our most\nbitter antagonists. We have made all this progress notwithstanding\nthe abuse of the political and commercial press has been heaped upon\nus without measure, and no man could join us but at the peril of his\nreputation, if not also his life and property. We are, therefore,\nencouraged to persevere. What have we to accomplish, which we have\nnot in part achieved, while our powers and facilities are constantly\naugmenting.\n\n\nVINDICATION OF MEASURES.\n\nWe propose to convert the country to our views by measures which some\nof our opponents, (ashamed to deny our doctrines,) allege to be the\nprincipal ground of their dissent. We think they have failed to make\na proper distinction between our _measures_ and the _abuse_ of these\nmeasures. The constitutional action of Congress, the pulpit, the\npress, public debate, private conversation, anti-slavery societies,\n_these_ are our measures. If any of our associates, through human\ninfirmity, prosecute any of these measures in ill-temper or with\nindiscretion, we regret and condemn it. The measures themselves,\nand the prosecution of them we approve, and shall now attempt to\nvindicate.\n\nSome object to _our organizing Anti-Slavery Societies_, which in our\nopinion they would not do, if they wished well to our enterprise.\nFor it is manifest that union gives us strength, influence,\ncourage, money and other facilities for carrying on the work; it\nlays a foundation for concentrated, permanent, economical effort.\nSocieties have their stated and occasional meetings, without giving\noffence and provoking popular violence. They animate each other by\nfriendly correspondence, and prosecute their work systematically\nand vigorously, by the gratuitous labors of their most enlightened\nmembers. A general organization will enable us to petition the\nvarious legislative bodies in behalf of human rights, with unanimity\nand regularity, until our objects are gained. We see other ends to\nbe secured by it. There is no disputing our constitutional right to\nadopt this measure; which we believe any men of common sense would\nadopt in our circumstances. Even the wisdom of Christ sanctions the\nmeasure, for what is his _church_ but a _society_ formed for the\npurpose of converting men to the truth and progressively sanctifying\nthem? Nor do we see how we can testify to the South our abhorrence\nof Slavery unless we form societies for the purpose. Had none been\nformed, it might be doubted whether there are a thousand decided\nAbolitionists in the country. It would be said in Congress and\nbelieved at the South, that we are few in numbers, and constantly\nbecoming fewer and more contemptible. The existence and rapidly\nincreasing number of our _societies_ precludes the possibility\nof such misrepresentations and mistakes. As soon as our plan is\ncompleted, in the formation of a flourishing society in each village\nof the free states, embodying a majority of the people, the South\nwill know what our public sentiment is. It will be concentrated upon\nher. She will feel it. We learn from intelligent sources, that the\ngeneral opinion at the South now is, that all the citizens of the\nNorth who are not Abolitionists, sympathize with the slave-holders.\nIt is natural they should think so. We must, therefore, rank\nourselves with the Abolitionists, by joining an Anti-Slavery Society,\nif we would give our decided testimony against the GREAT SOUTHERN\nSIN.\n\nSome object to _our employing itinerant lecturers_. We think they\nwould not object, if they had considered the matter with friendly\nfeelings. The subject of Slavery has so many relations in this\ncountry, and involves so many questions in morals, in biblical\nliterature, in constitutional law, in political economy, in history,\nand other departments of learning, that our stated clergy, have not\nsufficient time for its thorough investigation, were they disposed\nto make it. We ought not to expect of them more than a faithful\nexposition of the testimony of God against Slavery, and in favor of\nimmediate emancipation. As a general rule, they can do no more. We\nneed an extensive and thorough discussion of the whole subject. Nor\nare all our clergymen yet Abolitionists. Some are with us; others\nare against us. This was to be expected. The subject has but just\ncome before the public mind. It found almost all our ministers\ncolonizationists. It would have been surprising, if they had all\nembraced our views at the first blush, without discussion. We don\u2019t\ndo things so in Connecticut. Hereafter we doubt not they will all\njoin us; but in the interim, we must employ _itinerant_ lecturers, if\nwe would disseminate what we believe to be the truth. And who will be\nharmed by it? The truth will hurt no one; and even \u201cerror,\u201d we quote\nthe words of Jefferson, \u201cmay safely be tolerated, so long as reason\nis left free to combat it.\u201d Some think it an interference with the\nrights of the stated ministry to introduce an itinerant lecturer,\nwithout the advice and consent of the settled pastor. How so? Suppose\nthere are several clergymen in the same village. One of them being\nan Abolitionist does all he can, by conversation, the distribution\nof papers, and public lectures, to make the people Abolitionists,\nwithout distinction of sect or party. Is that an interference with\nthe rights of the other pastors? No; such a course has never been\nthought so. Nor is there the least difference in the two cases. The\nseveral churches introduce these pastors to be their teachers. We,\nthe Abolitionists, another body of people, introduce a man to teach\non a particular subject. We have the right; he has a right to come;\ntherefore no right is violated.[1]\n\n_Some object to our employing severe epithets in speaking of\nSlavery and slave-holders._ They say our condemnation is too hard,\ndenunciatory and indiscriminate. We wish all who allege this against\nus would illustrate their meaning and sustain their charge by quoting\nthe offensive expressions. It would put them to great inconvenience.\nThey may think the language \u201chard\u201d and \u201ctoo hard,\u201d when it barely\nexpresses what ought to be said, and cannot be better said. We do\nindeed tell slave-holders their sins plainly, calling things by their\nright names; but it is only in the conclusion of an argument to\nprove the charge, that we justify making it. Nor is our language any\nharder than the sober language of moral philosophers, and of the most\neminent fathers of the church. Wesley says: \u201cYou, [the slave-holder,]\nfirst acted the villain in making them slaves, whether you stole\nthem or bought them.\u201d \u201cThis equally concerns all slave-holders, of\nwhatever rank and degree: seeing _men-buyers are exactly on a level\nwith men-stealers_.\u201d The younger President Edwards says: \u201cTo hold\na man in a state of Slavery is to be every day guilty of _robbing_\nhim of his liberty, or of _man-stealing_.\u201d Grotius says: \u201cThose are\nmen-stealers, who abduct, _keep_, sell or buy _slaves_ or freemen. To\nsteal a man is the highest kind of theft.\u201d Adam Clarke says: \u201cAmong\nthe heathen Slavery was in some sort excusable; among _christians_\nit is AN ENORMITY AND A CRIME FOR WHICH PERDITION HAS SCARCELY AN\nADEQUATE STATE OF PUNISHMENT.\u201d We use no language more hard, more\ntrue, or more indiscriminate. We think these great men understood\nhow to do good, at least as well as our critics. We are also fully\npersuaded, that the South is far less incensed at our _language_\nthan at our _sentiments_. She is indignant at what we say, not the\nmanner of saying it. Dr. Channing had this vulgar prejudice, that we\nwere injuring our cause by using abusive language. And Mr. Leigh of\nVirginia, took the very book, in which he reproves us, and quoted\npassages which he declared in the United States Senate, rivalled the\nmost insulting language of Garrison. So difficult is it to tell the\ntruth about Slavery in palatable terms.\n\nWe are also censured for _sending pictures to the South illustrative\nof the horrors of Slavery_. We do indeed employ the art of painting,\nas well as the arts of printing and speaking, to awaken sympathy\nfor the Slave; but our pictures are designed for the North, not\nthe South. Though some of them may find their way there, they are\n_never sent_ to the slaves, are not apt to fall into their hands,\nand not adapted to make them uneasy and turbulent. Were they painted\nas large as life, and set up at the corner of every street and on\nevery plantation, the sole effect would be to awe the slaves into\nsubjection, by reminding them of the consequences of disobedience.\n\nWe are accused of _sending papers to the slaves_. The charge is\nfalse. Our publications are sent exclusively to the free white\npopulation. Were it in our power to send to the slaves, we should\nindeed rejoice at it. If they could read and the mails would carry\nthem papers, we would prepare tracts on purpose for them, explaining\nthe doctrines and duties of christianity, inculcating the forgiveness\nof injuries, the patient endurance of wrong, the faithful service of\ntheir masters, until such time as they _can be made free_. We would\neven send them the Bible, which says: \u201cWoe unto him that buildeth his\nhouse by unrighteousness and his chambers by wrong; _that useth his\nneighbor\u2019s service without wages and giveth him not for his work_.\u201d\nJer. xxii, 13.\n\nThe foregoing are current objections to _specific_ measures of the\nAbolitionists. There are other objections of a more general and\nsweeping character, which go to condemn _all_ our measures, calling\nupon us to disband our societies, to dismiss our agents, to break up\nour printing presses, and interfere in no way with Southern Slavery.\nWe can give these only a brief notice.\n\nIt is a current objection to our enterprise, that _Slavery is\nno concern of ours_: that the South alone is interested in the\nsubject, and we have no right to _interfere_. Interference is a very\nindefinite term. We acknowledge we have no right to interfere by\nforce of arms; and have ever disclaimed the intention of interfering,\nexcept by the constitutional and peaceable action of Congress,\nand the application of truth to the hearts and consciences of our\nsouthern brethren. As to our having no right to interfere in _this\nmanner_, because Slavery is no concern of ours, it is a strange\ndoctrine to be promulgated in the nineteenth century by republicans\nand christians. What interest had we in the struggle of Greece and\nPoland with Turkish and Russian despotism? What concern have we in\nthe moral and political degradation of the Hindoo, Hottentot and\nChinese? We have the answer in the motto of the christian church:\nOUR COUNTRY IS THE WORLD, OUR COUNTRYMEN MANKIND. As christians\nwe are concerned for the spiritual welfare of all classes at the\nSouth; the great mass of whom are now sunk in infidelity and vice.\nTheir alarming destitution of the means of religion, and the general\ncorruption of their morals, are justly attributed to Slavery. What\nwould become of the virtue, intelligence and religious institutions\nof Meriden, if all the real estate and all the inhabitants of the\ntown, were held as property by one man? He might be an infidel;\nand if he were a christian, what dependence could be placed on\nhim to support the gospel, or what confidence would the oppressed\npeople have in his religion? Such is the state of things at the\nSouth. Slavery not only creates a distaste for true religion, but\nwithdraws from its support the laboring class, which in every free\ncountry, embodies a great proportion of the most devoted and liberal\nchristians. There is also much in the habits which Slavery fosters,\nto indispose pious youth to enter the ministry and to disqualify them\nfor its laborious duties; while many who enter upon the work, abandon\nit for secular pursuits, or remove to the free states, where they\ncan preach the _whole_ gospel with more security and success. Not\nonly must a slave-holding community be destitute of men and means to\nmake known the way of salvation, but the preaching of the gospel will\ngenerally be inefficacious with all classes; with the _masters_, for\nSlavery fosters in them the worst passions of human nature, affords\nthem facilities for the unbounded indulgence of their appetites,\nand relieves them from the necessity of personal exertion for a\nlivelihood; with the _poor white population_, for Slavery accumulates\nthe wealth of the community in a few hands, renders free labor\ndisreputable, and multiplies temptations to low and degrading vices;\nwith the _free people of color_, for Slavery holds most of them in a\nstate of abject poverty, ignorance and sin; with the _slaves_, for\nSlavery robs them of the bible, of self-control, of hope, of parent,\nwife and child, of the best motives to be virtuous, and of the best\nevidences of christianity; it makes them vicious; it makes them\nsceptics. We are concerned for these perishing millions.\n\nSlavery is a concern of ours for it involves our personal interests.\nIt throws back upon us a moral pestilence; it scatters the seeds\nof intemperance, licentiousness, and infidelity; it popularizes\ngambling, Sabbath breaking, profaneness and lawless violence; it\ncasts an undeserved stigma on manual labor, it encourages idleness\nand prodigality. It disgraces us in the eyes of the whole world;\nit impairs our national strength; it encroaches on the spirit of\nliberty; it is constantly undermining our free institutions. The\nnorthern states have no greater enemy. Were Slavery abolished, her\nreligion, her morals, her liberties, her general prosperity would be\nfar more secure. The chief source of danger to the integrity of our\nunion, and to our domestic tranquility would be removed; a greater\nmarket would be opened for our manufactures, and a wider field for\nour industry and enterprise; the emancipated slaves would purchase\nour goods, and our youth could enter into competition with the sons\nof the South in raising cotton, &c. without becoming slave-holders.\nLabor would soon cease to be disgraceful; property would accumulate\nin every part of the land; education would flourish; religion would\nrevive; the entire country would rejoice in peace and plenty under\nthe smiles of an approving providence. Tell us not, that we have no\nconcern in removing the greatest sin, curse and shame of the nation,\nand in securing for ourselves and our posterity, a truly free and\nvirtuous government.\n\nIt is said that _Slavery is an agitating subject, which cannot be\ndiscussed without disturbing the peace and harmony of our churches_.\nWhy so? This subject can be discussed in the churches in Great\nBritain without discord and division. We think it could be here,\nwere it not for the corruption of our public sentiment, which can\nbe corrected only by free discussion. It is where the truth needs\nmost to be heard, that it creates most opposition and variance.\nPrimitive christianity was accused of turning the world upside down.\nThe temperance cause has occasioned strife, and separated \u201cvery\nfriends.\u201d We hold to the Apostolic injunction: \u201c_first_ pure, _then_\npeaceable.\u201d We love a virtuous peace. A truce with sin we abhor. If\nwe must surrender our liberties, and connive at iniquity, to avoid\na war, we say with Patrick Henry, \u201cThe war is inevitable, and let\nit come; I repeat it, sir, let it come.\u201d Who does not see that if\npolygamy were common in our churches, it would create a terrible\nexcitement to preach against it, and lead to the dismission of\npastors? Yet any one would acknowledge, that religion could never\nprosper, while the church was so corrupt; and that she had better be\ntorn into ten thousand fragments, than that polygamy should continue\nin vogue; for she would soon be re-organized in greater purity and\nstrength. So it is with a _slave-holding_ Church; and with a Church\nin which the _spirit_ of Slavery is so rife, that she will not live\nin peace with her Anti-Slavery members, nor tolerate the exercise\nof their Constitutional rights. But we do not believe this of our\nChurches. We think the more this \u201cdelicate and agitating\u201d subject is\ndiscussed among us, the less unpleasant excitement will prevail.\n\nIt is said _that our measures to overthrow Slavery are\nunconstitutional_. Our opponents may easily test this question\nby bringing it before the U. S. Court. We claim to be acting\nconstitutionally. Our plan of operations is essentially the same as\nthat pursued by the early Anti-Slavery Societies, of which such men\nas John Jay, Benj. Franklin, Benj. Rush, and Jonathan Edwards, were\nactive members; some of whom were engaged in forming our federal\nConstitution. Did they not understand that instrument? Did their\ncontemporaries ever dispute their right to discuss the merits of\nSlavery? Have not our citizens, from time immemorial and without\nrestriction, exercised this right? Does not the Constitution, instead\nof guaranteeing Slavery against this moral influence, guarantee to\nus the right of employing it, by forbidding Congress to pass any law\nabridging the freedom of speech and of the press?\n\nWe are told our measures are an _invasion of the rights of\nproperty_. This objection assumes, what nature denies, that _man_\nmay be _rightfully_ held as property. Blackstone maintains in his\nCommentaries, that man cannot be reduced by any just process to a\nstate of absolute Slavery; that he cannot be born in that state, nor\nsell himself into it, nor be placed there when taken captive in war,\nwithout flagrant injustice. We also hold it to be _self-evident_,\nthat all men are _born free and equal_, and entitled to certain\n_inalienable_ rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit\nof happiness. The Slave owns himself by grant of his Creator.\n_Slavery_ is, therefore, an invasion of his rights of property. It is\nthe slave-master who makes an aggression on the property of others,\nnot we, who exhort him to relinquish that property. The Slaves\nbeing the rightful owners of themselves, the abolition of Slavery\nis merely an act declarative of this indisputable title. Nor do we\nseek the destruction of Slavery, except through the constitutional\nauthorities. Even were the slaves the _property_ of their masters, it\nwould be lawful for us to _persuade_ them to part with it. Would it\nnot? The Legislatures of the several states have a right to abolish\nSlavery. Have they not? It has hitherto been conceded, that the law\nmaking power of every slave-holding country has this right. May\nwe not then persuade the states to exercise it, by convincing them\nof the moral wrong and frightful impolicy of Slavery? Should it be\nsaid that the government encouraged its citizens to invest property\nunder the protection of the slave code, and therefore ought not\nto abolish Slavery without indemnifying them, our answer is, that\nmankind are under a paramount obligation not to invest property under\nthe protection of _immoral_ laws; that all such laws are in their\nnature null and void from the beginning; that governments have always\nexercised the power of correcting abuses; and there is no greater\nabuse than Slavery; none more unjust and oppressive; none more\npernicious and perilous to our national interests.\n\nSome object, that the abolition of Slavery _on our plan_, without\ncompensation to the masters, _would be taking away the bread of poor\nwidows and orphans_. We have no plan. We say only, that Slavery is\nwrong, and ought forthwith to be abandoned. The South will adopt\nand prosecute her own plan. When her Legislatures abolish Slavery,\nthey can, if they will, provide for widows and children, who are\nleft destitute by that act. If they will not do it, we will raise\ncontributions for their relief; for we deem the claims of _charity_,\nnearly as imperative as the claims of justice. But we can never\nsanction the _principle_ of Slavery, by saying, that slave-holders\nhave a _right_ to compensation for restoring to the slaves their\nstolen rights. We must always consider it a greater hardship to be\nunjustly held as a slave, than to be made poor by freeing such slave.\nIt is a sad blunder in morals, that this man may make that man,\nperhaps fifty other men, poor for life, lest he himself should be a\npauper; that this man may make that man poor by _dishonesty_, lest he\nhimself should become poor by _being honest_.\n\nNo objection to our measures is more senseless, or more common,\nthan an _alleged tendency to dissolve the Union_. Which had we\nbetter surrender, the Union or our liberties? The Union is a curse\ninstead of a blessing, if we must surrender for it, _freedom of\nspeech and personal protection in any part of the country_. And\nif Slavery continues to be protected by public sentiment, and by\npopular violence, how long could the Union last, even were _all_ the\nabolitionists this day laid in their graves? Slavery endangers the\nintegrity of the Union, more than all other enemies; and unless soon\ndestroyed, will be the destroyer both of it and us. If we love the\nUnion, we should labor to overthrow Slavery. Wesley somewhere defines\nfanaticism, to be the expectation of accomplishing ends without\nthe use of means. Let us not hope for the peaceable destruction of\nSlavery, by such a fanatical course. Let us do _something_; and if\nwe do any thing, what can be done which the abolitionists are not\nattempting? In doing this we shall not peril the Union, but preserve\nit. The South will never venture on the mad experiment of secession,\n_because_ the North is opposed to Slavery. Such an act would be\nsuicidal. It would encourage the slaves to revolt. It would leave her\ndefenceless against the invasion of a foreign foe. It would release\nus from the constitutional obligation to suppress domestic violence,\nand to restore fugitives from service. It would open several thousand\nmiles of frontier, over which her slaves would escape into a land\nof liberty. It would make the south \u201ca good country to emigrate\nfrom,\u201d and she would find herself losing her best citizens, and her\ncondition becoming more and more exposed and perilous. She would be\nruined. She knows it. Were our legislators in Congress to retort her\nstereotyped threat to dissolve the Union, with a challenge to do it,\nif she dares, we should hear no more of this empty bravado.\n\nIt is said, if our measures should be successful, _the slaves would\nresort to the North_, and coming up upon our farms, and into our\nshops, like the frogs of Egypt, reduce the wages of our laborers.\nNo apprehension is more groundless. The free colored people of the\nSouth are quite numerous, and very much oppressed; yet few of them\nleave that part of the country; though the whites would be very glad\nto have them do so, because they render the slaves uneasy, and come\ninto competition with slave labor. But were slavery abolished, the\nwhites would desire to retain all the colored people, in order to\nemploy them in cultivating the soil; precisely as is now the case in\nthe West Indies. Nor would the slaves be willing to leave the land of\ntheir nativity, and of their kindred, to reside in the cold regions\nof the north, to the business and climate of which they are uninured,\nand where they must labor more severely to obtain a comfortable\nliving. But should they come, what then? Do you prefer perpetual\nslavery?\n\nIt is also objected to our enterprise, that _the immediate abolition\nof slavery, would be \u201cletting the slaves loose\u201d to be idlers,\nvagabonds, thieves, and cut-throats_. This objection is more forcible\nagainst _gradual_ emancipation, which would throw upon society\na multitude of freedmen, while the rest of their brethren still\nremained in bondage. The holders of slaves would not encourage the\nfree by giving them labor; who would, therefore, be more apt to be\nidle and vicious; while their release would excite uneasiness in the\nminds of the unemancipated. The objection is also equally strong\nagainst _prospective_ emancipation, according to which the slaves\nwould all be set free at once; but not until some time after the\npassage of the act. Experience and human nature both teach us, that\nslaves under such circumstances are more apt to be overworked, than\nto be better prepared for the enjoyment of freedom. The objection\nis, therefore, good for _perpetual_ slavery, or good for nothing.\nIt is good for nothing. Immediate emancipation would indeed deliver\nthe slave and his family at once from the hands of an irresponsible\nmaster, and empower him to go where he pleases and do what he\npleases, so long as he breaks none of the laws which restrain\nother men. And why not? He could not otherwise rejoin his wife and\nchildren, whom the slave trade has torn from him, nor secure fair\nwages, nor be safe from oppression. But this is not letting him\nloose _to do evil_. THE LAWS OF SLAVERY LET THE MASTERS LOOSE UPON\nTHE SLAVES, _instead of the abolition of slavery letting the slaves\nloose upon the masters_. Were there a law authorizing the inhabitants\nof Meriden to seize the inhabitants of Berlin, to confine them to\njail limits, and work them without wages, to separate husbands and\nwives, parents and children, and even to kill them by that very\nindefinite thing, called \u201cmoderate correction;\u201d this law would let\nthe inhabitants of Meriden loose upon the inhabitants of Berlin;\nfor it would protect the former in the grossest outrages upon the\nlatter. But the repeal of this law would not let the inhabitants of\nBerlin loose upon us. Extending them protection would not be letting\nthem loose upon us. Had we the power of repealing the law; or if\nnot, possessing the power of _not enforcing_ it, we should find\nour security in doing so. The very way to make them respect _our_\nrights, would be to respect _theirs_. Immediate emancipation places\nthe slaves under the _control_ as well as protection of the laws of\nthe State against idleness, vagrancy, theft, murder, and all other\naggressions on the rights of men.\n\nWe are told that the _Slaves are not fit to be free_; and therefore\nour scheme of immediate emancipation, if adopted, would prove a\ncurse to them and the country. Nothing is more false. The Slaves are\n_men_; and therefore they are more fit for freedom than for slavery;\nmore fit to be treated as persons than as things; to be governed by\nappeals to the reason and conscience than by brute force. God made\nman to be free and adapted him to that condition. A state of Slavery\nis unnatural to him. Nor can his nature so change, that he shall\nbe more fit to be treated as a brute, than as a free moral agent.\nSlaves have often been set at liberty, and have _always_ proved\ntheir capacity for freedom, by their industry, frugality and ready\nobedience to the laws.\n\nAnd why, we would ask, should they be thought unfit to be put under\nthe control and protection of the same laws, which govern freemen? Do\ntheir vices or their ignorance, disqualify them? While Slavery lasts,\nthey will remain equally degraded.\n\nAre they _Sabbath breakers_? Slavery has taught them to desecrate\nthe day of rest, by making it to them almost the only day of\nrecreation, the only day for visiting, for trading and for tilling\ntheir gardens. Are they _thieves_? They consider stealing from their\nmasters to be only making _reprisals_ for the robbery of their just\nwages; while many of them are strongly tempted to steal by the\ndesire of more or better food. Are they _liars_? They will continue\nsuch, while they are slaves. They will pretend sickness, to avoid\nlabor; they will say they do not wish to be free, lest their masters\nshould sell them into distant banishment; they will lie to conceal\nthe unavoidable delinquences, for which slaves are daily upbraided\nand beaten. Are they _idle_? As slaves they have no hope of reward\nto stimulate their exertions. They will work much better, as one\nfacetiously expresses it, for Mr. CASH than for Mr. LASH. Let their\nwives and children be dependent on their industry for support, a\nfar more noble and efficient motive than the fear of violence, to\ncall forth the energies of man. Are they _improvident_? They cannot\nlearn to save property, until they are allowed to hold it in their\nown right. Make them free, and then that faculty of their nature,\nwhich the phrenologists call \u201cacquisitiveness\u201d will prompt them to\nsave their earnings. Are they _licentious_? Then give them their\nliberty, that the husband and father may be the legal protector of\nhis wife and daughters. Are they _revengeful_? Redress their wrongs,\nand they will forgive their oppressors. Are they _heathen_? Take\nyour foot from their necks, before you disgrace christianity, by\nattempting to convert them. Are they _ignorant of letters_? So are a\nmajority of the freemen of the world; nor is it to be expected that\nslave-holders will teach their slaves to read and write, until they\nrepent of Slavery itself. The vices of the Slaves are inseparable\nfrom their condition. If they are not now fit for freedom, Slavery,\nwhich unfitted them, will perpetuate their unfitness. Nor is their\ndegradation of mind and morals a disqualification for freedom. You\nmay find its counterpart in the characters of a large class of\ncitizens in every country.\n\nWhile Slavery continues, what is the prospect of their becoming\n_better_ fitted for freedom? Where are the men and the means? Who\nwill teach them? Who will support the teachers? The south cannot\nsupply her _free_ population with instruction. Even with the aid\nof the north, she is very destitute of the means of religion. Nor\nwould she be willing to adopt a general system of education for the\nimprovement of the Slaves. Instead of giving her money to fit them\nfor freedom, she would hunt from society any persons, who should\nseriously propose the measure. They know little of the spirit of\nSlavery, who imagine, that the south was disposed to prepare her\nSlaves for freedom, until the abolitionists roused her to resistance.\nHad she really wished to free her Slaves, she would have welcomed\nus as coadjutors, at least she would not have abandoned her own\nplan, because ours was offensive to her. She never intended to fit\nher Slaves for freedom. She does not intend it now. Her laws, in\nmost of the States, are against it. The mass of her Slaves will, no\ndoubt, be as unfit for freedom fifty years hence, if Slavery should\ncontinue so long, as they are to day. The British abolitionists were\nonce deceived by this syren song of preparation, but now in allusion\nto the words of Paul; \u201cthe _glorious_ gospel of the blessed God;\u201d\nthey exclaim, THE GLORIOUS DOCTRINE OF IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION! They\nfound it the POWER OF GOD, to awaken the slumbering conscience of the\nnation; and the WISDOM OF GOD as a measure of relief to their Slaves.\nWe shall find it so.\n\nOur opponents also object to _emancipation upon the soil_. Not all,\nbut some of them, are in favor of Colonization as a remedy for\nSlavery, and others execrate us for our opposition to it as a scheme\nfor benefiting Africa. We are especially averse to the former class.\nWhen men say, that the Slaves ought not to be freed, until they\ncan be colonized, we _ought to make resistance_, for the following\nreasons:\n\n1. We ought to _resist every wicked prejudice_; and they who object\nto emancipation on the soil, do so, in obedience to such a prejudice.\nThey say the colored people can never rise in this country. They\nmaintain that our aversion to the race is instinctive and natural;\nthough we find no one averse to associating with them as _slaves_.\nThe two races are certainly on very _intimate_ terms at the South.\nIt is only when they come as _freemen_ between the wind and our\nnobility, that they taint the air. We, therefore, say, this prejudice\nis unnatural and sinful; and instead of fostering it, we ought to\nrebuke, and check it in ourselves and others. Some of us recollect\nthe time, when as Colonizationists we wished to get rid of the\ncolored people, and were indignant at them for being unwilling to\nleave the country. May we not repent of such a feeling and condemn in\nit others, without being hunted from society?\n\n2. _By retaining the emancipated slaves on the soil, we can at less\nexpense of men and means educate and christianize them._ Were we\nto send them beyond the Mississippi or to Africa, it would take\nten times the number of Missionaries and Teachers, that we are\nnow supporting among the heathen, to save them from sinking into\nbarbarism. But if they should be retained as free laborers in the\nservice of their present masters, those masters would provide for\ntheir instruction, and without diverting means from other objects,\nthe delightful spectacle would soon be witnessed of Schools and\nChurches springing up among them, through the voluntary efforts of\nthe ministers and christians of the South.\n\n3. _The labor of the Slaves is wanted on the plantations at the\nSouth._ To withdraw such an amount of labor would bankrupt the\nentire country. Nor could their places be supplied, except by the\nworst population of the old world; by men, whose religion, whose\nmorals, whose politics are all, in the highest degree, hostile to our\nnational interests. The emancipated Slaves, on the contrary, would be\nprejudiced in favor of the protestant faith, and prove the staunchest\nfriends of our free institutions.\n\n4. The _South will not consent to the colonization of the Slaves_.\nShe is willing we should contribute to carry off the free people of\ncolor, \u201cthe nuisances,\u201d \u201cthe disturbing force,\u201d as she terms them;\nand also those Slaves, whom the more conscientious of her citizens,\nwho dare not die Slave-holders, may emancipate for the purpose. But\nshe is unwilling we should go a step further. She does not believe we\ncan get the means of doing more. We think, if a place were provided\nin Africa, and we had the means necessary to transport every Slave\nthere, and were to go and tell the south, about the sinfulness of\nholding Slaves, when they _can_ be colonized, and call upon her in\n_good earnest_, to give them up, she would denounce us as fanatics,\nand pass no more resolutions in favor of colonization. She is now at\npeace with it, because she does not fear it, and hopes to find it of\nuse in repelling the abolitionists, in _letting off_, as by a safety\nvalve, the pious feeling of her own citizens, and in expelling the\nfree people of color.\n\n5. The Slaves _are unwilling to leave the country_; and will never\nconsent to do it, but on such a dread alternative as no christian\npeople should impose. _First_ give them their liberty, put them under\nthe protection of impartial law, and treat them with kindness, and\nthen if they _ask_ our aid to remove their families to Africa, their\ndetermination to leave this country will evidently be spontaneous.\n\n6. _It is better for them to remain in the employment of southern\ncapitalists, who are able to pay them wages for their labor than to\ngo out into the wilderness as paupers, where there is no capital, and\nthe very necessaries of life, are to be created._\n\n7. _They cannot be colonized without an appalling expense of money,\nlife and comfort._\n\n8. To colonize the Slaves of this country _on account of their color,\nwould be in the highest degree dishonorable to christianity_. Were\nChrist on earth, he would associate with the despised colored man in\npreference to many who think themselves the best society. Can we act,\nas he would not and yet exemplify his religion? What, too, would\nbe the effect on the minds of the heathen, nearly all of whom are\n_colored_ men, were they to learn, that that nation, which makes the\nloudest professions of attachment to christianity, had banished more\nthan two millions of her citizens to a land of pagan darkness, being\noffended at the _color of their skin_?\n\n9. To _send all the slaves to Africa would be fatal to the natives of\nthat Continent_. Said Mr. Pinney, agent of the Colonization Society,\nand once Gov. of Liberia, \u2018the colony must be kept pure, or it will\neither enslave or exterminate the African tribes.\u2019 Send 2,500,000 of\npeople to Africa, four-fifths of whom are in heathenish darkness,\nand all of whom have been taught, by the example of their masters,\nthat slavery is morally right, and labor disgraceful, would they\nhesitate to buy Slaves of the native Princes, or to reduce their\ncaptives to a state of servitude? It is said, there is as strong a\nline of demarkation between the colonists, and the heathen, though\nof the same color, as there is between the white and colored people\nin this country. But if they should not become slave-holders, would\nthey not gradually exterminate the native tribes for the sake of\nrevenging injuries, and possessing themselves of their lands? Said\nMr. Pinney, the colony must be kept pure, or such a result is\ninevitable; and it cannot be kept pure, unless it is conducted on a\nvery small scale. We doubt whether a commercial and military colony\ncan be so far controlled by _moral principle_, as to avoid these\nresults. For if the emigrants were all pious persons, and few in\nnumber, their posterity might become both vicious and powerful. We\nare not, therefore, without our objections to African colonization,\neven if it should be distinctly abandoned as a remedy for slavery,\nand conducted with caution, and on a small scale. We know not to what\nit may grow. We like better, the good, old, apostolic plan of sending\n_missionaries_ to the heathen\u2014men, who have no commercial and selfish\ninterests to subserve, and who bear no hostile weapons. There is\ndanger that a colony, however carefully guarded, will _misrepresent\nchristianity_ and fatally prejudice the native mind against it. The\nfact, that not a native has yet been converted to christianity, in\nconnection with the colony of Liberia, justifies the inquiry, whether\nthe _scheme_ is a good one for Africa. The transportation of all our\nSlaves would confessedly form a colony too large and corrupt for the\nsafety of the native tribes; and we tremble for the result of the\npresent _experiment_.\n\nIn this argument we have not denied the practicability of colonizing\ntwo millions and a half of people, at an expense of $125,000,000. We\nthink it enough to show the thing ought not to be done.\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nWith this view of our sentiments, of their practical value, and of\nthe propriety and wisdom of our measures, we leave you to judge\nwhether abolitionists deserve to be out-lawed in their own country;\nto be loaded with abuse and contumely; to be denied a right, conceded\nto all other decent men, of advocating their cause in our public\nhalls and churches; and to be left, unprotected, to the violence of\nill-minded men? We beg you also to consider, how terrific would be\nthe prospects of our country, were we in obedience to popular clamor,\nto disband our societies, and retire from the field. Who would ever\nagain venture to raise his voice in behalf of the down-trodden\nslave? Should any one have the temerity to do it, how soon would he\nbe overwhelmed by the violence of the pro-slavery party, encouraged\nby past success, and maddened by the remembrance of the formidable\narray of talent, wealth, and piety, which they once encountered. We\nverily believe, that the peaceable abolition of Slavery depends,\nunder God, on our perseverance. Moral means must continue to be used\nby us until they issue in success, or slavery will terminate in a\nbloody revolution. We anticipate such an event, as a possibility,\nwith painful emotions; and feel disposed to look, in the use of all\nlawful means, to that God, who has promised to do for us, exceeding\nabundantly above all that we can ask or think, that so dire a\ncatastrophe may be averted. We earnestly solicit your co-operation.\n\nWe might have said much more to correct misapprehensions, refute\ncalumnies, and fortify our positions; but our limits forbid it. We\nmay have said some things, which you will disapprove; for we have\ningenuously confessed our most obnoxious sentiments; but if you will\ngive us credit for sincerity and weigh our arguments, we shall expect\nto stand better in your opinion, than our calumniators would have us.\n\n                With much respect,\n                           } PHILO PRATT,\n  In behalf of the Meriden } WALTER WEBB,\n    Anti-Slavery Society,  } ISAAC I. TIBBALS.\n\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[1] As our enterprise is not sectarian but national and catholic,\nit is the highest pitch of arrogance for any sect to denounce this\nmeasure as a violation of ecclesiastical order. Religious freedom\ndemands that all such claims should be at once and steadfastly\nresisted.\n\n\n\n\n  TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been\n  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within\n  the text and consultation of external sources.\n\n  Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,\n  when a predominant preference was found in the original book.\n\n  Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,\n  and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.\n\n  Pg 9: \u2018fraud and villany\u2019 replaced by \u2018fraud and villainy\u2019.\n  Pg 11: \u2018the emancipatton of\u2019 replaced by \u2018the emancipation of\u2019.\n  Pg 11: \u2018they abvocate this\u2019 replaced by \u2018they advocate this\u2019.\n  Pg 17: \u2018until onr objects\u2019 replaced by \u2018until our objects\u2019.\n  Pg 17: \u2018is his _chnrch_\u2019 replaced by \u2018is his _church_\u2019.\n  Pg 18: \u2018_intinerant_ lecturers\u2019 replaced by \u2018_itinerant_ lecturers\u2019.\n  Pg 21: \u2018Their is also\u2019 replaced by \u2018There is also\u2019.\n  Pg 22: \u2018and enterprize; the\u2019 replaced by \u2018and enterprise; the\u2019.\n  Pg 25: \u2018the constistutional\u2019 replaced by \u2018the constitutional\u2019.\n  Pg 26: \u2018not lettting him\u2019 replaced by \u2018not letting him\u2019.\n  Pg 27: \u2018for while slaves\u2019 replaced by \u2018for which slaves\u2019.\n  Pg 30: \u2018the best soeiety\u2019 replaced by \u2018the best society\u2019.","title":"An apology for abolitionists: addressed by the anti-slavery society of Meriden, Conn., to their fellow citizens","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":12847}