The following are the
circumstances which occasioned the succeeding pages. A gentleman and a friend,
requested the writer to assign reasons why he should not join the Abolition
Society. While preparing a reply to this request, Miss Grimke's Address was
presented, and the information communicated, of her intention to visit the
North, for the purpose of using her influence among northern ladies to induce
them to unite with Abolition Societies. The writer then began a private letter
to Miss Grimké as a personal friend. But by the wishes and advice of others,
these two efforts were finally combined in the following Essay, to be presented
to the public.
The honoured and
beloved name which that lady bears, so associated as it is at the South, North,
and West, with all that is elegant in a scholar, refined in a gentleman, and
elevated in a Christian,--the respectable sect with which she is
connected,--the interesting effusions of her pen,--and her own intellectual and
moral worth, must secure respect for her opinions and much personal influence.
This seems to be a sufficient apology for presenting to the public some
considerations in connexion with her name; considerations which may exhibit in
another aspect the cause she advocates, and which it may be appropriate to
consider. As such, they are respectfully commended to the public, and
especially to that portion of it for which they are p articularly designed.
My dear Friend, Your
public address to Christian females at the South has reached me, and I have
been urged to aid in circulating it at the North. I have also been informed,
that you contemplate a tour, during the ensuing year, for the purpose of
exerting your influence to form Abolition Societies among ladies of the
non-slave-holding States.
Our acquaintance and
friendship give me a claim to your private ear; but there are reasons why it
seems more desirable to address you, who now stand before the public as an
advocate of Abolition measures, in a more public manner.
The object I have in
view, is to present some reasons why it seems unwise and inexpedient for ladies
of the non-slave-holding States to unite themselves in Abolition Societies; and
thus, at the same time, to exhibit the inexpediency of the course you propose
to adopt.
I would first remark,
that your public address leads me to infer, that you are not sufficiently
informed in regard to the feelings and opinions of Christian females at the
North. Your remarks seem to assume, that the principles held by Abolitionists
on the subject of slavery, are peculiar to them, and are not generally adopted
by those at the North who oppose their measures. In this you are not correctly
informed. In the sense in which Abolitionists expla in the terms they employ,
there is little, if any, difference between them and most northern persons.
Especially is this true of northern persons of religious principles. I know not
where to look for northern Christians, who would deny that every slave-holder
is bound to treat his slaves exactly as he would claim that his own children
ought to be treated in similar circumstances; that the holding of our fellow
men as property, or the withholding any of the rights of freedom, for mere
purposes of gain, is a sin, and ought to be immediately abandoned; and that
where the laws are such, that a slave-holder cannot legally emancipate his
slaves, without throwing them into worse bondage, he is bound to use all his
influence to alter those laws, and, in the meantime, to treat his slaves, as
nearly as he can, as if they were free.
I do not suppose there
is one person in a thousand, at the North, who would dissent from these
principles. They would only differ in the use of terms and call this the
doctrine of gradual emancipation, while Abolitionists would call it the
doctrine of immediate emancipation.
As this is the state of
public opinion at the North, there is no necessity for using any influence with
northern ladies, in order that they may adopt your principles on the subject of
slavery; for they hold them in common with yourself, and it would seem unwise,
and might prove irritating, to approach them as if they held opposite
sentiments.
In regard to the duty
of making efforts to bring the people of the Southern States to adopt these
principles, and act on them, it is entirely another matter. On this point you
would find a large majority opposed to your views. Most persons in the
non-slave-holding States have considered the matter of Southern slavery, as one
in which they were no more called to interfere, than in the abolition of the
press-gang system in England, or the tythe system of Ireland. Public opinion
may have been wrong on this point, and yet have been right on all those great
principles of rectitude and justice relating to slavery, which Abolitionists
claim as their distinctive peculiarities.
The distinctive
peculiarity of the Abolition Society is this: it is a voluntary association in
one section of the country, designed to awaken public sentiment against a moral
evil existing in another section of the country, and the principal point of
effort seems to be, to enlarge the numbers of this association as a means of
influencing public sentiment. The principal object of your proposed tour, I
suppose, is to present facts, arguments, and persuasions to influence northern
ladies to enrol themselves as members of this association.
I will therefore
proceed to present some of the reasons which may be brought against such a measure
as the one you would urge.
In the first place, the
main principle of action in that society rests wholly on a false deduction from
past experience. Experience has shown, that when certain moral evils exist in a
community, efforts to awaken public sentiment against such practices, and
combinations for the exercise of personal influence and example, have in
various cases tended to rectify these evils. Thus in respect to
intemperance;--the collecting of facts, the labours of public lecturers and the
distribution of publications, have had much effect in diminishing the evil. So
in reference to the slave-trade and slavery in England. The English nation
possessed the power of regulating their own trade, and of giving liberty to
every slave in their dominions; and yet they were entirely unmindful of their
duty on this subject. Clarkson, Wilberforce, and their coadjutors, commenced a
system of operations to arouse and influence public sentiment, and they
succeeded in securing the suppression of the slave trade, and the gradual
abolition of slavery in the English colonies. In both these cases, the effort
was to enlighten and direct public sentiment in a community, of which the
actors were a portion, in order to lead them to rectify an evil existing among
THEMSELVES, which was entirely under their control.
From the success of
such efforts, the Abolitionists of this country have drawn inferences, which
appear to be not only illogical, but false. Because individuals in their own
community have aroused their fellow citizens to correct their own evils,
therefore they infer that attempts to convince their fellow-citizens of the
faults of another community will lead that community to forsake their evil
practices. An example will more clearly illustrate the case. Suppose two rival
cities, which have always been in competition, and always jealous of each
other's reputation and prosperity. Certain individuals in one of these cities
become convinced, that the sin of intemperance is destroying their prosperity
and domestic happiness. They proceed to collect facts, they arrange statistics,
they call public meetings, they form voluntary associations, they use
arguments, entreaties and personal example, and by these means they arrest the
evil.
Suppose another set of
men, in this same community, become convinced that certain practices in trade
and business in the rival city, are dishonest, and have an oppressive bearing
on certain classes in that city, and are injurious to the interests of general
commerce. Suppose also, that these are practices, which, by those who allow
them, are considered as honourable and right. Those who are convinced of their
immorality, wish to alter the opinions and the practices of the citizens of
their rival city, and to do this, they commence the collection of facts, that
exhibit the tendencies of these practices and the evils they have engendered.
But instead of going among the community in which the evils exist, and
endeavouring to convince and persuade them, they proceed to form voluntary
associations among their neighbours at home, and spend their time, money and
efforts to convince their fellow citizens that the inhabitants of their rival
city are guilty of a great sin. They also publish papers and tracts and send
out agents, not to the guilty city, but to all the neighbouring towns and
villages, to convince them of the sins of the city in their vicinity. And they
claim that they shall succeed in making that city break off its sins, by these
measures, because other men succe eded in banishing intemperance by labouring
among their own friends and fellow citizens. Is not this example exactly
parallel with the exertions of the Abolitionists? Are not the northern and
southern sections of our country distinct communities, with different feelings
and interests? Are they not rival, and jealous in feeling? Have the northern
States the power to rectify evils at the South, as they have to remove their
own moral deformities; or have they any such power over the southern States as
the British people had over their own trade and their dependent colonies in the
West Indies? Have not Abolitionists been sending out papers, tracts, and agents
to convince the people of the North of the sins of the South? Have they not
refrained from going to the South with their facts, arguments, and appeals,
because they feared personal evils to themselves? And do not Abolitionists f
ound their hopes of success in their project, on the success which crowned the
efforts of British philanthropists in the case of slavery, and on the success
that has attended efforts to banish intemperance? And do not these two cases
differ entirely from the Abolition movement in this main point, that one is an
effort to convince men of their own sins, and the other is an effort to
convince men of the sins of other persons?
The second reason I
would urge against joining the Abolition Society is, that its character and
measures are not either peaceful or Christian in tendency, but they rather are
those which tend to generate party spirit, denunciation, recrimination, and
angry passions.
But before bringing
evidence to sustain this position, I wish to make a distinction between the men
who constitute an association, and the measures which are advocated and
adopted.
I believe, that as a
body, Abolitionists are men of pure morals, of great honesty of purpose, of
real benevolence and piety, and of great activity in efforts to promote what
they consider the best interests of their fellow men. I believe, that, in
making efforts to abolish slavery, they have taken measures, which they
supposed were best calculated to bring this evil to an end, with the greatest
speed, and with the least danger and suffering to the South. I do not believe
they ever designed to promote disunion, or insurrection, or to stir up strife,
or that they suppose that their measures can be justly characterized by the
peculiarities I have specified. I believe they have been urged forward by a
strong feeling of patriotism, as well as of religious duty, and that they have
made great sacrifices of feeling, character, time, and money to promote what
they believed to be the cause of humanity and the service of God. I regard
individuals among them, as having taken a bold and courageous stand, in
maintaining the liberty of free discussion, the liberty of speech and of the
press; though this however is somewhat abated by the needless provocations by
which they caused those difficulties and hazards they so courageously
sustained. In speaking thus of Abolitionists as a body, it is not assumed that
there are not bad men found in this party as well as in every other; nor that
among those who are good men, there are not those who may have allowed party
spirit to take the place of Christian principle; men who have exhibited a
mournful destitution of Christian charity; who have indulged in an overbearing,
denouncing, and self-willed pertinacity as to measures. Yet with these
reservations, I believe that the above is no more than a fair and just
exhibition of that class of men who are embraced in the party of Abolitionists.
And all this can be allowed, and yet the objection I am to urge against joining
their ranks may stand in its full force.
To make the position
clearer, an illustration may be allowed. Suppose a body of good men become
convinced that the inspired direction, “them that sin, rebuke before all, that
others may fear,” imposes upon them the duty of openly rebuking every body whom
they discover in the practice of any sin. Suppose these men are daily in the
habit of going into the streets, and calling all by-standers around them,
pointing out certain men, some as liars, some as dishonest, some as licentious,
and then bringing proofs of their guilt and rebuking them before all; at the
same time exhorting all around to point at them the finger of scorn.
They persevere in this
course till the whole community is thrown into an uproar; and assaults, and
even bloodshed ensue. They then call on all good citizens to protect their
persons from abuse, and to maintain the liberty of speech and of free opinion.
Now the men may be as
pure in morals, as conscientious and upright in intention, as any Abolitionist,
and yet every one would say, that their measures were unwise and unchristian.
In like manner,
although Abolitionists may be lauded for many virtues, still much evidence can
be presented, that the character and measures of the Abolition Society are not
either peaceful or christian in tendency, but that they are in their nature
calculated to generate party spirit, denunciation, recrimination, and angry
passions.
The first thing I would
present to establish this, is the character of the leaders of this association.
Every combined effort is necessarily directed by leaders; and the spirit of the
leaders will inevitably be communicated to their coadjutors, and appear in the
measures of the whole body.
In attempting to
characterize these leaders, I would first present another leader of a similar
enterprise, the beloved and venerated Wilberforce. It is thus that his prominent
traits are delineated by an intimate friend.
“His extreme
benevolence contributed largely to his success. I have heard him say, that it
was one of his constant rules, and on the question of slavery especially, never
to provoke an adversary--to allow him credit fully for sincerity and purity of
motive--to abstain from all irritating expressions--to avoid even such
political attacks as would indispose his opponents for his great cause. In
fact, the benignity, the gentleness, the kind-heartedness of the man, disarmed
the bitterest foes. Not only on this question did he restrain himself, but
generally. Once he had been called during a whole debate `the religious
member,' in a kind of scorn. He remarked afterwards, that he was much inclined
to have retorted; by calling his opponent the irreligious member, but that he
refrained, as it would have been a returning of evil for evil. Next to his
general consistency, and love of the Scriptures, the humility of his character
always appeared remarkable. The modest, shrinking, simple Christian statesman
and friend always appeared in him. And the nearer you approached him, the more
his habit of mind obviously appeared to be modest and lowly. His charity in
judging of others, is a farther trait of his Christian character. Of his
benevolence I need not speak, but his kind construction of doubtful actions,
his charitable language toward those with whom he most widely differed, his
thorough forgetfulness of little affronts, were fruits of that general
benevolence which continually appeared.”
This was the leader,
both in and out of Parliament, of that body of men who combined to bring to an
end slavery and the slave trade, in the dominions of Great Britain. With him,
as principal leaders, were associated Clarkson, Sharpe, Macauley, and others of
a similar spirit. These men were all of them characterized by that mild,
benevolent, peaceful, gentlemanly and forbearing spirit, which has been
described as so conspicuous in Wilberforce. And when their measures are
examined, it will be found that they were eminently mild, peaceful, and
forbearing. Though no effort that is to encounter the selfish interests of men,
can escape without odium and opposition, from those who are thwarted, and from
all whom they can influence, these men carefully took those measures that were
calculated to bring about their end with the least opposition and evil
possible. They avoided prejudices, strove to conciliate opposers, shunned every
thing that would give needless offence and exasperation, began slowly and
cautiously, with points which could be the most easily carried, and advanced
toward others only as public sentiment became more and more enlightened. They
did not beard the lion in full face, by coming out as the first thing with the
maxim, that all slavery ought and must be abandoned immediately. They began
with “inquiries as to the impolicy of the slave trade,” and it was years before
they came to the point of the abolition of slavery. And they carried their
measures through, without producing warring parties among good men, who held
common principles with themselves. As a general fact, the pious men of Great
Britain acted harmoniously in this great effort.
Let us now look at the
leaders of the Abolition movement in America. The man who first took the lead
was William L. Garrison, who, though he professes a belief in the Christian
religion, is an avowed opponent of most of its institutions. The character and
spirit of this man have for years been exhibited in “the Liberator,” of which
he is the editor. That there is to be found in that paper, or in any thing
else, any evidence of his possessing the peculiar traits of Wilberforce, not
even his warmest admirers will maintain. How many of the opposite traits can be
found, those can best judge who have read his paper. Gradually others joined
themselves in the effort commenced by Garrison; but for a long time they
consisted chiefly of men who would fall into one of these three classes; either
good men who were so excited by a knowledge of the enormous evils of slavery,
that any thing was considered better than entire inactivity, or else men
accustomed to a contracted field of observation, and more qualified to judge of
immediate results than of general tendencies, or else men of ardent and
impulsive temperament, whose feelings are likely to take the lead, rather than
their judgment.
There are no men who
act more efficiently as the leaders of an enterprise than the editors of the
periodicals that advocate and defend it. The editors of the Emancipator, the Friend
of Man, the New York Evangelist, and the other abolition periodicals, may
therefore be considered as among the chief leaders of the enterprise, and their
papers are the mirror from which their spirit and character are reflected.
I wish the friends of
these editors would cull from their papers all the indications they can find of
the peculiarities that distinguished Wilberforce and his associates; all the
evidence of “a modest and lowly spirit,”--all the exhibitions of “charity in
judging of the motives of those who oppose their measures,” --all the “indications
of benignity, gentleness, and kind-heartedness,”--all the “kind constructions
of doubtful actions,”--all the “charitable language used toward those who
differ in opinion or measures,”--all the “thorough forgetfulness of little
affronts,”-- all the cases where “opponents are allowed full credit for purity
and sincerity of motive,” --all cases where they have been careful “never to
provoke an adversary,”--all cases where they have “refrained from all
irritating expressions,”--all cases where they have avoided every thing that
would “indispose their opponents for their great cause,” and then compare the
result with what may be found of an opposite character, and I think it would
not be unsafe to infer that an association whose measures, on an exciting
subject, were guided by such men, would be more likely to be aggressive than
peaceful. The position I would establish will appear more clearly, by examining
in detail some of the prominent measures which have been adopted by this
association.
One of the first
measures of Abolitionists was an attack on a benevolent society, originated and
sustained by some of the most pious and devoted men of the age. It was imagined
by Abolitionists, that the influence and measures of the Colonization Society
tended to retard the abolition of slavery, and to perpetuate injurious
prejudices against the coloured race. The peaceful and christian method of
meeting this difficulty would have been, to collect all the evidence of this
supposed hurtful tendency, and privately, and in a respectful and conciliating
way, to have presented it to the attention of the wise and benevolent men, who
were most interested in sustaining this institution. If this measure did not
avail to convince them, then it would have been safe and justifiable to present
to the public a temperate statement of facts, and of the deductions based on
them, drawn up in a respectful and candid manner, with every charitable
allowance which truth could warrant. Instead of this, when the attempt was
first made to turn public opinion against the Colonization Society, I met one
of the most influential supporters of that institution, just after he had had
an interview with a leading Abolitionist. This gentleman was most remarkable
for his urbanity, meekness, and benevolence, and his remark to me in reference
to this interview, shows what was its nature. “I love truth and sound argument,”
said he, “but when a man comes at me with a sledge hammer, I cannot help
dodging.” This is a specimen of their private manner of dealing. In public, the
enterprise was attacked as a plan for promoting the selfish interests and
prejudices of the whites, at the expense of the coloured population; and in
many cases, it was assumed that the conductors of this association were aware
of this, and accessory to it. And the style in which the thing was done was at
once offensive, inflammatory, and exasperating. Denunciation, sneers, and
public rebuke, were bestowed indiscriminately upon the conductors of the
enterprise, and of course they fell upon many sincere, upright, and
conscientious men, whose feelings were harrowed by a sense of the injustice,
the indecorum, and the unchristian treatment, they received. And when a
temporary impression was made on the public mind, and its opponents supposed
they had succeeded in crushing this society, the most public and triumphant
exultation was not repressed. Compare this method of carrying a point, with
that adopted by Wilberforce and his compeers, and I think you will allow that
there was a way that was peaceful and christian, and that this was not the way
which was chosen.
The next measure of
Abolitionism was an attempt to remove the prejudices of the whites against the
blacks, on account of natural peculiarities. Now, prejudice is an unreasonable
and groundless dislike of persons or things. Of course, as it is unreasonable,
it is the most difficult of all things to conquer, and the worst and most
irritating method that could be attempted would be, to attack a man as guilty
of sin, as unreasonable, as ungenerous, or as proud, for allowing a certain
prejudice.
This is the sure way to
produce anger, self-justification, and an increase of the strength of
prejudice, against that which has caused him this rebuke and irritation.
The best way to make a
person like a thing which is disagreeable, is to try in some way to make it
agreeable; and if a certain class of persons is the subject of unreasonable
prejudice, the peaceful and christian way of removing it would be to endeavour
to render the unfortunate persons who compose this class, so useful, so humble
and unassuming, so kind in their feelings, and so full of love and good works,
that prejudice would be supplanted by complacency in their goodness, and pity
and sympathy for their disabilities. If the friends of the blacks had quietly
set themselves to work to increase their intelligence, their usefulness, their
respectability, their meekness, gentleness, and benevolence, and then had
appealed to the pity, generosity, and christian feelings of their fellow
citizens, a very different result would have appeared. Instead of this,
reproaches, rebukes, and sneers, were employed to convince the whites that
their prejudices were sinful, and without any just cause. They were accused of
pride, of selfish indifference, of unchristian neglect. This tended to irritate
the whites, and to increase their prejudice against the blacks, who thus were
made the causes of rebuke and exasperation. Then, on the other hand, the blacks
extensively received the Liberator, and learned to imbibe the spirit of its
conductor.
They were taught to
feel that they were injured and abused, the objects of a guilty and
unreasonable prejudice--that they occupied a lower place in society than was
right-- that they ought to be treated as if they were whites; and in repeated
instances, attempts were made by their friends to mingle them with whites, so
as to break down the existing distinctions of society. Now, the question is
not, whether these things, that were urged by Abolitionists, were true. The
thing maintained is, that the method taken by them to remove this prejudice was
neither peaceful nor christian in its tendency, but, on the contrary, was
calculated to increase the evil, and to generate anger, pride, and
recrimination, on one side, and envy, discontent, and revengeful feelings, on
the other.
These are some of the
general measures which have been exhibited in the Abolition movement. The same
peculiarities may be as distinctly seen in specific cases, where the peaceful
and quiet way of accomplishing the good was neglected, and the one most
calculated to excite wrath and strife was chosen. Take, for example, the effort
to establish a college for coloured persons. The quiet, peaceful, and christian
way of doing such a thing, would have been, for those who were interested in
the plan, to furnish the money necessary, and then to have selected a retired
place, where there would be the least prejudice and opposition to be met, and
there, in an unostentatious way, commenced the education of the youth to be
thus sustained. Instead of this, at a time when the public mind was excited on
the subject, it was noised abroad that a college for blacks was to be founded.
Then a city was selected for its location, where was another college, so large
as to demand constant effort and vigilance to preserve quiet subordination;
where contests with “sailors and town boys” were barely kept at bay; a college
embracing a large proportion of southern students, who were highly excited on
the subject of slavery and emancipation; a college where half the shoeblacks
and waiters were coloured men. Beside the very walls of this college, it was
proposed to found a college for coloured young men. Could it be otherwise than
that opposition, and that for the best of reasons, would arise against such an
attempt, both from the faculty of the college and the citizens of the place?
Could it be reasonably expected that they would not oppose a measure so
calculated to increase their own difficulties and liabilities, and at the same
time so certain to place the proposed institution in the most unfavourable of
all circumstances? But when the measure was opposed, instead of yielding meekly
and peaceably to such reasonable objections, and soothing the feelings and
apprehensions that had been excited, by putting the best construction on the
matter, and seeking another place, it was claimed as an evidence of opposition
to the interests of the blacks, and as a mark of the force of sinful prejudice.
The worst, rather than the best, motives were ascribed to some of the most
respectable, and venerated, and pious men, who opposed the measure; and a great
deal was said and done that was calculated to throw the community into an angry
ferment.
Take another example.
If a prudent and benevolent female had selected almost any village in New
England, and commenced a school for coloured females, in a quiet, appropriate,
and unostentatious way, the world would never have heard of the case, except to
applaud her benevolence, and the kindness of the villagers, who aided her in
the effort. But instead of this, there appeared public advertisements, (which I
saw at the time,) stating that a seminary for the education of young ladies of
colour was to be opened in Canterbury, in the state of Connecticut, where would
be taught music on the piano forte, drawing, &c., together with a course of
English education. Now, there are not a dozen coloured families in New England,
in such pecuniary circumstances, that if they were whites it would not be
thought ridiculous to attempt to give their daughters such a course of
education, and Canterbury was a place where but few of the wealthiest families
ever thought of furnishing such accomplishments for their children. Several
other particulars might be added that were exceedingly irritating, but this may
serve as a specimen of the method in which the whole affair was conducted. It
was an entire disregard of the prejudices and the proprieties of society, and
calculated to stimulate pride, anger, ill-will, contention, and all the bitter
feelings that spring from such collisions. Then, instead of adopting measures
to soothe and conciliate, rebukes, sneers and denunciations, were employed, and
Canterbury and Connecticut were held up to public scorn and rebuke for doing
what most other communities would probably have done, if similarly tempted and
provoked.
Take another case. It
was deemed expedient by Abolitionists to establish an Abolition paper, first in
Kentucky, a slave State. It was driven from that State, either by violence or
by threats. It retreated to Ohio, one of the free States. In selecting a place
for its location, it might have been established in a small place, where the
people were of similar views, or were not exposed to dangerous popular
excitements. But Cincinnati was selected; and when the most intelligent, the
most reasonable, and th e most patriotic of the citizens remonstrated,--when
they represented that there were peculiar and unusual liabilities to popular
excitement on this subject,--that the organization and power of the police made
it extremely dangerous to excite a mob, and almost impo ssible to control it,--
that all the good aimed at could be accomplished by locating the press in
another place, where there were not such dangerous liabilities,--when they
kindly and respectfully urged these considerations, they were disregarde d. I
myself was present when a sincere friend urged upon the one who controlled that
paper, the obligations of good men, not merely to avoid breaking wholesome laws
themselves, but the duty of regarding the liabilities of others to temptation;
and that wh ere Christians could foresee that by placing certain temptations in
the way of their fellow-men, all the probabilities were, that they would yield,
and yet persisted in doing it, the tempters became partakers in the guilt of
those who yielded to the tempt ation. But these remonstrances were ineffectual.
The paper must not only be printed and circulated, but it must be stationed
where were the greatest probabilities that measures of illegal violence would
ensue. And when the evil was perpetrated, and a mob destroyed the press, then
those who had urged on these measures of temptation, turned upon those who had
advised and remonstrated, as the guilty authors of the violence, because, in a
season of excitement, the measures adopted to restrain and control the mob,
were not such as were deemed suitable and right.
Now, in all the above
cases, I would by no means justify the wrong or the injudicious measures that
may have been pursued, under this course of provocation. The greatness of
temptation does by no means release men from obligation; but Christians are bo
und to remember that it is a certain consequence of throwing men into strong
excitement, that they will act unwisely and wrong, and that the tempter as well
as the tempted are held responsible, both by God and man. In all these cases,
it cannot but appear that the good aimed at might have been accomplished in a
quiet, peaceable, and christian way, and that this was not the way which was
chosen.
The whole system of
Abolition measures seems to leave entirely out of view, the obligation of
Christians to save their fellow men from all needless temptations. If the thing
to be done is only lawful and right, it does not appear to have been a matter
of effort to do it in such a way as would not provoke and irritate; but often,
if the chief aim had been to do the good in the most injurious and offensive
way, no more certain and appropriate methods could have been devised.
So much has this been
the character of Abolition movements, that many have supposed it to be a
deliberate and systematized plan of the leaders to do nothing but what was
strictly a right guaranteed by law, and yet, in such a man ner, as to provoke
men to anger, so that unjust and illegal acts might ensue, knowing, that as a
consequence, the opposers of Abolition would be thrown into the wrong, and
sympathy be aroused for Abolitionists as injured and persecuted men. It is a
fact, that Abolitionists have taken the course most calculated to awaken
illegal acts of violence, and that when they have ensued, they have seemed to
rejoice in them, as calculated to advance and strengthen their cause. The
violence of mobs, the denunciations and unreasonable requirements of the South,
th e denial of the right of petition, the restrictions attempted to be laid
upon freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, are generally spoken of with
exultation by Abolitionists, as what are among the chief means of promoting
their cause. It is not so m uch by exciting feelings of pity and humanity, and
Christian love, towards the oppressed, as it is by awakening indignation at the
treatment of Abolitionists themselves, that their cause has prospered. How many
men have declared or implied, that in joinin g the ranks of Abolition, they
were influenced, not by their arguments, or by the wisdom of their course, but
because the violence of opposers had identified that cause with the question of
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and civil liberty.
But when I say that
many have supposed that it was the deliberate intention of the Abolitionists to
foment illegal acts and violence, I would by no means justify a supposition,
which is contrary to the dictates of justice and charity. The leaders of the
Abolition Society disclaim all such wishes or intentions; they only act
apparently on the assumpt ion that they are exercising just rights, which they
are not bound to give up, because other men will act unreasonably and wickedly.
Another measure of
Abolitionists, calculated to awaken evil feelings, has been the treatment of
those who objected to their proceedings.
A large majority of the
philanthropic and pious, who hold common views with the Abolitionists, as to
the sin and evils of slavery, and the duty of using all appropriate means to
bring it to an end, have opposed their measures, because they have believe d them
not calculated to promote, but rather to retard the end proposed to be
accomplished by them. The peaceful and Christian method of encountering such
opposition, would have been to allow the opponents full credit for purity and
integrity of motive, t o have avoided all harsh and censorious language, and to
have employed facts, arguments and persuasions, in a kind and respectful way
with the hope of modifying their views and allaying their fears. Instead of
this, the wise and good who opposed Abolition measures, have bee n treated as
though they were the friends and defenders of slavery, or as those who, from a
guilty, timid, time-serving policy, refused to take the course which duty
demanded. They have been addressed either as if it were necessary to convince
them that s lavery is wrong and ought to be abandoned, or else, as if they
needed to be exhorted to give up their timidity and selfish interest, and to
perform a manifest duty, which they were knowingly neglecting.
Now there is nothing
more irritating, when a man is conscientious and acting according to his own
views of right, than to be dealt with in this manner. The more men are treated
as if they were honest and sincere-- the more they are treated with re spect,
fairness, and benevolence, the more likely they are to be moved by evidence and
arguments. On the contrary, harshness, uncharitableness, and rebuke, for
opinions and conduct that are in agreement with a man's own views of duty and
rectitude, tend to awaken evil feelings, and indispose the mind properly to
regard evidence. Abolitionists have not only taken this course, but in many
cases, have seemed to act on the principle, that the abolition of Slavery, in
the particular mode in which they were aiming to accomplish it, was of such
paramount importance, that every thing must be overthrown that s tood in the
way.
No matter what respect
a man had gained for talents, virtue, and piety, if he stood in the way of
Abolitionism, he must be attacked as to character and motives. No matter how
important an institution might be, if its influence was against the measures of
Abolitionism, it must be attacked openly, or sapped privately, till its
influence was destroyed. By such measures, the most direct means have been
taken to awaken anger at injury, and resentment at injustice, and to provoke
retaliation on those who inf lict the wrong. All the partialities of personal
friendship; all the feelings of respect accorded to good and useful men; all
the interests that cluster around public institutions, entrenched in the hearts
of the multitudes who sustain them, were outraged by such a course.
Another measure of
Abolitionists, which has greatly tended to promote wrath and strife, is their
indiscreet and incorrect use of terms.
To make this apparent,
it must be premised, that words have no inherent meaning, but always signify
that which they are commonly understood to mean. The question never should be
asked, what ought a word t o mean? but simply, what is the meaning generally
attached to this word by those who use it? Vocabularies and standard writers
are the proper umpires to decide this question. Now if men take words and give
them a new and peculiar use, and are consequently misunderstood, they are
guilty of a species of deception, and are accountable for all the evils that
may ensue as a consequence.
For example; if
physicians should come out and declare, that it was their opinion that they
ought to poison all their patients, and they had determined to do it, and then
all the community should be thrown into terror and excitement, it would be no
justification for them to say, that all they intended by that language was,
that they should admin ister as medicines, articles which are usually called
poisons.
Now Abolitionists are
before the community, and declare that all slavery is sin, which ought to be
immediately forsaken; and that it is their object and intention to promote the
immediate emancipation of all the slaves in this n ation.
Now what is it that
makes a man cease to be a slave and become free? It is not kind treatment from
a master; it is not paying wages to the slave; it is not the intention to
bestow freedom at a future time; it is not treating a slave as if he were free;
it is not feeling toward a slave as if he were free. No instance can be found
of any dictionary, or any standard writer, nor any case in common discourse,
where any of these significations are attached to the word as constituting its
peculiar and appropr iate meaning. It always signifies that legal act, which,
by the laws of the land, changes a slave to a freeman.
What then is the proper
meaning of the language used by Abolitionists, when they say that all slavery
is a sin which ought to be immediately abandoned, and that it is their object
to secure the immediate emancipation of all slav es?
The true and only
proper meaning of such language is, that it is the duty of every slave-holder
in this nation, to go immediately and make out the legal instruments, that, by
the laws of the land, change all his slaves t o freemen. If their maxim is
true, no exception can be made for those who live in States where the act of
emancipation, by a master, makes a slave the property of the State, to be sold
for the benefit of the State; and no exception can be made for those, who, by
the will of testators, and by the law of the land, have no power to perform the
legal act, which alone can emancipate their slaves.
To meet this
difficulty, Abolitionists affirm, that, in such cases, men are physically
unable to emancipate their slaves, and of course are not bound to do it; and to
save their great maxim, maintain that, in such cases, the slaves are not
slaves, and the slave-holders are not slave-holders, although all their legal
relations remain unchanged.
The meaning which the
Abolitionist attaches to his language is this, that every man is bound to treat
his slaves, as nearly as he can, like freemen; and to use all his influence to
bring the system of slavery to an end as soon as possible. And they all ow that
when men do this they are free from guilt, in the matter of slavery, and
undeserving of censure.
But men at the North,
and men at the South, understand the language used in its true and proper
sense; and Abolitionists have been using these terms in a new and peculiar
sense, which is inevitably and universally misunderstood, and this is an
occasion of much of the strife and alarm which has prevailed both at the South
and at the North. There are none but these defenders of slavery who maintain
that it is a relation justifiable by the laws of the Gospel, who differ from
Abolitionists in regard to the real thing which is meant. The great mistake of
Abolitionists is in using terms which inculcate the immediate annihilation of
the relation, when they only intend to urge the Christian duty of treating slaves
according to the gospel rules of justice and benevolence, and using all lawful
and appropriate means for bringing a most pernicious system to a speedy end.
If Abolitionists will
only cease to teach that all slave-holding is a sin which ought to be immediately
abolished; if they will cease to urge their plan as one of immediate
emancipation , and teach simply and exactly that which they do mean, much
strife and misunderstanding will cease. But so long as they persevere in using
these terms in a new and peculiar sense, which will always be misunderstood,
they are guilty of a species of d eception and accountable for the evils that
follow.
One other instance of a
similar misuse of terms may be mentioned. The word “man-stealer” has one
peculiar signification, and it is no more synonymous with “slave-holder” than
it is with “shee p-stealer.” But Abolitionists show that a slave-holder, in
fact, does very many of the evils that are perpetrated by a man-stealer, and
that the crime is quite as evil in its nature, and very similar in character,
and, therefore, he calls a slave-holder a man-stealer.
On this principle there
is no abusive language that may not be employed to render any man odious--for
every man commits sin of some kind, and every sin is like some other sin, in
many respects, and in certain aggravated cases, may be bad, or even worse, than
another sin with a much more odious name. It is easy to show that a man who
neglects all religious duty is very much like an atheist, and if he has had
great advantages, and the atheist very few, he may be much more guilty than an
atheist. And so, half the respectable men in our religious communities, may be
called atheists, with as much propriety as a slave-holder can be called a
man-stealer. Abolitionists have proceeded on this principle, in their various
publications, until the terms of odi um that have been showered upon
slave-holders, would form a large page in the vocabulary of Billingsgate. This
method of dealing with those whom we wish to convince and persuade, is as
contrary to the dictates of common sense, as it is to the rules of good
breeding and the laws of the gospel.
The preceding
particulars are selected, as the evidence to be presented, that the character
and measures of the Abolition Society are neither peaceful nor Christian in
their tendency; but that in their nature they are calculated to generate
party-spiri t, denunciation, recrimination, and angry passions. If such be the
tendency of this institution, it follows, that it is wrong for a Christian, or
any lover of peace, to be connected with it.
The assertion that
Christianity itself has led to strife and contention, is not a safe method of
evading this argument. Christianity is a system of persuasion, tending, by kind
and gentle influences, to make men willing to leave off their sins--and it
comes, not to convince those who are not sinners, but to sinners themselves.
Abolitionism, on the
contrary, is a system of coercion by public opinion; and in its present
operation, its influence is not to convince the erring, but to convince those
who are not guilty, of the sins of those who are.
Another prominent
peculiarity of the Abolitionists, (which is an objection to joining this
association,) is their advocacy of a principle, which is wrong and very pernicious
in its tendency. I refer to their views in regard to what is called “the
doctrine of expediency.” Their difficulty on this subject seems to have arisen
from want of a clear distinction between the duty of those who are guilty of
sin, and the duty of those who are aiming to turn men from their sins. The
principle is assu med, that because certain men ought to abandon every sin
immediately, therefore, certain other men are bound immediately to try and make
them do it. Now the question of expediency does not relate to what men are
bound to do, who ar e in the practice of sin themselves--for the immediate
relinquishment of sin is the duty of all; but it relates to the duty of those
who are to make efforts to induce others to break off their wickedness.
Here, the wisdom and
rectitude of a given course, depend entirely on the probabilities of success.
If a father has a son of a very peculiar temperament, and he knows by
observation, that the use of the rod will make him more irritable and more
liable to a certain fault, an d that kind arguments, and tender measures will
more probably accomplish the desired object, it is a rule of expediency to try
the most probable course. If a companion sees a friend committing a sin, and
has, from past experience, learned that remonstranc es excite anger and
obstinacy, while a look of silent sorrow and disapprobation tends far more to
prevent the evil, expediency and duty demand silence rather than remonstrance.
There are cases also,
where differences in age, and station, and character, forbid all interference
to modify the conduct and character of others.
A nursery maid may see
that a father misgoverns his children, and ill-treats his wife. But her station
makes it inexpedient for her to turn reprover. It is a case where reproof would
do no good, but only evil.
So in communities, the
propriety and rectitude of measures can be decided, not by the rules of duty
that should govern those who are to renounce sin, but by the probabilities of
good or evil consequence.
The Abolitionists seem
to lose sight of this distinction. They form voluntary associations in free
States, to convince their fellow citizens of the sins of other men in other
communities. They are blamed and opposed, because their measures are deemed i
nexpedient, and calculated to increase, rather than diminish the evils to be
cured.
In return, they show
that slavery is a sin which ought to be abandoned immediately, and seem to
suppose that it follows as a correct inference, that they themselves ought to
engage in a system of agitation against it, and that it is needless for them t
o inquire whether preaching the truth in the manner they propose, will increase
or diminish the evil. They assume that whenever sin is committed, not only
ought the sinner immediately to cease, but all his fellow-sinners are bound to
take measures to make him cease, and to take measures, without any reference to
the probabilities of success.
That this is a correct
representation of the views of Abolitionists generally, is evident from their
periodicals and conversation. All their remarks about preaching the truth and
leaving consequences to God--all their depreciation of the doctrine of
expediency, are rendered relevant only by this supposition.
The impression made by
their writings is, that God has made rules of duty; that all men are in all
cases to remonstrate against the violation of those rules; and that God will
take the responsibility of bringing good out of this course; so that we ours
elves are relieved from any necessity of inquiring as to probable results.
If this be not the
theory of duty adopted by this association, then they stand on common ground
with those who oppose their measures, viz: that the propriety and duty of a
given course is to be decided by probabilities as to its resu lts; and these
probabilities are to be determined by the known laws of mind, and the records
of past experience.
For only one of two
positions can be held. Either that it is the duty of all men to remonstrate at
all times against all violations of duty, and leave the consequences with God;
or else that men are to use their judgment, and take the part of remonstra nce
only at such a time and place, and in such a manner, as promise the best
results.
That the Abolitionists
have not held the second of these positions, must be obvious to all who have
read their documents. It would therefore be unwise and wrong to join an
association which sustains a principle false in itself, and one which, if acted
out, would tend to wrath and strife and every evil word and work.
Another reason, and the
most important of all, against promoting the plans of the Abolitionists, is
involved in the main question-- what are the probabilities as to the results of
their movements? The only way to judge of t he future results of certain
measures is, by the known laws of mind, and the recorded experience of the
past.
Now what is the evil to
be cured?
Slavery in this nation.
That this evil is at no
distant period to come to an end, is the unanimous opinion of all who either
notice the tendencies of the age, or believe in the prophecies of the Bible.
All who act on Christian principles in regard to slavery, believe that in a
given period (variously estimated) it will end. The only question then, in
regard to the benefits to be gained, or the evils to be dreaded in the present
agitation of the subject, relates to the time and the ma nner of its
extinction. The Abolitionists claim that their method will bring it to an end
in the shortest time, and in the safest and best way. Their opponents believe,
that it will tend to bring it to an end, if at all, at the most distant period,
a nd in the most dangerous way.
As neither party are
gifted with prescience, and as the Deity has made no revelations as to the
future results of any given measures, all the means of judging that remain to
us, as before stated, are the laws of mind, and the records of the past.
The position then I
would aim to establish is, that the method taken by the Abolitionists is the
one that, according to the laws of mind and past experience, is least likely to
bring about the results they aim to accomplish. The general statement is th is.
The object to be
accomplished is:
First. To convince a
certain community, that they are in the practice of a great sin, and
Secondly, To make them
willing to relinquish it.
The method taken to
accomplish this is, by voluntary associations in a foreign community, seeking
to excite public sentiment against the perpetrators of the evil; exhibiting the
enormity of the crime in full measure, without palliation, excuse or sympa thy,
by means of periodicals and agents circulating, not in the community committing
the sin, but in that which does not practise it.
Now that this method
may, in conjunction with other causes, have an influence to bring slavery to an
end, is not denied. But it is believed, and from the following considerations,
that it is the least calculated to do the good, and that it involves the
greatest evils.
It is a known law of
mind first seen in the nursery and school, afterwards developed in society,
that a person is least likely to judge correctly of truth, and least likely to
yield to duty, when excited by passion.
It is a law of
experience, that when wrong is done, if repentance and reformation are sought,
then love and kindness, mingled with remonstrance, coming from one who has a
right to speak, are more successful than rebuke and scorn from others who are
not beloved, and who are regarded as impertinent intruders.
In the nursery, if the
child does wrong, the finger of scorn, the taunting rebuke, or even the fair
and deserved reproof of equals, will make the young culprit only frown with
rage, and perhaps repeat and increase the injury. But the voice of maternal
love, or even the gentle remonstrances of an elder sister, may bring tears of
sorrow and contrition.
So in society. Let a
man's enemies, or those who have no interest in his welfare, join to rebuke and
rail at his offences, and no signs of penitence will be seen. But let the
clergyman whom he respects and loves, or his bosom friend approach him, with
kindness, forbearance and true sincerity, and all that is possible to human
agency will be effected.
It is the maxim then of
experience, that when men are to be turned from evils, and brought to repent
and reform, those only should interfere who are most loved and respected, and
who have the best right to approach the offender. While on the other hand ,
rebuke from those who are deemed obtrusive and inimical, or even indifferent,
will do more harm than good.
It is another maxim of
experience, that such dealings with the erring should be in private, not in
public. The moment a man is publicly rebuked, shame, anger, and pride of
opinion, all combine to make him defend his practice, and refuse either to own
himself wrong, or to cease from his evil ways.
The Abolitionists have
violated all these laws of mind and of experience, in dealing with their
southern brethren.
Their course has been
most calculated to awaken anger, fear, pride, hatred, and all the passions most
likely to blind the mind to truth, and make it averse to duty.
They have not
approached them with the spirit of love, courtesy, and forbearance.
They are not the
persons who would be regarded by the South, as having any right to interfere;
and therefore, whether they have such right or not, the probabilities of good
are removed. For it is not only demanded for the benefit of the offender, that
there should really be a right, but it is necessary that he should feel that t
here is such a right.
In dealing with their
brethren, too, they have not tried silent, retired, private measures. It has
been public denunciation of crime and shame in newspapers, addressed as it were
to by-standers, in order to arouse the guilty.
In reply to this, it
has been urged, that men could not go to the South--that they would be murdered
there--that the only way was, to convince the North, and excite public odium
against the sins of the South, and thus gradually conviction, re pentance, and
reformation would ensue.
Here is another case
where men are to judge of their duty, by estimating probabilities of future
results; and it may first be observed, that it involves the principle of
expediency, in just that form to which Abolitionists object.
It is allowed that the
immediate abolition of slavery is to be produced by means of “light and love,”
and yet it is maintained as right to withdraw personally from the field of
operation, because of consequences; bec ause of the probable danger of
approaching. “If we go to the South, and present truth, argument, and entreaty,
we shall be slain, and therefore we are not under obligation to go.” If this
justifies Abolitionists in thei r neglect of their offending brethren, because
they fear evil results to themselves, it also justifies those who refuse to act
with Abolitionists in their measures, because they fear other evil results.
But what proof is
there, that if the Abolitionists had taken another method, the one more in
accordance with the laws of mind and the dictates of experience, that there
would have been at the South all this violence? Before the abolition movement
comme nced, both northern and southern men, expressed their views freely at the
South. The dangers, evils, and mischiefs of slavery were exhibited and
discussed even in the legislative halls of more than one of the Southern
States, and many minds were anxiously devising measures, to bring this evil to
an end.
Now let us look at some
of the records of past experience. Clarkson was the first person who devoted
himself to the cause of Abolition in England. His object was to convince the
people of England that they were guilty of a great impolicy, and great sin, in
permitting the slave-trade. He was to meet the force of public sentiment, and
power, and selfishness, and wealth, which sustained this trafic, in that
nation. What were his measures? He did not go to Sweden, or Russia, or France,
to awaken public sentiment against the sins of the English.-- He began by first
publishing an inquiry in England whether it was right to seize men, and make
them slaves. He went unostentatiously to some of the best and most pious men
there, and endeavoured to interes t them in the inquiry.
Then he published an
article on the impolicy of the slave-trade, showing its disadvantages. Then he
collected information of the evils and enormities involved in the traffic, and
went quietly around among those most likely to be moved by motives of hum anity
and Christianity. In this manner he toiled for more than fourteen years, slowly
implanting the leaven among the good men, until he gained a noble band of
patriots and Christians, with Wilberforce at their head.
The following extract
from a memoir of Clarkson discloses the manner and spirit in which he commenced
his enterprise, and toiled through to its accomplishment.
“In 1785 Dr. Peckhard,
Vice-Chancellor of the University, deeply impressed with the iniquity of the
slave-trade, announced as a subject for a Latin Dissertation to the Senior
Bachelors of Arts: `Anne liceat invitos in servitute m dare?' `Is it right to
make slaves of others against their will?' However benevolent the feelings of
the Vice-Chancellor, and however strong and clear the opinions he held on the
inhuman traffic, it is probable that he little thought that this disc ussion
would secure for the object so dear to his own heart, efforts and advocacy
equally enlightened and efficient, that should be continued, until his country
had declared, not that the slave-trade only, but that slavery itself should
cease.
“Mr. Clarkson, having
in the preceding year gained the first prize for the Latin Dissertation, was
naturally anxious to maintain his honourable position; and no efforts were
spared, during the few intervening weeks, in collecting information and
evidence. Important facts were gained from Anthony Benezet's Historical Account
of Guinea, which Mr. Clarkson hastened to London to purchase. Furnished with
these and other valuable information, he commenced his difficult task. How it
was accomplished, he thus informs us.
“ `No person,' he
states,* `can tell the severe trial which the writing of it proved to me. I had
expected pleasure from the invention of the arguments, from the arrangement of
them, from the putting of them together, and from the thought, in the interim,
that I was engaged in an innocent contest for literary honour. But all my
pleasure was damped by the facts which were now continually before me. It was
but one gloomy subject from morning to night. In the day-time I was uneasy; in
the night I ha d little rest. I sometimes never closed my eyelids for grief. It
became now not so much a trial for academical reputation, as for the production
of a work which might be useful to injured Africa. And keeping this idea in my
mind ever after the perusal of Benezet, I always slept with a candle in my
room, that I might rise out of bed, and put down such thoughts as might occur
to me in the night, if I judged them valuable, conceiving that no arguments of
any moment should be lost in so great a cause. Having at length finished this
painful task, I sent my Essay to the Vice-Chancellor, and soon afterwards found
myself honoured, as before , with the first prize.
“ `As it is usual to
read these essays publicly in the senate-house soon after the prize is
adjudged, I was called to Cambridge for this purpose. I went, and performed my
office. On returning, however, to London, the subject of it almost wholly e
ngrossed my thoughts. I became at times very seriously affected while upon the
road. I stopped my horse occasionally, and dismounted, and walked. I frequently
tried to persuade myself in these intervals that the contents of my Essay could
not be true. The more, however, I reflected upon them, or rather upon the
authorities on which they were founded, the more I gave them credit. Coming in
sight of Wade's Mill, in Hertfordshire, I sat down disconsolate on the turf by
the road-side, and held my horse. Here a thoug ht came into my mind, that if
the contents of the Essay were true, it was time some person should see these
calamities to their end. Agitated in this manner, I reached home. This was in
the summer of 1785.
“ `In the course of the
autumn of the same year I experienced similar impressions. I walked frequently
into the woods, that I might think on the subject in solitude, and find relief
to my mind there. But there the question still recurred, `Are th ese things
true?' Still the answer followed as instantaneously,--`They are.' Still the
result accompanied it; `Then, surely, some person should interfere.' I then
began to envy those who had seats in parliament, and who had great riches, and
widely e xtended connexions, which would enable them to take up this cause.
Finding scarcely any one at that time who thought of it, I was turned
frequently to myself. But here many difficulties arose. It struck me, among
others, that a young man of only twenty-four years of age could not have that
solid judgment, or knowledge of men, manners, and things, which were requisite
to qualify him to undertake a task of such magnitude and importance: and with
whom was I to unite? I believed also, that it looked so much like one of the
feigned labours of Hercules, that my understanding would be suspected if I
proposed i t. On ruminating, however, on the subject, I found one thing at
least practicable, and that this was also in my power. I could translate my
Latin Dissertation. I could enlarge it usefully. I could see how the public
received it, or how far they were likel y to favour any serious measures, which
should have a tendency to produce the abolition of the slave-trade. Upon this,
then, I determined; and in the middle of the month of November, 1785, I began
my work.'
“Such is the
characteristic and ingenuous account given by Clarkson of his introduction to
that work to which the energies of his life were devoted, and in reference to
which, and to the account whence the fore-going extract has been made, one of
the most benevolent and gifted writers of our country* has justly observed,--
“ `This interesting
tale is related, not by a descendant, but a cotemporary; not by a distant
spectator, but by a participator of the contest; and of all the many
participators, by the man confessedly the most efficient; the man whose
unparallele d labours in this work of love and peril, leave on the mind of a
reflecting reader the sublime doubt, which of the two will have been the
greater final gain to the moral world,--the removal of the evil, or the proof,
thereby given, what mighty effect s single good men may realize by
self-devotion and perseverance.'
“When Mr. Clarkson went
to London to publish his book, he was introduced to many friends of the cause
of Abolition, who aided in giving it extensive circulation. Whilst thus
employed, he received an invitation, which he accepted, to visit the Rev. James
Ramsay, vicar of Teston, in Kent, who had resided nineteen years in the island
of St. Christopher.
“Shortly afterwards,
dining one day at Sir Charles Middleton's, (afterwards Lord Barham,) the
conversation turned upon the subject, and Mr. Clarkson declared that he was
ready to devote himself to the cause. This avowal met with great encourageme nt
from the company, and Sir C. Middleton, then Comptroller to the Navy, offered
every possible assistance. The friends of Mr. Clarkson increased, and this
encouraged him to proceed. Dr. Porteus, then Bishop of Chester, and Lord
Scarsdale, were secured in the House of Lords. Mr. Bennet Langton, and Dr.
Baker, who were acquainted with many members of both houses of parliament; the
honoured Granville Sharpe, James and Richard Phillips, could be depended upon,
as well as the entire body of the Society of Fri ends, to many of whom he had
been introduced by Mr. Joseph Hancock, his fellow-townsman. Seeking information
in every direction, Mr. Clarkson boarded a number of vessels engaged in the
African trade, and obtained specimens of the natural productions of the
country. The beauty of the cloth made from African cotton, &c. enhanced his
estimat e of the skill and ingenuity of the people, and gave a fresh stimulus
to his exertions on their behalf. He next visited a slave-ship; the rooms
below, the gratings above, and the barricade across the deck, with the
explanation of their uses, though the si ght of them filled him with sadness
and horror, gave new energy to all his movements. In his indefatigable
endeavours to collect evidence and facts, he visited most of the sea-ports in
the kingdom, pursuing his great object with invincible ardour, althoug h
sometimes at the peril of his life. The following circumstance, among others,
evinces the eminent degree in which he possessed that untiring perseverance, on
which the success of a great enterprise often depends.
“Clarkson and his
friends had reason to fear that slaves brought from the interior of Africa by
certain rivers, had been kidnapped; and it was deemed of great importance to
ascertain the fact. A friend one day mentioned to Mr. Clarkson, that he had,
above twelve months before, seen a sailor who had been up these rivers. The
name of the sai lor was unknown, and all the friend could say was, that he was
going to, or belonged to, some man-of-war in ordinary. The evidence of this
individual was important, and, aided by his friend Sir Charles Middleton, who
gave him permission to board all the s hips of war in ordinary, Mr. Clarkson
commenced his search:--beginning at Deptford, he visited successfully Woolwich,
Chatham, Sheerness, and Portsmouth; examining in his progress the different
persons on board upwards of two hundred and sixty vessel s, without discovering
the object of his search. The feelings under which the search was continued,
and the success with which it was crowned, he has himself thus described:--
“ `Matters now began to
look rather disheartening.--I mean as far as my grand object was concerned.
There was but one other port left, and this was between two and three hundred
miles distant. I determined, however, to go to Plymouth. I had already been
more successful in this tour, with respect to obtaining general evidence, than
in any other of the same length; and the probability was, that as I should
continue to move among the same kind of people, my success would be in a
similar proportion, according to the number visited. These were great
encouragements to me to proceed. At length I arrived at the place of my last
hope. On my first day's expedition I boarded forty vessels, but found no one in
these who had been on the coast of Africa in the slave-trade. One or two had
been there in king's ships; but they never had been on shore. Things were now
drawing near to a cl ose; and notwithstanding my success, as to general
evidence, in this journey, my heart began to beat. I was restless and uneasy
during the night. The next morning I felt agitated again between the alternate
pressure of hope and fear; and in this state I e ntered my boat. The
fifty-seventh vessel I boarded was the Melampus frigate.--One person belonging
to it, on examining him in the captain's cabin, said he had been two voyages to
Africa; and I had not long discoursed with him, before I found, to my
inexpressible joy, that he was the man. I found, too, that h e unravelled the
question in dispute precisely as our inferences had determined it. He had been
two expeditions up the river Calabar, in the canoes of the natives. In the
first of these they came within a certain distance of a village: they then
concealed themselves under the bushes, which hung over the water from the
banks. In this position they remained during the day-light; but at night they
went up to it armed, and seized all the inhabitants who had not time to make
their escape. They obtained forty-f ive persons in this manner. In the second,
they were out eight or nine days, when they made a similar attempt, and with
nearly similar success. They seized men, women, and children, as they could
find them in the huts. They then bound their arms, and drov e them before them
to the canoes. The name of the person thus discovered on board of the Melampus
was Isaac Parker. On inquiring into his character, from the master of the
division, I found it highly respectable. I found also afterward that he had
sailed with Captain Cook, with great credit to himself, round the world. It was
also remarkable, that my brother, on seeing him in London, when he went to
deliver his evidence, recognized him as having served on board the Monarch,
man-of-war, and as one of the most exemplary men in that ship.'
“Mr. Clarkson became,
early in his career, acquainted with Mr. Wilberforce. At their first interview,
the latter frankly stated, `that the subject had often employed his thoughts,
and was near his heart,' and learning his visiter's intention to d evote
himself to this benevolent object, congratulated him on his decision; desired
to be made acquainted with his progress, expressing his willingness, in return,
to afford every assistance in his power. In his intercourse with members of
parliament, Mr. Clarkson was now frequently associated with Mr. Wilberforce,
who daily became more interested in the fate of Africa. The intercourse of the
two philanthropists was mutually cordial and encouraging; Mr. Clarkson
imparting his discoveries in the custom-houses of London, Liverpool, and other
places; and Mr. Wilberforce communic ating the information he had gained from
those with whom he associated.
“In 1788, Mr. Clarkson
published his important work on the Impolicy of the Slave-Trade.
“In 1789, this
indefatigable man went to France, by the advice of the Committee which he had
been instrumental in forming two years before; Mr. Wilberforce, always
solicitous for the good of the oppressed Africans, being of opinion that
advantage might be taken of the commotions in that country, to induce the
leading persons there to take the slave-trade into their consideration, and
incorporate it among the abuses to be removed. Several of Mr. Clarkson's
friends advised him to travel by another name, as accounts had arrived in
England of the excesses which had taken place in Paris; but to this he could
not consent. On his arrival in that city he was speedily introduced to those
who were favourable to the great object of his life; and at the house of M.
Necker dined with the six deputies of colour from St. Domingo,--who had been
sen t to France at this juncture, to demand that the free people of colour in
their country might be placed upon an equality with the whites. Their
communications to the English philanthropist were important and interesting;
they hailed him as their friend, a nd were abundant in their commendations of
his conduct.
“Copies of the Essay on
the Impolicy of the Slave-Trade, translated into French, with engravings of the
plan and section of a slave ship, were distributed with apparent good effect.
The virtuous Abbé Gregoire, and several members of the Na tional Assembly,
called upon Mr. Clarkson. The Archbishop of Aix was so struck with horror, when
the plan of the slave ship was shown to him, that he could scarcely speak; and
Mirabeau ordered a model of it in wood to be placed in his dining-room.
“The circulation of
intelligence, although contributing to make many friends, called forth the
extraordinary exertions of enemies. Merchants, and others interested in the
continuance of the slave-trade, wrote letters to the Archbishop of Aix, bes
eeching him not to ruin France; which they said he would inevitably do, if, as
the president, he were to grant a day for hearing the question of the
abolition. Offers of money were made to Mirabeau, if he would totally abandon
his intended motion. Books w ere circulated in opposition to Mr. Clarkson's;
resort was had to the public papers, and he was denounced as a spy. The clamour
raised by these efforts pervaded all Paris, and reached the ears of the king.
M. Necker had a long conversation with his royal master upon it, who requested
to see the Essay, and the specimens of African manufactures, and bestowed
considerable time upon them, being surprised at the state of the arts there. M.
Necker did not exhibit the section of the slave ship, thinking that as the king
was indisposed, he might be too much affected by it. Louis returned the
specimens, commissioning M. Necker to convey his thanks to Mr. Clarkson, and
express his gratification at what he had seen.
“No decided benefit
appears at this time to have followed the visit: but though much depressed by
his ill success in France, Mr. Clarkson continued his labours, till excess of
exertion, joined to repeated and bitter disappointments, impaired his health,
and, after a hard struggle, subdued a constitution, naturally strong and
vigorous beyond the lot of men in general, but shattered by anxiety and
fatigue, and the sad probability, often forced upon his understanding, that all
might at last have bee n in vain. Under these feelings, he retired in 1794 to
the beautiful banks of Ulleswater; there to seek that rest which, without peril
to his life, could no longer be delayed.
“For seven years he had
maintained a correspondence with four hundred persons; he annually wrote a book
upon the subject of the abolition, and travelled more than thirty-five thousand
miles in search of evidence, making a great part of these journeys in the
night. `All this time,' Mr. Clarkson writes, `my mind had been on the stretch;
it had been bent too to this one subject; for I had not even leisure to attend
to my own concerns. The various instances of barbari ty, which had come
successively to my knowledge within this period, had vexed, harassed, and
afflicted it. The wound which these had produced was rendered still deeper by
the reiterated refusal of persons to give their testimony, after I had
travelled hun dreds of miles in quest of them. But the severest stroke was that
inflicted by the persecution begun and pursued by persons interested in the
continuance of the trade, of such witnesses as had been examined against them;
and whom, on account of their depe ndent situation in life, it was most easy to
oppress. As I had been the means of bringing them forward on these occasions,
they naturally came to me, as the author of their miseries and their ruin.*
These different circumstances, by acting together, had at length brought me
into the situation just mentioned; and I was, therefore, obliged, though very
reluctantly, to be borne out of the field where I had placed the great honour
and glory of my life.' ”
It was while thus
recruiting the energies exhausted in the conflict, that Clarkson, and the
compatriot band with which he had been associated in the long and arduous
struggle, were crowned with victory, and received the grateful reward of their
honoura ble toil in the final abolition of the slave-trade by the British
nation, in 1807, the last but most glorious act of the Grenville
administration.
The preceding shows
something of the career of Clarkson while labouring to convince the people of
Great Britain of the iniquity of their own trade, a trade which they had the
power to abolish. During all this time, Clarkson, Wil berforce, and their
associates avoided touching the matter of slavery. They knew that one thing
must be gained at a time, and they as a matter of expediency, avoided
discussing the duty of the British nation in regard to the system of slavery in
their colonies w hich was entirely under their own control. During all the time
that was employed in efforts to end the slave-trade, slavery was existing in
the control of the British people, and yet Clarkson and Wilberforce decided
that it was right to let that matter en tirely alone.
The following shows
Clarkson's proceedings after the British nation had abolished the slave-trade.
“By the publication of
his Thoughts on the Abolition of Slavery, Mr. Clarkson showed that neither he
nor those connected with him, considered their work as accomplished, when the
laws of his country clasped with its felons those engaged in the ne farious
traffic of slaves. But the efforts of Mr. Clarkson were not confined to his
pen. In 1818, he proceeded to Aix la Chapelle, at the time when the sovereigns
of Europe met in congress. He was received with marked attention by the Emperor
of Russia, who listened to his statements (respecting the slave-trade,) and
promised to use his influence with the assembled monarchs, to secure t he
entire suppression of the trade in human beings, as speedily as possible.
Describing his interview with this amiable monarch, in which the subject of
peace societies, as well as the abolition of the slave-trade was discussed, Mr.
Clarkson, in a letter to a friend, thus writes:
“ `It was about nine at
night, when I was shown into the emperor's apartment. I found him alone. He met
me at the door, and shaking me by the hand, said, `I had the pleasure of making
your acquaintance at Paris.' He then led me some little way in to the room, and
leaving me there, went forward and brought me a chair with his own hand, and
desired me to sit down. This being done, he went for another chair, and
bringing it very near to mine, placed himself close to me, so that we sat
opposite to eac h other.
“ `I began the
conversation by informing the emperor that as I supposed the congress of Aix la
Chapelle might possibly be the last congress of sovereigns for settling the
affairs of Europe, its connexions and dependencies, I had availed myself of the
kind permission he gave me at Paris, of applying to him in behalf of the
oppressed Africans, being unwilling to lose the last opportunity of rendering
him serviceable to the cause.
“ `The emperor replied,
that he had read both my letter and my address to the sovereigns, and that what
I asked him and the other sovereigns to do, was only reasonable.
“ `Here I repeated the
two great propositions in the address--the necessity of bringing the Portuguese
time for continuing the trade (which did not expire till 1825, and then only
with a condition,) down to the Spanish time, which expired in 1820; and secondly,
when the two times should legally have expired, (that is, both of them in
1820,) then to make any farther continuance piracy. I entreated him not to be
deceived by any other propositions; for that Mr. Wilberfor ce, myself, and
others, who had devoted our time to this subject, were sure that no other
measure would be effectual.
“ `He then said very
feelingly in these words, `By the providence of God, I and my kingdom have been
saved from a merciless tyranny, (alluding to the invasion of Napoleon,) and I
should but ill repay the blessing, if I were not to do every thing in my power
to protect the poor Africans against their oppression also.'
“ `The emperor then
asked if he could do any thing else for our cause. I told him he could; and
that I should be greatly obliged to him if he would present one of the
addresses to the Emperor of Austria, and another to the King of Prussia, with
his own hand. I had brought two of them in my pocket for the purpose. He asked
me why I had not presented them before. I replied that I had not the honour of
knowing either of those sovereigns as I knew him; nor any of their ministers;
and that I was not only fearful lest these addresses would not be presented to
them, but even if they were, that coming into their hands without any
recommendation, they would be laid aside and not read; on the other hand, if he
(the emperor,) would condescend to present them, I was sure they would be read,
and that coming from him, they would come with a weight of influence, which
would secure an attention to their contents. Upon this, the emperor promised,
in the most kind and affable manner, that he would perform the task I had
assigned to him.
“ `We then rose from
our seats to inspect some articles of manufacture, which I had brought with me
as a present to him, and which had been laid upon the table. We examined the
articles in leather first, one by one, with which he was uncommonly g ratified.
He said they exhibited not only genius but taste. He inquired if they tanned
their own leather, and how: I replied to his question. He said he had never
seen neater work, either in Petersburg or in London. He then looked at a dagger
and its scab bard or sheath. I said the sheath was intended as a further, but
more beautiful specimen of the work of the poor Africans in leather; and the
blade of their dagger as a specimen of their work in iron. Their works in
cotton next came under our notice. There was one piece which attracted his
particular notice, and which was undoubtedly very beautiful. It called from him
this observation, `Manchester,' said he, `I think is your great place for
manufactures of this sort--do you think they could make a better piece of
cotton there?' I told him I had never seen a better piece of workmanship of the
ki nd any where. Having gone over all the articles, the emperor desired me to
inform him whether he was to understand that these articles were made by the
Africans in their own country, that is, in their native villages, or after they
had arrived in America, where they would have an opportunity of seeing European
manufactures, and experienced workmen in the arts? I replied that such articles
might be found in every African village, both on the coast and in the interior,
and that they were samples of their own ingenuity, without any connexion with
Europeans. `Then,' said the emperor, `you astonish me--you have given me a new
idea of the state of these poor people. I was not aware that they were so
advanced in society. The works you have shown me are not the works of
brutes--but of men, endued with rational and intellectual powers, and capable
of being brought to as high a degree of proficiency as any other men. Africa
ought to have a fair chance of raising her character in the scale of the
civilized world.' I replied that it was this cruel traffic alone, which had
prevented Africa from rising to a level with other nations; and that it was
only astonishing to me that the natives there had, under its impeding
influence, arrived at the perfection which had displayed itself in t he specimens
of workmanship he had just seen.' ”
Animated by a growing
conviction of the righteousness of the cause in which he was engaged, and
encouraged by the success with which past endeavours had been crowned, Mr.
Clarkson continued his efficient co-opetion with the friends of Abolition,
advoca ting its claims on all suitable occasions.
It would be superfluous
to recount the steps by which, even before the venerated Wilberforce was called
to his rest, this glorious event was realized, and Clarkson beheld the great
object of his own life, and those with whom he had acted, triumphantly
achieved. The gratitude cherished towards the Supreme Ruler for the boon thus
secured to the oppressed--the satisfaction which a review of past exertions
afforded, were heightened by the joyous sympathy of a large portion of his
countrymen.*
The History of the
Abolition of the Slave-trade, by Clarkson himself, presents a more detailed
account of his own labours and of the labours of others, and whoever will read
it, will observe the following particulars in w hich this effort differed from
the Abolition movement in America.
In the first place, it
was conducted by some of the wisest and most talented statesmen, as well as the
most pious men, in the British nation. Pitt, Fox, and some of the highest of
the nobility and bishops in England, were the firmest friends of the enterprise
from the first. It was conducted by men who had the intellect, knowledge,
discretion, and wisdom demanded for so great an enterprise.
Secondly. It was
conducted slowly, peaceably, and by eminently judicious influences.
Thirdly. It included,
to the full extent, the doctrine of expediency denounced by Abolitionists.
One of the first
decisions of the “Committee for the Abolition of the Slave-trade,” which
conducted all Abolition movements, was that slavery should not be attacked, but
only the slave-trade; and Clarkson expressly says, that it was owing to this,
more than to any other measure, that success was gained.
Fourthly. Good men were
not divided, and thrown into contending parties.--The opponents to the measure,
were only those who were personally interested in the perpetuation of slavery
or the slave-trade.
Fifthly. This effort
was one to convince men of their own obligations, and not an effort to arouse
public sentiment against the sinful practices of another community over which
they had no control.
I would now ask, why
could not some southern gentleman, such for example as Mr. Birney, whose
manners, education, character, and habits give him abundant facilities, have
acted the part of Clarkson, and quietly have gone to work at the South,
collectin g facts, exhibiting the impolicy and the evils, to good men at the
South, by the fire-side of the planter, the known home of hospitality and
chivalry. Why could he not have commenced with the most vulnerable point, the
domestic slave-tr ade, leaving emancipation for a future and more favourable
period? What right has any one to say that there was no southern Wilberforce
that would have arisen, no southern Grant, Macaulay or Sharpe, who, like the
English philanthropists, would have s tood the fierce beating of angry billows,
and by patience, kindness, arguments, facts, eloquence, and Christian love,
convinced the skeptical, enlightened the ignorant, excited the benevolent, and
finally have carried the day at the South, by the same means and measures, as
secured the event in England? All experience is in favour of the method which
the Abolitionists have rejected, because it involves danger to themselves. The
cause they have selec ted is one that stands alone.-- No case parallel on earth
can be brought to sustain it, with probabilities of good results. No instance
can be found, where exciting the public sentiment of one community against evil
practices in another, was ever mad e the means of eradicating those evils. All
the laws of mind, all the records of experience, go against the measures that
Abolitionists have taken, and in favour of the one they have rejected. And when
we look still farther ahead, at results which time is to develope, how stand
the probabilities, when we, in judging, again take, as data, the laws of mind
and the records of experience?
What are the plans,
hopes, and expectations of Abolitionists, in reference to their measures? They
are now labouring to make the North a great Abolition Society,--to convince
every northern man that slavery at the South is a great sin, and that it ought
immediately to cease. Suppose they accomplish this to the extent they hope,--so
far as we have seen, the more the North is convinced, the more firmly the South
rejects the light, and turns from the truth.
While Abolition
Societies did not exist, men could talk and write, at the South, against the
evils of slavery, and northern men had free access and liberty of speech, both
at the South and at the North. But now all is changed. Every avenue of approach
to the South is shut. No paper, pamphlet, or preacher, that touches on that
topic, is admitted in their bounds. Their own citizens, that once laboured and
remonstrated, are silenced; their own clergy, under the influence of the
exasperated feelings of the ir people, and their own sympathy and sense of
wrong, either entirely hold their peace, or become the defenders of a system
they once lamented, and attempted to bring to an end. This is the record of
experience as to the tendencies of Abolitionism, as thu s far developed. The
South are now in just that state of high exasperation, at the sense of wanton
injury and impertinent interference, which makes the influence of truth and
reason most useless and powerless.
But suppose the
Abolitionists succeed, not only in making northern men Abolitionists, but also
in sending a portion of light into the South, such as to form a body of
Abolitionists there also What is the thing that is to be done to end slavery at
the S outh? It is to alter the laws, and to do this, a small minority must
begin a long, bitter, terrible conflict with a powerful and exasperated
majority. Now if, as the Abolitionists hope, there will arise at the South such
a minority , it will doubtless consist of men of religious and benevolent
feelings,-- men of that humane, and generous, and upright spirit, that most
keenly feel the injuries inflicted on their fellow men. Suppose such a band of
men begin their efforts, sustain ed by the northern Abolitionists, already so
odious. How will the exasperated majority act, according to the known laws of
mind and of experience? Instead of lessening the evils of slavery, they will
increase them. The more they are goaded by a sense of aggressive wrong without,
or by fears of dangers within, the more they will restrain their slaves, and
diminish their liberty, and increase their disabilities. They will make laws so
unjust and oppressive, not only to sl aves, but to their Abolitionist
advocates, that by degrees such men will withdraw from their bounds. Laws will
be made expressly to harass them, and to render them so uncomfortable that they
must withdraw. Then gradually the righteous will flee from the d evoted city.
Then the numerical proportion of whites will decrease, and the cruelty and
unrestrained wickedness of the system will increase, till a period will come
when the physical power will be so much with the blacks, their sense of
suffering so incre ased, that the volcano will burst,--insurrection and servile
wars will begin. Oh, the countless horrors of such a day! And will the South
stand alone in that burning hour? When she sends forth the wailing of her
agonies, shall not the North and the W est hear, and lift up together the voice
of wo? Will not fathers hear the cries of children, and brothers the cries of
sisters? Will the terrors of insurrection sweep over the South, and no Northern
and Western blood be shed? Will the slaves be cut down, in such a strife, when they
raise the same pæan song of liberty and human rights, that was the watchword of
our redemption from far less dreadful tyranny, and which is now thrilling the
nations and shaking monarchs on their thrones--will this be heard, and none of
the sons of liberty be found to appear on their side? This is no picture of
fancied dangers, which are not near. The day has come, when already the
feelings are so excited on both sides, that I have heard intelligent men, good
men, benevolent and pious men, in moments of excitement, declare themselves
ready to ta ke up the sword--some for the defence of the master, some for the
protection and right of the slave. It is my full conviction, that if
insurrection does burst forth, and there be the least prospect of success to the
cause of the slave, there will be men from the North and West, standing breast
to breast, with murderous weapons, in opposing ranks.
Such apprehensions many
would regard as needless, and exclaim against such melancholy predictions. But
in a case where the whole point of duty and expediency turns upon the
probabilities as to results, those probabilities ought to be the chief subjects
of inquiry. True, no one has a right to say with confidence what will or what
will not be; and it has often amazed and disturbed my mind to perceive how men,
with so small a field of vision,--with so little data for judging,--with so few
years, and so little experience, can pronounce concerning the results of
measures bearing upon the complicated relations and duties of millions, and in
a case where the wisest and best are dismayed and baffled. It sometimes has
seemed to me that the prescience of Deity alone should dare to take such
positions as are both carelessly assumed, and pertinaciously defended, by the
advocates of Abolitionism.
But if we are to judge
of the wisdom or folly of any measures on this subject, it must be with
reference to future results. One course of measures, it is claimed, tends to
perpetuate slavery, or to end it by scenes of terror and bloodshed. Another
course tends to bring it to an end sooner, and by safe and peaceful influences.
And the whole discussion of duty rests on these probabilities. But where do the
laws of mind and experience oppose the terrific tendencies of Abolitionism that
have been portrayed? Are not the minds of men thrown into a ferment, and
excited by those passions which blin d the reason, and warp the moral sense? Is
not the South in a state of high exasperation against Abolitionists? Does she
not regard them as enemies, as reckless madmen, as impertinent intermeddlers?
Will the increase of their numbers tend to allay this ex asperation? Will the
appearance of a similar body in their own boundaries have any tendency to
soothe? Will it not still more alarm and exasperate? If a movement of a
minority of such men attempt to alter the laws, are not the probabilities
strong that st ill more unjust and oppressive measures will be adopted?--
measures that will tend to increase the hardships of the slave, and to drive
out of the community all humane, conscientious and pious men? As the evils and
dangers increase, will not the alarm constantly diminish the proportion of
whites, and make it more and more needful to increase such disabilities and
restraints as will chafe and inflame the blacks? When this point is reached,
will the blacks, knowing, as they will know, the sympathies of their Abolition
friends, refrain from exerting their physical p ower? The Southampton
insurrection occurred with far less chance of sympathy and success.
If that most horrible
of all scourges, a servile war, breaks forth, will the slaughter of fathers,
sons, infants, and of aged,--will the cries of wives, daughters, sisters, and
kindred, suffering barbarities worse than death, bring no fathers, bro thers,
and friends to their aid, from the North and West?
And if the sympathies
and indignation of freemen can already look such an event in the face, and feel
that it would be the slave, rather than the master, whom they would defend,
what will be the probability, after a few years' chafing shall have driven away
the most christian and humane from scenes of cruelty and inhumanity, which they
could neither alleviate nor redress? I should like to see any data of past
experience, that will show that these results are not more probable than that
the South will, by the system of means now urged upon her, finally be convinced
of her sins, and voluntarily bring the system of slavery to an end. I claim not
that the predictions I presen t will be fulfilled. I only say, that if Abolitionists
go on as they propose, such results are more probable than those they hope to
attain.
I have not here alluded
to the probabilities of the severing of the Union by the present mode of
agitating the question. This may be one of the results, and, if so, what are
the probabilities for a Southern republic, that has torn itself off for the pu
rpose of excluding foreign interference, and for the purpose of perpetuating
slavery? Can any Abolitionist suppose that, in such a state of things, the
great cause of emancipation is as likely to progress favourably, as it was when
we were one nation, and mingling on those fraternal terms that existed before
the Abolition movement began?
The preceding are some
of the reasons which, on the general view, I would present as opposed to the
proposal of forming Abolition Societies; and they apply equally to either sex.
There are some others which seem to oppose peculiar objections to the act ion
of females in the way you would urge.
To appreciate more
fully these objections, it will be necessary to recur to some general views in
relation to the place woman is appointed to fill by the dispensations of
heaven.
It has of late become
quite fashionable in all benevolent efforts, to shower upon our sex an
abundance of compliments, not only see what they have done, but also for what
they can do; and so injudicious and so frequent, are these oblations, that
while I feel an increasing respect for my countrywomen, that their good sense
has not been decoyed by these appeals to their vanity and ambition, I cannot
but apprehend that there is some need of inquiry as to the just bounds of
female influence, and the times, places, and manner in which it can be
appropriately exerted.
It is the grand feature
of the Divine economy, that there should be different stations of superiority
and subordination, and it is impossible to annihilate this beneficent and
immutable law. On its first entrance into life, the child is a dependent on
parental love, and of necessity takes a place of subordination and obedience.
As he advances in life these new relations of superiority and subordination
multiply. The teacher must be the superior in station, the pupil a subordinate.
The master of a famil y the superior, the domestic a subordinate--the ruler a
superior, the subject a subordinate. Nor do these relations at all depend upon
superiority either in intellectual or moral worth. However weak the parents, or
intelligent the child, there is no reference to this, in the immutable law.
However incompetent the teacher, or superior the pupil, no alteration of
station can be allowed. However unworthy the master or worthy the servant,
while their mutual relations continue, no change in station as to subordination
can be allowed. In fulfilling the duties of these relations, true dignity
consists in conforming to all those relations that demand subordination, with
propriety and cheerfulness. When does a man, howeve r high his character or
station, appear more interesting or dignified than when yielding reverence and deferential
attentions to an aged parent, however weak and infirm? And the pupil, the
servant, or the subject, all equally sustain their own claims to s elf-respect,
and to the esteem of others, by equally sustaining the appropriate relations
and duties of subordination. In this arrangement of the duties of life, Heaven
has appointed to one sex the superior, and to the other the subordinate
station, and t his without any reference to the character or conduct of either.
It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is for the interest of females,
in all respects to conform to the duties of this relation. And it is as much a
duty as it is for the child to fu lfil similar relations to parents, or
subjects to rulers. But while woman holds a subordinate relation in society to
the other sex, it is not because it was designed that her duties or her
influence should be any the less important, or all-pervading. But it was
designed that the mode of gaining influence and of exercising power should be
altogeth er different and peculiar.
It is Christianity that
has given to woman her true place in society. And it is the peculiar trait of
Christianity alone that can sustain her therein. “Peace on earth and good will
to men” is the character of all the rights and privileges, the influence, and
the power of woman. A man may act on society by the collision of intellect, in
public debate; he may urge his measures by a sense of shame, by fear and by
personal interest; he may coerce by the combination of public sentiment; he may
d rive by physical force, and he does not outstep the boundaries of his sphere.
But all the power, and all the conquests that are lawful to woman, are those
only which appeal to the kindly, generous, peaceful and benevolent principles.
Woman is to win every
thing by peace and love; by making herself so much respected, esteemed and
loved, that to yield to her opinions and to gratify her wishes, will be the
free-will offering of the heart. But this is to be all accomplished in the
domestic and social circle. There let every woman become so cultivated and
refined in intellect, that her taste and judgment will be respected; so
benevolent in feeling and action; that her motives will be reverenced;--so
unassuming and unambitious, that collision and competition will be banis
hed;--so “gentle and easy to be entreated,” as that every heart will repose in
her presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the sons, will find an
influence thrown around them, to which they will yield not only willingly but
proudly . A man is never ashamed to own such influences, but feels dignified
and ennobled in acknowledging them. But the moment woman begins to feel the
promptings of ambition, or the thirst for power, her ægis of defence is gone.
All the sacred protection of religion, all the generous promptings of chivalry,
all the poetry of romantic gallantry, depend upon woman's retaining her place
as dependent and defenceless, and making no claims, and maintaining no right
but what are the gifts of honour, rectitude and love.
A woman may seek the
aid of co-operation and combination among her own sex, to assist her in her
appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and domestic duty; but
whatever, in any measure, throws a woman into the attitude of a combatant,
either fo r herself or others--whatever binds her in a party conflict--whatever
obliges her in any way to exert coercive influences, throws her out of her
appropriate sphere. If these general principles are correct, they are entirely
opposed to the plan o f arraying females in any Abolition movement; because it
enlists them in an effort to coerce the South by the public sentiment of the
North; because it brings them forward as partisans in a conflict that has been
begun and carried forward by measures that are any thing rather than peaceful
in their tendencies; because it draws them forth from their appropriate
retirement, to expose themselves to the ungoverned violence of mobs, and to
sneers and ridicule in public places; because it leads them into the arena of
political collision, not as peaceful mediators to hush the opposing elements,
but as combatants to cheer up and carry forward the mea sures of strife.
If it is asked, “May
not woman appropriately come forward as a suppliant for a portion of her sex
who are bound in cruel bondage?” It is replied, that, the rectitude and
propriety of any such measure, depend entirely on its probable results . If
petitions from females will operate to exasperate; if they will be deemed
obtrusive, indecorous, and unwise, by those to whom they are addressed; if they
will increase, rather than diminish the evil which it is wished to remove; if
they will be the o pening wedge, that will tend eventually to bring females as
petitioners and partisans into every political measure that may tend to injure
and oppress their sex, in various parts of the nation, and under the various
public measures that may hereafter be enforced, then it is neither appropriate
nor wise, nor right, for a woman to petition for the relief of oppressed females.
The case of Queen
Esther is one often appealed to as a precedent. When a woman is placed in
similar circumstances, where death to herself and all her nation is one
alternative, and there is nothing worse to fear, but something to hope as the
other alte rnative, then she may safely follow such an example. But when a
woman is asked to join an Abolition Society, or to put her name to a petition
to congress, for the purpose of contributing her measure of influence to keep
up agitation in congress, to promot e the excitement of the North against the
iniquities of the South, to coerce the South by fear, shame, anger, and a sense
of odium to do what she has determined not to do, the case of Queen Esther is
not at all to be regarded as a suitable example for imi tation.
In this country,
petitions to congress, in reference to the official duties of legislators,
seem, in all cases, to fall entirely without the sphere of female duty. Men are
the proper persons to make appeals to the rulers whom they appoint, and if
their female friends, by arguments and persuasions, can induce them to
petition, all the good that can be done by such measures will be secured. But
if females cannot influence their n earest friends, to urge forward a public
measure in this way, they surely are out of their place, in attempting to do it
themselves.
There are some other
considerations, which should make the American females peculiarly sensitive in
reference to any measure, which should even seem to draw them from their
appropriate relations in society.
It is allowed by all
reflecting minds, that the safety and happiness of this nation depends upon
having the children educated, and not only intellectually, but morally and
religiously. There are now nearly two millions of childr en and adults in this
country who cannot read, and who have no schools of any kind. To give only a
small supply of teachers to these destitute children, who are generally where
the population is sparse, will demand thirty thousand teachers; and six
thousand more will be needed every year, barely to meet the increase of
juvenile population. But if we allow that we need not reach this point, in
order to save ourse lves from that destruction which awaits a people, when
governed by an ignorant and unprincipled democracy; if we can weather the
storms of democratic liberty with only one-third of our ignorant children
properly educated, stil l we need ten thousand teachers at this moment, and an
addition of two thousand every year. Where is this army of teachers to be found?
Is it at all probable that the other sex will afford even a moderate po rtion
of this supply? The field for enterprise and excitement in the political arena,
in the arts, the sciences, the liberal professions, in agriculture,
manufactures, and commerce, is opening with such temptations, as never yet bore
upon the mind of any nation. Will men turn aside from these high and exciting
objects to become the patient labourers in the school-room, and for only the
small pittance that rewards such toil? No, they will not do it. Men will be
educators in the college, in the high school, in some of the most honourable
and lucrative common schools, but the children, the little children of this
nation must, to a wide extent, be taught by females, or remain untaught. The
drudgery of education, as it is now too generally regarded, in this country,
will be given to the female hand. And as the value of education rises in the
public mind, and the importance of a teac her's office is more highly
estimated, women will more and more be furnished with those intellectual
advantages which they need to fit them for such duties.
The result will be,
that America will be distinguished above all other nations, for well-educated
females, and for the influence they will exert on the general interests of
society. But if females, as they approach the other sex, in intellectual
elevation, begin to claim, or to exercise in any manner, the peculiar
prerogatives of that sex, education will prove a doubtful and dangerous
blessing. But this will never be the result. For the more intelligent a woman
becomes, the more she can appreciate the wisdom of that ordinance that
appointed her subordinate station, and the more her taste will conform to the
graceful and dignified retirement and submission it involves.
An ignorant, a
narrow-minded, or a stupid woman, cannot feel nor understand the rationality,
the propriety, or the beauty of this relation; and she it is, that will be most
likely to carry her measures by tormenting, when she cannot please, or by petul
ent complaints or obtrusive interference, in matters which are out of her
sphere, and which she cannot comprehend.
And experience
testifies to this result. By the concession of all travellers, American females
are distinguished above all others for their general intelligence, and yet they
are complimented for their retiring modesty, virtue, and domestic faithfulnes
s, while the other sex is as much distinguished for their respectful kindness
and attentive gallantry. There is no other country where females have so much
public respect and kindness accorded to them as in America, by the concession
of all travellers. And it will ever be so, while intellectual culture in the
female mind, is combined with the spirit of that religion which so strongly enforces
the appropriate duties of a woman's sphere.
But it may be asked, is
there nothing to be done to bring this national sin of slavery to an end? Must
the internal slave-trade, a trade now ranked as piracy among all civilized
nations, still prosper in our bounds? Must the very seat of our government
stand as one of the chief slave-markets of the land; and must not Christian
females open their lips, nor lift a finger, to bring such a shame and sin to an
end?
To this it may be
replied, that Christian females may, and can say and do much to bring these
evils to an end; and the present is a time and an occasion when it seems most
desirable that they should know, and appreciate, and exercise the power which
they do possess for so desirable an end.
And in pointing out the
methods of exerting female influence for this object, I am inspired with great
confidence, from the conviction that what will be suggested, is that which none
will oppose, but all will allow to be not only practicable, but safe, suitable,
and Christian.
To appreciate these
suggestions, however, it is needful previously to consider some particulars
that exhibit the spirit of the age and the tendencies of our peculiar form of
government.
The prominent
principle, now in development, as indicating the spirit of the age, is the
perfect right of all men to entire freedom of opinion. By this I do not mean
that men are coming to think that “it is no matter what a man believes, if he
is only honest and sincere,” or that they are growing any more lenient towards
their fellow-men, for the evil consequences they bring on themselves or on
others for believing wrong.
But they are coming to
adopt the maxim, that no man shall be forced by pains and penalties to adopt
the opinions of other minds, but that every man shall be free to form his own
opinions, and to propagate them by all lawful means.
At the same time
another right is claimed, which is of necessity involved in the preceding,--the
right to oppose, by all lawful means, the opinions and the practices of others,
when they are deemed pernicious either to individuals or to the commun ity,
Facts, arguments and persuasions are, by all, conceded to be lawful means to
employ in propagating our own views, and in opposing the opinions and practices
of others.
These fundamental
principles of liberty have in all past ages been restrained by coercive
influences, either of civil or of ecclesiastical power. But in this nation, all
such coercive influences, both of church and state, have ceased. Every man may
thi nk what he pleases about government, or religion, or any thing else; he may
propagate his opinions, he may contrevert opposite opinions, and no magistrate
or ecclesiastic can in any legal way restrain or punish.
But the form of our
government is such, that every measure that bears upon the public or private
interest of every citizen, is decided by public sentiment. All laws and
regulations in civil, or religious, or social concerns, are decided by the
majority of votes. And the present is a time when every doctrine, every
principle, and every practice which influences the happiness of man, either in
this, or in a future life, is under discussion. The whole nation is thrown into
parties about almost every possible question, and every man is stimulated in his
efforts to promote his own plans by the conviction that success depends
entirely upon bringing his fellow citizens to think as he does. Hence every man
is fierce in maintaining his own right of free discussion, his own right to
propagate his opini ons, and his own right to oppose, by all lawful means, the
opinions that conflict with his own.
But the difficulty is,
that a right which all men claim for themselves, with the most sensitive and
pertinacious inflexibility, they have not yet learned to accord to their fellow
men, in cases where their own interests are involved. Every man is sayin g, “let
me have full liberty to propagate my opinions, and to oppose all that I deem
wrong and injurious, but let no man take this liberty with my opinions and
practices. Every man may believe what he pleases, and propagate what he
pleases, provided he takes care not to attack any thing which belongs to me.”
And how do men exert
themselves to restrain this corresponding right of their fellow men? Not by
going to the magistrate to inform, or to the spiritual despot to obtain
ecclesiastical penalties, but he resorts to methods, which, if successful, are
in e ffect the most severe pains and penalties that can restrain freedom of
opinion.
What is dearer to a man
than his character, involving as it does, the esteem, respect and affection of
friends, neighbours and society, with all the confidence, honour, trust and
emolument that flow from general esteem? How sens itive is every man to any
thing that depreciates his intellectual character! What torture, to be
ridiculed or pitied for such deficiencies! How cruel the suffering, when his
moral delinquencies are held up to public scorn and reprehension! Confiscation,
stripes, chains, and even death itself, are often less dreaded.
It is this method of
punishment to which men resort, to deter their fellow-men from exercising those
rights of liberty which they so tenaciously claim for themselves. Examine now
the methods adopted by almost all who are engaged in the various conflict s of
opinion in this nation, and you will find that there are certain measures which
combatants almost invariably employ.
They either attack the
intellectual character of opponents, or they labour to make them appear
narrow-minded, illiberal and bigoted, or they impeach their honesty and
veracity, or they stigmatize their motives as mean, selfish, ambitious, or in
some ot her respect unworthy and degrading. Instead of truth, and evidence, and
argument, personal depreciation, sneers, insinuations, or open abuse, are the
weapons employed. This method of resisting freedom of opinions, by pains and
penalties, arises in part fr om the natural selfishness of man, and in part
from want of clear distinctions as to the rights and duties involved in freedom
of opinion and freedom of speech.
The great fundamental
principle that makes this matter clear, is this, that a broad and invariable
distinction should ever be preserved between the opinions and practices that
are discussed, and the advocates of these opinions and practices.
It is a sacred and
imperious duty, that rests on every human being, to exert all his influence in
opposing every thing that he believes is dangerous and wrong, and in sustaining
all that he believes is safe and right. And in doing this, no compromise is to
be made, in order to shield country, party, friends, or even self, from any
just censure. Every man is bound by duty to God and to his country, to lay his
finger on every false principle, or injurious practice, and boldly say, “this
is wrong--this is dangerous--this I will oppose with all my influence, whoever
it may be that advocates or practises it.” And every man is bound to use his
efforts to turn public sentiment against all that he believes to be wrong and
injurious, either in regard to this life, or to the future world. And every man
deserves to be respected and applauded, just in proportion as he fearlessly and
impartially, and in a proper spirit, time and manner, fulfils this duty.
The doctrine, just now
alluded to, that it is “no matter what a man believes, if he is only honest and
sincere,” is as pernicious, as it is contrary to religion and to common sense.
It is as absurd, and as impracticable, as it would be to urge on the mariner
the maxim, “no matter which way you believe to be north, if you only steer
aright.” A man's character, feelings, and conduct, all depend upon his
opinions. If a man can reason himself into the belief that it is right to take
the property of others and to deceive by false statements, he will probably
prove a thief and a liar. It is of the greatest concern, therefore, to every
man, that his fellow-men should believe right, and one of his most sacred
duties is to use all his influence to promote correct opinions.
But the performance of
this duty, does by no means involve the necessity of attacking the character or
motives of the advocates of false opinions, or of holding them up,
individually, to public odium.
Erroneous opinions are
sometimes the consequence of unavoidable ignorance, or of mental imbecility, or
of a weak and erring judgment, or of false testimony from others, which cannot
be rectified. In such cases, the advocates of false opinions are to be pitied
rather than blamed; and while the opinions and their tendencies may be publicly
exposed, the men may be objects of affection and kindness.
In other cases,
erroneous opinions spring from criminal indifference, from prejudice, from
indolence, from pride, from evil passions, or from selfish interest. In all
such cases, men deserve blame for their pernicious opinions, and the evils
which flow from them.
But, it may be asked,
how are men to decide, when their fellow-men are guilty for holding wrong
opinions; when they deserve blame, and when they are to be regarded only with
pity and commiseration by those who believe them to be in the wrong? Here,
surely, is a place where some correct principle is greatly needed.
Is every man to sit in
judgment upon his fellow-man, and decide what are his intellectual capacities,
and what the measure of his judgment? Is every man to take the office of the
Searcher of Hearts, to try the feelings and motives of his fellow-man? Is that
most difficult of all analysis, the estimating of the feelings, purposes, and
motives, which every man, who examines his own secret thoughts, finds to be so
complex, so recondite, so intricate; is this to be the basis, not only of
individual opinion, but of public reward and censure? Is every man to
constitute himself a judge of the amount of time and interest given to the
proper investigation of truth by his fellow-man? Surely, this cannot be a correct
principle.
Though there may be
single cases in which we can know that our fellow-men are weak in intellect, or
erring in judgment, or perverse in feeling, or misled by passion, or biased by
selfish interest, as a general fact we are not competent to decide these
matters, in regard to those who differ from us in opinion.
For this reason it is
manifestly wrong and irrelevant, when discussing questions of duty or
expediency, to bring before the public the character or the motives of the
individual advocates of opinions.
But, it may be urged,
how can the evil tendencies of opinions or of practices be investigated,
without involving a consideration of the character and conduct of those who
advocate them? To this it may be replied, that the tendencies of opinions and
practices can never be ascertained by discussing individual character. It is
classes of persons, or large communities, embracing persons of all varieties of
character and circumstances, that are the only proper subjects of investigation
for this object. For example, a community of Catholics, and a community of
Protestants, may be compared, for the purpose of learning the moral tendencies
of their different opinions. Scotland and New England, where the principles
opposite to Catholicism have most prevailed, may properly be compared with
Spain and Italy, where the Catholic system has been most fairly tried. But to
select certain individuals who are defenders of these two different systems, as
examples to illustrate their tendencies, would be as improper as it would be to
select a kernel of grain to prove the good or bad character of a whole crop.
To illustrate by a more
particular example. The doctrines of the Atheist school are now under
discussion, and Robert Owen and Fanny Wright have been their prominent
advocates.
In agreement with the
above principles, it is a right, and the duty of every man who has any
influence and opportunity, to show the absurdity of their doctrines, the
weakness of their arguments, and the fatal tendencies of their opinions. It is
right to show that the practical adoption of their principles indicates a want
of common sense, just as sowing the ocean with grain and expecting a crop would
indicate the same deficiency. If the advocates of these doctrines carry out
their principles into practice, in any such way as to offend the taste, or
infringe on the rights of others, it is proper to express disgust and
disapprobation. If the female advocate chooses to come upon a stage, and expose
her person, dress, and elocution to public criticism, it is right to express
disgust at whatever is offensive and indecorous, as it is to criticise the book
of an author, or the dancing of an actress, or any thing else that is presented
to public observation. And it is right to make all these things appear as
odious and reprehensible to others as they do to ourselves.
But what is the private
character of Robert Owen or Fanny Wright? Whether they are ignorant or weak in
intellect; whether they have properly examined the sources of truth; how much they
have been biased by pride, passion, or vice, in adopting their opinions;
whether they are honest and sincere in their belief; whether they are selfish
or benevolent in their aims, are not matters which in any way pertain to the
discussion. They are questions about which none are qualified to judge, except
those in close and intimate communion with them. We may inquire with propriety
as to the character of a community of Atheists, or of a community where such
sentiments extensively prevail, as compared with a community of opposite
sentiments. But the private character, feelings, and motives of the individual
advocates of these doctrines, are not proper subjects of investigation in any
public discussion.
If, then, it be true,
that attacks on the character and motives of the advocates of opinions are
entirely irrelevant and not at all necessary for the discovery of truth; if
injury inflicted on character is the most severe penalty that can be employed
to restrain freedom of opinions and freedom of speech, what are we to say of
the state of things in this nation?
Where is there a party
which does not in effect say to every man, “if you dare to oppose the
principles or practices we sustain, you shall be punished with personal odium?”
which does not say to every member of the party, “uphold your party, right or
wrong; oppose all that is adverse to your party, right or wrong, or else suffer
the penalty of having your motives, character, and conduct, impeached?”
Look first at the
political arena. Where is the advocate of any measure that does not suffer
sneers, ridicule, contempt, and all that tends to depreciate character in
public estimation? Where is the partisan that is not attacked, as either weak
in intellect, or dishonest in principle, or selfish in motives? And where is
the man who is linked with any political party, that dares to stand up
fearlessly and defend what is good in opposers, and reprove what is wrong in
his own party?
Look into the religious
world. There, even those who take their party name from their professed
liberality, are saying, “whoever shall adopt principles that exclude us from
the Christian church, and our clergy from the pulpit, shall be held up either
as intellectually degraded, or as narrow-minded and bigoted, or as ambitious,
partisan and persecuting in spirit. No man shall believe a creed that excludes
us from the pale of Christianity, under penalty of all the odium we can
inflict.”
So in the Catholic
controversy. Catholics and their friends practically declare war against all
free discussion on this point. The decree has gone forth, that “no man shall
appear for the purpose of proving that Catholicism is contrary to Scripture, or
immoral and anti-republican in tendency, under penalty of being denounced as a
dupe, or a hypocrite, or a persecutor, or a narrow-minded and prejudiced bigot.
On the contrary, those
who attack what is called liberal Christianity, or who aim to oppose the
progress of Catholicism, how often do they exhibit a severe and uncharitable
spirit towards the individuals whose opinions they controvert. Instead of
loving the men, and rendering to them all the offices of Christian kindness,
and according to them all due credit for whatever is desirable in character and
conduct, how often do opposers seem to feel, that it will not answer to allow
that there is any thing good, either in the system or in those who have adopted
it. “Every thing about my party is right, and every thing in the opposing party
is wrong,” seems to be the universal maxim of the times. And it is the remark
of some of the most intelligent foreign travellers among us, and of our own
citizens who go abroad, that there is no country to be found, where freedom of
opinion, and freedom of speech is more really influenced and controlled by the
fear of pains and penalties, than in this land of boasted freedom. In other
nations, the control is exercised by government, in respect to a very few
matters; in this country it is party-spirit that rules with an iron rod, and
shakes its scorpion whips over every interest and every employment of man.
From this mighty source
spring constant detraction, gossiping, tale-bearing, falsehood, anger, pride,
malice, revenge, and every evil word and work.
Every man sets himself
up as the judge of the intellectual character, the honesty, the sincerity, the
feelings, opportunities, motives, and intentions, of his fellow-man. And so
they fall upon each other, not with swords and spears, but with the tongue, “that
unruly member, that setteth on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire of
hell.”
Can any person who
seeks to maintain the peaceful, loving, and gentle spirit of Christianity, go
out into the world at this day, without being bewildered at the endless
conflicts, and grieved and dismayed at the bitter and unhallowed passions they
engender? Can an honest, upright and Christian man, go into these conflicts,
and with unflinching firmness stand up for all that is good, and oppose all
that is evil, in whatever party it may be found, without a measure of moral
courage such as few can command? And if he carries himself through with an
unyielding integrity, and maintains his consistency, is he not exposed to
storms of bitter revilings, and to peltings from both parties between which he
may stand?
What is the end of
these things to be? Must we give up free discussion, and again chain up the
human mind under the despotism of past ages? No, this will never be. God
designs that every intelligent mind shall be governed, not by coercion, but by
reason, and conscience, and truth. Man must reason, and experiment, and compare
past and present results, and hear and know all that can be said on both sides
of every question which influences either private or public happiness, either
for this life or for the life to come.
But while this process
is going on, must we be distracted and tortured by the baleful passions and
wicked works that unrestrained party-spirit and ungoverned factions will bring
upon us, under such a government as ours? Must we rush on to disunion, and
civil wars, and servile wars, till all their train of horrors pass over us like
devouring fire?
There is an influence
that can avert these dangers--a spirit that can allay the storm-- that can say
to the troubled winds and waters, “peace, be still.”
It is that spirit which
is gentle and easy to be entreated, which thinketh no evil, which rejoiceth not
in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, which is not easily provoked, which
hopeth all things, which beareth all things. Let this spirit be infused into
the mass of the nation, and then truth may be sought, defended, and propagated,
and error detected, and its evils exposed; and yet we may escape the evils that
now rage through this nation, and threaten us with such fiery plagues.
And is there not a
peculiar propriety in such an emergency, in looking for the especial agency and
assistance of females, who are shut out from the many temptations that assail
the other sex,--who are the appointed ministers of all the gentler charities of
life,-- who are mingled throughout the whole mass of the community,--who dwell
in those retirements where only peace and love ought ever to enter,--whose
comfort, influence, and dearest blessings, all depend on preserving peace and
good will among men?
In the present aspect
of affairs among us, when everything seems to be tending to disunion and
distraction, it surely has become the duty of every female instantly to
relinquish the attitude of a partisan, in every matter of clashing interests,
and to assume the office of a mediator, and an advocate of peace. And to do
this, it is not necessary that a woman should in any manner relinquish her
opinion as to the evils or the benefits, the right or the wrong, of any
principle or practice. But, while quietly holding her own opinions, and calmly
avowing them, when conscience and integrity make the duty imperative, every
female can employ her influence, not for the purpose of exciting or regulating
public sentiment, but rather for the purpose of promoting a spirit of candour,
forbearance, charity, and peace.
And there are certain
prominent maxims which every woman can adopt as peculiarly belonging to her, as
the advocate of charity and peace, and which it should be her especial office
to illustrate, enforce, and sustain, by every method in her power.
The first is, that
every person ought to be sustained, not only in the right of propagating his
own opinions and practices, but in opposing all those principles and practices
which he deems erroneous. For there is no opinion which a man can propagate,
that does not oppose some adverse interest; and if a man must cease to advocate
his own views of truth and rectitude, because he opposes the interest or
prejudices of some other man or party, all freedom of opinion, of speech, and
of action, is gone. All that can be demanded is, that a man shall not resort to
falsehood, false reasoning, or to attacks on character, in maintaining his own
rights. If he states things which are false, it is right to show the
falsehood,--if he reasons falsely, it is right to point out his sophistry,--if
he impeaches the character or motives of opponents, it is right to express
disapprobation and disgust; but if he uses only facts, arguments, and
persuasions, he is to be honoured and sustained for all the efforts he makes to
uphold what he deems to be right, and to put down what he believes to be wrong.
Another maxim, which is
partially involved in the first, is, that every man ought to allow his own
principles and practices to be freely discussed, with patience and magnanimity,
and not to complain of persecution, or to attack the character or motives of
those who claim that he is in the wrong. If he is belied, if his character is
impeached, if his motives are assailed, if his intellectual capabilities are
made the objects of sneers or commiseration, he has a right to complain, and to
seek sympathy as an injured man; but no man is a consistent friend and defender
of liberty of speech, who cannot bear to have his own principles and practices
subjected to the same ordeal as he demands should be imposed on others.
Another maxim of peace
and charity is, that every man's own testimony is to be taken in regard to his
motives, feelings, and intentions. Though we may fear that a fellowman is
mistaken in his views of his own feelings, or that he does not speak the truth,
it is as contrary to the rules of good breeding as it is to the laws of
Christianity, to assume or even insinuate that this is the case. If a man's
word cannot be taken in regard to his own motives, feelings, and intentions, he
can find no redress for the wrong that may be done to him. It is unjust and
unreasonable in the extreme to take any other course than the one here urged.
Another most important
maxim of candour and charity is, that when we are to assign motives for the
conduct of our fellow-men, especially of those who oppose our interests, we are
obligated to put the best, rather than the worst construction, on all they say
and do. Instead of assigning the worst as the probable motive, it is always a
duty to hope that it is the best, until evidence is so unequivocal that there
is no place for such a hope.
Another maxim of peace
and charity respects the subject of retaliation. Whatever may be said
respecting the literal construction of some of the rules of the gospel, no one
can deny that they do, whether figurative or not, forbid retaliation and
revenge; that they do assume that men are not to be judges and executioners of their
own wrongs; but that injuries are to be borne with meekness, and that
retributive justice must be left to God, and to the laws. If a man strikes, we
are not to return the blow, but appeal to the laws. If a man uses abusive or
invidious language, we are not to return railing for railing. If a man
impeaches our motives and attacks our character, we are not to return the evil.
If a man sneers and ridicules, we are not to retaliate with ridicule and
sneers. If a man reports our weaknesses and failings, we are not to revenge
ourselves by reporting his. No man has a right to report evil of others, except
when the justification of the innocent, or a regard for public or individual
safety, demands it. This is the strict law of the gospel, inscribed in all its pages,
and meeting in the face all those unchristian and indecent violations that now
are so common, in almost every conflict of intellect or of interest.
Another most important
maxim of peace and charity imposes the obligation to guard our fellow-men from
all unnecessary temptation. We are taught daily to pray, “lead us not into
temptation;” and thus are admonished not only to avoid all unnecessary
temptation ourselves, but to save our fellow-men from the danger. Can we ask
our Heavenly Parent to protect us from temptation, while we recklessly spread
baits and snares for our fellow-men? No, we are bound in every measure to have
a tender regard for the weaknesses and liabilities of all around, and ever to
be ready to yield even our just rights, when we can lawfully do it, rather than
to tempt others to sin. The generous and high-minded Apostle declares, “if meat
make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth;” and
it is the spirit of this maxim that every Christian ought to cultivate. There
are no occasions when this maxim is more needed, than when we wish to modify
the opinions, or alter the practices of our fellow-men. If, in such cases, we
find that the probabilities are, that any interference of ours will increase
the power of tempation, and lead to greater evils than those we wish to remedy,
we are bound to forbear. If we find that one mode of attempting a measure will
increase the power of temptation, and another will not involve this danger, we
are bound to take the safest course. In all cases we are obligated to be as
careful to protect our fellow-men from temptation, as we are to watch and pray
against it in regard to ourselves.
Another maxim of peace
and charity requires a most scrupulous regard to the reputation, character, and
feelings of our fellow-men, and especially of those who are opposed in any way
to our wishes and interests. Every man and every woman feels that it is wrong
for others to propagate their faults and weakness through the community. Every
one feels wounded and injured to find that others are making his defects and
infirmities the subject of sneers and ridicule. And what, then, is the rule of
duty? “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” With this
rule before his eyes and in his mind, can a man retail his neighbour's faults,
or sneer at his deficiencies, or ridicule his infirmities, with a clear
conscience? There are cases when the safety of individuals, or public justice,
demands that a man's defects of character, or crimes, be made public; but no
man is justified in communicating to others any evil respecting any of his
fellow-men, when he cannot appeal to God as his witness that he does it from
benevolent interest in the welfare of his fellow-men--from a desire to save
individuals or the public from some evil --and not from a malevolent or
gossiping propensity. Oh, that this law of love and charity could find an
illustration and an advocate in every female of this nation! Oh, that every
current slander, and every injurious report, might stand abashed, whenever it
meets the notice of a woman!
These are the maxims of
peace and charity, which it is in the power of the females of our country to
advocate, both by example and by entreaties. These are the principles which
alone can protect and preserve the right of free discussion, the freedom of
speech, and liberty of the press. And with our form of government, and our
liabilities to faction and party-spirit, the country will be safe and happy
only in proportion to the prevalence of these maxims among the mass of the
community. There probably will never arrive a period in the history of this
nation, when the influence of these principles will be more needed, than the
present. The question of slavery involves more pecuniary interests, touches
more private relations, involves more prejudices, is entwined with more
sectional, party, and political interests, than any other which can ever again
arise. It is a matter which, if discussed and controlled without the influence
of these principles of charity and peace, will shake this nation like an
earthquake, and pour over us the volcanic waves of every terrific passion. The
trembling earth, the low murmuring thunders, already admonish us of our danger;
and if females can exert any saving influence in this emergency, it is time for
them to awake.
And there are topics
that they may urge upon the attention of their friends, at least as matters
worthy of serious consideration and inquiry.
Is a woman surrounded
by those who favour the Abolition measures? Can she not with propriety urge
such inquiries as these?
Is not slavery to be
brought to an end by free discussion, and is it not a war upon the right of
free discussion to impeach the motives and depreciate the character of the
opposers of Abolition measures? When the opposers of Abolition movements claim
that they honestly and sincerely believe that these measures tend to perpetuate
slavery, or to bring it to an end by servile wars, and civil disunion, and the
most terrific miseries-- when they object to the use of their pulpits, to the
embodying of literary students, to the agitation of the community, by Abolition
agents--when they object to the circulation of such papers and tracts as
Abolitionists prepare, because they believe them most pernicious in their
influence and tendencies, is it not as much persecution to use invidious
insinuations, depreciating accusation and impeachment of motive, in order to
intimidate, as it is for the opposers of Abolitionism to use physical force? Is
not the only method by which the South can be brought to relinquish slavery, a
conviction that not only her duty, but her highest interest, requires her to do
it? And is not calm, rational Christian discussion the only proper method of
securing this end? Can a community that are thrown into such a state of high
exasperation as now exists at the South, ever engage in such discussions, till
the storm of excitement and passion is allayed? Ought not every friend of
liberty and of free discussion, to take every possible means to soothe
exasperated feelings, and to avoid all those offensive peculiarities that in
their nature tend to inflame and offend?
Is a woman among those
who oppose Abolition movements? She can urge such inquiries as these: Ought not
Abolitionists to be treated as if they were actuated by the motives of
benevolence which they profess? Ought not every patriot and every Christian to
throw all his influence against the impeachment of motives, the personal
detraction, and the violent measures that are turned upon this body of men,
who, however they may err in judgment or in spirit, are among the most
exemplary and benevolent in the land? If Abolitionists are censurable for
taking measures that exasperate rather than convince and persuade, are not
their opponents, who take exactly the same measures to exasperate Abolitionists
and their friends, as much to blame? If Abolitionism prospers by the abuse of
its advocates, are not the authors of this abuse accountable for the increase
of the very evils they deprecate?
It is the opinion of
intelligent and well informed men, that a very large proportion of the best
members of the Abolition party were placed there, not by the arguments of
Abolitionists, but by the abuse of their opposers. And I know some of the
noblest minds that stand there, chiefly from the influence of those generous
impulses that defend the injured and sustain the persecuted, while many others
have joined these ranks from the impression that Abolitionism and the right of
free discussion have become identical interests. Although I cannot perceive why
the right of free discussion, the right of petition, and other rights that have
become involved in this matter, cannot be sustained without joining an
association that has sustained such injurious action and such erroneous
principles, yet other minds, and those which are worthy of esteem, have been
led to an opposite conclusion.
The South, in the
moments of angry excitement, have made unreasonable demands upon the
non-slave-holding States, and have employed overbearing and provoking language.
This has provoked re-action again at the North, and men, who heretofore were
unexcited, are beginning to feel indignant, and to say, “Let the Union be
sundered.” Thus anger begets anger, and unreasonable measures provoke equally unreasonable
returns.
But when men, in
moments of excitement rush on to such results, little do they think of the
momentous consequences that may follow. Suppose the South in her anger unites
with Texas, and forms a Southern slave-holding republic, under all the
exasperating influences that such an avulsion will excite? What will be the
prospects of the slave then, compared with what they are while we dwell
together, united by all the ties of brotherhood, and having free access to
those whom we wish to convince and persuade?
But who can estimate
the mischiefs that we must encounter while this dismemberment, this tearing
asunder of the joints and members of the body politic, is going on? What will
be the commotion and dismay, when all our sources of wealth, prosperity, and
comfort, are turned to occasions for angry and selfish strife?
What agitation will
ensue in individual States, when it is to be decided by majorities which State
shall go to the North and which to the South, and when the discontented minority
must either give up or fight! Who shall divide our public lands between
contending factions? What shall be done with our navy and all the various items
of the nation's property? What shall be done when the post-office stops its
steady movement to divide its efforts among contending parties? What shall be
done when public credit staggers, when commerce furls her slackened sail, when
property all over the nation changes its owners and relations? What shall be
done with our canals and railways, now the bands of love to bind us, then the
causes of contention and jealousy? What umpire will appear to settle all these
questions of interest and strife, between communities thrown asunder by
passion, pride, and mutual injury?
It is said that the
American people, though heedless and sometimes reckless at the approach of
danger, are endowed with a strong and latent principle of common sense, which,
when they fairly approach the precipice, always brings them to a stand, and
makes them as wise to devise a remedy as they were rash in hastening to the
danger. Are we not approaching the very verge of the precipice? Can we not
already hear the roar of the waters below? Is not now the time, if ever, when
our stern principles and sound common sense must wake to the rescue?
Cannot the South be a
little more patient under the injurious action that she feels she has suffered,
and cease demanding those concessions from the North, that never will be made?
For the North, though slower to manifest feeling, is as sensitive to her right
of freedom of speech, as the South can be to her rights of property.
Cannot the North bear
with some unreasonable action from the South, when it is remembered that, as
the provocation came from the North, it is wise and Christian that the
aggressive party should not so strictly hold their tempted brethren to the
rules of right and reason?
Cannot the South bear
in mind that at the North the colour of the skin does not take away the feeling
of brotherhood, and though it is a badge of degradation in station and
intellect, yet it is oftener regarded with pity and sympathy than with
contempt? Cannot the South remember their generous feelings for the Greeks and
Poles, and imagine that some such feelings may be awakened for the African
race, among a people who do not believe either in the policy or the right of
slavery?
Cannot the North
remember how jealous every man feels of his domestic relations and rights, and
how sorely their Southern brethren are tried in these respects? How would the
husbands and fathers at the North endure it, if Southern associations should be
formed to bring forth to the world the sins of Northern men, as husbands and
fathers? What if the South should send to the North to collect all the sins and
neglects of Northern husbands and fathers, to retail them at the South in
tracts and periodicals? What if the English nation should join in the outcry,
and English females should send forth an agent, not indeed to visit the
offending North, but to circulate at the South, denouncing all who did not join
in this crusade, as the defenders of bad husbands and bad fathers? How would
Northern men conduct under such provocations? There is indeed a difference in
the two cases, but it is not in the nature and amount of irritating influence,
for the Southerner feels the interference of strangers to regulate his domestic
duty to his servants, as much as the Northern man would feel the same
interference in regard to his wife and children. Do not Northern men owe a debt
of forbearance and sympathy toward their Southern brethren, who have been so
sorely tried?
It is by urging these
considerations, and by exhibiting and advocating the principles of charity and
peace, that females may exert a wise and appropriate influence, and one which
will most certainly tend to bring to an end, not only slavery, but unnumbered
other evils and wrongs. No one can object to such an influence, but all parties
will bid God speed to every woman who modestly, wisely and benevolently
attempts it.
I do not suppose that
any Abolitionists are to be deterred by any thing I can offer, from prosecuting
the course of measures they have adopted. They doubtless will continue to
agitate the subject, and to form voluntary associations all over the land, in
order to excite public sentiment at the North against the moral evils existing
at the South. Yet I cannot but hope that some considerations may have influence
to modify in a degree the spirit and measures of some who are included in that
party.
Abolitionists are men
who come before the public in the character of reprovers. That the gospel
requires Christians sometimes to assume this office, cannot be denied; but it
does as unequivocally point out those qualifications which alone can entitle a
man to do it. And no man acts wisely or consistently, unless he can satisfy
himself that he possesses the qualifications for this duty, before he assumes
it.
The first of these
qualifications is more than common exemption from the faults that are reproved.
The inspired interrogatory, “thou therefore which teachest another, teachest
thou not thyself?” enforces this principle; and the maxim of common sense, that
“reprovers must have clean hands,” is no less unequivocal. Abolitionists are
reprovers for the violation of duties in the domestic relations. Of course they
are men who are especially bound to be exemplary in the discharge of all their
domestic duties. If a man cannot govern his temper and his tongue; if he
inflicts that moral castigation on those who cross his will, which is more
severe than physical stripes; if he is overbearing or exacting with those under
his control; if he cannot secure respect for a kind and faithful discharge of
all his social and relative duties, it is as unwise and improper for him to
join an Abolition Society, as it would be for a drunkard to preach temperance,
or a slave-holder Abolitionism.
Another indispensable
requisite for the office of reprover is a character distinguished for humility
and meekness. There is nothing more difficult than to approach men for the purpose
of convincing them of their own deficiencies and faults; and whoever attempts
it in a self-complacent and dictatorial spirit, always does more evil than
good. However exemplary a man may be in the sight of men, there is abundant
cause for the exercise of humility. For a man is to judge of himself, not by a
comparison with other men, but as he stands before God, when compared with a
perfect law, and in reference to all his peculiar opportunities and restraints.
Who is there that in this comparison, cannot find cause for the deepest
humiliation? Who can go from the presence of Infinite Purity after such an
investigation, to “take his brother by the throat?” Who rather, should not go
to a brother, who may have sinned, with the deepest sympathy and love, as one
who, amid greater temptations and with fewer advantages, may be the least
offender of the two? A man who goes with this spirit, has the best hope of
doing good to those who may offend. And yet even this spirit will not always
save a man from angry retort, vexatious insinuation, jealous suspicion, and the
misconstruction of his motives. A reprover, therefore, if he would avoid a
quarrel and do the good he aims to secure, must be possessed of that meekness
which can receive evil for good, with patient benevolence. And a man is not
fitted for the duties of a reprover, until he can bring his feelings under this
control.
The last, and not the
least important requisite for a reprover, is discretion. This is no where so
much needed as in cases where the domestic relations are concerned, for here is
the place above all others, where men are most sensitive and unreasonable.
There are none who have more opportunities for learning this, than those who
act as teachers, especially if they feel the responsibility of a Christian and
a friend, in regard to the moral interests of pupils, A teacher who shares with
parents the responsibilities of educating their children, whose efforts may all
be rendered useless by parental influences at home; who feels an affectionate interest
in both parent and child, is surely the one who might seem to have a right to
seek, and a chance of success in seeking, some modifications of domestic
influences. And yet teachers will probably testify, that it is a most
discouraging task, and often as likely to result in jealous alienation and the
loss of influence over both parent and child, as in any good. It is one of the
greatest compliments that can be paid to the good sense and the good feeling of
a parent to dare to attempt any such measure. This may show how much
discretion, and tact, and delicacy, are needed by those who aim to rectify
evils in the domestic relations of mankind.
The peculiar
qualifications, then, which make it suitable for a man to be an Abolitionist
are, an exemplary discharge of all the domestic duties; humility, meekness,
delicacy, tact, and discretion, and these should especially be the distinctive
traits of those who take the place of leaders in devising measures.
And in performing these
difficult and self-denying duties, there are no men who need more carefully to
study the character and imitate the example of the Redeemer of mankind. He,
indeed, was the searcher of hearts, and those reproofs which were based on the
perfect knowledge of “all that is in man,” we may not imitate. But we may
imitate him, where he with so much gentleness, patience, and pitying love,
encountered the weakness, the rashness, the selfishness, the worldliness of
men. When the young man came with such self-complacency to ask what more he
could do, how kindly he was received, how gently convinced of his great
deficiency! When fire would have been called from heaven by his angry
followers, how forbearing the rebuke! When denied and forsaken with oaths and
curses by one of his nearest friends, what was it but a look of pitying love
that sent the disciple out so bitterly to weep? When, in his last extremity of
sorrow, his friends all fell asleep, how gently he drew over them the mantle of
love! Oh blessed Saviour, impart more of thy own spirit to those who profess to
follow thee!
THE END. * History of the
Abolition of the Slave Trade.
* Coleridge.
* The father of the
late Samuel Whitbread, Esq., generously undertook, in order to make Mr.
Clarkson's mind easy upon the subject, “to make good all injuries which any
individuals might suffer from such persecution; and he honourably and nobly
fulfilled his engagement.
* This account of
Clarkson, and the preceding one of Wilberforce, are taken from the Christian
Keepsake of 1836 and 1837.