Part 1 (1/2)
Abolitionism Exposed!
by W. W. Sleigh.
PREFACE.
The conflagration of the late ”_Pennsylvania Hall_” having frustrated the contemplated discussion between some of the champions of Abolitionism and the Author, he feels it a duty he owes the public, and the best service he can render this country, to make known, through the medium of a Pamphlet, a few of the facts and arguments which he intended adducing on that occasion. Thus contributing his mite of information towards allaying the general excitement on this subject, and, if possible, to open the eyes of those who, _through mistaken philanthropy_, have become the _innocent_ tools of a few reckless men, whose object, (to put the most favourable construction on it) may be, while indifferent of consequences, to render themselves conspicuous.
Were he not convinced that the best interests of this country, that the real interests of the coloured population, bond and free, and that common humanity itself, are involved in the question of Abolitionism, he would not presume to obtrude himself on the notice of the Public, on a topic more or less now connected with politics, from which he has. .h.i.therto carefully refrained. He comes forward therefore, while he declares himself an eternal and uncompromising enemy to all _cruelty_, _injustice_, _tyranny_, and _oppression_, not _against_, but _for_ liberty--not _against_, but _for_ the coloured man--not _against_, but _for_ humanity.
Philadelphia, 285 Race Street.
_May 21st, 1838._
ABOLITIONISM EXPOSED!
CHAPTER I.
LIBERTY AND SLAVERY DEFINED.----DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORDS AND THINGS.
Mankind has ever been disposed to be carried away with _names_ and _words_, with the _representation_ of things, rather than with _things themselves_: and that portion of mankind thus apt to be deceived by _mere sound_, is generally the most innocent--the best--the most unsuspecting--the most charitable--these very qualities rendering them the easy victims of design and imprudence: the history of the world proves, not only this, but also that demagogues are the _first_ to fly from the commotions, which they themselves create; and thus leave their poor innocent victims to suffer the vengeance of an outraged and insulted community! They stand their ground while the weapons used are merely words, and ”_rotten_” eggs, &c.; but when recourse is had to leaden b.a.l.l.s, and swords of steel, they generally take good care to make a quick retreat, leaving their deluded followers to have the glory of martyrdom!
_Liberty_ is a glorious term--so is _Christianity_--but under the sacred garb of both one and the other, the foulest deeds have been, and may be, perpetrated! Under the name of _Christianity_, the holy crusades, in which thousands were slain, were inst.i.tuted and carried on, by Englishmen! And under the name of _Liberty_, men, women, and children were, in 1793, slaughtered by Frenchmen! Be not therefore carried away by _sounds_--by mere _words_.
_Slavery_ is a horrid term! But why? Not that bondage or slavery is uncommon, or rare; for there are few, very few men, white or black, on the face of the Earth who are not SLAVES! He who commits sin is the _slave_ of l.u.s.t--so says the Bible--Let G.o.d be true, and every man a liar. Who therefore is not a slave? Was not Buonaparte, while he was the Emperor of nearly all Europe, a _slave_ to his G.o.d--ambition? And is not the _covetous_ man a slave to his idol--gold?
”He is a freeman whom the truth makes free, And all are slaves beside. There's not a chain, That h.e.l.lish foes, confederate for his harm, Can wind around him, but he casts it off, With as much ease, as Samson his green withes.”
The princ.i.p.al reason why we abhor so much the term _slavery_ is, the base cruelty with which _some_ tyrant slaveholders, for there are wicked slaveholders as well as wicked husbands and masters, have treated their slaves. Hence we are very apt to use as synonymous terms, _slavery_, _cruelty_, _tyranny_, and _oppression_. Moreover it is the interest of certain persons so to use these words, for the purpose of getting more ready access to the hearts of good-natured men and women. Does any one really believe that a man _cannot_ treat his slaves _kindly_, _tenderly_, and _affectionately_? If any one thinks it _possible_, then let not, for the future, the terms _slavery_ and _cruelty_ be inseparably united. But if he thinks it impossible, then it is evident the testimony of some thousands of disinterested, good, and religious men, who have visited the South, and who have most solemnly borne testimony to the kind, tender, and Christian manner in which _numerous_ slaveholders treat their slaves, must be rejected! If all this is to be rejected, then let the doubter, who is so charitable towards the coloured population, exercise a little of that charity, ”which rejoiceth not in iniquity,” and is ”without partiality,” towards his white fellow citizens, and ere he slanders them, or encourages those who bear false witness against them, pay the South a visit, and judge for himself, with his own eyes, and his own cars. Methinks he replies, ”but I have it from those who themselves have witnessed it!” Witnessed what? Is it that _all_ the slaveholders in the South treat their slaves with _cruelty_ and _barbarity_? Oh no, perhaps he says, not _all_, but many of them!
Many thanks! This is fully admitted, and much regretted; but this exception proves the very proposition with which we started, viz. ”that slavery, and cruelty, ought not to be used as _synonymous_ terms!”
Again, fresh he is no doubt to the charge, with the thrust, ”but this fact of many of the slaveholders treating their slaves with cruelty, shows there ought to be no slavery!” Avast, friend! is the _abuse_ of a system a just cause of condemnation? Do you say it is: then the system of apprentices.h.i.+p--of guardians.h.i.+p--of matrimony--_Liberty_--and _Christianity_ themselves, ought to be condemned, for they all have been abused--all have had the most _cruel_--_tyrannical_--and _Satanic_ acts, committed under their names! Therefore, according to the very argument by which you would have slavery condemned, you would also have _liberty_, _matrimony_, and _Christianity_, banished from the earth!--You cannot get out of the dilemma--there is no possible alternative--if _slavery_ is to be condemned because it has been _abused_, so are Liberty and Christianity! Out of thine own mouth thou art condemned!
A total recklessness of truth is a remarkable feature in the arguments adopted by the advocates of Abolitionism; while they give no credit to the statements of those differing from them! they unblus.h.i.+ngly a.s.sert that _all_ slaveholders are _tyrants_ and _cruel_! Does truth require falsehood to make it conquer? Ought not those preposterous misstatements open the eyes of the public to the real character, and motive, of those men?--The cause of G.o.d they cannot be advocating, for his cause requires not the weapons of Satan! Error invariably stands in need of lies for its support.
That there is great cruelty in the South, no one denies; but is there no cruelty in the North? Are there no cruel, tyrannical, husbands and masters in Philadelphia or in Boston? Are no acts of oppression committed north of the Chesapeake? These cannot be attributed to slavery! There is, rely on it, a deeper, a more concealed, a more galling _slavery_ and _bondage_, to which these evils are attributable, even the slavery of the soul to sin and to Satan. To this one, and the same _mental slavery_, both cruelty and tyranny in the South, and in the North, are alike referable. Therefore attributing these detestable evils, cruelty, and tyranny, to _corporeal_ slavery, is not only unphilosophical and unscriptural, but fatally erroneous; for it leads us to attack the _effect_, and not the _cause_.
The Author, while listening last week to the Abolition Champions in the late ”Pennsylvania Hall,” was forcibly struck with the strong similarity between the _mode_ of argument adopted by them, and by the champions of Infidelity in the late public discussions, between them and him, in New York! They commenced their addresses with high-sounding words about _liberty!_ _oppression!_ _tyranny_, &c.! Having by this mode (_and they know the value of it!_) got ready access to the hearts of their audience, and made a favourable impression, so as to make the females whisper to each other, ”Oh what a fine, good man, that must be,” &c.(!) then they depicted, in the strongest colours, the horrors of slavery--next they issued forth a tirade of slander and abuse against all slaveholders; and lastly they proceeded to undermine the character of every man opposed to them--the credibility of every witness bearing testimony against them--and the motives of all men, _except themselves_!
Moreover they invariably attacked the _abuses_ of each system (as if a system were answerable for its abuse) holding up to public odium, what every good man from his heart must condemn, viz: oppression, tyranny, and cruelty; thus leaving the vast majority of the audience under the impression that it was the _thing itself_, and not the _abuse of it_, on which they were animadverting!
LIBERTY--there is scarcely a word in the English Vocabulary so often perverted as the term _liberty_.--A vast ma.s.s of mankind conceive that the meaning of the word is, a perfect privilege and license for each and every man to do as he pleases.--If this be the real and true meaning of liberty, and that where this is _not_, there is _slavery_, then there is no liberty in the United States, (and G.o.d forbid, say I, there ever should be here such liberty,) and every man, woman, and child in the Union, is a _slave_! I doubt not this is the kind of liberty at which some of the champions of Abolitionism, viz. f.a.n.n.y Wright Darusmont--Owen--et hoc omne genus, are aiming! But is this the liberty sanctioned by G.o.d? No! Is this the liberty guaranteed by the declaration of Independence? No! Is this the liberty for which the Fathers of this Country fought and bled? No! No! Such liberty would be the most awful tyranny and oppression--The liberty authorised by G.o.d, and sanctioned by the laws of this Country, is, that no man shall do aught to the injury, prejudice, or hurt of his neighbour--This is the only true liberty granted by G.o.d to man; yet this is the very liberty, the advocates of Abolitionism turn into ridicule, and attempt to destroy, under the plausible plea of vindicating the rights of man! This was the plea of Thomas Paine--This was the plea of Robert Owen--this is the plea of f.a.n.n.y Wright Darusmont--this is the plea of all the infidels on the face of the earth! But, say Abolitionists, the Bible commands us, to ”do unto others as we would be done by.” Admitted. This very pa.s.sage was addressed by the Infidels in their discussion with me to show the absurdity of the Bible: and according to the use made of it by Abolitionists, the argument of Infidels would be unanswerable! But will Abolitionists stand by this rule? They will not: for if they did, they would instantly abandon their crusade against their southern fellow citizens: and if they will not, then let them no longer quote that as authority, by which they themselves will not be governed! [See this subject further ill.u.s.trated in a subsequent chapter.]
Liberty then may be defined to be, _the privilege of doing all that is good--and nothing that is evil_--But who is to decide that which is good, and that which is evil? The Creator of the universe--Man una.s.sisted by revelation never was, and never will be, able. The Bible which contains the revealed will of Omnipotence is that volume, and that only, which const.i.tutes the umpire of good and evil[11:A]--The very fact of the existence of laws in the land, proves man is not at liberty to do as he pleases: for, ”law is a rule of action:” actions therefore must be controlled--Society demands it--G.o.d has authorised it--And perfect Liberty maintains it.
The Pirate boasts of liberty--preaches liberty to his comrades--and condemns all law! Here is a specimen of perfect liberty! He may with equal propriety, when taken prisoner, urge the Abolition text, ”do unto others, as you would be done by.” Now, if you had been a pirate, (he would say) and had the misfortune of having been taken prisoner, would _you_ not _wish_ to be set at liberty? You reply, yes, certainly--then he says, the Bible commands you to do unto others as you would be done by; and, as you would _wish_ to be set at _liberty_, were you in my situation, if you regard the authority of G.o.d you will set me _free_!
The reader must perceive to what lengths this principle may be carried out--even to the utter destruction of all society!