Volume II Part 79 (1/2)

You say of the abolitionists, _that ”they are in favor of amalgamation.”_

The Anti-Slavery Society is, as its name imports, a society to oppose slavery--not to ”make matches.” Whether abolitionists are inclined to amalgamation more than anti-abolitionists are, I will not here take upon myself to decide. So far, as you and I may be regarded as representatives of these two parties, and so far as our marriages argue our tastes in this matter, the abolitionists and anti-abolitionists may be set down, as equally disposed to couple white with white and black with black--for our wives, as you are aware, are both white. I will here mention, as it may further argue the similarity in the matrimonial tastes of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, the fact so grateful to us in the days, when we were ”workers together” in promoting the ”scheme of Colonization,” that our wives are natives of the same town.

I have a somewhat extensive acquaintance at the North; and I can truly say, that I do not know a white abolitionist, who is the reputed father of a colored child. At the South there are several hundred thousand persons, whose yellow skins testify, that the white man's blood courses through their veins. Whether the honorable portion of their parentage is to be ascribed exclusively to the few abolitionists scattered over the South--and who, under such supposition, must, indeed, be prodigies of industry and prolificness--or whether anti-abolitionists there have, notwithstanding all their pious horror of ”amalgamation,” been contributing to it, you can better judge than myself.

That slavery is a great amalgamator, no one acquainted with the blended colors of the South will, for a moment, deny. But, that an increasing amalgamation would attend the liberation of the slaves, is quite improbable, when we reflect, that the extensive occasions of the present mixture are the extreme debas.e.m.e.nt of the blacks and their entire subjection to the will of the whites; and that even should the debas.e.m.e.nt continue under a state of freedom, the subjection would not.

It is true, that the colored population of our country might in a state of freedom, attain to an equality with the whites; and that a multiplication of instances of matrimonial union between the two races might be a consequence of this equality: but, beside, that this would be a lawful and sinless union, instead of the adulterous and wicked one, which is the fruit of slavery, would not the improved condition of our down-trodden brethren be a blessing infinitely overbalancing all the violations of our taste, which it might occasion? I say violations of _our_ taste;--for we must bear in mind that, offensive as the intermixture of different races may be to us, the country or age, which practices it, has no sympathy whatever with our feeling on this point.

How strongly and painfully it argues the immorality and irreligion of the American people, that they should look so complacently on the ”amalgamation,” which tramples the seventh commandment under foot, and yet be so offended at that, which has the sanction of lawful wedlock!

When the Vice President of this Nation was in nomination for his present office, it was objected to him, that he had a family of colored children. The defence, set up by his partisans, was, that, although he had such a family, he nevertheless was not married to their mother! The defence was successful; and the charge lost all its odiousness; and the Vice President's popularity was retrieved, when, it turned out, that he was only the adulterous, and not the married father of his children!

I am aware, that many take the ground, that we must keep the slaves in slavery to prevent the matrimonial ”amalgamation,” which, they apprehend, would be a fruit of freedom. But, however great a good, abolitionists might deem the separation of the white and black races, and however deeply they might be impressed with the power of slavery to promote this separation, they nevertheless, dare not ”do evil, that good may come:”--they dare not seek to promote this separation, at the fearful expense of upholding, or in anywise, countenancing a humanity-crus.h.i.+ng and G.o.d-defying system of oppression.

Another charge against the abolitionists is implied in the inquiry you make, _whether since they do not ”furnish in their own families or persons examples of intermarriage, they intend to contaminate the industrious and laborious cla.s.ses of society of the North by a revolting admixture of the black element.”_

This inquiry shows how difficult it is for southern minds, accustomed as they have ever been to identify labor with slavery, to conceive the true character and position of such ”cla.s.ses” at the North; and also how ignorant they are of the composition of our Anti-Slavery societies. To correct your misapprehensions on these points, I will briefly say, in the first place, that the laborers of the North are freemen and not slaves;--that they marry whom they please, and are neither paired nor unpaired to suit the interests of the breeder, or seller, or buyer, of human stock:--and, in the second place, that the abolitionists, instead of being a body of persons distinct from ”the industrious and laborious cla.s.ses,” do, more than nineteen twentieths of them, belong to those ”cla.s.ses.” You have fallen into great error in supposing, that _abolitionists_ generally belong to the wealthy and aristocratic cla.s.ses. This, to a great extent, is true of _anti-abolitionists_. Have you never heard the boast, that there have been anti-abolition mobs, which consisted of ”gentlemen of property and standing?”

You charge upon abolitionists ”_the purpose to create a pinching compet.i.tion between black labor and white labor;” and add, that ”on the supposition of abolition the black cla.s.s, migrating into the free states, would enter into compet.i.tion with the white cla.s.s, diminis.h.i.+ng the wages of their labor_.”

In making this charge, as well as in making that which immediately precedes it, you have fallen into the error, that abolitionists do not belong to ”the industrious and laborious cla.s.ses.” In point of fact, the abolitionists belong so generally to these cla.s.ses, that if your charge be true, they must have the strange ”purpose” of ”pinching” themselves.

Whether ”the black cla.s.s” would, or would not migrate, I am much more pleased to have you say what you do on this point, though it be at the expense of your consistency, than to have you say, as you do in another part of your speech, that abolition ”would end in the extermination or subjugation of the one race or the other.”

It appears to me highly improbable, that emanc.i.p.ation would be followed by the migration of the emanc.i.p.ated. Emanc.i.p.ation, which has already added fifty per cent. to the value of estates in the British West Indies, would immediately add as much to the value of the soil of the South. Much more of it would be brought into use; and, notwithstanding the undoubted truth, that the freedman performs twice as much labor as when a slave, the South would require, instead of any diminution, a very great increase of the number of her laborers. The laboring population of the British West India Islands, is one-third as large as that of the southern states; and yet, since these islands have got rid of slavery, and have entered on their career of enterprize and industry, they find this population, great as it is, insufficient to meet the increased demand for labor. As you are aware, they are already inviting laborers of this and other countries to supply the deficiency. But what is the amount of cultivable land in those islands, compared with that in all the southern states? It is not so extensive as the like land in your single state.

But you may suppose, that, in the event of the emanc.i.p.ation of her slaves, the South would prefer white laborers. I know not why she should. Such are, for the most part, unaccustomed to her kinds of labor, and they would exact, because they would need, far greater wages than those, who had never been indulged beyond the gratification of their simplest wants. There is another point of view, in which it is still more improbable, that the black laborers of the South would be displaced by immigrations of white laborers. The proverbial attachment of the slave to his ”bornin-ground,” (the place of his nativity,) would greatly contribute to his contentment with low wages, at the hands of his old master. As an evidence of the strong attachment of our southern colored brethren to their birth-places, I remark, that, whilst the free colored population of the free states increased from 1820 to 1830 but nineteen per cent., the like population in the slave states increased, in the same period, thirty five per cent;--and this, too, notwithstanding the operation of those oppressive and cruel laws, whose enactment was dictated by the settled policy of expelling the free blacks from the South.

That, in the event of the abolition of southern slavery, the emanc.i.p.ated slaves would migrate to the North, rather than elsewhere, is very improbable. Whilst our climate would be unfriendly to them, and whilst they would be strangers to our modes of agriculture, the sugar and cotton fields of Texas, the West Indies, and other portions of the earth, would invite them to congenial employments beneath congenial skies. That, in case southern slavery is abolished, the colored population of the North would be drawn off to unite with their race at the South, is, for reasons too obvious to mention, far more probable than the reverse.

It will be difficult for you to persuade the North, that she would suffer in a pecuniary point of view by the extirpation of slavery. The consumption of the laborers at the South would keep pace with the improvement and elevation of their condition, and would very soon impart a powerful impulse to many branches of Northern industry.

Another of your charges is in the following words: ”The subject of slavery within the District of Florida,” and that ”of the right of Congress to prohibit the removal of slaves from one state to another,”

are, with abolitionists, ”but so many masked batteries, concealing the real and ultimate point of attack. That point of attack is the inst.i.tution of domestic slavery, as it exists in those states.”

If you mean by this charge, that abolitionists think that the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and in Florida, and the suppression of the interstate traffic in human beings are, in themselves, of but little moment, you mistake. If you mean, that they think them of less importance than the abolition of slavery in the slave states, you are right; and if you further mean, that they prize those objects more highly, and pursue them more zealously, because they think, that success in them will set in motion very powerful, if not indeed resistless influences against slavery in the slave states, you are right in this also. I am aware, that the latter concession brings abolitionists under the condemnation of that celebrated book, written by a _modern_ limiter of ”human responsibility”--not by the _ancient_ one, who exclaimed, ”Am I my brother's keeper?” In that book, to which, by the way, the infamous Atherton Resolutions are indebted for their keynote, and grand pervading idea, we find the doctrine, that even if it were the duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, the North nevertheless should not seek for such abolition, unless the object of it be ”ultimate within itself.” If it be ”for the sake of something ulterior” also--if for the sake of inducing the slaveholders of the slave states to emanc.i.p.ate their slaves--then we should not seek for it. Let us try this doctrine in another application--in one, where its distinguished author will not feel so much delicacy, and so much fear of giving offence. His reason why we should not go for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, unless our object in it be ”ultimate within itself,” and unaccompanied by the object of producing an influence against slavery in the slave states, is, that the Federal Const.i.tution has left the matter of slavery in the slave states to those states themselves. But will President Wayland say, that it has done so to any greater extent, than it has left the matter of gambling-houses and brothels in those states to those states themselves? He will not, if he consider the subject:--though, I doubt not, that when he wrote his bad book, he was under the prevailing error, that the Federal Const.i.tution tied up the hands and limited the power of the American people in respect to slavery, more than to any other vice.

But to the other application. We will suppose, that Great Britain has put down the gambling-houses and brothels in her wide dominions--that Mexico has done likewise; and that the George Thompsons, and Charles Stuarts, and other men of G.o.d, have come from England to beseech the people of the northern states to do likewise within their respective jurisdictions;--and we will further suppose, that those foreign missionaries, knowing the obstinate and infatuated attachment of the people of the southern states to their gambling-houses and brothels, should attempt, and successfully, too, to blend with the motive of the people of the northern states to get rid of their own gambling houses and brothels, the motive of influencing the people of the southern states to get rid of theirs--what, we ask, would this eminent divine advise in such a case? Would he have the people of the northern states go on in their good work, and rejoice in the prospect, not only that these polluting and ruinous establishments would soon cease to exist within all their limits, but that the influence of their overthrow would be fatal to the like establishments in the southern states? To be consistent with himself--with the doctrine in question--he must reply in the negative. To be consistent with himself, he must advise the people of the northern states to let their own gambling-houses and brothels stand, until they can make the object of their abolishment ”ultimate within itself;”--until they can expel from their hearts the cherished hope, that the purification of their own states of these haunts of wickedness would exert an influence to induce the people of their sister states to enter upon a similar work of purity and righteousness. But I trust, that President Wayland would not desire to be consistent with himself on this point. I trust that he would have the magnanimity to throw away this perhaps most pernicious doctrine of a pernicious book, which every reader of it must see was written to flatter and please the slaveholder and arrest the progress of the anti-slavery cause. How great the sin of seizing on this very time, when special efforts are being made to enlist the world's sympathies in behalf of the millions of our robbed, outraged, crushed countrymen--how great the sin, of seizing on such a time to attempt to neutralize those efforts, by ascribing to the oppressors of these millions a characteristic ”n.o.bleness”--”enthusiastic attachment to personal right”--”disinterestedness which has always marked the southern character”--and a superiority to all others ”in making any sacrifice for the public good!” It is this sin--this heinous sin--of which President Wayland has to repent. If he pities the slave, it is because he knows, that the qualities, which he ascribes to the slaveholder, do not, in fact, belong to him. On the other hand, if he believes the slaveholder to be, what he represents him to be, he does not--in the very nature of things, he cannot--pity the slave. He must rather rejoice, that the slave has fallen into the hands of one, who, though he has the name, cannot have the heart, and cannot continue in the relation of a slaveholder. If John Hook, for having mingled his discordant and selfish cries with the acclamations of victory and then general joy, deserved Patrick Henry's memorable rebuke, what does he not deserve, who finds it in his heart to arrest the swelling tide of pity for the oppressed by praises of the oppressor, and to drown the public lament over the slave's subjection to absolute power, in the congratulation, that the slaveholder who exercises that power, is a being of characteristic ”n.o.bleness,” ”disinterestedness,” and ”sacrifice” of self-interest?

President Wayland may perhaps say, that the moral influence, which he is unwilling to have exerted over the slaveholder, is not that, which is simply persuasive, but that, which is constraining--not that, which is simply inducing, but that, which is compelling. I cheerfully admit, that it is infinitely better to induce men to do right from their own approbation of the right, than it is to shame them, or in any other wise constrain them, to do so; but I can never admit, that I am not at liberty to effect the release of my colored brother from the fangs of his murderous oppressor, when I can do so by bringing public opinion to bear upon that oppressor, and to fill him with uneasiness and shame.

I have not, overlooked the distinction taken by the reverend gentleman; though, I confess that, to a mind no less obtuse than my own, it is very little better than ”a distinction without a difference.” Whilst he denies, that I can, as an American citizen, rightfully labor for the abolition of slavery in the slave states, or even in the District of Columbia; he would perhaps, admit that, as a man, I might do so. But am I not interested, as an American citizen, to have every part of my country cleared of vice, and of whatever perils its free inst.i.tutions?

Am I not interested, as such, to promote the overthrow of gambling and rum drinking establishments in South Carolina?--but why any more than to promote the overthrow of slavery? In fine, am I not interested, as an American citizen, to have my country, and my whole country, ”right in the sight of G.o.d?” If not, I had better not be an American citizen.

I say no more on the subject of the sophistries of President Wayland's book on, ”The limitations of human responsibility;” nor would I have said what I have, were it not that it is in reply to the like sophistries couched in that objection of yours, which I have now been considering.

Another of your charges against the abolitionists is, _that they seek to ”stimulate the rage of the people of the free states against the people of the slave states. Advertis.e.m.e.nts of fugitive slaves and of slaves to be sold are carefully collected and blazoned forth to infuse a spirit of detestation and hatred against one entire and the largest section of the Union.”_

The slaveholders of the South represent slavery as a heaven-born inst.i.tution--themselves as patriarchs and patterns of benevolence--and their slaves, as their tenderly treated and happy dependents. The abolitionists, on the contrary, think that slavery is from h.e.l.l--that slaveholders are the worst of robbers--and that their slaves are the wretched victims of unsurpa.s.sed cruelties. Now, how do abolitionists propose to settle the points at issue?--by fanciful pictures of the abominations of slavery to countervail the like pictures of its blessedness?--by mere a.s.sertions against slavery, to balance mere a.s.sertions in its favor? No--but by the perfectly reasonable and fair means of examining slavery in the light of its own code--of judging of the character of the slaveholder in the light of his own conduct--and of arguing the condition of the slave from unequivocal evidences of the light in which the slave himself views it. To this end we publish extracts from the southern slave code, which go to show that slavery subjects its victims to the absolute control of their erring fellow men--that it withholds from them marriage and the Bible--that it cla.s.ses them with brutes and things--and annihilates the distinctions between mind and matter. To this end we republish in part, or entirely, pamphlets and books, in which southern men exhibit, with their own pens, some of the horrid features of slavery. To this end we also republish such advertis.e.m.e.nts as you refer to--advertis.e.m.e.nts in which immortal beings, made in the image of G.o.d, and redeemed by a Savior's blood, and breathed upon by the Holy Spirit, are offered to be sold, at public auction, or sheriff's sale, in connection with cows, and horses, and ploughs: and, sometimes we call special attention to the common fact, that the husband and wife, the parent and infant child, are advertised to be sold together or separately, as shall best suit purchasers. It is to this end also, that we often republish specimens of the other cla.s.s of advertis.e.m.e.nts to which you refer. Some of the advertis.e.m.e.nts of this cla.s.s identify the fugitive slave by the scars, which the whip, or the manacles and fetters, or the rifle had made on his person. Some of them offer a reward for his head!--and it is to this same end, that we often refer to the ten thousands, who have fled from southern slavery, and the fifty fold that number, who have unsuccessfully attempted to fly from it. How unutterable must be the horrors of the southern prison house, and how strong and undying the inherent love of liberty to induce these wretched fellow beings to brave the perils which cl.u.s.ter so thickly and frightfully around their attempted escape? That love is indeed _undying_. The three hundred and fifty-three South Carolina gentlemen, to whom I have referred, admit, that even ”the old negro man, whose head is white with age, raises his thoughts to look through the vista which will terminate his bondage.”

I put it to your candor--can you object to the reasonableness and fairness of these modes, which abolitionists have adopted for establis.h.i.+ng the truth on the points at issue between themselves and slaveholders? But, you may say that our republication of your own representations of slavery proceeds from unkind motives, and serves to stir up the ”hatred,” and ”rage of the people of the free states against the people of the slave states.” If such be an effect of the republication, although not at all responsible for it, we deeply regret it; and, as to our motives, we can only meet the affirmation of their unkindness with a simple denial. Were we, however, to admit the unkindness of our motives, and that we do not always adhere to the apostolic motto, of ”speaking the truth in love”--would the admission change the features of slavery, or make it any the less a system of pollution and blood? Is the accused any the less a murderer, because of the improper motives with which his accuser brings forward the conclusive proof of his blood-guiltiness?