Chapter II: Part 2

Some object, that the abolition of Slavery _on our plan_, without compensation to the masters, _would be taking away the bread of poor widows and orphans_. We have no plan. We say only, that Slavery is wrong, and ought forthwith to be abandoned. The South will adopt and prosecute her own plan. When her Legislatures abolish Slavery, they can, if they will, provide for widows and children, who are left destitute by that act. If they will not do it, we will raise contributions for their relief; for we deem the claims of _charity_, nearly as imperative as the claims of justice. But we can never sanction the _principle_ of Slavery, by saying, that slave-holders have a _right_ to compensation for restoring to the slaves their stolen rights. We must always consider it a greater hardship to be unjustly held as a slave, than to be made poor by freeing such slave. It is a sad blunder in morals, that this man may make that man, perhaps fifty other men, poor for life, lest he himself should be a pauper; that this man may make that man poor by _dishonesty_, lest he himself should become poor by _being honest_.

No objection to our measures is more senseless, or more common, than an _alleged tendency to dissolve the Union_. Which had we better surrender, the Union or our liberties? The Union is a curse instead of a blessing, if we must surrender for it, _freedom of speech and personal protection in any part of the country_. And if Slavery continues to be protected by public sentiment, and by popular violence, how long could the Union last, even were _all_ the abolitionists this day laid in their graves? Slavery endangers the integrity of the Union, more than all other enemies; and unless soon destroyed, will be the destroyer both of it and us. If we love the Union, we should labor to overthrow Slavery. Wesley somewhere defines fanaticism, to be the expectation of accomplishing ends without the use of means. Let us not hope for the peaceable destruction of Slavery, by such a fanatical course. Let us do _something_; and if we do any thing, what can be done which the abolitionists are not attempting? In doing this we shall not peril the Union, but preserve it. The South will never venture on the mad experiment of secession, _because_ the North is opposed to Slavery. Such an act would be suicidal. It would encourage the slaves to revolt. It would leave her defenceless against the invasion of a foreign foe. It would release us from the constitutional obligation to suppress domestic violence, and to restore fugitives from service. It would open several thousand miles of frontier, over which her slaves would escape into a land of liberty. It would make the south “a good country to emigrate from,” and she would find herself losing her best citizens, and her condition becoming more and more exposed and perilous. She would be ruined. She knows it. Were our legislators in Congress to retort her stereotyped threat to dissolve the Union, with a challenge to do it, if she dares, we should hear no more of this empty bravado.

It is said, if our measures should be successful, _the slaves would resort to the North_, and coming up upon our farms, and into our shops, like the frogs of Egypt, reduce the wages of our laborers. No apprehension is more groundless. The free colored people of the South are quite numerous, and very much oppressed; yet few of them leave that part of the country; though the whites would be very glad to have them do so, because they render the slaves uneasy, and come into competition with slave labor. But were slavery abolished, the whites would desire to retain all the colored people, in order to employ them in cultivating the soil; precisely as is now the case in the West Indies. Nor would the slaves be willing to leave the land of their nativity, and of their kindred, to reside in the cold regions of the north, to the business and climate of which they are uninured, and where they must labor more severely to obtain a comfortable living. But should they come, what then? Do you prefer perpetual slavery?

It is also objected to our enterprise, that _the immediate abolition of slavery, would be “letting the slaves loose” to be idlers, vagabonds, thieves, and cut-throats_. This objection is more forcible against _gradual_ emancipation, which would throw upon society a multitude of freedmen, while the rest of their brethren still remained in bondage. The holders of slaves would not encourage the free by giving them labor; who would, therefore, be more apt to be idle and vicious; while their release would excite uneasiness in the minds of the unemancipated. The objection is also equally strong against _prospective_ emancipation, according to which the slaves would all be set free at once; but not until some time after the passage of the act. Experience and human nature both teach us, that slaves under such circumstances are more apt to be overworked, than to be better prepared for the enjoyment of freedom. The objection is, therefore, good for _perpetual_ slavery, or good for nothing. It is good for nothing. Immediate emancipation would indeed deliver the slave and his family at once from the hands of an irresponsible master, and empower him to go where he pleases and do what he pleases, so long as he breaks none of the laws which restrain other men. And why not? He could not otherwise rejoin his wife and children, whom the slave trade has torn from him, nor secure fair wages, nor be safe from oppression. But this is not letting him loose _to do evil_. THE LAWS OF SLAVERY LET THE MASTERS LOOSE UPON THE SLAVES, _instead of the abolition of slavery letting the slaves loose upon the masters_. Were there a law authorizing the inhabitants of Meriden to seize the inhabitants of Berlin, to confine them to jail limits, and work them without wages, to separate husbands and wives, parents and children, and even to kill them by that very indefinite thing, called “moderate correction;” this law would let the inhabitants of Meriden loose upon the inhabitants of Berlin; for it would protect the former in the grossest outrages upon the latter. But the repeal of this law would not let the inhabitants of Berlin loose upon us. Extending them protection would not be letting them loose upon us. Had we the power of repealing the law; or if not, possessing the power of _not enforcing_ it, we should find our security in doing so. The very way to make them respect _our_ rights, would be to respect _theirs_. Immediate emancipation places the slaves under the _control_ as well as protection of the laws of the State against idleness, vagrancy, theft, murder, and all other aggressions on the rights of men.

We are told that the _Slaves are not fit to be free_; and therefore our scheme of immediate emancipation, if adopted, would prove a curse to them and the country. Nothing is more false. The Slaves are _men_; and therefore they are more fit for freedom than for slavery; more fit to be treated as persons than as things; to be governed by appeals to the reason and conscience than by brute force. God made man to be free and adapted him to that condition. A state of Slavery is unnatural to him. Nor can his nature so change, that he shall be more fit to be treated as a brute, than as a free moral agent. Slaves have often been set at liberty, and have _always_ proved their capacity for freedom, by their industry, frugality and ready obedience to the laws.

And why, we would ask, should they be thought unfit to be put under the control and protection of the same laws, which govern freemen? Do their vices or their ignorance, disqualify them? While Slavery lasts, they will remain equally degraded.

Are they _Sabbath breakers_? Slavery has taught them to desecrate the day of rest, by making it to them almost the only day of recreation, the only day for visiting, for trading and for tilling their gardens. Are they _thieves_? They consider stealing from their masters to be only making _reprisals_ for the robbery of their just wages; while many of them are strongly tempted to steal by the desire of more or better food. Are they _liars_? They will continue such, while they are slaves. They will pretend sickness, to avoid labor; they will say they do not wish to be free, lest their masters should sell them into distant banishment; they will lie to conceal the unavoidable delinquences, for which slaves are daily upbraided and beaten. Are they _idle_? As slaves they have no hope of reward to stimulate their exertions. They will work much better, as one facetiously expresses it, for Mr. CASH than for Mr. LASH. Let their wives and children be dependent on their industry for support, a far more noble and efficient motive than the fear of violence, to call forth the energies of man. Are they _improvident_? They cannot learn to save property, until they are allowed to hold it in their own right. Make them free, and then that faculty of their nature, which the phrenologists call “acquisitiveness” will prompt them to save their earnings. Are they _licentious_? Then give them their liberty, that the husband and father may be the legal protector of his wife and daughters. Are they _revengeful_? Redress their wrongs, and they will forgive their oppressors. Are they _heathen_? Take your foot from their necks, before you disgrace christianity, by attempting to convert them. Are they _ignorant of letters_? So are a majority of the freemen of the world; nor is it to be expected that slave-holders will teach their slaves to read and write, until they repent of Slavery itself. The vices of the Slaves are inseparable from their condition. If they are not now fit for freedom, Slavery, which unfitted them, will perpetuate their unfitness. Nor is their degradation of mind and morals a disqualification for freedom. You may find its counterpart in the characters of a large class of citizens in every country.

While Slavery continues, what is the prospect of their becoming _better_ fitted for freedom? Where are the men and the means? Who will teach them? Who will support the teachers? The south cannot supply her _free_ population with instruction. Even with the aid of the north, she is very destitute of the means of religion. Nor would she be willing to adopt a general system of education for the improvement of the Slaves. Instead of giving her money to fit them for freedom, she would hunt from society any persons, who should seriously propose the measure. They know little of the spirit of Slavery, who imagine, that the south was disposed to prepare her Slaves for freedom, until the abolitionists roused her to resistance. Had she really wished to free her Slaves, she would have welcomed us as coadjutors, at least she would not have abandoned her own plan, because ours was offensive to her. She never intended to fit her Slaves for freedom. She does not intend it now. Her laws, in most of the States, are against it. The mass of her Slaves will, no doubt, be as unfit for freedom fifty years hence, if Slavery should continue so long, as they are to day. The British abolitionists were once deceived by this syren song of preparation, but now in allusion to the words of Paul; “the _glorious_ gospel of the blessed God;” they exclaim, THE GLORIOUS DOCTRINE OF IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION! They found it the POWER OF GOD, to awaken the slumbering conscience of the nation; and the WISDOM OF GOD as a measure of relief to their Slaves. We shall find it so.

Our opponents also object to _emancipation upon the soil_. Not all, but some of them, are in favor of Colonization as a remedy for Slavery, and others execrate us for our opposition to it as a scheme for benefiting Africa. We are especially averse to the former class. When men say, that the Slaves ought not to be freed, until they can be colonized, we _ought to make resistance_, for the following reasons:

1. We ought to _resist every wicked prejudice_; and they who object to emancipation on the soil, do so, in obedience to such a prejudice. They say the colored people can never rise in this country. They maintain that our aversion to the race is instinctive and natural; though we find no one averse to associating with them as _slaves_. The two races are certainly on very _intimate_ terms at the South. It is only when they come as _freemen_ between the wind and our nobility, that they taint the air. We, therefore, say, this prejudice is unnatural and sinful; and instead of fostering it, we ought to rebuke, and check it in ourselves and others. Some of us recollect the time, when as Colonizationists we wished to get rid of the colored people, and were indignant at them for being unwilling to leave the country. May we not repent of such a feeling and condemn in it others, without being hunted from society?

2. _By retaining the emancipated slaves on the soil, we can at less expense of men and means educate and christianize them._ Were we to send them beyond the Mississippi or to Africa, it would take ten times the number of Missionaries and Teachers, that we are now supporting among the heathen, to save them from sinking into barbarism. But if they should be retained as free laborers in the service of their present masters, those masters would provide for their instruction, and without diverting means from other objects, the delightful spectacle would soon be witnessed of Schools and Churches springing up among them, through the voluntary efforts of the ministers and christians of the South.

3. _The labor of the Slaves is wanted on the plantations at the South._ To withdraw such an amount of labor would bankrupt the entire country. Nor could their places be supplied, except by the worst population of the old world; by men, whose religion, whose morals, whose politics are all, in the highest degree, hostile to our national interests. The emancipated Slaves, on the contrary, would be prejudiced in favor of the protestant faith, and prove the staunchest friends of our free institutions.

4. The _South will not consent to the colonization of the Slaves_. She is willing we should contribute to carry off the free people of color, “the nuisances,” “the disturbing force,” as she terms them; and also those Slaves, whom the more conscientious of her citizens, who dare not die Slave-holders, may emancipate for the purpose. But she is unwilling we should go a step further. She does not believe we can get the means of doing more. We think, if a place were provided in Africa, and we had the means necessary to transport every Slave there, and were to go and tell the south, about the sinfulness of holding Slaves, when they _can_ be colonized, and call upon her in _good earnest_, to give them up, she would denounce us as fanatics, and pass no more resolutions in favor of colonization. She is now at peace with it, because she does not fear it, and hopes to find it of use in repelling the abolitionists, in _letting off_, as by a safety valve, the pious feeling of her own citizens, and in expelling the free people of color.

5. The Slaves _are unwilling to leave the country_; and will never consent to do it, but on such a dread alternative as no christian people should impose. _First_ give them their liberty, put them under the protection of impartial law, and treat them with kindness, and then if they _ask_ our aid to remove their families to Africa, their determination to leave this country will evidently be spontaneous.

6. _It is better for them to remain in the employment of southern capitalists, who are able to pay them wages for their labor than to go out into the wilderness as paupers, where there is no capital, and the very necessaries of life, are to be created._

7. _They cannot be colonized without an appalling expense of money, life and comfort._

8. To colonize the Slaves of this country _on account of their color, would be in the highest degree dishonorable to christianity_. Were Christ on earth, he would associate with the despised colored man in preference to many who think themselves the best society. Can we act, as he would not and yet exemplify his religion? What, too, would be the effect on the minds of the heathen, nearly all of whom are _colored_ men, were they to learn, that that nation, which makes the loudest professions of attachment to christianity, had banished more than two millions of her citizens to a land of pagan darkness, being offended at the _color of their skin_?

9. To _send all the slaves to Africa would be fatal to the natives of that Continent_. Said Mr. Pinney, agent of the Colonization Society, and once Gov. of Liberia, ‘the colony must be kept pure, or it will either enslave or exterminate the African tribes.’ Send 2,500,000 of people to Africa, four-fifths of whom are in heathenish darkness, and all of whom have been taught, by the example of their masters, that slavery is morally right, and labor disgraceful, would they hesitate to buy Slaves of the native Princes, or to reduce their captives to a state of servitude? It is said, there is as strong a line of demarkation between the colonists, and the heathen, though of the same color, as there is between the white and colored people in this country. But if they should not become slave-holders, would they not gradually exterminate the native tribes for the sake of revenging injuries, and possessing themselves of their lands? Said Mr. Pinney, the colony must be kept pure, or such a result is inevitable; and it cannot be kept pure, unless it is conducted on a very small scale. We doubt whether a commercial and military colony can be so far controlled by _moral principle_, as to avoid these results. For if the emigrants were all pious persons, and few in number, their posterity might become both vicious and powerful. We are not, therefore, without our objections to African colonization, even if it should be distinctly abandoned as a remedy for slavery, and conducted with caution, and on a small scale. We know not to what it may grow. We like better, the good, old, apostolic plan of sending _missionaries_ to the heathen—men, who have no commercial and selfish interests to subserve, and who bear no hostile weapons. There is danger that a colony, however carefully guarded, will _misrepresent christianity_ and fatally prejudice the native mind against it. The fact, that not a native has yet been converted to christianity, in connection with the colony of Liberia, justifies the inquiry, whether the _scheme_ is a good one for Africa. The transportation of all our Slaves would confessedly form a colony too large and corrupt for the safety of the native tribes; and we tremble for the result of the present _experiment_.

In this argument we have not denied the practicability of colonizing two millions and a half of people, at an expense of $125,000,000. We think it enough to show the thing ought not to be done.

CONCLUSION.

With this view of our sentiments, of their practical value, and of the propriety and wisdom of our measures, we leave you to judge whether abolitionists deserve to be out-lawed in their own country; to be loaded with abuse and contumely; to be denied a right, conceded to all other decent men, of advocating their cause in our public halls and churches; and to be left, unprotected, to the violence of ill-minded men? We beg you also to consider, how terrific would be the prospects of our country, were we in obedience to popular clamor, to disband our societies, and retire from the field. Who would ever again venture to raise his voice in behalf of the down-trodden slave? Should any one have the temerity to do it, how soon would he be overwhelmed by the violence of the pro-slavery party, encouraged by past success, and maddened by the remembrance of the formidable array of talent, wealth, and piety, which they once encountered. We verily believe, that the peaceable abolition of Slavery depends, under God, on our perseverance. Moral means must continue to be used by us until they issue in success, or slavery will terminate in a bloody revolution. We anticipate such an event, as a possibility, with painful emotions; and feel disposed to look, in the use of all lawful means, to that God, who has promised to do for us, exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think, that so dire a catastrophe may be averted. We earnestly solicit your co-operation.

We might have said much more to correct misapprehensions, refute calumnies, and fortify our positions; but our limits forbid it. We may have said some things, which you will disapprove; for we have ingenuously confessed our most obnoxious sentiments; but if you will give us credit for sincerity and weigh our arguments, we shall expect to stand better in your opinion, than our calumniators would have us.

With much respect,
} PHILO PRATT,
In behalf of the Meriden } WALTER WEBB,
Anti-Slavery Society, } ISAAC I. TIBBALS.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] As our enterprise is not sectarian but national and catholic, it is the highest pitch of arrogance for any sect to denounce this measure as a violation of ecclesiastical order. Religious freedom demands that all such claims should be at once and steadfastly resisted.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.

Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Pg 9: ‘fraud and villany’ replaced by ‘fraud and villainy’.
Pg 11: ‘the emancipatton of’ replaced by ‘the emancipation of’.
Pg 11: ‘they abvocate this’ replaced by ‘they advocate this’.
Pg 17: ‘until onr objects’ replaced by ‘until our objects’.
Pg 17: ‘is his _chnrch_’ replaced by ‘is his _church_’.
Pg 18: ‘_intinerant_ lecturers’ replaced by ‘_itinerant_ lecturers’.
Pg 21: ‘Their is also’ replaced by ‘There is also’.
Pg 22: ‘and enterprize; the’ replaced by ‘and enterprise; the’.
Pg 25: ‘the constistutional’ replaced by ‘the constitutional’.
Pg 26: ‘not lettting him’ replaced by ‘not letting him’.
Pg 27: ‘for while slaves’ replaced by ‘for which slaves’.
Pg 30: ‘the best soeiety’ replaced by ‘the best society’.