Chapter II: Part 2

_A._ I sincerely wish they would offer it. I should like to see the experiment tried. If the slaves are so well satisfied with their condition, why do they make such severe laws against running away? Why are the patroles on duty all the time to shoot every negro who does not give an account of himself as soon as they call to him? Why, notwithstanding all these pains and penalties, are their newspapers full of advertisements for runaway slaves? If the free negroes are so much worse off than those in bondage, why is it that their laws bestow freedom on any slave, “who saves his master or mistress’s life, or performs any meritorious service to the State?” That must be a very bad country where the law stipulates that _meritorious_ actions shall be rewarded by making a man more unhappy than he was before! Some months ago, I had a conversation with a woman, who went from Boston to Tuscaloosa, in Alabama. She was the wife of a Baptist clergyman, professed to be a pious woman, and was considered as such. I found her an apologist for slavery, but was not aware at the time that she actually owned slaves. She maintained that freedom was the greatest curse that could be bestowed on a slave; and when I attempted to put the case home to her conscience, she, for consistency’s sake, declared, that she should be quite as willing to die and leave her own little son in slavery, as to leave him a free laborer at the North. She said if she had a hundred slaves, she should treat them all kindly, and endeavor to make their condition comfortable. I replied, “I am willing to believe that you would do so, madam; but in case of your death, or of any pecuniary distress in the family, the poor slaves would be divided among heirs, or seized by creditors; and then who can tell into whose hands they may fall? The condition of the slave depends on the character of the master; and that is entirely a matter of _accident_”. The pious woman rejoined, “Oh, I should take care of that. If they were good, faithful servants, they would find at my death that papers of manumission had been duly prepared.” “But you told me that freedom was the greatest curse that could be bestowed upon a slave,” replied I: “Now is it possible, madam, that you would leave, as your dying legacy to good and faithful servants, the greatest curse you could bestow?”

_Q._ Do you suppose they really believe what they say, when they declare that slaves are happier than freemen?

_A._ I leave your own republican good sense to determine that question. Governor Giles of Virginia did not take that ground in his address to the Legislature in 1827. Speaking of punishing free blacks by selling them as slaves, he says: “Slavery must be admitted to be a punishment of the highest order; and according to every just rule for the apportionment of punishment to crimes, it would seem that _it ought to be applied only to crime of the highest order_!”

But even if it were true that the slaves were as happy and contented as slave-holders try to represent them—what would it prove? It would merely prove that they had fearfully brutalized immortal souls before they _could_ be happy in such a situation. Edmund Burke said very truly, “If you have made a _happy slave_, you have made a _degraded man_.”

_Q._ But how is it that some people, who really do not intend to make false representations, bring back such favorable accounts of slavery, after they have visited at the South?

_A._ It is because they go among rich, hospitable planters, and see favorite household slaves. Of the poor wretches on the plantations, subject to the tender mercies of an overseer, they know as little, as the guests of a Russian nobleman know of the miserable condition of his serfs. Their sympathies all go with the master. They ask questions of the master, and not of the slave. Even if they tried to talk with the latter, the poor creatures would be afraid to speak freely, lest any expressions of discontent might be reported to the master, or the overseer. I should like to have you hear them talk as I have heard runaway slaves talk, when they knew they had a friend to listen to them!

_Q._ But do you think the suitable time has yet come to exert ourselves on this subject?

_A._ I will answer, as a similar question was lately answered by a lady who had been brought up in the midst of slavery: “If thou were a slave, toiling in the fields of Carolina, I apprehend thou wouldst think the time had _fully_ come.” This explains the whole difficulty. We do not put ourselves in the condition of the slave, and imagine what would be our feelings if we were in _his_ circumstances. We do not obey the Scripture injunction, “remember those that are in bonds, _as bound with them_.”

But if we look at this question merely with a view to expediency, without reference to justice or mercy, when can we hope that a time will come _more_ propitious to the discussion of this subject? The fact is, difficulties and dangers increase every day. In South Carolina and Louisiana, the blacks are already a majority. The annual increase of the _slaves_, without including the free blacks, in the United States, is now 62,000 annually. It is a fact worthy of consideration, that the licentiousness of the white man increases the colored race; but the vices of colored men or women can never increase the white race; for the children of such connections are of course not white.—These people are increasing in the midst of us in startling ratio. If we pursue a kind and Christian course, we can identify their interests with the rest of the community, and make them our friends; but if we persevere in the course we have pursued, their feelings and interests _must_ be all in opposition to ours, and there is great reason to fear the consequences.

_Q._ Don’t you think the Colonization Society is doing some good?

_A._ Those who have examined into the subject, have so universally come to the conclusion that Colonization is entirely ineffectual for the abolition of slavery at any time, however remote, that it seems hardly worth while to waste words on that subject. I do not pretend to impeach the motives of benevolent individuals, who have been engaged in it; but there is no doubt that its _practical tendency_ is to perpetuate slavery. John Randolph, and other slave-holders, have advocated that Society, upon the avowed ground that by sending off an inconvenient surplus it would increase the price of the slaves left. In the new slave States, where they have not as yet an “inconvenient surplus” of slaves, they don’t like the Colonization Society; but the old slave States have been its warmest friends. There is one brief objection to the idea of abolishing slavery by Colonization: _it is impossible_. Even if it were desirable to remove these valuable laborers from our soil, it could not be done, if the whole Treasury and Navy of the United States were devoted to it. The Colonization Society has been in operation about nineteen years; they have had immense funds; and they have transported to Africa, during that time, about three thousand colored persons, of which _not one thousand_ were manumitted slaves. Now the annual _increase_ of the slaves alone is 62,000; and the annual increase of the free blacks is about 10,000. _In nineteen years the Colonizationists have not been able to carry off one sixtieth part of the increase of the slaves in one year!_ This is worse than the old story of the frog, who jumped out of the well two feet every night, and fell back three feet every morning. But even if the colored people _could_ be all carried out of the country, what is the South to do for laborers? They have been in the habit of excusing themselves, by saying that white men cannot work in their climate, and by taking it for granted that black men will not work for wages. If the climate is unsuitable for white laborers, it is manifestly very impolitic to send off the black ones. It would be far wiser to try the experiment they have tried in Bermuda and Antigua. Labor is needed in all parts of our country; and it is worse than a childish game to be sending off ship-loads of laborers to Africa, while we are bringing in ship-loads from Ireland, Holland, and Switzerland.

_Q._ I have heard some people say they gave their money to the Colonization Society merely as a missionary establishment.

_A._ It would be well for those people to examine into the matter, and first ascertain whether it _is_ a missionary establishment. When we send missions to India, the Sandwich Islands, &c., we send men believed to be pious and enlightened. For the probable influence of the emigrants carried out by the Colonization Society, let the Society answer for itself. They assure us that the colored persons colonized from the United States will “carry religion and the arts into the heart of Africa.” Yet Mr. Clay, Vice President of the Society, says, “Of all classes of our population the most vicious is that of the free colored—contaminated themselves, they extend their vices to all around them.” And the African Repository, which is the organ of the Society, declares that “they are notoriously ignorant—a curse and a contagion wherever they reside.” Now, are not these admirable missionaries to send out to christianize Africa? It would be wise to put them under better and more encouraging influences at home, before we attempt to send them to enlighten heathen lands.

_Q._ Some say that these people are naturally inferior to us; and that the shape of their skulls proves it.

_A._ If I believed that the colored people were naturally inferior to the whites, I should say that was an additional reason why we ought to protect, instruct, and encourage them. No consistent republican will say that a strong-minded man has a right to oppress those less gifted than himself. Slave-holders do not seem to think the negroes are so stupid as not to acquire knowledge, and make use of it, if they could get a chance. If they do think so, why do their laws impose such heavy penalties on all who attempt to give them any education? Nobody thinks it necessary to forbid the promulgation of knowledge among monkeys. If you believe the colored race are naturally inferior, I wish you would read the history of Toussaint L’Ouverture, the Washington of St. Domingo. Though perfectly black, he was unquestionably one of the greatest and best men of his age. I wish you would hear Mr. Williams of New York, and Mr. Douglass of Philadelphia preach a few times, before you hastily decide concerning the capacity of the colored race for intellectual improvement. As for the shape of their skulls, I shall be well satisfied if our Southern brethren will emancipate all the slaves who have _not_ what is called the “African conformation.”

_Q._ What do you think about property in slaves?

_A._ Let me reply to that question by asking others. If you were taken by an Algerine pirate, and an Arab bought you, and paid honestly for you, should you ever consider yourself the _property_ of the Arab? Should you think your fellow-citizens ought so to consider you? Can what is stolen in the beginning, be honest property in the transmission? If you and your children had toiled hard for years, and received only a peck of corn a week for your services, should you not think that some compensation was due to _you_?

_Q._ These are hard questions; and I find it is hard to answer a good many things, when we once get into the habit of imagining how we should think and feel if we ourselves were the slaves. But what have the North to do on this subject?

_A._ They cannot help having a great deal to do with it, either for good or for evil. They are citizens of this republic; and as such cannot but feel a painful interest in a subject which makes their beloved country an object of derision to the civilized world. If the slaves should make any attempt to gain their freedom, we are bound to go with an armed force and rivet their chains. If a slave escapes from his master unto us, we are bound to deliver him up to the lash. The people of Pennsylvania, living so near the slave States, have a great many of these painful scenes to encounter. A few months ago, an industrious and pious colored man in Philadelphia was torn from his home at midnight, and beaten in such a degree that the snow for some distance was stained with his blood. His poor wife, who was devotedly attached to him, had an infant about eight or ten days old; but regardless of her situation, she plunged into the snow, and implored mercy for her husband. Her shrieks and entreaties were of no avail. The citizens of Philadelphia could not help her, because the free States are bound by law to give up runaway slaves. The evil might be cured by the extreme cheapness of labor, if the surplus population were not drained off to supply _new_ slave States. But in order to accommodate slave-holders in this respect, Louisiana has been bought, and Florida bought, by revenues principally raised in the free States; and now they want to purchase Texas likewise for an eternal slave market. Every time a member from the free States votes for the admission of a slave state into the Union, he helps to increase the political power, which has always been wielded for the perpetuation of this abominable system. It is high time for the free States to begin to reflect seriously, whether they ought any longer to give their money and their moral influence in support of this iniquity.

_Q._ I did not know we were obliged to give up runaway slaves to their masters. Are you sure it is so?

_A._ When masters _bring_ their slaves into the free States, or _send_ them, the slaves can legally take their freedom; but when the slaves run away, we are obliged by law to give them up, let the circumstances be what they may. Many conscientious people prefer to obey the law of God, which says, “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which hath escaped unto thee.”

_Q._ But would you at once give so many ignorant creatures political power, by making them voters?

_A._ That would be for the wisdom of legislators to decide; and they would probably decide that it would not be judicious to invest emancipated slaves with the elective franchise; for though it is not their fault that they have been kept brutally ignorant, it unfits them for voters. At the present time, slaves _are_ represented in Congress. Every five slaves are counted equal to three freemen; which is just the same as if our farmers were allowed to count every five of their oxen as three voters. This system gives the Southern aristocracy great political power, entirely unchecked by democratic influence, which comes in as a counterpoise in States where the laboring class are allowed to vote. W. B. Seabrook, of South Carolina, has lately published an Essay on the management of slaves, in which he says: “An addition of $1,000,000 to the private fortune of Daniel Webster would not give to Massachusetts more weight than she now possesses in the Federal Councils. On the other hand, every increase of slave property in South Carolina, is a fraction thrown into the scale by which _her representation in Congress is determined_.” This country has been governed by a President forty-eight years. During forty of those years we have been governed by a slave-holder! The New England candidates each remained in office but four years; and the great middle section has never given a President. The Middle States are politically stronger than the Northern, and are therefore more likely to act independently, and without reference to Southern support. Perhaps this may be the reason why those States, large and wealthy as they are, have never given a President to their country. Slave-holders are keen-sighted politicians; and they are closely knit together by one common bond of sympathy on the subject of slavery. It is a common remark with them that they never will vote for any man north of the Potomac.

_Q._ You know that abolitionists are universally accused of wishing to promote the amalgamation of colored and white people.

_A._ This is a false charge, got up by the enemies of the cause, and used as a bugbear to increase the prejudices of the community. By the hue and cry that is raised on the subject, one would really suppose that in this free country a certain set of men had power to compel their neighbors to marry contrary to their own inclination. The abolitionists have never, by example, writing, or conversation, endeavored to connect amalgamation with the subject of abolition. When their enemies insist upon urging this silly and unfounded objection, they content themselves with replying, “If there be a natural antipathy between the races, the antipathy will protect itself. If such marriages are contrary to the order of Providence, we certainly may trust Providence to take care of the matter. It is a poor compliment to the white young men to be so afraid that the moment we allow the colored ones to be educated, the girls will all be running after them.”

At a town meeting in New Hampshire, one of the citizens rose to say that he did not approve of admitting colored lads into the school. “If you suffer these people to be educated,” said he, “the first thing we shall know they will be marrying our daughters!” After some other remarks, he concluded by saying, “it is impossible for the colored and white race to live together in a kind social relation—there is a natural antipathy—they cannot be made to mix any better than oil and water.” A plain farmer replied, “I thought you said just now, that you was afraid that they’d marry our _darters_; if they won’t mix any better than _ile_ and water, what are you afraid of?” Any one who observes the infinite variety of shadings in the complexions of the colored people, will perceive that amalgamation has for a long time been carried on. The only justification that the apologist for slavery can give is, that it is not sanctioned by marriage. According to Southern laws every child must follow the condition of its _mother_; that is, if the mother is a slave, her offspring must be so likewise. If they would change one word, and say the child shall follow the condition of its _father_, a large proportion of their slaves would be free at once; and the others would soon become so, provided no new cargoes were in the mean time smuggled in from Africa. In this subject, the truth is briefly told in a juvenile couplet, viz.

“By universal emancipation,
We want to _stop_ amalgamation.”

_Q._ Is there any truth in the charge that you wish to break down all distinctions of society, and introduce the negroes into our parlors?

_A._ There is not the slightest truth in this charge. People have pointed to an ignorant shoe-black, and asked me whether I would invite him to visit my house. I answered, “No; I would not do so if he were a white man; and I should not be likely to do it, merely because he was black.” An educated person will not naturally like to associate with one who is grossly ignorant. It may be no merit in one that he is well-informed, and no fault of the other that he is ignorant; for these things may be the result of circumstances, over which the individual had no control; but such people will not choose each other’s society merely from want of sympathy. For these reasons, I would not select an ignorant man, of any complexion, for my companion; but when you ask me whether that man’s children shall have as fair a chance as my own, to obtain an education, and rise in the world, I should be ashamed of myself, both as a Christian and a republican, if I did not say, yes, with all my heart.

_Q._ But do you believe that prejudice against color ever can be overcome?

_A._ Yes, I do; because I have faith that all things will pass away, which are not founded in reason and justice. In France and England, this prejudice scarcely exists at all. Their noblemen would never dream of taking offence because a colored gentleman sat beside them in a stage-coach, or at the table of an hotel. Be assured, however, that the abolitionists have not the slightest wish to force you to give up this prejudice. If, after conscientious examination, you believe it to be right, cherish it; but do not adhere to it merely because your neighbors do. Look it in the face—apply the golden rule—and judge for yourself. The Mahometans really think they could not eat at the same table with a Christian, without pollution; but I have no doubt the time will come when this prejudice will be removed. The old feudal nobles of England would not have thought it possible that their descendants could live in a community, where they and their vassals were on a perfect civil equality; yet the apparent impossibility has come to pass, with advantage to many, and injury to none. When we endeavor to conform to the spirit of the gospel, there is never any danger that it will not lead us into the paths of peace.

_Q._ But they say your measures are unconstitutional.

_A._ Is it unconstitutional to talk, and write, and publish on any subject? particularly one in which the welfare and character of the country are so deeply involved? This is all the abolitionists have ever done; it is all they have ever desired to do. Nobody disputes that Congress has constitutional power to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. That District belongs in common to all the States, and each of them has an interest in the slaves there. The public prisons of that District, built _with the money of the whole people_ of the United States, are used for the benefit of slave-traders, and the groaning victims of this detestable traffic are kept confined within their walls. The keepers of these prisons, _paid with the money of the whole people_, act as jailers to these slave-traders, until their gang of human brutes can be completed. When we are acting as accomplices in all this, have we no right to petition for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade _there_? I do not see how any conscientious man can help believing it to be a solemn duty.

_Q._ Is there any truth in the charge, that abolitionists have tried to excite insurrections among the slaves?

_A._ This charge is destitute of the slightest foundation in truth. The abolitionists have addressed facts and arguments to the slave-holders _only_. They have never sought for any communication with the slaves; and if they did so, their principles would lead them to teach patience and submission, until their deliverance could be accomplished by peaceful measures. I believe the publications by the Peace Society do not contain so much in defence of non-resistance under injury, as the publications of the abolitionists. If it should be discovered that any member of an Anti-Slavery Society had tried to excite disaffection among the slaves, he would be immediately turned out of the Society, with strong expressions of disapprobation. This false charge has been got up at the South merely to excite sympathy. A little while ago a paragraph went the rounds of the newspapers, concerning an _abolitionist_ who had been overheard trying to persuade a negro lad to run away, and offering to forge free papers for him. It was afterwards ascertained that the man was a _kidnapper_, and took this means of getting the boy into his own power, for the sake of selling him. Complaints are made that pictures of a man flogging slaves having been on some of the books sent to the South; and it is urged that negroes can understand these pictures, if they do not know their letters. In the first place, the books are sent to the masters. In the next place (as has been well observed), the pictures represent a thing that is either true, or not true. If it is not true, the negroes would look at the picture without being reminded of any thing _they_ had ever seen or known—if told that it represented a driver beating slaves, they would laugh at such Munchausen stories of things that never happened. On the other hand, if the representation is true, would the mere picture of a thing be more likely to excite them to insurrection than the thing itself? These stories of efforts to excite violence are mere spectres raised on purpose for the occasion. If you will take notice of the charges brought against abolitionists, you will find that they are always mere assertions, unsupported by quotations, or any species of evidence. When I have read the resolutions passed at public meetings against the abolitionists, I have smiled at the farce which those men have been acting. In nearly all their resolutions, the abolitionists could most cordially and conscientiously concur. The enemies of the cause have in several cities gravely met together to declare that they do not approve of attempts to promote insurrections. The abolitionists agree with them entirely. With the same ridiculous gravity, they make known to the world that they do not approve of any legislative interference with the Southern States. The abolitionists have never dreamed of any such interference. They merely wish to _induce the Southerners to legislate for themselves_; and they hope to do this by the universal dissemination of facts and arguments, calculated to promote a _correct public sentiment_ on the subject of slavery. This is all they ever intended to do; and this they will do, though earth and hell combine against their efforts. The men engaged in this cause are not working for themselves, but for God—and therefore they are strong.

_Q._ But do you believe the Southerners ever can be persuaded?

_A._ At all events, it is our duty to try. “Thus saith the Lord God, Thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear; neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions.” If public sentiment becomes universally reformed on this subject, it cannot fail to have a powerful influence. Slavery was abolished in the British dominions entirely by moral influence. Parliament never would have voted for the bill, the king never would have signed it, if an enlightened public sentiment had not made the step absolutely necessary; and the public became enlightened by the exertions of benevolent men, who were obliged to endure every form of obloquy and rage, before the good work was completed. The slave-holders are perfectly aware that the same causes will produce similar effects in this country. One of the Southern editors has lately declared that what is most to be feared is, that these fanatical abolitionists will make some people of morbid consciences believe that slavery really _is_ wrong, and that it is their duty to relinquish it. Another Southern newspaper complains that the worst effect of this discussion is, that it is causing good men to regard slave-holders with abhorrence.

_Q._ But if the system works so badly in every respect, why are people so unwilling to give it up?

_A._ Human nature is willing to endure much, rather than relinquish unbridled licentiousness and despotic control. The emperor of Russia, and the pachas of Egypt would be reluctant to abridge their own power, for the sake of introducing a system of things more conducive to the freedom, virtue and happiness of their subjects. They had rather live in constant fear of the poisoned bowl and the midnight dagger, than to give up the pleasant exercise of tyranny, to which they have so long been accustomed. In addition to this feeling, so common to our nature, there are many conscientious people, who are terrified at the idea of emancipation. It has always been presented to them in the most frightful colors; and bad men are determined, if possible, to prevent the abolitionists from proving to such minds that _the dangers of insurrection all belong to slavery, and would cease when slavery was abolished_.

At the North, the apologists of slavery are numerous and virulent, because their _interests_ are closely intertwined with the pernicious system. Inquire into the private history of many of the men, who have called meetings against the abolitionists—you will find that some manufacture negro cloths for the South—some have sons who sell those cloths—some have daughters married to slave-holders—some have plantations and slaves mortgaged to them—some have ships employed in Southern commerce—and some candidates for political offices would bow until their back-bones were broken, to obtain or preserve Southern influence. The Southerners understand all this perfectly well, and despise our servility, even while they condescend to make use of it.

One great reason why the people of this country have not thought and felt right on this subject, is that all our books, newspapers, almanacs and periodicals, have combined to represent the colored race as an inferior and degraded class, who never could be made good and useful citizens. Ridicule and reproach have been abundantly heaped upon them; but their virtues and their sufferings have found few historians. The South has been well satisfied with such a public sentiment. It sends back no echo to disturb their consciences, and it effectually rivets the chain on the necks of their vassals. In this department of service, the Colonization Society has been a most active and zealous agent.

_Q._ But some people say that all the mobs, and other violent proceedings, are to be attributed to the abolitionists.

_A._ They might as well charge the same upon St. Paul, when his fearless preaching of the gospel brought him into such imminent peril, that his friends were obliged to “let him down over the wall in a basket,” to save his life. As well might St. Stephen have been blamed for the mob that stoned him to death. With the same justice might William Penn have been called the cause of all the violent persecutions against the Quakers. When principles of truth are sent out in the midst of a perverse generation, they _always_ come “not to bring peace, but a sword.” The abolitionists have offered violence to no man—they have never attempted to stop the discussions of their opponents; but have, on the contrary, exerted themselves to obtain a candid examination of the subject on all sides. They merely claim the privilege of delivering peaceful addresses at orderly meetings, and of publishing what they believe to be facts, with an honest desire to have them tested by the strictest ordeal of truth.

_Q._ But do you think a foreigner ought to be allowed to lecture on this subject?

_A._ _We_ have some hundred missionaries abroad lecturing other nations—preaching against systems most closely entwined with the government and prejudices of the people. If good and conscientious men leave ease, honor, and popularity behind them, to come here, and labor among the poor and the despised, merely from zeal in a good cause, shall we refuse to hear what they have to say? If we insult, mob, and stone them, how could we consistently blame the Hindoos and Sandwich Islanders for abusing _our_ missionaries? We sent out agents to England, to give her the benefit of our experience on the subject of temperance; ought _we_ not to be willing to receive the benefit of her experience on the subject of slavery? Let us candidly hear what these men have to say. If it be contrary to reason and truth, reject it; if it be the truth, let us ponder it in our hearts.

_Q._ But everybody says the discussion of slavery will lead to the dissolution of the Union.

_A._ There must be something wrong in the Union, if the candid discussion of _any_ subject can dissolve it; and for the truth of this remark, I appeal to your own good sense. If the South should be injudicious enough to withdraw from the Union for the sake of preserving a moral pestilence in her borders, it is very certain that slavery cannot long continue after that event. None of the frontier States could long keep their slaves, if we were not obliged by law to deliver up runaways; nor could they any longer rely upon the free States, in cases of emergency, to support slavery by force of arms. The union of these States has been continually disturbed and embittered by the existence of slavery; and the abolitionists would fain convince the whole country that it is best to cast away this apple of discord. Their attachment to the Union is so strong, that they would make any sacrifice of self-interest to preserve it; but they never will consent to sacrifice honor and principle. “Duties are ours; events are God’s!”

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 13: ‘cut off the the heads’ replaced by ‘cut off the heads’.
Pg 15: ‘Ths wife, or the’ replaced by ‘The wife, or the’.
Pg 16: ‘amagamation has been’ replaced by ‘amalgamation has been’.
Pg 36: ‘not not to bring peace’ replaced by ‘not to bring peace’.