Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

Statesman Edition VOL. V

Charles Sumner

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction
BY
HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

BOSTON
LEE AND SHEPARD
MCM

COPYRIGHT, 1900,
BY
LEE AND SHEPARD.

Statesman Edition.
LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES.
OF WHICH THIS IS
No. 565

Norwood Press:
NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME V.

PAGE

THE ANTISLAVERY ENTERPRISE: ITS NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY,
AND DIGNITY; WITH GLANCES AT THE SPECIAL DUTIES OF THE NORTH.
Address before the People of New York, at the Metropolitan
Theatre, May 9, 1855 1

NEW OUTRAGE FOR THE SAKE OF SLAVERY. Letter to Passmore
Williamson, in Moyamensing Prison, August 11, 1855 52

THE PEN BETTER THAN THE SWORD. Letter to Committee of
Publishers in New York, September 26, 1855 58

REPUBLICAN PARTY IN NEW YORK. Letter to a New York Committee,
October 7, 1855 60

REPUBLICAN PARTY OFFSPRING OF AROUSED CONSCIENCE OF THE
COUNTRY. Letter to a Boston Committee, October 8, 1855 61

POLITICAL PARTIES AND OUR FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION. Speech at
a Republican Rally in Faneuil Hall, November 2, 1855 62

ORIGINATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS. Speech in the Senate,
on the Usurpation of the Senate in the Origination of
Appropriation Bills, February 7, 1856 83

RELIEF OF VESSELS IN DISTRESS ON THE COAST. Letter to the
Director of the Exchange News-room, Boston, February 18, 1856 93

THE EXAMPLE OF WASHINGTON AGAINST SLAVERY NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN
NOW. Letter to a Committee of the Boston Mercantile Library
Association, February 19, 1856 95

CONSTANT EXERTION AND UNION AMONG GOOD MEN. Letter to a
Massachusetts Committee, February 25, 1856 97

ABROGATION OF TREATIES. Speeches in the Senate, March 6 and
May 8, 1856 98

REPLY TO ASSAULTS ON EMIGRATION IN KANSAS. Speech in the
Senate, on the Report of the Committee on Territories, March
12, 1856 121

UNION TO SAVE KANSAS, AND UNION TO SAVE OURSELVES. Letter to
a New York Committee, April 28, 1856 123

THE CRIME AGAINST KANSAS: THE APOLOGIES FOR THE CRIME; THE
TRUE REMEDY. Speech in the Senate, May 19 and 20, 1856. With
Appendix 125

“WHATEVER MASSACHUSETTS CAN GIVE, LET IT ALL GO TO SUFFERING
KANSAS.” Telegraphic Despatch to Boston, June 6, 1856 343

REFUSAL TO RECEIVE TESTIMONIAL IN APPROBATION OF KANSAS SPEECH.
Letter to a Committee in Boston, June 13, 1856 344

THE ANTISLAVERY ENTERPRISE: ITS NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY, AND DIGNITY; WITH GLANCES AT THE SPECIAL DUTIES OF THE NORTH.

ADDRESS BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, AT THE METROPOLITAN THEATRE, MAY 9, 1855.

The principles of true politics are those of morality enlarged;
and I neither now do nor ever will admit of any other.--BURKE,
_Letter to the Bishop of Chester: Correspondence_, Vol. I. p.
332.

True politics I look on as a part of moral philosophy, which
is nothing but the art of conducting men right in society, and
supporting a community amongst its neighbors.--JOHN LOCKE,
_Letter to the Earl of Peterborough: Life, by Lord King_, Vol.
I. p. 9.

Malus usus abolendus est.--LAW MAXIM.

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them; for this is the Law and the
Prophets.--MATTHEW, viii. 12.

You have among you many a purchased slave,
Which, like your asses, and your dogs, and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts,
Because you bought them.

SHAKESPEARE, _Merchant of Venice_.

From Guinea’s coast pursue the lessening sail,
And catch the sounds that sadden every gale.
Tell, if thou canst, the sum of sorrows there;
Mark the fixed gaze, the wild and frenzied glare,
The racks of thought, and freezings of despair!
But pause not then,--beyond the western wave,
Go, view the captive bartered as a slave!

ROGERS, _Pleasures of Memory_.

Through the influence of the late Dr. James W. Stone, an
indefatigable Republican, a course of lectures was organized in
Boston especially for the discussion of Slavery. This course
marks the breaking of the seal on the platform. Mr. Sumner
undertook to open this course, which was to begin in the week
after his address before the Mercantile Library Association;
but he was prevented by sudden disability from a cold. His
excuse was contained in the following letter.

“HANCOCK STREET, 23d November, 1854.

“MY DEAR SIR,--An unkindly current of air is often more
penetrating than an arrow. From such a shaft I suffered
on the night of my address to the Mercantile Library
Association, more than a week ago, and no care or skill has
been efficacious to relieve me. I am admonished alike by
painful consciousness and by the good physician into whose
hands I have fallen, that I am not equal to the service I
have undertaken on Thursday evening.

“Fitly to inaugurate that course of lectures would task the
best powers in best health of any man. Most reluctantly,
but necessarily, I must lose sight of the inspiring company
there assembled in the name of Freedom to sit in judgment
on Slavery, and postpone till some other opportunity what
I had hoped to say. You, who know the effort I have made
to rally for this occasion, will appreciate my personal
disappointment.

“It is my habit to keep my engagements. Not for a single
day have I been absent from my seat in the Senate during
the three sessions in which duty has called me there; and
never before, in the course of numerous undertakings to
address public bodies, at different times and in different
places, has there been any failure through remissness or
disability on my part.

“Pardon these allusions, which I make that you may better
understand my feelings, now that I am compelled to depart
for the moment from a cherished rule of fidelity.

“Ever faithfully yours,

“CHARLES SUMNER.

“DR. STONE.”

Failing to open the course, Mr. Sumner closed it, on his return
from Washington in the spring, with the following address,
which he was called to repeat in the same hall a few days
later. Yielding to friendly pressure, he consented to repeat
it at several places in New York, among which was Auburn, the
residence of Mr. Seward, by whom he was introduced to the
audience in the following words.

“FELLOW-CITIZENS,--A dozen years ago I was honored by
being chosen to bring my neighbors residing here to the
acquaintance of a statesman of Massachusetts who was then
directing the last energies of an illustrious life to the
removal of the crime of Human Slavery from the soil of our
beloved country,--a statesman whose course I had chosen for
my own guidance,--John Quincy Adams, ‘the old man eloquent.’

“He has ascended to heaven: you and I yet remain here, in
the field of toil and duty. And now, by a rare felicity, I
have your instructions to present to you another statesman
of Massachusetts, him on whose shoulders the mantle of the
departed one has fallen, and who more than any other of the
many great and virtuous citizens of his native Commonwealth
illustrates the spirit of the teacher whom, like us, he
venerated and loved so much,--a companion and friend of my
own public labors,--the _young_ ‘man eloquent,’--Charles
Sumner.”

In the city of New York the same address formed the last of
an Antislavery course. It was delivered in the Metropolitan
Theatre, before a crowded audience, May 9, 1855. Mr. Sumner
had never before spoken in New York. He was introduced by Hon.
William Jay, in the following words.

“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,--I have been requested, on the part
of the Society, to perform the pleasing, but unnecessary,
office of introducing to you the honored and well-known
advocate of Justice, Humanity, and Freedom, Charles Sumner.
It is not for his learning and eloquence that I commend
him to your respectful attention; for learning, eloquence,
and even theology itself, have been prostituted in the
service of an institution well described by John Wesley
as the sum of all villanies. I introduce him to you as a
Northern Senator on whom Nature has conferred the unusual
gift of a backbone,--a man who, standing erect on the floor
of Congress, amid creeping things from the North, with
Christian fidelity denounces the stupendous wickedness of
the Fugitive Law and the Nebraska Perfidy, and in the name
of Liberty, Humanity, and Religion demands the repeal of
those most atrocious enactments. May the words he is about
to utter be impressed on your consciences and influence
your conduct.”

The reception of the address attested the change in the public
mind. Frederick Douglass, who was present, wrote:--

“Metropolitan Theatre was literally packed, and, for
two hours and a half, the vast audience, with attention
unwearied, and with interest rising with every sentence
which dropped from the speaker, indorsed sentiments which
many of the same parties would five years ago have stoned
any one for uttering.”

The _Tribune_ said:--

“Mr. Sumner’s speech last night was the greatest
oratorical and logical success of the year, and was most
enthusiastically praised by the largest audience yet
gathered in New York to hear a lecture.”

The interest was such, that he was constrained, much against
his own disposition, to repeat it in Brooklyn, where he was
introduced by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, and then again at
Niblo’s Theatre, New York, where he was introduced by Joseph
Blunt, Esq. The concluding words of Mr. Beecher were as follows.

“I am to introduce to you a statesman who follows a long
train of representatives and statesmen who were false
to the North, false to Liberty; and then they made a
complaint that there was no North! It was because the
North lost faith in her recreant children. It lost faith
in its traitors, and not in Liberty. But now, if the
haughty Southerners wish to engage in any more conflicts
of this kind, I think they will have to find some other
than the speaker to-night with whom to break a lance.
[_Loud cheers._] I do not wish merely to introduce to you
the ‘honorable gentleman’ sent from Massachusetts as a
United States Senator; my wish is to do better than that; I
wish to introduce to you the MAN,--CHARLES SUMNER. [_Loud
applause._]”

The _Tribune_ spoke thus of these meetings:--

“That a lecture should be repeated in New York is a
rare occurrence. That a lecture on Antislavery should
be repeated in New York, even before a few despised
‘fanatics,’ is an unparalleled occurrence. But that an
Antislavery lecture should be repeated night after night
to successive multitudes, each more enthusiastic than the
last, marks the epoch of a revolution in popular feeling;
it is an era in the history of Liberty. Niblo’s Theatre was
crowded last evening long before the hour of commencement.
Hundreds stood through the three hours’ lecture. We give a
full report of the words, but only of the words.”

Other newspapers were enthusiastic in their comments.

The _National Era_, at Washington, in printing the address,
said of its delivery in Metropolitan Hall:--

“Mr. Sumner closed, as he had continued, amid loud and
protracted applause. Especially at the point when he said
that the Fugitive Slave Bill must be made a dead letter,
the audience seemed wild with enthusiasm. Handkerchiefs
waved from fair hands, and reporters almost forgot their
stolid unconcern.”

Such extracts might be multiplied. Beyond these was the
testimony of individuals gratified at the hearing obtained for
cherished sentiments. One wrote from Philadelphia as follows.

“I cannot forbear, not for your gratification, but for my
own, to testify my unbounded sympathy and satisfaction in
the Three Days’ Ovation of May that you have enjoyed in
New York, in reward of your faithful sentinelship on the
ramparts of Liberty in that sin-beleaguered fortress, the
Capitol at Washington, faithfully supporting the cause of
the weak against insolence and haughty vulgarity.… You have
gloriously and faithfully withstood obloquy and reproach:
the hour of triumph is now well assured.”

Another wrote from Albany:--

“I have never read anything so magnificent as your Lecture
in the _Independent_. How I wish I could have heard it!
Letters from judges in such matters inform me that no
speech in New York for many years has produced such a
sensation.”

Count Gurowski, writing from Brattleboro’, Vermont, expressed
his enthusiastic sympathy, and at the same time predicted the
adverse feeling among slave-masters.

“I have just finished the reading of your admirable
Oration. I am _en extase_. I was near to cry.… But you
have thrown the gauntlet once more to the ‘gentlemen from
the South,’ bravely, decidedly, and pitilessly. Do not be
astonished, if they shall send you, covered with laurels as
you are, to Coventry. This undoubtedly they will do.”

These extracts show something of public sentiment at this stage
of the great contest with Slavery. From this time forward the
discussion broadened and deepened.

ADDRESS.

History abounds in vicissitudes. From weakness and humility, men ascend to power and place. From defeat and disparagement, enterprises are borne on to recognition and triumph. The martyr of to-day is gratefully enshrined on the morrow. The stone that the builders rejected is made head of the corner. Thus it always has been, and ever will be.

Only twenty years ago, in 1835, the friends of the slave in our country were weak and humble, while their great undertaking, just then showing itself, was trampled down and despised. Small companies, gathered together in the name of Freedom, were interrupted and often dispersed by riotous mobs. At Boston, a feeble association of women, called the Female Antislavery Society, sitting in a small room of an upper story in an obscure building, was insulted and then driven out of doors by a frantic crowd, politely termed at the time “gentlemen of property and standing,” which, after various deeds of violence and vileness, next directed itself upon William Lloyd Garrison,--known as the determined editor of the “Liberator,” and originator of the Antislavery Enterprise in our day,--then ruthlessly tearing him away, amidst savage threats and with a halter about his neck, dragged him through the streets, until, at last, guilty only of loving liberty, if not wisely, too well, this unoffending citizen was thrust into the common jail for protection against an infuriate populace. Nor was Boston alone. Even villages in remote rural solitude broke out in similar outrage,--while large towns, like Providence, New Haven, Utica, Worcester, Alton, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, became so many fiery craters overflowing with rage and madness. What lawless violence failed to accomplish was urged next through forms of law. By solemn legislative acts, the Slave States called on the Free States “promptly and effectually to suppress all those associations within their respective limits purporting to be Abolition Societies”;[1] and Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York basely hearkened to the base proposition. The press, too, with untold power, exerted itself in this behalf, while pulpit, politician, and merchant conspired to stifle discussion, until the voice of Freedom was hushed to a whisper, “alas! almost afraid to know itself.”

Since then, in the lapse of few years only, a change has taken place. Instead of those small companies, counted by tens, we have now this mighty assembly, counted by thousands; instead of an insignificant apartment, like that in Boston, the mere appendage of a printing-office, where, as in the manger itself, Truth was cradled, we have this Metropolitan Hall, ample in proportion and central in place; instead of a profane and clamorous mob, beating at our gates, dispersing our assembly, and making one of our number the victim of its fury, we have peace and harmony at unguarded doors, ruffled only by generous competition to participate in this occasion; while Legislatures openly declare their sympathies, villages, towns, and cities vie in the new manifestation, and the press itself, with increased power, heralds, applauds, and extends the prevailing influence, which, gushing from every fountain, and pouring through every channel, at last, by quickening power of pulpit, politician, and merchant, swells into an irresistible tide.

Here is a great change, worthy of notice and memory, for it attests the first stage of victory. Slavery, in all its many-sided wrong, still continues; but here in this metropolis--ay, Sir, and throughout the whole North--freedom of discussion is at length secured. And this, I say, is the first stage of victory,--herald of the transcendent future.

“Hark! a glad voice the lonely desert cheers:
Prepare the way! a God, a God appears!
A God! a God! the vocal hills reply:
The rocks proclaim the approaching Deity.”

Nor is there anything peculiar in the trials to which our cause has been exposed. Thus in all ages is Truth encountered. At first persecuted, gagged, silenced, crucified, she cries out from the prison, the rack, the stake, the cross, until at last her voice is heard. And when that voice is really heard, whether in martyr cries, or in earthquake tones of civil convulsion, or in the calmness of ordinary speech, such as I now employ, or in that still, small utterance inaudible to the common ear, then is the beginning of victory! “Give me where to stand and I will move the world,” said Archimedes; and Truth asks no more than did the master of geometry.

Viewed in this aspect, the present occasion rises above any ordinary course of lectures or series of political meetings. It is the inauguration of Freedom. From this time forward, her voice of warning and command cannot be silenced. The sensitive sympathies of property, in this commercial mart, may yet again recognize property in man; the watchful press itself may falter or fail; but the vantage-ground of free discussion now achieved cannot be lost. On this I take my stand, and, as from the Mount of Vision, behold the whole field of our great controversy spread before me. There is no point, topic, fact, matter, reason, or argument, touching the question between Slavery and Freedom, which is not now open. From these I might aptly select some one, and confine myself to its development. But I should not in this way best satisfy the seeming requirement of the occasion. According to the invitation of your Committee, I was to make an address introductory to the present course of lectures, but was prevented by ill-health. And now, at the close of the course, I am to say what I failed to say at its beginning. Not as Caucus or as Congress can I address you; nor am I moved to undertake a political harangue or constitutional argument. Out of the occasion let me speak, and, discarding any individual topic, aim to exhibit the entire field, in its divisions and subdivisions, with metes and bounds.

* * * * *

My subject will be THE NECESSITY, PRACTICABILITY, AND DIGNITY OF THE ANTISLAVERY ENTERPRISE, WITH GLANCES AT SPECIAL DUTIES OF THE NORTH. By this enterprise I do not mean the efforts of any restricted circle, sect, or party, but the cause of the slave, in all its forms and under all its names,--whether inspired by pulpit, press, economist, or politician,--whether in the early, persistent, and comprehensive demands of Garrison, the gentler tones of Channing, or the strictly constitutional endeavors of others now actually sharing the public councils of the country. To carry through this review, under its different heads, I shall not hesitate to meet the objections urged against it, so far at least as I am aware of them. As I speak to you seriously, I venture to ask your serious attention even to the end. Not easily can a public address reach that highest completeness which is found in mingling the useful and the agreeable; but I desire to say that it will be my effort to cultivate that highest courtesy of a speaker which is found in clearness.

I.

I begin with the NECESSITY of the Antislavery Enterprise. In the wrong of Slavery, _as defined by existing law_, this necessity is plainly apparent; nor can any man within the sound of my voice, who listens to the authentic words of the law, hesitate in my conclusion. A wrong so grievous and unquestionable should not be allowed to continue. For the honor of human nature, and the good of all concerned, _it must at once cease_. On this simple statement, as corner-stone, I found the necessity of the Antislavery Enterprise.

I do not dwell, Sir, on the many tales which come from the house of bondage: on the bitter sorrows undergone; on the flesh galled by manacle, or spurting blood beneath the lash; on the human form mutilated by knife, or seared by red-hot iron; on the ferocious scent of bloodhounds in chase of human prey; on the sale of fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, little children, even infants, at the auction block; on the practical prostration of all rights, all ties, and even all hope; on the deadly injury to morals, substituting concubinage for marriage, and changing the whole land of Slavery into a by-word of shame, only fitly pictured by the language of Dante, when he called his own degraded country a House of Ill Fame;[2] and, last of all, on the pernicious influence upon master as well as slave, showing itself too often, even by his own confession, in rudeness of manners and character, and especially in that blindness which renders him insensible to the wrongs he upholds. On these things I do not dwell, although volumes are at hand of unquestionable fact, and also of illustrative story so just and germane as to vie with fact, out of which I might draw, until, like Macbeth, you had “supped full with horrors.”

All these I put aside,--not because I do not regard them of moment in exhibiting the true character of Slavery, but because I desire to present this argument on grounds above all controversy, impeachment, or suspicion, even from slave-masters themselves. Not on triumphant story, not even on indisputable fact, do I now accuse Slavery, but on its character, as revealed in its own simple definition of itself. Out of its own mouth do I condemn it. By the _Law of Slavery_, man, created in the image of God, is divested of the human character, and declared to be a mere chattel. That this statement may not seem to be put forward without precise authority, I quote the law of two different States. The Civil Code of Louisiana thus defines a slave:--

“A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he
belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his
industry, and his labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing,
nor acquire anything but what must belong to his master.”[3]

The law of another polished Slave State gives this definition:--

“Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in
law to be _chattels personal_, in the hands of their owners and
possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns,
to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”[4]

And a careful writer, Judge Stroud, in a work of juridical as well as philanthropic merit, thus sums up the law:--

“The cardinal principle of Slavery, that the slave is not to
be ranked among _sentient beings_, but among _things_, is an
article of property, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted
law in all of these [Slave] States.”[5]

Sir, this is enough. As out of its small egg crawls forth the slimy, scaly, reptile crocodile, so out of this simple definition crawls forth the whole slimy, scaly, reptile monstrosity by which a man is changed into a chattel, a person is converted into a thing, a soul is transmuted into merchandise. According to this very definition, the slave is held simply for the good of his master, to whose behest his life, liberty, and happiness are devoted, and by whom he may be bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped as cargo, stored as goods, sold on execution, knocked off at public auction, and even staked at the gaming-table on the hazard of a card or die. The slave may seem to have a wife; but he has not, for his wife belongs to his master. He may seem to have a child; but he has not, for his child is owned by his master. He may be filled with desire of knowledge, opening to him the gates of joy on earth and in heaven; but the master may impiously close all these gates. Thus is he robbed, not merely of privileges, but of himself,--not merely of money and labor, but of wife and children,--not merely of time and opportunity, but of every assurance of happiness,--not merely of earthly hope, but of all those divine aspirations that spring from the Fountain of Light. He is not merely restricted in liberty, but totally deprived of it,--not merely curtailed in rights, but absolutely stripped of them,--not merely loaded with burdens, but changed into a beast of burden,--not merely bent in countenance to the earth, but sunk in law to the level of a quadruped,--not merely exposed to personal cruelty, but deprived of his character as a person,--not merely compelled to involuntary labor, but degraded to a rude thing,--not merely shut out from knowledge, but wrested from his place in the human family. _And all this, Sir, is according to the simple Law of Slavery._

And even this is not all. The law, by cumulative provisions, positively forbids that a slave shall be taught to read. Hear this, fellow-citizens, and confess that no barbarity of despotism, no extravagance of tyranny, no excess of impiety can be more blasphemous or deadly. “Train up a child in the way he should go” is the lesson of Divine Wisdom; but the Law of Slavery boldly prohibits any such training, and dooms the child to hopeless ignorance and degradation. “Let there be light” was the Divine behest at the dawn of Creation,--and this commandment, travelling with the ages and the hours, still speaks with the voice of God; yet the Law of Slavery says, “Let there be darkness.”

But it is earnestly averred that slave-masters are humane, and slaves are treated with kindness. These averments, however, I properly put aside, precisely as I have already put aside the multitudinous illustrations from the cruelty of Slavery. On the simple _letter of the law_ I take my stand, and do not go beyond what is there nominated. The masses of men are not better than their laws, and, whatever may be the eminence of individual virtue, it is not reasonable to infer that the body of slave-masters is better than the Law of Slavery. And since this law submits the slave to their irresponsible control, with power to bind and to scourge, to shut the soul from knowledge, to separate families, to unclasp the infant from a mother’s breast, and the wife from a husband’s arms, it is natural to conclude that such enormities are sanctioned by them, while the supplementary denial of instruction gives conclusive evidence of their full complicity. And this conclusion must exist unquestioned, just so long as the law exists unrepealed. Cease, then, to blazon the humanity of slave-masters. Tell me not of the lenity with which this cruel law is tempered to its unhappy subjects. Tell me not of the sympathy which overflows from the mansion of the master to the cabin of the slave. In vain you assert these instances. In vain you show that there are individuals who do not exert the wickedness of the law. The law still endures. Slavery, which it defines and upholds, continues to outrage Public Opinion, and, within the limits of our Republic, more than three millions of human beings, guilty only of a skin not colored like your own, are left the victims of its unrighteous, irresponsible power.

Power divorced from right is devilish; power without the check of responsibility is tyrannical; and I need not go back to the authority of Plato, when I assert that the most complete injustice is that erected into the form of law. But all these things concur in Slavery. It is, then, on the testimony of slave-masters, solemnly, legislatively, judicially attested in the very law itself, that I now arraign this institution as an outrage upon man and his Creator. And herein is the necessity of the Antislavery Enterprise. A wrong so transcendent, so loathsome, so direful, must be encountered, _wherever it can be reached_; and the battle must be continued without truce or compromise, until the field is entirely won. Freedom and Slavery can hold no divided empire; nor can there be any true repose, until Freedom is everywhere established.

* * * * *

To the _necessity_ of the Antislavery Enterprise there are two, and only two, main objections,--one founded on the alleged distinction of race, and the other on the alleged sanction of Christianity. All other objections are of inferior character, or are directed logically at its _practicability_. Of these two main objections let me briefly speak.

* * * * *

1. I begin with the alleged _distinction of race_. This objection assumes two different forms,--one founded on a prophetic malediction in the Old Testament, and the other on professed observations of recent science. Its importance is apparent in the obvious fact, that, unless such distinction be clearly and unmistakably established, every argument by which our own freedom is vindicated, every applause awarded to the successful rebellion of our fathers, every indignant word ever hurled against the enslavement of white fellow-citizens by Algerine corsairs, must plead trumpet-tongued against the deep damnation of Slavery, black as well as white.

It is said that Africans are the posterity of Ham, son of Noah, through Canaan cursed by Noah, to be the servant of his brethren, and that this malediction has fallen upon all his descendants, including the unhappy Africans,--who are accordingly devoted by God, through unending generations, to unending bondage. Such is the favorite argument at the South, and more than once directly addressed to myself. Here, for instance, is a passage from a letter recently received. “You need not persist,” says the writer, “in confounding Japheth’s children with Ham’s, and making both races one, and arguing on their rights as those of man broadly.” And I have been seriously assured, that, until this objection is answered, it will be vain to press my views upon Congress or the country. Listen now to the texts of the Old Testament which are so strangely employed.

“And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants
shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord
God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge
Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan
shall be his servant.”[6]

That is all; and I need only read these words in order to expose the whole--transpicuous humbug. I am tempted to add, that, to justify this objection, it is necessary to maintain at least five different propositions, as essential links in the chain of the African slave: _first_, that by this malediction Canaan himself was actually changed into a _chattel_,--whereas he is simply made the servant of his brethren; _secondly_, that not merely Canaan, but all his posterity, to the remotest generation, was so changed,--whereas the language has no such extent; _thirdly_, that the African actually belongs to the posterity of Canaan,--an ethnographical assumption absurdly difficult to establish; _fourthly_, that each descendant of Shem and Japheth has a right to hold an African fellow-man as chattel,--a proposition which finds no semblance of support; and, _fifthly_, that every slave-master is truly descended from Shem or Japheth,--a pedigree which no anxiety or assurance can prove. This plain analysis, which may fitly excite a smile, shows the fivefold absurdity of an attempt to found this revolting wrong on any

“successive title, long and dark,
Drawn from the mouldy rolls of Noah’s ark.”[7]

The small bigotry which finds comfort in these texts has been exalted lately by the voice of Science, undertaking to suggest that the different races of men are not derived from a single pair, but from several distinct stocks, according to their several distinct characteristics; and it is haughtily argued, that the African is so far inferior as to lose all title to that liberty which is the birthright of the lordly white. Now I have neither time nor disposition, on this occasion, to discuss the question of the unity of races; nor is it necessary to my present purpose. It may be that the different races of men proceeded from different stocks; but there is but _one_ great Human Family, in which Caucasian and African, Chinese and Indian, are all brothers, children of _one_ Father, and heirs to _one_ happiness,--alike on earth and in heaven. “Star-eyed Science” cannot shake this everlasting truth. It may exhibit peculiarities in the African, by which he is distinguishable from the Caucasian. In his physical form and intellectual character it may presume to find the stamp of permanent inferiority. But by no reach of learning, no torture of fact, no effrontery of dogma, can any science show that he is not _a man_. And as a man he stands before you an unquestionable member of the Human Family, entitled to _all the rights of man_. You can claim nothing for yourself, _as man_, which you must not accord to him. _Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness_, which you proudly declare to be your own inalienable, God-given rights, and to the support of which your fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, are his by the same immortal title that they are yours.

* * * * *

2. From the objection founded on alleged distinction of race, I pass to that other founded on alleged _sanction of Slavery by Christianity_. Striving to be brief, I shall not undertake to reconcile texts often quoted from the Old Testament, which, whatever their import, are all absorbed in the New; nor shall I stop to consider the precise interpretation of the familiar phrase, _Servants, obey your masters_, nor seek to weigh any such imperfect injunction in the scales against those grand commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. Surely, in the example and teachings of the Saviour, who lifted up the down-trodden, who enjoined purity of life, and overflowed with tenderness even to little children, human ingenuity can find no apology for an institution which tramples on man, which defiles woman, and sweeps little children beneath the hammer of the auctioneer. If to any one these things seem to have the license of Christianity, it is only because they have first secured a license in his own soul. Men are prone in uncertain, disconnected texts to find confirmation of their own personal prejudices or prepossessions. And I--who am no theologian, but only a simple layman--make bold to say, that whoever finds in the Gospel any sanction of Slavery finds there merely a reflection of himself. On a matter so irresistibly clear authority is superfluous; but an eminent character, who as poet makes us forget his high place as philosopher, and as philosopher makes us forget his high place as theologian, exposes the essential antagonism between Christianity and Slavery in a few pregnant words, which, by recalling the spirit of our Faith, are more satisfactory than whole volumes of ingenious discussion. “By a principle essential to Christianity,” says Coleridge, “a _person_ is eternally differenced from a _thing_; so that _the idea of a Human Being necessarily excludes the idea of property in that Being_.”[8]

With regret, though not with astonishment, I learn that a Boston divine has sought to throw the seamless garment of Christ over this shocking wrong. But I am patient, and see clearly how vain is his effort, when I call to mind, that, within this very century, other divines in another country sought to throw the same sacred vesture over the more shocking slave-trade,--and that, among many publications, a little book was then put forth by a reverend clergyman, with the title, “The African Trade for Negro Slaves shewn to be consistent with Principles of Humanity and with the Laws of Revealed Religion.”[9] Thinking of these things, I am ready to say, with Shakespeare,--

“In religion,
What damnèd error, but some sober brow
Will bless it, and approve it with a text?”

In support of Slavery, it is the habit to pervert texts and to invent authority. Even St. Paul is vouched for a wrong which his Christian life rebukes. Much stress is now laid on his example, as it appears in the Epistle to Philemon, written at Rome, and sent by Onesimus, a servant. From the single chapter constituting the entire epistle I take the following ten verses, most strangely invoked for Slavery.

“_I beseech thee for my son Onesimus_, whom I have begotten
in my bonds; which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but
now profitable to thee and to me; whom I have sent again.
Thou, therefore, receive him, that is, mine own bowels: whom I
would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have
ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel; but without thy
mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it
were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore
departed for a season that thou shouldest receive him forever;
_not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved_,
specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh
and in the Lord! _If thou count me, therefore, a partner,
receive him as myself._ If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee
aught, put that on mine account: I Paul have written it with
mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how
thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.”[10]

Out of this affectionate epistle, where St. Paul calls the converted servant, Onesimus, his _son_, precisely as in another epistle he calls Timothy his son, Slavery is elaborately vindicated, and the great Apostle to the Gentiles made the very tutelary saint of the Slave-Hunter. Now, without invoking his real judgment of Slavery from his condemnation on another occasion of “men-stealers,” or what I prefer to call _slave-hunters_, in company with “murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,” and without undertaking to show that the present epistle, when truly interpreted, is a protest against Slavery and a voice for Freedom,--all of which might be done,--I content myself with calling attention to two things, apparent on its face, and in themselves an all-sufficient response. _First_, while it appears that Onesimus had been in some way the servant of Philemon, it does not appear that he was ever held as _chattel_; and how gross and monstrous is the effort to derive such a wrong out of words, whether in the Constitution of our country or in the Bible, which do not explicitly, unequivocally, and exclusively define this wrong! _Secondly_, in charging Onesimus with this epistle to Philemon, the Apostle recommends him as “not now a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved,” and he enjoins upon his correspondent the hospitality due to a freeman, saying expressly, “If thou count me, therefore, a partner, _receive him as myself_”: ay, Sir, not as slave, not even as servant, but as brother beloved, even as the Apostle himself. Thus, with apostolic pen, wrote Paul to his disciple, Philemon. In these words of gentleness, benediction, and equal rights, dropping with celestial, soul-awakening power, there can be no justification for a conspiracy, which, beginning with the treachery of Iscariot and the temptation of pieces of silver, seeks, by fraud, brutality, and violence, through officers of the law armed to the teeth, like pirates, and amidst soldiers who degrade their uniform, to hurl a fellow-man back into the lash-resounding den of American Slavery; and when any one thus perverts this beneficent example, allow me to say that he gives too much occasion to doubt his intelligence or his sincerity.

Certainly I am right in stripping from Slavery the apology of Christianity, which it has tenaciously hugged; and here I leave the first part of my subject, asserting, against every objection, the Necessity of our Enterprise.

II.

I am now brought, in the _second_ place, to the PRACTICABILITY of the Enterprise. And here the way is easy. In showing its necessity, I have already demonstrated its practicability; for the former includes the latter, as the greater includes the less. Whatever is necessary must be practicable. By a decree which is a proverb of tyranny, the Israelites were compelled to make bricks without straw; but it is not according to the ways of a benevolent Providence that man should be constrained to do what cannot be done. Besides, the Antislavery Enterprise is right; and the right is always practicable.

I know well the little faith of the world in the triumph of principles, and I readily imagine the despair with which our object is regarded; but not on this account am I disheartened. That exuberant writer, Sir Thomas Browne, breaks into ecstatic wish for some new difficulty in Christian belief, that his faith may have a new victory; and an eminent enthusiast went so far as to say, “I believe because it is impossible,”--_Credo quia impossibile_. No such exalted faith is now required. Here is no impossibility; nor is there any difficulty which will not yield to faithful, well-directed endeavor. If to any timid soul the Enterprise seems impossible because it is too beautiful, then do I say at once that it is too beautiful not to be possible.

Descending from these summits, let me show plainly the object it seeks to accomplish; and here you will see and confess its complete practicability. While discountenancing all prejudice of color and every establishment of caste, the Antislavery Enterprise--at least so far as I may speak for it--does not undertake to change human nature, or to force any individual into relations of life for which he is not morally, intellectually, and socially adapted; nor does it necessarily assume that a race, degraded for long generations under the iron heel of bondage, can be taught at once all the political duties of an American citizen. But, Sir, it does confidently assume, against all question, contradiction, or assault whatever, _that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and, with equal confidence, it asserts that every individual who wears the human form, whether black or white, should be recognized at once as man_. When this is done, I know not what other trials may be in wait for the unhappy African; but this I do know, that the Antislavery Enterprise will then have triumphed, and the institution of Slavery, _as defined by existing law_, will no longer shock mankind.

In this work, the first essential, practical requisite is, that the question shall be openly and frankly confronted. Do not put it aside. Do not blink it out of sight. Do not dodge it. Approach it. Study it. Ponder it. Deal with it. Let it rest in the illumination of speech, conversation, and the press. Let it fill the thoughts of the statesman and the prayers of the pulpit. When Slavery is thus regarded, its true character will be recognized, _as a hateful assemblage of unquestionable wrongs under sanction of existing law_, and good men will be moved to apply the remedy. Already even its zealots admit that its “abuses” should be removed. This is their word, not mine. Alas! alas! Sir, it is these very “abuses” that constitute its component parts, without which it would not exist,--even as the scourges in a bundle with the axe constituted the dread fasces of the Roman lictor. Take away these, and the whole embodied outrage disappears. Surely that central assumption--more deadly than axe itself--by which man is changed into a chattel, may be abandoned; and is not this practicable? The associate scourges by which that transcendent “abuse” is surrounded may, one by one, be subtracted. The “abuse” which substitutes concubinage for marriage, the “abuse” which annuls the parental relation, the “abuse” which closes the portals of knowledge, the “abuse” which tyrannically usurps all the labor of another, now upheld by positive law, may by positive law be abolished. To say that this is not practicable, in the nineteenth century, is a scandal upon mankind, and just in proportion as these “abuses” cease to have the sanction of law will the institution of Slavery cease to exist. The African, whatever may be then his condition, will no longer be the _slave_ over whose wrongs and sorrows the world throbs at times fiercely indignant, and at times painfully sad, while with outstretched arms he sends forth the piteous cry, “Am I not a man and a brother?”

In pressing forward to this result, the inquiry is often presented, To what extent, if any, shall compensation be allowed to slave-masters? Clearly, if the point be determined by _absolute justice_, not the masters, but the slaves, are entitled to compensation; for it is the slaves who, throughout weary generations, have been deprived of the fruits of their toil, all constantly enriching their masters. Besides, it seems hardly reasonable to pay for the relinquishment of disgusting “abuses,” which, in their aggregation, constitute the bundle of Slavery. Pray, Sir, by what tariff, price-current, or principle of equation, shall their several values be estimated? What sum shall be counted out as the proper price for the abandonment of that pretension--more indecent than the _jus primæ noctis_ of the feudal age--which leaves woman, whether in the arms of master or slave, always a concubine? What bribe shall be proffered for restoration of God-given paternal rights? What money shall be paid for taking off the padlock by which souls are fastened down in darkness? How much for a quit-claim to labor now meanly exacted by the strong from the weak? And what compensation shall be awarded for the egregious assumption, condemned by reason and abhorred by piety, which changes man into a thing? I put these questions without undertaking to pass upon them. Shrinking instinctively from any recognition of _rights founded on wrongs_, I find myself shrinking also from any austere verdict which shall deny any means necessary to the great consummation. Our fathers, under Washington, did not hesitate, by Act of Congress, to appropriate largely for the ransom of white fellow-citizens enslaved by Algerine corsairs; and, following this example, I am disposed to consider the question of compensation as one of expediency, to be determined by the exigency of the hour and the constitutional powers of the Government,--though such is my desire to see the disappearance of Slavery, that I could not hesitate to build a Bridge of Gold, if necessary, for the retreating fiend.

The _Practicability_ of the Antislavery Enterprise is constantly questioned, often so superficially as to be answered at once. I shall not take time to consider the allegation, founded on assumptions of economy, which audaciously assumes that Slave Labor is more advantageous than Free Labor, that Slavery is more profitable than Freedom, for this is all exploded by official tables of the census,--nor that other futile argument, that the slaves are not prepared for Freedom, and therefore should not be precipitated into this condition, for this is no better than the ancient Greek folly, where the anxious mother would not allow her son to enter the water until he had learned to swim.

* * * * *

As against the Necessity of the Antislavery Enterprise there were two chief objections, so also against its Practicability there are two,--the first founded on alleged danger to the master, and the second on alleged damage to the slave himself.

* * * * *

1. The first objection, founded on alleged _danger to the master_, most generally takes the extravagant form, that the slave, if released from his present condition, would “cut his master’s throat.” Here is a blatant paradox, which can pass for reason only among those who have lost their reason. With absurdity having no parallel except in the defences of Slavery, it assumes that the African, when treated justly, will show a vindictiveness he does not exhibit when treated unjustly,--that, when elevated by the blessings of Freedom, he will develop an appetite for blood never manifested when crushed by the curse of bondage. At present, the slave sees his wife ravished from his arms,--sees his infant swept away to the auction-block,--sees the heavenly gates of knowledge shut upon him,--sees his industry and all its fruits unjustly snatched by another,--sees himself and his offspring doomed to servitude from which there is no redemption; and still his master sleeps secure. Will the master sleep less secure when the slave no longer smarts under these revolting atrocities? I will not trifle with your intelligence, or with the quick-passing hour, by arguing this question.

There is a lofty example, brightening the historic page, by which the seal of experience is affixed to the conclusion of reason; and you would hardly pardon me, if I failed to adduce it. By a single Act of Parliament the slaves of the British West Indies were changed at once to freedmen; and this great transition was accomplished absolutely without personal danger of any kind to the master. And yet the chance of danger there was greater far than among us. In our broad country the slaves are overshadowed by a more than sixfold white population. Only in two States, South Carolina and Mississippi, do the slaves outnumber the whites, and there not greatly, while in the entire Slave States the whites outnumber the slaves by millions. It was otherwise in the British West Indies, where the whites were overshadowed by a more than sixfold population. The slaves were 800,000, while the whites numbered only 131,000, distributed in different proportions on the different islands. And this disproportion has since increased rather than diminished, always without danger to the whites. In Jamaica, the largest of these possessions, there are now upwards of 400,000 Africans, and only 15,000 whites; in Barbadoes, the next largest, 120,000 Africans, and only 16,000 whites; in St. Lucia, 24,000 Africans, and only 900 whites; in Tobago, 14,000 Africans, and only 160 whites; in Montserrat, 7,000 Africans, and only 150 whites; and in the Grenadines, upwards of 6,000 Africans, and only about 60 whites.[11] And yet the authorities in all these places attest the good behavior of the Africans. Sir Lionel Smith, Governor of Jamaica, in a speech to the Assembly, declares that their conduct “amply proves how well they have deserved the boon of Freedom”;[12] the Governor of the Leeward Islands dwells on “the peculiarly rare instances of the commission of grave or sanguinary crimes amongst the emancipated population of these islands”;[13] and the Queen of England, in a speech from the throne, has announced that the complete and final emancipation of the Africans had “taken place without any disturbance of public order and tranquillity.”[14] In this example I find new confirmation of the rule, that the highest safety is in doing right; and thus do I dismiss the objection founded on alleged danger to the master.

* * * * *

2. I am now brought to the second objection, founded on alleged _damage to the slave_. It is common among partisans of Slavery to assert that our Enterprise has actually retarded the cause it seeks to promote; and this paradoxical accusation, which might naturally show itself among the rank weeds of the South, is cherished here on our Northern soil among those who look for any fig-leaf with which to cover indifference or tergiversation.

This peculiar form of complaint is an old device, instinctively employed on other occasions, until it ceases to be even plausible. Thus, throughout all time, has every good cause been encountered. The Saviour was nailed to the cross with a crown of thorns on his head, as a disturber of that peace on earth which he came to declare. The Disciples, while preaching the Gospel of forgiveness and good-will, were stoned as preachers of sedition and discord. The Reformers, who sought to establish a higher piety and faith, were burnt at the stake as blasphemers and infidels. Patriots, in all ages, striving for their country’s good, have been doomed to the scaffold or to exile, even as their country’s enemies. Those brave Englishmen, who, at home, under the lead of Edmund Burke, espoused the cause of our fathers, shared the same illogical impeachment, which was touched to the quick by that orator statesman, when, after exposing its essential vice, in “attributing the ill effect of ill-judged conduct to the arguments which had been used to dissuade us from it,” he denounced it as “absurd, but very common in modern practice, and very wicked.”[15] Ay, Sir, it is common in modern practice. In England it has vainly renewed itself with special frequency against Bible Societies,--against the friends of education,--against the patrons of vaccination,--against the partisans of peace,--all of whom have been openly arraigned as provoking and increasing the very evils, whether of infidelity, ignorance, disease, or war, which they benignly seek to check. To bring an instance precisely applicable to our own,--Wilberforce, when conducting the Antislavery Enterprise of England, first against the Slave-Trade, and then against Slavery itself, was told that those efforts, by which his name is now consecrated forevermore, tended to increase the hardships of the slave, even to the extent of riveting anew his chains. Such are precedents for the imputation to which our Enterprise is exposed; and such, also, are precedents by which I exhibit the fallacy of the imputation.