Chapter I: Letter I: Fundamental Principle of Abolitionists

BROOKLINE, Mass., _6 month, 12th, 1837_.

MY DEAR FRIEND: Thy book has appeared just at a time, when, from the nature of my engagements, it will be impossible for me to give it that attention which so weighty a subject demands. Incessantly occupied in prosecuting a mission, the responsibilities of which task all my powers, I can reply to it only by desultory letters, thrown from my pen as I travel from place to place. I prefer this mode to that of taking as long a time to answer it, as thou didst to determine upon the best method by which to counteract the effect of my testimony at the north--which, as the preface of thy book informs me, was thy main design.

Thou thinkest I have not been ‘sufficiently informed in regard to the feelings and opinions of Christian females at the North’ on the subject of slavery; for that in fact they hold the same _principles_ with Abolitionists, although they condemn their measures. Wilt thou permit me to receive their principles from thy pen? Thus instructed, however misinformed I may heretofore have been, I can hardly fail of attaining to accurate knowledge. Let us examine them, to see how far they correspond with the principles held by Abolitionists.

The great fundamental principle of Abolitionists is, that man cannot rightfully hold his fellow man as property. Therefore, we affirm, that _every slaveholder is a man-stealer_. We do so, for the following reasons: to steal a man is to rob him of himself. It matters not whether this be done in Guinea, or Carolina; a man is a _man_, and _as_ a man he has _inalienable_ rights, among which is the right to personal _liberty_. Now if every man has an _inalienable_ right to personal liberty, it follows, that he cannot rightfully be reduced to slavery. But I find in these United States, 2,250,000 men, women and children, robbed of that to which they have an _inalienable_ right. How comes this to pass? Where millions are plundered, are there no _plunderers_? If, then, the slaves have been robbed of their liberty, _who_ has robbed them? Not the man who stole their forefathers from Africa, but he who now holds them in bondage; no matter _how_ they came into his possession, whether he inherited them, or bought them, or seized them at their birth on his own plantation. The only difference I can see between the original man-stealer, who caught the African in his native country, and the American slaveholder, is, that the former committed _one_ act of robbery, while the other perpetrates the same crime _continually_. Slaveholding is the perpetrating of acts, all of the same kind, in a _series_, the first of which is technically called man-stealing. The _first_ act robbed the man of himself; and the same state of mind that prompted _that act, keeps up the series_, having _taken_ his all from him: it _keeps_ his all from him, not only _refusing_ to _restore_, but still robbing him of all he gets, and as fast as he gets it. Slaveholding, then, is _the constant or habitual perpetration of the act of man-stealing. To make_ a slave is _man-stealing_--_the ACT itself_--to _hold_ him such is man-stealing--the _habit_, the _permanent_ state, made up of _individual_ acts. In other words--to _begin_ to hold a slave is man-stealing--to _keep on_ holding him is merely a _repetition_ of the first act--a doing the same identical thing _all the time_. A series of the same acts continued for a length of time is a _habit_--_a permanent state_. And the _first_ of this series of the _same_ acts that make up this _habit_ or state is just like all the rest.

If every slave has a right to freedom, then surely the man who withholds that right from him to-day is a man-stealer, though he may not be the first person who has robbed him of it. Hence we find that Wesley says--‘Men-_buyers_ are _exactly on a level_ with men-_stealers_.’ And again--‘Much less is it possible that any child of man should ever be _born a slave_.’ Hear also Jonathan Edwards--‘To hold a man in a state of slavery, is to be _every day guilty_ of robbing him of his liberty, or of _man-stealing_.’ And Grotius says--‘Those are men-stealers who abduct, _keep_, sell or buy _slaves_ or freemen.’

If thou meanest merely that _acts_ of that _same nature_, but differently located in a series, are designated by different terms, thus pointing out their different _relative positions_, then thy argument concedes what we affirm,--the identity in the _nature_ of the acts, and thus it dwindles to a mere philological criticism, or rather a mere play upon words.

These are Abolition sentiments on the subject of slaveholding; and although our principles are universally held by our opposers at the North, yet I am told on the 44th page of thy book, that ‘the word man-stealer has one peculiar signification, and is no more synonymous with slaveholder than it is with sheep-stealer.’ I must acknowledge, thou hast only confirmed my opinion of the difference which I had believed to exist between Abolitionists and their opponents. As well might Saul have declared, that he held similar views with Stephen, when he stood by and kept the raiment of those who slew him.

I know that a broad line of distinction is drawn between our principles and our measures, by those who are anxious to ‘avoid the appearance of evil’--very desirous of retaining the fair character of enemies to slavery. Now, our _measures_ are simply the carrying out of our _principles_; and we find, that just in proportion as individuals embrace our principles, in spirit and in truth, they cease to cavil at our measures. Gerrit Smith is a striking illustration of this. Who cavilled more at Anti-Slavery _measures_, and who more ready now to acknowledge his former blindness? Real Abolitionists know full well, that the slave never has been, and never can be, a whit the better for mere abstractions, floating in the _head_ of any man; and they also know, that _principles, fixed in the heart_, are things of another sort. The former have never done any good in the world, because they possess no vitality, and therefore cannot bring forth _the fruits_ of holy, untiring effort; but the latter live in the lives of their possessors, and breathe in their words. And I am free to express my belief, that _all_ who really and heartily approve our _principles_, will also approve our _measures_; and that, too, just as certainly as a good tree will bring forth good fruit.

But there is another peculiarity in the views of Abolitionists. We hold that the North is guilty of the crime of slaveholding--we assert that it is a _national_ sin: on the contrary, in thy book, I find the following acknowledgement:--‘_Most_ persons in the non-slaveholding States, have considered the matter of southern slavery as one in which they were no more called to interfere, than in the abolition of the press-gang system in England, or the tithe-system in Ireland.’ Now I cannot see how the same principles can produce such entirely different opinions. ‘Can a good tree bring forth corrupt fruit?’ This I deny, and cannot admit what thou art anxious to prove, viz. that ‘Public opinion may have been _wrong_ on this point, and yet _right_ on all those great _principles_ of rectitude and justice relating to slavery.’ If Abolition principles are generally adopted at the North, how comes it to pass, that there is no abolition action here, except what is put forth by a few despised fanatics, as they are called? Is there any living faith without works? Can the sap circulate vigorously, and yet neither blossoms put forth nor fruit appear?

Again, I am told on the 7th page, that all Northern Christians believe it is a sin to hold a man in slavery for ‘_mere purposes of gain_;’ as if this was the _whole_ abolition principle on this subject. I can assure thee that Abolitionists do not stop here. Our principle is, that _no circumstances can ever justify_ a man in holding his fellow man as _property_; it matters not what _motive_ he may give for such a monstrous violation of the laws of God. The claim to him as _property_ is an annihilation of his right to himself, which is the foundation upon which all his other rights are built. It is high-handed robbery of Jehovah; for He has declared, ‘All souls are _mine_.’ For myself, I believe there are hundreds of thousands at the South, who do _not_ hold their slaves, by any means, as much ‘for purposes of gain,’ as they do from _the lust of power_: this is the passion that reigns triumphant there, and those who do not know this, have much yet to learn. Where, then, is the similarity in our views?

I forbear for the present, and subscribe myself,

Thine, but not in the bonds of gospel Abolitionism,

A. E. GRIMKÉ.