Chapter II: Letter II: Immediate Emancipation

BROOKLINE, Mass., _6th month, 17th, 1837_.

DEAR FRIEND: Where didst thou get thy statement of what Abolitionists mean by immediate emancipation? I assure thee, it is a novelty. I never heard any abolitionist say that slaveholders ‘were physically unable to emancipate their slaves, and of course are not bound to do it,’ because in some States there are laws which forbid emancipation. This is truly what our opponents affirm; but _we_ say that all the laws which sustain the system of slavery are unjust and oppressive--contrary to the fundamental principles of morality, and, therefore, null and void.

We hold, that all the slaveholding laws violate the fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States. In the preamble of that instrument, the great objects for which it was framed are declared to be ‘to establish justice, to promote the _general_ welfare, and to secure the blessings of _liberty_ to us and to our posterity.’ The slave laws are flagrant violations of these fundamental principles. Slavery subverts justice, promotes the welfare of the _few_ to the manifest injury of the many, and robs thousands of the _posterity_ of our forefathers of the blessings of liberty. This cannot be denied, for Paxton, a Virginia slaveholder, says, ‘the _best_ blood in Virginia flows in the veins of slaves!’ Yes, even the blood of a Jefferson. And every southerner knows, that it is a common thing for the _posterity of our forefathers_ to be sold on the vendue tables of the South. _The posterity of our fathers_ are advertised in American papers as runaway slaves. Such advertisements often contain expressions like these: ‘has sometimes passed himself off as a _white_ man,’--‘has been mistaken for a _white_ man,’--‘_quite white_, has _straight_ hair, and would not readily be taken for a slave,’ &c.

Now, thou wilt perceive, that, so far from thinking that a slaveholder is bound by the _immoral_ and _unconstitutional_ laws of the Southern States, _we_ hold that he is solemnly bound as a man, as an American, to _break_ them, and that _immediately_ and openly; as much so, as Daniel was to pray, or Peter and John to preach--or every conscientious Quaker to refuse to pay a militia fine, or to train, or to fight. _We_ promulgate no such time-serving doctrine as that set forth by thee. When _we_ talk of immediate emancipation, we speak that we do mean, and the slaveholders understand us, if thou dost not.

Here, then, is another point in which we are entirely at variance, though the _principles_ of abolitionism are ‘generally adopted by our opposers.’ What shall I say to these things, but that I am glad thou hast afforded me an opportunity of explaining to thee what _our principles_ really are? for I apprehend that _thou_ ‘hast not been sufficiently informed in regard to the feelings and opinions’ of abolitionists.

It matters not to me what meaning ‘Dictionaries or standard writers’ may give to immediate emancipation. My Dictionary is the Bible; my standard authors, prophets and apostles. When Jehovah commanded Pharaoh to ‘let the people go,’ he meant that they should be _immediately emancipated_. I read his meaning in the judgments which terribly rebuked Pharaoh’s repeated and obstinate refusal to ‘let the people go.’ I read it in the _universal_ emancipation of near 3,000,000 of Israelites in _one awful night_. When the prophet Isaiah commanded the Jews ‘to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke,’ he taught no gradual or partial emancipation, but _immediate, universal emancipation_. When Jeremiah said, ‘Execute judgment in the MORNING, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor,’ he commanded _immediate_ deliverance. And so also with Paul, when he exhorted masters to render unto their servants that which is just and equal. Obedience to this command would _immediately_ overturn the whole system of American Slavery; for liberty is justly _due_ to every American citizen, according to the laws of God and the Constitution of our country; and a fair recompense for his labor is the right of every man. Slaveholders know this is just as well as we do. John C. Calhoun said in Congress, in 1833--‘He who _earns_ the money--who _digs it out of the earth_ with the sweat of his brow, has a _just title_ to it against the Universe. _No one_ has a right to touch it _without his consent_, except his government, and _it only_ to the extent of its _legitimate_ wants: to take more is _robbery_.’

If our fundamental principle is right, that no man can rightfully hold his fellow man as _property_, then it follows, of course, that he is bound _immediately_ to cease holding him as such, and that, too, in _violation of the immoral and unconstitutional laws_ which have been framed for the express purpose of ‘turning aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of the people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.’ Every slaveholder is bound to cease to do evil _now_, to emancipate his slaves _now_.

Dost thou ask what I mean by emancipation? I will explain myself in a few words. 1. It is ‘to reject with indignation, the wild and guilty phantasy, that man can hold _property_ in man.’ 2. To pay the laborer his hire, for he is worthy of it. 3. No longer to deny him the right of marriage, but to ‘let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband,’ as saith the apostle. 4. To let parents have their own children, for they are the gift of the Lord to _them_, and no one else has any right to them. 5. No longer to withhold the advantages of education and the privilege of reading the Bible. 6. To put the slave under the protection of equitable laws.

Now, why should not _all_ this be done immediately? Which of these things is to be done next year, and which the year after? and so on. _Our_ immediate emancipation means, doing justice and loving mercy _to-day_--and this is what we call upon every slaveholder to do.

I have seen too much of slavery to be a gradualist. I dare not, in view of such a system, tell the slaveholder, that ‘he is physically unable to emancipate his slaves.’ I say _he is able_ to let the oppressed go free, and that such heaven-daring atrocities ought to _cease now_, henceforth and forever. Oh, my very soul is grieved to find a northern woman thus ‘sewing pillows under all arm-holes,’ framing and fitting soft excuses for the slaveholder’s conscience, whilst with the same pen she is _professing_ to regard slavery as a sin. ‘An open enemy is better than such a secret friend.’

Hoping that thou mayest soon be emancipated from such inconsistency, I remain until then,

Thine _out_ of the bonds of Christian Abolitionism,

A. E. GRIMKÉ.