Chapter IX: Letter IX: Effect on the South

BROOKLINE, Mass., _8th month, 17th, 1837_.

DEAR FRIEND:--Thou sayest ‘There are cases also, where differences in age, and station, and character, forbid all interference to modify the conduct and character of others.’ Let us bring this to the only touchstone by which Christians should try their principles of action.

How was it when God designed to rid his people out of the hands of the Egyptian monarch? Was _his_ station so exalted ‘as to forbid all interference to modify his character and conduct?’ And _who_ was sent to interfere with his conduct towards a stricken people? Was it some brother monarch of exalted station, whose elevated rank might serve to excuse such interference ‘to modify his conduct and character?’ No. It was an obscure shepherd of Midian’s desert; for let us remember, that Moses, in pleading the cause of the Israelites, identified himself with the _lowest_ and _meanest_ of the King’s subjects. Ah! he was _one of that despised caste_; for, although brought up as the son of the princess, yet he had left Egypt as an outlaw. He had committed the crime of murder, and fled because the monarch ‘sought to slay him.’ This exiled outlaw is the instrument chosen by God to vindicate the cause of his oppressed people. Moses was in the sight of Pharaoh as much an object of scorn, as Garrison now is to the tyrants of America. Some seem to think, that great moral enterprises can be made honorable only by Doctors of Divinity, and Presidents of Colleges, engaging in them: when all powerful Truth cannot be dignified by _any_ man, but _it_ dignifies and ennobles all who embrace it. _It_ lifts the beggar from the dunghill, and sets him among princes. Whilst it needs no great names to bear it onward to its glorious consummation, it is continually making great characters out of apparently mean and unpromising materials; and in the intensity of its piercing rays, revealing to the amazement of many, the insignificance and _moral_ littleness of those who fill the highest stations in Church and State.

But take a few more examples from the bible, of those in high stations being reproved by men of inferior rank. Look at David rebuked by Nathan, Ahab and Jezebel by Elijah and Micaiah. What, too, was the conduct of Daniel and Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego, but a _practical_ rebuke of Darius and Nebuchadnezzar? And _who_ were these men, apart from these acts of daring interference? They were the Lord’s prophets, I shall be told; but what cared those monarchs for _this fact_? How much credit did they give them for holding this holy office? None. And why? Because all but David were impenitent sinners, and rejected with scorn all ‘interference to modify their conduct or characters.’ Reformers are rarely estimated in the age in which they live, whether they be called prophets or apostles, or abolitionists, or what not. They stand on the rock of Truth, and calmly look down upon the careering thunder-clouds, the tempest, and the roaring waves, because they well know that where the atmosphere is surcharged with pestilential vapors, a conflict of the elements _must_ take place, before it can be purified by that moral electricity, beautifully typified by the cloven tongues that sat upon _each_ of the heads of the 120 disciples who were convened on the day of Pentecost. Such men and women expect to be ‘blamed and opposed, because their measures are deemed inexpedient, and calculated to increase rather than diminish the evil to be cured.’ They know full well, that _intellectual_ greatness cannot give _moral_ perception--therefore, _those who have no clear views of the irresistibleness of moral power, cannot see the efficacy of moral means_. They say with the apostle, ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ We know full well, that northern men and women laugh at the inefficacy of Anti-Slavery measures; _but slaveholders never have ridiculed them_: not that their moral perceptions are any clearer than those of our northern opponents, but where men’s _interests_ and _lust of power_ are immediately affected by moral effort, they instinctively feel that it is so, and tremble for the result.

But suppose even that our measures were calculated to _increase_ the evils of slavery. _The measures adopted by Moses, and sanctioned by God, increased the burdens of the Israelites._ Were they, therefore, _inexpedient_? And yet, if _our_ measures produce a similar effect, O then! they are very inexpedient indeed. The truth is, when we look at Moses and his measures, we look at them in connection with the emancipation of the Israelites. The _ultimate_ and glorious success of the measures proves their wisdom and expediency. But when Anti-Slavery measures are looked at _now_, we see them long _before the end is accomplished_. We see, according to thy account, the burdens increased; but we do not yet see the triumphant march through the Red Sea, nor do we hear the song of joy and thanksgiving which ascended from Israel’s redeemed host. But canst thou not give us twenty years to complete our work? Clarkson, thy much admired model, worked twenty years; and the benevolent Colonization Society has been in operation twenty years. Just give us as long a time, or half that time, and then thou wilt be a far better judge of the expediency or inexpediency of our measures. Then thou wilt be able to look at them in connection with their success or their failure, and instead of writing a book on thy opinions and my opinions, thou canst write a _history_.

I cannot agree with thee in the sentiment, that the station of a nursery maid makes it inexpedient for her to turn reprover of the master who employs her. This is the doctrine of _modern aristocracy_, not of primitive christianity; for ecclesiastical history informs us that, in the first ages of christianity, kings were converted through the faithful and solemn rebukes of their slaves and captives. I have myself been reproved by a _slave_, and I thanked her, and still thank her for it. Think how this doctrine robs the nursery maid of her responsibility, and shields the master from reproof; for it may be that she alone has seen him ill-treat his wife. Now it appears to me, so far from her station forbidding all interference to modify the character and conduct of her employer, that that station peculiarly qualifies her for the difficult and delicate task, because nursery maids often know secrets of oppression, which no other persons are fully acquainted with. For my part, I believe it is _now the duty of the slaves of the South to rebuke their masters_ for their robbery, oppression and crime; and so far from believing that such ‘reproof would do no good, but only evil,’ I think it would be attended by the happiest results in the main, though I doubt not it would occasion some instances of severe personal suffering. No station or character can destroy individual responsibility, in the matter of reproving sin. I feel that a slave has a right to rebuke me, and so has the vilest sinner; and the sincere, humble christian will be thankful for rebuke, let it come from whom it may. Such, I am confident, never would think it inexpedient for their chamber maids to administer it, but would endeavor to profit by it.

Thou askest very gravely, why James G. Birney did not go quietly into the southern States, and collect facts? Indeed! Why should he go to the South to collect facts, when he had lived there forty years? Thou mayest with just as much propriety ask me, why I do not go to the South to collect facts. The answer to both questions is obvious:--We have lived at the South, as _integral_ parts of the system of slavery, and therefore we know from practical observation and sad experience, quite enough about it already. I think it would be absurd for either of us to spend our time in such a way. And even if J. G. Birney had not lived at the South, why should he go there to collect facts, when the Anti-Slavery presses are continually throwing them out before the public? Look, too, at the Slave Laws! What more do we need to show us the bloody hands and iron heart of Slavery?

Thou sayest on the 89th page of thy book, ‘Every avenue of approach to the South is shut. No paper, pamphlet, or preacher, that touches on that topic, is admitted in their bounds.’ Thou art greatly mistaken; every avenue of approach to the South is _not_ shut. The American Anti-Slavery Society sends between four and five hundred of its publications to the South by mail, _to subscribers_, or as exchange papers. One slaveholder in North Carolina, not long since, bought $60 worth of our pamphlets, &c. which he distributed in the slave States. Another slaveholder from Louisiana, made a large purchase of our publications last fall, which he designed to distribute among professors of religion who held slaves. To these I may add another from South Carolina, another from Richmond, Virginia, numbers from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, and others from New Orleans, besides persons connected with at least three Colleges and Theological Seminaries in slave States, have applied for our publications for their own use, and for distribution. Within a few weeks, the South Carolina Delegation in Congress have sent on an order to the publishing Agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, for all the principal bound volumes, pamphlets, and periodicals of the Society. At the same time, they addressed a very courteous letter to J. G. Birney, the Corresponding Secretary, propounding nearly a score of queries, embracing the principles, designs, plans of operation, progress and results of the Society. I know in the large cities, such as Charleston and Richmond, that Anti-Slavery papers are not suffered to reach their destination through the mail; but _it is not so_ in the smaller towns. But even in the cities, I doubt not they are read by the postmasters and others. The South may pretend that she will not read our papers, but it is all pretence; the fact is, she is very anxious to see what we are doing, so that when the mail-bags were robbed in Charleston in 1835, _I know_ that the robbers were very careful to select a few copies of each of the publications _before_ they made the bonfire, and that these were handed round in a private way through the city, so that they were _extensively read_. This fact I had from a friend of mine who was in Charleston at the time, and _read_ the publications himself. My relations also wrote me word, that they had seen and read them.

In order to show that our discussions and publications have already produced a great effect upon many individuals in the slave States, I subjoin the following detail of facts and testimony now in my possession.

My sister, S. M. Grimké, has just received a letter from a Southerner residing in the far South, in which he says, ‘On the 4th of July, the friends of the oppressed met and contributed six or eight dollars, to obtain some copies of Gerrit Smith’s letter, and some other pamphlets for our own benefit and that of the vicinity. The leaven, we think, is beginning to work, and we hope that it will ere long purify the whole mass of corruption.’

An intelligent member of the Methodist Church, who resides in North Carolina, was recently in the city of New York, and told the editor of Zion’s Watchman, that ‘our publications were read with great interest at the South--that there was great curiosity there to see them.’ A bookseller also in one of the most southern States, only a few months ago, ordered a package of our publications. And within a very short time, an influential slaveholder from the far South, who called at the Anti-Slavery Office in New York, said he had had misgivings on the subject ever since the formation of the American Society--that he saw some of our publications _at the South_ three years ago, and is now convinced and has emancipated his slaves.

A correspondent of the Union Herald, a clergyman, and a graduate of one of the colleges of Kentucky, says, ‘I find in this State _many_ who are decidedly opposed to slavery--but few indeed take the ground that it is right. I trust the cause of human rights is onward--_weekly, I receive two copies of the Emancipator_, which I send out as battering rams, to beat down the citadel of oppression.’ In a letter to James G. Birney, from a gentleman in a slave State, we find this declaration: ‘Your paper, the Philanthropist, is regularly distributed here, and as yet works no incendiary results; and indeed, so far as I can learn, general satisfaction is here expressed, both as to the temper and spirit of the paper, and no disapprobation as to the results.’ At an Anti-Slavery meeting last fall in Philadelphia, a gentleman from Delaware was present, who rose and encouraged Abolitionists to go on, and said that he could assure them the influence of their measures was felt there, and their principles were gaining ground secretly and silently. The subject, he informed them, was discussed there, and he believed Anti-Slavery lectures could be delivered there with safety, and would produce important results. Since that time, a lecturer has been into that State, and a State Society has been formed, the secretary of which was the first editor of the Emancipator, and is now pastor of the Baptist church in the capital of the State. The North Carolina Watchman, published at Salisbury, in an article on the subject of Abolition, has the following remarks of the editor: ‘It [the abolition party] is the growing party at the North: we are inclined to believe, that there is even _more of it at the South_, than prudence will permit to be openly avowed.’ It rejoices our hearts to find that there are some southerners who feel and acknowledge the infatuation of the politicians of the South, and the philanthropy of abolitionists. The Maryville Intelligencer of 1836, exclaims, ‘What sort of madness, produced by a jaundiced and distorted conception of the feelings and motives by which northern abolitionists are actuated, can induce the southern political press to urge a severance of the tie that binds our Union together? To offer rewards for those very individuals who stand as _mediators_ between masters and slaves, urging the one to be obedient, and the other to do justice?’

A southern Minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the session of the New York Annual Conference, in June of 1836, said: ‘Don’t give up Abolitionism--don’t bow down to slavery. You have thousands at the South who are secretly praying for you.’ In a subsequent conversation with the same individual, he stated, that the South is not that unit of which the pro-slavery party boast--there is a diversity of opinion among them in reference to slavery, and the REIGN OF TERROR alone suppresses the free expression of sentiment. That there are thousands who believe slaveholding to be sinful, who secretly wish the abolitionists success, and believe God will bless their efforts. That the ministers of the gospel and ecclesiastical bodies who indiscriminately denounce the abolitionists, without doing any thing themselves to remove slavery, have _not_ the thanks of thousands at the South, but on the contrary are viewed as _taking sides with slaveholders_, and _recreant to the principles of their own profession_.--_Zion’s Watchman, November, 1836._

The Christian Mirror, published in Portland, Maine, has the following letter from a minister who has lately taken up his abode in Kentucky, to a friend in Maine:--‘Several ministers have recently left the State, I believe, on account of slavery; and many of the members of churches, as I have understood, have sold their property, and removed to the free States. Many are becoming more and more convinced of the evil and _sin_ of slavery, and would gladly rid themselves and the community of this scourge; and I feel confident that influences are already in operation, which, if properly directed and regulated by the principles of the gospel, may ‘break every yoke and let the oppressed go free’ in Kentucky.

In 1st month, 1835, when Theodore D. Weld was lecturing in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at the close of one of his evening lectures, a man sought him through the crowd, and extending his hand to him through his friends, by whom he was surrounded, solicited him to step aside with him for a moment. After they had retired by themselves, the gentleman said to him with great earnestness, ‘I am a slaveholder from Maryland--_you are right--the doctrine you advocate is truth_.’ Why, then, said the lecturer, do you not emancipate your slaves? ‘Because,’ said the Marylander, ‘I have not religion enough’--He was a professing christian--‘I dare not subject myself to the torrent of opposition which, from the present state of public sentiment, would be poured upon me; but do you abolitionists go on, and you will effect a change in public sentiment, which will render it possible and easy for us to emancipate our slaves. I know,’ continued he, ‘a great many slaveholders in my State, who stand on precisely the same ground that I do in relation to this matter. _Only produce a correct public sentiment at the North and the work is done; for all that keeps the South in countenance while continuing this system, is the apology and argument afforded so generally by the North; only produce a right feeling in the North generally, and the South cannot stand before it; let the North be thoroughly converted, and the work is at once accomplished at the South._’ Another fact which may be adduced to prove that the South is looking to the North for help, is the following: At an Anti-Slavery concert of prayer for the oppressed, held in New York city, in 1836, a gentleman arose in the course of the meeting, declaring himself a Virginian and a slaveholder. He said he came to that city filled with the deepest prejudice against the abolitionists, by the reports given of their character in papers published at the North. But he determined to investigate their character and designs for himself. He even boarded in the family of an abolitionist, and attended the monthly concert of prayer for the slaves and the slaveholders. And now, as the result of his investigations and observations, he was convinced that _not only the spirit but the principles and measures of the abolitionists_ ARE RIGHTEOUS. He was now ready to emancipate his own slaves, and had commenced advocating the doctrine of immediate emancipation--‘and here,’ said he, pointing to two men sitting near him, ‘are the first fruits of my labors--these two fellow Virginians and slaveholders, are converts with myself to abolitionism. And I know a thousand Virginians, who need only to be made acquainted with the true spirit and principles of abolitionists, in order to their becoming converts as we are. _Let the abolitionists go on in the dissemination of their doctrines, and let the Northern papers cease to misrepresent them at the South--let the true light of abolitionism be fully shed upon the Southern mind, and the work of immediate and general emancipation will be speedily accomplished._‘--_Morning Star, N. Y._

A letter from a gentleman in Kentucky to Gerrit Smith, dated August, 1836, contains the following expressions:--

‘I am fully persuaded, that the voice of the free States, lifted up
in a proper manner against the evil, [Slavery] will awaken them
[slaveholders] from their midnight slumbers, and produce a happy
change. I rejoice, dear brother in Christ, to hear that you are with
us, and feel deeply to plead the cause of the oppressed, and undo
the heavy burdens. May God bless you, and the cause which you
pursue.’

In the summer of 1835, William R. Buford, of Virginia, who had then recently emancipated his slaves, wrote a letter which was published in the Hampshire Gazette, North Hampton, Mass. from which I give thee some extracts.

DEAR SIR:--As you are ardently engaged in the discussion of Slavery,
I think it likely I may be of service to you, and through you to the
cause which you are advocating. … I was born and brought up at the
South in the midst of slavery, as you know. My father inherited
slaves from his father, and I from him. So far from thinking slavery
a sin, or that I had no right to own the slaves inherited from my
father, I thought no one could venture to dispute that right, any
more than he could my right to his land or his stock. I advocated
Colonization, as I thought it on many accounts a good plan to get
rid of such colored persons as wished to go to Africa; but my
conscience as a slaveholder was not much troubled by it. Of course,
I had no tendency to make me disclaim my right to my slaves.
Abolition--immediate abolition, began afterwards to be discussed in
various parts of the country. My right to the slaves I owned began
to be disputed. I had to defend myself. In vain did I say I
inherited my slaves from a pious father, who seemed to be governed
in his dealings by a sense of duty to his slaves. In vain did I say
that nearly all my property consisted in slaves, and to free them
would make me a poor man. My duty to emancipate was still urged. At
length my eyes were opened--partly by the arguments used by the
abolitionists: but mainly, by long being compelled _by them_ to
examine the subject for myself. No longer could I close my eyes to
the evils of slavery, nor could I any longer despise the
abolitionists, ‘the only true friends of their country and kind.’ I
now think, I know, I have no more right to own slaves, whether I
inherited them or not, than I have to encourage the African slave
trade. By declaring this sentiment, I expect and design to abet the
cause of Abolition at the North, and through the North the
emancipation of the slaves at the South. I know that in doing this,
I condemn the South. No one can suppose, however, that I have any
unkind feelings towards the South. All my relatives live in the
slaveholding States, and are almost all slaveholders.

I think the abolitionists have done, and are doing a great deal of
good, by holding slavery up to the public gaze. Sentiment at the
North on the subject of slavery must have the same effect on the
South, that their opinions have on any other matter.’

The writer of the foregoing is, as I am told, still a resident of Virginia, where he has long been known, and is highly respected.

In the 11th month, 1835, the United States Telegraph, published at Washington city, contains the following remarks by the Editor, Duff Green.

‘We are of those who believe the South has nothing to fear from a
servile war. We do not believe that the abolitionists intend, nor
could they if they would, excite the slaves to insurrection. The
danger of this is remote. We believe that we have most to fear from
the _organised action upon the consciences_ and fears of the
slaveholders themselves; _from the insinuations of their dangerous
heresies into our schools, our pulpits, and our domestic circles. It
is only by alarming the consciences of the weak and feeble, and
diffusing among our own people a morbid sensibility on the question
of slavery, that the abolitionists can accomplish their object._
PREPARATORY TO THIS, they are now laboring to saturate the
non-slaveholding States with the belief that slavery is a ‘sin
against God.’ We must meet the question in all its bearings. We must
SATISFY THE CONSCIENCES, we must allay the fears of our own people.
We must satisfy them that slavery is of itself right--that it is not
a sin against God--that it is not an evil, moral or political. To do
this, we must discuss the subject of slavery itself. We must examine
its bearing upon the moral, political, and religious institutions of
the country. In this way, and this way only, can we prepare our own
people to _defend their own institutions_.’

In another number of the same paper, the Editor says,

‘We hold that our sole reliance is on ourselves; that we have _most
to fear from the gradual operation on public opinion among
ourselves_; and that those are the most insidious and dangerous
invaders of our rights and interests, who, coming to us in the guise
of friendship, endeavor to _persuade_ us that slavery is a sin, a
curse, an evil. It is not true that the South sleeps on a
volcano--that we are afraid to go to bed at night--that we are
fearful of murder and pillage. _Our greatest cause of apprehension
is from the operation of the morbid sensibility which appeals to
the consciences of our own people_, and would make them the
voluntary instruments of their own ruin.’

In 1835, I think about the close of the year, a series of articles on Slavery appeared in the Lexington (Kentucky) Intelligencer. In one of the numbers, the writer says:--

‘Much of the preceding matter was inserted (May, 1833) in the
Louisville Herald. A _great change_ has since taken place in public
sentiment. Colonization, then a favorite measure, is now rejected
for instant emancipation. Were this last feasible, I would gladly
join its advocates,’ &c.

In a letter to the publisher of the Emancipator, dated ‘April 1, 1837,’ from a Southerner, I find the following language:--

‘Though a ---- born and bred, I now consider the Anti-Slavery cause
as a just and holy one. Deep reflection, the reading of your
excellent publications, and--years of travel in Europe, have made
me, what I am now proud to call myself, an abolitionist.

‘For the present, accept the assurances of my unswerving devotion to
the cause of liberty and justice. Any letter from yourself will
always give me sincere pleasure, and whenever I go to New York, I
shall call upon you, _sans ceremonie_, as I would upon an old
friend.’

A short time since, J. G. Birney received a donation of $20 for the Anti-Slavery Society, from an individual residing in a slave State, accompanied with a request that his name might not be mentioned.

About the time of the robbery of the U. S. Mail, and the burning of Abolition papers by the infatuated citizens of my own city, the Editor of the Charleston Courier made the following remarks in his paper, which plainly reveal the cowering of the spirit of slavery, under the searching scrutiny occasioned by the Anti-Slavery discussions in the free States.

‘_Mart for Negroes._--We understand that a proposition is before the
city council, relative to the establishment of a mart for the sale
of negroes in this city, in a place _more remote from observation_,
and less offensive to the public eye, than the one now used for that
purpose. We doubt not that the proposition before the council will
be acceptable to the community, and that it may be so matured as to
promote public decency, without prejudice to the interest of
individuals.’

Hear, too, the acknowledgement of the Southern Literary Review, published at Charleston, South Carolina, which was got up in 1837, to sustain the system of Slavery.

‘There are _many_ good men even among us, who have begun to grow
_timid_. They think that what the virtuous and high-minded men of
the North look upon as a crime and a plague-spot, cannot be
perfectly innocent or quite harmless in a slaveholding community. …
Some timid men among us, whose ears have been long assailed with
outcries of tyranny and oppression, wafted over the ocean and land
from North to South, begin to look _fearfully_ around them.’

A correspondent of the Pittsburgh Witness, detailing the particulars of an Anti-Slavery meeting in Washington co. Pennsylvania, says:--

‘After Dr. Lemoyne, the President of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery
Society, had finished his address, in which the principles and
measures of the Anti-Slavery Society were fully exhibited, the Rev.
Charles Stewart, of Kentucky, a slaveholding clergyman of the
Presbyterian church, who was casually present, rose and addressed
the audience, and instead of opposing our principles as might have
been expected, fully endorsed every thing that had been said,
declaring his conviction that such a speech would have been well
received by the truly religious part of the community in which he
resided, and would have been opposed only by those who were actuated
by party politics alone, or those who ‘neither feared God nor
regarded man.’

I give thee now a letter from a gentleman in a South Western slaveholding State, to J. G. BIRNEY.

‘_Very Dear Sir_:--I knew you in the days of your prosperity at the
South, though you will not recognize me. Ever since you first took
your stand in defence of _natural rights_, I have been looking upon
you with intense interest. I _was_ violently opposed to
Abolitionists, and verily thought I was doing service to both church
and State, in decrying them as _incendiaries_ and _fanatics_. What
blindness and infatuation! Yet I was _sincere_. Ah! my dear sir, God
in mercy has taught me that something more than _sincerity_, in the
common acceptation of the term, is necessary to preserve our
understandings from idiocy, and our hearts from utter ruin. How
could I have been such a _madman_, as coolly and composedly to place
my foot upon the necks of immortal beings, and from that horrid
point of elevation, hurl the deep curses of church and State at the
heads of----whom? Fanatics? No, sir!--_but of the only persons on
the face of the earth, who had HEART enough to FEEL, and SOUL
enough to ACT, in behalf of the RIGHTS OF MAN_! Yet I was just
such a madman! Yes, sir, I was a _fanatic_, and an _incendiary_
too--setting on fire the worst passions of our fallen nature. But I
have repented. I have become a convert to political, and I trust,
also, to _Christian Freedom_. The spectacle exhibited by yourself,
and your compatriots and fellow-christians, has completely overcome
me. Your reasonings convince my judgment, and your ACTIONS win my
heart. God speed you in your work of love! The hopes of the world
depend, under God, upon the success of your cause.

Very respectfully and with undying affection,

Your friend and brother,

A SOUTHERNER.’

Another of J. G. Birney’s southern correspondents says, in 1836,

‘That portion of the Church with which I am connected, seem to have
no sympathy with the indignation against the abolitionists, which
prevails so extensively North and South; but, on the other hand,
consider the _South_ as _infatuated_ to the highest degree.

There is more credit for philanthropy given those who manumit their
slaves, without _expatriation_, than formerly.

The thirst for information is increasing, while the ‘_non
liquetism_’ [voting on neither side] of brethren in church courts is
becoming less and less satisfactory; and such of them as advocate
the perpetuity of the system, are looked upon with surprise and
regret.

Those who view with horror the traffic in slaves by ministers of the
gospel, express more freely their pain at its indulgence, _than I
have ever known_. I am acquainted with several such cases. In no
instances have they left the brother’s standing where it was, before
it took place. Of such cases--even those, too, where the usual
allowances might be called for--I have heard professors of religion
remark, ‘Mr. A. could not get an audience to hear him preach’--‘Mr.
B. has more assurance than I could have, to preach, after selling my
slaves as he has done’--‘He can never make me believe he has any
religion’--‘This is the first time you have done so, but repeat it,
and I think I shall never hear you preach again.’

These remarks were made by slaveholding professors of religion themselves, and under circumstances neither calculated nor intended to deceive.

The following letter was written by an intelligent gentleman in the interior of Alabama, to Arthur Tappan, of New York, who had sent him some Anti-Slavery publications. The date is March 21, 1834.

‘Dear Sir--Your letter of Dec. last, I read with much interest. The
numbers of the Anti-Slavery Reporter, also, which you were so kind
as to send me, I carefully examined, and put them in circulation.

Your operations have produced considerable excitement in some
sections of this country, but humanity has lost nothing. The more
the subject of slavery is agitated, the better. A distinguished
gentleman remarked to me a day or two since, that ‘there was a great
change going on in public sentiment.’ Few would acknowledge that it
was to be ascribed to the influence of your Society. There can be no
doubt, however, that this is directly and indirectly the principal
cause.’

During the same year, the Editor of the New York Evangelist received a letter from a christian friend in North Carolina, from which I give thee an extract.

_To the Editor of the Evangelist_--

‘The subject of slavery, recently brought up and discussed in your
paper, is the one which elicits the following remarks.

In the first place I will state, that I entertain very different
views _now_, to what I did six months ago. I was among those who
thought (and honestly too) that there was no more moral guilt
attached to the holding our fellow beings in bondage, regarding them
as property, than to the holding of a mule or an ox. It was natural
enough for me to think so, for I had been trained from my very
infancy to view the subject in no other light. I shall never forget
my feelings when the subject was first hit upon in the Evangelist. I
became angry, and was disposed to attribute sinister motives to all
who were concerned in the matter. With some others, I determined to
stop the paper forthwith.

Though I made every effort to turn my mind away from the subject, my
conscience in spite of me began to awake, and to be troubled. The
word of God was resorted to, with the hope of finding something to
bring peace and quietude, but all in vain. It was but adding fuel to
the flame. I determined, let others do as they would, to meet the
subject, to examine it in all its bearings, and to abide the result;
and if it should be found that God regards slavery as an evil, and
incompatible with the gospel, I would give it up. If not, I should
be made wiser without incurring any harm by the investigation.

In the very nature of God’s dealings with men, this subject must and
will be agitated, until conviction shall be brought home to the
heart and conscience of every man, and _slavery shall be banished
from our land_. And woe be to him who wilfully closes his eyes, and
stops his ears against the light of God’s truth.’

In 8th month of the same year, the same paper contained the following extract from another correspondent in North Carolina.

---- N. C. JULY 9, 1834.

‘Rev. and dear Sir--If I owe an apology for intruding on you, and
introducing myself, I must find it in the fact, that I wish to bid
you God speed in the good cause in which you are so heartily
engaged. While so many at the North are opposing, I wish to cheer
you by one voice from the South. If it is unpopular to plead the
cause of the oppressed negro in New York, how dangerous to be known
as his friend in the far South, where, as a correspondent in the
Evangelist justly observes, a minister cannot enforce the law of
love, without being suspected of favoring emancipation. I am glad
the people with you are beginning to feel and to act. I pray God
that you may go on with all the light and love of the gospel, and
that the cry of ‘Let us alone,’ will not frighten you from your
labor of love.’

James A. Thome, a Presbyterian clergyman, a native, and still a resident of Kentucky, said in a speech at New York, at the Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1834:

‘Under all these disadvantages, you are doing much. The very little
leaven which you have been enabled to introduce, is now working with
tremendous power. One instance has lately occurred within my
acquaintance, of an heir to slave property--a young man of growing
influence, who was first awakened by reading a single number of the
Anti-Slavery Reporter, sent to him by some unknown hand. He is now a
whole-hearted abolitionist. I have facts to show that cases of this
kind are by no means rare. A family of slaves in Arkansas Territory,
another in Tennessee, and a third, consisting of 88, in Virginia,
were successively emancipated through the influence of one abolition
periodical. Then do not hesitate as to duty. Do not pause to
consider the propriety of interference. It is as unquestionably the
province of the North to labor in this cause, as it is the duty of
the church to convert the world. The call is urgent--it is
imperative. We want light. The ungodly are saying, ‘the church will
not enlighten us.’ The church is saying, ‘the ministry will not
enlighten us.’ The ministry is crying, ‘Peace--take care.’ We are
altogether covered in gross darkness. We appeal to you for light.
Send us facts--send us kind remonstrance and manly reasoning. We are
perishing for lack of truth. We have been lulled to sleep by the
guilty apologist.’

A letter from a Post Master in Virginia, to the editor of ‘Human Rights,’ dated August 15, 1835, contains the following:--

‘I have received two numbers of Human Rights, and one of The
Emancipator. I have read and loaned them, had them returned, and
loaned again. I can see no unsoundness in the arguments there
advanced--and until I can see some evil in your publications, I
shall distribute all you send to this office. It is certainly high
time this subject was examined, and viewed in its proper light. I
know these publications will displease those who hold their fellow
men in bondage: but reason, truth and justice are on your side--and
why should you seek the good will of any who do evil?

I would be pleased to have a copy of the last Report of the Am.
Anti-Slavery Society, if convenient, and some of your other
pamphlets, which you have to distribute gratis. I will read and use
them to the best advantage.’

A gentleman of Middlesex County, Mass. whose house is one of my New England homes, told me that he had very recently met with a slaveholder from the South, who, during a warm discussion on the subject of slavery, made the following acknowledgment: ‘The worst of it is, _we have fanatics among ourselves_, and we don’t know what to do with them, for they are _increasing fast_, and are sustained in their opposition to slavery by the Abolitionists of the North.’

A Baptist clergyman whom I met in Worcester County, Mass., a few months since, told me that his brother-in-law, a lawyer of New Orleans, who had recently paid him a visit, took up the Report of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, and read it with great interest. He then inquired, whether the principles set forth in that document were Anti-Slavery principles. Upon being informed that they were, he expressed his entire approbation of them, and full conviction that they would prevail as soon as the South understood them; for, said he, they are the principles of truth and justice, and must finally triumph. This gentleman requested to be furnished with some of our publications, and carried them to the South with him.

There certainly can be no doubt to a reflecting and candid mind, as to what will and _must_ be the result of Anti-Slavery operations. Hear now the opinion of one of the leading political papers in Charleston, South Carolina, the Southern Patriot.

‘While agitation is _permitted_ in Congress, there is _no security
for the South_. While discussion is _allowed_ in that body, year
after year, in relation to slavery and its incidents, the rights of
property at the South _must, in the lapse of a short period, be
undermined_. It is the weapon of all who expect to work out _great
changes in public opinion_. It was the instrument by which O’CONNELL
gradually shook the fabric of popular prejudice in England on the
Catholic question. His sole instrument was agitation, both in
Parliament and out of it. His constant counsel to his followers was,
agitate! agitate! They did agitate. They happily carried the
question of Catholic rights.

Agitation may be successfully employed for a bad as well as good
cause. What was the weapon of the English abolitionists?--Agitation.
Regard the question of the abolition of the slave trade when first
brought into Parliament--behold the influence of PITT and the tory
party beating down its advocates by an overwhelming majority! Look
at the question of abolition itself, twenty years after, and you see
WILBERFORCE and his adherents carrying the question itself of
_abolition of slavery_, by a majority as triumphant! How was all
this accomplished?--By agitation in Parliament! It was on this ample
theatre that the abolitionists worked their fatal spells. It was on
this wide stage of discussion that they spoke to the people of
England in that voice of fanaticism, which, at length, found an echo
that suited their purposes. It was through the debates, which
circulated by means of the press throughout every corner of the
realm, that they carried that question to its extremest borders, to
the hamlet of every peasant in the empire. Can it then be expected,
if we give the American abolitionists the same advantage of that
wide field of debate which Congress affords, that the _same results_
will not follow? The local legislatures are limited theatres of
action. Their debates are comparatively obscure. These are not read
by the people at large. Allow the agitators a great political
centre, like that of Washington--_permit_ them to address their
voice of fanatical violence to the whole American people, through
their diffusive press, and they want no greater advantage. They have
a MORAL LEVER BY WHICH THEY CAN MOVE A WORLD OF OPINION.

The course of the southern States is therefore marked out by a
pencil of light. They should obtain additional guarantees against
_the discussion of slavery in Congress, in any manner, or in any of
its forms, as it exists in the United States_. This is the only
means that promises success in removing agitation. We have said that
this is the accepted time. When we look at the spread of opinion on
this subject in some of the eastern States--in Vermont,
Massachusetts and Connecticut--what are we to expect in a few years,
in the middle States, should discussion proceed in Congress? These
States are yet uninfected, in any considerable degree, by the
fanatical spirit. _They may not remain so after a lapse of five
years._ If they are animated by a true spirit of patriotism--by a
genuine love for the Union, they should, and could with effect,
interpose to stay this _moral_ pestilence. Their voice in this
matter would be influential. New York and Pennsylvania are
intermediate between the South and East in position and in physical
strength.’

Samuel L. Gould, a minister of the Baptist denomination, writing to the Secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, from Fayette County, Pennsylvania, in 4th month, 1836, says:--

‘The Smithfield Anti-Slavery Society, [on the border of Virginia]
has among its members, several residents of Virginia. Its President
has been a slaveholder, and until recently, was a distinguished
citizen of Virginia, the High Sheriff of Rockingham County. Having
become convinced of the wickedness of slaveholding, a little more
than a year ago he purchased an estate in Pennsylvania, and removed
to it, his colored men accompanying him. He now employs them as
hired laborers.’

I may mention, in this connection, an Alabama slaveholder, a lawyer named Smith, who emancipated his slaves, I think about twenty in number, a few months since. He was the brother-in-law of William Allan of Huntsville, who was in 1834, president of the Lane Seminary Anti-Slavery Society, and subsequently an agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, and who had for years previous been in kind and faithful correspondence with him on the subject of slavery.

Henry P. Thompson, a student of Lane Seminary, and a slaveholder at the time of the Anti-Slavery discussion in that Institution, was convinced by it, went to Kentucky, and emancipated his slaves.

Arthur Thome, an elder in the Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Kentucky, emancipated his slaves, fourteen in number, about two years since. J. G. Birney, speaking of him in the Philanthropist, says:--

‘For a long time he had been a professor of religion, but had not,
till the doctrines of abolition were embraced by his son on the
discussion of the subject at Lane Seminary, given to the subject
more attention than was usual among slaveholding professors at the
time. At first he thought his son was deranged--and that his
intended trip to New York, to speak at the anniversary of the
American Anti-Slavery Society, was evidence of it. He sought him (as
we have heard,) on the steamboat, which was to convey him up the
Ohio river, that he might stop him from going. Something, however,
prevented his seeing his son before his departure, and there was no
detention.

The truth bore on the mind of Mr. T. till it produced its proper
fruit--and he now says, that he is confident no other doctrine but
that of the SIN of slaveholding, connected with an _immediate_
breaking off from it, will influence the slaveholder to do justice.’

I see by the late Washington papers, that one of my South Carolina cousins, Robert Barnwell Rhett, the late Attorney General of the State, has come up to my help on this point, with his characteristic chivalry; [howbeit ‘he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so.’] In his late address to his Congressional Constituents, he says:--

‘Who that knows anything of human affairs, but must be sensible that
the subject of abolition may be approached in a thousand ways,
without direct legislation? By perpetual discussion, agitation and
threats, accompanied with the real or imaginary power to perform,
_there will be need of no other action than words to shake the
confidence of men in the safety and continuance of the institution
of slavery, and its value and existence will be destroyed_. These
are all the weapons the abolitionist desires to be allowed to use to
accomplish his purpose. When Congress moves, it will be the last act
in the drama; and it will be prepared to enforce its legislation. To
acknowledge the right, or to tolerate the act of interference at all
with this institution, is to give it up--to abandon it entirely;
and, as this must be the consummation of any interference, the
sooner it is reached the better. The South must hold this
institution, not amidst alarm and molestation, but in peace--perfect
peace, from the interference or agitation of others; or, I repeat
it, she _will_--she _can_--hold it not at all. … There is no one so
weak, but he must perceive that, whilst the spirit of abolition in
the North is increasing, slavery in the South, in all the frontier
States, is decreasing.’

Farther, I may add the names of J. G. Birney of Alabama, John Thompson and a person named Meux, Jassamine County, Kentucky, J. M. Buchanan, Professor in Center College, Kentucky, Andrew Shannon, a Presbyterian minister in Shelbyville, Kentucky, Samuel Taylor, a Presbyterian minister of Nicholasville, Kentucky, Peter Dunn of Mercer County, Kentucky, a person named Doake in Tennessee, another named Carr in North Carolina, another named Harndon in Virginia--with a number of others, the particulars of whose cases I have not now by me, all of whom were slaveholders four years since, and were induced to emancipate their slaves through the influence of Anti-Slavery discussions and periodicals.

The Democrat, a political paper published at Rochester, New York, contained the following in the summer of 1835.

‘On Saturday last, many of our citizens had an opportunity of
witnessing a noble scene. On board the boat William Henry, then
lying at the Exchange street wharf, were TEN SLAVES, or those who
had recently been such, and several free persons of color. The
master, a gentleman of more than seventy years of age, accompanied
them. His residence was in Powhattan County, seventy miles below
Richmond, Virginia. He was on his way to Buffalo, near which place
he intends purchasing a large farm, where his ‘people,’ as he calls
them, are to be settled. The above named gentleman was led to
sacrifice much of this world’s lucre, besides some $5000 of _human
‘property,’_ by becoming convinced of the sinfulness of his practice
while reading _Anti-Slavery publications_.’

A letter now lies before me from an elder of a religious denomination in the far South-West, who was converted to Abolition sentiments by Anti-Slavery publications sent to him from the city of New York, and who has already emancipated his slaves, ten in number. The writer says, ‘my hopes are revived when I read of the progress of the cause in the Eastern States, and of the increase of Anti-Slavery Societies. My soul glows with gratitude to God for his mercy to the down-trodden slaves, in raising up for them in these days of savage cruelty, hundreds who, fearless of consequences, are standing up for the entire abolition of slavery, whom, though unseen, I dearly love. O! how it would delight me to listen to the public addresses of some of these dear friends.’

Hear, too, the reason assigned by James Smylie, a Presbyterian minister of the Amite Presbytery, Mississippi, for writing a book in 1836, to prove that slavery is a divine institution.

‘From his intercourse with religious societies of _all_
denominations in Mississippi and Louisiana, he was aware that the
Abolition maxim, viz: that _Slavery is in itself sinful, had gained
on and entwined itself among the religious and conscientious
scruples of many_ in the community, so far as to render them
_unhappy_. The eye of the mind, resting on Slavery itself as a
_corrupt fountain_, from which, of necessity, _nothing but corrupt_
streams could flow, was _incessantly_ employed in search of some
plan by which, with safety, the fountain could, in some future time,
be _entirely_ dried up.’ An illustration of this important
acknowledgement, will be found in the following fact, extracted from
the Herald of Freedom: ‘A young gentleman who has been residing in
South Carolina, says our movements (Abolitionists) are producing the
best effects upon the South, _rousing the consciences of
Slaveholders_, while the slaves seem to be impressed as a body with
the idea, that help is coming--that an interest is felt for them,
and plans devising for their relief somewhere--which keeps them
quiet. He says it is not uncommon for ministers and good people to
make confession like this. One, riding with him, broke forth, ‘O, I
fear that the groans and wails from our slaves enter into the ear of
the Lord of Sabaoth. I am distressed on this subject: my
_conscience_ will let me have no peace. I go to bed, but not to
sleep. I walk my room in agony, and resolve that I will never hold
slaves another day; but in the morning, my heart, like Pharaoh’s, is
hardened.’

In the autumn of 1835, an influential minister in one of the most southern States, (who only one year before had stoutly defended slavery, and vehemently insisted that northern abolitionists were producing unmixed and irremediable evil at the South,) wrote to the Corresponding Secretary of one of our State Anti-Slavery Societies who had furnished him with Anti-Slavery publications, avowing his conversion to Abolition sentiments, and praying that Anti-Slavery Societies might persevere in their efforts, and increase them. Among other expressions of strong feeling the letter contained the following:

‘I am greatly surprised that I should in any form have been the
apologist of a system so full of deadly poison to all holiness and
benevolence as slavery, the concocted essence of fraud, selfishness,
and cold-hearted tyranny, and the fruitful parent of unnumbered
evils, both to the oppressor and the oppressed, THE ONE THOUSANDTH
PART OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT.

‘Do you ask why this change, after residing in a slave country for
twenty years? You remember the lines of Pope, beginning:

‘Vice is a monster, of so frightful mien
As to be hated, needs but to be seen,
But seen too oft, _familiar_ with her face;
We first endure, then pity, then _embrace_.’

‘I had become so familiar with the loathsome features of slavery,
that they _ceased to offend_--besides, I had become a _southern man_
in all my feelings, and it is a part of our _creed_ to defend
slavery.’

About two years since, Arthur and Lewis Tappan received a letter from a Virginian slaveholder, who held nearly one hundred slaves, and whose conscience had been greatly roused to the sin of slavery. In the letter, he avowed his determination to absolve himself from the guilt of slaveholding, declaring that he ‘had rather be a wood cutter or a coal heaver, than to _remain in the midst of slavery_.’

An intelligent gentleman, a lawyer and a citizen of the District of Columbia, has just written a letter to a gentleman of New York city, from which I give thee the following extract:

‘The proceedings in Congress at this session have had the effect, I
think, to rouse the attention of the public in all quarters, to the
subject of slavery; and that, of itself, I think is a good: and it
is in my opinion the chief present good that is to grow out of it.
Discussion of some sort takes place, and the real foundation on
which the system rests, cannot but be brought more or less into
view. My hope is, that men who _denounce_ now, will at length
_reason_. That is what is wanted--reasoning, reflection, and a true
perception of the basis on which slavery is founded.’

The foregoing are but a few of the facts and testimonies in the possession of Abolitionists, showing that their discussions, periodicals, petitions, arguments, appeals and societies, have extensively moved, and are still mightily moving the slaveholding States--_for good_. Did time and space permit, I might, by a little painstaking, procure many more. Before passing from this part of the subject, I must record my amazement at the clamors of many of the opponents of Abolitionists, from whom better things might indeed be hoped. What slaveholders have you convinced? they demand. Whom have you made Abolitionists? Give us their names and places of abode. Now, those who incessantly stun us with such unreasonable clamor, know full well, that to give the public the names and residences of such persons, would be in most instances to surrender them to butchery. But be it known to the North and to the South, we have names of scores of citizens of the slaveholding states, many of them slaveholders, who are in constant correspondence with us, persons who feel so deeply on the subject as to implore us to persevere in our efforts, and not to be dismayed by Southern threats nor disheartened by Northern cavils and heartlessness. Yea more, these persons have committed to us the custody even of their lives, thus encountering imminent peril that they might cheer us onward in our work. Shall we betray their trust, or put them in jeopardy? Judge thou.

Now let me ask, when in former years Anti-Slavery tracts, with our doctrines, could be circulated at the South? The fact is, there were _none_ to be circulated there; our principle of repentance is quite new. But I can tell thee of two facts, which it is probable thou ‘hast not been informed of.’ In the year 1809, the steward of a vessel, a colored man, carried some Abolition pamphlets to Charleston. Immediately on his arrival, he was informed against, and would have been tried for his life, had he not promised to leave the State, never to return. Was South Carolina willing to receive abolition pamphlets _then_? Again, in 1820, my sister carried some pamphlets there--‘Thoughts on Slavery,’ issued by the Society of Friends, and therefore _not_ very incendiary, thou mayest be assured; and yet she was informed some time afterwards, that had it not been for the influence of our family, she would have been imprisoned; for she, too, was accused of giving one of them to a slave; just as Abolitionists have been falsely charged with sending their papers to the enslaved. What she did give away, she was _obliged_ to give _privately_. Was Charleston ready to receive Abolition pamphlets _then_? Or when? please to tell me. I say that _more_, far more Anti-Slavery tracts, &c. are _now_ read in the South, than ever were at any former period. As to Colonization tracts, I know they have circulated at the South; but what of that, when Southerners believed that Colonization had _no_ connection with the overthrow of Slavery? Colonization papers, &c. are not Abolition papers.

As to preachers, let me assure thee, that they _never_ have dared to preach on the subject of slavery in my native city, so far as my knowledge extends. Ah! I for some years sat under two _northern_ ministers, but never did I hear them preach in public, or speak in private, on the _sin_ of slavery. O! the _deep_, DEEP injury which such unfaithful ministers have inflicted on the South! It is well known that our young men have, to a great extent, been educated in Northern Theological Seminaries. With what principles were _their_ minds imbued? What kind of religion did the _North_ prepare them to preach? A slaveholding religion. What kind of religion did _northern men_ come down and preach to us? A slaveholding religion--and multitudes of them became slaveholders. Such was one of my _northern_ pastors. And yet thou tellest me, the North has nothing to do with slavery at the South--is _not_ guilty, &c. &c. ‘Their own clergy,’ thou sayest, ‘either entirely hold their peace, or become the defenders of a system they once lamented, and attempted to bring to an end.’ Do name to me one of those valiant defenders of slavery, who formerly lamented over the system, and attempted to bring it to an end. ‘What is his name, or what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?’ Strange indeed, if, because _we_ advocate the truth, others should begin to hate it; or because we expose sin, they should turn round and defend what once they lamented over! Is this in accordance with ‘the known laws of mind,’ where principle is deeply rooted in the heart?

And then thou closest these assertions _without proof_, with the triumphant exclamation, ‘This is the record of experience, as to the tendencies of abolitionism, as thus far developed. The South is just now in that state of high exasperation, at the sense of wanton injury and _impertinent interference_, which makes the influence of truth and reason most useless and powerless.’ Hadst thou been better informed as to the real tendencies of abolitionism on the South, this assertion also might have been spared. Again I repeat, the _South_ does not tell us so. Read the subjoined extract of a letter now lying before me from a correspondent in a _Southern_ State. ‘12 or 15 at this place believe that _all_ men are born free and equal, that _prejudice against color is a disgrace to the man who feels it_, that such a feeling is without foundation in reason or scripture, and ought to be abandoned _immediately_, that slavery is a _malum in se_, yea, a _heinous crime_ in the sight of God, to be repented of _without delay_.’ Read also the following, extracted from the Marietta Gazette: ‘A citizen of one of the free states, not many months ago, observed to a distinguished southerner, that the operations of the abolitionists were impeding the cause of emancipation--or to that effect. ‘Sir,’ said the Southerner, ‘You are mistaken. Depend upon it, these agitations have put the slaveholders to very serious thinking.’ These, then, are the effects which Abolitionism is producing on some at the South. That others are exasperated, I do not deny. Hear what Bolling of Virginia said in 1832, in the Legislature of that State: ‘It has long been the pleasure of those who are wedded to the system of slavery, to brand _all_ its opponents with opprobrious epithets; to represent them as enemies to order, as persons desirous of tearing up the foundation of society thereby endeavoring to brand them with infamy in order to avert from them the public ear.’ Here then we find a Southern Legislator acknowledging that _all_ the opponents of Slavery have ever excited the same exasperation in those who are ‘wedded to the system.’ Who is to be blamed? Is _this_ any cause of discouragement? That we have succeeded in rousing the North to reflection, thou art thyself a living proof; for let me ask, what it was that set _thee_ to such serious thinking, as to induce _thee_ to write a _book_ on the Slave Question?

Thy friend in haste,

A. E. GRIMKÉ.