1(2)r

Anti-Slavery Catechism.

Question. Why do you consider it a duty to preach
and publish abolition doctrines?

Answer. First, I consider it my duty as a Christian;
for the system of slavery, as a whole, and in each one of
its details, is in direct opposition to the precepts of the
gospel. Secondly, I consider it my duty as a conscientious
citizen of this republic; for I believe slavery is prejudicial
to the best interests of my country; and I dare
not hope that God’s blessing will rest upon us, if we persevere
in our iniquity.

Q. But the abolitionists are accused of showing the
worst side of slavery. Is it not true that they seek to
give an exaggerated idea of its evils?

A. I believe every man, who candidly examines the
subject, will come to the conclusion, that every side appears
to be the worst side. Allow me to give a brief
statement of the case. Between two and three millions
of people are compelled to labor without wages. They
gain nothing more by working ten hours than they would
by working one hour. It is not in human nature that
they should be disposed to be industrious under these circumstances.
They try to do as little as possible. The
chief part of the labor that is got out of their bones and
sinews is obtained by fear of the whip. A peck of corn a
week is the usual allowance for the food of a slave. The
planters generally estimate that a slave can be fed and
clothed at the expense of from fifteen to twenty dollars a
year. The following is the printed testimony of Thomas
Clay, of Georgia, himself a slave-holder, though reputed
to be an amiable, conscientious man: “A peck of corn
per week, if it be sound flint corn, is sufficient to sustain 1(2)v 4
health and strength under moderate labor. But there is
often a defect in the quality, and the quantity is then insufficient.
The present economy of the slave system is to
get all you can from the slave, and give in return as little
as will barely support him in a working condition. Even
where there is not direct intention to abridge his comforts,
they are but little consulted; and the slave, seeing his
master wholly engrossed by his own advantage, naturally
adopts the same selfish course, and, when not restrained
by higher principles, becomes deceitful and selfish.”

Q. If Mr. Thomas Clay is a good man, and really
thinks slavery so bad in its effects, why does he not emancipate
his own slaves?

A. If you were to ask him, I suppose he would give an
answer very common among planters. He would tell you
that he could not do it, because the laws of the state in
which he lives impose such heavy penalties, that the process
of emancipation is extremely difficult and expensive.

Q. Who makes the laws of the Southern States?

A. The slave-holders themselves. When I hear a man
say that he would gladly emancipate his slaves, if the
laws would allow it, it makes me think of an anecdote I
have often heard. A little girl had been ordered to perform
some household work in the absence of her mother.
When the parent returned, and saw that her orders had
not been obeyed, she said, “My child, why have you not
done as I bid you?” The little girl replied, “I should
have been glad to do it, mother; but I could not. Don’t
you see I am tied?” “And pray tell who tied you?” inquired
the mother. “I tied myself,” was the reply. Now
this is plainly the case with the slave-holders. They make
oppressive laws, and persist in upholding those laws, and
then say, “I would do my duty, if I could; but the laws
will not permit it.”

Q. Do the slaves have to work all the time?

A. In some states the laws ordain that slaves shall not
be compelled to work more than fourteen hours a day,
from September to March, nor more than fifteen hours a
day, from March to September; and it is reasonable to
conclude that there would have been no necessity for
making such a law, unless some masters did compel their
slaves to toil beyond the specified hours. Convicts, who
are imprisoned for crime, are not obliged to work more 1(3)r 5
than ten hours a day, and are better fed than the slaves.
It is an extraordinary thing for a slave to be sent to the
state prison for an offence. Instead of punishment, it
would in fact be a melioration of his lot.

Q. But I have been told that the slaves sometimes
work for themselves.

A. When they happen to have kind masters, they are
sometimes allowed a part of the time to earn something
for themselves; but the laws are extremely inefficient for
the protection of property thus acquired. If a white man
sees fit to seize the products of their industry, the law in
most cases affords no redress; because in slave states a
colored man is never allowed to give evidence against a
white man, under any circumstances. Any note of hand,
or written contract with a slave is worth no more than a
promissory note to a dog; because no slave can bring an
action at law. In several of the states, a slave is liable to
punishment if it is ascertained that he has acquired any
property.

Q. I have been told that masters are allowed to kill
their slaves. Can this be true?

A. The laws do indeed nominally consider the killing
of a slave as murder; but no instance has ever been recorded
of a white man executed for killing a slave. One
law on this subject has the following strange qualification:
“Except said slave die of moderate punishment.” As if
any punishment, that occasioned death, could be moderate!
If a hundred blacks or mulattoes, either bond or free, should
see a slave murdered, it avails nothing against the murderer;
because the laws of slave states do not allow a colored
person, under any circumstances, to testify against a
white man. The laws of South Carolina favor the master
to such a degree, that when accused of murdering a slave,
he may be absolved simply upon his own oath, that he did
not commit the crime!

Q. But I am told that white men are not unfrequently
prosecuted for cruelty to slaves; and this looks as if the
laws afforded the poor creatures some protection.

A. I have read not a few Reports of Cases in Southern
Courts; and those reports did more than any thing else
to make me an abolitionist. Prosecutions are always
brought for the master’s interest—never for the protection
or redress of the slave. In Martin’s Louisiana Reports 1* 1(3)v 6 18181818, you will find the case of Jourdan vs Patten. In this
case, a lady sued a neighboring proprietor for the damage
of putting out the only eye of one of her slaves. The
Supreme Court decided that the defendant should pay the
lady the sum of twelve hundred dollars; in consideration
of which, the slave should be placed in his possession.
The lady received all the money, as an indemnification
for the loss of property; but the poor slave not only received
no atonement for his sufferings, but was actually
given to the very man that had knocked his eye out!
This is a fair sample of the nature of all such prosecutions.
In Nott & McCord’s South Carolina Reports, 18181818,
it is stated that a slave belonging to Mrs. E. Witsell, was
shot through the head by two men who were hunting runaway
negroes. The lady commenced an action to recover
the value of her slave. The judge told the jury that circumstances
might exist to authorise the killing of a negro,
without the sanction of a magistrate, or even the order of
a militia officer; but it was thought such circumstances
were not connected with this case; the lady was therefore
entitled to compensation for injury done to her property.
As for the poor slave himself, his parents, his wife, or his
children, they were never once thought of in the matter.

Q. But do you really believe they hunt negroes with
dogs and guns, as some people say?

A. There cannot be the slightest doubt of the fact.
Dogs are trained for that express purpose. The planters
justify the practice, by saying it is absolutely necessary
for their own safety; because runaway negroes, who collect
in the woods and swamps, will soon begin to commit
depredations on the neighboring estates. Thus the evils
inevitably growing out of this bad system are made use of
to justify its cruelties. Free laborers would have no indictment
to run away and hide in swamps. It would
obviously be for their own interest to keep at work. These
negro-hunts seem to be entered into into with all the keen excitement
of sportsmen going out to hunt squirrels or hares.
A letter written near Edenton, North Carolina, among
other items of news states: “We have had great negro
shooting lately.” A gentleman, well known in the literary
world, resided for some time in the family of a Georgia
planter; and he himself stated to me that three negro
hunts took place during the first nine months of his stay 1(4)r 7
there. He said that one night, hearing a noise below
stairs, he hastened to ascertain the cause. “The gentlemen
of the family were cleaning and loading their guns,
trying their flints, and going through the usual preparations,
apparently for a deer hunt, as buck shot and bullets
were in demand. The children of the family had partaken
of the general excitement, and arisen from their
beds. As I entered the room, I could hear one of the
youngest say, ‘Why, pa, you would n’t kill Ralph, would
you?’ ‘I would take him, and sell him, and get money
for him,’ said the next of age. ‘You will only lame him,
so as to seize him, I suppose,’ said the mother. ‘I would
rather kill him than the best fat buck in the country,’ replied
the father, as he rammed down the heavy charge.
The moonlight from the window glanced along the barrel
of the piece, and caught the eye of the eldest boy. The
reflected light kindled up his glance with something of an
unnatural flash, but in vivid sympathy with the paternal
look and attitude. The anticipated joy of vengeance
seemed to be the predominating emotion.”

Q. If the laws are as you say, I should think the slaves
did not stand a fair chance when they are wrongfully
accused.

A. If you will examine Stroud’s Compendium of the
Slave Laws, you will be convinced for yourself that what
I say is true; and the effect is as you suppose. The poor
slaves are completely in the power of their masters. The
same men who accuse them are often their judges and
executioners. In illustration of this, I will tell you a case
that occurred in Edenton, North Carolina. It was told
by a woman who lived there at the time, and witnessed
some of the executions. Many of the slaves in that place
were skilful in mechanical trades. The planters in the
back country were very desirous to purchase some of
them; but their masters found it so profitable to let them
out, that they would not consent to sell them. Those who
were anxious to buy, hit upon the following expedient to
obtain their purpose: They wrote anonymous letters,
charging these intelligent slaves with having projected an
insurrection. These letters were scattered about in Edenton,
with the idea that the masters would be glad to sell
such dangerous fellows; but instead of this, the poor innocent
slaves were tried, convicted, and sentenced by their 1(4)v 8
frightened owners; and a large number of them were put
to death, upon no other evidence than anonymous letters.

Q. It does not seem as if such things could take place
in a civilized country. Can you believe it?

A. If you reflect a little upon human nature, I believe
you will think it perfectly natural that such abuses should
exist, wherever one human being has arbitrary power over
another. You would not like to place yourself completely
in the power even of the best man you know; you would
be afraid to have it depend entirely on his will how much
work you should do in a day, what food you should eat,
what clothes you should wear, and how and when you
should be punished. It is not considered entirely safe for
an aged parent to relinquish all his property, and trust
entirely the generosity of his own children; what then
do you suppose the poor slave has to expect, when he becomes
too old and infirm to be profitable to his master?

Q. But the Southerners are said to be very honourable,
generous men.

A. Our Southern brethren are just what any human
beings would be under similar circumstances. They are
generous with the proceeds of other men’s labor, for the
same reason that the heir is prodigal of money, which
another accumulates for him. He who can let out his
neighbor, and his neighbor’s wife and children, and receive
all their wages, will naturally be more profuse than a man
who depends entirely on his own exertions. Planters have
heretofore generally confessed that slavery is an evil, and
many of them speak of its detailed abuses with strong regret;
but these abuses are merely the necessary and inevitable
results of the system they are helping to support;
and they never can cure the abuses until they are willing
to renounce the system itself. I suppose that few planters
would think of palliating the treatment of Mrs. Salarie’s
slaves received; yet they are all helping to support a system
under which such cruelties can be committed with
impunity. Perhaps very humane and amiable masters do
even more mischief than the desperately wicked; for they
are always quoted as palliations of the whole system;
and they approach so near to the right line, that they can
more easily draw over kind-hearted people, who have not
thought much upon the subject.

Q. What is the history of Mrs. Salarie?

1(5)r 9

A. She resided in New Orleans. On the 1834-04-1010th of April,
1834, her splendid mansion took fire. During the midst
of the conflagration, a rumor arose among the crowd that
there were slaves chained in the burning dwelling; but
those who asked for the keys were reproved for interfering
with their neighbor’s business. At last the doors were
forced open by sailors and mechanics, that had collected
around the spot; and a New Orleans paper thus describes
the horrible scene that presented itself: “Seven slaves,
more or less horribly mutilated, were seen, some chained
to the floor, and some suspended by the neck to the ceiling,
with their limbs stretched and torn from one extremity
to the other. Their bodies, from head to foot, were
covered with scars and sores, and filled with wounds.
One poor old man, upwards of sixty years of age, was
chained hand and food, and made fast to the floor, in a
kneeling position. His head bore the appearance of having
been beaten until it was broken, and the worms were
actually seen making a feast of his brains.”

Q. Every body must have thought her a very wicked
woman. Did the slave-holders in the neighborhood pretend
to justify her measures?

A. I have no doubt that every humane person, that
heard of the event, expressed horror, and sincerely felt it.
For several months previous to the discovery, her neighbors
had been in the habit of living in apartments as far
as possible from her house, on purpose to avoid the shrieks
and groans of her poor suffering slaves; yet during all
that time no complaint was laid before the public authorities,
and no investigation demanded! I suppose neighbors
were afraid to say any thing, lest they should be accused
of promoting discontent among the negroes. Those who
endeavor to keep human beings in the situation of beasts;
because the human being has reason, which is always
prone to offer resistance to tyranny. The consciousness
of this makes slave-holders very irritable when any one
in the community takes part with an abused slave, or expresses
the slightest pity for his sufferings.

Q. Is it not for the master’s interest to treat his slaves
well?

A. So it is for the interest of men to treat their horses
and cattle well; and yet their passions not unfrequently 1(5)v 10
make them forget their interests. Passive obedience is
obtained from human beings with more difficulty than
from animals; and when the master is provoked, the poor
slave is completely in his power, with scarcely the shadow
of protection from the law. The law in no case recognises
slaves as human beings; on the contrary, it expressly
declares they “shall be deemed, sold, taken, and reputed
to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners
and possessors, their administrators and assigns, to all intents,
constructions, and purposes whatever.” An act of
Maryland, for the settlement of estates, enumerates specific
articles, such as “slaves, working beasts, animals” &c.
Where even the laws consider human beings as animals,
it is not a matter of surprise that they are generally treated
no better than self-interest leads men to treat animals.
You will likewise perceive that when the slave becomes
old, or diseased, or in any way unfit for labor, it is not for
the interest of his master to prolong his existence by rendering
it comfortable. Then again that part of the system
connected with overseers, shows plainly that the self-interest
of the master cannot effectually secure good treatment
to the slave. If planters were to give overseers a
stated salary, without regard to the amount of produce,
the overseers (who are proverbially unprincipled men,)
would have no motive for consulting the interest of their
employers—it would be a matter of indifference to them
whether much or little work were done. To obviate this
difficulty, it is customary to give the overseer a certain
proportion of the profits of the plantation. Of course, it becomes
his ruling desire to get the greatest possible amount
of work done. He does not care how much the soil is
exhausted, nor how much the negroes are broken down.
If a slave says he is very ill, the overseer is unwilling to
believe the story, because he is reluctant to lose a day’s
labor. If the poor creature droops under his allotted task,
he must be stimulated by the whip, because the overseer
cannot spare an hour of his exertions. If the “slave dies
under moderate punishment,” the master must furnish a
new laborer; and the loss falls on him, not on the overseer.
It is obviously natural for the latter personage to think
more of his own gains than of his employer’s losses.
Everybody knows that men are prone to drive hired
horses with less mercy than their own; because they do 1(6)r 11
not meet with any personal loss from injury done to the
beast, and their object is to get their money’s worth of
riding. Is it not a fearful thing for one human being to
be placed toward another in the same relation that a stable-horse
is toward the man who hires him? When planters
are reminded of instances of cruelty, too well authenticated
to be denied, they are prone to lay the blame upon
overseers. Mr. Wirt, of Virginia, speaks of this class of
men as “the lowest of the human race—always cap in
hand to the dons who employ them, and furnishing materials
for their pride, insolence, and love of domination.”
If we had no such information concerning the character
of these men, we should naturally conclude that good
people would be averse to enter into such an employment.
Yet overseers and drivers are a necessary part of this bad
system, because slaves are entirely deprived of the motives
which induce free laborers to work; and since overseers
must be employed, it is necessary to make it for
their interest to get as much work out of the slave as possible.
The evils of slavery are necessary and inevitable
parts of the system; and whether the planters reprobate
them or not, they cannot possibly avoid them, except by
relinquishing the system. The master and his subordinate
agents must have discretionary power to punish, because
their poor human brutes, being deprived of salutary
motives to exertion, must be driven to it. The slave must
not be allowed to buy or sell, or make the most trifling
contracts; because the oppressed being would naturally
avail himself of this privilege, and sell some of the cotton
or tobacco, which he cultivates for his master without
wages. The laws must punish them with great severity;
because the very nature of their condition is a constant
temptation to theft, falsehood, and murder. They must
be kept brutally ignorant; because if they were otherwise
they could not be kept in slavery. Licentiousness must
be countenanced among them; because their master’s interest
is connected with their increase, and he might lose
many good bargains if the laws did not allow him to sell
a wife from her husband, or a husband from his wife.
The law must suppose a negro to be a slave, till he proves
himself free; because runaway slaves would of course
pretend that they were free. They must not be allowed
to witness against a white man; for a slave may have 1(6)v 12
had a wife or a child whipped to death by a white man—
and he may have many other good reasons for strong prejudice
against white men. An unnatural system must be
sustained by unnatural means. Hence we find the same
characteristic features in every country where negro slavery
has been allowed.

Q. Some people think slavery is as great a sin as the
slave trade. Are you of that opinion?

A. There seems to me just the same difference as there
is between the thief and the man who pays him for stealing.
What would you say of a man who buys a horse,
knowing it to be stolen? The following circumstance,
which took place a short time before our Revolution, furnishes
a good commentary on this matter. A Philadelphia
negro was accused of having stolen goods in his
possession. He acknowledged the fact, saying, “Massa
Justice, me know me got dem tings from Tom dere, and
me tink Tom teal dem too; but what den, Massa? dey
be only a piccaninny knife, and a piccaninny corkscrew;
one cost sixpence, and tudder a shilling; and me pay Tom
honestly for dem, Massa.” “A pretty story, truly!” said
his worship; “you knew they were stolen, and yet allege
for excuse, you paid honestly for them. Don’t you know,
Pompey that the receiver is as bad as the thief? You
must be severely whipt, you black rascal.” “Very well,
Massa, if de black rascal be whipt for buying tolen goods,
me hope de white rascal be whipt too, for same ting, when
you catch him.” “To be sure,” replied the Justice.
“Well den,” says Pompey, “here be Tom’s Massa—hold
him fast, constable! He buy Tom, as I buy de piccaninny
knife, and de piccaninny corkscrew. He know very well
Tom be tolen from his old fadder and mudder; de knife
and de corkscrew had neder.”

I do not see how we can escape from the conclusion
that the slave-owner is an accomplice of the slave-trader.
So long as a profitable market is kept open, the article
will be supplied, despite of difficulties and dangers. The
only way to stop the trade, is to shut up the market; and
this can be done only by the entire abolition of the system
of slavery. When nobody will buy a man, nobody will
be tempted to steal a man. Slavery never exists without
having more or less of the slave-trade involved in it.
There is in the very heart of our land a slave-trade constantly 2(1)r 13
carried on, and sanctioned by our laws, which is
as disgraceful and cruel as the foreign slave-trade. The
new slave states, at the extreme South, have not slaves
enough, and the climate, together with the hard labor of
the sugar plantations, kills them very fast. The old slave
states have a surplus of slaves, which they send off to supply
these markets. About ten thousand are annually exported
from Virginia alone. Niles, in his Register, vol.
35, page 4 says: “Dealing in slaves has become a large
business. Establishments are made at several places in
Maryland and Virginia, at which they are sold like cattle.
These places are strongly built, and well supplied with
thumbscrews, gags, cowskins, and other whips, often bloody.”
In these sales no regard is paid to domestic ties. The
newly married wife is torn shrieking from her husband,
and the mother with her little ones are sold in “separate
lots, to suit purchasers.” A gentleman in Charleston,
S.C.South Carolina writes to his friend in New York: “Curiosity sometimes
leads me to the auction sales of the negroes. There
I saw the father looking with sullen contempt on the crowd,
and expressing an indignation in his countenance that he
dares not speak; and the mother pressing her infants
closer to her bosom, exclaiming, in wild and simple earnestness,
‘I can’t leff my children! I won’t leff my childdren!’
But the hammer went on, reckless whether it
united or sundered forever. On another stand I saw a
man apparently as white as myself exposed for sale.”

Q. I have heard some people say that the negroes do
not care so much about such separations as we should
suppose.

A. There is no doubt that their degraded situation tends
to blunt the feelings, as well as to stulify the intellect;
and it is a fearful thing to think what Christians have to
answer for, who thus brutalize immortal souls. But there
are numerous instances to prove that the poor creatures
do often suffer the most agonizing sensations when torn
from those they love. Near Palmyra, in Marion county,
Missouri, two boys were sold to a slave-trader, who did
not intend to leave the place until morning. During the
night, the mother was kept chained in an out-house, that
she might not make any effort to prevent the departure of
her children. She managed to get loose from her fetters, 2 2(1)v 14
seized an axe, cut off the heads of her sleeping boys, and
then ended her own life by the same instrument.

The Missouri Intelligencer, a few months ago, gave an
account of a slave named Micheal, who was sold by his
master to Mr. J.E. Fenton, by whom he was to be immediately
shipped for the Southern markers. At the
mouth of the Ohio, he filed off his irons, and contrived to
escape. He immediately returned to the place where his
wife resided, and having armed himself, declared he never
would be sent to the South, unless his wife were allowed
to accompany him. He was finally taken by stratagem,
and lodged in jail for safe keeping. Finding that his oppressors
were determined to separate him from his beloved
wife, he committed suicide. I believe the attachments
of slaves are even stronger than our; for these ties constitute
the only pleasure they are allowed to have. Hundreds
of instances might be told, where they have preferred
death to separation.

Q. I have been told they sometimes kidnapped free
colored persons, to sell them as slaves. Is this so?

A. It is unquestionably true that this is carried on to a
considerable extent. More than twenty free colored children
were kidnapped in the single city of Philadelphia, in
18251825; and in 18271827 two were stolen in open day. It is a
common thing to decoy the unsuspecting victims on board
a vessel, or to some retired spot, and then seize and bind
them. A New York paper of 18291829, says: “Beware of
kidnappers! It is well understood that there is at present
in this city, a gang of kidnappers, busily engaged in their
vocation of stealing colored children for the Southern
market.” As the law supposes every colored person to
be a slave unless he can prove himself free, and as no
person of his own complexion is allowed to be evidence
for him, the kidnappers have an easy time of it.

Q. Some people say we ought to pity the masters as
well as the slaves.

A. I agree with them entirely. The masters are to be
deeply pitied; because the long continuance of a wicked
system has involved them in difficulties, and at the same
time rendered them generally blind to the best means of
getting rid of those difficulties. They are likewise to be
compassionated for the effects which early habits of power
produce on their own characters. Mr. Jefferson, who 2(2)r 15
lived in the midst of slavery, says: “The whole commerce
between master and slave is a perpetual exercise
of the most boisterous passions; the most unremitting
despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on
the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it.
The parent storms; the child looks on, catches the lineaments
of wrath, puts on the same airs in a circle of smaller
slaves, gives loose to the worst of passions; and thus
nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot
but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man
must be a prodigy, who can retain his morals and manners
undepraved in such circumstances.” The general
licentiousness produced by this system can never be derived
from the fact that every female slave is completely
in the power of her master, of his sons, of his overseers,
and his drivers. The law does not allow her to offer resistance
to a white man, under any circumstances; and
the state of public opinion is such that any pretensions to
virtue on her part would be treated with brutal ridicule.
The slave is not allowed to have any right in his wife
and children. If his master’s interest can be served by
his keeping three or four wives, or by his wife’s having
a succession of husbands, he cannot dispute the commands
of his owner. The wife, or the husband, is sometimes
sold, and sent thousands of miles from each other, and
from their little ones, without the slightest hope of ever
meeting again. Under these circumstances, the man, or
the woman, is soon ordered to take another partner; because
it is for the interest of the master that they should
do so. It is a shameful fact that the laws and customs
of our country make it absolutely impossible for a large
portion of our population to be virtuous, even if they wish
to be so. The wealth of Virginia is principally made by
the breeding of slaves and horses; and persons unaccustomed
to the system would be shocked by the detail of
well-authenticated facts, which prove that about as little
regard is paid to decency in one case as the other. Mullatto
slaves bring in a higher price than black ones; hence
licentiousness in slave states becomes a profitable vice,
instead of being expensive, as it asunder the forms of
society.

2(2)v 16

Q. I have been told that a great many of the slaves
have very light complexions. Is it so?

A. In the old slave states, where the process of amalgamation
has been going on for a long tome, this is remarkably
the case. An old soldier, who lately visited the
South, said he was not so much struck by any circumstance,
as by the great change that had taken place in the
complexion of the slaves since the Revolution. Now and
then I have seen in the southern papers advertisements
for a runaway slave, “who passes himself for a white
man.” A Boston gentleman, who dislikes the abolitionists
very much, visited Georgia a few years ago. He told
me that when he was walking with a planter one day,
they met a man driving a team, who had a perfectly fair
complexion, with blue eyes and brown hair. The Bostonian
remarked, “That must be an independent fellow,
to be driving team in this part of the country, where it is
considered so disgraceful for a white man to work.”
“Oh, that fellow is a slave,” replied the Georgian. Almost
every body has heard of the recent case of Mary
Gilmore, of Philadelphia, a perfectly white girl, of Irish
parentage, who was taken up and tried as a runaway
slave. A Missouri newspaper proves that a white man
may, without a mistake, be adjudged a slave. “A case
of a slave suing for his freedom, was tried a few days
since in Lincoln county, of which the following is a brief
statement of particulars: A youth of about ten years of
age sued for his freedom on the ground that he was a
free white person. The court granted his petition to sue
as a pauper upon inspection of his person. Upon his trial
before the jury, he was examined by the jury and by two
learned physicians, all of whom concurred in the opinion
that very little, if any, trace of negro blood could be discovered
by any of the external appearances. All the physiological
marks of distinction, which characterize the
African descent, had disappeared. His skin was fair, his
hair soft, straight, fine, and white, his eyes blue, but rather
disposed to the hazle-nut color; nose prominent, the
lips small, his head round and well formed, forehead high
and prominent, ears large, the tibia of the leg straight,
the feet hollow. Notwithstanding these evidences of his
claims, he was proved to be the descendant of a mulatto
woman, and that his progenitors on the mother’s side had 2(3)r 17
been and still were slaves; consequently he was found to
be a slave.” I have been told of a young physician, who
went into the far Southern states to settle, and there became
in love with a very handsome and modest girl, who
lived at service. He married her; and about a year after
that event, a gentleman called at the house, and announced
himself as Mr. J*******y, of Mobile. He said to
Dr. W*****, “Sir, I have a trifling affair of business
to settle with you. You have married a slave of mine.”
The young physician resented this language; for he had
not entertained the slightest suspicion that the girl had
any other than white ancestors since the floor. But Mr.
J. furnished proofs of his claim, and Dr. W. knew very
well that the laws of the country would uphold him in it.
After considerable discussion, the best bargain he could
make was either to pay eight hundred dollars, or have his
wife put up at auction. He consented to the first alternative,
and his unwelcome visitor departed. When he had
gone, Dr. W. told his wife what had happened. The
poor woman burst into tears and said, “That as Mr. J.
was her own father, she had hoped that when he heard
she had found an honorable protector, he would have left
her in peace.”

Q. There can be no doubt that slavery is a bad system;
but don’t you think it ought to be done away gradually?
Ought not the slaves to be fitted for freedom, before they
are emancipated?

A. The difficulty is, it is utterly impossible to fit them
for freedom while they remain slaves. The masters know
very well that their vassals will be servile just in proportion
as they are brutally ignorant; hence all their legislation
tends to keep them so. It is a disgraceful fact, that
in half of these United States the working-men are expressly
forbidden to learn to read or write. The law ordains
that twenty lashes shall be inflicted upon every slave
found in an assembly met together for the purpose of
“mental instruction.” Any white person who teaches a
slave to read or write, or gives or sells him any book (the
Bible not excepted) is fined two hundred dollars; and any
colored person who commits the same crime, is punished
with thirty-nine lashes, or with imprisonment. The Rev.
Charles C. Jones of Georgia, said in one of his sermons:
“Generally speaking, the slaves appear to us to be with 2* 2(3)v 18
out God and without hope in the world—a nation of
heathen in our very midst. We cannot cry out against
the Papists for withholding the Scriptures from the common
people; for we withhold the Bible from our servants,
and keep them in ignorance of it.” A writer in the Observer,
of Charleston, S.C.South Carolina says: “I hazard the assertion,
that throughout the bounds of our synod, there are
at least one hundred thousands slaves, speaking the same
language as ourselves, who never heard of the plan of
salvation by a Redeemer.” The reason assigned for these
oppressive laws is, that “teaching slaves to read and write
tends to excite dissatisfaction in their minds,” and to produce
insurrection. In Georgia a white man is fined five
hundred dollars for teaching a slave or free negro to read
or write; and if a colored man attempts to teach the alphabet
even to his own child, he is liable to be fined or
whipped, according to the discretion of the court. Such
laws are necessary for the preservation of this detestable
system; and while such laws exist, how can the slaves
ever be better fitted for freedom? When the British government
insisted that female slaves should no longer be
flogged naked in the Colonies, the Jamaica legislature replied
that the practice could not possibly be laid aside,
“until the negro women acquired more of the sense of
shame, which distinguishes European females.” Fitting
men for freedom by keeping them slaves, is like the Jamaica
mode of making women modest by whipping them
without clothing.

Q. But don’t you think it would be dangerous to turn
the slaves at once loose upon the community?

A. The Abolitionists never desired to have them turned
loose. They wish to have them governed by salutary
laws, so regulated as effectually to protect both master
and slave. They merely wish to have the power of punishment
transferred from individuals to magistrates; to
have the sale of human beings cease; and to have the
stimulus of wages applied, instead of the stimulus of the
whip. The relation of master and laborer might still
continue; but under circumstances less irksome and degrading
to both parties. Even that much abused animal
the jackass can be made to travel more expeditiously by
suspending a bunch of turnips on a pole and keeping
them before his nose, than he can by the continual application 2(4)r 19
of the whip; and even when human beings are
brutalized to the last degree, by the soul-destroying system
of slavery, they have still sense enough left to be
more willing to work two hours for twelve cents, than to
work one hour for nothing.

Q. I should think this system, in the long run, must
be an unprofitable one.

A. It is admitted to be so. Southerners often declare
that it takes six slaves to do what is easily performed by
half the number of free laborers. Henry Clay says, “It
is believed that slave-labor would nowhere be employed
in the farming portions of the United States, if the proprietors
were not tempted to raise slaves by the high
price of the Southern market, which keeps it up in their
own;” and he says the effects of introducing slavery into
Kentucky have been to keep them in the read of their
non-slave-holding neighbors, in agriculture, manufactures,
and general prosperity. General Washington, when writing
to Sir John Sinclair on the comparative value of the
soil in Pennsylvania and Virginia, ascribes the very low
price of land in Virginia to the existence of slavery among
them. John Randolph declared that Virginia was so impoverished
by slavery, that slaves would soon be advertising
for runaway masters. A distinguished writer on
political economy says: “The slave-system inflicts an
incalculable amount of human suffering, for the sake of
making a wholesale waste of labor and capital.”

Q. But the masters say the negroes would cut their
throats, if they were emancipated.

A. It is safer to judge by uniform experience than by
the assertions of the masters, who, even if they have no
intention to deceive, are very liable to be blinded by having
been educated in the midst of a bad system. Listen
to facts on this subject. On the 1811-10-1010th of October, 1811,
the Congress of Chili decreed that every child born after
that day should be free. In 1812-04April, 1812 the government
of Buenos Ayres ordered that every child born after the
1813-01-011st of January, 1813, should be free. In 18211821, the Congress
of Colombia emancipated all slaves who had borne
arms in favor of the Republic, and provided for the emancipation
in eighteen years, of the whole slave population,
of 900,000. In 1829-09September, 1829, the government of Mexico
granted immediate and entire emancipation to every 2(4)v 20
slave. In all these instances, not one case of insurrection
or of bloodshed has ever been heard of, as the result of
emancipation.

In St. Domingo no measures were taken gradually to
fit the slaves for freedom. They were suddenly emancipated
during a civil war, and armed against British invaders.
They at once ceased to be property, and were
recognized as human beings. Colonel Malefant, who resided
on the island, informs us, in his Historical and Political
History of the Colonies, that, “after this public act
of emancipation, the negroes remained quiet both in the
south and west, and they continued to work upon all the
plantations. The colony was flourishing. The whites
lived happily and in peace upon their estates, and the
negroes continued to work for them.” General Lacroix,
in his Memoirs of St. Domingo, speaking of the same period,
says: “The colony marched as by enchantment towards
its ancient splendor; cultivation prospered; every
day produced perceptible proofs of its progress.” This
prosperous state of things lasted about eight years, and
would perhaps have continued to the present day, had not
Bonaparte, at the instigation of the old French planters,
sent an army to deprive the blacks of the freedom they
had used so well. The enemies of abolition are always
talking of the horrors of St. Domingo, as an argument to
prove that emancipation is dangerous; but historical facts
prove that the effort to restore slavery occasioned all the
bloodshed in that island; while emancipation produced
only the most peaceful and prosperous results.

In 1794-06June, 1794, Victor Hugo, a French republican general,
retook Guadaloupe from the British, and immediately
proclaimed freedom to all the slaves. They were
85,000 in number, and the whites only 13,000. No disasters
occurred in consequence of this step. More than
seven years after this, the Supreme Council of Guadaloupe,
in an official document, alluding to the tranquillity
which reigned throughout the island, observed: “We
shall have the satisfaction of having given an example,
which will prove that all classes of people may live in perfect
harmony with each other, under an administration
which secures justice to all classes.” In 18021802, Bonaparte
sent a powerful French force, and again reduced the island
to slavery, at the cost of about 20,000 negro lives. 2(5)r 21

In 1828-07July, 1828, thirty thousand Hottentots in Cape Colony
were emancipated from their long and cruel bondage,
and admitted by law to all the rights and privileges of the
white colonists. Outrages were predicted, as the inevitable
consequence of freeing human creatures so completely
brutalized as the poor Hottentots; but all went on
peaceably; and as a gentleman facetiously remarked,
“Hottentots as they were, they worked much better for
Mr. Cash than they had ever done for Mr. Lash.”

Q. But they say the British have had difficulties in
their West Indies.

A. The enemies of the cause have tried very hard to
get up a “raw-head and bloody-bones” story; but even
if you take their own accounts, you will find that they
have not been able to adduce any instances of violence in
support of their assertions. The read facts are these:
The measure was not carried in a manner entirely satisfactory
to the English abolitionists. Their knowledge of
human nature, combined with the practical evidence afforded
by history, led them to conclude that immediate
and unqualified emancipation was safest for the master,
as well as just to the slave; but the planters raised such
a hue and cry concerning bloodshed and insurrection, that
the British government determined to conciliate them by
a gradual abolition of slavery. It was ordained that the
slaves should work six years longer without wages, under
the name of apprentices; but no punishment could be inflicted
without the special order of magistrates. The
colonies had a right to dispense with the apprenticeship
system if they pleased; but out of the seventeen W.West India
colonies, Antigua and Bermuda were the only ones that
chose to do so. The act of Parliament provided that each
apprentice should work for his master forty and a half
hours a week, and have the rest of the time to himself.
The master’s were not satisfied with this; and they tried,
by a series of petty vexations, to coerce the apprentices
into individual contracts to work fifty hours in a week.
While the people had been slaves, they were always allowed
cooks to prepare their meals, a person to bring water
to the gang during the hot hours, and nurses to tend the
little children while their mothers were at work in the
field; but because the Abolition Act did not expressly
provide that these privileges should be continued, the 2(5)v 22
masters saw fit to take them away. Each apprentice was
obliged to quit his or her work, and go, sometimes a great
distance, to the cabin to cook his meals, instead of having
it served up in the field; and the time taken up in this
operation was to be made up out of the apprentices own
time. No water was allowed to be brought to quench
their thirst; the aged and infirm, instead of being left, as
formerly, to superintend the children under the shade,
were ordered out into the burning fields; and mothers
were obliged to toil at the hoe with their infants strapped
at their backs. In addition to all these annoyances, the
planters obtained a new proclamation from the governor,
by which they were authorized to require extra labor of
the apprentices in times of emergency, or whenever they
should deem it necessary, in the cultivation, gathering, or
manufacture of the crop, provided they repaid them an
equal time at a convenient season of the year. This was
very much like taking from a New England laborer the
month of July, and paying it back to him in January.
The negroes had behaved extremely well when emancipation
was first proclaimed, and universally showed a disposition
to be orderly, submissive, and thankful; but this
system of privation and injustice soon created discontent.
They knew that they were to receive no wages, however
industrious they might be; and they were well aware
that their masters no longer had a right to flog them. A
bad stimulus to labor had been removed, without supplying
a good one in its place. In three of the colonies, the
apprentices refused to work on the terms required by their
masters. In Jamaica, a very small military force was
sent into one parish, and only on one occasion; but no
violence was offered on either side; for the apprentices
confined themselves to passive resistance—merely refusing
to work on the required terms. In St. Christophers, difficulties
of a similar kind occurred; but no outrage of any
kind was committed. In one fortnight all the trouble was
at an end; and out of twenty thousand apprentices, only
thirty were found to be absent from their work; and some
of these were supposed to be dead in the woods. In Demarara,
the principal difficulty occurred. The laborers assembled
together, and marched round with a flag staff;
but the worst thing they did was to beat a constable with
their fists. It is a solemn fact that a few fisty cuffs with 2(6)r 23
a constable are the only violence to persons or property,
that has been attempted by the eight hundred thousand
slaves emancipated in the British Colonies!

Even the difficulties above enumerated (slight as they
were, and unworthy to be named in connexion with such
a great moral change) were but temporary. The Governor
of Jamaica, after five months’ trial of emancipation,
declares, in his address to the Assembly, “Not the slightest
idea of any interruption of tranquillity exists in any
quarter; and those preparation which I have felt it in my
duty to make, might, without the slightest danger, have
been dispensed with.” By recent news, we learn that the
planters, finding the system of coercion was likely to be
ruinous to their own interest, offered the apprentices 2s. 6d.
per day for extra work. The enemies of abolition prophesied
that nothing would induce the negroes to work more
than they were actually compelled to by law, and that the
crops would perish for want of gathering. But the result
proved otherwise. As soon as wages were offered, they
came forward eagerly, and offered to do more work than
the planters were willing to pay for. We have the testimony
of one of their magistrates, that as soon as this system
was tried, “their apparent indifference was everywhere
thrown off, and their work carried on in a steady,
persevering, and diligent manner.”

Q And how was it in Antigua and Bermuda, where
they gave up the apprenticeship system, and tried immediate
and unqualified emancipation?

A. In those colonies not the slightest difficulty, of any
kind, has occurred. The Antigua journals declare, “The
great doubt is solved; the highest hopes of the negroes’
friends are fulfilled. A whole people, comprising thirty
thousand souls, have passed from slavery into freedom,
not only without the slightest irregularity, but with the
solemn and decorous tranquillity of a Sabbath.” The
Christmas holidays were always seasons of alarm in the
slave-colonies, and a military force was always held in
readiness; but the Christmas after emancipation, the customary
guard was dispensed with. Up to the present time,
every thing remains perfectly tranquil in Antigua; and a
negro is at the head of the police in that island. The
population consists of 2,000 whites, 30,000 slaves, and
4,500 free blacks.

2(6)v 24

Q. Yet people are always saying that free negroes cannot
take care of themselves.

A. It is because people are very much prejudiced
or very ignorant of the subject. In the United States
colored persons have scarcely any chance to rise. They
are despised, and abused, and discouraged, at every turn.
In the slave states they are subject to laws nearly as oppressive
as those of the slave. They are whipped or imprisoned,
if they try to learn to read or write; they are
not allowed to testify in court; and there is a general
disposition not to encourage them by giving them employment.
In addition to this, the planters are very desirous
to expel them from the state, partly because they are jealous
of their influence upon the slaves, and partly because
those who have slaves to let out, naturally dislike the
competition of free negroes. But if colored people are
well treated, and have the same inducements to industry
as other people, they work as well and behave as well.
A few years ago the Pennsylvanians were very much
alarmed at the representations that were made of the increase
of pauperism from the ingress of free negroes. A
committee was appointed to examine into the subject, and
it was ascertained that the colored people not only supported
their own poor, but paid a considerable additional
sum toward the support of white paupers.

Q. I have heard people say that the slaves would not
take their freedom, if it were offered to them.

A. I sincerely wish they would offer it. I should like
to see the experiment tried. If the slaves are so well satisfied
with their condition, why do they make such severe
laws against running away? Why are patroles on duty
all the time to shoot every negro who does not give an
account of himself as soon as they call to him? Why,
notwithstanding all these pains and penalties, are their
newspapers full of advertisements for runaway slaves?
If the free negroes are so much worse off than those in
bondage, why is it that their laws bestow freedom on any
slave, “who saves his master or mistress’s life, or performs
any meritorious service to the state?” That must
be a very bad country where the law stipulates that meritorious
actions shall be rewarded by making a man more
unhappy than he was before! Some months ago, I had a
conversation with a woman, who went from Boston to 3(1)r 25
Tuscaloosa, in Alabama. She was the wife of a Baptist
clergyman, professed to be a pious woman, and was considered
as such. I found her an apologist for slavery, but
was not aware at the time that she actually owned slaves.
She maintained that freedom was the greatest curse that
could be bestowed on a slave; and when I attempted to
put the case home to her conscience, she, for consistency’s
sake, declared that she should be quite as willing to die
and leave her own little son in slavery, as to leave him a
free laborer at the North. She said if she had a hundred
slaves, she should treat them all kindly, and endeavor to
make their condition comfortable. I replied, “I am willing
to believe that you would do so madam; but in case
of your death, or of any pecuniary distress in the family,
the poor slaves would be divided among heirs, or seized
by creditors; and then who can tell into whose hands they
may fall? The condition of the slave depends on the
character of the master; and that is entirely a matter of
accident.” The pious woman rejoined, “Oh, I should
take care of that. If they were good, faithful servants,
they would find at my death that papers of manumission
had been duly prepared.” “But you told me that freedom
was the greatest curse that could be bestowed upon a
slave,” replied I: “Now is it possible, madam, that you
would leave, as your dying legacy to good and faithful
servants, the greatest curse you could bestow?”

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

A. I leave your own republican good sense to determine
that question. Governor Giles of Virginia did not
take that ground in his address to the Legislature in 18271827.
Speaking of punishing free blacks by selling them as
slaves, he says: “‘Slavery must be admitted to be a punishment
of the highest order; and according to every just
rule for the apportionment of punishment to crimes, it
would seem that it ought to be applied only to crime of the
highest order!’”

But even if it were true that the slaves were as happy
and contented as slave-holders try to represent them—
what would it prove? It would merely prove that they had
fearfully brutalized immortal souls before they could be
happy in such a situation. Edmund Burke said very 3 3(1)v 26
truly, “If you have made a happy slave, you have made a
degraded man.”

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

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

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

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

But if we look at this question merely with a view to
expediency, without reference to justice or mercy, when
can we hope that a time will come more propitious to the
discussion of this subject? The fact is, difficulties and
dangers increase every day. In South Carolina and Louisiana,
the blacks are already a majority. The annual increase
of the slaves, without including the free blacks, in
the United States is now 62,000 annually. It is a fact
worthy of consideration that the licentiousness of the white
man increases the colored race; but the vices of colored
men or women can never increase the white race; for the
children of such connexions are of course not white.—
These people are increasing in the midst of us in startling 3(2)v 27
ratio. If we pursue a kind and Christian course, we can
identify their interests with the rest of the community, and
make them our friends; but if we persevere in the course
we have pursued, their feelings and interest must be all in
opposition to ours, and there is great reason to fear the
consequences.

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

A. Those who have examined into the subject, have so
universally come to the conclusion that Colonization is entirely
ineffectual for the abolition of slavery at any time,
however remote, that it seems hardly worth while to waste
words on that subject. I do not pretend to impeach the
motives of benevolent individuals, who have been engaged
in it; but there is no doubt that its practical tendency is
to perpetuate slavery. John Randolph, and other slave-
holders, have advocated that Society, upon the avowed
ground that by sending off an inconvenient surplus it
would increase the price of the slaves left. In the new
slave states, where they have not as yet an “inconvenient
surplus” of slaves, they don’t like the Colonization Society;
but the old slave states have been its warmest friends.
There is one brief objection to the idea of abolishing slavery
by Colonization: it is impossible. Even if it were
desirable to remove these valuable laborers from our soil,
it could not be done, if the whole Treasury and Navy of
the United States were devoted to it. The Colonization
Society has been in operation about nineteen years; they
have had immense funds; and they have transported to
Africa, during that time, about three thousand colored persons,
of which not one thousand were manumitted slaves.
Now the annual increase of the slaves alone is 62,000;
and the annual increase of the free blacks is about 10,000.
In nineteen years the Colonization have not been able to
carry off one sixtieth part of the increase of the slaves in
one year! This is worse than the old story of the frog,
who jumped out of the well two feet every night, and fell
back three feet every morning. But even if the colored
people could be all carried out of the country, what is the
South to do for laborers? They have been in the habit of
excusing themselves, by saying that white men cannot
work in their climate, and by taking it for granted that
black men will not work for wages. If the climate is unsuitable 3(2)v 28
for white laborers, it is manifestly very impolitic
to send off the black ones. It would be far wiser to try
the experiment they have tried in Bermuda and Antigua.
Labor is needed in all parts of our country; and it is
worse than a childish game to be sending off ship-loads of
laborers to Africa, while we are bringing in ship loads
from Ireland, Holland, and Switzerland.

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

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

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

A. If I believed that the colored people were naturally
inferior to the whites, I should say that was an additional
reason why we ought to protect, instruct, and encourage
them. No consistent republican will say that a strong-
minded man has a right to oppress those less gifted than
himself. Slave-holders do not seem to think the negroes
are so stupid as not to acquire knowledge, and make use
of it, if they could get a chance. If they do think so, why
do their laws impose such heavy penalties on all who attempt
to give them any education? Nobody thinks it necessary
to forbid the promulgation of knowledge among 3(3)r 29
monkeys. If you believe the colored race are naturally
inferior, I wish you would read the history of Toussaint
L’Ouverture, the Washington of St. Domingo. Though
perfectly black, he was unquestionably one of the greatest
and best men of his age. I wish you would hear Mr.
Williams of New York, and Mr. Douglass of Philadelphia
preach a few times, before you hastily decide concerning
the capacity of the colored race for intellectual
improvement. As for the shape of their skulls, I shall be
well satisfied if our Southern brethren will emancipate all
the slaves who have not what is called the “African conformation.”

Q. What do you think about property in slaves?

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

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

A. They cannot help having a great deal to do with it,
either for good or or evil. They are citizens of this republic;
and as such cannot but feel a painful interest in
a subject which makes their beloved country an object of
derision to the civilized world. If the slaves should make
any attempt to gain their freedom, we are bound to go
with an armed force and rivet their chains. If a slave escapes
from his master unto us, we are bound to deliver
him up to the lash. The people of Pennsylvania, living
so near the slave states, have a great many of these painful
scenes to encounter. A few months ago, an industrious
and pious colored man in Philadelphia was torn from
his home at midnight, and beaten to such a degree that the
snow for some distance was stained with his blood. His 3* 3(3)v 30
poor wife, who was devoutly attached to him, had an infant
about eight or ten days old; but regardless of her situation,
she plunged into the snow, and implored mercy
for her husband. Her shrieks and intreaties were of no
avail. The citizens of Philadelphia could not help her,
because the free states are bound by law to give up runaway
slaves. The evil might be cured by the extreme
cheapness of labor, if the surplus population were not
drained off to supply new slave states. But in order to
accommodate slave-holders in this respect, Louisiana has
been bought, and Florida bought, by revenues principally
raised in the free states; and now they want to purchase
Texas likewise for an eternal slave market. Every time
a member from the free states votes for the admission of a
slave state into the Union, he helps to increase the political
power, which has always been wielded for the perpetuation
of this abominable system. It is high time for the
free states to begin to reflect seriously, whether they ought
any longer to give their money and moral influence in
support of this iniquity.

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

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

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

A. That would be for the wisdom of legislators to decide;
and they would probably decide that it would not be
judicious to invest emancipated slaves with the elective
franchise; for though it is not their fault that they have
been kept brutally ignorant, it unfits them for voters. At
the present time, slaves are represented in Congress. Every
five slaves are counted equal to three freedmen; which
is just the same as if our farmers were allowed to count
every five of their oxen as three voters. This system
gives the Southern aristocracy a great political power, entirely
unchecked by democratic influence, which comes in
as a counterpoise in States where the laboring class are 3(4)r 31
allowed to vote. W.B. Seabrook, of South Carolina, has
lately published an Essay on the management of Slaves,
in which he says: “An addition of 1,000,000 to the private
fortune of Daniel Webster, would not give to Massachusetts
more weight than she now possesses in the Federal
Councils. On the other hand, every increase of slave
property in South Carolina, is a fraction thrown into the
scale by which her representation in Congress is determined.”
This country has been governed by a President
forty-eight years. During forty of those years we have
been governed by a slave-holder! The New England
candidates each remained in office but four years; and
the great middle section has never been given a President.
The Middle States are politically stronger than the Northern,
and are therefore more likely to act independently,
and without reference to Southern support. Perhaps this
may be the reason why those States, large and wealthy as
they are, have never given a President to their country.
Slave-holders are keen-sighted politicians; and they are
closely knit together by one common bond of sympathy on
the subject of slavery. It is a common remark with them
that they never will vote for any man north of the Potomac.

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

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

3(4)v 32

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

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

A. There is not the slightest truth in this charge. People
have pointed to an ignorant shoe-black, and asked me
whether I would invite him to visit my house. I answered
“No; I would not do so if he were a white man; and
I should not be likely to do it, merely because he was
black.” An educated person will not naturally like to associate
with one who is grossly ignorant. It may be no
merit in one that he is well-informed, and no fault of the
other that he is ignorant; for these things may be the
result of circumstances, over which the individual had no
control; but such people will not choose each other’s society,
merely from want of sympathy. For these reasons,
I would not select an ignorant man, of any complexion, 3(5)r 33
for my companion; but when you ask me whether that
man’s children shall have as fair a chance as my own, to
obtain an education, and rise in the world, I should be ashamed
of myself, both as a Christian and a republican, if I
did not say yes, with all my heart.

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

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

Q. But they say your measures are unconstitutional.

A. Is it unconstitutional to talk, and write, and publish
on any subject? particularly one in which the welfare and
character of the country are so deeply involved? This is
all the abolitionists have ever done; it is all they have
ever desired to do. Nobody disputes that Congress has
constitutional power to abolish slavery and the slave trade
in the District of Columbia. That District belongs in
common to all the States, and each of them has an interest
in the slaves there. The public prisons of that District,
built with the money of the whole people of the United
States, are used for the benefit of slave-traders, and the
groaning victims of this detestable traffic are kept confined
within their walls. The keepers of these prisons, paid 3(5)v 34
with the money of the whole people, act as jailers to these
slave-traders, until their gang of human brutes can be
completed. When we are acting as accomplices in all
this, have we no right to petition for the abolition of slavery
and the slave trade there? I do not see how any
conscientious man can help believing it to be a solemn
duty.

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

A. This charge is destitute of the slightest foundation
in truth. The abolitionists have addressed fact and arguments
to the slave-holders only. They have never
sought for any communication with the slaves; and if
they did so, their principles would lead them to teach patience
and submission, until their deliverance could be accomplished
by peaceful measures. I believe the publications
by the Peace Society do not contain so much in defence
of non-resistance under injury, as the publications of
the abolitionists. If it should be discovered that any member
of an Anti-Slavery Society had tried to excite disaffection
among the slaves, he would be immediately turned
out of the Society, with the strong expressions of disapprobation.
This false charge has been got up at the South
merely to excite sympathy. A little while ago, a paragraph
went the rounds of the newspapers, concerning an
abolitionist who had been over-heard trying to persuade a
negro lad to run away, and offering to forge free papers for
him. It was afterwards ascertained that the man was a
kidnapper, and took this means of getting the boy into his
own power, for the sake of selling him. Complaints are
made that pictures of a man flogging slaves have been on
some of the books sent to the South; and it is urged that
negroes can understand these pictures, if they do not know
their letters. In the first place, the books are sent to the
masters. In the next place, (as has been well observed,)
the pictures represent a thing that is either true, or not
true. If it is not true, the negroes would look at the picture
without being reminded of anything they had ever
seen or known—if told that it represented a driver beating
slaves, they would laugh at such Munchausen stories of
things that never happened. On the other hand, if the
representation is true, would the mere picture of a thing
be more likely to excite them to insurrection than the 3(6)r 35
thing itself? These stories of efforts to excite violence are mere spectres
raised on purpose for the occasion. If you will take notice of the charges
brought against abolitionists, you will find that they are always mere assertions,
unsupported by quotations, or any species of evidence. When I have
read the resolutions passed at public meetings against the abolitionists, I have
smiled at the farce which those men have been acting. In nearly all their
resolutions, the abolitionists could mostly cordially and conscientiously concur.
The enemies of the cause have in several cities gravely met together to declare
that they do not approve of attempts to promote insurrections. The
abolitionists agree with them entirely. With the same ridiculous gravity,
they make known to the world that they do not approve of any legislative
interference with the Southern States. The abolitionists have never dreamed
of any such interference. They merely wish to induce the Southerners to
legislate for themselves; and they hope to do this by the universal dissemination
of facts and arguments, calculated to promote a correct public sentiment
on the subject of slavery. This is all they ever intended to do; and
this they will do, though earth and hell combine against their efforts. The
men engaged in this cause are not working for themselves, but for God—and
therefore they are strong.

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

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

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

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

At the North, the apologists of slavery are numerous and virulent, because
their interests are closely intertwined with the pernicious system. Inquire
into the private history of many of the men, who have called meetings
against the abolitionists— you will find that some manyfacture negro cloths
for the South—some have sons who sell those cloths—some have daughters
married to slave-holders—some have plantations and slaves mortgaged to 3(6)v 36
them—some have ships employed in Southern commerce—and come candidates
for political offices would bow until their back-bones were broken, to
obtain or preserve Southern influence. The Southerners understand all this
perfectly well, and despise our servility, even while they condescend to make
use of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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