Section V The American Colonization Society Is the Enemy of Immediate Abolition
It follows, as a necessary consequence, that a Society which is not hostile to slavery, which apologises for the system and for slaveholders, which recognises slaves as rightful property,N and which confessedly increases their value, is the enemy of immediate abolition. This, I am aware, in the present corrupt state of public sentiment, will not generally be deemed an objectionable feature; but I regard it with inexpressible abhorrence and dismay.
Since the deception practised upon our first parents by the old serpent, there has not been a more fatal delusion in the minds of men than that of the gradual abolition of slavery. Gradual abolition! do its supporters really know what they talk about? Gradually abstaining from what? From sins the most flagrant, from conduct the most cruel, from acts the most oppressive! Do colonizationists mean, that slave-dealers shall purchase or sell a few victims less this year than they did the last? that slave-owners shall liberate one, two or three out of every hundred slaves during the same period? that slave-drivers shall apply the lash to the scarred and bleeding backs of their victims somewhat less frequently? Surely not—I respect their intelligence too much to believe that they mean any such thing. But if any of the slaves should be exempted from sale or purchase, why not all? if justice require the liberation of the few, why not of the many? if it be right for a driver to inflict a number of lashes, how many shall be given? Do colonizationists mean that the practice of separating the husband from the wife, the wife from the husband, or children from their parents, shall come to an end by an almost imperceptible process? or that the slaves shall be defrauded of their just remuneration, less and less every month or every year? or that they shall be under the absolute, irresponsible control of their masters? Oh no! I place a higher value upon their good sense, humanity and morality than this! Well, then, they would immediately break up the slave traffic—they would put aside the whip—they would have the marriage relations preserved inviolate—they would not separate families—they would not steal the wages of the slaves, nor deprive them of personal liberty! This is abolition—immediate abolition. It is simply declaring that slave owners are bound to fulfil—now, without any reluctance or delays—the golden rule, namely, to do as they would be done by; and that, as the right to be free is inherent and inalienable in the slaves, there ought now to be a disposition on the part of the people to break their fetters. All the horrid spectres which are conjured up, on this subject, arise from a confusion of the brain, as much as from a corruption of the heart.
I utterly reject, as delusive and dangerous in the extreme, every plea which justifies a procrastinated and an indefinite emancipation, or which concedes to a slave owner the right to hold his slaves as property for any limited period, or which contends for the gradual preparation of the slaves for freedom; believing all such pretexts to be a fatal departure from the high road of justice into the bogs of expediency, a surrender of the great principles of equity, an indefensible prolongation of the curse of slavery, a concession which places the guilt upon any but those who incur it, and directly calculated to perpetuate the thraldom of our species.
Immediate abolition does not mean that the slaves shall immediately exercise the right of suffrage, or be eligible to any office, or be emancipated from law, or be free from the benevolent restraints of guardianship. We contend for the immediate personal freedom of the slaves, for their exemption from punishment except where law has been violated, for their employment and reward as free laborers, for their exclusive right to their own bodies and those of their own children, for their instruction and subsequent admission to all the trusts, offices, honors and emoluments of intelligent freemen. Emancipation will increase and not destroy the value of their labor; it will also increase the demand for it. Holding out the stimulus of good treatment and an adequate reward, it will induce the slaves to toil with a hundred fold more assiduity and faithfulness. Who is so blind as not to perceive the peaceful and beneficial results of such a change? The slaves, if freed, will come under the watchful cognizance of law; they will not be idle, but avariciously industrious; they will not rush through the country, firing dwellings and murdering the inhabitants; for freedom is all they ask—all they desire—the obtainment of which will transform them from enemies into friends, from nuisances into blessings, from a corrupt, suffering and degraded, into a comparatively virtuous, happy and elevated population.
Nor does immediate abolition mean that any compulsory power, other than moral, should be used in breaking the fetters of slavery. It calls for no bloodshed, or physical interference; it jealously regards the welfare of the planters; it simply demands an entire revolution in public sentiment, which will lead to better conduct, to contrition for past crimes, to a love instead of a fear of justice, to a reparation of wrongs, to a healing of breaches, to a suppression of revengeful feelings, to a quiet, improving, prosperous state of society!
Now see with what earnestness and inveteracy the friends of the Colonization Society oppose immediate abolition!
‘It appears, indeed, to be the only feasible mode by which we can remove that stigma as well as danger from among us. Their sudden and entire freedom would be a fearful, and perhaps dreadful experiment, destructive of all the ends of liberty, for which their condition would unfit them, and which they would doubtless greatly abuse. Even their release, at apparently proper intervals, but uncontrolled as to their future habits and location, would be a very hazardous charity. Their gradual emancipation, therefore, under the advantages of a free government, formed, in their native land, by their own hands, offering all the rewards usual to industry and economy, and affording the means of enjoying, in comfort, a reputable and free existence, is the only rational scheme of relieving them from the bondage of their present condition.’ * * * ‘To eradicate or remove the evil immediately, is impossible; nor can any law of conscience govern necessity.’—[Af. Rep. vol. i. pp. 89, 258.]
‘Vaunt not over us, dear brethren of the north, we inherited the evil from our forefathers, and we really do not think you do your brethren any good, or that you serve the interests of the people of color, when you recommend and enforce premature schemes of emancipation.’ * * * ‘The operation, we were aware, must be—and, for the interests of our country, ought to be gradual.’ * * * ‘According to one, (that rash class which, without a due estimate of the fatal consequence, would forthwith issue a decree of general, immediate, and indiscriminate emancipation,) it was a scheme of the slaveholder to perpetuate slavery.’—[Idem, vol. ii. pp. 12, 254, 336.]
‘Slavery, in its mildest form, is an evil of the darkest character. Cruel and unnatural in its origin, no plea can be urged in justification of its continuance, but the plea of necessity—not that necessity which arises from our habits, our prejudices, or our wants; but the necessity which requires us to submit to existing evils, rather than substitute, by their removal, others of a more serious and destructive character. It was this which produced the recognition of slavery in the constitution of our country; it is this which has justified its continuance to the present day; and it is in this only that we can find a palliation for the rigors of our laws, which might otherwise be considered as the cruel enactments of a dark and dismal despotism. There have not, I am aware, been found wanting individuals to deny both the existence and the obligations of such a necessity. There are men, actuated in some instances, by a blind and mistaken enthusiasm, and in others, by a spirit of mischievous intent, loudly calling on us, in the names of justice and humanity, for the immediate and unqualified emancipation of our slaves. To men of this description, it is in vain to point out the inevitable effects of such a course, as well on the objects of their real or pretended solicitude, as on the community in which they exist. It is in vain to assure them, that while the preservation of the latter would require a policy even more rigorous than pertains to slavery itself, the short-lived and nominal freedom of the former must end in their ultimate and utter extinction. All this is of no consequence. Provided slavery be abolished in name, it matters not what horrors may be substituted in its room.’ * * * ‘The scope of the Society is large enough, but it is in no wise mingled or confounded with the broad sweeping views of a few fanatics in America, who would urge us on to the sudden and total abolition of slavery.’—[Af. Rep. vol. iii. pp. 15, 197.]
‘What is to be done? Immediate and universal emancipation will find few, if any advocates, among judicious and reflecting men.’ * * * ‘There is a portion of our brethren, who have been laboring for many years, with the most benevolent intentions, but, as I conceive, with erroneous views, in the cause of abolition.’ * * * ‘The Colonization Society, as such, have renounced wholly the name and the characteristics of abolitionists.’ * * * ‘Into their accounts the subject of emancipation does not enter at all.’ * * * ‘Here, that race is in every form a curse, and if the system, so long contended for by the uncompromising abolitionist, could prevail, its effect would be to spread discord and devastation from one end of the Union to the other.’—[Idem, vol. iv. pp. 202, 303, 306, 363.]
‘With a writer in the Southern Review we say, “the situation of the people of these States was not of their own choosing. When they came to the inheritance, it was subject to this mighty incumbrance, and it would be criminal in them to ruin or waste the estate, to get rid of the burden at once.” With this writer we add also, in the language of Capt. Hall, that the “slaveholders ought not (immediately) to disentangle themselves from the obligations which have devolved upon them, as the masters of slaves.” We believe that a master may sustain his relation to the slave, with as little criminality as the slave sustains his relation to the master. But we feel little sympathy for those who, in the language of Mr Harrison of Virginia, “still look upon their slaves in the light in which most men regarded them when the slave trade was legitimate. Of those, wherever they are, who hold their slaves with that same sentiment which impelled the kidnapper when he forcibly bore them off, I know not how morality can distinguish them from the original wrong-doers, pirates by nature, and pirates by civilized law.” That the system of slavery must exist temporarily in this country, we as firmly believe, as that for its existence a single moment, there can be offered justly no plea but necessity. Were the very spirit of angelic charity to pervade and fill the hearts of all the slaveholders in our land, it would by no means require that all the slaves should be instantaneously liberated.’—[Af. Rep. vol. v. p. 329.]
‘The long established habits of the South, the attachments which are frequently found subsisting between the proprietor and his servants, together with the difficulty of substituting at once white for slave labor, and the derangement which would ensue in the domestic concerns of life, would not merely make general emancipation at once inexpedient, but the attempt would denote the extremity of madness and folly, and convulse this government to its centre.’—[Idem, vol. vi. p. 291.]
‘The Society, meeting the objections of the abolition enthusiast, in a like spirit of mildness and forbearance, assures him of their equal devotion to the pure principles of liberty and the powerful claims of humanity. We know, say they, and we deplore the evil of slavery as the deadliest curse to our common country. We see, and we lament its demoralizing effects upon the children of our affections, from the budding innocence of infancy, to the full maturity of manhood. But, we have not, we do not, and we will not interfere with this delicate, this important subject. There are rights to be respected, prejudices to be conciliated, fears to be quelled, and safety to be observed in all our operations. And we protest, most solemnly protest, against the adoption of your views, as alike destructive of the ends of justice, of policy, and of humanity. No wild dream of the wildest enthusiast was ever more extravagant than that of turning loose upon society two millions of blacks, idle and therefore worthless, vicious and therefore dangerous, ignorant and therefore incapable of appreciating and enjoying the blessings of freedom. Could your wishes be realized, your gratulation would be quickly changed into mourning, your joy into grief, and your labor of love into visits of mercy to our jails and our penitentiaries, to the abodes of vice and the haunts of poverty. Come, ye abolitionists, away with your wild enthusiasm, your misguided philanthropy.’—[African Repository, vol. vii. p. 101.]
‘The Colonization Society is removing the greatest obstacles in the way of emancipation; but none, we think, who is acquainted with the circumstances and condition of our southern States, and who has any conscience or humanity, would deem it expedient or christian to dissolve instantaneously all the ties which unite masters and slaves.’—[Idem, vol. vii. p. 186.]
‘It is not right that men should be free, when their freedom will prove injurious to themselves and others.’ * * ‘He has encountered determined opposition from several individuals, who are so reckless and fanatical as to require the instantaneous remedying of an acknowledged evil, which may be remedied gradually, with safety, but which cannot be remedied immediately without jeopardizing all the interests of all parties concerned.’—[Idem, p. 202, 280.]
‘He was quite sure that in the Northern States, there was no opinion generally prevailing, that immediate, absolute, and universal emancipation was desirable. There might be, said Mr Storrs, some who are actuated by pure motives and benevolent views, who considered it practicable; but he might say with confidence, that very few, if any, believed that it would be truly humane or expedient to turn loose upon the community more than a million of persons, totally destitute of the means of subsistence, and altogether unprepared in every moral point of view, to enjoy or estimate their new privileges. Such a cotemporaneous emancipation of the colored population of the Southern States could only bring a common calamity on all the States, and the most severe misery on those who were to be thus thrown upon society, under the most abject, helpless and deplorable circumstances.’—[Speech of Hon. Mr Storrs.—Twelfth Annual Report.]
‘The condition of a slave suddenly emancipated, and thrown upon his own resources, is very far from being improved; and, however laudable the feeling which leads to such emancipation, its policy and propriety are at least questionable.’—[Report of the Pennsylvania Colonization Society.]
‘We may, therefore, fairly conclude the object of immediate universal emancipation wholly unattainable, or, if attainable, at too high a price.’—[Mathew Carey’s Essays.]
‘Observation has fully convinced them that emancipation has often proved injurious to both: consequently laws have been enacted in several of the States to discourage, if not to prevent it. The public safety and interest, as well as individual happiness, seemed to require of legislatures the adoption of such a measure. For, it appeared highly probable that the manumitted would not only be poor and wretched, but likewise a public nuisance; and perhaps at some future day, form the nucleus of rebellion among those unhappy persons still in slavery.’—[A colonization advocate in the Middletown (Connecticut) Gazette.]
‘To our mind, it is clearly the doctrine of the Bible, that there may be circumstances, in which the immediate and universal emancipation of slaves is not a duty. Demanding instantaneous and universal emancipation, and denouncing every instance of holding slaves as a crime, is not the way to bring it to pass. If such a course proceeds from a right spirit, it is from a right spirit misinformed.’—[Vermont Chronicle.]
‘When the writer visited England from the colonies, he was constantly astonished to find the Wilberforceans, or saints, as they were called, influenced by the wildest enthusiasm upon the sublime theory of liberty; urging immediate emancipation of the slave, and yet totally uninformed as to its destructive consequences to their future welfare, in their present uneducated condition, without some provision being made to so enlighten them that they may be enabled to estimate religions obligations and distinguish between right and wrong; otherwise it would be indispensable to have strong military posts and constant martial law to preserve order, and prevent a murderous anarchy and lawless confusion. It is not anticipated that this state of things could ever be consummated in the United States; but it may afford a very salutary lesson in guiding our consideration of similar occurrences that may take place.’
—[From a colonization pamphlet, entitled ‘Remarks upon a plan for the total abolition of slavery in the United States. By a Citizen of New-York.’]
‘We do not wish to be understood, as sanctioning the measures now pursued with respect to the subject of slavery, by some misguided enthusiasts in the northern and eastern sections of the United States. Were the measures they advocate with so much heat, to be adopted, a heavier curse could hardly fall upon our country. Their operation, we feel fully satisfied, would work the ruin of those, whom these imprudent advocates of instant and total emancipation, wish primarily to benefit. We have always regarded these advocates for the instantaneous abolition of slavery, in all cases, as doing more injury to our colored population than any other class of men in the community. The slaves of this country cannot be at once emancipated. It is folly, it is madness to talk of it. From the very nature of the case, in justice to that deeply injured class, in justice to ourselves, the work must be gradual.’ * * * ‘We cannot doubt the ultimate success of the American Colonization Society. And however much some of the clamorous advocates of instant, immediate abolition may vent their rage against this noble institution, it will prosper, it will flourish. Our intelligent community are beginning to see that the American Colonization Society presents the only door of hope to the republic.’—[Western Luminary.]
‘But what shall be done? Some—and their motives and philanthropic zeal are worthy of all honor—plead for immediate emancipation. But Mr Ladd had seen enough to know that that would be a curse to all parties. He acknowledged a difficulty here; but it is a difficulty that often occurs in morals. When we have gone far in a wrong road, it often happens that we cannot in a moment put ourselves in the right one. One penalty of such a sin is, that it clings to us, and cannot be shaken off at once with all its bitter consequences by a mere volition.’—[Speech of William Ladd, Esq.]
‘The warmest friend to the abolition of slavery, while he deplores the existence of the evil, must admit the necessity of cautious and gradual measures to remove it. The inhabitants of the South cannot, and ought not, suddenly to emancipate their slaves, to remain among them free. Such a measure would be no blessing to the slaves, but the very madness of self-destruction to the whites. In the South, the horrid scenes that would too certainly follow the liberation of their slaves, are present to every imagination, to stifle the calls of justice and humanity. A fell spirit of avarice is thus invigorated and almost justified, by the plea of necessity.’—[First Annual Report of the New Jersey Col. Soc.]
‘The impropriety and impolicy of manumitting slaves, in any case, in our country, one would suppose, must be apparent to all. It is not a little astonishing that individuals acquainted with the facts, and the evils brought upon society by the free black population, should persist in declaring that duty and humanity call upon us to give the slaves their freedom. It really appears to me that there is entirely too much “namby pamby sentimentality” and affected feeling exhibited respecting the condition of slaves. Do these individuals believe that benevolence and humanity command us to turn loose upon society a set of persons who confessedly only serve to swell the amount of crime, while they add nothing to the industry, to the wealth, or the strength of the country? Because abstractedly considered, man has no right to hold his fellow man in bondage, shall we give up our liberty, and the peace of society, in order that this principle may not be violated? The fact is, the negroes are happier when kept in bondage. In their master they find a willing and efficient protector, to guard them from injury and insult, to attend to them when sick and in distress, and to provide for their comfort and support, when old age overtakes them. When in health, they are well fed and clothed, and by no means, in common cases, are they hardly worked.’—[A warm advocate of African Colonization in the Alexandria Gazette.]
‘But there are other difficulties in the way of immediate emancipation. We believe that no one, who has taken charge of an infant, and made a cripple of him, either in his feet, his hands, or his mind, so that when he is of mature age, he is unable to take care of himself, has a right to turn him out of doors, to perish or destroy himself, and call it, giving him his liberty. After having reduced him to this condition, he is bound to afford him the support and protection, which he has rendered necessary.
‘This appears to us to be the true relation of the southern planters to their slaves. Not that the southern planters have generally been guilty of personal cruelty; but such has been the general result of the system acted upon, and such the relation growing out of it. The slaves have grown up, under the eye of their masters, unable to take care of themselves; and their masters, for whose comfort and convenience this has been done, are bound to provide for them.
‘Nor do we think that the exhortation, to “do right and trust Providence,” applies at all to this case; for the very question is, “what is right?” Would it be right for the slave merchant, in the midst of the Atlantic, to knock the manacles from his prisoners and throw them overboard, and call this, giving them their liberty and trusting Providence with the result? But how else could he reduce the doctrine of immediate and complete emancipation to practice?’—[Vermont Chronicle.]
The miserable sophistry contained in the foregoing extracts scarcely needs a serious refutation. ‘To say that immediate emancipation will only increase the wretchedness of the slaves, and that we must pursue a system of gradual abolition, is to present to us the double paradox, that we must continue to do evil, in order to cure the evil which we are doing; and that we must continue to be unjust, and to do evil, that good may come.’ The fatal error of gradualists lies here: They talk as if the friends of abolition contended only for the emancipation of the slaves, without specifying or caring what should be done with or for them! as if the planters were invoked to cease from one kind of villany, only to practise another! as if the manumitted slaves must necessarily be driven out from society into the wilderness, like wild beasts! This is talking nonsense: it is a gross perversion of reason and common sense. Abolitionists have never said, that mere manumission would be doing justice to the slaves: they insist upon a remuneration for years of unrequited toil, upon their employment as free laborers, upon their immediate and coefficient instruction, and upon the exercise of a benevolent supervision over them on the part of their employers. They declare, in the first place, that to break the fetters of the slaves, and turn them loose upon the country, without the preservative restraints of law, and destitute of occupation, would leave the work of justice only half done; and, secondly, that it is absurd to suppose that the planters would be wholly independent of the labor of the blacks—for they could no more dispense with it next week, were emancipation to take place, than they can to-day. The very ground which they assume for their opposition to slavery,—that it necessarily prevents the improvement of its victims,—shows that they contemplate the establishment of schools for the education of the slaves, and the furnishing of productive employment, immediately upon their liberation. If this were done, none of the horrors which are now so feelingly depicted, as the attendants of a sudden abolition, would ensue.
But we are gravely told that education must precede emancipation. The logic of this plea is, that intellectual superiority justly gives one man an oppressive control over another! Where would such a detestable principle lead but to practices the most atrocious, and results the most disastrous, if carried out among ourselves? Tell us, ye hair-splitting sophists, the exact quantum of knowledge which is necessary to constitute a freeman. If every dunce should be a slave, your servitude is inevitable; and richly do you deserve the lash for your obtuseness. Our white population, too, would furnish blockheads enough to satisfy all the classical kidnappers in the land.
The reason why the slaves are so ignorant, is because they are held in bondage; and the reason why they are held in bondage, is because they are so ignorant! They ought not to be freed until they are educated; and they ought not be educated, because on the acquisition of knowledge they would burst their fetters! Fine logic, indeed! How men, who make any pretensions to honesty or common sense, can advance a paradox like this, is truly inexplicable. ‘I never met with a man yet,’ says an able writer in Kentucky, ‘who impliedly admits the enslaving of human beings as consistent with the exercise of christian duties, who could talk or write ten minutes on the subject, without expressing nonsense, or contradicting himself, or advancing heresy which would expose him to censure on any other subject.’ In this connexion, I make the following extract from the Report of the Dublin Negro’s Friend Society, of which Wilberforce is President, and Clarkson Vice President:
‘They do not recognize the false principle, that education, as a preparation for freedom, must precede emancipation; or that an amelioration of the slaves’ condition should be a substitute for it: on the contrary, THEY INSIST UPON UNPROCRASTINATED EMANCIPATION, as a right which is unrighteously withheld, and the restoration of which is, in their opinion, the first and most indispensable step to all improvement, and absolutely essential to the application of the only remedy for that moral debasement, in which slavery has sunk its victims.’
I cannot portray the absurdity of the doctrine of gradual abolition, and the danger and folly of attempting to mitigate the system of slavery, more strikingly, than by presenting the following eloquent extracts from a speech of the Rev. Dr. Thomson of Edinburgh, one of the most learned and able divines in Great Britain, whose sudden death was recorded in the newspapers a few months since:
‘The word immediate may no doubt be considered as a strong word; but you will observe that it is used as contrasted with the word gradual. And were I to criticise the term gradual as certain opponents have treated the term immediate, I could easily, by the help of a little quibbling, bring you to the conclusion, that as hitherto employed it means that the abolition is never to take place, and that, by putting it into their petition, they are to be understood as deprecating rather than asking the emancipation of the slaves. “Immediate,” they argue, “evanishes as soon as you utter it; it is gone before your petition reaches parliament.” How absurd! If I should say to my servant while engaged in work, “You must go to the south side of the town with a message for me immediately,” is it indeed implied in the order I have given him, that he could not fulfil it, unless he set off without his hat, without his coat, without his shoes, without those habiliments which are requisite for his appearing decently in the streets of Edinburgh, and executing the task that I had assigned him? The meaning of the word as used by us is perfectly clear, and cannot be misapprehended by any one: it is not to be made a subject of metaphysical animadversion: it is to be considered and understood under the direction of common sense, and especially as modified and expounded by those statements with which it is associated both in our resolutions and in the petition; and viewed in that light, immediate abolition is not merely an intelligible phrase, but one that does not warrant a particle of the alarm which some have affected to take at it, and is not liable to any one of those objections which some have been pleased to make to it.
‘To say that we will come out of the sin by degrees—that we will only forsake it slowly, and step by step—that we will pause and hesitate and look well about us before we consent to abandon its gains and its pleasures—that we will allow another age to pass by ere we throw off the load of iniquity that is lying so heavy upon us, lest certain secularities should be injuriously affected—and that we will postpone the duty of “doing justly and loving mercy,” till we have removed every petty difficulty out of the way, and got all the conflicting interests that are involved in the measure reconciled and satisfied;—to say this, is to trample on the demands of moral obligation, and to disregard the voice which speaks to as from heaven. The path of duty is plain before us; and we have nothing to do but to enter it at once, and to walk in it without turning to the right hand or to the left. Our concern is not with the result that may follow our obedience to the divine will. Our great and primary concern is to obey that will. God reigns over his universe in the exercise of infinite perfection: he commands us to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke; and submitting, without procrastination, and without any attempts at compromise, to that command, we may be assured that he will take care of all the effects that can be produced by compliance with his authority, and give demonstration to the truth that obedience to his behests is our grand and only security for a prosperous lot.
‘We are by no means indifferent to the expediency of the case. On the contrary, we think ourselves prepared to prove, by fair reasoning and by ascertained fact, that the expediency of the thing is all on our side; that immediate abolition is the only secure and proper way of attaining the object which we all profess to have in view; that to defer the measure to a distant period, and to admit the propriety of getting at it by a course of mitigation, is the surest mode of frustrating every hope we might otherwise entertain, and giving over the slaves to interminable bondage.’ * * *
‘I do not deny, Sir, that the evils of practical slavery may be lessened. By parliamentary enactments, by colonial arrangements, by appeals to the judgment and feelings of planters, and by various other means, a certain degree of melioration may be secured. But I say, in the first place, that, with all that you can accomplish, or reasonably expect, of mitigation, you cannot alter the nature of slavery itself. With every improvement you have superinduced upon it, you have not made it less debasing, less cruel, less destructive, in its essential character. The black man is still the property of the white man. And that one circumstance not only implies in it the transgression of inalienable right and everlasting justice, but is the fruitful and necessary source of numberless mischiefs, the very thought of which harrows up the soul, and the infliction of which no superintendence of any government can either prevent or control. Mitigate and keep down the evil as much as you can, still it is there in all its native virulence, and still it will do its malignant work in spite of you. The improvements you have made are merely superficial. You have not reached the seat and vital spring of the mischief. You have only concealed in some measure, and for a time, its inherent enormity. Its essence remains unchanged and untouched, and is ready to unfold itself whenever a convenient season arrives, notwithstanding all your precaution, and all you vigilance, in those manifold acts of injustice and inhumanity, which are its genuine and its invariable fruits. You may white-wash the sepulchre,—you may put upon it every adornment that fancy can suggest,—you may cover it over with all the flowers and evergreens that the garden or the fields can furnish, so that it will appear beautiful outwardly unto men. But it is a sepulchre still,—full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness. Disguise slavery as you will,—put into the cup all the pleasing and palatable ingredients which you can discover in the wide range of nature and of art,—still it is a bitter, bitter draught, from which the understanding and the heart of every man, in whom nature works unsophisticated and unbiassed, recoils with unutterable aversion and abhorrence. Why, Sir, slavery is the very Upas tree of the moral world, beneath whose pestiferous shade all intellect languishes, and all virtue dies. And if you would get quit of the evil, you must go more thoroughly and effectually to work than you can ever do by any or by all of those palliatives, which are included under the term “mitigation.” The foul sepulchre must be taken away. The cup of oppression must be dashed to pieces on the ground. The pestiferous tree must be cut down and eradicated; it must be, root and branch of it, cast into the consuming fire, and its ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven. It is thus you must deal with slavery. You must annihilate it,—annihilate it now,—and annihilate it for ever.
‘Get your mitigation. I say in the second place, that you are thereby, in all probability farther away than ever from your object. It is not to the Government or the Parliament at home that you are to look—neither is it to the legislatures and planters abroad that you are to look—for accomplishing the abolition of negro slavery. Sad experience shows that, if left to themselves, they will do nothing efficient in this great cause. It is to the sentiments of the people at large that you are to look, to the spread of intellectual light, to the prevalence of moral feeling, to the progress, in short, of public opinion, which, when resting on right principles and moving in a right direction, must in this free and Christian country prove irresistible. But observe, Sir, the public mind will not be sufficiently affected by the statement of abstract truths, however just, or by reasonings on the tendencies of a system, however accurate. It must be more or less influenced by what is visible, or by what is easily known and understood of the actual atrocities which accompany slavery, wherever it is left to its own proper operation. Let it be seen in its native vileness and cruelty, as exhibited when not interfered with by the hand of authority, and it excites universal and unqualified detestation. But let its harsher asperities be rubbed off; take away the more prominent parts of its iniquity; see that it look somewhat smoother and milder than it did before; make such regulations as ought, if faithfully executed, to check its grosser acts of injustice and oppression; give it the appearance of its being put under the humanizing sway of religious education and instruction; do all this, and you produce one effect at least,—you modify the indignation of a great number of the community; you render slavery much less obnoxious; you enable its advocates and supporters to say in reply to your denunciations of its wickedness, “O, the slaves are now comfortable and happy; they do not suffer what they did; they are protected and well treated,” and in proof of all this, they point to what are called “mitigations.” But mark me, Sir; under these mitigations, slavery still exists, ready at every convenient season to break forth in all its countless forms of inhumanity; meanwhile the public feeling in a great measure subsides; and when the public feeling—such an important and indispensable element in our attempts to procure abolition—is allowed to subside, tell me, Sir, when, and where, and by what means it is again to be roused into activity. I must say, for one, that though I sympathize with my sable brethren, when I hear of them being spared even one lash of the cart-whip; yet when I take a more enlarged view of their condition—when I consider the nature of that system under which they are placed, and when I look forward to their deliverance, and the means by which alone it is to be effected, I am tempted, and almost if not altogether persuaded, to deprecate that insidious thing termed “mitigation,” because it directly tends to perpetuate the mighty evil, which will by and by throw off the improvements by which it is glossed over as quite unnatural to it, will ultimately grow up again into all its former dreadfulness, and continue to wither and crush beneath it, all that is excellent and glorious in man.
‘But if our rulers and legislators will undertake to emancipate the slaves, and do it as it ought to be done, immediately, I beg those who set themselves against such a measure, to point out the danger, and to prove it. The onus lies upon them. And what evidence do they give us? Where is it to be found? In what circumstance shall we discover it? From what principles and probabilities shall we infer it? We must not have mere hypothesis—mere allegations—mere fancied horrors, dressed up in frightful language. We must have proof to substantiate, in some good measure, their theory of rebellion, warfare, and blood. If any such thing exists, let them produce it.’ * * * ‘But if you push me, and still urge the argument of insurrection and bloodshed, for which you are far more indebted to fancy than to fact, as I have shown you, then I say, be it so. I repeat that maxim, taken from a heathen book, but pervading the whole Book of God, Fiat justitia—ruat cælum. Righteousness, Sir, is the pillar of the universe. Break down that pillar, and the universe falls into ruin and desolation. But preserve it, and though the fair fabric may sustain partial dilapidations, it may be rebuilt and repaired—it will be rebuilt, and repaired, and restored to all its pristine strength, and magnificence, and beauty. If there must be violence, let it even come, for it will soon pass away—let it come and rage its little hour, since it is to be succeeded by lasting freedom, and prosperity and happiness. Give me the hurricane rather than the pestilence. Give me the hurricane, with its thunder, and its lightning, and its tempest;—give me the hurricane, with its partial and temporary devastations, awful though they be;—give me the hurricane, with its purifying, healthful, salutary effects;—give me that hurricane, infinitely rather than the noisome pestilence, whose path is never crossed, whose silence is never disturbed, whose progress is never arrested, by one sweeping blast from the heavens; which walks peacefully and sullenly through the length and breadth of the land, breathing poison into every heart, and carrying havoc into every home, enervating all that is strong, defacing all that is beautiful, and casting its blight over the fairest and happiest scenes of human life—and which, from day to day, and from year to year, with intolerant and interminable malignity, sends its thousands and its tens of thousands of hapless victims into the ever-yawning and never-satisfied grave!’
It is said, by way of extenuation, that the present owners of slaves are not responsible for the origin of this system. I do not arraign them for the crimes of their ancestors, but for the constant perpetration and extension of similar crimes. The plea that the evil of slavery was entailed upon them, shall avail them nothing: in its length and breadth it means that the robberies of one generation justify the robberies of another! that the inheritance of stolen property converts it into an honest acquisition! that the atrocious conduct of their fathers exonerates them from all accountability, thus presenting the strange anomaly of a race of men incapable of incurring guilt, though daily practising the vilest deeds! Scarcely any one denies that blame attaches somewhere: the present generation throws it upon the past—the past, upon its predecessor—and thus it is cast, like a ball, from one to another, down to the first importers of the Africans! ‘Can that be innocence in the temperate zone, which is the acme of all guilt near the equator? Can that be honesty in one meridian of longitude, which, at one hundred degrees east, is the climax of injustice?’ Sixty thousand infants, the offspring of slave-parents, are annually born in this country, and doomed to remediless bondage. Is it not as atrocious a crime to kidnap these, as to kidnap a similar number on the coast of Africa?
It is said, moreover, that we ought to legislate prospectively, on this subject; that the fetters of the present generation of slaves cannot be broken; and that our single aim should be, to obtain the freedom of their offspring, by fixing a definite period after which none shall be born slaves. But this is inconsistent, inhuman and unjust. The following extracts from the speech of the Rev. Dr. Thomson are conclusive on this point:
‘In the first place, it amounts to an indirect sanction of the continued slavery of all who are now alive, and of all who may be born before the period fixed upon. This is a renunciation of the great moral principles upon which the demand for abolition proceeds. It consigns more than 800,000 human beings to bondage and oppression, while their title to freedom is both indisputable and acknowledged. And it is not merely an inconsistency on the part of the petitioners, and a violation of the duty which they owe to such a multitude of their fellow-men, but it weakens or surrenders the great argument by which they enforce their application for the extinction of colonial slavery.
‘Besides, it is vain to expect that the planters will acquiesce in such a prospective measure, any more than in the liberation of the existing slaves, for the progeny of the existing slaves must be considered by them as much a part of their property as these slaves themselves. And they would regard it equally unjust to deprive them of what is hereafter to be produced from their own slave stock, as it would be to deprive a farmer, by an anticipating law of all the foals and of all the calves that might be produced in his stable and in his cow-house, after a given specified date.
‘We must be true to our own maxims, which are taken from the word of God; and ask for all that we are entitled to have on the ground of justice and humanity, and be contented with nothing less.
‘In the second place, the plan objected to is not merely an acquiescence in the continuance of crime, it is a violation of the best feelings of our nature. For, let any man but reflect on the circumstance of children being born to slavery, merely because they came into the world the last hour of December 1830, instead of the first hour of January 1, 1831—and of children in the same family, brothers and sisters—some of them destined to bondage for life, and others gifted with freedom, for no other reason than that the former were born before, and the latter after, a particular day of a particular year—and of parents being unjustly and inhumanly flogged in the very sight of their offspring arbitrarily made free, while they are as arbitrarily kept slaves—let any man but reflect on those things, and unless the sensibilities of his heart be paralysed even to deadness, he must surely revolt at such a cruel and cold blooded allotment in the fortune of those little ones, and be satisfied with nothing short of the emancipation of the whole community, without a single exception.
‘In the third place, supposing all children born after January 1, 1831, were declared free, how are they to be educated? That they may be prepared for the enjoyment of that liberty with which you have invested them, they must undergo a particular and appropriate training. So say the gradualists. Very well; under whom are they to get this training? Are they to be separated from their parents? Is that dearest of natural ties to be broken asunder? Is this necessary for your plan? And are not you thus endeavoring to cure one species of wickedness by the instrumentality of another? But if they are to be left with their parents and brought up under their care, then either they will be imbued with the faults and degeneracies that are characteristic of slavery, and consequently be as unfit for freedom as those who have not been disenthralled: or they will be well nurtured and well instructed by their parents, and this implies a confession that their parents themselves are sufficiently prepared for liberty, and that there is no good reason for withholding from them, the boon that is bestowed upon their children.
‘Whatever view, in short, we take of the question, the prospective plan is full of difficulty or contradictions, and we are made more sensible than ever that there is nothing left for us, but to take the consistent, honest, uncompromising course of demanding the abolition of slavery with respect to the present, as well as to every future generation of the negroes in our colonies.’
We are told that ‘it is not right that men should be free, when their freedom will prove injurious to themselves and others.’ This has been the plea of tyrants in all ages. If the immediate emancipation of the slaves would prove a curse, it follows that slavery is a blessing; and that it cannot be unjust, but benevolent, to defraud the laborer of his hire, to rank him as a beast, and to deprive him of his liberty. But this, every one must see, is at war with common sense, and avowedly doing evil that good may come. This plea must mean, either that a state of slavery is more favorable to the growth of virtue and the dispensation of knowledge than a state of freedom—(a glaring absurdity)—or that an immediate compliance with the demands of justice would be most unjust—(a gross contradiction.)
It is boldly asserted by some colonizationists, that ‘the negroes are happier when kept in bondage,’ and that ‘the condition of the great mass of emancipated Africans is one in comparison with which the condition of the slaves is enviable.’ What is the inference? Why, either that slavery is not oppression—(another paradox)—or that real benevolence demands the return of the free people of color to their former state of servitude. Every kidnapper, therefore, is a true philanthropist! Our legislature should immediately offer a bounty for the body of every free colored person! The colored population of Massachusetts, at $200 for each man, woman and child, would bring at least one million three hundred thousand dollars. This sum would seasonably replenish our exhausted treasury. The whole free colored population of the United States, at the same price, (which is a low estimate,) would be worth sixty-five millions of dollars!! Think how many churches this would build, schools and colleges establish, beneficiaries educate, missionaries support, bibles and tracts circulate, railroads and canals complete, &c. &c. &c.!!!
The Secretary of the Colonization Society assures us, (vide the African Repository, vol. v. p. 330,) that ‘were the very spirit of angelic charity to pervade and fill the hearts of all the slaveholders in our land, it would by no means require that all the slaves should be instantaneously liberated’!!—i. e. should the slaveholders become instantaneously metamorphosed into angels, they would still hold the rational creatures of God as their property, and yet commit no sin! Think, for one moment, of an angel in the capacity of a man-stealer—feeding his victims upon a peck of corn per week, or three bushels of corn and a few herrings every ‘quarter-day,’ as a compensation for their severe labor—flourishing a cowskin over their heads, and applying it frequently to their naked bodies! Think of him selling parents from children, and children from parents, at private sale or public auction!
Many slaveholders are giving up their slaves from conscientious motives; they cannot, they dare not longer keep them in servitude; they believe that the law of God has a higher claim upon their obedience than the laws of their native State. Now suppose all the owners of slaves in our land should be suddenly and simultaneously convicted of sin, and moved to repentance in a similar manner, and should say to their slaves, ‘God forbid that we should longer call you our property, or place you on a level with our cattle, or defraud you of your just dues, or sell you or your wives or children to others, or deny you the means of instruction, or lacerate your bodies! henceforth you are free—but you want employment, and we need laborers—go and work as freemen, and be paid as freemen!’—suppose, I say, a case like this should happen, and a troop of gradualists should surround these penitent oppressors, and cry, ‘Were the very spirit of angelic charity to pervade and fill your hearts, it would by no means require that all your slaves should be instantaneously liberated—your throats will be cut, your houses pillaged, and desolation will stalk through the land, if you carry your mad purpose into effect—emancipate by a slow, imperceptible process!’—how would this advice sound? What should be their reply? Clearly this: ‘Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto men more than unto God, judge ye.’ Here would be presented a strange spectacle indeed—one party confessing and resolving to forsake their sins, and another urging them to disregard the admonitions of conscience, and to leave off sinning by degrees! To be sure, a few, a very few, would be generously allowed to reform instanter!
Those who prophesy evil, and only evil, concerning immediate abolition, absolutely disregard the nature and constitution of man, as also his inalienable rights, and annihilate or reverse the causes and effects of human action. They are continually fearful lest the slaves, in consequence of their grievous wrongs and intolerable sufferings, should attempt to gain their freedom by revolution; and yet they affect to be equally fearful lest a general emancipation should produce the same disastrous consequences. How absurd! They know that oppression must cause rebellion; and yet they pretend that a removal of the cause will produce a bloody effect! This is to suppose an effect without a cause, and, of course, is a contradiction in terms. Bestow upon the slaves personal freedom, and all motives for insurrection are destroyed. Treat them like rational beings, and you may surely expect rational treatment in return: treat them like beasts, and they will behave in a beastly manner.
Besides, precedent and experience make the ground of abolitionists invulnerable. In no single instance where their principles have been adopted, has the result been disastrous or violent, but beneficial and peaceful even beyond their most sanguine expectations. The immediate abolition of slavery in Mexico, in Colombia, and in St. Domingo,O was eminently preservative and useful in its effects. The manumitted slaves (numbering more than two thousand,) who were settled in Nova Scotia, at the close of our revolutionary war, by the British government, ‘led a harmless life,’ says Clarkson, ‘and gained the character of an industrious and honest people from their white neighbors.’ A large number who were located at Trinidad, as free laborers, at the close of our last war, ‘are now,’ according to the same authority, ‘earning their own livelihood, and with so much industry and good conduct, that the calumnies originally spread against them have entirely died away.’ According to the Anti-Slavery Reporter for January, 1832, three thousand prize negroes at the Cape of Good Hope had received their freedom—four hundred in one day; ‘but not the least difficulty or disorder occurred: servants found masters, masters hired servants—all gained homes, and at night scarcely an idler was to be seen.’
These and many other similar facts show conclusively the safety of immediate abolition. Gradualists can present, in abatement of them, nothing but groundless apprehensions and criminal distrust. The argument is irresistible.
Footnotes
N The slaves, they say, are their property. Once admit this, and all your arguments for interference are vain, and all your plans for amelioration are fruitless. The whole question may be said to hang upon this point. If the slaves are not property, then slavery is at an end. The slaveholders see this most clearly; they see that while you allow these slaves to be their property, you act inconsistently and oppressively in intermeddling, as you propose to do, with what is theirs as much as any other of their goods and chattels: you must proceed, therefore, in your measures for amelioration, as you call it, with ‘hesitating steps and slow;’ and there is nothing you can do for restraining punishment, for regulating labor, for enforcing manumission, for introducing education and Christianity, which will not be met with the remonstrance, undeniably just by your own concessions, that you are encroaching on the sacred rights of property,—the slaveholders see all this, and they can employ it to paralyse and defeat all your efforts to get at emancipation, and to prepare for it. It is on this account, that I wish it settled in your minds, as a fixed and immutable principle, that there is and can be no property of man in man. Adopt this principle, and give it that ascendency over your minds to which it is entitled;—and slavery is swept away.—Speech of Rev. Dr Thomson of Edinburgh.
O The history of the Revolution in St Domingo is not generally understood in this country. The result of the instantaneous emancipation of the slaves, in that island, by an act of the Conventional Assembly of France in the month of February, 1794, settles the controversy between the immediatists and gradualists. ‘After this public act of emancipation,’ says Colonel Malenfant, who was resident in the island at the time, ‘the negroes remained quiet both in the South and in the West, and they continued to work upon all the plantations.’ ‘Upon those estates which were abandoned, they continued their labors, where there were any, even inferior agents, to guide them; and on those estates, where no white men were left to direct them, they betook themselves to the planting of provisions; but upon all the plantations where the whites resided, the blacks continued to labor as quietly as before.’ ‘On the Plantation Gourad, consisting of more than four hundred and fifty laborers, not a single negro refused to work; and yet this plantation was thought to be under the worst discipline and the slaves the most idle of any in the plain.’ General Lacroix, who published his ‘Memoirs for a History of St Domingo,’ at Paris, in 1819, uses these remarkable words: ‘The colony marched, as by enchantment, towards its ancient splendor; cultivation prospered; every day produced perceptible proofs of its progress. The city of the Cape and the plantations of the North rose up again visibly to the eye.’ General Vincent, who was a general of a brigade of artillery in St Domingo, and a proprietor of estates in that island, at the same period, declared to the Directory of France, that ‘every thing was going on well in St Domingo. The proprietors were in peaceable possession of their estates; cultivation was making rapid progress; the blacks were industrious, and beyond example happy.’ So much for the horrible concomitants of a general emancipation! So much for the predicted indolence of the liberated slaves! Let confusion of face cover all abolition alarmists in view of these historical facts! This peaceful and prosperous state of affairs continued from 1794, to the invasion of the island by Leclerc in 1802. The attempt of Bonaparte to reduce the island to its original servitude was the sole cause of that sanguinary conflict which ended in the total extirpation of the French from its soil.—[Vide Clarkson’s ‘Thoughts on the Necessity of Improving the Condition of the Slaves in the British Colonies,’ &c.]