tf£ UN1V5BJY UB*4*r

Ku

'<IAM LYOK VH¥.\,VS Mf>v0^'

?A*

SLAVERY AID MTI-SLAVEBY;

A HISTORT OF THE

GREAT STRUGGLE IX BOTH HEMISPHERES

WITH A VIEW OF

THE SLAVEET QUESTION

UNITED STATES.

WILLIAM GOODELL,
AUTHOR OF ''THB DEIOCIACI OF CHEI 5 Tl __ X II V."

XEW-YORK :
WILLIAM GOODELL,
43 BKERilAX-STREET. 1-53.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the Year One Thousand Eight Hundred
and Fifty-two, by WILLIAM GOODELL, in the Clerk's Office of the District
Court of the United States, for the Southern District of New York.

O. A. ALVORD, PRINTER, .. P. JONES & CO., STEREOTYPERS,
29 Gold-st., N. Y. 183 William-street, N. Y.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. page.
Magnitude and necessity of the struggle  1
CHAPTER II.
Origin of the modern Slave Trade and Slavery  4
CHAPTER III.
Slavery and the Slave Trade in the British Colonies in North America,
now the United States.-  10
CHAPTER IT.
Early testimonies against Slavery and the Slave Trade   27
CHAPTER V.
Action of religious bodies against the Slave Trade and Slavery, com
mencing before the American Revolution, and the results  32
CHAPTER VI.
Of Slavery and its abolition in England  44
CHAPTER VH.
Of efforts for abolishing the African Slave Trade  53
CHAPTER Till.
Period of the American Revolution, and the establishment of an inde
pendent Government   69
CHAPTER IX.
Era of forming the Federal Constitution  81

IV CONTENTS.
CHAPTER X. paoe
Of direct anti-Slavery efforts, including ecclesiastical action, from the
period of the Revolution to the close of the last century ; and the
abolition of Slavery in the Northern States  "*
CHAPTER XI.
Decline of the spirit of Liberty, and growth pf Slavery, since the Re
volution ; their causes and early manifestations  11°
CHAPTER XII.
Position of the American Churches respecting Slavery, during the first
half of the Nineteenth Century.— I. Methodist Episcopal Church. 143
CHAPTER XIII.
Position of the American Churches, &c. (continued). — II. The Pres
byterian Church  -- 151
CHAPTER XIV.
Position of the American Churches, &c. (continued). — III. Con
gregationalists  163
CHAPTER XV.
Position of the American Churches, &e. (continued). — IV. Baptists. 183
CHAPTER XVI.
Position of the American Churches, &c. (continued). — V. The
Protestant Episcopal Church  191
CHAPTER XVII.
Position of the American Churches, &c. (continued). — VI. Other
Sects — General view  195
CHAPTER XVIII.
Position of the American Churches, &c. (continued). — VII. Volun
tary Associations connected with several Sects — Conclusion  202
CHAPTER XIX.
Action of the Federal Government, to the close of the first Presiden
tial Administration  220
CHAPTER XX.
Subsequent action of the Federal Government — Colored people — Slave
territory — New Slave States — Federal District  237
CHAPTER XXI.
Further action of the Federal Government — American Slave Trade —
African Slave Trade  347

CONTENTS. V
CHAPTER XXII.
Further action of the Federal Government — Continued subserviency
of the national diplomacy to the demands of the Slaveholders  263
CHAPTER XXIII.
Further action of the Federal Government — Hayti — Florida — Sem
inole War  268
CHAPTER XXIV.
Further action of the Federal Government — Acquisition of Texas. . . 272
CHAPTER XXV.
Conspiracy for the conquest of Mexico, and the disrupture of the
Federal Union in 1806 — Controlling power of the Conspirators over
the Federal Judiciary  280
CHAPTER XXVI.
Further action of the Federal Government — The war with Mexico —
Acquisition of California, New Mexico, and Utah  287
CHAPTER XXVII.
Further action of the Federal Government — Result of the Conquest
of California — Its admission as a Free State — '" The Compromise." 306
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Further action of the Federal Government — General policy, and
political economy, controlled by Slavery   319
CHAPTER XXIX.
Colonization Society  341
CHAPTER XXX.
Abolition of Slavery in the British Colonies  353
CHAPTER XXXI.
Distinctive features of American Slavery   377
CHAPTER XXXII.
The present Anti-Slavery Agitation in America — Its causes, origin, and
character  382 e-
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Opposition to Abolitionists — Its elements — Its nature and methods.  400
CHAPTER XXXIV.
Attempts to silence the discussion by authority — State Legislatures —
Federal Executive — U. S. Mails — " Gag" Rules in Congress — -
Right of petition  "  408

VI CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXXV. page.
Opposition from leading Clergy and Ecclesiastical bodies  425
CHAPTER XXXVI.
Persecutions of Abolitionists  434
' CHAPTER XXXVII.
Of the elements and occasions of division among Abolitionists  447
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
Divisions in 1839-40  457
CHAPTER XXXIX.
Organized political action — Liberty party — Liberty League — Free Soil
party  - . 468
CHAPTER XL.
Anti-Slavery Church agitation — New Anti-Slavery Churches and Mis
sionary bodies     487
CHAPTER XLI.
The Anti-Slavery Societies — Their relation to political and Church
action  509
CHAPTER XLII.
The American Anti-Slavery Society — Its further course on political
action  _  517
CHAPTER XLIII.
Second revolution in the. position and policy of the American Anti-
Slavery Society in 1844  526
CHAPTER XLIV.
Further difficulties in the American Anti-Slavery Society  529
CHAPTER XLV.
Political course of the American Anti-Slavery Society, since its revo
lution of 1844  532
CHAPTER XLVI.
Course of Mr. Garrison and the American Anti-Slavery Society and
its members, since the division of 1840, in respect to Anti-Slavery
Church action  ...
CHAPTER XLVII.
General estimate of the American Anti-Slavery Society and its labors
since 1840  c5-

CONTENTS. VU
CHAPTER XLVHI. page.
Review of these divisions and their results -.  --   559
CHAPTER XLIX.
Different views of the Constitution and of the legality of Slavery  563
CHAPTER L.
The Slavery questisn in America — and the Crisis — What shall be done ? 5S3

OBJECT AND PLAN OF THIS BOOK.

The chief design of this publication is to furnish, in one volume, an
abstract, for convenient reference, of a great mass of historical informa
tion concerning slavery and the struggle against it (in this country and
Great Britain), that is now to be found only by looking over several volumes,
numerous pamphlets, and the newspapers and scattered documents of the
last twenty years. This abstract, at the same time, was intended to have
a bearing on the now-pending slave question in the United States, and to be
so selected and arranged, as to facilitate a presentation of that question
towards the close of the volume. It was designed to be as documentary in
its character as the nature of an abstract would permit. Hence, it consists
much in extracts, quotations, and abbreviated paragraphs, preserving as
much as possible the significant portions, without giving the documents
entire, which would have required volumes.
The writer was aware that the attempt to cover so much ground, in one
volume, was a hazardous one. It could not be a small volume ; and most
readers, as well as some critics, will instantly pronounce a work " too
diffuse" that exceeds three or fonr hundred pages, without stopping to
consider whether or no it presents the substance of several such volumes on
distinct points of history. They would find no fault with one book of that
size that should only tell the story of the abolition of the African slave
trade, nor with another that should only relate the measures that led to the
abolition of slavery in the British West Indies, and the results of those
labors ; nor with another that should contain the story of Texas and the
Mexican war. But if a writer should present the substance of all three
of these histories, anijiue or six more in addition, of equal magnitude and
importance, iu a volume of six hundred pages, they would think him ub-
pardonably diffuse ; and the farther this condensing process was carried, in
one volume, the more would he fall under censure for diffuseness. The

X OBJECT AND PLAN.
difficulty would not end here. The same readers, or others, on referring to
the parts of the history that most interested them, would fail of obtaining
all the minute information they expected, or would wonder at the omission
of many things that they considered important. Whether, on the whole,
the work will be found too much or too little condensed, is uncertain. If
the latter, we may hereafter furnish a cheaper abridgment of it : if the
former, the present edition may hereafter take the name of an abridgment
to the more copious work that may be written, and for which there are
ample materials at hand.
The writer has not wholly excluded from this volume all notice of the
principles that underlie history, nor of the workings^ of moral cause and
effect. Nor has he suppressed his own sentiments, through fear of giving
offense. He hopes he has not been uncandid or discourteous to others.
No reasonable pains have been spared to secure accuracy in dates and
facts; and yet it is quite impossible to be certain of freedom from errors.
In some cases, the best authorities disagree. Apparent or real discrepan
cies and mistakes are incident to all histories. Biblical critics are not
always agreed in respect to the true solution of apparent discrepancies in_s,
the inspired writers of history. In preparing this book, several instances
have occurred in which good authorities have seemed to make irreconcilable
statements, but which have, nevertheless, with much labor, been reconciled.
Few of the books or pamphlets used by us have been free from real or
apparent mistakes that have perplexed us. We hope we shall not be
accounted careless of our facts, if some of them should be found inaccurate,
or should be, by somebody, considered so. We trust the book is as free
from mistakes as most other works of the kind. We are certain of having
laboriously collected and carefully examined the statements presented, but,
like others who compile histories, we cannot be held responsible for the mis
takes of the best authorities extant.

SLAYERY AI\TD FREEDOM.

CHAPTEE I.
MAGNITUDE AND NECESSITY OP THE STRUGGLE.
A World's Question — The Problem of the Present Age.
The slave question in America is only one phase of the
more comprehensive question of human freedom that now
begins to agitate the civilized world, and that presents the
grand problem of the present age.
Such a question must be met, must be discussed, must be
decided, aud decided correctly, before the nations of the earth
can be enfranchised, and before this anomalous republic can
either secure her own liberties, or find permanent repose.
In a nation whose declaration of self-evident and inalienable
human rights has been hailed as the watchword for an univer
sal struggle against despotic governments ; — a nation whose
support of human chattelhood has armed the world's despots
with their most plausible pleas against republican institutions,
it is in vain to expect that the discussion of such incongruities
can be smothered, or the adjustment of them much longer
postponed. In any age of the world, such expectations would
be disappointed — in the present age, the indulgence of them
can be little short of insanity— must be consummate folly.
The question whether such a nation, at such a period of the
world's progress, shall continue to tolerate human chattel-
hood, becomes, of necessity, a world's question. Universal
human nature is knocking vehemently at our doors, and can
not be silenced. As well might we attempt to hush the thun-
1

I GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ders of our own Niagara, or annul the laws by which the
elements are governed.
Is this the language of enthusiasm? Ask counsel of exist-
ing facts. "When a few voices were raised on this subject not
many years since, the whole community, with few exceptions,
north and south, demanded that the agitation should cease.
But has it ceased ? Or can it be made to cease ? Most for
ward and even clamorous in the discussion, are those who,
even now, have scarcely ceased to proscribe discussion ! Our
halls of legislation, that were to have been sealed against the
discussion, nevertheless ring with it, to the exclusion of the
most favorite topics ! And those who were determined that
the public mails should not transmit the agitating debate, are
now gorging those mails to the full with their own eager de
bates ! Not an important public measure can be proposed
that is not found to involve, in some way, the much dreaded
but ever present question. Can we not see the hand of an
all-controlling Providence in all this ? Can we not hear in it
the voice of Nature and of Nature's God, demanding and
ordaining a discussion of the slave question ?
The history of Christian civilization is marked with suc
cessive eras of advancement, each one of which is distinguished
by some particular phase or feature of human progress, and
commonly involves the agitation of some great practical pro
blem, the solution of which occupies the minds of thinking
men until it is definitely settled. This is seldom effected with
out long and earnest discussions, sometimes protracted during
one or two entire generations, and not completed until more
enlarged views have displaced the prejudices and corrected
the errors that, preceded them. The responsibilities, as well
as the dangers and the privileges of living in such an age of
the world — stormy, perhaps, yet progressive — are not com
monly appreciated as they should be. Not to have under
stood, correctly, the wants, and especially the grand problem
of such an age, of the age one lives in, not to have taken the
position, and to have exerted the influence demanded by the
crisis, were equivalent to having wasted, or worse than wasted

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 3
one's probationary existence, so far as its bearing on general
human progress is -concerned; and this, too, at a time when
one life is to be reckoned of more weight and significance
than, perhaps, many lives, dreamed away in any of those
dead calms in this world's history, in which little or nothing
is done or devised for the elevation of the species.
Such an age of agitation and of corresponding respon
sibility is the present. The grand problem of the age is
that of a more extended and better defined freedom, espe
cially for the very lowest and most degraded portion of the
species. Ours is an advanced period in the struggle for
human freedom. It is not to the contest of the barons
against an unlimited autocrat that we are summoned — nor to
the struggle of the middle classes against the barons ; nor to
the question of taxation without representation ; nor to the
question of religious liberty, for those who are regarded as
human beings. The demands of liberty strike deeper, now,
and reach the ground tier of humanity, hid under the rubbish
of centuries of degradation — classes who have scarcely been
thought of, as human, and to whom no Magna Charta of
Eunny Meade, no organization of a House of Commons, no
Declaration of Independence, have brought even a tithe or a
foretaste of their promised blessings. The houseless, the
landless, the homeless — the operatives of Manchester and
Birmingham, the tenantry of Ireland, the Eussian serfs, —
above all, the North American Slaves — what have Christian
civilization and democratic liberty and equality in reserve for
these ? And what are the responsibilities of Christians, of
philanthropists, of statesmen, and of republican citizens, in
respect to them ? These questions to be properly decided,
must be studied, must be understood.
We single out, for present inquiry, the North American
slave. Who is he ? What is his condition ? How came he
there ? Who is responsible for his continuance in his present
condition? What has been done, and what remains to be
done in respect to him ?

GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE II.
¦i
ORIGIN OF THE MODERN SLAVE TRADE AND SLAVERY.
The Portuguese— The Spaniards— Charles V.— Ferdinand V.— The Hollanders, the
Danes, the French, the English— Queen Elizabeth, John Hawkins, Louis XIII. of
France— Act of George IL— Prohibition of Violence— Barbarity of the Traffic—
Statistics — Imports into Jamaica.
" In the year 1442, while the Portuguese, under the encouragement of
their celebrated Prince Henry, were exploring the coast of Africa, Anthony
Gonzalez, who, two years before, had seized some Moors, near Cape Bada-
jor, was, by that prince, ordered to carry his prisoners back to Africa. He
landed them at Rio del Oro, and received from the Moors in exchange, ten
blacks and a quantity of gold dust, with which he returned to Lisbon." —
Edwards'' History.of the West Indies, Vol. II., p. 37.
" This new kind of commerce, appearing to be a profitable speculation,
others, of the same nation, soon embarked in it." — Godwin's Lectures on
Slavery, p. 184. {American Edition.)
The Spaniards, on taking possession of the West India
islands, compelled the native Charibs (or Caribs,) to work the
mines of Hispaniola. In these and other exhausting labors,
that feeble race became well nigh extinct,* and their place
was supplied by importations of a hardier race from Africa.
The infamy of having first projected this expedient has com
monly rested on Las Casas, a priest much hated among the
colonists for his uncompromising opposition to the ill treat
ment of the Charibs, whom he is represented as seeking to
* " Down to the dust the Charib people passed,
Like autumn foliage withering in the blast ;
A whole race sunk beneath the oppressor's rod,
And left a blank among the works of God."
Montgomery's West Indies.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 5
relieve at the expense of the Africans* With more proba
bility, the crime has been charged on Ghievres and the Flemish
nobility, who obtained a monopoly of the traffic from Charles
V., and sold it for 25,000 ducats to some Genoese merchants,
who first commenced, in a regular form, the commerce .in
slaves that, with little intermission, has been continued ever
since. " As early as 1503," according to Clarkson, " a few slaves
were sent by the Portuguese to the Spanish colonies."
In 1511, Ferdinand Y. of Spain, is said to have permitted
an importation of Negroes into the colonies. But while Car
dinal Ximenes held the reins of government, and until the
accession of Charles Y. of Spain, he steadily refused to allow
such a detestable commerce. Yide Godwin, p. 181.
It was in 1517 that Charles Y., (who was sovereign of Ger
many, and of the Netherlands,) granted the exclusive patent
before mentioned, to one or more of the Flemish nobility, to
import four thousand Africans annually, for the supply of
Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica, and Porto Eico.
" This great prince was not, in all probability, aware of the dreadful evils
attending this horrible traffic, nor of the crying injustice of permitting it ;
for in 1540, when he made a code of laws for his Indian subjects, he liber
ated all the Negroes, and by a word put an end to their slavery. When,
however, he resigned his crown and retired into a monastery, and his minis
ter of mercy, Pedro de la Gasca, returned to Spain, the imperious tyrants
of these new dominions returned to their former practices, and fastened the
yoke on the suffering and unresisting Negroes." — Godwin, p. 185. See
also Clarkson's History, pp. 28, 09.
The slave trade was prosecuted by the Portuguese, the
* Robertson, in liis History of America, takes up and somewhat exaggerates
this statement, on the authority of Herrera, an enemy of Las Casas, whose charge
was first published 85 years after the philanthropist's decease. The previous
writers make no mention of Las Casas in such a connection, though avowedly his
enemies. The writings of Las Casas abound in denunciations against slavery ; and
from the language of Herrera himself, it would not conclusively appear that Las
Casas designed to have the Africans imported by compulsion, or held as sla ves. — Vide
the Albe Gregoire's Defence of Las Casas, approved by James Montgomery in a
note to his poem, "Tite West Indies." See. also Stuarts Memoir of Slarp, page 29 ;
and preface to darhson!i Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species.

6 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Spaniards, the Hollanders, the Danes, the French, the British,
the Anglo-Americans, including the colonists of New Eng
land. BEGINNING OF THE SLAVE TRADE BY THE ENGLISH.
" The first importation of Slaves from Africa by Englishmen was in the
reign of Elizabeth, in the year 1562. This great princess seems, on the
very commencement of the trade, to have questioned its lawfulness. She
seems to have entertained a religious scruple concerning it, and, indeed, to
have revolted at the very thought of it. She seems to have been aware of
the evils to which its continuance might lead, or that, if it were sanctioned,
the most unjustifiable means might be made use of, to procure the persons
of the natives of Africa. And in what light she would have viewed any
acts of this kind, had they taken place, we may conjecture from this fact ;
that when Captain (afterwards Sir John) Hawkins returned from his first
voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, whither he had carried slaves, she sent for
him, and, as we learn from Hill's Naval History, expressed her concern lest
any of the Africans should be carried off without their free consent, declar
ing that ' it would be detestable' and call down Heaven's vengeance upon
the undertakers.' Captain Hawkins promised to comply with the injunc
tions of Elizabeth in this respect. But he did not keep his word, for when
he went to Africa again, he seized many of the inhabitants, and carried
them off as slaves, which occasioned Hill, in the account he gives of his
second voyage, to use these remarkable words : ' Here began the horrid
practice of forcing the Africans into slavery, an injustice and barbarity
which, so sure as there is vengeance in heaven for the worst of crimes, will
sometime be the destruction of all who encourage it.' Thatthe trade should
have been suffered to continue under such a princess, and after such solemn
expressions as those which she has been described to have uttered, can only
be attributed to the pains taken by those concerned to keep her ignorant of
the truth." — Clarkson, p. 30.
It may be proper to notice the view taken of this beginning
of the slave trade and slavery in the British dominions by a
writer decidedly averse to the abolition of the slave trade :
" In regard to Hawkins, himself, he was, I admit, a murderer and a
roller. His avowed purpose, in sailing to Guinea, was to take, by strata
gem or force, and carry away the unsuspecting natives, in the view of selling
them as slaves to the people of Hispaniola. In this pursuit, his object was
present profit, and his employment and pastime devastation and murder." 
Edwards'1 History of the West Indies, Vol. II., pp. 43-4.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 7
This authentic account of the origin of British Colonial
slavery is worthy of profound study, and, in connection with
other facts that maybe presented, suggests thoughts that may
have a decisive bearing upon the now pending slave question
in America, in more aspects than one. . . .
It is common to cast all the odium of slavery upon our
fathers, and upon the governments that first permitted the
slave trade. Could the dead rise up and plead their own
cause, they might perhaps retort that they had no idea of
lending their sanction to the system of American slavery, as
now practiced. Queen Elizabeth permitted the Africans to be
carried into the colonies with their own consent, but they
were taken and are held by force. Louis XIII. of France
was very uneasy, when about to sanction the importation of
Africans into his colonies, until assured that they were to be
educated in the Christian religion.* What would he say to
the laws that forbid their. Christian education ? And what
would he think of the statement that the colored people of
America " must be colonized back to Africa," (a country they
never saw), before they can be christianized ?
If one monarch who authorized the importation of Africans
into his American Colonies directed the liberation of the vic-
. tims when he learned by what means and for what purposes
they were imported — if another consented to the importation
only on condition that they should be educated in the Chris
tian religion — and if another only permitted their importation
with their own free consent, (involving, by fair implication,
the condition of their voluntary and compensated labor,) the
question may arise whether the importation originally autho
rized was indeed that African slave trade that actually took
place, and which history describes. And this may suggest.
the question how far the usages of slavery, as they now exist,.
can be said to have been authorized or legalized by the per
mission of such importations as were contemplated by those
monarchs. Mr. Clarkson, who seems to have devoted much
attention to the details of this history, considers them of the
* Vide Clarkson.

8 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
utmost importance to a right understanding of the question
respecting the legality of the slave trade as it existed while
he was laboring for its suppression. He demands whether
" the African slave trade ever would have been permitted to
exist, b.ut for the ignorance of those in authority concerning
it." And he affirms thatthe " trade began in piracy, and was
continued upon the principles of force." (Pg. 31.)
The connivance, rather than the " ignorance of those in
authority," appears to have sheltered this execrable traffic,
after the times of Elizabeth. Even then it was rather toler-
'- ?ated than directly authorized. It would be difficult, perhaps,
to find any act of the British Parliament by which the slave
trade was explicitly legalized. The enactments seem to insin
uate, or faintly imply, that the negroes imported are property,
yet they studiously avoid to acknowledge them distinctly, or
even by necessary implication, as such. In the act of 10
William III., chap. 26, entitled an "Act to settle the trade to
Africa," the negroes are not called slaves. In the act of 23
George IL, chap. 31 (1749-50), entitled "An Act for extend
ing and improving the trade to Africa," it was provided (sect.
29) that " no commander or master of any ship trading to
Africa shall by fraud, force, or violence, or by any other indi
rect practice whatsoever, take on board, or carry away from
the coast of Africa, any negro or native of the said country,
or commit, or suffer to be committed, any violence on the
natives, to the prejudice of said trade."* The 28th section
of the same act did indeed recognize the holding of ''slaves"
at the station of the Trading Company in Africa, yet it gave
no authority to transport slaves to America or elsewhere.
Undoubtedly the secret design was to stimulate the slave trade.
But a sense of shame, and a consciousness of wrong-doing
prevented the Parliament from employing the terms which
upon a strict legal construction, could give to that feature of
the African trade the shelter of valid law. [Vide Spooner,
pp. 29-35.]
* Mr. Pitt's view of this statute, and of the legality of the slave trade, will be
presented in the proper place.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 9
Thus stealthily and almost imperceptibly was the idea of
legalized human chattelhood introduced. Thus ambiguous
and tortuous were the enactments under cover of which the
slave traffic was prosecuted. A graphic and truthful descrip
tion of that traffic we present in the language of Hon. Horace
Mann, of Massachusetts.*
" One wants the plain, sinewy, Saxon tongue, to tell of deeds that should
have shamed devils. Great Britain was the mother. Her American Colo
nies were the daughter. The mother lusted for gold. To get it, she made
partnership with robbery and death. Shackles, chains, and weapons for
human butchery, were her outfit in trade. She made Africa her hunting
ground. She made its people her prey, and the unwilling colonies her mar
ket-place. She broke into the Ethiop's home, as a wolf into a sheep-fold
at midnight. She set the continent aflame, that she might seize the
affrighted inhabitants as they ran shrieking from their blazing hamlets.
The aged and the infant she left to the vultures, but the strong men and the
strong women she drove, scourged and bleeding, to the shore. Packed and
stowed like merchandise between unventilated decks, so close that the
tempest without could not ruffle the pestilential air within, the voyage was
begun. Once a day the hatches were opened, to receive food and disgorge
the dead. Thousands and thousands of corpses which she plunged into the
ocean from the decks of her slave ships, she counted only as the tare of her
commerce. The blue monsters of the deep became familiar with her path
way ; and, not more remorseless than she, they shared her plunder. At
length the accursed vessel reached the foreign shore. And there, the mon
sters of the land, fiercer and feller' than any that roam the watery plains,
rewarded the robber by purchasing his spoils. For more than a century did
the madness of this traffic rage.t During all those years the clock of
eternity never counted out a minute that did not witness the cruel death by
treachery or violence of some father or mother of Africa."
" Mr. Edwards says that from 1700 to 1786, the number imported into
Jamaica was 610,000. ' I say this,' he observes, 'on sufficient evidence,
having in my possession lists of all the entries.' ' The total import into
all the British Colonies from 1680 to 1786 may be put down at 2,130,000.'
In 1771, which he considers the most flourishing period of the trade, there
sailed from England to the coast of Africa, one hundred and ninety-two
ships, provided for the importation of 47,146 negroes. ' And now,' he
observes, (1793) ' the whole number annually exported from Africa by all
the European powers, is 74,000, of which 38,000 are imported by the
British." — Godwin, page 187.
* Speech in the House of Representatives of the U. S., June 80, 1S48.
t It has not ceased. It rages with violence still, as will be shown in another
chapter.

10 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE IH.
SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE BRITISH COLONIES
IN NORTH. AMERICA, NOW THE UNITED STATES.
Slavers from New England — Slavery in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas — Condition of the Slaves — Testimony of
Wesley and Whitefield — Inquiry into the legal foundation of Colonial Slavery-
Complaints of the Colonies against the King of Great Britain, for favoring the
traffic — Paradoxes — Absence of English Statutes legalizing Slavery — Common
Law — Lord Mansfield — Colonial Charters — Slavery introduced in absence of Colo
nial enactments — Date and circumstances of introduction of Slavery into Virginia,
South Carolina, and Georgia — Prohibition of Slavery in Georgia, (Gen. Ogel-
thorpe) — Dates of early enactments concerning Slavery in Virginia, N. Carolina,
S. Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland — Loose and vague character of these enact
ments. Soon after the settlement of the British North American
Colonies, Africans were imported into them, and sold and
held as slaves. Of the extent of these importations we have
met with no authenticated statistics. The whole number of
slaves in these states, by the first census under the present
Constitution, 1790, was 697,697.
The colonies now known as the Southern or slave states, on
the. Atlantic coast, received the principal share of these im
portations. The middle and eastern colonies received com
paratively few, and these chiefly for domestic servants in the
cities, and in the families of professional gentlemen in the
interior. As the soil was not adapted to slave culture, and
was owned in small farms by a hardy race of agriculturists,
inured to habits of labor, the process of cultivation by slaves
never obtained, particularly in New England, except to a
very limited extent. In New York, first settled by the Dutch,
in New Jersey, and perhaps in some portions of Pennsyl-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 11
vania, the labor of slaves was introduced to a greater extent
than further east. But in the importation of slaves for the
southern colonies, the merchants of the New England sea
ports competed with those of New York and the South.
They appear, indeed, to have outstripped them, and to have
almost monopolized, at one time, the immense profits of that
lucrative but detestable trade. Boston, Salem, and Newbury
port, in Massachusetts, and Newport and Bristol in Bhode
Island, amassed, in the persons of a few of their citizens, vast
sums of this rapidly acquired and ill gotten wealth, which,
in many instances, quite as rapidly and very remarkably, took
to itself wings and flew away. In some cases, however, it
remained, and formed the basis of the capital of some promi
nent mercantile houses, almost or quite down to the present
time. Citizens, honored with high posts of office in the State
and Federal Governments, have owed their rank in society,
and their political elevation, to the wealth thus acquired,
sometimes thus acquired by themselves, since the colonies be
came states, and while the traffic was tolerated as it was, till
the year 1808. Among these was a late Senator in Congress,
from Rhode Island, James D'Wolf, who, at the time, was
reputed to be the owner of a large slave plantation in Cuba.
Such incidents may convey some idea of the influence of the
traffic in New England, even to the present day. The former
seats of the traffic are still the centers of influences hostile to
the agitation of the slave question.
The servitude of domestic slaves, in families, is known to
be less intolerable than that of slaves on plantations. From
this consideration, and from the limited extent of slavery in
the northern and eastern colonies, it may be inferred that the
slavery of that region was of a comparatively mild type.
And yet we find sufficient evidence of its affinity, in many
respects, with the present American slave system. Not even
in Connecticut was there any recognition of the legality and
validity of a slave's marriage* A master's inadvertent con-
* According to Judge Reeve, however, as quoted hy Stroud, the murder of a
slave was held in Connecticut to be the same as the murder of a freeman. The

12 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
sent to the marriage of his female slave to a free colored
man, was held to be equivalent to her manumission, because
master eould be sued by the slave for immoderate chastisement ; the slave could
hold property, in the character of a devisee or legatee, and the master could not
take away such property, or might he sued for it on behalf of the slave by his next
friend.— Reeve's Law of Baron and Femme, &c, 840-1 ; Stroud, p. 24.
In Massachusetts, too, "if the master was guilty of a cruel or unreasonable casti-
gation of the slave, he was liable to he punished for a bread of the peace, and, I
believe, the slave was allowed to demand sureties of the peace against a violent and
barbarous master."— Opinion, of Chief Justice Parsons, case of Wmchendon vs.
Hatfield, Mass. Sep., 127-8, cited by Stroud, p. 23.
In Massachusetts colony, in 1641, the following law was enacted : " It is ordered
by this court and the authority thereof, that there shall never be any bond slavery,
villeinage, or captivity among us, unless it he lawful captives taken in just war,
(such) as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us, and such shall have the liberties
and Christian usage which the law of God established in Israel concerning such
persons doth morally require." — See General Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts
Bay, chap. 12, sect. 2 ; Stroud, p. 23.
Whether this act prohibited, or whether it authorized, such slavery as afterwards
actually existed in the colony of Massachusetts, might not be very difficult to deter
mine. It certainly prohibited such slavery as now exists at the South.
There is little doubt that Blavery was introduced into Boston, by one Maverick,
previous to its settlement by George Winthrop and others, in 1630. There is no
evidence that Maverick was a! Puritan. The Boston colonists, generally, were not
Puritans, and ought never to have been confounded with them by historians. The
Puritans, with all their defects and errors on this and other subjects, " made a wide
distinction between those who were stolen and seized by the violence of the slavers,
and those who" (as they supposed) "had been made captives in a lawful war, or
were reduced to servitude for their crimes by a judicial sentence."
This sentiment became current in the New England colonies. " An express \$w
was made, prohibiting the buying and selling of tho former, while the latter were to
have the same privileges as were allowed by the laws of Moses." " In November,
1646, the General Court of Massachusetts passed a law against man-stealing, making
it a capital crime. They also ordered that two Africans, forcibly brought into the
colony, should be sent home at the public expense. — [Felt's Annals of Salem.]
The other colonies soon passed a law similar to that of Massachusetts. The Con
necticut Code, prepared in 1650, has the following section : ' If any man stealeth a
man or manldnde, he shall be put to death.' The New Haven Code, printed in
London in 1656, contains a similar article : ' If any person steale a man, or mankind,
that person Bhall surely bo put to death.' The Plymouth laws probably made man-
stealing a capital offence." — [See First Annual Report of the New Hampshire Anti-
Slavery Society, penned by tlie late John Farmer, Fsq., and published in the " MonOdy
Emancipator," for August, 1885.]
In all this we see the stealthy and deceptive introduction of chattel slavery. The
early laws did not authorize, but prohibited suoh slavery as was actually introduced 1
The sin, the shame, and the curse would have been excluded, had it been clearly
understood that slavery is malum in se.
The action of the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations eleven
years later than that in Massachusetts, was more direct and explicit. The following

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 13
a slave could not be married, and because a husband could
claim the assistance of his wife.
A still more discreditable illustration was previously fur
nished by a rural pastor in the same colony, the owner of
a male and female slave. Having admitted them both to
the communion of his church (Congregational) as members,
and having himself officially pronounced them husband and
wife, he afterwards separated them forever by the sale of
the wife to a distant purchaser, in despite of the entreaties
of both wife and husband. And no court of law, no church,
no ecclesiastical body interposed, or even censured.
In Massachusetts, another Congregational pastor, of high
reputation, is said to have reared up a female slave in his
family in a state of almost absolute heathenism, and never
attempted to teach her the alphabet.
When it is remembered that a large portion of the min
isters of religion in New England were among the slave
document is said to be the first act of any government designed to prevent enslaving
the negroes. It is copied from the records of the colony :
" At a general court held at Warwick, the 13th of May, 1652.
" Whereas, there is a common course practised among Englishmen, to buy ne
groes to that end they may have them for service or slaves forever ; for the prevent
ing of such practices among us, let it be ordered, That no black mankind or white
being shall be forced, by covenant, bond, or otherwise, to serve any man or his
assignees longer than ten years, or until they come to be twenty-four years of age,
if they be taken in under fourteen, from the time of their coming within the liber
ties of this colony ; at the end or term of ten years to set them free, as the manner
is with the English servants. And that man that will not let them go free or shall
sell them away elsewhere, to that end they may be enslaved to others for a longer
time, he or they shall forfeit to the colony forty pounds.''
To the credit of the members that enacted, this law, we subjoin their names from
the record :
" The general officers were, John Smith, president ; Thomas Olney, general assis
tant, from Providence ; Samuel Gorton, from Warwick ; John Green, general re
corder ; Randal Holden, treasurer ; Hugh Bewett, general sergeant.
" The commissioners were from Providence — Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter,
Richard Waterman, Thomas Harris, William Wickenden, and Hugh Bewett ; from
Warwick— Samuel Gorton, John Wiekes, John Smith, Randal Holden, John Green,
jr., and Ezekiel Holliman."
The prevalence of slavery and the briskness of the slave trade in Rhode Island,
long after the enactment of this law (which does not appear to have ever been
repealed), furnishes another illustration of the fact that slavery grew up in the
colonies in violation of law.

14 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
holding class of the community during the colonial state of
the countiy, and many of them still later, that this was
within fifty or sixty years of the beginning of the anti-
slavery agitation in 1832, and that many of the present min
isters of New England are the sons and most of them the
successors, of slave holding ministers, it cannot reasonably
be doubted that that untoward circumstance has had a bear
ing upon the position of the present generation of ministers
in New England, in respect to the agitation of the subject,
and especially in respect to the doctrine of the inherent
sinfulness of slave holding. A similar remark might be made,
with perhaps greater force, in respect to New Jersey, and,
to a greater or less extent, in respect to a great part of the
middle states. The beginning of the present • agitation, in
fact, found slavery existing, to a considerable extent, in New
Jersey, and the influence of that fact has been seen and felt,
wherever the slave -question has been discussed, in this
country.* Slavery in the now Atlantic slave states received, substan
tially, its present complexion during the colonial period. The
most important enactments on the subject bear date previous
to the Declaration of Independence.
John Wesley, who visited this country during this period,;
characterizes " American slavery " as " the vilest that ever
saw the sun."
George Whitefield, who travelled and preached extensively
in the colonies, has drawn a vivid picture of the treatment of
slaves at that period. This testimony, it should be remem
bered, is that of a devout man, whose type of piety is not
exposed to the suspicion of tending to magnify, unduly, (as
some are supposed to do) the physical privations and suffer-.
ings of slaves. Nor was he misled into any exaggeration -by
having imbibed the sentiment of the inherent and necessary
criminality of slaveholding. Such a testimony is too importanS,
* The Biblical defences of slaveholding, sent forth from the seat of the Theologi-'
cal Seminary at Princeton, took the lead of any thing of that description oria-inatW
farther South. s s

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 15
to be omitted in this place. In a " Letter to the inhabi
tants of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina," in
1739, he writes as follows :
" As I lately passed through your provinces on my way hither, I was
sensibly touched with a fellow-feeling for the miseries of the poor negroes.
Whether it be lawful for Christians to buy slaves, and thereby encourage
the nations from whom they are bought to be at perpetual war with each
other, I shall not take upon me to determine. Sure I am it is sinful, when
they have bought them, to use them as lad as though they were Irutes, nay
worse ; and whatever particular exceptions there may be (as I would chari
tably hope there are some), I fear the generality of you, who own negroes,
are liable to such a charge ; for your slaves, I believe, work as hard, if not
harder, than the horses whereon you ride. These, after they have done
their work, are fed, and taken proper care of; but many negroes, when
wearied with labor in your plantations, have been obliged to grind their
corn, after their return home. Your dogs are caressed and fondled at your
table, but your slaves, who are frequently styled dogs or beasts, have not
an equal privilege. They are scarce permitted to pick up the crumbs
which fall from their master's table. Not to mention what numbers have
been given up to the inhuman usage of task-masters, who, by their unre
lenting scourges, have plowed their backs, and made long furrows, and, at
length, brought them even unto death. When passing along, I have viewed
your plantations cleared and cultivated, many spacious houses built, and the
owners of them faring sumptuously every day, my blood has frequently
almost run cold within me, to consider how many of your slaves had neither
convenient food to eat, nor proper raiment to put on, notwithstanding most
of the comforts you enjoy were solely owing to their indefatigable labors."
In tracing the origin, progress, and history of American
slavery, now claiming the high sanction and sacred guaranties
of our Constitution and laws, and wielding both state and
national governments for its support, it is important to note
down with distinctness and precision all those facts of the
history that may serve to throw any light upon the rise and
growth of those high claims, and the methods that have been
employed to swell them into their present magnitude, to give
them their present hold upon the public mind, and upon
the politics, the legislation, and the jurisprudence of the
country. Equally interesting will it be to trace, if we can, the process
by which the murderous and piratical depredations of John

16 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Hawkins, upon the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, scarcely
three centuries ago; have been made to give not only legal
validity, but biblical authority and sanction to the imbruting
of three millions of native-born Americans, of all hues, the
descendants of all the nations of Europe, as well as of the
African tribes.
We pause, therefore, to inquire on what authority, divine or
human, the North American colonies of Great Britain were
inundated with a population of slaves ? Was it the prece
dent of Gonzalez, the alleged recommendation of Las Casas,
the importunate rapacity of Chievres, the permission of Fer
dinand, the patent of Charles V., that gave legality to these
proceedings? Was it the guarded and hesitant assent of
Queen Elizabeth? Was it the treachery and perjury of Haw
kins? Was it the ambiguity of the Act of Parliament "for
extending and improving the trade to Africa," but forbidding
"any violence to the natives," and imposing a petty fine upon
any commander who, " by fraud, force, or violence, or any
other indirect practice whatsoever," should "take on board
or carry away from the coast of Africa, any Negro, or native
of said country ?"
And what was done by the colonial authorities to authorize
the traffic?
" The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, pre
sented to the throne the most humble and suppliant petitions, praying for the
abolition of the trade. The colonial legislatures passed laws against it.
But their petitions were spurned from the throne. Their laws were vetoed
by their Governors." — Hon. Horace Mann. Speech in Congress, June 30,
1848. In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, by
Mr. Jefferson, this charge against the King of Great Britain is
thus stated :
" He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most
sacred rights of life and liberty, in the persons of a distant people who
never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This
piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the
Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep a market where men

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 17
should be bought and sold, he has at length prostituted his negative for sup
pressing any legislative attempt to prohibit and restrain this execrable
commerce." This paragraph was objected to by the delegation from
Georgia, and it was accordingly expunged from the docu
ment. A bundle of incongruities here present themselves, attesting
the monstrous and anomalous character of the usages in ques
tion. The British Government, that had never dared, in the
face of British Common Law, to attempt legalizing, directly
and unequivocally, the slave traffic, interposed, it would seem,
to prevent the colonies from suppressing it. The colonies
that, (as will be shown,) had transcended and even outraged
their constitutional charters by their iniquitous slave code,
are found petitioning and attempting to legislate against the
slave trade 1 Slave-holding republicans stigmatizing a mon
arch as a tyrant because he had permitted them to be supplied
with the subjects of their own tyranny! A revolutionary
Congress compelled or consenting to strike out the most
weighty item in the list of offences that characterized their
repudiated king as a tyrant !
Whatever solution may be made of such paradoxes, or
whatever may be inferred from them, they furnish a slippery
and intricate labyrinth for slave-holders in search of their
sacred and vested rights, the legal sanctions and the constitu
tional guaranties of their peculiar immunities, the very founda
tions of which were laid in piracy and crime.
Thus much in respect to the colonial slave trade, the founda
tion of colonial slavery. We inquire next respecting such
facts of history, whatever they may be, as shall afford informa
tion concerning the authority, either divine or human, by
which the colonists held slaves, and the colonial legislatures,.
(that attempted the suppression of the slave trade as criminal,)
enacted their slave laws.
We are entering, here, upon no process of argument. We
are only recording indisputable facts, without which our his
torical sketches would be unfaithful and incomplete. We
2

18 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
know of nothing so sacred in the claims of slavery as could
warrant the suppression of important historical facts.
One of those facts is, that there were no English statute
laws, prior to the American Kevolution, authorizing the hold
ing of slaves, either in England or in the American colonies.
None such, at least that we know of, have ever been alleged
to exist.
Another fact is, that the common law of England was in
compatible with slavery, and neither recognized nor permit
ted its existence.
Another fact is, that in the year 1772, the Court of King's
Bench, Lord Mansfield presiding, affirmed, in respect to Eng
land, the legal facts above stated, and decided that there
neither then was, nor ever had been, any legal slavery in
England. Another fact is, that the colonial charters, authorizing the
colonial Legislatures to enact laws, gave no license to slavery,
and contained the general proviso, that the laws of the colo
nies should " not be repugnant or contrary, but as nearly as
circumstances would allow, conformable to the laws, statutes,
and rights of our kingdom of England."*
Another fact is, that when slavery was first introduced into
the Anglo-American colonies, and for some time afterwards,
there were no colonial enactments that authorized the holding
of slaves, or defined the relation and condition of slavery.
The practice of slave-holding grew up and was tolerated with
out law, till at length it acquired power to control legislation
and wield it in favor of slavery.
Another fact is, that when enactments were passed upon
the subject, they assumed the existence of slavery, without so
defining who were or might be slaves, as to enable any slave-
master at the present day to prove that his slaves are held in
virtue of any of the colonial enactments.
Another fact is, that the authority of the colonial " charters,

* The charters of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, as well as of
Pennsylvania and tho New England colonies, were essentially alike in this particular.
— Spooner, p. 24.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 19
during their continuance, and the general authority of the
common law, prior to the Bevolution, have been recognized
by the Supreme Court ofthe United States."*
These important historical facts should be borne in mind,
pondered, and used, when there is occasion for them, by all
who wish to oppose slavery, or to understand the relation of
slave-holding to the laws and institutions of the country.
The landing of the founders of New England, at Plymouth,
was in 1620. The first settlement in Virginia, at Jamestown,
was in 1607. The charter to Lord Baltimore, of Maryland,
was granted in 1632. The charter to William Penn, of Penn
sylvania, in 1681. North Carolina began to be settled about
1650. South Carolina, about 1670, and Georgia in 1733.
Virginia was the first of the colonies that introduced slavery.
Such an event was a natural consequence of the character and
position of the first inhabitants.
" Of the one hundred and five persons on the list of emigrants destined to
remain, there were no men with families, — there were but twelve laborers,
and very few mechanics. The rest were composed of gentlemen of fortune,
and of persons of no occupation, — mostly of idle and dissolute habits — who had
been tempted to join the expedition through curiosity or the hope of gain ; a
company but poorly calculated to plant an agricultural State in a wilder
ness." — Willson's Am. Hist. p. 162.
New emigrants arrived in 1609, " most of whom were profligate and
disorderly persons, who had been sent off to escape a. worse destiny at
home."— Ji. p. 166.
" In the month of August, 1620, a Dutch man-of-war entered James River
and landed twenty negroes for sale. This was the commencement of negro
slavery in the colonies." — Ib. p. 169.
At this time " there were very few women in the colony" — " Ninety
women of reputable character" were soon after sent over, and the colonists
purchased them for wives, "the price of a wife rising from one hundred and
twenty to one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco." — Ib. p. 170.
Though these were not held as slaves, yet the state of soci
ety indicated by these historical incidents, illustrate the moral
and social position of the colonists, at the time they com-
* 9 Cranch's XT. S. Reports, 382-3, as quoted in " The VaconstiiutionaMty of
Slavery, by Lysander Spooner," pp. 25-6.

20 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
menced the practice of slave-holding. And, so far as law was
concerned, there was no more legal authority or sanction, at
that time, in Virginia, for the holding of negroes in slavery,
than there was for making slaves of the white women they
purchased. And the incident of purchasing wives shows that
the mere act of purchasing human beings (of which mention
is made in the Scriptures,) does not, of necessity, involve the
ideas of chattelhood, or oi forced servitude: no, not even in Vir
ginia I*
About the year 1671, Sir John Yeamans was appointed governor of South
Carolina. " From Barbadoes he brought a number of African slaves, and
South Carolina was, from the first, essentially, a planting State, with slave
labor." — Willson's Am. Hist. p. 256.
The first settlement of Georgia was commenced under au
spices decidedly hostile to slavery. Gen. James Oglethorpe,
a member of the British Parliament, " conceived the idea of
opening for the poor of his own country, and for the perse
cuted protestants of all nations, an asylum -in America."
Having obtained a grant from the king, he landed at Savan
nah with 120 emigrants, and commenced his settlement in
1733. The Trustees strictly prohibited slavery, and "de-
* Another fact, illustrative of the social and moral influences under which slavery
grew up and entrenched itself in Virginia, deserves notice.
The following were the views of Sir William Berkeley, a royal Governor of
Virginia, on the subject of popular education. In a letter descriptive of the state
of that province, some years after the Restoration, he says :
"I thank God there are no free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not
have, these hundred years ; for learning has brought heresy and disobedience and
sects into the world., and printing divulges them, and commits libels agamst the
government. God keep us from both I"
This must have been since the year 1C60, the era of the "Restoration" of Charles
II., or nearly half a century after the lawless introduction of slavery into the colony.
And it is among the archives of this dark period of Virginian brutality, sensualism,
ignorance, lawlessness, despotism, servility, and semi-barbarism — in a community
without wives, or with wives purchased like negroes with tobacco, without printing
presses or free sohools for more than half a century, and no prospect of them in
future — here it is that our learned civilians and erudite theologians, in gowns and
spectacles, are reverently searching for the credentials of the "peculiar institution,"
with its sacred legal rights and Bible guaranties ! Worthy successors of Sir Wil
liam Berkeley ! Accomplished expounders of his law, and of his gospel !— « God
Tceep us from both /"

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 21
clared it to be not only immoral, but contrary to the laws of
England." — Willson's Am. Hist, p. 262.
Unhappily — " Most of those who first came over were unaccustomed to
habits of labor." (Ib. 262.) " The Colony did not prosper," and some of the
colonists began to " complain that they were prohibited the use of slave-
labor. " The regulations of the trustees began to le evaded, and the laws against
slavery were not rigidly enforced. At first, slaves from South Carolina
were hired for short periods; then, for a hundred years, or during life, and a
sum equal to the value ofthe negro paid in advance ; and finally, slavers for
Africa sailed directly from Savannah ; and Georgia, like Carolina, became
a planting State, with slave-labor." — Willson's Am. Hist. p. 265.
" In 1752, the trustees of Georgia, wearied with complaints against the
system of government which they had established, and finding that the
Colony languished under their care, resigned their charter to the king,"
&c— Ib. p. 266.
The historical evidence is here complete, that slavery and
the slave trade were introduced into Georgia, not only without
the sanction of either British or Colonial law, but in manifest
and flagrant violation of both.
Gen. Oglethorpe, defeated in his laudable efforts, returned
to England, in 1743. He afterwards became the friend and
co-adjutor of Granville Sharp, and wrote against slavery,
and the impressment of seamen. Under date of Cranham
Hall, 13th October, 1776, he wrote to Mr. Sharp the follow
ing particulars respecting his former connection with the
colony of Georgia:
" My friends and I settled the Colony of Georgia, and by charter were
established trustees, to make laws, &c. We determined not to suffer slavery
there. But the slave merchants and their adherents occasioned us not only
much trouble, but at last got the then government to favor them. We would
not suffer slavery, (which is against the Gospel, as well as the fundamental
law of England) to be authorized under our authority ; we refused, as trus
tees, to make a law permitting such a horrid crime. The government, find
ing the trustees resolved firmly not to concur with what they believed un
just, took away the charter by which no law could be passed without our
consent." — Stuart's Memoir of Sharp, p. 25.
The particulars which follow demand careful attention.
In Virginia, " slavery was introduced in 1620, but no act

22 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
was passed even purporting to tell who might be slaves, until
1670 "—and this act was afterwards found so defective in the
description, as to need a new act for the purpose in 1748,
one hundred and twenty-eight years after slavery had been
introduced. — Spooner's " Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pp.'
38-9. " In North Carolina, no general law at all was passed, prior to the revo
lution, declaring who might be slaves." (See Iredell's Statutes, revised ly
Martin). — Spooner p. 40.
" In South Carolina the only statutes, prior to the revolution, that at
tempted to designate the slaves, was passed in 1740 — after slavery had a
long time" (sixty-nine years) " existed. And even this statute, in reality
defined nothing, for the whole purport of it was to declare that ali negroes,
Indians j mulattoes, and mestizoes, except those who were then free, should
be slaves." — Spooner, p. 40.
But no previous law had told who were then legally slaves,
nor who were legally free /
" The same law, in nearly the same words, was passed in Georgia, in
1770," more than a quarter of a century after the introduction of slavery,
and after the commencement and brisk prosecution of the African slave
trade." — Vide Spooner, pp. 40, 41 — Willson's History, dec.
The " earliest law " of Maryland, noticed by Judge Stroud,
defining who might be held as slaves, was enacted in 1663,
thirty-one years after the settlement of the colony. The lan
guage of the statute assumes the previous fact of slaveholding,
and alludes also to a still more remarkable fact.
" Divers free-born English women, forgetful of their free condition, and
to the disgrace of our nation, do intermarry with negro slaves ; by which,
also, divers suits may arise, touching the issue of such women, and great
damage doth befall the master of such negroes," &c.
To deter from such matches, the statute enacts as follows :
" Whatsoever free-born woman shall intermarry with any slave, shall
serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband, and that all the
issue of such free born women, so married, shall be slaves, as their fathers
were."-- -Stroud's Sketch ofthe Slave Laws, p. 10.
This last provision was a departure from the prevalent
maxim of the slave code, that the child follows the condition

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 23
of the mother. The temporary end of the statute of 1663
having been answered, it was repealed in 1681, with a clause
saving the rights under the act of 1663, so that the mas
ters might continue to hold in slavery the descendants, if
any, of the "free born English women" who might have
married slaves, during the operation of the act of 1663,
which was repealed " to prevent persons from purchasing
white women as servants, and marrying them to their slaves,
for the purpose of making slaves of them and their offspring."
Yet " the doctrine of ' partus sequitur' obtained in the province" (i. e. the
children of slaves followed the condition of the father) '• till the year 1699
or 1700, when a general revision of the laws took place, and the acts in
which this .doctrine was recognized were, with many others, repealed. An
interval of about fifteen years appears to have elapsed, without any written
law on this subject ; but in 1715. (chap. 44, sec. 22) the following one was
passed: "All negroes and slaves already imported, or hereafter to be im
ported into this province, and all children now born or hereafter to be born
of such negroes and slaves, shall be slaves during their natural lives.' Thus,
(continues Stroud) was the maxim of the civil law, ' partus sequitur ventrem^
introduced, and the condition of the mother, from that day to the present
time, has continued to determine the fate of the child." — Stroud's Sketch,
pp. 10, 11.
Had the opposite maxim prevailed — had the child fol
lowed the condition of the father, there would have been
comparatively few slaves in Maryland, or in any of the
southern states, at the present time.
The dates of colonial enactments on the subject of slavery
are important historical items, as already hinted, because
they are necessary in order to establish the fact of legalized
colonial slavery, and to fix the period of its commencement,
in a given colony, (if any such legislation under the Colonial
Charters already alluded to, can be supposed to have been
valid.) And we have already noticed that the practice of
slaveholding obtained in the principal slave colonies, for long
periods, and, in one instance, up to the period of the Ameri
can Eevolution, without any action of the colonial authorities,
attempting to tell who were slaves ; viz. in Virginia, 50 years;
in South Carolina, 69 years ; in Georgia, more than 25 years;

24 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
in Maryland, (from its first settlement), 31 years; and in
North Carolina there was no colonial definition at all !
But the dates and the various -provisions of the several
colonial enactments, admitting them to have been constitu
tionally valid, become important historical facts in another
point of view, not only as bearing upon tho inquiry, Who
were, legally, slaves, but also on the question, What was the
slavery under which they wore thus legally held, and When
was it, that that slavery, as thus legislatively defined, became
legalized ?
For, if it wero clearly ascertained and established, that
"slavery," in general terms, had been legalized by valid
and constitutional enactments of the colonial legislatures, in
the first commencement of their authority, the question would
still remain whether the slavery thus legalized was identical
with the slavery defined many years afterwards, or whether
it was altogether another thing, though known by tho sanio
name. The South Carolina enactment of 1740, and tho
Georgia enactment of 1770, would tell us, distinctly enough,
what was the slavery of those colonics at those periods : but
they could not tell us whether the slavery legalized in thoso
colonies (if, indeed, there were any) sixty-nine, and twenty-
five years previous, was precisely the same thing. It might
have been only the bond-service of Massachusetts, in 1641,
defined by " the law of God established in Israel," and which,
if followed out, would have secured " a jubilee throughout the
land, to all the inhabitants thereof," long ago. In Georgia, as
we have seen, the first slavery was the. hiring of slaves for
short poriocls, then for one hundred years — then buying, then
importing them, and thus the whole system was clmno-ed.
When we are told of the inherited, imprescriptible, time-
sanctioned, and guarantied rights ofthe present American
slaveholder, it becomes a matter of the deepest interest to
learn, if we may, the origin, the date, tho tenure, and tho
description of those rights, as originally defined. Between the
right to import Africans into tlie colonies, with " their own
free consent" in tho times of Queen Elizabeth or James I.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 25
and' the right to hold the descendants of those Africans, and
of all the nations of Europe, as chattels personal, in the pres
ent American States, there seems a perceptible chasm, and
before the latter can be inferred from the former, some atten
tion must needs be paid to the various arches of the bridge
by which this chasm is conceived to have been spanned. A
few missing links and bolts might endanger the safety of the
transition. Into the requisite examination we cannot now
enter. We only indicate the field of inquiry, and note down
a few obvious facts.
In consulting Stroud's Sketch of the Slave Laws, one is
struck with the fact that most, if not all of the colonial enact
ments cited, bear date many years after the practice of slave-
holding is known to have been introduced, and after the slaves
must have become numerous. From this fact, and from the
implications or statements in the preambles to those acts, it
appears evident that the usages of slavery grew up first, and
that the colonial legislation came in, to sanction and shelter
them, afterwards, indicating the fact of a previously existing
slavery without statute, and consequently illegal, since no
one maintains that it could have originated in natural right,
or in the principles of common law.
Thus, in Virginia, where slavery, in fact, commenced in
1620, the first slave law cited by Stroud or by Spooner, is
that of 1670, and most of the acts defining slavery are, per
haps, since 1700. — Of the slave laws of Maryland, (which was
settled in 1632,) the first cited is that of 1663, and the remain
der are from 1715 to 1751. — Of those of South Carolina,
where slavery commenced in 1671, the first cited bears date
1695, — the remainder from 1711 to 1740, at which latter date
the "peculiar institution" evidently received, (so far as the
statute is concerned,) its full proportions and shape. — Of those
of North Carolina, settled about 1.650, the first cited is that
of 1729, and the remainder bear date from 1741 to 1743, about
which time the definition of slavery appears to have been
settled, upon very nearly its present basis, in that Colony. —
Of those of Georgia, where slavery commenced prior to 1743,

26 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
the first and only distinct reference is to the law of 1770, by
which, very manifestly, the cardinal features of the slave law,
in that Colony, were determined. — These eras in colonial slave
legislation are too distinctly marked to be mistaken or forgot
ten by the student of American slave law ; though, doubtless,
there must have been some earlier acts, not noticed by Judge
Stroud, and some of his references are to Digests and Manuals,
in which the dates of legislation are not given.
Slave legislation, since the American Bevolution, has made
some important strides. Virginian slavery reposes on her
revised code of 1819, and is what that makes it, without dream
ing of any hazard to the venerable antiquity of her claims.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 27

CHAPTEE IV.
EARLY TESTIMONIES AGAINST SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE
TRADE.
The Dominicans in Spanisli America, as related by Clarkson, " consid
ered slavery as utterly repugnant to the principles of the gospel, and recom
mended the abolition of it." Being opposed by the Franciscans, " a
controversy on the subject between them was carried to Pope Leo X. for
his decision."
Pope Leo X. declared that " not only the Christian religion, but that
nature herself cried out against slavery."
Charles V. (as before stated) bore testimony against slavery, by abolish
ing it in his dominions, in the year 1542.
Between A. D. 1670 and 1680, Godwyn, a clergyman of the Established
Church, and Richard Baxter, the celebrated Non-conformist, bore strong
testimony against these oppressions, the former, describing, with nervous
eloquence, the brutality of slavery, as he had witnessed it in Barbadoes ; —
the latter protesting against the traffic, and denouncing those engaged in it as
pirates and robbers. These writers were followed by Southern, Hutcheson,
Foster, Atkins, Wallis, and others. [Vide Clarkson.]
' Bishop Warburton, in 1676, preached a sermon, denouncing, in strong
language, those who "talk, as of herds of cattle, of property in rational
creatures !"
Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, said that the slave trade was contrary to
the religion we professed. He vindicated the Bible against the assertion
that it sanctioned slavery — "Nay," (said he) "it classed men-stealers or
slave traders among the murderers of fathers and mothers, and the most
profane criminals on earth."
John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who had witnessed the workings
of slavery in our North American colonies and in the West Indies, declared
" American slavery" to be " the vilest that ever saw the sun," and consti
tuting " the sum of all villanies." Slave dealers, he denominated "man
stealers ; the worst of thieves, in comparison of whom high-way robbers

28 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
and house-breakers are comparatively innocent." He adds : " And men
buyers are exactly on a level with men stealers."
Jonathan Edwards, the younger, said : " To hold a man in a .state of
slavery, is to be, every day, guilty of robbing him of his liberty, or of man
stealing." Bishop Horsley said : " Slavery is injustice, which no consideration of
policy can extenuate."
Dr. Samuel Johnson said : " No man is by nature the property of another.
The rights of nature must be some way forfeited before they can justly be
taken away."
Edmund Burke said : " Slavery is a state so improper, so degrading, and
so ruinous to the feelings and capacities of human nature, that it ought not
to be suffered to exist."
Archdeacon Paley said : " Slavery is a dominion and system of laws, the
most merciless and tyrannical that were ever tolerated upon the face of the
earth." Montesquieu ironically said : " If we allow negroes to be men, it will
begin to be believed that we, ourselves, are not Christians !"
Blackstone, the jurist, sums up an elaborate scrutiny of the subject thus :
" If neither captivity nor contract can, by the plain law of nature and
reason, reduce the parent to a state of slavery, much less can they reduce
the offspring."
William Pitt declared it to be " injustice to permit slavery to remain for
a single hour."
Charles James Fox said : " With regard to a regulation of slavery, my
detestation of its existence induces me to know no such thing as a regula
tion of robbery, and a restriction of murder." " Personal freedom is a
right of which he who deprives a fellow-creature is criminal in so depriving
him, and he who withholds is no less criminal in withholding."
Bishop Butler said : " Despicable as they" (the negroes) " may appear in
our eyes, they are the creatures of God, and of the race of mankind, for
whom Christ died, and it is inexcusable to keep them in ignorance of the
end for which they were made, and of the means whereby they may be
come partakers of the general redemption."
Hannah More said : " Slavery is vindicated in print (1788), and defended
in the House of Peers ! Poor human reason ! When wilt thou come to
years of discretion V
Dr. Samuel Hopkins said : " Slavery is, in every instance, wrong, un
righteous, oppressive, a very great and crying sin, there being nothing of
the kind equal to it on the face of the earth."
The learned Grotius said : " Those are men stealers who abduct, keep,
sell or buy slaves or free men. To steal a man is the highest kind of
theft."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 29
Dr. Benjamin Rush said : " Domestic slavery is repugnant to the prin
ciples of Christianity." " It is rebellion against the authority of a common
Father." Dr. Primatt said : " It has pleased God to cover some men with white
skins and others with black ; but as there is neither merit nor demerit in
complexion, the white man, notwithstanding the barbarity of custom and
prejudice, can have no right, by virtue of his color, to enslave and tyran
nize over the black man."
Dr. William Robertson said : " No inequality, no superiority in power,
no pretext of consent, can justify this ignominious depression of human
nature." The Abbe Gregoire said : " The corruption of our times carries towards
posterity all the elements of slavery and crime." " There is not a vice,
not a species of wickedness, of which Europe is not guilty towards ne
groes, of which she has not shown them the example."
The Abbe Raynal said : " He who supports slavery is the enemy of the
human race. He divides it into two societies of legal assassins, the op
pressors and the oppressed." "I shall not be afraid to cite to the tribunal
of reason and justice those governments which tolerate this cruelty, or
which even are not ashamed to make it the basis of their power."
Dr. Priee, of London, said : " If you have a right to make another man
a slave, he has a right to make you a slave."
Joseph Addison said : " What color of excuse can there be for the con
tempt with which we treat this part of our species" (the negroes), " that we
should not put them upon the common footing of humanity V — Vide Spec
tator. Dr. Adam Clarke, the learned commentator, said : " How can any nation
pretend to fast, or worship God, or dare profess to believe in the existence
of such a being, while they carry on what is called the slave trade, and
traffic in the souls, blood, and bodies of men ? 0 ye most flagitious of
knaves, and worst of hypocrites ! Cast off at once the mask of religion,
and deepen not your endless perdition by professing the faith of our Lord
Jesus Christ, while you continue in this traffic." — Comment, on Isa., 58 : 0.
Macknight, the commentator, in exposition of 1 Tim. 1 : 10, said : " Men
stealers are inserted among the daring criminals against whom the law of
God directed its awful curses. These were persons who kidnapped men
to sell them for slaves ; and this practice seems inseparable from the other
iniquities and oppressions of slavery ; nor can a slave dealer easily keep
free from this criminality, if indeed the receiver is as bad as the thief."
Thomas Scott, the commentator, copied the preceding from Macknight,
and in his practical observations on Rev. 18 : 13 — " Souls of men" — said :
" To number the persons of men with beasts, sheep, and horses, as the
stock of a farm, or with bales of goods, as the cargo of a ship, is, no doubt,
a most detestable and anti-Christian practice.''

30 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Abraham Booth (the Baptist theological writer) said : " I have not a
stronger conviction of scarcely anything, than that slave holding (except
when the slave has forfeited his liberty by crimes against society) is wicked
and inconsistent with Christian character." " To me it is evident, that who
ever would purchase an innocent black man to make him a slave, would
with equal readiness purchase a white one for the same purpose, could he
do it with equal impunity, and no more disgrace.''
Mr. Booth preached a, sermon (1792) entitled " Commerce in the
Human Species, and the enslaving of innocent persons, inimical to the laws
of Moses, and the Gospel of Christ." The text was from Exodus 21 : 16..
" He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, he
shall surely be put to death."
James Bcattie said : " Slavery is inconsistent with the dearest and most
essential rights of man's nature ; it is detrimental to virtue and industry ; it
hardens the heart to those tender sympathies which form the most lovely
part of human character ; it involves the innocent in hopeless misery, in
order to procure wealth and pleasure for the authors of that misery ; it seeks
to degrade into brutes, beings whom the Lord of Heaven and Earth endowed
with rational souls, and created for immortality ; in short, it is utterly re
pugnant to every principle of reason, religion, humanity, and conscience.
It is impossible for a considerate and unprejudiced mind, to think of slavery
without horror."
George Fox, when in Barbadoes, in 1671, addressed himself thus, to those
who attended his religious meetings : " Consider with yourselves, if you
were in the same condition as the poor Africans are, who came strangers to
you, and were sold to you as slaves ; I say, if this should be the condition
of you or yours, you would think it a hard measure ; yea, and very great
bondage and cruelty."
John Locke said : " Slavery is so vile, so miserable an estate of man,
and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation,
that it is hard to be conceived that an Englishman, much less a gentleman,
should plead for it." — Essay on Government.
Thomas Jefferson said : " The whole commerce between master and
slave, is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions ; the most un
remitting despotisms, on the one part, and degrading submissions on the
other." "I tremble for my country, when I reflect, that God is just; that
his justice cannot sleep forever." — Notes on Virginia.
John Jay said : " Till America comes into this measure" (abolition) " her
prayers to Heaven will be impious. This is a strong expression, but it is
just." " I believe that God governs the world, and I believe it to be a
maxim in His, as in our courts, that those who ask for equity ought to do it."
— Letter from "Spain, 1780.
Dr.' Benjamin Franklin said : "Slavery is an atrocious debasement of
human nature."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 31
James Oglethorpe, foe founder of Georgia, said : " This cruel custom of
a private man's being supported in exercising more power over the man
whom he affirms to have bought as his slave, than the magistrate has over
the master, is a solecism in politics." — Stuart's Memoir of Sharp, p. 25.
Rousseau said: "The terms slavery and right, contradict and exclude
each other."
Buffon said : " It is apparent that the unfortunate negroes are endowed
with excellent hearts, and possess the seeds of every human virtue. I can
not write their history without lamenting their miserable condition." " Hu
manity revolts at those odious oppressions that result from avarice."
Brissot said : " Slavery, in all its forms, in all its degrees, is a violation
of divine law, and a degradation of human nature."
Sir William Jones said : rt I pass with haste, by the coast of Africa,
whence my mind turns with indignation at the abominable traffic in the
human species, from which'a part of our countrymen dare to derive their
inauspicious wealth."

Our limits forbid us to extend this list of witnesses, into
which we have introduced but few of the names most prom
inently connected, in England and America, with specific
enterprises for abolishing the slave trade and slavery. Nor
have we quoted the more modern writers on the subject, nor
many of the American statesmen during and since the Bevo-
lution, (some of them slave-holders,) whose testimony would
have been appropriate. In another connection we may refer
to some of them. Nor have we cited the long catalogue of
eminent poets, all. of whom, with scarcely an exception, have
deplored and condemned slavery. And yet, our chapter of
testimonies is sufficient to show that the moral sense, the
reason, the sympathy, the humanity, the philosophy, and the
professed religion of the civilized world, are against slavery,
which is, of course, destined to fall.

32 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE V.
ACTION OF RELIGIOUS BODIES AGAINST THE SLAVE TRADE
AND SLAVERY, COMMENCING BEFORE THE AMERICAN REVO
LUTION, AND ITS RESULTS.
George Fox in Barbadoes — William Edmundson, A.D. 1675— Friends in, England,
A.D. 1727 — 1761 — 1763 — 1772 — Friends in America — Yearly Meeting in Philadel
phia, A.D. 1696 — Gov. Penn, 1700 — Quarterly Meetings of Chester, Haddonfield,
&o. Yearly Meeting, 1754 — 1774 — 1776 — Friends in New England — Rhode Island
Quarterly Meeting, A.D. 1716 — 1727 — 1770 — Yearly Meeting of New York,
1759— Purchase Quarterly Meeting, 1767. Yearly Meeting, 1771— 1781— Yearly
Meeting of Virginia, A.D. 1757— 1766— 1767— 1768— 1773— 1787— Compensation
provided for Emancipated Slaves — Stirring Agitations among Friends during
this Reformation — William Burling, Ralph Sandiford, Benjamin Lay, John Wool-
man, Anthony Benezet — Congregationalists in America — Dr. Samuel Hopkins-
Church at Newport, 1769.
From the records of early anti-slavery testimony, we turn to
those of early anti-slavery action. As those testimonies were
evidently founded, for the most part, in the principles of the
Christian religion, and were urged on religious considerations,
it was natural that the early efforts against slavery and the
slave trade should partake of the same character, and be pro
pounded in religious bodies.
FRIENDS IN ENGLAND.
George Fox, as already mentioned, remonstrated with the
"Friends" in Barbadoes, concerning their treatment ofthe
negroes. This was in 1671. He exhorted them to give their
slaves religious instruction, and "bring them to know the
Lord Christ." In his journal he says :
" I desired, also, that they would cause their overseers to deal mildly and
gently with their negroes, and not use cruelty towards them, as the manner

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 33
of some had been ; and that, after certain years of servitude, they should
make them free."*
In a public discourse, he said :
" Let me tell you, it will doubtless be very acceptableto the Lord, if so
be that. masters of families here, would deal so with their servants, and
negroes, and blacks, whom they have bought with their money, as to let
them go free, after they have served faithfully a considerable number of
years, be it thirty, more or less, and when they go, and are made free, let
them not go away empty handed."!
William Edmundson, a fellow-laborer with Fox, bore a
similar testimony. He complained of the herding of the slaves
together like brute beasts, without any religious instruction,
or a sufficiency of suitable sustenance. — Clarltson, p. 5.
Both Fox and Edmundson were charged with exciting the
slaves to revolt, and the latter was arraigned before the gov
ernor, in 1675, on that false allegation. — " Brief Statement," p. 6.
Thus early began the false charge of bloody designs, and no
peacefulness of principles, no mildness of manner and lan
guage, and no moderation of measures — though even faulty
in that direction, have ever exempted the earnest friends of
emancipation from these charges.
" I do not find any individual of this Society (i. e. in England) moving in
this cause, for some time after the death of George Fox and William
Edmundson. The first circumstance of moment which I discover, is a
resolution of the whole society, on the subject, at their yearly meeting, held
in London, in the year 1727. The resolution was in the following
words" : —
" It is the sense of this meeting, that the importing of negroes from their
native country and relations, by Friends, is not a commendable or allowed
practice, and is therefore censured by this meeting."— Clarkson's History,
p. 51.From this record it is evident that Friends, in England, at
this time, were, to a greater or less extent, implicated in the
African slave trade. And it is equally clear from what fol
lows, that this very cautious and gentle admonition had not
" * Clarkson's History, p. 50.
+ Brief Statement, &c, by the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1843, page 6.
3

34 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
fully sufficed, in thirty-one years, to purge the Society from
the guilt of that traffic. In 1758, the following resolution
was adopted :
" We fervently warn all in profession with us, that they carefully avoid
being in any way concerned in reaping the unrighteous profits arising from
the iniquitous practice of dealing in negro or other slaves, whereby, in the
original purchase, one man selleth another, as he doeth the beasts that
perish, without any better pretension to property in him, than that of superior
force, in direct violation ofthe Gospel rule, which teacheth all to do as they
would be done by, and to do good to all. We, therefore, can do no less than,
with the greatest earnestness, impress it upon Friends, everywhere, that
they endeavor to keep their hands clear of the unrighteous gain of oppres
sion." Three years afterwards, 1761, the Society took a further
step, as appears by the following :
" This meeting, having reason to apprehend that diverse, under our name,
are concerned in the unchristian traffic in negroes, doth recommend it
earnestly to the care of Friends, everywhere, to discourage, as much as in
them lies, a practice so repugnant to our christian profession ; and to deal
with all such as shall persevere in a conduct so reproachful to Christianity ;
and disown them, if they do not desist therefrom."
In 1763, this action was repeated, and the cords drawn still
tighter, in the following :
"We renew pur exhortation that Friends, everywhere, be especially
careful to keep their hands clear of giving encouragement, in any shape, to
the slave-trade, being evidently destructive ofthe natural rights of mankind,
who are all ransomed by one Savior, and visited by one divine light, in
order to salvation, a traffic calculated to enrich and aggrandize some,
¦upon the misery of others ; in its nature, abhorrent to every just and tender
sentiment, and contrary to the whole tenor of the Gospel."
" By the minute which was made on this occasion, I apprehend that no
one belonging to the Society, could furnish even materials for such voyages."
— Clarkson, p. 52.
It is to be noticed that all this action; was directed against
the slave trade, or the importing of negroes. Nothing is said
directly of slave holding, though slaves were then held in Eng
land, whether by Quakers we cannot tell, though Quakers in
America held slaves at that time.
In 1772, the Society in England approved the " salutary

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 35
endeavors " of Friends in America, to discourage the holding
of slaves. FRIENDS IN AMERICA.
The movement among Friends in America began earlier :
" The Quakers in America, it must be owned, did mostof them, originally,
as other settlers there, with respect to the purchase of slaves." — Clarkson,
p. 57. They, -however, treated them with peculiar lenity, yet indi
viduals among them soon became uneasy about holding slaves
at all.
In the year 1696 the yearly meeting of Philadelphia advised its members
to " be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any more negroes, and
that those who have negroes be careful of them, bring them to meetings,
have meetings with them in their families, and restrain them from loose and
lewd living, as much as in them lies, and from rambling abroad, on First
days, or other times."* — " Brief Statement," &c, p. 8.
The quarterly meetings of Chester, Haddonfield, Philadel
phia, Bucks, Burlington, and Salem, subordinate to the yearly
meeting, took measures from time to time, on the subject.
The quarterly meeting of Chester extended into Virginia- —
" Brief Statement" &c.
In the yearly meeting, the subject was kept alive by renewed
testimonies from time to time, and advance steps were taken,
until, in 1754, the meeting recommended to " advise and deal
with such as engage "in the traffic. They also expressed a
desire to guard . against "promoting the bondage of such an
unhappy people." They "observe that their number is, of
late, increased among us." They intimate the injustice pf
living upon their unrequited labor, and beseech those who
have received slaves as an inheritance that they so train them

* William Penn, while Governor, iu 1700, laid before the meeting his concern on
the same subject, recommending religious meetings with the slaves. " His attempts
to improve their condition by legal enactments were defeated in the House of As
sembly." — lb., p. 9. A law imposing a duty of twenty pounds upon every slave
imported, was a few years afterwards enacted, but disannulled hy the British
Crown.— Ib., p. 11.

36 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
as to prepare them for freedom, if they should hereafter set,
them at liberty. — Clarkson's History, pp. 58, 59.*
In 1774 another advance step was taken.
" By a resolution of that year, all members concerned in importing, sell
ing, purchasing, giving, or transferring negroes or other slaves, or other
wise acting in such a manner as to continue them in slavery beyond tho
term limited by law or custom (i. e., for white persons), were directed to be
excluded from membership, or disowned." — Clarkson's History, p. 60.
" In the year 1776, the same yearly meeting carried the matter still
farther. It was then enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to
execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were to be dis
owned likewise." — Ib.
As the result of this action, it appears that the practice of
slaveholding was generally discontinued within the bounds
of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, not many years after
wards. The subordinate meetings took early measures for
carrying out the views of the Yearly Meeting. The Phila
delphia Monthly Meeting reported, in 1781, that " there was
but one case," under care, and, in 1783, that " there were no
slaves owned by its members."
" As the minute of 1781 is the last on record " (of the Yearly Meeting)
" on this subject, which speaks of slaves being still owned by our members,
it is probable that before the succeeding Yearly Meeting, they had all been
freed." — Brief Statement, p. 35.
These measures were followed by efforts for the religious
instruction of the emancipated negroes ; and in some instances
they were compensated for their past services.

* From the more full quotation of this document, in the Brief Statement of 1843,
we learn that it also held the more stern language that follows :
" And we entreat all to examine, whether the purchasing of a negro, either born
here or imported, doth not contribute to a further importation, and consequently to
the upholding all the evils above mentioned, and promoting man stealing— the only
theft whioh, by the Mosaic law, was punished with death : ' He that stealeth a man,
and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.'—
Ex. 21 : 16."— Brief Statement, see p. 18.
So that the ecclesiastical testimony of the " Friends"— invidiously commended hy
some for its mildness, did not reach its object, till it had identified Blaveholding
with man stealing. This testimony is recorded as being "supposed to have been
from the pen of Anthony Benezet."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 37
The course of action by the New England Yearly Meeting,
and its subordinate meetings, was very similar, and but little
later in dates. The earliest action on record is a query by
the Monthly Meeting of Dartmouth to the Ehode Island
Quarterly Meeting, in 1716, asking " whether it be agreeable
to Truth, for Friends to purchase slaves, and keep them for a
term of life ?" The question was referred back to the different
monthly meetings composing' that quarterly meeting. The
answers of several meetings were in the negative. The matter
came up again before the Ehode Island Quarterly Meeting, in
1717, but no decisive minute was made on the subject. — In
1727, the Yearly Meeting made a short minute censuring the
practice " of importing negroes from their native country and
relations." In 1760, the discipline was revised, and the lan
guage of the "printed epistle of the London Yearly Meeting
of 1758, against dealing in negroes and other slaves," was
incorporated into the discipline. In the same year the follow
ing inquiry was adopted :
" Are Friends clear of importing negroes, or buying them when imported ;
and do they use those well, where they are possessed by inheritance or
otherwise, endeavoring to train them up in the principles of religion ."
In 1769, the Ehode Island Quarterly Meeting proposed to
the Yearly Meeting such an amendment of this "query as
should not imply that the holding of slaves was allowed.
The Yearly Meeting deferred action until 1770, when the
query was so amended as to include the following :
" And are all set at liberty that are of age, capacity and ability, suitablo
for freedom ?"
This action was carried forward until, in 1782, the Yearly
Meeting says —
" We know not but all the members of this meeting are clear of that
iniquitous practice of holding or dealing with mankind as slaves." — Brief
Statement, &c, pp. 44 to 47.
It was not, however, until 1787, that the Yearly Meeting
could report a satisfactory settlement for the past services of
those who had been held in slavery. (Ib.)

38 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
The Yearly Meeting of New 'York, previous to 1759, had
manifested its disapprobation of the slave trade. — The Pur
chase Quarterly Meeting, in 1767, suggested the inquiry,
" whether it is consistent with a Christian spirit to keep those
in slavery we have already in possession, by purchase, gift, or
any other way ?"
In 1771, the Yearly Meeting concluded " that those Friends
who have negroes shall not sell them for slaves, excepting in
cases of executors," &c, who are, in that case, to advise with
their respective monthly meetings. — Measures were taken, the
same year, to encourage manumissions.
In 1776, the Yearly Meeting took still higher ground,
refusing to accept or employ the services in the church, or
"receive the collections," of those who " continue these poor
people in bondage."
In 1784, a solitary case of slaveholding was reported — and
in 1787 there were none at all.
In 1781, the Yearly Meeting advised each monthly meeting
to appoint suitable persons to inspect the cases of the recent
emancipations, and afford such assistance and advice, both in
respect to the temporal and spiritual good of the emancipated,
as might be in their power, and " endeavor to find what, in
justice, may be due them." At the succeeding Yearly Meet
ing, it was recommended that committees be appointed by the
monthly meetings to "hand out to the said negroes" "the
sum or sums which may appear to be due them."  /"So
faithfully and earnestly did Friends carry out these views of
the Yearly Meeting, that in the year 1784 there appear to
have been but three unsettled cases remaining. — " Brief State
ment," &c, pp. 47 to 51.
The Yearly Meeting of Virginia introduced a query " de
signed to forbid the trafficking in slaves," in 1757. In 1764,
the Meeting advised additional attention to the religious
instruction and clothing of slaves. In 1766, it was proposed
to forbid its members to purchase any more negroes, and
the subject was referred back to the quarterly meetings. In
1767, the Yearly Meeting could not unanimously conclude

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 39
upon issuing any injunctions either with regard to purchasing
or setting them free, but earnestly desired each member to
be careful and not encumber himself or posterity with any
further purchases. — In 1768, this advice was made a rule of
discipline.— In 1773, the Yearly Meeting earnestly recom
mended manumissions, and quoted the words of the prophet —
" The people of the^land have used oppression and exercised
robbery,1' &c. The measure was followed up till 1787, when
it appeared that there were still some members who held
slaves. It is stated that, after this, " the Yearly Meeting of
Virginia gradually cleared itself of this grievous burthen :"
but the precise date of its final extinction is not given. — ¦
" Brief Statement," &c, pp. 51 to 56.
A very interesting feature of this reformation among the
Friends, was the compensation provided for the emancipated
slaves, in striking contrast with the absurd claim, sometimes
set up, for compensation to the master. Another circum
stance worthy of note is the uniformity and celerity with
which the reformation was effected, so soon as the ecclesias
tical bodies adventured to characterize slaveholding, in the
strong but truthful language of Scripture, as robbery and
man-stealing ; giving proof of the earnestness and sincerity
of their testimony, by taking measures for withdrawing reli
gious fellowship from slaveholders. It is stated that some
were actually " disowned" for non-compliance. — "Brief State
ment," &c, p. 46.
Nor was this great change effected in the Society of Friends
without stirring agitations, exciting appeals, and long-con
tinued and earnest debates and discussions. The cautiously
guarded and modified records of the ecclesiastical bodies,
especially the more early testimonies, expressing, perhaps, in
the language of compromise, the hesitant and even reluctant
assent of the predominating and conservative portion of the
body, must not be taken as specimens of the tone and manner
of the agitators by whom the subject was continually pressed
upon the attention of the Society, until final action was

40 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
reached. A long succession of these untiring and zealous
laborers were engaged in this great work.
William Burling, of Long Island, was, perhaps, the first
of these. He began his testimony early in life, and seldom
if ever permitted a Yearly Meeting to assemble and separate
without hearing his earnest remonstrance against their tolera
tion of slavery. »
Ealph Sandiford, of Philadelphia, was another earnest
agitator. He published his "Mystery of Iniquity, in a brief
examination of the practice of the times," in the year 1729.
The language is described as bold, stirring, energetic, and
uncompromising. The very title-page is a sufficient indica
tion of the fact.
Benjamin Lay published his Treatise on Slave-keeping in
1737. It was printed by Benjamin Franklin. The title of
this book* shows that he opposed not merely the slave trade
and slave buying, (which was all that the Yearly Meeting was
prepared to do, six years afterwards,) but likewise the prac
tice of slaveholding, and denftunced it as a high crime. He
is described by Clarkson as " a man of strong understanding,
and of great integrity, but of warm and irritable feelings,
and more particularly so when he was called forth on any
occasion in which the oppressed Africans were concerned."f

* " All Slave-keepers, that keep the innocent in bondage, apostates."
t Some specimens of his manner of agitating " the delicate question" may oe
interesting. "Calling on a Friend in the city (Philadelphia), he was asked to sit down to
breakfast. He first inquired, ' Dost thou keep slaves in thy house ?' On being
answered in the affirmative, he said, 'Then I will not partake with thee of _he fruits
of thy unrighteousness.' — After an ineffectual attempt to convince a farmer and his
wife in Chester county of the iniquity of keeping slaves, he seized their only child,
a little girl of three years of age, under pretence of carrying her away, and when the
cries of the child and his singular expedient alarmed them, he said, ' You see and
feel, now, a little of the distress which you occasion by the inhuman practice of
slave-keeping."— First Annual Report, N. Hampshire A. S. Society, by John Farmer,
Esq.— Emancipator for August, 1835.
At Friends' Monthly Meetings, if a slaveholder rose to speak, Benjamin Lay would
rise and exclaim—" There's another negro master !"
On one occasion he seated himself in a Friends' Meeting among slaveholders, with
a bladder of bullock's blood secreted under his mantle, and at length broke the quiet

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 41
For forty-one years, and until his death, in 1759, he bore an
uncompromising and zealous testimony against the sin of
slavery. John Woolman travelled through the provinces as a preacher
and anti-slavery agitator, from 1746 to 1767. He travelled
much of the time on foot, conversing with the people, and
discoursing to public .assemblies.
Anthony Benezet published a work against slavery in 1762,
and another in 1767. He wrote also in the public journals,
in the almanacs, and labored in every practicable and suitable
manner to convince the people of the unlawfulness of slavery.
" Let all the evangelical denominations but follow the simple example of
the Quakers in this country, and slavery would soon come to an end." —
Albert Barnes.
If to this statement were added the condition that the mem
bers of all these religious denominations, including the Qua
kers, would support the cause of righteousness in their political
as well as ecclesiastical relations, the result could not be a
matter of doubtful speculation.
CONGREGATIONALISTS IN NEW ENGLAND.
The brightest as well as the earliest exhibition of Christian
church discipline against slavery, however, was in the instance,
not of an extended ecclesiastical organization or sect, but of
an Independent or Congregational Church in New England.
When Dr. Samuel Hopkins, the celebrated theologian, re-'
moved to Newport, Ehode Island, in 1769, he found himself
pastor of a church involved deeply in slaveholding and the
African slave trade. He was not long in applying to those
stillness of the worship by deliberately rising in full view of the whole audience,
piercing the bladder, spilling the blood on the floor and seats, thus sprinkling some
of it on the raiment of those near him, and exclaiming with all the solemn authority
of an ancient prophet — " Thus shall the Lord spill the blood of those that traffic in
the blood of their fellow-men I" — Some shrieked— some fainted, and the meeting
broke up in confusion.
" Modern" abolitionists have been censured as too denunciatory and violent. Not
unfrequently .they have been advised to take the good old Quaker abolitionists as
models of mildness 1 Do the advisers understand what they are saying ?

42 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
practices the stern and unbending ethics derived from his then
somewhat peculiar and most uncompromising theology, accord
ing to which, slaveholding could be nothing less than malum
in se, in every instance sinful, without any valid excuse, or
apology : a sin, like all other sin, to be cured or purged in no
way but by its present and unconditional abandonment, at
whatever cost, the case admitting of no prudential stipulations,
and no delay. Admitting into his theory no ' such idea as
that of a gradual regeneration or repentance, he could, of
course, listen to no proposition for a gradual abandonment of
slaveholding. His measures, therefore, were prompt, his
purpose inflexible, his object determinate. It was not to the
abuses of the system, nor to particular cases of cruelty that
he directed attention, further than to ascertain and exhibit
the principle that lay at the bottom of the mischief. His
remedy was radical, applying to the root, not to the branches.
In the slave trade, with all its abominations and horrors, he
saw only a particular manifestation or phase of slavery. With
no extended ecclesiastical body to consult, to assist, or to im
pede him, he addressed his appeals and arguments directly to
the consciences and the intellects of his congregation, — the
party immediately concerned, and on them, in view of the com
ing Judgment, he cast the tremendous responsibility of direct
and unambiguous action:
The church was soon induced, as a Congregational body,
to take the following action :
" Resolved, that the slave trade and the slavery of the Africans, as it
has existed among us, is a gross violation of the righteousness and benevo
lence which are so much inculcated in the gospel, and therefore we will not
tolerate it in this Church."
The doctrines of modern abolitionists, of the inherent sinful
ness of slaveholding, and of the duty of immediate and un
conditional emancipation, were distinctly enunciated and con
sistently reduced to practice in this action of the Congrega
tional church in Newport. This was long before the com
mencement of any systematic efforts for abolishing the African

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 43
slave trade, before the decision of the Somerset case, and be
fore any body of " Friends " had taken a similar position in
respect to slavery, or had discontinued the practice. Had all
the Congregational ministers and churches in this country
taken the stand of Samuel Hopkins, and the church at New
port, from that time to the present, there is no reason to think
that the condition and prospects of the nation would have
been, at this time, what they now are. How many, or which
of the Congregational churches in New England, at that
period, came up to the standard of the church at Newport,
we are unable to say. It is understood that there were seve
ral.* And it is certain that the sentiment was very generally
received, for a time, and that the result was the termination
of slavery in New England. Of this, and of the concurrent
action of the Methodist Conference, and Presbyterian General
iissembly, we shall treat, in connection with the records of a
later period. We must first dispose of some points in the
earlier history.
* In a note to the second edition of Br. HopMns' Dialogue on Slavery, re-pub
lished in 1785, it is said : " Since the first edition of this Dialogue, a number of
churches in New England have purged themselves of this iniquity, and determined
not to tolerate the holding of Africans in slavery."

44 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE VI.
OF SLAVERY, AND ITS ABOLITION IN ENGLAND.
Judicial Action — Granville Sharp — Early Introduction of Slavery into England;
its supposed legality (1700) — Opinion of York and Talbot, in favor of its legality
(1729) — Effects of this Opinion — Slave Traffic in England — Case of Jonathan
Strong — Efforts of Sharp — His Investigation of British Law — -Declares Slavery to
be illegal — Publishes his argument — Treats Slavery as illegal, though the Courts
and Publio Sentiment were against him — Case of Thomas Lewis — Decision of
Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, sustaining the legality of Slavery — Sharp enters
his Protest — Blackstone alters his Commentaries to defeat Sharp, and favor the
Slaveholders — Case of James Somerset — The Argument — A Decision found
against Slavery in the times of Queen Elizabeth — Lord Mansfield hesitates — An
interval before the decision — Sharp anticipates the result, and memorializes Lord
North against Slavery in the Colonies — State of Public Sentiment against Slavery —
Final decision of Lord Mansfield (1772), releasing Somerset, and declaring Slavery
illegal in England — Second Memorial of Sharp to Lord North, admonishing him
of the duty of suppressing Slavery in the Colonies, agreeably to the decision of
Lord Mansfield.
As church action against slavery naturally follows and
grows out of religious teachings and testimonies against the
sin of slavery, so judicial and legislative action against the
practice, naturally follows and grows out of both the preced
ing. The laws of a country are an index, to a great extent,
of the prevalent religion of a country, and it is difficult, if not
impossible, to maintain, for any length of time, a code of laws
that essentially conflict with the religion of the people.
From the records of early religious testimony and action
against slavery, we come to those of judicial action.
The first laborer in this department of benevolent enterprise,
in England, says Clarkson, was Granville Sharp, "distin
guished from those who preceded him in this particular, that
whereas they were only writers, he was both a writer and an

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 45
actor in the cause." His first effort in 1767, for the release of
an individual slave, was followed, not long afterwards, by
systematic endeavors to overthrow slavery itself in the British
dominions, and particularly in England.
The introduction of slavery into England, appears to have
been upon the same foundation, (in respect to its legality,) as
its introduction into the North American colonies. That is,
it was done without the authority of any direct statute ; and
it was done in the presence and in palpable violation of Eng
lish Common Law. If it could plead any legal warranty, it
was that of the royal permission to transport Africans " with
their own free consent," into the colonies, and the Act of Par
liament " for extending and improving the trade to Africa,"
which prohibited " any violence to the natives."
How early slaves were introduced into England, we cannot
exactly determine. " Before the year 1700," says Clarkson,
" planters, merchants, and others, resident in the West Indies,
but coming to England, were accustomed to bring with them
certain slaves, to act as servants with them during their stay."
They frequently absconded, and were sometimes seized and
sent back by force. A sentiment had come down from former
ages that Christians could not enslave Christians, and that as
soon as an Englishman's slave was baptized, he became free.
In consequence of this sentiment, it became common for pious
clergymen to baptize all the slaves they could, providing
" god-fathers " for them, according to the usages of the Church
of England. These god-fathers were in the habit of vindicat
ing their high claim to the title, by espousing the cause of
their god-children, and demanding their freedom. For a time,
this held the slave-masters in check, as they were "afraid to
carry off their slaves by force, and equally afraid to bring any
ofthe cases before a public court."
" In this dilemma, they applied, in 1729, to York and Talbot, the Attorney
and Solicitor-General, for the time being, and obtained from them, the
following strange opinion : — ' We are of opinion that a slave, by coming
from the West Indies into Great Britain or Ireland, either with or without
his master, does not become free, and that his master's right and property in

46 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
him is not thereby determined or varied, and that baptism doth not bestow
freedom upon him, or make any alteration in his temporal condition, in these
kingdoms. We are also of opinion that the master may legally compel him
to return again, to the plantations.' "
" This cruel and illegal opinion was delivered in 1729. The planters,
merchants, and others, gave it, of course, all the publicity in their power ;
and the consequences were as might easily have been apprehended. In a
little time, slaves absconding, were advertised in the London papers, as
runaways, and rewards offered for the apprehension of them ; in the same
brutal manner as we find them advertised in the land of slavery. They
were advertised, also, in the same papers, to be sold at auction, sometimes
by themselves, and at others, with horses, chaises, and harness. They were
seized also by their masters, or by persons employed by them, in the very
streets, and dragged from thence to the ships ; and so unprotected, now,
were these poor slaves, that persons, no wise concerned with them, began to
institute a trade in their persons, making agreements with captains of ships,
going to the West Indies, to put them on board at a certain price." This
" shows, as all history does, that where there is a market for the persons
of human beings, all kind of enormities will be practiced to obtain them." —
Clarkson's History, &c, pp. 38-9.
For forty -three years did this " illegal opinion " of York
and Talbot prevail in Great Britain instead of law ; nay, in
opposition to the fundamental law of the realm. Such was
the state of things when, in 1767, as before mentioned, Gran
ville Sharp undertook the liberation of Jonathan Strong,
claimed as a slave by David Lisle, a lawyer and slave-master
of Barbadoes, then residing in London.
" But the lawyers whom Sharp consulted, declared the laws were against
him. Sir James Eyre, Recorder of the city, whom he retained as his
counsel, adduced to him York and Talbot's opinion, and informed him that
Lord Chief Justice Mansfield agreed with those gentlemen." — Stuart's
Memoir of Sharp, p. 8.
"Mischief framed by law, yet against law, thus took deep root in
Britain." "At this time slavery had disgraced the British Colonies in
America and in the West Indies, for two hundred years. The righteous
law of the empire had been evaded or perverted, and opinion and precedent
had been substituted for law." — Ibid, pp. 6-7.
This, Granville Sharp understood, though he stood alone.
He had not been educated a lawyer. But he understood,
better than York and Talbot, (as the event proved,) and bet-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 47
ter than Mansfield and Blackstone, the sacred and the change
less nature of law. A legal triumph was in reserve for him,
the most sublime and august of any on the records of modern
jurisprudence. But it was not won in the controversy concerning Jonathan
Strong. Some informality in the proceedings led to his dis
charge by the Mayor. He was, however, instantly seized
again by Captain Laird, (about to sail for the West, Indies,)
on behalf of John Kerr, to whom Lisle had sold him. This
seizure was made in the presence of the mayor and others, be
fore whom also, Granville Sharp, with consummate general
ship and promptitude, stepped up to Captain Laird, and, tap
ping him on the shoulder, exclaimed: "I charge you, in the
name of the king, with an assault upon the person of Jonathan
Strong, and all these are my witnesses I" Laird was intimi
dated, let go his grasp, and Sharp conveyed away the ran
somed captive in triumph. This led to a suit against Sharp,
the trial of which was deferred by the plaintiffs for two years,
and then withdrawn by them under charge of treble costs for
the delay.
During these two years, Mr. Sharp applied himself, dili
gently, to a further study of the law, by which his former po
sition was fortified, and he was prepared for any future litiga
tion on the subject. In the course of this investigation, he
applied to the great Doctor (afterwards Judge) Blackstone,
for his opinion. "He was not, however, satisfied with it,"
says Clarkson, " when he received it, nor could he obtain any
satisfactory answer from several other lawyers, to whom he
afterwards applied." Thrown, therefore, upon his own indus
try and resources, he worked out the problem alone.
" The result of his research, was a tract, ' On the injustice and dangerous
tendency of tolerating slavery, or even of admitting the least claim to private
property, in the persons of men, in England." — Stuart's Memoir, p. 8.
" In this work"* (says Clarkson) " he refuted, in the clearest manner,
the opinion of York and Talbot. He produced against it the opinion of
* Mr. Clarkson gives, as the title of tho hook, " A Representation of the Injustice
and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery in England."

48 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Lord Chief Justice Holt, who, many years before, had determined that
every slave coming into England became free. He attacked and refuted it,
again, by a learned and laborious inquiry into all the principles of villeinage.
He refuted it, again, by showing it to be an axiom in the British Constitu
tion, ' That every man in England, was free to sue for, and defend his
rights, and that force cannot be used without a legal process,' leaving it
with the judges to determine whether an African was a man. He attacked
also, the principle of Judge Blackstone, and showed where his error lay.
This valuable book, containing these and all other kinds of arguments, on
the subject, he distributed, but particularly among the lawyers, giving thein
an opportunity of refuting or acknowledging the doctrines it contained."—'
Clarkson's History, p. 42.
Several cases were afterwards tried, in which the slaves
were set at liberty ; but " none of the cases had yet been
pleaded upon the broad ground, ' Whether an African slave
coming into England, became free.' This great question had
been studiously avoided. It was still, therefore, left in doubt."
Mr. Sharp continually acted on the ground that there was no
legal slavery in England, though the judges had not so deci
ded. The suspense at length became painful to both parties,
and there was a general anxiety to have the controversy deci
ded. — Clarkson, p. 42, Stuart, p. 10.
In the meantime, some of the cases were so decided as to
afford great encouragement to the slave party. An African.
named Thomas Lewis, had escaped from his master, Mr. Sta-
pylton, in London. He was recaptured, and put on board
a vessel for the West Indies. The vessel had reached the
Downs, and was already under way, when a habeas corpus was
carried on board, and the man released, and sent on shore.
A bill was found against Stapylton and his two assistants, and
the case was tried before the Court of King's Bench Lord
Chief Justice Mansfield presiding, the 20th of February 1771
The jury returned a verdict of guilty: "but so fraught was
Mansfield's mind, still, with the false views of the day, that
he refused to proceed to judgment, and the criminals escaped."
— " Against this proceeding of the Judge, as an open contempt
of the laws of England, Granville Sharp prepared a strong pro
test." — Stuart's Memoir, p. 10.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 49
Another incident, and a very remarkable one, illustrates
the methods resorted to, by gentlemen of the highest stand
ing in the legal profession, at that time, in England, to sustain
the slave interest, at the expense of those great fundamental
maxims of Common Law, of which they were themselves the
recognized expounders, and which they could enunciate, dis
tinctly enough, except when overawed by " the mighty wealth
and influence of the West India faction," before whom, king
and nobles, courts of justice, parliaments and doctors of the
law, bowed down in abject submission.
" In the beginnings of his researches, Granville Sharp had found and
noted the following passage in Blackstone's Commentaries, Book I., page
123, Edition 1st — ' And this spirit of liberty is so deeply implanted in our
Constitution, and rooted in our very soil, that a slave or a negro, the moment
he lands in England, falls under the protection of the laws, and, with regard
to all national rights, becomes eo instanti, a freeman.'
" This passage being quoted in one of the trials, was triumphantly repelled
by the opposite counsel, who produced the volume from which the quotation
was made, and instead of the words as noted by Granville Sharp, read as
follows : ' A negro, the moment he lands in England, falls under the pro
tection of the laws, and so far becomes a free man, though the master's
right to his service may possibly remain.'
" Upon further investigation, it was found that, in the course of the trials,
Dr. Blackstone himself had made this alteration in the subsequent editions."
— Stuart's Memoir of Sharp, p. 19.
Such was the condition of things, when, at length, a case
came before the courts that presented a fair opportunity to
test the great question of legal slavery in England. This
opportunity was improved, and the issue was joined.
James Somerset " had been brought to England in November, 1769, by
his master, Charles Stewart, from Virginia, and in process of time had left
him. Stewart had him suddenly seized, and carried on board the Ann and
Mary, Captain Knowles, in order to be taken to Jamaica, and there sold for
a slave." " On February 7, 1772, the cause was tried in the King's Bench, before
Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, aided by Justices Ashton, Welles and Ash-
hurst. The question at issue was — ' Is every man in England entitled to
the liberty of his person, unless forfeited by the laws of England V This
was affirmed by the advocates of Somerset ; and Mr. Sergeant Davy, who
4

50 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
opened his cause, broadly declared, ' that no man at tbis day is, or can be,
a slave in England.' " — Stuart's Memoir, p. 11.
In the course of the argument a precedent was adduced in
favor of freedom. " This was the case of Cartwright, who
brought a slave from Eussia, and would scourge #him. For
this he was questioned, and it was resolved, that England was
too pure an air for slaves to breathe in." — See Rushworth's Collar
tions, p. 468. This was in the 11th of Queen Elizabeth. — lb.
Lord Mansfield was evidently beginning to waver.
" In order that time might be given for ascertaining the law fully on this
head, the case was argued at three different Sittings. First in January,
secondly in February, and thirdly in May, 1772. And that no decision
otherwise than what the law warranted, might be given, the opinion of the
judges were taken on the pleadings." — Clarkson's Hist. p. 43.
" Granville Sharp availed himself, with his usual zeal, of this interval,
and, among the other measures by which he sought to obtain an equitable
decision, he addressed a Letter to Lord North, dated Feb. 18th, 1772." —
Stuart's Memoir, p. 12.
In this Letter Mr. Sharp anticipates a decision of the courts
against slavery, and says — "We must judge by law, not hy
precedent." — He further intimates the illegality of slavery in
the American Colonies, in the following paragraph :
" I might indeed allege that many of the plantation laws (like every other
act that contains anything which is mf-u-*n in se, evil in its own nature,)
are already null and void in themselves ; because they want every necessary •
foundation to render them valid, being absolutely contradictory -to the laws
of reason and equity, as well as the laws of God." — Ib. p. 13.
By this time the eyes of the British public, from the memj
bers of the administration down to the mass of the intelligent
inhabitants, were fixed upon Lord Mansfield and the Court
of King's Bench, awaiting, with deep interest and anxious
suspense, their decision. It was a healthful scrutiny, not
unfelt by the Lord Chief Justice and his associates. New and
enlarged views of the nature and character of LAW had been
impressed upon the nation and upon the national judiciary,
by the tireless labors and profound investigations of Gran
ville Sharp. And yet it required a desperate struggle to

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 51
break away from the meshes of precedent and opinion, and
restore the ascendancy of impartial and equitable law.
" Lord Mansfield delayed judgment, and twice threw out the suggestion
' that the master might put an end to the present litigation, by manumitting
the slave.' But the base suggestion was, providentially, not attended to.
The judgment was demanded ; and the judgment was given on Monday,
22d of June, 1772. After much lawyer-like circumlocution, Lord Mans
field decided as follows :
" Immemorial usage preserves the memory of positive law, long after all
traces of the occasion, reason, authority, and time of its introduction are
lost, and in a case so odious as the condition of slaves, must be taken
strictly : (tracing the subject to natural principles, the claim of slavery can
never be supported.) The power claimed by this return never was in use
here. We cannot say the cause set forth in this return is allowed or
approved of by the laws of this kingdom, and therefore the man must be
discharged." — Stuart's Memoir, p. 17. " Mr. Sharp felt it his duty, imme
diately after this trial, to write" (again) " to Lord North, then principal
minister of State, warning him, in the most earnest manner, to abolish,
immediately, both the slave trade and the slavery of the human species,
in all the British dominions, as utterly irreconcilable with the principles
of the British Constitution, and the established religion of the land." —
Clarkson's Hist., p. 44.
The measure here insisted on by Granville Sharp, was evi
dently required by the decision of the Somerset case, and had
it been carried into effect, at that time, there would have been
no slavery now in the United States.
Mr. Clarkson awards much credit to the counsel employed
on this trial, Davy, Glynn, Hargrave, Mansfield, and Alleyne,
but chiefly to Granville Sharp, " who became the first great
actor in it, who devoted his time, his talents, and his substance
to this Christian, undertaking, and by whose laborious
researches the very pleaders themselves were instructed and
benefited."— p. 44.
" It ought to be remembered that, while Granville Sharp thus boldly
remonstrated with the government of his country, he filled a government
situation, and was dependent for his present subsistence, and his future pros
pects in life, upon the ministry of the day." — Stuart's Memoir, p. 15.
Thus was the guilty fiction of legal slavery in England
exploded, after having been acted upon as though it were a

52 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
truth for at least three-fourths of a century, and confirmed
by the highest official authority for forty-three years. Of the
magnitude, the importance, and the legal consequences of this
judicial decision, which forever settled the slave question in
England, without legislative action or executive interference,
we propose not to speak here. In another connection it may
be adverted to again. Very possibly its study may assist in
the detection and correction of similar mistakes in the judicial
action of other countries, besides England. If York and
Talbot, and Blackstone and Mansfield were mistaken, other
learned judges may be. If, under the British monarchy, a
private individual may peacefully revolutionize the jurispru
dence of his country, it cannot be out of place, nor arrogant
for the friends of liberty in republican America to study, to
understand, to insist upon the principles of constitutional and
common law, in their bearing upon the same great practical
question, in their own country, as Granville Sharp did in his.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 53

CHAPTEE VII.
OF EFFORTS FOR ABOLISHING THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
Relaxation of effort — American Revolution— Sharp espouses the cause of the Colo
nies — Thomas Clarkson's early life— Granville Sharp— Slave ship " Zong" (1781)
— Trial of this case (1783)— Slave-traders sustained — Sharp's Report of the Trial
—Committee instituted to act against the Slave Trade (1787)— Unfortunate
Compromise — Policy of opposing the Slave Trade, but not Slavery— Solemn Pro
test of Granville Sharp — William Wilberforce— Publio Agitation — Abstinence
from Slave Products— Wilberforce denounced in the House of Lords— Influence
of John Wesley — of the Quakers — the Baptists — Inquiry in King's Privy Council,
1788 ; also in House of Commons, introduced hy Wm. Pitt — Dates of various
movements in Parliament till 1806 — Slave Trade abolished in Parliament in 1807 —
Review of this struggle — Slavery declared illegal in 1772, yet the Slave Trade
tolerated till 1807— The turning point— The legality of the Slave Trade— Pitt
proved it illegal — Abolition cf the Slave Trade abortive — Premature and misplaced
gratulation and triumph. Mr. Clarkson's late retraction of his grand error (1845).
Testimony to the impossibility of suppressing the traffic while Slavery continued
(1845) — Continued profitableness of the Slave Trade — Increased horrors of the
Middle Passage — Slave Trade actually increased instead of being suppressed.
The speedy and glorious success of the efforts of Granville
Sharp and a few others for uprooting slavery from the soil of
Great Britain, should have encouraged Christian philanthro
pists, in both hemispheres, one would think, to co-operate in
similar efforts to uproot slavery throughout the colonial pos
sessions of Great Britain, over which the same great principles
of the British Constitution, and of English Common Law,
were recognized as holding paramount authority. It is not
improbable that the growing difficulties between the North
American colonies and the mother country, ripening into a
civil war, soon after the decision of the Somerset case, may have
interrupted the correspondence just beginning to be opened

54 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
between the friends of liberty in the two countries. The Brit
ish West India Islands, however, might have presented a field
of operation for the abolitionists in England, though there
may have been none in the islands to co-operate with them.
From some cause, no such efforts were made. Granville
Sharp, in 1774, published a tract in favor of the rights of the
American colonies, of which he presented two hundred and
fifty copies to Dr. Franklin, who dispatched them to America.
" It was immediately and extensively republished in the colo
nies." The next year, 1775, on hearing of the commence
ment of hostilities, near Boston, he retired from the post he
had held under the British administration, which was his only
means of subsistence. — Stuart's Memoir of Sharp, pp. 21, 22.
The entire period of the American Eevolutionary War, ter
minating in 1783, appears to have been marked by an almost
total suspension of active labors on the part of the friends of
the negroes in England. And when, not long after, their la
bors were renewed, they took the form of opposition to the
African slave trade, the horrible cruelties of which, at that
time, having been, in some cases, exposed, excited the sympa
thies and the indignation of many who had never reflected
profoundly upon the iniquity involved in the slave system
itself. Thomas Clarkson, the chief actor, for a long time, in this
enterprise, then a young man, a student at Cambridge, had
obtained a college prize for an Essay on the Slave Trade,
which was printed in 1785, and attracted some attention.
He frankly confessed afterwards, that his only motive, in the
first place, was " that of other young men in the University,
the wish of being distinguished, or of obtaining literary honor."
But the facts he had collected, made so deep an impression
upon him, that he soon " interested himself in it, from a mo
tive of duty," and afterwards relinquished his prospects of
promotion in the profession of a clergyman in the established
church, for which he was preparing, in order to devote him
self to the enterprise of abolishing the African slave trade.—
Gktrkson's History, pp. 79-86.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 55
The attention of Granville Sharp, some time previous, had
been intensely directed to the slave trade, by a most thrilling
illustration' of its atrocity. The slave ship Zong, Captain Col-
lingwood, from Africa, freighted with slaves for Jamaica, in
1781, was visited with a dreadful mortality among the slaves.
Under a false pretence of scarcity of water, the captain ordered a
large number of the sick slaves thrown overboard, that the loss
might fall on the insurers, (as merchandize thrown overboard
for the safety of the vessel,) instead of falling on the owners,
if they died from sickness. The question growing out of this
transaction, and before the court, in 1783, was not concerning
the murder of these men, but simply whether the owners or
the insurers should lose the pecuniary amount of their value I
The Solicitor-General, J. Lee, said :
" This is a case of goods and chattels. It is really so ; it is a case of
throwing over goods, for, to this purpose, and for the purpose of insurance,
they are goods and property ; whether right or wrong, we have nothing to
do with it."
Lord Mansfield said :
" The matter left to the jury is — Was it from necessity '? for they (the
court) had no doubt (though it shocks one very much) that the case of
slaves is the same as if horses had been thrown overboard. It is a very
shocking case."
The verdict of the jury, on the first trial, was for the captain
and owners. A new trial was granted, and the insurers gained
their cause. But no criminal prosecution could be had against
the murderers / Any such accusation, legal gentlemen agreed,
"would argue nothing less than madness !" — Clarkso7i's His
tory, p. 45. Stuart's Memoirs, pp. 29-31.
Granville Sharp " was present at this trial, and procured the attendance
of a short-hand writer, to take down the facts," " which he communicated
to the public afterwards. He communicated them also, with a copy of the
trial, to the Lords of the Admiralty, as guardians of justice on the high
seas, and to the Duke of Portland, as Minister of State. No notice, how
ever, was taken, by any of these, of the information which had thus been
sent to them." — Clarkson, p. 46.

56 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
In his address to the Duke of Portland, Mr. Sharp warned
him of " the absolute necessity to abolish the slave trade, and
West Indian slavery". — Stuart, p. 31.
It is easy to conceive that while the public sympathy was
so strongly acted upon by such astounding developments con
cerning the slave trade, an effort for its abolition would be
more likely to win at once a cheap general favor, than an ef
fort for the abolition of slavery. But benevolent enterprises;
founded on mere sympathy, are not likely to be as wisely di
rected, as consistently supported, or as really and permanently
successful as those that are likewise seen to be deeply imbed
ded and fortified in the fundamental principles of moral right.
The history of the nominal abolition of the African slave
trade is deeply interesting, as affording a striking exemplifi
cation of one class of these experiments.
The committee instituted in June 1787, for " effecting the
abolition of the slave trade," was composed of twelve members,
nine of whom were Quakers. Of the three others, one was
Thomas Clarkson, and one was Granville Sharp, the latter of
whom was appointed chairman. An earnest discussion took
place in the committee, on the question whether they should
direct their efforts against the slave trade alone, or against the
slave trade and slavery. All the members, except Granville
Sharp, were in favor of acting only against the slave trade.
The arguments in favor of this course are stated in his his
tory, at some length, by Mr. Clarkson. Two distinct evils,
the slave trade and slavery, presented themselves, he says, to
their attention, and both needing removal. " It soon appeared
to the committee that to aim at the removal of both, would be
to aim at too much, and that by doing this, we might lose all."
"The question then was, which of the two would they. take
as their object." "By aiming at the slave trade, they were
laying the axe at the very root." Pp. 27, 28.
This view is the more remarkable as being found in the
same volume in which the same writer had said : " All history
shows, from the time of Joseph, that where there is a market

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 57
for the persons of human beings, all kinds of enormities will
be practiced to obtain them." P. 39.
It is still more mortifying to find Mr. Clarkson, at different
points in the succeeding history, in the attitude of disclaiming
on behalf of the committee, any intention of promoting eman
cipation. Thus, in his intercourse with Mirabeau, and the
French National Assembly :
" Emancipation is now stated to be the object of the friends of the
negroes. This charge Irepelled, by addressing myself to Monsieur Beau-
vet. I explained to him the views of the different societies which had
taken up the cause of the Africans, and I desired him to show my letters to
the planters." — p. 241.
Though it was held by the committee, including Mr. Clark
son, that " in aiming at the slave trade they were striking at
the root," yet, in his " Summary View of the Slave Trade,
and ofthe probable consequences of its abolition," Mr. Clark
son apparently labors to reconcile the abolition of the slave
trade with the continuance and increase oi slave-holding, a view
which seems designed to conciliate the planters.
" If the slaves were kindly treated in our colonies, they would increase.
The abolition of the slave trade would necessarily secure such a treatment,
and would produce many other advantages," &c. — p. 96.
The same view was afterwards taken by Mr. Wilberforce
and Mr. Pitt, in their speeches in Parliament. Little did they
imagine that the slave trade, though legally abolished, would
survive and flourish after the actual abolition of slavery in the
British colonies, because slavery would exist elsewhere.
Even at the time of writing his History of the enterprise,
Mr. Clarkson seems to have entertained a high opinion of the
sagacity of the committee in making this decision.
" Thus, at the very outset," says he, " they took a ground which was
forever tenable. Thus they were enabled to answer the objection which
was afterwards so constantly and so industriously circulating against them,
that they were going to emancipate the slaves. And I have no doubt that
this was a wise decision, contributing greatly to their success, for I am per
suaded that if they had adopted the other object, they would not, for years,
if ever, have succeeded in their attempt." — Clarkson's History, p. 98.

58 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
What kind of "success " was realized, after twenty years
of labor, and forty more of triumph and gratulation, will be
seen in the sequel.
Granville Sharp stood alone in the committee, in opposing
their decision in this matter.
" He solemnly and vehemently remonstrated with the Committee against
the resolution which they had adopted. He declared that, ' as slavery was
as much a crime against God as the slave trade, it became the committee
to exert themselves equally against the continuance of both, and he did not
hesitate to pronounce all present guilty before God, for shutting those who
were then slaves out of the pale of their approaching labors.' He delivered
this protest with a loud voice, a powerful emphasis, and both hands lifted
up towards heaven, as was usual with him when much moved. The Com
mittee acknowledged the criminality of both to be the same, but they ad
hered to their resolution, fearing that if they attacked, at once, both slavery
and the slave trade, they would succeed against neither." — Stuart's Me
moir, of Sharp, p. 56.
Having delivered this testimony, and conceiving, as he
seems to have done, that the responsibility rested on him no
longer, he consented to act with the committee, though with
such singular modesty, (notwithstanding his Christian bold
ness) that " he would never assume the chair " — " while he
sustained . the responsibility and discharged the duty of the
office."* " I have attended above seven hundred Committees and Sub-Committees
with him," says Clarkson, "yet, though sometimes but few were present,
he always seated himself at the end of the room ; choosing rather to serve
the glorious cause, in humility, through conscience, than in the character of
a distinguished individual."
Among the early patrons of the enterprise of abolishing
the slave trade, was William Wilberforce, member of Parlia
ment, with whom Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Sharp, and several others,
had been in the habit of holding consultations before the
organization of the Committee, and preliminary to that mea
sure. Mr. Clarkson, at the request of the Committee, visited
* Vide Stuart's Memoir, p. 66.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 59
several different commercial cities in the kingdom, to obtain
farther information, before commencing the agitation of the
subject in Parliament. He likewise visited France* to secure
the co-operation of the French National Assembly ; but this
mission was a failure. Correspondence was likewise held
with friends of the cause in America, and their co-operation
secured, to effect the abolition of the slave trade by our
Government. The public mind was operated upon in various
ways. A sentiment averse to the use of slave-grown products
was cherished in the literature of the country. At one period,
the school books, both of England and of the United States,
abounded in expressions of this sentiment.
" Three hundred thousand persons, at this period, refrained from sugar
altogether, perceiving that by using it they were directly supporting the
slave system they abhorred. Three hundred and ten petitions were pre
sented from England, one hundred and eighty-seven from Scotland, and
twenty from Wales." — Stuart's Memoir, p. 51-2.
Could this sentiment against the use of slave products have
arisen to the dignity of a moral principle, in the minds of
these philanthropists, and had it been guided by a sufficient
degree of reflection and intelligence, it might have suggested
the necessity of an enterprise against Slavery — which fur
nishes slave products — as well as against the slave trade.
As it was; the country was extensively agitated, and a vio
lent opposition was roused, which was continued for twenty
years, led on by some of the principal men of the nation, and
sustained by the entire West India interest. In the cities the
opposition was violent. At Liverpool, attempts were made
to throw Mr. Clarkson into the dock. In the House of Lords,
the abolitionists were stigmatized by the Duke of Clarence,
afterwards King William IV., "as fanatics and hypocrites,
among whom he included Mr. Wilberforce, by name."* Many
years afterwards, he had the honor of giving the royal assent
to a bill for abolishing,' not the African slave Irade, but slavery
itself, in the West Indies ! — A more protracted or a more' vio-
* CUvrisorCs History, p. 828.

60 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
lent contest could hardly have been witnessed, had the effort
been made against slavery itself. While the ranks of the
opposition could have done nothing more, the friends of the
negroes would have been doubly armed with the whole pano
ply of divine truth, and would have been spared those pitiful
and indefensible disclaimers that so much crippled and em
barrassed them, and their successors, at a later day.
We must not forget to notice the important fact, that during
the whole of this contest against the slave trade, as in the
previous one of Granville Sharp against slavery in England,
the conscience and the humanity of the country were neither
counteracted nor un sustained by the religion of the country.
Churches and Ministers, so far from opposing human progress
and liberty, very extensively regarded it their proper business
to urge them onward. The Society of Friends, having pre
viously purged their own community, were ready to cast their
influence on the right side.
But the Friends were not alone. The eloquent and cele
brated letter of John Wesley, on his death-bed, (1791) to
William Wilberforce, is to be regarded not merely as an ex
pression of his own personal feelings in respect to the pending
contest, but as a specimen of the religious sentiment in the
midst of whioh he was moving, and which it was the business
of his life to commend and communicate to othefs, as belong
ing to the sanctification which fits men for heaven. In this
letter the opponents of abolition are alluded to as the confed
erates of "devils," and American slavery is denominated
"the vilest that ever saw the sun." This was Methodism;
when Methodism was vitalized by the Spirit of God, and
clothed with Divine power.
But Baptists in England were not behind Methodists, at
this period, nor have they since been. It was during the pro
gress of this same contest, and very nearly at the same date,
that " one ofthe ablest writers and soundest divines who have
ever adorned the Baptist denomination, good old Abraham
Booth," by his preaching and in his correspondence (1792) with
brethren in America, bore a similar testimony. He, too,

SLAVERY AtSfD FREEDOM. 61
along with Grotius, and Wesley, and Edwards, and Porteus,
and Macknight, and Scott, and the American Presbyterian
Church, (previous to 1818), understood that modern slave-
holding falls under the condemnation of " man-stealing," as
prohibited by Moses, in Exodus 21 : 16, and condemned by
Paul in 1 Tim. 1 : 10. The sermon of Eld. James Dove was
still earlier, (1789,) and had direct and special reference to the
same great struggle, in which no good men were neutral.
Not only Baptist ministers but Baptist Churches and Bap
tist Associations in England, came up to the work, in good
earnest. The idea that the enterprise was too secular or too
political for the co-operation of churches and ecclesiastical
bodies, seems not to have embarrassed them.*
The King directed a privy council to consider the state of

* " The Elders and Messengers of the several Baptist Churches meeting at Fal
mouth, Chasewater, Plymouth Dock, Plymouth," and (twelve other Churches)
"having received letters also from Portsmouth, Sarum" (and twenty other churches
— making 38 Churches in all), " being met in association at Plymouth, May 25-6,
1790, a letter received last year from Granville Sharp, Esq., was read, and a third
benefaction of five guineas was voted to the treasurer of the truly noble Committee
for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, as a further testimony of our high approbation
of their zealous efforts to remove so great an evil."
" Northampton and other Churches in, Association.
" Oakham, Jwne 14--15, 1791.
" It was unanimously voted that five guineas be sent up to tho treasurer of the
Society for Procuring the Abolition of the Slave Trade," &e. A part of the state
ment speaks of " the iniquitous, disgraceful practices of slave-dealing and slave
holders." '_' Baptist Association, Wooten^under-edge, " June 14-15, 1791.
" Voted, particularly, a fourth benefaction of five guineas to the Committee for
Abolishing the Slave Trade."
Similar minutes are on record of the Northamptonshire Association.
York and Lancashire Association. — " The ministers, met in association at Salen-
dine, June 15-16, 1791, send Christian salutations to the several Churches with
which they are connected" (here follow their names, eighteen in number), &c.
Then follows a letter from the ministers to these Churches, urging upon them
renewed and continued effort in the cause of abolition, adding : " Te friends of
humanity, heaven will reward and approve your conduct."
[See " Facts for Baptist Churches, by A. T. Foss and E. Mathews. Utioa : Pub
lished by the American Baptist Free Mission Society," 1850— a book of 408 pages,
and containing a mass of documentary information, chiefly concerning Baptists in
America.]

62 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
the African Slave Trade, in February, 1788. In May of the
same year, the same subject of inquiry was introduced into
the House of Commons, by Mr. Pitt, during the sickness of
Mr. Wilberforce. The investigation was urged by Pitt, Wil
berforce, Fox, and Burke, but delayed by opposition, un
til, in April, 1791, Mr. Wilberforce moved for leave to bring
in a bill to prevent the further importation of slaves into the
colonies. After a long debate, the motion was lost. He re
newed his motion in 1792, when an amendment in favor of
gradual abolition prevailed in the Commons, but was not acted
upon in the House of Lords.
" In 1793, Mr. Wilberforce renewed and lost his motion. In 1794, he
renewed and carried it in the House Of Commons, but the House of Lords
rejected it. In 1795-6, the effort was renewed and negatived. In 1797,
an address was carried to the king. In 1798-9, Mr. Wilberforce renewed
his motion, and was defeated, but Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester, in the
House of Lords, nobly and effectually vindicated Scripture from the blas
phemous imputation of tolerating slavery." — Stuart's Memoir, p. 54.
So the argument must needs be made against slavery, though
the proposition was only to abolish the traffic from Africa I
And the Bible argument, from the lips of religious teachers,
must needs precede legislative action.
From 1799 till 1804, the agitation in Parliament was sus
pended ; but, in the mean time, public sentiment appears to
have undergone a favorable change, and in Parliament the
cause was strengthened by the accession of the new represen
tation from Ireland.
"In 1804, the bill passed the Commons, but its discussion
was deferred in the House of Lords.
" In 1805, Wilberforce renewed his motion, but lost it. Mr.
Pitt, who had thus far fostered the bill, soon after died.
In 1806, a bill was introduced by Sir Arthur Piggott, to
give effect to a previous proclamation of the King, restricting
and crippling, in some particulars, the slave trade. This bill
passed both houses, whereupon Mr. Fox moved "That the
House, considering the slave trade to be contrary to the prin
ciples of justice, humanity and policy, will, with all practica-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 63
bie expedition, take effectual measures for its abolition." —
" This was carried by a majority of 114 to 15 in the Commons,
and 41 to 20 in the Lords. Mr. Fox died before the next
session." " In 1807, Lord Granville brought into the House of Lords
a Bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade." After mature
discussion, during which, counsel was heard against it, four
days, the Bill was passed in the House of Lords, 100 to 36,
and the House of Commons, 283 to 16. It received, almost
immediately, the Eoyal assent. This was March 16th, 1807.
The bill provided that no vessel should clear out from any
British port for slaves after the 1st of May, 1807, nor land
any in the colonies after the 1st of March, 1808. — Stuart's
Memoir, p. 54. Clarkson's Hist, passim.
Similar action was going on in the Governments of other
nations, or soon followed. In the United States, a Statute of
Congress, enacted in 1807, prohibited the importation of
slaves,, after January 1, 1808. In 1818, Congress declared
the traffic to be piracy. In 1819, the President was author
ized to provide for the removal of imported slaves beyond
the limits of the United States.

REVIEW OF THIS STRUGGLE.
This memorable and protracted struggle is instructive, in
many respects. Among other things, it shows how blindly
public men may follow mere technicalities and precedents,
and how difficult it is to overcome the prejudices associated
with these, in the effort to restore the reign of impartial law.
A similar struggle had resulted in the decision of Lord
Mansfield in the Somerset case, in 1772. The illegality of
slave holding was then fully established, under the funda
mental principles of the British Constitution and Common
Law, wliich were not then first brought into existence, but
had been the same, from the beginning of the slave trade.
The decision had labeled "illegality" upon the whole
procedure, from beginning to end, upon the slave trade as

64 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
well as slavery, upon the past slave trade and slavery as well
as present, so far as the principle involved was concerned.
To have admitted that there had been, or then was, any
legality in the slave trade, under that same British Constitu
tion and Common Law, would have been, in effect, to have
impugned the decision of Lord Mansfield in the Somerset
case, and to have set it aside as erroneous. No one thought
of attempting this. And yet, strange to tell, the then present
legality of the slave trade appears to have been taken for
granted, on all hands, at the commencement of this long strug
gle for its Parliamentary suppression.
It is curious to observe, that while in America, at the pre
sent time, slave holding is held to be legal and not disreputa
ble, and yet the slave trade is branded as piracy'; the corres
ponding prejudice in England took an opposite direction;
insomuch that slave holding was considered a high crime,
while around the slave trade was Supposed to cluster all the
sacred sanctions and guaranties of obligatory and valid law !
It was not until this falsehood was ferrited out of its hiding
places, dragged into daylight, and dissected by Mr. Pitt, that
the power of the slave trade, in the Parliament, was broken,
and the charm of its invincibility, as an interest fostered by
the Government, was dissolved.
To every thing that could be urged by the eloquence of
Wilberforce, against the wickedness, the injustice, the inhu
manity, the cruelty, the impolicy, and the blighting effects of
the slave trade, the ready answer of the interested opposition
was, the legality of the traffic, the sacred and inviolable guar
anties, the legal inheritance, the patrimonial rights of the par
ties concerned, and especially of the West India planters, who
were supposed to need further supplies of slaves.
In answer to Mr. Dundas, who, for the fortieth time, per
haps, had been parrying off Parliamentary proceedings, by
urging pleas of this sort, Mr. Pitt, upon whose vision new
light on the subject appears to have suddenly gleamed, rose
up, astonished the House, and overwhelmed his antagonist by
a bold denial of the legality of the slave trade, under any sup-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 65
posed laws of the realm ! He proceeded to dash in shivers
the flimsy pretext, in a manner that precluded all attempts at
reply. " Any contract," he said, " for the promotion of this trade must, in his
opinion, have been VOID FROM THE BEGINNING, for if it was an
outrage upon justice, and only another name for fraud, robbery, and murder,
what pledge could devolve on the legislature to incur the obligation of
becoming principals in the commission of such enormities, by sanctioning
their continuance 1
" But he would appeal to the acts themselves. That of 23 George II. ,
c. 31, was the one upon which the greatest stress was laid. How would the
House be surprised to hear that these very outrages committed in the pro
secution of this trade had been forbidden by that act ! ' No master of a
ship trading to Africa,' says the act, ' shall, by fraud, force, or violence, or
by any indirect practice whatever, take on board or carry away from that
coast any Negro, or native of that country, or commit any violence upon
the natives, to the prejudice of said trade ; and every person so offending
shall, for every such offence, forfeit one hundred pounds.' But the whole
trade had been demonstrated to be a system of fraud and violence, and
therefore the contract was daily violated under which the Parliament
allowed it to continue." — Clarkson' s History , p. 314.
Thus was the notion of the legality of the slave trade ex
ploded, (as that of the legality of slavery had previously been)
and the mind of the British nation forever emancipated from
that ensnaring and enslaving delusion. Thenceforward the
real question was, how that lawless traffic could be suppressed
and terminated. ABOLITION of the slave trade abortive.
One of the most instructive though mortifying lessons to
be deduced from this history, as expounded in the light of its
results, is the utter futility of all attempts to suppress the
slave trade, without breaking up the market, by the abolition
of slavery itself. So slow have philanthropists been to learn
this plain lesson, that, during one entire human generation,
the glorious abolition of the African slave trade was celebra
ted by public demonstrations, by orators, by poets, by histo
rians, in almost universal inattention to the fact, that the slave
5

66 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
trade, though prohibited by law, was increasing, both in ex
tent and in cruelty, amid all this misplaced gratulation and
triumph. Disregarding chronological order, for a few moments, we
must leap over a chasm of thirty-five years, to witness the
historical confirmation of Granville Sharp's solemn protest
against the deplorable error of the Committee.
Mr. Clarkson lived to see and to retract the error. As Presi
dent of the Anti-Slavery Society, in 1845, he addressed a let
ter to Lord Aberdeen, on the mode of suppressing the traffic,
in which he solemnly affirmed, " that by the total abolition of
slavery only, can the slave trade be annihilated." This view
was "sustained by the high authority of Lord John Eussell,'
who, when Colonial Minister, addressed a communication to
the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, in which
he says, — ' To repress the Foreign Slave Trade by a marine
guard would scarcely be possible.' " This view was afterwards
amply sustained by evidence before a Select Committee of
Parliament, and embodied in two Reports presented to the
House of Commons, showing not only the increase and the
horrors of the Slave Traffic, but the utter inefficiency of an
armed force for its suppression. A number of Commanders
in the Eoyal Navy, employed in that service, gave explicit
testimony to that import, and that the horrors of the middle
passage and the miseries of the slaves are greatly aggravated
by the efforts to suppress the traffic. The reason, as stated by
the witnesses, is obvious. The trade, after deducting losses
by deaths on the passage, yields a profit of about 200 per
cent, on the investment ! The amount of re-captures, though
very great, and indicating the vast extent and briskness of
the traffic, is only from four to ten per cent, of the estimated
amount of shipments, and consequently interposes no serious
check to the business. Yet the danger of capture induces
the use of smaller vessels, in order to escape more easily the
cruisers, and the consequent crowding of the slaves into a
much smaller space.
The picture of the middle passage, in former times, as drawn

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 67
by Mr. Mann, (already quoted,) falls short of the reality, as
existing at present. It was testified that " in Brazil the num
ber of slaves imported are now beyond what they were before
Great Britain first used her efforts to put down the trade."
Between 60,000 and 65,000 were computed to have been
landed alive in Brazil, in the year 1847, after a loss of 35,000
by deaths, on the passagq. In short, "the horrors of the
slave trade appear to increase, just in proportion to the rigor
used for its suppression." The French and American squad
rons have, however, done little or nothing for the suppression.
And, under cover of the American flag, which, by treaty, the
British cruisers are prohibited from molesting, the slavers, of
whatever nation frequently defeat the object of the British
cruisers. The whole number of slaves computed to have been
exported from Africa, westward, in 1788, was 100,000. The
annual export from 1798 to 1805 was computed at 85,000.
For the year 1847, it was computed at 88,000. This shows
that the decrease of the slave trade since the first organized
agitation on the subject has not kept equal pace with the ex
tent to which slavery itself has been abolished, diminishing
the field resorted to as a market. In other words, if slavery
now existed, as it recently did, in the British West Indies, in
Mexico, and all the South American countries, we should wit
ness a greater amount of slave exportations from Africa than
in 1788. This is confirmed by the fact that in 1825, such was
actually the case, the exportations for that year having been
computed at 125,000, and from some causes, the average of
exportations from 1835 to 1840, inclusive, were computed at
135,000.* Towards the close of this period, Thomas Fowell
Buxton, Esq., Member of Parliament, wrote an account of the
African slave trade, in which he says :
" It has been proved] by documents which cannot be controverted, that
for every village fired, and every drove of human beings marched, in former
times, there are now double. For every cargo then at sea, two cargoes,
* See Annual Reports of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, for 1847
and 1848 ; also, the (British) Anti-Slavery Reporter, for August 1, 1848, containing an
abstract of the evidence before the Select Committee of Parhament.

08 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
or twice the number in one cargo, wedged together, in a mass of living cor
ruption, are now borne on the wave of the Atlantic." — Buxton's Slave
Trade, p. 159.
But the efforts of philanthropists for the abolition of the
African slave trade were not wholly in vain. They demon
strated the necessity of abolishing slavery itself. Th ey branded
with the infamy of piracy the African slave trade, and, by
unavoidable implication, the same traffic everywhere else
thus striking at the very idea of human chattelhood throughout
the world. If the process of teaching these truths has been a
slow one, it has nevertheless been effective.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 69

CHAPTER VHI.
PERIOD OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, AND THE ESTABLISH
MENT OF AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT.
Natural Tendencies of the Revolutionary Struggle — Its principle educed from pre
vious Anti-Slavery Discussion — Originated in the States least influenced by
Slavery — First Congress (1774) — Action in favor of " the abolition of Domestic
Slowery" — Resolutions against the Slave Trade — Previous action in Provincial and
Local Conventions — In North Carolina and Virginia. — "Articles of Association"
against Slave Trade — Concurrent Action in Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, and Con
necticut — Anti-Slavery Literature of 1776 — Implied illegality of Slavery — Decla
ration of Independence — The unanimous act of the Thirteen United States —
" The Union" formed then, and not by the Federal Constitution of 1789 — John Q.
Adams — This Declaration equivalent to a Constitution of Government — State
Constitutions — Articles of Confederation (1778) make no compromise with Slavery
— Sentiments published hy order of Congress (1779) — Jefferson's Notes on Vir
ginia — Peace of 1783 — Address of Congress to the States — Sentiments of promi
nent Statesmen — Legislation in Virginia.
The state of the slave question in America, from about the
time of the commencement of the Revolution in 1774, till the
adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1789, requires to be
correctly understood, in order to any trustworthy estimate of
the bearing of our political institutions upon the present
existence of slavery.
It was by no accidental coincidence that the period of the
Revolution was the period of a more general and deep seated
opposition to slavery than had been before visible, or than
has been witnessed since. The religious sentiment against
slavery, as a violation of heaven established rights, a senti
ment that had been rising for some time previous, and that
was now beginning to reach the point of disfellowship with
slave-holders, was a sentiment that naturally assimilated itself

70 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
with the rising opposition to the British Government for its
invasions of the same sacred rights; and that as naturally
sought the same remedy ; to wit, the separation of freedom
from the embraces of despotic power. A spirit of liberty,
humanity, and justice, in the church, may be regarded as the
best foundation for the establishment of liberty, humanity,
and justice in the State,* and a proper regard for the rights
of others will ever be found essential to a healthful jealousy
and timely vindication of our own.
It is equally evident that the rising opposition of the com
munity in general to the despotic assumptions of the British
Government, so far as it had anything in it like a manly re
gard to free principles for its basis, compelled that community
to look at the more grievous wrongs of the slaves, and created
an earnest sympathy in their favor. A decent regard to self-
consistency, in that unsophisticated and earnest age, could
scarcely fail to produce some such effects. The only just
ground for regret or astonishment is that the spirit of freedom
then seeming to be in the ascendant, did not secure and main
tain a more complete and permanent triumph.
It is instructive to notice how the spirit of republican liber
ty and independence, in the different colonies, was found most
predominant and most efficient, precisely where there were

* It may be doubted by some whether the religious sentiment and the testimony"
and action of religious bodies against slavery in this country, had been sufficiently
extensive to make any very deep impression either upon the public conscience, jn
general, or upon the minds of our prominent statesmen. But the power of such
influences is greater than is commonly understood. True statesmen, and even
shrewd politicians, always keep themselves informed in respect to the religious ten
dencies of a country. Especially was this true in the last century. There can he
no doubt that suoh men as Jefferson and Madison were familiarly acquainted with
all that theologians in this country and Europe had written concerning slavery.
The letter of Patrick Henry to Robert Pleasants (afterwards President of the
Virginia Abolition Society), written Jan. 18, 1773, sufficiently shows that his mind
had been deeply affected with the movements among the " Friends."
" Believe me," says he, " I shall honor the Quakers for their noble efforts to
abolish slavery. It is a debt that we owe to the purity of our religion to show that
it is at variance with that law that warrants slavery. I exhort you to persevere iu
so worthy a resolution." " I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be
offered to abolish this lamentable evil."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 71
fewest slaves, and where the spirit of opposition to slavery
was likewise most efficient and most predominant ; while the
regions most deeply involved in the sin of slaveholding and
least accessible to the principles of emancipation, were pre
cisely the same regions in which the apologists and partizans
of British usurpation were most numerous and influential —
the regions in which the spirit of opposition to that usurpation
was, to the smallest extent, and with the greatest difficulty
roused. The South was overrun with tories, while New Eng
land was united in favor of independence, almost to a man.
Particular localities at the North, might be mentioned, where
the prevalence of slaveholding and slave trading was connected
with a corresponding sympathy with despotic government.
It may be added, that the names most prominent in the
Revolutionary struggle were also among the names most
prominent in opposition to slavery, and it is not known that a
single advocate of the abolition of slavery was otherwise than
a firm asserter of the rights of the Colonies.
That the subsequent decline of the spirit of general liberty,
and the corresponding decline of opposition to slavery, have
steadily gone hand in hand, until the propagandists of inter
minable slavery have derided the self-evident truths of the
Declaration of Independence, and the people of the free States
have listened with comparative apathy, are equally undeni
able facts.
A full and correct history of the American Revolution, and
of the incipient and successive steps taken to unite the
Colonies under a new government, cannot fail to identify the
movement with opposition to slavery, and the purpose and
anticipation of its overthrow. A few documentary facts, in
illustration, must suffice here.
The first general Congress of the Colonies assembled in
Philadelphia, in September, 1774. Preparatory to that mea
sure, the Convention of Virginia assembled in August of
that year, to appoint delegates to the general Congress. An
exposition of the rights of British America, by Mr. Jefferson,

72 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
was laid before this Convention, of which the following is an
extract: " Thk abolition of domkst-O sv-avkry is tho greatest object of desire
in these Colonies, whero it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.
But previous to the enfranchisement, of tho slaves, it is necessary to oxolude
further importations from Africa. Yot our repeated attempts to effect this
by prohibitions, and by imposing duties whioh might amount to prohibition,
have been hitherto defeated by his Majesty's negative j thus preferring tlie
immediate advantage of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of tho
American States, and the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this
infamous practice." — Am. Archives, 4th series, Vol. I., p. 000.
The Virginia Convention, before separating, adopted the
following resolution :
" Rgsohtil, Wo will neither ourselves import nor purohase any slavo or
slaves imported by any other person after the first day of November nest.
either from Africa, the Wkst Inihks, or any othku plaok." — Ib. p. 087,
Similar resolutions, had been adopted by primary meetings
ofthe people in county meetings throughout Virginia, during
the month of July preceding tho State Convention. At tho
meeting in Fairfax oounty, Washington was obnirman.
North Carolina also held her Provincial Convention in
August, of the samo year. Nearly every oounty in the State
was represented. There were sixty-nine delegates. The
following resolution -was adopted :
" Resolved, tThat wo will not import any slave or slaves, or purohase any
slave or slaves imported or brought into the Pn.vii.oe by others, from any
part of the world, after the first day of November next." — lb., p. 786.
Similar resolutions bad been previously adopted in primary
meetings of the oitizens in other Southorn provinoes, now
States. It was after suoh demonstrations that the first General Con
gress assembled. Their first? and main work wis the formation
of the " Association " whioh formed a bond of Union betimn
the Colonies. This was nearly two years before the Declaration
of Independence, so that "ihe Union" of the future States wns
effeoted before their Independence, a faot subversive of tho
common theory of the Constitution, whioh supposes inde-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 73
pendent States first, and a compromise of the slave question,
in order to the effecting of a Union, afterwards. The follow
ing extracts from the articles of Association will show the
principles and the terms, so far as the slave question is con
cerned, upon which this first union was effected :
" We do, for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several Colonies whom
we represent, firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue,
honor, and love of our country, as follows :
* * # * * * *
2. " That we will neither import nor purchase any slave import
ed after the first day of December next ; after which time we will wholly
discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves,
nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures, to
those who are concerned in it.''
* * * * # * *-
11. " That a committee be chosen in every county, city, and town, by
those who are qualified to vote for Representatives in the Legislature, whose
business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all persons touching
this Association ; and when it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of
a majority of any such committee, that any person within the limits of their
appointment has violated this Association, that such majority do forthwith
cause the truth of the case to be published in the gazette, to the end that all
such foes to the rights of British America may be publicly known, and
universally contemned as the enemies of American liberty ; and thence
forth we respectively will break off all dealings with him or her."
* # * * * * *
14 " And we do further agree and resolve that we will havo no trade,
commerce, dealings, or intercourse whatever, with any colony or province
in North America, which shall not accede to, or which shall hereafter
violate this Association, but will hold them as unworthy op the rights or
freemen, and as inimical to the liberties of this country."
# * * * # * *
" The foregoing Association, being determined upon by the Congress,
was ordered to be subscribed by the several members thereof ; and there
upon, we have hereunto set our respective names accordingly.
In Congress, Philadelphia, October 20, 1774.
PEYTON RANDOLPH,
President.
New Hampshire — John Sullivan, Nathaniel Folsom.
Massachusetts Bay — Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, John Adams,
Robert Treat Paine.
Rhode Island — Stephen Hopkins, Samuel Ward.

74 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Connecticut — Eliphalet Dyer, Roger Sherman, Silas Deane."
New York— Isaac Low, John, Alsop, John Jay, James Duane, Philip
Livingston, William Floyd, Henry Wisner, Simon Boerum.
New Jersey— James Kinsey, William Livingston, Stephen Crane,
Richard Smith, John De Hart.
Pennsylvania— Joseph Galloway, John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys,
Thomas Mifflin, Edward Biddle, John Morton, George Ross.
The lower counties, Newcastle, &e. — Caesar Rodney, Thomas
McKean, George Read.
Maryland— Matthew Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, jr., William Paca,
Samuel Chase.
Virginia — Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, jr.,
Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendleton.
North Carolina — William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, Richard Caswell.
South Carolina — Henry Middleton, Thomas Lynch, Christopher Gads
den, John Rutledge, Edward Rutledge. — American Archives, 4th Series,
p. 915. Such was the action of the first American Congress. These
were items in the " Articles of Association." How they were
received in the Colonies will appear from the following ;
" We, therefore, the Representatives ofthe extensive District of Darien,
in the colony of Georgia, having now assembled in Congress, by authority
and free choice of the inhabitants of said District, now freed from their
fetters, do resolve :
" 5. To show the world that we are not influenced by any contracted or
interested motives, but a general philanthropy for all mankind, of what
ever climate, language, or complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation
and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America, (however
the uncultivated state of our country, or other specious arguments may
plead for it,) a practice founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly danger
ous to our liberties, (as well as lives,) debasing part of our fellow-creatures
below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the rest, and is laying
the basis of that liberty we contend for, (and which we pray the Almighty
to continue to the latest posterity,) upon a very wrong foundation. We,
therefore, Resolve, at all times to use our utmost endeavors for the manu-
mission of our slaves in this colony, upon the most safe and equitable foot-
\ .ing for the master and themselves." — Jan. 12th, ITlb.—Ilid., p. 1136.
The following action was taken by the Convention of Mary
land, held in November, 1774, and re-adopted by a Conven
tion more fully attended, in December :
" Resolved, That every member of this meeting will, and every person in

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 75
the province should, strictly and inviolably observe and carry into execution
the Association agreed on by the Continental Congress."
The declaration adopted by a general meeting of the free
holders in James City county, in Virginia, in November, 1774,
is in these words :
" The Association entered into by Congress being publicly read, the free
holders and other inhabitants of the county, that they might testify to the
world their concurrence and hearty approbation of the measures adopted by
that respectable body, very cordially acceded thereto, and did bind and oblige
themselves, by the sacred ties of virtue, honor, and love to their country,
strictly and inviolably to observe and keep the same in every particular."
The proceedings of a town meeting at Danbury, Connec
ticut, Dec. 12th, 1774, contained the following :
" It is with singular pleasure we notice the second article of the Asso
ciation, in which it is agreed to import no more negro slaves, as we cannot
but think it a palpable absurdity so loudly to complain of attempts to enslave
us while we are actually enslaving others." — Am. Archives, 4th series, Vol.
I., p. 1038.
These are but " specimens of the formal and solemn declarations of
public bodies." " The Articles of Association were adopted by Colonial
Conventions, County Meetings, and lesser assemblages throughout the coun
try, and became the law of America — the fundamental Constitution, so to
speak, ofthe first American Union." " The Union thus constituted was, to
be sure, imperfect, partial, incomplete, but it was still a Union, a union of
the Colonies and of the people for the great objects set forth in the articles.
And let it be remembered, also, that prominent in the list of measures agreed
on in these articles, was the discontinuance of the slave trade, with a view
to the ultimate extinction of slavery itself."*
That this "sentiment pervaded the masses of the people,"
and that they understood themselves as laying the constitutional
foundations of a permanent union and general government by
these measures, may be seen by the following extracts from
an eloquent paper, entitled "Observations addressed to the
people of America," printed at Philadelphia, in Nov., 1774:
* Speech of Hon. S. P. Chase, of Ohio, TJ. S. Senate, March 26, 1850. To this
speech, and to that of Hon. Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, in the House of Represen
tatives ofthe U. S., Feb. 19, 1850, we are indebted for the quotations made from the
American Archives.

76 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
" The leapt deviation from the resolves of Cohgress will be treason ;
such treason as few villains have ever had an opportunity of committing.
It will be treason against the present inhabitants of the colonies — against
the millions of unborn generations who are to exist hereafter in America—
against the only liberty and happiness which remain to mankind— against
the last hopes of the wretched in every corner of the world ; in a word, it
will be treason against God. * * * We are now laying the foun
dations of an American Constitution. Let us, therefore, hold up
everything we do to the eye of posterity. They will most probably mea
sure their liberties and happiness by the most careless of our footsteps.
Let no unhallowed hand touch the precious seed of liberty. Let us form
the glorious tree in such a manner, and impregnate it with such principles
of life, that it shall last forever. * * * I almost wish to live to hear
the triumphs of the jubilee in the year 1874 ; to see the models, pictures,
fragments of writings, that shall be displayed to revive the memory of the
proceedings of the Congress of 1774. If any adventitious circumstance
shall give precedency on that day, it shall be to inherit the blood, or even
to possess the name, of a member of that glorious assembly." — Amer.
Arch., 4 ser., vol. i, p. 976.
The spirit of 1774 was not extinct or languishing in 1776,
a year memorable not only for the Declaration of American
Independence, but for the previous enunciation of the same
self-evident truths, applied to the sin of slavery, in a more
elaborate and thorough elucidation of the whole subject than
had before appeared.* The argument of Dr. Hopkins against
slavery is introduced by a notice of the action of Congress
against the slave trade, and the statement that the traffic "has
now but few advocates, and is generally exploded and con
demned." The treatise contains the remarkable statement
that " the slavery that now takes place," (in distinction from
that of ancient times,) is " without the express sanction of civil
government." f This idea will now appear strange to most per-
* " A Dialogue concermng the Slavery of the Africans, showing it to be the duty.
and interest of the American States to emancipate all their African Slaves. Dedi
cated to the Honorable the Continental Congress." By Samuel Hopkins, D.D., of
Newport, R. I.
+ Tlie same idea seems involved in another portion of the treatise. "The
several legislatures in these colonies," Bays the writer, " tho magistrates and the
body of the people, have doubtless been greatly guilty in approving and encour
aging, or at least conniving at, this practice" (i. e., slaveholding).
This is certainly remarkable language, especially from so accurate and diserirmn-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 77
sons. But the careful and reflecting reader of the history we
have given in the preceding chapters, will have been led to
inquire when and how the " express sanction," of " civil gov
ernment " had been given to slavery in any form that could
entitle it to the reputation of being legalized. The decision
of Lord Mansfield in the Somerset case, four years previous,
may have been in the mind of Hopkins, and he is known to
have been in correspondence with Granville Sharp, with
whose views the reader is acquainted. What seems most re
markable is, that a treatise containing such a statement should
not only have been extensively circulated without being
questioned, but republished, and still more extensively circu
lated, nine years afterwards, by anti-slavery societies under
the auspices of such statesmen as Franklin and Jay. If it be
conceded that American slavery was "without the express
sanction of civil government," that it was not, in a strict and
proper sense, legalized, at the time when Hopkins wrote his
treatise, a few months before the Declaration of Independence,
it would be a curious question how it could have become
legalized since. Assuredly, the far-famed Declaration of in
alienable human rights cannot have given it any new validity 1
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." " To secure
these rights, governments are instituted among men." " We, therefore,
the representatives of the United States of America," &c. &c.
"We enter into no argument here concerning the legal effect
of that immortal Declaration, upon the tenure of slave proper
ty. But it is important to note down distinctly the historical
facts. It was the "unanimous Declaration of the thirteen
United (not disunited) States of America." The " Union "
had already been formed, and has never since been dissolved.

ative a writer as Hopkins, if slavery were universally and unhesitatingly held to ba
legal. Legislatures and magistrates are not commonly spoken of as " conniving"
(closing their eyes upon) practices which are admitted to be legal I Such language
describes their culpable neglect to suppress and punish practices that are unlawful.

78 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
On this point, there can be no mistake.* It was not only a
Declaration ofthe States by their delegates, but was separately
ratified by all the States, afterwards, and has never been re
pudiated, or repealed since. In connection with the previous
Articles of Association, it was the only constitution of the
United States, until the adoption of the " Articles of Confeder
ation" in 1778 ; and with these, thenceforward, until the adop
tion of the present Federal Constitution, in 1789. It had
power to legalize Acts of Congress and Treaties, as also to
absolve citizens from their allegiance to the king of Great
Britain.f Its repeal would have been an abandonment of In
dependence, and a return to the condition of colonies.
Besides this, the original thirteen States, except Connecti
cut and Ehode Island, formed Constitutions bearing date,
variously, from 1776 to 1783. " They generally recognized,
in some form or other, the natural rights of men, as one of the
fundamental principles of the .government. Several of them
asserted these rights in the most emphatic and authoritative
manner." So that the fundamental principles and self-evident
truths of the Declaration of 1776 became the constitutional
law of the several States. Vide Spooner, p. 46.
The Articles of Confederation, formed in 1778, contained
no recognition of slavery, nor of distinctions of color. It was
never pretended that, under these articles, the slaveholder
whose slaves had escaped to another State, had any legal
power to force him back.
In 1779 the Continental Congress ordered a pamphlet to he
published, entitled, " Observations on the American Revolu
tion," of which the following is an extract :
" The great principle (of government) is and ever will remain in force,
* The reader is referred to the unanswered and unanswerable argument of Jolia
Quincy Adams on this point, in his address at Newburyport, 4th of July, 1837.
t John Hancock, President of Congress, in a letter to the Convention of New
Jersey, then in session, and inclosing a copy of the Declaration of Independence,
speaks of it as being " the ground and foundation of a future government." If the
"ground and foundation" be removed, what becomes ofthe superstructure? But
if this " ground and foundation" remains, what becomes of the validity of slave
laws?

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 79
that men are, ly nature, free ; as accountable to Him that made them, they
must be so ; and so long as we have any idea of divine justice, we must
associate that of human freedom. Whether men can part with their
liberty, is among the questions which have exercised the ablest writers ;
but it is conceded, on all hands, that the right to be free can never be
alienated ; still less is it practicable for one generation to mortgage, the
privileges of another."
A more forcible denial of the possibility of legalizing slavery
could not easily have been penned.
About this time, or riot long after, Mr. Jefferson wrote his
celebrated Notes on Yirginia, in which his testimonies against
slavery are so various and -emphatic, that we hesitate what
paragraph to select for quotation. The following serves to
show what such men, at that time, expected and desired to
see accomplished, and what was then, in Mr. Jefferson's
opinion, the state of sentiment in the Southern States.
" I think a change is already perceptible since the origin of the present
revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave is rising
from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way, I hope, preparing, under
THE AUSPICES OF HEAVEN, FOR A TOTAL EMANCIPATION."
General Gates, the conqueror of Burgoyne, emancipated, in
1780, his numerous slaves.
From the beginning to the close of the war, one uniform
language was • held. Soon after the peace of 1783, Con
gress issued an address to the States, drawn up by Mr. Madi
son, a main object of which was to ask the provision of funds
to discharge the public engagements. The plea is thus urged :
" Let it be remembered, finally, that it has ever been the pride and boast
of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of
human nature. By the blessing of the Author of these rights on the means
exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and
form the basis of thirteen independent States."
The expression of similar sentiments did not then cease7
nor were they confined to public acts.
"Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason, Wythe, and Lee, while acting as a com
mittee of the House of Delegates of Virginia, to revise the State Laws,
prepared a plan for the gradual emancipation of theslaves, by. law."
In addition to these, " Grayson, St. George Tucker, Madison, Blair, Page,
Parker, Edmund Randolph, Iredell, Spaight, Ramsey, McHenry, Samuel

80 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Chase, and nearly all the illustrious names south of the Potomac, proclaimed
it before the sun, that the days of slavery were beginning to be num
bered."— Power of Congress over the "District of Columbia," by T. D.
Weld. But it is needless to multiply these references. So universal
were these sentiments, that Mr. Leigh, in the Convention
of Virginia, in 1832, took occasion to say :
" I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every body that, during
the Revolution, and for many years after, the abolition of slavery was a
favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen, who entertained with re
spect all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity could suggest for its
accomplishment." Mr. Faulkner, in the same Convention, alluded to the same
fact, as did also Gov. Barbour, of Virginia, in the United
States' Senate, in 1820.
These professions of the fathers of our republic were not
totally unaccompanied with corresponding action.
The articles of Association, including the solemn pledge to
discontinue the slave trade, appear to have been generally
respected and observed. That there were unprincipled men
who evaded or transgressed them, as there were other traitors
to the cause of liberty, there can be no doubt. After the close
of the war, this is known to have been the fact. But the
States took early measures for its suppression.
" The first opportunity was taken, after the Declaration of Independence,
to extinguish the detestable commerce so long forced upon the province
(Virginia). In October, 1778, during the tumult and anxiety of the Revolu
tion, the General Assembly passed a law, prohibiting, under heavy penalties,
the further importation of slaves, and declaring that every slave imported
thereafter, should be immediately set free." " The example of Virginia
was followed, at different times, before the date ofthe Federal Constitution,
by most of the other States."— Walsh's " Appeal"— Vide " Friend of
Man," June 21, 1837. Copied from " Human Rights."
. " We are not aware that any State allowed the importation of slaves at
the time," when the Constitution was adopted. " The first State that re
newed the traffic, so far as we know, was S. Carolina." in 1803. — " Human
Rights"—" F. of Man,'' as above.
Under what influences, and with what activity, the slave
trade was resumed, from 1803 to 1808, will be shown in the
proper place.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 81

CHAPTER IX.
ERA OF FORMING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
Prevailing Sentiment— Washington— Luther Martyn— William Pinekney— North
western Territory— Ordinance of 1787— Madison— " Understandings"— Wilson-
Heath— Johnson— Randolph— Patrick Henry— Iredell— " The Federalist," by Jay,
Madison, and Hamilton — Ratifications — Rhode Island — New York — Virginia-^
North Carolina — Amendment — "Due process of law."
From the close of the Revolutionary war in 1783, to the
sitting of the Constitutional Convention, was a space of only
four years. Thence, two more years bring us to the adoption
of the Constitution, in 1789. What was the prevailing senti
ment of that period ?
In a letter to Robert Morris, dated Mount Vernon, April 12, 1786, George
Washington said :
" I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely
than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it, (slavery ;) but there is
only one proper and effectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and
that is by legislative authority ; and this, so far as my suffrage will go, shall
never be wanting." — 9 Sparks's Washington, 158.
In a letter to John F. Mercer, September 9, 1786, he reiterated this
sentiment :
" I never mean, unless some particular circumstances should compel me to
it, to possess another slave by purchase, it being among my first wishes to
see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished
by law." — Ibid.
And in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, he further said :
" There are in Pennsylvania laws for the gradual abolition of slavery,
which neither Virginia nor Maryland have at present, but which nothing is
more certain than they must have, and at a period not remote."
By his last will and testament he made all his slaves free.
6

82 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
The .testimonies of Franklin, Rush, and Jay, in strong op-
position to slavery, have been cited in another connection *
We have now traced the history of the " peculiar institu
tion " down to the time when the Federal Constitution was
about to be formed. Exceedingly " peculiar " igdeed, are the
vouchers for its authenticity and legality down to that point
in our national history. What occurred while the Federal
Constitution was in process of forming, is the next historical
fact to be inquired after. What was likely to have occurred,
and even, indeed, what could have occurred, may well nigh he
read in the mere light of the historical facts already noticed.
Those facts, at least, should not be left out of the account, in
any attempts at a historical exposition of the Constitution, if,
indeed, the advocates of the " institution " adventure into
the field of history at all, in defence of their claims. The
simple history, and not the argument, must occupy, at present,
our attention, and yet it is in the light of the pending contro
versy that we should ponder the facts. It is that contest that
gives them their value, and they should be collected, arranged
and studied with a view to the points to be illustrated and
determined by them.
Luther Martin, of Maryland, advocated the abolition of
slavery, in the Federal Convention of 1787, and in his Report
of the proceedings of that Convention to the Legislature of
his own State.
William Pinckney, of Maryland, in the House of Delegates
in that State, in 1789, urged, strongly, the abolition of slavery.
We will give but a specimen of his language on that occasion.
" Sir — Iniquitous and most dishonorable to Maryland, is that dreary
system of partial bondage which her Jaws have hitherto supported with a
solicitude worthy of a better object, and her citizens by their practice,
countenanced. Founded in a disgraceful traffic, to which the parent
country lent its fostering aid, from motives of interest, but which even she
would have disdained to encourage, had England been the destined mart of
such inhuman merchandize, its continuance is as shameful as its origin."

* Chapter IV.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 8g

NORTH-WESTERN TERRITORY — ORDINANCE OF 1787.
While the Convention for drafting the Constitution of the
United States was in session, in 1787, the Old Congress passed
an ordinance abolishing slavery in the North-Western Terri
tory, and precluding its future introduction there. The first
Congress under the new Constitution ratified this ordinance,
by a special act. It received the approval of Washington,
who was then fresh from the discussions of the Convention
for drafting the Federal Constitution. The measure originated
with Jefferson, and its ratification in the new Congress received
the vote of every member except Mr. Yates, of New York,
the entire Southern delegation voting for its adoption. By this
ordinance slavery was excluded from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
The series of articles is preceded by this preamble :
"And for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious
liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and con
stitutions, are erected ; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of
all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be
formed in said Territory ; to provide also for the establishment of States,
and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in
the Federal Councils at as early a period as may be consistent with the
general interest : — Be it ordained and established," &c. &c.
Then follow the articles. The sixth is as follows :
" There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than
in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly con
victed ; provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from
whom labor or service may be lawfully claimed, in any one of the original
States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person
claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."
"The Constitution," it is claimed, "guaranties slavery."
And "the compromises of the Constitution" are very gene
rally conceded, even among those who disrelish and contro
vert the claim. We enter not now into matters of mere
opinion. But the continuity and fidelity of the history we
have attempted, compel us to attend to the facts.

84 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Whatever those facts are, they are such as are interlinked,
indissolubly, with the historical facts of the last previous
chapter, and the preceding ones. History must be understood,
if at all, in its connections.
The Constitution is in the hands of the people. We need
not copy here its provisions. No claimant of the Constitu
tional guaranties of slavery adventures to rest the claim on
the mere words of that instrument. He well knows that
neither the terms "slave" nor "slavery" are to be found
there. He goes out of the instrument for its exposition, and
reposes on supposed facts, in the shape of "understandings"
then entertained. What were the "understandings" of that
period ? In the preceding chapter may be seen some of them.
It is in place here to record more. We have seen what they
were, up to the time of the framing and adopting of the Fed
eral Constitution. What were they, then ?
In the Convention that drafted the Constitution —
Mr. Madison declared, he " thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution
the idea that there could be property in men.*' — 3 Mad. Pap., 1429.*
" On motion of Mr. Randolph, the word ' servitude' was struck out, and
* service' unanimously inserted — the former being thought to express the
condition of slaves, and the latter the obligation of free persons." — Ib. 3,
p. 1569. Such were the " understandings " of the Convention that
drafted the Constitution. And with what "understanding"
was it adopted by the people, in their State Conventions?
Let us see.
James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, had been a leading member of the Con
vention, and in the Ratification Convention of his State, when speaking of
the clause relating to the power of Congress over the slave trade after
twenty years, he said :
"I consider this clause as laying the foundation for banishing slavery out
of this country ; and though the period is more distant than I could wish it,
it will produce the same kind, gradual change as was produced in Pennsyl-

* In other words, Mr. Madison would not consent that the Constitution should
recognize even the legality of slavery ! This was a still more full, confident, (Bid
emphatic expression of the idea we have before quoted from Dr. Hopkins.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 85
vania. * * * The new States which are to be formed will be under the
control of Congress in this particular, ani slavery will never be introduced
among them." — 0 Elliot's Debates, ±_>Q.
In another place, speaking of this clause, he said :
^ It presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind
will be acknowledged and established throughout the Union. If there was
no other feature in the Conslitation bot this one, it would difluse a beauty
over its whole countenance. Tet the labor of a tew years, and Congress
will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders." — Ib. 0,
p. 454.
In the Ratification Convention of Massachusetts. Gen. Heath said :
"The migration or importation. iSrc. is confined to tlie States now exist
ing only ; new States cannot claim it. ConsTess bv their ordinance for
creating- new States some time since, declared that the new States shall be
republican, and that there shall he no slavery in them." — Ib. 0. p. 115.
_Sor were these views and anticipations confined to the free States. In
the Ratification Convention ot" Virginia. Mr. Johnson said :
" They tell us that they see a progressive danger of bringing about eman
cipation. The principle has begun since the Revolution. Let us do what we
will, it will come round. Slavery has been the foundation of much of thai
impiety and dissipation which have been so much disseminated among our
countrymen. If it were totally abolished, it would do much good." — Ib. 3,
pp. 6 — IS.
Gov. Randolph rebuked those who expressed apprehensions that its influ
ence miirht be exerted on the side of freedom, by saying :
**¦ I hope that there are none here who, considering the subject in the calm
light of philosophy, will advance an objection dishonorable to Virginia, that,
at the moment they are securing the rights ot" their citizens, there is a spark
of hope that those unfortunate men now held in bo_>dage may, bv the
operation of the General Government, be made free." — Ib. 3, p. 59 S.
Patrick Henry, in the same Convention, argaed. "* the power
of (hnyres-f, under the United S:ates' Constitution, to alolish slavery
in ihe States." and added :
'• Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is
detested. We feel its effects. ^Ve deplore it with all the pity of human-
itv." — JDrf-jry* lo. Concent im. p. 463.
""¦ In the debates of the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, after
wards a Judge ofthe United States Supreme Court, said — 'When the entire
abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing
to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature.' " — " Power of
Congress," &e..pp. 31-2.

86 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Such are a few specimens of the expressed " understand
ings" with which the people adopted the Constitution.
Another class of historical facts, of the utmost importance
to a right understanding of the slave question in America,
relates to the expositions and arguments addressed to the
people of the United States to persuade them to adopt the
Federal Constitution. It is well known that the people were
sensitively jealous of their rights at that period, and fearful
of the encroachments of despotic power. A strong party,
of which Mr. Jefferson (a prominent and zealous propagandist
of abolitionism) was understood to be the nucleus, and after
wards became the successful presidential candidate, opposed
the adoption of the Federal Constitution, as prepared by the
Convention, on the ground of its alleged defects in not pro
viding sufficient securities for personal rights, and a more ample
and explicit enunciation of the self-evident truths of the
Declaration of 1776. This opposition drew out the distin
guished statesmen, Madison, Jay, and Hamilton, in a joint
and elaborate defence of the Constitution as drafted, compri
sing a series of papers known as " The Federalist," and since
collected into a large volume. These papers were extensively
circulated before the action of the States, and were largely
instrumental in securing their desired object. — "No. 39 of " The
Federalist," by James Madison, contains the following:
** The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and
aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other
form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America, and
with the fundamental principles of the Revolution, or with that honorable
determination which animates every votary oi freedom, to rest all our polit
ical experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the
plan of the Convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican
character, its advocates must abandon it, as no longer defensible."
Mr. Madison proceeds, at some length, to discuss the ques
tion, " "What are the distinctive characters of the republican
form"? After distinctly repudiating the aristocracies and
oligarchies of Holland, Venice, Poland, and England, as not
being republican, though sometimes "dignified," very impro-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 87
perly, "with the appellation," Mr. Madison proceeds further
to define a republican government as one whose officers are
appointed by the people, &c. "It is essential to such a gov
ernment," says he, " that it be derived from the great body of
society, not from an inconsiderable portion, or, a favored class
of it." And this is the same Mr. Madison, who, in the Con
vention for drafting the Constitution which he was now re
commending, had insisted that the instrument must not recog
nize the legality of slavery.
The adoption of the Federal Constitution was thus success
fully urged upon the people, by representing it as laying the
foundation of the Government upon " the principles of the
Eevolution "— the principles of '76, — the principles promul
gated so effectively by Mr. Jefferson, who had said —
" The true foundation of republican government is the equal rights of
every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management,"
and who had explicitly designated the slaves as " citizens."*
In No. 84 of " The Federalist " several pages are devoted
to a consideration of what was evidently understood to be a
vital point, in the minds of the people, who were so soon to
decide on the adoption or rejection of the proposed Con
stitution. " The most considerable of the remaining objections," says
the writer, "is, ihat the plan ofthe Convention contains no bill
of rights."The writer speaks of "the intemperate partizans of a bill of
rights," and of their "zeal in this matter." -This shows that
many of the people were sensitive on this point, and that the
friends of the proposed Constitution were afraid of its being
rejected in consequence.
And how did " The Federalist " successfully allay this
jealousy, and persuade the people to adopt the proposed Con
stitution ?
* With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half
of the citizens thus to trample upon the rights of the other, transforms those into
despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor
patriot of tho other."— Notes on Virginia.

88 great struggle between
It was done, first, by citing a number of specific provisions
in the Constitution, equivalent, (as was claimed) to so many
corresponding items in a bill of rights ; and, s-.vond, by citing
the Preamble to the Constitution, setting forth its objects
" to secure the blessi.-igs of liberty," &c. to " the people of the
United States." This Preamble, as being a part of the Con
stitution, and its very basis, to which all the rest was con
formed, was represented as being not only a bill of rights in
the general, but " a better recognition of popular rights "' than
could otherwise have been framed, and .cw liable to be set
aside, under a ''plausible pretence," by men "disposed to
usurp power.'"*
yhe objectors had desired such a bill of rights as several of
the States, particularly Massachusetts, had already adopted,
and under which, before that time, the Courts of Massachusetts
had decided slavery to be illegal. Yet " The Federalist " as
sured them that the Constitution was more than the equivalent
of such bills of rights.
It was under the pressure of expositions and arguments
like these, from leading members of the Convention, that the
people were persuaded to ratify the Constitution that had been
elaborated with closed doors. They ratified it with "the
understanding," so frequently expressed by and among them,
that the Constitution was in favor of freedom. We know of
no record in which the ratification of that instrument was
urged, either at the North or at the South, on the ground that
it was the guaranty of any form of despotism — or on the
ground that the conflicting interests of liberty and slavery
had been compromised. The whole current of the political
literature of that period forbids the idea that any such appeals
could have been adventured.
But the people, though they ratified the Constitution, were

* The reader ia doubtloss familiar with the motlern pleas, that tho Preamble has
no controlling power over tho Constitution ; that it doos not furnish a oritorioa for
Constitutional exposition; and that, in fact, it is no part of tlie Constitution 1 *ffo
may judge what would havo boon tho fato of the proposed Constitution, if its friend-
had outstript its enomios in representing it thus !

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 89
not satisfied to do so without insisting upon important amend
ments. The Conventions of Virginia, North Carolina and
Ehode Island, proposed a provision as follows :
" No freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his free
hold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any
manner despoiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the
law of the land." — Elliot's Debates, 658.
New York- proposed a different provision :
" No person ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his. freehold,
or be exiled, or deprived of his privileges, franchises, life, liberty, or pro
perty, but by due process of law." — 1 Ibid, 328.
These various propositions came before Congress, and that body, at its
first session, agreed upon several amendments to the Constitution, which
were subsequently ratified by the States. That which related to personal
liberty was expressed in these comprehensive words :
" No person * * * * shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law." — Cons., Amend., Art. 5.
It is to be noted, as an important historical fact, that this
remarkable provision is an amendment, coming in after the
original instrument had been ratified, thus over-riding and
controlling, like all other amendments, whatever in the origi
nal instrument may have been supposed to be of a contrary
bearing. The ratification of Ehode Island was longest withheld, and
was most remarkable in its mode of expression. It was, in
fact, conditional. It specified a long list of declarations of
rights, and then said :
" Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot
le abridged, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said
Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned
will receive an early and mature deliberation, and conformably to the 5th
article of said Constitution, speedily become parts thereof : We the said
delegates," &c, &c, " do assent to and ratify the said Constitution."
Among these declarations of rights were some equivalent
to those of the Declaration of Independence.
Among the proposed amendments, above mentioned, was
the following :
" As a traffic tending to establish or continue the slavery of any part of
the human species, is disgraceful to the cause of religion and humanity, that

90 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Congress as soon as may be, promote and establish such laws as may
effectually prevent the importation of slaves, of any description, into the
United States."
From this it is seen, that the State whose citizens were most
deeply engaged in the lucrative importation of slaves, the only
State, perhaps, that was growing rich by the continuance of ihe
slave system, consented to ratify the Federal Constitution only
ow condition that the traffic should be speedily prohibited. No
other ratification of the Constitution was ever made by Ehode
Island. She never consented to the twenty years' delay of that
prohibition.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 91

CHAPTEE X.

CAL ACTION, FROM THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION TO
THE CLOSE OF THE LAST CENTURY, AND THE ABOLITION
' OF SLAVERY IN THE NORTHERN STATES.
Republication of Hopkins' Dialogue (1785) — Edwards' Sermon (1791) — Anti-Slavery
Meeting at Woodbridge, N. J. (1788) — Abolition Societies in Pennsylvania, New
York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware —
Names of distinguished abolitionists — Memorial to Leg. of New York, by Jay,
Hamilton, &c. — Petitions to Congress, by B. Franklin and others — Discussions in
Congress — William and Mary College (Va.) — Action of Methodist E. Conference —
Presb. General Assembly — Baptists — Action of the States— Virginia, Delaware,
Rhode Island, Vermont — Massachusetts — Pennsylvania — New Hampshire, Con
necticut — New York — New Jersey — Census of remaining slaves.
Significant as are the facts recorded in the two preceding
chapters, they would fail of producing their full and proper
impression, unless connected with an account of other move
ments witnessed at the same time, and extending to a still
later period of our history. It was not in the National Coun
cils alone, the resolutions and acts of Congress, the corres
ponding proceedings of State and County Conventions, the
action of State legislatures, and the declarations of prominent
statesmen, that the rising of sentiment against slavery was
apparent. Then, as at other times, under popular institu
tions, such manifestations were to be regarded as evidences of
a still broader and deeper current of public opinion, that was
producing them. Then, as now ; here, as in Great Britain,
the public bodies and functionaries nearest to the people,
freshest from their bosom, most accessible to their inspection,

92 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
and most directly and vitally amenable to them (" Eepresen-
tatives" and "Commons," in distinction from "Lords" and
"Senates"), were most deeply imbued with the principles of
justice and freedom — a general fact of incalculable weight in
thS argument for thoroughly democratic institutions.
And back of this general public sentiment against slavery,
were the moral influences that had been operating in that
direction — the religious testimonies and the ecclesiastical action
before mentioned. The power of the press, and of voluntary
association, irrespective of sect, followed soon afterward.
The first edition of Hopkins' Dialogue was published at
Norwich, Connecticut, early in 1776, as before stated. Its
circulation was extensive, and is known to have produced a
powerful impression upon the minds of reflecting men, incliid- '
ing some in high stations. A second edition was issued in
New York .in 1785, " by vote of the society for promoting
the manumission of slaves " — of which John Jay was Presi
dent, and which had been formed January 25th of that same
year. Another publication, of great weight and influence, was the
celebrated sermon of Dr. Jonathan Edwards, of New Haven,
Conn., afterwards President of Union College, Schenectady,
preached before the Connecticut Society for "the Promotion of
Freedom, &c, Sept. 15, 1791. It is a masterpiece of logical
argument, and was extensively circulated by the manumission
and abolition societies of that period, as it has been since by
the more modern anti-slavery societies.
By these two publications, the argument against slavery
was placed upon a deeper and broader theological and meta
physical basis, and was pushed to more startling and radical
conclusions, than in any previous writings on the subject with
which we are acquainted. And it may safely be said that no
later writers have gone beyond them in affirming the inherent
sinfulness and deep criminality of slaveholding, and the duty
of immediate and unconditional emancipation. Particularly
is this true of the sermon of Edwards. If others have insisted
upon these points with more vehemence of declamation,, or

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 93
with a more brilliant display of rhetoric, there is no one who
has more deliberately and triumphantly demonstrated those
truths by a process of cool iron-linked argument, placing it
forever beyond the power of man to unsettle them, without
dethroning the moral sense, rejecting the inductions of reason,
and abjuring the Christian religion. It is not known that any
writer or public speaker of any note, has ever attempted to
grapple with that sermon, attempting to criticize, or to con
fute it. And yet this forbearance cannot be because the lan
guage employed is more smooth and mild than that of other
writings that have been criticized as denunciatory. The
preacher distinctly charges upon the slaveholder the crime of
man-stealing, and the repetition of the crime every day he
continues to hold a slave in bondage. He charges him also
with " theft or robbery" — nay, with " a greater crime than for
nication, theft, or robbery." He predicts that, " if we may
judge the future by the past, within fifty years from this time
it will be as shameful for a man to hold a negro slave, as to
be guilty of common robbery or theft." In an appendix, Dr.
Edwards answers objections against immediate emancipation,
just as modern abolitionists answer them now.
Suoh were the sentiments which the abolition societies of
the last century, directed by the patriots of the American
Eevolution, the founders of the Union, the framers and
the adopters of the Federal Constitution, were intent to circu
late through the country. If some of them, as statesmen, did
not fully carry out the idea of immediate emancipation taught
in such writings, they circulated them among the people,
nevertheless. These were the effective weapons of their war
fare against slavery, so far as they succeeded at all. By these
doctrines, mainly, the public conscience was reached, and the
measures put in progress, which finally resulted in the aboli
tion of slavery in some of the States. The doctrines are none
the less true and trustworthy because the partial adoption of
them produced but partial and tardy results. If the abolition
of slavery in some of the States was so slow and gradual as
to occupy a whole generation or more in tbe process, if in

94 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
some others it still lingers, or has been indefinitely postponed,
while the system has strengthened itself, and the slave power
has assumed the control of the nation and stealthily reversed
its policy, the fault does not lie in the teachings of Hopkins
and Edwards, but in the mistaken prudence of those who
thought it more wise and safe to follow but partially in prac
tice what was admitted to be right and true in the abstract.
To this single fallacy, the failure of the Eevolutionary aboli
tionists, in their intended overthrow of American slavery,
may be distinctly traced. " The ruse of gradualism," iden
tical with deferred repentance for sin, produced its accustomed
and legitimate fruits. It deceived them, as it deceives the
greater portion of mankind.
We may honor their earnest endeavors, nevertheless, and
rejoice in the success*, however limited, with which their labors
were crowned. It should be ours to emulate their love of
freedom, and avoid their mistakes, the repetition of which
would be less excusable in us.
An important and highly spirited anti-slavery meeting is
said to have been held at Woodbridge, New Jersey, appro
priately convened on the 4th of July, 1783, just seven years
after the Declaration of inalienable rights that was now ad
mitted to have been manfully and successfully sustained.
Dr. Bloomfield, father of Governor Bloomfield of New Jersey,
is said to have presided on that joyous occasion, which was
celebrated by a public dinner, for which was provided a
roasted ox — a circumstance that attests the general and cor
dial attendance of the citizens. Who could have predicted
the era of pro-slavery mobs against abolition meetings then?
Who would have looked for biblical defences of slaveholding,
from the high places- of Princeton? Who would have be
lieved that churches and pulpits, generally, throughout the
country, would ever be closed against the discussion of slavery,
for fear of " disturbing the peace of our Zion ?" Who would
have believed that anti-slavery agitation would ever have been
regarded with abhorrence, as adverse to "the perpetuity of
our glorious Union ?" What value could the patriots of that

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 95
day have attached to any union that was not cemented on the
basis of freedom, and designed fgr its guaranty?
ABOLITION SOCIETIES.
It may be difficult to enumerate all the manumission and
abolition societies of this period, or to fix, accurately, the pre
cise dates of their organization. The particulars that follow
embody what we have at command.
Dr. Holmes, in his " American Annals," says that the Abo
lition Society of Pennsylvania was formed in 1774, and was
enlarged in 1787. Hildreth, in his " History of the United
States," says the Pennsylvania Society was the first. Edward
Needles, in his "Historical Memoir ofthe Pennsylvania Soci
ety for the abolition of Slavery, the relief of free negroes un
lawfully held in bondage, and for improving the African race,"
says the first associated action in Philadelphia was a meeting
of a few individuals at the Sun tavern in Second-street, April
14, 1775,* when a society was formed " for the relief of free
negroes unlawfully held in bondage." The society met four
times in 1775, and adjourned to meet in 1776; but, on account
of the war, no meeting occurred till February, 1784, after
which its meetings were continued till March, 1787, when the
Constitution was so revised as to include prominently " ih"
abolition of slavery," as in the above title. Of this Society, Dr.
Benjamin Franklin was chosen President.
The New York " Society for promoting the Manumission
of Slaves, and protecting such of them as have been or may
be liberated," was formed January 25, 1785, as before men
tioned. Of this society, John Jay was the first President.
On being appointed Chief-Justice of the United States, he re
signed, and was succeeded by Gen. Alexander Hamilton, who
held the office a few months, until, on receiving an appoint
ment in the Federal cabinet, he removed to Philadelphia, and
soon after his place was filled by " Gen. Matthew Clarkson,
tlie United States Marshal for New York, a very pious, good
* One year later than the statement of Dr. Holmes.

96 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
man, and belonging to a different species from the general
race of slave-catching marshals."*
May 5, 1786, the committee of the New York Society re
ported that a similar society was about to be established at
Providence, Ehode Island. In 1788 the Pennsylvania Society
addressed their corresponding members in Ehode Island,
about vessels fitting out there in defiance of the laws against
the slave trade. In 1791 the Ehode Island Society is alluded
to as having memorialized Congress, in conjunction with the
abolition societies of Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,
Baltimore, Virginia, and two societies on the eastern shore of
Maryland. The Maryland Abolition Society was formed in 1789. The
Connecticut Abolition Society in 1790 ; the Virginia Abolition
Society in 1791. The New Jersey Society " for promoting
the Abolition of Slavery," in 1792.
The Maryland and Virginia Societies had auxiliaries in dif
ferent parts of those States.
There was also a society in Delaware. In 1794, ten socie
ties met in convention in Philadelphia, and continued _o meet
annually, for a number of years afterwards.
Of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, Benjamin Franklin
was chosen President, and Benjamin Eush Secretary, both sign
ers of the Declaration of Independence, and the first-named
just returned from the convention that drafted the Federal
Constitution. Among the officers of the Maryland Society
was Samuel Chase, one of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence, afterwards Judge of the United States' Supreme
Court, and Luther Martin, a member of the Constitutional
Convention. Of the Connecticut Abolition Society, Dr. Ezra
Stiles, President of Yale College, was the first President, and
Simeon Baldwin was Secretary.
" Among other distinguished individuals who were efficient officers of
these abolition societies, and delegates from their respective State societies,
at the annual meetings of the American Convention for Promotirig the
* MSS. by Hon. Wm. Jay.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 97
Abolition of Slavery, were Hon. Uriah Tracy, United States Senator from
Connecticut ; Hon. Zephaniah Swift, Chief Justice of the same ; Hon.
Caesar A. Rodney, Attorney-General of the United States ; Hon. James A.
Bayard, United States Senator from Delaware ; Gov. Bloomfield, of" New
Jersey ; Hon. Wm. Rawle, the late venerable head of the Philadelphia
bar ; Dr. Casper Wistar, of Philadelphia ; Messrs. Foster and Tillinghast,
of Rhode Island ; Messrs. Ridgley, Buchanan, and Wilkinson, of Maryland ;
and Messrs. Pleasants, McLean, and Anthony, of Virginia." — Power of
Congress, &c, pp. 30, 31.
These Abolition Societies and the officers and members of
them were not idle. They agitated the subject, circulated
publications, and petitioned legislative bodies.
In 1786, John Jay drafted and signed a memorial to the
Legislature of New York against slavery, and petitioning for
its abolition, declaring that the men held as slaves by the
laws of New York, were free by the law of God. Among the
other petitioners were James Duane, Mayor of the City of
New York, Eobert E. Livingston, afterwards Secretary of
Foreign Affairs of the United States and Chancellor of the
State of New York, Alexander Hamilton, and many other
eminent citizens of the State.*
Nor were petitions addressed only to the legislatures ofthe
States in which the petitioners resided. The doctrines of
moral and political non-intervention with the delicate subject
had not then been discovered. The dogma that Congress has
nothing to do with slavery in the States does not appear to
have obtained general currency at that period. These state
ments are believed to express simple historical facts, and appli
cable up to a point of time after the Federal Constitution had
been drafted, discussed, and adopted, and the Federal Govern
ment under that Constitution organized and put in operation.
A few particulars will suffice to justify these statements.
Both the Virginia and Maryland Abolition Societies, at an
early day, sent up memorials to Congress. We have not at
hand the precise dates, nor is this important. The dates of
the organization of these societies, particularly that of Vir-
* MSS. by Hon. Wm. Jay.
7

98 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ginia, make it evident that their petitions were addressed to
the new Federal Government. The Connecticut Abolition
Society sent up a petition in 1791. The Society of Friends
and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society had done so, still
earlier, and their petitions oame before the first Congress
under the new Constitution, and were debated February 12th,
1790* These petitions were addressed to Congress. What could
the petitioners have supposed that Congress had to do with
the subject? The Foreign Slave Trade, at that time, appears
to have been interdicted by most of the States, in conformity
with the original compact of 1774, and was not resumed, even
by South Carolina, as has already been stated, until 1803.
And among the "compromises of the Constitution," since
claimed, a prominent one, and the best authenticated, is that
which prevented Congress from interdicting the foreign traffic,
until 1808. The cession of the District of Columbia was not
accepted by Congress until July 16, 1790, some time after the
presentation of the Pennsylvania -petition. The seat of the
Federal Government, then, and for some years afterwards,
was at Philadelphia. By the ordinance of 1787, slavery had
been prohibited in the North Western Territory, and no one
anticipated the admission of any new slave states. What,
then, was there for Congress to do, according to the doctrine
of non-intervention now entertained ? What was it that the
petitioners asked ? Against what did they petition? And
-where did it exist ?
A copy of the Pennsylvania petition is before us, and por
tions of those from Connecticut and Virginia.'
The Connecticut petitioners, (Pres. Stiles, Simeon Baldwin,
-&c.) say :
" From a sober convitition of the unrighteousness op slavery, youi
* Mr. Weld's pamphlet and the Liberty HeU give the date 1789, but Washington
was not inaugurated until April 80th of that year, and the ," first Congress" com
menced its first session, April 7th. Besides, the petition of the Pennsylvania So
ciety, signed by Benjamin Franklin, as published in tho Liberty Bell, bears date
Feb. 8, 1790, and the Journal of Congress mentions its presentation, Fob. 12, 1790.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 99
petitioners have long beheld with grief our fellow-men doomed to perpe
tual bondage in a country wliich boasts her freedom. Your petitioners
are fully of opinion that calm reflection will at last convince the world that
the whole svstem op Amerioan slavery is unjust in its nature, im
politic in its principles, and in its consequences ruinous to the industry and
enterprise of the citizens of THESE STATES."
The " Virginia Society for the Abolition (-/Slavery," &c.,
in addressing the Congress of the United States, say :
" Your memorialists, fully aware that righteousness exalteth a nation, and
that SLAVERY is not only an odious degradation, but an outrageous viola
tion of one of the most essential rights of human nature, and utterly repug
nant to the precepts of the Gospel, which breathes ' peace on earth and
good will to men,' lament that a practice so inconsistent with true policy
and the inalienable rights of men, should subsist in so enlightened an age,
and among a people professing that all mankind are, by nature, equally en
titled to freedom."
" The memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting
the abolition of Slavery," &c, addressed "to the Senate and
House of Eepresentatives of the United States," contains the
following :
" Your memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses
arising from SLAVERY, believe it to be their indispensable duty to present
this subject to your notice. They have observed, with real satisfaction,
that many important and salutary powers are vested in you, for ' pro
moting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the PEOPLE
of the UNITED STATES ;'* and as they conceive that these blessings
ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of color, to all
descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in the pleasing expecta
tion that nothing which can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects
of their care, will be either omitted or delayed.
" From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the portion, and is
still the birth-right of all men, and influenced by the strong ties of humanity
and the principles of their institution, your memorialists conceive themselves
bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bonds of slavery, and
promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these
impressions, they earnestly entreat your attention to the subject of slavery ;
that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration to liberty of
* This language is evidently taken from the Preamble to the Federal Constitii'
tion. " We, the people of the United States, in order to promote the general wel
fare, and secure the blessings of liberty," &c, &c.

100 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
those unhappy men, who, alone, in this land of freedom, are degraded into
perpetual bondage, and who, amid the general joy of surrounding freemen,
are groaning in servile subjection ; that you will devise means for re
moving this inconsistency of character from the AMERICAN
PEOPLE ; that you will promote mercy and justice towards this distressed
race ; and that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you
for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, President."*
Philadelphia, Feb. 3, 1790. [Federal Gazette, 1790.]
DISCUSSIONS IN CONGRESS.
How were these petitions understood in Congress ? How
were they received and treated? Were they understood to
look in the direction of a general removal of slavery, as well
as the slave trade ? Were the petitioners denounced as fa
natics and madmen ? Was the applieation repelled as treason
against the Constitution and the Union? On the other hand,
were there any who expressed a readiness " to espouse their
cause " ? The reader of the following extracts from the dis
cussions, will judge.
In the debate on the petition from Pennsylvania, Mr. Par
ker, of Virginia, said :
" I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of these respectable people will he
attended to, with all the readiness the importance of its object demands;
and 1 cannot help expressing the pleasure I feel in finding so considerable a
part of the community attending to matters of such a momentous concern
to the future prosperity and happiness of the people of America. I think
it my duty, as a citizen of the Union, to espouse their cause."
Mr. Page, of Virginia (afterward Governor) " was in favor of the com
mitment. He hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists would
not be stopped at the threshold, in order to^preclude a fair discussion of the
prayer of the memorial. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended,
he conjectured there was none ; but there might be just cause, if the me
morial was not taken into consideration. He placed himself in the case
of the slave, and said that, on hearing that Congress had refused to listen to
the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the community, he should
infer that the general Government, from which was expected great
* This was probably the last important publio act of Franklin, who died tho
Bame year. <

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 101
good would result to every class of citizens,* had shut their ears
against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of any alleviation of
the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect. If anything could induce
him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this, impressing on his mind all the
horrors of despair. But if he was told that application was made in his
behalf, and that Congress were willing to hear what could be "urged in favor
of discouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would
trust in their justice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently."
Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania : " I cannot, for my part, conceive how any
person can be said to acquire property in another ;| but — enough of
those who reduce men to the state of transferable goods, or use them like
beasts of burden, who deliver them up as the patrimony or property of
another man.J Let us argue on principles countenanced by reason and
becoming humanity. I do not know how far I might go if 1 was one of
the Judges of the United States, and those people were to come before me,
and claim their emancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could. "§
Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said : " He saw the disposition of the .
House, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all their
opposition." Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, said : " that on entering into this govern
ment, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other States,
not knowing the necessity of the citizens of the Southern States, would,
from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general
emancipation ; and, had they not seen that the Constitution provided
against the effect of such a disposition, I may be bold to say they never
would have adopted it."
" In the debate, at the same session, May 13th, on the petition of the
Society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, of Virginia,
said : ' He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power to restore
to human nature its inherent privileges, and, if possible, wipe out the
stigma that America labored under. The inconsistency in our principles,
with which we are justly charged, should be done away, that we may show,
by our actions, the pure beneficence of the doctrine we held out to the
world in our Declaration of Independence.' "
"Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, said: 'It was the fashion of the day
to favor the liberty of the slaves. * * * What is to be done
for compensation 1 Will Virginia set all her negroes free 1 Will they give
* Here, again, we find the negro slaves expressly designated as citizens.
t Another blow at the idea of the legality of slavery.
% How does this harmonize with the Constitutional obligation of delivering up
fugitive slaves?
, § A pregnant hint of the speaker's impression of the duties of the Federal
Courts.

102 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
up the money they have cost them, and to whom 1 When this practice
comes to be tried, then the sound of liberty will lose those charms which
make it grateful to the ravished ear.' "
" Mr. Madison, of Virginia : ' The dictates of humanity, the principles
of the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy, require
it of us. The Constitution has particularly called our attention to it. * *
I conceive the Constitution in this particular was formed in order that the
Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might
be able to give some testimony of the sense of America, with respect to
the African trade. * * * It is to be hoped, that by expressing a
national disapprobation of the trade, we may destroy it, and save our
country from reproaches, and our posterity from the imbecility ever atten
dant on a country filled with slaves. I do not wish to say anything harsh
to the hearing of gentlemen who entertain different sentiments from me, or
different sentiments from those I represent. But if there is any one point
in which it is clearly the policy op this nation, so far as we constitu
tionally can, to vary the practice obtaining under some of the State Go
vernments, it is this. But it is certain that a majority of the States are
opposed to the practice." — Cong. Reg., v. i., pp. 308-12 ; Weld's Power of
Cong., &c, pp. 30-32.
There may be some difficulty in apprehending, clearly, the
import of some of the expressions used in this debate. This
may be owing to our making a broad distinction, now, which
seems scarcely to have been recognized at all, then, between
the slave trade and slavery. It seems to have been taken for
granted that the prohibition of the former would involve,
virtually, the extinction of the latter. Georgia had desired a
respite of twenty years, which, by the Constitution, had been
granted. Thus far the hands of Congress were tied. Thus,
at least, it was understood by the speakers. This was the com
promise claimed. This exposition of the position of the speak
ers, if it be correct, enables us to understand the drift of their
arguments. What then do we find ?
First, we have the presentation of petitions, some of them
said to be in respect to the slave trade, others of them (inclu
ding that of Dr. Franklin) as evidently bearing upon "sla
very" itself, desiring for the slaves their "restoration to
liberty," and that Congress would "devise means," in some
way, for "removing this inconsistency from the American'

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 103
character." The two descriptions of petitions appear to have
had the same object, and to have been received and considered
accordingly. Next, we have two gentlemen from Virginia decidedly
" espousing the cause " of the petitioners, followed up by a
representative of Pennsylvania, on the same side.
Then, we have a specimen of the opposition, from South
Carolina and Georgia ; and finally, an effort, by Mr. Madison,
to reconcile the difference between the parties, though strong
ly leaning to the side of the petitioners, and declaring that he
represented, for his constituents, those sentiments.
The main object of the slave party, seems to have been to
stave off present action. The House, and the Country, they
saw and acknowledged, were disposed to be against them —
disposed to liberate " the slaves." They pleaded the consti
tutional compromise, that is, the postponement till 1808.
Yet they raised the question of compensation, as much as to
intimate that if the country was ready to meet their demands
in this respect, they might waive their constitutional objec
tions. And this was then the extent of South Carolinian
and Georgian opposition ! " Humanity and benevolence," they
admitted, was on the side of the petitioners, and of those
who might " vote for a general emancipation." Not a word
of the dangers of turning the slaves loose. Not a single
threat of dissolving the Union. Not a lisp of the sacred guar
anties of the Constitution, of the obligation to protect and
extend slavery !
From the advocates of liberty, in the House, then, we hear
no concessions of the compromises of the Constitution. Those,
they left in the hands of their opponents, and in the hands
of the illustrious pacificator between the two parties. And
even his (Mr. Madison's) speech, would be accounted a radical
abolition harangue, were it uttered in Congress now. It is
instructive to ponder these contrasts. We need to be disa
bused of our vague impressions and educational prejudices, if
we would understand the relation of slavery to our political
institutions, as at first established.

104 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Little incidents, often, more than imposing official docu
ments, and public records, reveal public character, and assist
us to understand the spirit and temper of a particular age
or people. " In 1791, the university of William and Mary,
in Virginia, conferred upon Granville Sharp, of England, the
Degree of Doctor of Laws."* Who was Granville Sharp?
And by what discoveries in the sublime science of jurispru
dence had Granville Sharp, a clerk in the ordinance depart
ment of Great Britain, commended himself to a Virginian Uni
versity, for so distinguishing an honor ? The reader of the
preceding chapters understands. Granville Sharp had dis
covered and announced the utter and absolute illegality of sla
very under the aegis of the British Constitution, and under
the jurisdiction of English Common Law. With this dis
covery he had enlightened the British mind, had reversed the
legal decisions and opinions of York and Talbot — of Black
stone and Mansfield. Without a seat in the Court of King's
Bench, nay, without the credentials that could entitle him, bj
the usages of Court, to stand up in its presence and plead a
cause, Granville Sharp, by the simple force of his lofty intel
lect and indomitable and righteous purpose, had laid his hand
on that Court of King's Bench, and compelled it to do (unwil
lingly enough) his bidding, in the decree that " slaves cannot
breathe in England." More than this — Granville Sharp, per
ceiving that this decree was binding on the colonies of Bri
tain, as well as on the mother country, had solemnly admon- .
ished the British prime minister of his high responsibilities
in this respect, and with all the majesty of a holy prophet had
charged him, on the peril of his soul, to lose no time in sup
pressing slavery in America. This was the high merit of Gran
ville Sharp. For this, he wore, meekly, the clustering homage
of the wise and good, of two hemispheres. The University
of William and Mary, in Virginia, eagerly honored herself
by honoring Granville Sharp. What a change has since
taken place ! Had Granville Sharp lived to visit the Univer-
* Power of Congress, &c, p. 86.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 105
sity of William and Mary, in 1835, his temerity would pro
bably have cost him his life. He would have subjected
himself to the liability of being ignominiously and uncere
moniously hanged up, without judge or jury, or condemned
to death under the laws of the State.* Were the public sen
timent of Virginia, and of the whole country, now, what they
were in 1791, those English philanthropists who are now de
nounced as, impertinent intermeddlers, would be fair candi
dates for the highest honors of the University of William and
Mary, in Virginia.
Can it be credible that a change of sentiment like this can
have come over Virginia, and over the nation, without bring
ing along with it new maxims of state policy, new principles
of jurisprudence, new views of the relation of slavery to our
Constitution and laws? — and with these — of necessity — new
usages of Constitutional exposition, — new conceptions of the
relations described by it, and of the obligations and rights
growing out of those relations ? May it be assumed, without
scrutiny, that the usages and expositions with which we, in
this age, have become familiarized, are trustworthy ?

* No exaggeration in this. The very writings of Granville Sharp could not have
been safely circulated in Virginia in 1835, if indeed they can be at present. On
charge of having circulated anti-slavery writings, Dr. Reuben Crandall was arrested
and tried for his life, in the District of Columbia, and on prosecution of the late
Francis S. Key, Esq., one of the most popular citizens of the District. The " incen
diary publications," for the publishing of whioh the late R. G. Williams, of New
York, was indicted, and demanded to be given up to the authorities of Alabama,
by the Executive of that State, included the writings of Granville Sharp, and
nothing beside them that could have been more offensive than they must have
been. Nothing more strongly condemnatory of slavery and of slaveholders could
have been found in the papers pillaged from the U. S. mail at Charleston, and burnt.
By the laws of Virginia, the publishing or eiroulating of publications having at en-
dency to excite slaves or free people of color to insurrection or resistance, is punished
with thirty-nine lashes ; the second with death." Amos Dresser, though without the
forms of a legal trial, suffered a publio whipping in Tennessee. Whatever may have
appeared on the antiquated statute books of Virginia, in 1791, the simple incident
we have recorded affords evidence of the change of publio sentiment we have de
scribed— a change the more marked, in proportion as the sentiment of 1791 was in
opposition to her own statutes.

106 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

ECCLESIASTICAL BODIES — METHODISTS.
The position and language of ecclesiastical bodies at that
era, furnish another significant feature of our history.
In the year 1780, the sentiments of the Methodist societies in- this
country were thus expressed in the minutes of the Conference for that year :
" The Conference acknowledges that slavery is contrary to the laws of
God, man* and nature, hurtful to society ; contrary to the dictates of con
science and pure religion, and doing what We would not that others should
do unto us, and they pass their disapprobation upon all our friends who keep
slaves, and they advise their freedom." — A. S. Manual, by Sunderland,
p. 58. In 1785, the following language was held by the M. E.
Church :
" We do hold in the deepest abhorrence the practice of slavery, and shall
not cease to seek its destruction, by all wise and prudent means."
The following is extracted from Sunderland's Anti-Slavery
Manual, published in 1837 :
From Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 101, we learn that the M. E.
Church was organized with a number of express rules on the subject which
stipulated that slavery should not be continued in the church. One
of them was as follows :
" Every member in our Society shall legally execute and record an instru
ment [for the purpose of setting every slave in his possession free] .within
the space of two years."
Another was as follows :
" Every person concerned who will not comply with these rules, shall
have liberty quietly to withdraw from our Society within twelve months
following the notice being given him as aforesaid : — otherwise, the assistant
shall exclude him from the Society."
Another rule declared that
" Those who bought or sold slaves, or gave them away, unless on purpose
to free them, should be expelled immediately."
* " Contrary to the laws oi man." Here we find another admission of the ille
gality of slavery, corresponding with the doctrines of Granville Sharp, the decision
of Lord Mansfield in the Somerset case, the expressions of Dr. Hopkins, the decla
ration of James Madison, and the speech in Congress of Mr. Soott, of Pennsylvania.
Were all these ignorant enthusiasts ? Or has slavery become legalized since ?

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 107
" And forty years ago" (i. e. in 1797), the discipline of this church con
tained the following directions on the subject :
" The preachers and other members of our Society -are requested to con
sider the subject of negro slavery, with deep attention, and that they impart
to the General Conference, through the medium of the Yearly Conferences,
or otherwise, any important thoughts on the subject, that the Conference
may have full light, in order to take further steps towards eradicating
this enormous evil from that part of the Church of God with which they
are connected. The Annual Conferences are directed to draw up addresses
for the gradual emancipation of the. slaves, to the legislatures of those States
in which no general laws have been passed for that purpose. These
addresses shall urge, in the most respectful but pointed manner, the neces
sity of a law for the gradual emancipation of slaves. Proper committees
shall be appointed by the Annual Conferences, out of the most respectable
of our friends, for conducting the business ; and presiding elders, elders,
deacons, and travelling preachers, shall procure as many proper signatures
as possible to the addresses, and give all the assistance in their power, in
every respect, to aid the committees, and to forward the blessed under
taking. Let this be continued from year to year, till the desired end be
accomplished." — A. S. Manual, pp. 58-9.
These directions were not a dead letter. Persons still living
can remember the circulating of anti-slavery petitions, and
the distributing of Wesley's Tract on Slavery, by the Metho
dist travelling preachers, as a part of their official business.
So. late as the year 1803, the Hymn Books of the M. E.
Church, published by Ezekiel Cooper for the M. E. Book
Concern, at Philadelphia, contained advertisements of the
" Tract on Slavery." Here then was the entire Methodist
Episcopal connection organized into a society for anti-slavery
agitation, its Annual Conferences inviting free discussion and
seeking for more light, its preachers and church officers circu
lating anti-slavery publications and petitions to legislative
bodies. The contrast with later times we cannot stop here
to present. PRESBYTERIANS.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church adopted,
in 1794, a note to the one hundred and forty-second question
in the larger Catechism, in the Confession of Faith, in the
words following :

108 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
" I Tim. 1 : 10. ' The law is made for man-stealers.' This crime,
among the Jews, exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment,
Exodus 21 : 16, and the apostle here classes them with sinners ofthe first
Tank. The word he uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are
concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, or retaining them
in it. Hominum fures, qui servos, vel libros alducunt, retinent vendunt, vel
tmunt. Stealers of men are those who bring off slaves or freemen, and
keep, sell, or buy them. To steal a freeman, says Grotius, is the highest
kind of theft. In other instances we only steal human property, but when
we steal or retain men in slavery, we seize those who, in common with our
selves, are constituted by the original grant, lords of the earth. Gen. 1 : 28.
Vide Poli Synopsin in loc." BAPTISTS.
" At a meeting of the General Committee of the Baptists of Virginia, in
1788, the following point came up. — SempWs Hist, of Baptists in Virginia.
" Whether a petition should be offered to the Generi.1 Assembly, praying
that the yoke of slavery may be made more tolerable. Referred to the next
session." " 1789. At this session the propriety of hereditary slavery was also
taken up, and after some time employed in the consideration of the subject,
the following resolution was offered by Eld. John Leland, and adopted :
" Resolved, That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature,
and inconsistent with republican government, and therefore (we) recommend
it to our brethren to make use of every measure to extirpate this horrid
evil from the land ; and pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature
may have it in their power to proclaim the great jubilee, consistent with tlie
principles of good policy." — " Facts for Baptist Churches," p. 365.
Action in Vermont. — The minutes of the Shaftsbury Asso
ciation, in 1792, contain an expression against the slave trade,
and in favor of universal liberty. — Ib.
" According to Benedict (History of the Baptists, first edition), there was,
in 1805, an Association of Baptists in Northern Kentucky, who separated
themselves from slaveholding Baptists," &c. " Eld. David Barrow, once
a Virginia slaveholder, became, after emancipating his slaves, one of their
principal men. He wrote a pamphlet on slavery, entitled ' Involuntary,
unmerited, perpetual, absolute, hereditary slavery, examined on the princi
ples of nature, reason, justice, policy, and Scripture.' — Other prominent
advocates of these principles were, Elders Dodge, Carman, Sutton, Holmes,
Tarrant, Grigg, and Smith."— ii. p. 366.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 109

LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTION.
Legislative and judicial action against slavery in several of
the States, was the natural result of the moral and religious
influences described in this and the preceding chapters, and
on the whole the effects may be considered commensurate
with the causes operating for the production of them. If it
be said that the gradual and prospective emancipation pro
vided for by the legislatures of several States did not corres
pond with the doctrines of the inherent sinfulness of slavery
and of the duty of immediate and unconditional abolition,
insisted on by Hopkins and Edwards, and exemplified by
some of the Congregational churches, it must be remembered
that these testimonies were not fully received and adopted by
some of the eminent statesmen at the head of the anti-slavery
societies by whom these writings had been circulated. Ideas
of supposed necessity, expediency, or convenience, were per
mitted to modify and control the direct and full application
of principles admitted to be true and right in the abstract.
Those testimonies, moreover, had been counteracted and neu
tralized by the gradual and tardy action, with few exceptions,
of ecclesiastical bodies, including even the Society of Friends.
It was hardly to be expected that the work of purification in
the State would be more speedy and thorough than in the]
Church. A paragraph from an Appendix, by Dr. Hopkins, to the
second edition of his Dialogue on Slavery, printed at New
York, under sanction of the Manumission Society, in 1785
embraces, in a few words, an account of the progress that had
been made since the publication of the first edition early in
1776. " Since the publication of this Dialogue, many things have been done and
steps taken towards a reformation of this evil. In the States of Massachu
setts and New Hampshire the slavery of the blacks is wholly abolished.
And it is one of the fundamental articles in the Constitution of the proposed
State of Vermont, that no slavery shall be tolerated there. The States of
Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and the lower counties of the

110 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Delaware, have provided for the gradual abolition of slavery, and have
ordered that all the blacks who shall be hereafter born in these States, shall
be free at a certain age, and that no more slaves shall be introduced among
them. And the State of Virginia has repealed a law, which was formerly
in force there, against the freeing ofthe blacks, and now allows the masters
of slaves to free them when they please. Thus, all the States but five,*
have manifested a disposition to promote the freedom of the Africans.t
And numbers of slaves have been liberated by their masters, under a con
viction of the unrighteousness of holding them in slavery. This is a great
advance in the desired reformation, and has given ground to hope that
slavery will be wholly abolished in all the United States of America."
To this it might have been added, that " in the Convention
that formed the Constitution of Kentucky, in 1780, the effort
to prohibit slavery was nearly successful." "But for the
great influence of two large slaveholders — Messrs. Breckin
ridge and Nicholson" — the measure, it is believed, would
have been carried. — " Power of Congress," &c. p. 34.
Virginia, in 1786, enacted that every slave imported into
the Commonwealth should be free.
It is to be lamented that Virginia should have since
re-enacted her laws against emancipation, and in many ways
sought to strengthen the slave system. In Delaware, too,
there must have been some retrograde steps, though the num
ber of slaves has greatly diminished since 1785.
In 1777, the people of Vermont met in Convention and
proclaimed Vermont an independent State. The first article
of their bill of rights excluded slavery. Though not admit
ted into the Confederacy (owing to some claims of New York)
till 1789, Vermont has the honor of having first provided for
the abolition of slavery. Seventeen slaves are indeed set

* The statement should have been six, viz. New York, Maryland, New Jersey, the
two Carolinas, and Georgia. Vermont, a new State, having been reckoned, there
were fourteen States thou in the Union, instead of the original thirteen, in the mind
of the writer.
t Virginia and Delaware, it seems, were then counted upon as being on the side
of freedom, while New York and New Jersey were reckoned on the other side.
Another fact to be adjusted to the current theory of constitutional guaranties, which
would present to us New York and New Jersey refusing to come into the Union,
unless Virginia aud Delaware would enter into the "compact" to hunt fugitive
slaves, &o. 1

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. Ill
down to Vermont in the census of 1790. The revised Con
stitution of 1793 retains the prohibition of slavery.
" In Massachusetts, it was judicially declared, soon after the Revolution,
that slavery was virtually abolished ly the Constitution, and. that the issue
of a female slave, though born prior to the Constitution, was born free." —
Kent's Commentary, p. 252.
" In Massachusetts, all the negroes in the Commonwealth were, by their
new Constitution, liberated in a day, and none of the ill consequences
objected, followed, either to the Commonwealth or to individuals." — Appen
dix, by Dr. Edwards, to his Sermon against Slavery, Sept. 15, 1791.
In giving the opinion of the Court in the case of the Com
monwealth versus Thomas Aves, in 1833, Chief Justice Shaw
said : —
" How, or hy what act particularly, slavery was abolished in Massachu
setts, whether by the adoption of the opinion in Somerset's case, as a decla
ration and modification of the Common Law, or by the Declaration of
Independence, or by the [State] Constitution of 1780, it is not now very
easy to determine, and it is a matter rather of curiosity than utility, it being
agreed on all hands that, if not abolished before, it was so by the declara
tion of rights." * * * " Without pursuing this inquiry further, it is
sufficient for the purpose of the case before us, that by the Constitution
adopted in 1780, slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, upon the ground
that it is contrary to natural right and the plain principles of justice.
The terms of the first article of the Declaration of Rights are clear and
explicit. ' All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essen
tial, and inalienable rights, which are the right of enjoying and defending
their lives and liberties, that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting pro
perty.' — It would be difficult to select words more precisely adapted to the
abolition of slavery." — Pickering's Reports, pp. 209-10.
The suggestion of Chief Justice Shaw, that slavery may
have been abolished in Massachusetts by the National Declara
tion of Independence, may be startling to some readers, but
the similarity, not to say identity of that declaration with the
article in the Massachusetts Constitution, and the coincidence
of both with the well known powers of the Common Law, as
applied and exemplified "in Somerset's case," may induce the
inquiry whether or how either one of the three " acts " speci
fied by Judge Shaw could have had power to abolish slavery,
unless either of the others possessed likewise the same power?

112 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
The answer to this query seems suggested by the intimation
of Judge Shaw, that "it is matter rather of curiosity than
utility" to fix upon a selection of the implements or " acts"
of freedom,*
The first Federal Census, 1790, contains no enumeration of
slaves in Massachusetts.
In Pennsylvania a law was passed the first of March, 1780,
declaring all persons born in tbe State after that day, to be
free at the age of twenty-eight years. Penalty seventy-five
pounds for carrying a slave beyond the limits of the State.f
The first section of this act, of the nature of a preamble,
recapitulates the condition into which the colonies were ex
pected to be reduced by the tyranny of Great Britain, the
grateful sense due for so great a providential deliverance, and
the corresponding obligation and privilege of extending the
blessings of freedom to others. The second section brings
directly into view the condition of the negro slaves, and the
demands of justice on their behalf, and then proceeds to the
enactment above described.
There were those, it would seem, who were not satisfied

* Since writing the above, the following item reaches us through a new work of
Mr. Spooner — " A Defence for Fugitive Slaves." We deem it altogether too impor
tant to be omitted here :
"As early as 1770, and two years previous to the decision of Somerset's case, so
famous in England, the right of a master to hold a slave had been denied by the
Superior Court of Massachusetts, and upon the same grounds, substantially, as those
upon which Lord Mansfield discharged Somerset, when his case came before him. The
case here alluded to was James vs. Lechmere, brought by the plaintiff, a negro,
against his master, to recover his freedom." — Washburn's Judicial History of Mas
sachusetts, p. 202.
That Blaves should have been held ip Massachusetts after this decision, that a new
judicial decision should have been needed after the Revolution, and that Chief Jus
tice Shaw, in 1883, should have been at a loss to fix, with precision, the earliest date
and the grounds of the previous decisions, are very remarkable circumstances, all
tending to illustrate the facility with which the practice of slaveholding has been
continued, contrary to law, and the inattention bf learned jurists to th. facts as well
as the law, on the subject.
The case mentioned by Washburn confirms very strongly the impression that
slavery was as illegal in the Colonies, before the Revolution, as it is known and
admitted to have been in England.
t Genius of Temperance, Sept. 19, 1888, copied from Emancipator.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 113
with this partial and tardy justice. " Petitions in favor of the
oppressed Africans " were again presented to the Legislature
in 1798, and a committee made a favorable report, March 8.
They intimated that if the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of
Independence, and the paternal character and overruling
providence of a common Creator, were to be recognized, " the
petitioners but speak the divine will, in requesting that this
evil be done away from the land."*'
Of the specific points of this petition, and of the legislative
action had on it, we are not informed. The United States
census for Pennsylvania, in 1790, exhibits 3,737 slaves, and
in 1840, sixty four.
It deserves notice that the efforts of that period had refer
ence to the removal of slavery "from the land," and not
merely from particular portions of it.
In New Hampshire, slavery was said to have been abolished,
by constitutional declarations of rights, similar to those of
Massachusetts, adopted in 1783, and taking effect in June,.
1784. And yet, singularly enough, the census of 1790 shows.
158 slaves in New Hampshire, and even that of 1840 gives
one ! By what tenure, and under what circumstances or pre
texts slaves are held in New Hampshire, we are not informed.
State Constitutions, it seems, as well as National Declarations,
may be violated in practice, but the legality of such practices
presents another question — the same that was agitated by
Granville Sharp in Great Britain.
Rhode Island, the very seat of the African Slave Trade,
was the seat also of early efforts in favor of freedom. The
exact date, or the precise form of the earliest legislative move
ments are not before us, but a note of Dr. Hopkins to his
Dialogue, in 1776, mentions a proposed act, prohibiting the
importation of negroes into this colony, and asserting the
rights of freedom of all those hereafter born or manumitted
within the same." He gives the preamble to this proposed
act in the following words :

Statutes of Pennsylvania, vide National Era, Aug. 22, 1850.
8

114 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
"Whereas, the inhabitants of America are generally engaged in the
preservation of their own rights and liberties, among which those of per
sonal freedom must be considered as the greatest ; and, as those who are
desirous of enjoying all the advantages of liberty themselves should be
willing to extend personal liberty to others, therefore, be it enacted," &c.
"Is it possible," exclaims Hopkins, "that anyone should
not feel the irresistible force of this reason ?" In a note to
the second edition, in 1785, he adds :
" Since the above was published, the General Assembly of that State
have made a law, that all the blacks born in it after March, 1784, are made
free. And the masters who have slaves under forty years old, are autho
rized to free them, without being bound to support them if afterwards they
should be unable to support themselves."
The census of 1790 reports 952 slaves in Rhode Island, and
in 1840, five.
In Connecticut, a law providing for the gradual abolition
of slavery was enacted in 1784. In 1790, the number of
slaves in that State was 2,759 ; in 1840, there were only sev
enteen. In New York, " in 1799, an act of gradual emancipation
was passed, declaring all children born thereafter to be free,
males when coming to the age of twenty-eight, and females at
twenty-five. A fine of two hundred and fifty dollars was the
penalty, and the freedom of the slave was the result of an
attempt to sell him out of the State. Although masters were
allowed to travel with their slaves, yet under severe fines
they were obliged to return them ; or, under oath, to make
proof that unavoidable accident prevented the returning.
" In 1817 another act was passed, declaring all slaves to he
free in 1827, and on July 4th of that year the act took effect,
;and every slave, nearly ten thousand, was manumitted wiihout
¦compensation to their owners."* '
And yet, from some cause, the census for 1840 reports four
slaves in the State of New York. In 1790 there were 21,324,
being nearly three-fourths as many as there were in Georgia'

H. W. Beecher, New York; Tribune, June 1, 1850.

slavery and freedom. 115
at that time, nearly twice as many as .there were then in Ken
tucky, and more than six times as many as there were in Ten
nessee 1 The proportion, when the Federal Constitution was
adopted^ year or two previous, could not have greatly varied,
throwing New York, at that time, and for several years after
wards, somewhat conspicuously, into the ranks of the Slave
States. Even down to 1800 there were 20,343 slaves, the
number having decreased but 881 in ten years.
New Jersey took measures, in 1804, for the prospective
abolition of slavery, but the process must have been a tardy
one. In 1790 the number of slaves was 11,423. In 1840, it
was 674.
In 1820 an act was passed emancipating all slaves born
after 1805 at the age of twenty-five years, and imposing a fine
of one hundred dollars and imprisonment for transporting
slaves beyond the limits of the State, except slaves of full age
who freely consented to go, before a judge of one of the courts
in private. — Statutes of New Jersey, Congress Library. National
Era, August 22,-1850.
In April, 1846, a law was passed and approved, ostensibly
abolishing slavery, and declaring that every person then held
in slavery was free, subject, however, to certain restrictions,
which retain the same persons under the control of their mas
ters, for an indefinite period, as apprentices. They are to '' serve
until discharged," and the master is permitted "to discharge
them by a writing executed in the presence of at least one
witness, provided the apprentice be of sound mind, and capa
ble of procuring a livelihood, and upon certificate of the over
seers of the poor and two justices of the peace, to such capa
city," &c, &c. Such is the definition of freedom, and of the
abolition of slavery, in New Jersey ! — MSS. by Oov. Haines.
The census of 1840 records 3 slaves in Ohio, 3 in Indiana,
331 in Illinois, 11 in Wisconsin, and 16 in Iowa. The- only
States, at that time, without slaves, were Massachusetts, Maine,
Vermont, and Michigan. A short list of really wre-slave-
holding States !
In the States now commonly denominated non-slaveholding,

116 great struggle between
there were, in 1776, by computation, 46,099 slaves. In 1790
there were, by census, 40,370. In 1840, there were 1,129.
This decrease, though chiefly the effect of legislative and
judical action, was not wholly so. By voluntary manumis
sions, the slave population must have been very essentially
diminished. Particularly must this have been the case in
Rhode Island, where the dimunition between 1776 and 1790,
an interval of only fourteen years, was from 4,370 to 932,
since the law of 1784 liberating only those who were born
after that time, could have operated only to a very limited
extent, in checking the increase of slave population. In
Pennsylvania, too, where legislation had only liberated those
born after 1780, we find the decrease of slaves between the
years 1776 and 1790, to have been from 10,000 to 3,737.
Church action, rather than legislative or judicial, is to be
credited with these manumissions in Pennsylvania and Rhode
Island. It is somewhat remarkable that South Carolina, between
1776 and 1790, exhibits a decrease of slave population, from
110,000 to 107,094, while the slaves of New York, in the
same time, increased from 15,000 to 21,324. But the num
ber of slaves in S. Carolina had increased, in 1840, to
327,038. The increase of slavery in the Southern States, presents a
striking contrast to the decrease in the Northern and Eastern
States. In 1776 the number of slaves in these is computed at
456,000. In 1790, by census, it was, 567,527. In 1840, it
was 2,486,126, including the District of Columbia.
Thus, while in one part of the country, the slave population
increased from less than half a million to nearly two and a
half millions, in another part of the country it was diminished
from above 46,000 to a little more than 1,100.
This diminution, whether in the form of voluntary manu
missions, or in consequence of legislative or judicial action,
may be traced, almost entirely, to the moral, religious and
political influences, exhibited in this and the preceding
chapters. But for these, the eastern, middle, and north-western

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 117
States — in despite of all that has been said of soil and climate
— would probably have been overspread with the foul stain
and the blighting curse of slaveholding. It was the prevail
ing moral sentiment of the North that led to the abolition of
slavery there. This is manifest from the fact that the eman
cipated slaves and their children, are for the most part, still to
be found at the North. They were not, in anticipation of
emancipation acts, exported to other States, to any observable
extent. "When, in 1827, ten thousand slaves were, in one day, set
free, in the State of New York, they remained on the soil,
and it is not known that a single slave had been sold into
another State, in anticipation of that long expected event.
Transportation has never been made, in these States, a condi
tion of freedom ; nor, until after the organization of the
Colonization Society, was their removal sought as an advantage
to the communities in which they resided.

118 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTER XI.
DECLINE OF THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY, AND GROWTH OF SLAVERY,
SINCE THE REVOLUTION — THEIR CAUSES AND EARLY MANI
FESTATIONS.
Importance of tracing disastrous social changes to their moral causes — Promises
made in adversity forgotten in prosperity— View of Dr. Hopkins — A humiliating
fact — Partial revival of the Slave Trade — Fallacy of expecting to abolish the traffic
during the existence of Slavery — The strategy of postponement — General decline
of Religion and Morals — Disbanding of the Army — Habits of idleness, and ten
dency to Piracy and Slave Trade — Relaxation of vigilance — Decline of. public
spirit — Vicissitudes of poverty and returning wealth — Concentration and control
of capital — Anti-Democratic Conservatism, and semi-infidel French Democracy—
The two rival parties — Misunderstood "horrors of St. Domingo" — Unforeseen
profitableness of cotton-growing — Unequal apportionment of representation-
Declining standard of moralsjn the Church — Rivalry of the Sects — Growing pre
judice against color — Influence of the Colonization project — Fatal fostering of
this prejudice — corroborated by estimate of Henry Clay.
The study of history is like a journey, or an exploring tour,
in the course of which, cheering prospects are sometimes
unexpectedly succeeded by scenes less promising, but
necessary to be traversed, or the proposed end is not reached.
If we would faithfully explore a country, we must not con
fine our attention to the pleasant portions of it. If we
would improve it, we must acquaint ourselves with the
unseemly features and untoward influences to be removed
or remedied. If fields once fertile are becoming sterile,
we must learn under what modes of tillage they have become
so. If the buildings just erected and yet unfinished, are
beginning to crumble, we must inquire after the nature of the
materials, and the process of the structure.
The marked decline of the spirit of liberty in this country
for half a century after the Revolution, is a fact too palpable

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 119
to . escape notice. Between the historical details of the last
three chapters, and those that must appear in the following,
there will be found, we fear, a chasm too wide and abrupt to
comport with the ordinary vicissitudes of credible history.
To the reader, of another country, or a future age, we shall
appear to have been writing fiction, and even the verity of the
public documents cited, will scarcely escape suspicion. But
"truth is stranger than fiction." The details to be presented
will appear credible enough when we shall have become con
versant with the moral causes at work beforehand, adapted to
the production of them. To the reader who never stops to J
inquire after moral causes, or who reads on, without keeping
them steadily in mind, the perusal of history can be of little
value. It can supply him with no guide to the future, no
element of congruity for the past. Such causes constitute, in
reality, the most essential ingredient of true history. They
are facts, at wholesale, fountains of facts, from whence all
minor facts flow. Vfe make no digression, then, in stating
them. We cannot promise a complete enumeration of all
these causes. We may not be able, always, to distinguish
causes from effects, nor to designate the precise point, in the
history, where the defection began, nor decide positively what
portion of the body politic was first corrupted, or first became
corrupting. But we can note down a few general facts.
1. We shall first venture to suggest, that the regard for
human liberty, and the opposition to the slave trade and
slavery, that were manifested during the revolutionary period
may have failed to prove permanent and abiding, because, in
respect to great numbers of the people, including some promi
nent citizens, those sentiments were not as deep seated and as
disinterested as they should have been, and therefore a change
in the aspect of public affairs would naturally bring with it a
change in the manifestation of such sentiments. To suppose
otherwise would be to suppose an unprecedented purity of
purpose, of which no other nation has yet furnished a parallel.
This suggestion does not discredit the fact of an actual declen
sion. It only indicates one of the causes of it. Without any

120 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
previous tendency to declension, other causes would have had
little power.
It is easy to see; that, in many ways, the revolutionary pe
riod presented peculiar inducements to the abolition of .the
slave trade and slavery. To fight for their own liberties while
enslaving others, was an incongruity too glaring to consist
with national reputation, or with intelligent self-respect. Like
all other men, in times of pressing danger and sore calamity,
our fathers might make solemn promises of amendment, which
wouldbe liable to be forgotten and disregarded, on the return of
security and peace. The fear of an insurrection of the slaves,
or of their desertion to the enemy, in time of war, might pre
sent an argument in favor of their' emancipation, that would
influence many minds, until the danger had passed away.
. Such, indeed, was the fact. A note of Dr. Hopkins to his
Dialogue, in 1776, will place this fact in a clear and impres
sive light.
" God is so ordering it, in his providence, that it seems absolutely neces
sary that something should speedily be done in respect to the slaves among
us, in order to our safety, and to prevent their turning against us, in our
present struggle, in order to get their liberty. Our oppressors have
planned to gain the blacks, and induce them to take up arms against us, by
promising them liberty on this condition ; and this plan they are prose
cuting to the utmost of their power, by which means they have persuaded
numbers to join them. And should we attempt to restrain them by force
and severity, keeping a strict guard over them, and punishing those severely
who shall be detected in attempting to join our opposers, this will be only
making bad worse, and serve to render our inconsistency and cruelty more
¦criminal, perspicuous, and shocking, and bring down the righteous ven
geance of heaven on our heads. The only way pointed out to prevent this
threatening evil, is to set the blacks at liberty ourselves, by some public act
and laws, and then give them encouragement to labor, or take up arms in
defence of the American cause, as they shall choose. This would, at once,
be doing them some degree of justice, and defeating our enemies in the
scheme they are prosecuting."
This wise and righteous counsel was not followed, but it is
impossible to tell how extensively the slaves were kept quiet,
by the public testimonies made in favor of their freedom, and
by the hopes thus inspired.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 121
In his Dialogue, Dr. Hopkins had insisted so strongly on
the tokens of divine displeasure hanging over the nation, on
account of this crying sin, that on the re-publication of the
work, after the return of peace, he thought it necessary, in an
Appendix, to notice the objection, that if slavery were so
great a national sin, as had been represented, Divine Provi
dence would not have favored the cause of America ; and
therefore, the representations that had been made of the dan
ger of defeat, in consequence of this wickedness and incon
sistency, had been unfounded and rash. One answer of Dr.
Hopkins to this objection, was, that " since the publication of
this dialogue, many things have been done and steps taken,
towards a reformation of this evil " — proceeding to enumerate,
(as we have before quoted,) the States that had either abol
ished slavery or taken measures in that direction. He adds,
that if these hopeful beginnings, commenced in times of afflic
tion, were not, followed up and completed in prosperity, we
may expect divine judgments, still. And here, he quotes as
applicable to this country, in such a case, that remarkable
passage in the prophecy of Jeremiah, Chapter 35, where it is
recorded that the king and 'princes of Judah, in a time of
siege and distress entered into a' solemn "resolution and cove
nant to free all their slaves" — but "when their fears and
distress were removed, they returned to their former practice,"
— for which God commissioned Jeremiah to tell them that
since they had " refused liberty to their brethren, he would
proclaim a liberty for them, even a most dreadful liberty to
the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine, and cause
them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth," &c.
The contrast between Hopkins and some of his successors,
in the same religious denomination in New England, who
have recently applauded the efforts of our most recreant poli
ticians to draw, still closer, the fetters of the enslaved, and to
punish those who shelter the outcasts, is too palpable and
glaring to escape observation : and the question forces itself
upon our attention, notwithstanding their technical agreement
in creeds and forms, whether teachers so opposite in their

122 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
practical expositions, should be regarded as teaching, in
reality, the same religion, and serving the same Master.
It is in the same connection, in that Appendix, that Dr.
Hopkins notices the pecuniary troubles and distresses that
still, at that time, (1785) embarrassed the country, and threat
ened its ruin, in evidence thatthe danger of divine judgments
had not yet disappeared. And as a reason for fearing yet
greater judgments, he proceeds to mention, what belongs to
this portion of our history, as an important, but painfully hu
miliating fact. Though the General Congress and the Colonies
or States had solemnly covenanted to discontinue the slave traf
fic, and had interdicted it, yet, by prominent and wealthy indi
viduals, it was now beginning, on the return of peace, to be
revived, and was not effectually suppressed by the authorities.
We will state this in the words of that celebrated author.
" We are again going into the practice of that seven-fold abomination,
the slave trade, against which, in the beginning of the war, we bore public
testimony, and entered into a united and solemn resolution wholly to re
nounce it, and all connection with those who should persist in this evil
practice. A number of vessels have been sent from some of the States in
New England, and other States, to Africa, to procure slaves, and they are
in such demand in the West Indies, and in some of the Southern States, and
especially South Carolina, that several successful voyages have been made,
thousands of slaves brought into these United States, and sold at extraor
dinary prices, by which others are tempted and encouraged to go into this
trade, and there is a prospect that it will take place to as great a degree as
it has heretofore, unless it should be suppressed by those in public authority,
or by the people at large."
The precise extent to which this infamous traffic was re
sumed, cannot now be ascertained. But there is reason to
think it was quite limited, until (as before stated) it was al
lowed by South Carolina, in 1803.
2. The experiment of putting a stop to the slave trade
during the existence of slavery— and the policy of attempting
to abolish either the one or the other, or both of them, by the
mere force of moral- suasion, without corresponding and ade
quate political action, was fully tried by the philanthropists
and patriots of the revolutionary period, and with a result

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 123
that should prove a caution to all their successors who may
be engaged in the cause of human freedom. To maintain
penal laws against any other forms of crime, and permit this
crime of crimes to go " unwhipt of justice," is a solecism in
legislation, in jurisprudence, and in civil polity, without a
parallel for inconsistency and folly. This capital error we put
down as one of the leading causes or outstanding signs of the
lamentable defection of this nation from the principles of civil
government they had marked out for themselves, in their
declaration of human rights, and their definition of the ob
jects and characteristics of a legitimate and just civil govern
ment. 3. " The ruse of gradualism " — the strategy of delay — the
contamination of temporary compromise, was another kindred
error, (if it may be called another) and the same with which
the friends of liberty have been frequently beset, and some
times foiled, in their more recent as well as more early en
deavors. 4. The general decline of pure religion and sound morality,
after the close of the revolutionary struggle, another fact com
monly noticed by the better portion of the community at that
period, was almost certain to include in it a decline of the
spirit of liberty, of a tender regard for human rights, and of
sensibility to the flagrant iniquities of the slave trade and
slavery. Though the war of the Revolution contributed, in many
respects, and with the better portion of society, to foster the
spirit of freedom ; yet, like other wars, it had its demoralizing
tendencies, and the disbanding of the army was the occasion
for the development of them. Not a few of the soldiers, and
some of the officers, had contracted a distaste for the habits
of sober and patient industry, in which they had, in earlier
life, been educated ; and, to a frightful extent, the spirit of
lawlessness and licentiousness had been mistaken for the spirit
of freedom. The spirit of gambling adventure, amid the
pecuniary fluctuations of that period, and the depreciation of
the continental paper currency, contributed its share to pro-

124 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
duce the recklessness, unscrupulousness, and hap-hazard ad
venture for which a considerable portion of that generation
were distinguished. The anti-slavery writings of a Hopkins
and an Edwards can hardly be supposed to have had much
effect upon this class of society, who had learned to cast off
their respect for moral and religious instructions and restraints
in general. The rapid inroads of intemperance, profanity,
and irreligion, were among the marked features of that period,
even in New England, as we learn from the testimonies of
such writers as Emmons. The class of the community just
alluded to, were ripe for any unlawful enterprise rather than
for patient, quiet rural labor. The slave trade, as well as
other forms of piracy, was not lacking for men of this class
to man its vessels, and even to take charge of them, as super
cargoes and captains. And in how many ways the character
istics of such an age would tend to strengthen and perpetuate
slavery, we need not stop to describe.
5. A general decline of the spirit of liberty succeeded to
the exhausting struggles of the Revolution, almost by a law of
the human mind, if we may adventure to say so, a process in
human affairs very difficult to be counteracted, except by the
most resolute and disinterested exertions. The one idea of
national independence, which had come to stand as the syno
nym of the idea of freedom, had so long held the mind of the
nation in an agony of attention and suspense, that when the
struggle was over, and the national independence acknow
ledged, it was taken for granted that the liberties of the nation
were secured. Even with the most philosophical and philan
thropic, a vague, indefinite, and ill-conceived impression of
the " spirit of the age " as it is called, that was to carry every
body onward and upward to the dignity of freemen, without
the exhausting cares, anxieties, and solicitudes of those who
had almost worn themselves out in the long struggle, had
operated as a .welcome furlough, or discharge from service.
When the army and the commander-in-chief were permitted
to retire from the public defence, why should not they ? The
human mind, so long and so intensely kept on the stretch,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 125
sought repose, and, unhappily, in this case, before the giant
despotism of the age had been vanquished. Even the strong-
minded and the keen-sighted failed to perceive this ! How
much more the masses of the people, whose vigilance and
combined efforts were then needed? Withdrawing their
attention too much from public affairs, they expended their
strength on their own personal and domestic concerns, that
now needed unusual care, after a season of comparative neg
lect. A people impoverished by a seven years' war, were
now to replenish their exhausted stores, and pay off their
public and private debts, at a time when the proportion of
producers had been diminished, first by the demands of the
war, and next, by the flood of idlers, or worse than idlers,
which had come with the return of peace. How easily would
most men excuse themselves from anti-slavery agitation at
such a period, to say nothing of an unwillingness to hazard,
afresh, at the close of a civil war, the amicable relations that
remained. In all this we see a cause, not an adequate excuse,
for the general apathy that succeeded to the revolutionary
struggle. The lesson for our instruction is,, the importance of
never relinquishing a contest for freedom, till it is thoroughly
secured, or of never yielding a moral controversy till it is
settled on the right basis.
6. When the private and the public purse were replenished,
when prosperity had succeeded to poverty, when wealth, at
the opening of the present century, rolled in upon the nation,
the former habits of disinterested or even of patriotic devotion
to public affairs and the interests of human freedom did not
return. The pursuit of wealth had begotten the inordinate
love of it. Inattention to the demands of liberty and justice
had resulted in the disregard of them. Inequality of posses
sion, continually increasing and in striking contrast to earlier
times, had undermined the spirit of equality, and introduced
aristocratic tastes. Humanity and human rights were less
valued than wealth. The concentration of capital created a
new element of political power, and diverted it from its former
channels. The possession of wealth, or of talents prostituted

126 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
to the support of its claims, instead of a disinterested advocacy
of human liberty and equal justice, supplied passports to seats
in the State and National Councils, to places of authority and
power. Here was another cause, and another step in the
downward tendencies of the nation ; the beginning of that
powerful aristocracy of wealth that afterwards openly opposed
the discussion of the slave question.
7. Earlier than this, and somewhat if not altogether dis
tinct from it in the first place, though afterwards learning to
combine with it, and becoming at length wholly absorbed in
it, and obliterated by it, was a more elevated aristocracy, (not
using the word in its most odious sense,) beginning to exhibit
itself almost immediately after the close of the revolutionary
struggle. In the effort to establish a national Constitution, to
organize a new general government, and to mark out a course
of national policy, this element became distinctly visible, It
might be described as the aristocracy of intellect, combined^
to a great extent, (though with some marked exceptions,)
with high moral worth, which, in the absence of numbers,
gave it, for a time, great weight and power. It was not so
much, if at all, an aristocracy of misanthropy or of gross sel
fishness, as of conscious superiority of intelligence and char
acter, and a distrust in the capacities of the mass of the people
for self-government. With a goodly share of the friends of
humanity and justice in its ranks, (the 'friends of the enslaved,)
seeking earnestly their future or ultimate freedom, it never
theless failed to yield its full assent to those self-evident truths
of the Declaration of Independence which must lie at the
basis of any consistent and thorough agitation for the present
removal of slavery. If the masses of the people could not
safely be intrusted with the experiment of self-government,
as this class of statesmen seem to' have supposed, it would
have been the consummation of folly and madness to have
set the slaves all loose, at once,.without any previous prepar
ation for freedom. Even the professedly democratic portion
of .our public men were, by no means, prepared to apply their
principles to the case of the unlettered and uncultivated.negro

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 127
population, though they were willing to hazard the experi
ment with the more favored and better educated whites.
Was it to be expected, then, of those who trembled at the
experiment of republican institutions even for the educated
yeomanry of New England, without the protecting shadow of
a royal throne, or its equivalent in some form — those who
sought to restrict as much as possible the right of suffrage,
making property the evidence of qualification ; those who
sought for balances and checks against the people, and the
placing of the highest officers of government at the greatest
practicable distance from their control — was it to be expected,
we demand, of such a school of statesmen, that they should
signalize themselves by demanding the immediate and uncon
ditional emancipation of the enslaved ? Most assuredly it was
not. And no such anomaly was witnessed. Admit that they
embodied a majority of the most intelligent, respectable, phil
anthropic, and religious portion of the community, as has
been plausibly, and perhaps justly, claimed for them — admit
that among their prominent men were some of the most pro
minent and worthy patrons of manumission, and even of aboli
tion societies — admit that they favored the circulation of the
more radical and truly democratic anti-slavery doctrines of
Hopkins and Edwards* — it nevertheless remains true that no
prominent statesman of this class, (nor even of their more
democratic opponents,) proposed an immediate and uncondi
tional abolition of slavery. The democratic theory of human
rights and corresponding capabilities, was not then sufficiently
understood, to warrant such a movement. We mention this
as an indisputable and important historical fact — not for any
purposes of invidious reproach. If the best friends of the en
slaved among our purest and most prominent statesmen were
not ready to demand for them immediate, justice, then their
continued enslavement was a matter of course, until the rise

* Wo cannot say that Hopkins, and Edwards were not both identified, in their
political influence, as most of their clerical associates were, with the sohool of poli
tics we have described. It would be remarkable if they were not. But their
writings on slavery aro among the most radically democratio of their times.

128 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
and ascendency ofthe slave power riveted their chains. The
fact and philosophy of gradualism, and consequent postpone
ment, has, in part, its historical elucidation just here.
Fidelity to historical truth compels us to add, that the class
of statesmen just described exerted a powerful influence in
moulding the Federal Constitution ; that they distinguished
themselves and obtained their political name, as Federalists, by
advocating its adoption ; that the administration of the Federal
Government, on its first organization, came into their hands ;
that they administered it for the first twelve years, during
which time the national policy was gradually but substantially
settled upon the basis upon which it has been administered
ever since,* so far as the slave question is concerned, only that
the exorbitant demands of the slave power have been con
stantly " growing with its growth, and strengthening with its
strength." Impartiality requires us to notice these facts concerning the
Federal party while in power, as the Democratic party so
called, is justly obnoxious to the charge of violating, even
more conspicuously and outrageously, the free principles of
which they boast, during their much longer administration of
the government in after years.
The want of a thorough, consistent, and Christian demo
cracy, therefore, is distinctly visible in the origin and continu
ation of the pro-slavery policy of the national government,
and to this fact, as to a comprehensive cause, the present
ascendency of the slave power may be traced. Had the
" Federalists " been more "democratic in their theory of civil
government — had the "Democrats" (or "Republicans," as
they were then called) reduced their own theory to practice,!

* Facts, in evidence of this, will be adduced in the proper connection of the
history. t Having never belonged to either of those parties, nor voted more than twice or
thrice before tho formation of the Liberty'party in 1840, (though an attentive wit
ness of party struggles since 1804,) the writor hoped to have presented a picture
whioh would have been admitted by all the intelligent friends of liberty to bo a jost
and impartial one. But on submitting his manuscript to the inspection of judicious
friends, he finds his mistake. He now makes up his mind that some good men of

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 129
the system of American slavery would have been abolished
at an early period of our history.
8. In close connection with the preceding facts, it should
be noticed that the excesses of the first French Revolution,
commencing soon after our Federal Government went into
operation, must have contributed largely, as we know it did,
to bring democratic principles into disrepute, to increase and
fortify the jealousies and fears of conservatists, and confirm
the impression of insecurity to life, to property, and to civil
order, if large masses of men should at once be released from
absolute control. If millions of educated and polished French
men could not be transferred at once from a state of mere polit
ical servility to a state of civil and political freedom, without
becoming fired with the frenzy of demons, abjuring all the
restraints of religion, subverting the state, proscribing the
church, engulfing society and property in the wildest chaos
of disorder ; drenching the land with blood, and exterminat
ing each other by the rapid succession and violent proscrip
tion of rival factions, how could it be thought safe or prudent
to release suddenly from a state of still deeper degradation a
more ignorant population of slaves ? Thus it must have been
that men reasoned, especially that portion of them whose pre
vious jealousy of popular ascendency had been so unequivo
cally manifested, who looked upon these trans-atlantic devel
opments with unmingled horror, and pointed to them as
evidences in confirmation of their predictions. Even the
most sanguine and democratic among our American statesmen,
and those who had most joyfully hailed the dawn of liberty
in France, were compelled, though reluctantly, at length to
join in the general condemnation of such excesses, and to feel
if they could not re-echo the appeals now so eloquently made
opposite parties will think him unjust to their party. No course seems to remain
for him but the expression of his own convictions. He has no desire nor temptation
to follow the bad custom of abusing the obsolete Federal party, the representative
of a former age. A more honest and patriotic party never administered the govern
ment. We have only attributed to it a defective theory, consistently followed  a
less reprehensible error than that of its opponent, tbe holding of a better theory in
abeyance, for the sake of pro-slavery support and the spoils of office.
9

130 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
concerning the dangers of such freedom. If a conclusion
adverse to the sudden emancipation of the slaves was not
logically deduced and propounded in the form of a syllogism,
the impression must have been effectually made. The horrors
of the French Revolution, like the perverted story of " the
horrors of St. Domingo,"* some time afterwards, have ever
since been on the lips of the conservators of slavery. So late
as the beginning of the present anti-slavery agitation, in 1833,
the "reign of terror" in France, and "the horrors of St.
Domingo," were successfully adverted to by opposers ; and
the doctrines of immediate and unconditional emancipation,
as taught by Edwards, were systematically confounded with
the " Jacobinism of the first French Revolution " — a misre
presentation less excusable now, than during the dimness and
confusion near the close of the last century.
- 9. This untoward influence of the French Revolution was
increased by the undeniable fact, that a leaven of the French
infidelity, and the maxims of disorganization, had insinuated
themselves into the ranks of the democratic party in this
country, and appeared to find favor with some of the popular
leaders of that school, some of whom had advocated slave
emancipation. The cry of the French atheists — " No mon
arch in heaven, no monarch on earth, " if not re-echoed in this

* The story of St. Domingo, correctly told, gives no countenance to the idea of
the dangers of emancipation. The first act in the tragedy of horror, was before
emancipation had been proposed. The abolition of slavery, some time after, took
place quietly, and was followed by years of good order tod prosperity. It was the
perfidious attempt of Napoleon, after all this, to subjugate the island, and re-enslave
the colored inhabitants, that opened the second scene of the tragedy, which was
indeed enacted in blood, and drove the surviving whites from the island. The
danger of slavery, not oi freedom, is the only legitimate inference from this history.
The horrors of the French Revolution, too, in like manner, are to bo charged
mainly upon the corruption in the Church and the despotism in the State, that
seduced the French philosophers into atheism, and drove the populace to despera
tion. And then it was but a counterfeit of true democraoy that was introduced,
and holding no nearer affinity to it than the corrupted Christianity of Franco had
held to the Christianity of Christ. In fact, the anarchy that was misnamed liberty,
was only a reproduction of the old despotisms in another form, trampling all the
inalienable rights of humanity under foot, and resulting in a settled military despot
ism in the end.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 131
country, was listened to by many without marked disfavor.
The violent overthrow of a corrupt and oppressive Church in
France, had involved along with it the open repudiation of
Christianity and the Bible, and had suggested the idea of
the overthrow of all churches. Thomas Paine, a leading
democratic writer of this country during the Revolution, and
the intimate friend of Thomas Jefferson, came home from a
sojourn in France, deeply imbued with these sentiments, and
found kindred spirits here, where his infidel writings had pre
ceded him.
In the ranks of this school might be numbered not a few
of that class of American revolutionists, before noticed, whose
influence and example, like Paine's,* were not on the side of
morality and social order, and who could not have contributed,
had they been thus disposed (as very many of them were not)
to any healthful or hopeful enterprise for slave emancipation.
Had any thing been desired or aUtemptedf in that direction, by
the party absorbing this class of influences, and coming into
power with Mr. Jefferson, in 1801, it is not improbable that
the cry against them, of " infidelity, anarchy, and bloodshed "
would have been, if possible, redoubled. That the opposite
* Paine was an advocate of the abolition of slavery, and as clerk of the Pennsyl
vania House of Assembly, affixed his signature to the act of prospective
emancipation in that State. The infidel principles and lax morals of Paine occa
sioned much prejudice against his doctrine of the " rights of man."
t There is no evidence that the Democratic or Republican party, at any period,
was inclined to abolish slavery. Among all the loud and bitter complaints raised by
them against the alleged despotic tendencies of the Federal party, its support of
slavery was never mentioned. And among all the democratic measures proposed
by Mr. Jefferson while in office, the abolition. of slavery was not one. His own
eloquent writings against slavery could not persuade him to emancipate (as Washing
ton had done) his own slaves. The early identification of a majority of leading
slaveholders with the Democratic party, and the steady control of that party by
them, ever since, has always been a great puzzle and a great stumbling-block, in the
way pf Democratic progress.
The historical solution seems to be, that Northern talent and Northern capital (the
natural rivals of Southern talent and capital) had committed themselves against the
democratic theory. The only way to "get up an issue" was to espouse the theory,
but blink the particular application to slavery, with the double advantage of neutral
izing and disarming the hostile principle. And if democratic ¦ measures favored
labor, the slaveholder adroitly stood in the place of the Southern laborer, and might'
count on the co-operation of the Northern laborer.

132 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
party, while in power, under Washington and Adams, and
amid the opposition they encountered, and the jealousies, the
panic, and the confusion of that singular crisis, should have
attempted anything so radically democratic and unprecedented
as the sudden emancipation of all the slaves, most assuredly
was not to have been expected. We say nothing in excuse
of the derelictions of either of these parties, nor in peculiar or
exclusive reproach of either of them, but we think it impor
tant to present a true and impartial account of the facts of
that period, that the causes of our present unhappy position
may be understood, and avoided in future. A Christianity
crippled by an alliance with even the most pure and elevated
description of aristocracy, is incompetent to the task of secur
ing human freedom. A democracy, or a philanthropy, how
ever ardent and radical, that is not based upon the Christianity
of the Bible, is equally impotent, for the same sublime mis
sion.* 10. Among the influences tending strongly to bribe the pub
lic sentiment, and change the political tendencies of the coun
try, especially at the South, on the slave question, have been
justly reckoned the increased and unforeseen' profitableness of
slave labor, in consequence of the invention of the cotton-gin,
by Mr. Whitney. Of the reasons which had operated to pro
duce the conviction, during the revolutionary period, that
slavery was a waning system that must soon be abandoned,
the unprofitableness of slave labor was doubtless, in many
minds, a leading one. This economical view of the subject
must have become the more prominent as the moral influences
and the generous enthusiasm of the revolutionary period gave
place to plans of individual thrift and accumulation. Then it
was that the blighting influences of slavery must have begun
to be felt ; but a wonderful change was at hand, the almost
magical result of a labor-saving machine, in the hands, not of

* It belongs to u later period of the history of the parties to remark, that the
rival aristocracies of the North and South, throwing the Federal party and ita suc
cessors into the embraces of the one, and the Democratio into the hands of the
other, have effeotually prevented the abolition of slavery.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 133
the laborer himself, but of the capitalist who controlled him,
and appropriated the avails of his labor. And thus, at the
very moment when the more worthy and noble considerations
in favor of liberty had almost ceased to occupy the slavehold
er's attention, the most powerful temptations were presented
to his cupidity and avarice. Under this temptation, he fell.
And the policy of the national government was, in conse
quence, changed. On this point, we present the testimony of
two statesmen holding opposite views, in general, of the slave
question. " What, then, have been the causes which have created so new a feeling
in favor of slavery in the South — which have changed the whole nomen
clature of the South on the subject — and from being thought of and de
scribed in the terms I have mentioned and will not repeat, it has now
become an institution, a, cherished institution there ; no evil, no scourge,
but a great religious, social, and moral blessing, as I think I have heard it
latterly described . I suppose this, sir, is owing to the sudden uprising and
rapid growth of the cotton plantations of the South. #****•#
The tables will show that the exports of cotton for the years 1790 and 1791
were hardly more than forty or fifty thousand dollars a year. It has gone
on increasing rapidly until it may now be, perhaps, in a season of greaj;
product and high prices, a hundred millions of dollars. Then there was
more of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, more of almost everything
exported from the South than of cotton. I think I have heard it said, when
Mr. Jay negotiated the treaty of 1794 with England, he did not know that
cotton was exported at all from the United States ; and I have heard it said
that, after the treaty which gave to the United States the right to carry
their own commodities to England in their own ships, the custom-house in
London refused to admit cotton, upon an allegation that it could not be an
American production, there being, as they supposed, no cotton raised in
America. They would hardly think so now."— rSpeecA of D. Webster,
U. S. Senate, March 7, 1850.
" Unhappily, the original policy of the Government and the original prin
ciples of the Government in respect to slavery, did not permanently control
its action. A change occurred — almost imperceptible at first, but becoming
more and more marked and decided, until nearly total. The Honorable
Senator from Massachusetts, in the course of his late speech, noticed this
change, and ascribed it to the rapid increase in the production of cotton.
Doutless, sir, this was a leading cause. The production of cotton, in con
sequence of the invention of the cotton-gin, increased from 487,600 pounds
in 1793, to 6,276,300 pounds in 1796, and continued to increase very rapidly

134 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
afterwards. Of course the market value of slaves advaneed, and masters
were less inclined to emancipation." — Speech of S. P. Chase, U. S. Senate,
March 26, 1850.
When the cotton manufacture of the North came to engross
so great an amount of northern capital, a bond of affinity be
tween northern and southern capitalists was created, which at
length, has almost indissolubly interwoven the Eastern States
in the web of the slave power. If anything is to be done to
disentangle or cut the threads, it must be done soon.
11. There is yet another cause to be mentioned, that oper
ates, perhaps, still more strongly to attach the slaveholders to
their present system, and bind the North to their car. Except
to the growers of cotton and those who raise human herds,
further north, to sell to them,' the slave system, even now, is
not a pecuniary benefit to the slaveholder. Though many indi
viduals are enriching themselves by the system, the southern
country, on the whole, is becoming impoverished by it. But
there is, at the South, a still more potent passion than the
love of wealth. It is the lust of political power, and slavery
has always been an element of political power to the slave
holders in the Southern States. Though frequently, if not
commonly, a minority, in the different States, (counting
slaves, free colored persons, and non-slaveholding whites,) the
slaveholders have always held the political power of the slave
States in their own hands, and may calculate upon doing this
while the slave system continues. Since the adoption of the
Federal Constitution, in 1789, slavery has also become an all-
controlling element of political power in this nation, in the
hands of an oligarchy of slaveholders. This element, at first,
was scarcely perceived. It originated in that provision of the
Constitution which gives to the South a representation for
their slaves, in the apportionment of representatives, and in
the election of President and Vice President of the United
States. A perception of this advantage has taught the slave
holders to regard the slave system as the grand instrument of
their political ascendency in the nation. It has taught politi
cal aspirants at the North to become sycophantic and servile.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 135
These joint influences, like the upper and nether mill-stone,
are rapidly grinding to powder the last hopes of American
freedom, unless the remedy be promptly applied by the reso
lute withdrawal of votes from slaveholders and their syco
phants. The federal patronage, and the national policy, in
the hands of slavery, have been found too powerful for the
remaining energies of freedom. These advantages remaining
with the slave power, the nation becomes enslaved.
12. Of all the causes or indications, in that period, of a decline
of the spirit of liberty, and of a corresponding resuscitation of
the once waning system of slavery, there was none more com
prehensive, more significant, or more influential than the
changed spirit and position of the Church.
Not one of the causes or indications already enumerated,
has failed to affect, most injuriously, the character and the
influence of the Church, and when the weight of the Church
itself came to be thrown into the scale of slavery, each one of
the causes or indications connected with the transition could
not fail to receive fresh accessions of strength ; and, by being
combined in the bosom of the Church, consolidating and
intrenching themselves there, with a compactness and solidity
unknown before, they have rendered themselves almost im
pregnable, ever since.
In speaking of this transition of the Church, we do not for
get that the Church had not, at any period, divorced herself
wholly from slavery, nor even, as a whole, taken the ground
of immediate and uncompromising action on the subject.
The doctrine of " gradual" repentance, resulting, in part, from
the defective theologies then commonly in vogue, and which
rejected the idea of sudden moral transformations, was the
fatal error of the Church, and from her it had been imbibed
by the best statesmen of the age, nurtured and taught in her
bosom. But we speak of the transition of the Church as we do of
the corresponding transition of the State. We give both
bodies the credit of no small degree of earnestness and hon
esty, in their opposition to slavery during the revolutionary

136 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
period, though they failed of applying promptly the appro
priate remedy, in its proper form. The transition of which we
speak was from this state of honest opposition to slavery and
incipient though dilatory action against it, to a state of
comparative apathy, first ; of a quiescence, next ; and finally,
of apology, of biblical defence, and of opposition to all earnest
endeavors to diffuse information on the subject, and to array
a public sentiment. against slavery.
When the external pressures, and the special dangers inci
dent to the slave system, during the war, were removed from
the community by the return of peace, they were removed also
from the Church. The Church, too, as well as the world, for
got her solemn resolutions, in the hour of distress, to put away
this iniquity from her bosom. When philanthropists content
ed themselves with mere moral suasion, without demanding
distinct and effective legislation on the subject, they acted
upon maxims they had imbibed in the Church ; a Church that
neglected to preach the religious duty of political justice in
"delivering the spoiled out of the hands of the oppressor,"
and " executing judgment between a man and his neighbor."
When projects of gradualism deceived the friends of the op
pressed, it was because the Church had taught the doctrines
of gradualism rather than those of immediate and uncon
ditional compliance with all. the divine precepts. When the
moral reformers of those tifhes consented to moral compro
mises, they were kept in countenance by the corresponding
policy of the Church, from which they had received, directly
or indirectly, their moral education, and of which the greater
part of them were members. The general decline of pure
religion and sound morality after the Revolution, is known
to have affected, very seriously, the Church, and it was the
testimony and the complaint of her most vigilant watchmen,
that her standard of morality, and the efficacy of her discipline
could not be restored to their former state. How evidently
and how disastrously must such a fact have affected the posi
tion of the Church on the slave question ! And how notori
ously have these manifestations been increasing ever sincel

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 137
Even revivals of religion have done little towards restoring
the ancient standard of morals. The moral duties have been
less insisted on from the pulpit, and the religion revived and
propagated in times of religious awakening, has been common
ly of a corresponding type, till the idea that ministers and
churches must not meddle with political sins, has grown up
into theories concerning " organic sins," that would have
astonished our fathers.
The general decline of the spirit of liberty that was
witnessed in the community, was witnessed also in the
Church, and the same moral lethargy and stupor came over
them both. The influx of wealth, the erection of castes and
aristocracies in society, that displaced simplicity and equality
in the State, produced similar effects in the Church.
Especially was it true that the more elevated aristocracy of
intelligence, of character, and of spiritual pride, that led
prominent statesmen to distrust their fellow-citizens in the
exercise of their God-given rights, found its home and its
sanctuary in the high places of the Church and the ministry,
by whom the policy of those statesmen was most earnestly
and effectively sustained. By these, in an especial manner,
were the horrors of the French Revolution so exhibited as to
teach the danger of according to human beings, as such, the
exercise of essential human rights. However honest may
have been the error, and however plausibly maintained, it was
none the less to be deplored. The unexpected profitableness
of slave labor in the production of cotton was a temptation to
the Church, as well as to the rest of the community, and with
the rest of the community the Southern Church fell into the
snare. And the profitableness of the cotton manufacture at
the North, and the consequent sympathy of the manufacturer
with the planter, has influenced the Northern Church, not ex
cepting the Society of Friends, as really (if not as universally)
as it has the rest of the community. The same may be
said of the temptations of ambition, connected with this
anomalous element of political power, and among our most

138 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
supple and obsequious politicians, are .honored and even
devout members of the Church. , ,
So that all the elements and causes of declension, in respect
to the treatment of slavery, that have appeared and operated
in the body politic, have appeared and operated likewise in
the Church. There they have become concentrated, ihere they
have been strengthened, there, above all, they have been
baptized "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost" — have been seated at the communion
table, have been elevated into the pulpit, have been installed
trustees and professors of Colleges and Theological Seminaries ;
have been made managers and life members of Bible, Tract;
and Missionary Societies, have shaped the course of ecclesi
astical bodies, and revised and controlled the discipline of the
Church. Besides all this, the Church has seemed to embody elements
of deterioration peculiarly her own. Her divisions into rival
sects and theological schools have ensnared her; she has
compromised her christian principles, has neutralized, or with
drawn her testimony, and has faltered in her administration
of discipline, to gain strength and numbers wherewith to carry
on schismatic and polemic wars within her own bosom!
When the Methodist testimonies against slavery were found
to stand in the way of the comparative growth and prospective
ascendency of the Methodist sect, then the severity of
Methodist discipline against slavery must be relaxed (so we
have been told by the apologists of that policy) to propitiate.
the favor of slaveholders. In the same way, and for the same
object, the testimonies of the Presbyterian sect against slavery
must be rendered a dead letter, and the most pointed of them
at length, expunged. The unity and extension of the sect,
and the harmony of its ecclesiastical action throughout the
country, must not be disturbed by any agitation of the exci
ting question. The cry of " peace, peace," must drown the
voice of remonstrance against the crying sin of the Church.
And thus the Church becomes a privileged body, the mem-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 139
bers of which appear to claim peculiar exemption from
reproof for their sins.
13. There is still another and a most potent element and
evidence of deterioration, on this subject, that we know not
how to treat of, as its magnitude and its meanness demand.
Whenever we attempt to speak or write upon it, we feel our
cheeks burning with indignation and shame. We know not
how or in what terms to describe it, to what origin to trace it,
or by what considerations to attempt to dislodge it from the
minds of sane men. From its flat contradiction of the Bible,
we should characterize it as decidedly of infidel parentage, yet
we find it nestling in the bosom of the Church. From its
unaecountableness, we should describe it by the names of
hypocrisy and pretence, did not its malignity prove its
sincerity and reality. Were it less murderous and less
blasphemous, we might laugh at it ; were it less ludicrous*, we
might reason against it; were it less mean, we could enter
the lists against it, as an object of honorable warfare. We
should attribute it to sheer vulgarity and ignorance (where
we find it signally at home) but that we meet with it also in
circles claiming refinement and learning. We allude to the
infatuation that virtually predicates humanity upon the hue
of the skin, that disbelieves that " God had made of one blood
all nations of men," that arrogates to less than one-sixth part
of the human race the exclusive monopoly of our common
humanity, that thus falsifies the self-evident truths of our
Declaration of Independence, and sets up, in the temples of
Jehovah, the monuments of heathen caste.
Existing in and controlling both the community and the
Church, this prejudice should have been noticed, earlier in our
enumeration of evil influences, but it seems not to have
attained its gigantic growth till the united energies of a lapsed
Church and State had first provided for it, new methods of
culture. We do not say that the Colonization Society
organized in 1816, created this prejudice, for without such a
prejudice the idea of colonizing a portion of our citizens on
the ground of their color could not have been conceived.

140 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
But we do say that the existence and operations of that
Society, have more than quadrupled the strength and the
extent of that prejudice, in a few brief years. It is a prejudice
stronger at the North than at the South, because the two
colors do not come so constantly in contact. Yet, at the
North, it had scarcely made its appearance in common schools
and worshiping assemblies, at the beginning of the present
century, as many can testify.
The Maryland laws, before quoted, forbidding white women
to marry negroes, simply for the reason stated, that the latter
were slaves, afford sufficient proof of the modern date of this
prejudice, and of its origin in the slave system.
In countries not familiarized with a population of colored
slaves, (as in Russia and Poland, where the serfs are all
whites,) the prejudice against colored people is unknown, and
its existence among us is there discredited, or considered an
inexplicable phenomenon. In France, in England, in Ger
many, and throughout all Europe, though the Jews are a
degraded caste, the educated negro has free- access, and on
terms of unquestioned equality, to the very highest circles of
society. It is reserved to a nation pluming itself upon being
the world's teacher of the doctrine of human equality, to deny
the common courtesies of life, along with the essential rights
of humanity, to a large part of the human species, (to the very
race first proficient in literature and civilization,) on account
of their color! Thus do we invite and merit a world's scorn !
Were it not for this stupid prejudice against color, the
sceptre of the slaveholding oligarchy would drop powerless,
at once, and the nation would be disenthralled. Sustained by
this debasing prejudice, its supremacy must remain unbroken,
and the nation must be enslaved. Slavery knows no color. —
" In the progress of time, some one hundred and fifty or two
hundred years hence, but few vestiges of the black race will
remain among our posterity." So says Henry Clay,* and the
* Speech of Henry Clay, in the U. S. Senate, in 1889. In tbis speech Mr. Clay
urged arguments against " emancipation, immediate or gradual." " The first imped
iment, is the absolute want of power in the Federal Government to effect the

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 141
constant and rapid blending of colors at the South justifies
the estimate. But the bleaching process removes not the taint
of slavery. The child of the slave mother follows her condi
tion. Persons of the whitest complexion are already held as

purpose." " The next obstacle in the way of abolition arises out of the fact of the
presence, in the Slave States, of three millions of slaves. No practical scheme for
their removal or separation from us, has yet been devised or proposed." [The
Colonization scheme, then, is moi "practical."] "The third impediment to imme
diate abolition, is to be found in the immense amount of capital which is invested in
slave property." "The total value of slave property then, by estimate, in the United
States, is twelve hundred millions of dollars. And now it is rashly proposed, by a
single fiat of legislation, to annihilate this immense amount of property ! To anni
hilate it without indemnity, and without compensation to the owners." " I know
there is a visionary dogma which holds that negro slaves cannot be the subject of
property : I shall not dwell long on the speculative abstraction. That is property
which the law declares to be property. Two hundred years of legislation have sanc
tified and sanctioned negro slaves as property." " It is frequently asked, What is
to become ofthe African race among us ? Are they forever to remain in bondage ?"
* *• » "Taking the aggregate ofthe two races, the European is constantly,
though slowly, gaming on the African portion. In the progress of time, some one
hundred and fifty or two hundred years hence, but few vestiges of the black race
will remain among our posterity."
The speech will repay close study. In no part of it does Mr. Clay intimate a
future abolition of slavery. The " impediments" he urges will not diminish. The
limited powers of the Federal Government — the sanction of centuries of legislation
—the impossibility of separation or removal — the appalling amount of property
invested— all these, except the first item, must increase. Neither does Mr. Clay pre
dict the future extinction of slaveky, but only the disappearance of the " black race
from among omi posterity !" The language is exceedingly guarded, and oommend-
ably accurate. Mr. Clay knows that the slave population, like the free, are increasing
in a geometrical ratio. And that, if it be true that the free (or as he has it, the
European portion) are gaining a little more rapidly, this does not alter the fact of the
rapid increase of slaves, whatever their color may be. Indisputably it is the process
of amalgamation, and nothing else, that lays the foundation for the estimate that one
hundred and fifty or two hundred years will " leave but few vestiges of the black
race AMoNaour posterity !" Neither the " Blaves" nor the " blacks" are diminishing
by depopulation, like the Indians and the Sandwich Islanders. The reverse is the
known fact. Mr. Clay's remedy for the "bondage of the African race" is mani
festly a future enslavement of a vastly greater number of" our posterity," " AMONG"
whom will remain " but few vestiges of the black race in one hundred and fifty or
two hundred years."
Gov. MoDuffie, of South Carolina, had declared a laboring community, " bleached
or unbleached," " a dangerous element in the body politic." He had anticipated
their enslavement, in the Northern States, in "less than a quarter of a century."
To Mr. Clay it was reserved to intimate a respite of one hundred and fifty or two
hundred years, showing how it must then be inevitably introduced, by causes
already in operation, and fortified by formidable " obstacles" and " impediments" in

142 . GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
slaves — fugitives are thus described in advertisements, hunted,
captured at the North, and taken back again. And it is
known that, in some cases, white persons have been kidnapped
who had no African blood in their veins.
To this point, then, at length, our declension has reached.
We hesitate to give up the insane prejudice that supports
slavery, though told never so plainly, and from the best
authority, that the consequence must be the loss of our own
liberties — the enslavement of our own children ! Nay, while
we hear it proclaimed from the loftiest battlements of slave-
dom, that " the noblest blood of Virginia," th?- noblest blood
of our revolutionary sires, runs in the veins of slaves.*
the way of their removal. Those "obstacles" and "impediments" present tho
problem for the laboring people of the free States. Unless overcome, the prophecy
of Mr. Clay must become history. There is no possible or conceivable alternative.
Let the people banish prejudice against color, and all Mr. Clay's "impediments" and
" obstacles" would vanish in twenty-four hours.
* It has been credibly reported, over the signatures of respectable citizens, that a
reputed daughter of Thomas Jefferson has been seen exposed for sale at auction in
New Orleans, as a slave. The known usages of slavery in America are suoh as to
render the statement a highly probable one. It is also said that a grand-daughter of
Mr. Jefferson is among the colonists of Liberia. The statement, along with the fol
lowing, is from a communication in " Frederick Douglass' paper" for March 25, 1852:
" I have heard from an eye witness, that on more than one occasion, when the sage
of Monticello left that retreat for the Presidential abode at Washington, there would
be on the top of the same coach a yellow boy 'running away.' And when" told
that one of his Blaves was going off without leave, Jefferson said, ' Well, let him go,
his right is as good as his father's 1' And, somehow, that boy would get a dooeur
before the ' parting of the ways.' "

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 143

CHAPTER XII.
POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES RESPECTING SLAVERY
DURING THE FIRST HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
I. — METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
General Conference of 1801 — do. of 1886 — Contrast with 1797-3_eading Ministers —
Prof. E. D. Sims— Dr. S. Olin— Pres. Thornton— Bishop Soule— Dr. Bond— Pres.
Fiske — Bishop Hedding — Refusal to put to vote Anti-Slavery Resolutions in Con
ference — Georgia Annual Conference — S. Carolina Conference — " Book Concern "
— General Conference for 1840 — Division concerning slaveholding Bishops —
Grounds of the division — Slaveholding statistics of M. E. Church, North.
In speaking of the position of the churches, we shall have
reference to the general fact, — the principal religious denomi
nations — the leading influences — not forgetting that there are
honorable exceptions to the pieture we shall be compelled to
present. The former anti-slavery testimonies of the Society of
Friends, and also of the Presbyterian and Methodist, and
some of the Baptist churches, until near the close of the last
century, we have presented already.* Of other denomina
tions, as such, at that period, we had nothing of an authentic
character to record. We are assured that there were earnest
opposers of slavery among Episcopalians, and other religious
communions. Of the course of the principal denominations since that time.
and their position at present, we propose now to treat ; in doing
which, such facts will be brought forward as will enable the
reader to form his own judgment in the premises.
* Sea Chapters IV. and IX.

144 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
In reverting to the action of the Methodist Conferences,
towards the close of the last century (Chap. IX.), the reader
would almost be warranted to take it for granted that slave1
holding, in that religious denomination, must have speedily
come to an end. There can be no doubt that such was the
intention of the Conferences, and that such was the general
expectation at the time. Such, however, was not the fact.
The fatal error seems to have consisted in an unwarrantable
lenity towards delinquent members, in not promptly enforcing
the discipline, and this under the delusive expectation that
they would, in* a short time, be prepared to take the step,
voluntarily, themselves, without being authoritatively coerced.
Never, perhaps, was there a more striking illustration of the
danger of such delays. The church that, with a full and clear
perception of the iniquity of a practice existing among its
members, has not fidelity and energy to expel it at .once, has
no reason to flatter itself that it ever will. If the Friends
were more successful, notwithstanding their tardy process, the
reason may perhaps be found in the fact, that they did not so
directly sin against their own conscientious convictions, in
withholding church discipline. They were first led to con
demn what appeared to be the abuses of slavery, then the
slave trade, and at last, slaveholding itself. And so far as their
convictions went, they put them in practice. But Methodism,
which had its rise amid the testimonies and the conviction
that " slavery is the sum of all villanies," could not sit down
with that iniquity in her skirts without being overcome by it.
In 1801, the General Conference said —
" We are more than ever convinced of the great evil of African Slavery,
which still exists in these United States."
And there the testimony still stands. "More than ever
convinced of the great evil," and "more than ever" wedded
to it and embedded in it. Such testimonies, though some
times apparently relied upon, to disprove the pro-slavery

slavery and freedom. 145
character of the Church, contain the strongest proof of the
inexcusableness of its position. The Church knows the evil,
but nevertheless hugs it to her bosom.
Yet there should be noticed here, perhaps, a studied dilution
of the testimony previously given. In 1780, slavery was
admitted to be " contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature,
and hurtful to Society, contrary to the dictates of conscience
and true religion, and doing what we would not that others
should do unto us." This clearly describes it as«a sin. But
in 1801 it is only designated, in vague terms, as an evil ;
whether physical or moral, is not expressed. To those who
would understand the course and the position of our ecclesi
astical bodies, these nice distinctions should be noticed with
care. " Fraud lurketh in generalities," said Lord Coke.
" Rev. Robert Emory, in his history of ' The Discipline,' informs us that
he finds the following : —
" In 1789, ' The buying and selling the bodies and souls of men, women,
or children, with intention to enslave them.'
"In 1792, it reads 'The buying or selling of men, women, or children,
with an intention to enslave them.'
" In 1808, it reads ' The buying and selling of men, women, and
children,' &c.
" For this alteration no authority is found in the Journal of the General
Conference." — " The Grounds of Secession, from the M. E. Church" — By
O. Scott, p. 45.
"And the following, from a letter published in the Pittsburg Christian
Advocate, by Rev. Mr. Drummond, is not less important :
" If we take the action of the General Conference as a true index of anti-
slavery feeling and zeal in the Church, I think it apparent that these have
been considerably diminished, since 1800." — Ib. pp. 45-46.
" In 1804, the paragraphs about considering the subject, and petitions to
the legislatures (viz : No. 4, of 1796, and No. 6, of 1800) were stricken
out." 1808 — Paragraph 2 and 3 of 1796 were struck out, and the following
substituted :
" 3. The General Conference authorizes each Annual Conference to ftrm
their own regulations, relative to buying and selling slaves." — lb. p. 47.
The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
held at Cincinnati, in 1836, declared that they " wholly disclaim
any right, wish, or intention, to interfere with the civil and

146 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
political relation of master and slave, as it exists in the slave-
holding States of this Union." This was adopted by a vote
of 120 to 14.
The action of the Conference, at the same time against
abolitionists, will be noticed in another chapter.. What we have
to do with, now, is the changed attitude of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, respecting slavery. We quote their proceed
ings-still farther on this point. In their Pastoral Address,
dissuading their members from agitating the subject, they
say— " The question of slavery in the United States, by the constitutional
compact which binds us together, as a nation, is left to be regulated by the
several State Legislatures themselves ; and thereby is put beyond the
control ofthe general government, as well as of all ecclesiastical bodies; it
being manifest that in the slaveholding states themselves the entire
responsibility of its existence or non-existence rests with those State
Legislatures." What "Constitutional Compact" had there been made
since 1797, when the General Conference, as before shown,*
had required its preachers to memorialize the legislatures ?•
And if, as stated in 1836, the sole responsibility rested on the
State Legislatures, why not continue to memorialize them
still? There must have been Methodists in those legislatures,
and probably few or no members of those bodies held seats
there without the aid of Methodist votes ? Aside from this,
how could any state or national arrangements relieve tht
Church from the responsibility of carrying out its own Churdi
¦discipline ? The truth was expressed in the Resolution just
now quoted. The Conference had " no wish" " to interfere
in the civil and political relation of master and slave." Too
many of them were slavemasters themselves.
Another important thing to be noticed here, is, the new
views of the M. E. Conference, since 1797 or 1801 and 1836,
on the subject ofthe bearings ofthe Federal Constitution on
the question. It indicates a corresponding change in the
community in general. New expositions and applications of
* Chap. IX.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 147
constitutional law must have grown up, or we should not
witness such a change of language.
Leading non-slaveholding ministers of the M. E. Church,
were now forward to take similar ground, and even to vindi
cate the rightfulness of slaveholding.
" Having established the point, that the first African slaves were legally
brought into bondage, the right to detain their children in bondage, follows.
as an indispensable consequence. Thus we see that the slavery which
exists in America, was founded in right." — Professor E. D. Simms of
Virginia Conference.
" Not only is holding slaves, on the conditions and under the restrictions
of the discipline, no disqualification for the ministerial office ; but I will go a
little further, and say, that slaveholding is not constitutionally a forfeiture of
a man's right, if he may be said to have one, to the office of a bishop." — Dr.
S. Olin, Pres. ofthe Wesleyan University, Middletown, (Ct.)
" That God not only permitted it, but absolutely provided for its perpe
tuity. The act of holding a slave then, under all circumstances, God being
judge, is not sin." — Pres. S. Q. Thornton, Centenary College, Miss.
Conference. " I have never yet advised the liberation of a slave, and think I never
shall." — Bishop Soule at the Pittsburg Conference, Washington, Pa., July,
1839. " The buying of a slave may be an act of great humanity under certain
circumstances, as well as the holding of those already in possession. And,
moreover, we should be as much opposed to the introduction of a rule of
discipline, to expel from our communion all who bought a slave, whatever
the motives might be, as we are to a rule to expel all slaveholders under all
circumstances." — Dr. Bond ofN. Y., tO'R. Boyd, 1840.
The late Wilbur Fisk, D. D., President of the Wesleyan
University, Middletown, Conn., said :
" The relation of master and slave may, and does, in many cases, exist
under such circumstances as free the master from the just charge and guilt
of immorality."
" The general rule of Christianity not only permits, but in supposable
cases enjoins, a continuance of the master's authority."
" The New Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave, as an obligation
due to a present rightful authority."
" Rev. Elijah Hedding, D. D., one of the six Methodist
Bishops, " and also a northern man, said :
" The right to hold a slave is founded on this rule : ' Therefore, all things

148 , GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ;
for this is the law and the prophets.' " — Ch. Adv. and Jour., Oct. 20, 1837.
Bishop Hedding, presiding at the New England Conference,
in 1838, refused to put resolutions, condemning the buying
and selling of slaves, and at the same time refused to put a
motion declaring slavery to be a moral evil.
" In the year 1837, the Baltimore Conference passed the following reso
lution :
" That in all cases of administration under the General Rule in reference
to buying and selling men, women, and children, &c, it be, and hereby is
recommended to all committees, as the sense of this Conference, that the
said rule be taken, construed, and understood so as not to make the guilt or
innocence of the accused to depend upon the simple fact of purchase or
sale,, but upon the attendant circumstances of cruelty, injustice, or inhu
manity on the one hand, or those of kind purposes or good intentions on the
other, under which the actions shall have been perpetrated ; and further it
is recommended, that, in all such cases, the charge be brought for immor
ality, and the circumstances be adduced as specifications under that charge.' "
The Grounds of Secession, &c, pp. 53—4.
" The General Conference of 1840 approved of the journals of the Bal
timore Conference, with this resolution in them — approved of them, this
resolution and all ; consequently, approved of it, and made it their own." — Ib.
For a full account the reader is referred to the work just
quoted, and also to Lucius C. Matlack's " History of Ameri
can Slavery and Methodism," from 1780 to 1849, an elaborate
and documentary work of nearly 400 pages.
The Georgia Annual Conference unanimously resolved, " that slavery, as
it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil."
The South Carolina Conference unanimously adopted the following:
" Whereas, we hold that the subject of slavery in these United States is
not one proper for the action of the Church, but is exclusively appropriate
to the civil authorities, therefore, resolved, that this Conference will not
meddle with it, farther than to express the regret that it has ever been
introduced, in any form, into any of the judicatures of the Church."
"Rev. W. Capers, D.D.," who offered this resolution, explained it as
" implying that slavery is not a moral evil. He understood it as equivalent
to such a declaration. His purpose was that of not only reproving some
wrong doings at the North, but with respect also to the General Confer
ence," &c. " If slavery were a moral evil — that is, sin — the Church would
be bound to take cognizance of it." — [January, 1839.]

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 149
" The Book Concern, in New York, up to the division which followed
the General Conference of 1844, published books for the whole connection,
North and South ; hence, in the republication of English works which have
contained allusions to slavery, various expedients were resorted to, to ren
der them acceptable to slaveholders. Sometimes the anti-slavery matter is
said to have been expunged, and in other cases it has been attempted to
explain it away by notes appended by the American Book-room editor." —
True Wesleyan, Jan. 24, 1852.
The Editor of the True Wesleyan, proceeds to specify an
instance of the latter. In re-publishing Watson's Theological
Institutes, in which were found some pointed remarks against
slaveholders, a note is appended, evidently designed to make
the impression that it is not applicable to American slavery.
The General Conference for 1840 adopted the following :
" Resolved, that it is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher to
permit colored persons to give testimony against white persons, in any State
where they are denied that privilege by law."
A motion was made to re-consider this Resolution, and
several attempts were made at compromise, but after a long
discussion, the resolution was permitted to stand. Thus was
the ecclesiastical polity ofthe Church conformed to the slave
code. Some time after the " Wesleyan" secession from the M. E.
Church on account of slavery, a division took place in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, growing out ofthe refusal ofthe
Church to consent to having slaveholding bishops. Of this
division we present the following account from the True
Wesleyan (a paper of the Wesleyan Secession,) then edited by
by Rev. Luther Lee, as copied into the Annual Report of the
Am. and For. A. S. Society, for 1850 :
" The action of the General Conference which led to the separation, was
not against slavery or slaveholding by the membership or ministers, but
simply against slaveholding by the Episcopacy, and that not upon principle,
but wholly upon the ground of expediency. This division was brought
about by the Southern and not by the Northern members, who did what
they could to prevent it, and now condemn the act as unjustifiable ; but it
did not throw all the slave States into the Southern General Conference.
Official documents show that there are, at the present time, in the Northern

150 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
General Conference, eight annual Conferences, a part or the whole of whose
territory is in the slaveholding States. There are many slaveholding
preachers in the M. E. Church, and it ordains slaveholders to the ministry.
lt is computed that there are in the M. E. Church, North, not less than four
thousand slaveholders, and twenty-seven thousand slaves."*
It would be difficult to reconcile with these facts the strong anti-slavery
resolutions of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal, Church
North, in 1849 and in 1850, denouncing slavery in severe terms, repudiating
" the low standard of morality that sanctions the settlement of any difficul
ties by a compromise of moral principles," and concluding the whole by the
following :
" Resolved, that Christians cannot consistently give their influence to
elevate men to places of honor and trust who are known to be supporters
of any great social and moral evil.
" Resolved, that the glory of God and the good of mankind require the
exclusion of slaveholders from the Christian Church." — Annual Report
American and Foreign Anti- Slavery Society, 1850.
This progress, (if it be progress) as well as the inconsistencies
connected with it, may perhaps be accounted for, by the move
ments among Northern Methodist Abolitionists, resulting in a
secession, and in the organization of a new ecclesiastical
connection, called the Wesleyan Church. These movements
made it necessary to oppose the election of a slaveholding
bishop, and to adopt strong resolutions against slavery.
* The following statement apparently varies from the preceding, in respect to the
number of slaveholding Conferences :
" The Methodist Church North has about one-fifth part as many slaveholding
societies as the entire Church South. It reports in the slave States three annual
conferences, 857 preachers, and 86,627 members, all in aptual and full fellowship
with slaveholding." — Pres. Blanchard, as reported by Cleveland True Democrat, Sep.
26, 1851.
The solution, as furnished us by Mr. Lee, is, thathe of the. Conferences^ viz., the
Pittsburg, the Ohio, the Indiana, the Illinois, and the Philadelphia, though bearing
Northern names, include portions of slave territory ; while the Western Virginia,
the Missouri, and the Baltimore, are slaveholding, of course : eight in all.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 151

CHAPTER XIII.
POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES, ETC. CONTINUED.
II. — THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
General Assembly, 1815 — 1816— 1818— Erasure of anti-slavery testimony of 1794—
Synod of Kentucky, 1834 — Anti-slavery testimony and pro-slavery practice —
General Assembly, 1835 — " Doctors of Divinity" engaged in the traffic — 1836—
Pro-slavery pamphlet from Princeton — Discussion — Indefinite postponement-—
General Assembly of 1837 — Anti-slavery memorials laid on the table — Excision of
four Northern Synods — Division of General Assembly in 1838 — And the reason —
" Old-School" Assembly declined discussing Slavery — In 1843, laid Anti-slavery
memorials on the table without reading — In 1845, declared that " to treat slavery
as necessarily a sin, would be to dissolve itself" — In 1847, re-affirmed its former
testimonies — In 1850, declared the " interference" of the General Association of
Massachusetts on the subject " offensive" — New-School General Assembly,
1838, Anti-slavery memorials withdrawn — In 1889, " referred the whole subject to
the Presbyteries" — In 1840, "indefinitely postponed" — "Vesuvius capped for
three years'^In 1843, censured Presbyteries that had excluded slaveholders —
In 1846, declared Slavery unrighteous, but could not exclude slaveholders — In
1849, was ignorant of any blame resting on its slaveholding members — Ih 1850,
refused to call slaveholding "an offence under the discipline" — ¦" Deplored the
workings of the whole system" — Again " referred it to the Presbyteries" — And
invited the " Old-School " Assembly to commune with them.
Notwithstanding the testimony of the Presbyterian Church,
in 1794, that it is "man-stealing" to "keep, sell, or buy
slaves," or "retain men in slavery," yet the Church contented
itself with recording its doctrine without reducing it to prac
tice. No discipline was enforced, and the custom of slave-
holding, among its members and even among the officers of
the Church, became general, in the slave states.
In 1815, the General Assembly declared their "approbation ofthe prin
ciples of civil liberty," and their " deep concern at any vestiges of slavery
which may remain in our country." This is theory. In practice, they
urge the lower judicatures to prepare the young slaves " for the exercise of
liberty when God, in his providence, shall open a door for emancipation."

152 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
" This recommendation is an implied permission to their slaveholding mem
bers to dismiss all thoughts of emancipation at present, waiting for some
colonization opening, or some undefined providence of God." — Statement
of Pres. Blanchard and others, in letter to Chr. A. S. Convention in Cin
cinnati. In 1816, the General Assembly, while it called slavery a " mournful
evil," directed an erasure of the note (of 1794) to the eighth command
ment. " In 1818, it adopted an ' expression of views' in which slavery is called
a ' gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature,
utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to love our
neighbor as ourselves, and totally irreconcilable with the spirit and prin
ciples of the gospel of Christ, which enjoin that ' all things whatsoever ye
' would that men should do to you, do ye also to them.' But, instead of
requiring the instant abandonment of this ' gross violation of rights,' &c.^
the Assembly exhorts the violators to ' continue and increase their exertions
to effect a total abolition of slavery, with no greater delay than a regard to
the public welfare demands,' and recommends, that if ' a Christian professor
shall sell a slave, who is also in communion with our Church,' without the
consent of the slave, the seller should ' be suspended till he should repent
and make reparation.' "*
The effect of this temporizing and procrastinating policy
was precisely such as might have been anticipated. The
" mournful evil " only struck its roots deeper under such
pruning. In 1834, the Synod of Kentucky adopted a report on
slavery, in which they draw a thrilling picture of the cruelties
and horrors of the internal slave trade, in which families are
forcibly separated from each other. They say :
" These acts are daily occurring in the midst of us." " There is not a
village or road that does not behold the sad procession of manacled.outcasts,
whose chains and mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by force
from all that their hearts hold dear. Our church, years ago, raised its voice
of solemn warning against this flagrant violation of every principle of mercy,
justice, and humanity. Yet we blush to announce to you, that this warning
has been often disregarded, even by those who hold to our communion.
Cases have occurred in our own denomination where professors of the reli-

* Vide Amer. Churches, &c, by J. G. Birney, to whose statement we have added
a further extract from the Expression of Views, as republished by the General As
sembly in 1846. (07t. In., April, 1846.)

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 158
gion of mercy have torn the mother from the children, and sent her
into a merciless and returnless exile. Yet acts of discipline have
rarely [never!*] followed such conduct."
But, who would have believed it ? — the Synod of Ken
tucky were not, and are not, in favor of present emancipation
on the soil. With a knowledge of the " incontestible fact"
(as Henry Clay calls it), that the internal slave trade is insep
arable from slavery, and equally aware, as they must be, that
no removal of the slaves could be effected in a century, the
Synod of Kentucky, and its leading members, who tell us this
sad story, are unwilling to listen to any proposal for emancipa
tion, without the colonization of the slaves. And the one only
Presbyterian minister within their bounds who advocated
immediate and unconditional emancipation on the soil, was
given to understand by his Presbytery, that he could not con
sistently remain with them.f The Synod has fresh cause to
" blush" — but it will need something besides blushes to purge
out the plague spot. To " confess" avails little, unless they
"forsake." In 1835, Mr. Stewart, of Illinois, a ruling elder, in advo
cating sundry anti-slavery memorials, urged the General
Assembly to take action on the subject. He said :
" In this church, a man may take a free-born child, force it away from
its parents, to whom God gave it in charge, saying, ' Bring it up for me,'
and sell it as a beast, or hold it in perpetual bondage, and not only escape
corporal punishment, but really be esteemed an excellent Christian. Nay,
even ministers of the Gospel, and Doctors of Divinity, may engage in this
unholy traffic, and yet sustain their high and holy calling." — " Elders, min
isters, and Doctors of Divinity, are, with both hands, engaged in the prac
tice." The facts were not disputed ; yet nothing was done to cen
sure the act or the actors, further than to appoint a committee,
a majority of whom were known to be opposed to the prayer
of the memorialists (of which the late Dr. Samuel Miller,

* J. G. Birney, long resident in Kentucky, says "never."
t J. G. Fee. — The intimation was heeded.

154 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Professor at Princeton, was chairman), to report at the next
session. In 1836, this report was presented at Pittsburg. In a pre
amble, it is said that " the subject of slavery is inseparably
connected with the laws of many of the States of this Union,
with which it is by no means proper for an ecclesiastical body to
interfere* and that " any action on the part of this Assembly,
&c, would tend to distract and divide our churches," &c.
Resolutions were therefore recommended declaring it " inex
pedient for the Assembly to take any further order in relation
to this subject ;" also affirming that the note on the eighth
commandment, in 1794, was " introduced irregularly— never
had the sanction of the church, and therefore never possessed
any authority," &c.
A minority of the committee, Messrs. Dickey and Beman,
presented a report, declaring " the buying, selling, or holding
a human being as property" " a heinous sin," that " ought to
subject the doer of it to the censures of the church," &c, &c;
whereupon forty -eight slaveholding delegates met apart, and
resolved that if any such action was taken by the Assembly
they, would not submit to the decision. They also, at an
adjourned meeting, prepared a substitute for Dr. Miller's resp.
lution, declaring that "the General Assembly have no author
ity to assume or exercise jurisdiction in regard to the existence
of slavery."
The subject was finally disposed of by a long preamble and
a brief resolution, that " this whole subject be indefinitely
postponed." In the meantime, while the Assembly were in session, a
pamphlet, being a reprint of an article in the Princeton Reper
tory, was issued from the Pittsburg press, labelled, " for gra
tuitous circulation " among the members of the Assembly. It
is said to have been written by Prof. Hodge, of Princeton,:

* Yet the funds of the Presbyterian Church, at this moment, to the amount of
more than 894,000, were invested in the South-Western banks, in prospect of gain
ing more than 6 per cent, interest, on account of the unprecedented briskness of the
domestio slave trade. For tho sequel see a succeeding Chapter.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 155*
and is regarded at the South as the strongest Bible argument
for slavery. It contained the following :
" At the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms
prevailed over the world. The Savior found it around him in Judea, the
apostles met with it in Asia, Greece, and Italy. How did they treat it .
Not by the denunciation of slaveholding as necessarily sinful. The
assumption that slaveholding is, in itself, a crime, is not only an error, but
it is an error fraught with evil consequences."
In 1837, many anti-slavery memorials were presented to the
Assembly. They were referred to a committee, of which Dr.
Witherspoon, a slaveholder, of South Carolina, was chairman,
and which reported, near the time for adjournment, that the
memorials be "returned to the house," and the chairman
moved to lay the whole subject on the table. This was done
by a vote of 97 to 28.
At this same session the General Assembly excinded four
northern Synods, called New School, containing a Presby
terian population of about sixty thous'and persons. This was
done ostensibly on account of theological differences, but it is
remarkable that it cut off a very large proportion of the active
opponents of slavery in the communion of the Presbyterian
Church. Dr. G. A. Baxter, President of the Union Theolo
gical Seminary, Prince Edward Co., Ya., changed sides sud
denly from New School to Old, about the same time, and
justified the change by avowing that "one motive" was the
firm position of the Old School against abolition. And since
the separation, in 1838, some anti-abolition clergyman, once
known as New School, within the bounds of the excinded
Synods, in the State of New York, have transferred their
relations to the Old School.
OLD SCHOOL GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
" In 1838, the two Schools separated,* leaving three slaveholding Presby-
* The separation in 1838 is understood to have been for the same cause as tht
excision of 1837.
According to a correspondent of the New York Observer, Dr. Gardiner Spring, of
New York, at a Colonization Meeting in Washington City, in 1889, held the follow
ing language :

156 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
teries represented in the New, and between thirty and forty in the Old." —
" Since that time the Old School has abode firmly on the Princeton ground."
In 1838, the 0. S. General Assembly resolved that "it is
of the greatest consequence to the best interests of our church,
that the subject of slavery shall not be discussed in the ensu
ing General Assembly," &c.
In 1843, they laid anti-slavery memorials on the table with,-
out reading.
In 1845, after an hour's discussion, at Cincinnati, they
adopted a report that they could not treat slavery as necessa
rily a sin, " without charging the apostles of Christ with
conniving at such sin." "For the Assembly to make slave-
holding a bar to communion would be to dissolve itself." —
Vide statements of Pres. Blanchard and Cincinnati Herald of
May 28, 1845 ; Chr. Inv., June, 1847.
In 1847, the General Assembly reaffirmed all its former
testimonies on slavery, contradictory as they were.
In 1850, in reply to a resolution of the General Association
of Massachusetts communicated to the General Assembly, and
very courteously expressing their conviction that the cause
of religion required the removal of slavery from the churches,
the General Assembly adopted the following :
Resolved, " That our delegates to the next General Association of Massa
chusetts be directed to inform that venerable body that this General Assem
bly must consider itself the best judge of the action which it is necessary
for it to take as to all subjects within its jurisdiction, and that any interfer
ence on the part of that General Association with its action upon any subject
upon which this General Assembly has taken action, is offensive, and must
lead to an interruption of the correspondence which subsists between that
Association and the General Assembly." — Oberlin Evan., June 19, 1850,
From the Old School we now turn to the New.

" He stated that the unhappy divisions in the Presbyterian Church had grown out
ofthis opposition" (i. e. to " the proceedings and designs ofthe Abolition Society"),
" and, painful as it was, they were obliged to-rend the church to avoid being engulfed
in the sentiments, feelings, and schemes of abolitionists."
At other times, the ground of division had been stated to be the heresy of " New
School" theology, and tendencies towards Congregational Church government in tha
New School portion of the Presbyterian Church.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 157
NEW-SCHOOL GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
" In 1838, the New-School General Assembly appointed a committee on
anti-slavery memorials, which reported 'that the applicants, for reasons
satisfactory to themselves, have withdrawn their papers.' The committee
was discharged." — Birney's American Churches, &c, p. 33.
The excuse "was, that business connected with ' the division
of the two assemblies made it difficult to attend to another
subject. " In 1839, it referred the whole subject to the Presbyteries, to do what
they might deem advisable."
In 1840, a large number of memorials and petitions against slavery were
sent in, and referred to the usual committee. The committee reported a
resolution — referring to what had been done last year* — declaring it inex
pedient for the Assembly to do anything further on the subject. Several
attempts were made by the abolition members of the Assembly to obtain a
decided expression of its views, but they proved ineffectual, and the whole
subject was indefinitely postponed." — Ib.
This measure was adopted on motion of "Rev. Samuel H. Cox, D.D.,
of the city of Brooklyn (N. Y.) On the motion being carried, he exult-
ingly said : " Our Vesuvius is safely capped for three years" — the Assembly
not meeting again till 1843. — Ib.
" In 1843, the General Assembly censured the action of those anti-
slavery Presbyteries which had excluded slaveholding from their pulpits
and communion tables, and requested them to rescind their acts ; thus con
demning them for obeying their own advice, or excluding slaveholding from
fellowship." — Letter of Pres. Blanchard, &c,
In 1846, the General Assembly adopted a paper drawn up
by Dr. Duffield, declaring the unrighteous and oppressive
character of slavery, lamenting .its continued existence in the
churches, exhorting to the use of all means in their power to
put it away from them, since no mere mitigation of its severity
"would be regarded as a testimony against the system, or as,
in the least degree, changing its essential character."
After all this, the Assembly, nevertheless, at the same time,
* The language employed, either in 1839 or '40, we believe, was this : " Solemnly
referring the whole subject to the lower judicatories, to take such action as in their
judgment is most judicious and adapted to remove the evil "—refusing the request
of Rev. Geo. Beecher to insert the word moral before evil ; that is, they refused to
call slavery a moral evil. — Vide Letter of Pres. Blanchard and others.

158' GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
proceeded to say that it " cannot determine the. degree of moral
turpitude involved"—" cannot pronounce a judgment of general
and promiscuous condemnation,"— it recognizes " embarrass
ments and obstacles in the way of emancipation "—it cannot
" exclude slaveholders from the table of the Lord "—it would
father " sympathize with and succor them in their embarrass
ments "—it condemns all divisive and schismatic measures
tending to destroy the unity, and disturb the peace of our Church."
The " Assembly possesses no legislative or judicial authority;"
it must, therefore, " leave it with ihe Sessions, Presbyteries, and
Synods," &c, &c. !— Vide Chr. Inv., June, 1847.
The confusion, incongruity, and self-contradiction of this
action, can hardly escape notice, even when our attention is
confined to the doings of this one session. Slavery is charac
terized as unrighteous and oppressive ; but this unrighteous
ness and oppression must not be promiscuously condemned,
nor excluded from the table of the Lord, lest it should destroy
the unity and disturb the peace of the Church.
Still more confused, incongruous, and self-contradictory
does the action of the General Assembly appear, when the
doings of one session, in one year, are compared with those of
another. In 1839, the whole subject was referred to the Pres
byteries ; in 1843, the Presbyteries were censured for acting,
and requested to rescind their acts ; but in 1846 the subject
was again referred to the Presbyteries. In 1846, as in 1839,
the Assembly possessed no legislative or judicial authority ;
but in 1843 its powers appear to have been ample. The true
solution seems to be that the Assembly has no power against
. slavery, but claims and exercises power in its favor. It could
not censure slavery, but it could censure Presbyteries by
whom slavery is censured. It could go further than this,.
and restore to his former standing, a minister (Dr. Graham)
who, in 1845, had been suspended by his Presbytery (acting
on recommendation of the Assembly,) for defending slavery
by the Bible.* This was done in 1846, or afterwards:
¦ * He maintained that Jesus Christ " has authorized slaveholding, in the chartors
of the Church, and in all the laws he ever made, for its regulation."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 159
The General Assembly of 1846 also invited the Old School
General Assembly, then sitting in the same city, to unite with
them in a celebration of the Lord's Supper, but the invitation
was declinedf and the Old School Assembly bears the blame
of the '' schism."
Thus does the Presbyterian New School, like the Methodist
Episcopal Church North, by a fair implication, profess that
slavery is not to be regarded as a sufficient cause of division,
or a bar against Christian communion. This will further ap
pear as we proceed.
In 1849, the General Assembly, in strange forgetfulness,
one would think, of the facts conceded or implied in its testi
mony of 1846, declared :
" That there has been no information before this Assembly to prove that
the members of our Church, in the slave States, are not doing all they can
(situated as they are, in the providence of God) to bring about the posses
sion and enjoyment of liberty by the enslaved." — Copied from Letter of
Pres. Blanchard, &c.
The slaveholders could, at any time, if they pleased, give
their slaves a "pass" into the Free States, which, in most
cases, would not only be eagerly accepted, but carried into
operation with little or no expense or trouble to the masters,
to say nothing of the practicability, in Kentucky, &c, of ma
king them legally free on the soil.
In 1850, the General Assembly, (no longer triennial,*) came
together again, and after a long discussion, during which a
number of propositions for acting against slavery were rejected,
settled down upon a declaration very closely resembling that
of 1846, so far as direct action by the General Assembly is
concerned. Among the propositions rejected, one, presented by "Rev.

* In 1849, overtures were sent down to the Presbyteries in favor of making the
General Assemblies annual again, instead of triennial, and in 1850, on their coming
together, the answers being favorable, the constitution was changed back again
making the meetings henceforth annual. The policy of having triennial conven
tions had answered its purpose, there being now no fires in the " Vesuvius" to
threaten an explosion.

160 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
H. Curtiss of Indiana," was, "That the enslaving of men, or
the holding of them as property, is an offence, as defined in
our Book of Discipline, Chap. I., Sec. 3, and that as such, it
calls for inquiry, correction, and removal, in the manner pre
scribed by our rules, and should be treated with a due regard
to all the aggravating or mitigating circumstances of each par
ticular case " — also, " that this General Assembly, in the ex
ercise of its power of bearing testimony against immorality in
practice, and " of attempting reformation of manners, and the
promotion of charity, truth, and holiness, through all the
churches under their care,' do most earnestly recommend tp
the proper judicatories to take measures in accordance with
the foregoing principles."
This would seem sufficiently mild and guarded, if the As
sembly had been willing to meet directly, the sin, in any way
of effective reproof.
Equally so was another proposition presented by P. F.
Smith, an Elder, from Pennsylvania, affirming that slavehold
ing was "prima facia an offence within the meaning of our
Book of Discipline," and throwing upon the slaveholder " the
burden of showing such circumstances," as " will take away
from him the guilt of the offence."
The rejection of these propositions will assist the reader to
a better understanding of the propositions adopted by the
Assembly, the most pointed of which was the following :
That slavery " is fraught with many and great evils." That they
" deplore the workings* of the whole system of slavery," and that " the
holding of our fellow-men in the condition of slavery, except in those cases
where it is unavoidable by the laws ofthe State, the obligations of guardian
ship, or the demands of humanity, is an offence in the proper import of that
term, as used in the Book of Discipline, Chap. I., Sec. 3, and should be
regarded and treated in the same manner as other offences." Also referring
the subject to the " Sessions and Presbyteries, &c."
* In 1846, the General Assembly had called slavery " unrighteous." Having
failed to purge away this "unrighteousness," itrnust, in 1850, be spoken of in milder
terms. It is only an " evil," the " workings" of which are " deplorable." Among
its " deplorable workings" Bhould be reckoned its power to neutralize and alter the
moral creed of the ohuroh.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 161
The exception? above spegified will be found to embrace
the very excuses in view of which all slaveholders continue
the practice, except those who justify slavery " in the abstract, "
and consider it a blessing instead of an evil.
Even this action, however, was strenuously opposed.
" The vote stood 84 to 16, under a written protest of the minority who
were for no action, in the present state ofthe country. Two were excused
from voting." — _V. Y. Observer, June 15, 1850.
The adoption of even this evasive testimony is to be con
strued in the light of the following action, by the same body,
at the same session, by which, after this idle show of threaten
ing some sorts of slaveholders with Church discipline, the New
School General Assembly eagerly throws its arms of embrace
around all sorts of slaveholders in the Old School Assembly,
including slavery propagandists, extensionists, slave sellers,
and all. A statement was unanimously adopted, of which the
following is the substance :
This Assembly cherished the idea of re-union, (with the Old School
Assembly,) until 1841, when it was reluctantly relinquished. "Again, in
1846 they expressed the desire for union with our brethern, and, pained by
the unusual exhibition of two such bodies, at apparent strife with each other,
they proposed to the other Assembly, a mutual recognition of each other, by
communing together at the table of our Master." " These propositions and
overtures were all made in good faith." " We do not pretend to question
the motives of our brethren in rejecting them."
Declining, under these circumstances, to make any new overtures, the
Report and the Assembly, say :
"We should be untrue to ourselves, before God and the world, did we not
frankly avow our readiness to meet in a spirit of fraternal kindness and
christian love, any overtures which may be made to us bythe other body."
—See N. Y. Observer, June 15, 1850.
Thus, then, " before God and the world," the New School
General Assembly of 1850 "unanimously" declared itself
ready to commune with the Old School, at a time when the
great body of Old School Presbyterians at the South were
zealous for the extension of slavery, claimed of the Federal
Government its extension as an act of justice, and defended it
11.

162 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
as a Bible institution. — See letter of a Southern Clergyman in
New York Observer, same date as the above.
The discriminating reader will now judge for himself re
specting the moral difference between the Old School and the
New, in their relations to slavery. The one has more slave
holders under its jurisdiction than the other, but both tolerate
the practice.* The one does this to retain many members ;
the other to retain a few. The one does it believing slavery
to be a Bible institution ; the other, believing it to be " un
righteous" and "oppressive." The one makes no pretence
of any intention to discipline any sort of slaveholders ; the
other holds the rod over a class of them that it " has no infor
mation " of being found within its enclosures, but yearns to
go out of its boundaries to clasp them to its bosom.
In 1851, the General Assembly met at Utica, New York.
It declined to take action against slavery, and won the com
mendation of President Fillmore, who expressed to some
members of the Assembly his high gratification with the pro
ceedings. * The following statement is from a lecture by Pres. Blanchard, as reported in the
Cleveland True Democrat of Sept. 26, 1851 :
" The Old School branch has now fifty slaveholding Presbyteries ; more than one-
third of its whole number.
" The New School Assembly, at its first separate meeting, in 1838, was followed
by but three slaveholding commissioners, and there was fervent prayer and strong
hope that this might become an anti-slavery body. But once separated from the Old
School, and seized by the natural desire for denominational success, its has steadily
increased its slaveholding wing till it has now twenty slaveholding Presbyteries,
between one and two hundred ministers, and from fifteen to twenty thousand mem
bers, in the slave States, all walHng in Christian fellowship with slaveholders.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 163

CHAPTER XIY. CONTINUED.
III. — CONGREGATIONALISTS.
Connection with Presbyterians and the South — Pro-slavery Sermons — Prof. Stuart —
Andover Theo. Seminary — General Association of Connecticut, 1884, 1836, 1840,
1845 — Rejeoted Resolutions compared with Resolutions Adopted — General Asso-.
of Massachusetts, 1834, 1887, 1849— Convention of Cong. Ministers, 1848— Gen.
Conf. of Maine — Cong. Periodicals, N. E. Spectator, Vermont Chronicle.
Congregationalists, like Baptists, are subject to the con
trol of no ecclesiastical body, holding jurisdiction over the
whole country. Unlike Baptists, Presbyterians, and Metho
dists, they number no churches, or none sufficient to deserve
notice, in the present slaveholding States. They claim to be,
emphatically, the descendants and successors of the Puritans,
and of that particular branch of them whose democratic polity
gave origin to the free institutions — so far as they are free —
of republican America. Congregationalists have had, more
over, the chief influence in moulding the religious and moral
sentiment of New England ; they have their central home and
seat in the birth-place of Hopkins and Edwards, the scene of
their agitating anti-slavery labors, in the atmosphere of a theo
logical literature enriched by those luminaries, and still cher
ished in the churches as a badge of honorable distinction.
Theoretically, they are, for the most part, or claim to be, of
the same creed or phase of religious faith, the very technicali
ties of which are identified with the most uncompromising of
all schemes of ethics, allowing no palliatives of transgression,
no exceptions to the demand of immediate and unconditional

164 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
abandonment of all sin. Assuredly, then, Congregationalists
can have no valid excuse, if they are not foremost in their
opposition to slavery. Of those to whom much is given shall
much be required.
But Congregationalists, through their Associations of Min
isters, have held regular correspondence and close affinity with
Presbyterians ; have received delegates from the General As
sembly, and sent delegates to them. Congregational ministers
removing out of New England, have readily become Presby
terian. And Presbyterian ministers haye been received as
pastors of Congregational churches. Congregationalism in
Connecticut has been so modified as to be claimed by Presby
terian writers as being virtually Presbyterian. In the Middle
and Northwestern States, a "plan of accommodation," so
called, has brought churches claiming to be Congregational
into connection with the Presbyteries. In all these ways, as
well as by missioilary co-operation, by plans and processes of
ministerial education, as well as by similarity of creed, and
identity of rituals and forms of public worship, the cord of
sympathy and the bond of unity between Congregationalists
and Presbyterians have been strengthened. Congregational
ministers, educated in New England, transferred to the Presby
terian church, and located, by the enterprising spirit of New
England emigration, in the slaveholding States, have often be
come slaveholders themselves, and defenders or apologists of
the slave system, and commonly without forfeiting their reli
gious character or ecclesiastical standing with their friends
and relatives in New England.* The same spirit of emigra*

* The following statement, made by "Rev. A. H. H. Boyd, of Virginia," in the
New School General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in 1850, has a bearing
quite as appropriate and significant upon northern Congregationalists, as upon
northern Presbyterians :
" In the Southern country we depend upon the north for ministers, in a great
measure. Few of our Southern young men are educated for ministers. In some
parts it is necessary that some born South should endorse a minister, before com
mencing his labor, because some have endeavored to loosen the relation of master
and slave."— N. Y. Observer, June 15, I860.
A similar remark would apply to schoolmasters, only that there is, perhaps, less

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 165
tion, and especially the habit of temporary sojourn, or resi
dence, as school teachers, or as commercial adventurers, in
the slaveholding States, has drawn large numbers of Congre
gational laymen into close sympathy with Presbyterian slave
holders at the South, with whom they have worshipped. Be
coming comparatively wealthy, and returning home to the
North, to settle for life, not a few of them, though preferring
for their own comfort a residence in a free State, have lost
their abhorrence of the sin of slavery, and have exerted a
wide and strong influence in favor of a religious fraternity
with slaveholders. Intermarriages between slaveholding and
non-slaveholding families, commercial intercourse, and politi
cal co-operation, are thrown into the same scale.
Congregationalists in New England, as well as other mem
bers of churches, and perhaps to a greater extent than in most
other sects at the North, as being most numerous and enter
prising, have been subjected to influences of this character.
Besides all this, Congregational ministers in( New England,
along with other gentlemen of the learned professions, (Who
were then chiefly members of congregational churches,) con
stituted a large . portion of the few who were slaveholders,
during the existence of slavery in the Northern and Eastern
States, there being few, then, in New England, of other reli
gious sects, thus making that denomination responsible for a
very great portion of all the slaveholding that ever existed in
New England. And there is no reason to think that all of
these slaveholding. Congregationalists, whether laymen or
ministers, ever welcomed heartily and fully the radical views
of Hopkins and Edwards on this subject, or ceased to become
slaveholders until slaveholding became impracticable under
the State laws.
It would be idle to suppose that facts like these would be
without their significance and bearing in that general decline
jealousy of them. Schoolmasters and ministers for the South have been reckoned
among the staple exports of New England, and they are commonly adapted to the
market. Can the Congregational churches of New England, which supply a large
share of these teachers of religion and literature, be uninfluenced by such facts ?

166 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
of the spirit of liberty already noticed, or that they could fail
to affect the position of the Congregational ministers and
churches of New England, on the opening of the present anti-
slavery contest.
The distribution of the Princeton pamphlet among the
members of the Presbyterian General Assembly, at Pittsburg;
in 1836, before mentioned, was the beginning of a series of
similar demonstrations among clergymen at the North, not
excepting Congregational ministers in New England, from
whom at least three printed sermons in biblical defence or
palliation of slavery appeared not long afterwards. They
were echoes of the Princeton doctrine, not marked with any
unusual force of reasoning ; and, not coming from sources
particularly suited to arrest attention, they produced no very
deep, general, or permanent impression. The most remark-1
able thing in respect to them was, that they procured for their
authors no such ecclesiastical disclaimers, in the proceedings
of their respective associations and consociations, as those
with which the doctrines or measures of abolitionists in the
same ecclesiastical connections were so bountifully visited
about the same time. If not fully approved, they were not
accounted so heretical as to deserve the notice that would
have been given to any departure from their recognized the
ological standards. The same doctrine from Dr. Graham,
some years afterwards, was branded as a heresy by the Pres
byterian Synod of Cincinnati. But in 1836 it does not appear
to have been regarded as " heresy," by the Congregational
bodies in New England, whatever may be supposed to have
been the prevalent sentiment among them.
Nor can it be said that any remarkable improvement was
perceptible in 1837. In that year an occasion presented itself
for remonstrating against the heresy of biblical human chat
telhood, had it been accounted a heresy, as promulgated/from
a quarter that could not be accounted too obscure to require
notice. Moses Stuart, Professor in the Theological Seminary at
Andover, Mass., stood then, and for many years afterwards,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 167
at the very head ofthe department of sacred literature among
the Congregationalists in New England. To him, more than
to any other man living at that time, and while he held his
professorship, were biblical students of the Congregational
order encouraged to look up for solid instruction in the
science of expounding the Scriptures. What he might say
concerning the teachings of the Bible on the subject of slavery
would be likely to exert, at least, as powerful an influence
among Congregationalists as the expressed opinions of any
other man.
The late Dr. Fisk, then President of the Wesleyan Univer
sity, at Middletown, Conn., whose views of slavery the reader
has seen in our account of the position of the Methodist Epis
copal Church, addressed a letter to Prof. Stuart, designed to
draw out, for publication, his views of the slave question.
The following is an extract from Prof. Stuart's answer :
" 1. The precepts ofthe New Testament respecting the demeanor of slaves
and of their masters, beyond all question recognize the existence of slavery.
The masters are, in part, ' believing masters,' so that a precept to them, how
they are to behave, as masters, recognizes that the relation may exist, salva
fide, et salva ecclesia* Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the
bond asunder at once. He could not lawfully and properly temporize with
a malum in se.t
" If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesimus
back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending him
back to be a servant for life. The relation did exist, may exist. The abuse
of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. Not that the theory of slavery
is, in itself, right. No. ' Love thy neighbor as thyself — ' Do unto others
that which ye would that others should do unto you,' decide against this.
But the relation once constituted and continued, is not such a malum in se
as calls for immediate and violent disrupture, at all hazards. So Paul did
not counsel.
" 2. 1 Tim. 6 : 2, expresses the sentiment that slaves who are Christians,
and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and because, as Chris
tians they are brethren, to forego the reverence due to them as masters.
That is, the relation of master and slave is not, as a matter of course, abro
gated between all Christians. Nay, servants should, in such a case,

* i. e. " Without violating the Christian faith, or the Church.".
t i. e. That which is, im, itself, sin.

168 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
a fortiori, do their duty cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face
of the case. What the master's duty in such a case, in respect to libera
tion, is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of."
Learned men are not always wise. Beneficial as the science
of biblical exigesis may be, when needed, and when directed
by Christian simplicity and manly common sense, it can never
be otherwise than powerless, except for mischief, when wielded
either without or against them, or when used to mystify and
perplex what is already plain. Aside from such glosses as
those just now quoted, and in the absence of the iniquitous
practices that gave rise to them, no simple-minded reader of
the New Testament would ever have detected in the passages
commented upon, the slightest sanction of such usages as
those that go to define modern slaveholding. The art, most
assuredly, is not a desirable one, that could thus torture and
invert the plain import of Paul's Letter to Philemon. In this
instance, the beautiful and affectionate dissuasive of " Paul
the aged " against the too rigid exaction of an honest debt,
voluntarily assumed, is transmuted into an apostolic warranty
and example for the rendition of fugitive slaves. This result
could not be reached without a palpable and direct falsifica
tion of the text ; which says, " Receive him " — " Not now as
a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved," "both
in the flesh, and in the Lord :" — a brother, in the secular as
well as the religious acceptation of the term. Instead of this,
the apostle is represented as " sending him back to be a ser
vant for life." Onesimus was not a slave, for a slave can
make no contract and incur no debt. Yet Paul entreated
(what he. says he might have enjoined by authority), that the
obligation should be cancelled. But whatever we consider
to be the relation between the parties, the entire drift of the
epistle was evidently to induce a change, and not a continu
ance, of the relation.
In his exposition of 1 Tim. 6 : 2, the learned writer coolly
took for granted the very gist of the controversy, by assuming
that the word rendered "master" is equivalent to "slave
holder," and that there could have been no "servants" but

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 169
" slaves." It had often been shown that this was not the fact,
but the Professor takes no notice of this, and makes no attempt
to prove or show the contrary.
It would be difficult to reconcile Prof. Stuart with himself,
or with the plain dictates of the Christian religion and of
common sense, which the learned and the unlearned can
equally understand. The following propositions and results
will be found involved in his statements :
"The theory of slavery is not, in itself, right;" but the prac
tice of slavery is not, in itself, wrong.
The law of love and the golden rule decide the question of
slavery one way, but Paul's advice to servants and masters,
and his sending back Onesimus, decide it the other way.
The relation may exist without violating Christianity or
the Church, but the relation is founded in a theory that is
not, in itself,- right; in other words, Christianity and the
Church are not violated by the opposite of moral right.
The ''abuse" ofthe relation "is the fundamental and essen
tial wrong," but the relation itself cannot claim its origin in
moral right.
The relation, though not founded in moral right, when>
" once constituted'" is not a moral wrong.
Paul "could not temporize with" what was wrong in
itself; but he would not " cut asunder at once " the bond of
a relation that was the opposite of moral right.
And while the Professor decides promptly that Paul would
not do this, he confesses he cannot tell what Paul would say
of " ihe duly of the master in respect to liberation," because that
question was " one of which the apostle does not here
treat of."
" The duty of the master in respect to liberation " was the
very question that then agitated the country. It was because
abolitionists insisted upon this " duty," that they were opposed
and censured, and the pen of Prof. Stuart was invoked to
counteract their influence. To this end he controverted their
doctrine, that slaveholding is sinful. If not sinful, who could
urge upon them the " duty" of giving up the practice ? Butt

170 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
after all, it is conceded that Paul was not treating of the duty
of liberation, and Prof. Stuart does not know what he would
have said on that subject.
Then Paul was not treating of the lawfulness or unlawful
ness of slaveholding : — he was not treating on the question
whether "the relation of master and slave" was "abrogated
among Christians." If Prof. Stuart was aware of all this,
why did he labor to make the contrary impression?
Does any one now inquire whether, or to what extent, the
Congregationalists of the North and of New England, were
responsible for these opinions of Prof. Stuart? We will
answer by propounding another inquiry.
Suppose Prof. Stuart, instead of writing what we have here
quoted concerning slavery, had written a biblical defence of
Universalism, or of some other doctrine that orthodox Con3
gregationalists had considered "heresy." Then suppose the
intercourse, the bearing, and the relations of the Congrega.
tional sect towards Prof. Stuart had continued to be what
every one knows they were, at the time of his writing oh
slavery, and for fifteen years afterwards — we ask, whether
orthodox Congregationalists in England, and whether public
sentiment, the world over, would not inevitably have held
New England Congregationalists, as a body, responsible for his
doctrines ?
When Dr. Graham, in the Presbyterian Church, wrote a
biblical defence of slaveholding, his Synod suspended him
from the ministry. Why? Because they knew that they
should otherwise be held responsible for his heresy ; which
was substantially the same with that of Prof. Stuart,* who,
had he been a member of the Synod of Cincinnati, would
probably have been suspended, likewise.
It may be said that Congregationalists hold no such eccle
siastical powers. But they hold and freely exercise (no
* It may be said that Prof. Stuart's defence of slavery was less self-consistent than
Dr. Graham's, containing concessions that overturned his whole argument. This
only shows that he was not unaware that the principles of Christianity were hostile
to slavery, while he was laboring to construe particular texts in its favor.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 171
" General Assembly " forbidding them) the power of with
drawing religious co-operation and communion. Had Prof.
Stuart avowed himself a Universalist, it would have been
promptly done. And the same result would have been wit
nessed had a defence of slavery been thought as Tieretical as
Universalism. Suppose, again, that Prof. Stuart had written concerning
adultery, or concubinage (one feature of slavery), or concern
ing robbery, or horse-stealing, or any other known and pro
scribed crime, as he wrote concerning slaveholding. Would
or would not an impartial public sentiment abroad, or in com
ing ages, hold the sect responsible that continued to hold fra
ternity with him, to confide in him as a religious teacher, an
accomplished educator of religious teachers ?
No personal dislike of Prof. Stuart has occasioned these
remarks. He had his attractive traits of character. He was
the admired representative of a class — a very large class — of
Congregational ministers, his associates and pupils. His
memory is still venerated; he is proudly pointed to, by his
Sect, as " the father of the science of biblical criticism in
America;" and the clergy of other sects recognize the validity
of the claim. All this tends directly and almost irresistibly
to confirm, in the community, the belief that slaveholding is
not inconsistent with the Bible. If " the father of biblical
criticism" says so, who shall contradict it ? One in ten of
those who receive his -testimony, may infer the innocency of
slaveholding ; while nine in ten will infer the moral deficiency
of the Bible, and this will swell the tide of horror and amaze
ment at "infidel abolitionism." Impartial history, if it
attempts to look below the surface of things, and trace effects
to their causes, must give marked prominence to influences
like these. The real position of the sects could not other
wise be understood.
It is not known that the Trustees, Faculty, 'and friends of
the Theological Seminary at Andover, were ever distressed
with the apprehension that Prof. 'Stuart's heresy on the slave
question would diminish the patronage, or injure the reputa-

172 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tion of their institution, in which he held so conspicuous a
post. But no one will doubt that those fears would have
risen to a high pitch, had he dissented from the policy of the
Colonization Society, or avowed himself an advocate of imme
diate and unconditional emancipation. The views of Prof.
Stuart were extensively circulated among the Congregational
churches and ministry of New England. Had there been any
general or earnest dissent from them, or if his intimate asso
ciates had been grieved at bis course, the religious journals
of the denomination would have contained evidence of the
fact. Slight shades of difference in metaphysical speculation,
among professors of theology, have given rise to rival claims
among the Theological Seminaries of New England, but the
position of the learned Professor at Andover concerning
slavery has occasioned no manifestations of that character.
Dissent was indeed strongly expressed ; but it was the dissent
of an inconsiderable though increasing minority, not of the
main body.
It may be in place to add here, that soon after the passage,
by Congress, of the Fugitive Slave Bill, in 1850, Prof. Stuart
(who had previously resigned his Professorship at Andover),
appeared as the public defender and eulogist of Hon. Daniel
Webster, for the part he took in procuring and vindicating
that iniquitous measure. In company with Dr. Leonard
Woods, late Professor at Andover, Prof. Ralph Emerson, of
the same institution, and other Congregational ministers,* he
gave his signature to a paper drawn up for the purpose. And
afterwards he vindicated his position in a pamphlet, at some
length. This new demonstration in favor of slavery, we are happy
to add, appears to have been less favorably received among
Congregationalists, than the former one. It is understood
that most of the Professors at Andover declined signing the
paper above-mentioned (though they entered no public protest
* Among the names appended to this paper were those of Dr. Dana of Newbury
port, Rev. W. W. Rogers of Boston, Pres. Sparks of Harvard College (Unitarian),
&c, &o.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 173
or disclaimer against it), and the pamphlet has probably
exerted an influence in the direction opposite to its design.*
GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT.
The General Association of Congregational Ministers in
Connecticut have repeatedly defined their position in respect
to slavery. The resolutions adopted at different times are as
follows :
At Vernon, in 1834. Resolved, That to buy and sell human beings, or
to hold and treat them as merchandise, or to treat servants, free or bond, in
any manner inconsistent with the fact that they are intelligent and voluntary
beings, made in the image of God, is a violation of the principles of the
word of God, and should be treated by all the churches of our Lord Jesus
Christ as an immorality, inconsistent with a profession of the Christian
religion. Resolved, that this Association regards the laws and usages in respect
to slavery, which exist in many of the States of this Union, as inconsistent
with the character and responsibilities of a free and Christian people, and
holds it to be the duty of every Christian, and especially of every Minister
of the Gospel, to use all prudent and lawful efforts for the peaceful abolition
of slavery.
"At Norfolk, in 1836. Resolved, that in the judgment ofthis Associa
tion, the buying and selling of human beings, and the holding them for selfish
ends, by the ministers and members ofour Churches removing to the South,
is a great sin, and utterly inconsistent with their Christian profession.
At New Haven, in 1840. Resolved, that American slavery, is, in the
opinion ofthis body, inconsistent with the principles of the Gospel, and its
immediate abolition by those who have the legal power, is a duty in the
discharge of which the blessing of heaven may be expected.
Resolved, that we recommend to the churches under our care, a prayer
ful consideration of this important subject, and the exertion of their appro
priate influence for the emancipation of all the enslaved throughout this land
and throughout the world.

*And yet it remains true that the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850 has its earnest advo
cates among Congregationalists, as it certainly has among the leading ministers and
editors of the Presbyterian aud other denominations, by whom a strenuous effort
has been made to cast odium and reproach upon those who maintain, in reference
to this enactment, that the laws of God are paramount to the unrighteous edicts of
man, and annul them. Under such circumstances, it would seem the duty of all who
fear God, to bear solemn testimony against such impiety.

174 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
In 1845. Resolved, that we again adopt these resolutions, as the
expression of our present views, and direct our scribe to transmit a copy of
them to the stated clerks of each of the bodies, styled " The General
Assembly." To the reader uninitiated in the nice distinctions elaborated
by the New England Congregational Clergy, in their discus
sions on this subject, these Resolutions, standing by themselves,
would'appear to be tolerably distinct testimonies against the
practice of slaveholding. To understand them correctly, they
must be construed in the light of what the same bodies
refused, to say, on the same subject, and also in the light ofthe
discussions had, at the time of adopting them.
We will, therefore, put them by the side of the resolutions
"offered by Rev. Mr. Perkins of Meriden, in 1845," but not
adopted :
" Whereas, this Association has frequently delivered its opinions in rela
tion to slaveholding — and whereas, recent events, such as the imprisonment
of Christian men, on the charge of aiding slaves to escape, and the late
action of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, seems to
require the reiteration of our views, therefore resolved :
" 1st. That we consider slaveholding as an outrage on human rights, and
at variance with the spirit of Christianity.
" 2d. That no man is bound in conscience to obey slave law.
" 3d. That while it may be matter of judgment and expediency what
measures should be taken, and what risks incurred in aiding the colored man to
escape from bondage, as once the like considerations should have been weighed
in deciding how far we should have gone in aiding a white slave to escape
from Algiers ; yet the right to give such aid, we hold to be undeniable.
" 4th. That we recommend, to our churches, to give a place to the slave
in their prayers and benevolent efforts, together with the usual religious
objects of the day.
" 5th. That our delegate to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church, carry from us to that body, a letter on its connection with slavery."
After a long debate, these Resolutions were set aside, and
the action taken which has already been recorded. Op a
comparison it will be seen that the Association declined saying
that "no man is bound in conscience to obey slave law" —
declined expressing sympathy for " Christian men," imprison
ed on charge of aiding fugitive slaves — declined affirming the

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 175
right of assisting such fugitives — declined recommending to
the Churches to place anti-slavery efforts with other benevolent
and religious objects — declined addressing to the General
Assembly ofthe Presbyterian Church, a letter on its connection
with slavery.
On a further examination of the Resolutions at different
times adopted by the General Association, and re-affirmed in
1845, some further differences between the sentiments express
ed, and the rejected resolutions of Mr. Perkins, will be
manifest. The General Association, even in 1834, had learned, it
seems, to condemn " slavery," rather than "slaveholding." The
distinction was not then understood by the publio as it has
since been insisted on, and the preamble of Mr. Perkins, stat
ing that the General Association had "frequently delivered
its opinions in relation to slaveholding," seems to have been
considered too inaccurate a statement (as doubtless it was) to
be endorsed. The Association had not condemned the act,
but only the abstraction.
The resolutions of 1834 expended their strength upon " laws
and usages," rather than upon persons doing a wrong act un
der shelter of them. They would be understood at the South
as bearing against the slave trade, rather than against slave
holding. They suggested, likewise the implication of a senti
ment since insisted on, that slaves may be held without being
"treated as merchandise," and that the distinction between
"bond and free " is, by no means, the significant point in that
matter. The resolution of 1836, plainly condemns buying, selling,
and holding human beings as slaves, only when it is done for
selfish ends ; thus teaching, by implication, the doctrine now
openly insisted on, that all this may be innocently and even
laudably done, for benevolent ends — which is all the license the
slaveholder asks. He thinks he only holds slaves for their
own good.
The resolution of 1840 retains the same distinction between
slavery and slave-holding ; that is, slavery in the abstract, and

176 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
slavery in practice; the former being almost universally con
demned : the latter, very extensively defended or palliated.
The debates on the proposed Resolutions of Mr. Perkins
illustrate the meaning of the Resolutions adopted.
Rev. Mr. Andrews vindicated the course of the General Assembly.
Slavery (he said) existed in the time of Christ and his apostles. They
did not condemn it. He would vote for no resolution that did not distinctly
avow that slaveholding was not sin.
Rev. E. Hall, of Norwalk, said that if he supposed there was the least
danger that these resolutions would pass, he would make a strenuous speech.
He abhorred' slavery totally, and from the bottom of his heart, but these
resolutions were rank Garrisonism and Dorrism. He could not think more
than one or two persons would vote for them.
Dr.jBennett Tyler (of the Theological Seminary at East Windsor) said
that "Christ and his. apostles did not condemn slaveholders, nor command
them to emancipate their slaves."
" Rev. Mr. Ely" repeated the old story of Paul's returning a fugitive
slave to his master. He would seek the conversion of the slaves first, and
then seek their liberty in the Lord's way and in the Lord's time.
The New York Observer, in its account of this matter, declares that the
resolutions introduced by Mr. Perkins were the most ultra and untenable
ever heard of in any ecclesiastical body.
A severer satire upqn " ecclesiastical bodies " it would be
difficult to indite. If the Resolutions of Mr. Perkins were too
ultra, there was an opportunity presented to the General As
sociation, had they been disposed, to have adopted others of a
sufficiently accommodating character.
Rev. S. W. S. Dutton was convinced that the resolutions of Mr. Perkins
would not pass. If they were disposed of, he would offer the following :
" 1. Resolved, That the buying and selling of human beings for gain;
the forced separation of husbands and wives, parents and children ; the per
mission, by masters, to servants under their control, to live in a temporary
-concubinage, liable to be ended at any time by the caprice of either party,
•or by the caprice of others ; the withholding the Bible and the ability to
read the Bible, by masters, from servants under their control and care ; and
in general, the treatment of servants by masters in any manner inconsis
tent with their nature as immortal beings, for whom Christ gave himself
to die, are crimes utterly inconsistent with a standing and a name in the
Church of Christ.
" 2. Resolved, That all those laws, whether of individual States or of
the United States, which, instead of prohibiting and punishing these crimes,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 177
require, or encourage, or allow them, are a foul disgrace to a. people who
glory in the possession of freedom as God's inalienable gift to man, and are
deeply to be deplored by all friends of their country, as fitted to call down
upon it the direst judgments of heaven.
"3. Whereas, There ig a common fame, the cry of which has gone
abroad to the ends of the earth, that these crimes are perpetrated by minis
ters and members in both branches of the Presbyterian Church in this
country ; therefore,
" Resolved, That our delegates be directed to present a copy of these
resolutions to each branch of the Presbyterian Church, with our fraternal
request, that the truth of this common fame be publicly denied, or, if that
be inconsistent with facts, that proper and effectual measures be taken to
bring the offenders to repentance."
These Resolutions are similar in spirit to those presented to
the American Board at Brooklyn, the same year, by Dr.
Leonard Bacon of New Haven, and unsuccessfully advocated
by him, on that occasion. He also advocated the above reso
lutions of Mr. Dutton, before the General Association of Con
necticut. What objection could there have been against them ? They
were specially designed to waive the mooted questions of the-
sinfulness both of slavery and slaveholding,. and fix upon what.
are claimed to be the abuses of the system. He urged upon.
the Board, and upon the General Assembly, the importance
of condemning, distinctly, these practices.
Why could it not be done ? Why, but because, instead of
an indefinite and vague abstraction there was an inconvenient
and well understood specification, of prevalent practices ; of
practices which would criminate the great body pf religious
slaveholders at. the South? Because, moreover, the third
Resolution would be understood at the South as evidence that
the General Association of Connecticut were in earnest for the
removal of these practices.
It will be seen, on inspection, that the action of the General
Association of Connecticut does not conflict with the positions
of Professor Stuart, or, at least, only as Professor Stuart's
positions conflict with eaoh other. Self-consistency is not to
be expected, where the effort is to avoid the condemnation of
12

178 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
that which common sense and common decency will not con
sent to defend.

GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS.
This body of Congregational Ministers have been led to re
cord a somewhat different testimony, and one which it might
be difficult to reconcile with their patronage of Professor Stu
art, and of the American Board:
In 1834 the General Association adopted the following
Resolutions :

" 1. Resolved, That the slavery existing in this country, by which more
than two millions of our countrymen are deprived of their inalienable rights,
and held and treated as mere merchandise, is a violation of the law of God
and the fundamental principles of our national government.
" 2. That this Association regards those usages and laws in the slave-
holding States which withhold the Bible as a book to be read from the
slave population, as inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity.
" 3. That we deeply sympathize with our enslaved brethren, and com
mend their cause to the prayers of the Christian Church.
" 4. That the efforts recently made in some of the slaveholding States
for imparting religious instructions to the slaves, are regarded by us with
lively hope and earnest prayers for their universal extension.
" 5. That the principles and objects of the American Anti-Slavery So
ciety, so far as they do not come in collision with the American Coloniza
tion Society, meet with our approbation."
A sixth resolution recommended the Colonization Society to
the continued support of the churches, by collections on the
Fourth of July, &c. How far the first three resolutions were
congruous with the remaining ones, and how well they com
ported with the subsequent activities of those who voted for
them, we do not now stop to inquire. But it is proper to re
mark that these resolutions were adopted in the presence of
the agents of the two societies, (the Anti-slavery and the Col
onization,) who were pressing their rival claims, and at a time
when the opposition of leading Colonizationists to the Anti-
slavery movement had diminished the receipts of the Coloni
zation Society.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 179
In 1837, the General Association adopted the following :
" Whereas, Slavery, as it exists in our country, is a great moral and
social evil ; and whereas, no man should feel indifferent respecting that
which the God of heaven disapproves, therefore,
^ 1. Resolved, That the assumed right of holding our fellow-men in bond
age, working them without wages, and buying and selling them as property,
is obviously contrary to the principles of natural justice and the spirit of
the gospel, offensive to God, and ought to cease with the least possible
delay. " 2. Resolved, That we approve of free and candid discussion on the sub
ject of slavery, and also of all other proper methods of diffusing light and
promoting correct moral sentiment, which may have an influence to do away
the evil."— Eman., Aug. 10, 1837.
How well these resolutions, especially the second, corres
pond with the action of the General Association at the same
session, and the year previous, in respect to the labors of anti-
slavery lecturers among their churches, the reader will judge
when he shall have seen the record, in another chapter, of the
opposition raised against abolitionists. For the present, we
let it stand disconnected with those matters, and by the side
of other Congregational testimonies concerning slavery.
In 1849, the General Association adopted the following:
" Resolved, That, in maintaining correspondence and connection with
the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church, we look with deep
solicitude upon the position of those bodies with respect to the sin of
slavery ; that our own strong sympathies are with those brethren in these
Assemblies who are laboring in an earnest and Christian spirit to put an end
to this evil ; and that we desire our delegates to those Assemblies, in a
decided but courteous manner, to express our deep conviction, that the right
of the enslaved, the cause of true religion, and the honor of the Great Head
of the Church, require those ecclesiastical bodies to use all their legitimate
power and influence for the speedy removal of slavery from the churches
under their supervision."
The fact of a religious connection and fraternal intercourse
between the Congregationalists of Massachusetts and the slave-
holding Presbyterians of the South, is here distinctly recog
nized, an item of some importance, as we sometimes hear it
confidently denied. The manner in which the Old School
General Assembly, as already mentioned, repulsed this remon-

180 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
strance, affords some evidence that they regarded it as having
been uttered in earnest. It affords, at the same time, an occa-_
sion and an opportunity for the General Association of Massa
chusetts to show, by their future course and position, whether
they are prepared to carry out the principle's involved in this
testimony. The alternative is now fairly presented to them,
of forbearing a repetition of that testimony, or of ceasing
to " maintain correspondence and connection " with the Old
School Presbyterian Church.
The Convention of- Congregational Ministers of
Massachusetts/in 1848, appointed a committee to prepare a
report on slavery. The committee made an elaborate report
in 1849. The Convention approving of "the general prin
ciples and results of the same," authorized its publication.*
The annual report of the Am. & For. A. S. Society says, that
it contains some things which they (the anti-slavery commit
tee) cannot approve, but that, on the whole, it bears " a faithful
testimony against the wrongfulness of slavery." From some
extracts it appears that this document denies that " slavery,
as it exists in the United States, and as it has been legalized,"
is sanctioned by the Bible. It affirms that the Mosaic institu
tions are " utterly repugnant, and destructive to, all slavehold
ing and slavery;" and finally, that "it well becomes the Con
vention of Congregational Ministers of this ancient Common
wealth solemnly to declare to .the world their deep conviction
of the injustice and inhumanity of the system of slavery, and
of its absolute repugnance to all the principles of the word
of God." GENERAL CONFERENCE OF MAINE.
This body is composed of Congregational ministers and lay
delegates. In 1836, the Conference
" Resolved, That slaveholding, as it exists in a portion of these United
States, is a great sin against God and man, for which the nation ought to

* Published by T. R. Marvin, Boston : 92 pages. This Convention consists of
both "Orthodox" and Unitarian Congregational ministers, associated for some

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 181
humble itself, and for the speedy and entire removal of which, every Chris
tian ought to pray, and use all suitable means within his reach." — Eman.
The Congregational ministers and churches of Maine, as a
body, have appeared to be more earnest in their condemna
tion of slavery, than those of Massachusetts and Connecticut.
In 1846, the General Conference adopted a paper expressing their " sur
prise and grief" at the then recent action of the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church, which, say they, " appears to be directly at vari
ance with the former report made by the General Assembly in 1818, and to
be intended as a justification of the system of slavery now existing in the
Southern States."— Chr. Inv., Feb. 1846.
CONGREGATIONAL PUBLICATIONS.
Ihe Christian Spectator, the organ of the New Haven or New
School Theology of New England, was earlier in its defence
of slavery than the Old School Doctors at Princeton, or the
Professor at Andover.
" The Bible contains no explicit prohibition of slavery. It recognizes,
both in the Old and New Testaments, such a constitution of society, and it
lends its authority to enforce the mutual obligations resulting from that con
stitution. Its language is, ' Slaves, obey your masters, and, masters; give
unto your slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a
master in heaven.' There is neither chapter nor verse of holy writ which
lends any countenance to the fulminating spirit of universal emancipation,
of which some specimens may be seen in some of the newspapers." — New
Haven Chr. Spectator, Sept., 1832, Vol. II. , No. 5, p. 473 ; Gen. Temp.,
April 17, 1833.
" Domestic slavery, in the light of the Scriptures, and in the light of
common sense, is justifiable to the same extent, and on exactly the same
principles with despotism on a larger scale. The right and the wrong of
both is, materially, perhaps we should say precisely, the same." * * *
" What is the duty of the Emperor of Russia towards his fifty millions of
slaves ? Is it his crime that they are his slaves V &c, &c.—Ib.
The innocency of "despotism" in general is strange doc
trine in America, and among the sons of the Puritans, admit
ting, for the sake of the argument, that chattel slavery is no
worse — which is not true.
On the vitally important subject oi oral instruction for slaves,
as a substitute for the reading of the scriptures, the Congre-

182 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
gational press, in New England, to some extent, took
substantially, the ground of the following extracts. The
Portland Christian Mirror, if we mistake not, contained some
suggestions in that direction.
The Editor of the Vermont Chronicle, (Rev. Joseph Tracy,)
afterwards Editor of the Boston Recorder, and more recently
assistant Editor of the N. Y. Observer, wrote of the slaves as
follows :
" They have a right to such religious and other instruction as they are
capable of receiving. When they have profited by that, they will be capable
of receiving more, and so on, till they become capable of performing the
duties of freemen and then they will have a right to be free. That they
have a right to be taught to read, immediately, we do not say, but their right
to be taught that which it will be immensely difficult, all but impossible, to
teach them without reading, is as evident as the sun at noon-day." — Vermont
Chronicle, vide Emancipator, March 11, 1834.
" The art of reading, we know, wonderfully increases the facility with
which we may fit ourselves for the performance of duty, but it is possible to
become safe citizens without it. We, therefore, pass no sentence, either
OF CONDEMNATION OR APPROVAL, ON THOSE WHO WITHHOLD THIS ART FROM
their slaves. We only say they must be educated. You must educate
them. Take your own way to do il. If you find it safe to put books into
their hands, it will diminish your labor immensely. If not, you must do it,
nevertheless. The labor of educating them without books will be immense,
but, books or no books, it must be done, and if books are unsafe instruments,
you must work the harder." — Sermon of Rev. Joseph Tracy, before the
Vermont Col. Soe.
" Capable of receiving!" How long before they will be
" capable" of learning to read ? What right have one class of
men to sit in judgment, and decide upon the capabilities of
another class to receive and study the scriptures ? If we may
" pass no sentence of condemnation" on this assumption in
America, then we must cease our condemnation of it in Spain
and Italy.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 183

CHAPTER XV.
POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES, ETC. CONTINUED.
IV. — BAPTISTS.
Charleston (S. C.) Association — Savannah River (Geo.) ditto — Goslein (Va.) ditto-
Rev. Dr. Furman— Sale of his negroes — Dr. Bolles — "Pleasing union" among
Am. Baptists — "Southern brethren, generaUy Slaveholders" — North Carolina
Association — Baptist Triennial Convention — Board of Foreign Missions — Acting
Board at Boston — Baptist Home Mission Society — Am. and For. Bible Society —
Am. Bap. Publication Society.
Unlike Presbyterians and Methodists, the Baptists are
subject to no great ecclesiastical body, holding supervision
over all the Churches and members of the denomination,
Northern and Southern. The non-slaveholding portion, there
fore, of the Baptist sect, at the North, can plead no organic
difficulties, of an ecclesiastical character, in the way of their
entire separation from the sin of slaveholding, and their
untrammeled religious testimony against it. If they receive
the sin into their pulpits, and seat it at their communion
tables, it is not because the canons of their church require
them to submit to such arrangements, nor because any Bishops,
Conferences, or General Assemblies, have imposed the burthen
upon them. The bond of affinity and sympathy between
Baptist slaveholders and Baptist Anti-Slavery men, if it exists
at all, exists voluntarily, and not by compulsion — exists as a
veritable reality and not as a mere matter of appearance and
form. That Southern Baptists, like Southern Methodists, Presby
terians, and Episcopalians, are commonly slaveholders (except
those of them who are slaves,) we need not spend time to

184 GREAT STRUGGLE^ BETWEEN
prove, as it will not be denied. A few facts will show the
general position of Southern Baptists, on tbe subject.
In 1835, the Charleston Baptist Association addressed a
memorial to the Legislature of South Carolina, in defence of
slavery. They say :
" The said Association does not consider that the holy scriptures have
made the fact of slavery a question of morals at all. The Divine Author of
our holy religion, in particular, found slavery' a part of the existing
institutions of society, with which, if not sinful, it was not his design to
intermeddle, but to leave them entirely to the control of men. Adopting it,
therefore, as one of the allowed relations of Society, he made it the province
of his religion only to prescribe the reciprocal duties of the relation. The
question it is believed is purely one of political economy, &c."
As it is here assumed that Christ and Christianity do not
" intermeddle" with questions of mere " political economy,"
and as slavery is affirmed to be purely such a question, and not
a question of morals, it might be inquired why an ecclesiastical
body. should depart from what it alleged to be Christ's example,
by " intermeddling" with this purely political subject ? The
"Association" proceeded to affirm their right to hold slaves,
and to say :
""Neither society nor individuals, have any more authority to demand a
relinquishment without an equivalent, in the one case than in the other,''
(that is, their right to) " the money and lands inherited from ancestors or
derived from industry."
The Association then claims for the State of S. Carolina,
the exclusive right " to regulate the existence and continu
ance of slavery within her territorial limits," and they
add :
" We would resist, to the utmost, every invasion of THIS RIGHT,
come from what quarter and under whatever pretense it may."
The object, then, of this ecclesiastical memorial to the
State Legislature, was to affirm the inherent right of slave-
holding, on the same basis of the rights of property in "money
and lands," to invoke or encourage a continued legislative
protection of this supposed right, and to pledge The Charles-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 185
ton Baptist Association, to the support of this legislative action,
even to the point of resistance to the utmost.
Sad business for the professed disciples of him who came
to proclaim the jubilee of deliverance to the captives !
How Baptist slaveholders understand the tenure of their
assumed rights of property in man, and at what expense they
expect those rights to be maintained by their State Legislatures,
may be learned from the following :
In 1835 the following query, relating to slaves, was pre
sented to the Savannah River Baptist Association of ministers :
" Whether, in case of involuntary separation of such a character as to
preclude all future intercourse, the parties may be allowed to marry again 1"
answer.
" That such separation among persons situated as our slaves are, is civilly
a separation by death, and they believe that, in the sight of God, it would
be so viewed. To forbid second marriages in such cases, would be to
expose the parties not only to greater hardships and stronger temptations,
but to church censure for acting in oledience to their masters, who cannot
be expected to acquiesce in a regulation at variance with justice to the
slaves, and to the spirit of that command which regulates marriage between
Christians. The slaves are not free agents, and a dissolution by death is
not more entirely without their consent and beyond their control than by
such separation."
Incidentally here, the fact leaks out that slave cohabitation
is enforced by the authority of the masters, for the increase
of their human chattels, and that this is done in utter con
tempt of the divine institution of marriage. And a body of
devout ecclesiastics gravely decide that inasmuch as this pro
cess, in connection with the frequent and forced separation
from each other of wives and husbands belonging to Baptist
churches, is inseparable from the slave system, the divine in
stitution of marriage, as expounded by Christ, must be modi-.
fied in conformity with the slave code, in order" that those
whom God hath joined together, may, by man, be put asun
der, so that Baptist wives may have two husbands and Baptist
husbands may have two wives, without being subjected to
"church censure."
The "censure" of such churches, verily, must be of vast

186 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
benefit in rebuking the sin of adultery ! H any testimony
were wanted, to establish the fact that slavery is incompatible
with marriage, the Savannah River Baptist Association have
furnished it to our hands.
In the same year, 1835, the ministers and messengers of
the Goslein Baptist Association, assembled at Free Union,
Virginia, adopted resolutions, affirming their right to slave
property. In 1833, Rev. Dr. Furman addressed to the Governor
of South Carolina an exposition of the views of Baptists, in
which he said :
" The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scrip
tures-, both by precept and example."
" Dr. Furman died not long afterward. His legal representatives thus
advertised his property for sale : " ' NOTICE.
" ' On the first day of February next will be put up at public auction,
before the Court-house, the following property, belonging to the estate of
the late Rev. Dr. Furman, viz. :
" ' A plantation or tract of land on and in Wateree Swamp ; a tract of
the first quality of fine land on the waters of Black River ; a lot of land in
the town of Camden ; a library of a miscellaneous character, chiefly
THEOLOGICAL ;
27 NEGROES,
some of them very prime ; two mules, one horse, and an old wagon.' "
This is Baptist religion at the South. And what is it at
the North?
" The late Rev. Lucius Bolles, D.D., of Massachusetts, Cor. Sec. Amer.
Bap. Board for Foreign Missions, in 1834, said :
" ' There is a pleasing degree of union among the multiplying thousands
of Baptists throughout the land.' *****' Our Southern brethren
are generally, both ministers and people, slaveholders.' " — American
Churches, &c.
The great majority of northern Baptists endorse this state
ment and certify the essential identity of their religion with
that of Southern Baptists, by joining with them in sending
their religion . . . to ihe heathen.
The North Carolina Baptist Convention, in 1838 or 1839,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 187
adopted a report of a Committee on the religious instruction
of people of color. After urging, in a series of Resolutions,
the duty of instructing slaves, they close with the following :
" Resolved, That by religious instruction be understood, VERBAL com
munications on religious subjects." — Vide Cincinnati Cross and Baptist
Journal, as quoted in A. S. Lecturer, No. 3.
Thus careful were they to be understood as not intending
to recommend giving slaves the Bible and permitting them to
read. THE BAPTIST TRIENNIAL CONVENTION.
This body was organized in 1814.
" Under its constitution, slaveholders and non-slaveholders united on
terms of social and moral equality. This was its fatal error. It caused
the Convention, from its birth to its dissolution, to sanction as Christian a
slaveholding religion." "The first President was Richard Furman, a
slaveholder of South Carolina. He filled the office till 1820, when another
slaveholder, Robert B. Semple, of Virginia, succeeded him, and was Pre
sident till 1832, when Spencer H. Cone,* of New York (City) was elected,
who held the office till 1841, when another slaveholder, William B. John
son, of South Carolina, was elected, at the close of whose term of office,
1844, Francis Wayland became President. Thus, for twenty-one of the
thirty years of this organization, slaveholders were its Presidents." — Facts
for Bap. Churches, pp. 14, 15.
Connected with the Triennial Convention was a General
Board of Baptist Foreign Missions ; and subordinate to this
was an "Acting Board," located in Boston.
So late as 1844, near the time of the dissolution of that
body, it came to light that there was a slaveholding mis
sionary in its employ, a Mr. Bushyhead, who was laboring
among the Cherokees. He lived in a fine dwelling, had a
plantation, and several slaves. — Ib. p. 102.
It also appeared, not long after, that there were several
southern missionaries employed by the Board, and that, among
these, Mr. Davenport and his wife, at Siam, were slaveholders.
* In 1828 or 1824, Mr. Cone was pastor of a Blaveholding Baptist Church in Alex
andria (D. C.)

188 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
This was stated, on authority of the " Christian Index," (a
Southern Baptist paper) by the New York Baptist Register,
of Utica, N. Y, April 6, 1845.— Ib. p. 113-17.
It was also stated, on good authority, that several others
among the foreign missionaries were slaveholders. — Ib. p.
122-3. "THE AMERICAN BAPTIST HOME MISSION SOCIETY
was organized in the City of New York, April 27, 1832."
" Missionary Societies " (northern and southern) "by paying
into its treasury their surplus funds, become auxiliary." Its
constitution makes no distinction between slaveholders and
non-slaveholders. " The Society has elected slaveholding
officers, sent out slaveholding missionaries, and planted slave-
holding churches, and all this in perfect keeping with its Con
stitution. Slaveholders are, to-day, (1850) on its list of life
members, and its treasury is open to the price of men and
women and little children." " As the Missionary of this
Society, (Mr. Tryon,) entered Texas, he drove his slaves be
fore him."— Ib. p. 63-65.
It was publicly stated, at a meeting in Philadelphia, by
Eld. Duncan Dunbar, that twenty-six slaveholders had been em
ployed by the Board. — Ib. p. 65.
The subject of employing slaveholding Missionaries came
up for consideration, at its twelfth annual meeting, at Phila
delphia, in 1844, but, after discussion, no action was taken
against it. Instead of this, a Resolution (drawn up by Eld.
R. Fuller, a slaveholder of South Carolina, and a Biblical de
fender of slavery,) was adopted, assuming neutral ground,
and disclaiming fellowship, as a Society, either with slavery
or anti-slavery. At this meeting, Eld. B. M. Hill, Corres
ponding Secretary of the Society, stated that the Southern
States paid more into the treasury than the Northern States,
and therefore more southern missionaries were appointed than
northern ones. — Ib. p. 88-90.
At the meeting of the Society at Providence, R. I, April,
1845, some further discussion was had, and some incipient

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 189
measures for a division between the North and the South
were considered, and a committee appointed to mature a plan.
Assurances were given that, in the meantime, no more slave-
holding missionaries should be appointed. But the promise
was violated. " Two slaveholding missionaries had been
appointed in February, and one of them was appointed agaim
the next year, after the fact of his slaveholding had been
published in the Minutes of the Baptist Convention of North
Carolina, as a proof that the Home Missionary Society was
willing to employ slaveholders, and as an evidence that no
rule had been adopted at Providence prohibiting the appoint
ment of slaveholders."— Ib. 149-162.
THE AMERICAN AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY,
(Baptist) was organized in 1837, the year of the martyrdom
of Lovejoy, and after the murderous spirit of slaveholding
ministers and church members against northern abolitionists
had been fully revealed. It was a fraternal union between
the leading ministers and the great majority of the lay brother
hood of Baptists, at the North and at the South. It had, in
1841, fifty-eight auxiliary societies in the slaveholding states.
It has never been without slaveholding officers. — lb. p. 58-9.
The (Baptist) "Christian Index," Georgia, of November
16, 1848, contained an appeal in behalf of this Bible Society,
and also an advertisement, in which " a plantation with some
twenty negroes, stock of every kind," &c, were offered for
sale.— Ib. p. 323-4.
At a meeting of this Society, it was " Resolved to furnish
every family in the United States with a Bible."
Eld. Abel Brown immediately rose and inquired, mildly,
whether the resolution embraced slaves ? Scarcely had the
words escaped his lips, when the house resounded with the
cry of " Order! order ! order !" and the President, Eld. Spen
cer H. Cone, with emphatic voice and gesture, called out to
him,-.-" Sit down, Sir ! you are out of order." — Ib. 327.
The Society has never published its intention of giving the
Bible to the poor heathen in the slave states, though it is be-

190 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
lieved that money has been repeatedly offered to the Society
for the object, and that they have, invariably, refused to re
ceive it.— Ib. 327-8.
And yet, in a communication to the committee of the (Eng
lish) General Baptist Missionary Society, the Board of the
American, and Foreign Bible Society, Nov. 3, 1847, over the
signature of Eld. Spencer H. Cone, said, of the Society, —
" They have never withheld the Bible from the slave." And they fur
ther say they have reason to believe that " the colored race, bond and free,"
receive a fair proportion of their books !
Of the credibility of these statements, the American reader
can judge.— Ib. 325-334.
The Board further says: "We have never designed, nor
are we conscious that we have done aught to abet the system
or practice of slavery." Yet the Society (1849) receives slave
holders to membership, has 59 auxiliaries, 506 life members,
99 life directors, and 9 Yice Presidents, in the slave states. —
Ib. p. 333-4.
"THE AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY,"
is also " a bond of union between the North and the South,"
publishing nothing againt slavery. — Ib. p. 340-44.
A further account of the position of Baptist organizations
in respect to slavery, will appear in another chapter, as con
nected with the movements of abolitionists, and Baptist " Free
Missions."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 191

CHAPTER XVI.
POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES, ETC., CONTINUED.
V. THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
Testimony of John Jay, Esq. — Sermon of Mr. Freeman — Bishop Ives — Protestant
Episcopal Society of South Carolina — Bishop Bowen — " The Churchman" — Pro
hibition of reading— General Theological Seminary — Treatment of a Colored
student, Alexander Crummel— Position of Rev. Drs. Milnor, Taylor, Smith, and
Hawks — Dissent of Bishop Doane — Exclusion of Colored Ministers from Eccle
siastical Councils — Episcopal Convention at Philadelphia— St. Thomas' Church.
The prevailing temper of the Protestant Episcopal Church
is thus testified of, by John Jay, Esq., of the City of New
York — himself an Episcopalian — in a pamphlet entitled,
" Thoughts on the Duty of the Episcopal Church, in relation
to Slavery."
" Alas ! for the expectation that she would conform to the spirit of her
ancient mother ! She has not merely remained a mute and careless spec
tator of this great conflict of truth and justice with hypocrisy and cruelty,
but her very priests and deacons may be seen ministering at the altar of
slavery, offering their talents and influence at its unholy shrine, and openly
repeating the awful blasphemy, that the precepts of our Saviour sanction
the system of American slavery. Her Northern (free State) clergy, with
rare exceptions, whatever they may feel on the subject, rebuke it neither
in public nor in private, and her periodicals, far from advancing the pro
gress of abolition, at times oppose our societies, impliedly defending slavery,
as not incompatible with Christianity, and occasionally withholding informa
tion useful to the cause of freedom." — Birney's American Churches, &c,
pp. 39, 40.
" In 1836, a Clergyman of North Carolina, of the name of Freeman,
preached, in presence of his bishop (Rev. Levi S. Ives, D.D., a native of a
free State), two sermons on the rights and duties of slaveholders. In these

192 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
he essayed to justify, from the Bible, the slavery of both white men and
negroes, and insisted that, ' without a new revelation from heaven, no man
was authorized to pronounce slavery wrong.' The two sermons were
printed in a. pamphlet, prefaced with a letter to Mr. Freeman from the
Bishop of North Carolina, declaring that he had ' listened with most un
feigned pleasure' to his discourses, and advised their publication, as being
' urgently called for at the present time.'
" The Protestant Episcopal Society for the Advancement of Christianity
in South Carolina thought it expedient, and, in all likelihood, with Bishop
Bowen's approbation, to republish Mr. Freeman's pamphlet as a religious
tract'."— II., p. 41.
The Churchman, edited by a Doctor of Divinity, and pre
viously an instructor in a theological seminary, held the fol
lowing language, in respect to the legal prohibition of teaching
the colored population to read :
" All the knowledge which is necessary to salvation — .all the knowledge
of our duty towards God, and our duty to our neighbor, may be communi
cated by oral instruction, and therefore a law of the land interdicting other
means of instruction, does not trench upon the law of God." — Ib.
This argument would justify the Romish Church in with
holding the Bible from the laity. And by the same kind of
logic it might be argued, with much greater force,, that, since
"the holy scriptures are able to make men wise unto salva
tion," therefore, in a community that can read and that has
Bibles, " a law of the land interdicting other means of instruc
tion" (oral instruction by preaching) "does not trench upon
the law of God." If the civil or ecclesiastical authorities may
interdict some means of religious instruction they may inter
dict others. If they may interdict the Bible, they may, doubt
less, interdict the " Book of Common Prayer" and all the forms
of instruction, including the rituals of the Episcopal or any
other church. To such results do those drive their arguments
who would defend the usages of slavery. The employment
of such arguments certifies what those usages are, and that the
slave code is not a dead letter. The quarter they come from
indicates the relative position, in respect to them, of the Church
and the State. If the prevailing religion of the country did
not sanction them, they could not be protected by the State

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 193
laws ; nay, such enactments would not have been made. No
civil government, however despotic, can " interdict" the stand
ard books of the prevailing and predominant religion, and sur
vive the process. Whenever the prevailing religion of the
country shall be the religion of the Bible, in which is contained
the divine injunction, " Search ihe Scriptures," the laws and the
usages " interdicting" the same Scriptures will, of course, be
come obsolete, and the slave system, which can be supported
only by such interdiction, will fall.
Alexander Crummel, a colored young gentleman of the
city of New York, made application to " become a candidate
for holy orders." He received from his bishop the usual cir
cular in such cases, in which he was encouraged to " belong
to the General Theological Seminary," located at New York.
In the statutes of the Seminary it is expressly said, " Every
person producing to the Faculty satisfactory evidence of his
having.been admitted a candidate for holy orders," &c., " shall
be received as a student of the Seminary." He was, however,
referred to the Board of Trustees. A committee was appointed
to consider and report, consisting of Bishop Doane, Rev. Drs.
Milnor, Taylor, and Smith, and Messrs. D. B. Ogden, New
ton, and Johnson. The next day (June 26, 1839), Bishop
Doane, on request, was excused from further service on this
committee, and Bishop Onderdonk, of Pennsylvania, appointed
to fill the vacancy. This committee reported, June 27th, that
" having deliberately considered the said petition, they are of
opinion that it ought not to be granted" and they recommended
a resolution accordingly, which, on motion of Rev. Dr. Hawks,
was adopted. Mr. Huntington moved that the subject be
referred to the Faculty, which was lost. Bishop Doane, June
28th, asked leave to state to the Board his reasons for dissent,
with a view to the entering of the same on the minutes. Leave
was not granted. ¦ During these proceedings Mr. Crummel was
advised by the Bishop of New York to withdraw his petition
and was assured that the Faculty were willing to impart to
him private instruction. In the minutes of the^ proceedings
there was a careful avoidance of all allusion to the cause of
13

194 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
excluding Mr. Crummel, leaving it to be inferred that it was
for some cause besides his color, which was not the fact. Mr.
Crummel afterwards became a member of the Theological
department of Yale College, but not being treated there as
white students are, he was compelled to complete his educa
tion in Europe ! He is now an ordained clergyman of the
American Protestant Episcopal Church.
Regularly ordained ministers and rectors of parishes have
been excluded from seats in the ecclesiastical councils of their
church, solely on account of their color. " The rector of a
colored church in Philadelphia is excluded by an express
canon ofthe Diocesan Convention." — Vide J. &. Birney's Am.
Churches, pp. 39-41.
Quite recently, the Episcopal Convention of Pennsylvania,
sitting in Philadelphia, after discussion, decided against the
admission of colored delegates.
We learn from the Saturday Evening Post, that at the late Episcopal
Convention, a final decision was made upon the question of admitting repre
sentatives from the African Church of St. Thomas.
The majority of the committee appointed to consider the subject, reported
adversely to the admission, arguing that the color, and physical and social
condition and education of the blacks, render them unfit to participate iij
legislative bodies. The Rev. Mr. Montgomery submitted a minority report,
which stated that, in the month of September, 1794, Bishop White laid
before the Convention the Constitution of St. Thomas's Church, and it was
then resolved, that as soon as they should sign the Act of Association,
they should be entitled to all the privileges of the Diocese. It also
urged that the exclusion of delegates on account of their color, was con
trary to the spirit of Christianity, and the practice of the church in apostolic
times. After a short discussion, the vote was taken upon adopting the report of
the majority, which was decided as follows : Clerical, ayes 44, nays 42.
Lay votes, by churches, ayes 50, nays 17. So it was resolved that the
delegates from St. Thomas' Church should not be admitted to seats in the
Convention ! ! — Liberator, June 28, 1850.
The large number of nays, in the clerical vote, deserves
notice, as an encouraging indication, and as contrasting
strongly and remarkably with the vote of the laity.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 195

CHAPTER XVII.
POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES, ETC. (CONTINUED.)
VI. — OTHER SECTS — GENERAL VIEW.
Protestant Methodist Church— Dutch Reformed— Roman Catholics — Unitarians, Uni-
versalists and Restorationists — Free Will Baptists— Cumberland Presbyterians —
Orthodox and Hicksite Friends— Scotch Covenanters— General View. Testimony
of Rev. James Smylie, of Mississippi— S. W. Chr. Adv. & Journal— Presb. Synod,
Kentucky— Rev. C. C. Jones, of Georgia.
¥e have now spoken of the principal religious denomina
tions in America. The reader has already noticed our cheer
ful recognition of the fact that in all of them there are earnest
friends of the slaves. Of some of the smaller sects, it cannot
be said that their position essentially differs from the preced
ing, though smaller and younger sects are commonly more
free than larger ones.
The Protestant Methodist Church (which rejects Epis
copacy) has a Southern as well as a Northern membership,
and allows slaveholding. After some agitation in their Gen
eral Conference, and some signs of a Northern secession in
Western New York, a General Conference at Cincinnati
declined any anti-slavery action, the Northern Conferences
did not secede, and there has been little or no agitation since.
The Dutch Reformed Church is not known to differ in
respect to slavery from northern Congregationalists and Pres
byterians with which sects it co-operates in the enterprise of
Foreign Missions.
There are some advocates of emancipation among the
Roman Catholics, but it is not known that the number is

196 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
large, or that the question of slavery, or of the treatment of
the colored people, has been agitated in that communion.
The Catholics in the Slave States are as generally slavehold
ers as others.
Unitarians, Universalists, and Restorationists, whose
church polity is generally Congregational, were not included
in our account of the Congregational sect. We cannot say
that they differ widely from other sects at the North, though
they have little or no direct ecclesiastical connections or
branches at the South. They are divided on the abohtion
question, as other sects are.
A large, though select number of Unitarian ministers,
signed, some time since, an extended document against sla
very, but not taking, it is believed, higher ground than the
" orthodox " General Association of Massachusetts and Gene
ral Conference of Maine had taken several years before.
Whether the document is better honored by them, in prac
tice, as a general fact, we cannot tell. Nor can we conjecture
how anti-slavery resolutions would be disposed of in their
regularly constituted Associations, if it were their habit to
bear testimonies in that way. We have heard of no thorough
anti-slavery churches of that sect, or of the withdrawal of
ministers and laymen for re-organization, on account of the
slave question, though there are earnest and active abolition
ists among them, and of the radical type not approved by the
late Dr. Channing.
The statements made in the last sentence may, perhaps,
apply to Universalists and Restorationists. A large, if not a
general Association of Universalists, some time since,
adopted a general testimony against slavery.
Of all these, as sects, we must however say, that the weight
of their influence, especially at the ballot-box, as in the case
of the larger sects, is not against slavery, but in its support.
And we cannot here, and in this particular, make an excep
tion in favor of some other sects, as the "Orthodox" and the
"Hicksite" Friends, and the Free- Will Baptists, who
claim the merit of being opposed to slavery, and whose printed

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 197
"testimonies " to that effect have not been wanting.* To say
nothing now of their general treatment of active abolitionists
belonging to their own sect (a topic of which we are not
directly speaking in this chapter), the general influence of
even these sects, or of a majority of their members, especially
at the ballot-box, has been, and still is, on the side of the
slave power, in voting for slaveholders and their supporters.
The majority of "Friends," of both classes, have not only
voted for slaveholding candidates for the Presidency, but, in
the case of the late General Taylor, for a candidate whose
sudden and surprising popularity (first at the South, and then
at the North) was owing wholly to the terrible success (some
times by the aid of bloodhounds) with which he prosecuted
aggressive pro-slavery wars, in further contempt of the pro
fessed principles of Friends.
If such be the position of what have been called the anti-
slavery sects, by way of distinction, what must be the position
of the others ? Who can marvel that, in the case just adverted
to, the preponderating influence of Presbyterian and Congre
gational ministers should have been cast into the same scale
with the Friends? And what can be said in excuse of such
a course, when an united rally at the polls, by professed
Christians of all sects, even in the free States alone, in oppo
sition to the slave power, would so manifestly and so speedily
terminate its iron and bloody sway ?
In due justice to Free-Will Baptists, it should be further
said, that their periodical publications and ecclesiastical bodies
have generally, if not uniformly, taken anti-slavery ground,
from the beginning of the ' agitation on the subject. And at
an early day they separated themselves (the Northern and
principal portion of them) from a considerable body of South
ern Free-Will Baptists, who refused to relinquish slavehold-
* It is possible for a sect or religious body, in its public or corporate character, and
by its ofHoial and formal declarations and proceedings, to maintain a strong testi
mony against slavery, and even (as in the case of the Free-Will Baptists and
Friends) to withdraw religious fellowship from slaveholders ; while the great body
of its members and officers, for political ends, sustain slavery at the polls.

198 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ing. Their testimony, on the whole, is perhaps not behind
that of the " Friends."
The Scotch Covenanters, or Associate Reformed Pres
byterian Church, is anti-slavery, and having scruples (on
other grounds) that deter them from voting at all under our
government, they are free from pro-slavery voting.
The Cumberland Presbyterians have sometimes been
described as anti-slavery, but their " General Assembly refuse
to legislate on the subject of slavery, on the plea that, as spir
itual bodies, they have no .cognizance of civil matters." — An.
Beport Am. & For. A. S. Soe., 1852, p. 19.
"The Disciples" — sometimes called Campbellites (from
their founder, Alexander Campbell)— are numerous at the
West and South. They are slaveholders and slaves. Pres.
Shannon, of Bacon College, a prominent member of the sect,

"' Thus did Jehovah stereotype his approbation of domestic slavery, by
incorporating it into the Jewish religion, the only religion on earth that had
the divine sanction."
Alexander Campbell himself, in his "Millennial Harbinger,"
says: " There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting it, but many regulating
it. It is not, then, we conclude, immoral." — Pillsbury's " Church as it is"
pp. 52-3.
Of the anti-slavery churches, sects, ecclesiastical bodies,
and missionary organizations that have grown out of the
abolition movement, and which are controlled by abolition
ists, we shall give some account in another connection.
GENERAL VIEW.
The record we have presented looks in the direction of a
general estimate of the religious influences of the country on
the slave question. And it indicates the position of the pro
fessed Christianity of the North, as represented by the differ
ent sects. If there be any further inquiry needed respecting
the system that is thus sustained, or whether, in the hands of

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 199
professing Christians of the different sects at the South, it be
the thing that its opposejs represent it to be, a few testimonies
may satisfy the inquirer.
" The Rev. James Smylie, A.M., of the Amite Presbytery, Mississippi,
in a pamphlet published by him" (about fifteen years ago), " in favor of
American slavery, says :
" If slavery be a sin, and advertising and apprehending slaves, with a
view to restore them to their masters, is a direct violation of the divine law,
and if the buying, selling, and holding a slave FOR THE SAKE OF
GAIN, is a heinous sin and scandal, then verily, three-fourths of all the
Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, in eleven States of
the Union, are of the devil. They hold, if they do not buy and sell slaves,
and, (with few exceptions,) they hesitate not to apprehend and restore run
away slaves, when in their power."
The Editor of South West Christian Advocate and Journal,
a periodical of the Methodist Episcopal Church, corroborates
this general statement, so far as that Church is concerned, as
follows :
" If, however, the holding of men, women, and children, in bondage,
under the ordinary circumstances that connect themselves with slavery
in the Southern States, constitutes us a pro-slavery Church, then we are
a pro-slavery Church in this restricted or privately understood interpretation,
for we do not regard slaveholding as sinful, as it exists in the Southern
States, provided the master feeds, instructs, and governs his slaves,
according to the directions laid down in God's word."
By the testimony of the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky,
of Rev. C. C. Jones of Georgia, and also of the Synod of S.
Carolina and Georgia, the fact is established that slaveholding
church members in general do not give their slaves any more
religious instruction than other slaveholders do, which, in most
cases is none at all, so that the slaves — to use their own lan
guage — are in the condition of heathenism.
Putting these things together, we have a complete and full
refutation of the pretence that Christian slaveholders hold
slaves for their own good, that they make a wide distinction
between slavetrading and slaveholding, and that they treat.
their slaves better than they are generally treated by others.

200 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Any amount of testimony might be added, to the same
point. We only advert to the topic, in this place, to exhibit,
as clearly as we can, in one view, the relation of our religious
sects, in America in general, to the condition and treatment
of the slaves, and to slaveholding.
PREJUDICE AGAINST COLOR.
That prejudice against the colored people, which constitutes
one of the main pillars of slavery, is fostered in most of the
Churches, including some that— in other respects — bear testi
mony against the system. Their support of the Colonization
Society (as will be shown in its place,) is a sufficient indication
of the fact. Another evidence is the erection of the negro pew,
and, in some Churches, the custom of administering the Lord's
Supper to colored persons, by themselves, after the distribu
tion to the whites. In Theological Seminaries, as well as in
Colleges, the same spirit of caste is commonly witnessed. In
some cases, it invades the sanctuary of the dead, and forbids
the interment of colored persons in burial places designed for
the whites.
A Protestant Episcopal Church at Rye, Westchester Co.,
(N. Y.,) accepted a deed of gift of ground for a cemetery, a
condition of which deed was, that no colored person should be
buried within the enclosures. The condition is carefully
fulfilled. In selling burial lots to individuals, the officials of
the Church having charge of that business, insert the same
¦conditions in the conveyance. This fact is stated on authority
of Hon. William Jay, a member of the Protestant Episcopal
Church,- and residing in the same county.
A Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia' advertised burial
lots for sale, with the particular recommendation of them, that
no colored persons, or executed criminals, were buried in the
cemetery. A Congregational Church in New Haven, Con., parcelled
off, in its cemetery, a side lot, for the burial of colored persons,
after the manner of the negro pew. But it became necessary

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 201
to enlarge the cemetery, and bury whites on the other side of
the colored people, so that they now occupy the center ! An
omen, perhaps, of the future position of that despised race, in
America. To the credit of Roman Catholics, it must be said, that they
maintain no arrangements of caste founded in color, in their
Churches.

202 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTER XVIII.
POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES, ETC. CONTINUED.
VII. — VOLUNTARY SOCIETIES CONNECTED WITH SEVERAL SECTS.
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
American Board — Employment of Slaves by Missionaries — A Missionary a slave
owner — Slaveholding tolerated in Mission Churches — Board, at Rochester, decline
interfering (1844) — At Brooklyn, 1845, decide against excluding pious Slaveholders
from Church ordinances — In 1846, at New Haven, decline further action— In 1847,
at Buffalo, promise inquiry — Mission and Letter of Mr. Treat— Reply of Choctaw
Missionaries — Vindicate their right to have slaves — Rejected resolutions of Dr.
Bacon, at Brooklyn (1845) — Doctrine of " organic sins." — Americas Home Mis
sionary Society — No rule to exclude Slaveholders from Mission Churches — Has
greatly increased the list of its sjaveholding Churches since 1842 — Other agencies.
— American Bible Society — No Bibles for Slaves — Offer of funds for that object
rejected — Auxiliary Society at New Orleans disclaimed the intent to supply
colored people — Auxiliary Society, Orleans County, N. Y., refused a donation of
Bibles to fugitives— Modified but doubtful position of the Parent Society in 1849.
— American Tract Society — Publishes nothing against Slavery — Mutilation of
books. — American Sunday School Union — Rejects books that disapprove
slavery — Closing remarks. MISSIONS — AMERICAN BOARD.
The following statements are from a paper, adopted by the
Illinois Central Association, and prepared by a committee,
consisting of Pres. Blanchard, Rev. D. Gore, and G. Dewy, at
Lafayette, October 9th, 1849* :
" The action which the Board has taken from year to year, on the subject
of slavery, is as follows, viz :
" 1. Some thirteen years since, the Prudential Committee, in correspond
ence on the subject, declared against the missionaries hiring slaves, except
in cases of emergency. * National Era, Nov. 8, 1849.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. , 203
"2. In 1841, eight years ago, at Philadelphia, the subject came before
the Board on petition of certain ministers of New Hampshire, who represent
themselves as supporters of the Board, not Abolitionists, yet opposed to
slavery ; and they ask the Board to declare itself distinctly on that subject,
as they had done on the subject of other public vices which obstructed the
missionary work. To this New Hampshire petition, the Board, by their
committee's report, adopted, reply that :
" ' The Board can sustain no relation to slavery which implies approba
tion of the system, and, as a Board, can have no connection or sympathy
with it.'
" At that time, however, slaves were employed in the service of the
mission-schools, the owners being paid for their service, and slaveholders
were without objection received to the mission churches ; both which
practices have continued ever since, and still continue. One of their
missionaries, too, was at that time a slave owner — the Rev. Mr. Wilson, of
Africa. " In 1842, at Norwich, Connecticut, several ' memorials and other papers
on the subject of slavery' were read by Mr. Greene, and referred. The
Board, in their answer, say, ' They cannot but hope that he (Mr. Wilson)
will efe long be able, with such counsel and aid as the Prudential Com
mittee may give, to accomplish the object (the liberation of his slaves) in a
manner satisfactory to himself, and kind and beneficent to them (i. e., his

" In 1843, at Rochester, New York, one memorial on slavery was read
by Mr. Greene, and the Board refer, for answer, to their former action on
the subject.
" In 1844, at a very large meeting of the Board at Worcester, Massa
chusetts, memorials on the subject of slavery were committed to Drs.
Woods and Tyler, Chancellor Walworth, Chief Justice Williams, Drs.
Stowe, Sandford, Pomroy, Tappan, McLane, and Secretary Greene.
" The memorials this year set forth that slavery is ' actually tolerated'
in the Mission Churches among the Choctaws, ' by the admission of slave
holders as members,' to the hindering of the missionary work, and dimin
ishing the funds of the Board. In their answer, which was adopted by the
Board, the committee reiterate the words of the Philadelphia report, three
years before, ' That the Board can sustain no relation to slavery which im
plies approbation of the system,' &c. But they add, as explaining that
clause, ' plainly intimating that we consider it an obvious evil, the removal
of which does not fall within the province of the Board.'
" They ask further time to obtain information as to slavery in the Choc
taw mission churches, but observe, meantime, that missionaries there, so
far as facts appear, have been guilty of ' no violation or neglect of duty.'
" In 1845, the Board met at Brooklyn, New York, and much discussion

204 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
was elicited by a long report from the above committee, which report, with
proposed amendments, was re-committed, reported again, and finally unani
mously adopted. This celebrated Brooklyn report declares, among other
things, that in the Cherokee and Choctaw missions, 'both masters and
slaves were received into the churches oh the same principles.'
" ' That Baptism and the Lord's Supper cannot be scripturally and right
fully denied to those who give credible evidence of piety ;' and that,
" ' The missionaries, in connection with the churches which they have
gathered, are the sole judges of the sufficiency of this evidence.'
" The committee further report, that at that time there were in the Choc
taw churches 20 slaveholders and 131 slaves. In the. Cherokee churches,
15 slaveholders and 21 slaves. Total, 35 slaveholders and 152 slaves, in
a total membership of 843. And this Brooklyn report further explicitly
recognizes the doctrine that both ' master and slave may be gathered into.
the fold of Christ,' and intimates that this is the way to prepare the master
to consent to emancipation.
" In 1846j at New Haven, Connecticut, papers on the subject of slavery
were laid before the Board, from the General Congregational Association
of Illinois, New Haven East Association, and other bodies. They were
referred to a committee, consisting of Chancellor Walworth, Drs. Parker.
Stowe, and others, and they reported :
" ' That they consider the further agitation of the. subject here as calcu
lated injuriously to affect the great cause of missions in which the Board is
engaged.' " Up to this time, the doctrines on which the Board stands respecting
slavery are :
" 1. That slavery, though an admitted evil, is one which the Board is not
responsible for removing ; and
" 2. That masters and slaves are to be received into fellowship in the
churches, giving evidence of piety ; and
" 3. That the missionaries and churches among the Choctaws are the
only judges of the credibility of that evidence.
" In 1847, the Board met at Buffalo, New York, when an honorary mem
ber of the Board moved that a committee be appointed to inquire whether
any further action was required in reference to slavery among the Choctaws
and Cherokees. The Secretaries replied, that ' they had every possible
disposition to remove slavery and every other evil and sin as speedily as
possible from the mission churches,' and that one of their number would
visit the missions in question, and the whole subject of their slavery, rela
tions would come up on his report the following year.
" Mr. Secretary Treat accordingly visited those Indian missions, and the
result of his visit, his report, and the correspondence connected with it, are
before the public. The material facts shown by his report are, the one con

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 205.
tained in the Brooklyn report of 1845, viz : that the mission churches receive
slaveholders to fellowship ; and slaves, to a certain extent, are hired of their
owners to work at the Choctaw boarding-schools. While this is the fact,
the Indian y*outh must of course learn contempt of labor along with the
rudiments of science, and slavery must become part of their intellectual
culture, if not of their religious.
" Of this the Prudential Committee seem to have been convinced, and
hence, in Mr. Treat's celebrated letter of June 22d, last year, the Pruden
tial Committee deelare, explicitly, that the Board could never have intended
that slaveholders should be received to church-membership, * without
INQUIRING AS TO THEIR VIEWS AND FEELINGS IN REGARD TO SLAVERY.' And
if ' he holds and treats those for whom Christ died with A selfish spirit
and for selfish purposes,' they say, ' for admitting such an one to the
privileges of the people of God, especially in the advanced stage to which
your mission has arrived, we know no warrant whatever^' And while they
hold this strong and explicit language on the subject of receiving slavehold
ers into the church, they use far stronger and more explicit language on the
subject of employing slaves at the schools. They say on this subject to the
missionaries, ' If you can discover no method by which a change can be
effected, we submit for your consideration whether it be not desirable to
request the Choctaw government to relieve us from our engagement in
respect to the boarding-schools'.' — Treat's Letter, June 22, 1848.
" The report of Mr. Treat of his visit to the Choctaw and Cherokee
missions, with the correspondence growing out of it, were reported to the
Board at their meeting in Boston last year ; and while the anti-slavery por
tions of the American churches regarded the ground taken bythe Prudential
Committeej and the Board as silently acquiescing in it, as essentially anti-
slavery and satisfactory to reasonable Christians,* loud and bitter complaints
were raised by the missionaries among the Choctaws, and generally by the
pro-slavery portions of the church. These complaints against the Pruden
tial Committee have been extensively published during the last year in the
New York Observer, Christian Observer, and other Presbyterian papers
further South.
* W jtb perfect respect to the . Committee that drafted, and the Association that
adopted this paper, the author submits that the ground taken by the Prudential
Committee, even if it had been maintained by the Board, ought not to -be satisfactory
to "reasonable Christians." By the implication that slaves are sometimes held
otherwise than " with a selfish spirit and for selfish purposes" — and that such slave-
holding is consistent with church-membership, the very gist of the whole contro
versy is relinquished. Such a diluted testimony only invited the resistance it
received. If slaveholding is wrong, there is no occasion or propriety in asking the
candidate's " views and feelings in regard to slavery" while he continues the prac
tice, and is to be indulged in it. But if the practice be right, the question becomes
manifestly useless.

206 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
" In these circumstances, the public looked with intense interest to the
late meeting of the Board at Pittsfield, Massachusetts. If the Board ever
intends to cease to sustain slaveholding mission-churches, and slave-hiring
mission-schools, it would seem that thirteen years is ample* time for the
Board to make up its mind to declare, at least, that such is its future inten
tion. But, instead of any such intimation, Mr. Secretary Treat simply
reported to the Board an apologetic and deprecatory note issued by the
Secretaries during the year, in answer to the complaints against Treat's
letter, and the reply to that letter of the Choctaw missionaries. _, In this
note, issued from the mission-house in February last, the Secretaries
say : ' The committee have never had any intention of "cutting off" the
Choctaw mission from its connection with the Board,' but repeat the expres
sion of their ' undiminished confidence in the integrity of these servants of
Christ.' " The reply of the Choctaw missionaries to Mr. Treat's letter is written
in a softer tone than their letter to which Mr. Treat's was a reply, but it
abates no whit of their former pretensions, and surrenders no principle laid
down in their former letter.
" On the subject of receiving slaveholders to church-membership, a prin
cipal point of Mr. Treat's letter of June 22d, they do not deign to say
one word ; but simply observe, that five and twenty years ago they thought
' the subject of slavery, as it relates to their mission, was settled upon a
scriptural basis.'
" On the subject of hiring slaves of their owners to do the work of the
mission-schools, they at great length vindicate their right to do so,
placing it upon the same ground with using slave-grown produce in the free
States. They, however, feebly intimate their willingness to ' employ none
but free help, provided it can be obtained ;' but assert, over and again, their
intention to hire slaves, if necessary.
" The above papers were submitted to the Board, with an intimation that
no action upon them was desired, on the gr.ound that the correspondence
(now of thirteen years' standing) is not yet completed !
Dr. Bacon, of New Haven, moved the reference of the subject to a
special committee ; but this motion was overruled by a proposition of Chan
cellor Walworth, and the subject passed off without action or discussion,
with a remark of the Secretary's report, as reported by. the N. Y. Evangelist,
' That the mission are willing to do all that can properly be required of them
to place this subject on the desired basis.'
" In respect to the above, it will be observed :
" 1. That the missionaries intimate no intention ever to cease receiving
slaveholders to their churches, but vindicate the practice as scriptural.
" 2. That the Board, by its Brooklyn report, to which it adheres, has con
stituted them and their churches sole judges on the subject.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 207
" 3. It follows, that contributors to the Board's fund must perpetually, so
far as any contrary hope appears, contribute to the propagation of a slave-
holding Christianity. And,
" 4. That slaves are to do the work of the mission-schools till, in the
missionaries' judgment, it is practicable to obtain free help."
If anything further be wanting to define the position of the
American Board, it may be furnished by an inspection of the
rejected amendments to the celebrated Brooklyn Report of
1845. On that occasion, the late Amos A. Phelps presented
and advocated a series of resolutions, characterizing the
" practice of slaveholding a great moral evil, entirely opposed
to the spirit and principles of the gospel " — declaring that the
Board could not appoint or sustain slaveholders as mission
aries — and calling on the missionaries to treat slaveholding as
they do other sins.
Dr. Leonard Bacon, of New Haven, Conn., who said he
could not consent to the amendment of Mr. Phelps, introduced
in room of them the following :
" 1. Resolved, That inasmuch as the system of domestic slavery, under
every modification, is at war with the principles of Christianity, with natu
ral justice, with industry and thrift, with habits of subjection to law, and
with whatever tends to the advancement of civilization and the ascendency
of the gospel ; and inasmuch as it brings upon every community which
establishes and upholds it, the righteous displeasure of God, and the repro
bation of the civilized and Christian world, the existence of slavery in the
Cherokee and Choctaw nations is deeply to be lamented by their friends,
and particularly by this Board, as having been, for more than a quarter of a
century, engaged in labors tending to their moral, intellectual, and social
advancement. " 2. Resolved, That while the strongest language of reprobation is not too
strong to be applied to the system of slavery, truth and justice require this
Board to say that the mere relation of a master to one whom the constitu
tion of society has made a slave, is not to be regarded as in all cases such
a sin as to require the exclusion of the master, without further inquiry, from
Christian ordinances.
" 3. Resolved, That the missionaries of this Board, everywhere, are
expected to admit to Christian ordinances those, and only those, who give
satisfactory evidence of having become new creatures in Christ.
" 4. Resolved, That the master who buys and sells human beings, as mer
chandise, for gain — who does not recognize in respect to his servants the

208 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
divine sanctity of their relations as husbands and wives, and as parents and
children — who permits them to live and die in ignorance of God, and of
God's word, who does not render to his servants that which is just and
equal, or who refuses to recognize, heartily and practically, their dignity
and worth, as reasonable and accountable beings, for whom Christ has died,
does not give satisfactory evidence of being born of God, or having the
Spirit of Christ."
Though these resolutions abstain carefully from condemn
ing slaveholding as sinful — a doctrine- which the mover, in
his speech, earnestly disclaimed, saying, " the churches cannot
stand such nonsense " (producing a broad laugh among the
members of the Board), yet they too clearly condemned
known and existing practices, called abuses, to meet the exi
gencies of the Board.
Dr. De Witt, very sagaciously, said — " These resolutions
will introduce a disturbing influence, and occasion future
inconvenience." On motion of Chief Justice Williams, of Connecticut, they
were referred, together with Mr. Phelps' resolutions, to a select
committee of five, of which he was made chairman. The
committee reported, verbally, the next morning, recommend
ing the adoption ofthe original report ofDr. Woods, without
the amendments. Mr. Phelps then promptly renewed the
substance of his former resolutions, in a more condensed
form, which he moved as an amendment, as follows :
" And finally, in accordance with, and in reply to the memorials submitted
to it from Worcester county and elsewhere at its present meeting, the Board
deem it right and proper to say, that its funds cannot and will not be expended
in maintaining slaveholding missionaries, or building up slaveholding churches ;
that in carrying out the general principles laid down in the first part of the
foregoing report, in their practical application to the question of receiving
slaveholders to, and retaining in the missionary churches, the Board will
expect its missionaries and churches to treat slaveholding, in the matter of
instruction, admonition and discipline, in the same manner as they should
and would treat drunkenness, gaming, falsehood, bigamy, idolatry, and the
like ; and that whenever and wherever it shall appear that the missionaries
and the churches, in exercise of their appropriate liberty, do not do so, it
will be the duty of this Board, in the exercise of its liberty, to dissolve far
ther connection with them."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 209
After some ineffectual efforts to dodge a direct vote on this
amendment, it was voted upon, and voted down, a few voices
only being heard in its favor.
This meeting of the Board was also made famous 'by the
advocacy of the doctrine, involved in the report, that "organic
sins," or sins "interwoven in the structure of society," or
sanctioned by civil government, are not to be considered and
treated, in the administration of church discipline, as personal
sins — as though personality could be impaired, or individual
accountability set aside, by practicing an iniquity framed or
allowed by civil rulers, or by following a multitude to do
evil! THE AMERICAN HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY.
This society, supported by Presbyterians and Congregation
alists, builds up, with professions of the most liberal and dig
nified impartiality, either a pro-slavery or an anti-slavery
religion, provided it be manifested in accordance with the ap
proved forms and technicalities of the allied sects, north and
south, co-operating in the enterprise. In this, it stands, sub
stantially, on the same ground with the American Board.
" There is, to this day, no votes or rule, or usage of either Board, to
keep slaveholders, who are unobjectionable in other respects, out of their
churches at home or abroad, or even to prevent slaves being hired of their
masters to labor at the Mission Schools, where pagan youth are congregated
to form, under Christian education, their ideas of Gospel principles and
practice. " The Home Society has, moreover, instead of diminishing, increased
its slaveholding dependencies during the present era of anti-slavery agita
tion. Since 1842 — that is, in the seven years preceding the last report —
the American Home Missionary Society lacks but five of having trebled
the slaveholding churches under her patronage, while it has added but little
more than one-fifth to its whole Missionary forcO." — Letter of Pres. Blan
chard and others to the Cincinnati Convention, April, 1850.
" The American Home Missionary Society has fifty-six churches in slave
States, all open to the reception of slaveholders." — " J. B." in Chr. Era,
Oct. 2, 1851.
And how is it with the Missionary Societies of other sects ?
We answer in the words of Pres. Blanchard.
14

210 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
"The American'Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and the
Home Missionary Society certainly contrast favorably with the correspond'
ing agencies in their sister sects. Their records show at least enough
hostility .to slaveholding mingling with their councils, to keep the subject
in agitation from year to year." — Tb.
OTHER AGENCIES.
" The missionary piety of a country is its popular piety. Bible, Tract,
Sunday School, and other subordinate operations, walk in the light of the
missionary enterprise, and are merely an expansion and part of it. We
have not the statistics at hand, but a table showing the sum annually col
lected and disbursed in this country for religious and benevolent uses, under
circumstances which imply the admission of slaveholding to the com
munion table, is alone sufficient to keep up the evangelical character of
slavery. For every subscriber who pays, and every agent who collects,
and every person who receives a shilling of the conscience fund of the
United States, which is raised by that religion which allows slavery to its
communion table, either consciously or unconsciously utters a silent con
fession of his faith, that slaveholding is privileged in the Church of God."
— Ib. The American Bible Society, at an early day, aroused
•the religious community with the proposal to supply every
family in the United States with Bibles. The auxiliary socie
ties, the agents, and the ministry in general, for a number of
years, kept the enterprise prominently before the public ; large
.and general contributions were made for the object; the
widow's mite was cast into the treasury, and, at length, the
report went forth, re-published by the presses of Christendom,
that the magnificent work had been accomplished. On inves
tigation, some time afterwards, it appeared that there had
been a slight oversight in the statement. The bulk of the
laboring population, in half the states of the republic had,
somehow, been overlooked in the distribution. The only rea
sons of this neglect were, that they were of a darker complex
ion than their neighbors, were of African descent, were chiefly
ueld as slaves, and for these causes were not encouraged or
permitted to read. The number of the families left destitute
(regarding every five persons as a family) was four hundred
and sixty thousand, or, a population of two millions three

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 211
hundred thousand, comprising a little more than one-sixth part
of the population of the whole country.
This was quite an important destitution. With a view to
its supply, the American Anti-Slavery Society, in May, 1834^
(through a committee representing several religious denomina
tions,) submitted a written proposal to the American Bible
Society, in which they offered to contribute to the funds of
the society five thousand dollars, provided the society would
appropriate the same amount to the supply of the destitute
colored population, and carry the measure into effect in two
years from the 4th of July, 1834.
The offer was not accepted by the Bible Society, and no
mention was made of it in its Annual Report. Prominent
members and supporters of the institution professed to regard
the offer as a rude attack, amounting to an insult. The chief
apologies for the course of the society were, (1) that the laws
of the slave states did not permit the slaves to read, and (2),
that the work of distribution belonged to the auxiliaries, and
not to the parent society. To these apologies it is sufficient to
answer that in its foreign operations the society does not hold
itself circumscribed by the legislation that interdicts the scrip
tures — nor did its structure nor the proper province of its aux
iliaries debar the parent society from proposing the supply of
every family in the United States with Bibles. It would have
been as easy for it to have proposed the completion of that sup
ply, and undoubtedly this would have been done, if there had
been no fear of offending slaveholding church members. — See
Emancipator, May 27, and June 24, 1834.
An agent of the Bible Society, some time afterwards, was
detected in furnishing a Bible to a colored person in New Or
leans. He was arrested, but released on the ground of his not
being acquainted with the laws, and his promising not to re
peat the offence. The Bible Society of New Orleans, auxil
iary to the American Bible Society, publicly disclaimed the
act, and protested its innocency of any intent to furnish the
colored people with Bibles. The " Parent Society" is not

212 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
known to have uttered any reproof or remonstrance to its
" auxiliary," or any regret at the course it pursued.
At a meeting of the Orleans County (N. Y.) Bible Society,
" a Resolution was introduced, that the society request the
American Bible Society to make a donation of Bibles for the
fugitive slaves in Canada West. This was opposed, and finally
lost." No laws against the distribution could be pleaded in
this case* — Oberlin Evangelist, July 2, 1845. Chr. Inv.
March, 1846.
Whatever of progress, or appearance of progress, has been
made by the American Bible Society, will be shown by the
following. " Public attention, says the Annual Report of the A. and F. Anti-Slavery
Society (1849), has been drawn, more than at any previous time, towards
the obligation of circulating the Bible among the slave population. The
South begins to feel that ' considerations of sound policy, as well as Chris
tian obligation,' require attention to the subject. Some Christians in that
portion of the country realize the duty of supplying slaves with the Bible,
and are doing it to a limited extent. At the North, unwonted interest has
been manifested on the subject. The American Bible Society has been
urged to take up the matter. In their monthly ' Record,' under the head
of ' Slaves,' they acknowledge receipts for this purpose ; but in a circular
issued some months since, they say, ' Local distributions should be made
under the direction of the auxiliaries. On these organizations at the South
devolves the duty, beyond doubt, of supplying the slave population of that
region — so far as this work is to le done ;' and they request that contribu
tors to the income of the Society would not restrict their contributions to
this object, as the funds must remain in part unexpended. It has also been
stated to applicants, at the Bible House, that they have no fund for slaves,
that they do not intend to have, and rather than have, they would prefer
to return to the donors money sent for that object. At the same time, it is
but just to say, that the managers of the American Bible Society resolve
that they will promptly avail themselves of every opportunity to further
the distribution of the Bible among the slave population at the South, and
that copies will be supplied to any responsible person for that object. The
secretary acknowledges that the applications of the Anti-Slavery Society
have done good, and the managers avow, in the circular, that ' so far as
* The excuse made was, that the measure Would be thought to savor of abolition
ism, would hazard the peace and welfare of the society, and therefore it should be
left to individuals to make the request.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 213
there are colored freemen, or slaves within the limits of an auxiliary, who
ean be reached, who are capable of reading the blessed word of God, and
are without it, they should unquestionably be furnished with it, as well as
any other class of our ruined race." — Lilerty Almanac for 1849.
The American Tract Society prepares, publishes, and
circulates tracts against every sin forbidden in the decalogue,
except that particular form of sin which involves the violation
of the entire code — the sin of subverting the family relation,
reducing the image of God to a chattel, and robbing a man of
himself. The charge is not that they decline circulating the writings
of " modern fanatics," on this subject. They equally avoid
circulating the testimonies of Hopkins, of Edwards, of Wesley,
of Grotius, of Hannah More, of John Locke, of John Jay, of
Dr. Primatt, of Dr. Price, of the Abbe Raynal, of the Abbe
Gregoire, of James Beattie, of Dr. Adam Clarke, of Arch
Deacon Paley, of Edmund Burke, of Dr. Johnson, of Bishop
Horsley, of Bishop Porteus, of Dr. Robertson, of Bishop War-
berton, of Thomas Scott, of Granville Sharp, of Thomas
Clarkson, of Powell Buxton, of Dr. Dick, of John Angell
James — of the Christian poets, Cowper, Pollok, and Mont
gomery. The volumes of general Christian literature since
the beginning of the African slave trade, furnish, it would
seem, no suitable materials from which the Committee of the
American Tract Society, with all their tact and skill in the art
of pruning, could cull an eight page tract against human chat
telhood, against slaveholding, against the slave system, or
even in relation to those topics.
More marvellous, still : — In all the ranks of the learned, the
wise, the good, the discreet, of our own age and nation, who
cherish the American Tract Society as an instrumentality for
teaching human relations and duties, for admonishing an err
ing world of its sins ; among all the writers on whom the
Tract Committee depend, and to whom they look for tracts
adapted to the times we live in, not one, it seems, has been pre
vailed upon or has succeeded, in furnishing a page of instruc
tion upon a subject in respect to which — it is said-r-imprudent

214 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
and rash writers are leading Christians astray ! What a won
derful condition of things is this ? What sorcery has para
lyzed this arm of the Church — the arm that should wield the
Christian press, amid the influences that corrupt and destroy?
But this is not the worst of the case. The Society is not
merely guilty of neglect. It commits a positive injury. By
its mutilation of books it compels the common christian lit
erature of the English language to bear false witness. By its
garbled biographies of the sainted dead, by its suppression of
their earnest testimony againt slavery, by its smothering the
expression of the purest christian affections of their hearts,
it hides the distinctive traits of their christian character, and
falsely holds them up as specimens of the kind of piety that
expresses no abhorrence of slaveholding. It is a perversion
of truth. It is a deceitful representation of the character de^
scribed :
" A case has recently appeared ; the memoir of Mary Lundie Duncan, of
Scotland, by her mother. It first had a wide circulation abroad ; then was
published in this country, in full, by the Carters, in various styles, and some
Of them as cheap as could be desired ; but now has been published, abridged,
by the American Tract Society. It is, however, abridged very slightly,
its size being scarcely at all lessened, but some important omissions are
made. " According to the Independent (for January 22), the following is omitted
on page 79 :
" ' We have been lately much interested in the emancipation of slaves :
I never heard eloquence more overpowering than that of George Thompson.
I am most thankful that he has been raised up. O that the measure soon
to be proposed in Parliament may be effectual !'
" In the following paragraph, the sentences in brackets are expunged in
the Tract Society's edition :
" ' August 1. Freedom has dawned this morning upon the British colonies.
[No more degraded lower than the brutes — no more bowed down with
suffering from which there is no redress.] The sons of Africa have ob
tained the rights of fellow-subjects, the rights of man, the immortal creation
of God. [Now they may seek the sanctuary, fearless of the lash ; they
may call their children their own.] Hope will animate their hearts, and
give vigor to their efforts.'
" Such mutilations have their object. We are sorry to see in them an
unworthy subserviency to the foul behests of slavery." — Oberlin Evangel^
1852.

¦SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 215
Such is a specimen of the methods of those who superin
tend our religious literature, and who cannot approve " the
measures" of abolitionists.
The American Sunday School Union is prompt to ex
purgate from her Sunday School libraries whatever may have
incidentally crept into them, in familiar abstracts of Scripture
history, which might be construed into a disapproval of Ameri
can slavery, though the books may not have been written* for
that end, nor by writers at all identified with present efforts
for the abolition of slavery.*
concluding remarks.
We must not pursue, further, the specific action of the
American churches, and the organizations that have grown
out of them. Apart from what has been presented already,
and much more of the same character, which it would be
easy to add, there is one general fact, the consideration of
which might suffice, of itself, to determine the question of
their relation to slavery. The Northern churches commonly
foster the spirit of caste by repudiating social equality with
the colored man, and by maintaining the negro pew. This
fact has been adverted to by legislators in the free states,
(once in a Report by a Legislative Committee of the State of
New York) as furnishing the reason why it is impossible for
the State Governments to restore to the colored citizens their
acknowledged political and civil rights. So long as this un
righteous prejudice is indulged by the churches, it must bind
them to the car of the slave-power as its voluntary victims
and tools. It must seal their lips from the utterance of God's
words of rebuke. While such diseases prey upon the vitals
of the Church, while, she " refuses to be healed, and knows not,
* The late Mr. Gallaudet, who was never identified with active abolitionists
revised an English book for the American Sunday School Union, called " Jacob and!
his Sons," in three small volumes, which, after being circulated awhile, was dropped!
by the committee, because, in its biography of Joseph, it contained a passage;
alluding to slavery, which gave offenee to the South.

216 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
that her strength has departed," in vain shall her prophets cry
" Peace ! peace !" or her physicians prescribe panaceas for her
wounds. In the preceding records, we have aimed not only to guard
against the injustice of indiscriminate censure, but have en
deavored, as far as practicable, to separate the topic of this
chapter (the position of the Churches in respect to slavery)
from their relation to " modern abolitionists " and their peculiar
and distinctive '' measures." That topic we propose to take
up in another chapter. We have not obtruded it here. We
have not written them down "pro-slavery" because they
" followed not with us" — nor because we have been earnestly
opposed by them. They claim to be "as much opposed to
slavery as the abolitionists themselves." The impartial reader
will now judge for himself of that claim. He has seen what
they have done and said on the subject, and what they have
declined saying and doing ; and he has seen this, by itself,
disconnected with any controversies concerning " modern abo
litionists and their measures." Whatever may be said of
ihem, the single point presented in this chapter is the relation
of the American Churches, as organized bodies, to the prac
tice of slaveholding. On that point abne, let the reader now
make up his opinion.
And when he has done this, let him next inquire whether
it is probable that the Churches, other ecclesiastical bodies,
and leading ministers, of the different sects in .this country,
could hold such a position in respect to slaveholding, church
discipline, religious instruction, and the missionary enterprise,
without being brought, of necessity, into a state of hostility
to any body of earnest, persevering, and consistent men and
christians, who should seek, from high moral, religious and
benevolent considerations, the present and entire abolition of
slavery. He will do well to inquire also whether any ordinary or
even possible manifestations of wisdom and circumspection,
on the part of such a body of men, would be likely to pre-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 217
vent, or could prevent, their collision with religionists holding
such a position respecting slavery and slaveholding. And
when he comes to examine the facts reserved for another
chapter of this history, he will be able, perhaps, to make up
his mind, intelligently and conclusively, on the whole subject.
The verdict of an impartial posterity can easily be foreseen.
Already that verdict is beginning to be anticipated by men of
calm minds, who have stood aloof, as lookers-on, during the
whole struggle, or until quite recently, and who are far enough,
even now, from adventuring to co-operate with any class of
active abolitionists, or severing their ecclesiastical connections.
" Let the time come," says Albert Barnes, " when, in all the mighty
denominations of Christians, it can be announced that the evil is ceased
with them forever ; and let the voice of each denomination be lifted up in
kind, but firm and solemn testimony against the system — with no mealy
words, with no attempt at apology, with no wish to blink it, with no effort
to throw the sacred shield of religion over so great an evil — and the work
is done. There is no public sentiment in this land — there could be none
created — that would resist the power of such testimony. There is no
power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not
sustained in it."
How idle then, is it, for churches and ministers to think of
shielding themselves from censure, by dwelling on the real or
supposed faults of abolitionists ! Why have they not accom
plished the work themselves ? Why, at the least, are they
not now attempting it ?
Their real position is revealed clearly by the continual re
currence of a class pf significant incidents, too numerous and
too scattered for convenient classification and record. We
present here a few specimens :
At the Religious Anniversaries in New York in May, at an
early period, some time between 1832 and 1835 inclusive,
(we have not the precise date) a number of ministers and
others from the country, in attending the early morning
prayer meetings, before the public exercises, were heard to
pray for the poor slaves— some of them, perhaps, for the abo
lition of slavery. Among these was the venerable Rev.
Ethan Smith, the writer on the prophecies. The incident,

218 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
without mention of names, was conspicuously heralded in the
New York Observer and kindred prints, in illustration of the
meddlesome and mischievous expedients of abolitionists to
disturb the harmony of the anniversaries, and mar the peace
of the Church.
Similar complaints of anti-slavery prayers have been com
mon all over the country, and have not yet ceased ; and quite
recently, Dr. Spring has said, — " If, by one prayer I could
liberate every slave in the land, I would not dare to offer it."
This might deserve the commendation of honest frankness, if
the same class of persons would not claim (especially on visit
ing England) to desire the abolition of slavery, as much as
anybody, and complain that " the imprudence of abolitionists
had put back the event half a century."
When news of the British Act of Emancipation reached
America, there was a general prediction of bloodshed, and
American abolitionists were implicated with those of England,
in the responsibility and the guilt. The religious presses
were forward in this. After the first panic was over, they
spoke of it as "an experiment." The New York Observer,
yielding to public sympathy, went so far as to say that if all
went on peacefully, the abolition controversy in America would
be at an end, as there could be but one sentiment among
Christians. And there could not be, aside from the influences
represented by such papers as the New York Observer. Well ;
the testimony of the West India authorities and of Queen
Victoria to the peacefulness and benefits of emancipation at
length reached us. Edward Everett (who, as Governor of
Massachusetts, had been forward to intimate that abolitionists
should be " indicted at Common Law,") was now ready, in a
published letter, to recognize the glorious event. But the
co-operation of the leading churches, ministry, and religious
presses, has not been secured to the cause of freedom. Their
opposition has scarcely been relaxed. With some it is more
bitter than ever. The benefits of West India emancipation
must be learned through other channels than those directed
by them.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 219
The " imprudence " of the immediatists was magnified. Some
plan of "gradualism" was preferred. When John Quincy
Adams, after great deliberation and labor, prepared and pre
sented in Congress his plan for gradual abolition, he doubtless
expected the ready co-operation of the religious portion of
the community not committed to the immediatists. But he
met with, literally, nothing of the kind, that reached the pub
lic ear. Not a sermon, not a clerical letter, not an ecclesiastical
resolution, not a paragraph of a religious editor, not a corres
pondent of a religious periodical, so far as we could ever learn,
commended the measure. Political editors were equally silent.
The proposition fell like a weight of lead to the ground. This
one fact (almost forgotten already) decides the position of the
leading churches and ministry of the North on tbe slave
question.

220 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTER XIX.
ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TO THE CLOSE OF
THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION.
Preliminary observations — Secrecy of the Convention of 1787 — Names and dates of
the different Presidents — Federal action under the first President — Action iu Con
gress on the Anti-Slavery petitions — Acceptance of Slave territory (now Ten
nessee), ceded, under restrictions, by North Carolina — Cession of the Federal
District — Congressional re-enactment of Slavery — The act unconstitutional — Fugi
tive Slave Bill of 1793 — Examination of it — Unconstitutional provisions— Escape
of a female slave of the President — Slavery in the Federal District — Naturalization
Law, 1790, for " white persons" — Act of 1792 for organizing a " white" militiar—
Admission of Tennessee as a Slave State, 1796 — Kentucky previously.
From the Church, we now turn again to the State. Having
seen the position of the former, we need not be surprised by
any similar manifestations in the latter. When the salt loses
its savor, we may expect to meet with putrefaction in the
masses around it. The political morality of a nation may
sometimes fall below the level of its current religion, but
never rises above it. When the leading religious teachers of
a country maintain that sins " interwoven by legislation into
the structure and frame-work of society," may therefore find a
quiet home in the Church, there can be no effectual security
against unrighteous enactments. A high premium — so to
speak — is thus bid, before hand, for wicked laws.* When
such teachers denounce the doctrine that iniquitous enactments
are, before God, null and void, and that the laws of God are
* The Fugitive Slave Bill was enacted in 1850. The doctrine that " organio" or
national sins must not be excluded from the Church, was promulgated at the meet-
ing of the American Board, in Brooklyn, in 1845.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 221
of higher authority than the edicts of man, the defences of
liberty as well as the foundations of morality will be likely to
give way, and the land be inundated with despotism and
crime. So long as moral causes continue to produce their
appropriate effects, it must remain true that a people consent
ing to corne under the influence of such teachers, must be
exposed to the loss of their liberties. And while a God of
equity controls human affairs, a people that voluntarily
sustain such enactments must fall under his displeasure.
It must be a short-sighted ambition, whether in ecclesiastics
or statesmen, that overlooks, in its estimates, the sure verdict
of coming years, and purchases the popularity of an hour at
the price of a perpetual future infamy. They should know
that no arts of cunning can cover them from the scrutiny of
posterity, and no power of patronage protect them from the
reproving pages of history. And in this anticipation they
should read the presage of the still surer sentence of their
Supreme Judge, in the world to come.
Wicked rulers may be canonized by false teachers, and, for
a season, be reverenced for saints, as well as lauded for states
men. But Time, (to say nothing of Eternity) will tear off the
mask, and their names will stand for the representatives of
falsehood and folly.
In the State, as in the Church, the downward course of
declension is often silent, stealthy, and for a time, unperceived,
but without repentance and amendment, apostacy and ruin
must be the final result.
Sustained by such sentiments, and commending them to the
reader, we now approach the inner sanctuary of our political
temple, (the temple, perhaps, of our nation's idolatry,) into
which it has been thought sacrilege to gaze. The reverence
with which we have been accustomed to regard the doings of
our half-deified statesmen, may now be sadly disturbed. But
the scrutiny must proceed ; and though the Hebrew prophets'
" chambers of imagery" should be revealed, we must brace
wide open the doors. If the sight reduces our reverence of
men, it may increase our veneration of God.

222 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

SECRECY OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787.
One of the most important facts in our national history, so
far as the connection of the Federal Government with slavery
is concerned, bears the same date with the sittings of the
Convention of Delegates, in 1787, by whom the draft of our
Federal Constitution was prepared ; and it stands connected
with the circumstances and manner of their procedure. It is
the fact that that most important Convention, (a knowledge of
whose discussions was of deeper interest to the people, than
the knowledge of any other discussions ever held in the
country,) sat constantly with closed doors, and under an injunction
of secrecy, the veil remaining unlifted, till the generation
whose responsibilities required a knowledge of those delibera
tions, had not only acted, but had passed off the stage.
It is in no spirit of censoriousness that we allude to this
important historical fact. We neither say nor believe that the
arrangement was adopted for unworthy ends. Assuredly this
was not the purpose of the noble friends of universal liberty
who were members^r that body. The arrangement may
nevertheless be regarded a most important historical fact, and
one upon which the entire political history of the country, as
connected with slavery, has ever since hinged. It may also
be regarded as a most calamitous fact, and one for the
existence of which, there seems to have been no adequate
cause. The Convention was not a military council, delibe
rating upon measures that might have been reported in the
camp of an enemy. It was a political body, sitting in time of
peace, and among constituents who were entitled to know how
and why they were acting. It is natural to suppose that the
policy of secrecy resulted from habits and maxims imbibed
under a kingly dynasty. This apology may excuse the
delegates, but it could not do away the effects of their arrange
ment. It was anti-democratic in its character, and could not
but produce corresponding results. It is important that the
friends Of freedom observe this, and derive from it a maxim

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 223
for future guidance : ' The slightest departure from democracy
endangers freedom."1
Had the Convention sat with open doors, with their delib
erations gazetted daily, as in Congress, there is no room to
believe that the slave question in America could ever have
stood where it now stands. What is now shrouded in mys
tery would have been held up in the light of the sun. Had
the people of that generation found in those proceedings, the
"compromises" and "understandings" now claimed for
slavery, the draft reported would never have been " the Con
stitution." No draft, in connection with such "understand
ings," would ever have been reported. The reader of the
preceding history will judge of this, for himself.* But if (as
we believe) there were no such " understandings " and " com
promises," other than those found in the draft, the gazetted
discussions would have disclosed none, and no pretensions of
them could have been afterwards set up. In either case, the
open Convention .would have given us a free country, in
stead of a conquered territory of the Slave-Power, ruled by a
petty oligarchy of slaveholders.
It is easy to see how the arrangement of secrecy gave rise
to the pretensions of the Slave Power,- in the first place, and
has favored it ever since. It could not fail to favor the arts
of any in the Convention (if there were such) who might
choose to make use of the Constitution for purposes of evil,
of which the people, whose instrument and act it was, never
dreamed. It opened the door for conjecture, for insinuation,
for assumption, for the monopoly of occult interpretation, for
the claim of unexpressed " understandings, compromises and
guaranties." It afforded opportunity to give direction to
technical ambiguity and circumlocution, in the document
itself. It enabled Cabinets, Legislatures, and Courts of Law,
if they pleased, to foist, unperceived, a Constitution of
their own devising, in the place of the Constitution submitted
to the people. The people, in such a case, can have no sec'u-

* See Chapters VIII. and IX.

224

GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

rity from the most monstrous perversions of the Constitution,
but by insisting upon a rigorous adherence to that righteous
rule of legal interpretation, based upon the Common Law,
that imperatively forbids any construction to be put upon any
instrument which shall make it conflict with equity and
justice, so long as the language employed will possibly ad
mit of a construction whicli would make it equitable. What
a revolution would an adherence to that righteous rule pro
duce! The following Table will be useful for reference, as we
proceed :
George Washington was President from 1789 to 1797.

John Adams "
Thomas Jefferson "
James Madison "
James Monroe "
John Quincy Adams "
Andrew Jackson "
Martin Yan Buren "
William H. Harrison, and
John Tyler
James K. Polk • "
Zachary Taylor "
Millard Fillmore "

1797 to 1801.
1801 to 1809.
1809 to 1817.
1817 to 1825.
1825 to 1829.
1829 to 1837.
1837 to 1841.
1841 to 1845.

1845 to 1849.
1849 to July 9, 1850.
(July 9) 1850 to
Slaveholding Presidents, about 49 years — Non-Slavehold-
ing, about 14 years, up to 4th of March, 1852.*

FEDERAL ACTION UNDER THE FIRST PRESIDENT.
The anti-slavery petitions of 1790, before mentioned,!
though they evidently found favor with the majority ofthe
members of Congress, nevertheless failed of securing their
object. A somewhat favorable Report was made by the
* Washington was inaugurated April 80th; his successors (except Tyler and
Fillmore), March ith. Harrison survived his inauguration but one month, Taylor
one year and above four months.
t Chapter X.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 225
Committee to whom they were referred, in which the confi
dence was expressed that the State Legislatures would revise
their laws, from time to time, when necessary, and promote
the objects mentioned in ihe memorials, and every other measure
that may tend to the happiness of slaves " — also assuring the
memorialists that " in all cases to which the authority of Con
gress extends, they will exert it for the humane objects of
the memorialists, so far as they can be promoted on the prin
ciples of justice, humanity, and good policy." — 2 Deb. Cong.
Old Ser. 1465, as quoted by S. P. Chase, U. S. Senate, March
26, 1850.
In deference to the members from South Carolina and
Georgia, this Report was frittered away till it embraced only
these points, viz : that Congress could not interfere with. sla
very in the States, nor prohibit the importation of slaves till
1808, but could prohibit American citizens from importing
slaves for the supply of foreigners, and provide for the humane
treatment, on their passage, of slaves imported here. Thus
was taken the first step in the policy of evasion and compro
mise, in the Congress of the . United States, from which has
followed its downward course ever since. Vide Speech of S. P.
Chase, as above.
In the same year (1790) North Carolina tendered to the
United States a cession of territory including the present
State of Tennessee, on condition that the provisions of the
Ordinance of 1787, for the North Western territory, prohibit
ing slavery, should not be extended over that region. The
cession was accepted on these terms. Thus the policy of the
country, on that subject, was reversed, and Congress was ledt
for the first time, to give its direct sanction to slavery. — (Ib.)
By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district.
(not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States,
and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the
United States." — Art. I., sec. 3.
On the 22d of December, 1788, Maryland made an act of
cession for this purpose. On the 3d of December, 1789, Vir-
15

226 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ginia made a similar act of cession, and the two parcels fixed
upon by Congress, in accordance with these acts, comprised
the District of Columbia, ten miles square* And on the 16th
of July, 1790, Congress passed an act, accepting these cessions,
and providing that the laws of the two States over their re
spective portions of the District should remain in force " UNTIL
the time fixed for the removal of the Government thereto,
and until Congress shall otherwise by law provide."
By this wholesale and summary though covert process, the
Federal Government re-enacted over the Federal District
those slave laws which, had they not been thus re-enacted,
would have become inoperative at the very moment the ces
sion was accepted, upon the admitted maxim that slavery can
exist only by force of positive municipal or local law. Yet
Congress had no more power or authority, under the Consti
tution, to make a slave, than it had to establish an order of
nobility, or create a king. The procedure was a flagrant
usurpation of power, a violation of the Federal Constitution,
and the act, so far as the existence of slavery in the Fed
eral District is concerned, should be set aside by the Courts
of the United States, as unconstitutional, null, and void.
This point is of too much importance to be lightly passed
over. We will fortify our position by introducing a brief
outline of an argument in the Speech of Hon. Horace Mann,
of Massachusetts, in the House of Representatives of the Uni
ted States, February 23, 1849. No answer to the argument
is known to have been attempted.
We quote only the propositions of Mr. Mann, without the
luminous illustrations and ample authorities by which he elu
cidated and sustained them. But the propositions shine with
sufficient clearness, in their own light.
" 1. Slavery has no legal existence unless by force of positive law."
' 2. A man's legal condition may be changed by a change in the govern
ment over him, while he remains in the same place, just as effectually as it

* The portion west of tho Potomac, ceded by Virginia, has recently been retro
ceded back again.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 227
can be changed by his removal to another place, and putting himself under
another government."
3. " The jurisdiction under which the inhabitants of what is now the Dis
trict of Columbia lived, prior to the cession of the District by Maryland to
the United States, was utterly and totally changed at the moment of the
cession — at the moment when, according to the provisions of the Constitu
tion, they ceased to be citizens of the State of Maryland, and became citi
zens of the District of Columbia."
4. " Congress, in attempting to re-enact the Maryland laws, to uphold
slavery in this District, transcended the limits of its constitutional power.
It acted unconstitutionally. It acted in plain contravention of some of the
plainest and most obvious principles consecrated by the Constitution. If
so, no one will dispute that its act is void. I do not deny, then, that Con
gress used words of sufficient amplitude to cover slavery ; but what I deny
is, that it had any power to give legal force to those words."
5. " My next proposition therefore, is this : that as Congress can do
nothing except what it is empowered to do by the Constitution, and as the
Constitution does not empower it to establish slavery here, it cannot estab
lish slavery here, nor continue it."
The case is plain. There only needs a Granville Sharp to
press the question before the Federal Courts. Its Blackstones
and Mansfields, though steeped in prejudice, and fettered by
precedent, as their English predecessors were, would be forced
to yield, and the charm of judicial infallibility would be
broken. Kentucky, which had been under the jurisdiction of Vir
ginia, was admitted into the Union in 1792, as an independent
State. This commenced the policy of admitting new slave
States. We come next to the law of 1793, under cover of which
the Federal authorities assist in returning fugitive slaves to
their masters.
The Constitution of the United States contains the follow
ing provision :
" No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping to another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein,
be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on
claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." — Art. IV.,
Sect. 2.
From the mere language of this section, no one would sus-

228 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
pect that it referred to slaves. It makes no mention of such
a class, but very accurately describes the case of apprentices
and other persons who were under a voluntary contract to
perform labor, having received an equivalent in advance, and
being in debt for the same. Strictly construed, it could not
apply to slaves.
It speaks oi persons: but according to the " laws" of the
slave States, a slave is not a "person," but a chattel. It
speaks of persons "held to service or labor," but slave law
holds no one to " service or labor,"* any more than it does to
a life of prostitution and idleness. It only holds its victim
as property — and of reclaiming property the section under
review says nothing. The clause provides that no " law or
regulation" of any State shall " discharge" the party owing
service. It does not say that either the State into which he
has escaped, or that the United States shall enforce the claim,
or help carry him back. No " service or labor" can be due
from a chattel to its proprietor. The slave can owe no debt,
because he " can form no contract." And were it otherwise,
and if the State to which he had escaped, or the United States,
were required to act in the case, it must be an act of adjudi
cation between debtor and creditor, in which, after hearing
both sides, and balancing the " labor" performed against the
debt " due," a decision would have to be made whether any
"service or labor" remained "due," or otherwise.
This is all that can be gathered from the mere language.
Not only does it fail to describe the case of fugitive slaves,
but if the provisions of the bill were honestly and rigorously
applied to them, it would, in most cases, result in their dis-

* Mr. Madison tells us explicitly, that when the framers of the Constitution used
the word "service," they were careful to make choice of that term, because it did
not express tho condition of slaves, but of free persons.
" On motion of Mr. Randolph, the word 'servitude' was struck out, and 'service'
unanimously inserted — the former being thought to express the condition of slaves,
and the latter the obligation of free persons." — Madison Papers, Vol. III., p. 1569.
How then could they have expected that when they used the word "service,"
the people would understand them to mean " servitude f" But unless the above
clause does mean " servitude" and not "service," it cannot mean fugitive slaves 1

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 229
charge, as nothing would, be found " due" from them, even
admitting that they could sustain the relation of debtors.
But, as already noticed, the language does describe the case
of persons owing service or labor, by voluntary contract.
And there were circumstances that might be supposed to call
for some such provision at that time, and in the city of Phila
delphia, where the Convention was sitting. It was common
for ship-masters there, in accordance with previous contract,
to advertise and sell at public auction, whole ship-loads of
"German redemptioners," as they were called, or emigrant
laborers. That is, their services were sold for a term of time,
sufficient to pay for their passage. And this shows, by-the-
by, that the mere phrases " buying and selling" men, does
not prove them to be chattel slaves. These " persons held to
service ,and labor in one State, under the laws thereof," were
in the habit, in great numbers, of " escaping to another" State,
and thus evading the payment of their just dues. This was
the ground of much complaint, and it would be considered
proper that they should "be delivered up, on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor (might) be due."
And is there the slightest evidence that the people of the
Northern States, in adopting the Constitution, understood that
the clause referred to fugitive slaves ?* While the Quakers
* An unexpected answer to this query comes to hand while we are penning it, in
a speech of Hon. Daniel Webster, in the Senate of the United States, July 17, 1850.
Alluding to a letter of Gov. Berkeley of Virginia, to Gov. Endicott of Massachusetts,
in __4£, in which the latter is requested to return some fugitive " servants," Mr.
Webster proceeds to say :
" At that day, I do not suppose there were a great many slaves in Massachusetts,
but there was an extensive system of apprenticeship, and hundreds of person* were
bound apprentices in Massachusetts, some of whom would run away. They were as
likely to run away to Virginia as anywhere else ; and in such cases, they were
returned, upon demand, to their masters. So true is that, that it was found neces
sary, in the early laws of Massachusetts, to make provision for the seizure and
return of runaway apprentices. In all the revisions of our laws, this provision
remains ; and here it is in the revised statutes now before me. It provides that
runaway apprentices shall be secured upon the application of their masters or any
one on their behalf, and put into jail until they can be sent for by their masters ¦ and
there is no trial by jury in their case, either."
A very important and timely distinction of Mr. Webster, unless he means to
insinuate the identity of " bound apprentices in Massachusetts" with slaves!

230 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, and other friends of free
dom, objected so strongly to the twenty years of respite to
the slave trade (Rhode Island withholding her ratification
from that clause), is it credible that no complaint would have
been made against "a provision understood to require the
return of fugitive slaves ?
In " The Federalist" — by Madison, Jay, and Hamilton — in
defence of the Federal Constitution,* removing objections,
and persuading the people to adopt it, Mr. Madison himself
devotes ample space to a consideration of the objections
against the apportionment of representation, and the twenty
years respite to the slave trade, the latter of which Mr. Madi
son regrets. Is it credible that he would have omitted to
notice the clause requiring the return of fugitive slaves, if
the people had understood that there was such a provision ?
Could he have passed it by, as he does, in silence? Or, what
can we imagine he would have said of it, with those memoranda
in his desk, since published, affirming that the Convention
unanimously defined the term "service" as applying only to
"the obligation of free persons" — affirming, also, that, as a
member of the Convention, he would not " introduce into
the Constitution the idea that there could be property in
man.f" In the whole volume, of nearly five hundred pages, we have
Compare this statement with the language of the Constitution, and it is easy to
see how the good people of Massachusetts (in the absence of any of our more modern
expositions and uses of that instrument), would be likely to understand the provi
sion. Whatever he may have intended by alluding to these facts, he entirety fails
to sustain the claims of the slaveholders. He turned their boasted constitutional
requisition in quite another direction ! He shows us how the people of Massachu
setts would have required such _, provision if there had been no slaves in the
country !
Another fact, before noticed, becomes particularly interesting in this connection.
The attentive and thoughtful reader of the preceding history will be very likely,
just here, to remember that there is no evidence that there were, legally, any
" slaves" -in Virginia in 1644, when Gov. Berkeley requested the return of some
" servants."— See Chapter II.
* These papers were at the time circulated among the people in the publio jour
nals, and were afterwards collected into a volume.
t Madison Papers, Vol. III., pp. 1429-80.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 231
been unable to detect a single paragraph referring to the sub
ject of fugitive slaves, though much space is devoted to an,
enumeration of the causes and dangers of disagreement be
tween the States, and the importance of harmony between
them. These facts are introduced, here, not as forestalling or even
as discussing the constitutional question involved, but for the
simple purpose of showing, distinctly and fully, under what
circumstances the law of 1793 was enacted.
Six years had now elapsed, since the Constitution had been
drafted, und four years since it had gone into operation. Du
ring all this time there had been no law for returning fugitive slaves,
as there had been none under the old confederation. There
had been no public anticipation of such a law — no general un
derstanding that the duty of such an enactment devolved on
the Federal Congress — and, what is still more remarkable — no
complaints, much less, no loud and boisterous clamors, from
slaveholders, on account of the absence of such a law. Nor is
it credible, that at a time when manumissions were so exten
sive, and the spirit of liberty and opposition to slavery so
widely diffused, there were not considerable numbers of success
ful escapes. A female slave of President Washington himself
is understood to have escaped to New Hampshire, during some
part of his administration, whether before or after this enact
ment we cannot now say. The President, it seems, sent a
messenger after her, but Gov. Gilman, not having learned his
ethics from Moses Stuart nor his constitutional expositions
from Daniel Webster, neglected a fair opportunity to arrest
her — though apprized of the wishes of the illustrious claimant
— and even assisted in putting her out of the reach of her pur
suers ; an act for which the present Federal courts would have
subjected him to a heavy fine — a process not to be adventured,
in those days*
Very possibly it may have been in consequence of some
* The particulars, which went the rounds of the papers a few years Bince, were
taken from the lips of the aged woman herself, who was then living in New Hamp
shire.

232 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
cases of this description that the slaveholders in Congress intro
duced the law of 1793. They seem to have understood the
tactics of such legislation. The act is couched in language re
sembling that of the Constitutional provision already cited.
Without any direct mention of slaves, it is so framed that a
court of slaveholders, or those who are appointed by them,
could make it answer their purpose. It is no new thing for
those who would " frame mischief by a law" to cover up their
designs by ambiguities that the people will not, at first, under
stand, and thus prevent opposition and excitement. The con
sequence, not unfrequently, is, that the enactment is con
structed so loosely, that honest statesmen and jurists, when
ever they come upon the stage, will set them aside, as usurpa
tions, or as inadequate for the purposes to which they had
been applied. An example we have, in the acts of Parliament
under which the slave trade was sheltered, but which Mr.
Pitt, (as before noticed) declared to be even prohibitory of the
practice.* The enactment now under review bears marks of a similar
character, and nothing on the face of it would be likely to ex
cite general alarm or suspicion. Yet the courts, in due time,
took care to give it a meaning adverse to freedom ; though
eminent jurists are beginning to deny the constitutionality of
some of its provisions, particularly that cardinal feature of it,
sustained by the Federal Courts, hitherto, by which it assumes
for Congress, on behalf of the United States, the prerogative of
providing for the return of fugitive slaves.f
* The enactments under cover of which the courts have carried on religious
persecutions, have very commonly been of the same vague and ambiguous charac
ter, and for the same reasons. Even the intended victims of such laws have thus
been quieted and prevented from a timely opposition to them. How important to
guard tho people against suoh arts !
+ See Jay's View of the action of the Federal Government in behalf of Slavery,
p. 80. Since penning the above paragraph, the testimony of an aged and prominent
citizen has thrown further light on this subject. An "immense meeting" of
oitizens of Boston, for repudiating the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, was held in
Faneuil Hall, October 14, of the same year. The " call " to this meeting was headed
by the venerable Josiah Quinov, formerly Mayor of Boston, and since President of
Harvard University, Cambridge, " more than four score years of age." In a letter

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 233
" By the act of 1793, the slaveholder may, himself, without oath or
process of any kind, seize his prey, where he can find hirn, and at his
leisure (for no time is specified), drag him before any justice of the peace,
in the place, whom he way prefer." " Before this magistrate, who is not
authorized to compel the attendance of witnesses in such a case, the slave
holder brings his victim, and if he can satisfy this judge of his own choice,
'by oral testimony or affidavit,' and, for aught that appears in the law, by
his own oath, that his claim is well founded, the wretched prisoner is sur
rendered to him a slave for life, torn from his wife and children, bereft of
all the rights of humanity, and converted into a chattel, an article of mer^
chandize, a beast of burden. "-^Jay's View, pp. 31-2.
" The Federal Constitution declares, ' In all suits at common law, where
the 'value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved ;' but the act of 1793, in suits in which ' the value
in controversy' exceeds all estimation, dispenses with trial by jury, and in
deed with almost every safeguard of justice and personal liberty." — lb.,
p. 32. To suppose that such a statute is constitutional, is to sup
pose that the Constitution does not secure our liberties. To
suppose that it could be legally binding, would be to reverse
the foundation maxims of universal Common Law, and to
deny that " Statutes contrary to fundamental morality are
void."

addressed to J. I. Bowditch, Esq., and read at the meeting, Mr. Quincy states that
the law of 1793 excited, from the first, " the surprise and utter disgust" of " every
class of citizens in Massachusetts," and that " they regarded that law as violating
tlie principle of tlie compact, as they understood it, when they acceded to tlie Constitu
tion of the United States." He states that in the year 1794, he was sent for to
defend, as counsellor at law, a slave who had been arrested under this act. In his
defence, he " denied the authority of the law of Congress, and of the magistrate
under it, to deliver an inhabitant of Massachusetts into the custody of another
unless after trial by jury according to the constitution of this State." While he
was speaking, a confusion and loud noise interrupted him, and the alleged slave
passed out and esoaped ! About two weeks after, Rufus Greene Amory, a lawyer
of eminence, received a letter from the master of the slave, directing him to prose
cute Josiah Quincy for obstructing his agent ! Mr. Amory, who showed the letter
to Mr. Quincy, " felt the folly of the pretense," and Mr. Quincy heard nothing
more of the prosecution.
It is said that for many years after the passage of this bill, the owners of fugitive
slaves seldom, if ever, made use of it, or attempted it, except in the case at Boston.
Instead of this, they resorted to various stratagems to decoy them. Long after
wards, and up to a recent date, the process was a covert one, under pretense of
arrests for petty thefts.

234: GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
We next glance at the legitimate workings of that manifestly
unconstitutional act of Congress of 16th of July, 1790, by
which the Federal Government extended the then expiring
slave laws of Maryland and Yirginia over the District of
Columbia. A Committee of Congress on the District of Columbia,
reported, 16th July, 1827, that, in the County of Washington,
ceded by Maryland,
"If a. free man of color should be apprehended as a runaway, he is sub
jected to the payment of ail fees and rewards given by law for apprehending
runaways ; and upon failure to make such payment, is liable to be sold as a
slave ! "*
" That is" (says Judge Jay), " a man acknowledged to be free, and un
accused of any offence, is to be sold as a slave, to pay the fees and rewards
given by law for apprehending runaways .'" — lb., p. 37.
The Committee's report further states, " that in the part of the District
ceded by Virginia, a free negro may be arrested, and put in jail for three
months, on suspicion of being a fugitive. He is then hired out to pay his
jail fees, and if he does not prove his freedom within twelve months, is to
be sold as a slave ! " — II., p. 36.
And yet, on hearing this Report, Congress made no altera
tion of these laws.
Mr. Jay has further shown how the law offers to the only
JUDGE, in this case (the Marshal of the District) a high bribe to
sell men he knows to be free, and thus become a manufacturer of
slaves I The proceeds of the sale remain in his pocket, aiter
the sale, unless the master of the person arrested appears, and
claims the balance. — See Jay's View, p. 35-6.
All this appears to be under the Maryland act of 1719, May
session, chap. 2, (as cited by Sunderland, in his Anti-Slavery
Manual, page 92,) and re-enacted in the manner already no
ticed, in 1790, by the Congress of the United States !
* That this law is not a dead letter, or an empty abstraction, is proved by the
Btatement of Judge Cranoh, and more than one thousand citizens of the District,
who Bay, in their petition to Congress in 1828, against the slave trade in the Dis
trict, that colored persons entitled to freedom are lodged in jail as runaways, and
then sold to the traders 1 And they narrate a particular instance. — See Sunderland?*
Anti-Slavery Manual, p. 98.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 235
Another item will indicate the incipient apostacy of that
period. The Federal Constitution had recognized no distinc
tions on account of cohr. Any attempt, in that direction,
would have been abortive. In the forming ofthe Articles of
Confederation, in 1778, the proposal to introduce the word
" white" before "inhabitants" had been significantly rejected.
Now, notice the contrast.
" So early as 1790, Congress passed an act describing the mode in which
' any white person' might be naturalized and admitted to the rights of an
American citizen." — Jay's View, p. 24.
" Two years after (1792), an act was passed for organizing the militia,
which was to consist of ' each and every free, able-bodied, white male
citizen.' " — H.
Thus were the free colored population degraded and spurned
from the national defense. The bad precedent was followed
by succeeding administrations, in other acts of indignity to
ward that class of citizens ; and all at the bidding of slavery.
In 1796, Tennessee, another Slave State, was admitted into
the Union. Kentucky has been previously admitted.
Up to this point we have only traced the action of the
Federal Government, in behalf of slavery, under the adminis
tration of the first President, with some of the direct effects of
that policy. During this period, we have seen the beginning
of compromise, servility, and evasion, on the part of the Na
tional Congress. We have seen the acceptance of the terri
tory constituting Tennessee, on the condition, imposed by
North Carolina, that it should remain sacred to slavery. We
have seen the unconstitutional establishment of slavery in the
District of Columbia, through the re-enactment, by Congress,
of the Slave Laws of Virginia and Maryland, including the
authorized sale of free citizens into slavery, for the payment
of the expenses of their unwarrantable imprisonment I We
have seen the admission into the Union, of two new Slave
States. We have seen the' Constitution again violated, and
the sacred right of trial by jury cloven down, where the ques
tion of freedom and slavery is involved, by, the law of 1793,
for reclaiming fugitive slaves. We have seen the Constitution

286 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
further violated by the introduction of caste, aud the virtual
establishment of a privileged order, founded on birth, or
blood, in our naturalization and militia laws.
And all this, under the administration and with the sanction
of George Washington, whom we have been taught to con
sider the pattern of everything that is republican and_ chris
tian. We would gladly cast the veil of oblivion over such facts,
but they form a part of the public history of our country.
There they stand, on the imperishable record of the past,
which we may neither falsify, nor overlook, nor obliterate.
We must know them, or not understand the history of our
country. We must ponder them, and judge righteously con
cerning them, if we would solve the problem on which is
suspended our nation's freedom. We are permitted to con
sole ourselves with the refreshing remembrance, that Wash
ington, by his last Will and Testament, emancipated all his
slaves at his decease, thus writing his own condemnation and
recantation of all he had ever done in support of slavery.
But his own condemnation of the wrong, should not silence
ours. The administration even of Washington exhibits its
catalogue of national sins, which must be penitently confessed
and put away, if we would enjoy, as a nation, the forgiveness
and the blessing of Heaven. Above all, we must learn to
repudiate the folly, and abhor the impiety of thrusting the
name or the statue of Washington between the sin of op
pressive legislation and the laws of the most High God. As
well might we set up the graven image of any other national
idol as to set up his*

* It might serve to correct our extravagant adulation of Washington, Jefferson,
and our other national idols, if we would remember their almost violent opposition
to each other, as the heads of rival parties, criticising and even criminating each
other, quite as eagerly as their successors have ever done. By some of the jour
nalists supporting Mr. Jefferson, tbe retirement of Washington was hailed as a
national deliverance. On the other hand, the zealous partizans of Washington lind
Adams regarded the elevation of Jefferson as a great publio calamity, preached Ber-
mons to prevent it, and fastod and lamented when it took place. We have ho occa
sion to renew those contentions, which became personal and bitter between the first

slavery and freedom. 237

CHAPTER XX.
subsequent action of the federal government — colored
people — slave territory — new slave states — federal
district.
Cession Of Georgia and South Carolina— Mississippi Territory— Admission of Ken
tucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi — Missouri — Purchase of Louisiana and
Florida — Four more Slave States — Missouri Compromise — Instances of prohibiting
Slavery— Government of the Federal District — A great Slave mart — Testimony of
a Grand Jury of the District (1802)— Of Judge Morrell (1816)— John Randolph
and Alexandria Gaz. (1827)— Petition of Judge Cranch and others (1828)—" Wash.
Spectator" (1880)— Insecurity of Northern Citizens — Crandall, Chaplin, &c.
Having traced the beginnings of our national declension,
we must proceed with the remaining part of the history. The
whole might almost be read, by anticipation, from the germ
already examined. No subsequent administration, amid all
our fluctuations of national policy, has run counter to the pro-
slavery precedent furnished by the first.
The insult to colored citizens, commenced by the naturaliza
tion and militia laws, under the administration of Washington,
was renewed and extended by the law organizing the Post
Office Department, under Mr. Madison, in 1810, providing
that " no other than a free white person shall be employed
in carrying the mail of the United States, either as a post
rider or driver of a carriage carrying the mail," under a pen
alty of fifty dollars. — Jay's View, p. 24.
two Virginian Presidents. We may admire much in the one and in the other, but
we must be indeed stupid to regard them infallible, or shipwreck our liberties in
order to follow them implicitly, or revise or throw away our Bibles and declarations
of self-evident truths, in order to avoid seeing their inconsistencies, or in deference
to the imaginary and immaculate saintship of either of them.

238 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
In 1820, under Mr. Monroe, Congress authorized the white
citizens of Washington to elect white city officers ! These
white officers were authorized "to prescribe the terms on
which free negroes and mulattoes may reside in the city," and
they exercised this absurd and wicked authority in the very
spirit in which was conferred. — Ib. p. 25-26.
SLAVE TERRITORIES AND NEW SLAVE STATES.
Slavery under jurisdiction of Congress, and commencing
under the administration of Washington, has been continued
ever since. Not only in the District of Columbia has this
been done, but in Territories belonging to the United States,
has the institution been fostered, preparatory to the admission
of them as new Slave States into the Union.
In 1802, Georgia ceded to the United States the country lying between
her present western limit and the Mississippi, stipulating that the Ordinance
of 1787, in all its provisions, should extend to the ceded territory, " that
article only excepted which forbids slavery." This cession was accepted,
and the territory placed under a Territorial Government, restricted from all
interference with slavery." — Speech of S. P. Chase, U. S. Senate, March
26, 1850.
This was under the administration and with the concurrence ¦
of Mr. Jefferson, author of the Notes on Virginia, the De
claration of Independence, and the Ordinance of 1787. This
added, in due time, the two Slave States of Mississippi and
Alabama, to " our glorious Union I" The former was admit
ted in 1817, and the latter in 1819, both under the adminis
tration of Mr. Monroe.
Thus it appears that since the adoption of the Federal
Constitution, in 1789, we have admitted into the Union the
four Slave States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and
Mississippi, from territory within our original limits; and,
except in the case of Kentucky, the National Government
has previously protected slavery in them, while exercising
authority over them, as territories, previous to their admis
sion into the Union as independent states,
But this is not all. The national resources have been ex-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 239
pended to purchase new territory for the erection and admis
sion of new Slave States.
In 1803, we acquired Louisiana by purchase from the French Republic*
There were at that time about forty thousand slaves held within its limits,
under the French law. The treaty contained this stipulation :
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the
Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to
the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the
rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States ; and,
in the meantime, they shall be maintained in the free enjoyment of their
liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." — 8 Stat, at Large,
TJ. S., 202.
This stipulation, interpreted according to the plain sense of its terms,
and carried into practical effect, would have enfranchised every slave in
Louisiana ; for no one, I apprehend, will venture to affirm that the slaves
were not inhabitants. Independently of this stipulation, it was the duty of
the Government — even more imperative than in 1787, for since then the
whole country south of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi had been
formed into slave States and slave Territories — to establish freedom as
the fundamental law of the new acquisition. But this duty was not per
formed. There was some feeble legislation against the introduction of
slaves from foreign countries, and of slaves imported since 1798 from the
other States ; but that was all, and that was useless. — Speech of S. P.
Chase, U. S. Senate, March 26, 1850.
This, too, was under the administration of Mr. Jefferson.
The purchase was, with him, a favorite measure, and it is
not known to the writer that he proposed the abolition of
the slavery existing there. So strong were his impressions,
at one time, that the purchase transcended the Constitutional
powers of the Federal Government, that he contemplated
recommending an amendment to the Constitution for that
special object, but he finally persuaded himself that the people
were so desirous of the purchase that the formality of an
amendment might be waived !
Then came the cession of Florida by Spain in 1819. ¦ The stipulation in
the treaty was substantially the same as in the treaty with France •+ the

* This was at a cost to the nation of fifteen millions of dollars.
t 8 U. S. Stat, at Large, 256, as quoted by Mr. Chase.

240 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
duty of the Government in respect to the acquisition was the same ; and
there was the same failure to perform it.
Finally, Texas came in, in 1845, not as a Territory, but as a State.—
S. P. Chase, as above.
The purchase of Florida, for the sum of five millions of
dollars, was under the administration of Mr. Monroe. The
annexation of Texas was under that of Mr. Tyler.
The purchase of Louisiana resulted in the admission of three
new Slave States, formed out of the purchased territory, viz :
Louisiana, admitted under the administration of Mr. Madi
son, in 1812 ; Missouri, (after much debate, and a so called
"compromise") under Mr. Monroe, in 1821; and Arkansas,
under General Jackson, in 1836. Florida was admitted under
Mr. Tyler, March 3, 1845.
The dates and the names of the Presidents show the con
tinuity of the policy, during the long lapse of time, and under
the successive administrations of the Government.
The contest concerning the admission of Missouri as a slave
state, occurred during the Congressional session of 1819-20,
and was decided in March, 1820. The proposal for the
admission of Missouri, was artfully coupled with a pro
posal for the admisson of Maine, a free state. It was con
tended that the one was an equitable balance for the other.
But this plea did not satisfy the North. The "compromise"
consisted in the introduction of a provision that in the future
admission of States from the residue of that territory, the
line of division between slavery and freedom should be the
parallel of 36° 30' North latitude, the northern side of that
line being appropriated to freedom. This proposal was resisted
manfully for a time, but under a threat of dissolving the
Union, it was carried by a small majority in the House. But
the vote fixing the conditions of the future admission of a
State could not bind a future Congress, so that the " compro
mise," as usual, gave the South all, and the North nothing. .
Four new slave states from our original territory, four
more from territory acquired by purchase, and one from an-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 241
nexation, make nine added in all, to the dominion of slavery,
and to the strength of the Slave Power.
It is proper to record here, the instances of Federal legisla
tion of an opposite character.
By the 7th section of the act organizing a Territorial Government for
Mississippi, passed in 1798,* the importation of slaves into said Territory
from any place without the United States, was prohibited under severe
penalties. This was ten years before Congress had the power, under the
Constitution, to prohibit the importation of slaves into the States. — Speech
of Mr. Bingham, of Michigan, in Congress, June 4, 1850, Nat. Era,
July 18.
This was under the administration of John Adams.
On the 7th of May, 1800, an act was passed for the organization of a
territorial Government for Indiana, and slavery expressly prohibited therein.
This act was approved by John Adams.
January 11, 1805, the northern part of Indiana was erected into the ter
ritory of "Michigan, and slavery prohibited. February 3, 1809, the Terri
tory of Illinois was established, with the like prohibition as to slavery.
These two latter acts received the approval and signature of Thomas
Jefferson. On the 20th of April, 1836, Wisconsin was organized as a Territory,.
and slavery prohibited within its limits. This act was approved by General
Jackson. The Territory of Iowa was established by act of Congress of the 12th
of June, 1838, under the administration of Mr. Van Buren ; and here also
was slavery prohibited.
On the 14th of August, 1848, the Territory of Oregon was organized,
which contained the same provision in the memorable and time-honored
words, " there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude therein,
except for the punishment of crime." — Ib.
This was under the administration of Mr. Polk.
These acts concerning Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa
and Oregon, were only in pursuance of the Ordinance of
1787, yet they are so many attestations to the Constitution-

* This territory, organized in 1798, comprised only a region of country ceded by
South Carolina, but waa afterwards, in 1804, enlarged, so as to include a part of the
country ceded by Georgia in 1802, as stated by Hon. S. P. Chase, in his speech
before quoted. This statement will explain an apparent, but not real discrepancy
in dates, in the two quotations. 16

242 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ality of that measure, and the consequent power of Congress
to prohibit slavery in the Territories of the United States.
The same principle was likewise involved, and. recognized,
in the act, before noticed, for authorizing the admission of
Missouri, in 1820, containing, as it did, a clause " to prohibit
slavery in certain territories," that is, in all the Louisiana pur
chase North of 36° 30' North latitude.
And there had been a previous recognition of that princi
ple, in its application to a part of the same purchase.
By the act of the 26th of March, 1804, that part of Louisiana south of
the Territory of Mississippi was organized into a Territorial Government,
by the name of Orleans. By this act, the importation into said Territory
of slaves from abroad was prohibited, and also the importation of any slave
from within the United States who should have been brought into the
country since the 1st of May, 1798, or who should thereafter be brought
into the United States. It further provided that no slave should be brought
into said Territory, except by a citizen of the United States, who should
remove there for actual settlement, and who should at the time be the bona
fide owner of such slave ; thus directly interdicting the domestic as well as
the foreign slave trade in this Territory of Orleans. This act was ap
proved by Jefferson. — Speech of Mr. Bingham.
When President Monroe was about to give his signature
to the Missouri act of 1820, he required each member of his
Cabinet, (the Heads of Departments and Attorney General,)
to give their opinions in writing, on the questions whether
the act was consistent with the Constitution, and whether
"" Congress has a right, under the powers vested in it, by the
Constitution, to make a regulation prohibiting slavery in a
Territory?" All the members of the Cabinet, including the
late John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams, gave written
answers in the affirmative. This is proved by the diary of
J. Q. Adams. — See Speech of T. H. Benton, at Jeffepon City,
Mo., May 26, 1849, in New York Evening Post, June 14,
1849. ' ^
The Federal Government, then, in establishing and foster
ing slavery in the Territories, has done so with ihe full know
ledge of its Constitutional power to prohibit it. The moral and
political responsibility, therefore, rests upon it

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 243
Another circumstance connected with the admission of Mis
souri deserves notice.
The act of Congress authorizing the people of Missouri to
form a Constitution, preparatory to admission, was passed in
March, 1820. The State Constitution, presented at the next
Congress, contained a clause " to prevent free negroes and mu
lattoes from coming to and settling in this State, under any pre
text whatever." As this provision was contrary to the Con
stitution of the United States, which secures " to the citizens
of each state all the rights and immunities of citizens in the
several states," (many of tho states having colored citizens) Con
gress passed an act, in March, 1821, authorizing the President
to admit Missouri, on condition that said clause should not be
so construed as to exclude citizens of any other States. Mis
souri complied with the conditions, and by proclamation of
the President, was admitted, August 10, 1821. [See Speech
of T. H. Benton,' at Jefferson City, May 26, 1849.]
This instance of the supervision by the Federal Govern
ment, over the Constitution of a State asking admission, and
in a point touching the rights of "negroes and mulattoes,"
involves important principles, and may be of use as a prece
dent, hereafter. GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.
The District of Columbia is under the exclusive jurisdic
tion of the Federal Government. In another connection we
have shown how that Government was administered at the
beginning, and so far as the condition of things there could
be traced directly to the act of Congress of 1790. We then
saw/ree colored citizens, on suspicion of being fugitives from
slavery, thrown into jail, and then sold into slavery with their
posterity forever, for the payment of their jail fees — the ex
penses of their causeless arrest ! We will now look again at
the continuance of that enormity, in its connection with the
domestic slave trade, systematically carried on in the District.
From a number of causes, the Federal District has been at

244 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
some periods, the principal slave mart in America. The
policy of Virginia and Maryland has, at times, forbidden the
traders to bring in slaves from other States, and expose them
for sale, while the Federal District, under the policy of Con
gress, has been under no such restriction. The fact that the
District is the resort of citizens from all the states, including
Senators and Eepresentatives, who may desire to buy or sell
slaves, has given it an advantage over other slave markets,
which has been eagerly improved.
As early as 1802, the grand jury of Alexandria complained
of tiiis traffic as a grievance demanding legislative interfer
ence. In 1816, Judge Morrell, of the U. S. Circuit Court,
took notice of the nuisance, in his charge to the grand jury
of Washington. The same year, John Eandolph, of Virginia,
himself a slaveholder, moved, in the House of Eepresenta
tives, for a committee to inquire into the "inhuman and illegal
traffic."* The Alexandria Gazette, of June 22, 1827, described,
in terms of just abhorrence, the scenes witnessed in connec
tion with the traffic. In 1828, a petition, headed by Judge
Cranch, and signed by more than one thousand citizens of
the Federal District, was presented to Congress, imploring its
interference. In 1830, the Washington Spectator described the
traffic, and exclaimed, " Where is the O'Connell in this Eepub-
lic that will plead for . the emancipation of the District of
Columbia?" Merchants of large capital engaged in the lucrative busi
ness, with tbeir establishments in Alexandria and Washington
City, and advertised, " Cash for five hundred negroes," with
as much coolness as if they were so many horses ! Franklin
& Armfield, Alexandria, J. W. Neal & Co,, Washington, Wm.
H. Williams, George Hephart, William H. Eichards, &c, are
or have been among the number of these. Some of them
have had large prison-houses built for the purpose ; and some-
* This traffic is doubtless as " legal" as any part of the Bystem. Henry Clay, in
his famous speech in the U. S. Senate, in 1839, declared the traffio inseparable from
the tenure of slave property. But here we find John Randolph declaring the traffio
" illegal !" Was he in error .

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 245
times the public jails, built by money appropriated by Con
gress, have been put to the same infamous use. Large vessels
were advertised and employed to transport slaves to New
Orleans. One dealer advertised for " any number of young and likely
negroes from eight to forty years of age." As a general fact,
little or no regard is paid, either in the purchase or the sale
to the sanctities of the family relation, which, in fact, the laws
and the usages of the system do not recognize as existing at
all ! Yet all this, says Judge Jay, is " in virtue of authority
delegated by Congress, " and he cites his authority.
" The 249th page of the laws of the city of Washington, is polluted by
the following enactment, bearing date 28th of July, 1831 :
" For a license to trade or traffic in slaves, for profit, four hundred dol
lars." — Jay's View, p.. 87.
The petitioners of 1828, before mentioned, including Judge
Cranch, express themselves in the following language :
"While the laws of the United States denounce the foreign slave trade
as pi_»cy, and punish with death those who are found engaged in its perpe
tration, there exists in this District, the seat of the Federal Government, a
domestic slave trade, scarcely less disgraceful in its character, and even
moke demoralizing in its influenoe. The people are, without their con
sent, torn away from their homes ; husband and wife are frequently sepa
rated, and sold into distant parts ; children are taken from their parents,
without regard to the ties of nature, and the most endearing bonds of affec
tion are broken forever. Nor is this traffic confined to those who are legally
slaves for life. Some who are entitled to freedom, and many who have
a limited time to serve, are sold into unconditional slavery, and, owing to
the defectiveness of our laws, they are generally carried out of the Dis
trict before the necessary steps can be taken for their release." — " The
people of the District have, within themselves, no means of legislative
redress, and we appeal to your honorable body as the ONLY ONE vested
by the American Constitution with power to relieve us."
But that " honorable body" — a controlling majority of whom
were from the non-slaveholding States — found other business,
it would seem, more to their taste, than the granting of the
prayer of these petitioners ! Yet this was under the adminis
tration of a northern President (John Quincy Adams), whose

246 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
power of appointment, assuredly, could not have been a rod
over the heads of northern aspirants, as is commonly the case.
Could there have been a fear, among rival partisans, that an
agitation of "the delicate question" might affect the elec
tions ?
The liberties of Northern citizens are not secure in the
Federal District, " under exclusive jurisdiction of Congress."
In 1835, Dr. Eeuben Crandall, from the State of New York,
was arrested, imprisoned, and tried for his life, in Washington
City, for having loaned to a white citizen, at his own request,
a pamphlet against slavery. In 1850, Gen. Wm. L. Chaplin,
from the same State, was arrested by the authorities of Wash
ington City, on the charge of assisting fugitives. While we
are now writing, two citizens of free States, Messrs. Drayton
and Say re, are incarcerated in the jails of the Federal Dis
trict, for the alleged crime of having assisted* certain citizens
of that District to emigrate, in "pursuit of happiness^' to
another portion of the country, and enjoy "all the rights and
immunities of citizens in the" "States" of their intended
residence.

* More correctly, perhaps, we might say, " On suspicion of having intended to
assist ;" for the vessel in which these emigrants took passage was found, and the
arrest was made, in the waters of Maryland-, the very State under whose laws they
were claimed to be held !

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 247

CHAPTEE XXI.
FURTHER ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — AMERICAN
SLAVE TRADE — AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
Slave trade between the States, under jurisdiction of Congress — Its nature and
extent — Testimony of T. J. Randolph — Niles' Register — Natchez Courier— Vir
ginia Times — Virginia Exports — U. S. Gazette — Prof. Andrews — Prof. Dew — C. F.
Mercer — Mr. Gholston — H. Clay — Negro Speculation of 1887 — Mississippi Imports
— Northern losses by Southern bankruptcy — Funds of the Presb. Church — Ship
ments from Federal District — Acts of Congress regulating the traffic — Brig Comet
— Brig Encomium — The Enterprise — Negotiations with Great Britain for payment
for Slaves — Case of the Brig Creole — of the Schooner Amistad. African Slave
Trade, though abolished, connived at — Duplicity in Negotiations with G. Britain
— Refusal to take effective measures for suppression — Negotiations with Republic
of Colombia — Deceptive Act declaring the trade piracy — A plan of the Virginia
Slave-breeders — Connected with the project of Colonization — Notice of various
Acts of Congress concerning the Slave trade— 1794, 1800, 1803, 1807, 1809, 1818,
1819, 1820 — Allowed enslavement by Louisiana, of slaves known to have been
illegally imported — The abuse founded on an Act of Congress — No instance of
a slave trader being punished with death, according to law. La Coste convicted
by Judge Story, but pardoned by President Monroe.
The slave trade in the District of Columbia is only a part
of that detestable traffic carried on under the Federal juris
diction. The slave trade between the States is under the
same jurisdiction, for " Congress shall have power to regulate com
merce with foreign nations and among the several States." — TJ. S.
Constitution, Art. I., Sect. 8, Clause 3.*

* The legislative acts of some of the slave States, prohibiting, from considerations
of local pohcy, the importation of slaves from other States, have been set aside if
we mistake not, by their own courts, as unconstitutional, on the ground that tho
regulation of inter-State commerce devolves upon the Federal and not the State,
Governments.

248 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Of the nature and extent of that traffic, we will present a
few particulars.
In the Legislature of Virginia, in 1832, Thomas Jefferson Randolph
declared that " the State had been converted into one grand menagerie,
where men are reared for the market, like oxen for the shambles^'
Comparing the foreign with the domestic slave trade, he
says: " The African trader receives the slave, a stranger in aspect, language,
and manners, from the merchant who brought him from the interior. But
here, sir, individuals whom the master has known from infancy, whom he has
seen sporting in the innocent gambols of childhood, who have been accus
tomed to look up to him for protection, he tears from the mother's arms,
and sends into a strange country, among a strange people, subject to cruel
task-masters. In my opinion, it is much worse." — A. S. Lecturer.
No historian need seek a higher authority for his statements
than the " Register" of the late Hezekiah Niles, of Baltimore,
and, indeed, few books of history are equally authentic and
trustworthy. Hear Mr. Niles :
" 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 of deposit are strongly built, and well supplied
with iron thumb-screws and gags, and ornamented with cow-skins, and other
whips, oftentimes bloody." — Niles' Register, Vol. XXXV., p. 4.
" According to New Orleans papers, there were imported into that port
during the week commencing on the 16th ult., from all ports ofthe United
States, 371 slaves, principally from Virginia." — lb., Oct. 22, 1831.
" It was stated in the Natchez Courier that during the year 1836 no less
than two hundred and fifty thousand slaves were carried into Mississippi,
Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas." — Sunderland's A. S. Manual, p. 117;
also An. Report Am. A. S. Soe, 1837.
At an average price of $600, this would amount to one
hundred and fifty millions of dollars. This was a year of
unprecedented activity in the domestic slave trade.
The Virginia Times proposed that the banking capital of
the State be increased, from the money brought into the State
from the sale of slaves. The editor said :
" We have heard intelligent men estimate the number of slaves exported
from Virginia within the last twelve months at 120,000, each slave averaging

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 249
at least $600 — making an aggregate of $72,000,000. Of the number of
slaves exported, not more than one-third have been sold (the others having
been carried by their owners who have removed), which would leave in the
State the sum of $24,000,000 arising from the sale of slaves."* — An. Rep.
Am. A. S. Soe, 1837.
In January, 1840, a correspondent of the TJ. S. Gazette, who
signed "Spectator," and whose accuracy the editor vouched
for, gave an account of the speculations in negroes in 1835-6
and '37, in which he said :
" In three years the slave population of Mississippi increased from 70,000
to 160,000 slaves, at an average cost of at least $1000 each, making the
debt, for slaves alone, in three years, swell to $90,000,000."t— A. S.
Almanac, 1846.

* The winding up of the business, however, left little to increase the capital of
the Virginia banks. The slave traders and Southern purchasers swindled the Vir
ginians out of a large part of it. The courts of Mississippi, under their State laws,
decided that the importations into that State had been illegal, and so the Mississippi
purchaser on credit got his supply of slaves for nothing! Virginia took the insult
very quietly, without a single threat of " dissolving the Union," and made ample
reprisals, by stretching her now swollen credit, in lavish expenditures, to double
the amount, with the dough-faoe merchants and bankers of Philadelphia and New
York, for which she paid them less than ten cents on a dollar, in return for their
pro-slavery riots and the burning of Pennsylvania Hall ! Such are the gains of the
wicked, aud suoh are their friendships ! Whether the Virginian bankruptcy, at the
time of this reaction, was artificial or inevitable — a question once mooted — the loss
to the North was the same. The treasury of the whole conspiracy, indeed, North
ern and Southern, was " a bag with holes," as even the Trustees ofthe Presbyterian
Church found, to their cost. [See next note.]
f Hereby hang some other thrilling items of history. This negro speculation,
growing out of or connected with a previous cotton speculation, had its reaction,
involving the negro importing and negro raising States, together with the principal
Northern commercial and manufacturing cities that trade with the South, in a gen
eral and overwhelming bankruptoy, in which all concerned, except the slave traders,
shared together. The slave purchasers failed, and the slavers secured themselves
by " deeds in trust and mortgages upon nearly the whole property of the State of
Mississippi." (In other States, similar operations were witnessed.) The planters
failed, the Southern banks failed, the Southern merchants failed, their Philadelphia
and New York creditors failed. New York City alone lost about one hundred
millions of dollars, the little manufacturing town of Newark, N. J., five m'illionsj
and so on ! Capitalists all over the country lost by the Southern banks, which had
offered a bribe of high interest for funds wherewith to facilitate this delectable
" commerce among the several States !" Among the rest, and richly deserving it,
was "the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church," whose funds to the
amount of $94,692 88 (a part of it piously and conscientiously withdrawn from the

250 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Such are a few specimens of the " commerce among ihe several
States," which, by the Constitution of the United States,
" Congress shall have power to regulate." Not a little of it was
carried on, under its own eye, in the Federal District, the
slaves being brought in there for sale and shipment from the
adjoining States.
" Franklin and Armfield, (Alexandria, D. C.) alone, shipped to New Or
leans, during the year 1835, according to their own statement, not less than
a thousand slaves. They owned brigs of about 160 to 200 tons burthen,
running regularly, every thirty days, during the trading season, to New
Orleans, and carrying about one slave to the ton." — Sunderland's A. S.
Manual, p. 112.
Professor Andrews, in his work on " the domestic slave trade," repeats a
conversation he had with a slave trader on board a steamboat in the Potomac,
(1835), in which the trader informed him, " children from one to eighteen
months old are now worth about one hundred dollars." — Page 147.
Professor Dew, afterward President of William and Mary College, in his
review ofthe debates on slavery in the Virginia Legislature, 183 1-'2, speak
ing of the revenue arising from the domestic trade, says, " a full equivalent
being thus left in the place of the slave, this immigration becomes an advan
tage to the State, and does not check the black population as much as at
first we might imagine, because it furnishes every inducement to the master
to attend to the negroes, to encourage breeding, and to cause the greatest
number possible to be raised. * * Virginia is in fact a negro-raising
State for other States."
Mr. Charles Fenton Mercer asserted in the Virginia Convention, (1829) :
" The tables of the natural growth of the slave population demonstrate, when
compared with the increase of its numbers in the Commonwealth for twenty
years past, that an annual revenue of not less than a million and a half of
Sabbath-breaMng Hackensack Bridge Company, N. J.), were invested in the South
western banks engaged in this "patriarchal" operation, which, on the coast of
Africa, would have been "piracy!" The bottom line of the loss of the Presbyte
rian Church, in May 1842, was estimated at $68,898 88. The documentary state
ments may be found in the A. S. Almanac, New York, 1846. It turns out that this
"successful operation"-i' to increase the revenues of the Church" had been gone into
just before the celebrated Pittsburg meeting of the General Assembly, in 1836, at
which meeting the Trustees reportod their doings in this matter, to the great edifica
tion of that body, who must have felt a double interest in tho adoption, at that same
meeting, of Dr. Miller's Report, and the circulation of Dr. Hodge's biblical argu
ment, both in favor of the " peculiar institution," in which their Church funds were
to be so profitably employed I Thus rapidly, upon the heels of recreancy, trode
retribution 1 Thus the Church guides the community, and both fall into the ditch,
yet both grope on, in darkness, still.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 251
dollars is derived from the exportation of a part of this population." — De
bates, p. 90.
Mr. Gholson, when in the Virginia Legislature, 18th January, 1831,
claimed the right of " the owner of- brood mares to their product, and of the
owner of female slaves to their increase ;'' and added, " the legal maxim of
' partus sequitur ventrem' is coeval with the existence of the right of pro
perty itself, and is founded in wisdom and justice. It is on the justice and
inviolability of this maxim that the master foregoes the service of a female
slave — has her nursed and attended during the period of her gestation, and
raises the helpless infant offspring. The value of the property justifies the
expense ; and I do not hesitate to say that in its increase consists much of
our wealth." It is no wonder this same gentleman was anxious for the an
nexation of Texas, declaring that " he believed the acquisition of Texas
would raise the price of slaves fifty per cent, at least."
Hon. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, in 1829, delivered an address before ths
Kentucky Colonization Society. After showing that when the optioa ex
isted of employing free or slave labor, the first was the most profitable, he
remarked — " It is believed that nowhere in ihe farming portion of the United
States would slave labor be generally employed, if the proprietor were not
tempted to raise slaves by the high price of the Southern market, which keeps
it up in his own."
We might go into the details ofthe Virginia trade, and show the barbari
ties and loss of life which attend it, but we forbear, and content ourselves
with notices of two dealers in a single town in South Carolina. John
Wood, of Hamburgh advertised that " he has on hand a likely parcel of Vir
ginia negroes, and receives new supplies every fifteen days." John Davis,
of the same place, advertised for sale, from Virginia, " one hundred and
twenty likely young negroes of both sexes," and among them " small girls
suitable for nurses, and several small boys without their mothers. "*
If any one is disposed to doubt that this slave trade between
the States, as well as that from the Federal District, is under
the control, regulation, and supervision of the Federal Govern
ment, a few matters of fact will not only settle that question,
but show how this " commerce among the several States" has
been hitherto " regulated" and protected.
By act of Congress, March 2, 1807, Congress prohibited the
coastwise slave trade, in vessels of under forty tons burthen.
This exercise of the power of prohibition shows that it exists
and that Congress is conscious of its existence. The silence of

* Communication signed A. B., in National Era, Aug. 22, 1850.

252 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
the slaveholders and slave traders under this exercise of that
power is a sufficient evidence that they understood it to be
legitimate and constitutional. And, undoubtedly, the authority
to prohibit a traffic, in vessels of under forty tons burthen, im
plies an authority to prohibit it in vessels of over forty tons
burthen. But this is not all.
By the same act, masters of vessels, of over forty tons bur
then, intending to transport slaves, are required to make out
duplicate manifests of their human cargoes, one of which is to
be deposited with the Collector of the port ; who is to furnish
the master with a "permit" — "authorizing him to proceed to
ihe port of destination 1" — See Jay's View, p. 90-91.
Without this "permit" ".authorizing''' the coastwise slave
trade, and issued by an officer of the United States, under di
rections of a special act of Congress, this species of " commerce
among the several States" cannot be carried on at all. On the
arrival of the slaver to his port of destination, he must more
over, have another " permit" from another United States' Col
lector, before he may land a single slave. Thus notoriously
is this detestable "commerce among the several States" di
rectly " authorized" by the National Congress. And if Con
gress wishes to discontinue this policy, it has only to extend
to "vessels of forty tons burthen" and upward, the prohibition
of the act of 1807.
Instead of this, the National Government not only "per
mits" and "authorizes" the American slave trade, but prosti
tutes its foreign diplomacy to the shameless purpose of shel
tering and protecting it. The evidences are at hand.
In 1831 the brig Comet, a regular slaver from the Federal
District for New Orleans was wrecked off the island of Abaco,
and the slaves carried into New Providence. In 1833, the
brig Encomium, a slaver from Charleston for New Orleans was
also' wrecked near the same place, and the slaves carried into
the same port. In 1835, the Enterprise, another slaver from
the District for Charleston, was driven into Bermuda in dis
tress. In each of these cases, the slaves, instead of- being
accounted cargoes of brute beasts, were regarded by the inhab-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 253
itants and the authorities of the British provinces as passen
gers — human beings — treated with hospitality, and suffered to
go where they pleased. They were free, and their pretended
owners were neither assisted nor permitted to re-capture them.
All this was in accordance with the usages of civilized nations,
and with that English Common Law upon which our pilgrim
fathers had reposed, and which they claimed as their heritage.
Prompt measures were, however, taken by the Federal Gov
ernment to demand of the British Government the market
value of these cargoes of "Native Americans!"
This was under the administration of Andrew Jackson.
Instructions on the subject to our Minister at the Court of
St. James, were sent from "Washington, in 1831. Another
dispatch was forwarded in 1832, and a third in 1833. Fresh
instructions were sent in 1834, 1835, and 1836. The claim
was importunately urged by the Secretary of State, in 1832,
as a matter which "must be brought to a conclusion." In
1836, our Minister was reminded that "in the present state
of our diplomatic relations with the Government of His Bri-
tanic Majesty, the most immediately pressing of the matters
with which the United States Legation at London is now
charged, is the claim of certain American citizens against
Great Britain, for a number of slaves wrecked in British Isl
ands in the Atlantic." Thus instructed, Mr. Stevenson, our
Minister, in a communication to Lord Palmerston, went so far
as to hint that a further neglect to satisfy this demand, might
" possibly tend to disturb and wealcen the kind and amicable rela
tions now so happily subsisting between the two countries."
In plain English, it might involve the two nations in
war! This negotiation was made public by the President, in re
sponse to a call from the Senate, in Feb., 1837, for "a copy
of the correspondence with the Government of Great Britain
in relation to the outrage committed on our flag," &c, "by
seizing the slaves on board the brig 'Encomium' and 'Enter
prise,' engaged in the coasting trade!" &c. ke.— See Jay's View,
p. 58-63.

254 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
" We, the people of the United States," are thus made to
support a Minister in London, at a cost of nine thousand
dollars outfit, and nine thousand per annum salary, to nego
tiate matters, "the most immediately pressing" of which is, to
protect the American slave trade ! To do this by demanding
pay of the British Government for slaves liberated by the
good Providence of God ! To demand this, as if at the point
of the bayonet, and with the implied threat of war !
Who, then, is responsible for this infernal traffic, if not the
Federal administrations who carry on such negotiations, and
the people of the free states who sustain them in it by their
votes ?
Another illustration presents itself in the
CASE OF THE CREOLE :
""Nov. 7, 1841, the American brig Creole, bound from Richmond, Va.,
to New Orleans, with a cargo of 102 slaves, was seized by 19 of the slaves,
and carried into Nassau, New Providence, one of the British West India
islands. One passenger was killed, and the captain and a few others
wounded. The whole affair was managed with a remarkable degree of
bravery, discretion, and mercy. Every movement indicated an earnest
desire to do as little mischief as possible, consistently with securing their
own freedom. The ring-leader, a very large and strong mulatto, was
named Madison Washington. He had previously run away from bondage,
and staid in the family of Hiram Wilson, in Canada. But he grew home
sick for his wife, whom he left a slave in Virginia ; and he determined to
rescue her at all hazards. He went back for this purpose, and was pro
bably caught by his master, and sold to New Orleans as a punishment. At
all events, he was next heard of, as the hero of the Creole. It is believed
that his beloved wife was with him on board that vessel. The authorities
of New Providence declared all the slaves free. Four or five of the
women (supposed to be mistresses of the white men), were at first inclined
to go back to the United States ; but when the case had been truly repre
sented to them by the colored people of the island, they took their freedom.
" Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, officially demanded of Great
Britain redress of these grievances, in a style which slaveholders applauded
to the echo."— N. Y. A.S. Almanac, 1843.
This was under the Presidency of John Tyler.
There was still another and a previous case, of a character
too unique to admit of appropriate classification, but which

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 255
may as well be related, in this place, as anywhere else. The
readiness of the Federal Executive and other officers of Gov
ernment to subserve the interests of slavery in general, is here
strongly exhibited, though, for once, the Federal Judiciary
was prevailed upon to interpose, and prevent the consumma
tion intended. THE CAPTIVES OF THE AMISTAD.
" Nearly all these unfortunate Africans came from Mendi, a country in
the latitude of the Gallinas River, and probably from three to five hundred
miles from the Atlantic coast. Their average age was about twenty.
Some were as old as thirty ; and some as young as eight or nine. They
were seized, and, with many others, hurried down to the coast about the
last of April, 1839, and there, with three or four hundred men and boys,
and about two hundred women and children, were put on board a slave ship
for Havana. After the terrible " middle passage," placed between decks,
where the space is less than three feet, they arrived at Havana. Here
they were put into one of the large pens, or prison-houses, called Barra-
coons, and offered for sale. In a few days Joseph Ruiz and Pedro Montes
bought them. Ruiz bought forty-nine, and Montes bought the children,
three little girls. They put them on board the schooner Amistad, a coaster,
for Puerto Principe, Cuba, a few hundred miles from Havana. Whe'n they
were two or three days out, they were beaten severely, threatened with
death, &c. A quarrel took place. The cook and captain were killed, and
two sailors fled in a boat. Cinquez, the master-spirit of the whole, as
sumed the command. He established a strict government over his com
rades, and compelled Ruiz and Montes to steer the schooner for the rising
sun — their own native Africa. They did so by day, but in the night they
deceived the Africans, and ran towards the United States.
" In this way they arrived on the American coast, and came to anchor
off Culloden Point, Long Island. Here some of them landed, made pur
chases (paying for all they took), and shipped water, intending to proceed
on their passage, but they were taken possession of by Lieutenant Gedney,
of the U.S. brig Washington, and carried into New London, Conn. Judge
Judson bound them over to the Circuit Court for trial, on the charge of
murder, &c. ; but Judge Thompson decided that our courts have no
cognizance of offences committed on board Spanish vessels on the high
seas. As, however, the vessel, cargo, and Africans had been libelled by
Gedney and others for salvage, it was determined that a trial must take
place in the District Court. It was held in January, 1840. Judge Judson
decided that the prisoners were native Africans ; had never been slaves
legally. He dismissed the libels with costs, and decreed that the Africans

256 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
should be delivered to the President of the United States, to be sent back
to Africa. But our government, on the' demand of the Spanish minister, ap
pealed to the Circuit Court. This Court was held in April, 1840. Judge
Thompson sustained the appeal, and as one party or the other would appeal
to a higher tribunal, whichever way he might decide, the case went up to
the Supreme Court of the United States as a matter of form, for decision,
in January, 1841. Thus, these free men were kept in an American jail
eighteen months !
" Nine of the Africans died. They were instructed daily by benevolent
persons. They made some progress in reading and speaking the English
language ; and their conduct was very exemplary. James Covey, a native
of Mendi, providentially brought to this country, acted as interpreter.
" President Van Buren, at the request of the Spanish minister, sent a
U.S. ship to New Haven, to convey the Africans to Cuba, to be given up
to the Spaniards, in case Judge Judson had not decided as he did."
At the final trial before the Supreme Court of the United
States, the Africans were released, and afterwards returned to
Africa, in company with Missionaries, who went to reside
among them. THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
The Federal Government has neglected to take appropriate
measures for suppressing the African slave trade, and has
winked at the illegal introduction of slaves into this country.
Though the trade has been interdicted on paper, it has been
permitted to continue in practice. While the slave breeding
states have, from motives of interest, desired earnestly the
non-importation of slaves from abroad, the slave consuming
or planting states have, nevertheless, persisted in the illicit
traffic, and the Federal Government, with a full knowledge
of the fact, has, at times, winked at its continuance ; and the
national policy, in regard to the subject, has been self-contra
dictory and unstable. In 1811 and in 1814, under the Presi.
dency of Mr. Madison, in 1817, in 1818, and 1819, under Mr.
Monroe, official information of the introduction of foreign
slaves was in possession of the Government, or the fact was
successively noticed by official functionaries, as Collectors of
Customs, the Secretary and officers of the navy, Judges of
the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, and Members of

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 257
Congress. Yet, in 1819, it was certified by Joseph Nourse,
Register of the Treasury, that the Department contained no
records of any forfeitures under the Act of 1807 abolishing
the slave trade I He had, however, heard of two recent for
feitures. It turned out that one of these cases was an acci
dental capture of a slaver, that a collusive or sham forfeiture
of the bonds had been enacted, and that the owners, master,
and supercargo, were discharged ! In 1820, a slave vessel, the
Science, fitted out from New York, and commanded by A.
Lacoste of Charleston, was captured on the coast of Africa,
brought home, and Lacoste convicted before Judge Story, but
pardoned by President Monroe ! — Jay's View, p. 94-108.
The history of negotiations carried on between the Govern
ments of the United States and Great Britain in 1823 and
1824, under Mr. Monroe, in connection with other facts, af
fords evidence of a persevering and settled duplicity, on the
part of the American Government, in regard to the suppres
sion of the African Slave Trade. By the treaty of 1814, the
two Governments had mutually promised to use their best- en
deavors to abolish the "traffic in slaves." Mr. Canning, British
Minister at Washington, in January, 1823, addressed a letter
to the Secretary of State, J. Q. Adams, reminding him of
this treaty, (which, by-the-by, he had assisted to negotiate,)
and calling on the American Government to assent to the
plan proposed by Great Britain,* or suggest another. The
House of Representatives, soon after, requested the President
to negotiate with the maritime powers of Europe and America,
"for the effectual abolition of the African slave trade, and its
ultimate denunciation as piracy, under ihe laws of nations by con
sent of the civilized world." The President adopted this as the
basis of his proposal to Mr. Canning. Thus far all seemed
sufficiently zealous and in earnest. But, mark the existing
circumstances and the final result : At this time the British
law had not made the slave trade piracy ; and, as it could not
* The British Government, in 1819, had proposed to our Government a mutual
right of search to detect slavers, with slaves actually on board, and a positive refusal
to this proposal had been returned.

258 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
be done by treaty, the action of Parliament would be needed,
and might long be delayed or withheld. The offer, therefore,
was less hazardous. But the British Minister made no demur,
and proceeded to propose a mutual right of search, under
limitations and restrictions, to detect slavers. This was the
practical point. But this the American Government declined,
though Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Den
mark, Sweden, and Sardinia, have come into the measure.
Yet the American Government renewed its proposition, by
authorizing our Minister in England to conclude a treaty, on
condition Of a legislative prohibition of the slave trade as
PIRACY. Great Britain took us at our word, and accepted
the offer. The treaty was regularly drawn up and signed in
London, March 13, 1824, and Parliament passed a corres
ponding Act, as our government had required. The Senate
of the United States, however, delayed to ratify the treaty.
The British Minister at Washington remonstrated. The
President, as in honor bound, urged the ratification, suggest
ing, naturally enough, that the refusal would expose us to
""the charge of incincerity respecting the great result of the
final suppression of the slave trade." The Senate, after long
debates, ratified the treaty, in a mutilated form, adroitly
striking out certain words, thus destroying its efficacy, giving
full security to slavers while on the coast of " America," and
also to the traffic carried on in "chartered" or hired vessels,
&c. &c. !
The British Cabinet, of course, refused to agree to a sham
treaty, but made several attempts to accommodate or com
promise the matter, which our Government promptly declined.
Negotiations have since been renewed, but the final answer
of the American Government (as we learn from the Eduv
burgh Review for 1836,) was, "that under no condition, in no
form, and with no restriction, will the United States enter into any
convention, or treaty, or combined efforts of any sort or kind, with
other nations' for the suppression of this trade." — Jay's View, pp.
109 to 118. Under whose administration this answer was
given, is not stated ; but it was probably Gen. Jackson's.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 259
A treaty similar to that formed in London, yet exempting
the coast of America from its operation, had been concluded
with the Republic of Colombia, in 1824, but rejected by the
United States Senate. — Ib. p. 117.
In November, 1825, the Colombian Minister at Washing
ton, while inviting the United States to send delegates to the
proposed Congress of Panama, alluded to the suppression of
the< African slave trade, as an object deserving attention in
that Congress. The document was submitted to the Senate,
and a committee of that body made a Report, 16th January,
1826, deprecating, in strong terms, any interference with the
subject.— Ib. 118-119.
All this enables us to appreciate the pretense of desiring
to make the African slave trade piracy ! Or, if the Cabinet
and House of Representatives were honest in that measure,
it betrays a different state of feeling in the Senate.
The zeal shown by the Government for suppressing the
African slave trade, and declaring it piracy, in 1817, 1819,
1822, &c., has, however, a ready solution. It ,was urged on
by the Virginia slave breeders, intent upon monopolizing the
market of the planting states to themselves. " Piracy in Af
rica, and protection in America," would have been the appro
priate motto on their escutcheon ! A protective tariff, in favor
of home products, of which the prohibitory tax was to be the
halter I A beautiful harmony among the successors of the
"Patriarchs!" The rising sentiment of the civilized world
against the slave trade, was surreptitiously subsidized to sub
serve the interests of the slave breeders for the southern
market I
Very naturally did such a zeal against the African slave
trade connect itself with the Virginian project of colonizing
their free blacks in Africa ! Quite conveniently were the
measures for suppressing the African slave trade connected
with measures, much more efficient, for assisting the Coloniza
tion Society, and the former made a cover and pretext for the
latter, at the expense of the National Government, and. with
the semblance of philanthropy. But if. the Act making the

260 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
slave trade piracy, can be readily harmonized with the policy
of Virginia, it is not as readily reconciled with the refusal of
the Federal Government, the year previous, and ever after
wards, to co-operate with other nations in any efficient efforts
for suppressing it. — See Jay's View, p. 103-109.
It may be in place, here, to note down a few brief memo
randa of the Acts of the Federal Government, against the
foreign slave trade.
By act of 1794, March 22, Congress prohibited, under for
feitures and fines, the building or equipping of any vessels in
the United States, for carrying on the traffic in slaves TO any
foreign country. — IngersoWs Abridgment, 670. Stroud, 158.
By act of May 10, 1800, it was made unlawful to be con
cerned or employed in the transportation of slaves from one
foreign country to another, on pain of forfeitures, fines, and im
prisonment not exceeding two years. — lb. 672-3% Stroud,
158-9. By act of February 28, 1803, Congress, in behalf of the
Federal Government, co-operated with such of the States as
had already prohibited the importation of slaves, assisting
them in carrying into effect such laws. — Stroud, 159.
By act of Congress, March 2, 1807, the importation of slaves.
from abroad was utterly prohibited after January 1, 1808*

* One provision of this act, prohibiting the transportation of slaves from one port
to another, in certain vessels, excited the jealousy of John Randolph, of Roanoke,
who, the day after its passage, thought he saw in it something hostile to the domestic
slave trade, and brought forward a supplementary bill to avert the danger.
" Sir," said he, " we may say what we please about alien and sedition laws, but
this law, in my opinion, is the most frightful, the most abominable that was ever
passed ! If this law went into operation, unless the owners of slaves were asleep,
protests would be sent against it from every State south of the Potomac. As well
might they pass a law prohibiting the transportation of slaves in wagons. He
doubted whether they would ever see another Southern delegate on that floor. Foi
one, he had no hesitation in saying — if the Constitution is to be violated, if the
entering wedge is to be driven, let us secede and go home."
Old Mr. Smylie answered him: "The gentleman from Virginia says he will not1
trust Congress, and talks of the Southern States seceding from the Union. If they :
do not like the Union, let thom say so. In the name of God, let them go ; we can
do without them."
This answer somewhat cooled Mr. Randolph. " He complained that he had been

I ll

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 261
Judge Stroud has elaborately and clearly pointed out the
discrepancies of this act, according to which, " the negro,
though illegally imported, yet, if so directed by the State Leg
islatures, he and his offspring should be absolute slaves." " The
Legislature of Louisiana was not tardy in improving the privi
leges thus preposterously conferred by Congress." By act of
March 20, 1809, all slaves imported, in violation of the act of Con
gress of 1808, were directed " to be delivered into the hands of
the treasurer ofthe territory, to be afterwards disposed of as the
legislature should think proper!" — Stroud, pp. 159 — 162. 1 Mar
tin's Digest, 664. " North Carolina and Georgia, respectively,
adopted a similar law, the former in 1816. — Haywards Man
ual, 545 et. seq : the latter in 1817 — Prince's Digest, 463." The
act of Georgia, however, authorized the Governor to hand
them over to the Colonization Society, on payment of ex
penses, &c. ! — Stroud, p. 162.
By the act of April 20, 1818, more severe penalties were
imposed upon the prosecution of the slave trade, but " re-
enacting the odious sixth section of the act of 1807, and
recognizing the laws of the several state legislatures on the
subject, which have just been commented upon."— Stroud, p.
163 ; Ingersoll's Abridgment, 680.
By act of March 2, 1819, the President was empowered to
employ the Navy for the suppression of the traffic, also to
provide for keeping and supporting the slaves re-captured,
and remove them out of the United States, and finally repeal
ing the obnoxious provisions of the former acts which author
ized their enslavement by the state governments.
By act of May 15, 1820, (a few weeks after the infamous
Missouri compromise, and by the same Congress,) the African
slave trade was made piratical! "But laws do not execute

misrepresented. He had not threatened a dissolution of the Union. However, he
said, if union and manumission of slaves are put in the scales, let union Meh the
beam.'.' This account is taken from the Providence Gazette, of July, 1820, now before us
in which (during the political contest in Rhode Island, growing out of the Missouri
question) it was " copied from a newspaper printed in the year 1807."

262 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
themselves, and if any slave trader has suffered death in the
United States, as a pirate, we confess Our ignorance of the
fact." — Jay's View, p. 108.
Notwithstanding this repeal, the State of Alabama, Jan. 1,
1823, passed "an act to carry into effect the laws ofthe United
States, prohibiting the slave trade," in which — with singular
effrontery — " the laws of the United States " on the subject
were grossly violated, by authorizing the Governor to sell, for
the benefit of the state, all persons of color who should be brought
into the state contrary to the laws of the United States prohibiting
the slave trade ! ! ! — See Toulman's Digest, 643 / Stroud, 164.
" The laws of the United States," in accordance with the
Constitution, are "the supreme law of the land; and the
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
Constitution or laws of any state' to the contrary notwith
standing." — U. S. Constitution, Art. V. And yet we know of
no action of the Federal authorities, or of the courts of Ala
bama, for setting aside this open and flagrant insult to a law
of Congress by a state legislature.
Thus it is that the Federal Government puts down the Af
rican slave trade by calling it "piracy." .

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 263

CHAPTER XXII.
FURTHER ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. — CONTIN
UED SUBSERVIENCY OF THE NATIONAL DIPLOMACY TO THE
DEMANDS OF THE SLAVEHOLDERS.
Negotiations with Great Britain aud Mexico for the surrendering of fugitive slaves —
Compensation obtained of Great Britain for slaves captured — Negotiations with
Spain and the South American Republics, to prevent emancipation in Cuba —
Threat of preventing it by force of arms.
We have already seen the corps diplomatic employed at the
national expense (both of money and honor) for the protec
tion of the American domestic slave trade, and in shameful
'evasion of the admitted obligation of assisting to suppress
the African slave trade. But this is not the only vile service
to which the diplomacy of the nation has been subjected by
the slave power.
The Federal Government has negotiated with Great Britain
and with Mexico, for the surrendry of fugitive slaves, and
has actually obtained compensation from Great Britain for
slaves captured in war, or taking refuge on board their armed
vessels. <
During the last British war, American slaves sometimes
absconded, and took refuge on board the armed vessels of the
enemy. Slaves were also captured, at times, and carried off.
In negotiating the treaty of peace, this matter was not for
gotten. Our Commissioners at Ghent, (Messrs. Clay, Bayard,
Russell, Gallatin, and John Quincy Adams,) were carefully
instructed by Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State, under Mr.
Madison, to " insist " upon the return of the slaves taken

264 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
from the southern states, or full payment for their value. So
adroitly did the Commissioners fulfil their trust that they not
only obtained compensation for the slaves captured, but also,
(as ultimately settled) for those who bad absconded to the ves
sels of Britain. The application of the treaty to tbe case of
the latter, was contested by the British Cabinet. The decision
was referred to the Emperor of Russia, who, in 1818, decided
in favor of the American claim, which, at length, in 1836,
was liquidated, with interest, amounting to one million two
hundred and four thousand dollars. — Jay's View, pp. 53-58.
Thus, though the treaty of peace did not contain a sin
gle stipulation for securing either one of the objects for which
America had ostensibly declared the war, (" free trade, sailors'
rights," &;c.,) yet it did contain ample and even exorbitant
remuneration for fugitive slaves. On this issue, during the
negotiation, was suspended the question of peace or con
tinued war !
Another negotiation with Great Britain, concerning fugi
tive slaves, took place under the administration of John
Quincy Adams, Henry Clay being then Secretary of State,
and had special reference to those who had taken refuge in
Canada. The House of Representatives, May 10, '1828,
requested the President to open a negotiation with the Brit
ish Government, for the surrendry of these fugitives. At
the next session, the House called on the President to inform
them of the result. "The President immediately submitted
a mass of documents to the House, from which it appeared"
(says Mr. Jay,) " that the zeal of the Executive in behalf
of 'the peculiar institution' had anticipated the wishes of the
Legislature. Two years before the interference of the House,
viz : on the 19th of June, 1826, Mr. Clay, Secretary of State,
had instructed Mr. Gallatin, American minister in London,
to propose a stipulation for ' a mutual surrendry of all persons
held to service or labor, under the laws of either party who
escape into the territories of the other.'" Mr. Clay dwelt on
the number of fugitive slaves in Canada, and suggested the
benefits, to West India planters, from such a stipulation. In

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 265
February, 1827, the subject was again urged upon Mr. Galla
tin, informing him that a similar treaty had j ust been nego-'
tiated with Mexico. In July, the British minister declined
the proposal. Mr. Barbour, the successor of Mr. Gallatin,
was directed to renew the application. He did so, but was
answered promptly by the British minister, that the " law of
Parliament gave freedom to every slave who effected his landing
on British ground." — Jay's View, p. 47 — 50. The reader will
readily trace- this " law of Parliament " to the decision of
Lord Mansfield in the Somerset case, and to the sagacity and
perseverance of Granville Sharp.
As to the treaty negotiated with Mexico, the Mexican
Congress refused to ratify it. The refusal, as will appear in
the sequel, was among the real grounds of our quarrel and
war with Mexico, but it was not prudent to invade the do
minions of Great Britain.
The Federal Government, by its diplomacy, has labored
effectually to prevent the abolition of slavery in the neigh
boring Spanish Island of Cuba, lest such an occurrence should
seriously affect the_ stability of slavery in our own Southern
States. The immediate cause of alarm was the war raging between
Spain and her American Colonies, and the prospect that the
latter would throw off the dominion of the parent govern
ment, as the North American Colonies of Great Britain had
done. The ordinary vicissitudes of war might emancipate
the slaves of Cuba, but the danger was increased by the fact
that the Spanish Colonies on this Continent had shown a dis
position to extend to all their inhabitants, irrespective of color
or condition, the liberties for which they were contending.
Some of them had already abolished slavery, and others of
them were taking measures in that direction. If Cuba
should share in the revolution, the Cuban slaves would doubt
less become free.
Through- the American Minister at Madrid, Mr. Everett
the Spanish Government was accordingly implored by the
Cabinet at Washington to become reconciled to the colonies.
Could this interference be traced to a love of peace, or an

266 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
earnest desire for the independence of Spanish America, it
'might be regarded with admiration. But the instructions of
our government to Mr. Everett, by the Secretary of State,
Mr. Clay, forbid us thus to interpret the proceeding. " It is
not for the new Republics," (said Mr. Clay to Mr. Everett,) "that
the President wishes you to urge upon Spain the expediency
of concluding the war." He proceeded to hint at the probable
effects upon Porto Rico and Cuba, intimated that the "people
of the United States could not be indifferent spectators;" and
that the possible contingencies of a protracted war might bring
upon the Government of the United States duties and obligations
ihe performance of which, however painful it should be, they might
not be at liberty to decline"
In other language, it would be the duty of the American
Government to prevent those islands from becoming the the
atre of the war, even if the effort should involve the United
States in a war to prevent it !
This letter was dated April 27, 1825. Of course it was
under the Presidency of Mr. Adams, and among the earliest
acts of his administration. The significancy of the transaction
is made, if possible, still plainer, by the tone soon after held
by the administration towards our incipient sister republics,
who, in the enthusiasm of their young love of liberty, had
confidingly invited us to sit in council with them, at their pro
posed Congress of American Republics at Panama ; an invi
tation to which the public pulse in the United States — at least
at the North — beat a hearty response. Messrs. Anderson and
Sargeant were appointed our Ministers to that Congress. But
in his letter of instructions to them, May 8, 1826, our Secre
tary, Mr. Clay, gives them to understand the real object of
their mission to that Congress of Freedom. It was rumored,
and doubtless with good reason, that Colombia and Mexico
meditated a descent upon Cuba, with a force that should con
fer upon its inhabitants a share in the blessings they were
seeking. Such an enterprise, however, the Government of the
United States would by no means permit. This message, their
Ministers at Panama were required to convey to them. And
it was given in language sufficiently explicit and peremptory.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 267
" The United States," (they were to be told,) " have too much
at stake in the fortunes of Cuba to allow ihem to see a war of inva
sion prosecuted in a desolating manner, and one race of the in
habitants combating against another." " The duty to defend
themselves against the contagion of such a new and dangerous ex
ample, would constrain them, even at the hazard of losing ihe
friendship of Mexico and Colombia, to employ all the means
necessary to their security."
That is, the United States would sooner go to war with
Colombia and Mexico — would sooner join with despotic Spain
in reducing them to their former condition — than to stand
neutral and see the same liberation extended to Cuba !
Cold comfort this to the new republics in our neighborhood,
just throwing off the yoke of European bondage ! This was
the message conveyed them by the administration of Mr.
Adams, at a time when the bulk of our northern citizens were
exulting, in their simplicity, at the idea of holding a friendly
and fraternal conference, at Panama, with our new republican
neighbors. They knew, indeed, that certain southern mem
bers of Congress had blustered when the subject of the mis
sion was under debate in both Houses, had denounced the
new republics as "buccaneers, drunk with their new-born lib
erty," because they had abolished slavery; even threatening
to prevent the liberation of Porto Rico and Cuba, by force of
arms. But they did not then know that the Federal Execu
tive and Cabinet were in sympathy with them.
The threat had the desired effect upon Colombia and Mexi
co; the enterprise was abandoned, and Cuba remains enslaved!
The fears of our Government were not, however, at once
allayed. The war continued, and Cuba might yet become
free. Mr. Van Buren, Secretary of. State under President
Jackson, on the 22d of October, 1829, instructed our Minister
at Madrid, Mr. Van Ness, to press on Spain a termination of
the war. " Considerations," he remarked, " connected with a
certain class of our population, make it the interest of the southern
section of the Union that no attempt should be made in that
island to throw off the yoke of Spanish dependence." — Jay's
View, p. 120-127.

268 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTER XXHI.
FURTHER ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — HAYTI—
FLORIDA — THE SEMINOLE WAR.
Non-intercourse with Hayti — Refusal to acknowledge its independence— Invasion of
Florida, while a Spanish province, to break up a fortress of fugitive Blaves-^
Threatened Conquest of Florida by the Georgians — Purchase of Florida— Florida
Indians — Seizure of Osceola's wife, as a. slave — Seminole War — Indians hunted
with blood-hounds.
We are burthened with the accumulated instances and
modes in which our Federal Government has sustained slavery.
We cannot proceed with' the minute details. We will hastily
advert to a few other topics.
TREATMENT OF HAYTI.
The American Government has manifested an inveterate
and continual hostility to Hayti, for no reason but because
Hayti is an independent nation of emancipated slaves. To
the present hour we have neglected to recognize the inde
pendence of Hayti, and maintain no diplomatic relations with
her, though our commercial intercourse with the island has
been more important than with several of the European na
tions, with whom, at a great expense, we maintain such rela
tions. By this neglect, numbers of our citizens having claims
on the Haytien Government have been provided with no
means of indemnity. The American Congress, in February,
1806, during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, suspended
commercial intercourse with Hayti, in servile obedience to the
arrogant and peremptory demand of Napoleon, who was intent

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 269
on reducing the inhabitants to submission, by starvation. At
the Congress of Panama, before mentioned, our Ministers
were instructed to decline any recognition of Hayti. — Jay's
View, pp. 127-144.
INVASION OF FLORIDA AND DESTRUCTION OF FUGITIVE SLAVES
WHILE FLORIDA WAS A SPANISH PROVINCE.
This demonstration was made under the administration of
Mr. Madison, and in conformity with directions from Mr.
Crawford, Secretary of War, addressed to General Jackson,
March 15, 1816. General Jackson had, however, anticipated
these directions. The object, openly avowed, was to break
up a fort of between 250 and 300 blacks, who, it was said,
enticed and protected negroes from the frontiers of Georgia.
A gun-boat, by order of Commodore Patterson, fired upon the
fort ; the magazine exploded, and nearly three hundred In
dians and negroes, men, women, and children, were killed or
mortally wounded. — Ib. p. 50-52.
PURCHASE OF FLORIDA.
But the trouble did not cease. President Monroe was
harassed with numerous letters from slaveholders in Georgia,
declaring that their slaves were escaping continually into
Florida, and finding an asylum there,* and if the Province
was not secured by treaty, the Georgians would take it by
force. These facts, according to Timothy Pitkin,-)- were stated
in a secret session of the House of Representatives, on the
subject of the treaty, in 1819. The treaty of purchase (at
the national expense, five millions of dollars) was concluded that
same year.

* Though slavery existed in Florida, it was of a much milder type than that of
the United States. Free colored people enjoyed greater security, aud the country
afforded facilities for the secretion of fugitives, or their subsistence in retreats of
difficult access, and among Indians.
t Quarterly A. S. Mag., Jan., 1886, p. 197.

270 * GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

THE SEMINOLE WAR.
Florida was nevertheless destined to be the theatre of a
pro-slavery war, prosecuted by the government of the United
States. The Seminole Indians inhabited the marshy portions
of that country. Fugitive slaves took refuge with them, and
sometimes intermarried among them. Osceola, one of their
chiefs, became the hero of a painfully interesting tragedy,
illustrative of this condition of things. The following is from
an account of him by M. M. Cohen :
" Osceola, or Powell, as he was called by the whites, had a wife to whom
he was much attached, whose mother was a mulatto, who ran away, was
adopted by the Indians, and married one of their chiefs. Though the
father was free, yet the children, by the law of the South, take the condi
tion of the mother. Osceola's wife was seized as a slave by a person
claiming her under the right of her mother's former master ! The high
spirited husband attempted to defend her, but was overpowered, and put in
irons by Thompson, who commanded the party." "This transaction has
been said to be the origin of the war in Florida." — Quar. A. S. Mag.,
Vol. IL, p. 419.
In this war Osceola was a conspicuous leader. He was
perfidiously captured by the American Generals Herandez
and Jessup, being surrounded by two hundred horsemen
while " holding a talk," or 'negotiation, with his captors, in
October, 1837. This was under the administration of Presi
dent Jackson.
The cost to the United States of this long protracted slave
hunt (for it was nothing else), has been estimated at forty
millions of dollars. "What- has the North to do with
slavery ?"
In this war, the American flag was disgraced by the impor
tation of blood-hounds from Cuba, and the employment of
them in hunting down the Indians, by advice and under
the direction of General Zachary Taylor, whose services in
the Seminole and Mexican wars — both for the benefit of

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 271
slavery — were rewarded with the Presidency of the United
States. It is quite remarkable that many who were loud in
their condemnation of the administration of Gen. Jackson,
on account of the use of the blood-hounds, were afterwards
the zealous supporters of Gen. Taylor, the idol of the South.
Thus do our parties bind us to slavery.

272 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTER XXTV.
FURTHER ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — ACQUISI
TION OF TEXAS.
Slavery abolished in Mexico, including Texas— Emigration of American Slaveholders
and Slaves to Texas— Attempted seizure of Texas by Americans in 1819— Conspi
racy of settlers at Nacogdoches, in 1826— Scheme to purchase Texas, 1827— Mex
ican refusal to sell— Texan Land Companies in the States— Armed emigration to
revolutionize Texas— Meetings of sympathy in the States — No Executive action
against it— Standard of revolt raised in Texas — Proclamation of Independence
and re-establishment of slavery — Remonstrance of the Mexican Minister— Men
dacious reply of Mr. Forsyth — -Gen. Gaines stationed near the frontier to counte
nance the revolters — Battle of San Jacinto — Defeat of Santa Anna — Acknowledg
ment by the American Government of Texan Independence — Proposed union
with the States — Various obstacles and delays — Final admission of Texas, in 1845,
and speedy hostilities with Mexico.
Texas was a province of Mexico, and Mexico was a colony
of Spain. In the general struggle of the Spanish American
colonies to throw off the Spanish yoke, Mexico took a part,
and asserting her independence, took measures in forming
her constitution of government, in 1824, for the prospective
but complete abolition of slavery. Having achieved her
independence, she proceeded to cut short the tardy process
of gradual extinction, by proclaiming the immediate and
entire abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of all the
slaves, September 15, 1829.*
Texas was of course included, with the rest of Mexico,
under these acts. But Texas was in process of settlement by
emigrants from our American slave States, who had gone
* Quarterly A. S. Mag., Jan., 1886, p. 195 ; Jay's Mexican War, p. 12.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 273
thither with slaves, and with the view of extending their
favorite "institution" into that new and fertile country.
Lawless adventurers from the United States, under James
Long, had attempted the forcible seizure of Texas for this
purpose, as early as 1819* while the country was a portion
of Mexico, and under the jurisdiction of the Spanish Govern
ment, with which we were at peace.; but the enterprise had
failed. When it was seen that the young Mexican Republic,
by its Constitution of 1824, had provided for the gradual
extinction of slavery, a body of American settlers, near
Nacogdoches, under a leader of the name of Edwards, raised
the standard of insurrection in 1826, declaring Texas inde
pendent, but were soon put down by the Mexican forces.
" The united Provinces of Coahuila and Texas formed one
State, and its Constitution, adopted in 1827, contained an
article giving freedom to all who should be hereafter born,
and prohibiting the introduction of slaves, "f
Such was the position of things in Texas when the Mexi
can proclamation, of Sept. 15, 1829, emancipated every slave
in the Mexican dominions. This produced the greatest dis
satisfaction among the American emigrants in Texas, and they
determined to resist the execution of the law. For this pur
pose, one of them was deputed to the United States to procure
arms and ammunition. In the distracted and feeble condition
of Mexico, the new party then just coming into power felt it
politic or necessary to relax the decree, so far as Texas was
concerned, permitting a modified apprenticeship of the eman
cipated slaves, but providing that no indentures or contracts
should be valid for more than ten years from their respective
dates4 This relaxation prevented an immediate rupture, but neither
the Texan settlers, nor their friends in the United States,
were satisfied, nor had they been before the emancipation
1 decree had gone forth. The settlers wanted the unrestricted

* Jay's Mexican War, p. 12. t Ib.
\ Quarterly A. S. Mag., Jan., 1836, p. 195.
18

274 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
restoration and perpetuity of slavery. Our slave consuming
States wanted an open field for slave emigration and security
from a free border for fugitives. Our slave breeding States
could brook no curtailment of their prospective privilege of
a growing market. Texas must be made slave territory at
all hazards. But the settlers were too weak to resist success
fully the Mexican government. Expeditions fitted out from
the United States, at the expense of the slaveholders, in 1819
and in 1826, had been found insufficient. What could be
done? The plan was soon decided upon. Texas must be pur
chased of Mexico, at the expense of the United States. The
Federal Government must do for the slaveholders, what they
could not do for themselves.
The prosecution of this plan was attempted under the
administration of Mr. Adams, Mr. Clay being Secretary of
State, by whom, in March, 1827, Mr. Poinsett, our Minister
in Mexico, was instructed to offer one million of dollars for
the purchase. Under President Jackson, in 1829, the bid was
raised to five millions, and when the offer was declined, Mr.
Poinsett offered the Mexican government A loan of ten
millions, proposing to take Texas in pawn until repaid,
intending, of course, to get possession, stock it with slaves,
and keep it at all events ! This offer was justly considered an
insult. This same year, Thomas H. Benton, Judge Upshur,
Mr. Gholson, and other prominent Southern statesmen as well
as editors, openly urged the necessity of acquiring Texas as
a means of extending slavery and improving the slave market.
The negotiation was relinquished as a failure. The Mexi
cans refused to dismember their republic by selling Texas.
This, too, after having also refused, in 1827, as before noticed,
to stipulate for the surrendry of fugitive slaves. From this
time it was resolved to get Texas by force. If the vineyard of
Naboth could not be purchased from, him for money, he could
be killed, and the field taken for nothing*

* 1 Kings, ohap. xxi.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 275
Now came the era of Texan land companies — armaments —
invasions — insurrections. Extensive tracts of land, said to
have been obtained by grants from the Mexican government,
came into our American market, and were speculated upon
by capitalists, gamblers, politicians, and demagogues. These
purchases secured only a title to the soil, under Mexican juris
diction. But that which the purchasers were after was slave
plantations, and this end could not be obtained without wrest
ing Texas from the jurisdiction of Mexico. Not a little of
this capital was invested by citizens' of the non-slaveholding
states. Three of the principal Texan land companies were
established in the City of New York, the scrip being of little
value while Texas remained under the anti-slavery laws of Mex
ico, but was expected to rise rapidly whenever Texas became in
dependent. Recruits of volunteers from the United States were
at length openly enlisted for this enterprise, and proceeded to
Texas, under popular military commanders, who publicly an
nounced their intentions, and advertised in the public prints
for the number of men they respectively wished to employ.
Armed emigration was now all the rage. Public meetings of
the "Friends of Texas" were advertised and held, at which
speeches were made in favor of assisting the Texans, military
companies of emigrants were paraded, and the enthusiasm
raised to a high pitch. In Mississippi, in Florida, in North
Carolina, in various parts of the Slave States, and even in
Cincinnati, Ohio, were these scenes witnessed, and arms and
ammunition openly purchased to aid in these expeditions.
On their starting from their places of rendezvous, the Gazettes
and Journals of the day exultingly heralded their departure.
All this was in flagrant and gross violation of our peaceful
relations with Mexico, in violation of the laws of nations, and
the laws of the land, which forbid any expeditions against
nations with whom we are at peace. Aaron Burr had been
arrested and tried for the crime of attempting a similar in
vasion of Mexico, in 1807. Presidents Washington, in 1793,
Jefferson in 1806, Madison in 1815, and Van Buren in 1838,
had issued proclamations forbidding our citizens to invade the

276 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
provinces of other nations, or intermeddle with their internal
dissensions. But no such proclamation was issued by Presi
dent Jackson on this occasion, though no emergency more
loudly demanding the measure had ever before occurred.
Under these circumstances it was, and by these means, that
the standard of revolt was raised in Texas, by the American
settlers, against the government of Mexico, which was, at that
time, weakened by dissensions at home. The colonists, in
1833, organized themselves into a distinct and separate state,
preparatory to independence, because the people of Goahuila,
with whom they were associated, were not favorable to the
measure. Mexico refused to recognize this new organization.
The standard of open rebellion in Texas was then raised, the
small body of Mexican troops were driven out, and " on the
2d of March, 1836, the insurgents issued their declaration of
independence, and fifteen days afterwards adopted a constitu-
.tion establishing perpetual slavery." " Of the fifty-seven
signers to this declaration " of independence, fifty were emi
grants from the slave states, and only three Mexicans by birth,
and these, it is said, were largely interested in Texan land
speculations.* " Nothing," says Mr. Van Buren, " is more true or more
extensively known than that Texas was wrested from Mexico,
and her independence established through the instrumentality
of eitizens of the United States."f Mr. Clay, while the ques
tion of the annexation of Texas was pending, alluded to the
same fact as a reason why our government should not be
precipitate in that measure, in advance of the recognition by
Mexico herself, lest the civilized world should upbraid our
rapacity. %
The Mexican Minister at Washington, in the meantime, had
remonstrated against these proceedings. In October, 1835, he
informed the Secretary of State that large numbers of vessels
were about to sail from New York with military stores for the
* Jay's Mexican War, p. 22. t lb.
t We Btate the substance from memory, the speech not being at hand.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 277
insurgents, and that an armed schooner had sailed for Texas
from New Orleans, without papers from the Mexican consul.
Our Secretary, Mr. Forsyth, thereupon addressed circulars to
the several District Attorneys, directing them, in general terms,
to prosecute violations of treaties with foreign nations, but no
efficient measures were taken, and no offenders were punished.
A District Attorney in Ohio, soon after, made an address at a
Texan meeting, in favor of assisting the Texans ! To a second
remonstrance of the Mexican Minister, Mr. Forsyth very coolly
and mendaciously replied that the Government had done all
in its power to prevent interference !
A few days before this assurance, General Gaines was di
rected by the President to take a position near the frontier,
ostensibly to prevent the contending parties from entering our
territory, of which there was no danger. He was not directed
to prevent regiments raised in the United States from invading
Texas ! Under pretense of defending our frontiers, he next
marched his troops into Texas, against the remonstrances of
the Mexican Minister, with the evident object of affording
countenance to the insurgents, and, if necessary, assist them
against the Mexican forces, under pretense of defending our
frontier. Some hundreds of his soldiers deserted and joined
the Texans. There they remained and served while they were
wanted. General Gaines then offered them a full pardon - on
condition of their return.
Thus encouraged and aided, the Texans, or rather the
American armed emigrants, fought the decisive battle of San
Jacinto, and defeated Santa Anna, in May, 1836. The intelli
gence was transmitted to our American President, Jackson, by
the American General, Gaines, who indulged the anticipation
that, in consequence of the victory, " this magnificent ac
quisition to our Union " would grace his administration.—
Jay's Mexican War, p. 30.
And all this is said to have been done without violating
our relations of peace with Mexico !
On the opening of Congress in December, 1836, President
Jackson recommended a prudent .delay in acknowledging the

278 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
independence of Texas, till "the lapse of time or the course of
events " should have proved her ability to maintain her posi
tion. This proved to have been a ruse to allay the fears of
the friends of freedom. Not long after, the President urged
Congress to put at his disposal a naval force to act against
Mexico in case she failed to make prompt arrangements for
satisfying our pecuniary claims against her. With such a
force he could easily get into a war with Mexico, and then
" the course of events " would soon lead to the acknowledgment
of Texan independence. " This proposition was coldly re
ceived." " The session was to close the third of March, 1837."
By the most dexterous management of the House of Repre
sentatives, and the concurrence of the Senate, near the close
of the session, the independence of Texas was acknowledged,
and a salary provided a Minister to the new nation ! A Min
ister was immediately nominated by the President, and con
firmed by the Senate, the last day of that administration. —
Jay's View, p. 153.
Nothing was now wanting to complete the drama of Texas,
but her admission into the Union. The strong opposition,
at the North, against this measure, delayed it for about eight
years, and until near the close of Mr. Tyler's administration,
in March, 1845.
The Texan Congress took measures, as early as 1836, (be
fore our government had acknowledged their independence,)
for proposing a union with the United States, but on the ex
press condition of the " free and unmolested authority
over their slave population." In 1837 the negotiation was
opened by the Texan Minister at Washington. Mr. Van
Buren prudently declined on the ground that the United
States were, at present, at peace with Mexico, and that power
had not acknowledged the independence of Texas. As the
excitement against annexation increased in the free States, the
proposition of Texas was formally withdrawn, and the appre
hension of annexation was, by this movement, allayed.
In the mean time, the emigration to Texas from the free
States began to alarm the guardians of slavery. In 1842 the

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 279
ex-President of Texas, General Lamar, addressed a letter to
his friends in Georgia, urging the necessity of annexation, lest
the anti-slavery party in Texas should change the Constitution,
and abolish slavery. He added that though the anti-slavery
party were now a minority, yet the majority of the people of
Texas were not slaveholders. The clamor of the South for
annexation was now revived. A false alarm, without the
least shadow of foundation, was got up, that England intended
in some way, to interfere in the affairs of Texas, and insist on
the abolition of slavery. The British Government disclaimed
any such intention* Yet President Tyler negotiated with
Texas a treaty of annexation, in the face of earnest remon
strances from the Mexican Minister at Washington, and the
instrument was signed by the Secretary of State, Mr. Calhoun.
The Senate of the United States, however, refused its ratifica
tion of the treaty. This was in April, 1844, and it was not
until March 1st, 1845, just before the close of Mr. Tyler's ad
ministration, that the measure was carried by joint resolution
of both Houses of Congress, after a severe struggle, and in di
rect violation of the Federal Constitution, which invests the
treaty-making power in the President and Senate. Texas
assented July 4th, and was formally received the 22d of De
cember. Hostilities with Mexico soon followed ; but we must, in a
way of digression, go back and give some account of an at
tempt of the slaveholders upon that country, about forty years
previous. * Mr. Calhoun, while Secretary of State, in April, 1844, officially declared, in a
letter to the American Agent at Mexico, that the annexation of Texas had been
" forced on the Government of the United States in self-defense, in consequence of
the policy adopted by Great Britain in reference to the abolition of slavery in Texas."
The accusation, was false— the confession was true. Slavery was at the bottom of
the matter. Eight years before this (May 27, 1836), long before there was any pre
tense of British interference, Mr. Calhoun had said in the Senate, " There are power
ful reasons why Texas should bo a part of this Union. The Southern States, owning
a slave population, were deeply interested in preventing that countryfrom having
the power to annoy them." On the 19th of February, 1847, General Houston,
under whose directions the treaty between Texas and Mexico had been negotiated
declared, in the Senate, " England never proposed the subject of Blavery or of abo
htion, to Texas."

280 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTER XXV.
CONSPIRACY FOR THE CONQUEST OF MEXICO AND THE DISRUP-
TURE OF THE FEDERAL UNION IN 1806 — CONTROLLING POW
ER OF THE CONSPIRATORS OVER THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.
Arrest of Colonel Aaron Burr, 1807— His previous history— Detection of the plot by
Gen. Wm. Eaton — Sketch of his history— Object of the conspiracy— A South
western Empire, including slaveholding Mexico and the American slave States —
Extent and power of the conspiracy — Prominent men — Trial of Burr — Sympathy
of the South— Arts successfully employed for his acquittal.
We shall venture to fix here an earlier date than is com
monly given, to the machinations and attempts of prominent
citizens, statesmen, capitalists, and military men, chiefly,
(though not exclusively,) of the South and Southwest, for the
conquest or dismemberment of Mexico, and with a special
view to the security and expansion of the slave system. The
time, we think, has now fully come, when, upon a full review
of tbe past, connecting nearer and more familiar events with
those more remote and obscure, and reading the more distant
in the light of the more recent, we may better understand the
secret springs of certain movements which caused no little ex
citement and surprise, in their day, presenting a riddle which
few Northern statesmen then on the stage appeared fully to
comprehend. The arrest and trial of Col. Aaron Burr, under Mr. Jeffer
son's administration, in 1807, fills a brief paragraph or two
in our popular histories. But a well-digested manual and
review of the facts that came out on the trial, and that occu
pied the political journals of that day, could they now be col
lected and published, would make a thrilling and highly

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 281
instructive volume. The details were altogether astound
ing. Colonel Burr, as a politician, as a statesman, and as a mili
tary man, held rank among the first men of the country. As
a competitor with Mr. Jefferson for the Presidency, he received
from the people precisely the same number of electoral votes.
In the House of Representatives, in 1801, it required thirty-
five ballotings to decide between the two, when a change of
one vote resulted in the election of Mr. Jefferson ; but, as the
Constitution then stood, Colonel Burr was, of course, invested
with the Vice-Presidency for four years*
The sudden arrest of so prominent a statesman for high
treason, and in a time of general quiet, was like a clap of
thunder out of a clear sky. It produced a sensation the most
profound and extensive. Except for his slaughter of Gen.
Alexander Hamilton, in a duel, in July, 1804, Col. Burr,
though of loose private morals, had stood before the country
in general, unsuspected of crime. The occasion of the duel
was this : Col. Burr, having been supplanted in the affec
tions of the democratic party by his only rival, Mr. Jeffer
son, became cool in his party attachments, and was appa
rently in the attitude of changing sides. At this crisis, a
portion of the Federal party in the State of New York pro
posed him as their candidate for Governor. Gen. Hamilton,
as a leading member of that party, strongly opposed the
nomination, denouncing Col. Burr as an unprincipled aspirant
and " dangerous to the country." Col. Burr sent him a chal
lenge, which Gen. Hamilton accepted, and fell. His strong
declaration concerning Col. Burr excited wonder at that time
but it was afterwards conjectured that he entertained secret
suspicions, or had received intimations, of his treasonable
designs. It appeared at the trial, and afterwards, that Burr
had made secret overtures to several prominent men who had

* WiUson's American History, p. 443. The votes were given only for a President
and after eleoting the President, the candidate having the next greatest number of
votes was Vice-President.

282 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
declined co-operation with him, but who had considered them
selves bound by Masonic obligations or otherwise to observe
silence. He had carried on a very extensive correspondence
in " the Cypher of the Royal Arch Masons," and it was be
lieved, during and after the trial, that his connection with
that fraternity did much to shield and acquit him.
Be this as it may, to Gen. William Eaton, of Massachu
setts, was reserved the honor of detecting the dangerous
conspiracy, and lodging information with the Government.
Gen. Eaton had been American Consul at Tunis, during our
war with the piratical Barbary powers, and had concerted
with Hamet, the legitimate but exiled sovereign of Tripoli,
an expedition against the usurper who had dethroned him,
and with whom this country was at war. Communicating
this project to his Governnent, and obtaining due authority
from it, he had embarked in the perilous expedition with a
few followers of Hamet and some Egyptian troops. He had
marched, with incredible fatigue and suffering, over a desert
of a thousand miles in extent, had taken Derne, a Tripolitan
city, by assault, had fought two battles with the reigning
Bashaw, and had obtained terms of peace which had been
accepted by our agent, Mr. Lear, thus suddenly and success
fully closing our long and expensive naval war of five years
in the Mediterranean.* He returned to America, the -military
idol of his times. The whole northern country was resound
ing with his, exploits against the barbarians who had captured
and enslaved so many American citizens! But Gen. Eaton was
a New Englahder and a Federalist. The South could never
permit such an one to wear military laurels. Worse than
all this — Gen. Eaton, while residing at Tunis, had written
letters home to his wife, which had, somehow, appeared in
print, in which he described the horrors of Tunisian sla
very, but had declared, that he blushed at the remembrance
of having witnessed worse scenes in his own country !f This

* WiUson's American History, pp. 444-5.
t Uberty Bell, p. 38.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 283
sealed the fate of Gen. Eaton. Not only was he coldly re
ceived at the seat of Government, but the most mean and
frivolous cavils were raised and charges preferred against him.
His accounts of necessary expenditures were disputed and
disallowed, reducing him to bankruptcy, and attempts were
made to cashier and disgrace him. Triumphantly vindicating
himself, at every point, but literally plundered by his Gov
ernment, he retired, in deep disgust, from its service, carrying
with him the sympathies of his New England fellow-citizens,
who found in his wrongs, fresh aliment for their hatred of
Mr. Jefferson and his administration.
Then it was that Col. Burr conceived the idea of adding
Gen. Eaton to the long' list of his military adventurers, and
approached him accordingly. But he mistook his man. The
General listened silently till he had unfolded the whole
scheme. A new Southern and Western Empire was to be estab
lished, with New Orleans for its capital, and extending, if possible,
over Mexico. The extreme Southern with the South Western
States were confidently calculated upon to oppose no serious
obstacle to the measure, and in fact, to come into it, quite
greedily. As many of the southern states as possible were
to be drawn into it. To the question, what disposition was
to be made of the existing Federal Government, the ready
answer was, " They can probably be managed easily enough,
but if not, we will assassinate the President, and turn Con
gress, neck and heels, into the Potomac." General Eaton de
clined the overture, and, nobly forgetting his own personal
grievances, lost no time in communicating the particulars to
the Government that had wronged him. Col. Burr and several
others were arrested. Col. Burr was charged, first, with high
treason ; second, with a high misdemeanor, in attempting an
invasion of Mexico, a province of Spain. The single testimony
of Gen. Eaton was thought sufficient to have convicted him,
but it was only a tithe of what could be brought forward.
So extensive and so powerful was the conspiracy found to be,
and so wide-spread appeared to be the sympathy of the South
with the prisoners; that it was feared, at one time during the

284 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
trial, that, whether the arraigned were condemned or acquit
ted, the enterprise would in some way be resumed. It was
currently understood that prominent men at the South, who
were as deeply implicated as Col. Burr, and who were, in fact,
the originators of the plot, were not arrested because it was
not deemed prudent to proceed further. Among other rumors,
one was, that Col. Burr was about to turn States' evidence
against some of them, to procure indemnity for himself. But
the matter appears to have been compounded more easily.*
Quite evident it was that the northern states were mainly
depended upon to sustain the Government, at that crisis,
though nearly all the political opposition to the administration
was northern. Except Col. Burr, few northern citizens, we
believe, were implicated, or even suspected of being in the
conspiracy. Whoever succeeds in ferreting out the names of
the prominent southern men implicated or falling under strong
suspicion at that period, need not be surprised to meet with

* The arts employed to shield the accused from conviction, are quite apparent
even upon a. cursory glance at the records of the trial. The indictment was so
drawn up as to charge him only with treasonable acts or misdemeanors committed
by him on Blennerhassett's Island, in the river Ohio, the residence of one of his
accomplices, while the great mass of the evidence in the hands of the prosecuting
attorney had respect to acts committed elsewhere ! By this barefaced fraud, " al
most all the important testimony was excluded by the court from coming before the
Jury." The testimony of Blennerhasset was rejected likewise. So well was this
stratagem understood by the Jury, that after retiring, for a short time, they returned
with the following written verdict, read by Col. Carrington, their foreman :
" We, of the Jury, say that Aaron Burr is not proved guilty under tjiis indictment,
by any evidence submitted tous. We, therefore, find him not guilty."
Exceptions were taken to this verdict, that it was unusual, and that it seemed to
" censure tlie Court for suppressing irrelevant testimony." The Jurors, however,
"would not agree to alter it." " The Court then decided that tbe verdict should
remain as found by the Jury, and that an entry should be made on the record of
Not guilty." — Burr's Trial, reported by David Robertson, Esq., Counsellor-at-
Law. Philadelphia : Hopkins and Earle, 1808. Vol. II., pp. 446-7.
The writer well remembers the prevailing publio impression at the North. The
feeble efforts of the prosecution, the evident bias of the Court, and the apparent
apathy of the Executive, suggested the suspicion that the matter was better under
stood at the South than at the North, and that the Administration had either
favored the project, and did not wish, or did not dare, to press the prosecutions
with vigor. Partisan feelings may have entered into these suspicions, but they were
extensively entertained.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 285
several names that have appeared among the advocates of
forcible pro-slavery extension, since. The writer will not trust
his youthful reminiscences further than to say, that tbe name
of Andrew Jackson, in 1807, was pretty familiarly coupled, in
the public prints, with that of Aaron Burr, and that the cir
cumstance was again freely alluded to by the political opponents
of Gen. Jackson, who were supporters of William H. Crawford,
at the South, during the Presidential canvass of 1824. It was
a Georgia Editor, if we remember correctly, who spoke of it
as though it were a fact well understood, that Jackson was an
accomplice of Burr.
The acquittal of Col. Burr astonished the people of the
North, little less than did his arrest. The secret was not un
derstood. So overwhelming was the public condemnation of
Burr, notwithstanding his judicial acquittal, that, with all his
easy and graceful assurance, he could never again lift up his
head in American society. He soon left the country, and
was, for years, a voluntary exile, in different countries of Eu
rope. He seems to have hoped, at first, that the verdict of
his acquittal would have been his passport abroad. But it was
not so. The facts elicited at the trial had preceded or soon
followed him. With a polish and fascination of manners that
would have graced any royal court, with talents that would
have rendered him an acquisition to any European cabinet,
with an energy of action that might have made him the ad
miration of a Napoleon, he sought employment in vain. He
sued for a military post under the French Emperor, but was
repulsed. Obscurity, thenceforward,' was the doom of Aaron
Burr. He returned to the city of New York, and earned his
bread, till his death, at an advanced age, by the labors of a
counsellor-at-law and a draftsman of legal instruments, with
out ever again appearing as a barrister in a court of justice.
He was a disgraced man. If the Federal Judiciary could save
his neck, it could not save his good name. A free people had
assumed to act as a jury in the case, and the decision could
not be reversed.
That the Federal Courts could not convict a traitor, whose

286 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
treason consisted in fealty to the Genius of slavery extension, is
a phenomenon not very difficult of explanation, now. Nor
need the secret spring of the Burr conspiracy be a problem
of wearisome conjecture. At a time when the expected pro
hibition of the Foreign Slave trade was approaching, the
natural instincts of the southern country, as since exhibited,
must have impelled, with almost resistless energy, the appe
tency for western expansion. The purchase of Louisiana,
about the same period, was only another symptom of the
same insatiable thirst. Whether the acquisition of Louisiana
were cause or effect of the great Southern Conspiracy that
exploded in 1807, or which of them, in reality, was in progress
first, or whether the purchase was not designed to satisfy -the
conspirators, it might be difficult, at this distance of time, to
determine. That there was a close affinity between them,: no
one can deny. The taste of Louisiana would as naturally
whet the appetite for Mexico, then, as did the taste of Texas
the appetite for California, more recently.
Not more truly characteristic was the acquittal of Burr,
than the significant silence observed respecting the conspiracy
ever since. The suspected treason of the Hartford Convention
has swollen into volumes. The taint of affinity with ,it is
fatal. The orator's tongue never tires in execrations of it.
But the great Southern conspiracy (for such it was, though
with a Northern accomplice) is seldom mentioned, and history
almost passes it over in silence. High time were it to restore
that long suppressed chapter, and let posterity know that
but for the fidelity of Gen. William Eaton, of Massachu
setts, "our glorious Union" would probably have been
shivered to atoms by the slaveholders, in the year 1807, with
out even a show of resistance at the South.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 287

CHAPTER XXVI.
FURTHER ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — THE WAR
WITH MEXICO — ACQUISITION OF CALIFORNIA, NEW MEXICO,
AND UTAH.
The project of Mexican Conquest never relinquished since 1807 — Suspension of
effort till 1819— War of 1846— Its causes— Federal Government bent on a Con
quest or Dismemberment of Mexico — Testimony on this point — Review of relations
with Mexico Bincel886 — Unreasonable and fraudulent claims of our Government
— Insolent demands — Territory wanted, not money — Naval armament — Com.
Jones — His Annexation of California by proclamation, in 1841 — Its failure —
Attempts to intimidate Mexico, and to provoke a War — Demand that she should
acknowledge the Independence of Texas^-Negotiations for territory — Their failure
— War determined on, and commenced — False claim of boundary of Texas — Gen.
Taylor ordered to occupy Mexican territory — Manoeuvres to provoke hostilities —
Their failure — The first blow struck by Gen. Taylor — False announcement to Con
gress by the President — Corresponding declaration by Congress, May 11, 1846 —
Prosecution of the War — Adventure of Col. Fremont — Testimony that it was- a
War of Conquest — Barbarities and depredations — Subserviency of Congress —
President's request for money to purchase Territory — Wilmot Proviso twice passed
in the House — Defeated in the Senate — Then lost in the House — Negotiations with
Mexico for Territory — Offered on condition of excluding Slavery — Offer rejected —
Final adjustment — Cost of acquired Territory. *
THE LATE WAR WITH MEXICO.
The detection and exposure of the great Southern con
spiracy against the Federal Union and against Mexico, though
it interposed a temporary check on the enterprise, removed
neither the cause nor the disposition that had engendered it.
There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the purpose
of invading and conquering Mexico was ever for one moment
relinquished. From the trial and acquittal of Aaron Burr,
in 1807, to the actual beginning of. military excursions into
Texas, then a province of Mexico, in 1819, as already related,
there was an interval of only twelve years, less time than could

288 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
have been supposed needful to allay public apprehension, to
divert attention to other topics, to draw the veil of oblivion
over the past, to transfer the odium of incipient treason from
the 'South to the North, to place the Slave Power on a high
ground above Free Labor, to organize tbe conspiracy anew,
and to subsidize the Federal Government itself for the accom
plishment of its objects, instead of attempting again its direct
overthrow. How effectively those twelve years were thus occupied, the
history of the country will show. A glimpse of it we may
take before long; but will first follow -out the Mexican drama
to its close.
The annexation of Texas, while she was at war with Mex
ico, was equivalent to a declaration of war against the latter.
But Mexico was not in a position to wage war against us ; and
had the Slave Power, that controls the Federal Government
at its pleasure, been satisfied with the acquisition of Texas,
our amicable relations with Mexico, if not undisturbed, might
have been easily restored. Indeed, there were no actual hos
tilities between the two republics until the invasion of Mexico,
in the summer of 1845, by the American forces, by direction
of President Polk, and without authority from Congress.
In his " Review of the Mexican War," Mr. Jay has clearly
and conclusively shown that the Federal Government, not
content to wink at and even encourage and aid the lawless
invasion and revolution of Texas, to acknowledge its inde
pendence, and to annex it to this country, was resolutely bent
upon a still farther dismemberment of Mexico, either by pur
chase or conquest.
So early as April, 1842, Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in a speech
in Congress, openly avowed the policy of conquest, and pre
dicted its accomplishment, for the purpose of extending
slavery. He boasted that it was the people of our own West
ern Valley that had conquered Santa Anna at San Jacinto. He
gloried in the prospect that they would join the Texans and
proclaim a crusade against the rich States of the South, "cap
ture towns, rifle churches," and "plant the lone star of the

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 289
Texan banner on tbe Mexican capital."' " Let the work once
begin" (said Mr. Wise), " and I do not know as this house
would bold me very long. Give me five millions of dollars,
and I would undertake to do it myself" — "1 would place
California where all the powers of Great Britain would never
be able to reach it Slavery should pour itself abroad,
AND FEND NO T.TMTT BUT THE SOUTHERN OCEAN." "War
is a curse, bat it has its blessings too. I would vote for this
mission" [of Waddy Thompson to Mexico], " as a means of
preserving peace, but if it must lead to war, I would vote for
it more willingly."
This was under the administration of President Tyler, of
whose policy Mr. Wise was the recognized leader in the House
of Representatives. The real object of Mr. Thompson's mis
sion, as disclosed by his course and the results, fully justified
the foreshadowings of this speech. Mr. Tyler showed his
affinity with Mr. Wise, by appointing him Minister to France.
Bat the effort to get into a war with Mexico was of a still
earher date than this.
OUR CLAIMS UPON MEXICO.
The only ostensible cause of complaint against Mexico, was
the claims of certain American citizens for depredations com
mitted on their property by Mexicans, or by subordinate
officials of the Mexican government. Mr. Jay has thoroughly
sifted these claims, and shown that they constituted no just
ground or necessity of war.
The first claim, in July, 1836, under President Jackson,
consisted of fifteen distinct specifications of alleged facts,
requiring time for their proper investigation. Of the exist
ence of many of them, the Mexican Government may well be
supposed to have been wholly ignorant, as they claimed to
have been, until the complaint was presented. Yet the Amer
ican Minister, Mr. Ellis, was directed to obtain a satisfactory
answer within three weeks, or announce that, unless satisfac
tion was made without unnecessary delay, his farther resi
dence would be useless. If this threat proved unavailing he
19

290 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
was to give notice that, unless he received a satisfactory answer
in two weeks, he should demand his passports and return
home. Mr. Ellis was a Mississippi slaveholder, eager to
extend the area of slavery by a dismemberment of Mexico.
Another remarkable feature of this demand was, that Mr.
Ellis was informed by our government that it was not in pos
session of " the proof of all the circumstances of the wrong
done in the above cases !" The reparation was to be demanded
first, under a threat of war, and the justice of the claim
ascertained afterwards ! Mr. Ellis was to be sole judge whe
ther there was "unnecessary delay," and whether the answers
were " satisfactory." The alleged aggressions were mostly of
recent date. Similar claims on France and England had been
matter of negotiation for ten or twenty years, without a threat
of war, but Mexico was required to finish up the whole busi
ness in five weeks! Before Mr. Secretary Forsyth's dispatches
reached Mr. Ellis, two out of the fifteen wrongs had been set
tled to the satisfaction of the parties, and many of the remain
der were proper subjects of investigation in the Mexican
courts, to which, by treaty, our citizens had access, as their
citizens had to ours. Of this the Mexican Secretary reminded
Mr. Ellis, but promptly proceeded, nevertheless, to an investi
gation of the claims. Mr. Ellis thought proper to add five
more complaints, without waiting for any directions from his
Government. These, added to the thirteen remaining original
-ones, made the number eighteen. In respect to each of these,
the Mexican government returned suitable explanations and
assurances within the time specified. Some of them were
shown to be unfounded. Others of them required proof.
Others required further time for investigation. Others of
them having been investigated, and being found just, the
claimants should be compensated. Others of them were
under litigation, and the results would soon be ascertained.
In one case, an American vessel had been seized by the
custom-house officers and condemned for want of the proper
papers, but an appeal having been taken to a higher court,
before whom the missing papers were produced, the vessel

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 291
had been discharged. The detention was not the fault of the
Mexican officers, but of the master of the vessel, in losing
his papers. In every case the answer appeared to be fair and
reasonable. Mr. Ellis, nevertheless, as had been determined
beforehand, demanded his passports and returned home, refu
sing to give the Mexican Government a reason for so extra
ordinary a course. And on his return home the country was
made to ring with the falsehood that Mexico had refused to
pay our just demands I
The Mexican Minister, in the meantime, had left Washing
ton, on account of the march of American troops into Texas,
as before related. All diplomatic relations between the two
republics were thus suspended. American troops were in a
province claimed by Mexico, and the wishes of the adminis
tration seemed about to be realized. Accordingly in Feb.,
1837, President Jackson, in a message to Congress on the
claims against Mexico, ¦ requested an act passed authorizing
reprisals, and the use of a naval force of the United States
for that purpose; unless an amicable adjustment could be
made, upon another demand, to be made on board one of our
vessels of war on the coast of Mexico !
The President evidently intended WAR. Indeed his mes
sage affirmed, distinctly, that these injuries justified an " im
mediate war." But, in a semi-official letter to Governor
Cannon of Tennessee, only six months before, which had
somehow got into print, he had distinctly said "It does not
seem that offenses of this character", (i. e. such as would jus
tify war) " have been committed by Mexico."
But, thanks (under God) to the little band of northern agi
tators against' slavery, the people of the North were not yet
prepared for such a measure, and the war proposition of Presi
dent Jackson received little favor by their representatives in
Congress. There needed new machinations and a more favor
able opportunity, before the desired result could be reached.
The treaty between the two countries forbade any. act of
reprisal, by either party, on account of grievances or damages
until they had been " verified by competent proof," and until

292 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
the demand for satisfaction "refused, or unreasonably de
layed." We have seen that the eighteen complaints against
Mexico had not been thus verified, nor had the demand for
satisfaction been " refused or unreasonably delayed." Yet
the President, as we have seen, desired authority to make
" reprisals " unless prompt reparation should be made, on a re
newal of the demand from on board one of our armed vessels
on the coast of Mexico. And in making this request, he laid
before Congress a list of grievances amounting to forty-six,
making twenty-eight new cases that had never been presented
to the Mexican Government at all ! Some of these additional
claims— strange to tell — dated back as far as 1816 and 1817,
when Mexico was a province of Spain I And some of them
were claims for insurrectionary services against the Spanish
Government !
Mr. Ellis was then re-appointed Minister to Mexico, but he
remained at home, and a courier was dispatched with the bud-
get of grievances, with an allowance of ONE week to examine
and determine upon them all. By incredible zeal and indus
try, the list of grievances was now swelled to fifty-seven.
This was in July, 1837, under the administration of Mr. Van
Buren. Many of these > demands, as Mr. Jay well" observes,
and has clearly shown, " were in the highest degree insolent
and ridiculous."
The messenger to Mexico tarried his "one week" and re
turned. But before the list of these fifty-seven grievances
reached Mexico, the Mexican Government, intent upon an
equitable settlement of all the difficulties it had heard any
thing about, viz. : the eighteen specifications made by Mr.
Ellis, had passed an act offering to submit to the award of a
friendly power, the claims of the United States. In the same
peaceful spirit, another Mexican Minister was sent to Wash
ington, and the arbitration proposed, in December, 1837.
The warlike designs of the Federal Administration were
thus again baffled. The offer was too fair to be rejected, in
the face of the nation and the world, yet for four months no
notice was taken of it, but the new claims were three times

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 293
distinctly urged by our Secretary, Mr. Forsyth. Not until
the Offer had become public, and Congress plied with northern
petitions to accept it, and remonstrances against the annexa
tion of Texas, was the overture heeded, and negotiations
commenced. At length an arrangement was made, by which
the claims were to be presented to Commissioners to sit at
Washington, two to be appointed by each party ; the board
to sit not more than eighteen months, the decision of cases
by it to be final, and the cases on which they could not agree,
to be determined by an umpire to be named by the King of
Prussia. Here, then, were allowed eighteen months to go through with
an investigation which Mexico had been required to complete
in three weeks !
After many delays, the Commission assembled two years
after' their appointment, giving ample time for all the claim
ants to collect their evidences.
After sitting nine months, they passed upon all the claims
that had sufficient vouchers ; but, in order to give further
time for collecting evidence, the Commission was kept open
the remaining nine months, when it was dissolved. The
King of Prussia named as umpire his Minister at Washing
ton, Baron Boenne. Now notice the result.
The total amount of claims presented was $11,850,578
But of these there came, in the last nine
months, too late to be examined, and evi
dently of a speculative and fraudulent
character,  3,336,837

Thus reducing the amount to . . $8,513 741
Eeferred to Umpire, and undecided by him
for want of time,  928 627

Amount of Claims adjudicated, . . $7585114
Eejected by Commissioners and Umpire, . 5 568 975
Allowed  " , " " *^016^139
* See Jay's Mexican War, p. 70. The bottom line (allowed) ia there stated

294 great struggle between
*
Just look at it! Our government had been demanding rof
Mexico nearly twelve millions of dollars, had demanded a prompt
settlement on pain of "reprisals" and war. And here, after
the most laborious investigation, and giving ample time, twice
over, for proving the claims, they are dwindled down to a
little over two millions, not much more than one-sixth part
of the claim. It is true that only about seven AND A balf
millions were acted upon ; but this was the fault of the claim
ants, if they had any valid evidences to bring forward. Again,
of the claims brought forward in season and investigated,
viz. : about seven and a half millions, only about one-fourth was
adjudged to be due.
The award of over two millions remained unpaid, in conse
quence of the pecuniary embarrassments of the Mexican trea
sury. Adding to this the amount of claims that had not been
adjudicated, the Federal Government was furnished with an
other opportunity of urging its claims upon Mexico. Another
arbitration treaty was negotiated ; the commissioners, for this
timo, were to sit in Mexico, and Mexican citizens1 having
claims against the United States were also to have an oppor
tunity of presenting their claims for adjudication. One feature
of the treaty was to change the mode of payment by Mexico,
from the tender of her depreciated treasury notes to specie
payments in instalments — an object of great importance to
our government. And yet, the United States Seriate virtually
rejected the treaty, by changing the place of adjudication
from Mexico to Washington, and striking out the clause refer
ring the Mexican claims on the United States to the tribunal
of arbitration. Thus mutilated, and divested of its reciprocal
character, the treaty was returned to Mexico, where no further
notice was taken of it.
So much for our claims against Mexico. Except for delay
of payment growing out of its poverty, it does not appear that
there was any backwardness on the part of the Mexican Gov-

2,026,236, -whioh does not agree with the arithmetical subtraction, owing probably
to a misprint.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 295
ernment to do all that could reasonably be asked at its hands.
And this is the sum total of all our causes of war against
Mexico — a war for the collection of a debt of about two mil
lions, and a pretended debt of about five or six millions more,*
the proper adjustment of which had never been refused or
needlessly delayed. And this debt was collected, by the war
process, at an expense of above one hundred millions of dol
lars! It was territory, not money, that the Federal Government
wanted of Mexico, and territory for the extension of slavery.
Every step in the entire process affords evidence of this.
Under the administration of Mr. Tyler, in December, 1841,
Mr. Upshur, Secretary of the Navy, made a report, recom
mending the employment of a naval force in the Pacific, on
the coast of California, to protect "a considerable settlement
of Americans " in Upper California, to explore tbe Gulf of
California, &c. A few days after, Commodore Jones, a Vir
ginian, was dispatched with a squadron accordingly, where he
arrived in 1842. On receiving a newspaper report that Mexi
co had ceded California to England — one of the lying rumors
of the day, for effect — learning, likewise from the Mexican
papers that the government of that country had protested
against American interference with Texas, and suspecting that
a British naval force then in the Pacific was about to seize
upon California, Com. Jones, on consultation with his officers,
assumed the responsibility of taking possession of Monterey
in California. He had brought with him, either from the
United States or from Callao, a supply oi printed proclamations,
in the Spanish language, claiming the people " henceforth and
forever " as citizens under the protection of the American flag.
The day after distributing his proclamation, the Commodore
discovered his mistake. The report was a fabrication. The
fruit was not yet ripe. He apologized to the Mexican authori
ties of Monterey, and withdrew. The Federal Government
was obliged to disavow the act, but "in vain was his punish-
* The reader will find evidences ofthe character of these claims as we proceed.

296 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ment demanded by Mexico. " He was too faithful a represen
tative of his government to fall under its censures. He had
only mistaken the time to strike. -
The refusal of Mexico to acknowledge the independence of
Texas was an obstacle, in the minds of the Northern people,
to the annexation of the latter, and hence the Senate, as we
have seen, had refused the ratification of Messrs. Tyler and
Calhoun's treaty for that object. The next step was to intimi
date Mexico into a recognition of Texan independence. Ac
cordingly, ih October, 1844, our Minister to Mexico, Mr. Shan
non, in conformity with his instructions, presented an insolent
remonstrance on that subject. In reference to a projected
attempt of Mexico to reduce her refractory province, Mr. Shan
non represented the importance of Texas to this country, and
intimated that his Government could not see it invaded, with
out taking part in the controversy. The Mexican Minister
replied that his government was not capable of yielding to a
menace which the President of the United States, "exceeding
the powers given to him by the fundamental law of his nation, has
directed against it."
He added :
" While one power is seeking more ground to stain by the slavery of au
unfortunate branch of the human family, the other is endeavoring, by pre
serving what belongs to it, to diminish the surface which the former wants
for this detestable traffic. Let the world now say which of the two has jus
tice and reason on its side."
Mr. Shannon demanded a retraction of this language. The
Mexican Government nobly refused to retract, but repeated
it. And President Tyler laid the correspondence before Con
gress, complaining of the language of the Mexican Govern
ment as an affront, that " might well justify the United States
in a resort to any measure to vindicate the national honor."
He contented himself, however, with urging " prompt and
immediate action on the subject of annexation."
The successful annexation of Texas in 1845, encouraged the
slaveholding party in Congress to broach, openly, the project
of entering into negotiations for the cession of Cuba. Their

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 297
papers began also to dwell on the importance of adding Cali
fornia to the United States, and President Polk was evidently
determined to obtain that province, either by negotiation or
war. A new bluster was made about our claims upon Mexi
co, and Mr. Slidell was dispatched on a mission to that Gov
ernment to make an offer for New Mexico and California. He
was to offer the claims and five millions for New Mexico, and
the claims and twenty-five millions for both New Mexico and
California. To facilitate this land speculation, " the claims " were conve
niently swelled to upwards of eight millions, although Mexico
had paid the interest of the award, and above three hundred
thousand dollars of the principal, by forced loans, and not
withstanding her financial embarrassments, so anxious was she
to retain her relations of peace with this country.
The award under the treaty, as before stated,
was above - - - $2,000,000
Claims then unsettled were above - - 4,000,000
New claims presented, above - - 2,000,000
Amount due (after deducting payments) about $8,000,000

Let it now be remembered that the previous
claim of our Government upon Mexico
was nearly - - $12,000,000
Add to this, the new claims afterwards fabrica
ted as above, - - - 2,000,000

Total claim from Mexico, - $14,000,000

How much ought to have been claimed the reader will judge
when he sees, not only (as already exhibited) the amount of
above five and a half millions rejected by the Commissioners
and Umpire, but when he sees, likewise, how the whole mat
ter was settled when Mexico was afterwards dismembered by
our forces, when we had her in our power, and when we had
obtained all the slave territory we wanted ! We could afford
to be honest then, in respect to these claims. In the final set-

298 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tlement, at the close of the war, the award of the Commis
sioners was put down at two millions of dollars, and the
remainder of the claim, above six millions, was put down at
only three and A quarter millions, the Federal Government
stipulating to pay the claimants all " valid claims " not exceed
ing the latter sum, yet releasing the Mexican Government
from further responsibility ! Thus our Government itself "re
pudiated above three millions. But this is not all. As five-
sevenths of the claims investigated were found spurious, and
as the claims presented later were evidently of a. still worse
character, it is calculated by Judge- Jay, who has presented
and studied these statistics, that "one million will be . more
than sufficient to meet every equitable demand," that is (as
we understand it) in addition to the award of two millions ;
thus reducing the fourteen millions claimed, to three mil
lions, and repudiating eleven millions of it as spurious !—
Jay's Mexican War, p. 118.
Such were " the claims " of which eight millions were to
be used as purchase money to obtain California and New
Mexico, through the mission of Mr. Slidell. In his person,
the American Government presented itself before Mexico in
the character of an importunate creditor demanding more than
double his just due, with a bowie knife in one hand and a
purse, with his bill, in the other. Now, says he, sell me half
of your land at my own price, and take this purse and my
bill receipted, for your pay. If not, receive this knife into
your bosom. The offer of Mr. Slidell was rejected, as was
foreseen, and he returned home. The correspondence, with
the attendant circumstances, betray the extreme anxiety of
the Federal Administration to provoke Mexico into a war,
and raise a clamor against her in this country.
Another occasion or pretext of quarrel with Mexico was
sought in a pretended question respecting the western boun
dary of Texas. Mr. Jay has clearly shown that the acts of
this Government had recognized, in several ways, a boundary
far to the eastward of that which,' on his accession to the
Presidency, about the time of the annexation of Texas, was

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 299
resolutely maintained, and with a military force, by President
Polk. Under pretense of defending Texas, which needed no
defense, General Taylor was stationed beyond the real borders
of Texas, with discretion even to cross the Bio Grande, the
new boundary now claimed by the President, in case hostili
ties were commenced by Mexico. The slightest skirmish on
the newly claimed territory, would sufficiently answer the
purpose of throwing on Mexico the odium of commencing
the war. All this was sheer Executive usurpation, without
the authority or knowledge of Congress. In the meantime,
five states were required to be in readiness to furnish aid to
Gen. Taylor, though the documents show that our Cabinet
were not under the least apprehension of any invasion from
Mexico. On the very next day after the reception at Washington of
advices from Mr. Slidell, Jan. 12, 1846, from which it was
inferred, that there was no hope of a cession of California,
peremptory orders were given to Gen. Taylor to advance to
the Bio Grande, and the "points opposite Metamoras and
Mier, and the vicinity of Laredo, were suggested for his con
sideration." The evident object was to provoke a collision.
After a variety of ineffectual manoeuvres to provoke the Mex
icans to strike the first blow, it was in fact given by our own
army, and Gen. Taylor announced to his government that
hostilities had commenced ; on the receipt of which Presi
dent Polk announced to Congress and to the world the untruth
that " Mexico had passed the boundary of the United States, had
invaded our territory, and shed American blood on American soil."
Congress, thereupon, (rejecting a motion to read the docu
ments) and sustaining a call for the "previous question,"
which precluded discussion, adopted a vote asserting the ex
istence of war by act of Mexico! This was on May 11, 1846
the same day the House received the President's war message !
•Gen. Taylor immediately took possession of Metamoras;
and the war was vigorously pushed westward to its intended
destination, the conquest of New Mexico and California.
In anticipation of these military movements,- by lftnd, a na-

300 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
val force had been stationed in the Pacific, near the coast of
California, with secret orders to Com. Sloat, June 24th, 1845,
to possess the port of San Francisco, and blockade or occupy
other ports, as soon- as he should hear of an inland war with
Mexico. These orders were now carried into effect, possession
taken of Monterey, and a proclamation immediately issued
announcing that " California now belongs to the United States."
This was on the 7th of July, 1846. Two days after, San
Francisco was also in our possession. All this in less than
two months after the declaration of war by Congress, plainly
showing that the conquest of California had been determined
upon and provided for, a year beforehand, and while neither
the people of the United States nor Congress were permitted
to know the designs of the President The declaration of war
by Congress did not reach the squadron in the Pacific till the
28th of August, fifty-two days after the Commodore, by pro
clamation, had annexed California to the United States.
Another incident illustrates the same general fact. A par
ty of adventurers, overland, under Col. Fremont, of the Uni
ted States' army, ostensibly set out on an exploring expedition
to Oregon, but in reality destined to aid in the conquest of
California, arrived there, among " the American settlers," and
commenced his revolutionary movements a little in advance
of the invasion by the Commodore. The little settlement
proclaimed the independence of California. The new repub
lic existed only four days, the insurrection very readily merg
ing itself in the Commodore's proclamation of annexation to
the United States. Col. Fremont afterwards presented pecu
niary claims upon our Government for services in California,
and the investigation drew out the fact that he had acted in
accordance with the designs of our Cabinet, through whose
misrepresentations of the matter it had however been sup
posed that he had acted on his own responsibility.
Mr. Jay introduces into his volume some confessions of Mr.
Thompson, our Minister in Mexico, clearly showing the designs
of the Federal Government, in 1S43, under the administration
of Mr. Tyler, to get possession of California, and to provoke

SLAVERY and freedom. SOI
Mexico into a war for that purpose.* He cites also Mr. Cal
houn, as having said in the Senate of the U. S., Feb. 24,
1847, (in reference to the precipitate action of Congress in de
claring, May 11, 1846, that " war existed by act of Mexico") —
" We had not a particle of evidence that ihe Republic of Mexico
had made war against the United States." 'f Mr. C. J. Ingersol,
as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Belations, in Feb.,
1847, made a report avowing the sentiment that the war was
necessary, in order to get possession of territories that " every
American administration has been striving to get by purchase.''^
And in the same report, as well as in a previous speech (Jan.
19th) in the House, Mr. Ingersol has the robber-like effrontery
to throw the blame of the war and its continuance upon Mex
ico, because she refused to sell us her provinces, which, says
he, "she has now constrained us to take by force, though even yet
we are disposed to pay for them, not by blood merely, but by money
too /"§ Mr. Stanton of Tennessee, Mr. Beddinger of Virginia,
Mr. Sevier of Arkansas, and Mr. Giles of Maryland, openly
avowed, on the floor of Congress, that the war was a war of
conquest. Mr. Polk had, however, in his message, a little
time previous, adventured the extraordinary assertion, that
" the war has not been waged with a view to conquest." In
echo to this declaration, a resolution was introduced in the
House -(Jan., 1847), disclaiming a view to conquest, but the
House refused to adopt the resolution. The Southern press
abounded in gratulations at the prospect of conquest, and of
the extension of slavery. Henry Clay, in a speech in Ken
tucky, declared that the bill of Congress, of May 11, 1846,
" attributing the commencement of the war to the act of
Mexico, " was " a bill with a palpable falsehood stamped
on its face."|| A new House of Bepresentatives, "fresh from
the people," elected after the declaration of May 11, 1846,
"Besolved," in the December following, "that the war was
unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the
* Jay's Mexican War, pp. 108-9. t lb., p. 161. % lb., p. 164.
§ Jay's Mexico, p. 164 Anp. to Gong. Globe, 1847, p. 125. I lb., p. 285.

302 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
United States."* That portions of Mexico, including Califor
nia, were unconstitutionally conquered, and treated and gov
erned as conquered territory by the President, before the
treaty of peace, was strongly affirmed and clearly shown in
the U. S. Senate, in March, 1848, by both Mr. Webster and
Mr. Calhoun.f
Of the manner in which the war was prosecuted, we have
not room to say much. The reader of Mr. Jay's Beview will
find some sickening details of lawlessness, of rapacity, of
plunder, and of outrage, disgraceful to the American name.
Barbarities were committed which should make humanity
weep and blush. General Taylor himself, in a communica
tion to the War Department, said :
" I deeply regret to report that many of the twelve months' volunteers, in
their route hence ofthe lower Rio Grande, have committed extensive outrages
and depredations upon the peaceable inhabitants. There is scarcely any
FORM OF CRIME THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED TO ME AS COMMITTED BY
THEM." General Kearney communicated a similar statement The
Californians, he says, " have been shamefully abused by our own
people." When such testimonies come from such witnesses, we may
conjecture the rest.
But depredations on private property were not confined to
the soldiers. Gen. Scott, by proclamation, assessed provinces
and cities at his pleasure, on the following conditions :
" On the failure of any State to pay its assessments, its functionaries, as
above, will be seized and imprisoned, and their property seized,
REGISTERED, AND REPORTED, AND CONVERTED TO THE USE OF THE OCCUPA
TION, in strict accordance with the general regulations of this army."
No resignation of office was to excuse them, and if the
money was not promptly raised, the commander would
" immediately proceed to collect, from the wealthier inhabitants
(other than neutral friends) within his reach, the amount of the
assessment due from the State." And this was according to
• ¦ ¦ -* Jay's Mexico, p. 254. + lb., pp. 246-7.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 303
instructions from Pres. Polk, without the authority of Con
gress. A million of dollars were extorted from the Mexicans
in this way, and three gambling-houses were licensed in the
capital, by the American commander-in-chief, in consideration
of the annual payment of eighteen thousand dollars ! Pillage,
desolation, violence, vice, crime, demoralization, and death,
kept equal march with the progress of the American arms.
The Congress that had declared the beginning of the war
unconstitutional, and the members who had denounced the
measure as criminal and wicked, were nevertheless so corrupt
and hardened as to vote money for its continuance ! A few
only had the consistency and honesty to record their votes in
the negative.
Though Mr. Polk had declared our title to the whole of
Oregon to be "clear and unquestionable," yet he had surren
dered much of it to Great Britain, to maintain relations of
peace. For Oregon was too far North for the convenient use
of the slaveholders, and it might be made into free States.
But without the slightest claim to New Mexico and California,
he prosecuted a war of conquest to obtain them, because the
slaveholders desired them, and they were expected to add to
the number of slave States, to help govern the Union. These
objects were openly avowed by the Southern press.
All wars of conquest have their limits. It is not certain
that the administration sought to conquer and retain all
Mexico. The central and southern provinces might be diffi
cult to be managed — might be found too populous and too
refractory to admit, at present, the quiet restoration of slavery.
The war was expensive. The administration (and partly on
account of the war, and its attendant usurpations) was becom
ing unpopular. Desirous of securing permanently what was
in his power, and what was originally contemplated by the
war, Mr. Polk turned his thoughts on peace. For this pur
pose, Aug. 8, 1846, he recommended to Congress an appro
priation of two millions of dollars, to be placed at his disposal
for that purpose. This request plainly indicated his desire to
make an offer of money for a cession of territory, and gave

304 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
the lie to his former pretense, that war was not waged for
conquest. A bill was introduced into the House for this
object, and was passed, but with the celebrated proviso offered
by Mr. Wilmot, that the territory thus acquired should be
free from the polluting touch of slavery. The bill went to
the Senate the last day of the session, but was not acted upon,
and Congress adjourned.
At the next session, the President's application was renewed,
but asking now for three millions. A bill was introduced
into the House for that object, and this opened the way for
another introduction of the proviso against slavery. A stormy
debate ensued. The Southern members- were enraged, declar
ing they would have no territory under such restrictions, and
threatening, as usual, a dissolution of the Union. The bill
was nevertheless passed, and with the proviso, by a vote of
115 to 106. In the Senate, the proviso was stricken out, 31
to 21. Beturning back to the House, the proviso was finally
dropped, 102 to 97, no less than 22 members absenting them
selves. But though now rejected, the proviso might after
wards be applied, in providing for the government of the ter
ritories. This, the friends of liberty contemplated, and this,
the slave party feared.
Under this state of things, a great demonstration of senti
ment, by public meetings, was got up at the South. Legisla
tures fulminated their Resolves against the proviso, and the
line of the Missouri compromise 36° 30', began to be proposed
by the more moderate.
In August, 1847, negotiations were opened with Mexico
through our agent, Mr. Trist. The Mexican Commissioners
were instructed, by their government to insist that " the Uni
ted States shall engage not to permit slavery in that part of
the territory which they shall acquire by treaty." Mr. Trist
promptly refused to negotiate a treaty under such restrictions,
declaring them as obnoxious as "an order to establish the in
quisition," that " the bare mention of such a treaty was an
impossibility," and that no American President " would dare
to present any such treaty to the Senate."

slavery and freedom. 305
" I assured them," says Mr. Trist, (in his official dispatch to our Secretary
of State,) " that if it were in their power to offer me the whole territory de
scribed in our project, increased ten-fold in value, and, in addition to that,
covered a foot thick all over with pure gold, upon the single condition
that slavery should be excluded therefrom, I could not entertain the
offer for a moment, nor even think of communicating it to Washington."
A previous attempt at negotiation for peace had been abor
tive, because Mexico had declined to cede all New Mexico,
and Upper and Lower California.
In the final close of the Mexican war, these territories were
obtained at a cost of fifteen millions of dollars paid to
Mexico, in addition to the relinquishment of our long-contest
ed " claims." Besides this, the direct expenditures of the war
are estimated at over one hundred millions. Adding extra
pay, pensions, bounties of land, &c., Mr. Jay puts down the
money cost of our new territory at one hundred and thirty
millions of dollars. And all this to extend the area of
slavery beyond Texas.

20

306 great struggle between

CHAPTER XXVLT.
FURTHER action of the federal government — result or
THE CONQUEST OF CALIFORNIA — ITS ADMISSION AS A FREE
STATE — " THE COMPROMISE."
Renewed demand for the " Wilmot Proviso"— Southern cry of " non-intervention"
— Attempt, in Dec, 1848, to introduce California as a State — Attempt to clothe
the President with despotic power over the conquered provinces — No government
provided for them — California forms for herself a provisional Government — Scheme
of the South of bringing in California as a State without restriction — Mission of
Thomas Butler King from the Cabinet at Washington — Usurpations of General
Riley — His Proclamation to choose delegates to form a Constitution — The Califor-
nians comply, and form a Constitution prohibiting Slavery/ — Sudden change at
the South — Opposition to the admission of California — Controversy in CongreBS—
New Mexico follows the example of California, and asks admission, without Sla-.
very — Demands of Texas on Territory of New Mexico — Mr. Clay's plan of " Com
promise," nominally defeated, but substantially carried — Admission of California
as a free State— Territorial Government provided for New Mexico and Utah, with
out restriction — Boundary of Texas adjusted — Slave trade abolished in the Federal
District — New Fugitive Slave Bill (1850) — Its infamous provisions.
There is an overruling Providence that defeats the plans
of oppressors, and covers the councils of the crafty with con
fusion. A more remarkable illustration of this consolatory
truth is seldom furnished than in the. winding up of the his
torical drama of the Mexican war. Should kindred arts
seem to succeed in future, we may trust that the same benefi
cent Providence will, in the end, triumph.
At the very moment when the wishes of the slave power
seemed about to be consummated, a new obstacle presented
itself, as already seen, in the Wilmot proviso, that threatened
to exclude slavery from the conquered and purchased pro
vinces. This proviso, twice adopted in the House of Represen
tatives, in response to the voice of the people, had been

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 307
smothered in the more aristocratic Senate, and by extraordi
nary arts of intimidation, corruption, and management, had,
at last, been deserted, for the moment, by a small majority of
the Representatives. But the spirit of the people was roused,
and throughout the Free States, the indispensable condition
of support, at the polls, was the profession, on the part of the
candidate, of sustaining the proviso. The rival Whig and
Democratic parties vied with eaoh other in these professions.
The last session of Congress under President Polk's adminis
tration, was expected to grapple with this question, and give
it a final decision, in the act of providing, in accordance with
usage, for tlie government of newly acquired territories.
So wide spread and so unequivocal was the expression of
this sentiment, that " no less than fourteen States . protested
through their legislatures against any enlargement of the area
of- slavery," and even the- " voice of Daniel Webster was
raised to warn his countrymen of the impending calamity."*
Alarmed at this aspect of things, and fearing to meet the
question again in Congress in that shape, the leaders of the
slave party resorted to a new stratagem. They determined
to forestal any action by Congress for the government of the
territories, by urging their immediate admission as States, with
the right of shaping their domestic institutions as they pleased.
The doctrine of " non-intervention " was now the watchword,
and it was acceptable to those numerous Northern politicians,
in Congress, who wished for a pretext to dodge a direct vote
on the proviso. If the principle of throwing the responsibility
upon the new States were admitted, it would relieve them from
the responsibility, and shelter them, in some degree, from the
displeasure of their constituents at home.f The democratic

* Address on behalf Am. & For. A. S. Soe, p. 2.
t The real spirit of their pledges and professions would indeed oblige them to
vote against the admission of a new State whose Constitution did not exclude slavery.
But the doctrine of " non-intervention," deriving its plausibility from the demo
cratic theory of leaving the people of the States to govern themselves, would relieve
their embarrassment. The sophistry lay in forgetting that the slaves are a part of
" the people," and that the business of majorities wielding civil government, is to
protect tho equal rights of all.

308 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
candidate for the Presidency, General Cass, had occupied this
ground. The whig candidate, General Taylor, though not
publicly pledged, had been represented, by his friends at the
North, as not being disposed to veto the proviso, and being
now about to take the Presidential chair, the prospective alter
native of being obliged to commit himself on that point, was
disagreeable to him, and especially to his party. All this
favored the new plot of the slave interest.
In the early part of the session, Dec. 11th, 1848, a bill was
introduced into the Senate by Mr. Douglas of Illinois, for the
admission of California as a State, which was read twice and
ordered to be printed. The boundaries were to include " all
that portion of territory which was acquired by the treaty of
peace, &c, with Mexico," Congress reserving the right to form
new states out of it.* This would include all of Utah and
all of New Mexico that was not intended to be absorbed by
Texas ! It was soon found that this project would not suc
ceed ; but Mr. Douglas presented a new bill in another form,
leaving New Mexico out of the question. These bills con
tained, of course, no interdict of slavery. \
Mr. Foote of Mississippi, on the introduction of the first
bill, seemed anxious to be considered as its author, and it
doubtless had its origin with slaveholders. The Washington
Union, the special organ of President Polk, advocated the
second bill, and answered the objections of some southern
members against it.*]: In the House, Mr. Hilliard proposed a
similar bill. The project underwent various modifications,
and finally, near the close of the session, a substitute for them
all came under debate in the Appropriation Bill, and the
amendment of Mr. Walker of Wisconsin, which provided for
the despotic government of the territories by the President,
at his discretion, and without any restriction in respect to
slavery. It contained, likewise, a virtual concession of the
claims of slaveholding Texas to all the territory of New

* National Bra, Dec. 14, 1848. t lb., Jan. 25 and Feb. 1, 1849.
t lb., Feb. 22, 1849.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 309
Mexico east of the Bio Grande, and it transferred to Califor
nia certain laws regulating the domestic slave trade on the
Atlantic seaboard. All this was passed in the Senate 29 to
27 — absent 4,* — but was defeated in the House.
The session was thus occupied in a manner that staved off
direct action on the proviso, but neither provided for the
government of the acquired provinces as territories, nor ad
mitted them into the Union as states. Being thus left un
provided for, in a condition bordering on anarchy and under
military misrule, the Californians established for themselves a
Provisional Government, and elected an Assembly, in Feb.,
1849. In the United States, the controversy was still unde
cided, neither the friends nor the opponents of slavery exten
sion having carried any decisive measure.
On the accession of President Taylor. March 4, 1849, the
policy of his administration, from which there appears to have
been, at that time, no dissent among the friends of slavery
extension, was evidently to facilitate and hasten the organiza
tion of a State Government in California, without a prohibi
tion of slavery, and bring her forward with her new constitu
tion at the next session, for admission into the Union. " Non
intervention " was now the doctrine of the entire South, and
of its Northern allies. The party supporting President Tay
lor, even including that large and influential portion of it at
* National Bra, March 1 and 8. It is proper to add that only seven senators from
the free States voted in the affirmative, viz : Messrs. Dickinson of N. York, Dodge
of Iowa, Douglas of Illinois, Fitzgerald of Michigan, Hannegan of Indiana, Sturgeon
of Pennsylvania, and Walker of Wisconsin.
Mr. Hannegan was immediately appointed by Pres. Polk, Minister to Berlin (one
of the last acts of his administration), and (it is said) with the concurrence and
advice of leading friends of the President elect (Gen. Taylor), who was known to
have used his influence with members of Congress before his intiuguration, in favor
of Walker's amendment, thus showing the united sympathy ofthe two slaveholding
Presidents with that measure, as a substitute for tho defeated project of immediately
admitting California, without restriction, as a State. Gen. Taylor's earnest desire
for such admission was affirmed by the editor of the National Intelligencer, in a
labored article in support of that policy, in whioh it was maintained that as soon as
California should present herself with a Constitution, asking admission, Congress
would have no right and no pretense to interfere in the slave question.— See N. Y.
Evening Post, Nov. 15, 1849.

310 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
the North, that had abounded in anti-slavery professions, and
had carried elections on the merit of its zeal for the Wilmot
proviso, began now to represent that the measure was not im
portant — that Mexican law remaining in force and not re
pealed, would be a sufficient guaranty of liberty, or that the
climate and other similar causes would prevent slavery — and
finally, that if California should present herself with a consti
tution containing no prohibition of slavery, she would be
entitled to admission. In absence of other evidence, the
policy of the administration and of the slaveholders would
have been sufficiently apparent from these indications. But
other facts are at hand.
In the Cabinet, the slave interest was predominant. Mr.
Preston of Virginia, Mr. Crawford of Georgia, Mr. Johnson
of Maryland, were slaveholders. John M. Clayton, Secretary
of State, was accustomed to compromises with slavery, and
solicitous to pursue a course that would prevent agitation,
while not one of the remaining members, Meredith, Colla-
more, and Ewing, were counted upon by the advocates of
freedom. The course of such a cabinet might well be sup
posed (in the absence of any opposition) to represent the
policy of the South.
By this President and Cabinet, Thomas Butler King of
Georgia, member of Congress, an earnest advocate of slavery
extension, and a slaveholder, was dispatched on a special
mission to California. No sooner was he arrived there than
he was found urging the people "to form a State Government,
pledging the support of the administration in- the movement,
and insisting that the measure was necessary to save Congress
and the old states from a fearful struggle on the subject of
slavery."* And Mr. King stood not alone. Along with him
(whether as volunteers or emissaries from the southern coun
try) there were Hon. Wm. M. Gwin of Mississippi, ex-member
of Congress, Ex-Governor Boggs, and Peter H. Burnett, of
Missouri, &c, exerting a similar influence,— Governor Boggs
* National Era, Aug. 7, 1849.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 811
writing home to his friends that a few slaves could be used to
advantage in the territory*
A public meeting was held at San Jose, which was ad
dressed by Mr. King and Mr. Gwin.
Mr. King related the history of the Wilmot proviso, and
the divisions growing out of it, and said :
" We cannot settle this question on the other side of the Rocky Moun
tains. We look to you to settle it by becoming a State. The people of
the old States ardently desire it."
He then added, —
" I speak knowingly, when I say the Administration desire it ; and from
extensive intercourse with the members of the last Congress, I am convinced
they are most anxious for the question to be settled in this way. You will
have no difficulty in being admitted as a State. I pledge myself to it, and
I pledge the Administration, and I think may speak equally confidently for
the next Congress. Form a State Government, send on your senators and
representatives, and then admission is certain."
Mr. Gwin followed in a strain still more unreserved. He
represented that a "spirit of fanaticism" in Congress had pre
vented, for two sessions, the provision of any form of govern
ment for California, and intimated that "the steadfast friends
of California" were those who were opposed to this fanaticism.
He was not so sanguine as Mr. King of their ready admission
as a state. He feared "we will have to pass through an ar
duous struggle before we obtain our rights," — insinuating that
the "spirit of fanaticism" at the North would oppose the ad
mission. " I do not refer to these difficulties," said he, " to
deter us from acting. Let all minor questions be merged in the
great question before us," . . "dropping all local questions that may
excite angry discussions," &c. &c.
The drift of this advice was not misunderstood, nor the
quarter from whence it came. Col. Hand, one of the speakers
at the same meeting, administered a timely rebuke. After
denouncing the usurpation of Gen. Riley, he said :
" Let the manaic politicians of the Atlantic, who have so kindly volun-

* National Era, Oct. 25, 1849.

312 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
teered to teach us semi-barbarians the duty we owe to our would-be leaders,
remain at home, and when, after a residence of five days in California, they
again attempt to feel the popular pulse in regard to slavery, let your indig
nation at their uncalled for interference be expressed in such a manner that
Gov. Clayton cannot again say, without telling an unblushing falsehood, we
are incapable of self-government."*
The friends of liberty at the East had no members or ex-
members of Congress at this meeting, to counteract the influ
ences exerted there. The administration, however, had other
instruments to do its bidding. Gen. Riley, acting under or
ders of our Federal Executive, was the well-known autocrat
of California. The provisional government had not recognized
his authority, but were in possession of no organized means of
resisting his usurpations. His authority was however des
tined, for once, to facilitate a better organization. In strict
accordance with its settled policy, as already exhibited, the
Cabinet at Washington instructed Gen. Rileyf* to issue a Pro
clamation directing the choosing of delegates to form a State
Constitution, which was accordingly done, — the terms of the
Proclamation prescribing the time and mode of elections, and
even assuming tlie existence of slavery, by making a distinction
between bond and free, in defining who should be electors.^
This specification was founded, doubtless, on the fact, that
slaves were then in the territory and in process of not infre
quent introduction there by slaveholding immigrants, a fact
very generally understood. The Alabama Journal had de
clared that the experiment had been tested, that slaves had
been carried there and were held in safety, and it urged the
" slaveholders to emigrate there with their property in suffi
cient numbers to control the policy of the country. "§ Gen.
Riley likewise "apportioned the delegates so as to throw the

* National Bra, Aug. 7, 1849.
t "We have met with no contradiction or disclaimer of this alleged action of the
administration on the part of Pres. Taylor or his friends, Northern or Southern,
though it has been made the subject of free animadversion hy opposite classes of
citizens, first at the North, and afterwards at the South.
X See N. T. Weekly Evening Post, Nov. 15, 1849.
§ National Bra, Nov. 1, 1849.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 313
weight of political power into the towns where the officers
and dependents of the United States Government exercised
most influence."*
The Provisional Government, which had been but feebly
sustained, considered it the best policy to acquiesce in this
movement of Gen. Riley, and the Assembly therefore ceased-
to exist.-)- The delegates were accordingly elected and assem
bled in convention at Monterey, Sept. 1, 1849.
Up to this time, nay, on the receipt of this intelligence at
Washington and New York, about the middle of October, and
for some time afterwards, the common impression among all
classes in the States was, that the new Constitution of Califor
nia would contain no prohibition of slavery ; that a slavehold
ing population from the southern states would rapidly rush
in, that the effort for the admission ofthe new slave State into
the Union would be vigorously pushed, and would most pro
bably succeed. The tone of the journals opposed to the ex
tension of slavery was generally marked by apprehensions of
this character,*): while the southern editors heralded the pass
ing events with an air of assurance and satisfaction. It was
known, indeed, that some of the inhabitants of California
were opposed to slavery, but the controlling influences were
supposed to be on the other side. Mr. Gwin, it was predicted,
would be President of the Constitutional Convention. The
pro-slavery ticket had triumphed in San Francisco. Thomas
Butler King, Mr. Gwin, and Ex-Governor Boggs of Missouri,
and Ex-Governor Shannon, a pro-slavery democrat, were the
prominent candidates for Senators, from the new State.§ Had
John C. Calhoun,, and other statesmen of that stamp, enter
tained any serious apprehensions of a prohibition of slavery
by the Constitution of California, it is not to be supposed that

* National Bra, Aug. 7, 1849.
t Alta California of July 26, copied into N. 7. Weehly Evening Post of Sept.
20, 1849.
X Witness the N. 7. WeeUy Evening Post, of Oct. 18, 1849, and National Era of
Oct. 25 and Nov. 1.
§ National Era of Oct. 25, 1849.

314 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
they would have been silent while these measures were in
progress. As it was, the country heard nothing of their com
plaints against the administration, till the result of its policy
disappointed them.
Few items of newspaper intelligence ever took the Ameri
can people more completely by surprise than the following in
the new Constitution of California :
" Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for the pun
ishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated in this State."
The public mind was not relieved of suspense, till the ac
ceptance of this Constitution by the people was, some weeks
afterward, ascertained.
The result is to be traced to a number of causes, neither
foreseen nor understood in the United States, till the result
had developed them. The immigration from the South ap
pears to have been less extensive than had been supposed,
owing to apprehensions on the part of slaveholders, that the
Wilmot proviso would be applied to the territory, or that
California would not be admitted, as a slave state. Of the
southern settlers, some too, had come there for the very
purpose of escaping from the blight of slavery, and others
who had come to explore the country, leaving their slaves
behind them, were content, on observation and reflection, to
try a new order of things. A preponderating population had
poured in from the free States, in quest of California gold,
some few of whom were opposed to slavery on principle, and
most of them, enlightened by the recent discussions at the
north, on that subject, understood the irreconcilable antago
nism between free and slave labor. As their chief capital
was their own industry, they knew better than to welcome
the competition of unpaid laborers, and the affinity of free
laborers with slaves. Commercial adventurers understood
that free labor was the only substantial element of enduring
wealth. Politicians and editors, and through them the whole
community, knew that the admission of California as a slave
state would be opposed by the moral stamina of the North

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 315
and the North-West.* Add to all this, the Californians had
had a taste of the autocratic control of the Slave Power, under
the military despotism that had been provided for them ; the
original inhabitants had no affection for the invaders who had
conquered them, and all except the interested few had been
disgusted by the air of superiority and dictation that had
been displayed by the slaveholders who had just come among
them, to prescribe for them, as by authority from Washington,
what institutions they should frame.
A review of this result shows us that, in more ways than
one, the anti-slavery agitation at the North had contributed
largely to shape the public sentiment and the destinies of Cal
ifornia. The wisdom of the masses of people in that territory,
heterogeneous and undirected as they were, in deciding so
correctly and so promptly the great moral, economical, and po
litical problem that still perplexes the precedent-ridden and
demagogue-befooled citizens of the old states, presents a splen
did exemplification of the safety of the democratic principle,
under the Providence of God, and illustrates the great foun
dation truth of religion and morality, that the moral sense, in
man, left to itself, and acting freely, without bias, is often
found a safe guide, in cases that baffle the skill and confound
the calculations of the crafty.f
The doctrine of " non-intervention," so sedulously cultiva
ted, demanded now the prompt admission of California as a
free state I But the demand was destined to knock at bolted
doors. President Taylor indeed, and the northern wing of
his party, desirous of his re-election and their own preserved
power, were in no condition to repudiate their own doctrine
and eat their own words. Their chosen policy of non-com-
mittal on the Wilmot proviso, still led them to seek the ad
mission of California as a State. The northern democrats who

* See Alta California of July 2, copied by the National Bra of Aug. 16 1849.
t- Since the above paragraph was written there have appeared strong indications
of a desperate attempt to extend slavery into California, accompanied with partial
success. We will still hope for the best, and that the safety of California will be
seoured in the liberation of the whole country.

316 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
had supported Gen. Cass, under the motto of " non-interven
tion," could make no show of self-consistency, could hold up
no manly front, at the North, if they deserted California now.
And those who had been elected under pledges to sustain the
Wilmot proviso should be expected to be prompt in rendering
this easier service. What pretext, indeed, could any Senator
or Representative from a, free state, devise, for not urging, ear
nestly, the admission of a, free State? The North, as being a
majority, had the matter in their own hands. Add to all this,
the slaveholding President himself, in his Message on the
opening of the Session, (in December, 1849,) had mentioned
the reception of California with favor, and the less violent and
rabid of slaveholding statesmen, including two prominent
leaders of the rival parties, Messrs. Benton and Clay, were
understood to approve the President's course. An easy vic
tory should have been anticipated for the friends of Cali
fornia. Instead of this, the struggle was, perhaps, the most violent
and long-protracted ever witnessed in our national councils.
The extreme slave party, led on by Mr. Calhoun, demanded
not only the rejection of California, but other concessions to
the slave power, including an amendment of the Constitution
that should equalize the political power of the free and slave
states, as a condition of the continuance of the Union. The
application of California for admission was repelled on the
ground that she came without leave of Congress and under
executive direction. The administration of President Taylor
was arraigned for its activity in the measure, and intimations
were made by Mr. Calhoun, that the policy might have had
its origin under President Polk. Whether by Mr. Polk, Gen.
Taylor, or Gen. Riley, it was unequivocally denounced.
While this controversy was raging in Congress, New Mexi
co, from similar causes, and in imitation of the example of
California, adopted a State Constitution, excluding slavery,
and applied also for admission into the Union.
The slaveholding State of Texas, alarmed by this move
ment, now urged her pretensions of a western boundary that

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 317
should include a large portion of New Mexico, by whom this
pretension was repelled, and Texas threatened a resort to
arms. In this state of things a plan of so-called compromise was
introduced into the Senate by a committee of thirteen, of
which Mr. Clay was chairman, embracing the following par
ticulars, viz : 1. The future admission of new slave States, to
be formed out of Texas. 2. The admission, forthwith, of
California, with her proposed boundaries. 3. The establish
ment of territorial governments without the Wilmot proviso,
for New Mexico and Utah. 4. The combination of the two
last mentioned measures in one bill. 5. The establishment of
the Western and Northern boundary of Texas excluding from
her jurisdiction all of New Mexico, with a grant to Texas of
a pecuniary equivalent. 6. More effectual enactments to se
cure the return of fugitive slaves, (as previously introduced in
a bill by Mr. Mason of Virginia.) 7. The abolition of the
slave trade, but not slavery, in the District of Columbia.*
Mr. Clay's project of securing all these measures simultane
ously, by the adoption of this Report of the Committee, did
not succeed. After a tedious and protracted effort, the plan
was marred by amendments, till the Report, as a whole, was
defeated and abandoned. A similar project was next attempt
ed by separate bills, and with the following results :
1. The admission of California as a free State, with her
proper boundaries.
2. Territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah with
out excluding slavery, and with the provision that the States
hereafter formed out of them shall be admitted into the Union
either with or without slavery, as the Constitutions of the new
States shall decide.
3. The boundary of Texas is so fixed as to surrender to that
slave State at least ninety thousand square miles of free soil,
and yet the same bill creates a national debt of ten millions
* See National Era of May 16, 1850.

318 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
of dollars to buy off the notoriously fraudulent and unfounded
claims of Texas to New Mexico*
4. The abolition of the slave trade, but not of slavery, in
the District of Columbia. Tbis does not prevent citizens of the
Federal District from selling their slaves into any of the States.
It only prevents traders from bringing slaves into the District
for sale and transportation.
5. An act, supplementary to the act of 1793, for facilitating
the recapture of fugitive slaves. By this new act all the re
maining defenses of personal liberty, in the non-slaveholding
States, are effectually broken down, and every man, black or
white, (for the law makes no distinction,) holds his exemption
from chattelhood, so far as legal protection is concerned, at
the mercy of any Southern man who may choose to claim him
as his slave, in connection with any one of a horde of govern
ment officials, to be appointed for the special purpose, who is
authorized to surrender him, without jury trial, with no testi
mony but that of the claimant or his agent, while the testi
mony of the person claimed is not to be received. All citizens
ax*e commanded to assist in seizing and surrendering fugitives,
and all persons are forbidden to harbor them or aid their es
cape, under penalty of one thousand dollars, with imprison
ment not exceeding six months, besides one thousand dollars
to be recovered in a civil suit for damages, for each slave so
aided or harbored.f
* National Era, Sept. 12, 1850.
t It will be seen that the substance of Mr. Clay's Compromise bill was reached by
these separate enactments. According to Thomas H. Benton, Senator from Missouri,
there was still another item in the Compromise, not included in the Report of the
Committee of Thirteen, but the subject of a verbal understanding among the mem
bers. The cotton manufacturers of New England were to be propitiated by a high
tariff. But after the Southern members had got all they could, and especially the
Fugitive Slave Bill, they deserted their Eastern friends, and defeated the tariff in
the House of Representatives. The following is from the National Era of Oct.
8, 1850 :
" Mr. Benton is apt to be very pithy in colloquial comment. Conversing with a
senatorial friend the other day, about the Compromise or Omnibus, in which he
took so tender an interest, he remarked : ' Sir, there were four inside passengers in
that Omnibus— there was California, sir ; there was New Mexico ; there was Texas;
there was Utah, sir I — four inside passengers. There was two outside passengers,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 319

CHAPTER XXVIII.
FURTHER ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — GENERAL
POLICY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY CONTROLLED BY SLAVERY.
Considerations and testimonies in point— Commercial prosperity of the North— The
Embargo— Non-intercourse— Second Embargo— Destruction of the Old National
Bank— Calhoun's War of 1812 with Great Britain— Treatment of New England-
Southern ascendency established— Rise of manufactures— Their wreck on return
of Peace— Revival of Northern Commerce— Calhoun's Protective Tariff of 1816—
Southern call for a National Bank, and why ?— Pecuniary embarrassments of
1819-20— Southern bankruptcy of 1824— Cotton Speculations of 1826 and 1837—
Bankruptcy of V. S. Bank, and why ?— Its demise— Clamors of Calhoun against
his own Tariff system— Nullification— Recapitulation— Note concerning State
action. With the facts of the preceding history before us, it is very
natural to inquire on what maxims, with what aims, and for
what objects, the general policy of the Federal Government has
been moulded, from the beginning to the present time. Not
a single administration of that government have we found
free from the controlling influence of slavery. Not only has
slavery been steadily fostered as an important interest of the
country, but as the paramount, the all-absorbing interest, be
fore whose claims every other interest and all other interests
combined, have been forced to give way.
We have, thus far, considered only the' direct action of the
sir : There was the fugacious Slave Bill, and the District Slave-trade Abolition Bill.
They could not be admitted inside, but they had outside seats, and the inside and
outside passengers could be seen and known, sir. But there was another passenger,
under the driver's seat, sir ; carefully concealed in the boot, sir ; breathing through
chinks and holes like Henry Box Brown, sir — the Tariff, sir ! But he had a worsa
fate than Box Brown — he was killed — killed in the House, sir — and I hope we shall
have no more Omnibuses and no more passengers in the boot, sir !' "

320 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Federal Government, in manifest support of slavery. But the
general policy and the political economy of the country could
scarcely fail to have had the most important bearings either
for or against the slave interest. Is it credible that this has
been overlooked ? With the ever watchful eye that we know
the slave power has had over its own interests, with all the
successive administrations of the Government under its con
trol, and ready, as we have seen, to do its bidding, with slave-
holding Presidents and Cabinets of their selection, forty-nine
years out of sixty-one, and while the support of slavery has
been their constant care, can it be believed that the ever con
flicting and totally irreconcilable interests oi free and slave la
bor have never been thought of, nor taken into consideration,
in shaping our national policy ? Or can it be supposed that
the always dominant slave power, everywhere else true to its
own rapacious instincts, has, just here, where the chess games
of politieal economy are constantly played between the rival
interests of the country, been inattentive, or neutral, or that
it has held the balances between the slaveholding and non-
slaveholding States, with an even and impartial hand ? No
intelligent citizen can believe this. We might almost be cer
tain, therefore, in advance of all direct scrutiny of the facts of
our history, that the general policy of the country has been
moulded by the slave power, for the benefit of slavery, and in
consequent hostility to the interests of free labor. The law
of self-preservation would require this, especially as the inter
ests of slave labor are always destined to grapple with the
inherent thriftlessness, imbecility and decline incident to' the
system, in striking contrast to the ever buoyant and recuper
ative energies of free labor. It would not be enough for the
slave power, acting as a political economist, and mainly intent
on retaining its political supremacy, to content itself with de
vices and expedients to prop up and encourage slave labor.
It must do more than this. It must adroitly stab and cripple
its rival. It must so shape and shift public measures as to
disarrange, thwart, perplex, and unsettle the pursuits and the
arrangements of free laborers, or else itself fall into inevitable

ii

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 321
eclipse, sustain certain defeat, and let go the sceptre of power.
An illustration and proof of all this we have in the recent de
mand of the late Mr. Calhoun, that the Constitution should
be so amended as to restore to the slave States the same rela
tive power that they had, at the first organization of the gov
ernment, and which we know they have lost, in despite of
their political ascendancy, by. the opposite tendencies of free
dom and slavery. In making that desperate demand, Mr.
Calhoun laid bare his own heart, and the settled policy of the
oligarchy of slaveholders. The free North must be shorn of her
own natural strength, when needful, that slavery may preserve her
balance of power. With this simple key, the historian may
unlock the otherwise inexplicable labyrinths of American
politics, for the last sixty years. Thus instructed, he will be
enabled to read into one straightforward and undeviating
chapter of national policy the fluctuations of eleven Presiden
tial administrations, amid all the idle clamor of rival aspirants,
and the rise and fall of the contending factions that have al
ternately affected to be the Government. In all these apparent
changes, the slave power has governed, and with one steady
purpose, and never more steadily and effectively than in the
midst of seeming change and caprice.
If any one considers this a severe charge against the South,
a southern witness shall be summoned to the stand. The tor
turing rack of party exigences and of personal rivalry, on
one occasion, extorted the confession, on northern soil, from
a statesman of the South. At a New York State Whig Con
vention in Utica, in 1839, Mr. Stanley, "the eloquent member
of Congress, from North Carolina," declared that "John C.
Calhoun introduced a certain measure (the sub-treasury bill)
as a southern measure." " Mr. Calhoun," continued Mr. Stan
ley, " knew that it must break down northern manufactures and
capital, and destroy the North. I conversed with Mr. Calhoun •
he expressed himself contemptuously of Mr. Van Bureh ; he
spoke of him only as a ' fly on the wheel.' It was not his
measure, but our measure. We could retrieve all or destroy."
It is in no spirit of sympathy with the whig party, and with
21

322 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
no particular hostility to the sub-treasury bill, (on its. own
merits) that we record this disclosure of Mr. Stanley. What
we would bring into notice is the fact that influential south-.
ern statesmen,- of opposite political parties, are in the habit of.
commending to each other, in familiar conversation, their re
spective measures of national policy, as being adapted to. de
range northern capital, and perplex the arrangements and opera
tions of free labor. We shall see how effectually this has been
done as we proceed.
The clause of the Constitution directing the apportionment
of "representatives and direct taxes," by the same complex
and unequal estimate of inhabitants,* affords evidence that
direct taxation was contemplated by the framers of that in
strument. It is not credible that the northern members would
have consented to yield up their due share of representation,
but for the prospect that the southern states, as being the
gainers in that part of the bargain, would return an equiva
lent by paying the larger portion of the taxes. It was cha
racteristic of the North to stipulate for a pecuniary compensa
tion, as it was of the South to grasp after an undue share of
political power. How rigorously the South has claimed and
exercised her stipulated political power, has been exhibited
already in part. In completing the picture, we shall show
how, in the use of that political power the North has. been
defrauded of her stipulated pecuniary equivalent. One word
tells this part of the story. No "direct taxes" or none of any
importance, have ever been levied ! And the device by which
the fulfilment of this constitutional compromise was evaded,
furnishes a clue to the policy which has controlled the fiscal
arrangements of the country ever since.
It was among the first cares of the slaveholding oligarchy,
after the organization of the Federal Government, and under
its first administration, to evade the payment of any "direct
taxes" into the treasury. Well knowing, that if a revenue
could be derived from duties on merchandize imported, the
* Art. I., Sec. 2, Clause 8.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. , 323
burden would fall mainly on the states that imported and con
sumed most of foreign merchandize, and that these would be
the non-slaveholding states, a tariff sufficient for the purposes
of revenue, yet ostensibly designed to favor the gradual
growth of domestic manufactures, was thus early introduced ;
and so far as the raising of revenue is concerned, has continued
the settled policy of the country ever since. Amid all the
fluctuations and controversies respecting the tariff, a sufficient
impost for purposes of revenue has been conceded by all par
ties^— controlled as all parties have been by slavery — till it
almost seems to have been forgotten that a revenue can be
raised in any other way, or that the power to levy " direct
taxes" was ever vested in the government. This was the
first triumph of slavery over the political economy of the
country, and is closely connected with all its triumphs since.
By thus replenishing the National Treasury by a method of
taxation, bearing chiefly on the free states, and from which
the slave states are comparatively exempt, the Slave Power
that wields the National Government has been supplied with
an ample revenue with which to carry on its more direct
operations in behalf of slavery — its purchase of new slave
territory — its pro-slavery diplomacy — and its pro-slavery wars.
With only a revenue raised by "direct taxes," very little in
these directions could have been realized.
The present century opened with a remarkable state of
things. Our country was at peace with all the world, and
with exception of a contest with the petty states of Barbary,
we remained at peace, until the war with Britain, in 1812.
Europe was embroiled in war. England, with some of the1
continental powers, contested the fearful strides of Napoleon.
Every European nation was enlisted on one side or the other
and Europe became one vast encampment. Her agriculturists
and artizans were under arms. Her commerce was swept
from the sea by her own contending navies. Even Britain
" lord of the ocean," was powerful only to destroy, but could
not protect her own merchantmen. America, as the only
neutral and maratime nation, reaped rich harvests. She was

324 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
the carrier of all Christendom. She not only vended her own
products at her own prices, but levied tribute at her pleasure,
upon the produce of all nations, upon those of South Ameri
ca, the Caribbean Islands, Eastern India, and China. Not a
chest of tea, not a bale of nankins, not a bag of coffee, not a
barrel of flour, not a bale of cotton, at treble their present
prices, could purchase the insurer's passport to cross the ocean,
unless covered by the stripes and stars of the North American
States. Within less than two hundred years after the landing
at Plymouth was this wonderful phenomenon witnessed ; and
by the sons of the pilgrims, chiefly, was this immense contri
bution gathered. In the counting-houses of New England
and New York, were seated the merchant princes, more po
tent and more comprehensive in their sway than those of
ancient Tyre, by whom this vast tribute was levied.
But where was the sunny South at this period. Did she
thrust in her sickle, and gather golden harvests, when the
earth was reaped? Where were her gallant ships? ,Her
princely merchants — where ? The South had no foreign com
merce. The cheerful music of the caulker, the rigger, and
the sailor, mingle not with the sound of, the driver's lash.
The spoiled sons of effeminacy, lawlessness and sloth, the
heroes of the whip and the bowie-knife, are not merchants.
The traffickers in women and babes excel not in lawful com
merce. The land of slavery did not prosper. The curse of
omnipresent justice, interwoven into the slave system itself,
was gnawing at her vitals. She turned her eye of anguish
and envy at the free and prospering North, inquiring within
herself how she could preserve her balance of power.
The Slave Power, like the power of the pit, never lacks for
a stratagem. The Slave Power ruled in the Cabinet, and stood
behind the Presidential Chair. I sin not against the demo
cracy of Mr. Jefferson. His democracy, however correct in
theory, was here, as on his plantation, held in abeyance, and
cherished " in the abstract." There was nothing of Mr. Jef
ferson's democracy in his slaveholding : and there was nothing
of it in the embargo. That measure, dictated probably against

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 325
his wishes by the Slave Power,* was levelled at the commer
cial prosperity of the free North. Democracy, as expounded
by Mr. Jefferson, was jealous of Federal encroachment, and
watchful of State rights. The embargo was the utmost stretch
of Federal encroachment, in open contempt of the wishes of
the commercial States. Democracy was the guardian of " free
trade," the boasted champion (before and after the embargo)
of " sailors' rights." The embargo annihilated commerce,
and thus prohibited the avocation of the sailor ! Democracy
had claimed, through Mr. Jefferson, "the equal rights of
every citizen in his person and property, and their manage
ment" The embargo singled out a most important class of
citizens, while in the act of adding, beyond any ancient or
modern precedent, to the wealth of their nation, wrested " the
management of their property" out of their hands, prohibited
their lawful and honorable business, and condemned their
property — their shipping, richly laden with their country's
produce — to rot at their own wharves.
And what was the pretext for the embargo ? The rival
edicts and contending fleets of France and England had
perpetrated some depredations on our commerce, for which
we had obtained no redress or security, to the possible amount
of five or ten per cent, of the nett profits of our commerce,
after paying a high insurance. Did our merchants, the direct
sufferers under these depredations, desire the protection of
an embargo ? Not they ! With all their united influence of
petition, remonstrance, and suffrage, they protested against it.
They even contested the constitutionality of the embargo in
the Federal courts. They pleaded that the power " to regu
late commerce" was not a power to annihilate it.f The
* It was commonly understood at tho time, that the embargo policy did not
originate with Mr. Jefferson, but was urged upon him by the extreme South.
This was the apology of his partisans in the Northern and Eastern States.
t The petitions to Congress to abolish the interstate slave trade, under this same
olauseof the Constitution, have been successfully parried by this plea, which did not
suffice for the Northern merchants. Our constitutional expounders would have us
believe that Congress has power to annihilate all commerce except the traffic in slaves !
Is it not time to distrust such expositors ?

326 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
defense of the Government was, not that commerce was not
annihilated (for not a coasting packet might navigate Long
Island Sound !) but that the power to regulate commerce did
involve the power of its annihilation. And the Federal Courts
sustained the Federal Administration. Thus Northern com
merce was destroyed, to protect it from petty depredations !
As __. measure of retaliation or coercion against France and
England, the embargo could never have been supposed to be
of any value.
The theory of political economy then in vogue at the South,
adopted by the administration party, and promulgated through
all its presses, bears testimony that the protection of Northern
commerce from European depredation was not (as it could not
have been) the object of the embargo. The theory was that
commerce is corrupting — that the spirit of commerce is the
spirit of cupidity and subversive of the spirit of freedom—
that "great commercial cities are great sores" upon the body
politic — that the concentration of capital is dangerous in a
republic — that independency of foreign nations requires us to
be agriculturists and manufacturers, not merchants — and
that, like the Chinese, we should stay at home, and let foreign
nations who want our products come after them. By this
teaching, a jealousy against merchants and commerce was
fostered, even among the yeomanry and mechanics of the
North. Whatever of plausibility or mixture of truth there
may have been in this philosophy, its propagation by the
slaveholders at this juncture throws light upon their policy,
and confirms the conclusion that the embargo and non-inter
course policy was designed to cripple and destroy, instead of
protecting and fostering, Northern commerce. Nor can we
overlook the coincidence by which this visitation was inflicted
upon the North, almost simultaneously with the abolition of
the African slave trade, and the explosion and defeat of the
great South- Western Conspiracy under Aaron Burr, by the
disclosures of a citizen of New England. The embargo was
laid in December, 1807, and was continued till March, 1809,
when it was exchanged for an act of non-intercourse with

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 327
England and France. In this policy the administration was
unexpectedly sustained by an influential statesman of the
North, the distinguished senator from Massachusetts,* who
prefaced his vote with this remarkable argument — " The Presi
dent has recommended it. I would not deliberate : — I would
act." He was soon after named Minister to Russia, and was
almost constantly in Executive employ, till, having been made
Secretary of State under Mr. Monroe (equivalent then to
nomination as his successor), he came into the Presidency in
1825, with the aid of Mr. Clay, whom he appointed Secretary
of State, and with whom he administered the Government in
the manner already shown. From the date of that appoint
ment to Russia it has been evident that Presidential patron
age, the gift of the slaveholders, is an over-match for any
hold the free States may have upon the most gifted of their
'sons. The non-intercourse with France was terminated in 1810.
"That with Great Britain was continued, including a second
embargo of two months, till the declaration of war by Con
gress against that country, in June, 1812. From the begin
ning of the first embargo, therefore, in Dec, 1807, until the
peace of Dec., 1814 (not available to the ship-owners until the
opening of navigation in the spring of 1815), the commerce
of the free States was either totally prohibited, or rendered
of little pecuniary value. A general conflagration among the
warehouses and shipping of the free States — all things con
sidered — would scarcely have inflicted so great a calamity,
could the merchants have been then left at liberty to repair
their losses by resuming their business.
In 1811, the charter of the old National Bank expired, and

* John Quincy Adams. We are not at liberty to suppress so instructive, an incident
in the history of this great man and of the country. The remarkable independence
and signal services of Mr. Adams, in the House of Representatives, after having been
ejected from the Presidency to make room for a slaveholder, will always be regarded
the brightest portion of his political life. A similar destiny may be claimed, per
haps, to have had a similar effect upon Mr. Van Buren — a lesson to be pondered by
those who shall succeed them.

328 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
was not permitted by the dominant slave power to be renewed,
on the alleged ground that a national bank was unconstitu
tional, a consideration not discovered when it was chartered.
The real reason was that the South had become bankrupt, as
it periodically does, as often generally as once in ten or fifteen
years, throwing off the greater part of its indebtedness upon
its creditors in some other community. No country cultiva
ted by slave labor does otherwise. The British West Indies,
under the slave system, was always a burthen to the merchants
and bankers of England, in the long run, however profitable
their custom might appear to be for a season. The slave sys
tem never supports itself for any great length of time in con
tinuation. The periodical collapse must' inevitably come. In
old colonial times, the creditors of the South were chiefly in
England, and the South went into the Revolution of 1776 (in
despite of her inherent and prevalent toryism) for the purpose*1
mainly, of wiping out the old score. But since the revolu:
tion, the northern cities of New York, Philadelphia and Bos
ton have shared largely in the honors and emoluments of
southern custom. The result came upon them in company
with other calamities, in 1811. But along with the embargo
and non-intercourse, it greatly assisted the South to regain,
in a pecuniary view, her endangered balance of power. Al
most the sum total of her indebtedness to the North was now
to be dexterously shifted from one scale to the other, with
the double effect of relieving the South of the same weight
that was to be thrown upon the North. In many ways the
demise of the National Bank was exceedingly opportune to
them at this juncture. The South had got out of the bank
in the shape of loans, all it could, and southern securities
were now in bad odor with the directors, while northern pa
per was discounted freely, and the bank was a financial assist
ant of the northern merchants. More than this. The Bank
was the agent employed by the North to collect her debts at
the South. What could the South now want of the bank ?
A National Bank was unconstitutional of course, and had
leave to be interred. In mourning over the loss of their bank,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 329
and the depredations of the non-intercourse and embargo,
the attention of the northern merchants would be diverted,
in a measure, from the direct losses they sustained from the
indebtedness of the South. The greater the smoke and the
more scattered the fires, the better chance for' pillage, and the
less fear of detection.
Calamities seldom come singly, and crime is the precursor
of crime. The slave power now demanded a war. Unhap
pily a pretext was at hand. The British " Orders in Council"
of Nov., 1807, prohibiting all neutral trade with France and
her allies, were still in force, though there was a prospect that
they would soon be repealed. Deserters from the British
navy, who had found a more lucrative and pleasant employ
on board American vessels, both national and mercantile,
had been not unfrequently demanded and reclaimed by the
British commanders. On one occasion, the demand had been
refused, but enforced. The British ship of war Leopard had
fired into the American frigate Chesapeake, killed three men,
and wounded eighteen, after which the seamen claimed were
given up. On investigation, it appeared that three of them
were American citizens. This event, which took place in
June, 1807, had greatly excited the American people at the
time, and the impressment of seamen was still a subject of
complaint, though the number of actual impressments was
afterwards admitted to have been far less than was believed
and represented at first, as very few American seamen were
finally found missing from our ports. By far the greater por
tion of alleged impressments were cases of the recovery of
British seamen, who, from similarity of appearance and lan
guage, had succeeded in procuring American " protections "
Dr passports. It was notorious that many thousands of British
seamen were thus certified to be Americans. This matter
ivas coming to be understood. Aside, therefore, from the
British Orders in Council, this country could not have been
dragooned into a war with that nation. Nor was it done at
all, without the earnest remonstrance of the maratime and
commercial classes, and indeed almost all the people of New

330 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
England, who were the chief sufferers both from impressment
and the- "Orders in Council." The South undertook, very
kindly, the protection of the North. " Free trade and sailors'
rights " was now the southern watchword : — that same "free
trade " that had been so long denounced by the South as the
bane of the republic, a national curse, and proscribed by non-
intercourse and embargo ! Those same " sailors' rights "
that had been so recently cloven down and annihilated by
the same arbitrary measures ! The pretense of the southern
enemies of commerce, of caring for the "free trade and
sailors' rights " of the commercial and hated North, was too
flimsy to be plausible. To a great extent the thin disguise
was soon thrown off, and southern editors and orators ful
minated, in the same paragraphs, their anathemas against
New England and Old England, avowing the determination
to chastise and humble them both, at the same time, and by
the same blow.
The war party was led on by John C. Calhoun, of South
Carolina, who claimed the paternity of the measure, and drove
it furiously through both houses of Congress.* Mr. Clay was
* Mr. Madison, then President, recommended the war in a message to Congress,
but his proverbial timidity and caution forbid the idea that he was the author of the
measure. Mr. Calhoun, as the leader of the extreme Southern party, was commonly
regarded as the real instigator of the war message, and his success in carrying the
measure, gave him that decided and controlling influence over the national councils,
which he ever afterwards retained, and under all the successive administrations of
the government, till the day of his death, a period of thirty-eight years, during
which time he seldom failed of effecting the real, if not the ostensible, objects of his
occult evolutions, which were little understood. Though charged with fickleness,
he never swerved from his one original and single aim — the aggrandizement of tho
South by the discomfiture of the North. He was never more successful than in the
moment of complaining loudly of defeat, and appearing to submit, reluctantly, to a
compromise. Even the great compromiser, Mr. Clay, appeared to be but an imple
ment in his hands. He was charged with ambition for the Presidency, but in reality
he preferred to govern through eight administrations (and he managed for the
most part to do so), rather than rule through the brief period of one. He had the
faculty of governing, through their hopes or their fears, the political party from
which he seemed to stand aloof, as effectually as he did the party to which, for the
time being, he seemed to belong. The Slave party was the only party to which he
ever really adhered. The skill with which he concocted u new party, by an alli
ance of the Southern " nullifiers," of whom he had been the leader, with the
National Republicans of the North, against whom he had threatened a civil war, yet

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 331
also in favor of the measure. At one stage of the proceed
ings, early in June, 1812, a motion was made in the Senate
to postpone the declaration of war till the opening of the
next session of Congress in December, when the policy of the
British Government would be developed.* On this question
the Senate was understood to be nearly equally divided, and
Mr. Calhoun, whose influence was potential in both Houses,
exerted himself to defeat the motion. Then it was that,
after an adjournment, a large number of northern members,
including prominent supporters of the administration, were
said to have surrounded Mr. Calhoun in the lobby, imploring
him to relent, and allow the country a respite till December.
Mr. Calhoun was inexorable, and by extraordinary applian
ces, one or two members were gained over to his party, and
the postponement was defeated in the Senate by a majority of one
vote. This decided the question of war, which was declared
by a vote of 79 to 49 in the House of Bepresentatives, and
of 19 to 13 in the Senate. In a few weeks, news arrived, as
was expected, of the repeal of the British Orders in Council,
thus removing the chief cause of the war. But the object of
the Calhoun party was gained. The nation was plunged into
a war, in the midst of the pecuniary embarrassments arising
from a general southern bankruptcy, (the North being the
creditor) and from the sudden demise of the National Bank.
New England, at such a crisis, more than Old England, would
be the sufferer by the war, and the North would be burdened
with the chief expense of the infliction.
The result of the measure, and especially the manner in
stepping out of his new party before he was fairly seated im it, was mistaken for
caprice by those who saw not his object. It enabled him to be either Whig or
Democrat, as he pleased, to stand with one foot in each scale, to make either side
preponderate as he chose, and become Secretary of State when he wished, by the
acclamations of a Senate whose party was, even then, denouncing him ! Whoever
would understand American politics from 1812 to 1850, must study the political his
tory of John C. Calhoun.
* A motion was also made in the House of Representatives to include France in
the measure, but the motion failed. The French had no naval force to spare for
the coast of America, and could do Uttle for the threatened chastisement of New
England.

332 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
which the war was conducted and terminated, were such as
to justify, fully, this account of its object and its origin. Two
commanders, in sympathy with the administration, Generals
Hull and Smythe, the latter a Virginian, were sent, succes
sively, on expeditions of pretended invasion of Canada, but
in both instances, the enterprise was abandoned when the
Canadas were apparently in their power. General Hull sur
rendered to the British, to their great astonishment. The
whole country accused him of treason, a court-martial sen
tenced him to death, but he was pardoned by the President*
General Smythe "suddenly retreated, to the great surprise of
his troops." These facts, together with the systematic and
even skillful withholding of supplies from the forces under
other commanders, afterwards, f made it perfectly evident that
the administration not only never intended the conquest of
Canada, but took special care that no such acquisition of ter
ritory should add to the number of non-slaveholding. States.
Had Canada been adjacent to the slave States, and adapted to
slave culture, there can be no reasonable doubt that it could
have been conquered as expeditiously as were California and
New Mexico.
New England, in the mean time, though compelled to fur
nish largely to the sinews of a war waged, in reality, agamst
herself — New England, in whose cities was the wealth that
tempted the enemy, and in whose ports was the shipping that
was endangered — New England, whose militia were subjected
to drafts for enacting sham invasions of Canada, or massacres
of the Indians, and whose seamen were winning victories on
the western and northern lakes, and on the Atlantic — New
England was systematically left defenseless, while her seapprts
* A defense of Gen. Hull was, many years afterwards, published, in which it was
claimed that he surrendered for want of supplies, and that his course was in accord
ance with the secret intentions of the Government that so readily pardoned him.
t As a specimen of these taotics, we notice that Virginian corn was sent in wagons
to the forces on the Canada frontier, of whioh only one bushel to each wagon load
was delivered to the army, the balance being consumed by the teams on the journey
out and home ; while large supplies of northern corn might have been purchased
near at hand.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 333'
were blockaded, a vast amount of her shipping destroyed, her
eastern borders exposed to hostile incursions, and the port of
Castine held in possession of the enemy for many months.
When, under these circumstances, and after all remonstrances
had proved unavailing, New England statesmen were found
who demanded that New England resources and New Eng
land militia should be retained by the State authorities for
home defense, the cry of treason was raised against them,
which has been continued to the present day.*
The threat of humbling New England was thus signally
fulfilled. New England cowered under the lash of the slave-
driver, and has never since adventured to lift up her head in
the national councils. Her most gifted Representatives and
Senators find ample scope for their powers in bowing to the
behests of slavery, or only make a brief bluster of resistance,
to quail the lower at last, or be deserted by their cotton lords
at home.
When the war had accomplished its grand objects, when
the bankrupt Slave States had regained and more than re
gained their balance of power with the North by despoiling it
of half its remaining wealth, after the previous inflictions of
non-intercourse and embargo, when Old England had been
successfully employed to chastise and humble New England,
when insult had been added to injury, and the loss of honor
and reputation conjoined with the loss of wealth and political
influence, the slave power was ready to restore peace. And
this was done without a single lisp of " free trade and sailors'
rights." Neither the treaty, nor the negotiations, nor the in
structions from the Cabinet under whioh they were conducted,,

* The claims of Massachusetts on the Federal Government, for the services of
her militia under the State authority, in defending her own coasts, at a time when
the Federal Government persisted in leaving them absolutely defenseless, was after
wards contemptuously and insultingly disallowed, and the very act of this • self-
defense is Btill pointed at as evidence of " constructive treason 1" And thus the
State contributing most largely (in proportion to population and territory) to the
Federal expenses during the war, was compelled to defend itself by additional exer
tions, at its own cost, and be branded with the taint of treason to boot I Is it a
marvel that the politicians of Massachusetts became servile 3

"•334 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
contained the slightest allusion to the ostensible grounds of
the war, or provided or sought the least semblance of any
security against similar aggressions in future. Thus ended a
war of nearly three years, conducted at an expense of nearly
thirty millions per annum, chiefly paid by the free States, the
price of their own subjugation and disgrace — a war whose
" glory " has given us two Presidents, one of them a slave
holder, the other a native Virginian, and a steady supporter
ofthe slave power — a war that virtually enthroned, from 1812
to 1850, the bitter enemy of northern as well as southern lib
erty, John C. Calhoun.*
Free labor, ever buoyant and recuperative, had, however,
survived. The hardy yeomanry of the North had earned
their own bread with their own hands, had paid all the de
mands of an oppressive government, and aided by the high
war prices of their products, while consuming as little as pos- '
sible of foreign merchandise, had thriftily maintained their
ground. The remnant of surplus capital, in the cities, driven
from its own field of enterprise, and encouraged by the scarcity
of foreign fabrics, had invested itself in the manufacture of
* The writer is aware that his account of the embargo, non-intercourso, and war
of 1812, will be as distasteful to some of the partisans and admirers of Jefferson
and Madison, as his account of Washington's administration and the Federal party
will be to some of their political opponents. But history should be impartial; and
a writer who has religiously stood aloof from both parties may claim to have seen
passing events with his own eyes, and may be permitted to record them as he has
apprehended them. In use of tbe same liberty, he may further say here, once for
all, that since the war of 1812, as before, he has found no essential difference, on tho
whole, between the two parties. The so called Republican or Democratic party,
afraid of an aristocracy of Northern capital, has thrown itself into the arms of the
slaveholders. The Federal, National Republican, aud Whig parties, while they have
seen this, have also had their slaveholding allies, whose aid they could not afford to
spare, and hence the Blave question has never been made an issue by those parties.
When in power they have been as servile as their rival. Neither of them have been
anti-slavery parties at any period, nor otherwise (at bottoui) than aristocratic parties,
being all of them governed by one or the other of the rival aristocracies, Northern
or Southern. A truly democratic party has never yet come into power. The people
have been cheated by professions and names. Since the rise of the Cotton power
at the North, allied to the Cotton power of the South, the rival aristocracies have
been merged in one, and the two political parties are kept up as mere shams, to pre
vent a united rally of the people against the now united aristocracy of the counj^
represented by " compromise" legislation and " Union Committees."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 335
cotton and woollen cloths, of a coarse but substantial texture.
But the return of peace brought an influx of foreign goods,
and a sudden reduction of prices, ruinous to manufacturers as
well as merchants. Years were required to repair these fresh
depredations, and the new policy of free commerce, it was
thought, precluded the prospect that our infant manufactures
could be sustained. No " protective tariff" came to their aid,
then. The South, no longer fearing the seductive influences
of commerce, had become the champion of " free trade." The
North, by this time, understood her position too well to bring
forward any measures of her own. Manufactures were, for
the most part, abandoned, the manufacturing villages were
deserted, and where absolute bankruptcy did not prevent, the
little remnant of capital was invested in foreign commerce.
The merchant who had been compelled by southern policy to
turn manufacturer during the embargo, the non-intercourse,
the second embargo, and the war, while his shipping was
either rotting at his wharf, or had fallen into the hands of the
British, was now compelled by the new southern policy to let
his factory and village fall to decay, rebuild again his ships,
and commence merchant again. In a short time, the settled
channel of northern capital and enterprise was again foreign
commerce, and a brisk business in that line was again bring
ing in an influx of wealth.
No sooner was this witnessed or anticipated, than another
change came over the political economists of the South.
"Free trade "became a political heresy, and the doctrine of
the Jeffersonian period, condemnatory of foreign commerce,
and in favor of domestic manufactures, was suddenly revived.
The South wanted an increasing northern market for her cot
ton, and northern capital must be forced to become a customer.
The South wanted, likewise, a duty on raw foreign cottons
that should exclude those imported from South America.
The South wanted, more than all, another opportunity to dis
arrange and perplex her pecuniary rival, the free laboring
North. Not the slightest objection was it, in her eye, that
some hundred millions of northern capital, as our northern

336 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
statesmen demonstrated, would have to be sacrificed by the
change. The high tariff of 1816 was forced upon the reluc
tant North by the same John C. Calhoun who had dictated
the war of 1812. Northern capitalists demurred. They de
sired no capricious change. The merchants had rebuilt their
ships, and wished for no interference with their "free trade."
Ofthe few remaining manufacturers, some were also merchants,
and nearly all of them, with singular unanimity, repudiated
the policy of an artificial hot-bed growth of. manufactures,
predicting, sagaciously, the over production, the reaction, and
the fluctuations afterwards realized by such violations of the
law of supply and demand. But the North was overruled.
Calhoun again triunjphed. The Calcutta trade was annihila
ted, and our commerce with France and England reduced and
shorn of its rich profits, in obedience to the new policy. Fac
tory villages sprung up again like mushrooms. Thousands
embarked in the new business. Over competition and over
production ruined or crippled a large portion of them in four
or five years, and instability and uncertainty became inscribed,
legibly, upon their edifices and their fabrics. For the dozens
who succeeded and amassed wealth, there were to be reckoned
hundreds, if not thousands, who were driven into penury and
oblivion. The same memorable era, 1816, was marked by the estab
lishment of a second National Bank, and by the same Slave
Power that had dictated the two embargoes, the non-inter
course, the war, and the tariff. It was dictated by the same
policy and to subserve the same end — the preservation of. the
balance of power between free and slave labor, or rather, the
ascendency of the latter over the former. A National Bank
was deemed unconstitutional in 1811, but it became constitu
tional in 1816, for the South, after all her depredations upon
the North, now condescended to become a borrower of north
ern capital 1 Mr. Madison, in particular, whose constitutional
scruples were insuperable, in 1811, overcame them, in 1816,
and not long afterwards became, it was said, a borrower from
the National Bank of a large sum. Other slaveholding states-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 337
men conferred upon the bank the same honor. But it cost the
northern banks and the northern capitalists and merchants a
severe money pressure of three or four years to spare suffi
cient specie to get the new National Bank under way. So
that the pecuniary embarrassment of 1819-20, arising from a
reaction of the high tariff policy, was increased by the pro
cess of re-establishing a National Bank, and both burthens
fell at the same time upon the free laboring North. The
general southern bankruptcy of 1824, renewed and aggra
vated by the southern cotton speculation of 1826, (an infa
mous process of gambling) trode rapidly upon the heels of
the former inflictions of the Slave Power. An extensive, not
to say general, bankruptcy visited Boston in 1824, and New
York in 1826, from these joint causes, but chiefly from the
accumulation of southern debts to the estimated amount of
upwards of one hundred millions of dollars, of which, (as
afterwards, in 1837,) scarcely five cents on the dollar were
ever realized.
Precisely at what date the second United States Bank was
effectually pillaged and reduced to bankruptcy by its slave-
holding customers, is not certainly known, but it must have
been at a very early period, probably in 1823, soon after its
specie capital had been supplied, and chiefly by the over-con
fiding North. Its condition was for many years concealed,
perhaps in the vain hope of retrieving its fortunes. At one
time, it is said, the directors, having decided on making no
more loans to the bankrupt South, adopted the policy of in
cluding the solvent North under the same restriction, lest
offense should be taken at the invidious distinction, or the
fact of southern delinquency at the bank be disclosed. Be
this as it may, it proved to have been a rotten concern for
years, while the public supposed it solvent. The Federal
Government, as appointing a portion of the directors, comes
in for a large share in the blame of this shameful mis-manage
ment. The bank was in the hands of demagogues, a tool of
political corruption, and chiefly for the pecuniary and politi
cal emolument of the South at the expense and for the man-
22

338 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
agement and subjugation of the North, purchasing editors if
not Senators by its loans. Like its predecessors, it was first
robbed and then buried, and all through the action of the
Federal Government, at the dictation of the Slave Power. A
renewal of its charter was refused in 1832, a fortunate event,
as it proved, though its insolvency was not suspected then.
It expired by limitation of charter in 1836.
Free labor overcoming all its obstructions, contrived at
length to flourish under the tariff system. The manufac
turing capitalists became first reconciled and then wedded to
the policy. Thriving under it, they sought no essential
change. But northern labor had long been held incompetent
to self-direction, and had been accustomed to watch the mo
tions of the slave-driver. It adventured, however, a slight
modification of the tariff in 1832, yet not departing from the
principle and the policy upon which the system was founded,
in 1816, by Mr. Calhoun. This temerity was made the pre
text for demanding a revolution in the policy of the country.
The principle of a protective tariff became unpopular at the
South as soon as it was perceived that the free labor of the
North was thriving under it, and the growth of this dissatis
faction was well nigh simultaneous with the desire to inter
the second National Bank. The policy of protection first
fastened upOn the country by Mr. Calhoun, was now dis
covered by Mr. Calhoun and his party to be an infraction of
the constitution, oppressive to the South, the climax of politi
cal injustice, and demanding a dissolution of the Union, un
less speedily laid aside. After stretching the exercise of the
powers of the Federal Government to the highest degree, by
embargoes, war, tariff, and National Bank, the South now
hoisted again the flag of "State Rights." A State Conven
tion of South Carolina, under the influence of Mr. Calhoun,
declared the tariff acts unconstitutional, null and void, that
duties should not be paid, and that if the General Govern
ment attempted to enforce the claim, the state would with
draw from the Union. President Jackson could do no less
than repel this demand, but through the intervention of Mr.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 339
Clay, a former champion of the protective policy, a compro
mise was made, by which the duties were gradually reduced
till 1843, when they were to sink to the general level of 20
per cent., which was accounted the revenue standard. In
recent debates in the Senate concerning the Mexican war,
Mr. Webster of Massachusetts, representing the cotton manu
facturers of that state, reminded southern Senators that the
expenses of such a war would require an additional tariff. At
this there was no demur, — not even from Mr. Calhoun ; and
it is understood that the prospect of a high tariff reconciled
the manufacturing capitalists of New England to that iniqui
tous war.
Thus Slavery controls all the leading measures of the na
tion and moulds its political economy, — quite as remarkable
for its real and inflexible constancy as for its apparently ca
pricious change. A comparison of dates, as before hinted,
will show how exactly all these changes have corresponded
and chimed in with the more direct and palpable action of
the Federal Government in support of slavery. Whenever
such direct action, by the Government or by combinations, has
been suspended, a more active control and a more rapid
change of general measures has supplied the deficiency. And
when the general policy of the country has been for any length
of time undisturbed, it has been because more direct measures
in support of slavery have been in progress. Thus, from 1807,
on the explosion of the Southern and Western Conspiracy,
till the first armed invasion of Texas, in 1819, the slave in
terest was sufficiently promoted by embargoes, non-intercourse,
war, tariff, the destruction of the first National Bank, and the
establishment of the second. So, likewise, from 1836 to 1850,
while so much direct action in favor of slavery has been wit
nessed, the questions of tariffs and banks have been left com
paratively undisturbed.
With equal skill and tact has the slave power contrived to
keep up two political parties, extending through the North
and the South, on the most fallacious and deceptive issues, or
upon scarcely any issue at all. By this means she diverts atten-

340 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tion from the real to the merely nominal issues before the
country, while by controlling both parties, she secures her
ends through the ascendency of either, makes the one a checl*
upon the other, and manages them through fear or through
hope. THE state governments.
This chapter on the action of the Federal Government in support of
slavery, might be appropriately followed by an account of the action ofthe
State Governments, even at the North, in a similar direction. Our limits
forbid us to enter into these details. Suffice it to say that most of the free
States are disgraced by constitutional or legislative provisions discriminating,
invidiously, between white and colored citizens, and depriving the latter of
their equal rights of suffrage and eligibility to office. Colored citizens of
the free States, employed on board ships visiting the South, are subject to
seizure and imprisonment, in violation of their constitutional rights. An
effort was made by Massachusetts to obtain a legal redress of these grie
vances in the courts of South Carolina and Louisiana. But her Commis
sioners, Messrs. Hoare and Hubbard, were ejected from Charleston and
New Orleans under threats of violence, and Massachusetts submits to the
insult. In Ohio there were laws enacted designed to prevent the settlement
of colored citizens in that State. In Connecticut a law was passed pro
hibiting schools for teaching colored pupils. But these laws of Ohio and
Connecticut have been repealed. Both the enactment and the repeal of
these two laws — it may be proper to say — took place during the present
agitation of the slave question by abolitionists.
We have carefully confined ourselves in these chapters (as in the preceding
ones concerning " the Position of the Churches ") to the course that has
been pursued in respect to slavery, disconnected from any controversies
about the measures of "modern abolitionists," or statements concerning the
opposition raised against them. And we deem it no vain repetition to pro
pound again, here, the inquiry — Is it credible that those who hold such a
position in respect to slavery could have been otherwise than annoyed and
offended by any earnest efforts for its immediate and unconditional aboli
tion? Some further light on this question may be afforded in our next chapter,
exhibiting a movement in which the prominent actors, in political and
ecclesiastical life, combined their forces and commingled their labors.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 341

CHAPTEB XXIX.
colonization society.
Originated with Slaveholders — Object — Discourages emancipation, yet professes to
favor it— Violates its own Constitution, by denying to the people of color their
rights of citizenship — Justifies Slavery — Condemns emancipation — Slanders the
people of color — Justifies oppression — Declares prejudice against color invincible
— Pledged, in advance, to oppose Abolition Societies — The representatives of the
leading political and ecclesiastical influences of the country — Its leaders in sympa
thy with the Fugitive Slave Bill — Meeting at Boston — False pretenses of checking
the African slave trade and evangelizing Africa.
The American Colonization Society, with its auxiliaries, is
sustained by the leading influences in the Church and in the
State. The position of these, in respect to American Slavery,
has already been shown. It would be strange if the Society
should differ widely from the course and policy of those who
originated it, and who give shape to its measures. Its two
fold character of ecclesiastical and political gives it a wide
range. It takes its place in the list of our religious anniver
saries, is advocated in the pulpit on the Sabbath, is claimed to
be a missionary institution, asks patronage and accepts the
widow's mite as a benevolent enterprise ; yet it proposes to
build up an empire in Africa ; for many years it superintended
a colonial government in Liberia ;* has received indirect aid
from Congress, and large funds from State legislatures. Its
friends give a two-fold account of its origin. Sometimes they
say it was devised and planned by Rev. Samuel J. Mills, a
young minister earnestly intent on evangelizing Africa. Some-

1/

* The Colony has at length become independent of the Society, yet the Soeiety
continues, in other respects, its operations.

342 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
times they commend it as having originated in the political
sagacity of popular statesmen, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Clay, Mr.
Mercer, and Mr. Madison, not remarkable, all of them, for
evangelizing enterprise. The authentic account appears to he
as follows :
- 1. Origin. — The entire movement grew out of an alarm
caused by an attempted slave insurrection. Hence the effort
of the Virginia Legislature to induce Congress to colonize free
blacks. This measure failing, a society for the purpose was
formed. In December, 1816, the Legislature of Virginia passed a
resolution requesting the Governor to correspond with the
President of the United States, for the purpose of obtaining
territory in Africa or elsewhere for colonizing free people
of color and those who might afterwards become free.
A few days afterwards a meeting was held in Washington
City composed of southern gentlemen, at which Judge Wash
ington, a slaveholder and slave- vender, presided, and Henry
Clay and Mr. Randolph, slaveholders, made speeches. The
result was the organization of the American Colonization
Society. Judge Washington was chosen President. Seven
teen Vice-Presidents were chosen, twelve of whom were in
the slave states, and probably slaveholders. The twelve man
agers were also slaveholders.
2. Object. — " The object to which its attention is to be
exclusively directed, is to promote and execute a plan for col
onizing, (with their consent) the free people of color residing
in our country in Africa, or such other place as Congress shall
deem most expedient. And the Society shall act to effect this
object in co-operation with the General Government and such
of the States as may adopt regulations on the subject." — Con.
of the Society, Art. II.
The "exclusive" object here specified precludes and denies
the claim of missionary and anti-slavery objects afterwards
set up at the North to obtain patronage. The reference to
the General and State Governments shows that the " object "
was such as those governments were expected to favor. The

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 343
Constitution has no Preamble with statements of reasons or
motives for Colonization, and gives no hints whether its ope
rations were expected to facilitate emancipation or strengthen
slavery. This ambiguity has enabled its advocates to urge
one class of arguments at the North and an opposite class at
the South, and obtain funds from both the friends and the
enemies of slavery. But the real object may be known
from its operations, of which we present a specimen. The
Maryland Colonization Society, auxiliary to the American,
received large funds from the State Legislature with which
it transported to Africa, in 1834, " two ship loads of colored
people, who were coerced as truly as if it had been done with
a cart-whip." So said Rev. R. J. Breckenridge D.D., a mem
ber of the American Colonization Society, at its annual meet
ing, the same year. This policy the gentleman censured at
the time, but has since openly defended it, as did likewise
Mr. Brodnax, in the Legislature of Virginia, when a bill was
under discussion, making appropriations to the same object.
" It is idle," said Mr. Brodnax, " to talk about not resorting
to force. Everybody must look to the introduction of force
of some kind or other. If the free negroes are willing to go,
they will go. If not, they must be compelled to go." There
was a clause in the bill for compulsory transportation. This
was, indeed, stricken out to save appearances, but the end
was nevertheless reached, by menaces, and ill treatment.
The desired effects of colonization have been abundantly
stated in the publications of the Society, and the speeches
and writings of its members.
" The execution of this scheme would augment, instead of diminish, the
value of the property left behind." — African Repository (the Society's
organ), Vol. I., p. 227.
" By removing the most fruitful source of discontent (free blacks) from
among our slaves, we should render them more industrious and attentive to
our commands." — Address Putnam, Co. Geo. Col. Soe.
" The tendency of the scheme, and one of its objects, is to secure
slaveholders and the whole Southern country against certain evil conse
quences growing out ofthe present three-fold mixture ofour population." 
Address of a Virginia Col. Soe, Af. Rep., TV., 274.

344 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
" By removing -these people (free blacks) we rid ourselves of a large
party who will always be ready to assist our slaves in any mischievous
design they might conceive." — Af. Rep., I., 176.
" By thus repressing the increase of blacks, the white population would
be enabled to reach, and soon overtake them : the consequence would be
security."— Af. Rep., IV., 344.
It would be easy to fill a long chapter with testimonies to
this single point. We are warranted, therefore, in saying
that the grand object of the Colonization Society is the in
creased profitableness and security of slavery.
3. It discourages emancipation. — The Colonization So
ciety has been patronized at the North, under the idea, held
up by its agents, that it encourages and assists slaveholders to
emancipate and colonize their slaves. It is true that some
emancipations have been made in connection with coloniza
tion. But the efforts of the Society have been chiefly directed
to the colonization of the free. And it is found that the ratio
of emancipations, since the Society was formed, has greatly
decreased, on the whole. Neither Judge Washington, Henry
Clay, Mr. Madison, nor Mr. Carroll, slaveholding Presidents
of the Society, have ever emancipated and colonized a single
slave, though Judge Washington sold fifty-four at one time,
to be sent to New Orleans ! The whole amount of the colon
ization of manumitted slaves, in eighteen years, ending in
1835, was eight hundred and nine, equal to the increase of slave
population for five days and a half !* It is not known
that the process has been more rapid since.
And yet, colonization was constantly held up, then and after
wards, as the only safe and proper mode of emancipation, thus
quieting the consciences of those who thought they could not
spare (or who, in fact, could not command) the additional ex
penses of transportation to Africa.
" Colonization is the only possible mode of emancipation at once safe
and rational." — Speech of Mr. Custiss, 13th An. Report.
* Up to about this time the funds raised by the Society amounted to $220,449,
and it had incurred a debt of $45,645, making an expenditure of $266,094.— Jay's
Inquiry, p. 78.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 345
" Colonization is the only expedient by which these evils (of slavery)
can be mitigated." — Speech of J. A. Dix, Af. Rep., IV., 108.
" To this country it offers the only possible means of gradually ridding
ourselves of a mighty evil." — 1st Rep. N. Y. Col. Soe.
" I would urge this system of Colonization, as the only rational plan that
has yet been suggested for relieving our Southern brethren of the curse of
slavery." — Speech of Chancellor Walworth.
A moderate use of common sense and of the rudiments of
arithmetic should have sufficed to dispel the delusion of ter
minating American Slavery by the colonization of the slaves
to Africa. It is astonishing how such a project could have
imposed itself upon the credulity of the shrewd and calcula
ting people of the North. Emancipation on the soil had been
the policy of the northern and eastern states. No other pro
cess of abolishing slavery had ever been known or attempted
anywhere. The revolutionary fathers, who had sought and
expected the abolition of slavery, had expected it in no other
way. Before the forming of the Colonization Society in
1816, no friend of freedom advocated any other method.
But in a few brief years the propagandists of colonization had
saturated the public mind with their new and whimsical
dogma. From the pulpit, from the forum, from the press,
from halls of legislation, and by itinerating agents, the propo
sition was continuously reiterated, with all the solemnity of
an oracle, that emancipation and colonization must, of neces
sity, go hand in hand ! The idea came, at length, to be re
garded with the reverence due to a self-evident truth, and to
question it was to incur suspicion of insanity.
The influence of this sentiment upon the process of emanci
pation cannot be doubtful. Emancipations on the soil had
been constantly going on, at the South, till the doctrine was
proclaimed that the free people of color, as a nuisance, must
be removed out of the country, and that future emancipations
and transportations must go hand in hand. To emancipate
and colonize, even when practicable, was a double burden
and all other emancipation was now, by the new formed public
sentiment, proscribed.

346 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Equally and necessarily proscriptive was the same doctrine,
against all plans and efforts to procure a general abolition of
slavery on the soil, and no other general abolition would be
practicable. It might have been predicted, beforehand, that
.the influence of the Colonization Society would be arrayed
against any earnest efforts for the abolition of slavery. It
could not be otherwise, while the Society held the language
we have quoted, insisting that colonization was the only
method of emancipation. And this has involved the Society
in the positions hereafter specified.
4. In violation of its own Constitution, it denies to
the free people of color their essential rights of resi
dence in the land of their birth, and it denies the
RIGHT OF THE SLAVE TO EMANCIPATION ON THE SOIL. This is
proved by the course of the Maryland and Virginia auxiliaries,
and also by the speeches of Dr. Breckenridge and Mr. Brod
nax, already quoted. We add another testimony from the
highest authority, and of a recent date :
Hon. Henry Clay, in his recent letter to Richard Pindell, (see New
York Tribune, March 10th, 1849,) " after full and deliberate consideration
of the subject," lays it down " as an indispensable condition (of emancipation)
that the emancipated slaves should be removed from the State to some
colony." " The colonization of the free blacks, as they successively arrive,
from year to year, at the age entitling them to freedom, I consider a condi
tion absolutely indispensable. Without it I would be opposed to any scheme
of emancipation." The expense of this expatriation is, says Mr. Clay, to
" be defrayed by a fund to be raised from the labor of each freed slave."
The Af. Repository, April, 1849, says, let the North " show unto us a more
excellent way," if they can.
" In no other way could (can) it (slavery) be removed, than by planting
colonies of free colored people on the coast of Africa." Speech of Rev.
Dr. Bethune at Col. meeting, Phila., Af. Rep., July, 1846, p. 222.
" He (the colored man) is an exotic that does not and cannot flourish in
American soil." Address of Judge Bullock, Ky., commended by editor of
Af. Rep., Ap. 1847, p. 103.
" No ! There is no place for them in this country. It is not their 4and,
and they never can be made at home here. There are difficulties in the
way which no power of man can remove." Af. Rep. Nov., 1846, p. 348.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 347
5. IT JUSTIFIES SLAVERY.
" We hold their slaves, as we hold their other property, sacred." {Af.
Rep. I., 283.) "We know your rights, and we respect them." (Ib.
VII., 100.) "It" (the Society) condemns no man because he is a slave
holder." (Ib. VII., 200.) "Acknowledging the necessity by which its
(slavery's) present continuance and rigorous provisions for its maintenance,
axe justified." (Ib. III., 16.) "We believe that there is not the slight
est turpitude in holding slaves, under present circumstances." (Ib. IX., 4.)
" You cannot abolish slavery, for God is pledged to sustain it." — Letters
to Hon. George P. Marsh, copied into Maryland Colonization Journal, Sep
tember 6, 1847, p. 44.
" Slavery in the United States has resulted, and is destined still more to
result in the permanent good and advancement of the negro race." — Letter,
dec, p. 99.
6. It not only discourages but condemns emancipation.
" Policy, and even the voice of humanity, forbid the progress of manumis
sion." (Af. Rep., IV., 268.) " It would be as humane to throw them from
the decks in the middle passage, as to set them free in our country." — Ib.
IV., 226.
7. It slanders the free people of color. Without do
ing this, and fostering prejudice against them, the scheme of
colonizing them would have found little or no favor.
" Free blacks are a greater nuisance than even slaves themselves." — Af.
Rep. II., 189.
" This class of persons is a curse and a contagion wherever they reside."
—Ib. III., 203.
"A class the most corrupt, depraved, and abandoned." — H. Clay, Ib.
12. "An anomalous race of beings, the most depraved upon earth." — Ib.
VII., 230.
" They constitute a class by themselves, out of which no individual can
be elevated, and below which none can be depressed." — Ib. VI., 118.
" With some honorable exceptions, the free negroes are, as a class, indo
lent, vicious, and dishonest."— -Memorial to Leg. of Ya., Af. Rep. Am.
Col. Soe, Jan., 1846, p. 45.
Speaking of the 60,000 free colored inhabitants of Virginia, the above
memorial says, " Worthless and more than worthless." — P. 48.*

* Compare these representations with the following :-^Says Mr. Clay "Each
emigrant is a missionary, carrying with him credentials in the holy cause of religion
civilization, and free institutions !" And bo Africa is to be evangelized by sending
out our nuisances as missionaries !

348 great struggle between
8. It justifies their oppression.
" Severe necessity places them (free negroes) in a class of degraded be
ings." (Af. Rep., V., 238.) " This law," (by which free negroes are en
slaved unless they leave the State,) " odious and unjust as it may, at first
view, appear, &c, was doubtless dictated by sound policy, and its repeal
would be regarded with none by more unfeigned regret than by the friends
of African colonization." — Powhattan Col. Soe
9. It discourages their education and elevation.
" If the free people of color were generally taught to read, it might be an
inducement to them to remain in this country. We would offer them no
such inducement." — Southern Religious Telegraph, Presbyterian.
" It must appear evident to all, that every endeavor to divert the attention
of the community, or even a portion of the means which the present crisis
so imperatively calls for, from the Colonization Society, to measures calcu
lated to bind the colored population to this country, and seeking to raise
them to a level with the whites, whether by founding colleges or in any other
way, tends directly in proportion that it succeeds, to counteract and thwart
the whole plan of colonization." — New Haven, Conn. Religious Intelli
gencer, Congregational, July, 1831.
This frank avowal discloses the cause of the opposition
made in Connecticut, by leading colonizationists, soon after,
to the establishment of schools for colored children and youth
in Canterbury and New Haven. Tbe writer remembers when
colored children were freely admitted to the public schools in
Connecticut, and when there were no separate pews for ne
groes in the village and country churches. The growth of
prejudice has kept equal pace with the progress, influence,
and popularity of the Colonization Society.
10. It declares the prejudice against them innocent
and incurable. This ground is assumed in self- vindication.
For if the prejudice be criminal, the Society is a transgressor.
And if it be cured, the enterprise of colonization becomes an
abortion. " All the prejudices of society — prejudices which neither refinement, nor
argument, nor education, nor religion itself can subdue — mark the people of
color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation inevitable ani
incurable." — Address Conn. Col. Soe.
" Christianity cannot do for them here, what it will do for them in Afri
ca. This is not the fault of the colored man, nor of the white man, but an

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 349
ordination of Providence, and no more to be changed than the laws of na
ture." — Fifteenth Annual Report, 47.
11. It was pledged in ADVANCE TO OPPOSE abolition
societies.
" The Society having declared that it is in no wise allied to any Abolition
Society, in America or elsewhere, is ready, when there is need, to pass a
censure upon such Societies in America."— Eleventh Annual Report.
This was in January, 1828, more than four years before the
organization of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, the
earliest of the. "modern" Societies. There had been no "abo
lition Societies " in the country, except those formed by Jay,
Franklin, &c, soon after the Eevolutionary war, and which
were now nearly or quite extinct. The possible resuscitation
of those Societies, or the organization of similar ones, must
have been the contingency in view of which this gratuitous
pledge of "censure" was given, in advance of any knowledge
of their particular measures. No reference to the future and
unforeseen "fanaticism" or "imprudence" of "modern abo
litionists," who had not then appeared, can furnish an explan
ation of this measure. Hostility to any efforts for the abolition
of slavery is evident upon the very face ofthe declaration.
Such was the Colonization Society, such its positions, and
such its influence, at the commencement of the present agita
tion of the slave question. And such they remain still.
Philanthropists and friends of the enslaved were, for a long
time, deceived and misled by it, regarding it as an instrument
for the abolition of slavery, and some such possibly are de
ceived by it still, though hundreds of thousands have deserted
and abjured it.
The Colonization Society has been, and still is, the true
representative of the leading men in Church and State, on the
subject of slavery. It furnishes the central point of their
united efforts on that subject, where the political and ecclesi
astical elements controlling the Church and the State (in the
manner described in the preceding chapters) are conjoined.
The same statesmen who have controlled our Cabinets and

350 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Senates, the same theologians, professors, and doctors of
divinity, who have controlled our General Assemblies, Gene
ral Associations, General Conferences, Synods, Bible and Tract
Societies, and Missionary Boards, have come together and
formed and controlled the Colonization Society. The same
imposing array of honorable and reverend names are paraded
on the various catalogues, and their doings and their policy
are the same. Posterity will award to the one the same praise
or blame that they do to the other.
After twenty years' discussion, tbe course and the character
of the Colonization Society are not changed. Whatever may
be said of other bodies, the increase of light, and the diffusion
of intelligence, have made no impression on the Colonization
Society. It represents the class of politicians and ecclesias
tics resolutely opposed to liberty and progress. Among its.
leaders are the advocates and apologists of the new Fugitive
Slave Bill — who preach against the paramount claims of
" higher law." The infamous slave hunts resulting from the
so-called " compromise measures," seem to have infused new
life into it, and restored the energy it exhibited during the,
ascendency of pro-slavery riots, and the attempted legislative
suppression- of free discussion, from 1834 to 1837, of which
some account will appear in the proper place.
The Massachusetts Colonization Society held its Annual
Meeting in Boston, May 26, 1852. Bev. Dr. Derby, of Phila
delphia, made a speech, in which he- insisted that the colored
people can never have their political rights in this country.
He "was born in the South, had been nursed by a slave woman,
had seen the black man under all circumstances, and in all
parts of the United States, and yet he had never seen one.
that was a man." — " He dwelt at some length on the great
blessing American slavery is conferring on the slave, in afford
ing him an opportunity to become acquainted with Chris
tianity, and secure the salvation of his soul." And yet,
according to the same speaker, he could never rise in this
country, and must therefore be colonized to Africa. Among
the officers and prominent members of the Society present,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 351
" were many supporters of Mr. Webster and the Fugitive
Slave law, and signers of the celebrated letter to him, con
gratulating him upon his 7th of March speech, in support of
that bill of abominations." Among these was Bev. Dr. Woods,
who pronounced the benediction at the close. " These gen
tlemen, gray headed v Doctors of Divinity, and cotton politi
cians of Boston, thumped their canes right, heartily at the
speech" of Dr. Derby. Bobert Morris, Esq., a colored lawyer,
of Boston, rose modestly, and wished to ask a few questions,
but was refused.— Vide N. Y. Daily Tribune^ May 28, 1852.
It remains to say that the pretensions of the Colonization
Society of doing much to evangelize Africa, and to check and
limit the slave trade, have been found to be in keeping with
its other pretensions.
As late as 1833 or '34, Bev. Dr. Spring of New York, at a
colonization meeting in that city, lam'ented that the Society
had done nothing for the religious instruction of the emigrants.
The remedy he proposed was the employment of missionaries
by the managers, acting as a Civil Government, at the expense
of the colony, disregarding the objection urged that it would
be (as he admitted it would) a " union of Church and State."
But his measure was not adopted. J. B. Pinney, who was
sent out as a missionary, became Governor of the colony.
On his return, in 1836, he told the writer of this book that
nothing wag doing for the conversion of the natives. In 1839,
Mr. Wilson, the Missionary of the American Board, which is
controlled by Colonizationists, affirmed that the neighborhood
of the colony was not a proper station for a missionary, and
that remoteness from the settlements was. far more desirable.
{See Missionary Herald, Sept., 1839.)
Bum, gunpowder, and spear-pointed knives, have been
among the regular exports from this country to the colony of
Liberia. These are sold to the natives, and especially to the
slave traders, being the indispensable articles of their traffic,
and the causes of the wars that furnish captives to be sold to
them as slaves. The slave trade, instead of being repressed,
(as had been pretended) has been stimulated and encouraged.

352 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
The colonists have maintained a regular traffic with them,
and have visited their stations for that purpose. Shackles
have been sold to them at the colonial settlement at Mensu-
rado. The pages even of the African Bepository (the So
ciety's official) bore testimony, in 1828, that the trade was
increasing.* In 1837 or '38, Dr. Goheen, agent of the So
ciety, residing at Liberia, wrote in defense of the slave trade,
and his letters were published without rebuke in the coloniza
tion papers of this country.
Liberia has now become an independent Government. The
political control of the Colonization Society over it has ter
minated, but it continues to busy itself with the task (accords
ing to its own account) of supplying it with " nuisances " whom
" Christianity can never elevate in this country " for " mis
sionaries" and "statesmen" — to " evangelize the heathen, and
build up an empire in Africa !"

* We have not room for the particulars ; but if the reader will refer to Jay's
Inquiry, pp. 55 to 61 (sixth edition), he will find ample evidence, furnished by the
Colonization Society itself, that the boast of suppressing the slave trade was un
founded, and that it was even carried on in the Colony.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 353

CHAPTEB XXX.
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE BRITISH COLONIES.
Premature triumphs over the supposed abolitionof the Slave Trade — Effects of this
illusion from 1807 till 1823 — Revival of anti-slavery effort in England — Organiza
tion of a Society on the basis of gradualism — Writings of Elizabeth Heyrick in
favor of immediatisirir- ^Pamphlet of Clarkson on the illegality of Slavery — Change
of views and measures — Increased efficiency — Petitions to Parliament — Commence
ment of Anti-Slavery Reporter, 1825 — Parliamentary discussions, 1828-9-30 — ¦
Anti-Slavery meetings — Eminent Advocates — Methodist Conferences, Rectors and
Curates, and Doctors of Divinity, enlisted— Dr. Andrew Thomson of Edinburgh,
Bishop of Bath and Wells — Daniel O'Connell, George Thompson and others —
Protest of Clarkson and Wilberforce against American Colonization Society —
Other political reforms advanced abolition — Ministry of William IV. — Prominent
statesmen — Influences in the West Indies — Missionaries among the Slaves — Op
posed by the planters— Increased feeling in England — Numerous petitions— Can
didates for Parliament questioned — Treatise of Judge Jeremie — Persecutions of
the Missionaries— Outrages against the negroes, 1831 — Trial of Mr. Knibb — His
return to England — Increased agitation — Memorials of Missionary Societies— Gov
ernment orders the demolished chapels to be rebuilt — Orders insolently disre
garded — Committees of Inquiry in Parliament — Pretended preparations for free
dom — Witnesses examined before Parliamentary Committees — Feeble defenses of
the Slave party — Plans of emancipation — Passage of the Act of Abolition —
Apprenticeship— Final Results — Testimonials— Slavery abolished in 'the British
East Indies — Lessons of instruction.
The slave trade and the slavery of this country, during its
colonial state, were substantially the same with the slave trade
and the slavery of the other British American Colonies, in
cluding the British West India Islands-. A common origin, a
common character, and a common relation to British law and
to the British Government, pertained to them. They grew up
together, claiming the shelter of the same royal grants, the
same acts of Parliament for regulating the trade to Africa.
They claimed the benefit of the same judicial precedents and
legal opinions. The friends of liberty in England, for a cen-
23

354 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tury past, have, sympathized and corresponded with those
in this country, on the subject. It seems proper to pre
sent a brief account of the recent anti-slavery struggle in
Great Britain and Ireland, the abolition of slavery in the
British West Indies, and the results of that measure.
The error of supposing that the slave trade could be, in
reality, abolished, while slavery itself was permitted to exist,
has been already noticed,* as also the kindred error of sup
posing that the abolition. of the slave trade, even if it could
be accomplished, would virtually abolish slavery.f These
delusions prevailed among the friends of liberty, on both
sides of the Atlantic, with few and solitary exceptions. The
legal abolition of the African slave trade by Great Britain
and America, in 1807-8, was hailed as the grand jubilee of
the colored race. The warfare was supposed to have been
accomplished, and that nothing more remained but to cele
brate the achievement, and immortalize the names of the
victors. Celebrations were held, orations were delivered, pic
tures were painted and engraved, and poems were written
and dedicated to noble Dukes.*): Nothing, in fact, in the way
of gratulation, triumph, and glorification, was left undone.
Demonstrations, to a certain extent, in this direction, might
have been very well, had they been so shaped as to furnish
incentives to farther and similar efforts, not forgetting that
the slaves were still left in their chains, that not one of them
had been released by the prohibition of the slave trade, and
that, in Great Britain at least, the measure had been carried,
in certain circles, by arguments conceding the undisturbed
continuance of slavery itself. As it was, the gratulation was
disproportionate and premature, tending to relax effort, to re
press inquiry, and discountenance further aggressive measures.
On both sides of the Atlantic has this influence been felt;
and in America it is felt still. We content ourselves to gar
nish the sepulchres of the early British and American aboli
tionists, while refusing to give effect to their labors.
'"¦Chapter VII. + Chapter X. X Copley's History of Slavery, ill.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 355
It required the whole time from 1807 to 1823, for British
abolitionists to recollect that the slaves in the colonies were
still in bondage, and to discover that the African slave trade*
was undiminished in extent and horrors. Even then the
measures adopted were inadequate to the exigency.
In 1823 was formed the " Society for the mitigation and
gradual abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions,"
of which the " Patron and President was the Duke of Glou
cester." Among the Vice Presidents, twenty in number, were
the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Bristol, Earl Nugent,
Lord Suffield, Lord Calvert, Henry Brougham, M. P., Thos.
Fowell Buxton, M. P., Thomas Clarkson, Stephen Lushing-
ton, LL.D., M. P., and William Wilberforce, M. P., &c. Among
the Committee were James Cropper, Esq., of Liverpool, Sam
uel Gurney, Esq., Zachary Macauley, Esq., T. B. Macauley,
Esq., Thomas Sturge, Esq., Wm. Wilberforce, Jun., Esq., and
Bev. H. Venn.
The ground of immediate and unconditional emancipation
was not yet taken by the great body of British abolitionists,
as the name of this society gives evidence :
" About this time considerable attention was excited by a small tract,
widely circulated, entitled ' Immediate, not gradual, Abolition, or an Inquiry
into the shortest, safest, and most effectual means of getting rid of West
Indian Slavery.' This tract, though published anonymously, was generally
understood to be the production of a talented and benevolent Lady, Miss
Hope, of Liverpool. "f — Copley's History, p. 329.
The more common and prevalent account, however, is, that
Elizabeth Heyrick was the first public advocate, in England,
of the doctrine of immediate and unconditional abolition, as

* It should be mentioned, perhaps, that Messrs. Stephen and Wilberforce, in
1816, introduced and supported in Parliament the Registry Bill, designed to " pre
vent the illicit introduction of slaves from Africa," which was carried against a
strong opposition from the Colonists and their partisans. But the history of the
slave trade, since that time, as already shown (Chap. VII.), demonstrates the utter
inefficiency of all measures for its suppression, during the continuance of slavery,
t Ou inquiry, since writing the above, we have been told, on authority of John
Seoble, of London, that the pamphlet here attributed to Miss Hope was written by
Elizabeth Heyrick (or rather Herrick, which is now said to be the correct spoiling.)

356 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
before taught by Hopkins and Edwards in America, and that
she was the author of a pamphlet in vindication of that doc
trine. — Vide British Reforms and Reformers, by H. B. Stanton.
Another advance position, of almost equal importance, was,
about this time, taken, in a pamphlet by the venerable Thomas
Clarkson. The reader will recall the fact, already noticed,
that little progress was made in Parliament towards the legis
lative prohibition of the slave trade, until William Pitt demon
strated, on a certain occasion in the House of Commons, that
the slave trade (all its high pretensions of legality notwith
standing) had been, from the beginning, illegal. A similar
position was now taken by Mr. Clarkson, concerning slavery
itself, in the British Colonies. In doing this, however, he only
revived and re-affirmed the old doctrine of Granville Sharp.*
In this pamphlet Mr. Clarkson showed, to the satisfaction
of the British people, that there never had been any legal
slavery in any of the British Colonies. All had been usurpa
tion and assumption from the beginning.
He affirmed " that the planters can neither prove a moral
nor a legal right to their slaves." Having examined, the moral
right of the claim, he proceeded to argue the illegality of
slavery :
" He brought the slaveholder's claim to the test of original grants, or per
missions of Government, act of Parliament, charters, or English laws."
He showed " that neither the African slave trade, nor West Indian slavery
would have been allowed at first, but for the misrepresentations and false
hoods of those engaged in them " — " that the original Government grants
and permissions had their origin in fraud and falsehood ; and if the premises
fall, all conclusions and concessions grounded on them must fall, too." —
" Then, as to charters — slavery had indeed been upheld and kept together
by the laws which the charters gave those Colonies power to make ; that
now slavery, nevertheless, was illegal, for in all the charters it was
expressed that the laws and statutes made under them must not be repug
nant, but conformable to the laws of Great Britain. But these did not
allow of slavery." — "Indeed, the slaveholders themselves admitted that if
debarred whatever was repugnant to the laws of England, they did not
see how they could have any title to their slaves, likely to be supported by
t See Chap. VI.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 357
the laws of England. In fact, the Colonial system was at constant vari
ance with the whole spirit and letter of the English Constitution." — Cop
ley's Hist., pp. 317-18.
There can be no doubt that the dissemination and reception
of these views exerted a most powerful influence in producing
a Parliamentary prohibition of slavery in the Colonies of
Great Britain. It is difficult to conceive how these views
could be controverted without virtually demanding a reversal
of the decision of Lord Mansfield in the Somerset case, in
1772 ; and equally difficult to see why, if that decision was
correct, the reasoning and the inferences of Mr. Clarkson do
not apply to the Continental as well as to the Island Colonies
of Great Britain, continuing, as they did, until July 4, 1776,
under the asgis of Great Britain. This being established, it
would be natural to inquire whether or how the memorable
Declaration of the States, at that date, could have legalized
the previously illegal slavery of this country.
But to return. The meliorating and gradual policy termi
nated, as might have been foreseen. The British Govern
ment, in response to anti-slavery petitions, entered readily
into measures for mitigating the condition of slavery, as cheap
as they were useless, proposing to provide means of religious
instruction for the slaves, to extend their privileges, to receive
their testimony in courts, to protect their rights of marriage
and property, to remove obstructions to manumissions, to pre
vent the separation of families, to restrain the power of arbi
trary punishment, especially the flogging of females, and to
establish a Savings' Bank for the use of slaves. All these
reforms were committed to the care of the Colonial Legisla
tures, showing that the British Government and people had
much to learn concerning slavery and slaveholding legislators.
This was in 1823.
These moderate concessions were rejected and trampled
upon by the local authorities as subversive of all the control
of the master over the slave, ruinous to the Colonies, and
unsafe for the inhabitants.
In 1825, the Anti-Slavery Society commenced publishing

358 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
and circulating " The Monthly Anti-Slavery Repor.ter," by
Zachary Macauley, Esq., the father of Thomas B. Macauley,
the Essayist and Historian. The second Annual Beport
lamented that so little had been accomplished for the benefit
of the slaves. Very little indeed had been attempted in the
Colonies, and even this had proved a failure. The slaves
understood that the home Government had provided some
thing for them, which had been withheld. This made them
the more discontented, and these discontents were magnified
by the enemies of progress, and turned into arguments against
it. Petitions were now circulated for the abolition of slavery
in the Colonies.
During two sessions of Parliament, little was done except
in respect to particular abuses, as the persecution and expul
sion of certain missionaries and free persons of color, &c,
also in respect to the Mauritius slave trade, the conduct of the
Colonial Assemblies in rejecting or delaying the proposed
reforms, &c. Much important information came to light in
the discussions. In 1828, the discussion of this latter topic
was resumed. The Secretary of State, Mr. Huskisson, repre
sented that some improvements had been made. Mr. Can
ning, then deceased, was quoted as having said, " Trust not
the masters of slaves in what concerns legislation for slavery."
A great public anti-slavery meeting was held, the Duke of
Gloucester presiding, and Mr. Brougham, Mr. Wilberforce,
Mr. Buxton, Bev. G. Noel, and other distinguished men, took
a part in the proceedings. From this time petitions against
slavery began to load both Houses of Parliament.
In May, 1829, Mr. Brougham introduced in Parliament the
subject of slave evidence, and a reform of Colonial judicature.
Sir George Murray agreed to the propriety of this measure.
Anti-slavery petitions were now multiplied. Discussions be
came general, and earnest debates among the people were
frequent. Important meetings were held in different portions
of Great Britain and Ireland. The Catholic emancipation
bill brought in a new accession of strength from Ireland to

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 359
the ' cause of the enslaved. The friends of liberty were
encouraged also by the abolition of slavery in Mexico.
In May, 1830, a general meeting of the Anti-Slavery Soci
ety was held, Mr. Wilberforce presiding ; called to the Chair
by Mr. Clarkson. The result was an earnest petition to Par
liament no longer to postpone the subject, but to fix a day,
after which all children born should be free.
This petition was presented to the House of Commons by
Mr. Brougham, in July. A motion made by him, pledging
the House " to take steps for the immediate mitigation and
final abolition of slavery," was lost, fifty-six against twenty-
seven. " Meantime, public meetings were held, and anti-slavery
petitions prepared throughout the kingdom. One petition
from Edinburgh received twenty-two thousand signatures, and
from other places in like proportion."
Men of learning, talent, piety, and influence, espoused the
cause in public meetings, and missionaries who had been
driven home from their field of labor in the West Indies,
appeared in these meetings to bear their testimony against the
slave system. The question became a political one, and elec
tions to Parliament turned on the position of the candidates.
The Methodist Conferences and ministers, in a body, exhorted their
brethren, for the love of Christ, to vote for no candidates not known
as pledged to the cause of abolition. Bectors and curates of the
Established Church, as well as ministers of the dissenting
sects, took an active part in anti-slavery meetings, and eyen
lectured from place to place. Doctors of Divinity, instead of
searching their Bibles in quest of apologies for slaveholding,
made use of them for the purpose of urging upon the people
and their rulers the duty of " breaking every yoke, and let- '
ting the oppressed go free." Among these, Bev. Andrew
Thomson, D.D., of Edinburgh, signalized himself as a most
efficient public advocate of immediate emancipation. The
influence and the efforts of such men as Bev. John Angell
James, of Birmingham, and the Bev. J. G. Pike (the author
of> "Persuasives to Early. Piety"), were enlisted on the same

360 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
side. In one word, the learning and the piety of Great
Britain were earnestly, honestly, and without reserve or
equivocation, thrown into the anti-slavery enterprise.
At an anti-slavery meeting in Bath, the Bishop of Bath and
Wells presided, and Mr. Wilberforce, after forty years labor
to secure gradual and prospective measures, came forward to
advocate immediate action. At this meeting an attempt was
made to create a disturbance by clamor and hisses. Order
being restored, a debate was held on the claims of the slave
holders to compensation.
The excitement in the country ran high. " At Bristol, a
most disgraceful uproar was made by the upholders of slavery,
who interrupted a meeting, regularly commenced." At a sub
sequent meeting, there was an earnest debate.
It was during the agitation and debates of this period that
George Thompson, who afterwards lectured for a time in this
country, became distinguished as an eloquent advocate of the
cause, and acquired a reputation which afterwards gave him
a seat in Parliament. Charles Stuart, also well known to the
friends of liberty in this country, rendered efficient services
at that period, both by his pen and his voice. Joseph Sturge,
of Birmingham, a wealthy and talented gentleman, of the
Society of Friends, was among the efficient laborers in the
cause, as was also John Scoble, of London, the laborious and
vigilant Secretary of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery
Society. The doctrines and measures of gradualism and melioration
were now abandoned by abolitionists, for those of immediate
and unqualified emancipation on the soil, and tbe claim of any
compensation to the master was abjured. In these views, as
well as in opposition to the characteristic principles and aims
ofthe Colonization Society, (whose agents had solicited patron
age in England,) the venerable Clarkson and Wilberforce
heartily concurred. On this latter topic, Mr. Clarkson repeat
edly employed his pen. And one of the last acts of Mr. Wil
berforce was the signature of a protest against the American

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 861
scheme of expatriation, a short time before his death, which
occurred in July, 1833.
This salutary change in the policy, the measures, and the
teachings of British abolitionists produced corresponding fruits.
As soon as the public conscience was distinctly and pungently
addressed, it began to be reached and operated upon to good
purpose. Other causes concurred to favor the revolution in progress.
The Catholic Emancipation bill of 1829, brought with it an
accession of strength to the cause of slave emancipation, and
the celebrated champion of Irish enfranchisement, Daniel
O'Connell, was always ready to advocate the claims of the
negroes. The repeal of the odious Corporation and Test Acts, in
1828, placing dissenters on an equal ground of eligibility to
office, and the similar concession to Catholic subjects, a few
months after, encouraged freedom of discussion on general
subjects, and brought into the field of political action large
numbers who had learned to sympathize with the oppressed.
The celebrated Beform bill of 1832 belongs to the same cate
gory, and may be mentioned here, though in advance of its
chronological order. By this measure the unjust and dispro
portionate suffrage of the ancient boroughs, beyond their
present proportion of inhabitants, in electing members to Par
liament, was done away, and the masses of the industrious
people were, in some measure, restored to their political
rights. It is pleasing to notice how all these democratic refor
mations favored the introduction of redress for the enslaved.
And the reader will have observed the general fact, both in
the British and American legislatures, that measures in behalf
of justice and freedom are commonly carried in the popular
branch first. The department nearest to the mass of the peo
ple and most directly responsible to them, is soonest reached
by the voice of humanity and conscience.*
* An argument designed to prove the worthlessness of democratic institutions
has been drawn from the alleged fact that the enjoyment of universal suffrage in

362 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Add to this the new ministry, formed soon after the acces
sion of William IV., in 1830, were favorable, beyond all
former precedent, to the cause of abolition and general free
dom. Grey, Lansdowne, Holland, Brougham, Durham, Al-
thorpe, Howick, Melbourne, Palmerston, Goderich, Eussell,
Auckland, Stanley, Graham, Denman.
To these influences in England, we may add others in the
West Indies. Christian missionaries were at work there.
Beligion, and a knowledge of letters had begun to reach and
open the minds of the enslaved, for West Indian slavery had
not as effectually bolted the doors of its prison-house against
the light of heaven, as has the slavery of our North American
States. British Protestantism had not learned nor taught that
" oral instruction " was sufficient for slaves. Bibles, to some
extent, had been furnished them, and they had been allowed
to build chapels for worship.
But the determined advocates. of slavery were beginning to
discover their mistake. They saw that intelligence and purity
were incompatible with the condition of slavery. The mis
sionaries, too, with all their abundant prudence, (forbearing
to instruct the slaves in their heaven-conferred rights,) had
not learned to teach a religion that justified oppression, or that
could be embraced without aspirations after freedom. The
missionaries began to foresee a little of the struggle that was be
fore them, if the West Indies were ever to be christianized.
They patiently labored on, waiting the event, while the plant
ers regarded them with suspicion, and watched for opportuni
ties and pretexts for ejecting them. The overruling provi
dence of God was visibly at work preparing the way for the
change that was to take place.
It was under this state of things that the anti-slavery agita
tion progressed in Great Britain. " Early in 1831, the num-

America has never secured the abolition of slavery. The sophism lies in the noto
rious fact that the premises are untrue. Universal suffrage is not enjoyed in
America; all the slaves, and most of the free people of color, being excluded
from the polls. To establish the universal suffrage in America, would be to abolish
American slavery.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 363
ber of petitions presented in one session amounted to upward
of five thousand." On motion of Mr. Buxton, April 15, the
House of Commons resolved to consider, speedily, the best
means of effecting the abolition of slavery throughout the
British dominions, but a few days after the Parliament was
adjourned. A public meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society was held,
Lord Suffield presiding. "The speakers were Mr. Buxton,
Sir James Mackintosh, Dr. Lushington, Bev. D. Wilson, (since
Bishop of Calcutta,) Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Sheil,Mr. Pownall,
Bev. J. Burnett, Bev. Mr. Watson, Mr. Evans, Mr. Stephen,
Bev. J. Cunningham. They insisted upon the utter extinc
tion of slavery by act of Parliament, and, to this end, ihe im
portance of " a judicious use, on the part of the people, of their right
of choosing their representatives." " The formation of a new Par
liament was, in no small degree, influenced by these considera
tions"* At the " hustings," where, after the English custom, the
candidates presented themselves to be questioned, while the
people were voting, they were constantly and publicly inter
rogated by the individual voters, as they came up, one after
another, " Will you vote for ihe abolition of slavery f" and as the
answer was yea or nay, (or dubious,) the vote was given or
withheld. On these election days was fought the decisive
battles of West Indian freedom. Under these influences was
elected the first Beform Parliament which assembled at the
close of the year 1832,f to signalize itself by one of the most
glorious achievements of modern legislation.
At the close of 1831 there appeared an important work on
Colonial Slavery, by Judge Jeremie, late of St. Lucia. Its
disclosures made a powerful impression upon the mind of the
British nation. No longer were apologies needed for the
"extravagant statements of over excited abolitionists." The
workings of the slave system, the condition of the enslaved,
and the demoralization of the masters, were shown to be alto-
* Copley's Rist., p. 358. t lb., p. 444.

364 GREAT STRUGGLE •¦ BETWEEN
gether and immeasurably worse than any of ,the abolitionists
had ever supposed, or could have imagined. Documentary
facts demonstrated that "truth is stranger than fiction," and
" the poetry of philanthropy " became stale by the side of the
records of jurisprudence. Judge Jeremie had been strongly
prepossessed in favor of the slaveholders, had gone out there
with the determination to administer, impartially, the laws
of the country, had found the task utterly impracticable, and
had returned. There could be no such thing as the reign of
impartial law, in a community of slaveholders. One specifi
cation, illustrated by a variety of incidents, was this ; that, in
no case before a court of justice, where the claims of slavery,
or the interests of master and slave were involved, was the
least reliance to be placed upon the testimony, tinder oath, of
any slaveholder, however exalted his station, or however-sanc
timonious his professions.
About the same time that these disclosures were made in
England, the West India Islands were becoming the theatre
of new outrages, the knowledge of which, in England, soon
after, could not fail to swell the tide of public indignation
against slavery.
"It had long been a trick of West Indian policy, when any measure
favorable to negro emancipation, or at all bearing upon it, was in progress,
to excite among the slaves some trifling brawl with their managers, which
was then dignified with the formidable name of an insurrection, the military
forces were called out to suppress it, at a wanton expense of negro blood,
and then intelligence was sent home, by way of proving the unfitness of the
negroes for emancipation." — Copley's Hist., 371.
"In 1815, when Mr. Wilberforce gave notice of a bill for the registration
of all Colonial slaves, a universal clamor was excited in the West Indies;"
and sham insurrections were enacted for producing an effect in England.
In 1823, the movements in England occasioned similar demonstrations.
"Rumors of plots and insurrections were constantly assailing the publio
ear."— 14., p. 371-4.
The close of the year 1831, and the beginning of 1832,
were signalized by a more general and violent outbreak of
slaveholding fury, which proved to be the deatht struggle of
West India slavery. The moderate measures of melioration

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 365
proposed by the British Government, produced the greatest
excitement among the planters of Jamaica. They held public
meetings, threatening to resist the mother country, and re
nounce allegianee to the King. This was directly calculated
to rouse the slaves, yet they remained quiet, and measures
were next resorted to, designed evidently to produce an ap
pearance of disturbance among them. The term of their
usual Christmas holidays was unlawfully abridged, and when
they were ordered to their work, before the close of their ac
customed recreations, a portion of them refused. This refusal
was magnified into an insurrection, and proclamations in the
name of the King were solemnly issued, announcing the pre
tended fact, and spreading consternation and alarm in every
direction. The militia were ordered out, attacks were made
upon the defenseless negroes, they were shot down in great
numbers, and their cane-sheds and houses destroyed. " It
does not appear that the negroes attempted the life of any
person, but their determined insubordination was very evi
dent." By the testimony of the more moderate among the
planters themselves, as well as of the missionaries, afterwards,
there was no necessity, for any purposes of self-defense, for
this wanton attack upon the negroes.
But the malice of the slaveholders did not exhaust itself
thus. The missionaries, Baptists, Wesleyans, and Moravians,
shared a large portion of their fury. In their religious in
structions, they had abstained, even to a fault, from teaching
the slaves the wickedness of slaveholding and the extent and
sacredness of their own rights. It does not appear that they
had directly admonished the slaveholders of their great sin.
But they had undoubtedly done something for the moral and
intellectual improvement of the slaves, — they had treated
their converts as brethren in Christ — and this was an unpar
donable sin against the slave system ! From the beginning of
the disturbances already mentioned, they had done all in their
power to keep the slaves quiet, and to dissuade them from
acts of ins.ubordination and aggression. They had taken
pains to disabuse some of them of the mistaken impression

366 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
that the King had made them free. They had even entreated
them to resume their labors. But all this did not suffice to
conciliate or pacify the slaveholders. Tbe missionaries were
arrested, insulted, threatened with hanging, imprisoned, tried
for their lives, and no arts of bribery or intimidation left un
tried to extort testimony against them that should seem to
warrant their conviction and execution. The newspaper
presses, in the meantime, teemed with the most inflammatory
and shameless falsehoods against them, declaring that "it
would be a grateful exhibition to the island to see a dozen of
them gibbeted." One editor called on the public to "raze
their chapels to the ground, and then take away their lives."
When no charges could be substantiated against them, they
were nevertheless incarcerated in filthy prisons, and by this
means, perhaps, chiefly, they escaped, for a season, the rage
of the mob. When, at length, they were bailed out, the
magistrates who had extended to them this favor, were de
nounced and villified in their turn. Even the more moderate
and enlightened portion of 'the inhabitants were led to con
clude that the missionaries must have been very imprudent.
Their friends strongly urged them to leave the island, assur
ing them that their usefulness was at end. On every side
they encountered countenances distorted by expressions of
malice and revenge.
At this critical juncture, the arrival of some new missiona
ries, along with Mr. Burchell, a missionary who had been to
England for his health, was made the occasion for a new out
break. Mr. Burchell was immediately arrested, and absurdly
charged with having participated in the rebellion. He was
liberated on bail. Mr. Knibb and his companions were again
summoned to answer to charges of having preached in an un
licensed house to a large congregation of negroes and others.
After examination they were discharged. But the fury of
the slaveholders could no longer be restrained. They assem
bled in mobs, demolished -the chapels of the missionaries, and
threatened their lives. " Both magistrates and militia were
actively engaged in this work." Finding it unsafe to remain

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 367
on shore, the missionaries sought shelter on board some
British vessels in the harbor, but the captains were afraid to
receive them, lest the inhabitants should refuse to load their
vessels. At length, Captain Trefusis consented to receive
them, till the excitement subsided.
The missionaries memorialized the Governor, protesting
their innocence, and asking redress for the loss of their cha
pels. The Governor issued a proclamation denouncing these
acts of violence, and enjoining on the magistrates to quell all
disorderly meetings, to protect property, and bring the of
fenders to justice. But the proclamation was torn down from
the walls. The very persons called upon to bring offenders
to justice, were themselves the offenders.
" The most base and malignant efforts were still made to
implicate the missionaries." Negroes were threatened, and
even cruelly tortured to make them testify that the missiona
ries — especially that Mr. Burchell — had excited them to rebel.
But they steadily affirmed the contrary, and the persecutors
were defeated in this part of their scheme. Public meetings
were, however, held by them, at which "gentlemen" regretted
that they were not present at the destruction of the chapels ;
others made speeches, declaring that they must "get rid of
the Baptists ;" that if the House of Assembly would not ex
pel them, other measures must be taken ; that " neither ought
the Wesleyans to be allowed to remain ;" that Mr. Murray (a
Wesleyan missionary) should be informed that " it would be
at the risk of his life that he attempted to preach," &c. Beso-
lutions to the same effect were adopted at meetings in differ
ent parts of the island, declaring that they must " get rid of all
sectaries," or dissenting ministers. Clergymen, however, of
the Church Establishment, who favored the religious instruc
tion of the negroes, found little less favor at their hands.
Mr. Knibb was released the 14th of February, after a pe
riod of imprisonment, but was soon after informed of a de
sign against his life, and his house was the same evening
assaulted. Similar attacks were made upon others.
" On the evening of Mr. Burchell's release, a white mob

368 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
collected around his lodgings, vowing they would tar and
feather him." By the exertions of the colored people, and
the presence of the chief justice, they were deterred from
their purpose, on the condition that Mr. B. should leave the
island, to which he consented, and a detachment guarded him
through the streets to embark. Messrs. Gardner and Knibb
were subjected to trial the following week, and the next thing
we hear is " that this very same William Knibb, who had
been treated as an incendiary, a promoter of rebellion, was
employed to examine certain negroes, and find out, if possi
ble, the causes of the rebellion." The result proved that the
violent meetings of the slaveholders, already mentioned, at
which they threatened to resist the British Government and
throw off their allegiance to the King, was the first thing that
made the slaves suspect that the British Government and the
King had ordered their liberation.
Mr. Knibb was, nevertheless, urgently requested by some
of the magistrates to leave the island, and finding it impossi
ble to be longer useful in that field of labor, he consented, in
April, 1832, to do so, and was appointed by the other mis
sionaries to represent their case to the people. of England.
This act sealed the overthrow of slavery in the British West
Indies. The reveMtions of Mr. Knibb, on his return home,
convinced the British nation that Slavery and Christianity
could not co-exist in the Islands, and the doom of slavery
became certain. Some attempts were, in the meantime, made
by the missionaries remaining in Jamaica to resume their
labors, but in vain. The further preaching of the Gospel
among the slaves awaited the abolition of slavery.
The Missionary Societies in England, through their com
mittees, represented to the Colonial Secretary of State, Lord
Goderich, the outrages that had been committed in Jamaiea.
" Instructions were accordingly forwarded to Lord Mulgrave,
tbe newly appointed Governor of Jamaica, and by him
recommended to the House of Assembly, to provide means
for rebuilding the thirteen Baptist and four Wesleyan chapels,
so wantonly and illegally destroyed." " These recommenda-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 369
tions were disregarded, or rather, insolently rejected," thus
revealing to the British Government the temper of the slave
party. But it was found necessary, for the security of all
houses of worship, to enact a law for the future, that if any
such building should be injured or destroyed by a mob, the
damage should be repaired by the county. Committees of
inquiry were instituted in Parliament respecting these out
rages, and respecting the pretended rebellion on the part of
the negroes, and the whole truth of the case, at last, came to
light. The pretense of preparing the slaves for freedom,
while opposing by violence their instruction, was thoroughly
exposed. The meetings of Missionary Societies became anti-
slavery meetings. The Anti-Slavery Society took the ground
of immediate and unconditional emancipation, and from every
part, of the United Kingdom there came up one united de
mand for the utter abolition of slavery.
" On the 9th of June, 1832, Lord Goderich addressed a circular to the
Governors of the Colonies, announcing to them the formation of a Commit
tee in the House of Commons, in consequence of the numerous petitions
for the abolition of slavery, to consider and report what measures it might
be expedient to adopt with that view." — Copley's Hist., 430.
A similar committee was appointed in the House of Lords.
A large number of witnesses were examined before both of
these committees, and voluminous statistical facts were intro
duced, particularly by Mr. Buxton, touching the main ques
tions concerning slavery, and the. workings of emancipation
wherever it had been tried. The slave party did their best
to sustain themselves during these investigations, but their
efforts only served to establish the positions of the abolition
ists. Their " reluctant admissions and awkward apologies or
evasions of adverse witnesses," says Copley, "only served to
confirm and establish the views of all thinking and impartial
persons on the other side."
The objections that emancipation would not be safe, that
the liberated slaves would rise against their masters, that the
Islands would be reduced to a state of anarchy and overrun
with idlers and vagabonds — objections once so powerful as
24

370 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
to stagger the faith of philanthropists themselves, were now
completely overthrown, and all the terrors they had created
were dispelled, in the light of well attested historical facts.
The "horrors of St. Domingo" were shown to be the horrors
of slavery, and not oi freedom. The history of emancipation
was found to be the history of the most beneficial results.
The ancient Eomans had tested the policy of emancipation,
to obtain soldiers in their wars against Hannibal. The testi
mony of Tiberius Gracchus, confirmed by Cicero, and approved
by Montesquieu, assures us of the salutary effects. Chris
tianity had abolished slavery throughout the Eoman Empire
without disaster. The feudal system had been displaced in
modern Europe, and nobody deplored the change. English
slaves liberated, a few centuries ago by their Irish masters,
did not cut the throats of their benefactors. In Chili, every
child born after the 10th of October, 1811, was declared free :
in Buenos Ayres, after January, 1813.' In Colombia, all slaves
bearing arms were emancipated July 19, 1821, and provisions
made for emancipating the remainder, amounting to two hun
dred and eighty thousand. In" Mexico, Sept. 15th, 1829,
instantaneous and unconditional emancipation was extended
to every slave. In Guadaloupe, eighty-five thousand slaves
were set free in 1794, when there was a population of only
thirteen thousand whites. At the Cape of Good Hope, thirty
thousand Hottentots were emancipated in 1823. In all these
instances, the change had taken place without producing any
-unhappy results.
Facts, of which these are a specimen, when spread out
before the British Government and the British public, pre
pared the way for a still more signal and illustrious exempli
fication of the safety of doing right !
Matters in Jamaica, in the meantime, were ripening for the
final result. Lord Mulgrave, the new Governor sent from
England, in his speech to the Colonial Assembly, had recom
mended the religious instruction of the slaves. So far from
responding to the sentiment, the Assembly recorded its threats
of revolt from the British Government, whereupon the Gov-

Slavery and freedom. "371
ernor dissolved the Assembly. A new election, under the
Eeform bill, which extended, it seems, to the Colonies, secured
an Assembly of more moderate and liberal views.
The first reformed British Parliament assembled about the
close of the year 1832. Mr. Buxton soon gave notice of a
motion for the abolition of slavery, unless the Government
should take the matter into its own hands. LordAlthorpe
stated, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government
to do so, and that he would shortly bring a bill before the
House, which he trusted would be both safe and satisfactory.
The nation now waited for this measure in almost breathless
suspense. The 23d of April, 1833, was the day appointed for bring-*
ing it forward, and the Anti-Slavery Society improved the
interim by holding a public meeting in Exeter Hall, at which
speeches were made by Lord Suffield, Mr. Buxton, Joseph
John Gurney, Earl Fitzwilliam, Bev. J. W. Cunningham, G.
Strickland, M.P., Eev. J. Burnet, H. Pownall, Esq., Mr. Geo.
Stephen, Lord Milton, Dr. Lushington, and others.
" A still more important meeting was held in the same hall
a few days afterwards," consisting of three hundred and sixty-
nine delegates from various parts of the United Kingdom.
" More than three hundred of the delegates attended at the
house of Earl Grey, to present a memorial, which was read
by Mr. Gurney." The deputation had an audience with Lord
Althorpe, and with Mr. Stanley, the Colonial Secretary of
State. They represented the necessity of immediate and total
emancipation, in the full confidence that such an emancipation
would be peaceable. These views were embodied in a memo
rial to Lord Grey, and exerted, no doubt, a strong influence
upon the Government.
The plan first proposed, however, was unsatisfactory. It
contemplated a compensation of £15,000,000 to the planters,
which was to be paid out of the earnings of the negroes. It
proposed a twelve years' apprenticeship, during which- time
the compensation money was to be earned.
Abolitionists justly contended that compensation was due

372 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
if at all, to the slave, and not to the master. They contended
that emancipation should be entire and immediate.- The
planters, on the other hand, petitioned for compensation.
While these questions were pending, the friends of emancipa
tion held another meeting, July 20, and protested against the
objectionable features of tbe bill.
Tbe details of the act of emancipation were finally adjusted
on this basis, viz :
1. The entire extinction of slavery, to take place on the 1st
of August, 1834.
2. Field laborers, above six years old, to serve as appren
tices for six years, ending 1st of August, 1840.
3. Domestic or house servants to serve as apprentices four
years, ending first of August, 1838.
4. Children under six years, to be free, without apprentice
ship. Children hereafter born to be free.
5. The slaves to pay.no part of their redemption money,
but a compensation of £20,000,000 out. ofthe public treasury
to be paid to the planters, at the .close ofthe apprenticeship.
Other regulations were specified, for securing the rights of
the apprentices and their masters.
The bill passed the House of Commons August 7, the House
of Lords, August 20, and received the royal assent August
28th, 1833.'
It remains to record the results of this measure.
The first of August, 1834, came and passed peacefully, with
out the slightest disturbance, in any of the islands. • And
there has been none since.
In Antigua and Bermuda, the Colonial Legislatures pre
ferred to dispense with the apprenticeship system, believing
immediate and complete emancipation to be safest, and desir
ing likewise the earlier reception of the compensation money,
to which this measure would entitle them. They reaped the
double reward of their sagacity, experiencing none of the per
plexity occasioned by the apprenticeship system elsewhere.
In Jamaica, Barbadoes, and the other islands, the appren
ticeship went into operation, and worked as well as could

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 373
have been anticipated. But its inconveniences and vexations
led to its voluntary abandonment, and the entire freedom of
the field laborers, on the first of August, 1838, two years be
fore the time limited in the statute.
In Barbadoes, with a population of 140,000, only 20,000
were whites. In Jamaica, with a population of 450,000, only
37,000 were whites.
In all the British emancipated colonies, with' a population
of about 1,125,000, only about 131,000 were whites, being a
little more than one-ninth part. Yet the tranquillity of the
inhabitants was not in the slightest degree disturbed. The
testimony on this point has never been questioned. The Gov
ernor of J amaica, Sir Lionel Smith, in his speech to the As
sembly, October 30, 1838, said :
" The conduct of the laboring population, who were the objects of your
liberal and enlightened policy, entitles them to the highest praise, and proves
how well they deserved the boon of freedom." '¦ I trust there is every
prospect of agricultural prosperity."
To this speech the Assembly of Jamaica responded thus :
" The House join with your Excellency in bearing testimony to the peace
ful manner in which the laboring population have conducted themselves in a
state of freedom."
Queen Victoria, in her speech to the British Parliament,
February 5, 1839, said :
" It is with great satisfaction that I am enabled to inform you, that
throughout the whole of my West India possessions, the period fixed by law
for the complete and final emancipation of the negroes, has been anticipated
by acts of the colonial legislatures, and that the transition from the temporary
system of apprenticeship to entire freedom, has taken place without any
DISTURBANCE OP PUBLIO ORDER AND TRANQUILLITY."
The islands, since emancipation took place, have been re
peatedly visited by philanthropists well known in both hem
ispheres, for the purpose of collecting information concerning
the workings of freedom. James A. Thome, of Kentucky,
(afterwards Professor at Oberlin,) in company with Joseph H.
Kimball of New Hampshire, went thither in November, 1836,
and returned in June, 1837. Joseph Sturge and Thomas

374 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Harvey of England took an elaborate survey in 1837. Joseph
John Gurney followed in 1839-40. The results of these seve
ral investigations are before the public in three interesting
volumes* The trustworthiness of these highly respectable
and competent witnesses has never been questioned. They
all agree, substantially, in the particulars which follow, and
which are extracted from the work of Thome and Kimball.
Similar facts and testimonials have since been officially re
ported to the British Government, and published in, the
British Anti-Slavery Beporter. The information on which
the following propositions were founded, was obtained from
large numbers of the principal planters, magistrates, and pro
fessional gentlemen on the island of Antigua, whose names
are preserved in the volume, with their testimony in their own
words. We give only the substance of the principal state
ments. 1. " The transition from slavery to freedom was a great revolution, by
which a prodigious change was effected in the condition of the negroes."
2. " Emancipation (in distinction from apprenticeship,) was the result of
political and pecuniary considerations, merely."
3. " The event of emancipation passed peaceably. The gloomiest antici
pations had been previously entertained."
4. " There has been, since emancipation, not only no rebellion in fact, but
no fear of it."
5. "There has been no fear of house-breaking, highway robberies, and
like misdemeanors, since emancipation."
6. " Emancipation is regarded, by all classes, as a great blessing to the
island." 7. " Free labor is decidedly less expensive than slave labor.."
8. " The negroes work more cheerfully, and do their work better."
9. " The negroes are more easily managed as freemen, than they were
when slaves."
10. " The negroes are more trustworthy, and take a deeper interest in
their employer's affairs, since emancipation."
11. "The experiment of Antigua proves that emancipated slaves can
appreciate law."

(1.) Journal of J. A. Thome and J. H. Kimball.
(2.) The West Indies, in 1837, by Joseph Sturge and Thomas Harvey.
(S.) Letters to Henry Clay, &c, by Joseph John Gurney.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 375
12, " The emancipated negroes have shown no disposition to roam from
place to place."
13. " The gift of unrestricted freedom, though so suddenly bestowed, has
not made the negroes more insolent than they were while slaves, but has
rendered them less so."
14. " Emancipation has demonstrated that gratitude is a prominent trait
of negro character."
15. " The freed negroes have proved that they are able to take care of
themselves." 16. " Emancipation has operated at once to elevate and improve the
negroes." 17. " Emancipation promises a vast improvement in the condition of
woman." 18. " Real estate has risen in value since emancipation, mercantile and
mechanical operations have received a fresh impulse, and the general con
dition of the country is decidedly more flourishing than at any former
period." 19. " Emancipation has been followed by the introduction of labor-saving
machinery." 20. " Emancipation has produced the most decided change in the views
of the planters."
21. " The progress of anti-slavery discussions in England did not cause
the masters to treat their slaves worse, but, on the contrary, restrained them
from outrage."
For other similar statements we have not room. Distorted
rumors have sometimes reached us from the islands, set afloat
by interested managers and speculators, who, in the absence
of the owners (many of whom reside in England) desire to
depreciate the price of property, that they might become pur
chasers. The droughts have, once or twice, occasioned short
crops. The embarrassments of estates arising under the old
system have not disappeared instantly, and sometimes have
resulted in bankruptcy as formerly.
It is painful to add, that in Jamaica and Barbadoes, and
some other islands, the Colonial Governments have, in various
ways, oppressed and harassed the laborers, to diminish their
wages, and prevent them from becoming proprietors of land.
The fact that the negroes, to some extent, were becoming self-
employers, has been made a pretext for introducing coolies
from the East Indies, and treating them as though they were

376 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
slaves, insomuch that the British Government has been obliged
to interfere.
The abolition of slavery in the British West Indies liberated
800,000 slaves. This "was followed, in 1843, by the abolition
of slavery throughout the British dominions, which liberated
more than twelve millions in the East Indies.
The history of British anti-slavery effort and its results, is
instructive in more aspects than one. It shows, in the strong
light of practical experiment, the worthlessness of all partial,
temporizing efforts, all schemes of preparation, amelioration,
and gradualism, in striking contrast with the efficiency, power,
safety, and success of efforts for a thorough, uncompromising,
and radical removal of the evil'. It shows the utter incom
patibility of slavery with a Christianity that earnestly attempts
anything for the religious instruction and education of the
slaves. It shows the resistless power of the religious senti
ment of a country to mould at its pleasure, to preserve or to
overthrow the legislation of a country. It assures us that
whenever the prevailing and recognized religion of America
decrees the downfall of American slavery, it will fall. It re
veals to us the power of an enlightened public sentiment over
a government less popular than our own. It exhibits to us
the fiction of the legality of slavery holding a great nation in
fetters until exploded by the kindling lights of religion and
freedom. It shows us the power of a right-minded and per
severing minority, through the good Providence of God, to
overcome mountains* of opposition, and dispel a chaos of '
error. It demonstrates that the increasing rage and madness
of oppressors is the sure presage of hastening deliverance to
the oppressed.
* It is a mistake to suppose, as some do, that because the West Indies were remote
from Great Britain, the slave power exerted but little influence on the home Gov
ernment. There was a time when it virtually bribed the courts, controlled Parlia
ment, and stood behind the throne. Statesmen and nobles, not to say monarchs
and members of the royal family, were suspected of being secret partners in the
African slave trade, or openly held investments in West India plantations. A large
portion of the West India proprietors resided in England, and wielded a command
ing influence. A large sharo of tho £20,000,000 compensation voted by Parliament,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 377

CHAPTEB XXXI.
DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF AMERICAN SLAVERY.
Its essential principle — Human Chattelhood — Integral parts of the system— Its con
sistency and unity — Agreement of the theory with the practice — Slavery cannot
co-exist with liberty.
From the scenes and achievements of British philanthro
py, and of West India Emancipation, we come back again
to ' our own land of boasted liberty and cherished human
chattelhood, — :the land in which about 113,000 slaveholders
control twenty millions of human beings, — and where the
question still hangs in suspense, whether the yoke can be
broken. Before entering upon the history of the present
struggle, it may be well to look directly into the face of the
monster to be grappled with, and see wherein its strength
lies. WHAT IS SLAVERY?
" The slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs."
— Louisiana Civil Code, Art. 35. " Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken,
reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels personal, in the hands of
their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns,
to all intents, constructions, and purposes, whatsoever." — Law of South
Carolina, 2 Brev. Dig. 229, Prince's Dig. 446, &c.
" The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked
never went to the West Indies to improve the plantations there ; but remained in
England, some of it in the hands of dissolute nabobs, some in the hands of mer
chants and mortgagees, in consequence of the West India estates being deeply
involved in debt by the system of slavery. This, with the continued absence of
owners from their plantations, partly accounts for the reports which we still hear,
of the pecuniary embarrassments and thriftlessness of many West Iiidia plantations.

378 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
among sentient beings, but among things, as an article of property, a chattel
personal, obtains as undoubted law, in all these [slave] States." — Stroud's
Sketch, p. 23.
This, then, is slavery, as it exists in America. God created
man in His own image. He made him a little lower than the
angels, crowned him with glory and honor, and gave him do
minion over the beasts of the field. But slavery reduces him
to a thing, a commodity, an article of merchandise !
This is no flourish of rhetoric — no idle abstraction. So
far as the power of man can accomplish such a result, it is
accomplished by slavery. If it cannot take away the im
mortal soul of man, it deems, reputes, and adjudges him to
have none ! It ranks him, not a little lower than the angels,
but on a level with the beasts that perish !
The question of slavery or emancipation is not a question
of cruel treatment or of kind treatment — of starvation or of
full feeding. It is a question whether a man is to be re
cognized as a man, or as a brute — a person or a thing — a
spiritual, moral being, or a mere lump of matter — a being
gifted with volition and clothed with responsibility, or a mere
piece of machinery — a being with, or without, rights, which
the laws should protect.
INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE SLAVE SYSTEM.
These are such as are involved, of necessity, in the car
dinal principle of slavery, viz. : human chattelhood. We enu
merate the following :
1. The unlimited authority of the slave-master or owner.
2. The abrogation of marriage, and the family relation,
among slaves.
3. The power to enforce labor without wages.
4. The incapacity of the slave to acquire or hold property.
5. His incapacity to make contracts or bargains.
6. His incapacity to enjoy civil, domestic or political rights.
7. The liability of the slave to be sold, like other chattels,
and separated from relatives. The authorized prosecution of
the SLAVE TRADE !

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 379
8. The absence of any adequate legal protection for the
slave. 9. The power of the master to forbid education and social
religious worship, at his own discretion.
10. The power of the legislatures of slave states to prohibit
education, even by the masters, and to prohibit or restrict free
social worship.
11. The power of the legislatures of slave states to abolish
freedom of speech and of the press, in general.
CONSISTENCY AND UNITY OF THE SLAVE SYSTEM.
The theory of American slavery agrees with its practice.
The whole system of slave legislation grows legitimately out
of the chattel principle upon which slavery is founded. And
the most revolting usages and practices to be detected among
the incidents and workings of the system are found to be in
perfect keeping and harmony, both with the principle of hu
man chattelhood and with the slave code.
1. The very idea of human chattelhood involves the idea
of the unlimited control of the master, and the absolute de-
fenselessness of the slave. Habits of tyranny and of ser
vility must follow, of course, with all the insecurity and
outrage that grow out of them.
2. The absence of legal marriage, and of the protected
family relation, is manifestly essential to the idea of human
chattelhood. Chattels are not married, and cannot constitute
families. Chattels may be transferred, bought, sold, and used.
The promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, especially at the
bidding of the master, follows, of course, and is not to be
censured by those who consent to the system, or to the prac
tice of slaveholding.
3. Chattels never receive wages, or acquire or hold pro
perty. The deep poverty of the slave, and all the effects
of that poverty, with the absence of a motive to labor fol
low, of course.
4. Chattels can make no contracts, not even the contract of
marriage. And this is the law of the slave.

380 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
5. Chattels can have no rights, and hence the slave can
have none.
6. Chattels may be bought and sold. Hence the existence
of slavery involves, of necessity, the slave trade, as Henry
Clay testifies. — Speech in the U. S. Senate, 1839.
7. Chattels can claim no legal protection, and therefore the
slave can have none. And all the cruelties of slavery must
be tolerated.
8. Chattels are not to be educated, or instructed in religion !
The idea is an absurdity. If the slaveholders are right in
holding slaves as chattels, they cannot be blamed for with
holding education and religious privileges from them. If the
government may sanction or permit slaveholding, it must,
to be consistent with itself, prohibit literary and religious
instruction. 9. The same may be said of the laws forbidding freedom
of speech and of the press. Such freedom is manifestly im
practicable and unsafe in the presence of chattel slavery. The
entire South attests this ; and thus far the testimony is truth
ful. If slavery is to be maintained, or even tolerated, then
liberty, of course, is to be relinquished. This is self-evident.
The statutes of the slave states abundantly confirm the pre
ceding statements, as will appear by consulting Judge Stroud's
"Sketch of the Slave Laws," published at Philadelphia in the
year 1827. The "Black Code of the District of Columbia,"
by W. G. Snethen, Esq., will show that some of the worst
features of the system are sanctioned on the national hearth
stone, and under "exclusive jurisdiction of Congress." And
"Wheeler's Law of Slavery," (a large volume of "Beports")
attests that slave enactments are not a dead letter.
It has sometimes been represented that the severe laws of
the South, especially those forbidding education and free re
ligious meetings to slaves and free people of color, are wholly
or chiefly owing to the impertinent agitations of abolitionists,
whose mischievous efforts, it is said, have made such regula
tions necessary, or have furnished occasions or pretexts for
them. The ready answer to this, is that the enactments in

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 381
question are found in ''Stroud's Sketch," published in 1S27,
Jive yeare before the organization of the "modern" anti-slave
ry societies commenced, four years before the " Liberator " was
issued by Mr. Garrison ; and that, according to Judge Stroud,
the principal acts of that character, cited by him, bear date
from 1710 to 1770, long before the organization of the old
Anti-slaverv Societies, by Jay and Franklin. So well known
is this fact that occasion has sometimes been taken from it, to
represent these severe laws as being antiquated, obsolete, and
a dead letter ! For the refutation of this falsehood, we have
only to cite the testimony of the Presbyterian Synods of
Kentucky and of South Carolina and Georgia, and the Vir
ginia Bevised Code of 1S19. A mass of authenticated facts,
chiefly sustained by Southern testimony, and showing that the
practical workings of the system correspond, at all points,
with the statutes defining it, may be found in a volume en
titled "American Shivery as it is, by the testimony of a
thousand witnesses," — also in several unimpeachable narra
tives, and the Southern newspapers of every month in the
year. "Xo people," says the philosophical and learned Dr.
Priestley, "have ever been found to be better than their laws,
though many have been known to be worse."
Such is the system that controls and wields the Government
of the United States, as shown in preceding chapters.
Such is the system, sheltered and sanctioned, as we have
already seen, in the prominent religious sects in this country,
— the system which the Christianity of the country must over
throw, — or to which it must succumb and conform.
Such is the system with which human liberty, in America,
is summoned to contend, or to which it must yield.
Who are enlisted in the struggle ? What are they doinc?
What are the prospects before them ? These are amongst the
questions before us, in the succeeding chapters.

382 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEB XXXII.
THE PRESENT ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION IN AMERICA — ITS
CAUSES, ORIGIN, AND CHARACTER.
Discussions caused by the Missouri Compromise — Rebuke of the dough-faces at the
ballot-box, 1820 — Benjamin Lundy, 1821 and afterwards — Missionary enterprise
advocated as the harbinger of universal liberty — Revived doctrine (among active
Christians) of immediate and unconditional repentance — This doctrine antago
nistic to conservatists in the Church, and their Colonization Society — Spirit of
ethical inquiry — Social Reforms — Temperance — Peace — An age of newspapers,
lecturers, lyceums, popular discussions, and voluntary Associations — William
Lloyd Garrison, a printer, a Temperance Editor— Associates with Benjamin Lundy
at Baltimore, 1829 — Imprisonment, trial, aud release, 1880 — Established his "Lib
erator" at Boston, 1831 — Panic caused by insurrection in Virginia — New England
Anti-Slavery Society formed, 1832 — Other Journals — Anti-Slavery tracts issued by
Messrs. Tappan and others, New York — N. Y. Emancipator commenced, 1833 —
Miss Crandall's School, Connecticut — N. Y. City A. S. Soe. organized, Oct., 1883
— American A. S. Soe. at Philadelphia, Dec, 1833 — Principles and measures of
Abolitionists. If the reader of the preceding chapters shall have suffi
ciently pondered the character of American slavery, and the
position of the churches and of the Federal Government in
respect to it, he will now perhaps be able to form some intel
ligent opinion concerning the condition and prospects of
liberty in America, at the time when the present agitation of
the slave question commenced. He will be able to judge
whether such an agitation then was unnecessary, impertinent,
ill-judged, unfortunate, or ill-timed. And when he learns, in
the perusal of this chapter, the principles, the aims, and the
measures of the abolitionists, he may be ready to judge whe
ther, or how far, they offended against the rules of decorum
and prudence; and whether the opposition they encountered

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM.

383

was anything more than might have been expected from the
leading men, and the controlling influences, in Church and
State, that have already been described, however wise and
prudent may have been the persons earnestly and resolutely
engaged in the effort against slavery.
It is not easy, perhaps not possible, to trace all the latent
causes which, like little rivulets running together, produced
the present agitation of the slave question, as other popular
agitations are produced. We shall mention such as are
within our knowledge, without pretending to enumerate
them all.
The y£_*£jL82©rafter a long period of quiet, was distin- .
"'linhril by ti p-^tty general and earnest disc*-"*1-" -*¦*-' ^f g1avp.ry|
growing out of the debates in Congress concerning the admis
sion of Missouri, and the adjustment of that controversy by
the Missouri Compromise. Mr. Clay, the author of that mea
sure, and those who co-operated with him, congratulated
themselves with the success of the policy. As lately as
1850, Mr. Clay alluded to it in the Senate, while his " omni
bus" compromise was pending, reminding senators of its suc
cess, and boastfully assuring them that his second compromise
would be equally efficacious in allaying the popular ferment,
and restoring peace.
It is undoubtedly true that the Missouri Compromise, like
all other compromises between right and wrong, did induce a
moral paralysis in those who assented to it, and this is what
Mr. Clay denominates peace. But the people did not all hold
themselves parties to that compromise, nor participate; in its
benumbing effects. The spark of liberty was a fire pent up
in their bones. Though temporarily baffled, they were not
conquered. If the national "Vesuvius was capped" for a few
years, it was only that it might burst forth again with fresh
vigor. If Henry Clay could but have known how many
were made uncompromising abolitionists by their disgust with
that unholy compromise, he would have found less occasion
to congratulate himself with the results. The present, anti-
slavery excitement may be distinctly traced, in part to the

384 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN .
earnest debates among the people elicited by that same Mis
souri Compromise. The "settlement" of the question by
Congress was only the signal for its agitation among their
constituents. The Congressional elections of 1820 were extensively
affected by the previous votes of the Eepresentatives on. the
admission of Missouri. The recreants to liberty were regarded
as marked men, especially those who had falsified their own
previous professions, and richly merited the expressive epi
thet, "dough-faces,"* then coined and bestowed upon them
by the eccentric John Bandolph, of Boanoke. In some
instances they took the hint of their friends, and quietly
withdrew from public life. In other cases, their old asso
ciates declined to nominate them. Some were nominated,
only to be defeated. Others, who had previously defied all
competitors, were subjected to the mortification of being
re-elected by a diminished vote, barely escaping defeat, after
the most strenuous exertions of their supporters, admonishing
them never to hazard the chances again.
This latter was the fate of the very distinguished and
highly-gifted Bepresentative from Ehode Island.f The con
troversy was carried on during the whole summer by news
paper discussions, and public meetings, and debates. Party
tactics and party discipline were resorted to, with little effect;
party lines, for the time being, were well nigh erased, and the
terms "anti-slavery" and "pro-slavery" took the place of
Federalist and Eepublican. The files of newspapers, particu
larly the Providence Gazette,^ bear testimony that the discus-
.  , 
* This term, as now commonly used and understood, expressively characterizes
the politician, whose face, as flexible as " dough," and belonging to a head equally
soft, may be moulded by others into any shape that best suits them. But it is
thought by some that the epithet intended by Mr. Randolph was " doe-faces," in
allusion to the timidity of the female deer, who attempts to drink, but starts back
at the reflection of its own face in the water. " They saw," said he, " their own doe-
faces, and were frightened."
t The late Hon. Samuel Eddy, of Providence. Mr. Hazard, his associate, a less
popular candidate, was dropped from the ticket, on election day, by his own
partisans. X The Providence Gazette was a Federal paper. Mr. Eddy was supported by the

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 385
sion became as " radical" then, as it is now, and that nearly
the same arguments, pro and con., were then in use. Some
who commenced writing against slavery and." compromise,"
then, have not ceased writing against them still. The author
may be permitted to record himself among these. Mr. Eddy
was elected by a majority of less than one hundred votes.
The anti-slavery agitation of 1820 was not confined to
Ehode Island, or even to New England. It extended
throughout the non-slaveholding States. By many of the
" Friends " and other opponents of slavery, the " Missouri
Compromise " was unsparingly condemned ; but the deed was
done, and there seemed no political remedy at hand, but the
political repudiation of the authors, which, very extensively,
took effect. To this day, we find, in various parts of the
country, a remnant of the anti-slavery agitators of that period,
and recognize some ofthe old familiar names in the proceedings
of the Anti-slavery and Free Soil conventions of the present
times. The late Benjamin Lundy was probably moved by
the Missouri contest and compromise, to engage in his arduous
anti-slavery labors. He seems to have entered the field that
same year, and commenced the publication of his monthly
periodical, the " Q<=-™.._ gf TTpivp.rsal Emaneip--t'"-T.j" the yeaj..
following, 1821. In an appeal to the public in April, 1830,
he says :
" I have, within the period above mentioned, (ten years,) sacrificed seve
ral thousand dollars of my own hard earnings, have travelled upwards of five
thousand miles on foot, and more than twenty thousand in other ways ; have
visited nineteen States of this Union, and held more than two hundred pub
lic meetings— have performed two voyages to the West Indies, by which
means the liberation of a considerable number of slaves has been effected,
and, I hope, the way paved for the enlargement of many more."
At Philadelphia, at Baltimore, at Washington City, he suc
cessively published his paper. In 1828, while located at Bal-
Democratio papers, as being the nominee of that party. Until his obnoxious vote
in Congress, he was so acceptable to both parties, that no opposing nomination was
made against him. But now he was deserted by the " rank and file" of both parties
to a great extent.
25

386 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
timore, he visited various parts of New England, to extend
the circulation of his paper, and stir up the friends of the en
slaved. He visited Texas twice, and penetrated into Mexico,
in search of some better asylum for fugitive and emancipated
slaves. Though failing to accomplish this object, he possessed
himself of much invaluable information, which afterwards be
came of the highest importance to the cause in which he was
engaged, and to the country at large. It was chiefly to com
munications from Benjamin Lundy that J:>hn Quincy Adams
was indebted for those astounding disclosures concerning the
Texas plot with which he so suddenly electrified Congress
and the nation, in 1836. A more full account of the particu
lars was afterwards published by Mr. Lundy himself in a
paper issued at Philadelphia for that purpose. This timely
information put the friends of liberty upon the track by which,
though failing to exclude Texas from the Union' they have
succeeded, thus far, in arresting the quiet march of the slave
power to the Pacific, thus sending a thrill of alarm and rage
through the whole South. Thus does Divine Providence
raise up and direct the voluntary instruments of its high de
signs. Benjamin Lundy was a member of the Society of
Friends ; he was small in stature, of feeble health, afflicted
with deafness, less definite than some abolitionists in his anti-
slavery ethics and measures, but of indomitable purpose, per
severance, faith, courage, patience, self-denial, endurance, and
by dint of these, became a pioneer in the cause. At one time
he traversed the free States, lecturing, collecting, obtaining
subscribers, writing for his paper, getting it printed, monthly,
wherever he could conveniently have it printed, for once,
stopping himself to read the " proof," and direct and mail his
papers, then travelling on again another month, and carrying
in his trunk his "direction book," " column rules," and type
"heading," (with the date of " Baltimore,") to facilitate the
process. Such are the labors of men who commence moral
revolutions, to be completed by others after they have gone
off the stage.
Among the early pioneers of the cause, should be mentioned

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 387
the name of Bev. John Bankin. a Presbyterian minister of
Kentucky, now of Bipley, Ohio. In 1824 or 1825, he publish
ed his Letters on Slavery, maintaining its inherent sinfulness,
and enforcing the duty of its present abandonment. Through
his influence an anti-slavery society, on the same principle,
was formed in Kentucky, at that early period. It was after
wards, however, " laid asleep " (to use the words of Mr. Ban-
kin,) by the illusive pretensions and seductive influences of
the Colonization Society.
There were moral, religious, and social influences at work,
preparatory to an unprecedented agitation of the slave ques
tion. The missionary enterprise, in its youthful vigor, was
an effort for "evangelizing the world." It was deliberately
proposed as a work to be done. It was based on a belief that
the promises and predictions of the Scriptures afforded a di
vine guaranty for its accomplishment. Bible, Tract, and Edu
cation Societies were commended and patronized as auxiliaries
to this magnificent undertaking. The anniversaries of these
were enlivened with glowing descriptions of the approaching
millennium, when all should know the Lord, from the least to
the greatest, and sit under their own vines and fig-trees, secure
in their rights. The eloquence of a Beecher, a Bice, a Corne
lius, a Summerfield, and a, Spring, on such occasions, had sent
a thrill through the churches, and the promised day was be
lieved to have already dawned. The time was set for furnish
ing every family on the earth with Bibles. The chronology
of the prophetic periods was computed, and the close of the
present century, it was believed, was to witness the completed
work of the " conversion of the world." To be " up and do
ing " was the watchword, and our American love of liberty
equality, and "free institutions," was gratified with the assu
rance that all the despotisms of the earth were to crumble at
the Prince Emanuel's approach !
Was all this to be accomplished without Bibles, and educa
tion, and marriage, and family sanctities, and liberation for
American slaves? Who could believe it? Whatever our
missionary and evangelizing orators intended, whatever they

388 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
were thinking of, they were God's instruments for putting
into the minds of others "thoughts that burned," for the
emancipation of the enslaved. The writer and many others ¦
well remember that tbe tone of our May anniversaries of reli
gious societies, from 1825 to 1832, was such as has been de
scribed. And the suddenness with which this tone was
changed, when bibles, education, and family sanctities were
demanded for slaves, did not escape notice. But the fires
kindled could not be extinguished.
The same period was distinguished by " revivals of reli
gion," in which prominence was given to the old doctrine
of Hopkins and Edwards, demamfcng " immediate and uncon
ditional repentance " of all sin, as the only condition of for
giveness and salvation. This was urged in direct opposition
to the vague idea of a gradual amendment, admitting " a more
convenient season " — a prospective, dilatory, indefinite break
ing off from transgression — an idea that had been settling
upon the churches for thirty or forty years previous, — an in
cubus upon every righteous cause, and every holy endeavor.
It is easy to see the bearing of such religious awakenings upon
the mode of treating the practice of slaveholding, unless it
were believed to be righteous. A more perfect antagonism
to the ethics and operations of the Colonization Society could
not well be imagined. A collision was inevitable, whenever
the subject should be introduced, and the Society itself could
scarcely avoid introducing it.
Simultaneously with all this, and more or less connected
with it, there came over the religious community an increas
ing spirit of inquiry in respect to Christian ethics, and the
bearing of the religious principle upon the social relations and
political duties of man. Peace Societies had been formed.
Temperance Societies were in progress. The Institution of
Free Masonry had been arraigned. The influence of theatres,
of lotteries, and the morality of lottery grants by legislatures,
were brought under rigorous review. The treatment of the
aborigines of our country, especially of the Cherokees, by
Georgia and the Federal Government, and the imprisonment

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 389
of the missionaries among the Cherokees, became subjects of
earnest attention. Christians began to be reminded that they
were citizens, and that Christianity had its claims upon them
in their civil relations. The Sabbath Mail question — whether
wisely or unwisely managed — became an exciting topic of
animadversion from the pulpit and religious press. The ap
plication of the principle may have been a mistaken one, or it
may have been unhappily argued and urged ; but the princi
ple was, in some fashion, brought into view, that though our
institutions secure religious freedom, yet religion and politics
are in some way connected, after all, and civil Governments
have no right to disobey God. In short, it was a period of
unwonted if not unprecedented moral and political inquiry.
Was it possible that the slave question should escape the
scrutiny of such an age ? Assuredly it did not, and for the
obvious reason that there was in progress a new and strong
development of the human mind in the direction of such in
vestigations. How short-sighted are those who think that the
agitation originated only with a few " fanatics," and that all
would be quiet if they could be silenced or crushed !
Along with the new spirit of moral enterprise and inquiry,
there came likewise the new and appropriate methods of their
manifestation and culture among the masses of the people.
Newspapers were no longer confined to party politics and
commerce, nor the reading of them to the select few. Beli-
gious newspapers were among the novelties of the times.
These were followed by papers designed to promote the re
forms and discuss the moral questions of the day. Voluntary
lecturers and agents of societies were abroad. Promiscuous
conventions as well as protracted religious meetings were
held, and laymen found they had tongues. To write for the
public was no longer the monopoly of professional authors
and quarterly and monthly reviewers. Whoever pleased
might become 'an editor of a newspaper, and whoever chose
to subscribe for it, at a trifling expense, was introduced into
the " republic of letters." Not only did the great masses
become readers of public journals, but to a great and grow-

390 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ing extent, contributors, likewise. The custom of writing
anonymously, encouraged the timid : the most dependent
could stand here on a level with the most powerful, and
sometimes smile to see their productions arrest the publio
attention. Farmers and mechanics, journeymen and appren
tices, merchants and clerks — females as well as males — par
ticipated in the privilege. From the counting-house, from
the anvil, from the loom, from the farm-yard, from the parlor,
perhaps from the kitchen, there came paragraphs for the pe
rusal (perhaps for the reproval and instruction) of Senators
and Doctors of the Law. History, that often busies itself
with petty details pertaining to those who have been falsely
called great, need not count it undignified to notice revolu
tions in human condition like these — revolutions more sub
lime than those that transfer from one dynasty to another,
princely crowns. No one can comprehend, in their causes
and distinctive characteristics, the existing agitations in Ame
rica, who does not take into account the new power and the
changed direction of the public press, constituting a new era
in human history.
Was it strange, at such a period, when laborers of almost
all classes were giving free utterance to their thoughts, that
the morality of unpaid and forced labor began to be ques
tioned — that the chivalry of whipping women, and the civili
zation of selling babes at auction by the pound — began to be
scrutinized ? The rail-car, in 1838, the electric telegraph ten
years afterwards, were scarcely greater innovations or greater
curiosities than were voluntary lecturers, free public conven
tions, and moral and religious weekly journals, with their free
correspondence, from 1825 to 1830. Was nothing, then, to
have been expected — is nothing now to be attributed to this
new moral and educating power ?
William Lloyd Garrison was a printer's apprentice-
then a journeyman printer, at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
He wrote paragraphs, perhaps stanzas, for the newspaper, on
the printing of which he was employed. His pieces were
copied. He became known. He was invited, ih 1827 or '28,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 391
to edit, for a few months (perhaps to assist also in printing),
a weekly paper in Boston, the only one then devoted exclu
sively to the Temperance cause, the first of the kind ever
attempted, and then in its second or third year* He after
wards edited, by invitation, for a short period, the " Journal
of ihe Times," in Vermont, and took strong ground against
slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he became associated with Benjamin
Lundy, in the publishing and editing the " Genius of Univer
sal Emancipation," at Baltimore. Not long afterwards, the
ship Francis, belonging to Francis Todd, of Newburyport,
Mass., being at Baltimore for freight, was employed in taking
from thence a cargo of slaves for New Orleans. Mr. Garrison
noticed the fact in his paper, and spoke of it in terms of such
severity that Mr. Todd directed a suit to be brought against
him for a libel. He was tried by a Maryland Court, in Feb.,
1830, convicted, and thrown into jail for non-payment of the
fine (one hundred dollars) and costs. This circumstance
roused an excitement at the North that has never since
slept. f From that time the anti-slavery cause took its place
among the moral enterprises of the age ; small indeed in the
beginning, and for sometime after, but constantly widening
and deepening its channels.

* The National Philanthropist, commenced in 1826, by tlie late Rev. William
Collier (a Baptist), by whom Mr. Garrison was employed. The In vestigator, by
WiUiam Goodell, commenced in 1827, and published at Providence, R. I., was de
voted to moral and political discussion, and reformation in general, including tem
perance and anti-slavery. In Jan., 1829, it was merged by him in the National
Philanthropist, at Boston, Mr. Collier retiring. In July, 1880, it was removed to
New York, aud published as " The Cenius of Temperance," by W. Goodell and P.
Crandall — afterwards by W. Goodell, till the close of 1833, when it was discontinued,
and W. Goodell took oharge of the Emancipator, whioh had been issued by him
from tho same office, though in the name and by the aid of Rev. C. W. Deuison,
fi'om the spring preceding. In conducting both these papers he received assistance,
for a season, from tlie late Stephen P. Hines, one of the earliest advocates of the
anti-slavery cause.
t By the popular orators and paid agents of the Colonization Society, Mr. Garrison
was afterwards stigmatized in public meetings of that Soeioty, in the city of New
York and elsewhere, as " a convicted felon," on account of this trial and imprison*
ment!

392 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
After lying in jail about fifty days, Mr. Garrison was
released by the payment of his fine and costs, amounting to
upwards of one hundred and fifty dollars, contributed chiefly
by Mr. Arthur Tappan, merchant, of New York, well known
as the munificent patron of Foreign Missions and other kin
dred efforts. His name thenceforward, with that of his bro
ther, Lewis Tappan, was identified with the anti-slavery cause.
Mr. Garrison, dissolving partnership with Mr. Lundy, issued
the prospectus of his " Liberator," to be published at Wash
ington City, but his arrangements were afterwards changed.
Mr. Lundy removed with his paper to Washington, and Mr.
Garrison commenced his " Liberator" in Boston, in Jan., 1831.
Mr. Tappan, Bev. Simeon S. Jocelyn, and others, projected
the establishment of a seminary of learning at New Haven,
for the benefit of colored students, the same year, but a strong
opposition manifested itself, a public meeting at New Haven
denounced the project, and it was necessarily abandoned.
The insurrection of Nat. Turner at Southampton, in Vir
ginia, tbe same year, alarmed the South, and quickened the
discussion of the slave question throughout the country. The
insurgents, about sixty in number, were put down by United
States' forces. The Legislature of Virginia discussed the
measure of gradual emancipation, but indefinitely postponed
the whole subject.
. On January 30, 1832, the New England Anti-Slavery
/ Society was organized in Boston, and went into operation,
but with limited means>
The "New York Evangelist," conducted for a time by Eev.
Samuel Griswoid, and afterwards by Eev. Joshua Leavitt,
\ entered into the discussion, and espoused the enterprise. The
" Genius of Temperance," as before mentioned, was already
committed to the cause. The circulation of both these papers
was, at that time, extensive, through all the non-slaveholding
and many of the slaveholding States.
By pecuniary aid from the Messrs. Tappan, the "Emanci
pator" was commenced, in the spring of 1833, as before stated,
by the publishers of the " Genius of Temperance."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 393
By co-operation between the Messrs. Tappan and a few
others, very large issues of anti-slavery tracts were circulated
monthly, during the greater part of this year, and sent by
mail to clergymen of all denominations, and other prominent
men throughout the country. A great amount of important
information was thus diffused.
This year was also distinguished by the visit of Mr. Garri
son to England, where he obtained important information,
and was cheered with the hearty sympathy of Wilberforce,
Clarkson, Buxton, Macauley, and other friends of the cause.
At home, the excitement was increased bythe disgraceful and
ever memorable prosecution and imprisonment of Miss Pru
dence Crandall, for teaching a colored school at Canterbury,
Conn., under a law enacted for the special purpose, through
the influence of leading friends of the Colonization Society.
By this time the doctrine of immediate and unconditional
emancipation of the soil, as held by " modern abolitionists,"
was pretty thoroughly proclaimed throughout the country.
To the mass of the people it was a new and strange doc
trine, though taught by Hopkins and Edwards the previous
century. It roused the people from their slumbers. The
majority were alarmed ; some hesitated, many inquired, and
not a few, including individuals of high moral worth and
established reputation, were attracted to the new and defi
nite standard, and rallied round it. Among these were
many whose earnest opposition to slavery was no new and
hasty impulse. Evan Lewis, of Pennsylvania, of the Society |
_ of Friends, for many years an active friend of the enslaved,
was of the number of these. Hon. William Jay, the worthy
son of Gov. John Jay of New York, was another. Moses
Brown, a very aged member of the Society of Friends, of
Providence, B. I., more extensively known by his exalted
virtues and rare wisdom than by his great wealth, was an-
* other.* Nathaniel Emmons, D.D., of Massachusetts, the dis-

* Moses Brown died in 1886, aged 98. A few days before his death he penned an
important communication on the subject of slavery, for publication in an nnti-Blavery

394 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tinguished theologian, of the school of Edwards and Hopkins,
and formerly their associate, being then eighty-eight years of
age, but retaining his full mental vigor, was another * Eev.
Thomas Andros, of Berkeley, Mass., upwards of seventy
years of age, yet active, a " self-made man"— of strong powers
and extensive literary acquirements, a theological "writer,
though a mariner in his younger years, and once a prisoner
in the Eevolutionary war on board the far-famed Jersey
prison-ship, (from which he escaped by almost superhuman
exertions and miraculous providences, while prostrate with
yellow fever,) was another. Chief Justice Hutchinson, of
Vermont, was another. To this list might be added others
less extensively known, but of a similar character, men
minutely acquainted with the history of slavery and emanci
pation, veterans, some of them, for more than half a century
in the cause of human freedom, and well qualified to judge
what expedients were to be regarded as inadequate, and what
the exigencies of the times required. The wisdom and expe
rience of such men should have sheltered the anti-slavery
agitation from the flippant charge of a " hair-brained fanati
cism" — the charges emanating, in most instances, from younger
and less considerate men,, many of whom had never devoted
a month's candid attention to the most profound and moment
ous problem of the age. If younger men, under the manifest
Providence of God, originated the movement, they were not
destitute of the sympathy, council, and co-operation of the
paper. He was consequently 94 years of age in 1882, when the New England Anti- _
Slavery Society was formed.
* Dr. Emmons had incautiously taken for granted that the Colonization Society
was doing some good, though he never seems to have relied upon it to remove slavery.
When Mr. Garrison came out against the Society, in 1882, Dr. Emmons, who was
" never too old to learn," sat down to an examination of the Society's periodical
magazine, the " African Repository]' which was lying on a shelf in his own study.
A few hours' reading opened his eyes. " There is no disinterested benevolence
about it," said he, as he laid up the numbers. " It is all a scheme of selfishness,
from beginning to end. It is all wrong." At the Anniversary of the American
Anti-Slavery Society in New York City, in May, 1885, he was present, and presided
at the opening of the meeting for business. He died Sept. 28, 1840, in the 96th year
of his age.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 395
patriarchs of liberty in both hemispheres. And practical
business men, from forty to sixty years of age, were not want
ing among them. New recruits, of all ages and professions,
came forward. President Storrs, and Professors B. Green*
and E. Wright, Jr., of the Western Beserve College, Hudson,
Ohio, were hailed among the accessions of this period. [James •
G. Birney, James A. Thome, Bev. Dr. Nelson, Bev. Dr. Bris
bane and others, from the slave States, espoused the cause
afterwards.] The time had now come for a more general organization of
the friends of the cause. A New York City Anti-Slavery
Society was organized, October 2, 1833, but not without de
monstrations of tumult and violence. The meeting had been
advertised to be held at Clinton Hall. A counter notice,
signed by " Many Southrons," invited a meeting at the same
time and place. The abolitionists, therefore, as many as on
the sudden emergency could be notified, assembled at Chatham
Street Chapel. Their opposers, finding Clinton Hall closed,
adjourned to Tammany Hall, and made speeches and adopted
resolutions against them. Before separating, they learned
where the abolitionists were assembled, and adjourned, by ac
clamation, and shouts of " Let us route them," to Chatham
Street Chapel, which they entered tumultuously and riotously,
just as the meeting there had adjourned, but before the per
sons in attendance had left the house. Loud threats were
uttered—" Ten thousand dollars for Arthur Tappan !" Several
abolitionists were called for by name, but they all escaped
: personal violence. The Tammany meeting was organized by
prominent citizens, addressed by popular public speakers, and
their proceedings published in the city papers, along with
gratulations for the " security of the Union !"
By the same class of citizens, a Colonization meeting was
promptly called, which was held at the Masonic Hall, precisely
one week after the Tammany Hall and Chatham Street Chapel
meetings. The Mayor of the . city presided. The orators
* Afterwards President Green, of Oneida Institute, N. Y.

396 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
dwelt on the reckless agitations of the abolitionists. Not a
word of disapprobation of the late outrage against them was
uttered. Theodore Frelinghuysen, United States Senator from
New Jersey, charged them with "seeking to dissolve the
Union." Chancellor Walworth was in attendance, from Al
bany, to declare their efforts " unconstitutional," and to de
nounce them as "reckless incendiaries." David B. Ogden,
Esq., declared " the doctrine of immediate emancipation to be ,
a direct and palpable nullification of the Constitution." ¦ Mr.
Frelinghuysen further declared that " nine-tenths of the hor
rors of slavery are imaginary," and the " crusade of abolition"
he regarded as " the poetry of philanthropy. "-
In pursuance of a previous public notice, a National Anti-
Slavery Convention was held in the City of Philadelphia,
December 4th, 5th, and 6th, 1833, consisting of upwards of
sixty members, from ten States, viz. : Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Ehode Island, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Beriah Green,
President of Oneida Institute, was chosen President of the
Convention, and Lewis Tappan and John G. Whittier Secre
taries. The members united in signing a declaration of their
sentiments, objects, and measures, prepared in committee,
from a draft by Mr. Garrison. This Convention organized
the American Anti-Slavery Society, of which Arthur Tappan
was chosen President, Elizur Wright, Jun., Secretary of Do
mestic Correspondence, and William Lloyd Garrison Secretary
of Foreign Correspondence, A. L. Cox, Becording Secretary,
William Green, Jr., Treasurer. The Executive Committee
was located in New York City, the seat of the Society's oper
ations ; which were now prosecuted with vigor. The " Eman
cipator," under editorial charge of William Goodell,* one of
the Executive Committee, became the organ of the Society.
Tracts, pamphlets, and books were published and circulated,
* This arrangement continued till July, 1835, when Mr. Goodell left the eity for
another field of labor in the same cause, and the Emancipator was conducted, suc
cessively, by E. Wright, Jr., Amos A. Phelps, and Joshua Leavitt, aud was finally
removed to Boston.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 397
a large number of lecturing agents were employed, conven
tions were held, and State, County, and local Anti-Slavery
Societies were organized throughout the free States, auxiliary
to the American, and contributing to its funds. The New
England Anti-Slavery Society became the Massachusetts State
Society. Mr. Garrison continued to issue the Liberator at
Boston, some time as organ of the State Society, and after
wards again in his own name.
These particulars may serve to give some idea of the origin
of the Anti-Slavery movement, sufficient to show that it was
of no mushroom growth, or capricious origin, but came up,
naturally, not to say necessarily, under the moral government
of God, and in the onward and upward march of human im
provement and progress. In the light of the preceding his
tory, this remark can scarcely fail to be appreciated, as well
as understood. To what destiny, without such a healthful,
timely, and necessary agitation, could the country have been
tending ? What would have become of the interests of hu
manity, of morality, of religion, of civilization, and of liberty,
affected as these are by the position and the activities of the
Church and of the State ? Was it not high time that some
thing were attempted to be done ? What should that some
thing be, if not the measures that were then put in operation ?
If there were wiser men, who could have propounded better
measures, why did they not come forward ? If it be said
that the Colonization Society was, (as was claimed by its
friends,) that better measure, let the unprejudiced reader
judge. We cannot further pursue, in minute detail, the history of
the anti-slavery agitation. A well-digested and condensed
account of it would require a large volume. We will hastily
group together a few classes of facjs that may afford light upon
the present position and aspect of the slave question in Amer
ica, and the duties and prospects before us.

398 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

PRINCIPLES OF ABOLITIONISTS.
These may be briefly and comprehensively stated as fol
lows: "All men are created equal, and are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Slavery, or more properly, the practice of slaveholding, is
a crime against human nature, and a sin against God.
Like all other sins, it should be immediately and uncondi
tionally repented of, and abandoned. It is always safe to
leave off doing wrong, and never safe to continue in wrong
doing. It is the duty of all men to bear testimony against wrong
doing, and consequently, to bear testimony against slavehold
ing. /immediate and unconditional emancipation is pre-eminently
'prudent, safe, and beneficial, to all the parties concerned.*
No compensation is due to the slaveholder for emancipating
his slaves ; and emancipation creates no necessity for such
compensation, because it is, of itself, a pecuniary benefit, not
only to the slave, but to the master.
There should be no compromise of moral principle, in legis
lation, jurisprudence, or the executive action of the Govern
ment, any more than in the activities and responsibilities of
private life.
No wicked enactments can be morally binding. " There
are, at the present time, the highest obligations resting on the
people of the free states to remove slavery, by moral and po
litical action, as prescribed in the Constitution of the United
States." — Anti-Slavery Declaration of 1833.
The measures of abolitionists were such as grew out

* The precise date of the adoption of this sentiment by " modern abolitionists"
generally in America, we do not find. Mr. Garrison had not adopted it at the time
of his 4th of July discourse at Boston, in 1829, but it was embodied in the Declara
tion of the Convention at Philadelphia, in 1833.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 399
of their principles, and consisted in their promulgation and
practice. Among the publications circulated by them, at an early
day, were the Dialogue of Dr. Hopkins, and the Sermon of
Dr. Jonathan Edwards, before mentioned, together with Wes
ley's Thoughts on Slavery. The first two, as we have seen,
had been circulated long before, by the Anti-Slavery Societies,
patronized by Stiles, Jay, and Franklin. The latter had been
circulated by Methodist preachers, by direction of the Con
ferences, as late as the year 1804. But in 1834, the circula
tion of these writings was proscribed as treasonable, and
condemned as insurrectionary. No writings of "modern
abolitionists" were more severe against slaveholders than
these, as an examination of them will show.

400 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE XXXIII.
OPPOSITION TO ABOLITIONISTS. — ITS CAUSES — ITS ELEMENTS-
ITS NATURE AND METHODS.
Why abolitionists were opposed — False reasons assigned for it — Elements of the
opposition— Conservatism in the Church — Commercial cupidity — Political rivalry
— Scheme of Colonization — Servility of Literary Institutions — Nature and modes
of opposition — The religious and political press — Mob violence — Early and remark
able instances — New York, Philadelphia, Worcester (Mass.), Canaan (N. HJ,
Boston, Utica (N. Y.), New Haven (Conn.), Alton (111.) — Murder of Lovejoy—
Burning of Pennsylvania Hall — Three Riots in Cincinnati — Three in Philadel
phia— Similar scenes elsewhere — Fomented by "the higher classes of Society"—
" Gentlemen of property and standing" — the Conservative Clergy, and leading
influences in the Colonization Society.
Why were abolitionists opposed? And for what ? It was
for the agitation of the slave question. It was for the at
tempted propagation and practice of their principles, and for
nothing else* that abolitionists were violently assailed and vil-
lified. It was not because they were "fanatics" or "incendiaries,"
nor because they insisted upon or recommended " amalgama
tion," or sought to incite the slaves to insurrection and blood
shed. These charges were only the unfounded aspersions of
their enemies.
It was not because they had any of them, at that time, as
sailed either the Churches, the Sabbath, the Bible, the Minis
try, the Constitution, the Union, or the political parties. They
* It is admitted that many worthy men, including sincere friends ofthe enslaved,
dissented from the distinctive views of abolitionists, and argued against them. Dr.
Channing, to some extent, did this, as did many others. But this was no part of
the kind of opposition of which we are Bpeaking.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 401
had simply assailed slavery, invoking all the powers of the
Church and of the State, with their institutions — all religious
sects and all political parties in the country — to join with
them, in opposition to slavery. They were mostly themselves
supporters of the different religious sects and political parties : /
and so far from anticipating any separation from them, or con
troversy with them, they fondly expected to secure their co
operation and assistance. To ministers of the gospel, espe
cially, were their appeals confidingly and respectfully ad
dressed.* It was not because, in the first instance, they opposed, or
thought of opposing, the Colonization Society. Mr. Garrison
himself addressed, on invitation, a meeting of the Colonization
Society, held in the Park-street Congregational Church in
Boston, on the 4th of July, 1829. -j* The Colonization Society
was not opposed by abolitionists until it was found to be the
opposer of abolition, and the persecutor of the free people of
color. It was the "agitation of the subject" that was opposed, and
not any particular taieasure or mode of treating it.
ELEMENTS OF THE OPPOSITION.
As the anti-slavery agitation was, primarily, the natural
* The writer accompanied Mr. Garrison, in 1829, in calling upon a number of
prominent ministers in Boston, to secure their co-operation in the cause. Our
expectations of important assistance from them were, at that time, very sanguine.
t This elaborate and able discourse was published in the National Philanthropist,
under the title of " National Dangers," among which the speaker enumerated
" infidelity" — " the tyranny of government which compels its servants to desecrate
the holy Sabbath" — the " desolations of liquid fire" — the abuse of the elective fran
chise — the general exclusion of religious men from office — " the profligacy of the
press," which attacks every holy enterprise, (e. g. the missionary cause, &c, which
was then villified), and finally, the great abomination of slavery. On this latter
topic the speaker dilated at length, and said — " I call on the ambassadors of Christ
everywhere, to make known this proclamation, ' Thus saith the Lord God of the
Africans, Let this people go, that they may serve me.' I ask them to ' proclaim
hberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.' " "I
call on the churches of the living God TO LEAD in this great enterprise I"
Had the churches and ministry responded, as they should have done, to this
appeal, they would have been spared the trouble of opposing "infidel abolition
ism," and the pretext of being repulsed from the anti-slavery enterprise by it.,
26

402 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
working of a religious sentiment in the religious community,
/ so the opposition to it was, primarily, the natural working of
/ a counter sentiment in the same religious community. There
was not a religious sect that did not experience the shock of
the two antagonistic principles contending against each other
in the same ecclesiastical communion.
From the times of the Edwardses, there had been a pro
gressive and a conservative party in the Churches ; the former
aspiring after an enlarged liberty, and the latter seeking to
repress it ; the former insisting upon the doctrine of imme
diate and unconditional repentance (as did Hopkins); the
latter pleading for indulgences, postponement, gradualism,
and temporizing expedients ; the former responded promptly
to the call for the immediate and unconditional abolition of
slavery; the latter had previously intrenched and fortified
itself in the fortress of the Colonization Society, and was de
termined to permit no disturbance of its supremacy and its
quietude. The first collision, therefore, was manifested in the bosom
of the principal religious sects at the North, including espe
cially the Congregationalists of New England, and the Pres
byterians of the Middle States, and speedily followed in the
Methodist, Baptist, and other communions. The religious
presses of these, particularly of the Congregational sect, in
the hands of the conservative party, were the first to traduce,
to misrepresent, to villify, and to oppose the abolitionists,
representing them as anarchists, Jacobins, villifiers of great
and good men who had been slaveholders, (but who had not
been directly mentioned by abolitionists*) incendiaries, plot-
* The Vermont Chronicle, edited by Eev. Joseph Tracy, early in 1883, represented
that the Liberator had called Washington a man-stealer and a robber, now in hell 1
But this was only the inference of Mr. Tracy from a communication, in lh_ liberator,
written by a Presbyterian clergyman of New York (Rev. Geo. Bourne), formerly a
resident of Virginia, in which the doctrine of Edwards — and in nearly the same lan
guage — was affirmed (without any allusion to Washington), that slaveholding was
man-stealing, and an aot of robbery. Yet the charge went the rounds of the reli
gious papers, was copied at the South, then by the New York City editors, and
repeated by the mob who sacked the house, and burnt the furniture of Lewis Tappan

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 403
ters of insurrection and disunion, and enemies of the public
peace. By these artful and injurious appeals, other than re
ligious elements of opposition were soon roused.
Commercial cupidity in the cities trading with the South,
was one of, these elements, very early brought into action.
Political corruption and rivalry came next in order. Abo
litionists were found in both political parties. The leading
whig presses first,* and the democratic afterwards, exerted.
themselves to throw off the imputed contamination, and as
sure the South that their party was " sound to the core, on
the subject of slavery."
All these elements of opposition found their .centre, their
home and their manifestation, from the beginning, in the
Colonization Society, the pet of the conservatists both in the
Church and the State. The meetings, the publications, the
agents, and the advocates of this Society, were almost uni
formly and invariably at the head of every movement and of
every disturbance in which the abolitionists were assailed.
Literary Institutions at the North desiring or enjoying
Southern patronage, Northern watering-places the resort of
Southern visitors, manufacturing establishments and villages
of artizans and mechanics vending their fabrics and wares at
the South — these were points from which an influence was
almost certain to emanate, opposed to all earnest agitation of
the subject of slavery.
Over all these elements and posts of opposition, presided
the slave interest itself, the power that controlled so extensively
both the Church and the State ; the mammoth oligarchy of
the nation, assimilating and wielding for its own ends, all the
minor interests and elements of aristocracy in the land.
in the streets, in July, 1834. Mr. Tracy would not retract the charge. He was
afterwards editor of the Boston, Recorder, and then of the New 7ork Observer, the
two oldest religious papers in the country, and advocates of the Colonization
Society. * This priority of action was perhaps owing to the fact that a gseater number of
prominent abolitionists were then found in the Whig party than in the Democratic,
which latter was in the ascendant, and therefore identified with the pro-slavery
action of the Government, and averse to agitation.

404 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

NATURE AND METHODS OF OPPOSITION.
To " put down the discussion " — to " silence the agitation,"
was the evident object — and to a great extent, this design was
openly avowed. The "public indignation," in some form,
was to overawe the agitators, and overwhelm them with de
feat.* In perfect consistency with this, was the policy of clo
sing against them the ordinary avenues of access to the public
mind — the pulpit, the forum, the public journals, (political,
commercial, literary, and religious,) — the arena of public de
bate. Or, if a discussion was attempted, inflammatory ap
peals and injurious aspersions were substituted for manly
argument and dignified debate. A colonization meeting or
anniversary was the precursor of a mob against the abolition
ists ; or, on the other hand, the riotous dispersion of an anti-
slavery meeting prepared the minds of a sympathizing popu
lace, with their gifted orators, for a public demonstration in
favor of the colonization enterprise, connected with bitter de
nunciations of abolitionists, and apologies or defenses of
slaveholding. EXTENSIVE MANIFESTATIONS OF MOB VIOLENCE.
An attempt to hold an anti-slavery meeting in the city of
New York, on the 4th bf July, 1834, was made the occasion
of a frightful and protracted riot. The meeting was broken
up ; and for several successive days and evenings, the city
was in possession of the rioters, who assaulted private dwel
lings and places of public worship, attempting and threatening
personal violence upon abolitionists. Similar scenes were
enacted in Philadelphia a few weeks afterwards. Extensive
damages were done to the private dwellings and public build
ing of the unoffending colored people who had been cruelly
* It is important that the reader notices distinctly this statement, and watches the
evidences of its truthfulness, as the narrative proceeds. Great efforts have been
made to produce the impression that only some peculiar and offensive " measures?
of aboUtionists were opposed. The " measure" most obnoxious was the agitation
and discussion of the subject.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 405
maligned, and wantonly held up to public odium at a coloni
zation meeting a short time previous. During these riots,
which were of several days' recurrence, many of the colored
people were wounded, and some of them lost their lives.
These early examples of lawlessness, notoriously counte
nanced as they were by men of wealth and influence, excited
by eloquent orators, and palliated afterwards by the public
press, furnished precedents for similar outrages throughout
the non-slaveholding states for a series of years.
At Worcester, Mass., Aug. 10, 1835, while Eev. Orange
Scott was lecturing, a son of an Ex-Governor of the State,
assisted by an Irishman, tore up his notes and offered him
personal violence.
On the same day, a mob at Canaan, (N. H.) demolished and
dragged away an academy, because colored youth were ad
mitted to study there.
At Boston, Oct. 21st., 1835, a mob of 5000 "gentlemen of
property and standing," as the city editors called them, mobbed
the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society, dispersed them while
the President was at prayer, and dragged Mr. Garrison through
the streets with a rope about his body. He was roughly
handled, threatened with tar and feathers, but finally con
ducted to the Mayor, who lodged him in jail till the next
day, to save him from further violence. After an examina
tion, he was released from prison, but at the earnest entreaties
of the city authorities, left Boston for a time.
The same day, at Utica, N. Y, a' committee of twenty-five
prominent citizens, appointed at a public meeting, and headed
by a member of Congress, broke up a meeting convened to
form a New York State Anti-Slavery Society, and threw down
the press of a democratic journal that had espoused the anti-
slavery cause. By invitation of Gerrit Smith, who, on that
occasion, identified himself with them, the abolitionists re
paired to his residence at Peterboro', twenty-five miles dis
tant, where the next day they finished the transaction of their
business, after a portion of them had been pelted with stones

/,

406 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
mud, and: missiles, at Vernon, on their way from Utica to
Peterboro'. In Dec. 1836, an anti-slavery meeting at New Haven, Conn.,
was broken up by some southern students of Yale College.
At Alton, Illinois, Nov. 7, 1837, the press of the Alton
Observer was destroyed by a mob, and the editor, Bev. Elijah
P. Lovejoy, shot dead, receiving four balls in his breast. The
murderers were not brought to justice.
Pennsylvania Hall, in Philadelphia, was opened May 14,
1838, for the free discussion of all subjects interesting, to
American citizens. On the 17th of the same month it was
burned by a mob, because abolitionists had been allowed to
hold a meeting there.
At Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 5, 1841, a ferocious mob de
stroyed, for the third time, the printing-press of the Philan
thropist, a paper devoted to anti-slavery. The first of these
outrages was in 1836. James G. Birney, a repentant slave
holder, from Kentucky, was then editor and proprietor of the
paper. At Philadelphia, on the 1st of August, 1842, occurred the
worst of several mobs against the colored people of that city.
A church and hall, built by their hard earnings, were burnt
down, their houses demolished, and their persons beaten and
mangled in the most ferocious and cowardly manner. The
city authorities afforded no efficient protection till the mis
chief was done, in a riot of two days. The only provocation,
on their part, was a peaceful temperance celebration of the
anniversary of British West India emancipation, and walking
in public procession on that occasion.
These instances present but a specimen of the riots enacted
against abolitionists in almost all parts of the country. Not
only in cities and large towns, but in rural villages, and
country parishes, and townships, the attempt to hold a meet
ing for the discussion of slavery was, very frequently, the
signal for a disturbance and breach of the peace.*
* It would be easy to fill a respectable volume with accounts of these mobs, and

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 407
One uniform feature of these lawless proceedings has been
that they have been either countenanced, instigated, or pal
liated by that description of citizens who complacently con
sider themselves and are commonly denominated " the higher
class of society," — the men of wealth, of office, of literature,
of elegant leisure, including politicians, — and that portion of
the clergy who naturally associate with the class just de
scribed, or are dependent upon them. The aristocracy of a
city or village, and its mobocraoy, if not exactly identical, or
even if exhibiting the strong contrasts of splendor and squalor,
were found to be the inseparable ingredients, the sine qua non
of a riot against the claims of emancipation and the exercise
of free speech. We speak of the general fact, not forgetting
the noble exceptions.
Another remark in place here, is the uniformity and effi
ciency with which the influences sustaining the scheme of
Colonization, (with the rare exceptions just now conceded,)
have been arrayed against the free discussion of the slave
question, and bent, at all hazards, upon its suppression. We
might specify the riots in New York, in Philadelphia, at Utica,
and at Alton, as having been obviously excited beforehand, or
palliated and excused afterwards, by the editors and public
speakers devoted to the Colonization cause. The pledge of
the Society, beforehand, to visit with its censures, when need
ful, the existence of Abolition Societies in America, has been
amply and even more than literally redeemed.
the means by which they have been roused. The writer has often been solicited to
prepare such a volume, and had intended to afford more space in the present work
for the details.

408 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE XXXIV.
ATTEMPTS TO SILENCE THE DISCUSSION BY AUTHORITY — STATE
LEGISLATURES— FEDERAL EXECUTIVE — U. S. MAILS — GAG
RULES IN CONGRESS — RIGHT OF PETITION.
Presentment of a Grand Jury — Literary and Theological Review— Pamphlet of Hon.
Mr. Sullivan — Rewards offered by Southern Governors for the abduction of North
ern Abolitionists — Violent language of pro-slavery clergy and ecclesiastical bodies
— Southern demands on Northern State Legislatures — Responses of Northern
Governors — Bill reported in Legislature of Rhode Island — Violation of U. S. Mails
— Pillage of Post-office at Charleston — Postmaster General — President's Message
— Accusation against abolitionists — Recommends a prohibition of the circulation
of their papers by mail — Answer of the Anti-Slavery Ex. Com. — Legislature of
Massachusetts— Joint Committee — Interview with Anti-Slavery Committee— Their
defense silenced — Reaction — Prohibitory Legislation defeated — Action in Congress
— Calhoun's Mail Report — Recommendation of the President defeated— Act to
prevent a violation of the mails — Anti-Slavery Petitions — Various "gags" from
1836 to 1845 — John Quincy Adams.
But measures of mere riotous, irregular, unauthorized vioJ
lenee against abolitionists, were soon found inadequate to the
objects of those who had set them on foot. It was not every
day that a popular tumult could be roused. By a reaction
which might have been foreseen, the better part of community,
touched by sympathy, and excited to reflection and inquiry,
were led to protest against these disorderly proceedings.
Some of them became abolitionists themselves, and others who
did not, became justly alarmed at the progress of anarchy, and
the absence of protecting law. There was danger that the
tables might be turned, and mobs against abolitionists be fol
lowed by mobs against their opposers. It became important,
' therefore, to put down abolitionists by the strong arm of civil
power. Intimations in this direction began to manifest themselves

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 409
at an early day, and in close connection with the riotous de
monstrations already noticed. About a month before the
great mob at Utica, a Grand Jury of that county, (Oneida)
comprising a portion of the incipient rioters, or persons in
sympathy with them, made a presentment in which they say
that those who form abolition societies are guilty of sedition,
and of right ought to be punished, and that it is the duty of
all citizens friendly to the Constitution of the United States,
to destroy all their publications wherever found.
The " Literary and Theological Eeview," published in the
city of New York, conducted by Leonard Woods, Jr., a son
of Professor Woods of Andover, Mass., (himself afterwards
Professor of a College in Maine) elaborately defended the
position that the "radicals" (meaning the abolitionists) were
"justly liable to the highest civil penalties and ecclesiastical cen
sures."* The Eeview was patronized by prominent clergymen in
New York and New England, was approvingly quoted by
leading religious journals, without eliciting a word of public
dissent, (except from the proscribed abolitionists) either by
the school of theologians represented by and in special sym
pathy with the " Eeview," or — what is still more remarkable
— by the Eeviews and Journals of the rival theological party,
in the habit of controverting disputed points, against them.
Another specimen of the literature of those times may be
found in a widely circulated pamphlet from the press of a
popular publishing house in Boston, the same year, from the
pen of a titled LL.D.,f the previous author of a "Political
Class Book" for schools, that had gone through several
editions. The drift of the pamphlet, of 1835, will appear
from the following:
" It is to be hoped and expected that Massachusetts will enact laws de
claring the printing, publishing, and circulating papers and pamphlets on
slavery, and also the holding of meetings to discuss slavery and abolition

* Literary and Theological Review for Dec, 1835.
t Hon. WiiiiAM Sdlmvai..

410 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
to be public indictable offenses, and provide for the punishment thereof in
such manner as will more effectually prevent such offenses."
If it be thought wonderful that such sentiments could
emanate from the high places of New York and New Eng
land, is it not still more so that no earnest remonstrance,'
either from press, pulpit, or forum, was raised against it,
excepting only from the threatened victims ?
The prevalence and the publication of such views at the
North could not fail to encourage and embolden the enemies
of liberty and free discussion at the South. Accustomed to
legislative enactments against the agitation of the slave ques
tion among themselves, it was natural that they should expect
1 something of the kind from the legislatures of the non-slave
holding States, especially when there appeared to be so much
evidence that leading men at the North were already ripe for
the measure. A disposition to silence the northern abolition
ists by public authority, as well as by other forms of violence,
had been manifest at the South from the beginning, and there
now seemed to be a prospect of securing the co-operation of
the legislatures of the nominally free States.
As early as Dec. 26, 1831, Gov. Lumpkin, of Georgia, gave
his approval to an act of the Legislature of that State, offer
ing five thousand dollars to any one who would arrest and
bring to trial, under the laws of that State, the editor or pub
lisher of the Boston Liberator. By the laws of Georgia he
would have been sentenced to death. Mr. Garrison was a
citizen of Massachusetts, owing no allegiance to Georgia, but
here was an attempt, by the Government of Georgia, to secure
his felonious abduction. Yet the Government of Massachu
setts took no notice of the insult, nor in any way provided
for the security of its citizens.
Other public bodies and popular meetings at the South fol
lowed this example, and offered rewards for the abduction of
Northern abolitionists. Twenty thousand dollars were offered
at New Orleans for the seizure of Arthur Tappan, and ten
thousand dollars at some other place for arresting Bev. Amos

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 411
A. Phelps. Another advertisement specified the names of
several of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-
Slavery Society at New York, offering a reward for each or
either of them.
Even ministers of religion shared largely in the feelings
that prompted to these advertisements and did much to coun
tenance and inflame them.
Bev. Eobert N. Anderson, of Virginia, writing to the Ses
sions of the Presbyterian Churches of Hanover Presbytery,
in 1835, said :
" At the approaching stated meeting of the Presbytery, I design to offer
a preamble and string of resolutions on the subject of the treasonable and
abominably wicked interference of the Northern and Eastern fanatics with
our political and civil rights, our property, and our domestic concerns." —
" If there be any stray goat of a minister among you, tainted with the blood
hound principles of abolitionism, let him be ferreted out, silenced, excom
municated, AND LEFT TO THE PUBLIO TO DISPOSE OF IN OTHER RESPECTS.
" Yours in the Lord, Robert N. Anderson."
Eev. Thomas S. Witherspoon, of Alabama, writing to the
editor of the Emancipator, said :
" Let your emissaries dare to cross the Potomac, and I cannot promise
ydu that your fate will be less than Haman's. Then beware how you goad
an insulted but magnanimous people to deeds of desperation."
Eev. William S. Plummer, D.D., of Eichmond, Va., in July,
1835, wrote to the Chairman of a Committee of Correspond
ence for calling a public meeting of the clergy of Eichmond,
on the subject of abolition, in which he said :
" Let them (the abolitionists) understand that thev will be caught if
thev come among us, and they will take good care to keep out bf our
way." " If abolitionists will set the country in a blaze, it is but fair that
they should receive the first warming of the fire."
A few days after the famous forcing of the Post-office, the
violation of the U. S. Mail, and the destruction of anti-slavery
publications, at Charleston, S. C. (July 29, 1835), a public
meeting was held for completing that measure, and ferreting
out and lynching abolitionists. At this assembly, the Charles
ton Courier informs us,

412 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
" The clergy of all denominations attended in a body, lending their sanc
tion to the proceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive
Qharacter of the scene."
The thanks of the meeting to the clergy for this service,
was expressed in a resolution for that purpose.
Eev. J. C. Postell (Methodist), of South Carolina, some
time afterwards, addressed a letter to Eev. La Eoy Sunder
land (Methodist), editor of Zion's Watchman, New York, in
which he said :
" If you wish to educate the slaves, I will tell you how to raise the moneys
without editing Zion's Watchman. You and old Arthur Tappan come out
to the South this winter, and they will raise one hundred thousand dollars
for you. New Orleans itself will be pledged for it. Desiring no further
acquaintance with you," &c. &c. ! f
It was in the same year (1835) that the ministers and mes
sengers of the Goslein Baptist Association, assembled at Free
Union, Virginia, having adopted resolutions affirming the
right to slave property, proceeded to denounce the abolition
ists as incendiaries and assassins, and intimating that they
dared not show themselves at the South.
At the Anniversary of the American Colonization Society
at Washington City (so late as 1839), Hon. Henry A. Wise,
M. O, of Virginia, a slaveholder and duellist, said :
" The best way to meet abolitionists was with Dupont's best (i. e.
gunpowder) and with cold steel." The N. Y. Sun reported that, after
Mr. W. had made his speech, Rev. Dr. Gardner Spring, of New York
City, spoke with sympathy of the sentiments of the South, as
EVINCED IN THE SPEECH OF Mr. WlSE !"
We can bear testimony that the language here attributed to
Mr. Wise is but little more violent or reprehensible than was
frequently used at Colonization meetings that were attended
by Dr. Spring (one of them in his own " session room") in
the city of New York, both preceding and after the riots
against abolitionists, in 1833 and '34. To "silence" and to
"put down the incendiaries," were expressions very frequently
employed. The reader will now be prepared to understand the records

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 413
that follow, and appreciate the situation of the friends of
liberty at that period.
Gov. McDuffie, of South Carolina, in his message to the
Legislature, in Dec, 1S35, declared slavery to be " the corner
stone of our republican edifice." The laboring population of
any community, "bleached or unbleached," he pronounced
to be a " dangerous element in the body politic." He pre
dicted that the body of the laboring people of the North
would be virtually reduced to slavery within twenty-five
years.* Ofthe measures of abolitionists, he said : " The laws
of every community should punish this species of interfer
ence with death without benefit of clergy,''f &c. kc.
In pursuance of his recommendation (and, as if desirous of
fulfilling his prophecy), both branches of the Legislature of
that State (Dec. 16) adopted the following :
" Resolved, That the Legislature of South Carolina, having every confi
dence in the justice and friendship of the non-slaveholding States, announces
her confident expectation, and she earnestly requests, that the Government
of these States will promptly and effectually suppress all those associa
tions within their respective limits, purporting to be abolition societies,"
&c, &c.
December 19, 1835, the General Assembly of North Caro
lina adopted the following :
" Resolved, That our sister States are respectfully requested to enact
PENAL LAWS, prohibiting the printing, within their respective limits, all
such publications as may hare a tendency to make our slaves discontented."
January 7, 1S36, the Alabama Legislature adopted the fol
lowing :
" Resolved, That we call upon our sister States, and respectfully request
them to enact such PENAL LAWS as will finally put an end to the malig
nant deeds of the abolitionists.''
Gov. Gayle, of Alabama, had previously demanded of Gov.
Marcy, of New York, that R G. Williams, publishing agent
* The Fugitive Slave law of 1550 seems well calculated to fulfil the prediction !
f The reader will notice the striking coincidence between this language of Gov.
McDuffie and that of tho u Uttrarj/ and Theological Betietc," vii : " justly liable to
the highest civil penalties and ecclesiastical censures."

414 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
of the. American Anti-Slavery Society, should be delivered
up to be tried by the laws of Alabama,' (a State into which
he had never set his foot,) on an indictment against him by
the Grand Jury of Tuscaloosa County, Ala., for publishing in
the Emancipator, at New York, the following sentences .
" God commands, and all nature cries out, that man should not be held
as property. The system of making men property has plunged 2,250,000
of our fellow-countrymen into the deepest- physical and moral degradation,
and they are every moment sinking deeper."
In making this demand, Gov. Gale says :
" It is admitted that the offender was not in this State when his crime
was committed, and that he has not fled therefrom, according to the strict
literal import of that term."
Gov. Marcy, as may well be supposed, declined acceding to
the demand. But it was expected that that class of offenses
might be punished under laws to be enacted in New York.
Feb. 16, 1836, both houses of the Legislature of Virginia
agreed to the following :
" Resolved, That the non-slaveholding States of the Union are respect
fully but earnestly requested promptly to adopt PENAL ENACTMENTS,
or such other measures, as will EFFECTUALLY SUPPRESS ALL
associations within their respective limits purporting to be, or having the
character of abolition societies."
Besolutions adopted " unanimously," about the same time,
by the Legislature of Georgia, included the following :
" Resolved, That it is deeply incumbent on the people of the North to
CRUSH the traitorous designs of the abolitionists."
These demands were officially communicated to the Gov
ernors of the non-slaveholding States, and by them were laid
before the respective Legislatures, as matters deserving grave
consideration and decision. It is not known to the writer .
that in doing this, a single northern Governor availed himself
of the opportunity to express an opinion adverse to these de
mands, much less to speak of them in terms of merited indig- _
nation and rebuke. On the other hand, we have tp record
such specimens of servility and treachery as the following :

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 415
Edward Everett, (whig) Governor of Massachusetts, in his
message communicating the southern documents, held the
following language :
" Whatever by direct and necessary operation is calculated to excite an
insurrection among the slaves, has been held, by highly respectable legal
authority, an offense against the peace of this Commonwealth, which may
be prosecuted as a misdemeanor at common law.''
William L. Marcy, (democratic) Governor of the State of
New- York, in his message on the same subject, spoke as fol
lows :
" Without the power to pass such laws the States would not possess all
the necessary means for preserving their external relations of peace among
themselves." This was in January, 1836. In the Legislature of Ehode
Island, Feb. 2d, Mr. Hazard, of Newport, Chairman of a Com
mittee appointed on the subject, at a previous session, in Oc
tober, 1835,* reported a bill in conformity with the Southern
demands. While this question was pending in the legislatures of the
northern states, the influence of the Federal Executive was
brought to bear on the side of the Slave Power, and against
the freedom of the press. The occasion for exerting this in
fluence was presented by the excitement growing out of the
transmission of anti-slavery publications, through the United
States' Mails. Some of these publications were gratuitously
sentj not to any portion of the colored people, either the free
or the enslaved, but to prominent citizens, statesmen, clergy
men, merchants, planters, and professional gentlemen at the
south, whose names and residences were known at the north.
There could be no reasonable pretense that this measure could
excite an insurrection of the slaves. Gen. Duff Green, Editor
of the Washington Telegraph, one of the most violent oppo-

* This, it will be noticed, was about two months previous to the earliest action in
the Legislatures of the Southern States— so that, in reality, the measure of legisla
tive suppression was first broached in the Legislature, of a Northern State! The
subject was introduced into the Legislature of Rhode Island by Mr. Hazardj who
had presented resolutions of a public meeting in Newport, recommending the measure.

416 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
sers of abolitionists, admitted that there was little or no dan
ger of this ; and that the real ground of apprehension was
that the publications would "operate upon the. consciences and
fears of slaveholders themselves, from the insinuation of then-
dangerous heresies into our schools, our pulpits and our do
mestic circles." — "It is only," (said he,) "by alarming the
consciences of the weak and feeble, and by diffusing among
our own people a morbid sensibility on the subject of slavery,
that abolitionists can accomplish their object. Preparatory
to this, they are now saturating the non-slaveholding States
with the belief that slavery is a sin against God," &c.
The riotous outrage upon the Post-office and the TJ. S. Mail
at Charleston, (S. C.) July 29, 1835, has already been alluded
to. From an editorial of the Charleston Courier, it appears
that " arrangements had previously been made at the Post-
office in the city, to arrest the circulation of incendiary
matter, until instructions could be received from the Post-
office Department at Washington." The Editor therefore
thought " it might have been better, perhaps, to have
awaited the application for instructions before proceeding
to extremities." In reply to this application, Aug. 5, the
Postmaster General, Amos Kendall, (a northern man) said :
'' I am satisfied that the Postmaster General has no legal authority to
exclude newspapers from the mail, nor to prohibit their carriage or delivery
on account of their character or tendency, real or supposed." " But I am
not prepared to direct you to forward or deliver the papers of which you
speak." " By no act or direction of mine, official or private, could I be
induced to aid, knowingly, in giving circulation to papers ofthis description,
directly or indirectly. We owe an obligation to the laws, but a higher one
to the communities in which we live, and if the former be permitted to de
stroy the latter, it is patriotism to disregard them. Entertaining these
views, I cannot sanction, and will not condemn, the step you have taken.
Your justification must be looked for in the character of the papers detained,
and the circumstances by which you are surrounded."
Other Postmasters followed the example of the Post
master at Charleston. The measure of suppression was not
confined to the South. The Postmaster at New- York,
Samuel L. Gouverneur, Esq., proposed to the Anti-Slaveij

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 417
Society, " voluntarily to desist from attempting to send their
publications into the southern states, by public mails." The
proposition was declined. In answer to a letter from Mr.
Gouverneur to the Postmaster General, Mr. Kendall wrote
an elaborate reply, Aug. 22, in which he said :
" I am deterred from giving an order to exclude the whole series of aboli
tion publications from the Southern mails only by a want of legal power,
and if I were situated as you are, I would do as you have done."
President Jackson introduced the subject into his annual
message, Dec, 1835, accusing abolitionists of "unconstitu
tional and wicked attempts," and recommending as follows:
" I would therefore call the special attention of Congress to the subject,
and respectfully suggest the propriety of passing such a law as will pro
hibit, under severe penalties, the circulation, in the Southern States, through
the mail, of incendiary publications, intended to instigate the slaves to insur
rection." The winter of 1835-6 was a dark day for the prospects of
northern freedom. Except by the intended victims of this
proscription, few, feeble, and hated as they were, no voice of
remonstrance was uttered, no symptoms of alarm were ex
hibited. The adoption of the measures proposed to Congress
and to the Legislatures of Massachusetts, New- York, Ehode
Island, and other free states, was anticipated, as a matter of
course. The majority of intelligent citizens expected no
other result. Abolitionists redoubled their efforts, knowing
that all was at stake.
A searching Eeview of his Message, in the form of a solemn
protest, was addressed to President Jackson, by the Executive
Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society at New
York. In the bold and dignified language, of conscious inno
cence, they denied the charges he had brought against them,
of insurrectionary designs. They invited investigation hj a
Committee of Congress, and offered to submit to their inspec
tion all their publications, all their correspondence, and all
their accounts, and promising to attest them, and to answer
eYery question under oath. No notice was ever taken by the
President of this Protest, but it must have had its effect. His
27

418 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
charges were never repeated by President Jackson, or by any
of his successors.
An Anti-Slavery Convention at Providence (E. I.) for
forming a Ehode Island State Anti-Slavery Society, Feb. 2,
1836, had been invited by a call of respectable citizens in all
parts of the State. It was numerously attended, well sus
tained, and did much to revive the spirit of Eoger Williams
iu that part of New England.
A joint Committee of both Houses of the Legislature of
Massachusetts, Senator Lunt, Chairman, was appointed to con
sider and report, upon the, southern demands. Abolitionists
requested the customary privilege of a hearing before this
Committee, but no notice, for a long time, was taken of the
request. It was believed that no hearing would be given.
The Anti-Slavery Committee at Boston, were at length unex
pectedly notified that an audience would be given them, the
very next day, March 4th, 1836. They hastily rallied, selected
their advocates, and prepared for their defense. The inter
view was held in the Eepresentatives' Hall, neither of the
houses being in session, but most of the members of both
"houses, and many prominent citizens being present. After
remarks by Eev. Samuel J. May, and Ellis Gray Loring, Esq.,
they were followed by Prof. Charles Follen, who, in the
course of his remarks, alluded to the recent outrages against
abolitionists, observing that any legislative enactments or
censures against the already persecuted party, would tend to
encourage their assailants, and increase their persecutions.
Taking offense at this remark, the Chairman, Mr. Lunt,
silenced Prof. Follen, and abruptly terminated the interview;
whereupon the abolitionists took prompt measures for issu
ing their suppressed defense in a pamphlet form, which, com
prising above 40 pages, was prepared for the press in the two
following days. A Boston Editor, Benjamin F. Hallet, Esq.,
gave some account of the proceedings, and said the abolition
ists were entitled to a fair hearing. The Legislature directed
their Committee to allow a completion of the defense, which
was accordingly notified for Monday, P. M., the 8th inst.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 419
The adjacent country was by this time roused, and the hall
of the Eepresentatives was crowded. Prbf. Follen concluded
his speech, and was followed by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq.,
William Lloyd Garrison, and William Goodell, the latter of
whom, instead of making any farther defense of abolition
ists, or proving that their publications were not insurrection
ary, proceeded to charge upon the southern states who had
made these demands, a conspiracy against the liberties of the
free North. This opened an entire new field. Great uneasi
ness was manifested by the Committee, but the speaker,
though repeatedly interrupted by the Chairman, succeeded in
quoting the language of Gov. McDuffie's message, and in cha
racterizing the southern documents, to which he pointed, lying
on the table of the Committee before him, as being fetters for
northern freemen. He had commenced making the inquiry —
" Mr. Chairman ! Are you prepared to attempt putting them
on?" — but the sentence was only about half finished, when
the stentorian voice ofthe Chairman interrupted him: — "Sit
down, sir !" — He sat down. The Legislative Committee pre
sently began to move from their seats, but the audience sat
petrified with suppressed feeling. The late Dr. William E.
Channing was seated among the abolitionists, though not in
form nor in sentiment fully identified with them. On such an
occasion he could not be absent, and his presence was felt.
His countenance seemed to express what words could not
have uttered ; more eloquent in silence than even he could
have been, in speech. The Legislative Committee themselves
lingered, as in vague expectation. Then rose a respectable
merchant of Boston, Mr. Bond, unaccustomed, as he said, to
public speaking, and begged the Committee to wait a few
minutes. It was growing dark, and the hall unlighted, but
they sat down. Mr. Bond briefly reminded them that free
dom of speech and of the press could never be surrendered
by the sons of the pilgrims. He was followed by another
volunteer, a Dr. Bradley, from old Plymouth rock. The
Committee then rose again, and, with the audience, slowly
and quietly retired. A low murmur of voices, though too

420 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
low to be distinctly articulate, was heard through tbe dim
hall of the People's Eepresentatives, but the very tones of
which, like the distant roar of the sea, told of power. The
printed plea of the abolitionists was, three- days afterwards,
on the desk of each member of the Legislature, in the hands
of the Governor, and in process of circulation through the
Commonwealth. Mr. Lunt and his Committee delayed their
Eeport, till near tbe close of the session, several weeks after
wards. It was a stale repetition of trite declamation on the
subject, but recommending no distinct action by the legisla
ture. What disposition was made of it we do not remember,
and the political prospects of Mr. Senator Lunt shared its
oblivion. " As goes Massachusetts, so goes New England." The bill
of Mr. Hazard, in the Legislature of Ehode Island, was de
feated by the energy and spirit of two members from Provi
dence, George Curtiss and Thomas W. Dorr.
By the Legislature of the State of New- York, a Eeport was
adopted in May, 1836, responding to the sentiments of Gov.
Marcy's Message, and pledging the faith of the State to enact
such laws whenever they shall be requisite. This Eeport ap
pears to have been sent to the Governors of the Southern
States, but never appeared in the organ of the New- York
State Administration, (the Albany Argus) in which the acts
of the State Government are "by authority" published. The
citizens of the State of New- York, in general, (including abo
litionists who were watching for the document) were unap-
prized of its contents until they saw it quoted, the winter
following, in the message of the acting Governor of Virginia.
There were indications, in the year 1837, in the State of New
York, that the project of legislative suppression was not re
linquished. The proposition of President Jackson to Congress, for an
act prohibiting, under severe penalties, the circulation of in
surrectionary publications through the mails, was referred to
a Select Committee, of which John C. Calhoun was Chairman,
by whom a Eeport was submitted, Feb. 4th, 1836, Of a very

SLAVERY AND. FREEDOM. 421
remarkable character. It conclusively proved and maintained
that the measure recommended by the President would be a
violation of the Constitution and an infringement of the liber
ties secured under it. It would, moreover, be unsafe for the
interests of slavery.
" Nothing is more clear," says the Report, " thah that the admission of
the right to Congress to determine what papers are incendiary, and, as such,
to prohibit their circulation through the mail, necessarily involves the right
to determine what are not incendiary, and enforce their circulation." . . .
" If Congress may this year decide what incendiary publications are, they
may, next year, decide what they are not, and thus laden their mails with
real though covert abolitionism." ... "It belongs to the states, and not to
Congress, to determine what is or is not calculated to disturb their security."
The Eeport, therefore, proceeded to maintain that when
the several states had determined, severally, what publications
were incendiary, the Federal Government and all the other
States, were bound to conform to those determinations, and
act accordingly. Congress must enact a law prohibiting the
transmission of such publications through the mails, and every
other State in the Union is bound to pass laws in concurrence,
that is, prohibiting publication and discussion ! Thus Con
gress and all the States were to be controlled by the legisla
tion of one State ! And powers unsafe to be conferred by the
people upon their Eepresentatives in Congress, (as the Eeport
' had shown) were nevertheless to be exercised by the legisla
ture of a single slave State, over the whole country ! The
Eeport was accompanied by a Bill in accordance with its re
commendations. It contained the following :
" Be it enacted, &c, That it shall not be lawful for any deputy post
master, in any State, Territory, or District, of the United States, know
ingly, to deliver to any person whatsoever, any pamphlet, newspaper, hand
bill, or other printed paper or pictorial representation, touching the subject
of slavery, where, by the laws of the said State, Territory, or District,
their circulation is prohibited, and any deputy postmaster who shall be
guilty thereof, shall be forthwith removed from office."
On the question of a third reading in the Senate, the votes
were eighteen to eighteen. The Vice President, Mr. Van

422 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Buren, came forward and voted for the reading. It was how
ever defeated on the final vote.
The project of restrictive legislation over the mails, was
abandoned. Not only so : the credit of the Post-office De
partment was found to have received such a shock by the
disorders that had given rise to these projects, that, instead
of an act requiring such a discrimination as the President had
recommended, the nation was astonished with an enactment,
approved by the Presidential signature, (after having been
passed without debate) prohibiting such a discrimination under
severe and degrading penalties. The right of abolitionists'
to the use of the United States' mails was thus established !
And before the close of the same session, Mr. Calhoun con
ceded, in the Senate, that the purposes and operations of the
abolitionists were only moral and suasive, and not violent and
insurrectionary. ASSAULTS ON THE RIGHT OF PETITION.
Since neither riots nor legislation were likely to crush the
abolitionists, the next expedient was to break down the right
of petition, and to stifle the discussion in Congress. Abo
litionists had deluged the Senate and House of Eepresenta
tives with petitions for the abolition of slavery in the Federal
District and Territories, and for the prohibition of the inter
state slave trade. Now came the era of the "gags."
We give a list of them with the names of the movers, the
dates, and the votes in the House, by which they were carried.
1. Pinckney's, May 26th, 1836.— Yeas 117— Nays 68.
2. Hawes', Jan. 18th, 1837.— Yeas 115— Nays 47.
3. Patton's, Dec. 21st, 1837.— Yeas 122— Nays 74.
4. Atherton's, Jan. 12th, 1838.— Yeas 126— Nays 78.
5. Johnson's, incorporated into the standing rules of the
House, and thenceforward known as the 21st rule. Jan. 28,
1840.— Yeas 114— Nays 108.
On the 7th of June, 1841, during an extra session, the vote
by which this rule was "discarded" was — Yeas 112 — Nays

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 423
104. This was done by a vote adopting all the standing rules,
excepting the 21st, but a special rule was immediately afterwards
adopted, applicable only to the extra session, by which it was
established that on the presentation of petitions on subjects
not included in the President's Message, (except a bankrupt
law) " objection to the reception shall be considered as made,
and the question of reception shall be laid on the table." This
was, in effect, a new gag of a general character, operating upon
anti-slavery petitions, but not confined to them. All petitions
as well as abolition petitions, were excluded, and people began
to open their eyes to the fact that the entire nation, as well as
the troublesome agitators, were gagged !
The original gag of Mr. Pinckney was as follows :
" Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, and propositions,
relating, in any way, or to any extent, whatever, to the subject of
slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table,
and no further action whatever shall be had thereon."
The succeeding ones were substantially the same.
In the session of 1841-2, a Eeport was prepared re-enacting
the gag ; but fearing to trust a vote upon it in the House, its
authors adroitly laid it on the table, under the previous ques
tion, where it could not be taken up without a two-thirds vote.
The effect of this (the extra session having passed) was to re
store the 21st Eule. This was continued until December,
1845, when it was finally rescinded.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
The long protracted efforts of John Quincy Adams, who
was not an immediate abolitionist, to restore the right of peti
tion, are too well understood to require a minute record in
this place. They constituted the crowning act of his laborious
public life, and rendered him the benefactor of his country.
Mr. Adams also opposed the annexation of Texas, and the
Mexican war. He declared that the General Government in
time of war, had a discretionary power to emancipate the
slaves. He proposed in Congress a plan for the prospective

424 GREAT -STRUGGLE BETWEEN
abolition of slavery, through an amendment of the Constitu
tion, a proposition which, by-the-by, received no favor either
at the North or the South, thus testing the sincerity of those
who professed to be opposed to slavery, and in favor of its
gradual removal, while they only deprecated the imprudent
measures of the immediatists. Mr. Adams was threatened
with assassination, with an indictment by a Grand Jury of
the District, and with expulsion from the House. A formal
effort was made to pass a censure upon him, but it did not
succeed.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 425

CHAPTEE XXXV.
OPPOSITION FROM LEADING CLERGY AND ECCLESIASTICAL
BODIES.
Recapitulation of Preceding Statements — Theological Seminaries — Ecclesiastical
Bodies — Law of Lane Seminary against discussion (1884) — Conference of Meth.
Epis. Ch., Cincinnati (1836) — Ohio Annual Conference (previous)— New York An
nual Conference, (June,. 1836, 1838) — Sentiments of Methodist Ministers — Official
course of Presiding'EIders and Bishops — Presbyterian Synod of Philadelphia —
Associations of Congregational Ministers in Connecticut and Massachusetts in
1836 — "Pastoral Letters" of 1836, and 1837 — Extraordinary claims of Congregational
Pastors — Origin of disaffection towards the Clergy on the part of a class of Abo
litionists. >
While these efforts were making to put down abolitionists
by mob violence, by State legislation, by denunciations from
the Federal Executive, by violations of the U. S. Mails, by
closing the Post-offices against their publications, by gagging
discussion in Congress, and overthrowing the people's right
of petition, there was still another power, more potent than all
the others, standing behind and sustaining them all, with which
abolitionists were called to contend. We mean the prevailing
and predominant religious influences of the country, repre
sented by and controlling theological seminaries, religious
associations, churches, and ecclesiastical bodies. It is the reli
gion of a country that shapes its political and social manifest
ations, under all forms of government, more especially under
those of a popular character.-
The position of the principal religious sects, respecting
slavery, was exhibited in former chapters* It appeared also
in their support of the Colonization Society.f The opposition

• Chap. XII. to XVUI. f Chap. XXIX.

426 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
of Theological Eeviews, of religious journals, and of promi
nent clergymen, has been adverted to in the present connec
tion* It was to be expected that corresponding manifesta
tions should be witnessed in Theological Seminaries and the
action of ecclesiastical bodies. A few specimens must suffice,
in this record.
Among the earliest and boldest attempts to suppress the
discussion of the slave question in America, we have to record
the gag law of Lane Seminary, Ohio, October 6, 1834, by
which the students were ordered to disband both their Anti-
Slavery and Colonization Societies, (for it was important to
appear impartial,) and, in a standing rule, forbidden to lecture,
deliver addresses, or hold meetings among themselves, except
of a devotional character. This was during the reign of mob
violence against abolitionists, and more than a year before
the demands of Gov. McDuffie and his Southern associates
upon the free States of the North. The well known occasion
was the formation of a flourishing Anti-Slavery Society.
Though most of the students left the Seminary in consequence,
and the laws were soon after repealed, yet the same spirit per
vaded theological and literary institutions in general, and in
fluences were generally exerted in them which prevented free
discussion and inquiry.
In showing the position of the Methodist Episcopal Church
on the slave question, we have already noticed the declaration
of its General Conference at Cincinnati, in 1836, in which
they " disclaim any right, wish, or intention, to interfere in the
civil and political relation between master and slave, as it ex
ists in the slaveholding States of this Union." At this same
Conference a preamble and resolutions were adopted depre
cating " the great excitement on the subject of modern aboli
tionism," and the course of some of its members, as " calculated
to bring upon this body the suspicion and distrust of the com
munity." They declared themselves " decidedly opposed to
modern abolitionism." It was also
* See last two chapters.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 427
" Resolved, bythe Delegates ofthe Annual Conferences, in General Con
ference assembled, that they disapprove, in the most unqualified sense, the
conduct of the two members of the General Conference, who are reported
to have lectured in this city recently, upon, and in favor of, modern aboli
tionism." This resolution was adopted by a vote of 122 to 11. The
mover, Bev. S. G. Eoszell, was reported to have said, in the
debate, that he wished the Eev. Orange Scott (one of the cen
sured members) was in heaven — (that is, he wished he was
dead :) — in perfect keeping with the murderous sentiments so
freely expressed by pro-slavery clergymen at that period,
some specimens of which the reader has already seen.
This same Conference received a friendly address from the
Methodist Wesleyan Conference in England, on the subject of
slavery, but refused to publish it. They adopted, moreover,
a pastoral address to the communicants of the M. E. Church,
in which, after stating that the " Constitutional Compact" be
tween the States precluded Church action against slavery, they
added, " These facts, which are only mentioned here as a reason for the friendly
admonition which we wish to give you, constrain us, as your pastors, who
are called to watch over your souls, as they must give an account, to ex
hort you to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and to
refrain from patronizing any of their publications," &c. &c. * * *
" From every view of the subject which we have been able to take, and
from the most calm and dispassionate survey of the whole ground, we have
come to the conclusion that the only safe, scriptural, and prudent way for
us, both as ministers and people, to take, is, wholly to refrain prom
this agitating subject," &c. — Signed by order and in behalf of the
General Conference of the M. JE. Church, by the Bishops.
The General Conference represented both the northern and
the southern portions of the M. E. Church, acting together.
But northern Annual Conferences took the same ground.
The Ohio Annual Conference had, a short time before,
Eesolved, 1. " That we deeply regret the proceedings of the abolitionists and anti-
slavery societies in the free States, and the consequent excitement produced
thereby in the slave States, that we, as a Conference, disclaim all connection
and co-operation with, or belief in the same, and that we hereby recommend

428 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
to our junior preachers, local brethren, and private members within our
bounds, to abstain from any connection with them, or participation of their
acts, in the premises, whatever.
2. " That those brethren and citizens of the North who resist the abo
lition movements with firmness and moderation, are the true friends to the
Church, to the slaves of the South, and to the Constitution of our common
country," &c.
The New- York Annual Conference, in June, 1836, ap
proved the doings of the General Conference, and disapproved
the patronizing of Zion's Watchman, an anti-slavery Meth
odist paper, edited by Eev. La Eoy Sunderland. It also Re
solved that —
* # * "We are decidedly of the opinion that none ought to be elected
to the office of a deacon or elder in our church, unless he give a pledge
to the Conference that he will refrain from agitating the church
on this subject," &c. &c.
In 1838, the same Conference resolved that any of its mem
bers or probationers who should patronize Zion's Watchman,
recommend it, circulate it, obtain subscribers, or collect or
remit moneys for it, "shall be deemed guilty of indiscretion,
and dealt with accordingly."
" The Rev. George W. Langhorne, of North Carolina, in writing to the
editor of Zion's Watchman, June 25, 1836, said :
"If you have not yet resigned your credentials as a minister of the Metho
dist Episcopal Church, I really think that, as an honest man, you should
now do it." " You are bound to submit to their authority [the General
Conference], or leave the church."
This sentiment, that abolitionists ought to quit the churches
or cease disturbing their peace by anti-slavery agitation, was
very current in the churches of most sects, even at the North,
at this period, though much has been since said against the
sin of schism, when abolitionists secede.
Presiding Elders refused to put anti-slavery resolutions in Quarterly
Conferences, but readily put pro-slavery ones.
Bishops Hedding and Emory addressed a Pastoral Letter to the New
England and New Hampshire Conferences, in which the anti-slavery excite*
ment in that part of the country was discountenanced. They "advised
the preachers, the trustees, and official and other members, to manifest their

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 429
disapprobation, and to refuse the use of their pulpits and houses for such
purposes." " Bishop Waugh refused to put a motion to raise a committee on slavery
at the N. E. Conference of 1837, and declared ' that there should be no
appeal from his decision to the Conference. Bishop Hedding, at the N. E.
Conference, in 1837, refused a motion to raise a committee on slavery, only
on certain conditions.' "
" Bishop Soule, presiding at the New England Conference of the M. E.
Church in 1840, refused permission asked by Rev. O. Scott to read a memo
rial from private members of the church, requesting the Annual Conference
to express -an opinion against the f Colored testimony Resolution' of the
General Conference." — True Wesleyan, Dec. 27, 1851.
The Bresbyterian Synod of Bhiladelphia, about the same
time, re-echoed the stale and truthless slanders of the newspa
pers against the abolitionists.
It is to be borne in mind that these ecclesiastical efforts to
suppress the discussion of the slave question, in May and
June, 1836, came as closely as possible on the heel of the leg
islative attempts to the same effect, in the national and state
legislatures, the previous winter, being the first opportunity
that had presented itself by the accustomed annual meetings
of these bodies, since the famous demands of the Governors
and Legislatures of the Slave States. They are to be inter
preted in the light of the silence and apparent acquiescence
of the leading clergy and religious journalists, during that
dark period, except when, as already stated, their influence
was on the side of "the highest civil penalties and ecclesiastical
censures." The former had been attempted, and (though, in
some states, they were still pending,) there was a prospect of
their failure. Now came the time to try the power of the
latter. The authorities of the Methodist Episcopal Church
were speaking. It would not do for the guardians of New
England Congregationalism to be behind them.
The Associations of Congregational Ministers, first of Con
necticut, and, immediately afterwards, of Massachusetts, mov
ing evidently in concert, and with the aid of prominent Pres
byterian clergymen from New- York and Ohio, in attendance

430 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
for that object, united in adopting a series of Eesolutions,
among which was the following :
" Resolved, That the operations of itinerant agents and lecturers attempt
ing to enlighten the churches in respect to particular points of Christian
doctrine and of Christian morals, and to control the religious sentiment of
the community on topics which fall most appropriately within the sphere of
pastoral instruction, and pastoral discretion, as to time and manner, without
the advice and consent of the pastors and regular ecclesiastical bodies,
are an unauthorized interference with the RIGHTS, duties, and discretion
of the stated ministry, dangerous to the influence of the pastoral office,
and fatal to, the peace and good order of the churches."
The evident design of this was to close the Congregational
meeting-houses and pulpits against anti-slavery lecturers and
anti-slavery meetings, which were at that time beginning to
be greatly multiplied, and whioh were exerting a powerful
influence. It became necessary, for the sake of consistency,
and also to maintain the high powers thus claimed for Con
gregational pastors, to apply the same rule to "itinerating
evangelists," which was accordingly done in another Eesolution.
The series was closed by a pledge of the clergy, " that we
consider ourselves bound to sustain each other, and the churches,
in standing against all these invasions of our ecclesiastical
order." Under this pledge, even abolitionists belonging to the
pastoral body, felt themselves bound to exclude anti-slavery
lecturers and preachers from their pulpits, in deference to
the wishes of the clerical body to which they belonged. This
Congregational precedent was followed, (as designed by the
movers,) in Presbyteries and Synods of the Presbyterian
church, all over the free states. It was a flagrant violation
of the "ecclesiastical order" of Congregationalism, sustained
only by the bad usages under the old " Say brook Platform,"
by which Whitefield, Tennant, and Finley had been shut
out of the pulpits, and even made liable to imprisonment
and banishment, through joint ecclesiastical and legislative
action, a century previous.
It was objected to these Eesolutions, while under discus-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 431
sion in the Connecticut General Association, that they would
tend to encourage the mobs against anti-slavery lecturers,
which were then rife in that region. The taunting retort
was, that abolitionists, according to their own motto, ought
not to shrink from the consequences ! A mong the abolition
lecturers then at work in Connecticut, was a Congregational
minister of that state. He persevered in the work, till, find
ing his way hedged up by his clerical brethren, he retired
from the field ; — not because a portion of the people in the
parishes were not desirous to hear him, but because the pas
tors would not suffer him to be heard !
A Bastoral Letter to the churches accompanied the Eeso
lutions of 1836, and breathing the same spirit. A still more
famous Pastoral Letter was sent forth by the General Associa
tion of Massachusetts, a year afterwards, June, 1S37. The
evils of anti-slavery agitation had not ceased. A new class
of anti-slavery lecturers had appeared, creating still greater
alarm. Two talented Quaker ladies, the Misses Grimke,
daughters of the late distinguished Judge Grimke, of South
Carolina, once slaveholders, but now earnest abobtionists,
were lecturing in the old Commonwealth. They had com
menced by addressing female audiences, but had been pre
vailed upon to admit listeners of the other sex, who could
seldom hear without going away convinced. Another cleri
cal manifesto was deemed necessary to avert the calamity im
pending over the commonwealth and the churches.
" VTe would call your attention'' (say they) " to the importance of main
taining that respect and deference to the pastoral office which is
enjoined in Scripture, and which is essential to the best influence of the
ministry on yon and your children. One way in which this respect has
been, in some cases, violated, is in encouraging lecturers and preachers on
certain topics of reform, to present their subjects within the parochial limits
of settled pastors without their consent. Your minister is ordained of
God to be your teacher, and is commanded to feed that flock over which
the Holy Ghost hath made him overseer. If there are certain topics on
which he does not preach with the frequency or in the manner that would
please you, it is a violation of sacred and important rights to encourage
a stranger to present them.''

432 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
The Pastoral Letter then dilates upon the appropriate sphere
of woman, and the danger of her stepping into the wrong
place. Quaker women had long been accustomed to preach
in New England, and occasionally in Congregational meeting
houses, without alarming ecclesiastical bodies, but they were
now preaching successfully in favor of immediate emancipa
tion, and against the prejudice that -fed the Colonization So
ciety ; — and the clergy became alarmed.
When it is remembered that " the parochial limits of settled
pastors" are intended to cover (if they do sometimes lack a
little of it) the entire area of the Commonwealth — every foot
of the soil in it — the modesty of the demand becomes as
apparent as the condition of a people- who should be led to
recognize such " sacred and important rights." Whatever the
pastor might preach, or omit preaching, his "rights are vio
lated" if any one else is encouraged to lecture or preach ! The
religious " rights" ofthe community, if proportionately circum
scribed to meet this demand, may be represented by a cypher
— they utterly vanish away.
Whether it was too late in the day, or too early, to set up
pretensions like these, it was certainly attempted at a very
unfortunate moment. A small portion of the " prudence" so
much commended, would have withheld the conservative
clergy from broaching so exciting a topic. The great are not
always wise.
If a portion of abolitionists have come to regard the insti
tutions of Church and Clergy with unreasonable aversion, the
reader may now see, as posterity will certainly see, the school
in which they have been trained. If Christian institutions, if
the Bible, if anything pertaining to true religion falls into tem
porary disrepute, a fearful weight of responsibility rests on the
clerical bodies who have so recklessly and needlessly furnished
the occasion. It would be difficult to fasten upon any class
of abolitionists the charge of having been disrespectful towards
the church and the clergy, until manifestations like these had
appeared. Had the pastors manfully discharged their duty

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 433
in reproving the giant sin of the country, instead of waiting
for the stones to cry out, they might have magnified their
high calling, promoted the cause of religion, delivered their
country from thraldom, and their own memories from merited
disgrace. 28

434 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE XXXVI.
PERSECUTIONS OF ABOLITIONISTS.
Ecclesiastical persecutions — La Roy Sunderland — Lewis Tappan — E. W. Goodwin-
Presbyteries and Church Sessions — " Friends" — Charles Marriot and Isaac T.
Hopper — Other modes of persecution — Principal victims — Benjamin Lundy—
William Lloyd Garrison — Miss Prudence Crandall — Dr. Reuben Crandall— George
Storrs — Jonathan Walker — Elijah P. Lovejoy — John B. Mahan— AlanBon Work
— James E. Burr — George Thompson — Charles T. Torrey — William L. Chaplin-
Messrs. Drayton and Sayres.
Neither northern legislative enactments, nor riots, nor
personal assaults, could prove of much permanent service in
the work of suppressing free discussion and punishing deeds
of mercy to the poor, without other and more permanent
instrumentalities. These were furnished by the ecclesiastical
machinery of the sects at the North, and the sanguinary slave
code of the South. Whenever active abolitionists fell into
the hands of either of these, they expected no mercy, or ex
pected only to discover their mistake.
No persecutions of abolitionists have been perhaps so vex
atious, so annoying, so exhausting, or, on the whole, so
effective, as those suffered by some of the more active among
them, in their church or ecclesiastical relations. Not that
their anti-slavery principles and measures were, in very many
cases, charged directly against them as heresies or crimes. It
was not commonly the policy of their persecutors to "pursue
precisely that course. It was always easy to harass them
with unfounded charges of disorderly or disorganizing con
duct, and thus cripple, and harass, and disgrace, and discour
age them. The trials of La Boy Sunderland, of Lewis Tappan,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 435
and of E. W. Goodwin, were but specimens of the persecu-
" tions of scores and hundreds, if not thousands, of less promi
nent, but equally faithful and abused men. The records of
Presbyterian Church Sessions and Presbyteries, would alone
furnish ample materials for a humiliating but instructive
volume of such details, even in a very condensed form.
Similar persecutions have been encountered all over the coun
try in the walks of social and domestic life. The " gospel
of debverance to the captives" has " not brought peace upon
the earth, but a sword" — " a man's foes have been those of
his own household ;" and if the " prophets" of emancipation
are looking for " honor," it seems not likely to come from those
of their " own country and kindred." Even those who are
now preparing to " enter into their labors" have already
learned the art and policy of disparaging them.
The vast powers wielded by clerical bodies, missionary
boards, conventions, and managers and committees of bene
volent societies, have been exerted to cripple and crush aboli
tionists who would persist in agitating the slave question.
These ecclesiastical annoyances and persecutions have not
been confined to the sects whose general associated action has
been found recorded on the side of slavery, or whose recog
nized leaders have labored to press the Bible into its support.
Sects claiming the reputation of being decidedly anti-slavery
—sects that do not allow slaveholding among their members,
nor maintain any ecclesiastical connection with slaveholders,
have opposed the agitation of the subject by anti-slavery
societies, and have censured and even excommunicated their
members for their activity in them. The Hicksite Friends,
for example, in the City and State of New York, disowned
two of their most estimable members, Charles Marriot of
Athens, and Isaac T. Hopper of New York city, solely for
that cause. The only excuse was the sanctimonious plea that
" Friends" must not mingle with " the world," nor co-operate
with other sects. The real fact was, that " Friends" in gen
eral had so "mingled with the world" in its commercial
cupidity and its political servility, as to sympathize with

436 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
"other sects" in their hatred of active abolitionists. Their
members can co-operate with their fellow-citizens of other
sects, to elect slaveholding and slave-hunting Presidents ofthe
United States, without fear of church censure. The " Friends"
in New England are extensively and largely interested in the
cotton manufacture, and like most of that class, are averse to
an agitation which is offensive to the planters. And hence
an earnest and active Quaker abolitionist loses caste with his
sect. It would be strange if there were not many apostacies
under such trials. Yet unremitting persecution has proved
less effective than a brief season of it, alternated with patron
age, and flattery, and favor. It has been by these adroit appli
ances that the ranks of reformers, especially among clergy
men and leading laymen, have been corrupted and thinned.
There are many who withstood manfully the tempest of
popular fury, and even the prospect of imprisonment who
have since fainted under the sunshine of political or ecclesi
astical favor, or been laid asleep by the fireside of domestic
quiet; But others have taken their places. "The.dast have
been first, and the first last, for many are called, but few are
chosen." We will now notice some other forms of persecution/ and
in doing this, will briefly recapitulate some of the prominent
cases, with the names of the victims.
Benjamin Lundy was repeatedly assaulted in the streets
of Baltimore, and once brutally beaten by Austin Woolfolk,
a slave-trader, before any of the modern Anti-slavery Sc
cieties were organized. Mr. Lundy was a feeble man/ a quiet,
unresisting Quaker, but the "peculiar institutions" 'of South
ern Chivalry provided no protection for him. -
William Lloyd Garrison's imprisonment in Baltimore,
and the violent assault upon his person, and his imprisonment
in Boston, have been narrated already. — (See Chap. XXXH.)
Miss Prudence Crandall, a pious and benevolent young
lady, established and taught a school for colored pupilsj at
Canterbury, Conn. Through the influence of leading mem-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 437
bers of the Colonization Society, an Act of the State Legisla
ture against such schools was procured, and was enforced by
the imprisonment of Miss Crandall, in 1833. The school hav
ing been resumed, was finally broken up by lawless violence
in September, 1834.
Dr. Beuben Crandall of Westchester county, (N. Y.) a
brother of Miss Prudence Crandajl, having located himself in
Washington City to teach botany, was arrested and thrown
into prison, Aug. 11, 1835, on charge of circulating incen
diary publications, with intent to excite the slaves to insur
rection. After lying in jail above eight months, till April
15, 1836, he was brought to trial before Judge Cranch. The
evidence lagainst him only proved that he had in his trunk
some. anti-slavery pamphlets and papers, that the latter were
used by him in wrapping up his botanical specimens, and
that) on request, he had lent to a white citizen, one of the
pamphlets. The "incendiary" matter read in court from
these papers, were articles against slavery, and in favor of
the right of the free colored people to reside in this country.
The effort to prove Dr. Crandall a member of an Anti-slavery
Society failed. Yet the District Attorney, Francis S. Key,
Esq., a leading advocate and an officer of the Colonization
Society, by whose vigilance Dr. Crandall had been indicted
and arrested, (avowing, from the first, his determination to
subject him to capital punishment,) persisted, vehemently,
and in the use of the most Inflammatory and approbrious
language, to urge upon the jury a verdict of guilty. The
counsel for the accused urged that the "incendiary" matter
read in court did not exceed in severity the language used by
Mr. Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and other Southern gentlemen,
including even Mr. Key himself, when declaiming against
slavery* He attributed this excitement and prosecution to
tbe rivalry between the Colonization and Abolition Societies.
* It waa a constant ruse with the orators of Colonizationism, to declaim against
slavery, in order to enlist and use up the energies and means of philanthropists,-
while, in almost the same breath, they would justify slaveholders^ and denounce the
" incendiary aboUtionists."

4S8 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of
not guilty* But the murderous work of the prosecutors was
effected. His damp dungeon and close confinement, while
awaiting the trial, had fixed upon him a lingering consump
tion, of which he died at Kingston, Jamaica, about the first
of February, 1838. He was a gentleman of high literary and
scientific acquirements, captivating manners, and dignified de
portment, a scholar, a devoted Christian, and one of the purest,
most disinterested, and most amiable of men. Thus was a
worthy citizen of a free state incarcerated and, in effect, mur
dered, though adjudged innocent, in the Federal District, on
the national hearth-stone, under "exclusive jurisdiction of
Congress," for no fault but having come under suspicion of
having disseminated publications hostile to slavery and the
Colonization Society!
Amos Dresser of Ohio, a young student in theology,
travelling in Tennessee to distribute Bibles, was flogged
twenty lashes on his bare back in the public square in Nash
ville, July 25, 1835. His crime was being a member of an
Anti-slavery Society, and having some anti-slavery publica
tions in his trunk. Some church members assisted in the
outrage. Geo. Storrs, a Methodist preacher, and agent of the Anti-
slavery Society, having accepted an invitation to address an
Anti-slavery Society in Northfleld, (N. H.) assembled with
them for that purpose, December 14, 1835, but was dragged
from his knees, while at prayer, by the deputy sheriff, David
Tilton, in virtue of a warrant issued by Nathan Wells, Esq.,
Justice, on complaint of Benjamin Bogers, charging Mr.
Storrs with being an "idle and disorderly person" — "a com
mon railer and brawler" — "going about the town and county
and disturbing the public peace." On trial before Judge At
kinson, he was discharged. But on the 31st of March, 1836,
after having lectured at Pittsfield, N. H., Mr. Storrs was

* Vide " Trial of Reuben Crandall, M.D., &c, published in Washington City,
1886— a pamphlet of 48 pages.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 439
arrested again in the pulpit, while on his knees, while another
minister, Mr. Curtiss, was offering the concluding prayer. This
was by authority of a writ issued by Moses Norris, Jr., Esq,
He was tried the same day, and sentenced to three months'
hard labor in the House of Correction. He appealed from
the sentence, and we find no further account of the pro
ceedings. These specimens of riotous demonstrations, connected with
mockeries of legal proceedings, illustrate the nature, design,
and moral affinities of the legislative and ecclesiastical at
tempts at gag-law, for which that precise period was distin
guished. They show us what was intended, what was well
nigh accomplished, and what would have been the condition
of liberty in America if the conspirators had succeeded.
Capt. Jonathan Walker, a citizen of Massachusetts, for
assisting the escape of a slave, was branded with a hot iron
in the hand, the letters SS, by an officer of the United States !
Elijah P. Lovejoy was a native of Maine, a graduate of
Waterville College, in 1828. He practiced law at St. Louis,
Missouri, but, being desirous of entering the ministry, spent
some time in preparatory study at Princeton, N. J. He was
employed as an agent for the Sunday School Union, and was
afterwards selected to conduct a religious paper at St. Louis.
In this station he advocated the right of free discussion in
opposition to the persecutors of Dr. Nelson. When a free
colored man was burnt to death near St. Louis, he rebuked
the savage outrage. For this he was obliged to leave the
State, and located himself at Alton, Illinois, where, in July,
1837, he avowed his sentiments as an abolitionist, and pub
lished a full declaration of his views in his "Alton Observer."
This raised against him a storm of violence. -Three several
times were his press and office destroyed, before the fatal
catastrophe, and three times were they replaced by the friends
of liberty and law. At a public meeting, early in Novem
ber, ostensibly got up for the purpose of allaying the excite
ment, but really with the design to intimidate him and crush
the liberty of the press, Mr. Lovejoy appeared, and, in a

440 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
noble speech, defended his cause and his rights, "like Paul
before Festus, or Luther at the Diet of Worms."
On the arrival of his new press, it was lodged in a stone
warehouse, and here Mr. Lovejoy and some of his friends
stationed ; themselves, armed, apprehending an attack, which
took place the same night. After several volleys of firing, an
attempt was made to set fire to the building. Mr. Lovejoy
went out to prevent their purpose, and soon fell, pierced with
three buckshot. His companions effected their escape. This
was on the 7th of November, 1837.
Mr. Lovejoy left a widow and children. His wife had stood
by him, like a heroine, when he was brutally assaulted,, some
time previous, at St. Charles. When the mother of Lovejoy
heard of his death, she said, " It is well. I had rather he
should fall a martyr to his cause than prove recreant to his
principles." John B. Mahan, on requisition of Gov. Clark, of Kentucky,
was delivered up by Gov. Vance, of Ohio, as a fugitive from
justice, " going at large in, the State of Ohio," to be- tried on
an indictment for assisting the escape of certain slaves.
John B. Mahan was a citizen of Ohio, a local minister of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, residing in Sardinia, Brown
Co., Ohio, and had not been in Kentucky for nineteen years !
Yet he was given up by the Governor of Ohio, was arrested, at
his residence, Sept. 17, 1838, torn from his family, hurried to
Kentucky, and shut up in jail, without allowing him time to
procure a writ of habeas corpus, or summon evidence in his
defense. He was tried at the Circuit Court of Kentucky, in
Marion County, the 13th of November. It was admitted by
the Attorney for the Commonwealth that the prisoner was a
citizen of Ohio, and not in Kentucky at the time of the alleged
offense ; yet he made an effort to procure his conviction. The
jury returned a verdict of not guilty. A civil suit against
him, for damages, was still left pending, to be tried the May
following. The result of this suit we do not ascertain.
Alanson Work, James E. Burr, and George Thompson,

slavery and freedom. 441
in July, 1841, were seized and imprisoned in Missouri, for at
tempting to assist the escape of some slaves.
Alanson Work, a native of Connecticut, about 40 years old,
having a wife and four children, was residing at the Mission
Institute at Quincy, Illinois, for the sake of educating his chil
dren, and training them up for usefulness. James E. Burr
and George Thompson were young students at that institute,
preparing for the ministry.
Quincy is separated by the river Mississippi from the slave
state of Missouri. Having crossed the river on an errand of
mercy, these three men were seized and imprisoned. In Sep
tember they were tried, convicted, and sentenced to the Peni
tentiary at Jefferson City for twelve years. Here, their con
duct was such as to win for. them many friends, and to com- •
mend their principles to the people of the surrounding coun
try. Their persecutors found it a matter of policy to get rid
of their presence. Mr. Work was pardoned and released, Jan.
20, 1845, Mr. Burr, Jan. 30, 1846, and Mr. Thompson, June
14, 1846. Mr. Thompson was afterwards employed on a mis
sion to 'Africa, by the American Missionary Association.
Charles Turner Torrey was born at Scituate, Mass.,
Nov. 21, 1813. He was educated at Yale College, and entered
the Theological Seminary at Andover in October, 1834, where
he studied one year, and left the institution on account of ill-
health. Completing his studies afterwards, under private tui
tion, he was licensed to preach by the Men don (Mass.) Asso
ciation of Congregational Ministers, in October, 1836. In
March, 1837, he was ordained pastor of a Congregational
Church in Providence, E. I., and was married soon afterwards
to a daughter of his theological instructor, Dr. Ide, of Medway.
Miss Ide was a grand-daughter of the distinguished theolo-
giati, Dr. EmmOns. Leaving Providence, Mr. Torrey preached
a while at Salem, Mass., in 1838, but in 1839 we find him in
the less sedentary avocation of an anti-slavery lecturer. He
had been an earnest abolitionist from the beginning of his min
istry, and in this active and laborious enterprise he was pre
eminently at home. He wrote much for the anti-slavery pa-

442 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
pers, during his travels. The winter of 1841-2 he spent
chiefly at Washington City as a reporter for several papers,
and with a primary and special view to the interests of the
anti-slavery cause. His writings were vigorous, rapid, bold,
free, and discriminating. While at Washington, a Slavehold
er's Convention' was held at Annapolis, Maryland, January,
1842, and Mr. Torrey adventured to attend it, for the purpose
of reporting the proceedings. But slavery shrinks, instinct
ively, from the penetrating eye of a freeman. He was exclu
ded from a seat among the reporters, afterwards forbidden to
take notes in the gallery, and finally arrested and thrown into
prison. A few days afterwards, on a judicial examination, he
was released on giving bail in $500 to "keep the peace" till
April, and returned to his post at Washington.
In the autumn of 1842, Mr. Torrey became editor of the
" Tocsin of Liberty," afterwards the " Albany Patriot." While
engaged in this worK^Jti/was entreated by. a fugitive from
slavery, to go to Viiigmia, and assist him bring his wife out
of bondage. He could not refuse. This undertaking was a
failure and they narrowly escaped arrest. It led Mr. Torrey,
however, into other and more successful enterprises of the
same character, but which, ultimately, cost him his liberty and
his life.
His arrest took place June 24, 1844. He was thrown into
jail at Baltimore. Finding it certain that he could not have
a fair trial, he made an unsuccessful attempt to escape from
confinement. His trial came on November 29, 1844. He
was convicted, as he affirmed, on evidence of perjured wit
nesses, who testified that they saw what they did not see*
He learned, what Judge Jeremie had certified before, and what
has been verified since, that in all trials of this kind, any re
quisite amount of false testimony is always at hand ! He was

* Of course, it is not denied that Mr. Torrey was instrumental in releasing many
slaves. But this does not alter the fact, that the witnesses in the present case per
jured themselves. As a specimen, one of them testified that he had seen the prisoner
at the residence of hi? (Torrey's) mother, in Hereford County, Maryland 1 The
mother of Mr. Torrey died in Massachusetts when he was a child 1

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 443
convicted, and sentenced to hard labor in the penitentiary for
six years. To this place he was removed the 30th of Decem
ber, 1844. Great efforts were made to procure his pardon.
His father-in-law, Dr. Ide, made a visit to the Governor of
Maryland, for the purpose. It was all in vain. He died in
the penitentiary, May 9, 1846, of a lingering consumption, the
effect of his confinement. Such are the tender mercies of
slaveholders. The God of the oppressed, the avenger of the
widow and the fatherless, will remember them. The murder
ers of Torrey and of Lovejoy are alike guilty in his sight.
The most fiend-like expression of hatred against Torrey
and against the holy cause in which he was enlisted, remains
to be told. On the arrival of his remains at Boston, the res
idence of his brother-in-law, Mr. Ide, and where the widow
and children of Torrey, with her parents had come to attend
the funeral solemnities, arrangements had been made, on leave
duly obtained, to hold the services in the meeting-house of
the Park Street Congregational Church, in which Mr. Ide was
a stated worshiper. A Congregational minister, Mr. Love
joy (brother of the martyr) was selected to preach on the oc
casion. Mr. Torrey had lived and died an orthodox Congre
gational minister in good and regular standing, and no heresy
or misconduct had been imputed to him except his excessive
sympathy for the poor slave. Dr. Ide, like his father-in-law,
Emmons, who had died about six years previous, was among
the most honored Congregational ministers in the common
wealth. Who could have believed that arrangements so ap
propriate would have been broken up, by a refusal to allow
ihe house to be used on such an occasion? But so it was ! The
corpse of the martyred Torrey was denied, what would not
have been denied to the worst of malefactors — the decencies
of a temporary resting-place in the house of prayer during the
accustomed religious exercises of such an occasion. This
single incident will suffice, centuries hence, to certify the po
sition held by the leading religious influences of the orthodox
Congregational sect in Boston, in the great struggle for chris-

444 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tian liberty, in the nineteenth century in America.* The
Tremont Temple (Baptist) was opened for the occasion, and
the services appropriately performed. This was followed by
a public meeting in Faneuil Hall, and commemoration meet
ings and funeral discourses, all over the free states. From
across the water, the voice of British Christianity, as repre
sented by the Anti-Slavery Committee in London, and, attest
ed by the world-honored signature of the aged Clarkson,
brought expressions of sympathy for the " widow and orphan
children " of Torrey, and admonition to " every section of
the professedly Christian Church in the United States to sep
arate itself from all participation in, or sanction of the system
of slavery."!
He died in the 33d year of his age. Though few men
have made a deeper impression upon society in so brief a lifes
his various powers both of thought and of accomplishment
were little known and little developed, in comparison with
what they would have been had his life been prolonged. He
was a man of genius as well as of rare courage. His litths
book" Home, or the Pilgrim's Faith Eevived" — however
some may dislike its old fashioned Puritan theology — is
among the few sketches of the kind that will live. " It will
be matter of astonishment to all who read this book of two
hundred and fifty-five pages, that it should have been written
by a prisoner in twelve days." This was in the interim
between the verdict against him and the sentence of the
Court. This place may be a proper one for the remark that while,
the commonly recognized leaders aud great men among the

* We could wish that the same spirit had not been witnessed in other places than
Boston. The meeting-house of the Richmond-Street Congregational Church, in
Providence, R. I., of whioh Mr. Torrey had been pastor., was not permitted to be
opened for a sermon commemorating his death ! Very few, in the comparison with
the whole, was the number of Congregational churches in the cities whose houses
could be occupied foi- suoh services. Is it strange that some abolitionists connected
with such churches should secede from them ?
t Memoir of (he Martyr Torrey, by J. C. Lovejoy. Boston : J. P. Jewett' &'
Co. 1847.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 445
American clergy have disgraced themselves, the ministry,
the churches, and the religion they profess, by the course
they have taken on the slave question, and while the great
majority of inferior men in the ministry have servilely fol
lowed in their wake, adding much to the multiplied mischiefs
of their unfaithfulness, there has nevertheless been a noble
band of true christian ministers, (though few in comparison with
the great body) who have been among the most self-sacrificing
and efficient laborers in the cause of freedom. Not only
should the more distinguished be honorably mentioned, but
a much greater number of equally laborious though more
obscure ministers of Christ, who, in their retired places, have
done what they could, though known only in their own nar
row circles, or where they have sojourned or traveled. They
have been driven, for support, from parish to parish, some
times have itinerated as lecturers, and sometimes have been
driven out of the ministry, as a stated avocation, altogether,
resorting to other means of subsistence, and patiently suffer
ing out their pilgrimage, as they best could. The rectified
vision of a future age may recognize in these " the salt of
the earth," who have preserved the 'true Church.
General William L. Chaplin, a lawyer by profession, a
native of Groton, Massachusetts, a citizen of the State of
New York, since 1837, and frequently spending the winters
in Washington City, is too well known to the friends and
the enemies of American liberty to require a biographical
sketch in this volume. As a lecturer, as an editor, as a re
porter of proceedings in Congress, as a leader, and as a candi
date for office, in the Liberty party, he has an established
reputation among the public men of his times.
Gen. Chaplin was arrested, sometime in August, 1850, by
the police of Washington City, though out of their appropriate
jurisdiction, and within the borders of Maryland. It was in
the night season ; his carriage wheels were blocked, he was
knocked from his seat, conveyed back into the city, and
thrown into prison, on the charge of carrying away slaves.
The Governor of Maryland also made a requisition on the

446 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Federal Executive, for the delivery of Chaplin, to be tried
for an assault committed in that State. Having been bailed
in the ' District, in the sum of six thousand dollars, he was
immediately conveyed to Maryland, and imprisoned at Eock-
ville, where he remained until the latter part of December,
when he was released on the extravagant bail of nineteen
thousand dollars, which was raised by his friends in the free
states. After all this, there have been intimations that he
would be demanded by the Governor of Maryland !
Messrs. Drayton and Sayres, citizens " of the free North,"
are now, (June, 1852) incarcerated in Washington City, for
the alleged crime of assisting 74 or 76 slaves to escape from
Maryland in the schooner Pearl, which was seized in the
waters of Maryland, in April, 1848. They were convicted
on 75 indictments. The prosecution was conducted by Fran
cis S. Key, Esq., who, " in disregard of usage," procured
their indictment for "stealing slaves," after having failed to
obtain a verdict against them for larceny. — National Era, May
31, 1849.

slavery and freedom. 447

CHAPTEE XXXVII.
OF -THE ELEMENTS AND OCCASIONS OF DIVISION AMONG
ABOLITIONISTS.
Unity in measures the result of unity in principles— Complex problem before Auier-
_. iean Abolitionists— Their points of agreement and df disagreement — Natural
variety of measures and of organization — Change of views incident to reformatory
experiment — Actual changes in most abolitionists and of opposite schools — These
changes described — Division naturally followed.
In common with the Protestant Eeformers, and many other
earnest men of progress, the abolitionists of America suffer
the reproach of being divided among themselves. There may
be a great fault in this ; but the fault may lie in another
direction than is commonly supposed, and in things that
seldom fall under censure. It is easy to say that reformers
should be united and present an unbroken front to the com
mon enemy. So they should. They should be "perfectly
joined together in the same mind and judgment." They
should "all speak the same thing," and do the same work.
In other words, they should harmonize in their principles
and their measures. Unless they do harmonize in their prin
ciples, they cannot harmonize in their measures — that is, if
they are what all reformers should be, earnest, honest, con
sistent, conscience-controlled, God-fearing men. The harmony
that grows out of compromises of principles, is worse than
useless, in any moral reform.
Or, if expedients instead of principles be proposed as a
basis of co-operation, the result will commonly be a still
greater diversity of judgment. Men's sense of right and
wrong are less various than their calculations of advantage and

448 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
disadvantage. Anything but unity comes of running after
mere expedients.
It has been asked why American abolitionists should be
distracted by divisions any more than British abolitionists
were. Many answers .might be given,* but we choose, first,
to demand what progress was made by all that unity of Brit
ish abolitionists that preceded their unity in correct principles
and in measures growing out of them ? What trophies are
to be shown of the unity in which the principles of Granville
Sharp were held in virtual abeyance by a co-operation with
the wrong principles then acted upon by Wilberforce and
Clarkson ?
Eeformers should all and always be agreed. That is to
say, the profound problems of human nature, of moral philoso
phy, of theology, and of ethics, should be correctly solved
and acted upon by them. It ought to have been done, doubt
less, long ago. And the reforms still before us should have
been consummated accordingly. The world waits, and must
wait, for reformers to unite in acting according to correct
principles, before the world can be reformed. Bight measures
grow out of right ethics. And all systems of ethics have
their theological foundations.
It is easy to deride abstractionists, and to extol practical
business men. But who are practical business men, except
those who honor the laws of nature and of God, in the activi
ties they put forth ? The steam-ship, the rail-car, the mag
netic telegraph — could any array of numbers, could any
expenditure of funds have reached the results of these, if a
•compromise requiring a departure from the laws of nature
(the laws of God) had been deemed requisite, or had been
consented to, in order to obtain the men, or the means, or to
purchase patronage ?
* In England, the Slave Power had not taken entire possession of the high places
of the Church and of the State. The wide Atlantic separated the mass of the slave
holders from the British Legislature, the British Cabinet, the British throne, the
British Church, whether " established" or " dissenting." The plans and modes of
operation first agreed upon among abolitionists, were therefore found adequate to
overcome opposition.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 449
You see a delicate and complicated machine, a chronometer
out of order. You see half a dozen "reformers" debating the
principle upon which the machine is constructed, and the con
sequent measures of repair. Will you exhort them to unity
of action in repairing, without waiting for any agreement in
the principle upon which the action must proceed ?
Society, the Church, the State, legislation, jurisprudence —
here are machines quite as delicate, and requiring as much
study as a chronometer. The principle, in both oases, may
be very simple. But it needs to be understood, and applied.
When abolitionists first commenced their labors, they did
not know how completely the Slave Power had controlled,
and how much it had marred, deranged, and subverted, our
whole social machinery — the Church, the State, the Constitu
tion, the laws, the judiciary — everything which they hoped
and expected to wield for the overthrow of the slave system.
The implements of their warfare were out of order: — the ma
chinery did not work. Or rather, it worked only in the wrong
direction. What was to be done ?
The Church, the Ministry, the State, the Constitution,
legislation, jurisprudence, religion, law — what are all these?
What is to be done with them ?
We sought from them assistance, guidance, light, order, pro
tection, defense. But behold, opposition, confusion, darkness,
injury, invasion! Are they perverted? or are they only
doing their appropriate work ? Are they to be rescued and
wielded ? or are they to be abandoned, repudiated, and over
thrown? Different answers would be likely to be given to these ques
tions, especially as abolitionists were men of diverse theolo
gies and conflicting politics ; and some of them, perhaps, had
given to neither theology nor politics any very consecutive
attention, but had become abolitionists from instinctive sym
pathy and impulse.
Other problems besides the slave question might have a
bearing on the decision. If the principles of peace or non-
resistance were so held and embraced by one class of aboli-
29

450 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tionists as to preclude an approving recognition of any civil
government operating by physical compulsion, or the sanc
tions of penal law, a foundation would be laid for a course in
respect to political action, widely different from any that could
consistently or conscientiously be pursued by those holding
to the opposite theory.
Just so of the Church. If the idea of individuality were
carried so far by some, as to suggest the inutility and mis
chiefs of all regularly established church organizations, there
would, of necessity, arise corresponding views of reformatory
measures in relation to the Church, which men of other theo
ries could not reasonably be expected to patronize.
If the question of slave emancipation be considered (as it
commonly is in America) one phase of the broader question
of human equality and inalienable rights, it might come to
suggest the question of woman's entire equality and identity
of position with man, and thus another problem, perhaps an
intricate one, might present itself, in respect to which the
friends of slave emancipation might differ.
That questions of this nature had more or less to do with
divisions among abolitionists, it would be in vain to deny.
Equally plain is it that these questions had a strong inherent
tendency to produce division, whatever may be said of the
¦possibility of avoiding a rupture.
So far as abolitionists were agreed in their principles, so far,
but no farther, could they consistently agree in their measures.
It is in vain to anathematize non-conformity, and to call it
bigotry, il liberality, and prejudice. No bigotry is more nar
row and intolerant than that which would enforce a unity of
measures without a unity in the principles upon which they
must be founded. The body of men who demand that I shall
adopt their creed, are not more arrogant, and are much less
unreasonable, than another body that condescendingly per
mits me to retain my creed, but denounces me as a bigot or a
disorganizer because I hesitate to patronize the measures which
nothing but the adoption of their own creed could warrant or
justify.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 451
Abolitiqnists were and still are agreed in respect • to the in
herent criminality of slaveholding, the duty and safety of
immediate and unconditional emancipation, the right of the
slave to liberation on the soil, and of the free people of color to
remain in the land of their birth or of their choice, in the full
possession and exercise of their equal rights as men, and as
American citizens. In the promulgation of these sentiments,
and in the answering of objections against them, all abolition
ists could agree ; and -for a time they found themselves suffi
ciently occupied with this labor.
But as assuredly as they made much progress, the time
would soon come — and it did come — when the majority of
abolitionists felt other work pressing on their hands. When
a large body of the people were convinced of the truths abo
litionists had taught them, the question arose, How shall they
best be led to put their principles in practice ? Some of them
felt themselves to be, by the act, the ordinance, and the Pro
vidence of God, a part and parcel of the State and Nation in
which they resided, holding political power themselves, and
sharers in the responsibilities thus resting upon them. These
had work to do in which those who held opposite views of
civil Government could not be expected to co-operate — a
work from which others had no right to deter them. Just so,
those who were members of organized churches, and who be
lieved church organizations to be proper and Heaven-ap
pointed institutions for religious activity and culture, found
a work before them in which those of other and opposite views
could not participate, and could not be supposed to be the
best advisers.
It was not enough to say that abolitionists, as individuals,
were left at liberty to pursue their own course of political and
ecclesiastical action, yet retaining their connection with an
anti-slavery society composed of men of all political ahd reli
gious views, and even administered and directed by those
holding to no measures of political or ecclesiastical operation.
All this might be plausible, and even possible, in the exercise
of great mutual forbearance and candor. But it would still

452 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
remain true that no mere isolated individual action without
co-operation in some way, could suffice for those who intended
to pursue ecclesiastical and especially political action against
slavery. Organization among themselves, in some form,
might be quite as important there as in the Anti-Slavery So
ciety. Those who thought so, had, at least, the right to act
in accordance with their convictions. Be it so, that their con
nection with the Anti-Slavery Society might have been re
tained. The progress of the cause would inevitably require,
in their view, the greater part of their efforts and means to be
expended in some form of definite action which the Anti-
Slavery Society, if confined to mere " moral suasion," (as un
derstood by many,) could not be expected to endorse. The
diminished operations of such societies, even without a rup
ture, would have been the inevitable result. But, for this
state of things, the leading men in the societies might not be
prepared — and might regard it as an evil, to be counteracted
and opposed ; perhaps vehemently denounced.
Aside from such differences of principles, among abolition
ists, it is easy to see that unexpected occurrences, a change of
position, and habits of observation and inquiry, might intro
duce widely different views of the policy proper to be pursued.
And these different views might lay a foundation for a diver
sity of organizations. The jealousy of centralized power, so
common among friends of liberty, would tend to a similar
result. The preceding suggestions, it is believed, will furnish a clue
to the divisions among American abolitionists. When they
formed the American Anti-Slavery Society, and adopted a
Constitution and a Declaration of Sentiment, at Philadelphia,
in 1833, there appeared to be an agreement in their principles,
and in their understanding of the prominent facts of the case.
This laid a foundation for an agreement in their measures,
and, consequently, for an unity of organization.
They were agreed in their views of civil government and of
its legitimate powers. They were agreed in the following de
claration of their duty as citizens :

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 453
" There are at the present time the highest obligations resting upon the
people of the free states, to remove slavery, by moral and political action,
as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States."
They appear to have been substantially agreed in their con
struction of the Federal Constitution. While they repudiated
the ultra Southern construction, they nevertheless admitted
" the compromises " as commonly understood and conceded,
at that time, in the non-slaveholding States. They disclaimed
the idea of a direct interference of the Federal Government
to abolish slavery in the States, though they insisted that it
should, in no way, support slavery or extend it anywhere,
but abolish it in the Federal District and Territories, and in
terdict the inter-state slave trade. This, they then thought,
would secure the general abolition of slavery, by State action,
and with this they were content. Into any close scrutiny of
the Constitution they had not gone.
Anticipating, as they did, the speedy co-operation of the
principal religious sects in the free States, and of a majority
. of one or both the great political parties, they contemplated
no measures of separation from either of them — no political
or ecclesiastical organizations of their own. Their disclaimers
of any such intention were honest, and were continued for a
long time. Connected with this, to a great extent, was the
vague notion, so generally entertained, that a religious and
moral question was too sacred to be mingled with politics.
And yet, as has been seen, they contemplated, in some way,
"political" as well as "moral action."
They seem also to have been agreed in their views of the
proper action of females. Though many earnest and gifted
ladies were present at the sittings of the Convention at Phila
delphia, when the Society was formed, and some of them (on
invitation) suggested amendments of the "Declaration," yet
no one of them became members or officers of the Convention
or of the Society. By common consent, the separate organi
zation of Female Anti-slavery Societies was recommended,
then, and for some time afterwards.
These statements are made here for no other object than to

454 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
record the simple facts of the case, and to show the position
of the Society at the beginning. Whether deviations from
this course have been wise or unwise, is not the point now in
hand. But the fact of deviation, by somebody, connects it
self with the fact of division. Without a change, no division
would have occurred.
The truth is, a very small portion of abolitionists, if any,
at the present time, occupy precisely the original ground as
above described. If any organization does now occupy that
ground, in every particular mentioned, it probably represents
but a very small minority of American abolitionists.
Deviations have taken place ; and the history of them is
the history of division. The mere fact of change criminates
no one, and the record of it should give no offense.
Some changed their views in respect to the proper methods
of female co-operation, and wished to change their usages ac
cordingly. Some changed their views in respect to the practicability
of obtaining legislative action against slavery, through the
instrumentality of the old political parties, and therefore de
sired the organization of a new one.
Some, on investigation, changed their views of the Federal
Constitution, and, believing it to contain no "guaranties" of
slavery, but a distinct guaranty of free institutions, they could
no longer continue to concede those pro-slavery guaranties,
but, on the other hand, demanded that the " guaranty " of
Bepublican State Governments should be redeemed, and ren
dered available.
Some changed their views of the Constitution in the op
posite direction — perhaps changed twice; — repudiating, in
the first place, "the compromises," and holding the Constitu
tion (as did N. P. Eogers) to be thoroughly anti-slavery — and
then (assenting to the pro-slavery construction) denouncing
it, very consistently, as a "covenant with death, and an agree-
ment with hell."
Some changed their views of the prospect of divorcing their
churches and other ecclesiastical bodies from slavery, and

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 455
¦therefore wished to withdraw from them, and form other
ecclesiastical organizations better conformed to their own
ideas of the Christian religion.
Some changed their views in respect to the propriety of
any compulsory civil government, making use of physical
compulsion. On this ground they could not, themselves, con
scientiously vote or hold office, and they could not but desire,
as earnest men, to draw other philanthropists into their own
views and methods.
Some changed their views in respect to the value of all or
ganized Church institutions, (whether pro-slavery or anti-
slavery) and the desirableness of their being sustained by the
friends of humanity. It would be a libel on such to insinuate
that their activities and their influence would not correspond
with their convictions.
It may be said that this influence concerning civil govern
ment and Church organizations, was not exerted by them "as
abolitionists," nor " on the anti-slavery platform." This state
ment might be either conceded or questioned, (as some do
question it) but the main fact, as before stated, would remain.
We reproach no one. We only record the facts.
And, finally, a long time afterwards, some changed their
views in respect to the moral obligation of directing their
political activities, and wielding their right of suffrage, in
such a manner as to sustain no statesmen except those pledged
to the abolition of slavery. They therefore consented, as will
be seen, to a political platform less rigid, and permitting the
support of those who only promised to oppose the extension
of slavery.
In respect to this last item — perhaps some of the others —
some who admit that they occupy the ground described, may
say also (and say truly) that they have not changed. But, the
majority, doubtless, under each specification, have changed.
In recording these general facts, with the particulars that
may follow, the writer understands that he treads on delicate
ground. Each party mentioned would, perhaps, wish him to
modify some part of the record — to add something — or erase

456 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
something from the statement. It is, perhaps, difficult, for
one who has been an earnest actor in such scenes, to write the
history of them without some bias. We claim no exemption
from such influences, and can only promise our best efforts at
impartiality and fairness, consoling ourselves with the thought
that no one but an earnest actor would be likely to see clearly
all that is to be seen. We must write as we see, and must
see with our own eyes, — leaving it with others to judge, and
to write, too, if they shall think fit.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 457

CHAPTEE XXXVIII.
DIVISIONS IN 1839-40.
Division in the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, in 1839, at Boston — Circum
stances connected with or preceding it — Division in the Parent Society in 1840, at
New York — Its attendant circumstances and results — General neutrality of aboli
tionists in the interior — Distinct origin (and from other causes) of the Liberty
Party. A division in the Massachusetts Anti-slavery Society took
place at Boston, in May, 1839. The Liberty Party was regu
larly organized by a Convention at Albany, N. Y., April 1,
1840. A division in the American Anti-slavery Society, oc
curred in New York, in May, 1840.
The division at New York appears to have been connected,
more or less, with the division at Boston.
By Mr. Garrison and his associates, the organization of the
Liberty Party has been regarded as only one form of the op
position made to their State and National Societies, by those
who separated from them.
The writer thinks them mistaken in the general fact, (ad
mitting, perhaps, local exceptions) and that the Liberty Party
was projected in the interior of the State of New York, by
those who had not entered at all into the dissen tions in Bos
ton and New York. We must briefly notice the prominent

THE DIVISION IN MASSACHUSETTS.
It was in Boston that the Liberator of William Lloyd Gar
rison was published — for a season as the organ of the Massa
chusetts Anti-slavery Society — and afterwards (when com-

458 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
plaints were made of his introduction of other topics, and of
the expression of sentiments obnoxious to some abolitionists)
its publication was resumed in his own name, and on his own
account. Officially, or in form, the difficulty was obviated,
but the prominence of Mr. Garrison, as an abolitionist, through
out the country, and his official connection with the Massa
chusetts Anti-slavery Society, appeared, in the minds of some,
to identify his peculiar views with the anti-slavery cause, to
its injury. Such persons were still annoyed with the con
tinued appearance, in the Liberator, of the views they deemed
so objectionable. They conceived that the Society was coming
under their influence, and that its activities were in process of
becoming mis-directed and injurious.
It was in Boston, therefore, that the first division took
place. Among the new views objected against, were the principles
of " Non-Eesistants," so called, who had organized a "Non-
Eesistance Society," and established a paper promulgating
their views, in addition to the advocacy they received in the
Liberator. The definition of "non-resistance," as gathered
from the writings of its advocates, included, not merely the
absence of war, of military armaments, and of " the death
penalty," but, likewise, if we have rightly understood it, of
all physical coercion in a way of punishment by civil govern
ment ; the absence, consequently, of all that is commonly
understood by the term, penal law. This view connected it
self, then, and afterwards, with the peculiar theological tenets
of those who had, for a long time previous, promulgated
similar views of the Divine administration here or here
after. Political action, by voting, even for the abolition of slavery,
under a civil government based on physical force, could not
but be regarded as sinful by those who held, consistently,
these new views. Such was indeed the fact. The inference
was not merely admitted, but avowed and insisted on. For a
long time, and on this ground alone, did this peculiar class of
abolitionists decline and discountenance voting, before they

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 459
raised any objection to voting on the ground of the pro-
slavery character of the Constitution of the United States — be
fore, indeed, some of them seem to have discovered those traits
of that document which have since become so palpable and
manifest to them.
Here, then, was a division among the abolitionists of Mas
sachusetts, in fact, in respect to their measures, before there
was any division, in organization. What some of them re
garded a most solemn Christian duty, others of them regarded
a malum in se — a sin !
Another question resulting in division, appears to have
been that concerning the proper position of females. The
"Pastoral Letter," before mentioned, sent forth by the Asso
ciation of Congregational Ministers in Massachusetts, in 1837,
had strongly censured the public lectures of females. This
created a re-action, and drew forth strong and startling as
sertions of "woman's rights." A "clerical appeal," signed
by five Congregational pastors, in the ranks of the abolition
ists, but on the side of the " Pastoral Letter " of 1837, in
creased greatly the excitement. In this "clerical appeal"
there was manifested a strong sympathy for the pro-slavery
portion of the clergy — a disposition to shelter them from the
censures of abolitionists — and an effort to sustain them in
their claims of high clerical authority. A very able reply to
the " clerical appeal " was promptly issued by Eev. Amos A
Phelps, of the same religious denomination, who, afterwards,
in the division, did not go with Mr. Garrison, and never em
braced his peculiar views. The signers of the "clerical ap
peal," and those who agreed with them, would, of course.
separate themselves from Mr. Garrison in the division that
followed. But the case of Mr. Phelps shows that a division
from Mr. Garrison and his associates afforded no certain evi
dence of sympathy for the appellants, or approbation of their
"appeal." The editorial tone of the Liberator, in the mean time, was
spirited and stirring. The assaults of the " Pastoral Letter"
and of the " Clerical Appeal" were not merely parried, in a

460 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
way of ' self-defense. In such a warfare, not even "Non-Be-
sistants" were to be restrained from aggressive and even retail'
atory movements. The body of the " orthodox clergy" with
a few exceptions, were regarded by them as the aggressors,
and that, too, in a bad cause. The most provoking as well as
the most alarming feature of the assault was, that it had been
successful in bringing to its aid a portion of the clergy that
held rank among abolitionists. " What is this clerical institu^
tion? Where is its charter? What are its claims? And
what is the theology that lends it its sanction ?" Questions
like these must have arisen. Mr. Garrison was earnest and
ardent. The distinctions between an institution and its per
version — between an office and its incumbent — between " or1
thodoxy" and the supposed conservators and expounders of
orthodoxy, were very intelligible distinctions. Mr. Garrison
may have lacked neither the discriminative powers nor the
magnanimity to understand and admit them. Yet he may
not have been in the best mood or position, at the moment, to
perceive, to appreciate, or to inquire after them. The first
impulse, if followed, would naturally be — " Is this the institu
tion of the ministry ? Then, away with it ! Is this ortho
doxy ? Let it fall." The Liberator, about this time, abounded
in sneers against the " clergy" — against " orthodoxy" and the
" orthodox." It questioned or denied the obligation of ob
serving the first day of the week, as the Sabbath. It broached
speculations concerning the "law" and the "decalogue," as
contrasted with "the gospel"— which, to many ears, conveyed
an impression of speculative antinomianism. In all this,
though connected (contrasted as some thought) with his terribly
" orthodox" denunciations of the Divine wrath against op
pressors and their apologists, there was much to alarm, per*
plex, and alienate a class of New England minds that had,
until then, been warmly and affectionately drawn to him.
He could not have intended to repel the " orthodox" aboli
tionists around him — nor to do them or their theology injus
tice. But his editorials seem to have had that effect. No
protestations that his " anti-slavery platform was broad enough

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 461
fpr men of all creeds, " served to satisfy them. They felt that
there was a want of sympathy and confidence towards those
of their creed — that to be " orthodox" was to lie under suspi
cion of latent pro-slaveryism.* In the mean time, those of
other theological views clustered naturally around Mr. Garri
son ; attracted, in some cases, it may be, by his warfare with
" the orthodox, " as well as by his warfare with slavery. From
about this time, we date the change that came over the theo
logical sentiments of Mr. Garrison, who, in 1830, is known to
have been rigidly " orthodox" himself, having been educated
in the sentiments of orthodox Baptists and being a warm ad
mirer of the Puritans.f
Differences in theology, having a bearing on ethics, on politics,
and on reformatory measures, and, especially, theological jeal
ousies, mutually entertained, may therefore be reckoned, to a cer
tain extent and degree, an element of division among the aboli
tionists of Massachusetts. We will not say that, in this, either
party has been wholly free from blame. Yet it is evident that
a theology that places the ballot-box and the yoke of slavery
in the same category, could hardly be expected to shape anti-
slavery measures for those who believed in the divine institu
tion of civil government and the political responsibilities of
the citizens.
In April, 1839, a new paper called the Massachusetts Abo
litionist, and conducted by Elizur Wright, Jr., (formerly Cor
responding Secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society,
and Editor of the Anti-Slavery Quarterly Magazine,) was com
menced in Boston.
A new State Society, called the Massachusetts Abolition
Society, was organized in Boston, the 27th of May, in the
same year.
The new paper and the new society based the movement
on their views of the importance of political action — views not
* We find Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, expressing in his paper, his regret that the
course of Mr. Garrison tended to introduce sectarian divisions among abolitionjsts.-
t Mr. Garrison is not, and never has been a Quaker, as many, at a distance, havo ¦
supposed.

462 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
held by the Editor of the Liberator, and by other leading
members of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. Yet it
does not appear that, at that time, the leaders of the new
movement contemplated the organization of a separate politi
cal party.
The Old (Massachusetts Anti-Slavery) Society affirmed, in
a manifesto sent out on the occasion, that so lately as the 10th
of August previous, the Board of Managers had urged politi
cal action, that fourteen out of eighteen members of the Board
believed in " the duty of upholding civil government at the
polls," and that they doubted whether one-hundredth part of
the members of the Society held the peculiar views of Mr.
Garrison* To this, it was responded that such facts furnished a strong
argument against the tone of the only anti-slavery paper in
the state, seeking and receiving anti-slavery support — that, at
least, so large a majority of Massachusetts abolitionists were
justified, in establishing a paper that advocated instead of op
posing the political measures they approved : and that they
were called upon to organize an anti-slavery society in which,
without contention, they could advocate " the duty of uphold
ing civil government" and likewise of abolishing slavery "at
the polls." DIVISION IN THE PARENT SOCIETY.
A few days before the consummation of this rupture in Bos
ton, a kindred dispute had been introduced, May 7, 1839, into
the business meeting of the American Anti-slavery Society in
the city of New York. Two points of disagreement were pre
sented; the one related to the co-operation of females; the
other to the duty of political action.
A question arose whether the roll of the meeting should, as
on former occasions, be composed only of the names of men,

* This statement, in making the same argument, was repeated long afterward. In
1841 or 2, it was alleged that there were not, probably, to exceed one or two hundred
" Non-Resistants" in all New-England.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 463
or whether it should include- also those of women* The yeas
and nays were taken, from which it appears that the delegates
from Massachusetts gave 72 ayes and 25 nays ; state of New
York, 45 ayes, 76 nays ; Connecticut, 14 ayes, 11 nays ; Penn
sylvania, 21 ayes, 7 nays ; Ehode Island, 10 ayes, 1 nay ; other
States, 18 ayes, 20 nays-Total, 180 ayes, 140 nays. Majority,
in favor of enrolling names of women, 40.
*On the list of ayes we notice several prominent names after
wards conspicuous in the Liberty party, and not in sympathy
with the distinctive views of Mr. Garrison, viz : Alvan Stew
art, Eev. Joshua Leavitt, Gerrit Smith, Wm. L. Chaplin, Eev.
Cyrus P. Grosvenor, A. F. Williams, S. M. Booth, Eev. Otis
Thompson, Eev. Francis Hawley, Eev. Samuel Wells, &c. &c.
Several of them " orthodox" ministers of the gospel.f
A resolution was reported, containing the former testimo
nies ofthe society, on "the duty of political action," nearly in
the language of the Declaration of 1833, as then drawn up by
Mr. Garrison. Mr. C. C. Burleigh moved an amendment, to the
effect that those who use the elective franchise and neglect to
use it for the cause of emancipation, are false to their princi
ples, and fail to do their duty. The result was 84 votes for
the original resolution, and 77 against it.
The annual meeting of the society at New York, in May,
1840, resulted in a division : — the election of new officers for
the Old Society, and the organization of the " American and
Foreign Anti-Slavery Society ;" the former in accordance with
the views of Mr. Garrison; the latter, with the co-operation
of Messrs. Arthur and Lewis Tappan.:]'
The majority of those in attendance at the "business meet-

* On the one hand, it was claimed that the Constitution of the Society made no
discrimination between males and females. On the other, it was urged that the uni
form usage indicated the original intentions ofthe society.
t Alvan Stewart moved the appointment of a Committee to reply to the protest
filed against the vote, but the motion was laid on the table.
X Mr. Arthur Tappan, in anticipation of the controversy, absented himself from
the " business meeting." He was re-elected President of the Old Society, and de
clined serving, but accepted the Presidency of the newly* formed American and
Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.

464 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ing," appeared to have been from New England, mostly from
Massachusetts ; many were females from particular localities
where the peculiar views of Mr. Garrison were known to be
prevalent. Arrangements had been made for the cheap con
veyance of the company by steamboat. The Liberator said :
" On making an enumeration, it appeared that there were about four hun
dred and fifty anti-slavery men and women in our company, of whom
about four hundred were from Massachusetts. Probably one hundred went
by other routes."
This would make 550 in all. The proceedings afterwards
showed only 1008 recorded votes, from all in attendance, from
all the States. Of these, Mr. Garrison's rally of 550 would,
if unanimous, secure a majority of 92 without any votes
from any of the other States. Yet the business to be trans
acted was that of a Society scattered in all the free States,
and numbering, perhaps, one or two hundred thousand,
the majority of whom anticipated nothing of what was going
forward ; and, if they had known, could have had no oppor
tunity of attending.
On the motion to insert the name of Abby Kelly on a cpm-
mittee, 557 votes were given in favor, and 451 against the
appointment, a majority of 106. The women who came in
company with Mr. Garrison, and voted with him, were more
than enough to secure a majority.
Eesolutions were adopted disapproving the Liberty Party
Nominating Convention at Albany, the April previous, dis
approving of anti-slavery nominations in general, and depre
cating, in the same sentence, and without distinction, the
support of Harrison, Yan Buren, and Birney ; — the latter be
ing an abolitionist who had emancipated his slaves, and the
two former opposers of the anti-slavery movement. The con
sistency of this must be found, perhaps, in the principle that
all voting, under a compulsory civil government, is alike sin
ful. The pro-slavery character of the Constitution — not yet
discovered — was not alluded to, in the proceedings.*
* The division gave rise to new contentions. Mr. Garrison and his friends com
plained that the "Emancipator" newspaper (originally established at great expsnM

SLAVERY-AND FREEDOM. 465
The historical evidence seems not quite clear that the abo
litionists who did not hold themselves bound by these pro
ceedings were therefore untrue to the cause of the slave.
While these divisions produced a strong sensation in New
England, and in the sea-board cities, the sound of them going
across the Atlantic, and awakening kindred responses, pro and
con, from among the abolitionists of Great Britain, the blast
died away, like a Massachusetts North-Easter, as it traveled
westward, spending its strength by the time it had reached
the valley of the Mohawk, and was scarcely felt beyond the
waters of Lake Erie.
There were reasons for this. The contention about women's
acting in the Societies was, at the West, considered a frivo
lous one. There were differences of opinion, but the ques
tion would not have been pressed, on the one hand, nor have
been made a ground of withdrawal, on the other. The voice
of women, in conference and prayer-meetings, in those days
and previously, in the wide west, had been too familiar to the
ears of the most fastidious, to admit of their being greatly
alarmed. As to the new policy of not voting, and the theories upon
which it was based, the march of political anti-slavery was
and labor by Mr. Tappan and others, and afterwards transferred by them without
compensation to the Society) was gratuitously transferred again by the Society to the
N. Y. City Anti-Slavery Society, a short time before the division, and thus prevented
from passing into the hands of the newly elected committee. The answer to this
complaint was, that as the paper did not support itself, as the treasury was empty
and individual members of the committee had already assumed heavy liabilities
there was no means of paying the printer, and the publication must have been sus
pended but for the acceptance of the offer. To this it might have been added (if it
was not), that if the paper had passed into the hands of the new committee, it would
haye been used to oppose the sentiments and measures of those who had originally
established it, who had mainly supported it, and whose subscriptions, after the
division,' could not, to any great extent, have been retained by the publishers.
Another complaint was,, that a member ofthe old committee had taken possession
ofthe Anti-Slavery depository of books, pamphlets, &c, and refused to deliver
(ihem over to the newly elected committee. The justification was that members of
the old committee had become individually responsible for the payment of debts
contracted for the Society, which liabilities the new committee and its members had
refused to assume ; and the proceeds of the depository would repay only a part of
the amount due them from the Society. Their final loss was above $3 400
30

466 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
too steadily and too resistiessly on the advance, in the interior
of the country and at the far west, to be arrested by the rumor
of what had been said and done in the cities of New-York
and Boston.
Apart from all this, the abolitionists of the interior, inclu
ding those of the far west, were too busily at work in their
own localities and in their own way, to think it necessary
that they should affiliate with either of the rival National
Societies, or be under the supervision of either of them, The
bonds of national organization had, indeed, set lightly upon
them from the beginning. And with the progress of the cause
and the consequent increase of local activity and effort, those
bonds had grown looser and looser. There was a mistake in
supposing that any one great central Committee could trans
act any great proportion of the anti-slavery business to be
transacted in the country. A central committee in London,
with a few others in some of the chief cities, might suffice
for Great Britain. The wider territory of the American States,
with our more democratic methods of procedure and agitation,
could not be thus managed. Not only state, but county, vil
lage, and township organizations were needed. The Com
mittee of the New- York State Society, at the central point
of Utica, could not effectively reach the more western parts
of the State. A Western Committee had to be organized.
Not only so, County Societies were encouraged by the two
State Committees to do up their own work in their own
way. In other States, the same manifestations were witnessed.
In short, the previous tendencies to centralization were sub
siding. Abolitionists, having felt the evils of too much
centralized power in the other National Societies, were be
ginning to guard against similar evils, among themselves.
Aside from any unpleasant rupture in the'National Society,
and before it was foreseen, it was becoming evident that the
functions of such a Society must decrease, instead of expand
ing, with the progress and expansion of the enterprise itself
which was, everywhere, cutting its own local channels.
Thus, while in Boston, New- York, and their vicinities, the

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 467
great pending question seemed to be, which of the two Na
tional Societies should superintend the activities and absorb
the contributions of American abolitionists, the great majority
of them, in the interior, found themselves in a convenient
position to withdraw from the control and from the support
of either. Within a year from the division in New- York,
most of the State Anti-Slavery Societies out of New England,
declined sustaining the position of auxiliaries to either of
the National Societies, a measure which, it was believed,
would greatly tend to discountenance divisions. In the States
of New- York and Ohio, however, (perhaps in other States,)
the friends of Mr. Garrison succeeded in forming State Socie
ties, sometime afterwards.
The neutrality we have described may have been wise or
it may have been unwise. It was assumed at a time when
the controversy was little understood in the interior, and
when the changes in progress had been but imperfectly de
veloped. The fact of so extensive a neutrality respecting the " New"
and the " Old organizations " belongs to the record, and
throws light on the true origin of the Liberty Party ; which
could have had no important or general conntction with this
controversy, as has been represented and supposed, on both
sides of the Atlantic* It is claimed that the large class of
abolitionists who wished to escape that contention, have not
been, as a class, behind others, in their uncompromising fidel
ity to the enslaved.

* We mean to say that the Liberty party, which originated in Western New York
did not arise from a wish to oppose the " old Organization" or Mr. Garrison  nor
from a wish to support the " new organization." Some individuals in Massachu
setts, who had encountered Mr. Garrison's theory of non-voting, may have been the
more ready to fall in with an organized party. A letter of E. Wright, Jr., pub
lished in the Liberator, shows this. It is equally possible that Mr. Garrison's anti
pathy to voting, and his desire to have other abolitionists come ipto his views of
voting, might have made him adverse to the organization of such a party, though
he may not have been distinctly conscious of such a motive himself. We have nsvel
doubted that if Mr. Garrison had not become a " Non-Resistant," he would have
been an early and zealous leader of the Liberty party.

468 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE XXXIX.
ORGANIZED POLITICAL ACTION — LIBERTY PARTY — LIBERTY
LEAGUE — FREE SOIL PARTY.
Necessity of distinct organization — Early anticipations of this — Garrisonj Follen,
Stewart — Convention at Albany, July, 1839 — Nominations in Monroe Co., N. Y.^-
Myron Holley — Rochester "Freeman" — Convention at Arcade — Liberty Party
organized at Albany, April 1 , 1840, and James G. Birney nominated for President
—Second Nomination, in 1844 — Number of votes — Course of other voting aboli
tionists — What was accomplished . — Occasions of instability — Tendencies to re-ab
sorption — Different views of its true policy — Nomination of Gerrit Smith by "the
Liberty League," and why ? — Position taken by the " League"— Unconstitution
ality of Slavery— Other features — Nomination (by the Liberty Party) of John P.
Rale — Rise of the Free Soil Party — Nomination of Mr. Van Buren— Buffalo Plat
form — Position of Mr. Van Buren — Various views of that movement and of its
results — Hints for the future — Remnant of the Liberty Party.
The Liberty party arose from the fact, that, after a pro
tracted experiment, the candidates of the old parties could
not, to any extent, if at all, — however "questioned" and
"pledged " — be depended upon, to do the work which aboli
tionists demanded of them. When they really intended to
do it, their party associates would not suffer them. It would
be easy to prove this, if we had room for the details.
Another fact, lying behind this, must not, as we value the
impartiality of history, be withheld. Abolitionists themselves,
connected with the political parties, and who " questioned
the candidates," could not generally be weaned from an undue
bias in favor of their political leaders. They too readily
persuaded themselves that the candidate of their own party,
though but slightly or ambiguously pledged, or even, if not
pledged at all, would probably do more for the slave, if elect
ed, than the candidate of the opposite party, whatever his

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 469
anti-slavery reputation or his pledges might be. This delu
sion and its effects began, at length, to afford candidates an
excuse for not answering the questions of abolitionists. They
said, "It will be of no use, for abolitionists will generally
vote for the candidates of their respective parties." The
statement was exaggerated. But on many occasions and in
many localities, there was enough of truth in it, to render
the " questioning of the candidates " a farce.
It was hoped that by the organization of a distinct political
party, this delusion might be dispelled, and abolitionists be
led to honor their principles at the polls. Though a mi
nority, they could exhibit a correct example, and thus pre
serve their integrity, and increase their moral power.
Mr. Garrison had advocated, sometime previous, the form
ing of a distinct political party, though he was not now in
favor of it. His recommendation is, indeed, the earliest that
. we find on record. In his Liberator, in 1834, he advocated
" a Christian party in politics " — with particular reference to
the slave question.
Prof. Charles Eollen, sometime after, suggested the utility
of a new political party of democratic progress, of which one
prominent object should be the abolition of slavery. This,
if we rightly remember, was as early as 1836.
Alvan Stewart strongly urged upon the Executive Com
mittee of the" New York State Anti-Slavery Society, in Feb
ruary, 1839, the organization of a distinct party. The Com
mittee were not then prepared for the measure, but some of
them saw, clearly, and had long seen, the necessity of strenu
ous efforts to counteract the partisan tendencies of abolition.
ists, by inculcating the highest principles of political morality.
At the annual meeting of the Society, at Utica, Sept. 19-
21, 1838, a series of Eesolutions, twenty-two in number, had
been presented, discussed, and adopted, setting forth the prin
ciples of political action, and solemnly pledging those who
adopted them to vote for no candidates who were not fully
pledged to anti-slavery measures.* Though not designed,
* These resolutions, which had been nre™roii h~ w— _=¦--.'¦ <•  -eported by

470 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
at that time, to favor distinct anti-slavery nominations, nor
expected to introduce them, these resolutions recognized a
moral principle, in voting, which, it was afterwards found,
could not be acted upon, in the existing state of the country,
without a new political party. Both parties, then and after
wards, were completely under the control of their slavehold
ing members.
A National Anti-Slavery Convention was held at Albany,
commencing July 31, 1839. It was called by a Committee
appointed for the purpose at the annual meeting of the Ame
rican Anti-Slavery Society, the May previous. Its object,
as specified in the call, was "to discuss the principles of the
anti-slavery enterprise" and "the measures suited to its
accomplishment in the United States, especially those which
relate to the proper exercise of the right of suffrage by citi
zens of tbe free states." The mode of political action against
slavery, including the question of a distinct party, was fully
discussed, but without coming to any definite decision by
vote, farther than to refer the question of independent nomi
nations to the judgment of abolitionists in their different
localities. This suggestion was improved to sanction some local nomi
nations in the State of New- York, which, with the discussions
of the Convention, prepared the way for further progress.
The Monroe County Convention for Nominations at Boch-
ester, N. Y., September 28, 1839, adopted a series of Eesolu
tions and an Address prepared by the late Myron Holly,
which have been regarded as laying the corner stone of the
Liberty Party. In his " Rochester Freeman," commenced in
June previous, Mr. Holley successfully advocated the policy
of independent political action, and came to be recognized as
— more than any other one person — the founder of the Liberty
Party. A New- York State Anti-Slavery Convention was held at
a business committee of which the late Myron Holley was Chairman. They were
eloquently advocated iu the Convention by Gerrit Smith, and extensively circula
ted in anti-slavery papers.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM.

471

Arcade, (then) Genesee County, January 28th and 29th,
1810, attended by Myron Holley and Gerrit Smith ; Eeuben
Sleeper, of Livingston County, presiding. This Convention
issued a Call for a National Convention to be held at Albany,
April 1, 1840, " to discuss the question of an independent
nomination of abolition candidates for the two highest offices in
our National Government, and, if thought expedient, to make
such nomination, for the friends of freedom to support, at
the next election."
The National Convention at Albany was accordingly held,
at the time appointed, Alvan Stewart presiding. After a
fall discussion, the Liberty party was organized, and James
Q. Birney and Thomas Earle were nominated for President
and Vice-President of the United States. The traveling, at
that season of the year, was exceedingly bad, but delegates
¦were in attendance from six States.
The entire vote of the Liberty party at the Presidential
Election, in the autumn of 1840, amounted to a little less
than 7000. In 1844, the Liberty candidates, James G. Bir
ney and Thomas Morris, received upwards of 60,000 votes.
These were but a small part of the professed abolitionists of
the United States. A few hundreds, perhaps, abstained from
voting, from conscientious scruples, and other considerations.
But the great majority of those who did not vote for the
Liberty candidates, unquestionably voted for the nominees
of the old parties, Harrison, Yan Buren, Polk, and Clay, the
two latter being slaveholders, and the two former openly
opposed to the measures and objects of abolitionists.
Politicians accustomed to identify "success" with the eles-
tion of their candidates may ask : What was effected by the
organization of the Liberty party? Let the question be an
swered by asking another : What would have been the con
dition of the anti-slavery cause now, if aU the voting aboli
tionists of the country had continued to vote (as all except
"Liberty" men did) for the candidates of the old political
parties ? If any intelligent and candid politician will say, on
reflection, that it would have stood on as high a ground as it

472 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
does now, we have nothing further to say to him on that
subject. A more pertinent inquiry would be : What would, probably,
have 'been the effect, if the sixty thousand Liberty men who
voted for Birney in 1844, had held firmly ihat position?
But there is a question lying back of this: — Why did they
not continue to maintain that position ?
A number of particulars might be adverted to, in reply to
that question.
The old party attachments of many who joined the Liberty
party, were not broken off. They were not steady in their
adhesion to the Liberty party. Some voted, occasionally,
with the old parties to accomplish particular objects. Some
voted for Mr. Clay, as they said, " to keep out Texas." Some
voted with the old party to procure amendments in State
Constitutions. Some, if they would confess the truth, to se
cure a "protective tariff." Thus, the Liberty party was
weakened, and confidence in its stability, and even its in
tegrity, was undermined. There are thousands of whigs and
democrats who will affirm that the reason why they never
joined the Liberty party was because the vacillating course
of its members led them to anticipate what they say has since
taken place — its general absorption in a party with a lower
basis — and, finally, in one or the other of the old parties.
Why should they quit their party, when those who had done
so, were evidently on tip-toe for an opportunity to get back
into it ?
Tbe ecclesiastical connections of many Liberty party men,
must have exerted a similar influence upon them ; for their
religious teachers, to a great extent, exerted a political influ
ence in harmony with the old political parties, and directly in
favor of their candidates. On the eve of Presidential elec
tions, their efforts were seldom wanting. When a celebrated
Doctor of Divinity, on one occasion of the kind, inculcated
the Christian duty of "voting for the least of two devils"
that might be in nomination, if one or the other of them must
succeed — is it credible that Liberty men, confiding in such

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 473
teachers, would be likely to retain their position ?* It is diffi
cult for any class of men to maintain a higher tone of mo
rality in their political relations than they do in their Churches,
thus exalting their politics above their religion. The history
of the Liberty party has shown this. The little remnant of
that party exists, because its leading members commonly hold
a corresponding ecclesiastical position.
Another cause of instability, connected with causes already
mentioned, was the idea in many minds that the Liberty party
was to be available only on one subject, and was pledged to
neutrality on -all other questions, so that whenever any other
important political duties were to be performed, the Liberty
party must be temporarily deserted of course.
Closely allied to this was the idea that the Liberty party
was only to be a "balance of power" party, to be re-absorbed
by either of the parties who should give promise of doing
most for the cause of freedom. This would naturally en
courage an attitude of unreasonable expectancy on the part
of Liberty men, and give undue importance to any real or
apparent concessions that might be held out to allure them.
In short, the policy of " choosing the least of two evils," as
commended by Dr. Taylor and others, would be embraced,
and the stern political morality that had originated the Lib
erty party would be abandoned.

* Edmund Tuttle, of Meridan, Conn., in a Letter to Rev. Dr. Taylor, of New
Haven, propounded this inquiry :
" Can a Christian, consistently with the word of God, cast his vote, either for a
duellist, or for an oppressor of the poor, for Chief Magistrate of this nation !"
In an elaborate answer, sustaining the affirmative of the above question, Dr.
Tavlor said :
" To put a stronger case. Suppose that there is no reasonable doubt that one of
two devils, one of which is less a devil than the other, will be actually elected, let
the Christian vote as he may ; and that his vote wjll therefore be utterly lost , if he
does not vote for one of them ; I think that an enlightened Christian would vote
for the least devil of the two. " Nathaniel W. Tatloe."
"7ale ColUffe, October 5, 1844."
The date and circumstances of the letter oblige us to infer that the highly com
plimentary comparison which it contains was intended for the political benefit of
Henry Clay, as being, in the writer's view, a lesser devil than ffames K. Polk.

474 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Such at least were the apprehensions of some active Liberty
men, who began, as early as 1845, to propose safe-guards
against the re-absorption they so. much dreaded and feared*
They contended that the Liberty party was originally de
signed to be a permanent and progressive exponent of human
rights, and not a mere temporary expedient — that its founda
tions were accordingly laid in the first principles of civil
government — that its platform was as broad as those of re
publican institutions and of protecting law — that whatever
the State and National Governments ought to do, the Liberty
party ought to seek and propose — that while the abolition of
chattel slavery was to be the prominent, the paramount mea
sure of the party, it was not to be the only one. They quoted
the writings and speeches of Myron Holly and the early reso
lutions and addresses of the Liberty party, to prove that such
were the views with which the Liberty party was formed.
The most that could be said" in reply to this representation
was, that the sentiments quoted were expressed, for the most
part, in general terms.
To supply, then, this alleged deficiency in a party of pro
gress, it was proposed to specify some of the particular mea
sures which the principles and professions of Liberty men
required them to espouse, such as free trade, gratuitous dis
tribution of public lands, limitation of land ownership, the
inalienable homestead, retrenchment of expenses, free suffrage,
and the abolition of all legalized monopolies and castes.
In further support of this policy, it was urged that slavery
was only to be overthrown through the destruction of the
minor monopolies and aristocracies subsidized by and sus
taining it ; and that the forces needed at the ballot box to
overthrow slavery must consist, to a great extent, of the
masses of men who feel that they have wrongs of their own
to be redressed, and who could have no confidence in a Liberty
party not committed to universal equality and impartial justice
to all. They predicted that unless this advice was heeded, the
Liberty party would, ere long, be scattered to the winds. They
contended that^as civil government is an ordinance of God

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 475
for the protection of all the rights of all men, we have no right
to administer it, or to seek to administer it, for any lower or
partial ends, and that if an Anti-Slavery Society may confine its
attention to one form of oppression and robbery, it does not
follow that the functions of civil government may be thus
circumscribed. LIBERTY LEAGUE.
- A State Convention was held at Port Byron, (N. Y.) June
25th and 26th, 1845, at which an address was presented, em
bracing the preceding views. It was not adopted by the Con
vention, but was printed and circulated, and gained adherents.
By a number of Liberty men embracing its sentiments, a nomi
nating Convention was called, which was held at Macedon
Locke, Wayne Co., N. Y, June 8th, 9th, and 10th, 1847 ; at
which Gerrit Smith and Elihu Burritt were nominated for
President and Vice-President of the United States. Mr.
Burritt having declined, the name of Charles C. Foote was
afterwards placed on the ticket, by another Convention, at
Bochester. The Macedon Convention sent forth an address
which was widely circulated, and elicited much debate. The
Convention separated itself from the Liberty party, and took
the name of the Liberty League.
These measures were adopted in the confident anticipation
of the speedy absorption of the Liberty party in some other
organization holding a receding instead of an advanced posi
tion, in respect to slavery itself, to say nothing of kindred re
forms. Unequivocal indications of this, were believed to have
appeared.* UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SLAVERY.
It should be mentioned in this place that the doctrine of the
unconstitutionality of American Slavery had, before this time,

* Among these was the proposal to defer making a Presidential nomination in
18 47,f saving it till the next year, to see what course would be taken by prominent mm
in the other parties. It was commonly understood that the nomination of Gerrit
Smith by the Macedon Convention, induced a majority of the National Committee to
call the Buffalo Convention. A minority Btill dissented from that course. Four
years previous, there had been some similar tendencies,

476 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
gained a strong foothold in the Liberty Party, and was coming
to be embraced by many in the old political parties. Bev.
Samuel J. May, an abolitionist of the Garrison school, had
written an argument to prove that the Federal Constitution is
not pro-slavery, which appeared in the Quarterly Anti-Slavery
Magazine for October, 1836 and May, 1837. The late Na
thaniel P. Sogers, Esq., a lawyer of New Hampshire, an abo
litionist of the same school, writing in tbe same magazine, for
January, 1837, took the same ground. He even challenged
the proof that slavery had ever been legalized in Carolina.
He affirmed that a rising of the slaves would be no " insurrec
tion ;" and intimated that the "guaranty to every State in this
Union of a republican form of government, " was a guaranty
against slavery. An anonymous writer over the signature of
" Seventy Six," in the Emancipator of January 4, 1838, threw
out hints which put many of the friends of liberty on the track
of further investigation. Alvan Stewart prepared an argu
ment, based on the " due process of law," [Amendments, art. v.J
which was presented to the annual meeting of the N. Y. State
A. S. Society in September, 1837, and of the American A. S.
Society, in May, 1838. In 1844 appeared a pamphlet on the
subject, entitled " Views of American Constitutional Law, in its
bearing upon American Slavery," by William Goodell* This
was followed, soon after, by another, '•' The Unconstitutionality
of Slavery," by Lysander Spooner, Esq., a gentleman never
connected with the Liberty Party. The subject now elicited
general inquiry. Discussions and public debates were held.
Prominent lawyers, of the old parties, declined the solicitations
of their political associates, to combat, in public debate, the
new doctrine, declaring that the printed arguments in its favor
were impregnable. Others, having entered tbe lists, admitted,
afterwards, that they had been baffled. Promiscuous audi
ences, not distinctively abolitionists, having heard the question
debated, voted, by strong majorities, the unconstitutionality of
slavery. The doctrine was espoused by Liberty Party editors,
* Upwards of 18,000 copies ofthis (in two editions) were soon circulated. •

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 477
was affirmed by a State Convention of the Massachusetts Li
berty Party, by other State Conventions, and at large Liberty
Conventions all over the State of New York, and at the West.
The Liberty Party of the country, if remaining in the field,
and active, was expected to have affirmed the doctrine, ere
long, in its National Conventions. But most of its leaders
were apparently marking out for it a course which would re
quire that such a doctrine should be abandoned, or held in
abeyance. It was however made prominent, and strongly in
sisted upon by the Liberty League.
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE LIBERTY LEAGUE.
... Among objections against the Liberty League, one was, that
ii, would divert attention , from the Slave Question by the in
troduction of other topics. The call of the Macedon Conven
tion had stated the views of the signers in nineteen distinct
propositions, nearly one half of them affirming abstract propo
sitions which no republican denies, and some of the rest ex
pressing sentiments frequently embodied in the resolutions of
anti-slavery Conventions. Occasion was nevertheless taken
from this, to satirize the League, as having put forth a creed
of nineteen articles, and as having set up nineteen new mea
sures as tests.* The truth was, the number of its proposed
measures of government did not exceed those often professed
before by the old political parties, and by the "Free Soil"
party since. Yet a party .with so wide a platform was, in this
ease, pronounced impracticable, and abolitionists were warned
to adhere strictly to their " one idea," as the only antidote
against apostacy from primitive abolitionism.
THE " FREE SOIL" PARTY.
In the midst of these exhortations, the National Convention
ofthe Liberty party assembled at Buffalo, October 20th, 1847.
Gerrit Smith, still a member of the Liberty party, was propo-
* Some of the measures objected against, have since been claimed by other politi
cal partieB, including the Free Soil party, and have been rapidly gaining publio
favor.

478 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
sed as a candidate for the Presidency. His nomination would
have secured the co-operation of the Liberty League, in his
support. But the course marked out by the leading men in
that Convention, beforehand, required the nomination of a
different man from Gerrit Smith. The Liberty party, for the
first time, adopted the policy of going out of its own ranks for
a presidential candidate. After debating, awhile, the question
of nominating at all, till next year, they nominated the Hon.
John P. Hale, United States' Senator from New Hampshire, an
" Independent Democrat," who had certainly done himself
honor in refusing to do homage to the slave power, and who
had drawn off a portion of the " democracy" of New Hamp
shire to his support. But he was not prepared to advocate
all the measures of Liberty party abolitionists. So far from
believing in the unconstitutionality of slavery, he did not per
ceive (what Daniel Webster* had long before affirmed) the
constitutional power of Congress to abolish the inter-state slave
trade. The candidate for the Vice-Presidency was Hon.
Liecester King, of Ohio.
But the nomination of Mr. Hale was only a temporary one,
and answered its temporary purpose, f Gentlemen active in
making it, united with others, of other parties, in calling
another Convention, which was held at Buffalo, Aug. 9, 1848,
composed of ihe opponents of slavery extension, irrespective of
parties, and including, of course, as was designed, large num
bers who did not intend to be committed to "the one idea" of
abolishing slavery. On that occasion was organized "the
Free Soil party," in which the Liberty party was designed to
be wholly absorbed. Martin Van Buren, of New York, and
Charles F. Adams, of Massachusetts, neither of them recog-

* See Quarterly A. S. Mag., April, 188T, p. 282.
t " The Buffalo Convention had to be summoned, because the Macedon Convention
had been held, and had done precisely what it did. The Buffalo Convention, when
assembled, had to nominate, because a secession had been made from the Liberty
party, a Liberty League organized, and its presidential nominations made and an
nounced."— [Charter Oak, W. H. Burleigh, editor, a supporter of Mr. Hale and Mr.
Van Buren.]

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 479
nized as being distinctively "abolitionists" or Liberty party
men, were nominated as candidates for the Presidency and
Vice-Presidency of the United States. Messrs. Hale and King,
as was expected, withdrew their names, in consequence or in
anticipation of this new nomination.

The following resolutions, with the response of their Presi
dential Candidate, define the " platform" of the Free Soil
party :
" Resolved, That we, the people here assembled, remembering the exam
ple of our fathers in the days of the first Declaration of Independence,
putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and invoking his
guidance in our endeavors to advance it, do now plant ourselves upon the
National Platform of Freedom, in opposition to the Sectional Platform of
Slavery. " Resolved, That slavery in the several States of this Union which recog
nize its existence, depends upon State laws alone, which cannot be repealed
or modified by the Federal Government, and for which laws that Govern
ment is not responsible. We therefore propose no interference by Congress
with slavery within the limits of any State.
" Resolved, That the proviso of Jefferson to prohibit the existence of
slavery after 1800 in all the Territories of the United States, Southern and
Northern ; the votes of six States and sixteen delegates, in the Congress
of 1784, for the proviso, to three States and seven delegates against it ;
the actual exclusion of slavery from the North-Western Territory, by the
Ordinance of 1787, unanimously adopted by the States in Congress ; and
the entire history of that period clearly show that it was the settled policy
of the nation not to extend, nationalize, or encourage, but to limit, localize,
and discourage slavery ; and to this policy, which should never have been
departed from, the Government ought to return.
"Resolved, That our fathers ordained the Constitution of the United
States, in order, among other great national objects, to establish justice,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, but ex
pressly denied to the Federal Government, which they created, all consti
tutional power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due legal process.
" Resolved, That, in the judgment of this Convention, Congress has no
more power to make a slave than to make a king ; no more power to insti
tute or establish slavery, than to institute or establish a monarchy— no such
power can be found among those specifically conferred by the Constitution,
or derived by just implication from them.

480 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
" Resolved, That it is the duty of the Federal Government to relieve itself
from all responsibility for the existence or continuance of slavery, wherever
that Government possesses constitutional authority to legislate on that sub
ject, and is thus responsible for its existence.
" Resolved, That the true, and, in the judgment of this Convention, the
only safe means of preventing the extension of slavery into territory now
free, is to prohibit its existence in all such territory by an act of Congress.
" Resolved, That we accept the issue which the slave power has forced
upon us, and to their demand for more slave States, and more slave Terri
tories, our calm but final answer is, No more slave States, and no more slave
Territory. Let the soil of our extensive domains be ever kept free, for
the hardy pioneers of our own land, and the oppressed and banished of
other lands, seeking homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the new
world." These were followed by resolutions in favor of cheap post
age, retrenchment-, abolition of unnecessary offices, elections
by the people, -river and harbor improvements, free grant of
public lands, payment of public debts, and revenue tariff'.
Here were seven distinct objects enumerated, besides the non-
extension of slavery.
It may be asked, how much was intended to be included in
the sixth of these resolutions. It will not probably be claimed
that this Convention intended to set up a higher standard than
that of the Liberty Party Convention that nominated Mr.
Hale, who was not prepared for the abolition, by Congress,
of the inter-state slave trade. The following extracts from
the Letter of Mr. Van Buren, accepting the nomination,' will
show his understanding of the position of the Convention and
the new party :
" I have examined and considered the platform adopted by the Buffalo
Convention, as defining the political creed of the ' Free Democracy,' with
the attention due to the grave subjects under which it is presented., It
breathes the right spirit, and presents a political chart which, with the
explanations I am about to make, I can, in good faith, adopt and sustain.;
" In regard to the chief topics of the resolutions, it is not to be doubted,
that the present movement of the public mind in the non-slaveholding States,
upon the subject of slavery, is caused mainly by an earnest desire to uphold
and enforce the policy in regard to it, established by the founders of the
Republic. That policy, in addition to the prospective prohibition of the
foreign slave trade, was —

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 481
" 1st. Adequate, efficient, and certain security against the extension of
slavery into territories where it did not practically exist.
" 2d. That, in the language of your own condensed and excellent resolu
tion, ' Slavery, in the several States of the Union which recognize its exist
ence, should depend upon State laws, which cannot be repealed or modified
by the Federal Government ;' and —
" 3d. A SPIRIT OF CONSIDERATE FORBEARANCE TOWARDS THE INSTITU
TION, IN LOCALITIES WHERE IT WAS PLACED UNDER THE CONTROL OF CoN-

" The sixth resolution embraces the subject of slavery in the District of
Columbia ; and I observe in it a generality of expression, in respect to the
time when, and the circumstances under which, it was the opinion of the
Convention that, it should be abolished, which has not been usual on the
part of the friends of immediate action. Most reflecting and philanthropic
minds live ip the hope, that they will one day see slavery abolished, net
only in that Distinct, but in the States also, in the latter through the agency
of the State Governments, to whom the Constitution wisely leaves exclu
sive power in the matter, and in the former by Congress. I may be mis
taken, but I think I see in the guarded language of the resolution, evidence
of an apprehension, on the part of the Convention, that a difference in
opinion, to some extent at least, existed among its members, upon the point
referred to, and of an enlightened and truly patriotic resolve, not to suffer
that circumstance, if it existed, to weaken the moral power of their una
nimity on the great question which had brought them together."
It is not known that the leading members of the Conven
tion that nominated Mr. Van Buren, ever complained that
he had misunderstood their position. They certainly did not
withdraw from him their support.
Here, then, was a platform containing as many collateral
measures as had been proposed by the Liberty League, but
omitting " ihe one idea" of a direct abolition of slavery. Yet
it was eagerly embraced by many who had scarcely ceaseu
from protesting against the introduction of other topics by the
Liberty League, in connection with the highest standard of
anti-slavery action.
The position of Mr. Van Buren, and of the party that
selected him as their chief representative, may be further
seen from the reference he made to his course during his Pre
sidency in respect to the slave question, in his widely circu-
31

482 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
lated letter of June 20th, 1848, a few weeks previous to his
nomination at Buffalo :
" But deeply penetrated by the conviction that slavery was the only sub
ject which could endanger our blessed Union, I was determined that no
effort on my part, within the pale of the Constitution, should be wanting to
SUSTAIN ITS COMPROMISES AS THEY WERE THEN UNDERSTOOD, AND IT IS NOW
A SOURCE OF CONSOLATION TO ME THAT I PURSUED THE COURSE I THEN
ADOPTED." The manner in which Mr. Van Buren sustained the " com
promises of the Constitution" when he was President, the
reader has already seen.
The enemies of the Liberty party, whigs, democrats, " non-
resistants," and " Garrison abolitionists," rejoiced greatly at
its supposed " death and burial."
REMNANT OF THE LIBERTY PARTY.
But a little remnant remained. Besides those who had
organized the Liberty League, there were a few who were
inclined to favor their views, and there were others who pre
ferred to support Gerrit Smith rather than John P. Hale, or
any candidate that wo'uld be likely to be substituted for him.
These, rallied as " the Liberty Party," and in Convention at
Buffalo, June 15th, 1848, concurred with the Liberty League
in nominating tbeir candidates. At a subsequent Convention
at Canastota, Sept. 28th, they adopted the documents defining
the platform of the Liberty League, which has not, since that
time, maintained a separate organization.
RESULTS AND POSITION OF THE "FREE SOIL PARTY."
After an experiment of three years and a half, from the
time of its organization at Buffalo, not a few members of the
Free Soil party found themselves in the position described in
the following extract, which appeared in the National Era of
March 4, 1852 :
" I confess myself disappointed in the results of the Buffalo Convention.
To 'one at the time it did seem that the people had become thoroughly
awake, both to their rights and their duties, and that party attachments are

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 483
no longer to prevent a manly, fearless assertion of the rights of the free
North to take the control of the Government, and to wield it in favor of
liberty. " While I believe that that demonstration did exert a salutary influence
on the then pending election, I am constrained to admit that the high hopes
then formed have faded away, and left the sad conviction that the people of
the free States are yet to learn lessons of deep humiliation, before they will
rise to the true position and dignity of freemen." — Extract of a Letter from
A. A. Guthrie to the Free Soil Convention of Ohio.
Others were found who freely expressed their regrets that
the platform of direct abolition should have been virtually
exchanged for that of non-extension.
The editor of the National Era, in commenting upon the
letter of Mr. Guthrie, thus sums up the result, as he under
stands it, of the Free Soil organization :
" We did not succeed in obtaining a positive act from Congress prohib
iting slavery in the Territories, but the power of the movement we re
presented was such as to constrain the new administration to countenance
measures favorable to our views, such as to weaken the confidence of the
slaveholders in their own doctrines respecting the title to their slaves in free
territory, such as to impregnate the tide of emigration to California with
the anti-slavery spirit, thereby inducing the formation of a non-slaveholding
State on the Pacific, by which our entire Western seaboard was consecrated
to Freedom.
" Among the other results attributable to this movement, direcjtly or in
directly, are the repeal of the Black Laws of Ohio ; the election of from
ten to fifteen members of the House for two successive Congresses, acting
independently of organizations when controlled by slavery ; the election of
Messrs. Chase and Sumner to the Senate of the United States; the control
of Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts, by coalitions, not to be
coerced into submission to the dictates of the Slave Power ; distraction in
the old political organizations always subservient to slavery, which thus far
no efforts have succeeded in allaying ; a more genera] discussion of ques
tions of slavery, in Congress and out, than had ever taken place before ;
and such a state of the public mind as to have checked, if not extinguished,
the project of Cuban annexation. Nor must we forget that it was under
the pressure of this Buffalo Convention that the Oregon Bill, with its clause
prohibiting slavery, was carried through Congress."
This, then, it may be presumed, is the most favorable ac
count that can be given of the results of the Buffalo Conven-

484 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tion of August 9, 1848, and of the nomination of Mr. Van
Buren. On the other hand, there are many who think all the favor
able-results above-mentioned, and many more now unrealized,
would have been secured by taking higher instead of lower
ground on the slave question. Aside from the principle in
volved, they -maintain that since all congressional contests on
the subject result uniformly in compromise, it was bad policy
to set the claims of liberty on tbe lowest possible ground, that
of the non-extension of slavery. They judge that a vigorous
and bold push for the abolition of slavery (at least where it is
confessedly under jurisdiction of Congress) would have cut
out other work for the pro-slavery party than opposition to
the admission of California as a free State ! They have no
doubt that its prompt admission, together with the adoption
of the Wilmot proviso, would have been eagerly proposed as
a "compromise" to stave off the abolition of slavery in the
Federal District, and the prohibition of the inter-state slave
trade — to say nothing of the still higher ground of the aboli
tion of slavery in the States. Instead of acting merely on
the defensive, and on tbeir own territory, they would push
the war into the citadel of the enemy. If "compromises"
must needs be submitted to, they think a position should be
chosen 'that should not inevitably result in placing all the
concessions on the wrong side. More than all this, they be
lieve in the moral obligation of a practical conformity to all ascer
tained truth, believing that the God of truth can control " con
sequences " and bring to pass results which no human sagaeity
could calculate or foresee beforehand. Though they were
'glad to see whigs and democrats leave their old parties, to
take the advanced ground of the Free Soil party, they deeply
deplored that Liberty party men, especially those who be
lieved in the unconstitutionality of slavery, should have
abandoned the ground indicated by their own convictions, for
the sake of co-operation with those who held lower views.
It is questioned by many others, whether the organization
of the Free Soil party produced all the results attributed to it

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 485
in the above extract from the National Era. The questions
that, of necessity, came before Congress, produced great ex
citement and drew forth earnest debate. The position of the
ultra Southern members rendered it inevitable. And many
members of Congress, not belonging to the Free Soil party,
were quite as efficient in their advocacy of Northern interests
as some who did. Among these are to be reckoned such men
as William H. Seward, whig Senator from New York, and
several others, though their party connections naturally tended
to cripple them.
It should be noticed that some statesmen in Congress and
the State Legislatures, who were elected as Free Soil men, or
by help of the votes of that party, have found their way out
of the Free Soil party into one or the other of the old parties.
Among these are some who were formerly in the Liberty
party, and who exerted themselves most strenuously, first, in
favor of the "one idea" policy in opposition to the Liberty
League ; and, soon afterwards, to merge the Liberty party in
the Free Soil party.
In the State of New- York, where the " Buffalo platform "
was erected, it seems to have fallen down entirely. The Free
Soil party is extinct in that State, having been absorbed by
the old Democratic party, and that too, upon a basis which
unites the " Old Hunkers " and the " Barnburners,*" — the
pro-slavery and the anti-slavery sections of the party. It is
not seen that that party, since the re-absorption, is at all in
advance of the Whig party, on the slave question. The
friends of Mr. Seward, in the Whig party, appear to be rather
in advance of them.
In Massachusetts and in Ohio, where there are yet some
signs of life among " Free Soilers," their activity chiefly con
sists in temporary and local coalitions with one or the other
of the old parties, or with portions of them, as circumstances
may seem to require. It has, in fact, become a question,
¦whether, as a national party, the "Free Soil party," as organ
ized at Buffalo, in 1848, may be said to exist.
Party ties, even in the old parties, are, to an increasing' ex-

486 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tent, held loosely. At one time, there were indications of a
division in both of them, by the organization of a new " Union"
or Slavery party, to maintain the fugitive slave bill.
On one point, the Free Soil party, if it exists, is now in
unity with the remnant of the Liberty party, and the plat-
"form of the late Liberty League. It repudiates the "one
idea" policy, insisted upon, in 1847-8.* This bone of con
tention is now removed. If the members of the Free Soil
party perceive that the time (if there ever was one) for a ral
ly on the low ground of the " Buffalo platform " has now
passed away — if they feel that the name " Free Soil " — indi
cating non-extension, is too narrow to describe their present
position, as friends of liberty, they would do well to study
the constitutional question, and the measures of political
economy that harmonize with the principle of equal rights.
Such a course, on their part, might result in a re-union of
all the friends of political action against slavery.
* See editorial in National Bra, March i, 1852.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 487

CHAPTEB XI,.
ANTI-SLAVERY CHURCH AGITATION — NEW ANTI-SLAVERY
CHURCHES AND' MISSIONARY BODIES.
Cdnsiderafion, among abolitionists, of their Church relations-*-Consultations at
Albany, in July, 1839 — Previous "Anti-Slavery Conference and Prayer- Meetings"
—"Christian Anti-Slavery Conventions," 1840 and onward — Paper devoted to
the subject — Organization of Independent Anti-Slavery Churches— " Wesleyan
Church," a secession from the Meth. E. Church — " Free Presbyterian Churoh"
—"Free Missions" — Several early Missionary organizations — " Union Missionary
Soe." — " W. India Committee" — " Amistad Committee" — " Western Miss. Asso."
—Merged (1846) in " Am. Miss. Association" — Chureh agitation at the West —
Large Conventions at Cincinnati and Chicago — Papers devoted to these movements
—Chureh agitation among Baptists — Correspondence with English Baptists —
Mission of Cox and Hoby — Organization of a "Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention"
(as a permanent body), in 1840 — Panic among Southern Baptists — Renewed oppo
sition by Northern Baptists — Records of pro-slavery action among them — " Com
promise Article" — Expulsion of Elon Galusha and others from the Missionary
Board, in obedience to Southern demands — Baptist " Free Miss. Soe." organized
1843, by abolitionists — Old Boards, Slaveholding Missionaries — "Triennial Con
vention" dissolved — A new " Baptist Miss. Union" succeeds it — Its character —
Its anti-slavery professions examined ; also other Baptist organizations — Missions
of the " Am. Bap. Free Mission Soe." — N. Y. Central College.
It would be interesting to trace the history of anti-slavery
Church agitation, for the last sixteen years. The items lie
so scattered among different sects, and in various localities,
that it would be a great task to collect, to classify, and to pre
sent them. There are materials sufiicient for volumes, but we
have room for only a few pages.
. It was seen by many, at an early day, that the same prin
ciple that required political secession, required, in like cases,
ecclesiastical secession ; and the more especially as the Church
is naturally expected to be purer than the State, and to con
stitute the guide and teacher, by which, on great moral ques
tions, the legislation of a country must be moulded.

488 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
This was seen and felt by many who attended the National
Anti-Slavery Convention for political discussion at Albany,
•commencing July'31, 1839. A large portion of those in that
Convention who were church members, and who were then
looking forward, though vaguely, to some new modes of po
litical action, assembled each morning before breakfast, during
that Convention, for mutual prayer, and for a free considera
tion of their ecclesiastical relations.* The result was a gen
eral determination among those present to push the slave
question in the churches, to " abolitionize " them if possible,
and if not, secede from them. A resolution was adopted and
afterwards published, recommending "Christian Anti-slavery
Conventions " for this end. Even before this date, something
of the kind had been done on a limited scale in the region of
central New York, where "Anti-slavery Conferences and
prayer meetings " had been frequently held, attended by abo
litionists from a few adjoining towns.
The same connection was perceived by some at the Albany
Convention just mentioned, who were opposed to political se
cession, and who urged, as an objection against an anti-slavery
party in politics, that it would lead to similar schisms and
difficulties in the Church. The right course, we were told,
was to "abolitionize" all the sects and all the parties in reli
gion and politics, and then the work would be done. The
question, nevertheless, recurred, "What shall we do when we
find it impossible to reform them ? Shall we continue to sus
tain them, to be corrupted, perhaps, by them, and to become
a partaker of their sins ?"
"Christian Anti-slavery Conventions" were accord
ingly notified and held at various points in the State of New
York, — at Auburn, Penn Yan, Clinton, Syracuse, and a large
number of other places, — beginning soon after the rise of the
Liberty party. They were attended by many of those who

* The prominent exceptions to this statement, should we Bpecify them, would be
found to be those who are not now (1852) in the ranks of the Liberty party, nor
active in politioal efforts against slavery.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM.
have been active in the Liberty party,— Smith, Birney, Stew
art, Green, Chaplin, Torrey, Goodell, and others,— and were,
some of them, among the largest and most interesting anti-
slavery conventions ever held in the State.* A little paper,
conducted by Wm. Goodell, devoted mainly to this object
was commenced in 1841, and was published occasionally till
the beginning of 1843, then monthly till the summer of 1848.
It was circulated in all the free and some of the slave States,
and was supported mainly by members of the Liberty party.
independent churches.
As a result of all this, a large number of local independent
Churches have been gathered by secession from the old
Churches of several different sects, and holding no ecclesiasti
cal connection with them. This movement is chiefly in the
State of New York and farther west.
WESLEYAN METHODIST CHURCH.
From an early period of the present anti-slavery discussion,
there has been an efficient body of Methodist abolitionists,
the denomination has been extensively agitated, and the re
sult has been a secession from the M. E. Church and the or
ganization of a new ecclesiastical connection, . known as the
"Wesleyan Methodist Church."
In the latter part of the year 1834, a number of ministers
and members of the New England and New Hampshire Con
ferences, addressed an appeal to their brethren on behalf of
the anti-slavery cause. This drew forth a " counter-appeal,"
signed by the late Pres. Fisk and others. Earnest discussions
and debates followed. The cause of anti-slavery made pro
gress, and an anti-slavery delegation from the above confer
ences to the General Conference (with exception of one dele-
* A pamphlet, entitled " The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Sla
very" (the first publication of the kind that we know of), was published by James
G. Birney, the Presidential candidate of the Liberty party, while in England, where
he attended the " World's Anti-Slavery Convention." Its republication and circu
lation in America did much to forward the church agitation of the slave question.

490 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
gate) was secured. The opposition was however so strong,
even at the North, and the course of the General Conference
was such, that a secession was deemed unavoidable. Local
secessions commenced in Michigan in 1839. Three ministers
— Jotham Horton, Orange Scott, and La Boy Sunderland,—
signed an act of withdrawal from the M. E. Church, dated at
Providence, B. I., Nov. 8, 1842. At a Convention held for
the purpose, at Utica, N. Y., May 31, 1843, the Wesleyan
Methodist Church was regularly organized. Its polity is not
Episcopal, but provides for an itinerancy under a modified
supervision of conferences, recognizing the rights of congre
gations, and the participancy of laymen. At the South and
West, E. Smith has been an effective pioneer in the enter
prise. The Wesleyans have made an inroad into North Caro
lina, and gained a promising foothold, though some of their
ministers have been ejected. The connection now (1852) em
braces "twelve annual conferences." The " General Confer
ence, which is the rule-making body, meets once in four years,
and is composed of an equal number of ministers and lay
men." Churches may elect their own pastors. — Vide " Grounds
of Secession" — Matlack's History — and MSS. by Luther Lee.
FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
This church was organized, a few years ago, during the
sittings of the General Assembly at Cincinnati. It embraces
Presbyterians of both the Old and New School in Theology,
who agree in respect to the necessity of separation from slave
holders. Among the pioneers of this movement is the Bev.
John Bankin, of Bipley, Ohio, formerly of Kentucky, who
wrote and published in favor of immediate emancipation, in
1824 or '25, before the commencement of Mr. Garrison's la
bors. In the connection there are about fifty Churches, and
three Presbyteries, extending through portions of Pennsylva
nia, Ohio, Indiania, and Illinois, the whole composing the
" Free Synod of Cincinnati."

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 491

FRIENDS.
A division among the Society of Friends in Indiana, has
grown out of the slave question, and the manner in which
active abohtionists in the Society had been treated in their
yearly and annual meetings.
Except the Wesleyan secession, there has been but little
Church secession and re-organization in New England, but
abohtionists of the Congregational sect in that quarter, extend
a pretty Hberal support to the new "American Missionary
Association," in preference to the "American Board."
FREE MISSIONS.
An Anti-slavery Missionary Committee was organized at
Boston at an early day, in principal reference, we believe, to
operations in the British West Indies. The " Amistad Com
mittee," having in charge the captives taken in that vessel,
provided missionaries to accompany them home, and estab
lished a mission among them. A " Union Missionary So
ciety" was formed by a number of white and colored minis
ters and others, in New York and Connecticut. The Western
Missionary Association, at Oberlin, Ohio, was also of an anti-
slavery character. All these were afterwards merged in the
'American Missionary Association," which was formed by a
Convention of delegates at Albany in the autumn of 1846, on
a new and broader basis, encouraging the local efforts of
Churches and auxiliaries to sustain and superintend their
own missionaries. The Executive Committee, instead of be
ing a "close corporation," like the American Board, is chosen
annually by the contributing constituency ; they exercise limited
functions, and their proceedings are subject to examination
and revision at the annual meetings of their constituents, the
members of the association. The association has missions in
Africa, in Siam, in the West Indies, among the Ojibue In
dians, at the Sandwich Islands, and in Canada. It also occu
pies, to a considerable extent, the field of Home Missions,

492 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
which are included in its plan. It has a missionary in Ken
tucky, where two new Churches have been organized that
exclude slaveholders. * An important auxiliary to this asso
ciation has recently been organized in Ohio, carrying on its
own operations in that region, in a manner provided for in
the Constitution of the American Missionary Association.
CHURCH AGITATION AT THE WEST.
The subject of Anti-slavery Church Beform has recently
received a fresh impulse in the Western States. In April,
1850, a large and influential Christian Anti-slavery Conven
tion was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, invited by a committee re
presenting several religious denominations. Members were
in attendance from most of the Middle and Western States.
A similar convention was held at Chicago, EL, in July, 1852.
At these conventions, after long and earnest discussions, reso
lutions were adopted in favor of withdrawing from churches,
ecclesiastical bodies, and missionary organizations, connected
with slaveholding. Among the active members of one or
both of these conventions were Bev. B. P. Aydellotte, D. D.,
late President of Woodward College, Bev. C. G. Finney,
President of Oberlin College, Bev. Asa Mahan, President of
Cleveland University, Bev. Jona. Blanchard, President of
Knox College, Blinois, Bev. John Bankin, Bev. Dr. Wilson,
of Pittsburg, Eev. E. Smith, Bev. J. B. Walker, Eev. E. H.
Nevin, Bev. Samuel Lewis, Bev. Dr. Brisbane, Bev. C. B.
Boynton, Bev. E. Goodman, Bev. John G. Fee of Kentucky, ¦
&c. &c, and some from the more easterly States.
"The "Christian Era," Chicago— the "Christian Press,"
Cincinnati — and the "Free Presbyterian," are journals de
voted to Free Missions and Anti-slavery Church Beformation.
The " Free Wesleyan," New York, is the organ of the Wes
leyan connection. Baptist abolitionists have had their " Chris
tian Beflector," " Christian Contributor," "American Baptist,"
ka. &c.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 493
BAPTISTS.
The history of anti-slavery agitation among Baptists con
nects itself so closely with the history of pro-slavery move
ments in the same sect, that we must present them together.
The position of the Baptist denomination, Northern and
Southern, concerning slavery, was shown in a former chapter,*
so far as it could be done without distinctly anticipating the
account of the struggle between abolitionists and their op
posers in that sect. Some further particulars are in place
here, connected with the anti-slavery Church agitation among
them. The leading influences in this sect, as in the others, were
brought to bear, at an early day, against all agitation of the
subject. The violent denunciations against abolitionists, by a
Baptist Association in Virginia, in 1835, has been noticed
already .f A spirit of servility, as in the other sects and in
the political parties, was already manifest among Baptists at
the North. The Baptist Magazine, as early as 1834, like the
leading periodicals of the other principal sects, was closed
against the discussion.
The "Board of Baptist Ministers, in and near London,"
Deo. 31, 1833, addressed a fraternal letter, signed by Eld. W.
H. Murch, their Chairman, to "the Pastors and Ministers of
the Baptist denomination throughout the United States of
America." In this letter they gave an account of their own
struggle in England against slavery in the British West In
dies, and made some very modest suggestions respecting
slavery in the United States. It was directed to "Bev. Spen
cer B. Cone, President, tbe Board of Managers, and the Dele
gates of the Baptist Triennial Convention," supposing this to
be the most ready method of access to Baptist churches in
America. Eld. Howard Malcom, afterwards a slaveholder
in Kentucky, though then a Northern man, was clerk of the
convention. The letter was kept at Boston several months,

* Chapter XV. t Chapter XXXV.

494 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
then sent to Elders Cone and Somers, New York, and by
them returned to the Board at Boston.
By Sept. 1, 1834, an answer was prepared, by a Committee
of the Board, accompanied with a series of resolutions. The
tone of these was apologetic of slaveholding, yet disclaiming
responsibility for its existence, declining to interfere with the
subject, and adducing the "consideration" that "there is now
a pleasing degree of union among the multiplying thousands
of Baptists throughout the land." To tbis was added a warm
eulogium of "our Southern brethren" who "are generally,
both ministers and people, slaveholders," yet "liberal and
enterprising in the promotion of every holy enterprise for
the extension of the gospel." This reply, as well as the let
ter from England, were kept- secret. And it was not until
the publication of both documents in England, and their re
publication by the editor of the (Presbyterian) New York
Observer, (who was gratified with the American answer) that
the editor of the Baptist " Christian Watchman " in Boston,
after request by Eld. Grosvenor, gave them to his Baptist
readers, thirteen months after the date of the Enghsh letter.
Another answer, and of an opposite tone, " with more than
one hundred and eighty signatures," was however sent to the
" Baptist Board in and near London," by a Baptist Conven
tion held in Boston, May 26 and 27, 1835. — Facts for Baptist
Churches, p. 15-29.
" Soon after (this) correspondence, Elds. Cox and Hoby, delegates from
the Baptist Union, (England) visited this country. The influence of the
Triennial Convention was employed to keep them as silent as possible in
regard to the enormous sin of American slavery.1'- — Ib. p. 29.
The delegates were sent to America, charged by the Eng
lish Baptist Union with the following mission :
" We send our deputation to promote most zealously, and to the utmost
of their ability, in the spirit of love, of discretion and fidelity, but still
most zealously to promote the sacred cause of negro emancipation."
The delegation attended the Triennial Convention at Eich
mond, Virginia, but said not a word in public concerning

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 495
slavery. One of them, Elder Cox, declined an invitation to
take part in the proceedings of the American Anti-Slavery
Society in New York. He also declined a similar invitation
at Boston. But soon afterwards, at the Free-Will Baptist
Yearly Meeting in New Hampshire, he adventured to speak
against slavery. — lb., pp. 296-302.
This was in 1835. On the return of the delegation to Eng
land, and their report to the English Baptist Union, in June,
1836, resolutions against slavery were adopted, and it was
voted that the committee take an early opportunity to address
a letter to the American Baptist Triennial Convention on the
subject. This was accordingly done, under date of London,
Sept. 13, 1836.
From this letter it appears that the English delegation,
while in this country, " although they did not mention the
subject of slavery in the public proceedings of the Conven
tion; yet, at a private meeting assembled for the purpose,"
they made known the import of their errand. , The letter
argued against slavery at some length.
It was answered, Jan. 7, 1837, not by the Board, to whom
it was addressed, but by one of the members, Elder Baron
Stowe, of Boston, informing that " the Board, under existing
circumstances, will not, in any way, intermeddle with the sub
ject of slavery."-
A number of English Baptist Associations adopted resolu
tions on the subject of American slavery, and expressive of
their deep mortification and regret at tho position of Baptists
in America.
The English Baptist Union, May, 1837, adopted a resolu
tion of sympathy with American abolitionists, and addressed
a letter ." to the Ministers and members of Baptist churches
in the United States," entreating them to " listen to the cries
of the oppressed, at whatever cost." Fraternal correspond
ence, ' between American Baptist abolitionists and Baptist
bodies in England, was continued, afterwards. — lb., pp. 30-44.
Thus encouraged, Baptist abolitionists in America, a few
Weeks after the organization of the Liberty party, and simul-

496 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
taneously with similar movements, in some form, among abo
litionists of other sects, assembled in a general or National
Convention. It was held in Macdougal-Street Baptist Church,
New York, April 28, 1840, " for the purpose of considering
the connection of the denomination with slavery, and inquir
ing, ' What could be done ?' "
An organized "National Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention"
was the result. An address was issued to the Baptist churches
of the North, and another to "Baptist slaveholders in the
Southern States."
This was the signal for renewed opposition. The slave
holders threatened. And influential ministers at the North
sent forth their "Counsels and Cautions." — " Facts," ke,, pp,
44-45. " In 1841, the Triennial Convention was to hold its appointed meeting in
Baltimore. All parties, North and South, looked forward with deep interest
to this session." — lb., p. 49.
The Savannah Biver Baptist Association
1. " Resolved, That we deem the conduct of northern abolitionists highly
censurable and meddlesome, and request our State Convention to instruct
their delegates to the Triennial Convention to demand of our northern bre
thren WHETHER THEY CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE FANATICS AS THEIR CO
WORKERS IN THE GREAT WORK OF EVANGELIZING THE WORLD, and to State
fully to them the impossibility of our further co-operation, unless they
DISMISS SUCH FROM THEIR BODY."
2. " Resolved, That the State Convention be requested to retain the funds
sent by this Association until the Triennial Convention shall publish their
repudiation of the whole "spirit and conduct of Baptist abolitionists." — lb.,
p. 49. The Camden (S. C.) Baptist Church unanimously
" Resolved, That we recommend to our Association to use their influence
to have Elon Galusha expelled from his office of Vice-President of the
Board of Foreign Missions ; that they have a right to require it, and should
make his expulsion the condition of their future connection with the
Board." " Resolved, That we extend, to Northern Baptists opposed to the aboli
tionists our warmest affection and fraternal regard. They will ever have
an interest in our prayers." — lb., p. 50.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 497
The editor of the (Baptist) Religious Herald, Richmond, Va., after de
scribing the Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention and its doings, in connection
with the foregoing action of the Camden Church, says : " In North Caro
lina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama, Conventions, Associations and
Churches, have noticed this Address to Southern Baptists." — Ib.
About this time a correspondent of the (Baptist) .Recorder &
Watchman (N. C.) stated that the President and seven of the
fifteen Vice-Presidents of the Board of Foreign Missions live
in slaveholding States and District of Columbia, &c, adding,
"It is also well known that the Acting Board in Boston me
- ikeidedly in opposition to abolition measures." — lb., p. 51.
" The Circular of the Boston Board," (Daniel Sharp, Presi
dent, Baron Stowe, Secretary,) as published jn the Christian
Reflector, Dec. 2, 1840, manifests great solicitude to exclude
"irrelevant subjects." It describes the one exclusive object of
the Association, the promotion of Foreign Missions, and de
precates the withdrawal of support by contributors. The
Board must not be held " accountable for things done and not
done, in relation to all which, alike, the Board has done nothing,
because it had nothing to do."
This was an elaborate effort to retain the support of both
abolitionists and slaveholders, and it satisfied neither party.
The Georgia Baptist State Convention expressed their dis
satisfaction ; the Board replied, and sent out their Treasurer,,
Mr. Heman Lincoln, to explain, verbally. But all in vain.
The Chairman of the Georgia Executive Committee said :
" If the object of the Board in sending their delegate to us, is to try to
steer between us and the abolitionists, they might have spared themselves
THE EXPENSE AND TROUBLE."  lb., p. 57.
The American and Foreign Bible Society, Feb. 3, 1841, sent
out an address to its members and supporters of a similar
character, signed by S. H. Cone, President, C. G. Somers, Cor.
Secretary. A kindred " Circular of the Executive Committee of the
American Baptist Home Missionary Society," S. H. Cone, Chair
man, Benj. M. Hill, Cor. Sec, was issued a few days after,
Feb. 16th. This was addressed •' to ihe Churches." It has less
32

498 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
the appearance of neutrality than the preceding documents.
It alludes to " the action of Anti-Slavery Societies formed at
the North." " Our brethren at the South, with great una-.
nimity," says the Circular, " deprecate the discussion as unwar
ranted, the measures pursued as fatal to their safety, and
complain of the language occasionally employed as cruel and
slanderous." But the Society could not act on the subject.
" We need union," say they, " as a denomination: And as
patriots, we must cherish religious union, as one among the strong
est, although not the most prominent, of the bands that hold toge
ther the Union of these States." Thus " the churches" were
exhorted to shape their religious union, for the promotion of
political ends, though, in the same Circular, the same churches
were warned not to " furnish an armory for the secular con
flicts of the times," but to say with Nehemiah, " I am doing
a great work, and I cannot come down!" — lb., pp. 67-71.
Such, were the teachers under which northern Baptists were
trained for the Triennial Convention, which assembled at Bal
timore, in April, 1841. In a secret caucus, a so-called " Com
promise Article," drawn up by Eld. S. H. Cone, was adopted
and signed by 74 persons, including prominent northern men.
Like all other " compromises" on the slave question, it gave
all to slavery. It discouraged "innovation" and "new tests."
This would be understood as a censure of abolitionists who
contemplated a separation from slavery, or who refused' to
•commune with slaveholders. If any should think of its possi
ble application to the southern "demand" of excluding aboli
tionists from office in the Missionary Board, the illusion would
soon be dissipated by the action of the Convention.
In the election of officers, those " demands" were substan
tially complied with, to the full satisfaction of the South, as
was afterwards expressed. All known abolitionists were left
off' the Board of Foreign Missions. Eld. Baron Stowe was not an
exception. He bad been obnoxious to the South, but in a
letter to the Foreign Secretary, read at the meeting of the
Southern Delegates, he expressed his unwillingness " to deny

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 499
any courtesy to a Christian brother because he 'is a slave
holder." Elder Elon Galusha, whose expulsion was demanded by
name, was accordingly ostracized. Eld. Biehard Fuller, of
S. Carolina, a slaveholder, and a Biblical defender of slavery,
was elected in his room. — lb. p. 82-3.
The delegation from the South held a meeting before leav
ing Baltimore, and addressed a letter to their constituents, in
which they say — "The election of the Board of Managers re
sulted agreeably to our wishes." Signed by F. Stocks, Chair-
mon, J. B. Jeter, Sec. pro. tem. — lb. p. 85-6.
But the Baptist abolitionists were not discouraged. The
anniversary of the American Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention
was, soon after, held in New York City, and another Conven
tion was held in Boston.
The extreme solicitude of the northern Conservatists to pre
serve " union" only precipitated the inevitable rupture. And
the "Compromise article" of 1841, like the later "Compro
mise measures" in Congress, instead of settling " the vexed"
question, only opened the controversy afresh. The excind-
ing of the abolitionists, like the Fugitive Slave bill, only served
to show the North its degraded position. The continued em
ployment of slaveholding missionaries was too glaring an out
rage to be- tolerated in the free States. The proposed change
in that policy would be : equivalent to open war on their
"brethren of the South." The two Missionary Boards, (the
Home and the Foreign) were placed in no enviable 'position.!
The slaveholders on the one side, and the abolitionists on the
other, like the upper and nether mill-stone, were likely to
grind them to powder.
' The Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention and its labors resulted
in the permanent organization of " Tbe American Baptist Free
Missionary Society," in Boston, May 4, 1843. ..It was a timely
and decisive Step, forming an era in the history of American
Baptist Missions.— lb. p. 384.
The old Boards met again, at Philadelphia, in April, 1844.
"The chief theatre of discussion was the Home Mission So-

500 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
ciety ; yet as the same individuals constituted both societies,
the influence told with equal power on the Triennial Conven
tion." The point in debate was the employment of slavehold
ing missionaries. In -neither society was any definite action
reached, further than the adoption of resolutions evading the
question, disclaiming any action for or against slavery, and
leaving each member free to be a slaveholder or an abolition
ist, as he pleased. In the Home Society, this passed by a vote
121 to 61. In the Foreign (from which abolitionists were, per
haps, either displaced or had withdrawn,) it was said to have
been adopted unanimously. But neither abolitionists nor
slaveholders could be conciliated or satisfied, for both were in
earnest, and wished for some decision of the matter. A mo
tion, in the Home Society, for a Committee to report on
" an amicable division," was also adopted unanimously ! — lb.
p. 87-94.
Similar action was had by the Foreign Board, at a meeting
at Providence, in 1845.
The division was, in fact, rendered inevitable, by the posi
tion in which the Acting Board, at Boston, found themselves
placed. Determined to maintain a neutral position, they were
reluctantly driven from it, by the action of the Alabama Bap
tist State Convention. By this body a letter was addressed to
the Board, Nov. 25, 1844, transmitting resolutions, in which
they " demand the distinct and explicit avowal that slavehold
ers are eligible and entitled to all the privileges and immuni
ties of their several unions, and especially to receive any
agency, mission, or other appointment which may fall within
the scope of their operations and duties." This was a test
which could no longer be evaded. Abolitionists as well as
slaveholders were watching them. In their reply, dated Bos
ton, Dec. 17, 1844, the Acting Board said —
" Allow us to express our profound regret that they" (the Resolutions)
" were addressed to us. They were not necessary. We have never, as a
Board, done, or omitted to do, anything which requires the explanations and
avowals that your resolutions ' demanded.' They also place us in the new
and trying position of being compelled to answer hypothetical questions,''

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 501
&c. They further said that they had " never called in question your (the
slaveholder's) social equality, as to all the privileges and benefits of the Fo
reign Missionary Union." " Nor," say the Board, " have we ever em
ployed our official influence in impeaching you."
After much ingenious circumlocution, they, however, pro
ceeded to say :
" If, however, any one should offer himself as a missionary, having
slaves, and should insist on retaining them as his property, we could not
appoint him." * * * "We disfellowship no one." * * * "If our
brethren in Alabama, with this exposition of our principles and feelings, can
co-operate with us, we shall be happy to receive their aid. If they cannot,
painful to us as will be their withdrawal, yet we shall submit to it, as being
neither caused nor sought by us."
Of the consistency of this we say nothing. The reader
will judge of it, and whether a principle of disfellowship
with slavery, or only a reluctant compliance with a northern
sentiment avowed by abolitionists, occasioned the refusal to
appoint slaveholding missionaries.
The decision produced of course a great sensation at the
South. Conventions and Associations recommended a gene
ral Southern Convention to form a new Missionary Board.
The Tennessee Baptist Foreign Missionary Society, however,
at a meeting in Nashville, April 2, 1845, expressed their
regret that the Acting Board at Boston should have been sus
pected and interrogated ; yet they said, the Acting Board, by
its answer, had " rendered themselves justly obnoxious to the cen
sures of the whole church," and they " Resolved, that, in our opin
ion, the Convention will not sustain the position of the present-
Acting Board in regard to slavery."
These proceedings were transmitted " to the Board of the
Triennial Convention soon to convene in annual session at
Providence, B. I.," and the closing prediction was then veri
fied. - The neutral position there assumed (as already seen)
was a virtual reproof of the Acting Board. Eesolutions ap
proving their course were offered by Eld. B. T. Welch, but
being warmly resisted, were withdrawn. — lb., pp. 104-13, also
145-6, &c.

502 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
But nothing could now save either the " Acting Board" of
Foreign Missions, or the " Triennial Convention." , Their dis
solution was manifestly inevitable.
" The Home Mission Board was subjected to a similar test. The Georgia
Baptist, Convention sent to this Board the name of Mr. James E. Reeve,
stating that he was a slaveholder, and requesting the Board to appoint
him as a missionary."
It was also stated explicitly that this application was made
to test the position of the Board. The Board declined making
the appointment, not because the candidate was a slaveholder,
as they were careful to explain, but because the Board, having
taken neutral ground, would not permit that neutrality to be
disturbed by the mode of requesting appointments. In this
respect they placed abolitionists and slaveholders upon pre
cisely an equal footing. They said :
" When an application is made for the appointment of a slaveholder or
an abolitionist, or an anti-slavery man, as such, or for appropriations to fields
where the design of the applicant is apparently to test the action of the
Board in respect to the subjects of slavery or anti-slavery, their official
obligation either to act on the appointment, or to entertain the application,
ceases. Therefore,
" Resolved, That in view of the preceding considerations, it is not expe
dient to introduce the subjects of slavery or anti-slavery into our delibera
tions, nor to entertain applications in which they are introduced.
" Resolved, That, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the
case, we deem ourselves not at liberty to entertain the application for the
apppointment of Rev. James E. Reeve." — lb., pp. 124-26.
The action at Providence was adapted to soothe and appease
the slaveholders, but they had already committed themselves
extensively to a Southern Convention. " The South antici
pated the co-operation of the North in entering into their
organization." The North, too, (equally opposed, as the lead
ing men were, to abolition,) would also be compelled to re-or
ganize. On both sides it was an amicable as well as a reluctant
separation. The Southern Baptist Convention assembled at Au
gusta, (Geo.,) May 8, 1845, .and formed a new missionary
organization, of the same name. A sympathizing letter from

slavery and freedom. 503
¦ President Wayland was read, in which he said : " Your rights
have been infringed." " We" (of the North) " have shown
how Christians ought not to act. It remains for you to show
us how they ought to act." Mr. Burroughs, of Pennsylvania,
was present, and said : " The Middle States were opposed to
the action of the Boston Board, and were at a loss what
course to pursue." The address put forth by the Convention,
said: "Let jiot the extent ofthis disunion be exaggerated. At the present time
it involves the Foreign and Domestic Missions of the denomination. North
ern and Southern Baptists are still brethren."
A correspondence with the Boston Board was immediately
opened for negotiating a convenient " transfer of a portion of
the missions under their charge to the patronage of the South
ern Baptist Convention." The project was fraternally enter
tained, and the object was ultimately effected. Columbian
College, also, was given to the South. — lb., pp. 163-169, &c,
also 214.
"The American Baptist Missionary Union" is the
name of the new organization at the North, which takes the
place of the old. The time and circumstances of its forma
tion are as follow :
A special meeting of the Baptist General Convention was
held in New York City, Nov. 19, 1845. Eld. Francis Wayland,
President, Eld. B. H. Neale, Assistant Secretary. Eld. Spencer
H. Cone presented and explained the Constitution of " The
American Baptist Missionary Union," which, after discussion,
was adopted; and a committee appointed "to inform the
Trustees of Columbian College that the Triennial Convention
is now dissolved, in order that they may take such measures as
in consequence may be necessary."
" The Baptist General Convention" was a delegated body,
responsible to those who appointed them; and were neither
authorized to "dissolve," nor to form a new organization.
But they did both, and in doing it they constituted themselves
hfe members of the new " Union," free of cost, providing that

504 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
"other persons" might become life members by paying one
hundred dollars. " This Union shall be composed of life mem
bers.*' The representative principle was thus set aside. The
" Union" of " life members" is neither responsible to the con
tributors, nor to the churches.
Eld. Cone, in explaining the Constitution, said :
" They did not want a Missionary Convention to be divided either by
Mason and Dixon's line, or any other line ; and under the proposed Con
stitution, no extraneous question of slavery or anti-slavery, or temper
ance, or anything else, apart from the one great question for which they
were organized. Any member may pursue his private predilections as he
lists, but he cannot bring them forward in the ' american baptist
Union for Foreign Missions.' "
It was objected that the terms of Union would admit
either Universalists or slaveholders, but the article was not
changed. Eld. M. D. Miller, of Vermont, moved to add to the " Qual
ifications of Officers," the words, " and not slaveholders" —
thus excluding such from office. The amendment was lost.
" Eld. J. W. Sawyer, of Maine, presented a communication on the sub
ject of slavery, from the American Baptist Free Mission Society, which
was unanimously laid on the table."
Eld. B. T. Welch offered a resolution in commendation of
the " Acting Board" at Boston. It was opposed by Elders
J. M. Peck, Turnbull, Cone, Stowe and Neale, and finally
withdrawn. [The "Acting Board" had refused to employ
slaveholding missionaries.]
A communication presented by Eld. Sawyer proposed the
following: " Resolved, That in the secession of Southern Baptists from the Baptist
Triennial Convention, we recognize a division between free and slavehold
ing missions, which we wish, on the grounds of Christian principle, to
remain perpetual, as to the American Baptist Missionary Union."
The Besolution was not adopted.
" Many have blamed the Free Mission Society, because it
did not disband at the formation of this Union." But why
should it disband ? Should it do so, a re-union of the North

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 505
with the South, in support of slaveholding missionaries, would
not, probably, be long delayed.
" Ever desirous of union with their brethren of the North, the Free Mis-
sionists sent an address to the ' Union,' at its second Annual Meeting at
Troy, May, 1848. It was with difficulty that an opportunity was gained, of
presenting it to the Body. When it had been presented and read, immedi
ately a motion was made to lay it on the table. The motion prevailed, one
or two voting in the negative." — Ib. p. 171-180.
"The Union," by a vote, constituted the members of the
Triennial Convention life members of the Union : and this in
cludes some slaveholders. — lb. p. 201.
" At the first anniversary of ' the Union' at Cincinnati, five
members are set down from Kentucky. The Banner and Pio
neer (a Southern Baptist paper,) calls them ' our representa
tives."'-^, p. 207.
Eld. J. G. Binney, formerly pastor of the Savannah Church,
Georgia, and highly eulogized in the address of the Southern
Convention, is sustained by the A. B. M. Union as Superin
tendent of the institution for training native Missionaries. —
lb. p. 168.
" Finally, the ' Union' has maintained slaveholding in its
Indian Missions, up to the present time (1850)." — Ib. p. 216.
The fact that the Baptist Cherokee and Choctaw Churches
were slaveholding, was alluded to, in the proceedings of " the
American Board," at Worcester, in 1844, and again at Brook
lyn, in 1845. Thus countenanced by Baptist example, they
felt sustained in their own position. — Ib. p. 249-*253.
These churches came under care of the " Union."
At the anniversary of the A. B. M. Union in Philadelphia, May, 1849,
"Eld. Colver rose and declared in the presence of the whole Board, that the
Cherokee churches were sanctioning slaveholding." — Ib. p. 252.
After much effort, a Eeport of the Committee was obtained,
touching lightly on the subject, speaking of it as a rumor, and
saying that they were " taking measures to ascertain the facts
of the case." But the facts appear to have been sufficiently
ascertained !— Ib. p. 253-268.

506 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
The Baptist Home Mission Society survived- the Tri
ennial Convention and the Foreign Board, notwithstanding
the secession of slaveholders. But its character, like that of
the newly organized " Union," seems to run in tbe old chan
nel. Like the " Union," it is controlled, mainly, if not wholly,
by the northern leaders of the Baptist sect, who are in close
fellowship with slaveholders, but have no sympathy with
abolitionists — except with those who co-operate with them; in
preference to the " Free Mission Society."
"In New York, 1846, a new Constitution was presented
and adopted. The chief change was the casting off of the
auxiliaries," the, northerrl as well as the southern. In a cir
cular to the Baptist churches and associations, composing the
Baptist Missionary Convention of the State of New York,
written by Eld. Wheelock, agent of the society, the reason as
signed for this change was, that attempts had been made " in
some quarters to control the parent society, about matters of
local policy, concerning which there were different opinions.
That which brought the evil to a crisis was the Slave Contro
versy." By cutting off auxiliaries and delegations, the Board
became independent of the people, and their voice was hushed.
In other respects, the new Constitution took no new ground
on the slave question. — Ib. p. 307-318, 19.
" Elder N. Colver gave notice, that at the next annual meeting he should
move, so to alter the Constitution as to instruct the Missionaries of the So
ciety not to administer baptism to adhering slaveholders, nor the ordinances
to a slaveholding church."
In 1847 the matter was called up, and laid over again, till
1848, when, it was indefinitely postponed.
And yet, it is asserted that "the society has cut loose from
slavery \"—Ib. 308.
The Society and its Beports maintain studied silence on the
subject of slavery. It has a large number of slaveholding life
members or life directors, whose names are given in the "Facts
for Baptist Churches." " The number of members in the
Slave States is two hundred and eighty-five." — lb. p. 316-18.
Mr. J. Finch, a slaveholder, was a missionary of the Society,

slavery and freedom. 507
in 1846, and the term of his appointment did not expire till
1st Feb., 1847. From the Eeport of 1848, it is evident that
the Society was in the receipt of slaveholders' funds. — lb p
311-13.
, The American and Foreign Bible Society also continues
its' former position. It receives slaveholders to membership,
and says nothing against the laws or the usages which with
hold bibles from slaves.
The " Baptist Banner and Pioneer," of Kentucky, one of the most bit-
ter and vindictive of all the southern religious papers, in 1846, said —
" The Am. and Foreign Bible Society may now be regarded as the only
ligament that binds the North and the South in union, and we trust that this
bond will, not be infracted."
It was not the " only" ligament, but it was a prominent one.
In 1848 the annual report showed the receipt of $6,753 53
from the slave states. — lb. p. 333, 4.
In 1849, while the choice of officers was pending, a motion
that the Nominating Committee should report no names of
slaveholders, was negatived, and slaveholders were accord
ingly elected.— Ib. p. 337, 8.
The American Baptist Free Mission Society, organized
in 1843, admits no slaveholding members, nor any who do
not possess "an acknowledged Christian character." It is
"amenable to the Churches, and earnestly invites them to
control its affairs by its annual delegations." It recognizes no
distinction founded on color. Its plan embraces both Foreign
and Domestic Missions— also Bible and Tract operations. It
has a Mission in Haiti, another in Canada, others at the West,
and contemplates missions in several portions of the South. —
President of the Society, Harvey Hawes, Maine ; Correspond
ing -Secretary, Eld. C. P. Grosvenor, McGrawsville, Cortland
Co., N. Y. ; Treasurer, George Curtiss, Utica, N. Y.
The New- York Central College, at McGrawsville, (N.
Y.) incorporated in 1848, is an institution "pledged to the
morahty of anti-slavery," knows no distinction of color,* and
* la another connection, similar mention might have been made of the Collese

508 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
welcomes accomplished colored Professors, as well as students,
It originated with the founders of the Free Mission Society,
as a part of their movement.
Whether Baptist abolitionists will be able to maintain these
free movements without separating from pro-slavery influences
in local churches and in associations, remains to be seen. But
they deserve much credit for their efficient labors, hitherto, in
the cause of Free Missions. If the other Baptist Missions
should ever be divorced from slavery, it will be in consequence-,-
of their efforts, and especially of their persevering support of
the Free Mission Society.

at Obeelin, but the Institution is of too long standing to need a particular notice.
Oneida Institute, at Whitesboro, N. Y., while it existed, and under the Presidency
of Beriah Green, was thoroughly anti-slavery in its character.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 509

CHAPTEE XLI.
THE ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETIES — THEIR RELATION TO POLITI
CAL AND CHURCH ACTION.
Limited, yet appropriate labor of the National Anti-Slavery Societies — Reasons why
their Operations became more circumscribed — American and Fobeion A. S. So
ciety— Its oourse and policy — Amekican Anti-Slaveey Society since the division
in 1840 — Its exclusive claims and proscription of other organizations — Early indi
cations of its policy, political and ecclesiastical — Albany Convention of 1839—
Tone of the Liberator in Jan., 1840 — Of the National Anti-Slavery Standard, after
the division — Solution of an enigma.
While these political and ecclesiastical agitations were in
progress, it will readily be seen — as might have been antici
pated beforehand — that the two Anti-Slavery Societies and
their auxiliaries could occupy, in respect to those agitations,
only a subordinate position. Each political and each ecclesi
astical movement would be carried on by those more immedi
ately interested in it, while the Societies, as such, were not
prepared to recommend, nor adapted to carry forward, any
particular measures of political or church action.
And yet, they were not left altogether without a field of
appropriate and beneficial action. Though moral considera
tions were by no means out of place, in a political movement,
(as politics should be founded on ethics) and though the moral
bearings of slavery would, of course, come directly under re
view in a discussion of the Church question, yet an appeal
having no direct reference either to the religious sects or to the
political parties, would be of great service, and be well adapt
ed to exert an influence on many minds unduly sensitive
when the course of their sects or parties is called in question.
The Anti-slavery Societies, therefore, in the measure of their

510 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
limited means, and in proportion to the wisdom and efficiency^
of their management, continued to urge forward the general
cause. Yet, owing to their dissensions, and other causes, their,
usefulness has been, in a degree, circumscribed, and the State
and local auxiliaries of the two rival national societies have
either become extinct, or have fallen into a state of compara
tive decline.
THE AMERICAN AND FOREIGN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY— ITS '.
COURSE AND POLICY. ( , . .,.'
Since its organization, in 1840, this Society has pursued an
equable and steady course. If it has not been a pioneer of .
new aggressive movements, ecclesiastical or political, it. has
not chosen the policy of interposing obstacles to them.. It
has been conducted by those who honestly consider themselves
in occupancy of the original ground, and in the practice of
the early usages of the American Anti-Slavery Society, at its
organization, in 1833. Though this will be controverted- by
the leaders of the rival Society, an examination and compari- ;
son of documents would perhaps exhibit as near an approxi-i
mation to that ground as could be exhibited elsewhere. If ;
the strict letter of the old Society's Constitution does not de- .
scribe their course on the position of females, the early usages ;
of the Society may be pleaded as their precedent. Its leading .
members would not, perhaps, claim, that they hold precisely
the same views that they once held, concerning distinct politi-'
cal action. As a Society, or, as a Committee, they have had'
little or nothing to say, pro or con, in respect to distinct po^
li tical or ecclesiastical organizations of abolitionists. Yet their
annual reports, from time to time, have embodied important
political and ecclesiastical records, with interesting and valua
ble statistical information connected with slavery, and with
the progress of the anti-slavery cause. However violently
they may have been denounced by another class of abolition
ists, whatever they may have failed to undertake or to accom
plish, whatever differences of opinion may be entertained in
respect to the division in 1840, or in respect to their course,
afterwards, impartial history will give them an honorable

• SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 511
place among the sincere and laborious friends of the enslaved.
The writings of William Jay will ever retain a high place in
the anti-slavery literature of his age and nation, and the
ceaseless vigilance and untiring activity of Lewis Tappan will
feave their marks upon every year and month of anti-slavery
progress. No power of party prejudice, no narrow bigotry,
not even connected, with the most signal services and brilliant
exploits in the cause of freedom, will ever be able successful
ly to write down such names, along with those of their asso
ciates, Eev. Simeon S. Jocelyn, Bev. Theodore S. Wright, Dr.
, J, W. Pennington, &c. &c, as recreants to the anti-slavery
cause. As there are limits to the dissensions of earnest re
formers, so there must also be limits to their power of crip
pling and injuring one another, by unjust accusations.
jPERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY — ITS COURSE AFTER THE
DIVISION OF 1840.
This Society, after the division of 1840, retaining the same
Constitution and the same name as before, claimed to occupy
its original position, as at its organization in 1833, and not
Only regarded the new Society as " schismatic " but stigma
tized it as untrue to the cause. More than this. The Liberty
party, distinct in its origin and in its peculiarities, as has been
shown, from the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society,
has been perseveringly identified with it, in these representa
tions,, and both together have been characterized as " a hateful
form of pro-slavery," originating in a desire to shelter the
pro-slavery churches, to cripple "the only efficient abolition
ists," and to crowd off woman from the sphere of anti-slavery
activity. Bad these things been said only by a few individuals, on
their own responsibility, or on the spur of an exciting mo
ment, the circumstance might need little or no notice in our
records. But it is not so. The repetition of these charges
lias been incessant, on both sides of the Atlantic. It has been
the theme of lecturers and agents, has been embodied in reso-
Mons, 'addresses, and annual reports, and has occupied

512 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
columns upon columns of periodicals devoted to the interests
of the Society. So prominent a part of the Society's opera
tions, has it been, to propagate and repeat these representa
tions, that the historical view of the Society that should fail
to give this feature of it a corresponding prominence, would
fail to record truthfully its history.
And since this leading feature of the Society must needs be
noticed, including the corresponding claim that the American
Anti-Slavery Society and its auxiliaries represent "the only
genuine abolitionists in the country," it becomes needful, as a
matter of historical integrity, to record more minutely than
would otherwise be requisite, the course of a Society setting
up such exclusive claims.* While we give due credit for the
important anti-slavery labors of Mr. Garrison and his asso
ciates, before and since the division, we shall be compelled to
record some particulars — both in respect to their political and
ecclesiastical position — which may throw light on the validity
of their exclusive claims.
Their course since the division of the Society, and the or
ganization of the Liberty party, in 1840, should be studied
in connection with the position held by them at that time and
for some time previous.
It has already been seen that Mr. Garrison and his friends
had taken their stand against voting, not on account of the
pro-slavery character of the Federal Constitution, but on ac
count of their principles as "Non-Eesistants" in respect to
compulsory civil government and penal law.
* The very last " Annual Report of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society,"
dated January, 1852 (page 48), designates its partisans as "the only efficient anti-
slavery men" in America — and represents the " New organization" (meaning the
American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society) as having " sprung into existence for
the protection of pro-slavery churches." It speaks of " the Apostacy of 1840." It
uses still more offensive language, which we will not repeat, and applies opprobrious
epithets to distinguished abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic, by name. Since
the Report reached us, we have heard a lecturer of the American A. S. Society use
similar language, expressly including in his remarks " the Liberty party," and boast
ing that he and his associates had "broken it down" — threatening also that they
would break down an Anti. Slavery Society then in process of organizing, unless it
would become auxiliary to the Amerioan A. S. Society.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 513
It was about the same time, if we correctly remember, that,
in connection with his new views of the Sabbath, Mr. Garri
son ¦ threw out hints in disparagement of the commonly re
ceived ideas of the Ministry and the Church. The pro-slavery
position and the authoritative tone of leading ministers in
Massachusetts and elsewhere, must doubtless be charged with
no small share of the responsibility of giving rise to these
views and occasions for the manifestation of them. To some
extent; they may have grown out of corresponding estimates
of civil government. Be this as it may, the distaste appears
to have been entertained against the institutions themselves1,
and not merely against pro-slavery influences and action in
ttem. At an Anti-slavery Convention in 1839 or '40, Stephen S.
luSter, a Garrison abolitionist, introduced into an Anti-slavery
Convention a resolution denominating the American Churches
a " brotherhood of thieves." To " come out " from pro-slavery
churches was soon insisted upon by Mr. Foster and others as
the duty of the abolitionists connected with them. We do
not remember that Mr. Garrison expressed any dissent, and
the general tone of his paper was in harmony with it.
' Yet, at the Albany Convention, in July, 1839, as before
noticed, the partisans of Mr. Garrison, in his presence, and
without his dissent, objected to a distinct political party,
that it would lead to similar divisions in the churches, and to
new ecclesiastical organizations by abolitionists.
Again, January 31, 1840, (before the organization of the
liberty party or the division of the American Anti-slavery
Speiety) Mr. Garrison, in his Liberator, in reply to " Gerrit
Smith on political action," held the following language :
"If we must have a new political party to abolish slavery, must we not
also have a new religious sect for the same purpose"? Is the necessity
greater in the one case than in the other ** Yet, who, among abolition
ists is prepared for such a measure .* As to the right of abolitioriste

•The "measure" had already been a subject of earnest consultation in Albany,
tie July previous, in the morning prayer-meetings, as before noticed.
33

514 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
to withdraw from the existing sects and start a rival one to them all, it is as
indisputable as it is to organize themselves into a separate political party.
But such a course, we are persuaded, whether pursued politically or
RELIGIOUSLY, WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE OF SERIOUS MISCHIEF TO THE ANTI-
SLAVERY cause. Nor is it demanded by anything in the history of that
cause. The progress of abolitionism is strong and sure ; and, by' its own
inherent power must and will overcome, ere long, both Church and
State, as now organized."
Comparing together these apparently conflicting positions
of Mr. Garrison and his friends, we can reconcile them only
by supposing that they wished abolitionists to "come out"
from the pro-slavery churches, but were not pleased with the
prospect of their organizing -anti-slavery ones. The non
voting policy, and the absence of a distinct anti-slavery party
in politics, would harmonize with this. " The progress of
abolitionism" would then "overcome the Church and State
as now organized," but without producing any new organiza
tions of them. We are bound in all charity to believe, on
their own testimony, that such earnest reformers would seek
to guide and shape reformations in accordance with .their own
views. The "National Anti-slavery Standard" — the organ of the
American Anti-slavery Society, soon after the division in
1840 — held a language equally revolutionary — equally con
servative. The very foundations of society were to be over
turned. Yet the political parties must not be disturbed !
" See if the cause of the division be not closely connected with the na
ture of the reform itself. Anti-slavery is a word of mighty power. Oh !
it strikes at the very corner-stones and keystones of society. It
aims a death-blow at long cherished habits and opinions. It robs life of all
factitious honors ; but above, and more than all, it would put an end for
ever to the unrighteous domination of ' the Church.' It would un
seat POPULAR THEOLOGY from its throne, break down the barriers
of sect, and, in short, resolve society into its natural elements, saving
all the real progress that has been made in the scale of improvement. Here
is the true issue on which division in our ranks is made up."
But in the same paper there appeared also the following :
" The greatest danger, in our opinion, is the organizing of a third polit
ical party, striving to BREAK DOWN political organizations.''

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 515
At this same time, and afterwards, the Standard condemned
anti-slavery church secession and re-organization, as being a
part of the same policy that organized the Liberty party. It
repeated this in particular reference to the forming of an inde
pendent anti-slavery church in Utica, of which Alvan Stew
art, a pioneer of the Liberty party, was a member.
Now, how are we to decipher and harmonize all this ? Anti-
slavery, after the model of the "Standard," is to "strike at
the, keystones of society," but it dreads, as the " greatest dan
ger," the breaking down of the old pro-slavery political
parties! It is to "unseat popular theology," and "put an
end forever to the unrighteous domination of the church" —
hut there must be no secessions with a view to organize anti-
slavery and reformatory churches I
We see only one solution of the enigma. If it were deter
mined to " put an end forever" to all civil and ecclesiastical
institutions, and if their unhappy and unholy connection in
this country with slavery was to be improved as the excuse
and occasion for doing this, then the course of the official
"Standard" becomes at once intelligible and consistent. For
nothing could so effectually defeat the desired operation as
the united and successful efforts of abolitionists to redeem
those institutions from disgrace and subversion by divorcing
them from slavery, and wielding them for its overthrow,
which could only be done by organizing new churches and
political parties, if the existing ones could not be reclaimed.
A resolution of Mr. Garrison, adopted by the Middlesex
County Anti-Slavery Society, about this time, demanded that
" the alliance that now subsists between the religious sects and
political parties of the North and South, be INSTANTLY
BROKEN UP."
The principle here laid down would require abolitionists to
secede " instantly" from the existing parties and sects. And
if organized political and church action were to be, for any
purposes, continued, it would require them to re-organize.
But Mr. Garrison was strongly opposed to the efforts making
in that direction. It seems to follow, that he required of all

516 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
abolitionists that they should act in accordance with his prin
ciples concerning politics and religion, by virtually mthdram-
ing from the Church and ihe State.
"Here," according to the 'Standard,' "is the true issue on
which division in our ranks is made up," or its languagehas,
to us, no intelligible meaning; ¦, ,¦.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 517

CHAPTEE XLII.
THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY — ITS FURTHER COURSE
ON POLITICAL ACTION.
Political element in the division of the Societies— Facts in illustration— Position of
" Non-Eesistants" — Position of abolitionists in the old parties remaining with the
Society--Couise of Mr. Garrison— " Moral suasion" abolitionists— Resolutions at
Worcester and Springfield— Presidential election of 1840— Subsequent develop
ments—Opposition to the Liberty Party— State Election in New York— Politioal
ethics. Twp resolutions of the, Quarterly Meeting of the Old Mas
sachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, some time beforehand, were
understood to portend a revolution of some sort in the Amer
ican Anti-Slavery Society, in May, 1840. The previous
annual meeting had decided in favor of women's voting, yet
the,,oificers had not resigned, and the business of the Society
was going on as usual. What elements then, or what indica
tions pf a revolution, were foreseen ?
At the World's Anti-Slavery Convention in London, soon
after the division in America, the question of admitting women
to participate in the proceedings, was introduced by some of
theAmerican delegation. The proposition, being accounted
an innovation on the customs of British abolitionists, including
"Friends,"* did not succeed, whereupon Mr. Garrison and
some others declined taking seats.
jPuring the discussion of the question, Wendell Phillips,
f It will be remembered that " Friends," both in America and England, transact
theh ecclesiastical business in separate meetings of males and females — not by organ
ising them together. This usage probably gave rise to the separate organization of
oale and female Anti-Slavery Societies in both hemispheres.

518 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Esq., of Boston, a delegate associated with Mr. Garrison,
"denied that the WOMAN question had occasioned the late
division in New York. He said that it was politics that
occasioned it."
Without denying, with Mr. Phillips, that the " woman ques
tion" was one occasion of division, we may agree with him
that "polities" had a large share in the transaction — the politics
of those who wished in some way to wield civil government
against slavery — the politics of those who foresaw in this the
disturbance of their political parties — and the politics (perhaps
we Should say the anti-politics) of those who desired no com
pulsory civil government at all.
The combination, for the time being, between the two latter
against the first, appears to have presented the political ele
ment of division, and their union in the American Anti-Sla
very Society, after the division, furnishes the key to the
political manifestations that followed, including the bitter
hostility towards the Liberty party for which that Society was
distinguished. With a " rank and file" of whig and demo
cratic abolitionists, wedded to their old parties, the Society
was "officered," to some extent, with Non-Besistants, who
would have preferred to witness in their ranks no voting at
all, but who were unfortunately led to regard with more for
bearance the pro-slavery voting of the whig and democratic
members of their own Society, than the rigid anti-slavery
voting of the members of the Liberty party.-
The division in the Society at New York, and the organi
zation of the Liberty party, took place, it will be borne in
mind, in the spring of 1840, on the eve of the Presidential
election of that year, and in the midst of stirring preparations
for the contest. The resolution adopted by the Garrisonian
majority, placing the support of the pro-slavery and the anti-
slavery candidates on equal grounds of disapprobation, has
already been mentioned. This was the beginning of a poht
ical course for a long time pursued by that Society. It was
the beginning, bat not the consummation ; for before election
day arrived, it was openly taught that the securing of votes

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 519
for Harrison and Tyler was less to be deplored than the secur
ing of votes for Birney and Earle. This was the language
of N. P. Bogers, one of their leading editors, and of the agents
and lecturers of the Society.
The annual meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery So
ciety, in January or February, 1840, had said nothing against
the support of Harrison and Tyler, though there was known
to be a strong tendency of the majority of abolitionists in that
State to support them. After the nomination of Birney and
Earle, by the Liberty party, in April, the American Anti-
Slavery Society, as we have seen, could impartially dissuade
from pro-slavery and from anti-slavery voting, in the same
heath. But now, a decided preference, as a choice of evils,
was given to the political support of a slaveholder over an abo
litionist who had emancipated his slaves.
The action of the great majority of the society and its sup
porters was in accordance with these teachings. Non-Besist-
ants, who, on the ground of their peculiar views of civil
government, abstained from the polls, were admitted to be (as
we have seen) but a small minority of the society and of its
leading men — " less than an hundredth part of the society" in
Massachusetts, at the time of the division, there, in 1839 —
"not exceeding," in 1841, or '42, " one or two hundred in
all New England," and still more sparse in the other States.
And nothing, at that time, was heard of abstaining from the
polls, on the ground of the pro-slavery character of the Fede
ral Constitution or the Federal Government. The vast ma
jority ofthe society claiming to embody " the only true aboli
tionists of the country" voted either for Van Buren or for
EJarrison and Tyler, opponents of abolitionism, while the Li
berty party, designated by them as " apostates," voted for Bir
ney, the emancipating abolitionist.
Some of their active and official members were earnestly
engaged in electioneering for a slaveholder. A member of
the "business committee" of the meeting ofthe Massachusetts
Anti-Slavery Society just now mentioned, having assisted to
e its proceedings, was found, not long afterwards, a pro-

520 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
minent speaker at political meetings, in support of Harrison
and Tyler.
The Executive Board of the same Massachusetts A. S. So
ciety, during the pendency of the same presidential election,
addressed a letter to the abolitionists of the United States,
against independent anti-slavery nominations, but said nothing
against the support of the pro-slavery candidates. Like the
"Standard," they seem to have felt that " the greatest danger
was the organization of a third party, striving to break down
political organizations."
Soon after the nomination of Birney, in April, 1840, the
same Massachusetts State A. S. Society, held a quarterly meet
ing, and adopted six labored resolutions, deprecating the sup
port of Birney and Earle, but uttering not a word against the
support of the pro-slavery candidates. Nothing was said, (.(as
formerly) of " scattering votes" at State or National elections,
nor in favor of staying away from the polls. Of this meeting,
the same prominent supporter of Harrison and Tyler* was
chairman. The proceedings of the meeting were published in
the Liberator without dissent, accompanied with sarcastic men
tion of the nomination of Birney, which, was spoken of as " the
Albany farce." — See Liberator, of April 17, 1840.
Some time before this, (March 13) Mr. Garrison labored; in
his Liberator, to show that "it is most unphilosophical for abo
litionists to expend much time, expense, or thought, upon the
approaching presidential election," — that "it matters very, Utile
who is President," because there is no probability that within
four years there will be a Congress who will vote for the' abo
lition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Yet he would
have abolitionists bear their testimony against elevating either
of the candidates.

* Mr. Tyler was a slaveholder. Se was elected Vice-President;, at this eieotion,
and, in consequence, became President by the demise of President Harrison. His
course, as President, wo have seen. Gen. Harrison, by his publio speeohesflt Vin
cennes and Choviot, had been one ofthe earliest and most, violent opposers of flbpli-
tiobists. By this means, and by his letters to southern politicians, he had gained
southern favor, and thiis he became the Presidential candidate of his party.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM, ¦ 521
: In all this, we heard nothing of the wickedness of voting
under the pro-slavery constitution. We saw nothing of the
motto of " no union with slaveholders." A close union with
.he supporters of slaveholders was quite, evident, nevertheless.
The previous policy of " questioning the candidates " ofthe
old parties, was now, by general consent, laid aside. Liberty
party men had candidates of their own. Non-Besistants de
sired none. And other abolitionists, (whether of the " Old"
or the " New " organized anti-slavery societies,) appeared to
beitolerably well content with the candidates furnished them
by their old political parties. Except the seven thousand
votes polled for Birney and Earle by the Liberty party,, and
perhaps two or three hundred non-voting Non-Besistants*
excepting, also, the sect called "Covenanters," who never
vote, there were not, probably, any considerable number of
abohtionists who did not, at that election, cast pro-slavery
votes. Now was the noon-tide glory of " moral suasion " abolition
ism, as it was called. " We must abolitionize the people,"
said the advocates of this doctrine, and all will come right.
And again, " Do not bring down our holy cause," said they,
"into the dirty waters of politics." These had a holy horror
ofthe Liberty party. They preferred the " Old organization,"
and hastened to vote for the pro-slavery candidates of their
old parties.
, Let it not be inferred that Mr. Garrison and those, of his
associates who were thorough abolitionists, could silently wife
ness all this, to the close of the contest, without a word of
rebukei It was not so. The Old Massachusetts Anti-Slavery
Society, though late in the. season, at Worcester, October 6th,
and at Springfield, October 8th, adopted the following,,- fjom
the pen of Mr. Garrison :
" Resolved, That no man can vote for William H. Harrison; or Martin
' * Some who called themselves Non-Resistants were scarcely; restrsdned from the
pplls, wheu election day came. It is confidently said that some of them did vote.
Be tjiis as it may, the political preferences and influence of some of them was no
secret.

522 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Van Buren, without voting directly to sustain slavery, and he who votes for
slavery, has no title to the name op an abolitionist.
Mr. Garrison was himself again. He here repeated the old
anti-slavery doctrine, held before the division — the doctrine
of 1838 — the doctrine that compelled voting abolitionists to
form the Liberty party. Its severe but just censure lighted
upon not one single adhering member of that party, accused
as that party was, of apostacy from genuine abolitionism.
But it fell, like a thunder-bolt, upon seven-eighths, if not nine-
tenths of the members of the American Anti-Slavery Society
and its auxiliaries, to which Mr. Garrison himself belonged,
and which claimed then, and still claims, to embody or repre
sent all the genuine abolitionism in America.
If it fell equally upon a portion of the rival Society, (the
" New Organization ") it fell only upon that portion of it that
failed to come into the Liberty party, thus revealing the dis
tinction between them, and also the affinity of pohtical ethics
between portions of the New Organization and the Old.
The language of the Besolution justifies the estimate we
have already made of the advice previously given, in the op
posite direction.
Such a Besolution, at the meetings of the Society in the
winter and spring, consistently carried out, and not neutral
ized by contrary teachings, would have had a salutary effect^
though it Would have swelled the vote of the Liberty party.
As it was, it came too late to prevent the mortifying result
already described. It had scarcely reached central and west
ern New- York, ere those who needed it had either deposited
their votes or had committed themselves too deeply to retract.
Nor did'the infatuation die with the Presidential contest.
It was publicly stated and never denied, that two lecturing
agents of the American Anti-Slavery Society, professing to
be non-resistants, boasted, afterwards, that they had saved
thousands of votes for the whig party ; in other words, for
Harrison and Tyler. It is known that, in their travels they
¦Bought out whig committees, and made such representations
to them as induced them to subscribe for packages of the "Na-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 523
tional Anti-Slavery Standard." " No union with slavehold
ers " was not, then, the motto of that paper, nor of the Society
of which it was the official organ.
A great convention of "old organization" abolitionists was
held at Le Boy, N. Y., January 6th and 7th, 1841, under the
auspices of the Corresponding Secretary and General Agent
ofthe Old American Anti-Slavery Society. The proceedings
were published in more than nine columns of the National
Anti-Slavery Standard.
" The largest and most spirited anti-slavery Convention" (say the editors)
"ever held in the State of New York." " Several hundred delegates were
in attendance, and acted without distinction of sex. The third party move
ment was voted down by a very large majority, as it had been in four State
Conventions previously in that State." " We publish the proceedings
entire.'' " Send it to the four winds, that it may do the work of primitive
abolitionism !"
In this Convention, as appears in the proceedings, a Beso
lution was introduced, discussed, amended, and put into vari
ous shapes, upon the subject of voting for slaveholders, but,
finally, the Besolution was lost. In rejecting it the Convention
refused to say, in any form, ihat it was inconsistent to vote for a
SLAVEHOLDER ! In all the proceedings, there was no expres
sion of regret in view of the course of voting abolitionists,
except those who voted for the abolition candidate, Mr. Birney.
Among the letters to the Convention, read and published as
from "distinguished abolitionists," deprecating the Liberty
party, were several from zealous supporters of Harrison and
Tyler. The proceedings of this Convention were hailed in the Lib
erator as a signal triumph of the American Anti-Slavery So
ciety over the Liberty party and " new organization."
By the Liberator and the National Anti-Slavery Standard
it was apparently assumed as a settled axiom, that politics, of
necessity, must be impure— that they must be conducted on
principles of mere expediency, and that moral principle, " for
the time being, must be laid aside. They derided the efforts
of the Liberty party, its lecturers and its editors, to raise the

524 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
tone of political morality, to teach the duty of honest, consci
entious, political action, to be performed religioiisly, in the
fear of God, and looking to him for assistance and direction*
Moral action and political action were spoken of, as antago
nisms, that cannot exist together, or be reconciled.
It was not strange that those who thought thus of political
action, and then undertook to direct it, should realize, in the
results, the appropriate effects of their own theory. He is not
to be regarded an unsuccessful operator whose work comes up
to his ideal — his model.
In the Autumn of 1842, an important State election took
place in the State of New York, and the agents of the Ame
rican Anti-Slavery Society, with the "National Anti-Slavery
Standard," were again in the field, in opposition to the Liber
ty party, its editors, its lecturers, and its candidates.
The " Standard" of July 7, took the ground that abolition
ists should not insist on the " genuine" abolition of those /or
whom they were called upon to cast their votes. They were
not to insist on " filling the State House with true anti-slavery
men." Instead of this, they were advised to make calcula
tions whether or no " fifty men who have a strong motive for
obliging abolitionists," would not do us more service than a
few, abolitionists who are anti-slavery to the hack-bone?"
The comparison here instituted describes and concedes the
distinction between the candidates of the Liberty party,, and
the candidates of the old parties, whom other voting aboli
tionists would have to support. The choice was between the
two, and the suggestion was in favor of the latter.
In the same paper, of Sept. 29th, an effort was made to per
suade abolitionists to vote for a gubernatorial candidate who
was a partisan of Henry Clay.
" Politics is, a game of expediency, its science consists in a nice calcula
tion of present availability v Those skilled ia such calculations can decide
* " ' Under certain circumstances,' Mr. Goodell thinks, ' that the days of approaoh-
ing the ballot-box, and of preparing for its solemn duties, might be set apart as days
of fasting and prayer to Almighty God, by those who are accustomed to observe
such appointments.' Pardon us, if we smile at this."— Liberator, March 20, 1840. .

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 525
for themselves, whether Luther Bradish, as Governor, would be likely to
do more to support Henry Clay, than Luther Bradish, as a private citizen."
It might have been added, that those abolitionists who had
openly supported Harrison and Tyler, could have no consci
entious scruples against supporting Henry Clay.
In the same paper, of the same date, was inserted, without
comment or dissent, a long letter from a Whig statesman,
William Slade, of Vermont, in which he justifies the policy
of making the tariff question the paramount one, for the time
being, instead of the slave question; and then adds as
follows :
" May not abolitionists better subserve the cause of abolition by thus
aiding to secure the election of inen who are willing to take moderate
ground against slavery, than to lose their influence, as to present practical
purposes, by shutting themselves up within the straightened enclosure of a
third political party ?"
Such was the political morality inculcated and exemplified
by the official organ of the American Anti-Slavery Society,
up to the autumn of 1842, on the eve of an important State
election, and looking forward to the Presidential campaign of
1844. , Posterity will compare such political ethics with those
of the Liberty party, and decide upon the claims of the former
to represent the only true abolitionism of America, and whe
ther the latter gave evidence of apostacy from the anti-slavery
cause, in not acting with them.

526 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE XLHT.

SECOND REVOLUTION IN THE POSITION AND POLICY OF THE
AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, IN 1844.
"No Union with Slaveholders" — The Federal Constitution " a covenant with death
and an agreement with hell" — Import of the " No Union" motto — Some advan
tages of this new position — Its origin and history.
Passing over an intervening space of about one year and
a half, we find the American Anti-Slavery Society, at^ its
annual meeting in May, 1844, raising the flag of "No Union
with Slaveholders,"* demanding a dissolution of the Union,
* It has not always been easy for other abolitionists to understand precisely what,
and how much, is included by Mr. Garrison and his associates, under the phrase,
" No union with slaveholders." If they mean only a separation of the non-slave
holding States from the Blave States, the meaning would be sufficiently clear, and
the proposal deserves attention. But such a separation would not be a separation
between the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery portions of the nation. It would
leave the slaves, free colored people of the South, and many of their white friends
on the South side of the line ; while many of the most despotic statesmen and ser
vile voters would remain on the North side. It would leave the " black law" legis
lation of the free States in full force. Neither morally nor politically would the
geographical line of division describe the true separation. Appeals sometimes made
in favor of " no union with slaveholders," seem to overlook this. It seems to have
been assumed that the relation of a common citizenship between a slaveholder and
a friend of liberty is, per se, a Binful relation — that it is wicked to sit in the Bame
Congress where a slaveholder sits, or to go to the same ballot-box with him. This
idea would accord with the theory of no civil government. Its adoption would
render civil government impossible, so long as there remained a wicked lawless man
in the nation ; in other words, so long as a civil government, to repress crime, is
needed. This idea also assumes that civil government is merely a voluntary associa
tion, into which the citizen may enter, or not, as he pleases. This too accords with
the non-government theory, and its advocates doubtless understand themselves as
holding no political connections either with slaveholders, or with any body else. The
separation, on their part, involves no self-denial, and consists in no new or dis
criminative act. To those of other views, who hold themselves in fact, whether

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 527
denouncingxthe Federal Constitution as pro-siavery, "a cove
nant with death, and an agreement with hell," under which no
abolitionist can consistently hold office, or vote for another to
hold office. This was a memorable revolution in the Society
and its policy.
In many respects there was an advantage gained by the
Society in taking this new ground. The favorite policy of
not voting could now be placed on an anti-slavery basis, and
openly urged " on the anti-slavery platform," with the aid of
anti-slavery funds, instead of depending upon the still mod
erate number of "Non-Besistants," who were consistent
enough to abandon the polls. The experiment of keeping
other abolitionists away from the polls had proved, thus far,
a manifest failure.* The anti-slavery reputation of the So
ciety, as well as the interests ofthe cause, had suffered severely,
andthe lost ground must be regained. The startling doctrines
and measures thus propounded would arrest attention and
excite discussion. Instead of lagging behind the Liberty
party, and hanging on to the skirts of the old pro-slavery
parties and their slaveholding candidates, they could now
claim to outstrip them in the march of separation fromslave-
holders, and retort upon them the charge of inconsistency in
their political associations.f How far, or whether at all, these
considerations had weight, we pretend not to say. They
naturally suggest themselves on a review of the history. The
reader will judge.
they will or no, a part of the nation they reside in, some of their appeals have there
fore no force. But when they urge the duty of dissolving the Union between the
free and slave States, on the ground that the Union upholds slavery, they propound
a serious and intelligible question, and one that comes home to the conscience and
interests of every northern citizen.
* So well known and almost universal was the desire to vote, that Stephen S.
Foster and some others, it is understood, proposed among their associates some
mode of anti-slavery voting, distinct from the obnoxious Liberty party. But either
the proposal was overruled, or no other platform of anti-slavery voting could be
devised. t In October, 1842, a Liberty Party Convention at Syracuse, N. Y., had issued a
circular describing the political influence of the American Anti-Slavery Society,
which was not to bo conveniently answered till the course of the Society was

528 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
So radical a change could not have been effected in a mo
ment. A strong under-current must have been at work during
the enactment of the scenes before described. The particulars
are not fully before us, and we have little space for them.
We are told that Wendell Phillips, Esq., first affirmed the
pro-slavery character of the Federal Constitution and the
inconsistency of voting under it, at a Convention in Dover,
N. H, in October, 1841.* Mr. Garrison is said to have
expressed in conversation, at that time, his dissent. It is be
lieved that he once held the anti-slavery character of the
Constitution, along with N. P. Bogers and S. J. May.
But at the next anniversary of the Society in New York,
May, 1842, the proposition was brought forward by Mr. Gar
rison himself. His annunciation of it beforehand, caused
some excitement, and the Executive Committee in New York
were alarmed. A note of disavowal was sent- by them to the
_ pro-slavery editor of the N. Y. Courier and Enquirer, stating
that the committee did not approve the annunciation — that
Mr. Garrison was not the Society, &c, or words of that
import. Two years afterwards, May, 1844, after an earnest debate,-
a majority of those present at the annual meeting adoptedthe
new policy, and many withdrew from the Society. t The
change in the course of the Society thenceforward was strongly
marked, and the tone of the " National Anti-Slavery Stand
ard," under the charge of other editors, also changed.
The political history of the Society, however, does not end
here. But we must digress a little at this point to notice
another schism in the Society.
* We are not quite certain of the accuracy of some of these dates, but think them
sufficiently early.
t Whether it was on this occasion, or before, or afterwards, we cannot say, but at
one period two or more lecturers of the Society found it difficult to pronounce tlie
new shibboleth of a " pro-slavery Constitution" having been so long accustomed to
promulgate the contrary doctrine, as learned from N. P. Rogers and Samuel J. May,
in 1886. The Federal Courts were cited on the other side, but theirs was interested
testimony, and ought not to have been received.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 529

CHAPTEB XLIV.
FURTHER DIFFICULTIES IN T^E AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY
SOCIETY.
Natural working of the new theories concerning Church and State— N. P. Rogers —
His/inflexible adherence to his theory — The Collision.
The particulars that follow may illustrate the* effects of ex
cessive exclusiveness among reformers. They may also throw
light on that phase of attempted reformation that seems to
look in the direction of displacing all organized control in
human Society.
Some of the leading minds in the American Anti-Slavery
Society, after the division of 1840, were understood to repu
diate the ideas commonly expressed by the term " Church,"
and the term "State," as regularly constituted organizations.
It seemed to many, however, that their cherished organizations,
the Non-Besistant Society and the Anti-Slavery Society, to
gether or separate, constituted, »to them, both a Church and a
State, — the union of Church and State being of the most in
timate kind, amounting to identity ; the discipline and polity
being of the most rigorous and stringent character — the ana
thema tremendous — the infliction precipitate and unsparing.
The absence of any other Church or any other State, would
naturally tend to concentrate and vitalize, at this central point,
whatever of the governing propensity in human nature (if
there be any) that remained in them. This was believed to
be the case.
If it were so, the fact would be likely to develop itself
among the subjects of this government. Attracted within its
34

53C GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
jurisdiction by perhaps an excessive dread of subordination,
they would be likely to feel it tbe more keenly, if it should
ever happen to be exercised upon themselves. The contin
gency was not long lingering.
Nathaniel P. Eogers, Esq., of New Hampshire, was a man
of genius— of strong mental powers— an original and rapid
thinker  a racy and vigorous writer — a non-resistant — and an
abolitionist of the Garrison school. For a time he edited the
National Anti-Slavery Standard, New York, then again the
Herald of Freedom at Concord, N. H. In energy of purpose
and weight of talent, he was second to no man among his
associates, except Mr. Garrison — perhaps not second to him.
He held himself subordinate to no man. There may have
been a latent and unconscious rivalry between the two. To
gether, and with the concurrence perhaps of one other, a
lady, the Society was easily managed. Pitted against each
other, Greek against Greek, there must be schism.
With N. P. Eogers, his phase of abolition and his theory of
non-government were no empty abstractions. At least he
could not consent to be governed. He had not abjured the
Church, to recognize a Bishop, nor the State, to bow before a
Throne, or to any power, male or female, behind it. He
spurned, as instinctively, and as indignantly, the rules of
order observed in Anti-slavery Conventions and annual meet
ings, as he would those of Senates or Synods. When he
spoke, as he often did with great power, he would not confine
himself to reported resolutions. In Executive Committees
he saw Sanhedrims, in Presidents of Societies, Popes, in re
corded minutes, precedents, in Constitutions of voluntary as
sociations, forms of government. These, as a consistent Non-
Eesistant and lover of liberty, he abjured. He became "a
disorganizer " in the view of some who had been stigmatized
as disorganizers themselves. In meetings of the Society, these
points became matters of earnest debate. On one occasion
of the kind, at Concord, in 1841, we were incidentally a wit
ness, while Stephen S. Foster maintained against Eogers the
claims of order, organization, and official prerogative.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 531
The same sentiment forbade that Mr. Eogers should re
cognize the supervision of his "Herald of Freedom" by the
Exeeutive Committee of the New Hampshire Anti-Slavery
Society, that claimed it as their organ. " I have to edit the
Herald," said he, " and what I have to do, nobody else is to
do or direct for me." A dispute arose concerning the con
trol and the proprietorship of the paper. The merits of the
case we do not know ; but both sides had their warm parti
sans. The controversy was carried to Boston. Mr. Garrison
was among those who took sides against Mr. Eogers. The
paper went out of his hands, but he started another of the
same name, and maintained a controversy while he lived, for
his health declined and he died, but not until the breach had
extended beyond the boundaries of New England. Where-
ever there were supporters of the American Anti-Slavery So
ciety ih central and western New York, there were found
some who sympathized with Eogers. The denunciations of
his opponents against him were quite* as severe as anything
that had ever been fulminated against the " new organization "
and the Liberty party. How the breach in the Society was
healed — if it be healed — we cannot exactly say, but the pen
alty of insubordination and " schism," under the administra
tion of the American Anti-Slavery Society, is now well un
derstood. Its governors have evinced their capacity to bear
rule.

582 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN

CHAPTEE XLV.
POLITICAL COURSE OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY
SINCE ITS REVOLUTION OF 1844.
The Society not wholly composed of " Non-Resistants" — Position of its politicians —
Welcomed as members of the Society — Commonly connected with the old pohtical
parties— Consequent standard of their political action, as compared with the Lib
erty party, or with the motto of " No Union with Slaveholders" — On a level with
the mere " Wilmot Proviso" politicians, or the platform of the Free Soil party —
Their reception of the nomination of Mr. Van Buren, in 1848— Charges of apos-
tacy against those Liberty Party men who came into the same measure — Relation
of " Non-Resistants" in the Society to this political standard of their associates —
Their policy read in the light of their theory — Facts in confirmation— Embarrass
ments of political abolitionists in consequence of this opposition.
It may, perhaps, be inferred, from the features of the revo
lution of 1844, that the American Anti-Slavery Society was
afterwards or is now composed wholly of abolitionists who
decline political voting — some on the principles of the Non-
Eesistance Society, and some or all on the ground of " no
union with slaveholders," and the " pro-slavery Constitution
of the United States."
Such a conclusion would be wide of the mark. The society
that, on the ground of these features, (so recently acquired,)
claims to be and to have been, since 1840, the only true Anti-
Slavery organization in America, contains political voting
members still. How numerous they are, or what proportion
of the entire body, we say not, now : — but it contains them.
It welcomes them. It chooses to retain them. By its agents
it invites the co-operation of such, assuring them that the
" anti-slavery platform is as broad as ever — broad enough to

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 533
receive those who vote under the Federal Constitution as well
as those who decline doing so."*
And this is not all. It has no rules and it desires none, for
excluding those who vote for slavery, and even for slavehold
ers. We have the authority of Mr. Garrison in his Liberator,
for saying this, although he declared, in his Springfield and
Worcester Eesolutions, in 1840— before cited— that such a
voter " has no title to the name of an abolitionist."
When reminded by a Liberty League correspondent that
the American Anti-Slavery Society, as well as other anti-sla-
yery societies, contained pro-slavery voters and members of
pro-slavery churches, he denied not the fact, and pleaded that
the original Constitution of the Society, which remained un
changed, did not exclude them, but only excluded slavehold
ers. He went further, and vindicated the policy, even at that
late day, maintaining, in substance, that assent to the anti-
slavery principles of the Society was the proper test of mem
bership, and that each member must be left free to judge
whether or no he honored his principles in his practice, so long
as he did not become a slaveholder. He might vote for slave
holders, and hold religious fellowship with them, and remain
in the Society.
In the light of this avowal, the exclusive claims of the
American Anti-Slavery Society to purity of membership may
be tested. The relation of the Society to politics, since 1844,
may also be understood.
The Society is not a Society of self-disfranchised non- voters,
after all, as the " Covenanters " are. While some of its mem
bers hold that position, others of them do not. In the matter
of membership, it is not a test. To the merits of that posi
tion, whatever they may be, the Society, as such, has no valid
claim. Still further, the test of membership in .that Society — as in
* This language was lately held, in our hearing, at Rooheater, by Mr. S. S. Foster,
agent of the Society, who was laboring to persuade an Anti-Slavery Society then
organizing, and composed chiefly of political voters, to become auxiliary to the
American A. S. Sooiety.

534 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
others — opens the door to those voters who, in Mr. Garrison's
view, " have no title to ihe name of abolitionists." How then
does he ascertain the claims of the Society to the name of
abolitionist, in contrast with the claims of other societies ? He
need not institute a comparison with the Liberty party,, which
contains* no such voters.
The Society is composed, to an unknown extent, of politi
cal voters* — perhaps of pro-slavery voters. Jn the Society
they have an equal right with Mr. Garrison and faithful, abo
litionists. How then does the motto of " no union with slave
holders " expurgate the Society? Is there no union with
slaveholders in a voluntary and fraternal union with those who
vote for them ?
Being composed, to a certain extent, of political voters, the
Society must have a standard of political ethics and action.
It has one. How does it compare with the standard of
other anti-slavery societies, and with the standard of the Lib
erty -party ?
No anti-slavery society that we know of has a lower stand
ard, in this respect, than the American Society. The Liberty
party has a much higher one.
Political voters connected with the American Anti-Slavery
Society, since 1844, it may be presumed, with possible excep
tions, have not voted with the Liberty party. The dread of
being branded " apostates," if nothing else, will have restrained
them from that.
For whom, then, have they been casting their votes? And
what tone of political ethics has been indicated by their
voting ?
The candidates of the Liberty party, before its incipient ab
sorption into the embroyo Free Soil party, in the autumn of

* It is not known that the number of non-voting Non-Resistants has increased
Bince they were estimated at "one or two hundred in all New England." Some
prominent advocates of the doctrine have resumed voting. We know of few who
abstain from the polls on account of the "pro-slavery Constitution," but there are
Bome. If political voters do not compose a majority of the supporters of the Society,
it must be feebler than we have supposed it to be.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 535
1847, were always pledged to the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia, and Territories, the prohibition of the
inter-State Slave trade, and the non-extension of Slavery.
This was the old demand of abolitionists. The Liberty
League, and the remnant of the Liberty party since the
absorption, have gone farther, demanding the abolition of
Slavery in the States — the highest standard of political
abolitionism. Have the candidates receiving the votes of members of the
American Anti-Slavery Society, since 1844, been pledged to
the measures of even the old Liberty party ?
To ask such a question is to answer it. Though the tone
of anti-slavery feeling in portions of the Whig and Demo
cratic parties has been rising, their candidates have not been
pledged to these measures.
The measures of tbe Free Soil party, and the pledges of its
candidates, have already been described. The Annual Eeport
•of the ' Old Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, for 1-852,
affords a similar description. It designates the standard of
that party as falling short Of the demands of consistent aboli
tionism. It is so, precisely at those points wherein it falls
short: of the position of the Liberty party, as just now re
corded. But the very highest standard indicated by the votes of
members of the American Anti-Slavery Society, even since
1844, is that of the Free Soil party, or that of certain mem
bers ofthe Whig and Democratic parties. To no higher stand
ard of voting could Mr. Garrison himself point them, without
advising them to vote for the candidates of the Liberty party.
But this he has not done. It follows that the highest stand
ard of political action countenanced by the American Anti-
Slavery : Society, even since its revolution in 1844, has been
lower than that of the old Liberty party.
Since 1844, as truly -as in 1842, tbe influence- of that So
ciety upon its political voters has been to lead them not to
"'insist " on the "> genuine " abolition of those for /whom they

536 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
cast their votes, but to prefer voting for those who "have
a strong motive for obliging abolitionists."
The lower standard of political abolitionism has uniformly
been preferred by the Society and its leading members to the
higher. And the voting members of the Society, when voting
with any reference at all to the slave question, have voted ac
cordingly. Let facts testify.
When certain " progressive " whigs and democrats espoused
"the Wilmot proviso," they constituted the only political ele
ment then in the country adverse in any degree to the as
cendency of slavery, except the Liberty party. For this
these statesmen deserved due honor, but they did not come
up to the higher political ethics and demands of the Liberty
party. The leading influences and the voting members of
the American Anti-Slavery Society supported the former
(though standing in their pro-slavery parties, and sometimes
voting for slaveholders) in preference to the latter.
Did this course honor their new flag of "No union with
slaveholders ?"
Measure the distance between the platform of mere " Wil
mot proviso " and that of the Liberty party, pledged to the
abohtion of slavery, and you have the distance at that period,
between the political ethics of a voting Garrison abolitionist,
and a voter in the Liberty party. The former voted only
against the extension of slavery — the latter against its exten
sion and in favor of its abolition.
The lower standard was again preferred to the higher, when
indications appeared of the organizing of a " Free Soil party."
That measure encountered none of the virulent opposition
that had been manifested against the formation of the Liberty
party. And yet again, when the question presented itself, of the
absorption of the Liberty party in the Free Soil party, the
same preference was again witnessed — though amid some con
fusion of tongues, as different aspects of the transaction pre
sented themselves. The leaders of the American Anti-Slavery
Society could not fail to see that in such a movement the

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 537
members of the Liberty party would lower down their stand
ard of political' abolitionism, and the first impulse was to re
proach them for their defection. "Leading Liberty party
men " said they " are preparing to desert the slave. Have we
not always said they would prove untrue ?" A second glance
revealed to them the fact that in such a movement the mem
bers of the Liberty party would be coming into close political
affinity with the "Wilmot proviso" voters in the old Ameri
can Anti-Slavery Society. Above all, the troublesome Liberty
party would be crippled, perhaps disbanded. " Liberty party
men" said they "are coming to their senses." "We have
strong hopes of this new movement."
We may fail to recall the precise words, but the import of
both these conflicting comments came close on the heels of
each other in the Liberator and Standard.
At the Free Soil nomination of Martin Van Buren at Buf
falo in 1848, Eev. Samuel J. May, a "non-resistant" aboli
tionist, a leader from the beginning of the " old organization,"
gave his approbation of the movement in a speech, and in
voked upon it the blessing of Heaven in prayer. At no
Liberty party nomination that we know of, was his approving
voice ever heard or his prayers offered. Thus deep into "the
dirty waters of politics," he could not have descended. Yet
Samuel J. May is one of the most liberal minded men, one
of the most earnest abolitionists, in the Society to which he
belongs.
,. , And after all this, at a convention of all descriptions of
, .abolitionists at Syracuse, (the residence of Samuel J. May)
an abolitionist of tbe Garrison school vehemently insisted
upon the rottenness of the Liberty party, and adduced, in a
way of evidence and illustration, the fact that so large a por
tion of it had lowered down the high and holy standard of
abolitionism, by becoming absorbed in the Free Soil party!
He seemed to forget that in this transition — however it was
to be described — they had come upon the highest platform
of political action ever sanctioned by the "old organization"
—that the high and holy standard of abolitionism apostatized

538 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
from, was that of the old "one idea" Liberty party— though
even this was not deemed as Utopian and ultra as that Of the
Liberty league.
The question forces itself upon our attention : How can
such radical abolitionists as Mr. Garrison and his associates
undoubtedly are, prefer that those who do make use of the
ballot box, should espouse a lower instead of a higher stand
ard of political abolitionism ?
It seems hardly compatable with their known sagacity and
characteristic dread of compromise to suppose that they fall
in with the shallow policy of attempting to achieve great ends
by temporizing expedients.
Their views of the Federal Constitution and of the limited
powers of the Federal Government, cannot account for it.
Though they decline voting themselves, they willingly and
without conscientious scruple, make political suggestions for
the guidance of those who do vote. They have not ques
tioned the constitutional powers of Congress over the slavery
of the Federal District, the Territories, and the inter-state
slaVe trade — as well as the non-extension of slavery. Yet we
have seen them steadily prefer that voting abolitionists should
ridfy on the latter issue alone, rather than that they should
include likewise the former and the more important. Politi- ,
cally, they are non-extensionists, rather than abolitionists.
If it be said that they had hopes of accomplishing the one
and not the other, we repeat that such compromises and ex
pedients do not come within the scope of their accustomed
activities and methods. *
It must be remembered that they are non-resistants as well
as abolitionists. They believe thkt slavery is wicked ; but
they believe, too, that the compulsory abolition of slavery
by the strong arm of civil government, would also be wicked.
How then can they consistently or conscientiously advise effi
cient political action'for the compulsory abolition of slavery?'
An incident or two will show the pertinency of the question.
When the platform of the proposed Liberty league was
published, it encountered.,' of course, the searching scrutiny

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 539
of »Mr. Garrison. He evidently saw that it was free from
,8Qnie,of the objections that had been made against the Liberty
party, and that it was adapted to find favor with the most
judical class of such reformers as make use of the ballot box.
It -was equally plain that he did not wish them to fall in with
it. He found no fault with its proposed objects — abolition,
free trade, &c. It became necessary to state his objections. In
doing this, the key-note of all his political advice was clearly
revealed. He objected distinctly to the compulsory action of
riyil government, even for the abolition of slavery. And,
.jsjith some seeming warmth he affirmed, that if the penman
pi the document, his old friend, were placed in the position
of, -Chief Magistrate, he could not carry out the measure with
out a practical rejection of Christianity in using physical
ifprce. ***- ..^
The same sentiment was again uttered .distinctly, by Mr.
Garrison and Henry C. Wright, at the anniversary of the
American Anti-Slavery Society, May, 1851, at Syracuse. A
discussion with Liberty party men concerning political action
.against slavery, drove them, at last, to that position.
If this had been understood on both sides, and kept in mind,
from the beginning, much angry and misdirected altercation
might have been spared. If it can be remembered hereafter,
it may. prevent similar wranglings, in time to come.
Non-Besistants do not seek to suppress crime — not even the
crime <of slaveholding, by the strong arm of civil government.
Their appeal is rather to the slaveholder. They would have
the slayedaws repealed: but they understand that, under a
compulsory civil government, such a repeal would befbllowed,
if^edful, Jay -the . forcible suppression of slaveholding. For
this they are not prepared, and cannot be, while they remain
Non-Besistants. They are shut up (if consistent) to mere mo
ral suasion. This is their field. Let them occupy it without
being <reproaehed. They have a right to their own principles
and to corresponding measures.
Abolitionists believing (as most abolitionists do) in a com
pulsory civil government, have an equal right to their own

540 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
principles and measures. If they understand themselves, they
will not follow the political advice of those who do not seek
the compulsory suppression of slaveholding. For refusing
such advisers, they do not deserve to be denounced as untrue
to the slave ; nor denied the honorable name of abolitionists
because they do really seek the abolition of slavery* and not
merely the emancipation ofthe slaves.
Among the obstacles which political abolitionists in Ameri
ca have been called to encounter, one of the most formidable
and perplexing (because, by many, unperceived) has been the
influence of political advisers, earnest emancipationists, who
have believed it -wicked to suppress slaveholding by a government
wielding physical force. Had they always and steadily exhibited
the ethical foundations of their political advice, that advice
would have been understood, and there would have been no
occasion for complaint.
Lf the boast, already begun by lecturing agents of the
American Anti-Slavery Society, Non-Besistants, that they
have broken down the Liberty party, should prove well-
founded or prophetic, the reader will see how, on what prin
ciples, by what methods, and with what auxiliaries, the work
was, or will have been, accomplished. And posterity will
judge how much the exploit facilitated the abolition of Ameri
can slavery, or vindicated the claims of the victors to the title
of " the only true abolitionists in the country."
Those who would understand the history of political aboli
tionism in America — its origin — its nature — its objects — its
obstacles — its future prospects — will find no occasion to com
plain that we have detained them too long on this topic. Its
study will furnish them with a key to many intricacies other
wise inexplicable.
* The phrase " abolition of slavery," in strictness of speech, as well as in popular
usage, expresses the act of repealing the slave code, and suppressing the practice of
slaveholding. This was the " abolition of Blavery" in the British West Indies. If
aU the slaveholders in America should emancipate all their slaves to-day, that would
not be the abolition of American Blavery. Slaves might be held again to-morrow.
Non-Resistants opposed to slavery, are properly emancipationists. We will call
thsm abolitionists, if they prefer it, but in doing so we must use the word in a new
aud accommodated signification.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 541

CHAPTEETLyi^
COURSE OF MR. GARRISON, AND THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY
SOCIETY AND ITS MEMBERS, SINCE THE DIVISION IN 1840, IN
KESPECT TO ANTI-SLAVERY CHURCH ACTION.
Sympathizers with the " Clerical Appeal" — an inconsiderable and local minority of
the Liberty party — Unhappy ecclesiastical connections (nevertheless), of a majority
of ita members — Same inconsistency found in the American A. S. Society— Anti-
Slavery Chureh agitations, extensive, but overlooked by the Journalists of the So
ciety—Anti-Slavery Church and Missionary re-organization little noticed by them —
Position of the Amer. Society — Of its members who desire no Church relations —
Causes which repulsed many Church members from that Society — Ecclesiastical
position of those members of the Society who do sustain Church relations. Con
nection with pro-slavery bodies — Few Anti-Slavery re-organizations, or agitations
to that end— Other side of the picture — Anti-Slavery Universalists — Testimony of
Mr. Garrison.
We have seen that Mr. Garrison and his associates in the
American Anti-Slavery Society, at an early day, discounte
nanced withdrawal from pro-slavery parties and churches, with
a view to the organizing of new ones ; — that they nevertbe-
less, at the same time, favored and raised the cry, to " come
out," of pro-slavery churches — that then, and since, to the pre
sent time, they have perseveringly charged upon the Ameri
can and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society (with which they con
nect the Liberty party), "that it sprung into existence for the
protection of pro-slavery churches" — claiming for themselves
and their Society the exclusive credit of fidelity to the slave,
in tbis particular.
Here are claims to be scrutinized, charges to be examined,
apparent discrepancies to be reconciled, or accounted for.
The facts of the case must be impartially presented. In no
other way can these problems be solved, or posterity put in

542 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
possession of any trustworthy history of the anti-slavery move
ment in America. This we shall endeavor to do, so far as our
limits will permit.
We have already said that those abolitionists in New Eng
land, who sympathized with the " Clerical Appeal," in its ten
derness towards pro-slavery ministers, took ground against Mr.
Garrison and were drawn into the "New Organization"— per
haps some of them into the Liberty party. Hence the claims
and representations to which we have referred. But these
were only a small part ofthe New Organization— a very small
part, certainly, of the Liberty party.
We have also said that a large portion ofthe Liberty party,
including; of course, a considerable number of those who pre
ferred (on the whole) the "New" to the "Old" Society after
the division, continued in their old Churches, (many if not
most of them pro-slavery,) and that this, in our view, was
among the causes why the majority of the Liberty party could
not perseveringly maintain the high standard of political ethics
which gave rise to that party.
With this full and free statement concerning the party with
which we have acted, we must be permitted to connect another
concerning those who stood aloof from that party, who oppo
sed it, and who beioriged to " the Old Organization" with Mr.
Garrison. According to the best information we have ever been able
to collect, the portion of the American Anti-Slavery Society
who wish to sustain any Church relations at all, are quite as com
monly and as extensively (in proportion to numbers) connected
with pro-slavery churches as abolitionists connected with the
" New" (tbe American and Foreign) Anti-Slavery Society, or
the Liberty party*
* It may be said (as it has been,) that those who withdraw from pro-slavery politi
cal parties, and yet cling to pro-slavery Churches, are less consistent than those that
cling to both. And it maybe retorted, that those who withdraw from pro-slavery
political parties, exhibit, at least, one more phase of progress than those who cling to
both. It may farther be said, that in secta maintaining some degree of local Church
independency, yet remotely related to large ecclesiastical bodies, the character of the
body, the nature of the relation, and the prospect of a salutary change, are not as
leadily ascertained as in the two great political parties.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 543
Our own strong impression is, that, in respect to the Liberty
party, (especially as it now stands) the difference is greatly on
the other side. A large portion of its members are members
of anti-slavery churches.
The agitation in. the churches has been a very important
part of the anti-slavery movement, especially where Christian
abolitionists, to so wide an extent,' and for so long a time,
have associated themselves for the purpose of holding Chris
tian Anti-Slavery Conventions, sustaining lecturers, circu
lating books, papers,, and tracts, with a direct view to bring
the churches into an anti-slavery position, or, in case of fail
ure (as ha3 been the general fact), to secede and gather new
churches. The extent to which this has been done (as briefly
recorded already), has been sufficient, one would think, to
deserve some approving record in the official organs and other
leading journals of " the only" trustworthy Anti-Slavery So
ciety in America, the Society that claims to be distinguished
from all other organizations for fidelity on the church ques
tion; and that charges its rival with having "sprung into
existence for the protection of pro-slavery churches." Com
mon justice would seem to have required at the hands of such
a Society and such journalists, that so dark a picture should
be relieved by a presentation of any important facts of a more
encouraging character. The readers, in Europe, of their Lib
erator, their National Anti-Slavery Standard, and their Annual
Reports, might have been interested to know that among the
proscribed and anathematized class of abolitionists, some such
manifestations had been witnessed. But so far as we have
been able to learn, this class of important facts have been
almost wholly ignored or overlooked by them.
When General Associations, General Assemblies, General
Conferences, smaller ecclesiastical bodies, Missionary Boards.,
&c., &c, embracing a majority opposed to abolitionists, have
met, and debated, and taken action, or refused to take any,
the facts have not escaped due notice from them. But when
abolitionists connected with those bodies have banded them
selves together for efficient anti-slavery agitation and action

544 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
among the constituencies of such bodies ; when new mission
ary boards, new churches, and extended ecclesiastical bodies,
have been organized on anti-slavery principles, very little, if
any, recognition or notice has been taken of such facts by the
leaders and organs of the American Anti-Slavery Society*
The historian must look elsewhere than to the columns of
their journals and the pages of their annual reports, for infor
mation concerning this movement. He must seek it in the
papers of tbe Liberty party, and in the religious papers con
ducted by those engaged in these enterprises. If it be said
that the records of these extensive movements were too
voluminous for the Liberator and Standard, and similar jour
nals, it may be asked, whether there could not have been
found room for occasional notices and recommendations of
them, even if some of the discussions in the Liberator con
cerning the Sabbath and the Bible, and proceedings of con
ventions on those topics, had been somewhat curtailed or
abridged. If it be so that even a condensed record of these
movements (which were before them in their "exchange
papers") would inconveniently encumber their columns, it
would seem to follow that the sweeping charge against other
anti-slavery bodies, of " having sprung into existence for the
protection of pro-slavery churches," requires essential modifi
cation. For, with very inconsiderable exceptions, if any,
these movements have been carried on by active members of
the organizations thus censured. And no anti-slavery move
ments have been more bitterly assailed by the leaders and
organs of the pro-slavery churches and missionary bodies.
We now inquire, more particularly and directly, concerning
the relation of the American Anti-Slavery Society to pro-
slavery churches, and the efforts of its members in respect to
anti-slavery church reformation.
It may be true that a smaller proportion of the members of
* The only exception we remember to have met with, was a favorable notice, in
the National Anti-Slavery Standard, ofthe organization of a single local anti-slavery
qhurch, as though it were a new thing, some years after hundreds, probably, of
similar churches had been organized, and after a ohange of editors of that paper.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 545
the American Anti-Slavery Society are connected with pro
slavery churches, than are to be found in the " new" organi
zation (or were in the Liberty party prior to 1848), because
it may be true that a much smaller proportion of them (espe
cially leading members, editors, and lecturers) are, or desire
to be, members of any organized churches whatever.
If this be so, it may be remarked, that while abolitionists
who rejected all church organization had an equal right to
their own views and usages, it must be remembered that their
separation from pro-slavery churches may have had other
grounds than their abolition principles ; and that it was com
paratively easy for those who, on such other grounds, had
" come out" or remained out of the churches, to raise an out
cry against those who remained in them. This zeal may pos
sibly have sprung, in some measure, from another source
besides their superior fidelity to the slave. It is not to be
assumed that they were free from the common infirmities of
human beings. Nor is it quite clear that they gave evidence
of greater self-denial in the anti-slavery cause than did the
many thousands (unrecognized as true abolitionists by them)
who, with strong attachments to long cherished church insti
tutions and loved associates, severed these strong ties, and
with great sacrifices of social feeling and of pecuniary expen
diture, established new church relations, in accordance with
anti-slavery principles, amid opposition and scorn.
If large numbers of anti-slavery church members, particu
larly those called " orthodox" or " evangelical," separated
from Mr. Garrison, and consequently from the American
Anti-Slavery Society, on the division, some facts already
stated may suggest reasons for their course, aside from the
derelictions that have been imputed to them. Men seldom, if
ever, retain organized religious or moral co-operation and
affinity with leaders who deride their religious principles and
the institutions to which they have attached themselves. This
may be accounted consistency and sagacity, or it may be
accounted bigotry and weakness. The general fact, neverthe
less, remains. The cause existed, and was sufficient to pro-
35

546 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN ^
duce the effect ; and there is no occasion, in the absence of
evidence (with the exception of those favoring the " Clerical
Appeal") to impute additional ones. It would be the extreme
of bigotry, in such a case, to assume that their withdrawal from
a particular anti-slavery society, and joining another one of
the same anti-slavery creed, where their religious predilections
would not be outraged, gave evidence of unfaithfulness to the
anti-slavery cause.
Similar causes, after the division, continued to produce and
perpetuate similar effects. Conventions were held to discuss
the Sabbath question. In March, 1842, if we correctly
remember, a Convention was held to discuss the divine inspi
ration and authority of the Bible. These Conventions were
invited and attended by leading abolitionists in the American
Anti-Slavery Society, and ground was taken by them, and
language used, in those Conventions and in the columns of
the Liberator, adverse to the principles of " orthodox" or
" evangelical" Christians, and highly offensive to them. We
say nothing here of the merits of these discussions. We say
nothing against their right of free expression. We only
record the facts along with the effect which they naturally
and evidently produced — the alienation of many abolitionists
from that Society, on other grounds than differences of anti-
Blavery principles, or even of anti-slavery measures— unless
to " unseat popular theology from its throne" (in the language
before quoted from the National Anti-Slavery Standard), and
the overthrow of commonly accredited religious institutions,
are to be recognized as anti-slavery measures.
It was said that the Liberator, at that time, was not the
official organ of the Society. But its editor was the recognized
leader of the Society. It was said that these conventions were
not Anti-Slavery Conventions, and that the sentiments ob
jected against were not promulgated " on the Anti-Slavery
platform," nor by " the Society as such."* But some feared

* A certain Colonization Society, " as suoh," may not have forcibly expelled the
colored people, nor enacted the Fugitive Slave bill, nor advocated either of those

i i i i i

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 547
that the society would not be guided right, if its leaders
refused to be guided by the Bible.
""Sometime after this, similar conventions were held in dif
ferent parts of the country, and as far west as Ohio, in this
manner. Anti-slavery lecturers, agents of the Society, sus
tained by its funds, and holding the new views of civil gov
ernment, of penal law, of church institutions, of the ministry,
ofthe Sabbath, and of the Bible, had their appointments for
anli-slavery conventions published in their papers, before
hand, under the head of "One hundred Anti-Slavery Con
ventions." How many of them were held we do not know,
but in several places where these appointments were fulfilled,
the same speakers, by previous arrangement, would remain
in the same place long enough to hold another convention on
one' or more of the other topics. Thus the funds of the Anti-
Slavery Society appeared to have sustained the lecturers on
the other topics, and the notices of anti-slavery conventions
drew together hearers for them. If this was not the promul
gation of their other sentiments, "on the anti-slavery plat
form" and by "the society as such," it so nearly resembled
it that many simple-minded people were so dull as to fail of
perceiving the wide distinction.
It will be seen from all this, that causes remote from pro-
slavery and anti-slavery, withdrew many anti-slavery Church
members from the Anti-Slavery Society conducted by Mr.
Garrison and his associates — whether wisely or unwisely, on
either side, is hot the point to be here examined. We are
recording the facts.
And the facts being so, it might be inferred that this with
drawal of so many Church members from the American Anti-
Slavery Sdciety, (or this Withholding them from joining it,)
might possibly leave it in a position in which only a small
measures" on the Colonization platform."' But when "those who hated those mea-
*mes found the leaders of the Colonization Society supporting them, they were led
to identify them with the Colonization Society. We intimate no farther parallel in
¦lie cases than the natural workings of cause and etfect on a community, when lead-
*™ in a great society give offense by their position.

548 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
proportion of its members, in comparison with those in the
other society, would have any Church relations to be attended
to, especially when it is remembered that some of the leading
members neither held nor desired any such relations.
It is evident that in any equitable comparison of the two
societies, in respect to their course on the Church question,
the comparison must be instituted between the ministers and
Church members and their supporters, in the two societies.
For some time after the division it was however claimed
by the friends of Mr. Garrison that a considerable number of
respectable orthodox ministers and Church members remained ,
in their Society, whence they inferred that all genuine aboh
tionists among the " orthodox " would do so. We remember .
some prominent names of ministers and others who did re
main. And they also remained, so far as we know, in their
old ecclesiastical connections, without being spurned by Mr. .
Garrison as " apostates." We never heard of their making
any attempts at new Anti-Slavery Church organizations. If .
any of them did afterwards break off their connection from
" pro-slavery Churches," it must have been, we think, by dis
carding all Church organizations. As for the rest, they stood"
in the same pro-slavery ecclesiastical relations with the mem-"
bers of the "New" organization, who were and still are
denounced as untrue, for standing in precisely the same
ecclesiastical relations. The historical evidence seems not
quite clear that the one deserved a welcome place in " the
only" true Anti-Slavery Society, while the other came justly
under the condemnation of seeking " the protection of pro-
slavery Churches."
But, in addition to the " orthodox," there was probably a
¦ much greater number of ministers and Church members con
nected with the Old Society, who belonged to what are called1
" the liberal" denominations, as Universalists and Unitarians,
to which we may add Swedenborgians, not to mention one
branch of " the Friends." If to these we add numbers who,1
•though not technically Church members, assisted in sustain
ing Churches, and ministers, and religious sects of some sort,

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 549'
we shall find, if we mistake not, a large body of men con
nected with the American Anti-Slavery Society, who were
and still are, supporters of the different religious sects. We
should not be surprised to be assured that they still constitute
a considerable majority ofthe members ofthe Society.
Except in the case of the " Friends," it will not probably
be claimed that tbe sects just mentioned are more free from
the imputation of being pro-slavery than the sects denomi
nated "evangelical" or "orthodox." As being more recent
in their origin, they may have extended less into the slave
States than some others. They may be, from the same cause,
less easily controlled by their leaders. There is the less ex
cuse for their being pro-slavery, but, as sects, they nevertheless
are so. Of few of their local congregations, perhaps, could
it be said otherwise. As sects, (most commonly as local
churches,) they have deprecated Anti-slavery agitation, de
nounced abolitionists, fostered prejudice against color, and
by the votes of the majority of their members, maintained
slavery at the ballot-box. This last item alone, according to
Mr. Garrison, decides that they " do not deserve the name of
abolitionists." Under this count, if not some of the others,
we must reckon most of the "Friends." In the " Hicksite "
connection, Charles Mariott and Isaac T. Hopper were " dis
owned" for their activity in Anti-slavery Societies. Yet
abolitionists in the American Anti-Slavery Society continue
in that religious connection.
Now then, if the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery So
ciety deserves censure, for its support, through its member
ship, of pro-slavery Churches, the American Anti-Slavery
Society, under the guidance and with the consent of Mr.
Garrison, deserves the same censure, and for the same reason.
If a majority of its members sustain the old existing sects
and Churches — then a majority of them sustain pro-slavery
Churches, and the position of the Society is thus defined.
If, on the contrary, a majority of its members, including
most of its leaders, support no churches at all, either pro-slavery
or anti-slavery, most of them not desiring to support any,

550 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
then their complaint against those who sustain pro-slavery
Churches can have comparatively little weight, with those
who understand their position in respect to all churches.
Still farther, if a controlling majority of the Society (in
either case) regard it regular and proper to receive and retain
members who support pro-slavery Churches^ then it is evident
that no Anti-Slavery Society in the country has a lower
standard of membership, so far as the Church question is con
cerned, than the American Anti-Slavery Society.,
And this is the fact of the case, as before shown. The So
ciety has no rule for excluding such members, and Mr, Garri
son says it ought to have none. Thus much for its exclusive
claims. But the comparison invited by those claims may not end
here. Among those charged with having separated from Mr.
Garrison, and re-organized " for the protection of pro-slavery
churches," we have witnessed a long protracted and , widely
extended anti-slavery church agitation, resulting in a series
of secessions, and ecclesiastical and missionary re-organiza
tions, on an anti-slavery basis. It is natural and proper to
inquire aftel* similar manifestations among the members of
" the only genuine anti-slavery society" that sets up such a
high standard for its neighbors.
And where shall we look for any such manifestations ? It
has been seen that there has been, and still is, sufficient room
and occasion for them. For the Society (on any estimate that
can be made) contains not a few, ministers and others, con
nected with and sustaining pro-slavery church organizations.
On some occasions we see names of ministers enrolled among
the active friends and members of the Society. Some of them
we know as earnest and long-tried laborers in the cause, and
under that banner. We thank and honor them for their anti-
slavery labors. But what are the ecclesiastical connections
that they sustain ? To what churches are they ministering?
Is there one of them, or are there many of them, that can
claim connection with an anti-slavery church ? With a
church that, at best, can be more favorably described than a

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 551
church tolerating an anti-slavery minister and a few anti-sla
very members, who, on their part, agree to hold fellowship
with pro-slavery members ? Are the " liberal" churches often
in advance of this position ? Is " the negro pew" an abomi
nation with them ?
We ask these questions without being able, with confidence,
to answer them, or being able to specify an exception to the
position indicated by them. There may be exceptions. We
think there cannot be many.
We have known of scores, and have heard of hundreds of
ministers, who have conscientiously left their pro-slavery
ecclesiastical .connections to join or establish anti-slavery ones,
or whose earnest anti-slavery preaching has driven them from
their churches, or subjected them to persecutions from eccle
siastical bodies. Among all these we can recall to mind only
two or three that we think may have been connected With
the American Anti-Slavery Society since the division. It is
to be presumed that there are others, but they are not proba
bly very numerous in the comparison with those not belong
ing to the Society.*
There has been a division, in some form, among " Friends"
in Indiana, on account of the slave question. A small seces
sion from Hicksite Friends, perhaps partly on anti-slavery
ground and partly for the enjoyment of local church* inde
pendency, has taken place in Western New York. In both
these movements there must have been members of the Amer
ican Anti-Slavery Society. These are the only instances we
know of, with exception, perhaps, of a few individuals, belong
ing to that Society, who may have come into the general
church secession movement, the Wesleyan, the Independent, or
the Presbyterian, originated by and almost wholly composed of

* Since writing the above paragraph, we have Been a statement of Eev. Theodore
Parker, of Boston, that "several Unitarian clergyman have been driven from their
parishes in consequence of opposing" " the Fugitive Slave bill." We think it very
probable that some or aU these may have been members of the American Anti-
Slavery Society. There may be many others, of whom we have no knowledge.

552 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
Liberty party men, and of those who held what are called
" evangelical" views in theology.
We have yet to hear of the first Convention among minis-'
ters and church members belonging to the "old" Societyjto
consider their pro-slavery church connections, and with a
view to withdraw and re-organize, if a reformation could not
be effected, or to form an Anti-Slavery Missionary Society.
In attending more than a hundred such conventions, we
have met very few known to us as members of the old So
ciety, or called Garrisonians. We can remember still fewer
of them, if any, who seemed disposed to assist in gathering
anti-slavery churches, or to favor anti-slavery missionary
societies. These are negative statements. They are presented for
want of information of a positive character. We can tell less
of what has been done, than of what (to our best knowledge)
has not. The Liberator, the National Anti-Slavery Standard,
and other journals of that class, and of the "liberal" sects,
have not afforded us the information, as they should have
done, if it were accounted important.
It is in the same category that we must place the inquiry,
How many, in the old Society, have "come out" from their
old church organizations, wiihout organizing new ones ? We
have no means of forming an estimate. But we suppose they
can by no means equal the numbers of those in the other So
ciety and in the Liberty party who have left pro-slavery
churches and organized anti-slavery ones. If the class of
abolitionists who repudiate all church organizations are not
far more numerous than those who repudiate compulsory civil
governments, their number cannot be great. And it is
known that a very considerable number of. those among this
class of abolitionists, who reject such civil governments, are
church members and pastors of churches.
It is but proper and just to add, that if Garrisonian aboli
tionists who are church members, and who desire to sustain
church relations, have not, to any extent, adopted the mea
sure of separation and re-organization, as such large numbers

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 553
of other abolitionists have done, they have nevertheless their
own way of agitating the subject, and no one questions their
right to mark out their own course of operations. We have
noticed the preceding facts merely to correct the erroneous
statement that Garrisonian abolitionists are exclusively or pecu
liarly free from the inconsistency of supporting pro-slavery
churches. Though we should be glad to see Garrisonian
Universalists and Unitarians adopting the more stringent and
radical measure of separation and re-organization, of which
other abolitionists have set them an example ; yet we love to
see them at work by voluntary associations of a denomina
tional character, calculated to have a beneficial influence upon
their ecclesiastical associates. We record the following speci
men with much pleasure : " Boston, May 27, 1852.
"At the session of the Universalist Moral Reform Society, to-day, com
posed in part of leading Universalist ministers, the following resolution was
offered, and after discussion adopted without opposition :
" Resolved, That we view with deep concern the present attitude of our
country on the subject of slavery, believing, as we do, that earnest efforts
must be. made for the overthrow of slavery, or the just judgment of God
will descend on our land ; and seeing, with great pain, a disposition on the
part of those called statesmen to patch up Compromises, which merely
hide, but cannot cure the evil, we feel called on, as Christians, to testify
against the unrighteousness of slavery, and to request our fellow-Christians,
of every sect, to unite with us in striving to break down that loathsome
institution."— N. Y. Daily Tribune, May 28, 1852.
Swedenborgians, or members of the "New Jerusalem
Church," who are abolitionists, have done effective service in
the cause, though we have not heard of any movements
among them for severing religious connection from those of
the same faith at the South, who are slaveholders. And
numbers of abolitionists of this sect, as among others before
mentioned, belong to the American Anti-Slavery Society.
From the preceding statements it must not be inferred that
Mr. Garrison has regarded it consistent for the members of the
American Anti-Slavery Society to continue their support of
pro-slavery churches. They would learn otherwise from his

554 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
general writings on the subject, as well as by his rebukes of
the " new organization." What was "apostacy" and " hypo
crisy" in the one case, could not be less than " inconsistency"
in the- other, and as such it has been mildly censured.
The "Society as such" — whatever may have been the po
sition of some of its officers and leading members — bore a
similar testimony. Its resolutions and the speeches of its
lecturers, were in conformity with the language of Mr. Garri
son. The question remains whether either the Society or Mr.
Garrison were consistent or just in making so wide a distinc
tion between the supporters of pro-slavery churches in their
own Society and those in other organizations — whether there
has ever been, or now is, any proper foundation for their ex
clusive and extraordinary claims of being the only true and
efficient Anti-Slavery Society, the only Society true on the
Church question, while the other Society is to be spurned as
" apostate " for its " protection of pro-slavery churches." With
the preceding statements of facts before him, the reader will
judge.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 555

CHAPTEE XLVH.
GENERAL ESTIMATE OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SO
CIETY AND ITS LABORS, SINCE 1840.
The Society an earnest and active organization against Slavery — Energy, talents, and
perseverance of its leading members — On some points censured unjustly — No
heresy in placing Justice and Liberty above human " compacts'' and the "Union"
—Their orthodoxy to be distinguished from their heresy — Orthodox truth not to
be abjured because promulgated by them — Pro-slavery Churches and Ministers
responsible for their aberrations — An unfaithful church and ministry must reap the
fruits of their unfaithfulness.
¦ Dismissing the history of "ihe only" true Anti-Slavery So
ciety in America, we will proceed to consider the American
Anti-Slavery Society as an earnest and active organization
against slavery. As such, the Society (apart from its connection
with other topics, its exclusive claims, and its injustice to the
Liberty party, and to the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery
Society,) deserves honorable mention. Except in the instances
and the particulars already recorded, and in which its exclu-
siveness betrayed it into unworthy associations, or its false
theories withheld it from efficient political action, it has been
doing good service to the cause of freedom. It has been one
among several organized instrumentalities which Divine Provi
dence has been wielding against slavery. Its leading mem
bers have been persevering and untiring. They have ex
hibited a fixedness of purpose, and an energy of resolution
that challenge admiration. With talents of a high order, and
a hearty hatred of slavery, they have struck heavy blows
which have taken effect, in despite of all their mistakes. Of
William Lloyd Garrison it is needless to say much. As a
writer,, he will take a high rank among the strong men of the

556 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
age. As a speaker, (though less celebrated in that depart
ment) he has a simple, sober, solemn, straightforward earnest
ness that, with many minds, outweighs all charms of elocution
and arts of rhetoric. Wendell Phillips is among the most
accomplished orators of New England. Charles C. Burleigh
is little behind him. In power and tact he may sometimes go
beyond him. Edmund Quincy has a sharp pen and a ready
tongue. When he is fortunate enough to direct his artillery
against the enemies instead of the friends of the cause he
loves, he is sure to do good execution. It would be pleasant
to mention others, and to draw parallels between them and
such men as Gerrit Smith, Beriah Green, Alvan Stewart,
Myron Holly, Samuel B. Ward, William L. Chaplin, and
others, of whose powers we might have spoken in our ac
count of the Liberty party — and Frederick Douglass and
others who have made a trial of both platforms. But we
must desist. Prominent abolitionists have been too. much
villified and too much praised. They have too much lauded
and too much censured each other. Mutual flattery (so seem
ingly necessary in the ranks of the persecuted) erects hierar
chies, and these occasion schisms, and beget confusion of
tongues. Divine Providence, in the meantime, vindicates its
own claims to superintendency, and to the glory of every re
formatory achievement.
On some points, respecting which Mr. Garrison has been
much censured, even among earnest friends of freedom, we
cannot, ourselves, join in the censure.
Though he may have erred in swerving from our own "or
thodox" estimate of the divine inspiration of the Hebrew
prophets, we cannot see that he has sinned against orthodoxy
or the Bible, in repeating and in emulating the terrible de
nunciations of the Hebrew prophets and of Christ himself,
against a priesthood that strikes hands with oppressors.
Though (misled by the Federal Courts, the Federal Admin
istration, and the prevailing pubhc sentiment,) he may have
misinterpreted the Federal Constitution, as we think he has,
we cannot say that he has erred in declaring such a constitu-

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 557
tion, as thus construed, in the strong language of scripture, " a
covenant with death and an agreement with hell." We should
feel that we were putting the Constitution above the Bible,
and above humanity, and above conscience, and above God,
should we say otherwise.
He may have erred in demanding, in unqualified terms, the
immediate dissolution of the Union, as a means of abolishing
slavery. It may be that the Union furnishes the best occa
sions of agitation, the best means of abolition, with a consti
tution rightly construed. It may be that our relations to the
slave forbid our virtual desertion of him, by a dissolution of
the Union. Here are things to be considered — perhaps to be
determined by coming events.
So far as Mr. Garrison and his associates, and their Society,
have contributed to bring this great problem before the people,
so far as they have rebuked the servility that dares not "cal
culate the value of the Union" at a time when the Federal
Administration declares the price to be the surrendry of free
dom ; so far as they have helped to expose the atheism that,
in the name of religion, and from the pulpit, and by perver
sions of the Bible, has attempted to deify "the Union" in
rivalry and in defiance of Jehovah, bidding us disobey Him
by obeying the Fugitive Slave Bill, (by which it is said the
Union is to be preserved) so far they have deserved well of
their country, have done service to the cause of freedom, and
have vindicated the first principles of true religion.
It is said that some of these men have become infidels. If
it be so, under what influences have they become such ? If
it be so, what is the proper cure of such infidelity ? If it be
so, shall we repudiate the truths they utter because they have
uttered them ? Should a Witherspoon withhold or blot his
signature from the Declaration of "self-evident truths" be
cause penned by a Jefferson, or vindicated by a Paine ? That
must be a sickly, purblind, faint-hearted, half-doubting "or
thodoxy," that fails to recognize or fears to honor the essen
tials of its own creed, on the lips of a heretic. Heresy lives
upon its retained orthodox truths. It drives its most brisk

558 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
and most lucrative business upon its capital of such truths,
cast aside, forgotten, or unwisely relinquished to them, by the
conservators of orthodoxy. The orthodox should learn to
discriminate between the truths and the heresies of Mr. Gar
rison and his associates. There is no cause for alarm. Their
orthodoxy will stand. Their heresy will fall. The Bible is
in no danger. The Sabbath, the Church, the Ministry, the
ordinances of the gospel, and civil government, are in no
danger. They will come brighter out of the ordeal. They
will be better understood and more highly valued, though
those who have perverted them may be less esteemed, and
held mainly responsible for their temporary disrepute.
When the Church and the Ministry — Heaven's own ap
pointed organizations for promoting human progress — lag
behind the necessities of a progressive age: when they do
worse than this, and throw themselves as blocks under the
chariot wheels of the Messiah, they must, of necessity, reap the
fruits of their unfaithfulness. The work of human redemp
tion, if " orthodoxy" be true, must go on, in despite of them,
and, though it crushes them. The sublime truths of their
creed, in their practical form and extended social applications,
must find utterance. And " if these hold their peace, the stones
of the street" shall find tongues for the task, and " shall cry
out." We hold it altogether and distinctively "orthodox"
to say this, and to add that " the eternal purpose of redeeming
mercy" requires the chastisement, and, if not thus reclaiiried,
the removal of a church and ministry that cannot " open their
mouths for the dumb." The true Church and the true minis
try, not yet extinct, (and already striking deep their roots)
will survive.
The same principle applies to abolitionists themselves. If
untrue to their task, they must be displaced by a better
instructed and more stable generation, who will come after
them.

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 559

CHAPTEB XLYIH.
REVIEW OF THESE DIVISIONS AND THEIR RESULTS.
No body of abolitionists free from mistakes — Natural tendencies to division in an
age of progress — Overruling Providence of God — Good resulting from evil — Ten
dency of the division tp reach, with anti-slavery truth, opposite classes — An anti
dote to the fear of centralized power — Democratic phase of development — No
escape from abolitionism of some phase — Objection against anti-slavery " measures"
becoming obsolete — A sufficient variety of measures to accommodate all earnest
men — The main question, now, a question of measures — This question rapidly
narrowing down — A great work to complete the enterprise, but an impossibility
to undo what has been done — An indefinite amount of half-developed abohtion
ism needing guidance.
In a review of the divisions among abolitionists, we may
see much to rebuke human pride, and much to exalt the super
intending Providence of God— much to admonish, and much
to inspire hope.
No class or organization of abolitionists can claim exemp
tion ftom mistakes. None of them have been free from
blemishes, inconsistencies and defects. To pretend it, would
be to give evidence of partiality. If one of the societies has
"crippled itself by erratic progression — if the other has failed to
make all the progress that the crisis demanded — if the Liberty
party, except a handful, lost its hold upon its " one idea" by
refusing to apply it in every direction, in the Church and in
the State— if Liberty League men attempted a political organi
zation* without the previous preparation and selection of mate
rials— if the Free Soil party sought strength and comprehen
siveness 'in numbers, rather than in a high tone of political
ethics— there was nothing, in all this, out of the ordinary
range of diversity, in times of revolution and progress. When
ever a mighty truth, vitalized and glowing, is thrown into a

560 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
community, like a mass of melted metal into running water,
the commotion tends to separate the disturbing force into
shapeless fragments. But the principle of unity is not thus
destroyed. The. parts may afterwards come together and
adhere. The unity of truth, will, in the end, be revealed.
Under the good Providence of God, the dissensions among
abolitionists, however humiliating to them, and however mis
chievous in some respects, have been over-ruled, in other
respects, for good. Abolitionism, before the division, was a
powerful elixir, in the phial of one anti-slavery organization,
corked up tight, and carried about for exhibition. By the
division, the phial was broken and the contents spilled over
the whole surface of society, where it has been working as a
leaven, ever since, till the mass is beginning to upheave.
Had abolitionists remained in one compact and well defined
body, with a uniform mode of action, the whole mass of the
community might not have been as soon reached, and as tho
roughly permeated by them. A powerful and growing
National Anti-Slavery Society, before the division, with its
affiliated auxiliaries, and its central committee, was already
exciting jealousy against the cause. It was matter of fear
among its friends. Dr. Channing was not alone nor singular
in this feeling. It was more operative in the mass of the
community than most abolitionists supposed. Had the Society
remained united, and had its means and operations increased,
this element of resistance would have soon made itself felt.
By the division of the great National Society, and the conse
quent dwarfing of the two rival divisions, this central point
of dreaded influence was rendered almost invisible. Divided
further and cut up by state, county, city, town, and village
Committees, the work was going on, everywhere, without pre
senting an alarming concentration of power anywhere. The
democratic principle in abolitionism underwent a democratic
phase of development, and propagated itself as Christianity
did, when the disciples, that were scattered abroad, went every
where, preaching the word. Yet the element of power, what
ever it might be, in the principle of episcopal supervision, had

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 561
its medium left, for those who chose to employ it, and they
could look for this, to the centre of spiritual unity most con
genial to them. The division between Borne and Byzantium
did not destroy Christianity or the Church.
With the rise of the distinct political party, there were
manifested other phases of development. There was moral
suasion abolitionisin. and political abolitionism. Then came
also Church Beform abolitionism — Missionary abolitionism —
Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, Independent, and Presby
terian abolitionism. Politicians were careful to supply a
Whig and a Democratic abolitionism. No man knew where to
go to escape the infection. He could not elude it in the reli
gious sect, nor in the political party. If he cried out against
abolitionism as "bigotry, priestcraft, and Puritanism," behold I
there was the most rampant abolitionism, at his elbow, railing
, lustily against "bigotry, priestcraft, Puritanism, and pro-
slaveryism" — placing them all in a row. If one sought, in
view of this, to disparage abolitionism as heretical and infidel,
behold ! the gathering of an anti-slavery conference and prayer
meeting met his vision, and on his ears came quotations from
Isaiah, and Hopkins, and Wesley, and Edwards. The sim
pleton who had but just learned from his political editor to
curse the abolitionists, was puzzled to find the same editor, or
perhaps his Congressional candidate, professing to be as good
an abolitionist as anybody.
And when earnest and even acrimonious debates among
abolitionists themselves, arrested the attention of the commu
nity, displacing the controversy between abolitionists and
their opposers, a remarkable effect was produced. Thousands
now heard or read them for the first time. The issue before
the public mind was soon changed. The question was not
whether slavery ought to be abolished, nor when it should
be— but, by what methods and motives should the people be
brought up to the work. The previous question was taken
for granted, as not needing debate. A community could not
long listen to able debates on such a question without uncon
sciously sliding into the idea that, in some way, the work was
36

562 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN
to be done. The " duty and safety of immediate and uncondi
tional emancipation " had been settled, among intelligent men,
by "the West India experiment."
/ With all the varied modes of proposed and attempted anti-
slavery agitation and action, arising out of these divisions and
discussions, another objection against abolitionists has become
obsolete — "We do not approve of your measures!" — " Which
of them? " might be the inquiry in return. It might be dif
ficult to conceive of any measure, which some class of pro
fessed abolitionists have not proposed. And no small progress
has been made towards a disposal of the rival claims thus
presented. It may be a great work to carry the enterprise forward to
its consummation. But it would be a more difficult, nay, an
impossible task, to carry it back to where it stood twenty
years ago. There is an indefinite amount of latent, half-
developed, incipient abolitionism, in the country, needing
guidance, that is not now embraced under any existing or
ganization. It seems waiting for the solution of a few
remaining problems, of which we shall treat in the next
chapter. .

SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 56S

CHAPTEE XLIX.
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND OF THE
LEGALITY OF SLAVERY.
Vital importance of the questions — Alternatives presented by them — Almost the
only questions remaining to be settled — All public business involving the Slave
question must be transacted ou some theory of the Constitution, and of the legality
of slavery— All anti-slavery action must assume some theory — Three General Views
of the Constitution — 1. The ultra Southern or Calhoun theory — 2. The prevalent
theory of the " Compromises" — 8. The construction in favor of Liberty — Previous
question of the legality of slavery — References to the preceding history — Princi
ples of interpretation — Features of the Constitution — Comparison of the three
theories — Results.
The relation of the Federal Constitution to slavery must
have an important bearing on the Slavery Question in America.
Whether an oath to support the Constitution be an oath to
support slavery, is only one of the many important questions
involved in it.
If the Constitution requires us to support slavery, then the
Constitution requires us to overthrow our own liberties, to
declare war against universal humanity, to rebel against God,
and incur his displeasure.
Lf the Constitution does this, it is to be either amended, or
overthrown. Otherwise, we must submit to be slaves to one
portion of our fellow-men, while assisting to make slaves of
another portion of them — we must throw off our allegiance
to God, for the sake of maintaining allegiance to the deadly
enemy of ourselves, our country, and our race.
But if the Constitution be in favor of liberty and against
slavery, then it is our duty and interest to wield it for the
overthrow of slavery and the redemption of our country from
the heel of the slave power.

564 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
In the one case, our line of march out of Egyptian bondage
lies through the bloody sea of Eevolution — in the other,
through the legitimate action of our government, as already
organized. In the progress of the slave question we have now arrived
at that point at which the legality and the constitutionality
of slavery are among the very few questions that remain to
be settled.
The inherent criminality of slavery and of slaveholding,
their utter repugnance to natural justice, to Christianity, to
the law of nature, to the law of God, to the principles of de
mocracy, to the liberties of the country — no longer present
questions for serious discussion among the great body of
intelligent citizens in the non-slaveholding States. Here and
there a superannuated ecclesiastic (who has, perhaps, a son at
the South, or in a college seeking southern patronage) may
thumb over his Polyglot, and pretend to find a justification
of slavery. But nobody believes him. His disclaimers and
self-contradictions prove that he does not — even in his dotage
—believe it himself! His friends shield him from the im
pending avalanche of public scorn, by saying — "Do let him
alone — he can do no mischief — he is not worth minding !"
The settlement of this question has disposed of nearly all
the one hundred and one objections that, fifteen years ago,
were confidently urged against the doctrines and measures of
abolitionists. In most circles, it would be difficult to broach
them without being voted a bore.
Almost the only remaining exceptions are those that clus
ter around the supposed " guaranties " or " compromises of
the Constitution " — the " legal rights " — the " vested immuni
ties" of the slaveholder. Take away these, and what is
there left?
The Church question, as well as the political question, as it
lies in many minds, hinges just here. The Church must not
speak against Caesar — must be in subjection to " the powers
that be " — and that, too, without stopping to inquire whether
they be, or be not! It may be said that the Church — with her

IN THE UNITED STATES. 565
Bible in her hand — should be able to shape her course, with
out asking leave of the Federal Constitution. So she should.
And in so doing, she should throw out principles before the
world that would help us to definitions of " law " and " legal
rights " — and enable us to expound Constitutions correctly, in
the light of UNIVERSAL LAW.
It is difficult to dispose of any public business in Congress,
without involving the slave question, and this involves at
once the question whether the Constitution sustains slavery —
whether the slaveholder has a legal right to the slave.
If there is to be any political action against Slavery, under
the Federal Constitution, we must know what the Constitu
tion authorizes us to do in the premises. If it " guaranties "
Slavery, then it forbids us to do any thing. If it has " com
promises," they limit our action, and we must know their
extent. The questions between Liberty Party (as it was) Free
Soil Party, Liberty League or present Liberty Party, turn,
very much, on the Constitutional question.
If the Federal Judiciary is to be used, either as a weapon
of assault upon the Slave Power, or as a shield of defense
against its attacks, the relation of the Federal Constitution
to Slavery and the legality of Slavery become the main points
at issue before the Courts.
In every view of the task before us, the assumed legality
and constitutionality of Slavery thrust themselves directly
across our path, and come under our eye. It is one cheering
sign that we have traveled nearly the whole distance from
our starting-place to the citadel, when so many familiar ob
jects and once formidable obstacles are distanced, and only
two or three remain to be grappled with. — Overcome these,
and the work is accomplished.
The various views of the Constitution may perhaps be
classified under three general heads :
First, the idea that slavery, as a lawful and legitimate
interest, in common with other rightful and legitimate inter
ests, is entitled to the protection of the Federal Government,
and that it was established for that end.

566 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
Second, the idea that, although slavery is not a rightful
and legitimate interest, its existence is nevertheless tolerated,
and the Government restricted from abolishing it.
Third, the idea that slavery is an usurpation, an abuse from
the beginning, that it has never been legalized, that the Consti
tution has not legalized it, that consequently it remains illegal,
and that it is the duty of the Federal Government (as well as
of the State Governments), in all its branches (legislative,
judicial, and executive) to treat it as illegal, and repress it, as
any other crime or treason against the essential rights of the
people is to be repressed.
The limits of the present work will not allow of extended
statements of the arguments upon which these conflicting
theories are based. Tbe most we can attempt is to give such
a view of them as may enable the reader to see what they are,
that he may examine them at his leisure.
I. The theory first mentioned is the generally prevalent
one at the South. With the more ultra (the Calhoun or Caro
linian school) it would seem that slavery is considered not
only a legitimate interest, but the leading, the paramount one,
to which all other interests are to give way. The mildest, the
most modified form in which this theory is held (or which is
now represented by the Southern delegation in Congress), is
that of the border States, and is expounded by Henry Clay.
It may indeed talk of " compromises," but by Mr. Clay's own
showing, they give everything to slavery, and nothing to
freedom. The Fugitive Slave bill, defended by Mr. Clay,
consists with the mildest type of this theory.
This theory must repose, for its basis, either upon the idea
of Calhoun, McDuffie, Dew, &c, that slavery is originally and
abstractly right, and that it presents the best state of society ;
or else upon the idea of Mr. Clay, that " what the law makes
property is property" — and that " two hundred years of negro
slavery have sanctioned and sanctified" the principle of pro
perty in man. To complete the argument, it must be shown
either that the Constitution affirms the original right of
slavery, or the principle that involves it ; or that it sanctions

IN THE UNITED STATES. 567
and ratifies the process of its previous legality, as described
by Mr. Clay.
II. The second theory of the Constitution, that of a "com
promise" between slavery and freedom, is so vague and
unsettled, and is exhibited in, such a variety of shades, that it
is difficult to exhibit it with much accuracy or order. The
field is wide enough to accommodate Daniel Webster and
Moses Stuart, on the one hand, shaking hands with Henry
Clay over the Fugitive Slave bill ; and the leaders of the
Free Soil party, on the other, intent on " divorcing the Fede
ral Government from the support of slavery." However wide
the chasm between these opposing parties may be, they occupy
the common platform of the supposed "compromises of the
Constitution," which have never been satisfactorily agreed
upon among those who recognize them.
Whether the alleged "guaranties" of slavery should be
assigned a place under this theory or the preceding one, may
seem, at first view, uncertain. Perhaps they belong to both.
The "compromises," as Mr. Webster understands them,
involve a pretty strong " guaranty." And the compromises
of those who would only "divorce the Federal Government
from the support of slavery," would seem to involve a gua
ranty that — within a certain enclosure, however bounded —
slavery should not be disturbed. It is not known to the
writer that any of the friends of liberty who admit the doc
trine of the " compromises," and who yet adhere to the Con
stitution, would do otherwise than " guaranty" to the slave
holder the right of seizing his fugitive slave in the free States,
provided that, by jury trial and other safeguards, due security
be given that none except fugitives from slavery be given up.
This is a "guaranty" that introduces slavery, in one of its
most odious features, into the free States themselves. Being
done by tbe conceded structure of the Federal Government,
and assented to by the free States, it seems not to consist with
the idea of divorcing either the State or Federal Government
from slavery. The magnitude of this " guaranty" is seen in
the contrast between the position of the Canadas, where the

568 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
fugitive is safe, and that of a non-slaveholding State of this
Union, permitting, under any modifications, the re-capture of
a fugitive from slavery.
Southern statesmen, of the school of Mr. Clay, understand
"the compromises of the Constitution" to involve ample
" guaranties." Those of the ultra Southern school, have some
times, we believe, disclaimed the proper idea of " guaranties,"
because they conceived that it might involve the principle
that the right of slaveholding was held under the Federal
Constitution, instead of the original and absolute State sover
eignty claimed by them. They hold the Federal Government
to be the servant and instrument of the slave power, rather
than its conservator and patron.
The most that any of the friends of freedom, admitting
"the compromises" and yet adhering to the Constitution,
could claim under their theory, would perhaps be included in
the following :
1. The rightful power of Congress to abolish slavery in the
Federal District and Territories, including the idea that it is
unconstitutional in the Federal District.
2. The right to prevent the extension of slavery into new
territories, and to refuse the admission of new slave States.
3. The right to abolish the slave trade between the States,
coastwise and inland.
4. The right of the free States to insist on the jury trial
and other securities, to prevent others than fugitives from
slavery from being seized and carried back as slaves.
5. The restriction of. the right to reclaim fugitives to the
citizens of the original thirteen States now permitting slavery,
to the exclusion of the right of citizens of the Federal Dis
trict, Territories, and States, admitted since the adoption of
the present Constitution.
6. Tbe right to refuse recognizing the legality of slavery in
Louisiana and Florida where, by the terms of the Treaty of
Cession, the "inhabitants" were to be received as "citizens ofthe
United States."
7. The right of the Federal Government to decline the use

IN THE UNITED STATES. 569
of its diplomacy, and other powers, in sustaining directly or
indirectly the institution of slavery, except in the case of sup
pressing a servile insurrection — another "guaranty" included
'in the theory of "compromise" — if we rightly understand
that theory.
We are not aware that any abolitionists conceding the
^compromises of the Constitution" — yet adhering to their
allegiance to it — have claimed anything more under it than
this. This leaves to the several slave states the right of main
taining slavery as long as they please, and yet remaining in
the Union, with the right, under modifications, of making the
free states their hunting-ground for fugitives.
It concedes the duty of tthe Federal Government and the
free states under the Constitution, to assist in putting down
insurrections of slaves.
" The Almighty has no attributes," says Mr. Jefferson,
"that could take sides with us in such a contest." Those
who construe the Constitution as including such " compro
mises" and "guaranties," and who nevertheless cling to the
Constitution and cry out against anti-slavery disunionists,
would do well to "count the cost" of such a contest, which
seems to be hastening, and ask themselves whether their
forces are sufficient for the emergency, and whether it be
quite safe and prudent to occupy their present position. Is it
consistent for abolitionists — is it right or wise for the non-
slaveholding states to adhere to tbe "Union" and to the
"Constitution" as thus construed?
HI. We come to consider the construction of the Constitu
tion that acknowledges none of these compromises and guar
anties. This construction is connected with another idea lying back
of it, of the illegality of slavery before the Constitution was
formed. It is not commonly supposed that the Constitution originated
legal slavery, or gave to it a validity that it did not possess

570 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
before. The two theories already described, do not include
such an idea. The most ultra of the Southern expositors of
the Constitution would most indignantly spurn it. And the
theory of "compromises" supposes something already existing
to be the subject of the compromise.
If there was no legal slavery to be compromised or guaran
tied, theh the Constitution, however constructed or designed,
must have failed to effect any such purpose. Had the docu
ment recognized a certain river as a Western boundary, which
was afterwards found to be only an imaginary one, so much
of the instrument must have become obsolete and inoperative
of course. Just so of any supposed State laws or institutions
which should afterwards be found to have had no valid ex
istence.* The very first question, then, (as some contend) is, whether1
there was any legal slavery in the States when the Constitu
tion was formed. The fact of existing slavery is not to be
confounded with its legality. The fact may have been only
an usurpation, an abuse, a crime. The fact of slavery existed
a long time in England, and the courts held it to be legal.
But it was afterwards ascertained and decided that it never
had been.f
It has lately come to light that leading lawyers and states
men at the South are apprehensive that their slavery is not
legal — that they are unwilling to have its legality tested in
the courts — that this is the ground of their objection to a
jury trial for fugitives — and that the Senate of the United
States, participating in the same apprehensions, has shaped its
legislation accordingly.^

* This principle is thus recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.
" A legislative act, founded upon a mistaken opinion of what was law, does not
change the actual state of the law, as to pre-existing cases." — 1 Oranch 1, Peters'
Digest, 578.
t See Chapter VI.
X In the recent debate in the U. S. Senate, on the Fugitive Slave bill, Mr. Mason,
of Virginia, objected to the amendment of Mr. Dayton, providing for a jury trial,
because, said he :
" A trial by jury necessarily carries with it a trial of the whole right, and A TRIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES. 571
If slavery was legal at the time when the Federal Consti
tution was adopted, when did it become so? When, how
where, and by whom, was it legalized ?
It will not be said, except by the ultra slave party, that the
right to hold slaves is a. natural right, the same as the right
to own oxen. If it were a natural right, then it would be in
herent in all men, black and white, slaves and slaveholders.
The confusion consequent on this assumption, sets it aside.
The best writers on common law affirm that slavery is so
evidently contrary to the paramount law of nature, to justice,
to fundamental morality, and the law of God, that it never

OF THE RIGHT TO SERVICE will be gone into, according to all the forms of the
Court, in determining upon amy other fact."
And where would be the hardship of this ? Why shmt Id not the investigation take
place ? Mr. Mason had told the Senate why.
"Then, again, it is proposed, as a part of the proof to be adduced at the hearing,
after the fugitive has been re-captured, that evidence shall be brought by the claimant
to show ihat slavery is established withe State from which the fugitive has absconded.
Now this very thing, in a recent case in the city of New Tork, was required by one
of the judges of that State, which case attracted the attention of the authorities of
Maryland, and against which they protested," &c. " In that case the State judge
went ao far as to say that the only mode of proving it was by reference to the Statute
book. Such proof is required in the senator's amendment ; and if he means by this
(latproof shall be brought that slavery is established by existing laws, it is impossible
to comply with the requisition, FOR NO SUCH LAW CAN BE PRODUCED, I
apprehend, in ant of the slave States. I am not aware that there is A SINGLE
STATE in which the institution is established by positive law. On a former ocea-
sibn, aiid on a different topic, it was niy duty to attempt to show to the Senate that
no such law was necessary for its establishment ; CERTAINLY NONE COULD BE
FOUND, and none was required in any of the States of the Union." — Liberator,
Sept. 6, 1850, copied from the Washington Union.
The pretense set up by Mr. Mason, that slavery can exist under common law,
without positive law, is contradicted by numerous legal authorities and decisions.
Once, at least, in Louisiana, it was decided that » slave carried to Europe by his
master, and returned, was free, because he had been carried out of the jurisdiction
of the local laws of Louisiana.
Mr. Mason enlarged on the topic, and said distinctly that he was not willing to
trost the question with the Courts in the free States. The Senate evidently partook
ef hk apprehensions. They struck out Mr. Dayton's amendment, lest it should be
derided by the Courts (hat there was no legal slavery m the Southern States. Hence,
also, the peculiar structure of the infamous Fugitive Slave bill, allowing no litigation,
no counter evidence, no habeas corpus, no " due process of law." If slavery were
believed by the slaveholders to be legal, would they fear to have the question litigated
in the Courts ?

572 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
was, and never can be, legalized ; and that no legislature nor
monarch possesses the power to make it legal.
But, not to insist on this, and coming down to the lowest
possible standard of legality that can be made intelligible,
that of positive enactment, we inquire — When was American
slavery made legal, and by whom ?
Was it legalized by the permit of Queen Elizabeth to Johi
Hawkins to import negroes with their own free consent ? By
the laws regulating the trade to Africa, but forbidding the
forcible or fraudulent exportation of the natives ?
Was it legalized by the British Constitution ? By the com
mon law of England ? By the Colonial Charters which re
stricted colonial legislation to a conformity with English com
mon law ? The very reverse of all this was the fact.
Was it legalized by the acts of the colonial legislatures in
direct opposition to the Colonial Charters ? Or, are there any
such enactments (whether authorized bythe Colonial Charters
or otherwise) creating the relation of slavery? If neither
Mr. Mason nor Mr. Bayly could find any, — and if the whole
course of southern argument concerning slavery in Mexico,
unites in the testimony that there are none — may we not
pretty confidently conclude that none exist ?*
Does not tbe decision of Lord Mansfield, in the Somerset
case, (in 1772,) as clearly prove that there was, then, no legal
slavery in these Colonies as that there was none in England ?

* During the long debates of 1850, in Congress, it was abundantly insisted by Mr.
Bayly, Mr. Mason and others, that slaves might now be held legally in the territory
conquered from Mexico, though there were no positive enactments there creating
the relation. And in proof they urged the fact that slavery existed in our own slave
States without any suoh enactments. The lame link of the logic was the monstrous
assumption that slavery can legally exist without positive law, that is, on the foun
dation of natural right I After his return home to Virginia, Mr. Bayly addressed a
circular to his constituents repeating the argument, in which he Baid :
" We all imow that slavery was introduced into the British Colonies of America,
in absence oe A statote, and Bolely under the protection of the Common lam !"
How the " Common law" protects slavery may be seen in the decision of Lord
Mansfield in the oase of Somerset. But these Southern testimonies to the fact that
slavery in Amerioa was introduced in the absence of any statute oreating it, may be
considered conclusive on that point, and bo of the whole question.

IN THE UNITED STATES. 573
If, as he decided, slavery could not legally exist in England,
-without positive enactment, how could it exist in these Colo
nies, under the same jurisdiction, and the same common law,
without positive enactment ?
Was Slavery legalized by the Declaration of American In
dependence, proclaiming that "all men are created equal ?"
On the contrary, if there had been any legal slavery then
existing in the Colonies, would not that unanimous Declara
tion of the Colonies have abolished it ?
Was Slavery legalized by the State Constitutions that were
framed soon after the Declaration of Independence, and re
peating the same " self-evident truths " — in Maryland and
other Southern States — the same as in Massachusetts, where
the Courts decided that the Declaration had abolished Sla
very? " Not one of ihem recognized Slavery," nor was there,
in one of them, any authority conferred on the legislature to
enslave any body.
Was Slavery legalized by the Articles of Confederation,
that made no manner of allusion to it ?
If Slavery was not legalized, at that time, how has it be
come legal, since?
And if not legal, how can it have become Constitutional?
Can it be Constitutional while it is illegal ?
The Constitution must either receive a strict literal con
struction, or else it must be construed by the living spirit that
pervades the instrument— its main design, its grand leading
Object. If construed strictly and literally, what becomes of its
"compromises" and "guaranties?" What does it say of
^Slavery "—of " slaves "—or of " property in man ?" What
could be made, even of the clause concerning " persons held
to service and labor," from whom service is " due ?" Is there
any proper description of a slave in. this clause? Can any
thing be " due" from one who cannot even make a contract?
The laws of tbe Slave States do not admit that a slave is " a
person." How then can a " person held to service and labor"
be a slave ?

574 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
"Where rights are infringed, where fundamental principles are over
thrown, where the general system of laws is departed from, the legislative
intention must be expressed with irresistible clearness to induce a Court
of Justice to suppose a design to eifect such objects." — Rule of Supreme
Court of V. S., case United States vs. Fisher and others. 2 Cranch, 390.
The " intentions of the framers" (on this principle of strict
construction) is to be gathered only by their words, strictly
construed. Besides, " the framers," as they are called, did not
make the Constitution. They only proposed it. They sat with
closed doors, and the people knew their intentions only by
their words. It was the people, and not the Convention, that
formed tbe Constitution, when they ratified it.*
If, departing from this " strict construction," we take the
spirit, grand design, scope, aim, and object, of the Constitu
tion, then we are driven to the Preamble, to the Declaration
of Independence, and to the literature of the times, the writ
ings of Jefferson, the doings of Franklin, the Ordinance of
1787, &c, for a rule of interpretation. How much the claims
of legal and Constitutional Slavery would gain by this pro
cess, the reader of the preceding history can inquire, at his
leisure. The Declaration of Independence, by-the-by, has never
been repealed. It was, for years, the only Constitutional law
of the United States, and it is no less Constitutional law now,
than formerly. Can there be either legal or Constitutional
Slavery under such an organic law? Were the Courts in
Massachusetts mistaken, when they decided otherwise ?
" The first act of our nation (the Declaration of Independence) being a
solemn recognition of the liberty and equality of all men, and that the
rights of liberty and happiness are inalienable — was the corner-stone ofour
Confederacy, and is above all Constitutions and all laws." — John C.
Spencer. " The United States shall guaranty to every State in the Union a repub- ¦
lican form of government." — Constitution, Art. IV., Sect. 4.
This is the only "guaranty " in the Constitution. 5
* The language of the Constitution shows this— ""We, the people of the United
StateB," "do ordain," &c.

IN THE UNITED STATES. 575
And what is a republican form of government ?
" The true foundation of republican government is the equal rights of
ivery citizen in his person and property, and in their management." —
lefferson. Mr. Jefferson repeatedly speaks of the slaves as " citizens."
— Vide Notes on Virginia.
" No State shall pass any bill of attainder," or " laws impairing the
obligation of contracts," or " grant any title of nobility." The citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citi
zens in the several States."
How can Slavery in the States consist with all these prohi
bitions, describing its essential arrangements ?
Does Congress possess the* powers requisite to enforce all
such salutary restrictions upon the States ?
" Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States,
or in any department or officer thereof." — Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17.
'' This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the
land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwith
standing." — Art. VI., 2.
If this be not sufficient to make the Constitution, as origi
nally framed and adopted, an Anti-slavery document, there is
an amendment, afterwards added, which seems sufficiently
decisive. Let it be borne in mind that an amendment to a
Constitution, like a codicil to a will, overrules, controls, and
annuls whatever in the original instrument is inconsistent
with it.
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." — Amendments V.
" Due process of law " includes an indictment, trial by jury,

576 the Slavery question
and judgment rendered in open court.* What slave has ever
been " deprived of liberty " in this manner ?
Admitting that the original Constitution contained all the
"compromises and guaranties " ever attributed to it, does not
this amendment sweep them all away by prohibiting Slavery ?
Slaves are either citizens of the United States or they are
aliens. If citizens, they are entitled to the rights and privi
leges of citizens, and these are incompatible with slavery. ' But
if they are aliens, then Congress, under the Constitution, has
the power, by naturalization, to make them citizens of the
United States.
" Congress shall have power to establish a uniform system of naturaliza
tion." — Constitution, Art. I. Sec. 3, Clause 4.
If the States may reduce to slavery the citizens of the Uni-

* Judge Story, in his Commentaries upon the Constitution of the United States,
speaking of this provision of the instrument, says :
" The other part of the clause is but an enlargement of the language of Magna
Charta, * nee super eum ibimus, nee super eum mittimus, nisi per legale judicium pari
um suorum vel per legem terrce' — neither will we pass upon Mm or condemn him, but by
the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. Lord Coke says that the
latter words, 'per legem terrm,' (by tbe law of the land,) mean ' by due process of
law,' that is, due presentment or indictment, and beiDg brought in, to answer thereto
by ' due process of law.' So that this clause, in effect, affirms the right of trial,
according to process and proceedings of Common law."
It has, however, been alleged that " Due process of law is process sanctioned by
law; as when a juror is fined by the Court for non-attendance, a spectator impris
oned for contempt, land and money taken by tax-gatherers and assessors, and a
soldier shot by order of a court martial."
It may be answered that customs and usages do not define or create law, but
should be controlled by it. Convenience, in small matters, or where gross injustice
is seldom perpetrated, may tolerate customs not strictly legal. More than this :
Gross outrages, in open defiance of Magna Charta and Common law, have been con
tinued through entire generations. Thus, in England, the practice of home impress
ment of merchant seamen for the Royal Navy — is an admitted violation of English
law. Martial law supersedes Civil law, and hence the latter cannot be defined by
the former. The Turkish Sultan's order to behead any subject in his dominions may
be " sanctioned by law," and the same Congress and President that enacted the
Fugitive Slave bill might have conferred upon tho President the prerogatives of the
Turkish Sultan, with as much reason, or equal legality. The people insisted upon
this provision in " Amendment V." for the purpose of securing themselves against
such aggressions. Rut the precaution would avail them nothing, if the inhibition is
to bo construed in conformity with usages, instead of bringing usages to the test of
inhibitions. If this Amendment cannot proteot us from slavery, what can it protect
us from ? Or, of what use is it ?

IN THE UNITED STATES. 577
ted States, theh they may abolish the Federal Government, by
depriving it of citizens. If a State may reduce one man, 'un
der its jurisdiction, to slavery, it may reduce all men, under
its jurisdiction, to slavery, and thus nullify the Federal Gov
ernment, so far as the State is concerned.
The organization of the Militia, of the Postoffice, and Mail,
and Custom-house establishments, pertain, under the Constitu
tion, to the Federal Government, in its various departments.
In these, as in all other Federal appointments, no restriction
is imposed, as to the persons to be organized, appointed, or em
ployed. If the States, by their legislation, (or if the citizens of
the States, sustained by State authority,) may designate the per
sons whom the Federal Government may not organize as mili
tia, nor employ in the Custom-house, Postoffice, and Mail
establishments, or appoint to other offices, then the States, (or
citizens of the States) may cripple if not abrogate the power and
action of the National Government, in all these departments !
If they may withdraw one-fourth or one-half of the people from
their allegiance and subjection to the Federal Government
and from their liability or capacity for military or other ser
vices under it, then they can withdraw three-fourths, nine-
tenths, or ninety-nine one-hundredths, in the same manner, and
thus overthrow the national government* in those States.
Such is an outline of the theory that denies the " com
promises and guaranties of the Constitution" in favor of
slavery. Those who hold this view, believe that every slave in the
United States is entitled to the privileges of the writ of habeas
corpus, and to the benefits of a judicial decision in favor of his
freedom. And they believe that Congress and the Federal

* In many of the slave States the militia is of no value to the Federal Govern
ment from this cause, and is scarcely sufficient to keep the slaves in subjection in
time of peace ! Has the Federal Government no remedy for this ? John Quincy
Adams declared a truth in Congress when he said that " the war power of Congress"
Was adequate to the abolition of slavery. Rut is this the whole of the truth? If
Congress has any " war power," may it not put the country in a state of preparation
for defense . ,
37

578 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
Executive are bound to provide a judiciary that will discharge
its duty, and to protect, (if need be) the Courts, in the efficient
exercise of their functions.

COMPARISON OF THESE THREE THEORIES.
The first of these three theories of the Constitution seems to
present the friends of freedom with no alternatives but sub
jection or revolution.
It is too late in the day to dream of liberty for a portion of
a people, while another portion of them are enslaved.
Whatever may be said of " moral suasion," it cannot be
expected that slavery will soon cease in this country, by vol
untary emancipation, on the part of all the slaveholders, or by
the great body of them, while they are upheld by the action
of legislative and judicial authorities.
Nor can it be thought probable that the authorities of the
Slave States will voluntarily change their position, in advance
of their constituents, or while the Federal Government main
tains (as at present) a position very nearly in accordance with
the constitutional exposition now under review.
It is equally evident that the friends of liberty, so far as
they shall receive this exposition of the Constitution as the
correct one, can have no hope of any political remedy short
of disunion or revolution.
Nor does it seem clear that a dissolution of the Union be
tween the free and slave states, without such a general revolu
tion as should render disunion unnecessary, would do anything,
directly, for the cause of freedom, further than to relieve the
people of the North, and detach them from the support of the
foul system. In such a case there would indeed be a still
more appalling prospect than there now is, of that terrible
remedy, at which humanity herself shudders, unless, by timely
repentance, the South should avert the catastrophe. Yet the
principle of self-preservation, not less than the duty of clear
ing their own skirts from the guilt of oppression, should impel
all who fear God and love liberty, to choose, in sadness, the

IN THE UNITED STATES. 579
only alternative presented to them. To remain voluntarily in
the Union under a Constitution that must be thus construed,
would be suicidal to ourselves, as well as treason against man
kind, and rebellion against God. Common prudence, to say
nothing of principle or of piety, should suffice to direct, in so
clear a case, a people not judicially blinded. The " patriot
ism" and the "chivalry" the " honor" and the " magnanimity,"
the "sagacity" and the "prudence," that could deliberately
plant themselves against every " attribute of the Almighty"
and every instinct of human nature, in opposition to every
principle of law, and every element of social order — and all
this under the hallucination or the pretext of being " orderly
and law abiding"— -invite epithets which we are unwilling
to use.
The Second Theory — that of "the Compromises," may appear
less appalling, at the first view, but it deserves serious inquiry,
whether this be anything more than mere appearance.
• An attempted " compromise" between moral right and mo
ral wrong, results always in the ascendency of the wrong, and
the overthrow of the right. In matters of civil government,
in politics, in legislation, in jurisprudence, this is as certain as
everywhere else. The history of the Slavery Question in
America furnishes lamentable illustrations in point.
The friends of liberty, adhering to the Constitution, yet ad
mitting its "compromises" and promising to fulfil them, admit
themselves to be compromising with moral wrong! What,
then, becomes of their moral power ? If anything deserving.
the name of success, is to come from the pursuit of this policy,
the historical verification of it is yet future. The annals of
the world, thus far, have not supplied it. The good Provi
dence of God, in spite of their moral obliquities and compro
mises, may have delivered an oppressed people. But their
compromises have never deserved the credit of it, any more
than the idolatries of the Hebrews deserved the credit (as they
stupidly fancied,) of having supplied them with bread*
* Jeremiah 44: 17.

580 THE -SLAVERY QUESTION
If the u Compromises of the Constitution" include — as they
are commonly understood to do — the " guaranty" of the right
(under any restrictions) to reclaim fugitives, and the "guaran
ty" of northern assistance in suppressing a servile insurrec
tion, then the construction that concedes these compromises,
concedes the most atrocious as well as the most effective
supports of slavery included in that ultra southern construc
tion which the masses at the North so indignantly repudi
ate ! Conceding these, very little more would be lost, in a
moral view, by conceding the whole.
And the extent of the moral concession is the measure of
the political. An effort in Congress, or at the ballot box,
against slavery, conceding the sacredness of the "compro
mises" with the "guaranties" involved in them, is an effort
for victory after having relinquished the main controversy in
debate. Such efforts must be abortive of course. By the
operation of well known laws of human nature, they generally
fail of reaching the low point at which they are aimed. And
if reached, only an unsightly limb is displaced, leaving the
root untouched and the trunk less offensive and, perhaps, the
more thrifty and vigorous for the pruning.
That local and partial victories may sometimes be gained
by this policy is not denied. But a wise general knows that
a local victory may be purchased too dearly. A political
victory is always purchased too dearly, when it is done by a
moral compromise, or when the victor, by his compromises,
concessions, and pledges, ties up his own hands, and fore
closes himself from doing his main work.
If it be true that the Constitution does contain the " com
promises and the guaranties " commonly attributed to it, even
at the North, then the main battle between slavery and free
dom cannot be fought under it, nor otherwise than by a re
pudiation of it, or the proposal of such amendments as would
be regarded' as revolutionary to insist upon. And however
wise it might be for the friends of liberty to avail themselves
of any advantages thrown in their way, to weaken or cripple
the slave power, (taking care to avoid giving sanction to any

IN THE UNITED STATES. 581
constitutional compromises)1 it would be evidently impolitic
for them to expend their main strength and wear out their
energies and dishearten their successors in labors which, if
never so successful, would leave their main work unaccom
plished and even unattempted, after all. The longer the
friends of liberty busy themselves in this manner, the more
firmly will they establish the precedents which, sooner or
later, must be rebelled against and spurned.
If the Constitution be a "compromise" between slavery
and freedom, then those who adhere to it, giving their assent
to the compromise, yet expecting to " secure the blessings of
liberty" under it for "themselves and their posterity," are
only acting over again the folly of their fathers, but with less
excuse, after having witnessed the experiment of the last sixty
vears. The fruits borne by the tree of "compromise" thus
far, should warn us to expect nothing better of it in future.
Of the third theory of the Constitution, that which repu
diates all its. supposed "compromises" and "guaranties," it is
sufficient to say that, if it be correct, it is all that could be de
sired as a basis of political action. In the words of another,
" Those who believe that slavery is unconstitutional, are the only persons
who propose to abolish it. They are the only ones who claim to have the
power to abolish it. Were the whole North to become abolitionists, they
would still be unable to touch the chain of a single slave so long as they
should concede that slavery is constitutional.
" The mass of men will insist on seeing that a thing can be done, Wore
they will leave the care of other interests to assist in doing it. Hence the
slow progress of all political movements based on the admission that slavery
is constitutional." — Spooner.
These considerations should not tempt us to put an unwar
rantable construction upon our great national document. But
they should induce a candid and thorough investigation of
the matter,, with a determination to take the position de
manded by a discovery of the truth of the case. If the or
ganic structure of our National Government does indeed cast
us at the feet of the Slave Power, bound hand and foot, let
us know the worst of the case, and in view of it, determine

582 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
whether we have strength and resolution to cut the cords, or
whether we will submit to be slaves, with our posterity, for
ever. But if we have in our hands the Charter of Freedom,
let us understand its use, and the responsibilities with which
it invests us.

IN THE UNITED STATES. 583

CHAPTEB L.
THE SLAVERY QUESTION IN AMERICA AND THE CRISIS. — WHAT
SHALL RE DONE?
Effects of Compromise thus far— Shall it be repeated or continued ? — The Slavery
question, as it now stands, stated — Must be settled by the Church and in the
State — A question for the people — Can the Church and the State be reformed,
and wielded against Slavery? — Questions behind these — What is the organic
Btructure of the Church and the State ? — Fallacy of the idea that the Federal
Government can occupy a neutral position, divorced from the support of Slavery,
yet not wielded effectively against it — Fallacy of the idea that the peculiar struc
ture of our Government relieves us from responsibility iu respect to Slavery —
Suggestions concerning what might be done. The Church — Can the politics of a
people, or of reformers, rise above the level of their religion ? — Responsibility of
the Church and its constituent members.
The reader of the preceding pages will, by this time, com
prehend something of the magnitude of the pending slave
question in America. Though, primarily a question concern
ing the liberation of the enslaved, there is involved in it the
question of the civil and political liberties of the nominally
free. And the crisis seems to have arrived, predicted by one
¦ of our prominent statesmen, at the time our present Federal
Government was organized.
" I have no hope that the stream of general liberty will forever flow un
polluted through the mire of partial" bondage, or that they who have been
habituated to lord it over others, will not, in time, become base enough to
let others lord it over them. If they resist, it will be the struggle of pride
and selfishness, not of principle."— Wm. Pinckney's Speech in the House of
Delegates of Maryland, 1789.
The North has submitted to compromise on this subject till
one of her own Senators taunts her with infidelity to her con
stitutional engagements, if she insists upon any legal securities

584 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
for the personal liberties of her own citizens, the Senator him
self not excepted ;* and he exhorts her to conquer her "pre
judices " in favor of liberty, for the sake of preserving " the
Union!" The Slavery Question in America is the question whether
liberty shall be relinquished, for the security of slavery, or
whether slavery shall be overthrown by the spirit of liberty.
It is the question whether civil government shall secure and
protect human rights, or whether a ruthless despotism, dis
placing civil government, (properly so called,) shall be wielded
by the Slave Power for the subjugation of freemen. It is the
question whether the Federal Government shall be thus
wielded by a petty oligarchy of one or two hundred thousand
slaveholders, over twenty millions of people, (one person con
trolling one hundred,) or whether it shall be a republican
government, amenable to all, and administered for the pro
tection of all.
It is, moreover, the question whether Christianity in Ame
rica shall overthrow heathenism in America, or be corrupted
or exterminated by it. It is the question whether the Bible,
the Church, and the ministry, shall suffer the disgrace of
being accounted the handmaids of oppression, or whether they
shall be hailed as the deliverers of the captives, proclaiming
the Jubilee of the Lord.
This great question is to be decided, mainly, by the concur
rent action of the two great social institutions of the country,
the Church, and the State, the ecclesiastical and the civil
power. It is for THE PEOPLE of the non-slaveholding States to
say whether these two social institutions shall be redeemed
from the foul embraces of slavery, and wielded for their hea
ven-appointed ends, or whether they shall remain, as at pre
sent, in the hands of their enemies.
And the question whether THE PEOPLE will ever effect

* If Daniel Webster were seized aa a slave, he could have no legal redress under
the Fugitive Slave bill, to whioh he urges our submission.

IN THE UNITED STATES. 585
the requisite reformation in the Church and the State will
depend, very much, on the ideas they attach to the organic
structure of the Church and the State, and of their own parti-
oipancy in the administration of their powers.
If the Christians of the Free States conceive of the Church
as a mysterious something in the hands of the priesthood,
above the control of the brotherhood, to which they are reli
giously bound to adhere, right or wrong, and go wherever it
carries them, it is evident that there will be no reformation in
the Church.
If the voting citizens of the Free States conceive of " the
Government " as something distinct from themselves, and to
which their allegiance is unchangeably due, — if they conceive
of the " Constitution " as pledged to " compromises and guar
anties " in favor of slavery, and yet hold themselves bound to
fulfil those unrighteous compromises and guaranties, thus
elevating the Constitution (though conceded to be criminal)
'above all that is called God or is worshiped' — it is evident
that there will be no reformation in the State.
And if there is to be no reformation in the Church or the
State, it is evident that the sun of American liberty must go
down in darkness, or be subjected to a baptism in blood.
The questions arise — " What shall be done ?" And " How
shall it be done ?"
The field may be narrowed, by first inquiring, in the light
of the past, and on the stand-point of the present, what ought
not to be done ?
May we not clearly detect some of the main fallacies by
which the friends of liberty have been misled, and by which
they have been foiled ?
Expedients — compromises — gradualisms. — postponements —
ameliorations — have not the friends of liberty been baffled
sufficiently by confiding implicitly in these ?
Attempts to overthrow slavery merely by localizing it-
preventing its expansion — prohibiting the slave trade, or the
transportation of slaves— excluding slavery from new territo-
nea  jg it not time to understand that the work of abolishing

586 . THE SLAVERY QUESTION
slavery is not to be accomplished by directing attention and
effort chiefly to enterprises of this character ?
Every opportunity should, doubtless, be improved, to do,
in the use of proper measures, whatever presents itself to be
done in these directions. But is it wise, as a matter of policy
— can it be right, as a question of morals, to postpone or com
promise the main question of abolishing slavery, in order to
concentrate strength or enlist numbers, on points of secondary
importance ? May we consent to one crime for the sake of
repressing another ? Especially where the greater is indulged
that the smaller may be abolished ? May we — or may civil
government — consent to regulate and thus authorize crime,
for the purpose of curtailing its mischiefs ?
Is there not a fallacy in the idea that the Federal Govern
ment can be divorced from the support of slavery without
being enlisted against it, and so enlisted as to treat it as illegal
and criminal ?
How shall the Federal Government be thus divorced with
out so exerting itself as to overthrow slavery ?
In organizing the militia, in providing for the collection of
the revenue, (whether through the Custom-house or by direct
taxation,) in providing for the transportation of the mails, in
appointing Post-masters and all other officers of Government,
in making enlistments for the army and navy, in naturalizing
or in refusing to naturalize all classes of aliens — in making or
refusing to make compensation to slaveholders for losses pf
slaves in the public service — must not the Federal Govern
ment take sides, one way or the other, on the question of the
legality of slavery, and of the right of the slaves to their free
dom ? And is not the practical decision of the Federal Gov
ernment, in either case, entirely conclusive of the whole
matter ? Could the condition of slavery be continued, if the
practice of the Federal Government did not acknowledge its
legality? And while acknowledging its legality, can it be
said to be divorced from the support of slavery ? Can it be
neutral on that question, taking neither the one side or the

IN THE UNITED STATES. 587
other ? Or, (however constituted,) has it any moral right to
be neutral, were it possible to be so ?
Can the United States "guaranty to every State in this
Union a republican form of Government " without abolishing
Slavery ? Or can they neglect doing this without sustaining
and being responsible for Slavery ?
Is there not a fallacy in the common assumption (admitted
by some of the friends of liberty) that the peculiar structure
of our Federal Government, with its delegated powers, its
limitations, and the reserved rights of the States, relieves the
Government and the people of the free States from tbeir
responsibilities in respect to slavery in the slave States, provided
the Federal Government prohibits it elsewhere ?
Can man by his skill, or by his want of skill, in the con
struction of a Constitution of Government, relieve that Gov
ernment of the essential duties devolving upon all civil
Governments, in the nature of things, in the nature of civil
Government itself, and by the express appointment of God ?
Can there be a civil Government not invested with the pre
rogative, and charged with the duty, of protecting human
rights, and " executing justice between a man and his neigh
bor?" If the Bible or the Declaration of Independence be
resorted to for an answer, will they not unitedly respond, No ?
h there any intelligible theory of civil Government that will
not require at its hands thus much ? Does the Constitution
of the United States, in its Preamble, profess less ? Can it
claim the allegiance, or deserve the confidence of the people,
if it performs less ? Have the Sovereign People, who are
responsible for the organic structure as well as for the admin
istration of their Government, any moral right to construct
and continue an arrangement which contemplates ¦¦less? Or
can their liberties be secure under such an arrangement ?
The Federal Constitution either describes a civil Govern
ment or it does not* If it does, then that Government is

* The great problem of 1787, was the formation of a National Government that
ahould supersede the " Confederation," and yet leave the State Governments in

588 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
charged with the essential duties of a civil Government. If it
does not describe a civil Government, then we are without. any
National Government. We are reduced to, a mere confed
eracy of the States. And if we have only a confederacy of
States, may it not be dissolved at the option of either of the
parties? And are not the free States doubly inexcusable .fpr
remaining perpetually in a confederacy that binds tiiem, to
restore fugitives and assist in suppressing an insurrection of
slaves?* The questions again recur — What shall be done? And
how shall it be done ?
Without presuming to dogmatize, may we adventure a few
farther suggestions ?
The powers of the Federal Government — the legality or
the illegality of slavery — its agreement or disagreement with
the Constitution — present, evidently, questions of the first
magnitude, and of vital importance in disposing of the pro
blem— " What shall be done ?"
Would it not be the part of wisdom, in the friends of lib
erty, in the first place, to examine thoroughly, and settle
definitely, those questions ? Can there be efficient and united
political action against slavery till these questions are settled ?
If it be found that slavery is illegal, that it is unconstitu
tional, that the Federal Government has full power over it,
the course of action becomes plain. The Federal Courts, sus-

existence. After great labor, the paradox was supposed to have been solved. It
remains to be seen whether the exultation was not premature. The common theory,
according to one of its ablest advocates, concedes that " the Federal Government
is not a complete civil Government" — but nevertheless adds : " It does not follow,
and it is not true, that we have no National Government."'.
The concession then is, that we have only,. if), part, a National Government; — au
incomplete Government. And tho precise point in respect to which its incom
pleteness is conceded, Is the point in which it fails "to secure the blessings of lib
erty" for " the people of the United States" — and some other little things of that
character. A somewhat significant incompleteness — like the performance of " the
Drama of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet left out, by particular request."
* United States' forces were used to suppress the Southampton insurrection of
negroes in 1881. And, more recently, they were employed to capture a company of
Maryland slaveB who were marching off in pursuit of freedom. And every execu
tion of the Fugitive Slave bill is of the same character

IN THE UNITED STATES. 589
tained by Congress and the Executive, are adequate to admin
ister the remedy. And the power is in the hands of the non-
slaveholding States.
The investigation itself might be carried on, to a great
extent, by bringing questions, involving the rights of slaves
and others, for decision before the Federal Courts, after the
example, and with the untiring perseverance of Granville
Sharp. If it comes to be conceded, after a fair investigation, that
the Constitution is in favor of slavery, and that it provides no
remedy against it, the question returns again — " What shall
be done ?"
An amendment of the Constitution might be proposed, but
it requires tbe concurrence of tworthirds of the States to carry
it into effect. There seems little prospect of a remedy in that
direction. Eevolution or disunion appear to be the only direct political
remedies that remain. We may conceive of a revolution that
should carry with it, or bring after it, the abolition of slavery.
The ground of disunion would then be removed. But the
mind shudders at the thought of a revolution by violence.
Might there not be effected a peaceful separation between
the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States ? If a majority
of the citizens at the North and at the South should concur,
why could it not be done? If the Constitution makes no
provision for such an emergency, does it follow that an Ad
ministration is bound to enforce union by the sword ? Or
why might not a vote of two-thirds of the States (Northern
and Southern) unite in an amendment of the Constitution for
that end ?
' The Union has its value, but is it anything more than that
of a means to an end? And what is that end worth, if it
does not include justice, security, freedom, and the right to
obey God ?
What other alternative remains but the hss of the main
objects for which the independence of the country was
achieved, and the Constitution and the Union established ?

590 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
Is anything to be gained by clinging to that which was de
signed to be the means, if, in doing it, we must sacrifice the
end? The general and public discussion of these questions would
arrest the attention of all classes of citizens, Northern and
Southern. If any other alternatives exist, they would be
discovered and presented. If the South loved slavery more
than the Union, she would say so. If the North loved the
Union more than liberty, she would say so. The issue would
be presented to every citizen, and it would have to be met at
the ballot-box and decided. If the friends of liberty at the
North were left in the minority, and the country ruined under
the avenging hand of divine justice, they would then be clear
of the blame. But would the impartial award of posterity
acquit them, if, adhering to a Constitution of " compromises
and guaranties" in favor of slavery, they bartered their prin
ciples, their consciences, and the liberties of their country, for
an idolized "union" with oppressors? Would it acquit the
entire generation of northern citizens who, in full view of the
crisis, should consign themselves and their posterity to the
degradation of vassalage? Would not their own Declaration
of self-evident truths, and of the rights and responsibilities
of freemen, upbraid them ?
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men' are created equal ;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure
THESE BIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed ; that whenever any form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE to alter or abolish nyand to institute a new Gov
ernment, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness." Whatever sentiments may mould the answers that shall be
returned to these questions, the issue to be met and disposed of
will remain, if we mistake not, very much as has been stated
already. That is to say: If the Constitution contains the
"compromises and guaranties" commonly attributed to it;

IN THE UNITED STATES. 591
if there is no prospect of its being amended, or of the speedy
abolition of slavery by the States ; then the free States have
no remedy but revolution or disunion. Eejeeting this, they
must continue to participate in the guilt of slavery, and to
suffer its evils, including their own subjugation by the petty
oligarchy of slaveholders. But if the Constitution contains
no such " compromises and guaranties," then they hold the
power in their own hands, and may readily redeem themselves
and their country if they will, by the proper administration
of the Government.
This view presents what we understand to be ihe Slavery
Question in America, so far as the prospect of its abolition by
the action of civil government and the political action of the
North are concerned.
The Church question is still more comprehensive, more
vital, and more solemn. If the religion of a country controls,
of necessity, the legislation of a country, then the Church, to
the full extent to which it moulds or represents the religion
of a country, or is able to mould and represent it, is responsi
ble for its political morality. Is it not so ?
Can the political morality of a people rise higher than the
religion of a people ? Can the political morality of reformers
rise higher than the religion of reformers? Can their re
ligion rise, permanently, above the religion of the Churches
to which they adhere, and of the ministry in whom they con
fide for religious instruction ? Will they be likely to demand
of their political parties, or to secure in the management and
direction of them a higher tone of morality than they require
of their Churches, or than actually prevails in them ? Does
the history of past experiments warrant the belief that it can
be so ? Or would it be honorable to religion and religious
institutions, to believe that such could be the fact, and that
the world should be the teacher and exemplar of the Church ?
The friends of liberty and pure religion, to a considerable
extent have been impressed with the importance of so direct
ing their missionary efforts, as to send none but a pure and
liberty loving religion to the heathen. They are contributing

592 THE SLAVERY QUESTION
their missionary benefactions accordingly. But, are they, in
all cases, sustaining and confiding in no other religion at
home ? Are they supporting by their contributions and by
their approving attendance, no teachers of religion whom
they would not entrust with the work of carrying the gospel
to the heathen ? Is it probable that they will consistently and
perseveringly insist on exporting a better religion for the ac
ceptance of the heathen abroad, than that which they cherish
and confide in for their own edification and the benefit of
their families at home ? Or, will it be practicable, to any ex
tent, or for any great length of time, to find missionaries of
liberty to send abroad, who have been nurtured in the bosom
of pro-slavery churches at home, — churches that remain in
fellowship with oppressors, that cherish the arrangements of
caste, that set up in the sanctuary of prayer the negro pew, and
that welcome to their communion, without remonstrance, the
politicians whose votes rivet the fetters of the slave ?
Or is it to be believed that the peaceful abolition of slavery
is to be effected by the labors of those who thus contribute to
its support ? Can the consciences of the slaveholders be thus
reached? Can Christian missionaries be sustained in the
slave States to build up churches there, having no fellowship
with slavery (for this is one department of our " Free Mis
sions") by Christians at the North who remain in churches
holding fellowship with slavery, and who support its apolo
gists as religious teachers ? Are the Choctaw and Cherokee
Churches to be disowned and abandoned for retaining slave
holders in their communion, by Christians at the North re
maining in ecclesiastical connection with the slaveholders of
the South, or holding fraternal ecclesiastical correspondence
with them ? Or, retaining religious fellowship with the cor
rupt and servile northern demagogues who are more guilty
than the slaveholders themselves ? Can the friends of hberty
and pure religion continue long to remonstrate with churches
in fellowship with slavery, while their own position is such as
has been described ? If the churches have any responsibihty
in respect to' slavery, is there no inconsistency in the position

IN THE UNITED STATES. 593
of such ? What is the responsibility of churches aside from
the ^responsibilities of the members of which the Church is
composed ? And how can the individual member urge upon
the body a position which he is not ready to take himself?
" There is no power out of the Church," says Albert Barnes,
" that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained
in it." To this we may add the inquiry— How long would
slavery be sustained in the churches, if churches sustaining
Blavery were not sustained by those who complain of their
position ? If a solemn responsibility rests on the churches, is
it not shared by those in the churches whose support con
tributes to sustain them ?
There is still another view of the subject. Suppose it were
not true that the position of the Church could decide the fate
of American slavery ? Suppose it were certain that, notwith
standing all that could be done by the Church and ministry
to overthrow slavery, it would still live and thrive ? Would
the responsibility of the Church and ministry then cease?
Would it not still be their duty to bear their testimony in the
midst of a perverse people? How else can they shine as
lights in the world ? How else can they honor their God and
their Savior ? How else can they teach and exemplify pure
religion ? How else can they call sinners to repentance ?
How else can they preserve a pure seed to survive the terri
ble overthrow of the nation, or its dark night of disgrace and
servility, to take root and germinate and bear fruit in a more
genial age ?
And if it be true, as we have seen, that the Federal Govern
ment cannot hold a neutral position — that it cannot be di
vorced from the support of slavery without being wielded
against it — if its peculiar structure— fashioned by man— can
not absolve it nor its constituent members from the responsi
bilities involved in tbe very nature of the institution itself—
how much more clearly and more forcibly do these considera
tions apply to the Church, established by Christ himself, to be
"the salt of the earth," and "the light of the world!"
38

GENERAL INDEX.

[N. E. (1.) The leading topics' of this Book, arranged in Chapters, will be found
in the Contents, at the beginning. (2.) Minor topics, in their order, are inserted
under the several head titles, at the beginning of each Chapter. (8.) This General
Index, though containing many names, does not include, however, (except in a few
speoial cases,) the names of the numerous authorities that will be found cited in the
body of the work.]

Aberdeen, Lord, 66.
Abolition of Slave Trade, by Great Bri
tain, 63.
Abohtion of Slave Trade, by U. S, 63
of Slavery in England, 42.
British Colonies, 353, 372.
British E. Indies, 376.
Massachusetts, 109-11.
New Hampshire, 109-13.
Vermont, 110.
Pennsylvania, 112.
Rhode Island, 113.
New York, 114-17.
Connecticut,' 114.
New Jersey, 115.
Mexico, 272, 370.
Roman Empire, Europe, Chili,
Buenos Ayres, Guadaloupe, Cape
of Good Hope, 370.
Abolition Societies, (last century) 95.
Abolition movement, U. S., present, 382.
Abolitionists, their principles aud mea
sures, 398.
Abolitionists, opposition against, 399.
slanders against, 402.
mobs against, 404.
attempted legal suppression of,
408.
elements of division among, 447.
agreement in 1833, 452.
changes afterwards, 454.
divisions in 1840. 457.

" Abstractionists," 448.
Adams, John, Pres., 73, 241.
Adams, Samuel, 73.
Adams, John Q., 78, 219, 245, 257, 263,
274, 327, 386, 423, 577.
Adams, Chas. P., 478.
Addison, Joseph, 29.
Alabama — African Slave Trade, 262.
demand on Gov. of N. Y, 413.
Albany Convention, (1839,) 470, 513.
(1840,) 471.
Alliance of Aristocracies, Northern and
Southern, 334.
Althorpe, Lord, 371.
Alton Observer, 459 : mob and murder, ib.
American Slavery, features of, 377.
American Revolution, period of, 69.
Board, (Missions) 202, 220.
Home Mission Society, 209.
Bible Society, 210.
Tract Society, 213.
Sunday School Union, 215.
Missionary Association, 491.
Anti-Slavery So. (See below.)
and For. A. S. So. (See below.)
Amistad, captives, 265.
Anderson, Robt. N, Rev., 411.
Andover Theo. Sem., 171.
Andros, Thos. Rev., 393.
Andrews, Mr. Rev., (Ct.) 176.
Andrews, Prof, 250.
Antigua and Bermuda, 872.

596

GENERAL INDEX.

Anti-Slavery efforts, last century, 91.
Anti-Slavery Society, American, organ
ized, 396, Protest, to Pres., U. S.,
417.— Division, (in 1840,) 457, 462.
— New measures, 464.
General Policy, 511. — Political
course, 517. — Second Revolution,
(in 1844,) 526.— Difficulties, N. P.
Rogers, 529. Politics, (since 1844)
632. — Course on Church action,
541. — General Estimate, 555.
Anti-Slavery So. Amencan and Foreign :
Origin, 463. — Course, 510.
Anti-Slavery So., Massachusetts, 457-62,
512, 517, 519,521, 535.
Arcade, N. Y. Convention, (1840) 471.
Aristocracy, U. S., 126.— N. and S., 334.
Articles of Confederation, 78, 573.
Aves, Thos., (slave case) 111.
Aydellotte, B. P., Dr., 492.
Bacon, Leonard, Dr., 177, 206, 207.
Bank, U. S., 327, 336.
Bankruptcy, (of 1837) 249, (of 1811) 328.
Baltimore Conference, Meth., 148.
Baptists in England, 60, 61, 190, 493, 494.
Baptists in America, (in 1778) 108.
Position, 183, 493..— Missions Che
rokees, 187.
Am. and For. Bible So., 189, 607.
Publication So., 190.
Anti-Slavery agitation, 493. Bap
tist Magazine, 493.
Va. Asso., 493.
Triennial Con., 187, 493-8, 501-2.
Board For. Missions, 1 87. — Acting
Board, 187, 500.
Home Mission So., 188, 499, 502,
506.
Missionary Union, 503-5.
Southern Convention, 501-2.
Tennessee Missionary So. 501.
Alabama Conv. and letter, 500.
Anti-Slavery Conv., 496. — Free
Mission Society, 499, 507.
Barnes, Albert, Rev., 217.
Barrow, David, Eld., 108.
Barbour, Gov., 80.
Barbadoes, 372.
Baxter, Richard, 27.
Baxter, G. A., Dr., 155.
Bayard, James A., 97.
Bayly, Mr., of Va, 672.
Beattie, James, 30.
Beecher, Geo, Rev, 157.
Beman, N. S. S, Dr, 154.
Benezet, Anthony, 86, 41.
Benton, T. H, Hon, 274, 316, 318.

Berkeley, *Wm, Sir, 20, 229.
Bermuda, (abolition) 372.
Bethune, Dr, 346.
Bible Society, American, 210.
American and Foreign, 189, 507.
Convention concerning, 546-7.
Bibles for Slaves, 210-12.
Binney, J. G, Eld, 505. '
Birney, James G, 395, 406, 471.
Blackstone, Judge, 28, 48, 49, 52.
Blanchard, Jona, Pies, 202, 492.
Blennerhasset, 284.
Bloodhounds, 270.
Boggs, Ex-Gov. Miss, 310, 313.
Bolles, Lucius, Dr, 186.
Bond, Dr., 147.
Bond, Mr, (Boston) 419.
Book Concern, Methodist, 149.
Boston Recorder, 182.
Boothe, Abraham, 30, 60, 61.
Boyd, A. H. H, Rev, 164.
Boynton, C. B, Rev, 492.
Bradley, Dr. (Plymouth), 419.
Breckemidge, R. J. Dr, 343.
Brisbane, Dr, 395, 492.
Brissot, 31.
British Colonial Slavery, 6, 7.
Constitution, 51.
Orders in Council, 329.
Brodnax, Mr. (Va.) 343.
Brooklyn Report, Am. Board, 204-6.
Brougham, Henry, M.P, 355, 368-9, 362.
Brown, Abel, Eld, 189.
Brown, Moses, 398.
Buffon, 31.
Buffalo Conv. nom. J. P. Hale, 478.
M. Van Buren, 478.
Burchell, Mr, Missionary W. I, §66.
Burke, Edmund, 28.
Burleigh, C. C, 463, 556.
Burling, Wm, 40.
Burnett, P. H, of Mo, 810.
Burr, Aaron, Col, 280, 284.
Bun-, James E, 440.
Bushyhead, Mr, Missionary, 187.
"Business men," 448.
Butler, Bishop, 28.
Buxton, Thomas Fowell, 67, 365, 858,
363, 369, 371.
Calhoun, John 0, 279, 301-2, 316, 821,
330, 834, 336, 339, 420-1.
California, acquisition of, 287 ; posses
sion, 300 ; results, 806 ; effort to
exclude slavery, 307 ; counter efforts,
308; Southern plan, 310; Provi
sional Government, 312 ; Constitu
tion vs. Slavery, 813.

GENERAL INDEX.

597

Camden (S. C.) Bap. Church, 496.
Campbellites, 198.
Campbell, Alexander, 198.
Canning, Mr, 257, 358.
Canterbury Colored School, 393, 436.
Capres, W. Dr., 148.
Caribs or Charibs, 4.
Cartwright (slave case), 50.
Cass, Gen, 308, 316.
Cemeteries, col'd people excluded, 200.
Census of Slaves, 114-16.
"Centralization," 466.
CBanning, W. E. Dr, 419, 560.
Chaplin, Wm. L, 246, 445, 463, 556.
Charles V, 5, 1 6.
Charleston (S. C.) Asso. Bap., 184.
rifling the mails, 411.
Chase, Samuel, Judge, 96.
Chase, S. P, Hon, 225.
Chatham-St. Chapel, mob, 396.
Clieivres, 5, 16.
Cherokees, Bap. Miss, 187.
Am. Board, 205.
Cherokees and Georgia, 389.
Choctaw, Missions, 203.
Chronicle, Vermont, 182.
Christian Mirror, 182.
Spectator, 181.
Observer, 205.
Anti-Slavery Conv, 488, 492.
Churchman, The, 192.
Churches, American, decline, 135.
position, 143-219.
Church — Why scrutinized, 449.
Church and Ministry, responsibilities, 558.
Church Anti-Slavery agitation, 487.
re-organization, 489 ; Independ
ent, 489; Wesleyan, 489;
Free Presb, 490; Friends,
491.
Cinquez (African), 255.
Clarence, Duke of, 59.
Clarkson, Thomas, 56-9, 66, 355-60, 393,
444.
Clarke, Adam, Dr, 29.
Clarkson, Matthew, Gen, 95.
Clay, Henry, 140, 244, 251, 264-6, 274-6,
301, 316-17, 342-7, 380-3, 666.
Clayton, J. M, 310.
Clergy, opposition of, 402, 411-12, 425.
" Clerical Appeal," 459, 542.
Clinton Hall, meeting, mob, 395.
Coke, Lord, 145.
Colonies, Am., dates settlement, 19; As
sociation of, 1774, 72.
Colonies, Brit, abolition, 353, 372, 376.
Colonial Charters, 1 8 ; Slavery, 10.
Legislation, 18.

Colonization Society, 139, 200, 341, 398,
401, 407, 412, 425-6.
Meeting, 155.
Colombian Republic, 259, 266.
Columbian College, 503.
Colver, Nathl. Eld, 505-6.
Common Law, English, 18, 63.
Commerce, Northern, 323.
Compromise, Missouri, 240-3, 383.
of 1850, 317.
Comet, Brig, 252.
Connecticut, Colonial Slavery, 11-13.
action (in 1774), 75.
Abol. Soe. (1790), 96.
Gen. Asso. (Cong.), 173, 429-30.
" black laws," 340.
Cone, Spencer H. Eld, 187-9, 190, 493,
497-9, 503-4.
Continental Congress, 78-9.
Congress, U. S, 100, 224-6, 234-5, 240,
251, 268, 278, 299, 301, 331.
Congress of Panama, 259.
Congregationalists, position, 163 ; pub
lications, 181.
Associations, 173, 429-30.
Constitution U. S. (see Federal Const.)
Convention Cong. Min, Mass, 180.
Convention (of 1789), 83.
Conventions, Chr. A: S, 488-92.
(See names of places.)
Conspiracy, Burr's, 280.
Corporation and Test Acts, 361.
Cotton Gin, Whitney's, 132.
Cotton manufacture, effects, 134, 334,
speculation, 249.
Court of King's Bench, 18.
" Covenanters," 198, 533.
Cox, S. H. Dr, 157.
Cox and Hoby, 494.
Crandall, Prudence, 393, 436.
Crandall, Reuben, Dr, 246, 437.
Cranch, Wm. Judge, 234, 244-5.
Creole, Brig, 254.
Crummel, Alex, 193.
Cuba, Slavery and U. S. Gov't, 265.
Cumberland Presbyterians, 198.
Curtiss, H. Rev, 160.
Curtis, Geo, of R. I, 419.
Dana, Rev. Dr, 172.
Davenport, Mr. (Missionary), 187.
Dayton, Mr. (U. S. Senate), 570.
Decline of Liberty, 118.
Declaration of Independence, original
draft, 16.
Constitutional law, 574.
Delaware (in 1785), 109-10.
Democratic party, 128, 131.

598

GENERAL INDEX.

De Witt, Rev. Dr, 208.
Dew, Prof, 250.
Derby, Rev. Dr, 350.
D'Wolf, James, 11.
Dickey and Beman, Messrs, Presb. Gen.
Assembly, 154.
Diplomacy, U. S, 252, 263.
Direct Taxes, 322.
" Disciples," 198.
District of Columbia, (see Federal Dist.)
Doane, Bishop, 193.
Dominicans, 27.
Dorr, T. W, 420.
" Dough-faces," origin of, 384.
Douglass, Frederick, 556.
Douglas, Mr. (111.), 308.
Dove, James, Eld, 61.
Drayton and Sayres, 246, 446.
Dresser, Amos, 105, 438.
Drummond, Rev. Mr, 145.
" Due process of law," 575-6.
Duffield, Rev. Dr, 157.
Dunbar, Duncan, Eld, 188.
Dundas, Mr. (M. P.), 64.
Dutton, S. W. S. Rev, 176.
Dutch Ref. Church, 195.
Earle, Thomas, 471.
Eaton, Wm. Gen, 282.
Eddy, Samuel, Hon. (R. I.), 384.
Edmundson, Wm, 33.
Edwards, Jona.Dr, 28, 92, 111, 127, 130.
Edwards,  (Texas), 273.
Elizabeth, Queen, 6, 7, 8, 16, 50.
Ellis, Mr, min. Mexico, 289.
Ely, Mr. Rev, 176.
" Emancipator," 392, 464.
Emancipation, W. I, effects, 373.
Embargo, 324.
Emerson, Ralph, Prof, 172.
Emmons, Nathl. Dr, 393-4.
Emory, Bishop, 428.
Emory, Robert, Rev, 145.
Encomium, Brig, 252.
Endicott, Gov, 229.
England, Slavery and Abolition, 44.
English Statutes, 18.
" Enterprise, The," 162.
Episcopal Church, 191.
Everett, Edward, Gov, 218, 415.
Eyre, James, Sir, 46.
Faulkner, Mr, 80.
Federal Constitution, era of, 81.
Convention^ framing, 83-4, 222.
Ratifications, 84-5.
Amendments, 89.
Views of, 563.

Federal Government, action, 220.
Federal District, cession, 226.
Slavery by act of Congress, 226.
Government of, 234, 243.
" Federalist, The," 86-7, 230.
Federal party, 128, 132.
Fee, John G, 492.
Ferdinand V, Spain, 7.
Fillmore, Pres, 162.
Finney, C. G. Rev, 492.
Finch, J, Missionary, 506.
First Congress (1774), 71.
First Presidency, 224. •
Fisk, Wilbur, Pres. 167.
Florida, Invasion of, 269.
Purchase, 239, 269.
Admission, 240.
Treaty — " Inhabitants citizens,".
239-40, 568.
Seminole War, 270.
Follen, Charles, Prof, 418, 469. i
Foote, C. C, 475.
Foote, Mr, of Miss, 308.
Forsyth, Mr, 277, 293.
Foster, S. S, 527-30-33.
Fox, C. J, 28, 62.
Fox, George, 30, 32.
Franklin, B. Dr, 30, 40, 54, 96, 100.
Franklin and Armfield, 244.
Freeman, Mr. Rev, 191.
Free-Will Baptists, 196.
Free Soil party, 478, 482.
" Free trade and sailor's rights," 330.
Free Missions, 491.
Free Presb. Church, 491.
Fremont, Col, 300.
French National Assembly, 57-9.
French Revolution, (1793) 130.
Infidelity, 130.
Frelinghuysen, Theodore, Hon, 395.
" Friends" in England, 32, 60, 196.
In America, 35, 435-6.
Seceders, 491.
Fugitive Slave Bill, (of 1793) 227.
(of 1850,) 172, 220, 318, 413.
Fuller, R, Eld, (S. C.) 188, 499.
Furman, Rev. Dr, 186-7.
Gallatin, Albert, 264.
Galusha, Elon, Eld, 496, 499.
Gaines, Gen, 277.
Garrison, Wm. L, 396-7, 401, 405, 410,
419, 436, 458-9, 460, 469, 612, 541,
455-6.
Gates, Horatio, Gen, 79.
Gayle, Gov, (Ala.) 413.
Gedney, Lieut, 255.
General Conf, Cong., (Me.) 180.

GENERAL INDEX.

599

General Asso, Cong, (Ct.) 173, 429.
General Asso. Cong, (Mass.) 178, 429-30.
" Genius of Temperance," 392.
11 Genius Universal Emancipation," 391.
George II, act of, 8, 65.
Georgia, Colonial laws, 20-1.
action, (1774) 74.
demands, 414.
African Slave Trade, 261.
annual Conference, (Meth.) 148.
Gholson, Mr, (Va,) 251, 274.
Gilman, Gov, (N. H.) 231.
Godwin, 27.
Goderich, Lord, 369.
Goodman, E, 492.
Goodwin, E. W, 435.
Gonzalez, Anthony, 4, 16. S
Gouverneur, S. L, 416.
Goslein, (Va.) Bap. Asso, 412.
" Gradual abohtion," tested, W. I, 357.
q*72— 3
Graham, Rev. Dr, 158, 166, 170.
Grand Jury, Oneida Co, 409.
District Columbia, 244.
Tuscaloosa, (Ala.) 414.
Green, Benah, Pres, 395-6, 556.
Green, Mr, Sec. Am. Board, 203.
Green, Duff, Gen, 415.
Gregoire, Abbe, 5, 29.
Grey, Earl, 371.
Grosvenor, C. P, 463, 494, 507.
Grotius, 28.
Gurney, J. J, 371.
Gwin, W. M, 310, 313.
Hale, John P, 478.
Hall, E, Rev, 176.
Hallet, B. F, 418.
Hamilton, Alex, Gen, 86, 95, 97, 281.
Hannegan, Mr, 309.
Hand, Col, 311.
Hancock, John, 78.
Harrison, W. H, Gen, 520.
Hawkins, John, Sir, (Capt.) 6, 16.
Hayti, 130, 268, 370.
Hazard, Mr, (R. I.) 415.
Hedding, E, Bishop, 147-8, 428.
Henry, King, (Spain) 4.
Henry, Patrick, 70, 85.
Heyrick, Elizabeth, 355-6.
Hicksite Friends, 435, 551.
Hierra, 5.
Hilliard, Mr, 308.
Hill, B.M, Eld, 188, 497.
Hispaniola, 4.
Hoare, Mr, Hon, 340.
Hodge, Prof, 154.
Holly, Myron, 470, 474, 566.

Holt, Chief Justice, Lord, 48.
Home Missionary Society, Baptist, 188.
Home Missionary Soe, American, 209.
Hopkins, Samuel, Dr, 28,41,76,92,109.
114, 120-2, 127.
Hope, Miss, 355.
Hopper, Isaac T, 435, 549.
Horseley, Bishop, 28, 62.
Horton, Jotham, Rev, 490.
House of Commons, 62, 66, 372.
House of Lords, 62.
Houston, Samuel, General, 279.
Hubbard, Mr, Hon, 340.
Hull, General, 332.
Hutchinson, Judge, 394.
Ide, Jacob, Dr, 443.
Illinois Central Asso, 202.
Gen. Cong. Asso., 204.
Impressment Seamen, 329, 576.
Indiana Ter, 241.
Ingersol", C.J, 301.
Insurrection in Texas, 273.
Invasion of Texas, 273.
Iowa Ter, 244.
Iredell, Judge, 85.
Ives, L. S, Bishop, 191.
"Jacobinism," 130.
Jackson, Andrew, Pres, 267, 269, 274,
276-7, 286, 291, 338,417.
Jamaica, 370.
James, John Angell, Rev, 360.
Jay, John, Gov, 30, 86, 92, 95, 97.
Jay, John, Esq, 191.
Jay, Wm. Judge, 393, 511.
Jefferson, Thomas, 16, 30, 70, 71-2, 79,
83, 86, 131, 142, 236, 268, 281, 324,
569, 575.
Jeremie, Judge, 363.
Joeelyn, S. S, 392, 511.
Johnson, Samuel, Dr, 28.
Johnson, Wm. B. (S. C), 187.
Jones, William, Sir, 31.
Jones,' C. C. Rev, 199.
Jones, Com, 295.
Judson, A. T, Judge, 256.
Kearney, Gen, 302..
Kentucky (in 1780)* 110.
Admission of, 227.
Presb. Svnod, 152.
Kendall, Amos, "(P. M Gen.) 416-17.
Kerr, John, 47.
Key, Francis S, 105, 437,446.
King Henry of Spain, 4.
King's Bench, Court, 50.
King, Thos. B, 310, 313.

600

GENERAL INDEX.

King, Leicester, Hon., 478.
Knibb, Wm, Missionary (W. I.), 366.
Lacoste (slave Capt.), 257.
Lamar, Gen, 279.
Lane Seminary, 426.
Langhorne, G. W. Rev. (N. C.) 428.
Laird, Capt, 47.
Las Casas, 4.
Lay, Benjamin, 40.
Lear, Tobias, 282.
Leavitt, Joshua, 463.
Leo X, Pope, 27.
Leigh, B. W. (Va.), 80.
Le Roy Convention, 523.
Lewis, Thomas (slave), 48.
Lewis, Evan, 393.
Lewis, Samuel, 492.
Liberty Party, 457, 467-8,482.
Liberty League, 475,477, 481.
Liberia, 351-2.
Liberator, 392, 397.
Lincoln, Hernan, 497.
Lisle, David, 46.
" Literary and Theol. Review," 409, 413.
Literary Institutions, 403.
Liverpool, mob, 59.
Locke, John, 30.
Long, James, Texas, 273.
Loring. E. G, 418.
Louis XIII. of France, 7.
Louisiana, purchase, 239.
Af. Slave Trade, 261.
" Inhabitants citizens," 239, 568.
Lovejoy, E. P. Rev, 406, 439.
Lumpkin, Gov. (Geo.), 410.
Lundy, Benjamin, 385, 391-2, 436.
Lunt, Geo, Hon, 41 8.
Lushington, Dr, 363, 371.
Macauley, Zachary, 358.
Macedon Lock Convention, 475.
Macknight, (Commentator) 29.
McDuffie, Geo, Gov. S. C, 141, 413.
Madison, James, Pres, 70, 79, 84, 86-7,
102, 228, 230, 336.
Mahan, J. B, Rev, 440.
Mahan, Asa, Pres, 492.
Mails, U. S, laws, 233.
Report, U. S. Senate, 421.
Malcom, Howard, Rev, 493.
Mansfield, Chief Justice, Lord, 18, 46, 48,
50-1-2, 55.
Mann, Horace, Hon, 226.
Manufactures, N. England, 134, 334, 336.
Marriage, white women witb slaves, 23.
Maryland, Colon. Slavery, 22 : laws, 140.

Maryland, action, (1774) 74— Abolition
Society, (1789) 96.
no legal slavery, 573.
Colonization Society, 343.
Martin Luther, (Md.) 82.
Marcy, W. L, Gov, 413-14. -
Mariott, Charles, 435, 549.
Massachusetts, Colonial Slavery, 12, 13.
(in 1812,) claims on U. S, 332-3.
relations with S. C, and La, 340.
Legislature, (of 1836) 417-18.
Abolition Society, 401.
Colonization Society, 350.
Mason, Mr, of Va, U. S. Senate, 670-1.
Masonic Hall, Colonization meeting, 395.
May anniversaries, (1825 to '30) 387.
May, Samuel J, Rev, 418, 476, 537.
Mercer, Charles F, 250.
Metamoras taken, 299.
Methodist E. Church, 106-7, 138, 143-5,
426. Division of, 150.
Methodist E, Church, North, 150.
Mexico — abolition of slavery, 272-3.
war against, 287, 299, 302.
claims U. S. on, 289, 293, 297.
peace with, 303.
Miller, Samuel, D.D, 152-3.
Milnor, Rev. Dr, 193.
Militia laws, U. S, 233.
Mills, Samuel J, Rev, 341.
Miller, M.D, Eld, 504.
" Ministry," the, 449.
Mississippi Territory, 241.
Missouri, admiss. and comp, 240-3, 388.
Missionary Societies, England, 368.
Missionary enterprise, — effects, 386.
Mobs against abolitionists, 395, 406.
Monroe, James, Pres., 240-2, 256-7, 269.
Monroe Co, N. Y, Convention, 470.
Montez and Ruiz, 255.
Montgomery, James, 4, 5.
Montesquieu, Baron, 28.
Monterey taken, 300.
More, Hannah, 28.
Morrell, Judge, 244.
Morris, Thomas, 471.
Mulgrave, Lord, 370.
Murch, W. H, Eld., 493.
Nacogdoches, settlement, Am, 273.
Napoleon vs. Hayti, 268.
National Bank, 327, 336.
" National Philanthropist," 391.
" A. S. Standard," 514, 528, 544.
" Era," 483.
Anti-Slavery Conv. (1833), 898.
Naturalization laws, 236.

GENERAL INDEX.

601

Naturalization laws, power of Congress,
through, 576, 586.
Nat. Turner's Insurrection, 392, 588.
Nelson, Dr. Rev, 395, 439.
Nevin, E. H, Rev, 492.
New England, Colonial Slavery, 12-14.
In War of 1812,332.
Meth. E. Conf, 148.
Anti-Slavery Soe, S92.
New Orleans Bible Soe, 211.
Newport (R. I.) Cong. Ch, 42.
New School Gen. Assembly, 157.
New York — Yearly Meet. Friends, 38.
Abolition Soe. (1785), 95.
City A. S. Soe, 395.
Annual Conf. Meth, 428.
Central College, 507.
"New York Observer," 176, 182, 205,
218.
"Evangelist," 392.
"Non-Resistants," 458, 512, 518-19, 527,
534, 639.
North Carolina, Colonial Slavery, 22.
Convention (in 1774), 72 ; Cession
to U. S, 225 ; Af. Slave Trade,
261 ; Demands, 413 ; Bap. Asso,
186..
N. W. Territory, 83.
" Notes on Virginia," 87.
"No Union with Slaveholders," 526.
Nourse, Jos, Reg, 257.
Nullification (S. C), 338.
" Observations" (1774), 75.
(1779), 78.
O'ConneU, Daniel, M. P, 361.
Oglethorpe, Gen, 20, 21, 31.
Ogden, D. B, 193, 396.
Ohio, "black laws," 340.
Annual Conf. Meth, 427.
Olin, S, Pres, 147.
Onesimus and Philemon, 167-9.
Onderdonk, Bishop, 193.
Ordinance of 1787, N. W. Ter, 83.
"Organic Sins," 209.
Oregon Ter, 244.
Orleans Co. Bible Soe, 212.
"Orders in Council," Brit, 329.
Osceola, 270.
Page, Mr. (Va.), 110.
Paley, Dr, 28.
Paine', Robert Treat, 73.
Paine, Thomas, 131.
Panama, Congress, 259.
Parker, Mr. (Va.), 100.
Parker, Theodore, Rev, 551.
" Pastoral Letter," Meth. E. Bishops, 428.

Pastoral Letter, Con. and Mass. Asso.,
Cong, 431-2, 459.
Pearl, Schr, 446.
Peck, J. M, Eld, 504.
Penn, Wm, 35.
Pennsylvania, Abol. Soe, 95.
Hall, burned, 406.
Pennington, J. W. Dr, 511.
Perkins, G.W, Rev, 174.
Petitions to Congress, 91, 97, 224.
Persecutions, 434.
Phelps, A. A. Rev, 207-8,410-11,459.
Phila. " Yearly Meeting" Friends, 36.
Phillips, Wendell, 517-18, 528, 656.
Pigott, Arthur, Sir, 62.
Pike, J. G, Rev, 360.
Pinckney, Wm, 82, 583.
Pinney, J. B, 351.
Pitt, Wm, 28, 57, 62, 64-5, 232.
Plummer, W.S,Dr, 411.
Political Power of Slaveholders, 134.
Economy, controlled by, 319.
Polk, J. K, Pres, 297, 301-3, 309.
Pope Leo X, 27.
Port Byron Convention, 475.
Porteus, Bishop, 27.
Portland, Duke of, 36.
Postell, J. 0, Rev, 412.
Post-office, Charleston, S. C, 416.
Postmaster-General, 416.
Prejudice vs. color, 139, 200.
Presbyterian Ch, 107-8, 138, 151,249.
General Assembly, 152, 155-6.
Old School, 155-6.
New School, 157-9, 161-2.
Synod, Kentucky, 152, 381.
S. Carolina and Georgia, 381.
Press, periodical, 389. ¦
Presidents U. S, list of, dates, 224.
Price, Dr, 29.
Primatt, Dr, 29.
Princeton Repertory, 154.
Theological Seminary, 14.
Protestant Episcopal Church, 191.
Society, Ac, S. 0, 192.
"The Churchman," 192.
Theological Seminary, 193.
Convention, Penn, 194.
Protestant Meth. Church, 195.
Prohibitions Slavery by Congress, 241-2.
Puritans of England, 12.
Queen Victoria, 218, 273.
Quincy, Josiah, 232.
Quincy, Edmund, 556.
Randolph, Peyton, 78.
Randolph, Mr, (Fed. Conv.) 84, 85, 228.

602

GENERAL INDEX.

Randolph, Thos. J, 248.
Randolph, Jno. of Roanoke, 244, 260, 384.
Rankin, John, Rev, 387, 490.
Raynal, Abbe, 29.
Reeve, Judge, 11.
Reform Bill, England, 361.
Reformers, divided, 448.
Religious bodies vs. slavery, 32.
Anniversaries, (1825-1830), 387.
Revivals, (1825 to 1830) 388.
Restorationists, 196.
Review of divisions, 559.
Rhode Island, colonial laws, 12, 13. —
Yearly meeting, 37.
Ratification Fed. Const, 89. Abol.
Soe, (1786) 96.
Election, (1820) 384.— Legisla
ture, (1835) 416.
Right of Petition, 422.
Riley, Gen, 311-12.
Rio Grande, 299.
Robertson, History, 5.
Robertson, Wm, Dr, 29.
Rochester, Bishop of, 28, 62.
Rogers, W. W, Rev, 172.
Rogers, N. P, 454, 476, 519, 630.
Romans, abolition, 368.
Roman Catholics, 195, 201.
Roszell, S. G, Rev, 427.
Rousseau, J. J, 31.
Royal Navy and Slave Trade, 66.
Rutledge, John, 74.
Rutledge, Edward, 76.
Russell, John, Lord, 66.
Rush, Benj, Dr, 29, 96.
Sabbath, Anti, 460, 646.
St. Domingo, "horrors of," 139, 370.
St. Thomas' Church, 194.
Sandiford, Ralph, 40.
San Jacinto, battle, 277.
Santa Anna, defeat, 277.
San Francisco taken, 800.
pro-slavery vote, 313.
San Jose, meeting, 311.
Sawyer, J. W, Eld, 504.
Savannah River Bap. Asso, 185, 496.
Scoble, John, (London) 360.
Scott, Mr, of Pennsylvania, 101.
Scott, Winfield, Gen, in Mexico, 301-2.
Scott, Orange, Rev, 427, 590.
" Science, tlie," (slaver) 257.
Sectarian rivalry, 138.
Secession Church, Kentucky, (1805) 108.
Semple, Robert B, 187.
Seminole War, 270.
Sewell, S. E, 419.
Seward, Wm. H, 485.

Sharp, Granville, 21, 44-60, 77, 104.
Sharp, Daniel, D.D, 497.
Shannon, Mr, Min. to Mexico, 296, 313.
Shaw, Judge, (Mass.) 111.
Sims, E. D, Prof, 147.
Slade, William, Hon, 525.
Slave States, admitted, 237.
Slave trade, African, origin of, 4.
by the Colonists, 11.
efforts to abolish, 63.
unsuccessful, 66,
denounced by First Congress, 73,
resumed by individuals, 122.
Federal Gov, action, 256-260.
American or Domestic, 247-9.
in Federal District, 244.
Slavery in American Colonies, 10.
in England, 44.
distinctive features in U. S, 377.
unconstitutional, 475, 573-8, 587.
Slavery question in America, 583.
Slaveholding and traffic illegal :
Testimony of G. Sharp, 60. —
Blackstone, 28.— Wm. Pitt, 64-5.
—Lord Mansfield, 51, 63.— Dr.
Hopkins, 76. — James Madison,
84.— Mr. Scott, (M C.) of Pa,
101.— Methodist Confer, (1780)
106.— John Randolph, 244.— T.
Clarkson, 356. — Mr. Mason and
Mr. Bayly of Va, 570-2.
Slaveholding and traffic called " Man-
stealing," "robbery," or "theft,"
by Bishop Porteus and Richard
Baxter, 27— John Wesley, 27-8
— Grotius, Dr. Jonathan Edwards,
and Charles James Fox, 28 —
Macknight and Scott, (Commen
tators) 29 — Abraham Booth, 30
—Presb. Ch, U. S, (from 1794 till
1816) 107-8— Philadelphia year
ly meeting of Friends, 35-6-
Slaveholding Missionaries — Am. Board,
J. Wilson, Africa, 203 — Baptists,
Mr. Bushy head, Cherokees, 187 —
Mr. Davenport, Siam, 187 — Mr.
Tryon, Texas, 188 — Twenty-six
employed by Am. Baptist Home
Miss. Soe, 188— J. Finch, 206.
Slidell, Mr, Minister to Mexico, 297.
Sloat, Commodore, 300.
Smith, P. F, (Presb. Gen. Assemb.) 160.
Smith, Ethan, Rev, 217.
Smith, Gerrit, 405, 463, 513, 556.
Smith, E, Rev, (Wesleyan) 492.
Smith, Lionel, Sir, 373.
Smylie, James, Rev, 199.
Smylie, Mr, (M. C.) 260.

GENERAL INDEX.

603

Smythe, Alexander, Gen, 332.
Societies, voluntary, 202.
Somerset, James, (siave case) 49.
Somers, C. G, Rev, 494.
Soule, Bishop, 147.
Southampton Insurrection, 392, 588.
South Carolina, Colonial slavery, 22.
decrease of slaves, (1790) 106.
African Slave trade, 122.
Nullification, 338.
demands, 413.
Ann. Conf. Meth, 148.
Synod, Presb, 381.
»S. W. Chr. Adv." 199.
Sparks, Jared, Pres, 172.
Spencer, John 0, 674.
Spooner, Lysander, 22, 25, 476.
Spring, Gardner, D.D, 155, 218,351,412.
Stanley, Mr, of N. C, 321.
Stanley, Mr, Colonial Sec. (Eng.), 371.
Stapylton, Mr, 48.
State Governments, on Slavery, 339.
State Constitutions (1776) vs. Slav, 573.
Stewart, Mr. (IU.), 153.
Stewart, Alvan, 463, 469, 471,476, 556.
Stiles, Ezra, Pres , 96.
Storrs, George, 438.
Storrs, C. B, Pres, 895.
Story, Judge, 576.
Stowe, Baron, Rev, 497-8, 504.
Strong, Jonathan (slave), 46.
Stroud, Judge, 11, 12, 22, 23, 25.
Sturge, Joseph (Eng.), 360.
Stuart, Charles, 360.
Stuart, Moses, Prof, 166, 172.
Suffield,Lord, 371.
Suffrage, Universal, vs. Slavery, 461-2.
Sullivan, Wm, Hon, 409.
Sunderland, La Roy, Rev, 412, 42,8 434,
- 490.
Supreme Court U. S, 19, 256, 574.
Swedenborgians, 548, 553.
Synod, Presb. Kentucky, 152, 199.
Cincinnati, 166.
Philadelphia, 429.
S. Carolina and Georgia, 381.
Tammany Hall Meeting, riotous, 395.
Tappan, Arthur, 392, 395-6, 410, 463.
Tappan, Lewis, 392, 396, 434, 463, 511.
Tariff, 322, 336-8.
Taylor, Zachary, Gen, 270, 299, 302,
308-9, 317.
Taylor, Nathl. W, D.D, 473.
Tennessee, admission of, 235.
Bap. Miss. Asso, 501.
Territories U. S, 238.
Texas, acquisition of, 272-79.

Thome, James A, Rev, 395.
Thompson, Judge, 255.
Thompson, Waddy, Hon, 289, 300-1.
Thompson, George (Missionary), 440.
Thompson, George (M.P.), 360.
Thomson, Andrew, Dr., 359.
Thornton, Pres, 147.
Todd, Francis, 391.
Torrey, Charles T, Rev, 442.
Tracy, Uriah, Hon, 97.
Tracy, Joseph, Rev, 182, 402.
Trefusis, Capt, 367.
Treat, S. B, Sec. Am. Board, 204.
Triennial Conv. Bap. (see Baptists.)
Tripoli, war, 282.
Trist. Mr, 304-5.
Turner, Nat, insurrection, 392.
Tyler, Bennett, D.D, 176.
Tyler-, John, Pres, 275, 289, 295-6, 520.
Unconstitutionality of Slavery, 475,
573-8, 587.
Union of the Colonies (1774), 72.
Unitarians, 196, 648, 551.
Universalists, 196, 548, 553.
U. S. Mail, rifled, 411.
U. S. forces vs. slave insurrection, 558.
U. S. Bank, 327, 336.
U. S. Supreme Court, 19, 266, 574.
Upshur, Judge, 274, 295.
Utah, 317.
Van Buren, Martin, Pres, 276, 278, 292,
321, 422, 478, 479-80.
" Vesuvius capped," 157.
" Vermont Chronicle," 182, 402.
Victoria, Queen, 218, 373.
Virginia, early character, 19-20.
Colonial Slavery, 19.
Conv. (1774), 71 ; action, 75, 110.
Abolition Society, 96.
Revised Code, 381.
demands on North, 414.
Colonization Scheme, 342.
Bap. Asso. 493.
Friends' Yearly Meeting, 38.
Voluntary Societies, The, 202.
Walker, Mr. (Wis.), 308.
Walker, Jona, Capt, 439.
Walker, J. B. Rev, 492.
Walworth, R. H, ChanceUor, 203, 345,
396.
Warburton, Bishop, 27.
War, Revolution, effects, 123.
of 1812, Brit, 331.
Mexican, 287.
Ward, Samuel R, 556.

604

GENERAL INDEX.

Washington, George, Gen, 70, 72, 74, 81.
231, 236.
Washington, Madison (col'd), 254.
" Washington Union, The," 303.
Washington, Judge, 342, 344.
Watson's Theol. Inst, 149.
Waugh, Bishop, 429.
Wayland, Francis, Pres, 187, 505.
Webster, Dan'l, Hon, 229, 254, 301, 307,
339, 478, 584.
Welch, B. T, D.D, 604.
Wesley, John, 14, 27, 60.
Wesleyan Meth. Church, 150.
Meth. Conf. (Eng), 427.
West Indies, Abohtion, 353.
Colonial Leg, 357.
EngUsh Missionaries, 362.
Slaveholders, violence, 362-4.
Wesleyan Chap, destroyed, 366.
White, Bishop, 194.
Whitefield, George, Rev, 14-15.
Whitney's Cotton Gin, 132.
Whittier, John G, 396.
Wilberforce, WiUiam, 57-62, 355-361,
393.
William III, statute of, 8.
William IV, 59, 361.
William and Mary, Univer. (Va.), 104.
WiUiams, R. G, 105, 413-14.

Williams, Judge (Ct.), 203, 208.
Wilson, Dr., Rev, 492.
Wilson, James (Pa.), 84.
Wilson, Mr, Missionary, 203, 35L
" Wilmot Proviso," 304.
Wisconsin Ter, 244.
Wise, Henry A.(Va.), 288,412.
Witherspoon, Thos. S, D.D, 44, 155.
Wives, bought in Va, 19.
Woolman, John, 41.
Woodbridge (N. J.) Anti-Slavery Meet
ing, (1783), 94.
Woods, Leonard, D.D, 172, 203, 208,
351.
Woods, Leonard, Jr., 409.
" Woman Question, The," 454, 462, 518.
Work, Alanson, 440.
World's A. S. Conv, 517.
Wright, Theo. S, 511.
Wright, Elizur, Jr., 395, 461.
Wright, Henry C, 639.
Ximines, Cardinal, 5.
Yates, Mr, of N. Y. (Congress), 83.
York and Talbot (Eng.), 45-6, 52.
" Zion's Watchman," 428
Zong, Ship, (slaver), 55.

605

APPENDIX.

In Chap. XLV., page 537, allusion is made to the position of Rev. Sam
uel J. May, at the Convention at Buffalo in 1848, that nominated Martin
Van Buren. The Author, having understood that Mr. May did not con
sider his position correctly represented, addressed to him a letter, and has
received an answer, containing his explanation, in substance, as follows : —
" I have never," says Mr. M., " done much to aid the Liberty party or
the Free Soil party, as such, though I have attended their meetings when
they have been held in Syracuse, and in the neighborhood, and have taken
part in their proceedings so far as they have seemed to be tending to elevate
and quicken the Anti-Slavery sentiment of the people. But I have thought
it wiser whenever Abolitionists voted, so to direct their attention, at the polls,
as to ensure the election of the most Anti- Slavery man that either of the
parties could be induced to put in nomination. Much was effected by this
course in Massachusetts," &c.
Mr. M. proceeds to sav that, on the eve of the Buffalo Convention, he
" felt the mighty stir ofthe people" — " threw himself into the current, was
borne along to Buffalo," and attended the great meeting in the tent ; where,
on invitation, he offered prayer " for the immediate and unconditional eman
cipation of all the enslaved," and also " addressed them, in a speech of ten
or fifteen minutes, that was as purely Anti-Slavery, of the Garrison stamp,
as he was able to frame." When he learned " that Martin Van Buren was
to be nominated, he remonstrated," and when he " found it was inevitable,"
he " left the mass meeting, unwilling to be present." The nomination and
the Platform had been determined upon by a separate meeting of a few hun
dred men in a church, not far from the tent, but were afterwards " ratified
by those in the tent, who had no power to alter or amend any of the doings
of the Convention proper." At the election, he " voted openly for Gerrit
Smith, as the most emphatic testimony he could give against the action of
the Buffalo Convention." And. recently, he voted for John P. Hale. Mr.
M. also states that, after the Buffalo Convention, he denied, in the Anti-

606 APPENDIX.
Slavery papers, the statement that had been made, that he " gave his hand,
heart, and voice, to the measures adopted."
It was on this statement of the papers that we relied, in writing the His
tory, not having observed the correction of it. The sentence we have
italicized confirms our account of the general policy of the Garrison Abo
litionists in respect to political action. The reader will judge whether or no
the policy avowed by Mr. M. would not naturally result in the support of
Mr. Van Buren and the Buffalo Platform, in preference to the previous
course and nominees of the Liberty Party, though Mr. May declined giving
his maxim that particular application, as he was reported to have done.

The editor of the Pennsylvania Freeman complained that injustice had
been done, in the History, to the friends of Mr. Garrison. But on inquiry,
he failed to specify any mis-statements, and only complained of omissions —
such as the following : — (1.) That the Boston rally of Garrisonians, to at
tend the Annual Meeting at New York, in 1840, was occasioned by an
attempted rally by the New York Committee. (2.) That some of the
women who came with Mr. Garrison voted on the other side. (3.) That
the transfer of the Emancipator was " only three weeks " before the An
nual Meeting and division, whereas the History had stated it as being " a
short time before the division !" (4.) That Lewis Tappan, in a letter to a
friend in England, had acknowledged that the transfer was made to prevent
the paper from going into the hands of Mr. Garrison and his friends. Our
apology for the omission of these facts (if they are facts) is our ignorance
of them. We readily give them, as being the statements of Mr. Oliver
Johnson, with the additional remark that, excepting the third item (which
seems to us a frivolous correction) we find the statements to be disputed
ones.

Some friends of the " New Organization " think we have been partial
towards Mr. Garrison and his friends. Our aim has been to be impartial.
We must be permitted to see with our own eyes, and our readers must do
the same. We may add that the criticisms on our book, thus far, have not
successfully disproved our impartiality, but, on the contrary, have confirmed
our general view.