Book.-*— l1- SLAVERY AND ANTI-SLAVERY; A HISTORY OF THE GREAT STRUGGLE IN BOTH HEMISPHERES; WITH A VIEW OF THE SLAVERY QUESTION UNITED STATES. BY WILLIAM '60ODELL, AUTHOR OF "THE DEYOCRACY OF CHEISTIASIIY." THIRD EDITION. NEW-YORK : WILLIAM GOODELL, 4S BEEKMAX-STREET 1855. ' ' 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. C. A. ALVOP.D, PRINTER, 29 Gold-st., N. Y. J. P. JONES & CO., STEREOTTrERS, 183 William-street, N. Y. \\ If 4\ CONTENTS CHAPTER I. page. s Magnitude and necessity of the struggle. J CHAPTER II. Origin of the modern Slave Trade and Slavery 1 CHAPTER III. v Slavery and the Slave Trade in the British Colonies in North America, now the United States 1° CHAPTER IV. 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 VII. Of efforts for abolishing the African Slave Trade 53 CHAPTER VIII. Period of the American Revolution, and the establishment of an inde- pendent Government 69 CHAPTER IX. Era of forming the Federal Constitution 81 1-V CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. pace. 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 91 CHAPTER XI. Decline of the spirit of Liberty, and growth of Slavery, since the Re- volution ; their causes and early manifestations 118 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, &c. (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 2 17 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 — Ilayti — 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 310 CHAPTER XXIX. Colonization Society 311 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 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. n 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 541 CHAPTER XLVII. General estimate of the American Anti-Slavery Society and its labors, since 1840 '. 555 CONTENTS. Vil CHAPTER XLVIII. PA e«. 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 question in America — and the Crisis — What shall be done 1 533 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 four 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 Afiican 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, and five or six more in addition, of equal magnitude and importance, in a volume of six hundred pages, they would think him u«- pardonably diffuse ; and the farther this condensing process was carried, in one volume, the more would he fall under censure for diftuseness. 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 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. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. CHAPTER I. MAGNITUDE AND NECESSITY OF 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, and 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 2 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 fall 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 libert} 7 , 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 Runny 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 Russian serfs, — above all, the North AnWrican 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 ? IIow 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 CHAPTER II. 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 II. — Prohibition of Violence — Barbarity of the Traffic — Statistics — Imports into Jamaica. " la 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' 1 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 andf 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 Oasas, 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 Chievres and the Flemi ft 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 colonics." In 1511, Ferdinand V. 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 V. of Spain, he steadily refused to allow such a detestable commerce. Vide Godwin, p. 181. It was in 1517 that Charles V., (who was sovereign of Ger- manjr, and of the Netherlands,) granted the exclusive patent before mentioned, to one or more of the Flemish nobilit}', to import four thousand Africans annually, for the supply of Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica, and Porto Iiico. " 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 1512, 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 retiredlnto 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. 1S5. See ■ also Clarkson's History, pp. 28, 29. The slave trade was prosecuted by the Portuguese, the * Robertson, in his History of America, takes up and somewhat exaggerates this statement, on the authority of Herrerd, an enemy of Las Casas, whose charge was first published 35 years after the philanthropist's decease. The previous writers make no mention of Las Casus in Boch a connection, though avowedly his •enemies. The writings of Las Casas abound in denunciations against slavery ; and from the language of Ilerrera himself, it would not conclusively appear that Las Casas designed to have the Africans imported by compulsion, or held as slaves. — Vide the Abbe Gregoire's Defence of Las Casas, approved by James Montgomery in a note to his poem, u TIic West Indies.' 1 ' 1 See also Stuart's Memoir of Sharp, page 29 ; and preface to Clarlcson's 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. :t 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 ail who encourage it.' That the 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' 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 (acts 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, but for the ignorance of those in authority concerning it." And he affirms that the " 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 II., 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 bo [-resented in the proper place. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 9 Thus stealthily and almost imperceptibly was the idea of legalized human chattclhood 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 lion. 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.f 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 30, 1848. + It has not ceased. It rages with violence still, as will be showu in another chapter. 10 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN" CHAPTER III. 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 cast. But in the importation of slaves for the southern colonics, 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 Rhode 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 1S08. 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. f\ 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 by 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 could 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 be sued for it on behalf of the slave by his next friend. — Reeve's Law of Baron and Femme, &c, 340-1 ; 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 be punished for a breach 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 Winchendon vs. Hatfield, Mass. Rep., 127-8, cited by Stroud, p. 23. In Massachusetts colony, in 1641, the following law w r as 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 be lawful captives taken in just u-ar, (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 slavery 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 law was made, prohibiting the buying and selling of the 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. — \FeWs 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 stealcth a man or mankinde, 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 shall surely be 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 the late John Farmer, Esq., and published in the " Montldy Emancipator '," for August, 1S35.] In all this we see the stealthy and deceptive introduction of chattel slavery. The early laws did not authorize, but prohibited such 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 bis 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 amonsr 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 ISth 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 ns, 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 ago, 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 Ilolden, treasurer; Hugh Bewett, general sergeant. " The commissioners were from Providence — Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, Richard Waterman, Thomas-Harris, William Wickcndcn, and Hugh Bewett; from Warwick— Samuel Gorton, John Wickes, John Smith, Randal Ilolden, John Green, jr., and Ezckiel 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 country, 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 Jerse} r , 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 important * 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 originating farther South. 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 he 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 bad as though they ucrc brutes, 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 fill 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 I 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 weightv 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. Wo 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 Revolution, 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 denning 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 Oarolinas, and Georgia, as veil as of Pennsylvania and the New England colonies, were essentially alike in this particular. — Spdoner, p. 24. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 10 during their continuance, and the general authority of the common law, prior to the Revolution, have been recognized by the Supreme Court of the 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." — lb. 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." — lb. 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." — lb. 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 CrancVs V. S. Beports, 332-3, as quoted in " The Unconstitutionaliti/ of Slavery, bp Lysander Spooner" pp. 25-G. 20 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN" rnenced 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 of forced servitude: no, not even in Vir- ginia!* J 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." — Willsoii'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- V * 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 against the government. God keep us from both I" This must have been since the year 1660, 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 schools 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 lceep us from loth /" SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 21 clared it to be not only immoral, bat contrary to the laws of England"— Wilkon's Am. Hist, p. 262. Unhappily — " Most of those who first came over were unaccustomed to habits of labor. 1 ' (lb. 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 be evaded, and the laws against shivery 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 Bum equal to the value of the 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 Cranharn 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 slacery 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 by Martin). — Spooncr 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 all negroes, Indians, 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 I " 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, M—Willsori's History, <3fc. The " earliest law " of Maryland, noticed by Judge Stroud, denning 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 Ration, do intermarry with negro slaves; by which, also, divers suits may Irise, touching the issue of such women, and great damage doth befall thejnaster of such negroes," &c. J 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 of the Slave Laws, p. 10. This last provision was a departure from the prevalent maxim of the slave code, that the child follows the condition BL4VEEY 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 1 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 (chapj'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 ventreni 1 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 slavehohding obtained in the principal slave colonies, for long periods, and, in one instance, up to the period of the Ameri- can Revolution, 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 } 7 ears; 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 the inquiry, Who were, legally, slaves, but also on the question, What was the slavery under which they were thus legally held, and When was it, that that slavery, as thus legislatively defined, became legalized ? For, if it were 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 the same name. The South Carolina enactment of 1740, and the Georgia enactment of 1770, would tell us, distinctly enough, what was the slavery of those colonies at those periods : but they could not tell us whether the slavery legalized in those 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 periods, then for one hundred years — then buying, then importing them, and thus the whole system was changed. When we are told of the inherited, imprescriptible, time- sanctioned, and guarantied rights of the present American slaveholder, it becomes a matter of the deepest interest to learn, if we may, the origin, the date, the tenure, and the description of those rights, as originally defined. Between the right to import Africans into the colonies, with " their own free consent" in the times of Queen Elizabeth or James L, 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 1650, 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 Eevolution, 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 CHAPTEB IV. EARLY TESTIMONIES AGAINST SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. The Dominicans in Spanish America, as related by Clarlcson, " 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 1512. 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 llorsley 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 natirfe, 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?" 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, notwitbstanding 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. Price, 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'?" — 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 1 O 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. onJsa.,58 : G. 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 tbe 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 Beattie 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 orcier 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, thai God is just ; that his justice cannot sleep forever." — Notes on Virginia. John Jay said : " Till America comes into this measure'' 1 (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, tlie 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."' Button 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 : " 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 Ave quoted the more modern writers on the subject, nor many of the American statesmen during and since the Revo- 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. 82 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHAPTER 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, &c. 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 of the 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, tlicy should make them free."* Iii a public discourse, he said : " Let me tell you, it will doubtless be very acceptaole to 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 arc made free, let them not go away empty handed. "f "William Edmundsou, 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. — Clarlcson, 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 fault}' 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 17-27. 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." — Clarksotis 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 * Clarksori 1 s History, p. 50. t Brief Statement, &c, by the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1848, page 6. 3 31 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 of the 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.' 1 '' In 1763, this action was repeated, and the cords drawn still tighter, in the following : " We renew our 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 of the 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 Societ}' 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 must of 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 1G96 the yearly meeting of Philadelphia advised its members to " be careful net tu enceurage the bringing in of any more negroes, and that those who have negroes be careful of them, bring them tu 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, er other times."*— " Brief Statement,'''' &c, p. 8. The quarterly meetings of Chester, lladdonfield, 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 175-i, 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 of living upon their unrequited labor, and beseech those who have received slaves as an inheritance that they so train them * "William Penn, while Governor, in 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 enacte 1. but disannulled by the Kritish Crown. — lb., p. 11. 36 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN as to prepare tliem for freedom, if they should hereafter set them at liberty. — Clarhson'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 the term limited by law or custom (;'. e., for white persons), were directed to be excluded from membership, or disowned." — Clarksori'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." — lb. 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 1813, 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 which, by the Mosaic law, was punished with death : ' He that stealcth a man, and selleth him, or if Tie le found in lis land, he shall surely be put to death.'— Ex. 21 : 16."— Brief Statement, sec p. 18. So that the ecclesiastical testimony of the " Friends"— invidiously commended by 3ome for its mildness, did not reach its object, till it had identified slaveholding with man stealing. This testimony is recorded as being "supposed to have been from the pen of Anthony Benczet." 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 Rhode 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 Rhode 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 Rhode 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, suitable for freedom ?" This action was carried forward until, in 1782, the Yearly Meeting says — " We know not but all the members of tins 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. (lb.) 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 1781 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 17G8, 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 :' r 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. Lie 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. Ralph 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 denounced 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.' 1 '' 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 V On being answered in the affirmative, he said, 'Then I will not partake with thee of the 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, A 7 . Hampshire A. S. Society, ly 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. lie travelled much of the time on foot, conversing with the people, and discoursing to public assemblies. Anthony Benezet published a work against slavery in 17G2, and another in 1767. lie 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, Rhode 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 !" — Some shrieked — some fainted, and the meeting broke up in confusion. " Modern" abolitionists have been censured as too denunciatory and violent. Not ^infrequently they have been advised to take the good old Quaker abolitionists as models of mildness ! Do the advisers understand what thev are saving? 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 crueltv 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 Assembly, 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 Dr. Hopkins' Dialogue on Slavery, rc-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 CHAPTER 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 Public 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, sa} 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 ? Will Virginia set all her negroes free ? 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 GEE AT STRUGGLE BETWEEN up the money they have cost them, and to whom ? 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 of 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 — disppsed 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 Ilouse, 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, by 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 Mar}*, 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. 36. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 105 sitj 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 tliis 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 1885, 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 which 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 circulating of publications having a ten- 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 public 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 public 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 disapprohation upon all our friends who keep slaves, and they advise their freedom." — J.. 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 of man.' 1 '' Here we find another admission of the ille- gality of slavery, corresponding witli 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. Scott, of Pennsylvania. Were all these ignorant enthusiasts ? Or Las slavery become legalized since ? / SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 107 " And forty years ago" (». c. 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." — .4. , "indefinitely postponed" — "Vesuvius capped for three years"— In 1S43, censured Presbyteries that had excluded slaveholders — In 1846, declared Slavery unrighteous, but could not exclude slaveholders — In 1S49, was ignorant of any blame resting on its slavcholding members — In 1850, refused to call slavcholding " 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 of the 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, mi 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. (Ch. In., April, 184(5.) SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 153 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 "firsake." 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 thejr would not submit to the decision. They also, at an adjourned meeting, prepared a substitute for Dr. Miller's reso- 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 $94,000, were invested in the South-Western banks, in prospect of gain- ing more than 8 per cent, interest, on account of the unprecedented briskness of the domestic slave trade. For the 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 thousand 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, onco known as New School, within the bounds of the excinded Synods, in the State of New York, have transferred theii 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 tin 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 1339, 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. r ' — 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 of this opposition" (i. e. to " the proceedings and designs of the 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 the 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." — Birncfs 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. li In 1839, it referred the whole subject to the Presbyteries, to do what they might deem advisable." In 1810, 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." — lb. 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 : " Oub Vesuvius is safely capped for three years" — the Assembly not meeting again till 1843. — lb. " In 1813, 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 ca'.i Blavery a nioral evil. — Vide Letter of Pres. Blanchard and others. 158 GEE AT 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 rather " 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 Churchy The " Assembly possesses no legislative or judicial authority ;" it must, therefore, " leave it with the Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods," &c, &c. I— -Vide Ghr. 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 1889, the whole subject was referred to the Pres- byteries ; in 1813, 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 1889, 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 charters 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 Sehool General Assembly, then sitting in the same city, to unite with them in a celebration of the Lord's Supper, but the invitation was declined, 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 1819, the General Assembly, in strange forgetfulness, one would think, of the facts conceded or implied in its testi- mony of 1816, 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 1816, so far as direct action by the General Assembly is concerned. Among the propositions rejected, one, presented by " Eev. * In 1S49, overtures were sent down to the Presbyteries in favor of making the Qeneral Assemblies animal 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. L, 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 to 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 o;uilt 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 of the 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 culled slavery "unrighteous." Having failed to purge away this "unrighteousness," it must, in 1S50, be spoken of in milder terms. It is only an "evil," the " workings" of which are " deplorable." Among its " deplorable workings" should be reckoned its power to neutralize and alter the moral creed of the church. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 161 The exccjitions above specified 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 of the country. Two were excused from voting." — JV. 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 by the other body." —See JV. 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, 1351 : " The Old School branch has now //fy 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 tcalking in Christian fellowship) with slaveholders. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 163 CHAPTER XIV. POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES, ETC. CONTINUED. III. — CONGREGATIONALISTS. Connection with Presbyterians and the South — Pro-slavery Sermons — Prof. Stuart — Andover Theo. Seminary — General Association of Connecticut, 1834, 1S36, 1S40, 1845 — Rejected Resolutions compared with Resolutions Adopted — General Asso. of Massachusetts, 1834, 1837, 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 have 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 missionary 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, 1850. A similar remark would apply to schoolmasters, only that there is, perhaps, les3 SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 105 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 Easteife: 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, he 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- 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 of the 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 of the 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 ccclesia* 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.i " 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. Tltat which is, in itself, »in. 168 GEE AT 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, " Eeceive 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. 1G9 " 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'" of the relation "is the fundamental and essen- tial lorong" but the relation itself cannot claim its origin in moral right. The relation, though not founded in moral right, when " once constituted 1 " 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 " the duty 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? But, 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 Con- 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 on 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 EUEEDOH. 171 "General Assembly" forbidding them) the power of with- drawing religious co-operation and communion. Had Prof. Stuart avowed himself a Universal ist, it would have been promptly done. And the same result would have been -wit- nessed had a defence of slavery been thought as heretical 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 NeAV England. Had there been any general or earnest dissent from them, or if his intimate asso- ciates had been grieved at his 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. Kalph 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 Newhury- port, Rev. W. W. Rogers of Boston, Pres. Sparks of Harvard College (Unitarian), &c., &c. 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 dillerent times are as follows : At Vernon, in 1831. 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 of this Associa- tion, the buying and selling of human beings, and the holding them for selfish ends, by the ministers and members of our 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 of this 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 Congrcgationalists, as it certainly has among the leading ministers and editors of the Presbyterian and other denominations, by whom a strenuous effort has been made to east 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 GEE AT 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 Kesolutions, 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 of the discussions had, at the time of adopting them. We will, therefore, put them by the side of the resolutions "offered by Kev. 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. On 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 of the 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 public 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 ivithout 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 openty 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 GEE AT STRUGGLE BETWEEN slavery in practice; the former being almost universally con- demned : the latter, very extensively defended or palliated. The debates on the proposed Eesolutions of Mr. Perkins illustrate the meaning of the Eesolutions 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. Bennett 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 upon "ecclesiastical bodies "it would be difficult to indite. If the Eesolutions 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 Cod's inalienable gift to man, and ari 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 is 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 sountry ; 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 Kesolutions are similar in spirit to those presented to the American Board at Brooklyn, the same year, by Dr. Leonard Bacon of New Ilaven, 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 abases 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 of religious slaveholders at the South? Because, moreover, the third Eesolution 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 each 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 Eesolutions : " 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 sujjport 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 w r ell 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- slaver}' 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 18-19, 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 these 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 Assembty, 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 principles 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 special objects. 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. 1816. CONGREGATIONAL PUBLICATIONS. Ike 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. I " 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 ?" &c, &c. — lb. 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 of 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 Yermont 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, ive 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 OB APPROVAL, ON THOSE WHO WITHHOLD THIS ART FROM their slaves. We only say they must be educated. You must educate them. Take your own ivay to do it. 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. Soc. " 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, generally 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 18-i GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN prove, as it will not be denied. A few facts will show the general position of Southern Baptists, on the 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. 1 ' 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- 1 1 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! IIow 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 ?" 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 obedience 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, s£> that Baptist wives may have two husbands and Baptist husbands may have two wives, without being subjected to " church censure ." j The " censufi^of such churches, verily, must be of vast 186 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN benefit in rebuking the sin of adultery ! If 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 the 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 Eesolutions, 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. i<-i/ 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, ivhose instrument and act it zuas, 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 sccu- See Chapters VIII. and IX. 224 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN ritj 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 which 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 " " " 1797 to 1801. Thomas Jefferson u " " 1801 to 1809. James Madison " " " 1809 to 1817. James Monroe " " " 1817 to 1825. John Quincy Adams " " " 1825 to 1829. Andrew Jackson " " " 1829 to 1837. Martin Van Buren " " " 1837 to 1841. William H. Harrison, and / ,, ,, 1GM , 10 i- ' 1841 to 184o. John lyler ) James K. Polk " " " 1845 to 1849. Zachary Taylor " " 1849 to July 9, 1850. Millard Fillmore " " (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 of the members of Congress, nevertheless failed of securing their object. A somewhat favorable Report was made by the * Washington was inaugurated April 30th; his successors (except Tyler and Fillmore), March 4th. Harrison survived his inauguration but ono 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 the 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 Keport 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 ivfis led, for the first time, to give its direct sanction to slavery. — (lb.) * 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 Eepresentatives of the Uni- ted States, February 23, 1819. 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. , " I. Shivery 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 the Potomac, ceded by Virginia, has recently been retro ceded buck 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 Stales. 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 of 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 the condition of slaves, but of free persons. "On motion of Mr. Randolph, the word 'servitude' was struck out, and ' service 1 unanimously inserted — the former being thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter the obligation of free persons.' 1 '' — 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 ?" But unless the above clause does mean " servitude"' and not " service," it cannot mean fugitive slaves ! 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 lion. 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 1644, in which the latter is requested to return some fugitive " lervants," 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 persons were lound apprentices in Massachusetts, some of whom would run away. They were ;is 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 entirely 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 a 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 11 slaves'" in Virginia in 1644, when Gov. Berkeley requested the return of some " servants.' 1 ' 1 — See Chapter II. * These papers were at the time circulated among the people in the public jour- nals, and were afterwards collected into a volume. t Madison Papers, Vol. III., pp. 1429-30. 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, and 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, f 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.* "*s Yery possibly it may have been in consequence of some * The particulars, which went the rounds of the papers a few years since, were taken from the lips of the aged woman herself, who was then living in New Hamp- shire. 232 GKEAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN cases of t]iis 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 the people against such arts ! t See Jay's View of the action of the Federal Government in behalf of Slavery, p. 30. Since penning the above paragraph, the testimony of an aged and prominent citizen has thrown further light on this subject. An "immense meeting" of citizens of Boston, for repudiating the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, was held i'i Faneuil Hall, October 14, of the same year. The "call" to this meeting was headed by the venerable Josiaii Quincy, 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 him, 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, 1 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 the 'principle of the compact, as they understood it, when they acceded to the Constitu- tion of the United States.''' 1 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, lie " 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 escaped ! 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 Virginia 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 &]\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 ! " — lb., p. 36. And yet, on hearing this Eeport, 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/ The proceeds of the sale remain in his pocket, after the sale, unless the master of the person arrested appears, and claims the balance. — See Jay's Vieiv, 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 statement of Judge Cranch, and more than one thousand citizens of the District, who say, 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 ! And they narrate a particular instance. — See Sunderland's Anti-Slavery Manual, p. 93. 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 color. Any attempt, in that direction, would have been abortive. In the forming of the Articles of Confederation, in 1778, the proposal to introduce the word M 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. 21. " 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.' " — lb. 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 citizen? into slavery, for the payment of the expenses of their unwarrantable imprisonment ! 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 236 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN further violated by the introduction of caste, and 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 oivn 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 rememher 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, the retirement of Washington was hailed as a national deliverance. On the other hand, the zealous partizaus of Washington and Adams regarded the elevation of Jefferson as a great public calamity, preached ser- mons to prevent it, and fasted and lamented when it took place. We have no 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" (1830)— 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. I 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. v ; 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. — lb. 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.''' 1 — 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 !" 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 adoj)tion 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 alh 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, U. 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 ;f the * This was at a cost to the nation of fifteen millions of dollars. + 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. Bv 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, 1336, 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, 184S, 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." — lb. 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 179S, comprised only a region of country ceded by South Carolina, but was 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 tbo two quotations. 1G 242 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN ality of that measure, and the consequent poiver 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 Jefferson City, Mo., May 26, 18-49, in New York Evening Post, June 14, 1849. The Federal Government, then, in establishing and foster- ing slavery in the Territories, has done so ivith the full Jcnoiu- 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 the 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 Staies>- 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 mnlattoes" 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 214 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN some periods, tlie 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 this 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 Kandolph, 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 Repub- lic that will plead for the emancipation of the District of Columbia?" Merchants of large capital engaged in the lucrative busi- ness, with their 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, Win. H. Williams, George Hephart, William H. Richards, &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 system. Henry Clay, in liia famous speeoh in the U. S. Senate, in 1839, declared the traffic 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 virtus of authority delegated by Congress," and he cites his authority. " The 2-19th 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 piracy, 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 more demoralizing in its influence. 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. Reuben 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 CHAPTER 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 1837— Mississippi Imports —Northern losses by Southern bankruptcy— Funds of the Prcsb. 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 Storv^ 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" — U. S. Constitution, Art. L, Sect. 8, Clause 3.* * The legislative acts of some of the slave States, prohibiting, from considerations of local policy, 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 tho 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,^e'll supplied with iron thumb-screws and gags, and ornamented with cou-ffljfm. and other whips, oftentimes bloody." — Niles'' Register, Vol. XXXV., pf^.> " According to New Orleans papers, there were imported into Vhat port during the week commencing on the 16th ult., from all ports of the United States, .'!71 slaves, principally from Virginia." — lb., Oct. x^fel^ill. "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. Soc, 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 numJflr of slaves exported from Virginia within the last twelve months at 120,000, each slave averaging SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 249 at least $600 — making au aggregate of ^72,000,000. Of the number of slaves exported, not more than oue-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. Soc, 1837. Iii January, 18-10, a correspondent of the U. 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. "f — A. S. Almanac, 1816. * 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-face merchants and bankers of Philadelphia and New York, for whieh 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, and such 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 of the Presbyterian Church found, to their cost. [See next note.] t 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 bankruptcy, in which all concerned, except the skive 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 millions, 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 the several /States," which, by the Constitution of the United States, " Congress shall have 'power to regulate. 1 ' 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 hrigs 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" 1 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 of the debates on slavery in the Virginia Legislature, 183 l-'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-breaking Hackensack Bridge Company, N. J.), were invested in the South- western batiks engage J 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 $6S,893 88. The documentary state- ments may be found in the A. S. Almanac, New York, 1846. It turns out that this "successful operation" "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 reported their doings in this matter, to the great edifica- tion of that body, who must have felt a double interest in the 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! Thus rapidly, upon the heels of recreancy, tro Jo retribution ! 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 marcs to their product, and of the owner of female slaves to their increase ;" and added, M the legal maxim of 1 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 afi address before tho Kentucky Colonization Society. After showing that when the option ex- isted of employing free or slave labor, the first was the most profitable, he remarked — " It is believed that nowhere in the 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 of the 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 GEEAT 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 the port of destination /" — See Jay's View, p. 90-91. Without this "permit" " o.uthorizing" 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 oftheactof 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 183-4, 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 2^essing 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 u possibly tend to disturb and weaken the kind and amicable rela- tions now so happily subsisting between the two countries. 11 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. &c. — See Jay's Vieio, p. 53-63. 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' 1 '' 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 sokd 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. - *y 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 Mcndi, 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. When 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, 1810. 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 GKEAT 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, 18-10. 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 181-1, 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 Noursc. Register of the Treasury, that the Department contained do records of any forfeitures under the Act of 1807 abolishing the slave trade ! 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 1821, 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.' 1 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 the laivs 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 Governmout e. mutual right of search to detect slavers, with slaves actually on board, and a positive- refusal to this proposal had been returned. 17 258 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 teas 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 inducer ity 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 Edin- 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, ivith other nations for the suppression of this trade." — Jay's Vieiv, 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 182-4, but rejected by the United States Senate. — lb. 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,— lb. 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. u 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 ! 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 1 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. — IngersolVs Abridgment, 670. Stroud,"!^. 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. For 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 Jiome." Old Mr. Smylie answered him : " The gentleman from Virginia says he will not trust Congress, and talks of the Southern States seceding from the Union. If they do not like the Union, let them say so. In the name of God, let them go ; we can do witTvout them." Thia answer somewhat cooled Mr. Raudolph. " lie complained that he had been 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 andliis 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 of the territory, to be afterwards disposed of as the legislature should think proper!'' — Stroud, pp. 159 — 102. 1 Mar- tin's Digest, 664:. ".North Carolina and Georgia, respectively, adopted a similar law, the former in 1816. — Ilayward's 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 ; IngersoWs 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 kick 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 priuted 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 1 of Alabama, Jan. 1, 1823, passed "an act to carry into effect the laws of the 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 Toulmarfs 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 and 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 oft''. 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 had absconded to the ves- sels of Britain. The application of the treaty to the 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 just 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. lie 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 the 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 signincancy 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 them to see a ivar of inva- sion prosecuted in a desolating manner, and ONE RACE of the in- habitants combating against another.' 1 " 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 the 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 Eico 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. Yan 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 tlirow off the yoke of Spanish dependence." — Jaifs View, p. 120-127. 268 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHAPTER XXIII. 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 slaves — 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, thousrh 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. — lb. 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, f were stated in a secret session of the House of Eepresentatives, on the subject of the treaty, in 1819. The treaty of purchase (at die national expense, Jive 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, and the country afforded facilities for the secretion of fugitives, or their subsistence in retreats of difficult access, and among Indians. t Quarterly A. 8. Mag., Jan., 1836, 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. II., 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 Suites. 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 XXIV. 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 1326— 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., 1836, 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 1821, 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 decree had gone forth. The settlers wanted the unrestricted ' * Jay's Mexican War, p. 12. t lb. X Quarterly A. S. Mag., Jan., 1S35, p. 193. 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, chap. 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. Eecruits 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 1S38, 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 Coahuila, 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 citizens 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. X 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. \ 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, hud 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 lauded. 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. — Jag'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 I 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 18-12 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, 1811, and it was not until March 1st, 1815, 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, 1344, 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 2'exas." 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 be a part of this Union. The Southern States, owning a slave population, were deeply interested in preventing that country from having the power to annoy them." On the 19th of February, 1347, General Houston, under whose directions the treaty between Texas and Mexico had been negotiated, declared, in the Senate, "England never proposed the subject of slavery or of abo- lition, 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. Win. 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. ^Ve 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 the 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, 1801, 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 * Wil'Uon's American History, p. 443. The votes were given only for a President, and after electing 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 Eoyal 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 conspirac}r, 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 Englander 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 * Willsori's simerican History, pp. 444-5. t Liberty Bell, p. 33. 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 ivas to be estab- lished, with New Orleans for its capital, and extending, if p>ossible, 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.' 1 '' 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 this indictment, by any evidence submitted to us. We, therefore, find him not guilty." Exceptions were taken to this verdict, that it was unusual, and that it seemed to "censure the Court for suppressing irrelevant testimony.''' 1 The Jurors, however, "would not agree to alter it" "The Court then decided that the verdict should remain as fovmd 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 public 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 suspicious, 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 the 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 II. Oravford, at the South, during the Presidential canvass of 182-i. 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 266 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 fee 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 1S07 — 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 since 1836 — Unreasonable and fraudulent claims of our Government — Insolent demands — Territory wanted, not money — Naval armament — Com. Jones — His Annexation of California by proclamation, in 18-11 — 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, 1346 — 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 the 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 arid 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 the Mexican capital." " Let the work once begin" (said Mr. Wise), " and I do not know as this house would hold me very long. Give me five millions of dollars, and I would undertake to do it myself" — "i would place California where all the powers of Great Britain would never be able to reach it. Slavery should pour itself abroad, AND FIND NO LIMIT BUT THE SOUTHERN OCEAN." " War is a curse, but 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. But the effort to get into a war with Mexico was of a still earlier 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 iveeks, or announce that, unless satisfac- tion was made without unnecessary delay, his further 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 tveeks, 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 ! 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 ! 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 weelcs ! 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 Roenne. 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, 3,836,837 Thus reducing the amount to . . $8,513,741 Referred to Umpire, and undecided by him for want of time, 928,627 Amount of Claims adjudicated, . . $7,585,114 Rejected by Commissioners and Umpire, . 5,568,975 Allowed " " " . *2,016,139 * See Jay's Mexican War, p. 70. The bottom line (allowed) is there stated 294 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN Just look at it ! Our government had been demanding of 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 half 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 time, were to sit in Mexico, and Mexican citizens 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 Senate 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- 2,026,230, which does not agree with the arithmetical subtraction, owing probably to a misprint. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 295 eminent to do all that could reasonably be asked at its bands. And this is the sura 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 the 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. lie had brought with him, either from the United States or from Callao, a supply of 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. lie 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 of the character of these claims as we proceed. 296 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN merit 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, in 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 an 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 tlie claims and Jive 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- 29S 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 Rio 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, 1 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 Eio 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. 1 ' 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, j 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 land, 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 zoith Mexico. These orders were now carried into effect, possession i 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, Sam Francisco was also in our possession. All this in less than I two months after the declaration of war by Congress, plainly showing that the conquest of California had been determined i 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 1843, under the administration of Mr. Tyler, to get possession of California, and to provoke SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 301 Mexico into a war for that purpose.* lie 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 the Republic of Mexico \fiad made war against the United States"-f Mr. C. J. Ingersol, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 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 io throw the blame of the war and its continuance upon Mex- ico, because she refused to sell us her provinces, which, says ie, " 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 oo/"§ 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 i.ime previous, adventured the extraordinary assertion, that ( ( the war has not been waged with a view to conquest." In ;?cho 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 he extension of slavery. Henry Clay, in a speech in Ken- tucky, declared that the bill of Congress, of May 11, 1846, 1 attributing the commencement of the war to the act of Mexico," was "a bill with a palpable falsehood stamped [m its face."j| A new House of Representatives, "fresh from he people," elected after the declaration of May 11, 1S46, ,' Resolved," in the December following, "that the war was •ainecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the r— . I * Jay's Mexican War, pp. 108-9. t lb., p. 161. % lb., p. 164. . S Jay 8 Mexico, p. 164. App. to Cong. Globe, 1347, p. 125. \ 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 TJ. 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 Review 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 of the 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 shame/idly abused by our own people.' 1 '' When such testimonies come from sucli 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: " Ou 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 th( money was not promptly raised, the commander woulc " immediately proceed to collect, from the wealthier inhabitant (other than neutral friends) within his reach, the amount of tin assessment due from the State." And this was according t< * Jay's Mexico, p. 254. + lb., pp. 246-7. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 303 . instructions from Pres. Polk, without the authority of Con- gross. 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 I 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 i 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 i war, Mr. Polk turned his thoughts on peace. For this pur- pose, Aug. 8, 18-46, 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. Returning 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 THEKEKKOM, I COllld 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 XXVII. FURTHER ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — RESULT OF 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 Thoma9 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 Congress — 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 each 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 the 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 the 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 tLis 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.f 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 it4 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 Era, Dec. 14, 1848. t lb., Jan. 25 and Feb. 1, 1849. \ lb., Feb. 22, 1849. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 309 Mexico cast of the Rio 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. u Kon 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 Era, March 1 and 8. It is proper to add that only seven senators from the tree States voted in the affirmative, viz : Messrs. Dickinson of N. York, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas of Illinois, Fitzgerald of Michigan, Ilaunegan of Indiana, Sturgeon of Pennsylvania, and Walker of Wisconsin. Mr. Hannegan was immediately appointed by Prcs. Folk, Minister to Berlin (one of the la.«t 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 inauguration, in favor of Walker's amendment, thus showing the united sympathy of the two slaveholding Presidents with that measure, as a substitute for the 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 which it was maintained that as soon as California should present herself with a Constitution, asking admission, Congress tr-ovld have no right and no pretense to interfere in. the slave question. — See iV. 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. 311 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 1 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. lie 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 the 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 Era, 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 by opposite classes of citizens, first at the North, and afterwards at the South. X See N. Y. Weekly Evening Post, Nov. 15, 1840. § National Era, 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 cxist.f 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 of the 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 Era, Aug. 7, 18-49. t Alta California of July 26, copied into N. Y. Weekly Evening- Post of Sept. 20, 1849. X Witness the .V. Y. Weelly Evening rost, 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 ! 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 Era of Aug. 16, 1849. + 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 Bafety of California will be secured in the liberation of the whole country. 316 GEE AT STRUGGLE BETWEEN had supported Gen. Cass, under the motto of " non-interven- tion," could make no show of self-consistencj r , 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. Piley, 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. JS. The establish- ment of territorial governments without the Wilmot proviso, for New Mexico and Utah. -i. 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. This 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 are 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 II. 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. 3, 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, 6ir !— four inside passengers. There was two outside passengers, SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 319 CHAPTER XXVIII. FURTHER ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — GENERAL i 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 I 1819-20— Southern bankruptcy of 1S24— Cotton Speculations of 1826 and 1837— ■ Bankruptcy of U. 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 la 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 worse 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, 6ir !' " 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 of 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 political 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 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, Air. Calhoun laid bare his own heart, and the settled policy of the oligarchy of slaveholders. The free North must be shorn of her oivn natural strength, when needful, that slavery may preserve Im- 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 undeviatinp: 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 Buren ; 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 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 natiorral 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., See. 2, Clauses. 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 the 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 the 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 clause of 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 a 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, 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 navj r , 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 " or passports. It was notorious that many thousands of British seamen were thus certified to be Americans. This matter tvas 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 nnder 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 eifecting 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 the 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 *S7 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 Parliaments-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 Dukes4 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. J Copley's History of Slavery, %\\. 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 Kev. 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."! — Copley' 's Histoiy, 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, iu 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 end 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 On inquiry, since writing the above, we have been told, on authority of .John Scoble, of London, that the pamphlet here attributed to Miss Hope was written by Elizabeth Heyrick (or rather Hcrrick, which is now said to be the correct spelling.) 856 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 i 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 aagis 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 1 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 I 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 Reporter" by Zachary Macauley, Esq., the father of Thomas B. Macauley, the Essayist and Historian. The second Annual Report 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, Rev. 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 Ilouse of Commons by Mr. Brougham, in July. A motion made by him, pledging the Ilouse " 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 arid 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. Rectors and curates of the Established Church, as well as ministers of the dissenting sects, took an active part in anti-slavery meetings, and even 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, Rev. 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 Rev. John Angell James, of Birmingham, and the Rev. 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 earnestty, 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 the claim of any compensation to the master was abjured. In these views, as well as in opposition to the characteristic principles and aims of the 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. 361 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 pungcntly 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 Reform 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, Kussell, Auckland, Stanley, Graham, Denman. To these influences in England, we may add others in the West Indies. Christian missionaries were at work there. Religion, 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 live 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 v/ere Mr. Buxton, Sir James Mackintosh, Dr. Lushington, Rev. D. Wilson, (since Bishop of Calcutta,) Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Sheil, Mr. Pownall, Bev. J. Burnett, Rev. Mr. Watson, Mr. Evans, Mr. Stephen, Rev. J. Cunningham. They insisted upon the utter extinc- tion of slavery by act of Parliament, a?id, to this end, the im- portance of " a judicious use, on the part of the people, of their rigid 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 the abolition of slavery?' 1 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 Reform 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 Hist., p. 358. t lb., p. 444. 364 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN getter 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, under 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 public ear."— lb., 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 death struggle of West India slavery. The moderate measures of melioration SLAVERY AND- FREEDOM. 865 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 allegiance 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 insubordination 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. The 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. Reso- 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 1-ith 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 revelations 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 Jamaica. " Instructions were accordingly forwarded to Lord Mulgrave, the 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 count}'. 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- 1 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.'" — Coplcy^s Hist., 430. 1 A similar committee was appointed in the House of Lords. : A large number of witnesses were examined before both of 1 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 i 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 of freedom. The history of emancipation was found to be the history of the most beneficial results. The ancient Romans 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 Roman 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 Reform 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 1882. Mr. Buxton soon gave notice of a motion for the abolition of slavery, unless the Government should take the matter into its own hands. Lord Althorpe 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 Suflield, Mr. Buxton, Joseph John Gurney, Earl Fitzwilliam, Rev. J. W. Cunningham, G. Strickland, M.P., Rev. J. Burnet, H. Pownall, Esq., Mr. Geo. Stephen, Lord Milton, Dr. Lushington, and others. u 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 Gre}^, 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 GKEAT 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 the bill. The 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 of the public treasury to be paid to the planters, at the close of the 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 tramjuiiiuy of the inhabitants was not in the slightest degree disturbed. The testimony on this point has never been questioned. The Gov- ernor of Jamaica, 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 yonr 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 : u 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 ivhole 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 OF PUBLIC 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 Eeporter. 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 1887, by Joseph Sturge and Thomas Harvey. (8.) 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 share of the £20,000,000 compensation voted by Parliament, SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 377 CHAPTER XXXI. DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF AMERICAN SLAVERY. Jts essential principle — Human Chattelliood — 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 straggle, 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 India 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. I 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. Gr. 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 "Reports") 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 1827, Jive 3'ears 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 17-10 to 1770, long before the organization of the old Anti-slavery 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 Revised Code of 1819. 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 Slavery 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. " No 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 w r orse." 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 doing? What are the prospects before them? These are amongst the questions before us, in the succeeding chapters. 382 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHAPTER 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, and release, 1830 — 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. Soc. organized, Oct., 1833 — American A. S. Soc. 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 year 1820, after a long period of quiet, was distin- guished by a pretty general and earnest discussion of slavery, 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 Representatives 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 Randolph, of Roanoke. 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 Representative from Rhode 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 Republican. 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 le3s 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 Rhode Island, or even to New England. It extended throughout the non-slavcholding 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 of the 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 " Genius of Universal Emancipation," the year 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- Dcmocratic papers, as being the nominee of that party. Until his obnoxious voto 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, lie 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 John 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 Rev. John Rankin, a Presbyterian minister of Kentucky, now of Ripley, 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. Ran- 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 Rice, 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- ino- " 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 the 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, demanding " 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 Cherokccs, 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 aui mad version 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, 3 r et 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. Reli- 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 rag 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 public 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, in 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.* lie after- wards edited, by invitation, for a short period, the "Journal of the 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 1326, by the late Rev. William Collier (a Baptist), by whom Mr. Garrison was employed. The Investigator, by William 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, 1S30, it was removed to New York, and published as " The Genius of Temperance,'''' by W. Goodell and P. CranJall — afterwards by W. Goodell, till the close of 1833, when it was discontinued, and W. Goodell took charge of the Emancipator, which had been issued by him from the same office, though in the name and by the aid of Rev. C. W. Denisou, from the spring preceding. In conducting both these papers he received assistance, for a season, from the late Stephen P. Ilines, 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 Society, 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 daj^s, 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, Rev. 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, the 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 Griswold, 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 infornTation, and was cheered with the hearty sympathy of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Buxton, Macauley, and other friends of the cause. At home, the excitement was increased by the 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 Edv/ards 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, K. 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 1836, aged 98. A few days before his death he penned an important communication on the subject of slavery, for publication iu an anti-slavery 394 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN languished 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* Revolutionary 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 1832, 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 1832, Dr. Emmons, who was " never too old to learn, 1 ' 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 Newi T ork City, in May, 1835, he was present, and presided at the opening of the meeting for business. He died Sept. 23, 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 Reserve College, Hudson, Ohio, were hailed among the accessions of this period. [James G. Birney, James A. Thome, Eev. Dr. Nelson, Rev. 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, |inding Clinton Hall closed, adjourned to Tammany Hall, and made speeches and adopted resolutions against them. Before separating, the}'" 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, Eecording 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 city 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, and 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- tiling 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 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 facts 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-i 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 princijrtes, 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 CHAPTER 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. II.), Boston, Utica (N. Y.), New Haven (Conn.), Alton (111.)— Murder of Loveji Burning of Pennsylvania Hall — Three Riots in Cincinnati — Three in Philadel- phia — Similar scenes elsewhere — Fomented by " the higher classes of Soeiety"- " 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 of the 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 speaking. 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 : ami 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.f 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 measure or mode of treating it. ELEMENTS OF THE OPPOSITION. As the anti-slavery agitation was, primarily, the natural * The writer accompanied Mr. Garrison, in 1S29, 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 — " 1 call on the ambassadors of Christ everywhere, to make known this proclamation, 'Thus saitli the Lord God of the Africans, Let this people go, that they may serve me.' I ask them to ' proclaim liberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.' " "J call on the churches of the living God TO LEAD in this great enterprise !" 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 GKEAT 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 1833, represented that the Liberator had called Washington a man-stealer and a robber, now in hell I But this was only the inference of Mr. Tracy from a communication in the 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 Ian- guaffe—v/as, affirmed (without any allusion to Washington), that slaveholding was man-stealing, and an act 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, 1S34. Mr. Tracy would not retract the charge. He was afterwards editor of the Boston Recorder, and then of the New York 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 greater number of prominent abolitionists were then found in the Whig party than in the Democratic, which latter was in the ascendant, and therefore i den tilled 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 of 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 ]3rivate 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 abolitionists 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 lie v. 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, Eev. 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 lias been that they have been either countenanced, instigated, or pal- liated by that description of citizens who complacently con- sider themselves and arc 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 mobocracy, 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- ciencv 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 TJtica, 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 Societv, 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 moro space in the present work for the details. 408 ■ GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHAPTER 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 Cougress — 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 vio- lence 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 inquir}*-, 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 t/ie highest civil penalties and ecclesiasticcd cen- sures.' 1 ' 1 * The Review 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 Reviews 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 TJteological Review for Dec, 1835. t Hon. William Sullivan. 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 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 Eev. 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. Eev. Eobert N. Anderson, of Virginia, writing to the Ses- sions of the Presbyterian Churches of Ilanover 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 PUBLIC 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 you that your fate will be less than Hainan'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 they will be caught if they come among us, and they will take good care to keep out of 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 GEEAT 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 character of the scene." The thanks of the meeting to the clergy for this service, was expressed in a resolution for that purpose. Rev. J. C. Postell (Methodist), of South Carolina, some time afterwards, addressed a letter to Rev. La Roy Sunder- land (Methodist), editor of Zion's WatcJnnan, New York, in which he said : " If you wish to educate the slaves, I will tell you how to raise the money, without editing Zions 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. ! 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. C, of Virginia, a slaveholder and duellist, said : " The best way to meet abolitionists was with DuponVs best (i. e. gunpowder) and with cold steel." The N. Y. Suti 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. "Vi ISE !" 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." lie pre- dicted that the body of the laboring people of the North would be virtually reduced to slavery within twenty -five years.* Of the 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. &c. 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 have a tendency to make our slaves discontented." January 7, 1836, 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 E. G. Williams, publishing agent * The Fugitive Slave law of 1S50 seems well calculated to fulfil the prediction ! t The reader will notice the striking coincidence between this language of Gov. McDuffie and that of the " Literary and Theological Review," viz : "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." Eesolutions 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 to record euch specimens of servility and treachery as the following : SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 415 Edward Everett, (whig) Governor of Massachusetts, in hifl 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 heen held, by highly respectable legal authority, an ollense 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 Khode 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 s.-nt, 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 mouths 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. Hazard, 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 their 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 U. 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 of this 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-Slavery 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, Rhode Island, and other free states, was anticipated, as a matter of course. The mnjority of intelligent citizens expected no other result. Abolitionists redoubled their efforts, knowing that all was at stake. • A searching Review 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 by 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 every 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 (R. I.) for forming a Khode Island State Anti-Slavery Society, Feb. 2, 1886, 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 in 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 Representatives' 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 Rev. Samuel J. Ma} r , 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 part}^, 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. Halle t, 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 Representatives was crowded. Prof. 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 — 11 Mr. Chairman ! Are you prepared to attempt putting them on?" — but the sentence was only about half finished, when the stentorian voice of the Chairman interrupted him: — "Sit down, sir /" — lie 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 unliglried, 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 the dim hall of the People's Representatives, 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 Report, till near the 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 Rhode 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 Report was adopted in May, 1830, 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 Report 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 Report 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, " than 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." . . . " It" Congress may this year decide what incendiary publications auk, 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 transmtssion of sacJi 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 Representatives in Congress, (as the Report had shown) were nevertheless to be exercised by the legisla- ture of a single slave State, over the whole country! The Report 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 bow- 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 OX 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 Pvepresenta- 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, sting 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. Pinckncy was as follows : ". Resoh-ed, 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 Report 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 Rule. 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 countr}^. 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 CHAPTER XXXV. OPPOSITION FROM LEADING CLERGY AND ECCLESIASTICAL BODIES. Recapitulation of Preceding Statements — Theological Seminaries— Ecclesiastical Bodies— Law of Lane Seminary against discussion (1834)— Conference of Meth. Epis. Ch., Cincinnati (1S36)— Ohio Annual Conference (previous)— New York An- nual Conference, (June, 1836, 1838)— Sentiments of Methodist Ministers— Official course of Presiding Elders 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 XVIII. t Chap. XXIX. 426 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN of Theological Reviews, 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, by the Delegates of the Annual Conferences, in General Con- ference assembled, that they disapprove, in the most unqualified Bense, the conduct of the two members of the General Conference, who arc 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, Kev. S. G. Roszell, was reported to have said, in the debate, that he wished the Rev. 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 from this agitating subject," &c. — Signed by order and in behalf of the General Conference of the M. E. 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, Resolved, 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 Rev. La Roy 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 ajid 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 do appeal from his decision to the Conference. Bishop Iledding, at the N. K. 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 ' Colored testimony Resolution' of the General Conference." — True Wesleyan, Dec. 27, 1851. The Presbyterian Synod of Philadelphia, 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 which 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, 1 ' which was accordingly done in another Eesolution. The series was closed by a pledge of the clergy, " that \«e 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 " Saybrook 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 Resolutions, 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! Among the abolition lecturers then at work in Connecticut, was a Congregational minister of that state. lie 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 Pastoral Letter to the churches accompanied the Reso- 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, 1837. 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 abolitioni.-ts, 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. " We 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 hest influence of the ministry on you 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" of the 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 wko 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 CHAPTER XXXVI. PERSECUTIONS OF ABOLITIONISTS. Ecclesiastical persecutions— La Roy Sunderland— Lewis Tappan— E. W. Goodwin- Presbyteries and Church Sessions—" Friends"— Charles Harriot 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. Lovcjoy— John B. Mahan— Alanson 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 Roy 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 deliverance 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 Llicksite Friends, for example, in the City and State of New York, disowned two of their most estimable members, Charles Harriot 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 of the 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 last 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 So- 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. XXXII.) Miss Prudence Crandall, a pious and benevolent young lady, established and taught a school for colored pupils, 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, 183-1. Dr. Reuben Crandall of Westchester county, (N. Y.) a brother of Miss Prudence Crandall, 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 against 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 the rivalry between the Colonization and Abolition Societies. * It was a constant ruse with the orators of Colouizatiouism, 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 4i incendiary abolitionists.'™ 438 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 Northfield, (N. H.) assembled with them for that j;>urpose, 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 Rogers, 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, 1836 — 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. lie 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. Lie 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 Episeopal 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, 1888, torn from his family, hurried to Kentucky, and shut up in jail, without allowing him time to procure a writ of habeas (forpus, 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. Al anson 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. Ilaving 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. Ilere, 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, 1846, 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 Andoverin 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 Mendon (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- gian, 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 he was entreated by a fugitive from slavery, to go to Virginia, 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 his (Torrey's) mother,' in Hereford County, Maryland ! The mother of Mr. Torrey died in Massachusetts when he was a child ! SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 443 fonvicted, and sentenced to hard labor in the penitentiary for six years. To this place he was removed the 30th of Decem- 1 844. 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. Lie 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 arc 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 tltc 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, us 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."f He died in the 83d year of his age. Though few men have made a deeper impression upon society in so brief a life, 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 little book "Home, or the Pilgrim's Faith Revived"- — 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 and 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 which Mr. Torrey had been pastor, was not permitted to be opened for a sermon commemorating his death ! Very few, in the comparison with the whore, was the number of Congregational churches in the cities whose houses could be occupied for such services. Is it strange that some abolitionists connected with such churches should secede from them ? t Memoir of tlie 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 coarse 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 ami 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- I 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 andSAYRES, 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, Hay 81, 1849. * SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 447 CHAPTER XXXVII. OF THE ELEMENTS AND OCCASIONS OF DIVISION AMONG ABOLITIONISTS. Unity in measures the result of unity in principles — Complex problem before Amer- ican Abolitionists — Their points of agreement and of 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 Reformers, 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 lias 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 ? Reformers 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. Right 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, oat 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 cases, 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, illiberality, 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 oicn creed could warrant or justify. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 451 Abolitionists 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 and 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 45-4 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 Eepublican 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 thg 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 CHAPTER 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 tho interior — Distinct origin (and from other causes) of the Liberty Tarty. 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 Libert}^ Party has been regarded as only one form of the op- position made to their State and Na^onal 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 dissentions in Bos- ton and New York. We must briefly notice the prominent facts. 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 GKEAT 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-Resistants," so called, who had organized a " Non- Resistance 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 w r e 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 u 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-Re- sistants" were to be restrained from aggressive and even retali- 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 " or- thodoxy" and the supposed conservators and expounders of orthodoxv, 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 ikis 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 1 ' — 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 Kew 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. 4G1 for 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 1880, 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, cither 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 iicav 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 bis paper, bis regret that the course of Mr. Garrison tended to introduce sectarian divisions among abolitionists. + Mr. Garrison is not, and never has- boen a Quaker, as many,, at a distance, bavo 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-Rosistauts" in all New-England. SLAYKUY A XI) 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; llhode 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, Win. L. Chaplin, Rev. Cyrus P. Grosvcnor, A. F. Williams, S. M. Booth, Rev. Otis Thompson, Rev. Francis Hawley, Rev. Samuel Wells, &c. &c. Several of them " orthodox" ministers of the gospel. f A resolution Avas reported, containing the former testimo- nies of the 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 view r s 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 of the 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. t 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 com- 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. Resolutions 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, Van 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''' 1 newspaper (originally established at great expense SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 465 The historical evidence seems not quite clear that the abo- litionists who did not hold themselves bound by those 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. Tuppan 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 otfer. 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 have 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 of the old committee had taken possession of the Anti-Slavery depository of books, pamphlets, &c, and refused to deliver them 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 $8,400. 30 466 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN too steadily and too resistlessly 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 clone 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 lhat 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- in«-, 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, hoAvever, (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 connection 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 into 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 n«ver 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 CHAPTER XXXIX. ORGANIZED POLITICAL ACTION — LIBERTY PARTY — LIBERTY LEAGUE — FREE SOIL PARTY. Necessity of distinct organization — Early anticipations of this — Garrison, Follen, Stewart — Convention at Albany, July, 1839 — Nominations in Monroe Co., N. Y. — Myron Ilolley — 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. Hale — 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 tlie 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 r 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 Avas 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 Follen, 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 Resolutions, twent}'--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 prepared by Win. Goodell, were reported 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 the 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 Roch- ester, N. Y., September 28, 1839, adopted a series of Resolu- 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 in the Convention by Gerrit Smith, and extensively circula- ted in anti-slavery papers. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 471 Arcade, (then) Genesee County, January 2Sth and 20th, 1840, attended by Myron LTolley and Gerrit Smith ; Reuben 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 full discussion, the Liberty party was organized, and James G. 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 eleo- 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 all 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, probabty, have been the effect, if the sixty thousand Liberty men who voted for Birney in 1844, had held firmly tiiat 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 ? The 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 u balance of power 1 ' 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 Eev. 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 f In an elaborate answer, sustaining the affirmative of the above question, Dr. Taylor 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 will 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. Taylor." "Yale College, 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 James 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. Tbey 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 Rochester. 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 1S47, leaving it till the next year, to see what course would be taken by prominent men 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 still 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. Eev. 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. Rogers, Esq., a lawyer of New Hampshire, an abo- litionist of the same school, writing in the 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.] 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, 1 ' 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 inquir} 7 . 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 the 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 13,000 copies of this (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 it 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" TARTY. In the midst of these exhortations, the National Convention of the 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 parties, including the Free Soil party, and have been rapidly gaining public fltvor. 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 the 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, 1837, p. 232. t " The Buffalo Convention had to le summoned, because the Macedon Convention had been held, and had done precisely what it did. The Buffalo Convention, when assembled, Md to nominate, because a secession had been made from the Liberty party, a Liberty League organized, and its presidential nominations made and m* nounced."— [ Charter Oal; W. II. Burleigh, editor, a supporter of Mr. Hale and Mr Van Bureu.] SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 479 nized as being distinctively " abolitionists" or Libert}- 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 BUFFALO PLATFORM." 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- Die 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- GRESS." ******** '• 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 in the hope, that they will one day see slavery abolished, not only in that District, 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 " the 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 Grerrit Smith rather than John P. Hale, or any candidate that would be likely to be substituted for him. lliese, rallied as " the Liberty Party," and in Convention at Buffalo, June 15th, 1818, concurred with the Liberty League in nominating their candidates. At a subsequent Convention at Canastota, Sept. 28th, they adopted the documents denning 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 hope? 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, directly 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 general 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 eriven of the results of the Buffalo Conven- 484 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN tion of August 9, 1848, and of the nomination of Mr. Yan 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 the 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 their 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 sagacity 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 ats 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 anew " 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 iu National Era, March 4, 1852. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 487 CHAPTER XT,. ANTI-SLAVERY CHURCH AGITATION — NEW ANTI-SLAVERY CHURCHES AND MISSIONARY BODIES. Consideration, among abolitionists, of their Church relations — Consultations at Albany, in July, 1839 — Previous " Anti-Slavery Conference and Prayer Meetings" — "Christian Anti-Slavery Conventions," 1340 and onward — Paper devoted to the subject — Organization of Independent Anti-Slavery Churches — " Wesleyan Church," a secession from the Mcth. E. Church — "Free Presbyterian Church'' — "Free Missions" — Several early Missionary organizations — "Union Missionary Soc." — " W. India Committee" — " Amistad Committee" — " Western Miss. Asso." — Merged (1846) in "Am. Miss. Association" — Church agitation at the West — Large Conventions at Cincinnati and Chicago — Papers devoted to these movements — Church 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. Soc." 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 Soc." — 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 sufficient 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 specify them, would be found to be those who are not now (1852) in the ranks of the Liberty party, nor active in political efforts against slavery. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 489 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 Win. Goodell, devoted mainly to this object, was commenced in 18-11, and was published occasionally till the beginning of 1813, then monthly till the summer of 1818. 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 "Wesley an Methodist Church." In the latter part of the year 1831, 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 Koy Sunderland,— signed an act of withdrawal from the M. E. Church, dated at Providence, E. I., Nov. 8, 1842. At a Convention held for the purpose, at Utica, K 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"— Mattock'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 Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, 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 abolitionists 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 abolitionists of the Congregational sect in that quarter, extend a pretty liberal 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 Siarn, 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 Eeform 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, 111., 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 Eev. B. P. Aydellotte, D. D., late President of Woodward College, Rev. C. G. Finney, President of Oberlin College, Rev. Asa Mahan, President of Cleveland University, Rev. Jona. Blanchard, President of Knox College, Illinois, Rev. John Rankin, Rev. Dr. Wilson, of Pittsburg, Rev. E. Smith, Rev. J. B. Walker, Rev. E. H. Kevin, Rev. Samuel Lewis, Rev. Dr. Brisbane, Rev. C. B. Boynton, Rev. E. Goodman, Rev. 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 Reformation. The " Free Wesleyan," New York, is the organ of the Wes- leyan connection. Baptist abolitionists have had their " Chris- tian Reflector," " Christian Contributor." "American Baptist," &c. &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 other?, 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 1885, 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," Dec. 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 "Kev. Spen- cer H. Cone, President, the Board of Managers, and the Dele- gates of the Baptist Triennial Convention," supposing this tp 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 this 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 English 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." — lb. 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. lie 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. — 76., 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 iniblic 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 anyway, 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 the 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," &c, 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 Eiver 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 out 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." — fl>., 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 (Uaptist) Religious Herald, Richmond, Va., after de- scribing the Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention and its doings, in connect ion 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." — lb. 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 are decidedly in opposition to abolition measures." — lb., p. 51. " The Circular of the Boston Board" (Daniel Sharp, Presi- dent, Baron Stowe, Secretary,) as published in the Christian Reflector, Dec. 2, 1840, manifests great solicitude to exclude t; 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 cdl 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. II. Cone, Chair- man, Benj. M. Hill, Cor. Sec, was issued a few days after, Feb. 16th. This was addressed " to the 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," saj-s 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 hands 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. G7-71. 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 had 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. Bichard Fuller, of S. Carolina, a slaveholder, and a Biblical defender of slavery, was elected in his room. — lb. p. 82-8. 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. tern. — 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 18-11, 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 Avar 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 " The 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. 87-91. Similar action was had by the Foreign Board, at a meeting at Providence, in 1815. 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, 1814, 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, 1811, 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 feeiiugs, 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 slaveboldiug 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, R. 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 not the extent of this 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." 1 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, 1815. Eld. Francis Wayland, President, Eld. E. 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 life 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 comjjosed 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 Resolution 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 tlieir brethren of the North, the Free Mis- sionists sent an address to the ' Union,' at its second Annual Meeting at Troy, May, 1818. 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." — lb. p. 171-180. "The Union,*' by a vote, eonstituted 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.'" -A p. 207. Eld. J. G. Binncy, 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)." — lb. p. 210. 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. — lb. p. 249-253. These churches came under care of the " Union." At the anniversary of the A. B. M. Union in Philadelphia, May, 1840, "Eld. Colver rose and declared in the presence of the whole Board, that the Cherokee churches were sanctioning slaveholding." — lb. p. 252. After much effort, a Keport 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 !— lb. p. 253-2G8. 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 the 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 northern 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. — lb. 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 1817 the matter was called up, and laid over again, till 1818, when, it was indefinitely postponed. And yet, it is asserted that "the society has cut loose from slavery {"—lb. 308. The Society and its Reports 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 Report 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 savs 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 1816, 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. — lb. 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., K 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 morality of anti-slavery," knows no distinction of color,* and * In another connection, similar mention might have been made of tho College 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 Bcriah Green, was thoroughly anti-slavery in its character. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 509 CHAPTER XLI. TIIK 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 Foreign A. S. So- ciety — Its course and policy — American Anti-Slavery Society since the division in 1S40 — Its exclusive claims and proscription of other organizations — Early indi- cations of its policy, political and ecclesiastical — Albany Convention of 1S39 — 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- 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- litical 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 leave 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, Ilev. Simeon S. Jocelyn, Rev. 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. AMERICAN" 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 perse veringly 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. Had 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 has been incessant, on both sides of the Atlantic. It has been the theme of lecturers and agents, has been embodied in reso- lutions, 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-Resistants " 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 American 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 themselves, and not merely against pro-slavery influences aud action in them. At an Anti-slavery Convention in 1839 or '40, Stephen S. Foster, 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 politital 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 Society) 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 1 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 abolitionists * The "measure" had already been a subject of earnest consultation in Albany, the 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 IS-tO — 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 et 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" — but there must be no secessions with a view to organize anti- slavery and reformatory churches ! 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 withdraw- ing from the Church and the State. " Here," according to the ' Standard,' " is the true issue on which division in our ranks is made up," or its language has, to us, no intelligible meaning. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 517 CHAPTER XLII. » THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY — ITS FURTHER COURSE ON POLITICAL ACTION. Political clement in the division of the Societies — Facts in illustration — Position of " Non-Resistants" — Position of abolitionists in the old parties remaining with the Society — Course 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. Two 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 officers had not resigned, and the business of the Societv was going on as usual. What elements then, or what indica- tions of 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 the American 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. During the discussion of the question, Wendell Phillips, * It will be remembered that "Friends," both in America and England, transact their ecclesiastical business in separate meetings of males and females — not by organ- izing them together. This usage probably gave rise to the separate organization of male 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 u politics 1 ' 1 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 wty 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-Resistants, 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 polit- ical course for a long time pursued by that Society. It was the beginning, but 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. Rogers, 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 breath. 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-Resist- 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 of the society claiming to embody " the only true aboli- tionists of the country" voted either for Van Buren or for Harrison 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 of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society just now mentioned, having assisted to shape 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 little 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. He was elected Vice-President, at this election, and, in consequence, became President by the demise of President Harrison. His course, as President, we have seen. Gen. Hamson, by his public speeches at Vin- cennes and Cheviot, had been one of the earliest and most violent opposers of aboli- tionists. By this means, and by his letters to southern politicians, he had gained southern favor, and thus he became the Presidential candidate of his party. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 521 la all this, we heard nothing of the wickedness of voting under the pro-slavery constitution. We saw nothing ©f the motto of " no union with slaveholders." A close union with the supporters of slaveholders was quite evident, nevertheless. The previous policy of " questioning the candidates " of the old parties, was now, by general consent, laid aside. Liberty party men had candidates of their own. Non-Resistants de- sired none. And other abolitionists, (whether of the " Old " or the " New " organized anti-slavery societies,) appeared to be tolerably well content with the candidates furnished them by their old political parties. Except the seven thousand votes polled for Birney and Earle \>y the Liberty party, and perhaps two or three hundred non-voting Non-Resistants,* excepting, also, the sect called "Covenanters," who never vote, there were not, probably, any considerable number of abolitionists 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 of the 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 wit- ness all this, to the close of the contest, without a word of rebuke. 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, from the pen of Mr. Garrison : " Resolved, That no man can vote for William H. Harrison, or Martin * Some who called themselves Non-Besistanta were scarcely restrained from the polls, when election day came. It is confidently said that some of them did vote. Be this 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 of an abolitionist." Mr. Garrison was himself again. He here repeated the old anti-slaverj 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 political ethics between portions of the New Organization and the Old. The language of the Resolution justifies the estimate we have already made of the advice previously given, in the op- posite direction. Such a Resolution, 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 Roy, N. Y., January 6th and 7th, 1841, under the auspices of the Corresponding Secretary and General Agent of the 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 Reso- lution was introduced, discussed, amended, and put into vari- ous shapes, upon the subject of voting for slaveholders, but, finally, the Resolution was lost. In rejecting it the Convention refused to say, in any form, that 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, w§re 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 religiously, 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 for 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 back-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. Those skilled in such calculations can decide * " ' Under certain circumstances,' Mr. Goodell thiuks, ' that the days of approach- 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 observo 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 men 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 I" 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 18-14. 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 CHAPTER XLIII. 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 a 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 slave States, the meaning w§uld 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 sinful relation — that it is wicked to sit in the same Congre33 -hero a slaveholder sits, or to go to the same ballot-box with him. This idea w >**' . ace?!?! with the theory of no civil government. Its adoption would render civil go\ Sr'iment impossible, so long as there remained a wicked lawless man in the nation ; iir 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 ];<»Idiug no political connections either with slaveholders, or with any body else. The separation, ©u 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 denouncing the Federal Constitution as pro-slavery, " 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-Resistauts," 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 of the cause, had suffered severely, and the 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 from slave- holders, and retort upon them the charge of inconsistency in their political associations.! 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. + 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 be conveniently answered till the course of the Society was changed. 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. Eogers and S. J. May. But at the next anniversary of the Society in New York, May, 1812, 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, 1811, after an earnest debate, a majority of those present at the annual meeting adopted the new policy, and many withdrew from the Society, f 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 ou 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 the 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 1836. 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 CHAPTER XLIV. FURTHER DIFFICULTIES IX THE 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 ii. 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-Kesistant 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 OoC GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN jurisdiction by perhaps an excessive dread of subordination, they would be likely to feel it the more keenly, if it should ever happen to be exercised upon themselves. The contin- gency was not long lingering. Nathaniel P. Rogers, 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. Rogers, 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- Resistant and lover of liberty, he abjured. He became "a disorganizer" in the view of some who had been stigmatized as disorganizes themselves. In meetings of the Society, these points became matters of earnest debate. On one occasion of the kind, at Concord, in 1811, we were incidentally a wit- ness, while Stephen S. Foster maintained against Rogers the claims of order, organization, and official prerogative. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 531 The same sentiment forbade that Mr. Rogers should re- cognize the supervision of his "Herald of Freedom" by the Executive 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 aros* concerning the con- i rol 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. Rogers. 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 in central and western New York, there were found some who sympathized with Rogers. 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. 5S2 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN CHAPTER 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 political 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 184S — 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- Resi stance 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 Resolutions, in 18-10 — 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- very 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 18-A4, 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 Rochester, 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. Society. 534 GREAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN others — opens the door to those voters who, in Mr. Garrison's view, " have no title to the name of abolitionists. 11 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. In 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 Avhat 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 since 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 some. 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. 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 the Free Soil party, and the pledges of its candidates, have already been described. The Annual Report of the Old Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, for 1852, 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 of the Whig and Democratic parties. To no higher stand- ard of voting could Mr. Garrison himself point them, ivithout 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, the 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 "VVilmot 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 abolition 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. .Vl? 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 wc not always said they would prove untrue?" A secon'd 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, Rev. 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 the 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 rally 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 that 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 some of the objections that had been made against the Liberty party, and that it was adapted to find favor with the most radical 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. lie objected distinctly to the compulsory action of civil government, even for the abolition of slavery. And, with some seeming warmth he affirmed, that if the penman of 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 force. 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-Resistants 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 slave-laws repealed : but they understand that, under a compulsory civil government, such a repeal would be followed, if needful, by the forcible suppression of slaveholding. For this they are not prepared, and cannot be, while they remain Non-Eesistants. They are shut up (if consistent) to mere mo- ral suasion. This is their field. Let them occupy it without being reproached. 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 of the 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 toiclced 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. If the boast, already begun by lecturing agents of the American Anti-Slavery Society, Non-Eesistants, that they have broken down the Libert}' - 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 slavery" in the British West Indies. If all the slaveholders in America should emancipate all their slaves to-day, that would not be the abolition of American slavery. Slaves might be held again to-morrow. Non-Resistants opposed to slavery, are properly emancipationists. We will call them abolitionists, if they prefer it, but in doing so we must use the word in a new and accommodated signification. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 541 CHAPTER XLVI. COURSE OF MR. GARRISON", AND THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY AND ITS MEMBERS, SINCE THE DIVISION IN 1840, IN RESPECT TO ANTI-SLAVERY CHURCH ACTION. Sympathizers with the " Clerical Appeal" — an inconsiderable and local minority of the Liberty party— Unhappy ecclesiastical connections (nevertheless), of u majority of its members — Same inconsistency found in the American A. S. Society — Anti- Slavery Church 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 neverthe- 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 perse veringly 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 this 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 of the New Organization — a very small part, certainly, of the Liberty party. We have also said that a large portion of the 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 belonged 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" (the 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 may be 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 further be said, that in sects 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 readily 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 has 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 l#ok 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 the 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, of the organization of a single local anti-slavery church, as though it were a new thing, some years after hundreds, probably, of similar churches had been organized, and after a change of editors of that paper. SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. \A~ the American Anti-Slavery Society are connected with pro slavery churches, than arc 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 man}' thousands (unrecognized as true abolitionists by thenv 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, ii ever, retain organized religious or moral co-operation and affinity with leaders Avho 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 0&6 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, 18-12, 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- slavery 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 Societ}^. 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 such," may not have forcibly expelled the colored people, nor enacted the Fugitive Slave bilL, nor advocated either of those SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 547 thai 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 pails 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, of the Sabbath, and of the Bible, had their appointments for anti-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 not 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 Society, (or this withholding them from joining it.) might possibly leave it in a position in which only a small measures " on the Colonization platform." Rut when those who hated those mea- sures 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 the cases than the natural workings of cause and effect on a community, when lead- ers in a great society give offense by their position. 5±8 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 lending 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 aboli- 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 called " 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, 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 wc 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. Wc should not be surprised to be assured that they still constitute a considerable majority of the members of the Society. Except in the case of the "Friends," it will not probably be claimed that the 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 after 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 ami-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 w r e 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 Ilicksite 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 seen a statement of Rev. Theodoro 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 all these may have been members of the American Anti- Slavery Society. There may be many other.-, 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" Society, to 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, without 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 a 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. Swedexborgians, 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 CHAPTER XLVII. 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 ['lacing 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 "the 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 Grerrit Smith, Beriah Green, Alvan Stewart, Myron Holly, Samuel E. 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 public 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 FBEEDOM, f>57 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^djovc the Bible, and above humanity, and above conscience, and above God, should we say otherwise. He may have efned 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 arc 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 bv 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 AVitherspoon withhold or blot his signature from the Declaration of "self-evident truths" be- cause penned by a Jefferson, or vindicated by a Paine ? Thai 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 reclaimed, 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 XLVIII. 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 to reach, with anti-Blavery 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 " mtaawtP becoming obsolete — A sufficient variety of measures to accommodate all e men — The main question, now, a question of measures— This questiou r narrowing down— A great work to complete the enterprise, but an impossibility to undo what has been done — An indefinite amount of half-developed abolition 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 from 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 alreacly 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 farther 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 SI.AVKUY AND FREEDOM. 5G1 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 Kome 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 abolitionism and political abolitionism. Then cam< also Church Eeform 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 politieal party. If he cried out against abolitionism as " bigotry, priestcraft, and Puritanism," behold 1 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 Tsaiah, 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 corarau- nitv, 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 ongld to be abolished, nor ichen it should t> e — 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 a 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. "03 CHAPTES XLIX. DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE O 'NSTITl'TION, AND OF TEE LEGALITY OF SLAVERY. Vital importance of the questions — Alternatives presented by them — Almost tho only questions remaining to be settled — All public business involving the Slave question must be transacted on 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" — 3. 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. If 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. 664 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 saj-ing — " 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 Cassar — 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. 505 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 " 1 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 sust: ins 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 wc 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. The 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, McDufne, 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 TIIE 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 slavcrv." 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 Stales, 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 the 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 slaverj r , 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. The 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 of 'the United States" 7. The right of the Federal Government to decline the use IX THE DOTTED st.vit.s. 5G9 of its diplomacy, and other powers, in sustaining directly or indirectly the institution of slavery, except in the case of rap pressing a servile insurrection — another "guaranty"' include d in the theory of "compromise" — if we rightly underst 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 the 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 the "Union" and to the "Constitution" as thus construed? III. 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 QUESTIOX 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, then 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, whether 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 Granch 1, Peters' Digest, 578. t See Chapter VI. \ 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 icltole rigid, and A TKI AL 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 afiirm 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 KIGIIT TO SERVICE will he gone into, according to alt the forms of the Court, in determining upon an;/ other feet." And where would bo the hardship of this ? Why should 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 thai slavery is established in the State from which thefvgit Now this very thing, in a recent case in the city of New York, 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," ., 78, 219, -J 15, 257, 263, 274, 327, 388, 423, 577. Adams, Chas. F., 47S. 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. Hoard, (Missions) 202, 220. Home Mission Society, 209. Bible Society, 210. Tract Society, 213. Sunday School Union, 215. Missionary Association, 491. Anti-Slaverj So. (See below.) and For. A. S. So. (See below.) Amistad, captives, 255. Anderson, Robt. N., Rev., 411. Andover Then. Sem., 171. Audio.. Thoa Rev., 39& Andrews, Mr. Rev., (Ct.) 176. Andrews, Prof, 250. Antigua and Bermuda, 372. 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, K P. Rogers, 529. Politics, (since 1844) 532. — Course on Church action, 541. — General Estimate, 555. Anti-Slaverv So. American 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, 507. Publication So., 190. Anti-Slavery agitation, 493. Bap- tist Magazine, 493. Va. Asso., 493. Triennial Con.. 187, 493-8. 501-2. Board For. Missions, 187. — 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, 572. Beattie, James, 30. Beecher, Geo., Rev., 157. Beman, N. S. S., Dr., 154. Benezet, Anthony, 36, 41. Benton, T. II., 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., Pres., 202, 492. Blennerhasset, 284. Bloodhounds, 270. Boggs, Ex-Go v. 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, Gl. Boyd, A. H. H., Rev., 164. Boynton, C. B., Rev., 492. Bradley, Dr. (Plymouth), 419. Breckenridge, 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, Henrv, M.P., 355, 35S-9, 362 Brown, Abel, Eld., 189. Brown, Moses, 398. Buffon, 31. Buffalo Conv. nora. J. P. Hale, 478. M. Van Buren, 478. Burchell, Mr., Missionary W. I., 366. Burke, Edmund, 28. Burleigh, C. C, 463, 556. Burling, Wm., 40. Burnett, P. H., of Mo., 310. Burr, Aaron, Col., 280, 284. Burr, James E., 440. Bushyhead, Mr., Missionary, 187. " Business men," 448. Butler, Bishop, 28. Buxton, Thomas Fowell, 67, 365, 358, 303, 369, 371. Calhoun, John C, 279, 301-2, 316, 321, 330, 334, 336, 339, 420-1. California, acquisition of, 287 ; posses- sion, 300; results, 306; effort to exclude slavery, 307 ; counter efforts, 308; Southern plan, 310; Provi- sional Government, 312; Constitu- tion vs. Slavery, 313. GENERAL INDEX. Camden (S. C.) Bap. Church, 196. Campbellites, 198. Campbell, Alexander, 108. Canning Mi., -.v;, ;;.vs. Canterbury Colored School, 398, 486. Capres, W. Dr., 148. Cariba or Charibs, 4. Cartwrigbt (slave case), 50. Cass, Gen., 808, 816. Cemeteries, col'd people excluded, 200. Census of Slaves, 114—1-6. '• Centralization," 466. Channing, W. E. Dr., 419, 560. Chaplin, Wm. I... 246, 446, 463, 556. Charles V., 5, 16. Charleston (S. C.) Asso. Bap., 18 1. rifling the mails, -11 1. Chase, Samuel, Judge, 96. Chase,S. 1'., Hon., 226. Chailiam-St. Chapel, mob, 395. Cheivres, 5. 16. Cherokees, Bap Miss, 187. Am. Board, 203. Cherokees and Georgia, 389. Choctaw-, Missions, 203. Chronicle, Vermont, 182. Christian Mirror, 182. Spectator, 181. Observer, 205. Anti-Slavery Conv., 48S, 492. Churchman, The, 192. Churches, American, decline, 135. position, 143-219. Church — Why scrutinized, 419. 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. Clarkaon, Matthew, Gen.. 96. t 'lav, Henry, 140, 244, 251, 264-6, 274-6, ' 301, 316-17, 342-7, 380-3, 566. 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, 177 1, 72. Colonies, Brit., abolition, 353, 372. 376. Colonial Charters, 18; Slavery, 10. Legislation, 18. Colonization Society, I I 401, 107, LIS, i. Meeting, ! Colombian Republii Columbian < lollege, Colver, Nathl. Eld., 50 Common Law, English, I Commerce, Northern, 828. Compromise, Missouri, 2 10 8, of is. -n. 817. Comet, Brig, 262, Connecticut, Colonial Slavery, 11-13. action (in 177 1), 7."). Abol. Soc 1 1790 Gen. A Sao. (Cong.), 173, 429-30. V black laws" 840. Cone, Spencer II. Eld., 187 -'.'. 190, 498, 497-9, 503-4. Continental Congress, 78-9. Congress, U. S., 100,224-6, 234-6, 240, 251, 268, 278, 299, 801, 331. Congress of Panama, 259. Congregationalists, position, 168; pub- lications. 181. Associations, 17:'.. 129-30. 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, 2 19. Court of King's Bench, IS. ••Covenanters," 198, 533. Cox, S. H. Dr., 157. Cox and Hoby, 494. Crandall, Prudence, 393, 486. (Vandall, Reuben, Dr., 246, 437. Crancb, Win. Judge, 234, 244-5. Creole, Brig, 254. Crummel, Alex., 193. Cuba, Slavery and C. s. Gov't, 265. Cumberland Presbyterians, 198. Curtiss, II. Rev, 160. Curtis. Ceo., of 11. I., 419. Dana, Rev. Dr.. 172. Davenport. Mr. (Missionary), 187. Dayton, Mr. i 0. S. Senate), 570. Decline of Liberty. 118. Declaration of Independence, original draft, 16. Constitutional law, 57 I. Delaware (in 1786), LOS -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. Assemblv, 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," 5*75-6. Duffield, Rev. Dr., 157. Dunbar, Duncan, Eld., 188. Dundas, Mr. (M. P.), 61. 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," 152. 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, 225. 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. 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, Georo-e, 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. Furmau, 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, 512, 541, 455-6. Gates, Horatio, Gen., 79. Gayle, Gov, (Ala.) 413. Gedney, Lieut., 255. i, ral Conf, Cong., (M«.) 180. GENERAL INDEX. i] Asso., Cong., (< i.i it:;. 429. General Asso. Cong., (Mass.) L78, I - Genius of Temperance," S92. •' Genius Universal Emancipation," 891. G ge II , an of, s , 66. Georgia, Colonial laws, 20-1. action, 1 177 I ) 7 1. demands, ill. African Slave Trade, 26L annual Conference, ( Meth.) 148. Ghotaon, Mr., (Va,,) 251, 274. Oilman, Gov., (N. 11 ) 281. Godwin, 27. Goderich, Lord. 369. Goodman, B., 492. ( toodwin, 10. W., 485. ( tanzalez, Anthony, 4, 16. i h mverneur, S. L , 410. Goslein, i Va.) Bap. Asso., 412. "Gradual abolition," tested, W. I., 857, 872-8. Graham, Rev. Dr., 15S, 106, 170. Grand Jury, Oneida Co., 409. District Columbia, 244. Tuscaloosa, (Ala.) 414. Green, Beriah, Pres., 395-6, 556. Green, Mr., Sec Am. Board. 203. Green, Duff, Gen., 415. < Iregoin . Abbe, •">, 29. Grey, Earl, 371. Grosvenor, C. P., 468, 494, 507. Grotius, 28. Gurney, J. J, 371. Gwin, W. M, 310, 313. Hale, John P., 478. Ball, E., Rev., 176. Ballet, B. F., 418. Hamilton, Alex, Gen., 86, 95, 97, 281. Hannegan, Mr, 309. Hand, Col, 311. Hancock, John, 7S. Harrison. W. II. Gen., 520. Hawkins. John. Sir, (Capt.) 6, 16. Hayti, 180, 268, 370. Hazard, Mr.. (R I.) 415. Hedding, E., Bishop', 147-8. 428. Henry, King, (Spain) 1. Henry. Patrick, 7". 85. Beynck, Elizabeth, 355-6. Hicksite Friends, 485, 551. Bierra, 5. Billiard, Mr, 308. Hill, B. M,Eld, 188,497, Hispaniola, 4. Hoare, Mr, Hon, 340. Hodge, Prof, 154. Holly, Myron, 47 1 '. 47 I. 556. Holt, Chief Justice, Lord Home Missionary Bociet] . Ba| • I I [ome Missionary Boc , Ann rici Hopkins, Samuel, Dr., 28, 41, ^ 111, 120 -2, 127. Hope, Mis . 865, Hopper, [saac '1'., 435, B 19. Borselej , Bishop 28, 62, Horton, Jotham, Rev., 190. House of Commons, 62 I House of Lord-., 62. Houston, Samuel, General, 279. Hubbard, Mr, Hon, 340. Hull. General, 882. Hutchinson, Judge, 39 I. Ide, Jacob, Dr., 448. Illinois Central Asso, 202. Gen. Cong. Asso., 204. Impressment Seamen, 329, 576. Indiana Ter, 241. Ingersoll, C. J, 301. Insurrection in Texas, 273. Invasion of Texas, 273. Iowa Ter, 24 1. Iredell, Judge, 85. Ives, L. s. Bishop, 191. " Jacobinism," 130. Jackson, Andrew, Pres., 267, 269,274, 270-7. 286, 291, 338, 417. Jamaica, 370. .lames, John AogelL Rev., 360. Jay, John, Gov, 30, 86, 92, 95, 97. Jay, John, Esq, 191. .lav, 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. Jocelyn, 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, 255. Kearney, Gen.. 302. Kentucky (in 1780), 110. Admission of, 227. Presb. Svnod, 152. Kendall. Amos,'(P. M Gen.) 416-17. Kerr, John. 4 7. L. ; v, Francis s„ 105, 487,446 King Henry of Spain, 4. King's Bench, Court, 50. King, Thos. B, 810, 318. 600 GENERAL INDEX. King, Leicester, Hon., 478. Knibb, "Win, Missionary (W. I.), SCO; 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, Heman, 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, 558. Lovejoy, E. P. Rev, 406, 439. Lumpkin, Gov. (Geo.), 410. Lundy, Benjamin, 385, 391-2. 436. Lun t," Geo, Hon, 418. Lushington, Dr., 363, 371. Macauley, Zachary, 358. Macedon Lock Convention, 475. Macknight, (Commentator) 29. McDuffie, Geo, Gov. S. C, 141, 413. Madison, James, Pros, 70, 79, 84, 86-7, 102, 228, 230, 336. Malian, J. B, Rev, 440. Mahan, Asa, Pies, 492. Mails, U. S, laws, 233. Report, U.S. Senate, 421. Malcom, Howard, Rev, 493. Mansfield, Chief Justice, Lord, IS, 46, 48, 50-1-2, 55. Mann, Horace, Hon, 226. Manufactures, N. England, 134,334, 336. Marriage, white women with 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, 1 2, 1 8. (in 1S12,) 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, 570-1. Masonic Hall, Colonization meeting, 395. May anniversaries, (1825 to '30) 3S7. 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, 2S. Monterey taken, 300. More, Hannah, 28. Morrell, Judge, 244. Morris, Thomas, 471. Mulgrave, Lord, 370. Murcb, 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 Con v. (1833), 393. Naturalization laws, 235. GKXERAi. IN 001 Naturalization laws, power of Con through, 570, 586. Nat, Turner's insurrection, 892,688. Nelson, Dr. Rev.. 896,489. Neviu, E. H.. Rev, 492. New England, Colonial Slavery, 12-14. In War of L812, 832. Meth. EL Oonf, 148. Anti-Slavery Soc, 392. New Orleans Bible Soc, 211. Newport (R, L)Oong. Ch., 12. New School Gen. Assembly, 157. Ne,\ fork — Yearly Meet. Friends, 38. Abolition Soc. (1785), 95. Cifrj A. s. Soc., 395.' Animal Conf, Meth., 428. Central College. 507. -New York Observer," 176,182. 205. 218. •• Evangelist," 392. ■• Non-Resistants," 458,512, 618-19, 627, 534, 539. North Carolina, Colonial Slavery, 22. i Convention (in 1774), 72 ; Cession to U. S., 225 ; Af. Slave Trade, 261 ; Demands. 413 ; Bap. Asso., 186. X. W. Territory, s: " Notes on Virginia," 87. "No Union with Slaveholders," 526. Nourse, Jos., Reg., 257. Nullification (S. C), 338. '• Observations" (1774), 75. (1779), 78. O'Connell, 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 Soc, 212. " Orders in Council," Brit., 329. Osceola, 270. Page, Mr. (Va.), lie. 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.Bisho;, ■■.. and Ma : 159. Peck, J. .M.. KM...-,"!. Perm, Wm . 85. Penns) Ivania, Abol. s. ,• ' Hall, burned, i ngton, .1. W. Dr., 511. Perkins, Q W.. Rev., 174. Petitions to I 1, 'J7, 221. Persecution-^, i:; i. Phelps, A. A. Rev., 207-8,410 11, 159 Phila. '• Yearly Meeting" Friend", 86. Phillips, Wendell. 517-18, 528. I Pigott, Arthur, Sir. 62. Pike, •!. G . !Iuv„ 360. Pinckney, Wm., 82, 583. Pinney, J. B., 851. Pitt. Wm.. 28,57,62,64-6, 282. Plummer, W.S,Dr, 411. Political Power of Slaveholders, 184 Economy, controlled by, 81 9. 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. C, liev., 412. Post-office, Charleston, S. C, lie. Postmaster-General, 416. Prejudice va. color, 139, 200. Presbyterian Ch, 107-8, 138, 151,24'.'. 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. 221. Price, Dr.. 20. Primatt. Dr., 29. Princeton Repertory, 151. Theological Seminary, 14. Protestant Episcopal Church, 191. Society,