+-------------------------------------------------------------+ |Transcriber's Note: | | | |The adjective 'Christian' is sometimes spelled 'christian' | |and its use is inconsistent throughout the book. The original| |punctuation, language and spelling have been retained, except| |where noted at the end of the text. | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ AN ESSAY ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM, WITH REFERENCE TO THE DUTY OF AMERICAN FEMALES. BY CATHARINE E. BEECHER. Philadelphia: HENRY PERKINS, 134 CHESTNUT STREET. PERKINS & MARVIN, BOSTON. 1837. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1837, by _HenryPerkins_, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania. L. ASHMEAD AND CO. PRINTERS. PREFACE. THE following are the circumstances which occasioned the succeedingpages. A gentleman and a friend, requested the writer to assign reasonswhy he should not join the Abolition Society. While preparing a replyto this request, MISS GRIMKÉ's Address was presented, and theinformation communicated, of her intention to visit the North, for thepurpose of using her influence among northern ladies to induce them tounite with Abolition Societies. The writer then began a private letterto Miss Grimké as a personal friend. But by the wishes and advice ofothers, these two efforts were finally combined in the following Essay, to be presented to the public. The honoured and beloved name which that lady bears, so associated as itis at the South, North, and West, with all that is elegant in a scholar, refined in a gentleman, and elevated in a Christian, --the respectablesect with which she is connected, --the interesting effusions of herpen, --and her own intellectual and moral worth, must secure respect forher opinions and much personal influence. This seems to be a sufficientapology for presenting to the public some considerations in connexionwith her name; considerations which may exhibit in another aspect thecause she advocates, and which it may be appropriate to consider. Assuch, they are respectfully commended to the public, and especially tothat portion of it for which they are particularly designed. ESSAY ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM. ADDRESSED TO MISS A. D. GRIMKÉ. MY DEAR FRIEND, Your public address to Christian females at the South has reached me, and I have been urged to aid in circulating it at the North. I have alsobeen informed, that you contemplate a tour, during the ensuing year, forthe purpose of exerting your influence to form Abolition Societies amongladies of the non-slave-holding States. Our acquaintance and friendship give me a claim to your private ear; butthere are reasons why it seems more desirable to address you, who nowstand before the public as an advocate of Abolition measures, in a morepublic manner. The object I have in view, is to present some reasons why it seemsunwise and inexpedient for ladies of the non-slave-holding States tounite themselves in Abolition Societies; and thus, at the same time, to exhibit the inexpediency of the course you propose to adopt. I would first remark, that your public address leads me to infer, thatyou are not sufficiently informed in regard to the feelings and opinionsof Christian females at the North. Your remarks seem to assume, that the_principles_ held by Abolitionists on the subject of slavery, arepeculiar to them, and are not generally adopted by those at the Northwho oppose their _measures_. In this you are not correctly informed. Inthe sense in which Abolitionists explain the terms they employ, there islittle, if any, difference between them and most northern persons. Especially is this true of northern persons of religious principles. Iknow not where to look for northern Christians, who would deny thatevery slave-holder is bound to treat his slaves exactly as he wouldclaim that his own children ought to be treated in similarcircumstances; that the holding of our fellow men as property, or thewithholding any of the rights of freedom, for mere purposes of gain, isa sin, and ought to be immediately abandoned; and that where the lawsare such, that a slave-holder cannot _legally_ emancipate his slaves, without throwing them into worse bondage, he is bound to use all hisinfluence to alter those laws, and, in the meantime, to treat his slaves, as nearly as he can, _as if_ they were free. I do not suppose there is one person in a thousand, at the North, whowould dissent from these principles. They would only differ in the useof terms, and call this the doctrine of _gradual emancipation_, whileAbolitionists would call it the doctrine of _immediate emancipation_. As this is the state of public opinion at the North, there is nonecessity for using any influence with northern ladies, in order thatthey may adopt your _principles_ on the subject of slavery; for theyhold them in common with yourself, and it would seem unwise, and mightprove irritating, to approach them as if they held opposite sentiments. In regard to the duty of making efforts to bring the people of theSouthern States to adopt these principles, and act on them, it isentirely another matter. On this point you would find a large majorityopposed to your views. Most persons in the non-slave-holding States haveconsidered the matter of Southern slavery, as one in which they were nomore called to interfere, than in the abolition of the press-gang systemin England, or the tythe system of Ireland. Public opinion may have beenwrong on this point, and yet have been right on all those greatprinciples of rectitude and justice relating to slavery, whichAbolitionists claim as their _distinctive_ peculiarities. The distinctive peculiarity of the Abolition Society is this: it is avoluntary association in one section of the country, designed to awakenpublic sentiment against a moral evil existing in another section of thecountry, and the principal point of effort seems to be, to enlarge thenumbers of this association as a means of influencing public sentiment. The principal object of your proposed tour, I suppose, is to presentfacts, arguments, and persuasions to influence northern ladies to enrolthemselves as members of this association. I will therefore proceed to present some of the reasons which may bebrought against such a measure as the one you would urge. In the first place, the main principle of action in that society restswholly on a false deduction from past experience. Experience has shown, that when certain moral evils exist in a community, efforts to awakenpublic sentiment against such practices, and combinations for theexercise of personal influence and example, have in various cases tendedto rectify these evils. Thus in respect to intemperance;--the collectingof facts, the labours of public lecturers and the distribution ofpublications, have had much effect in diminishing the evil. So inreference to the slave-trade and slavery in England. The English nationpossessed the power of regulating their own trade, and of giving libertyto every slave in their dominions; and yet they were entirely unmindfulof their duty on this subject. Clarkson, Wilberforce, and theircoadjutors, commenced a system of operations to arouse and influencepublic sentiment, and they succeeded in securing the suppression of theslave trade, and the gradual abolition of slavery in the Englishcolonies. In both these cases, the effort was to enlighten and directpublic sentiment in a community, of which the actors were a portion, inorder to lead them to rectify an evil existing among THEMSELVES, whichwas entirely under their control. From the success of such efforts, the Abolitionists of this country havedrawn inferences, which appear to be not only illogical, but false. Because individuals in _their own_ community have aroused their fellowcitizens to correct their own evils, therefore they infer that attemptsto convince their fellow-citizens of the faults of _another_ communitywill lead that community to forsake their evil practices. An examplewill more clearly illustrate the case. Suppose two rival cities, whichhave always been in competition, and always jealous of each other'sreputation and prosperity. Certain individuals in one of these citiesbecome convinced, that the sin of intemperance is destroying theirprosperity and domestic happiness. They proceed to collect facts, theyarrange statistics, they call public meetings, they form voluntaryassociations, they use arguments, entreaties and personal example, andby these means they arrest the evil. Suppose another set of men, in this same community, become convincedthat certain practices in trade and business in the rival city, aredishonest, and have an oppressive bearing on certain classes in thatcity, and are injurious to the interests of general commerce. Supposealso, that these are practices, which, by those who allow them, areconsidered as honourable and right. Those who are convinced of theirimmorality, wish to alter the opinions and the practices of the citizensof their rival city, and to do this, they commence the collection offacts, that exhibit the tendencies of these practices and the evils theyhave engendered. But instead of going among the community in which theevils exist, and endeavouring to convince and persuade them, theyproceed to form voluntary associations among their neighbours at home, and spend their time, money and efforts to convince their fellowcitizens that the inhabitants of their rival city are guilty of a greatsin. They also publish papers and tracts and send out agents, not to theguilty city, but to all the neighbouring towns and villages, to convincethem of the sins of the city in their vicinity. And they claim that theyshall succeed in making that city break off its sins, by these measures, because other men succeeded in banishing intemperance by labouring amongtheir own friends and fellow citizens. Is not this example exactlyparallel with the exertions of the Abolitionists? Are not the northernand southern sections of our country distinct communities, withdifferent feelings and interests? Are they not rival, and jealous infeeling? Have the northern States the power to rectify evils at theSouth, as they have to remove their own moral deformities; or have theyany such power over the southern States as the British people had overtheir own trade and their dependent colonies in the West Indies? Havenot Abolitionists been sending out papers, tracts, and agents toconvince the people of the North of the sins of the South? Have they notrefrained from going to the South with their facts, arguments, andappeals, because they feared personal evils to themselves? And do notAbolitionists found their hopes of success in their project, on thesuccess which crowned the efforts of British philanthropists in the caseof slavery, and on the success that has attended efforts to banishintemperance? And do not these two cases differ entirely from theAbolition movement in this main point, that one is an effort to convincemen of _their own_ sins, and the other is an effort to convince men ofthe sins of _other persons_? The second reason I would urge against joining the Abolition Society is, that its character and measures are not either peaceful or Christian intendency, but they rather are those which tend to generate party spirit, denunciation, recrimination, and angry passions. But before bringing evidence to sustain this position, I wish to make adistinction between the _men_ who constitute an association, and the_measures_ which are advocated and adopted. I believe, that as a body, Abolitionists are men of pure morals, ofgreat honesty of purpose, of real benevolence and piety, and of greatactivity in efforts to promote what they consider the best interests oftheir fellow men. I believe, that, in making efforts to abolish slavery, they have taken measures, which they supposed were best calculated tobring this evil to an end, with the greatest speed, and with the leastdanger and suffering to the South. I do not believe they ever designedto promote disunion, or insurrection, or to stir up strife, or that theysuppose that their measures can be justly characterized by thepeculiarities I have specified. I believe they have been urged forwardby a strong feeling of patriotism, as well as of religious duty, andthat they have made great sacrifices of feeling, character, time, andmoney to promote what they believed to be the cause of humanity and theservice of God. I regard individuals among them, as having taken a boldand courageous stand, in maintaining the liberty of free discussion, theliberty of speech and of the press; though this however is somewhatabated by the needless provocations by which they caused thosedifficulties and hazards they so courageously sustained. In speakingthus of Abolitionists as a body, it is not assumed that there are notbad men found in this party as well as in every other; nor that amongthose who are good men, there are not those who may have allowed partyspirit to take the place of Christian principle; men who have exhibiteda mournful destitution of Christian charity; who have indulged in anoverbearing, denouncing, and self-willed pertinacity as to measures. Yetwith these reservations, I believe that the above is no more than a fairand just exhibition of that class of men who are embraced in the partyof Abolitionists. And all this can be admitted, and yet the objection Iam to urge against joining their ranks may stand in its full force. To make the position clearer, an illustration may be allowed. Suppose abody of good men become convinced that the inspired direction, "themthat sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear, " imposes upon themthe duty of openly rebuking every body whom they discover in thepractice of any sin. Suppose these men are daily in the habit of goinginto the streets, and calling all by-standers around them, pointing outcertain men, some as liars, some as dishonest, some as licentious, andthen bringing proofs of their guilt and rebuking them before all; at thesame time exhorting all around to point at them the finger of scorn. They persevere in this course till the whole community is thrown into anuproar; and assaults, and even bloodshed ensue. They then call on allgood citizens to protect their persons from abuse, and to maintain theliberty of speech and of free opinion. Now the men may be as pure in morals, as conscientious and upright inintention, as any Abolitionist, and yet every one would say, that theirmeasures were unwise and unchristian. In like manner, although Abolitionists may be lauded for many virtues, still much evidence can be presented, that the character and measures ofthe Abolition Society are not either peaceful or christian in tendency, but that they are in their nature calculated to generate party spirit, denunciation, recrimination, and angry passions. The first thing I would present to establish this, is the character ofthe leaders of this association. Every combined effort is necessarilydirected by leaders; and the spirit of the leaders will inevitably becommunicated to their coadjutors, and appear in the measures of thewhole body. In attempting to characterize these leaders, I would first presentanother leader of a similar enterprise, the beloved and veneratedWILBERFORCE. It is thus that his prominent traits are delineated by anintimate friend. "His extreme benevolence contributed largely to his success. I haveheard him say, that it was one of his constant rules, and on thequestion of slavery especially, never to provoke an adversary--to allowhim credit fully for sincerity and purity of motive--to abstain from allirritating expressions--to avoid even such political attacks as wouldindispose his opponents for his great cause. In fact, the benignity, thegentleness, the kind-heartedness of the man, disarmed the bitterestfoes. Not only on this question did he restrain himself, but generally. Once he had been called during a whole debate 'the religious member, ' ina kind of scorn. He remarked afterwards, that he was much inclined tohave retorted, by calling his opponent the _irreligious_ member, butthat he refrained, as it would have been a returning of evil for evil. Next to his general consistency, and love of the Scriptures, the_humility_ of his character always appeared remarkable. The modest, shrinking, simple Christian statesman and friend always appeared in him. And the nearer you approached him, the more his habit of mind obviouslyappeared to be modest and lowly. His _charity in judging of others_, isa farther trait of his Christian character. Of his benevolence I neednot speak, but his _kind construction of doubtful actions_, his_charitable language_ toward those with whom he most widely differed, his thorough forgetfulness of little affronts, were fruits of thatgeneral benevolence which continually appeared. " This was the leader, both in and out of Parliament, of that body of menwho combined to bring to an end slavery and the slave trade, in thedominions of Great Britain. With him, as principal leaders, wereassociated CLARKSON, SHARPE, MACAULAY, and others of a similar spirit. These men were all of them characterized by that mild, benevolent, peaceful, gentlemanly and forbearing spirit, which has been described asso conspicuous in Wilberforce. And when their measures are examined, itwill be found that they were eminently mild, peaceful, and forbearing. Though no effort that is to encounter the selfish interests of men, canescape without odium and opposition, from those who are thwarted, andfrom all whom they can influence, these men carefully took thosemeasures that were calculated to bring about their end with the leastopposition and evil possible. They avoided prejudices, strove toconciliate opposers, shunned every thing that would give needlessoffence and exasperation, began slowly and cautiously, with points whichcould be the most easily carried, and advanced toward others only aspublic sentiment became more and more enlightened. They did not beardthe lion in full face, by coming out as the first thing with the maxim, that all slavery ought and must be abandoned immediately. They beganwith "inquiries as to the _impolicy_ of the _slave trade_, " and it wasyears before they came to the point of the abolition of slavery. Andthey carried their measures through, without producing warring partiesamong _good men_, who held common principles with themselves. As ageneral fact, the pious men of Great Britain acted harmoniously in thisgreat effort. Let us now look at the leaders of the Abolition movement in America. Theman who first took the lead was William L. Garrison, who, though heprofesses a belief in the Christian religion, is an avowed opponent ofmost of its institutions. The character and spirit of this man have foryears been exhibited in "the Liberator, " of which he is the editor. Thatthere is to be found in that paper, or in any thing else, any evidenceof his possessing the peculiar traits of Wilberforce, not even hiswarmest admirers will maintain. How many of the opposite traits can befound, those can best judge who have read his paper. Gradually othersjoined themselves in the effort commenced by Garrison; but for a longtime they consisted chiefly of men who would fall into one of thesethree classes; either good men who were so excited by a knowledge of theenormous evils of slavery, that _any thing_ was considered better thanentire inactivity, or else men accustomed to a contracted field ofobservation, and more qualified to judge of immediate results than ofgeneral tendencies, or else men of ardent and impulsive temperament, whose feelings are likely to take the lead, rather than their judgment. There are no men who act more efficiently as the leaders of anenterprise than the editors of the periodicals that advocate and defendit. The editors of the Emancipator, the Friend of Man, the New YorkEvangelist, and the other abolition periodicals, may therefore beconsidered as among the chief leaders of the enterprise, and theirpapers are the mirror from which their spirit and character arereflected. I wish the friends of these editors would cull from their papers all theindications they can find of the peculiarities that distinguishedWilberforce and his associates; all the evidence of "a modest and lowlyspirit, "--all the exhibitions of "charity in judging of the motives ofthose who oppose their measures, "--all the "indications of benignity, gentleness, and kind-heartedness, "--all the "kind constructions ofdoubtful actions, "--all the "charitable language used toward those whodiffer in opinion or measures, "--all the "thorough forgetfulness oflittle affronts, "--all the cases where "opponents are allowed fullcredit for purity and sincerity of motive, "--all cases where they havebeen careful "never to provoke an adversary, "--all cases where they have"refrained from all irritating expressions, "--all cases where they haveavoided every thing that would "indispose their opponents for theirgreat cause, " and then compare the result with what may be found of anopposite character, and I think it would not be unsafe to infer that anassociation whose measures, on an exciting subject, were guided by suchmen, would be more likely to be aggressive than peaceful. The position Iwould establish will appear more clearly, by examining in detail some ofthe prominent measures which have been adopted by this association. One of the first measures of Abolitionists was an attack on a benevolentsociety, originated and sustained by some of the most pious and devotedmen of the age. It was imagined by Abolitionists, that the influence andmeasures of the Colonization Society tended to retard the abolition ofslavery, and to perpetuate injurious prejudices against the colouredrace. The peaceful and christian method of meeting this difficulty wouldhave been, to collect all the evidence of this supposed hurtful tendency, and privately, and in a respectful and conciliating way, to havepresented it to the attention of the wise and benevolent men, who weremost interested in sustaining this institution. If this measure did notavail to convince them, then it would have been safe and justifiable topresent to the public a temperate statement of facts, and of thedeductions based on them, drawn up in a respectful and candid manner, with every charitable allowance which truth could warrant. Instead ofthis, when the attempt was first made to turn public opinion against theColonization Society, I met one of the most influential supporters ofthat institution, just after he had had an interview with a leadingAbolitionist. This gentleman was most remarkable for his urbanity, meekness, and benevolence, and his remark to me in reference to thisinterview, shows what was its nature. "I love truth and sound argument, "said he, "but when a man comes at me with a sledge hammer, I cannot helpdodging. " This is a specimen of their private manner of dealing. Inpublic, the enterprise was attacked as a plan for promoting the selfishinterests and prejudices of the whites, at the expense of the colouredpopulation; and in many cases, it was assumed that the conductors ofthis association were aware of this, and accessory to it. And the stylein which the thing was done was at once offensive, inflammatory, andexasperating. Denunciation, sneers, and public rebuke, were bestowedindiscriminately upon the conductors of the enterprise, and of coursethey fell upon many sincere, upright, and conscientious men, whosefeelings were harrowed by a sense of the injustice, the indecorum, andthe unchristian treatment, they received. And when a temporaryimpression was made on the public mind, and its opponents supposed theyhad succeeded in crushing this society, the most public and triumphantexultation was not repressed. Compare this method of carrying a point, with that adopted by Wilberforce and his compeers, and I think you willallow that there was a way that was peaceful and christian, and thatthis was not the way which was chosen. The next measure of Abolitionism was an attempt to remove the prejudicesof the whites against the blacks, on account of natural peculiarities. Now, prejudice is an _unreasonable_ and _groundless_ dislike of personsor things. Of course, as it is unreasonable, it is the most difficult ofall things to conquer, and the worst and most irritating method thatcould be attempted would be, to attack a man as guilty of sin, asunreasonable, as ungenerous, or as proud, for allowing a certainprejudice. This is the sure way to produce anger, self-justification, and anincrease of the strength of prejudice, against that which has caused himthis rebuke and irritation. The best way to make a person like a thing which is disagreeable, is totry in some way to make it agreeable; and if a certain class of personsis the subject of unreasonable prejudice, the peaceful and christian wayof removing it would be to endeavour to render the unfortunate personswho compose this class, so useful, so humble and unassuming, so kind intheir feelings, and so full of love and good works, that prejudice wouldbe supplanted by complacency in their goodness, and pity and sympathyfor their disabilities. If the friends of the blacks had quietly setthemselves to work to increase their intelligence, their usefulness, their respectability, their meekness, gentleness, and benevolence, andthen had appealed to the pity, generosity, and christian feelings oftheir fellow citizens, a very different result would have appeared. Instead of this, reproaches, rebukes, and sneers, were employed toconvince the whites that their prejudices were sinful, and without anyjust cause. They were accused of pride, of selfish indifference, ofunchristian neglect. This tended to irritate the whites, and to increasetheir prejudice against the blacks, who thus were made the causes ofrebuke and exasperation. Then, on the other hand, the blacks extensivelyreceived the Liberator, and learned to imbibe the spirit of itsconductor. They were taught to feel that they were injured and abused, the objectsof a guilty and unreasonable prejudice--that they occupied a lower placein society than was right--that they ought to be treated as if they werewhites; and in repeated instances, attempts were made by their friendsto mingle them with whites, so as to break down the existingdistinctions of society. Now, the question is not, whether these things, that were urged by Abolitionists, were true. The thing maintained is, that the method taken by them to remove this prejudice was neitherpeaceful nor christian in its tendency, but, on the contrary, wascalculated to increase the evil, and to generate anger, pride, andrecrimination, on one side, and envy, discontent, and revengefulfeelings, on the other. These are some of the general measures which have been exhibited in theAbolition movement. The same peculiarities may be as distinctly seen inspecific cases, where the peaceful and quiet way of accomplishing thegood was neglected, and the one most calculated to excite wrath andstrife was chosen. Take, for example, the effort to establish a collegefor coloured persons. The quiet, peaceful, and christian way of doingsuch a thing, would have been, for those who were interested in theplan, to furnish the money necessary, and then to have selected aretired place, where there would be the least prejudice and oppositionto be met, and there, in an unostentatious way, commenced the educationof the youth to be thus sustained. Instead of this, at a time when thepublic mind was excited on the subject, it was noised abroad that acollege for blacks was to be founded. Then a city was selected for itslocation, where was another college, so large as to demand constanteffort and vigilance to preserve quiet subordination; where contestswith "sailors and town boys" were barely kept at bay; a collegeembracing a large proportion of southern students, who were highlyexcited on the subject of slavery and emancipation; a college where halfthe shoe-blacks and waiters were coloured men. Beside the very walls ofthis college, it was proposed to found a college for coloured young men. Could it be otherwise than that opposition, and that for the best ofreasons, would arise against such an attempt, both from the faculty ofthe college and the citizens of the place? Could it be reasonablyexpected that they would not oppose a measure so calculated to increasetheir own difficulties and liabilities, and at the same time so certainto place the proposed institution in the most unfavourable of allcircumstances? But when the measure was opposed, instead of yieldingmeekly and peaceably to such reasonable objections, and soothing thefeelings and apprehensions that had been excited, by putting the bestconstruction on the matter, and seeking another place, it was claimed asan evidence of opposition to the interests of the blacks, and as a markof the force of sinful prejudice. The worst, rather than the best, motives were ascribed to some of the most respectable, and venerated, and pious men, who opposed the measure; and a great deal was said anddone that was calculated to throw the community into an angry ferment. Take another example. If a prudent and benevolent female had selectedalmost any village in New England, and commenced a school for colouredfemales, in a quiet, appropriate, and unostentatious way, the worldwould never have heard of the case, except to applaud her benevolence, and the kindness of the villagers, who aided her in the effort. Butinstead of this, there appeared public advertisements, (which I saw atthe time, ) stating that a seminary for the education of young ladies ofcolour was to be opened in Canterbury, in the state of Connecticut, where would be taught music on the piano forte, drawing, &c. , togetherwith a course of English education. Now, there are not a dozen colouredfamilies in New England, in such pecuniary circumstances, that if theywere whites it would not be thought ridiculous to attempt to give theirdaughters such a course of education, and Canterbury was a place wherebut few of the wealthiest families ever thought of furnishing suchaccomplishments for their children. Several other particulars might beadded that were exceedingly irritating, but this may serve as a specimenof the method in which the whole affair was conducted. It was an entiredisregard of the prejudices and the proprieties of society, andcalculated to stimulate pride, anger, ill-will, contention, and all thebitter feelings that spring from such collisions. Then, instead ofadopting measures to soothe and conciliate, rebukes, sneers anddenunciations, were employed, and Canterbury and Connecticut were heldup to public scorn and rebuke for doing what most other communitieswould probably have done, if similarly tempted and provoked. Take another case. It was deemed expedient by Abolitionists to establishan Abolition paper, first in Kentucky, a slave State. It was driven fromthat State, either by violence or by threats. It retreated to Ohio, oneof the free States. In selecting a place for its location, it might havebeen established in a small place, where the people were of similarviews, or were not exposed to dangerous popular excitements. ButCincinnati was selected; and when the most intelligent, the mostreasonable, and the most patriotic of the citizens remonstrated, --whenthey represented that there were peculiar and unusual liabilities topopular excitement on this subject, --that the organization and power ofthe police made it extremely dangerous to excite a mob, and almostimpossible to control it, --that all the good aimed at could beaccomplished by locating the press in another place, where there werenot such dangerous liabilities, --when they kindly and respectfully urgedthese considerations, they were disregarded. I myself was present when asincere friend urged upon the one who controlled that paper, theobligations of good men, not merely to avoid breaking wholesome lawsthemselves, but the duty of regarding the liabilities of others totemptation; and that where Christians could foresee that by placingcertain temptations in the way of their fellow-men, all theprobabilities were, that they would yield, and yet persisted in doingit, the tempters became partakers in the guilt of those who yielded tothe temptation. But these remonstrances were ineffectual. The paper mustnot only be printed and circulated, but it must be stationed where werethe greatest probabilities that measures of illegal violence wouldensue. And when the evil was perpetrated, and a mob destroyed the press, then those who had urged on these measures of temptation, turned uponthose who had advised and remonstrated, as the guilty authors of theviolence, because, in a season of excitement, the measures adopted torestrain and control the mob, were not such as were deemed suitable andright. Now, in all the above cases, I would by no means justify the wrong orthe injudicious measures that may have been pursued, under this courseof provocation. The greatness of temptation does by no means release menfrom obligation; but Christians are bound to remember that it is acertain consequence of throwing men into strong excitement, that theywill act unwisely and wrong, and that the tempter as well as the temptedare held responsible, both by God and man. In all these cases, it cannotbut appear that the good aimed at might have been accomplished in aquiet, peaceable, and christian way, and that this was not the way whichwas chosen. The whole system of Abolition measures seems to leave entirely out ofview, the obligation of Christians to save their fellow men from allneedless temptations. If the thing to be done is only lawful and right, it does not appear to have been a matter of effort to do it in such away as would not provoke and irritate; but often, if the chief aim hadbeen to do the good in the most injurious and offensive way, no morecertain and appropriate methods could have been devised. So much has this been the character of Abolition movements, that manyhave supposed it to be a deliberate and systematized plan of the leadersto do nothing but what was strictly a _right_ guaranteed by law, andyet, in such a manner, as to provoke men to anger, so that unjust andillegal acts might ensue, knowing, that as a consequence, the opposersof Abolition would be thrown into the wrong, and sympathy be aroused forAbolitionists as injured and persecuted men. It is a fact, thatAbolitionists have taken the course most calculated to awaken illegalacts of violence, and that when they have ensued, they have seemed torejoice in them, as calculated to advance and strengthen their cause. The violence of mobs, the denunciations and unreasonable requirements ofthe South, the denial of the right of petition, the restrictionsattempted to be laid upon freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, are generally spoken of with exultation by Abolitionists, as what areamong the chief means of promoting their cause. It is not so much byexciting feelings of pity and humanity, and Christian love, towards theoppressed, as it is by awakening indignation at the treatment ofAbolitionists themselves, that their cause has prospered. How many menhave declared or implied, that in joining the ranks of Abolition, theywere influenced, not by their arguments, or by the wisdom of theircourse, but because the violence of opposers had identified that causewith the question of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and civilliberty. But when I say that many have supposed that it was the deliberateintention of the Abolitionists to foment illegal acts and violence, Iwould by no means justify a supposition, which is contrary to thedictates of justice and charity. The leaders of the Abolition Societydisclaim all such wishes or intentions; they only act apparently on theassumption that they are exercising just rights, which they are notbound to give up, because other men will act unreasonably and wickedly. Another measure of Abolitionists, calculated to awaken evil feelings, has been the treatment of those who objected to their proceedings. A large majority of the philanthropic and pious, who hold common viewswith the Abolitionists, as to the sin and evils of slavery, and the dutyof using all appropriate means to bring it to an end, have opposed theirmeasures, because they have believed them not calculated to promote, butrather to retard the end proposed to be accomplished by them. Thepeaceful and Christian method of encountering such opposition, wouldhave been to allow the opponents full credit for purity and integrity ofmotive, to have avoided all harsh and censorious language, and to haveemployed facts, arguments and persuasions, in a kind and respectful waywith the hope of modifying their views and allaying their fears. Insteadof this, the wise and good who opposed Abolition measures, have beentreated as though they were the friends and defenders of slavery, or asthose who, from a guilty, timid, time-serving policy, refused to takethe course which duty demanded. They have been addressed either as if itwere necessary to convince them that slavery is wrong and ought to beabandoned, or else, as if they needed to be exhorted to give up theirtimidity and selfish interest, and to perform a manifest duty, whichthey were knowingly neglecting. Now there is nothing more irritating, when a man is conscientious andacting according to his own views of right, than to be dealt with inthis manner. The more men are treated as if they were honest andsincere--the more they are treated with respect, fairness, andbenevolence, the more likely they are to be moved by evidence andarguments. On the contrary, harshness, uncharitableness, and rebuke, foropinions and conduct that are in agreement with a man's own views ofduty and rectitude, tend to awaken evil feelings, and indispose the mindproperly to regard evidence. Abolitionists have not only taken thiscourse, but in many cases, have seemed to act on the principle, that theabolition of Slavery, in the particular mode in which they were aimingto accomplish it, was of such paramount importance, that every thingmust be overthrown that stood in the way. No matter what respect a man had gained for talents, virtue, and piety, if he stood in the way of Abolitionism, he must be attacked as tocharacter and motives. No matter how important an institution might be, if its influence was against the measures of Abolitionism, it must beattacked openly, or sapped privately, till its influence was destroyed. By such measures, the most direct means have been taken to awaken angerat injury, and resentment at injustice, and to provoke retaliation onthose who inflict the wrong. All the partialities of personalfriendship; all the feelings of respect accorded to good and useful men;all the interests that cluster around public institutions, entrenchedin the hearts of the multitudes who sustain them, were outraged by sucha course. Another measure of Abolitionists, which has greatly tended to promotewrath and strife, is their indiscreet and incorrect use of terms. To make this apparent, it must be premised, that words have no inherentmeaning, but always signify that which they are commonly _understood_ tomean. The question never should be asked, what _ought_ a word to mean?but simply, what is the meaning generally attached to this word by thosewho use it? Vocabularies and standard writers are the proper umpires todecide this question. Now if men take words and give them a new andpeculiar use, and are consequently misunderstood, they are guilty of aspecies of deception, and are accountable for all the evils that mayensue as a consequence. For example; if physicians should come out and declare, that it wastheir opinion that they ought to poison all their patients, and they haddetermined to do it, and then all the community should be thrown intoterror and excitement, it would be no justification for them to say, that all they intended by that language was, that they should administeras medicines, articles which are usually called poisons. Now Abolitionists are before the community, and declare that all slaveryis sin, which ought to be immediately forsaken; and that it is theirobject and intention to promote the _immediate emancipation_ of all theslaves in this nation. Now what is it that makes a man cease to be a slave and become free? Itis not kind treatment from a master; it is not paying wages to theslave; it is not the intention to bestow freedom at a future time; it isnot treating a slave as if he were free; it is not feeling toward aslave as if he were free. No instance can be found of any dictionary, orany standard writer, nor any case in common discourse, where any ofthese significations are attached to the word as constituting itspeculiar and appropriate meaning. It always signifies _that legal_ act, which, by the laws of the land, changes a slave to a freeman. What then is the _proper_ meaning of the language used by Abolitionists, when they say that all slavery is a sin which ought to be immediatelyabandoned, and that it is their object to secure the immediateemancipation of all slaves? The true and only proper meaning of such language is, that it is theduty of every slave-holder in this nation, to go immediately and makeout the legal instruments, that, by the laws of the land, change all hisslaves to freemen. If their maxim is true, no exception can be made forthose who live in States where the act of emancipation, by a master, makes a slave the property of the State, to be sold for the benefit ofthe State; and no exception can be made for those, who, by the will oftestators, and by the law of the land, have no power to perform thelegal act, which alone can emancipate their slaves. To meet this difficulty, Abolitionists affirm, that, in such cases, menare physically unable to emancipate their slaves, and of course are notbound to do it; and to save their great maxim, maintain that, in suchcases, the slaves are not slaves, and the slave-holders are notslave-holders, although all their legal relations remain unchanged. The meaning which the Abolitionist attaches to his language is this, that every man is bound to treat his slaves, as nearly as he can, likefreemen; and to use all his influence to bring the system of slavery toan end as soon as possible. And they allow that when men do this theyare free from guilt, in the matter of slavery, and undeserving ofcensure. But men at the North, and men at the South, understand the language usedin its true and proper sense; and Abolitionists have been using theseterms in a new and peculiar sense, which is inevitably and universallymisunderstood, and this is an occasion of much of the strife and alarmwhich has prevailed both at the South and at the North. There are nonebut these defenders of slavery who maintain that it is a relationjustifiable by the laws of the Gospel, who differ from Abolitionists inregard to the real thing which is meant. The great mistake ofAbolitionists is in using terms which inculcate the immediateannihilation of the relation, when they only intend to urge theChristian duty of treating slaves according to the gospel rules ofjustice and benevolence, and using all lawful and appropriate means forbringing a most pernicious system to a speedy end. If Abolitionists will only cease to teach that _all_ slave-holding is asin which ought to be _immediately abolished_; if they will cease tourge their plan as one of _immediate emancipation_, and teach simply andexactly that which they do mean, much strife and misunderstanding willcease. But so long as they persevere in using these terms in a new andpeculiar sense, which will always be misunderstood, they are guilty of aspecies of deception and accountable for the evils that follow. One other instance of a similar misuse of terms may be mentioned. Theword "man-stealer" has one peculiar signification, and it is no moresynonymous with "slave-holder" than it is with "sheep-stealer. " ButAbolitionists show that a slave-holder, in fact, does very many of theevils that are perpetrated by a man-stealer, and that the crime is quiteas evil in its nature, and very similar in character, and, therefore, hecalls a slave-holder a man-stealer. On this principle there is no abusive language that may not be employedto render any man odious--for every man commits sin of some kind, andevery sin is like some other sin, in many respects, and in certainaggravated cases, may be bad, or even worse, than another sin with amuch more odious name. It is easy to show that a man who neglects allreligious duty is very much like an atheist, and if he has had greatadvantages, and the atheist very few, he may be much more guilty than anatheist. And so, half the respectable men in our religious communities, may be called atheists, with as much propriety as a slave-holder can becalled a man-stealer. Abolitionists have proceeded on this principle, intheir various publications, until the terms of odium that have beenshowered upon slave-holders, would form a large page in the vocabularyof Billingsgate. This method of dealing with those whom we wish toconvince and persuade, is as contrary to the dictates of common sense, as it is to the rules of good breeding and the laws of the gospel. The preceding particulars are selected, as the evidence to be presented, that the character and measures of the Abolition Society are neitherpeaceful nor Christian in their tendency; but that in their nature theyare calculated to generate party-spirit, denunciation, recrimination, and angry passions. If such be the tendency of this institution, itfollows, that it is wrong for a Christian, or any lover of peace, to beconnected with it. The assertion that Christianity itself has led to strife and contention, is not a safe method of evading this argument. Christianity is a systemof _persuasion_, tending, by kind and gentle influences, to make men_willing_ to leave off their sins--and it comes, not to convince thosewho are not sinners, but to sinners themselves. Abolitionism, on the contrary, is a system of _coercion_ by publicopinion; and in its present operation, its influence is not to convincethe erring, but to convince those who are not guilty, of the sins ofthose who are. Another prominent peculiarity of the Abolitionists, (which is anobjection to joining this association, ) is their advocacy of aprinciple, which is wrong and very pernicious in its tendency. I referto their views in regard to what is called "the doctrine of expediency. "Their difficulty on this subject seems to have arisen from want of aclear distinction between the duty of those who are guilty of sin, andthe duty of those who are aiming to turn men from their sins. Theprinciple is assumed, that because certain men ought to abandon everysin immediately, therefore, certain other men are bound _immediately_ totry and make them do it. Now the question of expediency does not relateto what men are bound to do, who are in the practice of sinthemselves--for the immediate relinquishment of sin is the duty of all;but it relates to the duty of those who are to make efforts to induceothers to break off their wickedness. Here, the wisdom and rectitude of a given course, depend entirely on the_probabilities of success_. If a father has a son of a very peculiartemperament, and he knows by observation, that the use of the rod willmake him more irritable and more liable to a certain fault, and thatkind arguments, and tender measures will more probably accomplish thedesired object, it is a rule of expediency to try the most probablecourse. If a companion sees a friend committing a sin, and has, frompast experience, learned that remonstrances excite anger and obstinacy, while a look of silent sorrow and disapprobation tends far more toprevent the evil, expediency and duty demand silence rather thanremonstrance. There are cases also, where differences in age, and station, andcharacter, forbid all interference to modify the conduct and characterof others. A nursery maid may see that a father misgoverns his children, andill-treats his wife. But her station makes it inexpedient for her toturn reprover. It is a case where reproof would do no good, but onlyevil. So in communities, the propriety and rectitude of measures can bedecided, not by the rules of duty that should govern those who are torenounce sin, but by the probabilities of good or evil consequence. The Abolitionists seem to lose sight of this distinction. They formvoluntary associations in free States, to convince their fellowcitizens of the sins of other men in other communities. They are blamedand opposed, because their measures are deemed inexpedient, andcalculated to increase, rather than diminish the evils to be cured. In return, they show that slavery is a sin which ought to be abandonedimmediately, and seem to suppose that it follows as a correct inference, that they themselves ought to engage in a system of agitation againstit, and that it is needless for them to inquire whether preaching thetruth in the manner they propose, will increase or diminish the evil. They assume that whenever sin is committed, not only ought the sinnerimmediately to cease, but all his fellow-sinners are bound to takemeasures to make him cease, and to take measures, without any referenceto the probabilities of success. That this is a correct representation of the views of Abolitionistsgenerally, is evident from their periodicals and conversation. All theirremarks about preaching the truth and leaving consequences to God--alltheir depreciation of the doctrine of expediency, are rendered relevantonly by this supposition. The impression made by their writings is, that God has made rules ofduty; that all men are in all cases to remonstrate against the violationof those rules; and that God will take the responsibility of bringinggood out of this course; so that we ourselves are relieved from anynecessity of inquiring as to probable results. If this be not the theory of duty adopted by this association, then theystand on common ground with those who oppose their measures, viz: thatthe propriety and duty of a given course is to be decided by_probabilities as to its results_; and these probabilities are to bedetermined by the _known laws of mind_, and the _records of pastexperience_. For only one of two positions can be held. Either that it is the duty ofall men to remonstrate at all times against all violations of duty, andleave the consequences with God; or else that men are to use theirjudgment, and take the part of remonstrance only at such a time andplace, and in such a manner, as promise the best results. That the Abolitionists have not held the second of these positions, mustbe obvious to all who have read their documents. It would therefore beunwise and wrong to join an association which sustains a principle falsein itself, and one which, if acted out, would tend to wrath and strifeand every evil word and work. Another reason, and the most important of all, against promoting theplans of the Abolitionists, is involved in the main question--_what arethe probabilities as to the results of their movements?_ The only way tojudge of the future results of certain measures is, by the known laws ofmind, and the recorded experience of the past. Now what is the evil to be cured? SLAVERY IN THIS NATION. That this evil is at no distant period to come to an end, is theunanimous opinion of all who either notice the tendencies of the age, orbelieve in the prophecies of the Bible. All who act on Christianprinciples in regard to slavery, believe that in a given period(variously estimated) it will end. The only question then, in regard tothe benefits to be gained, or the evils to be dreaded in the presentagitation of the subject, relates to the _time_ and the _manner_ of itsextinction. The Abolitionists claim that their method will bring it toan end in the shortest time, and in the safest and best way. Theiropponents believe, that it will tend to bring it to an end, if at all, at the most distant period, and in the most dangerous way. As neither party are gifted with prescience, and as the Deity has madeno revelations as to the future results of any given measures, all themeans of judging that remain to us, as before stated, are the laws ofmind, and the records of the past. The position then I would aim to establish is, that the method taken bythe Abolitionists is the one that, according to the laws of mind andpast experience, is least likely to bring about the results they aimto accomplish. The general statement is this. The object to be accomplished is: First. To convince a certain community, that they are in the practice ofa great sin, and Secondly. To make them willing to relinquish it. The method taken to accomplish this is, by voluntary associations in aforeign community, seeking to excite public sentiment against theperpetrators of the evil; exhibiting the enormity of the crime in fullmeasure, without palliation, excuse or sympathy, by means of periodicalsand agents circulating, not in the community committing the sin, but inthat which does not practise it. Now that this method may, in conjunction with other causes, have aninfluence to bring slavery to an end, is not denied. But it is believed, and from the following considerations, that it is the least calculatedto do the _good_, and that it involves the greatest evils. It is a known law of mind first seen in the nursery and school, afterwards developed in society, that a person is least likely to judgecorrectly of truth, and least likely to yield to duty, when excited bypassion. It is a law of experience, that when wrong is done, if repentance andreformation are sought, then love and kindness, mingled withremonstrance, coming from one who has a _right_ to speak, are moresuccessful than rebuke and scorn from others who are not beloved, andwho are regarded as impertinent intruders. In the nursery, if the child does wrong, the finger of scorn, thetaunting rebuke, or even the fair and deserved reproof of equals, willmake the young culprit only frown with rage, and perhaps repeat andincrease the injury. But the voice of maternal love, or even the gentleremonstrances of an elder sister, may bring tears of sorrow andcontrition. So in society. Let a man's enemies, or those who have no interest in hiswelfare, join to rebuke and rail at his offences, and no signs ofpenitence will be seen. But let the clergyman whom he respects and loves, or his bosom friend approach him, with kindness, forbearance and truesincerity, and all that is possible to human agency will be effected. It is the maxim then of experience, that when men are to be turned fromevils, and brought to repent and reform, those only should interfere whoare most loved and respected, and who have the best right to approachthe offender. While on the other hand, rebuke from those who are deemedobtrusive and inimical, or even indifferent, will do more harm thangood. It is another maxim of experience, that such dealings with the erringshould be in private, not in public. The moment a man is publiclyrebuked, shame, anger, and pride of opinion, all combine to make himdefend his practice, and refuse either to own himself wrong, or to ceasefrom his evil ways. The Abolitionists have violated all these laws of mind and ofexperience, in dealing with their southern brethren. Their course has been most calculated to awaken anger, fear, pride, hatred, and all the passions most likely to blind the mind to truth, andmake it averse to duty. They have not approached them with the spirit of love, courtesy, andforbearance. They are not the persons who would be regarded by the South, as havingany _right_ to interfere; and therefore, whether they have such right ornot, the probabilities of good are removed. For it is not only demandedfor the benefit of the offender, that there should really be a right, but it is necessary that he should feel that there is such a right. In dealing with their brethren, too, they have not tried silent, retired, private measures. It has been public denunciation of crime andshame in newspapers, addressed as it were to by-standers, in order toarouse the guilty. In reply to this, it has been urged, that men could not go to theSouth--that they would be murdered there--that the only way was, toconvince the North, and excite public odium against the sins of theSouth, and thus gradually conviction, repentance, and reformation wouldensue. Here is another case where men are to judge of their duty, by estimatingprobabilities of future results; and it may first be observed, that itinvolves the principle of expediency, in just that form to whichAbolitionists object. It is allowed that the immediate abolition of slavery is to be producedby means of "light and love, " and yet it is maintained as right towithdraw personally from the field of operation, because of_consequences_; because of the probable danger of approaching. "If we goto the South, and present truth, argument, and entreaty, _we shall beslain_, and therefore we are not under obligation to go. " If thisjustifies Abolitionists in their neglect of their offending brethren, because they fear evil results to themselves, it also justifies thosewho refuse to act with Abolitionists in their measures, because theyfear other evil results. But what proof is there, that if the Abolitionists had taken anothermethod, the one more in accordance with the laws of mind and thedictates of experience, that there would have been at the South all thisviolence? Before the abolition movement commenced, both northern andsouthern men, expressed their views freely at the South. The dangers, evils, and mischiefs of slavery were exhibited and discussed even in thelegislative halls of more than one of the Southern States, and manyminds were anxiously devising measures, to bring this evil to an end. Now let us look at some of the records of past experience. Clarkson wasthe first person who devoted himself to the cause of Abolition inEngland. His object was to convince the people of England that they wereguilty of a great impolicy, and great sin, in permitting theslave-trade. He was to meet the force of public sentiment, and power, and selfishness, and wealth, which sustained this traffic, in thatnation. What were his measures? He did not go to Sweden, or Russia, orFrance, to awaken public sentiment against the sins of the English. --Hebegan by first publishing an inquiry in England whether it was right toseize men, and make them slaves. He went unostentatiously to some of thebest and most pious men there, and endeavoured to interest them in theinquiry. Then he published an article on the impolicy of the slave-trade, showingits disadvantages. Then he collected information of the evils andenormities involved in the traffic, and went quietly around among thosemost likely to be moved by motives of humanity and Christianity. In thismanner he toiled for more than fourteen years, slowly implanting theleaven among the good men, until he gained a noble band of patriots andChristians, with Wilberforce at their head. The following extract from a memoir of Clarkson discloses the manner andspirit in which he commenced his enterprise, and toiled through to itsaccomplishment. "In 1785 Dr. Peckhard, Vice-Chancellor of the University, deeplyimpressed with the iniquity of the slave-trade, announced as a subjectfor a Latin Dissertation to the Senior Bachelors of Arts: '_Anne liceatinvitos in servitutem dare?_' 'Is it right to make slaves of othersagainst their will?' However benevolent the feelings of theVice-Chancellor, and however strong and clear the opinions he held onthe inhuman traffic, it is probable that he little thought that thisdiscussion would secure for the object so dear to his own heart, effortsand advocacy equally enlightened and efficient, that should becontinued, until his country had declared, not that the slave-tradeonly, but that slavery itself should cease. "Mr. Clarkson, having in the preceding year gained the first prize forthe Latin Dissertation, was naturally anxious to maintain his honourableposition; and no efforts were spared, during the few intervening weeks, in collecting information and evidence. Important facts were gained fromAnthony Benezet's Historical Account of Guinea, which Mr. Clarksonhastened to London to purchase. Furnished with these and other valuableinformation, he commenced his difficult task. How it was accomplished, he thus informs us. "'No person, ' he states, [1] 'can tell the severe trial which the writingof it proved to me. I had expected pleasure from the invention of thearguments, from the arrangement of them, from the putting of themtogether, and from the thought, in the interim, that I was engaged in aninnocent contest for literary honour. But all my pleasure was damped bythe facts which were now continually before me. It was but one gloomysubject from morning to night. In the day-time I was uneasy; in thenight I had little rest. I sometimes never closed my eyelids for grief. It became now not so much a trial for academical reputation, as for theproduction of a work which might be useful to injured Africa. Andkeeping this idea in my mind ever after the perusal of Benezet, I alwaysslept with a candle in my room, that I might rise out of bed, and putdown such thoughts as might occur to me in the night, if I judged themvaluable, conceiving that no arguments of any moment should be lost inso great a cause. Having at length finished this painful task, I sent myEssay to the Vice-Chancellor, and soon afterwards found myself honoured, as before, with the first prize. [1] History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade. "'As it is usual to read these essays publicly in the senate-house soonafter the prize is adjudged, I was called to Cambridge for this purpose. I went, and performed my office. On returning, however, to London, thesubject of it almost wholly engrossed my thoughts. I became at timesvery seriously affected while upon the road. I stopped my horseoccasionally, and dismounted, and walked. I frequently tried to persuademyself in these intervals that the contents of my Essay could not betrue. The more, however, I reflected upon them, or rather upon theauthorities on which they were founded, the more I gave them credit. Coming in sight of Wade's Mill, in Hertfordshire, I sat downdisconsolate on the turf by the road-side, and held my horse. Here athought came into my mind, that if the contents of the Essay were true, it was time some person should see these calamities to their end. Agitated in this manner, I reached home. This was in the summer of 1785. "'In the course of the autumn of the same year I experienced similarimpressions. I walked frequently into the woods, that I might think onthe subject in solitude, and find relief to my mind there. But there thequestion still recurred, 'Are these things true?' Still the answerfollowed as instantaneously, --'They are. ' Still the result accompaniedit; 'Then, surely, some person should interfere. ' I then began to envythose who had seats in parliament, and who had great riches, and widelyextended connexions, which would enable them to take up this cause. Finding scarcely any one at that time who thought of it, I was turnedfrequently to myself. But here many difficulties arose. It struck me, among others, that a young man of only twenty-four years of age couldnot have that solid judgment, or knowledge of men, manners, and things, which were requisite to qualify him to undertake a task of suchmagnitude and importance: and with whom was I to unite? I believed also, that it looked so much like one of the feigned labours of Hercules, thatmy understanding would be suspected if I proposed it. On ruminating, however, on the subject, I found one thing at least practicable, andthat this was also in my power. I could translate my Latin Dissertation. I could enlarge it usefully. I could see how the public received it, orhow far they were likely to favour any serious measures, which shouldhave a tendency to produce the abolition of the slave-trade. Upon this, then, I determined; and in the middle of the month of November, 1785, Ibegan my work. ' "Such is the characteristic and ingenuous account given by Clarkson ofhis introduction to that work to which the energies of his life weredevoted, and in reference to which, and to the account whence theforegoing extract has been made, one of the most benevolent and giftedwriters of our country[2] has justly observed, -- [2] Coleridge. "'This interesting tale is related, not by a descendant, but acotemporary; not by a distant spectator, but by a participator of thecontest; and of all the many participators, by the man confessedly themost efficient; the man whose unparalleled labours in this work of loveand peril, leave on the mind of a reflecting reader the sublime doubt, which of the two will have been the greater final gain to the moralworld, --the removal of the evil, or the proof, thereby given, whatmighty effects single good men may realize by self-devotion andperseverance. ' "When Mr. Clarkson went to London to publish his book, he was introducedto many friends of the cause of Abolition, who aided in giving itextensive circulation. Whilst thus employed, he received an invitation, which he accepted, to visit the Rev. James Ramsay, vicar of Teston, inKent, who had resided nineteen years in the island of St. Christopher. "Shortly afterwards, dining one day at Sir Charles Middleton's, (afterwards Lord Barham, ) the conversation turned upon the subject, andMr. Clarkson declared that he was ready to devote himself to the cause. This avowal met with great encouragement from the company, and Sir C. Middleton, then Comptroller to the Navy, offered every possibleassistance. The friends of Mr. Clarkson increased, and this encouragedhim to proceed. Dr. Porteus, then Bishop of Chester, and Lord Scarsdale, were secured in the House of Lords. Mr. Bennet Langton, and Dr. Baker, who were acquainted with many members of both houses of parliament; thehonoured Granville Sharpe, James and Richard Phillips, could be dependedupon, as well as the entire body of the Society of Friends, to many ofwhom he had been introduced by Mr. Joseph Hancock, his fellow-townsman. Seeking information in every direction, Mr. Clarkson boarded a number ofvessels engaged in the African trade, and obtained specimens of thenatural productions of the country. The beauty of the cloth made fromAfrican cotton, &c. Enhanced his estimate of the skill and ingenuity ofthe people, and gave a fresh stimulus to his exertions on their behalf. He next visited a slave-ship; the rooms below, the gratings above, andthe barricade across the deck, with the explanation of their uses, though the sight of them filled him with sadness and horror, gave newenergy to all his movements. In his indefatigable endeavours to collectevidence and facts, he visited most of the sea-ports in the kingdom, pursuing his great object with invincible ardour, although sometimes atthe peril of his life. The following circumstance, among others, evincesthe eminent degree in which he possessed that untiring perseverance, onwhich the success of a great enterprise often depends. "Clarkson and his friends had reason to fear that slaves brought fromthe interior of Africa by certain rivers, had been kidnapped; and it wasdeemed of great importance to ascertain the fact. A friend one daymentioned to Mr. Clarkson, that he had, above twelve months before, seena sailor who had been up these rivers. The name of the sailor wasunknown, and all the friend could say was, that he was going to, orbelonged to, some man-of-war in ordinary. The evidence of thisindividual was important, and, aided by his friend Sir CharlesMiddleton, who gave him permission to board all the ships of war inordinary, Mr. Clarkson commenced his search:--beginning at Deptford, hevisited successfully Woolwich, Chatham, Sheerness, and Portsmouth;examining in his progress the different persons on board upwards of twohundred and sixty vessels, without discovering the object of his search. The feelings under which the search was continued, and the success withwhich it was crowned, he has himself thus described:-- "'Matters now began to look rather disheartening, --I mean as far as mygrand object was concerned. There was but one other port left, and thiswas between two and three hundred miles distant. I determined, however, to go to Plymouth. I had already been more successful in this tour, withrespect to obtaining general evidence, than in any other of the samelength; and the probability was, that as I should continue to move amongthe same kind of people, my success would be in a similar proportion, according to the number visited. These were great encouragements to meto proceed. At length I arrived at the place of my last hope. On myfirst day's expedition I boarded forty vessels, but found no one inthese who had been on the coast of Africa in the slave-trade. One or twohad been there in king's ships; but they never had been on shore. Thingswere now drawing near to a close; and notwithstanding my success, as togeneral evidence, in this journey, my heart began to beat. I wasrestless and uneasy during the night. The next morning I felt agitatedagain between the alternate pressure of hope and fear; and in this stateI entered my boat. The fifty-seventh vessel I boarded was the Melampusfrigate. --One person belonging to it, on examining him in the captain'scabin, said he had been two voyages to Africa; and I had not longdiscoursed with him, before I found, to my inexpressible joy, that hewas the man. I found, too, that he unravelled the question in disputeprecisely as our inferences had determined it. He had been twoexpeditions up the river Calabar, in the canoes of the natives. In thefirst of these they came within a certain distance of a village: theythen concealed themselves under the bushes, which hung over the waterfrom the banks. In this position they remained during the day-light; butat night they went up to it armed, and seized all the inhabitants whohad not time to make their escape. They obtained forty-five persons inthis manner. In the second, they were out eight or nine days, when theymade a similar attempt, and with nearly similar success. They seizedmen, women, and children, as they could find them in the huts. They thenbound their arms, and drove them before them to the canoes. The name ofthe person thus discovered on board of the Melampus was Isaac Parker. Oninquiring into his character, from the master of the division, I foundit highly respectable. I found also afterward that he had sailed withCaptain Cook, with great credit to himself, round the world. It was alsoremarkable, that my brother, on seeing him in London, when he went todeliver his evidence, recognized him as having served on board theMonarch, man-of-war, and as one of the most exemplary men in that ship. ' "Mr. Clarkson became, early in his career, acquainted with Mr. Wilberforce. At their first interview, the latter frankly stated, 'thatthe subject had often employed his thoughts, and was near his heart, 'and learning his visitor's intention to devote himself to thisbenevolent object, congratulated him on his decision; desired to be madeacquainted with his progress, expressing his willingness, in return, toafford every assistance in his power. In his intercourse with members ofparliament, Mr. Clarkson was now frequently associated with Mr. Wilberforce, who daily became more interested in the fate of Africa. Theintercourse of the two philanthropists was mutually cordial andencouraging; Mr. Clarkson imparting his discoveries in the custom-housesof London, Liverpool, and other places; and Mr. Wilberforcecommunicating the information he had gained from those with whom heassociated. "In 1788, Mr. Clarkson published his important work on the Impolicy ofthe Slave-Trade. "In 1789, this indefatigable man went to France, by the advice of theCommittee which he had been instrumental in forming two years before;Mr. Wilberforce, always solicitous for the good of the oppressedAfricans, being of opinion that advantage might be taken of thecommotions in that country, to induce the leading persons there to takethe slave-trade into their consideration, and incorporate it among theabuses to be removed. Several of Mr. Clarkson's friends advised him totravel by another name, as accounts had arrived in England of theexcesses which had taken place in Paris; but to this he could notconsent. On his arrival in that city he was speedily introduced to thosewho were favourable to the great object of his life; and at the house ofM. Necker dined with the six deputies of colour from St. Domingo, --whohad been sent to France at this juncture, to demand that the free peopleof colour in their country might be placed upon an equality with thewhites. Their communications to the English philanthropist were importantand interesting; they hailed him as their friend, and were abundant intheir commendations of his conduct. "Copies of the Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave-Trade, translated intoFrench, with engravings of the plan and section of a slave ship, weredistributed with apparent good effect. The virtuous Abbé Gregoire, andseveral members of the National Assembly, called upon Mr. Clarkson. TheArchbishop of Aix was so struck with horror, when the plan of the slaveship was shown to him, that he could scarcely speak; and Mirabeau ordereda model of it in wood to be placed in his dining-room. "The circulation of intelligence, although contributing to make manyfriends, called forth the extraordinary exertions of enemies. Merchants, and others interested in the continuance of the slave-trade, wroteletters to the Archbishop of Aix, beseeching him not to ruin France;which they said he would inevitably do, if, as the president, he wereto grant a day for hearing the question of the abolition. Offers ofmoney were made to Mirabeau, if he would totally abandon his intendedmotion. Books were circulated in opposition to Mr. Clarkson's; resortwas had to the public papers, and he was denounced as a spy. The clamourraised by these efforts pervaded all Paris, and reached the ears of theking. M. Necker had a long conversation with his royal master upon it, who requested to see the Essay, and the specimens of Africanmanufactures, and bestowed considerable time upon them, being surprisedat the state of the arts there. M. Necker did not exhibit the section ofthe slave ship, thinking that as the king was indisposed, he might betoo much affected by it. Louis returned the specimens, commissioning M. Necker to convey his thanks to Mr. Clarkson, and express hisgratification at what he had seen. "No decided benefit appears at this time to have followed the visit: butthough much depressed by his ill success in France, Mr. Clarksoncontinued his labours, till excess of exertion, joined to repeated andbitter disappointments, impaired his health, and, after a hard struggle, subdued a constitution, naturally strong and vigorous beyond the lot ofmen in general, but shattered by anxiety and fatigue, and the sadprobability, often forced upon his understanding, that all might at lasthave been in vain. Under these feelings, he retired in 1794 to thebeautiful banks of Ulleswater; there to seek that rest which, withoutperil to his life, could no longer be delayed. "For seven years he had maintained a correspondence with four hundredpersons; he annually wrote a book upon the subject of the abolition, andtravelled more than thirty-five thousand miles in search of evidence, making a great part of these journeys in the night. 'All this time, ' Mr. Clarkson writes, 'my mind had been on the stretch; it had been bent tooto this one subject; for I had not even leisure to attend to my ownconcerns. The various instances of barbarity, which had comesuccessively to my knowledge within this period, had vexed, harassed, and afflicted it. The wound which these had produced was rendered stilldeeper by the reiterated refusal of persons to give their testimony, after I had travelled hundreds of miles in quest of them. But theseverest stroke was that inflicted by the persecution begun and pursuedby persons interested in the continuance of the trade, of such witnessesas had been examined against them; and whom, on account of theirdependent situation in life, it was most easy to oppress. As I had beenthe means of bringing them forward on these occasions, they naturallycame to me, as the author of their miseries and their ruin. [3] Thesedifferent circumstances, by acting together, had at length brought meinto the situation just mentioned; and I was, therefore, obliged, thoughvery reluctantly, to be borne out of the field where I had placed thegreat honour and glory of my life. '" [3] The father of the late Samuel Whitbread, Esq. , generously undertook, in order to make Mr. Clarkson's mind easy upon the subject, "to make good all injuries which any individuals might suffer from such persecution;" and he honourably and nobly fulfilled his engagement. It was while thus recruiting the energies exhausted in the conflict, that Clarkson, and the compatriot band with which he had been associatedin the long and arduous struggle, were crowned with victory, andreceived the grateful reward of their honourable toil in the finalabolition of the slave-trade by the British nation, in 1807, the lastbut most glorious act of the Grenville administration. The preceding shows something of the career of Clarkson while labouringto convince the people of Great Britain of the iniquity of _their own_trade, a trade which they had the power to abolish. During all thistime, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and their associates avoided touching thematter of _slavery_. They knew that one thing must be gained at a time, and they as a matter of expediency, avoided discussing the duty of theBritish nation in regard to the system of slavery in their Colonieswhich was entirely under their own control. During all the time that wasemployed in efforts to end the slave-trade, slavery was existing in thecontrol of the British people, and yet Clarkson and Wilberforce decidedthat it was right to let that matter entirely alone. The following shows Clarkson's proceedings after the British nation hadabolished the slave-trade. "By the publication of his Thoughts on the Abolition of Slavery, Mr. Clarkson showed that neither he nor those connected with him, consideredtheir work as accomplished, when the laws of his country clasped withits felons those engaged in the nefarious traffic of slaves. But theefforts of Mr. Clarkson were not confined to his pen. In 1818, heproceeded to Aix la Chapelle, at the time when the sovereigns of Europemet in congress. He was received with marked attention by the Emperor ofRussia, who listened to his statements (respecting the _slave-trade_, )and promised to use his influence with the assembled monarchs, to securethe entire suppression of the trade in human beings, as speedily aspossible. Describing his interview with this amiable monarch, in whichthe subject of peace societies, as well as the abolition of theslave-trade was discussed, Mr. Clarkson, in a letter to a friend, thuswrites: "'It was about nine at night, when I was shown into the emperor'sapartment. I found him alone. He met me at the door, and shaking me bythe hand, said, 'I had the pleasure of making your acquaintance atParis. ' He then led me some little way into the room, and leaving methere, went forward and brought me a chair with his own hand, anddesired me to sit down. This being done, he went for another chair, andbringing it very near to mine, placed himself close to me, so that wesat opposite to each other. "'I began the conversation by informing the emperor that as I supposedthe congress of Aix la Chapelle might possibly be the last congress ofsovereigns for settling the affairs of Europe, its connexions anddependencies, I had availed myself of the kind permission he gave me atParis, of applying to him in behalf of the oppressed Africans, beingunwilling to lose the last opportunity of rendering him serviceable tothe cause. "'The emperor replied, that he had read both my letter and my address tothe sovereigns, and that what I asked him and the other sovereigns todo, was only reasonable. "'Here I repeated the two great propositions in the address--thenecessity of bringing the Portuguese time for continuing the trade(which did not expire till 1825, and then only with a condition, ) downto the Spanish time, which expired in 1820; and secondly, when the twotimes should legally have expired, (that is, both of them in 1820, ) thento make any farther continuance _piracy_. I entreated him not to bedeceived by any other propositions; for that Mr. Wilberforce, myself, and others, who had devoted our time to this subject, were sure that noother measure would be effectual. "'He then said very feelingly in these words, 'By the providence of God, I and my kingdom have been saved from a merciless tyranny, (alluding tothe invasion of Napoleon, ) and I should but ill repay the blessing, if Iwere not to do every thing in my power to protect the poor Africansagainst their oppression also. ' "'The emperor then asked if he could do any thing else for our cause. Itold him he could; and that I should be greatly obliged to him if hewould present one of the addresses to the Emperor of Austria, andanother to the King of Prussia, _with his own hand_. I had brought twoof them in my pocket for the purpose. He asked me why I had notpresented them before. I replied that I had not the honour of knowingeither of those sovereigns as I knew him; nor any of their ministers;and that I was not only fearful lest these addresses would not bepresented to them, but even if they were, that coming into their handswithout any recommendation, they would be laid aside and not read; onthe other hand, if he (the emperor, ) would condescend to present them, I was sure they would be read, and that coming from him, they would comewith a weight of influence, which would secure an attention to theircontents. Upon this, the emperor promised, in the most kind and affablemanner, that he would perform the task I had assigned to him. "'We then rose from our seats to inspect some articles of manufacture, which I had brought with me as a present to him, and which had been laidupon the table. We examined the articles in leather first, one by one, with which he was uncommonly gratified. He said they exhibited not onlygenius but taste. He inquired if they tanned their own leather, and how:I replied to his question. He said he had never seen neater work, eitherin Petersburg or in London. He then looked at a dagger and its scabbardor sheath. I said the sheath was intended as a further, but morebeautiful specimen of the work of the poor Africans in leather; and theblade of their dagger as a specimen of their work in iron. Their worksin cotton next came under our notice. There was one piece whichattracted his particular notice, and which was undoubtedly verybeautiful. It called from him this observation, 'Manchester, ' said he, 'I think is your great place for manufactures of this sort--do you thinkthey could make a better piece of cotton there?' I told him I had neverseen a better piece of workmanship of the kind any where. Having goneover all the articles, the emperor desired me to inform him whether hewas to understand that these articles were made by the Africans in theirown country, that is, in their native villages, or _after they hadarrived in America_, where they would have an opportunity of seeingEuropean manufactures, and experienced workmen in the arts? I repliedthat such articles might be found in every African village, both on thecoast and in the interior, and that they were samples of their owningenuity, without any connexion with Europeans. 'Then, ' said theemperor, 'you astonish me--you have given me a new idea of the state ofthese poor people. I was not aware that they were so advanced insociety. The works you have shown me are not the works of brutes--but ofmen, endued with rational and intellectual powers, and capable of beingbrought to as high a degree of proficiency as any other men. _Africaought to have a fair chance of raising her character in the scale of thecivilized world. _' I replied that it was this cruel traffic alone, whichhad prevented Africa from rising to a level with other nations; and thatit was only astonishing to me that the natives there had, under itsimpeding influence, arrived at the perfection which had displayed itselfin the specimens of workmanship he had just seen. '" Animated by a growing conviction of the righteousness of the cause inwhich he was engaged, and encouraged by the success with which pastendeavours had been crowned, Mr. Clarkson continued his efficientco-operation with the friends of Abolition, advocating its claims on allsuitable occasions. It would be superfluous to recount the steps by which, even before thevenerated Wilberforce was called to his rest, this glorious event wasrealized, and Clarkson beheld the great object of his own life, andthose with whom he had acted, triumphantly achieved. The gratitudecherished towards the Supreme Ruler for the boon thus secured to theoppressed--the satisfaction which a review of past exertions afforded, were heightened by the joyous sympathy of a large portion of hiscountrymen. [4] [4] This account of Clarkson, and the preceding one of Wilberforce, are taken from the Christian Keepsake of 1836 and 1837. The History of the Abolition of the Slave-trade, by Clarkson himself, presents a more detailed account of his own labours and of the laboursof others, and whoever will read it, will observe the followingparticulars in which this effort differed from the Abolition movementin America. In the first place, it was conducted by some of the wisest and mosttalented statesmen, as well as the most pious men, in the Britishnation. Pitt, Fox, and some of the highest of the nobility and bishopsin England, were the firmest friends of the enterprise from the first. It was conducted by men who had the intellect, knowledge, discretion, and wisdom demanded for so great an enterprise. Secondly. It was conducted slowly, peaceably, and by eminently judiciousinfluences. Thirdly. It included, to the full extent, the doctrine of expediencydenounced by Abolitionists. One of the first decisions of the "Committee for the Abolition of theSlave-trade, " which conducted all Abolition movements, was that_slavery_ should not be attacked, but only the _slave-trade_; andClarkson expressly says, that it was owing to this, more than to anyother measure, that success was gained. Fourthly. Good men were not divided, and thrown into contendingparties. --The opponents to the measure, were only those who werepersonally interested in the perpetuation of slavery or the slave-trade. Fifthly. This effort was one to convince men of their _own_ obligations, and not an effort to arouse public sentiment against the sinfulpractices of another community over which they had no control. I would now ask, why could not some southern gentleman, such for exampleas Mr. Birney, whose manners, education, character, and habits give himabundant facilities, have acted the part of Clarkson, and quietly havegone to work at the South, collecting facts, exhibiting the impolicy andthe evils, to good men at the South, by the fire-side of the planter, the known home of hospitality and chivalry. Why could he not havecommenced with the most vulnerable point, the _domestic slave-trade_, leaving emancipation for a future and more favourable period? What righthas any one to say that there was no southern Wilberforce that wouldhave arisen, no southern Grant, Macaulay or Sharpe, who, like theEnglish philanthropists, would have stood the fierce beating of angrybillows, and by patience, kindness, arguments, facts, eloquence, andChristian love, convinced the skeptical, enlightened the ignorant, excited the benevolent, and finally have carried the day at the South, by the same means and measures, as secured the event in England? Allexperience is in favour of the method which the Abolitionists haverejected, because it involves _danger to themselves_. The cause theyhave selected is one that stands alone. --No case parallel on earth canbe brought to sustain it, with probabilities of good results. Noinstance can be found, where exciting the public sentiment of onecommunity against evil practices in another, was ever made the means oferadicating those evils. All the laws of mind, all the records ofexperience, go against the measures that Abolitionists have taken, andin favour of the one they have rejected. And when we look still fartherahead, at results which time is to develope, how stand the probabilities, when we, in judging, again take, as data, the laws of mind and therecords of experience? What are the plans, hopes, and expectations of Abolitionists, inreference to their measures? They are now labouring to make the North agreat Abolition Society, --to convince every northern man that slavery atthe South is a great sin, and that it ought immediately to cease. Suppose they accomplish this to the extent they hope, --so far as we haveseen, the more the North is convinced, the more firmly the South rejectsthe light, and turns from the truth. While Abolition Societies did not exist, men could talk and write, atthe South, against the evils of slavery, and northern men had freeaccess and liberty of speech, both at the South and at the North. Butnow all is changed. Every avenue of approach to the South is shut. Nopaper, pamphlet, or preacher, that touches on that topic, is admitted intheir bounds. Their own citizens, that once laboured and remonstrated, are silenced; their own clergy, under the influence of the exasperatedfeelings of their people, and their own sympathy and sense of wrong, either entirely hold their peace, or become the defenders of a systemthey once lamented, and attempted to bring to an end. This is the recordof experience as to the tendencies of Abolitionism, as thus fardeveloped. The South are now in just that state of high exasperation, atthe sense of wanton injury and impertinent interference, which makes theinfluence of truth and reason most useless and powerless. But suppose the Abolitionists succeed, not only in making northern menAbolitionists, but also in sending a portion of light into the South, such as to form a body of Abolitionists there also. What is the thingthat is to be done to end slavery at the South? It is to _alter thelaws_, and to do this, a small minority must begin a long, bitter, terrible conflict with a powerful and exasperated majority. Now if, asthe Abolitionists hope, there will arise at the South such a minority, it will doubtless consist of men of religious and benevolentfeelings, --men of that humane, and generous, and upright spirit, thatmost keenly feel the injuries inflicted on their fellow men. Supposesuch a band of men begin their efforts, sustained by the northernAbolitionists, already so odious. How will the exasperated majority act, according to the known laws of mind and of experience? Instead oflessening the evils of slavery, they will increase them. The more theyare goaded by a sense of aggressive wrong without, or by fears ofdangers within, the more they will restrain their slaves, and diminishtheir liberty, and increase their disabilities. They will make laws sounjust and oppressive, not only to slaves, but to their Abolitionistadvocates, that by degrees such men will withdraw from their bounds. Laws will be made expressly to harass them, and to render them souncomfortable that they must withdraw. Then gradually the righteous willflee from the devoted city. Then the numerical proportion of whites willdecrease, and the cruelty and unrestrained wickedness of the system willincrease, till a period will come when the physical power will be somuch with the blacks, their sense of suffering so increased, that thevolcano will burst, --insurrection and servile wars will begin. Oh, thecountless horrors of such a day! And will the South stand alone in thatburning hour? When she sends forth the wailing of her agonies, shall notthe North and the West hear, and lift up together the voice of wo? Willnot fathers hear the cries of children, and brothers the cries ofsisters? Will the terrors of insurrection sweep over the South, and noNorthern and Western blood be shed? Will the slaves be cut down, in sucha strife, when they raise the same pæan song of liberty and humanrights, that was the watchword of our redemption from far less dreadfultyranny, and which is now thrilling the nations and shaking monarchs ontheir thrones--will this be heard, and none of the sons of liberty befound to appear on their side? This is no picture of fancied dangers, which are not near. The day has come, when already the feelings are soexcited on both sides, that I have heard intelligent men, good men, benevolent and pious men, in moments of excitement, declare themselvesready to take up the sword--some for the defence of the master, some forthe protection and right of the slave. It is my full conviction, that ifinsurrection does burst forth, and there be the least prospect ofsuccess to the cause of the slave, there will be men from the North andWest, standing breast to breast, with murderous weapons, in opposingranks. Such apprehensions many would regard as needless, and exclaim againstsuch melancholy predictions. But in a case where the whole point ofduty and expediency turns upon the probabilities as to results, thoseprobabilities ought to be the chief subjects of inquiry. True, no onehas a right to say with confidence what will or what will not be; and ithas often amazed and disturbed my mind to perceive how men, with sosmall a field of vision, --with so little data for judging, --with so fewyears, and so little experience, can pronounce concerning the results ofmeasures bearing upon the complicated relations and duties of millions, and in a case where the wisest and best are dismayed and baffled. Itsometimes has seemed to me that the prescience of Deity alone shoulddare to take such positions as are both carelessly assumed, andpertinaciously defended, by the advocates of Abolitionism. But if we are to judge of the wisdom or folly of any measures on thissubject, it must be with reference to future results. One course ofmeasures, it is claimed, tends to perpetuate slavery, or to end it byscenes of terror and bloodshed. Another course tends to bring it to anend sooner, and by safe and peaceful influences. And the wholediscussion of duty rests on these probabilities. But where do the lawsof mind and experience oppose the terrific tendencies of Abolitionismthat have been portrayed? Are not the minds of men thrown into aferment, and excited by those passions which blind the reason, and warpthe moral sense? Is not the South in a state of high exasperationagainst Abolitionists? Does she not regard them as enemies, as recklessmadmen, as impertinent intermeddlers? Will the increase of their numberstend to allay this exasperation? Will the appearance of a similar bodyin their own boundaries have any tendency to soothe? Will it not stillmore alarm and exasperate? If a movement of a minority of such menattempt to alter the laws, are not the probabilities strong that stillmore unjust and oppressive measures will be adopted?--measures that willtend to increase the hardships of the slave, and to drive out of thecommunity all humane, conscientious and pious men? As the evils anddangers increase, will not the alarm constantly diminish the proportionof whites, and make it more and more needful to increase suchdisabilities and restraints as will chafe and inflame the blacks? Whenthis point is reached, will the blacks, knowing, as they will know, thesympathies of their Abolition friends, refrain from exerting theirphysical power? _The Southampton insurrection occurred with far lesschance of sympathy and success. _ If that most horrible of all scourges, a servile war, breaks forth, willthe slaughter of fathers, sons, infants, and of aged, --will the cries ofwives, daughters, sisters, and kindred, suffering barbarities worse thandeath, bring no fathers, brothers, and friends to their aid, from theNorth and West? And if the sympathies and indignation of freemen can already look suchan event in the face, and feel that it would be the slave, rather thanthe master, whom they would defend, what will be the probability, aftera few years' chafing shall have driven away the most christian andhumane from scenes of cruelty and inhumanity, which they could neitheralleviate nor redress? I should like to see any data of past experience, that will show that these results are not more probable than that theSouth will, by the system of means now urged upon her, finally beconvinced of her sins, and voluntarily bring the system of slavery to anend. I claim not that the predictions I present will be fulfilled. Ionly say, that if Abolitionists go on as they propose, such results are_more_ probable than those they hope to attain. I have not here alluded to the probabilities of the severing of theUnion by the present mode of agitating the question. This may be one ofthe results, and, if so, what are the probabilities for a Southernrepublic, that has torn itself off for the purpose of excluding foreigninterference, and for the purpose of perpetuating slavery? Can anyAbolitionist suppose that, in such a state of things, the great cause ofemancipation is as likely to progress favourably, as it was when we wereone nation, and mingling on those fraternal terms that existed beforethe Abolition movement began? The preceding are some of the reasons which, on the general view, Iwould present as opposed to the proposal of forming Abolition Societies;and they apply equally to either sex. There are some others which seemto oppose peculiar objections to the action of females in the way youwould urge. To appreciate more fully these objections, it will be necessary to recurto some general views in relation to the place woman is appointed tofill by the dispensations of heaven. It has of late become quite fashionable in all benevolent efforts, toshower upon our sex an abundance of compliments, not only for what theyhave done, but also for what they can do; and so injudicious and sofrequent, are these oblations, that while I feel an increasing respectfor my countrywomen, that their good sense has not been decoyed by theseappeals to their vanity and ambition, I cannot but apprehend that thereis some need of inquiry as to the just bounds of female influence, andthe times, places, and manner in which it can be appropriately exerted. It is the grand feature of the Divine economy, that there should bedifferent stations of superiority and subordination, and it isimpossible to annihilate this beneficent and immutable law. On its firstentrance into life, the child is a dependent on parental love, and ofnecessity takes a place of subordination and obedience. As he advancesin life these new relations of superiority and subordination multiply. The teacher must be the superior in station, the pupil a subordinate. The master of a family the superior, the domestic a subordinate--theruler a superior, the subject a subordinate. Nor do these relations atall depend upon superiority either in intellectual or moral worth. However weak the parents, or intelligent the child, there is noreference to this, in the immutable law. However incompetent theteacher, or superior the pupil, no alteration of station can be allowed. However unworthy the master or worthy the servant, while their mutualrelations continue, no change in station as to subordination can beallowed. In fulfilling the duties of these relations, true dignityconsists in conforming to all those relations that demand subordination, with propriety and cheerfulness. When does a man, however high hischaracter or station, appear more interesting or dignified than whenyielding reverence and deferential attentions to an aged parent, howeverweak and infirm? And the pupil, the servant, or the subject, all equallysustain their own claims to self-respect, and to the esteem of others, by equally sustaining the appropriate relations and duties ofsubordination. In this arrangement of the duties of life, Heaven hasappointed to one sex the superior, and to the other the subordinatestation, and this without any reference to the character or conduct ofeither. It is therefore as much for the dignity as it is for theinterest of females, in all respects to conform to the duties of thisrelation. And it is as much a duty as it is for the child to fulfilsimilar relations to parents, or subjects to rulers. But while womanholds a subordinate relation in society to the other sex, it is notbecause it was designed that her duties or her influence should be anythe less important, or all-pervading. But it was designed that the modeof gaining influence and of exercising power should be altogetherdifferent and peculiar. It is Christianity that has given to woman her true place in society. And it is the peculiar trait of Christianity alone that can sustain hertherein. "Peace on earth and good will to men" is the character of allthe rights and privileges, the influence, and the power of woman. A manmay act on society by the collision of intellect, in public debate; hemay urge his measures by a sense of shame, by fear and by personalinterest; he may coerce by the combination of public sentiment; he maydrive by physical force, and he does not outstep the boundaries of hissphere. But all the power, and all the conquests that are lawful towoman, are those only which appeal to the kindly, generous, peaceful andbenevolent principles. Woman is to win every thing by peace and love; by making herself somuch respected, esteemed and loved, that to yield to her opinions and togratify her wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart. Butthis is to be all accomplished in the domestic and social circle. Therelet every woman become so cultivated and refined in intellect, that hertaste and judgment will be respected; so benevolent in feeling andaction, that her motives will be reverenced;--so unassuming andunambitious, that collision and competition will be banished;--so"gentle and easy to be entreated, " as that every heart will repose inher presence; then, the fathers, the husbands, and the sons, will findan influence thrown around them, to which they will yield not onlywillingly but proudly. A man is never ashamed to own such influences, but feels dignified and ennobled in acknowledging them. But the momentwoman begins to feel the promptings of ambition, or the thirst forpower, her ægis of defence is gone. All the sacred protection ofreligion, all the generous promptings of chivalry, all the poetry ofromantic gallantry, depend upon woman's retaining her place asdependent and defenceless, and making no claims, and maintaining noright but what are the gifts of honour, rectitude and love. A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and combination among her ownsex, to assist her in her appropriate offices of piety, charity, maternal and domestic duty; but whatever, in any measure, throws a womaninto the attitude of a combatant, either for herself or others--whateverbinds her in a party conflict--whatever obliges her in any way to exertcoercive influences, throws her out of her appropriate sphere. If thesegeneral principles are correct, they are entirely opposed to the plan ofarraying females in any Abolition movement; because it enlists them inan effort to coerce the South by the public sentiment of the North;because it brings them forward as partisans in a conflict that has beenbegun and carried forward by measures that are any thing rather thanpeaceful in their tendencies; because it draws them forth from theirappropriate retirement, to expose themselves to the ungoverned violenceof mobs, and to sneers and ridicule in public places; because it leadsthem into the arena of political collision, not as peaceful mediators tohush the opposing elements, but as combatants to cheer up and carryforward the measures of strife. If it is asked, "May not woman appropriately come forward as a suppliantfor a portion of her sex who are bound in cruel bondage?" It is replied, that, the rectitude and propriety of any such measure, depend entirelyon its probable results. If petitions from females will operate toexasperate; if they will be deemed obtrusive, indecorous, and unwise, bythose to whom they are addressed; if they will increase, rather thandiminish the evil which it is wished to remove; if they will be theopening wedge, that will tend eventually to bring females as petitionersand partisans into every political measure that may tend to injure andoppress their sex, in various parts of the nation, and under the variouspublic measures that may hereafter be enforced, then it is neitherappropriate nor wise, nor right, for a woman to petition for the reliefof oppressed females. The case of Queen Esther is one often appealed to as a precedent. When awoman is placed in similar circumstances, where death to herself and allher nation is one alternative, and there is nothing worse to fear, butsomething to hope as the other alternative, then she may safely followsuch an example. But when a woman is asked to join an Abolition Society, or to put her name to a petition to congress, for the purpose ofcontributing her measure of influence to keep up agitation in congress, to promote the excitement of the North against the iniquities of theSouth, to coerce the South by fear, shame, anger, and a sense of odiumto do what she has determined not to do, the case of Queen Esther is notat all to be regarded as a suitable example for imitation. In this country, petitions to congress, in reference to the officialduties of legislators, seem, IN ALL CASES, to fall entirely without thesphere of female duty. Men are the proper persons to make appeals tothe rulers whom they appoint, and if their female friends, by argumentsand persuasions, can induce them to petition, all the good that can bedone by such measures will be secured. But if females cannot influencetheir nearest friends, to urge forward a public measure in this way, they surely are out of their place, in attempting to do it themselves. There are some other considerations, which should make the Americanfemales peculiarly sensitive in reference to any measure, which shouldeven _seem_ to draw them from their appropriate relations in society. It is allowed by all reflecting minds, that the safety and happiness ofthis nation depends upon having the _children_ educated, and not onlyintellectually, but morally and religiously. There are now nearly twomillions of children and adults in this country who cannot read, and whohave no schools of any kind. To give only a small supply of teachers tothese destitute children, who are generally where the population issparse, will demand _thirty thousand teachers_; and _six thousand_ morewill be needed every year, barely to meet the increase of juvenilepopulation. But if we allow that we need not reach this point, in orderto save ourselves from that destruction which awaits a people, whengoverned by an ignorant and unprincipled democracy; if we can weatherthe storms of democratic liberty with only one-third of our ignorantchildren properly educated, still we need _ten thousand_ teachers atthis moment, and an addition of _two thousand every year_. Where is thisarmy of teachers to be found? Is it at all probable that the other sexwill afford even a moderate portion of this supply? The field forenterprise and excitement in the political arena, in the arts, thesciences, the liberal professions, in agriculture, manufactures, andcommerce, is opening with such temptations, as never yet bore upon themind of any nation. Will men turn aside from these high and excitingobjects to become the patient labourers in the school-room, and for onlythe small pittance that rewards such toil? No, they will not do it. Menwill be educators in the college, in the high school, in some of themost honourable and lucrative common schools, but the _children_, the_little children_ of this nation must, to a wide extent, be taught byfemales, or remain untaught. The drudgery of education, as it is now toogenerally regarded, in this country, will be given to the female hand. And as the value of education rises in the public mind, and theimportance of a teacher's office is more highly estimated, women willmore and more be furnished with those intellectual advantages which theyneed to fit them for such duties. The result will be, that America will be distinguished above all othernations, for well-educated females, and for the influence they willexert on the general interests of society. But if females, as theyapproach the other sex, in intellectual elevation, begin to claim, or toexercise in any manner, the peculiar prerogatives of that sex, educationwill prove a doubtful and dangerous blessing. But this will never be theresult. For the more intelligent a woman becomes, the more she canappreciate the wisdom of that ordinance that appointed her subordinatestation, and the more her taste will conform to the graceful anddignified retirement and submission it involves. An ignorant, a narrow-minded, or a stupid woman, cannot feel norunderstand the rationality, the propriety, or the beauty of thisrelation; and she it is, that will be most likely to carry her measuresby tormenting, when she cannot please, or by petulant complaints orobtrusive interference, in matters which are out of her sphere, andwhich she cannot comprehend. And experience testifies to this result. By the concession of alltravellers, American females are distinguished above all others fortheir general intelligence, and yet they are complimented for theirretiring modesty, virtue, and domestic faithfulness, while the other sexis as much distinguished for their respectful kindness and attentivegallantry. There is no other country where females have so much publicrespect and kindness accorded to them as in America, by the concessionof all travellers. And it will ever be so, while intellectual culture inthe female mind, is combined with the spirit of that religion which sostrongly enforces the appropriate duties of a woman's sphere. But it may be asked, is there nothing to be done to bring this nationalsin of slavery to an end? Must the internal slave-trade, a trade nowranked as piracy among all civilized nations, still prosper in ourbounds? Must the very seat of our government stand as one of the chiefslave-markets of the land; and must not Christian females open theirlips, nor lift a finger, to bring such a shame and sin to an end? To this it may be replied, that Christian females may, and can say anddo much to bring these evils to an end; and the present is a time and anoccasion when it seems most desirable that they should know, andappreciate, and _exercise_ the power which they do possess for sodesirable an end. And in pointing out the methods of exerting female influence for thisobject, I am inspired with great confidence, from the conviction thatwhat will be suggested, is that which none will oppose, but all willallow to be not only practicable, but safe, suitable, and Christian. To appreciate these suggestions, however, it is needful previously toconsider some particulars that exhibit the spirit of the age and thetendencies of our peculiar form of government. The prominent principle, now in development, as indicating the spirit ofthe age, is the perfect right of all men to entire freedom of opinion. By this I do not mean that men are coming to think that "it is no matterwhat a man believes, if he is only honest and sincere, " or that they aregrowing any more lenient towards their fellow-men, for the evilconsequences they bring on themselves or on others for believing wrong. But they are coming to adopt the maxim, that no man shall be forced bypains and penalties to adopt the opinions of other minds, but that everyman shall be free to form his own opinions, and to propagate them byall lawful means. At the same time another right is claimed, which is of necessityinvolved in the preceding, --the right to oppose, by all lawful means, the opinions and the practices of others, when they are deemedpernicious either to individuals or to the community. _Facts_, _arguments_ and _persuasions_ are, by all, conceded to be lawful meansto employ in propagating our own views, and in opposing the opinions andpractices of others. These fundamental principles of liberty have in all past ages beenrestrained by coercive influences, either of civil or of ecclesiasticalpower. But in this nation, all such coercive influences, both of churchand state, have ceased. Every man may think what he pleases aboutgovernment, or religion, or any thing else; he may propagate hisopinions, he may controvert opposite opinions, and no magistrate orecclesiastic can in any legal way restrain or punish. But the form of our government is such, that every measure that bearsupon the public or private interest of every citizen, is decided by_public sentiment_. All laws and regulations in civil, or religious, orsocial concerns, are decided by the _majority of votes_. And the presentis a time when every doctrine, every principle, and every practice whichinfluences the happiness of man, either in this, or in a future life, isunder discussion. The whole nation is thrown into parties about almostevery possible question, and every man is stimulated in his efforts topromote his own plans by the conviction that success depends entirelyupon bringing his fellow citizens to think as he does. Hence every manis fierce in maintaining his own right of free discussion, his own rightto propagate his opinions, and his own right to oppose, by all lawfulmeans, the opinions that conflict with his own. But the difficulty is, that a right which all men claim for themselves, with the most sensitive and pertinacious inflexibility, they have notyet learned to accord to their fellow men, in cases where their owninterests are involved. Every man is saying, "Let me have full libertyto propagate my opinions, and to oppose all that I deem wrong andinjurious, but let no man take this liberty with my opinions andpractices. Every man may believe what he pleases, and propagate what hepleases, provided he takes care not to attack any thing which belongs tome. " And how do men exert themselves to restrain this corresponding right oftheir fellow men? Not by going to the magistrate to inform, or to thespiritual despot to obtain ecclesiastical penalties, but he resorts tomethods, which, if successful, are in effect the most severe pains andpenalties that can restrain freedom of opinion. What is dearer to a man than _his character_, involving as it does, theesteem, respect and affection of friends, neighbours and society, withall the confidence, honour, trust and emolument that flow from generalesteem? How sensitive is every man to any thing that depreciates hisintellectual character! What torture, to be ridiculed or pitied for suchdeficiencies! How cruel the suffering, when his moral delinquencies areheld up to public scorn and reprehension! Confiscation, stripes, chains, and even death itself, are often less dreaded. It is this method of punishment to which men resort, to deter theirfellow-men from exercising those rights of liberty which they sotenaciously claim for themselves. Examine now the methods adopted byalmost all who are engaged in the various conflicts of opinion in thisnation, and you will find that there are certain measures whichcombatants almost invariably employ. They either attack the intellectual character of opponents, or theylabour to make them appear narrow-minded, illiberal and bigoted, or theyimpeach their honesty and veracity, or they stigmatize their motives asmean, selfish, ambitious, or in some other respect unworthy anddegrading. Instead of truth, and evidence, and argument, personaldepreciation, sneers, insinuations, or open abuse, are the weaponsemployed. This method of resisting freedom of opinions, by pains andpenalties, arises in part from the natural selfishness of man, and inpart from want of clear distinctions as to the rights and dutiesinvolved in freedom of opinion and freedom of speech. The great fundamental principle that makes this matter clear, is this, that a broad and invariable distinction should ever be preserved betweenthe _opinions_ and _practices_ that are discussed, and the _advocates_of these opinions and practices. It is a sacred and imperious duty, that rests on every human being, toexert all his influence in opposing every thing that he believes isdangerous and wrong, and in sustaining all that he believes is safe andright. And in doing this, no compromise is to be made, in order toshield country, party, friends, or even self, from any just censure. Every man is bound by duty to God and to his country, to lay his fingeron every false principle, or injurious practice, and boldly say, "thisis wrong--this is dangerous--this I will oppose with all my influence, whoever it may be that advocates or practises it. " And every man isbound to use his efforts to turn public sentiment against all that hebelieves to be wrong and injurious, either in regard to this life, orto the future world. And every man deserves to be respected andapplauded, just in proportion as he fearlessly and impartially, and in a_proper spirit_, _time_ and _manner_, fulfils this duty. The doctrine, just now alluded to, that it is "no matter what a manbelieves, if he is only honest and sincere, " is as pernicious, as it iscontrary to religion and to common sense. It is as absurd, and asimpracticable, as it would be to urge on the mariner the maxim, "nomatter which way you believe to be north, if you only steer aright. " Aman's character, feelings, and conduct, all depend upon his opinions. Ifa man can reason himself into the belief that it is right to take theproperty of others and to deceive by false statements, he will probablyprove a thief and a liar. It is of the greatest concern, therefore, toevery man, that his fellow-men should _believe right_, and one of hismost sacred duties is to use all his influence to promote correctopinions. But the performance of this duty, does by no means involve the necessityof attacking the character or motives of the _advocates_ of falseopinions, or of holding them up, individually, to public odium. Erroneous opinions are sometimes the consequence of unavoidableignorance, or of mental imbecility, or of a weak and erring judgment, orof false testimony from others, which cannot be rectified. In suchcases, the advocates of false opinions are to be pitied rather thanblamed; and while the opinions and their tendencies may be publiclyexposed, the men may be objects of affection and kindness. In other cases, erroneous opinions spring from criminal indifference, from prejudice, from indolence, from pride, from evil passions, or fromselfish interest. In all such cases, men deserve blame for theirpernicious opinions, and the evils which flow from them. But, it maybe asked, how are men to decide, when their fellow-men areguilty for holding wrong opinions; when they deserve blame, and whenthey are to be regarded only with pity and commiseration by those whobelieve them to be in the wrong? Here, surely, is a place where somecorrect principle is greatly needed. Is every man to sit in judgment upon his fellow-man, and decide what arehis intellectual capacities, and what the measure of his judgment? Isevery man to take the office of the Searcher of Hearts, to try thefeelings and motives of his fellow-man? Is that most difficult of allanalysis, the estimating of the feelings, purposes, and motives, whichevery man, who examines his own secret thoughts, finds to be so complex, so recondite, so intricate; is this to be the basis, not only ofindividual opinion, but of public reward and censure? Is every man toconstitute himself a judge of the amount of time and interest given tothe proper investigation of truth by his fellow-man? Surely, this cannotbe a correct principle. Though there may be single cases in which we can know that ourfellow-men are weak in intellect, or erring in judgment, or perverse infeeling, or misled by passion, or biased by selfish interest, as ageneral fact we are not competent to decide these matters, in regard tothose who differ from us in opinion. For this reason it is manifestly wrong and irrelevant, when discussingquestions of duty or expediency, to bring before the public thecharacter or the motives of the individual advocates of opinions. But, it may be urged, how can the evil tendencies of opinions or ofpractices be investigated, without involving a consideration of thecharacter and conduct of those who advocate them? To this it may bereplied, that the tendencies of opinions and practices can never beascertained by discussing individual character. It is _classes_ ofpersons, or large _communities_, embracing persons of all varieties ofcharacter and circumstances, that are the only proper subjects ofinvestigation for this object. For example, a community of Catholics, and a community of Protestants, may be compared, for the purpose oflearning the moral tendencies of their different opinions. Scotland andNew England, where the principles opposite to Catholicism have mostprevailed, may properly be compared with Spain and Italy, where theCatholic system has been most fairly tried. But to select certainindividuals who are defenders of these two different systems, asexamples to illustrate their tendencies, would be as improper as itwould be to select a kernel of grain to prove the good or bad characterof a whole crop. To illustrate by a more particular example. The doctrines of the Atheistschool are now under discussion, and Robert Owen and Fanny Wright havebeen their prominent advocates. In agreement with the above principles, it is a right, and the duty ofevery man who has any influence and opportunity, to show the absurdityof their doctrines, the weakness of their arguments, and the fataltendencies of their opinions. It is right to show that the _practical_adoption of their principles indicates a want of common sense, just assowing the ocean with grain and expecting a crop would indicate the samedeficiency. If the advocates of these doctrines carry out theirprinciples into practice, in any such way as to offend the taste, orinfringe on the rights of others, it is proper to express disgust anddisapprobation. If the female advocate chooses to come upon a stage, andexpose her person, dress, and elocution to public criticism, it is rightto express disgust at whatever is offensive and indecorous, as it is tocriticize the book of an author, or the dancing of an actress, or anything else that is presented to public observation. And it is right tomake all these things appear as odious and reprehensible to others asthey do to ourselves. But what is the private character of Robert Owen or Fanny Wright?Whether they are ignorant or weak in intellect; whether they haveproperly examined the sources of truth; how much they have been biasedby pride, passion, or vice, in adopting their opinions; whether they arehonest and sincere in their belief; whether they are selfish orbenevolent in their aims, are not matters which in any way pertain tothe discussion. They are questions about which none are qualified tojudge, except those in close and intimate communion with them. We mayinquire with propriety as to the character of a _community_ of Atheists, or of a community where such sentiments extensively prevail, as comparedwith a community of opposite sentiments. But the private character, feelings, and motives of the individual advocates of these doctrines, are not proper subjects of investigation in any public discussion. If, then, it be true, that attacks on the character and motives of theadvocates of opinions are entirely irrelevant and not at all necessaryfor the discovery of truth; if injury inflicted on character is the mostsevere penalty that can be employed to restrain freedom of opinions andfreedom of speech, what are we to say of the state of things in thisnation? Where is there a party which does not in effect say to every man, "ifyou dare to oppose the principles or practices we sustain, you shall bepunished with personal odium?" which does not say to every member of theparty, "uphold your party, right or wrong; oppose all that is adverse toyour party, right or wrong, or else suffer the penalty of having yourmotives, character, and conduct, impeached?" Look first at the political arena. Where is the advocate of any measurethat does not suffer sneers, ridicule, contempt, and all that tends todepreciate character in public estimation? Where is the partisan that isnot attacked, as either weak in intellect, or dishonest in principle, orselfish in motives? And where is the man who is linked with anypolitical party, that dares to stand up fearlessly and defend what isgood in opposers, and reprove what is wrong in his own party? Look into the religious world. There, even those who take their partyname from their professed liberality, are saying, "whoever shall adoptprinciples that exclude us from the Christian church, and our clergyfrom the pulpit, shall be held up either as intellectually degraded, oras narrow-minded and bigoted, or as ambitious, partisan and persecutingin spirit. No man shall believe a creed that excludes us from the paleof Christianity, under penalty of all the odium we can inflict. " So in the Catholic controversy. Catholics and their friends practicallydeclare war against all free discussion on this point. The decree hasgone forth, that "no man shall appear for the purpose of proving thatCatholicism is contrary to Scripture, or immoral and anti-republican intendency, under penalty of being denounced as a dupe, or a hypocrite, ora persecutor, or a narrow-minded and prejudiced bigot. " On the contrary, those who attack what is called liberal Christianity, or who aim to oppose the progress of Catholicism, how often do theyexhibit a severe and uncharitable spirit towards the individuals whoseopinions they controvert. Instead of loving the men, and rendering tothem all the offices of Christian kindness, and according to them alldue credit for whatever is desirable in character and conduct, how oftendo opposers seem to feel, that it will not answer to allow that there isany thing good, either in the system or in those who have adopted it. "Every thing about my party is right, and every thing in the opposingparty is wrong, " seems to be the universal maxim of the times. And itis the remark of some of the most intelligent foreign travellers amongus, and of our own citizens who go abroad, that there is no country tobe found, where freedom of opinion, and freedom of speech is more reallyinfluenced and controlled by the fear of pains and penalties, than inthis land of boasted freedom. In other nations, the control is exercisedby government, in respect to a very few matters; in this country it isparty-spirit that rules with an iron rod, and shakes its scorpion whipsover every interest and every employment of man. From this mighty source spring constant detraction, gossiping, tale-bearing, falsehood, anger, pride, malice, revenge, and every evilword and work. Every man sets himself up as the judge of the intellectual character, the honesty, the sincerity, the feelings, opportunities, motives, andintentions, of his fellow-man. And so they fall upon each other, notwith swords and spears, but with the tongue, "that unruly member, thatsetteth on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire of hell. " Can any person who seeks to maintain the peaceful, loving, and gentlespirit of Christianity, go out into the world at this day, without beingbewildered at the endless conflicts, and grieved and dismayed at thebitter and unhallowed passions they engender? Can an honest, upright andChristian man, go into these conflicts, and with unflinching firmnessstand up for all that is good, and oppose all that is evil, in whateverparty it may be found, without a measure of moral courage such as fewcan command? And if he carries himself through with an unyieldingintegrity, and maintains his consistency, is he not exposed to storms ofbitter revilings, and to peltings from both parties between which he maystand? What is the end of these things to be? Must we give up free discussion, and again chain up the human mind under the despotism of past ages? No, this will never be. God designs that every intelligent mind shall begoverned, not by coercion, but by reason, and conscience, and truth. Man must reason, and experiment, and compare past and present results, and hear and know all that can be said on _both_ sides of every questionwhich influences either private or public happiness, either for thislife or for the life to come. But while this process is going on, must we be distracted and torturedby the baleful passions and wicked works that unrestrained party-spiritand ungoverned factions will bring upon us, under such a government asours? Must we rush on to disunion, and civil wars, and servile wars, till all their train of horrors pass over us like devouring fire? There is an influence that can avert these dangers--a spirit that canallay the storm--that can say to the troubled winds and waters, "peace, be still. " It is that spirit which is gentle and easy to be entreated, whichthinketh no evil, which rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in thetruth, which is not easily provoked, which hopeth all things, whichbeareth all things. Let this spirit be infused into the mass of thenation, and then truth may be sought, defended, and propagated, anderror detected, and its evils exposed; and yet we may escape the evilsthat now rage through this nation, and threaten us with such fieryplagues. And is there not a peculiar propriety in such an emergency, in lookingfor the especial agency and assistance of females, who are shut out fromthe many temptations that assail the other sex, --who are the appointedministers of all the gentler charities of life, --who are mingledthroughout the whole mass of the community, --who dwell in thoseretirements where only peace and love ought ever to enter, --whosecomfort, influence, and dearest blessings, all depend on preservingpeace and good will among men? In the present aspect of affairs among us, when everything seems to betending to disunion and distraction, it surely has become the duty ofevery female instantly to relinquish the attitude of a partisan, inevery matter of clashing interests, and to assume the office of amediator, and an advocate of peace. And to do this, it is not necessarythat a woman should in any manner relinquish her opinion as to theevils or the benefits, the right or the wrong, of any principle orpractice. But, while quietly holding her own opinions, and calmlyavowing them, when conscience and integrity make the duty imperative, every female can employ her influence, not for the purpose of excitingor regulating public sentiment, but rather for the purpose of promotinga spirit of candour, forbearance, charity, and peace. And there are certain prominent maxims which every woman can adopt aspeculiarly belonging to her, as the advocate of charity and peace, andwhich it should be her especial office to illustrate, enforce, andsustain, by every method in her power. The first is, that every person ought to be sustained, not only in theright of propagating his own opinions and practices, but in opposing allthose principles and practices which he deems erroneous. For there is noopinion which a man can propagate, that does not oppose some adverseinterest; and if a man must cease to advocate his own views of truth andrectitude, because he opposes the interest or prejudices of some otherman or party, all freedom of opinion, of speech, and of action, is gone. All that can be demanded is, that a man shall not resort to falsehood, false reasoning, or to attacks on character, in maintaining his ownrights. If he states things which are false, it is right to show thefalsehood, --if he reasons falsely, it is right to point out hissophistry, --if he impeaches the character or motives of opponents, it isright to express disapprobation and disgust; but if he uses only facts, arguments, and persuasions, he is to be honoured and sustained for allthe efforts he makes to uphold what he deems to be right, and to putdown what he believes to be wrong. Another maxim, which is partially involved in the first, is, that everyman ought to allow his own principles and practices to be freelydiscussed, with patience and magnanimity, and not to complain ofpersecution, or to attack the character or motives of those who claimthat he is in the wrong. If he is belied, if his character is impeached, if his motives are assailed, if his intellectual capabilities are madethe objects of sneers or commiseration, he has a right to complain, andto seek sympathy as an injured man; but no man is a consistent friendand defender of liberty of speech, who cannot bear to have his ownprinciples and practices subjected to the same ordeal as he demandsshould be imposed on others. Another maxim of peace and charity is, that every man's own testimony isto be taken in regard to his motives, feelings, and intentions. Thoughwe may fear that a fellow-man is mistaken in his views of his ownfeelings, or that he does not speak the truth, it is as contrary to therules of good breeding as it is to the laws of Christianity, to assumeor even insinuate that this is the case. If a man's word cannot be takenin regard to his own motives, feelings, and intentions, he can find noredress for the wrong that may be done to him. It is unjust andunreasonable in the extreme to take any other course than the one hereurged. Another most important maxim of candour and charity is, that when we areto assign motives for the conduct of our fellow-men, especially ofthose who oppose our interests, we are obligated to put the best, ratherthan the worst construction, on all they say and do. Instead ofassigning the worst as the probable motive, it is always a duty to_hope_ that it is the best, until evidence is so unequivocal that thereis no place for such a hope. Another maxim of peace and charity respects the subject of_retaliation_. Whatever may be said respecting the literal constructionof some of the rules of the gospel, no one can deny that they do, whether figurative or not, forbid retaliation and revenge; that they doassume that men are not to be judges and executioners of their ownwrongs; but that injuries are to be borne with meekness, and thatretributive justice must be left to God, and to the laws. If a manstrikes, we are not to return the blow, but appeal to the laws. If a manuses abusive or invidious language, we are not to return railing forrailing. If a man impeaches our motives and attacks our character, weare not to return the evil. If a man sneers and ridicules, we are not toretaliate with ridicule and sneers. If a man reports our weaknesses andfailings, we are not to revenge ourselves by reporting his. No man has aright to report evil of others, except when the justification of theinnocent, or a regard for public or individual safety, demands it. Thisis the strict law of the gospel, inscribed in all its pages, and meetingin the face all those unchristian and indecent violations that now areso common, in almost every conflict of intellect or of interest. Another most important maxim of peace and charity imposes the obligationto guard our fellow-men from all unnecessary temptation. We are taughtdaily to pray, "lead us not into temptation;" and thus are admonishednot only to avoid all unnecessary temptation ourselves, but to save ourfellow-men from the danger. Can we ask our Heavenly Parent to protect usfrom temptation, while we recklessly spread baits and snares for ourfellow-men? No, we are bound in every measure to have a tender regardfor the weaknesses and liabilities of all around, and ever to be readyto yield even our just rights, when we can lawfully do it, rather thanto tempt others to sin. The generous and high-minded Apostle declares, "if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the worldstandeth;" and it is the spirit of this maxim that every Christian oughtto cultivate. There are no occasions when this maxim is more needed, than when we wish to modify the opinions, or alter the practices of ourfellow-men. If, in such cases, we find that the probabilities are, thatany interference of ours will increase the power of temptation, and leadto greater evils than those we wish to remedy, we are bound to forbear. If we find that one mode of attempting a measure will increase the powerof temptation, and another will not involve this danger, we are bound totake the safest course. In all cases we are obligated to be as carefulto protect our fellow-men from temptation, as we are to watch and prayagainst it in regard to ourselves. Another maxim of peace and charity requires a most scrupulous regard tothe reputation, character, and feelings of our fellow-men, andespecially of those who are opposed in any way to our wishes andinterests. Every man and every woman feels that it is wrong for othersto propagate their faults and weakness through the community. Every onefeels wounded and injured to find that others are making his defects andinfirmities the subject of sneers and ridicule. And what, then, is therule of duty? "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so tothem. " With this rule before his eyes and in his mind, can a man retailhis neighbour's faults, or sneer at his deficiencies, or ridicule hisinfirmities, with a clear conscience? There are cases when the safety ofindividuals, or public justice, demands that a man's defects ofcharacter, or crimes, be made public; but no man is justified incommunicating to others any evil respecting any of his fellow-men, whenhe cannot appeal to God as his witness that he does it from benevolentinterest in the welfare of his fellow-men--from a desire to saveindividuals or the public from some evil--and not from a malevolent orgossiping propensity. Oh, that this law of love and charity could findan illustration and an advocate in every female of this nation! Oh, thatevery current slander, and every injurious report, might stand abashed, whenever it meets the notice of a woman! These are the maxims of peace and charity, which it is in the power ofthe females of our country to advocate, both by example and byentreaties. These are the principles which alone can protect andpreserve the right of free discussion, the freedom of speech, andliberty of the press. And with our form of government, and ourliabilities to faction and party-spirit, the country will be safe andhappy only in proportion to the prevalence of these maxims among themass of the community. There probably will never arrive a period in thehistory of this nation, when the influence of these principles will bemore needed, than the present. The question of slavery involves morepecuniary interests, touches more private relations, involves moreprejudices, is entwined with more sectional, party, and politicalinterests, than any other which can ever again arise. It is a matterwhich, if discussed and controlled without the influence of theseprinciples of charity and peace, will shake this nation like anearthquake, and pour over us the volcanic waves of every terrificpassion. The trembling earth, the low murmuring thunders, alreadyadmonish us of our danger; and if females can exert any saving influencein this emergency, it is time for them to awake. And there are topics that they may urge upon the attention of theirfriends, at least as matters worthy of serious consideration andinquiry. Is a woman surrounded by those who favour the Abolition measures? Canshe not with propriety urge such inquiries as these? Is not slavery to be brought to an end by free discussion, and is it nota war upon the right of free discussion to impeach the motives anddepreciate the character of the opposers of Abolition measures? When theopposers of Abolition movements claim that they honestly and sincerelybelieve that these measures tend to perpetuate slavery, or to bring itto an end by servile wars, and civil disunion, and the most terrificmiseries--when they object to the use of their pulpits, to the embodyingof literary students, to the agitation of the community, by Abolitionagents--when they object to the circulation of such papers and tracts asAbolitionists prepare, because they believe them most pernicious intheir influence and tendencies, is it not as much persecution to useinvidious insinuations, depreciating accusation and impeachment ofmotive, in order to intimidate, as it is for the opposers ofAbolitionism to use physical force? Is not the only method by which theSouth can be brought to relinquish slavery, a conviction that not onlyher _duty_, but her highest _interest_, requires her to do it? And isnot _calm, rational Christian_ discussion the only proper method ofsecuring this end? Can a community that are thrown into such a state ofhigh exasperation as now exists at the South, ever engage in suchdiscussions, till the storm of excitement and passion is allayed? Oughtnot every friend of liberty and of free discussion, to take everypossible means to soothe exasperated feelings, and to avoid all thoseoffensive peculiarities that in their nature tend to inflame and offend? Is a woman among those who oppose Abolition movements? She can urge suchinquiries as these: Ought not Abolitionists to be treated as if theywere actuated by the motives of benevolence which they profess? Oughtnot every patriot and every Christian to throw all his influence againstthe impeachment of motives, the personal detraction, and the violentmeasures that are turned upon this body of men, who, however they mayerr in judgment or in spirit, are among the most exemplary andbenevolent in the land? If Abolitionists are censurable for takingmeasures that exasperate rather than convince and persuade, are nottheir opponents, who take exactly the same measures to exasperateAbolitionists and their friends, as much to blame? If Abolitionismprospers by the abuse of its advocates, are not the authors of thisabuse accountable for the increase of the very evils they deprecate? It is the opinion of intelligent and well informed men, that a verylarge proportion of the best members of the Abolition party were placedthere, not by the arguments of Abolitionists, but by the abuse of theiropposers. And I know some of the noblest minds that stand there, chieflyfrom the influence of those generous impulses that defend the injuredand sustain the persecuted, while many others have joined these ranksfrom the impression that Abolitionism and the right of free discussionhave become identical interests. Although I cannot perceive why theright of free discussion, the right of petition, and other rights thathave become involved in this matter, cannot be sustained without joiningan association that has sustained such injurious action and sucherroneous principles, yet other minds, and those which are worthy ofesteem, have been led to an opposite conclusion. The South, in the moments of angry excitement, have made unreasonabledemands upon the non-slave-holding States, and have employed overbearingand provoking language. This has provoked re-action again at the North, and men, who heretofore were unexcited, are beginning to feelindignant, and to say, "Let the Union be sundered. " Thus anger begetsanger, and unreasonable measures provoke equally unreasonable returns. But when men, in moments of excitement rush on to such results, littledo they think of the momentous consequences that may follow. Suppose theSouth in her anger unites with Texas, and forms a Southern slave-holdingrepublic, under all the exasperating influences that such an avulsionwill excite? What will be the prospects of the slave then, compared withwhat they are while we dwell together, united by all the ties ofbrotherhood, and having free access to those whom we wish to convinceand persuade? But who can estimate the mischiefs that we must encounter while thisdismemberment, this tearing asunder of the joints and members of thebody politic, is going on? What will be the commotion and dismay, whenall our sources of wealth, prosperity, and comfort, are turned tooccasions for angry and selfish strife? What agitation will ensue in individual States, when it is to be decidedby majorities which State shall go to the North and which to the South, and when the discontented minority must either give up or fight! Whoshall divide our public lands between contending factions? What shall bedone with our navy and all the various items of the nation's property?What shall be done when the post-office stops its steady movement todivide its efforts among contending parties? What shall be done whenpublic credit staggers, when commerce furls her slackened sail, whenproperty all over the nation changes its owners and relations? Whatshall be done with our canals and railways, now the bands of love tobind us, then the causes of contention and jealousy? What umpire willappear to settle all these questions of interest and strife, betweencommunities thrown asunder by passion, pride, and mutual injury? It is said that the American people, though heedless and sometimesreckless at the approach of danger, are endowed with a strong andlatent principle of common sense, which, when they fairly approach theprecipice, always brings them to a stand, and makes them as wise todevise a remedy as they were rash in hastening to the danger. Are we notapproaching the very verge of the precipice? Can we not already hear theroar of the waters below? Is not now the time, if ever, when our sternprinciples and sound common sense must wake to the rescue? Cannot the South be a little more patient under the injurious actionthat she feels she has suffered, and cease demanding those concessionsfrom the North, that never will be made? For the North, though slower tomanifest feeling, is as sensitive to her right of freedom of speech, asthe South can be to her rights of property. Cannot the North bear with some unreasonable action from the South, whenit is remembered that, as the provocation came from the North, it iswise and Christian that the aggressive party should not so strictlyhold their tempted brethren to the rules of right and reason? Cannot the South bear in mind that at the North the colour of the skindoes not take away the feeling of brotherhood, and though it is a badgeof degradation in station and intellect, yet it is oftener regarded withpity and sympathy than with contempt? Cannot the South remember theirgenerous feelings for the Greeks and Poles, and imagine that some suchfeelings may be awakened for the African race, among a people who do notbelieve either in the policy or the right of slavery? Cannot the North remember how jealous every man feels of his domesticrelations and rights, and how sorely their Southern brethren are triedin these respects? How would the husbands and fathers at the Northendure it, if Southern associations should be formed to bring forth tothe world the sins of Northern men, as husbands and fathers? What if theSouth should send to the North to collect all the sins and neglects ofNorthern husbands and fathers, to retail them at the South in tractsand periodicals? What if the English nation should join in the outcry, and English females should send forth an agent, not indeed to visit theoffending North, but to circulate at the South, denouncing all who didnot join in this crusade, as the defenders of bad husbands and badfathers? How would Northern men conduct under such provocations? Thereis indeed a difference in the two cases, but it is not in the nature andamount of irritating influence, for the Southerner feels theinterference of strangers to regulate his domestic duty to his servants, as much as the Northern man would feel the same interference in regardto his wife and children. Do not Northern men owe a debt of forbearanceand sympathy toward their Southern brethren, who have been so sorelytried? It is by urging these considerations, and by exhibiting and advocatingthe principles of charity and peace, that females may exert a wise andappropriate influence, and one which will most certainly tend to bringto an end, not only slavery, but unnumbered other evils and wrongs. Noone can object to such an influence, but all parties will bid God speedto every woman who modestly, wisely and benevolently attempts it. I do not suppose that any Abolitionists are to be deterred by any thingI can offer, from prosecuting the course of measures they have adopted. They doubtless will continue to agitate the subject, and to formvoluntary associations all over the land, in order to excite publicsentiment at the North against the moral evils existing at the South. Yet I cannot but hope that some considerations may have influence tomodify in a degree the spirit and measures of some who are included inthat party. Abolitionists are men who come before the public in the character of_reprovers_. That the gospel requires Christians sometimes to assumethis office, cannot be denied; but it does as unequivocally point outthose qualifications which alone can entitle a man to do it. And no manacts wisely or consistently, unless he can satisfy himself that hepossesses the qualifications for this duty, before he assumes it. The first of these qualifications is more than common exemption from thefaults that are reproved. The inspired interrogatory, "thou thereforewhich teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?" enforces thisprinciple; and the maxim of common sense, that "reprovers must haveclean hands, " is no less unequivocal. Abolitionists are reprovers forthe violation of duties in the domestic relations. Of course they aremen who are especially bound to be exemplary in the discharge of alltheir domestic duties. If a man cannot govern his temper and his tongue;if he inflicts that moral castigation on those who cross his will, whichis more severe than physical stripes; if he is overbearing or exactingwith those under his control; if he cannot secure respect for a kind andfaithful discharge of all his social and relative duties, it is asunwise and improper for him to join an Abolition Society, as it would befor a drunkard to preach temperance, or a slave-holder Abolitionism. Another indispensable requisite for the office of reprover is acharacter distinguished for humility and meekness. There is nothing moredifficult than to approach men for the purpose of convincing them oftheir own deficiencies and faults; and whoever attempts it in aself-complacent and dictatorial spirit, always does more evil than good. However exemplary a man may be in the sight of men, there is abundantcause for the exercise of humility. For a man is to judge of himself, not by a comparison with other men, but as he stands before God, whencompared with a perfect law, and in reference to all his peculiaropportunities and restraints. Who is there that in this comparison, cannot find cause for the deepest humiliation? Who can go from thepresence of Infinite Purity after such an investigation, to "take hisbrother by the throat?" Who rather, should not go to a brother, who mayhave sinned, with the deepest sympathy and love, as one who, amidgreater temptations and with fewer advantages, may be the least offenderof the two? A man who goes with this spirit, has the best hope of doinggood to those who may offend. And yet even this spirit will not alwayssave a man from angry retort, vexatious insinuation, jealous suspicion, and the misconstruction of his motives. A reprover, therefore, if hewould avoid a quarrel and do the good he aims to secure, must bepossessed of that meekness which can receive evil for good, with patientbenevolence. And a man is not fitted for the duties of a reprover, untilhe can bring his feelings under this control. The last, and not the least important requisite for a reprover, is_discretion_. This is no where so much needed as in cases where thedomestic relations are concerned, for here is the place above allothers, where men are most sensitive and unreasonable. There are nonewho have more opportunities for learning this, than those who act asteachers, especially if they feel the responsibility of a Christian anda friend, in regard to the moral interests of pupils. A teacher whoshares with parents the responsibilities of educating their children, whose efforts may all be rendered useless by parental influences athome; who feels an affectionate interest in both parent and child, issurely the one who might seem to have a right to seek, and a chance ofsuccess in seeking, some modifications of domestic influences. And yetteachers will probably testify, that it is a most discouraging task, andoften as likely to result in jealous alienation and the loss ofinfluence over both parent and child, as in any good. It is one of thegreatest compliments that can be paid to the good sense and the goodfeeling of a parent to dare to attempt any such measure. This may showhow much discretion, and tact, and delicacy, are needed by those who aimto rectify evils in the domestic relations of mankind. The peculiar qualifications, then, which make it suitable for a man tobe an Abolitionist are, an exemplary discharge of all the domesticduties; humility, meekness, delicacy, tact, and discretion, and theseshould especially be the distinctive traits of those who take the placeof _leaders_ in devising measures. And in performing these difficult and self-denying duties, there are nomen who need more carefully to study the character and imitate theexample of the Redeemer of mankind. He, indeed, was the searcher ofhearts, and those reproofs which were based on the perfect knowledge of"all that is in man, " we may not imitate. But we may imitate him, wherehe with so much gentleness, patience, and pitying love, encountered theweakness, the rashness, the selfishness, the worldliness of men. Whenthe young man came with such self-complacency to ask what more he coulddo, how kindly he was received, how gently convinced of his greatdeficiency! When fire would have been called from heaven by his angryfollowers, how forbearing the rebuke! When denied and forsaken withoaths and curses by one of his nearest friends, what was it but a lookof pitying love that sent the disciple out so bitterly to weep? When, inhis last extremity of sorrow, his friends all fell asleep, how gentlyhe drew over them the mantle of love! Oh blessed Saviour, impart more ofthy own spirit to those who profess to follow thee! THE END. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Transcriber's Notes. | | | | | |The following changes were made to the original text (correction | |in brackets): | | | |Page 3: to this request, MISS GRIMKE's(Grimké) Address was | | | |Page 19: associated CLARKSON, SHARPE, MACAULEY(Macaulay), and | | | |Page 44: (than) it is with "sheep-stealer. " But Abolitionists | | | |Page 53: Secondly, (. ) To make them willing to relinquish | | | |Page 59: sustained this trafic(traffic), in that nation. What | | | |Page 71: visiter's(visitor's) intention to devote himself to this| | | |Page 77: Footnote 3: suffer from such persecution;(") and he | |honourably and nobly | | | |Page 84: Mr. Clarkson continued his efficient | |co-opetion(co-operation) | | | |Page 101: so benevolent in feeling and action;(, ) that her | | | |Page 108: when she cannot please, or by petulent(petulant) | |complaints | | | |Page 112: Every man is saying, "let(Let) me have | | | |Page 124: and prejudiced bigot. (") | | | |Page 134: tempation(temptation), and lead to greater evils than | +------------------------------------------------------------------+