Showing posts with label Slaveholders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Slaveholders. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

Congressman Horace Mann to Reverend Samuel Joseph May, September 21, 1850

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR,— . . . You have seen how Websterism overrides everything in Boston. A large portion of the voters in my district belong in Boston, and have no sympathies or interests but in Boston, and only come out into the country to sleep and vote. They are exciting an opposition to me, to the extent of their influence and Webster's money. Were it not for this, I should long ago have positively declined to be a candidate again. The posture of affairs may compel me to withhold the execution of this purpose. . . . I have no heart to write a word on the course of things in Congress this session. The slaveholders have overthrown principles, and put them to rout as Napoleon did armies.

Yours very truly,
HORACE MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 331-2

Monday, October 23, 2023

Congressman Horace Mann, July 9, 1850

WASHINGTON, July 9, 1850.

It is a sad hour. News has just come from the White House that the President is dying. If he dies, it will be a calamity that no man can measure. His being a Southern man, a slaveholder, and a hero, has been like the pressure of a hundred atmospheres upon the South. If he dies, they will feel that their strongest antagonist has been struck from the ranks of their opponents; and I fear there will not be firmness nor force enough in all the North to resist them. The future is indeed appalling.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 307

Sunday, August 13, 2023

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: Sunday, December 4, 1864

Bright, clear, and warm.

A dispatch from Gen. Bragg.

AUGUSTA, December 3d, 6 P. M.— A strong force of the enemy's cavalry and infantry advanced from Louisville and encamped last night six miles from Waynesborough. They turned off this morning toward Savannah. Our cavalry is pressing in the rear, and all available means is being thrown to their front by rail. There is time yet for any assistance which can be spared, to be sent by way of Charleston.—B. B.

The Northern papers say our army under Hood in Tennessee has met with a great disaster. We are still incredulous—although it may be true. If so, the President will suffer, and Johnston and Beauregard will escape censure—both being supplanted in the command by a subordinate.

Brig.-Gen. Preston is still directing orders to Col. Shields, who is under the command of Major-Gen. Kemper, and the conflict of conscription authorities goes on, while the country perishes. Preston is a South Carolina politician—Kemper a Virginian. Mr. Secretary Seddon leans to the former.

The law allowing exemptions to owners of a certain number of slaves is creating an antislavery party. The non-slaveholders will not long fight for the benefit of such a "privileged class." There is madness in our counsels!

We are still favored by Providence in our family. We have, at the market prices, some $800 worth of provisions, fuel, etc., at the beginning of winter, and my son Thomas is well clad and has his order for a month's rations of beef, etc., which we get as we want it at the government shop near at hand in Broad Street. His pay and allowances are worth some $4500 per annum.

Major Ferguson having got permission of the Quartermaster-General to sell me a suit of cloth-there being a piece too dark for the army, I got four yards, enough for coat, pants, and vest, at $12 per yard—the price in the stores is $125; and I have the promise of the government tailor to make it up for some $30 or $40, the ordinary price being $350; the trimmings my family will furnish—if bought, they would cost $100. Tom has bought a new black coat, made before the war, for $175, the peace price $15, in specie, equivalent to $600. And my daughter Anne has made three fine bonnets (for her mother, sister, and herself), from the debris of old ones; the price of these would be $700. So I fear not but we shall be fed and clad by the providence of God.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 2p. 346-7

Tuesday, July 25, 2023

Congressman Horace Mann, February 7, 1850

FEB. 7.

Yesterday, Mr. Clay concluded his speech upon his Compromise resolutions. Its close was pathetic. There is hardly another slaveholder in all the South who would have perilled his popularity to such an extent. It will be defeated: but, if we from the North are still, it will be defeated by Southern votes and declamation; and it is better for the cause that they should defeat it than that we should.

You were right in saying that I would not have asked Mr. Winthrop about putting me on a committee; for I would not have answered such a question, had I been in his place, and had it been asked me.

Still, I think I should have held an important place on an antislavery committee; and, what is more, should have had a majority of colleagues who would act with me. Now every thing is in jeopardy.

I never said whom I would vote for, nor whom I would not. It would have been a bitter pill to be obliged to choose between the three candidates; but, if I had been so obliged, I should have voted for the least evil.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 288-9

Congressman Horace Mann, March 14, 1850

March 14.

Mr. Webster has not a favorable response from any Northern man of any influence. It is hard to believe that a man who has been so intellectually consistent should at once overthrow his grand reputation; but who can tell what an ambitious or disappointed man will not do to accomplish his object? Oh, how priceless is principle! . . . The delegate of Congress from Mexico (not yet received as such, because Congress has as yet established no Territorial Government over it) tells me the New-Mexicans are very averse to slavery, and that labor is too cheap, and the danger of slaves escaping too great, for any slaveholder to meet the risk of transferring his property there; that climate and soil are not adapted to it, &c. But the opening of mines, as I have said before, would create a demand for them; and all that is said of outdoor labor in reference to the uncongeniality of the climate does not apply to menial service. Besides, though the Mexicans may be hostile to slavery, yet they are a feeble, effeminate, unprincipled race; and ten strong Southern men, with their energy and activity, with their domineering and overpowering manners, would be a full match for a hundred of the best Mexicans that could be found. There is no absolute security but in the proviso.

As soon as we had the President's message, in which he proposed non-action on the part of Congress, and that the Territories should be left to form their own institutions, I foresaw some defection from the spirit which had before governed Congress. I therefore wrote to some gentlemen in New York, advising first that they should send out a regular missionary, who should traverse all the settlements in that country, and pre-occupy the minds of the people against slavery; or at least that they should send out antislavery tracts in English and Spanish, and scatter them throughout the whole region. The first project was supposed to be too expensive; but the latter has been adopted, and an address to the inhabitants will be distributed there in both languages to every one who can read. We are determining mighty events; and the occasion, therefore, is worthy of a mighty struggle.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 293-5

Sunday, July 23, 2023

Charles Sumner to Richard Cobden, July 9, 1850

The slaveholders are bent on securing the new territories for slavery, and they see in prospective an immense slave nation embracing the Gulf of Mexico and all its islands, and stretching from Maryland to Panama. For this they are now struggling, determined while in the Union to govern and direct its energies; or if obliged to quit, to build up a new nation slaveholding throughout. They are fighting with desperation, and have been aided by traitors at the North. Webster's apostasy is the most barefaced. Not only the cause of true antislavery is connected with the overthrow of the slave propaganda, but also that of peace. As soon as it is distinctly established that there shall be no more slave territory, there will be little danger of war. My own earnest aim is to see slavery abolished everywhere within the sphere of the national government,—which is in the District of Columbia, on the high seas, and in the domestic slave-trade; and beyond this, to have this government for freedom, so far as it can exert an influence, and not for slavery. When this is accomplished, then slavery will be taken out of the vortex of national politics; and the influences of education and improved civilization, and of Christianity, will be left free to act against it in the States where it exists.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 216-7

Sunday, June 4, 2023

J. N. B. to John Brown, November 24, 1859

BOSTON, Nov. 24.

My Dear Brother John Brown: I am an old man. I have for more than thirty years opposed Slavery in all its forms; though never with violence! I deeply sympathize with you in your present position, and commend you to that Jesus who preached, what Isaiah proclaimed, seven hundred years before his advent. God forbid that I should censure you for acting "deliverance to the captive," when it has the sanction of this "double inspiration." My brother, I respect and love you beyond expression. I have now a letter from my brother, now, I trust, in heaven. It was written in prison at Baltimore, by one whose life was sacrificed to Slavery's demand.

It tells me what I believe is true, that during the last few years of his life, he gave liberty to more than four hundred slaves. I have taken slaveholders to his monument in Mount Auburn, where the enduring marble tells that Charles Turner Torrey, in the early meridian of his life, was a martyr to Freedom. If you can find it possible to write me the smallest line, that I may place at its side, to bequeath to my children as a most valued legacy, you cannot tell how much I should value it. They are all Christians in the highest sense of that word; their abhorrence of Slavery is unquestioned. I have known you and your sons, and have had the pleasure of taking your honest hand in mine.

Yours in Christ,
J. N. B.

That I may be under no obligation to Virginia, I enclose a ten cent stamp to pay for the paper you may use.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 405

J. M. B to John Brown, November 24, 1859

Ilion, New York, November 24.

Dear Brother in Christ: How I would like to spend this night with you in your cell, and converse for a season on the joys that await you beyond this world of sin and sorrow. I have tried to spend this day in prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God for the many blessings received at His hand the past year, but in spite of all my efforts in this direction, it has been a sorrowful day to my soul, as my mind has dwelt almost constantly on your death scene. I cannot be joyful; I mourn not so much for you, (for, like the hero of Tarsus, you seem ready to be offered,) but I mourn for my country. I spent the past winter in the South, spending four months in nine of the slave States; and more than once I had to press my lips and clinch my fists, to keep back the feelings of my soul. I saw Slavery in all its phases, and many a night I have wet my pillow with my tears, as I called to mind the sufferings of the poor slave. I had hard work to control my feelings, but did so, and cannot think but it was the best course. Among the slaveholders I found some of the noblest men I ever met with kind, obliging, hospitable, pious, and to all appearances without a fault; so I returned to my home to hate the sin and not the men. I made the acquaintance of Gov. Wise, and found that it was not Wise that killed Cilley; it was not Wise that fought for Slavery at the South; it was his education — for a nobler heart never filled the breast of man; and had he been favored with a birthplace on the shores of Lake Champlain, and a home among the Adirondack mountains, he might have been your general in this conflict, and lying wounded by your side to night.*  Would to God these brethren could read our hearts. O, could they see how we love them; how we desire their present and future happiness; what a change would at once take place in their feelings towards us. Did Gov. Wise know Christ as did Paul when soundly converted, there would not be power enough in all the military force of Virginia to hang John Brown. But enough of this.

I have never believed that Virginia, for her own honor, would hang you; but she may, (my heart is too full, my tears flow too fast to write,) if she does, such a funeral as the sun never saw before, will follow.

Keep up good courage; a few more rising and setting suns, and the struggle will be over; and the thrice welcome words will reach your ears, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you."

I have been a resident of Washington County for thirty-eight years; left Fort Edward, New York, May, 1858, and am sure I have met you, but cannot tell where; but if faithful to the grace already given, I am sure I shall meet you again, and I know where. Praise the Lord, on that blissful shore, where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are forever at rest. You will not be permitted, like Moses, to return after forty years to engage afresh in the struggle for freedom: but God will raise up others, in his own good time, to carry forward the work.

Farewell, till we meet in Heaven; for, when we reach the landing place,—

“In the realms of endless light,
We’ll bid this world of noise and show
Good night, good night, good night;
We’ll stem the storm,” &c.

Your unworthy friend and brother in the Lord,
J. M. B.
_______________

*What miserable cant! "Pious" trafficars in God's children; "pious" robbers of God's poor; "pious" brokers in the souls for whom Jesus died! "Kind, obliging, hospitable!" No doubt of it! To compel men and women to work without reward, is so kind; to barter for base gold the offspring of slave mothers, is so obliging; to rob a race of every social, civil, political, matrimonial, paternal, filial right, is so hospitable an act, that it is not surprising that the class who practise it should be “to all appearance without a fault!" And Wise, the assassin of Cilley, the representative murderer of John Brown, the laudator of the Slave Pens, the acknowledged head and champion of the vilest Commonwealth that the sun looks down on, of course, he deserves the eulogy bestowed on him, when the writer says, that a “nobler heart never filled the breast of man." There are no murderers, there are no assassins, there are no base, nor cowardly, nor wicked men, if the philosophy of the writer be correct. It was not Judas, then, but Judas's education?

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 406-7

Monday, May 29, 2023

Amos Tuck to Rev. James C. Boswell and Samuel A. Haley, November 20, 1846

EXETER, Nov. 20, 1846.

TO REV. JAMES C. BOSWELL, President, and SAMUEL A. HALEY, ESQ., Secretary, &c.

Gentlemen:—I have received your letter of October 24th, in reference to the proceedings at the Convention of Independent Democrats and Liberty men of the First Congressional District, and I embrace the earliest opportunity which my engagements have allowed to send you an answer.

I believe it to be the object of those assembled at the above named convention, to re-affirm the fundamental principles of republican liberty, and to act out with fearless devotion the doctrines of human equality and universal justice. Entertaining these views, I rejoice in their free expression, and am content to stand or fall with the others in their defense.

Two causes have contributed more than all others to effect the late change in the political balance of parties. The first has been the despotism of party power, by which generous impulses have been repressed and discouraged, the exercise of private judgment made dangerous, and all individuality of character sought to be extinguished, by compelling men to believe, or to profess, those sentiments only which were suggested by a selfish and ever-shifting policy and sanctioned by self-constituted party leaders. No tyranny is more galling than that which would quench the free thoughts of free men; no tyrants are more despicable than those who, "dressed in a little brief authority," would attempt in a democracy to exercise the power and the prerogatives hereditary despots; no engine of influence is more dangerous or more execrable than a hireling press, speaking no words for truth or justice, but devoting all its energies to the perpetration of human servitude. To free New Hampshire from such influences, and to expose in their deformity those who had wielded them too long, was one object in our organization, and this object, I rejoice in believing, has been in a good degree accomplished.

The second and chief cause of the late change has been the existence and progressing power of the institution of slavery. The encroachments of the slave-holding interests, and the subserviency of public men to its numerous exactions, have been so exorbitant and so notorious as to have become just cause of alarm to every friend of humanity and the country. The people, irrespective of party, have at length turned their attention to the subject, and by unequivocal manifestations are teaching their public servants that hereafter other things will be expected of them than a base and servile homage to the dark spirit of slavery; that some efforts will be demanded at their hands, more efficient than a “masterly inactivity," or a halting opposition to an abstract idea; that it is time for them to stand up like men, and, echoing the strong voice of a free people, to say to the sweeping tide of oppression, "thus far and no farther." The inquiry now is, what can be done, what can Congress do to free the master and the slave and the nation from the sin and the retributions of slavery? Of cowardly discussion about the extent of our powers we have had enough. The exigency of the country as well as the spirit of the age require now the performance of those acts whose constitutionality and propriety are beyond reasonable doubt. They require that the shadow of slavery shall no longer darken the District of Columbia, and that the trader in human beings shall no longer be permitted to shelter himself from the scorn of the Christian world beneath the wings of the national capitol. They require that no new slave state, with a constitution recognizing slavery, shall hereafter be admitted to the Union, and that no existing state, whether Texas or Florida, shall be dismembered to subserve the slave holding interest. They require that the domestic, inter-state slave trade, a traffic in no respect less infamous than that foreign slave trade which has been branded by the civilized world as piracy, shall, under the clause in the Constitution which gives power to Congress, "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states," be utterly and forever prohibited. They require that the labor and interest of the free states should be respected, and that slavery be no longer permitted to give character to our legislation.

Let the people of the free states come now to the rescue of freedom and the Constitution, and something may be done to perpetuate the Union,—let them be found wanting in this trial of their integrity, and let the South for a few years more continue unchecked her schemes in behalf of slavery, and no human power can prevent a dissolution. For the sake then of the Union, let the people of the free states be careful to discern and perform on this subject the duties of patriotism and humanity.

One other subject claims attention. The present war with Mexico cannot be lost sight of in any discussion of the public interest. Originating in the unauthorized and iniquitous scheme of the annexation of Texas, it is now prosecuted without that public necessity which can justify us on the page of impartial history, and with no prospect of “conquering a peace," or effecting an honorable reconciliation. It has become a war of conquest, and as such is in violation of every principle of a popular government, as well as of every precept of Christianity. It is adding immense territory to the southern portion of the country, and is thus threatening to destroy the balance of the states, and to consign the nation more hopelessly to the control of slaveholders. It is waged against a neighboring nation, a younger republic, which for years, in weakness and distraction, endeavored to follow the example of our prospering nation; and as such, the war is disgraceful and mean. It is carried on at the expense of the blood of brave men, whose valor is worthy of a better cause, and has already exhausted the treasury of the country, and involved the nation in a heavy debt. Under these circumstances there can be no doubt that the honor and best interests of the country demand a speedy end of the contest, and that all matters in dispute be settled by arbitration or negotiation.

I have thus spoken briefly of some of the topics suggested by your resolutions. It remains for me simply to acknowledge my deep sense of the honor which your nomination has conferred upon me. If it is thought that my acceptance of this nomination can subserve the interests of the cause in which we are engaged, I shall not feel at liberty to shrink from the position in which you have placed me; but shall remain,

Your obedient servant,
AMOS TUCK.

SOURCE: Charles R. Corning, Amos Tuck, p. 21-4

Sunday, May 28, 2023

Congressman Horace Mann to E. W. Clap, Undated

DEAR SIR,

Mr. Thompson has been to see me. Of course I was obliged to tell him there might be circumstances in which I would vote for a slaveholder. This, I suppose, has lost me a hundred votes; but I had better lose a hundred by honesty than gain one by dishonesty. . . . In great haste, very truly yours,

H. MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 284-5

Congressman Horace Mann, February 4, 1850

FEB. 4, 1850.

Gen. Taylor's Message is very good so far as it relates to California. He recommends that it be admitted as a State. But, in the same message, he recommends non-action in regard to New Mexico; that is, to form no territorial government for New Mexico, but to await its own motion on the subject. Now, the benefit of a territorial government in New Mexico, with a prohibitior of slavery in it, is, that, while such a prohibition exists, no slaveholders will dare go there, and therefore will not be there to infuse their views into the people, and help form a constitution with slavery in it. If there is no such government, and no such prohibition, the fear is that slaveholders will go there, and exercise an influence in favor of slavery, and help form a constitution which shall not prohibit it, and, when they send that constitution to Congress, will get in, and so slavery be ultimately established by reason of present neglect. I approve, therefore, of the California part of the message, but disapprove of the other.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 288

Saturday, May 27, 2023

Charles Sumner to William Jay, February 19, 1850

I have just read your admirable letter on Clay's resolutions [of compromise].1 You have done a good work. . . . There is a great advantage which our cause now possesses in the full reports of antislavery speeches in Congress, which are made by the Washington papers. At last we can reach the country, and the slaveholders themselves. The Senate chamber is a mighty pulpit from which the truth can be preached. I think that Mr. Hale and Mr. Chase should in the course of the session present a complete review of slavery, using freely all the materials afforded by the various writings on the subject. In this way, through the “Globe,” “Union,” and “Intelligencer,” a knowledge of our cause may be widely diffused. But we need more men there; we cannot expect everything from two only. We are about to be betrayed by our political leaders. Cannot the people be aroused to earnest, generous action for freedom? I remember with pleasure my visit to your country home, and hope not to be forgotten by your kind family, to whom I offer my best regards.
_______________

2 New York "Evening Post," Feb. 20, 1850

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 212

Saturday, May 6, 2023

H. B., an Old Missionary to John Brown, November 28, 1859

New Haven, Connecticut, Nov. 28.

Dear Sir: Permit a friend of liberty and equitable law to address you a few brief thoughts, which I hope may be acceptable to you and your family. Prayer was yesterday offered for you in a colored congregation in this city, to whom a descendant of Africa, a son of Georgia, a minister of Liberia, and also the writer of this farewell letter, preached the true gospel.

You may be gratified to know that I remember with interest your interview, some two years since, with the cordial friends of Kansas in this city, while that injured territory of our common country was subject to the scorpion lash prepared for the honest advocates of the rights of man, and especially of that freedom which you struggled to establish. These, your New Haven friends, some of whom so ably and so kindly expostulated with our Chief Magistrate in reference to the wrongs of Kansas, remember you with Christian sympathy in your present sufferings.

Take it to your heart that a God of Justice and of Mercy rules, and the Deliverer of Israel from their bondage in Goshen, has mercy in store for a greater number of bondmen and bondwomen, truly as wrongfully oppressed. He has not granted you the full measure of your wishes, but he has allowed you the opportunity of conspicuously and emphatically showing your sympathy for the injured Slave population of our otherwise happy country, and of preaching the duty of giving "them that which is just and equal."

Forty years ago I went among the savages of Polynesia, and preached the gospel of Him whose office it was to proclaim liberty to captives. I plainly taught kings and queens, chiefs and warriors, that He that ruleth men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. I freely exhibited the opposition of God's law and our Saviour's gospel to oppression and every sin found to be prevailing there, and aided my associates in giving them the entire Bible in their own language, and in teaching their tribes to read it and use it freely in all the ranks of life.

Though I labored with them a score of years, and have corresponded with them a score of years more, I have not, lest I should damage my mission, ever told them that I belonged to a nation that deprives three or four millions of their fellow-subjects of Jehovah's Government, of their dearest rights which God has given them one of which is the free use of his own Holy Book.

But when the story of your execution shall reach and surprise them, I will no longer hesitate to speak to my friends there of your sympathy for four millions of the inhabitants of our Southern States, held in unchristian bonds in the only Protestant country on the globe that endorses Slavery.

I can, next week, well afford to endeavor to give them an echo of that protest against the whole system of American Slavery, which on and from the day of your execution, will be louder in the ear of High Heaven than its abettors have been accustomed to hear; rising from the millions of freemen in this noble cordon of Free States, and other millions of now slaveholding freemen, and some slaveholders themselves, in the Slave States.

Have you a kind message to send to the Christian converts at the Sandwich Islands, or to the heathen of Micronesia, a month's sail beyond, where my son and daughter are laboring to give them the Bible and the richest blessings of Christianity? I would gladly forward it to them if you have time to write it.

And now, dear sir, trust in your gracious Saviour; forgive those that have trespassed against you; leave your fatherless children, God will provide for them, and tell your widow to trust in Him, in His holy habitation. "The hairs of your head are all numbered," and not one "shall fall to the ground without your Heavenly Father." Should a lock of your hair fall into my lap before the execution shall help you to shake the pillars of the idol's temple, it would be valued. The Lord bless you, and make your life and death a blessing to the oppressed and their oppressors. Farewell!

Yours faithfully,
H. B.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 403-5

Sunday, April 23, 2023

From a Slaveholder’s Son to John Brown, undated, about November 1859

Dear Brother: My father was a slaveholder, and when at school I commenced searching the Bible for sanction of the divine institution, but have not found it. I am Old School Presbyterian, and believe with our friends, the Quakers, Christ's kingdom will be peace; but now Christ told his disciples, He that hath a sword, let him take it. Therefore, I cannot say I think you exceeded your commission, and I rejoice that a man has been found worthy to suffer for Christ. Yes, dear brother, God Himself will send His angel, December 2, '59, to release you from your prison of clay, and conduct you to your Redeemer and mine, where you will join the souls under the altar, crying. How long before your blood be avenged on the earth? Truly, your ignominious death has a glory equal to that of the Apostles, in the eye of thousands who are praying for you that all your sins may be blotted out, and Christ's Cause, for which you suffer, may be speedily supplied with other witnesses for Right. Enclosed [is] one dollar for your use, because I want to do something to aid you, hoping others will do much. Kind regards to your family. One of the Seven Thousand the Lord knows; to every one known by man, who hate slavery because the Lord does.

[No signature nor date.]

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 391

Friday, August 5, 2022

Senator James H. Hammond to Francis Lieber, April 19, 1860

WASHINGTON, April 19, 1860

. . . I don't remember what I said in my postscript, which seems to have affected you so much, but in all your comments I entirely concur. The Lovejoy explosion, and all its sequences which were so threatening last week, has been for the present providentially cast in the shade by the intensified and utterly absorbing interest in the Charleston Convention. That phase has blown over for the moment. But I assure you, and you may philosophize upon it, that unless the slavery question can be wholly eliminated from politics, this government is not worth two years', perhaps not two months', purchase. So far as I know, and as I believe, every man in both houses is armed with a revolver — some with two — and a bowie-knife. It is, I fear, in the power of any Red or Black Republican to precipitate at any moment a collision in which the slaughter would be such as to shock the world and dissolve this government. I have done, ever since I have been here, all I could to avert such a catastrophe. But, I tell you, knowing all about it here, that unless the aggression on the slaveholder is arrested, no power, short of God's, can prevent a bloody fight here, and a disruption of the Union. You know what I have said about all this, and that I do not advocate such a finale. But seeing the oldest and most conservative senators on our side, — we have no intercourse that is not official, as it were, with the other, — seeing them get revolvers, I most reluctantly got one myself, loaded it, and put it in my drawer in the senate. I can't carry it. Twice in my life I have carried pistols until I became a coward, or very nearly, and threw them aside. But I keep a pistol now in my drawer in the senate as a matter of duty to my section. I concur with you about the Brooks type, that vengeance belongs to the Almighty, and all that. I will do, as I have done, all I can in that line; and while regarding this Union as cramping the South, I will nevertheless sustain it as long as I can. Yet I will stand by to the end. I firmly believe that the slaveholding South is now the controlling power of the world — that no other power would face us in hostility. This will be demonstrated if we come to the ultimate. I have no wish to bring it about, yet am perfectly ready if others do. There might be with us commotion for a time, but cotton, rice, tobacco, and naval stores command the world; and we have sense enough to know it, and are sufficiently Teutonic to carry it out successfully. The North, without us, would be a motherless calf, bleating about, and die of mange and starvation.

But I am going off. Your speech satisfies me about Doctor Hayes's expedition, and I will give it my help.

SOURCE: Thomas Sergeant Perry, Editor, The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 310-1

Sunday, March 27, 2022

Will Kansas be a Slave State, Published September 28, 1855

The Hon. Theodore G. Hunt, of La., who was one of the few Southern Representatives in Congress that voted against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, addressed a public meeting of his constituents on the 15th instant in a speech in which, whilst defending his course upon that subject, he conclusively stated the reason that would prevent Kansas from being a slave State:

In addition to the view I presented of good faith, I also urged in my speech on the Nebraska bill that, apart from abstractions, there was no practical advantage to be attained for the South by opening the Territory in question to the admission of slavery. And I still retain that opinion. I believe that Kansas and Nebraska are both destined by nature to be free States. No prudent slaveholder will leave the genial soil and climate of the South, and take his slaves with him, merely to establish the condition of slavery in the less productive and colder region of Kansas or Nebraska. The author of the Nebraska bill himself, and leading Southern gentlemen, who advocated the bill, also entertained the opinion I expressed.

Mr. Douglas said: “I do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slaveholding country. I have no idea that it could.”

Mr. Badger, or North Carolina, said: “I have no more idea of seeing a slave population in either of them I have of seeing it in Massachusetts, not a whit.”

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said: “As far as I am concerned, I must say that I do not expect that this bill is to give us of the South anything, but merely to accommodate something like the sentiment of the South.”

Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, said: “Does any man believe that you will have a slaveholding State in Kansas and Nebraska? I confess that for a moment I permitted such an illusion to  rest on my mind.”

Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, said: As I told the honorable chairman of this committee on Territories, and as I have expressed myself everywhere when I have given my opinion on the subject, I was content to let this matter stand as it was, because, in my judgment, there was nothing practical in it.”

There is nothing in the present state of things that shakes my conviction in the destination of Kansas to be a free State. The lawless violence of certain Missourians to control the election and mould the sovereignty of Kansas must fall of its object. The condition of Kansas as to slavery will be determined ultimately by the influence of the law of nature and the principles of human interest, almost as certain in their operation as that law itself. Population, which was flowing rapidly into the Territory, has been checked and greatly obstructed for some time past; but thousands who have settled there opposed to the institution of slavery; and a vast number who, it is believed, will settle there as soon as law and order are established, will join the opposition. Besides, I understand that the number of emigrants going to Missouri bona fide to live there does not exceed the number of emigrants from that state returning to their ancient establishments. Now, if this information be correct, Kansas will in due time, when prepared for admission into the Union, present herself to Congress for admission with a constitution prohibitory of slavery. To her admission under the case supposed there could be no serious objection on the part of the South; for the doctrine is justly avowed by her that when a State is about to be admitted into the Union, that States has a right to decide for itself whether it will or will not have slavery within its limits.

But if I am mistaken in the opinion that Kansas will present herself at the right time to Congress with a constitution prohibitory of slavery, and, on the contrary, by any possibility she should be admitted as a slaveholding Sates, still, I repeat, I am convinced, from the nature of her soil, from the number of foreigners and citizens from the free States who have settled, and who will hereafter settle within her limits, and from the well known aversion of those persons to the institution of slavery, that her career as a slaving State would be a very short one, and that her destiny is fixed by the law of Nature, and the circumstances averted to, as a non-slaveholding State.

Practically, then, the South had nothing to gain by a repeal of the Missouri compromise. Her own fertile lands, suitable for the profitable culture of her great staples, and situated in a climate congenial to the health of her laborers, afforded her, in their immense area, a space far beyond her powers for cultivation for any series of ages yet to come. I condemned the lust for lands which the South did not want, and which honor called upon her not to invade or to acquire by injustice.

SOURCE: “Will Kansas be a Slave State?” Daily American Organ, Washington, D.C., Friday, September 28, 1855, p. 2

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Wide Difference Between the State Laws of the Hebrews and the Moral Law Which Was Given Them.

There is a most important difference between the state laws, or judicial statutes of the Hebrew nation, and the moral law as expressed in the decalogue. Both these systems of legislation, emanated indeed from the same Divine author, but they were given for different purposes. The state laws had respect to the particular circumstances of that nation in distinction from all others, and were evidently designed to be superseded, as they have been, by the Christian dispensation, to which many of them were preparatory, and at whose introduction the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles was entirely broken down. Whereas the moral law is founded on principles of immutable rectitude, equally applicable to all men in all circumstances and ages; and was designed to be neither abrogated nor modified by the introduction of Christianity, but to be interpreted and confirmed by the Author of both. The apostolic substitution of the first for the last day of the week for a sabbath constitutes no exception, as the very letter and spirit of the original command may and should be as fully regarded under the change, as before its occurrence. It is still every seventh day which is to be hallowed. The state laws in view of the established usages of those to whom they were given, the prejudices of their minds and hardness of their hearts, suffered and regulated certain evils, because by the enaction and enforcemcnt of judicial statutes they could not be removed, without producing consequences still more deplorable. On this point we have testimony which will not be contradicted. When the Pharisees captiously inquired of our Lord, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” He, evidently designing to condemn polygamy, and divorces as commonly practised together, reminded them that at the beginning, the Creator made but one man and one woman and joined them together as one flesh. Others similarly united in marriage, he said were no more twain but one flesh. And impressively added, “What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.” They said, “Why did Moses then command to give her a writing of divorcement and send her away?” His remarkable reply was, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, MOSES suffered you to put away your wives: but in the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery.” Even the disciples were startled at this decision of the Lord and remarked, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” So greatly prejudiced were they in consequence of their Jewish education, against the original purity and binding nature of this sacred institution. Now if Moses suffered the Jews to put away their wives for every cause, not because it was right for them to do so, but on account of the hardness of their hearts and the evils which this obduracy might have led them to inflict on their helpless companions with whom they were not pleased; it is obvious that they might have been suffered, by the same code of laws, to do other things which they had no right to perform. So it is in regard to the laws of all nations. God, in the dispensations of his providence, is continualy suffering men to do what they ought not. But the Moral Law lays the axe at the root of all moral evil, it strictly, without regard to persons or circumstances, forbids the least deviation from the path of absolute rectitude, and binds transgressors to answer for their conduct not to earthly tribunals but to the Supreme Lawgiver himself, in the day of final judgment. The laws of the state not merely suffered the Hebrews to do things, but in some cases, required them to do things, which without such authority from God, they would have had no right to perform; and might not without great criminality attempt. As instances of this sort we must reckon the stoning of children to death for such immoralities as have been mentioned, and a man for gathering sticks for his fire on the Sabbath day, and especially the destruction of the Canaanites, who by their great sins had forfeited to divine justice not only their earthly possessions, but their lives. God had a right to cut off these transgressors by pestilence or earthquakes, or fire from heaven, or the agency of his angelic hosts, or by the hands of their fellow men, as he saw fit. The wonderful miracles which attended the march of the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan, while they were passing the Jordan, and besieging Jericho, gave indubitable testimony that they were indeed divinely commissioned to cut off the guilty nations, inhabiting the land which God had promised to give them for their possession. But to plead that since it was right for the Jews to do these things when expressly commanded, it must be so for others to do such things when not commanded, seems as egregiously absurd as for every man in this country to claim the right of acting as a public executioner at his own discretion, because some men have been authorized by law to inflict sentence of death on others, and were in justice bound to do it. On the contrary, the moral law enjoins duties which are common to all. Our Savior has taught us, that the substance and scope of it all is this, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself.” These are things right in themselves, and which all men would have been bound to do, even if no express law to this effect had been given.

Wide indeed, then, is the difference between the judicial statutes of the Hebrew commonwealth and that moral law, contained in the decalogue which binds all men to obedience, and with which the great principles of christian morality laid down in the New Testament perfectly harmonize. The former was given to an individual nation, in peculiar circumstances, for special purposes; and are at present no further a rule of conduct than they in particular instances, inculcate duties which are confirmed by the latter, as expounded or enforced by Christ or his apostles. Without this sanction, you have no more authority from the political laws of the Jews to practice slaveholding; even in the sense and manner in which they practised it, than you have to practise polygamy.— And we have seen that the system of servitude which prevailed among them was so mild that it cannot according to the correct meaning of the term in this country, be denominated slavery at all. It is as plain then as the sun at noon day, that the laws of the Hebrew nation, do not, and cannot afford your cherished institution any support or cover.

If slavery can be justified from the Bible a tall, it must be on the ground of the great principles of universal benevolence and perfect rectitude, which constitute the foundation of christian morality. We therefore agree with you to refer the great question to Christ and his apostles for ultimate decision.
_______________

Continued from: Reverend Silas McKeen to Thomas C. Stuart, August 20, 1839

SOURCE: Cyrus P. Grosvenor, Slavery vs. The Bible: A Correspondence Between the General Conference of Maine, and the Presbytery of Tombecbee, Mississippi, p. 76-82

Friday, October 11, 2019

Three Things to be Considered.

Before leaving the subject of Jewish servitude, there are three considerations of chief importance on which we wish you may fix your candid attention.

The first is, There is no sufficient proof to warrant belief, that the Hebrew laws ever authorized, or in any way recognized slavery in the American sense of that term. The assertion that they did, is gratuitous, and altogether incapable of establishment. The general tenor of these laws, fully acknowledging and vigilantly guarding several of the most important rights of humanity in the case of those in bondage, shows that they were not considered things, or mere property possession, like cattle; but men, who had sacred rights with which even those who had purchased them for permanent servants, might not, in any circumstances, interfere. Full evidence of this, we think, has already been exhibited; and in the course of our argument confirmatory facts will be incidentally accumulated.

Secondly, Those who claim authority, in virtue of the Hebrew laws, to hold slaves, have no right to violate their charter, by neglecting any thing which it requires, or doing any thing which it prohibits. In regard to a point so plain, let common sense speak out. Suppose you are all elected trustees of a college, duly chartered and of long standing: Are you at liberty, without regard to the original acts of incorporation, to remodel every thing, and make what disposition of the funds you please ? Is it enough that the mere name of the institution is preserved, while the original design of its founders, and of the government in its incorporation, is wholly defeated? Surely you would feel the necessity either of keeping strictly within your chartered limits, or of resigning your offices, if you did not approve of the duties they imposed. Or, suppose the government gives a daring commander letters of marque and reprisal to go forth on the high seas to capture and plunder the vessels of a nation with whom they are at war. He and his crew are legally authorized. But when this commander has been slain, and another has succeeded to his place, and the crew have undergone so many changes that none of the original number remain, have the successors authority under the original license to take more liberty, and proceed to capture and plunder the vessels of other nations, and to destroy their unoffending crews? The things done would indeed bear close resemblance to those which the original commission warranted, but would still be as completely unauthorized and outrageous as if no such commission had ever been given, and must expose the perpetrators of them to be executed as pirates. Provided then you claim the right of holding slaves under the authority of the Levitical laws, consistency requires that you manage the whole business in strict accordance with them.

The regulation of Hebrew servitude, was a business too delicate, involving interests too sacred, to be committed to the discretion of interested masters. Moses of himself was not competent to such legislation. The sovereign Lawgiver, through him as the interpreter of his will, prescribed the rules by which both masters and servants were to be governed, and required all the people to say Amen, to the imprecation, “Cursed be he who confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.” And when in a certain case the masters ventured to act at their own discretion, and through covetousness refused to release their servants, when the law required them to be set free, they were most pointedly condemned by the Almighty for their unhallowed temerity. “Ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine, and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth. Jer. 34:17. Does God give you greater power over the bodies and souls of your fellow men, than he gives to Moses and his peculiar people? license even to make void by your own enactments or customs his laws, while at the same time pleading their authority in vindication of your slaveholding? If you hold under the Jewish charter, you are bound to govern yourselves strictly by its provisions and limitations.

Instead of imprisoning colored people who come among you, and on their failure to substantiate the fact of their freedom or to pay their jail fees, selling them into hopeless bondage; you must suffer even such as you may know to be runaway slaves from other countries to enjoy liberty and to dwell in whatever part of your country they choose. You must in no case restore them again to their masters. Deut. 23; 15, 16.

Instead of marking your refractory slaves by knocking out teeth, chopping off fingers, or otherwise maiming them, and then unblushingly describe them by these marks in your advertisements when they run away, you must know that all such maimings are to the sufferers irrefragable evidence of their legal title to the liberty which they have taken. Exod. 21:27.

Southern slaveholders must not under any pretence hold in involuntary bondage, over six years, any whose complexion proves them to be of white paternity, especially when they have reason to believe that they may be very nearly related to themselves. Deut. 15:12–14,

All your slaves must be consecrated to God; be required to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, and to rest from their secular labors one whole year in every seven; and to share fully with you in all other religious privileges.— Exod. 12:49. Exod. 20:10. Lev. 25:4–6.

On every fiftieth year from the commencement of the practice of slaveholding in this country, the enslaved should all have been, and should all hereafter be, set free. As slavery was introduced in the year 1620, there should have been three Jubilees already. The next should occur in thirty one years. Then must liberty be proclaimed throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof, and all the millions of your down trodden servants, stand erect in the complete enjoyment of civil and religious freedom. Lev. 25:10.

In the meanwhile, there must be equal laws, in the execution of which the rights of servants, as well as those of masters, shall be duly protected, and impartial justice weighed out in the same balances. “He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country.”— Lev. 2:21, 22. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God’s.” Deut. 1:17. See also, Exod. 22:21–24.

Do you object to slavery under such regulations as these? Then do not refer to Jewish laws, as the foundation of your claim. Either obey their laws, or do not seek protection under them.

3. Another point of importance is this, That in as much as the political laws of the Hebrews both permitted and required them to do various things, which others, undeniably, have no right to do, without similar express authority, it follows, that even if those laws did authorize the modified form of slaveholding in that nation which has been described, it is no proof that you have a right to practice it in this. If the assumed right can be maintained on the ground of divine authority at all, entirely different evidence of the fact must be adduced.

The civil laws of the Hebrews permitted and regulated Polygamy. Exod. 21:10, 11. Deut. 17:17. This license the Jews Understood as giving countenance to concubinage also, or taking without ceremony secondary wives, who had no authority in the family and whose children could not inherit any portion of the father's estate. David, Solomon, and Rehoboam, all had many wives and concubines; and do not seem to have considered themselves as acting illegally, or as setting a bad example while so doing. These statutes also permitted any man without reference to any tribunal whatever, to divorce his wife, and send her away, whenever he became displeased with her. Deut. 21:14, 24:1. And they required the father and mother who had a rebellious son, who would not submit to parental discipline, to bring him forth to the elders of the city, at whose order all the people should stone him to death. Deut. 21:18–21. A married daughter, whose husband should convict her of having been unchaste in any instance before marriage must be publicly executed in the same terrible manner. Deut. 22:21. When the people made war upon any city, if it did not immediately open its gates and submit, the Hebrews on taking it by seige, were required by the laws of their country to “smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.”— Deut. 20:13. They were commanded in general, respecting the inhabitants of Canaan, whom they were sent to dispossess, “Thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shalt deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them.” And having slain a people who had done them no previous injury, they were to possess their country and enjoy the fruit of their labors. Deut. 7:16. 8:7, 8.

Will you from these facts infer that men in this country have scriptural warrant for practising polygamy and concubinage, and to put away their wives whenever they dislike them?—That American fathers and mothers must bring forth their rebellious sons and seduced daughters to be stoned to death? Or that we as a nation are authorized to carry a war of extermination into the territories of our neighbors who have done us no injury and to take possession of their houses and lands for ourselves and posterity? You certainly will not maintain that the judicial statutes of Moses authorized us to do any of these things. But why not? Because these laws permitted and required the Hebrews to do things which we undeniably have no right to do without a warrant from God equally plain. Not the state laws of the Hebrew commonwealth, though given by divine authority, but those principles and precepts of the Bible which are evidently designed for men of all nations, are to be received by us as the proper rules of our conduct. Our ultimate appeal must be to the moral law written by the finger of God upon the tables of stone, to the gospel of our Lord Jesus, and those other portions of divine revelation which agree with them in having not a peculiar but general application. This is as true respecting slavery as it is in regard to polygamy, divorce or exterminating wars. We are no more bound or authorized by the mere political laws of the Hebrew commonwealth, excepting so far as by divine interpretation they are shewn to be of general application, than the people of Maine are bound b the laws of Mississippi. Whoever will maintain the contrary sentiment, must, to be consistent, receive circumcision, abstain from eating swine's flesh, perform the ablutions and offer the sacrifices required by the Levitical law, and take without opposition, the yoke of Judaism upon his neck, however heavy it may be for him to bear.
_______________

Continued from: Reverend Silas McKeen to Thomas C. Stuart, August 20, 1839

SOURCE: Cyrus P. Grosvenor, Slavery vs. The Bible: A Correspondence Between the General Conference of Maine, and the Presbytery of Tombecbee, Mississippi, p. 65-75

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Mr. Thompson at Lynn, published June 13, 1835

[From the Lynn Record,]

This distinguished young friend and disciple of Wilberforce, and justly celebrated orator, who has been repeatedly invited by the Anti-Slavery Society of this town, arrived on Saturday afternoon last, and was received with great satisfaction and delight. The society had a meeting on business, at the Town Hall, at the close of which, Mr. Thompson addressed a large crowded assembly of people, ladies and gentlemen, nearly two hours, in a strain of eloquence and power, quite beyond any thing we ever heard, and equally beyond our power to describe. All were held, as if by enchantment, to the close. It would be difficult to decide in which he most excelled, matter or manner. He took a comprehensive and varied view of the enormous injustice and evil of slavery, and brought up and considered the most prominent and popular objections to the plan of immediate abolition, and exposed their hypocrisy and absurdity in his own peculiar and effectual manner of cutting sarcasm. The effect was evidently great.

After Mr. Thompson had closed, a stern Pharisaical looking man, who had been sitting near the speaker, announcing himself as a preacher of the Gospel, from the South, desired the privilege of putting a few questions to Mr. Thompson, which was readily granted, and the questions as readily answered, to the satisfaction of the audience generally. The object of the stranger was to cavil and carp at what had been said. But the tables were adroitly turned upon the poor man, in a manner least expected, and most mortifying to him. One of the questions, in substance at least, was—‘Do you consider every slaveholder a thief?’ ‘I consider every person who holds and claims the right of holding his fellow being, as property, A MAN STEALER.’

After several questions, captious in their nature, had been asked and answered, Mr. Thompson turned upon his assailant, ‘If you have now done, sir, I, in turn, should like to ask you a few questions.’

‘Do you consider slavery a sin?’
‘I consider slavery a moral evil.’
Do you consider slavery a sin?’
‘I do consider slavery a sin.’
‘Is the marriage of slaves legal in the Southern States?’
‘It is legalized in Maryland.’
‘Can the Slaveholder, by the laws of Maryland, separate husband and wife?’
‘He can,’ &c. &c.

The gentleman stranger, (who is said to belong to Springfield in this state, formerly from the South) appealed to the people, but finally withdrew his appeal, and declared himself ‘satisfied.’ Whether satisfied or not, we believe he had as much as he could digest, and as much as he could swallow, including the question and answer system.

On Sunday evening, Mr. Thompson delivered a lecture on Slavery, in a religious view, as opposed to the doctrines of the Bible. The meeting-house (Rev. Mr. Peabody's) was much crowded, and many went away unable to gain admittance.

On Monday evening, Mr. Thompson lectured on the sin of slavery, before a newly formed ‘Anti-Slavery Society, of the New England Conference of Methodist Episcopal Ministers, consisting of about 60 or 70 Ministers—(a glorious phalanx!) at the South street Methodist meetinghouse. The house was well filled; but owing to a misunderstanding by many, that the lecture was to be delivered at the Woodend Meeting-house, (which was otherwise engaged) all who went were enabled to get in. The lecture was a powerful and splendid production both in argument and in manner of delivery.

On Tuesday evening, Mr. Thompson lectured at the Friend’s meeting-house, which is very large, and was thoroughly filled. He was assisted by Rev. A. A. Phelps, one of the public Agents of the Society, whose address was able, and well received. Mr. Garrison and several other friends of the cause, from Boston and Salem, were present. Mr. T. took occasion to glance at the past history and conduct of the Friends in regard to slavery, the lively interest they had taken in the cause of the oppressed, and the liberal contributions they had made; and exhorted to a continuance in the ways of well doing.

There may be men in our own country of more learning and more depth of mind, and strength of reasoning, than Mr. Thompson, though, we think, rarely to be found; but for readiness and skill in debate, and splendor of eloquence, as an orator, we believe he stands unrivalled. His amiableness, mildness of temper, urbanity, and blandness of manners and deportment, are adapted to win the love and affection of all, who are honored with his acquaintance. That the haughty, and the envious, should whisper their malignant hints that something evil is lurking about his character, is no more than may be naturally expected; though they are most fully and satisfactorily refuted by his numerous and honorable testimonials of respect which we have seen, from benevolent societies and individuals in England, where he is well known. These all breathe the warm friendship and esteem which goodness and greatness of soul alone can inspire.

The independence of mind which Mr. Thompson possesses, is one of the most striking and important traits in his excellent character. He shrinks from nothing. He is ready to attack sin and wickedness in every shape—in high or low places: and his thrusts never miss—never fail of effect.

The name of ‘Mr. George Thompson’ was often associated in the public journals, with distinguished orators and philanthropists, at the various public meetings of benevolent societies in England, long before he embarked for this country. He was there ranked among the most able and popular orators. But here, in this country, there are certain would-be great men, who dare not meet Mr. Thompson in the open field, who vent their pitiful malice, and strive to induce others to treat him with that neglect, to which themselves are so well entitled; because he brings out and exposes to the light of day their works of darkness.

‘He is a foreigner—he has no right to come here interfering with our laws, our customs, and our private rights.’


Very fine, indeed! Capital! Who has a right to interfere, or say a word, if a man murders his wife and children, or sells them into bondage? It was all his own family concern. Who has a right to express an opinion of the Turks, when oppressing, starving, and murdering the Greeks, not only men, but helpless women and children : Who has a right to express an opinion against the Russians for similar conduct toward the Poles, under similar circumstances, as the latter were the vassals of the former, in both cases? Who has a right to send Gospel missionaries abroad among the benighted heathen, groping in darkness, in order to instruct and enlighten them in the way of truth? WE—we, the American people, the ‘sons of liberty,’ claim the right, and exercise it too; without once being asked, why do ye so We, the American people, claim and exercise the right, when the laws of God— the eternal laws of truth and justice, and humanity, are broken, to expose the sin, and to ‘reprove, rebuke and exhort the transgressor.

‘But slavery was brought to our shores and entailed on us by England, against our consent, when we were under her government; and now shall England send men here to complain of the injustice and cruelty of the act, when we should be glad to get rid of the evil, but cannot?’

Reason answers, Yes. If England did wrong, and afterward saw the evil, repented, and brought forth fruits meet for repentance, by liberating all their own slaves, was it not right—was it not a christian duty, to extend their acts of kindness to us also, whom they had led into error; to tell us what they had done, and how they did it ; and to aid and assist us to get out of the difficulty ? The law of God is universal. The law of Christians—the law of love, is universal; and requires the subjects of that law to oppose and expose sin and oppression wherever they are found. We send Ministers, political, religious, and masonic, to England and other places—to co-operate—to ask and give assistance, and mutually to benefit each other. But what can we, in the Northern States do? We can say, slavery is ‘a sin. We can enlighten public sentiment on the subject, and cause the sin of slavery—the greatest sin in the world, to become odious: and public sentiment in this country has the force of law, to correct any evil.

To assist us in these labors of love, Mr. Thompson has been sent among us, by the friends of humanity in England; and a most efficient and powerful co-worker he is, sweeping away the refuges of lies, and carrying his principles as a mighty sweeping torrent, wherever he goes. The advocates of slavery fear and hate him, the humane and philanthropic love him, and all respect and admire his talents, whatever they may pretend.

Mr. Thompson possesses all the requisites of an impressive and powerful orator—a fund of acquired knowledge, a brilliant imagination, natural pathos, a powerful voice, an elegant form, graceful gesticulation, a countenance capable of expressing any passion or emotion, and lastly, the most important of all, a benevolent heart—an expansive soul.

SOURCES: Isaac Knapp, Publisher, Letters and Addresses by G. Thompson [on American Negro Slavery] During His Mission in the United States, From Oct. 1st, 1834, to Nov. 27, 1835, p. 88-92; “Mr. Thompson at Lynn,” The Liberator, Boston, Massachusetts, Saturday, June 13, 1835, p. 3.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Colonization, June 23, 1838

There is either a most strange delusion, or an obstinate wickedness in men, in relation to this matter of expatriating our colored people — probably both — for delusion — “strong delusion generally attends a long course of transgression. We believe, if there is any one crime in this land, on which the Father of the human family looks down with more displeasure than on any other, it is on this deliberate and malicious wrong and insult entertained by a portion of the proud people of this country towards their humbler brethren — a deliberate, premeditated, cool-blooded plot to banish them from their native land, and to send them to the most undesirable spot on earth. God commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Christ our Lord tells us in the story of the good Samaritan, who is our neighbor, and what loving him is, in practice. We ask the reverends and honorables, who compose the official list of New Hampshire Colonization, if the good Samaritan would have joined the Colonization Society. The question need only be asked. The idea of such a man as he, entering into a conspiracy like this, is so absurd, as to be almost ludicrous on the very face of it. Colonization is hate of one's neighbor, of the very deepest and most far-reaching kind.

But the organization is getting to be matter of form merely — it can't act. It may raise contributions of some amount—but no widows' mites — and not from many hands. It is impotent malice now — and kept up, probably, as a set-off effort versus anti-slavery. We are loath to speak severely of the names who compose this benevolent enterprise, but cannot help it. If we feel justly towards the plot, we feel severely, and must speak as we feel. It is not only a wicked plot against our innocent and injured (ah, injured beyond reparation) brethren, but it is a most mean and dishonorable service, done at the bidding of the slaveholder of the South. He wants to get the free man of color away, so that he can the more securely grind down the colored bond man. Poor Mr. Observer remarks that “the colored man must have a soil of his own, before he can rise.” Pray, what does he mean by a soil of his own? soil that he owns? or a sort of black soil? Can't he own soil in this country? Truly he can, if these Observers will only get out of the way, and let us win him his liberty, and let him work for wages. Free colored people are rising now as rapidly and as palpably as water ever rose in a freshet. They rise, as fast as such philanthropists as the Observer fall. The Observer's fall is their rise, and his rise their fall. Colored men can earn money and buy and own soil, and do now buy and own it. They need not go to Africa for soil. The land they own here is their soil, and the country they are born in is their native country. A man's native country (this is said for the especial benefit of Observers and colonizationists) is the country a man is born in. He can't have but one. He can't be born in one country, and have a native land somewhere else — in some other country. The land he is born on, and no other, is his native land, and it is equally so with colored people, and those who have less or no color. No American, United States-born man can have two native lands, or can have one without the limits of America. He can no more be born here and have him a native land in Africa, than an African, born on the Gold Coast, can make him out a native land here in New England. This is really so — there is no mistake — there is no two ways about it. This is a cardinal point, and it ought to be settled and made clear to the minds of our colonization brethren. They have a strong notion of restoring colored people to their native Africa — to their own soil, as the Observer calls it — where they can rise. The soil of Africa is supposed to be theirs by a kind of nativity, though they were born here, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, and their fathers not only American-born, in some cases, but “as white,” as the African prince said of the Dane — the first creature of that complexion he ever saw — “as white as the very devil,” — not only white, but white slaveholders, owners of their own children — sellers of their own blood and bones. What soil have they in Africa then, on which they can rise? None, unless they go and buy it, which they will never do. And what does the Observer mean by rising? He means getting to be governor, councillor, general court man, deputy secretary, dancing master, clerk in a store, dandy, — any of these elevations, which whiteness of outside and total lack of inside, will give folks here.

Now colored people don't want this sort of elevation; all they want is common liberty common humanity — a common sort of human chance for their lives. They don't care about rising very high. As to rising out of the dust and dunghill, into which this inhuman people have trodden them that they will do, as soon as colonizationists will take their feet off of their necks and breasts, where they are now planted. They stand on the very breasts of the colored people, and look down and taunt them with incapacity to rise; and wickedly say to them, I'll step off of you, if you will creep away to Africa before you rise. You may go freely — with your own consent — mind that; you are not to be forced away; but unless you do most voluntarily and freely consent, I shall stand here, with both my Anglo-Saxon hind-feet plump on your breast bone, where the night-mare plants her hoof, shod all round with palsy, and you never can rise till you rise to the judgment. It is a pity you can't rise in this country; but you see how it is. God has placed you in an inferior position; you are evidently beneath me, and I above you. I am your friend. I belong to an “American Union for your race's relief,” and also to a “Liberian association, auxiliary to said Union;” and besides, your people, when they stand up straight here, and we are not standing on them, have an unpleasant fragrance which annoys our noses exceedingly; but as you lay now, right under our noses, somehow or other we do not seem to smell you. And moreover we are in the way of evangelizing the world; we've got that work on our hands, and are in a hurry about it — and we must take in Africa, and we don't want to go there. The climate is deadly, the people black and inferior, and we are not exactly on terms with them, and we want you to do what is to be done there; in the way of evangelizing. You can do it well enough for black people, though you can't rise to human level here. We want to colonize you for the sake of Africa — the millions of Africa. Oh, how our hearts bleed (now we think on't) for poor, benighted Africa! And then, that accursed, bloody slave trade — we want that stopped. Why, our Congress declares it piracy. We wont have the market stopped. We'll keep up slavery here, in an improved state. We'll ameliorate, and have it done "kindly;" but that traffic on salt water must be stopped, and you must go to Africa and put it down there. Q. E. D.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 48-51 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of June 23, 1838.