Showing posts with label West Indies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West Indies. Show all posts

Thursday, July 20, 2023

Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, October 1, 1850

WASHINGTON, [D. C.], October 1, 1850.

DEAR SIR: Will you allow me to remind you of the conversation which we lately had in regard to the emigration of negroes from this country to the British West Indies. I shall be very happy to receive from you any advice or suggestions with regard to carrying out such a plan, provided you consider it feasible.
_______________

* Minister from Great Britain to the United States.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 119

Governor John B. Floyd* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, November 8, 1850

RICHMOND, [VA.], November 8th, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR: I was absent when your letter of the 9th ult reached the City, and I have delayed an answer to it until now for the purpose of consulting with some of our friends upon the subject.

I am pleased with the idea of sending our free people to the British West India Islands, nor is it by any means a new one to me. I had a conversation twelve months ago with some gentlemen upon the subject; but we made nothing of it for the want of information; and being equally ignorant of the sources to procure it, let it drop. I would take it as a favor confered upon the state if you would ascertain of even the British Minister distinctly the terms upon which his Government would take them, and the condition in which they would be placed upon their removal to the Islands.

We to be sure would part with them very willingly upon any terms, but this information is necessary to render their co-operation hearty. If advantageous terms were offered I do not much doubt, but that they would all emigrate in the course of a few years. I should be very much pleased to render every facility in my power to the conservation of the project.
_______________

* Governor of Virginia (1849-1852); a member of Buchanan's Cabinet (1857-1861).

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 120-1

Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, December 19, 1850

WASHINGTON, [D. C.], December 19, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR: I am very much obliged to you for your kind letter and attention to the subject which I brought under your consideration when we last met.

The communications which I had received from my Government at that time inclosed some correspondence from a resident at Jamaica, stating his belief that the House of Assembly of that Island would be disposed to offer small grants of land to immigrants of color, and to defray a portion of the expense of their transit from the United States.

This person moreover stated that he believed that many slave proprietors in this country would be willing to manumit their slaves if they were sure of being able thus to dispose of them.

Her Majesty's Government however, expressed no distinct opinion on these subjects; but requested me to obtain information as to the feeling of the slave proprietors of the Southern States, with respect to giving liberty to their slaves, and with respect to sending negroes who had received their freedom, to any foreign country where they would be sure of good treatment, observing that if the substance of the correspondence forwarded to me were correct, arrangements might probably be made for receiving such persons as those alluded to, in the British West Indies: and by another communication received, I was instructed to ask for any farther information I might require from H[er] M[ajesty]'s Gov[ernmen]t in order to deal practically with this question. In reply to the above mentioned communications, I stated that I did not think that emancipation of negroes for the purpose of their emigration to the West Indies would be carried to any great extent, but that I did believe that there was a disposition on the part of the Slaveholding states to get rid of their present free negro population and I observed that I should endeavour to ascertain from persons well qualified to give me an opinion on the subject, the regulations under which such an arrangement could be made, whilst in the meantime I suggested that if the Colonies in question passed any law securing a tolerable existence to free negroes emigrating thereto, such a law would obtain attention here; and that it was probable that the Legislature of the Southern States would adopt measures for facilitating the egress of the free portion of their colored population.

In this position the question now remains, Her Majesty's Gov[ernmen]t probably waiting for farther information from me; and such information I should very much desire to obtain from you.

Indeed I would observe that before I could make any suggestions to you on this subject, I should have to refer again to Her Majesty's Gov[ernmen]t, which would have to refer to the authorities at Jamaica, and on receiving their opinion, would have again to communicate with me, when the proposals would have to be discussed here and if any alterations were then necessary, further proceedings of the same dilatory character, would be required: Whereas if you could furnish me with a plan for some arrangement that would suit you, this would immediately receive the attention of Her Majesty's Gov[ernmen]t and that of the Legislature of Jamaica; and either be settled at once there or if any modification were necessary, transmitted thence hither, and arranged between us in a very short space of time.

Will you therefore consider of this matter and come and dine with me here on the 29th inst. (since I may be absence during the holidays) at 6 o'clock in a quiet way, and we will then talk over and come to some determination with respect to it?

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 121-2

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: The New Hampshire Patriot, November 17, 1838

A Friend has shown us this week's number, and we see by it that poor Mr. Barton is yet at home. We wonder people should be so insensible to the pleasures of journeying. To be sure, the season is getting to be inauspicious—the trees are naked, and the landscape muddy, and the winds chilled, and the music of the birds hushed—all, all very uncongenial to such a mellifluous spirit as the patriot's of New Hampshire. But still we somehow feel disappointed that he don't travel more. We would respectfully suggest to Mr. Barton the interesting objects with which this free country abounds—all parts of which he cannot yet have visited. Has he ever been to the White Sulphur springs? He need be under no apprehension in going there. To be sure, complexion is attended with inconvenience there, and blood has its hazards. But we think Judge Larrimer and Colonel Singleton and General Carter and Major Thornton would stand the friend of a Colonel from the North, and prevent him any disagreeable consequences of an indiscriminate operation of the domestic slave trade. They are keen observers. They know the invasions the peculiar institution has made upon the Anglo-Saxon color, and they know how the pure Americo-Anglo-Saxon has verged towards the servile shadows without coming within the lawful scope of the institution, and then the symptomatic cry of “nigger,” ever and anon breaking out asleep and awake, would reveal to them at once that the Colonel had the genuine negro-phobia, which a nominal slave never has, and which goes so hard with doubtful white people. They would protect any northern gentleman against being imprisoned and sold for fees, provided they could be satisfied that his proslavery merits overbalanced his colored liabilities—which we think might easily be vouched. The Colonel has a vein of “chivalry” about him, which would go a good way in offset to mere color of liability, which after all is but prima facie evidence of servility.—We warrant him a journey to the White Sulphur against the lawful claims of any person or persons whomsoever.

Then there is Texas—the Colonel has not, peradventure, been to Texas. It is a place of resort for people of enterprise, and where patriotism is a ready passport to consideration, although it has been slanderously styled a valley of villains, field of felons, sink of scoundrels, sewer of scamps, &.c. &,c. Yet it is a most republican clime, “where patriots most do congregate.”

There is Arkansas too—all glorious in new-born liberty—fresh and unsullied, like Venus out of the ocean—that newly-discovered star in the firmament-banner of this republic. Sister Arkansas, with her bowie knife graceful at her side, like the huntress Diana with her silver bow—her knife dripping with the heart's blood of her senators and councillors, shed in legislative debate,—O, it would be refreshing and recruiting to an exhausted patriot to go and replenish his soul at her fountains. The newly-evacuated lands of the Cherokee, too—a sweet place now for a lover of his country to visit, to renew his self-complacency by wandering among the quenched hearths of the expatriated Indians, a land all smoking with the red man's departing curse— a malediction that went to the centre. Yes, and Florida—blossoming and leafy Florida, yet warm with the life-blood of Osceola and his warriors, shed gloriously under flag of truce. Why should a patriot of such a fancy for nature immure himself in the cells of the city, and forego such an inviting and so broad a landscape? Ite viator. Go forth, traveller, and leave this mouldy editing to less elastic fancies. We would respectfully incite our Colonel to travel. What signifies? Journey—wander—go forth —itinerate—exercise—perambulate—roam.

We cannot sustain ourselves or our waning cause against the reasonings of this military chieftain if he stays at home and concentrates his powers. Nigger nigger nigger, and nigger, and besides that nigger, and moreover nigger, and therefore nigger, and hence nigger, and wherefore nigger, and more than all that, and yielding every thing else, “bobalition!” urged with the peculiar force and genius of this deadly writer—with his grace, point and delicacy—with his “nihil tetigit, quod non ornavit." We crave a truce. We appeal to the magnanimity of the Patriot,— to his nighthood—to go abroad, and leave us in apprentice hands or some journeyman's; or if he won't travel in courtesy, we beseech him to turn his editorship upon other enemies than us. Let him point his guns at the Statesman, or the Courier.

But if we must meet him, we protest against encountering the arguments aforesaid. That we are a nigger we can't deny, and we can't help it. That our little paper is a "Nigger Herald," we can't deny, and we can't help it. What signifies arguing that against us, all the time? We don't deny it—we never did deny it—we never shall. And what can we do? We can't wash off our color. We cannot change our Ethiopian skin any more than the Patriot can its “spots.” The sun has looked upon us, and burnt upon us a complexion incompatible with freedom?

Is it so? Will the demoeratic Patriot aver this? Are we to be denied the right of a hearing because we are a "nigger?" Are we to be deprived in New Hampshire of human consideration because we are black, and shall Cyrus Barton dispose of us thus, because he is White? We lay before the yeomanry of New Hampshire the appalling truth, that slavery has rooted itself deep into the heart of American liberty;—“Nigger Herald,” argues this snow-drop Colonel; “Bobalition!” and our appeal is silenced. We warn the country that slavery is overshadowing the North, and that ranting and rampant professing democrats will give their very backs to the southern cart-whip. "Nigger!" replies the Honorable Cyrus Barton; “eh, old nigger!” “old black nigger!” Is it an answer, we ask the country?

But poor Mister Barton is jealous we are after votes for James Wilson. If he is really so, we pity him. He is non compos if he suspects it. He ought to be sent right up to the town farm. Votes for James Wilson! Is this the purpose and aim of the great anti-slavery enterprise that now shakes Europe and America to the centre? Is West India emancipation a plot to defeat the Patriot's democracy here in universal New Hampshire? Are George Thompson and Daniel O'Connell and Henry Brougham thundering for human liberty in Exeter Hall, (henceforth and forever the cradle of liberty—not the cradle of the bastard infant, rocked in Faneuil Hall of Boston, now formally dedicated to the Genius of Slavery,) are these champions of liberty plotting with the fifteen hundred anti-slavery societies of America to defeat the election of Governor John Page?

We give our poor jaundice-visioned neighbor no other answer than this to his paltry accusations about plotting against his partisans. We have other and bigger objects altogether.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 51-4 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of November 17, 1838.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

The Jubilee Brought Universal Release.

What is an inhabitant, but one who dwells, or resides in the place mentioned? “All inhabiting it” is the exact form of expression in the original. The persons of whom we are speaking inhabited some country, they dwelt somewhere. It was not in Syria, Arabia, or Egypt, or any other spot on earth than the land of the Hebrews. Besides for whom was the proclamation of liberty so obviously necessary. The Hebrew people generally, could not be in bondage; the hired servants like hired men now, were at liberty to make their own contracts, and on performing them to go where they pleased. The Hebrew servants who had been sold to their brethren for debts, could not at the longest be detained over six years, without their own consent. For whom then, especially, was the great release, on the return of every fiftieth year from its first celebration, provided? Was it not for those who of all men most needed it; for those who otherwise must have remained in bondage until death, leaving their children and children's children after them, to inherit the same destiny? Of this sort were Hebrew servants who on the expiration of six years, had chosen to have their ears pierced in token of perpetual bondage, because they did not like to be separated from their families, and the foreign servants who had been bought with money. That the former of these classes were inhabitants of the land we suppose no one will dispute. Why were not the latter in every proper sense of the term, as really so? The seal of the Jewish nation, and of her covenant with God, had been by their priests set upon their flesh. Their children who had never been in any other land, were like themselves consecrated to Israel's God. They all, in common with the native Hebrews, were required to share in the rest and join in the holy employments of the Sabbath; were admitted to all the solemn feasts, in which strangers had no right to partake; and shared equally with their masters in all the benefits of the Sabbatical year, during the whole of which they enjoyed exemption, as well as Hebrew servants, from labor. Who then will say that when the great circle, or seven times seven years have revolved, and the loud and joyful trumpets of jubilee were proclaiming liberty throughout all the land, to all the inhabitants thereof, that proclamation, so welcome, so full of good tidings to others, brought to these no blessing whatever; nothing but death to their hopes, and bitter aggravation to their lot? This would, indeed, make the similarity between the Hebrew servitude and American slavery more close and striking, in this land, on the day set apart for the celebration of our national independence, while the noble declaration is sounded through the land, that “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” while smooth-tongued orators grow eloquent in extolling our land as eminently the land of liberty, and an asylum for the oppressed; and general rejoicing in the ringing of bells and roaring of cannon is heard through the land, nearly three millions of the inhabitants, for no crime, despoiled of liberty, mingle their sighs with our national rejoicings. Can we believe it was so on the occasion of the jubilee which was designed to prefigure affectingly, the universal and unrivalled blessings of the Gospel in the future reign of the Messiah? It is astonishing indeed that the biblical scholar, in disregard of such a mass of evidence to the contrary, could ever come to the conclusion that the bought servants of Gentile extraction were not to be set free. On what is it founded? Simply on the declaration that the bought servants should be bond men and bond maids forever, when they all admit that this same term forever when used in the same way in reference to the Hebrew servant whose ear was pierced with the awl, only means that he should remain permanently while he lived, or until the year when the jubilee should set him free. In this case they are undoubtedly right, but in the other wrong. The perponderance [sic] of evidence in favor of the complete release of all the bought servants, as well as others, on every occasion of Jubilee, is in our view decisive. The learned author of the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge has well said in regard to this matter, All the slaves were set free. The political design of the law of jubilee was to prevent the too great oppression of the poor as well as their being liable to perpetual slavery.” Their servitude then, was entirely different from modern slavery in this highly important respect, that it could in no case continue, in regard to any one person, over forty nine years, and in most cases only for a much shorter period; a period continually diminishing as the great year of universal release drew nigh. When released they were politically situated as are now the colored people in the British West Indies; and left free to make such arrangements in regard to the future as they might consider for their interest and happiness.
_______________

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. 60-4

Sunday, September 8, 2019

Speech of George Thompson: Published August 8, 1835

In Commemoration of the Abolition of Slavery in the British West India Islands, on the First Anniversary of that event, by the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society.
_______________

I shall not advert prospectively, nor retrospectively, to the emancipation of Englishmen. We who are engaged in a struggle similar to that of the British advocates of outraged humanity, are to take up their example. Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Brazil, and the French, will emulate the deed. The day of triumph is certain; — there is no human power which can prevent it, or prescribe its limits; no impiety shall say to the bounding wave “Thus far shalt thou come, and no farther.” The irresponsible spirit, the sublimity and moral prowess of Columbia, are the guarantees of the great achievement. We may be misrepresented and vilified; but be not disturbed at this. The same epithets now bestowed upon us, were bestowed upon a Clarkson and a Wilberforce, when one in Parliament, and the other out of it, devoted time, and talents, comfort, and reputation, to the noble work. All the filthy channels of the dictionary were turned upon a Wilberforce, and they fell like water upon the back of the swan, leaving its purity and loveliness unspotted and unruffled.

We learn by the event, which we commemorate, the folly of striving for less than the whole: we must struggle for complete justice; we must ask nothing, and acquiesce in nothing short of that. The planters from the West Indies, and from the Cape of Good Hope, all respectable men, besought the British nation to be moderate in doing right. O, we must cut off only the claws of the monster, leaving his jaws to crush the bodies and bones of our brethren. They said we must mitigate, mitigate, mitigate; we beseech you, be not rash, but mitigate; and in 1822, Mr. Canning, the Lords and Commons, the King and the Church, men and women, combined to mitigate. What was the result? The planters of Jamaica burned, in the public square, the mitigating act, at 12 o'clock at night. And twelve o'clock it was with the hopes of the abolitionists; for the hour approached when the dawn streaked the dark horizon, and grew brighter and brighter unto the perfect day. No matter how much we mitigate and soften; no matter whether truth come as a tomahawk, or in the form of an instrument of cupping, to a delicate lady, if the truth come at all, we are still fanatics. Wilberforce was called, to the day of his death, a hoary-headed fanatic by the whole pro-slavery phalanx, but when he died, the illustrious and the lowly, thronged around his bier. I saw with these eyes, the deep religious reverence which his memory inspired, and the heartfelt homage which his virtues drew from a vast and splendid train. Royalty, nobility, bishops, Parliament and people, pressed to pay the great tribute of tears to the pure and exalted of the earth, whose spirit had returned to its Father in heaven.

How sleep the good who sink to rest,
With all their country’s wishes blest!
The spring, with dewy fingers cold,
Returns to deck their hallowed mould.
She there shall dress a sweeter sod,
Than Fancy’s feet have ever trod.
By fairy hands their knell is rung,
By forms unseen their dirge is sung.
There Honor comes, a pilgrim gray,
“To bless the turf that wraps their clay;
And Freedom shall awhile repair,
To dwell a weeping hermit there.

Who does not now wish to struggle for the mantle of Wilberforce : Who is not ambitious to be folded in its bright amplitude:

In this cause, you cannot escape calumny. Here is our brother, who has addressed us to day, (referring to Mr. May.) Do his mild and persuasive words, which one would think might soften the hardest heart, save him from the tongue of slander? Is not he a mark as well as I, who am rough and unspun, and not afraid to stir up the bile, so that men may see it, and detest it.

I accuse the press of the United States of dishonesty. There is Antigua, and there are the Bermudas, free as the air above, and the waters around them, and serene and peaceful, and prosperous as free; and what press has spoken — what daily or weekly vehicle of intelligence, has presented this prominent fact, by which the age itself will be quoted in times to come? Is it told in Charleston? No. Is it told in Richmond? Is it told in New York or New Haven? No. In Boston? No. A tempest in a slop basin has been got up in Jamaica; and a scene of desolation, and hanging slaves, has been painted for the gaze of the good people throughout the length of the land.

My friend did not mention the Cape of Good Hope and the Mauritius. More than twenty British colonies, subsisting in peace, and maintaining order in the transit of an unparalleled revolution, without crime, without violence, without turbulence or tumult! ’Tis the death knell of American slavery. American slavery cannot last ten years longer. Let who will sink or swim, American slavery perishes. The monster reels and will down, and we shall tread upon his neck.

But it is said to be presumptuous and wrong in me to meddle with this question in the United States, because I am ignorant of it; and yet those who say this have never thought proper to show any of my errors !

It is, they say, an unconstitutional question. Ay, it is unconstitutional to feel for human suffering; it is unconstitutional to be generous to the abject, or indignant at crime; it is unconstitutional to preach, to pray, to weep. Hold, weeping mother there; your tears are unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to print, to speak, to say that two and two make four, in the country where the ashes of George Washington lie! They say we shall not prove that two and two are four.

Are the friends of abolition enemies of the Union? The fastest, firmest, fondest friends of the Union, are abolitionists. I have thought that the constitution might stand, and slavery fall; that slavery might die, and the constitution live-live healthy and perennial. I have thought it might live, and the black man and the white man rejoice under its broad and protecting banner.

But I will not dwell upon this, as our friends have gone, for whose special benefit it was intended. [The speaker was supposed to allude to a few persons, who had appeared rather restless, for some time, and had at this stage simultaneously retreated below the stairs.]

Abolition was unconstitutional in the West Indies. It was an infringement of their charter, as my friend, Mr. Child, who has shown such an intimate acquaintance with the West India colonies, knows.

But go to the hut of a free Antigonian, live with him, see a Bermudian toss up a free child, and say if there be aught unconstitutional in these. Look to them of Jamaica, when the three and five years, (a paltry chandler shop business,) have expired; and declare of those regenerated men, if the genius of emancipation have committed anything unconstitutional there.

For the present, you must be prepared to be libelled. When slavery shall have fallen, out of the ruins you may dig a pretty fair reputation. You must not expect your portraits to be-excellently drawn, especially by southern limners. You may be represented with hoofs, and horns, and other appendages of a certain distinguished personage, who shall be nameless. It is in vain to regret, or strive to eschew this. Your reputation is already gone. You are in the case of poor Michael Cassio. ‘O reputation, reputation, reputation, I’ve lost my reputation. But yesterday, rich men bowed, and bade me good morning in State street. The periodicals were delighted with my articles, and returned substantial proofs of approbation. Now my paragraphs of an inch long are suspected; and I seldom see the sunshine of a smile.

But never mind, reputation will come by and by. We have as good a reputation as the Gallileans had, or as their Master had, and who could have a better? Take it inversely, and you will hit it about right (at least if you have all given as little cause as I have.) We have the testimony of the Most High for our principles. In the language of the Declaration of sentiment, man may fail, but principles never. The mustard seed is sown, or to change the figure, the acorn is planted; nay it is not an acorn the oak is set and shall grow, and spread over the black and the white its strong and ample boughs, and when cut down it shall be the bulwark of your glory, and the guarantee of your safety. (Mr. Thompson sat down amidst great applause.)

[The reporter does not pretend to do justice to Mr. Thomson in the above sketch: to take down the thunder and lightning in short hand, expresses his idea of the impossibility of reporting Mr. Thompson aright.  If those who heard shall be unsatisfied, he hopes they will consider this.]

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. 84-7; “First of August, 1835,” The Liberator, Boston, Massachusetts, Saturday, August 8, 1835, p. 3. 

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Various Senses of the Term Servants.

The terms evedh, in the Old Testament, and doulos in the New, clearly synonymous, and we believe, invariably translated servant or bondman, are evidently used with great latitude of meaning, and freedom of application. The fundamental signification seems to be, One who is in some respects subject to the will of, and acts for another. Hence the phrase, servant of the King, is an honorable title, denoting a courtier, or other high officer. The King of Syria, in his letter to the King of Israel, styles Naaman his servant, although he was a great man with his master, and chief commander of his army. A servant of God in scripture language, is one devoted to his service; especially one distinguished for piety and holiness, as was the case with Moses, Joshua, David and Paul. In the New Testament, the epithet servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ is a title of honor commonly given to the teachers of the christian religion, and particularly to the apostles themselves. In some few instances, the epithet, servant of God, is given to men whom, though not willingly obedient to him, he uses as instruments in accomplishing his purposes. The king of Babylon is thus denominated.

The term servants, is however very generally applied to persons of humble condition, who, either with or without their consent, were subject to other individuals as their masters; and occupied in menial employments. Among those were several classes. Some were hired servants. These, however, were not designated by a qualifying term joined with the ordinary word for servants, but by an entirely different name. One hired to do sevice for another during a set time and for a stipulated price, the Hebrews denominated sakir, and the Greeks misthios: Names significant of their peculiar condition as hired. Persons of Hebrew origin were liable under the Levitical law to be reduced to servitude on account of failure to pay, either ordinary debts or sums in which they had been amerced for crimes committed. Not only the insolvent debtor himself, but his family with him, were liable to be seized and sold by the creditor, in order that by their services the money due might be obtained. On this custom is founded that parable of our Lord which says of the delinquent, who owed ten thousand talents and had nothing to pay, that his creditor “commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and payment to be made.” This kind of servitude, however, might not continue at the longest over six years. Deut. 15: 12. Servants of a still lower order were obtained both by conquest and by purchase from among the neighboring nations. These were to serve, not merely for six years; but for life, or at least unto the year of jubilee: and their children inherited the condition of their parents. The mere fact that they were purchased, does not prove that they were held as articles to be used only for the benefit of the owner, and to be sold again at his pleasure; any more than the fact that they were in the habit of purchasing wives, proves the same thing in regard to them. Boaz says, “So Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife,” that is widow, “of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife.” The prophet Hosea remarks respecting his wife, “So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for a homer of barley, and an half homer of barley.” Jacob bought his wives, Rachel and Leah; and for want of money paid for them in labor at the rate of seven years apiece. Their wives were in a sense, their money. Are we to infer that they were in the common sense of the term property, merchantable in the market? They were purchased of their fathers not as merchandize but as wives; to perform the duties and enjoy all the rights and privileges of that condition. So heathen servants were bought either of former masters, or of their parents, or, for any thing that appears, of themselves, to occupy the place, and perform the duties of their peculiar station; their duties and rights being prescribed and established, under the Levitical dispensation, by very merciful laws. That they were held as chattels, like beasts of the field, subject to be sold from one to another for purposes of gain, as slaves are among you, we can find no sufficient evidence in the Bible. The conquerers of the Hebrews ‘cast lots for the people, they gave a boy for a harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink,’ but were accursed of God for so doing.

Now since the term servants is used with such latitude of meaning, what proof does the mere fact, that the patriarchs had servants, afford, that they were slaveholders, in the received sense of that term? Has not many a gentleman in England, in the British West Indies, and in the free States of this Union, servants — some expecting to remain for life, some hired for a short season only, and some occupying important stations, as farmers, manufacturers, and stewards of their households, to whom they, without fear, commit their most valued treasures? Are these men on this account to be denominated slave holders? With indignation they would repel the charge. That either Isaac or Jacob ever bought, sold, or held, a human being as a slave, you have furnished no certain evidence; nor have we been able to find any.
_______________

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. 37-42

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: The Convention, August 18, 1838

Thanks to our young brethren for their hearty — noble-souled committee's call. Now for obeying it. Now see if our abolitionists, who “remember those in bonds,” &c. will spend a day or two to make it manifest. We would spend time chiefly, brethren, so far as traveling expenses go. Our brethren, fortunately for the cause, have not much “property or standing.” They should not lay out much of either on the road. The grog-selling inns should receive little of anti-slavery patronage. The money is too sacred for their foul coffers. The “cold chunk,” or the johnny cake, or the saw-dust pudding, (Franklin's editorial dinner,) any thing on the road, and all the mites for the Society treasury. We have got to cure this glorious slaveholding republic of its character, and to pay all the doctors' bills, and we must spend little, very little, for confectionaries.

We echo the summons of the committee of arrangements. From our Moosehillock position we send it on, and back, to every point of compass. To none but the whole-hearted, fully-committed, cross-the-Rubicon spirits—men of more heart than “But— who can leave home for the sake of their principles — who can deny themselves, and “lap the water, as the dog lappeth,” for their thirst. From the sea coast, the Green Mountain west, the sky-seeking north, and the New Hampshire south — old, young and mid-aged — gray bearded and beardless — the sturdy and the infirm — from all streams and all valleys, and along all hill-sides — from rich “old Cheshire,” — from Rockingham, with her horizon setting down away to the salt sea. — Strafford, from the “slide”-scarred mountains of Sandwich to the rainbow mists of the Cocheco — from Pigwacket to Winnipisseogee — Strafford of the lakes — up from old Hillsborough, where the staunch yeoman drives his team from the mouths of Piscataquog and Souhegan, up to the very springs of the Contoocook, — young Sullivan, where she stretches from Sunapee to the valley of the Connecticut, and from the falls of Walpole to the cedars of Lebanon, —  Merrimack — key-stone of the Granite State — abolitionists “of our county of Merrimack,” start at day-break for the Convention, — from where the sun sets behind Kearsarge, even to where he rises gloriously over Moses Norris’ own town of Pittsfield; and from Amoskeag to Ragged Mountains, — Coos — Upper Coos, home of the everlasting hills, send out your bold advocates of human rights — wherever they lay scattered by lonely lake or Indian stream — or “Grant,” or “Location” — from the trout-haunted brooks of the Amoriscoggin, and where the adventurous streamlet takes up its mountain march for the St. Lawrence. — Scattered and insulated men, wherever the light of philanthropy and liberty has beamed in upon your solitary spirits, come down to us like your streams and clouds: — and our own Grafton, all about among your dear hills and your mountain-flanked valleys — whether you home along the swift Ammonoosuck, the cold Pemigewasset or the ox-bowed Connecticut; from the “heights of Dorchester,” and the “vale of Hebron” — from Canaan, that land of promise to the negro student boy — and from anti-slavery Campton — come from the meadows of Alexandria — one and all abolitionists of Grafton — Lyme, the peerless town of Lyme, the native town of temperance.

Abolitionists of New Hampshire! your brethren in bondage call loudly upon you for help — they clank their chains — they rattle their fetters — they lift up the cry of despair — will you hear them? Remember what God is doing for your cause. Hark, that shout from the isles of the sea! It is the emancipation cry of the West Indies — God hath given them liberty. Their deliverance has come — He is drawing nigh to us. We shall hear Him, or perish. And if this nation is marked out for destruction, let abolitionists remember Rahab of Jericho. We are slow, brethren, dishonorably slow, in a cause like ours. Our feet should be “as hinds’ feet.” “Liberty lies bleeding.” The leaden-colored wing of slavery obscures the land with its baleful shadow. Let us come together, and inquire at the hand of the Lord what is to be done.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 9-11 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of August 18, 1838.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

George Thompson: Lecture at Lowell, Massachusetts, October 5, 1834

On Sunday evening, October 5th, GeoRGE THOMPsoN, Esq. the abolitionitst, delivered a lecture on Slavery in the Town Hall, Lowell. The spacious room was filled some time before the commencement of the proceedings, and when Mr. Thompson began his lecture, there were upwards of one thousand persons present. The meeting was opened with singing and prayer.

The following is a faint sketch of Mr. Thompson's discourse, which occupied an hour and three quarters in the delivery.

He (the lecturer) felt truly grateful for the present very favorable opportunity of discussing before an American audience, the merits and bearings of a question, which, more than any other that could agitate their minds, was connected with the honor, happiness, and prosperity of the people of this land. He besought a kind, patient, and attentive hearing. He asked no favor for his doctrines, his arguments, or his opinions. Let these be subjected to the severest ordeal. Let them be tested by reason, truth and scripture, and if they squared not with the dictates and requirements of these, let them be repudiated. The West Indies had already witnessed the operation of the great measure, which the justice and humanity of the British Nation had obtained for the slave. All eyes were now turned towards the United States of America, to see if that land of Liberty, of Republicanism, of Bibles, of Missions, of Temperance Societies, and Revivals, would direct her matchless energies to the blessed work of enfranchising her slaves, and elevating her entire colored population.

As a feeble and unworthy instrument in the hand of Him, without whom there was neither wisdom, nor strength, nor goodness, he (Mr. T.) had come amongst them to tell of the conflicts and triumphs he had witnessed in his native land, and to encourage, and, if possible, aid his brethern here in the accomplishment of a similarly great and glorious object. His was no sectarian or political embassay. Higher and broader principles than those of politics or party animated and sustained him. He came not to uphold the dogmas of a faction, or to expound the charter of human rights according to the latitude, longitude, clime, or color. As a citizen of the world, he claimed brotherhood with all mankind. The medium through which he contemplated the varied tribes of this peopled earth, was one which blended all hues, and brought out only the proud and awful distinctive mark of one common nature — “the image of God.” He honored that ‘image in whomsoever he found it, and would labor lest a prize so glorious should be lost, lest a being so capable should be wretched here and forever. Such were the views he cherished, and the principles he maintained, and he hoped he should be enabled to discuss them with temper and christian charity. He knew that men were all compounded of the same common elements — all sinful, erring and guilty; and, therefore, it became not any human being to assume the tone of innocence or infallibility, but to address himself to others as their fellow sinner, and be grateful to God, if divine grace had caused him in any degree to differ from the rest. He deemed such feelings perfectly consistent with a fearless denunciation of vicious principles and oppressive practices. Towards sin in every form, no mercy should be shown. A war of extermination should be waged with the works of the devil, under all their manifold and delusive appearances, and that man was the truest and kindest friend of the sinner, who, with a bold and unsparing hand, dragged forth to light and condemnation the abomination that would have ruined his soul.


After this introduction, the lecturer took a compendious view of slavery as its exists in the Southern States. He spoke of it as reducing man to the condition of a thing — a chattel personal — a marketable brute — the property and fee simple of his fellow-man — consigning the helpless victim to bondage, wretchedness, ignorance and crime here, and ruining his soul forever and ever. The lecturer next proceeded to speak of the prevailing prejudice against the free people of color, and attributed it principally to an antichristian and guilty feeling of pride. That this prejudice did not originate in a natural repugnance to color, was evident from the fact, that while the colored person remained in a state of civil and intellectual degradation, no indisposition was shown to the nearest physical approach. It was only when the colored person attempted to rise in intellect or station to a level with the white, that the hatred and prejudice appeared. He (Mr. T.) solemnly and affectionately exhorted all who heard him to renounce their cruel and unholy antipathies. This prejudice was an offence against God. The controversy was not with him who wore the colored skin, but with the being who had formed him with it. Who was bold enough to stand before God, and vindicate the prejudice which dishonored and defaced the image and superscription of the Deity, as stamped upon his creature man?

Such was the state of things in these christian States. What was the remedy? The immediate emancipation of the whites from prejudice, and the blacks from slavery. Mercy implored it. Justice demanded it. Reason dictated it. Religion required it. Necessity urged it.

Fear cried, “No! The danger of immediate emancipation!”

Prejudice exclaimed, “You want to amalgamate the races — to break the cast to lift the blacks into our ranks. It must not be!”

A misguided Patriotism spread the alarm, “The Union is in danger!”

Interest muttered, “You will ruin our manufactures you will destroy our commerce — you will beggar the planter!”

Despotism vociferated, “Let my victims alone! Rob me not of my dominion!” and a

Mistaken philanthrophy would set on foot a piecemeal reformation, and recommend gradualism for the special benefit of the pining slave.

Whom, then, should they obey? He boldly answered, God; who required that men should cease to do evil.” But that he might not be accused of dealing only in abstract views of this question, he would take up the various objections to immediate emancipation, and endeavor to show that in the eye of reason and selfishness too, they were groundless and absurd.

Mr. Thompson proceeded to prove the safety, practicability and advantages of immediate emancipation. It would be impossible to do justice to this part of the lecture in this brief notice.

The question was frequently asked, “Why should New England interfere in the slave-system of the South?” Because, said Mr. T., the slaves are your fellow-men — they are your neighbors, and you are commanded to love them as yourselves, and to remember them in bonds as bound with them. They are your fellow-citizens — declared to be so by your glorious Declaration of Independence. You supply the South, and therefore are connected with this trade of blood. You consume the produce of the South, and thus effectually promote the cause of oppression there. You are taxed to maintain the Slavery of the South. You are in the habit of giving up the slaves of the South who seek refuge amongst you. Your colored citizens are liable to be seized and sold, if they go to the South. You live under the same Constitution as the South, and are therefore bound to amend that constitution, if it be at present unjust in any of its parts. Your Congress has supreme control over the District of Columbia, Arkansas, and Florida, and you ought, therefore, to call for the immediate extinction of Slavery in these places. You exert a powerful influence over the South and the States generally. You are able to control the destinies of the shaves in this country. You are responsible to God for the employment of your moral energies. Come, then, to the work. First, let the question be fairly discussed amongst you. Do not be afraid to entertain it. Sooner or later, you must grapple with it. The speedier the better. Discard your prejudices. Give up your pre-conceived opinions, and bring to the consideration of this great subject, open and impartial minds, a tender regard for the interests of your fellowman, — a sincere and enlightened desire for your country's true honor and greatness, and a deep sense of your accountability to God.

Mr. Thompson next addressed the ladies present, and urged the necessity of their engaging in this work of mercy. It was not a political, but a moral and religious question. All were called upon to labor in the cause — all were able to do so. While some preached and lectured on the subject, others could distribute tracts, collect contributions, and converse with their friends. The principles of justice and truth would thus be diffused — prejudice and ignorance would give way, and an amount of influence finally created, sufficient to purge the stain of slavery forever from the land.

Mr. Thompson was listened to throughout with the most profound attention, and every appearance of deep interest. The Rev. Messrs. Rand, Twining, and Pease, were present. At the conclusion of the lecture, the last named gentleman gave out a hymn suited to the occasion, which was sung by the choir, and after a benediction had been pronounced, the audience separated.

SOURCE: 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. 1-5

Saturday, March 31, 2018

Horace Mann: Letter Accepting the Nomination for the Thirtieth Congress, Made by the Whig Convention of the 8th District of Massachusetts, March 21, 1848.

Gentlemen;

Your communication of the 16th inst., being directed to Newton, (instead of West Newton, where I reside,) did not reach me until this morning. I thank you cordially for the kind expressions of personal regard with which you have been pleased to accompany it. You inform me that at a convention of delegates assembled in Dedham, on Wednesday, the 15th inst., I was nominated as a candidate to fill the vacancy in Congress occasioned by the death of the great and good man whose irreparable loss we, his constituents, with a nation for our fellow-mourners, deplore.

At first thought, the idea of being the immediate successor of John Quincy Adams in the councils of the nation might well cause any man to shrink back from the inevitable contrast. But it is obvious, on a moment's reflection, that the difference is so trivial between all the men whom he has left, compared with the disparity between them and him, as to render it of little consequence, in this respect, who shall succeed him; and the people in the Eighth District, in their descent from Mr. Adams to any successor, must break and bear the shock of the fall, as best they can.

I most heartily concur with you in that estimate of the services, and veneration for the character, of our late representative, which your resolutions so eloquently express. To be fired by his example, to imitate his diligence and fidelity in the discharge of every trust, to emulate his moral intrepidity, which always preferred to stand alone by the right, rather than to join the retinue and receive the plaudits of millions, as a champion of the wrong, — this would be, in the beautiful language of the Roman historian, “to ascend to glory by the path of virtue.”

One of the resolutions adopted by your convention declares the three following things: —

1. That the successor of Mr. Adams, on the floor of Congress, should be a man “whose principles shall be in consonance with those of his predecessor.”

2. That his fidelity to the great principles of human freedom shall be unwavering. And, —

3. That his “voice and vote shall on all occasions be exercised in extending and securing liberty to the human race.”

Permit me to reaffirm these sentiments with my whole heart. Should the responsibilities of that successorship ever be devolved upon me, I shall endeavor so to fulfil them, that these dead words should become a living soul. I should deem it not only an object of duty, but of the highest ambition, to contend for the noble principles you have here expressed, as Mr. Adams contended for them; though, unhappily, it would be only as a David in Saul's armor. Bear with me for a moment while I enlarge upon these sentiments.

1. “In consonance with his principles. — I believe it was the sovereign rule of Mr. Adams's life to act in obedience to his convictions of duty. Truth was his guide. His conscience was non-elastic. He did not strain at a gnat before company, on account of its size, and then, privately, swallow a camel. His patriotism was coextensive with his country; it could not be crushed and squeezed in between party lines. Though liable to err, — and what human being is not? — yet his principles were believed by him to be in accordance with the great moral laws of the universe. They were thought out from duty and religion, and not carved out of expediency. When invested with patronage, he never dismissed a man from office because he was a political opponent, and never appointed one to office merely because he was a political friend. Hence he drew from Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, this noble eulogium, — a eulogium, considering the part of the country from which it came, as honorable to its author as to its object, — that “he crushed no heart beneath the rude grasp of proscription; he left no heritage of widows' cries or orphans' tears.” Could all the honors which Mr. Adams ever won from offices held under the first five Presidents of the United States, and from a public service, which, commencing more than fifty years ago, continued to the day of his death, be concentrated in one effulgent blaze, they would be less far-shining and inextinguishable than the honor of sacrificing his election for a second presidential term, because he would not, in order to obtain it, prostitute the patronage and power which the constitution had placed in his hands. I regard this as the sublimest spectacle in his long and varied career. He stood within reach of an object of ambition doubtless dearer to him than life. He could have laid his hands upon it. The “still, small voice” said, No! Without a murmur, he saw it taken and borne away in triumph by another. Compared with this, the block of many a martyr has been an easy resting-place.

2. “Unwavering fidelity to the great principles of human freedom.—The Declaration of American Independence, in 1776, was the first complete assertion of human rights, on an extensive scale, ever made by mankind. Less than three quarters of a century have elapsed, and already the greatest portion of the civilized world has felt the influence of that Declaration. France, for years, has had a constitutional monarchy; perhaps, to-day, her government is republican. Holland and Belgium are comparatively free. Almost all the states of the Germanic Confederation have a written constitution, and a legislature with a popular branch. Prussia has lately commenced a representative system. The iron rule of Austria is relaxed under the fervent heat which liberty reflects from surrounding nations. Naples and Sicily have just burst the bonds of tyranny. In Rome and the States of the Church, where, under the influence of religious and political despotism, the heart of Freedom was supposed to be petrified into insoluble hardness, that heart is now beginning to pulsate with a new life, and to throb with sympathy for humanity. Great Britain and Denmark have emancipated their slaves in the West Indies. Measures are now in progress to ameliorate the condition of Russian serfs. Even half-barbarous, Mahometan Tunis has yielded to the tide of free principles. To what bar of judgment will our own posterity bring us, what doom of infamy will history pronounce upon us, if the United States shall hereafter be found the only portion of Christendom where the principles of our own Declaration of Independence are violated in the persons of millions of our people?

3. “The exercise, on all occasions, of voice and vote, in extending and securing liberty to the human race. — There is a crisis in our affairs. A territory, in extent far exceeding that of the thirteen original states, when they repelled the power of Great Britain, has lately been added, or is, doubtless, about to be added, to our national domain. The expanse of this territory is so vast, that it may be divided into a dozen sections, and these sections may be erected into separate states, each one of which shall be so large that Massachusetts would seem but an inconsiderable court-yard, if placed in front of it. Parts of this territory are fertile and salubrious. It is capable of supporting millions and millions of human beings, of the same generation. The numbers of the successive generations, which in the providence of God are to inhabit it, will be as the leaves of the forest, or the sands on the sea-shore. Each one of these is to be a living soul, with its joys and sorrows, its hopes and fears, its susceptibilities of exaltation or of abasement. Each one will be capable of being formed into the image of God, or of being deformed into the image of all that is anti-godlike.

These countless millions are to be our kindred; many of them, perhaps, our own descendants; at any rate, our brethren of the human family; for has not God “made of one blood all nations of men to dwell upon all the face of the earth”? In rights, in character, in happiness; in freedom or in vassalage; in the glorious immunities and prerogatives of knowledge, or in the debasement and superstitions of ignorance; in their upward-looking aspiration and love of moral excellence, or in their downward-looking, prone-rushing, and brutish appetites and passions, what shall these millions of our fellow-creatures be? I put it as a practical question, What shall these millions of our fellow-creatures be? — for it is more than probable that this very generation, — nay, that the actors in public affairs, before the sands of the present year shall have run out, — will prescribe and foreordain their doom. That doom will be what our present conduct predestines.

If we enact laws and establish institutions, under whose benign influences that vast tract of territory shall at length teem with myriads of human beings, each one a free-born man; each one enjoying the inalienable right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” each one free for the cultivation of his capacities, and free in the choice and in the rewards of his labor; —if we do this, although the grand results may not manifest themselves for a thousand years, yet when the fulness of time shall come, the equity and the honor of framing these laws and institutions will belong to us, as much as though the glorious consummation could be realized to-morrow. On the other hand, if we so shape the mould in which their fortunes are to be cast, that, for them or for any portion of them, there shall be servitude instead of liberty, ignorance instead of education, debasement instead of dignity, the indulgence of bestial appetites instead of the sanctities and securities of domestic life, — then, until the mountains shall crumble away by age, until the arches of the skies shall fall in rottenness, these mountains and these arches will never cease to echo back the execrations upon our memory of all the great and good men of the world. And this retribution, I believe, will come suddenly, as well as last forever.

In one of the South-western States a vast subterranean cave has been discovered, deep down in whose chambers there is a pool of water, on which no beam of sunlight ever shines. A sightless fish is said to inhabit this rayless pool. In this animal, indeed, the rudiments of a visual organ are supposed to be dimly discernible; but of an orb to refract the rays of light, or of a retina to receive them, there is no trace. Naturalists suppose that the progenitors of these animals, in ages long gone by, possessed the power of vision; but that, being buried in these depths by some convulsion of nature, long disuse at first impaired, at length extinguished, and has at last obliterated the visual organ itself. The animal has sunk in the scale of being, until its senses are accommodated to the blackness of darkness in which it dwells. Were this account wholly fabulous, it has the strongest verisimilitude, and doubtless describes what would actually occur under the circumstances supposed.

Thus will it be with faculties above the surface of the earth, as well as below it. Thus will it be with human beings, as well as with the lower orders of creation. Thus will it be with our own brethren or children, should we shut up from them the book of knowledge, or seal their senses so that they could not read it. Thus will it be with all our God-given faculties, just so far as they are debarred from legitimate exercise upon their appropriate objects. The love of knowledge will die out, when it ceases to be stimulated by the means of knowledge. Self-respect will die out, under the ever-present sense of inferiority. The sentiments of truth and duty will die out, when cunning and falsehood can obtain more gratifications than frankness and honesty. The noblest impulses of the human soul, the most sacred affections of the human heart, will die out, when every sphere is closed against their exercise. When such a dreadful work is doing, or threatens to be done, can any one stand listlessly by, see it perpetrated, and then expect to excuse himself, under the false, impious pretext of Cain, “Am I my brother's keeper?”

Fully, then, do I agree with you and the delegates of the convention you represent, in saying that the successor of Mr. Adams should be one “whose voice and vote shall, on all occasions, be exercised in extending and securing liberty to the human race.” Of course I do not understand you to imply any violation of the constitution of the United States, which every representative swears to support.

Permit me to say a word personal to myself. For eleven years, I have been estranged from all political excitements. During this whole period, I have attended no political meeting of any kind whatever. I have contented myself with the right of private judgment and the right of voting, though it has usually so happened that my official duties have demanded my absence from home at the time of the fall elections. I have deemed this abstinence from actively mingling in political contests both a matter of duty towards opposing political parties, and a proper means of subserving the best interests of the cause in which I had embarked. I hoped too, by so doing, to assist in rearing men even better than those now belonging to any party.

The nature of my duties also, and all my intercourse and associations, have attracted me towards whatever is worthy and beneficent in all parties, rather than towards what is peculiar to any one. Not believing in political pledges, I should have had the honor to decline giving any to you, had you not had the first and greater honor of asking none from me. After what I have said above in favor of liberty for all mankind, it would be a strange contradiction did I consent to be myself a slave of party. The hands which you raised in behalf of yourselves and your constituents, when you voted for the noble sentiments contained in the resolution I have quoted, could never degrade themselves by forging a fetter for the free mind of another, or fastening one upon it; and the hand with which I have penned my hearty response to those sentiments can never stretch itself out to take a fetter on. Should your nomination, therefore, be accepted and be successful, it must be with the explicit understanding between us that I shall always be open to receive the advice of my constituents, shall always welcome their counsel, always be most grateful for their suggestions, but that, in the last resort, my own sense of duty must be the only arbiter. Should differences arise, the law opens an honorable escape for both parties, — declination on my part, substitution on yours.

I must add, in closing, that so far as personal preferences are concerned, I infinitely prefer remaining in my present position, with all its labor and its thanklessness, to any office in the gift of the people. I had hoped and intended, either in a public or private capacity, to spend my life in advancing the great cause of the people's education. Two considerations alone could tempt me to abandon this purpose. The first is important. The enactment of laws which shall cover waste territory, to be applied to the myriads of human beings who are hereafter to occupy that territory, is a work which seems to precede and outrank even education itself. Whether a wide expanse of country shall be filled with beings to whom education is permitted, or with those to whom it is denied, — with those whom humanity and the law make it a duty to teach, or with those whom inhumanity and the law make it a legal duty not to teach, seems preliminary to all questions respecting the best systems and methods for rendering education effective.

The other consideration is comparatively unimportant; though, for the time being, it has embarrassed me greatly. I now learn that expectations were excited at your convention, that if a nomination were tendered me, it would not be declined. Had I anticipated the favorable regards of the convention, or foreseen that such expectations would be raised, I should not have hearkened to the proposition for a moment; and I may be permitted to add, that when I saw my name announced in the papers, my first act was to prepare a letter of declination. It was only when I went to deliver the letter that I learnt what had been done, and that, in the opinion of persons whose judgment I am bound to respect, I had been so far committed by my too partial friends, as that no option remained.

Yielding to these considerations, I submit myself to the decision of my fellow-citizens.

With sentiments of high personal regard,

I am, gentlemen,

Your friend and servant,
HORACE MANN.

Hon. Thomas French, President; Samuel C. Mann, John K. Coebett, Edward Crehore, Esqs., Secretaries.

West Newton, March 21, 1848.

SOURCE: Horace Mann, Slavery: Letters and Speeches, p. 1-9 

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, May 29, 1863

We have accounts of farther and extensive depredations by the Alabama. These depredations were near the Line, where the Department, in anticipation of her appearance, had ordered the Vanderbilt. She was specially ordered to Fernando de Noronha, whither the Alabama was expected to go, — where she did go, and where she would have been captured, had instructions been obeyed, and not interfered with. But Admiral Wilkes, having fallen in with that vessel and finding her a commodious ship with extensive and comfortable accommodations, deliberately annexed her to his squadron and detained her in the West Indies as his flagship, hunting prizes, too long for the service on which she was specially sent. I, of course, shall be abused for the escape of the Alabama and her destruction of property by those who know nothing of the misconduct of Wilkes. The propriety of recalling that officer is more apparent than ever. He has accomplished nothing, but has sadly interrupted and defeated the plans of the Department. The country, ignorant of these facts and faults, will disapprove his removal, and assail the Department for the mischief of the Alabama, whereas, had he been earlier removed, the latter would not have happened.

I this morning sent for Admiral Foote and had a free and full talk with him in regard to the command of the South Atlantic Squadron. I am satisfied he would be pleased with the position, and really desired it when he knew Du Pont was to be relieved. I then introduced him to General Gillmore, and with the charts and maps before us took a rapid survey of the harbor and plan of operations. Before doing this, I said to Foote that I thought it would be well for the country, the service, and himself, were Admiral Dahlgren associated with him. He expressed the pleasure it would give him, but doubted if D. would consent to serve as second.

I requested Mr. Fox to call on D. and inform him that I had given Foote the squadron, that I should be glad to have him embark with Foote, and take an active part against Charleston. If he responded favorably, I wished him to come with Fox to the conference. Fox returned with an answer that not only was D. unwilling to go as second, but that he wished to decline entirely, unless he could have command of both naval and land forces. This precludes farther thought of him. I regret it for his own sake. It is one of the errors of a lifetime. He has not seen the sea service he ought for his rank, and there is a feeling towards him, on account of his advancement, among naval men which he had now an opportunity to remove. No one questions his abilities as a skillful and scientific ordnance officer, but some of his best friends in his profession doubt his capability as a naval officer on such duty as is here proposed. It is doubtful if he ever will have another so good an opportunity.

Foote says he will himself see D., and has a conviction that he can induce him to go with him. I doubt it. Dahlgren is very proud and aspiring, and will injure himself and his professional standing in consequence. With undoubted talents of a certain kind he has intense selfishness, and I am sorry to see him on this occasion, as I have seen him on others, regardless of the feelings and rights of officers of greater experience, who have seen vastly more sea service and who possess high naval qualities and undoubted merit. In a matter of duty, such as this, he shows what is charged upon him, — that he is less devoted to the country than to himself, that he never acts on any principle of self-sacrifice. While friendly to him, as I have shown on repeated occasions, I am friendly to others also, and must respect their feelings and protect their rights.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 316-8

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, May 12, 1863

We have information that Stonewall Jackson, one of the best generals in the Rebel, and, in some respects, perhaps in either, service, is dead. One cannot but lament the death of such a man, in such a cause too. He was fanatically earnest, and a Christian but bigoted soldier.

A Mr. Prentiss has presented a long document to the President for the relief of certain parties who owned the John Gilpin, a vessel loaded with cotton, and captured and condemned as good prize. There has been a good deal of outside engineering in this case. Chase thought if the parties were loyal it was a hard case. I said all such losses were hard, and asked whether it was hardest for the wealthy, loyal owners, who undertook to run the blockade with their cotton, or the brave and loyal sailors who made the capture and were by law entitled to the avails, to be deprived. I requested him to say which of these parties should be the losers. He did not answer. I added this was another of those cases that belonged to the courts exclusively, with which the Executive ought not to interfere. All finally acquiesced in this view.

This case has once before been pressed upon the President. Senator Foot of Vermont appeared with Mr. Prentiss, and the President then sent for me to ascertain its merits. I believe I fully satisfied him at that time, but his sympathies have again been appealed to by one side.

Mr. Seward came to my house last evening and read a confidential dispatch from Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, relative to threatened difficulties with England and the unpleasant condition of affairs between the two countries. He asked if anything could be done with Wilkes, whom he has hitherto favored, but against whom the Englishmen, without any sufficient cause, are highly incensed. I told him he might be transferred to the Pacific, which is as honorable but a less active command; that he had favored Wilkes, who was not one of the most comfortable officers for the Navy Department. I was free to say, however, I had seen nothing in his conduct thus far, in his present command, towards the English deserving of censure, and that the irritation and prejudice against him were unworthy, yet under the peculiar condition of things, it would perhaps be well to make this concession. I read to him an extract from a confidential letter of J. M. Forbes, now in England, a most earnest and sincere Union man, urging that W. should be withdrawn, and quoting the private remarks of Mr. Cobden to that effect. I had read the same extract to the President last Friday evening, Mr. Sumner being present. He (Sumner) remarked it was singular, but that he had called on the President to read to him a letter which he had just received from the Duke of Argyle, in which he advised that very change. This letter Sumner has since read to me. It is replete with good sense and good feeling.

I have to-day taken preliminary steps to transfer Wilkes and to give Bell command in the West Indies. It will not surprise me if this, besides angering Wilkes, gives public discontent. His strange course in taking Slidell and Mason from the Trent was popular, and is remembered with gratitude by the people, who are not aware his work was but half done, and that, by not bringing in the Trent as prize, he put himself and the country in the wrong. Seward at first approved the course of Wilkes in capturing Slidell and Mason, and added to my embarrassment in so disposing of the question as not to create discontent by rebuking Wilkes for what the country approved. But when, under British menace, Seward changed his position, he took my position, and the country gave him great credit for what was really my act and the undoubted law of the case. My letter congratulating Wilkes on the capture of the Rebel enemies was particularly guarded and warned him and naval officers against a similar offense. The letter was acceptable to all parties, — the Administration, the country, and even Wilkes was contented.

It is best under the circumstances that Wilkes should be withdrawn from the West Indies, where he was sent by Seward's special request, unless, as he says, we are ready for a war with England. I sometimes think that is not the worst alternative, she behaves so badly.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 297-9

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Diary of John Beauchamp Jones: February 18, 1863

Mr. H——s, another of Gen. Winder's detectives, has gone over to the enemy. He went on a privateering cruise from Wilmington; the vessel he sailed in captured a brig, and H——s was put in command of the prize, to sail into a Confederate port. Instead of this, however, H——s sailed away for one of the West India islands, and gave up his prize to Com. Wilkes, of the United States Navy.

One or two of the regiments of Gen. Lee's army were in the city last night. The men were pale and haggard. They have but a quarter of a pound of meat per day. But meat has been ordered from Atlanta. I hope it is abundant there.

All the necessaries of life in the city are still going up higher in price. Butter, $3 per pound; beef, $1; bacon, $1.25; sausage-meat, $1; and even liver is selling at 50 cents per pound.

By degrees, quite perceptible, we are approaching the condition of famine. What effect this will produce on the community is to be seen. The army must be fed or disbanded, or else the city must be abandoned. How we, “the people,” are to live is a thought of serious concern.

Gen. Lee has recommended that an appeal be made to the people to bring food to the army, to feed their sons and brothers; but the Commissary-General opposes it; probably it will not be done. No doubt the army could be half fed in this way for months. But the “red tape” men are inflexible and inscrutable. Nevertheless, the commissaries and quartermasters are getting rich.

SOURCE: John Beauchamp Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, Volume 1, p. 260-1

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Gideon Welles to William H. Seward, March 31, 1863

Navy Department.
31 Mar., 1863.
Sir,

When discussing the regulations concerning “Letters of Marque,” &c a few days since, I made certain suggestions, and you invited me to communicate any views I might entertain, in writing.

I have felt some delicacy, I may say disinclination, to take any active part in this matter, because I have from the beginning of our difficulties discouraged the policy of privateering in such a war as this we are now waging. The rebels have no commercial marine to entice and stimulate private enterprise and capital in such undertakings, provided the policy were desirable. We, however, have a commerce that invites the cupidity, zeal and spirit of adventure, which, once commenced, will be difficult to regulate or suppress. A few privateers let loose among our shipping, like wolves among sheep, would make sad havoc, as the Alabama and the Florida bear witness.

It is proposed to encourage private enterprize to embark in undertaking to capture the two wolves or privateers that are abroad devastating the seas, and it is said, in addition to the wolves they may be authorized to catch blockade runners. The inducement, I apprehend, will not meet a favorable response. There may be vessels fitted out to capture unarmed prizes, but not of sufficient force to meet and overcome the Alabama; if not, the great end and purpose of the scheme will fail of accomplishment.

To clothe private armed vessels with governmental power and authority, including the belligerent right of search, will be likely to beget trouble, and the tendency must unavoidably be to abuse. Clothed with these powers reckless men will be likely to involve the Government in difficulty, and it was in apprehension of that fact, and to avoid it, I encountered much obloquy and reproach at the beginning of the rebellion, and labored to institute a less objectionable policy.

Propositions for privateers, for yacht squadrons, for naval brigades, volunteer navy, &c., &c. were, with the best intentions in most instances, pressed upon the Dep't, regardless of the consequences that might follow from these rude schemes of private warfare. It was to relieve us of the necessity of going into these schemes of private adventure, that the “Act to provide for the temporary increase of the Navy,” approved July 24, 1861, was so framed as to give authority to take vessels into the Naval service and appoint officers for them, temporarily, to any extent which the President may deem expedient. Under other laws, seamen may be enlisted and their wages fixed by executive authority; and the officers and men so taken temporarily into the Naval service are subject to the laws for the government of the Navy. An “Act for the better government of the Navy,” approved July 17,1862, grants prize money to “any armed vessel in the service of the United States,” in the same manner as to vessels of the Navy.

These laws, therefore, seem, and were intended to provide all the advantages of letters of marque, and yet prevent in a great measure the abuses liable to spring from them. Private armed vessels, adopted temporarily into the Naval service, would be more certainly and immediately under the control of the government, than if acting only under a general responsibility to law.

It will be necessary to establish strict rules for the government of private armed vessels, as to some extent they will be likely to be officered and manned by persons of rude notions and free habits. Congress after authorizing Letters of Marque in the War of 1812, adopted the necessary legislation for the vessels bearing them, by the Act of June 26th of that year. This act has not been revived. The recent “Act concerning letters of marquee” &c. &c. authorizes the President to “make all needful rules and regulations for the government and conduct of private armed vessels, furnished with letters of marque.” In pursuance of this authorization, the “regulations” have been prepared, embracing the provisions of the statute enacted during the War of 1812. These regulations establish, as the statute did, a penal code. They impose fines and assume to authorize punishments, including even capital punishment.

As suggested in our interview, I question the validity of such proceedings. Can Congress delegate this power of penal legislation to the President? and if to the President, why may it not to any branch of the Executive?

If it can be granted for this special purpose — the government of private armed vessels — why not for any other purpose? And if it can delegate the power of penal legislation, why could it not delegate any other power, or powers, to the President, to Commissioners, or even to a Committee of its own body, to sit during the recess? Why could it not delegate to the Secretary of the Treasury to legislate respecting imports and foreign trade, or to the Post-Master General full power of legislation respecting post offices and post routes?

The power of imposing penalties and inflicting punishments is the essence of legislative power, for it is the penalty of transgression that gives force to law. These regulations also establish rewards as well as penalties. They provide that a large bounty shall be paid to private armed vessels in certain cases. But no fund is appropriated for the purpose by the Act, nor has any provision elsewhere been made for it. Can Congress delegate to the President the power to appropriate the public moneys, or to take them without specific appropriation, or pledge the public faith at his discretion for an indefinite amount?

As I have already said, I have doubts in these particulars. They are expressed with some reluctance, because in the uneasy condition of the public mind, growing out of the lawless depredations of the semi-piratical cruisers that are abroad, I am unwilling to interpose anything which may be construed into an obstacle, to repress public indignation, which is so justly excited. I did not regret that Congress enacted a law authorizing letters of marque; because I verily believe that, with it, England can be made to prevent her mercenary citizens from making war on our commerce under a flag that has no recognized nationality. If the police of the sea is to be surrendered, and rovers built by English capital and manned by Englishmen are to be let loose to plunder our commerce, let England understand that her ships will suffer, and her commerce also be annoyed and injured by private armed ships. With her distant and dependent colonies, no nation has greater cause to oppose maritime robbery and plunder, such as is being inflicted on us by Englishmen and English capital, than Great Britain.

The West Indies are, notoriously, harbors of refuge for the corsairs that are plundering our merchants, as well as for the infamous and demoralizing business of running our blockade, to encourage the insurgents who are waging war on our government. Of these ports, those of England are the worst, and a vast amount of English capital is engaged in illicit traffic, and her people and authorities exhibit sympathy for, and afford aid to, the insurgents and their abettors, and corresponding opposition to this Government.

The English ship-yards are filled with vessels built and building for the rebel service, and if measures are not taken to prevent, these will soon swarm the seas to capture, condemn and destroy American property, without a port into which they can send their captures for adjudication. Enjoying greater advantages than the corsairs and sea-rovers that once infested the ocean, because protected, harbored, & sheltered by governments in alliance with, and professedly friendly to us, while ordinary pirates are outlaws, this species of lawless outrage cannot be permitted to go on.

England should be warned that we cannot permit this indirect war to continue with impunity — that it will provoke and justify retaliation, and that if her people and government make war upon our commerce, by sending abroad rovers with no nationality, to prey upon the property of our citizens, it will be impossible to restrain our people from retaliatory measures.

I am, respectfully,
Your Obdt. Servt.
Gideon Welles,
Secty. of Navy.
Hon. Wm. H. Seward,
Secty. of State.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 252-6