Jewish Legalized Servitude.

Your next main argument is substantially this: — The Jewish nation held slaves, whose condition and treatment were regulated by laws given them by divine authority, and therefore American slave-holding is sanctioned by the Bible. In proof of the facts in the case you refer to a few passages, which we allow are sufficient to test the principle which you maintain, and we oppose. — We will first look at the passages themselves, and then examine the argument founded on them. “The Lord himself.” you say, “directed Moses and Aaron how slaves were to be treated with respect to the passover;” and you quote Exodus 12:43, 44. “And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: there shall no stranger eat thereof: but every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.” Slaves were allowed religious privileges which were not granted to strangers nor to hired servants; Exodus, 12:45. “A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof.” “It was no sin for a priest,” you continue, “to purchase a slave with his money, and the slave thus purchased was entitled to peculiar privileges.” Lev. 22: 10, 11. “There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing, a sojourner of the priest or a hired servant shall not eat of the holy thing. But if the priest buy any soul with his money he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house, they shall eat of his meat.” You add, “The Bible warrants the purchase of slaves as an inheritance for children forever:” and, bring for proof, Lev. 25:46, “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-men forever; but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.”

Now against your continual substitution of the term slaves for servants we earnestly protest, on grounds which have been already stated. You seem to have forgotten that the original word has any other meaning. Was Paul a slave of Jesus Christ? Are all the people of God his slaves? What is it to be a slave in your sense of the expression? The law of South Carolina answers, “Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners, and possessors and their executors, administrators and assignees, to ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER.” And Judge Stroud in his sketch of the laws relating to slavery, says, “The cardinal principle that the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among things, obtains as undoubted law in all these states.” —  Such is slavery among you. But that the Hebrew laws ever authorized any such slave-holding, we utterly deny. They do throughout recognize servants of every order as intelligent beings, who though in a state of servitude, had personal rights; and secured to them comfortable support, protection from personal abuse, and, on receiving circumcision, unqualified admission to all the religious privileges enjoyed by the Hebrew people, generally. This sort of servitude, we maintain, was radically and most evidently a very different thing from slavery in your sense of the term. Why then should you persist in calling it slavery without once intimating that the term, in this application, is to be taken in any limited sense? It will not be strange if you should, within a few years, amuse yourselves by giving to our northern apprentices and hired help the same appellation. You have indeed already intimated, that you deem the epithet not inappropriate

While the passages to which you refer, say nothing at all of slavery in your sense of the expression, and of course give it no countenance, they do, we freely admit, contemplate the fact, that not only the Jewish people, but priests would buy servants for money; and secure important religious privileges to those who should be thus purchased. — That what is said of the exclusion of hired servants from the Passover has respect to those of foreign extraction only, and is predicated on the supposition that such had not been circumcised is evident from the exegetical remark which follows in the same connection, “No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof; one law shall be to the home-born and to the stranger that sojourneth with you.” It is possible that the hired Hebrew servants, as well as the foreign servants, of the same condition, might have been excluded from eating of the holy things in the families of the priests, in as much as such eating was a family, not a national, privilege; and the mere circumstance of being hired for perhaps a few months or days, did not so incorporate them with the family as to give them a right with the children and permanent domestics to the peculiar privileges of members. The act that the bought servants, in regard to the partaking of the holy things, were to be put by the priests on a level with their own children, while all hired servants and even distinguished visitors in the family, were to be strictly prohibited, shows, in some measure, how exceedingly different the condition of such persons was, from that of the slaves among you.

The passage in Lev. 25: 46, shows that persons procured by purchase for permanent servitude must not be Hebrews, but be obtained from the surrounding nations, or families of Gentile extraction residing in Palestine. These nations and families should be to them a constant scource of supply. Stress has been laid on the terms bondmen and bondmaids as expressive of the lowest degree of servitude, or absolute slavery. But you will see, by looking into your Hebrew Bible, that the simple terms usually translated man servants and maid servants, without any qualifying adjunct corresponding with bond, are here employed. The fact that they were bought with money, determines not that their bodies and souls were by the purchase converted into things, and held as property; but only that they, by money paid down to themselves, to their parents, or others who claimed the right of disposing of them, had been procured to occupy the condition, and perform the services, and enjoy the privileges which were prescribed to persons thus situated by the Hebrew laws. It is remarkable that while servants of this order might be procured only from the Gentiles, Gentile families residing in Canaan were permitted by law, to buy, with their own consent, poor Hebrews, to be their servants, from the time of purchase to the year of jubilee; unless previously redeemed by themselves or friends. Lev. 25: 47–54. From this we may infer that the Hebrews had at least no power to compel the Gentiles resident among them to sell either themselves or their children. That it was on the part of the latter altogether a voluntary transaction.

_______________

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. 48-54

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Dr. Francis Wayland, October 20, 1838

We wonder if this learned divine has ever undertaken to convince men that their “responsibilities were limited” in regard to the removal of any other nuisance than slavery. We have not seen any portion of his "limitations," except that relating to slavery. Whether he has treated on them as to any other sin, we do not know. But what possessed him to think men needed reminding of the limitations of their obligations? Are they prone to works of supererogation? Are they apt to be rampant in the exercise of that “charity,” which “seeketh not her own,” to transcend the bounds of their duty? Is it necessary, in order to a proper husbanding of their sympathies, that they be warned and admonished against their too prodigal lavishment upon their fellow-men? Is it to be predicated of fallen, depraved men, that they will be likely to overrun their obligations? Need they be guarded against an extravagance like this? Need ministers of the gospel tax their ingenuity in a behalf like this? Generally this class of men have been engaged, on what they call in court “the other side;” in enforcing human obligations, and in setting forth and urging on men's consciences their terrible responsibilities—to remove from their minds and hearts erroneous notions of their limitation?. and of their own freedom from obligation.

We take it nothing can be clearer and more reasonable than the universal obligation to do to others as we would that they should do to us — and to do likewise for others. If we were slaves, does any doctor doubt we should desire our neighbors, if we had any, to try to rescue us? If our house was a-fire, should not we want our neighbors to help put the fire out? If we were in the water, going to the bottom, could we bear it that neighbors should go indifferently by, and let us sink — that they should merely pity us — in the abstract? The slavery case is exceedingly plain. Slavery is the creature of tolerance — of public sufferance. Southern slavery exists in northern sufferance. The North is the seat of American sufferance. It is the theatre of moral influence for this nation. There is no such influence in the South — that is, no reforming influence except by negative operation. What is the moral influence of New Orleans on the nation? What of Charleston, or Mobile, or St. Louis, or Richmond, or any of the states or people of which these are the capitals? What religious or moral enterprise ever originated, or advanced in any of these places or people? They no more influence the country, than gamblers, drunkards, thieves, religiously influence the church. The church influences them for good or for evil, according to her faithfulness or unfaithfulness in her Master's service. The North influences the South in the matter of slavery. Yea, the North acts with the South in slaveholding. They directly and professedly uphold the system wherever they have occasion. They tolerate it in the District of Columbia. They directly sustain it in the territories. They allow the slave trade between the states. They conspired with the South in the constitution, that the foreign trade in slaves should not be interrupted by Congress for twenty years. They voted that Arkansas should come into the Union, with a constitution guarding slavery with a two-edged sword, giving the slaveholder a veto upon an emancipating legislature, and the legislature a check upon the repentant slaveholder. They have voted to admit a system that forbids and discourages repentance of the sin of slaveholding, and makes it desperate. All this has been done solemnly and with deliberation, and in legislative form — and the whole nation has tacitly allowed those of its people who chose, to hold slaves. It has never been disreputable, but highly the contrary, to hold slaves in this country. Is not a nation answerable for the vices and crimes which are reputable and popular within its borders? If a nation has any moral influence, any moral standard, is it not responsible for what that standard does not condemn? Has not this nation cast all its presidential votes for two men, guilty at the very moment of the election and all their days before and since, of the crime of slaveholding — Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder and a slave driver, and voted for twice by a majority of the electoral suffrage of this nation, north and south — and Henry Clay, a slaveholder and a notorious compromiser in the service of the infernal system, voted for by the rest of the nation. Jackson chosen by northern men against Adams a northern man. And then a northern man abandoned by northern men, one and the same party, in favor of Clay, a southern slaveholder[.]

We have nothing to do with abolishing slavery, says the Doctor Wayland, either as citizens of the United States, or as men. Our responsibilities for its removal are all limited away. On the very face of our case, it is palpable and grossly evident, we say, that the northern people have at least as much to do with its abolition as the people of the south. They have at least as much to do with its continuation. They are as directly engaged in it. They have the control of it in the national councils wherever it exists within congressional jurisdiction. It is the North, and not the South, that prevents a legislative abolition of it in the District of Columbia. Slavery in the national district is a northern institution, and not a southern. It is the “peculiar institution” there of the North, and not of the South. Is it not so? We declare then, that, as citizens and as men, we at the North have something to do with the abolition of American slavery — ay, that we have every thing to do with it. We can abolish it, and we alone can. We ought to abolish it, and we alone ought to do it, as appears at first impartial glance.

“I think it evident,” says Dr. Wayland, “that as citizens of the United States, we have no power whatever either to abolish slavery in the southern states, or to do any thing of which the direct intention is to abolish it.” We do not perceive the propriety of the Doctor's language when he talks of a thing having an intention. Slaves have intentions, and the Doctor and his friends call them things—but how a thing to be done can have an intention — a “direct intention,” as the Doctcr says, is beyond our slight learning. Perhaps the Doctor meant tendency by intention — and meant to say that we could not do any thing the direct tendency of which is the abolition of southern slavery. That is to say, we, as citizens of the United States, may not vote in Congress against slaveholding in the District of Columbia, or in the territories, or against the slave trade between the states. We may not receive petitions in behalf of those objects — we may not petition Congress — we may not talk against slaveholding — or write against it — or pray against it — or sympathize with our fellow-men in slavery; because each and every one of these acts has a direct tendency to abolish slavery in the southern states. Slavery in the land is a system, a whole system, a custom, a crime, and but one crime wherever committed. It is not warrantable in one place, and not in another. It is not lawful in one state, and not in another. It is one entire, individual, undivided matter of fact every where in the land, as much as murder is —  and if it is denounced and condemned in the District of Columbia by Congress, it is as fatal to it, in the whole country, as if denounced in South Carolina by Congress, or any where else — more fatal to it. A blow struck against it, as existing in that district, would be a blow at the head of it, and it would be mortal, — not one having a direct tendency to kill the system — or a direct intention, as the Doctor hath it, — but a blow destructive in itself. It would fix the brand of infamy on every slaveholder's front throughout the nation. It would render him infamous even in the eyes of Americans. Dr. Wayland could set no limits to his infamy. It would seal him a criminal with the broad seal of the nation, the E pluribus unum. Who would vote for him for President then — who would send him ambassador to London — who put him in Speaker of the House — President of the Senate — Chief Justice of the United States? Who would shake hands with him at the capitol? Now he is first in office, first in honor. Slaveholding is passport to every distinction. We ask Dr. Wayland and his aid-de-camp Major Mordecai Noachus, if a vote by Congress on our petitions, abolishing slavery in the district, and making it capital to enslave a man there, as they would do if they made it penal at all, would not give the system the death blow in the South, even if abolitionists had done nothing to kill it elsewhere. Would not that single enactment do it? Self-evidently it would. Have we not a right, as citizens of the United States, to do this? The Doctor says no. We say, ay.

But not to follow this self-immolated man any farther now, we will say that we need not get a vote from Congress against slavery in order to its abolition there and every where. Congress! what is it? The mere dregs and precipitations, the settlings and sediments of the nation. It is as soulless as a corporation. It has no soul, no mind, no principle, no opinion. It is an echo, and that not always a true one. It is a mere catastrophe—an upshot. It will only mutter the word abolition, after it has become an old story through the country. We have struck slavery its death blow already. We need not contend with the Doctor about the power. “One thing you have done,” said an eminent judge to us, “you have driven the South to come out and declare directly in favor of slavery. Heretofore they have pretended to lament it, as an evil. Now they declare it is a blessing, and a righteous institution.” Have we not, said we, driven them to join the issue, before the world, in favor of slaveholding? “You have,” said the judge. Must they not maintain it before the world, said we, to save the institution from going down? “They must,” he replied. Can they maintain it? said we. “No,” said he, — and yet the judge is not an abolitionist.

We need not contend with this Wayland and wayward President for the power, as citizens or as men, to beat down southern slaveholding. We have exercised the power already, and the South knows it. We have waked the nation to discuss the demerits of the system and the question of the negro man's humanity; and they are discussing it, and amid the flash and fervor of the agitation the foul system dies. It can no more endure it, than owls can noon, or bats sunshine, or ghosts day-break. While Wayland is groping about in his metaphysics to get hold of some puzzle to embarrass us about the power, we will have exercised it to the full, and cleared the land of slavery. Then where will the Doctor find a market for his “limitations?” Slavery is a dead man already, unless Orator Rhett, and Professor Dew, and Colonel McDuffie, and General Hamilton, and doctor this, that and the other one, can maintain the precious creature in the argument, and get the verdict of an enlightened and purged christianity in its favor. To this conclusion it has already come. The question is stated — the issue joined — the pleadings closed — all demurring and abating and delaying past by. And now for the trial. Now, Slavery, hold thine own. The Doctor's question of our having the power comes too late.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 39-44 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of October 20, 1838.

George Thompson Speech at New York, At the Meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society, published May 23, 1835

[From the rapid and impassioned style of Mr. T’s delivery, it becomes difficult, indeed impossible to give a very close report of all he said.  We attempt only a sketch touching on the leading points, and giving enough of his language to enable the reader to form some idea of his very fervid mode of address.  He was heard with profound attention by all, but with very different feelings by different portions of his auditory, as they abundantly manifested on more occasions than one.]

He commenced his address by declaring that the feelings of his heart were too deep for utterance. When he thought where he stood, of the topic on which he was called to speak, upon the mighty interests which were involved — upon his own responsibility to God-upon the destinies of thousands which might hinge upon the results of the present meeting — and when he reflected upon the ignorance, the wickedness, and the mighty prejudices he had to encounter; on the two and a half million of clients, whose cause was committed to his feeble advocacy, with all their rights, eternal and irreversible, he trembled, and felt almost disposed to retire. And when, in addition to all, he remembered that there were at this moment, in this land, in perfect health, in full vigor of mind and body, countrymen of his own, once pledged to the very lips in behalf of this cause, and with an authority which must command a wide and powerful influence, who had yet left it to the care of youth and ignorance, he felt scarce able to proceed, and almost willing to leave another blank in the history of this day's proceedings.

He had said that he had prejudices to overcome; and they met him with this rebuff — “you are a foreigner.” I am, said Mr. T. I plead guilty to the charge: where is the sentence? Yet I am not a foreigner. I am no foreigner to the language of this country. I am not a foreigner to the religion of this country. I am not a foreigner to the God of this country. Nor to her interests — nor to her religious and political institutions. Yet I was not born here. Will those who urge this objection tell me how I could help it? If my crime is the having been born in another country, have I not made the best reparation in my power, by removing away from it, and coming as soon as I could to where 1 should have been born? (Much laughter.) I have come over the waves of the mighty deep, to look upon your land and to visit you. Has not one God made us all? Who shall dare to split the human family asunder? who shall presume to cut the link which binds all its members to mutual amity? I am no foreigner to your hopes or your fears, and I stand where there is no discriminating hue but the color of the soul. I am not a foreigner, I am a man: and nothing which affects human nature is foreign to me, (I speak the language of a slave.)

“But what have you known about our country? How have you been prepared to unravel the perplexities of our policy and of our party interests? How did you get an intimate acquaintance with our customs, our manners, our habits of thought and of action, and all the peculiarities of our national condition and character, the moment you set your foot upon our shores?” And is it necessary I should know all this before I can be able or fit to enunciate the truths of the Bible! to declare the mind and will of God as he has revealed it in his word

“But you do not care about us or our welfare.” Then why did I leave my own country to visit yours? It was not certainly to better my circumstances: for they have not been bettered. I never did, and I never will, better them by advocating this cause. I may enlarge my heart by it: I may make an infinite number of friends among the wretched by it: but I never can or will fill my purse by it. “But you are a foreigner — and have no right to speak here.” I dismiss this — I am weary of it. I have an interest in America, and in all that pertains to her. And let my right hand forget its cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I am ever capable of maligning her, or sowing the seeds of animosity among her inhabitants. He might truly say, though in the words of another,

I love thee, witness heaven above,

That I this land, — this people love;

Nor love thee less, when I do tell

Of crimes that in thy bosom dwell.

There is oppression in thy hand—

A sin, corrupting all the land; —

There is within thy gates a pest—

Gold—and a Babylonish vest.

Repent thee, then, and swiftly bring

Forth from the camp th’ accursed thing;

Consign it to remorseless fire—

Watch, till the latest spark expire;

Then strew its ashes on the wind,

Nor leave an atom wreck behind!

Yet while he said this, he would also add, if possible, with still stronger emphasis, Let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I desert the cause of American abjects — or cease to plead, so long as the clanking of chains shall be heard in the very porch of the temple, and beneath the walls of your capitol. If any shall still say, I have no right to speak, I will agree to quit the assembly, on condition that that objecter will furnish to me a plea which shall avail in the day of judgment, when my Maker shall ask me why I did not do, in America, that which all the feelings of my heart, and all the dictates of my judgment, and all the principles too, of God's own gospel, so powerfully prompted me to do? If the great Judge shall say to me “When human misery claimed you, why did you not plead the cause of suffering humanity?’ will any one give me an excuse that will avail as a reply to such a question? Is there any such excuse? [Here he paused.] Shall it be because the misery for which I should have pleaded was across the water? If this is the principle, then cease your splendid embassies of mercy to China and Hindoostan: abandon the glorious missionary cause: and let us read in your papers and periodicals no more of those eloquent and high toned predictions about the speedy conversion of the world.

“But you are a monarchist, you were born the subject of a king, and we are republicans.” Yes, and because I loved the latter best, I left the dominions of a monarch, and came to the shores of a free Republic. I gave up the tinsel and the trappings of a king, for the plain coat and the simple manners of your President. But granting me to be a monarchist, will that do as an excuse before the King of kings, the Lord of lords?

“But, we quarrelled once. You taxed us, and we would not be taxed: and now we will have nothing more to do with you.” Indeed; and may our artizans construct your machinery, and our Irishmen feed your furnaces, and dig your canals; may our advocates come to your bar, and our ministers to your pulpits, and shall all, all be made welcome but the advocate of the Slave? Should I be welcome to you all, if I had but renounced the cause of humanity?

“But the newspapers abuse you — they are all against you; and therefore you had better go back to where you came from.” Yes: if I fear the newspapers. But supposing I care nothing about the newspapers, and am heartily willing that every shaft that can fly from all the presses of the land shall be launched against me, is it a good reason then? Leave me, I pray you, to take care of the newspapers, and the newspapers to take care of me: I am entirely easy on that score.

But now as to the question before us. The gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Birney,] has gone very fully into its civil and political bearings: that aspect of it I shall not touch: I have nothing to do with it. I shall treat it on religious ground exclusively; on principles which cannot be impugned, and by arguments which cannot be refuted. I ask the abolition of slavery from among you, not because it dooms its victims to hard labor, nor because it compels them to a crouching servility, and deprives them of the exercise of civil rights: though all these are true. No: I ask for the illumination of the minds of immortal beings of our species; I seek to deliver woman from the lash, and from all that pollutes and that degrades her; I plead for the ordinances of religion; for the diffusion of knowledge; for the sanctification of marriage; for the participation of the gospel. And If you ask my authority, I answer there it is (pointing to the Bible) and let him that refutes me, refute me from that volume.

The resolution I offer has respect to the moral and spiritual condition of your colored population, and I do say that while one sixth of your entire population are left to perish without the word of God, or the ministry of the gospel, that your splendid missionary operations abroad, justly expose you before the whole world, to the charge of inconsistency. Your boast is, that your missionaries have gone into all the world; that you are consulting with the other christian nations for the illumination of the whole earth; and you have your missionary stations in all climes visited by the sun, from the frosts of Lapland to the sunny isles of Greece, and the scorching plains of Hindoostan; amidst the Christless literature of Persia, and the revolting vices of Constantinople. God grant that they may multiply a thousand fold — and continue to spread, till not a spot shall be left on the surface of our ruined world, where the ensign of the cross shall not have been set up. But will you, at the same time, refuse this gospel to one sixth of your own home-born population? And will you not hear me, when I ask that that word of life, which you are sending to the nations of New Holland and all the islands of the farthest sea, may be given to your slaves? When I plead for two millions and a half of human beings in the midst of your own land, left nearly, if not wholly, destitute of the blessings of God's truth? What spiritual wants have the heathen which the poor slaves have not? And what obligation binds you to the one, which does not equally bind you to the other? You own your responsibility to the heathen of other parts of the world, why not the heathen of this continent? And if to the heathen of one portion of the continent, why not to the no less heathen in another portion of it?

The resolution has reference to the diffusion of the Bible: and here I am invulnerable. You have offered to give, within twenty years, a copy of the Scriptures to every family of the world; you are now translating the sacred volume into all the languages of the earth, and scattering its healing leaves wherever men are found; and may I not say a word for the more than two millions at your door? Men whom you will not allow so much as to look into that book? Whom you forbid to be taught to read it, under pain of death? Why shall not these have the lamp of life? Are these no portion of the families of the south, whom you are pledged to supply? Is it any wonder there should be darkness in your land, that there should be spiritual leanness in your churches, that there should be Popery among you, when you thus debar men of the Bible? Is it not a fact, that while you have said you will give a Bible to every family in the world, not one of the families of slaveholders in the Southern States is to be found included in the benefaction? Of all the four hundred and sixty thousand families of your slaves, show me one that is included in your purpose or your plan. There is not one. If it would be wicked to blot out the sun from the heavens; if it would be wicked to deprive the earth of its circumambient air, or to dry up its streams of water, is it less wicked to withhold the word of God from men? to shut them out from the means of saving knowledge? to annihilate the cross? to take away the corner stone of human hope? to legislate away from your fellow-beings the will of God as recorded in his own word.

In view of the retributions of the judgment, I plead for these men, disinherited of their birthright. And once for all, I say, that every enterprise to enlighten, convert, and bless the world, must be branded with the charge of base hypocrisy, while millions at home are formally and by law deprived of the gospel of life, of the very letter of the Bible. And what has been the result Christianity has been dethroned; she is gone: there is no weeping mercy to bless the land of the slave; it is banished forever, as far as human laws can effect it. Brethren, I know not how you feel, nor can I tell you how I feel, when I behold you urging, by every powerful argument, the conversion of the world, while such a state of things is at your door; when I see you all tenderness for men you never saw; and yet seeming destitute of all pity for those you see every day.

Suppose, now, that in China the efforts of your missionaries should make one of the dark heathen a convert to the peaceful doctrine of the cross. What would be the duty of such a convert? Learning that there was a country where millions of his fellow sinners were yet destitute of the treasure that had enriched him for eternity, would he not leave the loved parents of his childhood, and the place of his father's sepulchres, and tracing his way across the waters, would he not come to bestow the boon upon men in America? Would he not come here to enlighten our darkness? And would he not be acting reasonably? according to the principles and commands of the very Bible you gave him?

And now I ask, what is the christianity of the South ! Is it not a chain-forging christianity? a whip-platting christianity? a marriage denouncing, or, at best, a marriage discouraging christianity. Is it not, above all, a Bible withholding christianity? You know that the evidence is incontestible. I anticipate the objection. “We cannot do otherwise. It is true, there are in South Carolina not twelve slaveholders who instruct their slaves; but we can't help it; there is an impassible wall; we can't throw the Bible over it; and if we attempt to make our way through, there stands the gibbet on the other side. It is not to be helped.” Why? “SLAVERY is there.” Then away with slavery. “Ay, but how ! Do you want the slave to cut his master's throat?” By no means. God forbid. I would not have him hurt one hair of his head, even if it would secure him freedom for life. “How then are we to get rid of it? By carrying them home?” Home? where? Where is their home? Where, but where they were born? I say, let them live on the soil where they first saw the light and breathed the air. Here, here, in the midst of you, let justice be done. “What! release all our slaves? turn them loose? spread a lawless band of paupers, vagrants, and lawless depredators upon the country?” Not at all. We have no such thought. All we ask is, that the control of masters over their slaves may be subjected to supervision, and to legal responsibility. Cannot this be done? Surely it can. There is even now enough of energy in the land to annihilate the whole evil; but all we ask is permission to publish truth, and to set forth the claims of the great and eternal principles of justice and equal rights; and then let them work out their own results. Let the social principle operate. Leave man to work upon man, and church upon church, and one body of people upon another, until the slave States themselves shall voluntarily loose the bonds and break every yoke. All this is legitimate and fair proceeding. It is common sense. It is sound philosophy. Against this course slavery cannot stand long. How was it abolished in England? By the fiat of the legislature, you will say. True: but was there no preaching of the truth beforehand? Was there no waking up of the public mind? no appeals no investigations? no rousing of public feelings, and concentration of the public energy Had there been nothing of this, the glorious act would never have passed the Parliament; and the British dependencies would still have mourned under the shade of this moral Bohon Upas.

It was well said by one of the gentlemen who preceded me, that there is a conscience at the South; and that there is the word of God at the South; and they have fears and hopes like our own: and in penning the appeals of reason and religion we cannot be laboring in vain. I will therefore say, that the hope of this cause is in the churches of God. There are church members enough of themselves to decide the destinies of slavery, and I charge upon the 17,000 ministers in this land, that they do keep this evil within our country; that they do not remember them that are in bonds as bound with them; that they fatten on the plunder of God's poor, and enrich themselves by the price of their souls. Were these all to do their duty, this monster, which has so long been brooding over our land, would soon take his flight to the nethermost hell, where he was begotten. How can these refuse to hear me? They are bound to hear; Unitarians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, be their name or their sect's name what it may, are bound to hear — for a minister is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts: and if they shall withhold their aid when God calls for it, the Lord will make them contemptible in the eyes of all the people.

Finally: this Anti-Slavery Society is not opposing one evil only; it is setting its face against all the vices of the land. What friend of religion ought to revile it? Surely the minister of Christ least of all; for it is opening his path before him; and that over a high wall that he dare not pass. Can the friend of education be against us? A society that seeks to pour the light of science over minds long benighted: a society that aims to make the beast a man: and the man an angel? Ought the friend of the Bible to oppose it? Surely not. , Nor can any of these various interests of benevolence thrive until slavery is first removed out of the way.

Mr. T. in closing, observed that he had risen to-day under peculiar feelings. Two of his countrymen had been deputed to visit this country, one of them a member of the Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, who had been appointed with the express object of extinguishing slavery throughout the world, and belonging to a christian denomination which had actually memorialized all their sister churches in this land on the subject. My heart leaped when I learned they were to be here: especially that one of them whose name stood before the blank which is to be left in the record of this day's proceedings. Where is he now? He is in this city: why is he not here? The reason I shall leave for himself to explain. Sir, said Mr. T., in this very fact I behold a new proof of the power of the omnipotence of slavery: by its torpedo power a man has been struck dumb, who was eloquent in England on the side of its open opposers. What! is it come to this? Shall he or shall I advocate the cause of emancipation, of immediate emancipation, only because we are Englishmen? Perish the thought ! before I can entertain such an idea I must be recreant to all the principles of the Bible, to all the claims of truth, of honor, of humanity. No sir: if man is not the same in every latitude; if he would advocate a cause with eloquence and ardor in Exeter Hall, in the midst of admiring thousands, but because he is in America can close his lips and desert the cause he once espoused, I denounce, I abjure him. Let him carry his philanthropy home again; there let him display it in the loftiest or the tenderest strains; but never let him step his foot abroad, until he is prepared to show to the world that he is the friend of his kind.

The following resolution was offered by Mr. Thompson, and adopted by the Society.

Resolved, That the practice of suffering a sixth portion of the population of this Christian land to perish, destitute of the volume of Revelation, and the ministry of the Gospel, is inconsistent with the profession of zeal for the conversion of the world.

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. 66-74; The Liberator, Boston Massachusetts, Saturday, May 23, 1835, p. 2-3

Gerrit Smith, 1864

The President of the United States is both a great and a good man. But neither greatness nor goodness would be manifest in consenting to a peace, which, however admirable in other respects, failed nevertheless to secure the ballot to the black man, and left him therefore, at the mercy of his enemy and ours — of his and our demonized enemy. Happily, among the highest proofs that the President is both great and good, is his willingness to grow and change. Such willingness is not found in little and mean men.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 260

Diary of to Amos A. Lawrence: June 11, 1859

The spring is most beautiful. My horseback ride in the morning exhilarates me beyond anything which is not artificial excitement, and it is much more satisfactory than any art can produce. From Corey's Hill the view is wonderful.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 153

Diary of to Amos A. Lawrence: July 9, 1859

Solferino. Hell on this beautiful earth, and men turned into devils. God grant that the result may in some way conduce to extend his kingdom in this world of fallen men.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 153

Diary of to Amos A. Lawrence: July 19, 1859

Bought some 25-pound dumb-bells, as those which I have used are too light.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 153

Diary of to Amos A. Lawrence: December 27, 1859

Went to see F. E. Parker and asked him if he would be president of Harvard College if he were asked. He was very much surprised; said it seemed to him ridiculous, but was too serious to answer then. I told him that I could vote for him confidently, and I believed Judge Hoar would, and his chance of election was as good as that of any one.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 153-4

Diary of to Amos A. Lawrence: December 28, 1859

Parker declines.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 154

James M. Garnett* to Robert M. T. Hunter.

January 4th, 1838.

Dear Robert: I am anxious to hear whether you found my letter, on your return. Not because there was anything in it, of which either of us need be ashamed; but because no man likes his private letters to become topics of public remark, without his consent. It was, (if I recollect), a free commentary upon the opinions and feelings expressed in your letter, and if Tom, Dick, and Harry were to get hold of it, might possibly cause those feelings and opinions to be misused by your political enemies. My anxiety, therefore, that my letter should not miscarry, is felt on your acc[oun]t, for I (like the Eels skinned alive) have become callous to newspaper attacks; nay, I have been fool-hardy enough to provoke them, as you shall see. The proofs will be sent to you under another cover, and headed, “Dialogue the second, between the two old political cronies.” This, I am unreasonable enough to beg you to read, as it contains an attempt to answer your arguments in favor of public men becoming party-men. Not that I can believe it possible for you ever to become a party-man; but because I think you utterly wrong in the notion which you seem to entertain, that to be useful in public life, a man must join some political party or other. This I most confidently believe to be one of the greatest, the most fatal errors that any honest public man ever committed; and therefore I am painfully excited to prevent (if I can) a most beloved sister's son, whom I highly value, for his own merits, from adopting a creed which would paralise his own usefulness, and so far strengthen the damnable doctrine of political Partyism. Don't understand me as fearing that you will ever knowingly fall into party-ranks; but I much fear the effect of your apparent belief, that all men must be either drones, or non-entities in political life, unless they will fall into these ranks, and be led or driven, as party-politics require. My own belief is and always has been, ever since I had a capacity and moral right to believe anything, that the entire stock of knowledge and power which any man possessed to contribute to the welfare and happiness of his species, might always be beneficially exercised, under our Institutions, without his attaching and binding himself to any party whatever, either in politics, morals, or religion. Such attachment and binding might appear, for a time, to increase his power, because it increased his popularity; but it would always prove a “penny wise and pound foolish” business. This is the all important, the vital fact of which it is indispensably necessary that all honest public men should assure themselves. As party-men, they may gain and exercise great personal influence; but it is an “ignis fatuos” which can not possibly delude those who understand its real nature; and the mischief is, that all who have been once led astray by the false light, will always hesitate to follow that which is certainly true, certainly of heavenly origin. Young men are prone to be Enthusiasts, old men to be Laxidos on all enthusiastic feelings. Hence the former generally overshoot the true center, as far as the latter undershoot it. What should a wise man determine between the two? He should take for his guide the maxim “in medio tutissimus ibis;” and adhere to it, too, in defiance of all party denunciations against “trimmers, and fence men?” We must either adopt and act upon this belief, or we must utterly eschew the notion, that the People are competent to self government; and in the latter case we must sell ourselves to the Devil, (politically speaking,) as fast as we can. As I cannot possibly believe that you have a fancy for making any such sale, I address to you these remarks, merely to cheer you in your course, and to prevent your taking, what I consider a false view of your own powers to pursue it, with a fair prospect of success. Weigh the matter fairly, bestow on it your most deliberate judgment, and should your final determination be, that a man can do no good in Congress, unless he becomes a party-man, then “curse and quit,” the moment your time is out. Nay, call down curses upon your own head, if you ever enter into public life again. But I must say, you have no just cause to make any such desperate resolve; and that you have rational ground for believing, that the People of the United States will yet learn to estimate the “no party-men” as their only true and best friends. I believe these men to be strong enough, if they would only understand each other, and act in concert, to make battle successfully against all the party-men of the Nation. The conflict would be arduous and long protracted; but to despair of its favorable issue, would be to believe that truth, justice, and virtue will never obtain the ascendancy in this World: and thus to think, is to discredit the word of God himself.

_______________

* Representative in Congress from Virginia, 1805-1809; died May, 1843.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916 in Two Volumes, Volume II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter 1826-1876, p. 28-30

For Sale, Or Exchange For Town Property, Negroes, &c., July 2, 1855

FOR SALE, OR EXCHANGE FOR TOWN PROPERTY, NEGROES, &c. — I offer for sale a FARM, containing 270 acres, situated on the Murfreesboro Turnpike, 11 miles from Nashville, and known as the Hamilton Place.  Improvements tolerable good; good cedar fencing, first-rate cedar fencing; first-rate water and orchard, &c.  Any person desirous of making an exchanged with the above property, now has an opportunity of trading for one of the most convenient stock farms in the county, it having a creek and never-failing water running through it.  For particulars apply to

R. A. BALLOWE, Gen’l Ag’t,

No. 17 Deaderick st.

Feb14              B E N

SOURCE: Daily Nashville Patriot, Nashville, Tennessee, Monday, July 2, 1855, p. 4

One Hundred and Fifty Dollars Reward, June 12, 1856

ONE HUNDERED AND FIFTY DOLLARS REWARD. — I will give the above reward for the apprehension of my MEN, BEN and JAMES.  When last seen they were in Westmoreland county, Virginia, when they were making great efforts to escape in vessels freighting with wood for the North, and my possibly have succeeded in reaching Baltimore, from which place they will no doubt attempt to go North.  Ben is of a light brown complexion, 23 or 24 years old, of ordinary size, has a rather bushy head, with one of his from teeth half broken off.  He has with him a good supply of clothes, the kind of which is not particularly known, but I believe there is among them a blue cloth coat with a short skirt, quite wide, and has both a hat and cap.  Ben possesses more than ordinary intelligence, and will be very dexterous in making his escape to a free state.

James, who is the brother of Ben, is also of a light brown complexion, about 18 or 20 years old, rather under Ben’s size, but resembles him very much in appearance.  Has wide front teeth, and speaks quickly when spoken to.  James’ supply of clothes is not very good, nor is the kind known, but I believe he left with a light cloth sack coat and a cap.  Ben and James are no doubt in company.

I will give the above REWARD of ONE HUNDERED AND FIFTY DOLLARS if apprehended out of the State, and Fifty if taken in, so that I get them again.

DANDRIDGE SALE,

Loretto, Esssex county, Va.

Je9 6t†

SOURCE: “One Hundred and Fifty Dollars Reward,” Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, Maryland, Thursday, June 12, 1856, p. 4 

Negro Hiring, January 14, 1852

NEGRO HIRING. — George Woodfin, GENERAL AGENT AND COLLECTOR, tenders his service again to his friends and the public, and solicits a continuation of their patronage.  He hires out negroes, rents out houses, collects claims, and attends to any business requiring an agent.  He has now for sale two comfortable and convenient Houses, in Duvall’s addition to the city; one has a half acre lot attached; would suit a person wishing to remove from the country; young negroes would be taken in exchange: and for hire, for the ensuing year, an excellent rough Carpenter, of good character.

De 20v.3taw3w

SOURCE: “Negro Hiring,” Richmond Dispatch, Richmond, Virginia, Wednesday, January 14, 1852, p. 3

Daniel Webster to Justice Joseph Story, November 13, 1822

Boston, November I3, 1822.

Dear Sir,—I went to Salem yesterday rather unexpectedly; a cause in which I was concerned having been called on. I found myself too unwell to try it, and so got delay, and returned last night. I feel pretty well while I am quiet and keep house, but I am not able to make any effort without pain, and renewing a half feverish feeling. My wish now is to remain at home till Saturday, go on that day to Providence, and I believe I shall take my wife with me, and get well enough, if I can, to tiy the Gold cause on Monday. I am afraid, however, that parties will be prepared on Friday, and that, on account of the number of witnesses, any delay will be inconvenient. In this case the cause must go on without me.

I am desirous to see you as you pass along to-morrow, and the particular object of this is to inquire, at what time and what place I may hope to find you in this town to-morrow. The bearer will take your answer, and bring it to me.

I saw Dr. Warren on my return last evening, and he has put me on a regimen for three days with medicine, &c. I hate all physic.

Yours,

D. Webster.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Volume 1, p. 322

Thomas Wentworth Higginson to Louisa Storrow Higginson, June 1853

Princeton, June, 1853

Dearest Mother:

We do not see Wachusett — we are halfway up the ascent — but we look east and west over great valleys which need only more water to be radiantly beautiful. . . . The little hamlet sleeps in profound repose — a two-horse wagon, or even a pedlar with a pack, are events for a day. We look between the two little white churches up a lane which leads to Wachusett; last night we followed this up to its first summit — a little height before the real Wachusett begins; there was the skeleton of an old church, the strong frame uninjured, though raspberry bushes flaunt through the floor, and elders look in at windows; near it an old burial ground, Wordsworth's “Churchyard among the Mountains.” . . . The strawberries were ripening all over the lonely hill-top, and five children with cows and tin kettles and the baby in a wagon — in the waning June sunset; five little sisters there were, with all bleached but their blue eyes.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 144-5

George L. Stearns to Governor John A. Andrew, after July 18, 1863

To His Excellency John A. Andrew.

Dear Sir: — Last week a deputation from my Philadelphia committee visited Washington to confer with the Government in relation to colored troops. Most prominent in the conference was the question of “pay and bounty the same as white troops.”

To-day they send to Washington a memorial setting forth their reasons for asking that colored troops be placed in every way on the same footing as white. You will see by reference that the conscription law makes no difference in pay, and the committee think that should control the earlier legislation.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

My heart bleeds for our gallant officers and soldiers of the 54th. All did their duty nobly. I am told that three companies of the 54th saved the Maine regiment engaged in the battle.

I have the honor to be

Very respectfully,

George L. Stearns.

SOURCE: Preston Stearns, The Life and Public Services of George Luther Stearns, p. 305-6

Samuel Gridley Howe to Senator Charles Sumner, January 7, 1853

BOSTON, Jan. 7th, 1853.

DEAREST SUMNER: — I was very sorry indeed to criticize your speech, but I could not do otherwise in loyalty to our friendship. I have felt much grieved about it, the more so that it seemed to me Liberty had received a blow from her staunch friend; all unawares — but still a heavy blow.

— Look at it! will not the declaration that no pressure whatever shall force this country from her neutrality greatly encourage the despots to go on in their devilish career? Could we not at least have held our peace, and not assured them that we should never interfere, though they cut the throat of every liberal in Europe?

Then again, about poor Kossuth. I did feel sad indeed to have you speak (in your note) of his arrogance. My dear Sumner, is he not doing exactly what you felt called upon to do in your first peace oration, propound doctrines true in the abstract, good in principle, and surely realizable by and by, though so unpopular as to be deemed absurd by many? What Kossuth claims in the name of human brotherhood cannot, I concede, be now granted; we cannot plunge the country into war for any cause as yet set forth; but as surely as God lives and keeps up the progressive movement of humanity, so surely will the time come when nation shall say to nation, “Strike not, abuse not our brother nation! or we will help him strike you and defend himself.”

Do not take any fixed ground upon this subject; I mean an unprogressive position, and say what we will and what we will not do; wait and do what the crisis may require. We want peace; peace, and a century of it if possible, but we must have progress; we must remove the impediment in the way to it, and if despots oppose us we must remove them, peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must. . . .

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 386

George Mason Graham to William T. Sherman, Sunday, January 15, 1860 — 1:50 p.m.

Tyrone Plantation, Sunday, 1:15 p.m., January 15, 1860.

Dear Sir: Captain Jarreau has just left here, after bringing me yours of Friday night. I can well comprehend the pressure on your time, which keeps you constantly busy, and therefore makes you write hurriedly. I have more letters on hand now myself than I shall ever have time to answer. You were in this sort of hurry when you wrote me on the eleventh. . .

I entirely approve and authorize your suggestions in regard to approaches and enclosures. You will see where I formerly had the gate put, in the neighborhood of where [you] propose to put it now, with the express view to avoid injury to the front ground. Its removal to its present site was the work of more thoughtful heads that succeeded me.

In regard to the fencing, pine posts, whether sawed or split, will rot off very quick, the more lasting is the chinkapin, of which a good deal is generally to be found in the ravines and branch bottoms. If you cannot get it convenient to yourself the Pinewood's wagoners can get it for you, if they will. The gates I would move immediately. . .

Rest assured that I neither have made nor will make any use of Colonel Bragg's or your brother's letters to you that you could yourself object to, although you could not show them to those that I can. The only persons I have shown them to are Dr. Smith, Mr. Manning, Captain Elgee, and Mr. Halsey and Goodwin in my room at Mr. Fellows' on Thursday night, and I should now return them to you but that there is one other person I am desirous to show them to. I showed them to Mr. Halsey not as an editor, yet because he is an editor too, in order that he might in that capacity say nothing ignorantly, but principally from the estimation in which I hold him as a gentlemanly and right minded man, as far as the occupation, that of a hired partizan editor, he is engaged in, will permit. . .

I think the declaration of your brother in the House in one of the early days of the present session of Congress, and in the debate on the President's message in 1856, republished in the National Intelligencer of the twentieth ult. ought to be sufficient for any thinking, reflecting southern man, who has reason enough in him to admit of a difference of opinion between himself and other people.

Demagogical politicians and partizan editors make all the mischief. Since 1830-1833, I have always believed and never hesitate to express myself so on all occasions, that southern people of the above classes, many of them northern and eastern born, have had quite as much to do with producing the troubles of the country as any body else.

For yourself, my dear Sir, if I had never seen you at all, a knowledge of the facts that you had passed through the Military Academy, had served and resided in the south, and enjoyed the confidence and friendship of Colonel Bragg, was enough for me. The use that I desired to make of your letters was to forestall any apprehensions on the minds of others, not to remove any that I knew of. Am truly glad to learn from you that your own mind is quiet on this point.

SOURCE: Walter L. Fleming, General W.T. Sherman as College President, p. 122-4

John W. Anderson’s Advertisement for the return of a “Negro Man, Alfred,” June 12, 1856

ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS REwARd. — Ran Way from the subscriber, living in Rockville, Montgomery county, Md., on Saturday, 31st of May last,

NEGRO MAN, ALFRED,

about twenty-two years of age; five feet seven inches high; dark copper color, and rather good looking.

He had on when he left a dark blue and green plaid frock coat, of cloth, and lighter colored plaid pantaloons.

I will give the above reward if taken out of the county, and in any of the States, or fifty dollars if taken in the county or the District of Columbia, and secured so that I get him again.

John W. Anderson.

j6-lwW2.

SOURCE: William Still, The Underground Railroad: A Record of Facts, Authentic Narratives, Letters &c., p. 388; The advertisement originally appeared in The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, Maryland, Thursday, June 12, 1856, p. 4.

George S. Denison to Salmon P. Chase, January 26, 1863

(Private)

New Orleans, January 26th, 1863.

Dear Sir: The situation is the same as when I last wrote. There is no movement of troops, so far as I am informed, and there appears to be no probability of an advance in any direction.

The New York papers will state that the “Harriet Lane” has escaped from Galveston and gone to sea. This is not true. She is still in the harbor according to official advices just received here.

It is rumored here that the “Ovieto” has been captured. Admiral Farragut does not believe it. When she escaped from Mobile the “Cuyler” went in pursuit and neither vessel has yet been heard from.

Three days ago a steamer supposed to be the Alabama appeared at the mouth of the river, and then steered off in a southwest direction. The Admiral sent a vessel from here (The Mississippi) to follow her. As the “Alabama” is the faster vessel and had a start of 100 miles, and the Mississippi started from here 24 hours after the Rebel vessel was seen — it is not probable that anything will be effected.

It should not be forgotten that here is the place to make the proclamation effective. I am afraid Gen. Banks will never do it. He decides and moves too slowly and is too much afraid of responsibilities. He does not seem to regard with favor the three fine regiments already raised, and declines putting them in the field. I told you that they had sent him a petition to be put in the front rank at Port Hudson, that they might remove from their race the stigma of cowardice, etc. In all the regiments Gen. Banks brought with him, three cannot be selected so efficient as these three colored regiments, and in my opinion, they would be worth any five of the raw regiments Gen. Banks brought with him. I see Gen. Banks almost every day, but am perfectly ignorant of his plans and intentions. I do not wish to retract or qualify any statement in my late letters to you — nor in a letter to Mr. Flanders which I asked him to show you.

If my letters are uninteresting or too frequent, please inform me.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 350-1