APPENDIX.
In reading the foregoing discussion, we have been utterly astonished at the grossness and magnitude of the falsehoods—not to mention the numerous miscolorings and misrepresentations—which the reverend apologist for slavery has, with brazen effrontery, unblushingly uttered even though aware of the fact that they were to be published to the world. It would seem as if feeling the necessity of defending a desperate cause by desperate means, he had resolved to pour out his misstatements and inaccuracies with such lavish liberality, that his opponent would be absolutely unable, in the time allotted to him, to correct them all, and thus contrive to make some of his falsehoods, because uncontradicted, pass for truth, and some of his distortions and perversions for fair representations. The event, we cannot help thinking, will show that he has presumed with far too much rashness on the supposed ignorance of the British people. Some of his falsehoods, mistakes, and misrepresentations, which were either wholly unnoticed, or not fully answered by Mr. Thompson, for want, as he has informed us, of time to do it, we shall briefly notice here,
First, however, we would call attention to the remark, that 'he is not a slaveholder,' with which Dr. Wardlaw introduced Mr. Breckinridge to the audience, and in reference to it quote part of a letter from Dr. A. L. Cox of New York, to the editor of the emancipator. 'The only knowledge I have on this subject,' says Dr. C., 'is what I derived from the confession of R. J. Breckinridge, extorted at an anniversary meeting of the Colonization Society in this city, in the spring of 1834.' After mentioning some of the circumstances which led him to speak, the letter goes on to say, 'Just as Robert J. Breckinridge was on the point of speaking, one of the assembly inquired, 'Is he a slaveholder?' The orator seemed somewhat disconcerted, but answered 'I have that honor.'
In the first evening's discussion, page 6, Mr. Breckinridge says that the British people 'had sent out agents to America, who had returned defeated. They have failed—they admit they have failed in their object.' To say nothing of the accuracy which speaks in the plural number of a single individual, and which can easily be excused to one who in encountering him, probably felt that that individual was himself a host,—when or where has the alleged admission been made? Never. Nowhere. The assertion is untrue.
During the same evening, page 7, Mr. B. tells his audience that 'of the twelve [free] states, at least four, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Maine never had a slave.' What says the United States' census? In 1830, there were 2 slaves in Maine, 6 in Ohio, 3 in Indiana, and 747[A] in Illinois. In 1820, there were 190 in Indiana, and 917 in Illinois. In 1810, Indiana contained 237, Illinois 168. In 1800, there were 135 in Indiana. But Mr. B. says, that 'since 1785, till this hour, there never had been one slave in any of these states.'
'America,' he tells us, 'was the first nation upon earth, which abolished the slave trade and made it piracy.' See page 8. This will be unwelcome news to Messrs. Franklin and Armfield of Alexandira, D. C., whose standing advertisements in the Washington papers, offer cash for negroes of both sexes, from 12 to 25 years of age, and announce the 'regular trips' twice a month, of their vessels engaged in the slave trade between the District and New Orleans. It will be unpleasant intelligence in the city of Washington, where for $400 a year, the 'trade or traffic in slaves' is licensed for the benefit of the canal fund. It will be news to the keepers of the prisons in the District, who, in their official capacity, carry on the slave trade by selling men 'for their prison and other expenses, as the law directs.'
But Mr. B. means the foreign slave trade, not the domestic. The latter, indeed, may be licensed, and protected, and deemed honorable as it is lucrative. Those who engage in it, may be like Armfield and Woolfolk, gentlemen 'of engaging and graceful manners,' reported to be 'mild, indulgent, upright, and scrupulously honest,' but the foreign trade is piracy by the law of the land. Very meritorious truly! and worthy of abundant eulogy! to prohibit piracy on the high seas, or the African coast, while selling permission to do along her own coast, and on her own territories, the same acts which, when done abroad, constitute piracy. But to what does her abolition of even the foreign slave trade amount? Do her cruizers ever capture a slave ship? Seldom, if ever. Does she consent to such arrangements, in her treaties with other nations which are in earnest in their endeavors to suppress the slave trade, as will prevent her flag from being made a protection to the detestable traffic? No. The N. Y. Journal of Commerce, in a recent article very truly asserts, that 'We neither do any thing ourselves to put down the accursed traffic, nor afford any facilities to enable others to put it down. Nay, rather, we stand between the slave and his deliverer. We are a drawback—a dead weight on the cause of bleeding humanity.' And a late number of the Edinburgh Review, speaking of the application of the British Government to this, for its co-operation, says, 'The final answer, however, is, that under no condition, in no form, and with no restrictions, will the United States enter into any convention or treaty, or make combined efforts of any sort or kind, with other nations for the suppression of the trade.' With what face, then, can she claim praise for having merely made a law, which she almost never executes, and to the execution of which, by others, she permits her flag to be used as a hindrance.
The next assertion of Mr. B's that we notice, is the astounding one, that America, 'as a nation, has done every thing in her power' for the abolition of slavery. See page 8. This, while the national domain is the home of slavery and the seat of the slave trade! While the domestic slave trade, so far from being abolished by the National Legislature, as it may constitutionally be, is shielded and licensed! This, while the moral power of the nation is slumbering, or if awake, arrayed to a great extent, in the defence of slavery! That a man who values his reputation—that a minister of the gospel of Mr. B's intelligence and knowledge of the country's condition and history in regard to this matter, should make such a declaration, is truly most wonderful. Could he have expected it to be believed? Could he have believed it himself?
Mr. B., page 15, by way of explaining why Mr. Thompson was so differently received in Glasgow and Boston, applauded in the one place, and abused in the other, says that he took up the question of slavery as one of political organization. We give to this assertion, the answer of the editor of the Emancipator. 'This we pronounce utterly and unequivocally false. We were with Mr. Thompson, while he was in this country, as much probably as any other one individual. We were with him in private and in public, in the house and by the way, in the public convention and the public lecture, and we most solemnly declare, that we never heard George Thompson, on any occasion, take up or discuss the question of American Slavery, 'as one of civil organization.' He always discussed it primarily and essentially as a moral and religious question, and never went into its political relations and bearings, except to answer the objections of cavillers and opponents. And we are astonished that R. J. Breckinridge should dare to make such an assertion, when, we venture to say, he never heard George Thompson in America.'
The same editor has furnished a better solution than Mr. B's, of the—not very difficult—problem of Mr. Thompson's different reception in Boston and Glasgow. 'For the same reason that Knibb, and Taylor, and Burchell did not meet with the same reception in Glasgow and Jamaica—because, and simply because the slave spirit was diffused through the land, infecting and corrupting alike the leading influences of Church and State, so that Mr. T. could not condemn slavery and prejudice 'in Boston as in Glasgow,' without constraining the conviction and the outcry from the implicated and the prejudiced, "so saying thou condemnest us also."'
'There is not a sane man in the free states, who does not wish the world rid of slavery.' This Mr. B. states as his conviction, page 15. Perhaps it is correct, but if so, there are a great many insane men in the free states, or a great many who have a very strange way of manifesting their wishes. The fact is notorious, that Northern men who remove to the South, almost uniformly become slaveholders the moment their convenience or pecuniary interest can thereby be promoted.
On page 20, Mr. B. accuses Garrison of having written placards to stir up a mob against him, when he lectured in Boston, in behalf of colonization. A charge more utterly false was never made, and it requires a great exercise of charity to believe that Mr. B. did not know its falsehood. It will have been seen that Mr. Thompson challenged proof of the accusation, but none was produced except the word of the accuser—evidence on which, any reader who compares his assertions in several other instances, with facts, will place very little reliance.
Another of Mr. B's accusations against 'some of the friends of the Anti-Slavery Society,' is, that they procured a writ to take the two 'African princes,' who had been sent to the Maryland Colonization Society to be educated, and that Elizur Wright was the instigator of the measure, on pretence that the boys had been kidnapped. See page 20. The truth of this matter as given in the Emancipator, on Mr. Wright's authority, is that, on learning that two native African boys, supposed to be slaves, were on board a schooner in New York harbor, bound for Baltimore, Mr. Wright made inquiries on board, and could only learn that they were brought from Africa by a passenger, and consigned to some one in Baltimore. To make sure of the means of prosecuting a legal inquiry, a writ was obtained, but as soon as Mr. W. discovered that the lads were sent to this country to be educated, he ordered the officer not to serve it.
The next slanderous charge uttered by the reverend delegate is, that Elizur Wright tried to stir up a mob to liberate a fugitive slave confined in New York prison. The story of course is wholly false.
In the second evening's discussion, Mr. B. says, page 34, the admission of a clause into the Constitution prohibiting the abolition of the slave trade for twenty years, 'was one of the brightest virtues in the escutcheon of America,' A dark escutcheon, then, must be hers, if the protection of the slave trade for twenty years is the 'brightest' spot on it. The 'importation of such persons,' &c. (meaning slaves,) 'shall not be prohibited prior to 1808,' says the Constitution, 'The brightest virtue in her escutcheon!' exclaims Mr. Breckinridge.
'It was well known that the slavery existing in the United States was the mildest to be seen in any country under heaven.' Page 34. Of this assertion of Mr. B., we have only to say in the words of the Emancipator, 'It is "well known that the slavery existing in the United States," is not "the mildest to be seen in any country under heaven," and to say so is demonstration absolute of the most "unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead." Witness the fact, that the man who teaches the slave to read, or gives him the religious tract, or the Bible even, does it at his peril. Witness the fact, on the testimony of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, that the large majority of the slave population are "heathen, and will bear comparison with the heathen in any country in the world." Witness the slave-code every where—particularly the following, which is the law of North Carolina, and in Georgia nearly the same, "that if any person hereafter shall be guilty of killing a slave, he shall, upon the first conviction, suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free man"—(i. e. if any white man is witness, and will come forward to testify in the case, for the testimony of a million of colored men would go for nothing,) and "Provided always, that this act shall not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed, (and running away, concealment, and the stealing of a hog, or some animal of the cattle kind, to sustain life, outlaws him,) or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful owner or master or to any slave DYING UNDER MODERATE CORRECTION"—thus by the very law which prohibits, giving the master express license to kill as many, and as often as he pleases, provided he will only take care to do it, first, when no white men are present who will inform or testify against him, or secondly, when the slave is an outlaw; or, thirdly, when he lifts his hand in opposition to his master, no matter how cruel the punishment or how base the design upon his or her person; or, fourthly, by "moderate correction." Let him only see to it, that it is done in one or all of these ways, and under one or all these circumstances, and if reckless enough to do so, he may kill ad libitum, and nobody to say why do ye so. Witness the fact, trumpeted through all the papers within five years, that a Southern man seeing another passing across his grounds in the evening, and supposing that he was a runaway slave, shot him dead, because, although he hailed him, he did not stop—when lo! it appeared that he had shot a white neighbor, and that, the wind being high, he did not hear, and therefore did not stop at the summons!—a striking illustration of the carelessness and perfect impunity with which, as a matter of fact, black men are and may be shot when attempting an escape from their thraldom. And, once more, witness the fact, that the way to emancipation is hedged up in this country so as it is in no other "country under heaven," and then say what but "ignorance, or a purpose to mislead," could lead to such statements?'
'Perhaps the great reason against the exercise of that power' [to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,] was, that it would inevitably produce a dissolution of the Union. Put 'this and that together.' 'There is not a sane man in the free states, but wishes the world rid of slavery;' the free states contain 'seven millions out of the eleven millions of the white population of the Union;' (see page 7,) 'a large minority in the slaveholding states, in some nearly one half of the population,' (see page 13,) 'are zealously engaged in furthering the abolition of slavery,' and yet the exercise by Congress of its constitutional power to abolish slavery in the national district would 'inevitably dissolve the Union.' Verily, the old proverb hath well said that a certain class of persons should have a good memory.
Mr. B. sneers at 'Mr. Thompson's argument about the standing army employed in keeping down the slaves,' and declares that it was 'complete humbug, founded upon just nothing at all.' Will the citizens of Southampton county, Virginia, who called in the aid of the U. S. dragoons to quell an insurrection a few years ago, corroborate his testimony? 'An officer of the United States' army, who was in the expedition from fortress Monroe, against the Southampton slaves in 1831, speaks with constant horror of the scenes which he was compelled to witness. Those troops, agreeably to their orders, which were to exterminate the negroes, killed all that they met with, although they encountered neither resistance, nor show of resistance: and the first check given to this wide, barbarous slaughter grew out of the fact, that the law of Virginia, which provides for the payment to the master of the full value of an executed slave, was considered as not applying to the cases of slaves put to death without trial. In consequence of numerous representations to this effect, sent to the officer of the United States' army, commanding the expedition, the massacre was suspended.'—Child's Oration.
And what says Mr. B. to this assertion of John Q. Adams, that were it not for the protection of the western frontier against the Indians, and of the Southern slaveholder against his human 'machinery,' this country would scarcely have any need of a standing army. Is that 'complete humbug' too?
Mr. B. ventures to say that 'there are not ten persons in the whole state of Kentucky, holding anti-slavery principles, in the Garrison sense of the word.' Page 40. We know not how many there may be now, but in 1835, a constitution of a state society, framed on anti-slavery principles, 'in the Garrison sense of the word,' was signed by more than forty persons.
Mr. B. tells about a minister who was driven, he says, from Groton, Mass., by the storm of abolitionism, and who seems to have fled to Baltimore, doubtless, seeking a congenial climate. See page 40. But Mr. B. forgot to mention the many cases in which the slave spirit, 'like a storm of fire and brimstone from hell,' has driven faithful pastors from their charges, just for the crime of praying and preaching now and then for the enslaved.
Mr. B. says of a document from which his opponent quoted certain Maryland laws that placed the 'benevolent colonization scheme' in any thing but a favorable light, that it was said in America, and he believed truly, to contain not the laws, but only schemes of laws which never passed the Assembly. See page 47. On this the Emancipator remarks, 'This was never alleged against the pamphlet. The pamphlet contains the laws precisely as they stand in the statute book of Maryland, as Mr. B. would have seen had he ever taken the trouble to compare them. And for him to make such assertions, without having done so, is only another instance of "unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead."'
In the third evening's discussion, Mr. B. asserted, page 50, that Mr. Garrison was among the first who opposed the Colonization Society, 'on the ground that its operations were injurious to the colored race in America.' To this the Emancipator says, 'This is partly true and partly not. The Society was decidedly opposed, at the outset, both by the colored people and by those who, up to that time, had been most active in promoting the cause of emancipation. As early as August, 1817, the subject came before the "American Convention for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery," &c., at its session in Philadelphia. This body, representing for the most part Friends, and made up of delegates from abolition and manumission societies in different parts of the country, after a full discussion, appointed a committee on the subject. That committee reported, that "they must express their unqualified wish, that no plan of colonization shall be permitted to go into effect without an immutable pledge from the slaveholding states of a just and wise system of gradual emancipation;" and they conclude their report, which was approved and adopted by the Convention with the following resolution:—
"Resolved, As a sense of this Convention, that the gradual and total emancipation of all persons of color, and their literary and moral education, should precede their colonization."
When the Convention met again in 1819, the Pennsylvania society, in sending up a statement of its views and proceedings, warned the "abolitionists of our country to retain in view the lessons of experience, and avoid substituting for them, schemes however splendid, yet of questionable result;" and added, "for ourselves there is but one principle on which we can act. It is the principle of immutable justice! We can make no compromise with the prejudices of slavery, or with the slavery of prejudice. The same arguments that are now urged against emancipation, unless the subjects of it be removed from our territory, were used with more plausibility when abolition was an experiment, yet they were combatted with success."
Mr. B. says, page 52, it 'would-be difficult, if not utterly impossible, for evidences of friendship to the Colonization Society from an avowed friend of slavery to be culled out, as occurring within the last three or four years.' Says the Emancipator, "So far is this from being true, that the most decisive evidences of this sort are found, within the last three or four years. Scarce a pro-slavery mob, or speech, or meeting, during this whole time, but has contained, in one and the same breath, a condemmnation of abolition and a commendation of colonization."
After quoting the resolution against the Colonization Society, in Boston last year, Mr. B. remarks, 'that the verbiage of this resolution, showed its parentage. No one who had ever heard one of Mr. Thompson's speeches could, for a moment, doubt the authorship of the resolution!' This is a small mistake indeed, and among so many great ones, scarce merits a notice, but to show that Mr. B's sagacity in conjecture, exceeds not much his veracity in assertion, we just mention in passing, that the 'authorship of the resolution' belongs not to Mr. Thompson.
'The abolitionists,' says Mr. B. page 54, 'have been going about, from Dan to Beersheba, not only attacking and vilifying the whites, for proposing to colonize the blacks, with their own free consent; but equally attacking the blacks for availing themselves of the offer.' An assertion utterly false, and wickedly slanderous.
On page 55, Mr. B. introduces an extract from an address of some of the Cape Palmas Colonists to their friends in America, for the purpose of showing the prosperity of the Colony. In connection with this, let the following letter from a colonist be read:—
'Cape Palmas, May 5th, 1834.
Dear Mother,—I write you with regret. It is true, I wrote to you of my passage, how I enjoyed it. I spent a very agreeable time, and also on my first arrival; but now I am distressed, and all Mr. C's family also. * * * O! I am sorry! yes, sorry that I ever came to this country. It is true, mother, had I taken your advice, I would not have been here. I have suffered and all my family, and Mr. C's family too, and we still continue to suffer. Not a cent of money have any of us got. Now, mother, if you can get any gentleman to advance the amount of three hundred dollars, or two hundred and fifty dollars I will work for them for it four years. I will serve as a waiter in a house, or any thing at all, to pay for it. My wife says she would maintain herself and sister, if that could get her home once more, for here they can do nothing, for we are not able, the country is so sickly—we have been sick ever since we have been here—* * * I will serve any way or at any thing. I will sell myself as a slave, for the sake of getting HOME once more. Try for me, if you please, for my family's sake. If I was by myself, I might scuffle for myself.'
In a subsequent letter, dated August 3, 1834, this same writer communicates the additional intelligence, that Mrs. C 'died of grief.'
'Every benevolent and right thinking person must see, that the scheme of colonizing Africa by black men, is necessary to enlighten Africa, and prevent the extirpation of the black man there.' So says Mr. Breckinridge. Doubtless it was to enlighten the poor natives, and prevent their extirpation, that a brisk traffic in rum, tobacco, gunpowder, and spear-pointed knives, has been carried on with them by black men colonized in Africa—that nine pound balls from 'a gun of great power' were discharged into a body of eight hundred men, standing within sixty yards, pressed shoulder to shoulder, in so compact a form that a child might easily walk upon their heads from one end of the mass to the other' and 'every shot literally spent its force in a solid mass of living human flesh[B]—that by fraud and injustice the colonists excited the hostility of the Africans, and stirred up a war with King Joe Harris, which resulted in the slaughter of numbers of the ignorant barbarians, who were unable to cope with the superior arms, and discipline, and military prowess of the American blacks—the 'missionaries in the holy cause of civilization, religion, and free institutions.'[C]
'America,' says Mr. B., 'was christianized by colonization.' Yea, verily! and in this case we have another precious example of the enlightening, civilizing, and christianizing influence of colonies. The poor Indian has felt, and faded away before it, along the Atlantic-shores, and still the 'missionary' work is going on at the far southwest. Ask the Seminoles and the Creeks if colonization has not Christianized America. Ask the shades of Metacom, and Canonicus, and Sarsacus; ask the feeble remnants of the mighty tribes which once dwelt from the lakes to the Gulf, and from the ocean to the Alleghany, and learn of them the process of christianization which colonies have introduced into America. Is it by a similar process that 'colonizing Africa by black men,' is to 'prevent the extirpation' of the natives of that continent?
'The climate' of Africa Mr. B. says, page 58 'suits the black man, while hundreds of white men have fallen victims to it.' And how many 'hundreds of black men' have fallen victims to it? Those especially who have gone from the Northern states, have found it as fatal as have the whites themselves, nor has it been very remarkably healthy to any portion of the colonists.
Mr. B. is very certain that colonizing Africa will destroy the slave trade. He says the colonists 'would put an end to the trade the moment they were able to chastise the pirates, or make reprisals on the nations to which they belonged. Nothing is plainer, than that any nation that will make reprisals, will have none of the inhabitants stolen. If reprisals were made effective, the slave trade would be immediately stopped.' A Christian mode of reforming vices and removing evils, truly! 'Any nation that will make reprisals!' So, if Peter steals John's child, John must steal Peter's by way of reprisal, and that will put a stop to the mischief at once! And why not reprisals prevent all other kinds of violence, as well as man-stealing? If an Englishman shoots a Frenchman, let a Frenchman shoot an Englishman in return, and the quarrel is settled, and peace restored! For 'nothing is plainer, than that any nation that will make reprisals, will have none of the inhabitants' shot. Does past history sustain this doctrine? Do present facts sustain it? No longer let our clergy preach, that 'all they who take the sword, shall perish by the sword.' 'Nothing is plainer,' than that those nations 'which take the sword' to 'make reprisals,' 'will have none of the inhabitants' injured by the sword. But where is the need of colonies? If the 'Foulahs' will only steal as many men, women, and children, from the 'Ialoffs,' as the latter from the former, 'nothing is plainer than that these two tribes will have none of the inhabitants stolen.' Do the various African tribes never make reprisals? How happens it then, that the slave trade, and the whole business of man-stealing has not been long since suppressed?
'On one hundred leagues of the African coast,' says Mr. B., 'it is already to a great degree suppressed' by the operation of the colonization societies and their colonies. To this the Emancipator says, 'These statements are far, very far from true, and we can account for them only on the ground of "unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead." Again and again have we been assured, and on colonial colonization authority too, that the trade still goes on in the vicinity of the colony as briskly as ever, nay, that it is even prosecuted within the limits of the colony, and in sight of Monrovia itself. Indeed, at this very moment the colony, instead of being able to suppress or destroy the trade, is in danger of being itself destroyed by it, and is sending out its appeal to this country for help, praying that some "American vessels" may be sent upon the coast to seize the traders, and to protect the colony. Let our friends in this country and in England peruse the following extracts from the Liberia Herald just received in this country, and then say what shall be thought of the man or the men who, in the face of such and similar testimony repeatedly received, can unblushingly pretend "that on one hundred leagues of the African coast, the trade is already to a great degree suppressed?"
Extracts from late Liberia papers, received at the office of the N. Y. Commercial Advertiser:—
"Slave Trade.—This nefarious traffic is again lifting its horrid head in our vicinity, and increasing in a fearful ratio. Within one hundred miles of the settlement, there are at this very time, at least four factories for the purchase of slaves, and one of them not more than eighteen miles off! The consequences are most severely felt by the colony. It is now impossible to purchase rice, at any rate that would not starve the most fortunate man. In our immediate vicinity, it is reported, slavers have lately given the natives a musket for four cross! the retail price of which, in the colony, is six dollars! To the Spaniards, in view of a successful voyage, the profits of which are so enormous, goods are of no value; but it is far otherwise with us. The natives, like other men, disposed to get the most for their articles, will of course sell to those who will give the highest. This being the case, we ask, how are the people of this colony to live? We have sometimes thought if the people of the United States once knew the inconvenience to which the slave trade subjects us, and what an effectual check it is upon the advancement and prosperity of the colony, and how little of those surplus and useless millions, whose proper place of deposite has created so much contention, that without an exception, saints and sinners, politicians, philosophers, colonizationists, and abolitionists, anti-colonizationists, anti-abolitionists, and anti-all, would rise up, and with one general voice decree, that a small armed vessel shall ply between Sherbro Islands and Kroo country, and thus effectually protect a few poor OUTCASTS, while millions of their brethren are faithfully slaving to enrich us at home."
And so, notwithstanding the Paradise to which they have gone, and their "free consent" to go, they are "poor outcasts" when they get there after all; and the very trade which they were sent to abolish, is in a fair way of abolishing them, unless government vessels go out to their aid!'
Of the remark said to have been made by him at the colonization meeting, in 1834, that certain emigrants to Liberia 'were coerced away, as truly as if it had been done with a cart-whip,' Mr. B. says 'it was an unfair report, got up by Mr. Leavitt, the editor of the N. Y. Evangelist, to serve a special purpose.' The Emancipator answers the assertion thus, 'This passage has been quoted and requoted in this country, in times and ways well nigh innumerable, but, to the best of our knowledge, it was never before pronounced an unfair report, either by Mr. B. or any other individual. And now, while we leave Mr. Leavitt to answer for himself on the question of its fairness, we take the liberty to say, that if unfair, it will not relieve Mr. B. of difficulty. For if the report be fair, and Mr. B. did say the things attributed to him, why then, as every body knows, he said what was true. If, however, it be unfair, and he did not say those things, then as every body knows, he did not say what was true, and what, if he had spoken the truth, he would have said. For that they were "coerced away as truly as if it had been done with a cart-whip," every body knows to be fact.'
Mr. Leavitt's Note to the Editor of the Emancipator.
'In reply to Mr. Breckinridge's allegation, that I "got up" a report of his speech, "to serve a special purpose," I will only say, that Mr. Breckinridge did prudently to go across the Atlantic before he made that charge. My character as a fair reporter, will not be affected here by such insinuations. I have no doubt that the report in question gives the ideas Mr. B. uttered, mostly in the very language he used. My recollection, in this case, is very distinct, and the words taken down at the time.
JOSHUA LEAVITT.
Mr. B. says, that 'in many instances the bad laws had become worse, and good laws had become bad, solely through the imprudent conduct of Mr. Thompson's associates.' Some of the most unrighteous, barbarous, and abominable laws ever enacted in this land, whose rulers have so long occupied the 'throne of iniquity,' and been so often and so deeply guilty of 'framing mischief by a law,' are cited in Stroud's Sketch, a work published several years before 'Mr. Thompson and his associates' had commenced their 'imprudent' measures. Those laws certainly were not occasioned by their imprudence. It is nearly a hundred years at least, since these statutes of pandemonium began to disgrace American legislation.
In the fourth evening's discussion, Mr. B. asserts, page 88, that the N. Y. Observer and Boston Recorder, 'print more matter weekly than all the abolition newspapers in America, put together, do in half a year.' It is really matter of astonishment, that he should venture the utterance of such a glaring falsehood. He ought to have learned to keep at least within the bounds of probability in his fictions. There were at the time when his assertion was made—to say nothing of the monthlies—not less than eight or nine weekly anti-slavery papers, some of which circulated more widely than the Recorder, and not much less widely than the Observer. If we do not mistake, Mr. B. told a story at least forty or fifty times as large as the truth, and we are by no means sure that the proportion is not much larger.
Mr. Thompson, for the purpose of showing what the abolitionists are doing in one department of their work, produced copies of the Slaves Friend, Anti-Slavery Record, Anti-Slavery Anecdotes, Human Rights, Emancipator, Liberator, New York Evangelist, Zion's Herald, Zion's Watchman, Philadelphia Independent Weekly Press, Herald of Freedom, Lynn Record, New England Spectator, &c., and an Anti-Slavery Quarterly. Of these, Mr. B. said 'some of them were, he believed, long ago dead; some could hardly be said ever to have lived; some were purely occasional; the greater part as limited in circulation, as they were contemptible in point of merit. Not above two or three of the dozen or fifteen that had been produced before them were, in fact, worthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition newspapers.' Now for the truth. Not one of them was 'long ago,' or is now 'dead.' Only one of them is 'purely occasional'—the Anti-Slavery Anecdotes—but, with that exception, all are now alive, and nearly every one has a circulation as extensive as that of the Recorder—some, as already stated, still more extensive. And beside these which Mr. Thompson exhibited, there are several other weekly and monthly anti-slavery publications, which are neither dead, nor likely soon to be. The Philanthropist, (its publication suspended indeed, for a short time by the destruction of its press, but soon to be resumed,) the Friend of Man, the American Citizen, the Vermont Telegraph, the Middlebury Free Press, the Vermont State Journal, and a number more, weekly, and some monthly periodicals are 'avowed abolition newspapers,' some of them devoted almost exclusively to this cause, and all 'respectable' both in character and extent of circulation. Some of them are of the very highest order in point of ability and merit, of the weekly periodicals of the country. Mr. T., therefore, instead of exaggerating in regard to the number of the abolition papers, fell considerably short of the truth.
'Was he [the inhabitant of Louisiana] to be told then, that he should turn off his slaves?' &c., asks Mr. B., page 90, Certainly not—at least, not by abolitionists. They propose that the slaves should be permitted to remain on the plantations and work as free laborers, where their services will be needed, and will be mutually advantageous to themselves and their employers.
Mr. B. denies, page 90, that any person legally free, 'was ever sold into everlasting slavery,' but his denial is only another evidence of the facility with which he can utter, not only gross falsehoods, but falsehoods which contradict notorious facts, and which of course cannot escape detection. Mr. T. has fully exposed this falsehood, by presenting documentary evidence of the fact denied.
Of Mr. B's declarations, on page 91, to which we refer the reader, the Emancipator says, 'All this, if not "gratuitous folly," is at least, unfounded and reckless assertion, which we have scarcely ever seen equalled.'
We ask our readers to turn back, and read again the paragraph on page 97, ending 'to COERCE such emigration, might be a MOST SACRED DUTY,' This has frankness at least, if it has no other good quality to recommend it. But it is the frankness of the tyrant, who, confident of his power to effect his purposes, fears not to avow them, however iniquitous or abominable. And if there be frankness in letting out the design, there is most unblushing impudence in calling its execution 'a sacred duty.' What utter heartlessness too, and what obliquity of moral vision does it exhibit. And this man dares to rank himself with the friends of the colored people! Such a friend as the Holy Inquisitors of Spain, to the heretical Protestants, whom they deem it their 'sacred duty to coerce' with rack and fire, to a renunciation of their heresies. Such a friend as Louis XIV., to the Huguenots,—James I., to the Puritans, and Charles II., to the Scottish Covenanters.
On page 98, Mr. B. introduces what he calls a speech of Mr. T. at Andover, as reported by a student in the Theological Seminary. Mr. T. has met this anonymous report with counter testimony, not anonymous, but we will add that of the editor of the Emancipator, who says, 'Mr. B. although so often pretending that he had no documents, &c., here read the false and distorted account of Mr. Thompson's speech on this occasion, published at the time in the Boston Courier, and signed C. Having been there at the time, we here record our testimony to the fact of its being false and distorted in its representations.'
Mr. B. on page 109, alludes to what Mr. Thompson has said 'about Dr. Sprague having part of his church curtained round for persons of color,' and says he notices it 'only because it was told as a specimen story.' In the same connection he evidently endeavors to create the impression that the religious privileges of the free colored people are equal to those of the whites. On this, the Emancipator remarks, 'We can testify to the truth of the story in regard to Dr. Sprague's church; and although every church does not separate the blacks from the whites with so much care, or in precisely the same way, yet it is strictly true, that almost, without exception, the separation is made and carefully kept up, and this not only in the ordinary worship of the Sabbath, but even when the church gather about the table of their crucified and common Lord, to partake of the emblems of his dying love.' And after admitting that colored men have, in a few instances, been admitted to theological seminaries, and to a seat in ecclesiastical bodies, the editor adds, and truly, as all familiar with the facts can testify, 'Such instances, however, are few and far between, and whenever they do occur, the individuals concerned are, in many ways, made to feel their inferiority and to know their place. The impression made by Mr. B's representation would be, as a whole, incorrect.'
Mr. B. asserts, page 110, that the free blacks 'in nearly every part of America,' enjoy all civil rights 'to a degree utterly unknown to millions of British subjects,' in various parts of the empire, and 'even in England itself.' 'It would be easy,' says the Emancipator, 'to show that he is wrong in several particulars.' And then, as one, refers to the fact, that the colored man is not secure in his rights or person, but may be dragged into slavery, even from free states, without a jury trial. This one fact is certainly sufficient to disprove Mr. B's assertion.
'But,' says Mr. B. 'If any rights have been denied them,' as for instance, that of preaching the gospel, 'which Virginia had lately done,' it was all owing to the fury of abolition. See page 110. Yet Stroud cites a law of Virginia, dating back as far as 1819, and being then but the re-enactment of a law before in force, which rendered all assemblies of slaves and free negroes in a meeting house or other place by night, or at any school for teaching reading and writing, by day or night, unlawful assemblies, and subjects any person, slave or free black, found in them, to the punishment of twenty lashes, by order of a justice of the peace. Stroud, page 89.
Mr. B. in the true colonization spirit, takes occasion to slander the colored people, accusing them of 'insolence and imprudence,' and of 'insulting females in the streets of our cities,' and 'setting up claim of perfect domestic equality with their masters,' &c. See page 114. We give the Emancipator's note on this wicked accusation, which is as cruel as it is false. 'This whole representation is false. Nothing can be more so. The modest deportment and the spirit of forbearance manifested by the colored people, from the outset, has been of the most marked as well as praiseworthy character, and in instances not a few, has secured to them the approbation of avowed enemies of the anti-slavery cause.' We add our own testimony, so far as our observation has extended, to the truth of this statement.
In the fifth evening's debate, Mr. B. complains, page 120, that Mr. Thompson 'did not tell them that none of the ministers in twelve whole states were or could easily be slaveholders, seeing they were not inhabitants of a slave state.' And why should he. Would not the mere knowledge of the fact, that 'they were not inhabitants of slave states' render it unnecessary that his hearers should be particularly informed that they were not slaveholders? Does Mr. B. believe that the people of Glasgow supposed Northern ministers to be generally slaveholders? We say generally, for we should not dare to assert that 'none' of them 'were,' whether they 'easily could be' or not. If we have not been misinformed, and we believe we have not, it has been our fortune, good or ill, to hear a northern slaveholding minister preach, a minister too, whose pastoral charge was in the very cradle of this free nation.
'The overwhelming mass of American ministers,' says Mr. B., 'never owned a slave, and those who had, were exceptions from the general rule.' Mr. T. has demolished this position with a most tremendous broadside of evidence. We add the following quotation, which we find in the Emancipator, from a document published a few months ago, by the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. 'The number of our ministers is but little more than half the number of our churches, and of those ministers not one fifth sustain any pastoral relation.' The number of ministers is about 100, 'and many of them are obliged to devote a part or the whole of their time to teaching, farming, or some other secular employment, to procure a support for their families.' Farming we all know, means in the slave states, 'slaveholding and slave-driving.'
Mr. B. seems very indignant at the declarations of his opponent, and Moses Roper, (a colored man who had been present at some of the meetings which Mr. T. addressed,) that slaves in America were owned, not only by ministers and church members, but even by churches themselves. He calls Roper's statement, 'the poor negro's silly falsehood,' and says, page 123, 'If there be above five congregations in all America, that own slaves, I never heard of them.' He then mentions three of which he has heard, all in the Southern part of Virginia. The Emancipator, in a note on this part of Mr. B's speech, remarks, 'True, it is not the general practice for churches or ecclesiastical societies at the South, to own slaves as church property, yet we suppose that the practice is by no means uncommon; and the proof is threefold: first, that a number of instances of the kind are actually known; second, that when such instances do occur, they never produce any special sensation in the public mind—are never spoken of as special and extraordinary cases, and never subjects such church to reproof or the loss of ecclesiastical fellowship with other churches; and third, that ministers very generally at the South hold slaves, and that oftentimes when they are unable to buy for themselves, some kind friend makes them a present of one or two for house servants; and if to the ministry, why not the church?' It then goes on to enumerate two instances, beside those admitted by Mr. B., of churches holding slaves, and one of a bequest of slaves to the Missionary Society, [A. B. C. F. M.] and gives also an advertisement of the sale of certain property 'belonging to the estate of the late Rev. Dr. Truman,' including land, 'a library chiefly theological,' and 'twenty-seven negroes, two mules, one horse, and an old wagon.' The note thus continues, 'And when these notices appeared in the Southern prints, no body was struck with amazement; no protestation was given to the public that they were extraordinary cases; no Christian minister or Christian newspaper, as we are aware, ever lifted their voice against them as rare cases, or bore their testimony against them as being as monstrous as they were rare. What then is the inference? Why, that such things, if not general, are yet never regarded as singular or uncommon. Now add to these; and others that might be named, the cases admitted by Mr. B., and to this, add the fact that Mr. Paxton at least felt that his church in Virginia could emancipate the fifty slaves they owned, but would not, and then say whose statements have most of the "silly falsehoods" about them, those of Mr. B., or the despised but honest-hearted negro?'
Mr. B. seems to regard it as a mighty grievance, that when there are so few slaveholding ministers, church members, and churches in America, his opponent should charge the guilt of slavery upon the whole American church. But why is not the whole church guilty, if any of its members persist in committing the sin, and yet are regarded as worthy members, in regular standing?—if any of its ministers with hands polluted by the abominable thing, are still allowed, without any ecclesiastical censure, not only to dispense the bread of life from the store-house of God's word, but to distribute the emblems of Christ's body and blood, to those who come around the table to commemorate a Saviour's dying love?—if any of its branches, claiming to hold God's image as property, and treating as 'chattels personal,' their Saviour, in the person of 'one of the least of these' his 'brethren,' are fellow-shipped as sister churches, and unreproved for their iniquity? 'Who dare pretend,' asks the Emancipator, 'That the American church does not uphold and countenance Christian slaveholders in their conduct? True, there are individuals, and individual churches not a few, who do not, but who bear a faithful testimony against them. But how is it with the governing influences of the church? Their character and their acts, and not those of a minority, however large or respectable are the character and the acts of the church. What then is the position of the governing influences of the American church in regard to American slavery? It is that of protection and countenance. The proceedings of the last General Convention of the Baptists, and the last General Conference of the Methodists, and the last General Assembly of the Presbyterians are our confirmation—and they are "confirmation strong as holy writ." At this very moment, these three bodies stand before the world as the three great Patrons and Protectors of American slavery. Deny it as they will, the gains of the oppressor, the hire kept back by fraud is in their coffers, the blood of the oppressed stains their garments, and they refuse to confess or forsake their sin.'
Mr. B. would doubtless have thought it very uncharitable to cause a large army of Israelites to turn their backs before their enemies, and suffer a shameful and disastrous defeat, just because there was one Achan in the camp.
We cannot but think that the reverend disputant rather unfortunate in his reference to the book of Drs. Cox and Hoby, (see page 128,) for information about the connection of the Baptists with slavery. In looking there for light on that particular point, the reader might chance to stumble on some things about the wicked prejudice against the black man, as well as some sentiments in regard to the treatment of slaves and free blacks generally, that would ill accord with the expressed notions of the Presbyterian delegate.
On page 133, Mr. B. introduces a letter, published in the N. Y. Observer, and signed Truth, which represents the negroes of South Carolina as 'generally well fed, well clothed,' and enjoying 'the means of religious instruction,' and declares that 'great and increasing efforts are made to instruct them in religion, and elevate their characters.' We request our readers to turn back and read the whole letter, and then to compare it with the following extracts from a report on the subject of the religious instruction of the colored people, published in 1834, by the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. 'We believe that their (the colored population's) moral and religious condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the heathen of this christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in any country in the world.'
'The negroes are destitute of the privileges of the gospel, and ever will be, under the present state of things. There were some exceptions to this, the Synod say, and they "rejoice" in it; but although our assertion is broad, we believe that, in general, it will be found to be correct.'
'They can have no access to the the scriptures. They are dependent for their knowledge of Christianity, upon oral instruction. Have they then that amount of oral instruction, which, in their circumstances, is necessary to their enjoyment of the gospel? They have not. From an entire state beyond the Potomac to the Sabine, and from the Atlantic to the Ohio, there are, to the best of our knowledge, not twelve men exclusively devoted to the religious instruction of the negroes.'
The report then goes on to say that 'the negroes do not have access to the gospel through the stated ministry of the whites,' that 'a very small proportion of the ministers in the slaveholding states, pay any attention to them,' that 'they have no churches, neither is there sufficient room for their accommodation in white churches,' and that, in some cases, for want of a place within, 'the negroes who attend, must catch the gospel as it escapes by the doors and windows.' 'We venture to say,' the report continues, 'that not a twentieth part of the negroes attend divine worship on the Sabbath. Thousands and thousands hear not the sound of the gospel, or ever enter a church from one year to another.'
The report says too, that they 'do not enjoy the privileges of the gospel in private, at their houses, or on their plantations. If the master is pious, the house servants alone, and frequently few or none of these attend family worship. In general it does not enter into the arrangement of the plantations, to make provision for their religious instruction. We feel warranted, therefore, in the conclusion, that the negroes are destitute of the privileges of the gospel, and must continue to be so, if nothing more is done for them.'
'We are astonished,' say the Synod, 'thus to find Christianity in absolute conjunction with Heathenism, and yet conferring few or no benefits.'
Our readers, after comparing the above with the letter read by Mr. B., can decide how much right the author of that letter had to sign it 'Truth.'
Mr. B., page 155, endeavors to escape the force of the immense weight of evidence with which his antagonist presses him to the earth, by sneering at the witnesses as 'obscure,' and for aught that could be known, 'fictitious persons,' although the names are generally given, and yet he quotes evidence to sustain himself, which is absolutely anonymous. See page 132. The Emancipator pertinently asks, 'Can Mr. B. tell us who "Truth" and "A New England man" are? Or are the persons as "fictitious" as their stories?'
Upon Mr. B.'s assertion that Mr. Thompson's testimonies were of this worthless character, the Emancipator has the following note. 'We beg our readers to stop here, and go back and count the documents, and they will find that the very reverse of what Mr. B. has stated is the fact; and that while Mr. B.'s main proofs are, first, his own assertions, and, second, the assertion of individuals, or of anonymous writers in partisan newspapers, Mr. Thompson's main proofs are the formal resolutions and declarations of ecclesiastical bodies, and of those who represent the governing influence in church and state, and that the testimony of individuals, so far as it is used, is brought in only as confirmatory of the other.'
On page 158, Mr. B. attacks Mr. J. A. Thome of Kentucky, with characteristic virulence, because, in a speech at an Anti-Slavery meeting, that young man had boldly exposed the abominations of slavery in his native state. For this act his slanderer calls him 'the ingrate who commenced his career of manhood, by smiting his parent in the face.' But he cautiously avoids attempting—what he was doubtless sensible would be a somewhat difficult task—to disprove the statements of Mr. Thome. It is a little remarkable that the facts stated by Thome, and denied by Mr. B. and his brother at the time, were confirmed abundantly by an article published in the Western Luminary, a Kentucky paper, on the very day on which Mr. Thome made his statement in New York. Thus without any concert or arrangement, two witnesses at a long distance from each other, testified to the same facts, and unfortunately for the credibility of Mr. Breckinridge, those were the facts which he was almost at the same time stoutly denying. Other witnesses of unimpeachable veracity, have since attested the same facts, and now Mr. B.'s impotent efforts to discredit Mr. Thome, only serve to show his own vexation, malignity and falsehood.
We do not pretend to have noticed all the slips of Mr. B.'s 'unruly member' in this discussion, or to have pointed out every instance in which he has labored with all that ability and ingenuity which we readily admit he possesses, to create false impressions on the minds of his audience; but enough have been pointed out to show in some measure, the degree of confidence which ought to be reposed in his veracity as a witness and his candor and fairness as a reasoner.
A few trifling errors into which Mr. Thompson has fallen, we feel bound to correct; in proceeding to which, however, we cannot but remark that considering the shortness of the time which Mr. T. spent among us, the amount of labor which he performed in lecturing, addressing conventions, debating, &c. &c. and the large portion of his time necessarily consumed in social intercourse with his extensive circle of acquaintance—nay, the very considerable share of it which was required for the mere answering of applications to lecture, which came from every quarter; we are actually astonished at the extent and minuteness of his information, the mass of facts and documents which he has contrived to collect, and what is more, at the general—the almost uniform accuracy of his knowledge of American affairs. The reader has seen how completely furnished he was, how armed at all points, and ever ready to lay his hand on the very weapon which was needed at any stage of the conflict, whether to parry the blow aimed at himself, or to send home to his antagonist's bosom, a vigorous thrust which neither the dexterity of sophistry could elude, nor the buckler of brazen falsehood ward off. Indeed the mass of his documents, and the readiness and aptness to the purpose with which he used them, seems to have been one of the chief causes of the bitter vexation which his opponent continually betrays. That he should have fallen into a few mistakes is nothing surprising—that he should have fallen into so few, is indeed wonderful, and proves the industry and diligence with which he labored at times when from the fatiguing nature, and great amount of his public efforts, one would have supposed he must have been obliged to indulge in perfect repose. But to the errors.
He stated the first evening, page 12, that there were now, exclusive of the publications of the Anti-Slavery Society, one hundred newspapers boldly advocating the principles of abolition. 'There are,' says the Emancipator, 'about that number friendly to our cause, and that occasionally speak in our behalf, but not that boldly advocate our principles,' or, as perhaps would be the more accurate mode of expression, that do not boldly advocate our principles, in their application to the subject to which we apply them.
On the second evening, Mr. Thompson in speaking of the New York State Anti-Slavery Convention, page 30, said there were 600 delegates at Utica the first day, and that when driven away by a mob, these went to Peterboro', and were there joined by 400 more, making 1000 in all. In reality, it was estimated that nearly or quite 1000 went to Utica, and of these only about 400 went to Peterboro'. The error is indeed immaterial.
In the fourth evening's debate, Mr. T. alluding to Kaufman's slanderous story about him, calls Kaufman 'the son of a slaveholder, and heir to slave property.' Such was supposed to be the case, and we were not aware that this supposition was erroneous, till we met, in the Emancipator's note to this remark of Mr. T., an intimation that this report had been contradicted. 'Mr. K. is from Virginia,' says the note, 'but we believe not a slaveholder or heir to slave property.'
These are all the errors we have observed in the statements of Mr. Thompson, and these are of so little moment that we should not have considered them worthy of notice in his opponent.
It is perhaps unnecessary in concluding, formally to acknowledge, what the reader cannot fail to have perceived, our large indebtedness to the editor of the Emancipator for aid in the preparation of this appendix. The truth is, our hands are at this time so plentifully filled with business, that we have had but little time, to spare for this work, and were glad to avail ourselves of the labors of one who had, to such good purpose, just gone over the ground before us.
C. C. BURLEIGH.
Boston, Sept. 22, 1836.
FOOTNOTES
[A] Called indented apprentices, but from the connection in which it stands in the census, we infer that they are virtually slaves.
[B] See Gurley's Life of Ashmun, page 139.
[C] Speech of Henry Clay. Tenth Annual Report of the American Colonization Society.