Letters to Catherine E. Beecher, in reply to an essay on slavery and abolitionism, addressed to A. E. Grimké

by Angelina Emily Grimké

LETTER X.
‘THE TENDENCY OF THE AGE TOWARDS EMANCIPATION’ PRODUCED BY ABOLITION DOCTRINES.

Dear Friend: Thou sayest, ‘that this evil (Slavery,) is at no distant period to come to an end, is the unanimous opinion of all who either notice the tendencies of the age, or believe in the prophecies of the Bible.’ But how can this be true, if Abolitionists have indeed rolled back the car of Emancipation? If our measures really tend to this result, how can this evil come to an end at no distant period? Colonizationists tell us, if it had not been for our interference, they could have done a vast deal better than they have done; and the American Unionists say, that we have paralyzed their efforts, so that they can do nothing; and yet ‘the tendencies of the age’ are crowding forward Emancipation. Now, what has produced this tendency? Surely every reflecting person must acknowledge, that Colonization cannot effect the work of Abolition. The American Union is doing nothing; and Abolitionists are pursuing a course which ‘will tend to bring slavery to an end, if at all, at the most distant period,’—then do tell me, how the tendencies of the age can possibly lean towards Emancipation! Perhaps I shall be told, that the movements of Great Britain in the West Indies created this tendency. Ah! but this is a foreign influence, more so even than Northern influence; and if the North is ‘a foreign community,’ as thou expressly stylest it, and can on that account produce no influence on the South, how can the doings of England affect her?

Now I believe with thee, that the tendencies of the age are toward Emancipation; but I contend that nothing but free discussion has produced this tendency—‘the present agitation of the subject’ is in fact the thing which is producing this happy tendency. Now let us turn to the South, and ask her eagle-eyed politicians what they are most afraid of. Read their answer in their desperate struggles to fetter the press and gag the mouths of—whom?—Colonizationists? Why no—they talk colonization themselves, and are not at all afraid that the expatriation of a few hundreds or thousands in 20 years will ever drain the country of its millions of slaves, where they are now increasing at the rate of 70,000 every year. The American Unionists? O no! the South has not deemed them worthy of any notice! Pray, then, whose mouths are slaveholders so fiercely striving to seal in silence? Why, the mouths of Abolitionists, to be sure—even our infant school children know this. Strange indeed, when the labors of these men are actually rolling back the car of Emancipation for one or two centuries! Why, the South ought to pour out her treasure, to support Anti-Slavery agents, and print Anti-Slavery papers and pamphlets, and do all she can to aid us in rolling back Emancipation. Pray, write her a book, and tell her she has been very needlessly alarmed at our doings, and advise her to send us a few thousand dollars: her money would be very acceptable in these hard times, and we would take it as the wages due to the unpaid laborers, though we would never admit the donors to membership with us. How dost thou think she would receive such a book? Just try it, I entreat thee.

Thou seemest to think that the North has no right to rebuke the South, and assumest the ground that Abolitionists are the enemies of the South. We say, we have the right, and mean to exercise it. I believe that every northern Legislature has a right, and ought to use the right, to send a solemn remonstrance to every southern Legislature on the subject of slavery. Just as much right as the South has to send up a remonstrance against our free presses, free pens, and free tongues. Let the North follow her example; but, instead of asking her to enslave her subjects, entreat her to free them. The South may pretend now, that we have no right to interfere, because it suits her convenience to say so; but a few years ago, (1820,) we find that our Vice President, R. M. Johnson, in his speech on the Missouri question, was amazed at the ‘cold insensibility, the eternal apathy towards the slaves in the District of Columbia,’ which was exhibited by northern men, ‘though they had occular demonstration continually’ before them of the abominations of slavery. Then the South wondered we did not interfere with slavery—and now she says we have no right to interfere.

I find, on the 57th p. a false assertion with regard to Abolitionists. After showing the folly of our rejecting the worldly doctrine of expediency, so excellent in thy view, thou then sayest that we say, the reason why we do not go to the South is, that we should be murdered. Now, if there are any half-hearted Abolitionists, who are thus recreant to the high and holy principle of ‘Duty is ours, and events are God’s,’ then I must leave such to explain their own inconsistencies; but that this is the reason assigned by the Society, as a body, I never have seen nor believed. So far from it, that I have invariably heard those who understood the principles of the Anti-Slavery Society best, deny that it was a duty to go to the South, not because they would be killed, but because the North was guilty, and therefore ought to be labored with first. They took exactly the same view of the subject, which was taken by the southern friend of mine to whom I have already alluded. ‘Until northern women, (said she,) do their duty on the subject of slavery, southern women cannot be expected to do theirs.’ I therefore utterly deny this charge. Such may be the opinion of a few, but it is not and cannot be proved to be a principle of action in the Anti-Slavery Society. The fact is, we need no excuse for not going to the South, so long as the North is as deeply involved in the guilt of slavery as she is, and as blind to her duty.

One word with regard to these remarks: ‘Before the Abolition movements commenced, both northern and southern men expressed their views freely at the South.’ This, also, I deny, because, as a southerner, I know that I never could express my views freely on the abominations of slavery, without exciting anger, even in professors of religion. It is true, ‘the dangers, evils and mischiefs of slavery’ could be, and were discussed at the South and the North. Yes, we might talk as much as we pleased about these, as long as we viewed slavery as a misfortune to the slaveholder, and talked of ‘the dangers, evils and mischiefs of slavery’ to him, and pitied him for having had such a ‘sad inheritance entailed upon him.’ But could any man or woman ever ‘express their views freely’ on the SIN of slavery at the South? I say, never! Could they express their views freely as to the dangers, mischiefs and evils of slavery to the poor suffering slave? No, never! It was only whilst the slaveholder was regarded as an unfortunate sufferer, and sympathized with as such, that he was willing to talk, and be talked to, on this ‘delicate subject.’ Hence we find, that as soon as he is addressed as a guilty oppressor, why then he is in a phrenzy of passion. As soon as we set before him the dangers, and evils, and mischiefs of slavery to the down-trodden victims of his oppression, O then! the slaveholder storms and raves like a maniac. Now look at this view of the subject: as a southerner, I know it is the only correct one.

With regard to the discussion of ‘the subject of slavery, in the legislative halls of the South,’ if thou hast read these debates, thou certainly must know that they did not touch on the SIN of slavery at all; they were wholly confined to ‘the dangers, evils and mischiefs of slavery’ to the unfortunate slaveholder. What did the discussion in the Virginia legislature result in? In the rejection of every plan of emancipation, and in the passage of an act which they believed would give additional permanency to the institution, whilst it divested it of its dangers, by removing the free people of color to Liberia; for which purpose they voted $20,000, but took very good care to provide, ‘that no slave to be thereafter emancipated should have the benefit of the appropriation,’ so fearful were they, lest masters might avail themselves of this scheme of expatriation to manumit their slaves. The Maryland scheme is altogether based on the principle of banishment and oppression. The colored people were to be ‘got rid of,’ for the benefit of their lordly oppressors—not set free from the noble principles of justice and mercy to them. If Abolitionists have put a stop to all such discussions of slavery, I, for one, do most heartily rejoice at it. The fact is, the South is enraged, because we have exposed her horrible hypocrisy to the world. We have torn off the mask, and brought to light the hidden things of darkness.

To prove to thee that the South, as a body, never was prepared for emancipation, I might detail historical facts, which are stubborn things; but I have not the time to go into this subject that would be necessary. I will, therefore, give a few extracts from documents published by the old Abolition Societies, whose principle was gradualism. In 1803, in the report of the Delaware Society, I find the following statement:—‘The general temper and opinion of the opulent in this state, is either opposed to the generous principles of emancipation to the people of color, or indifferent to the success of the work.’ In 1804, when a Committee was appointed to draft a memorial to the Legislature of North Carolina, we find the following sentiment expressed in their Report:—‘They believe that public opinion in that state is exceedingly hostile to the abolition of slavery; and every attempt towards emancipation is regarded with an indignant and jealous eye; that at present, the inhabitants of that State consider the preservation of their lives, and all they hold dear on earth, as depending on the continuance of slavery, and are even riveting more firmly the fetters of oppression.’ ‘They believe that great difficulty would attend the presentation of an address to the public, and that, if presented, it would not be read.’ The address was, however, issued, and in it we find this complaint—‘Many aspersions have been cast upon the advocates of the freedom of the blacks, by malicious and interested men.’ In 1805, in the Report of the Alexandria Society, District of Columbia, they say—‘There is rather a disposition to increase the measure of affliction already appointed to the poor deserted African:’ and complain of the decline of the Society, for which they assign several reasons, one of which is, ‘the admission of slaveholders into fellowship at its formation.’ Several of the Reports state, that they fully learned the impolicy of this measure, by the violent opposition which these slaveholding members made to their efforts for emancipation. Just as well might a Temperance Society admit a practical drunkard into their ranks, as for an Abolition Society to admit a slaveholder to membership.