We believe, therefore, that if we succeed in abolitionizing the North, we shall the South. Were the North already abolitionized, we should do all the good specified above. We should preserve our own liberties, virtue and religion, and save the South from man’s greatest curse, his own voluntary wickedness. Is it not, then, desirable that our sentiments should prevail? Do they not carry with them the clearest credentials of truth—the very best practical tendencies? Is it not the grossest hypocrisy in the North to pretend hostility to Slavery, when she refuses to do the good which she would rejoice to do, were she a convert to abolitionism? Is it not a crime in her to fight against the diffusion of these sentiments? In one word—ought not the Abolitionists to do all they can, in a constitutional and christian manner, to propagate their views?
Success at the North is certain; for she has an interest in destroying Slavery: her political principles are opposed to it; and the great mass of her citizens are intelligent and virtuous, unbought by southern patronage, and accustomed to abhor cruelty and injustice. Our success is also written in the desperate, but ineffectual endeavors of the opposition, to prevent the agitation of the subject. By their own showing, Slavery cannot endure the light of free inquiry. If northern abettors of Slavery were not convinced, that the discussion will inevitably abolitionize the mass of the people, they would rely on argument rather than on lawless violence. Our progress too, has already been astonishing. In the course of three years nearly a thousand Anti-Slavery Societies have been organized; many enemies have become friends, and many opposers, the able advocates of our cause. The prejudices of the people have been softened, and thousands are now on the eve of joining us, who lately were our most bitter antagonists. We have made all this progress notwithstanding the abuse of the political and commercial press has been heaped upon us without measure, and no man could join us but at the peril of his reputation, if not also his life and property. We are, therefore, encouraged to persevere. What have we to accomplish, which we have not in part achieved, while our powers and facilities are constantly augmenting.
VINDICATION OF MEASURES.
We propose to convert the country to our views by measures which some of our opponents, (ashamed to deny our doctrines,) allege to be the principal ground of their dissent. We think they have failed to make a proper distinction between our measures and the abuse of these measures. The constitutional action of Congress, the pulpit, the press, public debate, private conversation, anti-slavery societies, these are our measures. If any of our associates, through human infirmity, prosecute any of these measures in ill-temper or with indiscretion, we regret and condemn it. The measures themselves, and the prosecution of them we approve, and shall now attempt to vindicate.
Some object to our organizing Anti-Slavery Societies, which in our opinion they would not do, if they wished well to our enterprise. For it is manifest that union gives us strength, influence, courage, money and other facilities for carrying on the work; it lays a foundation for concentrated, permanent, economical effort. Societies have their stated and occasional meetings, without giving offence and provoking popular violence. They animate each other by friendly correspondence, and prosecute their work systematically and vigorously, by the gratuitous labors of their most enlightened members. A general organization will enable us to petition the various legislative bodies in behalf of human rights, with unanimity and regularity, until our objects are gained. We see other ends to be secured by it. There is no disputing our constitutional right to adopt this measure; which we believe any men of common sense would adopt in our circumstances. Even the wisdom of Christ sanctions the measure, for what is his church but a society formed for the purpose of converting men to the truth and progressively sanctifying them? Nor do we see how we can testify to the South our abhorrence of Slavery unless we form societies for the purpose. Had none been formed, it might be doubted whether there are a thousand decided Abolitionists in the country. It would be said in Congress and believed at the South, that we are few in numbers, and constantly becoming fewer and more contemptible. The existence and rapidly increasing number of our societies precludes the possibility of such misrepresentations and mistakes. As soon as our plan is completed, in the formation of a flourishing society in each village of the free states, embodying a majority of the people, the South will know what our public sentiment is. It will be concentrated upon her. She will feel it. We learn from intelligent sources, that the general opinion at the South now is, that all the citizens of the North who are not Abolitionists, sympathize with the slave-holders. It is natural they should think so. We must, therefore, rank ourselves with the Abolitionists, by joining an Anti-Slavery Society, if we would give our decided testimony against the GREAT SOUTHERN SIN.
Some object to our employing itinerant lecturers. We think they would not object, if they had considered the matter with friendly feelings. The subject of Slavery has so many relations in this country, and involves so many questions in morals, in biblical literature, in constitutional law, in political economy, in history, and other departments of learning, that our stated clergy, have not sufficient time for its thorough investigation, were they disposed to make it. We ought not to expect of them more than a faithful exposition of the testimony of God against Slavery, and in favor of immediate emancipation. As a general rule, they can do no more. We need an extensive and thorough discussion of the whole subject. Nor are all our clergymen yet Abolitionists. Some are with us; others are against us. This was to be expected. The subject has but just come before the public mind. It found almost all our ministers colonizationists. It would have been surprising, if they had all embraced our views at the first blush, without discussion. We don’t do things so in Connecticut. Hereafter we doubt not they will all join us; but in the interim, we must employ itinerant lecturers, if we would disseminate what we believe to be the truth. And who will be harmed by it? The truth will hurt no one; and even “error,” we quote the words of Jefferson, “may safely be tolerated, so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Some think it an interference with the rights of the stated ministry to introduce an itinerant lecturer, without the advice and consent of the settled pastor. How so? Suppose there are several clergymen in the same village. One of them being an Abolitionist does all he can, by conversation, the distribution of papers, and public lectures, to make the people Abolitionists, without distinction of sect or party. Is that an interference with the rights of the other pastors? No; such a course has never been thought so. Nor is there the least difference in the two cases. The several churches introduce these pastors to be their teachers. We, the Abolitionists, another body of people, introduce a man to teach on a particular subject. We have the right; he has a right to come; therefore no right is violated.[1]
Some object to our employing severe epithets in speaking of Slavery and slave-holders. They say our condemnation is too hard, denunciatory and indiscriminate. We wish all who allege this against us would illustrate their meaning and sustain their charge by quoting the offensive expressions. It would put them to great inconvenience. They may think the language “hard” and “too hard,” when it barely expresses what ought to be said, and cannot be better said. We do indeed tell slave-holders their sins plainly, calling things by their right names; but it is only in the conclusion of an argument to prove the charge, that we justify making it. Nor is our language any harder than the sober language of moral philosophers, and of the most eminent fathers of the church. Wesley says: “You, [the slave-holder,] first acted the villain in making them slaves, whether you stole them or bought them.” “This equally concerns all slave-holders, of whatever rank and degree: seeing men-buyers are exactly on a level with men-stealers.” The younger President Edwards says: “To hold a man in a state of Slavery is to be every day guilty of robbing him of his liberty, or of man-stealing.” Grotius says: “Those are men-stealers, who abduct, keep, sell or buy slaves or freemen. To steal a man is the highest kind of theft.” Adam Clarke says: “Among the heathen Slavery was in some sort excusable; among christians it is AN ENORMITY AND A CRIME FOR WHICH PERDITION HAS SCARCELY AN ADEQUATE STATE OF PUNISHMENT.” We use no language more hard, more true, or more indiscriminate. We think these great men understood how to do good, at least as well as our critics. We are also fully persuaded, that the South is far less incensed at our language than at our sentiments. She is indignant at what we say, not the manner of saying it. Dr. Channing had this vulgar prejudice, that we were injuring our cause by using abusive language. And Mr. Leigh of Virginia, took the very book, in which he reproves us, and quoted passages which he declared in the United States Senate, rivalled the most insulting language of Garrison. So difficult is it to tell the truth about Slavery in palatable terms.
We are also censured for sending pictures to the South illustrative of the horrors of Slavery. We do indeed employ the art of painting, as well as the arts of printing and speaking, to awaken sympathy for the Slave; but our pictures are designed for the North, not the South. Though some of them may find their way there, they are never sent to the slaves, are not apt to fall into their hands, and not adapted to make them uneasy and turbulent. Were they painted as large as life, and set up at the corner of every street and on every plantation, the sole effect would be to awe the slaves into subjection, by reminding them of the consequences of disobedience.
We are accused of sending papers to the slaves. The charge is false. Our publications are sent exclusively to the free white population. Were it in our power to send to the slaves, we should indeed rejoice at it. If they could read and the mails would carry them papers, we would prepare tracts on purpose for them, explaining the doctrines and duties of christianity, inculcating the forgiveness of injuries, the patient endurance of wrong, the faithful service of their masters, until such time as they can be made free. We would even send them the Bible, which says: “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages and giveth him not for his work.” Jer. xxii, 13.