The foregoing are current objections to specific measures of the Abolitionists. There are other objections of a more general and sweeping character, which go to condemn all our measures, calling upon us to disband our societies, to dismiss our agents, to break up our printing presses, and interfere in no way with Southern Slavery. We can give these only a brief notice.
It is a current objection to our enterprise, that Slavery is no concern of ours: that the South alone is interested in the subject, and we have no right to interfere. Interference is a very indefinite term. We acknowledge we have no right to interfere by force of arms; and have ever disclaimed the intention of interfering, except by the constitutional and peaceable action of Congress, and the application of truth to the hearts and consciences of our southern brethren. As to our having no right to interfere in this manner, because Slavery is no concern of ours, it is a strange doctrine to be promulgated in the nineteenth century by republicans and christians. What interest had we in the struggle of Greece and Poland with Turkish and Russian despotism? What concern have we in the moral and political degradation of the Hindoo, Hottentot and Chinese? We have the answer in the motto of the christian church: Our country is the world, our countrymen mankind. As christians we are concerned for the spiritual welfare of all classes at the South; the great mass of whom are now sunk in infidelity and vice. Their alarming destitution of the means of religion, and the general corruption of their morals, are justly attributed to Slavery. What would become of the virtue, intelligence and religious institutions of Meriden, if all the real estate and all the inhabitants of the town, were held as property by one man? He might be an infidel; and if he were a christian, what dependence could be placed on him to support the gospel, or what confidence would the oppressed people have in his religion? Such is the state of things at the South. Slavery not only creates a distaste for true religion, but withdraws from its support the laboring class, which in every free country, embodies a great proportion of the most devoted and liberal christians. There is also much in the habits which Slavery fosters, to indispose pious youth to enter the ministry and to disqualify them for its laborious duties; while many who enter upon the work, abandon it for secular pursuits, or remove to the free states, where they can preach the whole gospel with more security and success. Not only must a slave-holding community be destitute of men and means to make known the way of salvation, but the preaching of the gospel will generally be inefficacious with all classes; with the masters, for Slavery fosters in them the worst passions of human nature, affords them facilities for the unbounded indulgence of their appetites, and relieves them from the necessity of personal exertion for a livelihood; with the poor white population, for Slavery accumulates the wealth of the community in a few hands, renders free labor disreputable, and multiplies temptations to low and degrading vices; with the free people of color, for Slavery holds most of them in a state of abject poverty, ignorance and sin; with the slaves, for Slavery robs them of the bible, of self-control, of hope, of parent, wife and child, of the best motives to be virtuous, and of the best evidences of christianity; it makes them vicious; it makes them sceptics. We are concerned for these perishing millions.
Slavery is a concern of ours for it involves our personal interests. It throws back upon us a moral pestilence; it scatters the seeds of intemperance, licentiousness, and infidelity; it popularizes gambling, Sabbath breaking, profaneness and lawless violence; it casts an undeserved stigma on manual labor, it encourages idleness and prodigality. It disgraces us in the eyes of the whole world; it impairs our national strength; it encroaches on the spirit of liberty; it is constantly undermining our free institutions. The northern states have no greater enemy. Were Slavery abolished, her religion, her morals, her liberties, her general prosperity would be far more secure. The chief source of danger to the integrity of our union, and to our domestic tranquility would be removed; a greater market would be opened for our manufactures, and a wider field for our industry and enterprise; the emancipated slaves would purchase our goods, and our youth could enter into competition with the sons of the South in raising cotton, &c. without becoming slave-holders. Labor would soon cease to be disgraceful; property would accumulate in every part of the land; education would flourish; religion would revive; the entire country would rejoice in peace and plenty under the smiles of an approving providence. Tell us not, that we have no concern in removing the greatest sin, curse and shame of the nation, and in securing for ourselves and our posterity, a truly free and virtuous government.
It is said that Slavery is an agitating subject, which cannot be discussed without disturbing the peace and harmony of our churches. Why so? This subject can be discussed in the churches in Great Britain without discord and division. We think it could be here, were it not for the corruption of our public sentiment, which can be corrected only by free discussion. It is where the truth needs most to be heard, that it creates most opposition and variance. Primitive christianity was accused of turning the world upside down. The temperance cause has occasioned strife, and separated “very friends.” We hold to the Apostolic injunction: “first pure, then peaceable.” We love a virtuous peace. A truce with sin we abhor. If we must surrender our liberties, and connive at iniquity, to avoid a war, we say with Patrick Henry, “The war is inevitable, and let it come; I repeat it, sir, let it come.” Who does not see that if polygamy were common in our churches, it would create a terrible excitement to preach against it, and lead to the dismission of pastors? Yet any one would acknowledge, that religion could never prosper, while the church was so corrupt; and that she had better be torn into ten thousand fragments, than that polygamy should continue in vogue; for she would soon be re-organized in greater purity and strength. So it is with a slave-holding Church; and with a Church in which the spirit of Slavery is so rife, that she will not live in peace with her Anti-Slavery members, nor tolerate the exercise of their Constitutional rights. But we do not believe this of our Churches. We think the more this “delicate and agitating” subject is discussed among us, the less unpleasant excitement will prevail.
It is said that our measures to overthrow Slavery are unconstitutional. Our opponents may easily test this question by bringing it before the U. S. Court. We claim to be acting constitutionally. Our plan of operations is essentially the same as that pursued by the early Anti-Slavery Societies, of which such men as John Jay, Benj. Franklin, Benj. Rush, and Jonathan Edwards, were active members; some of whom were engaged in forming our federal Constitution. Did they not understand that instrument? Did their contemporaries ever dispute their right to discuss the merits of Slavery? Have not our citizens, from time immemorial and without restriction, exercised this right? Does not the Constitution, instead of guaranteeing Slavery against this moral influence, guarantee to us the right of employing it, by forbidding Congress to pass any law abridging the freedom of speech and of the press?
We are told our measures are an invasion of the rights of property. This objection assumes, what nature denies, that man may be rightfully held as property. Blackstone maintains in his Commentaries, that man cannot be reduced by any just process to a state of absolute Slavery; that he cannot be born in that state, nor sell himself into it, nor be placed there when taken captive in war, without flagrant injustice. We also hold it to be self-evident, that all men are born free and equal, and entitled to certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Slave owns himself by grant of his Creator. Slavery is, therefore, an invasion of his rights of property. It is the slave-master who makes an aggression on the property of others, not we, who exhort him to relinquish that property. The Slaves being the rightful owners of themselves, the abolition of Slavery is merely an act declarative of this indisputable title. Nor do we seek the destruction of Slavery, except through the constitutional authorities. Even were the slaves the property of their masters, it would be lawful for us to persuade them to part with it. Would it not? The Legislatures of the several states have a right to abolish Slavery. Have they not? It has hitherto been conceded, that the law making power of every slave-holding country has this right. May we not then persuade the states to exercise it, by convincing them of the moral wrong and frightful impolicy of Slavery? Should it be said that the government encouraged its citizens to invest property under the protection of the slave code, and therefore ought not to abolish Slavery without indemnifying them, our answer is, that mankind are under a paramount obligation not to invest property under the protection of immoral laws; that all such laws are in their nature null and void from the beginning; that governments have always exercised the power of correcting abuses; and there is no greater abuse than Slavery; none more unjust and oppressive; none more pernicious and perilous to our national interests.
Some object, that the abolition of Slavery on our plan, without compensation to the masters, would be taking away the bread of poor widows and orphans. We have no plan. We say only, that Slavery is wrong, and ought forthwith to be abandoned. The South will adopt and prosecute her own plan. When her Legislatures abolish Slavery, they can, if they will, provide for widows and children, who are left destitute by that act. If they will not do it, we will raise contributions for their relief; for we deem the claims of charity, nearly as imperative as the claims of justice. But we can never sanction the principle of Slavery, by saying, that slave-holders have a right to compensation for restoring to the slaves their stolen rights. We must always consider it a greater hardship to be unjustly held as a slave, than to be made poor by freeing such slave. It is a sad blunder in morals, that this man may make that man, perhaps fifty other men, poor for life, lest he himself should be a pauper; that this man may make that man poor by dishonesty, lest he himself should become poor by being honest.
No objection to our measures is more senseless, or more common, than an alleged tendency to dissolve the Union. Which had we better surrender, the Union or our liberties? The Union is a curse instead of a blessing, if we must surrender for it, freedom of speech and personal protection in any part of the country. And if Slavery continues to be protected by public sentiment, and by popular violence, how long could the Union last, even were all the abolitionists this day laid in their graves? Slavery endangers the integrity of the Union, more than all other enemies; and unless soon destroyed, will be the destroyer both of it and us. If we love the Union, we should labor to overthrow Slavery. Wesley somewhere defines fanaticism, to be the expectation of accomplishing ends without the use of means. Let us not hope for the peaceable destruction of Slavery, by such a fanatical course. Let us do something; and if we do any thing, what can be done which the abolitionists are not attempting? In doing this we shall not peril the Union, but preserve it. The South will never venture on the mad experiment of secession, because the North is opposed to Slavery. Such an act would be suicidal. It would encourage the slaves to revolt. It would leave her defenceless against the invasion of a foreign foe. It would release us from the constitutional obligation to suppress domestic violence, and to restore fugitives from service. It would open several thousand miles of frontier, over which her slaves would escape into a land of liberty. It would make the south “a good country to emigrate from,” and she would find herself losing her best citizens, and her condition becoming more and more exposed and perilous. She would be ruined. She knows it. Were our legislators in Congress to retort her stereotyped threat to dissolve the Union, with a challenge to do it, if she dares, we should hear no more of this empty bravado.
It is said, if our measures should be successful, the slaves would resort to the North, and coming up upon our farms, and into our shops, like the frogs of Egypt, reduce the wages of our laborers. No apprehension is more groundless. The free colored people of the South are quite numerous, and very much oppressed; yet few of them leave that part of the country; though the whites would be very glad to have them do so, because they render the slaves uneasy, and come into competition with slave labor. But were slavery abolished, the whites would desire to retain all the colored people, in order to employ them in cultivating the soil; precisely as is now the case in the West Indies. Nor would the slaves be willing to leave the land of their nativity, and of their kindred, to reside in the cold regions of the north, to the business and climate of which they are uninured, and where they must labor more severely to obtain a comfortable living. But should they come, what then? Do you prefer perpetual slavery?
It is also objected to our enterprise, that the immediate abolition of slavery, would be “letting the slaves loose” to be idlers, vagabonds, thieves, and cut-throats. This objection is more forcible against gradual emancipation, which would throw upon society a multitude of freedmen, while the rest of their brethren still remained in bondage. The holders of slaves would not encourage the free by giving them labor; who would, therefore, be more apt to be idle and vicious; while their release would excite uneasiness in the minds of the unemancipated. The objection is also equally strong against prospective emancipation, according to which the slaves would all be set free at once; but not until some time after the passage of the act. Experience and human nature both teach us, that slaves under such circumstances are more apt to be overworked, than to be better prepared for the enjoyment of freedom. The objection is, therefore, good for perpetual slavery, or good for nothing. It is good for nothing. Immediate emancipation would indeed deliver the slave and his family at once from the hands of an irresponsible master, and empower him to go where he pleases and do what he pleases, so long as he breaks none of the laws which restrain other men. And why not? He could not otherwise rejoin his wife and children, whom the slave trade has torn from him, nor secure fair wages, nor be safe from oppression. But this is not letting him loose to do evil. The laws of slavery let the masters loose upon the slaves, instead of the abolition of slavery letting the slaves loose upon the masters. Were there a law authorizing the inhabitants of Meriden to seize the inhabitants of Berlin, to confine them to jail limits, and work them without wages, to separate husbands and wives, parents and children, and even to kill them by that very indefinite thing, called “moderate correction;” this law would let the inhabitants of Meriden loose upon the inhabitants of Berlin; for it would protect the former in the grossest outrages upon the latter. But the repeal of this law would not let the inhabitants of Berlin loose upon us. Extending them protection would not be letting them loose upon us. Had we the power of repealing the law; or if not, possessing the power of not enforcing it, we should find our security in doing so. The very way to make them respect our rights, would be to respect theirs. Immediate emancipation places the slaves under the control as well as protection of the laws of the State against idleness, vagrancy, theft, murder, and all other aggressions on the rights of men.