Discussion on American Slavery

by George Thompson; Robert J. Breckinridge

Mr. THOMPSON, on rising, observed that no one could be more ready than himself to commend the gentleman who had just resumed his seat for the courage which he had shewn in dealing so frankly and faithfully with him, (Mr. T.) in the presence of those to whom he (Mr. B.) was comparatively a stranger, and whose favorable opinion he (Mr. T.) had had many opportunities of conciliating. He rejoiced that his opponent had, towards the end of his speech, attempted to state facts and specify charges, and had thus afforded him an opportunity of showing how completely and triumphantly he could meet the charges brought against himself personally, and support the statements he had made in reference to America. He would commence with the Andover story about cutting throats. The truth of the matter was this. A student in the Theological Seminary of the name of A. F. Kaufman, Jr., charged him, George Thompson, with having said, in a private conversation, that every slave-holder ought to have his throat cut, and that if the abolitionists preached what they ought to preach, they would tell every slave to cut his master's throat. Mr. Kaufman was from Virginia, the son of a slave-holder, and heir to slave property. The story was first circulated in Andover, and was afterwards published in the New-York Commercial Advertiser, in a communication dated from the Saratoga Springs. In reply to the printed version, I (said Mr. T.) printed a letter denying the charge in the most solemn manner, and referring to my numerous public addresses, and innumerable private conversations, in proof of the perfectly pacific character of my views. Then came forth a long statement from Mr. Kaufman, with a certificate to his veracity and general good character, signed by professors Woods, Stuart, and Emerson, of Andover. Here the matter must have rested—Mr. Kaufman's charge on one side, and my denial on the other—had the conversation been strictly private; but, fortunately for me, there were witnesses of every word; and this brings me to notice other circumstances connected with the affair, constituting a most complete contradiction of the charge. I was staying at the time under the roof of the Rev. Shipley W. Willson, the minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Andover, and when I had the conversation with Mr. Kaufman, in which the language imputed to me is alleged to have been uttered, there were present, besides ourselves, my host the Rev. S. W. Willson; the Rev. Amos A. Phelps, congregational clergyman, and one of the agents of the American Anti-Slavery Society; the Rev. La Roy Sunderland Methodist Episcopal clergyman, and at present the editor of Zion's Watchman, New-York; and the Rev. Jarvis Gregg, now a Professor in Western Reserve College, Ohio. In consequence of the use made of the statement put forth by Mr. Kaufman, I wrote to Professor Gregg, and Mr. Phelps, requesting them to give their version of the conversation in writing; and their letters in reply, which, together with one written without solicitation by Mr. Sunderland, have been published. They not only flatly contradict the account given by Mr. Kaufman, but prove that I advocated in the strongest language the doctrine of non-resistance on the part of the slaves. These letters, however, never appeared in the columns of the papers which brought the charge and defied me to the proof of my innocence.

It may be well to give some idea of the conversation out of which the charge grew. Mr. Kaufman complained of the harsh language of the abolitionists, and challenged me to quote a passage of scripture justifying our conduct in that respect. I quoted the passage "Whoso stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death;" and observed, that in this text we had a proof of the awful demerit of the slaveholder; that he was considered worthy of death; and that the modern slaveholder, under the Christian dispensation, was not less guilty than the slaveholder under the Jewish law. I then reminded him of the political principles of the Americans, and cited the words of the declaration of Independence, "RESISTANCE to tyrants is obedience to God." I then contrasted the injuries inflicted on the slave with the grievances complained of in the Declaration of Independence, and argued, that, if the Americans deemed themselves justified in resisting to blood the payment of a threepenny tea tax and a stamp duty, how much more, upon the same principles, would the slave be justified in cutting his masters' throat, to obtain deliverance from personal thraldom. Nay more, that every American, true to the principles of the revolution, ought to teach the slaves to cut their master's throats—but that while these were fair deductions from their own revolutionary principles, I held the doctrine that it was invariably wrong to do evil that good might come, and that I dared not purchase the freedom of the slaves by consenting to the death of one master.

He (Mr. T.) had thus disposed of one of the most tangible portions of his opponent's speech. He regretted there had not been more of matter-of-fact statement in the speech of one hour in length, to which they had just listened; a speech, which, however creditable to the intellect of his opponent on account of its ingenuity, was by no means creditable to his heart. Instead of dealing fairly with the documents he (Mr. T.) had produced, and which contained a true and ample statement of the views, feelings, principles, purposes and plans of the abolitionists, Mr. Breckinridge had manufactured a series of dextrous sophisms, calculated to keep out of sight the real merits of the question. Was it not strange, that, covered as that platform was with the documents of the abolitionists, his opponent had not quoted one word from their writings, but had based all he had said upon a statement of their principles made out by himself; and had then given to that statement an interpretation of his own, utterly at variance with all the views and doctrines entertained by the abolitionists. The gentleman had most ably played the part of Tom Thumb, who made the giants he so valiantly demolished. He would not attempt to grapple with that which rested altogether upon a gross misstatement of the principles and views of the Abolitionists. He had a right to expect that Mr. B. would go to the many sources of official information touching the principles he professed to denounce; but instead, he had put forth a creed, as the creed of the Abolitionists of America, which was nowhere to be found in their writings, and he (Mr. T.) should therefore wait until an objection had been taken to something they (the abolitionists) had really said or done.

Mr. Breckinridge had amused them with another Andover story. He had read an extract from a speech said to have been delivered by him (Mr. T.) during the protracted meeting he had held there. He would just take the liberty of assuring the audience that he had never uttered the speech which had that night been put into his mouth. It had been said that the speech was reported by a student. Had Mr. B. given the name of the student?—No. He (Mr. B.) knew that it was an anonymous communication, written by a vile enemy of a righteous cause, who was too much ashamed of his own productions to sign his name, but put the initial C. at the end of his libellous productions, which were greedily copied into the pro-slavery papers of the United States. The reports furnished by that scribbler were known in Andover to be false, and laughed at by the students as monstrous and ludicrous perversions of the truth. Upon this point also, he (Mr. T.) had ample documentary evidence. He did not wonder that Mr. Breckinridge had so frequently twitted him respecting the multitude of documents which he (Mr. T.) was in the habit of producing. It must be peculiarly unpleasant to find that he (Mr. T.) had always the document at hand necessary to annihilate the pretended proof of his opponent. He would now read from a report of the proceedings at Andover—but a very different report compared with that they had just heard—not an anonymous one, but signed by a respectable and pious student in the Theological Seminary, R. Reed, Corresponding Secretary of the Andover Anti-Slavery Society. As reference was made, in the extract he was going to read, to a former visit, he would just state, that about three months after his arrival in the United States, he visited Andover, and delivered three lectures, besides undergoing a long examination into his principles in the College Chapel; and that on his return to Boston, where he was then residing, he received from the Institution a series of resolutions signed by upwards of fifty of the students, expressive of their entire concurrence in the sentiments he had advanced, and their high approbation of the temper in which he had advocated those sentiments, and commending him to the blessing and protection of Heaven. He (Mr. T.) need not say that such a testimonial from theological students, unasked and unexpected, was peculiarly gratifying.

The account of his second visit in July, 1835, was thus given in a letter addressed to the editor of the Liberator.

"It had been previously announced that Mr. Thompson would address us on Tuesday evening. The hour arrived, and a large and respectable audience were convened in the expectation of again listening to the—(Mr. Thompson here omitted some complimentary expressions.) After the introductory prayer, Mr. Phelps arose, and said he regretted that he was obliged to state that Mr. Thompson had not yet arrived in town, but he thought it probable he would soon be with us. He then resumed the subject of American Slavery. He had, however, uttered but a few sentences before Mr. T. came in. His arrival was immediately announced from the desk, and the expression of satisfaction, manifested by the audience, told, more eloquently than words, the estimation in which they held this beloved brother, and the pleasure they felt on again enjoying the opportunity of listening to his appeals. Mr. Thompson took his seat in the desk, and Mr. Phelps then proceeded at some length. When he closed his remarks, Mr. Thompson arose, and after some introductory remarks, answered, in a powerful and eloquent manner, the inquiry, 'Why don't you go to the South.'

"The first part of the three succeeding evenings was occupied by Mr. Phelps, in exposing the janus-faced monster, the American Colonization Society, which he did in so masterly a manner, that we are quite sure none of his auditors, save those who are willfully blinded, will hereafter doubt of its being 'a fraud upon the ignorance, and an outrage upon the intelligence of the community.'"

"Thursday evening Mr. Thompson vindicated himself against the aspersions heaped upon him for denouncing Dr. Cox. I would that all Mr. Thompson's friends had been present, and his enemies too, for I am sure that unless encased in a shield of prejudice more impenetrable than steel, they would have been compelled to acknowledge that his denunciation of Dr. Cox was just, and not such an instance of tiger-like malice as some have represented it to be." "Friday evening (the evening to which the extract read by Mr. Breckinridge referred) he spoke of the 'armed neutrality' of the seminary and the course which had been taken in the Academical Institutions of Andover. He is accused of wantonly abusing our Professors and Teachers—of making personal attacks upon them. No personal attacks however were made; no man's motives were impeached. He attacked PRINCIPLES and not MEN for while he would render to the guardians of the seminary and academies all that respect which their station and learning and piety demands, he would at the same time condemn the course that had been pursued, as having a tendency to retard the progress of emancipation. Let the public judge as to the propriety of his remarks.

It would be recollected that the same question had been put to him here in Glasgow, as that which he had answered at Andover. "Why don't you go to the South?" He would tell his opponent on the present occasion, that even he could not advocate abolition sentiments in the South, purely and openly, without endangering his life. The reason he was able to express his views on slavery and remain unmolested, was because it was known that he denounced the abolitionists, and advocated colonization. The experience of Mr. Birney was in point. That gentleman hated slavery before he joined the abolitionists, and was in the habit of speaking against it, in connection with the colonization cause, and was permitted to do so without hindrance; but when he emancipated his slaves, and called upon others to do likewise, upon true anti-slavery principles, he was forced to fly from his residence and family, and was now in the city of Cincinnati.

It had been tauntingly Said, "show us the fruits of your principles." "Where are the slaves you have liberated?" He would reply, that in Kentucky, very recently, nineteen slaves had been liberated upon anti-slavery principles:—enough to answer Mr. B's demand, "point us to one slave your Society has been the means of liberating." But the question was not to be so tested. The abolitionists of Britain were often called upon in the same way; and their answer was, our principles are extending, and when they are sufficiently impressed upon the public mind, there will be a general emancipation of the slaves. On the 31st of July, 1834, they could not point to any actually free in consequence of their efforts; but the night came and passed away, and the morrow dawned upon 800,000 human beings, lifted by the power of anti-slavery principles, out of the legal condition of chattels, into the position of free British subjects. So in the United States. The principles of abolition would necessarily be some time extending, but ultimately they would effect a change in public opinion, and a corresponding change in the treatment of the black man.