I proceeded by way of New York to Hartford in Connecticut, in order to be present at an anti-slavery meeting of the State Society, to which I had been invited. On my arrival, on the afternoon of the 19th, I found the meeting assembled, and in the chair my friend J.T. Norton, a member of the Connecticut legislature, a munificent and uncompromising friend to the anti-slavery cause, and one of the delegates to the London Convention. A black minister of religion addressed the meeting in an able and interesting manner. Soon after the close of his speech, a circumstance, quite unexpected to me, introduced a discussion on the right of women to vote and publicly act, conjointly with men. The chairman decided that the motion in favor of it was negatived, but the minority required the names on both sides to be taken down; this consumed much time, and disturbed the harmony of the meeting. I attended in the evening a committee of the legislature, which was sitting at the court house, to hear the speeches of persons who were allowed to address the committee in support of a petition that the word "white" should be expunged from the constitution of Connecticut. This change would of course give equal rights to the colored class. When I entered, the same colored minister I had heard in the afternoon, was addressing the committee. He was listened to with great attention, not only by the members, but by near two hundred of the inhabitants, who were present. He was followed on the same side, by a white gentleman in a very strong and uncompromising speech. The next day I paid my respects to William W. Ellsworth, the Governor of the State, and to one of the judges of the court; and afterwards attended the adjourned meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society. The vexed question of "women's rights" was again brought forward in another shape; the names on both sides again called for, with the same result as before. My belief was fully confirmed, that those who differ so widely in sentiment, have no alternative but to meet and act in distinct organizations.
The Amistad captives arrived at Hartford on the afternoon of the same day, and were to address a meeting in the evening. An anti-slavery bazaar or fair which I visited this day, furnished ample testimony of the zeal of the female friends of the oppressed slave in this district. I returned the same evening to New Haven, and subsequently received a copy of two resolutions, approving the proceedings of the general Anti-Slavery Convention, in which it is stated by the Connecticut anti-slavery committee, "they have abundant evidence that the cause of the slave has been essentially promoted thereby;" also recommending "that a convention of men from all parts of the world, friendly to the cause of immediate emancipation, be again called in London, in the summer of 1842."
On the 21st, I proceeded to the residence of Judge Jay, where I was very kindly received by his wife and family, the Judge himself being from home. On his return the next day, I had much interesting conversation with him on the prospects of our cause. He is convinced that it is making steady progress, notwithstanding the schism in the anti-slavery ranks. He said also, that of the runaway slaves who called at his house, some have told him that their condition had improved of late years; others saw no change in their treatment; not one has complained that they suffered more than formerly, in consequence of the discussions at the North about abolition. With regard to the free blacks, he fears that the persecution of them by the slave-holders has increased; though at the North the prejudice against them has unquestionably, in his opinion, been much mitigated by the efforts of the abolitionists. It is an interesting fact, and one that ought to encourage the humble and retired laborer in the cause of truth and righteousness, that this able and distinguished advocate of the claims of the oppressed slaves and people of color, was converted to his present views by Elizabeth Heyrick's pamphlet, "Immediate, not Gradual, Abolition of West India Slavery." Let me for a moment pause to render a tribute of justice to the memory of that devoted woman. Few will deny that the long and heart-sickening interval that occurred between the abolition of the slave-trade of Great Britain, and the emancipation of her slaves, was owing to the false, but universal notion, that the slaves must be gradually prepared for freedom: a notion that we now confess is as contrary to reason and Christian principle as it is opposed to the past experience of our colonies. Yet a generation passed away while the abolitionists of Great Britain were trying to make ropes of sand—to give practical effect to an impracticable theory; pursuing a delusion, which this honored woman was the first to detect; and that less by force and subtlety of argument, than by the statement of self-evident truths, and by the enforcement of the simple and grand principle that Christianity admits of no compromise with sin. This was an easy lesson, yet it was one which our senators and statesmen, our distinguished philanthropists, and our whole anti-slavery host were slow to learn. The pamphlet produced little immediate effect, but to cause its writer to be regarded as an amiable enthusiast and visionary. It now remains a monument of the indestructible nature, and the irresistible power of truth, even when wielded by feeble and despised hands.
Judge Jay read to me part of a very interesting and important manuscript, which he had prepared on the preservation of international peace. He suggests that any two nations, entering into an alliance, should embody in their treaty a clause mutually binding them to refer any dispute or difficulty that may arise, to the arbitration of one or more friendly powers. As he has concluded to publish his pamphlet, I trust it will shortly be in the hands of the friends of peace in this country, as well as in America. This idea is beautifully simple, and of easy application. Through the kindness of the author, I have been furnished with a long and important extract from his manuscript, which I am permitted to lay before the British public by anticipation, in the Appendix to the present work.[A] On returning from his hospitable mansion, he obligingly sent his carriage with me to Sing Sing, but the steamboat had started earlier than we expected, and I hired a carriage and a pair of horses, with the driver, who was also the proprietor, to convey me the remainder of the way to New York. The distance for which I engaged it, was thirty-six miles, for the moderate sum of five dollars. On the road, the man pointed out the place where Major Andre was taken, whose tragical end excites sympathy even to this day, in the breast of the Americans. On entering the city, we passed a man in livery, and my driver remarked, "There, that is English; I would not wear that for a hundred dollars a day." Long may the American, who lives by his daily labor, preserve this feeling of honorable independence.
[A]: See Appendix F.
During my stay at New York this time, I was the guest of my friend William Shotwell, Jr., at whose hospitable dwelling, I afterwards took up my abode, whenever I lodged in the city. From the 24th to the 28th, I was chiefly occupied in attending the sittings of the Friends' Yearly Meeting of this State; and, during the intervals, in seeing many Friends in private company. I was much encouraged to find among them, a considerable number thoroughly imbued with anti-slavery sentiments; especially, from the western parts of the State. The subject of slavery was introduced, in the Yearly Meeting, by reading the Epistle from the Society in England, which is elsewhere quoted.[A] This was followed on the part of many, by expressions of deep feeling; and the question was referred to a committee, for practical consideration. In consequence of the report of this committee, at a subsequent sitting, five hundred copies of the English address were directed to be printed, and circulated among Friends, within the compass of the Yearly Meeting; and the whole subject was referred to its "meeting for sufferings," with an earnest recommendation, that they should embrace every right opening for furthering the great object. The clerk of the Yearly Meeting expressed his firm conviction, that the work was on the wheel, and that nothing would be permitted to stop its progress, until, either in mercy or in judgment, the bonds of every slave should be broken. He spoke in a very powerful manner. In most of the epistles sent out from this Yearly Meeting, as well as from that of Philadelphia, the subject of slavery was introduced, and commended to the earnest consideration of the body, here and elsewhere. Previous to the assembling of the Yearly Meeting, I had placed in the hands of one of its members, the following letter:
[A]: See Appendix A.
My Dear Friend,—Wilt thou have the kindness to ask the Friends with whom it rests to grant such a request, to permit the use of the meeting house at a convenient time, either during the Yearly Meeting, or before those who attend from the country leave the city, for the purpose of affording my friend John Candler an opportunity of giving Friends some outline of emancipation in Jamaica. I should like at the same time to give a little information on the state of the anti-slavery question in other parts of the world. John Candler, it is I believe generally known, visited Jamaica with the full sanction of the "meeting for sufferings," in London. My visit to this country had no particular reference to the members of our Society, but my friends in England kindly furnished me with the enclosed documents.
Affectionately,
JOSEPH STURGE.
New York, 5th Month 17th, 1841.
This request was kindly complied with. The large meeting house was granted for the evening of the 27th. The clerks of the men's and women's meetings gave public notice of it in their respective assemblies. The former, the venerable and worthy Richard Mott, encouraged Friends to be present, and said, as a thinking and reasoning people, they need fear no harm from a calm consideration of the subject. The attendance was large, including, I believe, most of those Friends who were from the country. The following brief notice of it in the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Reporter, will explain the character of the meeting.
"On Thursday evening of last week, the members of the Society of Friends (Orthodox,) assembled in this city at their Annual Meeting, met at their meeting house in Orchard street, to listen to the statements of John Candler, of England, lately returned from a visit to the West India Islands, as to the results of emancipation in those Islands, and also of our esteemed friend, Joseph Sturge, in reference to the general subject of emancipation throughout the world.
"The meeting was largely attended. The successful and happy results of the immediate emancipation of the slaves of the colonies, as detailed by John Candler, were calculated to strengthen the conviction that to do justice is always expedient. Joseph Sturge gave a history of the progress of the anti-slavery cause in Great Britain from the time of the old abolition society, of which Thomas Clarkson was a member, and of which he is sole survivor. He also glanced at the state of the cause in other quarters of the globe—at the efforts for East India emancipation, and at late movements in France, Brazil and Spain, in favor of emancipation; concluding with a most affecting appeal to the members of his religious society to omit no right opportunity for pleading for the slave, and for hastening the day of his deliverance.
"We take pleasure in recording such evidences that the good old testimony of the Society of Friends, on this subject, is still maintained among them. The Friends of the past generation set a noble example to other Christian sects, by emancipating their slaves, from a sense of religious duty; and it seems to us, that those of the present day have great responsibilities resting upon them; and that it especially becomes them to see to it that their light is not hidden in this hour of darkness and prejudice, on the subject of human rights. The slaveholder and his victim both look to them;—the one with deprecating gesture, and words of flattery—the other in beseeching and half reproachful earnestness. We cannot doubt that the agonizing appeal of the latter is listened to by all who truly feel the weight of their religious testimonies resting upon them; and we trust there will be found among them, an increasing zeal to secure to these unhappy victims of avarice and the lust of power, that liberty which George Fox, two centuries in advance of his contemporaries, declared to be 'the right of all men.'"