Speaking of the opposition of Friends in England to the Colonization Society, he says, "I have supposed that they would think it more consistent with Christian principles to emancipate them in the Southern States, and let them remain there, as they have done in the Northern States. I apprehend that Friends in England are not fully apprised of some important circumstances, which place the Southern States in a very different situation from the Northern. In the first place, there never were so many people of color in the Northern States, as there are in the Southern; and another circumstance that diminished them there, and increased them greatly here, was while the Northern States were legislating on the subject of gradual emancipation, avaricious masters sent them by thousands to the Southern markets, before the emancipating laws were actually passed, which left a small proportion in those States, in comparison to the whites; not many more, perhaps, than they were willing to have for laborers, waiting men, waiting women, et cet. And notwithstanding they have freed their slaves, for which they are entitled to applause, yet they never dreamed of raising them to equal citizenship and privileges with the white people. No, my friend, they can no more reconcile to themselves the idea of sitting down by the side of a colored African, (American?) in any legislative or judiciary department, than the high spirited Southern slaveholder; and not only so, they never intend to admit them to these privileges, while the State Government, and the United States' Government continue in existence." Again, after stating various objections to emancipation, he goes on to say, "I need not dwell much upon the subject of universal emancipation, in stating the best, or the worst, or most probable results of such a measure, because the Southern people have no more idea of the general emancipation of slaves, without colonizing them, than the Northern people have of admitting the few among them to equal rights and privileges. Not even the friends of humanity here, think that a general emancipation, to remain here, would better their condition," et cet.
The inferences plainly to be drawn from all this, and from much besides to the same purport, are, that the wicked determination of the white people to retain their sinful prejudices, is, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, immutable; and must, therefore, be accommodated by the transportation of the unoffending objects of their intense dislike. On this point I will observe that, if it be so, the remedy is worse than the disease; but that Christian principle is powerful enough, as daily experience testifies, to combat and destroy this unholy prejudice. The next inference is, that because the slave population in the Southern States is much more numerous than it was in the Northern, therefore the same reasons for emancipation do not exist. Is not the true conclusion from such premises, the very reverse of this? The motives to abolition increase, both in weight and number, in proportion to the absolute and relative increase of the slave population. The British West Indies present an example of the safety and advantages of the measure in a community, where the whites are a mere handful compared to the colored population.
That state of feeling from which the Colonization Society sprung, is well illustrated by this writer, in giving, in natural language, a picture of his own mind. After again repeating his statement of the vast proportion which the colored population bears to the white, in the Slave States, he says, "Now, my friend, the general emancipation of such a number of these poor, degraded creatures, say more than two millions, always to remain here with the white people, even if the Government should take the necessary care for their education and preparation for freedom and civilized life, which to be sure it ought, they must or will be a degraded people, while the reins of government remain in the hands of the whites. Supposing the very best consequences that could follow such a measure, even that both classes should generally exercise Christian feelings towards each other, which is very improbable, if not morally impossible, the peculiarly marked difference of features and color, will be always an insurmountable barrier to general amalgamation." Again, "Were they of the same color and features that we are, in an elective republican government like this, where talents and merit are the common footsteps to esteem and preferment, there would be no difficulty in universal emancipation, without a separation. I have no idea that they are at all inferior to the white people in intellect; give them the same opportunity for enterprise and improvement." Their only sin, it appears, after all, is being "guilty of a skin not colored like our own." I may observe, in passing, that amalgamation, the bugbear of anti-abolitionists, is the necessary result of slavery, not of emancipation.
The preceding extracts present a faithful picture of colonization principles, though it is not every colonizationist who would avow them with so much simplicity. The writer notwithstanding, manifests some benevolent feeling towards the slaves. His conscience cannot be satisfied with the present state of things, and he, like too many others, takes refuge in the pleasing delusion that it would be practicable to convey these colored Americans across the Atlantic and make them comfortable in Africa, because their ancestors were born there. As reasonably and as justly might he talk of transporting the white Americans to England because their ancestors removed from this country.
It is very easily demonstrable, that this could not possibly be accomplished—that neither the means of transport could be found, nor the means of settlement provided; and were these impossibilities removed, it might also be shown, very easily, that it would be suicidal policy to remove the entire laboring population of the Southern States from a soil and climate for which they only are adapted. Yet emancipation by removal is the theory of the Colonization Society, and in this point of view that Society must be characterized as a grand imposture. What must be the power of that delusion which can render intelligent and philanthropic men the victims of such a fallacy? If the whites, who hold the reins of government, could but be brought to exercise Christian feelings towards the people of color, which this worthy friend thinks is perhaps "morally impossible," how rapidly would all difficulties vanish? To accomplish this desirable end is the object of the abolitionists; they feel it to be difficult, but they know it to be not impossible.
The writer of this pamphlet uniformly couples "ultra slaveholders" and "northern manumissionists" in the same censure. They are the two objectionable extremes; colonizationists and moderate slave-holders being, I suppose, the golden mean. One illustration more of the animus with which he regards a black population.
"And so it is with the New England immediate manumissionists; they have so few people of color that they do not consider them an evil; and hence they conclude that the Southern States may do as they have done—free them at once; but I have no doubt at all, if there was as large a proportion of colored people in the New England States as in the Southern, there would be but one voice, and that would be for colonizing them somewhere."
The following passage is historically interesting:
"The Yearly Meeting of Friends of North Carolina have sent several hundreds of those they have had under their care to Liberia, for whose emancipation in this State they could never obtain a law, though they petitioned for it oftentimes for the space of fifty years, always finding the chief objection of the legislature to be that of the great number and degraded and low character of the free persons of color already in the State. We prefer sending them to Africa rather than to any of the free States or to Canada—because we believe that is their proper home. We sent some to the State of Ohio; and since then hundreds of blacks have been in a manner compelled, by the laws of that State, or the prejudices of some of its citizens, to leave it and go to Canada. We have sent some to Indiana, but that State has passed laws, we hear, to prevent any more coming. We have sent some to Pennsylvania, but, about two years ago, we shipped near one hundred from Newbern and Beaufort to Chester; they were not suffered to land, neither there nor at Philadelphia, nor yet on the Jersey shore opposite, but had to float on the Delaware river until the Colonization Society took them into possession; then they were landed in Jersey, ten miles below Philadelphia, and re-shipped for Africa. North Carolina Yearly Meeting has contributed thousands of dollars to the Colonization Society; it has probably done more for it than any other religious community has in America, not merely because it has provided us an asylum for the people of color under our care, but upon the ground of our belief that it is a great, humane, and benevolent institution. I am not informed of a single member of the Society of Friends in this country, not even in any of the slave States, who is not in favor of colonizing them in Africa. We believe generally that colonizing them there gradually is the most likely way to put a peaceful end to slavery, and place them in the great scale of equality with the rest of the civilized world."
I have devoted a space to this letter for several reasons; first, because the writer is a man of note and influence in his own country, and has plainly uttered what many of the Society of Friends even now feel, secondly, he has shown what was the prevalent sentiment among Friends not longer than seven years since, though I hope and believe a considerable change has taken place in the interval; and lastly, because, within a few months past, a well-known American, a zealous agent of the Colonization Society, has privately employed this very letter to induce abolitionists in England to look favorably on that Society.