Q. But do you think a foreigner ought to be allowed to lecture on this subject?
A. We have some hundred missionaries abroad lecturing other nations—preaching against systems most closely entwined with the government and prejudices of the people. If good and conscientious men leave ease, honor, and popularity behind them, to come here, and labor among the poor and the despised, merely from zeal in a good cause, shall we refuse to hear what they have to say? If we insult, mob, and stone them, how could we consistently blame the Hindoos and Sandwich Islanders for abusing our missionaries? We sent out agents to England, to give her the benefit of our experience on the subject of temperance; ought we not to be willing to receive the benefit of her experience on the subject of slavery? Let us candidly hear what these men have to say. If it be contrary to reason and truth, reject it; if it be the truth, let us ponder it in our hearts.
Q. But everybody says the discussion of slavery will lead to the dissolution of the Union.
A. There must be something wrong in the Union, if the candid discussion of any subject can dissolve it; and for the truth of this remark, I appeal to your own good sense. If the South should be injudicious enough to withdraw from the Union for the sake of preserving a moral pestilence in her borders, it is very certain that slavery cannot long continue after that event. None of the frontier States could long keep their slaves, if we were not obliged by law to deliver up runaways; nor could they any longer rely upon the free States, in cases of emergency, to support slavery by force of arms. The union of these States has been continually disturbed and embittered by the existence of slavery; and the abolitionists would fain convince the whole country that it is best to cast away this apple of discord. Their attachment to the Union is so strong, that they would make any sacrifice of self-interest to preserve it; but they never will consent to sacrifice honor and principle. “Duties are ours; events are God’s!”
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
[Pg 13]: ‘cut off the the heads’ replaced by ‘cut off the heads’.
[Pg 15]: ‘Ths wife, or the’ replaced by ‘The wife, or the’.
[Pg 16]: ‘amagamation has been’ replaced by ‘amalgamation has been’.
[Pg 36]: ‘not not to bring peace’ replaced by ‘not to bring peace’.