'In the second place, the plan objected to is not merely an acquiescence in the continuance of crime, it is a violation of the best feelings of our nature. For, let any man but reflect on the circumstance of children being born to slavery, merely because they came into the world the last hour of December 1830, instead of the first hour of January 1, 1831—and of children in the same family, brothers and sisters—some of them destined to bondage for life, and others gifted with freedom, for no other reason than that the former were born before, and the latter after, a particular day of a particular year—and of parents being unjustly and inhumanly flogged in the very sight of their offspring arbitrarily made free, while they are as arbitrarily kept slaves—let any man but reflect on those things, and unless the sensibilities of his heart be paralysed even to deadness, he must surely revolt at such a cruel and cold blooded allotment in the fortune of those little ones, and be satisfied with nothing short of the emancipation of the whole community, without a single exception.
'In the third place, supposing all children born after January 1, 1831, were declared free, how are they to be educated? That they may be prepared for the enjoyment of that liberty with which you have invested them, they must undergo a particular and appropriate training. So say the gradualists. Very well; under whom are they to get this training? Are they to be separated from their parents? Is that dearest of natural ties to be broken asunder? Is this necessary for your plan? And are not you thus endeavoring to cure one species of wickedness by the instrumentality of another? But if they are to be left with their parents and brought up under their care, then either they will be imbued with the faults and degeneracies that are characteristic of slavery, and consequently be as unfit for freedom as those who have not been disenthralled: or they will be well nurtured and well instructed by their parents, and this implies a confession that their parents themselves are sufficiently prepared for liberty, and that there is no good reason for withholding from them, the boon that is bestowed upon their children.
'Whatever view, in short, we take of the question, the prospective plan is full of difficulty or contradictions, and we are made more sensible than ever that there is nothing left for us, but to take the consistent, honest, uncompromising course of demanding the abolition of slavery with respect to the present, as well as to every future generation of the negroes in our colonies.'
We are told that 'it is not right that men should be free, when their freedom will prove injurious to themselves and others.' This has been the plea of tyrants in all ages. If the immediate emancipation of the slaves would prove a curse, it follows that slavery is a blessing; and that it cannot be unjust, but benevolent, to defraud the laborer of his hire, to rank him as a beast, and to deprive him of his liberty. But this, every one must see, is at war with common sense, and avowedly doing evil that good may come. This plea must mean, either that a state of slavery is more favorable to the growth of virtue and the dispensation of knowledge than a state of freedom—(a glaring absurdity)—or that an immediate compliance with the demands of justice would be most unjust—(a gross contradiction.)
It is boldly asserted by some colonizationists, that 'the negroes are happier when kept in bondage,' and that 'the condition of the great mass of emancipated Africans is one in comparison with which the condition of the slaves is enviable.' What is the inference? Why, either that slavery is not oppression—(another paradox)—or that real benevolence demands the return of the free people of color to their former state of servitude. Every kidnapper, therefore, is a true philanthropist! Our legislature should immediately offer a bounty for the body of every free colored person! The colored population of Massachusetts, at $200 for each man, woman and child, would bring at least one million three hundred thousand dollars. This sum would seasonably replenish our exhausted treasury. The whole free colored population of the United States, at the same price, (which is a low estimate,) would be worth sixty-five millions of dollars!! Think how many churches this would build, schools and colleges establish, beneficiaries educate, missionaries support, bibles and tracts circulate, railroads and canals complete, &c. &c. &c.!!!
The Secretary of the Colonization Society assures us, (vide the African Repository, vol. v. p. 330,) that 'were the very spirit of angelic charity to pervade and fill the hearts of all the slaveholders in our land, it would by no means require that all the slaves should be instantaneously liberated'!!—i. e. should the slaveholders become instantaneously metamorphosed into angels, they would still hold the rational creatures of God as their property, and yet commit no sin! Think, for one moment, of an angel in the capacity of a man-stealer—feeding his victims upon a peck of corn per week, or three bushels of corn and a few herrings every 'quarter-day,' as a compensation for their severe labor—flourishing a cowskin over their heads, and applying it frequently to their naked bodies! Think of him selling parents from children, and children from parents, at private sale or public auction!
Many slaveholders are giving up their slaves from conscientious motives; they cannot, they dare not longer keep them in servitude; they believe that the law of God has a higher claim upon their obedience than the laws of their native State. Now suppose all the owners of slaves in our land should be suddenly and simultaneously convicted of sin, and moved to repentance in a similar manner, and should say to their slaves, 'God forbid that we should longer call you our property, or place you on a level with our cattle, or defraud you of your just dues, or sell you or your wives or children to others, or deny you the means of instruction, or lacerate your bodies! henceforth you are free—but you want employment, and we need laborers—go and work as freemen, and be paid as freemen!'—suppose, I say, a case like this should happen, and a troop of gradualists should surround these penitent oppressors, and cry, 'Were the very spirit of angelic charity to pervade and fill your hearts, it would by no means require that all your slaves should be instantaneously liberated—your throats will be cut, your houses pillaged, and desolation will stalk through the land, if you carry your mad purpose into effect—emancipate by a slow, imperceptible process!'—how would this advice sound? What should be their reply? Clearly this: 'Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto men more than unto God, judge ye.' Here would be presented a strange spectacle indeed—one party confessing and resolving to forsake their sins, and another urging them to disregard the admonitions of conscience, and to leave off sinning by degrees! To be sure, a few, a very few, would be generously allowed to reform instanter!
Those who prophesy evil, and only evil, concerning immediate abolition, absolutely disregard the nature and constitution of man, as also his inalienable rights, and annihilate or reverse the causes and effects of human action. They are continually fearful lest the slaves, in consequence of their grievous wrongs and intolerable sufferings, should attempt to gain their freedom by revolution; and yet they affect to be equally fearful lest a general emancipation should produce the same disastrous consequences. How absurd! They know that oppression must cause rebellion; and yet they pretend that a removal of the cause will produce a bloody effect! This is to suppose an effect without a cause, and, of course, is a contradiction in terms. Bestow upon the slaves personal freedom, and all motives for insurrection are destroyed. Treat them like rational beings, and you may surely expect rational treatment in return: treat them like beasts, and they will behave in a beastly manner.
Besides, precedent and experience make the ground of abolitionists invulnerable. In no single instance where their principles have been adopted, has the result been disastrous or violent, but beneficial and peaceful even beyond their most sanguine expectations. The immediate abolition of slavery in Mexico, in Colombia, and in St. Domingo,[O] was eminently preservative and useful in its effects. The manumitted slaves (numbering more than two thousand,) who were settled in Nova Scotia, at the close of our revolutionary war, by the British government, 'led a harmless life,' says Clarkson, 'and gained the character of an industrious and honest people from their white neighbors.' A large number who were located at Trinidad, as free laborers, at the close of our last war, 'are now,' according to the same authority, 'earning their own livelihood, and with so much industry and good conduct, that the calumnies originally spread against them have entirely died away.' According to the Anti-Slavery Reporter for January, 1832, three thousand prize negroes at the Cape of Good Hope had received their freedom—four hundred in one day; 'but not the least difficulty or disorder occurred: servants found masters, masters hired servants—all gained homes, and at night scarcely an idler was to be seen.'
These and many other similar facts show conclusively the safety of immediate abolition. Gradualists can present, in abatement of them, nothing but groundless apprehensions and criminal distrust. The argument is irresistible.