Title: Anti-slavery catechism
Author: Child, Lydia Maria
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Anti-slavery catechism" ***


  TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

  Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.



                            ANTI-SLAVERY

                             CATECHISM.


                           BY MRS. CHILD,

  _Author of ‘An Appeal in favor of that class of Americans called
  Africans,’ the ‘Evils of Slavery, and the Cure of Slavery,’ ‘Authentic
  Anecdotes of American Slavery,’ ‘History of the Condition of Women,’
  ‘The Oasis,’ ‘Frugal Housewife,’ &c._


                  “On the nation’s naked heart
                   Scatter the living coals of Truth.”


                           Second Edition.


                            NEWBURYPORT:
                    PUBLISHED BY CHARLES WHIPPLE.
                                1839.



       Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835,
                         By CHARLES WHIPPLE,
    In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.



ANTI-SLAVERY CATECHISM.


_Question._ Why do you consider it a duty to preach and publish
abolition doctrines?

_Answer._ First, I consider it my duty as a Christian; for the system
of slavery, as a whole, and in each one of its details, is in direct
opposition to the precepts of the gospel. Secondly, I consider it
my duty as a conscientious citizen of this republic; for I believe
slavery is prejudicial to the best interests of my country; and I
dare not hope that God’s blessing will rest upon us, if we persevere
in our iniquity.

_Q._ But the abolitionists are accused of showing the worst side of
slavery. Is it not true that they seek to give an exaggerated idea of
its evils?

_A._ I believe every man, who candidly examines the subject, will
come to the conclusion, that every side appears to be the worst side.
Allow me to give a brief statement of the case. Between two and
three millions of people are compelled to labor without wages. They
gain nothing more by working ten hours than they would by working
one hour. It is not in human nature that they should be disposed to
be industrious under these circumstances. They try to do as little
as possible. The chief part of the labor that is got out of their
bones and sinews is obtained by fear of the whip. A peck of corn a
week is the usual allowance for the food of a slave. The planters
generally estimate that a slave can be fed and clothed at an expense
of from fifteen to twenty dollars a year. The following is the
printed testimony of Thomas Clay, of Georgia, himself a slave-holder,
though reputed to be an amiable, conscientious man: “A peck of corn
per week, if it be sound flint corn, is sufficient to sustain health
and strength under moderate labor. But there is _often_ a defect
in the quality, and the quantity is then insufficient. The present
economy of the slave system is to get all you can from the slave,
and give in return as little as will barely support him in a working
condition. Even where there is not direct intention to abridge his
comforts, they are but little consulted; and the slave, seeing his
master wholly engrossed by his own advantage, naturally adopts the
same selfish course, and, when not restrained by higher principles,
becomes deceitful and selfish.”

_Q._ If Mr. Thomas Clay is a good man, and really thinks slavery so
bad in its effects, why does he not emancipate his own slaves?

_A._ If you were to ask him, I suppose he would give an answer very
common among planters. He would tell you that he could not do it
because the laws of the State in which he lives impose such heavy
penalties, that the process of emancipation is extremely difficult
and expensive.

_Q._ Who makes the laws of the Southern States?

_A._ The slave-holders themselves. When I hear a man say that he
would gladly emancipate his slaves, if the _laws_ would allow it,
it makes me think of an anecdote I have often heard. A little girl
had been ordered to perform some household work in the absence of
her mother. When the parent returned, and saw that her orders had
not been obeyed, she said, “My child, why have you not done as I bid
you?” The little girl replied, “I should have been glad to do it,
mother; but I could not. Don’t you see I am tied?” “And pray who tied
you?” inquired the mother. “I tied myself,” was the reply. Now this
is plainly the case with the slave-holders. They make oppressive
laws, and persist in upholding those laws, and then say, “I would do
my duty, if I could; but the _laws_ will not permit it.”

_Q._ Do the slaves have to work all the time?

_A._ In some States the laws ordain that slaves shall not be
compelled to work _more_ than _fourteen_ hours a day, from September
to March, nor more than _fifteen_ hours a day, from March to
September; and it is reasonable to conclude that there would have
been no necessity for making such a law, unless some masters _did_
compel their slaves to toil beyond the specified hours. Convicts, who
are imprisoned for crime, are not obliged to work more than ten hours
a day, and are better fed than the slaves. It is an extraordinary
thing for a slave to be sent to the state prison for an offence.
Instead of punishment, it would in fact be amelioration of his lot.

_Q._ But I have been told that the slaves sometimes work for
themselves.

_A._ When they happen to have kind masters, they are sometimes
allowed a part of the time to earn something for themselves; but the
laws are extremely inefficient for the protection of property thus
acquired. If a white man sees fit to seize the products of their
industry, the law in most cases affords no redress; because in slave
States a colored man is never allowed to give evidence against a
white man, under any circumstances. Any note of hand, or written
contract with a slave is worth no more than a promissory note to a
dog; because no slave can bring an action at law. In several of the
States, a slave is liable to punishment if it is ascertained that he
has acquired any property.

_Q._ I have been told that masters are allowed to kill their slaves.
Can this be true?

_A._ The laws do indeed nominally consider the killing of a slave
as murder; but no instance has ever been recorded of a white man
executed for killing a slave. One law on this subject has the
following strange qualification: “Except said slave die of _moderate_
punishment.” As if any punishment, that occasioned death, _could_
be moderate! If a hundred blacks or mulattoes, either bond or free,
should see a slave murdered, it avails nothing against the murderer;
because the laws of slave States do not allow a colored person, under
any circumstances, to testify against a white man. The laws of South
Carolina favor the master to such a degree, that when accused of
murdering a slave, he may be absolved simply upon _his own oath_,
that he did not commit the crime!

_Q._ But I am told that white men are not unfrequently prosecuted for
cruelty to slaves; and this looks as if the laws afforded the poor
creatures some protection.

_A._ I have read not a few Reports of Cases in Southern Courts;
and those reports did more than any thing else to make me an
abolitionist. Prosecutions are always brought for the master’s
interest—never for the protection or redress of the slave. In
Martin’s Louisiana Reports, 1818, you will find the case of Jourdan
_vs._ Patten. In this case a lady sued a neighboring proprietor
for the damage of putting out the only eye of one of her slaves.
The Supreme Court decided that the defendant should pay the lady
the sum of twelve hundred dollars; in consideration of which, the
slave should be placed in _his_ possession. The lady received all
the money, as an indemnification for the loss of property; but the
poor slave not only received no atonement for his sufferings, but
was actually given to the very man that had knocked his eye out!
This is a fair sample of the nature of all such prosecutions. In
Nott & McCord’s South Carolina Reports, 1818, it is stated that a
slave belonging to Mrs. E. Witsell, was shot through the head by two
men who were hunting runaway negroes. The lady commenced an action
to recover the value of her slave. The judge told the jury that
circumstances _might_ exist to authorize the killing of a negro,
_without the sanction of a magistrate, or even the order of a militia
officer_; but it was thought such circumstances were not connected
with _this_ case; the lady was therefore entitled to compensation
for injury done to her property. As for the poor slave himself, his
parents, his wife, or his children, they were never once thought of
in the matter.

_Q._ But do you really believe they hunt negroes with dogs and guns,
as some people say?

_A._ There cannot be the slightest doubt of the fact. Dogs are
trained for that express purpose. The planters justify the practice,
by saying it is absolutely necessary for their own safety; because
runaway negroes, who collect in the woods and swamps, will soon begin
to commit depredations on the neighboring estates. Thus the evils
inevitably growing out of this bad system are made use of to justify
its cruelties. Free laborers would have no inducement to run away
and hide in swamps. It would obviously be for their own interest to
keep at work. These negro hunts seem to be entered into with all the
keen excitement of sportsmen going out to hunt squirrels or hares. A
letter written near Edenton, N.C. among other items of news, states:
“We have had great negro shooting lately.” A gentleman well known in
the literary world resided for some time in the family of a Georgia
planter; and he himself stated to me that three negro hunts took
place during the first nine months of his stay there. He said, that
one night hearing a noise below stairs, he hastened to ascertain the
cause. “The gentlemen of the family were cleaning and loading their
guns, trying their flints, and going through the usual preparations,
apparently for a deer hunt, as buck shot and bullets were in demand.
The children of the family had partaken of the general excitement,
and arisen from their beds. As I entered the room, I could hear one
of the youngest say, ‘Why, pa, you wouldn’t kill Ralph, would you?’
‘I would take him, and sell him, and get money for him,’ said the
next of age. ‘You will only lame him, so as to seize him, I suppose,’
said the mother. ‘I would rather kill him than the best fat buck in
the country,’ replied the father, as he rammed down the heavy charge.
The moonlight from the window glanced along the barrel of the piece,
and caught the eye of the eldest boy. The reflected light kindled
up his glance with something of an unnatural flash, but in vivid
sympathy with the paternal look and attitude. The anticipated joy of
vengeance seemed to be the predominating emotion.”

_Q._ If the laws are as you say, I should think the slaves did not
stand a fair chance when they are _wrongfully_ accused.

_A._ If you will examine Stroud’s Compendium of the Slave Laws, you
will be convinced for yourself that what I say is true; and the
effect is as you suppose. The poor slaves are completely in the power
of their masters. The same men who accuse them are often their judges
and executioners. In illustration of this, I will tell you a case
that occurred in Edenton, North Carolina. It was told by a woman who
lived there at the time, and witnessed some of the executions. Many
of the slaves in that place were skilful in mechanical trades. The
planters in the back country were very desirous to purchase some of
them; but their masters found it so profitable to let them out, that
they would not consent to sell them. Those who were anxious to buy,
hit upon the following expedient to obtain their purpose: They wrote
anonymous letters, charging these intelligent slaves with having
projected an insurrection. These letters were scattered about in
Edenton, with the idea that the masters would be glad to sell such
dangerous fellows; but instead of this, the poor innocent slaves were
tried, convicted, and sentenced by their frightened owners; and a
large number of them were put to death, upon no other evidence than
anonymous letters.

_Q._ It does not seem as if such things could take place in a
civilized country. Can you believe it?

_A._ If you reflect a little upon human nature, I believe you will
think it perfectly natural that such abuses should exist, wherever
one human being has arbitrary power over another. You would not like
to place yourself completely in the power even of the best man you
know; you would be afraid to have it depend entirely on his will how
much work you should do in a day, what food you should eat, and what
clothes you should wear, and how and when you should be punished.
It is not considered entirely safe for an aged parent to relinquish
all his property, and trust entirely to the generosity of his own
children; what then do you suppose the poor slave has to expect, when
he becomes too old and infirm to be profitable to his master?

_Q._ But the Southerners are said to be very honorable, generous men.

_A._ Our Southern brethren are just what any human beings would be
under similar circumstances. They are generous with the proceeds of
other men’s labor, for the same reason that the heir is prodigal of
money, which another accumulates for him. He who can let out his
neighbor, and his neighbor’s wife and children, and receive all
their wages, will naturally be more profuse than a man who depends
entirely on his own exertions. Planters have heretofore generally
confessed that slavery is an evil, and many of them speak of its
detailed abuses with strong regret; but these abuses are merely the
necessary and inevitable results of the system they are helping to
support; and they never can cure the abuses until they are willing to
renounce the system itself. I suppose that few planters would think
of palliating the treatment Mrs. Salarie’s slaves received; yet they
are all helping to support a system under which such cruelties can
be committed with impunity. Perhaps very humane and amiable masters
do even more mischief than the desperately wicked; for they are
always quoted as palliations of the whole system; and they approach
so _near_ to the right line, that they can more easily draw over
kind-hearted people, who have not thought much upon the subject.

_Q._ What is the history of Mrs. Salarie?

_A._ She resided in New Orleans. On the 10th of April, 1834, her
splendid mansion took fire. During the midst of the conflagration,
a rumor arose among the crowd that there were slaves chained in the
burning dwelling; but those who asked for the keys were reproved for
interfering with their neighbor’s business. At last the doors were
forced open by sailors and mechanics, that had collected around the
spot; and a New Orleans paper thus describes the horrible scene that
presented itself: “Seven slaves more or less horribly mutilated, were
seen, some chained to the floor, and some suspended by the neck to
the ceiling, with their limbs stretched and torn from one extremity
to the other. Their bodies, from head to foot, were covered with
scars and sores, and filled with wounds. One poor old man, upwards of
sixty years of age, was chained hand and foot, and made fast to the
floor, in a kneeling position. His head bore the appearance of having
been beaten until it was broken, and the worms were actually seen
making a feast of his brains.”

_Q._ Every body must have thought her a very wicked woman. Did the
slave-holders in the neighborhood pretend to justify her measures?

_A._ I have no doubt that every humane person, that heard of the
event, expressed horror, and sincerely felt it. For several months
previous to the discovery, her neighbors had been in the habit of
living in apartments as far as possible from her house, on purpose to
avoid the shrieks and groans of her poor suffering slaves; yet during
all that time no complaint was laid before the public authorities,
and no investigation demanded! I suppose neighbors were afraid to say
any thing, lest they should be accused of promoting discontent among
the negroes. Those who endeavor to keep human beings in the situation
of beasts, are more afraid of them than they would be of beasts;
because the human being has _reason_, which is always prone to offer
resistance to tyranny. The consciousness of this makes slave-holders
very irritable when any one in the community takes part with an
abused slave, or expresses the slightest pity for his sufferings.

_Q._ Is it not for the master’s interest to treat the slaves well?

_A._ So it is for the interest of men to treat their horses and
cattle well; and yet their passions not unfrequently make them forget
their interests. Passive obedience is obtained from human beings with
more difficulty than from animals; and when the master _is_ provoked,
the poor slave is completely in his power, with scarcely the shadow
of protection from the law. The law in no case recognises slaves as
human beings; on the contrary, it expressly declares they “shall
be deemed, sold, taken, and reputed to be _chattels personal_, in
the hands of their owners and possessors, their administrators and
assigns, to all intents, constructions, and _purposes whatever_.” An
act of Maryland, for the settlement of estates, enumerates specific
articles, such as “slaves, working beasts, animals,” &c. Where even
the _laws_ consider human beings as animals, it is not a matter of
surprise that they are generally treated no better than self-interest
leads men to treat animals. You will likewise perceive that when
the slave becomes old, or diseased, or in any way unfit for labor,
it is _not_ for the interest of his master to prolong his existence
by rendering it comfortable. Then again that part of the system
connected with _overseers_, shows plainly that the self-interest of
the master cannot effectually secure good treatment to the slave.
If planters were to give overseers a stated salary, without regard
to the amount of produce, the overseers (who are proverbially
unprincipled men) would have no motive for consulting the interest of
their employers—it would be a matter of indifference to them whether
much or little work were done. To obviate this difficulty, it is
customary to give the overseer a certain _proportion_ of the profits
of the plantation. Of course, it becomes his ruling desire to get the
greatest possible amount of work done. He does not care how much the
soil is exhausted, nor how much the negroes are broken down. If a
slave says he is very ill, the overseer is unwilling to believe the
story, because he is reluctant to lose a day’s labor. If the poor
creature droops under his allotted task, he must be stimulated by the
whip, because the overseer cannot spare an hour of his exertions. If
the “slave dies under _moderate_ punishment,” the master must furnish
a new laborer; and the loss falls on _him_, not on the overseer.
It is obviously natural for the latter personage to think more of
his own gains than of his employer’s losses. Every body knows that
men are prone to drive hired horses with less mercy than their own;
because they do not meet with any personal loss from injury done to
the beast, and their object is to get their money’s worth of riding.
Is it not a fearful thing for one human being to be placed towards
another in the same relation that a stable-horse is toward the man
who hires him? When planters are reminded of instances of cruelty,
too well authenticated to be denied, they are prone to lay the blame
upon overseers. Mr. Wirt, of Virginia, speaks of this class of men
as “the lowest of the human race—always cap in hand to the dons who
employ them, and furnishing materials for their pride, insolence,
and love of dominion.” If we had no such information concerning the
character of these men, we should naturally conclude that good people
would be averse to enter into such an employment. Yet overseers and
drivers are a necessary part of this bad system, because slaves
are entirely deprived of the motives which induce free laborers
to work; and since overseers must be employed, it is necessary to
make it for their interest to get as much work out of the slave as
possible. The evils of slavery are necessary and inevitable parts
of the system; and whether the planters reprobate them or not, they
cannot possibly avoid them, except by relinquishing the system. The
master and his subordinate agents _must_ have discretionary power to
punish, because their poor human brutes, being deprived of salutary
motives to exertion, must be driven to it. The slave _must_ not be
allowed to buy or sell, or make the most trifling contracts; because
the oppressed being would naturally avail himself of this privilege,
and sell some of the cotton or tobacco, which he cultivates for
his master without wages. The laws _must_ punish them with great
severity; because the very nature of their condition is a constant
temptation to theft, falsehood, and murder. They _must_ be kept
brutally ignorant; because if they were otherwise, they could not be
kept in slavery. Licentiousness _must_ be countenanced among them;
because their master’s interest is connected with their increase,
and he might lose many good bargains if the laws did not allow him
to sell a wife from her husband, or a husband from his wife. The law
_must_ suppose a negro to be a slave, till he proves himself free;
because runaway slaves would of course pretend that they were free.
They _must_ not be allowed to witness against a white man; for a
slave may have had a wife or a child whipped to death by a white
man—and he may have many other good reasons for strong prejudice
against white men. An unnatural system _must_ be sustained by
unnatural means. Hence we find the same characteristic features in
every country where negro slavery has been allowed.

_Q._ Some people think slavery as great a sin as the slave trade. Are
you of that opinion?

_A._ There seems to me just the same difference as there is between
the thief and the man who pays him for stealing. What would you say
of a man who buys a horse, knowing it to be stolen? The following
circumstance, which took place a short time before our Revolution,
furnishes a good commentary on this matter. A Philadelphia negro was
accused of having stolen goods in his possession. He acknowledged
the fact, saying, “Massa Justice, me know me got dem tings from Tom
dere, and me tink Tom teal dem too; but what den, Massa? dey be only
a piccaninny knife, and a piccaninny corkscrew; one cost sixpence,
and tudder a shilling; an me _pay Tom honestly for dem_, Massa.”
“Pretty story, truly!” said his worship; “you knew they were stolen,
and yet allege for excuse, you honestly paid for them. Don’t you
know, Pompey, that the receiver is as bad as the thief? You must be
severely whipped, you black rascal.” “Very well, Massa, if de black
rascal be whipt for buying tolen goods, me hope de white rascal be
whipt too, for same ting, when you catch him.” “To be sure,” replied
the Justice. “Well den,” says Pompey, “here be Tom’s Massa—hold him
fast, constable! He buy Tom, as I buy de piccaninny knife, and de
piccaninny corkscrew. He know very well Tom be tolen from his old
fadder and mudder; de knife and de corkscrew had neder.”

I do not see how we can escape from the conclusion that the
slave-owner is an accomplice of the slave-trader. So long as a
profitable market is kept open, the article will be supplied, despite
of difficulties and dangers. The only way to stop the trade, is to
shut up the market; and this can be done only by the entire abolition
of the system of slavery. When nobody will buy a man, nobody will be
tempted to steal a man. Slavery never exists without having more or
less of the slave-trade involved _in_ it. There is in the very heart
of our land a slave-trade constantly carried on, and sanctioned by
our laws, which is as disgraceful and cruel as the foreign slave
trade. The new slave States at the extreme South have not slaves
enough, and the climate, together with the hard labor of the sugar
plantations, kills them very fast. The old slave States have a
surplus of slaves, which they send off to supply these markets. About
ten thousand are annually exported from Virginia alone. Niles, in
his Register, vol. 35, page 4, says: “Dealing in slaves has become
a _large_ business. Establishments are made at several places in
Maryland and Virginia, at which they are sold like cattle. These
places are strongly built, and well supplied with _thumbscrews_,
_gags_, _cow-skins_, _and other whips_, _often bloody_.” In these
sales no regard is paid to domestic ties. The newly married wife
is torn shrieking from her husband, and the mother with her little
ones are sold in “_separate_ lots to suit purchasers.” A gentleman
in Charleston, S. C., writes to his friend in New York: “Curiosity
sometimes leads me to the auction sales of the negroes. There I saw
the father looking with sullen contempt on the crowd, and expressing
an indignation in his countenance that he dares not speak; and the
mother pressing her infants closer to her bosom, exclaiming, in wild
and simple earnestness, ‘I can’t leff my children! I won’t leff my
children!’ But the hammer went on, reckless whether it united or
sundered for ever. On another stand I saw a man apparently as white
as myself exposed for sale.”

_Q._ I have heard some people say that the negroes do not care so
much about such separations as we should suppose.

_A._ There is no doubt that their degraded situation tends to blunt
the feelings, as well as to stultify the intellect; and it is a
fearful thing to think what Christians have to answer for, who thus
brutalize immortal souls. But there are numerous instances to prove
that the poor creatures do often suffer the most agonizing sensations
when torn from those they love. Near Palmyra, in Marion county,
Missouri, two boys were sold to a slave-trader, who did not intend
to leave the place until morning. During the night, the mother was
kept chained in an out-house, that she might not make any effort to
prevent the departure of her children. She managed to get loose from
her fetters, seized an axe, cut off the heads of her sleeping boys,
and then ended her own life by the same instrument.

The Missouri Intelligencer, a few months ago, gave an account of a
slave named Michael, who was sold by his master to Mr. J. E. Fenton,
by whom he was to be immediately shipped for the Southern markets.
At the mouth of the Ohio, he filed off his irons, and contrived to
escape. He immediately returned to the place where his wife resided,
and having armed himself, declared he never would be sent to the
South, unless his wife was allowed to accompany him. He was finally
taken by stratagem, and lodged in jail for safe keeping. Finding that
his oppressors were determined to separate him from his beloved wife,
he committed suicide. I believe the attachments of slaves are even
stronger than ours; for these ties constitute the only pleasure they
are allowed to have. Hundreds of instances might be told, where they
have preferred death to separation.

_Q._ I have been told they sometimes kidnapped free colored persons,
to sell them as slaves. Is it so?

_A._ It is unquestionably true that this is carried on to a
considerable extent. More than twenty free colored children were
kidnapped in the single city of Philadelphia, in 1825; and in 1827
two were stolen in open day. It is a common thing to decoy the
unsuspecting victims on board a vessel, or to some retired spot, and
then seize and bind them. A New York paper of 1829, says: “Beware
of kidnappers! It is well understood that there is at present in
this city, a gang of kidnappers, busily engaged in their vocation
of stealing colored children for the Southern market.” As the law
supposes every colored person to be a slave unless he can _prove_
himself free, and as no person of his own complexion is allowed to be
evidence for him, the kidnappers have an easy time of it.

_Q._ Some people say we ought to pity the masters as well as the
slaves.

_A._ I agree with them entirely. The masters are to be deeply pitied;
because the long continuance of a wicked system has involved them
in difficulties, and at the same time rendered them generally blind
to the best means of getting rid of those difficulties. They are
likewise to be compassionated for the effects which early habits of
power produce on their own characters. Mr. Jefferson, who lived in
the midst of slavery, says: “The whole commerce between master and
slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the
most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission
on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it. The
parent storms; the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath,
puts on the same airs in a circle of smaller slaves, gives loose to
the worst of passions; and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised
in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities.
The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his morals and manners
undepraved in such circumstances.” The general licentiousness
produced by this system can never be described without using language
too gross to be addressed to a civilized community. Some idea of it
may be derived from the fact, that every female slave is completely
in the power of her master, of his sons, of his overseers, and his
drivers. The law does not allow her to offer resistance to a white
man, under any circumstances; and the state of public opinion is
such that any pretensions to virtue on her part would be treated
with brutal ridicule. The slave is not allowed to have any right in
his wife and children. If his master’s interest can be served by his
keeping three or four wives, or by his wife’s having a succession of
husbands, he cannot dispute the commands of his owner. The wife, or
the husband, is sometimes sold, and sent thousands of miles from each
other, and from their little ones, without the slightest hope of ever
meeting again. Under these circumstances, the man, or the woman, is
soon ordered to take another partner; because it is for the interest
of the master that they should do so. It is a shameful fact that the
laws and customs of our country make it absolutely impossible for a
large portion of our population to be virtuous, even if they wish to
be so. The wealth of Virginia is principally made by the breeding
of slaves and horses; and persons unaccustomed to the system would
be shocked by the detail of well authenticated facts, which prove
that about as little regard is paid to decency in one case as the
other. _Mulatto_ slaves bring a higher price than _black_ ones; hence
licentiousness in slave States becomes a profitable vice, instead of
being expensive, as it is under other forms of society.

_Q_. I have been told that a great many of the slaves have very light
complexions. Is it so?

_A._ In the old slave States, where the process of amalgamation
has been going on for a long time, this is remarkably the case. An
old soldier, who lately visited the South, said he was not so much
struck by any circumstance, as by the great change that had taken
place in the complexion of the slaves since the Revolution. Now and
then I have seen in the southern papers advertisements for a runaway
slave, “who passes himself for a white man.” A Boston gentleman, who
dislikes the abolitionists very much, visited Georgia a few years
ago. He told me that when he was walking with a planter one day, they
met a man driving a team, who had a perfectly fair complexion, with
blue eyes and brown hair. The Bostonian remarked, “That must be an
independent fellow, to be driving a team in this part of the country,
where it is considered so disgraceful for a white man to work.” “O,
that fellow is a slave,” replied the Georgian. Almost every body
has heard of the recent case of Mary Gilmore, of Philadelphia, a
perfectly white girl, of Irish parentage, who was taken up and tried
as a runaway slave. A Missouri newspaper proves that a white man may,
without a _mistake_, be adjudged a slave. “A case of a slave sueing
for his freedom, was tried a few days since in Lincoln county, of
which the following is a brief statement of particulars: A youth of
about ten years of age sued for his freedom on the ground that he
was a free white person. The court granted his petition to sue as
a pauper upon inspection of his person. Upon his trial before the
jury, he was examined by the jury and two learned physicians, all
of whom concurred in the opinion that very little, if any, race of
negro blood could be discovered by any of the external appearances.
All the physiological marks of distinction, which characterize the
African descent, had disappeared. His skin was fair, his hair soft,
straight, fine and white, his eyes blue, but rather disposed to the
hazel-nut color; nose prominent, the lips small, his head round and
well formed, forehead high and prominent, ears large, the tibia of
the leg straight, and feet hollow. Notwithstanding these evidences of
his claims, he was proved to be the descendant of a mulatto woman,
and that his progenitors on the mother’s side had been and still
were slaves: _consequently he was found to be a slave_.” I have been
told of a young physician, who went into the far Southern States
to settle, and there became in love with a very handsome and modest
girl, who lived at service. He married her; and about a year after
that event, a gentleman called at the house, and announced himself
as Mr. J*******y, of Mobile. He said to Dr. W*****, “Sir, I have a
trifling affair of business to settle with you. You have married a
slave of mine.” The young physician resented this language; for he
had not entertained the slightest suspicion that the girl had any
other than white ancestors since the flood. But Mr. J. furnished
proofs of his claim, and Dr. W. knew very well that the laws of the
country would uphold him in it. After considerable discussion, the
best bargain he could make was either to pay eight hundred dollars,
or have his wife put up at auction. He consented to the first
alternative, and his unwelcome visiter departed. When he had gone,
Dr. W. told his wife what had happened. The poor woman burst into
tears and said, “That as Mr. J. _was her own father_, she had hoped
that when he heard she had found an honorable protector, he would
have left her in peace.”

_Q._ There can be no doubt that slavery is a bad system; but don’t
you think it ought to be done away gradually? Ought not the slaves to
be fitted for freedom, before they are emancipated?

_A._ The difficulty is, it is utterly impossible to fit them for
freedom while they remain slaves. The masters know very well that
their vassals will be servile just in proportion as they are brutally
ignorant; hence all their legislation tends to keep them so. It is a
disgraceful fact, that in half of these United States the working men
are expressly forbidden to learn to read or write. The law ordains
that twenty lashes shall be inflicted upon every slave found in an
assembly met together for the purpose of “mental instruction.” Any
white person who teaches a slave to read or write, or gives or sells
him any book (the Bible not excepted), is fined two hundred dollars;
and any colored person who commits the same _crime_, is punished with
thirty-nine lashes, or with imprisonment. The Rev. Charles C. Jones,
of Georgia, said in one of his sermons: “Generally speaking, the
slaves appear to us to be without God and without hope in the world—a
_nation of heathen in our very midst_. We cannot cry out against the
Papists for withholding the Scriptures from the common people; for
we withhold the Bible from _our_ servants, and keep them in ignorance
of it.” A writer in the Observer, of Charleston, S. C. says: “I
hazard the assertion, that throughout the bounds of our synod,
there are at least one hundred thousand slaves, speaking the same
language as ourselves, who never _heard_ of the plan of salvation by
a Redeemer.” The reason assigned for these oppressive laws is, that
“teaching slaves to read and write tends to excite dissatisfaction in
their minds,” and to produce insurrection. In Georgia, a white man is
fined five hundred dollars for teaching a slave or free negro to read
or write; and if a colored man attempts to teach the alphabet even to
his own child, he is liable to be fined or whipped, according to the
discretion of the court. Such laws are necessary for the preservation
of this detestable system; and while such laws exist, how can the
slaves ever be better fitted for freedom? When the British government
insisted that female slaves should no longer be flogged naked in the
Colonies, the Jamaica legislature replied, that the practice could
not possibly be laid aside, “_until_ the negro women acquired more of
the sense of shame, which distinguishes European females.” Fitting
men for freedom by keeping them slaves, is like the Jamaica mode of
making women modest by whipping them without clothing.

_Q._ But don’t you think it would be dangerous to turn the slaves at
once loose upon the community?

_A._ The abolitionists never desired to have them turned loose.
They wish to have them governed by salutary laws, so regulated as
effectually to protect both master and slave. They merely wish
to have the power of punishment transferred from individuals to
magistrates; to have the sale of human beings cease; and to have
the stimulus of _wages_ applied, instead of the stimulus of the
_whip_. The relation of master and laborer might still continue;
but under circumstances less irksome and degrading to both parties.
Even that much abused animal the jackass can be made to travel more
expeditiously by suspending a bunch of turnips on a pole and keeping
them before his nose, than he can by the continual application of the
whip; and even when human beings are brutalized to the last degree,
by the soul-destroying system of slavery, they have still sense
enough left to be more willing to work two hours for twelve cents,
than to work one hour for nothing.

_Q._ I should think this system, in the long run, must be an
unprofitable one.

_A._ It is admitted to be so. Southerners often declare that it takes
six slaves to do what is easily performed by half the number of free
laborers. Henry Clay says, “It is believed that slave-labor would no
where be employed in the farming portions of the United States, if
the proprietors were not tempted to raise slaves by the high price of
the Southern market, which keeps it up in their own;” and he says the
effects of introducing slavery into Kentucky have been to keep them
in the rear of their non-slave-holding neighbors, in agriculture,
manufactures, and general prosperity. General Washington, when
writing to Sir John Sinclair on the comparative value of the soil
in Pennsylvania and Virginia, ascribes the very low price of land
in Virginia to the existence of slavery among them. John Randolph
declared that Virginia was so impoverished by slavery, that slaves
would soon be advertising for runaway masters. A distinguished writer
on political economy says: “The slave system inflicts an incalculable
amount of human suffering, for the sake of making a wholesale waste
of labor and capital.”

_Q._ But the masters say the negroes would cut their throats, if they
were emancipated.

_A._ It is safer to judge by uniform experience than by the
assertions of the masters, who, even if they have no intention to
deceive, are very liable to be blinded by having been educated in
the midst of a bad system. Listen to facts on this subject. On the
10th of October, 1811, the Congress of Chili decreed that every child
born after that day should be free. In April, 1812, the government
of Buenos Ayres ordered that every child born after the 1st of
January, 1813, should be free. In 1821, the Congress of Colombia
emancipated all slaves who had borne arms in favor of the Republic,
and provided for the emancipation, in eighteen years, of the whole
slave population, of 900,000. In September, 1829, the government of
Mexico granted immediate and entire emancipation to every slave. In
all these instances, _not one case of insurrection or of bloodshed
has ever been heard of, as the result of emancipation_.

In St. Domingo no measures were taken gradually to fit the slaves
for freedom. They were suddenly emancipated during a civil war, and
armed against British invaders. They at once ceased to be property,
and were recognized as human beings. Col. Malefant, who resided on
the island, informs us, in his Historical and Political History of
the Colonies, that, “after this public act of emancipation, the
negroes remained quiet both in the south and west, and they continued
to work upon all the plantations. The colony was flourishing. The
whites lived happily and in peace upon their estates, and the
negroes continued to work for them.” General Lacroix, in his Memoirs
of St. Domingo, speaking of the same period, says: “The colony
marched as by enchantment towards its ancient splendor; cultivation
prospered; every day produced perceptible proofs of its progress.”
This prosperous state of things lasted about eight years, and would
perhaps have continued to the present day, had not Bonaparte, at the
instigation of the old French planters, sent an army to deprive the
blacks of the freedom they had used so well. The enemies of abolition
are always talking of the horrors of St. Domingo, as an argument to
prove that emancipation is dangerous; but historical facts prove
that the effort to _restore slavery_ occasioned all the bloodshed in
that island; while _emancipation produced only the most peaceful and
prosperous results_.

In June, 1794, Victor Hugo, a French republican general, retook
Guadaloupe from the British, and immediately proclaimed freedom to
all the slaves. They were 85,000 in number, and the whites only
13,000. _No disasters occurred in consequence of this step._ More
than seven years after this, the Supreme Council of Guadaloupe, in
an official document, alluding to the tranquillity which reigned
throughout the island, observed: “We shall have the satisfaction of
having given an example, which will prove that _all classes of people
may live in perfect harmony with each other, under an administration
which secures justice to all classes_.” In 1802, Bonaparte sent a
powerful French force, and again reduced the island to slavery, at
the cost of about 20,000 negro lives.

In July, 1828, thirty thousand Hottentots in Cape Colony were
emancipated from their long and cruel bondage, and admitted by law to
all the rights and privileges of the white colonists. Outrages were
predicted, as the inevitable consequence of freeing human creatures
so completely brutalized as the poor Hottentots; but all went on
peaceably; and, as a gentleman facetiously remarked, “Hottentots as
they were, they worked much better for Mr. _Cash_, than they had ever
done for Mr. _Lash_.”

_Q._ But they say the British have had difficulties in their West
Indies.

_A._ The enemies of the cause have tried very hard to get up a
“raw-head and bloody-bones” story; but even if you take their own
accounts, you will find that they have not been able to adduce any
instances of violence in support of their assertions. The real
facts are these: The measure was not carried in a manner entirely
satisfactory to the English abolitionists. Their knowledge of human
nature, combined with the practical evidence afforded by history,
led them to conclude that immediate and unqualified emancipation
was _safest_ for the master, as well as just to the slave; but
the planters raised such a hue and cry concerning bloodshed and
insurrection, that the British government determined to conciliate
them by a gradual abolition of slavery. It was ordained that the
slaves should work six years longer without wages, under the name
of _apprentices_; but no punishment could be inflicted without the
special order of magistrates. The colonies had a right to dispense
with the apprenticeship system if they pleased; but out of the
seventeen West India colonies, Antigua and Bermuda were the only
ones that chose to do so. The act of Parliament provided that each
apprentice should work for his master _forty and a half_ hours a
week, and have the rest of the time to himself. The masters were not
satisfied with this; and they tried, by a series of petty vexations,
to coerce the apprentices into individual contracts to work _fifty_
hours in a week. While the people had been slaves, they were always
allowed _cooks_ to prepare their meals, a person to bring _water_
to the gang during the hot hours, and _nurses_ to tend the little
children while their mothers were at work in the field; but because
the Abolition Act did not expressly provide that these privileges
should be continued, the masters saw fit to take them away. Each
apprentice was obliged to quit his or her work, and go, sometimes a
great distance, to the cabin to cook his meals, instead of having
it served up in the field; and the time taken up in this operation
was to be made up out of the apprentices’ own time. No water was
allowed to be brought to quench their thirst; the aged and infirm,
instead of being left, as formerly, to superintend the children under
the shade, were ordered out into the burning fields; and mothers
were obliged to toil at the hoe with their infants strapped at their
backs. In addition to all these annoyances, the planters obtained a
new proclamation from the governor, by which they were authorized
to require extra labor of the apprentices in times of emergency,
or _whenever they should deem it necessary_, in the cultivation,
gathering, or manufacture of the crop, provided they repaid them an
equal time at _a convenient season of the year_. This was very much
like taking from a New England laborer the month of July, and paying
it back to him in January. The negroes had behaved extremely well
when emancipation was first proclaimed, and universally showed a
disposition to be orderly, submissive, and thankful; but this system
of privation and injustice soon created discontent. They knew that
they were to receive no wages, however industrious they might be;
and they were well aware that their masters no longer had a right
to flog them. A bad stimulus to labor had been removed, without
supplying a good one in its place. In three of the colonies, the
apprentices refused to work on the terms required by their masters.
In Jamaica, a very small military force was sent into one parish, and
only on one occasion; but no violence was offered on either side; for
the apprentices confined themselves to _passive resistance_—merely
refusing to work on the required terms. In St. Christophers,
difficulties of a similar kind occurred; but no outrage of any kind
was committed. In one fortnight all the trouble was at an end; and
out of twenty thousand apprentices, only thirty were found to be
absent from their work; and some of these were supposed to be dead
in the woods. In Demarara, the principal difficulty occurred. The
laborers assembled together, and marched round with a flag staff; but
the _worst_ thing they did was to beat a constable with their fists.
_It is a solemn fact that a few fisty cuffs with a constable are the
only violence to persons or property, that has been attempted by the
eight hundred thousand slaves emancipated in the British Colonies!_

Even the difficulties above enumerated (slight as they were, and
unworthy to be named in connexion with such a great moral change)
were but temporary. The governor of Jamaica, after five months’
trial of emancipation, declares, in his address to the Assembly,
“Not the slightest idea of any interruption of tranquillity exists
in any quarter; and those preparations which I have felt it my duty
to make, might, without the slightest danger, have been dispensed
with.” By recent news, we learn that the planters finding the system
of coercion was likely to be ruinous to their own interest, offered
the apprentices 2_s._ 6_d._ per day for extra work. The enemies of
abolition prophesied that nothing would induce the negroes to work
more than they were actually compelled to by law, and that the crops
would perish for want of gathering. But the result proved otherwise.
As soon as _wages_ were offered, they came forward eagerly, and
offered to do more work than the planters were willing to pay for. We
have the testimony of one of their magistrates, that as soon as this
system was tried, “their apparent indifference was every where thrown
off, and their work carried on in a steady, persevering, and diligent
manner.”

_Q._ And how was it in Antigua and Bermuda, where they gave up
the apprenticeship system, and tried immediate and unqualified
emancipation?

_A._ In those colonies not the slightest difficulty, of any kind, has
occurred. The Antigua journals declare, “The great doubt is solved;
the highest hopes of the negroes’ friends are fulfilled. A whole
people, comprising thirty thousand souls, have passed from slavery
into freedom, not only without the slightest irregularity, but with
the solemn and decorous tranquillity of a Sabbath.” The Christmas
holidays were always seasons of alarm in the slave-colonies, and a
military force was always held in readiness; but the Christmas after
emancipation, the customary guard was dispensed with. Up to the
present time, every thing remains perfectly tranquil in Antigua; and
a negro is at the head of the police in that island. The population
consists of 2,000 whites, 30,000 slaves, and 4,500 free blacks.

_Q._ Yet people are always saying that free negroes cannot take care
of themselves.

_A._ It is because people are either very much prejudiced or very
ignorant on the subject. In the United States, colored persons have
scarcely any chance to rise. They are despised, and abused, and
discouraged, at every turn. In the slave States they are subject to
laws nearly as oppressive as those of the slave. They are whipped
or imprisoned, if they try to learn to read or write; they are not
allowed to testify in court; and there is a general disposition not
to encourage them by giving them employment. In addition to this,
the planters are very desirous to expel them from the State, partly
because they are jealous of their influence upon the slaves, and
partly because those who have slaves to let out, naturally dislike
the competition of the free negroes. But if colored people are
well treated, and have the same inducements to industry as other
people, they work as well and behave as well. A few years ago the
Pennsylvanians were very much alarmed at the representations that
were made of the increase of pauperism from the ingress of free
negroes. A committee was appointed to examine into the subject, and
it was ascertained that the colored people not only supported their
own poor, but paid a considerable additional sum towards the support
of white paupers.

_Q._ I have heard people say that the slaves would not take their
freedom, if it were offered to them.

_A._ I sincerely wish they would offer it. I should like to see the
experiment tried. If the slaves are so well satisfied with their
condition, why do they make such severe laws against running away?
Why are the patroles on duty all the time to shoot every negro who
does not give an account of himself as soon as they call to him? Why,
notwithstanding all these pains and penalties, are their newspapers
full of advertisements for runaway slaves? If the free negroes are
so much worse off than those in bondage, why is it that their laws
bestow freedom on any slave, “who saves his master or mistress’s
life, or performs any meritorious service to the State?” That must
be a very bad country where the law stipulates that _meritorious_
actions shall be rewarded by making a man more unhappy than he was
before! Some months ago, I had a conversation with a woman, who
went from Boston to Tuscaloosa, in Alabama. She was the wife of a
Baptist clergyman, professed to be a pious woman, and was considered
as such. I found her an apologist for slavery, but was not aware
at the time that she actually owned slaves. She maintained that
freedom was the greatest curse that could be bestowed on a slave; and
when I attempted to put the case home to her conscience, she, for
consistency’s sake, declared, that she should be quite as willing
to die and leave her own little son in slavery, as to leave him a
free laborer at the North. She said if she had a hundred slaves, she
should treat them all kindly, and endeavor to make their condition
comfortable. I replied, “I am willing to believe that you would do
so, madam; but in case of your death, or of any pecuniary distress
in the family, the poor slaves would be divided among heirs, or
seized by creditors; and then who can tell into whose hands they
may fall? The condition of the slave depends on the character of
the master; and that is entirely a matter of _accident_”. The pious
woman rejoined, “Oh, I should take care of that. If they were good,
faithful servants, they would find at my death that papers of
manumission had been duly prepared.” “But you told me that freedom
was the greatest curse that could be bestowed upon a slave,” replied
I: “Now is it possible, madam, that you would leave, as your dying
legacy to good and faithful servants, the greatest curse you could
bestow?”

_Q._ Do you suppose they really believe what they say, when they
declare that slaves are happier than freemen?

_A._ I leave your own republican good sense to determine that
question. Governor Giles of Virginia did not take that ground in his
address to the Legislature in 1827. Speaking of punishing free blacks
by selling them as slaves, he says: “Slavery must be admitted to be
a punishment of the highest order; and according to every just rule
for the apportionment of punishment to crimes, it would seem that _it
ought to be applied only to crime of the highest order_!”

But even if it were true that the slaves were as happy and contented
as slave-holders try to represent them—what would it prove? It would
merely prove that they had fearfully brutalized immortal souls before
they _could_ be happy in such a situation. Edmund Burke said very
truly, “If you have made a _happy slave_, you have made a _degraded
man_.”

_Q._ But how is it that some people, who really do not intend to
make false representations, bring back such favorable accounts of
slavery, after they have visited at the South?

_A._ It is because they go among rich, hospitable planters, and see
favorite household slaves. Of the poor wretches on the plantations,
subject to the tender mercies of an overseer, they know as little,
as the guests of a Russian nobleman know of the miserable condition
of his serfs. Their sympathies all go with the master. They ask
questions of the master, and not of the slave. Even if they tried to
talk with the latter, the poor creatures would be afraid to speak
freely, lest any expressions of discontent might be reported to the
master, or the overseer. I should like to have you hear them talk as
I have heard runaway slaves talk, when they knew they had a friend to
listen to them!

_Q._ But do you think the suitable time has yet come to exert
ourselves on this subject?

_A._ I will answer, as a similar question was lately answered by a
lady who had been brought up in the midst of slavery: “If thou were
a slave, toiling in the fields of Carolina, I apprehend thou wouldst
think the time had _fully_ come.” This explains the whole difficulty.
We do not put ourselves in the condition of the slave, and imagine
what would be our feelings if we were in _his_ circumstances. We do
not obey the Scripture injunction, “remember those that are in bonds,
_as bound with them_.”

But if we look at this question merely with a view to expediency,
without reference to justice or mercy, when can we hope that a time
will come _more_ propitious to the discussion of this subject? The
fact is, difficulties and dangers increase every day. In South
Carolina and Louisiana, the blacks are already a majority. The annual
increase of the _slaves_, without including the free blacks, in
the United States, is now 62,000 annually. It is a fact worthy of
consideration, that the licentiousness of the white man increases
the colored race; but the vices of colored men or women can never
increase the white race; for the children of such connections are of
course not white.—These people are increasing in the midst of us in
startling ratio. If we pursue a kind and Christian course, we can
identify their interests with the rest of the community, and make
them our friends; but if we persevere in the course we have pursued,
their feelings and interests _must_ be all in opposition to ours, and
there is great reason to fear the consequences.

_Q._ Don’t you think the Colonization Society is doing some good?

_A._ Those who have examined into the subject, have so universally
come to the conclusion that Colonization is entirely ineffectual for
the abolition of slavery at any time, however remote, that it seems
hardly worth while to waste words on that subject. I do not pretend
to impeach the motives of benevolent individuals, who have been
engaged in it; but there is no doubt that its _practical tendency_
is to perpetuate slavery. John Randolph, and other slave-holders,
have advocated that Society, upon the avowed ground that by sending
off an inconvenient surplus it would increase the price of the
slaves left. In the new slave States, where they have not as yet an
“inconvenient surplus” of slaves, they don’t like the Colonization
Society; but the old slave States have been its warmest friends.
There is one brief objection to the idea of abolishing slavery by
Colonization: _it is impossible_. Even if it were desirable to remove
these valuable laborers from our soil, it could not be done, if the
whole Treasury and Navy of the United States were devoted to it. The
Colonization Society has been in operation about nineteen years; they
have had immense funds; and they have transported to Africa, during
that time, about three thousand colored persons, of which _not one
thousand_ were manumitted slaves. Now the annual _increase_ of the
slaves alone is 62,000; and the annual increase of the free blacks is
about 10,000. _In nineteen years the Colonizationists have not been
able to carry off one sixtieth part of the increase of the slaves in
one year!_ This is worse than the old story of the frog, who jumped
out of the well two feet every night, and fell back three feet every
morning. But even if the colored people _could_ be all carried out
of the country, what is the South to do for laborers? They have been
in the habit of excusing themselves, by saying that white men cannot
work in their climate, and by taking it for granted that black men
will not work for wages. If the climate is unsuitable for white
laborers, it is manifestly very impolitic to send off the black
ones. It would be far wiser to try the experiment they have tried in
Bermuda and Antigua. Labor is needed in all parts of our country;
and it is worse than a childish game to be sending off ship-loads of
laborers to Africa, while we are bringing in ship-loads from Ireland,
Holland, and Switzerland.

_Q._ I have heard some people say they gave their money to the
Colonization Society merely as a missionary establishment.

_A._ It would be well for those people to examine into the matter,
and first ascertain whether it _is_ a missionary establishment. When
we send missions to India, the Sandwich Islands, &c., we send men
believed to be pious and enlightened. For the probable influence
of the emigrants carried out by the Colonization Society, let the
Society answer for itself. They assure us that the colored persons
colonized from the United States will “carry religion and the arts
into the heart of Africa.” Yet Mr. Clay, Vice President of the
Society, says, “Of all classes of our population the most vicious is
that of the free colored—contaminated themselves, they extend their
vices to all around them.” And the African Repository, which is the
organ of the Society, declares that “they are notoriously ignorant—a
curse and a contagion wherever they reside.” Now, are not these
admirable missionaries to send out to christianize Africa? It would
be wise to put them under better and more encouraging influences at
home, before we attempt to send them to enlighten heathen lands.

_Q._ Some say that these people are naturally inferior to us; and
that the shape of their skulls proves it.

_A._ If I believed that the colored people were naturally inferior to
the whites, I should say that was an additional reason why we ought
to protect, instruct, and encourage them. No consistent republican
will say that a strong-minded man has a right to oppress those less
gifted than himself. Slave-holders do not seem to think the negroes
are so stupid as not to acquire knowledge, and make use of it, if
they could get a chance. If they do think so, why do their laws
impose such heavy penalties on all who attempt to give them any
education? Nobody thinks it necessary to forbid the promulgation
of knowledge among monkeys. If you believe the colored race are
naturally inferior, I wish you would read the history of Toussaint
L’Ouverture, the Washington of St. Domingo. Though perfectly black,
he was unquestionably one of the greatest and best men of his age.
I wish you would hear Mr. Williams of New York, and Mr. Douglass of
Philadelphia preach a few times, before you hastily decide concerning
the capacity of the colored race for intellectual improvement. As for
the shape of their skulls, I shall be well satisfied if our Southern
brethren will emancipate all the slaves who have _not_ what is called
the “African conformation.”

_Q._ What do you think about property in slaves?

_A._ Let me reply to that question by asking others. If you were
taken by an Algerine pirate, and an Arab bought you, and paid
honestly for you, should you ever consider yourself the _property_ of
the Arab? Should you think your fellow-citizens ought so to consider
you? Can what is stolen in the beginning, be honest property in the
transmission? If you and your children had toiled hard for years, and
received only a peck of corn a week for your services, should you not
think that some compensation was due to _you_?

_Q._ These are hard questions; and I find it is hard to answer a good
many things, when we once get into the habit of imagining how we
should think and feel if we ourselves were the slaves. But what have
the North to do on this subject?

_A._ They cannot help having a great deal to do with it, either for
good or for evil. They are citizens of this republic; and as such
cannot but feel a painful interest in a subject which makes their
beloved country an object of derision to the civilized world. If the
slaves should make any attempt to gain their freedom, we are bound
to go with an armed force and rivet their chains. If a slave escapes
from his master unto us, we are bound to deliver him up to the lash.
The people of Pennsylvania, living so near the slave States, have a
great many of these painful scenes to encounter. A few months ago, an
industrious and pious colored man in Philadelphia was torn from his
home at midnight, and beaten in such a degree that the snow for some
distance was stained with his blood. His poor wife, who was devotedly
attached to him, had an infant about eight or ten days old; but
regardless of her situation, she plunged into the snow, and implored
mercy for her husband. Her shrieks and entreaties were of no avail.
The citizens of Philadelphia could not help her, because the free
States are bound by law to give up runaway slaves. The evil might be
cured by the extreme cheapness of labor, if the surplus population
were not drained off to supply _new_ slave States. But in order to
accommodate slave-holders in this respect, Louisiana has been bought,
and Florida bought, by revenues principally raised in the free
States; and now they want to purchase Texas likewise for an eternal
slave market. Every time a member from the free States votes for the
admission of a slave state into the Union, he helps to increase the
political power, which has always been wielded for the perpetuation
of this abominable system. It is high time for the free States to
begin to reflect seriously, whether they ought any longer to give
their money and their moral influence in support of this iniquity.

_Q._ I did not know we were obliged to give up runaway slaves to
their masters. Are you sure it is so?

_A._ When masters _bring_ their slaves into the free States, or
_send_ them, the slaves can legally take their freedom; but when
the slaves run away, we are obliged by law to give them up, let the
circumstances be what they may. Many conscientious people prefer to
obey the law of God, which says, “Thou shalt not deliver unto his
master the servant which hath escaped unto thee.”

_Q._ But would you at once give so many ignorant creatures political
power, by making them voters?

_A._ That would be for the wisdom of legislators to decide; and
they would probably decide that it would not be judicious to invest
emancipated slaves with the elective franchise; for though it is not
their fault that they have been kept brutally ignorant, it unfits
them for voters. At the present time, slaves _are_ represented in
Congress. Every five slaves are counted equal to three freemen;
which is just the same as if our farmers were allowed to count
every five of their oxen as three voters. This system gives the
Southern aristocracy great political power, entirely unchecked by
democratic influence, which comes in as a counterpoise in States
where the laboring class are allowed to vote. W. B. Seabrook, of
South Carolina, has lately published an Essay on the management
of slaves, in which he says: “An addition of $1,000,000 to the
private fortune of Daniel Webster would not give to Massachusetts
more weight than she now possesses in the Federal Councils. On the
other hand, every increase of slave property in South Carolina,
is a fraction thrown into the scale by which _her representation
in Congress is determined_.” This country has been governed by a
President forty-eight years. During forty of those years we have been
governed by a slave-holder! The New England candidates each remained
in office but four years; and the great middle section has never
given a President. The Middle States are politically stronger than
the Northern, and are therefore more likely to act independently,
and without reference to Southern support. Perhaps this may be the
reason why those States, large and wealthy as they are, have never
given a President to their country. Slave-holders are keen-sighted
politicians; and they are closely knit together by one common bond of
sympathy on the subject of slavery. It is a common remark with them
that they never will vote for any man north of the Potomac.

_Q._ You know that abolitionists are universally accused of wishing
to promote the amalgamation of colored and white people.

_A._ This is a false charge, got up by the enemies of the cause,
and used as a bugbear to increase the prejudices of the community.
By the hue and cry that is raised on the subject, one would really
suppose that in this free country a certain set of men had power to
compel their neighbors to marry contrary to their own inclination.
The abolitionists have never, by example, writing, or conversation,
endeavored to connect amalgamation with the subject of abolition.
When their enemies insist upon urging this silly and unfounded
objection, they content themselves with replying, “If there be a
natural antipathy between the races, the antipathy will protect
itself. If such marriages are contrary to the order of Providence,
we certainly may trust Providence to take care of the matter. It is
a poor compliment to the white young men to be so afraid that the
moment we allow the colored ones to be educated, the girls will all
be running after them.”

At a town meeting in New Hampshire, one of the citizens rose to
say that he did not approve of admitting colored lads into the
school. “If you suffer these people to be educated,” said he, “the
first thing we shall know they will be marrying our daughters!”
After some other remarks, he concluded by saying, “it is impossible
for the colored and white race to live together in a kind social
relation—there is a natural antipathy—they cannot be made to mix
any better than oil and water.” A plain farmer replied, “I thought
you said just now, that you was afraid that they’d marry our
_darters_; if they won’t mix any better than _ile_ and water, what
are you afraid of?” Any one who observes the infinite variety of
shadings in the complexions of the colored people, will perceive
that amalgamation has for a long time been carried on. The only
justification that the apologist for slavery can give is, that it is
not sanctioned by marriage. According to Southern laws every child
must follow the condition of its _mother_; that is, if the mother is
a slave, her offspring must be so likewise. If they would change one
word, and say the child shall follow the condition of its _father_,
a large proportion of their slaves would be free at once; and the
others would soon become so, provided no new cargoes were in the mean
time smuggled in from Africa. In this subject, the truth is briefly
told in a juvenile couplet, viz.

      “By universal emancipation,
      We want to _stop_ amalgamation.”

_Q._ Is there any truth in the charge that you wish to break down all
distinctions of society, and introduce the negroes into our parlors?

_A._ There is not the slightest truth in this charge. People have
pointed to an ignorant shoe-black, and asked me whether I would
invite him to visit my house. I answered, “No; I would not do so if
he were a white man; and I should not be likely to do it, merely
because he was black.” An educated person will not naturally like
to associate with one who is grossly ignorant. It may be no merit
in one that he is well-informed, and no fault of the other that he
is ignorant; for these things may be the result of circumstances,
over which the individual had no control; but such people will not
choose each other’s society merely from want of sympathy. For these
reasons, I would not select an ignorant man, of any complexion, for
my companion; but when you ask me whether that man’s children shall
have as fair a chance as my own, to obtain an education, and rise in
the world, I should be ashamed of myself, both as a Christian and a
republican, if I did not say, yes, with all my heart.

_Q._ But do you believe that prejudice against color ever can be
overcome?

_A._ Yes, I do; because I have faith that all things will pass away,
which are not founded in reason and justice. In France and England,
this prejudice scarcely exists at all. Their noblemen would never
dream of taking offence because a colored gentleman sat beside them
in a stage-coach, or at the table of an hotel. Be assured, however,
that the abolitionists have not the slightest wish to force you to
give up this prejudice. If, after conscientious examination, you
believe it to be right, cherish it; but do not adhere to it merely
because your neighbors do. Look it in the face—apply the golden
rule—and judge for yourself. The Mahometans really think they could
not eat at the same table with a Christian, without pollution; but I
have no doubt the time will come when this prejudice will be removed.
The old feudal nobles of England would not have thought it possible
that their descendants could live in a community, where they and
their vassals were on a perfect civil equality; yet the apparent
impossibility has come to pass, with advantage to many, and injury
to none. When we endeavor to conform to the spirit of the gospel,
there is never any danger that it will not lead us into the paths of
peace.

_Q._ But they say your measures are unconstitutional.

_A._ Is it unconstitutional to talk, and write, and publish on any
subject? particularly one in which the welfare and character of the
country are so deeply involved? This is all the abolitionists have
ever done; it is all they have ever desired to do. Nobody disputes
that Congress has constitutional power to abolish slavery and the
slave-trade in the District of Columbia. That District belongs in
common to all the States, and each of them has an interest in the
slaves there. The public prisons of that District, built _with the
money of the whole people_ of the United States, are used for the
benefit of slave-traders, and the groaning victims of this detestable
traffic are kept confined within their walls. The keepers of these
prisons, _paid with the money of the whole people_, act as jailers
to these slave-traders, until their gang of human brutes can be
completed. When we are acting as accomplices in all this, have we no
right to petition for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade
_there_? I do not see how any conscientious man can help believing it
to be a solemn duty.

_Q._ Is there any truth in the charge, that abolitionists have tried
to excite insurrections among the slaves?

_A._ This charge is destitute of the slightest foundation in
truth. The abolitionists have addressed facts and arguments to the
slave-holders _only_. They have never sought for any communication
with the slaves; and if they did so, their principles would lead them
to teach patience and submission, until their deliverance could be
accomplished by peaceful measures. I believe the publications by the
Peace Society do not contain so much in defence of non-resistance
under injury, as the publications of the abolitionists. If it should
be discovered that any member of an Anti-Slavery Society had tried
to excite disaffection among the slaves, he would be immediately
turned out of the Society, with strong expressions of disapprobation.
This false charge has been got up at the South merely to excite
sympathy. A little while ago a paragraph went the rounds of the
newspapers, concerning an _abolitionist_ who had been overheard
trying to persuade a negro lad to run away, and offering to forge
free papers for him. It was afterwards ascertained that the man was
a _kidnapper_, and took this means of getting the boy into his own
power, for the sake of selling him. Complaints are made that pictures
of a man flogging slaves having been on some of the books sent to the
South; and it is urged that negroes can understand these pictures,
if they do not know their letters. In the first place, the books are
sent to the masters. In the next place (as has been well observed),
the pictures represent a thing that is either true, or not true.
If it is not true, the negroes would look at the picture without
being reminded of any thing _they_ had ever seen or known—if told
that it represented a driver beating slaves, they would laugh at
such Munchausen stories of things that never happened. On the other
hand, if the representation is true, would the mere picture of a
thing be more likely to excite them to insurrection than the thing
itself? These stories of efforts to excite violence are mere spectres
raised on purpose for the occasion. If you will take notice of the
charges brought against abolitionists, you will find that they are
always mere assertions, unsupported by quotations, or any species of
evidence. When I have read the resolutions passed at public meetings
against the abolitionists, I have smiled at the farce which those men
have been acting. In nearly all their resolutions, the abolitionists
could most cordially and conscientiously concur. The enemies of
the cause have in several cities gravely met together to declare
that they do not approve of attempts to promote insurrections. The
abolitionists agree with them entirely. With the same ridiculous
gravity, they make known to the world that they do not approve of any
legislative interference with the Southern States. The abolitionists
have never dreamed of any such interference. They merely wish to
_induce the Southerners to legislate for themselves_; and they hope
to do this by the universal dissemination of facts and arguments,
calculated to promote a _correct public sentiment_ on the subject of
slavery. This is all they ever intended to do; and this they will
do, though earth and hell combine against their efforts. The men
engaged in this cause are not working for themselves, but for God—and
therefore they are strong.

_Q._ But do you believe the Southerners ever can be persuaded?

_A._ At all events, it is our duty to try. “Thus saith the Lord God,
Thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or
whether they will forbear; neither be afraid of their words, though
briers and thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions.”
If public sentiment becomes universally reformed on this subject, it
cannot fail to have a powerful influence. Slavery was abolished in
the British dominions entirely by moral influence. Parliament never
would have voted for the bill, the king never would have signed it,
if an enlightened public sentiment had not made the step absolutely
necessary; and the public became enlightened by the exertions of
benevolent men, who were obliged to endure every form of obloquy
and rage, before the good work was completed. The slave-holders are
perfectly aware that the same causes will produce similar effects in
this country. One of the Southern editors has lately declared that
what is most to be feared is, that these fanatical abolitionists
will make some people of morbid consciences believe that slavery
really _is_ wrong, and that it is their duty to relinquish it.
Another Southern newspaper complains that the worst effect of this
discussion is, that it is causing good men to regard slave-holders
with abhorrence.

_Q._ But if the system works so badly in every respect, why are
people so unwilling to give it up?

_A._ Human nature is willing to endure much, rather than relinquish
unbridled licentiousness and despotic control. The emperor of Russia,
and the pachas of Egypt would be reluctant to abridge their own
power, for the sake of introducing a system of things more conducive
to the freedom, virtue and happiness of their subjects. They had
rather live in constant fear of the poisoned bowl and the midnight
dagger, than to give up the pleasant exercise of tyranny, to which
they have so long been accustomed. In addition to this feeling, so
common to our nature, there are many conscientious people, who are
terrified at the idea of emancipation. It has always been presented
to them in the most frightful colors; and bad men are determined, if
possible, to prevent the abolitionists from proving to such minds
that _the dangers of insurrection all belong to slavery, and would
cease when slavery was abolished_.

At the North, the apologists of slavery are numerous and virulent,
because their _interests_ are closely intertwined with the pernicious
system. Inquire into the private history of many of the men, who
have called meetings against the abolitionists—you will find that
some manufacture negro cloths for the South—some have sons who sell
those cloths—some have daughters married to slave-holders—some have
plantations and slaves mortgaged to them—some have ships employed in
Southern commerce—and some candidates for political offices would bow
until their back-bones were broken, to obtain or preserve Southern
influence. The Southerners understand all this perfectly well, and
despise our servility, even while they condescend to make use of it.

One great reason why the people of this country have not thought
and felt right on this subject, is that all our books, newspapers,
almanacs and periodicals, have combined to represent the colored race
as an inferior and degraded class, who never could be made good and
useful citizens. Ridicule and reproach have been abundantly heaped
upon them; but their virtues and their sufferings have found few
historians. The South has been well satisfied with such a public
sentiment. It sends back no echo to disturb their consciences, and
it effectually rivets the chain on the necks of their vassals. In
this department of service, the Colonization Society has been a most
active and zealous agent.

_Q._ But some people say that all the mobs, and other violent
proceedings, are to be attributed to the abolitionists.

_A._ They might as well charge the same upon St. Paul, when his
fearless preaching of the gospel brought him into such imminent
peril, that his friends were obliged to “let him down over the wall
in a basket,” to save his life. As well might St. Stephen have been
blamed for the mob that stoned him to death. With the same justice
might William Penn have been called the cause of all the violent
persecutions against the Quakers. When principles of truth are sent
out in the midst of a perverse generation, they _always_ come “not to
bring peace, but a sword.” The abolitionists have offered violence
to no man—they have never attempted to stop the discussions of their
opponents; but have, on the contrary, exerted themselves to obtain a
candid examination of the subject on all sides. They merely claim the
privilege of delivering peaceful addresses at orderly meetings, and
of publishing what they believe to be facts, with an honest desire to
have them tested by the strictest ordeal of truth.

_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’.



*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Anti-slavery catechism" ***


Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.