Discussion on American Slavery

Again he might say that this principle of abolitionism was contrary to all the experience which America had acquired as a nation on this subject. Principles favorable to emancipation first took root where there were few slaves, and when the products of their labor were of little value. They had spread gradually towards the South, the border States being always first inoculated, till no fewer than eight States which tolerated slavery, adopted this principle, and successively abolished it. To these eight States were to be added four others, created since the formation of the Federal Constitution, which never tolerated slavery, thus making twelve States in which slavery was not permitted. By the influence of gradualism alone, had the cause of freedom advanced steadily to this point, and every day rendered its ultimate triumph throughout the whole empire more and more probable. At this time it might have been carried South by at least 5 degrees of latitude; and Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, added to the free States; and the shackles of 1,000,000 slaves been in a process of gradual melting off. If fifty years had seen the rise of 12 free States, was it too much to hope that the next fifty years should enfranchise twelve more. For all the ruin brought on this glorious cause during the last four years by principles and practices of Mr. Thompson's friends, what have they to compensate suffering humanity? Have they or theirs released from his bonds a single slave? The abolition plan had in fact, been a signal, a total, absolute failure. Mr. Thompson himself did not pretend to say that a twentieth part of the population of America had embraced his views. The whole theory was as false as the whole practice was fatal; and just and pious men would hereafter hesitate before they sent out new missions to advocate them, or lent the influence of their just weight to denunciations levelled against all who did not think them worthy of their applause. The second great principle of the abolitionists, to which he would invite attention, was this – that it was the inherent and indestructible right of every man to abide in perfect freedom in whatever spot he was born; and that while it is a crime to deny him there all the rights of a man, a citizen and a Christian, it was not less so to persuade, to win, or to coerce him into what they called exile – this principle was levelled at the Colonization Society; and while instant abolition formed the first, and denunciation of what they call prejudice against color formed the last; hatred to colonization formed the middle and active principle of the band. Of this, it might be said, first, that it had the advantage of contradicting all the wisdom and practice of mankind. Whether it was meant to embrace women and minors – or at what age to establish the beginning of rights so extraordinary and unprecedented, whether at twenty-one, as here, or twenty-five, as in some countries, or twenty-eight, as in others, had not yet been defined. Thus much at least might be said – that if these rights resided in black men, they resided in no others, of whatever hue or race; and the philosophers who discovered their existence had found out something to compensate these unhappy men for their unparalleled sufferings. It certainly need not create surprise that we should listen with suspicion to such dogmas taught by an Englishman, when we remember that, from time immemorial, all the institutions of his own country were built upon dogmas precisely opposite; and all her practice the reverse of the preaching of the semi-national representative. Mr. Thompson says, a man is a citizen by inherent right, wherever he is born; the British monarchy, which Mr. Thompson says he prefers to all things else, says on the contrary, that let a man be born where he may he is a Briton, if born of British parents; and it both claims his allegiance, and will extend to him every right of a subject born at home! Then why is not a man an African if born of African parents in America, as well as a Briton, if born of British parents there? Or why are we to be attacked first with cannon on one side, and then with Billingsgate on the other side of this vexed question? Nor did our own notions, adverse as they were to those of Britain, conflict less with Mr. T. and abolitionism on another part of the principle. All our notions permit men to expatriate themselves, many of our constitutions guarantee it as a natural right, and America had actually gone to war with Britain in defence of that right in her unnaturalized citizens. Britain had insisted on searching American vessels for British sailors – America had refused to submit to the search; because, among other things the man sought was, by naturalization, an American. America did not oppose any of her citizens becoming Britons, if they thought fit, and was resolved to maintain the right of those who chose to become American citizens, from whatever country they might have emigrated, and therefore could hear only with contempt this dictum of abolitionism. Again he would say that, this principle is contrary to common sense. Rights of citizenship were not to be considered natural rights. They were given by the community – they might be withheld by the community; and, therefore, to talk of their being indestructible, was sheer nonsense. No man had a natural right to say, I will be a citizen of this or that State; and in point of fact, the great bulk of mankind were not citizens at all, but merely subjects. There were laws establishing the present form of government, giving a certain power to the king and to the Parliament, and regulating the mode in which Parliament was to be elected. These laws were altogether conventional; and as well might a man claim a natural right to be a king or a judge as to be a citizen. It might be as truly said that one is inherently a shark because he was born at sea, or a horse because he happened to have been born in a stable. So far is the theory of abolition from the truth; and so widely remote is their hatred to colonization, from being based in justice, or reason, that circumstances may occur in which it shall become imperative duty for men to emigrate. America presented a striking example of the truth of this. In this country it was customary to talk of America as a daughter of England. He had heard people talk as if America were about as large as one English shire, and settled principally from their own villages. But the fact was that America was an epitome of the whole world, peopled by colonies from almost all parts of it. It was an eclectic nation; and to talk to Americans, of the inherent right of a man to stay and be oppressed, where he happened to be born – or the guilt of seducing him to emigrate, is only to expose one's self to pity or scorn. To realize this, it is only necessary to take a map of our wide empire, washed by both oceans, and embracing all the climates of the earth, and get some American boy to tell you the migrations of his ancestors. To omit all mention of the red man, from Asia, and the poor black man, from Africa; there, he will say in New-England, are the children of the pilgrims, who were the fathers of your own Roundheads, driven out by the mean and vexatious tyranny of James I.; and there, in lower Virginia, three hundred leagues off, are the descendants of the Cavaliers and Malignants. There, in the back parts of the same ancient commonwealth, and in all western Pennsylvania, are the sturdy Scotch, whose fathers were hanged in the streets of your cities, by that perjured Charles II., who thus rewarded the loyalty that gave him back his crown. In the same key State, of the Union is a nation of industrious Germans; while in the empire state of New-York, are the children of those glorious United Provinces, that disputed with yourselves for ages, the empire of the seas; and between them both in New-Jersey the descendants of those ancient Danes who often ravaged your own coasts. The descendants of the Hugonauts, whose ancestors Louis XIV. expelled from France, and placed cordons on his frontiers to butcher as they went out, simply because they were Protestants, peopling parts of the south; in other parts of which, are colonies of Swiss, of Spaniards, and of Catholic French. The Irishmen is everywhere; and everywhere better treated than at home. Amongst such a people, it must needs be an instinctive sentiment, that he who loves country more than liberty, is unworthy to have either; that he who inculcates or affects the love of place above the possession of precious privileges, must have a sinister object. But he might proceed much farther; and having shown that it might be the duty of men to emigrate under various circumstances, prove that such a duty never was more imperative than on the free colored population of America. Possessing few motives to remain in America that were not base or insignificant compared with those that ought to urge their return, every attempt to explain and defend their conduct revealed a selfishness on their part a thousand times greater than that they charge upon the whites; and a cruelty on the part of their advisers towards the dying millions of heathen in Africa, more atrocious than that charged, even by them, on the master against his slave. The love of country, of kindred, of liberty, of the souls of men, and of God himself, impels them to depart, and do a work which none but they can do; and which they forego through the love of ease, the lack of energy, vanity gratified by the caresses of abolitionists, and deadness to the great motives detailed above. But there was another, and most obvious truth, which shows the utter futility of the principle of abolition now contested. So far was the fact from being so, that anybody, black or white, held an inherent right of citizenship in the place of his birth; that it is most certain, no man had even a right of bare residence, which the state might not justly and properly deprive him of – upon sufficient reason. The state has the indisputable right to coerce emigration, whenever the public good required it; and when that public good coincided with the interest of the emigrating party – and that also of the land to which they went – to coerce such emigration might become a most sacred duty. It was indeed true, that the friends of colonization had not contemplated nor proposed any other than a purely voluntary emigration; for even the traduced State of Maryland not only made the fact of removal voluntary, but, going a step further than any other, gave a choice of place to the emigrant. I recommend Africa, says she, but I will aid you to go wherever you prefer to go. It should, however, be borne in mind that this power is inherent in all communities, and has been exercised in all time. And it were well for the advocates of abolition principles to remember that the final, and, if necessary, forcible separation of the parties is surely preferable to the annihilation, or the eternal slavery of either; while it is infinitely more probable than the instant emancipation – the universal levelling – or the general mixture for which they contend. He had still left a third principle advanced by the abolitionists on which to comment, but as only two or three minutes of his allotted time remained, he would not enter on the subject; but would read, for the information of the audience a speech delivered by Mr. Thompson at Andover, in Massachusetts, the seat of one of our largest theological seminaries, as reported by a student who was present. He wished this speech to be put on record for the information of the British public.

Students – I shall first speak of the natural and inalienable rights to discuss slavery. It is not a question; you ought to do it; you sin against God and conscience, and are traitors to human nature and truth, if you neglect it. Whoever attempts to stop you from the exercise of this right, snatches the trident from the Almighty, and whoever dares to put manacles upon mind must answer for it to the bar of God. It belongs to God, and to God exclusively. You are not at liberty to give respect to any entreaty or suggestion or to take into consideration the feelings of any man or body of men on the subject. The wicked spirit of expediency is the spirit of hell, the infamous doctrines of the demons of hell; and whoever attempts to preach it to the rising youth of the land, preaches the doctrine of the damned spirits. It is the spirit of the flame and faggot, revealing itself as it dares, and corrupting the atmosphere so as to prevent the free breathing of a free soul. Where are the students of the Lane seminary? Where they ought to be; – from Georgia to Maine, and from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains – far from a prison-house where fetters are forged and rivetted. They could not stay in a place where a thermometer was hung up to graduate the state of their feelings. It was not till Dr. Beecher consulted the faculty at New-Haven and Andover, to see if they would sustain him, that he ventured to put the screws on. But, perhaps you may say, we must bid farewell to promotion if we do as you desire. The faculty have the power, in a degree, to fix our future settlements by the recommendation, and, therefore, we must desist. What if you do have to leave the seminary? Far better to be away than to breathe the tainted air of tyranny. I proclaim it here, that the only reason why abolition is not countenanced at Andover is, because it is unpopular; when it is popular it will be received. In 1823, the Colonization Society was the pet child of the churches, the seminaries, and the colleges of the land; but now, forsooth, because it is unpopular, it is cast off. Aye, once the eloquent tongues voiced its praise, and the gold and silver were its tributaries – where is it now? Cast off because it is not popular. This is rather hard; in its old age, too. But I forbear, it is a touching theme. I return to the Lane seminary. Never were nobler spirits and finer minds congregated together; never in all time and place a more heroic and generous band. Dr. Beecher himself has pronounced the eulogy. In what condition is the seminary now. Lying in ruins, irretrievably gone! Dr. Beecher then sacrificed honor and reputation.

Mr. Thompson read extracts from an article in the Liberator, which went to show that the faculty at Andover advised the students to be uncommitted on the dividing topic of slavery. Yes, added Mr. Thompson, go out uncommitted; wait till you get into a pulpit and have it cushioned and a settee in it, and then you may commit yourself. The speaker observed that very ill effects had resulted from the failure of the students at Andover to form themselves into an Anti-Slavery Society – the evil example had extended to Philip's Academy, Amherst College, &c. He had been twitted about it wherever he had been, but you may recover yourselves, he added, condescendingly; there is some apology for you, only let a Society be formed instantly. Those who attempted to show from the Bible that slavery was justifiable, were paving the slave-holders' paths to hell with texts of Scripture. Mr. Thompson enlarged upon the merits of the refractory students at Lane Seminary, with a most abundant supply of adjectives; and the mean-spirited students of Andover, although not expressly designated as such, were understood by the manner of expression to be placed in contrast. Mr. Thompson remarked that such conduct would not be tolerated by the students of any college in England, Scotland, or Ireland. This abuse, of the faculty at Andover was more personal and pointed than I have described; one of the faculty was called by name, but the severe expressions I have forgotten. He would probably have outrun himself, and exhausted the vocabulary of opprobrious epithets, had he not been interrupted. At the conclusion of the lecture, with the strange inconsistency which belongs to the man, he remarked that he had a high respect for the members of the faculty, and that he would willingly sit at their feet as a learner.

He had only one remark before he sat down. It had been publicly stated by a student of this seminary, that Mr. Thompson, in a conversation with him, had said, that every slave-holder deserved to have his throat cut, and that his slaves ought to do it. He could not, of course, vouch for the truth of this; but Mr. Thompson was there to explain. One thing, however, he could state as an indisputable fact, namely, that the professors of the seminaries had signed a document in which it was asserted that the young man had been in the college for three years, and that his veracity was unimpeached and unimpeachable. If the story were true – it was well that it was timely made public. If the young man misunderstood Mr. Thompson, he (Mr. B.) believed he formed one of a very large class in America, who had fallen into similar mistakes, and drawn similar conclusions from the general drift of his doings and sayings in that country.

Mr. THOMPSON, on rising, observed that no one could be more ready than himself to commend the gentleman who had just resumed his seat for the courage which he had shewn in dealing so frankly and faithfully with him, (Mr. T.) in the presence of those to whom he (Mr. B.) was comparatively a stranger, and whose favorable opinion he (Mr. T.) had had many opportunities of conciliating. He rejoiced that his opponent had, towards the end of his speech, attempted to state facts and specify charges, and had thus afforded him an opportunity of showing how completely and triumphantly he could meet the charges brought against himself personally, and support the statements he had made in reference to America. He would commence with the Andover story about cutting throats. The truth of the matter was this. A student in the Theological Seminary of the name of A. F. Kaufman, Jr., charged him, George Thompson, with having said, in a private conversation, that every slave-holder ought to have his throat cut, and that if the abolitionists preached what they ought to preach, they would tell every slave to cut his master's throat. Mr. Kaufman was from Virginia, the son of a slave-holder, and heir to slave property. The story was first circulated in Andover, and was afterwards published in the New-York Commercial Advertiser, in a communication dated from the Saratoga Springs. In reply to the printed version, I (said Mr. T.) printed a letter denying the charge in the most solemn manner, and referring to my numerous public addresses, and innumerable private conversations, in proof of the perfectly pacific character of my views. Then came forth a long statement from Mr. Kaufman, with a certificate to his veracity and general good character, signed by professors Woods, Stuart, and Emerson, of Andover. Here the matter must have rested – Mr. Kaufman's charge on one side, and my denial on the other – had the conversation been strictly private; but, fortunately for me, there were witnesses of every word; and this brings me to notice other circumstances connected with the affair, constituting a most complete contradiction of the charge. I was staying at the time under the roof of the Rev. Shipley W. Willson, the minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Andover, and when I had the conversation with Mr. Kaufman, in which the language imputed to me is alleged to have been uttered, there were present, besides ourselves, my host the Rev. S. W. Willson; the Rev. Amos A. Phelps, congregational clergyman, and one of the agents of the American Anti-Slavery Society; the Rev. La Roy Sunderland Methodist Episcopal clergyman, and at present the editor of Zion's Watchman, New-York; and the Rev. Jarvis Gregg, now a Professor in Western Reserve College, Ohio. In consequence of the use made of the statement put forth by Mr. Kaufman, I wrote to Professor Gregg, and Mr. Phelps, requesting them to give their version of the conversation in writing; and their letters in reply, which, together with one written without solicitation by Mr. Sunderland, have been published. They not only flatly contradict the account given by Mr. Kaufman, but prove that I advocated in the strongest language the doctrine of non-resistance on the part of the slaves. These letters, however, never appeared in the columns of the papers which brought the charge and defied me to the proof of my innocence.

It may be well to give some idea of the conversation out of which the charge grew. Mr. Kaufman complained of the harsh language of the abolitionists, and challenged me to quote a passage of scripture justifying our conduct in that respect. I quoted the passage "Whoso stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death;" and observed, that in this text we had a proof of the awful demerit of the slaveholder; that he was considered worthy of death; and that the modern slaveholder, under the Christian dispensation, was not less guilty than the slaveholder under the Jewish law. I then reminded him of the political principles of the Americans, and cited the words of the declaration of Independence, "RESISTANCE to tyrants is obedience to God." I then contrasted the injuries inflicted on the slave with the grievances complained of in the Declaration of Independence, and argued, that, if the Americans deemed themselves justified in resisting to blood the payment of a threepenny tea tax and a stamp duty, how much more, upon the same principles, would the slave be justified in cutting his masters' throat, to obtain deliverance from personal thraldom. Nay more, that every American, true to the principles of the revolution, ought to teach the slaves to cut their master's throats – but that while these were fair deductions from their own revolutionary principles, I held the doctrine that it was invariably wrong to do evil that good might come, and that I dared not purchase the freedom of the slaves by consenting to the death of one master.

He (Mr. T.) had thus disposed of one of the most tangible portions of his opponent's speech. He regretted there had not been more of matter-of-fact statement in the speech of one hour in length, to which they had just listened; a speech, which, however creditable to the intellect of his opponent on account of its ingenuity, was by no means creditable to his heart. Instead of dealing fairly with the documents he (Mr. T.) had produced, and which contained a true and ample statement of the views, feelings, principles, purposes and plans of the abolitionists, Mr. Breckinridge had manufactured a series of dextrous sophisms, calculated to keep out of sight the real merits of the question. Was it not strange, that, covered as that platform was with the documents of the abolitionists, his opponent had not quoted one word from their writings, but had based all he had said upon a statement of their principles made out by himself; and had then given to that statement an interpretation of his own, utterly at variance with all the views and doctrines entertained by the abolitionists. The gentleman had most ably played the part of Tom Thumb, who made the giants he so valiantly demolished. He would not attempt to grapple with that which rested altogether upon a gross misstatement of the principles and views of the Abolitionists. He had a right to expect that Mr. B. would go to the many sources of official information touching the principles he professed to denounce; but instead, he had put forth a creed, as the creed of the Abolitionists of America, which was nowhere to be found in their writings, and he (Mr. T.) should therefore wait until an objection had been taken to something they (the abolitionists) had really said or done.

Mr. Breckinridge had amused them with another Andover story. He had read an extract from a speech said to have been delivered by him (Mr. T.) during the protracted meeting he had held there. He would just take the liberty of assuring the audience that he had never uttered the speech which had that night been put into his mouth. It had been said that the speech was reported by a student. Had Mr. B. given the name of the student? – No. He (Mr. B.) knew that it was an anonymous communication, written by a vile enemy of a righteous cause, who was too much ashamed of his own productions to sign his name, but put the initial C. at the end of his libellous productions, which were greedily copied into the pro-slavery papers of the United States. The reports furnished by that scribbler were known in Andover to be false, and laughed at by the students as monstrous and ludicrous perversions of the truth. Upon this point also, he (Mr. T.) had ample documentary evidence. He did not wonder that Mr. Breckinridge had so frequently twitted him respecting the multitude of documents which he (Mr. T.) was in the habit of producing. It must be peculiarly unpleasant to find that he (Mr. T.) had always the document at hand necessary to annihilate the pretended proof of his opponent. He would now read from a report of the proceedings at Andover – but a very different report compared with that they had just heard – not an anonymous one, but signed by a respectable and pious student in the Theological Seminary, R. Reed, Corresponding Secretary of the Andover Anti-Slavery Society. As reference was made, in the extract he was going to read, to a former visit, he would just state, that about three months after his arrival in the United States, he visited Andover, and delivered three lectures, besides undergoing a long examination into his principles in the College Chapel; and that on his return to Boston, where he was then residing, he received from the Institution a series of resolutions signed by upwards of fifty of the students, expressive of their entire concurrence in the sentiments he had advanced, and their high approbation of the temper in which he had advocated those sentiments, and commending him to the blessing and protection of Heaven. He (Mr. T.) need not say that such a testimonial from theological students, unasked and unexpected, was peculiarly gratifying.