Discussion on American Slavery

Mr. B. asserts, page 110, that the free blacks 'in nearly every part of America,' enjoy all civil rights 'to a degree utterly unknown to millions of British subjects,' in various parts of the empire, and 'even in England itself.' 'It would be easy,' says the Emancipator, 'to show that he is wrong in several particulars.' And then, as one, refers to the fact, that the colored man is not secure in his rights or person, but may be dragged into slavery, even from free states, without a jury trial. This one fact is certainly sufficient to disprove Mr. B's assertion.

'But,' says Mr. B. 'If any rights have been denied them,' as for instance, that of preaching the gospel, 'which Virginia had lately done,' it was all owing to the fury of abolition. See page 110. Yet Stroud cites a law of Virginia, dating back as far as 1819, and being then but the re-enactment of a law before in force, which rendered all assemblies of slaves and free negroes in a meeting house or other place by night, or at any school for teaching reading and writing, by day or night, unlawful assemblies, and subjects any person, slave or free black, found in them, to the punishment of twenty lashes, by order of a justice of the peace. Stroud, page 89.

Mr. B. in the true colonization spirit, takes occasion to slander the colored people, accusing them of 'insolence and imprudence,' and of 'insulting females in the streets of our cities,' and 'setting up claim of perfect domestic equality with their masters,' &c. See page 114. We give the Emancipator's note on this wicked accusation, which is as cruel as it is false. 'This whole representation is false. Nothing can be more so. The modest deportment and the spirit of forbearance manifested by the colored people, from the outset, has been of the most marked as well as praiseworthy character, and in instances not a few, has secured to them the approbation of avowed enemies of the anti-slavery cause.' We add our own testimony, so far as our observation has extended, to the truth of this statement.

In the fifth evening's debate, Mr. B. complains, page 120, that Mr. Thompson 'did not tell them that none of the ministers in twelve whole states were or could easily be slaveholders, seeing they were not inhabitants of a slave state.' And why should he. Would not the mere knowledge of the fact, that 'they were not inhabitants of slave states' render it unnecessary that his hearers should be particularly informed that they were not slaveholders? Does Mr. B. believe that the people of Glasgow supposed Northern ministers to be generally slaveholders? We say generally, for we should not dare to assert that 'none' of them 'were,' whether they 'easily could be' or not. If we have not been misinformed, and we believe we have not, it has been our fortune, good or ill, to hear a northern slaveholding minister preach, a minister too, whose pastoral charge was in the very cradle of this free nation.

'The overwhelming mass of American ministers,' says Mr. B., 'never owned a slave, and those who had, were exceptions from the general rule.' Mr. T. has demolished this position with a most tremendous broadside of evidence. We add the following quotation, which we find in the Emancipator, from a document published a few months ago, by the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. 'The number of our ministers is but little more than half the number of our churches, and of those ministers not one fifth sustain any pastoral relation.' The number of ministers is about 100, 'and many of them are obliged to devote a part or the whole of their time to teaching, farming, or some other secular employment, to procure a support for their families.' Farming we all know, means in the slave states, 'slaveholding and slave-driving.'

Mr. B. seems very indignant at the declarations of his opponent, and Moses Roper, (a colored man who had been present at some of the meetings which Mr. T. addressed,) that slaves in America were owned, not only by ministers and church members, but even by churches themselves. He calls Roper's statement, 'the poor negro's silly falsehood,' and says, page 123, 'If there be above five congregations in all America, that own slaves, I never heard of them.' He then mentions three of which he has heard, all in the Southern part of Virginia. The Emancipator, in a note on this part of Mr. B's speech, remarks, 'True, it is not the general practice for churches or ecclesiastical societies at the South, to own slaves as church property, yet we suppose that the practice is by no means uncommon; and the proof is threefold: first, that a number of instances of the kind are actually known; second, that when such instances do occur, they never produce any special sensation in the public mind – are never spoken of as special and extraordinary cases, and never subjects such church to reproof or the loss of ecclesiastical fellowship with other churches; and third, that ministers very generally at the South hold slaves, and that oftentimes when they are unable to buy for themselves, some kind friend makes them a present of one or two for house servants; and if to the ministry, why not the church?' It then goes on to enumerate two instances, beside those admitted by Mr. B., of churches holding slaves, and one of a bequest of slaves to the Missionary Society, [A. B. C. F. M.] and gives also an advertisement of the sale of certain property 'belonging to the estate of the late Rev. Dr. Truman,' including land, 'a library chiefly theological,' and 'twenty-seven negroes, two mules, one horse, and an old wagon.' The note thus continues, 'And when these notices appeared in the Southern prints, no body was struck with amazement; no protestation was given to the public that they were extraordinary cases; no Christian minister or Christian newspaper, as we are aware, ever lifted their voice against them as rare cases, or bore their testimony against them as being as monstrous as they were rare. What then is the inference? Why, that such things, if not general, are yet never regarded as singular or uncommon. Now add to these; and others that might be named, the cases admitted by Mr. B., and to this, add the fact that Mr. Paxton at least felt that his church in Virginia could emancipate the fifty slaves they owned, but would not, and then say whose statements have most of the "silly falsehoods" about them, those of Mr. B., or the despised but honest-hearted negro?'

Mr. B. seems to regard it as a mighty grievance, that when there are so few slaveholding ministers, church members, and churches in America, his opponent should charge the guilt of slavery upon the whole American church. But why is not the whole church guilty, if any of its members persist in committing the sin, and yet are regarded as worthy members, in regular standing? – if any of its ministers with hands polluted by the abominable thing, are still allowed, without any ecclesiastical censure, not only to dispense the bread of life from the store-house of God's word, but to distribute the emblems of Christ's body and blood, to those who come around the table to commemorate a Saviour's dying love? – if any of its branches, claiming to hold God's image as property, and treating as 'chattels personal,' their Saviour, in the person of 'one of the least of these' his 'brethren,' are fellow-shipped as sister churches, and unreproved for their iniquity? 'Who dare pretend,' asks the Emancipator, 'That the American church does not uphold and countenance Christian slaveholders in their conduct? True, there are individuals, and individual churches not a few, who do not, but who bear a faithful testimony against them. But how is it with the governing influences of the church? Their character and their acts, and not those of a minority, however large or respectable are the character and the acts of the church. What then is the position of the governing influences of the American church in regard to American slavery? It is that of protection and countenance. The proceedings of the last General Convention of the Baptists, and the last General Conference of the Methodists, and the last General Assembly of the Presbyterians are our confirmation – and they are "confirmation strong as holy writ." At this very moment, these three bodies stand before the world as the three great Patrons and Protectors of American slavery. Deny it as they will, the gains of the oppressor, the hire kept back by fraud is in their coffers, the blood of the oppressed stains their garments, and they refuse to confess or forsake their sin.'

Mr. B. would doubtless have thought it very uncharitable to cause a large army of Israelites to turn their backs before their enemies, and suffer a shameful and disastrous defeat, just because there was one Achan in the camp.

We cannot but think that the reverend disputant rather unfortunate in his reference to the book of Drs. Cox and Hoby, (see page 128,) for information about the connection of the Baptists with slavery. In looking there for light on that particular point, the reader might chance to stumble on some things about the wicked prejudice against the black man, as well as some sentiments in regard to the treatment of slaves and free blacks generally, that would ill accord with the expressed notions of the Presbyterian delegate.

On page 133, Mr. B. introduces a letter, published in the N. Y. Observer, and signed Truth, which represents the negroes of South Carolina as 'generally well fed, well clothed,' and enjoying 'the means of religious instruction,' and declares that 'great and increasing efforts are made to instruct them in religion, and elevate their characters.' We request our readers to turn back and read the whole letter, and then to compare it with the following extracts from a report on the subject of the religious instruction of the colored people, published in 1834, by the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. 'We believe that their (the colored population's) moral and religious condition is such, as that they may justly be considered the heathen of this christian country, and will bear comparison with heathen in any country in the world.'

'The negroes are destitute of the privileges of the gospel, and ever will be, under the present state of things. There were some exceptions to this, the Synod say, and they "rejoice" in it; but although our assertion is broad, we believe that, in general, it will be found to be correct.'

'They can have no access to the the scriptures. They are dependent for their knowledge of Christianity, upon oral instruction. Have they then that amount of oral instruction, which, in their circumstances, is necessary to their enjoyment of the gospel? They have not. From an entire state beyond the Potomac to the Sabine, and from the Atlantic to the Ohio, there are, to the best of our knowledge, not twelve men exclusively devoted to the religious instruction of the negroes.'

The report then goes on to say that 'the negroes do not have access to the gospel through the stated ministry of the whites,' that 'a very small proportion of the ministers in the slaveholding states, pay any attention to them,' that 'they have no churches, neither is there sufficient room for their accommodation in white churches,' and that, in some cases, for want of a place within, 'the negroes who attend, must catch the gospel as it escapes by the doors and windows.' 'We venture to say,' the report continues, 'that not a twentieth part of the negroes attend divine worship on the Sabbath. Thousands and thousands hear not the sound of the gospel, or ever enter a church from one year to another.'

The report says too, that they 'do not enjoy the privileges of the gospel in private, at their houses, or on their plantations. If the master is pious, the house servants alone, and frequently few or none of these attend family worship. In general it does not enter into the arrangement of the plantations, to make provision for their religious instruction. We feel warranted, therefore, in the conclusion, that the negroes are destitute of the privileges of the gospel, and must continue to be so, if nothing more is done for them.'

'We are astonished,' say the Synod, 'thus to find Christianity in absolute conjunction with Heathenism, and yet conferring few or no benefits.'

Our readers, after comparing the above with the letter read by Mr. B., can decide how much right the author of that letter had to sign it 'Truth.'

Mr. B., page 155, endeavors to escape the force of the immense weight of evidence with which his antagonist presses him to the earth, by sneering at the witnesses as 'obscure,' and for aught that could be known, 'fictitious persons,' although the names are generally given, and yet he quotes evidence to sustain himself, which is absolutely anonymous. See page 132. The Emancipator pertinently asks, 'Can Mr. B. tell us who "Truth" and "A New England man" are? Or are the persons as "fictitious" as their stories?'

Upon Mr. B.'s assertion that Mr. Thompson's testimonies were of this worthless character, the Emancipator has the following note. 'We beg our readers to stop here, and go back and count the documents, and they will find that the very reverse of what Mr. B. has stated is the fact; and that while Mr. B.'s main proofs are, first, his own assertions, and, second, the assertion of individuals, or of anonymous writers in partisan newspapers, Mr. Thompson's main proofs are the formal resolutions and declarations of ecclesiastical bodies, and of those who represent the governing influence in church and state, and that the testimony of individuals, so far as it is used, is brought in only as confirmatory of the other.'

On page 158, Mr. B. attacks Mr. J. A. Thome of Kentucky, with characteristic virulence, because, in a speech at an Anti-Slavery meeting, that young man had boldly exposed the abominations of slavery in his native state. For this act his slanderer calls him 'the ingrate who commenced his career of manhood, by smiting his parent in the face.' But he cautiously avoids attempting – what he was doubtless sensible would be a somewhat difficult task – to disprove the statements of Mr. Thome. It is a little remarkable that the facts stated by Thome, and denied by Mr. B. and his brother at the time, were confirmed abundantly by an article published in the Western Luminary, a Kentucky paper, on the very day on which Mr. Thome made his statement in New York. Thus without any concert or arrangement, two witnesses at a long distance from each other, testified to the same facts, and unfortunately for the credibility of Mr. Breckinridge, those were the facts which he was almost at the same time stoutly denying. Other witnesses of unimpeachable veracity, have since attested the same facts, and now Mr. B.'s impotent efforts to discredit Mr. Thome, only serve to show his own vexation, malignity and falsehood.

We do not pretend to have noticed all the slips of Mr. B.'s 'unruly member' in this discussion, or to have pointed out every instance in which he has labored with all that ability and ingenuity which we readily admit he possesses, to create false impressions on the minds of his audience; but enough have been pointed out to show in some measure, the degree of confidence which ought to be reposed in his veracity as a witness and his candor and fairness as a reasoner.

A few trifling errors into which Mr. Thompson has fallen, we feel bound to correct; in proceeding to which, however, we cannot but remark that considering the shortness of the time which Mr. T. spent among us, the amount of labor which he performed in lecturing, addressing conventions, debating, &c. &c. and the large portion of his time necessarily consumed in social intercourse with his extensive circle of acquaintance – nay, the very considerable share of it which was required for the mere answering of applications to lecture, which came from every quarter; we are actually astonished at the extent and minuteness of his information, the mass of facts and documents which he has contrived to collect, and what is more, at the general – the almost uniform accuracy of his knowledge of American affairs. The reader has seen how completely furnished he was, how armed at all points, and ever ready to lay his hand on the very weapon which was needed at any stage of the conflict, whether to parry the blow aimed at himself, or to send home to his antagonist's bosom, a vigorous thrust which neither the dexterity of sophistry could elude, nor the buckler of brazen falsehood ward off. Indeed the mass of his documents, and the readiness and aptness to the purpose with which he used them, seems to have been one of the chief causes of the bitter vexation which his opponent continually betrays. That he should have fallen into a few mistakes is nothing surprising – that he should have fallen into so few, is indeed wonderful, and proves the industry and diligence with which he labored at times when from the fatiguing nature, and great amount of his public efforts, one would have supposed he must have been obliged to indulge in perfect repose. But to the errors.

He stated the first evening, page 12, that there were now, exclusive of the publications of the Anti-Slavery Society, one hundred newspapers boldly advocating the principles of abolition. 'There are,' says the Emancipator, 'about that number friendly to our cause, and that occasionally speak in our behalf, but not that boldly advocate our principles,' or, as perhaps would be the more accurate mode of expression, that do not boldly advocate our principles, in their application to the subject to which we apply them.

On the second evening, Mr. Thompson in speaking of the New York State Anti-Slavery Convention, page 30, said there were 600 delegates at Utica the first day, and that when driven away by a mob, these went to Peterboro', and were there joined by 400 more, making 1000 in all. In reality, it was estimated that nearly or quite 1000 went to Utica, and of these only about 400 went to Peterboro'. The error is indeed immaterial.

In the fourth evening's debate, Mr. T. alluding to Kaufman's slanderous story about him, calls Kaufman 'the son of a slaveholder, and heir to slave property.' Such was supposed to be the case, and we were not aware that this supposition was erroneous, till we met, in the Emancipator's note to this remark of Mr. T., an intimation that this report had been contradicted. 'Mr. K. is from Virginia,' says the note, 'but we believe not a slaveholder or heir to slave property.'

These are all the errors we have observed in the statements of Mr. Thompson, and these are of so little moment that we should not have considered them worthy of notice in his opponent.

It is perhaps unnecessary in concluding, formally to acknowledge, what the reader cannot fail to have perceived, our large indebtedness to the editor of the Emancipator for aid in the preparation of this appendix. The truth is, our hands are at this time so plentifully filled with business, that we have had but little time, to spare for this work, and were glad to avail ourselves of the labors of one who had, to such good purpose, just gone over the ground before us.

C. C. BURLEIGH.

Boston, Sept. 22, 1836.

1

Called indented apprentices, but from the connection in which it stands in the census, we infer that they are virtually slaves.

2

See Gurley's Life of Ashmun, page 139.

3

Speech of Henry Clay. Tenth Annual Report of the American Colonization Society.