Discussion on American Slavery

SECOND NIGHT – TUESDAY, JUNE 14

Mr. THOMPSON, before proceeding with the discussion, would make one or two preliminary observations. Last evening he had been led into an error, as regarded both number and time, in speaking of the amount of slaves in America at the adoption of the Constitution; and he was anxious that every statement made by him should be without a flaw; and if there should be an error committed he would be the first person to admit and correct it when discovered. He stated that at the adoption of the American Constitution, there were only about three hundred thousand slaves in the United States. There were not many more in 1776, when the states declared themselves independent: in 1788 when the Constitution was settled there were more; and in 1790, there were between six and seven hundred thousand slaves in the United States of America. His error consisted in his subtracting 1776 from 1790, and saying twenty-four years instead of fourteen. He mentioned this error to show that he held a regard to truth to be the ultimate end of their discussion. There was one other preliminary remark. His antagonist had repeatedly said that George Thompson had published himself a martyr. George Thompson never did publish himself a martyr. Mr. Breckinridge, in the course of his speeches last night, had said more of himself than he (Mr. T.) had ever done during all the speeches he had ever made on the question. He had only referred to himself when urgently requested to give an account of his personal experience. He never had a wish to be considered a martyr. If, when he had finished his course here; if, when this probationary scene was over, he was found to have done his duty, he would be fully satisfied. He was not pharasaical enough to imagine that he had performed any works of supererogation. Mr. Breckinridge had said this was not a national question; that slavery in America was not American Slavery; that it was not a national evil; that it was not a national sin; that is was merely a question between the State Legislatures and the slave owners. He (Mr. T.) had said last night, that slavery in America was a national sin, and he would now adduce the reasons for his statement: – First – The American people had admitted the slave states into the Union; and by consenting to admit these states into the confederacy, although there were in them hundreds of thousands in a state of slavery, they took the slaves under the government of the United States, and made the sin national. Second – For twenty years after the adoption of their Constitution, and by virtue of that very instrument, the United States permitted the horrid, unchristian, diabolical African slave-trade. Third – Than the Capital of the United States of America there was not one spot in the whole world which was more defiled by slavery; and considering the professions and privileges of the people, there was not a more anti-christian traffic on the face of the earth. Fourth – each of the states is bound by the Constitution to give up all run-away slaves; so that the poor, wretched, tortured slave might be pursued from Baltimore to Pennsylvania, from thence to New Jersey and New York, and dragged even from the confines of Canada, a fugitive and a felon, back into the slavery from which he had fled. He might be taken from the Capitol: from the very horns of the altar, to be subjected by a cruel kidnapper to the most horrid of human sufferings. It is not a national question! When the North violates the law of God – when it tramples on the Decalogue – when it defies Jehovah! what was a stronger injunction in the law of Moses than that the Israelites should protect the run-away slave? But in America every state was bound by law to give up the slave to his slave-master, to his ruthless pursuer; and yet it must not be called a national question! Fifth – The citizens of the free states were bound to go South to put down any insurrection among the slaves. They were bound and pledged to do this when required. The youth of Pennsylvania had pledged themselves to go to the Southern states to annihilate the blacks in case they asserted their rights – the rights of every human being – to be free. So also was it in New York, and in the other free states, and yet we are to be told that slavery is not a national question. The whole Union was bound to crush the slave, who, standing on the ashes of Washington said, he ought to be, and would be free. Yes, Northern bayonets would give that slave a speedy manumission from his galling yoke, by sending him in his gore, where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest. Yet it is not a national question! Sixth – The North is taxed to keep up troops in the South to overawe and terrify the slave; and yet it is not a national question! Seventh – Mr. Breckinridge has shown in a letter published by him, that the Congress has the power to put an end to the international slave trade, and yet this trade goes on in America. Mr. B. well knows that at least one hundred thousand human beings – slaves – change hands annually; he must have seen the slaves driven in coffles through his own beloved state, to be sold like cattle at Washington and Alexandria; he knows that thousands of Virginia and Maryland slaves are sold at New Orleans yearly, and yet he tells us that slavery is not a national question! Eighth – How did they admit Missouri into the Union with slaves? Were they Southern votes which admitted it? No! But they were the votes of recreant New Englanders – false to the principles of freedom, who sold the honor of their country, and with it the liberty of thousands of human beings in Missouri – or at least consented to their bondage. And yet it is not a national question! He (Mr. T.) would last refer to the remarks of a constitutional lawyer, who was able, eloquent, sincere, and high minded. Mr. T. then read the following extract: —

Such thoughts (referring to the judgments to be expected) habitually crowd upon me when I contemplate those great personal and NATIONAL evils, from which the system of operations (vis., the movements of the Colonization Society) which I stand here to advocate, seems to offer us some prospect of deliverance.

From that day (1698) till the present, there have flourished in our country, men of large and just views, who have not ceased to pour over this subject a stream of clear and noble truth, and to importune their country, by every motive of duty and advantage, to wipe from her escutcheon, the stain of human tears.

It is generally known, that the original members of the American Colonization Society anticipated, that, at some future period, the General Government, and some, if not all the State Governments, would co-operate in their exertions for the removal of an evil which was obviously NATIONAL in all its aspects.

Now who was the writer from whom he had quoted? – His friend Mr. Breckinridge. This was his final reason. If Mr. Breckinridge's argument survived these reasons, it would have a life like that of a cat, which is said to have nine lives; for they were nine fatal thrusts at his position, that slavery in America was not American slavery. Mr. B. admits the existence of slavery, but lays no blame either in this quarter or in that; he does not lay it on the states, nor on the General Government. Slavery does exist in America, but – interminably; but, but – coming as these buts did from a temperance country, he wondered much that they had escaped being staved. Slavery exists in America, but it is not a national question! There are upwards of two millions and a half of slaves in the United States of America, and of these, at least one hundred thousand changed hands annually, thus sundering, without remorse, the tenderest ties of human nature; at whose door, then, lay the guilt of this sin? To whom were the people of this country to address their warnings – over whose transgressions were they to mourn – whose hearts were they to endeavor to humanize and mollify – where were the responsible and guilty parties to be found – how are we to get access to their consciences on behalf of the slave? Mr. Breckinridge says the system is one of 'clear robbery,' 'universal concubinage,' – 'unmitigated wickedness' – and yet it is not to be immediately abolished! If it be clear robbery – if it be universal concubinage – if it be unmitigated wickedness – let the horrid system immediately, and totally, and eternally cease – a worse system it was impossible to have if these were the evils it entailed. Mr. B. triumphantly makes out my case for immediate and complete emancipation. The duty is plain and indispensable. Mr. Breckinridge says the abolitionists are the most despicable and odious men on the face of the earth. Those who love liberty are always odious in the eyes of tyrants. The lovers of things as they are, of corruption of despotism – men who look at every thing from beneath the aprons of their grandmothers, invariably regard as insufferably odious all who are lovers of reformation and liberty. This always has been, and always will be the case. As it was said in the service of the church of England, it might be said on this subject, 'As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be' if not 'world without end,' at least to the end of this world. On the 6th day of January, 1831, Mr. Breckinridge delivered in Frankfort, Kentucky, an able address in favor of the Colonization Society. In that address, Mr. B. stated that the Society was established on the 21st day of Dec. 1816, and was of course, at the time of his speech, fourteen years and sixteen days old. Mr. Breckinridge said the legislatures of eleven states of the Union had recommended this Society to Congress; that the ecclesiastical tribunals of all the leading sects of Christians in America had testified their approbation of its principles; and yet there were, after fourteen years and sixteen days, with all this support and high patronage in church and state only one hundred and sixty auxiliary societies existing throughout the Union. Now, as to the contemptible and odious abolitionists! as they were called by the gentleman who differed from him. The National Society for the immediate abolition of American slavery, was formed on the 6th of Dec. 1833; and on the 12th of May, 1835, when the anniversary was held – without being recommended to Congress by any of the state legislatures – without a testimony of approbation from any of the ecclesiastical tribunals – being only one year and six months old – how many auxiliary societies were connected with this abolition organization? Two hundred and twenty-four. That was the number then on the books of the Society; and the Secretary said the whole of them were not inserted from the want of proper returns. In a letter addressed to him (Mr. T.) by the Secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, dated New York, 31st March, 1836, were the following words: —

Never were societies forming in all parts of our country with greater rapidity. At this moment we have four hundred and fifty on our list, and doubtless, there are five hundred in existence. We have at this time eleven agents in the field, all good men and true, and all fast gaining converts.

And yet the abolitionists are a handful! The one society in fourteen years and sixteen days, having one hundred and sixty auxiliaries; the other in two years and three months, having, without the support of state legislatures, or of ecclesiastical tribunals, not fewer than five hundred; and yet the abolitionists are a handful. He (Mr. T.) held in his hand a list of delegates to the New England Convention which was held in the city of Boston, on the 25th of May, 1835. In that list he found two hundred and eighty-one gentlemen, who, at their own expense, had come from all parts of New England, to attend that Convention. On the 27th May, it was stated that the Massachusetts Society were in want of funds, and a committee was appointed to collect subscriptions. That committee in less than an hour obtained $1,800, and on the following day, $4,000, for the American Society. In New York, at the anniversary, there had been collected $14,500 – and yet the abolitionists were a handful. The American Society at its anniversary, had collected a larger sum than was collected by all the other societies together, during the week set apart for the purpose; and in Boston, $6,000 had been collected in two days; whilst in two months, a friend of Mr. B's, viz. Mr. Gurley, had only been able to collect, in the same city, about $600 for the Colonization Society. By their fruits shall ye know them; do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? You may send to New England any foreigner you please – but he must show his cause to be sound and practicable before he can draw a dollar or a cent from a New Englander, who gets his bread by early rising, and laborious attention to business – yet $6,000 were collected in two days. But the abolitionists are a mere handful! Yes – they may be a handful, but they are most precious and multyplying seed. Mr. B. said that many of the slave-owners were doing all they could for the emancipation of the slaves; whether they were doing any thing or nothing, we find New Englanders had endeavored to retrieve the honor of their country, by a subscription for emancipation of $6,000 in two days – and yet it was said, they were an odious handful! When he saw the Colonization Society like a Juggernaut, endeavoring to crush the bodies and spirits of colored men and colored women, he would league himself with the despised and 'odious handful,' and labor with them, and for them, till, by the blessing of God, on their exertions, the slaves were elevated to the condition and dignity of intelligent and intellectual beings. Mr. T. would give another proof that the abolitionists were a handful of most odious creatures. He would refer to the New York Convention. Mr. B. knows well that the pro-slavery prints pointed forward to the New York Convention in October last, as likely to be a scene of blood. Not rendered so by the abolitionists, for they were men of peace, but by the fury of their opponents. Notwithstanding, there were six hundred delegates assembled in Utica, at 9 o'clock, on the first day; and when they were driven from that city by a mob, headed by the Hon. Mr. Beardsley, member of Congress, and by the Hon. Mr. Hayden, Judge of the county – and the greater part of them went to Peterborough, these six hundred were joined by other four hundred, making one thousand delegates, for one state – and yet they were a mere handful. He would next refer to the Rhode Island Convention, at which, though held in the smallest State in the Union – in the depth of winter – and at a time when many of the roads were impassible through a heavy fall of snow, four hundred delegates attended, and $2,000 were collected – but yet the abolitionists were a mere handful! Gerrit Smith had said that there was an accession to the anti-slavery societies, in the State of New York alone, of five hundred weekly, among whom he says, there is not known one intemperate or profane person; – five hundred weekly added to one state society – yet they are a mere handful! If they go on increasing at this rate in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and throughout New England, they will not long be a small handful! Besides, many of those who were formerly on the side of colonization, have now come over to the ranks of the abolitionists. Where are now the Smiths, and Birneys, and Jays, and Coxs, that once were the eloquent and munificent advocates and patrons of the Colonization Society? They are now, with all their souls and energies, on the side of immediate abolition. Nor these alone. He might – he ought to name such men as President Green, and Professors Wright, Bush, Follen, Smyth, and Gregg. He ought to speak of a Leavitt in New York, a Kirk in Albany, a Beman in Troy, a Weld in Ohio, a Garrison in New England; and of a Mrs. Child, a Mrs. Chapman, a John G. Whittier, a May, a Dickinson, a Phelps, a Goodell, a Bourne, a Lundy, a Loring, a Sewall, and a host of others. All these men esteemed it their joy and honor to be amongst the most odious of the contemptible handful referred to. These were men of mind, of piety, of influence, of energy; men not to be deterred from doing their duty by the harsh music of the birds of ill omen, from the Upas Tree of Slavery, who sent forth their croakings, by night and by day, to scare the nation from its indispensable work of Justice and Truth – and yet these men are odious and contemptible! Your agent, too, is contemptible – he was the agent of the 'goodies' of Glasgow – and – his fair auditors could scarcely believe what epithets were lavishly bestowed on him and them – yet their agent, as contemptible as he was, was, perhaps, the only Englishman, who had ever been honored as he had been by the President of the United States of America. He who was so contemptible in the eyes of the Americans – who was a most impetuous, and untameable, and worthless animal – who was the representative of the 'goodies' and superannuated maids and matrons of Glasgow – was honored by a notice and a rebuke in the message to Congress of the President of the United States! This looked much like being insignificant and contemptible! He did not seek the honor which had been thus conferred upon him – it came upon him unaware – but he had not therefore refused it. It was an honor to be persecuted in the United States with the abolitionists of 1830. And when their children, and their children's children looked back upon these persecutions, they would exult and be proud to say they were the sons, the grandsons, or the great grandsons of the Coxs, the Jays, the Garrisons, the Tappans, and the Thompsons of England and America. After alluding to the treatment he had experienced from the New York Courier and Enquirer, Mr. T. said – let us bear these honors meekly – when calumniated for truth's sake, let us be humble, while we are joyful. One word more as to the odious handful. Seven-eights of the Methodist Episcopal ministers in the New Hampshire Conference, and seven-eights of the New England Conference were abolitionists. The students of the colleges and institutions, academical and theological of the country, known by the names of Lane Seminary, Oberlin Institute, Western Reserve College, Oneida Institute, Waterville College, Brunswick College, Amherst College, and the Seminaries of Andover, were many of them in some, and all of them in others, abolitionists; and yet, when all these societies, and ministers, and men of learning, and students were put together, they were, in their aggregate capacity, but an odious and most contemptible handful! He would now proceed to speak of the Maryland scheme – a scheme of obvious wickedness. When Mr. B. came to Boston to advocate that scheme, he says a placard was published, calling on the rabble to mob him. This placard he attributes to Mr. Garrison and the abolitionists, as he says it was of the same size and appearance as the type and columns of the Liberator newspaper, and that therefore Mr. Garrison was the publisher. This he (Mr. T.) most pointedly, and distinctly, and solemnly denied, and challenged Mr. B. to the proof. Did Mr. B. show the placard? No. Did he demonstrate its identity with Mr. Garrison's paper? No. He had not done so. To make Mr. Garrison the author or publisher of such a placard, was to publish him a coward and a villain; for he who could point out any man, still more a Christian minister, to the fury of a mob, was a moral monster, a coward, and a villain. He called on Mr. B. by his regard for truth and justice, and his reputation as a minister of Christ, to adduce the proofs necessary to sustain so grave an accusation, and he (Mr. T.) pledged himself to cast off the dearest friend he had, if a crime so base could be fixed on him. To return to the Maryland scheme. In the month of July or August, 1834, Boston was visited by his respected opponent, his brother, Dr. J. Breckinridge, and an agent of the Maryland Colonization Society, and a meeting was convened to enable those gentlemen to set forth and recommend the scheme of that Society, in aid of which the legislature of Maryland had made an appropriation of $200,000. He (Mr. T.) was fully prepared to show, that the object of the Society was to get rid of the free colored population, and that according to their design the state legislature had, in immediate connection with the grant of money, passed most rigorous and cruel laws. The Colonization Society was the net cast for the colored people – the laws of the state were the means devised to drive the devoted victims into its meshes. This was called helping them out of the country with their free consent. He (Mr. T.) would bring forward abundant proofs when he next addressed them – he would then read the laws which he could not now produce for want of time. Mr. Breckinridge might or might not notice these general charges against the Maryland scheme; but he (Mr. T.) would hereafter fully support them, and show, too, that the National Colonization Society was equally culpable, having at its ensuing annual meeting fully approved of the plan, and recommended it as a bright example for the imitation of other states.

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE then rose. He had last night understood Mr. Thompson to say, that this evening he would take up and expose the colonization scheme. It was possible that he had been wrong in this; but such was certainly the impression made upon his mind. Instead of adopting such a course, however, Mr. Thompson had treated them to a second edition of his last night's speech the only difference being that the one they had just heard was more elaborate. If they were to be called on to hear all Mr. Thompson's speeches twice, it would be a considerable time before they finished the discussion. He congratulated Mr. Thompson on his second edition, being in some respects an improvement, on his first. It was certainly better arranged. In the observations he was about to make, he would follow the course of the argument exhibited in Mr. Thompson's two speeches; but he, at the same time, wished it to be understood that he would not be cast out of the line of discussion every night in the same manner. As to what had been said about the 'handful,' he did not think it necessary to say much. He would simply remind Mr. T., that however great or however small the 'handful' might be, one pervading evil might pollute it all. A dead fly could cause the ointment of the apothecary to stink. But to come to the point. Mr. Thompson had said that the question was national as it respected America, because slaveholding states had been admitted into the confederacy. The simple fact of these states having been admitted members of the Union, was, in Mr. Thompson's estimation, proof sufficient, not only that slavery was chargeable on the whole nation, but that there had been a positive predilection among the American people in favor of slavery. In clearing up this point, a little chronological knowledge would help us. He would therefore call the attention of the audience to the real state of matters when the confederacy was established. At that period, Massachusetts was the only State in which slavery had been abolished; and even in Massachusetts its formal abolition was not effected till some time after. For in that State it came to an end in consequence of a clause inserted in the Constitution itself – tantamount to the one in our Declaration of Independence, that freedom is a natural and inalienable right. Successive judicial decisions, upon this clause, without any special legislation, had abolished slavery there; so that the exact period of its actual termination is not easily definable. This recalls another point on which Mr. Thompson would have been the better of possessing a little chronological information. He had repeatedly stated that the American Constitution was founded on the principle, that all men are created free and equal. Now, this was not so. The principle was no doubt, a just one; it was asserted most fully by the Continental Congress of 1776, and might be said to form the basis of our Declaration of Independence. But it was not contained in the American Constitution, which was formed twelve years afterwards. That Constitution was formed in accordance with the circumstances in which the different states were placed. Its chief object was to guard against external injury, and regulate external affairs; it interfered as little as possible with the internal regulations of each state. The American was a federative system of government; twenty-four distinct republics were united for certain purposes, and for these alone. So far was the national government from possessing unlimited powers, that the Constitution itself was but a very partial grant of those, which, in their omnipotence, resided, according to our theory, only in the people themselves in their primary assemblies. It had been specially agreed in the Constitution itself, that the powers not delegated should be as expressly reserved, as if excepted by name; and, amongst the chief subjects, exclusively interior, and not delegated, and so reserved, is slavery. Had this not been the case, the confederacy could not have been formed. It had been said that the American Constitution had not only tolerated slavery, but that it had actually guaranteed the slave-trade for twenty years. Nothing could be more uncandid than this statement. Never had facts been more perverted. One of the causes of the American Revolution had been the refusal of the British King to sanction certain arrangements on which some of the states wished to enter, for the abolition of the slave-trade. At the formation of the Federal Constitution, while slavery was excluded from the control of Congress, as a purely state affair, the slave trade was deemed a fit subject, by the majority, for the executors of national power, as being an exterior affair. And at a period prior to the very commencement of that great plan of individual effort, guided by Wilberforce and Clarkson, in Britain; and which required twenty years to rouse the conscience of this nation – our distant, and now traduced fathers, had already made up their minds, that this horrid traffic, which they found not only existing, but encouraged by the whole power of the King, should be abolished. It was granted, perhaps too readily to the claims of those who thought, (as nearly the whole world thought) that twenty years should be the limit of the trade; and at the end of that period it was instantly prohibited, as a matter course, and by unanimous consent. How unjust then was it to charge on America, as a crime, what was one of the brightest virtues in her escutcheon. Mr. Thompson had next asserted, that slavery of the most horrid description existed in the Capital of America, and in the surrounding District, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. He (Mr. Breckinridge) did not hesitate to deny this. It was not true. Slavery did exist there; but it was not of the horrible character which had been represented. It was well known that the slavery existing in the United States was the mildest to be seen in any country under Heaven. Nothing but the most profound ignorance could lead any one to assert the contrary. Mr. Thompson had a colleague in his recent exhibitions in London, who seemed to have taken interludes in all Mr. T's speeches. In one of these, that colleague had said, he knew of his own knowledge a case, in which a man had given $500 for a slave, in order to burn him alive! Mr. Thompson, no doubt knew, that even on the supposition that such a monster was to be found, he was liable in every part of the United States, to be hanged as any other murderer. Slavery was bad enough anywhere; but to say that it was more unmitigated in America than in the West Indies, where emigration had always been necessary to keep up the numbers, while in America, the slave population increased faster than any part of the human race, was a gross exaggeration, or a proof of the profoundest ignorance. To say that the slavery of the District of Columbia was the most horrid that ever existed, when it, along with the whole of the slavery on that continent, was so hedged about by human laws, that in every one of the states cruelty to the slave was punished as an offence against the state; the killing of a slave was punished every where with death; while in all ages, and nearly in all countries where slavery has existed besides, the master was not only the exclusive judge of the treatment of his slave, but the absolute disposer of his life, which he could take away at will; these statements can proceed only from unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead. As to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, there might, at first sight, appear to be some grounds of accusation; but yet, when the subject was considered in all its bearings, so many pregnant, if not conclusive, reasons presented themselves against interference, that though much attention had been bestowed upon it for many years, the result had been that nothing was done. It was to be recollected that the whole District of Columbia was only ten miles square; and that it was surrounded by states in which slavery was still legalized. It was thus clear, that though slavery were abolished in Columbia, not an individual of the six thousand slaves now within its bounds, would necessarily be relieved of his fetters. Were an abolition bill to pass the House of Representatives to-day, the whole six thousand could be removed to a neighboring slave state before it could be taken up in the Senate to-morrow. It was, therefore, worse than idle to say so much on what could never be a practical question. Again; the District of Columbia had been ceded to the General Government by Maryland and Virginia, both slaveholding states, for national purposes; but this would never have been done had it been contemplated that Congress would abolish slavery within its bounds, and thus establish a nucleus of anti-slavery agitation in the heart of their territory. The exercise of such a power, therefore, on the part of Congress, could be viewed in no other light than as a gross fraud on those two states. It should never be forgotten that slavery can be abolished in any part of America only by the persuasive power of truth voluntarily submitted to the slaveholders themselves. And though much is said in that country, and still more here, about the criminality of the Northern States in not declaring that they would not aid in the suppression of a servile war – such declamation is worse than idle. But there is a frightful meaning in this unmeasured abuse heaped by Mr. Thompson on the people of the free states, for their expressions of devotion to the Union and the Constitution, and their determination to aid, if necessary, in suppressing by force – all force used by, or on behalf of the slaves. Is it then true, that Mr. Thompson and his American friends, did contemplate a servile war? If not, why denounce the North for saying it should be suppressed? Were the people of America right when they charged him and his co-workers with stirring up insurrection? If not, why lavish every epithet of contempt and abhorrence upon those who have declared their readiness to put a stop to the indiscriminate slaughter and pillage of a region as large as Western Europe? Such speeches as that I have this night heard go far to warrant all that has ever been said against this individual in America, and to excuse those who considered him a general disturber of their peace, and were disposed to proceed against him accordingly. It was, however, the opinion of many that Congress had no power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. B. said his opinion was different; yet it must be admitted that the obstacles to the exercise of this power were of the most serious kind, and such as, to a candid mind, would free those who hesitated, from the charge of being pro-slavery men. Perhaps the great reason against the exercise of that power, even if its existence in Congress were clear, was, that it would inevitably produce a dissolution of the Union. When he spoke of the free states bringing about the abolition of slavery in the South, he was to be understood as meaning that these states, in accordance with what had been so often hinted at, should march to the South with arms in their hands, and declare the slaves free. Now, even supposing that the people of the North had no regard for the peace of their country – that they were perfectly indifferent to the glory, the power, and the happiness resulting from the Federal Union – was it certain, that by adopting such a course, they would really advance the welfare of the slave? Every candid man would at once see that the condition of the slave population would be made more hopeless than ever by it. The fourth proof brought forward by Mr. Thompson, in support of his proposition that America was chargeable, in a national point of view, with the guilt of slavery, was the fact that the different states were bound to restore all run-away slaves. But this was a regulation which applied to the case of all servants who leave their masters in an improper manner. Apprentices, children, even wives, if it might be supposed that a wife would ever leave her husband, were to be restored as well as the slaves. Were this not provided, the different states would form to each other the most horrible neighborhood that could be imagined. No state is expected to say, that any man is of right or should be 'held to service' of any kind, in another state; for such are the words of the Constitution, But the purely internal arrangements of each state, must necessarily be respected by all the others; or eternal border wars must be the result. In the re-delivery of a run-away slave, or apprentice, therefore, the court of the one state is only required to say what are the law, and the fact of the other state from which the claimant comes, and to decide accordingly. And when Mr. T. says that this proceeding is not only contrary to the spirit of the gospel, but to the express command of God under the Jewish dispensation, I need only to defend the practice, by questioning his biblical capacities, and referring for explanation to his second printed speech before the Glasgow Emancipation Society. In that, he states a fictitious case as regards Ireland – resembling remarkably the case recorded in holy writ, of Egypt under the government of Joseph; and while all men have thought that Joseph came from God, and was peculiarly approved of him – Mr. T. has represented, that he who should do in Ireland, very much what Joseph did in Egypt, could be considered as coming only 'from America, or from the bottomless pit!!!' As long as the Holy Ghost gives men reason to consider certain principles right, they may be well content to abide under the wrath of Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson said, in the fifth place, that slavery was a national crime, because the states were all bound to assist each other, in suppressing internal insurrection. To this he would answer, that as it regarded the duty of the nation to the several states, there were two, and but two great guarantees – namely, the preservation of internal peace, and the upholding of republican institutions, tranquillity, and republicanism. Carolina was as much bound to assist Rhode Island as Rhode Island was to assist Carolina. All were mutually bound to each; and if things went on as of late, the South were as likely to be called on to suppress mobs at the North, as the North to suppress insurrection at the South. It was next advanced by Mr. T. that the people of the North were taxed for the support of slavery. Now, the fact was, that America presented the extraordinary spectacle of a nation free of taxes altogether; free of debt, with an overflowing Treasury, with so much money, indeed, that they did not well know what to do with it. It was almost needless to explain that the American revenue was at present and had been for many years past, derived solely from the sale of public lands, and from the customs or duties levied on imported articles of various kinds. The payment of these duties was entirely a voluntary tax, as in order to avoid it, it was only necessary to refrain from the use of articles on which they were imposed. As for Mr. T's argument about the standing army, employed in keeping down the slaves, its value might be judged from the fact, that, though even according to Mr. T's own showing, the slave population amounted to two and a half millions, the army was composed of only six thousand men, scattered along three frontiers, extending two thousand miles each. Throughout the whole slaveholding states there were not probably fifteen hundred soldiers. The charge was, in fact, complete humbug, founded upon just nothing at all. Mr. Thompson's seventh charge was, that Congress refused to suppress the internal slave-trade. This was easily answered. There was in America not one individual among five hundred who believed that Congress had the power to do so. And, although he (Mr. B.) believed that Congress had power to prevent the migration of slaves from state to state, as fully as they had to prevent the importation of them into the states from foreign countries; and that the exercise of this power, would prevent, in a great degree, the trade in slaves from state to state, yet very few concurred with him even in this modified view of the case. And it must be admitted that the exercise of such a power, if it really exists, would be attended with such results of unmixed evil at this time, that no one whatever would deem it proper to attempt, or possible to enforce its exercise. It was next said, that as Missouri, a slaveholding state, had been admitted into the Union after the full consideration of the subject by Congress, therefore the nation had become identified with slavery, and responsible for its existence, at least in Missouri. But on the supposition that, before receiving Missouri as a member of the confederacy, it had been demanded of her that she should abolish slavery; and supposing Missouri had acceded to the terms proposed, that she had really given her slaves freedom, and been added to the Federal Union in consequence: suppose Missouri had done all this; what was there to prevent her from re-establishing slavery so soon as the end she sought was gained. No power was possessed by the other states in the matter, and all that could have been said was, that Missouri had acted with bad faith – that she had broken a condition precedent – that she had given just cause of war. According to the most latitudinarian notions, this was the extent of the remedy in the hands of Congress. But Mr. Thompson, being a holder of peace principles – if we may judge by his published speeches – must admit it to be as really a sin to kill, as to enslave men; so that, in his own showing, this argument amounts to nothing. But when it is considered that every state in the American Union has the recognized right to alter its Constitution, when, and how it may think fit, saving only that it be republican; it is most manifest that Congress and the other states have, and could have in no case, any more power or right to prevent Missouri's continuing, or creating slavery, than they had to prevent Massachusetts from abolishing it. But, if we were to stand upon the mere rights of war, he (Mr. B.) did not know but that America had just cause of war against Britain, according to the received notions on that subject, in the speeches delivered by Mr. Thompson under the connivance of the authorities here. But the causes of war were very different in the opinions of men, and in the eye of God. If Mr. Thompson was right in condemning America for the guilt of Missouri, then they should go to war at once and settle the question. But, if they were not ready for this conclusion, they could do nothing. In the edition of Mr. Thompson's speech which had been delivered on the preceding evening, an argument had been adduced which was omitted in the present. The argument to which he referred, was concerning the right of the slaves to be represented. A slight consideration of the subject might have shown that the whole power over the subject of citizenship in each state, was exclusive in the state itself, and was differently regulated in different states. In some, the elective franchise was given to all who had attained the age of twenty-one. In some, it was made to depend on the possession of personal property; and in others, of real property. That in the Southern states, the power of voting should be given to the masters, and not to the slaves, was not calculated to excite surprise in Britain, where such a large proportion of the population, and that in a number of instances composed of men of high intelligence, were not entitled to the elective franchise. The origin of this arrangement, like many others involved in our social system, was a compromise of apparently conflicting interests in the states which were engaged in forming the Federal Constitution. The identity of taxation and representation, was the grand idea on which the nation went into the war of independence. When it was agreed that all white citizens, and three-fifths of all other persons, as the Constitution expresses it, should be represented, it followed of course, that they should be subject to taxation. Or, if it were first agreed that they should be taxed, it followed as certainly they should be represented. Who should actually cast the votes, was, of necessity, left to be determined by the states themselves, and as has been said, was variously determined; many permitting free negroes, Indians, and mulattos, who are all embraced, as well as slaves, to vote. That three-fifths, instead of any other part, or the whole should be agreed on, was, no doubt, the result of reasons which appeared conclusive to the wise and benevolent men who made the Constitution; but I am not able to tell what they were. It must, however, be very clear, that to accuse my country, in one breath, for treating the negroes, bond and free, as if they were not human beings at all – and to accuse her in the next, of fostering and encouraging slavery, for allowing so large a proportion of the blacks to be a part of the basis of national representation in all the states, and then, in the third, because the whole are not so treated, to be more abusive than ever – is merely to show plainly, how earnestly an occasion is sought to traduce America, and how hard it is to find one. He came now to the last charge. He himself, it seems, had admitted, on former occasions, that slavery was a national evil. He certainly did believe that the people of America, whether anti-slavery or pro-slavery, would be happier and better, in conscience and feelings, were slavery abolished. He believed that every interest would be benefited by such an event, whether political, moral, or social. The existence of slavery was one of the greatest evils of the world, but it was not the crime of all the world. Though, therefore, he considered slavery a national evil, it was not to be inferred that he viewed it as a national crime. The cogency of such an argument was equal to the candor of the citation on which it was founded. He would now come to matters rather more personal. In enumerating the great numbers of anti-slavery societies in America, Mr. Thompson had paraded one as formed in Kentucky, for the whole state. Now, he would venture to say that there were not ten persons in that whole State, holding anti-slavery principles, in the Garrison sense of the word. If this was to be judged a fair specimen of the hundreds of societies boasted of by Mr. Thompson, there would turn out but a beggarly account of them. He found also the name of Groton, Massachusetts, as the location of one of the societies in the boasted list. He had once preached, and spoken on the subject of slavery, in that sweet little village, and been struck with the scene of peace and happiness which it presented. He afterwards met the clergyman of that village in the city of Baltimore, and asked him what had caused him to leave the field of his labors. The clergyman answered, that the anti-slavery people had invaded his peaceful village, and transformed it into such a scene of strife that he preferred to leave it. And so it was. The pestilence, which, like a storm of fire and brimstone from hell, always followed the track of abolitionism, had overtaken many a peaceful village, and driven its pastor to seek elsewhere a field not yet blasted by it. He would conclude by remarking, that Mr. Thompson and he (Mr. B.) were now speaking, as it were, in the face of two worlds, for Western Europe was the world to America. And it was for England to know – that the opinion of America – that America which already contained a larger reading population than the whole of Britain – was as important to her, as hers could be to us. What he had said of Mr. Garrison and of Mr. Wright, he had said; and he was ready to answer for it in the face of God and man. But he had something else to do, he thanked God, than to go about the country carrying placards, ready to be produced on all occasions. Nor where he was known, was such a course needful, to establish what he said. When those gentlemen should make their appearance, in defence or explanation of what he had said, he would be the better able to judge – whether it would be proper for him to take any notice – and if any, what – of the defence for which Mr. Thompson had so frankly pledged himself. In the mean time, he would say to that gentleman himself, that his attempts at brow-beating were lost upon him.