‘I am fully persuaded, that the voice of the free States, lifted up in a proper manner against the evil, [Slavery] will awaken them [slaveholders] from their midnight slumbers, and produce a happy change. I rejoice, dear brother in Christ, to hear that you are with us, and feel deeply to plead the cause of the oppressed, and undo the heavy burdens. May God bless you, and the cause which you pursue.’
In the summer of 1835, William R. Buford, of Virginia, who had then recently emancipated his slaves, wrote a letter which was published in the Hampshire Gazette, North Hampton, Mass. from which I give thee some extracts.
Dear Sir:—As you are ardently engaged in the discussion of Slavery, I think it likely I may be of service to you, and through you to the cause which you are advocating. … I was born and brought up at the South in the midst of slavery, as you know. My father inherited slaves from his father, and I from him. So far from thinking slavery a sin, or that I had no right to own the slaves inherited from my father, I thought no one could venture to dispute that right, any more than he could my right to his land or his stock. I advocated Colonization, as I thought it on many accounts a good plan to get rid of such colored persons as wished to go to Africa; but my conscience as a slaveholder was not much troubled by it. Of course, I had no tendency to make me disclaim my right to my slaves. Abolition—immediate abolition, began afterwards to be discussed in various parts of the country. My right to the slaves I owned began to be disputed. I had to defend myself. In vain did I say I inherited my slaves from a pious father, who seemed to be governed in his dealings by a sense of duty to his slaves. In vain did I say that nearly all my property consisted in slaves, and to free them would make me a poor man. My duty to emancipate was still urged. At length my eyes were opened—partly by the arguments used by the abolitionists: but mainly, by long being compelled by them to examine the subject for myself. No longer could I close my eyes to the evils of slavery, nor could I any longer despise the abolitionists, ‘the only true friends of their country and kind.’ I now think, I know, I have no more right to own slaves, whether I inherited them or not, than I have to encourage the African slave trade. By declaring this sentiment, I expect and design to abet the cause of Abolition at the North, and through the North the emancipation of the slaves at the South. I know that in doing this, I condemn the South. No one can suppose, however, that I have any unkind feelings towards the South. All my relatives live in the slaveholding States, and are almost all slaveholders.
I think the abolitionists have done, and are doing a great deal of good, by holding slavery up to the public gaze. Sentiment at the North on the subject of slavery must have the same effect on the South, that their opinions have on any other matter.’
The writer of the foregoing is, as I am told, still a resident of Virginia, where he has long been known, and is highly respected.
In the 11th month, 1835, the United States Telegraph, published at Washington city, contains the following remarks by the Editor, Duff Green.
‘We are of those who believe the South has nothing to fear from a servile war. We do not believe that the abolitionists intend, nor could they if they would, excite the slaves to insurrection. The danger of this is remote. We believe that we have most to fear from the organised action upon the consciences and fears of the slaveholders themselves; from the insinuations of their dangerous heresies into our schools, our pulpits, and our domestic circles. It is only by alarming the consciences of the weak and feeble, and diffusing among our own people a morbid sensibility on the question of slavery, that the abolitionists can accomplish their object. Preparatory to this, they are now laboring to saturate the non-slaveholding States with the belief that slavery is a ‘sin against God.’ We must meet the question in all its bearings. We must SATISFY THE CONSCIENCES, we must allay the fears of our own people. We must satisfy them that slavery is of itself right—that it is not a sin against God—that it is not an evil, moral or political. To do this, we must discuss the subject of slavery itself. We must examine its bearing upon the moral, political, and religious institutions of the country. In this way, and this way only, can we prepare our own people to defend their own institutions.’
In another number of the same paper, the Editor says,
‘We hold that our sole reliance is on ourselves; that we have most to fear from the gradual operation on public opinion among ourselves; and that those are the most insidious and dangerous invaders of our rights and interests, who, coming to us in the guise of friendship, endeavor to persuade us that slavery is a sin, a curse, an evil. It is not true that the South sleeps on a volcano—that we are afraid to go to bed at night—that we are fearful of murder and pillage. Our greatest cause of apprehension is from the operation of the morbid sensibility which appeals to the consciences of our own people, and would make them the voluntary instruments of their own ruin.’
In 1835, I think about the close of the year, a series of articles on Slavery appeared in the Lexington (Kentucky) Intelligencer. In one of the numbers, the writer says:—
‘Much of the preceding matter was inserted (May, 1833) in the Louisville Herald. A great change has since taken place in public sentiment. Colonization, then a favorite measure, is now rejected for instant emancipation. Were this last feasible, I would gladly join its advocates,’ &c.
In a letter to the publisher of the Emancipator, dated ‘April 1, 1837,’ from a Southerner, I find the following language:—
‘Though a —— born and bred, I now consider the Anti-Slavery cause as a just and holy one. Deep reflection, the reading of your excellent publications, and—years of travel in Europe, have made me, what I am now proud to call myself, an abolitionist.
‘For the present, accept the assurances of my unswerving devotion to the cause of liberty and justice. Any letter from yourself will always give me sincere pleasure, and whenever I go to New York, I shall call upon you, sans ceremonie, as I would upon an old friend.’
A short time since, J. G. Birney received a donation of $20 for the Anti-Slavery Society, from an individual residing in a slave State, accompanied with a request that his name might not be mentioned.
About the time of the robbery of the U. S. Mail, and the burning of Abolition papers by the infatuated citizens of my own city, the Editor of the Charleston Courier made the following remarks in his paper, which plainly reveal the cowering of the spirit of slavery, under the searching scrutiny occasioned by the Anti-Slavery discussions in the free States.
‘Mart for Negroes.—We understand that a proposition is before the city council, relative to the establishment of a mart for the sale of negroes in this city, in a place more remote from observation, and less offensive to the public eye, than the one now used for that purpose. We doubt not that the proposition before the council will be acceptable to the community, and that it may be so matured as to promote public decency, without prejudice to the interest of individuals.’
Hear, too, the acknowledgement of the Southern Literary Review, published at Charleston, South Carolina, which was got up in 1837, to sustain the system of Slavery.
‘There are many good men even among us, who have begun to grow timid. They think that what the virtuous and high-minded men of the North look upon as a crime and a plague-spot, cannot be perfectly innocent or quite harmless in a slaveholding community. … Some timid men among us, whose ears have been long assailed with outcries of tyranny and oppression, wafted over the ocean and land from North to South, begin to look fearfully around them.’
A correspondent of the Pittsburgh Witness, detailing the particulars of an Anti-Slavery meeting in Washington co. Pennsylvania, says:—
‘After Dr. Lemoyne, the President of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society, had finished his address, in which the principles and measures of the Anti-Slavery Society were fully exhibited, the Rev. Charles Stewart, of Kentucky, a slaveholding clergyman of the Presbyterian church, who was casually present, rose and addressed the audience, and instead of opposing our principles as might have been expected, fully endorsed every thing that had been said, declaring his conviction that such a speech would have been well received by the truly religious part of the community in which he resided, and would have been opposed only by those who were actuated by party politics alone, or those who ‘neither feared God nor regarded man.’
I give thee now a letter from a gentleman in a South Western slaveholding State, to J. G. Birney.
‘Very Dear Sir:—I knew you in the days of your prosperity at the South, though you will not recognize me. Ever since you first took your stand in defence of natural rights, I have been looking upon you with intense interest. I was violently opposed to Abolitionists, and verily thought I was doing service to both church and State, in decrying them as incendiaries and fanatics. What blindness and infatuation! Yet I was sincere. Ah! my dear sir, God in mercy has taught me that something more than sincerity, in the common acceptation of the term, is necessary to preserve our understandings from idiocy, and our hearts from utter ruin. How could I have been such a madman, as coolly and composedly to place my foot upon the necks of immortal beings, and from that horrid point of elevation, hurl the deep curses of church and State at the heads of——whom? Fanatics? No, sir!—but of the only persons on the face of the earth, who had HEART enough to FEEL, and SOUL enough to ACT, in behalf of the RIGHTS OF MAN! Yet I was just such a madman! Yes, sir, I was a fanatic, and an incendiary too—setting on fire the worst passions of our fallen nature. But I have repented. I have become a convert to political, and I trust, also, to Christian Freedom. The spectacle exhibited by yourself, and your compatriots and fellow-christians, has completely overcome me. Your reasonings convince my judgment, and your ACTIONS win my heart. God speed you in your work of love! The hopes of the world depend, under God, upon the success of your cause.
Very respectfully and with undying affection,
Your friend and brother,
A Southerner.’
Another of J. G. Birney’s southern correspondents says, in 1836,
‘That portion of the Church with which I am connected, seem to have no sympathy with the indignation against the abolitionists, which prevails so extensively North and South; but, on the other hand, consider the South as infatuated to the highest degree.
There is more credit for philanthropy given those who manumit their slaves, without expatriation, than formerly.
The thirst for information is increasing, while the ‘non liquetism’ [voting on neither side] of brethren in church courts is becoming less and less satisfactory; and such of them as advocate the perpetuity of the system, are looked upon with surprise and regret.
Those who view with horror the traffic in slaves by ministers of the gospel, express more freely their pain at its indulgence, than I have ever known. I am acquainted with several such cases. In no instances have they left the brother’s standing where it was, before it took place. Of such cases—even those, too, where the usual allowances might be called for—I have heard professors of religion remark, ‘Mr. A. could not get an audience to hear him preach’—‘Mr. B. has more assurance than I could have, to preach, after selling my slaves as he has done’—‘He can never make me believe he has any religion’—‘This is the first time you have done so, but repeat it, and I think I shall never hear you preach again.’
These remarks were made by slaveholding professors of religion themselves, and under circumstances neither calculated nor intended to deceive.
The following letter was written by an intelligent gentleman in the interior of Alabama, to Arthur Tappan, of New York, who had sent him some Anti-Slavery publications. The date is March 21, 1834.
‘Dear Sir—Your letter of Dec. last, I read with much interest. The numbers of the Anti-Slavery Reporter, also, which you were so kind as to send me, I carefully examined, and put them in circulation.
Your operations have produced considerable excitement in some sections of this country, but humanity has lost nothing. The more the subject of slavery is agitated, the better. A distinguished gentleman remarked to me a day or two since, that ‘there was a great change going on in public sentiment.’ Few would acknowledge that it was to be ascribed to the influence of your Society. There can be no doubt, however, that this is directly and indirectly the principal cause.’
During the same year, the Editor of the New York Evangelist received a letter from a christian friend in North Carolina, from which I give thee an extract.
To the Editor of the Evangelist—
‘The subject of slavery, recently brought up and discussed in your paper, is the one which elicits the following remarks.
In the first place I will state, that I entertain very different views now, to what I did six months ago. I was among those who thought (and honestly too) that there was no more moral guilt attached to the holding our fellow beings in bondage, regarding them as property, than to the holding of a mule or an ox. It was natural enough for me to think so, for I had been trained from my very infancy to view the subject in no other light. I shall never forget my feelings when the subject was first hit upon in the Evangelist. I became angry, and was disposed to attribute sinister motives to all who were concerned in the matter. With some others, I determined to stop the paper forthwith.
Though I made every effort to turn my mind away from the subject, my conscience in spite of me began to awake, and to be troubled. The word of God was resorted to, with the hope of finding something to bring peace and quietude, but all in vain. It was but adding fuel to the flame. I determined, let others do as they would, to meet the subject, to examine it in all its bearings, and to abide the result; and if it should be found that God regards slavery as an evil, and incompatible with the gospel, I would give it up. If not, I should be made wiser without incurring any harm by the investigation.
In the very nature of God’s dealings with men, this subject must and will be agitated, until conviction shall be brought home to the heart and conscience of every man, and slavery shall be banished from our land. And woe be to him who wilfully closes his eyes, and stops his ears against the light of God’s truth.’
In 8th month of the same year, the same paper contained the following extract from another correspondent in North Carolina.
—— N. C. July 9, 1834.
‘Rev. and dear Sir—If I owe an apology for intruding on you, and introducing myself, I must find it in the fact, that I wish to bid you God speed in the good cause in which you are so heartily engaged. While so many at the North are opposing, I wish to cheer you by one voice from the South. If it is unpopular to plead the cause of the oppressed negro in New York, how dangerous to be known as his friend in the far South, where, as a correspondent in the Evangelist justly observes, a minister cannot enforce the law of love, without being suspected of favoring emancipation. I am glad the people with you are beginning to feel and to act. I pray God that you may go on with all the light and love of the gospel, and that the cry of ‘Let us alone,’ will not frighten you from your labor of love.’
James A. Thome, a Presbyterian clergyman, a native, and still a resident of Kentucky, said in a speech at New York, at the Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1834:
‘Under all these disadvantages, you are doing much. The very little leaven which you have been enabled to introduce, is now working with tremendous power. One instance has lately occurred within my acquaintance, of an heir to slave property—a young man of growing influence, who was first awakened by reading a single number of the Anti-Slavery Reporter, sent to him by some unknown hand. He is now a whole-hearted abolitionist. I have facts to show that cases of this kind are by no means rare. A family of slaves in Arkansas Territory, another in Tennessee, and a third, consisting of 88, in Virginia, were successively emancipated through the influence of one abolition periodical. Then do not hesitate as to duty. Do not pause to consider the propriety of interference. It is as unquestionably the province of the North to labor in this cause, as it is the duty of the church to convert the world. The call is urgent—it is imperative. We want light. The ungodly are saying, ‘the church will not enlighten us.’ The church is saying, ‘the ministry will not enlighten us.’ The ministry is crying, ‘Peace—take care.’ We are altogether covered in gross darkness. We appeal to you for light. Send us facts—send us kind remonstrance and manly reasoning. We are perishing for lack of truth. We have been lulled to sleep by the guilty apologist.’
A letter from a Post Master in Virginia, to the editor of ‘Human Rights,’ dated August 15, 1835, contains the following:—
‘I have received two numbers of Human Rights, and one of The Emancipator. I have read and loaned them, had them returned, and loaned again. I can see no unsoundness in the arguments there advanced—and until I can see some evil in your publications, I shall distribute all you send to this office. It is certainly high time this subject was examined, and viewed in its proper light. I know these publications will displease those who hold their fellow men in bondage: but reason, truth and justice are on your side—and why should you seek the good will of any who do evil?
I would be pleased to have a copy of the last Report of the Am. Anti-Slavery Society, if convenient, and some of your other pamphlets, which you have to distribute gratis. I will read and use them to the best advantage.’
A gentleman of Middlesex County, Mass. whose house is one of my New England homes, told me that he had very recently met with a slaveholder from the South, who, during a warm discussion on the subject of slavery, made the following acknowledgment: ‘The worst of it is, we have fanatics among ourselves, and we don’t know what to do with them, for they are increasing fast, and are sustained in their opposition to slavery by the Abolitionists of the North.’
A Baptist clergyman whom I met in Worcester County, Mass., a few months since, told me that his brother-in-law, a lawyer of New Orleans, who had recently paid him a visit, took up the Report of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, and read it with great interest. He then inquired, whether the principles set forth in that document were Anti-Slavery principles. Upon being informed that they were, he expressed his entire approbation of them, and full conviction that they would prevail as soon as the South understood them; for, said he, they are the principles of truth and justice, and must finally triumph. This gentleman requested to be furnished with some of our publications, and carried them to the South with him.
There certainly can be no doubt to a reflecting and candid mind, as to what will and must be the result of Anti-Slavery operations. Hear now the opinion of one of the leading political papers in Charleston, South Carolina, the Southern Patriot.
‘While agitation is permitted in Congress, there is no security for the South. While discussion is allowed in that body, year after year, in relation to slavery and its incidents, the rights of property at the South must, in the lapse of a short period, be undermined. It is the weapon of all who expect to work out great changes in public opinion. It was the instrument by which O’Connell gradually shook the fabric of popular prejudice in England on the Catholic question. His sole instrument was agitation, both in Parliament and out of it. His constant counsel to his followers was, agitate! agitate! They did agitate. They happily carried the question of Catholic rights.
Agitation may be successfully employed for a bad as well as good cause. What was the weapon of the English abolitionists?—Agitation. Regard the question of the abolition of the slave trade when first brought into Parliament—behold the influence of PITT and the tory party beating down its advocates by an overwhelming majority! Look at the question of abolition itself, twenty years after, and you see Wilberforce and his adherents carrying the question itself of abolition of slavery, by a majority as triumphant! How was all this accomplished?—By agitation in Parliament! It was on this ample theatre that the abolitionists worked their fatal spells. It was on this wide stage of discussion that they spoke to the people of England in that voice of fanaticism, which, at length, found an echo that suited their purposes. It was through the debates, which circulated by means of the press throughout every corner of the realm, that they carried that question to its extremest borders, to the hamlet of every peasant in the empire. Can it then be expected, if we give the American abolitionists the same advantage of that wide field of debate which Congress affords, that the same results will not follow? The local legislatures are limited theatres of action. Their debates are comparatively obscure. These are not read by the people at large. Allow the agitators a great political centre, like that of Washington—permit them to address their voice of fanatical violence to the whole American people, through their diffusive press, and they want no greater advantage. They have a MORAL LEVER BY WHICH THEY CAN MOVE A WORLD OF OPINION.
The course of the southern States is therefore marked out by a pencil of light. They should obtain additional guarantees against the discussion of slavery in Congress, in any manner, or in any of its forms, as it exists in the United States. This is the only means that promises success in removing agitation. We have said that this is the accepted time. When we look at the spread of opinion on this subject in some of the eastern States—in Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut—what are we to expect in a few years, in the middle States, should discussion proceed in Congress? These States are yet uninfected, in any considerable degree, by the fanatical spirit. They may not remain so after a lapse of five years. If they are animated by a true spirit of patriotism—by a genuine love for the Union, they should, and could with effect, interpose to stay this moral pestilence. Their voice in this matter would be influential. New York and Pennsylvania are intermediate between the South and East in position and in physical strength.’
Samuel L. Gould, a minister of the Baptist denomination, writing to the Secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, from Fayette County, Pennsylvania, in 4th month, 1836, says:—
‘The Smithfield Anti-Slavery Society, [on the border of Virginia] has among its members, several residents of Virginia. Its President has been a slaveholder, and until recently, was a distinguished citizen of Virginia, the High Sheriff of Rockingham County. Having become convinced of the wickedness of slaveholding, a little more than a year ago he purchased an estate in Pennsylvania, and removed to it, his colored men accompanying him. He now employs them as hired laborers.’
I may mention, in this connection, an Alabama slaveholder, a lawyer named Smith, who emancipated his slaves, I think about twenty in number, a few months since. He was the brother-in-law of William Allan of Huntsville, who was in 1834, president of the Lane Seminary Anti-Slavery Society, and subsequently an agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, and who had for years previous been in kind and faithful correspondence with him on the subject of slavery.
Henry P. Thompson, a student of Lane Seminary, and a slaveholder at the time of the Anti-Slavery discussion in that Institution, was convinced by it, went to Kentucky, and emancipated his slaves.
Arthur Thome, an elder in the Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Kentucky, emancipated his slaves, fourteen in number, about two years since. J. G. Birney, speaking of him in the Philanthropist, says:—
‘For a long time he had been a professor of religion, but had not, till the doctrines of abolition were embraced by his son on the discussion of the subject at Lane Seminary, given to the subject more attention than was usual among slaveholding professors at the time. At first he thought his son was deranged—and that his intended trip to New York, to speak at the anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, was evidence of it. He sought him (as we have heard,) on the steamboat, which was to convey him up the Ohio river, that he might stop him from going. Something, however, prevented his seeing his son before his departure, and there was no detention.
The truth bore on the mind of Mr. T. till it produced its proper fruit—and he now says, that he is confident no other doctrine but that of the SIN of slaveholding, connected with an immediate breaking off from it, will influence the slaveholder to do justice.’
I see by the late Washington papers, that one of my South Carolina cousins, Robert Barnwell Rhett, the late Attorney General of the State, has come up to my help on this point, with his characteristic chivalry; [howbeit ‘he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so.’] In his late address to his Congressional Constituents, he says:—
‘Who that knows anything of human affairs, but must be sensible that the subject of abolition may be approached in a thousand ways, without direct legislation? By perpetual discussion, agitation and threats, accompanied with the real or imaginary power to perform, there will be need of no other action than words to shake the confidence of men in the safety and continuance of the institution of slavery, and its value and existence will be destroyed. These are all the weapons the abolitionist desires to be allowed to use to accomplish his purpose. When Congress moves, it will be the last act in the drama; and it will be prepared to enforce its legislation. To acknowledge the right, or to tolerate the act of interference at all with this institution, is to give it up—to abandon it entirely; and, as this must be the consummation of any interference, the sooner it is reached the better. The South must hold this institution, not amidst alarm and molestation, but in peace—perfect peace, from the interference or agitation of others; or, I repeat it, she will—she can—hold it not at all. … There is no one so weak, but he must perceive that, whilst the spirit of abolition in the North is increasing, slavery in the South, in all the frontier States, is decreasing.’
Farther, I may add the names of J. G. Birney of Alabama, John Thompson and a person named Meux, Jassamine County, Kentucky, J. M. Buchanan, Professor in Center College, Kentucky, Andrew Shannon, a Presbyterian minister in Shelbyville, Kentucky, Samuel Taylor, a Presbyterian minister of Nicholasville, Kentucky, Peter Dunn of Mercer County, Kentucky, a person named Doake in Tennessee, another named Carr in North Carolina, another named Harndon in Virginia—with a number of others, the particulars of whose cases I have not now by me, all of whom were slaveholders four years since, and were induced to emancipate their slaves through the influence of Anti-Slavery discussions and periodicals.
The Democrat, a political paper published at Rochester, New York, contained the following in the summer of 1835.
‘On Saturday last, many of our citizens had an opportunity of witnessing a noble scene. On board the boat William Henry, then lying at the Exchange street wharf, were TEN SLAVES, or those who had recently been such, and several free persons of color. The master, a gentleman of more than seventy years of age, accompanied them. His residence was in Powhattan County, seventy miles below Richmond, Virginia. He was on his way to Buffalo, near which place he intends purchasing a large farm, where his ‘people,’ as he calls them, are to be settled. The above named gentleman was led to sacrifice much of this world’s lucre, besides some $5000 of human ‘property,’ by becoming convinced of the sinfulness of his practice while reading Anti-Slavery publications.’
A letter now lies before me from an elder of a religious denomination in the far South-West, who was converted to Abolition sentiments by Anti-Slavery publications sent to him from the city of New York, and who has already emancipated his slaves, ten in number. The writer says, ‘my hopes are revived when I read of the progress of the cause in the Eastern States, and of the increase of Anti-Slavery Societies. My soul glows with gratitude to God for his mercy to the down-trodden slaves, in raising up for them in these days of savage cruelty, hundreds who, fearless of consequences, are standing up for the entire abolition of slavery, whom, though unseen, I dearly love. O! how it would delight me to listen to the public addresses of some of these dear friends.’
Hear, too, the reason assigned by James Smylie, a Presbyterian minister of the Amite Presbytery, Mississippi, for writing a book in 1836, to prove that slavery is a divine institution.
‘From his intercourse with religious societies of all denominations in Mississippi and Louisiana, he was aware that the Abolition maxim, viz: that Slavery is in itself sinful, had gained on and entwined itself among the religious and conscientious scruples of many in the community, so far as to render them unhappy. The eye of the mind, resting on Slavery itself as a corrupt fountain, from which, of necessity, nothing but corrupt streams could flow, was incessantly employed in search of some plan by which, with safety, the fountain could, in some future time, be entirely dried up.’ An illustration of this important acknowledgement, will be found in the following fact, extracted from the Herald of Freedom: ‘A young gentleman who has been residing in South Carolina, says our movements (Abolitionists) are producing the best effects upon the South, rousing the consciences of Slaveholders, while the slaves seem to be impressed as a body with the idea, that help is coming—that an interest is felt for them, and plans devising for their relief somewhere—which keeps them quiet. He says it is not uncommon for ministers and good people to make confession like this. One, riding with him, broke forth, ‘O, I fear that the groans and wails from our slaves enter into the ear of the Lord of Sabaoth. I am distressed on this subject: my conscience will let me have no peace. I go to bed, but not to sleep. I walk my room in agony, and resolve that I will never hold slaves another day; but in the morning, my heart, like Pharaoh’s, is hardened.’
In the autumn of 1835, an influential minister in one of the most southern States, (who only one year before had stoutly defended slavery, and vehemently insisted that northern abolitionists were producing unmixed and irremediable evil at the South,) wrote to the Corresponding Secretary of one of our State Anti-Slavery Societies who had furnished him with Anti-Slavery publications, avowing his conversion to Abolition sentiments, and praying that Anti-Slavery Societies might persevere in their efforts, and increase them. Among other expressions of strong feeling the letter contained the following:
‘I am greatly surprised that I should in any form have been the apologist of a system so full of deadly poison to all holiness and benevolence as slavery, the concocted essence of fraud, selfishness, and cold-hearted tyranny, and the fruitful parent of unnumbered evils, both to the oppressor and the oppressed, THE ONE THOUSANDTH PART OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT.
‘Do you ask why this change, after residing in a slave country for twenty years? You remember the lines of Pope, beginning:
‘I had become so familiar with the loathsome features of slavery, that they ceased to offend—besides, I had become a southern man in all my feelings, and it is a part of our creed to defend slavery.’
About two years since, Arthur and Lewis Tappan received a letter from a Virginian slaveholder, who held nearly one hundred slaves, and whose conscience had been greatly roused to the sin of slavery. In the letter, he avowed his determination to absolve himself from the guilt of slaveholding, declaring that he ‘had rather be a wood cutter or a coal heaver, than to remain in the midst of slavery.’
An intelligent gentleman, a lawyer and a citizen of the District of Columbia, has just written a letter to a gentleman of New York city, from which I give thee the following extract:
‘The proceedings in Congress at this session have had the effect, I think, to rouse the attention of the public in all quarters, to the subject of slavery; and that, of itself, I think is a good: and it is in my opinion the chief present good that is to grow out of it. Discussion of some sort takes place, and the real foundation on which the system rests, cannot but be brought more or less into view. My hope is, that men who denounce now, will at length reason. That is what is wanted—reasoning, reflection, and a true perception of the basis on which slavery is founded.’
The foregoing are but a few of the facts and testimonies in the possession of Abolitionists, showing that their discussions, periodicals, petitions, arguments, appeals and societies, have extensively moved, and are still mightily moving the slaveholding States—for good. Did time and space permit, I might, by a little painstaking, procure many more. Before passing from this part of the subject, I must record my amazement at the clamors of many of the opponents of Abolitionists, from whom better things might indeed be hoped. What slaveholders have you convinced? they demand. Whom have you made Abolitionists? Give us their names and places of abode. Now, those who incessantly stun us with such unreasonable clamor, know full well, that to give the public the names and residences of such persons, would be in most instances to surrender them to butchery. But be it known to the North and to the South, we have names of scores of citizens of the slaveholding states, many of them slaveholders, who are in constant correspondence with us, persons who feel so deeply on the subject as to implore us to persevere in our efforts, and not to be dismayed by Southern threats nor disheartened by Northern cavils and heartlessness. Yea more, these persons have committed to us the custody even of their lives, thus encountering imminent peril that they might cheer us onward in our work. Shall we betray their trust, or put them in jeopardy? Judge thou.
Now let me ask, when in former years Anti-Slavery tracts, with our doctrines, could be circulated at the South? The fact is, there were none to be circulated there; our principle of repentance is quite new. But I can tell thee of two facts, which it is probable thou ‘hast not been informed of.’ In the year 1809, the steward of a vessel, a colored man, carried some Abolition pamphlets to Charleston. Immediately on his arrival, he was informed against, and would have been tried for his life, had he not promised to leave the State, never to return. Was South Carolina willing to receive abolition pamphlets then? Again, in 1820, my sister carried some pamphlets there—‘Thoughts on Slavery,’ issued by the Society of Friends, and therefore not very incendiary, thou mayest be assured; and yet she was informed some time afterwards, that had it not been for the influence of our family, she would have been imprisoned; for she, too, was accused of giving one of them to a slave; just as Abolitionists have been falsely charged with sending their papers to the enslaved. What she did give away, she was obliged to give privately. Was Charleston ready to receive Abolition pamphlets then? Or when? please to tell me. I say that more, far more Anti-Slavery tracts, &c. are now read in the South, than ever were at any former period. As to Colonization tracts, I know they have circulated at the South; but what of that, when Southerners believed that Colonization had no connection with the overthrow of Slavery? Colonization papers, &c. are not Abolition papers.
As to preachers, let me assure thee, that they never have dared to preach on the subject of slavery in my native city, so far as my knowledge extends. Ah! I for some years sat under two northern ministers, but never did I hear them preach in public, or speak in private, on the sin of slavery. O! the deep, DEEP injury which such unfaithful ministers have inflicted on the South! It is well known that our young men have, to a great extent, been educated in Northern Theological Seminaries. With what principles were their minds imbued? What kind of religion did the North prepare them to preach? A slaveholding religion. What kind of religion did northern men come down and preach to us? A slaveholding religion—and multitudes of them became slaveholders. Such was one of my northern pastors. And yet thou tellest me, the North has nothing to do with slavery at the South—is not guilty, &c. &c. ‘Their own clergy,’ thou sayest, ‘either entirely hold their peace, or become the defenders of a system they once lamented, and attempted to bring to an end.’ Do name to me one of those valiant defenders of slavery, who formerly lamented over the system, and attempted to bring it to an end. ‘What is his name, or what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?’ Strange indeed, if, because we advocate the truth, others should begin to hate it; or because we expose sin, they should turn round and defend what once they lamented over! Is this in accordance with ‘the known laws of mind,’ where principle is deeply rooted in the heart?
And then thou closest these assertions without proof, with the triumphant exclamation, ‘This is the record of experience, as to the tendencies of abolitionism, as thus far developed. The South is just now in that state of high exasperation, at the sense of wanton injury and impertinent interference, which makes the influence of truth and reason most useless and powerless.’ Hadst thou been better informed as to the real tendencies of abolitionism on the South, this assertion also might have been spared. Again I repeat, the South does not tell us so. Read the subjoined extract of a letter now lying before me from a correspondent in a Southern State. ‘12 or 15 at this place believe that all men are born free and equal, that prejudice against color is a disgrace to the man who feels it, that such a feeling is without foundation in reason or scripture, and ought to be abandoned immediately, that slavery is a malum in se, yea, a heinous crime in the sight of God, to be repented of without delay.’ Read also the following, extracted from the Marietta Gazette: ‘A citizen of one of the free states, not many months ago, observed to a distinguished southerner, that the operations of the abolitionists were impeding the cause of emancipation—or to that effect. ‘Sir,’ said the Southerner, ‘You are mistaken. Depend upon it, these agitations have put the slaveholders to very serious thinking.’ These, then, are the effects which Abolitionism is producing on some at the South. That others are exasperated, I do not deny. Hear what Bolling of Virginia said in 1832, in the Legislature of that State: ‘It has long been the pleasure of those who are wedded to the system of slavery, to brand all its opponents with opprobrious epithets; to represent them as enemies to order, as persons desirous of tearing up the foundation of society thereby endeavoring to brand them with infamy in order to avert from them the public ear.’ Here then we find a Southern Legislator acknowledging that all the opponents of Slavery have ever excited the same exasperation in those who are ‘wedded to the system.’ Who is to be blamed? Is this any cause of discouragement? That we have succeeded in rousing the North to reflection, thou art thyself a living proof; for let me ask, what it was that set thee to such serious thinking, as to induce thee to write a book on the Slave Question?
Thy friend in haste,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER X.
‘THE TENDENCY OF THE AGE TOWARDS EMANCIPATION’
PRODUCED BY ABOLITION DOCTRINES.
Dear Friend: Thou sayest, ‘that this evil (Slavery,) is at no distant period to come to an end, is the unanimous opinion of all who either notice the tendencies of the age, or believe in the prophecies of the Bible.’ But how can this be true, if Abolitionists have indeed rolled back the car of Emancipation? If our measures really tend to this result, how can this evil come to an end at no distant period? Colonizationists tell us, if it had not been for our interference, they could have done a vast deal better than they have done; and the American Unionists say, that we have paralyzed their efforts, so that they can do nothing; and yet ‘the tendencies of the age’ are crowding forward Emancipation. Now, what has produced this tendency? Surely every reflecting person must acknowledge, that Colonization cannot effect the work of Abolition. The American Union is doing nothing; and Abolitionists are pursuing a course which ‘will tend to bring slavery to an end, if at all, at the most distant period,’—then do tell me, how the tendencies of the age can possibly lean towards Emancipation! Perhaps I shall be told, that the movements of Great Britain in the West Indies created this tendency. Ah! but this is a foreign influence, more so even than Northern influence; and if the North is ‘a foreign community,’ as thou expressly stylest it, and can on that account produce no influence on the South, how can the doings of England affect her?
Now I believe with thee, that the tendencies of the age are toward Emancipation; but I contend that nothing but free discussion has produced this tendency—‘the present agitation of the subject’ is in fact the thing which is producing this happy tendency. Now let us turn to the South, and ask her eagle-eyed politicians what they are most afraid of. Read their answer in their desperate struggles to fetter the press and gag the mouths of—whom?—Colonizationists? Why no—they talk colonization themselves, and are not at all afraid that the expatriation of a few hundreds or thousands in 20 years will ever drain the country of its millions of slaves, where they are now increasing at the rate of 70,000 every year. The American Unionists? O no! the South has not deemed them worthy of any notice! Pray, then, whose mouths are slaveholders so fiercely striving to seal in silence? Why, the mouths of Abolitionists, to be sure—even our infant school children know this. Strange indeed, when the labors of these men are actually rolling back the car of Emancipation for one or two centuries! Why, the South ought to pour out her treasure, to support Anti-Slavery agents, and print Anti-Slavery papers and pamphlets, and do all she can to aid us in rolling back Emancipation. Pray, write her a book, and tell her she has been very needlessly alarmed at our doings, and advise her to send us a few thousand dollars: her money would be very acceptable in these hard times, and we would take it as the wages due to the unpaid laborers, though we would never admit the donors to membership with us. How dost thou think she would receive such a book? Just try it, I entreat thee.
Thou seemest to think that the North has no right to rebuke the South, and assumest the ground that Abolitionists are the enemies of the South. We say, we have the right, and mean to exercise it. I believe that every northern Legislature has a right, and ought to use the right, to send a solemn remonstrance to every southern Legislature on the subject of slavery. Just as much right as the South has to send up a remonstrance against our free presses, free pens, and free tongues. Let the North follow her example; but, instead of asking her to enslave her subjects, entreat her to free them. The South may pretend now, that we have no right to interfere, because it suits her convenience to say so; but a few years ago, (1820,) we find that our Vice President, R. M. Johnson, in his speech on the Missouri question, was amazed at the ‘cold insensibility, the eternal apathy towards the slaves in the District of Columbia,’ which was exhibited by northern men, ‘though they had occular demonstration continually’ before them of the abominations of slavery. Then the South wondered we did not interfere with slavery—and now she says we have no right to interfere.
I find, on the 57th p. a false assertion with regard to Abolitionists. After showing the folly of our rejecting the worldly doctrine of expediency, so excellent in thy view, thou then sayest that we say, the reason why we do not go to the South is, that we should be murdered. Now, if there are any half-hearted Abolitionists, who are thus recreant to the high and holy principle of ‘Duty is ours, and events are God’s,’ then I must leave such to explain their own inconsistencies; but that this is the reason assigned by the Society, as a body, I never have seen nor believed. So far from it, that I have invariably heard those who understood the principles of the Anti-Slavery Society best, deny that it was a duty to go to the South, not because they would be killed, but because the North was guilty, and therefore ought to be labored with first. They took exactly the same view of the subject, which was taken by the southern friend of mine to whom I have already alluded. ‘Until northern women, (said she,) do their duty on the subject of slavery, southern women cannot be expected to do theirs.’ I therefore utterly deny this charge. Such may be the opinion of a few, but it is not and cannot be proved to be a principle of action in the Anti-Slavery Society. The fact is, we need no excuse for not going to the South, so long as the North is as deeply involved in the guilt of slavery as she is, and as blind to her duty.
One word with regard to these remarks: ‘Before the Abolition movements commenced, both northern and southern men expressed their views freely at the South.’ This, also, I deny, because, as a southerner, I know that I never could express my views freely on the abominations of slavery, without exciting anger, even in professors of religion. It is true, ‘the dangers, evils and mischiefs of slavery’ could be, and were discussed at the South and the North. Yes, we might talk as much as we pleased about these, as long as we viewed slavery as a misfortune to the slaveholder, and talked of ‘the dangers, evils and mischiefs of slavery’ to him, and pitied him for having had such a ‘sad inheritance entailed upon him.’ But could any man or woman ever ‘express their views freely’ on the SIN of slavery at the South? I say, never! Could they express their views freely as to the dangers, mischiefs and evils of slavery to the poor suffering slave? No, never! It was only whilst the slaveholder was regarded as an unfortunate sufferer, and sympathized with as such, that he was willing to talk, and be talked to, on this ‘delicate subject.’ Hence we find, that as soon as he is addressed as a guilty oppressor, why then he is in a phrenzy of passion. As soon as we set before him the dangers, and evils, and mischiefs of slavery to the down-trodden victims of his oppression, O then! the slaveholder storms and raves like a maniac. Now look at this view of the subject: as a southerner, I know it is the only correct one.
With regard to the discussion of ‘the subject of slavery, in the legislative halls of the South,’ if thou hast read these debates, thou certainly must know that they did not touch on the SIN of slavery at all; they were wholly confined to ‘the dangers, evils and mischiefs of slavery’ to the unfortunate slaveholder. What did the discussion in the Virginia legislature result in? In the rejection of every plan of emancipation, and in the passage of an act which they believed would give additional permanency to the institution, whilst it divested it of its dangers, by removing the free people of color to Liberia; for which purpose they voted $20,000, but took very good care to provide, ‘that no slave to be thereafter emancipated should have the benefit of the appropriation,’ so fearful were they, lest masters might avail themselves of this scheme of expatriation to manumit their slaves. The Maryland scheme is altogether based on the principle of banishment and oppression. The colored people were to be ‘got rid of,’ for the benefit of their lordly oppressors—not set free from the noble principles of justice and mercy to them. If Abolitionists have put a stop to all such discussions of slavery, I, for one, do most heartily rejoice at it. The fact is, the South is enraged, because we have exposed her horrible hypocrisy to the world. We have torn off the mask, and brought to light the hidden things of darkness.
To prove to thee that the South, as a body, never was prepared for emancipation, I might detail historical facts, which are stubborn things; but I have not the time to go into this subject that would be necessary. I will, therefore, give a few extracts from documents published by the old Abolition Societies, whose principle was gradualism. In 1803, in the report of the Delaware Society, I find the following statement:—‘The general temper and opinion of the opulent in this state, is either opposed to the generous principles of emancipation to the people of color, or indifferent to the success of the work.’ In 1804, when a Committee was appointed to draft a memorial to the Legislature of North Carolina, we find the following sentiment expressed in their Report:—‘They believe that public opinion in that state is exceedingly hostile to the abolition of slavery; and every attempt towards emancipation is regarded with an indignant and jealous eye; that at present, the inhabitants of that State consider the preservation of their lives, and all they hold dear on earth, as depending on the continuance of slavery, and are even riveting more firmly the fetters of oppression.’ ‘They believe that great difficulty would attend the presentation of an address to the public, and that, if presented, it would not be read.’ The address was, however, issued, and in it we find this complaint—‘Many aspersions have been cast upon the advocates of the freedom of the blacks, by malicious and interested men.’ In 1805, in the Report of the Alexandria Society, District of Columbia, they say—‘There is rather a disposition to increase the measure of affliction already appointed to the poor deserted African:’ and complain of the decline of the Society, for which they assign several reasons, one of which is, ‘the admission of slaveholders into fellowship at its formation.’ Several of the Reports state, that they fully learned the impolicy of this measure, by the violent opposition which these slaveholding members made to their efforts for emancipation. Just as well might a Temperance Society admit a practical drunkard into their ranks, as for an Abolition Society to admit a slaveholder to membership.
In 1806, the Report of the Pennsylvania Society says—‘We believe the true reason, why ostensible and public measures are not pursued by the advocates of abolition in the southern states, will be found in the pretty general impression, that it would not, under existing circumstances, and in the present temper of the public mind, be expedient and useful.’ The Wilmington Report ‘laments that the people of South Carolina continue opposed to our cause’—and in 1809, the Report of this same Society says, ‘We regret most sincerely the difficulty we labor under in establishing corresponding agents in the southern states, on whose fidelity and integrity we can firmly rely.’ In 1816, the Delaware Society makes the following confession—‘When we look back at the bright prospects which opened on this cause within the last 20 years, and recur to the joyful feelings excited by the just anticipations of speedy success in this conflict with cruelty and wrong, we cannot but feel the pressure of that gloom which is the consequence of disappointment and defeat.’ In 1826, we find the North Carolina Report acknowledging that ‘the gentlest attempt to agitate the subject, or the slightest hint at the work of emancipation, is sufficient to call forth their indignant resentment, as if their dearest rights were invaded.’
How, then, can our opponents say, that the cause of emancipation has been rolled back by us? We ask, when was it ever forward? As a southerner, I repeat my solemn conviction, from my own experience, and from all I can learn from historical facts, and the reports of the Gradual Emancipation Societies of this country, and the scope of the debates which took place in the Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland Legislatures, that it never was forward. If the tendencies of the age are towards emancipation, they are tendencies peculiar to this age in the United States, and have been brought about by free discussion, and in accordance, too, with the known laws of mind; for collision of mind as naturally produces light, as the striking of the flint and the steel produces fire. Free discussion is this collision, and the results are visible in the light which is breaking forth in every city, town and village, and spreading over the hills and valleys, through the whole length and breadth of our land. Yes! it has already reached ‘the dark valley of the shadow of death’ in the South; and in a few brief years, He who said, ‘Let there be light,’ will gather this moral effulgence into a focal point, and beneath its burning rays, the heart of the slaveholder, and the chains of the slave, will melt like wax before the orb of day.
Let us, then, take heed lest we be found fighting against God while standing idle in the market place, or endeavoring to keep other laborers out of the field now already white to the harvest.
Thy Friend,
A. E. GRIMKÉ.
LETTER XI.
THE SPHERE OF WOMAN AND MAN AS MORAL BEINGS
THE SAME.
Brookline, Mass., 8th month, 28th, 1837.
Dear Friend: I come now to that part of thy book, which is, of all others, the most important to the women of this country; thy ‘general views in relation to the place woman is appointed to fill by the dispensations of heaven.’ I shall quote paragraphs from thy book, offer my objections to them, and then throw before thee my own views.
Thou sayest, ‘Heaven has appointed to one sex the superior, and to the other the subordinate station, and this without any reference to the character or conduct of either.’ This is an assertion without proof. Thou further sayest, that ‘it was designed that the mode of gaining influence and exercising power should be altogether different and peculiar.’ Does the Bible teach this? ‘Peace on earth, and good will to men, is the character of all the rights and privileges, the influence and the power of woman.’ Indeed! Did our Holy Redeemer preach the doctrines of peace to our sex only? ‘A man may act on Society by the collision of intellect, in public debate; he may urge his measures by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest; he may coerce by the combination of public sentiment; he may drive by physical force, and he does not overstep the boundaries of his sphere.’ Did Jesus, then, give a different rule of action to men and women? Did he tell his disciples, when he sent them out to preach the gospel, that man might appeal to the fear, and shame, and interest of those he addressed, and coerce by public sentiment, and drive by physical force? ‘But (that) all the power and all the conquests that are lawful to woman are those only which appeal to the kindly, generous, peaceful and benevolent principles?’ If so, I should come to a very different conclusion from the one at which thou hast arrived: I should suppose that woman was the superior, and man the subordinate being, inasmuch as moral power is immeasurably superior to ‘physical force.’
‘Woman is to win every thing by peace and love; by making herself so much respected, &c. that to yield to her opinions, and to gratify her wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart.’ This principle may do as the rule of action to the fashionable belle, whose idol is herself; whose every attitude and smile are designed to win the admiration of others to herself; and who enjoys, with exquisite delight, the double-refined incense of flattery which is offered to her vanity, by yielding to her opinions, and gratifying her wishes, because they are hers. But to the humble Christian, who feels that it is truth which she seeks to recommend to others, truth which she wants them to esteem and love, and not herself, this subtle principle must be rejected with holy indignation. Suppose she could win thousands to her opinions, and govern them by her wishes, how much nearer would they be to Jesus Christ, if she presents no higher motive, and points to no higher leader?
‘But this is all to be accomplished in the domestic circle.’ Indeed! ‘Who made thee a ruler and a judge over all?’ I read in the Bible, that Miriam, and Deborah, and Huldah, were called to fill public stations in Church and State. I find Anna, the prophetess, speaking in the temple ‘unto all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.’ During his ministry on earth, I see women following him from town to town, in the most public manner; I hear the woman of Samaria, on her return to the city, telling the men to come and see a man who had told her all things that ever she did. I see them even standing on Mount Calvary, around his cross, in the most exposed situation; but He never rebuked them; He never told them it was unbecoming their sphere in life to mingle in the crowds which followed his footsteps. Then, again, I see the cloven tongues of fire resting on each of the heads of the one hundred and twenty disciples, some of whom were women; yea, I hear them preaching on the day of Pentecost to the multitudes who witnessed the outpouring of the spirit on that glorious occasion; for, unless women as well as men received the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, what did Peter mean by telling them, ‘This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. … And on my servants and on my handmaidens, I will pour out in those days of my spirit; and they shall prophesy.’ This is the plain matter of fact, as Clark and Scott, Stratton and Locke, all allow. Mine is no ‘private interpretation,’ no mere sectarian view.
I find, too, that Philip had four daughters which did prophesy; and what is still more convincing, I read in the xi. of I. Corinthians, some particular directions from the Apostle Paul, as to how women were to pray and prophesy in the assemblies of the people—not in the domestic circle. On examination, too, it appears that the very same word, Diakonos, which, when applied to Phœbe, Romans xvi. 1, is translated servant, when applied to Tychicus, Ephesians vi. 21, is rendered minister. Ecclesiastical History informs us, that this same Phœbe was pre-eminently useful, as a minister in the Church, and that female ministers suffered martyrdom in the first ages of Christianity. And what, I ask, does the Apostle mean when he says in Phillipians iv. 3.—‘Help those women who labored with me in the gospel’? Did these holy women of old perform all their gospel labors in ‘the domestic and social circle’? I trow not.
Thou sayest, ‘the moment woman begins to feel the promptings of ambition, or the thirst for power, her ægis of defence is gone.’ Can man, then, retain his ægis when he indulges these guilty passions? Is it woman only who suffers this loss?
‘All the generous promptings of chivalry, all the poetry of romantic gallantry, depend upon woman’s retaining her place as dependent and defenceless, and making no claims, and maintaining no rights, but what are the gifts of honor, rectitude and love.’
I cannot refrain from pronouncing this sentiment as beneath the dignity of any woman who names the name of Christ. No woman, who understands her dignity as a moral, intellectual, and accountable being, cares aught for any attention or any protection, vouchsafed by ‘the promptings of chivalry, and the poetry of romantic gallantry’? Such a one loathes such littleness, and turns with disgust from all such silly insipidities. Her noble nature is insulted by such paltry, sickening adulation, and she will not stoop to drink the foul waters of so turbid a stream. If all this sinful foolery is to be withdrawn from our sex, with all my heart I say, the sooner the better. Yea, I say more, no woman who lives up to the true glory of her womanhood, will ever be treated with such practical contempt. Every man, when in the presence of true moral greatness, ‘will find an influence thrown around him,’ which will utterly forbid the exercise of ‘the poetry of romantic gallantry.’
What dost thou mean by woman’s retaining her place as defenceless and dependent? Did our Heavenly Father furnish man with any offensive or defensive weapons? Was he created any less defenceless than she was? Are they not equally defenceless, equally dependent on Him? What did Jesus say to his disciples, when he commissioned them to preach the gospel?—‘Behold, I send you forth as SHEEP in the midst of wolves; be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. What more could he have said to women?
Again, she must ‘make no claims, and maintain no rights, but what are the gifts of honor, rectitude and love.’ From whom does woman receive her rights? From God, or from man? What dost thou mean by saying, her rights are the gifts of honor, rectitude and love? One would really suppose that man, as her lord and master, was the gracious giver of her rights, and that these rights were bestowed upon her by ‘the promptings of chivalry, and the poetry of romantic gallantry,’—out of the abundance of his honor, rectitude and love. Now, if I understand the real state of the case, woman’s rights are not the gifts of man—no! nor the gifts of God. His gifts to her may be recalled at his good pleasure—but her rights are an integral part of her moral being; they cannot be withdrawn; they must live with her forever. Her rights lie at the foundation of all her duties; and, so long as the divine commands are binding upon her, so long must her rights continue.
‘A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and combination among her own sex, to assist her in her appropriate offices of piety, charity,’ &c. Appropriate offices! Ah! here is the great difficulty. What are they? Who can point them out? Who has ever attempted to draw a line of separation between the duties of men and women, as moral beings, without committing the grossest inconsistencies on the one hand, or running into the most arrant absurdities on the other?
‘Whatever, in any measure, throws a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for herself or others—whatever binds her in a party conflict—whatever obliges her in any way to exert coercive influences, throws her out of her appropriate sphere.’ If, by a combatant, thou meanest one who ‘drives by physical force,’ then I say, man has no more right to appear as such a combatant than woman; for all the pacific precepts of the gospel were given to him, as well as to her. If, by a party conflict, thou meanest a struggle for power, either civil or ecclesiastical, a thirst for the praise and the honor of man, why, then I would ask, is this the proper sphere of any moral, accountable being, man or woman? If, by coercive influences, thou meanest the use of force or of fear, such as slaveholders and warriors employ, then, I repeat, that man has no more right to exert these than woman. All such influences are repudiated by the precepts and examples of Christ, and his apostles; so that, after all, this appropriate sphere of woman is just as appropriate to man. These ‘general principles are correct,’ if thou wilt only permit them to be of general application.
Thou sayest that the propriety of woman’s coming forward as a suppliant for a portion of her sex who are bound in cruel bondage, depends entirely on its probable results. I thought the disciples of Jesus were to walk by faith, not by sight. Did Abraham reason as to the probable results of his offering up Isaac? No! or he could not have raised his hand against the life of his son; because in Isaac, he had been told, his seed should be called,—that seed in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. O! when shall we learn that God is wiser than man—that his ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts than our thoughts—and that ‘obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams?’ If we are always to reason on the probable results of performing our duty, I wonder what our Master meant by telling his disciples, that they must become like little children. I used to think he designed to inculcate the necessity of walking by faith, in childlike simplicity, docility and humility. But if we are to reason as to the probable results of obeying the injunctions to plead for the widow and the fatherless, and to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, &c., then I do not know what he meant to teach.
According to what thou sayest, the women of this country are not to be governed by principles of duty, but by the effect their petitions produce on the members of Congress, and by the opinions of these men. If they deem them ‘obtrusive, indecorous, and unwise,’ they must not be sent. If thou canst consent to exchange the precepts of the Bible for the opinions of such a body of men as now sit on the destinies of this nation, I cannot. What is this but obeying man rather than God, and seeking the praise of man rather than of God? As to our petitions increasing the evils of slavery, this is merely an opinion, the correctness or incorrectness of which remains to be proved. When I hear Senator Preston of South Carolina, saying, that ‘he regarded the concerted movement upon the District of Columbia as an attempt to storm the gates of the citadel—as throwing the bridge over the moat’—and declaring that ‘the South must resist the danger in its inception, or it would soon become irresistible‘—I feel confident that petitions will effect the work of emancipation, thy opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. And when I hear Francis W. Pickens, from the same State, saying in a speech delivered in Congress—‘Mr. Speaker, we cannot mistake all these things. The truth is, the moral power of the world is against us. It is idle to disguise it. We must, sooner or later, meet the great issue that is to be made on this subject. Deeply connected with this, is the movement to be made on the District of Columbia. If the power be asserted in Congress to interfere here, or any approach be made toward that end, it will give a shock to our institutions and the country, the consequences of which no man can foretell. Sir, as well might you grapple with iron grasp into the very heart and vitals of South Carolina, as to touch this subject here.’ When I hear these things from the lips of keen-eyed politicians of the South, northern apologies for not interfering with the subject of slavery, ‘lest it should increase, rather than diminish the evils it is wished to remove’ affect me little.