"But, after all that can be said against war, and after the fullest admission of its folly, cruelty, and wickedness, still the question recurs, how can it be prevented? It would be an impeachment of the Divine economy to suppose that an evil so dreadful was inseparably and inevitably connected with human society. We are informed, by Divine authority, that wars proceed from our lusts; but our lusts, although natural to us, are not invincible. He who admits the free agency of man, will not readily allow that either individuals or nations are compelled to do evil. The universal prevalence of Christian principles must, of necessity, exterminate wars; and hence we are informed, by revelation, that when righteousness shall cover the earth, 'the nations shall learn war no more.'
"And are we to wait, it will be inquired, till this distant and uncertain period for the extinction of war? We answer, that revelation affords us no ground to expect that all mankind will previously be governed by the precepts of justice and humanity; but that experience, reason, and revelation, all unite in leading us to believe that the regeneration of the world will be a gradual and progressive work. Civilization and Christianity are diffusing their influence throughout the globe, mitigating the sufferings and multiplying the enjoyments of the human family. Free institutions are taking the place of feudal oppressions—education is pouring its light on minds hitherto enveloped in all the darkness of ignorance—the whole system of slavery, both personal and political, is undermined by public opinion, and must soon be prostrated; and the signs of the times assure us that the enormous mass of crime and wretchedness, which is the fruit of drunkenness, will, at no very remote period, disappear from the earth.
"And can it be possible, that, of all the evils under which humanity groans, war is the only one which religion and civilization, and the active philanthropy of the present day, can neither remove nor mitigate? Such an opinion, if general, would be most disastrous to the world, and it will now be our endeavor to prove that it is utterly groundless. * * * *
"We have often seen extensive national alliances for the prosecution of war, and no sufficient reason can be assigned why such alliances might not be formed for the preservation of peace. It is obvious that war might instantly be banished from Europe, would its nations regard themselves as members of one great Society, and erect a court for the trial and decision of their respective differences.
"But we are told that such an agreement among the nations is impossible. It is unquestionably so at present, for the obvious reason, that time is necessary to enlighten and direct public opinion, and produce a general acquiescence in the plan, as well as to arrange the various stipulations and guaranties that would be requisite. It is certainly not surprising, that those who suppose a congress of nations for the maintenance of peace, can only be brought about by a simultaneous movement of the various states and kingdoms of the earth, who are to continue to battle with each other till the signal is given for universal peace and harmony, should be startled at the boldness and absurdity of the project. But this boldness and absurdity belong not to the project we advocate. We have no expectation whatever of any general, much less simultaneous effort of mankind in behalf of peace. A congress for the decision of national differences, instead of arising in the midst of the present military policy of Europe, must be preceded by an extensive, although partial abandonment of war, and will be the effect and not the cause of the general diffusion of pacific sentiments.
"Hence it is in vain to look for a sudden and universal cessation of war, even among civilized and Christian nations. But reason and experience warrant the hope that some one State may be led to adopt a pacific policy, and thus set an example which through the blessing of Providence, and the prevalence of Christian principles, may usher in the reign of universal peace.
"But by whom, and in what way it will be asked, is this example to be set? It may be a feeling of national vanity, and it may be a reference to the peculiarities of our local, social, and political condition, that inspires the hope, that to the United States is to be reserved the glory of teaching to mankind the blessings of peace, and the means of preserving them. * *
"But in what way are we to make the experiment? Certainly in the way least likely to excite alarm and opposition. In every effort to promote the temporal or spiritual welfare of others, we should consider things as they really are, and not merely as they ought to be, and we should consult expediency as far as we can do so, without compromising principle. * * *
"Of all the nations with whom we have relations, none probably enjoy in an equal degree our good will, as France. No spirit of rivalry in commerce or manufactures exists between us, no adjacent territory furnishes occasion for border aggressions and mutual criminations, while our past relations afford subjects of pleasing and grateful recollection, and at present we see no prospect of the interruption of that harmony which has so long subsisted between the two nations.
"Let us suppose that under these propitious circumstances, a convention should now be concluded between the two governments, by which it should be agreed, that if unhappily any difference should hereafter arise between us, that could not be adjusted by negociation, neither party should resort to arms, but that they should agree on some friendly power, to whom the matter in difference should be referred, and whose decision should be final; or that if it should so happen that the parties could not concur in selecting an umpire, that then each party should select a friendly power, and that the sovereigns or states thus selected, should, if necessary, call to their aid the assistance of a third.
"To what well founded objections would such a treaty be subject? It is true that treaties of this kind have been of rare occurrence, but all experience is in their favor. Vattel remarks (Law of Nations, book II., chap. 18,) 'Arbitration is a method very reasonable, very conformable to the law of nature, in determining differences that do not directly interest the safety of the nation. Though the strict right may be mistaken by the arbitrator, it is still more to be feared that it will be overwhelmed by the fate of arms. The Swiss have had the precaution in all their alliances among themselves, and even in those they have contracted with the neighboring powers, to agree beforehand on the manner in which their disputes were to be submitted to arbitrators, in case they could not adjust them in an amicable manner. This wise precaution has not a little contributed to maintain the Helvetic Republic in that flourishing state which secures its liberty, and renders it respectable throughout Europe.'
"But it may be said, a nation ought not to permit others to decide on her rights and claims. Why not? Will the decision be less consistent with justice, from being impartial and disinterested? It is a maxim confirmed by universal experience, that no man should be judge in his own cause; and are nations less under the influence of interest and of passion than individuals? Are they not, in fact, still less under the control of moral obligation? Treaties have often been violated by statesmen and senators, who would have shrunk from being equally faithless in their private contracts. Is it to be supposed that the government of a friendly power, in a controversy between us and France, in which it had no interest, and with the observation of the civilized world directed to its decision, would be less likely to pronounce a fair and impartial judgment than either France or ourselves?
"But we can decide our own controversies for ourselves, it is said; that is, we can go to war and take our chance for the result. Alas, 'it is an error,' says Vattel, 'no less absurd than pernicious, to say that war is to decide controversies between those who, as in the case of nations, acknowledge no judge. It is power or prudence rather than right that victory usually declares for.'—Book III. Chap. 3.
"The United States chose to decide for themselves the controversy about impressment, by appealing to the sword. In this appeal they of course placed no reliance on the propriety and justice of their claims, since such considerations could have no influence on the fate of battle; but they depended solely on their capacity to inflict more injury than they would receive themselves, and this difference in the amount of injury was to turn the scale in our favor. Our expectations, however, were disappointed. Our commerce was annihilated, our frontier towns were laid in ashes, our capital taken, our attempts upon Canada were repulsed, with loss and disgrace; our people became burthened with taxes, and we were at last glad to accept a treaty of peace which, instead of containing, as we had fondly hoped, a formal surrender on the part of Great Britain of the right of impressment, made not the slightest allusion to the subject.
"Let us now suppose that a treaty similar to the one we have proposed with France had, in 1812, existed between Great Britain and the United States; the question of impressment would then have been submitted to one or more friendly powers.
"It is scarcely possible that the umpires could have given any decision of this question that would have been as injurious to either party as was the prosecution of the war. Had the claims of Great Britain been sanctioned, some American seamen would, no doubt, have been occasionally compelled to serve in the British navy; but how very small would have been their number compared with the thousands who perished in the war; and how utterly insignificant would have been their sufferings resulting from serving on board a British instead of an American vessel, when weighed against the burdens, the slaughters, the conflagrations, inflicted on their country in the contest? If, on the other hand, the decision had been in our favor, Great Britain would have lost a few seamen from her navy, but she would have saved the lives of a far greater number, and she would have been spared an amount of treasure which would have commanded the services of ten times as many sailors as she could ever hope to recover by impressment.
"It is not, however, probable, that the umpires, anxious to do right, and having no motive to do wrong, would have sanctioned, without qualification, the claims of either party.
"We can scarcely anticipate any future national difference which it would not be more prudent and expedient to submit to arbitration than to the chance of war. However just may be our cause, however united our people, we cannot foresee the issue of the contest, nor tell what new enemies we may be called to encounter, what sacrifices to bear, what concessions to make.
"We have already partially commenced the experiment of arbitrament, by referring no less than three of our disputes to the determination of as many friendly powers. A difference as to the meaning of an article, in our last treaty of peace with Great Britain, was referred to the Emperor of Russia, who decided it in our favor. The question of our northern boundary was referred to the King of the Netherlands; and although the line he assigned was not the one claimed by either party, it was vastly less injurious to each, than would have been one month's hostility on account of it. Our disputes with Mexico were verging rapidly to open war, when they were happily submitted to the King of Prussia, and are now in the course of satisfactory adjustment.
"A treaty with France of the character proposed, would greatly increase our importance in the estimation of all Europe—as it would permanently secure us from her hostility. It would be seen and felt, that whatever other nation might enter into collision with us, it could not expect the aid of France, but that under all circumstances we should enjoy the friendship and commerce of our ancient ally. These considerations would not be without their influence on England. She has colonies near us which we may capture, or essentially injure, and which cannot be defended by her, but at very inconvenient expense. A war with us must ever be undesired by her, for the obvious reason that in such a contest she has little to gain and much to lose. Our treaty also with France would deprive England of the aid of the only nation that could afford her effectual assistance in a war against us. She would therefore, find it her interest to avail herself of a similar treaty, and thus to secure herself from hostilities which on many accounts she must wish to avoid. Once assured by such treaties of permanent peace with France and England, we should find our alliance courted by the other powers of Europe, who would not readily consent that those two nations should have exclusively the uninterrupted enjoyment of our great and growing commerce. They would think it a matter of prudence also, to avoid the risk of collision with a powerful republic, that had already secured the permanent friendship of France and England; and they would hasten to contract similar treaties. Under such circumstances, every consideration of policy would prompt our South American neighbors to desire that their amicable relations with us might remain uninterrupted; and to them we might offer the same stipulations with full confidence of their cordial acceptance.
"And will it be said that all this is visionary and impossible? The plan we propose rests on no supposed reformation in the passions and propensities of mankind; but upon obvious principles of national interest, deduced from reason and experience, and susceptible of the plainest demonstration. It is a plan adapted to the existing state of civilized society, and accommodated to the passions and prejudices by which that society is influenced. It is indeed perfectly consistent with the precepts of Christianity, but it is also in accordance with the selfish dictates of worldly policy.
"To this plan we can imagine only one plausible objection, which is, that the treaties would not be observed. It is readily admitted that if the only guaranty for the faithful observance of these treaties consisted in the virtue and integrity of those who signed them, the confidence to be reposed in them would be faint indeed. Happily, however, we have a far stronger guaranty in national interest and in public opinion. * * *
"Dismissing then all idle fears that these treaties, honestly contracted and obviously conducive to the highest interests of the parties, would not be observed, let us contemplate the rich and splendid blessings they would confer on our country. Protected from hostile violence and invasion by a moral defence, more powerful than armies and navies, we might indeed beat our swords into ploughshares and our spears into pruning hooks. The millions now expended in our military establishments could be applied to objects directly ministering to human convenience and happiness. Our whole militia system, with its long train of vices and its vexatious interruptions of labor, would be swept away. The arts of peace would alone be cultivated, and would yield comforts and enjoyments in a profusion and perfection of which mankind have witnessed no example. In the expressive language of Scripture, our citizens would each 'sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, with none to make him afraid,' and our peaceful and happy republic would be the praise and glory of all lands. * * * * *
"It is impossible that a scene so bright and lovely should not attract the admiration and attention of the world. The extension of education in Europe, and the growing freedom of her institutions, are leading her population to think, and to express their thoughts. The governments of the eastern continent, whatever may be their form, are daily becoming more and more sensitive to public opinion. The people already restive under their burdens, would soon discover that those burdens would be greatly diminished by the adoption of the American policy. Before long, some state would commence the experiment on a small scale, and its example would be followed by others. In time these conventions would give way to more extended pacific alliances, and a greater number of umpires would be selected; nor is it the vain hope of idle credulity, that at last a union might be formed, embracing every Christian nation, for guarantying the peace of Christendom, by establishing a tribunal for the adjustment of national differences, and by preventing all forcible resistance to its decrees.
"It is unnecessary to discuss, at this time, the character and powers with which such a tribunal should be invested. Whenever it shall be desired, little difficulty will be experienced in devising for it a satisfactory organization; that it is possible to form such a court, and that next to Christianity it would be the richest gift ever bestowed by Heaven upon our suffering world, will be doubted by few who have patiently and candidly investigated the subject.
"But many who admit the advantages and practicability of the plan we have proposed, will be tempted to despair of success, by the apparent difficulty of inducing an effort for its accomplishment. Similar difficulties, however, have been experienced and overcome. The abolition of the slave trade, and the suppression of intemperance were once as apparently hopeless as the cessation of war. Let us again recur for instruction and encouragement to the course pursued by the friends of freedom and temperance. Had the British abolitionists employed themselves in addressing memorials to the various courts of Europe, soliciting them to unite in a general agreement to abandon the traffic, they would unquestionably have labored in vain, and spent their strength for nought. They adopted another and a wiser course. They labored to awaken the consciences of their own countrymen, and to persuade them to do justice and to love mercy; and thus to set an example to the rest of Europe, infinitely more efficacious than all the arguments and remonstrances which reason and eloquence could dictate.
"In vain might moralists and philanthropists have declaimed for ages on the evils of drunkenness, had no temperance society been formed till all mankind were ready to adopt a pledge of total abstinence. The authors of the temperance reformation did not lavish their strength and resources in attempting to convince the world of the blessings of temperance, but forming themselves into a temperance society, gave a visible and tangible proof that the principle they recommended was not merely expedient but practicable. And surely if we desire to persuade mankind that war is an unnecessary evil, it is indispensable that we should be able to point them to some instance in which it has been safely dispensed with; nor can we hope to effect a change in the opinion of Europe, while our own people remain unaffected by our assertions and arguments.
"Here then must be the field of our labors; and let those labors be quickened by the reflection, that while they are aimed at the happiness of the human race, they are calculated to confer on our beloved country a moral sublimity which no worldly glory can approach.
"But what are the means we shall use? The same by which the commerce in human beings was destroyed, and which are now driving intemperance from the earth—voluntary associations and the press.
"Let the friends of peace concentrate their exertions in Peace Societies; and let the press proclaim throughout our land, in all its length and breadth, the folly, the wickedness, and the horrors of war; and call on our rulers to provide for the amicable adjustment of national differences. In the first treaty that shall be formed for this purpose we shall behold the dawn of that glorious day, the theme of prophets and the aspirations of saints, when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
"The present age is propitious to the enterprise. It is an age of energy and of freedom. All the powers of mind are in full activity, and every eye and every ear is open to the reception of new truths. Science and philanthropy are daily achieving triumphs which the past century dared not imagine. The world is no longer governed by princes and senates, but by public opinion, and at the fiat of this mighty potentate, ancient institutions are levelled in the dust. Let this despot wield only a delegated authority, and each individual, however humble, can enhance or diminish his power. Who, then, will refuse to lend his assistance to enable public opinion to say to the troubled nations, 'peace—be still;' and to compel the rulers of the earth to refer their disputes to another tribunal than the sword.
"In this cause every man can labor, and it is a cause in which every man is called to labor, by interest and by duty. But it is a cause that peculiarly claims the zeal and devotion of Christians. They are the servants of Him who is not only the mighty God and the everlasting Father, but the Prince of Peace. They know that war is opposed to all his attributes, and contradicts the precepts of his word. Conscience gives her sanction to the means we have proposed, and prophecy assures us of the accomplishment of the object to which they are directed. Why, then, will not Christians use the talents and influence given them from above to effect this consummation? Let them not plead, in excuse for listlessness and indifference, that it is God alone who 'maketh wars to cease to the end of the earth.' In the moral government of the world, the purposes of its Almighty Ruler are accomplished by his blessing upon human means. He has promised that righteousness shall cover the whole earth; and in reliance on this promise, his servants are now bearing the everlasting Gospel to every nation and kindred, and tongue and people. He has also promised that nations shall learn war no more, and in his faithfulness we have all the incentive which certainty of ultimate success can give to human exertion. And in what cause can the energies of Christian benevolence be more appropriately exercised? To prevent war is to avoid the effusion of human blood, and the commission of innumerable crimes and atrocities;—it is to diffuse peace, and comfort, and happiness, through the great family of man,—it is to foster the arts and sciences which minister to the wants of society,—it is to check the progress of vice,—to speed the advance of the gospel,—to rescue immortal souls from endless misery,—and to secure to them a felicity as durable as it is inconceivable.
"To him who in faith and zeal labors in this great and holy cause a rich reward is secured. While doing good to others, he is himself a sharer in the blessing he bestows. The very exercise of his benevolent affections affords a pure and exquisite delight, and when he enters the world of peace and love, he shall experience the full import of those cheering, but mysterious words—Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called the children of God."'
"TO THE CHRISTIAN PUBLIC OF GREAT BRITAIN.
"In again appealing to you in reference to the opium war in China, I will begin by quoting the following extracts from a letter which I addressed to you on the 19th of the Third Month, 1840.
"'It is now too notorious to render needful entering at large into the subject, that the guilty traffic in opium, grown by the East India Company, to be smuggled into China, at length compelled the Chinese Government to vindicate the laws of the Empire, which prohibit its introduction, and to take decisive measures for the suppression of the traffic, by the arrest of the parties concerned in it at Canton, and the seizure and destruction of the opium found in the Chinese waters.A It is also well known that the superintendent of the British trade, (Capt. Elliott) so far compromised his official character and duty, as to take under his protection one of the most extensive opium smugglers, and thus rendered himself justly liable to the penalties to which they were obnoxious; and at the same time gave, as far as was in his power, the sanction of the British nation to this unrighteous violation of the Chinese laws.
A: "See 'Thelwall's Iniquities of the Opium Trade,' and 'King's Opium Crisis,'"
"'The following fact is, however, not so generally known. An individual,B now in this country, who has acquired immense wealth by this unlawful trade, has been in communication with the Government, and his advice, it is presumed, has in no small degree influenced the measures they have adopted; though a leading partner in a firm to which a large proportion of the opium that was destroyed belonged; and at the very time he was claiming compensation, or urging a war with China, his house in India was sending armed vessels loaded with opium, along the coast of China, and selling it in open defiance of the laws of that Empire. This information, with the names of the vessels and the parties concerned, the number of chests of opium on board, the enormous profits they were realizing, et cet., was some time ago communicated to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on authority which he did not and could not dispute.'
B: "This individual is in the new House of Commons, professedly as a reformer, and represents a borough which formerly sent to that House one of its most upright members, who has now retired from public life.
"On the 7th of April, Sir James Graham brought forward a motion in the House of Commons, in reference to this subject, but in a manner which gave it so much of a party character, that our cruel injustice to the Chinese, and the disgraceful conduct of our Government in attacking them, was lost sight of by many, whose professed principles ought to have made them foremost in condemning these proceedings. The Whig Ministry having intimated they would resign if Sir J. Graham carried his motion, every other consideration was forgotten in anxiety lest a political party should be injured or lose office.
"This feeling not only pervaded the supporters of the Government in the House of Commons, but also extended to many leading religious professors of various denominations; and thus no public feeling sufficiently strong could be raised to counteract in Downing-street, the combined and powerful influence of the East India Company and the wealthy opium smugglers; though public meetings were held in London and many places in the country, and petitions forwarded justly deprecating this war, as one of almost unparalleled iniquity. At the meeting in the metropolis, which was held at Freemason's Hall, and at which the Earl of Stanhope presided, the following resolutions were passed:—
"'1. That this meeting, whilst it most distinctly disavows any party or political objects, and deprecates most strongly any such construction being put upon its efforts, deeply laments that the moral and religious feeling of the country should be outraged—the character of Christianity disgraced in the eyes of the world—and this kingdom involved in war with upwards of three hundred and fifty millions of people, in consequence of British subjects introducing Opium into China, in direct and known violation of the laws of that Empire.
"'2. That, although the Chinese have not been heard in their defence, the statements adduced by the advocates of the war, clearly establish the fact, that the East India Company, the growers of and traffickers in opium, and British subjects who received the protection of the laws of China, have been, throughout, the wrong doers; therefore this meeting (without reference to the conviction of many, that all war is opposed to the spirit and precepts of the gospel,) holds it to be the bounden duty of the government immediately to effect an equitable and pacific settlement of the existing differences with China.
"'3. That all traffic in opium with the Chinese being contraband, the opium which was surrendered to their government was justly confiscated; and that to demand payment from the Chinese, to make reprisals upon them, or, for this country to give compensation to the British merchants thus engaged in smuggling, would be to sanction and even grant a premium on crime.
"'4. That the petition now read be adopted by this meeting, and presented to both Houses of Parliament; and that the Right Honorable Earl Stanhope be requested to present the same to the House of Lords, and Lord Sandon to the House of Commons.
"'5. That the resolutions of this meeting be published at the discretion of the Committee; and that a copy of them in the Chinese language be transmitted, through the High Commissioner Lin, to the Emperor of China.'
"Since this period, I have been in company with several Englishmen who were at Canton at the time of the seizure of the opium; and though some of them were concerned in the trade themselves, and were naturally biassed in favor of their own country, they all agreed in condemning the proceedings of the English. I have recently spent some time in the United States, whose intercourse with China is extensive and frequent, and where the merits of this case are clearly understood by many of the most intelligent and candid-minded citizens; and these, without any exception, considered the acts of the British government in this matter as some of the most flagrant that ever disgraced a civilized, much less a Christian people.
"On my return to this country I found a new administration entering upon office; the members of which have, for the most part, condemned the conduct of their predecessors in relation to this war; and I again, therefore, venture to appeal to the Christian public of my country that they may, without delay, forward petitions, or memorials, strongly urging a reference of the existing differences with China to commissioners mutually appointed, who shall be authorized to adjust them, and also to determine upon the best means of entirely suppressing the guilty traffic in opium. The present government are not yet committed to this cruel war; and may no difference of political views deter you from the faithful discharge of this Christian duty! Even should you not succeed in inducing our rulers to adopt this course, or the overtures of this country be rejected by the Chinese, you will have satisfaction in having made the attempt.
"One-third of the human race are now receiving their impressions of the Christian religion, by its professors waging a murderous war to compel them to make restitution to the contraband opium dealers, for the destruction of this deadly poison, which continues to be grown by the East India Company, and poured into China in defiance of all laws, human and divine. Besides the loss of life sustained by the Chinese, and the fearful mortality amongst the British troops, from the unhealthiness of the climate, it is probable that little short of ten millions sterling has already been expended in naval and military armaments, and the enhanced price of tea and sugar,A in the monstrous attempt to force the Chinese to pay about two millions to those opium smugglers. All this, be it remembered, is added to the burdens upon the industry of our own oppressed population.
A: It is well known that the high rate of freights from Calcutta, in consequence of the shipping required for the Chinese expedition, greatly contributed to the late extravagant price of sugar.
"Earnestly desiring that you may be induced to discharge your duty as Christians, and whatever may be the result, acquit yourselves of your share of the national guilt, I conclude with the words of a friend: 'For my own part, I think the present distress of the nation may be the retributive chastisement of our recent atrocious war in China and the East. * * * All history, and the daily march of events, demonstrate the perpetual retributive interference of an overruling providence. Yet this doctrine, proclaimed as loudly by experience as by revelation, and as legibly written on the page of history as in the Bible, appears to have not the smallest practical influence on the most enlightened statesmen, and the most Christian and enlightened nation in the world.'
"Very respectfully,
"JOSEPH STURGE.
"Birmingham, 9th Month 30th, 1841."
"10th Month 9th, 1841."Since writing the foregoing, the intelligence has arrived that Canton has been seized; that 'Gen. Sir Hugh Gough calculates the loss of the Chinese, in the different attacks, at one thousand killed and three thousand wounded;' that the British have extracted six millions of dollars as a ransom for evacuating the city, which the Chinese call 'opium compensation;' and it is but too evident that the work of the wholesale murder of this unoffending people has but begun, for Capt. Elliot, who appears to have been too tender of shedding human blood to please his employers, is recalled, and is succeeded by Sir H. Pottenger, who, it is reported, has instructions from Lord Palmerston to demand fifteen millions of dollars for the opium smugglers, and the whole of the expenses of the war, and to secure the right to the British of planting armed factories in the different Chinese ports.
"Shall history record that no voice was raised by the Christians of Britain against the employment of their money, and that of their starving countrymen, in deeds like these!!"
The following letter was addressed by Abraham L. Pennock, conveying his resignation of the office of Vice President of the American Anti-Slavery Society, (old organization,) after the occurrence of the painful divisions in the anti-slavery body, which have been already noticed. This letter is written in an excellent spirit, and clearly developes the cause of the separation.
"TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.
"Other reasons than those which will be presented in this letter, made it desirable to me to be released from any official connection with the Anti-Slavery Society. I thought those reasons so well known to some of the delegates from the Pennsylvania Society, and withal they were deemed by me of so much value, that I felt both surprise and regret at understanding that my name was continued as one of the vice presidents of the Parent Society. Thus saying, I am, nevertheless, bound to express my indebtedness for the kind feeling toward me, and confidence in my love for the slave, which, doubtless, induced the appointment.
"By an accident to my anti-slavery newspapers, I have just received the proceedings of the society at the above meeting. I am sorry to find in them superadded reasons for regret at my appointment, as that appointment seems to place me in the false position of appearing to be in favor of its leading measures; some of which, denunciatory of co-laborers in the abolition cause, have not my unity.
"In the heavy responsibilities of the former Executive Committee, I find a sufficient reason for their transfer of the 'Emancipator' and other property for which they stood personally engaged; and I therefore cannot join in affirming such transfer to be 'a flagrant breach of trust;' and their answer in justification of their course, 'an attempt to defend which betrays an utter disregard of the rights of abolitionists.'
"Believing in the intellectual equality of the sexes, I go fully for women's rights and duties. They possess a moral force of immense power, which they are bound to exert for the good of mankind; including emphatically so, those who are in the hopeless and most wretched condition of slaves. The belief of the value of female co-operation is common to the anti-slavery community; and the only question regarding it which has arisen, is, whether it shall be exerted in societies and conventions of women, or in societies and conventions of men and women, irrespective of sex. The question is of recent date, not even coeval with the modern anti-slavery enterprise; and the practice, at the origination of this enterprise, that of separate action. We can all bear testimony to the powerful impression upon the public mind, made by women, acting singly or in societies and conventions, before it was thought of merging their influence in a joint stock community with their brethren. Where can we find an anti-slavery organization more potential, and so dignified, as was the convention of American women? Is it therefore surprising that the question has not been conclusively settled by American abolitionists, that women ought to act identically on the same platform and in the same society with men; and that the practice, founded on this plan, still remains measurably local, and, by many conforming to it, is deemed experimental?
"In convening a World's Convention, no innovation upon the general social usages was contemplated by our brethren in England who called it. The convention was meant to be a convention of men; and what was deficient of explicitness in the first notice was amply made up in the reiteration of the call. It was fully known before the appointment of delegates by the American Anti-Slavery Society that the intention of the committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society was such as is above explained. The views of the inviting party being known, it was competent to the invited to accept or reject the invitation, but not to modify its terms. The American Society, however, in face of the invitation, with a knowledge of the extreme sensitiveness of that portion of the British people whom the Convention would deem it important to conciliate, to any innovation upon established forms, and itself not united in discarding the distinctions of sex, resolved to send female delegates to the Convention, and thus, in effect, to appeal from the Committee to the paramount authority of the Convention, and with it to settle the American question.
"In exercising this authority we are to suppose, from the high moral, intellectual, and philanthropic standing of its members, the Convention, in adhering to the general usages of society, meant to perpetuate no injustice; and we know, from their very respectful attention to the rejected delegates, that they were influenced by no want of courtesy—I am satisfied that they acted according to their best impressions of duty, the carrying out of which was their high aim; and that the Convention was not the less a World's Convention because it did not embrace both sexes as its members, or any reforms without the scope of its call. I cannot unite, therefore, in the resolutions declaring the proceedings of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society 'arbitrary and despotic;' or the act of the London Conference, excluding the female delegates of the American Society appointed in contradiction to the terms of the invitation, as 'highly disrespectful to the delegates, and to us, their constituents, tyrannical in its nature, mischievous in its tendencies, and unworthy of men claiming the character of abolitionists.'
"Thus my views not being in harmony with the action of the society, in the particulars above referred to, my duty to it and myself is, to tender you this as my resignation of the office of Vice President for Pennsylvania, and not to await another election for withdrawing from it.
"With no heart for the controversies which have got in among my brethren, the common friends of the enslaved, and which are sadly wasting their anti-slavery strength, but with a warm heart for the legitimate objects of the American Anti-Slavery Society, I shall not cease anxiously to desire its prosperity and speedy triumph with these just limitations.
"Your friend,
"(Signed) ABRAHAM L. PENNOCK.
"Haverford, 6th Month 28th, 1841."