Produced by Juliet Sutherland and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net









                              DISCUSSION
                                  ON
                           AMERICAN SLAVERY,

                                BETWEEN

                        GEORGE THOMPSON, ESQ.,

    AGENT OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN SOCIETY FOR THE ABOLITION OF
                  SLAVERY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, AND

                     REV. ROBERT J. BRECKINRIDGE,

    DELEGATE FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
    IN THE UNITED STATES, TO THE CONGREGATIONAL UNION OF ENGLAND
                              AND WALES:

                            HOLDEN IN THE

             REV. DR. WARDLAW'S CHAPEL, GLASGOW, SCOTLAND,

  On the Evenings of the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th of June, 1836,

                           WITH AN APPENDIX.


                       NEGRO UNIVERSITIES PRESS
                               NEW YORK




  Originally published in 1836
  by Isaac Knapp, Boston

  Reprinted from a copy in the collections
  of the Brooklyn Public Library

  Reprinted 1969 by
  Negro Universities Press
  A DIVISION OF GREENWOOD PRESS, INC.
  NEW YORK

  SBN 8371-2766-1

  PRINTED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA




INTRODUCTION.


The following were the preliminary steps connected with the Discussion
reported in the succeeding pages:--

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE'S Letter, expressing his willingness to meet Mr.
THOMPSON at Glasgow, was occasioned by the following passage in Mr.
THOMPSON'S Letter, which appeared in the _London Patriot_, in reply to
the extracts inserted in that Journal, from the work published by the
Rev. Drs. COX and HOBY, entitled, "The Baptists in America":--

"In the mean time, I am ready to meet Dr. COX in Exeter Hall, in his
own chapel, or in any other building, to justify my charges against
America and American Ministers; my general policy in the Anti-Slavery
cause, and any particular act of which Dr. COX complains. I am ready,
also, and anxious to meet any American Clergyman, or other gentleman,
in any part of Great Britain, to discuss the general question, or the
propriety of that interference, of which so much has been said by
persons who are otherwise engaged, and most praiseworthily so, in
interfering with the institutions, social, political, and religious,
of every _other_ quarter of the Globe."

       *       *       *       *       *


MR. THOMPSON'S CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

_To the Editor of the London Patriot._

SIR,

A friend in this city, with whom I have stopped for a day or two, on
my way to Scotland, has put into my hands your paper of the 23d inst.,
which contains Mr. George Thompson's letter of the 13th, attacking Dr.
Cox.

As to the difficulties which exist between those two gentlemen, I, of
course, have no right to speak.

Mr. Thompson, however, has not contented himself with urging a
particular controversy with Dr. Cox;--nor even a general controversy,
free for all who desire to engage him, or call in question his
'charges against America, and American Ministers'--as slave-holding
Ministers and Christians on the other side of the water. 'But,' says
he, 'I am ready, also, and anxious to meet any American clergyman, or
other gentleman, in any part of Great Britain, to discuss the general
question, &c.:' that is, the general question of his 'charges against
America and American ministers, touching the whole subject of African
slavery in that country.'

AFTER mature and prayerful consideration, and full consultation with a
few friends, I am not able to see how I can avoid taking notice of
this direct, and almost personal challenge; which, I have some reason
to suspect, was probably intended for me.

AND yet I feel myself encompassed by many difficulties. For some may
consider me defending the institution of slavery; whereas I myself
believe it to be contrary to the spirit of the gospel, and the natural
rights of men. Others might naturally look for more full proofs, and
more exact information than I can give, when relying almost entirely
upon mere memory. While by far the greater part, I much fear, are as
impatient of all investigation on the subject, as, I am sorry to say,
they seem to me, totally unacquainted with its real condition in
America.

I have concluded, however, to accept the somewhat boastful challenge
of Mr. Thompson. And I trust the following suggestions and conditions
will be considered most reasonable, when the peculiar circumstances of
the case are considered:--

1. I will meet Mr. Thompson at Glasgow, any time during the three
first weeks of June; and spend three or four hours a day, for as many
days consecutively as may be necessary--in discussing the 'general
question,' as involved in his 'charges against America, and American
Ministers,' in reference to the whole subject of slavery there.

2. BUT as my whole object is to get before the British churches
certain views and suggestions on this subject, which I firmly believe
are indispensable, to prevent the total alienation of British and
American christians from each other; I shall not consider it necessary
to commence the discussion at all, unless such arrangements are
previously made, as will secure the publication, in a cheap and
permanent form, of all that is said and done on the occasion.

3. I must insist on a patient and fair hearing, by responsible
persons. Therefore I will agree that the audience shall consist of a
select number of gentlemen, say from fifty to five hundred; to be
admitted by ticket only,--and a committee previously agreed on to
distribute the tickets--only to respectable persons.

I take it for granted that Mr. Thompson would himself prefer Glasgow
to any other city, for the scene of this meeting: as it is the home of
his most active supporters. And while the selection of the particular
time of it cannot be important to him, my own previous arrangements
are such, as to leave me no wider range than that proposed to his
choice above.

MORE minute arrangements are left to the future; and they can, no
doubt, be easily made.

I must ask the favour of an early insertion of this note, in the
_Patriot_; and beg to say, through you, to the Editor of the _Glasgow
Chronicle_, that I shall feel obliged by its republication in his
paper.

                                         R. J. BRECKINRIDGE,

                           A Delegate from the General Assembly of the
                           Presbyterian Church of the U. S. America,
                           to the Congregational Union of England and
                           Wales.

  Durham, May 28,1836.

       *       *       *       *       *


TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW CHRONICLE.

                                             London, June 1, 1836.

SIR,

I forward you, without a moment's delay, a copy of this evening's
_Patriot_, containing a letter from the Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge,
of Baltimore, United States. The following is my reply, which you will
oblige me by immediately inserting, in company with the communication
to which it refers.

I feel thankful that my overture has been accepted; and,
notwithstanding the arrangements I had made to remain in London during
the whole of the present month, and the announcement of my name in the
public advertisements to lecture during the forthcoming week, I shall,
D. V. be in Glasgow on Tuesday next; and shall be ready to meet Mr.
Breckinridge, in the Religious Institution House, South Frederick
Street, at noon of that day, to settle the preliminaries of the
discussion, which, I trust, will commence the following morning.

It is my earnest hope, that every thing said and done, will be in
accordance with gentlemanly feeling and christian courtesy.

                                Your's respectfully,

                                                  GEORGE THOMPSON.

       *       *       *       *       *


NOTE.

The Speeches and Documents in this Pamphlet having been submitted to
the correction of the Speakers, the Report may be relied on as an
accurate and full account of the important proceedings.




DISCUSSION.




FIRST NIGHT--MONDAY JUNE 13.


Agreeably to public advertisement, the discussion betwixt Mr. GEORGE
THOMPSON and the REV. R. J. BRECKINRIDGE, was opened Monday evening,
June 13. By half-past six, the hour fixed on by the Committee, Dr.
Wardlaw's Chapel contained 1,200 individuals, the number agreed
upon by both parties. A great number could not gain admittance, in
consequence of the tickets allotted, being bought up on Saturday. On
the entrance of the two antagonists, accompanied by the Committee, the
audience warmly cheered them. By appointment of the Committee--

       *       *       *       *       *

REV. DR. WARDLAW took the Chair. Having thanked the Committee for the
honor they had conferred on him, and which, he trusted, would meet
with the concurrence of the meeting, he said he had accepted the
honorable post with the utmost confidence in the forbearance and
propriety of conduct of the two gentlemen--or antagonists, should he
call them? who were to address the meeting; and also, with the most
perfect confidence in the good conduct and sense of propriety
possessed by the meeting. Had he not possessed such confidence, he
would never have thought of undertaking the present task. Had he
imagined that the present meeting would give way to similar
expressions of feeling as had taken place within these walls on some
former occasions, he would at once have declined the task, as one for
which he was totally unfit,--he was not fit to manage storms. The
parties on the present occasion were different from those to whom they
had listened at the time to which he referred. One of them, it was
true, was the same, and his character all of them knew. They knew his
sentiments, his zeal, his eloquence, his devotedness to the great
cause of which he was the fearless advocate. In reference to his
opponent, on the present occasion, he would not dishonor that
gentleman by naming him along with an individual who had stood before
them formerly in opposition to their eloquent friend. He felt it to be
his duty to introduce to them his friend--for he was allowed to call
him so--the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. That gentleman had come to this
country, the accredited agent from the Presbyterian church--a large
and influential body of Christians in America, to the congregational
union of England and Wales. It was proper that he should state to the
meeting that Mr. Breckinridge was no advocate of slavery--that he
believed it to be opposed to the letter and spirit of the gospel, and
as a proof how far he was in earnest in his professions in this
matter, he had freely parted with a patrimonial estate so far as it
consisted of slaves. (Cheers.) Having stated this, it might be further
necessary that he should mention what gave rise to the present
meeting. They were all aware, then, he said, that since his return
from America, Mr. George Thompson had been lecturing in various parts
of the kingdom. In the course of his labors he was accused of having
brought extravagant and unfounded charges against the American nation,
and especially against the ministers of religion in that country. In
consequence of this, Mr. Thompson published a challenge in the Patriot
newspaper, in which he called upon any American minister to come
forward and defend his brethren, if he were able, from the charges
which he brought against them. This challenge, through the columns of
the same newspaper, had been accepted by Mr. Breckinridge, and now
they were here met to enter upon the discussion. The Chairman then
read the regulations with regard to the conducting of the discussion
which had been agreed upon by the Committee. In addition to what they
contained, he might add that the chairman was not to be considered
judge of what was relevant or irrelevant, nor was the speaker to be
interrupted on any account. He would especially beg their serious
attention to the rule requiring the entire suppression of every
symptom of approbation or disapprobation. He trusted that his
interference would not be required, but if it were he would feel
himself called upon by imperative duty to enforce this regulation with
the utmost strictness. Mr. Breckinridge had heard from some quarter or
other very unfavorable accounts of the decorum of a Glasgow audience.
He hoped that their conduct on the present occasion would disabuse
that gentleman's mind of any unfavorable opinion he might entertain of
them on that score. In conclusion, he might repeat, that he placed the
most perfect reliance on the good sense and gentlemanly feeling of
both speakers. Let them both, then, be heard fairly. He solicited
favor for neither--he demanded justice for both.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. BRECKINRIDGE said, it was not easy to conceive of circumstances
that were more embarrassing than those in which he was placed this
evening. They had already taken for granted all that had been said and
done on one side of the question; their minds had been already made up
to oppose those conclusions to which it was his purpose to bring them.
Their affections and feelings had long been engaged to his opponent in
this cause; and all that he could say would necessarily have little
effect in changing what he would not hesitate to call those unhappy
opinions, which were long ago formed against him. Another cause of
his embarrassment was, that he would be rejudged of all he might say
here. What he said would be approved by one party in America, but
would be disapproved of by another. In the United States they were
differently situated from what the people were in this country. Here
the people seemed now united on this subject, but in America they were
split up into a great number of different parties, whose opinions and
feelings were arrayed against each other in as great a measure as it
was possible to conceive. Whatever, therefore, he might say in this
country, would be disapproved of by many in the United States, while
nothing was more certain than that, what was said by his opponent,
would the more commend him to his friends on the other side of the
Atlantic; and nothing he could say would probably lower him in the
good opinion of his friends here. Hence arose the difficulty of the
situation in which he (Mr. B.) found himself placed, and his unusual
claim upon their patience in the course of the discussion. Still he
should be unworthy of his country, he should be forgetful of the power
of truth, he would have little trust in God, if he was not ready to
espouse the cause which he believed to be right; and more especially
if he was not ready, before a Scotish and a Christian audience, to
defend the principles he adopted and avowed. He had no desire to
attempt a mitigation of their hatred to slavery; and if, at a future
time, he should meet in America with any one now present, he would
prove to them by the friendship of those who loved and respected him,
and the opposition of those who did not, that he hated slavery as much
as any one of those present could do. It was said by one of the
ancients, 'I am a man: I consider nothing that relates to man, foreign
to me.' It was a true and noble sentiment. The fate of the most
hopeless might be theirs if power could make it so; and their
condition might have been that of the poorest wretch on earth if God
had not smiled upon them and their ancestors as he had done. He did
not wish them to interfere with slavery in America. They might
interfere, but the question was, how were they to do so? He wished in
the course of the discussion to bring before them facts to show, that
if they did at all interfere with slavery in America, it must be done
as between individuals, not as a national question. That, whatever
they did, they do as Christians, not as communities. That they must
not, for a moment, look upon it as a question of rival power and
glory, as a question between Great Britain and America. If they did so
in the slightest degree, their chance of success was gone for ever. In
the prosecution of the question, they should not allow themselves to
be identified in their efforts with any party in America, in politics,
in religion, or metaphysics; more especially, with a small and odious
party as they had done to a deplorable extent. They should not
identify themselves with a party so small as not to be able to obtain
their object, and so erroneous as not to deserve success. Whatever
they did should be done meekly, and in the spirit of the gospel; they
should not press the principles of the gospel with the spirit of a
demon, but with all the sweetness and gentleness of the gospel of
peace. These were the principles which he intended to endeavor to
impress upon their minds by details which he would adduce in the
course of the discussion. It was nothing more than just to the
audience that they should know, that they should understand it
distinctly, that as far as regarded his opponent, he neither was nor
could be any thing more to him or his countrymen than as an individual
who had identified himself with certain parties and principles in
America. Neither he nor the Americans could have any object in
underrating or overrating him. America could have no desire to raise
him up or to pull him down. It is not, it cannot be any thing to
America what any individual is, or may be, in the eyes of his own
countrymen. The King of England is known to America only as the King
of Great Britain; if he ceased to be the King of that kingdom, he was
to them no more than a common individual. Let it not be supposed that
either he or America had any wish, even the most remote, to break down
or injure the well earned or ill earned reputation of his opponent.
They looked upon him only with reference to his principles, and had no
personal motive on earth in reference to that gentleman. Let them not,
therefore, think that in any remarks he might make, or charges he
might bring forward, he had any intention of implicating his opponent
as being solely responsible for these results. He called in question,
not the principles of a particular individual only, but those also of
a party in America, to whom he would have to answer when he returned
to that country. Having said thus much, he would now proceed to the
question before them, but would previously make a few preliminary
remarks, which he thought necessary to enable them to come to a proper
understanding of the subject. He did not think it necessary to trace
the progress of the great cause to the present moment. For forty years
they had suffered defeat after defeat--yet these defeats only
strengthened their cause, even in this country, till they had arrived
at a given point. He would not wish to hurt the feelings of a single
individual now present, but he was sure he spoke the feelings of all
in America, when he said that the great day of their power to do good,
as a nation, was to be dated from the passing of the Reform Bill. From
that period, they started in a new career of action, both at home and
abroad. The sending out of agents was one of the great lines of
operation attempted upon the Americans. This the Americans complained
of as having been done in an imprudent and impossible way, and sure to
meet with defeat. They have sent out agents to America who have
returned defeated. They admit they were not successful, though they
say they retreated only, that they were not defeated. They have
failed--they admit they have failed in their object. One of these
agents on his return made certain statements as to the condition of
the slaves in America; and as to the state of the churches in the
United States, which implicated not only the great body of Christian
ministers of the country, but the government, and the people of
America, except a small handful of individuals. If, as was admitted,
the number of pastors in America was twelve to fifteen thousand, and
only one thousand had embraced these views, were they anything but a
small party? While yet the whole nation was denounced as wicked--and
the wrath of Heaven invoked against the country. It was only a very
small handful that came in for a share of the praise of his opponent;
and the sympathies here were invoked, on the assumption of principles
which it was his object to prove false and unfounded. What could be
the cause of such an anomaly? that those principles which are said to
be loved and admired here, are repudiated there to the extremity of
pertinacious obstinacy? This cause it would be his duty to point out;
first, he would say what perhaps no one would believe, that the
question of American slavery, is in its name not only unjust, but
absurd. There was, properly speaking, no such thing as American
slavery. It was absurd to talk of American slavery, except in so far
as it applied to the sentiments of what was the minority, although he
would say a large minority, which tolerated slavery. It was not an
American question. In America there were twenty-four separate
republics; of these, twelve had no slaves, and twelve of them
tolerated slavery. Two new states had recently been added to the
Union, and God speed the day when others would be added, till the
whole continent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific was included in
union, carrying with the union, Liberty and Independence. Of the two
states which were lately added, one was a slave state and the other
free. Of the twelve free, independent, sovereign states of America to
which he had alluded--one, Massachusetts, had, for a longer time than
his opponent had lived, not tolerated slavery. There were no slaves in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire,
Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois,
and in four of them there never had been a slave. Eight of them, of
their own free will and choice, abolished slavery without money and
without price. By the influence of the Spirit of God, and the
influence of divine truth, they had totally abolished slavery. Of the
twelve states, at least four, Ohio, with a million of inhabitants,
Indiana, Illinois, and Maine, never had a slave. Since 1785 till this
hour, there had not been one slave in any of these states. These
twelve either never had slaves or had abolished slavery without any
remuneration. These states contain seven million out of the eleven
million of the white population of the Union, and nearly two-thirds of
the territorial extent of the republic as now peopled. And when we
remember that they have stood as they now do for the last twenty
years, as it was now more than twenty years since slavery was
abolished, how could they be charged with the responsibility of the
existence of slavery in other states, or be charged with fostering
slavery which they were the first people upon earth to abolish, and
the first to unite with other nations in putting down the slave trade
as piracy. This he was aware would be denied; but though Wilberforce
had labored in the cause for twenty years, the American constitution
had fixed a limited time for the abolition of the slave trade, and the
moment the twenty years had elapsed, the Congress did abolish it; and
this was in the same month, and some days before the Abolition Bill
had passed through Parliament. Thus, America was the first nation on
earth which had abolished the slave trade, and made it piracy. If we
judge by the number of republics which tolerate no slavery--if we
judge by the number of American citizens who abhor slavery, it will be
found not to be an American question, but one applicable only to a
small portion of the nation. If he wished to prove that the British
were idolaters, he could point to millions of idolaters in India,
under the British Government, for every one in America who approved of
slavery. If he wished to prove the British to be Catholics, and
worshippers of the Virgin Mary, he could point to the west of Ireland,
where were one thousand worshippers of the Virgin Mary for every one
in America who did not wish slavery abolished. If he were to return to
America, and get up public meetings, and address them about British
idolatry, because the Indians were Idolaters, or on British
Catholicism, because many of the Irish worshipped the Virgin Mary,
would not the world at once see the absurdity and maliciousness of the
charge; and if he heaped upon Britain every libellous epithet he could
invent--if he got the wise, the good, and the fair, to applaud him,
would not the world see at once the grossness of the absurdity. And
where, then, lay the difference? The United States Government have no
power to abolish slavery in South Carolina--Britain can abolish
idolatry throughout its dominions. It was absurd to say it was an
American question. America, as a nation, was not responsible, either
in the sight of God or man, for the existence of slavery within
certain portions of the Union. As a nation, it had done every thing
within its power. The half hour having now expired, Mr. B. sat down;
and

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. THOMPSON rose. He said he did not stand on the platform this
evening to explain to them his views in reference to slavery. He would
occupy no portion of their time by an exposition of any of the
principles or views entertained by himself on the subject of slavery
as it has existed in our own dependencies, or as it exists in America
at the present moment, or in other portions of the globe. He stood
there to justify that policy which in a distant land he had deemed it
right to pursue; he stood there to justify the policy which had been
adopted and pursued, and was still pursued by certain individuals in
the United States, whether many or few, whether a handful or a
multitude, who were known by the name of the abolitionists of the
United States of America. He stood there to justify himself and them
in the act of fearlessly, constantly, unceasingly, and universally, to
every class and color on the face of the habitable globe, enunciating
the great principles of equal justice and equal rights--of enunciating
this great truth that slaveholding is a crime in the sight of God, and
should be immediately and totally abolished. That God had in no
instance given to man a discretionary power to hold property in his
fellow-man; that instant emancipation was the right of the slave; that
instant manumission was the duty of the master. That no government had
a right to keep a single soul in slavery; that no nation had authority
to permit slavery, let that nation exist where it may; if professing
to be a Christian nation, so much the more atrocious was their
wickedness. The nation which permitted the keeping in slavery of God's
creatures, which allowed the traffic in human beings for 400 pieces of
silver, even in the capital itself, was not entitled to be called a
christian nation, and if professing to be a christian nation, so much
the more pre-eminently wicked and infamous was the nation. By that act
that infamous, wicked nation violated every christian feeling, and was
worthy of being exposed to the scorn and derision of every nation
under heaven, christian or pagan. This was a most momentous question,
and he spoke strongly upon it, but he spoke advisedly. He did not
speak angrily, but he did and must speak warmly on the subject of
Slavery. He could not talk of millions of men and women, each of whom
was endowed with a soul which was precious in the sight of God--each
of whom was endowed with that principle which out-valued worlds--he
could not speak of such, registered with the brutes, with calm
unconcern, or classed with chattels, and be calm--if he could do so,
he should be ready with these nails to open his breast, and tear
therefrom a heart which would be unworthy of a man. He could and would
speak calmly on other topics, but this was a subject which required
energy, unceasing energy, till the evil was removed from the face of
the earth, till all the kingdoms of the world had become the kingdoms
of our God, and of his Christ. He was thankful for the present
opportunity which had been afforded him of entering into this
discussion; he was thankful that his opponent, for so it seemed he
must be called, was an American, that he was a christian minister,
that he was an opponent of slavery, that he brought to the question
before them, talent, learning, patriotism, and christian feeling. Such
an opponent he respected and wished the audience to respect. He would
ask them to cherish his person, to respect his opinions, to weigh his
arguments, to test his facts, and if they were just and righteous, to
adopt his principles. If he (Mr. T.) knew the strongest expression he
had ever used regarding America, he would use it to-night; if he knew
in what recess of his heart his worst wish towards America was
deposited he would drag it forth to the light, that his opponent might
grapple with it in their presence. He would not soften down any of
his language; he would not sugar over his words, he would not abate
one iota of what he had ever said in reference to the wickedness of
America on former occasions. Let his opponent weigh every syllable he
(Mr. T.) had uttered, every statement he had ever made, every charge
he had ever brought against his country or against his cloth, and if
he found that he had exaggerated facts or stated what was not true, he
would be glad to be shown it. He was there before them and his
opponent to search after the truth, truth which would outlive Mr.
Breckinridge--truth which would outlive Geo. Thompson--truth which was
far more valuable than the proudest victory--truth which was
invaluable to both--and let the truth stand out during the discussion
which might follow; and when they had found out the truth, if they saw
anything which had to be taken back--anything to be given up--anything
for which to be sorry, he would try to outstrip his opponent in his
readiness to retract what was wrong, to yield what was untenable, and
to express his sorrow before God and the audience for what he had
undeservedly said of America. With regard to the feelings he
entertained towards the Americans, he need only refer to the last
letter he had published to the American people, from which he would
read a passage to show the feelings he entertained towards that
country, as well as to those of her citizens who might reach these
shores from America. Mr. Thompson then read the following passages:--

    I love America, because her sons, though my persecutors, are
    immortal--because 'they know not what they do,' or if
    enlightened and wilful, are so much the more to be pitied and
    cared for. I love America, because of the many affectionate
    friends I have found upon her shores, by whom I have been
    cherished, refreshed and strengthened; and upon whose regard
    I place an incalculable value. I love America, for there
    dwells the fettered slave--fettered and darkened, and
    degraded now, but soon to spring into light and liberty, and
    rank on earth, as he is ranked in heaven, 'but a little lower
    than the angels.' I love America, because of the many mighty
    and magnificent enterprises in which she has embarked for the
    salvation of the world. I love her rising spires, her
    peaceful villages, and her multiplied means of moral,
    literary, and religious improvement. I love her hardy sons,
    the tenants of her vallies and her mountains green. I love
    her native children of the forest, still roaming, untutored
    and untamed, in the unsubdued wildernesses of the 'far west.'
    I love your country, because it is the theatre of the
    sublimest contest now waging with darkness and despotism, and
    misery on the face of the globe; and because your country is
    ordained to be the scene of a triumph, as holy in its
    character and as glorious in its results, as any ever
    achieved through the instrumentality of men.

    But though my soul yearns over America, and I desire nothing
    more eagerly than to see her stand forth among the nations of
    the world, unsullied in reputation, and omnipotent in energy,
    yet shall I, if spared, deem it my duty to publish aloud her
    wide and fearful departures from rectitude and mercy. I shall
    unceasingly proclaim the wrongs of her enslaved children;
    and, while she continues to 'traffic in the souls of men,'
    brand her as recreant to the great principles of her
    revolutionary struggle, and hypocritical in all her
    professions of attachment to the cause of human rights.

    I thank God, I cherish no feelings of bitterness or revenge,
    towards any individual in America, my most inveterate enemy
    not excepted. Should the sea on which I am about to embark
    receive me ere I gain my native shore--should this be the
    last letter I ever address to the people of America, Heaven
    bears me witness, I with truth and sincerity affirm that, as
    I look to be freely forgiven, so freely do I forgive my
    persecutors and slanderers and pray--'Lord lay not this sin
    to their charge.'

In another part of the same letter he had thus expressed himself:--

    Should a kind providence place me again upon the soil of my
    birth, and when there, should any American (and I hope many
    will) visit that soil to plead the cause of virtue and
    philanthropy, and strive in love to provoke us to good works,
    let him know that there will be one man who will uphold his
    right to liberty of speech, one man who will publicly and
    privately assert and maintain the divinity of his commission
    to attack sin and alleviate suffering, in every form, in
    every latitude, and under whatever sanction and authorities
    it may be cloaked and guarded. And coming on such an errand,
    I think I may pledge myself in behalf of my country, that he
    shall not be driven with a wife and little ones, from the
    door of a hotel in less than 36 hours after he first breathes
    our air--that he shall not be denounced as an incendiary, a
    fanatic, an emissary, an enemy, and a traitor--that he shall
    not be assailed with oaths and missiles, while proclaiming
    from the pulpit in the house of God, on the evening of a
    Christian Sabbath, the doctrines of 'judgment, justice, and
    mercy,'--that he shall not be threatened, wherever he goes,
    with 'tar and feathers'--that he shall not be repudiated and
    abused in newspapers denominated religious, and by men
    calling themselves Christian Ministers--that he shall not
    have a price set upon his head, and his house surrounded with
    ruffians, hired to effect his abduction--that his wife and
    children shall not be forced to flee from the hearth of a
    friend, lest they should be 'smoked out' by men in civic
    authority, and their paid myrmidons--that the mother and her
    little ones shall not find at midnight, the house surrounded
    by an infuriated multitude, calling with horrible execrations
    for the husband and the father--that his lady shall not be
    doomed, while in a strange land, to see her babes clinging to
    her with affright, exclaiming, 'the mob shan't get papa,'
    'papa is good is he not? the naughty mob shan't get him,
    shall they?'--that he shall not, finally, be forced to quit
    the most enlightened and christian city of our nation, to
    escape the assassin's knife, and return to tell his country,
    that in Britain the friend of virtue, humanity, and freedom,
    was put beyond the protection of the laws, and the pale of
    civilized sympathy, and given over by professor and profane,
    to the tender mercies of a blood-thirsty rabble.

These extracts were from the last letter that he had written to the
people of America, and which had been widely published there; and
he was glad of an opportunity of now laying them before a Glasgow
audience, and of having them incorporated in the proceedings of the
evening, in order to show that he then forgave America, that he now
forgave America. He would stand there to defend the right of Mr.
Breckinridge to a fair hearing from his (Mr. Thompson's) countrymen;
and stand forward as his protector, to save him from the missile that
might be aimed at him, and to receive into his own bosom the dagger
which might be aimed at his heart. His opponent might be anxious to
know what report he (Mr. T.) made on his return to Britain of his
proceedings in America. He would therefore read an extract from the
minutes of the LONDON SOCIETY for UNIVERSAL EMANCIPATION:--

    George Thompson was then introduced to the Committee, and
    communicated at length the result of his Mission in the
    United States, and the present cheering aspect of the
    Anti-Slavery cause in that country. The following is a brief
    outline of his statement:

    He desired to be devoutly thankful to Divine Providence for
    the signal preservation and help vouchsafed to him in all his
    labors, perils, and persecutions. He considered it a high
    honor to have been permitted to proclaim in the ears of a
    distant people the great principles held by the Society.

    He sailed from this country on the 17th August, 1834, landed
    at New York on the 20th September, and commenced his public
    labors on the 1st of October. His public Lectures were
    continued down to the 20th October, 1835, during which period
    he delivered between 2 and 300 public Lectures, besides
    innumerable shorter addresses before Committees, Conventions,
    Associations, &c. &c. His audiences had invariably been
    overflowing, and composed from time to time of members of
    State Legislatures, the Heads of Colleges, Professors,
    Clergymen of all denominations, members of the legal
    profession, and the students of nearly all the Theological
    and Academical Institutions in New England. The result of his
    labors had been the multiplication of Anti-Slavery
    Associations to an unprecedented extent. Up to the month of
    May, 1835, he met with no serious or formidable opposition.
    At that time the National Society reported the existence of
    250 auxiliaries, and its determination to appropriate during
    the ensuing year the sum of 30,000 dollars in the printing of
    papers and pamphlets to be gratuitously circulated amongst
    the entire white population of the country. The Southern
    States, previously almost silent and inoperative, soon after
    commenced a system of terrorism, intercepting the public
    conveyances, rifling the Mail Bags, scourging, mutilating or
    murdering all suspected of holding Anti-Slavery views, and
    calling with one consent upon the Free States to pass laws,
    abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, upon the
    subject of slavery. The North promptly responded to the call
    of the South, and in every direction through the Free States
    the Abolitionists became the victims of persecution,
    proscription and outrage. The friends of Negro freedom every
    where endured with a patience and spirit of christian
    charity, almost unexampled, the multiplied wrongs and
    injuries accumulated upon them. They ceased not to labor for
    the Holy cause they had espoused, but perseveringly pursued
    their course in the use of all means sanctioned by Justice,
    Religion, and the Constitution of their country. The result
    had been the rapid extension of their principles, and a vast
    accession of moral strength. G. T. gave an appalling account
    of the condition of the Southern Churches. The Presbyterians,
    Baptists, and Episcopal Methodist Churches were the main
    pillars of the system of Slavery. Were they to withdraw their
    countenance, and cease to participate in its administration
    and profit, it would not exist one year. Bishops, presiding
    Elders, Travelling Preachers, Local Preachers, Trustees,
    Stewards, Class Leaders, private Members, and other
    attendants in the Churches of the Episcopal Methodists, with
    the preachers and subordinate members of the other
    denominations, are, with few exceptions, Slaveholders. Many
    of the preachers, not merely possessing domestic Slaves, but
    being planters 'on a pretty extensive scale,' and dividing
    their time between the duties of the Pastoral Office and the
    driving of a gang of Negroes upon a cotton, tobacco, or rice
    plantation.

    In the great pro-Slavery Meetings at Charleston and Richmond,
    the clergy of all denominations attended in a body, and at
    the bidding of vigilance Committees suspended their Schools
    for the instruction of the colored population, receiving as
    their reward a vote of thanks from their lay Slaveholding
    Brethren 'for their prudent and patriotic conduct.'

    G. T. gave a most encouraging account of the present state of
    the Anti-Slavery cause, as nearly as it could be ascertained
    by letters recently received. He stated that there were now,
    exclusive of the Journals published by the Anti-Slavery
    Societies, 100 newspapers boldly advocating the principles of
    Abolition. Between 4 and 500 auxiliary associations,
    comprising 15 or 1700 Ministers of the Gospel of various
    denominations. G. T. stated also a number of particulars,
    shewing the rapid progress of correct opinions amongst the
    Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists,
    producing a Document just received from the last named body,
    signed by 185 Clergymen, being a reply to a letter addressed
    by the Baptist ministers in and near London to the Baptist
    Churches of America, and fully reciprocating all their
    sentiments on the subject of immediate and entire
    emancipation. The cause was proceeding with accelerated
    rapidity. Ten or twelve Agents of the National Society were
    incessantly laboring with many others employed by the State
    Societies, of which there were seven, viz. Kentucky, (a slave
    State,) Ohio, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New
    Hampshire, and Vermont. Gerrit Smith, Esq. a competent
    authority, had stated that every week witnessed an accession
    to the ranks of the Abolitionists of not less than 500, in
    the State of New York alone, and he did not know that in all
    the Societies there was one intemperate or profane person. G.
    T. in describing the character of the persons comprising the
    Anti-Slavery Societies in America, stated, that they were
    universally men and women of religious principles, and, in
    most instances, of unquestioned piety. He had never known any
    benevolent enterprise carried forward more in dependence upon
    Divine Direction and Divine Aid, than the abolition cause in
    the United States. In all their meetings, public or social,
    they committed themselves to God in Prayer, and he had found
    that those who had been most vehemently denounced as
    'Fanatics and Incendiaries' were men sound in judgment, calm
    in temper, deliberate in council, and prudent, though
    resolute, in action. The great principle on which all their
    Societies were founded was the essential sinfulness of
    slaveholding, and the consequent necessity of its immediate
    and entire abolition. The great means by which they had
    sought to accomplish their object, was the fearless
    publication of the truth in love, addressed to the
    understandings and hearts of their fellow citizens.
    Expediency was a doctrine they abjured. Free from a
    time-serving or timid spirit, they boldly relied upon the
    righteousness of their cause, the potency of truth, and the
    blessing of God. They were entitled to receive from the
    Abolitionists of Great Britain the warmest commendation, the
    fullest confidence, and most cordial co-operation.

    He was happy in being able to state, that wherever the
    principles of immediate abolition had been fully adopted,
    prejudice against color had been thrown aside, and that the
    members of the Anti-Slavery Societies throughout the country
    were endeavoring by every proper means to accomplish the
    moral, intellectual, and spiritual elevation of the colored
    population.

He hoped he would yet have ample opportunities of replying to the
positions assumed by his opponent. He thought he would be able to
show that slavery in America was American slavery; that the Congress
of America--that the Constitution of America made it an institution of
the country, and therefore a national sin of America. In reference to
any question as to the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America, he was glad he had to do with a gentleman who knew these
well, who held a high character for his Constitutional and legal
attainments; and he hoped he would be able to show that Slavery in
America was American Slavery--that the people in the North did not
hate slavery--that they did not oppose slavery--that they were the
greatest supporters of slavery in the United States--that slavery in
America was a national question. But he would keep his proofs till he
had time to say something along with them. Our interference was not a
political interference with America, it was only a moral interference,
to put an end to slavery--and he hoped the people of this country,
would continue to denounce slavery in America; and at the same time he
was quite willing that his opponent should denounce the idolatry of
our eastern possessions.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would take up the line of argument in which
he had been proceeding; but before doing so he wished to make one
observation. How did it happen--admitting all that had been said by
his opponent to be true and fair, how did it happen, that the same
arguments and the same principles were so differently received in
different countries? How did it happen that the individual who
advocated the same cause, with the same temper, and almost in the same
words, in Glasgow and in Boston, should in the one place be supported
by general applause, and in the other be ill-treated and despised, and
even made to flee for his life? This was a question which was yet to
be solved. Mr. Thompson had spoken of the Northern states as the
greatest friends of slavery, forgetting that he had formerly
represented the clergy as such. This was one of the principal reasons
of his want of success--of what might justly be called his signal
failure. He had brought unjust charges against an entire people, and
had in consequence been ill-treated. Mr. Thompson had shown the better
part of valor, discretion, in taking care never to visit any of the
slave states. He had never seen a slaveholder, except, perhaps, he had
met such an individual in a free state. At least if he had done so, it
was a circumstance which was not generally known, one of those hidden
things of which it was not permitted to read. Having made this
observation, he (Mr. B.) would proceed to state that in the
slaveholding states there was a large minority--in some, nearly one
half of the population--zealously engaged in furthering the abolition
of slavery. In Kentucky, slaveholding had been introduced only by a
small majority. When some time after, a convention canvassed the
subject, that majority was diminished, and, still at this hour in that
State, in which he had been born, one of the greatest political
questions agitated was whether slaveholding should be abolished or
retained as an element of the constitution. A law had long ago been
passed imposing a fine of six hundred dollars on whoever brought a
slave into the State for sale, and three hundred dollars on whoever
bought him. A fine of nine hundred dollars was thus made the penalty
of introducing a slave into Kentucky as merchandise. He was sorry to
have to speak of buying and selling human beings; but, to be
understood, it was absolutely necessary that he should do so. In
Virginia also, from which Kentucky had been in great measure peopled,
not many years ago a frightful insurrection had taken place, and many
cruelties had been practised--it was needless to say whether most on
the side of the blacks or the whites. The succeeding legislature of
that State took up the question of slavery in its length and
breadth--passed a law for giving $20,000 to the Colonization
Society,--and rejected only by a small majority a proposal to
appropriate that fund equally to the benefit of slaves to be set
free--as of those already free. He mentioned these things merely to
show that there was a great and an increasing party in the south
favorable to the abolition of negro slavery. In fact, in some of the
Southern states the free people of color had increased faster than the
whites; in Maryland alone there were 52,000 of a free colored
population, all of whom, or their immediate progenitors, had been
voluntarily manumitted. It was needless to say, therefore, that in the
Southern states there was no anti-slavery party. There certainly was
not such a party in Mr. Thompson's sense of the word; but Mr.
Thompson's definition was not the correct one, as he (Mr. B.) would
explain directly. Was it fair then, he would ask, to hold up to the
British public, not only the people of the free states, but also this
great minority in the Southern states as pro-slavery men. Let slavery
be denounced, but let not the denunciation fall upon the whole
American people, many of whom were doing all they could for its
abolition. If Louisiana resolved on perpetuating slavery, let this be
told of Louisiana. If South Carolina adhered to the system, say so of
South Carolina; but do not implicate the mass of the American people,
so many of whom are as much opposed to slavery as is Mr. Thompson
himself. He had heard it said that the sun never sat on the British
dominions. As well, then, might the British people be identified with
the idolatry which prevailed in Hindostan as the Americans be
identified with negro slavery. The question was not American; it
existed solely between the slaveholder and the world. It was unfair,
therefore, to blame the Americans as a nation: the slaveholder, and
the slaveholder alone, should be blamed, let him reside where he
might. Having thus disposed of the first branch of his argument, he
was naturally led to explain the wonderful phenomenon of Mr.
Thompson's reception in America--to give a reason why that reception
was so different from what the same gentleman met with in Glasgow.
Mr. Thompson had taken up the question as one of civil organization.
Now the fact was, that the American nation was divided into two
parties on the subject, namely, the pro-slavery, and the anti-slavery
parties. One party said, let it alone; the other, and by far the most
numerous party, said, something ought to be done in relation to it. In
the last named class, was to be included the population of all the
non-slaveholding states. He declared, in the presence of God, his
conviction, that there was not a sane man in the free states who did
not wish the world rid of slavery. He believed the same of a large
minority in the states in which slavery existed. The pro-slavery party
themselves were also divided. One section, and he rejoiced to add, a
small one, called into exertion in fact only by that effervesence
which had been produced by the violence of Mr. T's friends--spoke of
slavery as an exceedingly good thing--as not only consistent with the
law of God, but as absolutely necessary for the advancement of
civilization. This party was organised within the last few years, and
met the violence of Mr. Thompson's party by a corresponding violence,
as a beam naturally seeks its balance. Another section of the
pro-slavery party, considered slavery a great evil, and wished that it
were abolished, but they did not see how this could be effected. They
had been born in a state of society where it had an existence, and
they could see no course to adopt but to let it cure itself. These
were the two sections into which the supporters of slavery were
divided. The anti-slavery party was also composed of individuals who
had different views of the subject. The one class had been called
Gradualists, Emancipationists, and Colonizationists.--The other were
called Abolitionists. With the latter class, Mr. Thompson had
identified himself. And now, as while in America, by his praises of
Mr. Garrison, and all their leaders, his abuse of their opponents, and
his efforts to chain the British public, hand and foot, to them and
their projects, shows his continued devotion to them. He would refer
to this party again, but, in the mean time, he would only say, that
its members manifested far more honesty than wisdom. In 1833, the
abolitionists held a Convention in Philadelphia, at which they drew up
a Declaration of Independence--a declaration which he dared to say Mr.
Thompson cherished as the apple of his eye; but which had been more
effectual in raising mobs than ever witch was in raising the wind. The
document of which he spoke announced three principles, to the
promulgation of which, the members of the Convention pledged their
lives and their fortunes. A number of the particulars specified, in
support of which they said they would live and die, went to change
materially the laws and Constitution of the United States, and yet
it was pretended that this was not a political question! Their first
principle was, that every human being has an instant right to be free,
irrespective of all consequences; and incapable of restriction or
modification. The second was like unto it, that the right of
citizenship, inherent in every man, in the spot where he is born,
is so perfect, that to deprive him of its exercise in any way
whatever--even by emigration, under strong moral constraint, is a
sin. Their third principle was, that all prejudice against color was
sinful; and that all our judgments and all our feelings towards others
should be regulated exclusively by their moral and intellectual worth.
Mr. B. said he stated these principles from memory only--as he did
most of the facts on which he relied. But he was willing to stand or
fall, in both countries, upon the substantial accuracy of his
statements. Mr. Breckinridge here closed his address, the period
allotted to him having expired.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. THOMPSON was anxious to lay before the meeting documentary
testimony, in preference to any thing he could say himself. Rather
than set forth his own views, as he had done on many former occasions,
he wished to bring forward such documents as even his opponent would
admit to be really American. He pledged himself to show that this was
an American question. He was not prepared for this branch of the
subject, because he had not expected that Mr. Breckinridge would
exonerate America from the charge of being a slaveholding nation;
nevertheless, he was perfectly ready to take it up. He would undertake
to prove that the existence of slavery in the United States was the
result of a compromise--that the Constitution of the United States
was, in fact, based upon a compromise, in relation to this subject. At
the time when the Constitution was agreed to, the then slaveholding
states refused to come into what was called the confederacy of
republics, unless slaveholding was permitted. At that time there were
only three hundred thousand slaves in the Union; now there were two
millions and a half. So much, said Mr. Thompson, for what the good and
influential men of the South, spoken of by Mr. Breckinridge, had done
for the abolition of slavery. Then there were three hundred thousand;
now there were two million four hundred thousand. The method by which
these good and influential people had gone about extirpating slavery,
had been an Irish method; it had shown distinctly the extent of their
zeal and usefulness. Why, setting aside their influence altogether,
they might, had they been as numerous as represented by his respected
opponent, have manumitted as many of their own slaves. It was said, no
doubt, that the laws prevented this; but who made the laws? The child
could not do what her mamma had commanded her to do, because she was
tied to the mahogany table, she could only answer, when asked who tied
her, that it was herself. In like manner, he could turn round on those
whom his respected opponent represented, as haters of slavery.
Emancipationists they wished to be called; colonizationists they ought
to be called. He would ask them, what had they done? Had they not
compromised every principle of justice and truth, by permitting
slaveholding in their Union? Had they not even bestowed exclusive
privileges on the slaveholders? Had they not bestowed on them such
privileges as that, even now, they sent twenty-four or twenty-five
representatives to Congress more than their proportion? His respected
opponent had said this was not a national question. Why, then, send
six thousand bayonets to the South for the protection of the
slaveholder? Why were the American people taxed in order to maintain
bayonets, blunderbusses, and artillery in the South? Not a national
question! Why, then, was Missouri admitted a member of the
Union--Missouri a slaveholding State, admitted by the votes of the
Northern republics. Mr. Breckinridge had fought very shy of the state
of the Capital, and the power of Congress to suppress the internal
traffic in slaves. He (Mr. Thompson) trusted, however, that this
branch of the subject would be taken up. His opponent himself, in a
letter addressed to the New York Evangelist, had stated, that Congress
possessed full power to suppress the internal traffic in slaves; and
yet they did it not. There was in fact no question at all respecting
the power of the Congress, in this matter; yet it was said the
question of slavery was not national. The people of the Northern
states,--the slavery-hating, liberty-loving people of the Northern
states had said they would fight shoulder to shoulder with the
Slaveholders of the South, should the slaves dare to rise and say they
were men, and after all this, it was asserted that this was not a
national question. Mr. Breckinridge had said, that he (Mr. Thompson)
got all his information at second hand. He might have told the reason
why; he knew, however, that such a revelation would have been awful.
He knew that pious men, advocates of the cause of abolition had been
hanged, butchered, their backs ploughed up by Presbyterian elders; and
if such had been done towards natives of New England, what could a
stranger such as he have expected? He (Mr. T.) had, it seems, got all
at second hand. He would tell the meeting where he had obtained some
of his information. From Mr. Breckinridge himself; and he must say,
that sounder or juster views respecting slavery--or a more complete
justification of the mission in which he (Mr. T.) had been so lately
engaged, could scarcely be met with. This was evidence which he had no
fear could be ruled out of court. It was that of the friend and
defender of America. Mr. T. then read the following passage from a
speech delivered by Mr. Breckinridge:--

    What, then, is slavery? for the question relates to the
    action of certain principles on it, and to its probable and
    proper results; what is slavery as it exists among us? We
    reply, it is that condition enforced by the laws of one half
    of the states of this confederacy, in which one portion of
    the community, called masters, is allowed such power over
    another portion called slaves; as

    1. To deprive them of the entire earnings of their own labor,
    except only so much as is necessary to continue labor itself,
    by continuing healthful existence, thus committing clear
    robbery.

    2. To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubinage,
    by denying to them the civil rights of marriage; thus
    breaking up the dearest relations of life, and encouraging
    universal prostitution.

    3. To deprive them of the means and opportunities of moral
    and intellectual culture, in many states making it a high
    penal offence to teach them to read; thus perpetuating
    whatever of evil there is that proceeds from ignorance.

    4. To set up between parents and their children an authority
    higher than the impulse of nature and the laws of God; which
    breaks up the authority of the father over his own
    offspring, and, at pleasure, separates the mother at a
    returnless distance from her child; thus abrogating the
    clearest laws of nature; thus outraging all decency and
    justice, and degrading and oppressing thousands upon
    thousands of beings, created like themselves, in the image of
    the most high God! This is slavery as it is daily exhibited
    in every slave state.

Here, continued Mr. T., is slavery acknowledged to be clear robbery,
and yet it is not to be instantly abolished! Universal concubinage and
prostitution, which must not immediately be put an end to! Oh, these
wicked abolitionists, who seek to put an immediate close to such a
state of things. What an immensity of good have the emancipationists
of the South, as they wish to be called, of the colonizationists as
they ought to be called, done during their fifty years labor, when
this is yet left for the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge to say. Dear,
delightful, energetic men! Truly, if this is all they have been able
to effect it is time that the work were committed to abler hands. Mr.
Thompson then read an extract from the Philadelphia declaration. Mr.
Breckinridge had called it a declaration of independence, but it was
only a declaration of sentiments;--

    We have met together for the achievement of an enterprise,
    without which, that of our fathers is incomplete, and which,
    for its magnitude, solemnity, and probable results upon the
    destiny of the world, as far as transcends theirs, as moral
    truth does physical force.

    In purity of motive, in earnestness of zeal, in decision of
    purpose, in intrepidity of action, in steadfastness of faith,
    in sincerity of spirit, we would not be inferior to them.

    Their principles led them to wage war against their
    oppressors, and to spill human blood like water, in order to
    be free. Ours forbid the doing of evil that good may come,
    and lead us to reject, and entreat the oppressed to reject
    the use of all carnal weapons, for deliverance from
    bondage--relying solely upon those which are spiritual, and
    mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.

    Their measures were physical resistance--the marshalling in
    arms--the hostile array--the mortal encounter. Ours shall
    be such only as the opposition of moral purity to moral
    corruption--the destruction of error by the potency of
    truth--the overthrow of prejudice by the power of love--and
    the abolition of slavery by the spirit of repentance.

    Their grievances, great as they were, were trifling in
    comparison with the wrongs and sufferings of those for whom
    we plead. Our fathers were never slaves--never bought and
    sold like cattle--never shut out from the light of knowledge
    and religion--never subjected to the lash of brutal task
    masters.

    But those, for whose emancipation we are striving,
    constituting at the present, at least one-sixth part of our
    countrymen,--are recognised by the laws, and treated by their
    fellow-beings as marketable commodities--as goods and
    chattels--as brute beasts; are plundered daily of the fruits
    of their toil, without redress;--really enjoy no
    constitutional or legal protection from licentious and
    murderous outrages upon their persons--are ruthlessly torn
    asunder--the tender babe from the arms of its frantic
    mother--the heart-broken wife from her weeping husband--at
    the caprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants;--for the
    crime of having a dark complexion--they suffer the pangs of
    hunger, the infliction of stripes, and the ignominy of brutal
    servitude. They are kept in heathenish darkness by laws
    expressly enacted to make their instruction a criminal
    offence.

    These are the prominent circumstances in the condition of
    more than two millions of our people, the proof of which may
    be found in thousands of indisputable facts, and in the laws
    of the slaveholding states.

    Hence we maintain:--

    That in the view of the civil and religious privileges of
    this nation, the guilt of its oppression is unequalled by
    any other on the face of the earth--and, therefore,

    That it is bound to repent instantly, to undo the heavy
    burden, to break every yoke and let the oppressed go free.

    We further maintain:--

    That no man has a right to enslave or imbrute his brother--to
    hold or acknowledge him, for one moment, as a piece of
    merchandise--to keep back his hire by fraud--or to brutalize
    his mind by denying him the means of intellectual, social,
    and moral improvement.

    The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to
    usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to
    his own body--to the products of his own labor--to the
    protection of law--and to the common advantages of society.
    It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject
    him to servitude. Surely the sin is as great to enslave an
    American as an African.

    Therefore, we believe and affirm:--

    That there is no difference _in principle_, between the
    African slave-trade and American slavery.

    That every American citizen who retains a human being in
    involuntary bondage, as his property is (according to
    Scripture) a man-stealer.

    That the slaves ought instantly to be set free, and brought
    under the protection of law.

    That if they had lived from the time of Pharaoh down to the
    present period, and had been entailed through successive
    generations, their right to be free could never have been
    alienated, but their claims would have constantly risen in
    solemnity.

    That all those laws which are now in force, admitting the
    right of slavery, are therefore, before God, utterly null and
    void; being an audacious usurpation of the Divine
    prerogative, a daring infringement on the law of nature, a
    base overthrow of the very foundations of the social compact,
    a complete extinction of all the relations, endearments, and
    obligations of mankind, and a presumptuous transgression of
    all the holy commandments--and that, therefore, they ought to
    be instantly abrogated.

He would ask if there was any thing here different from what he had
read from his respected opponent? The sentiments were the same, though
not given in Mr. Breckinridge's strong and glowing language. Mr.
Breckinridge's description of slavery was even more methodical,
clearer, and better arranged; he was therefore inclined to prefer it
to the other. He would, however, ask Mr. Breckinridge not to persevere
in speaking of the violence, as he called it, of the abolitionists,
only in general terms. He hoped he would point out the instances to
which he alluded, and not take advantage of them, because they were a
handful and _odious_. They were not singular in being called odious.
Noah was called odious by the men of his day, because he pointed out
to them the wickedness of which they were guilty. Every reformer had
been called odious, and he trusted to be always among those who were
deemed odious by slaveholders and their apologists. He repeated, that
he wished Mr. Breckinridge to forsake general allegations, and to
specify time and place when he brought forward his charges. The time
was passed, when, in Glasgow, vague assertions could produce any
effect. The time was not, indeed, distant when even here the friends
of negro freedom had been deemed odious--when they were a mere
handful, met in a room in the Black Bull Inn. But from being odious
they had become respectable, and from respectable triumphant, in
consequence of their having renounced expediency, and taken their
stand on the broad principles of truth and justice.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. BRECKINRIDGE said, he had on so many occasions and in so many
different forms uttered the sentiments contained in the passages which
had just been read as his, that he was unable to say from what
particular speech or writing they were taken. But he had no doubt that
if the whole passage to which they belonged were read, it would be
seen that they contained, in addition to what they had heard, the most
unqualified condemnation of the irrational course pursued by the
abolitionists. He believed also, that, whatever it was, that writing
had been uttered by him in a slave state. For he could say for
himself, that he had never said that of a brother behind his back,
which he would be afraid or unwilling to repeat before his face. He
had never gone to Boston, to cry back to Baltimore, how great a sin
they were guilty of in upholding slavery. The worst things which he
had said against slavery had been said in the slave states, and had
Mr. Thompson gone there and seen with his two eyes, what he describes
wholly upon hearsay, he would, perhaps, have understood the subject
better than he seems to do. As he felt himself divinely commissioned,
he should have felt no fear, he should have gone at whatever hazard,
he should have seen slavery in its true colors, though he had read it
in his own blood. If Saul of Tarsus had gone to America to see
slavery--I dare to say, with the help of God, he would have been right
sure to see it. He did not say that Mr. T. should have gone to the
Southern states if his life was likely to be endangered by his going
there; but he would say this, that Mr. Thompson ought not to pretend,
that he had been, in the least degree, a martyr in the cause, when, in
reality, he had exercised the most masterly discretion. With regard to
the acts of the abolitionists, as he had been called on to mention
particulars, he could not say that he had ever heard of their having
killed any person, nor had he ever heard of any of them being killed.
He might mention, however, that he himself had once almost been mobbed
in Boston, and, that too, by a mob stirred up against him, by
placards, written, as he believed, by William Lloyd Garrison. He had
never obtained direct proof of this, but he might state, as a reason
for his belief, that the inflammatory placards were of the precise
breadth and appearance of the columns of Garrison's paper--the
Liberator, and the breadth of the columns of no other newspaper in
that city. Mr. B. stated a second case, in which, on the arrival at
the city of New York of the Rev. J. L. Wilson, a missionary to Western
Africa, in charge of two lads, the sons of two African kings,
committed by their fathers to the Maryland Colonization Society for
education; some friends of the Anti-Slavery Society of that city, with
the concurrence, if not by the procurement, as was universally
believed, of Elizur Wright, Jr., a leading person, and Secretary of
the principal society of abolitionists--got out a writ to take the
bodies of the boys, under the pretence of believing, that they had
been kidnapped in Africa. These two cases he considered, would
perhaps satisfy Mr. T's appetite for facts in the meantime; he would
have plenty more of them when they came to the main question of
debate. One other instance, and he would have done. There was a law in
the United States, that if a slave run away from one of the
slaveholding states, to any of the non-slaveholding states, the
authorities of the latter were bound to give him up to his master. A
runaway slave had been confined in New York prison, previous to being
sent home, an attempt was made to stir up a mob, for the purpose of
liberating him. A bill instigating the people to take the laws into
their own hands, was traced to an abolitionist--the same Elizur
Wright, Jr. He brought to the office of one of the principal city
papers, a denial of the charge--in a note signed by him in his
official capacity. He was told that was insufficient, as it was in his
individual, not in his official capacity, that he was supposed to have
done the act in question. He replied, it would be time to make the
denial in that form, when the charge was so specifically made;
meantime he considered the actual denial sufficient. Then, sir, said
one present, I charge you with writing the placard--for I saw it in
your hand writing. These instances were sufficient to prove the charge
of violence which he had made was not unfounded. In reference to the
statement made by Mr. Thompson regarding the number of slaves in the
United States, at the commencement of the Revolution, Mr. B. said, it
was impossible to know precisely what number there was at that time,
as there had been no statistical returns before 1790, at which time
there were six hundred and sixty-five thousand slaves in the five
original slave states. The exertions of the American nation to put an
end to slavery were treated with ridicule, but he would have them to
bear in mind, that there were in the United States four hundred
thousand free people of color, all of whom, or their progenitors, had
been set free by the people of America, and not one of these, so far
as he knew, had been liberated by an abolitionist. In addition to
these, there were not less than four thousand more in Africa, many of
whom had been freed from fetters and sent to that country. He would
ask if all this was to be counted as nothing. If they were to consider
for a moment the enormous sum which it would take to ransom so many
slaves, they would perceive the value of the sacrifice. They might say
that they had given $150,000,000 towards the abolition of slavery. It
might seem selfish to talk of it thus; but if the conduct of Great
Britain, rich and powerful as she was, was not reckoned worthy of
praise for having done an act of justice, in granting emancipation to
the West India slaves, at the cost of $100,000,000, or £20,000,000,
how much more might be said of £30,000,000, being paid by a few
comparatively poor and scattered communities, and individual men. They
had been told some fine stories of a mahogany table, to which the
people of America had tied themselves, and they were left to infer
that it was quite easy, that it merely required the exertion of will,
for them to set their slaves free. Now, on this head, he would only
ask, had he the power of fixing the place of his birth? No. Nor had he
any hand in making the laws of the place where he was born, nor the
power of altering them. They might, indeed, be altered and he ought to
add, they would have been altered already, but for the passionate and
intemperate zeal of the abolitionists; but for the conduct of those
who tell the slaveholders of the Southern states, that they must at
once give freedom to the slaves, at whatever cost or whatever hazard,
and unless they do so, they will be denounced on the house-tops, by
all the vilest names which language can furnish, or the imagination of
man can conceive. And what was the answer the planters gave to these
disturbers of the public peace? First, coolly, 'there's the door;'
and next, 'if you try to tell these things to those, who, when they
learn them, will at once turn round and cut our throats, we must take
measures to prevent your succeeding.' Such conduct was just what was
to be expected on the part of the slaveholders. They saw these men
coming among their slaves, and where they could not appeal to their
judgments, endeavoring to speak to the eyes of the black population by
prints, representing their masters, harsh and cruel. It was not
surprising that such unwise conduct should beget a bitter feeling of
opposition among the inhabitants of the Southern states. They
themselves knew too well the critical nature of their position, and
the dangers of tampering with the passions of the black population.
Let him who doubted go to the Southern states, and he would learn that
those harsh laws, in regard to slavery, which had been so much
condemned, were passed immediately after some of those insurrections,
those spasmodic efforts of the slaves to free themselves by violence,
which could never end in good, and which the conduct of the
abolitionists was calculated continually to renew. They ought to take
these things into account when they heard statements made about the
strong excitement against the abolitionists. He would repeat what he
had before stated, that the cause of emancipation had been ruined by
that small party with which Mr. Thompson had identified himself: but
to whose chariot wheels he trusted the people of this country would
never suffer themselves to be bound.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. GEORGE THOMPSON said, the work he had to do in reference to the
last speech was by no means great or difficult. They had heard a great
many things stated by Mr. Breckinridge on the great question in
debate, but every one of these had been stated a thousand times
before, and answered again and again within the last sixty years.
Within these very walls they had heard many of them brought forward
and refuted within the last four years. But there was one part of his
opponent's speech to which he would reply with emphasis. And he could
not but confess that he had listened to that one part of it with
surprise. He knew Mr. Breckinridge to be the advocate of gradual
emancipation; he (Mr. Thompson) had therefore come prepared to hear
all the arguments employed by the gradualists, urged in the ablest
manner, but he had not been prepared to hear from that gentleman's
lips the things he had heard--he did not expect that the foul charge
of stirring up a mob against Mr. Breckinridge for advocating the
principles of colonization, would be brought against William Lloyd
Garrison. But they would here see the propriety and utility of his
calling upon his opponent to leave generalities and come to something
specific--to lay his finger on a fact which could be examined and
tested circumstantially. And what did they suppose was the truth in
the present case? Simply this, that when Mr. Breckinridge came
forward to explain the principles of the Maryland colonization scheme,
the noisy rabble who sought to mob, did so only so long as they were
under the impression that he was an abolitionist. Mr. B. and his
brother, who was along with him on that occasion, did their best to
let the meeting know that they were not abolitionists but
colonizationists, and whenever the mob learned that, they became
quiet. This was the fact in regard to that case--he would willingly
stake the merits of the whole question on the truth of what he had
just stated, and he would call on Mr. B. to say whether it was not
true; he would call on him to exhibit the placard which had been
written by Mr. Garrison, or tell what it contained. He had a copy of
the Liberator of the day referred to, and he would ask him to point
out a single word in it which could be found fault with. He would dare
Mr. B. to find a single sentence in that paper calculated to stir up a
mob, or to induce any one to hurt a single hair of his head. With
regard to the Maryland colonization scheme, he was not going to enter
upon its discussion at that hour of the evening, but the next evening,
if they were spared, he would endeavor to show the gross iniquity of
that scheme, recommended as it was by Mr. Breckinridge. In the mean
time, to return to the next charge, they were told of an active
abolitionist--Elizur Wright. And here he would at once say, that it
was too bad to bring such a charge against an individual like Elizur
Wright, than whom he knew no man, either on this or the the other side
of the Atlantic, whose nature was more imbued with the milk of human
kindness, or whose heart was more alive to the dictates of Christian
charity--it was too bad, he repeated, to bring such a charge against
that man, unless it could be substantiated beyond the possibility of
doubt. They were told that Elizur Wright had stirred up the people of
New York to insurrection, by inflammatory placards. Here indeed was a
serious charge, but they ought to know what these placards were.
Again, he would call upon Mr. B. to show a copy of the placard, or to
say what were its contents. In explanation of the matter he might
state to the meeting that there was a little truth in what had been
said about this matter; and in order to make them understand the case
properly, they must first know, that in New York there were at all
times a number of runaway slaves, and also, that there was in the same
city a class of men, who, at least wore the human form, and who were
even allowed to appear as gentlemen, whose sole profession was that of
kidnappers; their only means of subsistence was derived from laying
hold of these unfortunates, and returning them to their masters in the
South. Nothing was more common than advertisements from these
gentlemen kidnappers in the newspapers, in which they offered their
services to any slave master whose slaves had run off. All that was
necessary was merely that twenty dollars should be transmitted to them
under cover, with the marks of the runaway who was soon found out if
in the city, and with the clutch of a demon, seized and dragged to
prison. These were the kidnappers. And who was Elizur Wright? He was
the man who at all times was found ready to sympathise with those poor
unfortunate outcasts, to pour the balm of consolation into their
wounds--to come into the Recorder's Court, and stand there to plead
the cause of the injured African at the risk of his life--undeterred
by the execrations of the slave-masters, or the knife of his
myrmidons. And was it a high crime that on some occasions he had been
mistaken. But Elizur Wright would be able to reply to the charge
himself. The account of this meeting would soon find its way to
America, and he would then have an opportunity of justifying himself.
As to the charge of error in his statistics, on the subject of
American Slavery, it was very easily set at rest. He had said that the
slave population amounted to but three hundred thousand, at the date
of the Union, and that it was now two millions. The latter statement
was not questioned, but it was said that there were no authentic
returns at the date of the Union, and consequently, that it was
impossible to say precisely. But although they could not say exactly,
they could come pretty near the truth, even from the statement of Mr.
Breckinridge. That gentleman admitted, that in 1790, there were only
six hundred and sixty-five thousand slaves in the states. He (Mr. T.)
had said, that in 1776, there were only three hundred thousand; but as
the population in America doubled itself in twenty-four years, he was
warranted in saying that there was no great discrepancy. But the
question with him did not depend upon any particular number or any
particular date. It would have been quite the same for his argument,
he contended, whether he had taken six hundred and sixty-five thousand
in 1790, or three hundred thousand in 1776. All that he had wished to
show, was the rapid increase of the slave population, and
consequently, of the vice and misery inherent in that system, even
while the American people professed themselves to be so anxious to put
an end to it altogether. Had he wished to dwell on this part of the
argument, he could also have shown, that the increase of the slave
population during the first twenty years of the Union, had gone on
more rapidly even during that time, the trade in slaves having been
formally recognised by the Constitution during that period, and a duty
of $10 imposed on every slave imported into the United States. The
following was the clause from the Constitution:

    Sec. IX. The migration or importation of such persons as any
    of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall
    not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty
    may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for
    each person.

To sum up Mr. Breckinridge's last address, what, he would ask,
had been its whole aim? Clearly, that they should consider the
abolitionists as the chief promoters of all the riots that had taken
place in America on this question, by making inflammatory appeals to
the passions of the people. He would call upon Mr. Breckinridge
again, to lay his hand on a single proof of this. He would call upon
him to point out a single instance where language had been used which
was in any degree calculated to call up the blood-thirsty passions of
the mob as had been represented. If the planters of the South were
roused into fury by the declaration of anti-slavery sentiments--if
they were unable to hear the everlasting truths which it promulgated,
was that a sufficient reason for those to keep silent who felt it to
be their duty, at all hazards, to make known these truths. Or were
they to be charged with raising mobs, because the people were enraged
to hear these truths. As well might Paul of Tarsus have been charged
with the mobs which rose against his life, and that of his
fellow-apostles. As well might Galileo be charged with those
persecutions which immured him in a dungeon. As well might the
apostles of truth in every age be charged with the terrible results
which ensued from the struggle of light and darkness. In conclusion,
Mr. Thompson said, that on the following evening, he would take up the
question of the Maryland colonization scheme.

       *       *       *       *       *

DR. WARDLAW announced to the meeting that the discussion closed for
the evening. In doing so he complimented the audience on the very
correct manner in which they had observed the rule regarding all
manifestation of applause. The attention and interest of the audience
were much excited throughout the whole proceedings, indeed, at few
meetings have we observed so lively an interest taken in the entire
business of an evening, and yet there was not a single instance in
which the interference of the chairman was required. On several
occasions the rising expression of applause was at once checked by
the general good sense of the meeting.




SECOND NIGHT--TUESDAY, JUNE 14.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. THOMPSON said he should commence with the end of his opponent's
speech, and notice what that gentleman had said in regard to the
charges brought by him against William Lloyd Garrison and Elizur
Wright. It appeared as if Mr. Breckinridge expected that, because in
his own country his character for veracity stood high, that therefore,
he was entitled, if he chose, to enter an assembly of twelve hundred
persons in Great Britain, and utter the gravest charges against
certain individuals 3,000 miles away, and when called upon as he had
been for proof, that he had nothing to do but turn round and say,
'Why, I am not bound to furnish proof; let the parties accused
demonstrate their innocence.' This was American justice with a
vengeance. This might be Kentucky law, or Lynch law, but could hardly
be called justice by any assembly of honest and impartial persons.
Such justice might suit the neighborhood of Vicksburg, but it would
not recommend itself to a Scotish audience. He (Mr. T.) would not
undertake at this time the task of justifying the men who had been
calumniated. He knew these gentlemen, and had no doubt when they heard
the charges preferred against them in this country, they would be able
and ready to clear themselves before the world. He would not say that
Mr. Breckinridge did not himself believe the allegations to be true,
but he would say that had that gentleman possessed a knowledge of the
true character of those he had spoken against--had he known them as he
(Mr. T.) knew them, he would have held them incapable of the dark
deeds alleged against them. With regard to Mr. B's remarks upon the
number of the slave population, the amount of the troops in the United
States, and the existence of slavery in the district of Columbia, he
must say that they were nothing but special pleadings; that the whole
was a complete specimen of what the lawyers termed pettifogging. He
(Mr. T.) was not prepared to hear a minister say that because only
1500 troops out of 6000 were found in the southern states, that,
therefore, the nation was not implicated--that because, if the slavery
of the district was abolished, there would be no fewer slaves in the
country--that, therefore, the seat of government should not be
cleansed from its abomination. He would remind his opponent that they
were discussing a question of principle, and that the scriptures had
declared that he who was unjust in the least, was unjust also in the
greatest. Mr. Breckinridge had still cautiously avoided naming the
parties in the United States who were responsible for the sin of
Slavery. They were told that neither New Hampshire nor Massachusetts,
nor any other of the Northern states were to blame; that the
government was not to blame, nor, had it even yet been said, that the
Southern states were to blame. Still the aggregate of the guilt
belonged somewhere; and if the parties to whom reference had been made
were to be exculpated, at whose door, he would ask, were the sin and
shame of the system to be laid. The gentleman with whom he was
debating had repeatedly told him (Mr. T.) that he did not understand
'the system.' He frankly confessed that he did not. It was a
mystery of iniquity which he could not pretend to fathom; but he
thought he might add that the Americans themselves, at least the
Colonizationists, did not seem to understand it very well neither,
for they had been operating for a very long time, without effecting
any favorable change in the system. A word with regard to the
representation of slaves in Congress. Mr. B. had spoken as if he had
intended to have it understood, that the slaves were themselves
benefited by that representation--that it was a partial representation
of the slave population by persons in their interest. How stood the
fact? The slaves were not at all represented as men, but as things.
They swelled, it was true, the number of members upon the floor of
Congress, but that extra number only helped to rivet their bonds
tightly upon them, being as they were, in the interest of the tyrant,
and themselves slaveholders, and not in the interest of the slaves.
What said John Quincy Adams in his celebrated report on the Tariff:--

    'The representation of the slave population in this House
    has, from the establishment of the Constitution of the United
    States, amounted to rather more than one-tenth of the whole
    number. In the present Congress (1833,) it is equivalent to
    twenty-two votes; in the next Congress it will amount to
    twenty-five. This is a combined and concentrated power,
    always operating to the support and exclusive favor of the
    slave-holding interest.'

Here was a mighty engine in the cause of oppression. It was a wicked
misrepresentation to say that the slaves were benefited by such an
arrangement. Instead of being a lever in their hands to aid them in
the overthrow of the system which was crushing them, it was a vast
addition of strength to the ranks of their tyrants, who went to
Congress to cry down discussion, to cry up Lynch law, and shout Hail
Columbia. Mr. Thompson then proceeded to give some account of the
Maryland Colonization scheme.

The first movement on the subject was in March, 1831, when Mr. Brawner
submitted the following resolutions to the Maryland Legislature, which
were by that assembly adopted. He begged particular attention both to
the letter and spirit of this document, exhibiting as it did, the
feelings of 'the good people of the state' towards the colored
population:--

    Resolved, That the increased proportion of the free people of
    color in this state, to the white population, the evils
    growing out of their connection and unrestrained association
    with the slaves their habits and manner of obtaining a
    subsistence, and their withdrawing a large portion of
    employment from the laboring class of the white population,
    are subjects of momentous and grave consideration to the good
    people of this state.

    Resolved, That as philanthropists and lovers of freedom, we
    deplore the existence of slavery amongst us, and would use
    our utmost exertions to ameliorate its condition, yet we
    consider the unrestrained power of manumission as fraught
    with ultimate evils of a more dangerous tendency than the
    circumstance of slavery alone, and that any act, having for
    its object the mitigation of these joint evils, not
    inconsistent with other paramount considerations, would be
    worthy the attention and deliberation of the representatives
    of a free, liberal-minded, and enlightened people.

    Resolved, That we consider the colonization of free people of
    color in Africa as the commencement of a system, by which if
    judicious encouragement be afforded, these evils may be
    measurably diminished, so that in process of time, the
    relative proportion of the black to the white population,
    will hardly be matter for serious and unpleasant
    consideration.

    Ordered, therefore, That a committee of five members be
    appointed by the Chair, with instructions to report a bill,
    based as nearly as may be, upon the principles contained in
    the foregoing resolutions, and report the same to the
    consideration of this house.

Such was the first movement on the subject. At the next session of
the legislature Mr. Brawner presented the report of the committee,
some of the extracts from which he (Mr. T.) would read:--

    The committee to whom was referred the several memorials from
    numerous citizens in this state, upon the subject, of the
    colored population, Report,--

    That the views presented by the memorialists are various, and
    the recommendations contained in some of the memorials are
    entirely repugnant to those contained in others. The
    subjects, however, upon which legislative action is required,
    may be embraced under a few general heads:

    First, That a law be passed prohibiting the future
    emancipation of the slaves, unless provision be made for
    their removal from the state.

    Secondly, That a sum of money adequate for the attainment of
    the object, be raised and appropriated for the further
    removal of those already free.

    Thirdly, That a system of police be established, regulating
    the future conduct and morals of this class of our
    population.

    And, Fourthly, There are several memorials from different
    parts of our state, signed by a numerous and highly
    respectable portion of our citizens, recommending the entire
    abolition of slavery in the state.

On the 14th of March, 1832, the State Legislature of Maryland
appropriated for the use of the State Colonization Society the sum
of two hundred thousand dollars, payable in sums of twenty thousand
dollars per annum for ten years. Having made the grant, the
legislature next proceeded to pass acts to obtain the consent of the
colored population to quit the state and country, and emigrate to
Africa. He (Mr. T.) claimed special attention to some short extracts
from those laws. They would reveal more powerfully than any language
of his, the benevolent or rather atrociously cruel designs of the
'good people' of the state. He should quote first from 'An Act
relating to Free Negroes and Slaves,' passed within a few days of the
grant and part and parcel of the same benevolent scheme:--

    Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland,
    That after the passage of this act, no free negro or mulatto
    shall emigrate to, or settle in this State; and no free negro
    or mulatto belonging to any other state, district or
    territory, shall come into this State, and therein remain for
    the space of ten successive days, whether such free negro or
    mulatto intends settling in this State or not, under the
    penalty of fifty dollars for each and every week such persons
    coming into, shall thereafter remain in this State; the one
    half to the informer and the other half to the sheriff for
    the use of the county. * * * and any free negro or mulatto
    refusing or neglecting to pay said fine or fines, shall be
    committed to the jail of the county; and shall be sold by the
    sheriff at public sale, for such time as may be necessary to
    cover the aforesaid penalty, first giving ten days previous
    notice of such sale.

    Sec. 2d. And be it enacted, That no person in this State,
    shall hereafter hire, employ, or harbor any free negro or
    mulatto who shall emigrate or settle in this state, after the
    first day of June next, or any free negro or mulatto who
    shall come into this state from any other state, district or
    territory, and continue in this state for the space of ten
    successive days as above, under the penalty of twenty dollars
    for every day after the expiration of four days, any such
    free negro or mulatto * * * shall be so employed, hired or
    harbored, and all fines accruing under this act, * * * one
    half thereof to be applied to the informer, and the other
    half to the use of the county; and if any negro or mulatto
    shall remove from this state and remain without the limits
    thereof for a space longer than thirty consecutive days,
    unless before leaving the state he deposits with the clerk of
    the county in which he resides, a written statement of his
    object in so doing, and his intention of returning again, or
    unless he shall have been detained by sickness or coercion,
    of which he shall bring a certificate, he shall be regarded
    as a resident of another state, and be subject, if he return,
    to the penalties imposed by the foregoing provisions upon
    free negroes and mulattoes of another state, migrating to
    this state: Provided that nothing contained in this act shall
    prevent any free negro or mulatto from visiting Liberia, and
    returning to the state whenever he may choose to do so.

    Sec. 4. And be it enacted, That it shall not be lawful from
    and after the first of June next, to import or bring into
    this state by land or water, any negro, mulatto or other
    slave for sale, or to reside within this state: * * * and any
    person or persons so offending, shall forfeit for every such
    offence, any negro, mulatto or other slave brought into this
    state contrary to this act, and such negro, mulatto or other
    slave, shall be entitled to freedom upon condition that he
    consent to be sent to Liberia, or to leave the state
    forthwith, otherwise such negro or mulatto or other slave,
    shall be seized and taken and confined in jail by the sheriff
    of the county where the offence is committed, which sheriff
    shall receive ten dollars for every negro, mulatto or other
    slave so brought into this state and forfeited as aforesaid,
    and seized and taken by him. * * * Moreover, said sheriff
    shall receive five dollars for such negro, mulatto or other
    slave actually confined by him in jail, and the usual prison
    fee as now allowed by law, and any person or persons so
    offending under this act, shall be punished by indictment in
    the county court of the county where the offence shall be
    committed, and upon conviction thereof, the said court shall,
    by its order, direct said sheriff to sell any negro, mulatto
    or other slaves so seized and taken by him, under this act,
    to the Colonization Society for said five dollars, and the
    prison fees * * * to be taken to Liberia: and if such
    Colonization Society shall not receive such negroes,
    mulattoes or other slaves for said five dollars each, and the
    prison fees of each, upon refusing, said sheriff shall, after
    three weeks' public notice given by advertisements, sell any
    such negro, mulatto or other slave to some person or persons,
    with a condition that any such negro, mulatto or other slave
    shall be removed and taken forthwith beyond the limits of
    this state to settle and reside.

Such was the scheme which had been advocated in Boston and elsewhere
by his opponent. He now left the matter in his hands, recommending him
to exert all his eloquence and ingenuity in behalf of the honor of
Maryland, but warning him beforehand that his labors would be in vain.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would now proceed with what remained of the
argument on the general question. He had been asked to point out the
responsible parties in regard to slavery, and this was what he was
about to do. It was indeed much more easy to show who were the
responsible parties than to prove the innocence of those unjustly
accused--it was perhaps his duty to do both--the first he had been
attempting. It would be easy to do the other, and he trusted, that
after he had done so--if the good people of Glasgow on any future
occasion should meet to pass resolutions applauding Mr. Thompson, for
the vast sacrifices he had made, and the suffering he had endured in
the cause of emancipation, they would not again feel obliged to pass
resolutions condemning the whole American nation, as the vilest nation
that ever existed, for maintaining slavery. He would say, then, that
he considered the owners of the slaves, as in the first place,
responsible. The slave-owner had two important duties to perform in
reference to those of his fellow-beings, who were held in bondage. In
the first place, he was bound to inform himself of the whole question,
in its length and breadth, and having done so, he ought, in the
speediest manner possible, consistent with the happiness of the slaves
themselves, to set them free. This was the duty of a slave-owner, as
an individual. But, as his lot might be cast in a slaveholding state,
it was his duty, in addition to freeing his own slaves, that he should
use every lawful means to enlighten public opinion. Whatever faculties
he possessed, it was his duty to use them in the attempt to remove the
prejudices of those whose minds were not yet enlightened on this
important question. But, while it was his duty to do this, he was to
refrain from every thing which would naturally tend to exasperate the
minds of the masters. He was not to go and take hold of a man by the
throat, and say, 'You are a great thieving, man-dealing villain, and
unless you instantly give your slaves liberty, I will pitch you out of
this three story window.' That was not the mode in which a prudent man
would go to work. And he (Mr. Breckinridge) would like, above all
things, to make Mr. Thompson, and his fellow-laborers sensible of this
important truth; that in their efforts to give freedom to the slaves,
nothing could be done without the consent of the slave-owners. And
unless it was kept in view, Mr. Thompson might labor, to use an
American homely phrase, 'till the cows come home,' but he would not
move a single step nearer his object. While on this head there was
another saying which he had no doubt Mr. Thompson had frequently heard
in America, and which might be of some use for him to bear in mind, if
he revisited that horrible country; it was that one 'spoonful of
molasses would catch more flies than a hogshead of vinegar.' With
regard to the mode in which the question of slavery should be taken up
in those states where it existed, he would say that every thing had
been done--agitation, as it was called in this country--to enlighten
the public mind on the whole question, was the only thing that could
advance the cause. If there was any thing else that could be taken
advantage of for that end, he was willing to learn it, and to go home
and try to teach his countrymen who were laboring in the same cause.
In the second place, Mr. B. proceeded to say, that the parties
responsible for the existence of slavery were the states which
tolerated it. If slavery were wrong, as he was fully prepared to
assert it to be, then those states or communities which tolerate it
were justly responsible at the bar of God, at the tribunal of an
enlightened world. If slavery were wrong, those who have power were
bound to abolish it as soon as it could be done consistently with the
greatest amount of good to all concerned. Now, slavery could end in
any state only by violence, or by the consent of the masters. This
made it obviously the duty of all who had right views in such
communities, to extend and enforce them in such a way as shall appear
most likely to secure the object in view--namely, peaceful, voluntary,
and legal abolition. It demonstrates too, that whenever the majority
of such a community are ready to act in this behalf, they are bound to
act in such a manner as will constitutionally and speedily effect the
object, even though multitudes in that community should still oppose
it. But here again it is most clear that such a result can never be
brought about, till the majority of such slaveholding communities
shall not only consent to it, but require it. So that in every branch
of the matter, it constantly appears how indispensable, light, and
love, gentleness, wisdom, and truth are; and how perfectly mad it is
to expect to do any thing in America by harsh vituperation, hasty and
violent proceedings. But, say the anti-slavery people, you can abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia, and might purchase the freedom of
all the slaves throughout the whole of the states with the public
money. But it was not the price of the slaves that was the chief
difficulty in making an end of slavery. The inhabitants of the
Southern states reckoned this the least part of the case. To take away
our slaves, say they, is to take away not our property alone, but our
country also; for without them the country would not be cultivated. He
did not say that the Southern planters were right in thinking so, but
he knew that they did think so; and therefore, it was necessary to
take their opinion into account. This was only an instance of the many
difficulties by which the question was beset, and would let them see
that it was not a mere matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. In
reference to the efforts made by the American people to abolish
slavery, Mr. Breckinridge said they had done much in this cause before
Mr. Thompson was born, and possibly before his father was born. They
had labored for ages, he might almost say for half centuries. During
that time they had effected much, and they would have done more but
for the interference of the party with which Mr. Thompson was
identified. A party whose principles were based on false
metaphysics--on false morality, who came often with the fury of
demons, and yet said they were sent by God. He would say the cause of
emancipation had been much injured by the ill-designed efforts of that
party, they had thrown the cause a hundred years farther back, than it
was five years ago. In reference to the Maryland colonization scheme,
of which they had heard so much from Mr. Thompson, he would only be
able, as his time was nearly expired, to make a remark or two. That
Society had existed for about four years. In its fourth annual report
there is a statement from the managers of the Maryland State fund,
that within the preceding year, two hundred and ninety-nine
manumissions had been reported to them, which, with those previously
reported, make eleven hundred and one slaves manumitted, purely and
freely manumitted, within four years in that State: while the total
number of colored persons transported to Liberia since the Society
commenced its operations was then only one hundred and forty, as
exhibited by the same report. Nothing could show more clearly the
falsity of those statements which represent the scheme of Maryland
colonization, as being cruel, oppressive, and peculiarly opposed to
the progress of emancipation. The direct contrary is in all respects
true. With regard to the book from which Mr. Thompson had read some
extracts, purporting to be the laws of Maryland; if he were not
mistaken, that book was a violent and inflammatory pamphlet written by
some person, perhaps Mr. Thompson himself, shortly after his (Mr. B's)
visit to Boston. He would not enter upon the discussion of the merits
of that pamphlet, against which it had been alleged in America, at
the place where it originated, and he believed truly charged, that
instead of containing faithful extracts from the laws of Maryland, it
did in fact, contain only schemes of laws which had been proposed in
the Assembly of Maryland, but which had never received their sanction;
chiefly in consequence of the opposition of the friends of
colonization. In conclusion, he would say, that the Maryland scheme
was, as a whole, one of the most wise and humane projects that had
ever been devised. He had no objection on proper occasions, to go
fully into it, and he hoped to be able to show that it would do much
for the amelioration of the negro race.




THIRD NIGHT--WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15.


MR. BRECKINRIDGE said, the subject for discussion this evening by two
appointments, was the great cause of colonization, as it presented
itself in America; and he was aware that of all the parts of the
subject of these discussions there were none on which their opinions
were more decidedly made up against what he believed to be the truth.
It was, therefore, peculiarly embarrassing for him to enter upon the
subject, but he did so with that frankness and candor with which he
had entered upon the other topics of discussion; and if he would not
show them sufficient reason to commend the principle of colonization
to their minds and feelings, he could only expect that they should
remain of their present opinions. The scheme of colonization was not a
new one in America. It had been spoken of 40 or 50 years ago, by him
who in his day ranked next to the father of his country in the
affections of the American people, Mr. Jefferson, before he filled the
president's chair, while he was president, and afterwards occupied his
thoughts with this great scheme. Being himself a decided enemy to
slavery, he tried to rouse the minds of his countrymen to the
advantages which would arise from the colonizing of the free blacks of
America on some part of the Western coast of Africa. With this view he
entered into negotiations with the Sierra Leone Company in this
country, to receive into their colony free people of color from
America; and he also had applied to the Portuguese government, at that
time a large African proprietor, for a place where the free blacks
might be allowed to colonize themselves. Whether these efforts, which
were applauded and aided by many wise and good men, deserved to be
praised or blamed, was not the topic to be taken up at present; but
they showed that the scheme was one which could not be called a new
scheme. This proposal of colonizing the free blacks of America on the
West coast of Africa had obtained the approbation of nine tenths of
all those throughout America who took any interest in the fate of the
black race: for even the great bulk of those who were now in favor of
"abolitionism," were at one time the friends of colonization. Whether
they had good or bad reasons for the change which had taken place in
their opinions, would be more apparent, perhaps, when they arrived at
the end of the discussion. It was in the course of the years 1822 or
1823 that the first colonists were sent out from America. He might not
be perfectly accurate in his dates, as he gave them from memory, but
the present argument did not depend on exact accuracy in that respect.
The society for promoting the colonization scheme was organized some
years before the date stated above, when an expedition was sent out to
explore the coast of Africa with a view to establishing the colony;
and afterwards another to purchase territory; and then the colonists
were sent out, which he believed took place for the first time after
1820. The society continued to pursue the scheme for a period of 9 or
10 years, and met with no opposition except from some parties in the
extreme South; but had the concurrence of almost all the wise, the
good, and the benevolent in America. It was not till about 1830 that
any very violent opposition was made to the society's operations; and
he believed Mr. Garrison was among the first who opposed it, on the
ground that its operations were injurious to the interests of the
colored race in America. Mr. Arthur Tappan also seceded from the
society about the same time, but upon different grounds from Garrison.
His opposition arose from the society's not taking up his ground in
reference to Temperance. He had no hesitation in saying that Mr.
Tappan was right, and that the society was wrong; as they did not go
far enough in regard to this point. He the more readily admitted that
in this particular Mr. Tappan's views were right, as he was wrong in
every other point which he assumed in reference to the society. But it
was not till about 1832, that an organized opposition to the society
began to manifest itself. In 1833 the American Anti-Slavery Society
was established, one of the fundamental principles of which, and
perhaps the one they most zealously propagated, was uncompromising
hostility to the colonization scheme. In the progress of events too,
it turned out that all the friends of colonization did not see alike
on all parts of the subject. Many of them thought that the interests
involved were too important and too great to be left to a single board
of management or staked on a single series of experiments. Some
considered that one general principle of operation could not be made
broad enough for the circumstances of all the states, and hence arose
several separate societies,--as that of Maryland, organized on
peculiar principles, which have direct reference to general
emancipation; and as those of New York and Philadelphia, which have
founded a colony on principles of peace,--the temperance principle
being held equally by them and the Maryland society. The general
society at Washington assumed the ground of colonizing, on the West
coast of Africa with their own consent, persons of color from America
who were of good character, and who were free at the time of their
being sent out. The Maryland Society went a step farther. They saw
that the colonization scheme would have a reflection favorable to
emancipation; and they carried on their operations with a direct and
avowed reference to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves in that
state. The New York and Philadelphia societies were founded, as I have
above said, on the principles of temperance and peace--the former
principle being common also to the Maryland scheme. The united
societies of New York and Philadelphia first took 120 slaves who had
been manumitted by the late Dr. Hawes, of Va., and formed them into a
colony. The Parent Society's territory in Africa was called Liberia.
It was about 100 leagues in length along the coast, about 10 or 15
leagues deep, and there were 5 or 6 settlements, all under the general
control of that society. There were in them all about 4,000 colonists,
a great portion of whom were manumitted slaves. The colony of the
Maryland Society was farther South than that of the Parent Society. It
was situated on that point of the coast called Cape Palmas, and was
itself called Maryland in Africa. It was under the charge of a board
of management in Maryland, and consisted at this time of between two
and three hundred colonists, who were chiefly manumitted slaves. The
other colony, that belonging to the New York and Philadelphia Society,
was at Bassa Cove, and was under the charge of the directors of that
society. There were in all about 5000 colonists under the charge of
these societies. For the first few years of the existence of the
Parent Society, it was supported by a number of gentlemen for
different reasons. At the commencement it was not perhaps perfectly
clear how it might operate. Some advocated the cause and supported the
interests of the society, on the principles of direct humanity to the
free colored persons of America. Others again supported it as
calculated to produce collateral effects favorable to the slaves, and
the general cause of emancipation in the country. Others on the ground
that it would enable the country to get rid of the colored population,
without much reference to what might be the result to the colored
population themselves; just as if in England there were individuals
who would promote emigration, to get the country rid of those who were
as they supposed given to idleness and a burden upon the country.
There may have been some who supported the society from an actual love
for slavery, and as a means which they supposed might lessen some of
the evils by which it was accompanied. During the first years of the
society's operations, many thousands of speeches were delivered, and
many hundreds of pamphlets were published about the society, its
operations, and their effects; and it was quite possible that Mr.
Thompson might be able to bring forward some sentences and scraps from
the speeches of a slave-owner, who looked upon the society as a means
of perpetuating slavery in America; or he might produce some speech,
in which the society was supported as a means of ridding the country
of the free people of color, no matter what became of them afterward.
But it was uncandid and unjust to take this plan of opposing the
cause; because it was well known that whatever might be the case in
particular instances, the general fact was, that the great majority of
the supporters of the society had always supported it, because of the
good effects they anticipated from it in favor of ultimate
emancipation, as well as its present and immense benefits to the free
blacks. Now I challenge Mr. Thompson to the plain admission, or the
plain denial of these statements. If he denies them I am content; for
in that case, he will stand convicted in America, for the denial of
that which every man, woman and child there knows to be true. If he
admits my statements to be substantially true, then the entire point
of the charges brought by him and his friends against colonization, is
broken off; and all he or they can allege against it, can equally be
alleged against every thing, good or bad, that ever existed, namely,
that men supported it for various, or even opposite reasons. I go
farther--I assert, and call upon Mr. Thompson to admit or to deny it,
I care not which--that just in proportion as the cause has developed
itself, and its natural and legitimate influences been plainly
exhibited--those who favor slavery have cooled in its support, or
withdrawn entirely from it--while those who favor emancipation, and
desire the good of the free people of color, have, in the same degree,
and with increasing cordiality, rather avowed it, insomuch that it
will be difficult if not wholly impossible for our evidences of
friendship to it, from an avowed friend of slavery, to be culled out
of all his scraps, as occurring within the last three or four years.
Indeed no persons were more persecuted after what Mr. T. calls
persecution in some of the Southern states, than those who advocate
the cause of colonization, a fact which began to occur as soon as
those slave owners, who desired slavery to continue, clearly saw that
the natural result was the ultimate emancipation of the slaves. How
far the conduct of Mr. Thompson and his friends was calculated to
produce a reaction in the South, and incline moderate and humane
masters to the views of the emancipationists, cannot now be
determined. But that the increasing wisdom and benevolence of the
South will compensate for the folly and phrenzy at the North, there is
good reason to hope. He would now proceed to give a few reasons why
this scheme of colonization should be supported. But he would first
call their attention to a resolution proposed by Mr. George Thompson
at a meeting of the Young Mens' Anti Slavery Society of Boston:--

    That as the American Colonization Society has been
    demonstrated to be in its principles unrighteous, unnatural,
    and proscriptive, the attempt now made to give permanency to
    this institution is a fraud upon the ignorance and an outrage
    upon the intelligence of the public, and as such deserves the
    severest reprobation.

The verbiage of this resolution showed its parentage. No one who had
ever heard one of Mr. Thompson's speeches could for a moment doubt the
authorship of the resolution. But what were they to think of an
individual who, being almost a perfect stranger in America, came
forward at a public meeting, and spoke in terms like these of a
society, supported and encouraged by the great majority of the
nation--embracing in that majority most of what is distinguished by
rank, by knowledge, or by virtue, in the country? What but universal
execration from the violent, and pity and contempt from all--could be
expected to follow such proceedings. And yet London, Edinburgh, and
Glasgow, celebrate the prudence of Mr. George Thompson in America, and
praise his conduct there on their behalf! It was not demonstrated that
the scheme was either unnatural, proscriptive, or foolish. He wished
much to hear Mr. Thompson attempt that demonstration. He (Mr. B.)
would attempt to prove, on the other hand, that in itself the scheme
was good, wise, and benevolent. His first reason was that it was good
for the free black population of America, for whose benefit it was
intended, whatever might be the opinions entertained regarding
slavery; whatever might be the opinion as to the duty of admitting the
free colored population to all the rights and privileges of white
people; taking it for granted that slavery should be abolished, taking
it for granted that the free colored population should have the same
rights and privileges as the white population; admitting, as so many
have declared, that these free people of color are generally very
little elevated above the condition of the slaves; granting the
existence of the absurd prejudice among the white population against
people of color; taking as true, all the assertions of all, or any
parties, on this subject, and then say, if it is not a good, a wise, a
humane reason for encouraging the society, that they are able to
snatch 1000 or 10,000 of these degraded, ruined, undone, and unhappy
people from the condition they are placed in, and plant them in
comfort, freedom, and peace in Africa? While Mr. Thompson and his
friends were trying their schemes to terminate slavery, and break down
prejudice against color--schemes which were likely to be long in
progress, if we were to judge by the past--it seemed most
extraordinary that they should object to our efforts to take a portion
of these people out of the grasp of their present sorrows, and do for
them in Africa all that has been done for ourselves in America. Above
all things, is it not inexplicable, that they should consider slavery
on one side of the Atlantic, better than freedom on the other,--a
thought, proving him who held it unworthy of freedom anywhere. If this
was not a scheme, full of wisdom, of goodness and benevolence, he know
not what wisdom, goodness, or benevolence meant. They proposed to do
nothing without the free consent of the colored people. And now, if a
similar offer were made to every poor and unfortunate inhabitant of
Glasgow, and all of them chose to remain here, except one, and that
one were captivated by the account of some distant El Dorado, and
chose to push his fortune there, could the rest assume over this one
the right of saying, you shall not go; we are determined not to go,
and equally determined not to let you go. Yet the abolitionists have
been going about, from Dan to Beersheba, not only attacking and
vilifying the whites, for proposing to colonize the blacks with their
own free consent; but equally attacking the blacks for availing
themselves of the offer. And though the colony had been stigmatized as
a grave, as a place of skulls, it was the very place fitted by nature
for the black population, the land granted by God to their fathers. It
is in one sense, then, a matter of no moment, what the causes are
which induce the society to make the offer, or the black population to
emigrate to Africa--even on the showing of the abolitionists
themselves, the colored population are kept in a state of degradation;
and it is certainly just and good that means should be afforded them
for getting rid of that degradation. In the second place, he
maintained that this colonization scheme naturally tended to promote
the cause of general emancipation. To illustrate this, Mr.
Breckinridge read the following extract from the Maryland report of
1835, p. 17:--

    The number of manumissions in the state reported to the board
    since the last annual report, is two hundred and ninety-nine,
    making the whole number reported as manumitted, since the
    passage of the act of 1831, eleven hundred and one.

This extract showed that the scheme did not prevent manumission, but
had tended gradually to increase its amount. That this was the
intention and actual effect of the colonization scheme, he would now
prove to the meeting in so far as regarded Maryland; and if he did so
of that state, he supposed they would not find it difficult to believe
the same thing of other states, as it was against Maryland that Mr.
Thompson had expended his peculiar virulence. Mr. B. then read the
following:--

    Resolved, That this society believe, and act upon the belief
    that colonization has a tendency to promote emancipation, by
    affording to the emancipated slave a home, where he can be
    happier and better, in every point of view, than in this
    country, and so inducing masters to manumit, for removal to
    Africa, who would not manumit unconditionally.--3rd A. Rep.
    page 5.

    Maryland, through her State Society, is about trying the
    important experiment, whether, by means of colonies on the
    coast of Africa, slave-holding states may become free states.
    The Board of Managers cannot doubt of success, however; and
    in exercising the high and responsible duties devolving upon
    them, it is with the firm belief that the time is not very
    remote, when, with the full and free consent of those
    interested in this species of property, the state of Maryland
    will be added to the list of the non-slave-holding states of
    the Union.--3 A. R. page 6.

    It has been charged, again and again, against the general
    scheme, that its tendencies were to perpetuate slavery; and,
    at this moment, both in this country and in Europe, there are
    those who stigmatize the labors of men like Finley, Caldwell,
    Harper, Ayres, Ashmun, Key, Gurley, Anderson and Randall, as
    leading to this end. Unfounded as is the charge, it has many
    believers. The colonization law of Maryland is based upon a
    far different principle; for the immigration of slaves is
    expressly prohibited, and the transportation of those who are
    emancipated is amply provided for. In accordance, therefore,
    with the general sentiment of the public, and anxious that
    colonization in the state should be relieved from the
    imputation put upon the cause, resolutions were unanimously
    adopted, avowing that the extirpation of slavery in Maryland
    was the chief object of the society's existence.--3 A. R.
    page 33.

Throughout the report the same current of events was referred to; and
they were found to be everywhere the same as to the effects of the
colonial scheme on the manumission of slaves. To show the cause of the
objections to the scheme by free persons of color, Mr. B. read the
following extract:--

    The Board would here remark, that in collecting emigrants
    from among the free persons of color in the state, the
    greatest difficulty they have experienced has grown out of
    the incredulity of these with regard to the accounts given to
    them of Africa. Even when their friends in Liberia have
    written to them, inviting them to emigrate, and speaking
    favorably of the country, they have believed that a restraint
    was upon the writers, and that the society's agents prevented
    any letter from reaching America, which did not speak in
    terms of praise of Africa. The ingenuity of the colored
    people in this state devised a simple test of the reliance
    that was to be placed in letters, purporting to be written by
    their friends; which they have, during the last year or
    eighteen months, been putting into practice. When the
    emigrant sailed from the United States, he took with him one
    half of a strip of calico, the other half being retained by
    the person to whom he was to write when he reached Africa. If
    he was permitted to write without restraint, and if he spoke
    his real sentiments in his letter, he enclosed his portion of
    the calico, which, matching with that from which it had been
    severed, gave authenticity and weight to the correspondence.
    Many of these tokens, as they are called, have been received,
    and their effect has been evident in the greater willingness
    manifested by the free people of color to emigrate;
    especially those of them who are at all well judging and well
    informed.--4 A. R. page 6.

Whatever difficulties now exist as to getting free people of color to
avail themselves of the society's scheme and emigrate to Africa, arise
in a great degree from the efforts of the abolition party to
misrepresent the intentions of the society, and the state and
prospects of the colony, to the free colored people of the United
States,--thus showing the double atrocity of preventing these people
from being benefited, and of traducing those persons who wish to
benefit them. In an address from Cape Palmas, by the Colonists to
their brethren in America, dated in October, 1834, there was a
distinct avowal of the fact that it was better for them that they had
gone there; and urging others to come also. Mr. B. then read the
following extract from the address:--

    Dear Brethren--Agreeably to a resolution of our fellow
    citizens herewith enclosed, we now endeavor to lay before you
    a fair and impartial statement of the actual situation of
    this colony; of our advantages and prospects, both temporal
    and spiritual.

    We are aware of the great difference of opinion which exists
    in America with respect to colonization. We are aware of the
    fierce contentions between its advocates and opposers; and we
    are of opinion that this contention, among the well meaning,
    is based principally upon the various and contradictory
    accounts concerning this country and its advantages;
    receiving on the one hand from the enthusiastic and visionary
    new comers, who write without having made themselves at all
    acquainted with the true state of affairs in Africa; and on
    the other, from the timorous, dissipated and disheartened,
    who long to return to their former degraded situation, and
    are willing to assign any reason, however false and
    detrimental to their fellow citizens, rather than the true
    one, viz:--that they are actually unfit, from want of virtue,
    energy and capacity, to become freemen in any country.

    We judge that the time which has elapsed since our first
    arrival, (eight months,) has enabled us to form a pretty
    correct opinion of this our new colony, of the climate, and
    of the fitness of our government. Therefore we may safely say
    we write not ignorantly. And as to the truth of our
    assertions we here solemnly declare, once for all, that we
    write in the fear of God, and are fully sensible that we
    stand pledged to maintain them both here and hereafter.

    Of our Government--We declare that we have enjoyed (and the
    same is for ever guaranteed to us by our Constitution) all
    and every civil and religious right and privilege, which we
    have ever known enjoyed by the white citizens of the United
    States, excepting the election of our chief magistrate, who
    is appointed by the board of managers of the Maryland State
    Colonization Society. Other officers are appointed or elected
    from the colonists.--Freedom of speech and the press,
    election by ballot, trial by jury, the right to bear arms,
    and the liberty of worshipping God agreeably to the dictates
    of our own consciences, are rendered for ever inviolate by
    the Constitution.

    That we may not weary your patience or be suspected of a
    desire to set forth matters in too favorable a light, we have
    been thus brief in our statements. It will naturally be
    supposed, brethren, that the object of this address is to
    induce you to emigrate and join us. To deny this would be a
    gross want of candor, and not in unison with our professions
    at the outset. We do wish it, and we tender you both the
    heart and hand of good fellowship.

    But here again, let us be equally candid with you. It is not
    every man we could honestly advise or desire to come to this
    colony. To those who are contented to live and educate their
    children as house servants and lackeys, we would say, stay
    where you are; here we have no masters to employ you. To the
    indolent, heedless and slothful, we would say, tarry among
    the flesh pots of Egypt; here we get our bread by the sweat
    of the brow. To drunkards and rioters, we would say, come not
    to us; you can never become naturalized in a land where there
    are no grog shops, and where temperance and order is the
    motto. To the timorous and suspicious, we would say, stay
    where you have protectors; here we protect ourselves. But the
    industrious, enterprising and patriotic of what occupation or
    profession soever; the merchant, the mechanic, and farmer,
    (but more particularly the latter,) we would counsel, advise
    and entreat to come and be one with us, and assist in this
    glorious enterprise, and enjoy with us that liberty to which
    we ever were, and the man of color ever must be, a stranger
    in America. To the ministers of the gospel, both white and
    colored, we would say, come to this great harvest, and
    diffuse amongst us and our benighted neighbors, that light of
    the gospel, without which liberty itself is but slavery, and
    freedom but perpetual bondage.

    Accept, brethren, our best wishes; and, praying that the
    Great Disposer of events will direct you to that course,
    which will tend to your happiness and the benefit of our race
    throughout the world,

                    We subscribe ourselves

                           Yours, most affectionately,

                                                 JACOB GROSS,
                                                 WILLIAM POLK,
                                                 CHARLES SCOTLAND,
                                                 ANTHONY WOOD,
                                                 THOMAS JACKSON.

    The report having been read, it was then moved by James M.
    Thompson and seconded, that the report be approved and
    accepted. The yeas and nays were presented as follows:--

    Yeas--Jeremiah Stewart, James Martin, Samuel Wheeler, H.
    Duncan, Daniel Banks, Joshua Stewart, John Bowen, James
    Stewart, Henry Dennis, Eden Harding, Robert Whitefield,
    Nathan Lee, Nathaniel Edmondson, Charles Scotland, Nathaniel
    Harmon, Bur. Minor, Anthony Howard, James M. Thompson,
    Anthony Wood, Jacob Gross, Wm. Polk, Thomas Jackson.

    Nays--Nicholas Thomson, William Reynolds, William Cassel.

    N. B. Those who voted in the negative, declared that the
    statements contained in the report were true, both in spirit
    and letter, but they preferred returning to
    America--whereupon the meeting adjourned, sine die.

    A true copy of the record of the proceedings.

                                                         WM. POLK.

If any weight was due to human testimony, it was made probable, at
least, if not certain, that the intentions of the promoters of the
scheme were that it should be most kind to the black man, in all its
direct action, and by its indirect influences, the precursor of the
abolition of slavery; and if the society had fallen into a mistake,
the colonists themselves had also fallen into the same; as in this
address they say the scheme has proved successful. He would,
therefore, conclude this second reason, by maintaining that he had
sufficiently proved that the scheme had been productive of good, not
only to the colored population, but also to the cause of universal
freedom.

The reasons he would now offer would be more general. And in bringing
forward the third head of argument, he observed, that the uniform
method which God had selected to civilize and enlighten mankind, and
to carry through the world a knowledge of the arts and laws, with all
the kindred blessings of civilization, was colonization. Amongst the
first commands given by God to man, was to replenish and subdue the
earth; and there was a striking fulness of meaning in the expression.
While there seemed to exist in the whole human family an instinctive
obedience to this command, God had so directed its manifestation, that
he believed he might safely challenge any one to show him any one
nation which had located the permanent seat of its empire in the
native land of its inhabitants. Every nation had been a conquered
nation; every people has been in turn enlightened from others, and in
turn colonists again. This nation, which has reputed itself the most
enlightened in the world, and far be it from him to controvert the
opinion in their presence, might trace its superior enlightenment in
part to the fact of its having been so much oftener conquered than any
other, and the consequent greater mixture of nations among the
inhabitants. Again, he observed, that God had kept several races of
men distinct, from the time of Noah down to the present day; and in
their mutual action upon each other, there was this extraordinary
fact, that wherever the descendants of Shem had colonized a country
occupied by the descendants of Japhet or Ham, they had extirpated
those who were before them. When the descendants of Japhet conquered
the descendants of Shem, they were extirpated before them; when the
descendants of Shem conquered those of Japhet, the case was the same;
and so of the descendants of Ham upon either. But when Japhet
conquered Japhet there was no extirpation, and when Shem conquered
Shem there was no extirpation, as also of Ham conquering Ham. Now as
to the continent of Africa, if history taught any truth, they must
roll back all its tide, or Africa was destined to be still farther
colonized. As yet, the pestilence, like the flaming sword before the
garden of the Lord, had kept the way hedged up, the white man and
yellow man away from the spot,--reserved till the fit hour and people
came. If we take the bodings of Providence all is well. But if we rely
on the lessons of the past, the only means in our power to prevent the
ultimate colonization of Africa by some strange race, and the
consequent extirpation of its race of blacks, is to colonize it with
blacks. If they let Shem colonize there, the blacks will be
extirpated; if they let Japhet colonize, the blacks will be
extirpated. Africa must be undone, or she must be colonized with
blacks; or all history is but one prodigious lie. To Britain seems
specially committed, by a good Providence, the destinies of Asia; and
we say to her, kindly and faithfully, Enter and occupy, till Messiah
come; enter at once, lest we enter before you. To America, in like
manner, is Africa committed. To do our Master's work there, we must
colonize it by blacks, we must enlighten it by blacks. And when Mr. T.
and his friends come to us with their quackery, scarcely four year's
old, and require us to forego for it our clearest convictions, our
most cherished plans, and our most enlightened views of truth and
duty, we can only say to them, "We are much obliged to you, but pray
excuse us, gentlemen; we have considered the matter before." Every
benevolent and right thinking person must see that the scheme of
colonizing Africa by black men, is necessary to enlighten Africa, and
prevent the extirpation of the black men there. He would, in the
fourth place, take up the question of christianizing Africa, separate
from the other question of mere civilization and preservation. There
were only three ways, as had been argued, in which the works of
missions could be possibly conducted. In an admirable little treatise
on the subject, published in this country, and he regretted he knew
not the author, or he would name him in pure honor, these methods were
ably defined and illustrated. One method was, to send out
missionaries, and do the work, as many are now attempting it, in so
many lands. Another was, by bringing the people to be converted, to
those whom God chose to make the means of their conversion. And when
Britain thinks harshly of America about slavery, let her remember, and
melt into kindness at the thought, of what we are doing to convert the
tens of thousands of Irish Catholics she sends to us yearly. The third
way was by colonization; and this, in past ages, has been the great
and glorious plan. By this, Europe became what she is; by this,
America was Christianized; and he would again refer them to the little
book of which he had spoken--which, not being written by a slave
owner, nor even an American, might possibly be true--to convince them,
that it was, in all cases, a most efficient means to save the world.
But in this peculiar case, it seemed to be the chief, if not the only
means. The climate suited the black man, while hundreds of whites had
fallen victims to it. So peculiar does this appear to me, that I have
never been able to comprehend how the pious and enlightened free
blacks of America could so long, or at all, resist the manifest call
of God, to go and labor for Him in their father land. There she is,
"sitting in darkness and drinking blood,"--with a full capacity, and a
perfect fitness on their parts, to enlighten, to comfort, and to save
her--their mother, doubly requiring their care, that she knows not
that she is blind and naked! And yet they linger on a distant shore;
and fill the air with empty murmurs, of time and earth, and its poor
vanities; and Christian men around them caress and applaud them for
their heathen hard-heartedness; and Christian communities, in their
strange infatuation, send missions to them, to prevent them from
becoming the truest missionaries that the earth could furnish!
Shadows that we are, shadows that we pursue! It was, in the fifth
place, the only effectual and practical mode of putting an end to the
slave trade. There was, indeed, another way--by stopping the demand.
But while they disputed the means of stopping the demand, there was
another way--the stopping of the supply. This had long been an object
dear to several nations. The government of Britain, the government of
America, and the governments of several other states, had sent several
cruisers to stop the supply; but would any slaves be taken from
Africa, if there was even a single city on the western coast, with ten
thousand inhabitants, and three vessels of war at their command? They
would put an end to the trade the moment they were able to chastise
the pirates, or make reprisals on the nations to which they belonged.
Why is it we never hear of the stealing of an Englishman, a German, or
a Turk? Because the thief knows that reprisals would be made, or that
he or some of his countrymen would be chastised or stolen in return.
So that all that was required, was to plant a city on the west coast
of Africa, and this would give protection to the population of that
country. Nothing is plainer, than that any nation which will make
reprisals, will have none of the inhabitants stolen. If reprisals were
made effective, the slave trade would be immediately stopped. It is
the course pursued by Mr. Thompson and his friends, not the course
pursued by us, which is likely to continue the slave trade. On one
hundred leagues of African coast, it is already to a great degree
suppressed; and if we had been aided as the importance of the cause
demanded, instead of being resisted with untiring activity, this
blessed object might now have been granted to the prayers of
Christendom.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mr. THOMPSON earnestly hoped that every word which Mr. Breckinridge
had that night uttered respecting the principles of the Colonization
Society, and what had been effected by that institution, would be
carefully preserved; that on other occasions, and by other persons, on
both sides the Atlantic, Mr. Breckinridge's arguments might be
canvassed, his facts investigated, and his sentiments made known. I
shall offer no apology (continued Mr. T.) for referring to a point
discussed last evening, but not fairly disposed of. I am by no means
satisfied, nor do I think the enlightened, and least of all the
Christian world, will be satisfied with the doctrine which for two
evenings has been laid down and maintained by Mr. Breckinridge, that
America, as a nation, is not responsible before God for the sin of
slavery. I cannot, sir, receive that doctrine. I cannot lightly pass
it over. Much hinges upon this point, nor will I consent that America
shall lay the flattering unction to her soul that she is not her
brother's keeper; that any wretches within her precincts may commit
soul-murder, and she be innocent, by reason of her wilful, self
induced, and self continued impotency. I do not believe the doctrine
of "the irresponsibleness of America as a nation" to be politically
sound; still less do I believe it to be the doctrine of the Bible.

Sir, I fearlessly charge America, as a nation--as the United States of
America--as a voluntary confederacy of free republics--as living under
one common constitution, and one common government--with being a
nation of slave-holders, and the vilest and most culpable on the face
of the earth.

I charge America with having a slave-holding president; with holding
seven thousand slaves at the seat of government; with licensing the
slave trade for four hundred dollars; with permitting the domestic
slave trade to the awful extent of one hundred thousand souls per
annum; with allowing prisons, built with the public money, to be made
the receptacles of unoffending, home-born Americans, destined for the
southern market; with permitting her legislators and the highest
functionaries in the state to trample upon every dictate of humanity,
and every principle sacred in American independence, by trafficking
"in slaves and the souls of men."

I charge America, "as a nation," with permitting within her boundaries
a wide spread system, which my opponent has himself described as one
of clear robbery, universal concubinage, horrid cruelty, and
unilluminated ignorance.

I charge America, before the world and God, with the awful crime of
reducing more than two millions of her own children, born on her own
soil, and entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"
to the state of _beasts_; withholding from them every right, and
privilege, and social or political blessing, and leaving them the prey
of those who have legislated away the word of life, and the ordinances
of religion, lest their victims should at any time see with their
eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and
should assume the bearing, and the name, and the honors of humanity.

I charge America, "as a nation," with being wickedly, cruelly, and, in
the highest sense, criminally indifferent to the happiness and
elevation of the free colored man; with crushing and persecuting him
in every part of the country; with regarding him as belonging to a
low, degraded, and irreclaimable _caste_, who ought not to call
America his country or his home, but seek in Africa, on the soil of
his ancestors, a refuge from persecution in the land which the
English, and the Dutch, and the French, and the Irish, have wrested
from the _red_ men, and which they now proudly and self complacently,
but most falsely style the _white_ man's country.

I charge all this, and much more, upon the _government_ of America,
upon the _church_ of America, and upon the _people_ of America.

It is idle, to say the least, to talk of rolling the guilt of the
system upon the individual slave-holder, and the individual state.
This cannot fairly be done while the citizens throughout the land are
banded, confederated, united. It is the sin of the entire church. The
Presbyterians throughout the country are one body; the Baptists are
one body; the Episcopalian Methodists are one body; they acknowledge
one another; they cordially fellowship one another. They make the sin,
if it be a sin, theirs, by owning as brethren in Christ Jesus, and
ministers of Him, who was anointed to preach deliverance to the
captives, men who shamelessly traffic in rational, blood-redeemed
souls; nay, even barter away for accursed gold, their own church
members. It is pre-eminently the sin of the church. It is the sin of
the people at large. It is said the laws recognize slavery. I reply,
the entire nation is answerable for those laws. We hear that the
"Constitution can do nothing," that "the Congress can do nothing," to
which I reply, Woe, and shame, and guilt, and execration must be, and
ought to be, the portion of that people calling themselves Christians
and republicans, who can tolerate, through half a century, a
Constitution and a Congress that cannot prevent nor cure the buying
and selling of sacred humanity; the sundering of every fibre that
binds heart to heart, and the dehumanization and butchery of peaceful
and patriotic citizens within the territories over which they extend.
In whatever aspect I view this question, the people, and the whole
people, appear to be, before God and man, responsible, politically and
morally, for the sin of slave-holding. They are responsible for the
Constitution, with any deficiencies and faults it may have, for they
have the power, and it is therefore their duty, to amend it. They are
responsible for the character and acts of Congress, for they make the
senators and representatives that go there. In a word, they are
properly and solemnly responsible for that "system" of which we have
heard so much, and for "the workings of that system;" and I declare it
little better than subterfuge to say, that the people of America, the
source of power, the sovereign, the omnipotent people, are not
responsible for the existence of slavery and all its kindred
abominations, within the territorial limits of the United States.

The charges which he had here made were important, grave and awful. He
made them under the full and solemn impression of his accountableness
to mankind, and the God of nations. He believed them to be true; he
was prepared to substantiate them. That not one tittle of them might
be lost or misrepresented in Great Britain or America, he had penned
them with his own hand, out of his own heart, and he was prepared to
support them in England, or in Scotland, or in America itself: for he
hoped yet again to visit that country, and there resume his advocacy
of the cause of the slave.

He would now come to the colonization question, on which he felt
completely at home. In adverting to this question, however, he
experienced a difficulty, which he had felt on many former occasions,
that of not being able to compress what he had to say within the
compass of one address. He would not only have to reply to what Mr.
Breckinridge had advanced, but he would have to touch on topics which
Mr. Breckinridge had overlooked--principles affecting the origin,
character, and very existence of that society, which Mr. Breckinridge
had taken under his special protection. He (Mr. T.) would show that
the improvement of the black man's condition was not the chief object
of the Colonization Society; that its operations sprung from that
loathing of color which might be denominated the peculiar sin of
America. Slavery might be found in many countries, but it was in
America alone that there existed an aristocracy founded on the color
of the skin. A race of pale-skinned patricians, resting their claims
to peculiar rank and privileges upon the hue of the skin, the texture
of the hair, the form of the nose, and the size of the calf! But for
this abhorrence of color, Mr. B. would not have been contented with
the means proposed by the Colonization Society for the amelioration of
slavery; he would not have spoken a word of colonization, or of that
Golgotha, Liberia.

Acquainted as he (Mr. T.) was with America, he had been able to come
to no other conclusion, but that the prejudice of color was that on
which the colonization of the free negro was founded. There had been a
great deal said of the inferior intellect of the black race, and of a
marked deficiency in their moral qualities; but these were not the
grounds on which it was sought to expatriate them; the injustice
practised towards them rested solely on the prejudice which had been
excited against their external personal peculiarities. Every word
spoken by Mr. Breckinridge in defence of colonization, went directly
to prove this. The whole scheme rested on the dark color of those to
be expatriated. Had the sufferers been white in the skin, Mr. B. would
have advocated immediate, complete, and everlasting emancipation.

He would now turn to a matter, regarding which he considered Mr.
Breckinridge had treated the abolitionists of America with
injustice--with unkindness--with something which he did not like even
to name. Mr. B. had charged the abolitionists with having published a
law as the law of the state of Maryland, which had never been adopted
by the legislature of that state; and when he (Mr. T.) had required of
Mr. B. evidence in support of his grave allegations, it was in this
case precisely as in the case of Mr. Garrison and Mr. Wright,--the
proofs were non est inventus. Now, he would ask, was this fair; was it
magnanimous; was it generous; was it Christianlike?

The charge had been distinctly made, and then it had been asked of the
parties accused to prove a negative. Mr. Breckinridge was not likely
to be long in Glasgow, and it was therefore most easy, and most
convenient, to prefer charges which could not, even on the testimony
of the parties implicated, be answered until Mr. Breckinridge was far
away, and the poison had had full time to work its effect. He (Mr. T.)
would, however, give it as his opinion, that his fellow laborers on
the other side of the Atlantic, would triumphantly clear themselves of
this and every other imputation, and finally emerge from the ordeal,
however fierce, pure, untarnished, and unscathed.

Such a charge, however, should not be brought against him (Mr. T.).
The laws of Maryland, he cited, were to be found in the pages of the
Colonization Society's accredited organ, the African Repository, an
entire set of which was on the platform, open to inspection.

Mr. Breckinridge had taken great pains to make out a case for the
Maryland Colonization Society. This was not to be wondered at. That
society was a protege of his own. It had been patronized and fostered
by him. For it, it appeared, he had almost suffered martyrdom, when,
in advocating its cause in Boston, he had been mistaken for an
abolitionist,--in that same city of Boston, where a gentlemanly mob of
5000 individuals, fashionably attired, in black, and brown, and blue
cloth, had joyfully engaged in assaulting and dispersing a peaceful
meeting of forty ladies.

He had not yet done with the Maryland Colonization Society. He was
prepared to prove that it was, taken as a whole, a most oppressive and
iniquitous scheme. The laws framed to support it prohibited
manumission, except on condition of the removal of the freed slaves;
thus submitting a choice of evils, both cruel to the last
extent,--perpetual bondage, or banishment from the soil of their
birth, and the scenes and associations of infancy and youth. He could
show, that free persons of color, coming into the state, were liable
to be seized and sold; and white persons inviting them, and harboring
them, liable to the infliction of heavy fines.

These, and similar provisions, all disgraceful and cruel, were the
prominent features of the laws which had been framed to carry into
effect the benevolent and patriotic designs of the Maryland
Colonization Society!

That expulsion from the state was the thing intended, he would show
from newspapers published in the state. What said the Baltimore
Chronicle, a pro-slavery and colonization paper, at the time when the
laws referred to were passed? Let his auditory hear with attention.

    "The intention of those laws was, and their effect must be,
    to EXPEL the free people of color from this state. They will
    find themselves so hemmed in by restrictions, that their
    situation cannot be otherwise than uncomfortable should they
    elect to remain in Maryland. These laws will no doubt be met
    by prohibitory laws in other states, which will greatly
    increase the embarrassments of the people of color, and leave
    them no other alternative than to emigrate or remain in a
    very unenviable condition."

What said the Maryland Temperance Herald of May 3, 1835?

    "We are indebted to the committee of publication for the
    first No. of the Maryland Colonization Journal, a new
    quarterly periodical, devoted to the cause of colonization in
    our state. Such a paper has long been necessary; we hope this
    will be useful.

    "Every reflecting man must be convinced, that the time is not
    far distant when the safety of the country will require the
    EXPULSION of the blacks from its limits. It is perfect folly
    to suppose, that a foreign population, whose physical
    peculiarities must forever render them distinct from the
    owners of the soil, can be permitted to grow and strengthen
    among us with impunity. Let hair-brained enthusiasts
    speculate as they may, no abstract considerations of the
    natural rights of man, will ever elevate the negro population
    to an equality with the whites. As long as they remain in the
    land of their bondage, they will be morally, if not
    physically enslaved, and, indeed, so long as their distinct
    nationality is preserved, their enlightenment will be a
    measure of doubtful policy. Under such circumstances every
    philanthropist will wish to see them removed, but gradually,
    and with as little violence as possible. For effecting this
    purpose, no scheme is liable to so few objections, as that of
    African Colonization. It has been said, that this plan has
    effected but little--true, but no other has done any thing.
    We do not expect that the exertions of benevolent individuals
    will be able to rid us of the millions of blacks who oppress
    and are oppressed by us. All they can accomplish, is to
    satisfy the public of the practicability of the scheme--they
    can make the experiment--they are making it and with success.
    The state of Maryland has already adopted this plan, and
    before long every Southern state will have its colony. The
    whole African coast will be strewn with cities, and then,
    should some fearful convulsion render it necessary to the
    public safety TO BANISH THE MULTITUDE AT ONCE, a house of
    refuge will have been provided for them in the land of their
    fathers."

Yet this was the plan of which the American Colonization Society, at
its annual meeting in 1833, had spoken in the following terms:--

    Resolved, That the Society view, with the highest
    gratification, the continued efforts of the State of Maryland
    to accomplish her patriotic and benevolent system in regard
    to her colored population; and that the last appropriation by
    that state of two hundred thousand dollars, in aid of African
    colonization, is hailed by the friends of the system, as a
    BRIGHT EXAMPLE to other states.

Mr. Breckinridge had lauded the Colonization Society as a scheme of
benevolence and patriotism. He (Mr. T.) did not mean to deny that
there had been many pious and excellent men found amongst its founders
and subsequent supporters, but he was prepared to demonstrate that it
had grown out of prejudice, was based upon prejudice, made its appeal
to prejudice, and could not exist were the prejudice against the
colored man conquered. It had, moreover, made an appeal to the fears
and cupidity of the slaveholder, by setting forth, that, in its
operations, it would remove from the southern states the most
dangerous portion of the free population, and also enhance the value
of the slaves left remaining in the country. The doctrines found
pervading the publications of the society were of the most absurd and
anti-christian character. He would mention three, viz., 1st, that
_Africa_, and not _America_, was the true and appropriate home of the
colored man; 2dly, that prejudice against color was _invincible_, and
the elevation of the colored man, therefore, while in America, beyond
the reach of humanity, legislation and religion; and, 3dly, that there
should be no emancipation except for the purposes of colonization. How
truly monstrous were these doctrines! How calculated to cripple
exertion, to retard freedom, and mark the colored man out as a
foreigner and alien, to be driven out of the country as soon as the
means for his removal were provided. Such had really been the effect
of the society's views upon the public mind in America. If the colored
man was to be expatriated because his ancestors were Africans, then
let General Jackson be sent to Ireland, because his parents were
Irish; and Mr. Van Buren be sent to Holland, because his ancestors
were Dutch; and let the same rule be applied to all the other white
inhabitants of the country. Then would Great Britain, and France, and
Germany, and Switzerland recover their children; America be delivered
of her conquerors, and the red man come forth from the wilds and the
wildernesses of the back country, to enjoy, in undisturbed security,
the soil from which his ancestors had been driven. Mr. Breckinridge
had said much respecting his (Mr. T.'s) presumption in bringing
forward a resolution in Boston, so strongly condemning the measures
and principles of the Colonization Society. He (Mr. T.) might be
permitted to say, that if he had acted presumptuously, he had also
acted boldly and honestly; and that the auditory should know, that the
resolution referred to had been debated for one entire evening, and
from half past nine till half past one, the next day, with the Rev. R.
R. Gurley, the secretary and agent of the Colonization Society, who,
for eight or nine years, had been the editor of the African
Repository, and was, perhaps, better qualified than any other man in
the United States, to discuss the subject--always, of course,
excepting his Rev. opponent, then on the platform. He admitted, the
resolution was strongly worded; that it repudiated the society as
unrighteous, unnatural, and proscriptive; and declared the efforts
then making to give strength and permanency to the institution, were a
fraud upon the ignorance, and an outrage upon the intelligence and
humanity of the community. But this country should know that he had
defended his propositions, face to face, with one of the ablest
champions of the cause, before two American audiences, in the city of
Boston. That the assembly then before him might judge of the character
of the debate, and know its result, he would read a few short
extracts, taken from a respectable daily paper, published in Boston,
and entirely unconnected with the Abolitionists. The editor himself,
B. F. Hallett, Esq., reported the proceedings, and thus remarked:--

    "One of the most interesting, masterly, and honorable
    discussions ever listened to in this community, took place on
    Friday evening and Saturday morning. The hall was as full as
    it could hold. * * * * * * The whole discussion was a model
    for courtesy and christian temper in like cases, and did
    great credit to all parties concerned. We question if a
    public debate was ever conducted in this city, in a better
    spirit, and with more ability. There was not a discourteous
    word passed, through the whole, and no occurrence which for
    an instant marred the entire cordiality with which the
    dispute was conducted. It was not men but principles that
    were contending, and we venture to say that no public
    discussion was ever managed on higher grounds, or was more
    deeply interesting to an audience. The resolution was put,
    all present being invited to vote. It was carried in the
    affirmative with FOUR voices in the negative."

So said the Boston Daily Advocate.

The following extracts from the published addresses of some of the
most eminent and gifted supporters of the Colonization Society, would
show, that the _compulsory_ removal of the colored population, had
from the first been contemplated. If it was replied, "You cannot find
compulsion in the Constitution," he (Mr. T.) would rejoin, No; but
herein consists the wickedness and hypocrisy of the scheme; that while
it puts forth a fair face in its constitution, it does, really and in
truth, contain the elements of all oppression. The written
constitution of the Society was but the robe of an angel, covering an
implacable and devouring demon. He would make another remark, also,
before submitting the extracts in his hand. Mr. Breckinridge had
strenuously endeavored to lay the guilt of the oppressive laws in the
south upon the Abolitionists, declaring that those laws had resulted
from the spread of Anti-slavery principles. From the passages about to
be cited, and, more especially, from the words of Mr. Clay, it would
be found, that long prior to the "quackery" of the Abolitionists,
there had existed harsh and cruel laws, calling forth the regrets and
censures of Slaveholders themselves. Even admitting the truth of what
Mr. B. had said, did it follow that the truth should not therefore be
published. By no means. The Israelites, in their bondage, murmured
against the measures of him whom God had raised up to deliver them,
and complained that their burdens had increased since Pharaoh had been
remonstrated with. He would quote, for the benefit of Mr. B. a very
laconic remark, by an old commentator, "When the bricks are doubled,
Moses is near."

    1. Charles Carrol Harper, Son of General Harper, to the
    voters of Baltimore, 1826. Af. Repy., vol. 2. page 188. For
    several years the subject of Abolition of Slavery has been
    brought before you. I am decidedly opposed to the project
    recommended. No scheme of abolition will meet my support,
    that leaves the emancipated blacks among us. Experience has
    proved that they become a corrupt and degraded class, as
    burthensome to themselves, as they are hurtful to the rest
    of society.

    Again, page 189, "To permit the blacks to remain amongst us
    after their emancipation, would be to aggravate, and not to
    cure the evil."

    2. Extracted with approbation from the Public Ledger,
    Richmond, Indiana, Af. Repy., vol. 3. page 26. "We would say,
    liberate them only on condition of their going to Africa or
    Hayti."

    3. Extracts from an address delivered at Springfield, before
    the Hamden Col. Society, July 4th, 1828. By Wm. B. O.
    Peabody, Esq. published by request of the Society. Af. Repy.,
    vol. 4. page 226. "I am not complaining of the owners of
    Slaves; they cannot get rid of them; it would be as humane to
    throw them from the decks in the middle passage, as to set
    them free in our country." Upon which the following eulogy is
    pronounced, page 230. "We need hardly say that Mr. Peabody's
    address is an excellent one. May its spirit universally
    pervade and animate the minds of our countrymen.

    4. Extracts from an Address to the Col. Socy. of Kentucky, at
    Frankfort, Dec. 17th., 1829, by the Hon. Henry Clay. Af.
    Repy., vol. 6, page 5. "If the question were submitted,
    whether there should be immediate or gradual emancipation of
    all the slaves in the United States, without their removal or
    colonization, painful as it is to express the opinion, I have
    no doubt it would be unwise to emancipate them. For I believe
    that the aggregate of the evils which would be engendered in
    Society, upon the supposition of such general emancipation,
    and of the liberated slaves remaining promiscuously among us,
    would be greater than all the evils of Slavery, great as they
    unquestionably are."

    Again, page 12. "Is there no remedy, I again ask, for the
    evils of which I have sketched a faint and imperfect picture?
    Is our posterity doomed to endure forever, not only all the
    ills flowing from the state of Slavery, but all which arise
    from incongruous elements of population, separated from each
    other by invincible prejudices, and by natural causes?
    Whatever may be the character of the remedy proposed, we may
    confidently pronounce it inadequate, unless it provides
    efficaciously for the total and absolute separation, by an
    extensive space of water or of land, at least of the white
    portion of our population, from that which is free of the
    colored."

    5. Extracts from the speech of Geo. Washington Park Curtis at
    the 14th Annual meeting of the Amer. Col. Soc., Af. Repy.,
    vol. 6. page 371-2. "Some benevolent minds in the
    overflowings of their philanthropy, advocate amalgamation of
    the two classes, saying, let the colored classes be freed and
    remain among us as denizens of the empire; surely all classes
    of mankind are alike descended from the primitive parentage
    of Eden, then why not intermingle in one common society as
    friends and brothers. No, Sir; no. I hope to prove, at no
    very distant day, that a Southron can make sacrifices for the
    cause of Colonization beyond seas, but for a Home Department
    in those matters, I repeat no, Sir; no. What right, I demand,
    have the children of Africa to a homestead in the white man's
    country?

    "If, as is most true, the crimes of the white man robbed
    Africa of her sons, let atonement be made by returning the
    descendants of the stolen to the clime of their ancestors,
    and then all the claims of redeeming justice will have been
    discharged. There let centuries of future rights, atone for
    centuries of past wrongs. Let the regenerated African rise to
    Empire; nay, let Genius flourish, and Philosophy shed its
    mild beams to enlighten and instruct the posterity of Ham,
    returning 'redeemed and disenthralled' from their long
    captivity in the new world. But, Sir, be all these benefits
    enjoyed by the African race under the shade of their native
    palms. Let the Atlantic billow heave its high and everlasting
    barrier between their country and ours. Let this fair land
    which the white man won by his chivalry, which he has adorned
    by the arts and elegancies of polished life, be kept sacred
    for his descendants, untarnished by the footprint of him who
    hath ever been a slave."

    6. Mr. Henry Clay's speech, before the Society, January 1st,
    1818--2d Annual Report, page 110. "Further, several of the
    slaveholding states had, and perhaps all of them would,
    prohibit entirely, emancipation, without some such outlet was
    created. A sense of their own safety required the painful
    prohibition. Experience proved that persons turned loose who
    were neither freemen nor slaves, constituted a great moral
    evil, threatening to contaminate all parts of society. Let
    the colony once be successfully planted, and legislative
    bodies who have been grieved at the necessity of passing
    those 'prohibitory laws,' which at a distance might appear to
    'stain our codes,' will hasten to remove the impediments to
    the exercise of benevolence and humanity. They will annex the
    condition that the emancipated shall leave the country, and
    he has placed a false estimate upon liberty, who believes
    there are many who would refuse the boon, when coupled even
    with such a condition."

Here there was compulsion, both in principle and precept. In the laws
of Maryland, and elsewhere, were found abundant evidences of
compulsion in practice, and where there were no direct acts forcing
them to depart, a public sentiment had been created, which, in its
manifold operations, brought the colored man, crushed and hopeless, to
the conclusion, that it would be better for him to say farewell to
home and country, than remain a proverb and a nuisance amongst a
prejudiced and persecuting people. No colored man could justly be said
to go to Liberia, or elsewhere, with his free and unconstrained
consent, until the laws were equal, the treatment kind, prejudice
founded on complexion destroyed, and he presented himself a voluntary
agent, and asked the means to transport him to a foreign shore. As one
proof that compulsion had been openly and unblushingly advocated, he
would quote the words of Mr. Broadnax in the Virginia House of
Delegates:----

    "It is idle to talk about not resorting to force; every body
    must look to the introduction of force of some kind or
    other--and it is in truth a question of expediency, of moral
    justice, of political good faith--whether we shall fairly
    delineate our whole system on the face of the bill, or leave
    the acquisition of extorted consent to other processes. The
    real question, the only question of magnitude to be settled,
    is the great preliminary question--Do you intend to send the
    free persons of color out of Virginia, or not?

    "If the free negroes are willing to go, they will go--if not
    willing they must be compelled to go. Some gentlemen think it
    politic not now to insert this feature in the bill, though
    they proclaim their readiness to resort to it when it becomes
    necessary; they think that for a year or two a sufficient
    number will consent to go, and then the rest can be
    compelled. For my part, I deem it better to approach the
    question and settle it at once, and avow it openly.

    "I have already expressed it as my opinion that few, very
    few, will voluntarily consent to emigrate if no COMPULSORY
    measure be adopted.

    "I will not express, in its full extent, the idea I entertain
    of what has been done, or what enormities will be perpetrated
    to induce this class of persons to leave the Slate. Who does
    not know that when a free negro, by crime or otherwise, has
    rendered himself obnoxious to a neighborhood, how easy it is
    for a party to visit him one night, take him from his bed and
    family, and apply to him the gentle admonition of a SEVERE
    FLAGELLATION, to induce Kim to consent to go away I In a few
    nights the dose can be repeated, perhaps increased, until, in
    the language of the physician, quantum sufficit has been
    administered to produce the desired operation; and the fellow
    then becomes PERFECTLY WILLING to move away.

Finally, on this part of the subject, he would cite the Rev. R. J.
Breckinridge, who, at the annual meeting of the American Colonization
Society, in 1834, had used the following language:--

    "Two years ago I warned the Managers of this Virginia
    business, and yet they sent out TWO SHIP-LOADS OF VAGABONDS,
    not fit to go to such a place, and they were COERCED away as
    truly as if it had been done with a CART-WHIP.

His grand complaint against the Colonization Society was this--that
instead of grappling with the reigning prejudices of the community, it
falsely assumed the _insensibility_ of those prejudices, and proceeded
to legislate accordingly. They thus sanctioned and perpetuated the
greatest sources of suffering and wrong to the colored population. The
prejudice against the people of color had greatly increased since the
formation of the Society. The present supporters of the Society were
those who thoroughly loathed the free people of color, and the most
cruel and sanguinary opponents of the Abolitionists were the
boisterous defenders of the American Colonization Society. For
example, when a mob assailed the inhabitants in New York, broke up
their meetings, assaulted their persons, and sacked the house of Mr.
Lewis Tappan, that mob could, in the midst of their ruffian-like and
felonious exploits, most unanimously and heartily shout, "Three cheers
for the Colonization Society," and "away with the niggers." In
travelling in steamboats and stage coaches, he (Mr. T.) had invariably
found that his most furious and malignant opponents, and the most
determined haters of the black man, were loud in their profession of
attachment to the principles and plans of the society. Why had not the
wise and benevolent members of the society denounced that prejudice?
Because the best among them were themselves partakers of that
prejudice. It was evident, from all that Mr. Breckinridge had said,
that he was deeply imbued with that prejudice. It gave tone, and
color, and direction to all his remarks. Such men might profess to
love the black man; but they were likely to be suspected of
insincerity, when they uniformly manifested their love by driving the
object of it as far away as possible. Such a mode of expressing love
was contrary to all our ideas of the natural manifestations of that
feeling. If the Colonization Society was indeed so full of benevolence
and mercy, how was it that its character was so misunderstood by the
colored people, for whose special benefit it had been originated?
Surely they were likely to be the best judges of its effect upon their
welfare and happiness. What was the fact? The entire free colored
population of the United States were opposed to the expatriating
project. But his opponent would say it was owing to the abuse poured
upon the society by the foul-mouthed Abolitionists. He (Mr. T.)
should, however, deprive the gentleman of this refuge, by laying
before the meeting a very interesting fact, which would at once show
the feeling of the colored people when the plan was first submitted to
them. It would show, that in a meeting of three thousand, convened in
the city of Philadelphia, to decide whether the society should, or
should not, receive their countenance, they decided _against_ it
without a dissentient voice. He would lay before them a letter written
by a highly respectable, enlightened, and wealthy gentleman of color
in Philadelphia, Mr. James Forten. The letter was written to the
editor of the New England Spectator, in consequence of a remark made
by Mr. Gurley, during the debate in Boston.

                                PHILADELPHIA, June 10th, 1835.

    REV. W. S. PORTER,--Dear Sir,--I cheerfully comply with the
    request contained in your note of the 3d inst., to give you a
    brief statement of a meeting held in 1817, by the people of
    color in this city, to express their opinion on the Liberia
    project. It was the largest meeting of colored persons ever
    convened in Philadelphia,--I will say 3000, though I might
    safely add 500 more. To show you the deep interest evinced,
    this large assemblage remained in almost breathless and fixed
    attention during the reading of the resolutions and the other
    business of the meeting; and when the question was put in the
    affirmative you might have heard a pin drop, so profound was
    the silence. But when in the negative, one long, loud, ay,
    tremendous NO, from this vast audience, seemed as if it would
    bring down the walls of the building. Never did there appear
    a more unanimous opinion. Every heart seemed to feel that it
    was a life and death question. Yes, even then, at the very
    onset, when the monster came in a guise to deceive some of
    our firmest friends, who hailed it as the dawning of a
    brighter day for our oppressed race,--even then we penetrated
    through its thickly-laid covering, and beheld it
    prospectively as the scourge which in after years was to
    grind us to the earth, and, by a series of unrelenting
    persecution, force us into involuntary exile.

    I was not a little surprised to learn that Mr. Gurley
    professed to be ignorant of this fact; for in the African
    Repository he reviewed Mr. Garrison's Thoughts on African
    Colonization; and a whole chapter of the work, if I mistake
    not, is taken up with the sentiments of the people of color
    on colonization, commencing with the Philadelphia meeting.
    Perhaps Mr. Gurley did not read that chapter. But if his
    memory is not very treacherous, he ought to have known the
    circumstance, for I related it to him myself in a
    conversation which I had with him at my house one evening, in
    company with the Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge, and our beloved
    friend, William Lloyd Garrison. The subject of colonization
    was warmly discussed; and I well recollect bringing our
    meeting of 1817 forward as a proof of our early and decided
    opposition to the measure. No doubt Mr. Garrison also
    remembers it.

    Three meetings were held by us in 1817. The two first you
    will find in the "Thoughts on Colonization," part 2d, page 9.
    Of the protest and remonstrance adopted at the third meeting,
    I send you an exact copy. It is in answer to an address to
    the citizens of New York and Philadelphia, calling upon them
    to aid a number of persons of color, whom they said were
    anxious to join the projected colony in Africa. Those persons
    were mostly from the south, and it was to disabuse the public
    mind on this subject, that our meeting was held.

                       I remain, with great respect,
                                Yours,           JAMES FORTEN.

He (Mr. T.) could pledge himself that such were still the feelings
of the free colored people of America. Wherever they possessed a
glimmering of light upon the subject, they utterly abhorred the
society, and would as soon _consent_ to be cut to pieces, as sent to
any of the colonies prepared for their reception. Was it not then too
bad that Christians should be called upon to support a society so
utterly at variance with the wishes and feelings of the parties most
nearly concerned? As a few moments yet remained, he would occupy it
in quoting the opinions of two gentlemen, ministers of religion, and
standing high in their own country, who had furnished lamentable
evidence of the extent to which prejudice might possess otherwise
strong and enlarged minds. The first quotation was from a report of
a committee at the Theological Seminary at Andover, Massachusetts,
presented to the Colonization Society of that institution in 1823.
It was from the pen of the Rev. Leonard Bacon, now pastor of a
Congregational church at New Haven, Connecticut.

    "The Soodra is not farther separated from the Brahmin, in
    regard to all his privileges, civil, intellectual, and moral,
    than the negro is from the white man, by the prejudices which
    result from the difference made between them by the God of
    nature. A barrier more difficult to be surmounted than the
    institution of the Caste, cuts off, and while the present
    state of society continues, must always cut off, the negro
    from all that is valuable in citizenship."

The other was his opponent on that platform; who, in a letter to the
New York Evangelist, had said, that emancipation, to be followed by
amalgamation, at the option of the parties, would be reckless
wickedness. But lest he should misrepresent that gentleman, he would
turn to the paper, and quote the passage cited.

    "I know that any abolition without the consent of the States
    holding the slaves, is impossible; that to obtain this
    consent on any terms, is very difficult;--that to obtain it
    without the prospect of extensive removal by colonization, is
    impossible; that to obtain it instantly on any terms, is the
    dream of ignorance; that to expect it instantly with
    subsequent equality, is frantic nonsense; and that to demand
    it, as an instant right, irrespective of consequences, and to
    be followed by amalgamation at the option of the parties, is
    RECKLESS WICKEDNESS!"

All the alarm created on the subject of amalgamation was totally
unfounded. The views of the Abolitionists were simple and scriptural.
They held that there should be no distinctions on account of color.
That to treat a man with coldness, unkindness, or contempt, on
account of his complexion, was to quarrel with the Maker of us all.
They held that this prejudice should be given up, and the colored man
be treated as a white man, according to his intellect, morality, and
fitness for the duties of civil life. They did not interfere with
those tastes by which human beings were regulated in entering into the
nearest and most permanent relations of life. They confined themselves
to the exhibition of gospel truth upon the subject, and left it to an
overruling and watchful Providence to guard and control the
consequences springing from a faithful and fearless discharge of duty.
Mr. Thompson concluded, by observing, that he considered the readiest
way to make men curse their existence and their God, was to oppress
and enslave them on account of that complexion, and those
peculiarities, which the Creator of the world had stamped upon them.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would commence with a slight allusion to two
references which had been made to himself by Mr. Thompson. And in
regard to certain passages which had been read from speeches of his,
he would only say, that he had never written or uttered a single word
on this subject, which he would not rejoice to see laid before the
British public. But he had a right to complain of the manner in which
these passages had been quoted. It was not fair, he contended, to
break down a passage, and read only half a sentence, passing over the
other half because it would not answer the purpose of the reader; in
fact, because it would alter the sense of the passage altogether. He
charged Mr. T. with having been guilty of this in the last quotation
which he had made, and, in order to show the true meaning of the
garbled passage, he would read it as it stood: [See the passage as it
appears in Mr. T.'s speech.] He had read this the more particularly,
in order to show the consistency of his present opinions with those
which he had held and uttered two years ago. They would now perceive,
he said, that when the sentence was given entire, he said, that
setting the slaves free without reference to consequences, constituted
a material and an omitted part of that procedure, which he had
characterized as reckless wickedness, whereas by breaking it up in the
middle, he was made to say, that to permit voluntary amalgamation,
after instant abolition, was by itself to be so considered. He was now
ready to defend this statement as he had at first made it.

The next thing he would refer to, was the report of a speech which he
[Mr. B.] had delivered at an annual meeting of the American
Colonization Society. And with regard to it, if he was in America, he
would say, decidedly, that it was not a fair report: that it was an
unfair report, got up by Mr. Leavitt, the editor of the New York
Evangelist, to serve a special purpose. He would not deny that he had
said something which might give a pretext for the report. He had
charged the parent society with having been guilty of a gross
dereliction of duty to the colony and the cause, in sending away two
ships' cargoes of negroes to Liberia, who were not fit for that place,
and he believed that those two expeditions had done much to injure
the colony itself, as well as to impair public confidence in the
firmness and judiciousness of the parent board. They were emigrants
unfit to be sent out--the refuse of the counties around South Hampton
in Virginia; who were hurried out by the violent state of public
sentiment in that region, after the insurrection and massacre there.
Like a man conscious of rectitude, he had gone to the very parties
concerned, and declared his grounds of complaint; a line of conduct he
could not too often commend to Mr. Thompson, and no proof could be
more conclusive than this anecdote afforded, that the active friends
of colonization in America, however they might differ about details,
meant kindly by the blacks, and by Africa. Mr. B. again expressed his
surprise that Mr. Thompson should occupy the time of the meeting by
repeating his own speeches. He had adverted to this matter before, he
said, and as he was in a poor state of health, and had work elsewhere,
and as there was much ground yet to go over, and Mr. T. declared his
materials to be most abundant, he thought those repetitions might have
been spared. They who took the trouble to read the published speeches
of this gentleman, would find, that however exhaustless might be the
boasted stores of his facts, proofs, and illustrations, about what he
called "American Slavery," he was exceedingly economical of them.
After reading six or seven of them, he found them so very like each
other, that the same stories, in the same order, and the same
illustrations, in the same sequence, and the same unfounded charges,
in the same terms of unmeasured bitterness, may be often expected, and
never in vain. Indeed, so meagre was his supply of wit, even, that it
also went on very few changes. The whole case exhibiting a most
striking illustration of the truth uttered in a personal sense by one
of their own statesmen and scholars, and now proved to be of general
application, namely, that when a man resorted to his memory for his
jokes, it was very probable that he would draw upon his imagination
for his facts. As he [Mr. B.] had been so often asked to produce
certain placards for the purpose of substantiating some of his
statements, there could be no better connexion in which to call upon
Mr. Thompson to bring forward proof of those charges which he brought
against certain persons, and classes of persons, unless he wished the
world to believe that he had brought those charges without having a
single iota of evidence on which to found them. He would call upon Mr.
Thompson to bring forward his proofs in support of all those charges,
those reckless and extravagant charges, which he brought against the
ministers of religion in America. Mr. Thompson had stood before
several London audiences with a runaway slave from America, who
charged certain individuals with unparalleled cruelty! Amongst other
things, with burning a slave alive; a matter to which Mr. T's
attention had in vain been called, and his proofs demanded. He would
take no further notice of the gross things he had uttered of the
president of the United States than to say, that if he (Mr. B.) could
condescend to imitate his conduct, and utter ribaldrous things of the
king of Great Britain, he should richly deserve to be turned with
contempt out of this sacred place. He would proceed, then, with his
remarks on the Maryland colonization scheme. They had been told by Mr.
T. that the object of the Maryland society was compulsory
expatriation, as a condition precedent to freedom. When proof of this
was required, he could bring none; and when he (Mr. B.) had showed
that it was not so, but that its object was of unmixed good to the
blacks, an object accomplished as to many, on their showing, in the
proof produced, Mr. Thompson turned round, and said, that it was
entirely contrary to his preconceived notions, and repeated
statements, and must be false! But facts were better than notions and
statements both. And what were the facts in the present case? Why,
that on the one hand Mr. Thompson asserts that no slave can be
manumitted in Maryland except he will instantly depart the country;
whereas Messrs. Harper, Howard and Hoffman assert, in an official
report, on the 31st of last December, that 299 manumissions within
that state had been officially reported to them within a year, and
1101 within four years. At the same moment I have produced a record of
the very names and periods of emigration, of 140, bond and free, all
told, who, within the same four years, under the action of the very
laws in question, had gone from the state; admitting half of whom to
be of those particular manumitted slaves, there would be left 1021
more of them to prove that Mr. T. either totally misunderstood, or
mis-stated, that of which he affirms--either way, his assertions are
demonstrated to be untrue. As to the laws of Maryland, of which
mention had been made, he had not seen them since his visit to Boston
two years ago, and in adverting to them he had stated in general terms
what he understood them to be. The great object of these laws was said
to be the driving out of the free blacks from the state of Maryland.
Now that the means taken to promote this end were not of that grinding
and iniquitous character which Mr. Thompson had represented them as
being, would be sufficiently obvious to the meeting, when it was
considered that in that state there were three times the number of
free persons of color, than were to be found in the majority of the
free states, and considerably more than there were in any other state
in the Union. If the laws were found more oppressive in Maryland, how
did it come that the free blacks congregated there from all other
parts of America? Or if they were set free by the people so much
opposed to their increase, why did they not rather go to Pennsylvania,
which was separated from Maryland only by an imaginary line, and where
free blacks enjoyed almost the same rights as white men? But, again,
it was said, that that colonization scheme was an awfully wicked
scheme, because it sought to prevent the increase of free persons of
color in Maryland. But if this were a grievous sin, were the people of
Great Britain not equally guilty in sending away out of the country
ship loads of paupers, free whites, to other parts of the globe, in
order to prevent the increase of pauperism in this country? Why had
not this branch of the subject been adverted to by Mr. Thompson? Why
had he not, in the paroxysms of his enfuriated eloquence, while
abusing the American colonizationists, not included the king and
parliament of Britain for allowing the existence of laws, or if there
be no such law, for a practice rife in England, of expatriating
thousands of paupers not only by contributions, but at the public
expense. He would be told that the paupers were sent away to distant
parts of the globe, where they would be more comfortable in every
respect than they were at present. And had Mr. T. bowels of compassion
only for the black man? Is it lawful to export a white man against his
will, at the public charge, while it is unlawful to export a black
man, with his free consent, by private benevolence? Is America so
detestable a place, that England may lawfully make her the receptacle
of the refuse of the poor houses of the realm; while Africa is so
sacred a place, that no one that can even do her good is to be
permitted to go there from America, if his skin is dark? May Britain
say, she has more paupers than she can support, and so make it state
policy to force emigration from Ireland, by a system which makes a
quarter of the people there beg bread eight months out of twelve, and
produces inexpressible distress; and yet is Maryland to be precluded,
on any account, or upon any terms, from seeking the diminution, or
rather preventing the disproportionate increase, of a population,
anomalous, and difficult of proper regulation? He should be most happy
to receive an explanation of these strange contradictions! There was
another feature of the Maryland laws, which he might mention, which
forbade the emigration of slaves into Maryland, even along with their
owners. Mr. Thompson had prudently omitted all notice of that
enactment, while he had said a great deal about the registration of
free persons of color, as if it were a most intolerable hardship. He
(Mr. B.) was unable to see in what respect the great hardship
consisted. Was not every freeholder in this country registered? But
the free black was not allowed to leave the state of Maryland without
giving notice, it was said. There was nothing very oppressive in all
that. It was no worse interference on the part of the government, than
for the king of Great Britain to say to his subjects, You must return
home under certain contingencies; you shall not dwell in particular
places, nor fight for certain nations. Were the governments of
America, because they were republicans, not to have the power which
other nations had, of controlling the actions of that portion of their
population, whose movements must be regarded by all who regarded the
peace of society or the public good. He admitted, that some of the
laws in several of the states were hard and severe in reference to the
free colored population, but while he said so, it was but fair to add
that he considered the conduct of the abolitionists, in spreading
their new fangled notions, had done much to alter these laws for the
worse. In many instances the bad laws had become worse, and good laws
had become bad, solely through the imprudent conduct of Mr. Thompson's
associates. And this specific law of registration, and loss of right
of residence, by removal for any considerable time out of the state,
was obviously intended to prevent free persons of color from going out
and becoming imbued with false and bloody theories, and then returning
to disturb the public peace. The law says to them, Abide at home, or,
if you prefer it, depart, and find a home more to your mind; but if
you go, prudence requests us to prohibit your return. Mr. T.'s
complaints of this enactment, showed how necessary it was to have made
it.

In conclusion, he would recommend to Mr. Thompson, should he ever
return to America, he need not be so tremendously prudent in regard to
his personal safety, if he would just not be so tremendously imprudent
in the principles and proceedings he advocated, and the statements he
made with regard to the conduct of the American people. He had now
gone over the assertions of Mr. Thompson, regarding the Maryland
colonization scheme, and he trusted that he had shown the unfounded
nature of those assertions. All that had been said by Mr. T. as to the
principles and objects of the colonizationists, and the scope and
influence of their course, had no other proof than the writings of
those persons, who for some years, had formed a very small portion of
the supporters of this great interest; and who, without exception,
belonged to those classes, who at first, as had already been admitted,
supported it, for reasons, some of which were entirely political,
others perhaps severe to the slaves, and others unjust or
inconsiderate towards the free blacks. But that directly opposite
views, statements and arguments, could be more amply procured from the
still greater, and still proportionately increasing party, who support
this cause, as a great benevolent and religious operation, must be
perfectly known to the individual himself. If he admit this, said Mr.
B., it will show his present course to be of the same uncandid kind
with all the rest of his conduct towards America, in selecting what
answered his purpose; that always being the worst thing he could find,
and representing it as a fair sample of all. It will do more, it will
show that what he calls proof is no proof at all. But if he denies my
repeated representations as to the various classes of the original
supporters of the parent society, and the present state of them, I am
equally content; as, in that case, all America would have a fair
criterion by which to test his statements. As to the Maryland plan,
and that pursued by the united societies of Philadelphia and New York,
if they have any supporters except such as love the cause of the black
man, of temperance, and of peace, the world has yet to find it out.

The time being expired, Mr. B. sat down.




FOURTH NIGHT--THURSDAY, JUNE 16.


MR. THOMPSON said that before proceeding to the subject decided upon
for that evening's discussion, he must, in justice to himself and his
cause, offer a remark or two. He had on the previous evening been
struck with surprise at the extraordinary injustice of charging him
(Mr. T.) with quoting unfairly from the letter of Mr. Breckinridge in
the New-York Evangelist. It must have been obvious to all, that in the
first instance, he quoted from memory, but all would recollect with
the avowed wish of avoiding misrepresentation, he had gone to his
table--produced the letter, and read the passage entire without the
omission or interpolation of a letter or a comma. He, therefore,
emphatically denied the charge of garbling. Mr. Breckinridge did
himself, immediately afterwards, read the passage, and read it
precisely as he (Mr. Thompson) had read it. The imputation, therefore,
was equally unfounded and unfair. He (Mr. T.) was thankful that his
argument needed not such help. It would be as absurd as it would be
wicked for him to attempt to support his cause by any garbled
statement.

He begged also that it might be distinctly understood that he had by
no means exhausted the evidence in his possession on the subject of
Colonization. He could adduce a thousand times as much as that which
had been already brought forward. He had much to say of the colony at
Liberia; the means taken to establish it, the nature of the climate,
the character of the emigrants, the mortality amongst the settlers,
how much it had done towards the suppression of the slave trade, &c.
In fact, he was prepared with overwhelming evidence upon every branch
of the subject, and was willing to return to it at any moment,
confident that the arguments he could produce, and the facts by which
he could support them, would, in the estimation of the public, destroy
forever the claim of the Colonization Society to be considered a pure,
peaceful, or benevolent institution. I now, (said Mr. T.) come to the
topic immediately before us.

It is my solemn and responsible duty to bring before you to-night the
_principles_ and _measures_ of a large, respectable, and powerful body
in the United States, known by the name of IMMEDIATE ABOLITIONISTS. A
body of individuals embracing not fewer than fifteen hundred ministers
of the gospel, and men of the highest station and largest attainments.
A body of persons that have been charged upon this platform with being
a handful, "so small that they could not obtain their object, and so
erroneous (_despicable_ was, I believe, the word used) as not to
deserve success,"--charged with being the enemies of the
slave-holder--taking him by the throat, and saying "you great
thieving, man-stealing villain, unless you instantly give your slaves
liberty, I will pitch you out of this third-story window,"--charged
with carrying in their track a pestilence like a storm of fire and
brimstone from hell; forcing ministers of religion to seek peaceful
villages not yet blasted by it,--charged with saying that they were
sent from God, when they possessed the fury of demons,--charged,
finally, with having "thrown the cause" of emancipation "a _hundred
years_ farther back than it was five years ago." These are fearful
indictments, and Mr. Breckinridge has a weighty duty to fulfil
to-night, for he is bound to sustain them. They have been brought by
himself, a Christian minister, the professed friend of the slave; and
he must, therefore, abundantly support them by incontrovertible
evidence, or stand branded before the world as the worst foe of human
freedom--the foul calumniator of the friends and advocates of the
oppressed, the suffering, and the dumb.

He would lay the principles of the American abolitionists before the
audience in the words of their solemn and official documents. He would
go back to the commencement of the five years mentioned by his
opponent, and read from the "CONSTITUTION of the NEW-ENGLAND
ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY," a lucid exposition of the principles and
objects of the first Anti-Slavery Society (technically so called) in
the United States.

    "We, the undersigned, hold that every person of full age and
    sane mind, has a right to immediate freedom from personal
    bondage of whatsoever kind, unless imposed by the sentence of
    the law for the commission of some crime.

    We hold that man cannot, consistently with reason, religion,
    and the eternal and immutable principles of justice, be the
    property of man.

    We hold that whoever retains his fellow man in bondage, is
    guilty of a grevious wrong.

    We hold that a mere difference of complexion is no reason why
    any man should be deprived of any of his natural rights, or
    subjected to any political disability.

    While we advance these opinions as the principles on which we
    intend to act, we declare that we will not operate on the
    existing relations of society by other than peaceful and
    lawful means, and that we will give no countenance to
    violence or insurrection.

    With these views, we agree to form ourselves into a society,
    and to be governed by the rules specified in the following
    constitution, viz:

    ARTICLE 1. This Society shall be called the New-England
    Anti-Slavery Society.

    ARTICLE 2. The object of the society will be to endeavor, by
    all means sanctioned by law, humanity, and religion, to
    effect the Abolition of Slavery in the United States, to
    improve the character and condition of the free people of
    color, to inform and correct public opinion in relation to
    their situation and rights, and obtain for them equal civil
    and political rights and privileges with the whites."

He would now pass on to the formation of the National Anti-Slavery
Society, in December, 1833, and submit all that was material in the
"CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY."


    ARTICLE 2. The object of this Society is the entire abolition
    of slavery in the United States. While it admits that each
    State in which Slavery exists has, by the Constitution of the
    United States, the exclusive right to legislate in regard to
    its abolition in that State, it shall aim to convince all our
    fellow-citizens, by arguments addressed to their
    understandings and consciences, that slave-holding is a
    heinous crime in the sight of God; and that the duty, safety,
    and best interest of all concerned, require its immediate
    abandonment, without expatriation. The Society will also
    endeavor, in a constitutional way, to influence Congress, to
    put an end to the domestic slave trade; and to abolish
    slavery in all those portions of our common country which
    come under its control, especially in the district of
    Columbia, and likewise to prevent the extension of it to any
    State that may hereafter be admitted to the Union.

    ARTICLE 3. This Society shall aim to elevate the character
    and condition of the people of color, by encouraging their
    intellectual, moral, and religious improvement, and by
    removing public prejudice; that thus they may, according to
    their intellectual and moral worth, share an equality with
    the whites of civil and religious privileges; but the Society
    will never in any way countenance the oppressed in
    vindicating their rights by resorting to physical force.

    ARTICLE 4. Any person who consents to the principles of this
    Constitution, who contributes to the funds of this Society,
    and is not a slave-holder, may be a member of this Society,
    and shall be entitled to a vote at its meetings."

He would next read the "Preamble" to the Constitution of the
New-Hampshire State Anti-Slavery Society:

    "The most high God hath made of one blood all the families of
    man to dwell on the face of all the earth, and hath endowed
    all alike with the same inalienable rights, of which are
    life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; yet there are
    now in this land, more than two millions of human beings,
    possessed of the same deathless spirits, and heirs to the
    same immortal hopes and destinies with ourselves, who are
    nevertheless deprived of these sacred rights, and kept in the
    most cruel and abject bondage; a bondage under which human
    beings are bred and fattened for the market, and then bought,
    sold, mortgaged, leased, bartered, fettered, tasked,
    scourged, beaten, killed, hunted even like the veriest
    brutes,--nay, made often the unwilling victims of ungodly
    lust; while, at the same time, their minds are, by law and
    custom, generally shut out from all access to letters, and in
    various other ways all their upward tendencies are repressed
    and crushed, so as to make their "moral and religious
    condition such that they may justly be considered the heathen
    of this country;" and since we regard such oppression as one
    of the greatest wrongs that man can commit against his
    fellow; and existing as it does, and tolerated as it is,
    under this free and Christian government, sapping its
    foundation, bringing its institutions into contempt among
    other nations, thus retarding the march of freedom and
    religion, and strengthening the hands of despotism and
    irreligion throughout the world; and since we deem it a
    duty to ourselves, to our government, to the world, to
    the oppressed, and to God, to do all we can to end this
    oppression, and to secure an immediate and entire
    emancipation of the oppressed; and believe we can act most
    efficiently in the case, in the way of combined and organized
    action:--Therefore, we, the undersigned, do form ourselves
    into a Society for the purpose."

If there was anything for which the abolitionists as a body were
peculiarly distinguished, it was for the perfect uniformity of
sentiment upon all great points connected with the general question of
slavery. This was attributable to the clearness and fullness with
which the principles of the Society had been enunciated. Not so with
the Colonization Society. You quoted the language of the most eminent
of its supporters, but were immediately told that the Society was not
answerable for the views or designs of its advocates. How very
different a course did the Colonizationists pursue towards the
Anti-Slavery Society. That Society was not only made answerable for
all which the abolitionists _really_ said, and _really_ designed, but
for things they never said, and never designed. No Society was more
conspicuous for the simplicity of its principles, or the harmony of
views subsisting among its members. All regarded slave-holding as
sinful. All considered immediate emancipation to be the duty of the
master and the right of the slave. All deprecated the thought of a
servile insurrection to effect the extinction of slavery. All abhorred
the doctrine that "the end sanctifies the means." But all deemed it a
solemn duty to pursue, with energy and boldness, the overthrow of
slavery; all were one in believing and teaching, that the means
adopted should be honest, holy, peaceful, and moral. It had been said
that the only weapon should be "persuasion." He (Mr. T.) believed that
if no other weapon than "persuasion" was resorted to, slavery would be
perpetual. He believed that the gathered, concentrated, withering
scorn of the whole world, Pagan and Christian, must be brought down
upon slave-holding America, ere much effect could be produced. If this
was insufficient, it would be the duty of Britain to consider well
whether it was right to hold the destinies of the slaves of America in
her hand and not act accordingly. It would be the duty of the friends
of the slave to point to slave-grown produce, and cry, "touch not,
taste not, handle not" the accursed thing! Great Britain had the
power, by adopting a system of prohibitory duties or bounties, to
affect very materially the question at issue, and he (Mr. T.) doubted
not, that, if some such course was adopted, certain of the slave
States would immediately abolish slavery that they might find a
readier market and a higher price for their produce.

Notwithstanding, however, the precision with which the abolitionists
had stated their principles, and the wide publicity they had given
them, designs the most black, and measures the most monstrous and
wicked, had been charged upon them. They had been represented as
"firebrands," "incendiaries," "disorganizers," "amalgamatists"--as
promoting "disunion," "rebellion," and the "intermixture of the
races." Again and again, had they solemnly disclaimed the views
imputed to them, and pointed to their published "constitutions" and
"declarations;" but as often had their enemies returned to their work
of calumny and misrepresentation. How totally absurd was it to charge
upon the abolitionists the design of promoting amalgamation, while,
under the system of slavery, an unholy amalgamation was going on to
the most awful extent; demonstrated by the endless shades of
complexion at the south; and when nothing was more obvious than this,
that when a female was rescued from her present condition--inspired
with self-respect, and became the protector of her own virtue,--and
when fathers, and brothers, and husbands, were free to defend the
honor of their wives and daughters, the great causes, and incentives,
and facilities would cease, and cease forever, and to prove to the
world how solemnly the abolitionists had denied the imputations cast
upon them by their enemies, he would read from two documents put forth
during the great excitement which prevailed through the United States
in August last. The American Anti-Slavery Society, in "_An Address to
the public_," thus anew declared their principles and objects.

    "We hold that Congress has no more right to abolish slavery
    in the southern States, than in the French West-India
    Islands. Of course we desire no national legislation on the
    subject."

    "We hold that slavery can only be lawfully abolished by the
    Legislatures of the several States in which it prevails, and
    that the exercise of any other than moral influence to induce
    such abolition is unconstitutional."

    "We believe that Congress has the same right to abolish
    slavery in the District of Columbia, that the State
    Governments have within their respective jurisdictions, and
    that it is their duty to efface so foul a blot from the
    national escutcheon."

    "We believe that American citizens have the right to express
    and publish their opinions of the constitutions, laws, and
    institutions, of any and every state and nation under Heaven;
    and we mean never to surrender the liberty of speech, of the
    press, or of conscience--blessings we have inherited from our
    fathers, and which we intend, as far as we are able, to
    transmit unimpaired to our children."

    "We are charged with sending incendiary publications to the
    south. If by the term _incendiary_ is meant publications
    containing arguments and facts to prove slavery to be a moral
    and political evil, and that duty and policy require its
    immediate abolition, the charge is true. But if the term is
    used to imply publications _encouraging insurrection_, and
    designed to excite the slaves to break their fetters, the
    charge is utterly and unequivocally false. We beg our
    fellow-citizens to notice that this charge is made without
    proof, and by many who confess that they have never read our
    publications, and that those who make it, offer to the public
    no evidence from our writings in support of it."

    "We have been charged with a design to encourage
    intermarriages between the whites and blacks. The charge has
    been repeatedly, and is now again denied, while we repeat
    that the tendency of our sentiments is to _put an end_ to the
    criminal amalgamation that prevails wherever slavery exists."

These were only extracts from the address, which was of considerable
length, and thus concluded:

    "Such, fellow-citizens, are our principles. Are they unworthy
    of republicans and of Christians? Or are they in truth so
    atrocious, that in order to prevent their diffusion you are
    yourselves willing to surrender, at the dictation of others,
    the invaluable privilege of free discussion, the very
    birth-right of Americans? Will you, in order that the
    abomination of slavery may be concealed from public view, and
    that the capital of your republic may continue to be, as it
    now is, under the sanction of Congress, the great slave mart
    of the American Continent, consent that the general
    government, in acknowledged defiance of the constitution and
    laws, shall appoint, throughout the length and breadth of
    your land, ten thousand censors of the press, each of whom
    shall have the right to inspect every document you may commit
    to the Post-Office, and to suppress every pamphlet and
    newspaper, whether religious or political, which, in its
    sovereign pleasure, he may adjudge to contain an incendiary
    article? Surely we need not remind you, that if you submit to
    such an encroachment on your liberties, the days of our
    Republic are numbered, and that, although abolitionists may
    be the first, they will not be the last victims offered at
    the shrine of arbitrary power.

                            ARTHUR TAPPAN, _President_.
                            JOHN RANKIN, _Treasurer_.
                            WILLIAM JAY, _Sec. For. Cor._
                            ELIZUR WRIGHT, Jr.,_ Sec. Dom. Cor._
                            ABRAHAM L. COX, M. D., _Rec. Sec._
                            LEWIS TAPPAN,        }
                            JOSHUA LEAVITT,      } Members
                            SAMUEL E. CORNISH,   } of the
                            SIMEON S. JOCELYN,   } Executive
                            THEODORE S. WRIGHT,  } Committee.

      New-York, September 3, 1835."

The other document to which he had referred, was an "Address" adopted
at "A meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, duly held in
Boston, on Monday, August 17, A. D., 1835," signed by W. L. Garrison,
and twenty-seven highly respectable citizens of Boston, on behalf of
the Massachusetts Society, and others concurring generally in its
principles. He (Mr. T.) would only quote a few brief passages.

    "We are charged with violating, or wishing to violate, the
    Constitution of the United States. What have we done, what
    have we said to warrant this charge? We have held public
    meetings, and taken other usual means of convincing our
    countrymen that slave-holding is sin, and, like all sin,
    ought to be, and can be, immediately abandoned. We have said,
    in the words of the Declaration of Independence, that "ALL
    MEN are created equal," and that liberty is an inalienable
    gift of God to every man. We know of no clause in the
    Constitution which forbids our saying this. We appeal to the
    calm judgment of the community, to decide, in view of recent
    events, whether the measures of the friends, or those of the
    opposers of abolition, are more justly chargeable with the
    violation of the Constitution and laws."

       *       *       *       *       *

    "The foolish tale, that we would encourage amalgamation by
    intermarriage between the whites and blacks, though often
    refuted, as often re-appears. We shall content ourselves with
    a simple denial of this charge. We challenge our opponents to
    point to one of our publications in which such intermarriages
    are recommended. One of our objects is to prevent the
    amalgamation now going on, so far as can be done, by placing
    one million of the females of this country under the
    protection of law."

    "We are accused of interfering in the domestic concerns of
    the southern States. We would ask those, who charge this, to
    explain precisely what they mean by "interference." If, by
    interference be meant any attempt to legislate for the
    southern States, or to compel them, by force or intimidation,
    to emancipate their slaves, we at once deny any such
    pretension. We are utterly opposed to any force on the
    subject, but that of conscience and reason, which are
    "mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds." We
    fully acknowledge that no change in the slave-laws of the
    southern States can be made, unless by the southern
    Legislatures. Neither Congress nor the Legislatures of the
    free States have authority to change the condition of a
    single slave in the slave States. But, if by "interference"
    be intended the exercise of the right of freely discussing
    this subject, and, by speech, and through the press, creating
    a public sentiment, which will reach the conscience, and
    blend with the convictions of the slave-holder, and thus
    ultimately work the complete extinction of slavery, this is a
    species of interference which we can never consent to
    relinquish."

       *       *       *       *       *

    "We respectfully ask our fellow-citizens, whether we are to
    be deprived of these sacred privileges,--and, if so, whether
    the sacrifice of our rights will not involve consequences
    dangerous to all mental and even personal freedom. We have
    violated, we mean to violate, no law. We have acted, we
    shall continue to act, under the sanction of the Constitution
    of the United States. Nothing that we propose to do can be
    prevented by our opposers, without violating the Charter of
    our rights. To the Law and to the Constitution we appeal."

Such were the sentiments of the abolitionists of the United States of
America.

He (Mr. T.) would embrace the present opportunity of saying a few
words respecting his own mission to the United States. It had been
much denounced as an impertinent foreign interference; but he thought
the charge had neither grace nor honesty when it came from those who
were engaged, and, as he believed, most conscientiously and
praiseworthily, in seeking, by their missionaries and agents, to
overturn the institutions, social, political, and religious, of every
other quarter of the globe. Mr. Breckinridge had said that it would be
as just on his part to inveigh against England on account of Roman
Catholicism in the west of Ireland, or Idolatry in India, as it was on
his (Mr. T's.) to condemn America for the slavery existing in that
country. The cases were not quite parallel. Before they could be
compared, Mr. B. must prove that the population of Ireland were
_constrained_ to worship the Virgin Mary--that in India, men were
_forced_ by British Law to worship idols. No British subject was
compelled by any law of this country, or any other country to which
British sway extended, to be either a _Papist_ or an _Idolator_. But
in America, men were converted into _beasts_, "according to law," and
their souls and bodies crushed and degraded by a system most
vigorously enforced by the strong arm of the _State_. His opponent had
said, however, that slavery was not a national sin. He (Mr. T.) had to
thank a friend for suggesting an illustration of the knotty problem.
Suppose a number of _Agriculturists_ and _Merchants_ and _Highway
Robbers_ were to meet together to form a Union, and the Highway
Robbers were to say--come, let us unite for the purpose of common
security, and common prosperity: we will defend each other, and trade
with each other, but we will not "interfere" in each other's
_internal_ affairs. You, gentlemen, Agriculturists and Merchants,
shall promise that you will take no notice of my felonious and
cut-throat proceedings, and I, on my part, will pledge my honor not to
intermeddle in the affairs of your farms or counting-houses: and
suppose they were to shake hands, complete the bargain, and ratify an
indissoluble union of Agriculturists, Merchants, and Highway Robbers!
would the world hold the farmer or the merchant guiltless? Mr. B. had
said much of the purity and emancipation principles of Massachusetts,
and New-Hampshire and Maine. How came it to pass, then, that they were
in terms of such close and cordial fellowship with South Carolina,
and Georgia, and Louisiana, and so ready to mob, stone, and outlaw
those who deemed it their duty to cry aloud on behalf of the
oppressed? To return to his own mission. He would never condescend to
apologize for speaking the truth. He had a commission direct from the
skies, to rebuke sin and compassionate suffering wherever on the face
of the earth they existed. This world belonged to God; and all men
were His subjects and his (Mr. Thompson's) brethren. Men might be
naturally divided by rivers, and oceans, and mountains; they might be
politically divided by different forms of government, and specified
lines of demarkation; but he (Mr. T.) took the Bible in his hand and
deemed himself at liberty to address every human being on the face of
the earth in reference to those eternal principles of justice and
truth, which are alike in all countries and in all ages, and which the
subjects of God's moral government are everywhere bound to respect. He
would say to America and to England, silence your cry of foreign
interference, or call home your Missionaries from India, and China,
and Constantinople. To shew that the object of his mission was in
accordance with the spirit of the gospel, he would read an extract
from an article in the first number of the "_Abolitionist_," the organ
of "The British and Foreign Society for the Universal Abolition of
Slavery and the Slave Trade"--a Society with which he was connected
when he went to America, and whose Agent he still was. The objects of
his mission were thus set forth:

    "1. To lecture in the principal cities and towns of the free
    States, upon the character, guilt, and tendency of slavery,
    and the duty, necessity, and advantages of immediate and
    entire abolition. These addresses will be founded upon those
    great principles of humanity and religion, which have been so
    fully enunciated in this country, and will consequently be
    wholly unconnected with particular and local politics. This
    work will be carried on under the advice and with the
    co-operation of the Anti-Slavery Societies at present in
    existence in the United States.

    2. To aim, by every Christian means, at the overthrow of that
    prejudice against the colored classes, which now so
    lamentably prevails through all the States of America; and to
    regard as a principal mean to obtain this desirable object,
    their elevation in intellect and moral worth.

    3. To suggest to the friends of negro freedom in the United
    States the adoption and prosecution of such measures as were
    found conducive to the cause of abolition in this country,
    and may be found applicable to existing circumstances in
    that.

    4. To seek access to influential persons of various religious
    denominations, and especially to ministers of the gospel, for
    the purpose of explanatory conversation on the subjects of
    slavery and prejudice.

    5. To endeavor to effect a junction between the abolitionists
    of the United States of America and great Britain, with a
    view to the abolition of slavery and the slave trade
    throughout the world."

The principles of the American Societies, his own principles, and the
objects proposed by his mission to America, were now before his
opponent. He called upon him to throw aside his quibbles on legal
technicalities, and point out, if he were able, anything in the
documents he had read, or the sentiments he had advanced,
inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity, or the genius of
rational freedom. It had been said that abolitionism was "quackery,"
only four years old. He would give them a little of the quackery of
Benjamin Franklin, in the year 1790. He held in his hand a petition
drawn up by that celebrated man, and adopted by the "_Pennsylvania
Society for the Abolition of Slavery_," the preamble of which
recognizes the doctrines which are maintained by American
Abolitionists at the present day, and expresses the (_now incendiary_)
desire of diffusing them "_wherever the evils of Slavery exist_." Of
this Society, Dr. Franklin was elected President, and Dr. Rush the
Secretary. In 1790, this Society presented to the first Congress a
petition, from which the following is an extract:--

    "From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the
    portion, and is still the birth-right of all men, and
    influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the principles
    of their institutions, your memorialists conceive themselves
    bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bands of
    slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of
    freedom. Under these impressions, they earnestly entreat your
    serious attention to the subject of slavery; that you may be
    pleased to countenance the restoration to liberty of those
    unhappy men, who, alone in a land of freedom, are degraded
    into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of
    surrounding freemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that
    you will devise means for removing this inconsistency from
    the character of the American people; that you will promote
    mercy and justice towards this oppressed race, and that you
    will step to the very verge of the power vested in you, for
    discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our
    fellow-men."
                    (Signed)                BENJAMIN FRANKLIN,
                                                        President.
      _Philadelphia, February 2, 1790._"

Besides the venerable Franklin in 1790, he might refer to the truly
able speech of the Rev. David Rice, in the Convention held at
Danville, Kentucky, before, or soon after the petition just read--to
the sermon of Jonathan Edwards, the younger, in the year 1791--and to
a most excellent sermon by Alexander M'Leod, through whose zeal and
labors chiefly, the Reformed Presbyterians were brought to the
determination to rid their church of slavery, an object they
accomplished in the year 1802. It was a painful fact that the American
community had retrograded in feeling and sentiment upon the subject of
slavery. The anti-slavery feeling of 1820 was neither so pure nor so
strong as in 1800, or 1790; and in 1830 the feeling had become still
weaker, and the views of the community still more corrupted. This was
owing to the formation of the colonization society, which, like a
great sponge, gathered up and absorbed the anti-slavery feeling of the
country, and by proposing the removal of the colored population, and
constantly preaching such doctrines as were calculated to advance that
object, drew public attention away from the duty of immediate
emancipation on the soil, and caused the Christian community to rest
in a scheme based upon expediency, and fully in unison with their
prejudice against color. To those who compared the various sentiments
contained in the writings and speeches of the colonizationists, with
the pure and uncompromising principles advocated towards the close of
the last, and the beginning of the present century, nothing was more
obvious than the fact he had just stated, namely, that there had been
a gradual giving up of sound views and principles, for others
accommodated to the prejudices and interests and fears of the
different portions of the community. For instance, nothing was more
common in the records of the Colonization Society than the recognition
of a right of property in man; to find the advocates of the Society,
when speaking of the slaveholder and his slaves, saying, "we hold
their _slaves_, as we hold their other _property_, _sacred_." Mr.
Breckinridge might say "these are not my opinions;"--but he must know
they were the published opinions of the managers and chief advocates
of the Society, and it was for him to explain how he could lend a
Society his countenance and aid, which promulgated and upheld so
impious a doctrine as the right of property in God's rational,
accountable, and immortal creatures. He (Mr. T.) knew, however, that
the Society could assume all colors, and preach all kinds of
doctrines. At one time it was promoting emancipation, and at another,
increasing the value of slaves, and securing the master in the
possession of them. It had one face for the north, and another for the
south--a very Proteus enacting every sort of character; having no
fixed principles--never consistent with itself in anything but its
determination by all means to get rid, if possible, of the colored
man. If there was any one thing which, more than another, was
calculated to demonstrate the true character and tendency of the
Society, it was the opinions everywhere entertained respecting it by
the colored population. It was a fact that they loathed and abhorred
the Society. No man advocating it could be popular amongst them. Even
Mr. Breckinridge, with all his virtues and benevolence, was considered
by the colored people as practically their enemy, by helping to
sustain a Society which they regarded as the most effective engine of
oppression ever invented. Surely they were qualified to form a
judgment upon the subject. They had looked into its workings--they had
narrowly watched its movements, and had satisfied themselves that it
was full of all unrighteousness. If, on the other hand, the
abolitionists were, by their measures, doing vast injury to the cause
of the free colored people, how came it to pass, that they had the
love and confidence of that entire class of the population? How was it
that even the arch fiend of abolition, George Thompson, was by them
caressed and beloved, and that they would hang for hours upon the
accents of his lips--and that the tear of gratitude would start into
their eyes wherever he met them? The secret was soon told. He (Mr. T.)
spoke _to_ them and _of_ them, as _men_. He compromised none of their
rights--he exhibited no prejudice against their complexion. He did not
recommend exile as their only way of escape from their present and
dreaded ills. He preached justice, and kindness, and repentance to
their persecutors, and maintained the right of the bleeding captive to
full and unconditional liberty, with all the privileges and honors of
humanity. Therefore they loved him--therefore they would lay down
their lives for him. He would read a list of places, in all of which
the colored people had held meetings, and denounced the plans of the
Colonization Society, viz,--

Philadelphia, New-York, Boston, Baltimore, Washington; Brooklyn and
Rochester, in the State of New-York; Hartford, Middletown, New-Haven,
and Lime in the State of Connecticut; Columbia, Pittsburg, Lewistown,
and Harrisburg, in the State of Pennsylvania; Providence, in the State
of Rhode-Island; Trenton, in the State of New-Jersey; Wilmington, in
the State of Delaware; New-Bedford, in the State of Massachusetts;
Nantucket; in the National Convention of free colored persons, held in
Philadelphia, in 1831--by the same Convention in 1832, and, he
believed, in very subsequent Conventions.

To return to the Anti-Slavery Societies of the United States. He (Mr.
T.) knew them to be composed of the finest and purest elements in the
country. They were numerous and powerful. It would soon be proved
that, with the blessing of God, they were omnipotent. Knowing the
piety, intelligence, wealth, and energy of the abolitionists of
America, it required some effort to be calm when Mr. Breckinridge
stood before a British audience and compared them to Falstaff's ragged
regiment. The Society of Kentucky might be small in regard to numbers.
He believed, however, they were highly respectable. He referred to Mr.
J. G. Birney on this point. Mr. Breckinridge might represent on the
present occasion, if it pleased him, the abolitionists of his (Mr.
B's) country as beggarly, odious, and despicable: but if he lived to
revisit England (and he hoped he might) he believed he would then have
to find some other illustration of their character, numbers and
appearance, than the ragged regiment of Shakspeare's Falstaff.

Having stated the principles of the Anti-Slavery Societies in America,
he would exhibit, in the words of the Philadelphia declaration of
sentiments, their mode of operations. The National Society, formed
during the convention, thus made known to the world its intended
course of action:--

    We shall organize Anti-Slavery Societies, if possible, in
    every city, town and village in our land.

    We shall send forth Agents to lift up the voice of
    remonstrance, of warning, of entreaty and rebuke.

    We shall circulate, unsparingly, and extensively,
    anti-slavery tracts and periodicals.

    We shall enlist the "Pulpit" and the "Press" in the cause of
    the suffering and the dumb.

    We shall aim at a purification of the churches from all
    participation in the guilt of slavery.

    We shall encourage the labor of freemen rather than that of
    the slaves, by giving a preference to their productions: and

    We shall spare no exertions nor means to bring the whole
    nation to speedy repentance.

    Our trust for victory is solely in GOD. We may be personally
    defeated, but our principles never. Truth, Justice, Reason,
    Humanity, must and will gloriously triumph. Already a host is
    coming up to the help of the Lord against the mighty, and the
    prospect before us is full of encouragement.

    Submitting this declaration to the candid examination of the
    people of this country, and of the friends of liberty
    throughout the world, we hereby affix our signatures to it;
    pledging ourselves that, under the guidance and by the help
    of Almighty God, we will do all that in us lies, consistently
    with this Declaration of our principles, to overthrow the
    most execrable system of slavery that has ever been witnessed
    upon earth; to deliver our land from its deadliest curse; to
    wipe out the foulest stain which rests upon our national
    escutcheon; and to secure to the colored population of the
    United States all the rights and privileges which belong to
    them as men and as Americans--come what may to our persons,
    our interests, or our reputations--whether we live to witness
    the triumph of Liberty, Justice, and Humanity, or perish
    untimely as martyrs in this great, benevolent and holy cause.

      _Signed in the Adelphi Hall, in the City of Philadelphia,
      on the 6th day of December, A. D. 1833._

True to the pledges given in this declaration, the abolitionists had
printed, preached, and prayed without ceasing. As a proof of what they
were doing in one department of their work, he would exhibit a number
of newspapers, tracts, pamphlets, and other periodicals, which were in
circulation throughout the country. Mr. Thompson then produced copies
of the "Slaves Friend," "Anti-Slavery Records," "Anti-Slavery
Anecdotes," "Human Rights," "Emancipator," "Liberator," "New-York
Evangelist," "Zion's Herald," "Zion's Watchman," "Philadelphia
Independent Weekly Press," "Herald of Freedom," "Lynn Record," "New
England Spectator," &c., and an "Anti-Slavery Quarterly," edited by
Professor Wright, the Secretary of the National Society, and
distinguished by considerable literary talent. These were amongst the
means pursued by the Abolitionists. They were peaceful and honorable
means, and under God, would prove effectual to bring the
blood-cemented fabric of Slavery to the ground. Other than moral and
constitutional means, the abolitionists sought not to employ. Their's
would not be the glory reaped upon the crimson field amidst the
carnage and the din of war. Their victory would not be a victory
achieved by the use of carnal weapons, effecting the freedom of one
man by the destruction of another. Their victory would be a victory
won by the potency of principles drawn from the Gospel of the Prince
of Peace--their glory the glory of those who had obtained a bloodless
conquest over the consciences and hearts of men. In the full
conviction that the principles he (Mr. Thompson) had that night
maintained, were the principles of the word of God, he would still
prosecute the work to which he had for some years devoted himself. He
called upon those around him to be true to those principles, and to
continue zealously to advocate them, and leave the consequences in the
hands of God. Let the friends of human rights again rally under the
banner which had aforetime led them to battle--under which they had
together fought and together triumphed--and to remember that the motto
inscribed upon its ample folds--a motto which, though oft abused, had
oft sustained them in the hour of conflict--was, Fiat Justicia ruat
Coelum.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE rose. Having taken a good many notes of what Mr.
Thompson had said in the speech now delivered, he was prepared for
replying, if an opportunity were presented after he should have
finished saying what seemed to him more pertinent to the subject in
hand. In the meantime, he would introduce what he had now to say by
reading another version of the events which had been represented as
one of Mr. Thompson's triumphs at Boston.

    Mr. May introduced a resolution denouncing the Colonization
    Society as unworthy of patronage, because it disseminates
    opinions unfavorable to the interest of the colored people.

    Mr. Gurley replied. He finished the consideration of Mr.
    May's objections, went into an exposition of the advantages
    of the Colonization Society, and contrasted its claims with
    those of the Anti-Slavery Society. In doing this, he
    exhibited a handbill, having a large cut of a negro in
    chains, with some inflammatory sentences under it. Here he
    was interrupted by hisses, which were answered by clapping.
    Mr. George Thompson rose and attempted to address the
    meeting. This increased the confusion, Cries of "sit
    down--shame--be silent--let Mr. May answer if he can--no
    foreign interference," &c., from all parts of the hall. Mr.
    Thompson persevered as few men would have done, but at last
    yielded to the evident determination of the audience, and
    took his seat. The hall then became still, and Mr. Gurley
    proceeded.

    We do not know that any Anti-Colonizationist was convinced by
    these discussions; except men who are committed against the
    Society, we believe the very general opinion is, that their
    overthrow on the field of argument was as complete as any
    could desire. It is evident that the cause of the
    Colonization Society is gaining a hold on the convictions and
    affections of the people of New-England stronger than it ever
    had before. We say this in view of facts which are coming to
    our knowledge from various parts. The storm of abuse and
    misrepresentation with which it has been assailed, is
    beginning already to contribute to its strength.

Now he begged to remark that the paper from which he had read the
foregoing extract, the New-York Observer, together with the one from
which it was originally taken, the Boston Recorder, printed more
matter weekly than all the avowed abolition newspapers, in America,
put together, did in half a year. He would notice farther, in relation
to the great display of abolition publications which had been made by
Mr. Thompson on the platform, that one of the papers lying there on
the table, had advocated his principles and cause when he was in
Boston, and likely to be mobbed at the instigation, as he believed,
of Mr. Garrison. Some of the remainder of the publications were, he
believed, long ago dead; some could hardly be said ever to have
lived; some were purely occasional; the greater part as limited in
circulation as they were contemptible in point of merit. Not above
two or three of the dozen or fifteen that had been produced before
them--and the names of which he (Mr. B.) required to be recorded--were
in fact, worthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition
newspapers. But to come to the point immediately in hand. He would
on the present occasion attempt to show that abolition was not worthy
to supplant the colonization scheme in the affections of Americans
or Britons, or of any other thinking people. He acknowledged that
there were many respectable men in the ranks of the abolitionists;
but these, almost without exception, had been at one time
colonizationists; and had he time he might show that many of them
had deserted the colonization society on some peculiar or personal
grounds, not involving the principles of the cause. He was prepared
to show, however, that by whomsoever supported, the principles of the
abolitionists were essentially wrong, and that their practice was
still worse. He had not access to the voluminous documents brought
forward by Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson had, indeed, that evening, on
this platform, publicly offered him access to them. Had that offer
been made at the beginning of the discussion, instead of the end of
it, or during the four or five days we spent in Glasgow before it
commenced, it might have been turned to some advantage. But as it
was, the audience would know how to appreciate it; and he must rely
solely upon memory, when he stated the principles promulgated by
abolitionists; though at the same time he pledged himself that his
statements not only were intended to be, but were, substantially
correct and entirely candid. The abolitionists held, then, in the
first place, as a fundamental truth, that every human being had an
instant right to be free, irrespective of consequences to himself and
others; consequently that it was the duty of masters to set free their
slaves instantly, and irrespective of all consequences; and of course,
sinful to exercise the powers of a master for one moment, or for any
purpose. This was, in substance, the great principle on which the
abolitionists acted--a principle which he was now prepared to
question. He had, on a former occasion, shown that there were only two
parties responsible for the existence of slavery, namely, individual
slave-holders, and slave-holding communities. He would now attempt to
prove, that, as applied to either of these, this principle was not
only false, but that it was a mere figment, and calculated to produce
tremendous evil. Let them first attend to what the abolitionists say
to the individual slave-holder. Perhaps the person addressed was an
inhabitant of Louisiana; where, if it is not directly contrary to
law, to manumit a slave--the law refuses to recognize the act. Was he
to be told then that he should turn off his slaves, the young and
helpless along with the old and the infirm, with the certain knowledge
that so soon as they left his plantation, they would commence a career
of trouble and sorrow most likely to end in their being seized,
imprisoned, fined, and again enslaved. Mr. Thompson had mentioned, in
nearly all his printed speeches, the case of a certain colored man,
who had been thrown into prison at Washington city, and sold into
eternal slavery to discharge the fees which had accrued by reason of
his oppression. Now he (Mr. B.) took leave to say that this story was
false, in toto. It was customary in some parts of America to sell
vagabonds, in order to make up their jail fees; but they were bound
for no longer a period than was necessary to do this. The system was
this--they were taken up as vagrants. If they were able and willing to
show that they had some regular and honest means of livelihood, they
were of course acquitted and discharged; but when they were unable to
do this, they were sold for as much as would pay the fees of
detention, trial, &c. That any person, black or white, once recognized
by the law as free, was ever sold into everlasting slavery, he
positively denied, and demanded proof. In Louisiana, however, it being
illegal to manumit a slave, those whom the abolitionists would set
free, would not be considered free in the eye of the law. They might
be harrassed, imprisoned as vagabonds, sold to pay expenses, as
vagabonds, and so soon as set free again imprisoned. He admitted that
such proceedings would be inexcusable; but what was a benevolent man,
who had the welfare of his slave really at heart, to do with an eye to
them? To act upon the abolitionist principle, would be to consign the
slave to incalculable misery, for they had but one lesson to
teach--turn loose the slaves, and leave consequences to God! The
colonizationists, however, are provided with a better remedy. If
Louisiana would not countenance manumission, nor suffer manumitted
slaves to remain within her bounds, with the usual privileges of
freemen, let them be taken to some other State, where such laws did
not exist; or if this should not on the whole be desirable, let them
be taken to Liberia. No, repeats Mr. Thompson; discharge your slaves
at once, and leave the consequences to God. If, by the wicked laws of
Louisiana, they are left to starve, or driven to desperation, or sold
again into slavery, the responsibility is theirs; do you your duty in
setting them immediately at liberty. It would require, however, that a
humane individual should be very strongly impressed with the truth of
this principle before he could persuade himself to do that which was
evidently so cruel in its immediate effects, and so likely to be
ruinous in those that are more remote. Yet that principle was, to say
the least, extremely doubtful, and ought not at every hazard to be
crammed down the throats of an entire nation. If the laws of the
community were bad, as he admitted it to be the case, he supposed it
was the duty of enlightened citizens to seek a change of that law by
proper means, but not in the meantime to do that which would be
totally insubordinate to the State--and injurious to all parties.
Whether, moreover, it was either fair or candid to denounce, as had
been done, the free States as being participators in slavery, because,
though they did not themselves hold a property in slaves, they did not
choose to swallow such nostrums even without chewing, could not be a
question. If it was so doubtful whether duty to the slaves themselves
rendered the immediate breaking up of all relations between them and
their masters a proper or even a permitted thing, it was still more
questionable whether our duties to the State may not imperiously
forbid what our duties to the slave have already warned us against. I
have omitted all considerations of a personal or selfish kind--all
rules of conduct drawn from what is due to one's self, one's family,
or one's condition, or engagements. Common benevolence forbids, as we
have seen, and common loyalty prohibits, as we shall see--what a man
must do, or lie under the curse of abolitionism. For though it be our
duty to seek the amendment of bad laws, because they are bad, it is
equally our duty to obey laws because they are laws, unless it is
clear that greater ill will follow from obedience than from
disobedience. Now all our slave States are perfectly willing that
their citizens should emancipate their slaves; only many of them
insist on their doing it elsewhere, than within their borders. As long
as other lands exist, ready to receive the manumitted slave, and
certain to be benefitted by his reception, it is to preach treason, as
well as cruelty, and folly as well as either, to assert the bounden
duty of the individual slave-holder, at all hazards, to attempt an
impossibility on the instant, rather than accomplish a better result
by foresight, preparation, and suitable delay. It may therefore be
boldly said that instant surrender of the authority of the master,
irrespective of all other considerations, must, in many cases, be a
great crime in the individual slave-holder. He would now speak of this
abolition principle to which he had adverted as a rule of conduct for
slave-holding communities. In this respect, also, he considered that
it was at best extremely questionable. Let us illustrate the principle
by the oft-repeated case of the District of Columbia. Abolitionism
asserts that it is the clear duty of Congress to abolish slavery
instantly in that District, without regard to what may occur
afterwards in consequence of that act. Let us admit that the
dissolution of the Federal Union is a consequence not worthy of
regard--even when distinctly foreseen; and that all the evils
attendant on such a result, to human society, and to all the great
interests of man throughout the earth, are as nothing, compared with
the establishment of a doubtful definition, having an antiquity of at
least four years, and a paternity disputed between Mr. Garrison and
Mr. Thompson. As a principle concerning no other creature but the
slaves of the District, and no interest but theirs, it can be shown to
be false. If Congress were instantly to abolish slavery there, with a
tolerable certainty that every slave in the District would be removed
and continued with their issue in perpetual slavery; when by an
arrangement with the owners, they might so prospectively abolish it as
to secure the freedom of every slave in five or ten years, and of
their issue as they successively arrived at twenty or twenty-five
years of age; if Congress could do the latter, and were in preference
to do the former, they would deserve the execrations of the world. The
first plea is Mr. Thompson and abolitionism; the second express my
principles and those of the despised gradualists. At all events, the
truth of the principle involved in the former supposition was not so
manifest as to justify Mr. Thompson in denouncing, as he had done,
those who did not see proper to follow it. A wise man would
hesitate--he would weigh well the resulting circumstances as one of
the best tests of the truth and utility of his principles before he
propagated, as indisputably and exclusively true, and that in despite
of all results, such principles, with the violence which had been
manifested--principles which, he repeated, were but four years old,
and which he was still convinced, were but arrant quackery. There was
another aspect of the subject. Reference had been made to the
representation of the black population in the National Government. He
would remark on this subject that it was the duty of every State to
see that power was committed only to the hands of those qualified to
exercise it properly, wisely, and beneficially. What would be said in
this country, were Mr. Thompson to propose that the elective franchise
should be made universal, and that the age at which it might be
exercised should be fixed at fifteen years? He would venture to say
that the ministry who would introduce such a scheme to Parliament,
would not exist for three days. The proposal, as Mr. T. no doubt knew,
would be considered altogether revolutionary and shocking. Yet it must
be admitted that the average of the boys of Britain who are fifteen
years old, are fully as well qualified for the exercise of the elected
franchise, as the average of the slaves in the various parts of the
United States are at the age of twenty-one years. But with us, as with
you, twenty-one years is the age at which electors vote. As I have
shown, in most of our States the elective franchise is extended to
every white man, who has attained that age; while the qualifications
of a property kind, anywhere required, are so extremely moderate, that
in all our communities nine-tenths at least of the adult white males
are entitled to vote. Now let it be borne in mind, that abolitionism
requires not only instant freedom for the slave, but also instant
treatment of him, in every civil and political, as well as every
social and religious respect, as if he were white, that is, in plain
terms--if we should follow the dogmas you sent Mr. T. to teach us, and
in which we have been held up to the scorn of all good men, for
declining to receive, a revolution far more terrible and revolting
would immediately follow throughout all our slave States, than would
follow in Britain by enfranchising in a day, every boy in it fifteen
years old--even if your house of lords were substituted by an elective
senate, and your parliaments made annual! And it is in the light of
such results, that America has received with horror the enunciation of
principles which lead directly to them, while their advocates declare
"all consequences" indifferent as it regards their conduct! And can it
be the duty of any commonwealth to bring upon itself "instantly,"--or
at all--such a condition as this? The abolitionists themselves had
evidently felt that their scheme was absurd; for they had never
ventured to propose it to a slave State. Their papers were published
and their efforts all made, and their organized agitation carried on,
and a tremendous uproar raised in States where there existed no power
whatever to put an end to slavery; but hardly a syllable had been
uttered where, if anywhere, some effect might have been produced
beneficial to the slaves, had abolition principles been practicable
anywhere. The conduct of the abolitionists had been of a piece with
what would have taken place in this country, had an agitation been got
up for the direct abolition of idolatry in China, or of popery in
Spain. Their principles had never yet been advocated in the South, but
by means of the post-office, the effects of which, in the tearing up
of mail bags, &c., Mr. Thompson well knew, and had declared. But the
fact was, that such metaphysical propositions as those propounded by
the abolitionists--even admitting them to be true--were altogether
uncalled for. Thousands of slaves had been emancipated before the
abolition principles were heard of, and all that was needed, was, that
those who were engaged in the good work should have been let alone or
aided on their own principles. What was the use of blazoning forth a
doctrine which was in all likelihood false and ruinous, but which,
were it true, could do no good? For if you could persuade a man that
his duty required him to give freedom to his slaves, and he became
suitably impressed with a sense thereof--he would do it just as
certainly and effectually as though you had begun by saying to
him--now as soon as I convince you, you must set them free
immediately! He could indeed characterize such a mode of proceeding by
no other term than that of gratuitous folly.

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

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

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

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

       *       *       *       *       *

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

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

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

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

The account of his second visit in July, 1835, was thus given in a
letter addressed to the editor of the Liberator.

    "It had been previously announced that Mr. Thompson would
    address us on Tuesday evening. The hour arrived, and a large
    and respectable audience were convened in the expectation of
    again listening to the--(Mr. Thompson here omitted some
    complimentary expressions.) After the introductory prayer,
    Mr. Phelps arose, and said he regretted that he was obliged
    to state that Mr. Thompson had not yet arrived in town, but
    he thought it probable he would soon be with us. He then
    resumed the subject of American Slavery. He had, however,
    uttered but a few sentences before Mr. T. came in. His
    arrival was immediately announced from the desk, and the
    expression of satisfaction, manifested by the audience, told,
    more eloquently than words, the estimation in which they held
    this beloved brother, and the pleasure they felt on again
    enjoying the opportunity of listening to his appeals. Mr.
    Thompson took his seat in the desk, and Mr. Phelps then
    proceeded at some length. When he closed his remarks, Mr.
    Thompson arose, and after some introductory remarks,
    answered, in a powerful and eloquent manner, the inquiry,
    'Why don't you go to the South.'

    "The first part of the three succeeding evenings was occupied
    by Mr. Phelps, in exposing the janus-faced monster, the
    American Colonization Society, which he did in so masterly a
    manner, that we are quite sure none of his auditors, save
    those who are willfully blinded, will hereafter doubt of its
    being 'a fraud upon the ignorance, and an outrage upon the
    intelligence of the community.'"

    "Thursday evening Mr. Thompson vindicated himself against the
    aspersions heaped upon him for denouncing Dr. Cox. I would
    that all Mr. Thompson's friends had been present, and his
    enemies too, for I am sure that unless encased in a shield of
    prejudice more impenetrable than steel, they would have been
    compelled to acknowledge that his denunciation of Dr. Cox was
    just, and not such an instance of tiger-like malice as some
    have represented it to be." "Friday evening (the evening to
    which the extract read by Mr. Breckinridge referred) he spoke
    of the 'armed neutrality' of the seminary and the course
    which had been taken in the Academical Institutions of
    Andover. He is accused of wantonly abusing our Professors and
    Teachers--of making personal attacks upon them. No personal
    attacks however were made; no man's motives were impeached.
    He attacked PRINCIPLES and not MEN for while he would render
    to the guardians of the seminary and academies all that
    respect which their station and learning and piety demands,
    he would at the same time condemn the course that had been
    pursued, as having a tendency to retard the progress of
    emancipation. Let the public judge as to the propriety of his
    remarks.

It would be recollected that the same question had been put to him
here in Glasgow, as that which he had answered at Andover. "Why don't
you go to the South?" He would tell his opponent on the present
occasion, that even he could not advocate abolition sentiments in the
South, purely and openly, without endangering his life. The reason he
was able to express his views on slavery and remain unmolested, was
because it was known that he denounced the abolitionists, and
advocated colonization. The experience of Mr. Birney was in point.
That gentleman hated slavery before he joined the abolitionists, and
was in the habit of speaking against it, in connection with the
colonization cause, and was permitted to do so without hindrance; but
when he emancipated his slaves, and called upon others to do likewise,
upon true anti-slavery principles, he was forced to fly from his
residence and family, and was now in the city of Cincinnati.

It had been tauntingly Said, "show us the fruits of your principles."
"Where are the slaves you have liberated?" He would reply, that in
Kentucky, very recently, nineteen slaves had been liberated upon
anti-slavery principles:--enough to answer Mr. B's demand, "point us
to _one_ slave your Society has been the means of liberating." But the
question was not to be so tested. The abolitionists of Britain were
often called upon in the same way; and their answer was, our
principles are extending, and when they are sufficiently impressed
upon the public mind, there will be a _general_ emancipation of the
slaves. On the 31st of July, 1834, they could not point to any
actually free in consequence of their efforts; but the night came and
passed away, and the morrow dawned upon 800,000 human beings, lifted
by the power of anti-slavery principles, out of the legal condition of
chattels, into the position of free British subjects. So in the United
States. The principles of abolition would necessarily be some time
extending, but ultimately they would effect a change in public
opinion, and a corresponding change in the treatment of the black man.

Mr. Breckinridge had disputed the truth of the fact he (Mr. T.) had
stated relative to the imprisonment and sale into bondage for life, in
the city of Washington, of a black man, justly entitled to his
freedom. He (Mr. T.) trusted that in this matter also he should be
able most satisfactorily to establish his own veracity. The evidence
he would produce to support the statement he had made, was, "A
memorial of the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, U. S., signed
by one thousand of the most respectable citizens of the District, and
presented to Congress, March 24, 1828, then referred to the Committee
on the District, and on the motion of Mr. Hubbard, of New-Hampshire,
Feb. 9, 1835, ordered to be printed." He (Mr. T.) held in his hand the
genuine document printed by Congress, "22d Congress, 2d Session, House
of Representatives, Doc. No. 140." The following was the part
containing the fact he had mentioned.

    "A colored man, who stated that he was entitled to freedom
    was taken up as a runaway slave, and lodged in the jail of
    Washington City. He was advertised, but no one appearing to
    claim him, he was according to law, put up at public auction
    for the payment of his jail fees, and SOLD as a SLAVE for
    LIFE. He was purchased by a slave trader, who was not
    required to give security for his remaining in the District
    and he was soon shipped at Alexandria for one of the southern
    States. An attempt was made by some benevolent individual to
    have the sale postponed until his claim to freedom could be
    investigated; but their efforts were unavailing; and thus was
    a human being SOLD into PERPETUAL BONDAGE at the capital of
    the freest government on earth, without even a pretence of
    trial, or an allegation of crime."

He should be glad to find that Mr. B. had a satisfactory explanation
of this most revolting case. Such things were enough to make any man
speak hardly of America. If he (Mr. T.) said severe things of that
country, it was not, Heaven knew, because he did not love that
country, for his heart's desire and prayer was, that she might soon be
free from every drawback upon her prosperity and usefulness. He told
these things because they ought to be known and branded as they
deserved, that the nation guilty of them might repent and abandon
them. _He_ was not the enemy of America that faithfully pointed out
her follies and crimes. No. He was the man that loved America, that
seeing her, like some lofty tree, spreading abroad her branches, and
furnishing at once shelter and sustenance to all who sought refuge
under her shade, observed with sorrow and dismay, a canker-worm at the
root, threatening to consume her beauty and her strength, and could
not rest day or night in his efforts to bring so great and glorious a
nation to a sense of her danger, and an apprehension of her duty. Let
others do the pleasant work of flattery and panegyric, and be it his
more ungracious, but not less salutary work, of proclaiming her
errors, and denouncing her sins, until she learns to do justice and
love mercy.

(He (Mr. T.) thought he might with some justice complain of the manner
in which he had been treated by his opponent. He (Mr. T.) had made
every concession which truth and justice would warrant to Mr. B.; had
honored his motives, and studiously separated him from those upon whom
his heaviest censures had fallen--the lovers and abettors of the slave
system. But a similar course had not been pursued towards him. In many
ways his motives had been impeached and his statements so denied as to
throw discredit upon his intentions in making them. In a word, Mr.
B's. whole course had been wanting in that courtesy which he had a
right to expect would be exhibited by one disputant towards another.
At the same time, he earnestly desired Mr. B. to state freely all he
thought of his motives and conduct.

A few moments yet remaining, he would say a word or two in reference
to the designs attributed to the abolitionists, in respect of the
privileges to which the colored people were entitled. He denied that
the abolitionists had ever asked for the blacks, either in regard to
political rights or social privileges, anything unreasonable. They
asked for their immediate release from personal bondage, and a
subsequent participation of civil rights; according to the amount in
which they possessed the qualifications demanded of others. Where, in
the documents of abolitionists, was the doctrine of instant and
universal enfranchisement, of which so much had been heard? He knew
not the abolitionist who had contended for such a thing. He asked
nothing for him over and above what would be freely bestowed on him if
he were white. Oh! it was an awful crime to have a black skin! There
lay all the disqualification.

The great fault which Mr. B. seemed to find with the principles of the
abolitionists was that they were too lofty; too grand; too little
accommodated to the spirit of the age; that, in the adoption of their
views and principles, they had not consulted the manners and habits
and prejudices of their country; and the whole of his (Mr.
Breckinridge's) argument had been in favor of expediency. He hated
that word "expediency," as ordinarily used. It contained, as he had
often said, the doctrine of devils. It was so congenial with our
depraved nature to make ourselves a little wiser than God--to believe
that we understood better than God's servants of old the best way of
reforming mankind. Oh! that men would take the Almighty at his word,
and simply doing their duty, leaving him to take care of consequences.
Doubtless, the dauntless Hebrew, Daniel, was deemed, in his day, a
rash man. He might so very easily have escaped the snare laid for him.
Why did he not go to the back of the house? Why not shut the window?
Why could he not pray silently to the searcher of hearts? Daniel
scorned compromise. He prayed as he had ever prayed--aloud--with his
window open, and his face to Jerusalem. He boldly met the
consequences. He walked to the lion's den--he entered, he remained:
but lo! on the third day he came forth unhurt, to tell mankind to the
end of time that, if they will do their duty and trust in Daniel's
God, no weapon formed against them shall prosper, but they shall in
His strength stop the mouths of lions, and put to flight the armies of
the aliens.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mr. BRECKINRIDGE said that, so far as the present respectable audience
was concerned, he would make but a single remark. Mr. Thompson and he
had already trespassed on their patience, but they would probably do
so no longer than to-morrow night; at least so far as he was
concerned, he thought it unnecessary, if not improper. The chief
reason of his (Mr. B's.) coming here was to defend the churches,
ministers and Christians of America, from the false and dreadful
charges which had been proclaimed over Britain against them by Mr.
Thompson, and which he had challenged all the world to give him an
opportunity to prove. Upon this topic that gentleman had, as yet,
fought shy. He could wait on him no longer. They might expect,
therefore, that next evening he would take up that subject, whether
Mr. Thompson should follow him or not. If the audience considered that
the general subject had been sufficiently discussed already--as from
some manifestations he was inclined to suppose--he would at once
retire. (Slight hissing.) Was he to consider that as an answer in the
affirmative? (Renewed hissing.) Why, then, he had erred in laying any
of the blame of trying their patience on Mr. Thompson, and it was his
duty to take it all to himself; and, when he returned home, to tell
his countrymen that no charges were too gross or caluminous to be
entertained against them--nor any length of time, a weariness in
hearing them--but that the hearing of defence and proof of innocence
was an insupportable weariness. (Increased hissing, with cries of
'no'.) The only remaining supposition was, that Mr. T's. partizans had
become convinced he needed succor, and therefore gave it most
naturally in the form of organized violence. (The hissing was again
attempted, but was put down by the general voice of the meeting.) Mr.
T., he said, had at length brought accusations against him, and had
complained that although he (Mr. T.) had repeatedly and cordially
expressed good feelings towards him, (Mr. B.) he had in no instance
returned this kindness or justice; nor said a word favorable to him
throughout the debate. He would appeal to the Chairman, to know
distinctly, if Mr. Thompson had any right to demand, or if he (Mr. B.)
were bound to express his opinion of that individual. Because,
continued Mr. B., as I have in the beginning said that Mr. T. as an
individual could be nothing to me or my countrymen, I have preferred
to be silent as to him individually. If he is right, however, in
bringing such things as charges against me, and continues to demand
my opinion, I will give it fearlessly. But let him beware--for I will
call no man friend who gains his bread by calumniating my country. Nor
can he who traduces my bretheren--my kindred--my home--all that I most
venerate and revere--honor me so much as by traducing me. They had
been told that Mr. J. G. Birney had fled from Kentucky, and left his
wife and children behind him in great danger, he being obliged to flee
for his life. It was true, he believed, that Mr. Birney, excellent and
beloved as he was, had found it best to emigrate from that State. But
that he had _fled_, rested, he believed, on Mr. T's. naked assertion.
That he had left his wife and children behind, believing them to be in
personal danger, was a thing which it would require amazingly clear
proof to establish against the gentleman in question. But he would
show to the meeting that there was one individual who could do such an
act. (Mr. B. then read the following extract from a speech, delivered
at a meeting in Edinburgh, on the 28th of January, 1836:)

    "He stood there not to defame America. It was true they had
    persecuted him; but that was a small matter. It was true they
    had hunted him like a partridge on the mountains; that he had
    to lecture with the assassin's knife glancing before his
    eyes; AND HIS WIFE AND HIS LITTLE ONES WERE IN DANGER OF
    FALLING BY THE RUTHLESS HANDS OF MURDERERS."

And again, from the preface to the same pamphlet in which the above
cited speech is found, a pamphlet intended perhaps for America, and
called, "A Voice to her from the Metropolis of Scotland," the
following paragraph occurs:----

    "Mr. Thompson having proceeded by way of St. John's, New
    Brunswick, embarked on board of a British vessel for
    Liverpool, where he arrived on the 4th of January, and on the
    12th was happily joined by his family who had left New-York
    on the 16th December.

So that it appeared from these statements that Mr. Thompson, believing
that the Americans meant to take away the lives of his wife and
children, left them to their fate while he prudently consulted his own
safety by flight. In regard to the alleged case of the sale of a free
man of color, at Washington city, the proof stood thus: Mr. T. broadly
asserted, again and again, that a free man had been sold, without
trial, into eternal slavery. He, (Mr. B.) without knowing the especial
facts relied on, but knowing America, and knowing abolitionism, had
flatly and emphatically denied that such a thing ever did or could
happen in the District of Columbia. Mr. Thompson re-asserts, and
triumphantly proves it, as he says. His first step in the proof is, a
printed scrap, which, he says, is the identical memorial laid on the
table of the Senate of the United States, who, as they received and
printed it, he insinuates, thereby avouched its truth. Upon which
principle I also avouch all Mr. T.'s charges, as I hear them and
consent to their publication. But, he adds, there were once one
thousand signatures to this document, all witnesses of the truth of
its contents. To which I reply--I see no name to it at all now; and
secondly, if there were a million, the paper does not assert, much
less prove, what Mr. T. produces it to sustain. It merely declares
_that the man said he was free_; without even expressing the opinion
of the writer or any signer of the paper. Now, upon this case, and
this proof, it is nearly certain that the man was not free, and
extremely probable that the whole case is fictitious. For the glorious
writ of habeas corpus, one of the main pillars of your liberty--a
privileged writ which no English judge, for his right hand, would dare
illegally refuse; that writ is one of the great heirlooms we got with
our Anglo-Saxon blood, and is dearer to us than that blood itself.
Here, by act of Parliament, you do sometimes suspend this writ; with
us the tyrant does not breathe who would dare to whisper a wish for
its suspension. Now, if this man was, or believed himself to be free,
what hindered him, from the moment of his arrest to that of his sale,
from demanding and receiving a fair trial? Will it be said he did not
know his rights? But will it be pretended that the one thousand
signers of the memorial, the many abolitionists at Washington of whom
Mr. T. boasts, did not know his rights--in a land where every man
knows and is ready to defend his rights? If they did not, they were
thrice sodden asses, fit only to be tools in gulling mankind into the
belief of a tale that had not feasibility enough to gull a child. Upon
the face of his own proof Mr. Thompson had shown that he had not the
slightest authority for the assertions he had so often made in arguing
this case; by all of which he intended to make men believe that in
America it was not uncommon to sell free men into slavery! Mr.
Breckinridge then resumed the consideration of abolition principles;
the _third of which_ was, that all prejudice against color is sinful,
and that everything which induces us to refuse any social, personal,
religious, civil, or political right to a black man, which is allowed
to a white one, not superior to him in moral or intellectual
qualifications, is a prejudice, and therefore sinful. He believed this
to be a fair statement of their principles on that head. And he would,
in the first place, remark concerning them, that even if they were
true, which he denied, the discussion of them was worse than useless.
It could not advance the cause of emancipation, nor improve the
condition of the free blacks. And whatever the abolitionists might
say, the slaves when freed would follow their own course and
inclinations; nor could the declaration of an abstract principle alter
either their conduct or that of the whites, in any material degree.
If, as Mr. Thompson asserted, prejudice against color was the
national sin of America, the plague-spot of the nation, it had just as
often been asserted by others that the prejudice itself originated at
first out of the relation of slavery. The latter was the disease, the
former a mere symptom. If there were no black slaves on earth there
would no longer be any aversion against that color, which went beyond
the invariable and mutual restraints of nature, or was tolerated by a
proper Christian liberty. They know little of human prejudices who do
not know that they are more invincible in the bulk of mankind than the
dictates of reason, or the impulses of virtue itself. The case of the
abolitionists must therefore be pronounced foolish on their own
showing. For they undertook to break down the strongest of all
prejudices, as they themselves say, as a condition precedent to the
doing of acts which, to do at all, required great pecuniary sacrifices
and a high tone of moral feeling. But if, as I shall try to show,
their doctrines are contrary to all the course of nature and all the
teachings of Providence--their behavior is to be considered little
else than sheer madness. Again: even if it did not prejudice the case
of the slave--as none can deny it did--to agitate this question of
color, and mix it up inseparably with the question of freedom, of what
use was it to him? If the whites treat him with scorn, give him his
liberty--and he may pity, forgive, or return the scorn. What advantage
was he to gain as a slave, by the discussion, even if no harm came
from it? What advantage was he to obtain as a freeman even if its
agitation did not forever prevent him from being free? It is, in all
its aspects, the most remarkable illustration of a weak, heady, and
ignorant fanaticism which this age has produced, and has been, of them
all, the most fruitful of evil. The truth was, that many of the rights
and privileges of free persons of color were better secured to them in
America than corresponding rights and privileges were to the white
peasantry of any other country on the globe. With regard to the
religious rights of colored persons, he could only say that he had sat
in Presbyteries with them, that he had dispensed the Sacrament to them
together with white persons; and that he and multitudes of others had
sat in the same class with them at our Theological Seminaries. As for
all the stories which Mr. T. was accustomed to tell about Dr. Sprague
having part of his church curtained round for persons of color, he
knew personally nothing, and noticed it only because it was told as a
_specimen_ story. He merely knew that Dr. Sprague was accounted a
benevolent man, and common charity required him not readily to believe
anything of him in a bad sense which could be justified in a good one.
But if there was anything so very exclusive and revolting in these
marks of superiority or inferiority in a church, let them not look to
America alone; nor limit their sympathies exclusively to the blacks.
In almost every church in England in which he had been, from the
cathedral of St. Paul's at London, to the curate's village church, he
had seen seats railed off, or curtained, or cushioned, or elevated,
and some how distinguished from the rest. And when he inquired why
these things were so, and for whose accommodation, the answer was
ready. "O, that is for My Lord this; or Sir Harry that; or Mr. Prebend
so and so; or the Lord Bishop of what not." And very often, even in
dissenting chapels, he had seen part of the seats of an inferior
description in particular parts of the house, which he had as often
been told were free seats for the poor; an arrangement which has
struck him as favorably as the similar one in Dr. Sprague's church did
Mr. T. the reverse. This preparation of free and separate seats for
the poor is, if he is rightly informed, nearly universal, in both the
Scotch and English establishments, whenever the poor have seats in
their churches. Now, if Mr. Thompson wished to begin a system of
levelling--if he meant to preach universal equality, why did he not
begin here? Why did he not try to convert Earl Grey and Lord
Melbourne, instead of going across the Atlantic in order to try his
experiments on the despised Americans? As to the civil rights of the
free blacks in America, the most erroneous notions were entertained in
both countries, but especially here. The truth was, they enjoyed
greater _civil_ rights than the peasantry of Britain herself; and
those rights were fully as well protected in their exercise. Their
right to acquire property of any kind, anywhere, without being hedged
about with exclusive privileges and ancient corporations; their right
to enjoy that property, unencumbered with poor rates, and church
rates, and tithes and tiends, and untold taxes and vexations; their
right to pursue trades, callings, or business, without regard to
monopolies, and innumerable vexatious and worrying preliminaries;
their right to be free in person--subject neither to forcible
impressment, nor to the serveilance of an innumerable police: their
right to be cared for in sickness and destitution, without questions
of domicile previously settled; their right to the speedy and cheap
administration of justice without "sale, denial or delay"--and
unattended with ruinous expenses; these, with whatever may truly be
considered civil rights, are enjoyed by the free colored people in
nearly every part of America, to a degree utterly unknown by millions
of British subjects, not only in the East and West-Indies, but in
Ireland, and even in England itself. If any rights had been denied
them, as the following of certain professions, as that of a minister
of the gospel, for example, as Virginia had lately done, he could
point their attention to the time when these laws were passed, and
show that it was not till after the era of abolition; and that would
never have been, but for its fury. It was not till after they had
learned with bell book and candle to curse the white man, and teach
sedition and murder to the slaves. The nature of _political_ rights
claimed by Mr. Thompson for the blacks, in his sweeping claim to have
them put on a footing of perfect equality with the whites, seemed to
be utterly unknown to him, both as to their origin and character.
Whilst he advocated a scheme in America which demanded the most
extensive political changes, and claimed political rights as the
birthright of certain parties, he still persisted in assuring the
British nation that he had never touched the subject in a political
aspect! Now what political rights does he claim for the free
blacks--and denounce all America for refusing, on account of this
prejudice against color? Is it right of suffrage? is it right of
office? is it perfect, personal, and political equality? If not, what
does he mean? But if he means that it already exists in all the free
States and in several of the slave States, in behalf of the free
blacks, to a far greater extent than the same exists in England, as
between the privileged classes and the bulk of the nation, though all
are white,--I boldly assert, that a greater part of the free men of
color in America did enjoy perfect political privileges at the rise of
abolitionism, than of the white men of Britain at this day. There were
more free black voters in North America, in proportion to the free
black race, than there are white voters in all Britain, in proportion
to the white inhabitants of the British empire. And this, even leaving
out the red millions of the East, and the black thousands of the
West-Indies; and making the Reform Bill the basis of calculation! If
some have been deprived of these privileges, let abolitionists blame
themselves. If in most places these privileges have been dormant, it
only proves that their exercise was a very secondary advantage--that
the present outcry is but the more wicked and absurd. As to the social
rights which were demanded for the slaves and free blacks both, there
seemed to be a complete confusion of ideas in the minds of the
abolitionists. Did they mean to say that all distinctions and
gradations of rank were iniquitous, or did they mean that men ought to
enjoy rights because they were black, which were justly denied to the
whites? Who had ever heard of a nobleman marrying a gipsy? or, of a
king of England marrying a laborer's daughter? But the fact was,
everything tended to prove that in preaching against the alleged
prejudice against color, the abolitionists were really advocating
general amalgamation. There were three opinions on the the subject:
1st. That in a State situated like most of those in America, public
policy required the mixture of the races to be prohibited; so that, in
nearly all the States, intermarriages were prohibited, and in many
States they were punishable as a felony with fine or imprisonment.
2d. That the practice was inexpedient, but so far innocent as to be
left to the discretion of the parties, which he believed was the
opinion of sober-minded people generally in this country. 3d. That, as
the chief practical objection to it is a sinful prejudice against
color, that prejudice is to be broken down, and the contrary right
upheld, as neither improper nor inexpedient, when voluntarily
exercised. This last, or even a much stronger advocacy of
amalgamation, is the doctrine of abolitionism; facts deducible from
their declaration of independence, and found in the whole scope of
their writings and speeches. Mr. Breckinridge then went on to show the
utter folly, and, as he believed, wickedness of advocating
amalgamation; or so acting or talking as to create the universal
impression that was what was meant. In the first place, the result
after which the abolitionists seemed to strive, was impossible; in the
most strict sense of the terms, naturally or physically impossible. He
by no means meant to contend with some freethinkers, who, to upset the
Mosaic cosmogony, asserted that the different races of men were not
fruitful if intermixed beyond a given and very near point. But what he
meant was this: all who believe the Mosaic account of the origin of
the human race, must, of course, believe that they were once all of
one complexion. Now, if they could all be amalgamated and made of one
complexion again, those causes, whatever they are, which have produced
so great diversities, would, after a time, reproduce them. And having
gratified Mr. Thompson and his friends, by universal levelling and
mixing the world, would soon find that they had done a work which
nature did not permit to stand; and would again behold, in one belt
upon the earth's surface, the black, in another the red, and in a
third the white man. And to whatever degree they carried their
principles into practice, they would find proportionately great
counteracting causes--continually fighting against them, and
continually requiring the reproduction of their amalgamated breed,
from the original stocks. This, then, is a fatal objection to their
scheme; the course of nature is against it. But again, he would say,
as a second fundamental objection against all such schemes, that
wherever, in the past history of the world, the various races of men
had been allowed freely to amalgamate, one of two concomitants had
universally attended the process, namely, polygamy or prostitution. If
either of these be permitted, as innocent, amalgamation can easily be
pushed through its first stage; without one at least of these two
engines, no progress has ever yet been made in this work of fighting
against the overwhelming course of events. He regretted he had not
time to go over these branches of the argument with that pains which
he could wish. If he had, he believed, notwithstanding all that Mr.
Thompson had said, or might say, about sophistry, they could each of
them be demonstrated as clearly as that gentleman could demonstrate
any proposition in geometry. Again, in the third place, he believed,
from what was contained in the Bible, that in preserving distinct from
each other the three families of mankind, as descended from the three
sons of Noah, God had great and yet undeveloped purposes to
accomplish. How far the whole history of his providence led to the
same conclusion, he must leave to their own reflections to determine.
But on the admission of such a truth as even possible--it was surely
natural to look for something in the structure of nature that would
effectually prevent the obliteration of either race. One may find this
in those general considerations which make intermarriages, in his
view, inexpedient; or another in the innate and absolute instincts of
the creature. But both will receive with suspicion, as an undoubted
and fundamental rule of Christian morals, a dogma which requires us to
contend against the clear leadings of providence, and the good and
merciful intentions of our Creator. We tax our faith but slightly when
we believe that as soon as these purposes of mercy and glory are
accomplished, and the signal revolution in the social condition of man
now contended for shall be required by the Almighty, we may look for a
channel of communication between him and the world more in accordance
with the Spirit of his Son than any which has yet brought us messages
on the subject. The _fourth_ objection which struck him against this
whole procedure was, that in point of fact the world has need of
every race that now exists on its surface. It has taken forty
centuries to adjust the nicely-balanced and adapted relations and
proportions of a vast and complicated structure,--which the finger of
all-pervading wisdom has itself guided in all the steps of its
development. And now, a stroke of the pen is to subvert it all, and
one dictum, of the world knows not whom, accomplish the most
stupendous revolution which all these forty centuries have witnessed.
Suppose the end gained. If any one race now existing was obliterated,
or very materially altered in its physical condition, how large a
proportion of the world's surface would become speedily depopulated,
and so remain until the present condition of things were restored! If
this could happen as to every race _but one_, what a wreck would the
earth exhibit! He who will look with a Christian's eye abroad upon the
families of men, must feel that to accomplish the great hopes that his
heart has conceived for this ruined world, he needs every race that
now peoples it; and must see the hand of God in arresting so speedily
and so signally this pernicious heresy. In the fifth place, he
suggested an argument against amalgamation, which at once showed
the injustice of the outcry against America, and the total
inconsiderateness of Mr. Thompson and his party. The fact was that
this prejudice of color, as it was called, was in all respects mutual;
and so far from being the peculiar sin of America, was the common
instinct of the human race, and existed as really, if not as strongly
on the side of the colored population as on that of the whites. In
proof of this, Mr. Breckinridge cited the case of Hayti, where no man
is allowed the rights of citizenship, unless a certain portion of
black blood runs in his veins; and that of Richard Lander, who, while
travelling in the interior of Africa, as the servant of Park, was
looked upon with comparative favor by the natives on account of his
dark complexion, while his master, who was of a very fair complexion,
was far less a favorite on that account. The North American Indians
and the blacks more readily intermixed than the Indians and the
whites, while the latter connexion, which is not indeed uncommon, is
formed by the marriage of a white man with a squaw; never, or most
rarely, of an Indian and a white woman, the slight, and most
exaggerated number of mulattoes, are nearly without exception, the
offspring of white men and colored women. These facts seemed to show
the reality and nature or the mutual aversion of which I have spoken;
an aversion never overcome but in gross minds. And the whole current
of remark proves that those who attempted to promote amalgamation are
fighting equally against the purposes of providence, the convictions
of reason, and the best impulses of nature. He had much to say, which
time failed him to say, on the spirit in which the abolition had been
advocated in America. He would therefore merely remark whether it
might be taken as a compliment, or the reverse, that the spirit of all
Mr. Thomson's speeches, which he had heard or read--might give them a
tolerable idea of the spirit of abolitionism everywhere: a spirit
which many seemed to consider as from above, but for himself he prayed
to be preserved from any such spirit. He had much also to say upon the
malignant feeling and spirit of insubordination which had been
produced by the discussion of these questions in the breasts of
multitudes of free colored people. The riots, of which so much had
been said in this country, were as often produced by the imprudence
and insolence of these deluded people, as by the wanton violence and
prejudices of the lowest classes of the whites. In consequence of the
influence of the Jacobinical principles of the abolitionists, many
free colored servants left employments they had held for years;
because the claim then first set up, of perfect domestic equality with
their masters, was refused; while many cases of insult to females, in
the streets of our cities, signalized the same season and spirit. He
had also much to say of the wide-spread feeling, looking towards
immediate deliverance, from a distance, and by force, which suddenly,
and, if the abolitionists are innocent as they pretend, miraculously
got possession of the minds of the slaves over all the southern
country; and which led to such stern, and but the more unhappy, if
necessary, consequences. It had been said, in justification of his
conduct by Mr. Thompson, that persuasion had never yet induced any one
to relax his hold on slaves--and that as for America, in particular,
she would never be made to feel ought on the subject, till her pride
and fears were awakened. To that he would reply that, as regarded
pride, perhaps America had her share of it; but if abolition was not
to be looked for till her fears granted it, he apprehended they would
have sufficient time yet left to send Mr. Thompson on several new
voyages before the whole country was frightened into his terms.




FIFTH NIGHT--FRIDAY, JUNE 17.


MR. BRECKINRIDGE said that the order of the exercises of this evening
had, without the fault of any one, placed him in a position which was
not the most natural. Considering that it was his duty to support the
negative of the point for this evening's discussion, it would have
been most natural had the affirmation been first brought out. He said
this arrangement was not the fault of any one, because it was not
known that the point would fall to be discussed on this particular
evening; for had it fallen on last night or to-morrow night, the order
would have been as it ought to be. His position was, however, made
somewhat better by the fact, that nothing that Mr. Thompson could say
this evening, in an hour or two, could alter the assertions which he
had already repeatedly made and published in Britain. Since the notice
of this discussion had been published, he had, through the providence
of God, been put in possession of six or seven papers and pamphlets
containing the substance of what had been said by Mr. Thompson
throughout the country, and reiterated by associated bodies of his
friends under his eye. After reading these carefully, he found himself
pretty fully possessed of that individual's charges and testimony
against the ministers, private Christians, and churches of America; he
would, therefore, take them as he found them in those publications,
while Mr. Thompson's presence would enable him to explain, correct, or
deny anything that might be erroneously stated. The first thing he
should attempt to do, was to impeach the competency of Mr. Thompson as
a witness in this or any similar case. Mr. Thompson had shown that he
was utterly incompetent, wisely to gather and faithfully to report
testimony on any subject involving great and complicated principles.
He did not wish to say anything personally offensive to Mr. Thompson;
but he must be plain, and he would first produce proof of what he
said, which was as it regarded this whole nation perfectly _ad
hominem_. He would show the audience what Mr. Thompson had said of
them, and then they would better judge what was his competency to be a
witness against the Americans. At a meeting in the Hopeton Rooms at
Edinburgh, since his return from the United States, Mr. Thompson said:

    We were really under a worse bondage than the slaves of the
    United States. We kissed our chains and hugged our fetters.
    We were governed by our drunken appetite.

    The lecturer, in the concluding portion of his address,
    depicted in a tone of high moral feeling, the degraded
    condition of Great Britain as a nation, in consequence of her
    extreme drunkenness. He shewed that habits of intemperance,
    or feelings and prejudices generated by intemperance,
    pervaded every class, from the highest to the lowest, the
    richest to the poorest. Statesmen bowed upon the altar of
    expediency; and, above all, the sanctuary was not clean. As a
    Christian nation, we were paralized in our efforts to
    evangelize the world--partly by the millions upon millions
    actually expended upon ardent spirits--partly by the selfish
    and demoralizing feelings which this sensual indulgence in
    particular was known to produce. How could we, as a nation,
    upbraid America with her system of slavery when we ourselves
    were but glorying in a voluntary slavery of a thousand times
    more defiling and abominable description? In our own country,
    it might be said that there was, as it were, a conspiracy
    against the bodies and souls of her people.

Now in any Court of Justice, he would take his stand upon the fact
that the man who made that speech must be a _monomaniac_, and he
believed no competent tribunal, after hearing it, would receive his
testimony as to the character or conduct of any nation on the face of
the earth. Or if there lingered a doubt on the subject, he should show
from the burden of his charges against America, that he spoke in the
same general spirit, and nearly in the very same terms of her as of
Britain, although the fault found with each country was totally
different. He spoke of each as the very worst nation on the earth,
because of the special crime charged. Any man who could allow himself
to say that the two most enlightened nations on earth were in
substance the two most degraded nations on earth; who could permit
himself to bring such _railing accusations_ successively against two
great people, on account of the sins of a small portion of each, which
he had looked at till he could see nothing else, and with the
perseverance of a goldleaf-beater, exercised his ingenuity in
stretching out to the utmost limits over each community; a man who not
only can see little to love anywhere that does not derive its
complexion from himself, and who, the moment he finds a blot on his
brethren, or his country, instead of walking backwards and hiding it
with the filial piety of the elder sons of Noah, mocks over it with
the rude and unfeeling bitterness of Canaan; such a man is worthily
impeached, as incompetent to testify. Nay, I put the issue where Mr.
Thompson has put it. If this nation be such as he has described it to
be, I demand, with unanswerable emphasis, how can it dare to call us,
or any other people, to account on any subject whatever? If, on the
other hand, what he has said of this nation be false, I equally demand
how can he be credited in what he says of us--of any other nation
under the sun? After this caveat against all that such a witness could
say, he would in the first place observe, that all the accusations
brought by Mr. Thompson against Americans, were imbued with such
bitterness and intemperance as ought to awaken suspicion in the minds
of all who hear them. There was visible not only a violent national
antipathy against that whole country, but also a strong prejudice in
favor of the one side and against the other in the local parties
there, which, before any impartial tribunal, ought greatly to weaken
any credit that might otherwise be attached to his testimony. Besides
an open hostility to the nation as such, and a most envomed hatred to
certain men, parties, and principles in America, the witness has
exhibited such a wounded feeling of vanity from his want of success in
America; such a glorying of his friends, and that just in proportion
to their subserviency to him, and such a contemptuous and unmerited
depreciation of his opponents, as should put every man who reads or
hears his proofs at once on his guard. As to the opinions and
conclusions of such a person, even from admitted facts, they are of
course worthless; and his inferences from hearsay and idle reports,
worse than trash. But what I mean to say is, that such a witness,
considered strictly as testifying to what he asserts of his own
knowledge, is to be heard by a just man with very great caution. For
my own part, at the risk of being called again a pettifogger, by this
informer, I am bound to say that his conduct impeaches his credibility
fully as much as it has before been shown to affect his competency;
and while I have peculiar knowledge of the facts, sufficient to assert
that his main accusations are false, I fully believe that the case he
had himself made, did of itself justify all good men to draw the same
conclusion, merely from general principles. I will venture to go a
step farther, and express the opinion that they who are acquainted
with Mr. Thompson, as he exhibits himself in the public eye, and who
have knowledge of the past success, which really did, or which he
allows himself to believe did attend his efforts in West-India
emancipation, (a success, however, which I do not comprehend, as the
case was settled against him and his party, on the two chief points on
which they staked themselves, namely, _immediate abolition_ and _no
compensation_,) they who can call to mind the preparation and
pretension with which he set out for America, the gigantic work he had
carved for himself there, the signal defeat he met with, and the
terror in which he fled the country; may find enough to justify the
fear that the fate of George Thompson has fully as large a share in
his recollections of America as the fate of the poor slave. In the
_second place_, I charge upon Mr. Thompson that those parts of his
statements which might possibly be in part true, are so put as to
create false impressions, and have nearly the same effect as if they
were wholly false on the minds of those who read or hear them. This
results from the constant manner of stating what might possibly be
true; and it is not only calculated to produce a false impression, and
make the casual reader believe in a result different from what would
be presented if Mr. Thompson were on oath and forced to tell the whole
truth, but the uniformity and dexterity with which this is done,
leaves us astonished how it could be accidental. He (Mr. B.) assumed
that all of them had read or would read Mr. Thompson's charges. After
doing so they would the better apprehend what was now meant; but, in
the mean time, he would illustrate it by a case or two. Thus, when Mr.
T. spoke of the ministers in the United States being slave-holders, he
did it in such a way as to lead the reader to believe that this was a
general thing; that the most of them, if not the whole of them, were
slave-owners. He did not tell them that none of the ministers in
twelve whole States were or could easily be slave-holders, seeing they
were not inhabitants of a slave State; he did not tell them that the
cases of ministers owning slaves were rare even in some of the slave
States; and a fair sample of the majority in not a single State of the
Union; he left the charge indefinite, and did not condescend to tell
whether the number of ministers so accused was one half, or one third,
or one fourth, or one hundredth part of the whole number in the United
States. He left it wholly indefinite, on the broad charge that
American ministers were slave-holding ministers; knowing, perhaps
intending, that the impression taken up should be of the aggregate
mass of American ministers; when he knew himself all the while that
the overwhelming mass of American ministers had never owned a slave;
and that those who had, were exceptions from the general rule rather
than samples of the whole. It may well be asked how much less sinful
it was to rob men of their good name, than of their freedom? Not
content with even this injustice, Mr. Thompson had gone so far as to
charge the ministers of America with dealing in slaves; _slave-driving
ministers_ and _slave-dealing ministers_, were amongst his common
accusations. Now, said Mr. B., he would lay a strong constraint upon
himself, and reply to these statements as if they were not at once
atrocious and insupportable. The terms used by Mr. Thompson were
universally understood in the United States, to mean the carrying on
of a regular traffic in slaves as a business. The meaning was the same
here, and every one who had heard or read one of his printed speeches,
was ex vi termini obliged to understand this charge like the
preceding, as expressing his testimony as to the conduct of American
ministers generally, if not universally.

Now I will admit that there may be in America, one minister in one
thousand, or perhaps five hundred, who may at some period of his
ministry, when he had no sufficient light on the subject, have bought
or sold slaves a single time, or perhaps twice, or possibly thrice.
But I solemnly declare I never knew, nor heard of, nor do I believe
there exists in all America, one such minister, as is above described;
nor any sect that would hold fellowship with him. He would throw under
the _third general head_ charges of a different kind from the
preceding. Mr. Thompson, when generalities fail, takes up some extreme
case, which might probably be founded on truth, and gives it as a
specimen of the general practice; thereby creating by false instances,
as well as by indefinite accusations, an impression which he knows to
be entirely foreign from the truth. If he, (Mr. B.) were to tell in
America that on his way to this meeting to-night, he saw two blind men
begging in the streets, with their arms locked to support their
tottering steps, while the crowd passed them idly by; and if he gave
this as a specimen of the manner in which the unfortunate poor were
treated in Scotland, he would not give a worse impression, nor make a
more unfair statement of the fact, than Mr. Thompson had done, nearly
without exception, in his statements of America. Such a spirit and
practice as this, pervaded the whole of Mr. Thompson's speeches. He
would select a few instances to enforce his meaning. There was a
single Presbyterian Church at Nashville, Tennessee. Now he, (Mr. B.)
happened, in the providence of God, to be somewhat acquainted with the
past history of that church; and was happy to call its present
benevolent minister his friend. He could consequently speak of it from
his own knowledge. Mr. Thompson said that a young man went to
Nashville, who, either through his own imprudence, or the violence of
the disjointed times, was arrested, tried by a popular committee,
found guilty of spreading seditious papers, and sentenced to be
whipped; that he had received twenty lashes, and was then discharged.
This he believed to be substantially true, and well remembered hearing
of the occurrence; and taking the young man's account of it as true,
he had been greatly shocked at it, and had now no idea of defending
it. But in Mr. Thompson's statement of the case, there was a minute
misrepresentation, which showed singular indifference to facts. Mr. T.
said the young man went to Tennessee to sell cottage bibles, in which
business he succeeded well, for the reason, adds the narrator, that
Bibles were scarce in the South; although he could not fail to know,
that before the period in question, every family in all those States
that would receive a Bible, had been furnished with one by the various
Bible Societies. This, however, was not the main reason for a
reference to this case; but was mentioned incidentally, to show the
nature of the feelings and accusations indulged in by this gentleman.
His account went on to say, sometimes that there were seven, sometimes
eleven elders of this Presbyterian Church. It was not intended to lay
any stress on the discrepancy; as the fault might be the reporter's.
But seven, or eleven; it was again and again charged, that all of
them, every one, was present, trying, and consenting to the punishment
of the unhappy young man, "plowing up his back," and mingling, perhaps
in the mob who cursed him, even for his prayers. To make the case
inexpressibly horrible, it is added, that these seven or eleven
elders, had as to part of them, distributed the sacramental elements,
to the abolitionist, the very Sabbath before, the day on which the
seven elders participated in this outrage. Now I say first, that if
this story were literally true, no man knows better than Mr. Thompson,
that no falsehood could be more glaring than to say or insinuate, that
the case would be a fair average specimen of what the leading men in
the American churches generally might be expected to do, in like
circumstances. Yet for this purpose, he has repeatedly used it! No man
could know better than he, that if the case were true in all its
parts, it would every where be accounted a violent and unprecedented
thing, which could happen at all only in most extraordinary
circumstances. Yet he has so stated it, over and over, as to force the
impression that it is a fair sample of American Christianity. But,
said Mr. B. I call in question all parts of the story, that implicate
any Christian. I do not believe the statements. Let me have proof. I
do not believe there were either seven or eleven elders in the church
in question. Record their names. If there were so many, it is next to
impossible, that every one of them, was on the comparatively small
committee that tried the abolitionist. Produce the proofs; and I
believe it will turn out, that if either of them was present, it was
to mitigate popular violence; and that his influence perhaps, saved
the life of him he is traduced for having oppressed. He did not mean
to stake his assertion against proof; but from his experience and
general knowledge of the parties, he had no hesitation in giving it as
his opinion, that the facts, when known, would not justify the
assertions of Mr. Thompson, even as to the particular case; and
believing this, I again challenge the production of his authority.
But, if it be true in all its parts, I repeat, it is every thing but
truth, to say that it affords a just specimen of the elders of the
Presbyterian Churches of America. Another case resembling the
preceding in its principle, is found in what Mr. Thompson has said of
the Baptists of the Southern States. There are, says he, above 157,000
members in upwards of 3000 Baptist Churches, in those States, "almost
all both ministers and members being slave holders." Allowing this
statement to be true, and that each slave holder has ten slaves on an
average, which is too small for the truth, there would be an amount of
slaves equal to 1,570,000 owned by the Baptist of the Southern States.
If this be true, and the census of 1830 true also, there were only
left about 500,000 slaves to divide among all the other churches;
leaving for the remainder of the people, none at all! So that after
all this, though churches be bad, the nation is clean enough.

Let us now make some allowance for this gentleman's extravagance,
especially as he did think he was speaking under correction, and
divide his 157,000 Baptists into 52,000 families, of three professors
of religion in each. This is more than the average for each family;
especially in a church admitting only adults; and the true number of
families, for that number of professors, would be nearer one hundred
than fifty thousand. Twenty slaves to the family is below the average
of the slave owning families of the South; so that at the lowest rate,
the Baptists in a few States, according to this person, own 1,040,000
slaves at the least, or above half the number that our last census
gives to the whole union. The extraordinary folly of such statements,
would appear more clearly to the audience when they understood, that
as large a proportion of all the blacks, as of all the whites in
America are professors of religion; that above half of all slaves who
profess religion, are Baptists; and that, therefore, if there are
157,000 Baptists in the Southern States, instead of being "almost all
slave holders," at least a third of them are themselves slaves. He
gave these instances to show that Mr. Thompson had taken extreme cases
containing some show of truth as specimens of the whole of America,
and had thereby produced totally false impressions. What truth there
was in them, was so terrifically exaggerated, that no dependence
whatever could be placed upon any of his testimony. And this would be
still more manifest after examining the charge brought by Mr.
Thompson, that the very churches in America own slaves; and several of
his speeches contain a pretty little dialogue with some slaves in the
fields, the whole interest of which turns on their calling themselves
"_the Church's Slaves_." This was spoken of as it were in accordance
with the usual course of things in the United States. Indeed, Mr.
Thompson had not only spoken with his usual violence and generality of
the "slave holding churches of America," and declared his conviction
that "all the guilt of the system" should be laid "on the church of
America;" but at the very latest joint exhibition of himself and his
friend _Moses Roper_, in London, it was stated by the latter in one of
his usual interludes to Mr. Thompson, perhaps in his presence,
certainly uncontradicted, that, slave holding was universally
practised by "all Christian _societies_" in America; the societies of
Friends only excepted. It may excite a blush in America, to know that
the poor negro's silly falsehood was received with cheers by the
London audience.

What then should the similar declarations of Mr. Thompson, made
deliberately and repeatedly, and with infinite pretence of candour and
affection, what feelings _can_ they excite; and how will that insulted
people regard the easy credulity which has led the Christians of
Britain to believe and reiterate charges in which it is not easy to
tell whether there is less truth or more malignity? For how stood the
facts? What church owns slaves? What Christian corporation is a
proprietor of men? Out of our ten thousand churches perhaps half are
involved in this sin? Perhaps a tenth part? Surely one Presbytery at
least? No,--this mountain of fiction has but a grain of truth to
support its vast and hateful proportions. If there be above five
congregations in all America that own slaves, I never heard of them.
The actual number, of whose existence I ever heard, is, I believe,
precisely _three_! They are all Presbyterian congregations, and
churches situated in the southern part of Virginia, and got into their
unhappy condition in the following manner:--Many years ago, during
those times of ignorance at which God winked--when such a man as John
Newton could go a slaving voyage to Africa, and write back that he
never had enjoyed sweeter communion with God than on that voyage;
during such a period as that, a few well meaning individuals had
bequeathed a small number of slaves for the support of the gospel in
three or four churches. These unfortunate legacies had increased and
multiplied themselves to a great extent, and under present
circumstances to a most inconvenient degree. A fact which puts the
clearest contradiction on that assertion of this "accuser of the
brethren"--representing their condition as being one of unusual
privation and suffering. Of late years these cases had attracted
attention, and given great uneasiness to some of the persons connected
with these churches. I have on this platform, kindly furnished me,
like most of the other documents I have, since this debate was
publicly known--a volume of letters written to one of these churches
on the whole case, by the Rev. Mr. Paxton, at that time its pastor.
That gentleman is now on this side of the Atlantic, and may perhaps
explain what Mr. Thompson has so sedulously concealed; how he was a
colonizationist; how he manumitted and sent his own servants to
Liberia; how he labored in this particular matter with his church,
long before the existence of abolitionism; and how, finding the
difficulties insuperable, he had written this kind and modest volume,
worth all the abolition froth ever spued forth,--and left the charge
in which he found it so difficult to preserve at once an honest
conscience and a healthful influence. It will not, however, be
understood that even these few churches are worthy of the
indiscriminate abuse lavished on us, all for their sakes; nor that
their present path of duty is either an easy or a plain one. Whether
it is that there are express stipulations in the original instruments
conveying the slaves in trust for certain purposes; or whether the
general principle of law, which would transfer to the State, or to the
heir of the first owner, the slaves with their increase,--upon a
failure of the intention of the donor, either by act of God, or of the
parties themselves, embarrass the subject; it is very certain that
wiser and better men than either Mr. Thompson or myself, are convinced
that these vilified churches have no power whatever to set their
slaves free. If the churches were to give up the slaves, it could only
have the effect, it is believed, to send them into everlasting bondage
to the heirs of the original proprietors. They have therefore justly
considered it better for the slaves themselves that they should remain
as they were in a state of nominal servitude, rather than be remitted
into real slavery. Such is the real state of the few cases which have
first been exhibited as the sin, if not the actual condition of the
American churches; and then exaggerated into the utmost turpitude by
hiding every mitigating circumstance, adding some purely new, and
distorting all things. Whether right or wrong, the same state of
things exists amongst the Society of Friends in North Carolina, to a
partial extent, and in another form. They did not consider themselves
liable to just censure, although they held title in and authority over
slaves, as individuals, while they gave them their whole earnings, and
had collected large sums from their brethren in England, which were
applied to the benefit of these slaves. It is not now for the first
time that charges have been made against the Church of God--that Judah
is like all the heathen. But all who embark in such courses--have met
with the common fate of the revilers of God's people; and they, with
such as select to stand in their lot--may find in the word of life a
worse end apportioned for them, than even for those they denounce, in
case every word they utter had been true. We bless God that no weapon
formed against Zion can prosper. There was one other instance which he
had noted under this head as requiring some comment, which could not
bear omission, regarding the private members of the Christian churches
in the United States, of whom a casual hearer or reader of Mr.
Thompson's speeches would believe that the far greater part actually
owned slaves; that very few, and they almost exclusively
abolitionists, considered slavery at all wrong; that with one accord
they deprived the slaves of all religious privileges, and used them,
not only as a chattel, but as nothing else than a chattel. According
to our last census, there were about 11,000,000 of whites, 2,000,000
of slaves, and 400,000 free blacks in America, making a total of
nearly thirteen and a half millions. All the slaves were gathered into
the 12 most southerly states, free blacks were not far from half in
the free and half in the slave states, and of the whites over
7,000,000 were in the free, and less than 3,000,000 in the slave
states. The best information I possess on this subject, authorizes me
to say--about 1 person in 9, throughout the nation, black and white,
is a member of a Christian church, the proportion being somewhat
larger to the north, and comparatively smaller at the south. There
are, therefore, above 1,100,000 white Christians in the United States,
of which about 800,000 live in the 12 free States, and neither own
slaves nor think slavery right; leaving rather over 330,000 for the 12
slave States. Now, if these white Christians in the slave States own
all the slaves, and the other 8-9ths of the whites owned none at all,
there will be only about 6 slaves to each Christian there, a number
far below the average of the slave holders; and all the North, and all
the South, except Christians, free of charge and guilt, in the
specific thing. But if we divide these Christians into families, and
suppose there may be as many, as one in three or four of them, who is
a head of a family, say 100,000; and that they own all the slaves: in
that case, there would be an average of twenty slaves to every white
head of a Christian family in the slave States. But here again all the
slaves would be absorbed: all the North innocent, above two-thirds of
the Christians at the South proved to be not slave holders at all;
and all the followers of the devil wholly innocent of that crime.
These calculations demonstrate that these accusations are as
groundless and absurd as any of the preceding. And while it is
painfully true that in the slaveholding States far too many Christians
do still own slaves; it is equally true, that they bear a small
proportion to those who own none, even in those States. If we suppose
the Christians in America to be about on an equal footing as to wealth
with other people; and to have no more conscience about slavery, than
those around them in the slave States; and that twenty slaves may be
taken as the average, to each master; and a ninth of the people pious,
as stated before, it follows that only about 11,000 professors of
religion can be slaveholders; or about one in every hundred of the
whole number in the nation. Yet every one of the above suppositions is
against the churches, and yet upon this basis rests the charges of a
candid, affectionate Christian brother against them all! The only
remaining illustration of Mr. Thompson's proneness to represent a
little truth, in such a way as to have all the effects of an immense
misrepresentation, regards his own posture, doings and sufferings in
America. "Fourteen months of toil, of peril, and persecution, almost
unparalleled;" "there were paid myrmidons seeking my blood;" "there
were thousands waiting to rejoice over my destruction;" "when any
individual tells George Thompson who has put his life into his hands,
and gone where slavery is rife; when I, George Thompson, am told I am
to be spared," &c. Similar statements, ad infinitum, fill up all his
speeches; and are noticed now, not for the purpose of commenting on,
or even contradicting them, but of affording my countrymen, who may
chance to see the report of this discussion, specimens, as our
certificates often run "of the modesty, probity, and good demeanor,"
of the individual.

He would pass next to a fourth general objection against Mr.
Thompson's testimony, as regards America, which was, that much of it
was in the strictest sense, positively untrue. For instance, Mr.
Thompson had twice put a runaway slave forward upon the platform at
London; or at least connived at the doing of it; who stated of his own
knowledge, that a Mr. Garrison, of South Carolina, had paid 500
dollars for a slave, that he might burn him, and that he had done so
without hindrance or challenge, afterwards. This statement Mr. T. has
never yet contradicted in any one of his numerous speeches, although
he must have known it to be untrue. I have myself several times
directed his attention to the subject, and yet the only answer is,
"expressive silence." Then I distinctly challenge his notice of the
case; and while I solemnly declare, that according to my belief,
whoever should do such an act in any part of America, would be hung: I
as distinctly charge Mr. Thompson, with giving countenance to, and
deriving countenance from this wilful misstatement.

As an other instance of the same kind, you are told that a free man
was sold from the jail at Washington city, as a slave, without even
the form of a trial; which is farther aggravated by the assertion
that this is vouched as a fact, on the testimony of 1000 signatures.
This matter, when Mr. Thompson's own proof is produced, resolves
itself into this: that Mr. Thompson said, there had been a thousand
signatures to a certain paper, which said, that a certain man taken up
as a runaway slave, said he was free! If he was a slave, the whole
case falls; whether he was a slave or not, was a fact that could have
been judicially investigated and decided, if the person most
interested, or any other, had chosen to demand it. So that in point of
fact, Mr. Thompson's whole statements, touching this oft repeated
case, are all purely gratuitous. And with what horror, must every good
man hear that Mr. Thompson, within the last two or three weeks, told a
crowd of people in Mr. Price's Chapel, Devonshire Square, London, in
allusion to this very case, that the poor black had "DEMONSTRATED HIS
FREEDOM," and afterwards been "sold into everlasting bondage!" And yet
upon this fiction he bases one of his most effective "illustrations of
American slavery," and some of his fiercest denunciations of the
American people. Oh! shame, where is thy blush! He could if time
permitted exhibit other cases,--in principle perhaps worse than these;
in which neither the false assertions of Moses Roper--nor the
pretended evidence of misrepresented petitions existed to make a show
of evidence; and which nothing but the most extraordinary ignorance,
or recklessness could explain. Such are the assertions made by himself
or his coadjutors in his presence, that slaves are brought to the
district of Columbia from all the slave states for sale; that five
years is the average number, that slaves carried to the Southern
States live; that slaves without trial, or even examination, were
often executed, by tens, twenties, and even thirties; that the banner
of the United States, which floated over a slave dealing congress, in
the midst of the slave market of the entire nation, had the word
"_Liberty_" upon it (which single sentence contained three
misstatements;) that religious men weighed children in scales, and
sold them by the pound like meat;--that there were 2,000,000 of slaves
in America who never heard the name of Christ; that no white man would
ever be respected after he had been seen to shake hands with a man of
colour; all which _unnameable_ assertions are contained, along with
double as many others like them, in one single newspaper (the London
_Patriot_ of June 1, 1835;) and in a portion of the report of only two
of Mr. Thompson's meetings! Alas! for poor human nature! Having now
gone through all that his time permitted him to say, of the proof
against America, he would lay before them some counter testimony upon
several parts of this great subject. He had at one time greatly feared
that he might be obliged to ask them to believe his mere word, perhaps
in the face of other proof; but through the providence of God, he had
been put in possession of a very limited file of American newspapers,
from the contents of which he thought he should be able to make out as
strong a case for the truth, as he had proved the case against it to
be weak and rotten. There were so many denominations of Christians in
America, that he would only tire the meeting by enumerating them.
They were of every variety of name and opinion. As to many of them he
knew but little, and the present audience perhaps less. The Societies
of Friends generally did not tolerate slaveholding among their
members; neither did the Covenanters. The Congregationalists, or
Independents, had not, he believed, a dozen churches in all the Slave
States, and, of course, they should be considered as exempt from the
charge. It was, however, the less necessary to occupy ourselves in
general remarks, inasmuch as Mr. Thompson had laid the stress of his
accusations on the three great denominations of America. "He took all
the guilt of this system, and he laid it where? On the Church of
America. When he said the Church, he did not allude to any particular
denomination. He spoke of Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists, the
three great props--the all-sustaining pillars of that blood-cemented
fabric." Such were the words of Mr. T., and it would therefore be
needless to trouble ourselves about the minor, if we could settle the
major to our satisfaction. As to two of these denominations, he should
say but little; his chief and natural business being to defend that
one of which he knew most. In regard to the Baptists, he was sorry to
be obliged to say, that he believed they were the least defensible of
the three denominations, now principally implicated; indeed that some
of their Associations had taken ground on the whole case, from which
he entirely dissented,--and which, he was sure, had given great pain
to the majority of their own brethren. He begged leave to refer them
to the work of Drs. Cox and Hoby, just through the press, in which he
presumed, for he had not seen it, they would find an authentic and
ample information on this and every other point relating to that
denomination in America. In relation to the Methodists, his knowledge
was both more full and more accurate. Their discipline denounced
Slavery, and prohibited their Members from owning slaves, and though
their discipline itself was not carried into effect with rigid
exactness, he did not believe that there was a Methodist Church in the
United States, or upon the Earth, which owned slaves, as a Church. He
believed that very few Methodist preachers--indeed, almost none, owned
any slaves, and nothing but the most direct proof could for a moment
make him believe, that one of them was a slave-dealer. The whole sect,
or at least the great majority of it, might be considered as fairly
represented, in the following Resolutions passed in the Conference,
held at Baltimore; and which could be a set off to those read by Mr.
Thompson, from one of the northern Conferences.

    METHODIST'S RESOLUTIONS ON ABOLITION.

    At a late meeting of the Baltimore Annual Conference of the
    Methodist Episcopal Church held at Baltimore, the following
    preamble and Resolutions were unanimously adopted, and the
    names of all the members and probationers present, in number,
    one hundred and fifty-seven, were subscribed, and ordered to
    be published. The secretary was also directed to furnish Rev.
    John A. Collins, with a copy for insertion in the Globe and
    Intelligencer, of Washington City.

    Whereas great excitement has pervaded this country for some
    time past on the subject of abolition; and whereas such
    excitement is believed to be destructive to the best
    interests of the country and of religion; therefore

    1. _Resolved_, That "we are as much as ever convinced of the
    great evil of slavery."

    2. That we are opposed in every part and particular to the
    proceedings of the abolitionists, which look to the immediate
    indiscriminate, and general emancipation of slaves.

    3. That we have no connexion with any press, by whomsoever
    conducted, in the interest of the abolition cause.

As to his own Connection, the Presbyterian, he would go as fully as
his materials permitted, into the proof of their past principles, and
present posture. And in the first place he was most happy to be able
to present them with an abstract of the decisions of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.
He found it printed in the New York Observer, of May 23, 1835,
embodied in the proceedings of the Presbytery of Montrose, and
transcribed by it no doubt from the Assembly's digest.

    As early as A. D. 1787, the Synod of N. York and Philadelphia
    issued an opinion adverse to slavery, and recommended
    measures for its final extinction; and in the year 1796 the
    General Assembly assured "all the churches under their care,
    that they viewed with the deepest concern any vestiges of
    slavery which then existed in our country;" and in the year
    1815 the same judicatory decided, "that the buying and
    selling of slaves by way of traffic, (meaning, doubtless, the
    domestic traffic,) is inconsistent with the spirit of the
    gospel." But in the year 1818, a more full and explicit
    avowal of the sentiments of the church was unanimously agreed
    on in the General Assembly. "We consider, (say the Assembly,)
    the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by
    another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred
    rights of human nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law
    of God, which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves;
    and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles
    of the gospel of Christ, which enjoin, that "whatever ye
    would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." They
    add, "It is manifestly the duty of all Christians who enjoy
    the light of the present day, when the inconsistency of
    slavery, both with the dictates of humanity and religion, has
    been demonstrated, and is generally seen and acknowledged, to
    use their honest, earnest and unwearied endeavors to correct
    the errors of former times, and as speedily as possible, to
    efface this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the
    complete abolition of slavery throughout Christendom and if
    possible, throughout the world."

If, said Mr. B., he had expressed sentiments different from these, or
if he had inculcated as the principles of his brethren any thing
different from these just and noble sentiments, let the blame be
heaped upon his bare head. These sentiments they had held from a
period to which the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. Here
tonight, 3000 miles off, God enabled him to produce a record proving
an antiquity of half a century, in full maturity! How grand, how far
sighted, how illustrious is truth--compared with the wretched and new
born, and blear eyed fanaticism that carps at her! These are the
principles of the Presbyterian church of the United States. She has
risen with them, she will stand, or, if it be God's will, she will
fall with them. But she will not change them less or more. The General
Assembly is but now adjourned. They have had this question before
them--perhaps have been deeply agitated by its discussion. But so
tranquilly does my heart rest on the truth of these principles, and on
the fixed adherence to them, by my brethren, that nothing but a
feeling that it would be impertinent, in one like me, to vouch for a
body like that, could deter me from any lawful gage, that all its
decisions will stand with its ancient and unaltered principles. In
accordance with these principles the great body of the members of that
church had been all along acting.--There were about 24 synods under
the care of the General Assembly, of which about one third were in
the slave country. The number was constantly increasing, on which
account, and in the absence of all records, he could not be more
exact. The synods in the free states stood, he believed, without
exception, just where the Assembly stood, on this subject. In the
slave states, much had been done--much was still doing--and in proof
of this as regarded this particular denomination--in addition to what
he had all along declared, with reference to the great emancipation
party, in all of those states, he asked attention to the several
documents he was about to lay before them. The first was a series of
resolutions appended to a lucid and extended report, drawn up by a
large committee of Ministers and Elders of the synod of Kentucky--in
obedience to its orders after the subject had been several years
before that body. That Synod embraces the whole state of _Kentucky_,
which is one of the largest slave states in the Union. The resolutions
are quoted from the New York Observer, of April 23, 1836.

    1. We would recommend that all slaves now under 20 years of
    age, and all those yet to be born in our possession be
    emancipated, as they severally reach their 25th year.

    2. We recommend that deeds of emancipation be now drawn up,
    and recorded in our respective County Courts, specifying the
    slaves we are about to emancipate, and the age at which each
    is to become free.

    This measure is highly necessary, as it will furnish to our
    own minds, to the world, and to our slaves, satisfactory
    proof of our sincerity in this work; and it will also secure
    the liberty of the slaves against contingencies.

    3. We recommend that our slaves be instructed in the common
    elementary branches of education.

    4. We recommend that strenuous and persevering efforts be
    made, to induce them to attend regularly upon the ordinary
    services of religion, both domestic and public.

    5. We recommend that great pains be token to teach them the
    Holy Scriptures; and that to effect this, the instrumentality
    of Sabbath Schools, wherever they can be enjoyed, be united
    with that of domestic instruction.

The plan revealed in these resolution, was the one of all others,
which most commended itself to his (Mr. B.'s) judgment. And he most
particularly asked their attention to it, on an account somewhat
personal. He had several times been publicly referred to in this
country, as having shown the sincerity of his principles in the
manumission of his own slaves. He was most anxious that no error
should exist on this subject, which he had not at any time, had any
part in bringing before the public, and which, as often only as he was
forced to do so, had he explained. The introductory remarks of the
Chairman, had laid him under the necessity of such an explanation,
which had not so naturally occurred, as in this connexion. He took
leave, therefore, to say, that this Kentucky plan, was in substance
the one he had been acting on for some years before its existence; and
which he should probably be among the earliest, if his life was
spared, fully to complete. He considered it substantially the same as
their system for West India Emancipation; only more rapid as to
adults, more tardy, cautious, and beneficent as to minors; and more
generous, as being wholly without compensation. In plans that affect
whole nations, and successive generations, questions of _time_ are of
all others, least important; of all others the most proper to make
bend to the necessities of the case. He went only to say further, that
his brother, the Rev. Dr. Breckinridge, of whom Mr. Thompson speaks
with such affectation of scorn, had entered this good field before
him, and taken one course with his manumitted slaves. That a younger
brother, whose name, along with nine other beloved and revered names,
is attached to this Kentucky report, had also entered it before him;
and taken a second course, a different course still, in liberating
his. When he came, last of all, he had taken still a third, different
from each; while other friends had pursued others still. What wisdom
their combined, and yet varied experience could have afforded, was of
course useless; now that all the deepest questions of abstract truth,
and the most difficult of personal practice, were solved by instinct,
and carried by storm.

The next extract related to the great slave holding State of North
Carolina, and revealed a plan for the religious instruction and care
of the souls of the slaves, intended to cover the States of Virginia,
Georgia, and South Carolina, all slave States of the first class, as
well as the one in which it originated. Its origin is due to the
Presbyterian Synod, covering the whole of that State. The extract is
from the New York Observer of June 20, 1835.

    RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF SLAVES.

    "The Southern Evangelical Society," is the title of a
    proposed association among the Presbyterians at the South,
    for the propagation of the gospel among the people of color.
    The constitution originated in the Synod of North Carolina,
    and is to go into effect as soon as adopted by the Synod of
    Virginia, or that of South Carolina and Georgia. The voting
    members of the Society are to be elected by the Synods.
    Honorary members are created by the payment of thirty
    dollars. All members of Synods united with the Society, are
    corresponding members; other corresponding members maybe
    chosen by the voting members. Article 4th of the
    Constitution, provides that "there shall not exist between
    this Society and any other Society, any connexion whatever,
    except with a similar Society in the slave holding States."
    Several resolutions follow the Constitution; one of these
    provides that a presbytery in a slave holding district of the
    country, not united with a Synod in connexion with the
    Society, may become a member by its own act. The fifth and
    sixth resolutions are as follows:

    _Resolved_, 5, That it be very respectfully and earnestly
    recommended to all the heads of families in connexion with
    our congregations, to take up and vigorously prosecute the
    business of seeking the salvation of the slaves in the way of
    maintaining and promoting family religion.

    _Resolved_, 6, That it be enjoined upon all the presbyteries
    composing this Synod, to take order at their earliest
    meeting, to obtain full and correct statistical information
    as to the number of people of color, in the bounds of our
    several congregations, the number in actual attendance at our
    several places of worship, and the number of colored members
    in our several churches, and make a full report to the Synod
    at its next meeting, and for this purpose, that the Clerk of
    this Synod furnish a copy of this resolution to the stated
    Clerk of each Presbytery.

The next document carried them one State farther South, and related to
South Carolina, in which that horrible Governor M'Duffie, who seems to
haunt Mr. Thompson's imagination with his threats of "death without
benefit of clergy," lives, and perhaps still rules. It is taken from
the same paper as the next preceding extract;

    RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF SLAVES.

    We cheerfully insert the following letter from an intelligent
    New Englander at the South.

      _To the Editor of the New York Observer._

    I am apprehensive that many of your readers, who feel a
    lively interest in the welfare of the slaves, are not
    correctly and fully informed as to their amount of religious
    instruction. From the speeches of Mr. Thompson and others,
    they might be led to believe that slaves in our Southern
    States never read a Bible, hear a gospel sermon, or partake
    of a gospel ordinance. It is to be hoped, however, that
    little credit will be given to such misrepresentations,
    notwithstanding the zeal and industry with which they are
    disseminated.

    What has been done on a single plantation.

    I will now inform your readers what has been done, and is now
    doing, for the moral and religious improvement of the slaves
    on a single plantation, with which I am well acquainted, and
    these few facts may serve as a commentary on the unsupported
    assertions of Mr. Thompson and others. And here I could wish
    that all who are so ready to denounce every man that is so
    unfortunate as to be born to a heritage of slaves, could go
    to that plantation, and see with their own eyes, and hear
    with their own ears, the things which I despair of adequately
    describing. Truly, I think they would be more inclined, and
    better qualified to use those weapons of light and love which
    have been so ably and justly commended to their hands.

    On this plantation there are from 150 to 200 slaves, the
    finest looking body that I have seen on any estate. Their
    master and mistress have felt for years how solemn are the
    responsibilities connected with such a charge; and they have
    not shrunk from meeting them. The means used for their
    spiritual good, are abundant. They enjoy the constant
    preaching of the gospel. A young minister of the Presbyterian
    church, who has received a regular collegiate and theological
    education, is laboring among them, and derives his entire
    support from the master, with the exception of a trifling sum
    which he receives for preaching one Sabbath in each month for
    a neighboring church. On the Sabbath, and during the week,
    you may see them filling the place of worship, from the man
    of grey hairs to the small child, all neatly and comfortably
    clothed, listening with respectful, and in many cases, eager
    attention to the truth as it is in Jesus, delivered in terms
    adapted to their capacities, and in a manner suited to their
    peculiar habits, feelings and circumstances; engaging with
    solemnity and propriety in the solemn exercise of prayer, and
    mingling their melodious voices in the hymn of praise.
    Sitting among them are the white members of the family
    encouraging them by their attendance, manifesting their
    interest in the exercises, and their anxiety for the eternal
    well-being of their people. Of the whole number, forty-five
    or fifty have made a profession of religion, and others are
    evidently deeply concerned.

    Let me now conduct you to a Bible class of ten or twelve
    adults who can read, met with their Bibles to study and have
    explained to them the word of God. They give unequivocal
    demonstrations of much interest in their employment, and of
    an earnest desire to understand and remember what they read.
    From hence we will go to another room, where are assembled
    eighteen to twenty lads, attending upon catechetical
    instruction, conducted by their young master. Here you will
    notice many intelligent countenances, and will be struck with
    the promptitude and correctness of their answers.

    But the most interesting spectacle is yet before you. It is
    to be witnessed in the Infant School Room, nicely fitted up
    and supplied with the customary cards and other
    appurtenances. Here every day in the week, you may find
    twenty-five or thirty children, neatly clad and wearing
    bright and happy faces. And as you notice their correct
    deportment, hear their unhesitating replies to the questions
    proposed, and above all when they unite their sweet voices in
    their touching songs, if your heart is not affected and your
    eyes do not fill, you are the hardest-hearted and driest-eyed
    visitor that has ever been there. But who is their teacher?
    Their mistress, a lady whose amiable Christian character and
    most gifted and accomplished mind and manners are surpassed
    by none. From day to day, month to month, and year to year,
    she has cheerfully left her splendid halls and circle of
    friends, to visit her school room, where, standing up before
    those young immortals, she trains them in the way in which
    they should go, and leads them to Him who said, "suffer
    little children to come unto me."

    From the Infant School room, we will walk through a beautiful
    lawn half a mile, to a pleasant grove commanding a view of
    miles in extent. Here is a brick chapel, rising for the
    accommodation of this interesting family; sufficiently large
    to receive two or three hundred hearers. When completed, in
    beauty and convenience it will be surpassed by few churches
    in the Southern country.

    On the plantation you might also see other things of great
    interest. Here a negro is the overseer. Marriages are
    regularly contracted. No negro is sold, except as a
    punishment for bad behavior, and a dreaded one it is. None is
    bought, save for the purpose of uniting families. Here you
    will near no clanking of chains, no cracking of whips; (I
    have never seen a blow struck on the estate,) and here last,
    but not least, you will find a flourishing Temperance
    Society, embracing almost every individual on the premises.
    And yet the "Christianity of the South is a chain-forging, a
    whip-plaiting, marriage discouraging, Bible-withholding
    Christianity!"

    I have confined myself to a single plantation. But I might
    add many most interesting facts in regard to others, and the
    state of feeling in general, but I forbear.

                             Yours, &c
                                            A NEW ENGLAND MAN.

He would now connect the peculiar and local facts of the preceding
statement, with the whole community of slave holders, in the same
State, and show by competent and disinterested testimony, the real
and common state of things. The following extracts were from a letter
printed in the New York Observer, of July 25, 1835:

    I have resided eight years in South Carolina, and have an
    extensive acquaintance with the planters of the middle and
    low country. I have seen much of slavery, and feel competent
    to speak in regard to many facts connected with it.

    What your correspondent has stated of the condition of one
    plantation, is in its essential points a common case
    throughout the whole circle of my acquaintance.

    The negroes generally, in this State, are well fed, well
    clothed, and have the means of religious instruction.
    According to my best judgment, the work which a slave here is
    required to do, amounts to about one third the ordinary labor
    commonly performed by a New England farmer. A similar
    comparison would hold true in regard to the labor of
    domestics. In the family where I reside, consisting of nine
    white persons, seven slaves are employed to do the work. This
    is a common case.

    In the village where I live, there are about four hundred
    slaves, and they generally attend church. More than one
    hundred of them are members of the church. Perhaps two
    hundred are assembled every Sabbath in the Sunday Schools. In
    my own Sunday School are about sixty, and most of them
    professors of religion. They are perfectly accessible and
    teachable. In the town of my former residence, in New
    England, there were three hundred free blacks. No more than
    eight or ten of these were professors of religion, and not
    more than twice that number could generally be induced to
    attend church. They could not be induced to send their
    children to the district schools, which were always open to
    them, nor could they generally be hired to work. They are
    thievish, wretched and troublesome. I have no hesitation in
    saying, and I say it deliberately, it would be a great
    blessing to them to exchange conditions with the slaves of
    the village in which I now live. Their intellectual and moral
    characters, and real means of improvement, would be promoted
    by the exchange.

    There are doubtless some masters who treat their slaves
    cruelly in this State, but they are exceptions to the general
    fact. Public opinion is in a wholesome state and the man who
    does not treat his slaves kindly, is disgraced.

    Great and increasing efforts are made to instruct the slaves
    in religion, and elevate their characters. Missionaries are
    employed solely for their benefit. It is very common for
    ministers to preach in the forenoon to the whites, and in the
    afternoon of every Sabbath to the blacks. The slaves of my
    acquaintance are generally contented and happy. The master is
    reprobated who will divide families. Many thousands of slaves
    of this State give evidence of piety. In many churches they
    form the majority. Thousands of them give daily thanks to God
    that they or their fathers were brought to this land of
    slavery.

    And now, perhaps, I ought to add, that I am not a
    slave-holder, and do not intend to continue in a slave
    country; but wherever I may be, I intend to speak the TRUTH.

The next document related particularly to _Virginia_,--the largest and
most powerful of the Slave States; but had also a general reference to
the whole south, and the whole question at issue. The sentiments it
contained were entitled to extraordinary consideration, on account of
the source of them. Mr. Van Renselear, was the son of one of the most
wealthy and distinguished citizens of the great free state of New
York. He had gone to Virginia, to preach to the slaves. He had every
where succeeded; was every where beloved by the slaves, and honored by
their masters. He had access to perhaps forty plantations,--on which
he from time to time preached,--and which might have been doubled,
had his strength been equal to the work. In the midst of his
usefulness--the storm of abolition arose. Mr. Thompson, like some
baleful star landed on our shores; organized a reckless agitation,
made many at the north frantic with folly--and as many at the south
furious with passion. Mr. Van Renselear, like many others, saw a storm
raging which they had no power to control; and like them withdrew from
his benevolent labors. The following brief statements made by him at a
great meeting of the colonization society of New York, exhibit his own
view of the conduct and duty of the parties.

    The Rev. Cortlandt Van Renselear, formerly of Albany, but who
    has lately resided in Virginia, addressed the meeting, and
    after alluding to the difference of opinion which prevailed
    among the friends of Colonization, touching the present
    condition and treatment of the colored population in this
    country, proceeded to offer reasons why the people of the
    North should approach their brethren in the South, who held
    the control of the colored population, with defference, and
    in a spirit of kindness and conciliation.

    These reasons were briefly as follows: 1. Because the people
    of the South had not consented to the original introduction
    of slaves into the country, but had solemnly, earnestly, and
    repeatedly remonstrated against it. 2. Because having been
    born in the presence of slavery, and accustomed to it from
    their infancy, they could not be expected to view it in the
    same light as we view it at the North. 3. Slavery being there
    established by law, it was not in the power of individuals to
    act in regard to it as their personal feelings might dictate.
    The evil had not been eradicated from the state of New York
    all at once: It had been a gradual process, commencing with
    the law 1799 and not consumated until 1827. Ought we to
    denounce our Southern neighbors if they refuse to do the work
    at a blow? 4. The constitution of the United States tolerated
    slavery, in its articles apportioning representation with
    reference to the slave population, and requiring the
    surrender of runaway slaves. 5. Slavery had been much
    mitigated of late years, and the condition of the slave
    population much ameliorated. Its former rigor was almost
    unknown, at least in Virginia, and it was lessening
    continually. It was not consistent with truth to represent
    the slaves as groaning day and night under the lash of
    tyranical task-masters. And as to being kept in perfect
    ignorance, Mr. V. had seldom seen a plantation where some of
    the slaves could not read, and where they were not encouraged
    to learn. In South Carolina, where it was said the gospel was
    systematically denied to the slaves, there were twenty
    thousand of them church members in the Methodist denomination
    alone. He knew a small church where out of 70 communicants,
    50 were in slavery. 6. There were very great difficulties
    connected with the work of Abolition. The relations of
    slavery had ramified themselves through all the relations of
    society. The slaves were comparatively very ignorant; their
    character degraded; and they were unqualified for immediate
    freedom. A blunder in such a concern as universal abolition,
    would be no light matter. Mr. V. here referred to the result
    of experience and personal observation on the mind of the
    well-known Mr. Parker, late a minister of this city, but now
    of New-Orleans. He had left this city for the South with the
    feeling of an immediate abolitionist; but he had returned
    with his views wholly changed. After seeing slavery and
    slave-holders, and that at the far South, he now declared the
    idea of immediate and universal abolition to be a gross
    absurdity. To liberate the two and a half millions of slaves
    in the midst of us, would be just as wise and as humane, as
    it would be for the father of a numerous family of young
    children to take them to the front door, and there bidding
    them good bye, tell them they were free, and send them out
    into the world to provide for and govern themselves. 7.
    Foreign interference was, of necessity, a delicate thing, and
    ought ever to be attempted with the utmost caution. 8. There
    was a large amount of unfeigned Christian anxiety at the
    South to obey God and do good to man. There were many tears
    and prayers continually poured out over the condition of
    their colored people, and the most earnest desire to mitigate
    their sorrows. Were such persons to be approached with
    vituperation and anathemas? 9. There was no reason why all
    our sympathies should be confined to the colored race and
    utterly withheld from our white southern brethren. The
    apostle Paul exhibited no such spirit. 10. A regard to the
    interest of the slaves themselves dictated a cautious and
    prudent and forbearing course. It called for conciliation:
    for the fate of the slaves depended on the will of their
    masters, nor could the north prevent it. The late laws
    against teaching the slaves to read had not been passed until
    the Southern people found inflamatory publications
    circulating among the colored people. 11. The spirit of the
    gospel forbade all violence, abuse and threatening. The
    apostles had wished to call fire from heaven on those they
    considered as Christ's enemies; but the Saviour, instead of
    approving this fiery zeal, had rebuked it. 12. These Southern
    people, who were represented as so grossly violating all
    Christian duty, had been the subjects of gracious blessings
    from God in the outpourings of his Spirit. 13. When God
    convinced men of error, he did it in the spirit of mercy; we
    ought to endeavor to do the same thing in the same spirit.

The only remaining testimony relates to the states of Louisiana and
Mississippi, in the south west. The letter from which it is taken is
written by a son of that Mr. Finley, who perhaps more than any one
else, set on foot the original scheme of African colonization; and
whose name, as a man of pure and enlarged benevolence and wisdom, the
enemies of his plans quote with respect. The son well deserves to have
had such a father.

                              _New-Orleans, March 12, 1835._

    In my former letter I gave you some account of the leading
    characters amongst the free people of color who recently
    sailed from this port in the Brig "Rover." for Liberia. I
    then promised you in my next to give you some account of the
    emancipated slaves who sailed in the same expedition. This
    promise I will now endeavor to fulfil, and I will begin with
    the case of an individual emancipation, and then state the
    case of an emancipated family, and conclude with an account
    of the emancipation of several families by the same
    individual.

    The first case alluded to is that of a young woman
    emancipated by the last will and testament of the late Judge
    James Workman, of this city, the same who left a legacy of
    ten thousand dollars to the American Colonization Society.
    Judge Workman's will contains the following clause in
    relation to her, viz:--"I request my statu liber, Kitty, a
    quarteroon girl, to be set free as soon as convenient. And I
    request my executors may send her, as she shall prefer, and
    they think best, either to the Colonization Society at
    Norfolk, to be sent to Liberia or to Hayti; and if she prefer
    remaining in Louisiana, that they may endeavor to have an act
    passed for her emancipation; if the same cannot be attained
    otherwise; and it is my will that the sum of three hundred
    dollars be paid to her after she shall be capable of
    receiving the same. I request my executors to hold in their
    hands money for this purpose. I particularly request my
    friend John G. Greene to take charge of this girl, and do the
    best for her that he can." Mr. Greene provided her with a
    handsome outfit, carefully attended to her embarkation, and
    the shipment of her freight, and placed her under the care of
    the Rev. Gloster Simpson.

    The next case, alluded to above, is that of a family of
    eleven slaves emancipated for faithful and meritorious
    services, by the will of of the late Mrs. Bullock, of
    Claiborne county, Miss. Mrs. Moore, the sister and executrix
    of Mrs. Bullock's estate, gave them 700 dollars to furnish an
    outfit and give them a start in the colony.

    The third and last case alluded to above, consisted of
    several families, amounting in the whole to 26 individual
    slaves belonging to the estate of the late James Green, of
    Adams county, Mississipi. The following interesting
    circumstances concerning their liberation, were communicated
    to me by James Railey, Esq., the brother-in-law and acting
    executor of Mr. Green's Estate. Mr. Green died on the 15th of
    May, 1832, the proprietor of about 130 slaves, and left Mr.
    Railey, his brother-in-law, and his sisters, Mrs. Railey and
    Mrs. Wood, executors of his last will and testament. Mr.
    Green's will provides for the unconditional emancipation of
    but one of his slaves--a faithful and intelligent man named
    Granger, whom Mr. Green had raised and taught to read, write,
    and keep accounts. He acted as foreman for his master for
    about five years previous to his death. Mr. Green, by his
    will, left him 3000 dollars, on condition that he went to
    Liberia, otherwise, 2000 dollars. Provision was also made in
    the will for securing to him his wife. Granger has been
    employed since the death of Mr. Green, until recently, as
    overseer for Mr. Railey, at a salary of 600 dollars per
    annum. Granger declines going to Liberia at present on
    account of the unwillingness of his mother to go there. She
    is very aged and infirm, and he is very much attached to her.
    She was a favorite slave of Mr. Green's mother, who
    emancipated her and left her a legacy of 1000 dollars.
    Granger came to this city with Mr. Railey to see his friends
    and former fellow-servants embark: and when he bade them
    farewell, he said, with a very emphatic tone and manner, "I
    will follow you in about 18 months."

    The executors of Mr. Green's estate were by no means slack in
    meeting the testator's wishes concerning these people. Mr.
    Railey accompanied them to New-Orleans, and both he and Mrs.
    Wood, who also was in New-Orleans while they were preparing
    to embark, took a lively and active interest in providing
    them with everything necessary for their comfort on the
    voyage, and their welfare after their arrival in the Colony,
    and placed in my hand 7000 dollars for their benefit, one
    thousand dollars of which were appropriated towards the
    charter of a vessel to convey them to the Colony, with the
    privilege of 140 barrels freight--sixteen hundred dollars
    towards the purchase of an outfit, consisting of mechanics'
    tools, implements of agriculture, household furniture,
    medicines, clothing, &c., and the remaining four thousand
    four hundred dollars, partly invested in trade, goods, and
    partly in specia, were shipped and consigned to the Governor
    of Liberia, for their benefit, with an accompanying
    memorandum made out by Mr. Railey, showing how much was each
    one's portion.

    I will close this communication by relating one additional
    circumstance communicated to me by Mr. Railey, to show the
    interest felt by Mr. Green in the success of the scheme of
    African Colonization. The day previous to his death, he
    requested Mr. Railey to write a memorandum of several things
    which he wished done after his death, which memorandum
    contains the following clause, viz:--"After executing all my
    wishes as expressed by Will, by this memorandum, and by
    verbal communications, I sincerely hope there will be a
    handsome sum left for benefitting the emancipated negroes
    emigrating from this State to Liberia; and to that end I have
    more concern than you are aware of."

    I am authorized by the Executors to state that there will be
    a residuum to Mr. Green's estate of twenty or thirty-five
    thousand dollars, which they intend to appropriate in
    conformity with the views of Mr. Green expressed above.

                             Yours, &c.,
                                           ROBERT S. FINLEY.

And now I rest the case, and commit the result to an enlightened
public. Here are my proofs and arguments showing as I believe
conclusively, that the slanderous accusations against my country and
my brethren which I have come to this city to repel,--are not only
false, but incredible. Here are my testimonials, few and casually
gathered up, but yet, as it seems to me, irresistibly convincing, that
the people and churches of America--in the very thing charged,--have
been and are acting, a wise, self-denying and humane part. That they
should move onward in it as rapidly as the happiness of all the
parties will allow, must be the wish of all good men. That obstacles
should be interposed through the error, the imprudence, or the
violence of well meaning but ill-judging persons, is truly deplorable.
But that we should be traduced before the whole world, when we are
innocent; that we should first be forced into most difficult
circumstances, and then forced to manage those circumstances in such a
way as to cause our certain ruin, by the very same people; or in
default of submitting to both requirments, be forced first into war,
and afterwards into a state of bitter mutual contention, only less
dreadful than war itself, is outrageous and intolerable. While we
justly complain of these things, we discharge ourselves of the guilt
attributed to us, and acquit ourselves to God and our consciences, of
all the fatal consequences likely to follow such conduct.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. THOMPSON rose, and spoke in nearly the following words:

_Mr. Chairman_,

If I were to say that I rose on the present occasion without a feeling
of anxiety regarding the issue of the discussion now drawing to a
close, I should say what is not the truth. I cannot remember that I
ever stood before an auditory in a more interesting or responsible
position. The question before us is one of momentous magnitude; and
that branch of it which to-night claims our special attention, is of
all others, the most solemn and delicate. I am, therefore, anxious,
deeply anxious, respecting the impression which shall rest upon the
minds of this assembly, when I have occupied the attention of yourself
and of it, for a portion of time equal to that which has been expended
by my opponent. If, however, I were to say that I rose with any
feeling of alarm in the contemplation of the result of that ordeal
through which I am about to pass, I should speak that which would be
equally at variance with the truth. So far from indulging any fear, or
wishing to propitiate this audience, I pray that for the sake of
truth, humanity, and the country represented by my opponent; for the
sake of our character in the sight of God at the audit of the great
day; there may be a severe, jealous and impartial judgment formed,
according to the evidence which shall be submitted. Or, if it be
impossible to hold the balance strictly even, I ask that the bias for
the present, may be in favor of my opponent. It is true, I am not an
American. It is true, I was in the United States but fourteen months.
It is true, I never crossed the Potomac; never saw a slave, unless
that slave had been brought to the North by some temporary resident.
Receive, therefore, with caution and suspicion my statements. Let
there be every discount upon my assertions which my youth and
rashness, my want of observation and experience demand. At the same
time I ask that every proper degree of respect shall be paid to the
witnesses I shall bring before you; and that however my testimony may
be doubted, theirs at least may have the weight which their character,
and station, and opportunities shall appear to entitle them to.

I am accused of monstrous injustice towards America, when I say that
in that country slavery wears its most horrid forms. In saying this, I
must not be understood as speaking according to the actual physical
condition of the slave, or even of his legal and political condition,
apart from the religion and institutions of the land in which he
lives. I judge not by the number of links in his chain; the number of
lashes inflicted on his back; the nature of his toil, or the quality
or quantity of his food. It is, when irrespective of the treatment of
the body, I find two millions of human beings regarded as merchandise;
ranked with the beasts of the field, and reduced by the neglect of
their immortal minds to the condition of heathens; it is when I find
this awful system in full operation, surrounded by the barriers and
safeguards of the Law and the Constitution, in the United States of
North America; the land of Republicanism, and Christianity, and
Revivals, that I say, Slavery in America wears a form more horrid than
in any other part of the world. Yes, Sir; when I am told that in that
land, liberty is enjoyed to a greater extent than in any other
country; that the principles on which this liberty and independence
rest are these: "God created all men free and equal." "Resistance to
Tyrants is obedience to God;" and see also two millions of captives;
their dungeon barred and watched by proud Republicans, and boasting
Christians; I turn with horror and indignation away, exclaiming as I
quit the sickening scene, Slavery wears its most loathsome form in the
United States of America!

Before I come to that portion of my Address which I shall present as a
reply to Mr. Breckinridge, I beg to say one word in vindication of the
character and temper of American Abolitionists; and I am glad on this
occasion to be able to cite the testimony of a gentleman, whom Mr.
Breckinridge has not declined to call his friend; I mean James G.
Birney, Esq., formerly residing in the same State with Mr. B., and now
in Cincinnati. Mr. Birney made a visit to the North last year, for the
purpose of ascertaining for himself, by actual observation and
intercourse, the real character of the Abolitionists, and the manner
in which they prosecuted their work. Having done this, he thus writes:

    Last spring I attended the Ohio Anti-Slavery Convention; was
    present at the several meetings of the American Anti-Slavery
    Society in New York, and at the Anti-Slavery Convention held
    in Boston. On these several occasions, I became acquainted,
    and deliberated with, it may be, not less than one thousand
    persons, who may be fairly set down as among the most
    intelligent of the abolitionists. Subjects on which the most
    diverse opinions were entertained, and which to ambitious and
    untrained minds would be agitating and dissensious in the
    extreme, were discussed with the most calm and unruffled
    composure. And while some of the leading journals were
    teeming with the foulest and the falsest charges of moral and
    political turpitude; while there were produced in their
    assemblies placards, calling on the mob for appropriate
    deeds, and designating the time and place of holding their
    meetings, that its violence might know at what point it might
    most effectually spend itself; yet, never elsewhere have I
    seen so much of sedate deliberation of sober conclusion, of
    dignified moderation, sanctified by earnest prayer to God,
    not only for the oppressed, but for the oppressor of his
    fellow; not only for such as they loved, but for their
    slanderers, and persecutors, and enemies.

    The above is a fair account, so far as my knowledge enables
    me to speak, of the character of those whom you are pleased
    to describe "a band of fanatical abolitionists." Light and
    rash minds, unaccustomed to penetrate to the real causes of
    great revolutions in public sentiment, will, of course, think
    and speak contemptuously of them, while the philosophic
    observer clearly sees, that such antagonists of error, armed
    with so powerful a weapon as the Truth, must, at all times,
    be invincible; and that in the end they will be triumphant.

A word, too, before I come to the state of the churches, with regard
to Mr. Breckinridge's concluding topic last evening; to which I had
not, of course, any opportunity to reply; and, as the time allotted
for this discussion is now determined, I shall be permitted to dwell a
few moments on the subject. Mr. Breckinridge did, I am ready to
acknowledge, with tolerable fairness, state the views of the
abolitionists with regard to prejudice against color; that it was
sinful, that it ought to be abandoned, and that the colored man should
be raised to the enjoyment of equal civil and religious privileges
with the whites. But after he had laid down, generally speaking
correctly, the views of the abolitionists, he proceeded to put the
most _unfair_ interpretation upon those views, and strangely contended
that they were directly aiming to accomplish the amalgamation of the
races in the fullest sense of that word. Once again, I _deny_ this.
Once again I appeal to all that the abolitionists have ever written or
spoken: to their published, official, solemn, authoritative
disclaimers; and I say on my behalf and on theirs, that with the
intermixture of "the races," as they are called, (a phrase I do not
like,) the abolitionists have nothing to do. What they have ever
contended for is this, that the colored man should now be delivered
from the condition of a beast; that he should cease to be regarded as
the property of his fellow man; and that according to the laws of the
state regulating the qualifications of citizens, he should be admitted
to a participation of the privileges that are enjoyed by other classes
of the community. We have never asked for more. We have left the
doctrine of amalgamation to be settled by our opponents. The slave
holders are the amalgamationists whose licentiousness has gone far to
put an end to the existence of a black race in the South, and who are
still carrying on, to use their own expression, "a bleaching system,"
whitening the population of the South, so that you may now discover
all shades of colored persons; from those who are so fair that they
are scarcely distinguishable from the whites, to the pure black of the
unmixed negro. But my opponent defeated himself. While attempting to
expose the folly and wickedness of amalgamation, he at the same time
contended that the thing was physically impossible; that even a
partial amalgamation could only be brought about by polygamy or
prostitution, but that general amalgamation was hopeless, because
physically impossible. If the thing be utterly beyond the reach of the
abolitionists, why dread it as an evil? Why not let the abolitionists
pursue their foolish and impracticable schemes? Why so much wrath
against them for aiming at that which nature has rendered
unattainable. I leave Mr. Breckinridge to find his way out of this
difficulty in the best manner he is able.

Again, we are told, that in attempting to bring about amalgamation,
and in preventing Colonization, we are interfering with the _purposes_
of God; fighting against His ordinances, and exposing Africa to the
horrors of extermination, should the descendants of Shem or Japhet
colonize her shores, and not the black man who has sprung from her
tribes. I confess I am somewhat surprised, when told by a Presbyterian
clergyman of Calvinistic sentiments, that I am to regulate my conduct
towards my fellow-men by the _purposes_ of God, rather than by the
_law_ of God. This is surely a new doctrine! What, I ask, have I to do
with the decrees of the Almighty? Has he not given me a law by which
to walk? Has he not told me to love my neighbor as myself? to "honor
all men?" Am I not told that God hath made of _one_ blood all nations
of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth? Where is the
prohibition to marry with Shem or Ham. I know of no directions in the
Old Testament respecting marriages, save such as were founded on
religious differences, and I have yet to learn that there are any in
the New Testament. That blessed Book declares, that in Christ Jesus
there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but all are _one_. The only
injunction I am aware of is this, "be not unequally yoked together
with unbelievers."

Mr. Breckinridge made a considerable parade of his knowledge of
Universal History, and pretended to build his theory upon the most
correct historical data. While upon this subject of _amalgamation_ and
_extermination_, I will take the liberty of submitting one or two
inquiries to Mr. Breckinridge.

Is there any law in America forbidding ministers to celebrate
marriages between Japhethite American Christians and Jewesses, (by
birth, even if Christians by faith,) and Jews, (even if Christians.)
to marry Japhethite, American females? If there be not, then, why may
Shem and Japhet intermarry, but Ham with neither? Again: If there be
no such law, then the doctrine about Noah's three sons, is not a
principle on which the American people act, but Mr. B.'s individual
dogma, got up to defend a line of conduct really proceeding without
reference to any such principle. If it be said that Jewish and
Japhethite Americans are very nearly, if not altogether, of the same
color; and that there are no political evils to be dreaded from the
intermixture of Jews with Japhethites; I reply, that, admitting the
truth of both these representations, is not the sin of mixing Noah's
sons, and counter-working the designs of God, the same in the case of
Shem and Japhet as it would be in the case of Japhet or Shem with the
tribes of Ham? Again,

Did the Romans, (Japhethites,) exterminate the Jews, (Shemites?)

Did the Arab Shemite conquerors of Egypt exterminate the ancient
inhabitants (Hamites,) who still exist, and are known by the name of
Copts or Cophti?

Did not the Tartars, now Turks, a (Japhethite tribe,) when they
conquered the Caliphs, embrace the religion of the conquered, who were
Mohamedans and Shemites?

Did not the Shemite Mohamedans conquer the Persians, (Japhethites,) a
part of whom, who would not embrace the Mohamedan religion, and could
not be tolerated by the Mohamedans in theirs, (viz. fire worship,)
flee to India, where they still exist, known by the name of Guebers,
while the rest of the people, embracing Mohamedanism, amalgamated with
their conquerors; and is not the modern Persian language a proof of
this, in which all the terms of religion and science are Arabic,
(Shemite,) the rest of the language being a colluvies of the Deri,
Zend, and Pehlavi dialects, which the most eminent phylologists
consider as all resolvable into Sanscrit, the most ancient Japhethite
speech existing?

The cases of the Romans and Jews, and of the Arab conquerors of Egypt
and the Copts, are instances of conquest _without extermination_; the
parties remaining dissevered by religious differences. The cases of
the Tartar-Turks, and the Arabs, and of the Arabs and the Persians,
are cases of conquest without extermination, and _with amalgamation_;
the conquerors in the first case having adopted the religion of the
conquered, and the conquered in the second case, that of the
conquerors.

Instead of the Americans proceeding in their conduct towards the
colored people with any reference either to the divine laws or the
divine decrees, they act solely under the influence of their pride and
prejudice. How their prejudice was in the first place produced, it is
not necessary at this time to inquire. I may just remark that color
has long been the badge of slavery. Long have the negroes been an
enslaved and degraded class. The child is tutored to look upon a
colored man as an inferior, and this feeling of superiority, implanted
early in the mind of the child, growing with his growth, and
strengthening with his strength, becomes at last a confirmed and
almost invincible principle, disposing him with eagerness to adopt any
views of revelation which will permit him to cherish and gratify his
pride and hatred towards the colored man. Hence has arisen the
aristocracy of the skin. Hence the many lamentable departures from the
spirit and precepts of the gospel, every day witnessed in the United
Slates. Two illustrations of the force of prejudice are now before me.
The first is a short article from the New York Evangelist, copied into
the Scottish Guardian of this city. I will read it entire. It is as
follows:

    A HARD CASE. A native born American applied to our
    authorities this morning for a license to drive a cart. He
    has been for years employed as a porter in Pearl Street,
    principally among the booksellers, who were his petitioners
    to the number of forty firms. He is an honest, temperate, and
    in every respect a worthy man; of an amiable disposition,
    muscular frame, and of good address, and every way calculated
    for the situation he seeks; besides being a member of the
    Society of Friends, a sufficient recommendation of itself;
    for the office is now filled in part by swearing, drunken,
    quarrelling foreigners, who are daily disturbing the quiet of
    our streets by their broils; and endangering the lives of our
    citizens by their infuriate conduct.

    Wm. S. Hewlett was refused by our Mayor, on the ground of
    public opinion! because

        "----guilty of a skin
        Not colored like his own."

    Hewlett owns property in William Street, to the amount of
    20,000 dollars; but prefers, unlike many of no more income, a
    life of industry and economy, to seeking "otium cum
    dignitate."

                           "What man seeing this,
        And having human feelings, does not blush,
        And hang his head to own himself a man."

The next is found in a letter written by a Professor Smith, of the
Wesleyan University, Connecticut, who, while vindicating the
University from the charge of having expelled a young man "for the
crime of color," makes the following admission:

    "That it would be difficult, in the present state of public
    feeling, to preserve a colored individual from inquietude in
    any of our collegiate schools, and to render his connection
    with them tolerable, is not denied."

I come now, (continued Mr. T.) to the state of the American Churches,
in regard to Slavery; and to attempt a justification of the heavy
charges I have brought against them. If at the close of this address
it shall appear that I have misrepresented the Christians of America;
that I have stated as facts, things which are untrue, I solemnly call
upon those who have hitherto vindicated my reputation, and sustained
me as the truthful advocate of the cause of human rights, to discard
me as utterly disqualified to be their representative in so sacred a
work, because, capable of pleading for JUSTICE at the expense of
TRUTH.

Of slaveholding ministers in America, Mr. Breckinridge has asserted,
that they are as ONE IN A THOUSAND, or at most, as ONE IN FIVE
HUNDRED. The first document I shall quote to disprove this assertion,
will be a letter in the "Southern Religious Telegraph," of October 31,
1835, addressed to the Presbyterian Clergy of Virginia; written to
warn those ministers against pursuits calculated to injure their
spirituality, destroy their usefulness, and prevent those revivals of
religion with which other portions of the Church of Christ had been
favored; also to account for an apparent declension in piety in the
State generally. It is proper to remark, that the letter from which I
make the present extract, was not written to promote the cause of
abolition; that the writer never imagined it would be used on such an
occasion; and that the newspaper in which it appears is _pro_-slavery
to the very core.

    "In one region of country, where I am acquainted, of rather
    more than THIRTY Presbyterian ministers, including
    missionaries, TWENTY are farmers, viz. (planters and
    SLAVEHOLDERS,) ON A PRETTY EXTENSIVE SCALE; three are school
    teachers; one is a farmer and a teacher; one, a farmer and a
    merchant, and joint proprietor of iron works, which must be
    in operation on the Sabbath; and one is a farmer and editor
    of a political newspaper. These farmers generally superintend
    their own business. THEY OVERSEE THEIR NEGROES, attend to
    their stock, make purchases, and visit the markets to make
    sale of their crops. They necessarily have much intercourse
    with their neighbors on worldly business, and not
    unfrequently come into unpleasant collision with the
    merchants."

O, Sir, what a revelation of things is here! These are not the
calumnies of George Thompson, but the confessions of one, striving
earnestly to awaken the attention of the Virginia clergy to a sense of
the degradation and barrenness of the church, and to direct their
attention to the main causes of such lamentable effects.

Next, permit me to request your attention to an extract from "An
Address to the Presbyterians of Kentucky, proposing a plan for the
instruction and emancipation of their slaves; by a Committee of the
SYNOD OF KENTUCKY. Cincinnati: published by Eli Taylor, 1835." We
shall, in this document, get at the opinion of men, sensitively
jealous for the honor, purity, and usefulness of the Presbyterian
churches, from which Mr. Breckinridge is A DELEGATE. What say they of
slavery in general, and the practice of THEIR CHURCH in particular:

    "Brutal stripes, and all the various kinds of personal
    indignities, are not the only species of cruelty, which
    slavery licenses. The law does not recognize the family
    relations of a slave; and extends to him no protection in the
    enjoyment of domestic endearments. The members of a slave
    family may be forcibly separated, so that they shall never
    more meet until the final judgment. And cupidity often
    induces the masters to practise what the law allows. Brothers
    and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives, are
    torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. These
    acts are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and
    the agony, often witnessed on such occasions, proclaim with a
    trumpet-tongue, the iniquity and cruelty of our system. The
    cry of these sufferers goes up to the ears of the Lord of
    Sabaoth. There is not a neighborhood, where these
    heart-rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a
    village or road that does not behold the sad procession of
    manacled outcasts, whose chains and mournful countenances
    tell that they are exiled by force from all that their hearts
    held dear. Our church, years ago, raised its voice by solemn
    warning against this flagrant violation of every principle of
    mercy, justice, and humanity. Yet WE BLUSH TO ANNOUNCE TO YOU
    AND TO THE WORLD, THAT, THIS WARNING HAS BEEN OFTEN
    DISREGARDED, EVEN BY THOSE WHO HOLD TO OUR COMMUNION. CASES
    HAVE OCCURRED, IN OUR OWN DENOMINATION, WHERE PROFESSORS OF
    THE RELIGION OF MERCY HAVE TORN THE MOTHER FROM HER CHILDREN,
    AND SENT HER INTO A MERCILESS AND RETURNLESS EXILE. YET ACTS
    OF DISCIPLINE HAVE RARELY FOLLOWED SUCH CONDUCT."

Follow me now into the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the Presbyterian Church of
the United States, convened in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in May, 1835,
and let the individual who addresses you be forgotten, while you
listen to the things uttered in the midst of that solemn convocation.
At the time when the passages I am about to read, were spoken, there
were sitting in that Assembly, men from all parts of the country. The
Southern Churches fully represented by row upon row of ministers and
elders from every region of the slaveholding States. In that Assembly,
one year from this time, did the Rev. J. H. Dickey, of the Chilicothe
Presbytery, Ohio, (a clergyman who had passed thirty years of his life
in a slave State.) and Mr. Stewart, a ruling elder from the Presbytery
of Schuyler, Illinois, make the following statements, which have
remained, I believe, uncontradicted to this hour:

    "He (Mr. Dickey,) believed there were many, and great evils
    in the Presbyterian Church; but the doctrine of slaveholding,
    he was fully persuaded, was the worst heresy now found in the
    Church."

    "MR. STEWART--I hope this Assembly are prepared to come out
    fully, and declare their sentiments, that slaveholding is a
    most flagrant and heinous SIN. Let us not pass it by in this
    indirect way, while so many thousands and thousands of our
    fellow-creatures are writhing under the lash, often inflicted
    too by MINISTERS AND ELDERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH."

       *       *       *       *       *

    "IN THIS CHURCH, a man may take a free born child, force it
    away from its parents, to whom God gave it in charge, saying,
    'Bring it up for me,' and sell it as a beast, or hold it in
    perpetual bondage, and not only escape corporal punishment,
    but really be esteemed an excellent Christian. NAY, EVEN
    MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL, AND DOCTORS OF DIVINITY, may engage
    in this unholy traffic, and yet sustain their high and holy
    calling."

       *       *       *       *       *

    "ELDERS, MINISTERS, AND DOCTORS OF DIVINITY, ARE WITH BOTH
    HANDS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE. * * * * * * A Slave-holder who
    is making gains by the trade, may have as good a character
    for honesty as any other man."

       *       *       *       *       *

    "No language can paint the injustice and abominations of
    slavery, But in these United States, this vast amount of
    moral turpitude is (as I believe) justly chargeable to the
    Church. I do not mean to say those church members who
    actually engage in this diabolical practice, but I mean to
    say THE CHURCH. Yes, Sir, all the infidelity that is the
    result of this unjust conduct of the professed followers of
    CHRIST; all the unholy amalgamation; all the tears and
    groans; all the eyes that have been literally plucked from
    their sockets; all the pains and violent deaths from the
    lash, and the various engines of torture, and all the souls
    that are, or will be eternally damned, as a consequence of
    slavery in these United States, ARE ALL JUSTLY CHARGEABLE TO
    THE CHURCH; AND HOW MUCH FALLS TO THE SHARE OF THIS
    PARTICULAR CHURCH YOU CAN ESTIMATE AS WELL AS I."

       *       *       *       *       *

    "The judgments of God are staring this Church full in the
    face, and threatening her dissolution. She is all life and
    nerve in matters of doctrine, and on some points where men
    may honestly differ; while sins of a crimson dye are
    committed in open day, BY MEMBERS OF THIS CHURCH WITH PERFECT
    IMPUNITY."

I appeal to you, Sir, and this audience; did George Thompson ever
utter charges against the American churches more awful than those
contained in the extracts I have read--extracts from speeches made in
the General Assembly of the body from which Mr. Breckinridge is a
delegate? I leave for the present the Presbyterians, and proceed to
notice the state of the


METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCHES.

Mr. Breckinridge displayed great regard for the reputation of
this body. He believed they were almost free from the sin of
slaveholding--their discipline was most emphatic in its condemnation
of it, and he defied me to show that any Methodist was engaged in the
infernal practice of slave trading. First, as to the probable extent
of slavery in the church. On this point I shall quote from a solemn
and authenticated document issued by a number of ministers in the
Methodist Episcopal body in New England, entitled:--

    "An appeal on the subject of Slavery, addressed to the
    members of the New England and New Hampshire conferences of
    the Methodist Episcopal Church;" and signed by

                                          SHIPLEY W. WILSON.
                                          ABRAM D. MERRILL.
                                          LA ROY SUNDERLAND.
                                          GEORGE STORRS.
                                          JARED PERKINS.

        Boston, Dec. 19th, 1834.

In answer to the question--

"When will slavery cease from our church, if we continue to alter our
rules against it as we have done for some years past?" they observe--

    "But we will not dwell on this part of our subject; it is
    painful enough to think of; and as members of the Methodist
    Episcopal Church, and as Methodist preachers, we readily
    confess we are exceedingly afflicted with a view of it, and
    still more with a knowledge of the fact, that the "great
    evil" of slavery has been _increasing_, both among the
    membership and ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at
    a _fearful rate_, for thirty or forty years past. The general
    minutes of our Annual Conferences, announce about 80,000
    colored members in our church; and it is highly probable,
    from various reasons which might be named, that _as many as
    sixty thousand, or upwards of these, are slaves_; but what
    proportion of these and _others_, are enslaved by the
    _Methodist members_ and _Methodist preachers_, we have no
    means of determining precisely; but the _alterations_ which
    have been made in the discipline, show at once that _the
    number is neither few nor small_; and if this evil was a
    "great" one fifty years ago, what must it be now? What will
    it be fifty or a hundred years hence, _should the discipline
    be_ ALTERED _as it has been during half a century past_? Who
    can tell where this "great" and growing "evil," will end? We
    frequently hear Christians and Christian ministers expressing
    the greatest fears for the safety of the "political" union of
    these United States, whenever the subject of slavery is
    mentioned; but no fears as to the prosperity and peace of the
    Christian church, though this "evil" be ever so "great," and
    though it be increased every day a thousand fold. But can it
    be supposed that any branch of the Christian church is in a
    healthy and prosperous state, while it slumbers and nurses in
    its bosom so great an evil."

In reply to the challenge to produce one instance of a slave trading
Methodist, I give the following from "Zion's Watchman," a Methodist
newspaper, published in New York. It is from a letter of a
correspondent of that paper:

    "A man came among us where I was preaching, a class-leader,
    from Georgia, having a regular certificate, who appeared to
    be very zealous, exhorting and praying in our meetings, &c. I
    thought I had got an excellent helper; but, on inquiring his
    business, I found he was a SLAVE TRADER: come on purpose to
    buy up men, women, and children, to drive to the South!!! I
    expostulated with him; but he said it was not thought wrong
    where he came from. I told him we could not countenance such
    a thing here, and that we could hold no fellowship with him."
    He farther told me that on inquiring of a slave he had with
    him, what sort of a master he was, he replied, "I have had
    four masters, but this is the most cruel of them all;" and
    told him, as a proof of it, to look at his back, which, said
    the minister, "was cut with a whip, from his head to his
    heels!!" The Rev. S. W. Wilson, of Andover, United States,
    gives also an extract of a letter he had seen from a
    gentleman of high standing, who was at the South at the time
    of writing, which says, "The South is too much interested in
    the continuance of slavery, to hear any thing upon the
    subject. The preachers of the gospel are in the same
    condemnation, and METHODIST PREACHERS ESPECIALLY. The
    principal reason why the Methodists in these regions are more
    numerous and popular than other denominations is, THEY STICK
    SO CLOSELY TO SLAVERY!! THEY DENOUNCE BOTH THE ABOLITIONISTS
    AND THE COLONIZATIONISTS."

To show the extent to which THE BAPTIST CHURCHES SHARE THE GUILT OF
THE SYSTEM OF SLAVERY IN AMERICA, it will be sufficient to read an
extract from a letter addressed to the Board of Baptist ministers in
and near London, by the Rev. Lucius Bolles, D. D., the Corresponding
Secretary of the American Baptist Board of Foreign Missions. The
testimony is the stronger, because the whole letter is a carefully
written apology for Southern religious slaveholders, and an attempt to
silence the remonstrances of the English churches.

    "There is a pleasing degree of union among the multiplying
    thousands of Baptists throughout the land. Brethren from all
    parts of the country meet in one General Convention and
    co-operate in sending the gospel to the heathen. Our Southern
    brethren are liberal and zealous in the promotion of every
    holy enterprize for the extension of the gospel. THEY ARE,
    GENERALLY, BOTH MINISTERS AND PEOPLE, SLAVE-HOLDERS."

In this connection, I may notice the recommendation of the work of
Drs. Cox and Hoby. We are assured by Mr. Breckinridge, (though he
confesses he has not read the book,) that every representation it
contains relative to slavery among "the Baptists in America," may be
relied on. That book, thus endorsed by Mr. B., informs us that the
deputation were permitted to sit in the convention at Richmond,
Virginia, only on condition of _profound silence_, touching the wrongs
of more than two millions of heathenized slaves. We are gravely told
that the introduction of abolition would have been "an INTRUSION, as
RUDE as it would have been UNWELCOME." It would, says the Delegates,
have "FRUSTRATED every object of our mission;" "awakened HOSTILITY,
and kindled DISLIKE;" "roused into EMBITTERED ACTIVITY feelings
between Christian brethren, which must have SEVERED the Baptist
churches." It would have occasioned the "UTTER CONFUSION OF ALL ORDER,
the RUIN of all Christian feeling," and "THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL LOVE
AND FELLOWSHIP;" and the Convention would either have been "DISSOLVED"
by "MAGISTERIAL INFLUENCE," or "THE DELEGATES WOULD HAVE DISSOLVED
THEMSELVES." Yet this was "a sacred and heavenly meeting," in which
"the kindliest emotions, the warmest affections, the loveliest spirit
towards ourselves, (the Baptist Delegates,) towards England and
mankind" existed! Oh, Sir, is it possible to draw a more affecting
picture of the withering and corrupting influences of slavery, than is
here presented to our view in this description of the triennial
convention of Baptist ministers, assembled in the city of Richmond,
Virginia, in the year 1835.


AMOS DRESSER'S CASE.

I proceed to notice the case of Amos Dresser; the young man who was so
inhumanly tortured by the citizens and professing Christians of the
city of Nashville, Tennessee. I can assure my opponent, that the
discrepancy in my statements which he has noticed, is an error in
reporting. I am not aware of having ever stated the number of elders
in the committee to be _eleven_. My statement of the case has always
been simply this--that Mr. Dresser, a pious and respectable young man,
was apprehended in Nashville, on suspicion of being an abolitionist;
brought before a Vigilance Committee, and, according to "Lynch Law,"
was sentenced to receive twenty lashes with a cowskin, on his bare
back. That he was so punished; and that upon the Committee were seven
elders of the Presbyterian church, and one Campbellite minister. The
whole case as narrated by Mr. Dresser, and published in the Cincinnati
Gazette, is now before me. The Committee, by which Mr. Dresser was
tried and sentenced, is called a "Committee of Vigilance and Safety."

The following are the names of the seven elders in the Presbyterian
Church:

                                                JOHN NICHOL,
                                                ALPHA KINGSLEY,
                                                A. A. CASSEDAY,
                                                WM. ARMSTRONG,
                                                SAMUEL SEAY,
                                                S. V. D. STOUT.
                                                S. C. ROBINSON.
          The name of the Campbellite Minister, THOMAS CLAIBORNE.

The Committee, after examining his books, papers, and private
memoranda, and hearing his defence, found him guilty--1st. "Of being a
member of an Anti-Slavery Society in Ohio." 2d. "Of having in his
possession periodicals published by the American Anti-Slavery
Society." And 3d. "They BELIEVED he had circulated these periodicals,
and advocated in the community the principles they inculcated." The
Chairman, (says Mr. Dresser,) then pronounced that I was condemned to
receive twenty lashes on my bare back, and ordered to leave the place
in twenty-four hours. This was not an hour previous to the
commencement of the Sabbath. Mr. Dresser gives the following account
of the infliction of the sentence:

    "I knelt to receive the punishment, which was inflicted by
    Mr. Braughton, the city officer, with a HEAVY COWSKIN. When
    the infliction ceased, an involuntary feeling of thanksgiving
    to God, for the fortitude with which I had been enabled to
    endure it, arose in my soul, to which I began aloud to give
    utterance. The death-like silence that prevailed for a
    moment, was suddenly broken, with loud exclamations, "G--d
    d--m him, stop his praying." I was raised to my feet by Mr.
    Braughton, and conducted by him to my lodging, where it was
    thought safe for me to remain but for a few moments.

    "Among my triers, there was a great portion of the
    respectability of Nashville. Nearly half the whole number,
    professors of Christianity, the reputed stay of the church,
    supporters of the cause of benevolence in the form of tract
    and missionary societies and Sabbath schools, several members
    and most of the elders of the Presbyterian church, from whose
    hands, but a few days before, I had received the emblems of
    the broken body, and shed blood of our blessed Saviour."
    (!!!!)

Mr. Breckinridge has twice referred to the appearance of a runaway
slave at my lectures in London, and has accused me of carrying him
about with me, to enact interludes during my meeting. I can assure Mr.
Breckinridge that I never had any thing to do with the attendance of
Moses Roper at my meetings, or with the speeches he delivered. On
neither of the occasions mentioned had I any knowledge of his being in
the chapel until I found him among the rest of my auditors. As for
denying the facts stated by him, knowing as I do the brutalizing
effects of slavery, and the state of society in the slave States of
America, it is out of the question. I see nothing in the facts stated
by Moses Roper at all improbable. Since I last came to this city, I
have read in an American newspaper, an account of an affair in
Tennessee, at which the blood runs cold. A black man having committed
some crime, was lodged in prison by the authorities, but being
demanded by the citizens, was given up to them, tied to a tree, and
BURNT ALIVE! During my residence in the United States, a negro was
burnt alive, according to a sentence given by one of the constituted
tribunals of the State! It was called an exemplary punishment, and
many of the papers throughout the country were filled with long and
learned articles, justifying the horrid outrage. Mr. Breckinridge may
point to the laws and the constitution of the country, but I tell him
they and the authorities appointed to enforce them are alike
powerless. I point him to the atrocities of Lynch law all over the
land; to the brutal massacre of the gamblers in Mississippi, where men
in the broad daylight were dragged forth, and tied by the neck to
branches of trees, their eyes starting from their sockets, and their
wives driven across the river, in open boats; their lives threatened,
for daring to ask for the dead bodies of their husbands. I ask if any
law reached the fiends in human shape, who perpetrated these deeds. I
ask Mr. Breckinridge if any law punished the felons of Charleston,
who, seizing the public conveyances, violated the constitution, and
the law of the State, by robbing the mail bags of their contents, and
burning them? Did not the Post Master General encouragingly say, "I
cannot sanction, but I will not condemn what you have done. In your
circumstances I would have acted in a similar manner." Need I remind
Mr. Breckinridge of the mobs at the North; the riots of New York; the
sacking of Mr. Tappan's house, and the demolition of colored schools?
Laws there may be, but while slavery exists, and is defended by public
sentiment, and while the ferocious prejudice against color remains,
they will want the "executory principle," without which they are but
cruel mockery.

A glance at the moral and religious state of the slave population will
show the amount of care and attention exercised by the Christian
churches at the South.

What says the Rev. C. C. Jones, in a sermon preached before two
associations of planters in Georgia, in 1831?

    "Generally speaking, they (the slaves,) appear to us to be
    without God, and without hope in the world, a NATION OF
    HEATHEN in our very midst. We cannot cry out against the
    Papists for withholding the Scriptures from the common
    people, and keeping them in ignorance of the way of life, for
    we WITHHOLD the Bible from our servants, and keep them in
    ignorance of it, while we will not use the means to have it
    read and explained to them. The cry of our perishing servants
    comes up to us from the sultry plains as they bend at their
    toil; it comes up from their humble cottages when they return
    at evening to rest their weary limbs; it comes up to us from
    the midst of their ignorance, and superstition, and adultery,
    and lewdness. We have manifested no emotions of horror at
    abandoning the souls of our servants to the adversary, the
    roaring lion that walketh about seeking whom he may devour."

Again: what said the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, in a report
on the state of the colored population, in respect of religious
instruction?

    "Who would credit it, that in these years of revivals and
    benevolent effort, in this Christian Republic, there are over
    TWO MILLIONS of human beings in the condition of HEATHEN, and
    in some respects in a worse condition. From long continued
    and close observation, we believe that their moral and
    religious condition is such, that they may justly be
    considered the HEATHEN of this Christian country, and will
    bear comparison with heathen in any country of the world. The
    negroes are destitute of the gospel, and EVER WILL BE UNDER
    THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS. In the vast field extending from
    an entire State beyond the Potomac, to the Sabine River, and
    from the Atlantic to the Ohio, there are to the best of our
    knowledge, not TWELVE men exclusively devoted to the
    religious instruction of the negroes. In the present state of
    feeling in the South, a ministry of their own color could
    neither be obtained NOR TOLERATED."

Again: what says a writer in a recent number of the Charleston, South
Carolina, Observer?

    "Let us establish missionaries among our negroes, who, in
    view of religious knowledge, are as debasingly ignorant as
    any one on the coast of Africa; for I hazard the assertion,
    that throughout the bounds of our Synod, there are at least
    one hundred thousand slaves, speaking the same language as
    ourselves, who never HEARD of the plan of salvation by a
    Redeemer."

A writer in the Western Luminary, a respectable religious paper in
Lexington, Kentucky, says,

    "I proclaim it abroad to the Christian world, that heathenism
    is as real in the slave States as it is in the South Sea
    Islands, and that our negroes are as justly objects of
    attention to the American and other Boards of Foreign
    Missions, as the Indians of the Western wilds. What is it
    constitutes heathenism? Is it to be destitute of a knowledge
    of God; of his holy word; never to have heard scarcely a
    sentence of it read through life; to know little or nothing
    of the history, character, instruction and mission of Jesus
    Christ; to be almost totally devoid of moral knowledge and
    feeling, of sentiments of probity, truth and chastity? If
    this constitutes heathenism, then are there thousands,
    millions, of heathen in our beloved land. There is one topic
    to which I will allude, which will serve to establish the
    heathenism of this population. I allude to the universal
    licentiousness which prevails. It may be said emphatically,
    that chastity is no virtue among them; that its violation
    neither injures female character in their own estimation, or
    that of their master or mistress. No instruction is ever
    given; no censure pronounced. I speak not of the world; I
    speak of Christian families generally."

Again: I give the words of the son of a Kentucky slaveholder, who
became an abolitionist at Lane Seminary, and has since induced his
father to emancipate his slaves. Hear James A. Thome.

    "Licentiousness. I shall not speak of the far South, whose
    sons are fast melting away under the UNBLUSHING PROFLIGACY
    which prevails. I allude to the slaveholding West. It is well
    known that the slave lodgings, I refer now to village slaves,
    are exposed to the entrance of strangers every hour of the
    night, and that the SLEEPING APARTMENTS OF BOTH SEXES ARE
    COMMON.

    "It is also a fact, that there is no allowed intercourse
    between the families and servants, after the work of the day
    is over. The family, assembled for the evening, enjoy a
    conversation elevating and instructive. But the poor slaves
    are thrust out. No ties of sacred home thrown around them; no
    moral instruction to compensate for the toils of the day; no
    intercourse as of man with man; and should one of the younger
    members of the family, led by curiosity, steal out into the
    filthy kitchen, the child is speedily called back, thinking
    itself happy if it escape an angry rebuke. Why is this? The
    dread of moral contamination. Most excellent reason; but it
    reveals a horrid picture. THE SLAVE CUT OFF FROM ALL
    COMMUNITY OF FEELING WITH THEIR MASTER, ROAM OVER THE VILLAGE
    STREETS, SHOCKING THE EAR WITH THEIR VULGAR JESTINGS, AND
    VOLUPTUOUS SONGS, OR OPENING THEIR KITCHENS TO THE RECEPTION
    OF THE NEIGHBORING BLACKS, THEY PASS THE EVENING IN GAMBLING,
    DANCING, DRINKING, AND THE MOST OBSCENE CONVERSATION, KEPT UP
    UNTIL THE NIGHT IS FAR SPENT, THEN CROWN THE SCENE WITH
    INDISCRIMINATE DEBAUCHERY. WHERE DO THESE THINGS OCCUR? IN
    THE KITCHENS OF CHURCH MEMBERS AND ELDERS!

I shall now take the liberty of reading two letters from highly
respectable gentlemen in the South, to friends in New England. The
first is from a clergyman in North Carolina, to one of the Professors
in Bowdoin College, Maine.

    "You remember that when I was with you last summer, I was
    much opposed to the Anti-Slavery Society, and contended that
    the colonization scheme was a full, and the only remedy, for
    the evils of slavery, and that I made a sort of talk before
    the students on the subject of slavery. It was a poor talk,
    for it was a miserable theme. I do not think what I said had
    any effect against the Anti-Slavery people, or at all
    strengthened the cause of the Colonization Society. Be this
    as it may, I feel it a duty I owe both to myself and to the
    friends I have with you, to say, that my views and feelings,
    which were then wavering, have since, after mature
    deliberation and much prayer, been entirely changed, and that
    I am now a strong Anti-Slavery man. Yes, after mature
    reflection, I am the sworn enemy of slavery in all its forms,
    with all its evils. Henceforth it is a part of my religion to
    oppose slavery. 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 recollect the lines of Pope,
    beginning,

        'Vice is a monster of such frightful mein,
        That to be hated, needs but to be seen.'

    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. I had also considered it was
    impossible to free the slaves in this country. But it is
    unnecessary to investigate the ground of my former opinions.
    As to the Colonization Society, I have this among many
    objections that it has two faces, one for the North, and a
    very different one for the South. If the agents of the
    Colonization Society will come here and say what I heard them
    say in New York, I will insure them a good coat of tar and
    feathers for their labor. That Society has few friends here,
    a few large slaveholders who by it hope to send off the free
    people in their neighborhood, and a few others, whose
    consciences are not quite easy, get a salvo by advocating the
    Colonization Society. These last are many of them ministers.
    The mass of the people regard it as a Yankee plan, and hate
    it of course. I remember, among other things, I told the
    students in my address, that the only way to do away slavery
    was to give us more religion. This argument then seemed to be
    good. Send us preachers said I, and as religion spreads,
    slavery will melt away, it cannot stand the gospel. I did not
    reflect that the religion we have here, justifies and upholds
    slavery. Our religion does not permit the preacher to touch
    the subject. It is not the whole gospel. I have not yet seen
    the man who would venture to take for his text, 'Masters,
    give to your servants that which is just and equal.' If every
    man in the country was a professor of religion, the religion
    we have, it would not much help the cause. I think that I can
    safely say that as a general thing, the Presbyterians are by
    far the best masters, and give more attention to the
    religious instruction of their slaves than others, but I know
    one of these, an elder, who contends that slavery is no
    violation of the law, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
    thyself,' and whose slaves are driven in the field with the
    long whip! But it is just to add, that they are not
    over-worked, and they are well fed and clothed. You are at
    liberty to inform the students, and others who heard me on
    that occasion, that I am now an anti-slavery man; but I do
    not wish the letter published with my name to it, as it would
    be copied by other papers, and find its way back, and do me
    injury, for no man is free, fully to express his thoughts in
    this country."

The next is from a merchant in St. Louis, Missouri, to a Clergyman in
New Hampshire.

                                     SAINT LOUIS, Jan. 18, 1835.

    Very Dear Brother.

    I want to say a good deal to you, Brother, on the subject,
    which seems to interest you much at this time. I am now, and
    was before I left Hartford, an abolitionist; and that too,
    from deep and thorough conviction that the eternal rule of
    right requires the immediate freedom of every bond-man in
    this and every other country. Since my residence in this
    slaveholding State, I have seen nothing which should tend to
    alter my previous sentiments on this subject, on the contrary
    much to confirm me in them. You, who reside in happy New
    England, can have but very faint conceptions of the blighting
    and corrupting influence of Slavery on a community. Although
    in Missouri we witness Slavery in its mildest form, yet it is
    enough to sicken the heart of benevolence to witness its
    effects on society generally, and its awfully demoralizing
    influence on the slaves themselves: being counted as property
    among the cattle and flocks of their possessors, (forgive the
    word,) their standard of morality and virtue is on a level
    (generally) with the beasts with which they are classed: and
    I am credibly informed that many emigrants from the slave
    states, who own plantations on the Missouri River, finding
    themselves disqualified by their former habits of indolence
    to compete with emigrants of another character in enterprize,
    turn their attention to the raising of slaves as they would
    cattle, to be sold to the Negro dealers to go down the river.
    What sort of standard of virtue, think you, will have place
    on such a plantation; and at what period in the history of
    our country will these degraded sons of Africa be
    christianized under existing circumstances.

    The ungodly man who is a slaveholder, is well enough pleased
    with the efforts and views of the Colonization Society,
    because he can manage to throw off responsibility, and date
    far a-head the time when he shall be called upon to do right;
    but state to him the sentiments and principles of the
    abolitionists, and he at once begins to froth and rage--all
    the malignity of his nature is called into action--and why?
    He feels the pressure of responsibility, he acts very like an
    impenitent sinner, pricked with the truth, and like him, too,
    he either comes on the side of right, or is hardened into a
    stern opposer. It is gratifying to notice the gradual
    influence the abolition principles are obtaining over the
    hearts and consciences of every slaveholding community,
    especially over the hearts of Christian slaveholders. Many of
    them who have allowed the subject to have a place in their
    thoughts, are greatly agitated, and dare not sell or buy
    again for their peace-sake. But more of this another time."


I shall now lay before the meeting the sentiments of General George
M'Duffie, Governor of the State of South Carolina; as contained in a
message delivered by him to the two branches of the Legislature,
towards the close of the last year. I charge these sentiments upon the
State, 1st, because the representatives of its citizens, in a series
of resolutions presented to the Governor, unanimously expressed their
special approbation of them; and 2dly, because I am not aware that any
protest has been entered against them by any part of the Christian
community. Sentiments more atrocious were, perhaps, never penned.

The first extract, recommending legislation, has reference to the
diffusion of Anti-Slavery publications.

    "IT IS MY DELIBERATE OPINION THAT THE LAWS OF EVERY COMMUNITY
    SHOULD PUNISH THIS SPECIES OF INTERFERENCE BY DEATH WITHOUT
    BENEFIT OF CLERGY, REGARDING THE AUTHORS OF IT AS ENEMIES TO
    THE HUMAN RACE. Nothing could be more appropriate than for
    South Carolina to set the example in the present crisis, and
    I trust the Legislature will not adjourn till it discharges
    this high duty of patriotism."

Let us look at the theological views of this profound Statesman on the
subject of Slavery.

    NO HUMAN INSTITUTION, IN MY OPINION, IS MORE MANIFESTLY
    CONSISTENT WITH THE WILL OF GOD, THAN DOMESTIC SLAVERY, and
    no one of his ordinances is written in more legible
    characters than that which consigns the African Race to this
    condition AS MORE CONDUCIVE TO THEIR OWN HAPPINESS, THAN ANY
    OTHER OF WHICH THEY ARE SUSCEPTIBLE. Whether we consult the
    sacred Scriptures or the lights of nature and reason, we
    shall find these truths as abundantly apparent as if written
    with a sun-beam in the heavens. Under both the Jewish and
    Christian dispensations of our religion, DOMESTIC SLAVERY
    existed with the unequivocal sanction of its prophets, its
    apostles, and finally its great Author. The patriarchs
    themselves, those chosen instruments of God, were
    slaveholders. In fact the divine sanction of this institution
    is so plainly written that "he who runs may read" it, and
    those over-righteous pretenders and pharisees, who affect to
    be scandalized by its existence among us, would do well to
    inquire how much more nearly they walk in the way of
    godliness, than did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That the
    African negro is DESTINED BY PROVIDENCE TO OCCUPY THIS
    CONDITION OF SERVILE DEPENDENCE, is not less manifest. It is
    marked on the face, stamped on the skin, and evinced by the
    intellectual inferiority, and natural improvidence of his
    race. THEY HAVE ALL THE QUALITIES THAT FIT THEM FOR SLAVES,
    AND NOT ONE OF THOSE THAT WOULD FIT THEM TO BE FREEMEN, they
    are utterly unqualified not only for rational freedom, but
    for self-government of any kind. They are in all respects
    physical, moral and political, inferior to millions of the
    human race, who have for consecutive ages dragged out a
    wretched existence under a grinding political despotism, and
    who are doomed to this hopeless condition by the very
    qualities which unfit them for a better. It is utterly
    astonishing that any enlighted American, after contemplating
    all the manifold forms in which even the white race of
    mankind are doomed to slavery and oppression, should suppose
    it possible to reclaim the Africans from their destiny. THE
    CAPACITY TO ENJOY FREEDOM IS AN ATTRIBUTE NOT TO BE
    COMMUNICATED BY HUMAN POWER. IT IS AN ENDOWMENT OF GOD, AND
    ONE OF THE RAREST WHICH IT HAS PLEASED HIS INSCRUTABLE WISDOM
    TO BESTOW UPON THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH. IT IS CONFERRED AS
    THE REWARD OF MERIT, and only upon those who are qualified to
    enjoy it. Until the "Ethiopian can change his skin," it will
    he vain to attempt, by any human power, to make freemen of
    those whom God has doomed to be slaves, by all their
    attributes.

    Let not, therefore, the misguided and designing intermeddlers
    who seek to destroy our peace, imagining that they are
    serving the cause of God by practically arraigning the
    decrees of his Providence. Indeed it would scarcely excite
    surprise, if with the impious audacity of those who projected
    the tower of Babel, they should attempt to scale the
    battlements of Heaven, and remonstrate with the God of wisdom
    for having put THE MARK OF CAIN AND THE CURSE OF HAM upon the
    African race instead of the European.

The Governor then proceeds to give his views on the political bearings
of the question, and thus sums them up:--

    "DOMESTIC SLAVERY, THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF BEING A POLITICAL
    EVIL, IS THE CORNER STONE OF OUR REPUBLICAN EDIFICE. No
    patriot who justly estimates our privileges, will tolerate
    the idea of emancipation, at any period however remote, or on
    any conditions of pecuniary advantage, however favorable. I
    would as soon think of opening a negotiation for selling the
    liberty of the State at once, as for making any stipulations
    for the ultimate emancipation of our slaves. So deep is my
    conviction on this subject, that if I were doomed to die
    immediately after recording these sentiments, I could say in
    all sincerity, and under all the sanctions of Christianity
    and patriotism, GOD FORBID THAT MY DESCENDANTS, IN THE
    REMOTEST GENERATIONS, SHOULD LIVE IN ANY OTHER THAN A
    COMMUNITY HAVING THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY."

The conduct of the clergy of South Carolina, may be inferred from the
following account of a great _pro_-slavery meeting, held in the city
of Charleston, to denounce in the most malignant spirit, the
abolitionists of the North:

    (_From the Charleston Courier._)

    GREAT AND IMPORTANT PUBLIC MEETING.

    One of the most imposing assemblages of citizens in respect
    of numbers, intelligence and respectability that we have ever
    witnessed, met yesterday morning at the City Hall, to receive
    the report of the Committee of twenty-one, appointed by the
    meeting on the 4th inst. on the incendiary machinations now
    in progress against the peace and welfare of the Southern
    States. THE CLERGY OF ALL DENOMINATIONS ATTENDED IN A BODY,
    LENDING THEIR SANCTION TO THE PROCEEDINGS, AND AIDING BY
    THEIR PRESENCE, TO THE IMPRESSIVE CHARACTER OF THE SCENE!

After thundering forth the most violent threats against the discussion
of the subject of slavery, the meeting closed with the following
resolution:

    On the motion of Captain LYNCH,

    "_Resolved_, That the thanks of this meeting are due to the
    Reverend gentlemen of the CLERGY in this city, who have so
    promptly, and so effectually, responded to public sentiment,
    BY SUSPENDING THEIR SCHOOLS IN WHICH THE FREE COLORED
    POPULATION WERE TAUGHT; and that this meeting deem it a
    patriotic action worthy of all praise, and proper to be
    imitated by other teachers of similar schools throughout the
    State."

The following document will speak for itself. I commend it to the
consideration of ministers of Christ throughout the world.

    CHARLESTON PRESBYTERY ON SLAVERY.

    Extract from the minutes of Charleston Union Presbytery, at
    their meeting on the 7th of April, 1836.

    With reference to the relation which the church sustains to
    the institution of slavery, and the possibility of attempts
    to agitate the question in the next General Assembly, this
    presbytery deem it expedient to state explicitly the
    principles which they maintain, and the course which will be
    pursued by their commissioners in the Assembly. It is a
    principle which meets the views of this body, that slavery as
    it exists among us, is a political institution, with which
    ecclesiastical judicatories have not the smallest right to
    interfere; and in relation to which any such interference,
    especially at the present momentous crisis, would be morally
    wrong and fraught with the most dangerous and pernicious
    consequences. Should any attempt be made to discuss this
    subject, our Commissioners are expected to meet it at the
    very threshold, and of any report, memorial or document,
    which may be the occasion of agitating this question in any
    form. And it is further expected, that our Commissioners,
    should the case require it, will distinctly avow our full
    conviction of the truth of the principles which we hold in
    relation to this subject, and our resolute determination to
    abide by them, whatever may be the issue; that it may appear
    that the sentiments which we maintain, in common with
    Christians at the South, of every denomination, are
    sentiments which so fully approve themselves to our
    consciences, are so identified with our solemn convictions of
    duty, that we should maintain them under any circumstances;
    and at the same time, the peculiar circumstances in which we
    are placed, constitute an imperious necessity that we should
    act in accordance with these principles, and make it
    impossible for us to yield any thing in a matter which
    concerns not merely our personal interests, but the cause of
    Christ, and the peace, if not the very existence of the
    Southern community.

    Should our Commissioners fail of accomplishing this object,
    it is expected that they will withdraw from the Assembly,
    with becoming dignity; not willing to be associated with a
    body of men who denounce the ministers and members of
    Southern churches as pirates and men-stealers, or who
    co-operate with those who thus denounce them.

    In conclusion, this Presbytery would suggest to their
    Commissioners the expediency of conferring with the
    Commissioners from other Southern presbyteries, that there
    may be a common understanding between them as to the course
    most suitable to be pursued at this crisis, and on this
    absorbing question. And may that wisdom which is from above,
    which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be
    entreated, be their guide in managing the important trust
    committed to their hands.

    _Resolved_, That this expression of our views be signed by
    the Moderator and Clerk; that a copy be given to each of our
    Commissioners to the General Assembly, and that it be
    published in the Charleston Observer.

                                   E. T. BUIST, _Moderator_.

        B. GILDERSLEEVE, _Temporary Clerk_.

Resolutions of the Presbyterian Synods of South Carolina and Georgia,
December, 1834.

    "_Resolved unanimously_, That in the opinion of this Synod,
    Abolition Societies, and the principles on which they are
    founded, in the United States, are inconsistent with the best
    interests of the slaves, the rights of the holders, and the
    great principles of our political institutions."

The following declaration of sentiments has been published in
Charleston, South Carolina, by the Board of Managers of the Missionary
Society, of the South Carolina Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church:

    "We denounce the principles and opinions of the abolitionists
    in toto; and do solemnly declare our conviction and belief,
    that, whether they were originated, as some business men have
    thought, as a money speculation, or, as some politicians
    think, for party electioneering purposes, or, as we are
    inclined to believe, in a false philosophy, over-reaching or
    setting aside the Scriptures through a vain conceit of higher
    moral refinement, they are utterly erroneous, and altogether
    hurtful. We consider and believe that the Holy Scriptures, so
    far from giving any countenance to this delusion, do
    unequivocally authorize the relation of master and slave. We
    hold that a Christian slave must be submissive, faithful and
    obedient, for reasons of the same authority with those which
    oblige husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sisters, to fulfil
    the duties of these relations. We would employ no one in the
    work who might hesitate to teach thus; nor can such an one be
    found in the whole number of the preachers in this
    Conference."

One other document in reference to South Carolina, viz., the
resolutions recently passed by the "Hopewell Presbytery." On the
subject of domestic slavery, this Presbytery believe the following
facts have been most incontrovertibly established, viz:

    I. Slavery has existed in the church of God from the time of
    Abraham to this day. Members of the church of God have held
    slaves bought with their money, and born in their houses; and
    this relation is not only recognized, but its duties are
    defined clearly, both in the Old and New Testaments.

    II. Emancipation is not mentioned among the duties of the
    master to his slave. While obedience "even to the froward"
    master is enjoined upon the slave.

    III. No instance can be produced of an otherwise orderly
    Christian, being REPROVED, much less EXCOMMUNICATED from the
    church, for the single act of holding domestic slaves, from
    the days of Abraham down to the date of the modern
    Abolitionists.

    IV. SLAVERY EXISTED IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE OUR
    ECCLESIASTICAL BODY WAS ORGANIZED. IT IS NOT CONDEMNED IN OUR
    CONFESSION OF FAITH, AND HAS ALWAYS EXISTED IN OUR CHURCH
    WITHOUT REPROOF OR CONDEMNATION.

    V. Slavery is a political institution, with which the Church
    has nothing to do, except to inculcate the duties of master
    and slave, and to use lawful spiritual means to have all,
    both bond and free, to become one in Christ by faith.

    Regarding these positions as undoubtedly true, our views of
    duty constrain us to adopt the following resolutions:

    _Resolved_, That the political institution of domestic
    slavery, as it exists in the South, is not a lawful or
    constitutional subject of discussion, much less, of action by
    the General Assembly.

    _Resolved_, That so soon as the General Assembly passes any
    ecclesiastical laws, or recommends any action, which shall
    interfere with this institution, this Presbytery will regard
    such laws and acts as tyranical and odious; and from that
    moment will regard itself independent of the General Assembly
    of the Presbyterian Church.

    _Resolved_, That our delegates to the approaching Assembly
    are hereby enjoined to use all Christian means to prevent the
    discussion of domestic slavery in the Assembly; to protest in
    our name, against all acts that involve or approve abolition;
    and to withdraw from the Assembly and return home, if, in
    spite of their efforts, acts of this character shall be
    passed."

From the official account of the proceedings of the Synod of Virginia,
I take the following

    REPORT ON ABOLITION.

    "The Committee to whom were referred the resolutions, &c.,
    have, according to order, had the same under consideration:
    and respectfully report that in their judgment, the following
    resolutions are necessary and proper to be adopted by the
    Synod at the present time.

    "_Whereas_, The publications and proceedings of certain
    organized associations commonly called Anti-slavery, or
    Abolition Societies, which have arisen in some parts of our
    land, have greatly disturbed, and are still greatly
    disturbing the peace of the church, and of the country; and
    the Synod of Virginia deem it a solemn duty which they owe to
    themselves and to the community, to declare their sentiments
    upon the subject; therefore,

    "_Resolved unanimously_, That we consider the dogma fiercely
    promulgated by said associations; that slavery as it actually
    exists in our slaveholding States, is necessarily sinful, and
    ought to be immediately abolished, and the conclusions which
    naturally follow from that dogma, as directly and palpably
    contrary to the plainest principles of common sense and
    common humanity, and to the clearest authority of the word of
    God.

    "2. _Resolved unanimously_, That in the deliberate judgment
    of the Synod, it is the duty of all ministers of the gospel
    to follow the example of our Lord and Saviour, and of his
    apostles in similar circumstances, in abstaining from all
    interference with the state of slavery, as established among
    us by the Commonwealth, and confining themselves strictly to
    their proper province of inculcating upon masters and slaves
    the duties enjoined upon them respectively in the sacred
    Scriptures, which must tend immediately to promote the
    welfare of both, and ultimately to restore the whole world to
    that state of holy happiness which is the earnest desire of
    every Christian heart.

    "The above preamble and resolutions having been severally
    read, and adopted by paragraphs, the Moderator asked and
    obtained leave to vote with the Synod, on the adoption of the
    entire report. The question being put, it was unanimously
    adopted, every member it is believed, giving it a hearty
    response."

The last document I shall quote on this part of the subject, is one
which will fill this meeting with horror; but it is right that it
should be placed on record, to show the opinion entertained by a
minister of the Presbyterian church of his brethren and fellow
Christians, and to show also, what kind of communications pass current
among the professed disciples of Christ in a slaveholding community.

    "To the Sessions of the Presbyterian Congregations within the
    bounds of West Hanover Presbytery:

    "At the approaching stated meeting of our Presbytery, I
    design to offer a preamble and string of resolutions on the
    subject of the use of wine in the Lord's Supper; and also a
    preamble and a string of resolutions on the subject of the
    treasonable and abominably wicked interference of the
    Northern and Eastern fanatics, with our political and civil
    rights, our property and our domestic concerns. You are aware
    that our clergy, whether with or without reason, are more
    suspected by the public than are the clergy of other
    denominations. Now, dear Christian brethren, I humbly express
    it as my earnest wish, that you quit yourselves like men. _If
    there be any stray goat of a minister among us, tainted with
    the blood-hound principles of abolitionism, let him be
    ferreted out, silenced, excommunicated, and left to the
    public to dispose of him in other respects._

        "Your affectionate brother in the Lord,

                                      "ROBERT N. ANDERSON."!!!

I trust I have adduced sufficient evidence upon this heart-rending
topic, and abundantly proved the allegations I have deemed it my duty
to bring against the American churches. No one can accuse me of
wishing that any thing should be believed upon my bare assertion. I
have furnished documentary proof of the truth of all my statements.
Presbyterians, and Conferences, and Ministers, and Elders, and Synods,
and Assemblies have spoken for themselves through their solemn and
accredited Speeches, and Letters, and Reports, and Resolutions. Judge,
therefore, whether I have libelled America; whether I am the foul
traducer that some would have you believe, but for believing which
they supply you no ground, save their own ill-natured vituperations.
Let the facts I have brought before you be deliberately considered,
and let such a verdict be given as will approve itself to the world
and to God. Before sitting down, however, I must observe, that it has
always given me the sincerest pleasure to notice any Anti-slavery
movements among the clergy of America. With delight I have stated the
fact, that in the General Assembly of 1835, there were FORTY EIGHT
immediate Abolitionists. I refer again, on the present occasion, with
unfeigned satisfaction, to the indications of a better state of things
in many portions of the Presbyterian Church. Mr. Breckinridge has
quoted the Assembly's views on the subject of Slavery; so have I. In
the recent meeting of the United Secession Synod, held a short time
since in Edinburgh, I stated fully the sentiments of the Presbyterian
body in America. At the same time, I could not omit naming one
striking fact, viz. that in 1816, the Assembly struck out of the
Confession of the Church, the following note, adopted in 1794, and
which contained the doctrine of the church at that period on the
subject of slaveholding. The note was appended to the one hundred and
forty-second question of the larger catechism.

    "1 Tim. 1:10. The law is made for MAN STEALERS. This crime
    among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital
    punishment; Exodus 21:16; and the apostle here classes them
    with sinners of the first rank. The word he uses, in its
    original import, comprehends all who are concerned in
    bringing any of the human race into slavery, OR IN RETAINING
    THEM IN IT. Hominum fures, qui servos vel liberos abducunt,
    retinent vendunt, vel emunt. Stealers of men are all those
    who bring off slaves or freemen AND KEEP, SELL, OR BUY THEM.
    To steal a free man, says Grotius, is the highest kind of
    theft. In other instances, we only steal human property, but
    when we steal or retain men in slavery, we seize those who,
    in common with ourselves, are constituted by the original
    grant, lords of the earth. Genesis 1:28, Vide Poli synopsin
    in loc."

Why this note has been cancelled, I shall not attempt to say. Neither
Mr. Breckinridge nor this Assembly need be at any loss to imagine for
what reasons so strong and unequivocal a passage was omitted by a body
in which so large a proportion were slaveholders. I have recently
read, and publicly commended, an address put forth by the Synod of
Kentucky, containing a very faithful, though appalling disclosure of
the state of Slavery in Kentucky; and expressing an earnest hope that
the members of the Presbyterian body will, without delay, take steps
to promote the education and emancipation of the slaves. Let me also
state, that the following ecclesiastical meetings have passed
resolutions, and many of them adopted rules of church membership, in
accordance with the views of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Some
of them have specially approved the principles and measures of that
body. I beg, while I read this list, to remind Mr. Breckinridge that
these form a part of that ragged regiment, respecting which he was so
merry in one of his by-gone speeches,

  SYNODS of Utica and Cincinnati.
  Eastern Sub-Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
  PRESBYTERIES of Delaware, Champlain, Erie, Chillicothe, Detroit,
          and Genesee.
  General Association of New York.
  Central Evangelical Association.
  Cumberland Baptist Association.--Equally divided.
  One Hundred and Eighty-Five Baptist Clergymen.
  The vast majority of the New England and New Hampshire Conferences
          of Episcopal Methodists, and a large number of individual
          Churches.

Thus is the cause advancing! The purifying leaven is extending through
all the country. The elements which are ordained to redeem America
from the pollution and infamy of slavery, are working mightily. When I
went to the United Slates, I took the principles I found lying
comparatively forgotten, and proclaimed them abroad. I planted myself
upon the American Bible, and the American Declaration of Independence,
and preached from these that the varied tribes of men are of _one
blood_, and that all men should be "free and equal." I have not
labored in vain. There is now a mighty and indomitable host of pure
and ardent friends to the freedom and elevation of the long degraded
colored man. Let us thank God and take courage, and expect with
confidence the speedy arrival of the happy day, when the soil of
America shall be untrodden by the foot of a slave.

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. BRECKINRIDGE said he regretted to be obliged to say anything more
on this subject, which he had wished to consider concluded, so far as
he was concerned, at the close of his preceding speech. He felt
obliged, however, by the importance of the whole case, to consume a
portion of this, his last address--and which he had desired to occupy
in a different way--in making a few explanations which seemed
indispensable. It would be observed, first, that the great bulk of the
testimonies produced throughout, and especially in his last speech, by
Mr. Thompson, were individual opinions and assertions, often of
obscure persons, and therefore, for ought the world could tell,
fictitious persons; or if known persons they were often men of the
world, and avowedly acting on worldly principles, and therefore, no
more affording a criterion of the state of the American churches, than
the immoralities of any public functionary here, could be justly made
a rule of judgment of the faith and morals of British Christians. A
considerable portion also were taken from the transient and heated
declamations of violent party newspapers, which wrested from their
original purpose and connection, might mean what never was meant, or
even, if fairly collated, expressed what their authors, perhaps, would
now gladly recall. How far would it be proof of the assertions of Mr.
T. of America--if in some other land, some bigot should quote as
indisputable, Mr. Thompson's story of the colored man in Washington
City, whose assertion, at third hand, that he was free, authorised the
declaration that "_he had demonstrated his freedom_," and yet after
all had been sold into everlasting slavery without a trial! And yet
many of his proofs are of no more value to him, than his assertions
ought to be to any who come after him. It is next most worthy of note,
that so far as all his proofs establish any thing against either any
portion of the American nation or the American church, they all run
upon the assumed truth of all my explanations of their real state and
operations. It is the slaveholding portion, it is the comparatively
small body of slaveholding professors of religion, it is the minority
of the nation, the very small minority of the Christians of it,
implicated continually; and therefore, if every word produced were
true, the sweeping conclusions from them would be gross fraud on the
prevailing ignorance of all American affairs. But what is most
important to observe, and what must be palpable to the capacity of
every child who has attended to this discussion, the weightiest of Mr.
Thompson's proofs ceased to be proofs at all, the moment the facts,
cant words and circumstances connected are explained. He used words in
one sense which he knows you will understand in another--sporting at
once with your good feelings and your want of minute information while
all the result is false as to us, and unhappy as to every thing
concerned, except "Othello's occupation" which meanwhile is _not_
gone. When decided and perhaps violent terms are used against
"abolition" or "abolitionists" or "anti-slavery" or "the anti-slavery
society," they are adduced to convince you that those who use them are
pro-slavery men: that they understand the terms as you do; and that it
is an expression of rank hostility to all emancipation on the part of
the American tyrants, in whose nostrils according to this gentleman
the slave and freedom equally stink! A metaphor nearly as full of
truth as decency. The fact however is, that although many would
decline the use of the harsh and vindictive language which, caught
from abolitionists, has been turned against them; yet the bulk of the
real sentiments, as brought forward by Mr. Thompson as proofs of
American slavery, on account of American hatred to his peculiar plans,
principles and spirit in attempting its removal, are true, just and
defensible.--And I am ready to advocate and to defend much that he by
a disingenuous citation has made at first odious, and then
characteristic of America. They prove only that he and his coadjutors
are most odious to the country, which is a fact never denied except by
himself or them. And to what has the whole current of his testimony
tended if not to show that they might reasonably have expected and did
a great deal to deserve such a conclusion.--But it is now impossible
to enter again upon these matters and upon the case as presented, he
was willing for the world to pass its verdict. While he would
therefore take no farther notice of any new matter contained in the
last speech, there were several remarks necessary to be made, to
elucidate subjects that had already been several times before them.
The first case was that of Amos Dresser the abolitionist whipped at
Nashville. He would pass over what Mr. T. had said relating to his
(Mr. B.'s) notice of the discrepancy in the number of Elders in the
Nashville Church. He had treated that gentleman with great candor in
the matter, which he had returned with incivility and injustice, and
there he was content to let it rest. But how stood the facts of the
case itself? Amos Dresser is reported to have said that there were
seven elders of the church; that all of them were on the committee of
vigilance of Nashville; that _most_ of them were among his triers, and
that _some_ of them had administered the communion to him the
preceding sabbath. Now let us admit that this is literally
true--(which I believe however is not the case, in at least three
particulars)--how does it justify Mr. Thompson in asserting as he did
at London and elsewhere "that on that Lynch Committee _there sat seven
Elders and one Minister, some of whom_ had sat with the young man at
the table of the Lord on the preceding Sunday"? Mr. Thompson
positively contradicts his own and only witness when he says that all
the seven elders sat as triers;--he enlarges his testimony when he
insinuates that they not only concurred in his punishment, but were
present and active in its infliction; and he infers without the least
authority, and adds it to the words of the witness, that those very
elders who administered the Lord's Supper to Dresser, on Sunday
"ploughed up his back"--as Lynch Committee men on a subsequent day of
the same week. How in the name of common honesty is such deceitful
handling of the truth to be tolerated in a Christian community? Oh!
what a spectacle would we behold--if I had but the privilege before
some competent tribunal--to take the published accusations of this man
in my hands and force him to reveal on oath the whole grounds on which
he makes them!--Mr. B. then stated that after he entered the house
to-night two packages had been put into his hands, which he could not
examine then, as he was just about to open the discussion. He had
snatched a moment during the interval to glance his eyes over their
contents, and considered it his duty to say a few words in reference
to each. One of them was a little volume from the pen of Dr. Channing,
of Boston, on the subject of slavery, just passing through the press
of an enterprising bookseller of Glasgow, who had done him the favor
of presenting to him, in very kind terms, the first copy of the
edition. They who would take the trouble of looking over the printed
report of Mr. Thompson's second address to the Glasgow Emancipation
Society, would find that in speaking of the Unitarians of America, he
had used the following language:--"One of their greatest men, a giant
in intellect, had already taken the right view of the subject, and
there could not exist a doubt that ere long, he would bring over the
body to the good cause." In this sentence, as it stands in the speech,
at the end of the words "giant in intellect,"--stands a star,--at the
bottom of the page another, before the words "Dr. Channing." Now it so
happens that in this little book, there is a chapter headed
"Abolitionism." I have looked through it casually, within the last
hour; and I beseech you all to read it carefully, and judge for
yourselves, of the utter recklessness with which Mr. Thompson makes
assertions. The other parcel, contained a letter from an American
gentleman residing in Britain, and one half of the New York Spectator,
of October 1, 1835. Under the head of editorial correspondence, is an
article above a column and a half in length devoted in great part to
Mr. Thompson. Amongst other passages, it adverts to his doings at
Andover, and the charges made against him there, on such weighty
authority; and in that connexion has the following explicit paragraph:

    Mr. Thompson in conversation with some of the students
    repeatedly averred that every slaveholder in the United
    States OUGHT TO HAVE HIS THROAT CUT; or DESERVED TO HAVE HIS
    THROAT CUT; although he afterwards publicly denied that he
    had said so. But the proof is direct and positive. In
    conversation with one of the theological students in regard
    to the moral instruction which ought to be enjoyed by the
    slaves, he distinctly declared THAT EVERY SLAVE SHOULD BE
    TAUGHT TO CUT HIS MASTER'S THROAT! I state the fact--knowing
    the responsibility I am assuming, and challenge a legal
    investigation.

On this tremendous document, I make but two remarks--The first is that
Francis Hall & Co. the publishers of the Spectator, were in character
and fortune, perfectly responsible to Mr. Thompson. The second is,
that if Mr. Thompson's rule of judgment was just, in that branch of
this same case--in the exercise of which he declared that another
paper in New York could never be got to publish his exculpatory
certificates in regard to this very transaction, _because_ the
publisher knew them to be true; then we are irresistibly bound on his
own showing to conjecture, that for the same reason he declined taking
up the challenge of the Spectator. There was only one more topic on
which he seemed called on to remark; and that he had several times
passed over, out of consideration of delicacy. It had all along been
his aim to use as little freedom as possible with the names of
individuals--and he could declare, that he had implicated by name, no
one except out of absolute necessity--that he had forborne to say true
but severe things of several who had been most unjustly commended
during this discussion--and had omitted of the very few he had
censured by name, decidedly worse things, than those he had uttered of
them--and which he might have uttered both truly and pertinently.
Amongst the cases of rather peculiar forebearance, was the oft cited
one, of a misguided young man, by the name of Thome, who went from
Kentucky to New York to repeat a most audacious speech which was no
doubt prepared for him, before an assembly literally the most _mixed_
that was ever convened in that city: having delivered which, he
departed with the pity or contempt of 9 10ths of all the decent people
in it, and went I know not whither, and dwells I know not where. The
victory as there trumpeted, and now celebrated, of which he was part
gainer, consisted of two portions--the destruction of the colonization
cause--and the degradation of Kentucky, his native state. The death of
the Society was signalised by a subscription of six thousand dollars
on the part of its friends; and the infamy of Kentucky was
illustrated by the ready stepping forward of four of her sons to
confront and confound the ingrate who commenced his career of manhood
by smiting his parent in the face. Who made the defence, may be
surmised from Mr. Thompson's bitterness--I will not trust myself to
repeat his name. But this thousands can testify--that never was a
great cause more signally successful--never were folly and wickedness
more thoroughly beaten into the dust--never did any community heap
more cordial and unanimous applause upon an effort of great and
successful eloquence.

And now, Sir, (said Mr. B., addressing Dr. Wardlaw, the Chairman of
the meeting)--I repeat the expressions of my regret, that these last
moments allowed to me should have been required for any other purpose
than that which so sacredly belonged to them. Exhausted by a series of
most exciting, and to me perfectly new contentions, I am altogether
unequal to the task, which I should yet esteem myself degraded if I
did not attempt in some way to perform.

To this large committee which has so kindly taken up this subject--so
considerately provided for every contingency--so delicately considered
all my wishes, and even all my weaknesses--to these respected
gentlemen surrounding us upon this platform, whose conduct amid very
peculiar circumstances has been towards me, full of candor, honor,
courtesy and Christian kindness, it would have been most gross
ingratitude, to have forborne this public expression of my regard and
cordial thanks.

For yourself, Sir, what can I say more, or how could I say less, than
that in that distant country, which I love but too fondly, there are
scores, there are hundreds, who would esteem all the trials through
which this strife has led me, and all the weight of responsibility
which my posture has forced me to assume, more than counter-balanced
by the privilege of looking upon your venerated face. It is good to
live for the whole world; and it is but just to receive in recompense
the world's thanks.

And you, my respected auditors, whose patience I must needs have so
severely taxed, and who have borne with much that possibly has tried
you deeply, you who have given me so many reasons to thank you, and
not one to regret the errand that brought me here; if in the course of
providence, you or yours, should be thrown on whatever spot my resting
place may be, you need but say, "I come from Glasgow, and I need a
friend," and it shall go hard with me, but I will find a way to prove,
that kindness is never thrown away.

But even as we part, let us not forget that cause which has chained us
here so long. We are free. Alas! how few can utter these words with
truth! We are Christian men. Alas! what multitudes have never heard
our Master's name. Oh! how horrible must slavery be, when God himself
illustrates the power of sin by calling it bondage! Oh! how sweet
should union with Christ be thought, when he proclaims it glorious
liberty! Freedom and redemption are in our hands; the heritage in
trust for a lost world. It is not then our own souls only, but our
divine Lord, and our dying brethren, that we sin against and rob, when
we mismanage or pervert this great inheritance. We needs must labor;
but let us do it wisely. And though we may differ in many things, in
this at least we can agree, to importune our heavenly Father to
prosper by his constant blessing what we do aright, and overrule by
his continued care all that we do amiss. (Cheers.)

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. THOMPSON then rose amidst much cheering, and said, Sir, after the
valedictory address to which we have just listened, it would ill
become me to touch upon any topic calculated to disturb feelings which
I trust and believe that address has awakened in the breasts of this
assembly. Sir, it is my conviction, that I and those with whom it is
my joy and honor to act, in the advancement of the cause of Universal
Emancipation, are much misunderstood. We are represented as the
violent, acrimonious, ferocious and sanguinary foes of the
slaveholder; when, if he could look into our inmost hearts, he would
discover no enmity to him abiding there, but on the contrary, an
earnest desire to promote his safety, his honor, and his happiness. If
we act as we do, it is not that we love him less, but that we love
truth and freedom more. It is not with us a matter of choice that we
pursue our present course, but one of stern imperative duty; because
we believe that God will vouchsafe his blessing only to those who
preach the doctrine of an immediate, entire, and uncompromising
discharge of duty, leaving to Him the consequences flowing from
obedience to His law. To discover truth wherever it is hidden, should
be the aim and effort of every rational mind. It has been my desire to
arrive at truth upon the great question of Slavery; and after much
investigation, and many conflicts, I have reached the conclusion, that
slaveholding is sinful; that man cannot hold property in man; that to
do right, and to do it _now_, fearless of results, is the doctrine of
the Bible; and that a simple and strict compliance with the Divine
Law, is man's noblest and safest course. These being my settled views,
I say to the slaveholder, give immediate freedom to your slaves. To
the non-slaveholder, I say, preach a pure doctrine; grapple with the
prejudices and fears of the community around you; strive to raise the
tone of public morals, and create a public sentiment unfavorable to
the continuance of slavery. To the private Christian, I say, betake
yourself to prayer, and the study of the Scriptures; and invoke a
blessing upon every righteous instrumentality for the overthrow of the
abomination. To the minister of the gospel, I say, be bold for God;
cry aloud, and spare not, till the merchants of the earth cease to
make merchandise of slaves, and the souls of men.

Much fault is found with our measures. What, Sir, are our measures,
but the simplest means of making known our principles? Having
deliberately and prayerfully adopted certain views, we take the
ordinary, common sense, every day methods of making those views known,
and of recommending them to the adoption of others. Believing slavery
to be sin, is it strange that we hate it, and speak strongly
respecting it? Believing immediate emancipation _a duty_, is it
strange that we pray, and preach, and print about it? That we take all
peaceful means of making known the great truth; of warning men against
the danger of delay; and exhorting them to repentance? The
abolitionists have done no more. To have done less, would have been to
prove themselves unfaithful to the high and heaven-born principles
they profess. They court investigation. They scatter their
publications on the winds to be read by all. They have not an office
nor a book that is not open to the inspection of all. Their language
to all who suspect their motives or their designs is, "search us, and
know our hearts; try us, and know our thoughts; and see if there be
any wicked way in us." If in the ardor of their zeal, and inherited
infirmities, and surrounded by influences, from which none of us are
exempt; they sometimes apply epithets and bring charges with too
little discrimination, "something should be pardoned to the spirit of
liberty;" something granted to the advocates of outraged humanity; to
those, who, remembering them that are in bonds as bound with them,
plead as for mothers, children, sisters, and brothers; at present lost
to all the joys and purposes of life. Sir, I think it hard that on all
occasions like these, the heaviest artillery should be levelled
against the abolitionists, and the small arms only directed against
the slaveholder. I call upon those who act with such gentleness
towards the latter individual; who are so fearful of doing him
injustice and so readily to discover in him any thing that is amiable
in character, or extenuating in conduct, to exercise some small
portion of the same candor and kindness, and consideration towards the
former. Let not _that_ man be most hateful in their eyes, who of all
others is most earnestly engaged for the deliverance of the slave.

A word before we part, for my honored co-adjutors on the other side of
the Atlantic. Should this be the last address of mine ever delivered
and recorded for perusal when I am gone to give account of my sayings
upon earth, I can with every feeling of sincerity aver, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief, there is not to be found on the face
of the earth at the present time, engaged in any religious or
benevolent enterprise, a body of men more pure in their motives, more
simple and elevated in their aim, more dependent upon divine aid in
their efforts, or, generally speaking, more unexceptionable in their
measures, than the _immediate_ abolitionists of the United States of
America. It has been my high privilege to mingle much with devoted
Christians of all denominations in my native land, and to enjoy the
friendship of some of the noblest and most laborious of living
philanthropists; but I have not yet seen the wisdom, the ardor, the
humanity or the faith of the abolitionists of America exceeded.

Another word and I have done. It is for one whom I love as a brother,
and to whom my soul is united by a bond which death cannot dissolve;
of one, who, though still young, has for ten years toiled with
unremitting ardor, and unimpeached disinterestedness in the cause of
the bleeding slave; of one, who, though accused of scattering around
him fire-brands, arrows and death; though branded as a madman, an
incendiary, and a fanatic; though denounced by the State, and reviled
by a portion of the church, possesses a soul as peaceful and as pure
as ever tenanted our fallen nature. I speak not to exalt him or
gratify his love of praise. I know he seeks not the honor that cometh
from man, nor the riches that perish in the using. He looks not for
his reward on earth. With the approbation of his conscience, he is
content; with the blessing of the perishing, he is rich; with the
favor of God, he is blessed forever. He seeks no monumental marble, no
funeral oration, no proud escutcheon, no partial page of history to
perpetuate his name. He knows that when resting from his labors, the
tears of an enfranchised race

  Shall sprinkle the cold dust in which he sleeps,
  Pompless, and from a scornful world withdrawn:
  The laurel, which its malice rent, shall shoot,
  So watered, into life, and mantling throw
  Its verdant honors o'er his grassy tomb.

That man is WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON. Sir, I thank God for having given
him to the age and country in which he lives. He is a man
pre-eminently qualified for the mighty work in which he has engaged.
May the God of the oppressed bless him, and keep him humble, and cheer
him onwards in his rugged path! May his lion heart never be subdued!
May his eloquent pen never cease to move while a slave breathes to
require its advocacy! Heaven grant, and I can ask no more, that the
wish of his heart may be fulfilled; and that the time may soon come,
when, looking abroad over his beloved country with the soul of a
Patriot, and the eye of a Philanthropist and a Christian, he shall not
be able to discover in State, or city, or town, or hamlet, a lingering
trace of a tyrant or a Slave!

I shall not, Sir, attempt (turning to the Chairman,) to express the
feelings of my heart towards _you_, or my opinion of the manner in
which you have discharged the duties of the Chair, through four of the
evenings of this discussion. I cordially unite with the gentleman
opposite, in thanking you for the dignity and strict impartiality with
which you have borne yourself. I know you look for the reward of your
labors of love in another and a better world. In that world may we all
meet! There our jars and discords will be at an end. There we shall
see, eye to eye; and know, even as we are known. There, in the
presence of one Saviour, our joys, our voices, our occupations will be
_one_; and there I trust that we, who have been antagonists on earth,
will together meet and celebrate the glories of a common redemption
from the sorrows and the sins of earth. (Mr. Thompson resumed his seat
amidst loud and long continued cheers.)

       *       *       *       *       *

MR. THOMPSON moved that the cordial thanks of the meeting be given to
the Rev. Dr. WARDLAW, for his able, dignified, and impartial conduct
in the chair, and also to Dr. KIDSTON, who presided on Thursday
evening, which was carried with acclamation.




APPENDIX.


In reading the foregoing discussion, we have been utterly astonished
at the grossness and magnitude of the falsehoods--not to mention the
numerous miscolorings and misrepresentations--which the reverend
apologist for slavery has, with brazen effrontery, unblushingly
uttered even though aware of the fact that they were to be published
to the world. It would seem as if feeling the necessity of defending a
desperate cause by desperate means, he had resolved to pour out his
misstatements and inaccuracies with such lavish liberality, that his
opponent would be absolutely unable, in the time allotted to him, to
correct them all, and thus contrive to make some of his falsehoods,
because uncontradicted, pass for truth, and some of his distortions
and perversions for fair representations. The event, we cannot help
thinking, will show that he has presumed with far too much rashness on
the supposed ignorance of the British people. Some of his falsehoods,
mistakes, and misrepresentations, which were either wholly unnoticed,
or not fully answered by Mr. Thompson, for want, as he has informed
us, of time to do it, we shall briefly notice here,

First, however, we would call attention to the remark, that 'he is not
a slaveholder,' with which Dr. Wardlaw introduced Mr. Breckinridge to
the audience, and in reference to it quote part of a letter from Dr.
A. L. Cox of New York, to the editor of the emancipator. 'The only
knowledge I have on this subject,' says Dr. C., 'is what I derived
from the confession of R. J. Breckinridge, extorted at an anniversary
meeting of the Colonization Society in this city, in the spring of
1834.' After mentioning some of the circumstances which led him to
speak, the letter goes on to say, 'Just as Robert J. Breckinridge was
on the point of speaking, one of the assembly inquired, 'Is he a
slaveholder?' The orator seemed somewhat disconcerted, but answered
'_I have_ that honor.'

In the first evening's discussion, page 6, Mr. Breckinridge says that
the British people 'had sent out agents to America, who had returned
defeated. They have failed--they admit they have failed in their
object.' To say nothing of the accuracy which speaks in the plural
number of a single individual, and which can easily be excused to one
who in encountering him, probably felt that that individual was
himself a host,--when or where has the alleged admission been made?
Never. Nowhere. The assertion is untrue.

During the same evening, page 7, Mr. B. tells his audience that 'of
the twelve [free] states, at least four, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and
Maine never had a slave.' What says the United States' census? In
1830, there were 2 slaves in Maine, 6 in Ohio, 3 in Indiana, and
747[A] in Illinois. In 1820, there were 190 in Indiana, and 917 in
Illinois. In 1810, Indiana contained 237, Illinois 168. In 1800, there
were 135 in Indiana. But Mr. B. says, that 'since 1785, till this
hour, there never had been one slave in any of these states.'

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

'America,' he tells us, 'was the first nation upon earth, which
abolished the slave trade and made it piracy.' See page 8. This will
be unwelcome news to Messrs. Franklin and Armfield of Alexandira, D.
C., whose standing advertisements in the Washington papers, offer cash
for negroes of both sexes, from 12 to 25 years of age, and announce
the 'regular trips' twice a month, of their vessels engaged in the
slave trade between the District and New Orleans. It will be
unpleasant intelligence in the city of Washington, where for $400 a
year, the 'trade or traffic in slaves' is licensed for the benefit of
the canal fund. It will be news to the keepers of the prisons in the
District, who, in their official capacity, carry on the slave trade by
selling men 'for their prison and other expenses, _as the law
directs_.'

But Mr. B. means the _foreign_ slave trade, not the domestic. The
latter, indeed, may be licensed, and protected, and deemed honorable
as it is lucrative. Those who engage in it, may be like Armfield and
Woolfolk, gentlemen 'of engaging and graceful manners,' reported to be
'mild, indulgent, upright, and scrupulously honest,' but the _foreign_
trade is _piracy_ by the law of the land. Very meritorious truly! and
worthy of abundant eulogy! to prohibit piracy on the high seas, or the
African coast, while selling permission to do along her own coast, and
on her own territories, the same acts which, when done abroad,
constitute piracy. But to what does her abolition of even the foreign
slave trade amount? Do her cruizers ever capture a slave ship? Seldom,
if ever. Does she consent to such arrangements, in her treaties with
other nations which are in earnest in their endeavors to suppress the
slave trade, as will prevent her flag from being made a protection to
the detestable traffic? No. The N. Y. Journal of Commerce, in a recent
article very truly asserts, that 'We neither do any thing ourselves to
put down the accursed traffic, nor afford any facilities to enable
others to put it down. Nay, rather, we stand between the slave and his
deliverer. We are a drawback--a dead weight on the cause of bleeding
humanity.' And a late number of the Edinburgh Review, speaking of the
application of the British Government to this, for its co-operation,
says, 'The final answer, however, is, that _under no condition, in no
form, and with no restrictions, will the United States enter into any
convention or treaty, or make combined efforts of any sort or kind,
with other nations for the suppression of the trade_.' With what face,
then, can she claim praise for having merely made a law, which she
almost never executes, and to the execution of which, by others, she
permits her flag to be used as a hindrance.

The next assertion of Mr. B's that we notice, is the astounding one,
that America, 'as a nation, has done every thing in her power' for the
abolition of slavery. See page 8. This, while the national domain is
the home of slavery and the seat of the slave trade! While the
domestic slave trade, so far from being abolished by the National
Legislature, as it may constitutionally be, is shielded and licensed!
This, while the moral power of the nation is slumbering, or if awake,
arrayed to a great extent, in the defence of slavery! That a man who
values his reputation--that a minister of the gospel of Mr. B's
intelligence and knowledge of the country's condition and history in
regard to this matter, should make such a declaration, is truly most
wonderful. Could he have expected it to be believed? Could he have
believed it himself?

Mr. B., page 15, by way of explaining why Mr. Thompson was so
differently received in Glasgow and Boston, applauded in the one
place, and abused in the other, says that he took up the question of
slavery as one of political organization. We give to this assertion,
the answer of the editor of the Emancipator. 'This we pronounce
_utterly and unequivocally false_. We were with Mr. Thompson, while he
was in this country, as much probably as any other one individual. We
were with him in private and in public, in the house and by the way,
in the public convention and the public lecture, and we most solemnly
declare, that we never heard George Thompson, on any occasion, take up
or discuss the question of American Slavery, 'as one of civil
organization.' He always discussed it primarily and essentially as a
moral and religious question, and never went into its political
relations and bearings, except to answer the objections of cavillers
and opponents. And we are astonished that R. J. Breckinridge should
dare to make such an assertion, when, we venture to say, he never
heard George Thompson in America.'

The same editor has furnished a better solution than Mr. B's, of
the--not very difficult--problem of Mr. Thompson's different reception
in Boston and Glasgow. 'For the same reason that Knibb, and Taylor,
and Burchell did not meet with the same reception in Glasgow and
Jamaica--because, and simply because the slave spirit was diffused
through the land, infecting and corrupting alike the leading
influences of Church and State, so that Mr. T. could not condemn
slavery and prejudice 'in Boston as in Glasgow,' without constraining
the conviction and the outcry from the implicated and the prejudiced,
"so saying thou condemnest us also."'

'There is not a sane man in the free states, who does not wish the
world rid of slavery.' This Mr. B. states as his conviction, page 15.
Perhaps it is correct, but if so, there are a great many _insane_ men
in the free states, or a great many who have a very strange way of
manifesting their wishes. The fact is notorious, that Northern men who
remove to the South, almost uniformly become slaveholders the moment
their convenience or pecuniary interest can thereby be promoted.

On page 20, Mr. B. accuses Garrison of having written placards to stir
up a mob against him, when he lectured in Boston, in behalf of
colonization. A charge more utterly false was never made, and it
requires a great exercise of charity to believe that Mr. B. did not
know its falsehood. It will have been seen that Mr. Thompson
challenged proof of the accusation, but none was produced except the
word of the accuser--evidence on which, any reader who compares his
assertions in several other instances, with facts, will place very
little reliance.

Another of Mr. B's accusations against 'some of the friends of the
Anti-Slavery Society,' is, that they procured a writ to take the two
'African princes,' who had been sent to the Maryland Colonization
Society to be educated, and that Elizur Wright was the instigator of
the measure, on pretence that the boys had been kidnapped. See page
20. The truth of this matter as given in the Emancipator, on Mr.
Wright's authority, is that, on learning that two native African boys,
supposed to be slaves, were on board a schooner in New York harbor,
bound for Baltimore, Mr. Wright made inquiries on board, and could
only learn that they were brought from Africa by a passenger, and
consigned to some one in Baltimore. To make sure of the means of
prosecuting a legal inquiry, a writ was obtained, but as soon as Mr.
W. discovered that the lads were sent to this country to be educated,
he ordered the officer _not to serve it_.

The next slanderous charge uttered by the reverend delegate is, that
Elizur Wright tried to stir up a mob to liberate a fugitive slave
confined in New York prison. The story of course is wholly false.

In the second evening's discussion, Mr. B. says, page 34, the
admission of a clause into the Constitution prohibiting the abolition
of the slave trade for twenty years, 'was one of the brightest virtues
in the escutcheon of America,' A dark escutcheon, then, must be hers,
if the protection of the slave trade for twenty years is the
'brightest' spot on it. The 'importation of such persons,' &c.
(meaning slaves,) 'shall _not_ be prohibited prior to 1808,' says the
Constitution, 'The brightest virtue in her escutcheon!' exclaims Mr.
Breckinridge.

'It was well known that the slavery existing in the United States was
the mildest to be seen in any country under heaven.' Page 34. Of this
assertion of Mr. B., we have only to say in the words of the
Emancipator, 'It is "well known that the slavery existing in the
United States," is _not_ "the mildest to be seen in any country under
heaven," and to say so is demonstration absolute of the most
"unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose to mislead." Witness the fact,
that the man who teaches the slave to read, or gives him the religious
tract, or the Bible even, does it at his peril. Witness the fact, on
the testimony of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia, that the
large majority of the slave population are "heathen, and will bear
comparison with the heathen in any country in the world." Witness the
slave-code every where--particularly the following, which is the law
of North Carolina, and in Georgia nearly the same, "that if any person
hereafter shall be guilty of killing a slave, he shall, upon the first
conviction, suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free
man"--(i. e. if any white man is witness, and will come forward to
testify in the case, for the testimony of a million of colored men
would go for nothing,) and "_Provided always, that this act shall not
extend to the person killing a slave outlawed_, (and running away,
concealment, and the stealing of a hog, or some animal of the cattle
kind, to sustain life, outlaws him,) _or to any slave in the act of
resistance to his lawful owner or master or to any slave_ DYING UNDER
MODERATE CORRECTION"--thus by the very law which prohibits, giving the
master express license to kill as many, and as often as he pleases,
provided he will only take care to do it, first, when no white men are
present who will inform or testify against him, or secondly, when the
slave is an outlaw; or, thirdly, when he lifts his hand in opposition
to his master, no matter how cruel the punishment or how base the
design upon his or her person; or, fourthly, by "moderate correction."
Let him only see to it, that it is done in one or all of these ways,
and under one or all these circumstances, and if reckless enough to do
so, he may kill ad libitum, and nobody to say why do ye so. Witness
the fact, trumpeted through all the papers within five years, that a
Southern man seeing another passing across his grounds in the evening,
and supposing that he was a runaway slave, _shot him dead_, because,
although he hailed him, he did not stop--when lo! it appeared that he
had shot a white neighbor, and that, the wind being high, he did not
hear, and therefore did not stop at the summons!--a striking
illustration of the carelessness and perfect impunity with which, as
a matter of fact, black men are and may be shot when attempting an
escape from their thraldom. And, once more, witness the fact, that the
way to emancipation is hedged up in this country so as it is in no
other "country under heaven," and then say what but "ignorance, or a
purpose to mislead," could lead to such statements?'

'Perhaps the great reason against the exercise of that power' [to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,] was, that it would
_inevitably_ produce a dissolution of the Union. Put 'this and that
together.' 'There is not a sane man in the free states, but wishes the
world rid of slavery;' the free states contain 'seven millions out of
the eleven millions of the white population of the Union;' (see page
7,) 'a large minority in the slaveholding states, in some nearly one
half of the population,' (see page 13,) 'are _zealously_ engaged in
furthering the abolition of slavery,' and yet the exercise by Congress
of its constitutional power to abolish slavery in the national
district would '_inevitably_ dissolve the Union.' Verily, the old
proverb hath well said that a certain class of persons should have a
good memory.

Mr. B. sneers at 'Mr. Thompson's argument about the standing army
employed in keeping down the slaves,' and declares that it was
'complete humbug, founded upon just nothing at all.' Will the citizens
of Southampton county, Virginia, who called in the aid of the U. S.
dragoons to quell an insurrection a few years ago, corroborate his
testimony? 'An officer of the United States' army, who was in the
expedition from fortress Monroe, against the Southampton slaves in
1831, speaks with constant horror of the scenes which he was compelled
to witness. Those troops, agreeably to their orders, which were to
exterminate the negroes, killed all that they met with, although they
encountered neither resistance, nor show of resistance: and the first
check given to this wide, barbarous slaughter grew out of the fact,
that the law of Virginia, which provides for the payment to the master
of the full value of an executed slave, was considered as not applying
to the cases of slaves put to death without trial. In consequence of
numerous representations to this effect, sent to the officer of the
United States' army, commanding the expedition, the massacre was
suspended.'--_Child's Oration._

And what says Mr. B. to this assertion of John Q. Adams, that were it
not for the protection of the western frontier against the Indians,
and of the Southern slaveholder against his human 'machinery,' this
country would scarcely have any need of a standing army. Is that
'complete humbug' too?

Mr. B. ventures to say that 'there are not ten persons in the whole
state of Kentucky, holding anti-slavery principles, in the Garrison
sense of the word.' Page 40. We know not how many there may be now,
but in 1835, a constitution of a state society, framed on anti-slavery
principles, 'in the Garrison sense of the word,' was signed by more
than forty persons.

Mr. B. tells about a minister who was driven, he says, from Groton,
Mass., by the storm of abolitionism, and who seems to have fled to
Baltimore, doubtless, seeking a congenial climate. See page 40. But
Mr. B. forgot to mention the many cases in which the _slave_ spirit,
'like a storm of fire and brimstone from hell,' has driven faithful
pastors from their charges, just for the crime of praying and
preaching now and then for the enslaved.

Mr. B. says of a document from which his opponent quoted certain
Maryland laws that placed the 'benevolent colonization scheme' in any
thing but a favorable light, that it was said in America, and he
believed truly, to contain not the laws, but only schemes of laws
which never passed the Assembly. See page 47. On this the Emancipator
remarks, 'This was never alleged against the pamphlet. The pamphlet
contains the laws precisely as they stand in the statute book of
Maryland, as Mr. B. would have seen had he ever taken the trouble to
compare them. And for him to make such assertions, without having done
so, is only another instance of "unpardonable ignorance, or a purpose
to mislead."'

In the third evening's discussion, Mr. B. asserted, page 50, that Mr.
Garrison was among the first who opposed the Colonization Society, 'on
the ground that its operations were injurious to the colored race in
America.' To this the Emancipator says, 'This is partly true and
partly not. The Society was decidedly opposed, at the outset, both by
the colored people and by those who, up to that time, had been most
active in promoting the cause of emancipation. As early as August,
1817, the subject came before the "American Convention for Promoting
the Abolition of Slavery," &c., at its session in Philadelphia. This
body, representing for the most part Friends, and made up of delegates
from abolition and manumission societies in different parts of the
country, after a full discussion, appointed a committee on the
subject. That committee reported, that "they must express their
unqualified wish, that no plan of colonization shall be permitted to
go into effect without an _immutable pledge_ from the slaveholding
states of a just and wise system of gradual emancipation;" and they
conclude their report, which was approved and adopted by the
Convention with the following resolution:--

    "Resolved, As a sense of this Convention, that the gradual
    and total emancipation of all persons of color, and their
    literary and moral education, should precede their
    colonization."

When the Convention met again in 1819, the Pennsylvania society, in
sending up a statement of its views and proceedings, warned the
"abolitionists of our country to retain in view the lessons of
experience, and avoid substituting for them, schemes however splendid,
yet of questionable result;" and added, "for ourselves there is but
one principle on which we can act. It is the principle of immutable
justice! We can make no compromise with the prejudices of slavery, or
with the slavery of prejudice. The same arguments that are now urged
against emancipation, unless the subjects of it be removed from our
territory, were used with more plausibility when abolition was an
experiment, yet they were combatted with success."

Mr. B. says, page 52, it 'would-be difficult, if not utterly
impossible, for evidences of friendship to the Colonization Society
from an avowed friend of slavery to be culled out, as occurring within
the last three or four years.' Says the Emancipator, "So far is this
from being true, that the most decisive evidences of this sort are
found, _within_ the last three or four years. Scarce a pro-slavery
mob, or speech, or meeting, during this whole time, but has contained,
in one and the same breath, a condemmnation of abolition and a
commendation of colonization."

After quoting the resolution against the Colonization Society, in
Boston last year, Mr. B. remarks, 'that the verbiage of this
resolution, showed its parentage. No one who had ever heard one of Mr.
Thompson's speeches could, for a moment, doubt the authorship of the
resolution!' This is a small mistake indeed, and among so many great
ones, scarce merits a notice, but to show that Mr. B's sagacity in
conjecture, exceeds not much his veracity in assertion, we just
mention in passing, that the 'authorship of the resolution' belongs
_not_ to Mr. Thompson.

'The abolitionists,' says Mr. B. page 54, 'have been going about, from
Dan to Beersheba, not only attacking and vilifying the whites, for
proposing to colonize the blacks, with their own free consent; but
equally attacking the blacks for availing themselves of the offer.' An
assertion utterly false, and wickedly slanderous.

On page 55, Mr. B. introduces an extract from an address of some of
the Cape Palmas Colonists to their friends in America, for the purpose
of showing the prosperity of the Colony. In connection with this, let
the following letter from a colonist be read:--

                                'CAPE PALMAS, MAY 5TH, 1834.

    _Dear Mother_,--I write you with regret. It is true, I wrote
    to you of my passage, how I enjoyed it. I spent a very
    agreeable time, and also on my first arrival; but now I am
    distressed, and all Mr. C's family also. * * * O! I am sorry!
    yes, sorry that I ever came to this country. It is true,
    mother, had I taken your advice, I would not have been here.
    I have suffered and all my family, and Mr. C's family too,
    and we still continue to suffer. Not a cent of money have any
    of us got. Now, mother, if you can get any gentleman to
    advance the amount of three hundred dollars, or two hundred
    and fifty dollars I will work for them for it four years. I
    will serve as a waiter in a house, or any thing at all, to
    pay for it. My wife says she would maintain herself and
    sister, if that could get her home once more, for here they
    can do nothing, for we are not able, the country is so
    sickly--we have been sick ever since we have been here--* * *
    I will serve any way or at any thing. _I will sell myself as
    a slave_, for the sake of getting HOME once more. Try for me,
    if you please, for my _family's_ sake. If I was by myself, I
    might scuffle for myself.'

In a subsequent letter, dated August 3, 1834, this same writer
communicates the additional intelligence, that Mrs. C 'died of grief.'

'Every benevolent and right thinking person must see, that the scheme
of colonizing Africa by black men, is necessary to enlighten Africa,
and prevent the extirpation of the black man there.' So says Mr.
Breckinridge. Doubtless it was to _enlighten_ the poor natives, and
_prevent their_ extirpation, that a brisk traffic in rum, tobacco,
gunpowder, and spear-pointed knives, has been carried on with them by
black men colonized in Africa--that nine pound balls from 'a gun of
great power' were discharged into a body of eight hundred men,
standing within sixty yards, pressed shoulder to shoulder, in so
compact a form that a child might easily walk upon their heads from
one end of the mass to the other' and 'every shot literally spent its
force in a solid mass of living human flesh[B]--that by fraud and
injustice the colonists excited the hostility of the Africans, and
stirred up a war with King Joe Harris, which resulted in the slaughter
of numbers of the ignorant barbarians, who were unable to cope with
the superior arms, and discipline, and military prowess of the
American blacks--the 'missionaries in the holy cause of civilization,
religion, and free institutions.'[C]

    [B] See Gurley's Life of Ashmun, page 139.

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

'America,' says Mr. B., 'was christianized by colonization.' Yea,
verily! and in this case we have another precious example of the
enlightening, civilizing, and christianizing influence of colonies.
The poor Indian has felt, and faded away before it, along the
Atlantic-shores, and still the 'missionary' work is going on at the
far southwest. Ask the Seminoles and the Creeks if colonization has
not Christianized America. Ask the shades of Metacom, and Canonicus,
and Sarsacus; ask the feeble remnants of the mighty tribes which once
dwelt from the lakes to the Gulf, and from the ocean to the Alleghany,
and learn of them the process of christianization which colonies have
introduced into America. Is it by a similar process that 'colonizing
Africa by black men,' is to 'prevent the extirpation' of the natives
of that continent?

'The climate' of Africa Mr. B. says, page 58 'suits the black man,
while hundreds of white men have fallen victims to it.' And how many
'hundreds of black men' have fallen victims to it? Those especially
who have gone from the Northern states, have found it as fatal as have
the whites themselves, nor has it been very remarkably healthy to any
portion of the colonists.

Mr. B. is very certain that colonizing Africa will destroy the slave
trade. He says the colonists 'would put an end to the trade the moment
they were able to chastise the pirates, or make reprisals on the
nations to which they belonged. Nothing is plainer, than that any
nation that will make reprisals, will have none of the inhabitants
stolen. If reprisals were made effective, the slave trade would be
immediately stopped.' A Christian mode of reforming vices and removing
evils, truly! '_Any nation that will make reprisals!_' So, if Peter
steals John's child, John must steal Peter's by way of reprisal, and
that will put a stop to the mischief at once! And why not reprisals
prevent all other kinds of violence, as well as man-stealing? If an
Englishman shoots a Frenchman, let a Frenchman shoot an Englishman in
return, and the quarrel is settled, and peace restored! For 'nothing
is plainer, than that any nation that will make reprisals, will have
none of the inhabitants' shot. Does past history sustain this
doctrine? Do present facts sustain it? No longer let our clergy
preach, that 'all they who take the sword, shall perish by the sword.'
'Nothing is plainer,' than that those nations 'which take the sword'
to 'make reprisals,' 'will have none of the inhabitants' injured by
the sword. But where is the need of colonies? If the 'Foulahs' will
only steal as many men, women, and children, from the 'Ialoffs,' as
the latter from the former, 'nothing is plainer than that these two
tribes will have none of the inhabitants stolen.' Do the various
African tribes never make reprisals? How happens it then, that the
slave trade, and the whole business of man-stealing has not been long
since suppressed?

'On one hundred leagues of the African coast,' says Mr. B., 'it is
already to a great degree suppressed' by the operation of the
colonization societies and their colonies. To this the Emancipator
says, 'These statements are far, very far from true, and we can
account for them only on the ground of "unpardonable ignorance, or a
purpose to mislead." Again and again have we been assured, and on
colonial colonization authority too, that the trade still goes on in
the vicinity of the colony as briskly as ever, nay, that it is even
prosecuted within the limits of the colony, and in sight of Monrovia
itself. Indeed, at this very moment the colony, instead of being able
to suppress or destroy the trade, is in danger of being itself
destroyed by it, and is sending out its appeal to this country for
help, praying that some "American vessels" may be sent upon the coast
to seize the traders, and to protect the colony. Let our friends in
this country and in England peruse the following extracts from the
Liberia Herald just received in this country, and then say what shall
be thought of the man or the men who, in the face of such and similar
testimony repeatedly received, can unblushingly pretend "that on one
hundred leagues of the African coast, the trade is already to a great
degree suppressed?"

Extracts from late Liberia papers, received at the office of the N. Y.
Commercial Advertiser:--

    "_Slave Trade._--This nefarious traffic is again lifting its
    horrid head in our vicinity, and increasing in a fearful
    ratio. Within one hundred miles of the settlement, there are
    at this very time, at least _four_ factories for the purchase
    of slaves, and one of them not more than eighteen miles off!
    The consequences are most severely felt by the colony. It is
    now impossible to purchase rice, at any rate that would not
    starve the most fortunate man. In our immediate vicinity, it
    is reported, slavers have lately given the natives a musket
    for four cross! the retail price of which, in the colony, is
    six dollars! To the Spaniards, in view of a successful voyage,
    the profits of which are so enormous, goods are of no value;
    but it is far otherwise with us. The natives, like other men,
    disposed to get the most for their articles, will of course
    sell to those who will give the highest. This being the case,
    we ask, _how are the people of this colony to live_? We have
    sometimes thought if the people of the United States once
    knew the _inconvenience_ to which the slave trade subjects
    us, and what an _effectual check_ it is upon the advancement
    and prosperity of the colony, and how little of those surplus
    and useless millions, whose proper place of deposite has
    created so much contention, that without an exception, saints
    and sinners, politicians, philosophers, colonizationists, and
    abolitionists, anti-colonizationists, anti-abolitionists, and
    anti-all, would rise up, and with one general voice decree,
    that a small armed vessel shall ply between Sherbro Islands
    and Kroo country, and thus _effectually protect_ a few poor
    OUTCASTS, while millions of their brethren are faithfully
    slaving to enrich us at home."

And so, notwithstanding the Paradise to which they have gone, and
their "free consent" to go, they are "poor outcasts" when they get
there after all; and the very trade which they were sent to abolish,
is in a fair way of abolishing them, unless government vessels go out
to their aid!'

Of the remark said to have been made by him at the colonization
meeting, in 1834, that certain emigrants to Liberia 'were coerced
away, as truly as if it had been done with a cart-whip,' Mr. B. says
'it was an unfair report, got up by Mr. Leavitt, the editor of the N.
Y. Evangelist, to serve a special purpose.' The Emancipator answers
the assertion thus, 'This passage has been quoted and requoted in this
country, in times and ways well nigh innumerable, but, to the best of
our knowledge, it was never before pronounced an unfair report, either
by Mr. B. or any other individual. And now, while we leave Mr. Leavitt
to answer for himself on the question of its fairness, we take the
liberty to say, that if unfair, it will not relieve Mr. B. of
difficulty. For if the report be fair, and Mr. B. did say the things
attributed to him, why then, as every body knows, he said what was
true. If, however, it be unfair, and he did not say those things, then
as every body knows, he did _not_ say what was true, and what, if he
had spoken the truth, he would have said. For that they were "coerced
away as truly as if it had been done with a cart-whip," every body
knows to be fact.'

    _Mr. Leavitt's Note to the Editor of the Emancipator._

    'In reply to Mr. Breckinridge's allegation, that I "got up"
    a report of his speech, "to serve a special purpose," I will
    only say, that Mr. Breckinridge did prudently to go across
    the Atlantic before he made that charge. My character as a
    _fair_ reporter, will not be affected _here_ by such
    insinuations. I have no doubt that the report in question
    gives the ideas Mr. B. uttered, mostly in the very language
    he used. My recollection, in this case, is very distinct, and
    the words taken down at the time.

                                               JOSHUA LEAVITT.

Mr. B. says, that 'in many instances the bad laws had become worse,
and good laws had become bad, solely through the imprudent conduct of
Mr. Thompson's associates.' Some of the most unrighteous, barbarous,
and abominable laws ever enacted in this land, whose rulers have so
long occupied the 'throne of iniquity,' and been so often and so
deeply guilty of 'framing mischief by a law,' are cited in Stroud's
Sketch, a work published several years before 'Mr. Thompson and his
associates' had commenced their 'imprudent' measures. Those laws
certainly were not occasioned by their imprudence. It is nearly a
hundred years at least, since these statutes of pandemonium began to
disgrace American legislation.

In the fourth evening's discussion, Mr. B. asserts, page 88, that the
N. Y. Observer and Boston Recorder, 'print more matter weekly than all
the abolition newspapers in America, put together, do in half a year.'
It is really matter of astonishment, that he should venture the
utterance of such a glaring falsehood. He ought to have learned to
keep at least within the bounds of probability in his fictions. There
were at the time when his assertion was made--to say nothing of the
monthlies--not less than eight or nine _weekly_ anti-slavery papers,
some of which circulated more widely than the Recorder, and not much
less widely than the Observer. If we do not mistake, Mr. B. told a
story at least forty or fifty times as large as the truth, and we are
by no means sure that the proportion is not much larger.

Mr. Thompson, for the purpose of showing what the abolitionists are
doing in one department of their work, produced copies of the Slaves
Friend, Anti-Slavery Record, Anti-Slavery Anecdotes, Human Rights,
Emancipator, Liberator, New York Evangelist, Zion's Herald, Zion's
Watchman, Philadelphia Independent Weekly Press, Herald of Freedom,
Lynn Record, New England Spectator, &c., and an Anti-Slavery
Quarterly. Of these, Mr. B. said 'some of them were, he believed, long
ago dead; some could hardly be said ever to have lived; some were
purely occasional; the greater part as limited in circulation, as they
were contemptible in point of merit. Not above two or three of the
dozen or fifteen that had been produced before them were, in fact,
worthy to be called respectable and avowed abolition newspapers.' Now
for the truth. _Not one_ of them was 'long ago,' or is now 'dead.'
Only one of them is 'purely occasional'--the Anti-Slavery
Anecdotes--but, with that exception, all are now alive, and nearly
every one has a circulation as extensive as that of the
Recorder--some, as already stated, still more extensive. And beside
these which Mr. Thompson exhibited, there are several other weekly and
monthly anti-slavery publications, which are neither dead, nor likely
soon to be. The Philanthropist, (its publication suspended indeed, for
a short time by the destruction of its press, but soon to be resumed,)
the Friend of Man, the American Citizen, the Vermont Telegraph, the
Middlebury Free Press, the Vermont State Journal, and a number more,
weekly, and some monthly periodicals are 'avowed abolition
newspapers,' some of them devoted almost exclusively to this cause,
and all 'respectable' both in character and extent of circulation.
Some of them are of the very highest order in point of ability and
merit, of the weekly periodicals of the country. Mr. T., therefore,
instead of exaggerating in regard to the number of the abolition
papers, fell considerably short of the truth.

'Was he [the inhabitant of Louisiana] to be told then, that he should
turn off his slaves?' &c., asks Mr. B., page 90, Certainly not--at
least, not by abolitionists. They propose that the slaves should be
permitted to remain on the plantations and work as free laborers,
where their services will be needed, and will be mutually advantageous
to themselves and their employers.

Mr. B. denies, page 90, that any person legally free, 'was ever sold
into everlasting slavery,' but his denial is only another evidence of
the facility with which he can utter, not only gross falsehoods, but
falsehoods which contradict _notorious_ facts, and which of course
cannot escape detection. Mr. T. has fully exposed this falsehood, by
presenting documentary evidence of the fact denied.

Of Mr. B's declarations, on page 91, to which we refer the reader, the
Emancipator says, 'All this, if not "gratuitous folly," is at least,
unfounded and reckless assertion, which we have scarcely ever seen
equalled.'

We ask our readers to turn back, and read again the paragraph on page
97, ending '_to_ COERCE _such emigration, might be a_ MOST SACRED
DUTY,' This has frankness at least, if it has no other good quality to
recommend it. But it is the frankness of the tyrant, who, confident of
his power to effect his purposes, fears not to avow them, however
iniquitous or abominable. And if there be frankness in letting out the
design, there is most unblushing impudence in calling its execution
'_a sacred duty_.' What utter heartlessness too, and what obliquity of
moral vision does it exhibit. And this man dares to rank himself with
the friends of the colored people! Such a friend as the Holy
Inquisitors of Spain, to the heretical Protestants, whom they deem it
their 'sacred duty to coerce' with rack and fire, to a renunciation of
their heresies. Such a friend as Louis XIV., to the Huguenots,--James
I., to the Puritans, and Charles II., to the Scottish Covenanters.

On page 98, Mr. B. introduces what he calls a speech of Mr. T. at
Andover, as reported by a student in the Theological Seminary. Mr. T.
has met this anonymous report with counter testimony, not anonymous,
but we will add that of the editor of the Emancipator, who says, 'Mr.
B. although so often pretending that he had no documents, &c., here
read the false and distorted account of Mr. Thompson's speech on this
occasion, published at the time in the Boston Courier, and signed C.
Having been there at the time, we here record our testimony to the
fact of its being false and distorted in its representations.'

Mr. B. on page 109, alludes to what Mr. Thompson has said 'about Dr.
Sprague having part of his church curtained round for persons of
color,' and says he notices it 'only because it was told as a
_specimen_ story.' In the same connection he evidently endeavors to
create the impression that the religious privileges of the free
colored people are equal to those of the whites. On this, the
Emancipator remarks, 'We can testify to the truth of the story in
regard to Dr. Sprague's church; and although every church does not
separate the blacks from the whites with so much care, or in precisely
the same way, yet it is strictly true, that almost, without exception,
the separation is made and carefully kept up, and this not only in the
ordinary worship of the Sabbath, but even when the church gather about
the table of their crucified and common Lord, to partake of the
emblems of his dying love.' And after admitting that colored men have,
in a few instances, been admitted to theological seminaries, and to a
seat in ecclesiastical bodies, the editor adds, and truly, as all
familiar with the facts can testify, 'Such instances, however, are few
and far between, and whenever they do occur, the individuals concerned
are, in many ways, made to feel their inferiority and to _know their
place_. The impression made by Mr. B's representation would be, as a
whole, incorrect.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                     C. C. BURLEIGH.

  Boston, Sept. 22, 1836.




TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES


Other than a few punctuation errors and the misprints corrected in the
list below, printer's inconsistencies in spelling, punctuation, and
hyphenation have been retained:

  "solictied" corrected to "solicited" (page 4)
  "conclusinos" corrected to "conclusions" (page 4)
  "belived" corrected to "believed" (page 5)
  "anamoly" corrected to "anomaly" (page 7)
  "wasnot" corrected to "was not" (page 7)
  "Birtish" corrected to "British" (page 8)
  "him self" corrected to "himself" (page 10)
  "alloted" corrected to "allotted" (pages 16, 163)
  "immeditate" corrected to "immediate" (page 18)
  "decison" corrected to "decision" (page 18)
  "spirtual" corrected to "spiritual" (page 18)
  "kidknapped" corrected to "kidnapped" (page 20)
  "aleady" corrected to "already" (page 21)
  "colonziation" corrected to "colonization" (page 23)
  "however. Mr. Thomppson" corrected to "however, Mr. Thompson"
            (page 33)
  "actualy" corrected to "actually" (page 34)
  "abosolute" corrected to "absolute" (page 35)
  "opionion" corrected to "opinion" (page 36)
  "capacties" corrected to "capacities" (page 37)
  "excercise" corrected to "exercise" (page 38)
  "elighten" corrected to "enlighten" (page 44)
  "commited" corrected to "committed" (page 44)
  "thoughout" corrected to "throughout" (page 87)
  "alledged" corrected to "alleged" (page 111)
  "ojection" corrected to "objection" (page 112)
  "proceedure" corrected to "procedure" (page 113)
  "equesterd" corrected to "requested" (page 135)
  "occuring" corrected to "occurring" (page 171)
  "comendation" corrected to "commendation" (page 171)
  "Engl shman" corrected to "Englishman" (page 174)
  "succesful" corrected to "successful" (page 175)