« PreviousContinue »
"all men were born equal, and were endowed by nature with inalienable right to liberty"-were slaveholders! And the same men transmitted slavery, a joint inheritance with liberty, to their children! Now is there any thing in all this which proves slavery to be the enemy of our republic? Rather does not every thing conspire to make even the suspicion of such a thing sacrilegious? The reader will see at once how powerful must be the operation of this reflection. It is by no means confined to the unthinking, but affects the most intelligent. It seizes directly upon that veneration for the Revolutionary heroes, which is one of the strongest feelings in the American bosom, and in this manner sways many minds which would otherwise detect its shallow sophistry.
3rd. This system of slavery has been ever since the Revolution, and is now practised by the very men who manifest the greatest devotion to liberty. Look at the facts. Who are best qualified to be Presidents ?-Slaveholders. Who talk the loudest in Congress about our mighty republic ?-Slaveholders. Who write the most eloquently about our glorious institutions ?-Slaveholders. Who celebrate the 4th of July with the greatest patriotism and parade?—Slaveholders. Who devote most of their time to eulogizing liberty in our bar-rooms and other temples of freedom?-Slaveholders. And what inference are we to draw from all these facts? What, but that slaveholding fosters republican feelings, and consequently that domestic slavery is "an essential element in a free government?" It is true that Dr. Johnson, with keenest irony, exclaims, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes!" It is true also that the celebrated Burke declared, "that masters would, even more than other men, be attached to freedom, because with them it was not merely a right and a blessing, but a privilege and a distinction." But then it is known that Johnson was a monarchist, and Burke also, and what motive could they have had for assailing our favorite system, unless it was the malicious desire to stab our free institutions.
But here the question returns, shall we be alarmed about the tendencies of slavery, when our wisest politicians, and statesmen, and editors, are slaveholders? When in addition to this, those who stand next below the slaveholders in
the scale of patriotism, viz.: our northern politicians, statesmen and editors, et id omne genus, are the staunch defenders of domestic slavery? Would it not appear from such facts that actual slaveholding, where it is practicable, and at least, the pro-slavery spirit, is indispensable to the perfection of the republican spirit? Then, when we cast our eye upon the opposers of slavery, the alarmists, who are endeavoring to draw public odium upon the system-why, they are a mere handful of weak, pious fanatics, run mad about abstract rights, headed by a little knot of knavish christian conspirators, whose aim is to unite church and state, or to transform our glorious republic into an absolute despotism. This is evidence enough. "Down with the incendiaries, away with suspicion-liberty and slavery forever!" and the thundering plaudit reverberates through all the land. The South cries "all is peace"-and the North responds "all is peace" and though the gathering wrath of God replies, no peace," yet the nation hears it not. Such is a picture of our country. The enemy is wide awake, but we are asleep. His dark and covert ruin steals rapidly on, yet we have no suspicions! Soon the foundation will be gonesoon the pillars will tremble-and the republic-my countrymen, take the alarm!
I have now stated a few circumstances which tend to disarm the American people of all suspicion respecting their own system of slavery; and I have reiterated what the inevitable consequences must be.
4. I proceed to notice the fact, that free discussion in the non-slaveholding states on the subject of slavery, is in the same manner discouraged and smothered. I allude here, not to those direct obstacles which slaveholders and violent pro-slavery men, throw in the way of discussion; but to certain opinions, erroneous in fact, yet honestly entertained by northern mind, and by which, more than by all the anathemas of slaveholders and their apologists, the free states are deterred from the discussion of the slavery question. It needs only to be mentioned that discussion is necessarydiscussion among northern communities, and must precede the full developement of the anti-republican tendencies of slavery. Whatever therefore discourages the public mind from the discussion of this subject, tends to perpetuate slavery, and all the consequent evils which have been already
pointed out. I shall be better understood by mentioning some of the false opinions alluded to above, as deterring the people of the free states from discussing, or in any way interesting themselves, in the question of slavery.
1st. The northern states originally formed a compact with the South, by which they obligated themselves to refrain from all interference with slavery. It will be perceived that it does not enter into my plan at present, to refute these sentiments. I am to show how their existence will tend to smother free discussion. I shall therefore assume them to be erroneous. If it be believed that the North has made such a compact, then in order to observe good faith it would seem that they should say nothing about slavery, but leave it wholly to the South. If the North is debarred from all action in the case, then of course discussion is useless, and the Yankees had better spend their breath in some more profitable way. Many from this simple consideration, make a matter of conscience of it to "touch not, handle not," nor even so much as think gravely of the subject, for fear they should become excited and break their covenant with the slaveholders.
2nd. Slavery is a very intricate subject. A thousand interests are at stake. The master's safety, and the security of his family, the quiet of community, commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests, in a word, all the interests of all the country, and the welfare of the slave besides -are involved in the slavery question. The profoundest minds of our nation have been turned to this subject; but they have not been able to solve the difficulty. Hence every one recoils from the slavery question. The South love to have their system invested with mystery, and they assure the country that no one can know any thing about slavery but the slaveholders. The people of the North acquiesce and say, "better leave the whole matter with our brethren of the South." Vast numbers are deterred from discussion on this ground.
3d. Slavery is a very delicate matter. It is more dangerous than a thousand powder magazines. Hands off. It must not be touched, lest it should explode and blow the Union into atoms. Many there are who would as soon carry a blazing torch through a powder mill, as to discuss the slavery question.
4th. If slavery is discussed and written about, the agitation will reach the slaves and cause insurrections. Love therefore for the generous people of the South, constrains the North to abstain from discussion.
5th. Slavery is a domestic institution, just as family government or household management. It is none of our business therefore, the North concludes, and common courtesy requires that we should be silent about it, however much we may dislike the system. We should at least refrain from any interference, until our aid is solicited. In this way the soundest statesmen, and the greatest divines reason. The same sentiment will be found every where through the North, and it serves as an effectual quietus to discussion.
6th. Slavery is a political question. What then? Why of course ministers must not discuss it; the church too must steer clear of it, lest forsooth she lose her spirituality. As for females, they must not even so much as think of slavery, seeing it is wholly unbecoming their sex to know any thing about political questions. Furthermore northern politicians must not intermeddle with slavery, for it belongs exclusively to southern politics. Of course the common people, both North and South, should avoid the question, for they are not versed in the subtleties of political controversy. So then it is reduced to this-that Southern politicians are the only persons in the world who have any right to discuss the merits of American slavery! And yet, ridiculous as this is, it is extensively believed! Ministers excuse themselves on this principle, and the church overlooks unparalleled wrong and steels her heart against the Lord's poor, on the same flimsy pretext. Such are the difficulties which stare the mass of northern men in the face, and compel them to refrain from discussion, just as they would shrink from treaHonest mistakes on these points have doubtless in many cases been the remote cause of that bitter opposition to discussion, which has manifested itself in mob violence.
It must be evident that, if slavery be a dangerous element in a free government, its danger is increased an hundred fold, from the obstacles which lie in the way of the free discussion and fair understanding of its tendencies. If American slavery were only discussed fully by northern communities, our country would have nothing to fear; but that a most wonderful combination of circumstances should con
spire to smother all discussion, is alarming and ominous to the republic.
5. The reader will bear with me, while I mention finally, one peculiar feature of American Slavery, which, while it operates equally with the things already specified, to lull suspicion and smother discussion, also tends to reconcile the nation to all the horrid deformities of the system. I refer to that prevailing prejudice which is felt toward the enslaved. This prejudice, which regards both the color and the condition of the slave, is as strong as it is extensive. It is considered by the great mass of the community, both North and South, to be natural, and it is declared to be utterly invincible. With this question I have nothing to do here. My object is to show how the prevalence of this prejudice enhances the danger to which our country is exposed from slavery. Our feelings with regard to any evil, will depend almost entirely upon our feelings towards those who suffer the evil. If we admire the sufferer, we abhor the occasion of the suffering, if it be in its nature blameworthy. If we despise the victim of wrong, we shall be disposed to tolerate, if not to approve, the wrong. In this way oppression itself, and that too, of the most atrocious character, may change grounds in our estimation. For example, when the Greeks contended for freedom, why did every American bosom burn with indignation against their Turkish oppressors? Because we remembered the glory of the Grecian name, admired the descendants of Homer, Demosthenes, and Leonidas, and sympathized with them in their sufferings. Had the case been reversed, and had the barbarous Turk been struggling against the oppressions of the classic Greek, American feeling, would, in all probability, have been wholly different. All our associations would have led us to sympathize with the oppressor, and connive at the oppression. Now observe the common feeling in this country towards the slaves. We hate their persons, both for their own degradation, and that of their ancestry, and still more because of their color. Of course we disregard their rights and their interests, and we not unfrequently doubt whether they were not made to be slaves. Our sympathies are with the master--none flow for the slave. We feel more concern for the purse of the former, than we do for the body and soul of the latter. With such feelings as these, what will be our judgment concerning the