VOL. I.] THE ABOLITIONIST. SEPTEMBER, 1833. MRS. CHILD'S APPEAL. An Appeal in favor of that Class of Americans called Africans. By Mrs. Child. Boston: Allen & Ticknor. 1833. 12 mo. pp. 232. [NO. IX. Chap. V. Colonization Society and AntiSlavery Society. Intellect of Negroes. Chap. VI. On every one of these subjects, Mrs. Child has collected useful and interesting information, much of which will be new to most of her readers. It is not, however, only, or chiefly, as a valuable collection of facts that this volume The conclusion to should be recommended. We heard a few months since with great satisfaction that Mrs. Child was engaged in preparing a work on slavery. We felt sure that any thing which she should write on the subject, would exert a beneficial and powerful moral influence on the public mind. It is but justice to say, that the high anticipations which we had formed of the merits of Mrs. Child's book, have been more than realized by be drawn from these facts are presented with its perusal. That it will do great good, we force and directness. The book too is writfeel entire confidence. The great difficulty ten with great terseness and spirit, and warmwith which abolitionists in this country, have ed throughout by a glow of benevolent feelhitherto had to contend, has been that very ing. Yet with all this, upon a cubject so exfew have been willing to give them a fair hear-citing as slavery, the author though she exing. The cultivated and refined at the north, having taken for granted the comfortable doctrine that slavery was an evil with which they had nothing to do, have listened to the arguments of its opposers, with the same feelings of impatience and disgust with which they read the soiled and thumbworn petitions and certificates of strolling beggars. But the work of an author of established reputation, one whose writings they have been accustomed to admire, cannot be condemned without examination. She must be heard. presses her sentiments fearlessly and distinctly, never indulges in mere abuse and railing, and while she makes no sacrifice of principle, or concealment of truth, to conciliate slaveholders and their advocates, she never says any thing merely for the sake of producing irritation. The work throughout is distinguished by kindness and courtesy towards those whose opinions and practices she is compelled to condemn. It is not very easy to make selections from a volume that contains so much which we The nature of this volume may be judged should be glad to have placed before all our The following passage, however, of by the following table of the contents of readers. the chapters. That we may not seem so un-shows the ability with which the author reacritical as to see no fault in the volume, we sons, and also exhibits the sound sense and venture to suggest that such a table ought to strong moral feeling which pervade the volume. After having related some instances of have preceded the body of the work. atrocious cruelties inflicted on slaves, she continues: Chapter I. Brief history of Slavery.—Its inevitable effect upon all concerned in it. 'I shall be told that such examples as these are of rare occurrence; and I have no doubt that instances of excessive severity are far I believe that a large proportion of masters are as kind to their slaves as they can be, consistently with keepChap. IV. Influence of Slavery on the Pol-ing them in bondage; but it must be allowed itics of the United States. that this, to make the best of it, is very stinted 17 Chap. II. Comparative view of Slavery in different ages and nations. Chap. III. Free Labor and Slave Labor.- from being common. Possibility of safe Emancipation. VOL. I. kindness. And let it never be forgotten that the negro's fate depends entirely on the character of his master; and it is a mere matter of chance whether he fall into merciful or unmerciful hands; his happiness, nay, his very life, depends on chance. The slave owners are always telling us, that the accounts of slave misery are abominably exaggerated; and their plea is supported by many individuals, who seem to think that charity was made to cover sins, not to cure them. But without listening to the zealous opposers of slavery, we shall find in the judicial reports of the Southern States, and in the ordinary details of their newspapers, more than enough to startle us; besides, we must not forget that where one instance of cruelty comes to our knowledge, hundreds are kept secret; and the more public attention is awakend to the subject, the more caution will be used in this respect. Why should we be deceived by the sophistry of those whose interest it is to gloss over iniquity, and who from long habit have learned to believe that it is no iniquity? It is a very simple process to judge rightly in this matter. Just ask yourself the question, where you could find a set of men, in whose power you would be willing to place yourself, if the laws allowed them to sin against you with impunity? patronise the system they have considered so abominable, and often become proverbial for their severity. I have not the least doubt of the fact; for slavery contaminates all that. comes within its influence. It would be very absurd to imagine that the inhabitants of one State are worse than the inhabitants of another, unless some peculiar circumstances, of universal influence, tend to make them so. Human nature is every where the same; but developed differently, by different excitements and temptations. It is the business of wise legislation to discover what influences are most productive of good, and the least conducive to evil. If we were educated at the South, we should no doubt vindicate slavery, and inherit as a birthright all the evils it engrafts upon the character. If they lived on our rocky soil, and under our inclement skies, their shrewdness would sometimes border upon knavery, and their frugality sometimes degenerate into parsimony. We both have our virtues and our faults, induced by the influences under which we live, and, of course, totally different in their character. Our defects are bad enough; but they cannot, like slavery, affect the destiny and rights of millions. All this mutual recrimination about horsejockeys, gamblers, tin-pedlars, and venders of wooden nutmegs, is quite unworthy of a great nation. Instead of calmly examining this important subject on the plain grounds of justice and humanity, we allow it to degenerate into a mere question of sectional pride and vanity. [Pardon the Americanism, would we had less use for the word!] It is the system, not the men, on which we ought to bestow the full measure of abhorrence. If we were wil republicans, prefer the common good to all other considerations, there would not be a slave in the United States, at the end of half a century. The arguments in support of slavery are all hollow and deceptive, though frequently very specious. No one thinks of finding a foundation for the system in the principles of truth and justice; and the unavoidable result is, that even in policy it is unsound. The monstrous fabric rests on the mere appearance of present expediency; while, in fact, all its tendencies individual and national, present and remote, are highly injurious to the true interests of the country. The slave owner will not believe this. The stronger the evidence against his favorite theories, the more strenuously he It is a defends them. it has been wisely said,' Honesty is the best policy; but policy without honesty never finds that out.' But it is urged that it is the interest of planters to treat their slaves well. This argument no doubt has some force; and it is the poor negro's only security. But it is likewise the interest of men to treat their cattle kindly; yet we see that passion and short-sighted avarice do overcome the strongest motives of interest. Cattle are beat unmercifully, some-ling to forget ourselves, and could, like true times unto death; they are ruined by being over-worked; weakened by want of sufficient food; and so forth. Besides, it is sometimes directly for the interest of the planter to work his slaves beyond their strength. When there is a sudden rise in the prices of sugar, a certain amount of labor in a given time is of more consequence to the owner of a plantation, than the price of several slaves; he can well afford to waste a few lives. This is no idle hypothesis-such calculations are gravely and openly made by planters. Hence, it is the slave's prayer that sugars may be cheap. When the negro is old, or feeble from incurable disease, is it his master's interest to feed him well, and clothe him comfortably? Certainly not: it then becomes desirable to get rid of the human brute as soon as convenient. common remark, that it is not quite safe, in most cases, for even parents to be entirely dependent on the generosity of their children; I hope none will be so literal as to suppose and if human nature be such, what has the I intend to say that no planter can be honest, slave to expect, when he becomes a mere bill in the common acceptation of that term. Í of expense? simply mean that all who ground their arguIt is a common retort to say that New-Eng-ments in policy, and not in duty and plain landers, who go to the South, soon learn to truth, are really blind to the highest and best interests of man.' A. It is wise always to assert our rights, by words and practice. The rights of speech BETWEEN C, A COLONIZATIONIST, AND A, AN and of the press are infinitely more valuable ABOLITIONIST, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. (Concluded.) you than the fame to be gained or preserved, by yielding them up to arrogance and pride. It would reduce us to the condition of slaves, to be prohibited from speaking the truth, when, where, and how we please. When Napoleon complained to the British government, of the abusiveness of the London newspapers, the answer he received was that the press was C. You undertook to convince me that the Northern people can act practically in the matter of negro slavery. I presume you hardly venture to say that Congress has power to decree emancipation; if you do, I refer to the letter of Daniel Webster, lately pub-free, but if he was libelled, the courts were lished, on the subject. open to him for redress. Are we less free than the British? And are not our courts open to any slaveholder who is injured? We shrink from no responsibility; 'seek no concealment. The northern people owe it to their own dignity and independence, to treat with scorn all anger which is produced by the exercise of our just rights. C. But does the irritation that you occasion help forward the object at all? Does it not obviously cause the blacks to be more rigorously treated than ever? A. I agree perfectly with Mr. Webster. There can be no doubt that our Legislatures, can make no law whatever to compel a slaveholder, in another State, to emancipate, or even to abstain from murdering, his slaves, and that Congress is equally powerless in this respect. But yet Congress can do much; and so can the Legislatures, and so can the people. I call it a strictly practical object, to prepare an engine by means of which great effects are to be produced. Now, public sentiment is all powerful; and if it can be so excited as to bear with its immense weight upon this question, the effect must be great and practical. The publications which prepared the minds of the colonists for the revolutionary struggle, were not less practical than the actual military effects that were prompted by them. The force of truth and moral suasion, over an intelligent people, can hardly be over-whole of the public lands for the purpose of rated, and should never be disdained. C. But if the suasion is to be addressed only to the Southern people, it ought at least, to be more gentle, if it is to be effectual. A. The irritation neither helps nor hinders, or if it does hinder that is no reason for giving up our consciences. The Temperance Society gave offence to many, but that was unavoidable, and has not hindered the immense benefits of its operations. When, a few years since, some of the Middle States passed resolutions offering to concur in giving up the purchasing the slaves from their bondage, was not the proposition generous and kind, and entitled to the thanks of the North? C. It was silly perhaps, but certainly generous; and has been revived, in part, by the land-bill which the President lately vetoed. A. Well, what was the conduct of the Southern States? They treated the project as an impertinence-an offensive intermeddling in their affairs. Now it is plain that irritability so morbid deserves no consideration. There will be scolding; but are we to A. It is not addressed only, or chiefly, to the Southern people. We have no objection to their hearing us, and no wish to exasperate them-but we care not for their anger. To say less than the truth, would be unworthy of us as freemen; and if the truth plainly spoken gives offence, the fault must be in the hearers, not in the speakers. I am ashamed of my country and amazed at its degeneracy when be frightened because they make faces at us? I hear it said that truths, undeniable truths, ought to be suppressed or only whispered with closed doors, for fear of giving offence! Such was not the principle on which our fathers acted, or the revolution could never have occurred. C. But is it wise to irritate and alienate the Southern people by needless repetition of reproaches? No reformation of conduct, or sentiment, ever was, or will be effected, without offence being given. The truth will, nevertheless, reach some hearts and produce its legitimate effect. The fact is that, already, some slaveholders have been convinced, and have been induced to emancipate their slaves. Emancipation by last wills, is also more frequent. In the prospect of death conscience has great power. To 132 Dialogue between a Colonizationist and an Abolitionist. bring truth home to the conscience is, therefore, an important and a practical object. C. These are, then, the modes in which the northern people can act practically in these matters. A. This is not all. The whole subject branches out into various considerations. But in discussing any and all of them, it is requisite to get rid of the bug-bear of southern irritation, and also to shake off the delusions of that timidity which dreads to look at the plain truth and to speak it. claim of the person to whom the service or labor may be due.' Well, this is the Constitution-but the southern people are said to desire much more than the bond, and shocking abuses, never contemplated as consequences of the concession, are told of, as practiced under this provision. Have we not a right to see whether it be really so? In many of the States legislative enactments have been added to facilitate the restoration of slaves to their chains. The claim, as a preliminary, is dispensed with. But these statutes were fair subjects of discussion; and being all liable to repeal or amendment, they are still perfectly C. Suppose, then, I grant that the anger of the South ought not to be regarded, and that truth is at all times to be spoken, (notwith-legitimate subjects of our consideration. Now standing the proverb,) then what follows? if the whole matter is exclusively of southern cognizance, we have no right to discuss the enactment or repeal of one of our own statutes; and our legislature has only, like the old Parliament of France, to register the edicts of a master. C. I admit the propriety of discussing our A. Then as freemen, and Americans, and Christians, it is incumbent on us to look at our actual condition, and see in what degree we are accessaries to the crime of holding our fellow men in chains, and subjecting them to a cruel oppression. It is our duty to inquire what we can do lawfully, and not inconsis-own statutes. Indeed no one can doubt it. tently with our political or moral obligations, to A. But our friends, the slaveholders, are right this grievous wrong, or to mitigate its afraid, if we discuss any thing that has the word barbarity. It is our duty to see whether we slave or the word freedom in it. However, are not doing more to aid an iniquitous op- this is one only, of several such matters equalpression, than our political relations require of ly within our proper cognizance. The ConThese inquiries involve many questions stitution also permitted Congress to prohibit of expediency in local as well as national leg- the slave trade after 1808, or in terms, 'the islation, which, if we are not ourselves in migration or importation of such persons as bondage, we have the same right to discuss, the states shall think proper to admit.' Conto suggest, or to present to the minds of oth-gress did accordingly prohibit the external ers, as we have to discuss the tariff, the bank, or the charter of a rail-road company. us. C. I must say that these views are strange to me. Is not our condition merely that of a bystander; and does not the Constitution forbid our active interference? A. By no means. When the Constitution was formed, a spirit of compromise prevailed, but whether it was carried too far I need not say. Let it stand, but if the bond gives to the slaveholders unreasonable advantages, (in the slave representation and other matters) let them make the best of their bargain, but not seek to exceed its terms. We have a right to say that Shylock shall have his pound of flesh, 'but not a drop of blood.' The northern people yielded much and enough to the necessity of the crisis; but they could not be induced to admit the word, slave or slavery into the Constitution. They agreed however that 'persons held to labor or service' escaping into another State should be 'delivered up on slave trade, and the bill was surely a fair subject of remark both during its pendency and after its passage, in all parts of the country. But the prohibition of the internal trade or 'migration' is equally before the whole nation as a question of expediency, and any man or any Society has a perfect right to propose and recommend it. Shall it be said that we of the north have not the same right with those of the south, to discuss a question of national expediency and constitutional law? Why certainly our southern fellow citizens are bewildered when they say it. And our own neighbors are strangely misled when they give their assent to the adoption. C. That would, at all events, be a matter for Congress, and may as well be left there. A. But Congress represents the people of the north as well as the south, and the constituents have a certain right to discuss the conduct of their representatives, both as to what they have done, and what they have Dialogue between a Colonizationist and an Abolitionist. 133 ject of slavery as it exists at the seat of our national government. It is no question of exclusively southern cognizance. It is of national cognizance; and we are just as responsible for the continuance of slavery at the seat of government, and for the abuses and cruelties that attend it, (which are shocking,) as the southern people are. In what one point of view, therefore, can the subject of slavery and its evils be said to belong exclusively to the south? omitted to do. There is, therefore, perfect (also a right to make our wishes known. We propriety in our discussing the subject of sla- have therefore a full right to discuss the subvery in all its aspects. But further: the Constitution also guarantees each state 'against domestic violence.' Now let us consider what was the undertaking at the time. Surely it is fair to argue that it was the tacit agreement that the slaveholding states should do all that humanity dictates, consistent with slave property, to ameliorate the condition of the 'persons held to labor:' at least, that they should be treated as persons not as brutes. Well, but if it be true, that the slaves are far worse treated than they were ;-that marriage is not allowed,-[the institution that so much distinguishes man from beasts]—that instruction in religion is withheld-no protection to life afforded-no restraint on cruelty provided ;-if, in short, the slaveholders do not perform their part of the contract, may we not question whether we are bound to comply with ours? At all events, these circumstances or any others may fairly be urged as reasons for amending the Constitution, by striking out those words which now bind us to support the slaveholder, in a more cruel treatment of his slaves than is permitted to slaveholders under the British, French, Spanish or Portuguese gov ernments. C. In respect to immediate emancipation. You grant that we cannot effect it by persuasion. And also in regard to the treatment of the slaves. A. But in pursuing the object by persuasion, we have a right to say that if they will not shew any intention to emancipate or to improve the condition of the slaves, we will do our best to eradicate slavery from the District of Columbia-and from Florida—which may be done without persuasion; and that we will not facilitate the restoration of fugitives beyond the letter of the Constitution ;-and that we will not hold ourselves bound to assist in quelling domestic violence which they have provoked by needless severity. And we may C. It will be difficult to prove the fact. I and we ought to continue the cry of 'shamedo not believe it. A. The question is, whether we have a right to inquire into the fact; the slaveholders say we have no right to meddle with the subject, but I contend that our Constitution guarantees our right to amend it, of course to propose and discuss amendments, and therefore to examine the facts that supply a motive for an amendment. C. An amendment of the Constitution is out of the question, against the will of the slaveholding states. A. Not entirely out of the question; we ought not to suppose it. The presumption should be in their favor, that they would not all be opposed to it. But there is another consideration. Congress have the sole and absolute regulation of the District of Columbia. Our members have repeatedly had occasion to vote on resolutions introduced there, having in view the breaking up of the slave market, now kept open under the very shadow of the Capitol. In all questions upon which representatives vote, we, the constituents, have a right to enlighten and inform them. We have shame' upon them, until they render their slave-code at least equal in justice and mercy to that of despotic Portugal or Spain. But there is still another matter that is, beyond all doubt, within our own domestic notice. The influence of slavery is such that our own people are infected, and there is danger of our returning to the slave trade again. In Illinois the project has been very seriously entertained of introducing slavery. In Connecticut the legislature has prohibited, under penalties, the giving instruction to colored persons. Whence comes the impetus for this retrograde movement? How is it that Connecticut has been disgraced by a statute making the communication of knowledge a penal offence? How must public sentiment be vitiated when it can bear such an outrage on humanity! It is a crime in Connecticut to cultivate human intellect, and pour moral instruction into an immortal soul! There is no difficulty in saying how this comes. The notion has been broadly asserted in the south and has been imbibed here, that colored men are not 'persons held to labor,' but brute animals, creatures below |