It requires no great exercise of candor, to admit, that the prejudices existing against the blacks are sinful, whenever they lead us to treat those unhappy people with injustice and inhumanity. They have their rights as well as ourselves. They have no right to associate with us against our will, but they have a right to acquire property by lawful industry; they have a right to participate in the blessings of education and political liberty. When, therefore, our prejudices lead us to keep the blacks in poverty, by restricting their industry,* to keep them in ignorance, by excluding them from our seminaries, and preventing them from having seminaries of their own; to keep them in a state of vassalage by denying them any choice in their rulers; our prejudices are so far sinful, and so far only does the Anti-Slavery Society aim at removing them.

CHAPTER IV.

INCENDIARISM AND TREASON OF ABOLITIONISTS.

Ir is not enough that Abolitionists should be represented as fanatics; it has been deemed expedient, to hold them up to the community as incendiaries and traitors. The chairman of the Executive Committee of the New-York Colonization Society, thus speaks of the Anti-slavery Society, in his paper of the 9th June, 1834. "The design of this Society is, beyond a doubt, to foment a servile war in the South-they have been heard to say, blood must be shed, and the sooner the better-this Society owes its existence not to the love of liberty, or any particular affection for the slaves, but to cruel and bitter hatred, and malignity." In an earlier paper, he inserted an article accusing Abolitionists of seeking to use the pulpits, "for the base purpose of encouraging scenes of bloodshed."

Here we find the most atrocious designs, imputed to men well known in the community for active benevolence and private worth; and yet not a scintilla of evidence is offered in support of the extraordinary fact, that such men should harbor

* As one instance among the innumerable restrictions on the industry of these people, we may mention, that no free black, however moral and intelligent, can obtain a license in the city of New-York to drive a cart!

such designs. In this case the accused can of course offer only negative proof of their innocence. That proof is to be found. first in their individual characters. Secondly, in the fact that many of the Abolitionists are emphatically peace men, that is, they hold the quacker doctrine of the unlawfulness of war, and maintain that it would be sinful in the slaves to attempt effecting their freedom by force of arms.* Thirdly, in the fundamental principle of the Society that they will "never in any way countenance the oppressed in vindicating their rights by resorting to physical force;" and, fourthly, in the fact that Abolitionists as such, have in no instance recommended, or committed an act of unlawful violence.

But by declaiming against slavery, Abolitionists are exciting odium against slave holders. If he who labors to render any particular sin, and those who are guilty of it odious, is of course a "reckless incendiary, few are more justly and honorably entitled to this epithet, than the excellent Chancellor of NewYork. Few have shown more intrepidity in denouncing the venders of ardent spirits than this gentleman; and Abolitionists in their warfare against slavery, may well take a lesson from the example he has set them of an honest and fearless discharge of duty. Had the President of the New-York Temperance Society and his associates exercised the same tenderness and gentleness towards drunkards and venders, that he now shows towards slave holders, Temperance Societies would have checked the progress of drunkenness, as little as Colonization promises to do that of slavery.

THOMAS JEFFERSON was not denounced as a reckless incendiary, when in the midst of a slave population, he declared that the Almighty had no attribute that could take side with the masters in a contest with their slaves; nor did JOHN JAY forfeit the confidence of his countrymen, when during the revolutionary war, he asserted "till America comes into this measure, (abolition of slavery) her prayers to heaven for liberty will be IMPIOUS; nor when addressing the Legislature of New-York, then a slave State, he told them that persons "free by the laws of God, are held in slavery by the laws of man."

Nor were FRANKLIN and his associates regarded as incendiaries for uniting in 1787, "to extend the blessings of freedom

*This sentiment is held and avowed by the much calumniated Mr. Garrison.

to every part of our race;" or for refusing to permit slaveholders to participate with them in this glorious effort.

It was not sufficient to ridicule Abolitionists as fanatics, or to stigmatize them as incendiaries; they must be branded as traitors and nullifiers. On the 9th October, 1833, a few days after a mob had assembled to deprive American citizens of one of their dearest constitutional rights, that of peaceably expressing their opinions, a numerous Colonization meeting was convened in New-York for the purpose of taking advantage of the recent excitement, to raise the sum of $20,000. Gentlemen of high rank and influence addressed the meeting. Not a word of disapprobation of the late outrage escaped them; on the contrary, the violence offered to the Abolitionists seemed to be extenuated if not justified, by the grievous charges now brought against them.

The Hon. Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New-Jersey, justly distin-' guished for his piety, his talents, and his station as a Senator of the United States, addressed the meeting. "In the course of his address," says the N. Y. Commercial Advertiser, 10th October, "he dwelt with emphasis and just discrimination upon the proceedings of both cis and trans-Atlantic Abolitionists, who are seeking to destroy our happy Union."

Chancellor Walworth, one of the most estimable citizens, and the highest judicial officer of the State of New-York, alluding to the emancipation to be effected by Colonization, remarked, "the emancipation, however, to which this resolution directs your attention, is not that unconstitutional and dangerous emancipation contemplated by a few visionary enthusiasts, and a still fewer reckless incendiaries among us, which cannot be effected without violating the rights of property secured by that constitution which we have sworn to support-that emancipation which would arm one part of the Union against another, and light up the flame of civil war in this now happy land." N. Y. Journal of Commerce.

David B. Ogden, Esq., a gentleman whose legal eminence, and whose purity of character justly give to his opinions peculiar weight, used the following language: "I avail myself of this opportunity, to enter my solemn protest against the attempts which are making by a few FANATICS, who, without looking to the fearful consequences involved in such an issue, are advocating the immediate emancipation of slaves, in the Southern District. As citizens of the United States, we have

no right to interfere with the claims of our Southern brethren to the property of their slaves. The Constitution of the United States recognizes their right to it, and they have not only a sure and undeniable right to that property, but they are entitled to the full protection of the constituted authorities, in enforcing the enjoyment of it. Let us not talk any more of nullification; the doctrine of immediate emancipation is a direct and palpable nullification of that constitution we have sworn to support." New-York Journal of Commerce.

We might have selected many similar charges from other sources, but we have taken these on account of the high character of the accusers, and because the authors are all of the legal profession, and of course, aware of the importance of precision in all charges of a criminal nature. Not one of these gentlemen sitting as a criminal judge, would permit the merest vagabond to be put on his defence on a vague charge of stealing, but would quash any indictment, that did not specify the time and place of the offence, and the property alleged to be stolen; yet they did not scruple to hold up their fellow citizens and fellow Christians to the indignation of the public, on charges destitute of all specification, and unsupported by a particle of testimony.

Abolitionists are here accused of seeking to destroy our happy Union; of contemplating a violation of property, secured by the Constitution they had sworn to support; of pursuing measures which would lead to a civil war; and of being guilty of direct and palpable nullification. When-wherehow were these crimes attempted? What proof is offered? Nothing, absolutely nothing, is offered but naked assertion. Is this equitable? Is it doing to others as these gentlemen would wish others to do to them?

But it is not enough that Abolitionists should be denounced at home; they must also be defamed abroad. Mr. Gurley, secretary of the American Colonization Society, writes a letter (1833) to Henry Ibbotson, Esq., England; and, to give it greater weight, dates it, "Office of the Colonization Society, Washington." In this letter, he undertakes to enlighten his foreign correspondent on some of the "fundamental errors" of the Abolitionists, and ranks among them the opinion, " that, in present circumstances, slavery ought to be abolished, by means not acting solely through, but, in a great degree against, and in defiance of the will of the South." Not a tittle of evidence

is given, that such an opinion is held by a single individual in the United States.

Mr. Jeremiah Hubbard, clerk of the Yearly Meeting of Friends! in North-Carolina, in a letter to a friend in England, (Af. Rep. X. p. 37) declares that "the primary object" of the Abolitionists "appears to be, that of producing such a revolution in public sentiment as to cause the national legislation to bear directly upon the slave-holders, and to compel them to emancipate their slaves."

Now, to all these charges, and to each and every one of them, the members of the Anti-Slavery Society plead NOT GUILTY, and desire to be tried by God and their country. But, alas, no trial is vouchsafed to them: judgment has already been given, and execution awarded against them, without trial, and without evidence, solely on the finding of a voluntary and irresponsible inquest. All they can now do, is to ask for a reversal of the judgment as false and illegal, cruel and oppressive.

It is, of course, difficult to disprove charges, where the counts of the indictment are utterly void of certainty, and where, from the nature of the case, none but negative testimony can be offered by the accused. We have a right to presume, that the treason and nullification charged on Abolitionists, have reference to their efforts to procure the abolition of slavery in the United States. Now slavery exists under the authority of Congress, and also under the authority of State Legislatures. We will proceed in the first place to exhibit some facts relative to slavery in the former instance, and inquire how far the conduct of Abolitionists in respect to it, is treasonable and unconstitutional; and we will then make the same inquiry as to their conduct in regard to slavery in the several States.