the will of the South-nothing of those who the North-Carolina quaker tells us, are for bringing the "National Legislation" to bear upon emancipation.

And has DANIEL WEBSTER, a sworn sentinel on the ramparts of the Constitution, been sleeping at his post; and is it to more faithful and more intelligent watchmen, that we owe the discovery of the meditated treason?

Mr. Webster's letter contains, as far as it goes, THE POLITICAL CREED OF THE ABOLITIONISTS, and we may challenge the whole Colonization Society to name a single Abolitionist, who does not most heartily assent to its doctrines. The New-York Emancipator transferred the letter to its columns, remarking "Mr. Webster's opinion on the subject of slavery in the States of this Union; so far as expressed, is just the same as has been more than once avowed in every Anti-slavery paper in the country-that it is a subject within the exclusive control of the States themselves."-Emancipator, 6th July, 1833.

Not only has Mr. Garrison declared his readiness to sign his name to every sentiment expressed in Mr. Webster's letter, but he has used in the Liberator, the following language, Abolitionists as clearly understand, and as sacredly regard the constitutional powers of Congress, as do their traducers; and they know and have again and again asserted, that Congress has no more rightful authority to sit in judgment upon Southern slavery, than it has to legislate for the Abolition of slavery in the French colonies."

We will now select a few from the many official declarations of Abolitionists on this subject.

66

The national compact was so framed as to guaranty the legal possession of slaves; and physical interference would be a violation of Christian principles.' I. Rep. of New-England

Anti-Slavery Society-p. 21.

66

رو

We do not aim at any interference with the constitutional rights of the slave-holding States; for Congress, as is well understood, has no power to abolish slavery in the several States."-Address of the New-York city Anti-Slavery Society ―p. 5.

We freely and unanimously recognize the sovereignty of each State to legislate exclusively on the subject of slavery, which is tolerated within its limits; we consider that Congress has no right to interfere with any of the slave States in relation

to this subject."-Declaration of Anti-Slavery Convention at Philadelphia, 4th December, 1833.

"While it admits that each State in which slavery exists, has by the Constitution of the United States exclusive right to legislate in regard to its Abolition, it shall aim to convince all our fellow citizens by arguments addressed to their understandings and consciences, that slave-holding is a henious sin in the sight of God."—Constitution of American Anti-Slavery Society.

In December 1833, the managers of the New-York city Anti-Slavery Society printed and circulated a petition to Congress, for the Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. It commenced as follows:

TO THE HON., THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

"Your petitioners, inhabitants of the city of New-York, beg leave to represent to your Honorable body, that whatever views they may entertain of the evils of slavery as it exists in certain States of the Federal Union, they are fully aware that these evils are beyond the Constitutional control of the federal government; and so far from soliciting your interposition for their removal, they would deprecate the interference of Congress on this subject, as a violation of the national compact." The petition then proceeds to assert the Constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the district, and asks for its

exercise.

And now we ask, is there any thing in the extracts we have given, to justify, excuse, or palliate the heavy accusations made against Abolitionists? Surely it must now be conceded that however unconstitutional may be the emancipation contemplated by Abolitionists, it is not to be effected by Congress. We lament that Chancellor Walworth did not condescend to explain how and why it was unconstitutional. He is accustomed to assign reasons for his decisions, and it may fairly be doubted whether, in withholding the reasons for the judgment he has pronounced against Abolitionists, he has administered equity. He has adjudged that the emancipation contemplated by Abolitionists would "violate the rights of property," but in what way does not appear. As physical force is disclaimed, and congressional interference deprecated, the alleged violation of property must arise from the appeals made to the holders to

surrender it. But surely the President of the New-York Temperance Society does not regard property in human flesh and blood so much more sacred than property in rum, that while he is laboring to induce the owners of the latter, throughout the United States, to part with their property, he looks upon every man who tells his fellow-citizens that it is their duty to manumit their slaves, as violating the rights of property! The venders of ardent spirits in New-Orleans and elsewhere, have as valid and constitutional a title to their liquors as they have to their slaves. Now hear what Mr. Frelinghuysen says of a traffic expressly sanctioned by the laws of every State in the Union. "It is mere tampering with temptation to come short of positive, decided, and uncompromising opposition. We must not only resist, we must drive it. To stand on the defensive merely, is to aid in its triumph." 7th Rep. Am. Temp. Soc. p. 51. Yet they who by arguments, are resisting, or driving the traffic in the souls and bodies of men, are accused of" seeking to destroy our happy union!"

The State Legislatures have as much right to authorize lotteries, as they have to authorize slavery, yet the Pennsylvania Society for abolishing lotteries, is established for the avowed purpose of abolishing by moral influence, lotteries in other states, for there are none in its own. No objection is made to the constitutionality of that Society, yet epithets seem to be wanting to express the abhorrence felt for those who are aiming by the same means to rescue millions from a bondage destructive to their happiness in this world, and in that which is to come!

In the remarks we have made on the language used by Chancellor Walworth and his two associates, no unkind feelings have mingled. Not a suspicion of the goodness of their motives has crossed our mind; we admire them for their talents, and esteem them for their virtues; and sincerely do we regret, that men who possess the power of doing so much good, should ever, through want of information, so grievously misapply it.

And now it may be asked, if Abolitionists intend to use only moral means, what good can they effect by using those means at the North, where slavery does not exist? But although slavery does not exist at the North, it is excused and justified at the North; and Southern Christians are countenanced in keeping their fellow men in bondage and in ignorance, by their Northern brethren. We have already seen the baneful influ

ence of the Colonization Society on the treatment of the free negroes at the North; the Black Act of Connecticut is still in force, and Judge Daggett's decision remains unreversed. Slavery is in full vigor under the authority of Congress, and sanctioned by a majority consisting of Northern members; and our whole country is disgraced, and humanity and religion outraged by an extensive and abominable slave trade, conducted under the same sanction. If, therefore, it could be foreseen, that no slave in any of the States would ever be liberated, through the influence of Northern Anti-Slavery Societies, there would still remain great and glorious objects to stimulate their zeal, to employ all their energies, and abundantly to reward all their la; bors. But neither their labors nor rewards will be confined to the North. The consciences of Southern Christians, so long lulled by the opiate of Colonization, are awakening to duty. Southern divines are beginning to acknowledge the sinfulness of slavery, and recent slave holders are now proclaiming the safety and duty of immediate emancipation.

While Northern Colonizationists are sounding the tocsin, and girding on their armour, and rushing to the battle, to protect the rights of their Southern brethren, those very brethren are beginning to listen to the friendly admonitions of Abolitionists, and are inquiring what they must do to escape the mighty perils to which they are exposed. On the 19th March, a convention of gentlemen from different parts of Kentucky assembled at Danville, and amid a slave population of 165,000, organized THE KENTUCKY ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY Auxiliary to the American Anti-Slavery Society; and appointed a delegate to attend the anniversary of the parent Institution at New-York!

While the professors of many of our Northern Colleges are laboring with trembling solicitude, to stifle all discussion respecting slavery among their pupils, JAMES M. BUCHANAN, a professor of Centre College, has had the moral courage to accept the station of president of the Kentucky Society. Indeed, the whole nation has been roused from its lethargy, and in almost every circle and neighborhood, the subject of Abolition is attracting attention; the violence and persecution experienced by Abolitionists, instead of suppressing, has promoted discussion; and they have reason to hope, that slavery will ultimately be abolished, by the voluntary action of the South, in compliance with the dictates of policy and of duty.

CHAPTER VII.

SAFETY OF IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION.

ALTHOUGH We may have succeeded in proving that the emancipation contemplated by Abolitionists, is not "unconstitutional," yet many may conscientiously doubt whether it would be safe and wise.

A few years only have elapsed, since the use of ardent spirits was universally countenanced by all classes of the community; and when the few who contended that their use was sinful, and ought to be immediately abandoned, were deemed no less visionary and fanatical than those are now who hold the same doctrine in regard to slavery.

The whole Colonization Society, with scarcely a solitary exception,* denounce immediate emancipation as dangerous, or rather as utterly ruinous, to the whites. Their objections were thus briefly summed up by the Rev. Dr. Hawkes, in his speech at a Colonization meeting in New-York:

66

'But if the plan of Colonization be abandoned, what remains? Are the slaves fitted for freedom? No-and if they are let loose at once, they must of necessity, to procure a living, either beg or steal, or destroy and displace the whites."New-York Com. Adv. 10th Oct. 1833.

Here we have broad unqualified assertions, without a particle of proof. We find it taken for granted, that if the slaves are at once restored to liberty, they must, from necessity, beg or steal, or destroy and displace the whites. What causes will produce this necessity, we are uninformed; why it will be impossible for liberated slaves to work for wages, is unexplained. Slavery is property in human beings. Immediate emancipation is therefore nothing more than the immediate cessation of this property. But how does this cessation of property imply that those who were the subjects of it must be "let loose?" Will they not, like other persons, be subject to the control of law, and responsible for their conduct? If incapable of providing for themselves, may they not like children, apprentices and

*The only exception known to the writer, is G. Smith, Esq.