« AnteriorContinuar »
can coast, would most surely and speedily elevate their character, civilize Africa, and with reacting power on our country, stimulate and increase humanity towards their brethren; that it was a measure so free from exception, and pregnant with good, so comprehensive in its relations, and large of promise; that all the wise and patriotic in the nation, could sustain it unitedly, constantly, and with their might. It is among my deepest convictions, that the prosecution of this scheme by the nation, as the main plan, at present, of good for the African race, will retard no other rational plans for their benefit, but eminently conduce to their success. It will hasten emancipation on our own soil, more than all the abstract doctrines of human rights, which once promulgated amid scenes of cruelty and murder, at which humanity grew pale, by the Jacobins of the Old World, are now republished as divine oracles by their disciples in the New.
This scheme of Colonization is innoxious, it tends to unite public sentiment, to strengthen the Union, to increase confidence between the States, between the whites and the blacks, the master and the slave, while it invites a powerful nation of Christians to offer up minor differences and contrarieties of interest on the altar of an undivided patriotism and philanthropy. It invites such a nation, in the spirit of a prophetic sagacity, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to guard itself from coming dangers; do homage to the great principles which have made it what it is; vindicate the purity of its honour; stand forth to suppress evils militating against the common welfare and breaking the common ligaments of human society; and in the silence of its passions and the majesty of its reason to build up an everlasting fame on the affections of mankind. It invites a nation, which in the ardour of its youth, has extended liberty, civilization and christianity over a continent late the abode of savage beasts, and more savage men; to endow another, a larger, a more miserable one, with the regenerating spirit of wisdom, and the incorruptible treasures of truth.
And what is that “armed doctrine” which comes forth under the snowy flag of peace, to overthrow first the Colonization Society, and next slavery? It is a doctrine that would enthrone the abstract* rights of the individual (a nonentity except in imagination), above those conservative principles upon which society depends not only for its value, but existence; ---a doctrine which would settle questions of right between men, not on the principle of reciprocal benevolence, in view of their varied circumstances and relations; but by an independent standard, divorced from all the realities, and setting at naught all the wise forecast of life. It demands, in the sacred name of duty, of the supreme power of the State, to give instant liberty to all who have it not, even if certain to inflict thereby the greatest mischiefs upon those liberated,—10 put in jeopardy the very life of the political body.
And in what temper, with what language is this doctrine enforced?
As the lightning fiercely glares athwart the sky from the dark folds of the cloud in the horizon, hiding all the sweet lights of Heaven, so from the minds of some of those who assume to be champions of this doctrine, flash forth the malignant passions, overpowering in their characters all the gentle attributes and virtues of humanity. To convert men to their opinions, they slander and vilisy their characters; to promote what they consider truth, publish falsehoods; tyrannise men into their belief, out of zeal for liberty; and for peace sake, light up the elements of war with the torch of the furies. They dip out a strange mixture of truth, error, calumny and
• Man must be in society, to become entitled to any of the rights which belong to men in society. And can any man doubt that these rights are va. ried and modified by circumstances? In a ship at sea, with abundance of provisions, each passenger has the right to a full allowance; but has he this right when the general safety requires a reduction of the rations? Or suppose, in case of such reduction, some of the crew of stronger constitutions continue in health, while others, it is clear, must die, unless there be an increase of their allowance; does not the condition of the latter, give them a moral right to special consideration?
wrath, flaming hot from their alembic, and scatter it through the land, to destroy oppression and save the country. I speak only of the leaders* in the attempt to overthrow the Colonization Societyt-of those wlio, disrobing themselves of the ordinary decencies and courtesies of life, are now incensing the North against the South, and the South against the North, infecting the minds of a large and suffering portion of our inhabitants with hatred towards their friends, and in their fury
I limit these remarks, touching the spirit and language of Anti-Colonizationists, to the conductors of two or three of their leading Journals. Their boldness and activity would be worthy of praise, were they governed by right
| I do not question that the Anti-Slavery Society embraces many men of pure motives, intelligent, patriotic, and Christian. For such men I shall not permit a difference of opinion, however important, to diminish my respector affection. While I shall continue to cherish towards them these sentiments, even should they not be reciprocated; and while I desire not to restrain them in the expression of their opinions, they will not expect me to be restrained in the expression of mine.
Some of the best men in the country, believe that the Colonization Society and the Anti-Slavery Society should both be sustained; that each should occupy its own field and controversy between them cease. But how stands the case? The leaders of the Anti-Slavery Society declare the extinction of the Colonization Society to be the first step towards the abolition of slavery, and the doctrine of immediate emancipation on our own soil, the grand means for the overthrow of slavery. Some of the inembers of that Society, doubtless, adopt the latter opinion, who reject the former.
Members there may be (and probably are) of the Anti-Slavery Society who desire not the overthrow of the Colonization Society, and members of the Colonization Society who find no difficulty in supporting what they regard as its views, and advocating at the same time the duty of immediate emancipation, to the fullest extent of the meaning of that phrase. Professor Fowler (a name which I cannot mention but with the greatest respect and affection), in his recent discourse before the Vermont Colonization Society, has expressed correctly, I doubt not, the views of these individuals in the following passage:"If the Anti-Slavery Society shall succeed in promoting the emaneipation of the slaves, then it will assist the Colonization Society, by furnishing it with an opportunity for a better selection of emigrants for the building of the Colony. On the other hand, the greater the number the Colonization Society transports to Liberia, the more room there will be for future and progressive emancipation, without endangering the peace and safety of the country. In
seeking to extinguish some of the best hopes of this nation and mankind.
While I have felt it my duty thus to remark upon the conduct of a few rash men, who are, I trust, blind to the natural consequences of their actions, I would urge all the sober
this way they can be helpers of each other as they ought to be, while they are efficiently promoting the several objects for which they were established.Why then should these Societies, thus capable of benefitting each other, weaken their energies and waste their resources, in attacking each other, and in the consequently necessary self-defence? Why should these contests continue to produce among some of the partizans of each, a frenzied excitement, resulting in denunciation and outrages upon decorum and propriety; or in riots and outrages upon the laws of the land? Let us aid each of these associations as best we can. But let each confine itself to its legitimate object.”
It should be recollected, that the leaders of the Anti-Slavery Society, un. provoked, commenced, with an exterminating spirit, their warfare upon the Colonization Society. Whether, had no such attack been made, those friends of the Colonization Society who are opposed to the doctrine of immediate emancipation, as enforced by these leaders, would have thought it necessary to avow their opinions on this point, it is for one only, that the writer can deterinine. But the Anti-Colonizationists have declared that the Colonization Society must be destroyed; ils scheme so far as regarded in its influence for the abolition of slavery, abandoned; and the doctrine of immediate emancipation be substituted therefor.
Now, what is the doctrine on this subject, which duty requires to become preralent and practical in the minds of the American people, is the great and momentous question submitted to their decision.
I have no fears of the effects of any doctrine founded in truth, and which is received by men in its true meaning. Some doctrines, true and important, it may be difficult to communicate to men in certain conditions and circumstances, so that they shall not be misapprehended, and in such cases, caution and explanation may be required in the inculcation of them.
The objections of the writer, to the doctrine of the Anti-Slavery Society, as expounded by its most zealous supporters, rest not upon his belief that the system of slavery as it now exists, is right; nor that what is therein wrong should not be immediately rectified; nor on the fact, that he is opposed to the early and entire abolition of slavery. They result from his conviction, that the doctrine as thus expounded, is untrue, and such, as should it prevail beyond a certain extent, must operate to retard the safe, peaceful and beneficial abolition of slavery—endanger the integrity of the Union and put in jeopardy the best interests of all classes the population of our Southern States.
friends of the people of colour and of Africa, to consider the vast work for both, to which our country is now summoned by every thing that touches either her interest or her honour. O that she would open her great heart to pity, to mercy, and
I have stated elsewhere my reasons, for concluding the doctrine of imme. diate emancipation untrue; and I shall here say only, that these reasons are derived from what I regard as the true meaning and intent of the Saviour's law: “Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you.” Here I am happy to quote from the able letter (just published) on this subject, of President Young, of Kentucky, the following sentences, containing sentiments strictly just:-“Again it is urged, that the maxim do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you, requires that all authority of the master should be at once relinquished. But were I such as a vast majority of slaves are, I would that I were, for a time retained under control, while vigorous means were brought to operate upon me, to fit me for the responsibility of self-government. I do not say that, if I were slave, such would be my desire, as I would then possess all his ignorance and folly. The rule does not require that I should do to another what if I were stripped of my present capacity and judgment, I would deem to be best for me-it simply requires me to imagine myself in his condition; and what I then think would be best for myself in such a condition, that to do for him.
“Any other exposition of this rule will strip it of all title to its well known appellation of the golden; and will make every man's desires the measure of his neighbour's duty. Were I a child, I presume that I would be disinclined to the rod, even when it was needed. Now, I would that were I a child, it should not be spared; and thus, when complying with the advice of the wise man, I do unto my children, as I would that they should do unto me.”
I have confidence in truth. It has a mighty power over the conscience. It is never at war with what is, on the whole, for the interest of human society.-The worst tendencies of the doctrine of immediate abolition, result from its want of truth. It may excite the passions of the North, it cannot command the conscience of the South. It may excite the slave to demand instant free dom, it cannot make the masters generally feel it to be their duty instantly to grant it. It thus introduces and sets at work antagonist principles between the North and the South, the master and the slave. It is a doctrine which, if it prevail beyond a certain limit in this country, will do more than any which ever found respectable advocates in the land, to darken the glory of our prospects, and subvert the foundations of our Government. On the contrary, the doctrine that the slaves are men; that they ought to be treated as men; that they should be prepared, without unnecessary delay, for perfect freedom; and when prepared, should receive it in such way as may best promote their happiness, and consist with the general good, is one which must commend itself to the conscience of every humane and Christian man. Should it fail to be