Test bank for Microeconomics 1st Edition Acemoglu

List Laibson 0321391578 9780321391575

Download full test bank at:

https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-microeconomics-1st-edition-
acemoglu-list-laibson-0321391578-9780321391575/

Download full solution manual at:

https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-microeconomics-1st-edition-
acemoglu-list-laibson-0321391578-9780321391575/

Microeconomics (Acemoglu/Laibson/List)
Chapter 3 Optimization: Doing the Best You Can

3.1 Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

1) Making choices by selecting the best feasible option, given the available information is referred to as:
A) delegation.
B) imposition.
C) actualization.
D) optimization.
Answer: D
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

2) Which of the following statements is true?

A) It is easier for a person to optimize when he has less information.
B) Optimization implies choosing the best option from a set of alternatives.
C) People always successfully optimize given the limited information they have.
D) Optimization is an easy process, and all economic agents are perfect optimizers.
Answer: B
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

3) Optimization can be achieved using either of two techniques of cost benefit analysis. Which of the
following correctly identifies the techniques?
A) Optimization in levels and optimization in programs
B) Optimization in levels and optimization in differences
1
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
C) Optimization in programs and optimization in frames
D) Optimization in differences and optimization in frames
Answer: B
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

4) Optimization in levels calculates:

A) the total net benefits of different alternatives.
B) only the benefits of an alternative and not the costs.
C) only the costs of an alternative and not the benefits.
D) the change in net benefits when you shift from one alternative to another.
Answer: A
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

2
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
5) John has to choose between a camping holiday and a holiday in Las Vegas. If he evaluates the total net
benefit of both alternatives before coming to a decision, he is using the technique of:
A) marginal analysis.
B) ordinal analysis.
C) optimization in levels.
D) optimization in differences.
Answer: C
Difficulty: Easy
AACSB: Application of Knowledge
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

6) Which of the following is NOT a step involved in optimization in levels?

A) Calculating the total net benefit of each alternative
B) Choosing the alternative with the highest net benefit
C) Converting all costs and benefits into a common value of measurement
D) Calculating the marginal consequences of moving between alternatives
Answer: D
Difficulty: Medium
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

7) Optimization in differences analyzes:

A) the total net benefits of different alternatives.
B) only the costs of an alternative and not the benefits.
C) the total net benefits of the alternative which looks the most attractive.
D) the change in the net benefits when you shift from one alternative to another.
Answer: D
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

8) Gary has to decide between attending a two-day art workshop and a four-day art workshop. If he
evaluates only the change in net benefit when he switches between the two options, he is using the
technique of:
A) ordinal analysis.
B) comparative statics.
C) optimization in levels.
D) optimization in differences.
Answer: D
Difficulty: Easy
AACSB: Application of Knowledge
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

3
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
9) The techniques of optimization in levels and optimization in differences:
A) cannot be used to compare the same set of alternatives.
B) compare only the costs and ignores the benefits of the alternatives.
C) provide identical answers when comparing the same set of alternatives.
D) may provide different answers when comparing the same set of alternatives.
Answer: C
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

10) Which of the following statements identifies a difference between optimization in levels and
optimization in differences?
A) Optimization in levels compares only the costs of different alternatives, whereas optimization in
differences compares only the benefits of different alternatives.
B) Optimization in levels compares only the benefits from different alternatives, whereas optimization in
differences compares only the costs of different alternatives.
C) Optimization in levels calculates the net benefits of different alternatives, whereas optimization in
differences calculates the change in net benefits when switching from one alternative to another.
D) Optimization in levels calculates the change in net benefits when switching from one alternative to
another, whereas optimization in differences calculates the net benefits of different alternatives.
Answer: C
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

11) Which of the following statements identifies a difference between optimization in levels and
optimization in differences?
A) In most cases, optimization in levels is faster and easier than optimization in differences.
B) In many cases, optimization in differences is faster and easier than optimization in levels.
C) Optimization in differences compares only the cost involved in different alternatives, whereas
optimization in levels compares the net benefit of different alternatives.
D) Optimization in differences compares the net benefit of different alternatives, whereas optimization in
levels compares only the cost involved in different alternatives.
Answer: B
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

12) Both optimization in levels and optimization in differences:

A) consider only the benefits from different alternatives.
B) consider only the costs incurred in different alternatives.
C) provide identical answers when comparing two alternatives.
D) require the calculation of change in net benefits of switching from one alternative to another.
Answer: C
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

4
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
13) Which of the following statements identifies a similarity between optimization in levels and
optimization in differences?
A) Both techniques consider only the costs of different alternatives.
B) Both techniques consider only the total benefits of different alternatives.
C) Both techniques evaluate the total net benefit of different alternatives to arrive at a decision.
D) Both techniques require the conversion of all costs and benefits into a common unit of measurement.
Answer: D
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

14) Which of the following statements is true?

A) Marginal analysis is a key component in the process of optimization in levels.
B) Only direct costs are considered when the net benefits of the alternatives are calculated.
C) In both the techniques of optimization, all costs have to be converted to the same unit of measurement.
D) Optimization in levels calculates the change in net benefits when a person switches from one
alternative to another.
Answer: C
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

15) To calculate the ________ of an alternative, an individual needs to estimate ________ of the
alternative.
A) marginal benefit; total cost
B) marginal cost; total benefit
C) opportunity cost; total benefit
D) net benefit; both cost and benefit
Answer: D
Difficulty: Medium
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

16) Net benefits of an alternative equal:

A) benefits minus costs.
B) benefits divided by costs.
C) the sum of benefits and costs.
D) the product of benefits and costs.
Answer: A
Difficulty: Easy
Topic: Two Kinds of Optimization: A Matter of Focus

5
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Another document from Scribd.com that is
random and unrelated content:
Th e P roj ect G u t en b erg eBoo k of An ap ol o gy
f or ab ol i t i on i st s
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: An apology for abolitionists

Author: Philo Pratt

Isaac I. Tibbals
Walter Webb

Creator: Conn. Anti-slavery Society of Meriden

Release date: November 16, 2022 [eBook #69367]

Language: English

Original publication: United States: Anti-Slavery Society of Meriden,

Conn, 1837

Credits: John Campbell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at

https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AN

APOLOGY FOR ABOLITIONISTS ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
[1]
There is one Footnote in this book. Its anchor is denoted by , and the Footnote has
been placed at the end of the book.
Some minor changes to the text are also noted at the end of the book.
 AN

APOLOGY
FOR

ABOLITIONISTS:
ADDRE S S E D

BY THE

A N T I - S L AV E R Y S O C I E T Y
OF

MERIDEN, CONN.,

TO THEIR

F E L L O W- C I T I Z E N S .

SECOND EDITION.

MIDDLETOWN:

C. H. PELTON .... PRINT.

1837.
Fellow-Citizens:
A regard for your good opinion, and a wish to promote the cause,
which, as Abolitionists, lies near our hearts, is our motive for
addressing you. We think the opposition to our enterprise arises either
from commercial, political or domestic connections with Slavery, or
from misapprehensions respecting our principles, measures and
prospects. We desire no better means of overcoming these obstacles
than a fair statement of facts; and to this we now solicit your
attention.

DE CL ARAT I ON OF S E NT I M E NT S .
We believe that all men are born free and equal, and endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness.
We believe Slavery is an infraction of these rights, a violation of the
principles of christianity, and under all circumstances sinful.
We believe that Slavery is a great national evil, political as well as
moral, opposed to the genius of a republican government, highly
dangerous to the peace and permanency of the Union, and if persisted in,
destined to bring upon us the severest judgments of Heaven.
We believe the immediate abolition of slavery would be safe and wise,
and that it is the duty of every friend of humanity to use all fair and just
means for its accomplishment.
We believe we have a right to express and publish our opinions
respecting the customs and institutions of the people of this and every
other country; and if we think them in any degree immoral, unequal, or
oppressive, we are under the highest obligations, in the exercise of all
honest and lawful means, to change them.
We believe that Slavery in the several states can be lawfully abolished
only by the legislatures of the states in which it prevails, and that the
exercise of any other than moral means to induce such abolition, is
unconstitutional.
 We believe that Congress has a right to abolish Slavery in the District
of Columbia, and in the Territories, and to prohibit the slave trade
between the states, and that the exercise of this right is required by the
divine law, and by the interests of our country.
We believe that no class of men can rightfully be denied, on account
of their color, the enjoyment of equal rights with others, in the
protection, immunities and administration of the government under
which they live.

UT I L I T Y OF T HE S E S E NT I M E NT S .
These are our sentiments. We regret to say they are not collectively the
sentiments of our countrymen. It is for our zeal in propagating them, that
we have been assailed with unmeasured abuse and lawless violence. We
think it of high importance to our country and the world that they should
be received by all the people. What the effect of their general reception
in the free states would be, is very apparent.
We should abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia. There Congress
has exclusive jurisdiction on all subjects whatsoever, including of course
the subject of Slavery.—This is admitted by Martin Van Buren, Henry
Clay, and an overwhelming majority of the present Congress. The
Abolitionists are to a man in favor of the exercise of this right. If,
therefore, the free states were thoroughly abolitionized, their Senators
and Representatives, who yet compose a majority in Congress, would at
once bow to the supremacy of their constituents, and abolish Slavery.
We should prohibit the inter state Slave-Trade. This trade has recently
been carried on to a greater extent than ever was the foreign slave trade;
it being estimated that not less than 120,000 slaves were exported from
Virginia alone, within little more than a year, and removed for the most
part to the southwestern states. Four of these states are said by their own
papers, to have received within the same period, about 250,000 slaves
from the old states. How many tender ties have in one short year been
broken by this detestable business! How much bodily suffering has been
endured! How much guilt has been contracted! This cruel and wicked
traffic is at the foundation of a system of breeding slaves for market,
which is prosecuted on a large scale, corrupting all concerned, by its
licentiousness and barbarity. Congress has a right to prohibit and
suppress this trade, under that article of the Constitution which
empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and
between the several states. Were a majority of the citizens of the free
states decided Abolitionists, this right could be exercised. We should
insist upon it. Why then do not they, who profess to regard the slave
trade as the worst feature of Slavery, join with us against it?
We should prevent the annexation of Texas to the United States. The
South has long had her eye on that fine and extensive country, intending
to get it by purchase or stratagem, for the purpose of opening a market
for her redundant slave population, and of securing the balance of power
in the general government to the slave-holding interest. Every enemy of
Slavery and friend of free labor, ought to oppose this design. We
apprehend that if the annexation of Texas to our country should not
involve us in war with Mexico and Great Britain, it would either lead to
a dissolution of the union, or indefinitely prolong the existence of
Slavery. The Abolitionists are now preparing petitions to Congress,
protesting against this insane measure; and were the citizens of the free
states generally to join them, and load the tables of Congress with
several millions of signatures to these protests, the danger would be
averted. But they will not do it, because they are not Abolitionists; and
we must, therefore, in all probability take Texas.
We should admit no new slave states to the Union. Had our sentiments
prevailed when the Missouri question was decided, the fine soil of that
state would not now be cursed with Slavery. She was admitted to the
union by northern men. They legalized the sin. It is a sad proof of the
corruption of our public sentiment that several of these traitors to liberty,
have, since that disgraceful vote was given, been elevated to the first
offices in the gift of New England; and this without any signs of their
repentance. Arkansas has also been lately admitted to the Union by
northern votes, with the singular provision in her constitution, that her
legislature shall have no power to abolish Slavery; so that the “peculiar
institution” may last until the greatest knave in the state is heartily weary
and ashamed of it. Northern men thus voted for perpetual Slavery; and
this they did in the confident expectation of being re-elected to Congress.
Had they known a majority of their constituents to be Abolitionists, they
would have voted differently. Should Florida be next admitted to the
Union as a slave state, the south will have a majority in the Senate. Who
can predict the consequences? But were the free states thoroughly
abolitionized, Florida would never come into the Union as a slave State;
for Abolitionists are in principle opposed to it.
 We should also prohibit the slave trade between the United States and
Texas. In the constitution of Texas, whose independence has already been
acknowledged by our government, Slavery is established as a permanent
institution of the country, and a monopoly of the slave trade granted to
the United States. Already thousands of slaves have been sent there, and
unless something is done to prevent it, vessels will soon be fitted out in
northern ports, to carry slaves from Virginia to Texas, as well as to New
Orleans; and this, whether Texas is annexed to the United States, or
remains independent. Were the citizens of the free states generally
Abolitionists, they would not allow a legal commerce in slaves from our
Republic to a foreign nation.
We should save our own youth from the pollution and guilt of Slavery.
They would not directly participate in it. When they go to the South they
would neither buy nor hire slaves. Hitherto nothing has been more
common than for our best and most intelligent young men, the sons of
our ministers and church members, to become slave-holders. At home
they were not taught the inherent and necessary sinfulness of Slavery; at
the South the practice was recommended to them by the example and
plausible pretexts of the best men. They were accustomed from their
childhood to see slave-holders treated with respect because they were
rich in human chattels, without hearing a word respecting the extortion
by which their wealth comes. Hence many of the merchants, physicians,
lawyers, planters, teachers and clergymen of the South, though northern
men by birth, are either slave-holders or abettors of the system. This
would not be the case, had our declaration of sentiments been taught
from the first by our parents and teachers, and been made the cherished
creed of the free states. Then the combined instructions of the nursery, of
the school, and of the pulpit, together with the impressive power of a
sound public sentiment, would have established our youth in the love
and veneration of human rights; in sympathy for the colored man; in
hatred of oppression. Thus would the general reception of our sentiments
withdraw from Slavery one of its main supports, and at the same time
rescue our sons and daughters from the unutterable calamity of becoming
rich by the spoiling of the poor.
We should establish the liberties of the free states on a firm
foundation. We are not so connected with the slave-states that we must
necessarily perish in their ruin. If the judgments of heaven should
overtake them, we may be spared; should their liberties be prostrated,
ours may survive. It depends on our character and conduct. A people
who respect the rights of others, will have their own rights respected.
Regarding man, of whatever color and condition, as entitled to the sacred
rights of liberty, of property, and of personal security, they will neither
forge chains for others, nor suffer chains to be imposed on themselves.
Nor will God forsake them. Such are the character and security of
Abolitionists. Read our declaration of sentiments. We go for human
nature. We protest against Slavery, because it is an infraction of the
rights of . We know that our entire country has forfeited her
freedom, by oppressing the colored man; still we believe we may, by
hearty repentance and the adoption of just and humane sentiments,
appease the wrath of heaven, and should our nation be rent in two,
preserve our own liberties. But if we continue to connive at this
wickedness, nothing is more certain than our ruin in the common
destruction of the country.
The free people of color would rapidly improve in their moral and
physical condition. A load of prejudice now crushes them in the dust.
They cannot rise because they are deprived of the motives and facilities
for self-improvement. They are a proscribed people. I
C . It shuts out
human beings from schools and colleges, from the mechanical arts, from
the house of God, from a share in the government of the nation, from
social intercourse with their fellow-creatures, from the best incitements
to virtue and enterprise. We freely confess, that the Abolitionists, if a
majority, would correct all these evils, and cause men in this so called
christian and democratic country, to be treated, according to the bible
without distinction of color.
We should do much to vindicate the honor and truth of christianity.
Slavery is the strongest hold of infidelity at the South, and a strong hold
at the North. It is so because, while natural religion declares Slavery to
be sinful, the ministers and professors of christianity practice it, and
defend their conduct from the bible. Such a religion, says the infidel
cannot be from God. It is thus that the church is bringing into contempt
and doubt our blessed religion. It would greatly counteract this prolific
cause of infidelity, were all our churches, ministers, and theological
professors, to embrace and advocate the true doctrine of human rights as
it is set forth in the word of God. We should then hold up to the world,
this internal evidence of the divine origin of the bible, that, being written
in ages of darkness and despotism, it notwithstanding clearly recognizes
and protects as the possessor of natural, inalienable, sacred rights.
Instead of doing this, many northern preachers of the gospel, are now
blaspheming their religion, by saying that both Moses and Christ
tolerated Slavery.
We should no longer uphold Slavery by recognizing slave-holders as
brethren in good and regular standing in the Church. We now receive to
the table of the Redeemer, without one word of admonition, men, who at
the South, make merchandize of the image of God, of their fellow-
christians. What is still more astonishing if not more wicked, we receive
slave-holders to our pulpits, to preach to us about loving God and M !
Thus we practically say, that Slavery is consistent both with morality and
the gospel of Christ. Were we Abolitionists, it would be far otherwise;
for they do not think it right to lend the sanction of the church to such
outrageous wickedness.
Such would be some of the happy results of the general adoption of
our sentiments in the free states, if nothing more could be effected. But
we doubt not it would issue in S
. This is the principal object of our enterprise;
and on a strong probability of success, we are willing to rest its character.
The constitutional action of Congress in the ways above named, would
do much to induce the South to abolish Slavery. Its abolition in the
District of Columbia by the assembled wisdom of the country, would
exert a powerful influence on the southern mind. It would be the
testimony of the nation, corroborating the testimony of every truly
civilized and christian people, to the impolicy and wickedness of
Slavery. The prohibition of the inter state slave-trade, and the
confinement of Slavery to its present local limits would render it
unprofitable to the old states, which depend on this trade as the chief
source of profit; and also drive the new states to the necessity of
introducing free labor; for how could they otherwise cultivate their
immense tracts of virgin land, or supply the deficit occasioned by the
rapid consumption of life on their cotton and sugar plantations?
We should make a still more direct appeal to her interests, by saying:
You may keep your cotton, rice, and sugar, until you have abolished
Slavery. We shall no longer use the products of unrequited labor. It
would then be a question of dollars and cents with her, whether or not
she would give liberty to her captives. We should not be obliged to deny
ourselves the use of her productions one year; for her states would vie
with each other to see which could obtain a monopoly of northern
patronage by first abolishing Slavery. Many northern men have been
bought by southern patronage to do wrong; is it not equally possible to
buy the south with northern patronage to do right; Human nature is every
where the same. We should indeed regret to have Slavery abandoned
from an exclusive regard to self-interest. We would rather it should be
destroyed by the spirit of repentance; for then the emancipated slave
would still be treated with justice and humanity. But no means of
bringing the South to repentance can be more promising, than the
conscientious refusal, by northern men, of all sects and parties, to sustain
Slavery, by consuming its produce. At present this cannot be done on a
scale sufficiently large to secure, certainly and immediately, the abolition
of Slavery; but were the North completely abolitionized, no doubt she
would do it with the most triumphant success.
We should move the South to abandon Slavery, by appealing to her
love of reputation. The South shows herself sensitive on this point. Said
Mr. Calhoun in the United States Senate, “do they, [his southern
opponents,] expect the Abolitionists will resort to arms, and commence a
crusade to liberate our slaves by force? Is this what they mean when they
speak of the attempt to abolish Slavery? If so let me tell our friends of
the South who differ from us, that the war which the Abolitionists wage
against us is of a very different character and far more effective—it is
waged not against our lives, but our character.” Had he said our
reputations and consciences, he would have told the truth. We do intend
to make Slavery disgraceful. Sin ought to be esteemed a reproach to any
people. Were all northern men of our way of thinking, this sin would be
as infamous as any other kind of fraud and villainy. The world is now
pointing the finger of scorn at slave-holding America. The free states
bear a merited portion of the shame, because we share largely in the
responsibility. As we have taken Slavery under our patronage, and
consented to stand godfather to it, what little respectability we have, is
thrown around it, to the great relief and joy of its southern parents. Let us
retire from the relation. Instead of defending Slavery, let us reiterate the
just and indignant censures of the civilized world, until all shall feel, that
so great an enormity cannot be practiced or connived at, without a
forfeiture of character. This would be the state of feeling, were the
citizens of the north generally Abolitionists; and he knows little of
human nature, who doubts that such a state of feeling, would render the
condition of a slave-holder, the last to be sought, the first to be
abandoned.
 In these ways, if in no others, we could reach and influence the South.
Although she should attempt to shut out the light by a strict censorship of
the press and post-office; though she should make the utterance of our
sentiments on southern soil an offence against her laws; she could not
prevent the constitutional action of the general government; she could
not compel us to consume her produce; she could not escape the
withering contempt and indignant frown of our virtuous public
sentiment. We could reach her heart in these ways, in spite of herself,
and as we think to the certain overthrow of Slavery. We could do more.
W S
. This is the principal
ground of our confidence. If Slavery is sinful, we can prove it to be such;
and this proof, made plain to the understanding of the South, cannot fail
to awaken her conscience. Such is human nature. Some would have us
think that none but christians have consciences, and therefore the first
step to be taken for the removal of Slavery is to send missionaries to
convert the masters to christianity, thus laying a foundation for
successful appeals to the conscience. But it seems to us the work of
centuries, if not an impracticable work, to convert the masters, or a
majority of them, to true holiness, while Slavery lasts, especially if they
have no consciences; and we think also, if all were converted to such a
christianity as consists with a hearty belief that Slavery is not condemned
by the Bible, it would not much facilitate our enterprise. Nor have we so
much contempt for that word, which is mighty through God to the
pulling down of strong holds, as to doubt that our doctrines will
commend themselves to the reason of our southern brethren, and receive
a fruitful response from their consciences.
Some would have the world believe, if every person in the free states
were an Abolitionist, it would not hasten the emancipation of the slaves;
for, say they, we could not then get a hearing at the south, and if we
could, she is too much exasperated at our interference to do any thing on
the subject. In our opinion, they are entirely mistaken.
We believe we can get a hearing at the South, or convey a knowledge
of our sentiments to the southern mind, and that these sentiments are
more potent than her prejudices and passions. In proof of it—
She is now constantly receiving numerous publications containing our
views. There were, the last year, about five hundred regular southern
subscribers to the publications of the American Anti-Slavery Society.
The Cincinnati Philanthropist, the Alton Observer, the New York
Evangelist, and scores of other papers, religious and political, have
subscribers at the South, with whom from week to week they advocate
this cause. Many valuable anti-slavery books are also doing a good work
in the very midst of the evil. Several thousands of Miss Grimke’s
Appeal, together with the writings of Jay, Child, Channing and others,
are daily tearing off the mask from Slavery, and awakening the
slumbering conscience of the South. Not unfrequently slave-holders
themselves come to the anti-slavery office in New York and buy whole
sets of our publications. The speeches of her Senators, and the messages
of her Governors evince a better acquaintance with our writings and
movements than the great men of the North can boast. Her own press is
doing much to disseminate our sentiments. The United States Telegraph
of February 18, 1837, edited by Duff Green, Washington, D. C., was
nearly half filled with extracts from our prints. Her clergy by publishing
apologies for slavery in refutation of our views, are also making these
views known and waking up a spirit of inquiry. Indeed, such is human
nature, and such is the course of the south, that we have come to believe
she will not allow us at the north to think aloud on the subject of Slavery
without knowing what we think and why we think so. She will not allow
us to form and express opinions on this subject
. She is too much interested, and
knows that we have too much power, to pass our sentiments by in utter
contempt without even ascertaining them.
But were the free states completely abolitionized, not only the presses
of the Anti-Slavery Societies, assisted by a few others, would carry our
doctrines to the South; but all the religious, political and commercial
papers of the North, indeed the whole body of our literature, would
breathe the same spirit, would speak the same language. Were she,
therefore, ever so much averse to the truth, these numberless
publications, aided by the English press and by private correspondence,
would force upon her a knowledge of our faith.
The social intercourse of the North and South would also afford us
ample opportunities for publishing our sentiments. The citizens of every
state in the Union are daily meeting in the steam-boats, coaches, rail-
road cars and hotels of our country. We are constantly walking arm in
arm with the South, so that she cannot fail to learn what we think of
Slavery, and of the duty and pre-eminent safety of immediate
emancipation. If we are decided Abolitionists, we shall certainly talk
enough to let her know what we think and why we think so.
Many of the youth of the South must continue, as in times past, to be
educated in the free states. Mr. Calhoun was educated at Yale College.
Who can doubt that an influence might have been exerted on his mind, in
relation to Slavery, of the most happy character, if the officers of that
institution, if the surrounding community, if the literature of the day, had
all breathed the spirit of Arthur Tappan and Gerritt Smith? There are now
hundreds of southern youth in our schools, and hundreds will succeed
them, whose minds would be set in deadly and deathless hostility to the
robbery of God’s poor, were their teachers Abolitionists. Some think that
in such an event, they would be kept at home. A few might be, but not
all. The salubrity of our climate, the excellence of our institutions, the
comparative purity of our morals, give us an advantage, that the more
virtuous and intelligent of southern parents, would not relinquish, for
fear that their sons should embrace views, which in their own hearts they
must approve.
It should also be remembered, that we not only educate the most
precious youth of the South, but we supply many of her pulpits,
professorships, and shops with our own sons. The great body of southern
merchants are northern men. Such is the genius of Slavery that this will
continue to be the case. The result would be, were we all Abolitionists,
that the adopted sons of the South would soon form a strong body of
opposition to Slavery, laboring to overthrow it, by their votes, their
arguments and their example. Some may think that lynch law would then
drive us all from the South; or that we should be received there only on
condition of letting Slavery alone. They are mistaken. Were we all
Abolitionists, we should be defended. The national government would
protect us. The constitution guarantees the rights of a citizen in all the
states to the citizens of each state; and had the North been thoroughly
abolitionized, she would have demanded and obtained redress for the
blood of her innocent citizens, who have been hung without color of law,
by southern ruffians. Be assured when we all become Abolitionists, an
end will be put to the reign of terror in every part of the country. Men of
all creeds and colors, will then go where they please, speak what they
please, and do what they please, with perfect safety, so long as they
commit no offence against just and impartial law.
The interests of a large class at the South must predispose them to
favor our enterprise. Probably not more than half of the whites are
directly interested in the continuance of Slavery. Many hire Slaves, who
could on equally eligible terms, and with more peace of conscience, hire
them as free laborers, were they emancipated. Some own land without
slaves; and it is admitted, that immediately on the abolition of Slavery,
the soil would rise in value, and continue to appreciate with the general
improvement of the country. A multitude of the whites are too poor to
own slaves, and too ignorant to obtain a living, except by manual labor,
and Slavery makes that disreputable, and comparatively unprofitable. All
these classes need only open their eyes, to see that Slavery is subversive
of their interests: and we may therefore rationally calculate on having
their attention and sympathy.
What we have already effected at the South, is a pledge of entire
success, the moment the leading influences at the North shall second our
efforts instead of counteracting them. Several hundred slaves have been
set at liberty through the labors of those two distinguished Abolitionists,
David Nelson and James G. Birney. We have heard of various other
instances in which our doctrines have had such successful access to the
southern mind. We will mention one. Some time since, in New York, a
gentleman rose in a monthly concert of prayer for the slaves, and said: “I
am a slave-holder from Virginia. I came to the North with violent
prejudices against the Abolitionists, in consequence of what I read in
northern papers; but I was determined to investigate the matter for
myself. Accordingly I sought lodgings in the family of an Abolitionist,
obtained and read your publications, and attended this monthly concert;
and I am now convinced that not only your doctrines but your measures
are righteous.” And he added, turning to two gentlemen who sat beside
him, “these gentlemen are also slave-holders from Virginia, and my first
converts to abolitionism; and I know a thousand men in Virginia, who if
they could have the truth stated to them, would agree with us.” He then
exhorted the Abolitionists present to go on, saying “you have only to
correct the public sentiment of the North so that their papers shall not
misrepresent you at the South, and .” Besides many
such facts evincive of the power of truth over the southern mind, and
proving that the leaven is working there, we have frequent admissions
from the lips and pens of the defenders of Slavery at the South, that the
Abolitionists are disturbing the conscience of her people, that there is
more sympathy with them there than it would be prudent to
acknowledge; that if the fanatics are suffered to go on they will succeed;
that they may build up a body of public sentiment which the South
cannot resist. These facts, these admissions, and the very nature of man,
convince us that we have many allies at the South. The violence of the
friends of Slavery, has forced them to a temporary silence; but no doubt
many of them long to unburden their hearts, and are only waiting to be
sustained by a healthy public sentiment among us.—Were we all
Abolitionists, it would be less odious and less hazardous to avow our
sentiments at the South; and she would find a body of Abolitionists on
her own soil, too respectable to be despised—too strong to be resisted.
Our expectations of success in making known our sentiments to our
southern brethren, are rendered still more sanguine, by the history of
emancipation in the West Indies. It will be impossible for our
countrymen, to close their eyes against the light, which the working of
the British abolition act, will constantly throw on the duty and safety of
immediate emancipation.
We are nevertheless told, with surprising assurance, by men great and
small, that we have postponed the abolition of Slavery, at least half a
century; that our ultra doctrines and violent measures have so incensed
the South, that she has settled down in the inflexible determination to
keep her slaves. Is this human nature? They who think so, seem to
imagine that the work of reform must be carried on solely by coaxing
and flattering the sinner: that a declaration of his guilt and of his duty,
sufficiently plain and unequivocal to excite his displeasure, is the last
way to bring him to repentance. We think otherwise. We take the anger
of the South as a precious omen of success. The hit bird flutters. She
shows herself conscious of the truth of our charges. Accuse a consistent
temperance man of drunkenness, he will smile in your face; accuse the
drunkard himself and he will be ready to fight you. The faithful reproof
of sin always irritates the sinner, and his irritation continues until he
either repents or forgets the admonition. Had our efforts produced no
such sensation among slave-holders, we should be far more ready to
despair. She believes unless this discussion is stopped, Slavery must
cease, or else she will be disgraced in the eyes of the world, and
exceedingly embarrassed and trammeled in the possession of her slaves.
We do not, however, attribute all the wrath of the South against us, to
awakened conscience, and the anticipation of our success. We have been
shamefully misrepresented by northern papers and mobs, which have not
hesitated to charge us with the worst of motives and the most hostile
feelings towards the South; as if we would gladly involve her in a servile
war. The belief of these calumnies has doubtless excited her worst
passions; and the moment she learns the truth, it will create a re-action in
our favor. Nor should it be overlooked that many of her own citizens
have no sympathy for Slavery, and no strong prejudices against us. Facts
also show that argument can appease this very wrath, to which our
opponents attribute such indomitable energy. When the students of Lane
Seminary, under the Presidency of the Rev. Dr. Beecher, commenced a
discussion of the subject of Slavery, about fifteen young men from the
South, all of them slave-holders or sons of slave-holders, were not a little
incensed at the faithful exposure of Slavery by their fellow-students; but
at the close of the discussion, all these young men, save one, were
thorough going Abolitionists; and several of them are now lecturing in
the free states for the purpose of correcting our public sentiment, as a
necessary and infallible means of rectifying that of the South.
We believe, therefore, that if we succeed in abolitionizing the North,
we shall the South. Were the North already abolitionized, we should do
all the good specified above. We should preserve our own liberties,
virtue and religion, and save the South from man’s greatest curse, his
own voluntary wickedness. Is it not, then, desirable that our sentiments
should prevail? Do they not carry with them the clearest credentials of
truth—the very best practical tendencies? Is it not the grossest hypocrisy
in the North to pretend hostility to Slavery, when she refuses to do the
good which she would rejoice to do, were she a convert to abolitionism?
Is it not a crime in her to fight against the diffusion of these sentiments?
In one word—ought not the Abolitionists to do all they can, in a
constitutional and christian manner, to propagate their views?
Success at the North is certain; for she has an interest in destroying
Slavery: her political principles are opposed to it; and the great mass of
her citizens are intelligent and virtuous, unbought by southern patronage,
and accustomed to abhor cruelty and injustice. Our success is also
written in the desperate, but ineffectual endeavors of the opposition, to
prevent the agitation of the subject. By their own showing, Slavery
cannot endure the light of free inquiry. If northern abettors of Slavery
were not convinced, that the discussion will inevitably abolitionize the
mass of the people, they would rely on argument rather than on lawless
violence. Our progress too, has already been astonishing. In the course of
three years nearly a thousand Anti-Slavery Societies have been
organized; many enemies have become friends, and many opposers, the
able advocates of our cause. The prejudices of the people have been
softened, and thousands are now on the eve of joining us, who lately
were our most bitter antagonists. We have made all this progress
notwithstanding the abuse of the political and commercial press has been
heaped upon us without measure, and no man could join us but at the
peril of his reputation, if not also his life and property. We are, therefore,
encouraged to persevere. What have we to accomplish, which we have
not in part achieved, while our powers and facilities are constantly
augmenting.
 VI NDI CAT I ON OF M E AS URE S .
We propose to convert the country to our views by measures which
some of our opponents, (ashamed to deny our doctrines,) allege to be the
principal ground of their dissent. We think they have failed to make a
proper distinction between our measures and the abuse of these
measures. The constitutional action of Congress, the pulpit, the press,
public debate, private conversation, anti-slavery societies, these are our
measures. If any of our associates, through human infirmity, prosecute
any of these measures in ill-temper or with indiscretion, we regret and
condemn it. The measures themselves, and the prosecution of them we
approve, and shall now attempt to vindicate.
Some object to our organizing Anti-Slavery Societies, which in our
opinion they would not do, if they wished well to our enterprise. For it is
manifest that union gives us strength, influence, courage, money and
other facilities for carrying on the work; it lays a foundation for
concentrated, permanent, economical effort. Societies have their stated
and occasional meetings, without giving offence and provoking popular
violence. They animate each other by friendly correspondence, and
prosecute their work systematically and vigorously, by the gratuitous
labors of their most enlightened members. A general organization will
enable us to petition the various legislative bodies in behalf of human
rights, with unanimity and regularity, until our objects are gained. We see
other ends to be secured by it. There is no disputing our constitutional
right to adopt this measure; which we believe any men of common sense
would adopt in our circumstances. Even the wisdom of Christ sanctions
the measure, for what is his church but a society formed for the purpose
of converting men to the truth and progressively sanctifying them? Nor
do we see how we can testify to the South our abhorrence of Slavery
unless we form societies for the purpose. Had none been formed, it might
be doubted whether there are a thousand decided Abolitionists in the
country. It would be said in Congress and believed at the South, that we
are few in numbers, and constantly becoming fewer and more
contemptible. The existence and rapidly increasing number of our
societies precludes the possibility of such misrepresentations and
mistakes. As soon as our plan is completed, in the formation of a
flourishing society in each village of the free states, embodying a
majority of the people, the South will know what our public sentiment is.
It will be concentrated upon her. She will feel it. We learn from
intelligent sources, that the general opinion at the South now is, that all
the citizens of the North who are not Abolitionists, sympathize with the
slave-holders. It is natural they should think so. We must, therefore, rank
ourselves with the Abolitionists, by joining an Anti-Slavery Society, if
we would give our decided testimony against the .
Some object to our employing itinerant lecturers. We think they would
not object, if they had considered the matter with friendly feelings. The
subject of Slavery has so many relations in this country, and involves so
many questions in morals, in biblical literature, in constitutional law, in
political economy, in history, and other departments of learning, that our
stated clergy, have not sufficient time for its thorough investigation, were
they disposed to make it. We ought not to expect of them more than a
faithful exposition of the testimony of God against Slavery, and in favor
of immediate emancipation. As a general rule, they can do no more. We
need an extensive and thorough discussion of the whole subject. Nor are
all our clergymen yet Abolitionists. Some are with us; others are against
us. This was to be expected. The subject has but just come before the
public mind. It found almost all our ministers colonizationists. It would
have been surprising, if they had all embraced our views at the first
blush, without discussion. We don’t do things so in Connecticut.
Hereafter we doubt not they will all join us; but in the interim, we must
employ itinerant lecturers, if we would disseminate what we believe to
be the truth. And who will be harmed by it? The truth will hurt no one;
and even “error,” we quote the words of Jefferson, “may safely be
tolerated, so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Some think it an
interference with the rights of the stated ministry to introduce an itinerant
lecturer, without the advice and consent of the settled pastor. How so?
Suppose there are several clergymen in the same village. One of them
being an Abolitionist does all he can, by conversation, the distribution of
papers, and public lectures, to make the people Abolitionists, without
distinction of sect or party. Is that an interference with the rights of the
other pastors? No; such a course has never been thought so. Nor is there
the least difference in the two cases. The several churches introduce
these pastors to be their teachers. We, the Abolitionists, another body of
people, introduce a man to teach on a particular subject. We have the
right; he has a right to come; therefore no right is violated.[1]
Some object to our employing severe epithets in speaking of Slavery
and slave-holders. They say our condemnation is too hard, denunciatory
and indiscriminate. We wish all who allege this against us would
illustrate their meaning and sustain their charge by quoting the offensive
expressions. It would put them to great inconvenience. They may think
the language “hard” and “too hard,” when it barely expresses what ought
to be said, and cannot be better said. We do indeed tell slave-holders
their sins plainly, calling things by their right names; but it is only in the
conclusion of an argument to prove the charge, that we justify making it.
Nor is our language any harder than the sober language of moral
philosophers, and of the most eminent fathers of the church. Wesley
says: “You, [the slave-holder,] first acted the villain in making them
slaves, whether you stole them or bought them.” “This equally concerns
all slave-holders, of whatever rank and degree: seeing men-buyers are
exactly on a level with men-stealers.” The younger President Edwards
says: “To hold a man in a state of Slavery is to be every day guilty of
robbing him of his liberty, or of man-stealing.” Grotius says: “Those are
men-stealers, who abduct, keep, sell or buy slaves or freemen. To steal a
man is the highest kind of theft.” Adam Clarke says: “Among the
heathen Slavery was in some sort excusable; among christians it is

.” We use no language more hard, more

true, or more indiscriminate. We think these great men understood how
to do good, at least as well as our critics. We are also fully persuaded,
that the South is far less incensed at our language than at our sentiments.
She is indignant at what we say, not the manner of saying it. Dr.
Channing had this vulgar prejudice, that we were injuring our cause by
using abusive language. And Mr. Leigh of Virginia, took the very book,
in which he reproves us, and quoted passages which he declared in the
United States Senate, rivalled the most insulting language of Garrison.
So difficult is it to tell the truth about Slavery in palatable terms.
We are also censured for sending pictures to the South illustrative of
the horrors of Slavery. We do indeed employ the art of painting, as well
as the arts of printing and speaking, to awaken sympathy for the Slave;
but our pictures are designed for the North, not the South. Though some
of them may find their way there, they are never sent to the slaves, are
not apt to fall into their hands, and not adapted to make them uneasy and
turbulent. Were they painted as large as life, and set up at the corner of
every street and on every plantation, the sole effect would be to awe the
slaves into subjection, by reminding them of the consequences of
disobedience.
 We are accused of sending papers to the slaves. The charge is false.
Our publications are sent exclusively to the free white population. Were
it in our power to send to the slaves, we should indeed rejoice at it. If
they could read and the mails would carry them papers, we would
prepare tracts on purpose for them, explaining the doctrines and duties of
christianity, inculcating the forgiveness of injuries, the patient endurance
of wrong, the faithful service of their masters, until such time as they can
be made free. We would even send them the Bible, which says: “Woe
unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by
wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages and giveth him
not for his work.” Jer. xxii, 13.
The foregoing are current objections to specific measures of the
Abolitionists. There are other objections of a more general and sweeping
character, which go to condemn all our measures, calling upon us to
disband our societies, to dismiss our agents, to break up our printing
presses, and interfere in no way with Southern Slavery. We can give
these only a brief notice.
It is a current objection to our enterprise, that Slavery is no concern of
ours: that the South alone is interested in the subject, and we have no
right to interfere. Interference is a very indefinite term. We acknowledge
we have no right to interfere by force of arms; and have ever disclaimed
the intention of interfering, except by the constitutional and peaceable
action of Congress, and the application of truth to the hearts and
consciences of our southern brethren. As to our having no right to
interfere in this manner, because Slavery is no concern of ours, it is a
strange doctrine to be promulgated in the nineteenth century by
republicans and christians. What interest had we in the struggle of
Greece and Poland with Turkish and Russian despotism? What concern
have we in the moral and political degradation of the Hindoo, Hottentot
and Chinese? We have the answer in the motto of the christian church:
O , . As christians
we are concerned for the spiritual welfare of all classes at the South; the
great mass of whom are now sunk in infidelity and vice. Their alarming
destitution of the means of religion, and the general corruption of their
morals, are justly attributed to Slavery. What would become of the
virtue, intelligence and religious institutions of Meriden, if all the real
estate and all the inhabitants of the town, were held as property by one
man? He might be an infidel; and if he were a christian, what
dependence could be placed on him to support the gospel, or what
confidence would the oppressed people have in his religion? Such is the
state of things at the South. Slavery not only creates a distaste for true
religion, but withdraws from its support the laboring class, which in
every free country, embodies a great proportion of the most devoted and
liberal christians. There is also much in the habits which Slavery fosters,
to indispose pious youth to enter the ministry and to disqualify them for
its laborious duties; while many who enter upon the work, abandon it for
secular pursuits, or remove to the free states, where they can preach the
whole gospel with more security and success. Not only must a slave-
holding community be destitute of men and means to make known the
way of salvation, but the preaching of the gospel will generally be
inefficacious with all classes; with the masters, for Slavery fosters in
them the worst passions of human nature, affords them facilities for the
unbounded indulgence of their appetites, and relieves them from the
necessity of personal exertion for a livelihood; with the poor white
population, for Slavery accumulates the wealth of the community in a
few hands, renders free labor disreputable, and multiplies temptations to
low and degrading vices; with the free people of color, for Slavery holds
most of them in a state of abject poverty, ignorance and sin; with the
slaves, for Slavery robs them of the bible, of self-control, of hope, of
parent, wife and child, of the best motives to be virtuous, and of the best
evidences of christianity; it makes them vicious; it makes them sceptics.
We are concerned for these perishing millions.
Slavery is a concern of ours for it involves our personal interests. It
throws back upon us a moral pestilence; it scatters the seeds of
intemperance, licentiousness, and infidelity; it popularizes gambling,
Sabbath breaking, profaneness and lawless violence; it casts an
undeserved stigma on manual labor, it encourages idleness and
prodigality. It disgraces us in the eyes of the whole world; it impairs our
national strength; it encroaches on the spirit of liberty; it is constantly
undermining our free institutions. The northern states have no greater
enemy. Were Slavery abolished, her religion, her morals, her liberties,
her general prosperity would be far more secure. The chief source of
danger to the integrity of our union, and to our domestic tranquility
would be removed; a greater market would be opened for our
manufactures, and a wider field for our industry and enterprise; the
emancipated slaves would purchase our goods, and our youth could enter
into competition with the sons of the South in raising cotton, &c. without
becoming slave-holders. Labor would soon cease to be disgraceful;
property would accumulate in every part of the land; education would
flourish; religion would revive; the entire country would rejoice in peace
and plenty under the smiles of an approving providence. Tell us not, that
we have no concern in removing the greatest sin, curse and shame of the
nation, and in securing for ourselves and our posterity, a truly free and
virtuous government.
It is said that Slavery is an agitating subject, which cannot be
discussed without disturbing the peace and harmony of our churches.
Why so? This subject can be discussed in the churches in Great Britain
without discord and division. We think it could be here, were it not for
the corruption of our public sentiment, which can be corrected only by
free discussion. It is where the truth needs most to be heard, that it
creates most opposition and variance. Primitive christianity was accused
of turning the world upside down. The temperance cause has occasioned
strife, and separated “very friends.” We hold to the Apostolic injunction:
“first pure, then peaceable.” We love a virtuous peace. A truce with sin
we abhor. If we must surrender our liberties, and connive at iniquity, to
avoid a war, we say with Patrick Henry, “The war is inevitable, and let it
come; I repeat it, sir, let it come.” Who does not see that if polygamy
were common in our churches, it would create a terrible excitement to
preach against it, and lead to the dismission of pastors? Yet any one
would acknowledge, that religion could never prosper, while the church
was so corrupt; and that she had better be torn into ten thousand
fragments, than that polygamy should continue in vogue; for she would
soon be re-organized in greater purity and strength. So it is with a slave-
holding Church; and with a Church in which the spirit of Slavery is so
rife, that she will not live in peace with her Anti-Slavery members, nor
tolerate the exercise of their Constitutional rights. But we do not believe
this of our Churches. We think the more this “delicate and agitating”
subject is discussed among us, the less unpleasant excitement will
prevail.
It is said that our measures to overthrow Slavery are unconstitutional.
Our opponents may easily test this question by bringing it before the U.
S. Court. We claim to be acting constitutionally. Our plan of operations is
essentially the same as that pursued by the early Anti-Slavery Societies,
of which such men as John Jay, Benj. Franklin, Benj. Rush, and Jonathan
Edwards, were active members; some of whom were engaged in forming
our federal Constitution. Did they not understand that instrument? Did
their contemporaries ever dispute their right to discuss the merits of
Slavery? Have not our citizens, from time immemorial and without
restriction, exercised this right? Does not the Constitution, instead of
guaranteeing Slavery against this moral influence, guarantee to us the
right of employing it, by forbidding Congress to pass any law abridging
the freedom of speech and of the press?
We are told our measures are an invasion of the rights of property.
This objection assumes, what nature denies, that man may be rightfully
held as property. Blackstone maintains in his Commentaries, that man
cannot be reduced by any just process to a state of absolute Slavery; that
he cannot be born in that state, nor sell himself into it, nor be placed
there when taken captive in war, without flagrant injustice. We also hold
it to be self-evident, that all men are born free and equal, and entitled to
certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. The Slave owns himself by grant of his Creator. Slavery is,
therefore, an invasion of his rights of property. It is the slave-master who
makes an aggression on the property of others, not we, who exhort him
to relinquish that property. The Slaves being the rightful owners of
themselves, the abolition of Slavery is merely an act declarative of this
indisputable title. Nor do we seek the destruction of Slavery, except
through the constitutional authorities. Even were the slaves the property
of their masters, it would be lawful for us to persuade them to part with
it. Would it not? The Legislatures of the several states have a right to
abolish Slavery. Have they not? It has hitherto been conceded, that the
law making power of every slave-holding country has this right. May we
not then persuade the states to exercise it, by convincing them of the
moral wrong and frightful impolicy of Slavery? Should it be said that the
government encouraged its citizens to invest property under the
protection of the slave code, and therefore ought not to abolish Slavery
without indemnifying them, our answer is, that mankind are under a
paramount obligation not to invest property under the protection of
immoral laws; that all such laws are in their nature null and void from
the beginning; that governments have always exercised the power of
correcting abuses; and there is no greater abuse than Slavery; none more
unjust and oppressive; none more pernicious and perilous to our national
interests.
Some object, that the abolition of Slavery on our plan, without
compensation to the masters, would be taking away the bread of poor
widows and orphans. We have no plan. We say only, that Slavery is
wrong, and ought forthwith to be abandoned. The South will adopt and
prosecute her own plan. When her Legislatures abolish Slavery, they can,
if they will, provide for widows and children, who are left destitute by
that act. If they will not do it, we will raise contributions for their relief;
for we deem the claims of charity, nearly as imperative as the claims of
justice. But we can never sanction the principle of Slavery, by saying,
that slave-holders have a right to compensation for restoring to the slaves
their stolen rights. We must always consider it a greater hardship to be
unjustly held as a slave, than to be made poor by freeing such slave. It is
a sad blunder in morals, that this man may make that man, perhaps fifty
other men, poor for life, lest he himself should be a pauper; that this man
may make that man poor by dishonesty, lest he himself should become
poor by being honest.
No objection to our measures is more senseless, or more common,
than an alleged tendency to dissolve the Union. Which had we better
surrender, the Union or our liberties? The Union is a curse instead of a
blessing, if we must surrender for it, freedom of speech and personal
protection in any part of the country. And if Slavery continues to be
protected by public sentiment, and by popular violence, how long could
the Union last, even were all the abolitionists this day laid in their
graves? Slavery endangers the integrity of the Union, more than all other
enemies; and unless soon destroyed, will be the destroyer both of it and
us. If we love the Union, we should labor to overthrow Slavery. Wesley
somewhere defines fanaticism, to be the expectation of accomplishing
ends without the use of means. Let us not hope for the peaceable
destruction of Slavery, by such a fanatical course. Let us do something;
and if we do any thing, what can be done which the abolitionists are not
attempting? In doing this we shall not peril the Union, but preserve it.
The South will never venture on the mad experiment of secession,
because the North is opposed to Slavery. Such an act would be suicidal.
It would encourage the slaves to revolt. It would leave her defenceless
against the invasion of a foreign foe. It would release us from the
constitutional obligation to suppress domestic violence, and to restore
fugitives from service. It would open several thousand miles of frontier,
over which her slaves would escape into a land of liberty. It would make
the south “a good country to emigrate from,” and she would find herself
losing her best citizens, and her condition becoming more and more
exposed and perilous. She would be ruined. She knows it. Were our
legislators in Congress to retort her stereotyped threat to dissolve the
Union, with a challenge to do it, if she dares, we should hear no more of
this empty bravado.
It is said, if our measures should be successful, the slaves would resort
to the North, and coming up upon our farms, and into our shops, like the
frogs of Egypt, reduce the wages of our laborers. No apprehension is
more groundless. The free colored people of the South are quite
numerous, and very much oppressed; yet few of them leave that part of
the country; though the whites would be very glad to have them do so,
because they render the slaves uneasy, and come into competition with
slave labor. But were slavery abolished, the whites would desire to retain
all the colored people, in order to employ them in cultivating the soil;
precisely as is now the case in the West Indies. Nor would the slaves be
willing to leave the land of their nativity, and of their kindred, to reside
in the cold regions of the north, to the business and climate of which they
are uninured, and where they must labor more severely to obtain a
comfortable living. But should they come, what then? Do you prefer
perpetual slavery?
It is also objected to our enterprise, that the immediate abolition of
slavery, would be “letting the slaves loose” to be idlers, vagabonds,
thieves, and cut-throats. This objection is more forcible against gradual
emancipation, which would throw upon society a multitude of freedmen,
while the rest of their brethren still remained in bondage. The holders of
slaves would not encourage the free by giving them labor; who would,
therefore, be more apt to be idle and vicious; while their release would
excite uneasiness in the minds of the unemancipated. The objection is
also equally strong against prospective emancipation, according to which
the slaves would all be set free at once; but not until some time after the
passage of the act. Experience and human nature both teach us, that
slaves under such circumstances are more apt to be overworked, than to
be better prepared for the enjoyment of freedom. The objection is,
therefore, good for perpetual slavery, or good for nothing. It is good for
nothing. Immediate emancipation would indeed deliver the slave and his
family at once from the hands of an irresponsible master, and empower
him to go where he pleases and do what he pleases, so long as he breaks
none of the laws which restrain other men. And why not? He could not
otherwise rejoin his wife and children, whom the slave trade has torn
from him, nor secure fair wages, nor be safe from oppression. But this is
not letting him loose to do evil. T
, instead of the abolition of slavery letting the
slaves loose upon the masters. Were there a law authorizing the
inhabitants of Meriden to seize the inhabitants of Berlin, to confine them
to jail limits, and work them without wages, to separate husbands and
wives, parents and children, and even to kill them by that very indefinite
thing, called “moderate correction;” this law would let the inhabitants of
Meriden loose upon the inhabitants of Berlin; for it would protect the
former in the grossest outrages upon the latter. But the repeal of this law
would not let the inhabitants of Berlin loose upon us. Extending them
protection would not be letting them loose upon us. Had we the power of
repealing the law; or if not, possessing the power of not enforcing it, we
should find our security in doing so. The very way to make them respect
our rights, would be to respect theirs. Immediate emancipation places the
slaves under the control as well as protection of the laws of the State
against idleness, vagrancy, theft, murder, and all other aggressions on the
rights of men.
We are told that the Slaves are not fit to be free; and therefore our
scheme of immediate emancipation, if adopted, would prove a curse to
them and the country. Nothing is more false. The Slaves are men; and
therefore they are more fit for freedom than for slavery; more fit to be
treated as persons than as things; to be governed by appeals to the reason
and conscience than by brute force. God made man to be free and
adapted him to that condition. A state of Slavery is unnatural to him. Nor
can his nature so change, that he shall be more fit to be treated as a brute,
than as a free moral agent. Slaves have often been set at liberty, and have
always proved their capacity for freedom, by their industry, frugality and
ready obedience to the laws.
And why, we would ask, should they be thought unfit to be put under
the control and protection of the same laws, which govern freemen? Do
their vices or their ignorance, disqualify them? While Slavery lasts, they
will remain equally degraded.
Are they Sabbath breakers? Slavery has taught them to desecrate the
day of rest, by making it to them almost the only day of recreation, the
only day for visiting, for trading and for tilling their gardens. Are they
thieves? They consider stealing from their masters to be only making
reprisals for the robbery of their just wages; while many of them are
strongly tempted to steal by the desire of more or better food. Are they
liars? They will continue such, while they are slaves. They will pretend
sickness, to avoid labor; they will say they do not wish to be free, lest
their masters should sell them into distant banishment; they will lie to