Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Letter of Gerrit Smith to President Schmucker : Peterboro, June 19th, 1838.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 407

LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH TO PRESIDENT SCHMUCKER

PETERBORO, June 19th, 1838.

Rev. S. S. Schmucker, President of the Theological Seminary, Gettysburgh, Pennsylvania

DEAR SIR: - I have just read your letter addressed to the editor of the Colonization Herald: and now, whilst I am under the influence of its winning candor and mildness, I will venture to make a few remarks upon it.

There is no little similarity between your and my views of the American Colonization Society, and between your and my course in relation to it. It had the confidence and support of each of us, until we respectively came to see it to be the opponent of the fundamental principles of the American Anti-slavery Society. Then I was constrained to withdraw from it, and then you also ceased to co-operate with it.

I welcomed the organization of the Anti-slavery Society. Doubtless you did also. To its declaration of the sinfulness of slavery, and of the duty of immediate emancipation, my whole heart responded. But the charge of hostility to its leading principles, which it brought against the Colonization Society, I thought not well founded. So far from it, I then flattered myself, and, for a year and a half afterwards, continued to flatter myself, (though, I admit, with increasing distrust,) that the two societies would, ultimately, and even speedily, be brought, if not positively to harmonize with each other, at least to forbear to thwart each other's views. It was but the month after the Anti-slavery Society was organized, that I said, in the National Capitol, whilst addressing the Colonization Society, that its members should be allowed `to join the Anti-slavery Society' without being considered as 'doing violence to their connexion with the Colonization Society.' Thus, did I show, how far I was, at that time, from regarding the Colonization Society be an anti-abolition society. But I was mistaken. It was, even then, an anti-abolition society; and it had always had the elements of an anti-abolition society. This, William I. Garrison and a few other discerning minds had long seen. But my attachment to it blinded me to this feature of its character: and it would be disingenuous, were I not to admit, that, even had I seen it, my abolitionism was too feeble to be greatly offended at it. I was, in short, a colonizationist; and was, to no small extent, imbued with the spirit and policy of the Colonization Society, as my speeches and writings at that time but too abundantly and lamentably show.

If the Colonization Society had not come out against the doctrine of immediate emancipation, and inferentially against the doctrine of the sinfulness of slavery, I should, in all probability, have continued a member of it down to the present time. But for its opposition to those doctrines, I might, very probably, have continued to think, that it was producing a measure, at least, of the good influences and effects which you ascribe to it. It is, however, but proper to say, that my confidence in the usefulness of the colonization of our colored brethren, or any portion of them, on the coast of Africa, or anywhere else - and, even though such colonization were conducted with great benevolence, and with no unfriendliness to the great doctrines of the Anti-slavery Society - has undergone a great, exceedingly great diminution. It is not, however, on the ground of this diminution, that I avow myself an anti-colonizationist. My conclusive objection to the Colonization Society is the same as yours. It is because it has, to use your own language, taken the 'position, that the colored race cannot with any propriety be emancipated on the soil - that expatriation and emancipation must go together.' It is, in other words, because it opposes the immediate and unconditional deliverance of the enslaved millions of our countrymen from the yoke of slavery, and rejects file doctrine, that slavery is sin - and denies that a system, which forbids marriage and the reading of the Bible, and which classes immortal, godlike man with chattels, is contrary to the Bible. I would not deny, that there are members of the Colonization Society, who favor the doctrine of immediate and unconditional emancipation - though Judge Jay, in his book on Colonization, speaks of me as the only one. But certain it is, that they are rare; and, as certain it is, that the Society ridicules, denounces, and abhors the doctrines. The Commercial Advertiser, the leading Colonization newspaper in New York, expresses the hope, in its account of the late colonization meeting in that city, that the humble individual who now addresses you, will yet give over chasing 'the ignis fatuus of immediate emancipation,' and return to the Colonization Society. For proof, that I do not misrepresent the Society's view of the doctrine of immediate emancipation, look at almost, if not quite every one of the last 40 or 50 numbers of its monthly periodical, the African Repository. Take the last two numbers for a specimen of its general tone on the point in question. The April No. contains a long editorial address to the Friends of Colonization.' In this address it is said: 'the friends of Colonization throughout our wide country are unanimous in believing, that the position of every free person of color in the U. S. is that of a slave without a master; in regarding no plan as practicable, which connects general enfranchisement with the continued. residence of the enfranchised in the United States.' The reader of this address will see from what immediately follows this quotation, that the word 'enfranchisement' is here used to mean simply deliver ante from the yoke of slavery. Even such simple deliverance, if not followed by expatriation, is forbidden by the horrible policy of the Colonization Society. The same number of the Repository contains the 'Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Colonization Society of Virginia.' This report quotes, and highly approves of, the following language in the late message of the Governor of Maryland: 'It has often been said that Colonization was antagonist to the schemes of immediate Abolitionists; and that where the former was cherished and flourished, the latter could find no favor. The report of the managers of the State fund, and the experience of every observing and reflecting man in the State must prove this; nor could we suggest a more certain method of keeping down that wild and fanatical spirit which has thrown so many firebrands among the slaveholding states, than the adoption and maintenance of the Colonization plan, upon the fooling on which it now stands in Maryland.'

'It is gratifying to learn from the report, that the attempts secretly made by the friends of immediate and general abolition to defeat the agents of the society in their efforts to inform the free people of color of the advantages of emigration, are losing the effect which they at first appeared to have, and that there is now the prospect of a constant emigration from the State to the colony of Maryland in Liberia.' The same number of the Repository contains the proceedings of the 'Seventh Anniversary of the Virginia Colonization Society.' The President of the Society, the eminent John Tyler, in his speech on that occasion, adverts to 'the spirit of abolition,' and says: 'from this place I denounce it, and this society denounces it.' We meet in this speech with a remark, which, while it illustrates the character of the Colonization Society, is admirably coincident with the expediency doctrines, that prevail as well in Church as in State. It is this: 'Policy and humanity go hand in hand in this great work, (colonization.) Philanthropy, when separated from policy, is the most dangerous agent in human affairs. 'General Bayly made a speech on the same occasion; and used, as the Repository says, 'the following impressive language:' 'He (the Negro) can never enjoy here the high prerogatives of a freeman. He may cease to be the slave of a single individual, but he will continue to be the slave of the community, whose oppressions will be greater and whose protection will be less, than that of the individual master. I repeat: In America the black man never can be free! he never can have the high-born feelings of a freeman - he must ever be a political and social slave. The shackles never can fall completely from about him until he stands upon the shores of Africa. William Maxwell spoke on the some occasion. To use the complimentary language of the Repository, 'This eloquent speaker thus proceeded' - 'We cannot suffer our bondmen to be liberated or rather emancipated here.' The Repository presents the closing paragraph of the speech made on this occasion by the Hon. Henry A. Wise; and says, that 'all must concur' in this paragraph and 'admire its fervid eloquence.'This distinguished member of Congress, who does not always recognize Christian obligations, became surprisingly religious under the inspiration of a colonization meeting. In this paragraph, in which the organ of the Colonization Society says 'all must concur,' Mr. Wise remarks that he has 'often been struck with a thought, which justifies slavery in the abstract.' What is this thought? Why nothing less than that, 'slavery on this continent is the gift of Heaven to Africa!!!' Slavery from heaven, instead of from Hell! Mr Wise may make the slaveholder believe this absurdity: But he can never induce the Devil to resign the honor of the monster's paternity. His Satanic Majesty is too proud of his chief d'oeuvre - of the masterpiece of his wit - to allow that slavery came elsewhere than from Hell.

The May No. of the African Repository contains a speech of that bitterest of all bitter haters of Abolitionists, Rev. R. J. Breckenridge. The speech is heralded by very complimentary remarks. Mr. B. says: ' No principles are more clear to my mind, than that slavery never can be, and never should be, attempted to be, abolished in this country, except in a manner exceedingly gradual, and then unaccompanied with the grant of political and social equality to the blacks, but attended as far as possible with foreign colonization.' He further says: ' There is no point upon which the entire slaveholding States are more united in opinion, than that there ought not to be any attempt to liberate the slaves without a certain and immediate prospect of an emigration somewhat proportioned to the number set free.' This eminent divine, who in conjunction with his true 'yoke - fellow,' W. S. Plummer, carves and disposes of the Presbyterian Church of the United States at his pleasure, garnishes his, speech with the following diabolical sentiments: 'It is due to the free colored population of the country that they should not be allowed for one moment to entertain the idea, that the pretensions set up on their behalf, can ever be realized, especially in any of the slaveholding States. It is emphatically our duty to all concerned, to manifest in the clearest and most decided manner, that as in our opinion the best interests of all the parties require their early and permanent separation, so it is not only the clear right, but the bondmen duty, and fixed purpose of the community to effect that result; and that all opposing pretensions, whether on the part of the free blacks, or on that of the slaves, or on that of a handful of dissatisfied citizens, on either extreme of opinion, must bend before the great necessities of the case. It is our duty to the cause itself to rally round it, and urge it forward, while the obstacles that oppose it are only such as moral means may overcome.'

The same number of the Repository contains a letter from a gentleman in Ohio, showing, that the Colonization Society is the great reliance in his region for arresting the progress of abolition. The same number publishes, with commendation, a letter from Hon. Walter Forward, of Pennsylvania. The 'scheme of colonization' is Mr. Forward's way for abolishing slavery. A paper entitled 'General Remarks on Liberia' is to be found in this number of the Repository. This paper opposes 'the plans of the colonization societies' to ' the plan of immediate abolition, which proposes to proclaim unconditionally and at once freedom to the captive.'

I surely need say nothing more to show, that the Colonization Society stands opposed to the unconditional abolition of slavery, and opposed to the doctrine, that slavery is sin. All over the free States it is the refuge and rallying point of those, who hate and despise the Abolitionists and apologize for slavery. What an instance of this we have in the fact, that colonization at Alton had its birth amidst the outrages on liberty, which disgraced that city; and a still more striking instance have we in the fact, that the recent vandal outbreak in Philadelphia of popular indignation at the friends of impartial and universal freedom, was the most joyful and eagerly improved harvest season, that pro-slavery mobs have ever afforded to colonization reapers.

In view of the proofs, which I have given of the true character of the Colonization Society, and I could have multiplied them a thousand fold, how unreasonable are the surprise and complaint, that the Anti-slavery Society opposes the Colonization Society! Why, to refuse to oppose it, is to refuse to oppose bald and arrant wickedness. For the Anti-slavery Society to refuse to oppose the Colonization Society, is to be guilty of virtually disavowing its own holy principles, and of virtually admitting that slavery is not sin.

I have only to say, in closing this branch of my letter, that however it may have been, before the organization of the American Anti-slavery Society occasioned the development of the true character of the Colonization Society, it is certain, that no person, who believes, as you and I do, that the relation of slaveholder and the claim of property in man are sinful, can now consistently remain a member of it. How so discerning and lovely a man, as Theodore Frelinghuysen, can, under all the light which now reveals the heaven - daring iniquity of the Colonization Society, continue to suffer his good name to be used in recommendation of that society, is indeed, 'passing strange.' I trust, that he will not long suffer it to be thus used. I trust, that ere long, this eloquent and good man will consent to fling away his reputation, ensnaring perhaps as it is precious, and to identify himself openly with the despised cause of the bleeding and crushed slave; - for does he not know, that it is as loved in heaven, as it is despised on earth?

Before leaving the subject of the Colonization Society, I must not omit to express my great happiness, at your publicly declining to hold an office in it. Your acceptance of the office, to which you were elected, would have grieved the friends of impartial and holy freedom. In view of the exceedingly wicked and abhorrent sentiments of Rev. R. J. Breckenridge, which I have cited, I cannot but think how grateful you and I should feel, that God has led us to quit forever a society, which generates and fosters such sentiments. Had we remained in it, we might have been left to imbibe those sentiments, to adopt all its cruel and murderous policy, and to keep pace with its fast increasing wickedness.

What a melancholy instance is presented in the case of Mr. Breckenridge, of the rapid depravation of character, resulting from continued adherence to the Colonization Society. Less than four years and a half ago, I heard him deprecate and denounce the employment of any coercive measures, however indirect, for the accomplishment of the objects of that Society: - and now, he is already such a proficient in the demon-school of Colonization, that, with an unsurpassed hardihood of depravity, he can openly advocates the forcible removal from their native land of our peeled and afflicted colored brethren.

I now turn to that part of your letter, which principally excited my desire to write you. You inform the public, that you are not a member of the Anti-slavery Society and that the reason for withholding yourself from the connexion is, not that you take any exception to its Constitution, but that the Society attacks slaveholders indiscriminately

[2]

and calls all of them robbers and men-stealers. I am happy that you find no fault with its Constitution; and it is difficult, indeed, to conceive how a wise and good men can raise any material objection to it. I frankly plead guilty to your charge against the Society, and admit, that it does what you accuse it of. The Society does say, that the slavoholder, and the very slaveholder is a robber and man-stealer, - and do not you too believe, that every slaveholder is a robber and a manstealer? I do not ask whether you would not believe me to be a robber and a manstealer if I were to purchase a slave Maryland, for the purpose of bringing him into Pennsylvania, and securing to him his liberty: for, I do not admit that this would make me a slaveholder. Such a purchase, though, in the construction of human law, it might invest me with the relations and character of a slaveholder, would, in the eye of Him, who judges righteously, be a consistent act of an Abolitionist. It would be an act, not of slaveholding, but of emancipation: - an innocent and Heaven - approved step in a process of abolition.* I do not ask, weather you would not believe the Virginian, who should, this night, repent of slaveholding, and spend to-morrow in taking the objects of his new-born love and pity and respect into Ohio, where it would be practical to make them freemen; - I say, I do not ask, whether you would not believe him to be a robber and a manstealer, whilst on his journey: - for I maintain, that he ceased to be a slaveholder, before commencing his journey; and that whilst performing that journey, he was prosecuting, the high and holy purpose of an Abolitionist. He was an Abolitionist from the hour when God broke his slaveholding heart.

What I ask is, whether you do not believe, that the slaveholder, that he who deprives his fellow man of self-ownership, and holds him as property and classes him with chattels let it be under circumstances however mitigating, or for purposes however benevolent - is a robber, and a manstealer? Doubtless you do believe it. On this point then you are not at disagreement with the Anti-slavery Society. You will, however, say, that slaveholders are not all conscious of the real and sinful character of slaveholding. Here also the also the Society agrees with you. You will add, that, where there is little or no consciousness of the sinfulness of an act, the guilt of him, who commits it, is far less than it would be, were his eyes open to the sinfulness. This also the Society will admit. And here let me digress, for a moment, to say that, I take it for granted, that you do not entertain the doctrine, that there is no sin only where there is consciousness of it. You, of course, agree with me, that the sin exists, however the guilt of it may be lessened by the feebleness or total want of the sense of it. I admit that, when the Savior exclaimed: 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do, he did imply, that the guilt of the offenders was diminished by their ignorance: - but it is not obvious that he also implied, and more clearly too, that notwithstanding their ignorance, their sin still existed, and needed to be forgiven? There were none the fewer 'gray hairs here and there upon Ephraim,' because be knew it not. In God's saying to His prophet: 'Show my people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins,' there is know room for the implication, that insensibility to sin does away the sin. Indeed the language of the command plainly teaches, that, notwithstanding the moral insensibilities of the Jews, the 'transgressions' and 'sins' spoken of were 'theirs' transgressions and 'their' sins. And we may add, it was because the 'transgressions' and 'sins' were theirs, that it was so important to break up their insensibility, and to 'show' them their condition and character.

To return then; we find that, thus far in our examination, there is no point of disagreement between the Anti-slavery Society and yourself. In what, then, does the disagreement consist? In one thing only. The Society believes, that the sinfulness of slaveholding must be plainly and faithfully charged upon every slaveholder, as well upon him who is unconscious of the sinfulness, as upon him who is conscious of it. You think otherwise. The Society believes, that to forbear the attempt to impress a person with the sinful character of any relation he may sustain because he is ignorant of that character, is not authorized, either by reason or revelation. You think otherwise. You think that his unconsciousness of the enormous wickedness of slaveholding should be allowed to shelter a slaveholder from the charge of wickedness. It is, indeed strange that you should think so: and you must permit me to say, with perfect kindness and respect, that, I have no doubt, that in thinking so, you go counter to your own ethicks and to your own Christian principle and practice. To justify your position, that slaveholders, who are insensible of the great wickedness of their relation, should not be charged with that wickedness, you liken such to the people of 'the North in reference to the use of ardent sprits, at the rise of the Temperance Reformation.' But, how does this comparison justify it? I will admit, if you please, that the rum-sellers and rum-drinkers of the North were, at that time, unconscious of the wickedness of their priorities, and that so far as consciousness of sin is concerned, they may properly be compared to the class of slaveholders in question. You surely do not mean to prove this comparison, that slaveholding is not a sin. I continue to take it for granted, that you regard slaveholding, wherever it exists as atrocious, Heaven-daring sin. Besides, it cannot be that you look upon the rum-drinking and rum-selling of any age or portion of our country as sinless. (When speaking of rum-drinking and rum-selling in this letter, I, of course, refer to the sale and use of intoxicating drinks for a beverage.) You have probably introduced the comparison under consideration, because, 'at the rise of the Temperance Reformation, 'rum-drinking and rum-selling amongst us were not invariably condemned; and you have, probably, inferred, that indiscriminate condemnation is no more called for and no more justifiable in the case of slaveholding than in the other case. This being the probable object of your comparison, I will admit, that it is no more proper to condemn all slaveholding than it is to condemn all rum-drinking and rum-selling. But, I ask you, 'Is it not proper to condemn all rum-drinking and rum-selling?' You will allow that it is. I ask you again: 'Should they not have been invariably condemned, both 'at the rise' and before 'the rise of the Temperance Reformation?' This, also, you will admit: for you will allow that the practice, if sinful now, were sinful then; - and this too, however wide may be the difference between the guiltiness of the transgressors then, and that of like transgressors now.

It seems to me, dear Sir, that you wrote this portion of your letter hastily; and that you were not sufficiently careful to express your precise object, in introducing the comparison of the Temperance Reformation. It occurs to me as probable, that you intended to show by the comparison, not, that slavery should not be condemned as sin, always and every where; but to show, that the crime of slaveholding is not, in the instance of every slaveholder, aggravated by the conciousness of the crime, any more than the crime of rum-drinking and rum-selling was thus aggravated in the instance of every rum-drinker and rum-seller, 'at the rise of the Temperance Reformation.' If this were your object, I out only raise no objection to it, but I highly approve of it. I admit, that to have said to the rum-drinkers and rum-sellers in Pennsylvania and New York, 'at the rise of the Temperance Reformation:' 'You are not only practising great wickedness, but you know it too' - would have been improper to the last degree. However suitable such language might be, under the blaze of light which now reveals that wickedness, it would have been the height of uncharitableness to have used it then. So too although the time will arrive, when it will be both our right and our duty to charge all American slaveholders with the consciousness of their enormous wickedness; it is neither required nor proper to do so until every portion of the South is visited abundantly with the conclusive proofs of that wickedness. If the Anti slavery society thinks otherwise, it does in my judgment greatly err. If it magnifies the guilt of the American slaveholders, by charging all of them with the consciousness of their great criminality, it. merits severe reproof for its unreasonableness and uncharitableness - and you are, perhaps, justified in standing aloof from it. Permit me however, to say, that I am very confident, that you greatly misjudge the Society, if you suppose it to be guilty of imputing to all the slaveholders of our country a sense of the deep wickedness of their relation. Its publications abundantly show, that its leading object and chief labor are to convince all persons, both slaveholders and non-slaveholders, of the great sinfulness of slavery: and should we not infer hence, that it does not say, and does not believe, that all slaveholdors are sensible of the exceeding criminality of slaveholding? Why should the Society value 'Weld's Bible Argument' more highly than any other book on their shelves, and make such special efforts to get it into the hands of slaveholders, if, all this time, they ware believing and asserting, that every slaveholder is already aware of the great sinfulness of slavery? I declare to you, that I do not know, that any one of the publications or lectures of the Society takes the position, that every slaveholder adds to the sin of slaveholding the deep guilt of a sense of that enormous sin.

It occurs to me, not only that I may have erred in supposing you to have taken the position, that it is wrong to charge the great wickedness and turpitude of slaveholding on the slaveholder who is unconscious of that wickedness and turpitude; but that I have also mistaken the purpose of your reference to the Temperance Reformation. Perhaps what you have to object to the Anti-slavery society is not, that it regards all slaveholders as great sinners, and is not, that it calls slaveholders indiscriminately by hard names; - but, that it calls these hard names in the unkind and malevolent spirit, in which hard names are so frequently called. Of course you do not object to the calling of hard names. It is only the calling of them, in a wrong spirit, that you object to. God calls hard names, and He authorizes us to call them. Whilst I agree with you, that it would be very cruel and very wicked for me to call my intemperate neighbor a drunkard, for the purpose of reproaching him; you will as readily agree with me, that amongst the other means which I am authorized to employ for reclaiming him, I may out of a heart of love and pity, and in a tender and solemn tone, tell him, that he is a drunkard, and that, on the authority of the Bible, the drunkard 'shall not inherit the kingdom of God.' If the Society have the fault, which you ascribe to it, I admit, that it is a fault, which is great, and deserving of severe rebuke. If, in calling slaveholders 'men-stealers,' or by some other hard name, which the Bible justifies, the Society is not found 'speaking the truth in love,' and speaking it solemnly and tenderly then it is answerable to God and man for a great offence. If it utters its reproofs to indulge a malignant and censorious and slanderous spirit, rather than to obey in meekness such Divine commands, as 'thou shall not suffer sin upon thy neighbor;' 'cry aloud and spare not:' - 'show my people their transgressions,' then I admit its deep culpability. I confess to you, sir, that I am, by no means, sure that the Society is entirely innocent on this point. Its writers and lecturers abound in hard names and withering denunciations; and, unless they have a very unusual share of holiness, it must be, that, sometimes at least, a wrong spirit has a greater or less share in prompting the severity. I doubt not, that this is the point, on which, more than on any other, the Society is liable to err; and, on this point therefore, more than on any other, it needs the watchfulness, advice and prayers of all, who would have it conduct its holy enterprise with an unexceptionable temper. - Whilst I admit the possibility - I will say the probability - that the Society has erred on the point in question, I do not hesitate to affirm, that, in respect of a pious, forbearing, and charitable spirit, its members can bear a comparison with those of any other benevolent Society. You will allow, that, in the numberless outrages, which have been visited on the Abolitionists of our country, they have almost invariably, exhibited an eminently meek and patient and forbearing spirit. Now, is it reasonable - is it either philosophical or scriptural - to look amongst the graces of meekness and patience and forbearance for malignant and slanderous dispositions, which are so freely imputed to us? When he, whose characteristic charity 'beareth all things' utters the language of Bible severity about a given sin, it is certainly not to be taken for granted, that he is actuated by an unkind and censorious spirit. From the fact, that such a spirit is entirely out of harmony with his general character, it is but reasonable to conclude, that he indulges it but rarely, if at all.

Allow me, dear air, at the close of my letter, to express the hope, that, since you agree with the American Anti-slavery Society in its leading principles, you will not much longer suffer the errors, whether of judgment or temper, which you may occasionally discover in it, to prevent your giving to it the much needed and much desired influence of your good name.

I am, very respectfully, yours,

GERRIT SMITH.