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

Wendell Phillips, Boston : Peterboro, February 20th, 1855.

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 494

PETERBORO, February 20th, 1855.

WENDELL PHILLIPS, Boston,

MY DEAR FRIEND,

New York. 9th last month.

I do not suppose, that you regard republican institutions as less efficient than monarchical institutions to "educate men and women to the highest point of moral life". Nevertheless, from the connexion, in which you use these words, you are exposed to this inference. You praise England for having, with her "aristocratic institutions", abolished her slavery; and you raise the question, whether, under a "republican government", the noble education, of which you speak, can be attained; and so America be enabled to abolish her slavery. She may not be enabled to abolish it. But it does not follow, that the moral excellence of her reformers falls below that of English reformers. It was little for England to abolish a slavery exterior to herself, compared with what it would have been to abolish a slavery inwoven with all her interests, and pouring corruption through her whole political, and moral, and social being. England was not debauched and ruled by her slavery; - but American slavery has left scarcely one sound spot in American character; and it is, confessedly, the ruler of America.

The fact, that the English "never saw" the slaves, whom they emancipated, you make a prominent feature in the merit of the emancipation. But has it never occurred to you, that, had they seen them, they might have refused to emancipate them? "Distance lends enchantment to the view." The American christian, who, now, loathes the American slave, would be apt to fall deeply in love with him, were he several thousand miles off. Such a christian is eager to bear his part in those foreign missionary operations, which afford wide play to the romantic and sentimental. But deep degradation, when present, has less power to win the regard and melt the pity of such a christian, than to excite his disgust. I add, that it is only too probable, that there is many an English christian, who, in this respect, is like such an American christian.

No - I do not believe, that our reformers will suffer, in any fair comparison with the reformers of England. That they are as capable, as hers, of a high moral effort is manifest from the progress, which they have made in many directions. They are as far advanced in the cause of Peace; and much farther in the cause of Temperance. They have done much more to prove the right of the landless to a free share of the God-given soil; and much more to prove the identity of woman's rights with man's rights; and much more to open the eyes of christians to the great sin of their sectarian divisions, and to the indispensableness of christian union to the salvation of the world; and I add, that their hatred of slavery is more intense and self-sacrificing than is that of the English reformers. Now, when I have said these things, I have virtually said, that the American reformers have, at least, as much religion, as the English reformers have - for these things, especially, when taken together, are among the highest evidences, that they, of whom all this can be affirmed, are actuated by the principles of religion. The prayers, and preaching, and machinery of the Churches prove nothing more in favor of the Churches than do the tools of the carpenter in his favor. What he has accomplished with his tools, is the question for determining the merit of the carpenter; and the effect, with which the Churches have plied their tools, and improved their advantages, is the measure of the merit of the Churches. Preaching, and prayer, and praise are rather means of, and means to, religion than religion itself. Motives and influences to the religious life are to be drawn from heaven, as well as earth. But the life itself is to be seen among men, and can prove itself, only in justice and goodness to men.

I admit, that the movement to abolish American slavery is a failure. But I believe, that the movement to abolish British slavery had also been a failure, only that it was so much less difficult to abolish that slavery than it is to abolish ours. I admit, that the American abolitionists are not educated to a sufficiently high "point of moral life" to accomplish their object. But I deny, that the English abolitionists were educated to a higher one. It is true, that we are not sufficiently wise, and devoted, and high-souled from [?] arduous and sublime work. But English abolitionists lacked, as much, as we do, the attainments and character for such a work, I admit, that it requires only a small number of right-minded persons to sustain the American antislavery cause, and carry it forward to victory; and that even this small number cannot be supplied. Nevertheless, such persons are no more rare in America than in England. I referred to the fact, that we needed but a small band to make our success sure. With such a cause - a cause, that speaks so clearly for itself - one true man in each town of the North would be sufficient. But it is only here and there a town, that can furnish such a man. The men, of whom "one should chase a thousand and two put ten thousand to flight", are not to be picked up in every community: - and it is only that rare kind of men, who are capable of achieving, without brute force, a conquest over American slavery. Blows, that would tell on so weak and yielding a thing as English slavery, are utterly impotent upon the strong and stubborn slavery of America.

I have attributed to their low and false education the failure of American abolitionists to accomplish their work. Pardon me for improving this occasion to inquire into the cause of this low and false education. I cannot doubt, that the popular religion is mainly responsible for it. This religion is so defective - not to say, so spurious - as to be incapable of fashioning the right men for our high and holy work. This religion dwarfs and deforms men, instead of bringing out, as true religion is alone capable of doing, their fullest and noblest proportions. The mere fact, that it is a sectarian religion, is sufficient to condemn it. The religion, which encourages, or so much as suffers, its disciple to escape from the self-accountability, and stern duties, and undischarged obligations of individualism into the conventional discipline and personal irresponsibilities of party, is of little worth, notwithstanding it is so well nigh universal. Christianity requires her disciple to stand upon his own feet, instead of leaning on others - in his own strength, instead of the strength of others; and she will not permit him to supply with the sympathy and buttresses of party his lack of self-reliance, nor to plead the merit of his party, in default of his personal merit.

That christians run into sects shows their disobedience to the plainest requirements of christianity, and their false and low views of her spirit. Christians there are - innumerable christians - who are sectarians. Nevertheless, theirs is not the vigorous, manly, independent piety, which christianity calls for. Indeed, a sectarian christian is but half a christian. A whole christian will not consent to wear the yoke of party. A whole christian, I add, identifies himself with the whole christian brother hood, and, therefore, cannot be a partisan. No more than Jesus Christ Himself can he refuse church relations with any - even the weakest and most erring - disciples of Jesus Christ. Nay, as the Savior is especially concerned to bring such feeble, and mistaken, and perilled ones into the safety of His fold, so the christian, who is most like the Savior, finds a peculiar joy, in welcoming to the provisions of the church these "little ones" and "least" ones, who are in greater need of these provisions than are other christians.

I have spoken of christians, who are sectarians. Let it not be inferred, that I regard all sectarians as christians. Of most sectarians it may be safely affirmed, that nothing at all will remain of their religion, after you shall have withdrawn from it all the interest, and ambition, and zeal, and strife of sect.

It is often said, that abolitionists ruin the antislavery cause by running into political parties. They do. Over and over again, have they done so. Over and over again, have they suffered the attractions of the Whig and Democratic parties to over come their sense of duty to the slave. Over and over again, have they been seduced by the prospect of personal advantage to go with these parties. Over and over again; have they allowed themselves to be bewitched and befooled into the belief, that these parties (,which, if only from being national parties, are necessarily proslavery,) will work for the slave, and deliver him. Well has party been defined to be "the madness of the many for the gain of the few." Truly is it the curse of the world, notwithstanding our great men, both in Church and State, teach, that it is essential to the salvation of the world, and that it is, especially, the life of a republic. In the midst of teachings so pernicious, it cannot be easy to persuade the party man bow much superior is the individual man; and how much nobler it is to stand collected, calm, and strong in ones self, and to live a self poised, independent life, than to exchange his individuality for the poor party-frenzied, and party-controlled, and party-stinted being, which party doles out to him in return.

We must not, however, be surprised, that this addiction to party is so strong and common among abolitionists. If christians set the bad example of indulging a partisan spirit, it is not strange, that abolitionists follow it. If a christian must band himself with the Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Baptist party, why may not an abolitionist identify himself with the Democratic, or Whig, or Freesoil party? If a christian may sink himself in the current of party action (,and this is both the theory and practice of party-membership,) why may not an abolitionist do likewise?

You and I lament, that so large a share of the abolitionists have scampered off into the "know nothing party." Well may we lament, that they were educated to no higher point than to be guilty of such folly. But what worse have they done than our poor party-crazy christians do? I admit, that this party is the most bigoted and intolerant of all our political parties. But I deny, that it is anymore culpable, in this respect, than the christian sects. Let us compare them.

It is true, that the "know nothing party" would shut off men from one of the inherent, most important, and most sacred of

[2]

the rights of men. For such is the right to participate in the choice of the rulers of their country - and, that too, not in twenty one years from the time of becoming an inhabitant of the country - no, nor in five years - but now. Suffrage is not a mere privilege - a mere franchise - but a right, belonging to every man. Whether he shall be allowed to exercise it, in a given country, should not turn on the question, whether he was born in that country, or has lived in it twenty one years, or even five years; but solely on the question, whether it is his country. If it is only his country - and every man has the right to make whatever country he will his country - then, if he has lived but a single year in it, he is not to be denied a voice in choosing its rulers. This will be acknowledged by all, whose eyes are opened to the dignity of man and the sacredness of his rights. The right of suffrage may be called the right preservative of all rights. Hence, to deny this right is, virtually, to deny all rights. To postpone the enjoyment of this right in the case of him, who has been our countryman for only a short time, and for no other cause, is exceedingly unreasonable. unjust, and cruel. The weaker a man is among his fellows - whether it is because he is poor, or ignorant, or a stranger, the more does he need to wield that right, which is the defence of all his rights.

It is true, too, that the plea for excluding foreigners from the ballot-box, on the ground, that, being foreigners, they know not how to vote, is the height of disingenuousness and nonsense. If, as is really the case, most of them vote, as they should not vote, wherein do they differ, in this respect, from native Americans? The emigrant finds those around him voting for the profane, the intemperate, and the oppressive; and he votes, as they do. He will vote right, when they vote right.

It is often said, that foreigners need to reside many years in our country, in order to become acquainted with republican institutions. I do not think so. It is derogatory to these institutions to regard them as so artificial, complex, and abstruse. They are natural and obvious truths; and, with the help of an honest heart, are readily learned. But, however this may be, it is certain, that foreigners need not consume much time to learn how to vote. Voting, like every other of the greatest and most responsible duties of men, is, far more, heart-work than head-work. "He, that ruleth over men, must be just": and this same thing it is which is required of him, who votes. An honest regard for the rights of men and the rights of God is the great prompter, which is needed at the ballot-box, as well as every where else.

I would remark incidentally, that, whether a man is entitled to be voted for, is quite another question, than whether he is entitled to vote. His simple manhood gives him the right to cast a vote; but not to hold office. I must confess, however, that, as my first question, in regard to a candidate, would be whether he is wise and just, so would it be my last, whether he is a foreigner or a native - a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. My experience teaches me, that foreigners and natives are about equally good; and that Roman Catholics and Protestants are also about equally good. Or, to speak more correctly, it teaches me, that they are all about equally bad.

But I proposed to compare the "know-nothing party" with the Christian sects; and, hence, I must say a few - words respecting the latter. If that party is guilty of excluding men from the common rights of the human brotherhood, so is the Christian sect guilty of excluding Christians from the common rights of the Christian brotherhood. The latter is, surely, no less intolerant, mean, and criminal than the former. The Christian sect purposely builds its platform too narrow for all Christians to, stand on. The proscription of men by politicians is bad. But the proscription of Christians by Christians is worse: and it warrants the political proscription, so far as a bad example can warrant any thing. Oh, when will Christians set a good example, in this respect, before politicians? Mighty would be that good example. The world will be but little afflicted with party politics, after Christians shall have been educated to the point of non-sectarianism. The recognition of the rights of the human brotherhood will follow close upon the recognition of the rights of the Christian brotherhood. No differences in condition or complexion will avail to separate men from each other, when they shall have seen, that Christians allow no dissimilarities between themselves to weaken their love for each other, or turn them away from each other. Nay, does not truth justify the infinitely broader declaration, that men will be convinced that Christianity is from heaven - in other words, will be Christians - when they shall see, that the divine bond between Christians is indissoluble? "That they all may be one - that the world may believe, that thou hast sent me." John xvii: 21.

Let me say, ere leaving the subject of party, that, although I have condemned party in the popular sense of party, I do not condemn every association, that is called a party. The association, called the "Garrison party", I do not understand to be obnoxious to my complaints of party. That is not an association of persons, who are ready to merge the man in the mass, and to yield up his individualism to the direction of party. They are not seeking, each, his own advantage, by enlisting the influence and power of numbers in behalf of personal interests; and by disguising selfish purposes with professions of public service. It is not an association, in which men sell themselves away, in exchange for the poor privilege of becoming members of a party, and servants of a party. It is, on the contrary, an association of persons, who prefer to remain themselves; and who, therefore, refuse to become the members and servants of party. In a word, such an association is a no-party party. I add, that, for the like reasons, the little handful of persons, under the name of "Liberty party'', may, also, be called a no-party party. It is true, that mere partisans may come among us, and wear our names. But they are only among us. They are not of us.

I admitted, that we have not the class of men adequate to our peculiarly difficult antislavery work; and I held the current religion mainly responsible for the lack. I ventured the opinion, that its being a sectarian religion is enough to justify its condemnation. But there are many other respects, in which it is worthy of condemnation. How wickedly false is its low estimate of man! Rich man, intellectual man, learned man, polished man, office-honored man, it is ever ready to flatter and adore. But more man it refuses to hold in honor. It affects to believe the bible. But that blessed book, whilst making no account of the distinctions, however splendid, which fall off at the grave, stamps an infinite value on naked humanity. How idle for those professed Christians, who withhold the bible, and marriage, and parental rights, and filial rights from millions, and who buy and sell these millions; even as horses and hogs are bought and sold - how idle for such to claim, that they believe the bible! Equally idle, too, is it for them to claim to believe it, who vote these millions into the hands of their oppressors; and build negro-pews; and refuse to bury their dead, where black men are buried. The sternest slaveholder, on coming to believe the bible - to believe it with his heart, and to drink in its heavenly and transforming spirit - would, immediately, relax his grasp, and "let the oppressed go free". Show him in the bible, that the beings, whom, but an hour before, he had classed with his cattle, are made but "little lower than the angels", and are "crowned with glory and honor", and are destined to outlive the stars - and the amazing and subduing revelation puts an immediate end to all his slaveholding. His heart is broken. He is no longer a tyrant over his fellow men. He rejoices in being their equal brother.

I cannot refrain from expressing, in this connexion, my grief, that many abolitionists have allowed their faith in the bible to be shaken. The bible abandoned, and there will remain no sufficient bulwark against oppression. If its great doctrine of the immortality and essential equality of men is lost, what hope can be left for the earthly lot of the poor, and ignorant, and weak? God help them, in their struggle with the rich and cunning and strong, if the belief of a future existence shall be blotted out. Compared with that belief, how feebly does every thing else plead for the exhibition of respect and kindness to them, in the present life! So long, as men are valued, not for that exalted and endless being, disclosed by the bible, and the bible only, but merely for what they respectively are in, this life, so long oppression will abound; - for, so long, the reasons against it must be, at least comparatively, unimportant and uninfluential. If there is no redress and no existence for men beyond this life, there will be comparatively little fear and little reluctance to oppress them. If what they are here is all they are, then will it be comparatively easy to conclude, that to tax their muscles to the utmost, and to treat them, as we treat other beasts, which perish, is the best use we can put them to. But if, on the other hand, we study the destiny and dignity of man in the pages of the bible, and see, that this life is but the first link in an endless chain of existence; that here man is but in his seminal state; and that eternity is the room for his growth and development; that there be is the oak, and here but the acorn; - then shall we feel the sacredness of his rights; and then, both for his own sake and his Maker's sake, we shall have no heart to oppress him. As, therefore, we would ply ourselves and our fellow men with the highest and most influential motives against slavery, we must cling to the bible - to that infinitely most instructive and most impressive of all antislavery books.

I will advert to but one other of the many evidences of the bad character of the prevailing religion. That religion, not only leaves unrebuked the abounding wickedness in politics - but the greatest of that wickedness is not too great for it to consent to practice. That religion is responsible for electing to the Presidency the man, who can call on the American people to engage "cheerfully" in the super-devilish work of chasing down fugitives from the hell of slavery. That religion, in a word, is responsible for the proslavery action of both our Government and people.

You have been much censured for holding that the antislavery cause can reach success, only, over the ruins of the American Government and American Church. Nevertheless, you are right. The religion, which tolerates - nay, sanctifies - slavery, musty necessarily, be conquered, ere the devotees and dupes of that religion will suffer slavery to be abolished. Again, so long as the actual Government is on the side of slavery, the bloodless abolition of slavery is impracticable. You and I differ on the comparatively unimportant point of the true legal character of the Federal Constitution: but we do not differ, in respect to the ineffably guilty character of the Government, which professes to idolize and to obey that paper.

[3]

No small proof, that American christianity is not Bible christianity, is to be found in the fact, that, whilst the latter exacts the full measure of righteousness, as well in political conduct, as in all other conduct, the former holds, that religion has no jurisdiction of politics, and is an impudent intruder and guilty usurper, whenever she mixes herself up with politics. "Preaching

politics", or, in other words, insisting on the application of the principles of christianity to politics, is construed into one of the strongest proofs of infidelity. A man may dabble ever so much in the "dirty waters of politics", and yet be a prime christian! But how is it possible for him to be any thing of a christian, who (, although it is for the holy purpose of purifying those waters,) can be guilty of dragging down christianity into them!

And, now, I ask, whether, in the light of these and other mighty influences, which are at work to check and pervert the growth of their manhood, it is, at all, to be wondered at, that the abolitionists have proved themselves unworthy of their work? - deficient in the wisdom, self-sacrifice, magnanimity, confidence, charity; necessary to achieve an object, so great, so arduous, so sublime?

I admit, that had the abolitionists possessed the needed wisdom, they would never have run off to side issues and subordinate issues, with the feeling, that their work lay mainly in them; and that to keep Cuba out of the Union, or to maintain, or restore, the Missouri compromise line, or to do any other such incidental thing, was an essential part of their mission. But they would have seen, that the great work, to which they were called, was to grapple directly with the whole of American slavery; to show no quarter to any part of it; to deny the name and shelter of law to every part of it; and to treat it, wherever found, as the most atrocious piracy, which ever defied God, or outraged man. Alas, the delusion of the many good men, who busy themselves in circumscribing slavery! They bow to its legality, wherever it now exists; and they seem never to suspect, that it is owing to such courteous and gratuitous concession, that slavery both continues to exist, where it now does, and, ever and anon, leaps over into new fields. Would they treat any other piracy so respectfully and kindly? Not they. No - not if fifty Governments were to declare it law. Oh, had those able men and cordial haters of slavery - our Sewards and Giddings and Chases and Sumners - instead of confessing legal obligations in its behalf scouted the idea of its possible legalization, then would they have left slavery weak indeed - but, now, have they left it stronger. American slavery was never so strong, as it is, this day: and stronger and stronger will it continue to grow, so long as even its enemies honor it as law. Mr. Garrison himself would more than neutralize all he is doing against slavery, were he to accord to it the rights of a law, or to regard it in any part of the earth, as any thing better than a piracy and an outlaw.

I referred to the false and comparatively unimportant issues, which are made with the slave power. No wonder, that the stress laid upon them deceives the people - for it deceives even the abolitionists. During the struggle on the Nebraska bill, even the abolitionists regarded its opponents, as the most trustworthy and effective antislavery men: - and, as to the members of Congress, who voted against it, why the abolitionists themselves adored them, as martyrs. Those members may have been ever so ready to vote for slaveholders and for Fugitive slave Acts, nevertheless they were martyrs. To go against the Nebraska will was the most popular thing they could do. No other thing could have gained them so much political favor and so many votes. Nevertheless, they were martyrs. Although the proof, which these members of Congress gave of being moved by the spirit of martyrs, in their vote against the Nebraska bill, was about as great, is would be furnished by their submission to the necessity of dining on the best of roast beef and plum pudding, nevertheless they were martyrs.

For months, there has been a succession of rejoicings among the abolitionists - now, over the election of this, and, now, over the election of that antislavery gentleman to one or the other Houses of Congress. I am afraid to sympathize with these rejoicings - for I am afraid, that these gentlemen will all admit the legality of slavery. Gov. Seward will. Henry Wilson will. And I am afraid, that even that old Liberty Party man, Charles Durkee, will. But, is it possible, that even he, too, will?

The recent movement in Vermont and other States for virtually nullifying the Fugitive slave Act affords much joy to the abolitionists, but none to me. That movement is disingenuous, evasive, cowardly. I especially condemn it, because it implies two gross falsehoods - 1st that there may be a lawful slavery, and a lawful recapture of fugitive slaves: 2d that they, who are, engaged in the movement, are prepared to stand by such a slavery, and to take part in such recapture.

The abolitionists have not done shouting over recent judicial proceedings in Wisconsin. But there is nothing in these proceedings to cheer my desponding abolition heart. It is true, that these proceedings deny, that the Fugitive slave Act is Constitutional. But they, nevertheless, imply, that there might be a Constitutional Fugitive slave Act, and that slavery is capable of being invested with the sacredness of law; - and, implying this, they but damage, instead of helping, the antislavery cause.

Are these Wisconsin Judges honest? They hold (as I am warranted in assuming) that it is lawful and obligatory to replunge into slavery those, who escape from it. Suppose Georgia should enact, that all, who have emigrated from the Free States to her soil, shall be slaves: - and suppose, that, among those, who fly back to the Free States before the terrors of this new enactment, are children of these Judges - would these Judges hold it lawful and obligatory to return them? If they would, they would prove themselves monsters: and if they would not, they would prove themselves dishonest - dishonest in sparing their own children, whilst giving up other teen's children to oppression. But I proceed to apply a still closer test. Not only has Georgia, confessedly, as much constitutional right to make slaves of her whites, as of her blacks; but Wisconsin has, confessedly, as much right, in this respect, as Georgia. Now, suppose a proslavery Legislature of Wisconsin shall punish these her antislavery Judges, by declaring them and their posterity to be slaves. Would these Judges honor the statute, and bow their, necks to the yoke of slavery? Not they. They would sooner resist unto death. I admit, that this bravery would, on the one hand, be to their credit. But, on the other, it would prove the dishonesty, of which they are guilty, in acknowledging the obligations of slave codes, when others, and not themselves; are to suffer from those codes. Men may lack honesty, without so much, as suspecting, that they lack it. Every one lacks it, who admits slavery to be law; - for every one would refuse to make site admission, in the case of himself, were he claimed for its victim. Indeed, this whole question, whether slavery can be lawful, resolves itself into a question of honesty. An honest man, having his eyes open to the claims and scope of honesty, and especially to the duty of doing unto others, as he would have others do unto him, cannot fail to deny, that slavery is lawful. I add, that no code, which cannot be honestly administered, can be law; and that, hence, no slave-code can be law.

Would the Wisconsin Judas admit, that murder can be transmuted into law? How dare they, then, admit, that slavery can be? Would they not rather their children were murdered than enslaved?

I admitted, that the abolitionists have shown themselves deficient in the spirit of self-sacrifice. It is true, that they have expended millions of dollars in the antislavery cause. They have employed thousands of lecturers, and flooded the whole North with their publications. His zeal for the deliverance of the slave has cost this abolitionist five thousand dollars, and that abolitionist several times as much, and another abolitionist ten, ay, twenty times as much. And, what is still more, there are thousands of poor abolitionists, who, in their devotion to this cause, have approached the standard of the woman, who "cast in all, that she had - even all her living." The proslavery newspapers often say, that an abolitionist is too mean to pay any thing toward purchasing the liberty of a slave. It is true, that there are abolitionists - very worthy abolitionists - whose principles will not permit them to join in such a purchase. But multitudes of abolitionists contribute much, in this wise. One has put a thousand dollars, and another five thousand dollars, and another ten thousand dollars into the pockets of slaveholders: and no small share of the abolitionists have taxed themselves, more or less, to buy their fellow men from under the yoke of slavery.

Considerable, however, as have been the pecuniary sacrifices of abolitionists in their cause, they fall far short of the merits of that precious cause. Then, again, it is but a small proportion of them, who refuse to purchase the cotton, and sugar, and rice, that are wet with the tears, and sweat, and blood of the slave. And when we count up those, who have sealed with their blood, their consecration to the antislavery cause, we find the whole number to be scarcely half a dozen.

In none of the qualities of the best style of men - and that is the style of men needed to effectuate the bloodless termination of American slavery - have the abolitionists shown themselves more deficient than in magnanimity, confidence, charity. They have judged neither the slaveholders, nor each other, generously. Slaveholders are, indeed, great sinners, and we should not hesitate to say so; - always, remembering, however, when we do say so, that we ourselves are not, "without sin." The sin of slaveholding, like many sins, of which we ourselves are guilty, is largely attributable to a false education; and the victims of this false education are to be quite as much compassionated, as condemned. Great as should ever be my abhorrence of the sin of slaveholding, I am, always, to temper my judgment of the slaveholder with the thought, that my nature is no better than his, and that, had our circumstances been exchanged, he would probably have been the abolitionist, and I the slaveholder. It is not to be wondered at, that most slaveholders have but little, and some of them no sense, that slaveholding is sin. The South tells them it is not sin; and the North does likewise. The statesmen of the North, as well as of the South, and the clergy of the North, as well as of the South, tell them so.

The quarrels of abolitionists with each other, and their jealousy and abuse of each other, would be far less, had they more magnanimity, confidence, charity. Many of them delight in casting each other down, rather than in building each other up. Complain of each other they must: and when there is no occasion for complaint, their ill-natured ingenuity can manufacture an occasion out of the very small-

[4]

est materials. Were even you, whose trueness to the slave is never to be doubted, to be sent to Congress, many of your abolition brethren would be upon the alert to find some occasion for calling your integrity in question. And they would find it, too, if in nothing else than in your gentlemanly bearing toward your fellow members. Again, as you are a very radical abolitionist, the political press would take great delight in misrepresenting and caricaturing your Congressional life - and, all the more, because the abolitionists, having so little confidence in each other, and being very credulous and very silly, are eager to be fed in this wise. Slander, like corn and cheese, obeys the laws of trade; and the supply of it will always be proportioned to the demand for it.

On all questions, connected with the abolition of slavery, abolitionists are slow to tolerate a difference of opinion. For instance, some of them believe, that the Federal Constitution is proslavery, and others, that it is antislavery: and this honest difference of opinion is ground enough for their saying the hardest things of each other. I have myself (, if I may be pardoned an allusion to myself,) been made the victim of this intolerance. So it was, that I had long held, that Cuba, geographically and commercially, belonged to us, and should, therefore, be made a part of our nation. So it was too, that I said this on the floor of Congress. For having dared to say it, the abolition crew instantly threw me overboard. This was my fate, because the abolitionists held, that the annexation of Cuba would strengthen slavery. In vain was my plea, that I held the contrary. My doom was fixed. I was unprincipled and proslavery; and overboard I had to go. Of course, I admitted the liberty of the abolitionists to show the unsoundness of my opinions. But this admission was not enough to pacify them. I had no right to hold opinions, which the abolitionists do not hold. Then, again, I am charged with gross inconsistency for being in favor of the annexation of Cuba, whilst I am so frequently presenting as an evidence of the desperate proslavery wickedness of this nation, its grasping after that island. The logic here is, that if I wish to get a dramshop into my hands, although it is for the purpose of transforming it into the abode of temperance and every other virtue, I stand on the same level with him, who would get it for the purpose of making it Still more a dramshop, and still more the resort and nurse of wickedness.

Since I am on the subject of Cuba, I cannot forbear saying how exceedingly anxious I am, as an abolitionist, for her annexation to this country. Indeed, my best hope of the abolition of American slavery, since my hope of it, at the hands of abolitionists, began to give place to despair, has been in such annexation.

The type of slavery in Cuba is, in some respects, more terrible than in any other pact of the world. The family relation, which, elsewhere, softens the horrors of slavery, is to a great extent, unknown among the slaves of Cuba. The breeding of our own slaves is an alleviating feature in our slavery: and slavery is light in the breeding States, compared with what it is in the other States, Plantation after plantation in Cuba has hundreds of males, and scarcely one female, The condition and character of the laborers on such plantations are, therefore, as brutal, as they well can be. Again, so severe is the treatment of the Cuban slaves, that they die under it, in a few years. The slaves of our own country live, on an average, more than thirty years. The slaves of Cuba much less than half that time: and, hence, as I pity them, I would have Cuba annexed. I would have her annexed too, as I pity Africa, who is, every year, robbed of thousands of her children to supply the murderous waste of life in Cuba. But, more than all, do I desire the annexation, because I believe it will contribute, mightily, to the overthrow of the whole system of American slavery.

1st. It will change Spain into an antislavery nation: and, then, not only will she be arrayed against American s!avery, but other nations especially France and England - disembarrassed by her change, will be far more cordially and effectively arrayed against it than they have hitherto been.

2d. The Spanish troops, that, now, uphold slavery in Cuba, will, then, be recalled; and the creole population of mare thin half a million will, then, be the dependence for maintaining slavery. But that population, never having possessed political power, and, therefore, ignorant how to use it; having strong sympathies with the quarter of a million of free blacks, both from being legally intermarried with them to a considerable extent, and from having but little more intelligence (,for the free blacks have schools,) and also from other causes; would be but a poor dependence for maintaining slavery. Indeed, where have Spanish creoles proved their readiness and ability to uphold slavery? Certainly not in Mexico and the South American States. There they proved themselves to be abolitionists, after they had escaped from the control of the Spaniards. The truth is, that the Spanish creoles are too nearly on a level with the free blacks, in point of circumstances and intelligence, and, therefore, of power, to be relied on to uphold slavery. There must, in some important respects, be a wide space between masters and slaves, or the slaves cannot be kept in subjection.

3d. Cuban slavery is so different a thing from American slavery, that it cannot coexist with it, unless brought into conformity with It. But to attempt the conformity would be most strongly to invite an insurrection. The Cuban slave has the legal right to go, every year, in quest of a new master. Moreover, it rests with an officer of the Government to fix his price, in case of disagreement on that point. He has the legal right to buy himself - to buy himself, all at once, or, in parts - a quarter at one time, and a half at another - as is most convenient for him. Then, again, if the slave-mother shall pay a small suns (I believe but twenty-five dollars,) before the birth of her child, the child shall be free. Now, will the slaves - will the free blacks - will the creoles - suffer these merciful features to be expunged from the system of Cuban slavery? Certainly not, until much blood has been spilt. I add, will the free blacks suffer their schools to be closed? - for the closing of them will be an indispensable part of the conformity of Cuban slavery to American slavery.

4th. But it will be said, that if a standing army of twenty or thirty thousand Spanish troops can maintain slavery in Cuba, so, also, can a no greater standing American army maintain it there. A several times greater army than this will be required to sustain the attempt to impart to Cuban slavery the absolute character of our slavery. Arouse the hostility of the free blacks, among whom are men of genius and education; combine with them the nearly half million of slaves, the very large majority of whom are from Africa, and areas barbarous, as when they left her shores; and the victory to be achieved by our standing army would be no easy one. A bloody grave for slavery did these classes of men dig in St. Domingo: and a no less bloody one may they dig for slavery in Cuba. Moreover, that grave may be capacious enough for the whole of American slavery. Let our infatuated slave power get Cuba, if it can. I greatly mistake, if when she shall have added these new elements to our population, she does not find, that she has got more than she contracted for. Ere leaving this head, I will say, that, to propose, in the event of the annexation of Cuba, a standing army for the maintenance of her slavery, is sheer nonsense. The days of our slavery, if not, indeed, of our republic will be numbered, whenever we shall adopt the policy of a standing array for upholding slavery.

5th. Havanna is Cuba, as emphatically as Paris is France. Admit, that quietness - although, by the way, it is an ever fearful and anxious quietness - is maintained there. We should, nevertheless, remember, that it is maintained only by means of such a strict and stern police, and Each an iron despotism, as would be impossible, amidst the institutions and influences of our republic. Impose only republican restraints upon Havanna, and anarchy would quick spread through her, and through the island.

6th. Let it not be said, that, because the slaves of Louisiana and Florida passed quietly into our political jurisdiction, the slaves of Cuba will, also. Not to speak of essential differences in their circumstances, the former slaves were but a handful, compared with the latter.

I say no more of the annexation of Cuba. Whilst I hope, that it would help work the overthrow of slavery, without violence; I am confident, that it would help work it, in some way,

But I must bring my very long letter to a close. The abolitionists have labored in vain - and yet not in vain. They were the best men In the land - and yet the noblest virtues were not as ripe in them, as was needful for the success of their undertaking. But they have prepared the way for higher attainments in their successors: and the work, which they were themselves incapable of accomplishing, these successors (if not anticipated by the hand of violence) will accomplish. It is but too probable, however, that American slavery will have expired in blood, before the men shall have arisen, who are capable of bringing it to a voluntary termination.

But, notwithstanding, we have failed, and will, in all probability, continue to fail, to accomplish our great work, we, nevertheless, cannot abandon it. We must persevere in it, if only to save our own souls. Moreover, dark as are the signs of the times, who can certainly say, that God will not give us - even us, in all our unworthiness - the victory over slavery? And, then, amid all these dark signs, there are a few bright ones. As I have already shown, I do not number, among these bright ones, the recent election of so many antislavery members of Congress. For these members are proslavery, as well as antislavery. If they go against new slavery, nevertheless they stand up by old slavery. And so is it with those, who elected them - with those stony ground abolitionists, who make up these sudden and immense majorities in Ohio and other States; but who, having no root in themselves, will endure but for a little while - for but one, or, at the most, for but two elections. At least, hall of these majorities will, by the next election, have gone back again to the naked proslavery side. Oh no, there is no bright sign here! But it is a bright sign, that, in spite of all seductive influences, a few still adhere to the American Antislavery Society and to the Liberty party. Could I hear, this day, of the recent accession to either of even no more than one hundred brave, and earnest, and noble souls, my hope for a christian and peaceful end to slavery would, again, revive.

Nor, as I have already shown, do I number, among the bright signs of the times, those recent judicial proceedings in Wisconsin, which have made the abolitionists so glad. But I am frank to say, that I do number among them, the heroic conduct of dear Booth and his associates. They knew no law for slavery; and, therefore, they yielded themselves to the law of humanity, and delivered the slave, Glover. This treatment of the pretensions of slavery, and the similar treatment of them in the rescue of Jerry at Syracuse, are worth more to the cause of truth and freedom than the election of ten thousand Senators, who acquiesce in existing slavery, and fight against that only, which is prospective or fanciful.

It is often said, that such popular movements, as delivered Glover and Jerry, exasperate the slaveholder. They may, for the moment. But, in the end, they make their lodgment in his conscience, and spread convictions of their justice through his soul. Every thoughtful slaveholder knows they are right - for he knows, that they are what he would desire, were he in the distress, from which poor Jerry and poor Glover were so mercifully delivered. The slaveholder sees the honesty, and feels the power of such an act, as that, which immortalizes the, brave Booth: - for that every slaveholder knows, that slavery is not law, is, as I have substantially said, in a former part of this letter, manifest from the fact, that he knows, that he would not honor it as law, were he himself so unfortunate, as to be reduced to slavery. Again, that every slaveholder respects an honest and consistent abolitionist, is manifest from the fact, that every slaveholder is, at heart, an abolitionist. The biggest slaveholder, only attempt to make a slave of him, will loom up into the biggest abolitionist. Every man is an abolitionist for himself: - and this proves, that every man is an abolitionist.

Would, that all abolitionists were like the rescuers of Jerry and Glover! Then would slaveholders quickly be brought to believe in the sincerity of abolitionists, and in the duty of abolition. It is no wonder, that slaveholders despise both us and our cause. Our cowardice, and vacillation, and innumerable follies have, almost necessarily, made both us and it contemptible. The way for us to bring slaveholders right on slavery as to be right on it ourselves. The way for us to command the respect, ay, and to win the love, of slaveholders is to act honestly, in regard to slavery, and to all things else. But do I mean to say, that slaveholders can be brought to love abolitionists? Oh yes! - and I add, that abolitionists should love slaveholders. We are all brothers: and we are all sinners too: and the difference between ourselves, as sinners, is not so great, as, in our prejudice on the one hand, and our self-complacency on the other, we are wont to imagine it to be.

With great regard, your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.