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

Compensated emancipation / a speech by Gerrit Smith, in the National Compensation Convention, held in Cleveland,

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 507

COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.

A SPEECH BY GERRIT SMITH,

In the National Compensation Convention, held in Cleveland Ohio, August
25, 26 and 27, 1857.

MR. PRESIDENT:

Many are urging me to reply to the speeches made this afternoon by my friends Watkins and Pryne. Not all who make up the very large assembly this evening were present to hear those able and eloquent speeches, which, I confess, brought me to a solemn revision of my position. Sure am I that none who did hear them, envy me the task of replying to them. Why am I selected for this difficult service? Perhaps it is because they and I having worked together thus far, there is curiosity to see how we will behave toward each other, now that we have arrived at a point of divergence from each other. There is one consolation in my circumstances - the strength of the opposition has been brought out, and if I can cope with what is before me; I shall have no reason to quail before the apprehension of what is to follow.

We are met, Sir, to initiate - I might perhaps rather say to inaugurate - a great movement, one that is full of promise to the slave and the slaveholder, and our whole country. It is not so much to awaken interest in their behalf that we have come together, as it is to give expression to such interest - a practical and effective expression.

We are here for the purpose of making a public and formal, and, as we hope, an impressive confession, that the North ought to share with the South in the temporary losses that will result from the abolition of Slavery. Indeed, such are our relations to the South in the matter of Slavery; that, on the score of simple honesty, we are bound to share in these losses.

Whether, in the eye of the Constitution, Slavery is national or sectional, or whether there is, as I hold there is, no authority for either, so it is that our Slavery is actually national. The whole nation has contributed to nationalize it - the whole nation has made itself responsible for it. The sin of extending the area of Slavery, and of encouraging the slaveholders to multiply their investments in human flesh, lies at the door of the North as well as at the door of the South. Northern commerce has connived at, and openly upheld, Slavery. So have Northern politics. And we have seen Churches, religious associations, institutions of learning, at the North as well as at the South, apologizing for Slavery, and bowing quite down to the ground in presence of the demon and in deference to his claims. Texas could not have been annexed, nor the Missouri

Compromise repealed - no, nor established - without the help of the North. Without the help of her schools and churches there never could have been a Pro-Slavery public sentiment at the North. Nor could such a sentiment, nor could Slavery itself, have continued to exist at the South, without such help. It is not too much to say that, at the North, as truly as at the South, ecclesiastical as well as commercial and political gains have been sought for, by sparing and flattering Slavery.

Now, all this being true; it is very plain that the North as well as the South is bound to contribute to relieve the slaveholders in the straits to which they would be reduced by the abolition of Slavery.

But, Mr. Pryne says the North should pay nothing, for the reason that, in proportion to her connection with and responsibility for Slavery, she has lost as much by Slavery as the South has. What if she has? Nevertheless, the fact remains that the North is rich, and the South comparatively poor. Now, the reason why we call on the North to help in this case is not alone because of her complicity, but also because she is able to help.

Mr. Watkins says that the slave, and not the slaveholder, is entitled to compensation, and he adds, "put my feet on Mr. Smith's proposition." My proposition was that the nation shall pay to the emancipated slave $25 and to his master $150, and that the emancipating State shall, by assessments on the lands within its limits (the value of such lands being greatly increased by the abolition of Slavery), add $75 to the $150. I need not say that I have no sympathy with the plan of appropriating the public lands to this object. I am a land-reformer; and I hold that to the landless belongs the vacant land. Slavery is a great evil; but land monopoly, because it has manifold more victims, is a far greater evil. Moreover, there could have been no Slavery but for land monopoly; and to abolish the latter is the only sure way to abolish and prevent the return of the former. I can, therefore, favor no plan which countenances land-monopoly, and recognizes Congress as a great landholder. But to return to Mr. Watkins. Is it nothing that, in addition to the $25, I propose to give to the slave the slave's own self ? Moreover, does not he see that to propose to give most of the money to the slave, instead of the slaveholder, would be to defeat all hope of getting him free? Very gladly would I have all the money given to the poor plundered slave, if the slaveholder would still be willing to give him his liberty.

But it is said that we ought not to offer in advance to the slaveholder any measure of indemnity, because doing so is bribing him to do right. Now I readily admit that I would prefer to have the slaveholder prompted to do right only by the purest and highest motives. I would have him emancipate his slaves immediately and unconditionally because it is the slaves' right to be thus emancipated, and because the slaveholder sins fearfully in resisting this right. Nevertheless, so guilty and horrible is the relation of slaveholder and slave, and so full of misery to both - aye, and so full of damage and peril to the whole nation - that I would be willing to make the most direct appeals to the selfishness of the slaveholder in aid of hurrying him to dissolve this relation. Besides, I am not willing to admit that his moral sense would be weakened and his repentance rendered less probable by such appeals.

My neighbor is a drunkard, and therefore the torment of himself, his family, and his friends. I invoke his reformation in the name of all the tenderest, and highest and holiest motives. If, then, I add to these motives such as are inferior, do I necessarily sin? Oh, no ! I do not sin in telling him that, in the event of his forsaking the intoxicating cup, I will bless him

[2]

and his hungry family with the gift of a cow. My offer of the cow is useful in many respects. It serves to commend to him the sincerity which prompted me to array before him the better and nobler motives, and in doing this, I would, as a simple and short argument would suffice to show, commend the motives themselves. For to believe our teacher sincere is a wide step toward believing that he reasons correctly. The connection between sincere purposes and sound arguments is altogether natural. Again, my offer of the cow serves to persuade him of my deep sense of his sin, and thus to suggest that he, too, should cherish a deep sense of it. In a word, the offer is far more like to do him good than harm. So, too, the slaveholder is far more like to be benefitted than injured, if, when I have set before him the high and commanding reasons why he should let the oppressed go free, now and unconditionally, I prove my sincerity and my sense of the wickedness of his relation, by telling him that I will act a brother's part, and share with him in the loss of his terminating that guilty relation.

Connected with this objection that we are bribing the slaveholder, is the objection that our offer of money to him will be construed into our recognition of his rights of property in man. For one I deny all rights of property in intoxicating liquors, when they are offered for sale as a beverage. (Here let me say that my zeal for temperance carries me as far as my zeal for Freedom ; and let me add, that I believe the cause of temperance will continue to drag until its friends take the ground of no property in alcoholic liquors when they are put to the Satanic work of malting paupers and madmen.) I was saying that I denied all rights of property in such case. But surely I do not involve myself in inconsistency, if I tell the rumseller that provided he will throw away his rum, I will help support his family. Surely, in telling him so, I do not stamp upon his rum

filled casks the sacredness of property. No more do I make Slavery rightful, when I tell the slaveholder that if he will throw it away, I will help him get an honest living. But, however this offer of money to the slaveholder may be in appearance, or effect, certain it is that we do not intend to recognize therein the rightfulness of slaveholding. We make the offer because we

believe fraternity and honesty require us to make it - fraternity and honesty both to slaveholder and slave. We deny all right of property in man. We believe that the image of God, no more than God Himself, is to be counted merchandize. We believe that immortality is never to be confounded with a commodity.

Whence comes it that we are charged with admitting property in man? It comes from a confusion of ideas in those who charge it. Our acknowledgment that the slaveholder would, in liberating his slaves, be entitled to our money, is reckoned by them to be all one with our acknowledgment of his right to hold his slaves. I admit his right to our money - yes, his moral right. For if, in the circumstances of the case, we are under moral obligation to give the money (and it is indispensable to the success of our undertaking to feel that we are), then does it follow that he has a moral right to it, notwithstanding the opposition which my use of these words yesterday encountered. But, in admitting the emancipating, and because emancipating, impoverished slaveholder's right to our help, we no more sanction slaveholding than we sanction drunkenness by helping him who had been a drunkard, or sanction rumselling by helping him who had been a rumseller. We would help these, and why not him ? Let us hasten to cast away the foolish and wicked prejudice which stands in the way of our helping the slaveholder also.

Both Mr. Pryne and Mr. Watkins say, "If the slaveholder has the right to sell, he has the right to buy." That is a true proposition. But we do not acknowledge his right to sell. We do not mean to buy from him. Even, however, if we did buy from him, we should not therein acknowledge his right to sell. If I buy my friend out from under the uplifted dagger of the murderer, I do not therein acknowledge the murderer's right to strike the blow. I said that we do not mean to buy the slaves. All that we mean (at least so far as I am concerned) is, that when they shall have been emancipated, we will share in the loss of the emancipators, and help them in their reduced circumstances. Did we mean to buy the slaves and sanction the selling of them, we should propose that the slaveholders receive the whole, instead of one-half of their market value. Liberally as we are willing to share in the loss of the slaveholder, we nevertheless mean that the greater part of it shall fall upon himself.

This is but right. As he will be, in a moral point of view, the principal gainer from emancipation, so he can well afford to be the principal pecuniary loser from it. Let me here say that I am not one of those who would, by an extravagant offer of money tempt the slaveholder to emancipate. Our offer must be reasonable - such an offer as wise and practical men would make - such as the North would approve and sustain. We must not, in our eagerness to commend our plan to the South, forget that there is a North, and that the plan will come to nothing, unless its chief features are such as shall gain the cordial assent of the North.

Another objection to our movement is that the slaveholders will be richer after than they were before emancipation. The emancipating States I admit will be. But the slaveholders, in their new and strange circumstances will, at least for a season, be comparatively helpless, unless they are aided by the State or nation, or both.

It is also objected that such a sum as the slaveholders would accept would be much larger than the North would consent to share in paying. But the North could well afford to pay a very large sum for the sake of delivering the slave from the most miserable and the slaveholder from the most guilty of all relations - especially since it is for the life of the nation that Slavery be ended speedily and peacefully.

On the other hand is the objection that any sum the North might offer would be so small in the esteem of the South as to call out her indignant rejection, and breed a still worse temper than now exists betweeen them. But her actual rejection of it, however indignant, would not prove it to be too small ; and as our anticipated rejection of it could not cancel our obligation to make the offer, so it should not be allowed to deter us from making it.

It is said, too, that the South will regard as meddlesome and offensive any action we may take on this subject, and even our entertainment of the subject. A part of the South, doubtless will. But even if the whole South should, that will not prove us to be wrong. At any rate, we must respect and respond to the claims of honesty and fraternity in our own consciences, however false the judgment that may therefore be put upon us. We must be faithful to our national relations,

and show ourselves ready to assist our countrymen, however in turn we maybe misunderstood or maligned. I do not deny my fears that the South will repel us, and reject every scheme and every idea of emancipation. Mighty are the habits of self indulgence and despotism engendered by Slavery. When has it been found possible to break those habits ? When have any people been known to surrender them ? Few are less hopeful than myself of the peaceful abolition of American Slavery.

Another objection to our movement is that it will tend to supersede the means which are now employed to accomplish the overthrow of Slavery-prayer, preaching, lecturing, voting, &c Oh no ! it will not have this tendency. On the contrary, it will concur with these means, and, as we hope, give effect to them. None the less will these means be wielded, after we shall have added to them this new one. On the contrary, they will then be wielded all the more earnestly and perseveringly, because all the more hopefully.

Mr. Watkins referred to my own labors in the cause of Freedom, and in terms quite too complimentary for me to repeat. He predicts that they will be counteracted by this new movement. But happy, heaven-blessed and greatly successful will I regard these poor labors, if they shall be found to be at all instrumental in preparing the public mind for this movement, and in reconciling the people of the North to the idea of sharing with their Southern brethren in the temporary losses incident to the abolition of Slavery. Mr. Pryne, too, believes that this new measure will stand in the way of the other measures for overthrowing Slavery.

Mr. Watkins thinks that the undertaking will minister to the self-complacency and triumphant air of the slaveholders, and that they will say to us, "Gentlemen, you have given up your principles, for you now wish to buy our slaves." But what they would call buying, and which is not buying, would be, not the abandonment, but the natural progress and legitimate effect of our principles. When the Anti-Slavery man has traveled quite across the low grounds of profession, and has ascended to that higher plain where not only words are spoken but deeds are done, and heavy and self denying pecuniary sacrifices in the cause of the slave are welcomed, then has he proved, not his denial of his principles, but his attachment to them - not their worthlessness and impotence, but their great preciousness and their power to carry him forward in the work of humanity and Heaven.

Mr. Pryne holds that our scheme violates the Constitution. I readily admit that it does violence to his and my views of both the Constitution and Civil Government - though it does none to the popular views of either. Oftentimes, and with the

[3]

consent of the nation, has our Government used its means in a way that justifies, so far at least as the question of constitutionality is concerned, the present proposed use of them. I confess that it was not intended to provide in the Constitution for the raising of moneys to effect the abolition of Slavery-for on all hands was it understood that Slavery would come to its natural death in a few years. When Mr. Pryne said that I had been his political Gamaliel, and that at my feet he had learned to restrict the whole province of Government to the protection of persons and property, he both honored me and did justice to my creed. I do not deny that Government, in the use we are now proposing to put it to, would be found quite outside of the range of its legitimate functions. I take pleasure in admitting that Mr. Pryne did skillfully, and as fairly as skillfully, argue my inconsistency. He made my own political creed, with. which he is so entirely familiar, his principal and most effective means ill proving that I am note plunging into error. Nevertheless, I justify myself in sanctioning the contemplated agency of Government. I justify myself, however, only on the ground of the necessity of the case. Our nation is brought to the brink of ruin; and if it can be saved in no way authorized by the Constitution and by the nature and office of civil government, yet would I have it saved.

John Quincy Adams held that, to save the nation, Congress might abolish Slavery.

Thomas Jefferson, and many of the statesmen of his day, denied that there was constitutional authority for extending the limits of the nation. Nevertheless, so necessary did they deem the annexation of Louisana that they acquiesced in it. It is largely owing to this annexation that American Slavery has attained its gigantic growth. Indeed, the evil could hardly have

lived to the present day, had it been confined within its ancient boundaries. Now, if an unconstitutional measure, fraught, as was the annexation of Louisiana, with so much misery and ruin, can be justified on the ground of national necessity, then surely on that ground can a measure, even if it is unconstitutional, be justified which will dry up that flood of misery and save the nation.

There is another thing to be mentioned here. If our present movement does look to Government for unconstitutional action - and for the sake of the argument we admit that it does-still, since such action will not take place until the people North and South, East and West, shall call for it, its unconstitutionality will be comparatively unobjectionable. When all the people agree to make Government their common agent in a work of salvation, the inquiry whether the work is constitutional, has lost most of its importance.

Before leaving this topic of constitutionality, let me express the hope that nothing I have said will be construed into my admission of the lack of constitutional power to abolish Slavery. That is not civil Government - but, on the contrary, a detestable counterfeit - which has not the power, and the will also, to save its subjects from being chattels.

Mr. Pryne likened the slaveholders to counterfeiters and thieves. He asked whether we ought to help a gang of counterfeiters, who had become poor by being compelled to give up their counterfeiting? I answer that we ought most emphatically, if we are their fellow counterfeiters, and have encouraged them in the iniquity, and are able to help them. He asked whether we should share in the losses of a company of detected horse-thieves ? Most certainly, if we are their fellow-thieves, and have it in our power to relieve their poverty. "Honor among thieves" is a motto that the people of the North should feel the fair application and full force of, when called on to help their fellows of the South.

There is still another objection that I must notice. It is, that if compensation shall ever be in order, it will not be until the slaveholders shall have truly repented. "When the sky falls we shall catch larks." But will it ever be so condescending? Will the slaveholders ever take it upon themselves to repent ? It is hardly probable that the mass of them will.

According to this objection, if I see a fiend preparing to murder a whole family for the sake of money, and I know I can buy him off, I must not do so. The most I shall be allowed to do is to give him money when he shall have shown himself to be the subject of Christian repentance. But ere that time has come, he will have murdered the whale family. So, too, if we wait for the slaveholders to repent, many more generations of our ill-starred brethren may have to pass through the torments of Slavery.

I confess that the objector in this case is intent on the deliverance of the slave, but he would have it accomplished only through the salvation of the soul of the slaveholder. Of every other way be is exceedingly jealous. Now, I do not deny that I am so unorthodox as to make more account of the freedom of the slave than of the salvation of the slaveholder. If the slave is emancipated, my great desire will be realized, and that, too, whether, in the process of his emancipation, the slaveholders have or have not become penitents.

But I must close. Long have I looked forward to this day. Many, many years have I longed for the inauguration of this movement. Although nearly alone among my Abolition brethren in believing that the North ought to share with the South in the losses resulting from the abolition of Slavery, still I never could refrain from believing it. They are just men. Honestly do they differ from me, and hence I have no reproach for them. May they in turn be as patient with me as they can be. Especially should they be thus patient, seeing that it would be impossible for me to be consistent and honest, and not take the ground I have taken. For I would have my friend - for I would have myself - bought out from under the yoke of slavery - and it therefore follows that I should be inconsistent and dishonest, were I not willing to have all other slaves bought out from under it. The abolitionists are consistent and honest in opposing us: - for they would not compromise their principles by allowing a price to be paid for the ransom of their friends, or even of themselves. They would rather live and die in the chains of slavery than have them broken by the power of money. That they would do so I am of course compelled to assume. For if they would not, then, in the name of all consistency and honesty, what right have they to be denouncing and vilifying us for our willingness to use money in delivering the millions of slaves? Yes, I am compelled to assume that the abolitionists have attained to such a sublime disinterestedness in carrying out their principles, as to prefer remaining in slavery forever to having a penny paid for their deliverance. For if I do not assume this, I cannot vindicate their sincerity.

The work on which we are now entering will be mighty and effectual if we shall make it a work of love. Love is the remedy for human wrongs - as well the wrongs which lie within as those which lie without the province of statesmanship. The grand reason why statesmanship is and always has been a failure, is just because love is not and never has been allowed to be its constant prompter and ever-burning soul. Unhappily, it is thought that having a heart disqualifies a man for being a statesman. But he, and he only, can be a true statesman whose understanding is controlled by a loving and Christian heart. Love is looked upon as a weakness and as incompatible with wisdom. But love alone is strong, and where there is no love there is no wisdom.

Political men who take up the subject of Slavery - this Convention which is taking it up politically - must take it up in love, or more harm than good to the cause of Freedom will come of it. The Abolitionists, too, must infuse more love into their efforts. Vigorous and clear as are their apprehensions of Slavery just and impressive as are their descriptions of it - that is not enough. They must have more heart; and they must have it not for the slave only, but for the slaveholder also. The chief reason why the Southern conscience yields so slowly under the labor of the Abolitionists, is that it does not feel it to be a labor of love. I would that all the Abolitionists lay hold of this measure, which we are now laying hold of. I do not say that they would in this wise give all needed proof; but I do say they would give one strong proof that the truth, which they speak to slaveholders, is spoken in love.

The Republican party is hated by the South, because it is regarded there as selfish and sordid. Let it, however, identify itself with the great measure of this Convention, and it would give therein such an evidence of its benevolent and fraternal interest in the South as it has not hitherto given. Cordially do we invite its co-operation. Cordially, too, do we invite the co-operation of the Democratic and Native American parties, and of the churches, and of the Anti-Slavery Societies. In a word, we call upon the whole country to come forward under the promptings of love - of love to the slaveholder and the slave, to the Slave States and the Free, to earth and to heaven, and to put away Slavery entirely and forever. That is a work worthy of the help of all. Who is there that can refuse to bear a part in it?