Chapter 3

Having in the preceding chapter dismissed Mrs. Stowe's narrative; I shall in the following pages, confine my remarks, so far as they refer to "Uncle Tom's Cabin," to its evident design and manifest tendency.

It was about thirty-five years ago, that the great abolition excitement broke out in the North. The subject of course, was agitated previous to that time, but there must have been then, some additional, or new excitement, for it was at that memorable period, that the South took the alarm. Previous to that period, as far back as I can recollect, the subject of slavery was freely discussed in the Southern States, by clergymen and politicians in public; and it was withal, a common topic of conversation in the social circle. Throughout the slave states, at that time, the necessity of enlightening the minds, and ameliorating the conditions of the slaves was generally seen, felt, and acknowledged. It was then enforced on church members as a duty, by ministers of all denominations; and the ministers of the Gospel rebuked, (sometimes with great severity), harshness, cruelty, or unkindness to slaves.

A spirit of emancipation was then common among slaveholders; many slaves were set at liberty, and Christians, and philanthropists, were anxiously looking forward to a period of universal emancipation. A gentleman, by name Benjamin Lundy, published at that time an anti-slavery paper in Greenville, East Tennessee; which paper had an extensive circulation. About that time, I gathered up my anti-slavery juvenile doggerel, corrected it, as well as I could,--selected poems from Cowper and others, on the subject; forwarded the manuscript to the aforesaid B. Lundy, and the result was, a little volume of anti-slavery poems. But the abolition excitement broke out in the North, and the South took the alarm. The mouths of clergymen were closed in the pulpit; for it was deemed inadvisable, in consequence of Northern interference, to discuss the subject of slavery in the pulpit, social circle, or under any circumstances, whatever. It was thus, we see, through the intermeddling of Northern abolitionists, that discussion was cut off in the South. Rigid laws were then enacted by the state Legislatures, for the suppression of public discussion; and there were also enactments which threw obstacles in the way of emancipation; and thus, the fetters of slavery have been drawn tighter, and tighter, from that day, to the present time.

A short time after the excitement commenced in the South, a committee of panic-stricken citizens called on Mr. Lundy, after expressing for him personally the highest regard, they politely requested him to discontinue his paper; expressing the opinion, at the time, that its publication was no longer consistent with public safety. Mr. Lundy complied with their request, and it was rumored, whether true or false, I know not, that he remarked, that it was a great pity that the Yankees could not mind their own business. Mr. Lundy, I believe, was a Yankee himself, but was said to be a gentlemanly, humane man. Some are no doubt ready to ask, Why was it, that the abolition excitement in the North, produced such a panic in the South? It was the revolting and shocking doctrines, which they openly promulgated. It was their notorious disregard of the laws of God and man, and all those ties which bind us together as one great nation; their denial of the right of the South to hold slave property, notwithstanding that right had been guaranteed to them by the Federal Constitution; their advocacy of the right of the slave to arise in the night and cut his master's throat; or, else, burn his house over his head; their advocacy of the right of the North to force emancipation on the South, at the point of the bayonet, &c.

It was these monstrous doctrines and assumptions, which were then, and are to the present day, avowed and defended by abolition orators, that alarmed the Southern people. It was not long before Northern abolitionists were detected in circulating through the South, exciting and incendiary publications, on the subject of slavery, and in some instances, intermeddling with slaves, and trying to incite insurrections among them. These things inflamed the public mind more and more in the South. Legislatures met, and enacted laws still more stringent for the punishment of such offenders; for the suppression of public discussion; and they, withal, threw so many restrictions around those who held slaves that in most of the states, emancipation became exceedingly difficult, and in some of them, absolutely impracticable. These are historical facts, and they are worth more than a volume of any man's speculations on the subject of slavery. They speak for themselves, and require but little comment from me. Who was it that crushed in embryo, the reform which was in progress thirty-five years ago? It was the abolitionists, and every one is aware of it, who is informed on the subject; and intelligent men among the abolitionists know it, as well as any one else. The officious inter-meddling of abolitionists with Southern slavery, never has, and never can effect anything for the slave; it has served but to retard emancipation, and to rivet the chains of slavery. This opinion has been expressed a thousand times, by the wisest and best men, that our nation has ever produced--men, who enjoyed the best opportunities for forming correct opinions on the subject. Henry Clay said, in a letter, written in 1845, "I firmly believe that the cause of the extinction of negro slavery, far from being advanced, has been retarded by the agitation of the subject at the North."

I believe slavery to be an individual and a national evil--a dire calamity--and would rejoice to see it extinguished by any means compatible with the safety, peace and prosperity of the nation, the best interests of master and slave; and in the fear of God Almighty, before whose bar I know that I must shortly appear, I sincerely, firmly and solemnly believe, that if the free states had stood aloof, and left the discussion and disposition of it entirely to the slave states, several states which are now slave states, and are likely to remain so, would have long since made provisions for the emancipation of their slaves. And I moreover believe, that if the North would now desist from all interference with it, the evil would be eradicated from the United States, some hundreds of years sooner than it will be, provided she persists in her present course. This is a legitimate conclusion from the foregoing historical facts. Abolitionists can do nothing, and men of intelligence well know it, that will mitigate the evils of slavery, or eradicate it from the South. It is entirely beyond their reach, they cannot control it; and if the object of intelligent men in the North was the abolition of slavery, they would cease to agitate the subject. But that is not their object. I allude to the leaders of that party--the politicians, and not the common people, for they are sincere. What then is their object? It is to produce a dissolution of the Union; a separation of the Northern and Southern sections of the United States, civil war, blood-shed, the sacking and burning of cities, devastations, brother imbruing his hands in the blood of brother, the father shedding the blood of his son, and the son that of the father! Yea, and ten thousand other evils and calamities, of which they, themselves, have never dreamed. Is this abolitionism? Great God! what a picture--and the half has not been told! From whence did it spring? "By whom begot?" It is an offspring of New England infidelity. It was born in fanaticism, and nurtured in violence and disorder. It opposes and violates the commands of God, and is full of strife and pride. Its course is unchristian, impolitic and hypocritical; it is alike hostile to religion and republicanism; it rejects the Bible and the constitution of our country, and under the pretense of higher law, it abrogates all law! This is abolitionism, but all is not yet told. Be patient, reader, and perhaps before I bring this essay to a close, I shall succeed in disclosing its anti-christian and anti-republican tendencies; its seditious spirit; its self will, pride and contumacy; its duplicity and hypocrisy; its cruelties, horrors and woes.

Should they succeed in dissolving the Union, what would they accomplish thereby? Would they by dissolving the Union emancipate a solitary slave in the South? No, not one. The South would then set up for itself, and the North for itself.

We would then have a Southern confederacy, and a Northern confederacy; each separate and independent of the other. The North would then have no more control or influence over the South; nor yet the South over the North, than England has over America, or America over England. But what has now become of the institution of slavery in the South? There it is, just as it was, before the dissolution of the Union was accomplished. And the Northern portion of the Union has lost all her control--all her influence over the South; which influence, she might have exerted for the benefit of the slave, if the Union had not been dissolved, and her course towards the South had been kind, conciliatory and pacific. It is all very plain--so clear, that it requires but a little common sense to comprehend the whole matter. It is clear then--clear as the noon-day sun, that the object of the leaders of the abolition party is not the abolition of slavery. Office, is the god they worship. Elevation to office, and self aggrandizement, is their ultimate object. If they can strengthen their party, and agitate the subject of slavery, until they bring about a dissolution of the Union, then Hale will be president of the Northern confederacy, Julian, vice-president, and Giddings, I suppose, prime minister. Would not Joshua cut a sorry figure, in that high and responsible office! Prince John, I suppose, would be attorney general. The little magician, John's daddy, would be thrown overboard, for no party, I think, will ever trust him again.

But only once let them get snugly fixed in their fat offices, and we shall then hear nothing more about Southern slavery from them, for the very good reason, that they care nothing about it. They have tried various expedients, and fallen upon various plans, in order to accomplish their diabolical purposes, but they have made the discovery, that either the whig, or the democratic party must be dissolved--annihilated; before they can possibly succeed. They base this conclusion on the supposition, that the fragments of the demolished party will unite with them. Well, one of the two great parties must be dissolved; but the democratic party being strong, and well organized, it was vain for them to expect aid from that quarter; but, it was otherwise with the whig party; and from this source they had reason to hope for aid. Hence, they labored hard in the recent presidential canvass, to defeat the whig nominee; believing that it was at least probable, that if General Scott was defeated, the whig party would in that event dissolve, and a large majority of the voters belonging to that party would fall into their ranks. If the whig party should hang together, and God grant they may, if for no other reason, to avert a calamity so awful, then are they again destined to meet with defeat and discomfiture, as heretofore. It is true that the whig party may not have entire confidence in their rivals, the democratic party; they may doubt the propriety of some of the measures advocated by them--the purity of the motives of some of their leaders. They may raise many objections to the democratic party, but I assure you, my whig friends, that there is more patriotism in Col. Benton's or Gen. Cass's little finger, as well as some others of the same party, whom I could name, than there is in every abolition politician on this continent. If you must leave your own party, I pray you go over to the democratic ranks, or else, stand neutral; but for God's sake, and for the sake of our common country, never be found in the abolition ranks. Keep clear of them--stand aloof--come not near them--have nothing to do with them. I am not advising the whig party to disband; on the contrary, I believe that the interests of the country will be subserved by their hanging together as a band of brothers. It is only on the supposition, that you must and will bolt, that I give you this advice.

The formation and organization of parties must and will take place, in all governments; and under these circumstances, it becomes our duty to guard against those moral and political evils, which are generated or brought about by selfish or corrupt partisans. I think it probable, that the present organization of parties into whig and democratic, is the best and safest that we could have; and for this reason, I have no wish to see either party dissolved. I am well aware, that when party prejudices and prepossessions are carried to excess, a vast deal of evil may grow out of them; but keep party spirit within clue bounds, and parties exert a salutary influence on government.

It is true, that such men as Hale, Julian and Giddings, would be likely to receive office from the hands of any party to which they might choose to attach themselves; but it is not less true, that ambitious men are rarely satisfied, unless there is a prospect of their reaching the pinnacle of fame. Elect such men to a State legislature, and they fix their eyes on the lower house of Congress, elect them to the lower house of Congress, and they fix their eyes on the United States Senate; elect them to the upper house of Congress, and they fix their eyes on the presidency; elect them to the presidency, and they are not yet satisfied--yea, they would then dethrone the Eternal, if possible.

I will close my remarks for the present on abolitionism, with a summary of my leading objections to it. I am opposed to it, because it proposes to abolish slavery by any means, and at any cost, be the consequences what they may. Because it would abolish slavery at any cost, and at any hazard; though it plunges us into a thousand evils, infinitely worse than African slavery.

I am opposed to the abolitionists, because they trample under foot the Constitution and laws of their country. The following sentiment is found in a report, offered to an abolition convention, recently in session, in Boston: "Anti-slavery shall sweep over the ruins of the Constitution and the Union, when a fairer edifice, than our lathers knew how to build, shall rise."

I am opposed to them, because they have in some instances made attempts to foment insurrections, and to incite the slaves to indiscriminate murder and rapine.

I am opposed to them, because they have decoyed away slaves from their masters, and have at the same time encouraged slaves to steal from their masters and others.

I am opposed to them, because of their utter and notorious disregard of truth, in their representations of Southern slavery.

I am opposed to them, because they reject the Bible, and profess to be under the guidance of a higher law. I was at a loss for some time to know from what source they derived their higher law; but looking over a Cincinnati paper a few days since, I read as follows: "The infidels celebrated the birth-day of Thomas Paine on the night," &c. A gentleman remarked, "that it was through the spread of Paine's opinions, that he expected to see the colored race elevated, and through this instrumentality alone." Vain hope!

I am opposed to them, because their plans, so far from bringing about the abolition of slavery, will but rivet the chains on the slave, and bring disaster on both master and slave. Because it strews the paths of both master and slave with difficulties and dangers. Because their interference makes slaves more impertinent and unhappy, frequently subjecting them to harsh and cruel treatment.

I am opposed to their theories and views, because they are illogical, and because so far as there is any truth in them, it is abstract truth, and not real truth, as modified by circumstances. Because they refuse to view things as they are, but rather as they should be, and are utterly reckless as to results and consequences.

And finally, I am opposed to them, because there is no fairness, justice, truth, or righteousness in them. The following is from the Detroit Free Press; and I shall give it without comment. It is headed "THE MORALITY OF NEGRO-STEALING."

"A novice might suppose, in witnessing the chuckle of satisfaction that has been noticeable among a certain class of people hereabouts within a few days back, that stealing is a virtue, and that the receiver of stolen goods is, _par excellence_, a model Christian. And even a man of some experience in the world might doubt the morality of the precept "to do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you," in view of the effrontery and impudence of those who regard negro stealing as a Christian duty.

"A paper in this city, which professes that the free soil party do not aim to attack the institution of slavery in those states where it exists, unblushingly published a few days since the proceedings of a meeting of free negroes, held on the occasion of the arrival here of a quantity of runaway negroes from some of the Southern States. We say, unblushingly, because more than usual prominence was given to the proceedings in its columns.

"Now, there is no difference, under the Constitution and laws, between stealing negroes from Kentucky and stealing horses from Kentucky. The Constitution of the United States and the laws of Kentucky hold one not less criminal than the other; and a paper in this city would be just precisely as justifiable in publishing the proceedings of a horse stealing society as the proceedings of a negro stealing society. There is not less guilt involved in the one than the other.

"For our own part we are disposed to call things by their right names. We believe that he who would be guilty of aiding and abetting the escape of a negro from his master, would not hesitate to steal any other property if he could do it with equal safety to himself. The fact that slaveholding is a sin does not change the nature of the offense, because the Bible doctrine of submission to the powers that be, is a plain and unequivocal duty. Negro stealing is as much a violation of the law of God as of the law of a Southern State.

"But we have not much faith in the Christianity of those abolitionists who steal negroes. And the receiver of stolen goods is equally guilty with the thief. Tom Corwin was not far out of the way (and it must be conceded that Mr. Corwin has had abundant opportunities to know) when he declared that 'they (the abolitionists) are a whining, canting, praying set of fellows who keep regular books of debit and credit with the Almighty.' 'They will,' he says, 'lie and cheat all the week, and pray off their sins on Sunday. If they steal a negro, that makes a very large entry to their credit, and will cover a multitude of peccadilloes and frauds. This kind of entry they are always glad to make, because it costs them nothing.' 'But,' adds Mr. Corwin, and this is the severest cut of all, 'when they cannot steal a negro they give something in charity for the extension of the gospel, and then commence a system of fraud and cheating, till they think they have balanced accounts with their God.' For once we believe Mr. Corwin has told the truth."