Chapter 3

An address from the Yearly Meeting of London on slavery was also read,[A] which was followed by observations from several, which evinced great exercise of mind on the subject. Three thousand copies of it were ordered to be printed for distribution among Friends of Pennsylvania, and the whole subject of slavery and the slave-trade was referred to their Meeting for Sufferings, with a recommendation that an account should be drawn up and printed of the former abolition of slavery within the limits of the Society of Friends. I need hardly state how much these measures were in unison with my own feelings, and that I heartily rejoiced at signs of an awakening zeal in my American brethren. Let them but ask for the ancient ways, and follow in the footsteps of their predecessors, whose memorials are their precious inheritance, and once more shall they be made a blessing to mankind, and messengers of mercy and deliverance to the oppressed.[B]

[Footnote A: See Appendix A.]

[Footnote B: See Appendix B.]

It will be interesting to some of my English readers to be informed, that both the sale and use of spirituous liquors come within the scope of discipline among "Friends" in America. In this Yearly Meeting it is required that the subordinate meetings should report the number of their members, who continue to sell, use, or give ardent spirits. If I remember rightly the number of cases reported was fifty-nine. At present the moderate use of spirits subjects to admonition, but it was discussed at this time whether the rule of discipline should not be rendered more stringent, and this practice made a disownable offence. Finally it was resolved to make no alteration at present, but to recommend the local meetings of Friends to use further labor in the line of reproof and persuasion. I am informed that some of the American Yearly Meetings of Friends go still farther on this subject. It will scarcely be questioned that public sentiment both in the United States, and in England, condemns even the moderate use of ardent spirits as a beverage, though some difference of opinion will exist as to the propriety of a religious society making it a cause of disownment or exclusion. In this case of the Philadelphia Meeting, however, it may be remarked, that in a community of many thousand members, the practice may be regarded as almost eradicated by the milder methods of persuasion. It is a fact deserving of notice, that the same worthies of the last century, Woolman, Benezet, and others, who raised the standard of anti-slavery testimony, also by the same process of independent thinking, and single-minded, unhesitating obedience to convictions of duty, anticipated the verdict of public opinion on this subject. Woolman found that even the most moderate use of ardent spirits, was unfavorable to that calm religious meditation, which was the habit of his mind, and has left his views on record in various characteristic passages. I shall also, I trust, be excused for introducing the following anecdote of two of his contemporaries.

"Jacob Lindley, to adopt his own designation of himself was a 'stripling' when he attended a Yearly Meeting of Friends held at Philadelphia; his mind had been for some time much afflicted with an observation of the pernicious effects of spirituous liquors, and he was anxious that the religious society to which he belonged, should cease to use, and prevent any of its members from being instrumental in manufacturing or vending them. He therefore rose and developed his feelings to the assembly, in the energetic and pathetic manner for which he was peculiarly remarkable. When the meeting adjourned, he observed a stranger pressing through the crowd towards him, who took him by the hand in the most affectionate manner, and said, 'My dear young friend, I was very glad to hear thy voice on the subject of spirituous liquors; I have much unity with thy concern, and hope that no discouragement may have been received from its not being farther noticed; and now I want thee to go home, and take dinner with me, having something farther to say to thee on the subject.' Lindley accepted the invitation, and after they had dined, Benezet introduced his young guest into a little room used as a study, where he produced a manuscript work on the subject of spirituous liquors, in an unfinished state; he opened the book and laid it on a table before them, saying, 'This is a treatise which I have been for some time engaged in writing, on the subject of thy concern in meeting to-day; and now if thou hast a mind to sit down, and write a paragraph or two, I will embody it in the work, and have it published.'"[A]

[Footnote A: Life of Anthony Benezet, p. 107-109.]

These eminent men, John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, had much in common; yet their characters were as unlike as opposite temperaments, and as alike as similarity of views, could make them. So marked was their coincidence of sentiment in opposition to the prevailing opinions and practices of that day, that it might be surmised one was a disciple of the other, yet there is no reason to suppose such was the case. Each had the single eye; both learned in the same school, and sat at the feet of the same Divine Master. It is an interesting fact that on the subject last noticed, their labors should have been comparatively fruitless, and for a long interval almost forgotten, while their views on slavery rapidly spread, and produced extensive and permanent results. Does not this illustrate the lesson long ago taught by a great master of wisdom: "In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thy hand; for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they shall both be alike good." May we not infer from this, that even those labors, rightly undertaken, which do not immediately prosper, are yet owned and accepted in the Divine sight?

To return from this digression to our attendance of the Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia: one interesting part of the business was the annual report on education; from which it appeared, that the whole number of children, of an age for education, within the compass of this Yearly Meeting, was eighteen hundred and fourteen, and of these ninety-eight were temporarily absent, though most of them had been receiving instruction during part of the year.

I was also deeply interested in the statements made relative to the wicked expatriation of the Indians living within this Yearly Meeting's limits, by the United States Government, from lands which had been secured to them by treaty in the most solemn manner, to the Western wilderness, under plea of a fraudulently obtained cession of their lands, by a few of their number. What greatly aggravates the case is the fact, that these Indians were making rapid progress in civilization, and from a nation of hunters had generally become an agricultural people. Their whole history is a reproach and blot on the American Government, and shews either that public and private virtue amongst the people is at a low ebb, or that "the wicked bear rule." On behalf of this injured people, "Friends" appear to have made strenuous efforts, but have failed in producing any decidedly favorable impression on the Government. The report on this subject, embodied a very affecting letter from the chiefs of this tribe, describing their grief and distress at the prospect of a cruel removal from the homes of their ancestors.[A]

[Footnote A: See Appendix C.]

During this week, my valued friends, John and Maria Candler, arrived from Hayti, after a stay of many months in Jamaica. At the close of the Yearly Meeting, a meeting was held, and attended by about three hundred "Friends," to whom John Candler gave much interesting information, detailing the results of emancipation in that Island, from his own extensive observations and inquiries. At the request of some individuals present I added a few observations at the close, on the principles and objects of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.

I visited at this time the celebrated Schuylkill waterworks, which are beautifully situated on the river of that name. The water is raised to large reservoirs, at a higher level than the tops of the houses, by pumps worked by the current of the river. The supply not only suffices for the domestic use of the inhabitants, but is abundant for every public purpose of ornament or utility. My kind host, Samuel Webb, who accompanied me, pointed out a plot of land, presented by William Penn to a friend, to enable him to keep a cow, which is now worth many hundred thousand dollars for building purposes. He also showed me a mansion, the late proprietor of which had received a large accession of wealth from the quantities of plate which had been shipped to him in coffee barrels from St. Domingo, on the eve of the revolution in that Island, and whose owners are supposed to have subsequently perished, as they never appeared, with one solitary exception, to claim their property.

It will be necessary, in order to make certain passages of the succeeding narrative intelligible to my readers in this country, that some account should be given of the schism which has recently taken place in the once united and compact organizations of the abolitionists.

The American Anti-Slavery Society, whose origin has been already described, acted with great unity and efficiency for several years; auxiliaries were formed in all the free States; it scattered its publications over the land like the leaves of autumn, and at times had thirty or forty lecturers in the field. It kept a steady and vigilant eye upon the movements of the pro-slavery party, and wherever a vulnerable point was discovered, it directed its attacks. In its executive committee were such men as Judge Jay, Arthur and Lewis Tappan, La Roy Sunderland, Simeon S. Jocelyn, (the early laborer on behalf of the free colored people,) Joshua Leavitt, Henry B. Stanton, and the late Dr. Follen, a German political refugee, equally distinguished for his literary attainments and his love of liberty.

Until the last three or four years, entire union of purpose and concert of action existed among the American abolitionists. This harmony was first disturbed by the course pursued in the Boston Liberator. The editor of that paper, William Lloyd Garrison, whose early anti-slavery career has already been alluded to, and who was deservedly honored by the great body of the abolitionists, for his sufferings in their cause, and for his triumphant exposure of the oppressive tendencies of the colonization scheme, had always refused to share with any society or committee, the editorial responsibility of his journal. About the time referred to, several pieces were inserted in the _Liberator_, questioning the generally received opinions on the first day of the week. These were followed by others on other subjects, and he continued to keep his readers apprised of the new views of ethics and theology, which from time to time were presented to his own mind. His paper was not the special organ of any anti-slavery society, yet it was regarded, by general consent of the friends and enemies of the cause, as the organ of the anti-slavery movement. The discussion in its columns of new and startling doctrines, on subjects unconnected with slavery, occasioned many of the former much uneasiness and embarrassment, while it furnished the latter with new excuses for their enmity, and with the pretence that under cover of _abolition_, lurked a design of assailing institutions and opinions justly held in regard throughout the Christian world.

In the summer of 1837, Sarah and Angelina Grimke visited New England for the purpose of advocating the cause of the slave, with whose condition they were well acquainted, being natives of South Carolina, and having been themselves at one time implicated in the system. Their original intention was to confine their public labors to audiences of their own sex, but they finally addressed promiscuous assemblies. Their intimate knowledge of the true character of slavery; their zeal, devotion, and gifts as speakers, produced a deep impression, wherever they went. They met with considerable opposition from colonizationists, and also from a portion of the New England clergy, on the ground of the impropriety of their publicly addressing mixed audiences. This called forth in the Liberator, which at that time, I understand, was under the patronage, though I believe not under the control of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, a discussion of the abstract question of the entire equality of the rights and duties of the two sexes. Here was a new element of discord. In 1838, at the annual New England convention of abolitionists, a woman was for the first time placed on committees with men, an innovation upon the general custom of the community, which excited much dissatisfaction in the minds of many.

About this time the rightfulness of civil and church government began to be called in question, through the columns of the Liberator, by its editor and correspondents. These opinions were concurrently advocated with the doctrine of non-resistance. Those who hold these opinions, while they deny that civil and ecclesiastical government are of divine authority, are yet passively submissive to the authority of the former, though they abstain from exercising the political rights of citizenship. There were not wanting those, among the opponents of abolition, to charge the anti-slavery body at large with maintaining these views, and in consequence serious embarrassments were thrown in the way of a successful prosecution of the cause. The executive committee of the Society at New York were placed in a difficult position, but as far as I am able to judge, they endeavored to hold on the steady tenor of their way, without, on the one hand, countenancing the introduction of extraneous matters upon the anti-slavery platform; or, on the other hand, yielding to the clamor of the pro-slavery party, whether in church or state.

In subsequent anti-slavery meetings in Boston, New York, and elsewhere, it became manifest that there was a radical difference of opinion on the subject of political action; the non-resistant and no-government influence, operating decidedly against the employment of the elective franchise in the anti-slavery cause; and the agitation of this question, as well as that of the rights of women, in their meetings, gave to them a discordant and party character, painfully contrasting with the previous peaceful and harmonious action of the societies. That some of both parties began to overlook the great subject of the slaves' emancipation, in zealous advocacy of, or opposition to, these new measures, I cannot well doubt, judging from the testimony of those, who, not fully sympathizing with either, endeavored to bring all back to the single object of the anti-slavery association. In addition to these intestine troubles, the pro-slavery party made strenuous exertions to fasten upon the society the responsibility of the opinions and proceedings of its non-resistant and no-government members. Under these circumstances it is easy to understand the interruption, for a season, of the unity of feeling and action which had previously characterized the assemblies of the abolitionists. The actual separation in the societies took place in the Spring of 1840. The members of the executive committee at New York, with one exception, seceded and became members of the committee of the "new organization," under the name of the "American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society." There are, therefore, now two central or national anti-slavery societies; the "old organization," retaining the designation of the "American Anti-Slavery Society." The State Societies have, for the most part, taken up a position of neutrality, or independence of both. It is important to add that the division took place on the "women's rights" question, and that this is the only one of the controverted points which the American Anti-Slavery Society has officially affirmed; and it is argued, on behalf of their view of this question, that since, in the original "constitution" of the society, the term, describing its members, officers, et cet., is "persons," that women are plainly invested with the same eligibility to appointments, and the same right to vote and act as the other sex. I need not say how this "constitutional" argument is met on the other side. The other new views are held by comparatively few persons, and neither anti-slavery society in America is responsible for them. In conclusion, I rejoice to be able to add, that the separation, in its effects, appears to have been a healing measure; a better and kinder feeling is beginning to pervade all classes of American abolitionists; the day of mutual crimination seems to be passing away, and there is strong reason to hope that the action of the respective societies will henceforward harmoniously tend to the same object. That such may be the result is my sincere desire. It is proper in this connection to state that a considerable number of active and prominent abolitionists do not entirely sympathize with either division of the anti-slavery society; and there are comparatively few who make their views, for or against the question on which the division took place, a matter of conscience.

I have now given a brief, and I trust an impartial account of the origin of these dissensions. Some may possibly regard the views and proceedings above referred to, as the natural growth of abolitionism, but as well might the divisions among the early reformers be charged upon the doctrines of the Reformation, or the "thirty years' war" upon the preaching of Luther.

On the evening of the 14th instant, we met at a social party the leading abolitionists of Philadelphia of the "old organization." There were present all but one of the delegates from Pennsylvania to the London Convention. I availed myself of the opportunity of briefly and distinctly stating the unanimous conclusion of the London Anti-Slavery Committee, in which I entirely concurred, on the points at issue. I observed, in substance, that in the struggle for the liberation of the slaves in the British Colonies, one great source of our moral strength was, the singleness of our object, and our not allowing any other subject, however important or unexceptionable, to be mixed up with it; that though the aid of our female coadjutors had been of vital importance to the success of the anti-slavery enterprize, yet that their exertions had been uniformly directed by separate committees of their own sex, and that the abolitionists of Europe had no doubt that their united influence was most powerful in this mode of action: that the London Committee being convinced that no female delegate had crossed the Atlantic, under the belief that the "call" or invitation was intended to include women, felt themselves called upon, without in the slightest degree wishing to interfere with private opinion on this, or any other subject, to withhold their assent to the reception of such delegates, as members of the Convention, and that their decision, when appealed against, had been ratified in the Convention itself, by an overwhelming majority, after a protracted discussion: finally, that those whose views I represented, could not be parties to the introduction, in any future convention, of this or any other question, which we deemed foreign to our cause, and therefore that for those with whom it was a point of conscience to carry out what they deemed "women's rights," I saw no alternative but a separate organization, in which I wished that their efforts on behalf of the oppressed colored race, might be crowned with the largest measure of success. I observed, in conclusion, that my object was simply to state the decision of those with whom I acted in Great Britain, and that I must decline discussion, being fully convinced that it was better that the now separate societies should aim at the common object, in a spirit of kind and friendly co-operation, each in its own sphere, rather than that they should waste their energies in mutual contentions, and in the unprofitable discussion of topics not legitimately belonging to the great question of the abolition of slavery.

Although I had to address a company almost unanimously opposed on these points to myself, my communication was received in a kind and friendly spirit, and I was courteously informed that it would be taken into consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.

My friend, Daniel Neall, at whose house this interview took place, is a venerable looking man, a native of Delaware, and son-in-law of the excellent Warner Mifflin. He has been an abolitionist from his boyhood. Two years ago, he was dragged from the house of a friend in Delaware, and tarred and feathered, and otherwise mal-treated by a mob of slave-holders and their abettors; he mildly told those near him that if they would call at his house at Philadelphia, he would treat them in a very different manner. He was president of the Pennsylvania Hall Association, and in the terrible mobs of 1838, manifested a calm, quiet courage, as rare as it is commendable.

I remained in Philadelphia until the morning of the 28th, and during this interval paid many visits, and obtained much information, on the state of the anti-slavery feeling in this city, and more particularly amongst the members of the religious community to which I belong. On one occasion an esteemed individual kindly invited a number of "Friends" to meet me at his house, including some who object to uniting in anti-slavery effort with those of other denominations. I was introduced by the reading of a certificate of membership from the monthly meeting to which I belong, and also a document from a number of "Friends" in England, well known to those in America, commending me, and the cause in which I was engaged, to their kind and favorable consideration.

I then briefly related the leading objects of my visit to America, and that it was my anxious wish the members of my own religious society in this land, could see it their place to take the same active and prominent part in the anti-slavery cause, as their brethren in England had done, especially as the principles on which the British and Foreign and the American and Foreign Societies were founded, were entirely in accordance with the views of the Society of Friends. Those who spoke in reply mostly vindicated the course pursued in the United States. From this interview, as well as from others of a more private nature, with leading "Friends," I came to the conclusion, that a number of these would continue, by their influence and advice, to oppose their fellow members joining anti-slavery societies, though it is not probable that any disciplinary proceedings would be taken against such who might act in opposition to this counsel, so long as the recognized principles of the Society were not compromised. On this, to me, painfully interesting subject, I could dwell at length, but I will simply remark that, while it is evident that anti-slavery feeling is at too low an ebb among "Friends" here, yet doubtless, many of those who thus excuse themselves from active and effective service in the cause, still deeply sympathize with their oppressed fellow-men, and are not quite at ease in view of the apathy and inaction of the body to which they belong.

On the 28th we arrived at Baltimore; during a stay of two or three days, we found several persons who were friendly to our cause. There are computed to be five thousand slaves in this city, but of course slavery does not obtrude itself on the casual observer. Here, as in other countries, he who would see it as it is, must view it on the plantations.