Part 1

THE WAY TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.

BY CHARLES STEARNS,

AUTHOR OF

"FACTS IN THE LIFE OF GEN. TAYLOR, &C.," "TAYLOR, CASS AND VAN BUREN COMPARED," AND "ENCROACHMENTS OF THE SLAVE-POWER UPON THE RIGHTS OF THE NORTH."

BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 1849.

FOR SALE BY BELA MARSH, NO. 25 CORNHILL.

INTRODUCTION.

After the flood of light respecting the evils of the execrable system of chattel Slavery, thrown upon the minds of the community by eighteen years of Anti-Slavery preaching; it would seem almost a work of supererogation to attempt to cast any more light upon the subject; therefore in this work, nothing will be said in reference to this part of the subject; but every effort will be made to convince the reader of the efficacy of the remedy here proposed.

It will be necessary to say at the commencement of this work, that the author is no politician, and does not write for party purposes; neither is he the agent, or the organ of any Anti-Slavery society, but writes on his own authority, and that of truth; being responsible to no man for what he shall assert.

My object is to present to the public mind, what I deem to be the only true and effectual remedy for the terrible disease of Slavery. If in doing this, you are condemned, reader, judge not hastily that I am wrong; but give me a candid and impartial hearing. In the language of the apostle, "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good."

I am not a disunionist, from any wish to see anarchy casting its direful shade over our land; but from a sincere desire to prevent "confusion worse confounded" from reigning in our midst, as most assuredly will be the case if Slavery exists many years longer. Let us then "give the pull, the long pull, and the pull altogether," and drag this terrific monster from his hiding place between the walls of the sanctuary, and the halls of legislation, giving him no rest, until he flees from earth, back to perdition from whence he sprang.

THE AUTHOR.

THE WAY TO ABOLISH SLAVERY.

Slavery is the medium through which the corrupt passions of men flow with resistless power. Beneath its influence every plant of virtue sickens and dies. Its putrid form taints the air which we breathe, and exhales all manner of foul odors, which render it so obnoxious to truth and purity, that these angels would speedily end its existence, if it were not for the support it derives from other sources than itself. Although coarse and brawny in its outward appearance, yet it is within full of disease; and nothing but continual doses of medicine enable it to present the appearance of life. It is said that a celebrated magnetiser, once preserved a dead body from putrefaction for a long time, by the power of magnetism. At length he withdrew the magnetising power, and the body instantly crumbled to atoms. Thus with Slavery; withdraw the enchantments from it, which priests, politicians, and speculators have thrown around it, and it expires of its own corruption. It lives only by this outward support, just as the virtue of some men is caused only by their being paid or praised for it. Apply, then, the finger of truth to its gigantic form; let but the mighty arm of righteousness lay hold of these sustaining influences, and sweep them from it; and it will fall as quickly as a huge statue would, if the pedestal on which it stands should be removed from under it.

Slavery, to be sure, reaches mountain high, towering over all other eminences in this nation; far above the highest steeple, or State-house cupola, (church and State;) yet tall and commanding as it is, it shall be laid lowly in the dust, if but truth can reach the props and guards which keep it alive. Herculean though it may be in strength, it shall then become powerless and impotent; the life that is in it being like the light of the moon, not its own, but derived from a source independent of itself.

What then are the props of Slavery? They may be divided into two classes, political, and religious ones; or in other words, both church and state may be regarded as sustaining the dreadful system. It is recorded in history, that at one entrance to a certain island there was stationed an immense brazen statue astride the water which lay before the island; and that there was no ingress to the city, except by sailing betwixt the legs of this statue, each foot of which rested on a promontory of the island. Imagine, then, the great giant Slavery standing with one foot on the American Church, and the other on the Union, requiring all wishing to enter the port of popularity and renown, to run this gauntlet, and you have a faint idea of Slavery. It plants its right foot firmly on the government of the United States, and receives its principal support from that; but to make its foothold firm and sure, it extends its left foot to the Church, and there finds additional support. Without these two props, it cannot exist a moment.

But let us see if it is true that it exists by the power of these two institutions. 1st. Does the church give it any support? We would bring no railing accusations against the church; all we wish to know is, does it render any support to Slavery? It will not be questioned, that in the slave-holding States Slavery is sanctioned by the church. Every one knows that slave-holding is no disqualification for church membership, throughout the entire South. Very few ministers refuse to hold Slaves, and neither ministers nor church members are ever censured for the act. The author has resided several years in two Slave States, and knows this to be the fact. He travelled and preached constantly, and was therefore in the families of a large number of religious people; and he never knew of a case where slave-holding was spoken of as rendering a man unfit for church membership. He was at many revivals of religion, and never knew a word said to any of the converts about giving up their Slaves, except what he said himself. Slave-holding was considered no more inconsistent with Christianity, than hiring servants is at the North. No man dreamed of giving up his Slaves because of his conversion. Slave-holders were the most prominent men in the churches; elders, deacons, class-leaders, stewards, and ministers. Of course if the church consider it right, the people generally will; for who ever heard of a purer public sentiment, than what the church approves of. Streams never rise higher than their fountains; and, of course, as the fountain of morals in any community is always its religion, never than the religion of that country. It is idle to expect the community to be better than its religious teachers; therefore such teachers are always regarded as more pure than the mass of the people. And the very idea of a church, is a company of people professing more purity than others; of course whatever sin is practised in accordance with the will of the church, will be by the rest of the community. If adultery was considered no disqualification for church membership, how long would it be before the land would be full of adulterers? It is plain that whatever sin takes refuge in the bosom of the church, will be practised by the world; therefore all attempts to correct any great evil are useless, as long as the church upholds them, and at the same time possesses any power. Take, for instance, intemperance. What a mighty argument it was in opposition to temperance, that church members made, sold and drank rum? And if this practice was followed universally by church members now, as it once was, what hope would there be of the progress of the temperance enterprise? As Christ says, "if the light that is in the world be darkness, how great is that darkness." The church lays claim to being the representation of Christianity, the embodiment of virtue. It says, "we are holy and inspired; if you speak against us you blaspheme God, for we are his children."

Then, of course, if it upholds Slavery, it says that it is a good and divine institution; perfectly adapted to promote the welfare of mankind. If the church forbade the practice of slave-holding, as it does those of drunkenness, adultery, theft and murder, and excommunicated those practising it, as it does those guilty of the above sins, the case would be far different, even if its members were in the habit secretly of practising it. If it even preached against Slavery, it would be a different matter; but instead of that, we have ministers justifying it from the Bible, and exhorting Slaves to obey their masters, because God requires it, and threatening them with hell, if they disobey them. Then we have the spectacle of a large church at the South, seceding from its northern brethren, because the latter did not like to have a bishop hold Slaves! They would not remain in connection with a church at all opposed to Slavery.

But all this you may say does not apply to the northern churches. Well, if the northern churches countenance the southern in slave-holding, it certainly does. If they recognize them as Christian churches, receive their ministers as Christian ministers, and forbear reproving them for their sins, then is the northern church guilty of upholding Slavery. And it gives a double sanction to it; for it says we believe Slavery is not incompatible with Christian character; and we have been brought up away from its influence. It does more to support the vile system, than even southern churches themselves; for southerners expect those brought up under the influence of Slavery, will think it lawful; but when they see churches living away from its place of existence, countenancing it and fellowshipping it, they conclude at once it cannot be wrong. Why the churches of the North should countenance it, what motive they have in so doing, is not for us to say now. The great and appalling fact stands out before the world, that there is scarcely a church throughout the whole of the free North, but what is in some way in fellowship with Slavery. If they do not fellowship southern churches, they do northern churches, which give the right hand of fellowship to southern ones. And where is the church at the North, the members of which are all out-spoken Abolitionists? Is there scarcely a church where "no union with slave-holders" is made a test of admission? We have never heard of but one, and that the church of the Covenanters in Pennsylvania. To be sure, the Wesleyans will not recognise the southern churches, as Christians; but they will fellowship those that do; exchange with their ministers, and receive their members, and more than all, allow their members to vote for slave-holders, even for Gen. Taylor! Certainly, no church can be Anti-Slavery which has members who voted for that king of southern slave-holders! That this is true, witness the case of Seth Sprague, of Duxbury, who is a Wesleyan, and made almost the first speech in favor of Gen. Taylor made in the State. But all our churches contain such men, and certainly are upholding Slavery. Witness the great number of ministers in this State, who voted for Gen. Taylor. Drs. of Divinity, as well as those less honorable; and some illuminated their houses in honor of his election, as in the case of Dr. E., of Salem. Others preached sermons in favor of the act, as in the case of Dr. S., of North Brookfield. Probably there is scarcely a church throughout New England, all the members of which, who voted at all, voted against the extension of Slavery.

Before proceeding to comment upon the guilt of the church, in this respect, let us for one moment consider the terrible situation of the poor Slave, as hurried from his family, he is transferred to the chain-gang of a negro driver, to be transported to California, or New Mexico. "Husband, where are you going?" plaintively enquires the sorrow-stricken wife, as he is knocked off upon the auction block to the highest bidder, and returns to bid farewell to his companion. "Wife, I know not! Farewell! farewell!" responds the sobbing husband; and away he is hurried from her presence, and perhaps beaten for speaking to his wife. An eye witness of these scenes, and one who has himself been separated from his mother, says he has known the driver beat with sticks the husband and wife as they clung around each other's necks, just before parting. The author at one time, while travelling in Kentucky, met a Slave who seemed very much dejected. He stopped and asked him what the matter was. "Oh," said he, "I have been to take leave of my wife, who has just been sent off to Missouri to live with my young mistress, lately married, and I never expect to see her again, as long as I live!"

What must be the humanity of these persons who cannot feel for the poor Slave in such conditions as these? No one denies that these things continually happen at the South; and yet but little sympathy is excited in consequence. The hearts of the people have become as hard as adamant. Their sensibilities are totally blunted. They are destitute of all feeling.

What a picture has just been presented before this nation! A new territory, free from Slavery, demands protection from its awful curse. A large majority of all the people in the United States, treat this prayer with contempt, and virtually say it shall not be granted by voting for candidates for the presidency, known to be in favor of its admission there. Here the mangled victims of Slavery, have these 50 years, lain bleeding upon the plantations of the South, loudly calling upon our government to desist from protecting their cruel masters; but their cries have been stifled by the clamor of noisy politicians, who have talked of the necessity of preserving our glorious Union, at whatever expense to the crushed and manacled Slave.

A new era seemed about to commence. The question is obtruded upon the whole country, and becomes the pivot upon which the presidential election is made to turn. Shall these cries of three millions of Slaves be made louder and more acute, or shall a barrier be interposed between them, and all increase of their sufferings? Shall Mexico be the slough of despondency, into whose terrible mire shall be cast the gasping Slave, and a new mart be opened for the gratification of men who examine the bodies of their victims, as a man does a horse he is about to purchase, and women as well as men; or shall a sword of cherubic power, guard all entrance to this country, as the angel's sword protected the garden of Eden?

This was the question brought before the people of this country at the last election, and how was it decided? Let history shrink back astonished as she pens the degrading fact, that the whole country was rocked with emotion, and reeled with the mighty efforts put forth, to place a man in the presidential chair known to be in favor of this extension. It needs no argument to prove the turpitude of such a people. Their guilt is self-evident, their hypocrisy glaring. It stares all the world in its face, like the lurid flames of hell, ascending from their subterranean enclosure. Guilt, did we say? There are no terms in the English language sufficiently strong to describe the wickedness of this transaction; and yet the _church participated in it_. No warning voice was heard from her public bodies arousing her members to opposition to this direful deed. On the contrary, many of her ministers volunteered to help forward the accursed transaction. The piety of Gen. Taylor was vouched for by reverend fathers in God; and saints of the most high, were found bowing in reverential adoration before this Juggernaut. Few and far between were the voices of single ministers, in opposition to this course; and now that the deed is done, who exclaims against it? Who comes out from the churches where these guilty men rule? Who refuses to hear ministers preach or pray who voted for Gen. Taylor? What society has yet dismissed its minister for so doing? What church has passed resolutions in opposition to the recognition of such men as Christian ministers? Why, a highway robber has as good a claim to the character of a Christian minister, as one has who voted for Gen. Taylor.

We have yet to learn of the first church ejecting a member for this flagitious transaction; and yet voting for Taylor is as much worse than common stealing, as a man is of more value than a beast or a dollar. By voting for a slave-holding warrior, you say that Slavery is right, reputable, and worthy of praise. Instead of frowning upon the slave-holder, as you would upon the horse-thief, you elevate him to the highest office in your gift; thus doing all in your power to render slave-holding honorable. It is just as great a crime to aid in elevating a slave-holder to the presidency, as it is to hold Slaves. It does _more_ to uphold Slavery; for it says we will heap the highest honors of society upon slave-holders. We will place them where all their influence can be used to strengthen the system; and it serves to shut the mouths of Anti-Slavery men; for it will not do to cry out against slave-holders as robbers, when our President is a slave-holder.

Besides this, a very large portion of the church cast their votes for a man pledged to go for the extension of Slavery, although not nominally a slave-holder. Gen. Cass justified the extension of Slavery, and argued in favor of the unconstitutionality of prohibiting its extension; and thousands of votes were cast for him, by church members. To their praise be it said, many church members and ministers refused to vote for either of these men; but what action have they taken in their churches in reference to those who did? If such acts as these are to be passed over, in silence, then is the _sanction of the church_ given to _slave-holding_, and the _extension of Slavery_. Recollect that the question was not, should Slavery exist at all? On that question there _might_ have been some excuse for inaction; but it was should it be _extended_ over a territory nearly half as large as the whole of the United States? It would seem as if Christians could not have hesitated a moment on this point; as if the whole host of God's elect, as the church claims to be, would have been marshalled in battle array against the myrmidons of the slave-power. But no, a death like silence pervades the entire church upon this point. It matters not to her whether Slavery "covers the earth, as the waters cover the sea," or not. Her "mission is to let it alone." To cry out against gambling, whoredom, Sabbath breaking, and such unpopular sins, is her duty; but to advance before public opinion, and create a purer one, is no part of her work. She is so engaged in saving souls, she has no time to attend to the bodies of the people. But seriously, is it not a terrible state of things when the churches of our land are asleep over such a dreadful evil? When the voice of the watchman is but faintly heard, if at all, in rebuke of the most heaven daring of crimes? We appeal to all who are in the habit of attending church. Does your minister every Sunday, exclaim against the horrid enormities of extending Slavery, to say nothing of it where it now is? Do you hear from his lips as severe denunciations of those engaged in this wicked business, as fell from the lips of Jesus Christ, as he reproved the oppressors of his day? No, you do not, only occasionally. It is considered a rare instance of courage if a minister dares to rebuke his people for having voted for Gen. Taylor?

What, then, is to be done in the matter? That the church at the North upholds Slavery can no longer be denied, for she goes farther, and upholds its extension; yea, farther yet, she countenances _fighting_ for its increased power, murdering men, women and children, that it may exist, where it could not without this fighting. O, shame on a church having in its folds a single member who cast a vote for that most wicked of men--Gen. Zachary Taylor! But declamation will avail nothing without action. We propose a remedy for all this wickedness. We call upon all true friends of the Slave to leave those churches where ministers or members voted for Taylor or Cass. Further, we invite you all to make a critical examination of your relations to Southern slave-holding churches, and see if your associations, your conferences, or your conventions, are not in league with slave-holders, or with those who are allied with them. If you belong to a church not having a single member in it who voted for Taylor or Cass; yet if your church fellowships those churches having such members, are you not a pro-slavery church? To fellowship the churches who retain pro-slavery voters, is to say that such voting is not wrong. But if you cut loose from all such relations, do you not fellowship northern churches, who have slave-holders themselves in their bounds; for instance the northern Methodist Church, having still slave-holding members?

But if you are clear from all such connections, there is still another point we beg leave to submit to your serious consideration, which brings us to the second great pillar the statue of Slavery stands upon. You have seen the influence given to the system by the church; now look at the power given to it by the _Government_. This is the principal foothold of the dreadful system. Destroy this prop, and Slavery falls; but before advancing to this position in our argument, let us see for a moment how Slavery is acknowledged by law; for it is in this relation we are about to contemplate it.

The Government of the United States creates no Slaves; it only recognises as lawful the Slavery existing in the several States, or to use the words of the Constitution, "held to service or labor, under the laws thereof." The _laws_ of the several slave-holding States are made the standard for the general government's action upon this subject. No quibble can possibly evade this, for it is not necessary to prove that a runaway Slave justly owes service to his master, but only if he does, under the _the laws of his master_. The master has made certain laws, claiming his Slaves as absolute property; the Constitution says, "persons owing service under these laws," shall be returned, thus making the most complete provision for the support of the system. The laws of the State in which the claimant lives, are the rule to go by, not the feelings of the judge, respecting the abstract question of the possibility of one human being owing compulsory service to another. It is just as much a violation of his oath, for a judge to refuse to deliver a Slave proved to be such, under the laws of the State, without "a bill of sale from the Almighty," as the Vermont judge did, as it would be to refuse to deliver the Slave _with_ the bill of sale from the Almighty. If it is the bond that we contend for so strictly, as the Jew did for the pound of flesh, we must abide by the bond, which says, not if the _Almighty_ furnishes a bill of sale, shall the Slave be delivered up; but if the _laws of the State_ say he is a Slave. The recent decision of judge Edmonds in behalf of Belt, the most favorable one on record, fully recognises this principle; and Belt owes his liberty not so much to the humanity of the judge, as to the absence of positive proof that the laws of Maryland uphold Slavery. A copy of the Slave laws of Maryland was produced, but it only said published by authority, and not by the authority of the legislature, therefore Belt was allowed to go free. The omission of one word in a book, saved Belt from the jaws of Slavery, more than any other thing. To be sure, it was proved that the master did not take legal steps after the seizure of Belt, and therefore had no right to him; but the main reason for his discharge was, not the wrongfulness of delivering him up, not because God had given Lee no _bill of sale_, but because a lawyer could not swear that a certain book was the laws of Maryland!