Discussion on American Slavery. Thompson George
alone, should be blamed, let him reside where he might. Having thus disposed of the first branch of his argument, he was naturally led to explain the wonderful phenomenon of Mr. Thompson's reception in America – to give a reason why that reception was so different from what the same gentleman met with in Glasgow. Mr. Thompson had taken up the question as one of civil organization. Now the fact was, that the American nation was divided into two parties on the subject, namely, the pro-slavery, and the anti-slavery parties. One party said, let it alone; the other, and by far the most numerous party, said, something ought to be done in relation to it. In the last named class, was to be included the population of all the non-slaveholding states. He declared, in the presence of God, his conviction, that there was not a sane man in the free states who did not wish the world rid of slavery. He believed the same of a large minority in the states in which slavery existed. The pro-slavery party themselves were also divided. One section, and he rejoiced to add, a small one, called into exertion in fact only by that effervesence which had been produced by the violence of Mr. T's friends – spoke of slavery as an exceedingly good thing – as not only consistent with the law of God, but as absolutely necessary for the advancement of civilization. This party was organised within the last few years, and met the violence of Mr. Thompson's party by a corresponding violence, as a beam naturally seeks its balance. Another section of the pro-slavery party, considered slavery a great evil, and wished that it were abolished, but they did not see how this could be effected. They had been born in a state of society where it had an existence, and they could see no course to adopt but to let it cure itself. These were the two sections into which the supporters of slavery were divided. The anti-slavery party was also composed of individuals who had different views of the subject. The one class had been called Gradualists, Emancipationists, and Colonizationists. – The other were called Abolitionists. With the latter class, Mr. Thompson had identified himself. And now, as while in America, by his praises of Mr. Garrison, and all their leaders, his abuse of their opponents, and his efforts to chain the British public, hand and foot, to them and their projects, shows his continued devotion to them. He would refer to this party again, but, in the mean time, he would only say, that its members manifested far more honesty than wisdom. In 1833, the abolitionists held a Convention in Philadelphia, at which they drew up a Declaration of Independence – a declaration which he dared to say Mr. Thompson cherished as the apple of his eye; but which had been more effectual in raising mobs than ever witch was in raising the wind. The document of which he spoke announced three principles, to the promulgation of which, the members of the Convention pledged their lives and their fortunes. A number of the particulars specified, in support of which they said they would live and die, went to change materially the laws and Constitution of the United States, and yet it was pretended that this was not a political question! Their first principle was, that every human being has an instant right to be free, irrespective of all consequences; and incapable of restriction or modification. The second was like unto it, that the right of citizenship, inherent in every man, in the spot where he is born, is so perfect, that to deprive him of its exercise in any way whatever – even by emigration, under strong moral constraint, is a sin. Their third principle was, that all prejudice against color was sinful; and that all our judgments and all our feelings towards others should be regulated exclusively by their moral and intellectual worth. Mr. B. said he stated these principles from memory only – as he did most of the facts on which he relied. But he was willing to stand or fall, in both countries, upon the substantial accuracy of his statements. Mr. Breckinridge here closed his address, the period allotted to him having expired.
Mr. THOMPSON was anxious to lay before the meeting documentary testimony, in preference to any thing he could say himself. Rather than set forth his own views, as he had done on many former occasions, he wished to bring forward such documents as even his opponent would admit to be really American. He pledged himself to show that this was an American question. He was not prepared for this branch of the subject, because he had not expected that Mr. Breckinridge would exonerate America from the charge of being a slaveholding nation; nevertheless, he was perfectly ready to take it up. He would undertake to prove that the existence of slavery in the United States was the result of a compromise – that the Constitution of the United States was, in fact, based upon a compromise, in relation to this subject. At the time when the Constitution was agreed to, the then slaveholding states refused to come into what was called the confederacy of republics, unless slaveholding was permitted. At that time there were only three hundred thousand slaves in the Union; now there were two millions and a half. So much, said Mr. Thompson, for what the good and influential men of the South, spoken of by Mr. Breckinridge, had done for the abolition of slavery. Then there were three hundred thousand; now there were two million four hundred thousand. The method by which these good and influential people had gone about extirpating slavery, had been an Irish method; it had shown distinctly the extent of their zeal and usefulness. Why, setting aside their influence altogether, they might, had they been as numerous as represented by his respected opponent, have manumitted as many of their own slaves. It was said, no doubt, that the laws prevented this; but who made the laws? The child could not do what her mamma had commanded her to do, because she was tied to the mahogany table, she could only answer, when asked who tied her, that it was herself. In like manner, he could turn round on those whom his respected opponent represented, as haters of slavery. Emancipationists they wished to be called; colonizationists they ought to be called. He would ask them, what had they done? Had they not compromised every principle of justice and truth, by permitting slaveholding in their Union? Had they not even bestowed exclusive privileges on the slaveholders? Had they not bestowed on them such privileges as that, even now, they sent twenty-four or twenty-five representatives to Congress more than their proportion? His respected opponent had said this was not a national question. Why, then, send six thousand bayonets to the South for the protection of the slaveholder? Why were the American people taxed in order to maintain bayonets, blunderbusses, and artillery in the South? Not a national question! Why, then, was Missouri admitted a member of the Union – Missouri a slaveholding State, admitted by the votes of the Northern republics. Mr. Breckinridge had fought very shy of the state of the Capital, and the power of Congress to suppress the internal traffic in slaves. He (Mr. Thompson) trusted, however, that this branch of the subject would be taken up. His opponent himself, in a letter addressed to the New York Evangelist, had stated, that Congress possessed full power to suppress the internal traffic in slaves; and yet they did it not. There was in fact no question at all respecting the power of the Congress, in this matter; yet it was said the question of slavery was not national. The people of the Northern states, – the slavery-hating, liberty-loving people of the Northern states had said they would fight shoulder to shoulder with the Slaveholders of the South, should the slaves dare to rise and say they were men, and after all this, it was asserted that this was not a national question. Mr. Breckinridge had said, that he (Mr. Thompson) got all his information at second hand. He might have told the reason why; he knew, however, that such a revelation would have been awful. He knew that pious men, advocates of the cause of abolition had been hanged, butchered, their backs ploughed up by Presbyterian elders; and if such had been done towards natives of New England, what could a stranger such as he have expected? He (Mr. T.) had, it seems, got all at second hand. He would tell the meeting where he had obtained some of his information. From Mr. Breckinridge himself; and he must say, that sounder or juster views respecting slavery – or a more complete justification of the mission in which he (Mr. T.) had been so lately engaged, could scarcely be met with. This was evidence which he had no fear could be ruled out of court. It was that of the friend and defender of America. Mr. T. then read the following passage from a speech delivered by Mr. Breckinridge: —
What, then, is slavery? for the question relates to the action of certain principles on it, and to its probable and proper results; what is slavery as it exists among us? We reply, it is that condition enforced by the laws of one half of the states of this confederacy, in which one portion of the community, called masters, is allowed such power over another portion called slaves; as
1. To deprive them of the entire earnings of their own labor, except only so much as is necessary to continue labor itself, by continuing healthful existence, thus committing clear robbery.
2. To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubinage, by denying to them the civil rights of marriage; thus breaking up the dearest relations of life, and encouraging universal prostitution.
3. To