his ardor for reform, (an ardor which only expired with his life) he was full of loyalty and subordination.
he rests with jesus;
"glory to god in the highest;
and on earth,
peace, good will, towards men."
SECTION V
The preceding history, and the circumstances around me, force an additional topic upon my attention.
Granville Sharp has been quoted as a favorer of colonization—and even of such colonization, as the Colonization Society of the United States is now conducting. I know not whether the Virginia and Maryland colonization plans, have equally claimed him.
What is the fact? How shall we get at it? Where is our evidence?
We must seek it, I presume, 1st from the well known and ruling principles of his mind—2d from his own correspondence or memoranda, as far as we have access to them—3d, from a fair comparison between Sierra Leone and Liberia—4th, by examining together, the fundamental principles of the two establishments—5th, from an impartial consideration of the national state of mind, in both cases—and 6th, from the general character of their most congenial advocates.
Let us however understand our terms before we proceed.
By colonization, we mean, not such as William Penn's. The first settlement of Pennsylvania is a colonial oasis—no more like colonies in general, than the fresh springs of the desert, are like the burning sands, which surround them. We mean not missionary establishments, such as adorn the islands of the Pacific, or such as pour over the hunted and scorched soul of the otherwise outraged aborigines of Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee, sweet rills of the water of life. But we mean colonies, such as those of Phoenicia and Athens—such as those of Spain and Portugal—such as those of France, Great Britain and Holland—such as Liberia itself; in fact, political and commercial colonies, whatever be their pretence. Armed settlements, of civilized, on the shores of uncivilized people.
If this be not our meaning. If, on the contrary, such colonies as William Penn's, or such as the missionary establishments of the British and American missionary societies, be meant—colonies without other weapons than the weapons which through Christ overcome by love and by suffering perseverance in well doing—our controversy is at an end. With delight I grant that of such colonies, Granville Sharp was the friend indeed.
Presuming however, that at present we have nothing to do with colonies of this unearthly description, but with such colonies as Liberia, &c, our question is, Was Granville Sharp a friend of such colonies as these?
What were the well known and ruling principles of his mind? They were eminently, equity—love—and peace. Equity without respect of colors or of persons—undissembling and holy love—harmless, suffering, Christ-like peace—the ministering spirit, like his Lord and master's conquering by services of love. Witness, his resignation of office, at the beginning of the revolutionary war, &c. The only exception of which I am aware is, that in 1780, when London was jeoparded by outrageous riots, he offered to become a citizen soldier during the emergency. This is an anomaly in his character—I do not attempt to account for it, and I will not defend it. It is, however, but an exception, and serves only to render the opposite rule, the law of peace, which governed his life, more lovely—or should a fighter scoff at this, and applaud, in resisting evil, the pouring out of brother's blood by brother, let him, if he be consistent, advocate the rising of the Russian serfs against their lordlings; or with greater emphasis still, the striking by violence for their liberties of the Southern slaves; since, if resisting evil by violence, ever can be right, it unquestionably must be eminently so, when slaves rise for their unforfeited liberties.
But no; Granville Sharp, was a friend of peace. He had studied his Bible too much, and loved it too well, to be ignorant of the injunctions, "love worketh no ill to its neighbor;" "resist not evil;" "recompense no man evil for evil;" "avenge not yourselves;" "be not overcome of evil—but overcome evil with good;" "love your enemies—bless them that curse you—do good to them that hate you—and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." Rom. xiii. 10 ; Matt. v. 39; Rom. xii. 17; 19; 21 ; Matt. v. 44.[1]
No; opposite, eternally and totally opposite as are war and peace, so opposite were the well known and ruling principles of Granville Sharp's mind, to the whole colonization spirit. Do we need an evidence. Look at Massachusetts Bay! "Who stand shivering there? Voluntary exiles, preferring the rights of conscience, the rights of lawful liberty in all things, to friends, country, fortune, ease. The world has never seen a nobler band of colonists. If armed colonies of civilized people, could ever be a blessing to the uncivilized tribes amongst which they settle, our Pilgrim forefathers had been such! But it is out of nature and even the christianity, to which it is akin, is deemed insane, by the christianity of the world, all bristling with bayonets, ready to pour showers of death from the cannon's mouth, and crimsoned over and over, with its brother's blood—such are armed colonies. They have always been, and must always be, while man is a sinner, and while christianity remains the proud and bloody thing which it yet is in this particular, in almost all the churches—like the blast of death to the poor native!! Strangers come, and he is swept from the land of his forefathers—their fields wave rich with corn—their trees hang heavy with fruit—their church spires pierce the skies—their outward Sabbaths are kept by multitudes—commerce, arts, arms flourish—literature is rife, and palace-like are the dwellings which adorn the land. But the law of God is meted and parceled out, at will, or by tradition. A man, walking close with Christ, is deemed a lunatic. Fashion and custom and public opinion are the gods, slavery is nursed in the lap of republics,—and the aboriginies have perished; or linger in oppressed and scattered remnants, a memento
to armed colonies, of the cruel iniquity of their heart, and of the daring hypocrisy of their boastings.
Liberia has already waded through two wars—defensive wars—wars, we will suppose, as virtuous as wars can be. Her first hero, exulted in the play of cannon balls, plunging like lightning upon that solid mass of human flesh, then at Monrovia. The blood of the heathen in his sins, has crimsoned her. When God "maketh inquisition for blood," will he not remember them alike, the conquerors and the conquered?
Yes—Granville Sharp, the man of peace, and armed colonies prepared to overcome evil with evil, are each others antipodes.
2d. Can we get any further light from his correspondence or memoranda?
In the volume from which I chiefly draw my materials for this short memoir, (Memoir's of Granville Sharp, by Prince Hoare, London, 1820) I find a very interesting letter from Samuel Hopkins to him, dated "Newport, Rhode Island, 15th January, 1789," together with Granville's reply. Samuel Hopkins declares his having felt it his duty to condemn and to preach against both the slave trade (1) and slavery, publicly; he says that a conviction of the evil of those practices was spreading, and notices the New-York and Philadelphian societies, which I have mentioned. He states that in Massachusetts, all were free, &c, &c. "But," adds he, "the circumstances of the freed blacks, are in many respects unhappy, while they live here among the whites;(2) as the latter look down upon the former, and are disposed to treat them as underlings, and deny them the advantages of education and employment, &c, which tends to depress their minds, and prevent their obtaining a comfortable living, and involves them in many other disadvantages. This and other considerations (3) have led many of them to desire to return to Africa (4) and settle there among their equals and brethren, and in a country and climate more natural to them than this. Particularly there are a number of religious (5) blacks, with whom I am acquainted, who wish to be formed into a distinct church or religious society; and to have a black appointed to be their pastor (and there is one at least, who is thought to be qualified for that office) and then to go, with all the blacks that shall be willing to move with them, to Africa, and settle on lands, which they think may be obtained of some of the nations there, from whom some of them were taken, and whose language they retain; and there maintain the profession and practice of Christianity, (6) and spread the knowledge of it, among the Africans, as far as they shall have opportunity; at the same time cultivating their lands, and introducing into that hitherto uncivilized country, the arts of husbandry, building mills and houses, and other mechanic arts, and raising tobacco, cotton, coffee, indigo, &c, for exportation as well as for their own use."
Samuel Hopkins then proceeds to mention the reports which he had heard respecting Sierra Leone— proposes several questions, and thus concludes: "Finally, whether the blacks in New England, who have been educated and habituated to industry and labor, either on lands or as mechanics, and are thereby prepared to bring forward such a settlement better, I believe, than any other blacks that can be found—whether these blacks can have any part of those lands to settle themselves upon, and on what terms, and what encouragement and assistance might they probably have?"
G. Sharp in a letter dated Leadenhall-street, 25th July, 1789, states the difficulties and disasters which the colony had experienced, and its then revived condition. He offers no lure to Hopkins' project, but assures him of a kind reception of the objects of his care, should they come as British subjects, and " all at one time." He mentions being informed that the laws were very good; the neighboring natives very civil; and King Naimbana a cordial friend; and he dwells in conclusion, upon the difficulty and importance of providing the settlement with a " live stock of cattle," as they had none.
The glaring discordances between these views and the American Colonization system may thus be briefly noticed. (1) Samuel Hopkins speaks boldly and publicly against slavery—the A. C. S. excuses it. (2) He mentions the wrong which the colored people were suffering, throwing the guilt where it rested upon the whites!—the A. C. S. attaches the guilt to the suffering colored people, and excuses the whites who are the actual criminals. (3) S. H. is moved by the wishes of the sufferers themselves—the A. C. S. is acting in direct and open violation of the almost universal wishes of the sufferers. (4) Most of the colored people spoken of by S. H. were Africans themselves, or, had still relations and acquaintances in Africa, and retained the languages of that country!—the colored people, about whom the A. C. S. busy themselves, are almost universally Americans, and know nothing of the languages of Africa. (5) S. H. speaks of his proteges, in the most respectful and affectionate terms—the A. C. S. slander most grossly and cruelly the pretended objects of their benevolence. (6) S. H. speaks of his poor, as already qualified by principles and habits long established, and by attainments already made, to be a blessing to Africa—the A. C. S. speaks of theirs, as about to be transmuted by passing the Atlantic, from semi-devils to semi-angels, to more than men! in the United States, unfit to be allowed to remain in their native country! but in Africa, above all human influences, uncorrupt and incorruptible;. such men and women as the world has never seen; as the United States, with all its real glory, and with all its cruel boasts, has not! (7) Granville Sharp in his reply, bids the strangers welcome, but allures them by no fairy tales of Sierra Leone—the A. C. S. made Liberia as much and as long as it could, a little paradise. (8) Both G. S. and S. H. were evidently the ministers and servants in love for Christ's sake, of the people of their care—the A. C. S. takes sides with their slanderers and oppressors, and spurns them with all the benevolence of aristocratic pride from their native country. Can darkness and light—can right and wrong be more opposite. If any one ask for my authorities, I refer them to the Annual Reports and to the African Repositories of the American Colonization Society, and to Judge Jay's admirable book; as well as to any of my own more recent tracts, which may fall in their way, especially to "Prejudice Vincible, by better means than slavery and exile."
3d. A fair comparison between Sierra Leone and Liberia.
Sierra Leone was provided as a place of refuge, not for Englishmen, but for poor strangers most of whom were Africans. Liberia was provided for people, almost all of whom were born and bred in the United States, and are therefore as truly Americans as any other natives of that country.
The settlers of Sierra Leone, were distressed in England, by the distant colonial wickedness (of which the United States largely partook, slavery in the United States being coadjutor in it with West Indian slavery) which made them exiles, and with the exuberant native English population, which left little or no demand for their labor. The settlers of Liberia were distressed at home, by the inflated and iniquitious heart of their country, refusing them honest employments, despising them as "underlings" and goading them to exile, as the only means of honor and of happiness. The founders of Sierra Leone, were the servants in love of the settlers. The founders of Liberia (with two or three exceptions) were the slanderers and despisers of the settlers, till they could get them to a sufficient distance.
The founders of Sierra Leone, contemplated removing those only who were really in distress in England from providential circumstances, or who, being Africans, were anxious to return to their native country: holding those who chose to remain, as honored and as welcome in England as any of the rest of its inhabitants. The founders of Liberia contemplated removing, a whole people, as they may be called (the free colored people of the United States) some of whom were wealthy—some of whom were highly cultivated—some of whom were amongst the most precious jewels in their country, of the Lord of hosts—many of whom were in independant circumstances, and all of whom taking them as a body, might have been most happy and useful at home—and why then remove them? Why, to gratify an eminently insane and cruel state of public feeling —and how? Why, by taking sides with that insane and cruel feeling, and by flattering its wickedness in order to obtain its insolent and supercilious aid.
Love; impartial, brotherly, christian love, was the source of Sierra Leone. Hatred and contempt for color— or often in defiance of all truth, and in contempt of all evidence for what is called color—or for one drop of African, though mingled with streams of European blood; or, more absolutely than for either of these, for the enormous crime, of their poor mothers' having been most shamelessly and iniquitously degraded and outraged before them. Such hatred and contempt, were the great source, and still continue the efficient support of Liberia—so thorougly so, that would the orthodox, (not ortho-prax) color of the United States, but return to its senses, to republicanism and its manhood, there would remain no reason for sending a single additional settler to Liberia, on the colonization plan; but every reason, for cherishing them in love, in their native country; and for making them all the amends which unfeigned repentance would make, for the cruel indignities and wrongs so long and so criminally heaped upon them, the present cement and climax of which is, striving to get their free portion off, as decently as possible, to a foreign and barbarous land!
The settlement of Sierra Leone, cherished the best feelings of the English nation—sympathy for the oppressed, and benevolence towards desolate strangers, whom the proud world spurned and persecuted.
The founding of Liberia, cherished the worst feelings of the people of the United States; the idol-sin, which distinguishes them from all other civilized people, color hatred, or rather, mother-hatred, since an oppressed and outraged, not guilty, mother, is the only definite criterion of it; color being frequently darker amongst the whites!! than amongst the colored people!
How strikingly, also, is the holy faithfulness of Samuel Hopkins, in speaking and preaching, publicly, against slavery, contrasted with the present colonization coverings-up of that most atrocious system—and how affectingly does the brotherly respect and love, which his letter displays for the colored people, compare with the slanderous contempt and abuse of them, trumpeted over the world by the Colonization Society.
4th. What are the fundamental principles of the two establishments? Those of Sierra Leone, we have seen in page 60. They are full of benignity to Africa; not "by purchase of territory"—or "commercial speculation"—or "colonial settlement"—but by means of light and law! Not a word is said to disparage the poor settlers, in England, or to point out Africa to them, as the only refuge from British insanity, cruelty and pride.
The exclusive object of 'the American Colonization Society, "is to promote and execute a plan for colonizing (with their consent) the free people of color, residing in our country, in Africa, or such other place as Congress shall deem most expedient. And the society shall act, to effect this object, in cooperation with the general government, and such of the states as may adopt regulations on the subject."
As if "our country," were not the country of the free people of color, as much as ours! As if consent, thus obtained, under existing circumstances here, could, in general, Be voluntary! As if a society, acting in concert with Nicholas, of Russia, in sending the poor Poles to Siberia, could be just and benignant towards the Poles. As if a heathen and uncivilized country, could be the place, to which undissembling love would send guiltless and unaccused American citizens, from a land, so glorious in many respects, as the United States are!
But I pause, and refer my readers to "Jay's Inquiry," thanking God for such a timely and unanswerable exposition of the real character and influences of the American Colonization Society.
5th. What was the state of the national mind in Great Britain, compared with America ?
The English loved and cherished strangers, irrespectively of color—and if oppressed or wronged, they obtained a double share of sympathy. The suffering people of color, as peculiarly outraged and afflicted, were objects of peculiar compassion to them. The hearts of Englishmen were their home, even while colonial guilt made England, also, a house of bondage to them—but the British mind, after writhing for a while under the abomination, threw it finally and forever off, as we have seen in 1772. England remained their country, as it is the country of every man in the world, who flies to it from oppression. No white man is more honored there, than brown men, or sallow, or yellow men—or pale men, or red men; or white haired, or red haired, or black haired, or yellow haired, or brown haired, or curly haired, or long haired men—the only difference being, moral character and conduct. The black man; the man of mixed blood; the man, whose mother had been oppressed, not criminal—as honored and protected there, as a man of any possible tinge which a blanco-idolater could fabricate, even were he endowed with the powers of creation.
When the American Colonization Society was formed, what was the United States' mind? What is it now?
Full of color-phobia! The land is full of it. It is exhibited in legislation, in custom and in feeling. The man is deemed a fool or a villain who is free from it. It is, above all, exhibited in its perfection, when thorough Colonizationists try to disprove it. Even the kind couple with whom I am now boarding, full of general kindness as they are, are full of it. "What! a colored man to be equal to me!! me, of the orthodox blood; (though browner than many of them!!) What! a colored man, tinged with the blood of suffering and of wrong, endured, not perpetrated, to be equal with me!!" Oh, horrible! Does not nature itself, cry out against it!!!
Some years ago, (not many) the King of Persia, hearing the United States mentioned, exclaimed, "The United States! What is the United States? Where is it? How big is it? Is it under ground or above ground? What kind of people inhabit it? Are they black or white, civilized or savage?" Was the King of Persia to be admired ? Yet he spoke the feeling of his country—and there are many more people in Persia, than in the United States; and if numbers made nature, the United States are despicable; for the numerous Persians despised them!!!
Mungo Park, when on the point of perishing, was compassionated by a poor African, and generously lodged and entertained in his hut. The African's wife was terrified by the entrance of the pale-faced stranger, and getting out of the door as fast as she civilly could, ran off, screaming, "the devil!—the devil!" Was her feeling right? Yet she had much reason to believe white people devils; and she had not the scriptures, or science, or the preaching of the gospel, to teach her the glorious fact, that "God hath made of one blood, all the nations of the earth;" and that that poor, unprotected, emaciated, unintroduced, except by his miseries, pale-faced stranger, was her brother, whom she was bound to honor and to love. Besides, it is calculated, that there are about one hundred and fifty millions of people in Africa, while there are only about twelve millions of pale-faced ones (or rather called pale-faced ones, since they are of many colors,) in the United States, and any child therefore, who understands the single rule of three, can tell, that Africa has more than twelve times a better right to settle what "nature's" feelings are, than the people of the United States have; and that, therefore, by twelve odds to one, all really pale-faced people are devils! Then surely, abundant means of knowing better, do not render proud and cruel notions, less criminal or less absurd!
This color-phobia; this distinguishing characteristic of the United States, from which all other civilized people are free, was the precursor and the source, and is the support of the Colonization Society. It existed long before that society was organized—but it was comparatively insulated in individual bosoms, and was proportionably feeble. The Colonization Society is simply, its embodying and disciplining—and the difference is, that it now has the power of union. "Go to Africa," it says to the outraged class—hated and spurned because they are outraged; "go to Africa, and we will do all we can to make you happy. But this
7
and according to your opportunities, done as much for it; and behaved as well in it, all things fairly considered; and when occasion called, poured out your blood for it, as cheerfully and as bravely, as we have—yet it is not your country—it is the white man's land—that is, it is the land of the men of all colors, by courtesy called white amongst themselves, who, as a body, have always been your spurners and your tyrants, and never your slaves! Off—off to Africa, your fathers' land; though half of you have more orthodox than heterodox blood in your veins; and there, in a comparative wilderness, surrounded by barbarian despotisms, and in the midst of a heathen people, not yet gospel-hardened, far away forever from your native country, you may find a degree of equity and kindness, which in the United States, your native land, you never can."
The national state of mind in England, was and is, that of a brother and a friend, towards the free colored people. The national state of mind towards them, in the United Slates, was and is, (except when their aid has been needed in times of danger and emergency; witness Gen. Jackson's orders near New Orleans, last war;) a contemptuous sufferance, or a supercilious benignity. "Stand off," it says, "we are better than ye. Keep far enough from our mooncolored nobility, and we will magnanimously suffer you!"
Here it may be useful to remark, that the color, with any propriety called white, extends not to one-tenth of the human family; and, that little more than one-tenth of this tenth, is afflicted with the color-phobia.[2] That is, about one person in a hundred of the whole human family, is subject to this cruel disease; and then, he, in his hallucinations, dreams that his feelings are the law of nature! and that whoever does not feel as he he does, is a fool or a villain.
But this cruel and criminal madness, is beneath the colored nine-tenths of the world—and to all the white people in the world, except the whites "of all colors" in the United States, and a few hundreds of colonial slave masters and slave drivers, is matter of pity and abhorrence. Proud, unjust and cruel as in other respects they may be, in this, other nations have not yet departed so utterly, from God and their poor brother. And blessed be His holy name, this storm of all hypocritical and savage iniquity in the United States, is intermitting. Far off to leeward, I see the clear blue sky, breaking through the clouds. A voice of love is loudly sounding—a cry of justice is echoing through the land. Truth is rising in its peaceful, all conquering might. The press, is in a measure, rescued. The pulpit is casting off its shameful fetters. The institutions of learning are heaving away the incubus. Men—lovers of liberty, all glorious, impartial liberty. Republicans, not with a lying and boastful tongue merely, but in heart and in deed. The yeomen peasantry of the free states, wanting information only, to stir them up in love; as lovers of liberty, and not as idolaters of partial and despotic pride. White men; yes white men of the United States, most of them just cured of the color-phobia, uniting in a noble and rapidly increasing phalanx, are coming up, in peace, to the help of the Lord against the mighty, and the prospect is most cheering, that soon, the curse of Meroz shall no longer lower over this glorious land.
6th. What was the general character of the most congenial minds, in founding the two settlements in question?
Need I repeat the character of the founder of Sierra Leone. It is before my readers.
But who were the founders of Liberia? Mills, I cannot take into the account, for he was not a colonizationist, but a missionary. Finley, must be included; and highly interesting as his character seems to have been in other respects, in this, an independent and impartial mind, need only mark the first motive which he gives for his colonization zeal, "we should be cleared of them," to perceive at once, how deeply he was implicated in his country's wickedness. Of Caldwell, I am too ignorant to speak. And who were the rest? Most, if not all, slave masters! The Virginian Legislature was its precursor. Bushrod Washington, a slave breeder and vender and holder, presided at its first meeting, and became its first president. Henry Clay, proclaimed in England by Elliot Cresson, as its champion; Henry Clay, who, after declaring, that "of all descriptions" of the population of the United States, "and of either portion of the African race, the free persons of color, are by far, the most corrupt, depraved and abandoned;" (African Repository VI. 12.) goes on in the same speech, to affirm, that "the Society proposes to send out, not one or two pious members of christianity into a foreign land, but to transport annually, for an indefinite number of years, in one view of its scheme six thousand, in another fifty-six thousand missionaries, of the descendants of Africa itself, to communicate the benefits of our religion and the arts." African Repos. VI. 24. I know not how, thorough infatuation, on a particular subject, could be more strikingly exhibited, than by a man of Henry Clay's giant grasp of mind, demurely thus reasoning, and then being applauded as their hero, by the Society's agent! Evangelizing and civilizing Africa, by yearly deluges of the most corrupt, depraved and abandoned people of the United States. What sanity! What benevolence!! Of seventeen vice-presidents only five were selected from the free states—and "the whole of the twelve managers, as far as I can learn, were slave holders.
Such were the materials which founded Liberia. Since its foundation, better men have added their names; and its list still contains many of them—some, in other respects, not surpassed on earth. The heart which loves its Saviour and his holy cause, and is not in bondage to the same delusion, can only bleed over the fact; but is comforted by remembering that deep as the noblest minds may fall at times, if true to God, they shall rise again, and only shine the more brightly, from the depth of their past eclipse.
Light and darkness could as easily have become homogeneous as Granville Sharp, could have united with such a company. The portrait of Bushrod Washington taken to England by Elliot Cresson to be placed beside that of Wm. Wilberforce in the London Anti Slavery Society's office, was refused a place there by the coadjutors and successors of Granville Sharp. The same fountain does not send forth waters both bitter and sweet—"neither does the fig bear olives—nor the vine, figs." James iii. 11, 12. Granville Sharp, the philanthropist, (not the blanco-idolater) and Bushrod Washington, or Henry Clay, are in this respect, at the uttermost antipodes. Where, as above mentioned, men of a different and superior stamp, have become supporters of the Colonization Society, they have been out of place. Some of them have repented and brought forth fruits mete for repentance. Over the rest, impartial love, wonders and mourns, looking with confidence, to their rescue at no distant day, from their present thraldom.
In fine, whether we consider the well known and ruling principles of Granville Sharp's mind—or advert to his correspondence and memoranda—whether we compare Sierra Leone and Liberia, or contrast their fundamental principles—whether we contemplate the national state of mind in both cases, or the general character of the most congenial advocates of either, we are more and more struck, with the utter discordancy between the two, and are satisfied that had our beloved brother lived, his name would have graced William Wilberforce's protest; that crowning act of his life, against the absurd and cruel pursuit of colonizationism in the United States, whether concentrated in the form of the Colonization Society, or scattered in its pristine and unorganized form, over the land.
A distinguishing feature of the colonization mania, may here be noticed in conclusion.
Let a man speak the truth, of the insane and cruel prejudice against color in the United States, declaring however, that it is vincible, and explaining the manly, peaceable and republican process, by which it is actually undergoing a glorious change—and, if an American, he is a slanderer of his country, or a traitor, or something, or anything else, which the color-phobia fancies:—if an Englishman, he "has been imported, for the purpose of vilifying colonization," or for some other purpose, of equally false and elegant tissue.
But let him declare this brutal prejudice, not brutal; let him palm it upon God, as the Colonization Society does in its 15th Annual Report; let him assert that it is invincible, as Jefferson did; let him unite with the Connecticut Colonization Society, in saying, "The African." (take notice, most of them are Americans all the while) "in this country" (i. e. in his native country) "belongs by birth to the very lowest station in society; and from that station, he can never rise, be his talents, his enterprise, his virtues, what they may. They" (the free negroes, i. e. the free Americans whose unhappy parents or ancestors, suffered, not committed, the curse of slavery) "constitute a class by themselves; a class out of which no individual can be elevated, and below which none can be depressed. And this is the difficulty, the invariable and insuperable difficultly, in the way of every scheme for their benefit. Much can be done for them—much has been done for them; but still they are, and in this country, always must be, a depressed and abject race. . * * * In every part of the United States, there is a broad and impassable line of demarcation between every man, who has one drop of African blood in his veins, and every other class in the community;" together with the following words of the same address prefixed to the passage just quoted: "The habits, the feelings, all the prejudices of society—prejudices of which neither refinement, nor argument, nor education, nor religion itself can subdue, mark the people of color" (note—this should have been, the Americans who had one drop of African blood in their veins) whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation, inevitable and incurable." Yes—let a man, thus trumpet the shame of the United States through the world, usurping God's place, and giving them over to final and utter impenitence in this ferocious and libertine sin, and he shall be a champion—a loyal end true-hearted man!!! What difference is there between this, and the Hindoo, who reviles and spurns, whoever worships not his juggernaut with him; but hugs and applauds his fellow idolaters? except, that the poor Hindoo, has no Bible, and little comparative civilization; and no republican constitution declaring gloriously, that all men are created free and equal, and are endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights, amongst which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to stimulate or secure his integrity, if upright; or, if a renegado from his principles, to leave him without a cloak for his guilt.
And that the extent and malignity of the ground-work, of this feeling may not rest upon an adversary's report, look at the description given by the friends of the Colonization Society, of the particular species of slavery on which the prejudice above adverted to arose, and by which it is still nourished.
"On the subject of slavery, we must express ourselves briefly, yet boldly. We have heard of slavery as it exists in Asia and Africa and Turkey—we have heard of the feudal slavery under which the peasantry of Europe have groaned from the days of Alaric until now; but excepting only, the horrible system of the West India Islands, we have never heard of slavery in any country, ancient or modern, pagan, mahomedan, or christian! so terrible in its character, so pernicious in its tendency, so remediless in its anticipated results, as the slavery which exists in these United States." 7th Report, Amer. Col. Soc. 1824.
But—blessed be God! Dagons greater than this, and than the ferocious prejudice, the color-phobia, in the United States, which is its offspring have fallen before the ark of the Lord—and shall fall again—and this shall fall! Truth is great and must prevail—we "can do all things, through Christ who strengtheneth" us: and if we prove unfaithful; if daunted by the fear, or allured by the favor of man; if drawn aside by our own corruptions, or swept away by the awakened wrath of the enemies of equity and peace, let loose upon us—God will not want other and better instruments, and provided there be "glory to him in the highest—and on earth, peace, good will to man"—to the poor man, as well as to the rich man!—to the ignorant man, as well as to the learned man!—to the black man, and to men of all colors, as well as to the white man!—to the stranger, as well as to the citizen!—to the poor sufferer of wrong, delivered from outrage, as well as to the perpetrator of wrong, brought to repentance! our work will be accomplished, and our heart's desire fulfilled.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
- ↑ Some time before the legal abolition of the African slave trade, a Jamaica planter purchased a fine young African, took him into his house, and made him his confidential slave. The young man felt his master's kindness and gave him his generous heart in return—some years had elapsed—a new cargo had just arrived, when his master falling in want of twenty additional hands, resorted with him to the slave market and committed the choice to him. The young African knowing no better, and wishing to please his master, immediately busied himself about the work, and had chosen several to his master's satisfaction, when suddenly he paused and stood transfixed before a poor old emaciated stranger that was groaning on the ground—"Go on," said his master, "that man won't do, you see he is old and sick." "Massa," cried the young African, "you must buy me dat man." "He wont do, I tell you," said his master impatienly, "go on immediately and choose the rest." "Massa," repeated the slave, "you must buy me dat man." And this was the only answer the master could get. The slave dealer hearing the angry words which followed, came up and said contemptuously, "Oh you need not make such a fuss about that old man—he is good for nothing—go along and please your master, and if we can agree about the rest, you shall have him into the bargain." The young African, immediately sprang forward—did his best—pleased his master—the bargain was made, and receiving the sick old man, as promised, he immediately led him off to his hut, and became as a son to him. His best of every thing was appropriated to the dying stranger. When the wind blew chill through the rain, he hastened to cover, or to kindle a little fire to warm him. When the sun burnt and the air was still, he made him a couch under the thick tamarind, or sat beside and fanned his fainting brow. The master heard the facts, was affected, and coming kindly to the cottage said, " What makes you love that old man so 1 Is he your father?" "No, massa!" replied the young African, with great emotion, "he no my father!" "Is he your uncle!" "No, massa!" " Is he your brother—your neighbor—your friend, naming every connection he could think of: still the young African, mournfully answered, "No!" "Who is he then," exclaimed the master with surprise, "what makes you love him so." " Massa," replied the young African, solemnly, " dat man my worst enemy—derfore me love him so—when me Live in my own country, wid my own dear fader and moder dat man come steal me—carry me away—sell me to de slave dealers—massa me no more see my country—or my fader or my moder. Yes, massa, dat man my worst enemy—derfore me love him so, cause massa, in dat good book you teach me read, de great God, say, 'Love your enemies—if dy enemy hunger feed him; if he thirst, give him "drink—be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil wid good.' "
- ↑ The terror which the Africans have of white men, is rather the terror of the reputation which white men have acquired amongst them, of cannibalism, robbery and murder, than of color.