 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Maryland State Archives Maryland Colonization Journal Collection MSA SC 4303 msa_sc4303_scm11070-0117 Enlarge and print image (4M) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Maryland State Archives Maryland Colonization Journal Collection MSA SC 4303 msa_sc4303_scm11070-0117 Enlarge and print image (4M) |
| MARYLAND COLONIZATION JOURNAL.. CONDUCTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS OF THE MARYLAND STATE COLONIZATION SOCIETY, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE MANAGERS OF THE STATE FUND. Vol. I. Baltimore, July, 1839. No. 30 When gratuitous please circulate. (Frnin the African Repositry ) Correspondence between Mr. Tappan and Mr. Key. The following correspondence between these gentlemen presents one of the most interesting und import.mt papers to which the slavery ques- tion has given birth, and is most appropriate to the times. Mr. Key's letter is entitled to pecu- liar weight, from his situation and experience, and his well known feelings and active humanity, for many years, in behalf of the coloured race. His statements and opinions upon any subject would be entitled to credit; but upon one to which he has long and carefully attended, with the most ample opportunities of information and observation, tor the sole purpose of ascertaining what was best to be done in relation to it, it is not easy to believe they can be very erroneous. His answer is the testimony of a witness, pecu- liarly qualified by his opportunities of observa- tion, to the state of slavery in a portion of the south ; to the manner in which it has been allect- ed by northern abolitionists; and to the only practical influence which can be brought to bear on it. It shows that many and grave errurs exist at the north in relation to the whole subject; that some of these eriors involve unfounded im- putations on the southern religious community ; that the evils of slavery have been aggravated by northern interference; that what, in the spirit of fierce abstractions, has been denounced as cruelty and oppression; is often the highest benevolence ; that the idea of emancipation, unconnected with removal, is repudiated by the whole south ; that the experience of such emancipation lias been unfavourable; that the colonization scheme is the plan for meliorating the condition of the black race most likely to succeed ; that lively and ex- tending interest is felt at the south in their reli- gious instruction; and that in this the north may usefully and actively co-operate, provided its aid be given with suitable caution. We highly ap- prove of the plan adopted by Mr. Tappau and his associates, mentioned in his letter, ot correspond- ing with gentlemen at the south, whom they know- to be men of character and intelligence. We hope they will pursue their inquiries in this way as extensively as possible ; and, if made and an- swered (as in the present correspondence) in a spirit of kindness and fairness, we confidently believe that such a light will be thrown upon this subject as shall draw the north and south together, to unite in a great work of patriotism and bene- volence. As the abolition prints confess great and almost exclusive zeal for truth, we trust that they will take proper means to circulate the following Jetters: Augusta, (Me.) July 31, 1838. My Dear Sir:—Some years since, I bad the pleasure of travelling in company with you from Philadelphia to Baltimore, and was indebted to you for the privilege of being introduced to the acquaintance and hospitality of the much-beloved and respected Dr. Nevins. I know not whether you will recollect the circumstance, but I must make it my apology for writing to you now with somewhat more of freedom than 1 would feel in addressing a stranger. The subject of slavery has frequently come up, within two or three years past, in the meetings in New F.ngland of ecclesiastical bodies, and resolu- tions have been passed, expressing their views respecting it. At a late meeting of the general conference of Maine, (consisting of clerical ami lay delegates from the county conferences of congregational churches throughout the state,) a committee was raised, of seven clergymen, to correspond with ecclesiastical bodies at the south. Alter some consultation, the committee were of opinion that it would be advisable, in the first place, to correspond, individually, with individuals at the south. In conformity to that opinion. 1 am taking the liberty, dear sir, to address this com- munication to you. You, I am persuaded, will not accuse us of intermeddling, in this matter, with that which does not belong to us. You have welcomed the aid of your fellow-citizens at the north in the colonization enterprise—in the hope (if I have not misunderstood your views) that tile influence of that enterprise would be conducive to the termination of slavery. You will not, therefore, object to the inquiry, whether our in- fluence may not be exerted at the north, as well as at the south, hearing more diiectly upon such a consummation. Our first object, in the correspondence pro- posed, is to obtain information. Permit me then, to request your attention to the following in- quiries : Does the opinion generally prevail among the ministers and members of southern churches that slave-holding,as practised in this country, is sanc- tioned by the word of Cod ? If this is not their opinion, how do they justify themselves in hold- ing slaves ? Do professors of religion forfeit their christian character by buying and selling slaves, as they may find it convenient ? or do they subject them- selves to censure and discipline by any immo- rality or ill treatment of which they may be guilty towards slaves? Since the discussion of slavery in the legisla- ture of Virginia, a few years since, has there been in that state any change of opinion more favoura- ble to the continuance of the present system ? If SO, to what causes is that change to be attributed ! Is it the general belief of humane and christian colonizationists at the south that slaves might not to be emancipated, unless they are also sent out of the country ? If this is their opinion, on what is it founded? Were they set free, would not their labour still he needed, and might it not he rewarded on terms more advantageous to both parties than under present arrangement-; Is there any good reason to believe that any thing ol importance will be done, generally s/irn/.-- ing, to prepare the slaves for freedom, before they are made free ? Is there not an under current of opinion and feeling in the south, among the more enlightened and philanthropic, and is it not widening and strengthening, against the continuance of the pre- sent system, and an increasing conviction that it may safely and advantageously be abolished ? What will probably be the intluence upon the southern mind of the experiment now in progress in the West Indies ? What, ill your opinion, has been the effect, on the whole, at the south, of the efforts of abolition- ists ? Were the letters which passed, the last winter, between Mr. Ellmore and Mr. Birney, read (to any considerable extent) by southern members of Congress ? So far as they were read, what was the impression produced by the state- ments and reasonings of Mr. Birney ? Can there be any useful co-operation between good people at the north and south (except by means of the colonization society) in efforts for abolishing or meliorating the present system of slavery ? What are the present prospects of the American Colonization Society? Have many of the officers of this society libe- rated and colonized their own slaves ? Begging you to excuse the liberty which I have now taken, and requesting an answer at as early a period as you may find it convenient, I remain, my dear sir, very respectfully, yours, Benjamin Tappan. To Francis S. Key, Esq. P. S.—It is not proposed to make any public use of your name, in connection with any facts or opinions, which you may have the kindness to communicate. Washington, Oct. 8th, 1838. Rev. and Dear Sir:—A long absence from lioine prevented my receiving your letter till late- ly ; ainl, though 1 could wisli lor more time and leisure to answer it more fully and satisfactorily, I will endeavour to do it without further delay. I well remember our meeting on the occasion you mention ; though that would not be necessary to induce me to treat with all respect and attention a letter from you on any subject, and particularly on one which has long and greatly interested me. Before I answer your questions, you will excuse my saying a few words of myself—as that may serve to show how far 1 am competent to answer them, and what my answers may be worth. I was born in Maryland, and have always lived in a slave state—am pretty well acquainted with the middle states, and have been as far as Alabama to the south. No northern man began the world with more enthusiasm against slavery than I did. For forty years and upwards, I have felt the greatest desire to see Maryland become a free state, and the strongest conviction that she could become so. That desire and that conviction have not abated in the least—1 feel sure that it will be so. I fiave always been endeavouring to aid in promoting that object, and do so still. I consider it now in the course of accomplishment; and, could I give you all the facts in my possession, and the results of my observation and experience for many years, I believe you would come to this conclusion—that there is now a field open for the labours of all who wish to promote emancipation, to which they should direct and confine their efforts, and that such efforts, if pursued in the right way, would accomplish more, in comparatively a few years, than has ever been yet effected ; and with these great advantages—that the dissensions arising from this delicate and exciting subject would be every where quieted, and the condition of the slaves in the other states greatly meliorated. Had I time, 1 would like to go on to the north and maintain these propositions. As this cannot be the case, let me now say a word or two more about them. You m:iv ask why such efforts should be con- fined to Maryland? I answer: because, first, they would there be readily received; secondly, her people see the advantages of her becoming a free state; thirdly, she is the border state and can obtain free labour; ami, fourthly, that species of labour, already prevailing in some parts oi the state, manifests its superiority by every sort of improvement. These, and many other causes now in full opeiation, show—what experience will prove—that no slave state adjacent to a free state can continue so. The people of Maryland arc satisfied of this; and a vast majority of them are not only content, but pleased at the pros- pect. Her legislature has declared these views, and, with reference to such a result, has made liberal appropriations to the scheme of colonisa- tion. The state has a colony of its own at Cape l'ahnas. Its condition is flourishing; and, not- withstanding many difficulties, and the violent and most unreasonable opposition of the aboli- tionists, the coloured people have consented to remove to it, as fast as their establishment there could be prudently condurted, under present cir- cumstances. It is true that her slave population is diminishing, at the same time, by other means. Her proximity to a free state enables many to escape. Indeed, near the Pennsylvania line, there are few slaves but such as are willing to continue so. Many are also sold, and many remove with their masters to the south, where their labour is more profitable. This, I agree, is not so favoura- ble a disposition of them as coloni/.ation ; but it cannot be helped, and it is better lor tbein than remaining slaves in Maryland, where the unpro- fitableness of their labour makes it difficult for their masters to maintain them comfortably. You may also desire to know what I mean by qualifying these ellbrts to be made in Maryland by saving they must be 'pursued in the right way,' —and you may ask if I do not mean, by this right way, colonization. I answer, that it must be done in a wav that the people of Maryland will agree to. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to attempt it in any other way. And if there is any wav. to which they will consent, which is better for the slaves than their present condition, it ought to be acquiesced in, even by those who may think that there is a better way. Now, there are some ways in which the people of Maryland will never agree to these ellbrts being made: 1st. Not by abolition publications—because they are danger- ous ami unnecessary. It is vain to argue about then being dangerous. They know it from expe- rience, and certainly are better judges of what is dangerous to persons in their situation than any men elsewhere can be. Further—whether better judges or not, they will be, and they ought to be, the only judges ; for the danger is to themselves. And such ellbrts are proved to be unnecessary; for there are now, and always have been, more slaves ready to be emancipated than there are means to remove from the state—that condition of removal being, as the people of Maryland think, (allowing some exceptions,) indispensable. Of this I shall speak hereafter. 2illy. They will not allow an immediate and general emancipation, deeming it ruinous both to the slaves and them- selves. And adly. They require, as a condition, removal from the state, except in particular in- stances, where the slaves, on account of their good conduct and character, may be allowed to remain, on certain conditions. That such remo- val may be accomplished in a way advantageous to the liberated slaves, the door of colonization has been opened. We believe (we think upon undoubted evidence) that, besides the obvious and immense advantages to Africa, this mode of disposition is the best for them: and we are sure that time will make this apparent to all. lint, if the people of the free states think other- wise, and are so sure that they may remain safely, happily, and usefully in Maryland, as to be will- ing to receive them within their own limits, there would he no objection to their doing so. If there is this difference of opinion as to their remaining among the whites, between the people of the free states and the slave states, surely the only fair way oi settling it is for those who arc in favour of their remaining to take them. It is unnecessary, therefore, to discuss this question. If ever so necessary, 1 am sure it would be vain; for the people of Maryland have an experience upon the subject that no arguments could shake. And they will believe that they are more competent to decide it than the people of the free states can possibly be. I will, however, state the result of my own experience. I have emancipated seven of my slaves. They have done pretty well, and six of them, now alive, are supporting themselves com- fortably and creditably. Yet I cannot but see that this is all they are doing now ; and, when age and infirmity come upon them, they will probably sillier. It is to be observed, also, that these were selected individuals, who were, with two exceptions, brought up with a view to their being so disposed of, and were made to undergo a probation of a few years in favourable situa- tions, and, when emancipated, were far better fitted for the duties and trials of their new condi- tion than the general mass of slaves. Yet I am still a slaveholder, and could not, without the greatest inhumanity, be otherwise. I own, for instance, an old slave, who has done no work for me for years. I pay his board and other ex- penses, and cannot believe that 1 sin in doing so. The laws of Maryland contain provisions of various kinds, under which slaves, in certain cir- cumstances, are entitled to petition the courts for their freedom. As a lawyer, 1 always undertook these causes with peculiar zeal, anil have been thus instrumental in liberating several large fami- lies and many individuals. I cannot remember more than two instances, out of this large num- ber, in which it did not appear that the freedom I so earnestly sought for them was their ruin. It has been so with a very large proportion of all others 1 have known emancipated. A gentleman in Maryland, upwards of thirty years ago, eman- cipated, by his will, between two and three hun- dred negroes. They all took (as they were re- quired to do) his name. For several years, they crowded our cities, where their vices and idleness were notorious, and their sulferings extreme. I have not seen one for many years, and am in- formed there are none in the county where they were liberated. There may be some in the free states. Their name was Barnes. I do not be- lieve there could be now found in Maryland twenty of the name. It is in vain, in the face of facts like these, which every man I have ever spoken with upon the subject avows his knowledge of, to talk of the British West India islands and the apprentice system—at least, it must be vain to talk of these tilings till they are fully tried. I shall be sur- prised, though gratified, if the result of these ex- periments dilfers from that of similar attempts in Maryland. 1 observe that, at the last anti-slavery anniversary, it was admitted that the apprentice system was all wrong, and had failed ; and now, the recent accounts from Jamaica represent the deplorable state of the island, in consequence of the refusal of the negroes to work, except for wages beyond the power of the planters to give. I will proceed now to answer your questions. This is the first: 'Does the opinion generally prevail among the ministers and members of southern churches, that slave-holding, as practised in this country, is sanc- tioned by the word of God? If this is not their opinion, how do they justify themselves in hold- ing slaves'.' The ministers and members of southern churches will not attempt to justify themselves in any thing without the sanction of the word of God ; the lat- ter part, therefore, of the question, is unnecessary. You ask, then, if we believe that slave-holding, as practised in this country, is sanctioned by the word of God. I answer, that they believe gene- rally, 1 think, that Scripture contains neither an express sanction nor an express prohibition on the subject. It gives general rules to govern men's conduct towards each other, applicable to this and all other cases. If men cannot hold slaves without violating these rules, they must not hold them; and, if these rules permit or require us, under any circumstances, to hold slaves, then the word of God sanctions such slave-holding. Take, then, the great lule of the gospel—'Do unto others as you would they should do unto you.' This must govern all possible cases of human conduct, and bears, of course, upon this question, as to slaveholding. Does it sanction slave-holding under all circumstance} ? or prohibit slave-holding under all circumstances.' It does (and I think most wisely) neither—leaving it to be determined by circumstances whether this law of love authorizes or forbids it. If a christian, then, considering whether he shall hold a slave or not. takes this rule, and applies it honestly, as in the sight of God, to his case, and comes fairly to the conclusion that he should, who shall condemn him I All that can be said is that he is misled by prejudice or interest, and has come to a wrong conclusion. Hundreds and thousands of christians, showing, in their whole life, undoubted evidences of the faith which they profess, have so applied this rule to their con sciences, and so come to tins conclusion. Their brethren at the north, knowing nothing of the peculiar circumstances Under which they have acted, nor of the care and faithfulness with which they have inquired and decided, call upon them to justify themselves for violating the sanctions of God's word. This, I am willing to believe, is more owing to want of information than of chari- ty; though, certaiidy, even without information, it would be only reasonable to indulge the hope and the belief that there was something of a justi- ficatory nature in the circumstances surrounding their distant brethren which should relieve them from such an accusation. Consider what a proposition it is that must be maintained by those who thus denounce, in these sweeping terms, all slaveholders. It is this—a man always violates the divine precept of doing as he would he done by, when be holds a slave. Strange as this proposition would sound to any one at all acquainted with the various circum- stances under which persons in a slave state become the owners and holders of slaves, yet I doubt not many honest, but heated, abolitionists are ready to maintain it. Indeed, it is often avowed in their publications. Yet I think it is easy to state a few instancts in which it would seem impossible to deny that this precept net only permitted, but required, the holding of a slave—and they are instances continually occui- ring. A man becomes (sometimes by no act of his own) the owner of an old or innrm slave, when emancipation would be the basest cruelty, and there is no way of maintaining him in comlort, but by holding him as a slave—is he to be eman- cipated > So of a slave who is idle, intemperate, &c. etc. who, without wholesome restraint, would be wretched himself, and a plague to all others— would this christian precept require him to be emancipated> So of all cases where the holder of slaves conscientiously believe that their condi- tion, from the peculiar circumstances of their situation, will be made worse by freedom—worse to themselves and others. Than are, again, other instances when a bene- volent man will meet, in a slave community, with such appeals to his charity, that he will buy and hold slaves, because be wishes to do as he would be done by. Many are so bought and held. A slave may have an unkind master—may be about to be sold away from his friends or family—a family of slaves may be liable to separation: in all these cases, a man who is known to be a good master, and who has the means of employing them so as to maintain them comfortably, will be importuned to purchase them. It will be a mani- fest improvement in their condition. Will not this christian precept sanction his yielding to their entreaties. It may be said that he should buy them and liberate them. This, even if satis- fied that it would be better for them, he might not be able to afford. And shall he refuse to do the lesser charity, because he has not the means to do the greater ? I therefore answer your first question thus— 'Slaveholding, as practised in this country, is sanctioned by the word of God,' when it is prac- tised, as I know it often is, in such instances as I have stated, and in many others, consistently with the christian precept of doing as we would be done by. And 'slaveholding, as practised in this country,' otherwise, as when slaves are bought and held for the mere purposes of gain by traffic, or by extorting their labour without any regard to their welfare, (for it must be admitted that it is so practised by some,) is not sanctioned by the word of God. So that slave-holding is right or wrong (as many other things are) according as it is practised. I have not thought it necessary to advert to some passages of Scripture which it seems hard to reconcile with the idea that slave- holding, under all circumstances, is within its prohibitions. Your 2d question is as follows: 'Do professors of religion forfeit their christian character by buying and selling slaves, as they may find it convenient ? or do they subject them- selves to censure and discipline by any immorality or ill treatment of which they might be guilty towards their slaves?' The persons among us who buy and sell slaves for profit are never, as I have ever heard or be- lieve, professors of religion. Such conduct, or any immorality or ill treatment towards their slaves, would forfeit their christian character and privileges, if their minister did his duty. And nothing more disgraces a man, in general estima- tion, than to be guilty of any immorality or ill treatment towards his slaves. N question—'Since the discussion of slavery in the legislature of Virginia, a few years since, has there been in ihat state any change of opinion more favourable to the continuance of the present system ? If so, to what cause is that change to be attributed'.' A considerable change of opinion has taken place in all the middle slates, particularly, per- haps, in Virginia and Maryland, such as your question suggests. Some, who were favourable to emancipation connected with removal, now avow themselves against it altogether, and against the agitation of every thing connected with sla- very, and show less kind feeling towards the blacks. I attribute this to the publications and elforts of the abolitionists. •1th question—'Is it the general belief of humane and christian colonizationists in the south, that slaves ought not to be emancipated, unless they are also sent out of the country I If this is their opinion, on what is it founded ? Were they set free, would not their labour still be needed, and might it not be secured on terms more advanta- geous to both parlies than under present arrange- ments ?' It is, I believe, universally so thought by them. I never heard a contrary opinion, except that some conceived, some time ago, that a territory in our country, to the west, might be set apart for them. But few, comparatively, adopted this idea; and I never hear it advocated now. This opinion is founded on the conviction that their labour, however it might be needed, could not be secured, but by a severer system of constraint than that of slavery—that they would constitute a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that could aftiict a (Concluded on the fourth page.) |