Discussion on American Slavery

Оглавление

Thompson George. Discussion on American Slavery

INTRODUCTION

DISCUSSION

FIRST NIGHT – MONDAY JUNE 13

SECOND NIGHT – TUESDAY, JUNE 14

THIRD NIGHT – WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15

FOURTH NIGHT – THURSDAY, JUNE 16

FIFTH NIGHT – FRIDAY, JUNE 17

APPENDIX

Отрывок из книги

Agreeably to public advertisement, the discussion betwixt Mr. George Thompson and the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge, was opened Monday evening, June 13. By half-past six, the hour fixed on by the Committee, Dr. Wardlaw's Chapel contained 1,200 individuals, the number agreed upon by both parties. A great number could not gain admittance, in consequence of the tickets allotted, being bought up on Saturday. On the entrance of the two antagonists, accompanied by the Committee, the audience warmly cheered them. By appointment of the Committee —

Rev. Dr. WARDLAW took the Chair. Having thanked the Committee for the honor they had conferred on him, and which, he trusted, would meet with the concurrence of the meeting, he said he had accepted the honorable post with the utmost confidence in the forbearance and propriety of conduct of the two gentlemen – or antagonists, should he call them? who were to address the meeting; and also, with the most perfect confidence in the good conduct and sense of propriety possessed by the meeting. Had he not possessed such confidence, he would never have thought of undertaking the present task. Had he imagined that the present meeting would give way to similar expressions of feeling as had taken place within these walls on some former occasions, he would at once have declined the task, as one for which he was totally unfit, – he was not fit to manage storms. The parties on the present occasion were different from those to whom they had listened at the time to which he referred. One of them, it was true, was the same, and his character all of them knew. They knew his sentiments, his zeal, his eloquence, his devotedness to the great cause of which he was the fearless advocate. In reference to his opponent, on the present occasion, he would not dishonor that gentleman by naming him along with an individual who had stood before them formerly in opposition to their eloquent friend. He felt it to be his duty to introduce to them his friend – for he was allowed to call him so – the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. That gentleman had come to this country, the accredited agent from the Presbyterian church – a large and influential body of Christians in America, to the congregational union of England and Wales. It was proper that he should state to the meeting that Mr. Breckinridge was no advocate of slavery – that he believed it to be opposed to the letter and spirit of the gospel, and as a proof how far he was in earnest in his professions in this matter, he had freely parted with a patrimonial estate so far as it consisted of slaves. (Cheers.) Having stated this, it might be further necessary that he should mention what gave rise to the present meeting. They were all aware, then, he said, that since his return from America, Mr. George Thompson had been lecturing in various parts of the kingdom. In the course of his labors he was accused of having brought extravagant and unfounded charges against the American nation, and especially against the ministers of religion in that country. In consequence of this, Mr. Thompson published a challenge in the Patriot newspaper, in which he called upon any American minister to come forward and defend his brethren, if he were able, from the charges which he brought against them. This challenge, through the columns of the same newspaper, had been accepted by Mr. Breckinridge, and now they were here met to enter upon the discussion. The Chairman then read the regulations with regard to the conducting of the discussion which had been agreed upon by the Committee. In addition to what they contained, he might add that the chairman was not to be considered judge of what was relevant or irrelevant, nor was the speaker to be interrupted on any account. He would especially beg their serious attention to the rule requiring the entire suppression of every symptom of approbation or disapprobation. He trusted that his interference would not be required, but if it were he would feel himself called upon by imperative duty to enforce this regulation with the utmost strictness. Mr. Breckinridge had heard from some quarter or other very unfavorable accounts of the decorum of a Glasgow audience. He hoped that their conduct on the present occasion would disabuse that gentleman's mind of any unfavorable opinion he might entertain of them on that score. In conclusion, he might repeat, that he placed the most perfect reliance on the good sense and gentlemanly feeling of both speakers. Let them both, then, be heard fairly. He solicited favor for neither – he demanded justice for both.

.....

Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON said, the work he had to do in reference to the last speech was by no means great or difficult. They had heard a great many things stated by Mr. Breckinridge on the great question in debate, but every one of these had been stated a thousand times before, and answered again and again within the last sixty years. Within these very walls they had heard many of them brought forward and refuted within the last four years. But there was one part of his opponent's speech to which he would reply with emphasis. And he could not but confess that he had listened to that one part of it with surprise. He knew Mr. Breckinridge to be the advocate of gradual emancipation; he (Mr. Thompson) had therefore come prepared to hear all the arguments employed by the gradualists, urged in the ablest manner, but he had not been prepared to hear from that gentleman's lips the things he had heard – he did not expect that the foul charge of stirring up a mob against Mr. Breckinridge for advocating the principles of colonization, would be brought against William Lloyd Garrison. But they would here see the propriety and utility of his calling upon his opponent to leave generalities and come to something specific – to lay his finger on a fact which could be examined and tested circumstantially. And what did they suppose was the truth in the present case? Simply this, that when Mr. Breckinridge came forward to explain the principles of the Maryland colonization scheme, the noisy rabble who sought to mob, did so only so long as they were under the impression that he was an abolitionist. Mr. B. and his brother, who was along with him on that occasion, did their best to let the meeting know that they were not abolitionists but colonizationists, and whenever the mob learned that, they became quiet. This was the fact in regard to that case – he would willingly stake the merits of the whole question on the truth of what he had just stated, and he would call on Mr. B. to say whether it was not true; he would call on him to exhibit the placard which had been written by Mr. Garrison, or tell what it contained. He had a copy of the Liberator of the day referred to, and he would ask him to point out a single word in it which could be found fault with. He would dare Mr. B. to find a single sentence in that paper calculated to stir up a mob, or to induce any one to hurt a single hair of his head. With regard to the Maryland colonization scheme, he was not going to enter upon its discussion at that hour of the evening, but the next evening, if they were spared, he would endeavor to show the gross iniquity of that scheme, recommended as it was by Mr. Breckinridge. In the mean time, to return to the next charge, they were told of an active abolitionist – Elizur Wright. And here he would at once say, that it was too bad to bring such a charge against an individual like Elizur Wright, than whom he knew no man, either on this or the the other side of the Atlantic, whose nature was more imbued with the milk of human kindness, or whose heart was more alive to the dictates of Christian charity – it was too bad, he repeated, to bring such a charge against that man, unless it could be substantiated beyond the possibility of doubt. They were told that Elizur Wright had stirred up the people of New York to insurrection, by inflammatory placards. Here indeed was a serious charge, but they ought to know what these placards were. Again, he would call upon Mr. B. to show a copy of the placard, or to say what were its contents. In explanation of the matter he might state to the meeting that there was a little truth in what had been said about this matter; and in order to make them understand the case properly, they must first know, that in New York there were at all times a number of runaway slaves, and also, that there was in the same city a class of men, who, at least wore the human form, and who were even allowed to appear as gentlemen, whose sole profession was that of kidnappers; their only means of subsistence was derived from laying hold of these unfortunates, and returning them to their masters in the South. Nothing was more common than advertisements from these gentlemen kidnappers in the newspapers, in which they offered their services to any slave master whose slaves had run off. All that was necessary was merely that twenty dollars should be transmitted to them under cover, with the marks of the runaway who was soon found out if in the city, and with the clutch of a demon, seized and dragged to prison. These were the kidnappers. And who was Elizur Wright? He was the man who at all times was found ready to sympathise with those poor unfortunate outcasts, to pour the balm of consolation into their wounds – to come into the Recorder's Court, and stand there to plead the cause of the injured African at the risk of his life – undeterred by the execrations of the slave-masters, or the knife of his myrmidons. And was it a high crime that on some occasions he had been mistaken. But Elizur Wright would be able to reply to the charge himself. The account of this meeting would soon find its way to America, and he would then have an opportunity of justifying himself. As to the charge of error in his statistics, on the subject of American Slavery, it was very easily set at rest. He had said that the slave population amounted to but three hundred thousand, at the date of the Union, and that it was now two millions. The latter statement was not questioned, but it was said that there were no authentic returns at the date of the Union, and consequently, that it was impossible to say precisely. But although they could not say exactly, they could come pretty near the truth, even from the statement of Mr. Breckinridge. That gentleman admitted, that in 1790, there were only six hundred and sixty-five thousand slaves in the states. He (Mr. T.) had said, that in 1776, there were only three hundred thousand; but as the population in America doubled itself in twenty-four years, he was warranted in saying that there was no great discrepancy. But the question with him did not depend upon any particular number or any particular date. It would have been quite the same for his argument, he contended, whether he had taken six hundred and sixty-five thousand in 1790, or three hundred thousand in 1776. All that he had wished to show, was the rapid increase of the slave population, and consequently, of the vice and misery inherent in that system, even while the American people professed themselves to be so anxious to put an end to it altogether. Had he wished to dwell on this part of the argument, he could also have shown, that the increase of the slave population during the first twenty years of the Union, had gone on more rapidly even during that time, the trade in slaves having been formally recognised by the Constitution during that period, and a duty of $10 imposed on every slave imported into the United States. The following was the clause from the Constitution:

To sum up Mr. Breckinridge's last address, what, he would ask, had been its whole aim? Clearly, that they should consider the abolitionists as the chief promoters of all the riots that had taken place in America on this question, by making inflammatory appeals to the passions of the people. He would call upon Mr. Breckinridge again, to lay his hand on a single proof of this. He would call upon him to point out a single instance where language had been used which was in any degree calculated to call up the blood-thirsty passions of the mob as had been represented. If the planters of the South were roused into fury by the declaration of anti-slavery sentiments – if they were unable to hear the everlasting truths which it promulgated, was that a sufficient reason for those to keep silent who felt it to be their duty, at all hazards, to make known these truths. Or were they to be charged with raising mobs, because the people were enraged to hear these truths. As well might Paul of Tarsus have been charged with the mobs which rose against his life, and that of his fellow-apostles. As well might Galileo be charged with those persecutions which immured him in a dungeon. As well might the apostles of truth in every age be charged with the terrible results which ensued from the struggle of light and darkness. In conclusion, Mr. Thompson said, that on the following evening, he would take up the question of the Maryland colonization scheme.

.....