Slavery the Live Issue: Addresses Delivered in Cincinnati, Ohio, on April 11-13, 1854
SLAVERY THE LIVE ISSUE: ADDRESSES DELIVERED IN
CINCINNATI, OHIO, ON 11—13 APRIL 1854
Cincinnati Daily Gazette, 12, 15 April 1854; Frederick Douglass' Paper, 21 April 1854;
Anti-Slavery Bugle, 22 April 1854.
Between 1851 and 1855 antislavery conventions sponsored by the Cincinnati
Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Sewing Circle were held in that city each April. The
meetings attempted to bring together the broadest possible range of opponents
of slavery. Douglass had attended the 1852 Cincinnati gathering and promised
his newspaper's readers to endeavor to be present at the 1854 convention
because there “all the bitter strifes of new and old organization, of moral
suasionists, and of legal suasionists, have been shamed into silence by the
overshadowing influence of a common desire to regenerate the moral sentinel
of the country and to emancipate the slave.” Despite an admission charge,
over two thousand abolitionists and onlookers jammed the Greenwood Hall in
Cincinnati from 11 to 13 April for day—long antislavery sessions. A map of the
United States measuring nine by twenty-one feet was suspended behind the
speakers’ rostrum to dramatize the “present limits of slavery and its prospec-
tive extension” into Kansas and Nebraska. Lucy Stone, Charles C. Burleigh,
Henry B. Blackwell, and numerous midwestern antislavery veterans at-
tended. Douglass entered into the debates at nearly every session and made a
major address the first morning and each evening. The convention passed with
little disagreement resolutions condemning the Fugitive Slave Law, the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the “Black Laws” of Indiana and Illinois. On the
second evening Douglass debated Lucy Stone over the constitutionality of
slavery. The Cincinnati Daily Gazette of 13 April reported that “the fervid
eloquence of one, was only equalled by the equally fervid and glowing elo-
quence of the other.” The antislavery press unanimously praised the Cincinnati
gathering. Douglass later lauded the participants, commended Cincinnati’s
willingness to host such a radical assemblage, and pronounced the convention
“one of the best we ever attended.” FDP, 7, 28 April 1854; Cincinnati Daily
Gazette, 13, 14 April 1854; PaF, 20, 27 April 1854; Lib., 21 April 1854;
Washington (D.C.) National Era, 27 April 1854; ASB, 29 April 1854; John
R. McKivigan, “The Christian Anti-Slavery Convention Movement of the
Northwest," Old Northwest, 5: 345-62 (Winter 1979-80).
First Day [11 April 1854]
MORNING SESSION
[Selection of officers; speeches by John Jolliffe, Daniel Parker, and L. A.
Hines; introduction of resolutions]
Frederick Douglass (colored) was, on motion, called upon to speak. He
took the stand but said he hoped other speakers would not necessarily be
called to speak by a formal vote, but that they would speak out the great
thought in them, without hindrance or technicality.
He was happy again to unite with his anti-slavery friends in united
efforts in a common cause. He was glad to meet them on the catholic
platform of Abolition, to shake hands with all who were agreed to this one
cardinal doctrine. Slavery is a sin, a crime against man, and should be
immediately and unconditionally abolished. The resolutions offered spoke
of the illegality of slavery.1Among the resolutions issued at the morning session was one that stated, “Slavery can never be legalized by any human enactments, but is always and everywhere a usurpation on the part of the master, and imposes no obligation whatever on the part of the slave." ASB, 22 April 1854. Some say slavery is legalized. So horrible an
outrage on humanity, such injustice and wrong can’t possibly be crowded
into the form of law. Neither by the law of God nor by the law of man can
slavery be legalized. He knew there were enactments in the slave States
authorizing and sanctioning slavery. Men got together and voted that cer-
tain other men were property, goods and chattels, to all intents, purposes,
and consequences, that they do not belong to themselves, can own nothing
themselves, but are owned of masters. He knew that they executed such
laws, so called. But to nullify them he brought up the broad principles of
law itself. One definition of law may be, the enactments of a power that can
enforce its decrees. Blackstone’s definition of law is, “It is the supreme
power of the State, commending what is right and forbidding what is
wrong."2In the first volume of his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England Sir William Blackstone (1723-80) discussed the various types of law, including natural law, revealed or religious law, the law of nations or international law, and municipal civil law. Blackstone defined municipal law as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, With Additional Notes and a Life of the Author by George Sharswood, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1866), 1: 44.
This is the true definition; then the edicts of tyrants and oppressors are
opposed to all law, and are no more to be obeyed as law than the murderous
commands of the captain of a pirate ship, on the deck of which might makes
right. There is an insuperable difficulty in creating slavery by law. Man is
the owner of himself; the right to himself is inseparable from himself, and
no power beneath the sky can take it from him. He may be whipped,
gagged, degraded, and kept in ignominy; but while a single spark of the
divine vitality is left in him, while a ray of manhood beams from his eye, he
has his rights as a man. Time nor change can alienate or destroy them. As
said by T. D. Weld, “The right of the individual to himself, is the post in
the centre of all rights—strike that down, and down go all rights."3Douglass paraphrases Weld 's The Bible Against Slavery: An Inquiry Into The Patriarchal and Mosaic Systems on the Subject of Human Rights (New York, 1838), 10: “A man's right to himself, is the only right absolutely original and intrinsic—his right to whatever else that belongs to him is merely relative to this, is derived from it, and held only by virtue of it. SELF-RIGHT is the foundation right—the post in the middle, to which all other rights are fastened." This is,
and has been, the upshot of all abolition teaching for thirty years, that man
is his own. No law of slavery is, then, binding on any man. What our
fathers or Congresses did at the beginning, has no more force, and should
have no more force than those of their children. They had no right to make
laws legalizing slavery; and no one can give to others what he himself don ’t
possess. And Governments have no powers that individuals have not.
Hence, Government having no right, their exercise of it was unauthorized—
it was without any right.
It rushed out of its orbit to give sanction to this foul, black, damning,
haggard conspiracy. The laws then enforcing slavery are not only bad laws,
but no laws. It was against the law for a slave to escape from his master, but
he felt no compunction when he escaped, on account of having broken the
law, but that he was acting the part of a good citizen in escaping as soon as
possible from under such laws. Murder and piracy may as well be legalized
as Slavery, or rather Slavery is both united. The principle of the tenure of
Slavery is, be a slave or die; without that grand feature in the institution,
Slavery would soon give way to freedom. No law, then, can rightfully take
away the right of a man to himself. Such laws are so much parchment words
and ink, containing no vitality to bind the consciences of the slaves or their
friends. The moment a slave can escape from his chains, he is justified so to
do. He might make out in due form of law, a deed to the body of his
neighbor, but the inherent right of the neighbor to himself would remain,
whether the deed was accepted and executed or not. The title, thanks to
God, is on record in the bosom of the Eternal One, and until tyrants are able
to upturn the throne of Heaven and wrest it thence, they cannot sustain
Slavery. Men were meant to be free.
The nearer then, Anti-Slavery people get in sympathy with the
humblest son of the oppressed, will they be best fitted for the duties of the
Convention. They should not entangle themselves so much in the snarl of
opinions, but rally with hearts overrunning with sympathy for the down-
trodden and oppressed, and to enforce the most stringent truths; then our
proceedings will bring us a day’s journey nearer the goal of freedom.
Some words of fear and faltering had been overheard by him since he
had arrived, at the power of the pro-slavery feeling here; for himself he had
no fears of ultimate peace and emancipation.
This Slavery question was mingled with our daily bread, it was at
present the only question that could brighten up the eyes or prick up the ears
of the people. Talk about banks and tariffs, and people ’s heads hang down;
but strike the living question of Slavery and all heads are erect. Both
political parties have abandoned all other issues, but both unite in support
of this; on the subject of Slavery both occupy the same ground.
Whigs and Democrats unite in support of the platforms of Slavery, and
in this crisis the disjointed elements of liberty are arrayed against them
both. Few of us as they think we are, there are enough of us, with our
vitality concentrated, to shake the land and rock the nation. Discussion is
what we want. The people are discussing it—the churches are discussing
it—parties are discussing it—even the ministers of the Gospel in New
England, are petitioning on this subject. If the same 3000 preachers had
taken this stand ten years ago, the chains of the Slave would have been
looser to-day.4After Stephen A. Douglas introduced his Nebraska bill into the Senate in January 1854, liberal clergymen presented to Senator Edward Everett of Massachusetts a memorial 250 feet long and signed by over three thousand northern churchmen protesting "in the name of Almighty God" the passage of the Nebraska bill because they believed it to be “morally wrong." Right of Petition; New England Clergymen: Remarks of Messrs. Everett, Mason, Pettit, Douglas, Butler, Seward, Houston, Adams, Badger, on the Memorial from some 3,050 Clergymen of All Denominations and Seets in the Different States of New England, Remonstrating Against the Passage of the Nebraska Bill; Senate of the United States, March 14, 1854 (Washington, 1854); Filler, Crusade Against Slavery, 229-30. He thanked his good namesake, Douglas, for introducing
the Nebraska Bill:5The much-amended bill to organize the territories of Kansas and Nebraska was originally introduced into Congress by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. The measure allowed residents of those territories to decide whether or not they would permit slavery on the “popular sovereignty" principle. In the final version passed on 30 May 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act voided the Missouri Compromise's provisions restricting slavery within the old Louisiana Purchase and established the doctrine of congressional nonintervention with slavery in the territories. Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 1st sess., 2228-32; P. Orman Ray, The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise: Its Origin and Authorship (Cleveland, 1909), 16, 182-87. he recognized in him an instrument, in the hands of
God, to promote Anti-Slavery. He looked upon him in the light of a
God-send. He believed in a Divine Providence and that this procedure has
been brought about by Him. Slaveholders and their abettors had aimed at
one thing—silence. Clay and Webster wanted peace for Slavery; the South
said let us alone; pro-Slavery parties said let it rest. Their Compromise
measures were shaped as they thought to bring peace.
Webster, after the completion of their plans in 1850, broke out in the
language of Shakespeare in poetic congratulation: “Now is the winter of
[our] discontent made glorious summer,” &c. Clay said, now peace, quiet
and tranquility reign throughout all our borders from Maine to Louisiana,
all rejoice in the silence. A number of the most distinguished patriots of the
day formally united in a round robin pledge to oppose all and any person
who would again agitate the Slave subject in Congress. Yet Douglas, one
of the high priests ofthe peace movement of Slavery, is the first one to open
it up with all its violence and excitement. Verin there is a God to bring to
nought the counsels of wicked men. They seek peace for the Slaveholder,
but to the Slaveholder there can be no peace; his is a bad business; to him,
while a Slaveholder, there can be neither peace of mind nor peace of
conscience. If they could close up all Anti-Slavery Conventions, take all
our Publications, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and the portions of the Bible which
teach that men should do to others as they should wish to be done by, place
them in the District of Columbia, set a match to them until the flames
reached the sky; if they could have every abolitionist’s tongue cut out, thus
to procure their silence, they will not have obtained their object, for deep
down in the secret corners of the Slaveholder’s soul, God Almighty has
planted an abolition sentinel in his monitor, the conscience.
I would not be guilty to my brother by holding him in bondage; as
Cowper said—
“I would not have a slave to till my ground for all the gold that sinews,
bought and sold, have ever earned."6Douglass paraphrases William Cowper's The Time Piece, lines 29-32: “I would not have a slave to till my ground,/To carry me, to fan me while I sleep,/And tremble when I wake, for all the wealth/That sinews bought and sold have ever earned." Bailey, Poems of William Cowper, 267.
AFTERNOON SESSION
[Speeches by Lucy Stone, Daniel Worth, Daniel Parker; introduction of reso-
lutions.]
Frederick Douglass, protesting against the commital of the Convention
to any construction of the constitution, applying its language to mean
“slaves,” suggested that the phraseology of that instrument should be used
instead of the words slaves.
By all rules of construction, where human rights are infringed, or
where the general principles of law are departed from, the intent of the law
maker must be clearly distinct. Or where an enactment can bear two in-
terpretations, one accomplishing an innocent purpose, and the other a
criminal one, it is proper to take the innocent one. Villainous intention
should be expressed in villainous language, in language that means that,
and no other than that. The Constitution makers, by this interpretation, did
not mean slavery.
For one, he was determined to put slavery to the truth; it shall prove its
title to the uttermost. If there be a flaw, or a link broken, it shall be pinned
down to facts, not to inference in favor of slavery or any other wrong.
In the language of Shakespeare, they may take the pound of flesh, but
not one drop of blood.7An allusion to The Merchant of Venice, particularly act 4, sc. 1, lines 307-08. The complaint made about the Constitution was
quite unnecessary, as that excellent instrument, the bond of union of the
fathers in 1789 had, by their degenerate sons, been superseded and ren-
dered inoperative by the platforms and compromises of ’50 and ’52. He
saw no present demand for pressing this resolution now as in the Conven-
tion, and out of it, among the Abolitionists, there were two parties. Mrs.
Harriet Beecher Stowe was an urgent proclaimer of the pro-slavery charac-
ter of the Constitution, as he was of its opposite character.8Harriet Beecher Stowe's published writings do not substantiate Douglass’s characterization, and Douglass's editorials, speeches, and correspondence voice no criticism of Stowe's views on the Constitution. It seems liker that this passage is a stenographer's erroneous transcription of a reference by Douglass to Lucy Stone, a prominent Garrisonian lecturer who was present at the Cincinnati gathering. He dwelt some
time upon the action of Horace Greeley on the slavery question, contending
that he told many truths, but did not always vote right.
Miss Lucy Stone9Lucy Stone (1818-93) was emerging as one of the leading abolitionist and feminist orators of the day. Born in West Brookfield, Massachusetts, she was the daughter of Francis Stone, a wealthy farmer, and Hannah Matthews Stone. At sixteen when her father refused to finance her college education, primarily because she was a woman, Lucy decided to teach in the local school and save money. For brief periods she attended Quaboag Seminary in Warren, Massachusetts, the Wesleyan Academy in Wilbraham, Massachusetts. and Oberlin College, from which she was graduated in 1847. That same year Stone gave her first public address on women's rights from the pulpit of her brother. William Bowman Stone, at Gardner, Massachusetts, and in 1848 she began to lecture regularly for the American Anti-Slavery Society. In 1850 she was instrumental in launching the annual National Woman's Rights Conference, first held at Worcester. Massachusetts, and helped pay for the publication of its proceedings. In May 1855 she married fellow reformer Henry Blackwell but continued to use her family name. In the 1860s Stone was one of the founders of the New England Woman Rights Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association. In 1870 she raised money for the founding of the Woman's Journal, and in 1872 she and her husband became its coeditors. Alice Stone Blackwell. Lucy Stone, Pioneer of Women's Rights (Boston, 1930); Stanton et al., History of Woman Suffrage, 1: 260-62; James et al., Notable American Women, 3: 387-90; ACAB, 5: 702-3; NCAB, 29: 128; DAB, 17: 80-81. declared her readiness to assent to the amendment of
the Constitution as proposed. She desired purity, not peace; the slave
representation was a power wielded against the interest of the slave, and
she did not desire the resolution laid on the table. The discussion of what
pertains to labor was worth more to her than peace.
Frederick Douglass replied he wanted no deceitful peace; he desired
discussion on topics that would promote harmony and advance their cause.
It is true that the Government and Courts have decided the Constitution
pro-Slavery, but it is not from its intrinsic merits, but by the traditions of the
people. Really, the Constitution no more guarantees the holding of slaves
than angels; if it was dropped from the skies among the people, not one in
ten thousand would suppose that it had allusion to making men and women
slaves. He did not believe the true construction of that instrument was the
one ordinarily received. It was in all places liberty, nowhere Slavery.
It was against the universal instincts and habits of freemen, at least
white men, when their lives and property are in danger, to weigh every tittle
of language to condemn him, if condemned at all. Why, then, are we so
ready to infer the rights away from the black man? We are in the habit of
construing the Constitution, the laws, and everything against the negro. He
denied that the [word] persons in the Constitution properly meant slaves,
for if properly, it could not be persons; all that was wanting was to construe
it according to the letter, and it would give freedom to the nation. Let the
engine of the Magna Charta beat against the Jericho walls of Slavery, and
no seven days’ blowing of rams’ horns would be necessary.10The Magna Charta was the charter of liberties to which the English barons forced King John to give his assent in 1215 at Runnymede. Douglass's metaphor alludes to the fate of the walls of Jericho described in Josh. 6: 1-20. The reso-
lutions were recommitted when the Convention adjourned for an evening
session.
EVENING SESSION
[Speech by Henry B. Blackwell.]
(Mr. Douglass being called on, said, as the holding of the Convention
would be attended with considerable expense, he would propose a commit-
tee of finance, composed of ladies and gentlemen, who should wait on the
audience and collect subscriptions; the song “Children of the Glorious
Dead"11Attributed to either Mrs. S. T. Martyn or “Miss S. H. S.," “Children of the Glorious Dead," also known as “On to Victory," was an antislavery hymn sung to the air “Scots wha hae": “Children of the glorious dead, / Who for freedom fought and bled. / With her banner o‘er you spread, /On to victory!" The Free Soil Minstrel (New York, 1848), 29-30; William Wells Brown, The Anti-Slavery Harp, 2d ed. (Boston, 1849). 33; John A. Collins, The Anti-Slavery Picknick: A Collection of Speeches, Poems, Dialogue and Song; Intended for Use in Schools and Anti-Slavery Meetings (Boston, 1862), 108-09. being sung in the meanwhile. The suggestion was received with
general approbation, and after being acted upon, Mr. Douglass, by general
request, made an address in which, after paying a high compliment to the
talented speech of Mr. Blackwell,12Henry B. Blackwell spoke on the Nebraska bill and proclaimed that “it was a prelude to the annexation of Cuba, and the dismemberment of Mexico; and finally the revival of the slave trade. . . . He showed that it would separate the free states from communication with the Pacific; that the same principle applied to Oregon and Washington would make them also open to the admission of slavery; that a numerical majority in Congress could at any time restore the slave trade. and that the passage of the bill would endanger the existence of the Union. “ Henry Brown Blackwell (1825-1909) was born in Bristol, England, the son of Samuel and Hannah Lane Blackwell and brother of Elizabeth Blackwell, who became one of the first woman doctors in the United States. The Blackwells came to New York City in 1832 and became active in the antislavery movement. In 1838 they moved to Cincinnati. Henry worked at odd jobs to help support the large family and in 1853 made his first speech at a woman suffrage convention in Cleveland. Blackwell served on the business committee which organized the Anti-Slavery Convention in Cincinnati in 1854. He married Lucy Stone in 1855 and served as coeditor ofthe Woman's Journal until 1893, and as editor from then until his death. Stanton et al., History of Woman Suffrage, 1: 126-27; NCAB, 20: 294-95; DAB, 2: 321. he proceeded to say he did not consider
the prospects of anti-slavery were so dark as Mr. B[lackwell] had reprc-
sented. He took courage from the fact that the North had already repudiated
the Fugitive Slave act, it had been found impossible to execute it, it was
daily violated, and yet not a man had been punished.
If, then, this Nebraska bill did pass, as he believed it would, it would
turn to ashes in the hands of slaveholders. He would to God a fugitive slave
act was passed every day in the week, for it would create fresh feelings and
new editions of Uncle Tom. He hoped that Douglas would be successful in
this, for though he wished the North to gain one victory, in order to give it
fresh spirit just as one victory would have given spirit to Santa Anna13Antonio Lopez, de Santa Anna (1794-1876), military leader during Mexico's war for independence, president of Mexico (1833-35, 1838-45, 1847, 1853-55), and commander of Mexican forces during Texas's war for independence and the war between the United States and Mexico. In exile after 1855, Santa Anna lived and traveled in the United States, Cuba, and the Bahamas. He returned to Mexico City after the completion of his memoirs in 1874 and died there two years later. Wilfred H. Callcott, Santa Anna: The Story of an Enigma Who Once Was Mexico (1936; Hamden, Conn., 1964); Charles A. Hale, Mexican Liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1821—1853 (New Haven, 1968), 109-10, 144-45, 175, 276-77. in the
Mexican war, yet he cared not for the passage of the bill; it would but
strengthen the hands of the anti-slavery party. The honor of the South had
already violated the honor supposed to exist among thieves; it had accepted
the bargains and terms, and had then repudiated the one and broken the
other. He now wished freedom to fight slavery over a line, hand to hand.
man to man; such a contest is coming and I hail it with joy. The North will
yet rise up and stem the torrent of slavery and corruption.
The South does not live in an atmosphere favorable to honesty; slavery
being favorable to robbery and murder, and slaveholders being robbers and
murderers, they cannot do otherwise than as they do. Mr. D[ouglass] here
denounced the love of office by Northern men, and instanced it by the
anecdote of the applicant for office to Pres. Monroe.14James Monroe (1758-1831), fifth president of the United States (1817-25). He first asked for a
post as diplomatic agent; could not get one; he tried to get into the post
office, and failed in that; he then suggested the Custom House, but failing
in that, solicited the present of a pair of unmentionables; he was determined
to find something, the breeches rather than nothing. This is an American
peculiarity, and the South takes advantage of it. The speaker told another
humorous anecdote, and wound up with an eloquent and sorrowful review
of Webster’s career, and final defection from the cause of freedom. Loud
and enthusiastic applause followed his conclusion.)15From Frederick Douglass' Paper, 21 April 1854.
Second Day [12 April 1854]
EVENING SESSION
(The astonishing thing in last night’s meeting, was the unprecedented
throng that pressed for admittance into the building for an hour and a half
after the Hall had been filled, and the walls near the doors were hung with
people on ladders that had somehow been procured for this new use.
The first speech was made by Miss Lucy Stone. She is decidedly the
most effective female speaker that has yet raised her voice in any of the
reform movements. Thoroughly in earnest, she never fails to convince
the audience that she is so.
(Miss Stone proceeded to develop the character of slavery, and illus-
trated its horrible influences upon the slave, and the humiliating position in
which it had placed the north, by arguments and the thrilling narrative of
the escape of a young and beautiful woman from the South to Boston. The
closing of her address was occupied in giving reasons for a separation of
the Union and the establishment of a Northern Republic. This part of the
address was listened to with calm and respectful attention, interrupted only
by occasional expression of approbation. There were no hisses, or signs of
uproarious displeasure, which were not long since wont to greet the utter-
ance of such opinions.)
FREDERICK DOUGLASS was the next speaker; he was received with as
loud demonstrations of applause as a star actor when he strides before the
footlights. Douglass said that slavery was itself the great evil—it was not
the whippings, the separations, the cruelties; these were only incidents
gathering round or naturally proceeding from the enslavement of man,
Cruelties were only aggravations of the crime. On the other hand, occa-
sional ameliorations in the system—individual acts of kindness—were
only whitening of the sepulchre. Reduce a man to chattel and you can do
nothing more than disguise his real situation. Therefore the occasional
instances of suffering among free people in Canada or in England contrib-
uted no argument against freedom. Restore such man his natural rights and,
though destitute of all things else, he will gain land and clothes, honor and
friends.
Mr. D[ouglass] made a speech of nearly two hours in length, marked
by a singular power in argument, satire, humor and pathos that has given to
this son of a distinguished Southerner a name in both hemispheres.
(A considerable portion of Mr. Douglass’ speech was devoted to a
vindication of the anti-slavery character of the constitution, and to a criti-
cism of the measures proposed by the friends ofthe American Anti-Slavery
Society. He especially, addressed himself to the proposition urged by Miss
Stone, that a dissolution of the Union was desirable. He thought it would be
a measure most calamitous to the Slave and to the cause of Freedom.
He closed by urging the importance of a religious view and treatment of
the question, confessing that he had been inadvertently led, in his advocacy
of this cause, to neglect prayer and other religious duties, and that to this
course anti-slavery advocates were especially, though unfortunately liable.
After an announcement that Mr. Burleigh would reply to Mr. Doug-
lass’ speech the next evening, on which occasion Mr. Douglass and Miss
Stone would also speak, the Convention adjourned.)
Third Day [3 April 1854]
MORNING SESSION
Mr. Emery,16The Reverend Joseph Emery (?—c. 1900) was a member of the wealthy Emery family of Cincinnati. A Baptist minister and Sunday school superintendent for over forty years, Emery was locally known for his attempts to end anti-black discrimination in Cincinnati churches. Wendell P. Dabney, Cincinnati's Colored Citizens: Historical, Sociological and Biographical (Cincinnati. 1926), 96-97. city missionary, offered a resolution having for its object the
encouragement of anti-slavery papers and naming the principal ones.
This called up Mr. Burleigh, who said, while endorsing its general
sentiment, he begged to object to the “Christian Press,”17Founded in 1852, the Christian Press was a weekly Cincinnati newspaper edited by the Reverend Charles B. Boynton at the time of this convention. Boynton's editorials endorsed political and church-oriented abolitionism while frequently accusing the Garrisonians of religious infidelity. Converted into a monthly in 1855, the Christian Press survived until 1906 as the organ of the American Reform Tract and Book Society. Cincinnati Christian Press, 10, 24 December 1852; Washington (D.C.) National Era, 23 July 1853; FDP, 23 July 1852; American Reform Tract and Book Society, “Circular,” 1 November 1855. being as it was
included among the others mentioned as anti-slavery papers. He then in a
long, eloquent and powerful speech discussed the general subject of slav-
ery, concluded amid loudly expressed approbation.
Mr. Douglass said Mr. Burleigh having kindly recommended his pa-
per, he begged to endorse that recommendation; “it was a good paper!”
(Laughter) In reference to that “modesty” for which Mr. B[urleigh] had
given him credit, he could only say he valued it highly; and would express a
hope that the passage of the resolution would secure him a largely increased
subscription list. (Great laughter.) “All those who smile (continued Mr.
D.) I shall presume wish to put down their names and pay in their two
dollars (renewed laughter); as I see you all smile, I concluded you will all
subscribe; so 1 herewith pick up my hat and come among you.” Mr.
Douglass descended from the platform amid a general merriment: the
resolution was then amended by omission of the names of the papers, and
passed. The convention then adjourned. )18From Anti-Slavery Bugle, 22 April 1854.
AFTERNOON SESSION
In reference to the Black Laws of Indiana and Illinois, a Mr. Hudson of the
latter State spoke to the resolution referring thereto,19The resolution read: “Resolved, That the stringent and oppressive black laws of Indiana and Illinois, are a disgrace to the people of those States—that the Illinois law, especially, which sells to the highest bidder, any colored person who spends ten days upon her soil, however consistent in the State whose Senator originated the Nebraska swindle, is an outrage upon justice and humanity, an exhibition of barbarism shameful to our country, a violation of the Constitution, the ordinance of eighty-seven and the common law, and a dangerous omen of the intended introduction of slavery in the North." Cincinnati Daily Gazette, 15 April 1854. and said it was not the
enactment of the people of that State, but of the Legislature.
Frederick Douglas[s] differed with Mr. Hudson as to the essential
source of the Black Laws. He knew of no better index of the public senti-
ments than the enactments of popular legislative bodies, particularly after
they were some time on the statute book.
Miss Lucy Stone spoke to the Resolution having reference to the estab-
lishment and success of the Libraries and Lectures for the colored men of
Cincinnati.20The text of this resolution was: “Resolved, that since colored people are excluded from the best privileges of literature and education by the unjust spirit of caste, we hail with pleasure the noble efforts of the colored people of Cincinnati to establish schools, libraries and lectures—we congratulate them on their success. and call upon the public to aid them in their laudable efforts—that in view of the almost insurmountable industrial disabilities under which they labor, the friends of Equal Rights should encourage them both by precept and practice, to enter all the useful trades and professions." ASB, 22 April 1854. She hoped it would not be misunderstood. We did not want to
separate the colored people only as a necessary preliminary step to their
recognition as part of the great Brotherhood.
Mr. Douglas[s] addressed the Convention in a humorous manner on
the same topic.
Mr. Varian, an Irish refugee, through Mr. Herne,21Actually John W. Hum (1823-87), born in Norwich, England, who was a telegraph operator in Cincinnati and later in Philadelphia. When Douglass was lecturing in Philadelphia in 1859, the same Hum suppressed a telegram that ordered Douglass's arrest for complicity in the Harpers Ferry raid. Instead of delivering the telegram to the Philadelphia sheriff, Hum alerted Douglass, who fled the city. Hum later moved to New Jersey and became a newspaper editor. In 1882 Douglass gratefully acknowledged that Hurn had “saved my life“ with his timely warning. Douglass to John W. Hum, 12 June 1882, FD Papers, LNArc; FDP, 28 April 1854; Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, 21 February 1895; C. S. Williams, Williams' Cincinnati Directory, City Guide, and Business Mirror; or Cincinnati Illustrated, 1853 (Cincinnati, 1853), 193, 378; Douglass, Life and Times, 340-41; Besse Bristol Mason, “Louis Jules Gabriel Boussard Mounier," Vineland Historical Magazine, 23: 160 (January 1938). offered the follow-
ing resolution:
“Resolved, That John Mitchell, in avowing his desire to possess a
good fat plantation well stocked with negroes, has thrown off the mask of
hypocrisy, and exposed the hideous deformity of a totally depraved human
heart, and that in this attack upon the eminent philanthropist, Jas.
Houghton, in attempting to perpetrate murder, he has unwittingly commit-
ted suicide.”
Which was adopted, and the convention adjourned.
EVENING SESSION
Although the slight tariff of a dime, to pay expenses, was levied for admis-
sion, the Hall was as disagreeably crowded as on any previous occasion.
Prayer was offered by Rev. C. B. Boynton.22Charles Brandon Boynton (1806-83) was an influential New School Presbyterian minister and abolitionist from Cincinnati. Born in Massachusetts. Boynton studied at Williams College and had a successful career as a businessman, lawyer, and politician before joining the clergy in 1840. Boynton participated in local religious and political antislavery projects in Cincinnati and edited the Christian Press, the organ of the abolitionist American Reform Tract and Book Society. He served as chaplain of the House of Representatives (1865-69) and later gained some note as an advocate of a strong navy. McKivigan, “Abolitionism and the American Churches," 297-301; DAB, 2: 536-37.
Mr. C. C. Burleigh had the floor, to answer the argument of Fred
Douglas[s], advanced in his speech, on the evening preceding, on the
Anti-Slavery character of the constitution.
It appears that amongst the other differences, among abolitionists,
there is the marked one as to the character of the fundamental law of the
land, the constitution itself. Gerritt Smith, Lysander Spooner, Frederick
Douglas[s], and others travel on the broad guage, six-foot track of the
constitution, claiming that, by a strict construction of it, it is Anti-Slavery.
William Lloyd Garrison, Miss Lucy Stone, Mr. C. C. Burleigh, and others
run off on a side track, and it can’t be told where they will go to; they
denounce the constitution as Pro-Slavery, and refuse to be governed by it.
Mr. Burleigh, for more than an hour, in eloquent words and forcible
style replied seriatim to each of the points affirmed by Mr. Douglas[s].
Mr. Douglas[s] occupied about half an hour in reply, answering with
great ability the pointed criticisms of Mr. Burleigh. . . .
(We are here not to discuss probabilities, not mere belief; nothing of
the sort. Were I asked what was my belief, I should reply that the framers of
the Constitution never meant by it to give the slightest shadow of support to
slavery; I believe it because there is nothing on its face to give it support.
Mr. Madison declared the framers were unwilling to admit that man could
hold property in man.23At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison (1751-1836), fourth president of the United States (1809-17), fought any recognition of man as “taxable property" in the Constitution and protested the compromise that allowed the continuation of the African slave trade in the United States until 1808. Mellon, Early American Views on Negro Slavery, 125-27. But what matters intentions in a matter that took
place two hundred years ago? Where are we to find the intentions if not on
the face of the instrument? I maintain that slavery is only not con-
stitutionalized but was never legalised before the adoption of the constitu-
tion.
It was then as it is now a system of lawless violence. Slavery was never
even legislated for in the colonies. The charter under which it was intro-
duced was that of Queen Elizabeth to Sir John Hawkins, and that only
permitted him to transport colored men from Africa to Virginia, with their
own consent.24Hawkins's charter permitted him to trade in slaves between Africa and the West Indies, not Virginia, in the 1560s. This was the only shadow of a legal foundation there was
for slavery. It was expressly stipulated, that the laws of the colonies should
be in harmony with those of the British realm.
Lord Mansfield, in the Somerset case, decided this very principle, and
so it was that Curran afterwards appealed in such eloquent and glowing
language to this decision as the proudest boast of an Englishman; it enabled
him to say justly, that no slave could breathe the air of Britain without being
redeemed, regenerated and disenthralled. (The speaker reviewed the con-
stitution and maintained in an able argument that slavery not being men-
tioned was not a part of the constitution.)
I believe it within the bounds of probability, that three millions of
people in the south who own no slaves, will in time by the aid of education
and enlightenment, come to see that the slaveholder’s humiliation is nec-
essary for the elevation of the slave and themselves. The intelligent work-
ing men of Virginia and of Kentucky begin to understand this; they see that
white slaveholders are against them as much as they are against the slaves;
they are so: labor, white and black must fall or flourish together; and when
laboring men fully see this, then will they stand with us on the anti-slavery
platform. I say this of the people of the south, those we must regard as such
and not the slaveholders: “the aristocratic lily-fingered cradle plunder-
ers,” as Miss Stone has termed. (Thunders of applause.)
The Constitution was no bargain between slaveholders and non-
slaveholders, it was no contract between black and white, the rich and poor;
it was the act of the people; it began, “We, the people,” &c., and if the
word means anything, or the people intended anything, the constitution
was intended as an instrument, a guarantee for the extension of justice.
liberty and humanity! (Cheers) But who are the slaveholders? The South?
Not at all; there are only 300,000 slaveholders in the whole South; and
when they talk of severing their union with us, I say let them do so; we shall
still be in peace with the South.
If the slaveholders entered into this contract as a bargain, they also
knew from its face that this constitution was liable to be construed in favor
of freedom, and [they are] like Shylock, who stipulated for one pound of
the flesh of Antonio (forgetting the blood) and, when the bond became due,
through malice demanded its fulfilment [and] is told by the shrewd judge he
may take the flesh if he can get it without the blood.25Douglass refers to the judgment rendered against the money lender, Shylock, in The Merchant of Venice, act 4, sc. 1, lines 300-13. I take this to be as
sound a principle in law as in a play. (Mr. D[ouglass] here read from
various authorities passages proving his interpretation of the law governing
expression of intention to be correct.)
I can illustrate it thus by anecdote. Some years ago the white men of
Connecticut passed a law by which negroes who were out after 9 o’clock,
p.m., were compelled to carry lanterns under penalty of a fine. This was to
protect themselves from stumbling into the society of black men. Well, the
negroes bought lanterns and walked about as freely as before. Some of
them were brought before the court, but the court decided that inasmuch as
they had carried lanterns they had obeyed the law. Oh! but said the counsel
for the prosecution, the obvious intention of the law was that the lanterns
should be lighted, have candles in them; for what was the use of lanterns
without candles?
But the Court decided against his clients; the law was one abridging
liberty, and must be construed by the letter. Well, they passed another law
compelling candles to be carried in the lanterns. The negroes obeyed, they
carried lanterns with candles but forgot to light ’em. They were again tried
and acquitted; another law was then drawn up providing for the lighting of
the candles, but fell through; but if it had passed it would have been obeyed,
for the negroes would have carried dark lanterns, the while there was
nothing in the law to prevent them. (Loud laughter.) The speaker explained
the position of the Anti-Slavery party towards the Church, which ought to
have been the first to help in the good cause, and concluded with an
eloquent appeal in behalf of the slave.)26From Anti-Slavery Bugle, 22 April 1854.