For Frederick Douglass' Paper.

THE MORAL BASIS.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS: DEAR SIR:—I was much pleased with a late editorial in your paper, on the Moral Basis of the Anti-Slavery Movement. There are but few in the North, who zealously oppose slavery from a moral stand point. The great body of the political abolitionists are governed by one or all of the following motives:—

1. Slavery impedes the physical progress of a State.

2. Slavery degrades free labor, and it should not be extended; for our children may seek homes in the West.

3. We are not allowed to own slaves at the North, and it is not fair to guaranty extra privileges to the South.

4. Slavery is hostile to education, and our children or grand children, may be heathenized, if the institution be extended.

5. It don't look well for Republicans to be slaveholders, especially in the eyes of other nations.

The natural rights of man, rarely enter the thoughts of those who are governed by such
motives. His manhood is not regarded, but his ""-hood enters largely into their prejudices, and they would not consent to the abolition of slavery, unless the "niggers" are to be transported, and they won't give a cent toward the expense of their emigration.

The consequence of the general neglect of the moral principles involved in the iniquity of slavery, is the continuance of the institution under the power of Northern energy. Slavery would have been abolished about a quarter of a century ago; in all the States, except Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and

South Carolina, had it not been for the migration of vigorous young men from the poor and middle classes of the North. The schools of the South have been taught from the beginning by Yankee school masters, who have "made a raise" as pedagogues, and stepped into the professions or the proprietorship of plantations. In this easy adaptation to Southern society, we have got to hear of them being troubled by scruples of conscience. I believe nearly all the moving spirits of the South, were originally from New England; and of all I have known, who have progressed above the institution, emancipated their slaves and come North, there is not one who was born and educated at the North! The most of such friends of freedom are Quakers from North Carolina and Virginia, whose abolitionism grew out of a clear apprehension of the moral truths which are sacrificed at the shrine of Moloch. Why this reproach against the North? Evidently, because in our schools, colleges, and churches, the first principles of morality and righteousness have not been taught. I have no doubt that some of greatest despots of the South were born and educated in abolition or free soil families, and that many such families are destined to send Southward, many who are to be the great planters and statesmen of the next generation!

But from what cause proceeds our inefficient system of moral development? Evidently, in my apprehension, from the want of a consistent system of morals, growing out of their rights and duties of men; while they at the South trample Liberty under foot, or at the North, rob every poor man and woman of the natural right to the bounties of Providence, without which neither life can be sustained, liberty enjoyed, nor happiness pursued. Land monopoly was the first outrage against human-

ity, and from it have proceeded all the despotisms, slaveries, and aristocracies of the world.—Let us illustrate the inconsistency of the abolitionist who opposes Land Reform. When presenting him a petition to Congress for Land Freedom, he refused his name, saying, that he knew of a man who loaned money at twenty-five cents per day, for the purchase of a farm at the West, and is now a rich man; hence, the absurdity of Land Reform. Now, apply his method of reasoning to slavery. F[r]ederick Douglass obtained his liberty and education in spite of the combined frown of his master, the South, and the army and navy of the nation, and is now one of the leading orators and editors of the Republic. What he accomplished by cunning and heroism, others may do, and hence the utter absurdity of Anti-Slavery agitation!! And this man who thus cut his own throat, is a Free Soil stumper, and a christian who remembers the slave in his morning and evening prayers! How strongly fortified is such an abolitionist in his moral position?—Any pro-slavery reasoner, of fair talent, could floor him in an argument before any audience; for he could show that we have at the North, substantially the same system that prevails at the South; the only difference, that there it is carried out to its consummation. At the North, Land Monopoly holds five millions in homeless bondage, while at the South, three and a half millions are in chains, and perhaps two millions of whites are in penniless servitude. At the South, a slave is whipped to death, or shot down with impunity, while at the North, some are starved and others freeze to death, as in the recent caes of the widow and eleven children in New York! Another illustration.—Within four months, the Duke of Sutherland procured the assistance of the law to evict a family from his domain, and make more room for sheep! The ministers of the laws of

Great Britain proceeded to cast out the articles of broken furniture, and the family, one by one, till they come to the bed on which reposed the wife and mother, with an infant two days old by her side. To remove her, they took the sheet by its corners, and carrying her out some distance from the hovel, laid her down in the grass! The husband and father in distraction, ran for help, and found a lodgment in a dilapidated barn! The officers then, demolished the shanty. The ancestors of this family had lived on that kingly domain for centuries, and were serfs, originally bought and sold, or seized and given away with the land. And this eviction occurred under the eyes of the Duchess of Sutherland, whose brilliant name led the long list of English ladies, who indignantly protested against American Slavery! Now, the young man educated in an abolition family that justifies Land Monopoly, says to himself, if that was a righteous transaction, slavery is not so very iniquitous after all; and removing South, he readily becomes a slaveholder! Can a devil in the pulpit, make many converts to Christianity while preaching the gospel, which he tramples under foot in his daily life? Can he see clearly to cast the mote out of our brother's eye while the beam is in our own? Northern energy will continue to sustain slavery, until our moral system shall be essentially overhauled, and our people educated in the principles of Eternal Right.

That slavery would not now curse so many States, and rob so many human beings of liberty and happiness, had it not been for emigration of Northern energy to the South, and that, what slavery there might be, would soon be abolished, were it not for this support, is evident to me from a few considerations.

1. The aristocracy of our country, embracing the non-workers and monopolists of the North, and the slaveholders of the South, is constantly in process of extinction. All families, thus unfortunately grow weaker and weaker;

and about three generations wind them up.—The aristocracy is continued only by the energy that rises from the poor and middle classes, to fill the places of exhausted families. If the "Upper-tendom" of the North, could be forced to rely on its own blood for the preservation of its caste, within three generations there would be no "Upper-tendom." If the slaveholders of the South were compelled to rely upon their own constitutional forces for the perpetuity of their class, there would be no slaveholders within fifty years. This is evident, from the fact that the slaves are growing stronger, generation after generation, while their masters are becoming weaker and weaker. Within the specified time, the slaves would be sufficiently strengthened to look down with contempt upon their puny masters, and to execute divine vengeance upon all their throats. A few facts convince me, that this is not parndoxical.

Here in the rice swamps, we find the slaves enjoying over twice the longevity of the whites, and the free colored about fifty times the white longevity! These facts are from the census of 1850, and are corroborated by the census of previous decades. I have looked at that of 1830* for Virginia, and find the proportions substantially, as given in the above table.

These facts show that the slaves have the advantage of their masters in the basis of strength, perpetuity, and growth. Then, in respect to the constant weakening of the masters of the South, and the aristocrats of the North, there is an overwhelming amount of testimony all around us, and in the history of the past. What are the lessons?

1. That we cease sending energy south-ward to perpetuate slavery. It is true they have poor white men there; but it is also true that they have no common school system for the education of talent that may be born in poverty.—In consequence of this want, the "First Families" of Virginia have run out; Washington, Jefferson, Marshall, Madison, Monroe, Wythe, Pendleton, Patrick Henry, and others, have passed away and their places are unoccupied.—Beggarly is the talent of Virginia.

2. That, as abundant facts prove, that the monopolists and non-workers of the North, are also running out and their places being supplied from the "lower" classes; all reformers sho'd advocate a system of truth that will save all classes, securing freedom, home, and work to all, in both sections of our country.

3. That Land Reform is as vital to the good of the North, as Anti-Slavery is to the South; for nearly all the fortunes, out of which springs a weakening aristocracy, are made by Land speculation.

4. That this view of the case strengthens the anti-slavery argument, not only by placing ourselves in a consistent position, but also by showing that slavery ruins both the slave and his master. Both demand the Reformer's aid.—So also at the North; Land Reform is not more for the good of the poor than the benefit of the rich. Both classes are injured by the monopoly, but the poor are injured the least—for there is some hope of the son of a poor father, while there is none for the son of a rich and aristocratic parents.

Very few of the leading anti-slavery men of our times occupy a defensible position. Some of them are monopolizing aristocrats, imitating in their style of life, the nabobs of the South, and are as greedy to monopolize the bones and muscles of whites, as are the oligarchs of the South, against whom they denounce eternal wrath, to monopolize and hold as chattels the laborers by whom they live and luxuriate.—Others studiously avoid those scorching truths that condemn the social evils of the North, through fear of offending some rich and selfish anti-slavery patron. The sooner all such in connection with the Duchess of Sutherland and that other Abolitionist to whom I referred, are assigned their proper position, the better; for a moral basis cannot be laid under the Anti-Slavery movement until the chaff is winnowed and screened from the wheat.

Yours, &c.,

L. A. HINE.

* As given in Duryhson's Human Health, p. 108.