Blockley, near Philadelphia, 1st Mo. 31st, 1850.

Frederick Douglass:ーIn the North Star of the 25th. inst., I find a petition to Queen Victoria from the women of Ireland, and also a letter from Belfast to thyself. Canst thou spare a little space for a few remarks upon them?

None can regret more than I, that the treaties between Brazil and Spain, respectively, and Great Britain, for the abolition of the African slave trade, have not been fulfilled by the people of the former countries; and I would rejoice if the British Government could adopt some pacific measures to accomplish this grand object. But I do not believe that any measure which does not strike at the root of slavery itself, can ever destroy the slavetrade. One of the fundamental principles of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, is thus expressed: "That so long as slavery exists, there is no reasonable prospect of the annihilation of the slavetrade, and of extinguishing the sale and barter of human beings," &c. I believe this a great truth, which should be kept constantly in view by every laborer in the anti-slavery cause.

It is well known that the combined fleet of Great Britain, France and the United States, have not only failed to put down the African slavetrade, but have actually increased its horrors. The women of Ireland, in their petition, implore the Queen to "require her ministers to adopt such measures as they shall deem requisite to enforce the fulfillment of the solemn treaties with Spain, Portugal and Brazil, for the total abolition of this nefarious traffic," &c. Thy Belfast correspondent acknowledges that many persons refused to sign the petition, because they considered its language too strong, and as indicating the propriety of a resort to warlike measures. "This," she says, "we should regret as much as they, provided the greater evil can be removed without resorting to so dreadful an alternative."

It is evident from this language, in connection with this petition, that the signers contemplate war against the offending nations; at least as an alternative in case other measures fail. Will not American abolitionists, generally, regret that their warm-hearted and benevolent Irish sisters should for a single moment sanction the unchristian dogma, "that the end justifies the means."

I like much better than this, the memorial to the Queen, recently circulated in England, and now awaiting, with 55,000 signatures of British women, a suitable opportunity for presentation. After portraying the continued atrocities of the slavetrade, these petitioners say: "But while respectfully directing their Majesty's attention to the Spaniards and Brazilians as the immediate perpetrators of the crime, we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact, that the late enormous increase of the slavetrade has been coincident with the increased consumption of slave produce in this country. The Sugar Act was passed in 1846, and the results are before the world: but the good and evil, how fearfully disproportionate! There has been a plentiful supply of cheap sugar in the markets of this country, and an increase in the slavetrade of more than three hundred thousand souls per annum to produce it! But are we so dead to feeling, as to desire that the homes of Africa should be ravaged to add to the luxuries of a British tea-table? Breathes there a woman in our land, who would have her own cup sweetened, by throwing gall into the cup of a fellow-creature? We are aware that it is difficult to apply a remedy to evils which prevail in countries beyond the jurisdiction of Great Britain; but we earnestly pray that every legitimate and peaceful means may be resorted to, on the part of your Majesty's government, to enforce on the governments of Brazil and Spain the fulfilments of their solemn engagements, by which they are bound not to permit another cargo of negroes to be landed on their shores, and to give liberty to all those slaves who have been unlawfully introduced. And as nothing can be more clear than that slavery is sustained by the purchase of its productions, we propose for ourselves an immediate and wide-spread abstinence from the slave productions of Cuba and Brazil, and in this we venture to hope for the high sanction of your Majesty's example, and that you will be graciously pleased to exclude these productions from the royal household."

Permit me again to refer to the Belfast petition. In reference to the fact, that the sum of £1,300,000 was paid by Great Britain to obtain the treaties for the abolition of the slavetrade, the petitioners "testify their eager desire to have the bargain, which their fathers and brothers paid for, scrupulously enforced." Perhaps the ladies would be startled if they were told that they themselves, and their fathers and husbands, are now paying the Brazilians and Cubans for committing the identical act of which their petition complains! Yet such is undoubtedly the fact.

Again: The petitioners wish "these ungrateful nations (Spain and Brazil) may be practically taught, without further delay, that the British people will not submit to disgraceful fraud." This sounds like a noble determination; but what does it mean?ーHeretofore, the British people, and the Irish too, have made themselves parties to this "disgraceful fraud," by purchasing its fruits: thus giving the immediate perpetrators the inducement to commit it. Have they now determined to cease this guilty connection, and no longer submit to be participants with those Brazilians and Cubans who, disregarding alike the laws of their own governments and the treaties with Great Britain, continue to purchase "those foully wronged and persecuted people, the victims of the African slavetrade," for the purpose of supplying the people of Great Britain and Ireland with cheap sugar and coffee? I fear their language will not justify an affirmative answer. On the contrary, it would seem that, rather than banish this sugar and coffee from their table, and thus peacefully contribute to effect the object of their petition, they would be willing to resort to the "dreadful alternative" of overwhelming the people of Brazil and Cubaーthe guilty and innocent alikeーwith the cruelties and miseries of war.

Shall we, indeed, continue in sin, that grace or liberty may abound? "God forbid!"

Very truly thy friend,

Samuel RhoadsRhoads, Samuel, Jr.

Samuel Rhoads, Jr. (c. 1807–68) was the son of Samuel Rhoads, a member of the Continental Congress and mayor of Philadelphia in 1774. He was educated at Haverford College in Philadelphia. An orthodox Quaker, Rhoads assisted Myrtilla Miner in the establishment of her school for African Americans in Washington in the early 1850s. Rhoads actively supported the antislavery movement and wrote Considerations of the Use of the Productions of Slavery, Addressed to the Religious Society of Friends (1845). On 20 June 1845, a group of Philadelphia Quakers, along with Rhoads, met to discuss the merits of a free-produce association. They met again on 19 September to ratify the constitution of the Philadelphia Free Produce Association of Friends (PFPA) to promote the abolishment of slavery by the purchase and manufacture of free-labor cotton and other goods. Samuel Rhoads was designated a manager of the free-labor store and participated in the Committee on Supplies and the Committee on Manufactures. He was the editor of the Non-Slaveholder, a publication used to disseminate information relative to the PFPA’s work, from 1846 until its closure in 1850. The mission of the PFPA was later carried out through the publication of the more liberal Friends’ Review: A Religious, Literary, and Miscellaneous Journal established in 1857. Rhoads assumed the editorship and remained editor of the Friends’ Review until his death. Ruth Ketring Nuermberger, The Free Produce Movement: A Quaker Protest against Slavery (Durham, 1942), 35n, 36, 65n, 96, 105, 107; Mabee, Black Freedom, 142, 202; BDUSC (online). .