Slavery, The Free Church, and British Agitation Against Bondage: A Speech Delivered at Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, August 3, 1846
SLAVERY, THE FREE CHURCH, AND BRITISH AGITATION AGAINST BONDAGE: AN ADDRESS DELIVERED IN NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, ENGLAND, ON 3 AUGUST 1846
Newcastle Guardian, 8 August 1846.
Having agreed to become a lecture agent for the Scottish Anti-Slavery Society in order to continue the agitation against the Free Church, Douglass left Edinburgh in late July to address a meeting sponsored by the Anti-Slavery Society at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, on 3 August 1846. Although the Salem Methodist Church could accommodate almost 1200 people, the Guardian found the church "inconveniently crowded" by a "most respectable and influential audience." Platform guests included William Chapman, James Lindsay Angas, George Richardson, and the Reverend James Pringle. Before introducing Douglass, John Fenwick, the chairman, expressed confidence that the evil of slavery would ultimately yield to the "remonstrances of the Christian church." The sole lecturer, Douglass gave
a long address, one of two he delivered in Newcastle in the space of two weeks. The Guardian thought the audience "intensely interested" in his speech. A local abolitionist who heard him speak was moved to urge all friends of freedom to set aside a day for prayerful rememberance of the suffering slaves. Newcastle Guardian, 7, 15 August 1846; Newcastle Chronicle, 7 August 1846; Newcastle Courant, 1 August 1846; Douglass to [Mary Jennings], 30 July 1846, reel 1, frame 621, Douglass to Eliza Nicholson, 1 August 1846, reel 1, frame 627, FD Papers, DLC.
Mr. Douglass, who was received with enthusiastic applause, and spoke as follows:—Ladies and gentlemen, I am exceedingly glad to meet so many as have assembled this evening, for the purpose of hearing the subject of American slavery set forth, and the claims of three millions of my brethren, presented by myself, who has suffered with them the severe bondage under which they labour. I may say at once, that I have nothing to recommend me to your consideration or attention in the way of learning, never having had a day's schooling in my life. All the education that I possess has been stolen; so that you will not expect great things from me on the present occasion. I shall give you some facts connected with the condition of the slaves in the United States, as have come under my own personal observation.
The question of slavery is no longer, especially American slavery, an obscure one. It is no longer an unintelligible question; and, although there is much yet to be known of the actual state of American slavery, yet most of the people of this country have a distinct appreciation of it, or of its character; they feel that it is a great evil and a great sin—and it shall be my duty to direct your attention to the character of slavery, as it is in the United States. And I am the more anxious to do this, since I find the subject of slavery identified with many other systems, in such a manner, as in my opinion, to detract to some extent from the horror with which slavery in the United States is so justly contemplated. I have been frequently asked, since coming into this country, "why agitate the question of American slavery in this land; we have slavery here, we are slaves h e r e . " I have heard intemperance called slavery, I have heard your military system, and a number of other things called slavery, which were very well calculated to detract from the dreadful horror with which you at a distance contemplate the institution of American slavery.
Now, what is American slavery? It is not the relation in which a great mass of the people are compelled to labour and toil almost beyond
their endurance,—that is not slavery. I have laboured as hard in a state of freedom as ever I did in a state of slavery. It is not slavery to be restricted in point of political privileges,—if that were so, all women would be slaves. It is not slavery to be compelled to labour against our own will. The slavery of the United States is that relation by which one man claims and enforces the right of property in the body and soul of another man (great applause). It is that relation by which one man without contract, without compensation, without consultation with the individual, reduces him to the condition of a beast of burthen. It is that condition by which three millions of people in the United States are reduced to the condition of marketable commodities,—exposed to be sold on the auction-block, just as horses, sheep, and swine, are sold in the market, on the same level, held by the same tenure, spoken of, thought of, treated in every way as property. This is slavery—having a mind, he may not cultivate and improve it; having a soul, he may not call it his own; having moral appreciations, he may not be guided by them; having a conscience, he may not walk by its admonitions; having an immortal spirit and a soul to aspire, he may not aspire, humbly as his Master did.
His master's will, his owner's care and wishes, are the slave's law, and he knows no other, can know no other; he is in the hands of the master, a chattel personal, to all intents and purposes whatsoever. He is a mere chattel; the master thinks for him, speaks for him, acts for him, decides for him all questions belonging to his actions. The master decides for him what he shall eat, at what he shall work, how much work, for whom he shall work, under whose laws he must work, when he is to be punished, by whom he shall be punished, for what he shall be punished, when he shall marry, to whom, how long the marriage covenant shall remain binding, and what shall be the cause of the dissolution of the marriage tie. He is in the hands of the master; he claims to dipose of his person, his labour, his time, his soul, so far as a man's soul may be disposed of in time. These are the claims, these are the assumptions set up by the slave-holder for his slave, and enforced by the law of christian, republican, and democratic America. This is the relation of master and slave; the mere announcement of this relation to intelligent persons, to reasoning and reflecting men, will at once suggest a train of evils, a train of cruelty and barbarity, such as can exist in scarcely any other state of society than that of a slave-holding one.
You must at once see, that God, having given to every man a love
of freedom, having planted in the bosom of every man a hatred of slavery, he has also placed within us a disposition and elasticity of mind that prompts us to rebel against the slightest infraction of our rights. The slightest approach to enslavement is at once resisted by one who has not been reared and accustomed to the degrading yoke; and even those who are under the yoke, find themselves constantly in a state of rebellion, against the will and wishes of their masters. It cannot be otherwise. The slave has wants of his own, he has aspirations of his own, he has rights and feelings of his own, and while he remains in the condition of a slave, he finds those thoughts, feelings, and emotions all in opposition to the will of his master, and he will, on all fitting occasions, attempt to act in obedience to his own instead of his master's will. The consequence is, that a system of cruelty, such as can nowhere else exist, exists in the slave-holding states of America. But in order to [obtain] a proper understanding of the whole question of slavery as it exists in the United States, it may be necessary, before going further, to state briefly the nature of the American government, as far as [it] concerns slavery.
You have heard of free states and of slave states in America. The slave states are fifteen in number, the free states are fourteen. These states are divided from each other by what is called Mason's and Dixon's line, a line running east and west. Each state has a constitution of its own, conferring the power to legislate upon the inhabitants of the state in all local matters; but, over all the states, there extends what is called the general government of the United States Constitution. This Constitution confers certain powers upon the Congress of the nation, such as the regulation of commerce, declaring war, concluding peace, and the general welfare of the states. Each state is considered sovereign in itself, and can alter or abolish any legal institution. Each state has the power to abolish slavery within its own borders. The general government is denied the power of immediate interference with the domestic arrangements of the individual state, and, because this is the case, many people, who come up to you from the United States, represent themselves as coming from the northern states, or free states, and declare that the free states are not implicated in the guilt of countenancing slavery, and, therefore, claim to be regarded as anti-slavery men, when the fact is, that, although there are what are called free states, this general government involves all the states in the guilt of slave-holding.
I maintain, that the whole United States are banded together for the purpose of upholding and sustaining slavery. They have united in a Con-
stitution which, while it deprives them of the privileges of interfering with the abolition of slavery, it confers the power, indeed it enjoins upon every state the duty of maintaining the existence of slavery. For instance, the Constitution makes it the duty of the free states, to return the slaves, if they escape; or in the event of their rising from their chains, and using the means by which the American people achieved their own freedom, the whole United States are sworn to a man, every citizen is considered sworn, to use every physical power to suppress and subject them again to the dominion of their masters (shame). There is no part of that wide-spread country in which I can stand free; I am liable to be hunted as well in Massachusetts as in Michigan, as well in Michigan as in Maryland; and, from Texas to Maine, there is not a foot of soil sufficiently sacred to human freedom, as to secure me in my hope of liberty in that whole country. All, all is blasted with slavery; and the blood-hound may be set in the track of the flying fugitive, wherever waves the star-spangled banner.
There is not one rood of earth in all that free republican country upon which a man of my complexion may stand without being hunted and hurled back into the jaws of slavery, from which he may have escaped. To this the northern states are parties; in this they are guilty, so that slavery is not a sovereign institution, is not confined to a narrow and small compass in the United States. Many attempts have been made by certain individuals, who have become somewhat connected with American slavery of late, to show that it is confined to a very narrow place in the United States,—that a very small portion of the Christian church, are implicated in the wickedness of slaveholding, when the fact is, the whole nation, from Louisiana to Maine, is cursed, is saturated with the infernal spirit of slave-holding. Every man that takes part in the American Constitution, that regards himself as a citizen of the United States, is bound by the Constitution to uphold and sustain American slavery.
The slave-holders confess that they would not have the physical ability, by which to keep their slaves in bondage, without the northern states. A very intelligent representative from the state of Kentucky,1Joseph R. Underwood. upon the floor of Congress, not long since, declared that they were surrounded by a dangerous population, a degraded set of savages, who, if they could but entertain the idea that immediate and unconditional death
would not be their portion, would enact some St. Domingo tragedy; they would rise, and, at the first tap from the drum of the foreign invader, would rally round the standard of emancipation, and march to victory at the head of an invading foe. The slave-holders know that three millions of hearts, upon which they are treading, are panting for emancipation, and are only waiting for the first safe moment to secure to themselves victory and freedom. Knowing this, they are anxious to maintain the union between the slave-states.
But a word, now, with reference to the character of that system. I believe, if there is one charge more frequently disputed than another, on the part of the slave-holders and their apologists, it is the charge so frequently brought against them by the abolitionists, that it is a cruel system. We hear much of the humanity of the slave-holder, of the kindness, benevolence, the parental solicitude and welfare of the slaves, so frequently manifested by the kind-hearted Christian slave-holders of the United States; yet there is not one charge that has ever been preferred against the slave-owners of America more capable of demonstration than the charge of the cruelty of the system.
Cruelty marks every part of the system. The slave cannot be held as a slave without cruelty. Men don't go into slavery naturally—they don't go into slavery at the bidding of their fellowmen—they don't bow down their necks to the yoke merely by being entreated to do so—they don't go to the field and labour without wages, merely at the kind suggestions of some very amiable and affable slave-holder. No! Something else is necessary—the whip must be there—the chain must be there—the gag must be there—the thumb screw must be there—the fear of death must be there, in order to induce the slave to go to the field and labour for another man without wages. Men do not suffer themselves to be robbed, their wives torn from their bosoms, sold at a returnless distance from them; men do not allow their children to be sold on the auction-block, whipped in their presence, driven away, with[out] the fear of death hanging over them in the event of resistance. No, my friends, all the implements of torture must be there, as at present existing on the shores of North America. I have read the details of colonial slavery and of its cruelties, but never have I read any details, even of colonial or any other slavery, equalling in atrocity, the deeds which have come under my own observation, while a slave in the United States—cruelties unparalleled, cruelties almost unconceived of in other parts of the world.
I am the more anxious to expose the cruelties of slavery, in order
that it may affect the minds of those on the other side of the Atlantic. I wish the slave owners to know that one of their slaves has broken loose from his chains, and is going over the length and breadth of England, spreading before the people of England the damning deeds, that are perpetrated under the veil of slavery. I want them to know that one who has broken through the dark incrustation of slavery, is lifting the veil by which the abominations of the slave system in the United States has been so long hidden from the Christian world.
That you may have some knowledge of the extent of the cruelties, I shall read a few of the laws at present in force among slaves; and while doing so, I would wish you to bear in mind that, America stands forth to the world as a Christian country. Contrast her professions with the laws I am about to read. "If more than seven slaves are found together in a road without a white person, 20 lashes a piece; for visiting a plantation without a written pass, 10 lashes; for letting loose a boat from where it is made fast, 39 lashes for the first offence, and for the second shall have cut from his head one ear; for keeping or carrying a club, 39 lashes; for having any article for sale without a ticket from his master, 10 lashes; for travelling on any other than the most usual and accustomed road, when going alone to any place, 40 lashes; for travelling in the night without a pass, 40 lashes; for being found in another person's negro quarters, 40 lashes; for hunting with dogs in the woods, 30 lashes; for being on horseback without a written permission of his master, 25 lashes; for riding or going abroad in the night, or riding a horse in the day time without leave, a slave may be whipped, cropped, or branded in the cheek, with the letter R., or otherwise punished, such punishment not extending to life."2[Weld], American Slavery, 144. These, and similar laws exist at the present day in all the slave-holding states of America. Besides these, there are 72 crimes for which a coloured man may be executed, when only two of these crimes will subject a white man to the same punishment.3Douglass relied in part on [Weld], American Slavery, 149, which reads: "[B]y the laws of Virginia, there are 'seventy-one crimes for which slaves are capitally punished, though in none of these are whites punished in a manner more severe than by imprisonment in the penitentiary.' "
This is the [physical] character of slavery—what is its moral character? Three millions of people deprived by law of the right to learn to read the name of the God who made them;—three millions of people doomed to the darkest ignorance and degradation;—three millions of people kept in the most heathenish darkness, who know nothing of God, but
as a being who has placed them in a condition more horrible, more to be dreaded than any other condition known to them; three millions of people herded together in a state of concubinage, without marriage, without education, without any true idea of Christianity, are compelled to live in this condition by the laws of the United States of America.
I have known something of slavery from my own experience; I have known what it was to feel the biting lash; I have known what it was to feel the longings after freedom to which the slaves are constantly subject; I know what it is to rise up in the morning and look out upon nature, behold it speaking of freedom to me, proclaiming my right to be free; I know what it is to feel the lash all marked with blood;—to look back over those of my brethren who have preceded me, and to see them generation after generation going down to slavery; all hopes of emancipation shut out; all aspirations crushed; all hope annihilated. These longings—these painful contemplations often goaded me almost to madness, so that I would have taken even my own life, but for the temporary reliefs afforded by the occasional escape of some neighbouring slave, which would infuse a slight gleam of hope, that I too, might, under the providence of God, gain the freedom for which m y soul panted. I have known what it was to see friends and relations separated from each other, and sold at the bidding of the slave-mongers, brought up at the auction blocks, the cry raised, above their heads "here goes, who bids," their limbs brutally exposed to the gaze of the purchaser,—handled with all the freedom with which the horse-purchaser would handle the limbs of his horse;—sold off without any regard to their wishes,—sent away in gangs to the slave-market of Louisiana. This is the common condition of slavery in the United States.
It is often asked "why bring this subject before the British people;—why not confine this matter to America?" I wish to answer that objection. Is it imagined that you have nothing to do with American slavery? To the missionary, I would say, you can readily understand what you have to do with Birmah;—you can readily understand what you have to do with China;—you can readily understand what you have to do with Hindoostan, but it is very difficult to understand what you have to do with American slavery,—with the wrongs of three millions of people, three millions of as complete heathens as ever existed in any part of the globe. I say three millions of heathens within fourteen days' sail of your own "green island" (applause).
Let me call your attention to this subject, because the slave is a man
and a brother, he has all the feelings, all the emotions and susceptibilities that you possess. Though not of the same complexion, though he has fleecy locks, though his colour is not like your own, still he has all the feelings, all the peculiarities, all that makes you a human being. All that makes you a man makes him a man (loud applause). He has a heart to feel; a soul to aspire, just as other men have, his affections as one of your poets has beautifully said—
Fleecy locks, and black complexion
Cannot forfeit nature's claim;
Skins may differ, but affection
Dwells in white and black the same.4William Cowper, The Negro's Complaint, in H. S. Milford, ed., The Complete Poetical Works of William Cowper (London, 1913), 371.
He is a man—he is a brother,—he belongs to the family of man. You are under the same obligation to the negro in the plantations of South Carolina that you are to the heathen in the Sandwich Islands. You are as much bound by the laws of God and humanity to extend a helping hand to him as you have to the Indian in the remotest part of Asia. There are no reasons, no motives, no arguments that are urged in favour of attending to the heathen in one part of the country but what can be urged in favour of attending to the heathen in the United States.
But sir, I am not here merely because the slave is a man, and I wish you to be interested in him [not] merely because he is a man, but because slavery itself is the common enemy of mankind. If we depend for abolition in the United States upon mere political action, or upon the strong arm, then comes the question as to whether it is expedient for me or anybody else to present the subject to you. But we are not dependent upon the arm of force, for the triumph of our principles—we are not dependent on mere political action for the overthrow of slavery. We are dependent on moral and religious power, that knows no geographical boundaries, that knows no laws, that knows no constitution or forms of government. Wherever one human mind can come in contact with another, this power can be exerted. The slave-holders of America may boast of their ability to throw back ball for ball, bomb-shell for bombshell; they may boast of their ability to raise their forts and their ramparts so high as to ward off the strongest blow of a foreign invader; but the truth and light of Christianity, which are moving on the wings of the wind, they can never resist.
While ever there is a voice going over against the western breeze, demanding instant equal rights for three millions of bondmen, exposing the inconsistencies of the people of the United States, boasting as they do of being the land of the free and the home of the brave; while, I say their inconsistency is held up to the scorn and contempt of the Christian people of this country, America cannot feel at ease. The Americans are a sensitive people, and particularly so to the opinions of Britain. They feel your remarks and your strictures on their institutions and their customs, and you have now, by the aid of steam and the power of science, been brought alongside each other, so that a word uttered to-day in opposition to the hateful system of slavery, may be heard fourteen days hence in the streets of Boston, and reverberating admist the hills of Massachusetts. Not a word uttered here, scarcely a prayer recorded here, against slavery, but what is heard on the other side of the Atlantic. This is your influence, which I would have you use in breaking the yoke of American bondmen, and letting the oppressed go free (applause).
I am here not to stir up bitter feelings against the Americans, but to excite such an intelligence and interest on the subject of slavery as shall re-act upon the American people, and tend to shame them out of their adhesion to a system at variance with justice, repugnant to their own free institutions, and repugnant to the Christianity they profess. This is my object. So long as the slave clinks his chains in bondage, while he lifts up his imploring hands to heaven, and the advocates of freedom everywhere are doing their utmost in his behalf, in exposing his wrongs, and making known the outrages under which he suffers, while I see this, I cannot do other than pursue the course which I am now doing.
Slavery is a system that can only be abolished by the light of truth being poured upon it, and infusing upon the mind connected with it, a correct knowledge of those principles of justice and humanity which are recognised in almost all Christian countries. I believe it to be a system of darkness which can only b e destroyed by exposing it to the gaze of the world. I would call the attention of the whole British public to this subject, I would attract the attention of the world to it. I would fix upon it the indignant eye of freedom everywhere, and cause the slaveowners to feel that their system is hated and abhorred by all upright men both at home and abroad. I would have the Christian churches of England, Ireland, and Scotland, to lift up their united voices against it.
You ask me what I would have you do? I would have you do that which you would do were your own friends and relatives in slavery;—do as
you would do if the cause of the slave were your own cause. Do that which you have done with respect to the West India emancipation—to the slaves in the West India Islands. Lift up your voices like trumpets and cry aloud against this iniquity. I would have the British press, and the British pulpit, to use their thunders against the slave system of America. Let them be made to feel that British soil and British atmosphere is too pure to be breathed by slave-holders; that British soil is too holy to be polluted by the foot-prints of American slave-drivers (applause). Let the slave-holders of America know that they are to be excluded from every church in Britain,—let them know that they are to be indignantly and peremptorily driven from every Christian platform (great applause). Let them know, that so long as they retain the blood of slaves on their garments, that you will not hold Christian fellowship with them (loud applause). Let them know, that there is to be a separation between liberty and slavery in Britain. Let them know, that while they are holding their fellow men in bondage, you are regarding them in the light of men-stealers. Let them know this—let them feel this, and I am sure it will not be without its effect in our cause of emancipation.
I thank the Christian public of this country, for what they have done in this noble cause. You have done much by remonstrance, by appeal, by exhortation, by denunciation, by the press, and various other means. But there remains much more to be done. If you have whispered truth, whisper no longer. Speak as the trumpet, stronger and stronger. Let the slave-holder feel that your interest is not lagging, but that your motto is "Excelsior," still higher,—take higher principles on this question, and the slave-holder will feel that you are in earnest. Let the Presbyterians, let the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Congregationalists, and all denominations in their conferences, their synods, their conventions, their general assemblies, and their various meetings, resolve "no union" with slave-holders, "no union" with men who live by treading on the bodies and souls of their brethren (loud cheers).
I believe the great reason why the cause of abolition in the United States has not progressed more than it has within the last fifteen years, has been in consequence of the religious character which slavery has assumed; and it is against this religious spirit that we would have the religious sentiment of England directed. You are aware that the slave holders of the United States have found it convenient to stigmatise the abolitionists as infidels. The reason is this. The abolitionists have determined to follow slavery wherever it may take shelter—no matter where
it goes. Slavery having run into politics, has found itself exposed there; having run into the State, it has found itself exposed to our shafts there; its last resort has been to the sanctuary—it has sought the shelter of the ecclesiastical sanctuary of the nation. It has brought its chains, gags, thumbscrews, cat-o'-nine-tails, its dungeons, and all the other bloody paraphernalia, under the droppings of the sanctuary, to be preserved from Sabbath to Sabbath. W e have followed it there, and demanded the instant abolition of slavery, against the mandates of that church. We have been spoken of by Dr. Cunningham as infidels.
Sir, I glory in being called an infidel, if to be such, is to open the prison doors, and preach deliverance to the captive (applause). "What soever ye would men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them!"5Matt. 7 : 12. If you claim a right to think for yourself, grant it to your neighbours; if you claim a right to act for yourself, grant it to your neighbours. We have gone forth and declared it to be our duty to break the yoke, and let the oppressed go free; and have cried to the guilty and polluted church, "your hands are full of blood" (reiterated applause). "Wash you and make you clean—put away the evil of your doings, relieve the oppressed, and plead for the widow"6Isa. 1 : 15-17: "And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." (loud cheers). These are the doctrines, for the propagation of which we have been called infidels. I glory in being an infidel to a religion at variance with the doctrines I have just put forth. I believe there is such a religion in the United States. It is a religion that shelters tyranny—a religion that upholds man stealing—a religion whose votaries trade in the bodies and souls of their fellow men—a religion that builds its houses by unrighteousness, and its chambers by torture—a religion whose ministers are supported by the unrequited toil of bondsmen—a religion that builds up its altars by the sale of the bodies and souls of men—a religion whose ministers proclaim the gospel while they stand in the pulpit on Sunday, and teach the scriptures, are the same who deny to whole millions, the right to learn then a me of the God who made them. We are opposed to such a religion—we denounce such a church as anti-Christian, and call upon all who love the Lord Jesus Christ, all who love liberty and hate slavery, all who wish to be on the side of the oppressed, all who wish to deal
justly and love mercy, to come out of such an organisation. (Cheers.)
I glory in being called an infidel by a slave-holding church. The church and the slave-prison stand near each other. The groans and curses of the heartbroken captive are drowned in the religious shouts of his pretended pious master. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support missionaries, and babes sold to buy Bibles. The whip and the Bible go hand in hand together—Sabbath-schools and slave prisons—the auctioneer's block and the pulpit—the blood-stained gold resulting from the sale of human beings, to support the pulpit, and the pulpit in return covering the infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Religion and robbery are the allies of each other; devils dressed in angels' robes (hear, hear). These are no exaggerated statements. If I have another opportunity of lecturing in this town again, I shall give you the recorded testimony of the slave-churches themselves. This is the state of things that exist there. I have been accustomed all my life, until I came out of slavery, to hear that the Almighty God, the God of truth, of love, and of justice, He who has connected the family of man by obligations of love and good will to each other, that this God was the cause and the author of my enslavement. This is the gospel that is preached in the United States. The slaves are told that God, in his wisdom, has reduced them to their condition as slaves, and that they are to be content, that they are to walk in the fear and admonition, not of God, but of their slave-holding owners (cries of shame). Why Sir, had I never heard of Christianity through other channels, than through the polluted lips of my slave-holding master, so far from being a believer in the religion of Jesus Christ, I should have rejected it altogether. I could not have believed it as coming from such lips; I could not have believed the testimony of men whom I knew to be robbers; I could not have fellow ship with a religion which was so naturally averse to all the admitted principles of justice, mercy, and truth.
But, thanks be to God, while under the driver's lash, God in his mercy led me to a knowledge of the scriptures. I gained sufficient [knowledge] of Christianity to know that it had no fellowship with slavery;—I learned enough to satisfy me that he who came to preach deliverance to the captive, he who poured out his blood on Calvary, cared for my rights,—cared for me equally with any white master, and that, so far from his sanctioning the system of slavery, the whole tenor of his life, and of his teaching, were utterly opposed to that system. Believing this, I did not hesitate for a moment to seize the first opportunity
which offered, to gain for myself the freedom for which my soul panted.
I will now direct my observations to the Free Church of Scotland. Allow me to say that the abolitionists of the United States of America have been labouring hard during the last fifteen years, amid obloquy and scorn and fearful opposition, to establish the conviction throughout the length and breadth of the land, that slavery is a sin, and as such [ought] to be regarded by every Christian and upright man. In 1830, we were all asleep on the subject of slavery, scarcely a voice was heard from Maryland, from Michigan, from Louisiana to Maine, on behalf of the downtrodden and outraged slave; he dragged his chains and clanked his fetters in utter lowliness and obscurity, no eye to see, no heart to pity, but the great broad eye of Jehovah—the heart of the Almighty. He had no earthly friend to plead for him in the midst of this darkness, until there started up in our midst Wm. Lloyd Garrison, who demanded for the slave immediate and unconditional emancipation. He expected that the churches of the land would have but to hear the tale of woe from the southern states coming up from the bondmen, when they would rally round him as one man, and apply the principles of Christianity to this system of sin and slavery. In this he was mistaken; however, by giving them line upon line, by preaching, by writing, and by using his personal influence, he succeeded in rallying round him some of the warmest, the best, and most choice spirits of the land, to aid in this glorious cause.
The church had not uttered a word against slavery, the pulpit was dumb; but as the cause advanced in New England, church after church passed resolutions condemnatory of slavery and slave-holding,—church after church became interested, and began one after another to pass resolutions against it. Congregationalists, Churchmen, Methodists, and Freewill Baptists, all denounced slavery—setting glorious examples of no union with slave holders.
Thus we were progressing in the cause. The press, which before had been silent on the subject, now began to speak out. In the midst of this, when the north was fast reaching the point of no union with slave holders, when the northern Christians were blotting out the names of slave-holders from their church books, there comes a voice from the Free Church of Scotland, in the person of four representatives, to the United States to collect funds to aid that church in its operations. They went to the United States; on their arrival at New York, they were met by the executive committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery
Society; they were inquired of, as to whether they intended visiting the slave-holding states; they remonstrated with them; they besought them, in the name of justice, in the name of humanity, in the name of the lacerated and whip-scourged slave, not to go into the slave states and form an alliance with the slave-holders, or take their blood-stained offerings, and pollute their cause (cheers). They disregarded the remonstrances of the slave's friends in New York; they went into the southern states; they preached in slave-holders' pulpits; they collected money from the slave-holders; they dined at their tables; they partook of their hospitality, and became part and parcel of them. What has been the result? So far from maintaining their testimony against slavery; so far from their influence being now on the side of the slave,—the slaveholders of America, the slave-holding ministers of America, have caught the example of that church, and quote that church in support of their slave-holding Christianity.
Now, sir, I have a few charges to make against the Free Church of Scotland. I charge them with going to the slave states of America, and confederating themselves with the slave-holders in the first instance. M y next charge is, that they went into that country, and among a people whom they knew to be slave-holders and men-stealers, and besought them to give of their blood-stained offerings to build Free Churches, and to pay Free Church ministers. I charge them with going over with a full knowledge, that what they obtained was stolen, and coerced from men. I have to charge them with not only doing this, but doing it against the warm and strong remonstrances of the anti-slavery friends of America. I have to charge them with lending a listening ear to the slave-holder, and turning a deaf ear to the Anti-slavery Executive Committee of New York. I have to charge them with going into that country, among slaveholders, and preaching while there, such doctrines, and such doctrines only, as would be cordially received and willingly paid for by the slaveholders (applause).
I have to charge them with going into that country where they saw three millions of people for whom Christ poured out his precious blood on Calvary, stripped of every right, denied every privilege, herded with brutes, without marriage, left to be devoured by their own lust, herded together in concubinage, without the light of education; denied the privilege of learning to read the Scriptures—death being made the second offence of teaching the slave his letters. I charge them with going into this country, where they saw men whipped, branded, chained, and mutila-
ted, in various ways;—where three millions of people were shut out from the light of the Gospel, unmade, uncreated, defaced, marked, herded with brutes, and they never raised a whisper against their enslavers, or a word of sympathy with this outraged class (applause).
The Free Church went to the slave-holder, knowing that all he possessed was stolen. In the eyes of our Free Church brethren it would be a great sin to knock down a woman in the street, and take from her a basket of apples, but in the opinion of the same church, if a man should knock down a woman, taking basket, apples, and all, it would be of little consequence (cheers). The slave-holder is a thief and a robber; and the Free Church has fellowship[ped] with him as a Christian. I dare the Rev. Mr. Macnaughtan, or any other Free Churchman, to deny that they have not fellowship [ped] with the slave-holder as a Christian. They have spread around him the garments of Christianity; they have baptized him as a follower of the meek and lowly Saviour; his man-stealing forms no prayer at Christ's communion. They make him a brother beloved in the church; they confederate with him, and call him "dear Christian brother"—and I maintain that, by so doing, they have stabbed the cause of abolition, and corrupted their own church. I do not believe that they would ever have extended the hand of Christian fellowship to the slaveholder—they would never have put forth the defences, the apologies, and excuses, for the slave-holder, that we have witnessed, but that they took the blood-stained gold and were polluted by it.
They took the blood-stained offerings of the slave-holder to build Free Churches, and having done so, they feel that they must make the best defence they can for the character of the slave-holder. What are their arguments? And here I must allude to the Rev. Dr. Chalmers, the great oracle of the Free Church of Scotland, and deservedly so for many of his acts. But, in regard to slavery he has shown a degree of obtuseness of vision and perversion of heart, which we, on the other side of the Atlantic, did never suspect [of] him. I believe he never would have uttered what he has on this subject but for the existence of the £3,000 of blood-stained money in their treasury. The argument of Dr. Chalmers is, that while slavery itself is a very bad thing, the individual slave-holder maybe a very good man, for, says the Doctor, "distinction ought to be made between the character of the system, and the character of the individuals whom circumstances have connected there with."
This is the Doctor's learned distinction. What does it amount to? Just to this, that while we must denounce slavery, as a sin, we must
welcome the slave-holder to our arms as a good Christian; we must denounce the dice, but spare the sharper; we must denounce the theft, but spare the thief; we must denounce the robbery, but spare the robber; we must denounce swearing, but spare the swearer; we must denounce the sin, but spare the sinner; for, as the Doctor says, "a distinction ought to be made between the character of the system, and the character of the individual whom circumstances have connected there with" (cheers). I can look upon this in no other light than as the work of an "artful dodger" (loud applause)." A distinction ought to be made between the character of the sin and the sinner." While we contemplate the sin with abhorrence, while we must visit it with condemnation, we are to spare and welcome the sinner to our communion as a brother beloved of the church.
I detect the Doctor of heresy in this matter. I say that here is a diverging—a digression from the path marked out by him who is the head of our salvation. What is His doctrine? Not that "a distinction should be made between the character of the system, and the character of those whom circumstances have connected there with," but, "by their fruits ye shall know them;"7Matt. 7 : 20. not that a distinction should be made between the tree and the fruit. The slave-holder is to be held accountable for his slave-holding; and if the one is to be regarded as a sin, the other is to be regarded as a sinner. This is the only light in which it can be viewed.
You have no doubt heard of the doctrines of Robert Owen,—the doctrines of non-responsibility, which dethrone Almighty God and destroy all distinct responsibility. I had not supposed that Dr. Chalmers would have fallen into this error. But he has endorsed this damning heresy, with respect to slavery, most fully, in attempting to make a distinction between slavery and the slave-holder. This is the defence of the Free Church; they dare not in the face of the British public, an anti-slavery public,—a public who has long protested against slavery, in a land long baptized with the principles of freedom, they dare not I say, proclaim that slavery itself is a good thing. They can only defend the character of the slave-holder (immense applause).
I have no doubt that Mr. Macnaughtan gained influence by his eloquent denunciation of slavery, rather than his defence of the character of the slave-owner. I have no doubt but that the audience were carried away by his eloquent outbursts against slavery, rather than any apolo-
gies which he made for the slave-holder. But the argument goes further, on the part of Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Cunningham.
Dr. Chalmers says that the slave-holders are really anxious and desirous to emancipate their slaves, but they are bound by the laws to hold them as slaves. Sir, it is a falsehood. There is not a slave-holder in the United States, but who, if he will, may get rid of his slaves. Not one. There are some slave-owners who point us to the laws, compelling expatriation as preliminary to emancipation;—but will all those slaveholders let the slave be expatriated, rather than be held as a slave? There are no laws in the several states which make it the duty of masters not to emancipate their slaves. To-morrow he may say to his slave, "I have done with you, I am satisfied that it is a sin for me to hold such a relation with you—there is the north star in its twinkling light; there is Canada under the dominion of the British Queen; she is on the side of human freedom (great applause)—she will protect you—go thither and be free;"—and the slave would at once be free;—no law would take hold of him. It is urged that they cannot do this.
Dr. Cunningham had the assurance, on the floor of the general assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, in reply to the Rev. Mr. Macbeth, to put the following position, in order to show that slavery is not in itself sinful. He said, suppose that the British parliament should declare that on the first of June next, every domestic shall become the slave of the person in whose house, or in whose employment they may be, "in that case," said the doctor, "I should be a slave-holder by no act of my own. I am not responsible. Would my sustaining this relation to my servant make me a sinner?"8Denying James MacBeth's assertion that "man can never, without sin, hold property in man," William Cunningham hypothesized before the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland on 30 May 1846: "Suppose the Parliament of Great Britain were to pass a law declaring and enacting that, from and after the first day of July next, all the hired servants in all the families in Great Britain were to become the slaves of their masters—the property of their masters—so that they, the masters, should have the same right over them as the laws of the slave states confer, and should be entitled to treat them, with legal impunity, as slaves are often treated in America. Well, suppose that this law obtained the Queen's consent—from that moment I become a slaveholder. I could not avoid becoming a slaveholder; from the moment of the passing of that law I was the proprietor of slaves. I was made a slaveholder in that case by no act of mine. This being the case, I do not see that I thereby, ipso facto, became a sinner, if I never made use of the power given me by the law to treat them harshly or oppressively, as slaves may be treated, but continued to treat them, as would certainly be my duty, just as I did before I acquired them by the law." Free Church Report, 1846, 38. Remember, my friends, that the laws of the United States are made in the first place by the people of the United States. I say that, in the event of parliament declaring every
domestic in the country, the slave of the individual by whom he is employed, would not confer the right of that individual to sustain that relation.
Let us put another case. Let us suppose it to be polygamy or concubinage. Let us suppose the parliament of Great Britain enacted that all the female domestics in the employment of masters, should, after the first of September next, become the concubines of those in whose employment they are. Would Dr. Cunningham think it right to allow himself to sustain that relation because the parliament of Britain had declared that relation to exist? (Cheers.) I do not know but what he would. Why not, I ask? Is concubinage a greater sin than that of reducing men to a state where they are compelled to live in a state of concubinage? (Loud applause.) If Dr. Cunningham's argument is good with respect to slavery, it is good with respect to concubinage. (Applause.) If he would sustain the legal relationship in the one case, he would sustain it in the other. I know he would not do it; and why? Because the one is popular, and the other is unpopular (cheers). Because the one is under the sanction of the church, and the other is condemned by the people.
Who are those who are talking about the unlimited submission to the laws in America? It is the Free Church of Scotland; born in rebellion to the laws; born and proceeding in direct opposition to the laws; a church which avowed the doctrine that obedience to God was the first duty of man; those who were talking about the crown-rights of the Redeemer, and resisting to the uttermost any encroachment, by laws or otherwise, upon their civil and religious freedom (cheers). This is the church. There is reason for it—"There is something rotten in the state of Denmark"9Douglass paraphrases Hamlet, act 1, sc. 4, line 90. (applause).
One word with reference to the recent deliverance of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. It retains all the foul features of the old deliverance; it is an improvement on the one put forth in 1844. Let me say, so far as the speeches and spirit of the recent General Assembly is concerned, I saw and heard in that body as strong a defence of slavery at its recent meeting, as ever I heard in any congregation, or any body of professing Christians in the United States. What did Dr. Cunningham say?—"That not only did Christ and his apostle admit slave-holders to the communion, but he admitted that slave-holders had a right to kill their slaves" (shame,shame).10William Cunningham so informed the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland in 1846: "I have not the slightest hesitation in stating my decided conviction, that the apostles of our Lord and Master admitted slaveholders—that is to say, men standing in the legal relation of masters to servants, and entitled to treat them with legal impunity as slaves if they chose, and even to put them to death." Free Church Report, 1846, 39.
One word with respect to the Rev. Mr. Macnaughtan. On coming to this town, I was not a little surprised that he should stand up here to make a speech in reply to the speeches made by Mr. George Thompson. It was a sort of admission of weakness on his part, which I did not think he would be guilty of. When we were in Paisley and in Edinburgh, we said to those learned gentlemen, "you have learning, eloquence, and ability on your side, we shall be glad to defend our cause with you face to face. We are ready to meet you on any platform which you may select, and debate the question with the solemnity which its great character demands." Did they meet us? Not a word of it.
No, Mr. Macnaughtan declined to meet us. But, I heard, through the Edinburgh Witness, that he made a brilliant oration in defence of the Free Church of Scotland. When his opponents were 300 miles off he could make a delightful display on the subject. But when he was called on to meet us, he shrunk from us. He said, he would not meet me, I was almost beneath his contempt. Among other things he said, "I would not demean myself to meet that ignorant, miserable, fugitive slave."11Douglass refers to the speech which the Reverend John MacNaughtan delivered at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, on 7 July 1846. He used the occasion to elaborate on the Free Church argument that it was possible to be a slaveholder against one's will. The refusal to debate "that ignorant, miserable, fugitive slave" was allegedly uttered by MacNaughtan in slightly different language in Paisley, Scotland, on 21 April 1846. Newcastle Advertiser, 14 July 1846; James Pringle to Editors, 9 July 1846, John MacNaughtan to Editors, 28 July 1846, in Newcastle Guardian, 11 July, 1 August 1846; Edinburgh Witness, 25 April 1846. There is the Rev. Mr. Macnaughtan! This is peculiarly offensive, coming from a Free Churchman. I should have thought that the words would have choked him, considering what he has done, and what his church has done; considering that he is now living, to some extent, on the very money which ought to have gone to the education of the downtrodden and outraged slave (great applause). Considering this, I say, it is peculiarly mean and offensive in him to put forth such a low statement. I don't make any pretensions to learning;—I am not very wealthy or highborn, being the son of a slave, however, I do think, that so far as my own life, my walk and conversation, and my mein are concerned, I will not shrink from the most rigid investigation of character side by side with the Rev. Mr. Macnaughtan (great cheers).
They are in a false position. It is not to be expected that they, who have allied themselves with slave-holders, will be on the side of the
slave; it is not to be expected that they, who join hands with plunderers, will strike hands in fellowship with the plundered; it is not to be expected that they, who link with slave-holders, will link with anti-slavery men; it is not to be expected that they who speak with the thief, will speak with him who is robbed of his goods. Mr. Macnaughtan is in the pay of the slave-holders; and as the Rev. Henry Grey asked the general assembly,—"Is every Free Church to have a slave-stone in it; is every Free Church minister to have his salary made up by the unrequited toil of the bondman?"12Free Church minister John Duncan, not Henry Grey, the moderator of the Church's General Assembly, raised the question before the Free Presbytery of Edinburgh in March 1845. Henry C. Wright in The Dissolution of the American Union . . . (Glasgow, 1845), 4 3 , quotes Duncan as follows: " 'Is every Free Church to have a SLAVE-STONE in it? Is this the commencement of the Free Church of Scotland? What is the association between the Free Church and a stone wet with the blood of the Slave? Is one of our first acts to be a soft denunciation of Slavery, and a practical participation in its fruits?' 'Has this church nothing to do but sit down at the Lord's table with these unmakers of men—with such traders in human flesh? As for myself, I could not eat a common meal with them; IT WOULD CHOKE ME.'' I would count it foul scorn to associate with such men.' Although the reporter took the question concerning ministers' salaries to be a continuation of Duncan's remarks, it is likely that Douglass posed the question himself. See also Free Church and Slavery, 4; Rice, "Scottish Factor," 307. This is the question for England to decide. This is the question for Scotch people to decide.
The people of Scotland say they have been misrepresented. They declare, before the world, that that church does not represent them on the question of slavery (cheers). They feel that they have been outraged. That church started up, and in its self-sufficiency and arrogance, assumed to itself the right to represent the moral and religious sentiment of Scotland; proclaimed itself as the Church of Scotland. What a title! A Free Church and a slave church linked and interlinked! A Free Church and a slave church walking hand in hand together! Men who talk loudly of the crown rights of the Redeemer, striking hands with men who blot out the image of God, in the persons of three millions of enslaved human beings! (Great cheering.) They claim to represent the moral and religious feeling of Scotland! Old Scotland is indignant at this arrogant assumption (cheers). Old Scotland, whose every hill, glen, and valley, has been made classic by some noble deed of defence of civil and religious freedom, will never bear to pass with slave-holders (hear, hear). The people of Scotland declare that this union shall be dissolved; they feel that they have been grievously misrepresented by the arrogant leaders of the Free Church. What is to be done? Send back the money! (Tremendous applause.) Send back the money (cheers).
Let all England say, that has contributed their money to the Free Church, "that their money and the slave holders' money shall not clink in the same coffers." Let the Dissenters of England, who sympathised with the Free Church movement, and who gave their money to the Free Church, say, "we will not have our names and reputations mixed up with the blood-stained money of the slave-holders of Louisiana"(cheers). Send back the money! (Applause.) That is the cry.
Send it back, in the first place, because it does not belong to the Free Church. It is stolen money, robbed from the slave. Send it back, because they will never be in a favourable position to remonstrate with the slave holders, or against slave-holding, while they retain the result of slave-holding in its treasury. Send it back, because, while it is there, the conscience of Scotland will be disturbed by its presence. Send it back, because the sending of it back would produce an agitation in the United States such as was never experienced before by such an act. Send it back, because the sending of it back would give slavery a blow which would send it staggering to its grave (tremendous cheering). Send it back, because those who remonstrate against slave-holding, must see that the blood and earnings of slavery is not on their own garments. Send it back, because while they retain the money gained by slave-holding, the slave-holder will look upon their remonstrances with contempt, for they can say to them, "how dare you, who have the result of our money—you, who came in our midst, begged our money, preached in our pulpits—you, who came among us, and were dumb with respect to the slave—you, who took our money, and said nothing to us against slave-holding—how dare you, now that you have got our cash, turn round and destroy the means by which we got it?" Send it back, because while you keep it, your conscience, your moral power against slavery, will be destroyed. Send it back, because the slave groans and cries to you to send it back. Send it back, because the slave holders do not wish you to send it back. Send it back, because it would rejoice the hearts of the bond men (applause), and cause the oppressed to lift up their heads with joyful anticipations of the day of deliverance (great cheering). Send it back, that you may be on a level with the political agitator in another country (applause).
Daniel O'Connell set an example by which the Free Church of Scotland might well profit. I am not here to indorse Mr. O'Connell or his agitation, but this I say, that when the blood-stained offerings came to Daniel O'Connell at Conciliation Hall, he did not send for it; but
when the money came, all sprinkled with blood, his answer was, "I will not take it; let thy money perish with thee!13In 1872 Wendell Phillips described the incident in Conciliation Hall to which Douglass alludes. According to Phillips, O'Connell exhibited a thousand-pound note sent by New Orleans slaveholders and declared, "Old Ireland is very poor, but thank God she is not poor enough to take unpaid wages of anybody; send it back." A recent student of Irish abolitionism, discovering no contemporary record of O'Connell's remarks, observes that O'Connell and other repealers routinely acepted financial contributions from slaveowners. Wendell Phillips, Daniel O'Connell: A Lecture (New York, 1872), 100; Riach, "Campaign Against American Slavery," 245 - 46. Look at the morality of the political agitator and that of the Free Church. The one said he could not aid even his cause of religious freedom, at the expense of the freedom of others; the other said, "we will take the money from any source, asking no questions for conscience sake" (cheers). That is the doctrine of the Free Church!
In America, not long ago, we were building a Bunker Hill Monument, in honour of those who fought and fell in the Revolution. The building committee found themselves short of 1000 dollars. At this time, the celebrated Fanny Ellsler14Dancer Franziska Elssler (1810-84) arrived in New York on 3 May 1840 and left from Boston on 16 July 1842. While in the United States she conducted three tours, performing in major northern and southern cities, and donated proceeds from 21 of her 199 performances to charity. She performed on behalf of the Bunker Hill Monument Association on 1 October 1840 and presented the Association with approximately $1100. Auguste Ehrhard, Une vie de danseuse: Fanny Elssler (Paris, 1909), 7, 320, 322-26, 359; Memoir of Fanny Elssler: With Anecdotes of Her Public and Private Life! (Boston, 1840), 23; Boston Daily Evening Transcript, 28 September, 2 October 1840; Constant Von Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexicon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, 60 vols. (Vienna, 1856 - 91), 4 : 27-29; ACAB, 2 : 335. was going through the country dancing, and taking [in] a great deal of money. Hearing that the committee were in want of 1000 dollars, she very patriotically offered the use of her feet for a few evenings to raise the money. The committee were not religious men; they were a band of patriotic citizens, bound by none of the rules that regulate religious bodies. What course did they pursue? They considered the proposition, and came to the unanimous conclusion not to receive it. They said, "We will not stain the memory of our fathers by receiving money gained in such an unhallowed way." This was the building committee of the Bunker Hill Monument. But, I suppose, the Northern Warder and the Free Church would have taken it, "asking no questions for conscience sake."
It is in America that we have to fight the last battle of slavery; in a land proclaiming itself free; in a land that declares that governments are formed to protect the rights of all—here, under the star-spangled banner, the rights of humanity are to be vindicated. I would invoke the pul-
pits of all denominations to utter all that they may utter in opposition to slave-holding; and let their principle be to agitate, agitate, agitate, for sending back the money.
Mr. Douglass concluded his lecture amidst the most enthusiastic bursts of applause.