1 10 136 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource American Sugars Description An account of the resource AMERICAN SUGARS.--A report of the debate which took place in the House of Commons on the 5th ultimo on the Sugar question is published, from which we make the annexed extract relating to American sugars: "Mr. Thornley said: I wish to repeat the question which I put to the right honorable gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury. I yesterday stated that a quantity of sugar had reached this country from the United States, which was notoriously the produce of slave labor. The question which I then put has become of more importance, because to-day I find that samples have arrived of cargoes of two or three shipments from New Orleans. The question I wish to put is this, whether this sugar, the produce of Louisiana, and therefore the produce of slave labor, will be admitted at the same rate of duty as sugar from China, Java, and Manilla, which is considered the produce of free labor? "Sir Robert Peel. There are certain countries--the United States being one of them--where sugar is produced by the labor of slaves. The United States and one or two other countries have concluded reciprocity treaties with this country, which treaties stipulate that the produce of such countries shall be admitted into this country on the footing of the most favored nations. That, I apprehend, is the state of the case. But up to this hour there has been no official information received by her Majesty's Government from the custom house with respect to the arrival of this shipment, nor has any communication been made to the Treasury Board upon the subject, nor any application for an Order in Council, which would be necessary before the sugar could be admitted. At present I apprehend that the sugar could not be admissible, for no Order in Council has been issued for its admission from the United States. At the same time I have no hesitation in saying that my construction of the treaty is, that sugar from the United States would, undr the reciprocity treaties, be admissible on the same terms and footing as sugar from Java, Manilla, and China. [Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.] "Mr. Thornley had heard the answer of the right honorable gentleman with great satisfaction. He begged simply to state that the produce of sugar in Louisiana was such as would give great profit on its exportation to this country, and that there was every reason to believe the new trade would be carried on a considerable extent. "Mr. Ewart said there was another question connected with this subject which he was anxious to have answered. He wished to know whether the right honorable baronet was aware that all the sugar coming from Louisiana was brown muscovado sugar, and therefore would come into this country at the duty of 23s and not at 28s? So that, in fact, this slave-grown sugar of the United States would be imported at a lower duty than the free-labor sugar of Java, Siam, and Manilla.  "Sir R. Peel declined entering into any argument upon the subject at present." Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Alexandria Gazette 45:81, p.2 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 4.4.1845 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Slave Labor Products---No. 4 Description An account of the resource FRIENDS EDITIORS:-- For reasons already briefly stated, a considerable portion of my previous numbers have been directed to a review of an editorial in the Liberator, not, as you suppose, to the "annihilation" of the editor, unless his existence depends upon the triumph of his anti-free labor views, in which case it would perhaps be fortunate for the cause of humanity, that your idea should prove correct. I think I do not underrate the many good properties of friend Garrison, and as to any feelings of ill will or malignity, I entertain none whatever towards him or any other man; but those who can see nothing but perfect consistency in all his ways, and conceive their pens best employed in lauding his excellencies, may do it; I consider it doing him and the cause of truth greater kindness, to endeavor to correct his errors. In doing this, my remarks have necessarily gone to "the establishment of abstinence views." I should be understood, that to refute the objections to a question is no unusual, nor is it an unreasonable, method of establishing its truth; and the continuance of the review of the said editorial, up to the near approach of Garrison's visit to Ohio, as the reader will have perceived, was not a matter of choice with me. I would much prefer the reader would draw his conclusion of the purport and character of my articles on this subject, and also on the collateral question at issue between us, from my communications themselves, than to take your extraordinary version of them as contained in your last. What has already been written is sufficient to a correct undrstanding of the latter, if our very "unfortunate use of language" and of ideas do not mislead the reader. The importance of giving especial attention to such arguments, even as those of S.S. Foster, or his "reckless assertions," as Henry Grew calls them, will appear obvious when we read in the editorial columns of the Anti-Slavery Bugle of Wendell Phillips at the late anniversary at New York, "fully endorsing the anti-free produce sentiments which have made the former [Foster] so odious in the estimation of some of the friends of the slave." And what are the sentiments which have rendered Foster or his doctrines "so odious," and which are thus "fully endorsed"?--They are the declarations that the anti-slavery laborer "has the consent of the slave" to purchase of the master the fruits of his robberies upon the former!--that those who are not abolitionists, but purchase thereof are "thieves and robbers"!--but that such purchasers "do not aid the slaveholder"!--that those who advocate the free labor question are "not abolitionists," and should "leave the Society, the sooner the better," and some others equally "odious"!! Notwithstanding the Declaration of Sentiment, the acknowledged exponent of the principles of the A.S. Society, clearly and expressly recognizes the Free Labor question as a legitimate measure, yet it seems to be the opinion of some, that the uttering of such sentiments as the above, by leading abolitionists, and their sanction and endorsement, in whole or in part, by Anti-Slavery papers, as real orthodox abolitionism, afford no justification for public criticism, but that those who still adhere to the A.S. Declaration of Sentiments and to the discarded axiom once laid down by W.L. Garrison, that "no transfer of stolen property can confer just possession," &c., may be denied a hearing through smoe of the A.S. papers and spurned from the Anti-Slavery platform, as I have already shown to have been the case. None of these things, however, will deter those who, under a sense of duty, have, for fifteen to fifty years past, been laboring in this cause against ignorance, interestedness, and sophistry. They need not despair--the grounds occupied by the National A.S. Standard, to give a "preference" to free labor or goods, and otherwise assist the cause--the well known position of the Pennsylvania Freeman, the Non-Slaveholder and the Free Labor Advocate, &c.,--the establishment of a wholesale free labor store in Cincinnati, and the increasing interest manifested upon this subject in all parts of the country, are cheering evidence of its ultimate success. It is confidently believed that if the attention of the Anti-Slavery people generally, was turned to this branch of the enterprise, that, in a very short time, the manufacture of the free, would be made to compete fully with that of slave labor goods, and from that moment the slave system must begin to wane. I believe that many abolitionists are, by their efforts in behalf of the slave, through this means alone, doing their full share towards the abolition of slavery in the United States, and that if each person would do as much, slavery would be starved out, and in a very few years be supplanted by a system of free labor. The free labor system is so clearly consistent, economical, right and just, as soon to commend itself to all candid men, and the feasibility of a project for putting in operation a plan for cultivating and manufacturing all tropical productions, upon the free principle, is such as would require but half the effort now bestowed upon other branches of enterprise, to ensure it success. Upon this disuion measure the Liberty party and all other anti-slavery people--the Friends--the Whig and Democratic abolitionists, &c. could unite. None, that I am aware of, deny the efficacy of this measure. Those Disunionists even, who justify their own use of slave labor goods, deny the rightfulness of others to use them. Why can they not be enlisted also? They say other persons "cannot innocently" use any other than free labor goods. Why then cannot they assist in bringing the free article within the reach of such whom they say are guilty for using the other? It is true they would, by recommending the subject to the attention of others, be preaching one doctrine and practising another, but this they do now, and their inconsistency would not therefore be increased, while they would be aiding a cause which they acknowledge to be just and righteous. To say the anti-abolitionist cannot innocently use slave grown products, is to say he is bound to use the free. It is attaching guilt to non-abstinence, so far as relates to the common people at least, and consequent importance to the subject, as a just and righteous cause. They are bound then, by their own avowed principles, and those of the parent Society, to aid in this work. To a question like this, where pecuniary interest is to be overcome, it seems to me there are objections urged which the object or would never think of applying to other cases to which they would be equally applicable. In a discourse upon general principles of moral and religious duty, delivered by S.S. Foster in Salem a year or two since, among other positions which he laid down, was this; that no appropriation to a righteous purpose, of property obtained through unjust means, could be made without crime. He supposed for an illustration, that a clerk in the employ of John Jacob Astor, should, without the knowledge of the owner or the possibility of his missing the property, embezzle a few thousand dollars--that he should appropriate the whole of it to the relief of the starving poor, thus accomplishing much good without inflicting any perceptible injury upon any. This, Foster said, would be as certainly a crime as any other act of theft, because it was predicated upon a wrong. Now what anti-slavery man or woman will dissent from this principle? Yet S.S. Foster, and W.L. Garrison have distinctly declared, and I believe all anti-free labor abolitionists understake to defend the doctrine, that it is wrong for any person to purchase the products of the unpaid toil of the slave unless they make good use of it! They must be used to clothe and feed good abolitionists, otherwise those who purchase or use them are guilty! That which they declare to be basely wicked, is changed to a laudable virtue, or at least an "innocent" act, byt the mere circumstances of being perpetrated by an abolitionist, instead of by an apologist for slavery! An editorial in the last No. of the Bugle, and the speeches of Phillips, Foster, &c. at the late Anniversary, charge free labor abolitionists with laying down a principle and violating it themselves, which they say anti-free labor abolitionists do not!! If there be more merit in laying down a principle and disregarding it entirely, than in carrying it out to the extent that it and many other principles can be reasonably done, or if it be more meritorious to violate an acknowledged principle and deny it, than to do so to a less extent and confess it, I am not envious of such merit. That anti-free labor abolitionists do recognize in various ways a principle involved in the free labor question--that we are supporting slavery by our commercial connection with the South--that they regard even the reception of money from slaveholders for benevolent purposes, as a violation of the principle involved in this question, is abundantly evident from innumerable documents and speeches official and unofficial put forth by the Society. B.B. Davis Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource B.B. Davis Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anti-Slavery Bugle 3:4, p. 2 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 9.3.1847 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Slave Labor Products---No. 3. Description An account of the resource FRIENDS EDITORS:-- The exclusion of a discussion of the merits of this important question from the columns of the Liberator, seems to me to call for a more extended review of Garrison's editorial, which will therefore also constitute the principal part of this Essay. He considers it "singular" that this zeal for abstinence is almost exclusively confined to a particular locality, and to members of the Society of Friends. With respect to the extent of this "locality" I am inclined to believe he is entirely misinformed. His editorial proceeds, "for the consciences of some of these we entertain very little respect. They are those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." This character he ascribes to them for being scrupulous about slave labor produce while they vote under the U.S. Constitution, for Whigs and Democrats, &c. He terms them "of the race of Pharisees and hypocrites" &c., "thanking God that they are not like these Anti-Slavery publicans and sinners." Do not non-abstaining discunionists claim as much purity for their alleged exemption from all support of slavery, and manifest toward the free-labor voter equally as much of this self-righteous spirit? Free labor men do not, so far as I am acquainted with them, lay claim to be entirely clear of the use of slave labor produce, and instead of being liable to this charge of self-righteousness, are violently denounced for self-condemnation.--While Garrison accuses them of self-righteousness, Pillsbury and Foster censure them for possessing quite an opposite character. The doctrine of self-righteousness belongs to that school of abolitionists which would make the world believe they are living in this government without contributing an item to its support; that by some mysterious sanctification of the money they pay, voluntarily, in a score of ways, into the U.S. treasury, absolves them from any implication in the sin of upholding it! and that by an equally mysterious process, the hire which the slaveholder receives from their hands for carrying on his business affords no incentive to the act! that it partakes of an entirely different character from that paid him by the anti-abolitionist, so that they neither support slavery nor the Government, though they afford to each that sustenance, without which neither could exist!! But Garrison complains of the "unkind" expressions and "criminations" in certain free labor essays, &c. Are they more so than these criminations of Free labor Friends? There must be more acrimony among the free labor friends than I was aware of, if they have outstripped in severity his own animadversions upon what he considers pro-slavery conduct among others, and he is the last man from whom I expected to hear such a complaint. But what was the practice of the leading anti-slavery men of 1838--Did they not support this same pro-slavery Government?--Some of them also "strained at gnats," (were free labor men) but they nearly all "swallowed camels," (voted.) Where they hypocrites? That which constitutes hypocrisy now must have been hypocrisy then. Were those pioneers (W.L. Garrison and others,) "hypocrites," who at the same time advocated voting under the United States constitution, and abstinence from slave labor produce? The course of conduct Garrison prescribes as proper to pursue toward the free labor abolitionist, contrasts strangely in several particulars, with that which he deems it proper to take in reference to others who are in "error." Although they are "wasting their time," attempting that which is "preposterous and unjust," &c., he will not try to prevent their labors from making "as many proselytes as possible!" For some cause he speaks entirely different to the political abolitionist. It would sound strange truly, to hear him talking of "not waging any opposition" against the latter! Again he cherishes toward them (these "preposterous" free labor men and women) "the highest personal esteem and honor for their stern fidelity to their convictions of duty." And while he regards their position as a most erroneous on, he will not consent to reason with them, or try to prevent their making proselytes! Altogether, it seems to me an unusual course to pursue toward those in error, for which I can conceive of no good reason. The classing of the products of the labor of the free operative of the North, or of Europe with that of slaves, to aid the cause of non-abstinence, is like the stale argument against the Anti-Slavery movement, still ringing in our ears, that the free operatives have a higher claim on our sympathies than the slaves: For the use of free labor produce creates a demand for laborers, increases wages and relieves the poor; whereas the consumption of slave labor produce increases the task of the bondman, augments the demand for slaves, and extends and increases the power and dominion of the oppresors. The one assists the poor, the other oppresses him. To answer some other objections, such as the contamination of the currency, &c., &c., which have been met and refuted times innumerable by writers on the subject, W.L. Garrison among the rest, would seem too much like preaching to an anti-slavery veteran, grown gray in the cause, the doctrine of inalienable rights, or the competency of the slave to take care of himself. But what more need be said to destroy the whole force of the objections to the free labor cause raised in that editorial, than a sentence from the same article where he admits that "other persons" than good abolitionists, "cannot innocently use" those products? Who can regard this as any thing short of a complete refutation of all his preceding objections! I had before heard S.S. Foster allege that those who used slave labor goods, not being abolitionists, were "thieves and robbers," but I was not prepared to hear such declaration from friend Garrison. It appears to be the fate of all who attempt to defend the principle of buying stolen goods, to get involved in absurdities. For example--Stephen S. foster at the late anniversaries at New York and Boston, says Henry Grew in the A.S. Standard, declared that the use of slave labor products rendered no aid to the slaveholder. Compare this with his declaration at New Garden, that those who use these products (abolitionists excepted) were thieves and robbers! Again at the latter convention, after declaring abstinence to be "just what the slaveholder desired of us," he avowed himself in favor of a free produc resolution and said he would vote for it. If the argument of the friends of this cause are not sufficient to convince such persons, I should suppose their own blunders in attempting to sustain the opposite ground would do it. Garrison concludes that it is "much easier to pursue this course" (be free labor abolitionists, such as many members of the Society of Friends &c. are,) than to engage in these "fanatical agitations." Most of his article however is devoted to the purpose of showing the extreme difficulty and trouble pertaining to this part of the anti-slavery enterprise! But taking it as his opinion that the free labor question is "easy" and involves less sacrifice of ease and popularity than other branches of the subject, I must beg leave to entertain an entirely opposite opinion. I can conceive of no branch of the anti-slavery enterprise more arduous, more self-sacrificing, and more thankless than this. None that affords as little facility for the demagogue who wishes to palm himself upon the public as an abolitionists. It is easier to lecture under pay ,or for a time without pay--easier to withhold a vote, or to leave old parties and friends and vote a third party ticket--easier to print and circulate papers--to petition legislative bodies--to carry the fugitive in coaches by star light--to combat pro-slavery churches or organization--all are easier than to carry out, to the extent that many do, the free labor cause. So it seems to me; so I hear others, speaking from experiences also assert. But is the free labor subject popular?--Nay. Even among abolitionists it is unpopular, (and where else could it be popular?)--The article under review is evidence enough of this. The course of most of the other anti-slavery papers go to confirm it. Introduce a free labor resolution into an anti-slavery convention, or make a speech upon the subject, and you have in the dissastisfied look of the audience, and the frown of the leading spirits and orators of the day, a strong confirmation of the truth. If there be any part of the anti-slavery enterprise that is not "easy;" if there is any branch of it that is not popular, it is this; and let him who doubts, try it. Let him attempt to get up congregations to listen to a lecture upon it; let him meet the sneer of the pro-slavery merchant, when he asks for free labor goods, and see the jealousy of the anti-slavery man who thinks "no union with slaveholders" consists in not voting nor fellowshipping the existing churches, while he riots upon the unpaid toil of the bondman. Let him make a daily sacrifice, not only of popularity and ease, but of money. and then be accused by those professing to avoid "waging any opposition" against him, and "preposterous injustice"--and by leading anti-slavery men with "opposing the slave's cause," "doing what the slaveholder desires," "being no abolitionist and not worthy of the name," and advised to leave the A.S. Society "the sooner the better," &c. [vide S.S. Foster's speech at the Ohio State Convention 1846.] These obstacles from friends and foes will I trust, convince any one acquainted with them that of all branches of the A.S. cause, this measure has the least to do with the science of Anti-Slavery made easy. B.B. DAVIS. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource B.B. Davis Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anti-Slavery Bugle 3:1, p. 2 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 8.6.1847 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Slave Labor Products--No. 1. Description An account of the resource INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. FRIENDS EDITORS:-- Having, as your readers may infer from your editorials of the last two weeks, had some difficulty in getting access to your readers through the columns of the Bugle, and I suppose entirely debarred from a hearing through the Liberator, I must ask for a little more space than would otherwise be necessary, for prefatory remarks. [We omit here a portion of our correspondent's preface, inasmuch as it relates to a matter which he was told in a private interview we thought would be out of place in our columns--nor is the part omitted needed to give a correct understanding of his Free Produce views.--EDRS.] I consider the American Anti-Slavery Society under obligations, not only to admit, but to encourage the discussion of, and to advocate, the Free Labor question. And especially is the Western A.S. Society bound to do this. When this Society received its impulse by the visit of Abby Kelley in 1845, the Declaration of Sentiment and Constitution of the present Society formed in 1833, was read in the Convention held in New Lisbon, and re-adopted by the same, as the acknowledged embodiment of the principles, doctrines and measures of this Society.--Among the measures which stand prominent in that declaraction of sentiment, is the following, "We shall encourage the labor of freemen rather than that of slaves, by giving a preference to their productions." At the Convention of the Western Society held at New Garden last year, the following resolution was adopted: Resolved, That we believe it our duty to abstain as far as practicable from the fruits of slaves' labor, and encourage the labor of freemen." By the published proceedings of this Convention in the Bugle of June 26, 1816, it will be seen that this resolution "passed with scarcely a dissenting voice"! An editorial in the same paper says it passed "with much unanimity." [A few lines also omitted here.--EDRS.] THE DECLENSION. Whenever the Am. A.S. Society has added to its policy any new measure, or modified any of its old ones, the subject of such change has always been a theme of much discussion; sometimes almost to the exclusion of the direct question. The change now attempted to be effected in relation to the free produce question, constitutes a remarkable exception to this rule. Even W.L. Garrison, who once maintained that the doctrine of abstinence from slave labor produce was a duty as clear as that of abstinence from slaveholding--"a self-evident truth," now takes a contrary position, and in doing so, declares in plain terms, his unwillingness either to discuss the subject or grant the use of his paper for the privilege of such discussion!! Is it thus that "self-evident truths are to be disposed of by abolitionists? If this be so, and the evidence that it is need not now be disputed, we may not only hear of the Disunion doctrine being abandoned to-morrow, (for it never has, nor never will be claimed to be based on a self-evident truth,) but the abandonment of the idea of the slave's inalienable right to liberty, may with equal propriety be surrendered, for that is nothing more than a "self-evident truth." But strange as it may seem, soon after W.L. Garrison's views became changed, we discovered one by one, without a public discussion of the question, with no circulation of anti-free labor tracts, the anti-slavery men and women dropping off! The Am. Free Produce Society lost several of their active members, their names and their arguments, the latter unanswered and unanswerable, and both as monuments of their apostacy from the doctrine so triumphantly maintained by many of our ablest anti-slavery writers, are yet to be seen upon the records. The few reasons which have been advanced against the free labor subject, being evidently the best that can be advanced, it is my purpose in these essays to review, not so much because of the sources from which they emanate, as for the purpose which they are intended to subserve, and the use made of them. Whatever goes to discourage the manufacture of free produce, goes so far to encourage that of slave labor, and to encourage the latter, is to aid oppression. WM. LLOYD GARRISON. The editor of the Liberator, W.L. Garrison, in his remarks on the free produce question, in the Liberator of the 5th of 3rd mo. last, I perceive, takes the ground, that the fruits of the unnpaid toil of the slave, may be innocently used by those who are earnestly laboring to overthrow slavery, but "not innocently by any other person"! Strange as it appears to me to see such a position as this taken by one who in time past, occupied so firm a stand upon the other side of the question, I was still more surprised to read in the same editorial, other positions so palpably conflicting with parts of the above. I have perused subsequent numbers of the Liberator with much expectation of seeing his late position on the above question, supported by a chain of argument, consistent with itself at least, and could not for a time believe his readers would be obliged to accept that article as the best and only defence that cause would afford. But the very fact that it has been sustained no better, by one whose ability to do justice to a worthy subject cannot be disputed, affords strong evidence to the friends of the free labor enterprise, that their cause stands upon a permanent basis. He not only alleges that "nothing would be gained" be pressing the free labor subject upon public attention; that it would be "a waste of time," &c., but sets down as "preposterous and unjust," those who "attempt to seek the subversion of slavery" by refusing the use of its products, or "attach moral guilt to the consumer." Yet I understand him to "attach moral guilt to the consumer" by saying that other persons than good abolitionists cannot innocently use those products! We are told by his editorial, that to regard the consumer of slave labor products, as a supporter of the system, is an 'error,' yet the same editorial tells us that these consumers (good abolitionists excepted) are guilty for using them! He imputes great credit to "the truly conscientious" who abstain, but must have forgotten that those are the individuals who "attach moral guilt to the consumer," and who therefore lie under this charge of preposterous injustice! He considers it not susceptible of "clear demonstration" that it is wrong to use the productions of slave labor, that it should be "left to the individual conscience," and that "no man" could reduce the question to practice. Yet after laying down these conscience-soothers for abolitionists, he has arraigned the anti-abolitionists, as guilty for leaving the subject to "individual conscience," for not reducing to practice this "impracticability." He says the free labor abolitionists "are bound to be rigidly consistent." Does he mean thy only should be so? Are we to ask others to do what we call "impracticable"? But why are anti-abolitionists "not innocent" in using these products? The answer must be that it is a pro-slavery (slavery sustaining) act. From this conclusion there appears to be no escape. Then we find the ground taken by W.L. Garrison and others to be this; that pro-slavery acts by those who labor in the slave's cause, are justifiable!--The pro-slavery church-member nor the voter for the veriest slave-holder, need ask for no broader license than this. If anti-slavery labor will atone for the support I render to the slave system, by purchasing of the slaveholder his ill-gotten gains, the same labor will exonerate me from guilt when for a similar reason (pecuniary gain) I vote for Henry Clay and a high tariff. And why may I not with as good a plea purchase John C. Calhoun's slaves and with their (the slaves') 'consent,' set them to work for me while I go forth to advocate the cause of human rights? It need not be replied that the slave would not in this case have a right to give his consent, if he can, as Stephen S. Foster asserts, and as Garrison implies, give his consent to the anti-slavery lecturer to use the proceeds of his unpaid toil after they had passed thro' the hands of his master. Or in other words, he can consent to be a slave that by virtue of the robberies committed upon him, the advocate of his rights may obtain his food and clothing cheaper, and be thus enabled to devote the more time to the cause of human liberty!! But who gave the slave a right to 'consent' to a moral wrong? To build up an Anti-Slavery Society upon the alleged justice of using the products of the labor or the slave, as one of its pillars, will be about as wise, as just, as consistent, us to establish a "Free Republic" with slavery for one of its "corner stones." The obvious intent of Garrison's argument is to show the difficulties of abstinence. Why not give the non-abstaining anti-abolitionist, the advantage of these difficulties, and not charge guilt upon individuals in an inverse ratio to the light they possess? To the church-member or the voter who talks about "the difficulties" of Comeoutism, he has shown no quarters; yet it has not been conceded nor is it to be taken for granted, that belonging to any church or voting under the United States Constitution, does more to sustain slavery than the use of the products of slave labor. By abstinence from the latter no majority is required to produce an effect, nor is age or sex excluded from the privilege of a vote at the merchant's counter. It requires but little argument to show that the consumers of any commodity have the entire control over its production and manufacture, and that at their edict the same shall live and prosper, or die. I understand his position, however, to require of all persons to abstain till they become good abolitionists, then all may with impunity participate with the slaveholder in his plunder! If it is not a case "admitting of clear demonstration," that we have no just claim on the fruits of the bondman's toil, will it not be difficult also, to show that the slaveholder has no just right to those products, or at what stage of the process of production, manufacture and transfer, the title becomes clear and valid, so as to warrant their use by those who disclaim all connection with, or support of, the slave system? B.B. Davis. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anti-Slavery Bugle 2:49, p. 2 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 7.9.1847 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource B.B. Davis Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Slave Labor Products---No. 2. Subject The topic of the resource Criticism of William Lloyd Garrison Description An account of the resource FRIENDS EDITORS:-- Before proceeding with this number of my series, permit me, with all deference to your veto power, respectfully to request that you will concede to me the right to judge whether what I write be "necessary to correct understanding" of my views. You will thus be saved the trouble of curtailing, mutilating or interpolating for me; I shall have some assurance that what I write will be published as I arrange and prepare it, and your readers will sometimes be favored with both sides of a subject on which they would otherwise have to decide from hearing one only.* GARRISON'S EDITORIAL This subject of slave labor produce, says Garrison, "must be left to the individual conscience." He quotes from Paul, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," &c. "To him that esteemeth any thing unclean to him it is unclean," &c.-- Can any one tell what peculiar relevancy there can be in such advice to the subject under consideration? How will the same precepts sound when applied to the pro-slavery church member, the Whig, the Democrat or the Slaveholder? Why not leave such to their individual conscience, also? Can any one find a reason satisfactory to his own mind for thus discriminating? Friend Garrison informs us that he is not willing to discuss this question! He is not now willing to assist in leading his friends out of an "error" as he terms it, although he was instrumental in involving them in it.--Many are indebted in part to the arguments he has used for their "conscientious scruples" on this subject. He once laid down, as a settled principle, the following declaration: "I hold this truth to be self-evident, that no transfer, or inheritance, or sale of stolen property, can convert it into just possession or destroy the claim of the original owner; the maxim being universally conceded to be just, that the receiver is as bad as the thief." This was heralded forth to the world through the Liberator, and who at that time would have believed that the editor would have ever abandoned that "self-evident truth," without showing conclusively that the position was false, or that he would deny the privilege to others either to prove or confute the proposition? He appears disposed to permit his friends to stray off into the same "error" from which he believes himself to have been so fortunately redeemed, pursuing after that bubble of a self-evident truth which he has put them on the track of! For such treatment I think we have just cause to complain of our once admired champion. If we have any thing from his pen to eradicate the conviction, that we cannot innocently use the proceeds of unrequited toil, and to upset the above axiom or prove it but a chimera, it must be found in his late editorial--in the declaration that there are "difficulties" in the question--that there are a "thousand others" of vital importance--in the assertion that the Abolitionists are "innocent" but others are "not innocent" in using those products--in a quotation from Paul that "to him that esteemeth anything unclean to him it is unclean," and in the comparison of other systems of oppression with that of slavery!! &c. Is it possible that W.L. Garrison has been convinced by such reasons that the "self-evident truth" that "no transfer, or inheritance, or sale of stolen property can convert it into just possession," and always was, an "error," or that "self-evident truths" are to be abandoned upon such evidence? The disunionist would, as I conceive, have less cause for surprise, and less for complaint, if Garrison would now reverse his course upon that question, and assign similar reasons for such change, and then decline a further investigation. The Free Produce question was a conspicuous item among the measures avowed by the parent society--Disunion was not. "No casuistry" has settled the disunion question "like a moral axiom." Garrison, although he seems to have forgotten it, has thus settled the free produce question. The use of the Union is claimed by a class of the anti-slavery people as a means of abolishing slavery. No such claim I presume will be seriously made upon the use of slave labor goods as a means of removing the evil.--The "difficulties" of withholding all support to the Union are much greater than those of refusing the use of slave labor products, and all the arguments used by Garrison in his editorial would, it appears to me, apply with more force to his case, were he to abandon the disunion ground, and present to his readers a similar defense for his course. After reading and re-reading that editorial, and seeking in vain for any logical argument in it, many of his friends will still be compelled to adhere to an old-fashioned idea, handed down by John Woolman and his contemporaries--thorougly examined and found true by the old school abolitionists of 1790, and re-endorsed by an equally devoted band in 1833, that the slaveholder and the consumer of his commodities, together with all the complex machinery pertaining to the process of their production, transfer, traffic and consumption, constitute one great "slaveholding firm," all acting in harmony--no part of which can be spared without detriment to the rest, and that the consumer is, especially, the main spring which gives to the whole, motion, energy and vitality. If, then, we are bound to be "rigidly consistent," should we not take down the motto, "No union with slaveholders," until we shall have become disenthralled from this vast "slaveholding firm"? The disunionist who cleaves to it holds in one hand the motto "no union with slaveholders," and in the other the tempting bribe to the slaveholder, "Give us your cotton, and your rice, and your sugar, and we will give you our money; but if you liberate your slave you cannot furnish it so cheap--we will then patronize him who wrests those articles from his victim without compensation; we are abolitionists, it is "innocent" for us to buy of him who can sell cheapest without regard to the mode by which he procures his goods." The Fosters, the Pillsburys, the Jacksons, and other non-abstaining abolitionists, says Garrison, says Garrison, need no certificate of their devotion to the cause of the slave. Those may all be good abolitionists, which is not saying they might not be better. Pulpit labor is often mistaken, however, for practical work. Politicians are often set down as true patriots and great champions of human liberty, when there is not perhaps a single act they have performed to merit the character imputed to them, save those of public speaking in behalf of freedom. This they have done with less pecuniary compnsation, and no more hope of acquiring distinction and eminence than has the anti-slavery lecturer. Such may, or they may not be the true friends of human freedom. What we want is practical work as well as preaching. If W.L.G. had been arguing the other side of the question, I doubt not it would have occurred to him to show that C.C. Burleigh, Lucretia Mott, and other free produce anti-slavery laborers possessed all the requisites of the above named with the additional evidence of their fidelity to the cause, that they make sacrifices to procure the unstained productions of free labor. As to those he speaks of as "needing no ceritificate" &c., those of them I have heard, would surely be entitled to a clear "certificate" from the slaveholder for their warm advocacy of a doctrine most essential to the existence of his "peculiar institution," which may be properly termed, "COMMERCIAL UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS." B.B. DAVIS. *This insinuation that we would exclude one side of a question while we admitted the other, is entirely destitute of foundation. It has not the least semblance of truth, and we are unable to conceive how it was possible for the writer to think otherwise when he penned it.--EDRS.] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource B.B. Davis Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anti-slavery Bugle 2:51, p. 2 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 7.23.1847 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Abstinence from Products of Slave Labor. Description An account of the resource Abstinence from Products of Slave Labor.  The question now arises, How far might we abstain from the products of slave-labor? The people of New England, were they united on it, could abstain from those products <xsl-text></xsl-text>totally<xsl-text></xsl-text>—and that to their own incalculable benefit, and to the slave's deliverance. Unlearned as we are in commercial science, we feel no danger in setting down this statement, <xsl-text></xsl-text>that the commerce between New England and the <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>slaveholding states, is in its aggregate, immensely to New <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>England's loss in property, health, life, and virtue <xsl-text></xsl-text>. In evidence of this, let us consider the principal articles of slave produce imported into our section of country, especially from the southern states, Begin with. <xsl-text></xsl-text>Tobacco<xsl-text></xsl-text>—With the smoke of which our land is clouded, and with the juice of which it flows. The vast amount of this article consumed in New England, is the product of slave-labor, principally from the southern states, and the rest mostly from Cuba, where slavery exists in its worst degree, it being common to “ work the slaves off” (to death) in ten years from their arrival from their home in Africa, upon that bloody island. All that our consumers pay for tobacco, is so much <xsl-text></xsl-text>clear loss<xsl-text></xsl-text>, pecuniarily, while the loss suffered in health and morals by this consumption, is beyond the computation of the arithmetician. The loss in mere <xsl-text></xsl-text>dollars<xsl-text></xsl-text>, by southern trade, in the particular of tobacco, might be expressed by millions, and by yet higher numbers; but the health, and the life, and the virtue destroyed by it, admits not of computation or measurement. Will not these losses by this single article of southern trade, go far to balance whatever profits may be realized in other articles imported from the southern states? Will they not overbalance all that may be gained, (we speak of consumers, by trade in any other article, or in all other articles of southern produce? <xsl-text></xsl-text>Cotton<xsl-text></xsl-text>. In view of the great amount of this article manufactured and consumed in New England, of the many persons its manufacture employs, and of the great amount of clothing it furnishes, it may, at first, seem that the advantages realized from the importation of this article of southern produce, the produce of the slave's toil, is great. It might, at first thought, seem that this branch of southern trade is indispensable. But is it really so? Time has been, when the people of New England subsisted without cotton factories. Have they gained, or have they lost by the change which has taken place? Are the people of New England, in the aggregate, in better circumstances than they would have been, had not one bale of cotton of southern production yet been manufactured among us? The full discussion of the question would be a theme for the occupancy of volumes. Of course we can only start the inquiry, and suggest a few hints. What if the former custom of household manufacture of clothing had been kept up, and the men, women and children, who have been employed in cotton factories, had been engaged in cultivating our own soil, rearing herds and flocks, operating the household wheels and looms—what if this had continued in New England until now? What have been the advantages of the change! Why, rich capitalists have become richer; many persons engaged in the factories, have become rich or fore handed, female operatives especially, have obtained large wages and laid up money; our population has been supplied with cloth at a price deemed much cheaper than that at which it could be manufactured in the household manner; villages have been built up; a ready market for the produce of our farmers has been opened in hundreds of places; and the sphere of business and trade has been greatly enlarged. Against these pecuniary benefits may be set down the pecuniary losses by the factory system, the manufacture of slave-produced cotton among us. We may safely calculate these losses to be large. The neglected cultivation of the soil, caused by the introduction of factories extensively in New England, is a very great loss to the real interests of the country. The cultivation of the soil is the grand productive source of the necessaries of life. In proportion to the neglect of this, is the essential wealth of the country diminished. The extensive manufacture of cotton produced by slave-labor, has diminished the cultivation of our soil far below what it would otherwise have been, and thus has detracted greatly from this true source of a people's wealth. From the same cause, domestic, household manufacture, has been greatly neglected. The substantial home-made fabrics, produced and wrought by families “ within themselves” have giver place to foreign articles, which, though purchased at a price seemingly below the expense of home-made, have in reality cost the consumers far more, in the process by which they are paid for by them. This will, upon examination, be found true of purchased articles that are really necessary in the absence of home-made; but add to this the immense superfluity and extravagance, in the matter of clothing especially, which is introduced by the substitution of foreign for homespun clothing, and by our thousands and ten thousands of young women leaving the distaff and the household wheel and loom for the cotton factories—and the absolute loss to the country, caused by this change, will be found to be immense. Might it not be found, could all the gains and losses, of a pecuniary kind connected with the manufacture of slave-produced cotton be accurately computed, that, to the people of New England generally, the losses would fully balance and over balance the gains? Has not the Author of all good so formed the economy of things, as to forbid a general and permanent prosperity, even pecuniarily, in participating the fruits of injustice? And it is beyond disputation, that the cotton for our factories is procured by the most gross injustice. It cries to God against the slave holder and all that are accessories in the enslavement and robbery of those whose labors produce it and who are the rightful proprietors of it. Is there not a curse upon this and all the products of extorted and unpaid labor, which will, generally, attach itself to all that share in them? But what amount of pecuniary advantages will balance against the expenditure of health, life, intellect, and virtue, which is made in manufacturing the cotton, “ drenched in the tears and blood of the slave.” The factories in New England, in which this ill-gotten material is wrought up, are so many sepulchres in which is entombed the health of the ten thousands of operatives, with few exceptions. In thousands of instances they prove speedily to those who enter them, the ante-chambers to death. Thousands and thousands of New England's daughters, in the flower of their life, have withered, and sunk prematurely to the tomb, by the life-destroying influences of the factory system, as it is conducted in this country. What amount of pecu. niary gain would compensate for these lives? Ask mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, who have followed the stricken victims to their early graves. In the pallid countenances of the multitudes of factory operatives, on the premature graves of their thousands of victims already fallen, do we not read the curse fixed in the righteous laws of Nature upon the fruits of iniquity, to be shared by those who participate in such fruits? Righteous retribution is interwoven in all the natural, as well as the moral universe; and naturally, as well as judiciously, our “ sins do find us out,” even our sins of ignorance. The way of righteousness is the path of life; and the way of sin against God and of wrong against our fellow men, is the way of death. The cotton manufactured in New England is the price of the bodies, the lives and the souls of men, and a retributive curse follows it to the remotest transfer—except in the case of those who repay the <xsl-text></xsl-text>slave <xsl-text></xsl-text>for what they share of his labors. Add to the destruction in health and life, the effect this system has on the intellectual and moral character of thousands, and there is an amount of evil, for which, in our view, no pecuniary advantages can compensate. Not that extensive manufactories could not be carried on without these incomputable losses. No: we trust there will be a change, a reform: but if it ever comes, it will be effected by the same spirit of benevolence and righteousness that will set the slave free, and that will make the material for their fabrications to be the product of free compensated labor The spirit of emancipation is already aroused to a zealous effort for procuring supplies of cotton from other sources than slave labor; especial efforts are making for its growth in India. <xsl-text></xsl-text>Grains and Sugars.<xsl-text></xsl-text>—We have heard some of our people at the north argue, or rather alledge, that New England could not be supplied with bread stuffs without the corn and flour and rice bought of the south, and which are produced by slave-labor. If the labor and the money expended by the people of New England in the purchase of bread stuffs from the slave states were appropriated to the cultivation of our own New England soil, would it not furnish us more plentifully with bread, than it does by southern trade, and do far more to increase the actual wealth of the people? As to sugars, a far larger quantity is consumed than is compatible with the health and other interests of the people. And a necessary supply of sugar might be furnished from our maples, from the beet, and imported from the freed West India Islands and other places where it is produced by free labor. In making up the account of loss and gain by our commerce with slaveholders, the demoralizing influence of such commerce upon the people of the free states, should constitute a heavy item in the loss of the latter. Evil communications corrupt good manners. The trade of the north with the south has had much to do in working that extensive destruction of the genuine principles of freedom and the pro-slavery feeling and sentiment of the people of the north; an evil for which pecuniary gains cannot compensate. We would enlarge upon this topic, but for want of room. Let the reader enlarge for himself in the consideration of this important point. But however great the loss incurred by trade with slaveholders, in the aggregate or in particular commodities, and however practicable it would be for the people of New England to desist totally from that trade, were they all united in the object—they will not all unite in it, and it therefore remains for individuals, who, on the principle of David's abstinence, as quoted in the preceeding number, would not live upon the tears and blood of the slave and upon the price of his soul, to abstain from the products of his enslavement as far as possible, and in cases where, (from the participation in slavery in which the whole land is plunged by commercial intercourse so extensively carried on,) abstinence is impracticable, to see that he rerders an equivalent service for the slave. Many articles of slave produce that we have been accustomed to use, we can do without, or procure the same kind, produced by free labor By stern principle, care and pains-taking, with self-denial, we may, as individuals, come near to total abstinencefrom the fruits of slavery. As individuals we may preserve our souls pure from the price of blood, and bear the effictual testimony of this abstinence. And associations may be formed—a beginning is already commenced—they may be multiplied and extended, so as to greatly diminish the consumption of slave-labor produce, and to afford a powerful testimony. Let every individual friend of the slave, be faithful to the slave, to himself and to God in this matter. “ Keep thyself pure.”—<xsl-text></xsl-text>Morning Star <xsl-text></xsl-text>. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived National Anti-Slavery Standard, reprinted from Morning Star Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 6.3.1841 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Communications. Who Does Not Pity the Slave? Description An account of the resource Communications. <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>WHO DOES NOT PITY THE SLAVE?<xsl-text></xsl-text> Who is the slave, that we should pity him? The slave! Knowest thou not, kind reader, that a slave is a man, and at the same time a chattel, a thing—the presumed property of his fellow-man—subject, like other property to be bought and sold—subject to be separated from all that is considered near and dear in life—not by death only—but by the caprice or discretion of his fellow-man. Who, then, does not pity the slave? I would that the question could be answered, “that person cannot be found.” That the poor slave is pitied—truly, and sincerely pitied, but by a very few, is painfully evident. Perhaps that person cannot be found who will say that he does <xsl-text></xsl-text>not <xsl-text></xsl-text>pity him. But where's the evidence? Certainly, it is not in saying so, and then showing no evidence in conduct. It is not in calling the war with Mexico unholy, and unjust, and instigated by the dark, demoniac spirit of Slavery, and then joining an army for the overthrow of the Mexicans, and the extension of slave territory. It is not in calling those laws cruel, and oppressive, which in their operation, imprison a Torrey, or brand a Walker, and then make no sacrifice, or <xsl-text></xsl-text>do <xsl-text></xsl-text>nothing for their families. It is not in calling slaveholders man-stealers, and then aid them to the highest official rank in our nation. It is not in professing to be an Abolitionist, and giving no other evidence of being one than pointing out the imperfections of those engaged in the Anti-Slavery cause. And I am unable to discover satisfactory evidence of any very great devotion to the cause of bleeding, suffering humanity, or genuine pity for the slave, in him, or her, who will preach, pray, vote, sing, talk, and write against Slavery, with a stolen shirt upon his back, or stolen dress upon her person, and stolen rice, sugar, or coffee, in his or her stomach. STOLEN, did I say? Yes. Worse than stolen. For, is not the paying the slaveholder for the products of slave-labor, doing more to <xsl-text></xsl-text>perpetuate <xsl-text></xsl-text>this nefarious system, than the stealing such products would? Most certainly. Charge me not with being unreasonably severe in the accusation which I have brought against those who justify this abominable iniquity. What is it that sustains Slavery; feeds it, supports it, keeps it alive? The money which thou and the multitude pay for the avails of Slavery. We read, from tolerable good authority, I think, “Go not with the multitude to do evil.” Hast thou not done so in the matter under consideration? Think of it; and “Go and sin no more.” Suppose I am the slave-owner, and my father gave me thy wife—a title to her, I mean, as my property. I have a cotton plantation, and this wife of thine labors upon this plantation—grows the cotton which is afterwards converted into shirts. A man comes to me, and says I most give up that woman, that she may go to her husband.—The fact comes to my knowledge that this agent, and the man represented to be her husband, have upon their backs the identical cotton which this woman has helped raise. What is the natural answer? “<xsl-text></xsl-text>Why, what will you do for shirts? <xsl-text></xsl-text>” More anon. LORENZO MABBETT. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lorenzo Mabbett Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived National Anti-Slavery Standard Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 7.30.1846 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Editorial Remarks. Description An account of the resource EDITORIAL REMARKS. We are somewhat surprised that our correspondent should cherish any doubts on this subject. 'All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' Slavery is a system of robbery, practised upon million of our fellow beings—a war upon human rights, a cruel depredation upon the earnings of industrious labor. They who pursue it are guilty of crimes, which, if committed against white people, would bring them to the pillory, the prison, or the gallows. Now, the laws of a state cannot nullify the principles of equity, nor make wrong right. The abettors of crime are as guilty as the perpetrators. The assertions which have been made are true—that the consumers of the productions of slave labor contribute to a fund for supporting slavery with all its abominations—that they are the Alpha and the Omega of the business—that the slave-dealer, the slave-holder, and the slave-driver, are virtually the agents of the consumer, for by holding out the temptation, he is the original cause, the first mover in the horrid process—that we are called upon to refuse those articles of luxury, which are obtained at an absolute and lavish waste of the blood of our fellow men—and that a merchant, who loads his vessel with the proceeds of slavery, does nearly as much at helping forward the slave trade, as he that loads his vessel in Africa with slaves; they are both twisting the same rope at different ends. A few interrogations will suffice to illustrate this business. If a merchant patronise a pirate, who has plundered vessels on the high seas, and pay him liberally for so doing, is he not himself a pirate in principle? Is it true that 'the receiver is as had as the thief?' Is not the man who bribes his companion to stab a third person to the heart, the greater criminal of the two, though he shed no blood? There can be no difficulty here. Every body will answer in the affirmative. These are self-evident truths. Now for the application. Why are the slaves held in bondage? Certainly, not to fulfil any prophecy;—not on the ground of benevolence;—not because their liberation would be dangerous;—no such thing;— <xsl-text></xsl-text>but because they are profitable to their owners. <xsl-text></xsl-text>Who are the principal consumers of the products of slave labor? The free states. They furnish a good market for the South. They say to her, 'Raise all the cotton that you can, and we will manufacture the raw material. We will consume your rice, your tobacco, your sugar and molasses, and give you higher prices than you can obtain elsewhere.' What is this, but putting an immense bribe into the hands of the slaveholders to kidnap, steal and oppress? Were it not for our patronage, they would be compelled to liberate their slaves; <xsl-text></xsl-text>for as soon as slave labor becomes unprofitable, there is an end to the system. <xsl-text></xsl-text>The prophecy of Mr. Randolph will then be fulfilled: the slaves will not run away from their masters, but the masters from their slaves. We are, then, the warmest and most efficient supporters of slavery, and feel no compunctious visitings of conscience, in purchasing those things which are stolen, and which have been moistened with the tears and blood of the slave. Remember the questions which were propounded, and the verdict of 'Guilty,' which was given. If 'the receiver is as bad as the thief," surely he is more criminal who gives <xsl-text></xsl-text>a yearly salary to the robber. <xsl-text></xsl-text>Is there any flaw in the argument? Are not the cases parallel? As to the 'arguments' which 'A.O.' adduces against abstaining from the products of slavery, they are not worth a straw. Suppose the slavites should 'send their goods to Europe, and retaliate on us, by refusing to purchase our articles'—what then? Better, far better, that our intercourse cease, than that we should uphold the bloody system of slavery by our patronage. Shall we purchase stolen goods to win the good-will of a thief? Are our consciences to be sacrificed to our interests? What kind of morality is this? But our example would be lost, and our abstinence like taking a drop from the ocean—the people would continue to eat, and the poor slaves obtain no relief! Suppose we grant it—are we to live in sin because others choose thus to live? Are we never to reform ourselves because we cannot reform others? A good example is never lost; and if it be, it should nevertheless be given as unshrinkingly as if it were destined to reclaim the universe. We are not conscious that our own articles in the Liberator have 'manifested an unchristian spirit.' Slaveholders, as men, are entitled to equal consideration with others; but, as tyrants and men-stealers, they deserve no courtesy. Positive assertions and strong denunciations are warranted by the examples of Christ, and the apostles, and the prophets. We are not among the number who cry— 'Pray, spare the <xsl-text></xsl-text>person, <xsl-text></xsl-text>but expose the <xsl-text></xsl-text>vice.' <xsl-text></xsl-text>But we exclaim— 'How! not expose the <xsl-text></xsl-text>sharper, <xsl-text></xsl-text>but the <xsl-text></xsl-text>dice!'<xsl-text></xsl-text> Not only did our revolutionary fathers hurl. 'bitter denunciations upon their oppressors,' but they slew them by thousands;—the same thing has been done in Hayti, South America, and France—and is now doing in Poland. Do you approve of these proceedings 'A.O.'? Or are you not one of the world's patriots? In concluding our remarks at this time, we may quote the following pertinent article from the Genius of Universal Emancipation: A late description, by a respectable eye-witness, of the cruelties practised at the present time on the Sugar plantations in the West Indian Islands, concludes with the following impressive words: 'If you dare to do it, after what you have just read, take another spoonful of sugar to your cup of tea, and it is a hundred to one if there is not a tear of anguish and horror blended along with it. Indeed, I would venture to assert, at any stake, (if it were possible to ascertain,) that there is not a hogshead of Sugar ever leaves the island, without having many of them in it.' Will our readers 'choose Sugar in their tea?' Will they indulge their palates with a blood-bought sweetness—a luxury of which it may be truly said, when we consider all the wickedness and the misery which its culture has produced,—that the awful price is immortal souls! We reply in the language used by a writer in the 'Negro's Forget Me Not:' No, dear Lady, none for me! Though squeamish some may think it, West Indian Sugar spoils my tea, I cannot, dare not, drink it. The simple produce of the cane Excites no strong objections, But with it comes a ghastly train Of dreadful recollections. True, the plant was freely given, Kindly given to man to rear it; Freely fall the dews of heaven, Freely shine the rays that cheer it. But what suffering and what guilt Attend its cultivation— What groans arise, what blood is spilt, What bitter lamentation! And can I taste a single grain, Produced by such oppression; The fruit of so much grief and pain, The Negro's sad possession? Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Liberator Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 4.23.1831 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Miss Sarah M. Grimke, of Charleston, S.C. Subject The topic of the resource Sarah Grimke encourages use of free labor products Description An account of the resource MISS SARAH M. GRIMKE, OF CHARLESTON, S.C. On going out of the city to our residence, on Fast day eve, who should we meet, but wife, daughter and domestics, full of life and animation, all clamorously asking, are not you going to hear Miss Grimke lecture on the rights of women to-night? We calmly replied, certainly not. Well, say they, we must hear her. So we made a virtue of necessity, turned around and readily made our way to the ODEON. Being rather early, we succeeded in getting seats for our whole party. We would inform our distant readers that the Odeon is the old Federal street Theatre, fitted up by a musical society. The seats, bottoms and backs conveniently cushioned. It is occupied for the purpose of giving Oratorios and Musical Concerts. It is also used on the Sabbath by an orthodox church, for public worship, and week evenings, frequently, for scientific and other lectures. It has a tremendous organ. Sometime before 7 o'clock, P.M. the vast building was filled to a perfect jam;—far back of the speaker, filling the space formerly occupied by the orchestra, and for scenic exhibitions, with the first, second, and third galleries—3 or 4000 people at least, were present. Vast numbers were compelled to go away. Three ladies, for some time, had occupied the speaker's seat. At last, the organ with a thundering and deafening sound struck up some popular air. When it had done, the wife, we believe, of Mr. Henry Chapman, arose, and with an excellent voice and grace, read the 1st chapter of the prophecy of Isaiah. Then arose Miss Grimke, and held forth; there is nothing prepossessing in her appearance. To our surprise, instead of lecturing on the rights of her sex, she took up the old stale subject of slavery; she evidently showed considerable powers of mind, and is rather a good orator and declaimer. She failed to give a single new argument in favor of emancipation; we think her discourse highly prejudicial to that object, and calculated to produce other than christian feelings between the parties concerned. She endorsed all that Mr. Garrison and others have said of the severity of masters to the slave. She recommended to the people of the north to attack the business and character of slave owners, not to trade with the south in articles, the products of slave labor, never to admit a southern minister to our pulpit, nor a member of their churches to the Lord's table; and told the ladies as soon to marry a horse-thief, as a southern gentleman if he have slaves. In fine, a large part of her discourse was made up of low vituperation, such as we have detailed. And, alas, we felt to sigh for the poor slave, if left to the tender mercy of such rash and ill-advised friends. As we are connected with the pulpit and the press, we readily forgive her the blacking she severally gave to each. We think, after this, it is rather doubtful whether any of the South Carolina lords of creation will ever seek the heart and hand of their great orator in marriage. In sober truth, we can most religiously say, that we think the course pursued by this lady and her advisers, is any thing but calculated to ameliorate the man of color, enslaved or free; and least of all does it promote the healthy morality of the Bible. If the south are wrong in the institution of domestic slavery, what sane man, much less christian or philanthropist, believes that the chivalrous inhabitants of the south will be convinced by a merciless attack on their character and all their means of existence? To such a code of morality we cannot subscribe. The foregoing <xsl-text></xsl-text>decent <xsl-text></xsl-text>and very <xsl-text></xsl-text>cogent <xsl-text></xsl-text>article is from the pen of the editor of a paper in this city, misnamed the 'Olive Branch.' It is a fair specimen of the accuracy, good sense and piety which characterise the lucubrations of him who advertises that he is 'connected with the pulpit (!!) and the press.' It was Angelina E. not Sarah M. Grimke, who spoke on the occasion alluded to. It was not Mrs. Chapman, but the President of the Boston Female A.S. Society, who read a portion of the scriptures. The lecture was duly advertised in the city papers to be on the subject of slavery; yet—vastly to the 'surprise' of the <xsl-text></xsl-text>Reverend <xsl-text></xsl-text>critic—'instead of lecturing on the rights of her sex, she took up the <xsl-text></xsl-text>old stale subject <xsl-text></xsl-text>of slavery'—all which was inexplicable, amazing and unpardonable conduct, to be sure! 'The old stale subject of slavery'—that sounds feelingly, as if he who utters the brutal sneer 'remembers those in bonds as bound with them'! 'Stale'—while millions are pining in hopeless bondage, and are daily robbed of their earnings in order to supply 'the means of existence' to the 'chivalrous inhabitants of the south'! 'Stale'—while the lash is falling upon woman's flesh, and chains are forging for human limbs, and the trade in slaves and souls of men is pursued to an extent that causes the foreign traffic to dwindle in comparison!—Now, doff that sacerdotal garb, thou recreant priest! Quit thy profession, thou scandal upon the press, and rare monster of a reformer—for reformer thou aspirest to be! Play the ruffian openly. In thy ears the cries of the needy and perishing, the shrieks of violated innocence, and the supplications of heart-broken, sundered parents and children, have become 'stale'!! He who is destitute of humanity, must also be lacking in veracity. Hence, the assertion, that 'a large part of the discourse was made up of low vituperation,' is a low and gross falsehood. 'There is nothing prepossessing in her appearance'—'it is rather doubtful whether any of the South Carolina lords of creation will ever seek the heart and hand of their great orator in marriage.' This—which is obviously intended as something smart and witty—is personal rudeness and vulgar slang, in keeping with that 'code of morality' to which a heartless assailant can and does subscribe. 'We felt to sigh for the poor slave.' Did you? What for? Why, that a woman should plead for his deliverance from bondage! Truly, a natural cause for unhappiness to one who makes it his profession and business to get all the fleece from the flock that he can! We have been the more severe in these strictures, in consequence of the truckling policy which has long been pursued on the subject of slavery by the editor of the 'Olive Branch.' Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Liberator Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 4.20.1838 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Articles, Letters to the Editors, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource To the Editor of the Standard Description An account of the resource <div> AMESBURY, 18th 12th mo. 1840.<xsl-text></xsl-text> <xsl-text></xsl-text>To the Editor of the Standard:<xsl-text></xsl-text> <xsl-text></xsl-text>Some one has been kind enough to forward a number of the Standard, containing the commencement of a review of a letter of mine, in which I am officially informed that I am no longer an abolitionist—and in which I am unceremoniously turned over to those wicked 'new organizationists,' who, according to the editor of the Standard, are less susceptible of anti-slavery impressions, than such pro-slavery mobs as hunted for the life of George Thompson, murdered Lovejoy, and burned Pennsylvania Hall! I am likened to a star shooting madly from its sphere,—launching like Carazan of the Eastern story, into the abyss of infinitude— <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>'----- A comet shorn, <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>Out into utter darkness borne.'<xsl-text></xsl-text> <xsl-text></xsl-text>And a mock lamentation is set up over me, which would be pathetic, did it not partake so largely, under all the circumstances of the case, of the ludicrous.<xsl-text></xsl-text> <xsl-text></xsl-text>Now if the editor of the Standard means by all this, simply that he and myself disagree on some points in reference to anti-slavery movements, and if believing, as a matter of course, that his views are correct and mine wrong, he chooses to express in this way, his dissent from my conclusions, and to expose their folly and fallacy, I have nothing to say. Let him argue down or laugh down my heresies, if he can. He may rest assured that I can do justice to a sound argument, even if it overthrows a favorite doctrine; and relish good natured wit and humor, even when exercised at my expense, consoling myself, like Falstaff, with the reflection, that if I have not wit myself, I am 'the cause of wit in others.' Even if brother Rogers should so far shut up the bowels of his compassion, as to quote <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>my <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>own poetry against me, and, as in the case of poor Cinna, the poet in Shakspeare's Julius Ceasar, 'condemn me for my bad verses,' however I might writhe under the infliction, I don't know as I should complain.<xsl-text></xsl-text> <xsl-text></xsl-text>But, if Nathaniel P. Rogers means (what his language somewhat strongly implies,) to impeach my character as an honest man—to assail my moral integrity—to brand me with the foul suspicion of treachery and hypocrisy; as one wilfully recreant to the cause of emancipation—I have only to say, that his recent voyage 'in search of a World's Convention,' has wrought in his head and heart 'a sea change' which would have astonished the tenants of Prospero's island—transforming the generous and high-minded Christian gentleman into a false 'accuser of his brethren,'—a Titus Oates swearing away more than the life of his friend.<xsl-text></xsl-text> <xsl-text></xsl-text>I am told, in unqualified terms, that I shall never be able to do anything more for that cause to which I have devoted the morning of my life—on whose altar I have laid all that I possessed. Indeed, it may be so. He who, in His 'dealings with the children of men,' has seen fit to visit me with lingering pain and illness, knows whether more labor will be required at my hands in that cause, and, if so, will give me strength to perform it. I will not believe that the editor of the Standard intended to reproach me with an inability, which no one can deplore so deeply as myself.<xsl-text></xsl-text> <xsl-text></xsl-text>I have neither health nor disposition to enter into personal controversy with abolitionists. Whatever others may do, I cannot forget the days that have passed—our common struggles against prejudice and persecution—I cannot forget the disinterested devotion and the sacrifices of those with whom I have been associated—and widely as I may differ with them on some points—greatly as I may believe some of them to err in judgment—I shall be slow to relinquish my faith in their moral integrity; and shall still conceive it to be possible that they may be as honest in what I believe to be their error, as I am in what I conscientiously believe to be the right.<xsl-text></xsl-text> <xsl-text></xsl-text>To one sentiment in the editor's comments I fully respond, viz: that the South cares very little for <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>abstract <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>resolutions. A wholesomer truth could not well be uttered. It has been the burthen of my testimony for a long time. It has led me to question the practicability of abolishing the slave laws by mere resolutions—and to believe that a discussion, which <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>ends only in discussion, <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>will prove to the poor slave like another feast of the Barmacides—an invitation to the starving to feed upon air. It has led me to doubt the potency of 'moral suasion' against slavery when coupled with its <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>practical support <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>at the ballot-box. It has led me to say with WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON at Edinburgh, that 'I know of no instance in which the oppression of tyranny has been put down by moral suasion; and unless some other influence is brought to bear upon the colossal evil, I fear little will be done to abolish slavery.' It has led me to respect, if I cannot fully imitate, those among us who 'touch not, taste not,' the products of slave labor;—to hail with satisfaction the cotton culture of India,—to honor the <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>practical abolitionism <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>of Birney, Brisbane, and others,—the efforts of Vigilance Committees and of all who aid the fugitive from oppression—of Wattles, Wilson, and their female co-adjutors in the blessed task of instructing and elevating the oppressed colored man. Finally, it has led me to follow the example set by N.P. ROGERS, two years ago, viz: to nominate anti-slavery candidates where none such are in the field, and to invite all who love humanity to rally to their support. <xsl-text></xsl-text><xsl-text></xsl-text>Truly thy friend, <xsl-text></xsl-text>JOHN G. WHITTIER. </div> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John. G. Whittier Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Liberator Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1.1.1841