The Products of Free Labor

The Products of Free Labor

THE PRODUCTS OF SLAVE LABOR.

BART. Lancaster Co. Pa. 3d mo. 1847.

A review of the sentiments of W.L. Garrison, on the products of slave labor, as published in the Liberator, March 5th, 1847.

I have read with much interest thy arguments on this (in my opinion) important question; but instead of being shaken or convinced thereby, I have been more confirmed in my opinions in relation thereto. It appears that our first convictions were the same; mine continue unchanged. Thee says thee 'was soon satisfied' thee 'erred in judgment,' in relation to persons being directly involved in the support of the system of slavery,' who used the produce. How thee discovered that error, to me, is a perfect riddle. Thee considers 'slave-holders, slave-traders and slave-drivers are to be placed on the same level of infamy, and in the same fiendish category, as kidnappers and men-stealers'; and I would add to the list, SLAVE PRODUCE CONSUMERS, and ask no other justifications for so doing than they sentiments as published in the Liberator of 1832:--'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.' 'Truth' cannot change; man may, but it cannot; it is as eternal as the hills. All our ideas of justice in relation to other things confirm these statements.

The non-abstainers, such as 'the Jacksons, the Phillipses, the Quincys, the Fosters, &c. need no certificate from any person, that they are as willing to bear heavy burdens in the anti-slavery cause,' &c. That is truly commendable, and worthy of imitation; but does that circumstance prove them perfect? Certainly not. There may be duties not yet seen in the light in which they ought to be seen; and I am not withoutvidence, that this is one of those duties.

It has been announced, in a Clarkson anti-slavery meeting, and that, too, by a leading abolitionist, that A.K. Foster acknowledged, in his presence, that her doctrine in relation to this subject would not bear the strict scrutiny of conscience. It has been admitted by many persons, that she hindered the cause for a time; but the people, in their sober second thought, returned to their first principles. I do not wish any one to think she intended to produce that effect. She held that all ought to abstain but those who labored, like herself, for the slave, and used his labor with his consent. The idea of having the slave's consent to be murdered, to be robbed of every right, to be bought and sold, to be

'Driven like a senseless brute from day to day.'

to me is perfectly horrible. The consent of the slave ought to mean the consent of justice.

Wendell Phillips acknowledged (I think) the principles of abstinence, in his excellent speech delivered in Faneuil Hall, Dec. 20th, 1846. 'After all, the proud southerner is but the overseer of the plantations for the merchants of the North. Our banks discount for him, our capital sustains him, our wharves receive the ships laden with his cotton. It is Liverpool that fixes the price; his plantations are mortgaged to Northern men. He works for us; he is our slave. When they tell you to go to the South to preach on slavery, they tell you to go to the slaves; for white and black are slaves to this moneyed-eyed aristocracy,' &c.

They remarks with regard to the free produce agitation, being confined almost exclusively to the Society of Friends,' seems to be unfortunate. It is well known that, before emancipation took place in England, thousands then abstained from the use of slave grown productions. But, suppose it was entirely confined at present to that Society--that circumstance would not prove it right or wrong. I think at one time, that Society stood alone in the advocacy of peace principles, and thee will not say that that fact proved it in error. I have nothing to say in favor of any church organization; I believe their creeds only serve to distract mankind, and hinder the progress of truth.

'If whatever is raised by slave cultivation, or is tainted with fraud or oppression, is to be rejected for that reason, then there is scarcely any thing in the world that it is allowable to use as pertaining to money, food and clothing.' The extensiveness of crime does not diminish its criminality; if it did, the principle of war in this country has nearly lost its criminality. When you held your enthusiastic meetings to oppose the war now waging--to pass resolutions condemning it as wicked, murderous, &c.--also to adopt a pledge, stating therein, that you would not voluntarily support the war, &c.; why did thee not, if thee wishes to be consistent, use the same language then, that thee has to us in relation to this quesiton? i.e. that it is a subject of 'comparatively small importance'--that it is wasting time upon what no man could strictly reduce to practice'--that it is so mixed up with the commerce, manufactures, currency, governments, &c. &c. 'that it would be impossible to make any vital issues' in the manner the pledge laid down? I do not approve of voluntarily aiding the war; but it seems to me, the cases are analogous. I think the currency of the country, to a great extent, is free. The fact that a slave's value has been represented by a given amount of money, no more taints the money, than it does the figures which told the sum. But all money that the slave's labor has brought into use is tainted. But suppose I admit the currency is all tainted, (which I do not,) does that prove me more inconsistent if I use it, than you are in relation to the war? You will not directly aid it, but indirectly you aid it in a thousand ways, perhaps. All I ask of you is, to set the abstinence question on the same ground. You exclaim, 'Every attribute of justice is opposed to the war,' and the same is admitted with regard to slavery; but your action is unequal. You will not, if you can avoid it, give your money to buy munitions of war; but you will buy cotton, sugar, coffee, rice, tobacco, &c. which are stained with the blood of the slave, and wet with female tears, directly from the South. The cry of 'return the blood-stained money' has been sounded through all Scotland; but some of your have said, the crime was, in not bearing a testimony against slaveholding. Why did you not rest there in regard to the war? Why did you add to your good theory, the practice? i.e. we will not buy cannon, muskets, swords, &c. for you to slaughter human beings with? In that case, you carried out your principles.

I call upon you to refuse, from henceforth, to directly support slavery by purchasing the slave's labor, when you can avoid it. Send Douglass and others through this country, as you have through England, with the message--'Return the goods--they are the price of blood!'

We have been told, again and again, that we are not consistent. Is consistency all we are aiming at? A man may be a perfect devil, and yet act out his profession: this is what is called consistency. I agree that we ought to be consistent with correct principles; but I see no greater obligations resting upon us, in this case, than in any other of equal importance to be so.

But thee acknowledges the principle, when thee says, the proceeds of slave labor can be 'innocently used by no other person' but those who are laboring for the slave. I will leave the renders of thy paper to judge, whether they who labor for the slave, can be justified in consuming his labor for their support. But it appears to me, it would be about equal, in point of consistency, to a man justifying himself in holding slaves, because he preached faithfully against the practice.

LEA. W. GAUSE

Lea W. Gause

Liberator 17:15, p. 59

4.9.1847