COMMUNICATIONS.
LAMPETER, (Pa.) 2nd mo. 1st, 1834.
Esteemed Friend W.L. Garrison:
I have been a reader of the Liberator for the last fourteen months, and have perused its pages with much interest; and in the last number which came to hand, issued January 4, I noticed an article headed 'THE PRODUCTS OF SLAVE LABOR,' signed C.F. which contains sentiments with which I do not unite. He says—
'It is often eloquently urged upon us that we should not so much as touch any thing suspected of contamination with the accursed system; and in abhorrence of the sin of slavery, there is danger lest we rashly adopt a course of conduct, calculated rather to retard than forward the cause so dear to us. Unless it can be shown that the practical bearing of the course of total abstinence proposed, is a mean of the abolition of slavery, I cannot think myself called to abstain. I have already given my reasons for not believing the use of slave products to be morally wrong, and having gone thus far—the question of the probable results of abstinence upon the community is a difficulty which meets one at the threshold.'
I shall endeavor to show the practical bearing that total abstinence, especially if it were universal abstinence, would have on the system of slavery. First, They depend, at the South, upon slave labor for existence, We of the north, east and west, make those labors profitable, by using the products of them. For instance:—How would the editors of the Liberator support their paper, if every one would withdraw their patronage? Do not their patrons support them? Would not that, or any other paper, cease, if they had no other support but that of the editors and publishers? if no one would 'so much as touch' or look at them? Again, how or what would the retailers do, if there were no consumers? And what would the wholesale merchant do, if there were no retailers? And what would the planters do, if there were no merchants, retailers or consumers, to uphold them in their 'accursed system'? Would not the slaveholders have to abandon their
man-stealing and robbing? and this, too, for better reasons, and in consequence of more pacific and christian conduct, than it would be to 'hold a knife at their throats.' Nor is it stronger or weaker than 'moral persuasion.' Let C.F. answer it.
Does C.F. think that it is immoral to steal, rob and murder, in order to procure articles to subsist on? And are we not sharers in the crime, if we receive and share in them, knowing them to be such? If I handle the plunder, and another holds the bag, and the third carries it to C's house, and all four use it; does C. act morally, or immorally, in partaking of it, seeing 'the receiver is as bad as the thief'? And perhaps the thief maintains his family by his pilfering and robbing! Yet, if I withdraw my support, it will 'directly tend to deprive them of bread, and increase the distress they already experience as a consequent of' stealing, &c. Would he think this good reasoning? Yet it is a fair comparison with the course C. appears to favor. I can see no essential difference between highway robbery, which the laws of our country do not justify, and robbing a man of his liberty and property, who is held guiltless by the laws of the slave States; the principle is the same; the only difference is in the degree if it will at all bear a comparison. The latter is a thousand fold more wicked and unjust; for what would a man take in exchange for his liberty? Now, if we do not perceive it expedient to cease from supporting a system which cannot be perpetuated but by violence and fraud, it must be because we are so habituated to it, and educated in the use of its products; and this habit and education so far become 'second nature' to us, that our moral senses have become blunted in the perception of its wrongs and enormities. 'Beside, why should we connect with anti-slavery principles—so plain and defensible in themselves—a measure of doubtful expediency, and one about which there is a division of opinion in the community? So far as this measure is not necessarily connected with our views as to the abolition of slavery, so far it is an injury rather than a benefit, because it connects an extraneous principle to one which should be brought before the American people, untrammaled and unprejudiced.' Now I think that abstinence is not a measure separate and distinct from anti-slavery principles, as C.F. supposes; but one with it, and belonging to it. He likewise says, it is 'a measure of doubtful expediency.' Now, if we who profess anti-slavery principles doubt the expediency of our not availing ourselves of the use of articles taken by violence, and fraud, and blood-shed, and handed down to us through several transfers, and for which we can show no better title than the master (so styled) can for his slaves—so may he doubt the expediency of his sacrificing his claims. Now, to be consistent, we ought to cease even our 'moral persuasion' with the slave-holders, for their title is as good as ours; they did not steal the slaves first; they bought them, they will tell you, or, rather, the system 'was entailed upon them by their fathers.' Might not the slaveholders reason in the same way, with the same propriety that he has done? There is this difference; they are the first perpetrators—we are their agents; and how can they continue in their system of robbery without our agency? Besides, is there any measure, about which there is no division of opinion? If not, then all measures are rendered abortive, seeing there are doubts and divisions concerning them all. Let C.F. not be deceived by the adversary of all good; for, remember, we are not to do evil that good may come, in partaking of their sins, lest we also partake of their plagues. If they perish, will not the guilt rest upon the heads of the oppressors?
The editor favors the opinion that his correspondent 'is a total abstinence man in disguise.' If so, I think he does not regard the truth as a man should, professing such just and christian principles. I shall have to express a different opinion of him; I believe he is not an abstinence man, though personally unknown to me, for his 'weapons' do not favor those of a total abstinence man; but of a contrary principle. Therefore, let him seriously consider it, and answer for the benefit of himself 'and others.'
ABSTINENCE.
