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 PETERBORO', June 24, 1836 Subject The topic of the resource Letter from Gerrit Smith Description An account of the resource PETERBORO', June 24, 1836. MR. GARRISON: I this day saw in the Liberator of 18th inst. a communication from Judge Jay. I wish to say a few words for the purpose of showing, that it was not a measure of my own to get an expression of the American Anti-Slavery Society on the subject of using the products of slave labor. Whilst in New York last month, I attended several of the meetings of the Anti-Slavery delegates. I witnessed a part of the debate on a Resolution offered by, I know not whom, declaring the ordinary use of such products to be wrong. I took no part in the debate: but seeing, that not a few of the delegates would be dissatisfied with its passage, and being desirous of preserving harmony amongst them, I wrote and presented, as a substitute, the far milder Resolution, on which Judge Jay comments. The substitute was adopted and carried, with but one dissenting voice—that of Charles Stuart, a man, who never consents to sacrifice a hair's breadth of moral principle. 'O si sic omnes.' As I was a new member of the Society, and had found not a little fault with it, I felt that my fellow members might lack, and justly too, perfect confidence in the soundness and maturity of my <xsl-text></xsl-text>abolitionism. <xsl-text></xsl-text>Having this feeling, I was more willing to listen to others in these meetings, than to present my own views and schemes. The Resolution, which passed in one of these Meetings, respecting 'the present struggle in Texas,' was written by another person, and handed to me to move. Nor should I have taken a part in the proceedings of the late Anniversary of the Society, had not the Committee of arrangements insisted on my doing so. These remarks, whilst they will acquit me, in the mind of my excellent friend, of the origination of the movement, so exceptionable in his view, will also account to him for the peculiar style and phraseology of the Resolution in question. It never occurred to me, before reading Judge Jay's communication, that it was less proper for the Delegates in their meetings held <xsl-text></xsl-text>after, <xsl-text></xsl-text>than in those held <xsl-text></xsl-text>before <xsl-text></xsl-text>the Anniversary 'to assume to pronounce in the name of the American Anti-Slavery Society:'—and I do not now see that it was. I am much pleased with the general rules and principles laid down in Judge Jay's communication. They are just and important; and I hope, that the members of the Anti-Slavery Society will not trespass upon them. But I am far from admitting their applicability to the case under consideration. If a portion of our abolitionists think, that the consumption of slave-labor products—especially by abolitionists—stands in the way of the abolition of slavery, is it 'a violation of good faith,' and a violation of the Constitution of the Society for them to say so in the meetings of the Society? For one I have long thought, that there is no single thing, which abolitionists could do, that would contribute so far to the abolition of slavery, as their abstinence from the products of slave labor. Let one hundred thousand men and women in this nation avow, and adhere to their noble determination never to pollute their lips or their persons with that, which is wet with the tears and stained with the blood of 'the innocents'; and I believe, that the testimony of such self-denial would carry more conviction to the minds of slave-holders of the truth and power of anti-slavery doctrines and of the sincerity with which they are held, than all the testimony of types and pens. Judge Jay and I both have written and spoken somewhat for Temperance. But our advocacy of the cause would have been ineffectual, if we had coupled with it the drinking of ardent spirit. Now, I do not say, that the argument against using slave sugar, is as extensive and as conclusive, as that against drinking ardent spirit:—but I do say, that a part of the argument which we are accustomed to employ against the one, may as properly be employed against the other. One object we have in view, in inducing good men to abstain from whiskey, is that, in consequence of their abstinence, the owner of the whiskey-distillery will have such a troubled conscience and will withal become so odious, that he will consent to abandon a business, which destroys his peace and respectability. We hope for a similar effect from abstinence from the products of slave labor. Indeed, were no more than the Ministers of the Gospel in the Southern States to determine to 'touch not, taste not, handle not' these blood-bought things, the inconceivably wicked system, which produces them, would quickly fall before the irresistible power of their example. And here, Mr. Editor, allow me to make a suggestion for your own benefit. I acknowledge, with pleasure, that I am more indebted to your writings than to those of any other man for my abhorrence of slavery. Nor is the pupil in this case any the less grateful, because the master has occasionally boxed his ears. But, I want you to increase the power and efficacy of your writings and of your uncompromising integrity and fearless vindication of the truth, by your thorough espousal of the doctrine of abstinence from the products of slave labor. It is strange, that you should lack the spirit, which moved your Revolutionary ancestors to seal up their lips against tea. Rely on it, that the Garrisons of that day were not tea drinking men. It is strange, that any of the Garrisons of this day should be eaters of slave sugar. I did not take up my pen to say a word in favor of abstinence from the products of slave labor. Of this, however, I am fully convinced, that, whenever Judge Jay shall see this abstinence to be one of the means for effectuating the abolition of slavery, he will then see nothing in the Constitution of the Anti-Slavery Society, to forbid his urging it, in the capacity of a Member of that Society. Until he take this view, he will consistently regard the action of the Society on this subject, as impertinent. Judge Jay will, of course, perceive, that the Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, under his strict interpretation of it, gave no liberty to pass a large share of the Resolutions, which were passed along with the Resolution in question. I cannot believe, however, that he construes this instrument so rigidly, as it might be inferred he does, from the sentence in his communication beginning with the words: 'Now on examining.' Judge Jay's communication has manifestly proceeded from his misapprehension, that the Delegates undertook to direct the attention of the Society to an object other than its single Constitutional object:—whereas, in point of fact, they were but considering another means of promoting this one single Constitutional object. I readily admit, however, that the peculiar language of the Resolution in question, and his ignorance of the circumstances under which it was offered, go far to account for and to excuse his misapprehension. GERRIT SMITH. 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 7.2.1836 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gerrit Smith