No man is by nature the property of another. The rights of nature must be some way forfeited, before they can be justly taken away."-Johnson.

"Slavery is a state so improper, so degrading, and so ruinous to the feelings and capacities of human nature, that it ought not to be suffered to exist."-Burke.

The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with us, in such a contest." (A contest with insurgent slaves.)— Jefferson.

"Slavery is the infringement of all laws-a law having a tendency to preserve slavery, would be the grossest sacrilege." -Bolivar.

We would take the liberty of recommending to the consideration of certain Methodist Colonizationists, the following language of John Wesley.

Men-buyers, are exactly on a level with men-stealers. Indeed, you say, I pay honestly for my goods, and am not concerned to know how they are come by. Nay, but you are― you are deeply concerned to know that they are honestly come by. Otherwise, you are a partaker with a thief, and are not a jot honester than him. But you know they are not honestly come by; you know they are procured by means nothing so innocent as picking of pockets, or robbery on the highway. Perhaps you will say, I do not buy my negroes, I only use those left me by my father. So far is well, but is it enough to satisfy your conscience? Had your father, have you, has any man living a right to use another as a slave? It cannot be, even setting Revelation aside."

But Abolitionists are fanatics, not merely because they believe slavery sinful, but also because they contend it ought immediately to be abolished. In their fanaticism on this point, as well es on the other, they are kept in countenance by a host of divines and statesmen, and by the unanimous opinion of thousands, and tens of thousands of Christians. Men of all ranks and characters, from John Wesley to Daniel O'Connel, have exhibited this fanaticism-it has been borne by the republicans of France, the Catholics of South America, the people of England, Scotland and Ireland.

So long ago as 1774, John Wesley declared: "It cannot be that either war or contract can give any man such a property in another, as he has in his sheep and oxen. Much less is it

possible that any child of man should ever be born a slave. If, therefore, you have any regard to justice, (to say nothing of mercy, nor the revealed will of God) render unto all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature.'

Jonathan Edwards was fanatic enough to assert :— Every man, who cannot show that his negro hath, by his voluntary conduct, forfeited his liberty, is obligated immediately to manumit him."

One million five hundred thousand persons petitioned the British Parliament for the total and immediate abolition of slavery. Indeed, Mr. O'Connel expressed the nearly unanimous sentiment of the whole nation, when he exclaimed:

"I am for speedy, immediate abolition. I care not what creed or color slavery may assume, I am for its total, its instant abolition."

We have not yet.exhausted the proofs of the alleged fanaticism of Abolitionists. It seems they are fanatics, for wishing to elevate the blacks to a civil and religious equality with the whites. Certain Colonization editors deny to Abolitionists, as we have seen, the constitutional right of freedom of speech, the press, and pulpit, and even of peaceably assembling together; and multitudes seem to think, that they have forfeited the protection of the ninth commandment. Men of all ranks have. united in charging upon them designs which they indignantly disclaim, and in support of which, not a particle of evidence has been, or can be adduced. One of the designs falsely imputed to them, is that of bringing about an amalgamation of colors by intermarriages. In vain have they again and again denied any such design; in vain have their writings been searched for any recommendation of such amalgamation. No Abolitionist is known to have married a negro, or to have given his child to a negro; yet has the charge of amalgamation been repeated, and repeated, till many have, no doubt, honestly believed it.

During the very height of the New-York riots, and as if to excite the mob to still greater atrocities, the editor of the Commercial Advertiser asserted, that the Abolitionists had "sought "nation of to degrade" the identity of their fellow citizens, as a white men, by reducing it to the condition of MONGRELS."-Com Adv. 11th July, 1834.

No one, in the possession of his reasoning faculties, can believe it to be the duty of white men to select black wives; and Abolitionists have given every proof the nature of the case will admit, that they countenance no such absurdity.

But most true it is, that the Anti-Slavery Society avows its intention to labor for the civil and religious equality of the blacks. It has been found expedient to accuse it of aiming also at their social equality. He must be deeply imbued with fanaticism, or rather with insanity, who contends, that because a man has a dark skin, he is, therefore, entitled to a reception in our families, and a place at our tables.

We all know white men whose characters and habits render them repulsive to us, and whom no consideration would induce us to admit into our social circles; and can it be believed, that Abolitionists are willing to extend to negroes, merely on account of their color, courtesies and indulgences, which, in innumerable instances, they withhold, and properly withhold, from their white fellow citizens. But who pretends that, because a man is so disagreeable in his manners and person that we refuse to associate with him, that therefore he ought to be denied the right of suffrage, the privilege of choosing his trade and profession, the opportunities of acquiring knowledge, and the liberty of pursuing his own happiness? Yet such is our conduct towards the free blacks, and it is this conduct which the Society aims at reforming. The Society does contend, that no man ought to be punished for the complexion God has given him. And are not black men punished for the color of their skin? Read the laws of the slave States relative to free negroes; alas! read the laws of Ohio, and Connecticut; read the decision of Judge Daggett; behold them deprived of the means of educa tion, and excluded from almost every trade and profession; see them compelled to wander in poverty and in ignorance. Now, all this, Abolitionists contend is wrong, and their opposition to this system of persecution and oppression is fanaticism! Be it so, but it is only modern fanaticism, and it was not so regarded when in 1785, JOHN JAY declared: "I wish to see all unjust and unnecessary discriminations every where abolished, and that the time may soon come, when all our inhabitants, of every COLOR and denomination, shall be free and EQUAL PARTAKERS OF OUR POLI

TICAL LIBERTY.

It requires no great exercise of candor, to admit, that the prejudices existing against the blacks are sinful, whenever they lead us to treat those unhappy people with injustice and inhumanity. They have their rights as well as ourselves. They have no right to associate with us against our will, but they have a right to acquire property by lawful industry; they have a right to participate in the blessings of education, and political liberty. When, therefore, our prejudices lead us to keep the blacks in poverty, by restricting their industry, to keep them in ignorance, by excluding them from our seminaries, and preventing them from having seminaries of their own; to keep them in a state of vassalage by denying them any choice in their rulers; our prejudices are so far sinful, and so far only does the Anti-Slavery Society aim at removing them.

*

CHAPTER IV.

INCENDIARISM AND TREASON OF ABOLITIONISTS.

It is not enough that Abolitionists should be represented as fanatics; it has been deemed expedient, to hold them up to the community as incendiaries and traitors. The chairman of the Executive Committee of the New-York Colonization Society, thus speaks of the Anti-slavery Society, in his paper of the 9th June, 1834. "The design of this Society is, beyond a doubt, to foment a servile war in the South-they have been heard to say, blood must be shed, and the sooner the better-this Society owes its existence not to the love of liberty, or any particular affection for the slaves, but to cruel and bitter hatred, and malignity." In an earlier paper, he inserted an article accusing Abolitionists of seeking to use the pulpits, "for the base purpose of encouraging scenes of bloodshed."

Here we find the most atrocious designs, imputed to men well known in the community for active benevolence and pri vate worth; and yet not a scintilla of evidence is offered in support of the extraordinary fact, that such men should harbor

* As one instance among the innumerable restrictions on the industry of these people, we may mention, that no free black, however moral and intel ligent, can obtain a license in the city of New-York to drive a cart!

such designs. In this case the accused can of course offer only negative proof of their innocence. That proof is to be found first in their individual characters. Secondly, in the fact that many of the Abolitionists are emphatically peace men, that is, they hold the quaker doctrine of the unlawfulness of war, and maintain that it would be sinful in the slaves to attempt effecting their freedom by force of arms. * Thirdly, in the fundamental principle of the Society that they will "never in any way countenance the oppressed in vindicating their rights by resorting to physical force;" and, fourthly, in the fact that Abolitionists as such, have in no- instance recommended, or committed an act of unlawful violence.

But by declaiming against slavery, Abolitionists are exciting odium against slave holders. If he who labors to render any particular sin, and those who are guilty of it odious, is of course a "reckless incendiary, few are more justly and honorably entitled to this epithet, than the excellent Chancellor of NewYork. Few have shown more intrepidity in denouncing the venders of ardent spirits than this gentleman; and Abolitionists in their warfare against slavery, may well take a lesson from the example he has set them of an honest and fearless discharge of duty. Had the President of the New-York Temperance Society and his associates exercised the same tenderness and gentleness towards drunkards and venders, that he now shows towards slave holders, Temperance Societies would have checked the progress of drunkenness, as little as Colonization promises to do that of slavery.

THOMAS JEFFERSON was not denounced as a reckless incendiary, when in the midst of a slave population, he declared that the Almighty had no attribute that could take side with the masters in a contest with their slaves; nor did JOHN JAY forfeit the confidence of his countrymen, when during the revolutionary war, he asserted till America comes into this measure, (abolition of slavery) her prayers to heaven for liberty will be IMPIOUS;" nor when addressing the Legislature of New-York, then a slave State, he told them that persons "free by the aws of God, are held in slavery by the laws of man."

Nor were FRANKLIN and his associates regarded as incendiaries for uniting in 1787, "to extend the blessings of freedom

*This sentiment is held and avowed by the much calumniated Mr. Garrison.