On Tuesday 9 June, a ‘fruit soirée’ was held for Frederick Douglass, James Buffum, George Thompson and Henry Clarke Wright at the Music Hall on George Street. It marked the end of the ‘Send Back the Money’ campaign in which the four abolitionists had collaborated over the previous six weeks, as they would soon go their separate ways. Buffum would sail back to the United States from Liverpool on 4 July; Douglass would shortly head for Belfast; Thompson would return home to London; and Wright would spend several weeks with Andrew Paton and family at their summer residence in Rosneath on the shore of Loch Long.
Since the previous meeting on 4 June, Edinburgh Town Council had conferred the freedom of the city on Thompson at a ceremony at the Council Chamber on Saturday 6 June,1 an honour to which he alludes here, remarking on his now being able to address his audience as ‘fellow citizens’.
The following morning, Sunday 7 June, Douglass, Thompson and Buffum had taken up an invitation to breakfast at the home of George Combe, the leading British exponent of phrenology, fondly remembered by Douglass in his third autobiography:
Whilst in Edinburgh, so famous for its beauty, its educational institutions, its literary men, and its history, I had a very intense desire gratified–and that was to see and converse with George Combe, the eminent mental philosopher, and author of “Combe’s Constitution of Man,” a book which had been placed in my hands a few years before, by Doctor Peleg Clark of Rhode Island, the reading of which had relieved my path of many shadows. In company with George Thompson, James N. Buffum, and William L. Garrison, I had the honor to be invited by Mr. Combe to breakfast, and the occasion was one of the most delightful I met in dear old Scotland. Of course in the presence of such men, my part was a very subordinate one. I was a listener. Mr. Combe did the most of the talking, and did it so well that nobody felt like interposing a word, except so far as to draw him on. He discussed the corn laws, and the proposal to reduce the hours of labor. He looked at all political and social questions through his peculiar mental science. His manner was remarkably quiet, and he spoke as not expecting opposition to his views. Phrenology explained everything to him, from the finite to the infinite. I look back to the morning spent with this singularly clear-headed man with much satisfaction.2
On 9 June, the evening began with contributions from ministers of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Archdeacon Williams) and the United Secession Church (John Ritchie of Potterow; George Robson of Lauder). Ritchie cast aspersions on his fellow churchman Dr John Brown of Broughton Place, who, not present when the resolution to break fellowship with the American churches was approved by the United Associate Synod on 8 May, was known to have opposed it – and his dissent was made much of by the ‘Free Church triumvirate’ (Robert Candlish, William Cunningham and Thomas Chalmers) during the debate on slavery on 30 May at the General Assembly at Canonmills (which the abolitionists attended).3
‘That would not be the last meeting … that would be held in Scotland upon the subject’ says Douglass. And to be sure, he would return. But apart from a single speech in Edinburgh at the end of July as he passed through from Belfast to London, he would not tour Scotland again until the Autumn.
For an overview of Douglass’s activities in Edinburgh during the year, see Spotlight: Edinburgh.
ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE.
On Tuesday evening the friends of Negro emancipation in the United States, gave a fruit soiree, in the Music Hall, to Messrs Thompson, Douglass, Buffum, and Wright, on the occasion of their leaving Edinburgh to prosecute elsewhere the work of agitation in which they have been engaged for several weeks against the Free Church of Scotland, in reference to its connection with the slaveholding churches of America. The hall was crowded to overflowing by a most respectable audience, a large proportion of whom were ladies. Councillor Stott occupied the chair.
After singing a hymn, the Chairman shortly addressed the meeting on the pleasure with which he had witnessed the success and popularity of the Anti-Slavery mission in this city.
The Very Rev. Archdeacon Williams then presented himself, and proposed the following resolution:– ‘That the slavery which now exists in several States of the American Union, is contrary to the spirit and vital system of the Christian revelation, and an oppressive iniquity which no faithful Christian should connive at or palliate.’ The very Rev. Archdeacon entered into a long exegetical argument to show that the interpretation put upon the various passages of Scripture in the General Assembly of the Free Church was not warranted by the original Greek – a language which he had studied for the greater part of his life. He denied most emphatically that the phraseology of the New Testament warranted any one drawing the inference that the Apostles either admitted, or would not have hesitated to admit, slave-owners to the Lord’s table. He dwelt particularly on the rule of conduct laid down by our Saviour and his Apostles as to the different relations of society, as a proof that the spirit of the Gospel and the example of its divine promulgators, were totally at variance with a system of slavery.
The Rev. George Robson, of the United Secession Church, Lauder, seconded the resolution; and urged all to exert themselves in putting an end to the system of slavery which existed in the United States – a system which was accursed of God and accursed of man.
The resolution was unanimously agreed to.
The Rev. Dr Ritchie proposed the next resolution, which was to the effect that the friends of emancipation assembled there should tender Mr Buffum their warmest thanks for his disinterested zeal in behalf of the oppressed negro in the United States; and at the same time award him the utmost praise for the exertions which he had made in this country to cause the Free Church to relinquish the obnoxious alliance into which she had entered with the slaveholding churches of America. The Doctor, in supporting this resolution, took occasion to advert to what had been said in the General Assembly of the Free Church on the question of American slavery. He would be sorry indeed to sit at the feet of such Gamaliels as Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, and learn theology from them on this subject. He would be equally sorrow to follow the dictum of Dr Brown on this question; for it appeared to him that all of them had, as yet to learn what were the first principles of the oracles of the living God regarding it. they had been told by Dr Candlish in the General Assembly that he had high authority for the ground which he occupied – that he had the authority of Dr Brown, the leading intellect in the Secession Church. This was a discovery or, as Archdeacon Williams would call it an invention at which he was certainly much surprised. There were some men in the Church to which he (Dr R.) belonged who would be found as exalted in talent and in influence as that man. (Hisses and applause.) He cared neither for the gods of the hills or the valleys; but he would like to ask, since Dr Candlish thought so highly of Dr Brown’s intellect on the question of slavery, what he thought of Dr Brown’s intellect on the subject of atonement? (Loud and repeated hissing, and slight applause.)
The Rev. Mr Robson – I call Dr Ritchie to order. If I had known that this subject was to have been introduced, I never would have been here. I ask, Mr Chairman, is Dr Ritchie, or is he not, in order; for I humbly submit that this subject should never have been introduced at this meeting.
Dr Ritchie – It was only in the mode of argument which I adopted on this question, setting one authority against another.
The Chairman – While I do not yield to any individual present in admiration and esteem for the talents and character of Dr Brown, I must say that, having calmly looked at the whole course of argument adopted by the Rev. Doctor, I think it was complimentary rather than the reverse to Dr Brown. It appears to me that in this discussion there ought and should be a complete setting aside of Dr Brown or Dr Paul, when they come in the way of the authority of Christ.
Mr George Thompson – I sat in the General Assembly of the Free Church on Saturday the 30th of May; and I heard Dr Candlish, to the satisfaction of a very large audience, dispose entirely of the unanimous decision of the United Secession Synod – and here let me mention that Dr Brown was not in the Synod at the time the decision was come to, but afterwards protested against it – I say that I heard Dr Candlish dispose of the unanimous decision of the whole body of the Secession ministers, by simply saying that Dr John Brown, the leading intellect in that Church, had entered his dissent against the resolution that had been come to. I do say, therefore, it is of importance – if Dr John Brown will stand out in opposition to his whole Church – that we should be prepared to say whether the unanimous decision of his brethren or the dictum of Dr John Brown is the right one. (Applause.)
Mr Stott said that he would put it to the meeting whether it would be right to call Dr Ritchie to enter when debating a question on public grounds. He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying that Dr Ritchie had not gone beyond the bounds of propriety.
Dr Ritchie was then allowed to proceed, and contended that the doctrines advocated in the Free Church Assembly were a disgrace to Scotland and to Christianity.
The Chairman then rose and presented Mr Buffum, on the occasion of his returning to America, with a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica hearing the following inscription:–
Presented to James N. Buffum, Esq of Lynn, Massachusetts, U.S., by the friends of human freedom in Edinburgh, in testimony of their high admiration of his disinterested devotion to the cause of the slave in America – of his steady and consistent opposition to prejudice against colour, and his laborious and efficient exertions in Scotland to induce the Free Church to send back the money received from the slaveholders.
Mr Buffum made a brief and appropriate reply.
Mr Douglass said there were a number of views respecting American slavery which had been left entirely unnoticed in the discussions which had taken place in this city within the last month, among which none had been more left out of sight than the great difficulty with which the abolitionists in America had to contend in the existence in that country of what was called prejudice against colour. This might be rightly regarded as one of the greatest hindrances to the anti-slavery movement there because the black man was degraded by it – he was looked upon as an inferior being – as a connecting link between man and the brute creation; and for the white man to identify himself with the blacks in the United States of America as a social and equal being, was at once to lose caste in the wide circle of his acquaintances, and to be excluded from the privileges and immunities which exist among the middle classes of that country.
Mr Douglass then stated that he was even refused a passage on board a British steamer, when leaving America for that country, because he was a man of colour, and had to content himself with the accommodation which the fore-cabin afforded. He then went on to say, what the blacks were in point of morality, intellect, and education, they were in open defiance of the expressed will of the whites; they are what they are because God had given them the ability to break through the dense incrustations of ignorance which the whites had fastened upon them; but he doubted not, that the influence of British literature, of the British press, and of the British pulpit, despite of Canonmills Hall, would speedily have the effect of of overthrowing the abominable system of slavery altogether. (Applause.)
He would say one word about Canonmills, by the way. He had been reading the other day the speeches of Dr Grey and Dr Duncan, delivered last year, and he was struck with their absence this year. He thought the community had a right to demand of these brethren where their brother Abel was. (Applause.) They had a right to demand of them why they had changed their mind, and to demand of them to give the reasons of that change – and as one of the parties deeply concerned, he demanded it of them. Dr Duncan had once declared that he could not eat a common meal with the slaveholder; he now wished to inquire, not what had changed hi heart, but what had changed his stomach in the matter. (Laughter and applause.) He could tell them, however, that the question of slavery was no longer an American one, or to be discussed with reference to the slaveholding Christians of the United States, but it was now to be discussed with reference to the slaveholding Christians of Scotland. (Applause.)
Slavery has adherents in the Free Church – the sin of slavery is within it – and until she was washed in the laver of regeneration of anti-slavery she would be in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity. He cared not how much sympathy she might have with the heathen on the other side of the globe, or how many missionaries she might support abroad; he cared not how many professions she might make of love to God, while she passed by, in the persons of her deputation to the United States, three millions of men stripped of every right, and never raise a whisper in their behalf or against their oppressors. (Applause.)
That would not be the last meeting, he would assure them, that would be held in Scotland upon the subject; but Scotland is to be agitated until the fetters of the triumvirate of the Free Church shall be burst asunder, and individuals, now groaning in spiritual bondage, are relieved from it. The people of the Free Church were beginning to whisper their disapprobation; but the voice now heard whispering, and that only by the earnest listener, is to break forth in thunders until the Free Church triumvirate startled by its sound shall be forced to loose their grasp on the slaveholding churches of America. (Loud applause.)
Mr Thompson came forward amidst great applause. He said – Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe I may now say, for the first time, fellow citizens – (Applause) – this has been a most delightful meeting, forming in truth, the presage of a glorious victory – a victory, which, when it arrives, will be celebrated by us with meekness and thankfulness, and will be made a matter of congratulation on behalf of the slave, rather than on our own. I cannot doubt but that we shall prosper; for every day brings with it some new evidence of the growing feeling in our behalf, more certain evidence of defection and decay, and fast approaching dissolution in the ranks of our opponents. (Applause.)
Mr Thompson then entered at considerable length into the history of the connection of the Free Church with the slaveholding churches of America, the leading particulars of which we subjoin: – Before the money came over – you know what money I mean – news had arrived that a portion of the Free church had crossed the line, and entered the Southern States. A warning was raised, and an earnest hope was expressed in Scotland that the then pure and rising Free church would not sully her glory, impair her usefulness, and tarnish her character, by any connection, pecuniary or otherwise, with the system of slavery in America. She disregarded that warning – some money came over from Charleston; and when it arrived another note of remonstrance and warning was uttered. They would not hear that remonstrance; so far from that, they immediately congratulated the people of Scotland in general; and the Free Church in particular, upon this, the first fruit of the glorious and plenteous harvest to be reaped in the slave states of America. The deputation returned, and then the Free Church was called upon to review its procedure, and send back the money, if she would advance her own character and prosperity, and preserve the peace of Scotland. She disregarded these remonstrances also – held to the money – put it into her treasury – and, for ought I know, it has been employed in spreading the tables of her ministers, or helping to build the churches in which they preach.
In 1844 she sent out a letter to the American churches, including generally the slaveholding churches, with which there is nothing that entitles the Free Church of Scotland to be called an anti-slavery Church, and again the note of remonstrance was raised. Throughout 1844, and the commencement of 1845, there was no inconsiderable agitation throughout this country on the subject, and Mr Macbeth and Dr Willis of Glasgow, the Rev. Henry Grey and Dr Duncan, did nobly acquit themselves for a time upon this question. Something then required to be done. The man who moves the Free Church, as the man moves the hand of the automaton chess-player, undertook to prepare another report, stronger, clearer, more decisive – a report defining slavery, laying down the principles on which churches having slaveholding members should proceed, how they should discipline their members, and then going into some nice, subtle and refined distinction between holding men as mere property, and holding them as slaves. But after this report was written, and accepted by the Commission and adopted by the Assembly – after it was held up to the admiration, imitation, condemnation, and acceptation of the nation at large – after this was done, and we deemed this report on its way to America, nay, going about America raising the indignation of one man, putting into a posture of penitence another man, and awakening the astonishment of all, – while we were dreaming of this, behold it turns out that this report, written by a certain Doctor, and adopted by the Assembly, never got beyond the broad cloth of the Reverend Doctor’s pocket. (Laughter and applause.)
Why was it not sent? It was all about slavery, and laying down the terms of communion with slaveholders. Why was it not sent? It was not intended, or Dr Candlish was not aware that it was intended for the people of America. Now, I brand it as one of the most barefaced impositions that ever was practised by any man, clerical or lay, upon a hoodwinked and deluded people. (Great applause.)
However, a reply was in due course received to the communication which went out in 1844 to America, and it was addressed to the Moderator of the Free Church Assembly here. Whose property was it? Was it Dr Candlish’s? Is he the exclusive owner of every document that comes through the Moderator? It would appear that the people are permitted to see no more than he chooses to reveal and if he does not choose to reveal anything, they are not entitled to know anything. A reply came – doubtless to Dr Grey, the then Moderator – but we all have heard of there being a power behind the throne greater than the throne itself – so the Moderator, as in duty bound, handed over the answer from America to the writer of the original report, who put it into his pocket to keep company with the deliverance of 1845. (Laughter.)
There they slumbered for eleven long months, till at last Dr Candlish having to give an account to the Assembly, in some way or other, of what had been done says, an answer has been received, which he produces, holds it up, twists and turns it about in his hands. Did he read it? No. Did the Assembly call upon him to read it? No. He tells the audience that an answer has been received – that it is a very pleasing and satisfactory reciprocation of the affectionate sentiments contained in their letter – and that some of the statements in the letter, so far as they affected slavery, demanded notice. That was all we heard of the answer. That Assembly, too, and every man in it, save those who have the privilege of walking up the backstairs of Dr Candlish’s laboratory, are perfectly ignorant of the contents of that letter, and members of the Free Church have told me they were anxious to know what was in it, but were not permitted. The Free Church appears to me to resemble the ancient temples of Egypt, where all was mystery, and Dr Candlish is the oracle, and most mystical he is in his oraculations. (Applause.)
Mr Thompson then animadverted on the assertion of want of time to prepare an answer to the letter from the Presbyterian Church of America, and then went on to say – This is our difficulty – we have to do with men, and not with measures; this is our misfortune, that we have to fight this battle with three men in Edinburgh, and only three; and we have to put this question to the people of Scotland – ‘Will you have Christianity libelled, and Scotland herself exposed to reproach, by the obstinacy or ignorance, or both, of two or three men!’ (Applause.)
Mr Thompson then read a series of lengthened resolutions, which he wished to go forth as an embodiment of their views upon the subject of slavery, and clearly proclaim to the world what the difference was between them and the Free Church.
After a long preamble, condemnatory of the system of slavery, the first resolution pledged the meeting to regard slavery as a sin of unrivalled magnitude, demanding the condemnation of every man who respected the law of God, or recognised the principles of natural justice, and the equal rights of man.
The second resolution declared that Drs Candlish and Cunningham, in attempting to palliate, in the Free Assembly the sin of American slaveholding on the ground that this practice was sanctioned by the laws and institutions of the country, were establishing a principle which might be applied to every other kind of sin if it happened to be recognised by the laws of society.
Mr Thompson continued – I look forward to a somewhat hot, but I am certain, ultimately successful contest on this question. Though we are about to lose some of our friends, this agitation will not slumber; and we shall still prosecute the cause with unrelaxed earnestness. For my part, I shall not be idle on the other side of the Tweed; and I shall undertake to say, for every Christian denomination in England, that they shall speak but one language upon this point – with one heart and with one voice condemning the past proceedings of the Free Church, and uniting with us in demanding the dissolution of this unnatural confederacy. (Loud applause.)
And I hope by the end of next Assembly we shall be able, not to use better arguments, for I know not where to find them – but that Dr Candlish will be supplied with arguments which, with his peculiar constitution of mind will weigh more with him than all that we can say – unfilled churches, empty pews, a decaying treasury, a sustenation fund drying for want of support, and a very large defection among the elders, deacons, and members of the Free Church. (Great applause.)
It will come to this. Notwithstanding the sneers of Dr Candlish, there is Christianity enough, and biblical knowledge enough, and humanity enough, in the bosoms of the members of the Free Church to make them sacrificxe that church, which was once the darling of their hearts, rather than continue their connection with it, to the scandal of their christian name, and the injury of the cause of the slave. (Applause.)
I know these men will yet be humbled – that they will be brought down from their high places – and it is time they were brought down. Their tone is as much characterised by its insufferable arrogance, as it is by its pertinacity to the most stupid ignorance. We shall continue to prosecute our labours, believing we have friends within that Church, as well as without it, and before long there shall be such a pressure from without that these men now filled with self-sufficiency and frowning upon this agitation, will be forced to assume the more humble posture of men who have been instructed in theology though filling professors’ chairs, and of becoming the reluctant instruments of sending back the money. (Loud applause.)
Professor Dick seconded the resolutions, which were unanimously adopted.
Various other resolutions were proposed and adopted, and after a cordial vote of thanks to Councillor Stott for presiding at the various meetings that have been held, the meeting dispersed.
Edinburgh Evening Post, 13 June 1846
ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE.
On Tuesday night the friends of negro emancipation in the United States, gave a fruit soiree, in the Music Hall, to Messrs Thompson, Douglass, Buffum, and Wright, on the occasion of their leaving Edinburgh to prosecute elsewhere the work of agitation in which they have been engaged for several weeks against the Free Church of Scotland, in reference to its connection with the slaveholding churches of America. The hall was crowded to overflowing by a most respectable audience, a large proportion of whom were ladies. Councillor Stott occupied the chair.
After singing a hymn, the Chairman shortly addressed the meeting on the pleasure with which he had witnessed the success and popularity of the Anti-Slavery mission in this city.
The Very Rev. Archdeacon Williams then presented himself, and proposed the following resolution:– ‘That the slavery which now exists in several states of the American Union, is contrary to the spirit and vital system of the Christian revelation, and an oppressive iniquity which no faithful Christian should connive at or palliate.’ The very rev. archdeacon entered into a long exegetical argument to show, that the interpretation put upon the various passages of Scripture in the General Assembly of the Free Church was not warranted by the original Greek – a language which he had studied for the greater part of his life. He denied most emphatically that the phraseology of the New Testament warranted any one drawing the inference that the Apostles either admitted, or would not have hesitated to admit, slave-owners to the Lord’s table. He dwelt particularly on the rule of conduct laid down by our Saviour and his Apostles as to the different relations of society, as a proof that the spirit of the Gospel and the example of its divine promulgator, were totally at variance with a system of slavery.
The Rev. George Robson, of the United Secession Church, Lauder, seconded the resolution; and, at the same time, urged all to exert themselves in putting an end to the system of slavery which existed in the United States – a system which was accursed of God and accursed of man.
The resolution was unanimously agreed to; as were all the others subsequently submitted to the meeting.
The Rev. Dr Ritchie proposed the next resolution, which was to the effect that the friends of emancipation assembled there should tender Mr Buffum their warmest thanks for his disinterested zeal in behalf of the oppressed negro in the United States; and at the same time award him the utmost praise for the exertions which he had made in this country to cause the Free Church to relinquish the obnoxious alliance into which she had entered with the slaveholding churches of America. The doctor, in supporting this resolution, took occasion to advert to what had been said in the General Assembly of the Free Church on the question of American slavery. He would be sorry indeed to sit at the feet of such Gamaliels as Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, and learn theology from them on this subject. He would be equally sorry to follow the dictum of Dr Brown on this question; for it appeared to him that all of them had, as yet, to learn what were the first principles of the oracles of the living God regarding it. They had been told by Dr Candlish in the General Assembly, that he had high authority for the ground which he occupied – that he had the authority of Dr Brown, the leading intellect in the Secession Church. This was a discovery, or as Archdeacon Williams would call it, an invention, at which he was certainly much surprised. There were some men in the church to which he (Dr R.) belonged, who would be found as exulted in talent and in influence as that man – (hisses and slight applause.) He did not object to that hissing; but he really must say again, that he thought it strange that they should put the whole of the Church to which he belonged under one man – (hisses.) He cared neither for the gods of the hills or the valleys; but he would like to ask, since Dr Candlish thought so highly of Dr Brown’s intellect on the question of slavery, what he thought of Dr Brown’s intellect on the subject of the atonement? – (loud and repeated hissing, and slight applause.)
The Rev. Mr Robson – I call Dr Ritchie to order. If I had known that this subject was to have been introduced, I never would have been here. I ask, Mr Chairman, is Dr Ritchie or is he not in order; for I humbly submit that this subject should never have been introduced at this meeting.
Dr Ritchie – It was only in the mode of argument which I adopted on this question, setting one authority against another.
The Chairman – While I do not yield to any individual present in admiration and esteem for the talents and character of Dr Brown, I must say that, having calmly looked at the whole course of argument adopted by the rev. doctor, I think it was complimentary rather than the reverse to Dr Brown. It appears to me that in this discussion there ought and should be a complete setting aside of Dr Brown or Dr Paul, when they come in the way of the authority of Christ.
Mr George Thompson – I sat in the General Assembly of the Free Church on Saturday the 3d [sic] of May; and I heard Dr Candlish, to the satisfaction of a very large audience, dispose entirely of the unanimous decision of the United Secession Synod – and here let me mention, that Dr Brown was not in the Synod the time the decision was come to, but afterwards protested against it – I say that I heard Dr Candlish dispose of the unanimous decision of the whole body of the Secession ministers, by simply saying that Dr Brown, the leading intellect in that Church, had entered his dissent against the resolution that had been come to. I do say, therefore, it is of importance – if Dr John Brown will stand out in opposition to his whole Church – that we should be prepared to say whether the unanimous decision of his brethren or the dictum of Dr John Brown is the right one – (applause, and a slight hiss.)
Mr Stott said, he would put it to the meeting whether it would be right to call Dr Ritchie to order, when debating a question on public grounds. He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that Dr Ritchie had not gone beyond the bounds of propriety.
Dr Ritchie was then allowed to proceed. He said, the doctrines advocated in Canonmills were a disgrace to Scotland and a disgrace to its Christianity. He had been exhibited as showing the Free Church the road to Canonmills with his violin, but he was now perfectly ready to show them the road from Florida East to Jamaica.
The Chairman then rose and presented Mr Buffum, on the occasion of his returning to America, with a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, bearing the following inscription:–
Presented to James N. Buffum, Esq., of Lynn, Massachusetts, U.S. by the friends of human freedom in Edinburgh in testimony of their high admiration of his disinterested devotion to the cause of the slave in America – of his steady and consistent opposition to prejudice against colour, and his laborious and efficient exertions in Scotland to induce the Free Church to send back the money received from the slaveholders.
Mr Buffum made a brief and appropriate reply.
Mr Douglass and Mr Thompson next addressed the meeting, showing the present state of slavery in the United States, and the prejudices which existed against the negro population. They also traced the connection of the Free Church of Scotland with the churches of that country, and commented on the untenable nature of the defence which had been set up in the Assembly to justify that connection. They declared their intention to agitate the churches of England on the subject, in order to bring their influence to bear on the feeling which so generally prevailed in this country as to sending back the moeny, and abandoning the connection of the slaveholding churches of America.
The Rev. Mr Lamb of Portobello, seconded by the Rev. Mr Arthur, Edinburgh, proposed a motion expressing union of sentiment with Messrs Thompson, Douglass, and Wright, on the question of American slavery.
The meeting broke up at 12 o’clock.
Caledonian Mercury, 11 June 1846
Notes
- For a report of the town council’s decision and of the ceremony itself, see Caledonian Mercury, 4 and 8 June, 1846; Scotsman, 3 June 1846.
- Frederick Douglass, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, His Early Life as a Slave, His Escape from Bondage, and His Complete History to the Present Time (Hartford, CT: Park Publishing Co., 1881), pp. 245-6. Recalling events some thirty-five years later, Douglass’ memory is unreliable: he could not have been accompanied by William Lloyd Garrison on this occasion as Garrison did not arrive in Britain until 31 July. For Combe’s own brief account of the meeting see George Combe to William Lloyd Garrison, Edinburgh, 7 June 1846 (Liberator, 31 July 1846).
- For recent accounts of the ‘Send Back the Money’ campaign see Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012) and Alasdair Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846: Living an Antislavery Life (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018), pp. 46–75.