Dundee, from the Fife Side of the Tay, from William Beattie, The Ports, Harbours, Watering-Places, and Coast Scenery of Great Britain. Illustrated by Views Taken on the Spot, by W.H. Bartlett(London: George Virtue, 1842), Vol II, between pp. 34 and 35
Following their lectures in Edinburgh, Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison travelled to Dundee to address a meeting on Monday 28 September at Bell Street Chapel, arranged at short notice – possibly because of the need to change venue. ‘The evening was very dark and stormy,’ reported Garrison, ‘but the hall was crowded, and the enthusiasm great.’1
We reproduce here the reports in the Dundee Advertiser and Dundee Courier. The Northern Warder reprinted the report from the Courier, but on another page carried an editorial which denounced the abolitionists, which is appended here, of interest especially since an article in an earlier issue of the Warder is dissected by Garrison in his speech.
A lot had happened since Douglass’ last visit to Dundee on 10 March – and the speakers devoted much of their speeches to discuss not only the recent inaugural meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in London, but also the deliberations of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland at the end of May.
That March meeting appears to have been organised by Dundee Anti-Slavery Society. Not much is known about this organisation, which was formed in 1832, but it is evident that the chair of the Soiree, Alexander Easson, was an original committee member.2 Yet at this meeting, six months later, Easson proposed that a new Anti-Slavery Society be formed and ‘read the rules proposed for the purpose, which were unanimously agreed to.’ Perhaps the old society had dissolved in the meantime, or perhaps he was proposing the formation of a rival society because the old one had lost its way.
Among the other speakers at the meeting were James Robertson, Secretary of the Scottish Anti-Slavery Society, who had accompanied Douglass and Garrison from Edinburgh, and George Gilfillan, the minister of the Secession Church, School Wynd, who had welcomed Douglass to Dundee in January and March.
For an overview of Frederick Douglass’ activities in Dundee during the year see: Spotlight: Dundee.
EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE AND AMERICAN SLAVERY
Last night a public meeting was held in Bell Street Hall, to hear Messrs William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick douglass, on the relation of the Evangelical Alliance with the American slave-holding Churches and the Free Church, holding religious fellowship with slave-holders. Though the rain fell in torrents at the hour of the meeting, the Hall was filled ere the chair was taken. The platform was occupied by many of our influential citizens. Councillor Easson in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings of the evening, said it was strange that, in a country where such sacrifices for the abolishing of slavery had been made, there should be found men who sought a palliation for it. Yet, such was the case; in an evil hour a Deputation had gone over from the Free Church to America to solicit money from the slave-holders. They had been warned against it, but, in the face of that warning, they took the money, and returned; and since then the united wisom of the Free Church had vindicated their doings. Since then another class had arisen – the Evangelical Aliance – and strengthened for a time the position of the Free Church and retarded the labours of the Abolitionists. A few members from America had got the Evangelical Alliance to overthrow all resolutions relative to slavery; these men formed an alliance between the Free Church and slavery. He regretted they had brought slave-holding in connexion with Christianity. Christianity taught benevolence, philanthropy, good-will to all men, and ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you;’ but slavery perverted all these, and gave support to a system disgraceful to humanity as well as to Christianity. He would not occupy farther the time of the Meeting, but would introduce Mr Lloyd Garrison.
Mr GARRISON, in addressing the meeting, assured them that, in obedience to Mr Easson’s admonitions, he would be as cautious, judicious, and temperate on the subject as was in his power to be; but one of their own poets had said, ‘On such a subject it was impious to be calm.’3 He could not talk mincingly on such matters. He came here not to alienate, but to win over to emancipation, and to accomplish such ends truth must be spoken, or his coming was in vain. He then alluded to the great doctrines of our common Redeemer, promulgated eighteen hundred years ago, and among these his injunctions to ‘let the prisoners go free,’ and yet over Christendom their sons had to travel to teach that it was sinful to make traffic of their fellow-men. (Cheers.) He then referred to an article in the Warder, announcing his coming to Dundee, – but, previous to reading this announcement, he would beg his friend, the Reverend Mr Robertson, Secretary to the Edinburgh Anti-Slavery Society, to read another announcement which would place him in higher estimation with the Meeting.
Mr Robertson then read a letter given Mr Garrison by the spontaneous impulse of the Coloured Abolitionists in America, enumerating the services Mr Garrison had done to Emancipation, and the dangers, difficulties, and privations he had voluntarily undergone to forward the cause. The paper concluded with some resolutions relative to the American Abolitionists’ view of the Free Church and the slave oney, one of which run thus, –
Resolved, that we regard it (the Free Church) in its present position as anti-Christian, and its leaders as wolves in sheep’s clothing, its places of worship not as temples of the true God, but dens of oppression and cruelty.
(Great cheering and faint hisses.) Mr Garrison resumed – This was his introduction to the meeting, and he felt he could not have a better one.
He next read an article from the Northern Warder.4 The article alluded to called him many names. It covered him with epithets from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot; but among these names there had never been included that of slave-holder, and, so long as they did not call him that, he cared not for their names.
Mr Garrison alluded to the strength which good principles gain from the result of labour, and the more they fought in the battle against slavery the stronger would they rise from the conflict. There was little fear of a good and true man wearying in the cause of emancipation; but the Free Church had stolen money and struck hands in fellowship with American slave-holders and adulterers, and it felt indignant at being told to send back the money. (Cheering and hisses.) The Free Church had endeavoured to distort this subject; but the question was in regard to the Churches admitting slave-holders – those that made barter of their fellow-men – that would not allow them Bibles to read – these were the Churches he spoke against. Who was it that reproached the Free Church at present? It was not the slave-holder, – it was not the soul-buyer that said, I have some more money for the Free Church kneaded the Evangelical dough relative to slavery.
He then read another extract from the Warder, in which the writer lectured him on the use of gentleness; but the next moment became himself guilty of the most foul-mouthed epithets.
He then referred to the Scriptural defence of slavery resorted to by the American slave-holders and the Free Church, and said, if such doctrines were promulgated in the Bible, he would put it in the fire, and so would the Meeting he addressed; if men could bring a book to prove that we should be made slaves, men would burn that book, and endeavour to become men. Nature, reason, and the aspiration of the heart, declared a better religion. But there was no such doctrine in the Bible; and for eighteen years he had held it forth as an anti-slavery book. Names had now lost their former significations. In olden times the day was when it was declared that man was to give up all and follow Christ, but, that their kingdom of darkness may not be molested, the American slave-holder and the Free Church of Scotland had changed such names. The man who defended slavery from the doctrines of the Bible was no Christian, but an Infidel.
He then read a farther extract from the Warder, relative to a speech delivered by him at Exeter Hall, in which the writer of the article animadverted on the principles advocated by him, but did not tell what he said. He then quoted the portion of the speech alluded to, and held that, had his words been made use of by the Warder, they would have exposed the writer of the article as an unprincipled man. There was nothing baser on American soil that that poor Editor’s jugglery.
He then referred to the false aspersions thrown out by the Northern Warder on George Thompson.5 These aspersions had been long since proved to be false; but the Editor continued to use them, knowing well, while he did so, he was doing a malevolent deed. Mr Garrison, after a long and able defence of Mr Thompson, introduced Mr Douglass to the Meeting, and sat down amidst much applause.
Mr DOUGLASS, on coming forward, was received with loud and continued cheering. He thanked the people of Dundee for the reception which they had given him upon this and former occasions. The state of things had changed considerably since me met them about six months ago. Since that time the General Assembly of the Free Church had met, and the Evangelical Alliance – an alliance composed of all the orthodox Churches in England and America – had met, conferrred, and separated. From what had been done at the Evangelical Alliance, it was to be found that the intercourse which the Free Church held with the American slave-holding Churches had produced a baneful effct on the minds of many ministers not belonging to her communion.
Mr Douglass then entered into a lengthened detail of the manoeuvres practised by the American ministers, in order to get every sentence condemnatory of slavery erased from the Alliance’s records. In narrating the procedure of that body, he excited considerable laughter from the manner in which he gave an account of their proceedings, and their anxiety to discover whether slavery was a sin or not. That body met as was said for opposing Popery and other heresies, but by their actions they had stultified themselves and brought disgrace on the name of Christianity. The Church of Rome, bad as she was, was by far more respectable than the blood-stained Churches of America, whose members and ministers were man-stealers, and as such guilty of every vice that could disgrace our fallen nature. One fault that was found with the Church of Rome was, that she kept the Bible from the laity, but the American slave-holding Churches, to which the Alliance had succumbed, had prohibited three millions of their fellow-countrymen from learning to read the Word of God. He blamed Doctors Hinton, Wardlaw, and several others, who were termed eminent divines, for yielding so far to the pertinacity of the American clergymen, as these individuals, with their previous knowledge, sinned against the light that was in them.
Mr Douglass then gave an account of the proceedings at last Free Assembly, and the behaviour of Doctors Candlish and Cunningham at it. This account called forth bursts of laughter, mixed with a few hisses. Dr Cunningham, he said, was one of the most straightforward men in the Assembly. He was the one that went the whole figure – not one of your Dr Candlish sort of folks who use gentle circumlocutions to varnish a bad cause.
He caught eagerly at Dr Duncan‘s distinction between slave-holding and slave-having, and brought forward a supposition that, were Parliament to enact that, from and after the 1st July next year, the servants of every master should become his slaves, the masters would not be to blame for their being slave-holders. In this manner he attempted to justify the American man-stealers, because, as he said, they were compelled to be what they were from the circumstances in which they were placed.
Should Parliament enact that the people of this country should become worshippers of Juggernaut, would Dr Cunningham be one of those who would run and fall down before that idol? If he did not do that, his reasoning about the powers of Parliament would be the most fallacious that could be imagined. In fact, it appeared to him that Dr Cunningham was one of those men who would not confine slavery to the Blacks, if he found it serve his purpose to extend it to the Whites; and that he would have no more scruple in ordering any of them – their wives, their sons, and daughters – to mount the auction block than he would have in commanding any of the African race to do so.
The Free Church showed plainly, notwithstanding certain protestations which she had made against slavery, that she welcomed slave-holders and held communion with slave-holding ministers. A short time ago, one Dr Smyth, a clergyman from a slave-holding State, – one who desecrates the rite of marriage by performing it in any manner most agreeable to the slave-master, – thus setting at nought that text, ‘What God has joined, let no man put asunder,’ that man had the honour of preaching at the time alluded to in Dr Chalmers’s pulpit. That would tell finely in America, and the slave-holding Churches there could congratulate themselves that, though they had abandoned the principal doctrines of the Bible, they still had the countenance of the principal doctors and eminent divines in the Free Church and among the Evangelical Alliance. Though the Evangelical Alliance had declared against the abolition of slavery, that body by no means represented the feelings of the Christian community in England and Ireland.
The Free Church had fraternized with the slave-holders but the people of Scotland, he was assured, were sound at the core. That people did not belong to those who put their hand to the plough and looked back. Many of the Free Church members were as hostile as any of them to the plans their clergy had adopted in relation to this question, and he was glad in being able to inform them that an Anti-Slavery Society had been formed in the bosom of the Free Church itself. Some time ago, a noble stand against the slavery system was made upon this very platform, and he witnessed with the utmost indignation the respectfully worded petition, drawn up by the leaders in that movement, treated with contempt by the Free Assembly.
Mr Douglass, after calling upon the members of the Free Church to use every means to make their clergy retrace their steps and send back the money, and if they refused to do that, to leave the body as one – that by fraternizing with slave-holders and man-stealers had no right to assume to itself the title of Christian – sat down amidst repeated rounds [of] applause.
The CHAIRMAN said, that it had been agreed on by a number of friends of the abolition of slavery to establish an Anti-Slavery Society in this place, and, with their permission, he would read the rules which had been drawn up by a Committee of their number. The rules having been read and agreed to.
The Reverend Mr GILFILLAN said, he appeared tonight to move, not to speak – for, at this late hour, he supposed that were he to speak they would begin to move. (Laughter.) Mr Gilfillan then proposed a resolution to the effect, That this Meeting view with the deepest indignation the conduct of the Evangelical Alliance in so far as slavery is concerned, and that they declare their conviction that their acts on that subject do not accord with the views of the inhabitants of Dundee. The resolution was then put to the vote, when almost all the persons in the Hall held up their hands in its favour. On taking the vote against it, three or four held up their hands, amidst derisive laughter.
Mr GARRISON then made some observations on the hardships to which men of Colour, British subjects, were exposed on going to America; and, after giving votes of thanks to thim, Mr Douglass, the Chairman, and others, the Meeting broke up.
Dundee, Perth and Cupar Advertiser, 29 September 1846
ANTI-SLAVERY MEETING: WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON AND FREDERICK DOUGLASS
Last night a public meeting was held in Bell Street Hall, to listen to addresses by Messrs William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, on the subject of American Slavery, the present position of the Free Church, and the recent proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance in regard to the slavery question. Alexander Easson, Esq., was in the chair; and on the platform were the Rev. James Robertson, Edinburgh, Rev. George Gilfillan, Bailie Moyes, Messrs Malcolm M’Lean, John Durham, George Rough, William Halket, junior, &c. &c.
After a few appropriate introductory remarks by the Chairman,
Mr Garrison said that he had been announced to them through the Northern Warder, and he did not object to that form of introduction, but still he had another, and one that he liked a great deal better and that placed him in a far better position before the audience. It emanated from the coloured population of America, in regard to himself and his mission. He would call on Mr Robertson to read it.
Rev. Mr Robertson then read the document referred to. In it were expressed the deep gratitude of the coloured population of of America for the efforts of Mr Garrison in the anti-slavery cause, and their earnest prayer for the success of his mission. Mr Robertson then stated that he had purposely omitted the first resolution at the request of Mr Garrison, as it was couched in strong language; but still he would be inclined to express nearly similar sentiments himself, and he could not see why it should be omitted. (Cries of ‘Read, read.’) Mr R. then read as follows:–
Therefore resolved, that we regard it (the Free Church) in its present position as an anti-Christian Church, and its leaders as wolves in sheep’s clothing (cheers and a few hisses), its places of worship as not being the temples of the living God, but as dens of oppression and cruelty.
Mr Robertson had just to state that he had a copy of the remonstrance addressed to the Free Church deputation previous to their visiting the slave States: and if the Warder would insert it, he would be happy to afford them an opportunity.
Mr Garrison, after referring to the credentials in his favour which had just been read, took up an article in the Warder of last week, commenting on it as he went along, and rebutting the statements and insinuations contained in it; but from the late hour to which the meeting extended, we can do no more than allude to one or two of the points taken up.
On speaking of the Evangelical Alliance, he was declared to have said that its acts stamped it ‘as an un Christian rather than a Christian assembly;’ and if its opinions could be proved from the Bible, he would ‘put their Bible in the fire.’ God having made them in his own image, with faculties to hate slavery with a perfect abhorrence, all would shrink back with terror at the thought of the father, the mother, the child, the sister, the brother, or the friend of any of them being made into an article of merchandize. If a book were set before him, supporting that horrid system, he would put it in the fire.
But did he ever say or ever believe that the Bible was pro-slavery. (Mr Douglass, ‘Never.’) His friend had anticipated him. No, he entertained very different opinions. The Bible was the great armoury from which he had drawn his arguments for eighteen years, vindicating it from the foul aspersions of the American clergy. The Church of Christ is an anti-slavery, and not a pro-slavery Church; and though the ministers might be on the side of the oppressor, the Bible was always on the side of the oppressed. This was what he believed; this might be infidelity but he understood it to be primitive Christianity.
It was in the days of old that for a man to be called a Christian was to endure persecution and the loss of all things. In the present day the world was full of a profession of Christianity, but of a different description. Satan who seldom goes about like a roaring lion, assuming the appearance and the gloss of Christianity, assails those as fanatics who continue faithful. But let them try them by the standard of truth, for if a man say he love God and hateth his brother, the truth is not in him. It is quite easy to make a profession of Christianity, but not so easy to endure privations; but he thanked God that there were in America 7000 who had never bowed the knee to Baal.
To show that his views on this subject were in unison with those of the Rev. Dr Alexander, who surely could not be accused of infidelity, he read extracts from an article by that clergyman in the Scottish Congregational Magazine for September, from which we extract the following sentence:–
It would be well, then, if those who appeal so confidently to the Bible for a sanction of slavery, would pause and reflect on the position in which such an appeal places the sacred book. If slaveholding be an act of injustice and oppression – if it be contrary to all the dearest rights and most sacred immunities of man – if it involve, on the part of him who practises it, theft, cruelty, avarice, and tyranny – and if it bring in its train a whole host of evils, destructive of social morality, of human happiness, and of the bodies, no less than the souls of men – if it be all this (and where is the man who, in the present day, will use the language of Britain to tell us it is not?) then, to assert that such a system has ever received the sanction of the God of purity, the God of mercy, the God of love; or that of such a fruitful source of evil, the religion of God has ever been, or ever can be, the patroness or the apologist, is to affirm that the book in which that sanction appears or that religion is developed, is, if not altogether an imposture, at least fearfully interpolated with false and pernicious doctrines.6
In order to show that the Warder had misrepresented his views and durst not have published his speech, delivered at Exeter Hall, he read various extracts from it, exposing the mis-statements of the Warder, and pointing out the manner in which the Evangelical Alliance had been moulded like dough by the hands of the Free Church. He then took up the charges advanced against George Thompson, rebutting these, and pointing out the efforts Mr Thompson had made in the cause of the slave, and the assistance he had given to every good work, but that all the wealth of Croesus would not, he believed, tempt him to defend the Free Church in taking money from slaveholders, and fellowshipping with them. He also read a challenge to Mr Thompson which had appeared in a Free Church paper, couched in ridiculous terms, and concluding with ‘come on; I am your man; come on Macduff,’ and which was signed ‘D.T.’ D.T., he supposed, meaning, very appropriately, dirty tool of a party. (Applause.) In reference to the denial by the Warder that the Free Church ministers, had ever supported slavery from Scripture, he quoted from the speeches of Drs Candlish and Cunningham; and in regard to one part wherein it is stated that ‘a man may sometimes be a slaveholder without committing sin,’ &c., he substituted the word ‘robber’ – which was but one of the fruits of slavery – making the sentence read ‘a man may sometimes be a robber without committing sin,’ and so on throughout the entire passage. was not this shocking morality? They would not find anything more insane in Bedlam.
He then, after referring to the speech of Dr Duncan and his distinction betwixt slaveholding and slavehaving, spoke shortly on the epistle to Philemon, expressing his belief that Onesimus was never a slave; and that even though he had, he was sent back ‘not as a servant, but as a brother beloved.‘ The proposal of the Reverend Mr Macbeth to break off communion with the Slaveholding Churches could not get a seconder in the Free Church Assembly. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in Ashkelon, that they could not find in the Free Assembly one person to second it.
Mr Garrison then read the decisions of the Pro Slavery Synod of Virginia and the Presbytery of Carolina on the slavery question, and showed that their deliverances and those of the Free Church were one in sentiment. He also read various extracts from different American divines, to show the sentiments they openly entertained; and among others the following by Dr Bond:–
One of our general rules forbids the buying and selling men, women, and children, with an intention to enslave them. But we cannot buy or sell slaves with an intention to enslave them. Whoever heard of enslaving a slave? It is only the free that can be enslaved. The rule was made by Mr Wesley against the African slave trade, in which free persons were bought to be made slaves of. It was among the general rules of the Methodist societies in this country before we became a Church. Yet it has never been construed to forbid the transfer of one slave from one owner to another.
He then went over various other points, exposing in pointed language the Free Church’s misdoings in the matter of slavers, and concluded by an eloquent appeal on behalf of the three millions of human beings who were held in bonds in America, and expressing his belief, that however the wicked might join hand in hand, the cause would be ultimately successful. (Mr Garrison sat down amidst loud cheering.)
Mr Douglass said, he was glad to be again in Dundee, and he was glad to find that the feeling on the subject of American slavery which pervaded the town six months ago had not departed from it – that they were here to cheer the heart of the anti-slavery advocate, and strike terror into the hearts of the pro-slavery portion of the community. Since he last addressed an assembly in this town, the subject of slavery had assumed a somewhat new phase. The General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland had held its session since that. The Evangelical Alliance has held meetings for a considerable length of time, and has dissolved and gone back to its original elements since that time. The subject of slavery has been presented in various forms to the people of England, Ireland, and Scotland since that time. The Synod of the Secession Church has declared ‘no union with slaveholders’ since that time. (Applause.) The Relief Synod has declared ‘no union with slaveholders’ since that time. (Applause.) The Presbyterian General Assembly in Ireland has declared ‘no union with slaveholders’ since that time. (Continued applause.)
He wished to direct attention for a moment to the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance. That body met in London a few weeks ago, and one of its first acts, after having assembled, was to declare that it would not be prudent to let it be known what they were going to do or what they did. One of their first acts was to shut out the reporters. It was dangerous to admit them. What would the Protestant people of this country think if a body of Papists meeting together for supporting Popery, were, the very first thing they did, to shut out all reporters? The Evangelical Alliance come to gether for the support of pure and undefiled Christianity, yet they keep the world uninformed of what they are about to do.
Mr Douglass then shortly narrated the proceedings of the preliminary meeting of the Alliance at Birmingham, and the resolution proposed by Dr Candlish to exclude slaveholding ministers, and agreed to. That resolution was looked upon as an insult by the slaveholders in the United States, more especially as coming from one in the position of Dr Candlish; and they resisted it on the ground that the body who passed it had no right to decide what complexion the Alliance should be of.
He then mentioned that great numbers of American divines came over – men of talent and professors of theology, &c. – about 70 of them, and among the number Dr Smyth of South Carolina, a man who marries slaves and leaves out the most important part of the ceremony, ‘Whom God hath joined let no man put asunder.’ This man is now in this country, and preached in Edinburgh for Dr Chalmers. This miserable creature creeped into the Evangelical Alliance, and left the mark of his slime behind him. (Hear, hear.)
The first thing to be settled after the meeting was to determine the basis. They called together the Alliance, and when they met they found they were without a basis. (Laughter.) They were in an unhappy predicament. Dr Hinton then proposed that all assenting to the basis, not being slaveholders, should be admitted. Up to this time things had gone on delightfully. They had prayed – they had said how much they loved each other. The most unbounded love, in fact, was manifested towards each other; but the introduction of the proposal to exclude slaveholders raised a most exciting scene all at once. The proposal to keep out men-stealers from the Evangelical Alliance because they were men-stealers was a most important and difficult point. (Hear, hear.) Dr Wardlaw and Dr Hinton stood by the statement for a time, that there should be no Christian fellowship with slave-holders. Rev. Mr Pringle stood firm to the last. The Rev. Mr Nelson of Belfast, Mr Stanfield of Belfast, also stood up. The great number of the American delegation, stood up as strongly on the other side, and threatened the Alliance, that they who had come 3000 miles, such was their love, would abandon them if a resolution like that of Dr Hinton was agreed to. Such was their firmness that Dr Hinton’s resolution was withdrawn and the whole matter referred to a committee, who sat for a week, the subject was such a difficult one.
During this time the Rev. Dr Smyth, this violator of marriage, a man who has been guilty of the greatest slanders, according to his own confession, this Rev. gentleman very piously rose up, and proposed that they should engage in prayer, so difficult was it for the committee to arrive at a decision. Nay they even went without their breakfast. (Mr Robertson – ‘Dinner.’) They went without their dinner, so great was their anxiety about the committee coming to a decision. Think of that – what fasting. (Great laughter.) How often have the poor slaves not only gone without their dinners and their suppers, but been afterwards driven out to the field, without an expression of sympathy.
Mr Douglass then went on to narrate the farther proceedings of the Alliance on the slavery question – that even the resolution which they did adopt at one time had to be wiped off their books to please the American brethren. How could Dr Wardlaw, or the other English and Scotch divines who had expressed sound views, thus give up their judgment? He held that the decision to which the Alliance had come was the greatest support to Atheism. They had thunders against the Pope of Rome for discouraging the reading of the Bible by the laity; but they had not a word to say in regard to the three millions of human being who were denied the privilege of learning to read the name of their Creator. They sat in Christian fellowship with their oppressors.
Mr Douglass continued to animadvert for some time on the doings of the Alliance, exposing the glaring inconsistency of their conduct.
He then came to the doings of the Free Church Assembly, exciting much laughter by the admirable manner in which he imitated various of the leaders, and carrying the meeting along with him in his comments upon their speeches. On Dr Duncan’s distinction betwixt slave-holding and slave-having, he said he enjoyed the ingenuity of the thing, although he pitied the man. In America they had also fine distinctions. It was the ‘peculiar institution,’ the ‘domestic institution,’ the ‘social institution,’ more recently, ‘the impediment,’ more recently still, ‘unenlightened labour,’ and more recently still, Dr Duncan calls it ‘slave-having.’ What would they think if he was to say, concubine-having was not concubine-holding? How would that sound? Would it not sound as offensive to their sense of morality? There was great joy in the Assembly at the discovery of Dr Duncan – great clapping of hands when Brother Duncan made the notable discovery; Dr Candlish shook him warmly by the hand, and Dr Cunningham congratulated him on his success.
Mr Douglass then referred to Dr Cunningham’s speech. He was what he would call a straightforward man. He not only said that Christ and his apostles had held fellowship with slaveholders, but with slaveholders who had a right to kill their slaves; and Mr George Thompson, for crying hear, hear, to this, and drawing attention to it, was immediately surrounded by a number of the Free Church people: and a cry got up of ‘put him out.’
Mr Douglass then took up Dr Cunningham’s defence of slaveholders on the ground that if an Act of Parliament was passed declaring all servants slaves, their masters would be guiltless; and asked would the Free Church say so if polygamy, concubinage, or the worship of Juggernaut was thus enjoined, although he could not discover from Dr Cunningham’s speech that he would offer resistance? Was it not the duty of all parties to petition and protest against all iniquitous laws; and had the Americans ever done this? Were not the slaveholders the lawmakers themselves?
He then took up the defence that was set on the ground of the laws enjoining slavery, and said he would reply in the words of an eloquent statesman of the country (Lord Brougham) – ‘In vain, you tell me of the rights of the planters. I deny their rights. To the principles and feelings of our common nature I appeal. In vain you tell me of laws and statutes that sanction such a claim. There is a law above all the enactments of human codes – the same throughout the world – the same in all ages – such as it was before the daring genius of Columbus pierced the night of ages, and opened up to one world the sources of power, wealth, and knowledge, and to another all unutterable woes. It is the law written by the finger of God on the heart of man; and by that law, unchangeable and eternal, while men loathe rapine and abhor blood, they will reject with indignation the wild and guilty phantasy that man can hold property in man.’7 (Great cheering.)
Mr Douglass then referred to the sentiments he at one time entertained towards the Free Church, and how much these were changed since he knew the conduct of her leaders. He called on the party who had got up a movement within her on this subject to continue their exertions, and concluded by mentioning that an Anti-Slavery Society had been formed by some of her members, which showed they were in earnest. (He sat down amidst long continued cheering.)
Mr Easson then proposed that the meeting should form themselves into an Anti-Slavery Society, and read the rules proposed for the purpose, which were unanimously agreed to.
Mr Garrison mentioned that not only did the slaveholders govern the United States but they also made laws for British subjects. If a vessel with a coloured British subject was entering a port in the above states, that coloured man would be seized like a felon and lodged in jail; and if the expenses of his food and lodgings were not paid before the sailing of the vessel, he would be sold to defray these. This was a subject which they were entitled to bring before Parliament.
Mr Gilfillan then proposed votes of thanks to Mr Garrison, the father of the anti-slavery movement in America, one who had suffered much in the cause; to Mr Douglass; and to the Chairman and Committee. These were carried by acclamation. He then proposed a vote of disapprobation of the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance in regard to the slavery question. He was ashamed of them. He was more especially ashamed that ministers belonging to his own denomination, the United Secession Church, who had taken part in the resolutions of their Synod on the subject, should have acquiesced in the proceedings of the Alliance. The vote was carried by a show of hands, only three being held up in favour of the Alliance.
The meeting then separated, the hall having been filled from the commencement of the proceedings until the close – about a quarter past eleven o’clock.
Dundee Courier, 29 September 1846
‘THE ABOLITIONISTS’ versus ABOLITION
We are not sure that we are warranted by the importance of the subject, in again noticing the proceedings of Garrison, Douglass, and the other American ‘abolitionists.’ The aspect of their recently renewed campaign furnishes no equivocal indication that the force of the movement is about spent; and that during the indefinite period to which the wanderers have pledged themselves to continue their agitation, they must ‘plead the cause of humanity,’ as they term it, to audiences constantly diminishing in point of number, and sinking in point of respectability. Such an agitation is best replied to by silence. There are, however, one or two considerations which may be suggested to the few persons, accessible by reason, who are still in the train of Douglass and his party.
We have now had considerable experience of the method in which our American visitors ply the work of assailing slavery, and we are in circumstances to judge with tolerable correctness of its probably efficacy. What is the method which they have adopted? It consists almost exclusively of violent abuse against the Christian Churches of Britain and America.
Every man at all acquainted with the British Churches knows well that upon the subject of slavery not the slightest diversity of sentiment exists among them – that they all long earnestly for its abolition, and that they are ever ready to throw their influence into any movement which will hasten that desirable consummation.
The first duty, therefore, of a prudent abolitionist on visiting Britain must of course be, to secure the friendship and assistance of these powerful organizations. The Americans have not done so. We do not praise or blame either party here; we state the simple fact, that Douglass and his friends have done their little all to alienate the Christianity of Britain and of the world from the cause of the African slave. Had they been the hired agents of the slaveholder, they could not have acted more constantly for his interest than they have done. Arrogating to themselves the distinctive title of abolitionists, they have branded the Free Church, and (through the Evangelical Alliance) all the evangelical churches of the world, as being in secret, spite of their pretensions to the contrary, no friends to the slave – as being in fact hypocritical supporters of the system of slavery.
If it had been possible for any man to create a pro-slavery sentiment in the British churches, this is certain the most likely course. Happily that is not possible, and such insane efforts can be productive of no evil more serious than temporary annoyance. But let the fact be distinctly observed, that these men, who might have united all the churches of Britain in a powerful attack upon American slavery, have failed to do so; have never attempted to do so; nay, have in language as coarse as it was false, from the first, denounced these churches as the allies of the slave-holder. There may be honesty in this, but there is also madness.
Still farther, these men have to the extent of their power, given the American slaveholder the comfort and support of believing that the sympathies of Christendom are with him. We venture to say he never before looked upon the Christian Churches otherwise than as the deadly foes of slaveholding. But now, thanks to the unscrupulous assertions of our American philanthropists, he may actually have begun to think that slavery is countenanced by many of the purest Reformed Churches. We need not say how fatally such a belief must operate upon the cause of abolition.
These are some of the more prominent results of an ‘abolitionist’ agitation technically so called. And now these gentlemen having removed from the field of their operations, the Christian churches and other auxiliaries, stand forward to fight single-handed the battle of the slave! The pretension is ridiculous, and yet it is surpassed in absurdity by the manner in which the doughty warriors apply themselves to their task.
We had one of these ‘battles of humanity’ fought in Dundee a night or two ago. After the skirmishers (the chairman and another) had withdrawn, Mr Garrison opened his fire. He took for a sort of text a short paper which appeared in our last, and favoured the meeting with his opinions regarding it, in the form of a running comment, restating and defending at great length the views he recently expressed in London. This done, he treated several of our cotemporaries [sic] of Edinburgh and America in similar fashion.
When Mr Garrisons two hours of desultory and tedious harangue came to an end, Mr Douglass presented himself. This gentleman employed his very considerable talents as a mimic in caricaturing the manners and personal appearance of Drs Candlish and Cunningham; talked of the ‘diabolism’ of the Free Church; and of the ‘unadulterated atheism and infidelity’ of the Evangelical Alliance. The conduct of the Alliance in regard to slavery was spoken of as ‘doubly base, especially that of Dr Wardlaw,’ who was represented as sinning deliberately and against light, and the prayers offered by the Alliance were made the object of elaborate ridicule.
And this is what they call ‘fighting the battles of humanity’ – this loathsome mingling of buffoonery, profanity, and coarse abuse – this base slandering of the assembled representatives of Christianity, and of a venerable servant of Christ, who has long occupied a distinguished place in the Church and whose name is revered as widely as it is known!
The effrontery of the ‘abolitionists’ is a prominent feature of their character, and is very fully displayed in all their proceedings. We never heard of any act of men who had formed a more mistaken idea of their own value, and of the place they occupy in public estimation. Douglass – to quote but a single instance of this characteristic – stated the other evening, that when the Free Church Assembly learned the intention of his friends to be present at the debate on Slavery, they hastened to stop the issue of tickets; and that a cry of ‘Hear, hear!’ from George Thompson startled and confused Dr Cunningham in the midst of his address! The man stated these things with gravity, and yet it is incredible that he can believe them.
‘With every good-natured allowance for your Grace’s youth and inexperience,’ writes Junius to the Duke of Grafton, ‘there are some things which you cannot know.’ We make a great allowance for Mr Douglass’s exaggerated self-appreciation, and for the necessities of his position, as an orator bound to furnish an exciting pabulum to a not very refined audience. Yet surely ‘he cannot but know’ that Dr Cunningham and the Free Church look upon George Thompson and his party, with regret certainly in so far as the slave is concerned, but with utter indifference and contempt in so far as they themselves are concerned.
We observe that a local Anti-Slavery Society is about to be formed. If this society is to be really an Anti-Slavery one, we heartily wish it success, and shall gladly lend it any assistance in our power. If, however, it is merely intended to echo the cry of ‘Send back the money,’ and repeat the abuse which Garrison and the others heap upon Christian churches and ministers, we must be excused for regarding it with extreme contempt. Its cause is a bad one, and the means at its disposal ludicrously inadequate. The consultations of a few obscure local worthies are not very likely to effect a reversal of the deliberately-formed judgment of Christendom, – more especially as the proceedings of these worthies can scarcely, by any chance, be ever heard of by the parties whose sentiments are meant to be influenced.
Northern Warder, 1 October 1846
NOTES
William Lloyd Garrison to Richard D. Webb, Glasgow, 30 September; in The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison. Volume 3: No Union with Slave-Holders, edited by Walter M. Merrill (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 430; see also William Lloyd Garrison to Liberator, Belfast, 3 October 1846; in The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison. Volume 3, p. 433. The abolitionists were often forced to change venue at short notice: the meeting in Dundee on 10 March, for instance, was originally to have taken place at Ward Chapel, but, permission withdrawn, it was moved to Gilfillan’s Church on School Wynd.
Report of the proceedings of a public meeting, held in the Steeple Church, Dundee, on the evening of Friday the 23d November 1832: for the purpose of forming and Anti-Slavery Society for the town and neighbourhood (Dundee: Dundee Anti-Slavery Society, 1832).
Garrison is referring to the scathing report of a meeting of the Anti-Slavery League at the Exeter Hall in London on 14 September 1846 entitled ‘Messrs Lloyd Garrison & Co, and the Evangelical Alliance,’ Northern Warder, 24 September 1846.
D.T., ‘To Mr George Thompson,’ Northern Warder, 30 July 1846.
W.L.A., ‘Was Abraham a Slaveholder?’ Scottish Congregational Magazine (September 1846), p. 434.
On Tuesday 2 June, the four abolitionists – Frederick Douglass, James Buffum, George Thompson and Henry Clarke Wright – appeared before a packed meeting at the Music Hall on George Street. It was their first chance to give their impressions on the debate on slavery at the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, which they had attended on Saturday 30 May.
The topic was a controversial one. Ever since sending a deputation to the United States in 1843–44, and receiving donations from churches in the slave-holding states, the Free Church’s willingness to maintain relations with its American counterparts was much criticised, even by some ministers and congregations within the Free Church itself. The matter was discussed at the General Assembly of 1844, but rather than giving in to demands that it withdraw fellowship from the American churches, the leadership insisted that the Assembly should seek clarification of the position of their transatlantic colleagues. The matter was referred to a committee, which submitted an interim report in September 1844, and a copy was sent to the United States.
The compromise already conceded too much for some of the Southern Presbyterians, notably Dr Thomas Smyth of Charleston, South Carolina, who corresponded with Thomas Chalmers, berating him for hesitating to defend the slaveholding churches. But the official response to the report did not arrive until May 1845, too late to be debated at the General Assembly that year. And so the matter had to wait another twelve months before it could be debated again, after overtures on the subject of slavery were presented by the Synods of Sutherland and Caithness and of Angus and Mearns, as well as a petition from elders and other members of the Church in Dundee.
On 30 May 1846, Chalmers’ younger colleagues, Robert Candlish and William Cunningham, made it clear that they believed there were definite shortcomings in the attitude of the American Presbyterian Churches. However, they were not so serious as to warrant the Free Church severing all connection with them. The Free Church adopted the view that while slavery was a sin, being a slaveholder was not, and was content to urge its American counterparts to recognise that slaveholding carried with it a range of moral obligations.
Not surprisingly, the abolitionists were dismayed by the way this compromise succeeded in marginalising the critics within the Free Church such as James MacBeth, ‘who,’ as Douglass put it, ‘had the courage to stand forth and face the triumvirate’ of Chalmers, Candlish and Cunningham. MacBeth and others would go on to form the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society, which would attempt to revive the discussion at the General Assembly in 1847, but with little success.1
For an overview of Douglass’s activities in Edinburgh during the year, see Spotlight: Edinburgh.
AMERICAN SLAVERY & THE FREE CHURCH
A public meeting was held in the Music Hall on Tuesday evening, for the purpose of hearing the Anti-Slavery deputation enter into a review of the proceedings of the Assembly of the Free Church on Saturday, in reference to communion with slaveholders. Councillor Stott occupied the chair, and the hall was densely crowded, many being unable to obtain admission.
The Chairman stated, that he had proceeded to the Free Assembly with the address which he had been voted at a previous meeting upon the subject of slavery, but that rev. body had declined to receive it.
Mr Buffum addressed the meeting at some length. He said, the leaders of the Free Church had attempted to make the people believe that the deputation held extreme and extravagant views; but the views they entertained were, that they believed that God had created all men equal, and endowed him with certain inalienable rights, and that immediate emancipation, without regard to circumstances, was the duty of the master, and the right of the slave. (Applause.) They had been charged with disturbing the peace of the Free Church, but they were not the aggressors. That body had sent out a deputation to the United States and when there they met them with earnest entreaties not to interfere in their endeavours to establish the principle that Christianity had nothing to do with slavery, and that the slaveholder should not be allowed to connect himself with it; but the Free Church disregarded their remonstrances, and came in and sanctioned the opposite principle.
Mr Douglass said, the tone of the speeches delivered in the Free Assembly was far more in favour of slavery than he had any idea they would be; and he had never heard, even in the United States, more open and palpable defences of slaveholding than those he listened to on Saturday. He never heard anything more calculated to steel the consciences of slaveholders than the remarks then made, and the spirit manifested on that occasion in favour of holding Christian communion with them; and the best way possible for maintaining slavery in the United States, was to make out a case of excellence of character for the slaveholders. He could not help remarking the manner in which the leaders of the Free Assembly treated those who differed from them, as was evinced in the case of Mr Macbeth, who had the courage to stand forth and face the triumvirate. (Applause.) They treated him as if he had been a dog; and when they rose to reply to him, they treated him in the most contemptible manner.
Another point, he remarked, was their entire silence in regard to the money. They pretended that the money question was not connected with the discussion of the subject, but he maintained that it was, and he charged them anew with having gone to a slaveholding country and taken the price of human flesh, having in return given to slaveholders the right hand of Christian fellowship.
Mr Douglass then proceeded to combat the argument, that because slaveholding was recognised by the law, it extenuated the guilt of the slaveholder, and went on to remark that he was surprised at the power which the leaders of the Free Church Assembly exercised. He could easily see in Dr Candlish a degree of self-confidence, of self complacency, of pride, and a manifest spirit of domination over men, and a determination to lash every one who differed from him in reference to this question. His indignation was not only kindled against him for his conduct to the slave, but he was indignant to see such a measure of moral and religious intelligence as was presented on that occasion bowing submissively to the pontifical dictation of that gentleman.
He concluded by calling upon all other churches to decline communion with the Free Church unless she at once disavowed fellowship with the slaveholding churches of America. (Applause.)
Mr Wright said he wondered at the recklessness and impudence of the leaders of the Free Church in persisting in denying facts which have been repeatedly laid before the people of Scotland. It had been said that slavery existed only in a small portion of the United States. Now, there were fourteen slaveholding states, each of which is nearly as large as Great Britain, and in all of which the system of slavery exists in all its features. The political influence of those slaveholding states is so powerful, that they have always exercised a strong control over the Government; and as to their ecclesiastical influence, it was so powerful as to compel the repeal, in 1816, of an Act passed by the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America in 1794, declaring that every slaveholder was a man-stealer. With reference to the law of the state, and the argument attempted to be founded thereon, all he could was, that when God told him to do one thing, and the state another, he put his heel upon the state. There was a spirit of slavery lurking in the hearts of the leaders of the Free Church – they were linking the destiny of that Church with man-stealers, and they would assuredly meet the doom of man-stealers if they continued to hold connection with them. (Applause.)
Mr George Thompson was received with much applause. He said, the question before Scotland, before Great Britain, and before the Christian world at this moment was, the dogmas and doctrines of the Free Church of Scotland, versus the law of God, the spirit and prospects of Christianity, and the claims of universal humanity. He had been told that he had no right to interfere in this question; that it was one of intercommunion between church and church – and question of ecclesiastical polity and discipline. Had the Free Church not meddled with slavery, gone beyond the confines of this kingdom, quitted the shores of England, traversed the blue waves of the Atlantic, fraternized with the slaveholders the right hand of fellowship, called them Christians on the spot, and mingled with them around that table on which were placed the elements, the symbols of the Saviour’s passion, and of his universal love for men – had they not come home again, bringing with them the supplies which they had gathered in these States from slaveholders, and had they not on their return fellowshipped these men, treated them as Christians before the world, demanded for them admission into the churches of this country, and recognition there as standing types of Christ – and had they not by these acts injured the cause of humanity, libelled that gospel which he had been preaching (though not in the pulpit) for the last fifteen years, and a period of that time at the hazard of his life – had he not perceived the slaveholder elevated to the communion table of the Free Church, he never would have been there to review the conduct of that body. (Applause.)
Their object that night was to review the proceedings of that Church; they had now no other object. He was now done with masked and unmasked pamphleteers; and the one issued would never have been replied to by him, but that he might by doing so expose, by writing up the man, what sort of people his masters were. (Applause.) Their object was with the Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland – with those 300 or 400 men calling themselves ministers of Christ, the champions of independence, the opponents of Erastianism, the professed successors of John Knox, who cowered in the presence of Messrs Cunningham and Candlish, for there was not a Knox among them who had this courage in his soul for once to come forward and offer one word in reply. (Applause.)
They have done, then, with anonymous writers or any writers. Their course was this – and till that Assembly met again it would be their course – to denounce through the length and breadth of the land, the horrid, God-denying, man-enslaving theology which was preached to the Assembly on Saturday, and to which an assembly of 2000 persons said amen.
It was a vital question. He asked, for what purpose did the Free Church preach the Gospel? They maintained that the streams they sent forth throughout Scotland were pure and healthful; but if those streams were impure, they had to do with the Free Church of Scotland, for a man may not drink of those streams without injury to his morality, his Christianity, his humanity, and they should try to roll them back to their fountain, or stop up the fountain itself. (Applause.) He would ask if it was a just exposition of the law of Christ to teach the horrid doctrine that ‘God has placed men in circumstances in which it would be sin to give liberty to their captives,’ and that ‘the Apostles welcomed to the Lord’s table,’ and to the privileges and ordinances of religion, men whose hands were imbrued in the blood of their fellowmen? (Applause.)
That was the question; and when those men went to London, the walls of London should be covered with that specimen of their theology, as were those of this city.
They told him that he preached a new doctrine, a strange doctrine; when, they sat at his feet in 1836, and heard the doctrine and applauded it.
The Free Church leaders talked of a kind of slavery which had no existence, but they talked of slaveholders now living, they stated where they lived, how they became possessed of their slaves, and the manner in which they treated them. Mr Thompson then read copious extracts from decisions given in the courts of the United States in reference to the power of the master over the slave, in which it was laid down by the Judge, that the authority of the master could not be permitted to be discussed – that he must have absolute control over his slaves to extort obedience, and that there is no limitation to the punishment which a master may inflict upon his slave.
He then referred to the fact of his having placed a volume in the hands of Dr Cunningham some years ago on the subject of slavery in America; after perusing which the Reverend Doctor declared to him that it had placed that subject, and especially the slaveholding Churches of America, before his eyes in such a light that he was filled with indescribable horror, and recommended the circulation of the work throughout Scotland. That work recommended the excommunication of every slaveholder from the Church of Christ, to which the Rev. Doctor assented.2
He continued – If the Free Church had considered it neccesary to send a deputation to America, they might have visited the other states of the Union, where they would have received a warm sympathy; but they who, for twelve years, had been unceasingly pouring out their invectives upon the American slaveholders, kicking to the winds the remonstrances put into their hands against holding fellowship with the slave states, proceeded to the Southern States, and to the very churches whom they had been overwhelming with their anathemas.
Did they take a deliverance with them upon the subject of slavery? No; but they sent one when they got home. They ought to have proclaimed their creed when there. That they did not; for when they visited those states they became dumb, that they might win gold; they passed through the plantation where the slaves were toiling for their tyrants, and were dumb; they heard the cracking of the whip, and were dumb; passed the slave-pens and auction blocks and prison-houses, and were dumb; and they sat in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, and were dumb. These successors of Knox were dumb. (Applause.) ‘We have stood in the presence of Kings,’ say they, ‘and have spoken out;’ but they stood in the presence of the slaveholder, and were dumb. They spoke out when their own liberties were attacked, and yet were dumb when three millions of helpless human beings appealed to them. (Applause.)
Not until Dr Candlish assumed a little more humility, until he ceased to ride rough-shod over the Assembly, he should very strongly suspect that if he lost his stipend, he gained what to him might be better than money – the gratification of his ambition. (Applause.)
He could not look without loathing upon the proceedings of that Assembly, previous to the meeting of which every man that was suspected was curry-combed in private; and if the secrets of the manoeuvres practised for the last twelve months, to bring about the result of Saturday last could be known, the people of Scotland would regard the people of that Church with pity, and overwhelm their leaders with scorn and indignation. (Great applause.) There were men in that Assembly who had stood on the same platform with him, and spoken against the accursed system of slavery and whose hearts, he was convinced, were burning to speak out on Saturday; and why did they not? He commended them for not quailing before these men; but the men who brought about that result, by whatever means, whether by motives of a temporal character, or threats of spiritual discipline, – the result was brought about, and he said and held that it was not done honestly, but dishonestly, and furtively, and tyrannically. (Immense applause.)
But he would proceed to the consideration of their proceedings. After the deputation came home from America, the Assembly in 1844 adopted a deliverance denouncing slavery in as mild a manner as possible, and which as sent out to America. In the following year they came to another deliverance upon the same subject, condemning it in sufficiently strong terms, yet it now turns out that it was never sent to America. Dr Candlish wrote it, he passed it through the Commission, and through the Assembly, and yet he stood upon and said, ‘I am not aware of its having been sent to America.’ He did not say that he did not know, but he was not aware – no other man but Dr Candlish would have used the expression. (Applause.)
Why was it not sent? Again, they said that they were compelled to state the sentiments they uttered, because men out of the Church have taken up an extravagant ground. You never would have said these things if you had not been driven to it! If it was the Gospel, why did you not preach it? I declared those views in 1836 in your hearing, and you did not contradict me – it is a gold pill that has so much enlightened you? (Applause.) Would it not be more honest to say, you have convicted us of these things, you call upon us to renounce these slaveholders and their money, but we will preach these doctrines rather than send back the money. (Applause.)
They had made us poor abolitionists responsible for the ebullition of feeling manifested for the slaveholder, and they sympathise with them because they themselves know what was the annoyance, irritation, and indignation occasioned by the treatment they had received at the hands of the abolitionists of Scotland. They urged them to leave the abolition of slavery to the silent, gradual, and almost imperceptible influence of Christianity – Christianity is to do it, but it is not to be pointed at – Christianity is to sweep slavery from the face of the earth, but Christianity and slavery are to be united together. That is their doctrine. Granting that slavery existed in the primitive Churches, he found that in two and a half centuries after the propagation of Christianity slavery had disappeared. Why does not Christianity in the present day sweep away slavery? Why is it found, 1600 years after the period spoken of, existing as an institution in America? Who planted the tree? – Christians, nominally; who waters the root of that tree from age to age – who prunes the branches and gives luxuriance to the fruit? – Christians; and yet Dr Candlish told them they were to leave it to Christianity to get rid of the system.
The Free Church professed to have a great interest in the Gaelic schools, and a ball was lately held, the surplus funds arising from which were offered to that body, but not one farthing would they take of it. No; they were as pure as the snow on the summit of Benlomond. ‘Know you not,’ said they, ‘we are the Free Church of Scotland, we may have to beg from door to door, but we shall not take money arising from balls.’ The ball took place in Edinburgh, and it might have brought a scandal upon the Church to take its proceeds; but they went to America and took money there, and that they might keep it, represented the slaveholder as a saint, while they denounced the beautiful girl dancing on the floor of the Assembly Rooms as a sinner whose contributions could not be received. (Applause.) ‘Ye hypocrites, ye strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’
Mr Thompson then read a number of extracts from the constitution of the primitive churches in the third century, one part of which prohibited contributions being taken from those who used their domestics badly. He also showed that St Cyprian caused a collection to be made in order to purchase the freedom of some Numidian slaves in Alexandria.
He then proceeded – Be prepared for some new juggle. The deliverance adopted in 1845, and presented to Scotland as the opinion of the Free Church on American slavery, was never sent; an answer has been received to a former epistle, but it is not replied to. They have shirked the whole question – they never mentioned the money, nor spoke of slaveholding as a sin; and they misrepresented the extent of the system. Beware of a new juggle; as soon as this is exhausted, they will invent something else to deceive the people of Scotland. I put it to your consciences if you will accept of this theology? (Cries of ‘No.’)
Will you, upon Dr Cunningham’s dictum, that Philemon was a slaveholder, have fellowship with American slaveholders? You need not perplex yourself with the meaning of Greek words; you need not go beyond your own hearts to settle this question; and most sure am I, that you will reject every doctrine as impious and blasphemous that is most consistent with the mind of God, and opposed to the dictates of humanity. (Great applause.)
The large meeting then dispersed.
Edinburgh Evening Post, 6 June 1846
AMERICAN SLAVERY AND THE FREE CHURCH. – On Tuesday night another enthusiastic meeting was held in the Music Hall. It had been previously announced that ‘the Free Church theology, on the subject of American slavery, as propounded in the Free Assembly on Saturday last,’ would be handled. The crush was great – so much so, that one shilling was repeated offered for admission and refused. The speakers were Mr Buffum, Mr Douglass, Mr Wright, and Mr Thompson. All of them dwelt more or less on the reception they met with on Saturday at the Canonmills Hall, and on the ‘pro-slavery’ views advocated on that occasion.
Mr Douglass spoke at considerable length, and in very severe terms, of the conduct of the Free Church leaders. He had read the speeches of these leaders, but their exhibition on Saturday was far more pro-slavery than even he anticipated. Their whole soul, he asserted, seemed to be engrossed about the condition of the slaveholder, but never a syllable of sympathy in regard to the unhappy slave. Dr Cunningham had contended that slavery was the law of the land, and therefore those who held slaves could not be looked upon as sinners; but he (Mr Douglass) would say to Dr Cunningham, ‘Why not set the law at defiance?’ He had done so before, at the late disruption in the Establishment, but it did not suit his purpose to do it now. He (Mr Douglass) firmly believed that if polygamy was the law of the land, Dr Cunningham was the man who would countenance it; and had he been called on to fall down and worship the image at the sound of timbrel, sackbut, and psaltery, he would have done so.
At great length, Mr Douglas, and also Mr Thomson, who followed him, condemned what they called the ‘miserable sophistry and casuistry of Candlish, Cunningham, & Co;’ and that they were hoodwinking, cajoling, and playing the part of jugglers to their deluded followers.
It was announced there would be another meeting this week, and a soiree next week.
Caledonian Mercury, 4 June 1846
AMERICAN SLAVERY AND THE FREE CHURCH. – Another public meeting on this subject, specially to consider the speeches delivered by Drs Cunningham and Candlish in the Free Church Assembly on Saturday, was held in the Music Hall last night – Councillor Stott in the chair.Long before the commencement of the proceedings, the hall was crammed in every corner, and many hundreds surrounded the doors, unable to gain admittance.
The meeting was addressed in succession by Messrs Buffum, Douglas, Wright and Thompson, in speeches which elicited enthusiastic applause; but from the late hour at which the proceedings terminated, and the want of space, we cannot to-day attempt anything like a report. In the course of his speech, Mr Thompson stated, by way of showing the progress of the opinions he advocated, that Mr Begg, who had said that the agitation was ‘a nine-days’ wonder which would soon be put down,’ had had to bid good-bye to his elders, in consequence of the proceedings of the Assembly on Saturday. This announcement was received with immense applause; but we did not exactly catch whether Mr Thompson said elders or only elder.
Another meeting for the same purpose was announced to be held in the same place on the evening of Thursday.
Scotsman, 3 June 1846
Notes
For an in-depth coverage, see Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012); also Richard Blackett, Building an Anti-Slavery Wall: Black Americans in the Atlantic Abolitionist Movement, 1830–1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983) and Alasdair Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018), pp. 46–75.
Thompson is referring here to A Picture of Slavery in the United States of America (Glasgow: University Press, 1835). The Preface to this Scottish edition was unsigned. At a speech in Paisley on 25 April, Thompson claimed that Cunningham wrote the Preface. However, according to a report of a meeting on Thursday 30 April at South College Street Church, Edinburgh, Thompson remarked that he had received a letter from Dr Cunningham which stated ‘that he was not the author of the preface to the book “A Picture of American Slavery,” which was republished in this country in 1835’: Scotsman, 2 May 1846.
We reproduce below the account of all three meetings from the pamphlet Free Church Alliance with Manstealers, followed by a more detailed report of the Music Hall speeches in the Edinburgh Evening Post. A much briefer report of the same meeting in the Scotsman is appended.
For an overview of Douglass’s activities in Edinburgh during the year, see Spotlight: Edinburgh.
PUBLIC BREAKFAST
IN HONOUR OF MESSRS. THOMPSON, WRIGHT, DOUGLASS, AND BUFFUM, IN THE WATERLOO ROOMS
Friday Morning, May 1st.
At half-past eight, the Assembly Room was filled with a most respectable audience – JOHN WIGHAM, Junr. Esq. occupied the chair. On his right and left were the guests intimated to be honoured, and a large number of the well-known and most influential friends of the cause of abolition in Edinburgh. At the conclusion of the breakfast,
The CHAIRMAN rose and said – We are met here this morning to pay a tribute of respect and love to those whom we have invited to this breakfast. (Cheers.) They are gentlemen of whom I may say the more see of them, the more we know of their [56] principles and actions, the more we esteem and love them. (Cheers.)
I am sure we all hail with delight the presence of our esteemed friend George Thompson (Loud applause.) We have all witnessed his labours in years that are past, and I do not hesitate to say that, under the guidance of Divine Providence, he has been one of the most efficient instruments in promoting the blessed cause of human freedom. He now appears once more among us in his old character. (Cheers.)
As a member of the Edinburgh Committee, I think we may say we have done what we could. We have sought to place this question of the slaveholders’ money in its true light. You have most of you seen our correspondence on the subject, and I trust have read the excellent pamphlet of my friend Dr. Greville. (Hear.)
At length my friend G. Thompson has come, whose powerful voice is like a six ton hammer. (Laughter and cheers.) He has only been here a few days, but a mighty sensation has been produced, and I doubt not the happiest effects will follow. (Cheers.) It must not be forgotten, that our dear friend is engaged in arduous labours in London, connected with India, especially in his attempts to place a most worthy prince upon his throne, from which he has been unjustly hurled by the East India Company; and I firmly believe that the uncompromising efforts of my friend will be successful.1(Cheers.)
He and our other friends who are from the United States will now address us. We meet for a friendly interchange of opinions, and to learn what we can do for the poor slave. It is my desire that we should welcome and support all who are engaged in the sacred cause of human rights, and prove to them that we have no prejudices which prevent us from cordially co-operating with those who are sincerely and disinterestedly labouring in this vineyard. Let us do what we can, and wish God-speed to all who are struggling for justice to the oppressed.
Interesting addresses were then delivered by Mr. Thompson and his companions.
Mr. Douglass especially enchained the attention of his audience, by the narration of a number of anecdotes relating to himself and other slaves, who had escaped from bondage. This gentleman exercises a wonderful power over the sympathies of his audience. He is alternately humorous and grave – argumentative and declamatory – lively and pathetic. While there is an entire absence of the appearance of any effort after effect, there is the most perfect identity of the speaker with the subject on which he is dwelling, and an extraordinary power of rousing corresponding feelings in the minds of those whom he addresses. This power was singularly manifested on this occasion, and none, we think, who heard him, will ever forget the impression produced upon themselves, or the effect produced upon others.
The entertainment evidently afforded the highest and purest satisfaction to all present. The audience retired at 12 o’clock.
MEETING OF THE EDINBURGH LADIES’ EMANCIPATION SOCIETY IN THE WATERLOO ROOMS
Friday Morning, May the 1st
After the breakfast, the gentlemen who had been entertained, met the ladies and friends of this Society. One of the smaller [57] rooms was crowded to excess. Mr. Wigham again occupied the chair. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Douglass addressed the meeting. At the conclusion of their speeches a resolution was proposed, and carried unanimously, pledging the Society to renewed exertions, and expressive of earnest sympathy with the friends from America, and their co-adjutors on the other side of the Atlantic. A list of names was then taken down of ladies volunteering to furnish contributions to the next Bazaar to the Boston Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society.
MEETING IN THE MUSIC HALL.
Friday Evening, May 1.
This noble and spacious building was crowded to overflowing with a most respectable audience. The admission was by tickets, sixpence each. About 2000 persons were present.
Mr. DOUGLASS delivered a long and eloquent address. The first part of his speech described the condition of the condition of the coloured population in the United States, and the treatment which those persons had received who had nobly sought to succour them. The last part of his address was a severe denunciation of those in this country, who had confederated with the slaveholders of America; and, to hide the obliquity and enormity of their act, had recently employed themselves in defaming, ridiculing, and stigmatising himself and his colleagues. None who heard the withering castigation bestowed by Mr. Douglass on the Rev. Mr. Macnaughtan of Paisley, who had branded him as ‘a miserable and ignorant fugitive slave,’ will ever forget it Poor Mr. Macnaughtan! was the cry of many, while listening to the biting satire and annihilating retorts of the ‘fugitive,’ who charged the reverend sneerer with taking from the sustenation fund, for his own benefit, that which ought to have been applied to the education of his coloured brethren.
Mr. BUFFUM made a short but effective speech.
Mr. THOMPSON followed, but as we understand that gentleman purposes to prepare his speech for the press, we shall not attempt so much as an outline of it Suffice it to say, it was an examination of the opinions of Dr. Chalmers, on the subject of slavery, at various periods during the last twenty years, and an irrefragable demonstration, that Dr. Chalmers is, on the showing of the deliverance of the Assembly last year, a sinner of the deepest dye; inasmuch as he has, throughout his writings, contended for the sacredness of slave property – a doctrine which the Assembly say none can entertain, without being guilty of a sin of the most heinous kind.
The feeling manifested by the audience on this occasion, exceeded that evinced at any of the previous meetings. The exhibition of the view of Dr. Chalmers, contained in his tract, entitled, ‘Thoughts on Slavery,’ and the contrast of these views with the principles laid down in the deliverance, seemed to transfix the audience, with what a person present described, as ‘mute horror. During this part of Mr. Thompson’s address, the emotions of those present were too deep for utterance. The unanimous burst of applause which followed the appeal to the audience, [58] to testify if the speaker had made out his case against the Doctor, proved that the conviction was universal, that such was the fact.
Mr H. C. WRIGHT then proposed the following resolutions, which were adopted by show of hands, not a hand being raised against them, and so far as could be seen, all voting for them.
1st. That the Free Church Deputation, in going to the slave states of America to form alliance with slave-holders, and to share their plunder, virtually rejected Christianity as a law of life; Christ, as a Redeemer from sin; and God, as the impartial governor of the universe – inasmuch as they pledged themselves and the Free Church, whose agents they were, to receive to their embrace as ‘respectable, honoured and evangelical Christians,’ men whose daily life is a denial of the existence of a just and impartial God, and a violation of the fundamental principles of Christianity; therefore, by our respect for man as the image of God, and as our equal brother; by our faith in Christ as our Redeemer; and by our belief in a just and impartial God; we pledge ourselves never to cease our efforts, until the Free Church shall send back the money obtained of slave-holders, and annul her covenant with death, and cease to hold up man-stealers as living epistles for Christ.
2d. That the members of the Free Church owe it as a duty to God and man to come out from her communion, if, after due admonition, her leaders, Drs. Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, cease not to join hands with thieves, and to seek the fruits of their crimes and pollutions to build Free Churches – thus making themselves and all who concur with them accessories to the unutterable horrors of slave-breeding and slave-trading.
What must be the deep conviction, and stern resolution and powerful excitement of the public mind when such resolutions are adopted unanimously by such a meeting, after full and mature consideration? It was the settled conviction of the audience that every slave-holder is a standing type of infidelity and atheism; and that in their consenting to vouch for his Christianity, Drs. Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, do virtually reject Christ as a Redeemer from sin, and deny the existence of a just and impartial God.
Mr. WRIGHT then proposed to adjourn to Tuesday evening, the 5th of May, to meet in the same place, to review the speeches and writing of Dr. Candlish on this great question. (Cheers.) Doctors Chalmers and Cunningham had been reviewed, their apologies for man-stealers fully answered, and their efforts to keep the people of the Free Church in loving communion with slave-breeders and slave-traders had received a merited rebuke. Dr. Candlish had made himself most conspicuous in this conspiracy against three millions of slaves, and in this attempt to introduce man-stealers to social respectability and Christian communion in Great Britain – Let us have one more meeting to consider Dr. Candlish. (Cheers.)
The proposition to adjourn the meeting was received with loud applause. The audience then slowly and quietly retired, as if deeply impressed with the solemnity and weight of what had been uttered.
Free Church Alliance with Manstealers. Send Back the money. Great Anti-Slavery Meeting in the City Hall, Glasgow, Containing Speeches Delivered by Messrs. Wright, Douglass, and Buffum, from America, and by George Thompson, Esq. of London; with a Summary Account of a Series of Meetings Held in Edinburgh by the Above Named Gentlemen (Glasgow: George Gallie, 1846), pp. 55-58.
AMERICAN SLAVERY & THE FREE CHURCH
A fourth meeting was held on Friday evening in the Music Hall, which was crowded to excess in every quarter.
Mr Thompson, in opening the proceedings, stated that arrangement had been entered into for the purpose of placing before the public, in a cheap form, a complete record of the proceedings of the Deputation in Edinburgh and Glasgow; and concluded by introducing to the meeting Mr Frederick Douglas, the runaway slave.
Mr Douglas was received with much applause. He said, that one of the greatest drawbacks to the progress of the Anti-slavery cause in the United States was the inveterate prejudices which existed against the coloured population. They were looked on in every place as beasts rather than men; and to be connected in any manner with a slave – or even with a coloured freeman, was considered as humbling and degrading. Among all ranks of society in that country, the poor outcast coloured man was not regarded as possessing a moral or intellectual sensibility, and all considered themselves entitled to insult and outrage his feelings with impunity. Thanks to the labours of the abolitionists, however, that feeling was now broken in upon, and was, to a certain extent, giving way; but the distinction is still as broad as to draw a visible line of demarcation between the two classes. If the coloured man went to church to worship God, he must occupy a certain place assigned for him; as if the coloured skin was designed to be the mark of an inferior mind, and subject the possessor to the contumely, insult, and disdain of many a white man, with a heart as black as the exterior of the despised negro. (Cheers.)
[MADISON WASHINGTON AND THE CREOLE]
Mr Douglas then alluded to the case of Maddison Washington, an American slave, who with some others escaped from bondage, but was retaken, and put on board the brig Creole. They had not been more than seven or eight days at sea when Maddison resolved to make another effort to regain his lost freedom. He communicated to some of his fellow-captives his plan of operations; and in the night following carried them into effect. He got on deck, and seizing a handspike, struck down the captain and mate, secured the crew, and cheered on his associates in the cause of liberty; and in ten minutes was master of the ship. (Cheers.) The vessel was then taken to a British port (New Providence), and when there the crew applied to the British resident for aid against the mutineers. The Government refused – (cheers) – they refused to take all the men as prisoners; but they gave them this aid – they kept 19 as prisoners, on the ground of mutiny, and gave the remaining 130 their liberty. (Loud cheers.) They were free men the moment they put their foot on British soil, and their freedom was acknowledged by the judicature of the land. (Cheers.)
But this was not relished by brother Jonathan – he considered it as a grievous outrage – a national insult; and instructed Mr Webster, who was then Secretary of State, to demand compensation from the British Government for the injury done; and characterised the noble Maddison Washington as being a murderer, a tyrant, and a mutineer. And all this for the punishment of an act, which, according to all the doctrines ‘professed’ by Americans, ought to have been honoured and rewarded. (Cheers.) It was considered no crime for America, as a nation, to rise up and assert her freedom in the fields of fight; but when the poor African made a stroke for his liberty it was declared to be a crime, and he punished as a villain – what was an outrage on the part of the black man was an honour and a glory to the white; and in the Senate of that country – ‘the home of the brave and the land of the free’ – there were not wanting the Clays, the Prestons, and the Calhouns, to stand up and declare that it was a national insult to set the slaves at liberty, and demand reparation – these men who were at all times ready to weep tears of red hot iron – (cheers and laughter) – for the oppressed monarchical nations of Europe, now talked about being ready to go all lengths in defence of the national honour, and present an unbroken front to England’s might. (Loud cheers.)
But the British Government, undismayed by the vapouring of the slave-holders, sent Lord Ashburton to tell them – just in a civil way – (laughter) – that they should have no compensation, and that the slaves should not be returned to them – (loud cheers) – thus giving practical effect to the great command – ‘Break the bonds, and let the oppressed go free.’ (Great cheering.)
He remembered himself, while travelling through the United States happening, to be the unknown companion of some gentleman inside of a coach. It was dark when he entered, and they had no opportunity of examining into his features; and during the night a spirited conversation was kept up – so much so that he absolutely for once began to think he was considered a man, and had a soul to be saved. (Cheers.) But morning came, and with it light – (laughter) – which enabled his companions to ascertain the colour of his skin, and there was an end to all their conversation. One of them stooped down, and looking under his hat, exclaimed to his neighbour ‘I say Jem, he’s a nigger,’ kick him out.’ (Cheers and laughter.) That was a specimen of the manner in which the outcast coloured man was treated in the land of freedom and liberty. (Cheers.)
[THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND]
Well, to the land where these things were practised, and practised openly, a Deputation from the Free Church of Scotland came, commissioned to go forth and lift up their voices, and ask aid in defence of religious liberty – the liberty of conscience. They visited the slave States; where they saw God’s image abused, defaced, flogged, driven as a brute beast, and suffered to pass from time to eternity without even an intimation that they had a soul to be saved, – they saw this, and lifted not their testimony against it – (cheers, and cries of ‘shame, shame’) – no comforting hand was held out to the crushed and broken spirit of the slave – (cheers) – but they cringingly preached only such doctrines as they knew would be acceptable to the slaveholder and the man stealer. (Loud cheers.)
He would rather suffer to exhibit on his hands the burning brand of ‘S.S.’ (slave stealer) which some of his abolition brethren could do, and suffer the persecutions and dangers to which they had bee subjected, than bear on his head the sin which lay at the door of that deputation – the moral responsibility which their acts involved, and the respectability which their implied sanction gave to the traffickers in human blood. (Immense cheering, – three distinct rounds of applause.)
The feeling of prejudice, however, against the slave was not altogether confined to the United States – (hear, hear, from Dr Ritchie), – there were men in this country, too, ministers of the Gospel of Christ, who could point the finger of scorn at the ‘fugitive slave.’ There was the Rev. Mr M’Naughton of Paisley – supported by such papers as the Northern Warder and the Witness – who did not hesitate to brand him (Mr Douglas) when he visited Paisley, as a poor, ignorant, miserable fugitive slave – (loud cries of shame, shame); and what more did he say? Did he say that he would ‘send back the money!?’ (Loud cheers and laughter.) No, no, that would have been humbling to him, and insulting to the gentlemen of the New States, for whom he said he had the highest regard. Oh yes, he had given so much ‘regard’ to the purse-proud slaveholder that he had none left to bestow on the poor degraded slave. (Loud cheers.)
Now, he (Mr Douglas) did not expect such things as these when he came to this country – he did not expect to hear them from a minister of the gospel, but least of all did he expect to hear them from the Rev. Mr M’Naughton – (hear, hear,) a minister of the Free Church – man who had loaded his altar with the gold which, produced by the labour of the ‘fugitive slave,’ should have been employed in his education, and yet turns round and calls him ignorant – (loud cheers) – who built his churches with the earnings of the slave – wrung from him amidst tears of blood and sounds of woe – and yet slanders him now as a miserable fugitive. (Immense cheering.) He (Mr D) would not say that to a dog, after having taking his earnings – after having robbed him; yes, it was a hard word, but it was nothing else than robbery, he cared not who took it. (Cheers.)
But when was the money to be sent back? He would tell them; when the people of this country, out of the pale of the Free Church, came to the conclusions he had just shown them – when the full tide of popular indignation – and it was fast flowing just now – (cheers) – will not be withstood by that Church, and when her members became fully alive to the odium and disgrace they are incurring for the sake of clutching the stained hand of the man stealer – then shall the money be sent back. (Loud cheers.)
The present moment was just the very time to consider this question of Free Church contamination. They must not lay all the charge, however, on the United States – the Free Church, as a body, has given a respectability to slavery in American which it never before enjoyed – (hear, hear) – and henceforth they must bear their share of the responsibility attaching to it – the responsibility of the tears, and the agony of the slave; and the crime – the deep, black, damning crime – of the blood polluted man-stealer. (Great cheering, and some hisses.) They might rail against the ‘system,’ but so long as they sanctioned the results of that system they helped to prop up the fabric itself. (Cheers.)
He would go to the next meeting of the Free Assembly, and he believed they would not turn a deaf ear to his complaints. As they had listened to the slave-holder, surely they would not refuse to hear the slave – the ‘fugitive slave.’ (Loud cheers.) As they had received the money of the slaves, surely they would permit him to show cause why they should return it. But whether he should he heard or not, he would be there – (cheers) – and he would take his seat in a place where there would be no danger of his being overlooked or mistaken – for once seen, there was no danger of again mistaking him – (laughter) – and if he was not heard within the walls, he would take care that he would be heard without them. (Cheers.)
There was one thing which he wished to be distinctly understood, namely, that he did not abuse the Free Church for taking the money because she was the Free Church. Had it been the Relief, the Secession, or the Reformed Presbyterian, or even the Established Church itself, he would have pursued towards it the same uncompromising hostility he now showed to the Free. (Loud cheers.) But even now, he began to see something of a right spirit developing itself. Dr Candlish had moved, at a late preliminary meeting of the Evangelical Alliance, that no slaveholder should be admitted as a member. 2 (Cheers.) Why, was it come to this now, that the Evangelical Alliance was to be a purer body than the Free Church of Scotland? Why should the slave-holding, slave-selling minister be allowed to hold ‘Christian fellowship’ with the Free Church, and not with the Evangelical Alliance? – holding him as a brother in Edinburgh, and despising him as a man in Manchester? (Loud cheers.) That was a question which the voice of popular opinion would answer if Dr Candlish would not. He trusted that when the Assembly met, the same reverend doctor would make a similar motion there – repudiate the connection so disgracefully entered into – and SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Loud and prolonged cheering.)
Mr Buffum next addressed the meeting at considerable length, and showed the unmitigated horrors attendant on the slave trade under the very walls of the United States’ Senate, crowned with the emblem of liberty and freedom to all mankind. When he came to Dundee he called on the editor of the Northern Warder, the organ of the Free Church party in that quarter, and endeavoured to reason with him on the subject; but the reasons avowed for taking the money were amongst the most fallacious he ever heard. Had the Free Church not taken the money, they would never have been put to the trouble of inventing such paltry excuses as the following in justification of the course they had pursued.
The extract he would now read them was from the pen of the gentleman to whom he had before alluded: –
So far as we are personally concerned, says he, we must say that few questions have throughout appeared to us more free from difficulty and perplexity. If we want all in a good cause, we shall accept it freely and unhesitatingly from all who tender it. Whatever their creed, or their character, or the origin of their gains, it would make no difference, and constitute no difficulty in our eye, provided that they gave what they gave frankly and unconditionally, and did not ask us to receive it as specially derived from an unlawful source, so as to win from us an implied approbation of that source. If for a good cause, we say, a sum of money were placed in our hands unconditionally and without explanations, we should accept it, whoever the donor, asking no questions, for conscience sake.
But he (the editor of the Warder) went even farther, for he declared that although he had reason to believe that the giver was erring and criminal in some particular part of his conduct, still he would have accepted it – ‘asking no questions for conscience sake.’ (Cheers and laughter.) The article from which he had just quoted concluded by saying, that if the Free Church was to blame in taking the money, the cotton-spinners of Glasgow and Manchester were equally guilty, for they also had at some period made use of money, part of which was subscribed in the Slave States of America. (Laughter.)
Driven from point to point, and from position to position, these upholders of the Free Church had now descended so low as to dispute for character and standing in morality with the cotton-spinners of Manchester and Glasgow. (Great applause.)
Daniel O’Connell, the head of the Repeal agitation, when he was offered the blood stained dollars of the slave-dealer to further his darling project, refused to admit them into his treasury. (Loud cheers.) No, said he, take your money; we will not allow our honest cause to be contaminated with the price of the bodies and souls of the fettered slave. (Cheers.) And he accordingly ‘sent back the money.’3 (Great applause.) Let the Free Church take a lesson from the Irish patriot, and incalculable good would be the result. When the news reached the United States that their money had been refused by the Irish, the Repeal Associations over the length and breadth of the land were smashed to atoms and the agitation completely paralysed, and if the Free Church only followed the example – if they only ‘sent back the money,’ it would go far to strengthen the hands of the Abolitionists and send American slavery reeling to an early grave. (Great applause.)
Mr Thomson said he had received a great number of letters since he came to this city, not only giving him advice how to proceed, but holding out great hopes of his ultimate success. It was impssible that he could answer all these, he took this opportunity of returning his thanks to the writers, and he could assure them that he would endeavour, as far as possible, to carry out their suggestions. (Applause.)
A venerable father of the Free Church stated that if the money was to be sent back, it would not be done by yielding to clamour. Now, he (Mr Thompson) remembered well – it was not so long ago – (cheers) – when Dr Chalmers was as clamorous as any one – (cheers) – and did not hesitate to combine, and agitate, and clamour, through every city and town in Scotland, for the attainment of a great moral object. (Applause.) Let not the Free Church think to put down this agitation by any such means. He had been told that it was resolved on to try their strength on this point; and that they were prepared to say – ‘We won’t send back the money’ at the bidding of clamour, or at the bidding, or because of the unwarranted interference, of a third party. He was old enough to remember greater thanings than that being accomplished against as strong and powerful a body as that clerical triumvirate who were attempting to lord it over the public opinion of the people of Scotland. (Cheers.)
He remembered the time when Catholic Emancipation was carried by popular opinion – when the Test and Corporation Acts Repeal was carried against a majority of Churchmen – when the emancipation of the slaves was carried in the face of the West India interest – when the Reform Bill was passed triumphantly – and at the present moment they see almost abolished the whole system of the Corn laws. (Loud cheers.)
If the force of public opinion, therefore, was able to subdue to its mighty power, the influential party called the West India interest – the boroughmongers of the empire – and even the landed aristocracy of England, surely they need not despair of its influence being felt by Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish. (Loud cheers.) Although they did attempt to stem the tide of opinion, he believed there was still as much manly spirit in the Free Church itself as would snap the manacles which this clerical triumvirate were fruitlessly endeavouring to impose on the minds of the adherents to their cause. (Loud cheers.)
Mr Thompson then proceeded, at great length to criticise the conduct of Dr Chalmers in regard to this matter; and contrasted his preface to his last pamphlet, – ‘The Economics of the Free Church,’ with certain opinions promulgated by him on a previous occasion.
At the close of his address, the meeting, which was a most enthusiastic one throughout, separated.
Edinburgh Evening Post, 6 May 1846; reprinted Caledonian Mercury, 7 May 1846
AMERICAN SLAVERY. – A fourth meeting was held on Friday evening in the Music Hall, which was crowded to excess in every quarter. Mr Thompson, in opening the proceedings, stated that arrangements had been entered into for the purpose of placing before the public, in a cheap form, a complete recording of the proceedings of the deputation in Edinburgh and Glasgow; and concluded by introducing to the meeting Mr Frederick Douglas, the run-away slave, who, in a long and eloquent address, pointed out the horrors of American slavery, and declared that if the Free Church were to send back the money, it would go far to strengthen the hands of the American abolitionists, and to send slavery reeling to its grave. Mr Thompson then shortly addressed the meeting; and said that although Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish did attempt to stem the tide of public opinion on this subject, he believed that there was still as much manly spirit in the Free Church itself as would snap the manacles which this clerical triumvirate were fruitlessly endeavouring to impose on the minds of the adherents to their cause.
Scotsman, 6 May 1846
Notes
On Thompson’s interest in India see, Zoë Laidlaw, ””Justice to India – Prosperity to England – Freedom to the Slave!”: Humanitarian and Moral Reform Campaigns on India, Aborigines and American Slavery’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 22.2 (2012): 299–324 (309–24); Michael Fisher, Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian Travellers and Settlers in Britain 1600–1857 (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004), pp. 285–8; and Blair B. Kling, Partner in Empire: Dwarkanath Tagore and the Age of Enterprise in Eastern India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 167–78
The resolution was approved at a meeting of the Aggregate Committee of the Evangelical Alliance in Birmingham in March 1846: see Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, p.120; Richard Blackett, Building an Anti-Slavery Wall: Black Americans in the Atlantic Abolitionist Movement, 1830–1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 97.
In a notorious speech at a meeting of the Repeal Association in Dublin on 11 May 1843, Daniel O’Connell declared his intention to refuse ‘blood-stained money’ from pro-slavery Repeal groups in the United States. The speech was reported in the Liberator, 9 and 30 June 1843, and in the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Reporter, 9 August 1843.
On Saturday 25 April, Frederick Douglass and James Buffum made their seventh appearance in Paisley in less than six weeks. Alongside were George Thompson and Henry Clarke Wright, who had joined up with them in Glasgow a few days before.
Castlehead Church, Paisley, formerly West Relief Church
As the report in the Renfrewshire Advertiser indicates, they had intended to hold one meeting at the High Church, Church Hill, but with the invitation apparently withdrawn, they held two separate meetings running concurrently. One at the West Relief Church, Canal Street, the other at the Secession Church, Abbey Close, the speakers shuttling between the two.
The meetings were also addressed by the Congregational Methodist minister Rev C.J. Kennedy, Rev. Patrick Brewster and Rev. Robert Cairns of the Secession Church on George Street, who would host a ‘Great Anti-Slavery Meeting’ featuring Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison in September.
Several speakers responded to recent disparaging and insulting remarks made by Paisley’s Free Church minister Rev. John Macnaughtan (of the High Church, Orr Square), not least Douglass himself, who was the personal target of them.
For an overview of Frederick Douglass’ activities in Paisley during the year see: Spotlight: Paisley.
THE FREE CHURCH AND AMERICAN SLAVERY
PUBLIC MEETINGS – PAISLEY
In consequence of a threatened interdict, the meeting advertised in our last, to take place in the High Church, was not held in that building. Two places of meeting were opened, namely the West Relief Church, and the Secession Church, Abbey Close, and it was arranged that the various speakers should address both meetings. The former place of meeting was crowded to overflowing. We shall give the speeches at length, as they were delivered in the Relief Church, and append a brief summary of the proceedings which took place in the Secession Church.
WEST RELIEF CHURCH
Rev. C.J. Kennedy, who was unanimously called to the chair, stated that he believed they were all aware that the object of the present meeting was to take into consideration the conduct of the Free Church of Scotland in accepting of money from slaveholders, and in holding communion with them. In consequence, he said, of a disappointment in regard to the High Church, they had to open two places of meeting; but it was arranged that all the speakers should address each audience. It was binding on them to do to others as they would that they should do to them, and in coming forward this evening in reference to the Free Church, they were acting on that principle.
That important and influential body had, in many particulars, acted nobly, and he trusted they would still do nobly in other particulars. Were they guilty of any mistake or error in their public conduct, it would be their duty to point it out and endeavour to reclaim them from it. Those who came forward risked in a manner their reputation. They would be acting a foolish part in reflecting on the conduct of persons who held such a great sway as they did, if they were not conscious of being in the right. He deemed it their duty to point out this error of the Free Church.
Two years ago, he had felt it his duty to speak against receiving the money before it went into the treasury. He felt that the Free Church was then under trial, and that it would come forth unscathed. Much did he regret that his expectations had been disappointed and that the Free Church party had proceeded to justify their conduct in the matter, and by doing so had committed a grievous wrong. They have been guilty of proceedings which may have an extensive influence for evil, for so long as the system of slavery is countenanced by such parties, so long had they reason to fear that the foul sin would be perpetrated. It was only by holding it up clearly and strongly, until it became disreputable, that they could expect to accomplish their end. As the best friends of the Free Church, they wished them to come forward and redeem their honour.
God forbid that he should feel malice towards any human being. It was only in the exercise of christian feeling that they came forward. They spoke the language of love when they said, they wished them to acknowledge the truth, and to act upon it, so as to secure their own peace, prosperity, and influence in the world. Mr Kennedy then proceeded to introduce Mr Wright, who was well known as an able friend of the cause of abolition.
Mr Henry C. Wright, of America, then came forward and said, that he appeared before them as the advocate and agent of three millions of slaves. These slaves were held in bondage in a land of bibles, a land of churches and ministers, and schools, and colleges – in a land, not of heathens, but of professed christian men. They were held in subjection by men who professed themselves to be followers of him who came to break the yoke and let the oppressed go free.
He appeared before them on account of these slaves, and every man who had a heart to feel, who had a soul to save, was bound to exert himself for the slave. He would ask, what is the condition of these three million of human beings? He would call their attention to facts which have never been denied, and never would be denied, so long as slavery existed in America. They found three millions of human beings, for whom Christ Jesus shed his precious blood, were held to all intents and purposes as property.
They were compelled to live without marriage, like sheep that wander over the mountains of Scotland. There were no such things as marriages among slaves, and the men who would seek to justify American slavery, were advocates of concubinage. He who threw around the slaveholders the garb of christianity, sought to identify adultery with the fruits of christianity, for every slaveholder in America lives in concubinage. The slaves have no more control over their young than the brute creation. Slaves seldom know a father – the children were compelled to follow the condition of the mother. His friend, Mr Douglass, never knew a father. Slaves were punished with stripes, imprisonment, and death, for teaching their children to read the bible. They were hunted with bloodhounds or shot, or perhaps hung up at the first tree, for attempting to change their ignorance into knowledge, their heathenism into christianity.
Slaves were never allowed to bear witness against their oppressors. Let the slaveholder do what he will, no slave could be brought forward in evidence against him. The slaves were fed, clothed, and disciplined, solely with a view to their being available in the market. They were even made members of churches in order that they might bring a higher price. He had seen young slaves sold as it were to prostitution. (Shame, shame.) He stated an instance of a church which required a new set of communion cups, and sold one of her own members to raise funds for purchasing it. Such was the character of the churches in America.
The abolitionists had started up, and were determined with their weapons of peace to overthrow this system – to root it out of the land. They were going on most successfully in the cause – they were enlisting the sympathies of many – their cause was taking deep root and working like leven throughout the country, when, in 1844, the deputation of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland came across their path. Christians, of various denominations throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland, had adopted the principle of no fellowship with slaveholders, and recently the committee of the Evangelical Alliance at Birmingham, had passed a vote, declaring that they would not invite any slaveholder to their alliance, and if they did come, they never would be allowed to join it.1
The Free Church of Scotland went to America by their delegation – Drs Cunningham and Burns, and Messrs Lewis and Chalmers, and two or three others.2 They went, however, and they gave the slaveholders their countenance. They had obtained from the slaveholders three thousand pounds. They came back and put it into the funds, and afterwards they sought to justify their guilty position. The Free Church of Scotland, during the past year, had denounced all and sundry as enemies to the Free Church who came before them to call them to repentance.
He asked if he was an enemy to the Free Church because he told the truth? The Rev. Dr Duncan said, had a Free Church anything to do with slavery? was every Free Church to have a slave stone in it? As for him, he could not eat a common meal with slaveholders, it would choke him. Rev. Henry Grey, Moderator of the Free Assembly, had said, have we separated ourselves from our moderate brethren to hold communion with men-stealers? They could not stay in the Establishment, their consciences were so tender – they had to come out in defence of the crown rights of the Redeemer. They could not act in a school committee or a bible society with them – their consciences were so tender, they could not do it at all. (Great laughter.)
Those very consciences which could not allow them to remain in the Establishment, could stretch away four thousand miles, and say to the men-stealers, come, dear brethren, to my arms. (Immense applause.) They talked of the crown rights of the Redeemer while their hands were dipped into the blood of the American slaves.
He wondered if ever the Free Church ministers preached repentance unto sinners at all. He had been called their bitter enemy because he preached repentance to the Free Church leaders, such as Chalmers and Candlish. He was an enemy to every man who held alliance with man-stealers. The time would come when those who endeavoured to get them to send back the money would be accounted their friends.
He held in his hand what report said had been stated by a Mr Macnaughtan. He said of his friend Mr Douglass – so report came to him – that he was a poor, ignorant, runaway slave, who had picked up a few sentences, which he was pleased to retail up and down the country; and he was surprised the people of Paisley paid a penny for it. Mr Douglass needed no advocation at all from him. They had already heard his burning words. (Great cheering.)
A poor, ignorant, runaway slave! Supposing it to be true, in the name of God who made him so? The very men whom the Free Church of Scotland are taking to their bosoms as Christians. The slaves have been stripped of their earnings; and Mr MacNaughty comes forward, and by his apology for the slaveholders, helps to keep them in that state. If Mr Macnaughtan ever made these remarks he ought to go on his knees and ask pardon of the man he has thus referred to, and then on his knees to God to seek his forgiveness. They talked about them being ignorant, and not caring so much about slavery as they did. It was a pity they did not know this Rev. gentleman. It was a pity they were not Scotsmen and Free Churchmen, too, wasn’t it? – (great applause) – They would speak out – they would thunder it over Scotland until the money was sent back. Scotland would yet be shaken until the money was shaken out of it. (Cheering.)
They wished the question settled at the ensuing General Assembly. They wanted to go back to their own country. He did not accuse the Free Church leaders of not speaking against slavery in this country. He had not said so many hard things himself against it as had been said by some of them. He here went on to show the inconsistency of those who denounced slavery, and at the same time held communion with slaveholders. How would it do to denounce theft, adultery, and then take the very men who were guilty of such things to your bosoms?
Supposing that Dr. Cunningham, for instance, were reduced to the unhappy condition of a slave, and put on the common stand, and sold for a thousand pounds for being strong, and a D.D. into the bargain. (Laughter.) Supposing it were brought to the building fund, and the question asked, where did you get it, and the answer to be, oh, it is the price of Dr. Cunningham! would they take it? They would not. If then they would not take the price of Dr. Cunningham, how dare they take the price of the poor imbruted African? What is Dr. C. better than the poor slave? They would not give the right hand of fellowship to the man who would sell him as a slave? How then dare they do it to those who enslave the African.
They say, ‘we got the money of the community – we applied to the community, and much of the money was given by slaves, and by those who were not slaveholders.’ Dr. Cunningham might as well say they got the money from the dogs, for no slave could own anything – all belonged to his master. They might as well say the horse owned the grass on which he was feeding. The slaveholders might give the slaves money to put into the box, but the slave had not a farthing which he could call his own.
He wished the Free Church to recede from its guilty position. Let Mr MacNaughty say what he pleased about them, would that justify him? He said they were strangers – send back the money, and they would talk about that. They were not of accredited characters – send back the money, and they would talk of that also. (Tremendous applause.) This Mr MacNaughty said, he was willing to discuss the question with any man who was a clergyman. He would not discuss it with a layman. He was told he was a logician – a man of talents. He was not afraid of him, however; and he would tell him, he was a minister in his own country. He would meet him at any place, in Glasgow or this town, after 1st May, Friday – he would be happy to meet him. (Loud cheers.) He would not have him shrink from this business, on the ground that he had no minister with whom to discuss it. If he wanted proof of his being a minister, he would give him plenty of it. (Cheers.)
He would call on him to vindicate the Free Church in its own position. He charged them with going to America and forming an alliance with slaveholding churches, and with taking their money with which to build their churches in Scotland. Dr Chalmers had declared, that on the keeping of the money depends the keeping of the fellowship. Of course, it would not be honest of them to keep the money and give up the fellowship, as it was on account of the fellowship the money was obtained. (Tremendous applause.) Send back the money – let that be the watchword. (Applause.)
If they cut loose the fellowship, they might go all over the south, but let them prepare themselves for a halter; for if they went there he believed they would be hung up at the first tree. They could not preach the gospel there. How could a man preach the gospel when his hand was interlocked with the man-stealer’s? (Loud applause.) He asked the Free Church leaders to come out and redeem their characters in the sight of the whole world. If they would only send it back with a kind affectionate letter, saying, that their ignorance led them astray, they might do something to redeem their lost characters.
A Relief Church minister, a short time ago, had offered to become responsible for a hundred pounds, if they would send it back. He felt that Scotland was implicated in this matter, because the Free Church pretends to represent the moral sentiment of the people of Scotland. Shall it go abroad over the world, that the Free Church did represent the public sentiment of the people of Scotland? (Cries of no, no.) They would not dare to say that Scotland was with them. They could not say that Paisley was with them. (Continued applause.) Their actions showed that they would not sit idle and see wrong inflicted on their brethren across the Atlantic.
The Free Church party said that the slaveholders were not to blame – that they found themselves unhappily in that condition, and that they could not get out of it. Why, the pickpocket might just as well say that he found himself unhappily in the condition of a pickpocket. The horse-stealer or the sheep-stealer might say in his dungeon, that he found himself unhappily in the condition of a robber. In order to get out of their difficulty, they said that slaveholding was not a sin which should exclude a man from church membership, but the holding of a man as property was. What was the difference? It would surpass all logic to show the difference. He was ashamed to see men to stultify themselves. Did they think to blind the eyes of the people of Scotland with their nice distinctions? (Great applause.) They wanted to get out of the predicament in which they found themselves placed, by a most miserable argument. They tried to make a hole in the wall, but it was not big enough to let them out. (Great laughter.) Was every Free Church to have a slave stone or stave, wet with the blood of the slave? (Applause.) If not, SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Immense cheering.)
At a place where he was lecturing lately, there was something discovered oozing out from the stones of the Free Church, and a person who was looking on very innocently, wondered if it was blood. Whenever they talked of their sufferings, their persecutions, tell them to SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Loud cheers.) Dr. Andrew Thomson of Edinburgh said, he scorned to argue the question with men who could search through the bible seeking for apologies for their foul transactions. He wished he could now see the men who should not sit in communion, or on a committee with ministers of the Establishment, and yet could hold fellowship with slaveholders.
Another argument which they had used was, that the laws make slaves, and that they are compelled to obey them. But who made the laws? It was the slaveholders and their abettors who made the laws, and then the Free Church came in and justified them on account of these laws. (Applause.) Burn all such laws at the stake, as Luther did the Pope’s bull. (Continued applause.) Let them plant themselves on the principles of eternal justice, and say to the slaveholder, ‘You are the despoiler of our brethren, and against you the respectability of the world shall close the door of admission.’ (Prolonged cheering.)
Let them, when they come to their shores, wander about as vagabonds. Let every denomination in Scotland take up this ground, and then the slaveholder will, as he ought to be, be an outcast, and will be obliged to stagger alone under the load of his guilt and infamy. (Cheers.)
He wished to call their attention to another point. They were told that slavery was an institution in America, and that we must blame the institution, and not the men. But who support the institution, if it be not the men? The Free Church party had all their hard words for the slaveholders. (Cheers.)
Mr Thompson here entered the meeting amidst a simultaneous burst of applause, on which Mr Wright said, that Mr Thompson had laboured faithfully in the cause of emancipation for fifteen years, and he would cheerfully leave the matter in such hands. Mr Wright then left the meeting, to proceed to the assemblage in the Abbey Close Secession Church.
Mr George Thompson came forward amidst tremendous cheering, and said, Mr Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen, you are aware that we were all taken by surprise. We thought that when there [were] so many of us, the duty devolving on each would be light; but on coming here, we found the interest so great as to demand two meetings, and I therefore had to open one meeting and continue to speak in another.
Allow me, in the first place, to state the reasons which brought me before the people of Scotland at this time. I witnessed with extreme regret the conduct of the Free Church of Scotland. I found that they went to the southern states of America heedless of the remonstrance which met them on the shores of that country, and that there they held communion with slaveholders.3
My excellent, beloved brother, Frederick Douglass, has come to Scotland to get the stigma taken off your character, which has been brought on it by this party. When invited to join my American friends, I gladly made a considerable sacrifice. I was anxious to identify myself as far as possible with them in their labours in this country – not that I deem my testimony worth anything, but that it might serve to remove any suspicions with regard to the motives with which they are animated. I was anxious that I might united with them in their labours to get the Free Church to SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Great applause.)
I wish to guard against the imputation of being inimical to the Free Church of Scotland. Her position I have often regarded with admiration. I can have no uncharitable motive in coming here to run down the conduct of the deputation who went to America. Some of them I have known for years. I have no controversy with them save on public grounds. I assail not their character, but it appears to my mind that they have committed a fatal error, and that they ought to retrace their steps and SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Tremendous cheering.)
As you know I have traversed a large portion of Scotland, I have held intercourse with parties both in and out of the Establishment. I have appealed to them on behalf of the slave, but never until recently was there a minister to be found, either in or out of the Establishment, who would go to America and gather money from the slaveholders to support their church. (Cheers.)
I will relate to you a circumstance which happened several years ago. While lecturing on American slavery, I was gratified by having a requisition presented to me, signed by ministers of the Establishment, two Episcopalians, and others, requesting that I would give a lecture on the duties of American christians in regard to American slavery. I complied, and I found the place of meeting crowded from floor to ceiling. Most of the requisitionists were present. The whole scope and tendency of my discourse went to prove the criminality of the churches on the other side of the Atlantic, and the duty of christians in this country to hold no fellowship with them. Was I blamed for doing that? No; the prayer which commenced the proceedings breathed the same spirit. I showed how revolting was the spectacle of man supporting that system whose cry was for liberty. I called it a system which put out the eyes of the slave, withholding from them their individual responsibility in making another man’s will their guide, and in leaving them to grope in darkness to an unknown eternity beyond the grave. These sentiments were concurred in by all my friends. Judge of my surprise, therefore, when I found myself called upon to expose the conduct of the Free Church of Scotland. (Cheers.)
I shall relate another circumstance:– In 1833 I was presented in London with a small volume, entitled, ‘A Picture of American Slavery.’ It was written some years before, in America, by a gentleman who had been for nearly twenty years a christian clergyman in America, who felt it his duty to bring his influential testimony to bear against slavery. This book I presented to a friend in Edinburgh, who gave it to a minister of the Church of Scotland. He sent for me. I went and breakfasted with him. Our whole conversation turned on American slavery in connexion with the churches. This minister of the Church of Scotland told me, that of all the aspects of American slavery at which he had looked, no one of them was more horrible than its connection with the christianity of that country. He considered that those religious bodies who were connected with slavery ought not to be acknowledged by christians on this die of the Atlantic. Subsequently this book was published, with an addition by this clergyman. It was published in Glasgow, and he referred to it as an illustration of voluntaryism and republicanism.
I wonder whether the same clergyman would hold the same language now? The object of this work was to exhibit the real character of American slavery, and to suggest the only remedy for it. It asked how this desolating course of slavery could be effectually extirpated – what was necessary for its overthrow? It said that every slaveholder must be peremptorily, and without delay, excommunicated from the church – no matter what rank he might hold. If asked why excommunicate them? The answer ought to be – they are men-stealers, and therefore they cannot be christians, therefore it is an insult to the gospel to call them christians. (Great cheering.)
I pledge myself that for every expression which ever I used, or any of my friends, I will find something stronger in this little book, which was reprinted by this clergyman. He did more than reprint it. He wrote a preface to it, and he drew special attention to the fact of ministers of Christ holding communion with slaveholders. And what clergyman was this? He was one who went to America, slept in the bed of the slaveholder, partook of his dainties, rode in his carriage, and gathered up three thousand pounds, and came back again to apologise in the General Assembly of the Free Church for the slavery of the United States. Well, but who was this? It was not Dr Burns – it was not Mr Lewis – it was not Dr Chalmers – it was none of these. It was Dr Cunningham.4
Now, there is something abominable in such conduct – (great cheering) – and I would speak much stronger if he were before me, but I hope to see him in Edinburgh. – (continued applause.) There I shall speak to him of the dastardly conduct of endeavouring while in the Establishment to throw abuse on the dissenters; and then, when he is himself a dissenter, going to the very country from which he has drawn his illustrations, and holding fellowship with the men who he was glad to compare with the English voluntaries. (Applause.)
I have obtained what I am sure is an authentic report of a speech delivered in this town on Tuesday last. The speaker, a Mr Macnaughtan, seems to have been very full of his subject on that occasion. He had the subject of Popery given him on which to speak, but he chose to take up the subject of American slavery and vindicate the conduct of those who went to that country. He says that we are not called on to discriminate between the offerings of men – to look into the character of those who contribute to the support of the church. I grant him all that he contends for in this respect. He said that we were not to examine what people put into the plate, and therefore we had no right to cry out about the acceptance of money from America.
I contend that the cases are not parallel. If the slaveholders had sent their contributions to the Free Church unsolicited, and if the Free Church had accepted of them, they would have been more excusable, but not justifiable. What is the fact? These men went to America. They were met with a remonstrance from some of the best men in the country, and in the fact of this they set out to the slaveholders. They volunteered to receive their contributions, and then, when they come home, we are not to be anxious to discriminate between the contributions in the porch of the house of God. (Applause.)
You may not be aware of the fact, that these gentlemen closed their lips, and entered into a solemn compact, that if they gave them out of their riches they would be dumb in regard to the abominations of slavery. I say this deliberately and advisedly. Wilfully they did sell the truth for the purpose of obtaining contributions to the Free Church. (Loud cheers.)
They said they preached the gospel. What is the gospel for? It is to change the hearts of men. How did Paul preach the gospel? He preached it by applying it to those around him. The gospel could not be preached unless prevailing sins were rebuked. (Cheers.) In America, the delegation did deliberately suppress the truth in order to get the contributions. If they had said anything against slavery, they would have suffered for it. Modern times has not furnished us with a more flagrant piece of ministerial profligacy than the conduct of these men. They went across America, well knowing the feelings of Scotland in regard to the subject of slavery. The majority of the people would have received them back in rapture if they had set their faces strenuously against slavery. They knew this, but they went deliberately to the slaveholders and came home with three thousand pounds – the fruits of robbery. It was plundered from the negroes. (Great cheering.)
Candlish, Cunningham, and their colleagues, well know that the main prop of slavery in America is the corrupt christianity existing in the south. Dr Cunningham would have found a felon’s fate if he had preached the gospel in its purity there. I should like to know from what part of the bible they preached to those men-stealers, those woman-floggers. Did they ever take for their text – ‘thou shalt not steal?’ (Cheers.) Did they ever preach from the words, ‘I am come to preach deliverance to the captive,’ &c.? Did they ever discourse from the words ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire,’ or, ‘go to, now, ye rich men, weep and howl,’ &c.? No, not one of these texts did they ever choose. (Prolonged cheering.)
Can any thing present to your minds a more appalling state of things, than to reflect that four ministers, three of whom used their exertions with me in this country for the abolition of slavery, went to America, crossed the Potomac, and never uttered a sentence on the subject of American slavery? (Great cheering.) Was that a place for ministers of a Free Church? Was it a place for those who would not sit in a school committee with a minister who favoured Erastianism? The Free Church of Scotland has the fruits of robbery in her treasury. What is her duty? SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Cheers.)
Will you now help us to arouse this country, till an universal shout shall be heard from John o’ Groats to the Tweed, of – SEND BACK THE MONEY? (Great applause.)
Teach your children to lisp it in the streets when they see a black coat and a white cravat – SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Prolonged cheering.)
Why send it back? Because it is not yours. It belongs to the slave. (Cheers.) It is the price of blood – (loud cheers) – it is the price of the desecration of bodies and souls in the United States. (Continued applause.) If it remains, it is a canker-worm which will eat out the vitals of the church. Will you continue to build churches for the ministers of Scotland with money obtained from those who have robbed the poor of it – SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Loud applause.)
Let your very walls become preachers. Write on Knox’s monument – SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Continued applause.) Go to the Calton Hill and write on the pillar raised in memory of Nelson – SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Tremendous cheers.)
What have the Free Church ministers done? They have endeavoured to vindicate slavery by making it appear that the apostles countenanced it. Will they send back the money? (A voice, no.) Yes, they will. (Great cheering.) Why will they? Because the truth is omnipotent. I promise they shall have a yearly visit, so long as they keep it. (Cheers.) Forty-nine out of fifty of their church members will say – SEND IT BACK. They know, however, that their ministers are against them. When will they send it back? Just when there is enough of outward pressure. (Continued cheering.)
Now, we will apply this pressure. You who are Free Churchmen look at this matter? Many have said that they will not contribute to the support of the Church until it be sent back. SEND BACK THE MONEY, and don’t retard the progress of emancipation. (Applause.)
This money transaction has done more than all the slaveholders could do to rivet the chains of the slave. I feel as strongly for the slave as if I were still engaged pleading his cause in America. We are told that slaveholding is a sin, and the slaveholder ought to be dealt with as the sinner. The slaveholders are, however, living in open undisguised sin, and yet they are members of the southern churches. Some of them go so far as to exclude ardent spirits, theatres, and cards, while the sacrilegious monsters will sell their own children. We are told that the slaves would not have their liberty although they could get it, and one slaveholder brought forward a slave, pointing to him, as happy, and saying that he could not have his liberty although he could get it, he was so well off. He asked the slave if he would have his liberty. The slave said, ‘Will you try me, Massa?’ (Laughter.) The slaveholder was too good a judge to try him.
Let any of these clerical slaveholders, who see lions in the way, call their slaves together, and they would find they were willing to encounter all the difficulties that lay in the way of their obtaining freedom. It has been said that there are laws to prevent emancipation. There is not a law in America to prevent this.
Mr Macnaughtan admits that slaveholding is a sin. Why, then, does he tamper with it? His excuse is that it is among those things which are to be progressively extirpated by the mild influence of the gospel. We don’t deal in this way with other sins. The argument has been answered a thousand times over, and it is lamentable to find a minister of the Free Church resorting to it.
I hope you will swell the cry, SEND BACK THE MONEY – (great applause) – and lest my friend should not tell you when he rises, I may say that in all parts of Scotland, wherever he and his brethren may have gone, they have found a hearty response. There is but one opinion among the people, and it is that the money should go back. The Evangelical Alliance has repudiated the slaveholders, and shall Scotland cling to the accursed thing! Forbid it, sons and daughters of Scotland!! (Great cheering.) Swell the cry – SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Vociferous cheers.)
We shall hold meetings on the subject in Edinburgh next week, to which we invite all Free Churchmen. I shall now however give place, as I want you to hear a piece of property speak. (Laughter.) He bears on his back the marks of the bloody scourge, but in the providence of God he has attained to the full measure and stature of a man. (Tremendous cheers.) He is a living refutation of the saying that there are three millions of human beings in America who dare not be trusted with their freedom – who, if left to themselves, would fall on their knees, and crave some grass like Nebuchadnezzar (Prolonged cheering.)
This (pointing to Mr Douglass) is one of those gems taken from the mine from which no precious ore was said to be extracted. (Great cheering.) Do not wonder though he should urge you to SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Great applause.) Welcome him, adopt him, and however others may denounce, let the people of Scotland ever cry, SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Loud and long-continued cheering.)
Mr James N. Buffum then rose and said, that it would ill become him to occupy any great portion of their time that evening. He would, however, be permitted to say a few words on this most interesting occasion. Of all the meetings at which he had been present, this, and the one from which he had just come, had been the most interesting. He said that he could breathe, as it were, more freely than usual. The people were beginning to look at the matter through the mystery which doctors of divinity had thrown around it, and were seeking with the understanding which God had given them.
He had thought at first that the people of Scotland were indifferent, but he had since learned that they were not indifferent to every thing which concerned the vital interests of humanity. When he came down this evening, Mr Douglass and himself were congratulating themselves that they would have an evening’s leisure. They found, however, when they came to town that the excitement was so great, that they would have two large meetings. The place from which he had come was crowded.
He had to express his gladness at the meetings which they had had in Paisley. When here last time, they had called upon all to come forward. They had said that if any one had a word to say in defence of the Free Church let him say it. A Mr Macnaughtan had since come forward, and had seen fit to brand his friend Douglass with ignorance. Suppose that he was so. He has been in the prison-house of slavery, and now Mr Macnaughtan comes forward and reviles him because he cannot see. (Great cheers.)
They had gone to Dundee, and the Free Church had used all their influence to get the churches closed against them. They had tried to injure their reputation, but he had told them that, although they succeeded in making them black, it would not make the Free Church white.
When in Greenock making our charges against Dr Macfarlane, we said that it he had anything to complain of, let him come out. An individual said if we want to match you, we will send out a dusty baker. He said he would rather run the risk of getting the flour off his coat, than the blood off Dr Macfarlane’s hands.
Mr Macnaughtan said he was astonished that the people of Paisley paid a penny to hear them. This meeting he considered was such as to establish the character of Paisley. (Cheers.) He said they had no enmity to the Free Church – they only wished them to SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Loud cheers.)
He sat down by expressing his satisfaction with the reception they had met with in Paisley.
Mr Frederick Douglass, who was received with loud and prolonged cheering, came forward and said, Ladies and Gentlemen, with my friend Buffum, I did not expect I would be required to say anything to-night. I have spoken in Paisley now seven times, and have managed to present some new facts on each occasion, and I am not at a loss for facts to-night, to warm your sympathies into love for the bondsman, to cheer you with the hope of ultimate success in this glorious enterprise.
A deed has been committed by a party in your land which has had the tendency to strengthen the hand of the tyrant, and to darken the prospects of the poor, down-trodden slave in the United States. (Cheers.) It has been committed by professing christians, and it has had the effect of spreading gloom over the prospects of the poor bondsman. We are here for the purpose of dispelling that gloom, and of brightening those prospects. (Cheers.)
Let us contemplate this system, holding as it does in its grasp, three millions of those for whom the Saviour died. In the midst of these there is no marriage. Wives, sisters, husbands, think of this in the midst of a people calling themselves christians, so many living without this ordinance, without bibles, denied the privilege of learning to read the word of God – driven like dumb cattle to the fields – robbed of their identity with the human family. This, my friends, is the condition of three millions of people within two weeks’ sail of this land.
A case occurs to my mind at present, where a husband and wife were brought to the auction mart. The wife was sold to one man and the husband to another, and the husband looked imploringly to the man who had bought his wife. But the wife was to go one way and he another. The husband asked to shake hands with the wife for the last time. He attempted to do it. He was struck on the head, and when let go, he fell down dead. His heart was broken!
Who is responsible for slavery? The Free Church of Scotland has made itself responsible for slavery, by regarding these men as the followers of the meek and lowly Jesus. Think of this, christian men and women of Scotland! (Great cheering.) This religious denomination, claiming the high and holy title of Free – to be the exponent of all that is good and holy in the moral and religious sentiments of Scotland, comes forward and holds up the slaveholder as being a christian, and then when I have thrown off my fetters, found my way here, and attempted to speak on behalf of my brethren, do they say welcome, bondsman, come let us see your wrongs and we are prepared to redress them.
No. Mr Macnaughtan brands me as being a poor, miserable, fugitive slave – ignorant, fugitive slave. I would not say anything of the origin of that gentleman – I will not call attention to his rise, progress, and present position. (Great laughter.) I presume, however, I should not trace him to any extraordinary ancestors. I esteem him nothing less a man on that account. I esteem him as much as though he stood in close relationship to Prince Albert – (great applause) – but there is a degree of audacity, such as I did not expect to witness on the part of any Free Church clergyman, in the case of Mr Macnaughtan calling me an ignorant, degraded, fugitive slave. (Great applause.)
Only let us look at it. The man whose pockets are lined with the gold with which I ought to have been educated, stands up charging me with ignorance and poverty. (Great applause.) The man who enjoys his share of the three thousand pounds taken from the slaveholder, and robbed from the slave, stands up to denounce me as being ignorant. (Continued cheering.) Shame on him. (Cheers.) I should like to see the inside of his breast; there cannot be a heart of flesh there. There must be a stone or a gizzard there. (Great cheering.) Let him launch out that gold and I shall undertake to educate a number of slaves, who will in a few years be able to stand by the side of Mr Macnaughtan. I do not feel at all chagrined by the notice he has taken of me. I rather feel a degree of pride from what he has said of me. (Cheers.) I do feel a thrill of grateful pleasure, more so than I would at the most glowing penegyric which my friend Mr Thompson could bestow. I will tell you why. Macnaughtan has linked himself with the slaveholder, and he cannot therefore have any sympathy with a slave. (Great applause.)
The interest of the one is antagonistic to the other. The slave runs and the slaveholder sets his dogs on him to catch him and bring him back. The slave works, and the slaveholder takes the produce of his labour. When a slave comes here to plead their cause, Macnaughtan calls him a poor, miserable, fugitive slave. (Cheers.) Macnaughtan wont get rid of us by any such statements. The Free church has got to SEND BACK THAT MONEY. (Applause.)
There is no mistake about it. They could not deny that the delegates went to America and preached only such doctrines as would be well received. They did not utter one word of sympathy for the slave, nor a sentence of condemnation of those who held them in that condition; but they clothed them in the garb of christianity. The Free Church must SEND BACK THE MONEY. Let this be the theme in every town in Scotland. If they say an ignorant man is not a fitting advocate of the anti-slavery cause, I say SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Applause.) There is music in the words, my friends. (Cheers and laughter.)
In Arbroath there was painted in blood red capitals, SEND BACK THE MONEY. A woman was sent to wash it, but the letters still remained visible, SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Great applause.) A mason was afterwards got to chisel it out, but there still was left in indelible characters, SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Cheers.)
I want men, women, and children to send forth this cry wherever they go. Let it be the talk around the fireside, in the street, and at the market-place – indeed, everywhere. It is a fitting subject even on the Sabbath-day. The Free Church is doing more for infidelity and atheism than all the infidels in Scotland combined. (Great applause.) For what says the infidel? ‘If Christ be not opposed to slavery it is the best reason in the world why we should not regard him as a divine being at all.’ (Cheers.) By opposing the Free Church you do a work of Christianity. You do something to hasten the spread of that gospel whose tendency will be to take the chains from off the limbs of three millions of people. If we don’t have that BLOOD-STAINED MONEY SENT BACK, one thing we shall have accomplished by holding these meetings – that the majority are with the oppressed and against the oppressor. (Loud cheers.)
Dr Chalmers has said that it would be most unjustifiable to deny the slaveholder christian fellowship. Scotland and the slaveholder at one! Shall it be so? (No, no.) The people are with us in Arbroath, Dundee, Aberdeen, Montrose, Greenock, Glasgow – and they will be with us in Edinburgh. (Loud applause.) We wish to have Scotland, England, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, and even the red Indians with us, and against slavery. We want to have the whole country surrounded with an anti-slavery wall, with the words legibly inscribed thereon, SEND BACK THE MONEY, SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Long and continued cheering.)
Mr Buffum offered a few further observations.
Mr Paton of Glasgow impressed on the Ladies of Paisley the propriety of sending contributions to the anti-slavery bazaar, which is held annually at Boston.
Mr George Thompson then said, that they had had a most delightful meeting. He believed Mr Macnaughtan had said Mr Douglass dealt in scattered sentences, and that those who came to hear him had been misled into the belief that he was indulging in eloquence. It would not have sounded like eloquence in the ears of so polished a gentleman as Mr Macnaughtan. They had heard so much pathos, argument, religious truth, and persuasive eloquence, that he was afraid they would all go away and commit the same error – (Cheers.) – that they would still say their friend was eloquent. If eloquence was that which could rouse the indignation of the people of Scotland against slavery, then his friend Douglass was the most eloquent man in the world.
Mr Thompson then read the following resolution, which he said he had written on the platform, for the adoption of the meeting.
That, regarding slavery as essentially sinful, and its practice under all circumstances as contrary to the commands of God and the spirit of the gospel, we are of opinion that there should be no christian fellowship with slaveholders, and that it is derogatory to the principles, and insulting to the character of Christianity to derive any pecuniary assistance from the gains of so guilty a system, knowing the source from which such gains have been obtained; and that, therefore, the Free Church of Scotland ought to send back the money obtained from the slaveholders of the United States. (Great applause.)
He had occupied their time for a few minutes before submitting the resolution to them, in order that they might have recovered from the eloquence of Mr Douglass. (Cheers.) He thought, however, that now they would be able to pronounce an impartial judgment.
He thought that Mr Douglass had deepened their impressions of the enormity of slavery, and they would be more than ever resolved to labour in the cause while they lived. They had a great work to do in Scotland; let them therefore go forward with renewed exertions. Let them not feel to do their duty. He entertained respect for Dr. Chalmers, but while he lived he would denounce the act of which the Free Church had been guilty. (Prolonged applause.) He hoped that the next time he saw them he would be congratulating them on the sending back of the money, and sending back the money meant disfellowshipping the slave-churches.
Mr Thompson sat down amidst great applause. The resolution was seconded by Mr James Waterson, and carried by acclamation.
A vote of thanks then closed the proceedings.
SECESSION CHURCH, ABBEY CLOSE.
Mr Andrew Nairn was called to the chair. The proceedings were commenced by
Mr George Thompson, in a speech of about an hour’s duration.
Mr Buffum followed, and Mr Thompson left the meeting to proceed to the Relief Church.
Mr Douglass next addresed the audience amidst great applause.
Mr Wright afterwards came forward, and Messrs. Buffum and Douglass retired to the other place of meeting. Mr Wright offered to discuss the subject with Mr Macnaughtan, and proposed that a committee be appointed by the present meeting to wait upon Mr Macnaughtan and inform him of the same.
Rev. Patrick Brewster said, that as Mr Macnaughtan might not admit Mr Wright was a minster, and as he was unwiling Mr Macnaughtan should have a loop-hole through which to escape, he, (Mr B.) would offer his services. (Great cheering.)
The following gentlemen were proposed as a deputation, viz., Rev. Robert Cairns, Mr Nairn, and Mr Masson.
Mr Cairns said he would rather some other person were appointed in his room, as it would be better not to have any minister in the deputation. He had come there that night because he had taken a deep interest in the cause; and he regretted that any minister belonging to this town should have uttered such unfeeling language regarding Mr Douglass as Mr Macnaughtan had done.
Mr Pinkerton was then appointed in place of Mr Cairns, and after a vote of thanks to the Chairman the meeting dismissed.
Renfrewshire Advertiser, 2 May 1846
Notes
The resolution was approved at a meeting of the Aggregate Committee of the Evangelical Alliance in Birmingham in March 1846: see Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012), p.120; Richard Blackett, Building an Anti-Slavery Wall: Black Americans in the Atlantic Abolitionist Movement, 1830–1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 97.
On the composition of the Free Church delegation to the United States, which also included Henry Ferguson, see Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, p. 14.
American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Letter from the Executive Committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to the Commissioners of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: Myles Macphail, [1844]). Reprinted in the Liberator, 26 April 1844.
[George Bourne], Picture of Slavery in the United States of America (Glasgow: University Press, 1835). The Preface to this Scottish edition was unsigned. According to a report of a meeting on Thursday 30 April at South College Street Church, Edinburgh, George Thompson remarked that he had received a letter from Dr Cunningham which stated ‘that he was not the author of the preface to the book “A Picture of American Slavery,” which was republished in this country in 1835’: Scotsman, 2 May 1846.
At a major public meeting at Glasgow’s City Hall on Tuesday 21 April, Frederick Douglass and James Buffum were joined by the English abolitionist George Thompson, who had long enjoyed a close relationship with the Glasgow Emancipation Society who organised the meeting. They were also rejoined by Henry Clarke Wright, who had parted company with Douglass and Buffum in February to undertake his own six-week speaking tour of the Scottish Borders.
The focus of the meeting was the Free Church of Scotland, facing its most impressive onslaught yet from the abolitionists, for its refusal to break fellowship with its counterparts in the United States. This marked the intensification of their campaign, which would move to Edinburgh the following week, in anticipation of the annual General Assembly of the Free Church which would open at the end of May.
This is one of the few occasions where the abolitionists faced dissenting voices at their meetings. While, as Buffum noted in his speech, earlier invitations to Free Church supporters to debate with them in public – in Montrose, Dundee and Duntocher – had been declined, here in Glasgow, they got an opportunity to respond to their critics in person.
THE SLAVEHOLDERS’ MONEY AND THE FREE CHURCH
A public meeting of the members and friends of the Glasgow Emancipation Society was held in the City Hall, on Tuesday evening, the 21st April, for the purpose of massing a memorial to the General Assembly of the Free Church, imploring them to renounce Christian fellowship with American slaveholders, and to SEND BACK THE MONEY. The meeting was a very large and influential one; the platform was crowded by the Committee, and other friends of emancipation; and, on the motion of George Watson, Esq. Councillor turner was called to the chair.
The Chairman, after expressing the high gratification which he felt at seeing so large an assemblage met for so important a purpose, and the pleasure which it afforded him to be called upon to preside on such an interesting occasion, then introduced
Mr Henry C. Wright of America, who was received with applause, and proceeded to say – Mr. Chairman, I am happy once more to be permitted to address an assembly, over whose deliberations you are called to preside. Trained in the school of popular, peaceful agitation, you have long stood firm to the great principles of human freedom; when many have become faint of heart and pliant in disposition, even to the sacrifice of truth, you have for near half a century been the unfaltering advocate of the ppoor man’s rights and the friend of the oppressed, wherever the tyrant’s frown and the slaveholder’s lash and chain have been seen and felt. (Applause.)
Sir, there is no need to remind this great gathering of men and women of the object of this meeting. The papers, the pulpits, and the walls of Glasgow, the three past days, have proclaimed this to city and country. ‘The Free Church of Scotland’ – ‘American Slaveholders’ – ‘Send back the Money.’ ‘Annul that Covenant with death, and that agreement with hell’ – are the rallying words of this meeting. (Great cheering.)
In the name of three millions of slaves in a land of boasted freedom – in the name of my self-sacrificing, noble coadjutors in the cause of anti-slavery in America – and impelled by emotions of sincere gratitude in my own bosom, I tender my warmest thanks to the Secretaries and to the Committee and friends of the Glasgow Emancipation Society, for their efficient aid in the cause of the American slave.
[8] Scotland is in a blaze. Well may she be, for a large and influential party, professing to represent the moral and religioius sentiment of her people, have done that, which, if not repented of an undone, must end in deep and indelible disgrace to all concerned. The Free Churuch has been arraigned at the bar of public opinion, and the decision of the people of Scotland, of all denominations, is being registered upon their doings in reference to American man-stealers. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Perth, Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose, Aberdeen, Hawick, Galashiels, Berwick, Coldstream, Kelso, Melrose, Paisley, Kilmarnock, Greenock, Ayr, and many other of the towns and villages of Scotland, have heard and responded to the remonstrance of the American slaves against the Free Church alliance with their kidnappers. The word has gone forth, and has been echoed through glens, and from mountain to mountain all over Scotland, saying to the Free Churuch, ‘Send back the money; annual the covenant with death.’ Thanks are due to the Glasgow Emancipation Society – under God – for this agitation, so cheering to the humane and Christian heart. (Cheers.)
I wish to be understood – I arraign before the tribunal of this kingdom and the world, not the people of the Free Church, but the General Assembly of that church, and its leaders – Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish. The people were not consulted in this guilty participation with man-stealers in their ungodly gains. Nine out of ten of the Free Church people would have said – ‘Touch not the price of blood;’ and now the blood-money has been solicited and obtained by their leaders, and put into the treasury, they would say, ‘Send back that money – it is the price of our Saviour, bought and sold in the persons of his little ones. (Great applause.)
When William Lloyd Garrison first raised the standard of the immediate abolition of slavery in America, he announced that Christianity was his only instrumentality to accomplish the end. This sentiment was embodied in the declaration of sentiments put forth by the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833, which document was written by Mr. Garrison. He says:–
Our principles lead us to reject, and to entreat the oppressed to reject, the use of all carnal weapons for deliverance from bondage – relying solely upon those which are spiritual and measures shall be such only as the opposition of moral purity to moral corruption – the destruction of error by the potency of truth – the overthrow of prejudice by the power of love, and the abolition of slavery by the spirit of repentance. Our trust for victory is solely in God.1
We have sought to array against slaveholders, as well as against slavery, the moral and religious sentiment of the world. The position was taken that the act of slaveholding was a heinous sin – second to no sin which man could commit – that it was man-stealing, and that all who perpetrated it should be excluded from the church. To bring the discipline of the churches to bear on slaveholders – to get the churches to cease to join hands with slave-breeding thieves and adulterers, we toiled. The fruit of our labours began to appear. Missionary, Bible, [9] and Tract Societies began to be agitated with the question – Should slave-drivers be employed as agents and missionaries? and Churches, Presbyteries, Synods, Assemblies, Associations, and Conferences, were convulsed with the question – Should slave-breeders and slaveholders be admitted to Churches and Church Courts as Christians and ministers? There seemed a prospect that the various denominations in America would soon cease all religious fellowship with them, or cease themselves to be regarded as Christian bodies. (Loud cheering.)
In this good work we were strengthened by the Congregationalists, the Baptists and Methodists of England – by the Reformed Presbyterians – by many Secession and Relief Churches of Scotland – and the public sentiment of the whole United Kingdom was being arrayed against fellowship with slaveholders as Christians. It was felt to be a question of life and death to our cause. How can Christ be made the power of God and the wisdom of God to abolish this monster sin, while slaveholders are received as Christians? We felt that it could not be done.
But an obstacle presented itself from an unexpected quarter. Men, who had stood before the world for years conspicuous for talent and eloquence, volunteered to stand sponsors to mankind for the Christianity of American man-stealers, and to associate the endeared and adored name of Christ with men polluted with every crime. Doctors Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish espoused the sinking cause of the slaveholder; and came forth to vindicate their title to Christianity and respectability.
But what have these leaders, these Doctors of Divinity done? I give a statement of facts, which none of them have ever denied. A deputation was sent from the Free Assembly to America, to form alliance with the churches there, and to solicit money to build ‘Free‘ churches and pay ‘Free‘ ministers in Scotland. That delegation was composed of the Rev. Dr. Cunningham, Rev. Dr. Burns, Rev. Mr Lewis, Rev. Wm. Chalmers, and others.2 On their arrival in America, and at the commencement of their efforts, they were met by a remonstrance from abolitionists, from which the following are extracts:–
It is with astonishment and grief that we have learned that you have commenced a tour through the Slave States of this Union, with a view to solicit funds, as well of slaveholders as other persons. Doubtless you will be warmly greeted, especially by that portion of the people who hold their fellow-men and fellow-Christians in bondage … Will you now, as you are witnesses of that iniquity that filled you with deep disgust at a distnace, make common cause with that religion, and clasp hands with its defenders, and accept their blood-stained offering. The fiend can well afford to pay you tens of thousands, for he knows that your countenance is worth millions to him. If he can purchase the silence of the successors of John Knox and Andrew Thomson, if he can number them among his allies, he may well think his victory complete … If you obtain the slaveholders’ money, and if the Free Church accept it, it is certain that you will look with more tolerance than you would otherwise have done on the great iniquity of slavery; the lips of your Church will be sealed, and an alliance of sympathy and interests will be established between the Free Church and the slaveocracy of this Union. That tolerance, that sympathy, that [10] alliance will be the beginning of mischief. Who but God can trace its course and close? 3
Sir, this covenant with man-stealers has caused mischief to the heart-stricken slave – to his God-defying oppressor – to those who formed it – to the Free Assembly – to the Free Church – and to all Scotland. It has in effect put into the hands of Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, and of the Free Church over which they preside, the slave-driver’s lash and fetter, adn they are now using them, in conjunction with their allies, the slave-drivers and slave-breeders of America, upon the backs and limbs of the American salves. It has worked mischief by leading these said Doctors of Divinity to offer apologies for men ‘guilty of the highest kind of theft.’ whom God classes with ‘murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers,’ which they would blush to offer for themselves, and which, if allowed to be valid, would entitle adulterers, pick-pockets, and highway-robbers to be received as ‘honourable, useful, evangealical Christians, and serving God in the gospel of His Son,’ as Dr. Cunningham says of slaveholders. The doctrine of ‘circumstances’ is brought forward by a Chalmers, a Cunningham, a Candlish, and a Macfarlan, to justify them in according the name and honour of Christian to men ‘polluted with every crime, leprous with sin.’ 4 But I wish to call attention to the concluding paragraph of the remonstrance of American abolitionists against the Free Church delegation. Let all members and friends of that Church hear and ponder it, for to them it is as a warning voice from Heaven:–
What will men say of the Free Church if you carry home the slaveholders’ bounty? Will they not taunt you thus:– These are the men who could not swallow the bread of their Sovereign as the price of their submission to tyranny; but their consciences, honour, and Christian principle did not revolt in begging a pittance from the pulpits of tyrannical oppressors in Washington, Charlestown, and New Orleans? What O’Connell refused to touch when brought to his hand, Dr. Chalmers sent; and Doctors Cunningham and Burns went 4000 miles to solicit. Should you, despite our friendly warning and urgent Christian remonstrance, solicit money acquired by the sale of American Christians, and men made heathen by the cruel system of slavery, we can only express our confidence that your constituents, the Free Church of Scotland, will refuse to receive the polluted silver and gold, and return it to those who gave it.5
There spake the word of prophecy – the Free Church will return ‘that polluted silver and gold to those who gave it,’ or become a ‘hissing and a by-word.’
Notwithstanding this Christian remonstrance, the delegates did go to churches composed in part of slaveholders and slavebreeders, where memebrs, elders, and ministers are slavetraders – solicited and obtained £3,000 sterling – entered into alliance with them – engaged to receive them to the Free Church pulpit and communion in Scotland – then returned with the price of the image of their God, bought and sold, in the persons of his children, in their pockets; money that can be viewed in no light but as a remuneration for their recognition of practical atheists – scornful contemners of the teachings, life, sufferings, and death of the Son of God, as devoted Christians; and they put that money, dripping with the blood [11] and tears of three millions of slaves, into the coffers of the Free Church. (Hear, hear.) Then, through their writings in their periodicals and papers, their Witnesses, their Northern Warders, &c. and the decisions and deliverances of their Presbyteries and Assemblies, they sought to justify their conduct.
The sold and single point at which Drs. Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, aimed was, to prove that they had acted in accordance with the spirit and teaching of Christ and the Apostles, in entering into a Christian alliance with slaveholders. To demonstrate this, they sought to accomplish two things: that is, to present the American abolitionists as the most unprincipled and the basest of men, and the slaveholders as the purest and most evangelical. They assert of the abolitionists that, as a body, ‘they are altogether undeserving of respect and confidence – that it is impossible to talk of them with anything liek respect, or to have the least regard to their judgment, sanity or sense’ – that they were, in point of fact, doing as much injury as the infidels and anarchists of the French Revolution. (See writings and speeches of Drs Cunningham, Chalmers, and Mr. Lewis.) Of the slaveholders they say, ‘they are entitled to be regarded as respectable, useful, honoured Christians, living under the power of the truth, l abouring faithfully, and serving God in the gospel of His Son.’ (See writings and speeches of the parties above named.) Thus all their denunciations are for abolitionists, and all their compliments for slaveholders.
How soon the prediction of the remonstrance became a reality, that if the Free Church leaders took the slaveholders’ bounty, they would volunteer to become their apologists! But suppose the abolitionists are what they say they are – and let me tell them the American abolitionists will never enter upon a vindication of their conduct with slaveholders or their apologists – their vindication they will leave to humanity, rescued by their means from the auction-stand, and to the God of the oppressed. – How does this prove that the Free Church is right in her alliance with slaveholders, and in sharing their spoils? – But let us look for a moment at some of their apologies and arguments to justify themselves and establish the Christianity of American slave-breeders.
Their first strong point is to make a distinction between ‘slave-holding’ and ‘holding men as property.’ The former, they say, ‘is not a sin which should exclude from Christian fellowship,’ but the latter they pronounce to be a ‘sin of the deepest die, which should exclude all who do it from the church.’ Forty years has the subject agitated this country and America, and the laws of slavery, and the writings and speeches of its opponents, have pronounced ‘slaveholding’ and ‘holding men as property’ the same act. Why do Drs. Chalmers, Cunningham, Candlish, and the Free Assembly, now come forward and make a distinction? I did not think they could have thus stultified themselves. Did they suppose the subterfuge could blind the people of Scotland? They had a purpose to serve. They wished to extricate themselves from a guilty position, which they had taken against the urgent entreaties of the abolitionists; and to do this they adopted the puerile and barefaced expedient [12] of a distinction without a difference between ‘slaveholding’ and ‘holding men as property.’
Their next great argument is, that they are no more to blame for taking the man-stealer’s gold to build churches than merchants and others are in dealing in slave-holder’s cotton and sugar. But I look not at the money, but at the price paid for it: to get the money they gave the fellowship. Let them renounce the fellowship, and then go to the slave-states and get all the money they can. My word for it, they would get no blood-stained dollars, but they would get blood-stained whips upon their bare backs, and blood-stained halters about their necks. The compact – the slave-driving and slave-breeding compact – let them annul this, and I ask no more.
But, ah! exclaim the Doctors, if we give up the fellowship, we must send back the money. In the name, then, of all that is ‘honest and of good report,’ and of Him who came to enthrone God in Heaven, and abolish slavery on earth, I say to them, send back the money.
Another favourite pillow for the consciences of the Free Church leaders is, ‘slavery,’ as a system or institution, is a great sin, but not necessarily wrong in slaveholders.’ As it appears in an institution, slavery seems to Drs. Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, a fiend of darkness; but as it appears in the slaveholder, it is an angel of light. They hate and loathe it as they see it in the system, but as they see it in a Rev. Doctor of Divinity, in band and gown, they love and admire it. As they see it in the bloody lash, they recoil from it with disgust; as they see it in the bloody cash, they cling to it as ‘the one thing needful, and altogether lovely.’ (Laughter and prolonged applause.)
As they see it in the institution, they arraign slavery before the bar of their General Assembly – place it in the criminal box – charge it with adultery, incest, blasphemy, theft, robbery, and murder – to be consigned to prison and the gallows; but as they see it in the slaveholders, they baptise, license, and ordain it, and receive it to their communion and pulpits. As slavery is seen in the institution, they say unto it, ‘Depart ye wicked into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;’ but as they see it in slaveholding Presbyterians, with pockets full of dollars, ready to be poured into their building fund, they say, ‘Come ye ever blessed – enter into the kingdom prepared for you.’ (Great and continued cheering.)
To the Free Church leaders I would say, with grief and plainness – In thus attempting to screen the slaveholder and justify your compact with him, by taking the crimes and pollutions and horrors of slavery from their living, responsible perpetrators, and putting them upon an intangible nonentity – an irresponsible abstract – you do not mock God, and heap up to yourselves, and your church, wrath against the day of wrath and of the righteous judgent of God – when He shall make bare His right arm and unsheath His sword to right the wrongs of the American bondmen. (Cheers.)
Then, again, they apologist for their allies, and seek to justify themselves by representing slavery as a ‘condition,’ or ‘predicament,’ into which slaveholders ‘are born,’ ‘happen to fall,’ or ‘are placed,’ or ‘unhappily find themselves.’ Go, arraign the Mahometan for his polygamy, the thief for his theft, [13] the drunkard for his drunkenness, the pirate for his piracy, or the cannibal for his cannibalism. The polygamist says – ‘polygamy is a condition in which I was born,’ the cannibal and pirate say, – ‘cannibalism and piracy are conditions in which we happened to be placed;’ the drunkard says, as he lies in the gutter, ‘I happened to fall into the condition of the drunkard;’ – (laughter and cheers) – the thief in his dungeon says – ‘I find myself unhappily placed in the predicament of a thief.’ (Great applause.)
Would the Free Church leaders accept these apologies, and hasten to solicit a share of their gain, and to welcome them as Christians? They have extended their fellowship to men stained with all these crimes. Why should they not to them? How gentle – how tenderly touched upon – how ‘delicately expressed,’ as Dr. Macfarlan says, of their deliverance. When slaveholders buy and sell men – when they steal their all – when they rob them of their wives and children and of themselves – when they scourge, imprison, and hang them for teaching their children to read the Gospel of Christ; these Free Church Doctors tell us they ‘happen‘ to fall into these deeds – they did not do them themselves – they had no hand in them – they only ‘find themselves unhappily in the predicament of doing them.’ (Cheers.) So might Judas say, when he sold his Master for 30 pieces of silver, ‘I did not do it – my will had no hand in it – I happened to fall into the act, and unhappily found myself doing it.’ (Great sensation.) But this would not have prevented him from going ‘to his own place’ – nor will it save the slaveholders from their own place – though ten thousand Doctors of Divinity should come to their rescue by receiving them as Christians while they are impatient.
Doctor Cunningham went to America. Suppose one of these Presbyterian slave-traders had seized and sold him as a slave for a thousand pounds sterling, and sent the money to the Sustenation Fund.’ (Laughter.) ‘We are glad to get the dollars,’ says the treasurer. ‘Where did you get them?’ ‘I happened to seize and sell Doctor Cunningham as a slave, and he, being a strong man, and a Doctor to boot, brought a good price – (great applause.) – and I, seeing your great need and desire for money, thought it would be a comfort to me, and acceptable to you, to give you a share of the proceeds.’ (Renewed applause and laughter.) ‘Well,’ says the treasurer, ‘considering that you happened to do it, and only found yourself unhappily in the predicament of selling the Doctor, I consider it right to take it, and receive you as a good Christian.’ (Immense cheering.) Would the Free Church accept it? No. If they would not build their churches and pay their ministers by the price of Doctor Cunningham, how dare they take the price of the heart-stricken slave? (Strong emotion.)
But, again, these leaders tell us the laws make slaveholders, and that they cannot help but hold slaves. But who make the laws? The very slaveholders whom they seek to screen. They steal men, women, and children, and then make laws to sanction the theft, and then Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish assure us that these laws are their sufficient vindication. The slaveholders make the laws, and the laws make the slaveholders! The creator makes the creature, and then the creature makes the creator. Here we have [14] thieves and adulterers making laws to sanction their sins, and the Free Church leaders coming foward and pleading the existence of those laws in palliation of those who framed them, and as a justification of their own conduct in recognizing them as Christians to get a share of their gains. Perish every law that sanctions slaveholders! Burn them at the stake as Luther did the Bull of the Pope.
Then they tell us that ‘in the slave states men must hold slaves or be without domestic servants.’ This is an argument offered by Drs. Chalmers and Cunningham. The argument is, men cannot exist without domestic servants – they cannot get them in the slave states except by buying and holding slaves. Therefore it is right to buy and hold them. Thus slave-breeding, slave-trading, and slave-driving, and all the concubinage, crime, and horror, necessarily attendent on slave-holding, must be sanctioned and regarded as Christian practices, and slave-breeders, slave-traders, and slave-drivers, received as Christians – simply to get domestic servants. Do these men believe there is a God? In words they do; but in their apologies for slaveholders they deny Him. A domestic servant, indeed! Have they a right to perpetrate the sum of all villany to get servants? I say to them, Go work with your own hands, as Paul did, but do not attempt to whitewash thieves and men stained with the blood of innocents, to justify your guilty compact with them, in order to share the fruits of impiety. (Cheers.)
These Free leaders again talk of their regard for the ‘honour,’ the ‘headship,’ and ‘crown rights’ of our Redeemer, and tell us this led them out of the Establishment. Did their concern for the ‘crown rights’ of the Redeemer lead them 4000 miles to form an alliance with slaveholders? They will find it no easy task to convince Free Church people and others that this high and noble motive ever led to such an alliance. All will feel that the slaveholders’ dollars had more influence with them, than regard for the ‘Crown rights’ of the Redeemer, unless that money be sent back. ‘Have we separated ourselves from our Moderate brethren to form alliance with man-stealers?’ exclaims the Rev. Henry Grey. To the members, elders, and ministers of the Free Church of Scotland I say, ‘Cease your talk about your purity, the honour, glory, and crown-rights of the Redeemer, so long as you are in league with man-stealers, men polluted with incest and leprous with sin,’ and while you have the blood-stained dollars of your allies in your coffers; for, while you continue this slaveholding fellowship, your hands must be said to wield the cowskin over the back, and clank the fetter around the limbs, of the slave.
Again – the Free Church leaders talk loudly of their persecutions. Go ask the Voluntaries who have been the real persecutors of Scotland? Who struggled to drive the Voluntaries from house and home, and not leave them where they lay their heads? Who tried to wield the power of the State against them as ‘infidels,’ ‘Jacobins,’ ‘atheists,’ and ‘enemies to social order?’ Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, the very men who led the Free church up, as they say, ‘out of Egypt,’ to that Canaan of rest, the downy beds and soft cushions of American slaveholders – (applause) – and who were the loudest in their denunciations and persecutions of the Voluntaries. So eager was Cunningham to put them down, that he applauded and published to the world the very principle which he [15] now condemns abolitionists, as ‘fanatics, anarchists, and destitute of judgment, sense, or sanity,’ for embracing – i.e. that slaveholders should be instantly expelled from the Church. Why this change? Have slaveholders become more lovely in Dr. Cunningham’s sight of late? He had a purpose to serve them, and he has one now. When slaveholders could be made to tell against Voluntaryism, the Doctor affected to be horror-struck with their atrocities and the idea of Christian fellowship with them. Now, that he would justify himself and colleagues in their alliance with slaveholders, and in sharing the spoils of their guilt and shame, these ‘worst of thieves’ appear exceedingly pure and loveable. A slaveholder, as an argument against Voluntaryism and Republicanism, is the personification of all wickedness – as the donor of £3000 to the Free Church, he is ‘A living epistle for Christ.’ (Immense Applause.)
Times change – so do men. Go ask the slaves who are the persecutors in Scotland? They will point to Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, and say ‘You are the men – you, in conjunction with your allies – our oppressors – score our backs and fetter our limbs; you compel us to live in concubinage; you crush our domestic affections; you tear from us our wives and children; you scourge, imprison, hunt us with blood-hounds and rifles, and kill us if we attempt to read, or to teach our children to read, the words of eternal life – to exchange our ignorance for knowledge – our moral degradation for moral elevation – our slavery for liberty; you herd us with brutes, and seek to overcloud our souls with the night of moral death – to extinguish within us the desire of immortality, to assimilate our minds to our condition, and to rob us of our deathless inheritance.’ (Great applause.) Such would be the reply of the slaves to the Free Church leaders when they talk about their persecutions. Let them send back the money, before they talk more of their persecutions. (Great laughter and applause.)
Again, they seek to ward off our arguments and to allay excitement against them by denouncing us as enemies of the Free church. What have I done to show my enmity to the Free Church? I see her lending all her influence to associate the name of Christian with slaveholders, and receiving from them £3000 given by slaveholders solely as a reward for their fellowship and sympathy. In doing this, I believe they do wrong. I point out to them their sin, and urge them to repent, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance by sending back the money, and withdrawing from the alliance. Are these things true? They have not denied that they are. I say then to the Free church, Am I your enemy because I tell you the truth? The blasphemer says to the man who rebukes him, You are mine enmy. The thief and robber say to the jury and the court, You are our enemies. Is he who rebukes sin the enemy of the sinner? If so, let the Free Church ministers give up their calling, for they are the enemies of mankind, for none rebuked sinners as he did. No. The real enemy of the Free Church is he who cries to them – Peace, peace, in their guilty confederacy against God and man, which they have formed with slaveholders. Their best friends are those who say to them, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand,’ and that shall sweep away your refuge of lies, discover [16] your hiding places, and annul your covenant with death. (Applause.)
Repent, and flee from the wrath to come, for He is at the door of your Assembly – who is coming to bind up the wounds of those who are fallen among thieves. He is come with his fan in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge the floors of the Free Assembly and churches from the blood-spots of the slave, and he will gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Great sensation.)
The Free Church leaders have been unwearied in their efforts to coax or to browbeat the Dissenters into silence, respecting their efforts to unite, in bonds of loving union, Christ and slaveholders, and to hold up the latter as the living representatives of the former. Their efforts, with few exceptions, have proved abortive. Secession, Relief, and Independent Chapels have been open to this question, and hundreds of local churches have adopted the principle of – No fellowship with slaveholders; and it is expected that the Relief and Secession Synods will give distinct utterance to this principle this spring.6 The Committe on Evangelical Alliance have adopted the rule, not to invite slaveholders to sit in the Convention in London, to be held in August, and to join the Alliance, then and there to be formed.7 (Cheers.)
The good sense of the people of Scotland cannot be silenced from expressions of sympathy for the slave by threats, by insolent words and looks, by logical and theological distinctions, nor by bland entreaties. The Dissenters, as a body, will rebuke the oppressor, and all who may attempt to stand sponsor for his Christianity. (Great applause.)
The spirit of slaveholding is one and the same, whether it speaks through Drs. Chalmers, Cunningham and Candlish, or through the Presbyterian kidnappers of America. It hates the light, and will not come to the light, lest its deeds be made manifest, but cries out against all who would cast it out, – ‘Why hast thou come to torment us before our time?Away with him – crucify him, crucify him!‘ (Great cheering.) So in effect the Free Church leaders to all who rebuke them for this guilty league with slave-breeders.
Another argument by which the Free Church leaders seek justify themselves and silence rebuke, is, that the General Assembly has settled the question, and that the inferior courts, and individuals, have no business to disturb a question which the Assembly has settled. They ask me – What right have you to seek to reverse the decisions of the General Assembly? My answer is, Whether it be right to obey God rather than man, judge ye. General Assembly, forsooth! I am not accustomed to yield unreasoning submission to human authority; and the General Assembly of the Free Church, by their deliverance of last spring, on slavery, have shown their decisions are especially unworthy of respect or confidence. Go see their apologies for slaveholders! The veriest huckster in human flesh in Carolina would be ashamed of them. He never would seek to justify himself by pretending that he happened to fall into the condition of slaveholding, or that the providence of God made him a slaveholder – or by a distinction without a difference, between ‘slaveholding’ and ‘holding men as property.’ No man can have any respect for the decisions of a body when that body decides that slaveholding and Christianity are consistent one with the other, and that [17] slaveholders are Christians.
When the Free Church Assembly sanctions an alliance with manstealers, by making a distinction between ‘slaveholding,’ and ‘holding men as chattels,’ as they did last spring, they show themselves too weak or too wicked to be entitled to confidence. (Cheers.) Let us have no Popes – not even a Pope General Assembly! (Great applause.)
The Free Church leaders, again, seek to screen themselves by attempting to cast odium upon abolitionists. Suppose I am all they represent me to be – ‘a stranger,’ ‘a foreigner,’ ‘a wandering declaimer,’ ‘a fanatic,’ ‘an ultra radical,’ ‘an infidel,’ ‘a heathen,’ a Jew, or Mahometan, or all these combined in one – and suppose the abolitionists – as Dr. Cunningham says they are – ‘are destitute of judgment, sense, or sanity’ – what then? Does this prove that they are right in ‘forming alliance with manstealers?’ I have not asked them to receive me as a Christian, I only ask them not to receive slave-traders and slave-drivers as Christians. I do not ask them to endorse my character. I only ask them not to endorse the character of men ‘polluted with incest and renouncers of marriage rights.’ Let them apply whatever terms of opprobrium their consciences will allow them to apply to me, and to that self-forgetting, self-sacrificing, all-enduring, and all-forgiving band of abolitionists with whom I am associated; but I entreat them not to apply the terms of ‘honoured, useful, devoted, evangelical Christian, to slaveholders.’ (Great applause.)
Sir, I aspire to no higher honour than to sit at the feet of Jesus, and learn of him. If I may but win Christ, if i may but love as he loved, and forgive as He forgave, and be counted worthy to bear about in my body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus may be manifested in me; if I may but live by faith in the Son of God, who hath loved me and died for me; if my life may but be an epistle for Christ, known and read of all; if I may but share in his sufferings and death and in his rejoicing and his glory, it is all I ask on earth, and all I desire in eternity. I care not what men may say of me, if the spirit and life of Christ may but be mine; but, in the name of my Almighty God and Saviour, I protest against this effort of the Rev. Doctors Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, to associate the names of Christ, my Redeemer, with slaveholders. By seeking to promote this blasphemous association, their influence goes to crucify the Son of God afresh, and to make his holy and endeared name the scorn and contempt of mankind. (Great sensation.)
Henceforth, when the Free church leaders talk of their purity and regard for Christ’s crown – my answer shall be ‘Send back the Money.’ When they talk of domestic servants or slavery as an institution, I will say ‘Send back the Money[‘]. When they talk of happening to fall into the condition, or of unhappily finding themselves in the predicament of slaveholders – ‘Send back the money’ shall answer the stale apology. (Great applause.) And when they say the ‘providence of God’ led them into this alliance with slaveholders, as they unblushingly do, my answer to the impious assertion shall be – ‘Send back the Money.’ Be this our cry – till it sounds through every glen, and echoes from summit to summit of every hill in Scotland.
To the Free Church God says – ‘Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil – who justify the wicked for a reward! Ye [18] have wearied the Lord by saying, those who do evil are good in His sight. Woe to them who build their churches with blood, and their manses with iniquity, for the slave-stone shall cry out of the wall, and slave-beam shall answer it from their pulpits; and say, send back the money!’ ‘Woe to those who fill their treasury with that which is not their own. Bring no more vain oblations, your sabbaths and your solemn meetings are an abomination unto me. When ye make many prayers I will not hear you – your hands are full of blood – wash you – make you clean – put away the evil of your doings – ‘Send back the Money‘ – crease to do evil – learn to do well – relieve the oppressed – then shall your light break forth and your name shall be blessed;’ but if they refuse to obey, and persevere in their covenant with death and their league with hell – they and their allies must be overwhelmed in undistinguishable ruin. (Cheers.)
Mr. Wright concluded by proposing several resolutions amidst great applause.
Mr JOHN MURRAY, of Bowling, seconded the resolutions.
Mr. JAMES PINKERTON here ascended the platform from the body of the hall, and upon stating that he could not sit still and hear the venerable men alluded to by the last speaker characterised by such names as he had been pleased to apply to them, was received with a storm of disapprobation. Through the intervention of the Chairman and Mr. George Thompson, however, he was allowed to proceed. He said, the gentleman who had sat down had drawn a picture, but it was one of his own imagining. He then proceeded to state the object for which the deputation had proceeded to America.
They had gone there partly through invitation, and partly to make known the great principles which had led to the disruption; and also to seek pecuniary means in order to support the gospel throughout the land. He defended Dr. Cunningham and the other members of the deputation from the charge of treating the abolitionists, technically so called, with disrespect. They did refuse to connect themselves with the abolitionists; they made known their principles, they preached to congregations, and they received contributions, as Mr. Lewis says, whose character would stand as high as that of Mr. Wright – (hisses and applause) – they received £3000, partly from emancipated negroes, and partly from Scottish settlers, whose hearts beat with fond regard for their fatherland. He denied that they were called upon to inquire from whence money came that was cast into the treasury for the support of the gospel – they were not warranted in doing so by any principle in the Word of God. It was a principle not acted upon by the Apostles, and it was a principle not acted on by any Church he knew in this country. He detested slavery as much as any man among them. Was it not a fact that every Church in Scotland is as much identified with slavery as the Free Church, if they excepted the Reformed Presbyterians. He asked when the Secession or Relief Churches in Scotland cut off all connection with the Churches in America? During the rage of Voluntaryism, the Churches in America were pointed at as the pink of perfection; but no sooner did the Free Church of Scotland venture, contending for Christ’s rights and the people’s liberties, to go to that country than there was a hue and cry set up to send back the money. (Cheers and laughter.)
But Mr. Wright set [19] up men of straw, and then he knocked them down again; and was either ignorant of what Drs. Chalmers and Cunningham meant in their reference to the American law, or wilfilly misrepresented them. When a man in America was left property by his father, the law prevented him from emancipating his slaves, and he condemned the Free church, not for taking the money, but for holding any ecclesiastical fellowship with these Churches until that law was altered. (Cheers.) He was speaking his honest convictions, but they were to recollect that there was a difference between Christian fellowship and ecclesiastical fellowship. (Laughter.) Mr. Wright’s statement as to the refusal of ministers of the Free Church to sit on School, Trac, or Bible Society Committees with Erastians, was not consistent with fact. Mr. Pinkerton conlcuded by moving, as an amendment to the resolutions, that it was inexpedient to memorialise the Free Church Assembly, inasmuch as they have already given a full and unanimous decision on the subject, and that they are not warranted, either by the Word of God, apostolic example, or the practice of the Christian Church, to send back the money.
Mr WRIGHT said he did not mean to occupy the time of the meeting but for a moment, as all the gentleman had said could be answered in a few words – a very few words. What is the question at issue? Dr. Candlish says distinctly that the question of receiving pecuniary aid from the churches in America turns solely on the question of holding Christian fellowship with them. Now, they cannot give up the fellowship with these slaveholders while they keep the money. The money was given with the understanding that they were to be received into Christian fellowship, for the Free Church would never have received one farthing from the American slaveholders had they told them that they were opposed to the system of slavery. Had the delegates gone to the south, and preached abolition there – had they spoken out against slavery – Would they have obtained any money? (No, no.) They would have got a halter about their necks, but no money. (Cheers.) But it was not the money he cared about – it was the fellowship which was given in return. (Hear, and loud cheers.) He put it to every member of the Free Church in this Hall, – talk not about the money, but the price paid for the money; for, be it understood, they never would have received one penny; for, be it understood, they never would have received one penny if they had not paid the price of Christian fellowship. (Applause.) They themselves know this, and Doctors Cunningham and Candlish cannot agree to give up the fellowship, because if they renounce the fellowship, they must send back the money. (Cheers.)
Mr DOUGLASS next addresed the meeting nearly as follows:– The abolitionists of the United States have been labouring, during the last fifteen years, to establish the conviction throughout that country that slavery is a sin, and ought to be treated as such by all professing Christians. This conviction they have written about, they have spoken about, they have published about – they have used all the ordinary facilities for forwarding this view of the question of slavery. Previous to that operation, slavery was not regarded as a sin. It was spoken of as an evil – in some cases it was spoken of as a wrong – in some cases it was spoken of as an excellent institution – and it was nowhere, or scarcely nowhere, counted as a sin, or treated as a sin, except by the Society [20] of Friends, and by the Reformed Presbyterians, two small bodies of Christians in the United States. The abolitionists, for advocating or attempting to show that slaveholding is a sin, have been called incendiaries and madmen, and they have been treated as such – only much worse in many instances; for they have been mobbed, beaten, pelted, and defamed in every possible way, because they disclaimed the idea that slavery is not a sin – a sin against God, a violation of the rights of man – a sin demanding the immediate repentenace on the part of the slaveholders, and demanding the immediate emancipation of the trampled down crushed slave. (Cheers.) They had made considerable progress in establishing this view of the case in the United States. They had succeeded in establishing to a considerable extent in the northern part of the United States a deep conviction that to hold human beings in the condition of slavery is a sin and ought to be treated as such, and that the slaveholder ought to be treated as a sinner. (Hear and applause.)
They had called upon the religious organisations of the land to treat slaveholding as a sin. They had recommended that the slaveholder should receive the same treatment from the church that is meted out to the ordinary thief. They had demanded his exclusion from the churches, and some of the largest denominations in the country had separated at Mason & Dixon’s line, dividing the free states from the slave states, solely on account of slaveholding, as those who hold anti-slavery views felt that they could not stand in fellowship with men who trade in the bodies and souls of their fellow-men. (Applause.)8
Indeed, the anti-slavery sentiment not to sit in communion with these men, and to warn the slaveholder not to come near nor partake of the emblems of Christ’s body and blood, lest they eat and drink damnation to themselves, is become very prevalent in the free states. They demand of the slaveholder first to put away this evil – first to wash his hands in innocency – first to abandon his grasp on the throat of the slave, and until he was ready to do that, they can have nothing to do with him.
All was going on gloriously – triuphantly; the moral and religious sentiment of the country was becoming concentrated against slavery, slaveholders, and the abettors of slaveholders, when, at this period, the Free Church of Scotland sent a deputation to the United States with a doctrine diametrically opposed to the abolitionists, taking up the ground that, instead of no fellowship, they should fellowship the slaveholders. According to them the slaveholding system is a sin, but not the slaveholder a sinner. They taught the doctrine, that it was right for Christians to unite in Christian fellowship with slaveholders, and their influence has been highly detrimental to the anti-slavery cause in the United States. (Hear, hear.) All their reasonings and arguments, instead of being quoted on behalf of the abolition cause, are quoted on behalf of slavery. (Disapprobation.)
The newspapers which came from the United States came laden with eulogies of Drs. Candlish and Cunningham, and of the Free Church in general. While the slaveholders have long disconnected themselves with the Secession Church in this country, I do not say that the Secession Church has for- [21] formally repudiated all alliance with them, but by the faithfulness of their remonstrances, by their denunciations of slavery from time to time, and by their opinions and arguments being known of all men, the slaveholders have disconnected themselves with them. (Hear, hear, and applause.)
Now, we want to have the matter of the Free Church thoroughly sifted here to-night. We want to call attention to the deputation particularly which admitted the principle of holding fellowship with slaveholders. To fellowship slaveholders as the type and representatives of Jesus Christ on earth, and not only that, but to take their money to build churches, and pay their ministers, the Free Church sent a deputation to America. That deputation was met by the Abolitionists of New York, and remonstrated with, and begged not to stain their cause by striking hands with manstealers, and not to take the polluted gains of slavery to pay their ministers; but by all means to take the side of the oppressed. The deputation had an excellent opportunity of aiming an effectual blow at slavery, but they turned a deaf ear and refused to listen to the friends of freedom. They turned a deaf ear to the groans of the oppressed slave – they neglected the entreaties of his friends – and they went into the slave states, not for the purpose of imparting knowledge to the slave, but to go and strike hands with the slaveholders, in order to get money to build Free churches and pay Free Church ministers in Scotland. (Cries of ‘shame,’ and applause.)
Now, I am here to charge that deputation with having gone into a country where they saw three millions of human beings deprived of every right, stripped of every privilege, ranged with four-footed beasts and creeping things, with no power over their own bodies and souls, deprived of the privilege of learning to read the name of the God who made them, compelled to live in the grossest ignorance, herded together in a state of concubinage – without marriage – without God – and without hope; – they went into the midst of such a people – in the midst of those who held such a people, and never uttered a word of sympathy on behalf of the oppressed, or raised their voices against their oppressors.
We have been told that the deputation went to the United States for the purpose of making the Christians of the United States acquainted with the position of the Free Church of Scotland, or rather to explain the nature of the struggles of the Free Church in behalf of religious freedom, and to preach the gospel. Now, I am here to say that that deputation did not preach the gospel to the slave – that gospel which came from above – that gospel which is peaceable and pure, and easy to be entreated. Had they preached that God was the God of the poor slave as well as of his rich master – had they raised their voices on behalf of that gospel – they would have been hung upon the first lamp-post. The slaveholders hate the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing they hate so much. A man may go there and preach certain doctrines connected with the gospel of Christ, but if ever he apply the principles of the love of God to man – to the slave as well as to the slaveholder – it will immediately appear how such a doctrine would be relished.
But this is not all. Not only did the Free Church Deputation not [22] preach the gospel, or say a word on behalf of the slave, but they took care to preach such doctrines as would be palatable – as would be agreeably received – and as would bring them the slaveholders’ money. (Cries of ‘Shame,’ and applause.) They said, ‘We have only one object to accomplish;’ and they justified themselves for not meddling with the sins with which they came into contact in America, on the ground that they had one particular object to employ their attention. Was it to obey the voice of God? Was it to proclaim the terrors of the law against all iniquity? No. It was to get money to build Free Churches, and pay Free Ministers. That was the object to be accomplished, and in following this course they acted more like thieves than Christian ministers. (Applause.) I verily believe, that, had I been at the South, and had I been a slave, as I have been a slave – and I am a slave still by the laws of the United States – had I been there, and that deputation had come into my neighbourhood, and my master had sold me on the auction block, and given the produce of my body and soul to them, they would have pocketed it and brought it to Scotland to build their churches and pay their ministers. (Cries of ‘No,’ ‘Yes, yes,’ and applause.) Why not? I am no better than the blackest slave in the Southern plantations.
These men knew who were the persons they were going amongst. It had been said that they were not bound to inquire as to where money comes from, when it is put into the treasury of the Lord. But in this case there was no need of inquiry. They knew they were going to a class of people who were robbers – known stealers of men – for what is a thief? what is a robber? but he who appropriates to himself what belongs to another. The slaveholders do this continually. They publish their willingness to do so. They defend their right to do so, and the deputation knew they did this. They knew that the hat upon the head of the slaveholder, the coat upon his back, and the cash in his pocket were the result of the unpaid toil of the fettered and bound slave, and yet in view of this fact they went amongst them. They went with a lighted candle in their hands. They were told what would be the consequence, but they went – purity gave way to temptation, and we see the result. The result is evil to Scotland, and evil to America, but more to the former than to the latter; for I think the Free Church has committed more sin in attempting to defend certain principles connected with this question, than in accepting the money. They have had to upset all the first principles of Christianity in its defence. They have had to adopt the arguments of the Infidels, of the Socialists and others, by which to defend themselves, and have brought a foul blot on Christianity. (Cheers, and slight sounds of disapprobation.)
Now, what are their arguments? Why is Dr. Chalmers speaking as he does of the slaveholders and slavery, and trying to make it appear that there is a distinction without a difference? This eminent Free Church leader says, ‘A distinction ought to be made between the character of a system, and the character of persons whom circumstances have connected therewith. Nor would it be just,’ continues the Doctor, ‘to visit upon the person all the recoil and moral indignation which we feel towards the system itself.’ Here he lays down a principle by which to justify the present policy of the Free Church. This is the rock of their present position. [23] They say ‘Disinction ought to be made, for while slavery may be very bad, a sin and a crime, a violation of the law of God, and an outrage on the rights of man, yet the slaveholder may be a good and excellent Christian, and that in him we may embrace a type and standing representative of Christ.’ While they would denounce theft, they would spare the thief; while they would denounce gambling, they would spare the gambler; while they would denounce the dice, they would spare the sharper; for a distinction should be made between the character of a system and the character of the men whom circumstances have connected therewith. (Cheers and laughter.)
Drs Chalmers and his Master are at odds. Christ says, ‘By their fruits shall they be known.’ Oh! no, says Dr. Chalmers, a distinction should be made between the fruits and the character of a system! Oh! the artful dodger. (Great laughter.) Well may the thief be glad, the robber sing, and the adulterer clap his hands for joy. The character of adultery and the character of the adulterer – and the character of slavery and the character of the slaveholder, are not the same. We may blame the system, therefore, but not the persons whom circumstances have connected therewith.
I would like to see the slaveholder made so by circumstances, and I should like to trace out the turn of circumstances which compelled him to be a slaveholder. (Hear, and cheers.) I know what they say about this matter. They say the law compels a slaveholder to keep his slaves, but I utterly deny that such a law exists in the United States. There is no law to compel a man to keep his slaves, or to prevent him from being emancipated. There are three or four States where the master is not allowed to emancipate his slaves on the soil, but he can remove them to a free State, or, at all events, to Canada, where the British lion prowls upon three sides of us, and there they would be free. (Cheers.) The slaveholder who wishes to emancipate his slaves has but to say, ‘There is the north star – that is the road to Canada – I will never claim you’ – and there would be little doubt of their finding their way to freedom. There was not a single slaveholder in America but who, if he chose, could emancipate his slaves instantly; so all the argument on this basis falls to the ground, as the fact did not exist on which it is built. (Cheers.)
Slavery – I hold it to be an indisputable proposition – exists in the United States because it is respectable. The slaveholder is a respectable man in America. All the important offices in the Government and the Church are filled by slaveholders. Slaveholders are Doctors of Divinity; and men are sold to build churches, women, to support missionaries, and children to send bibles to the heathen. Revivals in religion and revivals in the slave trade go on at one and the same time. Now, what we want to do is to make slavery disrespectable. Whatever tends to make it respectable tends to elevate the slaveholder, and whatver, therefore, proclaims the respectability of the slaveholders, or of slaveholding, tends to perpetuate the existence of this vile system. Now, I hold one of the most direct, one of the most powerful means of making him a respectable man, is to say that he is a Christian; for I hold that of all other men a Christian is most entitled to my affection and regard. Well, the Free Church is now proclaiming that [24] these men – all blood-besmeared as they are, with their stripes, gags, and thumbscrews, and all the bloody parapharnalia of slave-holding, and who are depriving the slave of the right to learn the word of God, that these men – are Christians! and ought to be in fellowship as such. (Cries of ‘No,’ and ‘Yes.’) Does any man deny that the Free Churuch does this?
Mr. PINKERTON. – You are libelling the Free Church.
Mr. DOUGLASS. – What! is this disputed? Will they not fellowship those who will not teach their slaves to read? I have to say, in answer, that there is not a slaveholder in the American Union who teaches his slaves to read, and I have to inform that individual, and the Free Church and Scotland generally, that there are several States where it is punishable with death for the second offence to teach a slave his letters. (Great applause.) And further (said Mr. Douglass) I have to tell him there is yet to be the first petition in the Legislature demanding a repeal of that law. If the Free Church are to fellowship the slaveholders at all, they must fellowship them in their blood and their sins just as they find them; and if they will not fellowship them except they teach their slaves to read, then they must not fellowship them at all. It was necessary to keep the slaves in ignorance. If he were not kept in ignornace, where there are so many facilities for escape, he would not long remain a slave, and every means are resorted to to keep him ignorant. The sentiment is general, that slaves should no know nothing, but to do what is told them by their masters.
But a short time ago there was a Sabbath school established in Richmond, Virginia, in which the slaves, it was supposed, were being educated. The story reached the north, and was some cause of gratification; but in three weeks afterwards we found in the Richmond papers an article inquirying into the character of that school, and demanding to know why a Sabbath-school had been established in Virginia. Well, they gave an account of themselves, and what was it? In that Sabbath-school nothing was taught but what would tend to make the slave a better servant than before it was established; and in the second place, that there had not been, and there never would be, any book whatever. So they have schools there without books, and learn to read without letters. You fill find Sabbath-schools, in many part of the country, but you will find these such as I have desribed. (Applause.)
Mr. Douglass concluded a long speech by paying a compliment to Mr. Thompson for his efforts in the cause of slave emancipation.
Mr. JAMES N. BUFFUM next addressed the meeting. He always, he said, felt much hesitation in addressing a meeting like the present; but being placed between two such large men as his friends Mr. Douglass and Mr. Thompson, he felt more than his usual diffidence on this occasion. (Cheers.)
He had been requested to say something about his impressions of Scotland – of the impressions which he had formed since he had come here from America. He was proud to acknowledge that his heart had been made glad since he came to this country, by the feeling which he had seen manifested in every place which he had visited in favour of the cause of universal abolition. Everything which he saw indicated [25] that good would come out of the present movement. (Hear.) He rejoiced to say that on scarcely any occasion had they encountered anything but the most flattering cordiality of sentiment; but he was now more rejoiced in the fact that they had at last got some opposition, for here now was a man who had actually come out in defence of the Free Church. (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. Douglass and he had visited Perth, Dundee, Montrose, Aberdeen, Ayr, Kilmarnock, the Vale of Leven, and other places, and they had not before found an individual who had any defence to offer for the conduct of the Free Church. He was glad to see them beginning to come out. (Cheers.) They had asked them ever since they came to Scotland to come forward with their defence, if they had one. They had challenged them in every town they went to, but it was of no avail, they were silent; but they kept the money. (Applause.)
When they reached the town of Montrose, they were told they would be met by the lion of the north, the Reverend Mr. Nixon, who was expected to speak in defence of the Free Church, but he carefully kept out of the way. They challenged him on the spot. He was ready to speak on all occasions, for he was an eloquent man, but on this occasion he kept out of the way, and Mr. Douglass and he, were therefore, left in undisturbed possession of the field.
They afterwards went to Duntocher, where, they were told, there was a man who wanted to discuss this question, but although he got notice to come forward, he paid no attention to the intimation. (Hear.) Instead of coming to meet them, the Rev. Mr. Alexander of the Free Church, the individual referred to, took another way of settling the question as far as he was concerned. This Rev. Gentleman, they were informed, entertained the idea, that slavery would never be abolished because it had existed for such a length of time. On this account he would take no interest in the question in future. What an excuse in the 19th century, in which Christianity had been proclaimed, seeing that not one-half of the world had yet been evangelised. Christianity had been preached during that time and had made great progress, and it was still progressing, and in the same way part of slavery had been abolished, although the best part of it was yet to come.
But this was not the point. This minister of the Free Church, after being invited to come to the meeting, where Mr. Douglass and he were to speak, told those of his congregation who called upon him, that he had now decided not to go to hear them; but if they (the members of the Free Church) went, they were carefully to notice what was said, and come back to him and he would explain it. (Laughter.) What a coward! They offered to give him a free platform, but no, he preferred remaining in his own private room, and telling those who waited upon him to bring the facts to him and he would expalin them. He (Mr. B.) told Mr. Douglass the next day that this Mr. Alexander put him mind of a little Connecticut Colonel, who was a very brave man according to his own account. This hero flourished during the revolutionary war in America, and on one occasion when they were about to have a battle with some British troops, he addressed his soldiers in the following terms – ‘Now is the [26] time to show your courage and patriotism. Now is the time to fight gloriously and fall triumphantly, but, if you must run, then run, and, as I am a little lame, I’ll be going now.’ (Cheers and laughter.)
Now, the Free Church was a little lame, and her Doctors of Divinity were a little lame, and the knowing ones were going off at once, as they knew if they remained to fight in defence of the slaveholders’ money, or American slavery, they would not have a foot left to stand upon. (Great applause.)
When he was in the town of Dundee, he called on the Editor of the Northern Warder, for the purpose of inviting the Rev. Mr. Lewis to come out and speak on the question. They (Mr. Douglass and himself) stated that they wanted to give him an oportunity, if they stated anything beyond the truth, or what was untrue or false in logic, to come forward and dispute it. Well, he refused to come, but he saw the gentleman some days afterwards, and got into argument with him on the subject. On this occasion, he (Mr. B.) put the question in this shape:– Now, supposing, any one was to rig out a pirate ship, go upon the high seas, take the vessels of the merchants of this or any other country, kill, burn, and destroy all that came in their way, and make themselves rich by this means – and after getting tired of this business, that they went to the coast of America, and formed themselves into a Church, to make themselves respectable – and suposing they took the Free Church for their model, and made the captain the minister, the mates elders and deacons, and the crew the congregation – would the Free Church of Scotland go over there, and fellowship such men, and take their blood-stained gold? (Cheers.) He supposed there was not a man in scotland but would have answered this direct. (Hear, hear.)
In his estimation the cases were parallel. There was nothing of consequence pased at the time, he gave no answer, but be came out afterwards in the Warder with the following article:–
So far as we are personally concerned, we must say that few questions have throughout appeared to us more free from difficulty and perplexity. If we want aid in a good cause, we shall accept it freely and unhesitatingly from all who tender it. Whatever their creed, or their character, or the origin of their gains, it would make no difference, and constitute no difficulty in our eye, provided that they gave what they gave frankly and unconditionally, and did not ask us to receive it as specially derived from an unlawful source, so as to win from us any implied approbation of that source. If for a good cause, we say, a sum of money were placed in our hands unconditionally, and without explanations, we should accept it, whoever the donor, asking no questions, for conscience sake:– nay, if we have reason to believe that in some particular part of his conduct, he was erring and criminal.9
Here (said Mr. B.) we have the moral standard of the editor of the Warder. Let us examine it for a moment, and compare it with that of worldly men wh make not the same high claims to Christian principle. In our country we have a law (and I am told that you have the same here), that if a man receives stolen goods, knowing them to be such, he is reckoned accessary to the crime, and punished along with the thief; but this sage and Christian editor tells us that his standard is not so high as the common law. It [27] would ‘constitute no difficulty in our eye’ – we would take it, ‘asking no questions, for conscience sake.’ (Cheers.)
A few years ago, when a committee of gentlemen in our country, (who made no claims to anything more than common honesty, in their official capacity at least,) when struggling to complete a monument to the memory of those who fell in the battle of Bunker’s Hill, were offered a donation by a lady who procured it by dancing at the theatres in our country, they at once rejected it, giving as a reason that they could not stain their monument, and the memory of their fathers, by taking money that was procured in such an improper way. But the editor of the Warder would have taken it, and asked no questions for conscience sake.
I have only time to cite but one more example out of the hundreds which might be brought in proof of what I have alleged against the Warder and that is the noble and magnanimous position taken by Daniel O’Connell. When the Repeal cause was struggling for want of funds, a sum of money was sent him from American slaveholders. That gentleman, labouring, as he believed, for the cause of liberty in his own country, could not purchase it by receiving the price of the enslaved men of any other portion of mankind, and he at once sent it back, saying, that he ‘wanted none of their blood-stained money!’ (Cheers.) How nobly does this act contrast with the wicked conduct of the Free Church, and the low and grovelling declaration of the Northern Warder! Out upon such morality! It is better suited for the organ of a banditti, than the mouth-piece of a Christian denomination.
I will refer to but one more position taken by this sage editor. He seems to congratulate himself on this fact, that if the Free Church be guilty in taking the slave money, then the cotton-spinners of Glasgow and Manchester are as much or more so. (Cheering.) Now this is coming down considerably. At first we heard of this church as being one formed of members who had come out from the Establishment because it was too corrupt – too low and grovelling, and they had struck for somthing [sic] higher, something holier, something purer, than what was professed and practised by any other church; and the struggle through which they had passed in coming out of the old Establishment had wrought a wonderful change on them. (Cheers.) When Mr. Lewis was about to take his departure for America on the money mission, he says ‘I have attempted to analyse the state of mind in which I am about to visit America – very different from that in which I should ahve visited the States a few years ago, when a Minister of the Establishment, and taking part in its defence and extension. Then I fear I should have attracted to myself only the evil things of America; now, I may hope to see the good as well as the evil. Surely the Establishment controversy on the one side, whose waves have hardly subsided, and this new enterprise of the Free Church, have induced a state of mind favourable to a large observation of the civil and ecclesiastical condition of the United States.’
Here we have the state of mind in which Mr. Lewis was about the visit the country where three millions of men were made brutes, and not only deprived of the right to read the Bible, but deprived of every right which can make life desirable. Surely the friends of man in America had a right to [28] expect that such a person as Mr. Lewis, who had just passed through a great conflict for Christian liberty, and had become purified by the process, would not, when he landed on our shores, at once join with a band of piratical men who had enslaved a portion of God’s children, as dear in His sight as Mr. lewis, and whose oppression is as much more galling and bitter than that practised by the Government of England upon the Churches in Scotland, as man is more valuable than money. But in despite of remonstrance, the most pathetic and earnest – in despite of every argument of the friends of the slave, they went to the slave states, called them good Christians, partook of the Lord’s Supper with thieves, and shook hands with adulterer. In vain were they reminded of the former Christian stand taken in Scotland – in vain did our friends point to some of the noblest Scotch divines, whose voices had thrilled the hearts of the friends of freedom in our land, and whose testimony had struck terror to the heart of the oppressor – in vain did they tell them how the oppressor’s hands would be strengthened, and their own weakened, by such an alliance – in vain did they tell them of the stain they would cast upon Christianity and their own Church’s cause. Nothing was sufficient to restrain their rapacity for the dollars; and soon we see these champinions of freedom – these paragons of piety – bowing down to the Moloch of slavery, and worshipping before its blood-stained altar. (Hear, hear.)
How have the mighty fallen! Starting with a high and holy profession, and claiming to be peculiarly qualified to represent the principles of Jesus Christ upon earth, now, within a few years, we have seen them come down – down step by step, until, if we judge by the articles in the Northern Warder, they are struggling for a character equal with those worldly men, the cotton-spinners of Manchester and Glasgow, who, for the purposes of gain, trade in articles which are produced by the unpaid labour of slaves.
But I think they will not be able to stick there. (Hear.) If I am not mistaken, the cotton-spinners of Manchester and Glasgow will not allow the connection, for I do believe, wordly as they are, their standard of honest dealing is far higher, and they would scorn that of the Warder as being immeasurably too low for men who wish to sustain a fair character as business men. I do not believe they are yet preopared to take money where they can get it without regard to its origin, and especially when they know that it is procured in a criminal way.
I presume it would take quite a number of years of religious teaching from the Warder to make them believe that a man who receive and partakes of stolen goods, is not by that act implicated in the crime. That discovery was left for a religious paper, the organ of a great and pure religious body, whose particular office is to seek for new truths. (Hear.) Let pickpockets rejoice – let thieves hold up their heads – let highway robbers take courage at this discovery, – now they will be able to form an alliance with honourable and sage editors, and see the fruit of their toil appropriated to the conversion of man, and the spread of the gospel. (Great applause.)
I want the Free Church to send back that money. (Cheers.) I want them to take a position which will benefit themselves [29] pecuniarily, morally, and religiously. (Much applause.) I find members of the Free Church who tell me that they want the money sent back. More than this, when I was at Greenock, I met a deacon of Dr. Macfarlane’s congregation who told me that he wanted that money to go back, and that he had no language to express his abhorrenace of taking it. He further stated that he had been talking with a large number of the members of the Free Church that morning, and that they were all in favour of sending it back. I know one person who would give £100, if not a larger sum, to the Free Church, so soon as it is sent back; another who would give £20, another £10, and many members who would not pay another farthing into the treasury until the money is sent back. (Applause.) I believe that the Free Church in six months would be better off pecuniarily, and I know she would be so moraly and religiously; and as a friend, therefore, I would advise that they send back this blood-stained money, and sever all connection with the slaveholders of America. (Cheers.)
Mr. Buffum, after referring to the visit of Mr. Thompson to the United States, and to the change of feeling which had taken place since that period in regard to the anti-slavery question, concluded by stating that there was not a house large enough in Boston to hold those who would now go to hear him – and even those who joined in the mob against him, hoped he would again visit them.
Mr. PINKERTON’s amendment not being seconded, the resolutions moved by Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Murray, and supported by Messrs. Douglass and Buffum, were submitted to the meeting, and adopted by acclamation.
A gentleman, named Kilpatrick, here got upon the platform, and made a few observations. He said he was not apologist for the Free Church, but he objected to the resolution, on the ground that he was not one of those who could agree to break all fellowship with Christians on the slavery question. He was of opinion that the opponents of slavery would frustrate their own object by breaking all connection with the Christians of America, as by communication the latter might be benefited by the greater light, which the people of this country had obtained on the subject.
The CHAIRMAN, in answer to the remarks of the previous speaker, said they did not look upon slaveholders as being Christians at all. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON rose and said – My excellent friends who have already addressed this meeting, must permit me to say, that though I fully concur in the view they have taken of the momentous question now before us, I nevertheless cannot rise to speak in support of their sentiments, without expressing my deep pain at finding myself in the situation which I at this moment occupy. It has been my honour and privilege to stand in many of the pulpits of Scotland to advocate, in the presence of large audiences, the abolition of slavery. I have also very frequently in those pulpits exposed and denounced the guilty connection subsisting between the churches of the Southern States of America, and the execrable and cruel system of slavery. Wherever I have done this, I have not only had the sympathy of the people, but [30] the approbration and support of the ministers. Not unfrequently I have been specially invited to lecture upon the inconsistency and criminality of the American churches that were connected with slavery, and in all cases found the clergy ready to go with me in my heaviest denuncations of those who, while they called themselves the disciples and ministers of the Redeemer, were found conniving at the enslavement, body and soul, of those for whom he died. Little did I ever dream that, in the course of my brief life, it would fall to my lot to stand upon a platform in Scotland to arraign those who once joined with me in condemning the blood-guiltiness of the American churches, for needlessly, gratuitously, without solicitation, and without any temptation but the most sordid and paltry, uniting in Christian fellowship with men who, of all the abettors of the slavery in the universe, are the most inexcusable – because the most enlightened. (Cheers.) Sir, this is the third deputation from the Churches of Great Britain to the Christians of America that I have found it my duty to charge with having done injury to the cause of the slave, by their fraternisation of menstealers and their apologists; and it is in grief I add, that of those three deputations, the one before us to-night has done most harm and has the smallest excuse to offer.
Sir, the frequent mention this evening of the name of one gentleman connected with that deputation, has brought to my mind a circumstances which I consider it proper to make public. In 1834 I presented a friend in Edinburgh with a small volume entitled, ‘A Picture of American Slavery.’ It was a work of a gentleman who had been for many years a Presbyterian minister in the southern states of America. It contained an awful and revolting delineation of the utter corruption of the churches connected with slavery. Its accuracy had never been denied, though its author had frequently been in imminent peril of losing his life, as a reward for his faithfulness in drawing aside the curtain which, till the appearance of his book, had veiled the horrors of those painted sepulchres – the Evangelical slaveholding Churches of the United States. Well, Sir, this book was placed in the hands of Dr. Cunningham. (Hear, hear.) After he had read it, he invited me to breakfast with him. Our conversation related solely to the criminality of the American Churches that supported slavery. He told me, distinctly and emphatically, that of all the aspects under which he regarded American slavery, the most affecting, and that which filled him with the deepest horror, was the connection of ministers of the Gospel, and professing Christians, with the soul-destroying system. At that interview he did not hesitate to declare his conviction, that slaveholding and Christianity were incompatible and irreconcileable. (Cheers.) He did more. He expressed his desire to be instrumental in reprinting the work which he had read, for he said that he most earnestly desired that all the Christians of Scotland should be aware of the guilt and turpitude of those in America, who had covered their Christian profession with shame, by participating in the iniquity of slavery. The consequence was, that the little book was reprinted, under the auspices of Dr. Cunningham, and circulated for the information of the people of Scotland, and for the sole and special purpose of rousing their indignation against the hyprocrites of [31] America who, while calling themselves members of the body of christ, made merchandise of slaves and the souls of men. Here is the book, printed in your own city, with a preface from the pen of Dr. Cunningham. What says he in the preface? – that he felt ‘he could not do a more important service to the cause of true religion, than to have it printed in a cheap edition, and presented to his fellow-countrymen.’ What else does he say? – ‘We are of opinion that all parties will unite in testifying their abhorrence of the abominations revealed in this book.’ How does he speak of the acts revealed in this book? – he calls them ‘brutal deeds;’ and concludes with these remarkable words:– ‘The extraordinary facts detailed, especially that professed ministers of the Gospel in the United States are deeply involved in the fearful guilt and wickedness in the book, must make a deep impression on every well-disposed mind in these lands.’ Such is the preface to Mr. George Bourne’s ‘Picture of Slavery among the Churches of America.’ What is the motto which Dr. Cunningham printed upon the title-page? –
Is there not some chosen curse –
Some hidden thunder – in the stores of heaven,
Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man
Who gains his fortune from the blood of souls?
This is an awful motto. Well, what is the entire object of the book, thus reprinted and adopted by Dr. Cunningham, and sent forth with the terrific words upon its title which I have just read? The object is to show, (I quote from the book,) ‘how this desolating curse (slavery) can be effectually extirpated.’ And what is the remedy advised by the author, and recommended by Dr. Cunningham? Hear it:
Every slaveholder, peremptorily and without delay, must be excommunicated from the church of God. (Cheers.) It is of no importance what titles, what office, what station, or what rank the slaveholder may hold, or what apparent virtues or talents he may possess or develope. To all these specious pleas, and to all this anti-christian white-washing, there is a concise, significant and irrefutable reply – He is a man-stealer! But, as a man-stealer is the very highest criminal in the judgment of God, and of all rational uncorrupted men, he cannot be a Christian; and, therefore, it is an insult to the Lord Jesus Christ the Head of the church, to record the most notorious criminal as an acceptable member of ‘the household of faith.’ (Loud cheers.)
Can you wonder, Sir, at the pain, the surprise, the indignation which I feel, on finding that Dr. Cunningham has sought the aid of these man-stealers, to build up the cause of the Free Church of Scotland, and that he now stands forth in the General Assembly of that church, to claim them as Christian brethren, and to rebuke the men who are endeavouring to separate the holy from the vile in the visible Church of Christ? How have the mighty fallen! How has the fine gold become dim! The salt has lost is savour, and is henceforth fit for thing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. I do not hesitate to declare my conviction, that the conduct of the deputation of the Free Church, while in America, has been as disgraceful as any thing recorded during the last fifty years. (Loud cheers.)
[32] Sir, I well recollect receiving a requisition, signed by Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Candlish, and others, who are now conspicuous members of the Free Church, to deliver a lecture in the West Church, Edinburgh, on the duty of British Christians in reference to American slavery. (Cheers.) The great building in which we assembled was crowded to overflowing, and I was supported by these gentlemen in my declaration, that it was the duty of the Christians of this country to refuse all intercourse with the professors of Christianity on the other side of the Atlantic, who in any way lent their assistance to the horrid system of slavery. (Cheers.) What have we beheld since? One of these men has crossed the Atlantic, and, instead of bearing a fearless testimony against the abomination of slavery, he has actually linked the Free Church of Scotland to the very worst of the slaveholding churches of America. He has done more. He has brought into the treasury of the Free Church, the fruits of the plunder of the victims, whom the members of those slaveholding churches have robbed of their liberty – robbed of the fruits of the plunder of the victims, whom the members of those slaveholding churches have robbed of their liberty – robbed of the fruits of their industry – robbed of every privilege that is valuable and dear – and reduced to the condition of horses, and pigs, and dogs. Oh, horrible impiety! Oh, wicked inconsistency! Oh, monstrous and iniquitous union, of light and darkness, Christ and Belial! Ministers and members of Scotland’s Free Church, I tell you from this place, that, while you retain in your treasury, one farthing of the money taken from the slaveholders of America, the curse of the slave, and the righteous indignation of the slave’s God, are upon you. While you retain that money, the fairest edifice you have reared, is stained with blood. While you retain that money, there is a fly in your pot of ointment, that will make it a stench in the nostrils of all good men. While you retain that money, your gold and your silver are cankered and corrupted, and, as surely as you have taken it, and, by so doing, joined hands with the very worse of the oppressors of the slave, so surely will your glory depart, until ‘ICHABOD’ will be written upon the walls of those buildings you have erected for the worship of Him, who has said, ‘Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! for ye tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, but neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.’ (Loud cheers.) You must put on the sackcloth of repentence. You must confess that you have sinned. You must acknowledge that you have allowed yourselves to be driven into an unholy compact with men-stealers, and you must ask forgiveness of those manacled beings, whose stolen wages you permitted to be brought into your treasury. (Cheers.) Do this, and thy light shall break forth as the morning, thine health shall spring forth speedily, and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the Lord shall being up the rear.
Oh, the accursed love of gold! Oh, that three thousand pounds should outweigh the claims of three millions of slaves; should strike dumb the eloquent tongues of Scotland’s most talented ministers; should corrupt the principles, pervent the judgment, and stifle the sympathies of those, who sere once among the most uncompromising of the enemies of slavery! Who does not say, ‘Perish the gold, and return again the days of honesty and truth and justice.’ (Cheers.) What a spectacle, to see the delegates of the Free [33] Church wandering about the slave states with padlocks on their lips! to see them holding fellowship with men, who would have hounded on a lynch-law mob to drag them to the gibbet, if they had preached one sermon against slavery.
A person at this meeting has told us that these gentlemen were sent to preach the Gospel, and had nothing to do with slavery. I tell him they did not preach the Gospel. Would that Missionary be called a preacher of the Gospel, who should say not a word against idolatry in India; not a word against Popery in Rome; not a word against the false prophet at Constantinople! but, on the contrary, fellowship the priests of Juggernaut, fellowship the disciples of Ignatius Loyola, fellowship the expounders of the Koran, and hold forth in their temples and mosques, and take gifts from the shrines of their idols, to build churches and pay ministers in this country. (Loud cheering.) Would Nathan have fulfilled his mission, if, when he had told his parable, he had neglected to say. ‘Thou art the man?’ (Cheers.) Did Paul so act when he stood on the Hill of Mars, at Athens? Did Christ so act when he overthrew the tables of the money-changers? Did Noah so act when he preached righteousness to an antediluvian world? Did Lot so act in Sodom, or Moses when he beheld the golden calf? The man who, calling himself a minister of the gospel, visits the Southern States without bearing his testimony against slavery, is recreant to the cause he has professed to espouse; and the more so, if his silence is induced by a desire to share with the man-stealer the gains of his iniquity.
They preached the Gospel – did they? and in so doing satisfied their consciences! Why then did they leave the Church of Scotland? (Cheers.) They might have preached it till now, and still remained in the church, according to the principles which actuated them in America. They had only to be silent on the subject of the interference of the secular authority in the affairs of the church, and they might have remained. Why the Non-intrusion agitation in Scotland, and the silence of the delegates on the subject of slavery in America? They could find texts enough in Scotland in favour of Non-intrusion, how was it they could find none against salvery when in America? I should like to see the sermons they preached. I should like to see if among their texts could be found these words –
‘Whoso stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand he shall surely be put to death.’
Or these – ‘Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke:’
Or these – ‘Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously one with another:’
Or these – ‘Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants therefore:’
Or these – ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he heath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord:’
Or these – ‘Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them:’
[34] Or these – ‘Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal:’
Or these – ‘The labourer is worthy of his hire.’ Or these – ‘Go to now, rich men, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. The cry of those who have reaped down your fields, whose hire is of you kept back by fraud, crieth, and their cry hath entered in the ears of the Lord God of Sabaoth.’
Think you, my friends, the ministers of the Free Church took any one of these texts, while gathering up the gold of the Southern States? I tell you, say. A faithful sermon from either of these texts, would have obtained for him the honours of martyrdom – a martyrdom that would have shed more glory on the Free Church of Scotland, than all her struggles for the Headship of Christ, in his own Church. (Cheers.)
Oh, Sir, when I think of the good which these men might have done, and of the evil which they have done; when I contrast the undying fame they might have achieved for themselves, and Scotland’s Free Church, with the scandal and infamy they have brought, both upon themselves, and upon that otherwise illustrious body, I feel as if I could weep tears of blood.
Do not judge me too harshly for my warmth, or for the strength of my language. Have I not been in America? Have I not laboured in the cause of the slave? Have I not had the honour of suffering somewhat for the slave’s sake? Is not my heart knit in strongest sympathy with those who are nobly battling with the demon of oppression? Was it not my mission, for years, to preach the duty which these delegates have neglected? Have I not laboured to effect the very object which they have frustrated? Have I not addressed public meetings, and synods, and unions, and assemblies in Scotland, upon the duty of non-fellowship with man-stealers? Has not every city, and almost every town, and scores of the churches in Scotland, heard my voice uplifted in denunciation of all communion with slave-owners? Have I not rejoiced over the growing symptoms of a determination to mark the reprobatioin in which slavery is held in Scotland, by withdrawing from fellowship with the most guilty of those who participate in the iniquity of the system, namely the professed disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ? Can I then read such speeches as have been delivered by Dr. Cunningham – such articles as have been written in the Witness – such letters as have been penned by Dr. Chalmers – such books as have been published by Mr. Lewis – and such atrocious articles as have appeared in the Scottish Guardian, without being moved to indignation, and without joining my voice to the voices of those who are at this moment crying – ‘Send back the money?’ Yes send back the money! Let that be the cry – teach it to your children, that when they see one of Scotland’s ministers in the street, they may in infantile accents cry – ‘Send back the money!’ Women of Scotland! let the words become so familiar to you, that you shall in mistake say to those who sit at your table – ‘Will you please to send back the oney?’ (Laughter and loud cheers.) Let every city cover its walls with capitals, a foot square in size, ‘Send back the money.’ (Cheers.) Inscribe upon the pedestal of John Knox’s statue – ‘Send back the money.’ (Cheers.) Write upon the tombs of those who died for the solemn league and covenant – ‘Send back the money.’ [35] (Cheers.) From the summit of Arthur’s Seat, let a banner perpetually float, with this watchword – ‘Send back the money.’ (Cheers.) Carve deep into the Salisbury Crags the words ‘Send back the money.’ Inscribe on the Calton Hill, in characters that may be seen from St. George’s Hall, ‘Send back the money.’ (Immense cheering.)
Sir, the question which everybody is asking is, What will the Free Church Assembly do?’ What they will do I cannot say, but I know what they ought to do, and what they will do if they do right. If they listen to the wishes of the vast majority of the people, they will send back the money. If they are sincerely desirous of averting disunion and division, they will send back the money. If they determine to purge their body from the foul stain of slavery and blood, they will send back the money. If they wish to preach the gospel with success, they will send back the money. If they would have the blessing, rather than the curse, of the slave, they will send back the money. If they would secure the favour and blessing of the God who hath said, ‘I hate robbery for burnt offering,’ they will send back the money. (Loud cheers.) But if they do not, what is the duty of those who belong to that Church? I answer, come out from such a Church, be separate from it, touch not the unclean thing; wash your own hands in innocency; bear a practical testimony against so gross an act of treason to the cause of humanity, as that of recognising as the ministers and followers of Christ those who trade in men, and make merchanidse of souls. Settle it in your minds, that of all the crimes that can be committed, slavery, as practised in the United States, is the worst. It is the sum of all villainies; – it is the usurpation of the rights of God himself; – it is the debasement of man, created in the image of God, to the level of the beast.
Does it mend the matter that this horrible crime is committed by a Doctor of Divinity? – Does it diminish the turpitude of the crime, that the victim is dragged by sacerdotal hands to the horns of the altar, and sacrificed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is slavery more amiable, because practised by those who preach that God hath made of one blood all the nations of men? Sir, my deliberate opinion, formed from a study of this subject during the last fifteen years, is, that slavery would long since have ceased in America, if it had not been upheld by the Christian denominations of that country. (Cheers.)
Well, Sir, just when the great religious bodies of that country were awakening to a sense of their duty – just when Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, were taking up the subject of fellowship with slaveholders, and resolving to purge out the leaven of iniquity, the Free Church of Scotland sends out a deputation – that, trampling under their feet all their formerly avowed principles – resisting and despising the most affectionate and earnest remonstrances offered to them on their landing – casting behind their backs the known wishes and opinions of the vast bulk of their constituents – direct their steps to the slave States – partake the hospitalities of slaveholders – sit at tables groaning with delicacies, the plunder of those who sere fainting under the lash in the field – lie in luxurious beds, pur- [36] chased with the money that belonged to the slaves – are waited upon by human beasts of burden – enter churches build by slaves, out of the money of which those slaves had been robbed – preach sermons to recommend the religion of Christ, in pulpits from which they would have been dragged as felons, if they had opened their mouths for the dumb. They call by the name of ‘dear brethren,’ men living upon the fruits of the enslavement and degradation of their own church members – they pocket a portion of the fruits of a system of soul murder, concubinage, lewdness, Lynch-law – and having done so, come home to be henceforth the apologists of those whom they have thus confederated.
Verily, they have their reward! They have broken the hearts of the friends of liberty. They have won the regards and esteem of the traffickers in human flesh. Their praises are sounded in the vile pro-slavery newspapers of America. They have done what they could do to sanctify and perpetuate the most horrible system of brutality and murder on the face of the earth. They have given the lie to all those who, before they visited America, had proclaimed the doctrine of ‘no union with slaveholders.’ To justify themselves, they have misrepresented and maligned the only persons who are consistently working in the cause of freedom. To cover their own cowardice, they have branded others as fanatics, and enemies to the cause of the slave. And, to reconcile the Free church of Scotland to all this, they have put £3000 into her treasury.
Oh, Sir, if every farthing of that three thousand pounds could be made another three thousand pounds, the Free Church should sacrifice it three thousand times over, rather than fix upon herself the deep and damning stain of such a horrid sin, as that of appropriating the wages of blood for the promotion of the cause of Christ. (Loud cheers.)
Friends of humanity! Up, rouse ye. Let the Free Church have no rest. I feel sure that you will in the end triumph. I feel sure that you will in the end triumph. The difficulty all lies in the influence which a very few men exert over the rest of their brethren. But for the fear of man, which bringeth a snare, there would be scores in the ensuring Assembly to denounce this covenant with transgressors, into which the deputation has entered. I well know the over awing effect of the presence of the Candlishes, the Cunninghams, and the Chalmerses. Were these men to propose the sending back of the joyful money, the proposition would be hailed with plaudits from all parts of the house; but while they hang by their corupt and temporising doctrines, their less influential brethren are mute. All honour to the Willises, Greys, and Duncans of the Free Church.10 (Loud cheers.) I believe, Sir, there are many Willises, Greys, and Duncans, and many in that body, and I fondly trust they will at the ensuing Assembly, obey God rather than man, and speak out in the honest sentiments of their souls.
To this Society and its friends I would say, Be ye steadfast and unmovable. The path of duty at the present is most plain. While a penny of the slaveholders’ money remains in Scotland, let there be no peace.
If there be any in this country who, while calling themselves abolitionists, look with indifference or apathy upon this ques- [37] tion, and refuse to lend a helping hand, I beseech such to examine themselves, whether they are really sound in the faith, and to beware lest this struggle should reveal, that they were only abolitionists when they could be such, without the loss of the favour and countenance of the chief priests and elders of the people. Peace is worth much; but it is not worth the sacrifice of principle. It is far too dearly bought, when it costs a man his fidelity to the cause of truth, and of the bleeding slave.
To the Free Church, I say – Be wise in time. What you do, do quickly. It is even now almost too late to retrieve your character; but delay may be fatal. Let those distinguished men, who are for compromising the question, and keeping the money, be assured that the strife is unequal. The people are against them. The spirit of the age is against them. The Word of God, and the Gospel of Christ, are against them. They may contend a little longer, but they must fall at last.
Repent ye, then, and swiftly bring,
Forth from the camp, the accursed thing;
Consign it to remorseless fire –
Then, strew its ashes on the wind,
Nor leave an atom wreck behind!
So shall your power and wealth increase –
So shall the FREE CHURCH dwell in peace;
On it the Almighty’s glory rest,
And all the land by it be blest.
Mr. Thompson resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.
Mr WRIGHT proposed a resolution or cordial acknowledgement to the Evangelical Alliance, for having, at their last meeting held at Birmingham, passed a resolutioin by which slaveholders would not be invited to their meeting, to be held in August next; and recommending to all those bodies whose object is the spread of the Redeemer’s Kingdom, to adopt and carry out the same principle; which motion was agreed to by acclamation.
Mr. THOMPSON – Sir, the Committee have intrusted to me a resolution, which it gives me peculiar pleasure to submit to this meeting. It is the intention of a few in this country, who deeply sympathise with the American abolitionists, and who desire to do all in their power to promote the cause of universal emancipation, to meet in London in the month of August next, that they may confer together respecting the best and most effectual means of realising their wishes. At this conference we hope to be favoured with the presence and assistance of some of the most uncompromising friends of abolition from Scotland, from ireland, from various parts of England, and from the United States.
Sir, there is one man without whom such a meeting would scarcely be complete, by whomsoever else it might be attended. That man is the object of my resolution to invite, and that man is William Lloyd Garrison. (Loud cheers.)
Sir, there are many reasons for my individually desiring to see William Lloyd Garrison once again in this country. I long to embrace to my heart a friend and brother, who occupies a place in my most ardent affections. I long to tell him, that though the [38] whispers of falsehood, and the parthian arrows of the envious and bigoted, may have done him injury in the estimation of others, they have only made him more dear to me, and more anxious to be identified with him. I want him to revisit these shores, that he may, by his own bright presence, dispel those clouds which the clandestine calumnies of his enemies have raised, to obscure the fair proportions of his pure and beautiful character.
Sir, let me once again bear my testimony to the character of William Lloyd Garrison. I have known him for thirteen years. During that time I have studied him deeply. I have seen his soul in his writings. (Loud Cheers.) I have seen it poured out in the fulness of confidential correspondence – I have seen it manifested in the hours when a man throws off the disguises he is wont at other times to assume, and appears as he really is – I have seen him in the every day labours of life – I have seen him in the time of danger, when his life was in peril, and in the season of prosperity, when the people shouted Hosannah. I have conversed with him on matters of deepest importance relating both to time and eternity, and have enjoyed, I believe, his unlimited confidence. I have heard the accusations of his enemies, and have investigated both them and the motives in which they originated. I may therefore ask to be admitted a witness, and my solemn, my heartfelt conviction and my unbiased testimony is this, that there breathes not a man more worthy the love, the trust, and the esteem of the friends of God and man than William Lloyd Garrison. (Loud cheers.)
In the event of Providence permitting us to meet together some time hence, I desire to see him in our midst, that we may be aided by his counsel and cheered by his presence. (Cheers.) And oh, I want those who have harboured a hard thought towards this my beloved brother, to know him, to prove him, and then to take him to their hearts and tlel him, that they repent that they ever allowed the breath of slander to dim for a moment the lustre of his character in their eyes. (Loud cheers.) Mr. Thompson presented the following resolution:– ‘That this Meeting cordially sympathize with William Lloyd Garrison and his coadjutors, in their efforts to promote the Abolition of Slavery in America; and that we extend to Mr. Garrison an invitation to visit this kingdom, to cheer us by his presence, and to encourage us by his counsels.’
A vote of thanks having been given to the chairman, the meeting separated.
Free Church Alliance with Manstealers. Send Back the money. Great Anti-Slavery Meeting in the City Hall, Glasgow, Containing Speeches Delivered by Messrs. Wright, Douglass, and Buffum, from America, and by George Thompson, Esq. of London; with a Summary Account of a Series of Meetings Held in Edinburgh by the Above Named Gentlement (Glasgow: George Gallie, 1846), pp. 7–38.
Notes
‘Declaration of the National Anti-Slavery Convention.’ Liberator, 14 December 1833.
On the composition of the Free Church delegation to the United States, which also included Henry Ferguson, see Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012), 14.
American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Letter from the Executive Committee of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to the Commissioners of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: Myles Macphail, [1844]). Reprinted in the Liberator, 26 April 1844.
Wright is probably referring to a letter Chalmers wrote to the Witness defending the Free Church’s position, insisting that a ‘distinction ought to be made between the character of a system and the character of the persons whom circumstances have implicated therewith.’ Thomas Chalmers to editor, Edinburgh, 12 May 1845 (Witness, 14 May 1845). Douglass mocked this argument in several of his speeches, including one he gave in Arbroath on 12 February 1846 and returned to it in his own speech, below.
American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Letter from the Executive Committee. In a notorious speech at a meeting of the Repeal Association in Dublin on 11 May 1843, Daniel O’Connell declared his intention to refuse ‘blood-stained money’ from pro-slavery Repeal groups in the United States. The speech was reported in the Liberator, 9 and 30 June 1843, and in the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Reporter, 9 August 1843.
The United Associate Synod approved a motion proposing the withdrawal of fellowship with American churches on 8 May 1846 (Scotsman, 9 May 1846); the Relief Synod followed suit on 14 May (Scotsman, 16 May 1846). Douglass attended the former but was not allowed to speak.
The resolution was approved at a meeting of the Aggregate Committee of the Evangelical Alliance in Birmingham in March 1846: see Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, p.120; Richard Blackett, Building an Anti-Slavery Wall: Black Americans in the Atlantic Abolitionist Movement, 1830–1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 97.
The Presbyterian Churches in the United States had split on North-South lines in 1837 and the Baptist and Methodist Churches followed in 1844-45, but the Northern Churches were not exempt from censure from abolitionists. See Hilrie Shelton Smith, In His Image, But…: Racism in Southern Religion, 1780–1910 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972), pp. 74–128; Milton Sernett, Black Religion and Ameriican Evangelicalism: White Protestants, Plantation Missions, and the Flowering of Negro Christianity, 1787–1865 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1975), pp. 36–58; and John R. McKivigan, The War Against Proslavery Religion: Abolitionism and the Northern Churches, 1810–1865 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984).
‘The Free Church and the Contributions from the Slave States,’ Northern Warder, 12 February 1846.
On 12 March 1845 at the Free Church Presbytery of Edinburgh, Dr John Duncan and Dr Henry Grey called on the Free Church to adopt a more uncompromising attitude towards the American churches (Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, pp. 60-5). Rev Michael Willis, a Free Church minister had as early as March 1844, called on the church leaders to return the money raised in the United States (Glasgow Argus, 18 March 1844); in May 1846 Willis would be one of the founding members of the Free Church Anti-slavery Society (Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’, pp. 129-30)
On Friday 17 April, Frederick Douglass and James Buffum spoke at a Soirée held in their honour at the Exchange Rooms on Moss Street, one of the few non-ecclesiastical buildings to have survived from the period.
In the ten days since their previous appearance in Paisley, Douglass and Buffum had held meetings in Greenock and Helensburgh, as Buffum indicates in his speech. The meeting at the West Blackhall Street Chapel (later North Church) in Greenock on Friday 10 April was advertised that morning in the Greenock Advertiser, but no newspaper reports of either have come to light.
At the Exchange Rooms, as the occasion demanded, their speeches struck a celebratory note, acknowledging the historical achievements of the British abolitionist movement, from the campaign to outlaw the slave trade (1807) and then slavery itself (1838). Douglass pays particular attention to the ways in which public opinion in Britain had pressured the United States to follow suit, singling out the writings of Charles Dickens, and the protests which greeted the imprisonments of John L. Brown and Jonathan Walker. But there are limits to his admiration. ‘The Americans seemed to speak of a slave as if he were not a man,’ he says. ‘This feeling was not confined to the United States. Some of the people here were almost as bad.’ And Douglass cannot help but return to the issue of the Free Church of Scotland and some of its supporters, namely the minister who wrote scathingly of him and Buffum after attending their meeting in Bonhill.
For an overview of Frederick Douglass’ activities in Paisley during the year see: Spotlight: Paisley.
SOIREE IN HONOUR OF MESSRS. DOUGLASS AND BUFFUM
On the evening of yesterday se’ennight, as we noticed in our last, a soiree in honour of the above distinguished advocates of the anti-slavery cause, took place in the Exchange Rooms, Paisley. The room was crowded on the occasion by a most respectable assemblage. Bailie Coats occupied the Chair; supported right and left by Messrs. Douglass and Buffum, Rev. Messrs. Nisbet and Kennedy, Messrs. Caldwell, Nairn, and other gentlemen. Blessings was asked and thanks returned by the Rev. Mr Nisbet.
The chairman then rose and said, that they needed not to be told of the object of the present meeting. They were met to show a mark of respect to two advocates of the cause of humanity. One of these gentlemen could speak as he had done on former occasions of the injuries inflicted on his fellow-men. They have come here that they may raise their voices against that horrid system, American slavery – that they may tell the Americans, that while they have freedom themselves they will not rest satisfied until the foul blot of slavery be erased from the statute book not only of America, but of every nation under Heaven. (Cheers.)
Could there be too much odium cast upon those men who could hold so many thousands of their fellow-men in such abject bondage? The law of God forbid the traffic. Hath not he said, that he has made of one blood all families of the earth? The slave-holder says, no! Christianity forbids it. Did not our Saviour say, ‘do unto others as you would that they should do unto you?’ The laws of humanity forbid it. No system which has the tendency to break asunder the ties of brotherhood – of families – can be a humane one. It would be bad taste in him to occupy their time when such a rich bill of fare had been provided for that evening. The Rev. Mr Kennedy would propose an address to their American friends.
The Rev. C.J. Kennedy said, that he felt honoured on being called to present the address. Long had his heart beat in the cause of freedom – freedom for men of all colours and of all climes, especially freedom for those most oppressed. If there was any spot on earth where freedom should flourish in all its branches that spot was America. It had been held up as a model for other lands. Its institutions had been lauded. Important speculations had been tried there. But, alas! the working out of freedom for the European had led to the bondage of the African in opposition to all the dictates of humanity. It was well that America still regarded this land as the mother country, and although somewhat haughty, looked across the Atlantic to hear what Britons were saying. It was their duty not merely to strengthen the hands of their friends, but they ought also to admonish the Americans. Mr Kennedy then read a long and eloquent address, expressing the utmost abhorrence of slavery, respect for Messrs. Douglas and Buffum, with unqualified approval of the object of their mission. It went on to deprecate all acts of religious communion, either directly or indirectly, with slave-holders, and trusted that the christian honour of Scotland would not be sullied by even the appearance of an alliance with slave-holders. It congratulated Messrs. Douglass and Buffum on the fact, that none of their opponents had dared openly to confront them, wished complete success to their cause, and concluded with the words, ‘Long may your bow abide in strength, and your arm be made strong by the mighty one of Jacob.’
The Chairman then asked if it was the wish of the meeting that the address now read be presented to Messrs. Douglass and Buffum. He asked for a show of hands, when it was unanimously adopted amid much applause.
Mr Douglass, who was received with loud cheering, then came forward and said, – Ladies and Gentlemen, I have seldom stepped on a platform where I desired more to do justice to the cause of which I am a humble advocate, than on the present occasion. Yet I have seldom appeared before an audience less qualified to discharge that duty. I will not, however, apologise further than to say, that previous to coming to this gathering, I felt indisposed to be present at all; but since entering and looking on the right, on the left, in front, and in the rear – (laughter) – I really feel my health has come again. (Cheers.)
I confess, however, that this gathering is one for which I was not prepared. I had not supposed that such a congregation of intelligence and respectability would gather around a poor fugitive slave, to bear what he might have to say, and even to do him honour. (Applause.) If I am not able to do justice to the sentiments in the address, attribute it to the extraordinary character of my position
This is not an evening for entering into any argument on the subject of slavery. You have all signified your abhorrence of slavery, by the adoption of the address now read in your hearing, and it would therefore be like carrying coals to Newcastle to give you a discourse on American slavery. (Laughter.) Our language must be that of happy triumph and glory, and it would not become me to enter into any lengthened details respecting the horrors of slavery. I will call your attention to that brighter aspect of our cause – its progress in the world.
[THE PROGRESS OF ABOLITIONISM]
More than 300 years ago, the slave-trade was not only made legal, but it was also sanctioned and sanctioned by the church. For 200 years the traffic in human flesh was carried on by the christian world unchecked, undisturbed, unquestioned, by any considerable number of the human family. There were, to be sure, occasionally found foes aroused – such as Granville Sharp in this country. It was not till 70 years ago that any stand was taken against the slave-trade, when a number of quakers resolved to form themselves to form themselves into an alliance, and to seek its overthrow.
At this time the whole christian world, was engaged in the trade. It was regarded as a species of commerce as legitimate as any other that then existed. The legislature of various countries legalised it, protected it by their arms, and defending it in various ways. These quakers gathered themselves together from time to time, contemplating the horrors of the middle passage, and resolved to contribute their means to the publishing of tracts, and circulating information throughout the country on the subject. They told their neighbours they were going to work out under God the overthrow of the slave-trade. This was regarded by the multitude as an idle tale – as one of the most foolish attempts ever undertaken by any class of people.
They met from time to time, devising and discussing matters. With hearts devoted to the sacred cause, they went on believing that God would eventually crown their efforts with complete success. There soon sprung up a Clarkson and a Wilberforce, to mention whom ought to produce three rounds of applause. (Great cheering.)
When Wilberforce came forward, public attention became directed to the matter. Ten times did he introduce a bill for the abolition of the slave-trade, and ten times was it doomed to defeat. – Parliament sometimes laying the matter on the table, and at other times giving it an indefinite postponement. Convinced that justice, that humanity, that all nature was on his side, believing that by perseverance he would succeed, he went on with his good work.
And what do we see take place within half a century? We see the slave-trade, which was sanctioned by all Christians, is now nearly regarded as not only improper, but as piracy, and the men caught at it are hung up at the yard-arm.
The cause rolled on till slavery was considered wrong – not only wrong, but sin – a great, a grave, an overwhelming sin – and those sons of sires who had carried it on, now sprung up and sought its abolition. I need only remind you of the means adopted to ensure success – of the nature of the anti-slavery conflict in this country, and I may say that success will follow the use of the same means in the United States as those which were employed here.
Some who hear me this evening remember the debates on the subject of West India slavery. George Thompson went over the length and breadth of Scotland, proclaiming the damning influence of West India slavery. (Cheers.) In this way he did much to remove that foul blot from the character of Britain. Borthwick and others who opposed the success of the glorious cause, are familiar to many who now hear me. But although the cause had to contend against the most adroit talent, against the supineness of the church, and against the indifference of the state, the cause rolled on until, in 1838, eight hundred thousand of British slaves were turned into men.1
I have been asked if I supposed the slavery of the United States would ever be abolished! It might as well be asked of me if God sat on his throne in heaven. So sure as truth is stronger than error, so sure as right is better than wrong, so sure as religion is better than infidelity, so sure must slavery of every form in every land become extinct. Anti-slavery must triumph. God has decreed its triumph. All nature has proclaimed its triumph. So sure as the tears of the slaves are falling, so sure as the groans of the oppressed rend the air with the cry of ‘How long, O Lord God of Sabaoth,’ &c., so sure shall these things come to an end – not by a miracle, but by the forces of truth.
Who can calculate the great good that may result even from the present meeting? Who can calculate the power which such meetings exert in the United States? No slave-holder who may be acquainted with a certain feeling, which must ever accompany a man with a wrong cause. (Cheers.)
When meetings of this kind are held in this country, they confess they feel that the effect is to awaken, to arouse the energies of the humane in the anti-slavery cause in the United States. I believe that slavery is such an enormous system of fraud and wrong, that if once we get the people to see it they will exert themselves for its removal. It would have been long since removed if the honest people had been prevailed on to discuss the matter. I trust we shall now soon succeed in awakening them from their indolence – in rousing them to get the weight thrown off which bears down their moral energies. We have not yet been able to get them to see it – to get them to concentrate their attention upon it. We must get the people to speak about it, preach about it, and pray about it. (Cheers.) In this way we shall get them heartily enlisted in the cause. Some there are in the United States who lay great weight on the public opinion of this country; for you know distance sometimes lends enchantment.2 (Laughter.)
It is so, at all events, in this particular instance. If we wish to call attention to anything, we may point at Britain by reading the writings of such men as Dickens, as well as by the public press. I believe that the notice of Dickens had more effect in calling attention to the subject, than all the books published in America for ten years.3
This is because they have some deference for the opinions of those out of the country. Americans are very peculiar in this respect – for, like the beggar, they like to know what others think of them. (Laughter.) This good or bad trait in Brother Jonathan‘s character, must be made available to anti-slavery. We want to tell them in what light their religion and their institutions are viewed in other lands; and as they look to others we will take advantage of this disposition in effecting the overthrow of slavery in the United States.
Since I came to this country I have been the means of calling more attention to the subject in America, than I could have done had I remained there twelve years. I have been travelling up and down, showing them up in their true colours. I see that the New York Herald is abusing me. The Express, a democratic paper, is denouncing me – all are denouncing me as a glib-tongued scoundrel.4 They say I am speaking against American institutions, and am stirring up a warlike spirit against them. Never, in any instance, have I done this, although, if I were a war man, I might with some degree of pride call your attention to slavery, and urge you, as friends of freedom, in the event of a war, to take advantage of it for abolishing slavery. I have never, in any instance, attempted to stir up their bloody feelings, never advocated the use of means inconsistent with the doctrines of Christianity. I wish to act by the power of truth, to apply undisguised truth to the hearts and consciences of the slave-holders. Slavery is as abhorrent to God, as revolting to humanity, as it is inconsistent with American institutions.
So far from my efforts having the effect of stirring up war amongst the British, they will have the effect of cementing the two nations in the bonds of peace. What are the abolitionists of the United States? Almost all – universally peacemen – as opposed to war as they are to slavery. They are men who cancel the existence of the spirit of war, and who labour to supplant it with the spirit of peace and its attendant blessings.
So far from their being any tendency in our proceedings to war, the very opposite is the effect. (Cheers.)
I do speak against an American institution – that institution is American slavery. But I love the declaration of independence, I believe it contains a true doctrine – ‘that all men are born equal.’ It is, however, because they do not carry out this principle that I am here to speak. I have a right to appeal to the people of Britain – to people everywhere – I would draw all men’s attention to slavery. I would fix the indignant eye of the world on slavery. (Cheers.) I would concentrate the moral and religious sentiment of the world against it, – (great cheering) – until by the weight of its overwhelming influence, slavery be swept from off the face of the earth. (Loud cheers.)
I believe I have a right to do this. God has not built up such walls between nations as that they may not be brethren to each other. I am a man before I am an American. To be a man is above being an American. To be a human being is to have claims above all the claims of nationality. (Loud cheers.) But I have no nation. America only welcomes me to her shores as a brute. She spurns the idea of treating me in any other way than as a brute – she would not receive me as a man. (Shame, shame.) The last steamer from America brings word that my old master, Mr Auld, has transferred his right of property in me to his brother Hugh. Oh! what poor property – (laughter) – and if I ever step on American soil he will have me. In case Frederick return to America, he will spare no pains or expense to regain possession. (Laughter.) This reminds me of the man who told his wife that he saw a rainbow running round. His wife, however, could not see it. It was running round and round, and the man said always he would catch it next time it came round. Mr Auld will catch me the next time I go round. (Laughter and cheers.)
Mr Buffum said he could not but reflect this evening on how changed were their circumstances from what they were in time past, accustomed as they had been to the abuse of the American people, being considered beneath the notice of those who held themselves to be respectable. But a short time had elapsed since they came to this country. They were received with great distinction by those whose notice was desirable. But three years ago he was dragged out of a railway car in America for being a friend of Frederick Douglass.5
However, on the night previous to their leaving the United States, there was a large meeting called in the town where they resided, for the people to express their opinions in regard to them – to express their sympathy with them as men, and to bid them God-speed in their progress through this country. The meeting was held in a large hall, and such was the interest excited, that hundreds had to go away for want of room. He had no language to express the feelings of his heart on that occasion. He felt exhausted when he came there. He had been speaking with his friend Douglass for a fortnight, and on one occasion Frederick was so exhausted that he had to leave a meeting to his charge. Mr Douglass had told him to speak on this occasion of the moral effect of such meetings as the present. He wished he could do justice to this thought. He wished he could get them to know the moral effect of that meeting. When they saw such a one as Frederick had shaken himself free from bondage – when they saw him show up the horrors of American slavery, he did not expect that it would go across the Atlantic, and have such a powerful effect.6
When they came on the deck of the British steamer they found men of all kinds on board. They found slave-holders and anti-slavery men on board. They found the Hutchinsons singing their anti-slavery songs. Then they had a speech from Frederick, at which the slave-holders made a row. The report has gone across the Atlantic, and stirred the country from one end to the other. They talk of rebuking Captain Jenkins for insulting the dignity of the American people by allowing him to speak.7
When they arrived at Dublin they had anti-slavery meetings attended by most respectable people. The Lord Mayor had attended, and was so well pleased that he made a public dinner, and invited the Corporation, while Douglass and he had attended as guests. That dinner was reported. It went across the Atlantic, and the Americans say he must be a curious sort of Mayor who would be instructed by Frederick Douglass. Then Daniel O’Connell had a great meeting in Conciliation Hall. It was crowded, and what should happen but that Daniel O’Connell invites Frederick to make a speech? He came forward, and there was another bombshell struck into Jonathan.8 He did not believe that the countenance they received was for themselves, but on account of the principles they advocated. He was certain that every demonstration of the present kind would be felt on the other side of the Atlantic, and would make the slave-holders feel that their doom was soon to be sealed.
They had visited many towns in Scotland, and they had found but one solitary opponent. They had been at Greenock. They had intimated there that they would consider the conduct of the Free Church, and also of Dr. M’Farlane. They called upon the doctor or any of his friends to come forward in defence. The result was that the minister of the church where their former meeting was held refused to give it. He supposed that in consequence of this they would have to go back to Glasgow. They had, however, got the established church. It was magnanimously given without any charge. They sent the bell round, and had a very large meeting. They discussed what Dr. M’Farlane had said about the Free Church being ‘very much a creature of circumstances.’ They challenged any member of the Free Church to come forward and defend the doctor; and who should come to his aid but Alexander Campbell the socialist?9 They told him, however, that they did not come to discuss socialism, but American slavery. At the close of that meeting a Free Church deacon came forward and said to him, I want you, Mr Buffum, to know that there are Free Church deacons who have no language strong enough to express their abhorrence of slavery. It was a great sin, and he would not defend it, nor the conduct of Free Churchmen in holding communion with those who were engaged in the traffic.
Greenock was aroused, and they next went to Helensburgh. At the close of Mr Douglass’ address there was an individual came forward and said that they were animated with a bad spirit, a spirit of hatred to the Free Church, and that they were grossly ignorant of the facts on which they spoke. He charged them with saying that the money was put into the sustenation fund, when it only went into the building fund. They soon turned the tables on him. They told him it mattered not which fund it went into, if it went to the coffers of the Free Church. When the vote was taken on the question there was not a single individual against them – even the gentleman himself did not hold up his hand against them. (Cheers.)
He wished to engage their sympathies on behalf of the poor down-trodden slave. When they came to consider what the subject is, they found it one which ought to enlist all right feelings in its behalf. They used no weapons but the weapons of truth. Last year, then the Americans annexed Texas, they came out at Washington and fired a hundred guns, and said that what they had done would be greatly against the cause of abolition. He could have told them they would have been better to have saved their gunpowder, and to have fired it over the grave of slavery; for he believed that slavery was soon to die.
His friend Smeal had told him that there would be a large meeting in Glasgow next week, where George Thompson and Henry C. Wright would be present, and where a remonstrance on the subject of slavery would be adopted, to be signed by all who go for the abolition of slavery. He was to be the bearer of that remonstrance to America on the 1st of August.10 He would hold it up and tell the Americans that Scotland is not represented by the Free Church. (Loud and long continued cheering.) Henry C. Wright was to go home with another next fall, and he hoped they would all sign it. (Loud applause.)
He saw by a report of the Missionary Society, that Dr. Wood was supported by Dr. Chalmers in not giving bibles to slaves, and that it was concurred in by the General Assembly of the Free Church. (Cries of shame, shame.) He hoped the people of that connection would do themselves the justice TO SEND BACK THE BLOOD-STAINED GOLD and be on the side of the slave. (Cheers.)
Mr Frederick Douglass, who again came forward amid loud applause, said, that if he did not make a good speech this time, it would not be their fault, as they had given him so much to eat. If he did not work well with it, it would be an argument for the slave-holder (laughter), who gives his slaves an insufficiency of food. They had gone to the opposite extreme. He felt that their cause would have justice, so far as the present company was concerned.
[THE CASES OF JOHN L. BROWN AND JONATHAN WALKER]
He would go on the same strain as his friend Buffum in reference to their influence on American slavery, and there was no fact which would illustrate it better than the case of John L. Brown, in the State of South Carolina. He had a sister a slave, and as she was anxious to obtain her freedom, he consented to aid her in her escape from slavery. He wrote her a pass and promised to render her whatever other assistance was in his power. She was overtaken in her escape, and John L. Brown was at once arrested, and thrown into prison on a charge of negro-stealing, and the law in South Carolina – remember christian America – the penalty by the law is death for a man to allow a slave to escape. (Shame.) John L. Brown was to be hung – his sentence was accompanied by the judge with a religious parade to the said John L. Brown, telling him that he had violated the law of the land, that he was a young man, and probably a dissolute one, or else he would not have been found in such an act. (Shame.) The sentence was published, and public attention was called to it. For doing an act which all heaven was arrayed in smiles, for extending a helping hand to a perishing sister, for attempting to deliver the spoil out of the hands of the spoiler, was this young man sentenced to death. (Shame.)
It spread across the Atlantic with electrical rapidity. The attention of Parliament was called to the matter by Lord Brougham, who characterised it as one of the most horrible things ever done in a christian country. His denunciations were carried back on the wings of the press. A remonstrance was adopted at a meeting held in the city of Glasgow, and the effect was indeed great.11 The sentence was commuted to a public whipping. This young man was to be publicly whipped on the bare back for having dared to perform this noble deed of benevolence and kindness. He could almost see the fiendish glee with which the slave-holders surrounded their victim on this occasion. His back had not become hardened by whipping, like the slave’s, as he was a free man. With the eye of the christianity and philanthropy of England, Ireland, and Scotland, fixed upon them, if they had dared to proceed in their infernal course of conduct, they would have been held up to the indignant scorn of the whole civilized world. (Cheers.) Latterly the sentence was commuted altogether – and this showed them the power which they possessed. They could paralyze the arm of the wretch who would apply the lash to the flesh of the slave.
There was one Jonathan Walker who went into Florida to sell his craft and cargo. He sold his cargo, but not his craft. While he was among the slaves in that State he spoke to them of a crucified Saviour. He spoke to them of religion. They were converted. He prayed with them and treated them as brethren. When his business there came to an end, the slaves were so attached to him that they went down to the shore of Florida. They did not go to expose him to peril, but their eyes, their tears, their position as they stood on the shore, convinced him that they desired to be free – that they longed to be on a shore where they could worship God according to their consciences. He said if they came into his craft he would take them where they would enjoy freedom, but at the same time he told them he risked all he held dear in the attempt. He, however, believed that if there were any one in the world who desired to be free, and if he could aid him to obtain his freedom, it was his duty to do so, seeing that all should do as they would wish to be done by. The slaves stepped on board. The wind wafted them from the shore.
They had been four days out when adverse winds came upon them. They were caught by an American vessel. They were dragged back to an American port, and thrown into prison for having dared to make any efforts to gain them freedom. The slaves were all whipped. Jonathan Walker was ready to lay down his life that others might take theirs up. Jonathan Walker, a living representative of their blessed Saviour, was willing to suffer that others might be saved. He had to suffer in prison. He was chained to a bolt until the chains wore into his ancles and his legs. When christians in this country heard of this, they spoke in such terms of Jonathan Walker as to direct admiration to him. What was the result? He grew too big for his chains. They found that if they did not desist from their bloody doings, America would be regarded as a murderer – as one who visited a benevolent deed like the most awful crime. Although they did not release Jonathan Walker, as in the case of John L. Brown, he believed he would have died but for the attention of the people of this country. He was sentenced to be branded with S.S., put into the stocks, and sent back to prison. The old gentleman had grown grey in deeds of benevolence, and was for this last act of humanity placed in the stocks. At his bald head was thrown egg after egg: as he stood in the stocks he was beat by the multitude at pleasure. After this he was carried to a post, his limbs closely confined, and the branding iron red hot applied to his forehead. The multitude came rejoicing as they looked at the S.S., and cried slave-stealer.
This was an illustration of the American character. It was done as a national deed. In it they might see the nature of the morality, and the humanity, and the christianity of the American people. (Shame, shame.) In that single S.S. might be read the true character of the American people. They branded him as a slave-dealer [sic]; but the abolitionists of the United States say they intend to make the letters read slave-saviour. People will look back on the bloody nation who did this deed as being a nation of slave-stealers. Jonathan Walker is now at liberty, walking up and down, holding up his S.S., proud of having suffered so much in the cause of freedom, to the shame and disgrace of America – to the confusion of America and the American slave-trade – in defiance of the spirit of oppression which is abroad. He wished Jonathan Walker were here to show the christianity of the men who do such things. Jonathan Walker felt that he was bound by the ties of Christianity to extend a helping hand to his brethren – (cheers) – and for doing this act of christian sympathy he was sentenced to be whipped, imprisoned, and branded with S.S.
The Americans seemed to speak of a slave as if he were not a man. Rev. Mr Wood had said, what was tantamount to declaring that he could see no difference between a slave and a box of goods. This feeling was not confined to the United States. Some of the people here were almost as bad. He had that day seen an article about Buffum and himself in a Free Church paper. The writer seemed to be very much horrified at their expressions in regard to the Free Church of Scotland; and he goes on in the strain of a slaveholder. He even in an indirect way threatens to send me back. (Laughter.) The sly reptile, however, did not give his name. The letter was really a literary phenomenon. (Laughter.) He then read the following:–
SIR, – Happening to be in this town last evening, and to hear that the celebrated Douglass, ‘the self-liberated slave,’ and Mr Buffum were to lecture on the horrors of slavery, and that they had been successful in other places, I went for once to hear them.
I had frequently heard of the horrifying details they give, but they came full up to the mark, and doubtless conclude that their cause is as triumphant. My objects in writing to you now are to request of all and sundry who hear these men to remember that there are generally two ways of stating every controversial subject; that the public here, and especially the working classes, should postpone their judgments, and withhold their opinions until they have heard both sides. For my own part, having heard the subject discussed during eighteen months in the city of New York, and seen the moral and religious character of the proprietors of the Southern states blackened by every means that self-interest and the vilest hypocrisy could devise, and after having been as well informed as I could be of the parts which these proprietors take in advocating the interests of the white labourers and mechanics of the Free States, I came to the conclusion that they have far the better side of the question. Yes, sir, I have come to the conclusion, however unpopular it may be with those deluded by Douglass and his constituents, that the slave proprietors of the Southern states are incalculably more the friends of civilization on these grounds than they are.
I have not at present time to bestow, but I hope to have, and I would advise the semi-savage Douglass to be somewhat more tender-hearted in the application of his three-toed thong to the back of Dr Chalmers and others, lest he may yet find he is only renewing those applications to himself. ‘Send the money back,’ ‘send the money back,’ ‘send the money back,’ may yet, after all his pathos, be turned into ‘send Douglass back,’ ‘send Douglass back,’ ‘send Douglass back’ – to learn more correctness in his statements, and more justice in his conclusions.
Horrifying as his statements are, with all the lies he can muster, upon the sale of human flesh, &c., what will he say when demonstrated that he and his constituents are inducing a morality incalculably more immoral, savage, barbarous, bloody, and brutal than that which he affected so much to deplore? I can proceed no further at present than to reiterate my warning to all parties here to take time, and to withhold their opinions until both sides are heard. – I am, &c.,
VERITAS
Bonhill, 2d April, 1846.
P.S. – The Free Church delegation in appealing to the proprietors of the Southern states, have acted with an impartiality, and upon principles of an enlightened philanthropy, for which all ages shall bless them, especially the toil-worn millions.
This was from the last edition of the Scottish Guardian – a free church paper.12 He had not the slightest doubt but that some members of the Free Church from their town would willingly aid in returning him to the United States as a slave. The Free Church had taken up the ground that slavery was not a sin in itself – that was a doctrine sustained in various departments of their church. He believed, however, that there was a large, a growing number who deprecated the receiving of the BLOOD-STAINED MONEY. He did not believe there was one present who would defend the character of the slaveholder, although this writer in the Guardian had done so. (Cheers.)
Who would defend the character of any one who would hold man as a slave? If slavery were not a sin, they might soon enslave the people of this country; for he believed that those who would defend the system, would not hesitate to do this. Would they countenance the Free Church, whose members countenance the slavery of the black man, while they would shrink back in horror from the thought of enslaving the whites? (Great cheering.)
He was going to call upon the dissenters of Scotland to shake off from them the men who held communion with the slaveholder. He would call on them to do this as followers of the meek and lowly Jesus. (Loud applause.) Every christian was bound to say to the Free Church, ‘Let go the slaveholder, or we will let go you – we will not form a part of the bulwark of slavery.’ (Continued cheering.)
Slavery existed in the United States because it was reputable. Nothing needed less argument to be proved than this – if it was disreputable, men would abandon it. He saw it reputable in the United States, because it was not so disreputable out of the United States as it ought to be. This was because its character was not well enough known. As much as he was bound to expose it, so much were they bound to expose it, so much were they bound to expose the guilt of holding on to the Free Church of Scotland, while she held on to the slaveholders. (Long continued applause.)
He saw that the evangelical alliance had said to the Free Church, ‘We won’t go with you while you hold communion with slavery.’ This decision at Birmingham would strike terror into the hearts of the slaveholders. It would be far more terrible to them than the writing on the wall was to Belshazzar. (Loud cheers.)
Where would the slaveholder go next? The Americans had lately annexed Texas – a country which breathed moral death. They were looking to Texas, that sink of pollution, and to Scotland. My friends, said Mr Douglass, THE FREE CHURCH MUST SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Immense applause.) He had a number of charges against the Free Church, and the truth of them no one, he was confident, could deny. They were as numerous as the commandments in the decalogue. He could have doubled them, and any one of them was sufficient to condemn that church – (cheers) – as unworthy of the christian sympathy of the people of Scotland. (Cheers.) Scotland ought to oppose the calumny. He asked if such a land as Scotland should be misrepresented by such a church as the Free Church of Scotland? (Loud applause.)
(Mr Douglass here read his ten charges against the Free Church; but as the substance of them is already before our readers in the speeches reported, we need not repeat them here.)
He called on the christian philanthropy of Scotland to speak out in the matter. Scotland was disgraced while the slave-money was retained to build churches on their free hills. (Cheering.) They would perhaps find the question put to Scotchmen when they went to the free states in America – Are you of those who countenance the taking of slave-money to build churches and to pay ministers? If you are, pass on the other side; if not, welcome, welcome! The line was being drawn between liberty and slavery. The time was coming when communion with the slaveholder would be deemed the foulest alliance – when they would look back with shame and confusion on their supineness in a matter so palpable. (Cheers.) The time was coming when men-stealing would be looked upon as worse than sheep-stealing. Had he not seen what he had seen since he became free, he might have gone to his grave with the idea that there was an implacable hatred of the black man implanted in the bosoms of the whites. God had made of one blood all nations of the earth, and he had commanded them to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free. (Great cheering.)
Mr Douglass then went on to state the case of George Latimer, who had escaped from slavery, and reached the state of Massachusetts. His master pursued him, and said if he got him he would kill him by inches. The slave was, however, protected, and his master was glad to escape from the fury of the people, which was raised against him. The laws of the state of Massachusetts were now much more in favour of freedom than they were.
Mr Douglass went on to say, that he was very much obliged to the meeting for their kind attention. They would accept his heartfelt thanks for the kind manner in which they had listened to him from time to time. He also thanked the committee, through whose energy and perseverance this honour had been conferred on himself and his friend Mr Buffum. He had become attached to the people of Paisley, and from whatever place he might be an ontcast [sic], he was confident he would find a home in good old Paisley. Mr Douglass resumed his seat amidst loud and protracted cheering.
The Chairman then said, that as he understood a part of the audience were anxious to have a shake of Mr Douglass’s hand, an opportunity would be afforded them as the meeting dismissed. A large proportion of those present then passed in front of the platform, and shook hands with Mr Douglass and Mr Buffum. The assemblage broke up about half-past eleven o’clock.
Renfrewshire Advertiser, 25 April 1846
Notes
While the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 came into force on 1 August 1834, full Emancipation was not secured until the Apprenticeship system that replaced it was abolished on 1 August 1838.
Dickens’ most influential criticisms of slavery were made in American Notes (1842). See Tim Youngs, ‘Strategies of Travel: Charles Dickens and William Wells Brown’ in Travel Writing in the Nineteenth Century: Filling the Blank Spaces, ed. Tim Youngs (London: Anthem Press, 2006): 163-77.
Two days earlier, Douglass had written to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, remarking that ‘I have been denounced by the “New-York Express” as a “glib-tongued scoundrel,” and gravely charged, in its own elegant and dignified language, with “running a much in greedy-eared Britain against America, its pepole, its people, its institutions, and even against its peace.”‘ Frederick Douglass to Horace Greeley, Glasgow, 15 April 1846 (New York Tribune, 20 May 1846; repr. in The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Three: Correspondence, Volume 1: 1842–52, edited by John R. McKivigan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 104).
On the campaign to end the racial segregation of the Massachusetts railroads (in which Douglass, Buffum and others were involved) see Elizabeth Stordeur Pryor, Colored Travelers: Mobility and the Fight for Citizenship before the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016), pp. 76–102.
See ‘Departure of Frederick Douglass, James N. Buffum, and the Hutchinson Family,’ Liberator, 22 August 1845.
For a detailed account of Douglass’s outward voyage to Liverpool in 1845 see Alasdair Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846: Living an Antislavery Life (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018), pp. 3–6, 17–24. Some primary sources are reprinted here. The Captain’s name was Judkins, not Jenkins.
O’Connell invited Douglass to address a meeting at Concilation Hall, Dublin on 29 September 1845. See Freeman’s Journal, 30 September 1845.
Alexander Campbell (1796-1870) was a socialist and trade unionist and follower of Robert Owen. See J.F.C. Harrison, Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britain and America: The Quest for the New Moral World (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969), p. 108. In Arbroath in February Douglass had denounced Chalmers’ ‘doctrine of circumstances’ as an Owenite doctrine.
Buffum sailed back to the United States from Liverpool on 4 July 1846. See Manchester Examiner, 11 July 1846.
On 14 March 1844 the Glasgow Emancipation Society held a meeting at the Relief Chapel, John Street, Glasgow ‘for the purpose of remonstrating against so flagrant a violation of the rights of humanity as is intended by the authorities of New Orleans, in the execution on the 26th of April next, of John L. Brown, for the crime of aiding the escape of a female slave’: Glasgow Herald, 18 March 1844. Meetings were also held Edinburgh, Birmingham and elsewhere.
The letter was published in the Scottish Guardian, 14 April 1846. According to Iain Whyte, ‘Veritas’ was the pseudonym of Church of Scotland minister William Gregor: see Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012), p. 78.
In Glasgow on Thursday 23 April, Frederick Douglass participated in two meetings, but his contributions – and those of his companion James Buffum – are not recorded in any detail. The reports dwell on the speeches of Henry Clarke Wright and George Thompson, experienced lecturers on both anti-slavery and peace.
The first was in the afternoon at the Assembly Rooms on Ingram Street, which hosted a meeting of the Glasgow Ladies’ Emancipation Society (or Female Anti-Slavery Society, as it was also styled). One of the activities of the Society was to collect items to be sent to Maria Weston Chapman‘s Anti-Slavery Bazaar, held every Christmas in Boston, Massachusetts, in order to raise funds for the American Anti-Slavery Society.
Glasgow Herald, 20 April 1846
The second was in the evening at City Hall at a public meeting of the Glasgow Anti-War Society, an organisation in which the secretaries of the Glasgow Emancipation Society, John Murray and William Smeal, along with committee member Andrew Paton, played a leading role.
The speakers affirmed their commitment to peace and condemned recent British military interventions, including the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-42), the First Opium War (1839-42) and the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845-46). They also remarked on the continuing tensions between Britain and the United States over the Oregon Question (1845-46).
For an overview of Frederick Douglass’ activities in Glasgow during the year see: Spotlight: Glasgow.
GLASGOW LADIES’ EMANCIPATION SOCIETY
A meeting of the Glasgow Female Anti-Slavery Society was held in the Assembly Rooms, Ingram Street, on Thursday the 23d instant, Robert Reid, Esq. in the chair. The meeting having been constituted,
The Chairman read the annual report of the proceedings of the Society, from which it appeared that the ladies of Glasgow had transmitted last year to the Anti-Slavery Bazaar, held in the town of Boston, two boxes of goods valued at £191, and that it was desirable that contributions should be sent in this year by the beginning of November, that they might be forwarded by the steamer of the 19th of that month, the Bazaar being held on Christmas week.
Mr Andrew Paton moved the adoption of the report, which was seconded by Mr. Wm. Smeal, and unanimously adopted.
Mr George Thompson then addressed the meeting at considerable length. He said he felt a deep interest in the circumstances in which he was placed to-day. He believed he had something to do with the origin of this society, and he still felt a warm sympathy in its efforts. It was first instituted for the overthrow of Slavery in our own colonies, and then, on a more enlarged basis, for its extirpation over the whole world. After referring to several topics alluded to in the report, to the good which the Ladies’ Emancipation Society of Glasgow had been instrumental in producing in regard to the question of Slavery, and to the position which the question now occupied, he pronounced an earnest and eloquent eulogium upon the character and exertions of William Lloyd Garrison, Mrs. Chapman, Messrs. Wright, Buffum, and Douglass, and other American abolitionists, and concluded by proposing a resolution, pledging the meeting to persevere in the cause of emancipation, till Slavery was consigned to that infamy to which it was destined.
The motion was seconded and agreed to by acclamation.
Another resolution was likewise unanimously adopted to the effect, that the members and friends of the Glasgow Female Anti-Slavery Society cordially approve of the object of the Anti-Slavery Bazaar, held under the direction of the Boston Anti-Slavery Society, and feel it a privilege to know that their sympathy and contributions have proved acceptable to their friends in America, and to assure them that this sympathy and these contributions will be continued until the last chain is broken from the slave.
The meeting was afterwards addressed by Mr. Buffum, Mr. Douglass, Mr. Wright, and the Chairman; and the proceedings altogether were of a very interesting description, but, from a want of space, we find it impossible to extend our report.
A vote of thanks having been given to Mr. Reid for his conduct in the chair, the meeting separated.
Free Church Alliance with Manstealers. Send Back the money. Great Anti-Salaery Meeting in the City Hall, Glasgow, Containing Speeches Delivered by Messrs. Wright, Douglass, and Buffum, from America, and by George Thompson, Esq. of London; with a Summary Account of a Series of Meetings Held in Edinburgh by the Above Named Gentlement (Glasgow: George Gallie, 1846), p. 44.
GREAT ANTI-WAR MEETING
A PUBLIC MEETING of the Glasgow Anti-War Society, and of those friendly to peace principles, was held in the City Hall, on Thursday evening, the 23d current at half-past seven o’clock. The meeting was numerously and respectably attended.
Mr. ANDREW PATON, on the motion of Mr John B. Ross, was called to the chair and said – I beg to acknowledge your kindness in calling me to the chair. From the many talented and eloquent friends who are to address us, any lengthened remarks from me would be out of place. I shall merely state that the Glasgow Anti-War Society seeks to aid in accomplishing objects of the highest importance to mankind – the abolition of all war, and the establishment of universal peace. Kindred societies have been formed, and are now forming in many places of Great Britain, Ireland, and America, and on the Continent of Europe, peace efforts are also commencing. We ask and invite all to help in this cause, which knows no distinction of nation, colour, creed, sect, or party – all are invited to, none are excluded from our platform save the self-excluded, through hostility, or culpable apathy. (Cheers.)
Our opponents are the most of the governing powers and their connections, who think governments cannot stand without armies, – the multitudes, in this and other countries, who look to war as a profession, in which themselves or relatives may attain wealth, station, and fame – so called. The greater part of the religious teachers of the world, and even of Christendom, who call themselves Christian ministers, servants of the Prince of Peace, but having not his spirit of peace and love, are really in their spirit and teaching the priests of war. (Cheers.)
We have opposed to us the prevailing corruption of public opinion regarding war, which if not originated by, is now chiefly upheld and sustained by the influential classes just mentioned. Before us is the task of informing, convincing, changing public opinion. This can only be done by societies such as this, calling public attention to the subject; by meetings such as this, by lectures, books, tracts – inculcating our principles by arguments drawn from the New Testament and reason, from Christianity and humanity. (Cheers.)
Our labours are cheered and encouraged by the gratifying knowledge, that this is an era of searching investigation on every subject, desirous to turn everything to the benefit and elevation of man. In the physical world the results are seen in processes and machines, saving toil, lessening space, bringing mankind together, thereby removing prejudices tending to their alienation; in the moral world, some of the results are seen in Slavery abolished throughout the British dominions, and hastening to its fall throughout the world, and in the advent of free trade. In the uprooting of slavery, one of the direst offsprings of war, the efforts of none have been of more value, or more successful, than those of our friends here present. (Cheers.)
We hail as a favourable omen, that men of their powerful minds and nervous eloquence have seen it their duty also to grapple with the war spirit. The cause of peace is certain, sooner or later, to prevail, for God has declared, that ‘Nation shall not always lift sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.’ An important business of this meeting is to send from it a friendly address to the citizens of the United States, imploring them, by our common Christianity, to put away all thoughts of war, and more firmly to cultivate and preserve the bonds of peace, assuring them that we had much rather they would feed than fight us, and allow us in return to clothe them. (Great applause.)
Mr. ROBERT REID, in moving the first resolution, said that the object at which the friends of peace aim, is the entire and speedy abolition of all wars and fightings. How is this object to be accomplished? Not by merely condemning war in the abstract, while we continue to justify it under particular circumstances, but by laying hold of that fighting spirit which pervades our entire social system, and seeking to supplant it by a spirit of forgiveness and peace. (Cheers.)
The idea, that individuals and nations must defend their honour by inficting evil for evil, and demanding compensation for injuries done, must be entirely uprooted from the public mind, before the horrors of war can cease. Now, how has the war spirit obtained that hold on the minds of men that it now possesses? Simply because it has ever been the policy of those interested in fighting to associate these deeds of blood with the religious feelings of those they sought to employ, and then lead them to the perpetration of crimes, from which, in other circumstances, they would have shrunk with horror. (Hear, hear.)
The whole history of territorial plunder will bear out this statement. Men never could have been induced to engage in the wholesale murder of their unoffending brethren had they not been prompted on, and deluded by, the prayers and exhortations of priests. (Hear.)
Recent events in connection with our own army amply illustrate this matter. You must have observed again and again in the newspaper reports of the proceedings connected with the ceremony of presenting new colours to different of her Majesty’s regiments, the solemn prayers offered up by ministers that their arms might still be rendered victorious over their enemies in the day of battle. You must also recollect of the day of thanksgiving appointed by the Governor General of India for the signal victory which had then been achieved over the Sikhs; but not to detain you with these acts of solemn mockery, permit me just to refer to the proceedings at home in connection with these bloody events. In addition to the votes of thanks passed by the Lords and Commons to those who were the instruments of destruction in India, something more must be done to bring peace of mind to the guilty, and convince religious people that this was the doing of the Lord, and ought, therefore, to be marvellous in their eyes.
To accomplish this end, the Archbishop of Canterbury is sent for by her Majesty, and ordered to prepare a form of prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God for the late victories in India.1 I will make but one extract from this production –
We bless thee, O Merciful Lord, for having brought to a speedy and prosperous issue a war which no occasion had been given by injustice on our part, or apprehension of injury at our hands. To thee, O Lord, we ascribe the glory; it was Thy wisdom which guided the councils, Thy power which strengthened the hands of those whom it pleased Thee to use as Thy instruments in the discomfiture of the lawless aggressor, and the prostration of his ambitious designs.
I will not waste your time by reading further from this blasphemous production. Our language is deficient in terms sufficiently strong to expose the wickedness of those who would thus act. Those who know anything about the state of matters in India know that the Sikhs had every ground to expect that the British would sooner or later find an excuse for taking possession of their territory. Their sagacity revealed to them the impending storm, and involved them in a fruitless attempt to avoid it. (Cheers.)
The real crime of which they were guilty was, their attacking the British instead of allowing the British to attack them. It is bad enough to contemplate at least 30,000 of our brethren, in the course of a few short weeks, sacrificed to man’s ambition for rule, without having our feelings insulted by an attempt to father the iniquity upon God. (Applause.) The same doctrine was maintained by Sir R. Peel in the House of Commons at the beginning of last year. I refer to the speech he made in defence of Lords Ellenborough and Auckland; this was his language:-
With respect to the case of Scinde, it might be easy to condemn the principle of territorial aggrandisement; but, when civilisation and barbarism come into contact, he feared there was some irresistible power which often forced the stronger power to appropriate to itself the territory of the weaker.2
Supposing a band of unlegalised robbers were to find their way into Drayton Manor and vindicate their taking possession, on the ground that they were more powerful than the inmates, would Sir Robert give in to the doctrine? Its tendency evidently is a wicked one, and would justify the rich in appropriating to themselves the property of the poor; it is at antipodes to the sentiment of a pure Christianity – ‘Let the strong support the weak,’ and ‘bear ye one another’s burthens.’ If we would, then, abolish the war system, let us show that the religion which supports it is not the Christian religion, and the priesthood who advocate it, or who fail to condemn it, are not a Christian priesthood. (Cheers.)
Their God is the God of Battles, and their weapons of warfare are swords and guns. Their kingdom is of this world, and therefore do they fight. But the Christian’s God is a God of Love; his Saviour is a Prince of Peace; the weapons of his warfare are not carnal; his is the breastplate of righteousness – the shield of faith – the helmet of salvation – the sword of the spirit. These are the only insturments of warfare that are to be found in the Christian armoury, and they are all-sufficient – destined ere long to accomplish over the hearts of men a bloodless victory. (Loud cheers.)
In advocating non-resistance principles, we are often told that spiritual weapons will do very well when the Millennium has come; but till men’s hearts are changed, we must keep them in subjection by violence. (Hear, hear.)
To such sentiments we answer, that the Millennium never will come till we bring it. God has given us the means of accomplishing this blessed change, and the reason why it has not been consummated long ere this, is simply because we have refused to use the instrumentality he has provided, and the only instrumentality by which the world can be regenerated. (Cheers.)
Christianity is not a system to be applied at some future time – its principles are capable of application now in their fullest extent, but there is a want of faith in the power of these principles; and thus it is that men prefer their own devices to the appointments of God. Christ taught the doctrine of non-resistance in its fullest extent, and, lest we might mistake the import of his teachings, he gave us a practical exemplification of them in his life. If he, then, is the model set up for the Christian’s imitation, why do the professors of that religion refuse to imitate his example. Give our pulpits but one year’s emancipation from doctrinal disputations, and let that year be devoted to the cause of humanity, and the war system will be shaken to its very foundations; but let our clergy continue to exert the mighty influence they possess in fostering the war spirit, instead of seeking to destroy it, and the evil of which we speak will continue for a time longer to rage with unmitigated fury. But we warn them of their departing power; if not better used, it will soon be taken from them, and given to others. The printing press and the platform will, ere long, accomplish for humanity that deliverance from evil, which our churches and clergy have failed in accomplishing. (Loud cheers.)
Mr Reid concluded by moving, ‘that those do but mock God who pray for peace, and plead for the rights of war, and who pray that swords may be beaten into ploughshares, and that war may cease, while they live by making and selling deadly weapons, and by studying and practising the art of war; – who pray to God to enable them to love their enemies, while they plead for the right to kill them; and who pray that God would forgive them as they forgive, and who yet plead for the doctrine of blood for blood; – that it is the duty of all who wish to see “peace on earth,” to illustrate the principle of non-resistance, to evil by arms and blood, by an exhibition of that love that is all-confiding, all-hoping, all-forgiving, and all-enduring, and which seeketh not her own.’
The motion was seconded by Mr. Buffum, in an able speech, and on being submitted to the meeting, was adopted by acclamation.
Mr. H. C. WRIGHT, from America, was then introduced, and rewarded with loud and protracted applause, who said – Mr. Chairman – by war, I mean an assumption of the right to kill men, as means of punishment, or of defence. Whoever assumes this right, has declared war, in principle, against human life, and of course, against each and every human being. When individuals or nations kill men, they wage war in practice, and a duel, an execution on the gallows, murder, anarchy, and blood revolutions, battles between armies, piracy, sacking and burning towns, cities, and butching men, women, and children, as at St. Sebastian, Ghuznee, and Cabool, are but the necessary practical results of the principle; and while man assumes the right to kill, and that assumption is sanctioned, so long will such scenes be witnessed.
If war be right, then is the killing of men the most honourable, dignified, and christian employment in which men can engage; and soldiers and hangmen, the most noble and useful of mankind. They should be regarded as the chief men of the world – for nothing brings man so closely into connection with God and eternity, as hanging, shooting, and stabbing men.
I am disgusted with the hypocrisy of those who assume the war principle, advocate it in society, but who shun the blood-stained hangman and soldier, and who shun the toils, sufferings, and dangers of the battle. Especially am I disgusted with the conduct of those ministers, doctors of divinity, bishops, and archibishops, who, by their prayers and preachings, foster the war spirit and principle in the hearts of the people, but who will never act as hangmen and soldiers.
The prayer and thanksgiving to God, for the victories in India, to which a previous speaker alluded, surpasses in daring impiety and blasphemy, and unblushing falsehood, any thing ever heard. The man who could conceive such falsehoods, and utter them in the form of a prayer to a God of truth and love, can neither be an honest man nor a Christian; and debased and destitute of the fear of God, and of regard for man, must be those hirelings, in the garb of priests and ministers, who could repeat that blasphemous mockery of God and truth in the hearing of the people, as the Archibishop of Canterbury and his tools have done. (Great applause.)
They pour out the heart’s blood of men, and give God thanks. They rob and murder, and say – ‘The Lord hath delivered us to do these things – blessed be his name.’ The Archbishop and all war-making minsiters ought to be compelled to carry out their own principles on the gallows and battle-field. (Protracted cheers.)
The Archbishop should be compelled to do all the hanging of the nation with his own reverend hands – (cheers) – and war-making Ministers and Doctors of Divinity ought to be compelled to go out to the battle, and there carry out their bloody principles by shooting or being shot. (Laughter and cheers.)
They ought to be licensed, ordained, and consecrated to the work of hanging, shooting, or of being hun or shot. (Loud applause.)
For I repeat, there is no emplyment so full of sacredness, of sublimity, and magnitude, as that of sending immortal souls to the bar of God. Let all the people insist that all those ministers who advocate defence by arms and blood, shall enlist and do the fighting – (laughter and applause) – for if they are what they profess to be, it would be gain to them to be shot; and if they are not, according to their own doctrine, that the worse criminals ought to die, it would be gain to the world to have them shot. (Laughter and immense applause.)
For who is a greater sinner than he who claims to be the minsiter of the Prince of Peace, yet pleads for war – who says we are bound to love our enemies, and kills them – that we ought to forgive, but yet exact blood for blood – and who pretends that men should always return good for evil, and yet returns evil for evil? Such bloody-minded men cannot be ministers of Christ, and I would not recognise them as the servants of Him who commanded men to love their enemies, to put up their swords, and to learn war no more. They minister at an altar of blood – they are besmeared with a brother’s blood. (Cheers.)
Sir, I am an infidel to a war-making and slave-holding religion; I must be, in order to be a Christian. As Christ was an infidel and a blasphemer in the estimation of those who bowed before the shrines of idolatry, and of the Pharisees and High Priests of his day, so do I wish to be esteemed an enemy to that religion which sanctions or tolerates slavery or war. Sure I am that a religion that can make merchanise of men, preside over battles, give thanks to God for victory, and break the necks of men on a gallows, can never find a lodgment in my soul. I loathe it. Christ is my hope.
To be righteous as he was righteous, to love as he loved, to forgive as he forgave, and in all things to be governed by his spirit, and to walk in his steps – is all I ask. This I desire as the one thing needful to my happiness on earth and in eternity. But the religion which arrays man against man on the field of death has no affinity to Christianity. Here I wish to draw the line. God knoweth the hearts of men – i do not; but this I know, practically, the advocate of war is an enemy to Christ. Who is the infidel – the advocate of war or of anti-war?
I hold that the spirit of Christ never leads men to fight and kill; my opponent holds that the spirit of christ leads men to deeds of human slaughter.
I believe that men should love their enemies – you believe that they may kill them.
I believe that all injuries are to be forgiven – you that some are to be avenged.
Good for evil is my motto, blood for blood is yours.
I believe that no being has power over human life but he who gave it; you believe that man may take away the life of man.
I believe that men should instantly and for ever beat their swords into ploughshares and learn war no more; you believe that they are to make guns and swords, and study the art of war.
I believe that we should hide our lives with Christ in God, and leave the protection of our persons, when assaulted with intent to injure and kill, solely to God; you believe that we should hide our lives with man in the sword, and entrust the defence of person and property to armies and navies.
When put into position in which I must kill or be killed, I believe that Christ would have me die, and leave vengeance to God; you believe that Christ would have you kill and take vengeance into your own hands.
Who is the infidel – the non-resistant, or the armed-resistant? Who the enemy of Christ, the man who loves his enemies, and thinks it his duty and privilege to die rather than injure them, or the man, to save and benefit himself, kills his enemies? Who of these two is the Christian? Who of them has the mind of Christ, and walks in his steps?
I am willing to leave the decision of this question to the Prince of Peace, when we shall appear before him to give account of the deeds done in the body. It is not upon the besotted soldier that I place the chief responsibility of the blood shed in war, but upon those who advocate the war principle, and diffuse the war spirit in society. The blood of the innocent victims of British power in India will be required at the hands of those who give tone to society in this matter.
First of all, these cruel murders will be required at the hands of those ministers who maintain the Christianity of defence by arms and blood, and give God thanks for their success in the work of human slaughter. The day is not distant when men will no more enlist as soldiers than as highway robbers and assassins. A soldier is a mere hireling at the trade of shooting and stabbing men. He has no more choice as to whom, for what, or when, he shall kill than the gun with which he shoots, or the sword with which he thrusts. He must kill at the bidding of his employers, without regard to the guilt or innocence of those whom he is to kill.
As you would save men from the sin and the wrath of God, warn them never to enlist. If rulers and bishops wish to kill men, let them go and do their bloody work with their own bloody hands. (Great cheering.)
It is said that social institutions cannot exist without war. Then let the social institutions be destroyed. Institutions for men, not men for institutions, is my watchword; and I would as soon cut off the head to save the hat as to kill men to save institutions. Cease to reverence institutions and customs in church and state, and reverence God and regard man. Never kill men to protect an institution. Bow not to crowns, sceptres, or titles; honour man as he comes from the hand of God, not as he comes from the hand of the tailor or the jeweller. (Great applause.)
Sir, with me, the following are self-evident truths: What is wrong in an individual, is wrong in a nation. An act that is branded and punished as robbery and murder in individuals should be branded as robbery and murder when perpetrated by a nation. What it is a sin to do without a commission from Government, it is a sin to do by any one acting under the authority of such a commission.
Would soldiers dare to commit the deeds, as individual men, which they daily perpetrate as soldiers? As soldiers, they throw bombshells into nurseries, parlours, and kitchens, to burst amid scenes of domestic love and innocence. Would they dare to do this as private men? They burn and sack towns and cities – drive out men, women, and children, to perish – and they spread desolation and sorrow around the land. Would they do this as individuals? They would be branded as robbers and murderers if they did.
When you take a commission from Government, first ask – What are the duties required? If you find them such as you could not do without such a commission, touch it not. To act on such a commission would be to array yourself against the great Sovereign of the Universe. Go, cast your commissions at the feet of those from whom they came, if they require you to do what your conscience would not allow you to do without the commissions. You cannot carry that big of paper, to file it in the court of Heaven, to screen you there.
Think not to throw the responsibility of the innocent blood shed by you upon the nation. The nation is an abstraction; – an intangible nonentity cannot account for the robbery and murder of a living man. You must appear before God to give account of yourself. The responsibility of all the innocent victims of war – of the blood of the men, women, and children, who have been murdered by British swords and guns – must rest primarily on those who plead for war, and who seek to place Christ at the head of the war establishment of this world. What shall be said of these Doctors of Divinity who stir up people to demand satisfaction at the cannon’s mouth?
Sure I am they do not preach Christianity, for that is forgiveness. Those do not preach the Gospel of Christ who do not preach non-resistance to evil by arms and blood. I have no conception of man’s redemption – of Christ as the Lamb of God, to take away the sin of the world – aside from love to enemies and forgiveness of injuries. I have no idea of love and forgiveness, in connection with armed resistance to evil. The Gospel of Christ is not preached, when non-resistance is not preached. Those who do not preach that men are at once to put up their swords and learn war no more – that they are to be armed with the mind of Christ and not with the sword – and that they are to suffer and die rather than inflict suffering and death upon their enemies – do not preach Christ and Him crucified.
Let us cease to talk about war as an abstraction, and hold it up to the reprobation of mankind, as it is personified in the soldier and the hangman, and in the ministers, doctors of divinity, and bishops, who sanction it by their prayers and sermons, or by their silence and indifference (Great applause.)
If war is an enemy to Christianity, then are soldiers and all who advocate war the enemies of Christ. If Christ is the Prince of Peace, then all who advocate war are hostile to the spirit, precepts, and objects of Christ. Christ says, put up the sword – they say, draw it; Christ says, my disciples cannot fight – they deny that Christ tells the truth, and affirm that they can. While we renounce war as anti-Christian, let us reject their pretensions to be followers and ministers of Christ who justify war, for theirs is not the faith of Christ, but faith in words; they are not clothed with Christ’s righteousness, but with garments rolled in blood.
Mr. Wright closed amid great applause, and by offering the following resolutions:–
That whatever is a sin in an individual, is a sin in a nation; and that whatever is opposed to christianity, when done by a man, without a commission from government, is opposed to it, when done by a man acting under such a commission; and, therefore, men should never accept a commission from Government which required them to do what they think would be wrong for them to do, acting alone, and on individual responsibility; and it is our duty to hold men responsible to some eternal principles of right, when they act as organised bodies, and as individuals.
That any human institution or custom, which cannot exist without killing or enslaving men, ought to be reformed or destroyed; and that all who have enlisted under the bloodless banner of the Prince of Peace, should eek to show the superiority of love and forgiveness, over violence and blood, as the foundation principles of social and civil customs and institutions.
That we can see no distinction between the principles and practices of the soldier’s profession, and those of the hired assassin; and, that it is the duty of professed ministers, and followers of the Prince of Peace, and of all who are concerned to save themselves and their friends from individual violence and blood, to set themselves against robbery and murder, when committed by Governments – and to warn the people against enlisting as soldiers, to kill men at the bidding of a nation, as they do against hiring themselves out to commit murder, at the bidding of an individual.
Mr. JOHN MURRAY seconded the resolutions proposed by Mr. Wright, which were unanimously agreed to.
Mr. DOUGLASS, who was received with applause, then proposed, in an eloquent address, the next resolution, which was as follows:
That whatever will be opposed to Christianity in any future period of the world, is opposed to it now, and is to be regarded as the enemy of all righteousness; and, that as it is admitted that Christianity will ultimately do away all war, as its antagonist, therefore, it is the duty of all now, to put up their swords, and learn war no more.
Councillor TURNER, in seconding the motion, said he believed the soldier might become a Christian, but he believed that no man under the influence of Christianity, could become a soldier.
Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON rose amidst great cheering and said – Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of a meeting like this I generally desire to be the last speaker, because I feel as though I could say nothing; but it frequently happens, as now, that while listening to others the mind becomes excited on the subject, and when called upon to rise and speak, the difficulty is to compress what is in one’s thoughts within the limit of the time allotted. At this late hour I must, in the language of Sir Robert Peel, ‘cast myself on the indulgence of the house. ‘(Laughter.) I will make a long speech, a short speech, or a middling-sized speech, just as you please. (Cheers, and cries of ‘a long speech.’) Well, Sir, thus encouraged, I will say a few words; but in so doing, I feel that the time for argument is gone, and that a fact, an anecdote, or an illustration, will be more in place than a dry disquisition.
First, let me sincerely thank my dear friend Henry Wright, for the manner in which he has discharged his duty to-night. He has gone to the core of this question – he has laid bare its foundations – he has revealed the principles upon which our opposition to the taking of human life must rest. He has properly stigmatised the legalised murders committed under the name of war, and in virtue of what is called a Government commission. He has shown that which we call legal is unlawful; and that the commissions under which the dreadful crimes of murder are perpetrated are wholly unauthorised – since there does not exist in the individual, and cannot therefore be given to rulers, the rightful power of destroying human life. (Cheers.)
Believing, as I do, that the position he has this night taken a sound one, and in perfect unison with both the spirit and precepts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I can most cordially support his views; and I would entreat those who have listened to the speech of my friend to fling away their preconceived opinions, and to sit down to the calm, the impartial, and the prayerful consideration of the fundamental principles of this great question. If you would come to a right conclusion on this subject, you must approach it with childlike simplicity and humble teachableness. You must be willing to be led in the right way, though you should be compelled to abandon the notions of expediency and necessity which you have hitherto cherished; and then, I believe, you will be brought to see the beauty, the power, the sublimity, and the divinity, of the principle of non-resistance. I am individually convinced that nothing short of this principle will satisfy the demands of that law of love, under which the follower of Christ is required to live.
Embracing this principle, you will at once perceive the simplicity, the symmetry, the completeness, the perfection, and the moral omnipotence of the Gospel. You will find your feet upon a rock. The mists which education , prejudice, passion, custom, and priestcraft have thrown around the actions and occupations of men, will be dispelled by the glorious beams of the Sun of Righteousness and Peace, and you will look with profound pity upon those who think that any of the righteous plans of man, or any of the holy purposes of God, can be fitly wrought out, or assisted by the weapons of violence, or by the shedding of blood – that blood which is the life of man – whose life is the sole property of his Maker.
You will find, too, that this principle of non-resistance not only guards the life of man as sacred, but enters into and controls the whole conduct and deportment of him who sincerely adopts it. He goes to a heavenly armoury for all the weapons he employs, in his efforts to pull down the strongholds of Satan – he lives in an atmosphere of love – he has forsaken the beggarly elements of the world – he has abandoned the defences of stone walls, and muskets, and swords; and, with weapons of heavenly temper, he seeks only to penetrate the hearts and understandings of his fellow-men, and to conquer them by reason, by persuasion, by argument, and by the force of truth and love, Such is the principle of non-resistance, which, though misrepresented and reviled, finds its source, I believe, in the spirit of the Gospel, and in the heart of the Redeemer.
If these things be true, how is it that armies and their diabolical deeds find admirers and defenders among the millions of this country who call themselves Christians? The answer is this – The Church has corrupted her way upon the earth. The days are gone when the followers of Christ arrayed themselves in the spotless garments of innocence and peace – when a Christian was a man who would submit to crucifixion rather than deny his Master, by carrying a sword. The Church has harnessed herself for battle – the chariot of the Gospel has been yoked behind the flaming steeds of war – the milk-white flag of peace has been exchanged for the bloody banners of destruction, intended to be waved over the bleeding, groaning, and mutilated bodies of hosts of men, hewed down and butchered to gratify the ambition of worldly-minded and wicked statesmen, who sit at home in silken security , and promote their schemes of aggrandisement and revenge, by sacrificing thousands of their fellow-creatures on the field of slaughter.
Sir, I take all the horrors, and all the guilt, and all the damnation of war, and lay them at the door of a fallen and practically apostate Church. The full demon of destruction to whom the cries of the dying are music, and whose nectar is blood, has found his most potent auxiliary to be the Church – the Church whose bishops consecrate banners, whose archbishop makes the God who sent his Son into the world to preach, that men should ‘love their enemies,’ THE GOD OF BATTLES, and gives Him thanks, that he has assisted our troops to butcher thirty thousand of the human race – the Church whose chaplains lay their prayer-books upon the drum-head within sight of those who are to be massacred on the morrow, and pray, ‘Give peace in our time, O Lord, because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God,’ – the Church whose abbeys and cathedrals are filled, not with the statues of the saints and philanthropists who have blessed the world by the preaching of the Gospel, and their deeds of mercy and benevolence, but with profligate warriors, who, while their souls were steeped in the pollution of adultery, and every species of debauchery, were constantly reeking with the gore of their fellow-creatures, and having their horses’ hoofs in the clotted blood of these whose souls by their impious and inhuman mandates, had been dismissed in the act of murder from the red field of slaughter to the bar of God; – the Church, too, many of whose ministers care not whether their sons obtain through simony a living in the Establishment, or purchase a Commission in the Army, and with it a license to be the butchers of their race,
Sir, if such things be done in the green, tree, what will be done in the dry? If such be the state of the Church, can we wonder at the state of the world? If deacons, Priests, Rectors, Vicars, Prebends, Deans, Arch-deacons, and Archbishops, convert the God of the Bible into a being, the very counterpart of that horrid deity whom the Hindoos worship as the goddess of blood – if they identify God with all the deception and drunkenness of the recruiting system – if they make him the Commander-in Chief of an army, made up of graceless Englishmen; prodigal sons, who have broken the hearts of their parents – worthless husbands, who have forsaken their families, and licentious officers whose ordinary pastime, in many instances, is gambling and seduction – an army that never moves in India but it carries in its train half as many prostitutes as soldiers – an army, too, that is composed chiefly of those who either call upon Mahomet to help them, or upon Juggernaut and Halee,3 and the host of deities who are the personifications of sin, and whose rites are lust and murder – if, I say, the Ministers of the religion of Christ in Britain can identify God with such an army, make Him its leader, give him thanks for its butcheries, and ask him to reward its institution, can we wonder that there is joy in bell and that war continues must to desolate, and scourge, and curse the world?
Sir, is such a nation as ours warranted to expect that she will be made the instrument of converting the world? Dose not Britain herself need to be converted from a religion of war to a religion of peace? Can her ministers have in them the mind that was in Christ, when they are found supporting a system that sends annually tens of thousands of victims to the bottomless pit? – a system that begins in sin – that annihilates the freedom and responsibility of man – that trains myriads of men to the profession of deliberate murderers – that carries havoc and desolation into the fairest regions of the earth – that multiplies widows and orphans – that substitutes the command of a General for the law of God, and is, in fact, a standing proof of the practical atheism of those by whom it is supported!
Sir, as far as I am acquainted with our recent wars, I am prepared to say, that we have in all respects fallen short of the heathen, with whom we have been fighting, in regard, to honour, good faith, and humanity.
Take one or two examples: what was the Affghan war but one, on our part, of causeless aggression – destitute altogether of excuse, even according to the maxima of those who uphold wars? We were threatened with no danger. The people against whom we marched our army were not enemies, but friends. It was not to redeem them from slavery – for they were as free, and more so, than the people of India, or than we are in this country. The ruler we sought to depose was not a tyrant, but on the contrary, ruled with the approbation and love of the people. (Great applause.)
The man we sought to place upon the throne, was a man who was hated by the people, and had been expelled thirty years before, in consequence of his despotic vices. Into this country, we marched our army – passing our own natural frontier, and crossing deserts, rivers, and mountains to invade it. We butchered the people – we blew up their fortresses we enslaved their chiefs – we occupied their cities – we hurled their ruler from his throne – we set up an execrated and imbecile tyrant; and we handed over the whole region to political agents, revenue collectors, and military officers, who carried on intrigues, ground the people to the dust by their exactions, and revelled in licentiousness among the women of the country.
Remember, I am saying no more than I can prove by the most undeniable evidence. At last, the monarch whom we had set up was assassinated. The depraved conduct of some of our principal functionaries disgusted the people, and inflamed them, with hatred and revenge at this juncture, Akbar Khan, son of the popular ruler, Dost Mahomed, whom we had sent two thousand miles away into captivity and exile, gathered around him some of the chiefs of the country and their tribes, and it was resolved that an effort should be made to drive out the invaders.
The season of the year favoured the plans of the patriots. They seized a number of our countrymen and soldiers, and held them as hostages for the restoration of the banished prince. They forced our army to evacuate the capital, and you all know that many thousands of our soldiers and their followers perished amidst the snows of the Khyber Pass in the ill-fated retreat from Cabul.
Well what then came to pass? Forced to treat with the victorious Akbar Khan, we at length restored his father, and resolved to leave the country. The prisoners who had been taken by Akbar Khan were delivered up, and bore uniform and unhesitating testimony to the kindness, the respect, and the scrupulously delicacy with which they had been treated during their captivity. What was our final act? The troops of Candahar and Jellalabad having formed a junction, and being on the point of leaving the country, determined to act upon the instructions of Lord Ellenborough, who had directed that some signal act of vengeance should be perpetrated ere Affghanistan was quitted forever. Bear in mind, that every prisoner had been delivered up, without the injury of a single hair of any one of their heads, and without the infliction of a single insult. How did we reward this treatment of our countrywomen and soldiers? Why, by setting to work like demons, and destroying the Bazaar of Cabul, one of the finest places of the kind in Asia – by demolishing the grand mart in which the peaceful merchants of the country, who had done nothing to offend us, but furnish our supplies and negotiate our bills) had deposited their goods, and were wont to carry on their trade. (Great sensation, and cries of ‘Shame.’)
Now, sir, contrast the conduct of these barbarous Affghans – these followers of Mahomet, which the conduct of the civilised English, the professed followers of Jesus, and tell me which of the two most illustrated the spirit and morality of the Christian religion. (Hear, hear.) Tell me, too, what you think of the return made for the safe delivery into our hands of every captive that had been taken by these Affghans. What is the consequence? We have turned tribes of men who might have been retained as friends, into bitter enemies; and we have brought into contempt and detestation the name of Christianity, throughout a country where our peaceful influence and pure example might have scattered boundless blessings, and diffused the saving knowledge of the truth.
Now set over against the conduct of the British in Cabul, the conduct of the Chinese. We went to war with the Chinese solely in consequence of the refusal of the Government of that empire to allow of a pernicious and contraband trade in opium. During that war the Europeans who had lived in the immediate vicinity of Canton had fled for safety to other places, under the protection of some friendly flag. On the conclusion of the peace between Great Britain and China, they returned, and found that, while we had been perpetrating the unspeakable horrors of Chusan, and blowing up towns and cities on the coast, the houses and property which these merchants had left to the mercy of the Chinese had been sacredly guarded, and that they were again in possession of what they land left behind them. (Loud cheers.)
A work has recently been published, relating to the Punjab. It is from the pen of the present political agent in that country, Major Lawrence. That officer records a conversation which he once had with a Mohamedan, who had been for nearly thirty years the principal minister of Runjeet Singh. It was on the subject of religion, and in the course of it the aged Mohamedan expressed his surprise that the English should live without any appearance of a belief in God. Major Lawrence assured him that the English did believe in God – that they had a religion – and that he would ascertain such to be the fact if he sent to Loodianah and consulted the missionary there, who would also produce the book in which the English believed.
The Sikh minister then apologized for his error, and said he recollected one Englishman who had deeply impressed him with a conviction of his goodness and his piety. Major Lawrence inquired who the Englishman was, upon which Azizudeen said his name was Ferguson, and he would relate under what circumstances he had become convinced of his piety. – Mr. Ferguson, while on business at Lahore, was attacked by some fanatical Sikhs, called Akalees, and wounded; upon which Runjeet Singh directed Azizudeen to wait upon the English gentleman, and express his sorrow for what had happened, and his determination to punish the offenders. ‘l fully expected,’ said the Mahomedan, ‘to find him smeared with blood, and anxious for revenge. Instead of the this, I found him on his couch, covered with a clean sheet, with a pale but sweetly-forgiving countenance, reading a book. On seeing me he said, ‘Ah! My friend, you find me wounded and weak, but still very happy; I am deriving rich consolation from this holy volume.’ I gave him the message of Runjeet Singh, and told him that his assailants would be punished; upon which he said, that he had forgiven them, and he hoped Runjeet Singh would also pardon their offence. Oh! he was a good man! The sheets around him were white, but not so spotless as his gentle heart. The memory of Mr. Ferguson is sweet. He was a good man.’ (Loud cheers.)
See, in the simple story, the mighty influence of the example of one man, redeeming the nation to which be belonged from condemnation, as without religion, and leaving an impression upon a casual beholder, which the lapse of years had been unable to efface. (Cheers.) Would there were more Fergusons in India; then, should we not have to send the inquirer to the missionary station, to ascertain the fact of our really having a religion a bible, and a God.
Sir, amidst the dreadful occurrences which have recently taken place on the banks of the Sutlej, there has been one of a most pleasing description. We are told, that an English soldier who has been severely wounded, was left for dead on the field of battle. In this state he lay, helpless and bleeding, with a fractured limb, unable to move. He was exposed to the chilling damps of the night, and the burning sun of the following day. He was dying of thirst, but could obtain no water. In these circumstances, he was found by a man who was looking among the slain for some friend whom he had lost. This man no sooner found that there was life still remaining in our countryman, than he went to the river and brought water to refresh him. He then bound up his shattered limb, and then took him on his back, to carry him to the British camp, which was seven miles distant, across a plain of deep and heavy sand. Having carried him for more than three miles, he had to lay down his burden in order that be might rest. While they were thus halting, a party of British soldiers came up, and seeing one of their countryman thus circumstanced, offered to place him on a litter, and send him in. The wounded man, however, replied, ‘No, I will again mount the back of my good Samaritan, who shall finish the kind work he has begun, and deliver me up to the Commander-in-Chief’ The stranger, therefore, again took up his load, and kindly deposited the soldier safely in the British camp. (Loud cheers.)
Now, sir, who was the man to who our countryman was indebted for his deliverance and his life? He was a SIKH! (Great cheering.) He was one of those with whom we had been at war – thirty thousand of whose countrymen we had slain – some of them most brutally; for, not content with defeating the Sikhs, and driving thousands of them into the river, we fired grape and musket shot among them while they were struggling with the torrent; and we have the testimony of Lord Gough, the Commander-in-Chief, that, in the whole course of his experiences as a soldier, he never beheld so terrific a sight, as that presented during the time when volleys of destructive shot were being poured upon the helpless multitude, who were trying to reach the opposite bank of the river. (Great sensation.) Now, let me ask, who imitated our blessed Saviour in the midst of these bloody transactions? Was it not that humane Sikh, who carried our wounded countryman safely into camp? (Great applause.)
Sir, I have recently attended two meetings at the India House, called for the purpose of returning thanks to the army of the Sutlej, and on these occasions I have felt it to be my duty to enter my protest against the profanity and blasphemy of coupling the name of the holy and ever blessed God with the victory we have obtained. (Loud applause.) I have also been recently at Reading delivering lectures, and I have felt happy in the opportunity afforded me, of identifying myself with those who petitioned parliament to withhold their thanks from men who had been engaged in the horrid work of wholesale destruction. (Cheers.)
If I am not wearying you – (Cheers, and cries of ‘Go on.’) – I will say a word upon the Oregon question. (Cheers.) We have heard many rumours of war with the United States, and there are some, both in this country and on the other side of the water, who would not scruple to plunge the two nations into a sanguinary conflict. The majorities in both countries are, I believe, in favour of present, continued, and perpetual peace. (Cheers. )
Oh, it would indeed be a horrid spectacle to see nations like Great Britain and America at war with each other! – to see men who have sprung from the same stock, who claim the same ancestry, who speak the same language, who profess the same religion, and have been engaged in common efforts to enlighten and save the world, employed in cutting each others’ throats! May God save us from beholding so fearful a scene as this!
We who are assembled here to-night have it in our power to do something to avert this threatened calamity. I have been called upon by the Committee to move, that a friendly address from this meeting be sent to our brethren on the other side of the water, assuring them of our earnest desire to dwell at peace with them – (Cheers.) – and to draw still closer the bonds of friendship and good-will that bind as together. (Loud cheers.)
I perceive that this measure has your entire approbation. (Applause.) I believe that your feelings are the feelings of the people of Great Britain generally. (Hear, hear.) I have attended many meetings since the fears of a rupture with the United States first became prevalent, and I have been delighted to find, that at all these, the people of our country have been unanimously and enthusiastically in favour of peace.
In London, recently, I attended one of the Concerts of those charming singers the Hutchinson Family – a band of minstrels who are doing as much good as an army of peace lecturers, by wedding the doctrines of peace and freedom to the harmony of their sweet voices, and the words of their touching melodies. I shall never forget the rapture with which some lines which they sung to the tunes of ‘God save the Queen,’ and ‘Yankee Doodle,’ were received by a crowded audience in the Queen’s Concert Room in London. I hope they will visit Glasgow, and delight you here as they have delighted thousands elsewhere.
In the meantime, I will try if I can remember the words they sung, which, though simple in themselves, struck a chord in every heart, and produced an effect such as I never before witnessed –
Oh! may the human race
Heaven's Message soon embrace –
'Goodwill to Man.' (Cheers.)
Hush'd be the Battle's sound;
And, o'er the Earth around,
May Love and Peace abound,
Through every land. (Cheers)
----
Oh! then shall come the glorious day,
When swords and spears shall perish;
And Brothers John and Jonathan,
The kindest thoughts shall cherish. (Cheers.)
When Oregon no more shall fill,
With poisoned darts our quiver;
But Englishmen with Yankees dwell,
On the great Columbia River.
Then let us haste these bonds to knit,
And in the work be handy,
That we may blend 'God save the Queen,'
With 'Yankee Doodle Dandy,' (Loud cheers)
It is gratifying to perceive how very generally the periodical literature of this country is impregnated with the doctrines of peace. (Cheers.) On my way here, I passed a part of my time in reading the last number of Douglas Jerrold‘s Magazine – a publication not more remarkable for its talent, than for its honest advocacy of the cause of the people, and the claims of humanity all over the world. This number contains a letter to that great and good man, Elihu Burritt, of Worcester, Massachusetts – (cheers) – who is devoting the powers of his extraordinary intellect to the promulgation of the doctrines of peace, and scattering his Olive Leaves over the entire face of the country. (Cheers.) In this letter, Douglas Jerrold bestows a well merited castigation on John Quincy Adams. He says:–
Your Leaf fell into my hands just after I had read Mr. Adams’s speech in Congress, where he stands upon the Bible for his right to Oregon, and would cut throats according to his notion of Genesis! Foolish old gentleman! he can’t have many years’ mortal breath in him, and therefore it is sad to see him puffing and puffing to blow the embers of war into a blaze – to see him , as I may say, ramming down murderous bullets, and wadding muskets with leaves from the Bible! But there’s a sort of religion that would sharpen the sword itself on the stone tables of Moses.
This is as just in sentiment as it is withering in sarcasm. He then launches upon the recent votes of thanks, and the prayer of thanksgiving drawn up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, giving the glory of the horrid slaughters in India to the God and Father of the Prince of Peace, and says:–
And so, according to these people, the Army of Martyrs should be an army with forty-two pounders and a rocket brigade. Their Christianity is Christiamity humbly firing upon one knee. Their incense for the altar is not myrrh and frankincense, but charcoal and saltpetre. Our Sir Robert Harry lnglis, for instance – who in the House of Commons speaks for pious Oxford – he was quite delighted that the Governor-General of India had put so much religion into the bulletin that published the slaughter of nine thousand Sikhs, as they call ’em. They were all killed – according to Sir Robert – not by the cold iron of the English infantry, but by a heavenly host; the bayonet, in truth, did not do the work; no, it was the fiery words of the angels, and praise were to be sung to them accordingly. And this is the Christianity of the Gazette; though I can’t find it in the New Testament.
This is really very good. But the cream of the letter, in my opinion, is the part in which he deals with poor Mr. Adams, for his unfortunate reference to Genesis to justify the seizure of the whole country beyond the Rocky mountains. Hear what he says:
And Mr. Adams, friend Ellihu, will go to his Bible to settle this matter of disputed land. Now the first dispute of the sort mentioned in ‘The Book,’ was arranged, certainly not after the fashion of Mr. Adams ; for here’s the original ‘Oregon question’ disposed of in Genesis in a manner quite forgotten by the Adams of America:–
And there was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdsmen of Lot’s cattle, and the Canaanite and Perezzite dwelled then in the land.
And Abram said unto Lot Let there be strife, I pray thee between me and thee, and between my herdsman and they herdsman for we be brethren.
Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself I pray thee, from me; if then wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.’ (loud applause,)
And so, Ellhu, Gunpowder Adams is answered out of his own Genesis!
But I must conclude. Let us from this day forth labour to disabuse the minds of those around us on the subject of war. Let us strip it of its false glory, and exhibit it in its native deformity and guilt, as a system of murder and blood. Let us arm ourselves from the word of God with arguments to meet those who, on the subject of war as well as slavery, condemn the thing in the abstract, but plead for it in the concrete. Let us examine and weigh the arguments of my friend Wright, and if we find that he has taken a sound view of the subject, as in my conscience and understanding I believe he has, let us support him in his holy mission of preaching against the systems that are deluging the earth with blood, and peopling the
regions of woe with the victims offered to this modern Moloch. Let us not mock God by praying for peace, while we are practically diffusing the doctrines of murder; but, be individually such, as mankind will be universally, when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
I now move that a Memorial to the people of the United States be adopted and forwarded to the Friends of Peace in America, for publication throughout the country. My friend Mr. Reid will lay that memorial before you, and my friend William Smeal, who has been so long known for his unceasing exertions in the cause of human freedom and universal peace, will second its adoption. May God in his goodness grant that this humble effort may prove in some degree successful in bringing the friends of peace in the two countries together; and may the time never come that there will be any other strife between us than the holy emulation of each other in love and good works – each labouring to excel the other in efforts to scatter the blessings of peace, and freedom, and pure Christianity over the face of the whole earth! (Mr. Thompson sat down amidst continued cheers.)
Mr. ROBERT REID then read and moved the adoption of a Memorial, addressed to the people of America, calling upon them to join with the people of of this country in preserving peace.
The memorial was seconded by Mr. WILLIAM SMEAL, and unanimously adopted.
A vote of thanks was then given to Mr. Paton for his conduct in the chair, and the meeting separated.
Glasgow Argus, 30 April 1846
Notes
‘On 6 April the Queen ‘ordered … that his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury do prepare a Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the repeated and signal victories obtained by the troops of Her Majesty and by those of the Honourable East India Company, in the vicinity of the Sutledge, whereby the unjust and unprovoked aggression of the Sikhs was gloriously repelled, and their armies totally discomfited; and that such Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving be used in all churches and chapels in England and Wales, and in the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, upon Sunday the 12th of this instant April, or the Sunday after the Ministers of such churches and chapels shall respectively receive the same.’ London Gazette, 10 April 1846. The Prayer was quoted sarcastically in Mrs Wentworth, ‘Glorious War!’, The People’s Journal 17 (25 April 1846), pp. 230–32.
Thompson here draws on prevailing Victorian conceptions of Hindu religious practices, whence the English loan-word juggernaut derives. ‘Halee’ may refer to the goddess Kali, usually rendered ‘Kalee’ in contemporary British sources.
Following their lecture at City Hall in Glasgow on Wednesday 30th, Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison addressed several more meetings in the city – of which no newspaper report has been found – before leaving by train to Ardrossan on the morning of Friday 2nd October, in order to take the steamer to Belfast. However, there was just time to break their journey at Kilmarnock, where Douglass had lectured four times in the Spring. Here is Garrison’s account of those two days:
On Thursday, at noon, we addressed a full meeting of ladies, which seemed to give great saisfaction. In the evening, we held another meeting in the City Hall, which was equally cheering with the others, and terminated near midnight. Yesterday morning, about seventy ladies and gentlemen gave us a public breakfast at the Eagle Hotel, and I only regret that I have not time to tell you all about it. As a testmonial of affectionate regard to myself, it was overpowering to my feelings. At half past 11 o’clock, we bade farewell to Glasgow, (to the Patons, the Smeals and numerous other liberal friends,) and went to Kilmarnock, where we addressed several hundred persons, hastily summoned together, and received their benediction – and, after taking tea with a number of choice lovers of our good cause, we took the cars for Ardrossan, and at that place went on board a steamer for Belfast, making the passage in severn hours.1
We reproduce here the brief report of that ‘hastily summoned’ meeting, which appeared in the Ayr Advertiser the following week. The venue was not specified in the report.
Douglass would return to Scotland with Garrison three weeks later.
AMERICAN SLAVERY.– On Friday last, Kilmarnock was visited by the great leader of the abolitionists in America, – Mr Lloyd Garrison, and the self-liberated slave, Frederick Douglass. A meeting was held during the day, as the two gentlemen were on their way to Ireland, and had only, at the urgent request of friends, taken Kilmarnock in their route. The speech of Lloyd Garrison was on the general question of American slavery, and his remarks deprecating that horrid system were warmly responded to by his auditory. His friend Frederick Douglass also shortly addressed the meeting, which was numerous, considering that it was convened in a few hours.
Ayr Advertiser, 8 October 1846
NOTES
William Lloyd Garrison to Liberator, Belfast, 3 October 1846; in The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison. Volume 3: No Union with Slave-Holders, edited by Walter M. Merrill (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 434. The Glasgow farewells specified here relate to their hosts, Andrew Paton and his sister Catherine of Richmond Street (where Garrison stayed), and William and Robert Smeal, of Gallowgate (where Douglass probably stayed).
In Fenwick on Saturday 4 April, Frederick Douglass did not speak at length, ‘on account of the exhaustion of his body,’ according to the newspaper report. And no wonder. He had given at least twelve lectures in the previous three weeks. Nevertheless, after only one day’s rest, he returned to the Secession Church, Abbey Close in Paisley to address his fifth meeting there, again attracting a large audience.
For an overview of Frederick Douglass’ activities in Paisley during the year see: Spotlight: Paisley.
ANTI-SLAVERY MEETING IN PAISLEY
On Monday evening last, Mr Frederick Douglass, whose eloquent appeals on behalf of the anti-slavery cause have attracted such crowded audiences here, again addressed an overflowing meeting of the inhabitants in the Secession Church, Abbey Close.
Mr Douglass on rising said – one of the greatest evils of slavery is the degrading influence which it exerts upon the moral and religious feelings of those communities in which it exists. Before this, its physical evils dwindle into nothing, and there probably never was a better illustration of it than in the past history of the United States. Where will you find people with higher aspirations than the Americans?
[SLAVERY AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION]
They have set forth a declaration – one of the most precious expositions of human rights which the world has ever witnessed. Early they proclaimed man’s capacity to enjoy the greatest freedom, and in defence of this, declared they had bared their bosoms to the storms of British artillery. They started from a high, a noble position – their constitution based upon human equality. With equal rights emblazoned on their fronts, they were determined to establish freedom; but they committed a fatal mistake, they allowed a compromise with slavery. They attempted to secure their own freedom while neglecting that of others. They thought they could bind the chain round the feet of others without binding the other end round their own neck.
Slavery in the United States was but a small thing seventy years ago, but going onward it has gained strength, till now it threatens wholesale destruction to everything connected with it. It may be seen corroding their vitals, their morals, and their politics, and linking itself with the very best institutions of America. It destroys all the finer feelings of our nature – it renders the people less humane – leads them to regard cruelty with indifference, as the boy born and bred within the sound of the thundering roar of Niagara, feels nothing strange because he is used with the noise; while a stranger trembles with awe, and feels he is in the presence of God – in the midst of his mighty works. People reared in the midst of slavery become indifferent to human wrongs, indifferent to the entreaties, the tears, the agonies of the slave under the lash; all of which appear to be music to the ears of slaveholders. Slavery has weakened the love of freedom in the United States – they have lost much of that regard for liberty which which [sic] once characterised them. It has eaten out of the vitals from the hearts of the Americans.
The Northern States are but the tools of slaveholders; a man belonging to the Free States cannot go into the Southern or Slaveholding States, although the law says he shall enjoy equal rights in all states, he cannot go into these states with the declaration in the one hand and the word of God in the other to declare the rights of all men, but he makes himself liable to be hung at the first lamp post. People talk here o[f] the political rights enjoyed by the Americans, the suffrage, &c. I admit that they enjoy suffrage to a considerable extent. Who are the voters of America? The slaves of slaves.
Our history shows the domination of slavery. It has elected our President, our senators, &c., and one of the first duties of our minister was to negotiate with Britain for the return to bondage of Maddison Washington, who braved the dangers of the deep; who, with one mighty effort, burst asunder the chains of one hundred and thirty-five fellow-men, and after much fatigue and many severe struggles, steered them into a British port, and there found shelter under the British lion. Our whole country was thrown into confusion by the fact of him liberating himself and so many of his brethren, and Britain thus aiding them in their emancipation. I can well remember the speeches of Messrs. Clay, Calhoun, Webster, and others, on that occasion. Mr Clay called attention to a most appalling occurrence on the high seas, and a breach of that law between nation and nation, &c.; but now Maddison Washington and his compeers are treading upon British soil, they have fled from a republican government and have chosen a monarchial, and are basking under the free sun amid the free hills and valleys of a free monarchial country.1
I think I may boldly tell you I am a republican, but not an American republican. I am here as a reviler of American republicanism. Aside from slavery I regard America as a brilliant example to the world; only wash from her escutcheon the bloody stain of slavery, and she will stand forth as a noble example for others to follow. But as long as the tears of my sisters and brother continue to run down her streams unheeded into the vast ocean of human misery, my tongue shall cleave to the roof of my mouth ere I speak well of such a nation.
[THE RISE OF ABOLITIONISM]
It is often asked, what have the abolitionists done? We find that the slaveholder is as cruel and rapacious as he was ten years ago – we find that slaves are as numerous as they were ten years ago. But people forget what we had to do. We had other things to do than merely abolish slavery. It had so woven and interwoven itself with the religion and the politics of America, that the abolitionists had an arduous and difficult path to pursue. The first man who started up to denounce slavery as a heinous crime, felt his task no easy one, for the whole nation sprung up into an organised mob to crush the cry for freedom.
The right of speech was then called into question. The members of society in general said – this shall not be discussed. The members of society in general said – this shall not be discussed. The abolitionists then fell back on the constitution – that constitution which declares that they all have equal rights – that every citizen has a right to speak. They then commenced their glorious warfare, not with carnal weapons, but with weapons too sharp and pointed for them to resist.2
In 1835, a few ladies convened in Washington, for the purpose of offering up their prayers in behalf of their oppressed sisters, and to listen to that mighty advocate of liberty, George Thompson. These ladies were broken in upon. Five thousand gentlemen stood on the outside, while the rest drove out the ladies from the hall, and this merely for praying for freedom to their own sisters.3
In 1835, there was scarcely one of the press who dared to advocate our cause – now we have upwards of one hundred of them teeming with anti-slavery doctrines – now we can hold meetings with men standing round to protect us.
In 1835, we could not get a hall, no one would hazard his property so far, except the old cradle of liberty, the Yanuel hall. But now we can go into the very state-house itself, and there advocate our anti-slavery doctrines.
What have the abolitionists done? Why, they have done a great preparatory work for emancipation. We must now utter the true word and then slavery will die – it cannot exist amid light. We must expose in all their its [sic] horrid colours, its unjust and inhuman oppressions, so as to make the whole world see the villany of such a system. There is not a single church in the United States but is tainted with it. The reason that slavery exists is, because it is popular. There is something respectable in holding a number of slaves, and until it becomes more unpopular, it will not be easily knocked down. Whatever tends to make slavery respectable, tends to perpetuate it. Well, what have we found making slavery respectable? It is the Free Church of Scotland.
[THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND]
The Free Church has attempted to make slaveholders be deemed respectable, and whatever makes the slaveholder respectable, makes the system respectable also. And where is the Free Churchman who will dare to deny that the Free Church Assembly made them respectable? Where is the Free Churchman who dares deny this? He’ll not do it while I am in town I’ll warrant you. (Laughter.) They bar their doors against me – they say don’t let that fellow Douglass in – he is rather a dangerous character.
The Free Church minister in Duntocher had a class on the evening previous to that on which I was there. He advised them not to go and hear me. But, says he, ‘if any of you do go, listen attentively to what he says, and come and tell me, and I will explain it to you.’ (Laughter.) The coward, could he not come himself?
This reminds me of the story of an American colonel who addressed his soldiers before going to the field:– ‘Soldiers,’ says he, ‘fight nobly, fight for your country, fight bravely, fight gloriously; but if the enemy come and appear too many for you, I advise you by all means to retreat; and as for myself, as I am rather lame, I had better be going just now.’ Mr Douglass resumed his seat amid much applause.
Mr Buffum then rose and said, that the question of slavery is so simple that even I can venture to discuss it. It is so simple that the smallest child before me can understand it. Henry C. Wright once asked a little girl what slavery was. She replied, it will not allow little girls to go home to their mothers. This little girl knew how well she loved her own mmother, and she knew what must be the agonies of those who were not allowed to go home to their mothers.
Mr Buffum then related a few facts concerning the prejudice against colour in the United States. Mr Douglass and I, said he, once took out tickets for the first class of a railway car, but we had not been long seated before the guard came in and ordered Mr Douglass to get out. He asked for what reason he was to go out. The guard said he had told us before. Mr Douglass said, he wished to be told again, as he had paid for his seat and meant to keep it. The guard then went and procured assistance, and pulled Mr Douglass and me out, and told him he must go into the Jim Crow car. I asked them why they made such an unjust distinction, and told them to get a shade of colour put up, so that we may know the exact standard.4
Some time after, I was travelling on the same road, and found that a monkey was allowed to travel with a sailor. I could not understand how they allowed a monkey to travel free, and would not permit a man whose skin was a little darker than their own, to get into the carriage, although he was willing to pay. The only clause under which the monkey could come in, was, that which provided for the free travelling of the directors and their relatives and friends. (Laughter.)
In a burying ground in America, they have one side laid off for blacks and the other for whites. A red Indian who came among them to negotiate some matters, happening to die, they were placed in rather peculiar circumstances. They did not know whether to bury him among the whites or the blacks, he being neither. But after a long consultation, they came to the conclusion of burying him exactly between the two.
There will be a remonstrance on the subject of slavery sent for signature in every town in Scotland, and I think from my experience here, it will be numerously signed; and when I go home, I will be able to stand boldly up and protest against the Free Church being the representative of the moral and religious feeling of Scotland. (Loud and long continued cheering.) If you cheer me, I am afraid I was never used to such applause in America; but if you were to throw a brick bat or a rotten egg at me, I would get on well, as I am used with that sort of applause. It was as the representative of the religion of Scotland that the Free Church delegates received the money, but now I know that they were not, and I believe that the majority of its members themselves are for the money sent back. When Daniel O’Connell sent back the money, the slaveholders were quite astonished.5 They could not understand why a politician like him would think of refusing the money, and if the Free Church were to send back the three thousand pounds what would they think?
Mr Buffum concluded a long and interesting address, by stating, that he had heard of Paisley before he came into this country. He had heard that its inhabitants were a thinking people, and he now wished them to think seriously of this matter, and to use all the influence in their power to get the Free Church to SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Applause.)
Mr Douglass said, that as this was probably the last opportunity he would have of addressing them, he had been requested to direct their attention to the unjust and ungodly distinction observed in the British steamers plying between America and England. Before leaving America, Mr Buffum had gone to the agent of the Cambria steamer in New York, and asked if I could be allowed to go in the cabin to England. His answer was, that I could not be allowed to go in the cabin in case it would give offence to some of the American passengers. I thought (said Mr D.) the British would not bow to the bloody dictum of American prejudice. Mr Buffum told the agent, that if I could not go in the cabin he would not go either, so that we both took a steerage passage.
If Britain would only speak out, if she would only let her voice be heard, she would soon shake those prejudices and send them tottering to the dust. Why not sweep away such distinctions from the decks of British vessels, as well as from British soil. Petition those companies to abolish this horrid practice, and if they will not give in, you may soon see rivals start up proclaiming equal privileges to all.
Mr Douglass concluded by giving a graphic description of his voyage across the Atlantic in the Cambia, which drew from his audience the most rapturous applause.6
Renfrewshire Advertiser, 11 April 1846
Notes
Douglass later told the story of Madison Washington – including the mutiny he led on the Creole in 1841 – in his novella ‘The Heroic Slave’ in Autographs for Freedom, ed. Julia Griffiths (Boston: John P. Jewett, 1853). On the mutiny and the diplomatic row that followed see George Hendrick and Willene Hendrick, The Creole Mutiny: A Tale of Revolt Aboard a Slave Ship (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003).
Douglass’s reference to ‘carnal weapons’ echoes the language of William Lloyd Garrison‘s ‘Declaration of Sentiments’, outlining his doctrine of moral suasion: see ‘Declaration of the National Anti-Slavery Convention,’ Liberator, 14 December 1835.
This incident did not occur in Washington, D.C., but outside the offices of the Liberator on Washington Street in Boston, where Thompson was scheduled to address a meeting of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society: ‘A Boston Mob,’ Liberator, 31 October 1835. See also C. Duncan Rice. ‘The Anti-Slavery Mission of George Thompson to the United States, 1834-1835,’ Journal of American Studies 2.1 (1968): 13-31.
On the campaign to end the racial segregation of the Massachusetts railroads (in which Douglass, Buffum and others were involved) see Elizabeth Stordeur Pryor, Colored Travelers: Mobility and the Fight for Citizenship before the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016), pp. 76–102.
In a notorious speech at a meeting of the Repeal Association in Dublin on 11 May 1843, Daniel O’Connell declared his intention to refuse ‘blood-stained money’ from pro-slavery Repeal groups in the United States. The speech was reported in the Liberator, 9 and 30 June 1843, and in the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Reporter, 9 August 1843.
For a detailed account of Douglass’s outward voyage to Liverpool in 1845 see Alasdair Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846: Living an Antislavery Life (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018), pp. 3–6, 17–24. Some primary sources are reprinted here.
View of houses in Fenwick village (c1870-80) from Canmore.
From Kilmarnock, Frederick Douglass travelled to Fenwick, a weavers’ village five miles to the north east on the Glasgow road. He addressed a meeting at the United Secession Church.
Fenwick. Adapted from Ayrshire XIII.15 (Ordnance Survey, 1856). National Library of Scotland.Site of former Secession Church, Fenwick, Ayrshire. Photographed 14 March 2025.Memorial plaque installed on the site of the former Secession Church in Fenwick. Photographed 14 March 2025.
As well as the report in the Kilmarnock Herald, reproduced below, the meeting was also recorded in the diary of a handloom weaver James Taylor (1814-57) which he entitled Journal of Local Events, or Annals of Fenwick. Never intended for publication, it was discovered among family relics in the 1960s by Taylor’s great grandson.
On Sunday 5 April, the day after the meeting, Taylor wrote:
Mr Frederick Douglass, once an American slave, addressed a public meeting of the inhabitants of Fenwick in the Secession meeting house, on the subject of ‘American Slavery’. The Rev. Mr Orr occupied the chair. In the course of his speech, Mr Douglass made some severe animadversions on the Free Church of Scotland, for going to the slave states of America and uplifting money to support their church. Mr Thomas Brown from Kilmarnock followed in the same strain. The Rev. Mr. Dickie of the Parish Church, also spoke in condemnation of the American slave system. An uncommonly large meeting agreed unanimously to a resolution condemning churches in this country for having fellowship with the slave-holding churches of America. Mr Dickie closed with prayer.1
FENWICK.
On Saturday the 4th instant, a public meeting was convened in the United Secession Church, here, for the purpose of hearing an address from Mr Frederick Douglas, the american slave – the Rev. Wm. Orr in the chair. After a few appropriate remarks from the chairman, he introduced Mr Douglas to the meeting. His address was short, on account of the exhaustion of his body from spending every night for some time previously, and from this cause we had not the best opportunity of judging of his oratorical powers; from what we heard however, we think he possesses powers of eloquence of no mean order. He dwelt on the wrongs of his brethren in chains, and urged the necessity of vigorous exertions by the friends of emancipation on their behalf. Mr Thomas Brown from Kilmarnock also ably addressed the assembly on the same subject. The Rev. Mr Dickie, parish minister, was the last speaker. In an eloquent address, free from all personalities, he dwelt on the wrongs inflicted on the slave, and also on the duty of the people of this country arising from their lethargy and becoming more earnest for the cause of negro emancipation. He also concluded with prayer, and the meeting separated.
Kilmarnock Herald, 10 April 1846
Notes
James Taylor, The Annals of Fenwick, ed. Tom Dunnachie Taylor ([Kilmarnock]: Ayrshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 1970), pp. 70-1.
