Complete Works of Harriet Beecher Stowe

by Harriet Beecher Stowe

  “A Coloured Baltimorean,” writing to the editor of Zion’s Watchman, says: —

  The address was presented to one of the secretaries, a delegate of the Baltimore Conference, and subsequently given by him to the bishops. How many of the members of the Conference saw it, I know not. One thing is certain, it was not read to the Conference.

  With regard to the second head — of defending the laws which prevent the slave from being taught to read and write — we have the following instance: —

  In the year 1835, the Chillicothe Presbytery, Ohio, addressed a Christian remonstrance to the presbytery of Mississippi on the subject of slavery, in which they specifically enumerated the respects in which they considered it to be unchristian. The eighth resolution was as follows: —

  That any member of our church, who shall advocate or speak in favour of such laws as have been or may yet be enacted, for the purpose of keeping the slaves in ignorance, and preventing them from learning to read the Word of God, is guilty of a great sin, and ought to be dealt with as for other scandalous crimes.

  This remonstrance was answered by Rev. James Smylie, stated clerk of the Mississippi Presbytery, and afterwards of the Amity Presbytery of Louisiana, in a pamphlet of eighty-seven pages, in which he defended slavery generally and particularly, in the same manner in which all other abuses have always been defended — by the word of God. The tenth section of this pamphlet is devoted to the defence of this law. He devotes seven pages of fine print to this object. He says (): —

  There are laws existing in both States, Mississippi and Louisiana, accompanied with heavy penal sanctions, prohibiting the teaching of the slaves to read, and meeting the approbation of the religious part of the reflecting community.

  * * * * *

  He adds, still further:

  The laws preventing the slaves from learning to read are a fruitful source of much ignorance and immorality among the slaves. The printing, publishing, and circulating of abolition and emancipatory principles in those States, was the cause

  He then goes on to say that the ignorance and vice which are the consequence of those laws do not properly belong to those who made the laws, but to those whose emancipating doctrines rendered them necessary. Speaking of these consequences of ignorance and vice, he says: —

  Upon whom must they be saddled? If you will allow me to answer the question, I will answer by saying, Upon such great and good men as John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Bishop Porteus, Paley, Horsley, Scott, Clark, Wilberforce, Sharpe, Clarkson, Fox, Johnson, Burke, and other great and good men, who, without examining the Word of God, have concluded that it is a true maxim that slavery is in itself sinful.

  He then illustrates the necessity of these laws by the following simile. He supposes that the doctrine had been promulgated that the authority of parents was an unjust usurpation, and that it was getting a general hold of society; that societies were being formed for the emancipation of children from the control of their parents; that all books were beginning to be pervaded by this sentiment; and that, under all these influences, children were becoming restless and fractious. He supposes that, under these circumstances, parents meet and refer the subject to legislators. He thus describes the dilemma of the legislators: —

  These meet, and they take the subject seriously and solemnly into consideration. On the one hand, they perceive that, if their children had access to these doctrines, they were ruined for ever. To let them have access to them was unavoidable, if they taught them to read. To prevent their being taught to read was cruel, and would prevent them from obtaining as much knowledge of the laws of Heaven as otherwise they might enjoy. In this sad dilemma, sitting and consulting in a legislative capacity, they must, of two evils, choose the least. With indignant feelings towards those who, under the influence of “seducing spirits,” had sent, and were sending among them, “doctrines of devils,” but with aching hearts towards their children, they resolved that their children should not be taught to read, until the storm should be overblown; hoping that Satan’s being let loose will be but for a little season. And during this season they will have to teach them orally, and thereby guard against their being contaminated by these wicked doctrines.

  So much for that law.

  Now, as for the internal slave-trade. The very essence of that trade is the buying and selling of human beings for the mere purposes of gain.

  A master who has slaves transmitted to him, or a master who buys slaves with the purpose of retaining them on his plantation or in his family, can be supposed to have some object in it besides the mere purpose of gain. He may be supposed, in certain cases, to have some regard to the happiness or well-being of the slave. The trader buys and sells for the mere purpose of gain.

  Concerning this abuse the Chillicothe Presbytery, in the document to which we have alluded, passed the following resolution: —

  Resolved, That the buying, selling, or holding of a slave, for the sake of gain, is a heinous sin and scandal, requiring the cognisance of the judicatories of the church.

  In the reply from which we have already quoted, Mr. Smylie says (): —

  If the buying, selling, and holding of a slave for the sake of gain, is, as you say, a heinous sin and scandal, then verily three-fourths of all Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, in the eleven States of the Union, are of the devil.

  * * * * * * * *

  Again: —

  To question whether slaveholders or slave-buyers are of the devil, seems to me like calling in question whether God is or is not a true witness; that is, provided it is God’s testimony, and not merely the testimony of the Chillicothe Presbytery, that it is a “heinous sin and scandal” to buy, sell, and hold slaves.

  Again (): —

  If language can convey a clear and definite meaning at all, I know not how it can more plainly or unequivocally present to the mind any thought or idea, than the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus clearly and unequivocally establishes the fact that slavery was sanctioned by God himself, and that buying, selling, holding, and bequeathing slaves, as property, are regulations which are established by himself.

  * * * * * *

  What language can more explicitly show, not that God winked at slavery merely, but that, to say the least, he gave a written permit to the Hebrews, then the best people in the world, to buy, hold, and bequeath, men and women, to perpetual servitude? What, now, becomes of the position of the Chillicothe Presbytery? * * * Is it, indeed, a fact that God once gave a written permission to his own dear people [“ye shall buy”] to do that which is in itself sinful? Nay, to do that which the Chillicothe Presbytery says “is a heinous sin and scandal?”

  * * * * * *

  God resolves that his own children may, or rather “shall,” “buy, possess, and hold,” bond-men and bond-women, in bondage, for ever. But the Chillicothe Presbytery resolves that “buying, selling, or holding slaves, for the sake of gain, is a heinous sin and scandal.”

  We do not mean to say that Mr. Smylie had the internal slave-trade directly in his mind in writing these sentences; but we do say that no slave-trader would ask for a more explicit justification of his trade than this.

  Lastly, in regard to that dissolution of the marriage relation, which is the necessary consequence of this kind of trade, the following decisions have been made by judicatories of the church.

  The Savannah River (Baptist) Association, in 1835, in reply to the question —

  Whether, in a case of involuntary separation of such a character as to preclude all prospect of future intercourse, the parties ought to be allowed to marry again?

  answered, That such a separation, among persons situated as our slaves are, is civilly a separation by death, and they believe that, in the sight of God, it would be so viewed. To forbid second marriages, in such cases, would be to expose the parties, not only to stronger hardships and strong temptation, but to church censure, for acting in obedience to their masters, who cannot be expected to acquiesce in a regulati
on at variance with justice to the slaves, and to the spirit of that command which regulates marriage among Christians. The slaves are not free agents, and a dissolution by death is not more entirely without their consent, and beyond their control, than by such separation.

  At the Shiloh Baptist Association, which met at Gourdvine, a few years since, the following query, says the “Religious Herald,” was presented from Hedgman church, viz.:

  Is a servant, whose husband or wife has been sold by his or her master, into a distant country, to be permitted to marry again?

  The query was referred to a committee, who made the following report; which, after discussion, was adopted:

  That, in view of the circumstances in which servants in this country are placed, the committee are unanimous in the opinion that it is better to permit servants thus circumstanced to take another husband or wife.

  The Reverend Charles C. Jones, who was an earnest and indefatigable labourer for the good of the slave, and one who, it would be supposed, would be likely to feel strongly on this subject, if any one would, simply remarks, in estimating the moral condition of the negroes, that, as husband and wife are subject to all the vicissitudes of property, and may be separated by division of estate, debts, sales, or removals, &c., &c., the marriage relation naturally loses much of its sacredness; and says:

  It is a contract of convenience, profit or pleasure, that may be entered into and dissolved at the will of the parties, and that without heinous sin, or injury to the property interests of any one.

  In this sentence he is expressing, as we suppose, the common idea of slaves and masters of the nature of this institution, and not his own. We infer this from the fact that he endeavours in his catechism to impress on the slave the sacredness and perpetuity of the relation. But, when the most pious and devoted men that the South has, and those professing to spend their lives for the service of the slave, thus calmly, and without any reprobation, contemplate this state of things as a state with which Christianity does not call on them to interfere, what can be expected of the world in general?

  It is to be remarked, with regard to the sentiments of Mr. Smylie’s pamphlet, that they are endorsed in the Appendix by a document in the name of two Presbyteries, which document, though with less minuteness of investigation, takes the same ground with Mr. Smylie. This Rev. James Smylie was one who, in company with the Rev. John L. Montgomery, was appointed by the synod of Mississippi, in 1839, to write or compile a catechism for the instruction of the negroes.

  Mr. Jones says, in his “History of the Religious Instruction of the Negroes” (page 83): “The Rev. James Smylie and the Rev. C. Blair are engaged in this good work (of enlightening the negroes) systematically and constantly in Mississippi.” The former clergyman is characterised as “an aged and indefatigable father.” “His success in enlightening the negroes has been very great. A large proportion of the negroes in his old church can recite both Williston’s and the Westminster Catechism very accurately.” The writer really wishes that it were in her power to make copious extracts from Mr. Smylie’s pamphlet. A great deal could be learned from it as to what style of mind, and habits of thought, and modes of viewing religious subjects, are likely to grow up under such an institution. The man is undoubtedly and heartily sincere in his opinions, and appears to maintain them with a most abounding and triumphant joyfulness, as the very latest improvement in theological knowledge. We are tempted to present a part of his Introduction, simply for the light it gives us on the style of thinking which is to be found in our south-western writers:

  In presenting the following review to the public, the author was not entirely or mainly influenced by a desire or hope to correct the views of the Chillicothe Presbytery. He hoped the publication would be of essential service to others as well as to the presbytery.

  From his intercourse with religious societies of all denominations, in Mississippi and Louisiana, he was aware that the abolition maxim, namely, that slavery is in itself sinful, had gained on and entwined itself among the religious and conscientious scruples of many in the community, so far as not only to render them unhappy, but to draw off the attention from the great and important duty of a householder to his household. The eye of the mind, resting on slavery itself as a corrupt fountain, from which, of necessity, nothing but corrupt streams could flow, was incessantly employed in search of some plan by which, with safety, the fountain could, in some future time, be entirely dried up; never reflecting, or dreaming, that slavery, in itself considered, was an innoxious relation, and that the whole error rested in the neglect of the relative duties of the relation.

  If there be a consciousness of guilt resting on the mind, it is all the same, as to the effect, whether the conscience is or is not right. Although the word of God alone ought to be the guide of conscience, yet it is not always the case. Hence, conscientious scruples sometimes exist for neglecting to do that which the word of God condemns.

  The Bornean who neglects to kill his father, and to eat him with his dates, when he has become old, is sorely tortured by the wringings of a guilty conscience, when his filial tenderness and sympathy have gained the ascendancy over his apprehended duty of killing his parent. In like manner, many a slaveholder, whose conscience is guided, not by the word of God, but by the doctrines of men, is often suffering the lashes of a guilty conscience, even when he renders to his slave “that which is just and equal,” according to the Scriptures, simply because he does not emancipate his slave, irrespective of the benefit or injury done by such an act.

  “How beautiful upon the mountains,” in the apprehension of the reviewer, “would be the feet of him that would bring” to the Bornean “the glad tidings” that his conduct, in sparing the life of his tender and affectionate parent, was no sin! * * * Equally beautiful and delightful, does the reviewer trust, will it be, to an honest, scrupulous, and conscientious slaveholder, to learn, from the word of God, the glad tidings, that slavery itself is not sinful. Released now from an incubus that paralysed his energies in discharge of duty towards his slaves, he goes forth cheerfully to energetic action. It is not now as formerly, when he viewed slavery as in itself sinful. He can now pray, with the hope of being heard, that God will bless his exertions to train up his slaves “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;” whereas, before, he was retarded by this consideration—”If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” Instead of hanging down his head, moping and brooding over his condition as formerly, without action, he raises his head, and moves on cheerfully in the plain path of duty.

  He is no more tempted to look askance at the word of God, and saying, “Hast thou found me, O mine enemy,” come to “filch from me” my slaves, which, “while not enriching” them, “leaves me poor indeed?” Instead of viewing the word of God, as formerly, come with whips and scorpions to chastise him into paradise, he feels that its “ways are ways of pleasantness, and its paths peace.” Distinguishing now between the real word of God and what are only the doctrines and commandments of men, the mystery is solved, which was before insolvable, namely, “The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart.”

  If you should undertake to answer such a man by saying that his argument proves too much, that neither Christ nor his apostles bore any explicit testimony against the gladiatorial shows and the sports of the arena, and therefore it would be right to get them up in America, the probability seems to be that he would heartily assent to it, and think, on the whole, that it might be a good speculation. As a further specimen of the free and easy facetiousness which seems to be a trait in this production, see, on page 58, where the Latin motto “Facilis descensus Averni, sed revocare,” &c., receives the following quite free and truly Western translation, which, he good-naturedly says is given for the benefit of those who do not understand Latin: “It is easy to go to the devil, but the devil to get back.”

  Some uncharitable people might, perhaps, say that the preachers of such doctrines are as likely as anybody to have an exper
imental knowledge on this point. The idea of this jovial old father instructing a class of black “Sams” and young “Topsys” in the mysteries of the Assembly’s Catechism is truly picturesque!

  That Mr. Smylie’s opinions on the subject of slavery have been amply supported and carried out by leading clergymen in every denomination, we might give volumes of quotations to show.

  A second head, however, is yet to be considered, with regard to the influence of the Southern church and clergy.

  It is well known that the Southern political community have taken their stand upon the position that the institution of slavery shall not be open to discussion. In many of the slave States stringent laws exist, subjecting to fine and imprisonment, and even death, any who speak or publish anything upon the subject, except in its favour. They have not only done this with regard to citizens of slave States, but they have shown the strongest disposition to do it with regard to citizens of free States; and when these discussions could not be repelled by regular law, they have encouraged the use of illegal measures. In the published letters and speeches of Horace Mann, the following examples are given (). In 1831 the Legislature of Georgia offered five thousand dollars to any one who would arrest and bring to trial and conviction, in Georgia, a citizen of Massachusetts, named William Lloyd Garrison. This law was approved by W. Lumpkin, Governor, Dec. 26, 1831. At a meeting of slave-holders held at Sterling, in the same State, September 4, 1835, it was formally recommended to the governor to offer, by proclamation, five thousand dollars reward for the apprehension of any one of ten persons, citizens, with one exception, of New York and Massachusetts, whose names were given. The Milledgeville (Ga.) Federal Union of February 1st, 1836, contained an offer of ten thousand dollars for the arrest and kidnapping of the Rev. A. A. Phelps, of New York. The Committee of Vigilance of the parish of East Feliciana offered, in the Louisville Journal of Oct. 15, 1835, fifty thousand dollars to any person who would deliver into their hands Arthur Tappan of New York. At a public meeting at Mount Meigs, Alabama, Aug. 13, 1836, the Hon. Bedford Ginress in the chair, a reward of fifty thousand dollars was offered for the apprehension of the same Arthur Tappan, or of Le Roy Sunderland, a Methodist clergyman of New York. Of course, as none of these persons could be seized except in violation of the laws of the State where they were citizens, this was offering a public reward for an act of felony. Throughout all the Southern States associations were formed, called Committees of Vigilance, for the taking of measures for suppressing abolition opinions, and for the punishment by Lynch law of suspected persons. At Charleston, South Carolina, a mob of this description forced open the post-office, and made a general inspection, at their pleasure, of its contents; and whatever publication they found there which they considered to be of a dangerous and anti-slavery tendency, they made a public bonfire of, in the street. A large public meeting was held, a few days afterwards, to complete the preparation for excluding anti-slavery principles from publication, and for ferreting out persons suspected of abolitionism, that they might be subjected to Lynch law. Similar popular meetings were held through the Southern and Western States. At one of these, held in Clinton, Mississippi, in the year 1835, the following resolutions were passed: —