Letter of Gerrit Smith to President Schmucker, Peterboro, June 19th, 1838

LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH TO PRESIDENT SCHMUCKER PETERBORO, June 19th, 1838. Rev. S. S. Schmucker, President of the Theological Seminary, Gettysburgh, Pennsylvania DEAR SIR: - I have just read your letter addressed to the editor of the Colonization Herald: and now, whilst I am under the influence of its winning candor and mildness, I will venture to make a few remarks upon it. There is no little similarity between your and my views of the American Colonization Society, and between your and my course in relation to it. It had the confidence and support of each of us, until we respectively came to see it to be the opponent of the fundamental principles of the American Anti-slavery Society. Then I was constrained to withdraw from it, and then you also ceased to co-operate with it. I welcomed the organization of the Anti-slavery Society. Doubtless you did also. To its declaration of the sinfulness of slavery, and of the duty of immediate emancipation, my whole heart responded. But the charge of hostility to its leading principles, which it brought against the Colonization Society, I thought not well founded. So far from it, I then flattered myself, and, for a year and a half afterwards, continued to flatter myself, (though, I admit, with increasing distrust,) that the two societies would, ultimately, and even speedily, be brought, if not positively to harmonize with each other, at least to forbear to thwart each other's views. It was but the month after the Anti-slavery Society was organized, that I said, in the National Capitol, whilst addressing the Colonization Society, that its members should be allowed `to join the Anti-slavery Society' without being considered as 'doing violence to their connexion with the Colonization Society.' Thus, did I show, how far I was, at that time, from regarding the Colonization Society be an anti-abolition society. But I was mistaken. It was, even then, an anti-abolition society; and it had always had the elements of an anti-abolition society. This, William I. Garrison and a few other discerning minds had long seen. But my attachment to it blinded me to this feature of its character: and it would be disingenuous, were I not to admit, that, even had I seen it, my abolitionism was too feeble to be greatly offended at it. I was, in short, a colonizationist; and was, to no small extent, imbued with the spirit and policy of the Colonization Society, as my speeches and writings at that time but too abundantly and lamentably show. If the Colonization Society had not come out against the doctrine of immediate emancipation, and inferentially against the doctrine of the sinfulness of slavery, I should, in all probability, have continued a member of it down to the present time. But for its opposition to those doctrines, I might, very probably, have continued to think, that it was producing a measure, at least, of the good influences and effects which you ascribe to it. It is, however, but proper to say, that my confidence in the usefulness of the colonization of our colored brethren, or any portion of them, on the coast of Africa, or anywhere else - and, even though such colonization were conducted with great benevolence, and with no unfriendliness to the great doctrines of the Anti-slavery Society - has undergone a great, exceedingly great diminution. It is not, however, on the ground of this diminution, that I avow myself an anti-colonizationist. My conclusive objection to the Colonization Society is the same as yours. It is because it has, to use your own language, taken the 'position, that the colored race cannot with any propriety be emancipated on the soil - that expatriation and emancipation must go together.' It is, in other words, because it opposes the immediate and unconditional deliverance of the enslaved millions of our countrymen from the yoke of slavery, and rejects file doctrine, that slavery is sin - and denies that a system, which forbids marriage and the reading of the Bible, and which classes immortal, godlike man with chattels, is contrary to the Bible. I would not deny, that there are members of the Colonization Society, who favor the doctrine of immediate and unconditional emancipation - though Judge Jay, in his book on Colonization, speaks of me as the only one. But certain it is, that they are rare; and, as certain it is, that the Society ridicules, denounces, and abhors the doctrines. The Commercial Advertiser, the leading Colonization newspaper in New York, expresses the hope, in its account of the late colonization meeting in that city, that the humble individual who now addresses you, will yet give over chasing 'the ignis fatuus of immediate emancipation,' and return to the Colonization Society. For proof, that I do not misrepresent the Society's view of the doctrine of immediate emancipation, look at almost, if not quite every one of the last 40 or 50 numbers of its monthly periodical, the African Repository. Take the last two numbers for a specimen of its general tone on the point in question. The April No. contains a long editorial address to the Friends of Colonization.' In this address it is said: 'the friends of Colonization throughout our wide country are unanimous in believing, that the position of every free person of color in the U. S. is that of a slave without a master; in regarding no plan as practicable, which connects general enfranchisement with the continued. residence of the enfranchised in the United States.' The reader of this address will see from what immediately follows this quotation, that the word 'enfranchisement' is here used to mean simply deliver ante from the yoke of slavery. Even such simple deliverance, if not followed by expatriation, is forbidden by the horrible policy of the Colonization Society. The same number of the Repository contains the 'Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Colonization Society of Virginia.' This report quotes, and highly approves of, the following language in the late message of the Governor of Maryland: 'It has often been said that Colonization was antagonist to the schemes of immediate Abolitionists; and that where the former was cherished and flourished, the latter could find no favor. The report of the managers of the State fund, and the experience of every observing and reflecting man in the State must prove this; nor could we suggest a more certain method of keeping down that wild and fanatical spirit which has thrown so many firebrands among the slaveholding states, than the adoption and maintenance of the Colonization plan, upon the fooling on which it now stands in Maryland.' 'It is gratifying to learn from the report, that the attempts secretly made by the friends of immediate and general abolition to defeat the agents of the society in their efforts to inform the free people of color of the advantages of emigration, are losing the effect which they at first appeared to have, and that there is now the prospect of a constant emigration from the State to the colony of Maryland in Liberia.' The same number of the Repository contains the proceedings of the 'Seventh Anniversary of the Virginia Colonization Society.' The President of the Society, the eminent John Tyler, in his speech on that occasion, adverts to 'the spirit of abolition,' and says: 'from this place I denounce it, and this society denounces it.' We meet in this speech with a remark, which, while it illustrates the character of the Colonization Society, is admirably coincident with the expediency doctrines, that prevail as well in Church as in State. It is this: 'Policy and humanity go hand in hand in this great work, (colonization.) Philanthropy, when separated from policy, is the most dangerous agent in human affairs. 'General Bayly made a speech on the same occasion; and used, as the Repository says, 'the following impressive language:' 'He (the Negro) can never enjoy here the high prerogatives of a freeman. He may cease to be the slave of a single individual, but he will continue to be the slave of the community, whose oppressions will be greater and whose protection will be less, than that of the individual master. I repeat: In America the black man never can be free! he never can have the high-born feelings of a freeman - he must ever be a political and social slave. The shackles never can fall completely from about him until he stands upon the shores of Africa. William Maxwell spoke on the some occasion. To use the complimentary language of the Repository, 'This eloquent speaker thus proceeded' - 'We cannot suffer our bondmen to be liberated or rather emancipated here.' The Repository presents the closing paragraph of the speech made on this occasion by the Hon. Henry A. Wise; and says, that 'all must concur' in this paragraph and 'admire its fervid eloquence.'This distinguished member of Congress, who does not always recognize Christian obligations, became surprisingly religious under the inspiration of a colonization meeting. In this paragraph, in which the organ of the Colonization Society says 'all must concur,' Mr. Wise remarks that he has 'often been struck with a thought, which justifies slavery in the abstract.' What is this thought? Why nothing less than that, 'slavery on this continent is the gift of Heaven to Africa!!!' Slavery from heaven, instead of from Hell! Mr Wise may make the slaveholder believe this absurdity: But he can never induce the Devil to resign the honor of the monster's paternity. His Satanic Majesty is too proud of his chief d'oeuvre - of the masterpiece of his wit - to allow that slavery came elsewhere than from Hell. The May No. of the African Repository contains a speech of that bitterest of all bitter haters of Abolitionists, Rev. R. J. Breckenridge. The speech is heralded by very complimentary remarks. Mr. B. says: ' No principles are more clear to my mind, than that slavery never can be, and never should be, attempted to be, abolished in this country, except in a manner exceedingly gradual, and then unaccompanied with the grant of political and social equality to the blacks, but attended as far as possible with foreign colonization.' He further says: ' There is no point upon which the entire slaveholding States are more united in opinion, than that there ought not to be any attempt to liberate the slaves without a certain and immediate prospect of an emigration somewhat proportioned to the number set free.' This eminent divine, who in conjunction with his true 'yoke - fellow,' W. S. Plummer, carves and disposes of the Presbyterian Church of the United States at his pleasure, garnishes his, speech with the following diabolical sentiments: 'It is due to the free colored population of the country that they should not be allowed for one moment to entertain the idea, that the pretensions set up on their behalf, can ever be realized, especially in any of the slaveholding States. It is emphatically our duty to all concerned, to manifest in the clearest and most decided manner, that as in our opinion the best interests of all the parties require their early and permanent separation, so it is not only the clear right, but the bondmen duty, and fixed purpose of the community to effect that result; and that all opposing pretensions, whether on the part of the free blacks, or on that of the slaves, or on that of a handful of dissatisfied citizens, on either extreme of opinion, must bend before the great necessities of the case. It is our duty to the cause itself to rally round it, and urge it forward, while the obstacles that oppose it are only such as moral means may overcome.' The same number of the Repository contains a letter from a gentleman in Ohio, showing, that the Colonization Society is the great reliance in his region for arresting the progress of abolition. The same number publishes, with commendation, a letter from Hon. Walter Forward, of Pennsylvania. The 'scheme of colonization' is Mr. Forward's way for abolishing slavery. A paper entitled 'General Remarks on Liberia' is to be found in this number of the Repository. This paper opposes 'the plans of the colonization societies' to ' the plan of immediate abolition, which proposes to proclaim unconditionally and at once freedom to the captive.' I surely need say nothing more to show, that the Colonization Society stands opposed to the unconditional abolition of slavery, and opposed to the doctrine, that slavery is sin. All over the free States it is the refuge and rallying point of those, who hate and despise the Abolitionists and apologize for slavery. What an instance of this we have in the fact, that colonization at Alton had its birth amidst the outrages on liberty, which disgraced that city; and a still more striking instance have we in the fact, that the recent vandal outbreak in Philadelphia of popular indignation at the friends of impartial and universal freedom, was the most joyful and eagerly improved harvest season, that pro-slavery mobs have ever afforded to colonization reapers. In view of the proofs, which I have given of the true character of the Colonization Society, and I could have multiplied them a thousand fold, how unreasonable are the surprise and complaint, that the Anti-slavery Society opposes the Colonization Society! Why, to refuse to oppose it, is to refuse to oppose bald and arrant wickedness. For the Anti-slavery Society to refuse to oppose the Colonization Society, is to be guilty of virtually disavowing its own holy principles, and of virtually admitting that slavery is not sin. I have only to say, in closing this branch of my letter, that however it may have been, before the organization of the American Anti-slavery Society occasioned the development of the true character of the Colonization Society, it is certain, that no person, who believes, as you and I do, that the relation of slaveholder and the claim of property in man are sinful, can now consistently remain a member of it. How so discerning and lovely a man, as Theodore Frelinghuysen, can, under all the light which now reveals the heaven - daring iniquity of the Colonization Society, continue to suffer his good name to be used in recommendation of that society, is indeed, 'passing strange.' I trust, that he will not long suffer it to be thus used. I trust, that ere long, this eloquent and good man will consent to fling away his reputation, ensnaring perhaps as it is precious, and to identify himself openly with the despised cause of the bleeding and crushed slave; - for does he not know, that it is as loved in heaven, as it is despised on earth? Before leaving the subject of the Colonization Society, I must not omit to express my great happiness, at your publicly declining to hold an office in it. Your acceptance of the office, to which you were elected, would have grieved the friends of impartial and holy freedom. In view of the exceedingly wicked and abhorrent sentiments of Rev. R. J. Breckenridge, which I have cited, I cannot but think how grateful you and I should feel, that God has led us to quit forever a society, which generates and fosters such sentiments. Had we remained in it, we might have been left to imbibe those sentiments, to adopt all its cruel and murderous policy, and to keep pace with its fast increasing wickedness. What a melancholy instance is presented in the case of Mr. Breckenridge, of the rapid depravation of character, resulting from continued adherence to the Colonization Society. Less than four years and a half ago, I heard him deprecate and denounce the employment of any coercive measures, however indirect, for the accomplishment of the objects of that Society: - and now, he is already such a proficient in the demon-school of Colonization, that, with an unsurpassed hardihood of depravity, he can openly advocates the forcible removal from their native land of our peeled and afflicted colored brethren. I now turn to that part of your letter, which principally excited my desire to write you. You inform the public, that you are not a member of the Anti-slavery Society and that the reason for withholding yourself from the connexion is, not that you take any exception to its Constitution, but that the Society attacks slaveholders indiscriminately