Glasgow: 30 September 1846

View of College, High Street, &c. from opposite Head of Vennal (drawn by J. Knox, engraved by Joseph Swan) from Select Views of Glasgow and its Environs; Engraved by Joseph Swan, from Drawings by Mr J. Fleming and Mr J. Knox; with Historical & Descriptive Illustrations, and an Introductory Sketch of the Progress of the City, by J. M. Leighton, Esq. (Glasgow: Joseph Swan, 1829), between p. 102 and p. 103.

‘This is not the first time I have been in Glasgow,’ said William Lloyd Garrison to the audience at City Hall on Wednesday 30 September, referring to his appearance there in 1840, following the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London. But an earlier visit to Britain in 1833 left its mark on the city too, as Garrison inspired the formation of the Glasgow Emancipation Society, steered since then by its secretaries William Smeal and John Murray. The meeting was chaired by committee member Andrew Paton, Garrison’s host at his home in Richmond Street.

As the main guest of honour, Garrison was allowed to speak at much greater length than Douglass, and while both reviewed the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance (London, 18 August to 2 September) and the debate on American slavery at the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 30 May), Garrison also responded in some detail to recent reports in two papers supportive of the Free Church – the Scottish Guardian and the Northern Warder – which cast aspersions on their abolitionist campaign.

For an overview of Frederick Douglass’ activities in Glasgow during the year see: Spotlight: Glasgow.


AMERICAN SLAVERY, THE FREE CHURCH, AND THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE

A PUBLIC MEETING of the members and friends of the Glasgow Emancipation Society was held in the City Hall, on Wednesday evening, for the purpose of receiving William Lloyd Garrison, Esq., and reviewing the proceedings of the Free Church and the Evangelical Alliance, in relation to American Slavery. The meeting was numerously attended. On the platform we observed Councillor Robert Smith, Councillor Turner, Mr. William Smeal, Mr. John Murray, and many other respectable citizens. Andrew Paton, Esq., was called to the chair, and opened the proceedings.

Mr. PATON said, I thank you for calling me to the chair. Our meeting this evening is chiefly for the purpose of welcoming our friend, William Lloyd Garrison, to this city, on the occasion of his present visit to this country. Mr. Garrison requires no introduction to your confidence; his well-known name is a passport sufficient to ensure for him a warm welcome from every true abolitionist of slavery throughout the world. From the excellent account of the life of Mr. Garrison which has lately appeared in the People’s Journal, from the pen of a very talented lady Mary Howitt,1 many present are doubtless acquainted with the prominent points of his career, and know that sixteen years since Mr. Garrison was so impressed with the clamant unrighteousness of slavery, that he felt called to devote his energies to effect its overthrow. Though possessed of the most slender means, he then started the Liberator newspaper in Boston, to advocate the cause of immediate emancipation for the slaves. In this he has ever since laboured with the utmost fidelity and ability, and with his noble coadjutors has already been successful in bringing about a great change in public opinion in the northern or free states of America. (Applause.)

Mr. Garrison’s unswerving faithfulness, his courage and perseverance in tracing and exposing Slavery through all its defences in Church and State, and in a false public opinion – have, as might be expected, concentrated upon him the attacks and calumnies of all in the United States or elsewhere, who are slaveholders or apologists for slaveholders. One singular instance of the intensity of this hatred against him, is that the Legislature of Georgia did some years since offer, and do still continue to offer, a reward of $5000 for his delivery to them. Mr. Garrison proposes this evening, amongst other objects, to review the position of the Free Church and the Evangelical Alliance, in relation to slavery. I need not say that we have no difference with either of these bodies, save in relation to the course they have pursued on slavery, which, in our opinion, is unfortunately calculated to exert a prejudicial influence on the cause of the slave in America, by throwing around the slaveholder the countenance of religious men, and the sanctions of christianity, whose mission is to ‘undo the heavy burdens, to break every yoke, and to let the oppressed go free.’ (Cheers.)

We are happy to have with us, also, our talented friend, Frederick Douglass, whose powerful pleadings on behalf of his brethren in bonds, are so well known to us, and have interested so many throughout Great Britain and Ireland.

We regret that our friend H.C. Wright, at present in Dublin, has been prevented from being with us on account of his health; up till Monday he expected to be here, but by a letter of that date received this morning, he says that from the state of his health he is reluctantly compelled to stay, as he does not find himself equal to the fatigue of the voyage. We hope for his return to Scotland for a short time, soon.

The annual meeting of the Glasgow Emancipation Society falls to be held about this season, but the Committee have deemed it advisable to defer it for the present, to allow Mr. Garrison, whose stay is limited, more time to bring before us his views on the present position of the cause in America, and the effects which the conduct of the Free Church and the Evangelical Alliance are calculated to have upon it.

Mr. W. SMEAL then read Mr. Garrison’s credentials from the Abolitionists in America, and from the free coloured population in Boston, constituting him their representative.

Mr. GARRISON, on rising to address the meeting, was loudly cheered. When the applause had subsided, he spoke to the following effect:– These are the credentials which I lay before this audience to commend me to their confidence and regard, as the uncompromising friend of universal emancipation; and to all the reproaches and calumnies that have been circulated on the other side of the Atlantic, or that are in circulation on this, I point to these credentials for an answer, and no other need be given.  With the oppressed and down-trodden coloured population of America bidding me God speed, I feel that I am indeed a friend of liberty, and that the friends of liberty throughout the world should, instead of endeavouring to obstruct my progress, give me the right hand of anti-slavery fellowship. (Cheers.)

This is not the first time I have been in Glasgow, and, I hope, it will not be the last. (Great applause.) It was my privilege to stand before an audience in the Rev. Dr. Wardlaw‘s chapel in 1840, and I never shall forget the generous and cordial reception given to me on that occasion, as the friend of the oppressed slaves in America. I trust I have never faltered in my course since that period, and that my principles are the same that they were then. (Applause.) The position which I occupy is as hateful to the tyrant now as it was then. The blessings of those who are ready to perish are falling on my head now as they were then. I have not gone backwards, but forwards – not downwards, but upwards; and therefore I claim a warm reception again from the free men of Glasgow. (Cheers.)

I delight to be in this place for very many reasons. After the abolition of West Indian slavery, so far as England was concerned, the flame of emancipation, so to speak, went out, or burnt very low. There seemed to be a general feeling, that inasmuch as the slaves under the British flag were now rejoicing in their freedom, that enough had been done, and that abolitionists should be discharged from any father service. But not so in Scotland – not so in Glasgow. There were free spirits here who began their warfare with slavery not because it was a West Indian question, but because it was opposed to God and the rights of man, and should not be suffered to exist anywhere on the face of the earth. (Applause.) Entertaining those views, they set themselves to the work of overthrowing slavery throughout the world, determined till the last chain was struck from the limb of the last slave not to abandon the conflict. – (Hear, hear.)

– On another account I am happy to be here. I am abolitionist – an American abolitionists – and as such, in common with thousands on the other side of the Atlantic, have from time to time been cheered by your voices, and strengthened by your testimonies. The Glasgow Emancipation Society has done almost as much as the American Anti-Slavery Society. I am not speaking in extravagant terms, but I am saying what I believe, when I sat that you have done a mighty work towards overthrowing American slavery – towards disheartening the upholders of that system – and towards disheartening the upholders of that system – and towards strengthening the hearts of the abolitionists of America.

You did something else, the importance of which has never been sufficiently estimated. I allude to the gift of George Thompson to America, through the influence of the Glasgow Emancipation Society. (Great applause.) Never was aid given at a more timely period, and never was such aid given in similar circumstances, as when the peerless orator – the friend of universal man – was deputed to represent the Glasgow Emancipation Society in the United States of America. And well did he carry out the principles which he had advocated in this country in America. Well did he fulfil his pledge that he would make himself a party with the despised and hated abolitionists, and that he would take his position with the down-trodden slave. (Great cheering.) I need not go over the particulars of his mission to America, with which you are all acquainted, but I may say this, that he was more true to his principles than the needle to the pole, for it sometimes knows vibrations, and he never alters. (Cheers.)

[RESPONSE TO THE SCOTTISH GUARDIAN]

I now beg to allude to an introduction which I have received gratuitously to the Glasgow public, through the columns of the Scottish Guardian, and which I now desire to make use of in my own behalf. It begins as follows:–

We do not suppose it will be necessary for us to trouble our readers much farther with Mr. Lloyd Garrison, Mr. Douglass, Mr. George Thompson, or the other American agitators, – who, it will be observed, have been again attempting to get up one or two meetings in Edinburgh, and may, perhaps, repeat the same experiment in our city. Their own exhibitions afford the grounds of their strongest and surest condemnation, and have speedily brought down upon them in this country the contempt with which they have long been regarded by all good men in America.

Why, you have a strange way of showing your contempt in this country. I have been in the presence of assembled thousands in London, and they have given me the right hand of fellowship – at least I thought so. I have been in various parts of England, and addressed many thousands of the people, and yet with scarcely an exception they have received me with the warmth of brethren, and have done everything in their power to make me understand that we saw eye to eye, and are one in spirit in regard to our abhorrence of slavery. I have met with something of the same kind in Scotland. (Cheers.) I have been at Greenock, Paisley, Edinburgh, Dundee, and in all those places the enthusiasm has been all that my heart could desire, and much more than I could have reasonably expected in view of the defection of the Free Church of Scotland, and their support of slavery in America. (Great applause.)

Then as to the contempt of ‘the good men in America’ – the good men who hold three millions of human beings in chains and in slavery – the good men who have from one end of our country to another embraced the spirit of liberty, and endeavoured to destroy her – the good men who are hunting up apologies for those who are putting women under the lash, and are selling babes by the pound – the vulgar – the disorderly – the chief priests and pharisees – the head and the tail – altogether, have given us their contempt; but why should it be otherwise? (Great cheering.)

I feel I should have to make myself the basest of the base to merit such men’s praise, and I glory in their condemnation. (Applause.) I want no tyrant to praise me. I want the slave to acknowledge me as his friend. That is all I can ask, and it will serve to meet all the minions of tyranny can bring against me, or any other man in a similar position. (Cheers.)

The article in the Guardian goes on –

Mr. Buffum and Mr. Wright (Mr. Thompson’s correspondent ‘Dear Henry,’) have already decamped. The others, we doubt not, will soon follow.

No doubt the writer of this is a brave man. No doubt, when the meetings were formerly held in this place, that gentleman was valiant in coming forward and breading the lion in his den. No doubt, he never skulked – he never took refuge in his own columns where no one else could be heard. (Hear and cheers.) He came here to say ‘Who’s afraid? I will humble these men, or make them decamp.’ He did not come, and he remained away for some cause. Why, it is only ‘the wicked who flee when no man pursueth.’ (Great cheering.)

It is only the Free Church which cannot challenge investigation. It is only the apologists of the Free Church who dread a free platform, and who dare not measure weapons with George Thompson, or men who sympathise with the slave. (Cheers.) Wherever I have been, it has been uniformly announced that our meetings are as free for the advocates of the Free Church as for ourselves. (Hear, hear.) I make the same announcement to-night. (Applause.) This is the way we skulk and run away.

Thrice is he armed who hath his quarrel just,
And he but naked, though locked up in steel,
Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted.

(Great applause.)

As if Mr Thompson was to continue to reside in Glasgow to prove that he is not deficient in valour. As if Mr. Buffum should have to transfer his residence from the United States to Glasgow to prove he is not a coward. A very reasonable man is this editor of the Guardian. The article proceeds, –

Our readers must have observed that the resolution which was adopted by the Evangelical Alliance proceeds upon the same sound and scriptural principles which have guided the proceedings of the Free Church in relation to American slavery. The consequence is, that the Alliance – composed of excellent men, of all the evangelical denominations in Britain, is at once denounced, no less than the Free Church, as ‘an unchristian body!‘ – composed of ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing!‘ – their language is declared to be ‘downright blasphemy!‘ – and their prayers no better than ‘a solemn mockery before God!

I tell the Free Church that she must not lay that ‘flattering unction to her soul,’ that she is safe because she has got an ally. (Hear, hear.) I tell her, that ‘although hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished.‘ (Great applause.) I tell her that although Pilate and Herod are become one for the crucifixion of liberty – that although they have crucified her, and committed her to the tomb, and sealed the doors, and appointed the ‘Guardians and Warders,’2 to see that none take away the body, yet the watchers shall fall to the ground, a resurrection shall take place, and thus the nations of the earth shall be redeemed and disenthralled.

Why, if it be true, as it is true, that the recent Evangelical Alliance has been as base in principle in regard to the anti-slavery cause as the Free Church of Scotland is, does it make out a case in favour of that church? And when two such parties come together, are justice and mercy to go by the board? This Evangelical Alliance, instead of being a support to the Free Church, shall be another millstone about her neck, unless she repents ‘and brings forth fruit meet for repentance.’ (Applause.)

I have now a remarkable fact to submit to you. The article I am noticing continues as follows:–

It is a remarkable fact that, while the Alliance included a very large body of American ministers, of twelve or thirteen different denominations, from all parts of the Union, the whole of these men (with the exception of a Mr. Himes, who is a Garrisonian – and, perhaps, one other individual) were unanimous in earnestly denouncing Messrs. Garrison, Thompson, &c. as ‘pestilent fellows,’ and the greatest possible obstructors of the cause of abolition.’

I have heard that said a great many times. I have heard it from the lips of slaveholders for the last twenty years. The men declaring that slavery is the corner-stone of our American edifice – a divine institution, which ought to be perpetuated – are the very men who affect to grieve that I have retarded the progress of abolition at least 150 years. Now, if this were true, instead of offering 5000 dollars for my head, they would have put that money into my pocket. (Hear and cheers.) They would have asked me to go south of Mason and Dixon’s line. They would subscribe for The Liberator, and not tell me if they catch me, they will hang me. (Cheers.) But when they cannot do that, they affect to grieve that I do what they want done.

The American members of the Evangelical Alliance are the worst foes of the anti-slavery cause. They have no flesh in their obdurate hearts. They are mere time-servers, and popularity-hunters – men who love the praise of men more than the praise of God – men who are striking hands with thieves. (A slight hiss, followed by tremendous cheering.) I don’t know how to meet a hiss, but I know how to meet an argument. (Applause.) Yes, we had nearly seventy delegates in the Alliance – strong men – men of large intellect, and great influence. But then they are also great advocates of the innocency of slave-holding, and man-stealing, and their intellect and influence are given to the side of the oppressor, and against the oppressed, who have few to plead for them. They are, in scripture language, ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing.’ They are men who came here to deceive the British public. They say they are opposed to slavery, and really would do something, but for those fanatical abolitionists. Now, when they go to the bar of God, and are asked why they did not open their mouths for the slave, will they say to God that if it had not been for that infidel Garrison we would have done something, but he stood in our way and we stood still? I do not know whether that apology will do or not, but I have an opinion that it will not be good; for if it be true that the abolitionists of America are injuring the cause, then so much more active and untiring should be those who are not abolitionists to see that the cause should not suffer injury, and that the slaves should be liberated from their chains. (Great cheering.) The Guardian further says –

The solemn judgment of such men, and of all the other various classes of evangelical Christians assembled in the Alliance, is not likely to be shaken by clamour and ribald abuse; and we should think most people, who have any regard to their character, will be cautious how they give father countenance to these agitators in their profanity.

This, Sir, is genuine American pro-slavery. (Hear, hear.) If I had not know that I was in Scotland, and that it is from a Scotch paper I am reading, I should have supposed myself to be in the United States of America, in the midst of slavery, and with one of the American pro-slavery papers in my hand; so true it is, that wherever slavery is to be shielded, the same spirit must be exhibited, and the same low attempts made to cover up with odium the uncompromising friends of freedom. (Great applause.) Can we not settle this matter in a common-sense way without much argument? Nobody denies but that there are three millions of people in slavery. Now, I hold that wherever there is a struggle for freedom there can only be two parties – the one party consisting of the tyrants and the friends of tyranny, and the other party of the oppressed and the friends of the oppressed. No man may say, I am neither with the oppressed nor with the oppressor. There is no neutral ground between them, and you must either be with the oppressed or with the oppressor, whatever protestations may be made to the contrary. (Loud cries of ‘hear, hear.’)

Now, where are the slaveholders in America? They are the tyrants. With whom do they sympathise? With the men who were sent to the Evangelical Alliance, who can travel through the slave states and be welcomed to every table, and be honoured and flattered as the true friends of the south. What does this prove? That they are the supporters and advocates of slavery. (Hear and cheers.) In regard to the abolitionists, how do the slaveholders look upon them? With fear and consternation, and as those determined never to give up the contest on behalf of the down-trodden slaves. Where are the down-trodden slaves? They join their hands with the abolitionists. Where are the slave population of America to-night? Here; with me in the person of that beloved brother. (Cheers.) Every man of them, every woman of them, and every child in slavery, are represented faithfully and truly in the person of Frederick Douglass. (Great applause.) Then as to the free coloured population, who are treated with great indignity wherever they may go in the United States, have I not presented their resolutions to-night, constituting me their delegate? They are here in my person, and therefore the cause I represent is the cause of the oppressed; and hence you, as the friends of the oppressed, will endorse the principles of the abolitionists of America endeavour to carry into effect. (Cheers.)

Since I came to this country I have been admonished by some to be careful of my language, and to deal as gently with this subject as I can. I will do so. I desire to be prudent, and careful, and just, and, at the same time, faithful and uncompromising. I desire to remember that I profess to be the advocate of the American slave. I stand here as the slave of America – as one having the chains of bondage around his limbs – as one destined to be put on the auction-block to0morrow – as one denied all his rights as a man – as one whose lip is stopped by the slave-driver – as one who may not read the Bible – as one who may not hear the Gospel preached – and, standing thus, I will be as gentle under the oppressions I am labouring as I possibly can. (Applause.)

But on such a theme it is impossible to be calm. Unless we remember we are in bonds with the slaves – unless we feel ourselves the victims of the oppressions and sufferings which they endure, and unless we see with their eyes, and respond with their pulsations, it is impossible truly to sympathise with the slaves of America. I will be as gentle as I can – you must pardon something to the spirit of liberty.

I know, in assemblies like this, there are those who lie in wait to catch if possible a wrong word; but I do not want to please such men. What I want is, that I may speak the words that may be given to me in the spirit of truth and in the love of it. What I want is, to beware how I am a respecter of persons – how I shall speak on this subject without exciting the prejudices of the people, and without compromising the standard of rectitude, which God forbid I should do to win the applause of any man in the world. (Immense cheering.)

Now, I want to refer to another document in the Guardian newspaper, and I am much obliged to the Editor for having copied a part of the speech I lately delivered in Exeter Hall. He seems to think it will excite a prejudice against me as the representative of the American slaves; but I do not believe it will have such an effect; and I wish every newspaper in the world would copy that speech. My observations, as quoted in the Guardian, are as follows:–

He complimented Mr. Hinton in having introduced a motion for the exclusion of the slaveholders, but it did not pass. One would have thought they would soon have resolved the subject. But they appointed a large committee to consider the subject. The committee met; solemn prayer was offered that they might have Divine direction. Several persons engaged in prayer, and implored the direction of God. Then after so much prayer, a number more persons were added to the committee. Now, he denounced all this praying as a solemn mockery before God. In his opinion, if they had done their duty, and had remembered those in bonds, as bound with them, they would have no need of asking God what they should do. Why all this delay, if they were not attempting to wrap up the question? The American delegates ought to have been more decided than any other men, for they held the doctrine that all men were equal; and yet they pretended they had no light from Heaven, and to seek Divine direction. He denounced this language as downright blasphemy.

Sir, I did denounce it as such in Exeter Hall. (Loud cheers.) I denounce it as such here, and wherever I go I will denounce it in the same language, and in the same way that I did in London. (Renewed cheers.) What! men needing light from Heaven to know what they shall say or do with three millions of the human race before them in chains – deprived of the Gospel of Christ – denied the marriage institution – and made marketable commodities! Why, if ever there was a body of hypocrites assembled together under heaven, it was the Evangelical Alliance. (Tremendous cheering, mingled with a few hisses.)

The old serpent generally hisses when his head is bruised. (Cheers and laughter.) What light did they need? What additional light was it in the power of God to give them? None. They were human beings, and God had given them human feelings and affections, and had required them to love their neighbour as themselves, and had enjoined upon them, ‘Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them.’ Had they not the Bible in their hands? Did they not come up at the call of the spirit of God? Did they not come up for the express purpose of redeeming mankind? And, therefore, in respect to these American delegates, no language could describe their baseness and hypocrisy. (Hear and cheers.)

Never, I say, since the world began, was there anything which could be a parallel to it. They came from a country where, for seventy years, the American people annually declare to the whole world, in the presence of God, ‘that they hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are born free and equal, and that every individual has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and yet when the question of the liberation of three millions of the human race comes before them, they profess to be in profound darkness. It was a very intricate and difficult question, and they must have more light. Light! the rogues did not need light. What they wanted was this – two grains of honesty, and half a grain of humanity. (Great cheering.) I am likewise accused of saying, that –

If a man tells me he finds sanction for slavery in the Bible, if you could find slavery upheld in his Bible, I would put it in the fire. (Cheers.) Slaveholding is not setting a man free,  but holding him in bonds. Let him beware how he makes the Bible sanction his crime. If your God allows men to be made beasts of, then your God is my devil.

I did say so; and I glory in it, that, if their God allowed men to be made beasts of, then their God was my devil. Why, that is simply to say we are in Glasgow to-night, or that two and two make four; and this is gravely put into the Guardian as something to terrify people with.

Now, friends, has God made us for liberty or not? Does any man want to be a slave? ‘Who so base as be a slave, let him turn and flee!; Yes, father, don’t want to be a slave – you, mother, don’t want to be a slave – you brother, sister, husband, wife, child, do not want to be slaves. You abhor the very idea of being made slaves of, and never would submit to being made slaves. (Hear, hear.) How does this happen? There is something in the breast tells us that slavery is from beneath, and never came from above. Why, the American slaveholders themselves have settled the question. ‘It is a self-evident truth,’ they say, ‘that God has made all men free and equal.’ What is self-evident needs no demonstration. It would be a waste of argument indeed to make this plain way any plainer. Then, I say, if this be so – if we cannot be willing to be made slaves of until our intellects are blotted out, and until our hearts are taken from us, then any man gets a book, I care not by what name it is called, and assumes from what he finds in that book, that you and I should be made slaves of, I will put that book in the fire, if you do not; and I will say to the person that God never wrote that book – I will say it is an imposture, and I will call upon every instinct of the human heart to bear testimony that it is so. Can it be conceived that God made man with capacities only a little lower than the angels, and yet commanded that we should be made slaves of, and marketable commodities? It cannot be, and therefore I say again, that if any man makes out that the Bible sanctions slavery, then I will tell him that his Bible is of the Devil and never came from God. (Hear, hear.)

But I have been endeavouring to maintain for twenty years that the Bible is a glorious anti-slavery volume; and from that exhaustless armoury I have taken my weapons to fight the battle of the slave. From its pages I have drawn my best arguments in favour of the truth of the principles which I uphold. (Applause.)

The charge which I bring against the ministers of religion in America is, that as a body they are atheists. They do not believe the Bible. They have no regard for it. He who loves the Bible for one man – for himself – loves it for every man – for the whole human race. (Cheers.) When I see men conspiring to prevent millions of the human family from having the Bible, and making it a penitentiary offence for any one to furnish the Bible to those suffering millions, I feel they do not believe the Bible. (Hear, hear.)

I am charged with being an atheist, but they are reverend atheists, and all the worse on that account. God never made a tyrant or a slave. God never made a pro-slavery Bible, and therefore I do not own the god of those who endeavour to prove from the Bible that He sanctions the enslavement and degradation of the human family.

In regard to this matter of the pro-slavery Bible, I have before me the last number of the Congregational Magazine, in which there is an article from the pen of Dr. Wm. Alexander, which entirely coincides with my views, and I presume he stands well in this city as a christian man.3 (Hear, hear.) I am not aware that he labours under the imputation of being an infidel, and although I am not at all anxious to bring forward that gentleman to take any part of the odium which attaches to me from the views which I entertain, I am not ashamed of the Dr. in this particular, and as I believe he will not be ashamed of me, I wish to present him to you on this occasion, and see if he does not confirm every word of mine as to a pro-slavery Bible not being from God.

After reading from the article in question, he continued – I hope the Guardian will put the Rev. Dr. Alexander in the infidel list next week. Who are making infidels? Who are bringing the Bible into contempt? Such papers as the Guardian and Warder, and such persons as the leaders of the Free Church, who are giving the right hand of fellowship to those who take away the Bible, and will not allow it to be used by those under their control. (Hisses and cheers.) I do not wonder those friends hiss – they are ashamed of the conduct of the leaders of the Free Church, the whole of whom should be hissed out of their places. (Cheers and laughter.)

After reading another extract from the article, he said, ‘The head and front of my offence hath this extent; no more.’

[SABBATH OBSERVANCE]

Then in regard to another matter of some importance, by way of explanation, I am reported to have said, that, ‘It was wicked in the Alliance to class men who did not keep the sabbath holy with drunkards,’ &c. This language is put into my lips. I used no such language in Exeter Hall. I want men to keep the first day of the week holy unto God. They are bound to do it; and I want them to keep every other day of the week as holy unto God, and they are bound to do it. No day ought to be kept in an unholy manner; but in the impressive language of Paul, ‘Whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, we should do all to the glory of God.’

Now, as an effort has been made, wickedly and maliciously, to stir up the prejudices of the people of Scotland on the subject of the sabbath – as the subject has been dragged into the movement by the enemies of the abolitionists, and not by the abolitionists themselves, I beg to say a word or two in explanation of my views, so that the cause of the slave may receive no injury from that quarter. A few days since, I was in Edinburgh, and some person took the liberty to send me a letter in reference to this matter of the sabbath. The writer says,

I should like to know how you and Mr. Wright have given forth those sentiments at anti-slavery meetings. Your doing so is not only contrary to the manner in which anti-slavery meetings should be conducted, but you should have been aware that you were outraging the feelings of your auditors, in giving rise to the idea, that you took advantage of these meetings to disseminate your heartless heresy. So satisfied am I on the point that your views find no sympathy in this country, that, if the question was put, ‘Whether shall slavery continue with all its horrors, or the benign influences of the sabbath be discontinued?’ the former would be carried unanimously.

I should like to know how the benign influences of the sabbath can exist in a land of slavery. The letter-writer maintains that the two are compatible, and that sooner than have the sabbath infringed upon, the people of Scotland would rather have slavery and all its horrors. Then they would prefer God’s creatures being transformed into fiends. Then they would prefer to become like wild beasts, to tear and rend those they were formed to love. If this is not the case, then it shows that the writer does not know what he is about, and that he needs some farther light on the matter. (Cheers.)

I am not here to go into any argument in regard to my views on the subject of the Sabbath. Give me a proper arena, and I will meet any man on Scriptural ground with regard to the validity of my views on the subject. I profess to believe in the Sabbath. I profess to be as orthodox on the subject of the holiness of the first day of the week as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, Rogers, Williams, Penn, Fox, Barclay, and Paley, with many others it is unnecessary to enumerate; and all I have to say at this time is, that if for the views which I entertain on the subject of the Sabbath, I ought to be discredited and sent down below, I beg that Luther and all who framed the Augsburg Confession of Faith go down with me – that is all. Oh! the impudence of those who first claim infallibility on this Sabbatical question – who assume their views must be right – and then give over to perdition all who differ from them.

What is the fact with regard to the Sabbath question? We have in America, and you have here, people called Seventh-day Baptists. They maintain that the seventh day, and not the first day of the week, is the Sabbath of the Lord, and with the fourth commandment in their hand, challenge their opponents to show that the Lord’s day has ever been changed. Then we have those who believe that the first day of the week has been substituted instead of the Jewish sabbath. Both believe they are right, but shall either party give over the other to everlasting torments, because they disagree on that matter. Then we have many others who entertain different views, such as, that under the new dispensation of the law, they should forget all about time as time, and be at all times in the spirit of the Lord – not waiting for a week to roll round to keep a Sabbath to the Lord.

I do not vindicate any of those views; but amidst such contrariety of opinions, is there not scpe for Christian charity, and good reason why we should not sit in judgment upon one another about an outward observance of the Sabbath? I say again, that I hold the same views as the reformers and martyrs of old; and I say this, that you may have your minds disabused in regard to my entertaining any notion derogatory to the holiness of the Sabbath. Almost all have heard of the French Jacobins, who abrogated the seventh day and set the tenth day in its place: and, therefore, when the charge of holding unorthodox views on the subject of the Sabbath is thrown out indiscriminately, those who entertain them are apt to be classed with the French Jacobins, who tried to degrade religion, whereas the individuals I refer to assume a higher view of Christianity, and try to raise the standard, and not to bring it down.

In one word, the amount of the difference is, the difference between Moses and Jesus Christ. It is an old cry. It was raised 1800 years ago – ‘This man is not of God, he keepeth not the Sabbath-day.’ It is the Chief Priests, the Scribes, and the Pharisees who are raising this cry, because we make use of this day for the purpose of raising me out of the pit instead of beasts., (Applause.)

The report goes on to state –

The Rev. John Preston, Baptist Minister, Euston Square, here rose, and said he was a member of the Alliance, had sat in 19 sessions, and therefore understood it. He had doubted, and more than doubted, during some parts of Mr. Garrison’s address, whether he were a friend of Christianity. When he came to that meeting he did expect to hear strong things uttered against the Alliance, but he did not expect to hear Christianity in general undermined, and prayer to God ridiculed.

Now I will say nothing about the ridiculous plight the Rev. John Preston got into when he got upon that platform; I will not quote what I did say word for word, as it is reported in the London Patriot, but I will give the reply of my friend, Mr. George Thompson , to the foul imputation of that imprudent man:–

My beloved friend, William Lloyd Garrison, has been charged with ridiculing prayer, and seeking to undermine Christianity. He did neither the one nor the other. He denounced a counterfeit Christianity, with forgets the slave in its prayers, which fellowships the slaveholder, which talks of love and has not pity and he preaches a Christianity which opens the prison doors which binds up the broken heart, which breaks every yoke, and sees a brother and a man in the meanest and most afflicted wretch that was ever left to perish by the way, while the priest and the Levite passed by on the other side. (Cheers.) His ridicule of prayer was not the ridicule of the prayer of the publican. ‘God be merciful to me a sinner,’ or of the soul, agonising for those in bonds as bound with them; but that prayer which asks God to direct men how they may escape from the consequences of their own abandonment of righteousness, without repentance, and the doing of works meet for repentance. I will remind the friend who brought this charge, that a greater than William Lloyd Garrison once said, ‘Woe unto you, Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and neglect the weightier matters of the law, – judgement, justice, and faith. Ye bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and will not touch them with one of your fingers. Ye devour widows’ houses, and, for a pretence, make long prayers. [‘] (Loud cheers.)

Sir, in America, they do something worse than devour widows’ houses; they devour the widows themselves, and then pray to God for direction how to treat a human being. I ridiculed such prayers. (Cheers.) I said they were blaspheming before God, and I will continue to say to wherever I may go. (Great applause.) I stand up backed by John Knox, a man who did not talk about using ‘a little circumlocution,’ when he had to do with the Devil and his works, but who called a fig a fig, and a spade a spade. I will give you his words as they fell from his lips, and strange as it may seem, the passage I am about to quote is the motto of the Witness newspaper. It is as follows:– ‘I am in the place where I am demanded of conscience to speak the truth, and therefore the truth I speak, impugn it whose list.’

Now. I have got another excellent motto from another organ of the Free Church, and not entirely unknown to you. The motto of the Guardian is, ‘The people of Great Britain are a free and a religions [sic] people, and, by the blessing of God, I will lend my aid to keep them so.’ This paper is now denouncing the friends of liberty in America, and is endeavouring in this manner to preserve the liberties of the people of Scotland. (Hear.) The paper which justifies all manner of cruelty involved in slaveholding talking about looking after the religion of Scotland! ‘Send back that money,’ and then look to their liberties. (Great cheering, mingled with a few hisses.)

Never mind the hisses; let us hear them as distinctly as possible; they are music to my ears.

I was in Dundee a few days since, and when I arrived there, I found a foul attack upon myself and the cause which I represent in the Dundee Warder; and amongst other extraordinary declarations contained in the article, I found the following; and when I read it, I think you who are impartial witnesses here to-night will admit a case of effrontery more striking was never given to the world. The Warder says, ‘that neither the Free Church, nor any individual member of it has ever defended slavery or slaveholding on any ground whatever, far less by any reference to Scripture.’4

Now the whole controversy with the Free Church is upon this, – Is slaveholding under all circumstances a sin or not? The Free Church maintains that it is not; that a man may be a christian slaveholder; and it runs to the Bible and tries to be a christian slaveholder; and it runs to the Bible and tries to prove its position is a scriptural one; and yet this Dundee Warder has the impudence to say that it never attempted to vindicate slaveholding. (Cheers.)

How should we wonder at this? Men who go and get blood-stained money to build their places of worship with, will do anything – when convenient. (Great applause.) If they will, to get money, strike hands with thieves, they will lie to save themselves from the exposure of the world.

Now, the question at issue is, Does Christianity forbid all slaveholding, or does it not? Was Jesus Christ a slaveholder or a slave-trafficker, and are his followers to be the same? The churches in America with which the Free Church is in connection, hold that opinion and the Free Church says they are Christian Churches, and welcome their ministers to their communion and to their pulpits. In the same way, if the Free Church was asked if slaveholding is not a sin, it would tell you – sometimes, but not always. In the first place, slaveholding is not a sin when a Doctor of Divinity is the man who holds slaves. If he was some poor wretch who does not make any pretensions to piety, it would be atrocious; but it is your Doctors of Divinity who can hold slaves with impunity, because ‘A saint in crape is twice a saint in lawn.’ (Cheers.)

That is one way, and I will give you a specimen of those D.D.’s who can hold slaves innocently, without tarnishing his christian character. Just before leaving Boston for this country, a fugitive slave came and put a letter into my hands, and said, ‘I want you to take this letter to the people of Scotland; I want you to read it to them; and I want you to ask the people of Scotland what they think of the humanity or piety of a Doctor of Divinity who could pen such a letter as this.’ The letter is addressed to a person in New York, and is in reference to a runaway female slave.

Mr. G. here read the letter referred to, which requested the person to whom it was addressed to put a description of the writer’s fugitive slave into the hands of a police officer, that he might apprehend her. The paper, in addition to mentioning the mental characteristics of the fugitive, contained a description of her personal appearance, which was given with disgusting minuteness, and could scarcely fail of raising some suspicions as to the purity of the writer’s thoughts.

Having finished the letter, Mr. G. continued – He is just the very man for the Free church – the very man for Dr. Candlish and Co.; he is willing to quite all claim to his slave for a consideration. As to the person who was to send her back, Dr. Cunningham would have had no difficulty in vindicating him on the ground that Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon. (Great cheering.)

Now, I ask, if any language can be found in our tongue to describe the unblushing villainy of such a man as this. (Hear, hear.) Claiming to be a divinely ordained minister of God, and yet offering rewards for the capture of his slave, that he might again put her into bondage. There is no language can describe such wickedness. Yet he is the very man for Dr. Candlish – the very man for the pulpits of the Free Church, and will be the very man for such a body, until we get the money sent back. (Cheers.)

Again slavery is innocent, when the Free Church gets supplies from the slaveholders. If they did not get the supplies it would be a different thing, but so long as they put money into her coffers, of course it must be innocent. It is also innocent to hold slaves in bondage, notwithstanding the injunction to ‘break every yoke and let the oppressed go free,’ in circumstances which God did not calculate upon when he gave that command.

There is another case in which slaves may be held innocently; somebody else may do wrong, if we do right; therefore we ought not to do right. When a slaveholder emancipates his slaves that is right, but we are told the law, forsooth, will take them up, and they can sin much more economically than somebody else could. Why, what have I to do with another man’s wickedness but to rebuke it. Because I say to another man, ‘You are my brother; your chains shall fall; I stand to proclaim you free and not a slave;’ and then a body of unprincipled men come in and seize the victim, am I responsible for that deed? I ought to do what I have done. They ought not to do what they have done. (Applause.)

Dr. Cunningham has stated, that unless slaves are retained in service in the slave states of America, that the good Christians would have to take Irish papists into their families. There you have a case of innocent slaveholding. Irish papists are not to be employed, therefore never take them into service. Treat them as lepers; do not give them any encouragement , and then we shall convert them over to protestantism. Do not attempt to emancipate the slaves; that is gravely put forth by Dr. Cunningham as a very solemn reason against it. (Cheers.)

There is another case in which it is very clear that slaveholding is innocent – the case of every American who declares that it is a self-evident truth that every man is born free and equal. We are told that slaveholding is not sinful under all circumstances.

Sir, 1800 years ago Christ was born. He came to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord; he proclaimed the redemption of the human race. Yet it is necessary to strive here as in America to convince men that it is a sin to make a beast of their fellow men. The sin has been denounced for 1800 years. Paul was the first who preached an anti-slavery sermon, when he announced at Athens that ‘God hath made of one blood all the nations of the earth.’ What will these libellers say to that? (Cheers.)

How painful to think that great truth is not fully recognised the people as Paul did, that they are worshipping an unknown God, and do not believe in the brotherhood of the human race. Slaveholding is not under all cases slaveholding. What is a cabbage under all circumstances but a cabbage? What is a hawk but a hawk? What a dolphin but a dolphin, or is it sometimes ‘very like a whale?’ (Laughter.) What is horse-stealing at all times but horse-stealing, if it is not burglary some times? What will the Free Church be at all times until the bloody bawbees be sent back? (Cheers.)

Slaveholding, if there is any meaning in words, is holding a slave. It is not holding a free man, nor setting him who is in bondage free. Slaveholding is not non-slaveholding. It is slaveholding and holding a slave. What is a slave? He is not a freeman, of course. He is a thing; an article of traffic, which may be bought and sold, and used as property. Then the slaveholder is, under all circumstances, a man-stealer; therefore there can be no innocent case of slaveholding.

Oh! but the laws, says Drs. Candlish and Cunningham. Well, what of the laws? Either these laws are righteous, or they are unrighteous. If they are righteous laws, why should they be referred to as a grievance? If it were not for these righteous laws they would do something – something very bad of course – for it is the righteous laws which restrain them from doing the deed. Well, if they are unrighteous laws, what then? If they oppose the commands of God, what then? Why, they are to be trampled under foot – that is all. (Cheers.) They are to be set aside at once as impious, and not to be obeyed, be the consequences what they may, and the eternal law of God put in the place of them. (Cheers.) Either those slave laws are bad, or they are not. If they are bad, being unrighteous, those who obey them are unrighteous men, and may not be recognised among the followers of the Lord. If they do not obey them, then of course we are not speaking of those who disobey the unrighteous laws, and hence we desire to keep by the issue, and have no red herring thrown in our way, to lead us off the track.

I am called an infidel. That is a red herring. Either a man is a slave, or he is not. If he is a slave, he who holds him as a slave, is a robber of his brother man. If he do not hold him as a slave, we have no controversy with him. How are human laws framed? By Parliaments and other bodies of men; but the laws you are under are of God.

How was it in the case of Daniel? A law was passed desiring him not to pray to God. He had been in the practice of praying three times a day to God with a loud voice, and with his windows open. His enemies desired to destroy him; therefore they got an edict put forth, making it an offence to pray to God. What did Daniel do? If he had been Dr. Candlish I will tell you what he would have done. He would have said, ‘I cannot disobey that command – it is a law. But there is no use of praying aloud to God. I will use ‘a little circumlocution.’ I can as well pray secretly to Him as audibly; I can obey God and yet obey the law.’ That would have been Dr. Candlish’s reasoning. (Hisses and cheers.) Let them hiss at him – why should you object to it, friends? (Cheers.) Now, Daniel said, ‘I will pray to God as I have been wont to do.’ It was not necessary that he should open his windows until the law came; then it became necessary as a religious duty, and he would have been false to his God, and never could have prayed to God in a right state of mind, if he had complied with the law. (Hear, hear.)

We are told that slaveholding in America is shamming – that the slaveholders are humbugging the state – that they are slaveholders in form as the law requires it, but that they are not so in reality. (Hear, hear.) Now, I do not believe that, for no Christian would acknowledge such a law. He would say, ‘I am an honest man; I am against the law, and I will not obey it[.]’ (Hear, hear.) When Jesus was about to be crucified, they talked about the law, and when the slave is to be retained in bondage we hear the same thing. But who make the laws? The slaveholders themselves, thus tying themselves up to their impiety.

If there is anything in their prayers, let the slaveholders give their slaves passes to Canada, where they may stand up as freed men far from their pursuers. If slaveholding be not in itself sinful, I ask you how you do not allow slaveholding in Scotland? You take it for granted that no man can be an innocent slaveholder. Brother Cunningham may see somebody he wants to benefit, and therefore desires to make him a slave. But you will not allow him, because you say it would be a crime. What have you done with regard to African slaves. You say, that if a man goes and buys a slave he shall be branded as a pirate, and shall  be hanged. Why do you do this? Why not allow men to judge for themselves, if they may innocently enslave a fellow-creature? You have not left a single slaveholder alive in the West Indies, and there is not a single slave there. That is assuming that not a single man may hold another man in bondage. Now, that is the issue with the Free Church, which they have not met, and which they cannot meet.

Then again, the Americans settle the question, by saying that ‘It is a self-evident truth that all men are born free and equal.’ When I remember that the Americans are the people who put forth that declaration, I blush to think that any man in Scotland would try to make out a case of innocent slaveholding. Do you mean to condemn the Society of Friends, because they will not allow a slaveholder to be a member of that society? Is it not the glory of that society that they keep so sublime and true a position; and if every other religious society would take the same position, where would slavery be? (Cheers.) Nowhere, or in the abstract, where so m any people put it already.

‘Oh!’ said the Rev. John Burnet, ‘I have heard much about slavery in the abstract, and I have gone over globes and maps to find out where the land of abstraction is; but wherever it is, slavery must be horrible indeed, since even slaveholders execrate it with all their hears.’ (Great cheering.)

You do not condemn the Friends, yet, by this logic you ought to condemn them, for they are in the midst of slaves, and if slaves may be held innocently, they ought not only to keep them, but to multiply them for their good. Will any man in Scotland condemn the sturdy covenanters in America, who are exhibiting such a glorious example to the world. (Cheers.)

After a fifteen years’ struggle against slavery, a number of churches have now a rule that no slaveholder can be admitted to Christian fellowship, and do you mean to say the occupy a false position? Do you mean to condemn the course taken by the non-slaveholding churches in America? Yet if you mean to go with the Free Church, and the Evangelical Alliance, you must do so, notwithstanding that it hath been said – ‘He who stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.’

They tell us that slaveholding existed under the old Levitical code; but men blaspheme God who say that he allowed that dispensation. God never brought plagues upon Egypt because of the Israelites being held in bondage, and then gave those he had redeemed liberty to become slavetraders, and slaveholders.

One thing more, and I conclude. It is an extraordinary spectacle to God and to the world to see that, while America is becoming anti-slavery, Scotland is becoming pro-slavery. This is the position of the two nations at the present era. A few years back we were all slaveholders in America. After a long and fearful struggle, we have now in a great measure redeemed the nation; and having put on our armour, we are going on conquering and to conquer. But alas! within the last two years a fearful change has come over the people of Scotland, and Scotland, which was once anti-slavery, is now fast becoming pro-slavery, and men in the provincial towns are running to their Bibles to justify slavery from the Scriptures. Why, it should excite alarm in the breast of every man who wishes to see Christianity rule in the world.

When I speak of men running to their Bibles for arguments in support of slavery, of course I speak only of a class, for I bless God the whole people are not contaminated – I bless God there are still many true to the rights of man; and I do not believe that the church – falsely called Free – is the true Church of Scotland, or that it fairly represents the sentiments of the people of Scotland in regard to this important question. (Cheers and hisses.) All they can do is hiss. They would like to make slaves of you, but they cannot. They would like to make you the apologists of manstealers, but they cannot, and they are very much distressed about it.

The heart of Scotland is still sound on this question, and I call upon you to bestir yourselves in the name of God and of humanity, and see to it, that the money is sent back to America. (Great cheering.) Come to this resolution, that either the money must go back, or the Free Church shall go down – (applause) – and if she must go down, because of her blood-guiltiness, then the Free Church of Christ will stand all the more gloriously vindicated, and there shall be peace and purity throughout her borders.

But remember, it is not enough that you be free yourselves, –

Old Bannockburn hath yet a tongue,
And Bothwell is not dumb,
And voices from your fathers’ graves,
And from the future come:–
They call on you to stand your ground –
They charge you still to be
Not only free from chains yourselves,
But foremost to make free.

Mr. Garrison resumed his seat amidst enthusiastic applause.

Mr. FREDERICK DOUGLASS, who was received with applause, said, I feel very glad to be in Glasgow, especially to have an opportunity of speaking to you on the subject of American slavery. It seems that the fight for the abolition of slavery in America, like the battle for emancipation in the West Indies, is to be fought upon British soil. Both the friends of slavery and its enemies have appeared in this land, and the community are fast taking sides with the one and the other party of deputationists from the United States.

The deputation from the anti-slavery party is small; the deputation from the pro-slavery party is large – very large. The one and the other met not long since in the city of London. The one calling itself the Evangelical Alliance, and the other calling themselves the reviewers of the Evangelical Alliance. (Cheers.)

There are but two parties in the United States on this question, neither can there be long more than two in this country in reference to it. There are but two parties in the United States, I repeat, the slaveholders and the anti-slaveholders – the friends of the slave and the enemies of the slave. We are two – there is no middle ground. There is no serving anti-slavery a little and pro-slavery a little. There is no worshipping at the shrine of slavery and at the shrine of liberty at the same time. There is a strong line of demarcation drawn between the abolitionists in the United States and the anti-abolitionists – that line is becoming more and more distinct in this country, and the more distinct it becomes the better. The sooner we learn who are the friends of freedom, and who are not, the better for the cause of emancipation in this country. (Cheers.)

[THE DECLINE OF SCOTTISH ABOLITIONISM]

Not six years ago there were many in this city who did not hesitate to come forward and avow themselves the uncompromising advocates of emancipation, who were called Rev. Doctors of Divinity, and where are they now? They are among the missing. They have ceased to work with us; they have ceased to strike hands with the abolitionists. This platform was once the arena of the eloquence of such persons as Dr. King, Dr. Wardlaw, Dr. Robson, and other eminent Doctors of Divinity in Glasgow. Where are they this evening? One of the slaves for whom they appeared to plead stands here this evening to ask after them. (Great applause.)

Well do I remember how my heart throbbed with gratitude to those men when I read their speeches on the subject of emancipation. I remember how my heart was thrilled when I read the speeches of Dr. Wardlaw and those of George Thompson in relation to this subject. But where are they to-night? Where is Dr. King, Dr. Wardlaw, and Dr. Robson? Have the salves in the United States given these gentlemen any offence? Have the slaves behaved in any manner to justify them giving up the cause of abolition, and abandoning them to their tyrant masters? (Hear, hear.) I think not; but if they have, these gentlemen should tell us what they have done to lead them pass them by on the other side. (Cheers.)

[THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE]

My object in rising, however, at this period is to say a few words about the Evangelical Alliance. We have had some meeting in this country since I had the pleasure of addressing a Glasgow audience. A number of things have transpired tending to give the question a different complexion to that which it wore when I was here before. Since I was here, the Free Church General Assembly was held at Canonmills. Since I was here, the Evangelical Alliance has held its sittings. Since I was here, the World’s Temperance Convention has met in London. Since I was here, the United Secession Synod has declared that it would countenance no Christian union with slaveholders. (Cheers.) Since I was here, the Relief Synod has declared in favour of non-Christian fellowship with man-stealers. (Applause.) Since I was here, the Irish Presbyterian Assembly has denounced slaveholding as man-stealing.

All these and other circumstances have transpired, tending to give a different complexion to this question to what it presented when I was here some months ago. But one of the principal things which has taken place was the holding of the Evangelical Alliance.

The Evangelical Alliance is a high sounding title. Let us trace the history of the connection of the slavery question with this distinguished body. A preliminary meeting of this Alliance was held in the town of Birmingham, and before that meeting came the question of American slavery, and the question as to how the Alliance should regard American slaveholders, or slaveholders, no matter from whence they came. The question, I am told, was sharply debated, and the Rev. Dr. Candlish brought forward a resolution embodying the proposition, that slaveholders be not invited to attend the Alliance. This resolution was agreed to, and was soon published in this country and in the United States. Slaveholders and non-slaveholders saw it. The former were well acquainted with the fact, that they were likely to be placed under the ban of exclusion if they attended the Alliance. It was not that slaveholders be excluded from that Alliance, but that they be not invited to that Alliance.

With this resolution looking them in the face, some seventy ministers left the United States for the purpose of attending the Evangelical Alliance, then to meet in London on the 18th of August last. They came a united body. There are no two parties in America among the friends of slavery. They came to London, and the Evangelical Alliance was summoned together. They met together in convention, and one of the first acts of that Alliance was to shut out the light – they excluded reporters, which was to say, in effect, ‘We are about to do an act – we are about to have such deliberations – such devil’s work is to be done as it will not be safe for the world to see. We will exclude all reporters; if we have deeds of diabolism among us, we will at least shut out the eyes of the world.’ What would have been thought of a body of Roman Catholics doing this? It would have been said that it was perfectly in keeping with the practices of that body; but I will not repeat what the people say about the Evangelical Alliance for doing the same thing. Did they look as if they desired to be inspected of men? Why, Christians, in the language of our blessed Saviour, are represented as cities set out on a hill; but the very first thing the members of the Evangelical Alliance did, was to put themselves under a bushel, to extinguish from them the light of investigation. (Cheers.) But although the discussion could not be had in full, there were some in the camp who reported the meetings of the Alliance.

During these sittings there was a great outpouring of love: the American brethren loved the British brethren, and the British brethren loved the American brethren. (Cheers and laughter.) Never was there such demonstration of Christian regard, of Christian love, and of Christian sympathy. In the midst of all this the question arose, What shall be our basis? On what terms shall individuals be admitted into the branches of our Alliance?

They agreed to a certain form of creed; but there was a Dr. Hinton among them, a man tinctured a little with the spirit of anti-slavery. He knew that there were certain men in the United States who held precisely the same views of the basis recommended, and who made as high pretensions to evangelical faith as the Alliance itself, but he knew these men were slaveholders, and he desired to add to the basis a clause which would prevent slaveholders from being admitted into the Alliance. Greater agitation could not have been produced by the throwing of a bombshell into the midst of the Alliance itself than the raising of this question. It produced the greatest possible excitement. Those brethren quo loved so much, and who had come, many of them, 3000 miles to embrace each other, were in arms in an instant. The bond of their unity had burst asunder. Angry discussions arose: and the evangelical manstealers would not unite with the others if slaveholders were excluded from that Alliance. Dr. Patton said, he had come 3000 miles to attend the convention; and when he started from home, he had no idea that they intended to make a British child of it. He had no idea of its being made an anti-slavery Alliance. He need not have been afraid, as you will see.

The discussion grew angry. The American brethren can be warm and speak out strongly. They deal in brimstone, fire, thunder, and lightning, and such figures of speech. (Cheers and laughter.) They have not learned, as Dr. Candlish has done, to use ‘a little circumlocution.’ (Renewed laughter.) They said to the Alliance, if that amendment of Dr. Hinton’s passes, we must leave the Alliance. They had loved each other very much before. (Laughter.) They loved the Alliance still. In the language of Mark Antony they did not ‘love Caesar less, but Rome more‘ – they did not love evangelical truth less, but slavery more. They said in effect, if you pass a resolution excluding our dear evangelical manstealers from your Alliance, we must go out of it.

Well, at this point some of the British brethren became faint at heart and pale in the face, and up they rose one after another and spoke in the following strain:– ‘We would exhort our brethren to be calm.  We hope that nothing imprudent will be done. We do hope that we shall yet be brought to a judicious decision on this question. Remember the eye of the world is upon us – the eye of Protestantism is upon us – and, what is more, the eye of Rome is upon us. If we should separate on this question, oh! what will become of us. We would, therefore, move that this whole question, be remitted to a committee.’

It was at once seconded, and the question of slavery was referred to a committee. That committee was made up to a large extent of the American deputation – Drs Cox, Patton, and others of the Presbyterian manstealing order in the United States. They discussed the question. They examined it, by day and by night for six days. About the middle of the week, the Rev. Dr. Smythe, of South Carolina, I believe, the gentleman who invited the deputation of the Free Church to the south, and recommended them to the cordial sympathy and aid of the evangelical manstealers of the Union, rose, and begged that the Committee be instructed to take time – not to decide hastily – and in their absence he recommended that the Alliance should pray for the brethren composing the committee, and that they might come to an enlightened decision. This Dr. Smythe is the same Dr. Smythe who gets his living in South Carolina for preaching to a congregation entirely composed of slaveholders – he is the same Dr. Smythe who marries slaves, leaving out the important part of that solemn ceremony, which says, ‘Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ He is the same Dr. Smythe who lives in the midst of slaveholders and slavedrivers, and never opens his mouth against slavery – the same Dr. Smythe who is the unblushing advocate of slavery – if not the actual owner of slaves in America – and yet this Dr. Smythe asks the brethren to pray, and they did pray. (Cheers and a slight hiss.)

I am not ridiculing prayer; I am ridiculing that kind of prayer, and that kind of union which exists in the slave states of America, and which existing in the Evangelical Alliance. We have a great deal of this kind of piety in the United States, and it was very manifest in the Evangelical Alliance. I speak of that Alliance as an injured man – as one whom that Alliance has neglected – as one whom that Alliance has stabbed to the heart, and I will speak out, let who will condemn me. (Cheers.)

Sir, there is a recreant black man in this country going by the name of Clark.5 He went into that Alliance and there denounced the only true friends of emancipation – the abolitionists. If he goes through this country, as I expect he will, for I expect that the Free Church of Scotland will employ him to go about and defend her, as he has the Judas Iscariot impudence to stand up in defence of her connection with the manstealers of America; and I trust he will be informed that I arraigned him here as a traitor to his race, and as representing no portion of the black, or coloured population in the United States.

Let us go to the question before the Alliance. It was a very plain one, namely, whether a manstealer ought to be regarded as a standing type and representative of Christ, or not? The question was, whether the Alliance would throw the garb of Christianity around the slaveholder, or not. It was a yea or a nay. The committee reported, and a resolution drawn up, to the effect that the Alliance was confident that all who are slaveholders would be excluded from the branches of the Alliance, who are so by their own fault or for their own interests. Just as if there was a man living who held slaves for any other person’s interest but his own, or that holding slaves could be the fault of anybody else but the man who held them. This was base and mean; and I find that even the eloquent Dr. Wardlaw who had stood up as the friend of the negro, deserted him, by agreeing to this abominable compromise, men who should have spoken out beyond all others, especially as the United Secession Synod had declared for no union with slaveholders.

This conclusion come to on the part of the committee was for a time quite satisfactory to the American deputation. It was satisfactory in the morning, but unsatisfactory in the evening. They turned themselves round; it was a great improvement on the proposal of Dr. Hinton, but after all it was not what the American  brethren wanted, and they refused to consent to this compromise. They demanded that the matter should be re-committed, and proposed that they should go about it in the midst of prayer and fasting, and they actually wanted their dinners. (Laughter.) This produced a wonderful sensation in the Alliance. Such was their zeal for evangelical manstealing and evangelical manstealers, that they could not eat. Their appetites left them, and it was made a matter of awful solemnity that those brethren could not eat. (Cheers and laughter.)

After this the American deputation demanded that every trace of the discussion, and of the resolution referring to slavery, should be erased from the records of the proceedings of the Alliance. Three millions of human beings in slavery, in the American plantations, were imploring the members of the Alliance to open their mouths in their behalf, and to condemn those who enslave them; but the American deputation said, no such condemnation shall appear in the proceedings of the Alliance. Sir, that Alliance acted like a band of infidels rather than of Christians. At the bidding of those American manstealers, the English and Irish, and Scotch members expunged from the record of their proceedings every word of condemnation of slaveholding in the United States. I hold, that no body of men could be gathered together from any quarter in this country but ministers who would have been guilty of this deed. (Cheers.) Amongst no body, however degraded, but there would have been some to speak out in condemnation of slavery. Yet those men of high profession passed by on the other side, and never raised a whisper in condemnation of the system, – in effect saying, as far as the Evangelical Alliance will not utter a word of condemnation against you.’ (Great applause.)

[THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND]

Let me say one word about the Free Chruch of Scotland; for it has taken shelter behind the Evangelical Alliance, and I want to say a word about the recent General Assembly of the Free Church. I happened to attend the Assembly, and I heard the speeches delivered on that occasion on the subject of slavery, and I heard the thunders of applause at the end of each sentiment, which looked like upholding the system of slavery. I could not before have  believed that such sentiments would have received any degree of commendation from any of the people of Scotland; yet in Canonmills I heard the most infamous – the most blasphemous – sentiments uttered amidst applause, in defence of slaveholding, and in defence of the Christian character of slaveholders, which I ever heard in any place.

I heard Dr. Cunningham say that Christ and his apostles would not only have sat down at the communion table with slaveholders, but that they would have sat down at the communion table with slaveholders who had a right to kill their slaves if they would, and never rebuke them. I heard him try to  bring the idea that slaveholding is sin, and slaveholders sinners, into contempt, and I am sorry to say that he was heard, by some three thousand in number of an audience, with seeming approbation. The battle of anti-slavery is to be fought here not with infidels, but with the Doctors of Divinity of Canonmills – the God sent, God qualified, and God appointed preachers of the salvation of Christ. Those are the men who stand up as the indefatigable enemies of the down-trodden slave – who stand up in defence of men who drive to toil, to torture, and to death, three millions of their fellow men. (Cheers.)

To prove that slaveholding is not sinful in itself, Dr. Cunningham put forth the following argument. After admitting that Mr. M’Beth had fairly stated the question when he said it was plainly, Whether slavery was not in all circumstances a sin? he said Mr. M’Beth had stated that it was in all cases a sin; but he took the opposite side of the question – he took the ground that it was not always a sin. He thought that slavery might be a sin, and not the slaveholder a sinner. Suppose, he said, on the 1st of June next, the Parliament should pass a law declaring all domestics to be slaves of their employers. I know that I should be a slaveholder, but could any man charge me with sin? ‘Hurra, hurra,’ shouted the Assembly, an innocent case of slaveholding has been made out. (Great laughter.) When they heard him putting the case, and admitting that Mr. M’Beth had rightly stated it, the whole Assembly had solemn faces, and seemed to be very concerned as to what great feat this mighty doctor would perform. When he put forth his argument, however, the enthusiasm was perfectly astounding.

But let us look to the argument and try to test its validity. If it is good on one case, it is good in another. Let us take the case of polygamy – a sin not to be ranked with manstealing, because that, being the greater, comprehends it and other sins. Suppose on the 1st of June the Parliament were to pass a law declaring that all female domestics are to be the concubines of their employers. Dr. Cunningham would be a polygamist; but I ask would he stay in that relation to his domestics? (Hear, and cheers.) I do not know that he would not. I certainly heard nothing in his speech to convince me he might not. Why not? If in the one case, why not in the other? If he could become a slaveholder because the law declared him such, why not become a polygamist because the law declared it to be right? (Loud cheers.) Would Dr. Cunningham’s argument have been received in any other case? In no other; and I maintain you are not safe in the company of such men, for those who will apologise for the stealing of black men, will apologise for the stealing of white men. (Hear, hear.) The man who will steal black horses will steal white ones. (Cheers and laughter.)

The mean-stealers of America are upheld and sustained in their system of plunder by such arguments as that used in the Free Assembly; but I hope the people of this country will see to it that those using them do not go unrebuked. Let not the Warders, Witnesses, or Guardians suppose that the cry raised against the Free Church and the Evangelical Alliance is to be but a nine days’ wonder. We will not be stopped by any impediments that can be thrown in our way. They speak of a decline of the interest on this question; but I would like to see it. I was in Dundee and various other places with Mr. Garrison, where we held meetings 6 months ago, and so far from the interest having declined in that time, it had doubled, and the hearts of the people are as ready to leap up at the voice of freedom as they were before. (Cheers.) They are as ready as ever to raise that cry, which has given the Free Church more pain than any thing else, ‘Send back the money,’ and will keep up the cry, however long it may be, till the money is sent back. (Applause.)

We do not mean to lose sight of the Free Church by talking of the Alliance; and, as an individual, I will not be drive from my course by any thing the defenders of that Church can say of me. They have struck hands with slave[holder]s. I am a slave, and I do not expect, therefore, they will speak well of me. They indorse the Christianity of the slaveholders of America; I do not expect them to indorse mine. They are on the side of the oppressor; I am on the side of the oppressed; I do not expect they will commend me. (Great cheering.) These men have stolen the garb of heaven, the sacred name of freedom, to cover up the deeds of deep damnation of which they are guilty; I am for tearing asunder that garment – I am for revealing the character of these manstealers – and exposing them in their naked deformity. It is not to be expected that they will speak well of my friend Garrison or of me, who come accredited by the tears, and groans, and grateful throbbings of three millions of human hearts in the United States. I look to them for consolation, and not to the Free Church of Scotland.

After pronouncing a high eulogium upon Mr. Garrison, he said it was no wonder that the Guardian and the pulpits of the Free Church fulminated against him. He was determined, he continued, to keep the conduct of the Free Church before the people, and with God’s assistance, he meant to go over the length and breadth of Scotland, proclaiming in the ears of all its supporters, ‘Send back the money.’ (Cheers.) When they asked him if he  believed in the Sabbath, he would reply, ‘Send back the money.’ If they asked what church he belonged to, he would reiterate ‘Send back the money.’ If they asked him to come and join their church, not a supposable case, he would say, ‘Send back the money.’ In all and every circumstance, he would tell them to ‘Send back the money.’ and wherever he met any of them he would look at them in such a way, as would make them feel that they are a brotherhood of thieves. (Applause.)

If a Doctor of Divinity put the price of blood into the treasury of the Free Church, he would look upon him as a thief and a robber. If he defended the selling of human beings to build up the Free Churches, he would charge that church with being a brotherhood of thieves. What was it to be a thief? It was to take or receive that which justly  belonged to another. It was universally the opinion in Scotland, he believed, that a man was entitled to the fruits of his own labour. Even the Free Churchmen would admit that. The Guardian called him a chimney sweep, and he had been a chimney sweep, but he had never in all his experience met with so black a job as this Free Church business. He was no other man’s property; his labour was therefore his own, and the Free Church of Scotland had no right to it. The Free Churchmen admit this, because they don’t hiss. (Cheers and laughter.)

The Free Churchmen, by their silence, admitted that when they were guilty of taking £3000 from the slaveholders of America, which belonged to the slaves, being the fruits of their labour, that they were a brotherhood of thieves. After a few further remarks he said that the contributions to the Free Church were £2000 less this year than  heretofore, and that if six month’s agitation had produced this falling off, he had a notion [an]other six months would have a still more marked effect, and concluded by saying that the honest portion of the members of the Free Church who left the Establishment had greater reason for coming out of that Church than for coming out of the other. (Great applause.)

On the motion of Mr. GARRISON, a vote of thanks was given to Mr. Paton for his conduct in the chair, and the meeting separated.

Glasgow Argus, 5 October 1846


NOTES

  1. Mary Howitt, Memoir of William Lloyd Garrison. Reprinted from the People’s Journal (Kilmarnock: William Muir; Glasgow: W. and R. Smeal, 1846).
  2. Garrison is punning on the titles of two of the main newspapers supportive of the Free Church of Scotland, the Scottish Guardian and the Northern Warder.
  3. W.L.A., ‘Was Abraham a Slaveholder?’ Scottish Congregational Magazine (September 1846), p. 434.
  4. ‘Messrs Lloyd Garrison & Co, and the Evangelical Alliance,’ Northern Warder, 24 September 1846.
  5. Dr Molliston Madison Clark was a delegate of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He subsequently reviewed his support for the Alliance.  See Richard Blackett, Building an Anti-Slavery Wall: Black Americans in the Atlantic Abolitionist Movement (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 98–100; ‘M. M. Clark on American Slavery’, National Anti-Slavery Standard, 26 November 1846, citing a letter from Clark, dated Brighton, 9 October 1846, published in the London Patriot.

Greenock: 22 September 1846

Greenock, 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. 14 and 15.

Douglass had accompanied the celebrated Bostonian abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison on most of his speaking engagements in England after meeting him a few days after he landed in Liverpool on 31 July. But in September they made their way separately to Glasgow.

Garrison arrived first, on the evening of Saturday 19th, full of a cold, brought on by an exhausting journey from London in cold, wet weather. He was welcomed at the station in Glasgow by Andrew Paton, a committee member of Glasgow Emancipation Society, who took him to his residence at 16 Richmond Street, ‘where I received a hearty welcome from his sister Catherine, one of a small but devoted band of true-hearted women in Glasgow, whose labors in the cause are beyond all praise.’1

Douglass joined him on the Monday, after speaking in Sunderland on Friday 18th. They had planned to address a meeting at City Hall that evening but found that the building ‘was to be occupied during the week with an exhibition of statuary’.2 Instead they were introduced to members of the Committee of Glasgow Emancipation Society at the Eagle Temperance Hotel where, recalled Garrison, ‘we had a social chit-chat, over a cup of tea’; it was ‘a very pleasant interview, which lasted till midnight.’3

The following evening they addressed a meeting in Greenock. No newspaper report of this meeting has come to light, but in his letters Garrison left an account of it. Garrison does not specify the venue of the meeting, but, according to Colin MacDonald’s research on Frederick Douglass in Greenock, it was probably the Mid-Kirk on Cathcart Square – close by Melvin’s Temperance Hotel, which he identifies as the hotel where Garrison says they lodged that night, a site now occupied by local government offices. Although Douglass did not appear to join Garrison until the evening, we reproduce here the parts of Garrison’s letters that cover his activities earlier in the day as well as the evening meeting.


To Henry Clarke Wright

Our faithful friend John Murray was up from Bowling Bay; and I went down with him, yesterday morning, to his romantic and quiet residence, where I got a very kind reception from his wife and family, and spent a portion of the day with him in climbing the neighboring hills, and talking about you and the other anti-slavery friends who had visited Bowling Bay, at various periods – &c. &c.

In the evening, we went to Greenock, where a meeting had been hastily, and, of course, imperfectly called, to be addressed by Frederick, (who had preceded us thither,) and myself. It was held in a very large church, and a somewhat numerous and very respectable audience was present. Frederick opened the meeting and, in the course of his speech, dealt very faithfully with the Free Church, which caused some hissing among the snakes belonging to that brood; but this was trifling, in comparison with the amount of applause bestowed. In following him, I adverted to the hissing, and invited to the platform, any one in the assembly, who was prepared to deny the charges which had been brought against the Free Church. Drs. Candlish, Cunningham, Chalmers, &c. But

There was silence, deep as death,
And the boldest held his breath. –4

and we thus ‘finished off’ the hisses for the remainder of the evening. Our meeting broke up at 10½ o’clock, with much enthusiasm, and it was voted that there should be an auxiliary anti-slavery league formed in Greenock. More will need to be done in that place, as I am told that it is sadly lacking in intellectual activity and moral life.

Murray, Douglass and myself staid over night at the Temperance hotel, and this morning I came up to Glasgow, via Bowling Bay.

from William Lloyd Garrison to Henry Clarke Wright, Glasgow, 23 September, reprinted 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. 426.

To the Editor ofThe Liberator

On Tuesday morning, we went to Bowling Bay, about ten miles down the river Clyde, to the residence of John Murray, – a man too well known on your side of the Atlantic to need any eulogy from me, – accompanied by that veteran in the cause of Christian reform, who came up the day previous to give us his benediction. His place of abode combines the picturesque, with the beautiful and sublime, in an eminent degree; but I have no time to indulge in drawing pictures, or to recapitulate the many pleasant objects that I saw. During the day, we climbed the lofty hills which rise somewhat precipitously behind his dwelling, and had a magnificent prospect opened to us. James N. Buffum, (of whose illness I regret to hear,) will remember the spot, and his memorable collision with one of Lord Blantyre‘s servants, as well as his correspondence with his lordship, in regard to it. The latter of Lord B., I am told, was not only very civil, but quite creditable to his character.5

In the evening, we went to Greenock, and held a very spirited meeting with special reference to the guilty position of the Free Church of Scotland – no one venturing to say one word in its defence.

 from William Lloyd Garrison, Belfast, 3 October 1846; Liberator, 30 October 1846, reprinted 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. 433.


Notes

  1. William Lloyd Garrison to the Liberator, Belfast 3 October 1846, reprinted 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. 432.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid., p. 433; William Lloyd Garrison to Henry Clarke Wright, Glasgow 23 September 1846, reprinted in The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison. Volume 3, p. 426.
  4. Thomas Campbell, ‘Battle of the Baltic’ in The Poetical Works of Thomas Campbell (Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1845), p. 217.
  5. Buffum referred to this incident in a speech in Dundee in January 1846.

Dundee: 28 September 1846

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. Edward Young, The Complaint, and the Consolation; or, Night Thoughts (London: R. Nobble, 1797), p. 88.
  4. 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.
  5. D.T., ‘To Mr George Thompson,’ Northern Warder, 30 July 1846.
  6. W.L.A., ‘Was Abraham a Slaveholder?’ Scottish Congregational Magazine (September 1846), p. 434.
  7. Henry Lord Brougham, ‘Speech on Negro Slavery. Delivered in the House of Commons, July 13, 1830’ in Speeches of Henry Lord Brougham, Upon Questions Relating to Public Rights, Duties, and Interests, with Historical Introductions (Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1841), Vol 1, p. 438.

Edinburgh: 25 September 1846

Blackfriars’ Wynd. From J. B. Gillies, Edinburgh Past and Present (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1886), p. 167.

On the morning of Friday 25th, Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison ‘addressed a numerous meeting of ladies, convened by the Edinburgh Female Anti-Slavery Society.’1 Wrote Garrison: ‘We had a social ladies’ meeting, which was highly interesting, and they seemed to be greatly delighted.’2

And then in the evening they spoke for the second time at Brighton Street Church. Reports in the Scotsman, the Caledonian Mercury and the Edinburgh Evening Post overlap, but none contains all the details, so all three are reprinted below.

For an overview of Douglass’s activities in Edinburgh during the year, see Spotlight: Edinburgh.


AMERICAN SLAVERY

Last night a second meeting was held in the same place [i.e. Brighton Street Church]. The area of the chapel and a portion of the galleries were filled. Professor Dick occupied the chair. Mr Douglass opened the proceedings by reviewing two sermons which had been published in the State of Virginia, by a clergyman in that quarter, ‘for the peculiar edification of the slave, and for the comfort of the slaveholders.’

A person in the meeting, whose name we did not learn, complained that much time was taken up with one or two speeches, while he himself had something to say on the subject. Permission was then given him to ascend the platform, which he did, and commenced a long dissertation about slavery not being condemned in the Bible; and that in certain circumstances the Scriptures even enjoined the keeping of slaves. He said that he had not his Bible with him, but every one knew the facts for himself.

During the remarks of this speaker considerable amusement was created by his statements, as well as by his peculiar gesticulation.

Mr GARRISON then rose, and after some introductory remarks, alluded to the enormities committed in the slave states. From January 1845 to the time he reached this country – a period of eighteen months – he kept a list of the cases which had been inserted in the southern newspapers. This list of slave torture and oppression, although composed of paragraphs of only four or five lines, occupied, when pasted together many yards in length; and this notwithstanding it contained no record of the more common cases of ill-treatment, such as branding and whipping. He denied that the churches in America with which the Free Church held communion, increased any discipline whatever in regard to slaveholders. The Free Church, therefore, in consequence of this connection, must be regarded as implicated in the crime of American slavery.

He quoted the sentiments of a number of the American ministers as to the anti-slavery movement; one of whom called it a wicked, fierce, and wild agitation; and another threatened any of the abolitionists who crossed the Potomac river, and entered the Southern States, with the fate of Haman. He would not say that every minister in the slave states was in favour of slavery; but none of them had the courage or humanity to come forward and denounce the atrocious system.

He showed that the slave powers in America sought not only jurisdiction over the soil of that country, but over that of England and the world at large, in as much as if a coloured person were to visit the Southern States he might, without any crime being imputed to him, be seized, cast into prison, and sold as a slave. Here, therefore, was a ground on which Britain ought to protest against America for breaking her treaty of amity with this country, and trampling under foot the rights of British coloured subjects.

Mr Garrison, as bearing on this point, related several instances in which seamen who had gone to America in British ships were taken into custody, or forcibly banished from the country, on account of the colour of their skin. He also quoted the laws of some of the States, particularly that of South Carolina, in order to prove that if a British ambassador was to interfere for the purpose of obtaining the release of such coloured British subjects, he might himself be thrown into prison, and punished as a felon.3 Mr Garrison, while disclaiming all antipathy to the Free Church, concluded by calling on that church to ‘send back the money.’

Mr DOUGLASS said he had to mention, in regard to the Free Church, that the deputation sent out to America, although they attempted to deny it, were met on their arrival in New York, with remonstrances not to connect themselves with the slave churches of America; but they paid no heed to the remonstrances. On the contrary they held out their hand to the man-stealers, and gladly took the gold wrung from the blood and sinews of the slave to build their churches. He would, therefore, have the people of Edinburgh to revive the old musical cry of ‘send back the money,’ because he said the Free Church could be regarded as nothing else than a brotherhood of thieves, so long as they retained that money in their coffers. He trusted that the Anti-Slavery Society of Scotland would never let that church rest until she had sent back the stolen money that was in her coffers.

The Rev. Mr KIRK, seconded by the Rev. Mr ROBERTSON (Independent), then moved three resolutions, the first of which deprecated the conduct of the Free Church for holding communion with the slave churches of America, and for retaining in its treasury the ‘price of pollution and blood’ obtained from that country; the second resolution condemned the cowardly subserviency of the Evangelical Alliance to the pro-slavery delegates to America; and the third resolution expressed a grateful sense of the exertions which Mr Lloyd Garrison and others had made for the extinction of the accursed system of slavery. These resolutions on being put to the meeting were unanimously agreed to; and the proceedings closed with Mr Douglas giving an outline of his controversy with Dr Smythe.4

Scotsman, 26 September 1846

AMERICAN SLAVERY

A second meeting was held on Friday night in Brighton Street Church – Professor Dick in the chair.

Mr Douglass commenced his address by characterising slavery as a system which was at war with the law of God, and which aimed at the destruction of those faculties with which God has blessed man. Slavery (he said) laid its iron grasp upon the intellect of man, and declared it to be a crime to cultivate and expand the mind. God had made the happiness of mankind to depend upon the proper cultivation of their faculties, or their use and development, but slavery forbade their development, and would not allow their exercise. Slavery, in short, was at war with the noblest workmanship of God, and aimed at the destruction of all that was good in man, transforming him into a brute, and condemning him to perpetual servitude for the advantage of his master.

The cause of all those evils was the slaveholder, and it was impossible to extend the hand of fellowship to such a man without becoming a partaker of his sins, which he conceived the Evangelical Alliance to be. That body had conceived the slaveholder to be such as it could ally itself with, and he considered the refinement of their wickedness to lie in the manner in which they had adopted this measure. They held out the deceitful idea that a man could hold a slave not by his own fault, but that the blame might lie with another party, thus proclaiming by the sanctity of their name, that there were slaveholders in the United States of America who were not so by their own desire, and not for their own interest, and leaving the inference to be drawn, that such men were fit objects of commiseration rather than condemnation. The declaration of the Evangelical Alliance was calculated to do more harm to the cause of abolition than could arise from any other cause, for they had made out a case of innocent slaveholding, and excused the system in such a way as to mislead the judgment of the people of this country. These men of the Evangelical Alliance had furnished an excuse for the Free Church of Scotland, and given the slaveholders an apology he never dreamed of. But the broad eye of the Christian world was looking upon these things, and there were still a few faithful and true men who were willing to hazard their popularity for a time by endeavouring to wipe out this stain upon Christianity – (loud applause.)

Mr M’Arra claimed the right of being heard in reply to Mr Douglas, which having been conceded, he proceeded to state that his object was to prove that slavery was in some cases necessary and useful, and that, where it was so, it was authorised by Scripture. He then referred to the Old Testament in support of his views, contending that authority was extended to the Israelites to make the inhabitants of various cities that they conquered their slaves, to whom they consigned the most menial offices. The meeting becoming impatient, the chairman interfered, and declared, that, as Mr M’Arra was not speaking to the subject before the meeting, he could not be heard farther.

Mr Lloyd Garrison, after adverting to the assertions of the advocates for slavery, that the slaves were more comfortably situated than the labouring population of Europe, said that if the facts were true, the slaves did not seem to entertain that idea, for no expression to that effect was ever heard from them.

With reference to the character of the slaveholder, it would invariably be found that the men who struck down the liberties of mankind, and did not care for human life in one direction, were men who did not value life or liberty in any other; and of all the bloody minded and ferocious men to be found in the world, the men most ready to deprive each other of life, and act in the most merciless manner, were the American slaveholders.

Dr Candlish had said that a slaveholder must make out that he is such innocently before he could be admitted into the Christian Church;  but the American Churches in no case went through that rigid examination, and he could assure them that such a case of innocent slaveholding never existed, and never would, while slavery existed. There was, therefore, no ground for the position assumed by the Free Church, which was one that sanctified slavery, and obstructed the progress of abolition.

Mr Garrison then adverted to the fact that free persons of colour, though British subjects, on landing in any of the Southern States of America from a British vessel, were liable to be seized and imprisoned, and if by accident they were left in prison, they would be sold to pay their expenses, and concluded by calling upon the people of Great Britain to protest against so unwarrantable an interference with the rights of British subjects.

The meeting shortly afterwards separated.

Caledonian Mercury, 28 September 1846

AMERICAN SLAVERY

A public meeting was held on Friday night in Brighton Street Chapel – Professor Dick in the chair – to afford an opportunity to the American abolitionists, Mr Lloyd Garrison and Mr Frederick Douglass, the fugitive slave, of reviewing the position which the Free Church and the Evangelical Alliance have assumed in regard to American slavery.

Mr Douglass said that slavery was at war with the noblest workmanship of God, and aimed at the destruction of all that was good in man, transforming him into a brute, and condemning him into perpetual servitude for the advantage of his master.

The cause of all those evils was the slaveholder, and it was impossible to extend the hand of fellowship to such a man without becoming a partaker of his sins, which he conceived the Evangelical Alliance to be. That body had conceived the slaveholder to be such as it could ally itself with, and he considered the refinement of their wickedness to lie in the manner in which they had adapted this measure. They held out the deceitful idea that a man could hold a slave not by his own fault,  but that the blame might lie with another party, thus proclaiming by the sanctity of their name, that there were slaveholders in the United States of America, who were so not by their own desire, and not for their own interest, and leaving the inference to be drawn that such men were fit objects of commiseration rather than condemnation. The declaration of the Evangelical Alliance was calculated to do more harm to the cause of abolition than could arise from any other cause, for they had made out a case of innocent slaveholding, and excused the system in such a way as to mislead the judgment of the people of this country. These men of the Evangelical Alliance had furnished an excuse for the Free Church of Scotland, and given the slaveholders an apology he never dreamed of. But the broad eye of the Christian world was looking upon these things, and there were a still a few faithful and true men who were wiling to hazard their popularity for a time by endeavouring to wipe out this stain from Christianity. (Loud applause.)

Mr M’Arra claimed the right of being heard in reply to Mr Douglass, which having been conceded, he proceeded to state that his object was to prove that slavery was in some cases necessary and useful, and that, where it was so, it was authorised by Scripture. He then referred to the Old Testament in support of his views, contending that authority was extended to the Israelites to make the inhabitants of various cities that they conquered their slaves, to whom they consigned the most menial offices. The meeting becoming impatient, the Chairman interfered, and declared that, as Mr M’Arras was not speaking to the subject before the meeting, he could not be heard farther.

Mr Lloyd Garrison, after adverting to the assertions of the advocates for slavery, that the slaves were more comfortably situated than the labouring population of Europe, said that if the fact were true, the slaves did not seem to entertain that idea, ,for no expression to that effect was ever heard from them.

With reference to the character of the slaveholder, it would invariably be found that the men who struck down the liberties of mankind, and did not care for human life in one direction, were men who did not value life or liberty in any other; and of all the bloody minded and ferocious men to be found in the world, the men most ready to deprive each other of life, and act in the most merciless manner, were the American slaveholders.

Dr Candlish had said that a slaveholder must make out that he is such innocently, before he could be admitted into the Christian Church; but the American churches in no case went through that rigid examination, and he could assure them that such a case of innocent slaveholding never existed, and never would, while slavery existed. There was, therefore, no ground for the position assumed by the Free Churuch, which was one that sanctified slavery, and obstructed the progress of abolition.

Mr Garrison then adverted to the fact that free persons of colour, though British subjects, on landing in any of the southern states of America from a British vessel, were liable to be seized and imprisoned, and if by accident they were left in prison, they would be sold to pay their expenses and concluded by calling upon the people of Great Britain to protest against so unwarrantable an interference with the rights of British subjects.

Mr Douglass said he had to mention, in regard to the Free Church, that the deputation sent out to America, although they attempted to deny it, were met on their arrival in New York with remonstrances not to connect themselves with the slave churches of America; but they themselves paid no heed to the remonstrances. On the contrary, they held out their hand to the man stealers, and gladly took the gold wrung from the blood and sinews of the slave to build their churches. He would, therefore, have the people of Edinburgh to revive the old musical cry of ‘Send back the money;’ because he said the Free Church could be regarded as nothing else than a brotherhood of thieves, so long as they retained that money in their coffers. He trusted that the Anti-Slavery Society of Scotland would never let that church rest until she had sent back the stolen money that was in her coffers.

The Rev. Mr Kirk, seconded by the Rev. Mr Robertson (Independent), then moved three resolutions, the first of which deprecated the conduct of the Free Church for holding communion with the slave churches of America, and for retaining in its treasury the ‘price of pollution and blood’ obtained from that country; the second resolution condemned the cowardly subserviency of the Evangelical Alliance to the pro-slavery delegates of America; and the third resolution expressed a grateful sense of the exertions which Mr Lloyd Garrison and others had made for the extinction of the accursed system of slavery. These resolutions, on being put to the meeting, were unanimously agreed to; and the proceedings closed with Mr Douglass giving an outline of his controversy with Dr Smythe.

Edinburgh Evening Post, 30 September 1846


NOTES

  1. Andrew Paton to Edmund Quincy, Glasgow, 2 October 1846, reprinted in Liberator, 30 October 1846.
  2. William Lloyd Garrison to Richard D. Webb, Edinburgh, 30 September 1846, reprinted 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.
  3. For an analysis of South Carolina’s Negro Seamen Acts see Edlie Wong, Neither Fugitive Nor Free: Atlantic Slavery, Freedom Suits, and the Legal Culture of Travel (New York: New York University Press, 2009), pp. 183–239.
  4. Thomas Smyth, of the Second Presbyterian Church in Charleston, South Carolina, played a leading role in raising funds for the Free Church of Scotland, and visited Britain and Ireland in 1846. During his visit he repeated a rumour that Douglass had ‘been seen coming out of a Brothel in Manchester’. Douglass’ lawyers eventually forced a retraction. See Thomas Smyth, Autobiographical Notes, Letters and Reflections, ed. Louisa Cleves Stoney (Charleston: Walker, Evans & Cogswell Co., 1914), pp. 362–78. The rumour itself is specified in a letter from Douglass’s lawyers in Belfast dated 16 July 1846 (p. 372).  See Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2012), pp. 113–16. The affair is summarised in the Edinburgh Evening Post, 19 August 1846.

Edinburgh: 24 September 1846

Park Place, and Music Class-Room of the University. From J. B. Gillies, Edinburgh Past and Present (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1886), p. 146.

After their success in Paisley, Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison proceeded to Edinburgh. They were introduced to the committee of the Scottish Anti-Slavery Society at the home of its secretary, Rev. James Robertson, at 33 Gilmore Place.1 Today a plaque marks Douglass’ visit.  That evening they addressed the first of two meetings at Brighton Street Church.

Scotsman, 23 September 1846.

The last time Douglass was in Edinburgh, at the end of July, Robertson had persuaded him to serve as the Society’s agent. However, Douglass would soon head south and during August was involved in the formation of another abolitionist body, The Anti-Slavery League, which held its inaugural meeting in London. Both organisations were defunct within a year.

Of this first Edinburgh meeting, Garrison wrote:

The audience was considerably numerous, but not crowded, but will probably be much larger this evening. I gave a brief history of the American Anti-Slavery Society, and vindicated it and myself from the slanders which had been brought against it; and then proceeded to criminate and rebuke the Free Church, with special allusions to Chalmers, Candlish, and Cunningham. Frederick took up the Evangelical Alliance, and, as we say in America, ‘handled it without mittens.’ The applause was frequent and hearty, though there were a few serpents in the assembly who hissed. An invitation was given to any one to come forward, and defend either the Free Church of the Alliance, but no one ventured to enter the lists.2

For an overview of Douglass’s activities in Edinburgh during the year, see Spotlight: Edinburgh.


AMERICAN SLAVERY

On Thursday night, a public meeting was held in Brighton Street Church, to hear Mr L. Garrison and Mr F. Douglass on the position of the Free Church and the Evangelical Alliance, in reference to the question of Christian fellowship with slaveholders.

The chair was occupied  by Professor Dick. After the chairman had shortly addressed the meting, the Rev. James Robertson read a testimonial from the free coloured population of Boston in favour of Mr Garrison, expressing their confidence in him, their wishes for his success and prosperity in his present mission in this country, and commending him to the kind reception of George Thompson and other gentlemen in this country favourable to the abolition of American slavery.

The meeting was then addressed at great length by Mr Garrison. He vindicated the abolitionists from the grave charge brought against them by Dr Cunningham, of being disturbers of the public peace and instigators of the slaves to cut their masters’ throats. He traced the rise, progress, and disunion of the Anti-Slavery Society in America. He maintained that the Abolition party, to which he belonged, were the best friends of the slave, as was proved by the fact, that the slaves themselves looked up to them with entire confidence as their best benefactors. He referred to the charge of infidelity that had often been brought against the friends of immediate and complete abolition of slavery, and said he gloried in being regarded as an infidel in the sense in which it was thus applied, as the same charge had been preferred against good men in every age, and even against Christ himself. He lamented the somewhat altered tone of public opinion in respect to slavery, which was prevailing at present in this country, from what it was on his last visit. He attributed this to the conduct of a few leaders of the Free Church, whom he declared to be her enemies rather than her friends. He assailed the Free Church deputation for their unfaithfulness when in America, and declared, if the money which they then got from the slaveholders was not sent back, all the true friends of freedom would abandon her to her fate.

Mr F. DOUGLASS then addressed the meeting. He commented severely upon the conduct of the Evangelical Alliance, and said it had committed a grievous injury to the cause of slavery. He animadverted particularly upon the course pursued by such men as Dr Wardlaw, Dr Hinton, and Mr J. Angell James, in voting for the withdrawal of the whole question at the alliance.

Scotsman, 26 September 1846 ; reprinted in Caledonian Mercury, 28 September 1846


Notes

  1. James Robertson to Edmund Quincy, Glasgow, [2?] October 1846, reprinted in Liberator, 30 October 1846.
  2. William Lloyd Garrison to Richard D. Webb, Edinburgh, 25 September 1846, reprinted 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. 428.

Paisley: 23 September 1846

Site of Clark Halls, 1865, showing Wood Turner’s Shop. From Matthew Blair, The Paisley Thread Industry (Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1907), p. 39.

If William Lloyd Garrison’s impressions of Greenock were less than enthusiastic (‘I am told that it is sadly lacking in intellectual activity and moral life’), he was quick to signal a contrasting attitude to Paisley, where he and Douglass spoke the following evening. ‘On the whole, it surpassed every meeting I have witnessed on this side of the Atlantic,’ he wrote to Irish abolitionist Richard Webb. ‘Cheers for the Paisley weavers!’1 And in a dispatch to his own newspaper, the Liberator, he added: ‘I shall never forget it. Commend me to the weavers and other operatives in Paisley, for intelligence, sagacity, and appreciation of right sentiments.’2

Since Douglass’s last appearances in Scotland, he had attended the the inaugural meeting in London of the Evangelical Alliance, a new association that aspired to forge closer relations between the mainstream Protestant churches on both sides of the Atlantic. A proposal to exclude slaveholders from membership of the Alliance was hotly debated in August and, with no prospect of agreement between the two sides, a decision was postponed. Neither Douglass nor Garrison hardly had to labour the parallels between this and the campaign to persuade the Free Church of Scotlannd to cut its ties with American churches before their audience at the Secession Church on George Street.

For an overview of Frederick Douglass’ activities in Paisley during the year see: Spotlight: Paisley.


ANTI-SLAVERY LEAGUE

A crowded meeting of the inhabitants of Paisley took place on Wednesday evening last in the Rev. Mr. Cairns’s church, George-street, for the purpose of hearing Messrs. Wm. Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass on the subject of slavery.

On the motion of the Rev. PATRICK BREWSTER, George Caldwell, Esq. was called to the chair.

The CHAIRMAN in a few observations introduced

Mr. Wm. LLOYD GARRISON, who was received with great applause. He said, I shall have to throw myself on your indulgence to-night, because I stand before you physically exhausted by the labours I have been called to bear for the last few weeks. Unfortunately for myself, I have a severe cold, and I may say that I am likely not to be well heard. I am sure that under these circumstances you will give me a candid and patient hearing, and I shall try to tell you a little about American slavery, in which I am happy to know you take a deep interest, and about which you already know a good deal. When I remember how many meetings you have had on this subject, I am almost inclined to think that I might as well carry coals to Newcastle, as give you any additional information.

I know you are Scotsmen, and therefore not the friend of slavery. (Applause.) You are on the side of liberty, and it does not require much time on my part to convince you of the iniquity of slavery – (Cheers.) – that it ought not to be tolerated in any part of the wide world. (Great cheering.) But although this be the feeling of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, it is not the feeling of those who aspire to be the religious guides of the people, at least not without some exceptions. (Applause.)

[AMERICAN SLAVERY]

In the course of my remarks, if anything shall fall from my lips erroneous or unjust, any one who may detect my error will have an opportunity of making it manifest to this meeting. (Loud cheers.) We have no desire to advance any sentiments here that may not bear the test of investigation and will not square with truth, therefore we feel willing to be searched. I need only say, that slavery as it is found in a land making the highest pretensions to democracy, christianity, it must be supposed to surpass slavery in every other part of the world. (Applause.)

Our people in America think that the hope of the world depends on us. In regard to the civilization and evangelization of the world, America must pioneer the way. Yet with all their boastings, our people have doomed three millions of their brethren to slavery. They traffic in them with the same indifference as you would in any article of property. We are fairly therefore without excuse. We ought to be condemned by the friends of God, the friends of liberty, in all parts of the world, and any man who, on this side of the Atlantic, shall hunt up excuses to palliate such conduct, is a man who is fitted to be a slaveholder himself, without any principle within him, and if transported to America would become a slaveholder. (Cheers.)

The American people declare that God has made all men equal, and yet some of those who declare themselves to be the ambassadors of Christ in that land, are slaveholders, and christian ministers in this country will endeavour to find apologies for their conduct. (Cheers.)

It is time for you, people of Scotland, to see whether you are giving countenance to these men, whether you will have them as your religious teachers and guides, and whether you are yourselves involved in all the guilt of American slavery? (Continued cheering.) When I tell you that slavery makes man a thing of property, I tell you that all crimes have been committed in one act. Beyond the commission of the act it is impossible for man’s depravity to proceed. (Applause.)

The slaveholder is of all men the guiltiest, the farthest removed from the kingdom of God, and the last man in the world to be excused from a want of knowledge. The American slaveholders claim to be christians, but they deserve to be denounced as the enemies of God. (Cheers.) We are a christian people in America, yet if you go over to that country and endeavour to give bibles to the three millions of slaves, you do so at the peril of your lives. Those who deny them bibles are the men who erect many churches, support all the ordinances of religion, and seem to be very divine men. (Laughter.) Is it not simply a pretence? He who will prohibit the circulation of the bible in any corner of the world, is a man who does not care for men’s souls. (Applause.)

Slavery in our country does something more than degrade a man – something more than make people poor – something more than take away civil and political rights – something more than put the lash into the flesh of its victim – something more than withhold the bible as a book to be read – something more than put women and children on the auction-block to be sold to the highest bidder, because these are only some of the atrocities of the system. Never hear it as a single crime spoken of – never consider it injustice, cruelty of itself, but combined with a thousand other things, which we have not time to enumerate.

I have been told on this side of the Atlantic, that the neighbouring people of England are in a bad condition. Is that a reason why American slavery should not be assailed? It is a reason that the labouring class should have their rights, but it is no reason that a warning voice should not be lifted up against American slavery. (Great cheering.) I know the working-classes in this country are depressed – their cause commends itself to every friend of humanity. I desire that all men may be thought of – that wherever oppression may exist it should be denounced and execrated. I desire to give my sympathies to all, and the working men of this country need not unnecessarily degrade themselves to get sympathy, I want them to see that until American slavery is overthrown, there is no hope of their own redemption. I appeal to them, and to those who advocate their cause, if it not be said that American slavery is the legitimate product of American republicanism. Working-men, wherever you are, remember that slavery is the product of despotism, is despotism, and, therefore, has nothing to do with republicanism. (Great applause.)

The Americans hold the truth to be self-evident that all men are born equal – are endowed, not by man, not by Parliament – not by the throne, but by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights, and among others, life, liberty, and the means of attaining happiness. That is republicanism – you can make slavery out of it if you please. (Tremendous cheering.) It is liberty. (Renewed cheering.) It is an impeachment of the common sense of the country, to say that the existence of slavery is consistent with this. (Applause.)

I do not despair of America – I anticipate that the song of jubilee may ere long be sung over the grave of slavery. I have been struck with the incredulity of many persons in regard to the peculiar features of slavery. Many have said it is too bad to be believed. What! Human beings lacerated, irons put into their flesh – torment of this kind without any chance of redress? These things are too bad to be believed, yet there is one thing they  believe – that the slave is property. If men have property, they may do with it as they please. Men use their property as they think proper. Why should a man enter into contracts with slaves? Does a man go out into his fields and say he desires to make a bargain with his horse? Of course not. (Cheers and laughter.) Poor as a poor man may be, he can say whether he will work or not. He can say I work, or I wont work. That is something which he has left. Better far to sink in freedom than live in slavery. (Great applause.)

A slave has no dear wife, no beloved children. Why, if even starvation look in at a working man’s door,  he has the affections of his family, and  may not be broken in upon by the proudest peer of the realm. There is no law here prohibiting the people from reading and discussing matters. I know the people of Paisley would not submit to it. (Cheers.) Oh! if I had never seen any of the cruelties of slavery! With my own choice, one fact alone would have sufficed me in regard to the enormities of that terrible system. Let me know this, that there are in slavery three millions of people from whom there never comes a voice, who cannot tell of their own condition. Although they are said to be happy, and not to desire liberty, you could not take them away from their masters. The slaves never meet, they have no newspaper, no advocates on the spot. They may not think even, if their masters shall know what they are thinking. The system which produces this is a most atrocious one. It must be a system that can bear comparison with no other. It is not of God, it has come from the bottomless pit, and into which we ought to precipitate it as speedily as possible. (Tremendous cheering.)

With regard to marriage, that sacred institution without which our earth would be a wilderness – the marriage institution, given by God to save and perpetuate the race – only think of it being put down at a blow, and see as large a population as that of Scotland compelled to herd together as beasts. (Shame.) It is enough to make heaven stand aghast. But ‘you must not say that slavery under all circumstances is a sin.’ All I say is, that property don’t need to be married. No man thinks of uniting his shovel and tongs in matrimony. (Laughter.)

I feel greatly impressed on this occasion, because the time is so brief, and I am extremely anxious, as I know you are, to hear my friend, to hear him who can plead the cause of the slaver better than any one either on this or on the other side of the Atlantic. (Pointing to Mr. Douglass he said) – I mean that man. (Tremendous cheers.)

I will not say that there not other men as eloquent as himself, but this I will say, that he has been a slave. The lash has been put round his body. The marks of that lash are still on his body. No man may plead for the slave like the slave. No man may reveal the horrors of that prison-house like the man who has gone through them all. (Great applause.)

There are various points on which I wish to say a few words. I have come over to endeavour to beat up for recruits in the cause of emancipation. I wish to present one of its aspects to you, which will convince you, if nothing else will, that you must move as one man for the immediate overthrow of slavery, if you will be true to yourselves and your country. I wish people here to understand that American slavery does not assume the soil of American territory only – it claims to give laws to all nations.

[AMERICAN SLAVERY AND BRITISH SUBJECTS]

I mean to leave no assembly in this country uninformed on this particular topic. By the slave law a coloured person coming to America will be at once seized and thrust into prison, and detained until the vessel in which he came has sailed and gone to its own country. Those who have been imprisoned must pay for their imprisonment. I will make a supposition. You have emancipated the slaves in the West India islands. These men are growing in enterprise and industry. Well, suppose a vessel is manned with coloured men. They sail from Kingston, or Jamaica. They go to Havannah, or any other of the southern ports. What would be done as soon as they arrived and cast anchor in the harbour? The harbour-master would come on board. He would take them ashore, thrust them into prison, and there they would be compelled to remain and await the sailing of the ship, when they would have to pay for their imprisonment, and be obliged to go back as fast as the winds could carry them. If they did not pay they would be brought to the American auction block and there sold into American slavery. (Shame, shame.) You are bound to call upon parliament and the throne to protect every British subject, for the government which does not protect the people has no right to exact allegiance from the people. (Applause.)

We have  a treaty of amity between the two countries. Now, British subjects, if of a certain complexion, instead of being protected, are seized as criminals of the worst kind, and under the circumstances to which I have alluded, are sold into slavery. I want to know if you make any distinction among yourselves. Is not

‘A man a man for a’ that?’ (Cheers.)3

A British subject is a British subject, and as good as a British Queen. See your Queen upon the auction block. How does she look – an excellent wench in good condition – (laughter) – sound – (laughter) – a hundred dollars is offered – now, just look at her – two hundred, three hundred, three hundred and fifty – it’s a bargain – she’s gone. (Laughter.)

Rise up as one man and call on Government – ask why it is that Government does not protest against such laws? Why has parliament not moved in the matter? One thing slavery will do, she will never allow England to interfere with her imperious mandates and bloody decrees.

[THE FREE CHURCH AND AMERICAN SLAVERY]

I need not tell you of the conduct of the Free Church in regard to this matter of American slavery. (Cheers.) You know how the delegates were sent over from the Free Church – how they were met so kindly at New York and admonished not to go to the slaveholding States. They were met in a spirit of brotherly kindness and christian love, yet these men would go and did go to to the slaveholding States. (Cheers.) They went there not to prove themselves to be the true ambassadors of Christ by denouncing slavery, but to give the right hand of christian fellowship to men-stealers. (Great applause.) They got some money – not a great deal. (Laughter.) They that steal from others don’t give a great deal. (Cheers and laughter.) They knew what the bargain was, and they said, if you will scratch our backs, we will tickle your elbows. (Laughter.) If you will vindicate the slaveholder, in the name of the Lord we will give you some of our money. (Cheers.)

It was a sickening spectacle to behold. I have no desire to go into personalities with regard to the men connected with the Free Church. I have never seen them, but since I found myself an abolitionist, I have resolved never to be respecter of persons. Never will any party cause me to swerve from the straight line of eternal justice.

In the course of my experience I have found many things standing in the way. I was once a warm political party man. I thought the destinies of the world depended on our party. I did not know what I would be called on to part with. I knew that the equality of man was from above – that the doctrine of liberty was divine doctrine, and that whatever should come in the way of it could not be of God. Well, I have found this party in the way – they would not go out of it, and I had no more to do with it. I found the religious body with which I was connected in the way. It would not take up the cause of the slaver. I therefore declared it an unchristian body. (Cheers.)

I stand here to arraign the Free Church simply on the ground of its being a pro-slavery church. Its position is one of the deepest criminality before God – (cheers) – is one that is causing the hearts of the slaves to sink within them – is one which is weakening the hands of the abolitionists in America.

Why did they do this? They did not say that slavery was a good thing. The slaveholder did not say so. (Cheers.) Slavery, they say, is not under all circumstances sinful. There are some cases of christian slaveholding. They might sin economically.  God has empowered us to sin economically – we can do so with less extravagance. (Continued cheering.)

The laws compel no man to assume the character of a slaveholder. Do not be beguiled by the foolish sophistry of men who are too proud to retract. The slaveholder is a slaveholder – always the same thing, never another thing. The eagle is, under all circumstances, an eagle, and never a dolphin; a dolphin is never a whale, or a shark, and slavery is slavery. (Great applause.)

The laws stand in the way of benevolent men giving their slaves their liberty. These laws are either righteous laws or they are not. If they are righteous, they ought to be obeyed – if unrighteous, I ask if they ought to be obeyed? (Applause.) By obeying  an unrighteous law, are we not acting an unrighteous part? And may we not be told that men may innocently be unrighteous? This is the doctrine of Dr. Candlish and Dr. Cunningham, and that kind of cunning of which it is declared they shall be caught in their own craftiness.

Every man knows that slavery is a crime – every man who enslaves another is a villain, and any man who apologises for one who enslaves another is a villain. None the less for that. (Cheers.) He may be an ordained villain – all the worse for that. (Cheers.) He may be a divine villain, but his divinity never came from God. (Great applause.) This is not hard language, or personal language. If your fathers, mothers, brothers, or sisters, who are endeared to you by the most sacred ties, were enslaved, you could not call the person who did so anything but a villain, and he who apologises for such a character could be a villain. (Great cheering.) Let us be like God – no respecters of persons – then will our vision be clearedLet us remember those in bonds as bound with them. (Cheers.)

If I get you to realize their condition, then I have no fear in regard to the verdict you will render in regard to my views of slavery. You have set us a very bad example by saying that, slaveholding is not sinful under all circumstances. We have been imitating your example – we have admired your Wilberforce – and are we to be held up reproachfully for doing what you told us? (Cheers.) Does the Free Church repent of her sins? Is she willing to acknowledge that she has been in the wrong?

If that church would acknowledge the wrong that it has done, it would be an example of humility for all. God would smile on it. It would not be deemed anything derogatory to its character. (Cheers.)

Let us see that the subject is fully discussed. The facts are beyond dispute. What is the position of the Free Church? (Mr. Garrison here read a passage from a speech of Dr. Candlish, in which he maintained the propriety of holding communion with the American slaveholding churches, and said, that the Free Church of Scotland had many things to learn from these churches.)

Here then, said Mr. Garrison, we have them glorying in acts that have been done. The connection is good. It has come about through the providence of God. It is that the Free Church may get new graces from the churches of America that the connection is maintained. Is it a church of Christ where half a million of slaves are  held by church members, denied the marriage institution, and, in other respects, treated as brutes? Slavery is a bible instititution – it is doing a benefit for the Free Church, therefore, it is not to cease between the parties. So much for Dr. Candlish. (Cheers.)

Mr. Garrison then read a passage from an Edinburgh Free church paper, stating, that so far from the Free Church people being with these agitators (alluding to Mr. Douglass and his coadjutors) they held them in detestation and scorn, and Dr. Cunningham, the special object of their attacks, was received with enthusiasm everywhere, and so far  from large numbers leaving the Free Church, they had not heard of two individuals who had done so.

Mr. Garrison proceeded. He said, that must either be a true or a false witness. I do not believe that the Free Church people are as they are represented. It would, however, go over to America, and they would rejoice in it. The slaveholders would be inspired by it. (Cheers.) Members of the Free Church who are here, do you not know the charge of our Lord? It is, ‘Come out from her, my people.’ Come out, organise, and go for liberty in the name of Christ. (Cheers.) What, although all your seeming prosperity should come to a stand? Come out and you will prosper, and your example will not be lost. In its own nature slavery could not be justified. The call of Christ, hitherto, on us, is to advance. It is a true doctrine which does not leave slavery in existence at all (Cheers) – and all I have to lament is, that the Free Church does not now act upon the doctrine.

If any of their delegates had dared to utter such doctrine where they got that money they have not yet sent back – (Cheers.) – they would have got, instead of the dollars, tarred and feathered. (Cheers and laughter.) They would have been driven out of the slave states in disgrace. (Cheers.) They love the praise of men more than the praise of God. Let  us, endeavour to bring them to repentance. The worst thing we can do for the Free Church is to allow them to go on as they are doing. He who wants to make that church an object of reproach and scorn, will be careful not to call on them to SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Cheers.) He who wishes to see it prosperous will be anxious to have it sent back. I wish I could take it with me. It would be a day of jubilee on our side with those who are endeavouring to overthrow slavery. I can anticipate the feelings of those ferocious men of the south on seeing it go back. I can anticipate the hissings of the serpent as it passes. I am afraid that it will never go back. It is not often that the chief priests repent. (Cheers and laughter.) Let us all be priests unto the Lord and the money will go back. (Great applause.) If we are the priests of Baal, of course it wont.

[THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE]

The people of America are looking over to this country with anxiety – the friends of freedom hoping and praying that the right thing may be done, and the slaveholders fearing that the right thing may be done. It was not until after the step was taken that they commenced to hunt up apologies for slavery.

A body of men, calling themselves the Evangelical Alliance, claiming to be divinely sent of the Lord, came over to London, making the highest pretensions to religion, and too good to have others with them, such as the Quakers, or the Plymouth brethren. They could only have Evangelical men. (Laughter.)

There could be no doubt as to what was the result when the subject of slavery came before that body. So long as they kept from discussing the subject, how much they loved each other. It was all in the abstract. The moment the dispute arose they divided, and went to pieces, and now the Alliance does not exist. What destroyed it? American slavery destroyed it.

I say once for all that the love of God could not animate that body, because they had no bowels of compassion. We must put down the influence, growing out of your alliance, and endeavour to give a right direction to the truth in regard to slavery. Let us resolve that we will not take the hand of the slaveholder as a christian brother. We will acknowledge the slave as our brother, and God will own us as his children. (Applause.) We are called infidels – I go for the religion of peace and God, for that  religion which never forged a fetter. If this be infidelity I must glory in it. (Cheers.)

I must thank you for your kind attention. I have only to ask your sympathy for the American abolitionists. Let me assure you that they are a most remarkable body of men and women, as remarkable as can be found in the world. They are those who have been tried in the fire – those whom you ought to admire, and to whom you ought to give the right hand of fellowship. Let us pray for the freedom of the slave. It is coming, it is coming.

Then let us pray that come it may,
As come it will for a’ that –
That sense and worth o’er a’ the earth
May bear the gree and a’ that.
For a’ that and a’ that,
It’s coming yet for a’ that –
That man to man the to man the warld o’er,
Shall brothers be for a’ that.4

(Great applause.)

Mr. FREDERICK DOUGLASS then came forward, amidst tremendous cheering, which lasted for several minutes. He said – Ladies and Gentlemen – I am very glad I came to Paisley  – (Cheers) – glad to be in Scotland.

You know my object – I have been here before. Since I addressed an audience here last, the question of slavery has assumed not a new form, but some additional points have been started. The Evangelical Alliance has held its sittings in the city of London – and the  General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland has held its meetings at Cannonmills in Edinburgh. There were remarks made and speeches delivered, to which I will draw your attention for the short time I am to address you.

[THE FREE CHURCH ASSEMBLY]

I heard at the Free Church Assembly speeches delivered by Duncan, Cunningham, and Candlish, and I never heard, in all my life, speeches better calculated to uphold and sustain that bloody system of wrong. (Cheers.)

I heard sentiments such as these from Dr. Candlish – that christians would be quite justified in sitting down with a slaveholder at a communion table – with men who have a right, by the law of the land, to kill their slaves. That sentiment, as it dropped from the lips of Dr. Candlish, was received by three thousand people with shouts of applause. I heard other sentiments equally objectionable to this. Every imaginable excuse for slaveholding was brought forward by these men eminent for their learning – men who claim to be the heaven-appointed instruments for the removal of all sin. I heard these men  standing up there, appealing to the sympathies of those who heard them, to remember the slaveholder, and not one rose who spoke of remembering those in bonds as bound with them. (Great cheering.) They were called on to look on the difficulties in which the slaveholder was placed. Their manacled bondmen were not thought of for a single moment, but like the Levite of old, they passed by on the other side. (Applause.) They had struck hands with the slaveholder in christian fellowship. They would not listen to the voice of Scotland demanding, in tones which could not be mistaken – SEND BACK THE MONEY. (Applause.)

Dr. Duncan, for instance, who, some two years ago, stood faithfully by the cause of emancipation, stood up at Edinburgh and asked, ‘Shall every Free Church have a slave  stone? Have we separated ourselves from our moderate brethren to strike hands with man-stealers? As for himself he could not eat a common meal with them, for he said it would choke him.’ But the Doctor has had his organs expanded. (Cheers and laughter.) Now he can not only sit down at a common meal, but sit down at the Lord’s table with the slaveholders of America. (Cheers.)

But they are not slaveholders. He has coined a new name – he calls them slave-havers. Oh! what delight flashed through the whole assembly when the discovery was made. (Applause.) Were I a slavehaver? Candlish smiled, so did Cunningham, and all the younkers of the Free Church opened their mouths. (Laughter and cheers.) I won’t ask Dr. Duncan what has changed his heart, but what has changed his stomach? (Laughter.)

He could dare to ridicule the only true anti-slavery man among them, who was Mr. M’Beth.5 (Cheers.) He brought in a proposition to SEND BACK THE MONEY and  dissolve the fellowship existing between the Free Church and the slaveholders of America. He did not even get a seconder. He was ridiculed. Dr. Candlish ridiculed him – Dr. Cunningham spoke contemptuously of him – Dr. Duncan said he was ashamed of the arguments he used.

Dr. Cunningham was the lion of the occasion. He was the only man in the Assembly who put forward anything like an argument. Hence, he was considered as the able man. He maintained that slaveholding was not necessarily sinful. Mr. M’Beth took the ground that it was sinful. Cunningham took the ground that it was not sinful in itself, and he would undertake to prove that the relation of master and slave might exist and not be sinful. My eyes were fixed on him. I thought he resembled me somewhat. (Cheers and laughter.) I thought I was almost as good looking as he – (Laughter) – I was anxious to hear what this man, apparently coloured, would say – I don’t mean any disrespect to him. (Cheers.) I wanted to hear what he could say in defence of slaveholding not being necessarily sinful. (Continued cheering.)

Suppose, said he, that on the first of January net Parliament were to pass a law by which the domestics in every family should become the slaves of their employers. Suppose it received the Royal sanction. (Loud cheers.) I should in that case become a slaveholder by no act of my own, and he asked in triumph, would I in such a case be a sinner? That was his argument; and again the younkers clapped their hands and shouted aloud, and looked at me as I sat in the General Assembly. (Great applause.) We have got out of this point nicely. (Laughter.) Dr. Cunningham has proved this point nicely. (Cheers and laughter.) The question arises – who makes the laws? The slaveholder is the interested person, and the law-maker in America, and all this talk about the slaveholder being compelled to hold the slaves.

Let us examine a little further this supposition of Dr. Cunningham. Let us apply it to concubinage, if you please. Let us suppose that the law should make all domestics the concubines of their employers – that he would be bound to sustain the relation, would Dr. Cunningham do it? I consider there is nothing in his speech which leaves me to believe that he would not. (Great cheering.) I know he would not sustain the relation, because he believes it to be wrong, and that it would not be sanctioned by the morality of the religious sentiment of Scotland for a moment. (Applause.)

Is slavery less sinful than concubinage? A million and a half of women are subject to the entire control of brutal slaveholders, and dare not commit any violence in vindication of their own chastity, or they may be struck dead on the spot. Suppose a law of the land declared all domestics the slaves of their employers, I dare Dr. Cunningham to say he could be justified in being a slaveholder. Conscious of his difficulty he said, at the end of his supposition, ‘if I treated them as I treated them before.’ His argument means nothing. (Cheers.) If he is to give men freedom of action, education, and treat them in every way as brethren, then he is not a slaveholder. Dr. Cunningham meant that his argument might sustain something more. (Applause.)

Mr. GARRISON, interrupting Mr. Douglass, read a declaration of Dr. Candlish on this point, and showed the audience what meaning it bore by substituting the words ‘robber and robbery’ for ‘slaveholder and slaveholding.’

Mr. DOUGLASS resumed – I was going on to illustrate the argument of Dr. Cunningham. Suppose that it referred to idolatry instead of slavery. Suppose that Parliament enact a law that at the sound of a certain instrument, they should fall down and worship a golden image, and that that law should receive the royal sanction, would he fall down and worship that image? He would not.

Why does he do otherwise with this compendium of all crimes – American slavery? (Cheers.) I tell you why he does it. He’s got the bawbees. (Loud and long-continued cheering.)

Dr. Cunningham published a book – at least it is his, so far as this country is concerned – and in that book, he says, Is there not some chosen curse, some hidden thunder in the stars of heaven ready to blast him who gains his fortune by the blood of slaves? He goes on to say – How are we to get rid of this system? Every slaveholder ought to be excluded from christian communion. What has changed him? Contact with his American brethren. What is the value of that contact? The getting of money was his only object. (Applause.)

He went there to get money, and as a condition of getting it, he pledged himself to be silent with reference to this great sin. (Great applause.) He went to the Southern States – was taken by the hand by such evangelical man-stealers as Dr. Smyth.6 He was there welcomed to their pulpits and their hospitality. He ate of their bread, received of their money, and brought it to Scotland. He put it into the sustenation fund. He got it that he might make out a good character for the slaveholder. Scotland is indignant at this outrage on her name. (Loud cheers.) She feels that her soil should be stained by a single church built up by robbery and wrong. (Applause.)

The Free Church is built up by robbery and wrong – (Loud and long continued cheering) – and I am here to tell the Free Church people that we are not to be silenced, or compelled to leave the country by their dogged adherence to fellowship with the slaveholders of America. (Great cheering.) We are not to be confused and confounded by their adherence to the slaveholder. We will take counsel together, and gather strength to expose them, until they shall be divided among themselves, or divided from the slaveholder. If they continue to harden their hearts and stiffen their necks, we shall continue to persevere in exposing their wickedness to the world. (Great applause.)

I do not intend to lose a single opportunity in exposing the guilty portion of that church. (Cheers.) When I was here before I made certain charges against them. I wish to repeat them again, and again, and again, until they become family or household words. The Free Church went to the United States in the name of freedom, to injure the cause of the slaves in their own country. They never raised a whisper in condemnation of the traffic, or one word of sympathy for the poor bondman. (Cheers.) They united in christian fellowship with the slaveholder – spread around him the sanctification of christianity – told him they had many things to learn of them – that the Scottish religionists would do well to take a lesson from them. (Cheers.)

Friends, these charges shall be rung from one end of Scotland to another, if there be any shame left in her. (Cheers.) I believe she is beyond shame. Why do they dare to stand up in Scotland to advocate this union? Your own liberties are in danger – the liberty of your own children is in danger. (Loud cheers.) For men who can defend those who embrace three millions of their fellow-creatures, would even reduce to slavery those who tread your own soil. He who steals a black man will steal a white man, and he who steals a white man will steal a black man. (Applause.)

I look upon the slaveholders as being dastardly, infernal, in their character, but I consider the Free Church incomparably worse, for what they have done is with less temptation. Their crime is greater then [sic] even that of the slaveholders themselves. (Loud cheers.) They have taken the ground that deliberate slavery is not in itself sinful. This is awful ground, which they never would have taken but for their contact with the slaveholders. I hope you will not allow this matter to stop with this meeting. I hope you mean what you look to mean – that you are now in earnest that no slaveholders’ apologists shall be allowed to tread the soil of Scotland unattacked – and while there is a single individual left in Scotland who will dare to lift his voice in favour of the American slaveholder, he will not be allowed to go without your rebuke. (Cheers.)

[JOHN MACNAUGHTAN]

The Free Church, it appears, considers that Scotland might be reduced to slavery on christian grounds. They won’t deny it. Even brother Macnaughtan won’t.7 (Laughter.) He may do it probably while I am not in town. He went off to Newcastle to meet me when I was at Edinburgh. (Laughter.)

We did not know. We heard of him replying at Newcastle to the speeches made in the Music Hall, Edinburgh. (Great laughter.) We were not worth his notice here. He showed off, however, to great advantage there. (Cheers and laughter.)

The friends of the cause sent for me to come and see what I could do in reply to brother Macnaughtan, who has called me a poor, miserable, fugitive slave. How kind he must feel to a fugitive slave. How delighted he must be with the thought that a human being has got his liberty. (Laughter.) He does not rejoice, for a very good reason. He is with the slaveholders, and not with the slave. Being with them, he cannot be with the slave. (Cheers.)

Why brother Macnaughtan. (Great laughter.) Why, he is my brother. (Laughter.) You look as if I were claiming an unnatural connection. I tell you candidly Mr. Macnaughtan is my brother, and yet Mr. Macnaughtan would strike hands with men who would reduce his brother to slavery. Is it not strange – passing strange – unnatural for a brother to strike hands in christian fellowship with men who would reduce his own brother to slavery. (Great applause.) True, yet Mr. Macnaughtan is my brother. (Laughter.)

Brother Macnaughtan went to Newcastle-on-Tyne, and there poured out his vials of wrath on the head of George Thompson, Henry C. Wright, and last on the head of his brother Frederick Douglass. (Applause and laughter.) He was said to have replied most successfully to the arguments we used at Edinburgh, and the newspaper came out and characterised his address as being a brilliant vindication of the truth, and a successful reply to the arguments at Edinburgh. (Laughter.) Brother don’t always like to meet brother. He passed me through Edinburgh, and was very successful at Newcastle-on-Tyne. (Cheers.)

I wish he would come out here, where he is best known and best beloved. (Laughter.) Where he is best known he would be most likely to get an impartial hearing, because every one knows his good qualities, and would be willing to hear what he has got to say. (Cheers and laughter.) I have made these remarks because Mr. Macnaughtan has made very free with me elsewhere. He characterised me as a poor miserable fugitive slave at the time he was pocketing the money wrung from the souls of my own brethren in slavery. (Applause.) He denounces me for my ignorance. I say such a man is not worthy to be called a christian minister, when he can speak thus of brethren deprived of their privileges. (Cheers.)

I have one other remark to make. It relates to the sending of bibles to America. Let a subscription be raised, a vessel full of bibles be despatched to the slave population of the United States, together with missionaries to teach them to read these bibles. So soon as the ship appeared on the coast, the Americans would shoulder their weapons of war, and they would beat off the bibles or else destroy them. I can tell you, however, who would receive them. You might carry them to Hindostan and circulate them there; you cannot circulate them among the slaveholders; you cannot circulate them among Duncan Cunningham and Candlish christians, but you may go into the very presence of Juggernaut. The slaveholder is worse than the deluded worshippers of Juggernaut, for while they disown Juggernaut they hug slavery to their communion. (Cheers.)

I have to express my gratitude to you for your willingness to hear. I shall, wherever I go, remember the reception Paisley has given me. I have many kind friends, who are earnest for the overthrow of slavery, in this good town. (Applause.) Let us all unite in saying to the Free Church, SEND BACK THE MONEY.

Mr Douglass craved the Company to unite with him in three shouts SEND BACK THE MONEY, which having been done, he sat down amidst great applause.

Rev. PATRICK BREWSTER, who was received with loud cheering, said he wished to know if any one had a resolution to propose to the meeting; because if not, he had one to propose. (No one coming forward, he proceeded.) He thought they should adopt a resolution condemnatory of the conduct of the Free Church, and the Evangelical Alliance. He need not assure them that he was no enemy to the Free Church. He had attended to the cool argument and towering sentiment of truth and fact which Lloyd Garrison had laid before them, and to the inspiriting argument they had heard from the speech of Frederick Douglass, a speech which it would tax more than the eloquence of Johnny Macnaughtan, Cunningham, or Candlish to answer. (Great applause.)

They would all agree with him that they ought to condemn that church when it did wrong, such wrong as it had that night been charged with, and had been proved against it. He was sorry that the Free Church, which contained some of the most valued friends and relatives he had in the world, should be guilty in this respect. He was sorry, also, that the Evangelical Alliance should have fallen into the snare laid for them by their brethren in America. (Applause.) The Free Church had been charging other churches with robbery, and considered they were oppressed, while they themselves were guilty of the worst crime of the man-stealer; for he held that robbery on the public highway was not so criminal as man-stealing, which concentrated all crimes in one act. (Loud and continued cheering.)  Was the Free Church guilty of this crime? He had no more doubt that the Free Church was guilty in abetting man-stealing, guilty of the act of man-stealing, than he had that he is a murderer who stood by and saw the murder committed without offering to prevent it. (Great applause.) The Free Church, so long as she maintained her present position, was guilty of man-stealing. (Cheers.)

He agreed with Mr. Garrison, that the worst enemy of the Free Church, was the man who would allow her to sleep in her iniquity. (Cheers) He concluded a speech of considerable length and ability, by proposing the following resolution for the adoption of the meeting:– ‘That this meeting express their strong and just condemnation of the course taken by the Free Church and Evangelical Alliance in regard to American slavery; that it is the opinion of this meeting that a church commencing its separate state, and a religious alliance commencing its proceedings, with an act involving the fearful guilt of man-stealing, do not deserve, and cannot expect, the blessing of God,” (Great applause.)

Rev. C. J. KENNEDY said it was with great pain he rose to express his general concurrence with what had been said, both in reference to the Free Church, and the Evangelical Alliance. (Cheers.) He had taken the first opportunity of warning the Free Church before the money was in the treasury. He had rejoiced, to a certain extent, at the position they had assumed. In many things they had done well, but they had joined hands with the slaveholders or havers, who denied the command of Christ to preach the gospel to every creature. (Cheers.) In reference to the Evangelical Alliance, he thought it was the part of Christians to show that they did not entertain the same sentiments. That Alliance seemed to have been overcome by feeling. (Mr Kennedy then went on to review the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance, and concluded a very able speech, by suggesting a modification of the terms of Mr. Brewster’s motion. To this Mr. Brewster did not agree, and Mr. Kennedy moved the folowing as an amendment, being the first part of Mr. Brewster’s motion) – ‘That this meeting express their strong and just condemnation of the course taken by the Free Church and Evangelical Alliance, in regard to American slavery.’

A person to the right of the pulpit was understood to ask if Mr. Brewster was willing to give back the quoad sacra churches. (Confusion.)

Several persons objected to the introduction of such a question.

Mr. BREWSTER allowed that the question was perfectly fair, and he was anxious to answer it. They might bring Mr. Macnaughtan – they might bring the best men of their church, and he would answer them. (Great applause.) He would gladly avail himself of the present opportunity, but he did not expect that this meeting would give him three hours. Give him the opportunity, and he would be bound to say they would be met, aye, and answered too. (Great applause.)

Some little amusement was created at this stage of the proceedings, by a young man with a white hat, who, after adjusting his vest and watch-guard, proceeded up the pulpit stair, and brandishing his fist, looked unutterable things at Mr. Brewster. We understood him to be on the subject of the quoad sacra churches, but the only words which reached our ears were ‘speeches we published.’ He was eventually pulled down by the coat-tails by some persons near.

An individual in the body of the meeting asked them to point out the church that had done more than the Free Church for the abolition of slavery. (Great laughter.)

Mr. BREWSTER said that Mr. Kennedy’s speech was very much to his mind, with the exception of that part where he condemned the use of strong language. He thought that in speaking of such crimes as mean-stealing they ought to be guided by their friends. They ought to use strong language. None of the motions having been seconded, Mr. Brewster asked if any person seconded his motion. (Cries of I second it, I second it.)

It was then asked if any one seconded Mr. Kennedy’s amendment. (Cries of no, no.) The individual to the right of the pulpit rose and said, he seconded Mr. Kennedy’s amendment.

Mr. BREWSTER – Yes, the Free Churchman seconds it.

The same person then rose and stated, that had some other person than Mr. Brewster proposed the resolution he might have agreed to it. He was proceeding to speak of the quoad sacra churches again, when he was met by a storm of hisses and cries of SEND BACK THE MONEY.

The amendment and motion were then severally put to the vote, when seven voted for Mr. Kennedy’s amendment. A forest of hands were held up in favour of Mr. Brewster’s motion, which was declared carried amidst tremendous cheering, which lasted several minutes.

When the cheering had subsided, Mr. Garrison came forward and observed, that he had come to the conclusion that they were a remarkable body of people. He felt that they were friends of free discussion. (Cheers.)

A vote of thanks to the Chairman, Messrs. Douglass and Garrison, and the managers of the church, closed the proceedings.

Renfrewshire Advertiser, 26 September 1846.


NOTES

  1. William Lloyd Garrison to Richard Davis Webb, Edinburgh, 25 September 1846, reprinted 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. 428.
  2. William Lloyd Garrison to Liberator, Belfast, 3 October 1846; Liberator 30 October 1846, reprinted 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. 433.
  3. Robert Burns, ‘For A’ That and A’ That’, in James Currie, ed. The Complete Works of Robert Burns (Halifax: William Milner, 1845), Vol 2, pp. 230–1. Douglass had quoted the line in a letter to Garrison earlier in the year: see Frederick Douglass to William Lloyd Garrison, London, 23 May 1846, reprinted inThe Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Three: Correspondence, Volume 1: 1842–52, edited by John R. McKivigan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 132.
  4. Robert Burns, ‘For A’ That.’
  5. James MacBeth was one of the leading critics within the Free Church of its position on slavery. After the Free Church Assembly in 1846 he and Michael Willis formed the Free Church Anti-Slavery Society.
  6. Rev Dr Thomas Smyth, of the Second Presbyterian Church in Charleston, was responsible for raising much of the money donated to the Free Church in the American South. In letters to Thomas Chalmers he expressed frustration on hearing mild abolitionist statements from some Free Church leaders, concerned of ‘the possibility of having our gifts reciprocated by anathema and abuse.’ See Alasdair Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846: Living an Antislavery Life (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018), pp. 66-7.
  7. Rev. John MacNaughtan was the Free Church minister at Paisley’s High Church, Orr Square). Douglass had taken him to task on previous occasions, notably in Paisley on 25 April and in Edinburgh on 1 May. As Douglass goes on to observe here, MacNaughtan renewed his defence of the Free Church position in a speech at the Music Hall in Newcastle on 7 July (reported in the Newcastle Guardian, 11 July 1846), which prompted critical comment in subsequent issues of the paper, some of them, no doubt, inspired by Douglass’ own response to MacNaughtan in his speech in Newcastle on 3 August (reported in the Guardian, 8 August 1846).

 

 

Edinburgh: 31 July 1846

Old Parliament House, Edinburgh
Old Parliament House. From J. B. Gillies, Edinburgh Past and Present (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1886), p. 132.

Frederick Douglass spent most of July in Belfast, where he attended the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland.. On his previous visit there he had lent his support to Rev. Isaac Nelson, who was hoping to persuade the Church to sever ties with its counterparts in the United States. While Nelson’s motion was watered down, the Assembly was much more forthright in its criticisms of the American churches than the Free Church of Scotland.

Another delegate was Thomas Chalmers‘s friend  Rev Dr Thomas Smyth, of the Second Presbyterian Church in Charleston, returning to his home town. Smyth was responsible for raising much of the money donated to the Free Church in the American South. During his 1846 visit to Britain and Ireland, Smyth had incautiously repeated a rumour that Douglass had visited a brothel in Manchester. While letters flew back and forth between their lawyers, Douglass was pleased to note that Smyth was asked to exclude himself from the General Assembly’s proceedings.  Smyth subsequently withdrew his libellous claim, although the affair clearly unsettled Douglass, who blamed ‘the foul slanders of this Revd. Manstealer’ for some ill-chosen remarks of his own  in a letter to his friend in Cork, Isabel Jennings.1

Some time during the last week of the month, Douglass must have sailed to Ardrossan and taken the train to Glasgow and then to Edinburgh. On Thursday 30 July he wrote, not for the first time, of his admiration of the city:

You will perceive that I am now in Edingburgh[.] It is the capital of Scotland – and is justly regarded as one of the most beatuful cities in Urope. I never saw one with which for beauty elegance and grandeur to compare it. I have no time even had I the ability to describe it. You must come and see it if you ever visit this country. You will be delighted with it I am sure. The Monument to Sir Walter Scott – on princes street, is one conglomeration of architectural beauties. The Calton Hill – Salsbury Craggs and Arthur Seat give the city advantages over any City I have ever visited in this or in your country. I enjoy every thing here which may be enjoyed by those of a paler hue – no distinction here. I have found myself in the society of the Combes, the Crowe’s and the Chamber’s the first people of this city and no one seemed alarmed by my presence.2

On Friday 31 July, he addressed a meeting held to ‘commemorate the anniversary of the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies’ at Brighton Street Chapel. The brief report in the Edinburgh Evening Post suggests that Douglass spent some time discussing the proceedings in Belfast, but the meeting is especially noteworthy for his remarks on the Sugar Duties Act, expressing his disappoval of Parliament’s recent decision to equalise the tariffs on sugar imports. The duties had been increased after Emancipation to help fund the compensation promised to slaveholders, but with lower rates applied to colonial sugar in an effort to encourage the West Indian economy. The new measure would reduce the price of sugar but would boost imports of produce from slavery plantations in the United States, Cuba and Brazil.   However, while the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society had fought hard to ensure the duties were retained (in a modified form), the issue had fallen by the wayside, and the legislation passed without significant protest. For many abolitionists, moral concerns tended to lose out when they clashed with their commitment to free trade.

In Edinburgh Douglass stayed at the home of Rev. James Robertson, Secretary of the newly-formed Scottish Anti-Slavery Society.  There is now a plaque on the wall of 33 Gilmore Place marking Douglass’ visit.

Plaque marking the place Frederick Douglass stayed in Edinburgh
Historic Environment Scotland plaque at 33 Gilmore Place, placed there November 2018.

The committee had set its hopes on Douglass becoming its agent. He initially refused, but it would seem that he managed to negotiate ‘satisfactory terms’ and agreed to ‘labor in Scotland for a while’ on its behalf.3

A notice duly appeared in the Scotsman announcing his appointment:

The Committee of the Scottish Anti-Slavery Society have much pleasure in giving notice, that they have now secured as their Agent Mr FREDERICK DOUGLAS, formerly a Slave in the United States, and that he is to be employed in the advocacy of the great cause on account of which he has visited this country. The Committee hope that all the friends of humanity throughout the country will bestir themselves, and lend their aid in opening up places where Mr Douglas may have opportunities of pleading the cause of three millions of human beings who are groaning under the yoke of the oppressor. The Committee are assured that the people of Scotland are fully satisfied that SLAVERY is at once wicked and unjustifiable; but recent proceedings in certain quarters have revealed the fact that there are parties in this country, who, while they denounce Slavery as a system, are disposed to justify and excuse the Slaveholder, – receiving him to Christian fellowship, speaking of and acting towards him as a person who is rather to be sympathised with than blamed.

It will be the object of Mr Douglas not only to reveal what American slavery really is, but also to convince all whom he is privileged to address, that the slaveholder is a sinner of unrivalled magnitude – that he is guilty of the highest and most daring kind of theft – that he is to all intents and purposes a manstealer – that no man can claim property in his fellow-man without being guilty of unmitigated villany – and that every slave holder is as much deserving of being excluded from Christian fellowship as the man who lives by sheep-stealing, or who pursues the daring employment of a highwayman.

The eminent talents of Mr Douglas are already so well known to the public, that the Committee consider any communication on their part unnecessary.

As Mr Douglas will be at liberty to commence his labours on the 15th inst., parties wishing one or more lectures from Mr Douglas will please to correspond early with the Secretary, who will arrange as to the time when a visit from Mr Douglas can be obtained.

In name and by appointment of the Committee,

JAMES ROBERTSON, Secretary.

Edinburgh, 33 Gilmore Place,

4th August 1846.4

But by then Douglass was already south of the border. The day after his speech at Brighton Street Chapel, Douglass took the coach to Newcastle, describing the journey in a letter:

Our passengers seemed to be Stupid set – giving little or no Signs of life – except when the coach changed horses and then only when they stood in the inspiring presence of “John Barley Corn.” I felt sorry to see them tippling the whisky. But for one to lecture on such occasion is like casting ones pearl before swine. So I looked on in Silence – speaking only by example. I am deeply convinced that the great sin of Scotland – is the use of ardent Spirits as a beverage.5

And he was soon in London to meet his abolitionist colleague William Lloyd Garrison, newly arrived from Massachusetts. He would return to Scotland with Garrison to address more meetings, but not for another seven weeks.

For an overview of Douglass’s activities in Edinburgh during the year, see Spotlight: Edinburgh.


SCOTTISH ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. – A meeting of this Society was held on Friday night in Brighton Street Chapel, to commemorate the anniversary of the emancipation of slaves in the West Indies. The meeting was but thinly attended. Mr Douglass addressed the meeting for about two hours. He took occasion shortly to refer to the measure which had been introduced by the Government on the sugar duties, and stated that it could not meet with his approval.

Instead of regarding it as indicative of advance in morality by the English people, he looked upon it in the light of a retrograde movement. The people of England, who were so anxious to sweeten their palates, should bear in mind that they were about to do so at the expense of the bones and blood of their fellow creatures.

Mr Douglas then contrasted the conduct of the Irish Presbyterian Assembly with that of the Free Church on the subject of slavery, and adverted to the refusal of the Irish Assembly to invite Dr Smith of Charleston to become an honorary member, on account of his connection with the slave churches of America.

Edinburgh Evening Post, 5 August 1846 (reprinted in the Caledonian Mercury, 6 August 1846).


Notes

  1. Frederick Douglass to Isabel Jennings, Edinburgh 30 July 1846 in The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Three: Correspondence, Volume 1: 1842–52, edited by John R. McKivigan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 152.
  2. Frederick Douglass to William A White, Edinburgh, 30 July 1846 in The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Three: Correspondence, Volume 1: 1842–52, edited by John R. McKivigan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 149
  3. Frederick Douglass to Anon, Edinburgh, 30 July 1846 in The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass, Volume V: Supplementary Volume, 1844–1860, edited by Philip S. Foner (New York: International Publishers, 1975), p. 46.
  4. ‘Scottish Anti-Slavery Society,’ Scotsman, 8 August 1846.
  5. Frederick Douglass to Eliza Nicholson, Newcastle, 1 August 1846 in The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Three: Correspondence, Volume 1: 1842–52, edited by John R. McKivigan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 154.

Edinburgh: 9 June 1846

Bruntsfield Links, Edinburgh. 19th-century engraving.
The Avenue, Bruntsfield Links. From J. B. Gillies, Edinburgh Past and Present (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1886), p. 187.

On Tuesday 9 June, a ‘fruit soirée’ was held for Frederick Douglass, James Buffum, George Thompson and Henry Clarke Wright at the Music Hall on George Street. It marked the end of the ‘Send Back the Money’ campaign in which the four abolitionists had collaborated over the previous six weeks, as they would soon go their separate ways. Buffum would sail back to the United States from Liverpool on 4 July; Douglass would shortly head for Belfast; Thompson would return home to London; and Wright would spend several weeks with Andrew Paton and family at their summer residence in Rosneath on the shore of Loch Long.

Since the previous meeting on 4 June, Edinburgh Town Council had conferred the freedom of the city on Thompson at a ceremony at the Council Chamber on Saturday 6 June,1 an honour to which he alludes here, remarking on his now being able to address his audience as ‘fellow citizens’.

The following morning, Sunday 7 June, Douglass, Thompson and Buffum had taken up an invitation to breakfast at the home of George Combe, the leading British exponent of phrenology, fondly remembered by Douglass in his third autobiography:

Whilst in Edinburgh, so famous for its beauty, its educational institutions, its literary men, and its history, I had a very intense desire gratified–and that was to see and converse with George Combe, the eminent mental philosopher, and author of “Combe’s Constitution of Man,” a book which had been placed in my hands a few years before, by Doctor Peleg Clark of Rhode Island, the reading of which had relieved my path of many shadows. In company with George Thompson, James N. Buffum, and William L. Garrison, I had the honor to be invited by Mr. Combe to breakfast, and the occasion was one of the most delightful I met in dear old Scotland. Of course in the presence of such men, my part was a very subordinate one. I was a listener. Mr. Combe did the most of the talking, and did it so well that nobody felt like interposing a word, except so far as to draw him on. He discussed the corn laws, and the proposal to reduce the hours of labor. He looked at all political and social questions through his peculiar mental science. His manner was remarkably quiet, and he spoke as not expecting opposition to his views. Phrenology explained everything to him, from the finite to the infinite. I look back to the morning spent with this singularly clear-headed man with much satisfaction.2

On 9 June, the evening began with contributions from ministers of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Archdeacon Williams) and the United Secession Church (John Ritchie of Potterow; George Robson of Lauder). Ritchie cast aspersions on his fellow churchman Dr John Brown of Broughton Place, who, not present when the resolution to break fellowship with the American churches was approved by the United Associate Synod on 8 May, was known to have opposed it – and his dissent was made much of by the ‘Free Church triumvirate’ (Robert Candlish, William Cunningham and Thomas Chalmers) during the debate on slavery on 30 May at the General Assembly at Canonmills (which the abolitionists attended).3

‘That would not be the last meeting … that would be held in Scotland upon the subject’ says Douglass. And to be sure, he would return.  But apart from a single speech in Edinburgh at the end of July as he passed through from Belfast to London, he would not tour Scotland again until the Autumn.

For an overview of Douglass’s activities in Edinburgh during the year, see Spotlight: Edinburgh.


ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE.

On Tuesday evening the friends of Negro emancipation in the United States, gave a fruit soiree, in the Music Hall, to Messrs Thompson, Douglass, Buffum, and Wright, on the occasion of their leaving Edinburgh to prosecute elsewhere the work of agitation in which they have been engaged for several weeks against the Free Church of Scotland, in reference to its connection with the slaveholding churches of America. The hall was crowded to overflowing by a most respectable audience, a large proportion of whom were ladies. Councillor Stott occupied the chair.

After singing a hymn, the Chairman shortly addressed the meeting on the pleasure with which he had witnessed the success and popularity of the Anti-Slavery mission in this city.

The Very Rev. Archdeacon Williams then presented himself, and proposed the following resolution:– ‘That the slavery which now exists in several States of the American Union, is contrary to the spirit and vital system of the Christian revelation, and an oppressive iniquity which no faithful Christian should connive at or palliate.’  The very Rev. Archdeacon entered into a long exegetical argument to show that the interpretation put upon the various passages of Scripture in the General Assembly of the Free Church was not warranted by the original Greek – a language which he had studied for the greater part of his life. He denied most emphatically that the phraseology of the New Testament warranted any one drawing the inference that the Apostles either admitted, or would not have hesitated to admit, slave-owners to the Lord’s table. He dwelt particularly on the rule of conduct laid down by our Saviour and his Apostles as to the different relations of society, as a proof that the spirit of the Gospel and the example of its divine promulgators, were totally at variance with a system of slavery.

The Rev. George Robson, of the United Secession Church, Lauder, seconded the resolution; and urged all to exert themselves in putting an end to the system of slavery which existed in the United States – a system which was accursed of God and accursed of man.

The resolution was unanimously agreed to.

The Rev. Dr Ritchie proposed the next resolution, which was to the effect that the friends of emancipation assembled there should tender Mr Buffum their warmest thanks for his disinterested zeal in behalf of the oppressed negro in the United States; and at the same time award him the utmost praise for the exertions which he had made in this country to cause the Free Church to relinquish the obnoxious alliance into which she had entered with the slaveholding churches of America. The Doctor, in supporting this resolution, took occasion to advert to what had been said in the General Assembly of the Free Church on the question of American slavery. He would be sorry indeed to sit at the feet of such Gamaliels as Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, and learn theology from them on this subject. He would be equally sorrow to follow the dictum of Dr Brown on this question; for it appeared to him that all of them had, as yet to learn what were the first principles of the oracles of the living God regarding it. they had been told by Dr Candlish in the General Assembly that he had high authority for the ground which he occupied – that he had the authority of Dr Brown, the leading intellect in the Secession Church. This was a discovery or, as Archdeacon Williams would call it an invention at which he was certainly much surprised. There were some men in the Church to which he (Dr R.) belonged who would be found as exalted in talent and in influence as that man. (Hisses and applause.) He cared neither for the gods of the hills or the valleys; but he would like to ask, since Dr Candlish thought so highly of Dr Brown’s intellect on the question of slavery, what he thought of Dr Brown’s intellect on the subject of atonement? (Loud and repeated hissing, and slight applause.)

The Rev. Mr Robson – I call Dr Ritchie to order. If I had known that this subject was to have been introduced, I never would have been here. I ask, Mr Chairman, is Dr Ritchie, or is he not, in order; for I humbly submit that this subject should never have been introduced at this meeting.

Dr Ritchie – It was only in the mode of argument which I adopted on this question, setting one authority against another.

The Chairman – While I do not yield to any individual present in admiration and esteem for the talents and character of Dr Brown, I must say that, having calmly looked at the whole course of argument adopted by the Rev. Doctor, I think it was complimentary rather than the reverse to Dr Brown. It appears to me that in this discussion there ought and should be a complete setting aside of Dr Brown or Dr Paul, when they come in the way of the authority of Christ.

Mr George Thompson – I sat in the General Assembly of the Free Church on Saturday the 30th of May; and I heard Dr Candlish, to the satisfaction of a very large audience, dispose entirely of the unanimous decision of the United Secession Synod – and here let me mention that Dr Brown was not in the Synod at the time the decision was come to, but afterwards protested against it – I say that I heard Dr Candlish dispose of the unanimous decision of the whole body of the Secession ministers, by simply saying that Dr John Brown, the leading intellect in that Church, had entered his dissent against the resolution that had been come to. I do say, therefore, it is of importance – if Dr John Brown will stand out in opposition to his whole Church – that we should be prepared to say whether the unanimous decision of his brethren or the dictum of Dr John Brown is the right one. (Applause.)

Mr Stott said that he would put it to the meeting whether it would be right to call Dr Ritchie to enter when debating a question on public grounds. He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying that Dr Ritchie had not gone beyond the bounds of propriety.

Dr Ritchie was then allowed to proceed, and contended that the doctrines advocated in the Free Church Assembly were a disgrace to Scotland and to Christianity.

The Chairman then rose and presented Mr Buffum, on the occasion of his returning to America, with a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica hearing the following inscription:–

Presented to James N. Buffum, Esq of Lynn, Massachusetts, U.S., by the friends of human freedom in Edinburgh, in testimony of their high admiration of his disinterested devotion to the cause of the slave in America – of his steady and consistent opposition to prejudice against colour, and his laborious and efficient exertions in Scotland to induce the Free Church to send back the money received from the slaveholders.

Mr Buffum made a brief and appropriate reply.

Mr Douglass said there were a number of views respecting American slavery which had been left entirely unnoticed in the discussions which had taken place in this city within the last month, among which none had been more left out of sight than the great difficulty with which the abolitionists in America had to contend in the existence in that country of what was called prejudice against colour. This might be rightly regarded as one of the greatest hindrances to the anti-slavery movement there because the black man was degraded by it – he was looked upon as an inferior being – as a connecting link between man and the brute creation; and for the white man to identify himself with the blacks in the United States of America as a social and equal being, was at once to lose caste in the wide circle of his acquaintances, and to be excluded from the privileges and immunities which exist among the middle classes of that country.

Mr Douglass then stated that he was even refused a passage on board a British steamer, when leaving America for that country, because he was a man of colour, and had to content himself with the accommodation which the fore-cabin afforded. He then went on to say, what the blacks were in point of morality, intellect, and education, they were in open defiance of the expressed will of the whites; they are what they are because God had given them the ability to break through the dense incrustations of ignorance which the whites had fastened upon them; but he doubted not, that the influence of British literature, of the British press, and of the British pulpit, despite of Canonmills Hall, would speedily have the effect of of overthrowing the abominable system of slavery altogether. (Applause.)

He would say one word about Canonmills, by the way. He had been reading the other day the speeches of Dr Grey and Dr Duncan, delivered last year, and he was struck with their absence this year. He thought the community had a right to demand of these brethren where their brother Abel was. (Applause.) They had a right to demand of them why they had changed their mind, and to demand of them to give the reasons of that change – and as one of the parties deeply concerned, he demanded it of them. Dr Duncan had once declared that he could not eat a common meal with the slaveholder; he now wished to inquire, not what had changed hi heart, but what had changed his stomach in the matter. (Laughter and applause.) He could tell them, however, that the question of slavery was no longer an American one, or to be discussed with reference to the slaveholding Christians of the United States, but it was now to be discussed with reference to the slaveholding Christians of Scotland. (Applause.)

Slavery has adherents in the Free Church – the sin of slavery is within it – and until she was washed in the laver of regeneration of anti-slavery she would be in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity. He cared not how much sympathy she might have with the heathen on the other side of the globe, or how many missionaries she might support abroad; he cared not how many professions she might make of love to God, while she passed by, in the persons of her deputation to the United States, three millions of men stripped of every right, and never raise a whisper in their behalf or against their oppressors. (Applause.)

That would not be the last meeting, he would assure them, that would be held in Scotland upon the subject; but Scotland is to be agitated until the fetters of the triumvirate of the Free Church shall be burst asunder, and individuals, now groaning in spiritual bondage, are relieved from it. The people of the Free Church were beginning to whisper their disapprobation; but the voice now heard whispering, and that only by the earnest listener, is to break forth in thunders until the Free Church triumvirate startled by its sound shall be forced to loose their grasp on the slaveholding churches of America. (Loud applause.)

Mr Thompson came forward amidst great applause. He said – Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe I may now say, for the first time, fellow citizens – (Applause) – this has been a most delightful meeting, forming in truth, the presage of a glorious victory – a victory, which, when it arrives, will be celebrated by us with meekness and thankfulness, and will be made a matter of congratulation on behalf of the slave, rather than on our own. I cannot doubt but that we shall prosper; for every day brings with it some new evidence of the growing feeling in our behalf, more certain evidence of defection and decay, and fast approaching dissolution in the ranks of our opponents. (Applause.)

Mr Thompson then entered at considerable length into the history of the connection of the Free Church with the slaveholding churches of America, the leading particulars of which we subjoin: – Before the money came over – you know what money I mean – news had arrived that a portion of the Free church had crossed the line, and entered the Southern States. A warning was raised, and an earnest hope was expressed in Scotland that the then pure and rising Free church would not sully her glory, impair her usefulness, and tarnish her character, by any connection, pecuniary or otherwise, with the system of slavery in America. She disregarded that warning – some money came over from Charleston; and when it arrived another note of remonstrance and warning was uttered. They would not hear that remonstrance; so far from that, they immediately congratulated the people of Scotland in general; and the Free Church in particular, upon this, the first fruit of the glorious and plenteous harvest to be reaped in the slave states of America. The deputation returned, and then the Free Church was called upon to review its procedure, and send back the money, if she would advance her own character and prosperity, and preserve the peace of Scotland. She disregarded these remonstrances also – held to the money – put it into her treasury – and, for ought I know, it has been employed in spreading the tables of her ministers, or helping to build the churches in which they preach.

In 1844 she sent out a letter to the American churches, including generally the slaveholding churches, with which there is nothing that entitles the Free Church of Scotland to be called an anti-slavery Church, and again the note of remonstrance was raised. Throughout 1844, and the commencement of 1845, there was no inconsiderable agitation throughout this country on the subject, and Mr Macbeth and Dr Willis of Glasgow, the Rev. Henry Grey and Dr Duncan, did nobly acquit themselves for a time upon this question. Something then required to be done. The man who moves the Free Church, as the man moves the hand of the automaton chess-player, undertook to prepare another report, stronger, clearer, more decisive – a report defining slavery, laying down the principles on which churches having slaveholding members should proceed, how they should discipline their members, and then going into some nice, subtle and refined distinction between holding men as mere property, and holding them as slaves. But after this report was written, and accepted by the Commission and adopted by the Assembly – after it was held up to the admiration, imitation, condemnation, and acceptation of the nation at large – after this was done, and we deemed this report on its way to America, nay, going about America raising the indignation of one man, putting into a posture of penitence another man, and awakening the astonishment of all, – while we were dreaming of this, behold it turns out that this report, written by a certain Doctor, and adopted by the Assembly, never got beyond the broad cloth of the Reverend Doctor’s pocket. (Laughter and applause.)

Why was it not sent? It was all about slavery, and laying down the terms of communion with slaveholders. Why was it not sent? It was not intended, or Dr Candlish was not aware that it was intended for the people of America. Now, I brand it as one of the most barefaced impositions that ever was practised by any man, clerical or lay, upon a hoodwinked and deluded people. (Great applause.)

However, a reply was in due course received to the communication which went out in 1844 to America, and it was addressed to the Moderator of the Free Church Assembly here. Whose property was it? Was it Dr Candlish’s? Is he the exclusive owner of every document that comes through the Moderator? It would appear that the people are permitted to see no more than he chooses to reveal and if he does not choose to reveal anything, they are not entitled to know anything. A reply came – doubtless to Dr Grey, the then Moderator – but we all have heard of there being a power behind the throne greater than the throne itself – so the Moderator, as in duty bound, handed over the answer from America to the writer of the original report, who put it into his pocket to keep company with the deliverance of 1845. (Laughter.)

There they slumbered for eleven long months, till at last Dr Candlish having to give an account to the Assembly, in some way or other, of what had been done says, an answer has been received, which he produces, holds it up, twists and turns it about in his hands. Did he read it? No. Did the Assembly call upon him to read it? No. He tells the audience that an answer has been received – that it is a very pleasing and satisfactory reciprocation of the affectionate sentiments contained in their letter – and that some of the statements in the letter, so far as they affected slavery, demanded notice. That was all we heard of the answer. That Assembly, too, and every man in it, save those who have the privilege of walking up the backstairs of Dr Candlish’s laboratory, are perfectly ignorant of the contents of that letter, and members of the Free Church have told me they were anxious to know what was in it, but were not permitted. The Free Church appears to me to resemble the ancient temples of Egypt, where all was mystery, and Dr Candlish is the oracle, and most mystical he is in his oraculations. (Applause.)

Mr Thompson then animadverted on the assertion of want of time to prepare an answer to the letter from the Presbyterian Church of America, and then went on to say – This is our difficulty – we have to do with men, and not with measures; this is our misfortune, that we have to fight this battle with three men in Edinburgh, and only three; and we have to put this question to the people of Scotland – ‘Will you have Christianity libelled, and Scotland herself exposed to reproach, by the obstinacy or ignorance, or both, of two or three men!’ (Applause.)

Mr Thompson then read a series of lengthened resolutions, which he wished to go forth as an embodiment of their views upon the subject of slavery, and clearly proclaim to the world what the difference was between them and the Free Church.

After a long preamble, condemnatory of the system of slavery, the first resolution pledged the meeting to regard slavery as a sin of unrivalled magnitude, demanding the condemnation of every man who respected the law of God, or recognised the principles of natural justice, and the equal rights of man.

The second resolution declared that Drs Candlish and Cunningham, in attempting to palliate, in the Free Assembly the sin of American slaveholding on the ground that this practice was sanctioned by the laws and institutions of the country, were establishing a principle which might be applied to every other kind of sin if it happened to be recognised by the laws of society.

Mr Thompson continued – I look forward to a somewhat hot, but I am certain, ultimately successful contest on this question. Though we are about to lose some of our friends, this agitation will not slumber; and we shall still prosecute the cause with unrelaxed earnestness. For my part, I shall not be idle on the other side of the Tweed; and I shall undertake to say, for every Christian denomination in England, that they shall speak but one language upon this point – with one heart and with one voice condemning the past proceedings of the Free Church, and uniting with us in demanding the dissolution of this unnatural confederacy.  (Loud applause.)

And I hope by the end of next Assembly we shall be able, not to use better arguments, for I know not where to find them – but that Dr Candlish will be supplied with arguments which, with his peculiar constitution of mind will weigh more with him than all that we can say – unfilled churches, empty pews, a decaying treasury, a sustenation fund drying for want of support, and a very large defection among the elders, deacons, and members of the Free Church. (Great applause.)

It will come to this. Notwithstanding the sneers of Dr Candlish, there is Christianity enough, and biblical knowledge enough, and humanity enough, in the bosoms of the members of the Free Church to make them sacrificxe that church, which was once the darling of their hearts, rather than continue their connection with it, to the scandal of their christian name, and the injury of the cause of the slave. (Applause.)

I know these men will yet be humbled – that they will be brought down from their high places – and it is time they were brought down. Their tone is as much characterised by its insufferable arrogance, as it is by its pertinacity to the most stupid ignorance. We shall continue to prosecute our labours, believing we have friends within that Church, as well as without it, and before long there shall be such a pressure from without that these men now filled with self-sufficiency and frowning upon this agitation, will be forced to assume the more humble posture of men who have been instructed in theology though filling professors’ chairs, and of becoming the reluctant instruments of sending back the money. (Loud applause.)

Professor Dick seconded the resolutions, which were unanimously adopted.

Various other resolutions were proposed and adopted, and after a cordial vote of thanks to Councillor Stott for presiding at the various meetings that have been held, the meeting dispersed.

Edinburgh Evening Post, 13 June 1846

ANTI-SLAVERY SOIREE.

On Tuesday night the friends of negro emancipation in the United States, gave a fruit soiree, in the Music Hall, to Messrs Thompson, Douglass, Buffum, and Wright, on the occasion of their leaving Edinburgh to prosecute elsewhere the work of agitation in which they have been engaged for several weeks against the Free Church of Scotland, in reference to its connection with the slaveholding churches of America. The hall was crowded to overflowing by a most respectable audience, a large proportion of whom were ladies. Councillor Stott occupied the chair.

After singing a hymn, the Chairman shortly addressed the meeting on the pleasure with which he had witnessed the success and popularity of the Anti-Slavery mission in this city.

The Very Rev. Archdeacon Williams then presented himself, and proposed the following resolution:– ‘That the slavery which now exists in several states of the American Union, is contrary to the spirit and vital system of the Christian revelation, and an oppressive iniquity which no faithful Christian should connive at or palliate.’  The very rev. archdeacon entered into a long exegetical argument to show, that the interpretation put upon the various passages of Scripture in the General Assembly of the Free Church was not warranted by the original Greek – a language which he had studied for the greater part of his life. He denied most emphatically that the phraseology of the New Testament warranted any one drawing the inference that the Apostles either admitted, or would not have hesitated to admit, slave-owners to the Lord’s table. He dwelt particularly on the rule of conduct laid down by our Saviour and his Apostles as to the different relations of society, as a proof that the spirit of the Gospel and the example of its divine promulgator, were totally at variance with a system of slavery.

The Rev. George Robson, of the United Secession Church, Lauder, seconded the resolution; and, at the same time, urged all to exert themselves in putting an end to the system of slavery which existed in the United States – a system which was accursed of God and accursed of man.

The resolution was unanimously agreed to; as were all the others subsequently submitted to the meeting.

The Rev. Dr Ritchie proposed the next resolution, which was to the effect that the friends of emancipation assembled there should tender Mr Buffum their warmest thanks for his disinterested zeal in behalf of the oppressed negro in the United States; and at the same time award him the utmost praise for the exertions which he had made in this country to cause the Free Church to relinquish the obnoxious alliance into which she had entered with the slaveholding churches of America. The doctor, in supporting this resolution, took occasion to advert to what had been said in the General Assembly of the Free Church on the question of American slavery. He would be sorry indeed to sit at the feet of such Gamaliels as Drs Chalmers, Cunningham, and Candlish, and learn theology from them on this subject. He would be equally sorry to follow the dictum of Dr Brown on this question; for it appeared to him that all of them had, as yet, to learn what were the first principles of the oracles of the living God regarding it. They had been told by Dr Candlish in the General Assembly, that he had high authority for the ground which he occupied – that he had the authority of Dr Brown, the leading intellect in the Secession Church. This was a discovery, or as Archdeacon Williams would call it, an invention, at which he was certainly much surprised. There were some men in the church to which he (Dr R.) belonged, who would be found as exulted in talent and in influence as that man – (hisses and slight applause.) He did not object to that hissing; but he really must say again, that he thought it strange that they should put the whole of the Church to which he belonged under one man – (hisses.) He cared neither for the gods of the hills or the valleys; but he would like to ask, since Dr Candlish thought so highly of Dr Brown’s intellect on the question of slavery, what he thought of Dr Brown’s intellect on the subject of the atonement? – (loud and repeated hissing, and slight applause.)

The Rev. Mr Robson – I call Dr Ritchie to order. If I had known that this subject was to have been introduced, I never would have been here. I ask, Mr Chairman, is Dr Ritchie or is he not in order; for I humbly submit that this subject should never have been introduced at this meeting.

Dr Ritchie – It was only in the mode of argument which I adopted on this question, setting one authority against another.

The Chairman – While I do not yield to any individual present in admiration and esteem for the talents and character of Dr Brown, I must say that, having calmly looked at the whole course of argument adopted by the rev. doctor, I think it was complimentary rather than the reverse to Dr Brown. It appears to me that in this discussion there ought and should be a complete setting aside of Dr Brown or Dr Paul, when they come in the way of the authority of Christ.

Mr George Thompson – I sat in the General Assembly of the Free Church on Saturday the 3d [sic] of May; and I heard Dr Candlish, to the satisfaction of a very large audience, dispose entirely of the unanimous decision of the United Secession Synod – and here let me mention, that Dr Brown was not in the Synod the time the decision was come to, but afterwards protested against it – I say that I heard Dr Candlish dispose of the unanimous decision of the whole body of the Secession ministers, by simply saying that Dr Brown, the leading intellect in that Church, had entered his dissent against the resolution that had been come to. I do say, therefore, it is of importance – if Dr John Brown will stand out in opposition to his whole Church – that we should be prepared to say whether the unanimous decision of his brethren or the dictum of Dr John Brown is the right one – (applause, and a slight hiss.)

Mr Stott said, he would put it to the meeting whether it would be right to call Dr Ritchie to order, when debating a question on public grounds. He had, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that Dr Ritchie had not gone beyond the bounds of propriety.

Dr Ritchie was then allowed to proceed. He said, the doctrines advocated in Canonmills were a disgrace to Scotland and a disgrace to its Christianity. He had been exhibited as showing the Free Church the road to Canonmills with his violin, but he was now perfectly ready to show them the road from Florida East to Jamaica.

The Chairman then rose and presented Mr Buffum, on the occasion of his returning to America, with a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica,  bearing the following inscription:–

Presented to James N. Buffum, Esq., of Lynn, Massachusetts, U.S. by the friends of human freedom in Edinburgh in testimony of their high admiration of his disinterested devotion to the cause of the slave in America – of his steady and consistent opposition to prejudice against colour, and his laborious and efficient exertions in Scotland to induce the Free Church to send back the money received from the slaveholders.

Mr Buffum made a brief and appropriate reply.

Mr Douglass and Mr Thompson next addressed the meeting, showing the present state of slavery in the United States, and the prejudices which existed against the negro population. They also traced the connection of the Free Church of Scotland with the churches of that country, and commented on the untenable nature of the defence which had been set up in the Assembly to justify that connection. They declared their intention to agitate the churches of England on the subject, in order to bring their influence to bear on the feeling which so generally prevailed in this country as to sending back the moeny, and abandoning the connection of the slaveholding churches of America.

The Rev. Mr Lamb of Portobello, seconded by the Rev. Mr Arthur, Edinburgh, proposed a motion expressing union of sentiment with Messrs Thompson, Douglass, and Wright, on the question of American slavery.

The meeting broke up at 12 o’clock.

Caledonian Mercury, 11 June 1846


Notes

  1. For a report of the town council’s decision and of the ceremony itself, see Caledonian Mercury, 4 and 8 June, 1846; Scotsman, 3 June 1846.
  2. Frederick Douglass, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, His Early Life as a Slave, His Escape from Bondage, and His Complete History to the Present Time (Hartford, CT: Park Publishing Co., 1881), pp. 245-6.  Recalling events some thirty-five years later, Douglass’ memory is unreliable: he could not have been accompanied by William Lloyd Garrison on this occasion as Garrison did not arrive in Britain until 31 July. For Combe’s own brief account of the meeting see George Combe to William Lloyd Garrison, Edinburgh, 7 June 1846 (Liberator, 31 July 1846).
  3. For recent accounts of the ‘Send Back the Money’ campaign see Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012) and Alasdair Pettinger, Frederick Douglass and Scotland, 1846: Living an Antislavery Life (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018), pp. 46–75.

Edinburgh: 4 June 1846

George Square, Edinburgh: 19th-century engraving
George Square. From J. B. Gillies, Edinburgh Past and Present (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1886), p. 180.

At another crowded meeting at Edinburgh’s Music Hall on George Street on Thursday 4 June, Douglass, George Thompson and Henry Clarke Wright continued to register their responses to the recent debate on slavery at the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (held at Tanfield Hall, Canonmills), which they attended on Saturday 30 May. While the report in the Edinburgh Evening Post focused on Douglass’ speech, the Scotsman paid more attention to that of George Thompson.

Douglass takes great care to produce evidence of the unapologetically pro-slavery character of the American churches, quoting resolutions passed by the ruling bodies of those churches who welcomed the Free Church deputation in 1844. But the abolitionists knew that they would now need to change their strategy, having failed to convince the Free Church to reconsider its position.  And Thompson takes the opportunity to announce the formation of a new anti-slavery organisation

which will, form this time forth, as opportunity occurs, by every legitimate means, seek to advance, methodically and zealously, the cause of negro emancipation throughout the world. The society would not be a movement in reference to the Free Church of Scotland, but for promoting the cause of universal emancipation; as well by the conversion of certain persons in the Free Church to opinions more consistent with the claims of humanity and the dictates of religion, as by the dissemination of anti-slavery opinions throughout the world. … The society was to have nothing whatever to do with politics or religion, so that all sects and parties could join it; the basis of union and co-operation being to lift the slave out of the horrible pit and miry clay into which he had been put by the oppression of his fellow-man, and to place him in a state of personal liberty.

The Scottish Anti-Slavery Society (as it became known) would, Thompson hoped, unite the different viewpoints of the existing local abolitionist societies in Glasgow, Edinburgh and elsewhere. However, it made little impact and barely lasted two years.1

For an overview of Douglass’s activities in Edinburgh during the year, see Spotlight: Edinburgh.


THE SLAVE CHURCH AND THE ‘FREE’ CHURCH.

The last of the series of meetings on the subject of the connection of the Free Church with the slaveholding Churches of America we held in the Music Hall, on the evening of Thursday last – Councillor Stott in the chair. The large hall was, as usual, crowded, and the audience, if possible, was more enthusiastic than on former occasions.

Mr Douglass, who first addressed the meeting, said – Without any discussion upon this question, we have dealt for the most part with the naked statements respecting the condition of the churches of the Southern States of the American Union, We have taken the ground generally whereby we could make the audience aware and acquainted with the facts in regard to the views held by the churches in the Southern States on the question of slavery; but as the argument recently put forth at Canonmills is based upon a presumption that the slaveholding churches of the Southern States of the American Union disapprove of slavery, and are anxious to get rid of that institution, it makes it necessary that I refer to statistics, showing that so far from their being averse to slavery, they are its most strenuous advocates.

Therefore, during the few moments which I shall occupy your attention, I shall point to the doings of several large and influential religious bodies of Baptists, of Methodists, of Independents, of Episcopalians, which would prove the whole religious sentiment of the South to be in perfect unison with slaveholding; but it is not material at this time, since the unison against which we are now contending is a unison between the Free Church of Scotland and the slaveholding churches of the United States. I wish the audience to bear in mind that we have no objections whatever to their being in unison or common intercourse with the Church in America or the Church in the United States; our testimony is only lifted against the slaveholding churches. (Applause.)

I myself feel in union with those churches in America who are not slaveholding; I love them, and I believe that a slave may look with hope to their proceedings for deliverance. I am in unison with a class of churches in the United States, but not with the slaveholding churches – (hear) – it is with the anti-slavery churches that I am in fellowship. I want to show you how much you may rely on the statements of the leaders of the Free Church of Scotland, by showing the utter falsity of their position, when they maintain that the slaveholding religionists of the Southern States are anxious and desirous for Emancipation.

I will read to this meeting their proceedings from documents of distinguished Assemblies, Synods, Presbyteries, and other ecclesiastical courts of the United States; but, in the mean time, I shall merely confine myself to one or two.

Hopeful Presbytery, in South Carolina, is one with which the Free Church of Scotland is in the closest communion, and hear how anxious and desirous they are for emancipation. The following are resolutions adopted at one of their meetings held not very long ago:–

  1. Resolve that slavery existed in the Church of God since the time of Abraham, and to this day members of the Church of God hold slaves which were bought with money, or born in their own homes, which is in conformity with the duties recognised and defined in the Old and New Testament.
  2. Emancipation is not mentioned amongst the duties of the masters to the slave, while a strict obedience to the word of the masters is enjoined upon the slave. Exactly in keeping with the teaching of Dr Cunningham.
  3. No instance can be produced in which the master is reproved, much less excommunicated, for the single act of holding domestic slaves from the days of Abram down to the date of the modern Abolitionists.2

You can easily see that the language of Dr Cunningham at Canonmills bears the closet resemblance to that of this Presbytery in South Carolina.

Mr Douglass next alluded to the resolutions of another Presbytery in the same State, and one with which the Free Church of Scotland were as closely connected. They are as follows:–

  1. Whereas sundry persons in Scotland and England, and in the north and east of our own country have denounced slavery as obnoxious to the laws of God, some of whom presented to the General Assembly of our Church a petition, praying for the abolition of the relation between master and slave, and whereas from their statements, in reasoning and circumstances connected therewith, it is most manifest that these persons know not what they say, and with this ignorance discover a spirit of insurrection, resolve – Is it that they are anxious to get rid of slavery? No! – as the Kingdom of the Lord is not of this world, and as the laws of his Church are such that none has a right to alter or abolish, they cannot conform to any new institutions of these men, whether political or civil.
  2. Slavery existed since the days of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were all slaveholders – (laughter) – and Apostle Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon. We are not in the Kingdom of Heaven, till the time we find that he wrote a Christian letter to this slaveholder, which still stands in the canon of sacred Scriptures, and the slavery which existed in the days of the Apostle does now exist.3

Mr Douglass next referred to the Charleston Union Presbytery. It was the Rev. Dr Smyth of that Presbytery who preached a sermon, welcoming the deputation of the Free Church of Scotland to the free United States. it is presumed that their sentiments were then in unison with Dr Smyth’s, for he would not countenance that deputation if he received an impression that these men were anxious to get rid of slavery; but it is most probable that they were received by Dr Smyth on the same terms as they were received by the other ministers of the Presbyterian Churches of South Carolina. Hear what they say:–

  1. The slavery which exists amongst us is a political institution with which the ecclesiastical judicatories have not the smallest right to interfere, and we all know that such an interference would be a great moral wrong, and fraught with the most dangerous and pernicious consequences, and our consciences being identified with this solemn conviction, it is our duty to maintain them under any circumstances.
  2. It is the opinion of this Presbytery that slavery, so far from being a sin in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his Holy Word, but in the circumstances, acting in accordance with the example set forth by the Apostle Paul, we have a parental regard for those servants whom God has committed to our charge.4

Mr Douglass then read extracts from the decisions of the Synods of Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia, of the same nature as those above mentioned, and then went on to say that the book from which he read those extracts was now before the public for the last six years, and not one statement was called in question, not one fact denied, although the subject no doubt underwent the strictest criticism.

Drs Cunningham and Candlish peak of publications and proceedings of organised associations, and of being greatly disturbed by some parties in the land. But who, pray, have we disturbed? We have disturbed the slaveholders – we have disturbed the pro-slavery minister – we have disturbed the man-stealing Church. We have not only unmasked the conduct of those religious men who devour the widow’s means under the pretence of making long prayers – (hear, hear) – but those who make widows by tearing asunder what God had joined together. ‘Greatly disturbed the Free Church!’ What for? It is not because they left the Establishment – it is not for peculiar religious views; but because they have allied themselves to those who have trampled on the rights of their fellow-beings – because they allied themselves to man-stealers, and threw themselves across the pathway to emancipation. (Applause.)

Therefore it is that we have disturbed them, and mean to continue disturbing them. (Applause.) We must continue to disturb them until they let go the necks and throats of those they hold in bondage. We are bound to disturb them – we are bound to cry out – to call upon Almighty God who denies any rest or peace to the wicked. (Applause.) We shall never give them rest so long as we live, and have health and strength; as our hearts sympathize with the poor slave we shall agitate this question, not only in America, England, and Ireland, but in Scotland. (Applause.)

But I must go on and read; I find that I am forgetting what I intended to do, thinking on the Free Church. (Laughter.) Mr Douglass then read some further extract from the proceedings of Synods and other ecclesiastical courts, and then resumed by saying that slaveholders were quite careless regarding what might be said about slavery in general, or as it existed in Cuba or Brazil.

Slaveholding in either of these places, or in any quarter of the world, might be denounced as a great crime, but it was nothing sinful in the United States – it was not in the nature of things – because we slaveholders or masters of slaves are excellent good Christians, and if there is any doubt we beg to refer to Drs Cunningham, Candlish, and Chalmers of Scotland. (Applause.)

I thought, when down at Canonmills the other day, how consistent was the theology I heard there with that of the slave state of Maryland, from which I once ran away. They often preach to the slaves from this text, – ‘Servants obey your masters.’ They tell those in bondage to obey their masters, – 1st., because the Almighty commanded them to obey their masters; 2d, because the Lord brought them from Africa to that Christian country; 3d, because their happiness was dependent on their obedience. They preach from that text to the slave; but they sometimes venture to preach from this text, ‘All things whatsoever you would men do unto you, do ye the same to them.’ And how do you think they apply these words? Do they say ‘Slaveholders, do unto your slaves as you think your slaves would do unto you’? No! That would be the natural mode of preaching; but the slaveholders can depart from the principle laid down by our blessed Saviour. They have this way of preaching from the text, namely – all things whatsoever you would men to do unto you do ye the same unto them – therefore, masters do unto your slaves what you would have your slaves do unto you, if you yourselves were slaves, preserving the relation all the while between the master and the slave, and doing nothing to militate against this relation – taking care not to call in question the authority the slaveholder holds over his slaves, or opposing it in any way whatever.

This is just what was done at Canonmills the other day: they commiserated the poor slave-holder – they had compassion on him for having fallen into so unfortunate a predicament. (Laughter.) They had no sympathy with the man who was burning in the fire; but they were well able to sympathise with the man who was making up the fire around him. They had no sympathy with the unfortunate who was tied to the whipping post; but they had a great deal of pity for the monster who was applying the lash to his back. Oh! they had compassion on him who stands in need of sympathy – who had fallen into such an unfortunate predicament. It was providence that placed him in it. (Hear and laughter.) I could go on and give you a multiplicity of extracts, if George Thompson was not present.

Mr Douglass then read a letter written in 1835 by Dr Plummer, at the time the Abolitionists were prohibited from going to the south, under the pain of instant death. In some parts their houses were ransacked, their property destroyed, and their dwellings burnt over them, and several were killed on the spot. The cry in the south was death – instant death to the Abolitionists; and the first moment a minister or any other person, no matter whether a public or private individual, went to lecture on the subject of slavery, that moment his tongue was cut out. At this time it was very dangerous for any man to make use of the word ‘slavery’ in the south – it was then that Dr Plummer wrote a letter, recommending the burning of all Abolitionists who passed the Potomack, and in urging the necessity of such punishment, quoted the opinions of Montesquieu, Burke, and Coleridge, three eminent masters of the science of human nature, who each affirmed that all men who were slaves must be jealous of their liberty, and, at the same time, that of a Mr Pennyson, who pronounced the Southern States to be the ‘cradle of liberty.’5

Mr Douglass subsequently read extracts from the letters of Dr Anderson and the Rev. Mr Witherspoon of Alabama, both of whom defended slavery by making referenes to the Scriptures; and urged the same method of punishing the Abolitionists as that recommended by Dr Plummer.

And at the conclusion of his address, in showing the falsity of the statements of the leaders of the Free Church said that, at the very time Dr Cunningham was in New York, an announcement was made in the New York newspapers, by a Mr George Smith and other gentlemen, offering 1000 dollars for the liberation of a certain number of slaves; but not a single slaveholder came forward to accept the proposal, notwithstanding all that Drs Cunningham and Candlish would have us to believe, that slaveholders were anxious to get rid of slavery.

Mr H. C. Wright was received with much applause. He said, I am requested to notice a report which is in circulation in Edinburgh, that the deputation of the Free Church of Scotland, who went to America, did not receive a remonstrance from the Abolitionists there, as stated by Mr George Thompson and others who addressed the people of Edinburgh. What we have to say to that is simply this, that the delegation were warned by a solemn, earnest, and affectionate remonstrance from the Abolitionists of New York, not to go to the Southern States and join in communion with the slaveholders; but they went and asked alms from the slaveholders, and the fact is not denied.

They dare not deny it. This remonstrance was addressed to them. It was signed by gentlemen whom I know perfectly well, and with whom I am intimately acquainted. I know that the remonstrance was circulated in New York and Philadelphia, just as far as the papers of the country could give it circulation. I have heard it stated that when they arrived on the other side of the Atlantic, my friend, Mr Douglass, met them on the wharf and personally remonstrated with them; but that is so far untrue, as far as I have heard. But that they were warned and remonstrated with is known to the whole world. It was laid before them in the public prints, and their attention must have been called to the remonstrance which was specially addressed to them, and I have been told by direct correspondence that it was sent to them by those who drew it up; but whether it was received and read by them I cannot demonstrate.

I wish to notice another thing. The awful hardening effect which slavery in America has upon the slaveholder, has, it appears, entitled him to the fellowship of the Free Church. They sympathise with him, because, say they, he has been placed in that unhappy condition by the providence of God. (Hear, hear.) The fact is, that slavery destroys the moral perceptions and constitutions of all those concerned in the business. We cannot help being amused while we see men holding up to execration the poor man who steals a loaf of bread to save himself from starvation, who could not justify him by any means before a criminal court, but immediately consign him to the villain’s dungeon; yet those very men who could not justify that poor man are happy to receive the ‘man-stealer’ into their bosoms as a Christian. (Applause.) These very men would startle so much at the idea of a blasphemer, a liar, or a person who might be found drunk on the streets, that they would excommunicate him from their Christian fellowship. The Free Church of Scotland even do it to-day. I venture to say that the ministers and elders of the Free Church of Scotland would excommunicate from their fellowship the man who would be proved to be a liar, unless he repented, or the man who could be proved to be a blasphemer, or the man who could be proved to be a common thief. Men of that description they would unhesitatingly excommunicate from their communion; but the man who has no scruples to steal a fellow-being, and makes him an article of merchandise, that man they receive into their communion as a respectable and honourable Christian. (Applause.)

The man who could steal your coat or your hat they would not receive into their pulpits of Synods, or the General Assembly, as a good Christian minister; not they. They would bring him to a criminal court, and send a policeman after him to take him before the court, and afterwards consign him to the villain’s dungeon. But the man who could go into his neighbour’s house and deliberately take the child from his neighbour’s arms, and rob his house of its precious contents – the man who could go to the nurseries for immortal children, and carry them to the market, selling them like beasts to the highest bidder – that man, the Free Church, has the audacity to vindicate before the people of Scotland as a Christian Church; or if he professes to be a minister of the Lord Jesus, they receive him as a Doctor of Divinity. Such is the moral sentiment of Drs Cunningham and Candlish, as displayed by their speeches before the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. (Applause.)

They did not feel for those who were in bonds as if they were in bonds with them, but they felt with the slaveholder who wield the lash, and they take care to repress the beautiful sentiment of the Apostle Paul, where he commands us to ‘feel with those who are in bond as if in bonds with them.’ They make it read – ‘Feel with the slaveholder as if in bonds with him;’ and their sympathy is with one whose conduct is directly opposed to the whole spirit of Christianity.

I wish to direct attention to the Scriptural argument of these reverend gentlemen. They tell us that Paul sent Onesimus back to slavery; – they tell us that St Paul commanded slaves to be obedient to their masters. I am not going to criticise the word kurios or doulos, but I only wish to state that Dr Cunningham and Dr Candlish, though they have broadly, loudly, and publicly declared that these words kurios and doulos means slaveholder and slave, I deny that Paul used any such word. Although he used the words servant and master, that does not necessarily imply the relation of slaveholder and slave, and, therefore, we call upon these gentlemen who have so construed that passage to interpret it in the manner which is always done when any doubt occurs in reference to a word or verse, namely, to construe the language so to harmonize with the general spirit of the writer as manifested in all his works. And is the general spirit of the Apostle Paul, as manifested in his epistles to the Romans and Corinthians – or in his general teaching  does he exhibit the spirit of a slave-holder? (Cries of No! no!)

How, then, would these gentlemen dare to constitute that passage as signifying slaveholder and slave? I venture to say that if Dr Cunningham and Dr Candlish were slaves, they would not talk a single word about sympathy with the slaveholder, or of Paul’s having sent Onesimus back to Philemon. it is because the spirit of sympathy towards the slaveholder, is in their hearts that they interpret this passage in the way they do. (Hear.)

Mr Wright went on further to animadvert on passages of Dr Cunningham’s, and ridiculed the idea of his pretending not to comprehend the argument of the Rev. Mr M’Beath,6 who opposed them in the Free Assembly, and urged the breaking off of the alliance.

The meeting then adjourned.

Edinburgh Evening Post, 10 June 1846

AMERICAN SLAVERY AND THE FREE CHURCH

On Thursday evening another public meeting was held in the Music Hall, for the purpose of denouncing the intercourse of the Free Church of Scotland with the slave-holding churches of America. The hall was not so crowded as on Tuesday evening. Councillor Stott again occupied the chair.

Mr DOUGLAS was the first speaker. His address, which was very brief, was confined to a refutation of the statement of Dr Cunningham, that the Presbyterian Churches in the Southern States of America were averse to slavery, and desirous for the emancipation of the slaves. Instead of this being the case, Mr Douglas said he would prove, and that from the best of all evidence – the deliverances of the Synods and Presbyteries of these very Churches – that not ony are they the strenuous advocates of the system, but the most virulent impugners of those who seek its abolition. He read extracts from the records of the Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina, the Synod of Virginia, &c., to show that these Churches held that slavery existed in the Church of God from the time of Abraham to the present day – that emancipation was not mentioned among the duties of a master to a slavery, while obedience, even to a froward master, was enjoined upon the slave – that they ‘consider the dogma fiercely promulgated by the said anti-slavery associations, that slavery, as it actually exists in our slave-holding States, is necessarily sinful, and ought to be immediately abolished, and the conclusions that naturally follow from that dogma, as directly and palpably contrary to the plainest principles of common sense and common humanity, and to the clearest authority of the Word of God.’

Mr Douglas also quoted the sentiments of Dr Smythe, who preached a sermon before the deputation from the Free Church, on their arrival in America. This rev. doctor, on whom the high honour was devolved of welcoming the deputation to the United States, held, first, ‘that slavery as it exists in America is a political institution with which ecclesiastical judicatories have not the smallest right to interfere, and a regulation in reference to which any such interference would be morally wrong, and fraught with the most pernicious consequences;’ – and, secondly, ‘that slavery, so far from being a sin in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in the word of God, but, on the contrary, is accordant with the example of patriarchs and prophets.’

It was easy to see, said Mr Douglas, where Dr Cunningham had been for the arguments which he had used in the Free Assembly. The resemblance was so striking and palpable that there was no mistaking it. (Applause.) The Synod of Virginia, in introducing the deliverance adverted to above, had the following words: – ‘Whereas, the public proceedings of such organisations (Anti-Slavery Societies) having greatly disturbed, and are still disturbing the peace,’ &c.

This was in sentiment, if not in language, what Dr Candlish had told the General Assembly on Saturday last. Disturb them, forsooth! we are bound to disturb them – and we shall continue to disturb them. And why? Because we are carrying out the prophecy of Almighty God, ‘that there shall be no peace to the wicked:’ and because we are unmasking a religion which not only ‘devours widows’ houses, but for a pretence makes long prayers.’ (Applause.)

They make great allowance for the position of the master, but they are destitute of sympathy for the slave – they commiserate the position of the man who is building up the fire but they have no sympathy for the unfortunately being who is burning in that fire. It was a fact quite notorious that the slaveholding churches had been warned and remonstrated with again and again, not only  by many of the churches in America, but by the churches of this country, and yet, in the fact of that fact, and with the recorded deliverances of these slaveholding churches in favour of the system, as a political and civil institution with which the church has no right to interfere, the Free Church of Scotland were determined still to keep up an intercourse with the supporters and the actual abettors of this accursed system.

Oh but the Free Church had discovered that there was a material difference between slave-holding and slave-having! This was a distinction without a difference; and for this part, he could not see how the one could exist without the other. It had been said in the Assembly of the Free Church, in support of this distinction, that many of the slave-holders were anxious to liberate their slaves, but they could not. It was no doubt true that two or three individuals made this pretension in some of the American newspapers, about three or four years ago; and it was perhaps on this circumstance that the argument of the leaders of the Free Church was based. But it was no less true that almost the same week as that announcement appeared, an advertisement was inserted in a New York paper, stating that if any slave-holder was in that position, a sum of not less than 10,000 dollars would be advanced to overcome any difficulties that might be in the way of liberating the slaves. (Applause.)

Was that offer accepted? No; not a single individual in the whole southern states came forward to take advantage of this proposition. Surely, after this, the people of Edinburgh would pause before they believed the statements of these gentlemen on the subject of slavery. (Applause.)

Mr MENZIES, Edinburgh, here rose and made some observations in contradiction of an assertion which appeared in a pamphlet lately published, that the rev. Dr Andrew Thomson had associated with slave-holders in the kirk-session of St George’s.

Mr GEORGE THOMPSON said that hitherto in this city he and those associated with him in the deputation, had confined their operations to the delivery of addresses; but they were now anxious to put into some form and embodiment the feelings and sympathy which had been manifested by the various audiences gathered together in that hall and elsewhere; and, therefore, they had resolved to propose to the meeting that night the formation of a society which will, form this time forth, as opportunity occurs, by every legitimate means, seek to advance, methodically and zealously, the cause of negro emancipation throughout the world. The society would not be a movement in reference to the Free Church of Scotland, but for promoting the cause of universal emancipation; as well by the conversion of certain persons in the Free Church to opinions more consistent with the claims of humanity and the dictates of religion, as by the dissemination of anti-slavery opinions throughout the world. (Great applause.)

The society was to have nothing whatever to do with politics or religion, so that all sects and parties could join it; the basis of union and co-operation being to lift the slave out of the horrible pit and miry clay into which he had been put by the oppression of his fellow-man, and to place him in a state of personal liberty. (Applause.)

In regard to the course which the members of the Free Church ought to follow in this movement, it was not for the deputation to dictate; but for themselves, he would say, that they deemed it their sacred duty to carry on the work in reference to this Church. They had embarked in it, counting the cost, without reference to the time it would take, the money it would require, or the labour it might impose upon them. (Great applause.)

Whatever opinions others might entertain respecting it, they were prepared, in this great cause, to sacrifice, it might be, personal friendships, to alienate for a time, if it must be so, those with whom they were previously in terms of affectionate intercourse. This might occur to many of them. It had occurred to himself. He had already made these sacrifices. (Applause.)

He did not hate the Free Church, because there were certain persons in that Church whose views he repudiated, and whose conduct he denounced on this question of slavery. He was convinced that the time would come when those who took part in this movement would be regarded as the best friends of that Church – when she has put away from her this excrescence on her otherwise pure and unsullied character – when she has brought on herself in consequence of the act of her leaders. (Applause.)

He believed there was not a person in connection with that Church but would yet be grateful to them for the position which they had maintained. He would tell them that there would be no rest in Scotland, England, or in any part of Great Britain, until the Free Church put away from her this stain upon her character. (Great applause.)

The CHAIRMAN then read a draft of the rules of the proposed society, which were unanimously approved of by the meeting.

Mr H. C. WRIGHT next addressed the meeting. He began by proving that the Free Church deputation had been remonstrated with against visiting the slave states, immediately after their arrival in America, but to this remonstrance they had leant a deaf ear. He maintained that, as the Free Church refused to hold communion with a thief or a robber, they were bound, on the same principles, to abstain from associating in the ordinances of religion with the slave-holder, who seized the body of his fellow-men, and made an article of merchandise of it. He insisted that if the Free Church were consistent in acting upon their declaration that slavery, per se, was sinful, they must recognise and treat the slaveholder as a sinner; and he argued that if there was any doubt as to the phraseology of Scripture on the subject, that doubt should be given in favour of justice and humanity – acting on the beautiful sentiment of the Apostle Paul, to feel with them in bonds as bound with him. (Applause.)

Mr GEORGE THOMPSON again rose, and, as on the former occasion, was received with tremendous applause. He ridiculed the doctrine propounded by Drs Candlish and Cunningham, that a man brought unhappily by birth, inheritance, or education into the position of a slave-holder, was to be justified for remaining in that position when so many facilities existed for emancipating slaves. He contended that even the extreme case of a man’s whole substance being embarked in slaves, formed no palliation for remaining in a state of sin. The Free Church by their late act, had fellowshipped all the Presbyterian churches in the slave states of America; and this they had done without citing, or perhaps, without being able to cite, one instance of a Presbyterian minister living and labouring in his vocation south of Washington, who was not a slave-holder to a larger or smaller extent. (Applause.)

The fact was, that many of them were planters as well as ministers. There was no excuse or palliation whatever for these men in the circumstances in which they were placed. If they remained in the United States they were bound, as Christians and philanthropists, to lift up an emphatic testimony against it; and falling that, if they were so shocked at the system that they could no longer remain in this Sodom, their talents would easily procure them a livelihood elsewhere. They are what they are, because they have chosen to be what they are. Even admitting, for the sake of argument, these ministers are bound hand and foot by the law, to act as they have done, and are still doing, the law did not for one moment diminish the amount of their guilt; for a man was called upon not only to bear testimony against the sin of his locality, but against the sin of his age, his country, and his government. (Cheers.)

His duty is not done if he has no direct participation in the system; hence we honour the martyrs of Scotland for the noble testimony which they bore – hence we are about to see erected in this city a monument to the great Scottish Reformer, John Knox, who lives in our recollection, and is embalmed in our hearts, because of the faithful testmony which he bore in the troubled times in which he lived. (Applause.)

A Christian is bound to bear testimony against sin, by whomsoever and howsoever committed. After criticising Dr Duncan‘s distinction between a slave-holder and a slave-haver, Mr Thompson commented on Dr Candlish’s insinuation that he and those associated with him in this movement, were actuated by malice or jealousy towards the Free Church. Dr Candlish did not, although he knew that he (Mr T.) sympathised with the Free Church in every step of its progress. (Applause.)

To insinuate that he was actuated by malice towards the Free Church, was an ad captandum falsehood. It was an appeal to the esprit de corps, but it would by-and-bye, be seen who was in the right and who in the wrong. If Dr Candlish and Dr Cunningham had said that he and those who acted along with him, were, perhaps, a little too warm and a little too personal, he would have cheerfully and at once overlooked such a reflection, if they had but condescended to consider the principle involved in this movement. These falsehoods would, in the end, recoil on themselves. They might anathematise them, and curse them, but curses, like chickens, sometimes went home to roost. (Laughter and applause.)

He would ask, even according to their own standards, when they confessed that slavery, as a system, is sinful, whether they are not bound to discipline those who, being slaveholders, sin themselves, and tempt others to sin?

Mr Thompson then commented on the disingenuousness of the organs of the Free Church, holding up the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1845 as a proof the Free Church had done its duty on the question of American Slavery, when, as it has not turned out, on the admission of Dr Candlish himself, that that deliverance was not only not sent to the churches of America, but in fact was never intended to be sent – its object being more as a rule of conduct for the church at home. Instead of going forward, the Free Church has been going backward since 1845, abandoning themselves to deeper guilt and infamy, and to some extent obliterating, by their last act, their former testimony against slavery. (Applause.)

The fact was, that just at the moment the slave-holding churches of America were kicked out of all other denominations, they were admitted into fellowship by the Free Church, because they had subscribed the paltry sum of L.3000 to the treasury of the Free Church. This L.3000 the Free Church still held; but he had no doubt that, as a Church, she would be glad to get quit of it but for the pride of two men in their Assembly. (Cheers.)

It was not the fear of losing this £3000 – it was not fear of losing connection with the Southern States of America, because they all must confess that connection was not a very creditable one, and would not do them much good but it was the pride of two men that prevented the Free Church from sending back the money.

Mr Thompson then mentioned that it was the intention of Mr Buffum to proceed immediately to America, and that he proposed collecting all the information that could be acquired regarding the ministers with whom the Free Church deputation had associated when in America, o that he would have his quiver full against the meeting of the General Assembly of the Free Church in May 1847. (Cheers.)

He (Mr T.) would again repeat that he was not an enemy of the Free Church. He was in search of the man-stealer, and he was not to be arrested in his progress because he happened to find him in the General Assembly at Canonmills. (Applause.)

He therefore gave the Free Church Assembly timely warning, that he would keep up this agitation, year after year, until the money was sent back. They will learn a bitter lesson if they do not send it back. He had fallen into a slight mistake on Tuesday evening, when he mentioned that an elder of Mr Begg’s congregation had left it on account of the question of slavery. He had since learned that the gentleman was a deacon. Now, such a mistake was quite excusable on his (Mr T.’s) part, because he was not accustomed to distinguish the one office from the other, and in some churches, they all knew, the office of the deacon was synonymous with that of the elder. While, therefore the mistake was a slight one, the general fact was ominously significant. (Applause.)

Mr Thompson then showed that all the other religious denominations in the country had acted a different part from the Free Church; and he went on to say that it was a curious coincidence that the Free Church should be retrograding on the subject of slavery at the very time when many of the uncivilised notions of the globe were relaxing and abolishing the system; and at a time when the theology of this country was becoming a decidedly anti-slavery theology. It was also somewhat singular that this should have occurred at a period when the missionaries of the Free Church in India – Dr Duff and others – were denouncing the Government of India for its horrid connection with the idolatry of that country. The cry of ‘Send back the money’ would, he had no doubt, before next Assembly, haunt Drs Candlish and Cunningham like an evil genius in the privacy of their study, and when they emerged in the light of day, it would salute them on the pavements as they walked along the streets, until at length they became convinced, converted, and contrite men, and anxious for this fellowship being abandoned. (Great applause.)

After a vote of thanks to the chairman, the meeting separated.

 Scotsman, 6 June 1846 (repr. Caledonian Mercury, 8 June 1846)

 


Notes

  1. See Iain Whyte, ‘Send Back the Money!’: The Free Church of Scotland and American Slavery (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012), p. 112.
  2. Douglass quotes from resolutions of Hopewell Presbytery, South Carolina, from James Gillespie Birney, The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery (London: Johnston and Barrett, 1840), p. 30.
  3. Douglass quotes from resolutions of Harmony Presbytery, South Carolina, from James Gillespie Birney, The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery (London: Johnston and Barrett, 1840), p. 30.
  4. Douglass quotes from resolutions of Charleston Union Presbytery, South Carolina, from James Gillespie Birney, The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery (London: Johnston and Barrett, 1840), p. 31.
  5. Abridged versions of Plumer’s remarks (which quoted ‘one of Pennsylvania’s gifted sons’, rendered here as ‘Mr Pennyson’) were included in James Gillespie Birney, The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery (London: Johnston and Barrett, 1840), pp. 33-34.
  6. Wright is referring to Rev. James MacBeth, minister of Lauriston Free Church in Glasgow, a leading critic of the Free Church’s refusal to break ties with the American churches.

Edinburgh: 2 June 1846

Arthur's Seat from Calton Hill, engraving.
Arthur’s Seat from the Calton Hill. From J. B. Gillies, Edinburgh Past and Present (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1886), p. 52.

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.